No title

The BIBLICAL

ARCHAEOLOG

Published by THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH

126 Inman Street, Cambridge, Mass. Vol. XXXIII

September, 1970

No. 3

Fig. 1. Airview of Megiddo from the southwest. The water shaft is in the foreground, with gallery 629 coming toward the viewer at the very bottom.

Contents Megiddo of the Kings of Israel, by Yigael Yadin .......................................................66

66

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXIII,

is published quarterly (February, May, September, December) The Biblical Archaeologist by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Its purpose is to meet the need for a readable, reliable account of archaeological discoveries as they relate to the non-technical, yet thoroughly Bible. Editor: Edward F. Campbell, Jr., with the assistance of Floyd V. Filson in New Testament matters. Editorial correspondence should be sent to the editor at 800 West Belden Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60614. Editorial Board: W. F. Albright, Johns Hopkins University; G. Ernest \Wright, Harvard University; Frank M. Cross, Jr., Harvard University; William G. Dever, Jerusalem. $3.00 per year, payable to the American Schools of Oriental Research, Subscriptions: 02139. Associate members of ASOR receive 126 Inman Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts the journal automatically. Ten or more subscriptions for group use, mailed and billed to the same address, $2.00 per year apiece. Subscriptions run for the calendar year. In England: twenty-four shillings (24s.) per year, payable to B. H. Blackwell, Ltd., Broad Street, Oxford. Back numbers: $1.00 per iccue and $3.75 per volume, from the ASOR office. Please make remittance with order. The journal is indexed in Art Index, Index to Religious Periodical Literature, and at the end of every fifth volume of the journal itself. Second-class postage PAID at Cambridge, Massachusetts and additional offices. Copyright by American Schools of Oriental Research, 1970 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BY TRANSCRIPT PRINTING COMPANY PETERBOROUGH, N. H.

Megiddo of the Kings of Israel YIGAEL YADIN The Hebrew

University

(Professor Yadin broke the news of his restudy of the Megiddo stratigraphy in the BA ten years ago, after the first of three short campaigns he describes in this article. The report was so imlportantthat we squeezed it in tiny type with only three photographsat the end of BA, XXIII.2. The article you are about to read contains much that is new and exciting; for that reason we have left a certain alolint of repetition of the 1960 article in place so that the entire picture can be painted. - EFC) The endeavors of the spade to unearth the building remains of Solomon, greatest builder among Israel's kings, are part of the enthralling web of the excavationsin the Holy Land during the last seventy years. No doubt the crowning glory of Solomo1n's enterprises is the Temple he built in Jeru-

salem, to which, understandably,whole chapters in the Bible are dedicated. David, who spent his life warring even beyond the borders of Israel, had no time to build fortified cities (which his offensive strategy in fact made unnecessary), let alone the Temple in Jerusalem."You know that David my father could not build a house for the name of the Lord his God because of the warfare with which his enemies surrounded him, until the Lord put them under the soles of his feet" (I Kings 5:3). Despite the detailed descriptionsof the Temple's plan, its measurements and its holy vessels, scholars for the past few centuries have struggled to reconstructits plan and form, and their opinions differ to this day, mainly because we are unfamiliar vith some of the basic architecturalterms. In-

1970, 3)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

67

deed, these struggles,as W. F. Albrighthas so aptly characterizedthem, amountto the "sufferings of Tantalus." When, at the beginningof the century,the disciplineof archaeology vigorouslyjoined the other disciplinesdealingwith biblicalcomprehension and interpretation,scholarsrealizedsoon enough that it wasn'tthe length of a biblical passagewhich conveyedits importanceto the archaeologist. Often a brief and concisedescriptionwas an importantclue, if appliedto the tools of archaeologyin generaland excavationin particular.Indeed,it seems that there is no examplein the historyof archaeologywhere a passage helped so much in identifyingand dating structuresin severalof the most importanttells in the Holy Land as has I Kings 9:15: "And this is the accountof the forced labor which King Solomonlevied to build the house of the Lordand his own house and the Millo and the wall of Jerusalemand Hazorand Megiddoand Gezer..." The excavatorsof Megiddohad uncovereda largecity with a complex of stablesand a magnificentcity gate of six chambersand two towers.That city was attributedto Solomon;but at Gezer,excavatedat the turn of the century,no clear Solomonicremnantswere discovered.Even on othersites which the Bible does not mentionin connectionwith Solomon'sbuilding activities,scholarstried occasionallyto relate to Solomonsome structures found during excavations.But their inability to substantiateexact dates turnedtheseeffortsto a bone of contention.It was thereforenaturalenough, when we selectedHazoras a large-scalediggingsite in 1955,that we hoped to succeedin uncoveringSolomon'scity as describedin the Bible, which would in turn help clarifyhis buildingenterpriseselsewhere.Indeed,then, one of the moreimportantdiscoveriesat Hazorwas Solomon'sfortifications in the tenth stratumfrom the top. Our decisionto attributethat layer to and Solomonwas basedprimarilyon the I Kingspassage,the stratigraphy the pottery.But when in additionwe foundin that stratuma six-chambered, two-towered gate connectedto a casematewall identicalin plan and measurementswith the gate at Megiddo,we felt surewe had successfullyidentified Solomon'scity. The Mystery of Gezer

As is well-known,Gezer had been excavatedby the Britisharchaeologist Macalisterat a time when archaeologywas still in its infancy,and before sophisticated,up-to-datemethodsof diggingwere known. In addition, architectand recorder,which is Macalisterservedas his own administrator, the results of his is one of the most difficult excavations why deciphering in Palestinian Some archaeology. problems compensationmay be found, in Macalister's three-volume detailed perhaps, report,which he lavishedwith Macalister not the did observe in Gezer fortificationsany casedrawings.

