William G. Devera <\/b><\/p>\n
Introduction<\/b><\/p>\n
The \u201cUnited Monarchy\u201d in ancient Israel spans barely a century, covering the reigns of the first three kings of Israel: Saul (ca<\/i>. 1020\u20131000 BC); David (ca<\/i>. 1000\u2013960 BC); and Solomon (ca<\/i>. 960\u2013918 BC). The basic historical and chronological framework for the period is derived principally from the Hebrew Bible itself, especially the books of 1-2 Samuel and 1 Kings, together with the more or less parallel account in Chonicles.<\/p>\n
There are, nevertheless, several shortcomings of this outline. First is the obvious fact that the literary source materials, together with their interpretations, originated and were perpetuated in courtly and priestly circles, and were thus \u201cestablishment-oriented.\u201d The focus is almost exclusively on public happenings, particularly large-scale political events, or on the deeds of prominent figures such as kings and prophets. Completely missing is the private history of other individuals; that is, we have nothing of such literary genres as biography, belles lettres<\/i>, and other primary historical documents.<\/p>\n
The second problem is one that concerns us here. Is it possible to correlate the literary with the non-literary remains increasingly available, i.e., archaeological discoveries, and thus to correct and supplement the bare historical outline previously available? This general goal has been foremost in the topographical and archaeological investigation of the Holy Land for more than a century. Indeed, the quest to reconstruct from external sources a historical background for written Biblical history has been partially successful for several epochs\u2014notably the period of the Judges and the later Divided Monarchy, where archaeology has supplied numerous, surprisingly detailed data not recorded in the Bible, and moreover has provided corroboration for specific <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 69<\/p>\n
events which are mentioned. But it must be admitted that until very recently Palestinian and Biblical archaeology have been surprisingly silent regarding the United Monarchy, a period which not only was truly formative for ancient Israel but also witnessed the first flourishing of the material culture and the development of monumental art and architecture, which should have left the clearest imprint on the archaeological record.<\/p>\n
The period in question, from roughly 1000 to 900 BC, corresponds in archaeological terms almost exactly to the \u201cIron IC\u201d of Albright and most American authorities, or to the \u201cIron IIA\u201d of Israeli archaeologists. The difference in terminology is more archaeological than historical; i.e., it represents the divergent views of specialists on the stratigraphic and ceramic continuity\/discontinuity at several key sites (fig. 1). Two observations concerning this divergence of opinion may be helpful. First, the \u201carchaeology of Palestine\u201d is not necessarily limited to, or even parallel with, the \u201chistory of ancient Israel,\u201d so scholarly schemes for subdivisions in these two disciplines need not correspond exactly. In particular we must not expect that various systems of Biblical chronology can dictate archaeological terminology, even in the Iron Age or so-called \u201cIsraelite\u201d period. Second, the absolute chronology of the historical events is what really matters, and that can be fixed both by internal as well as by international synchronisms. Whether we designate the United Monarchy as late Iron I or early Iron II in archaeological parlance, there can be no question that (1) in absolute chronology it is set in the 10th century BC; and (2) in the relative course of actual political and cultural developments in ancient Israel, this brief period is a distinct entity, set off from the tumultuous, formative centuries of the period of the Judges preceding it, as well as from the largely separate histories of the states of Israel and Judah flowing from it in the 9th-7th centuries BC.<\/p>\n
I. Sites, Distribution, Stratigraphy<\/b><\/p>\n
Before we can appreciate the specific, individual archaeological discoveries which illumine this period, we must characterize the chief sites and their distribution, their state of excavation and publication, and the stratigraphic problems confronted in the scholarly literature.<\/p>\n
The pertinent archaeological sites and strata known to date are so few that virtually all can be schematized in a simple stratigraphic chart (fig. 1). We shall discuss them in geographical order, moving from north to south (cf. the map, fig. 2).<\/p>\n
A. Galilee<\/b><\/p>\n
In Galilee, especially Upper Galilee, surface survey has revealed many small 12th-11th century Israelite settlements founded on virgin soil, but many of these apparently were abandoned by the 10th century, and few of the larger, centralized towns and cities that had developed to replace them by the early Monarchy have been extensively excavated.<\/p>\n
