Evidence (or lack thereof) for a temple at Jerusalem is an issue to which the general response of scholars has been summarized by William G. Dever in Beyond the Texts: “No remains of a royal temple in Jerusalem have been found, but that fact means little or nothing, since the relevant areas have never been excavated”¹ Dever’s observation emphasizes the quandary of including this site in the dataset, despite the lack of archaeological evidence supporting its attestation in the sources. In Ancient Building in South Syria and Palestine G. R.H. Wright seems to capture the sentiment of many scholars in the West: “Common sense advises that little or nothing should be said here of Solomon's Temple since there are no remains of this building accessible for investigation. However the peculiar status of the building in our civilisation overrides common sense.”² Despite common sense, but in consideration of the unique status afforded to the biblically attested Solomonic “First” Temple at Jerusalem by scholars deeming this building into discursive reality, the questionably “Israelite” site appears in the dataset. 

Similar to Jerusalem, the inclusion of Arad in the dataset is based on a variety of scholarly opinions. In Ancient Israel, Grabbe observes: “Arad has often been discussed in connection with the reign of Josiah, but it is a site about which prominent archaeologists have come to some significantly different conclusions, mainly because the excavator Y. Aharoni was not able to publish a full report before his death.”³ It is beyond the scope of this dissertation to consider the various interpretations of Aharoni’s finds, but it is important to acknowledge the two layers of difficulty in the task: 1) establishing whether or not the remains of a building can be deemed religious; and 2) establishing the relationship of this building to the worship of YHWH (or otherwise defined “Israelite” religion). This site is thus included on the basis that, like Jerusalem, despite scant and nebulous evidence to support such conclusions, it has been deemed by a number of scholars as a potentially “Israelite” temple site. The fact that these two cases are the strongest possible sites for buildings deemed religious to be associated with the worship of YHWH is very important to this chapter.

A corollary to the explanation for the relationship between the ancient settlement and “temple” site datasets presented in Figures 10 and 11 is that the absence of building culture might explain a lack of buildings deemed religious. This logical association makes sense of the dearth of buildings deemed religious that have been conclusively linked to the worship of YHWH and Ahura Mazda. Figure 12 paints a picture of religions deemed polytheistic: buildings deemed religious figure prominently and consistently across the category. This conclusion, however, does not turn on the revelation of a single or couple of buildings which may yet be interpreted as connected to YHWH- or Mazda-worship. If buildings deemed religious were integral to the origins of the religions of Ahura Mazda and YHWH, then it would not be difficult to find something relatively conclusive. The prominence of Egyptian sites in the dataset speaks to the history of archaeologists literally tripping over ancient remains preserved by the desert climate. Recall Meyers observation that “The land of the Bible has probably been excavated more than any other place of comparable size on earth.”⁴ Meyers’ observation highlights the probability that early YHWH worship did not take place in buildings deemed religious and any “temples” that might have been built might be considered signals of change.

It is important to note that the Hebrew Bible appears to be quite clear about the development of buildings deemed religious as a process connected to a series of changes in the worship of YHWH. Although the motivations for crafting the “Tabernacle/Tent of Meeting” and building the “First/Solomon’s Temple” are attributed to divine revelation or will, the religio-historical narratives, of the books of Exodus and Kings respectively, indicate that these are innovations. Although the biblical text cannot serve as historical witness to (or evidence of) such events, it is significant that the internal narratives seem to agree with the picture of early YHWH worship that emerges from the archaeological record. The absence of buildings deemed religious is reasonably explained by the mobile pastoralist social and agriculturally marginal environmental origins of the community of worship: as other social institutions, including government and settlement, shift it is logical that religious changes may occur. Within the biblical text, the building of Solomon’s Temple is connected to the burgeoning monarchy – two innovations assimilated from neighboring settled societies – marking a new era in the religio-historical narrative. Wright describes the intersection of these religious and political shifts: “So far as can be judged from these sources Solomon's Temple was designed to serve the needs of a newly constituted political regime with a rather unusual religious sanction.”⁵ In highlighting the pragmatic instigation of change to serve the needs of the moment, Wright’s comments echo the spirit of Frachetti’s Non-Uniform Complexity Theory.