According to the Bible, King Jeroboam I, after coming to power in the Northern Kingdom of Israel, set up golden calves at the sites of Bethel and Dan.

Jeroboam said in his heart: “Now the kingdom will return to the house of David. If this people continues to go up to offer sacrifices at the house of Jehovah in Jerusalem, the heart of this people will also return to their lord, King Rehoboam of Judah.” After consultation, the king made two golden calves and said to the people: “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Here is your God, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.” Then he placed one in Bethel, and the other he put in Dan. And this caused them to sin, and the people went as far as Dan to worship the one there. (1 Kings 12:27-30).

The biblical writers of Kings heavilly criticized Jeroboam for these actions. They compared nearly all kings of Israel who, according to the text, engaged in worship of other gods, as having “walked in the way of Jeroboam” (1 Kings 15:34; 16:26, 31). Thus, what the biblical writers called the “sin of Jeroboam” was of high historical importance and seriousness for the ideology that these writers were promoting in their text.

Can archaeology shed light on Jeroboam’s sin of igniting false worship in Israel by erecting high places with golden calves? As it turns out, indeed. Though no high place from Jeroboam’s time has been discovered in the excavations at Bethel, the excavations at the site of Dan have, indeed, shown that there was a high place built there for popular worship at the time of Jeroboam.

The Archaeological Evidence

Excavations at the site of Tel Dan began in the 1960s, first by Ze’ev Yevin, who conducted a brief exploratory excavation on behalf of the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums. Salvage excavations took place in 1966 and 1967, and excavations continued under Avraham Biran, working on behalf of the Department of Antiquities and Museums, and after 1974 for the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Jerusalem. The excavations unearthed remains in multiple strata across the Iron Age (circa. 1200-586 BC).

As I explained in an earlier article, excavations showed that Dan was destroyed in a fiery destruction around 1200 BC, which supports the biblical claims of the tribe of Dan destroying the site at roughly the same time. Dan was rebuilt after the conquest in the form of Stratum V, which ended up being destroyed in around the mid-eleventh century BC, at roughly the same time Shiloh was destroyed by the Philistines[1].

Dan was soon rebuilt by the Israelites, in the form of Stratum VI. The occupants actually re-used the walls from Stratum V, and crucibles and tuyeres were discovered in areas B and Y of the site, which constitute evidence of a copper industry at the site[2].

At Area T of the site, cultic remains were found, that will be the focus of this post. It consisted of a cultic enclosure, along with large pithoi bearing writhing snakes, a storage jar with seven-mouthed lamps, incense stands, and other cultic finds[3].

The cultic enclosure at Dan consisted of a large courtyard with a central altar, a podium, and side chambers with additional walls that enclosed the area[4]. A massive 4.75 m x 4.75 m altar base was at the central altar in the middle, providing evidence that a large four-horned altar stood there; this altar stood before a large raised platform, which may have been a bamah (according to Biran), or a temple foundation platform (according to other archaeologists)[5].

A building complex was found, south of the podium, consisting of a courtyard with rooms north, south, and east of it. In the northern rooms, which have been identified as storage rooms, pottery finds were made, including pithoi that had snake reliefs on them, which likely had cultic purpose[6]. Structures have been found in the rooms south of the podium, including pool installations (bath tub, basin, and a rectangular pool; Biran interpreted these as cultic), numerous partly burnt bones, and fragments of figurines (including the head of an Egyptian faience figurine)[7]. Additionally, in the center of the building complex, a 7.5x 7.5 altar was found[8].

Animal bones were also discovered at numerous deposits at Area T of the site. These included primarily remains of sheep, goats, and cattle; little remains of gazelle, deer, and donkey were found, and pig bones were absent, which is consistent with Israelite beliefs both biblically and archaeologically[9]. Since these bone fragments were found alongside various cultic items (three small incense altars, along with many of the finds discussed above), aswell as tools used for slaughtering animals (knife-sized instruments, various blades, etc), this constitutes evidence for cultic meals that the priests at Dan took part in[10].

The evidence that Area T served as a cultic site in Dan is, as we have seen, overwhelming. Merja Alanne says the following in her study of the city of Dan:

It is obvious that this area served for public cult and administration. Three criteria for identifying a cult place can be found in Area T: architectural elements (including features such as platforms, benches, and enclosed areas), cultic artefacts, and continuity. In addition, a cult place in the vicinity of impressive natural springs was a characteristic location for a holy site, such as the temples of Banias further north during the Hellenistic-Roman period. The cultic nature of the architecture is represented by the podium or platform and the central altar complex. Furthermore, the whole area was most probably enclosed by walls or rooms (“side chambers”) which were – on the basis of the finds – also used for rituals and cultic activity. Altars, traces of animal sacrifices, and pottery typical in cultic connections have been found… The cultic enclosure at Tel Dan is a unique example of Iron Age cultic places in Israel[11].