1. Dan, later the northernmost boundary of Israel, is to be identified with the 50-acre mound of Tell el-Qadi, on the Lebanese border. It was partially excavated by A. Biran in 1966\u201381 and brought to light on the south slopes a monumental three-entryway city gate and solid <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 70<\/p>\n
Fig. 1. Stratigraphic chart showing major Israelite sites of the 11th-10th centuries BC. Arrows indicate destruction level.<\/b><\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 71<\/p>\n
Fig. 2. Map of principal 10th century BC sites in ancient Israel, north of the Negev.<\/b><\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 72<\/p>\n
offsets\/insets wall. The excavator dated these constructions to the time of Jeroboam I, in the late 10th century BC, but Aharoni, on the basis of supposed parallels with Megiddo and Beersheba, has argued for a Davidic date. Only the gate plan is published, but the preliminary reports suggest a 10th\/9th century date. Little can be attributed to the United Monarchy, suggesting that the site attained its prominence only in the late 10th century BC and thereafter, when it became one of the royal sanctuaries of the Northern Kingdom under Jeroboam I.<\/p>\n
Fig. 3. Acropolis at Hazor (after Yadin, Hazor: The Rediscovery of a Great City of the Bible<\/i>, p. 195).<\/b><\/p>\n
2. At the great 180-acre mound of Hazor, in Upper Galilee near the Huleh basin (Tell el-Qedah), excavated by Y. Yadin and others in 1952\u201358, Str. XB-A of the Upper City is securely dated to the mid-late 10th century BC. The Israelite settlement of the period was apparently restricted to a fortified citadel comprising ca<\/i>. 6.5 acres, of which only a stretch of casemate wall and a fine four-entryway gate were exposed in Area A (below and fig. 3).<\/p>\n
3. At cEn-gev (Kh. el-Asheq), on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, in 1961 B. Mazar and A. Biran excavated a solid city wall of Str. V and a casemate wall of Str. IV in Area I, which appear to be, respectively, Davidic and Solomonic. Virtually no domestic remains were investigated. The evidence indicates a small, though heavily fortified, Israelite citadel.<\/p>\n
4. At the great site of Megiddo (Tell el-Mutesellim) in the Jezreel Valley, the 1925\u201339 excavations of the University of Chicago <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 73<\/p>\n
under Fisher, Guy, and Loud partially cleared structures of the Davidic period (Str. VB), as well as a four entryway city gate and a \u201cpalace\u201d (1723) of Solomonic construction, i.e., Str. \u201cVA\/IVB,\u201d as reconstructed from the faulty Chicago stratigraphy by Albright, Wright, and others. Later soundings by Y. Yadin in 1960\u201367 removed the so-called Solomonic stables from our consideration by dating them to Str. IVA of the 9th century BC, but also added another large casemated residence (\u201cPalace 6000\u201d) and definitive proof that beneath the wrongly-dated offsets\/insets wall (now Str. IVA), there lay the true casemate wall going with the Str. VA\/IVB Solomonic gate (below and fig. 4). Archaeological investigation has thus confirmed that Megiddo was one of the most prominent Solomonic provincial administrative centers, as already suggested by 1 Kings 9:15.<\/p>\n
5. A sister site in the Jezreel Valley, Tacanach (Tell Tacannek), was excavated in 1963\u201368 by P.W. Lapp and revealed a \u201ccultic structure\u201d and a bizarre Astarte incense-stand probably of the 10th century BC. But it would appear that since Tacanach\u2019s occupational history was complementary to that of its more powerful neighbor Megiddo to the northwest, it was largely deserted during the Solomonic heyday of that site.<\/p>\n
6. A minor site in the eastern Jezreel Valley, TelcAmal, near Beth-Shean was investigated in 1962\u201366 by G. Edelstein and S. Levy. Stratum IV-III belong apparently to the 10th century BC, but the few small houses and other remains indicate nothing more than an Israelite village of the period.<\/p>\n
7. Toward the extreme west of the Jezreel, at the promontory of Mt. Carmel on the Bay of Acco, Shiqmona (Tell es Samak) has been cleared by J. Elgavish (1963\u20131979). Shiqmona has produced a casemate wall and two \u201cfour-room\u201d houses attributed by the excavator to Town A of the late 10th century BC, but uncertain stratigraphy and lack of publication preclude our saying anything more.<\/p>\n
8. Tell Abu Hawam (identification uncertain), on the Bay of Acco near the banks of the Kishon River, is not certainly an Israelite site until Str. III (mid-late 10th century BC), but in the clearance of Str. IVB by R.W. Hamilton in 1932 an early \u201cfour-room\u201d building of Israelite type was discovered.<\/p>\n