68

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIII,

mate wall attributable to Solomon, but the discoveries in Megiddo and Hazor induced me to re-examine his report. As BA readers know, I was able to identify in the plan on page 104 of his Volume I a casemate wall and even a structure similar to Solomon's gates at Mlegiddoand Hazor. Macalister had marked these structures "a Maccabean Castle" and this was accepted by scholars.Of the gate, only the western part had been discovered. The resemblance to Hazor and Megiddo prompted me to suggest that this whole complex was no Maccabean castle but rather a part of the Solomonic fortificationssystem which had been built in a breach in the earlier wall. Since, as is well known, the Hebrew Union College in Jerusalemhas dug extensively at Gezer under William Dever's direction (see BA, XXX [1967], 34-62), and one of the objects of that expedition was to clarify the problem of the Maccabean castle. I am happy that the recent excavations have completely vindicated my theory; not only has the eastern part of the gate been discovered, but also pottery found on its original floor was from the second half of the 10th century, that is Solomon's time. Thus, with the aid of the brief biblical passage from Kings, the Solomonic fortifications, identical in plan in the three cities, were located and dated. Megiddo:

Fly in the Ointment

Despite the absolute similarity between the gates of Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer, one strange and worrying fact remained: while in Hazor and Gezer the gate had been connected to a casemate wall, the Megiddo wall, attributedby its excavatorsto Solomon, was of a quite different type, a solid wall, with "insets"and "offsets,"i.e. its interior and exterior walls had protrusions, 20 inches deep, with niches between them. The wall had been so built that opposite every offset in its exterior wall there was an inset in its interior wall and vice versa. The wall was built of flat, not too large, stones, which, according to the excavators,had been laid as in brick building; the top of the wall's foundation was even and one could assume with certainty that it carrieda brick wall. There was no doubt that this wall was contemporarywith the famous stables. Why would Solomon's engineers in Megiddo resort to a fortification method different from the casemate? It was hard to accept the suggestion, made following my article on Gezer, that Megiddo had been fortified in a special way because it was a chariot city, while Hazor and Gezer had been store cities. As I wrote in BA, XXIII (1960), it is axiomaticthat the strength and characterof a wall is determined by the tactics, strength and siegecraft of the enemy against whom it is erected. Gezer in the south and Hazor in the north, could theoretically have been fortified against two different potential enemies, yet both had the same type of fortifications.There was no reason why Megiddo in the center of the land should be protected by dif-

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1970, 3)

69

ferent fortifications. The only possibility that seemed conceivable to me was that perhaps the offsets/insets wall formed a part of a later set of fortifications and that during the Solomonic period there had also existed a casemate wall, one perhaps hidden beneath the solid wall; when the solid wall was built, the former had been filled up (as in Hazor). The only way to verify that assumption was to make a trial trench across the offsets/insets wall in order to establish if in fact there had been a casement wall beneath it. Further

Difficulties

in the Stratigraphy

of Israelite

Megiddo

Before I describe the surprising results brought forth by three short seasons of excavations carried out at Megiddo, I should describe briefly what Megiddo looked like in the early Israelite period and the additional difficulties, which have direct bearing on the subject and are well known to all who have studied the results of the Megiddo excavations. Megiddo had been excavated over a number of years and under the direction of several excavators, starting with the destructive Schumacher dig in 1903-1905 and ending with the systematic excavations of the expeditions of the Chicago Oriental Institute from 1925-1939. Despite the lattcr'smethodical excavations, quite a number of stratigraphicalproblems remained without satisfactory solutions, mainly because of the changing directorship of the expedition, which impaired their continuity: the efforts to bridge the discrepancies between the various expeditions were not always successful. As far as our specific subject is concerned, the foremostproblemcan be defined as follows (see Fig. 2). The main buildings attributed by the excavatorsto the Solomonic period were discovered in Stratum IV from top, which they were compelled (for reasons to be explained below) to call "IVA." This stratum included the two famous stable complexes; the first (1576) on the southern side of the western half of the tell ("the southern stables") and the second (407 - following the number of one of its halls) on the northern side of the eastern half of the tell (the "northernstables"). There was no stratigraphicaldoubt that the stables were contemporarywith the offsets/ insets wall, and since this wall was attributed to Solomon, it followed that so should the stables. Other structures, too, were ascribed to that stratum, of which the most outstanding was an elaborate building (338 - on the east side of the tell). Below this stratum, an Iron age stratum was discovered by the excavators, who marked it "V." Further excavations made it clear that in fact they had struck two strata and not just one. Since by that time they had designated the next stratum "VI," they were compelled to designate the two strata under the stables "VA" (the upper) and "VB." Beneath these was, as mentioned, stratumVI which also turned out later to consist of two strata,mark-

70

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXIII,

ed respectively VIA (to be discussed in detail further on) and VIB. Under the latter, the last Iron age stratum (VIIA) was discovered,with its famous ivory treasure and inscriptions of Ramses III and Ramses VI, that stratum which established the earliest possible date for stratum VIB, in the second half of the 12th century. The great complication in attributing stratum IV to Solomon arose still earlier, as a result of a surprising discovery on the south side of the tell, east of the southern stables. Here a building (1723) was discovered - a palace or fort - measuring twenty by twenty-two meters, built of ashlar, similar in style to the Solomonic gate. To the astonished excavators it became clear that the so-called Solomonic offsets/insets wall (325) had been erected on the ruins of that palace. Hence, to judge by its pottery, it must

?: .:-':"

')'

'

/1325

iI

"Ii~i? ezajl o^oo

//

|

1007

157

/?????-

?

48y 8

325

Fig. 2. Plan of Megiddo in the days of Solomon and of the early kings of Israel. Structures rendered with dots belong to Stratum IVA, including the offsets/insets wall, the two stable complexes 407 and 1576, and the water system 925 and 1000. Structures of the Solomonic period, rendered in diagonal hatching, include the palace 6000, buildings 1723 and 1482, and the gallery 629. All will be discussed in what follows.

be later than the elaborate building belonging to the 10th century. Moreover, even west of the palace (1729), but contemporarywith it, the "southern palace," a huge, well-conceived structure (1482), had been discovered. Its west part was under the foundations of the eastern stables of complex 1576, so it too preceded the stables and adjacent wall! Once it became clear that one could not ascribe both these buildings to stratum IV, and since V had already been used to mark other ruins, the Megiddo excavatorsascribed the palace and structure 1482 to Stratum IVB.

1970, 3)

TIHE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

71

But here they encountered one of the most disturbing problems, which they could not explain: since they were quite certain that the stables and the offsets/insets wall (325) had been built by Solomon, and that also the palace and structure 1482 were Israelite and approximatelySolomonic, they were left with one of twroexplanations, neither of which was logically and historically very tenable. They could claim 1) that the palace was built at the beginning of Solomon's rule, before the city had been fortified. At that stage the palace (or fort) had been a single structure on the tell, serving perhaps as the governor'sresidence, with an excellent vantage point on the whole region. Later, when Solomon's engineers were about to fortify the city, this palace was in their way and so they demolished it (and structure 1482 with it, when they built the stables), and built the offsets/insets wall on top of its ruins. This explanation was coupled with the assumption that perhaps the palace had been demolished before its construction was completed. Or they could claim 2) that the single palace had been built by David only to be destroyed by Solomon when he rebuilt Megiddo. Both these explanations assumed that Solomon himself destroyed the two grandest Israelite structures existing in Miegiddo,in order to build the offsets /insets wall and the stables. The first assumption is certainly illogical and the second is impossible also for historical reasons.The Bible says clearly that Solomon built Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer, whilst David did not engage in building enterprises and couldn't even build the Temple. He certainly did not build a city in Gezer; and at Hazor, too, there were no fortifications prior to Solomon, but only a poor, unwalled hamlet. Had David built a large city in Megiddo, the Bible would surely stress the fact. Or would it say that it was Solomon who built Megiddo? Moreover, even were we to assume that David was the one to build stratum IVB, and Solomon not the one to destroy it, we would have to conclude that the palace had been destroyedby some enemy in David's times or at the beginning of Solomon's times - a conclusion that has no support in the written sources as far as this region is concerned. Albright and Wright made valiant efforts, some ingenious, to clarify the stratigraphyemanating from these discoveries.They proved conclusively that not only should the palace and structure 1482 be ascribed to stratum IVB, but also a number of other structureswrongly attributed by the excavators to stratum VA. Thus Albright and Wright introduced a new stratum, which they called IVB-VA, comprising the stables and the offsets/insets wall; we shall designate it VA to distinguish it from IV. But even they did not succeed in overcoming the main difficulty, namely the attribution of stratum VA, because they accepted the assumption of the excavators that the Solomonic stratum was IV. They were therefore also compelled to as-

