Architecture · Levant · 2 min read, approximately

The En Gedi temple: structure, plaster and paint

The Met's timeline gives En Gedi one sentence: an impressive temple on a stone terrace, with plastered and painted interior walls. How to separate the description of the building, its identification as a temple, and hypotheses about the people who used it.

The explanations distinguish finds, interpretations and open questions. Sources appear at the end of the page.

What the source says

In the Met's timeline, under the key events of about 4500-3500 BCE and immediately after the sentence on Nahal Mishmar, the text says that "at nearby En Gedi, an impressive temple with plastered and painted interior walls is built on a stone terrace". That is the only sentence on the building on the page. Source 1.

Where this sits on the timeline

The entry for 4500-3500 BCE falls entirely within the Chalcolithic period, which the same page dates to about 5500-3300 BCE, and within the site's Levant Chalcolithic page. The source gives no date for the construction itself; it places the description in an entry spanning a thousand years. Source 1.

Description, identification and evaluation

The one sentence holds three kinds of information. A stone terrace and plastered, painted interior walls are a description of the building, which can be checked on a plan or on the ground. "Temple" is an identification of function. "Impressive" is an evaluation. On this page the source does not explain what the identification as a temple rests on, so the article presents it as the source's identification, not as a conclusion checked here.

What the source does not say about the users

The source does not say who built the building or who used it, what was done in it, what was painted on the walls or what was found inside. The link to the Nahal Mishmar hoard, described in the preceding sentence, is also nearness in the text and in space, not a connection the source describes. To speak of a cult and its participants one needs further sources: a plan, finds from within the building, and dates. Source 1.

On this site

The Nahal Mishmar hoard is described in a separate article, which deals with the distinction between technique and use. The Chalcolithic period page discusses another wall painting, the star painting from Teleilat Ghassul, and shows there too that a ritual meaning is proposed as an explanation rather than read directly from the wall.

Scope of reading: the Met timeline page for 8000-2000 BCE was read on 24 October 2026. The En Gedi excavation reports were not read, so this page gives no plan, measurements, finds from within the building or description of the paintings.

Source

Sources and further reading

The research and references behind this page. Rights to external content remain with their owners.

  1. 1 The Eastern Mediterranean and Syria, 8000-2000 B.C.

    The Metropolitan Museum of Art · 2000 · Checked

Continue from here

Follow the next connection

Every card comes from a documented relation or an editorial link. The reason line explains the connection.

The Met's timeline counts 442 copper objects in the Nahal Mishmar hoard, made by the lost-wax method, among them maceheads, crowns and standards. What the technique tells us about making, and what it does not tell us about use.

3 min read, approximately

Related reading.

METHOD GUIDE · EVIDENCE & INTERPRETATION

How to read archaeological research

A practical route from question to evidence and from evidence to interpretation. You do not need to know every technical term to begin reading carefully.

4 min read, approximately

Related reading.

Reading, accessibility & privacy tools

Adjust the reading experience to suit you. These tools complement your browser and device accessibility settings. Changes apply to this page; they are kept for another visit only if you allowed that in the privacy dialog.