B. Samaria<\/b><\/p>\n
Here the Israelite occupation was evidently much more intensive, since, as Alt argued long ago, the absence of Canaanite domination in the hill country gave ready access to the incoming tribes.<\/p>\n
1. Tirzah (Tell el-Farcah N.), in the hills at the head of the cAin Farcah, was excavated by Pere R. de Vaux from 1946\u201360. Though one of the earliest capitals of the Northern Kingdom in the 9th century, Tirzah in the 10th century exhibits only a few \u201ccourtyard\u201d houses of Israelite type (Str. IIIb) and was evidently little more than a small town.<\/p>\n
2. Shechem (Tell Bal\u00e2tah), one of the principal Israelite centers of the premonarchical period, was the focus of important American excavations led by G. E. Wright and others (1956\u201368), J. D. Seger (1969), and W. G. Dever (1972\u201373). However, the 10th century BC is represented only by Str. XI, which consists of some pottery and traces of a late 10th century destruction, probably attributable to Pharaoh Shishak, ca<\/i>. 918 BC, and an Iron II rebuild of Casemate Wall B <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 74<\/p>\n
Fig. 4. Key plan of Megiddo in Str. IVA, IVB\/VA (after Yadin, Hazor<\/i>, the Head of all Those Kingdoms,<\/i> p. 153, fig. 39).<\/b><\/p>\n
near the Northwest Gate in Field IV, possibly attributable to Str. IX.<\/p>\n
3. Samaria (Sabastiyeh), as is well known from both the Biblical and archaeological sources, became the capital of the newly divided Northern Kingdom only in the 9th century BC, under the Omrides, but the work of the Joint Expedition in 1931\u201335 revealed a few sherds which indicate possibly a pre-Omride settlement.<\/p>\n
4. Gibeon (Tell el-J\u00eeb) was excavated from 1956\u201362 by J. B. Pritchard, but the only Israelite elements which appear to be earlier than Iron II are the upper water tunnel and possibly a reuse phase of an earlier city wall.<\/p>\n
5. Gibeah (Tell el-F\u00fbl), on the northern outskirts of Jerusalem, was sounded in 1922\u201323 and 1933 by W. F. Albright, who acclaimed a small tower-citadel (Fortress II) as \u201cSaul\u2019s rude fortress.\u201d The date was substantially confirmed by P. W. Lapp\u2019s salvage campaign in 1964, which dated the casemate phase much later (Period III) but clarified the existence of the fort itself in \u201cBuilding Period IIA-B,\u201d ca<\/i>. 1025\u2013950 BC. Thus, the structure may be in fact Saul\u2019s early palace, but alternately it may have been a Philistine citadel. In any case its plan and contents, not yet fully published, reveal little that is distinctly Israelite, much less of \u201croyal\u201d dimensions.<\/p>\n
6. Jerusalem, despite its being the Solomonic capital, has thus far revealed no trace of Iron Age remains in situ<\/i> earlier than the 9th\/8th centuries BC. Scattered soundings throughout the past century and more systematic excavations by K. M. Kenyon in 1962\u201367 and by several Israeli excavators, principally B. <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 75<\/p>\n
Mazar, N. Avigad, and Y. Shiloh since 1967, have not yet reached these deep levels, or more likely have failed to recover the fragmentary remains left by frequent destructions and continuous rebuilding in later periods.<\/p>\n
C. The Shephelah and Coastal Plain<\/b><\/p>\n
This region in general was not occupied by the Israelites until the Davidic-Solomonic period, and even then not effectively controlled.<\/p>\n
1. Beth-shemesh (tell er-Rumeileh), a dominant \u201cbuffer-zone\u201d site near the mouth of the Vale of Elah, was excavated by E. Grant in 1928\u201333. Despite faulty stratigraphy, it has been shown that Str. IIa is probably Davidic and IIb Solomonic. The principal elements which indicate the establishment of an Israelite settlement on this erstwhile Philistine site (Str. III) are an early casemate city wall, a large \u201cresidency,\u201d and a typical \u201cFour-room\u201d structure of \u201cIsraelite\u201d type which is possibly a granary.<\/p>\n
2. Gezer, guarding the entrance to the Ajalon Valley at the juncture of the Coastal Plain and the northern Shephelah, was excavated early in the century (1902\u201309) by R. A. S. Macalister. However, only the modern excavations of W. G. Dever, H. D. Lance, and others in 1964\u201373 clarified and correctly dated the splendid four-entryway city gate and casemate wall of Field III to the Solomonic period (Macalister\u2019s \u201cMaccabean Castle\u201d; below and fig. 5). <\/p>\n
Fig. 5. Plan of Gezer, showing structures revealed by excavations of Macalister (1902\u201309) and Dever et al. (1964\u201371; after Dever et al., Gezer I, pl. 1).<\/b><\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 76<\/p>\n