72

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXIII,

sume that the palace and the other buildings were built in David's time, which, as we have seen, was impossible historically. From all the above it became clear to us that the stumbling block in attributing the offsets/insets wall to Solomon was not only its difference from the Solomonic walls at Hazor and Gezer (casemates) but also its stratigraphy. The New Excavations

at Megiddo

In order to clarify the problem of the \lcgiddo walls in Solomon's times, I excavated there briefly in 1960 (13-15 Jan., and again for a few days later in the month). I asked the late I. Dunayevsky to join me as architect, feeling that I might have preconceived ideas and wanting to ensure that every conclusion would be independently and objectively checked from the stratigraphicalview point, and who was more competent for that than Dunayevsky? I asked him in fact, to be the "devil'sadvocate"and bring up as many difficulties as possible. His participationin that particular dig and the two subsequent ones was of decisive importance, and all the conclusions that follow were shared by him, indeed, were reached with his assistance. The area we selected for our trial dig was located in the northern side of the eastern half of the tell, cast of the "SchumachcrTrench" and the DD area of the Megiddo excavators.In that area the offset/insets wall had not been removed by them and was thus well preserved.Futhermore, an aerial photograph published by them showed that under and near the offsets/insets wall, some walls cxisted that had not been marked on the plan, nor were they discussed in their report. We attributed particularimportance to the fact that here too was located the northern stable complex (407) which had been only partially excavated, and its remnants were still strewn around the area. This brief dig brought interesting surprises,of which the most important was the discovery of a second palace, also built of ashlar like the Solomonic gate, with a casemate wall on either side. Consequently a partial report of the campaign was published on the problem in general. My subsequent archaeological activity in 1960-61 in the Bar-Kochba caves and the enormous excavations at Masada in 1963-65, delayed the detailed report of our short Mlcgiddodig. When we were finally ready for it in 1965, I realized that it was imperative to re-examine the stratigraphical problems related to our discoveries and especially the date of the famous water system, which in accordancewith our finds, seemed to require fresh examination. At the end of a short dig in 1966 (31st July - 12 Aug.) with students of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University, many of the problems were decisively clarified. Those which required further investigation were the strata under the casemate wall. Sure enough, dur-

1970, 3)

ARCHAEOLOGIST THE THE BIBLICAL BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

73

ing the third season, March 26 to April 7, 1967, we were lucky - on the very last day of the dig - to come up with the decisivestratigraphical discovery.The descriptionof this and our conclusionswill now be presented by subject,with occasionalreferenceto what had been found in everyseason in relationto the respectivediscovery. 52 'I7

~

sY 0

I

2

i

4

I

35\

IVA mi

VA-IVBM VB

M

VIA -

the northerntier of rooms. The various trenches of the excavatorare indicated, so that one senses how the dimensions of the building were determined. Beneath the building, in the upper left, are traces of earlier strata. The Additional(6000 Northern Palac

The firstday of the excavations As broughtwith it our firstsurprise. we startedmarkingthe exactspotof ourintendedtrench- standingout-

side the offsets/insets wall, on the slope north of it - we realized that what seemed to be the lower part of the foundations of the wall was actually built in a straight line (without offsets and insets) measuring twenty-eight

meters.It also becameapparentthat while the wall itself had been constructedof field stones, or small dressedstones, to strengthenthe comers of the offsetsand insets, this stretchof wall was built of ashlars,some of which had marginsdressedin the mannerof Solomon'sgate and southern palace, and previouslyunknownin Megiddo.That stretchof ashlarwall line at its (52 on Fig. 3) stoppedabruptlyin a straightand perpendicular westernend. At thatpointthe ashlarswereparticularly well and dressed, large and laid in the header-stretcher fashion,similarto the six-chambered gate.

74

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXIII,

While contemplating this fact, it occurredto me that at that particularspot the offsets/insets wall must have been built on the foundations of some external wall of a palace (or fort) that had been built on the tell's edge, like the southern palace (1723). In order to verify that assumption,we decided to carefully peel off the foundations of the offsets/insets wall above the beautiful ashlar, at what appeared to be the northwest corer of the building. Should our assumption prove correct, then the western wall of the building must be found under the foundations of the offsets/insets wall, continuing south into the city. Sure enough that wall was found as soon as the foundations had been removed. It was about 1.5 meter thick, built of ashlars

0

5 a

I

t0 a.

20 I Meters

Fig. 4. Plan of the palace of Zinjirli, comparable to palace 6000 at Megiddo. Note the corner tower (lower right), the long central court, and the smaller rooms surrounding the court.

laid header and stretcher fashion both inside and outside, with the gap between them filled up with small stones, similar to the building method of the southern palace. We followed that wall into the city and discoveredthat it stretched not only under the offsets/insets wall, but even under the foundations of the northern stables complex (407)! During the 1966-67 campaigns we continued excavating this large structure (trenches only) and succeeded in ascertaining its plan. We were particularly impressed by its

1970, 3)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

75

southernfront,in which the thicknessof the beautifullybuilt wall reached over two meters.

