1 Kings 11:7 – Is there any archaeological evidence of the pagan altars and high places that Solomon supposedly built? Introduction and Context (1 Kings 11:7) 1 Kings 11:7 states, “At that time on a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Molech the abomination of the Ammonites.” This passage describes the construction of pagan worship sites in direct disobedience to the covenant commands. The question is whether any archaeological evidence has been found to confirm or illuminate these alleged altars and high places. Below is a detailed examination of this question, drawing from biblical references, pertinent archaeological discoveries, documented pagan worship practices, and the broader historical context. I. The Biblical Claim of Solomon’s Pagan Altars Solomon’s high place for Chemosh and Molech is frequently cross-referenced with 2 Kings 23:13, which records how King Josiah later desecrated and destroyed such sites: “The king also defiled the high places east of Jerusalem…which Solomon king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth…and for Chemosh…and for Molech.” Together, these passages indicate: • The altars were constructed on the hill east of Jerusalem (traditionally identified with part of or near the Mount of Olives). • Worship practices there were for foreign deities—specifically Chemosh (Moabite) and Molech (Ammonite). • Later, King Josiah took measures to end these illicit forms of worship within Judah. II. High Places in the Ancient Near East High places (Hebrew: bamot) were common throughout the Levant in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Archaeologically, such sites often featured altars, standing stones, or other cultic installations. Several discovered high places provide context: 1. Tel Dan: Excavations uncovered an elevated cultic site and altar structure, showing how Israelite and neighboring kingdoms set up separate places of worship apart from a central temple. 2. Arad: A Judahite fortress temple from the monarchy period contained altars and incense stands, underscoring that alternative worship spaces existed beyond Jerusalem’s main temple. 3. Other Sites: Regions such as Megiddo, Hazor, and Lachish have also yielded evidence of ritual platforms and cultic activity. Although these findings do not specifically identify Solomon’s high place east of Jerusalem, they confirm the widespread practice of constructing such altars at elevated locations, making the biblical description of Solomon’s altars historically and culturally plausible. III. The Hill East of Jerusalem: Proposed Locations The text of 1 Kings 11:7 pinpoints a hill east of Jerusalem—commonly understood as part of the Mount of Olives, sometimes referred to (in later passages) as the “Mount of Corruption” (2 Kings 23:13). Archaeologists and historians have put forward the following possibilities: 1. Southern Slope of the Mount of Olives: Some scholars suggest that the area called the “Hill of Evil Counsel” or the “Mount of Offense” in later tradition could be the site. 2. Eastern Ridge Overlooking the City of David: Excavations in the City of David (south of the present Old City wall) have generated robust data about the Iron Age occupation. However, the actual summit and eastern slopes have seen limited excavation due to modern development and topography. At present, no specifically identified structure is universally agreed upon as “Solomon’s high place.” The region’s continuous habitation and repeated destruction—especially during Josiah’s reforms—have likely obscured direct physical remains. IV. Archaeological Challenges and Destruction by Josiah One main reason concrete remains of Solomon’s altars may be elusive is the biblical record of their deliberate destruction: • 2 Kings 23:13: “The king also defiled the high places east of Jerusalem…which Solomon king of Israel had built…” • Destruction of Idols: King Josiah’s reforms included tearing down unauthorized shrines (2 Kings 23:8–16), smashing sacred pillars, and burning wooden Asherah poles. These systematic purges would have aimed to eliminate all traces of pagan worship. Such destruction severely complicates the archaeological task of pinpointing Solomon’s original structures, as they would have been dismantled or repurposed centuries before the first modern excavations. V. Corroborating Evidence: Chemosh and Molech Worship While direct proof of Solomon’s specific altars is lacking, there is ample attestation of Chemosh and Molech worship in the historical and archaeological record: 1. The Moabite Stone (Mesha Stele): Discovered in 1868 at Dhiban (ancient Dibon), this ninth-century BC inscription from King Mesha of Moab repeatedly invokes Chemosh as Moab’s national deity. Although it does not directly reference Solomon’s altars, it reveals that the worship of Chemosh was widespread and significant in Moab during the time in question. 2. References to Molech Worship: While Molech worship in ancient Israel is often associated with the Valley of Hinnom (2 Chronicles 28:3; Jeremiah 7:31), parallels exist in Phoenician colonies such as Carthage, where a “tophet” burial ground contained remains of child sacrifices. These finds confirm that the worship of Molech (or similar Canaanite deities) persisted in the broader region, aligning with the biblical testimony that Israel could adopt these pagan practices. Although these pieces of evidence do not directly confirm the precise structures that Solomon built, they strongly affirm the biblical claims regarding the deities involved—namely, Chemosh and Molech—and the presence of their cults in that era. VI. Indirect Archaeological Indicators Beyond the evidence for Chemosh and Molech, several broader archaeological indicators lend weight to 1 Kings 11:7: 1. Cultural Syncretism: Excavations across the Levant often show a blending of religious artifacts from multiple cultures, reflecting the biblical depiction of how Israel and Judah could adopt foreign forms of worship. 2. Historic Use of “High Places”: Iron Age high places were common and well-documented. The biblical narrative of altars being erected on elevated sites aligns with the pattern observed at Tel Dan, Megiddo, and other locations. 3. Urban Expansion under Solomon: Archaeologically, Jerusalem experienced substantial building activity in the 10th century BC (commonly linked to David’s and Solomon’s expansions). Although direct remains of the pagan altars are missing, the broader evidence of construction underscores that major architectural works took place at this time, making the building of additional shrines well within the realm of possibility. VII. Possible Reasons for Limited Direct Evidence 1. Intentional Eradication: As noted, the reforms by righteous kings specifically sought to obliterate idols and their sites. 2. Later Urban Overbuild: Continuous urban development on the Mount of Olives region leaves minimal possibility that an unbroken stratum from the 10th century BC remains intact. 3. Sacred vs. Secular Construction: Temple complexes often reused building materials, further obscuring earlier layers. 4. Geopolitical Strife: Jerusalem’s repeated invasions, exiles, and reconstructions (including events such as the Babylonian destruction) have jumbled and flattened archaeological layers. VIII. Synthesis and Conclusion In summary, while there is no publicly verified archaeological find named “Solomon’s pagan altar for Chemosh and Molech,” the historical, cultural, and biblical contexts strongly support the overall narrative: • The widespread worship of foreign gods like Chemosh and Molech in Israel’s vicinity is thoroughly confirmed by discoveries such as the Mesha Stele and various tophet sites. • High places proliferated throughout the ancient Near East, fitting the picture in 1 Kings 11:7. • Solomon’s altars would have been destroyed by later reforms, especially those of King Josiah, leading to the scarcity of direct physical remains. Of final note is the coherence of the biblical account with the archaeological and historical reality of syncretistic worship practices during the monarchy period. Even if the exact altar foundation cannot currently be traced, the testimonies of Scripture (1 Kings 11:7; 2 Kings 23:13) align well with the evidence for the active worship of Chemosh and Molech and the known presence of numerous high places in Iron Age Israel. Thus, the absence of a direct, intact shrine specifically labeled “Solomon’s high place” does not invalidate the biblical testimony; rather, it is consistent with a historical pattern of religious reforms and centuries of rebuilding and destruction. The references in 1 Kings 11:7 remain credible in light of the indirect but substantial archaeological and textual data from the surrounding context. |
    |