It is likely that a casemate building west of the gate is a 10th-century \u201cpalace\u201d comparable to those of Solomonic Megiddo (below). Elsewhere there are traces of 10th-century domestic structures (Str. IX-VIII), but it appears that Gezer was little more than an Israelite outpost after the Egyptian destruction and the Solomonic takeover.<\/p>\n
3. Aphek (R\u00e2sel-cAin), farther out on the Coastal Plain at the mouth of the Yarkon River, has revealed a few Israelite \u201cfour-room\u201d houses in Str. IX of the current Israeli excavations directed by M. Kochavi and P. Beck since 1972. These would appear to represent the Israelite takeover from the Philistines.<\/p>\n
4. Tel Qasile (identification unknown), at the mouth of the Yarkon, was clearly founded by the Philistines, but the excavation of B. Mazar in 1948\u201350 and of A. Mazar in 1971\u201374 have shown that Str. X (early 10th century) exhibits several early-style \u201cfour-room\u201d houses but is pre-Israelite. Str. IX 2\u20131 above the destruction of the Philistine (Str. XII-X) temples spans the mid-late 10th century, is almost certainly Israelite, and exhibits several more developed \u201cfour-room\u201d houses.<\/p>\n
D. Judea<\/b><\/p>\n
Intensive surface surveys in recent years have demonstrated that the hill country south of Jerusalem was densely settled by the Israelites, beginning in the 9th\/8th century and culminating in the 7th century BC. However, the 10th century, still poorly represented, may have seen relatively sparse occupation.<\/p>\n
1. Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) revealed little clear 10th century remains except a few tombs during the British excavation of J. Starkey in 1935\u201338, but Israeli excavations led by D. Ussishkin since 1973 suggest that the monumental four-entryway Iron II gate of Str. IV-III may have been established as early as Str. V of the 10th century BC and also proved that the monumental \u201cPalace A\u201d belongs to Str. V (fig. 6). In addition, the \u201cfour-room\u201d house excavated earlier (Building 1031) has been considered 10th century. Finally, Y. Aharoni\u2019s 1966\u201368 excavations suggest that a small cult room beneath the \u201cSolar Shrine\u201d should be attributed to Str. V.<\/p>\n
2. Tell Beit Mirsim (Albright\u2019s Debir\/Kiryath-Sefer) still gives us perhaps our clearest evidence of Solomonic constructions in the south in the casemate wall of Str. B 3 of Albright\u2019s 1926\u201332 excavations.<\/p>\n
E. The Negev<\/b><\/p>\n
Until recently this area was thought to be sparsely settled in any period, much less under Israelite occupation. However, recent Israeli exploration and several major excavations have broadened our picture and have revealed an extensive Israelite presence.<\/p>\n
1. Iron Age Beersheba (Tell es-Sebac), east of the modern town (fig. 7), is a small (ca<\/i>. 3-acres) but impressive citadel, cleared almost in its entirety by Y. Aharoni in 1969\u201375. The major phase (Str. III-II) is 8th-7th century BC. Str. VI, with its \u201cfour-room\u201d house, is probably late 10th century; and Str. V, with its glacis<\/i> or rampart, its solid offsets\/insets wall, and its triple-entryway gate has been attributed by the excavator to the 10th century BC but is more likely late 9th century in date.<\/p>\n
2. To the east, Arad (TellcArad) poses similar problems, though the excavation of the Iron Age acropolis in 1962\u201367 by Y. Aharoni suggests that the earliest casemated fort (Str. XI) and possibly the <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 77<\/p>\n
Fig. 6. Lachish: (1) The Bastion, (2) The Outer Wall, (3) The Level IV-III Inner Gate, (4) Area S, (5) The Judean Palace-Fort, (6) The Late Bronze Age Temple, (7) The Fosse Temple, (8) The Well, (9) The Solar Shrine, (10) the Great Shaft, (11) The Siege Ramp (after Ussishkin, Tel Aviv<\/i> 5, p. 4, fig. 1).<\/b><\/p>\n
\u201ctemple\/sanctuary\u201d (below) are 10th century in date.<\/p>\n
3. Related to the Beersheba-Arad complex are two other sites, both only partially investigated in connection with Aharoni\u2019s Tel-Aviv project in the Negev. M. Kochavi\u2019s soundings in 1967\u201371 at Tel Malhata (Tell el Milḥ) have bared in Period 3 a solid town wall and a public building of the 10th century BC. The work of A. Kempinski and V. Fritz at nearby Tell Masos (Kh. el-Mesh\u00e2sh = Hormah?) in 1972\u201375 have revealed several fine \u201cfour-room\u201d houses of Israelite style in Str. II of the 11th century, continuing into Str. I, but this latter stratum seems to have ended in the early 10th century BC.<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 78<\/p>\n
4. The Negev surveys and soundings, principally of Y. Aharoni and R. Cohen in the past decade, have placed on our map a string of more than 40 small Israelite forts throughout the Negev, many of them apparently dating only to the 10th century BC (fig. 8).<\/p>\n