The building is rectangularin shape: its length from east to west is abouttwenty-eightmetersand fromnorthto southabouttwenty-onemeters, occupyinga built-upareaof 600 squaremeters,slightlymorethan the southern palace (500 squaremeters). The building'sfront was to the south;on its north(on the edge of the tell) it had five roomswhile the east and west sides had elongatedhalls. Its southeastcorer must have had a tower,and the southwestcornera squareroom.The northeastcornerwas built in the shape of a big offset. Althoughthe excavationof this palace has not yet been completed,its plan can be clearlyreconstructed and a glimpseat it that it resembles of the known fromZinjirliand greatly type palaces proves other sites on the Phoeniciancoast,all fromthe early centuriesof the first millennium.This type - known in Assyrianas bit hilani - servedas a ceremonialpalace;those enteringit from the wide front found themselves in a centralcourtsurroundedby roomson threeflanks.The bit hilani type also as a rule had a towerat one corner(see Fig. 4). This factis particularly interesting,becauseit addsfurtherevidenceto the biblicalassertionof Phoenician influence on Solomon'sbuilding activities.But let's return to the stratigraphical problem.It becamequite clear that here, as on the southern monumental buildingsexisted, identical in building style with the edge, "Solomonicstables."In other words,what was found was not an isolated structurebut a largecity with magnificentbuildings.In someof the palace's rooms,we found much potteryin situ (store jars, dishes,juglets,cooking pots) in a state that indicatedsuddendestruction.All of them were characteristicof the 10thcentury. Robbers' Trenches

Through careful examinationof the ruins in the stratumunder the stables,we cameup with an importanttechnicalphenomenonwhich helped us not only to locate anotherhuge structureof the same period,south of palace 6000, but also to comprehendwhy the earlierMegiddoexcavators had failed to locatethe structuresof the magnificentcity. South of the palace,acrossa ratherwide street(ten metersor so), we discoveredthe remainsof a largestructureresemblingthe buildingstyle of otherstructuresin VA-IVB.However,exceptfor a few placesin which the lowerstoneswerepreserved,we noticedbeautifulbeatenchalkfloors,stretching practicallyto the assumedline of the walls, then abruptlystopping.It becameevident that most of the beautifulashlarstones of structuresIVB had been pulled out and robbed.No doubt this was done mainlyby the buildersof the stablesand the offsets/insetwall. This also explainsthe fact that a numberof stonesbearingmason'smarkswere discoveredin IVB and

76

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXIII,

IV. Once we realized this phenomenon, we managed by closely following the floors and robbers'trenches, to discover the remains of a huge structure, with a front at least fifty-five meters long, and rooms and courtyardsbranching southwards.This structure was on the other side of the street, and it is a pity that most of it, in the south, vanished in the previous excavations which had reacheda greatdepth at that spot.

Fig. 5. A Stratum VA-IVB foundation of a square pillar (perhaps a staircase). Note especially the termination of the plaster floor in a straight line, showing the line of a robber trench by which another Solomonic building at Megiddo was discovered.

The stratigraphicalattribution of the new palace (6000) and the huge structure to its south, in relation to the offsets/insets wall and the stables, is clear enough if one counts the strata from top to bottom, as in the case of the southern palace (1723) and its adjacent structure, 1482. The offsets/insets wall and the stables belong to stratum IV, while the whole complex beneath them belongs to IVB, since there are no structureswhatsoeverbetween the two. But it is our task to prove that such attribution is correct too, if counted from bottom to top, since theoretically it might be argued that the discoveredbuildings - even though they lay beneath the stables and wall might not belong to stratum IVB but to an earlier period or stratum. Already in 1960 we discovered two levels of walls (excavated by the Megiddo excavatorsbut not marked on their plans) outside the palace and continuing beneath it. By their characteristicsand based on what could be seen in a trench west of the palace, we ascribedthese walls to strataVB and

1970, 3) 1970,

THE BI[BLICAL BIBLICALARCHAIEOLOGIST ARCHAEOLOGIST TIHE

77

VIA. But this still neededto be proved,and a goodpartof our 1966efforts were spent tryingto do so. We decidedto dig underthe floorof the northwesternroomof the palace,in the hope of hitting the remainsof the huge conflagrationof stratumVIA which were evidentall over the tell. And this indeedoccurred.Beneaththe palacefloor,we firstcameacrossrelativelypoor walls (VB) and immediatelyunderthem we uncovereda structuretypical of stratumVIA. It was completelycoveredby a thicklayerof ashes,in which we found a wealth of typicalpottery(many vesselsintact) includingthe famous"beermugs"of the decadentstyle - as definedby T. Dothanascribedto the third phase of the Philistineculture,that is, to the second half of the 11th century.Thus we corroborated absolutelythat the palace did indeed belong to stratumIVB-VA,by counting from either the top downwardsor the bottomupwards.

~'

:'

q

at Megiddo. ruins at VIA ruins of Stratum under the the pocket-book 6. Contents StratumVIA floor of the floor found under of the Contents of Fig. 6. Fig. pocket-bookfound Megiddo. Treasure An Unexpected An Unexpected Treasure

at uncovering aimed at as explained check dig Our stratigraabove, aimed was, as dig was, Ourcheck uncovering stratigraexplained above, of excaexcakind on in But even this situ facts: and levels of kind on this even But walls, levelsandin situpottery. phical pottery. phical facts:walls, treahit veritable when the soared excitement treaa veritable hit they when soared diggers the among vation, vation, excitement they diggers among

78

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXIII,

sure which shed light on one of the interesting cultures of Megiddo. When we removed the level of ashes from stratum VIA with its pottery and all, on the threshold of the room and below the floor we encountered a woman's treasure in a cloth bag (of which remnants were preserved) protected by a few surroundingsherds. Into this small bag (ten by fifteen cms.) the woman

Fig. 7. Two bronze weights from the

managed to squeeze an enormous number of objects that must have been precious to her, such as nine ivory spindle whorls, two pomegranate-shaped pendants taken from a tripod typical of the time, iron bracelets(!), a ring, hundreds of tiny beads, semi-preciousstones and two bronze weights in the shape of a horned animal and a squatting monkey. Before the haul was cleaned we thought the monkey was of the prevalent type with one arm on his mouth and the other on his ear but after cleaning, it appeared that the monkey was holding an apple-like object in one hand. We joked about what seemed like an artist's effort to depict Adam holding the apple with one hand and using the other to block his ears against Eve's temptation.

THE THE BIBLICAL BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST ARCHAEOLOGIST

1970, 3) 1970,

79 79

This find, in addition to the enormous quantity of metal vessels discovered by the Megiddo excavators, testifies to the high standard of the Philistine-Canaanite metal craft in Saul's times (as we read in the Bible). It is interesting to note that, also in Tell Qasileh, the first metal utensils appear in stratumX, which is contemporarywith stratum VIA in Megiddo. ,-

6001

6002 6003

D

.....