There is, additonally, the question of what type of cultic activities were taking place at Dan; were they “Israelite” sacrifices to Yahweh, or were they pagan – perhaps Aramean – activities? Jonathan Greer has, interestingly, argued that it was most likely Israelite sacrifices that took place, and he bases this off of a few arguments[12].

1. A seal of a man named “Immadiyaw” was discovered at the site, dating to the 8th century BC. This name is Yahwistic; that is, it is based on Yahweh, and it literally means “Yahweh/YHWH is with me”. While seals of Baalistic names have been found (specifically, one of a man named “Baalpelet”), Greer points out that they post-date the 8th century BC, thus post-dating Stratum II[13].
2. Various feautures of the altar at Dan, including its horns, the orientations of the staircases at the altar, the “altar kit”, and the base of the altar, are, as Greer argues, consistent with religious practices demanded in the Law of Moses[14].
3. Faunal analysis reveals three significant things about the sacrifices taking place at Dan: firstly, there is a higher percentage of right-sided bones were discovered in the western chamber deposit (about 67% right-sided bones to 33% left-sided bones). Secondly, there is a higher percentage of toe bones among the bone fragments in the western chamber complex (about 26% to 63%), compared to “meaty limb bones”. Thirdly, 80% of the bone fragments in the western chamber deposits consisted of sheep and goat. Finally, fragments of painted ware were more common in the western chamber deposits than in the courtyard. Citing certain biblical texts, such as Leviticus 7:8, 32-33, Greer argues that these facts are explained by certain priestly laws in the Bible[15].
4. Both the 8th century BC prophet Amos, and 1 Kings, address the golden calf’s presence at both Dan and Bethel (Amos 8:14; 4:4; 1 Kings 12:27-30), yet they say nothing about pagan worship taking place there. This would be strange, given that both Amos and the author of 2 Kings viewed this worship negatively; had there been pagan worship there, they would have made a big deal about it, but they did not.

However, he also reccomends caution, saying that “These correspondences alone, however, are not enough to make a claim of “uniquely Israelite” practice (with the possible exception of the Immadiyaw seal) in that the rituals and paraphernalia of the Israelite cult were likely very similar to those of Aramean, Phoenician, and other regional cults…”[17]. However, if Greer’s arguments have merit, they are, in fact, relevant to the dating of the Priestly (P) source of the Pentateuch.

What is the Date of the Cult Site?

Now, additionally, we need to answer the question of when the site is to be dated, to see if it can really be attributed to King Jeroboam.

Biran dated Stratum IVA, which is where the cult site lays, to the late 10th-early 9th centuries BC; this dating was based on pottery found at parts of the site, which Biran dated to this period[18]. This was about the time King Jeroboam lived, thus leading Biran and other archaeologists to the conclusion that the cult site at Dan was indeed built by Jeroboam for calf worship.

However, some archaeologists have, in fact, challenged Biran’s dating. Most notably, archaeologist Eran Arie has argued in a paper entitled “Reconsidering The Iron Age II Strata At Tel Dan: Archaeological And Historical Implications”, that Stratum IVA of Dan was actually an Aramean site that dates to the late 9th-early 8th centuries BC, and that Dan at the time of Jeroboam was either deserted or was a small, rural site. Arie bases this argument based on the similarities between pottery from Stratum IVA and from the later Stratum II[19]. If Arie’s views are correct, the implications are obvious: Jeroboam did not construct the cult site at Stratum IVA of Dan, and probably never erected the golden calf at Dan. Thus, some, like Thomas Römer, conclude that the biblical account of Jeroboam erecting the golden calf at Dan and Bethel is “a polemical fiction that transfers an event from the time of Jeroboam II to the early days of the Northern kingdom”[20].

However, as Arie himself says, his analysis is based on only published pottery, and Arie admits that “only a very small amount of the excavated pottery has been published”[21]. This is a serious issue for an attempted revision of the strata at the site that is supposed to be based on the pottery evidence. In his book, Tel Dan in its Northern Cultic Context, Andrew R. Davis writes the following:

…the floor is usually fill containing Early Bronze, Middle Bronze, Iron and Hellenistic sherds (cf. L.2352). The problem posed by this paucity of contemporary pottery has recently been amplified by E. Arie’s attempt to eliminate Stratum III altogether in favor of a single stratum (Stratum III-II) that dates to the middle of the eighth century B.C.E. (“Reconsidering the Iron Age II Strata at Tel Dan: Archaeological and Historical Implications,” TA 35 [2008]: 6-64). He also redates Stratum IVA, attributing it to the invasion of Hazael, and posits an occupation gap at Tel Dan from the mid-tenth to the mid-ninth centuries B.C.E. (ibid., 32-34). His conclusion is based on the apparent absence of Stratum HI pottery and apparent similarities between pottery from Stratum IVA and II, but both arguments are flawed because they are based only on the pottery that has been published. Arie himself acknowledges this problem (ibid., 7) but does not reckon with how severely it limits his reconstruction. The pottery from Stratum III is not absent; most of it simply has not yet been published. Moreover, in a meeting with D. Ilan in June 2009, he suggested to me that the pottery published in Biran’s 1982 article (“The Temenos at Dan”) as “Stratum IV” probably spans Strata IVA-III. (This would explain why some of the pottery resembles Stratum II). Ultimately, Dan’s Iron II stratigraphy and chronology must wait for Y. Thareani to analyze and publish its complete corpus, though we should mention that in this same visit to the Hebrew Union College in June 2009 Thareani pointed out Arie’s mishandling of other evidence related to Tel Dan, especially the stela. Our purpose is simply to note the shortcomings of Arie’s unpersuasive reconstruction and to emphasize that there is no evidence of an occupation gap in the early ninth century B.C.E. nor is there any compelling reason to compress Strata HI and II.[22]

Jonathan Greer, mentioned earlier, reaches a similar conclusion regarding Arie’s revisions:

..his proposal is based only on published plates (and in some places failing to include updated references that re-date loci) rather than on working with the actual material due to the fact that he was unfortunately not able to access the material remains themselves. His conclusions are not affirmed by those working directly with the material itself, primarily, Thareani but also this author (2013), let alone the Biran team (1994a) who excavated the material.[23]

Though the current published pottery record at Dan is, admittedly, fragmentary (as has been shown above), and new reports are needed to confirm the stratigraphy, there seems to be evidence that Biran’s stratigraphy was correct. Namely, Davis points out that sections of the so-called “yellow floor” in Area T have revealed pottery that dates to the end of the 10th century BC, saying, “Based on parallels with Hazor X-IX, Megiddo VA-IVB and Ta’anach lib, this pottery should be dated to the Iron IIA”[24]. So, in conclusion, Arie’s hypothesis is problematic, and though we cannot be certain, the evidence shows that Stratum III of Dan dates to the 9th century BC, and subsequently, that Stratum IVA and the cult site at Dan date to the late 10th-early 9th century BC, in accordance with the biblical account.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the archaeological evidence at Dan shows evidence of a cultic complex that most likely was constructed in the late 10th century BC, roughly the time of King Jeroboam. This is in accordance with the biblical narrative in 1 Kings 12 of King Jeroboam erecting a golden calf for worship at this site.

REFERENCES

[1]: Negev, Avraham, Gibson, Shimon, Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land. Taiwan, Continuum, 2001

[2]: Stern, Ephraim. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Volume 1. Israel, Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993. p. 327

[3]: Stern 1993, p. 327-328

[4]: Alanne, Merja. “Tel Dan-Biblical Dan: An Archaeological and Biblical Study of the City of Dan from the Iron Age II to the Hellenistic Period.” (2017). p. 59

[5]: Greer, Jonathan S. “The Cult At Tel Dan: Aramean or Israelite?” Wandering Aramaeans–Aramaeans outside Syria: Textual and Archaeological Perspectives. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag (2017): p. 5

[6]: Alanne 2017, p. 60

[7]: Alanne 2017, p. 61-62

[8]: Alanne 2017, Ibid.

[9]: Greer, Jonathan S. “Was “Israelite” Sacrifice Practiced at Tel Dan?” Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, MI 118 (2014).

[10]: Greer, Jonathan S. Dinner at Dan: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sacred Feasts at Iron Age II Tel Dan and their significance. Vol. 66. Brill, 2013.

[11]: Alanne 2017, p. 56

[12]: For summaries of Greer’s views on the matter, see Greer 2014; 2017.

[13]: Greer 2017, p. 6

[14]: Greer 2017, p. 6-8

[15]: Greer 2014, p. 3-7

[16]: Greer 2017, p. 13

[17]: Greer 2017, Ibid

[18]: Biran, Avraham. “The Temenos at Dan.” EI 16: 15–43, 252–253 (Hebrew with
English abstract, 1982)

[19]: Arie, Eran. “Reconsidering the Iron Age II strata at Tel Dan: Archaeological and historical implications.” Tel Aviv 35.1 (2008): 6-64.

[20]: Römer, Thomas. “How Jeroboam II became Jeroboam I.” HeBAI 6.3 (2017): p. 376

[21]: Arie 2008, p. 7

[22]: Davis, Andrew R. Tel Dan in its Northern Cultic Context. The Johns Hopkins University, 2010. p. 62-63, fn. 2

[23]: Greer 2017, p. 10, fn. 20

[24]: Davis 2010, p. 62