5. Two sites founded in the 10th century BC, but continuing in use throughout the Iron II, represent the maximum Israelite expansion in the desert. Tell el-Kheleifeh (Ezion-geber), Solomon\u2019s seaport on the Red Sea near modern Elat-Aqaba, was excavated in 1937\u201340 by N. Glueck. The date of the founding of the fortress and casemate enclosure of Str. I (never fully published) has been widely debated but probably is 10th century BC. The Israelite pilgrim site and fortress at Kadesh-barnea (Tell el-Qudeirat) in eastern Sinai was investigated in 1956 by M. Dothan and has been excavated further by R. Cohen in 1978\u201381. Building Period I, the founding level, has barely been reached but lies below the 9th-8th century phase II building and may be 10th century in date.<\/p>\n
The above summary of known 10th century sites and their distribution is based on less systematic and thorough excavation than would be desirable. Nevertheless, the emergent picture of <\/p>\n
Fig. 7. General plan of Beersheba III-II (after Aharoni, Tel Aviv<\/i> l, fig. 1).<\/b><\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 79<\/p>\n
the Israelite occupation of Canaan in the 10th century BC is probably accurate in broad outline. (1) The 12th-11th century settlements of the period of the Judges were restricted by Canaanite and Philistine opposition to Upper Galilee, the Hill Country, parts of the Shephelah, and the northern Negev. For this pattern, particularly important is the new evidence of Aharoni\u2019s surveys in Galilee; and especially the discovery of small early Israelite sites at Et Tell and Kh. Raddana near Jerusalem, at Izbet Sarteh near Aphek, and at Tel Masos near Beersheba (above). (2) In the 10th century BC, particularly under Solomon, there was a marked tendency toward centralization and urban development <\/p>\n
Fig. 8. Map of Israelite sites in the Negev (after Meshel, Tel Aviv<\/i> 4, p. 111, fig. 1).<\/b><\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 80<\/p>\n
with an accompanying increase in population, a rise in prosperity, and the development of monumental art and architecture, all reflected in the archaeological record.<\/p>\n
II. Town Planning And Domestic Buildings<\/b><\/p>\n
Having surveyed the general early Israelite settlement pattern, the major 10th century sites, and the material safely attributable to the United Monarchy, we now turn to more detailed treatment of specific categories, first town planning and domestic buildings.<\/p>\n
No direct archaeological evidence yet exists for centralized town planning\u2014at least of domestic quarters\u2014for the towns we presume were rapidly built up or first founded in the early Monarchy. This may be the case simply because there has to date been no large-scale clearance of any 10th century site. Tirzah, although the exposure was small, did produce evidence, however, of differences between groups of \u201crich\u201d and \u201cpoor\u201d houses in Niveau<\/i> III, which could be interpreted in terms of social stratification, if not of town planning.<\/p>\n
Elsewhere, the only Iron Age towns cleared sufficiently to present an overall picture have given us quite naturally the plan of the uppermost levels, which have not then been removed. The best recent example is the well laid-out 8th-7th century town of Beersheba III-II (fig. 7). The older plans of 7th century Tell Beit Mirsim or of 9th-8th century Tell en-Nasbeh (Mizpah) are also instructive. However, the striking homogeneity of 10th century fortifications and their long, continuous rebuild on the same architectural plan (below) has been noted by many and had been taken as evidence for centralized town planning from the earliest stages. If this is true, then in the case of domestic architecture as well we may reasonably extrapolate from the later town plan of those sites first founded in the 10th century, such as Beersheba, for the original layout. Particularly in the case of royal, provincial administrative centers, we should expect to see evidence for crown supervision, and indeed Megiddo VA\/IVB, though only partially cleared, gives us such evidence in the layout of the city defenses and the two \u201cpalaces\u201d (below and fig. 4). It is doubtful, however, that smaller towns, or villages of lesser importance, were similarly laid out or were planned according to standardized specifications. As villages and hamlets of early Iron I grew rapidly into sizeable towns, or new settlements were planted on virgin soil due to population growth and increasing prosperity, urban development was probably difficult to control and quite haphazard.<\/p>\n