0

5

~

solo 407Asmentioned, our primary objective in 1960 was to find out already of the in stratum IVB was a VA-IVBnk in the cla covery very palace 0 lol1 i-BB -~ ~ VB Mg VIA

i" adjacent casemates (6001-6003, 6007-6009) after reFig. 88. The plan of palace 6000 and its movat of the offsets/insets wall in the northeast portion of the Meiddo tell. Note portions of earlier strata under the casemates on both sides of the palac. The Eastern

Casemate

As already mentioned, our primary objective in 1960 was to find out if there was a casematewall hidden beneath the offsets/insets wall. The discovery of the palace in stratum IVB was a very important link in the clarification of the Solomonic stratum and its character,but our main problem had been the city's fortificationsduring that period. So we selected the section of the offsets/insets wall lying east of palace 6000. It became evident in no time that the portion close to the corner of the palace was completely demolished: both the offsets/insets wall and the upper courses of the corner were missing. Clearly this must have been the result of relatively late destruction. We started our trial trench, therefore, about ten meters east of the palace corner. After carefully peeling off the foundations of the offsets/insets wall, we hit a fill of earth and field stones, and immediately beneath it a casemate wall appeared! During that season we only managed to cut a few trenches, but they sufficed to give us the estimated plan of three casemates. However, in 1967 we removed further portions of the offsets/insets wall, so now we have (see Fig. 8) not only the plan of the above three

80

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIII,

casemates,but alsotwo moresmallercasematesnearthe fort,altogetherabout thirty-fivemetersin length. walls (exterThe casematesin that sectionare built of none-too-thick nal wall aboutone meter) with an averagedistanceof two metersbetween them. They are made of field stones(as a foundationfor a brickwall) like the Hazorwall. The length of the ordinarycasematesis aboutsevenmeters, but where the wall turnsat an obtuseangle towardsthe fort,there are two smallercasemates.The casematewall here is less strongthan the one at since the slope here is much higher Hazor,which is easily understandable and steeper,and in fact it is impossibleto attackthe city fromthat side.The 1967 dig proved- after we removedfurthersectionsof the offsets/insets wall - that althoughoccasionallydwellingswere built inside the city as a straightcontinuationof the casemates'crosswalls (similarto the casemate wall of Tell Beit Mirsimwhich also dates to the 10th century), there was no connectionbetween them (see in particularcasemates6008-6009-6010). After the 1960 and 1966 campaignsone problemstill remainedwhich I deemednecessaryto clarifythoroughlyand decisively.Since we uncovered the casematewall only in sections,we realizedthat its foundationslay on the burntlayerof stratumVIA. In otherwords,althoughwe could attribute it (counting downwards)to stratumIVB, one could argue that the casemate wall was in fact part of stratumVB, having been built on VIA. In that case the wall had been integratedinto and re-usedin the IVB fortifications. This appearedillogicalbecause,as we shall see later, there was no evidencethat city VA had been fortifiedat all. At any rate it was imperative to clarifythe point.To that end we formeda specialtaskforcein 1967 headedby the late I. Dunayevskywho was assistedby two of the ablestInstitute of Archaeologygraduates,their missionbeing to come up with an independentverdict on the stratigraphyof that section. Work here was deliberatelyslow, and carriedout with the most delicateof implements. excavationsmay Those who have never participatedin archaeological think that the greatestjoy of the excavatoris to find a hidden treasureor objectsof artisticmerit;this is not so! The big discoveryof 1967 at Megiddo was a few wretchedwalls seeminglyof no significance.In our case their was great. importance On April 6 (as usual on the last day but one beforethe end of the campaign)we discoveredthe walls of stratumV beneaththe walls of the casematewall and above the burnt layer of stratumVIA. Thus the circle closed:here too, as in the palace,we had proofthat the casematebelonged to stratumIVB, countingboth upwardsand downwards.Moreover,a slow areain the joint betweenthe and carefuldig even provedthat a stone-paved casematewall and the palace comer (the destroyedsection) touches and

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

1970, 3)

.;

% , ..

N

*01"!?

.-

81

.

,

Il

.

--.2IL

ai

-t

Fig. 9. The western casemates running away from palace 6000, appears in the foreground.

the western wall of which

82

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXIII,

leans directly on the palace, without any gap, and is built in accordancewith the expected turning of the casematewall. The Western

Casemate

From the start of our excavationwe discerned a wall-top made of ashlar stones and constructedmainly of headers, which appearedwest of the palace in a level below that of the solid wall and stables. That wall had already been uncovered by the Megiddo excavators, as can be seen in the aerial photograph published by them, although it was not marked on their maps. At the beginning of our dig there, it became apparent that the wall (56) was interruptedby openings at fixed intervals. Additional examinationproved that these openings lead to casematesof which the external, northern wall is built of large field stones, partially dressed, and extends in a westerly direc-

Fig.

looking north (from inside the city 10. A typical casemate to the west of palace 6000, in and stretchers at the lower left and the headers Note the entrance outward). The outer wall is built with field stones. the wall construction.

tion towards the city gate as a direct continuation of the northern wall of the palace. This wall too, was of course built below the offsets/insets wall. During the 1966 and 1967 campaigns we excavated the whole set of these casemates, even below their floors, until we hit upon stratumVB. Altogether we uncovered two complete casemates (6002-6003) and one half of another (6001; see Fig. 8). We did not manage to uncover the western part of 6001, because it was here that area DD of the Megiddo excavatorsbegan, and that is but an extension of the Schumacher trench. But by examining the

1970, 3)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

Fig. 11. Aerial view of the Megiddo mound in its northeast sector. The Schumacher the dark gash at the left. The offsets/insets wall can be seen all along the edge of the ruins, but a careful look will reveal fragments of the casemate of palace 6000. Photograph courtesy of the University of Chicago's Oriental

83

trench is northern wall and Institute.

84

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIII,

plans of the American excavators,it is possible to reconstruct the casemate and even discern the traces of a fourth casemate. We do not know what Schumacher discovered and nothing can be leart about this from his publications, but there seems to be no doubt that these casemates continued westwards to the gate. Theoretically, as we stated in our first report, it could be argued that the casematesbelonged to the northern part of a court which might have surrounded the fort. But during the 1966-67 seasons, after the southern comers of the fort and particularlythe remains of the huge structure to its south had also been discovered, it became clear that this did not make sense, since no turn of that imaginary court had been found. Was it possible that Schumacher and the American excavatorshad come upon the casemates between our trench and the gate, without discerning them? It is possible, since as we have already observed some sections were marked in their plans, while others uncovered by them were not. It is feasible, though, that the wall in this particularsection was deliberately demolished by the builders of the offsets/insets wall for its stones. From this particularportion, dug up by us, a very slanting slope begins as far as the gate, and it is conceivable that when the offsets/insets wall was built, the earlier wall could not serve to support it and the whole area had to be reorganized.The fact that here the casemates had been built on the very edge of the tell indicates clearly that they belong to the general line of the IVB fortifications. The casemates'floorsin this area yielded not only a whole complex of typical pottery (similar to the pottery in the palace) but brought to light the remains of a large structure from stratum VB, built completely of bricks on a course of field stones. Its plan, in addition to the other finds in this stratum which were unearthed by the Megiddo excavators (as well as the walls we had discovered below the eastern casemates), testify clearly that the poor city of stratum VB had not been fortified and certainly had no city gate. The houses were close together even on the edge of the tell and their external wall served as some kind of defense to this town. The Megiddo

Gates

Once we had established that Solomon's real VA-IVB city had been properly fortified and contained many splendid public buildings, we could try, even briefly, to clarify the complex of the Megiddo gates in the Israelite period. The problem is not easy, not only because most of the gates and especially the wall adjacent to them were destroyed by the excavators as they deepened their search, but also because the area had been excavatedby two separate excavators and some important details do not figure in their records. In order to grasp the complexity of the problems and our proposals concerning them, it might be best to follow briefly the developments of the fortificationsin Megiddo in the period preceding and following Solomon.

