The Gate of Megiddo and the Debate on the 10th Century (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Iron Age Gates of Megiddo: New Evidence and Updated Interpretations
Tel Aviv, 2019
Excavations carried out in the summer of 2018 shed new light on the entire system of four super-imposed Iron Age gates at Megiddo, including the celebrated ‘Solomonic gate’, which has played a pivotal role in biblical archaeology discussions since the 1930s. A fragmentary gate, earliest in the system (Gate 3165) dates to Stratum VIA in the late Iron I and was destroyed along with the entire city represented by this layer. The six-chambered ‘Solomonic gate’ (Gate 2156) was built during the days of Stratum VA-IVB in the late Iron IIA—the time of the Omride dynasty. Remains of two additional gates—of four and two chambers (described here as Gates 500b and 500a)—date to the time of Strata IVA and III (both Iron IIB) respectively.
The Political History of Megiddo in the Early Iron Age and the Ambiguities of Evidence
Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History, 2022
This article reviews the major problems in the political history of Megiddo during the early Iron Age (Iron Age I–IIA), at the time of the early monarchic period in Israel (eleventh–ninth centuries BCE). Megiddo has been central to an ongoing debate over the nature of the early monarchic period in Israel and the exact chronology of the Iron Age I–IIA periods. This importance derives both from the extensive excavations of the relevant strata at Megiddo (VIA, VB and VA-IVB) as well as Megiddo’s appearance in relevant historical sources, namely the Hebrew Bible, which claims that Solomon “built” Megiddo, and its appearance in the campaign list of pharaoh Sheshonq I. Though the fragment of a stela of Sheshonq I was found at Megiddo, it was only found after having been discarded and so its stratigraphic attribution is unclear. Radiocarbon dating from these strata has assisted to some degree but still left dating and historical questions quite open. This article will demonstrate that the political history of Megiddo during the early Iron Age is beset with ambiguities in the evidence, which have been divided into seven ambiguities for the purpose of the discussion here. When these ambiguities are taken into account, it becomes clear that the interpreter has much latitude in making their reconstruction, specifically in how they date strata and associate them with putative historical developments. Different cases can be made for associating particular strata and their termination with Solomon, Sheshonq or even later kings, but none can claim to objectively be the correct or superior reconstruction.
Stratigraphic discussion of the “Solomonic” city gate at Megiddo (with notification of change)
(Please note that the 2018 excavation found new evidence which affects the conclusion presented below. Read the notification of change in the front matter of the paper.) This paper deals with the controversy about Megiddo’s six-chambered gate (Gate 2156) which was ascribed by Yigael Yadin to the Solomonic building program mentioned in 1 Kings 9:15: “And this is the reason of the tribute work which king Solomon raised in order to build the house of JHWH, and his own house, and the Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, and Megiddo, and Gezer.” In the late 1950ies, Yadin had discovered similarities between the six-chambered gates at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, and therefore dated those structures to the reign of Solomon in the 10th century BC. But there are very strong arguments against this dating. The discussion mainly concentrates on stratigraphy: Gate 2156 lies in Stratum IVA (High Chronology: 9th-8th century BC; Low Chronology: 8th century BC). However, if Solomon is considered the builder of Gate 2156, we would expect it to lie in Megiddo’s Stratum VA-IVB (High Chronology: 10th century BC) or even an earlier stratum according to Low Chronology. This is why some scholars put forward that Gate 2156 had an earlier phase in Stratum VA-IVB. My personal conclusion is that there are some noteworthy hints that Gate 2156 once had a Str. VA-IVB floor at the level around the second ashlar course. Advocates of the High Chronology and of the historicity of Solomon – among whom I count myself – could thus indeed opine that Gate 2156 was constructed under Solomon’s reign. But firstly, this kind of argumentation is quite weak from an epistemological point of view: in order to connect archaeological finds to historical events and people, it is not sufficient that nothing prevents such a connection, but there has to be clear evidence for it. Secondly, all the typological arguments pointing in favor of Yadin’s theory have been refuted: A close reading of 1 Kings 9:15 does not support the idea that the fortifications of Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer must be similar. Moreover, there are also six-chambered gates in Philistine Ashdod and Judean Lachish, and those two cannot have Solomon as their builder. Thirdly, there is no convincing evidence for the required hypothetical floor: If we assume an earlier stage of Gate 2156 in Str. VA-IVB, we must assume that the Chicago excavators had made mistakes in their documentation. That is not impossible, but we should be careful with this reproach. To conclude, there are strong objections to an earlier phase of Gate 2156, so from an epistemological point of view, it is safer to date Gate 2156 to the 9th-8th century BC. Therefore, Megiddo’s six-chambered gate most probably cannot be ascribed to Solomon.