We may not yet be able to see the overall picture of town planning, but the development of a standardized plan for individual<\/i> structures which served many purposes is already clear in the 10th century. Werefer to the well-known \u201cfour-room building,\u201d which has a long history but is first encountered in the 11th century, and then more frequently in such 10th century sites as Beth-shemesh IIa, Lachish V, Tel Qasile X, and Tell el-Hesi V, among other sites (fig. 9). This stereotyped building plan, in which a long back room and two side-rooms surround a central court (sometimes unroofed), seems to have been adapted for private dwellings, for larger public structures of various sorts, for granaries, and possibly for other uses. Y. Shiloh has recently surveyed the available evidence and has concluded that the \u201cfour-room building\u201d is <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 81<\/p>\n
Fig. 9. Large \u201cfour-room\u201d buildings of the Iron Age (after Shiloh, Israel Exploration Journal<\/i> 20, p. 184, fig.2).<\/b><\/p>\n
a 11th-10th century Israelite innovation. On the other hand, there is some evidence from two large 12th century houses of Str. XIII-XI at Gezer that the Philistines or \u201cSea Peoples\u201d may have introduced the idea from the Mediterranean sphere. However, at present we cannot point conclusively to either an Aegean or to a local Canaanite background for this distinctive style of Iron Age courtyard houses, so its development may indeed be basically \u201cIsraelite.\u201d<\/p>\n
III. Defense Works<\/b><\/p>\n
Here we have somewhat more data, due in part to the monumental character and excellent construction of town walls and gates, which tended to survive even frequent destruction, to be rebuilt and reused for many centuries, and to leave substantial remains today. Also, the orientation of much Biblical archaeology in the 20th century to \u201cpolitical history\u201d has meant that most excavations at Israelite sites have concentrated on the development and destruction of fortifications (often to the exclusion of the domestic quarters).<\/p>\n
We have already noted above the casemate, or double, chambered city walls which first appear at 10th century Israelite sites. We have well-dated Solomonic casemates in Hazor X, Megiddo VA\/IVB, Gezer VIII (figs. 3, 4,), Tell Beit Mirsim B 3 Beth-shemesh IIa (possibly Davidic), and Tel Qasile X; and, in addition, we may add the less certainly dated 10th century (?) casemates from Shiqmona, Arad XI, Tell el-Kheleifeh I, and the several Negev forts <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 82<\/p>\n
(fig. 8). These distinctive double, partitioned walls were long thought to be of Syrian or Anatolian origin, but recently discovered MB IIC examples from Hazor, Tacanach, and Shechem demonstrate that there was a local, Canaanite tradition of casemate construction that goes back at least to the 17th century BC. The thickness of the 10th century Israelite casemates averages 1.50-2.00 m in width for each wall, or a combined width, including chambers, of 4.50-5.00 m. The walls were thus light yet strong, and the inner chambers could be used as towers; or, in peacetime, the chambers served for storage or even living quarters, as examples at many sites attest. The earliest Israelite casemates were built mostly during the Solomonic period, and indeed, with the possible exception of a solid offsets\/insets wall at Beersheba V, these very distinctive casemate walls characterize that period almost exclusively. In Iron II, during the 9th-7th centuries BC, these casemates were replaced at many sites with solid walls, but nevertheless they continued to be reused and even founded as original constructions right to the end of the Israelite Monarchy.<\/p>\n
City gates brought to light by excavations are fewer. Apart from the disputed three-entryway gates at Dan and Beersheba, which despite Aharoni are basically 9th century BC, the typical 10th century gate is of the four-entryway type, attested thus far by striking coincidence at three of the four sites listed in 1 Kgs 9:15\u201317 as having been fortified by Solomon: Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer (only Jerusalem, unexcavated at 10th century levels, is missing). The only other four-entryway gates excavated to date are (1) the massive four-entryway gate of Lachish IV-II, the ground-plan of which, when clarified, may go back to Str. V of the 10th century; and (2) the equally massive gate of Str. IX in Area M at Ashdod, which may be 11th century in date and suggests possibly a Philistine origin for these so-called Solomonic city gates (fig. 10).<\/p>\n
The story of the discovery of the nearly identical Solomonic city gates at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer is well known. R.A.S. Macalister had cleared the western half of the Gezer gate in 1902\u201309 but had termed it a \u201cMaccabean Castle,\u201d mistakenly supposing is to be part of the citadel of Simon Maccabeus and dating it to the 2nd century BC, and thus the Gezer gate went unnoticed for decades. In the 1920s and \u201830s, the Chicago excavators at Megiddo brought to light the first recognizable and datable example in Str. VA\/IVB (above). The complex includes the inner four-entryway (= three-chamber) gate of fine ashlar masonry, an outer ramp and lower two-entryway gate\/tower, and, as Y. Yadin later demonstrated, a connected casemate wall (figs. 4, 10).<\/p>\n