1970, 3)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

85

Since the offsets/insetswall was the only one to last to the end of Megiddoin the Iron age, and since on the other hand (as we shall see later) post-Solomonicgates were discoveredby the excavatorsin various strata,it was assumedrightly that the new gates had from time to time been integratedinto that wall. This is a naturalprocess,since generallythe surroundingsof the gate are destroyedwhere the enemy makeshis main Hence the offsets/insetswall carriedon throughstratumIII. break-through.

325

325

N

Em IVA

^^

m VA-IVB "VIA ~ ; meters

Fig. 12. The complex of city gates along the north edge of the Megiddo mound. The sturdy VIA gate appears under the six-chamber Solomonic gate.

The city in stratumII was unwalled,for a large fort was discoveredsoutheast of the northernstables,which had been partiallybuilt above the wall of the last city, namely the offsets/insetswall. Similarly,the last city in stratumI, of the Babylonianand Persianperiods,had been open and unwalled. As for the Ironage periodsbelow the Solomonicgate, in stratumVIIA, the magnificentsix-pilaster(or four-chambered) Bronzeage gate continued to exist. In stratumVIA a small but well-constructed gate was discovered (see Fig. 12). Directlyaboveit Solomonbuilt his gate, which was the first

86

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXIII,

to be constructedof drafted ashlaror diagonally dressedstones, as was typical at the beginning of the Israelite kingdom. The excavatorsassumed that the gate of VIA continued through VB, but had no facts to substantiatethe assumption. Let it be said right away that in a check we made in 1967 we ascertained that no gate existed in the VB city, a fact which fits in well with its unfortified character.Up to the time of our dig the principal difficulty in ascribing the Megiddo gates to the city walls was mainly in the discoveries above the Solomonic gate.

Fig. 13. Eastern half of the Solomonic gate as it looks today. Note the two phases; the original is founded on the ruins of the VIA gate, while the upper phase was built on the filling of the gate's chambers. One of the fillings can be seen between two piers; above it is the threshold of the gate of the latest level.

Above the ruins of Solomon's six-chamberedgate, P. L. O. Guy (the discoverer of the stables) discovered two additional gates. While unearthing the remains of the first, Guy thought it should be attributed to Solomon because it was bound to the offsets/insets wall (which, as mentioned, he had ascribed to Solomon) and was built of ashlar similar to those of stratum IV. But since in the 1935-36 campaign under Loud the six-chamberedgate had been found, the excavatorshad no doubt that the "Guy gate" was postSolomonic. However, as they ascribed the late phase of stratum IV to Solomon, they attributed the structureto Level III, the last fortified city. Then

1970, 3)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

87

a new difficulty arose when it was established without doubt that that gate (500) comprised in fact two gates, which from the stratigraphical-technical viewpoint belonged to separate periods and had different plans. Since both gates could only be ascribed to stratum III, the older of the two was labeled gate IIIB and the later gate III. As it was impossible to ascribe them to one single level from the historical viewpoint, the writers of the season's report came to the strange conclusion that in fact only one gate existed, gate III, while gate IIIB was taken to be a misconception, a mistaken beginning abandoned in due course in favor of the gate III plan. They seemed to think that all these alterations between gate IIIB and gate III were a result of sudden decisions arrived at in the course of building. Some scholars who disagreed with this and attributed gate IIIB to stratum IV found themselves then without a Solomonic wall.

Fig. 14. Megiddo gates of Strata IVA and III (the former in dashed shading and the latter in dotted shading), shown as they relate to the Solomonic gateway underneath, shown in outline.

Now, with the discovery of the casemate wall, it seems fusion can be dispelled: The six-chamberedgate (Solomon) - casemate wallThe four-chamberedgate (IIIB) - offsets/insets wall main phase. The two-chamberedgate (III) - offsets/insets wall -

that the constratum IVB stratum IV, stratum III.

88

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXIII,

This development in gate structure fits in well with what we know from other sites. In our first report following the 1960 digging season, we assumed that the offsets/insets wall was first built together with the four-chamberedgate (IIIB). After the 1966 and particularly the 1967 seasons (when we made small sections in the vicinity of the gates), we arrived at the conclusion that while the offsets/insets wall was first built by Jeroboam I (?) following Shishak's destruction, it was still leaning on Solomon's gate (which had apparently not been demolished by Shishak, a fact further attested by its condition when unearthed) except that its level had had to be raised. For the moment we will designate it IVA1. This conjecture is further substantiated by the fact that the gate does indeed have two separate floor levels. The Megiddo excavators assumed that the magnificent construction, mostly of well-dressed ashlars, was only the gate's foundation. But this assumption (based mainly on the lack of a wall in its main phase) had one great stumbling block: not only were the chambersdiscoveredto be filled up and bordered by secondary walls (of field stones) blocking them off towards the gateway, but even the gate's entrances, external and internal, were blocked by thick supporting walls made of field stones. Had the builders really planned the portion of the gate which was discovered as a mere foundation, they would certainly have built it differently, incorporating the supporting and revetment walls into the structure. Moreover, they would certainly not have built it of well-dressed ashlars (as is known from examples in Samaria, Ramat Rahel, etc., where the foundations are built of drafted stones and only the walls on top of them of well-dressedstones). On the other hand, when the offsets/insets wall was joined in the higher level, its' builders had no alternative but to block the gate and raise its level. Accordingly the Megiddo excavatorswere bound to find a lower level in the gate's construction,which indeed existed. Below the level of the road leading to the later gates, the excavators discovered a road made of well pressed chalk. That level leads towards the lower courses of the six-chamberedgate. However, since they assumed the gate structureto be but a foundation, the excavators attributed that level of pressed chalk to the stratum VB gate. But we have already ascertained that that level had neither fortificationsnor gate. In fact, the lower courses, partly covered by the road, are the very foundation courses of Solomon's gate, and not of gate V, which as explained, did not exist at all. Thus Solomon's gate was well founded on the foundations of gate VI, and its structurewas solid, a fact which had been also recognized by Miss Kenyon. The problem is complex indeed and we are able here to show only some schematic plans preparedby the late I. Dunayevsky. The final report will have detailed maps and plans in which the remains of the structurein-

1970, 3)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

89

Fig. 15. Gallery 629 seen from the air. Note the typical header-and-stretcher method of construction.

side the city (near the gates) will also be incorporatedin accordancewith our above conclusions. The Water Systems

-

Israelite

and Not Canaanite

I would like to end the description of our short excavations with the problem of the dating of the gigantic water system of Megiddo. To illuminate the problem and its reference to our excavations let us briefly describe the system and the dates attributed to it by the previous excavators.

