Despite the late date and dubious veracity of the Deuteronomistic history, and despite the Bible’s status as the only Bronze or Iron Age text which indisputably refers to Dagon in a southern Canaanite geographical context, scholars have traditionally accepted 1 Samuel 5:1–8’s portrayal of Philistine cult in the Iron Age i as being centered on this deity and his temple at Ashdod. This study marshals archaeological and historical evidence to assess the level of support for the presence of Dagon in Iron i Philistia, and for a temple at Ashdod as described in the biblical account. Also considered, through comparison with the materially analogous situation in the Bronze Age Aegean, is the critical role that a textual complement to physical evidence (or, in the case of the Philistines, the lack thereof) plays in cultic analysis and pantheonic reconstruction.

尽管氘核历史上的日期较晚且真实性令人怀疑，并且尽管圣经的地位是唯一的青铜时代或铁器时代文本，但在迦南南部地理环境中无可争议地提及达贡，但学者们传统上还是接受撒母耳记5：1-8铁器时代我的非利士崇拜以这个神和他在阿什杜德的庙宇为中心。这项研究乘警考古和历史证据，以评估的支持水平衮在铁的存在我非利士人，以及在圣经记载中描述的阿什杜德神庙。通过与青铜时代爱琴海的实质类似情况进行比较，还认为，文本证据对物证的补充（或在非利士人的情况下缺乏）在文化分析和泛神论重建中起着至关重要的作用。