Following his 1955\u201358 excavations at Hazor, where a nearly identical inner gate and casemate wall was discovered in Str. X on the Acropolis (figs. 3, 10), Yadin again turned to the plan of Macalister\u2019s \u201cMaccabean Castle\u201d and made the brilliant suggestion that here was a hitherto unrecognized Solomonic city gate of similar type; he cited the text of 1 Kgs 9:15\u201317, and further suggested that all three gates \u201cwere in fact built by Solomon\u2019s architects from identical blueprints.\u201d<\/p>\n
The subsequent excavations at Gezer, led by W. G. Dever and others in 1964\u201373, relocated the buried Gezer gate (Str. VIII) and completed its excavation, dating it on ceramic evidence to the 10th century BC and dramatically confirming <\/p>\n
(article continued on page 84)<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 83<\/p>\n
Fig. 10. City gates of the 10th century BC (after Herzog, City-gate in Eretz-Israel<\/i>, p. 216, figs. 80\u201384).<\/b><\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 84<\/p>\n
both Yadin\u2019s intuition and the Biblical record. The Gezer gate is even closer to the dimensions of the other two than Yadin surmised:<\/p>\n
Detail<\/b><\/p>\n
Megiddo<\/b><\/p>\n
Hazor<\/b><\/p>\n
Gezer<\/b><\/p>\n
Length<\/p>\n
20.3<\/p>\n
20.3<\/p>\n
19.0<\/p>\n
Width<\/p>\n
17.5<\/p>\n
18.0<\/p>\n
16.2<\/p>\n
Between towers<\/p>\n
6.5<\/p>\n
6.1<\/p>\n
5.5<\/p>\n
Entrance width<\/p>\n
4.2<\/p>\n
4.2<\/p>\n
4.1<\/p>\n
Wall width<\/p>\n
1.6<\/p>\n
1.6<\/p>\n
1.6<\/p>\n
Total casemate width<\/p>\n
(ca<\/i>. 5.5)<\/p>\n
5.4<\/p>\n
5.4<\/p>\n
Exactly like the Megiddo gate, the one at Gezer features fine ashlar construction, has an outer ramp and offset, two-entryway gate\/tower, exhibits hinge and bolt-holes of double doors inside the threshold, and has a large drain running through the gate passageway. Moreover, like both the Megiddo and Hazor gates, it is connected to a casemate wall (figs. 5, 10). Thus, the parallels between the three Solomonic gates alluded to in 1 Kings 9 and actually uncovered by archaeology are so close that we must posit royal supervision in the construction of fortified, provincial administrative centers in the 10th century BC.<\/p>\n
IV. Other \u201cRoyal\u201d Constructions<\/b><\/p>\n
We turn now to a consideration of other categories of \u201croyal\u201d architecture. In addition to the defensive works discussed above, we possess some knowledge of other buildings at the regional administrative centers which Biblical scholars have reconstructed from the Solomonic province lists in 1 Kings 4:7\u201319.<\/p>\n
Megiddo provides our most complete data (fig. 4). From the Chicago excavations we have several structures, notably Building 1482, and particularly Building 1723, probably the governor\u2019s palace. The latter is at the south of the mound just inside the city wall, a splendidly constructed building of ashlar and rubble-filled masonry similar to that of the Str. VA\/IVB Solomonic gate. The enclosed compound, with its own triple-entryway gate, measures some 60 x 60 m; the main structure is 20 x 22 m and has a dozen rooms surrounding a central court, as well as a tower-staircase indicating a second floor (fig. 11). This palatial structure has properly been compared with the Assyrian-style bīt ḫilāni familiar from contemporary sites to the north\u2014especially at Zinjirli (ancient Samcal in North Syria), where the 9th-8th century Hilani III and Palaces J-K of Kings Kilamua and Bar-Rakkib are extremely close (fig. 12). Comparable examples also come from Sak\u00e7eg\u00f6z\u00fc and Karatepe in Anatolia, Tell Tayinat in Syria, and Tell Halaf (ancient Gozan) in Mesopotamia. It seems likely that this southern structure is, in fact, the palace of Solomon\u2019s governor, Bacana, son of Ahilud, mentioned in 1 Kings 4:12.<\/p>\n
In his campaigns of 1960\u201367, Yadin uncovered another, even larger, palatial structure along the north casemate wall, in area BB just east of the gate, also attributable to Str. VA\/IVB. \u201cPalace 6000\u201d was 21 x 28 m, built of fine ashlar masonry laid in header-stretcher fashion with field stones in the in-between <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 85<\/p>\n
Fig. 11. A suggested reconstruction of the ground-plan of the \u201cPalace 1723\u201d at Megiddo (after Ussishkin, Israel Exploration Journal<\/i> 16, p.182, fig. 4).<\/b><\/p>\n
stretches, like the southern \u201cpalace.\u201d The arrangement of its eight rooms around a central court also strongly suggests the North Syrian-Anatolian bīt ḫilāni (figs. 4, 13).<\/p>\n