90

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXIII,

One of the most interesting and spectacularstructures discovered by the Megiddo excavators in the southeastern edge of the tell, west of but near the southern stable complex (1579), was labeled by them gallery 629. This gallery is only a narrow passage, slightly over a meter in width, leading from the city outwards towards the southwestern slope of the tell, at the bottom of which the well-known spring-caveexists. The passage walls (revetment walls of which only the internal face was well-built) were constructed of well-dressed ashlars, laid header and stretcher fashion (Fig. 15). The discovered walls stood up to two meters high. One may assume as the excavatorsdid, that the passagewas coveredand camouflagedand led towards the spring. Stratigraphicallyspeaking, the passage is under the offsets/insets wall (which was considered Solomonic) and for that reason it was assumed that the "gallery"had been built before Solomon; however, since it was impossible to ascribe this magnificent structure to the relatively poor strata of the 11th century, it was attributedto Rameses III, namely stratum VIIA, in which Megiddo still retained some of its erstwhile splendor. Fixing the gallery's date was a cardinal point of departure for R. Lamon, the archaeologist who published the report on the Megiddo water systems, as well as for the dating of the famous Megiddo water tunnel. That tunnel consists of two parts: a vertical shaft (925) and a horizontal tunnel (1000) conducting the water towards the shaft. The upper part of the shaft was cut through layers of accumulation of the earlier strata, and its walls were lined with stone. Its lower part, on the other hand, was rock-cut. To achieve its main purpose, namely water supply in time of siege, it was necessary to block the cave opening from the outside, so as to prevent the enemy from poisoning or blocking the spring water. Sure enough, the cave entrance was discovered by the Megiddo excavators to be blocked by a wall of huge stones. At first they sought to determine the date of the tunnel's quarrying through the identification of the latest stratum through whose ruined layers the shaft was dug. It became apparent,though, that the highest stratumwhich carried clear evidence of destruction by the shaft contained sherds from the Late Bronze age, the 14th-13thcenturies. The excavatorscould not check conditions above that stratumsince the strataabove the excavatedshaft collapsed in antiquity together with part of the stone lining of its walls. They concluded, therefore, that the shaft was quarried later than the 14th-13th centuries or at their end. Another point of departure that was important in the dating, was the fact that by the cave entrance (inside the blocking wall 1007) a man's burnt skeleton was found. Lamon assumed that the man must have been the cave's guard who was killed in enemy attack and since there was no point in guarding the cave after it had been blocked, the guard most probably died before the shaft and tunnel were cut, while the citizens of

1970, 1970, 3)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST ARCHAEOLOGIST

91 91

Megiddo still had access to the spring by an external way on the slope. The fact that the latest pottery found belonged to the 12th century brought about the assumption that the cave's blocking and therefore also the quarrying of the shaft and tunnel were executed in the middle of, rather than before, the 12th century. But let us resume the problem of the gallery. Lamon assumed rightly that the gallery's function was to make the spring accessible before the quarrying of the tunnel and shaft. Therefore, in his opinion it belonged to the first half of the 12th century.

629

Fig. 16. Plan of gallery 629, showing how it cut structures of VIA (darker shading) and the skimpier remains of VB (lighter shading). A New Attack on the Problem

Having ascertained already in 1960 that the offsets/insets wall was post-Solomonic, there was no further reason to assume that the gallery preceded Solomon. On the contrary, the gallery's stratigraphicalcircumstances were identical with those of the southern palace and all the other structures in stratum IVB. Moreover, the manner of its construction and stone dressing matched to a surprisingdegree the constructionmethods of that stratum. In 1960 we scraped the vicinity of the gallery a little, just enough to realize that its foundation was built into the fallen burt bricks of stratum VIA. We assumedtherefore again that it was built after the destructionof stratum VIA but before the offsets/insets wall, and so we said in our preliminary

92

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXIII,

report of that campaign. It follows that the quarried water system was built at the end of Solomon's or Rehoboam'speriod, or - as seems to us more likely now - at the beginning of the Divided Monarchy. The dating of the water system is of paramount importance and for that reason we decided in 1966 to check our assupmtions by excavating. The method was simple enough: since it was obvious that the gallery had been dug into previous strata (a fact that was evident also from its walls, which, as previously mentioned, were actually revetment walls, well finished where they faced the passage and roughly built towards the edges) we selected a square adjacent to the gallery on its south, and began to excavate it thoroughly. Our purpose was to determine the upper strata damaged through the gallery's quarrying. We were fortunate indeed. We succeeded in descending to stratum VIIA and discovering the whole array of strata familiar from other

j

S

Fig. 17. Mason's mark on one of the cut blocks from gallery 629, identical with one of those used in Solomonic structures elsewhere at Megiddo.

areas, and even in enriching the pottery repertoire of some. It became decidedly clear that the gallery's quarrying damaged both stratum VIA and VB (see Fig. 16). Thus the gallery was squeezed stratigraphicallyspeaking, both when counting from top to bottom and when counting from bottom to top. It was built in stratum IVB just like the other palaces and Solomon's gate. Had we needed further proof for the attribution of the gallery to stratum IVB, we now had it by chance. Since the excavation of the gallery by the first excavatorsof Megiddo, some of its stones had come loose and fallen to the ground. On overturning one such stone we noticed that it bore a mason's mark (Fig. 17) identical with marks discovered in the stratum IVB structuresand in secondary use in stratum IV. It follows that the shaft and tunnel are later than Solomon and must have been cut at the beginning of the 9th century, during the reign of Omri's house. Following the above finds, we succeeded in discovering also in Hazor a similar water system from the same period. In the 1967 campaign at

1970, 3)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

93

Megiddo we made several trial trenches outside the cave entrance in order to find out the history of its use through earlier periods. The dig was rather complicated and it is impossible to enumerate all its details here. It would suffice to state that we have sufficientproof that the cave and spring, together with the hewn steps leading to it from the outside and supporting and revetment walls, were used largely in the Middle Bronze II period. An Additional

