The assimilation of building blocks of religion, like buildings deemed religious, for strategic advantage seems more obvious in the history of Mazda-worship. The absence of buildings deemed religious dedicated to the worship of Ahura Mazda is, going back to Herodotus, fairly well-established among historians of Zoroastrianism. The development of the fire temple, a building deemed religious associated with the religion since early in the Common Era, is understood to be an innovation in the history of Mazda-worship. In “Temple Architecture in the Iranian World before the Macedonian Conquest” Michael Shenkar explains, “Given the nomadic background of the ancient Iranians, they probably became acquainted with temple architecture once they came into close contact with the highly developed civilizations of Margiana, Elam and Mesopotamia.”¹ Shenkar’s comments support the argument of this chapter as well as acknowledges the adaptive qualities of Mazda-worship attested over the centuries. 

Although the religions of YHWH and Ahura Mazda each appear to have originated in mobile pastoralist social contexts and without notable building cultures, the buildings deemed religious that developed are still uniquely associated with Judaism (synagogue) and Zoroastrianism (fire temple). Like the invention of the synagogue, the fire temple is understood by scholars and adherents alike to be a later development in the religion. Shenkar’s explanation of this development points to the influence of other cultures, specifically those of settled agriculturalist societies, on the impetus to adopt this building block. It is clear from the archaeological evidence, however, that the development of buildings deemed religious in the religion of Ahura Mazda did not develop until many centuries after worshippers “came into close contact with the highly developed civilizations of Margiana, Elam and Mesopotamia.”² Once invented (and adopted), these buildings are unlike each other, and mostly importantly, different from other temples in societies associated with religions deemed polytheistic.

In An Introduction to Ancient Mesopotamian Religion, Schneider explains the concept of buildings deemed religious in Mesopotamia: 

The temple was literally the 'house' of the god and contained the deity's cult image. It was where the god lived with family and servants, ate, drank, slept, was entertained, and worked. In order to thoroughly service the gods, the temple was equipped like a household with essential provisions for the god's meals (kitchens and vessels for making, storing, and serving), sleeping rooms with beds, side rooms for the deity's family, a courtyard with a basin and water for cleansing visitors, and stables for the god's chariot and draft animals.³

It is fair to say that Schneider’s description applies to a number of cultures across the ancient Near East. Glenn Holland’s outline of religious building activity among Egyptian and Syro-Palestinian societies seems to agree with Schneider.⁴ Schneider writes, “As the deity's residence, the temple was critical to the ancient Mesopotamians' sense of place in the identity of their cities and the city's own self-identity. Temples were not places where the general populace went to meet personally with the deity, but served as the public face and home of the deity.”⁵ At first glance, the differences in accessibility and status between synagogues, fire temples, and ancient “temples” are readily apparent.

In the modern world, although Jewish synagogues and Zoroastrian fire temples are buildings deemed religious in which adherents and religious personnel worship, it seems that the practices and prayers of individual members outside of these centers are considered to be integral to the adherence to these religions. Although it is beyond the scope of this chapter to conduct a detailed comparison of the distinction between the types of ritual, practice, and worship conducted at these kinds of buildings deemed religious, it is enough to suggest that they reflect the different histories and needs of each community of worship. Whether it is considered a freedom or requirement, the significance of individual worshippers to the religions of Ahura Mazda and YHWH appears to be a considerable difference between these and neighboring religions deemed polytheistic. Schneider writes, “Each Mesopotamian city was home to a deity, and each of the prominent deities was the patron of a city. Mesopotamian culture was urban, so all of the known temples from Mesopotamia were located in cities.”⁶ There is no comparable situation among mobile pastoralist societies that do not build cities. Instead it seems that the same freedom of choice and responsibility, afforded to individuals by the mobility that characterizes these societies, shaped the religious power dynamics of these religions deemed monotheistic in a manner identifiable by the functions of the buildings deemed religious that eventually developed. 

Herodotus claims that the Persians worship outdoors, a likelihood supported by the relief sculpture at the tomb of Darius I at Naqsh-I Rustam (near Persepolis) and remains of plinths at Pasargadae suggesting a setting analogous to the one depicted at Naqsh-I Rustam.⁷ It is reasonable to assume that some amount (there is no way to be certain of what percentage) of religious activity, among early worshippers of YHWH and Ahura Mazda, was conducted outdoors. With regard to the question underlying this chapter, Mary Boyce suggests that the absence of buildings deemed religious and outdoor worship facilitated the invention of more universally powerful concepts of the divine.⁸ In the first volume of A History of Zoroastrianism, she writes, “The Indo-Iranians, as wanderers, had had no temples with images, such as reduced the divinities of settled peoples to local powers with fixed habitations and merely regional authority.”⁹ Boyce’s claim is a striking explanation of one example of the influence of agriculturally marginal landscapes on the development of these ancient religions deemed monotheistic. Although, as mentioned in the introduction to this dissertation, she does not offer evidence for her claim, she appears to find support in the present discussion. 

In Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism, Boyce writes, “The vastness of the steppes encouraged the Indo-Iranians to conceive their gods as cosmic, not local, divinities.”¹⁰ Boyce, quite reasonably, seems to note that the mobile range of worshippers may have been translated, at some point, to the range of mobility attributed to the deities they worship. The Mesopotamian model of “house of the deity” described by Schneider may, as Boyce suggests, have imposed spatial limits on conceptions of deities in religions deemed polytheistic. At the most extreme, this may have restricted the range of power, influence, or attention of a deity to the direct vicinity of the building deemed religious (not unlike so many city-dwellers and their homes). At a minimum the idea of the “temple” as something analogous to a post office box seems to tether the deity to a particular locale. In stark contrast, the mobility of Ahura Mazda and YHWH far outstrips the potential geographic range of worshippers. 

This appears to have facilitated the social (and subsequent geographic) mobility that has characterized the spread of these religions over the last two millennia. The range of these deities extends across and beyond the area of the globe and worship can be conducted anywhere, indoors or outside. In The Price of Monotheism, Assmann explains that these conceptualizations of more universally powerful, and spatially limitless, deities are characteristic of religions deemed monotheistic.¹¹ He writes, “[In] Polytheism…The divine cannot be divorced from the world. Monotheism, however, sets out to do just that. The divine is emancipated from its symbiotic attachment to the cosmos, society, and fate and turns to face the world as a sovereign power.”¹² Assmann’s comments are important to understanding the relationship between social constructions of individual freedom, mobility, and conceptualizations of divine figures in these religions deemed monotheistic: the significance of agriculturally marginal landscapes to the development of these constructs seems to be clear. The absence of this building block in the formations that are identified in this dissertation as the worship of Ahura Mazda and of YHWH, respectively, seems to be a result of their mobile pastoralist social origins. The physical mobility of these societies, a strategic response to agriculturally marginal landscapes, appears to underlie: 1) the absence of buildings deemed religious; 2) the decentralized power dynamics of worship that shaped the functions of the buildings that eventually developed; and 3) cosmic, not local, conceptions of deities. “Buildings deemed religious” appears to be a building block of religions that is strongly associated with settled agriculturalist societies. Put simply: building cultures build buildings deemed religious.