The existence of close northern parallels for both the Megiddo palaces only reinforces the unanimous Biblical witness that Solomon, having no native Israelite tradition in art and architecture, employed artisans and architects from Phoenicia. If we may assume that the southern, enclosed \u201cPalace 1723\u201d was the district governor\u2019s residence, then the northern \u201cPalace 6000,\u201d like many of the other known bīt ḫilānis,<\/i> was probably used as a reception-court and for other ceremonial functions (perhaps even as a guest-residence for the King).<\/p>\n
Another closely-comparable structure has largely escaped attention but is probably a 10th century bīt ḫilāni. The casemated building immediately west of Macalister\u2019s \u201cMaccabean Castle\u201d is now almost certainly Solomonic, since the recent excavations have redated the gateway to the 10th century BC (cf. fig. 5). This building is ca. 34 x 14 m, even larger than those at Megiddo; its plan is not altogether clear, but it appears to have at least 8\u201310 rooms surrounding a double (?) center court, and a tower-staircase at the northwest corner. Since it seems to be integral to the casemate city wall, part of this structure may be a barracks or palace guard.<\/p>\n
Finally, the \u201cResidency\u201d at Lachish has been shown by the latest excavations <\/p>\n
(article continued on page 87)<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 86<\/p>\n
Fig. 12. Ground-plan of the 9th-8th century Palaces of Kilamua (J) and Bar-Rakkib (K) at Zinjirli (after Ussishkin, Israel Exploration Journal<\/i> 16, p.177, fig. 1).<\/b><\/p>\n
Fig. 13. \u201cPalace 6000\u201d at Megiddo (after Yadin, Biblical Archaeologist<\/i> 33, p. 79, fig. 8).<\/b><\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 87<\/p>\n
to have been founded in its first phase (Palace A) late in Str. V, and thus either late 10th or (more likely) early 9th century BC in date. It is also a ḫilāni-type structure ca. 32 x 32 m (fig. 6).<\/p>\n
The last category of \u201croyal constructions\u201d we might discuss\u2014the so-called stables or storehouses\u2014may be treated briefly. The latest excavation and research have shown that most of these colonnaded structures are post-10th century BC, including the famous \u201cSolomonic stables\u201d at Megiddo attributed to Str. VIA\/IVB, which Yadin has shown belong rather to IVA of the period of Ahab (fig. 4). The only examples that may be dated to the 10th century BC are those at Tell Abu Hawam IVb, Tel Qasile IX, and possibly Tell el-Hesi V (fig. 14). These buildings have often been interpreted as stables, particularly the ones at Megiddo, but current theory regards them as public storehouses, perhaps part of the construction of regional administrative centers under crown supervision.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/b><\/p>\n
With the survey of the building remains of the Davidic-Solomonic era, we come to the end of our treatment of the architecture of the period. It must be stressed that these remains are not only the earliest evidence we possess of monumental architecture in ancient Israel, but they are among the most impressive. We can now understand the Biblical tradition of 1 Kings 10:4\u20135, which relates the visit of the Queen of Sheba to view Solomon\u2019s splendid buildings in Jerusalem that she was so astonished that \u201cthere was no more spirit left in her.\u201d<\/p>\n
(Abridged and reprinted with permission from Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays,<\/i> pp. 269-306, ed. Tomoo Ishida, Yamakawa-Shuppansha, Tokyo, 1982.)<\/p>\n
Fig. 14. Colonnaded 10th century BC buildings at Tel Qasile (A), Tell Abu Hawam (B), and Tell el-Hesi (C; after Aharoni et al, Beer-Sheba<\/i> I, p. 24, fig. 1).<\/b><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
William G. Devera Introduction The \u201cUnited Monarchy\u201d in ancient Israel spans barely a century, covering the reigns of the first three kings of Israel: Saul (ca. 1020\u20131000 BC); David (ca. 1000\u2013960 BC); and Solomon (ca. 960\u2013918 BC). The basic historical and chronological framework for the period is derived principally from the Hebrew Bible itself, especially … Continue reading “MONUMENTAL
\nARCHITECTURE IN ANCIENT ISRAEL IN THE PERIOD OF THE UNITED MONARCHY”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15174","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15174","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15174"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15174\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15174"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15174"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15174"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}