Water System

While were were busy examining the Israelite strata, we decided to check an additional find of the earlier excavators. Under the city gates and related to the road leading towards them, a well built staircasewas discovered, which seemed to have been roofed. The Megiddo excavators had not completed its excavation and in their report they suggest that these stairs may have been part of a "pedestrian"approach. That interpretation made no sense and seemed to apply modem problems to ancient times. It made more sense to assume that the staircaseled to an additional source of water in the north, which may have been connected with the other spring of Megiddo discovered near the Jenin-Haifa road. To verify all this we had to dig at the bottom of the steps. To start with we removed the large earth dumps with the aid of mechanical equipment. After a few days we discovered the continuation of the stairs turning east at a right angle towards a well-plastered pool. It was clear, thus, that this was no entrance to the city but a descent from the city to the water. We did not complete our examination in this spot and cannot therefore say with certainty whether the water source was a pool that was filled by canal from the spring or from some other reservoir. One thing was clear: we had encountered a second water system, approximatelyfrom Ahab's period, which may have served in times of peace, since it was located beyond the city's main fortifications. Conclusions

Let us sum up the dates and characterof the cities from the beginning of the Iron age. Stratum VIIA, the first Iron age stratum, can be clearly attributed to the period from Ramses III to Ramses VI on account of the objects which bear their respective names. Here it was that a considerable amount of early Philistine pottery was found, and one can assume that this city had a garrison of Sea people. The city erected on the ruins of VIIA was VIB, differing considerably from its predecessor;judging by its buildings and their style, it could not have been a sizable city. A large amount of middle-phasePhilistine pottery was found here. This city's earliest possible date is 1150, and probablyabout 1120. It did not last long and it most probably was destroyed in the first half of the 11th century. The most important town at Megiddo following the destruction of VIIA and preceding its reconstructionby Solomon was

94

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIII,

Fig. 18. Staircase beneath the city gates and leading down the slope near the access roads, now shown to be part of water system probably from Ahab's time in the 9th century B.C.

undoubtedly the city of stratum VIA. It was newly planned, and in various places large and spacious structures were discovered. Noteworthy is also the density of the settlement at that time. All houses were built of

1970, 3)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

95

bricks on stone foundations. Finds here were particularlyrich, among them lots of metal tools. Outstanding are the Philistine pots of the third, degenerate phase. This city was demolished by a fire of which traces are visible all over. The thick layers of ashes, the burnt bricks and the profusion of pottery are so typical that it is impossible to mistake its identity in every area. T. Dothan, in her book on the Philistines, has proved conclusively that the culture of this stratum is comparable to that of Tell Qasile X in the second half of the 11th century. It is interesting to note that the earliest iron tools appear both in Tell Qasile and in Megiddo. There is no doubt that Megiddo VIA was a developed Canaanite-Philistine city typical of the Canaanite-Philistineculture of Saul's days, when the Philistines dominated all metal craft (I Sam. 13:19). This city was completely destroyed, probably by David, as suggested by a number of scholars, notably Mazar. It was followed by a tiny hamlet in VB, or at least by an open city devoid of wall and gate. We come now to city IVB-VA. With the new discoveries there seems no doubt that this was Solomon's city, not only because the Bible says specifically that Solomon built Megiddo, but also because all the pottery and architecturalevidence (the style of stone dressing and the building plans) point that way. No more are we confronted with a single fort, but with a metropolis with stately buildings of official and ceremonial character. This city is surrounded by a casemate wall with a gigantic gate of six chambers and two towers, and has a secret passage (the gallery) leading to the water spring. This passage is built in the same style as the other IVB structures and adds proof to the existence of a wall around the city. Similar to the Solomonic gate, the structures of this city, too, are the earliest to be built in the Phoenician style (with its typical margin dressing) widely adopted in Solomon's days according to the Bible. One might even assume that the southern palace was the residence of Solomon's governor (Ba'ana son of Ahilud; I Kings 4:12), while the northern (6000) Bit hilani type served ceremonial purposes and perhaps even for the king himself whenever he visited Megiddo. I have already mentioned that we found the palace floors strewn with many pots, mostly broken, which serves to testify to the enormous destructionof Megiddo in the days of Rehoboam, following Shishak's campaign. A fragment of a stele of this Pharaoh found on the tell during the earlier excavations confirms this decisively. The city that was built on top of the Solomonic ruins, was quite different in character and plan. It was not just an administrativecity but a chariot city (of up to 450 horses), well fortified, with a water system for times of siege, and of course a governor'sresidence (338). In this stratum (IV) some repairs are visible, and there seems no doubt that it was used

96

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXIII,

over a long period, reaching its height most probably in Ahab's days, as is hinted in an important inscription of Shalmaneser III. It seems that among the coalition forces fighting against him in the battle of Qarqar (853 B.C.) Ahab's chariot force (2000 chariots) was the biggest of the lot! But even before Ahab's days we know of chariotry in Israel. Zimri for example (I Kings 16:9) is called "commanderof half his chariots;"it is possible that that "half" was based in Megiddo. I have already mentioned when discussing the gates that the beginning of the offsets/insets wall could be attributed to Jeroboam I or one of the kings that preceded the House of Omri. It is interesting to note that the Megiddo excavators tended to ascribe this city to Solomon because of the biblical reference to chariot cities built by him. On the other hand, it is mentioned nowhere that Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer were chariot cities. Another interesting fact is that neither in Hazor nor in Gezer were stables discovered in the Solomonic stratum (or for that matter in any other strata). Megiddo's greatness as a fortified until its city in Ahab's times must have continued - as with Hazordestruction by Tiglath-Pileser in 733. During that long period, probably nearer its beginning, the four-chambered gate was built. A new city, quite different in plan, was built on the ruins of city IV, characterizedmainly by several large buildings with a central court in the Assyrian style (as shown by I. Dunayevsky and R. Amiran). There seems to be no doubt that it must be attributed to the Assyrian conquest, when Megiddo became an important military-administrativecenter, in which the two chambered-gatewas built. City II was an open city, with a large fort built on top of the wall among its other features. Those who ascribe this stratum to Josiah may be right. Thus comes to an end the history of IsraeliteMegiddo and with it, this short survey. We hope soon to be able to publish the full report of our excavations with plans and drawings of the pottery and other finds, so that all scholars can check our conclusions, criticize them, and, we hope, accept them. If as a result of our excavations we have deprived Solomon of his famous stables, we may console ourselves that we have returned to its glory his real city which was no less magnificent than the cities of the northern kings of Israel who ruled after him.