2006
The Megiddo pillared buildings had been discovered by the Oriental Institute's team in the 1920s and a short while later were identified by P.L.O. Guy as stables associated with King Solomon (1931:37-48; see also Lamon and Shipton 1939:32-47, 59). Guy based his interpretation on two biblical references: the mention of the building activity of Solomon at Megiddo in I Kgs. 9:15, and the reference to Solomonic cities for chariots and horsemen in I Kgs. 9:19. Guy's theory was widely accepted and remained the standard explanation for the function of the Megiddo pillared buildings for the next forty years. 1 This changed in the early 1970s, with the discovery of somewhat similar buildings at Tel Beer-sheba, packed with hundreds of pottery vessels in their side-aisles (Aharoni 1973:15). Consequently, Aharoni (ibid: 15-17; 1982:222-225) and Herzog (1973; 1992: 223-228), the excavators of the site, proposed that the pillared buildings of this type – at Tel Beer-sheba, Megiddo and other places – functioned as storehouses. 2 The debate became even more complicated with the introduction of two additional interpretations for the pillared buildings of the Iron Age: that they functioned as army barracks (Fritz 1977), or as market places (Herr 1988). Though the buildings at Megiddo and Tel Beer-sheba (as well as structures unearthed at other sites) are quite similar in their plan, there are marked differences between them in size, location in the city, quality of construction, etc. The Megiddo buildings are by far more monumental than all other buildings of this type. They are also unique in that they have a large courtyard in front of the southern complex, and a smaller though spacious courtyard in the space between the three sets of the northern complex (see Chapters 8 and 43). In addition, Megiddo is the only place where sets of pillared buildings cover a large portion of the area of the site. Whatever their function, the city of Stratum IVA seems to have been devoted to the function of these buildings. The Megiddo pillared buildings are therefore a unique phenomenon. As in the case of the 'four room house', the tripartite pillared building type could have been used for a variety of functions (Mazar 1990:476-478). Our goal is to deal with the Megiddo buildings only,and the following remarks do not necessarily apply to other sites where buildings of this type were uncovered. This chapter addresses the three main questions related to the Megiddo buildings: the date of their construction; their function; and the historical circumstances that brought about the transformation of Megiddo into the hub of a unilateral industry.
This study reexamines the fate of Megiddo at the turn of the thirteenth century BCE. While the overall evidence precludes that the city of Stratum VIIB ended in a full-fledged destruction, the data are suggestive of a traumatic event of some sort, perceived in varying intensity in different areas of the mound. It is maintained that this disruption includes the violent destruction of the palace. This notion has previously been refuted by Ussishkin, who reconstructed a (single) destruction of the palace at the end of Stratum VIIA. Yet, Ussishkin’s paradigm seems to founder on architectural grounds. In historical terms, this event at Megiddo occurred either at the end of the Nineteenth Dynasty, a time of instability in Egypt, or already in the early reign of Ramesses III.
Crisis in motion: the final days of Iron Age I Megiddo
Levant, 2023
The destruction of Iron I Megiddo in the early 10th century BCE was a momentous event in the history of the southern Levant. It marked an abrupt break in the long cultural development of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Despite extensive field research, essential questions related to this event remain unanswered, especially regarding the processes that took place in the city immediately before its destruction. In this article, findings from recent excavations in the southeastern sector of the mound, where a detailed Iron I stratigraphic sequence was explored, are reported. In addition, finds from two nearby areas previously excavated were re-evaluated, focusing mostly on contextual aspects of the osteological data. This study sheds light on the deterioration of the city in the decades preceding its final demise, and suggests that the event was caused by human agents rather than a natural disaster. It also hints that in its last days, Megiddo may have been besieged, which explains the peculiar reappearance of intra-mural burials at the site. The case of Iron I Megiddo provides a high-resolution snapshot of actions taken by the inhabitants of a Near Eastern city on the eve of a major crisis.
Davide Nadali, 2014-15, The Northern Gate at Tell Mardikh-Ebla: An Attempt at Reconstruction
Excavated in the years 1999-2001 within the programme of archaeological exploration of the defensive system of the ancient city of Ebla, the Northern Gate (labelled as Aleppo Gate) in Area DD has been only partially investigated. In particular, excavations showed the organization of the defensive system on the external eastern side of the rampart with the presence of a tower (following the line of the earthen rampart) and rooms, probably workshops or places for commercial and industrial activities. Despite the lack of any evidence of the typical architectural structure of Middle Bronze gates, the present paper attempts a reconstruction of the organization and arrangement of spaces, based on the comparison with the two most complete and well-preserved gates of Ebla in Area A (South-West) and Area BB (North-East).