Lost Tombs of the Israelite Kings

026

This is the story of an excavation in Massachusetts—actually in Cambridge—more specifically, in the basement of the Harvard Semitic Museum. I was trying to understand the buildings in an ancient capital of Israel. I ended up finding what may be the tombs of the kings.

According to the Biblical narrative, the United Kingdom of Israel split in two in the late tenth century B.C.E., after the reigns of David and Solomon. Judah continued to be ruled by the Davidic line with its capital in Jerusalem. The northern kingdom, however, now called Israel, had to establish a new capital.

The Bible then recounts that Jeroboam I, the leader of the breakaway Israelites in the north, established his first governmental center at Shechem but soon moved it to Penuel, a town in Gilead. Eventually, he settled on a capital at Tirzah (Tel el-Farah north).

In its early years, the northern kingdom was presented as anything but stable. Tirzah became a city of coups d’etat. Jeroboam’s son Nadab ruled only for two years before he was assassinated. Then came Baasha, whose son Elah was likewise assassinated, also after a reign of only two years. 028A commander of the Israelite chariot corps named Zimri then seized the throne. Zimri’s reign lasted a week. He was replaced by Omri, the commander of the army. Omri founded the Omride Dynasty, which included his famously bad son Ahab^a and Ahab’s sons (or perhaps one was a grandson), Jehoram (Joram) and Ahaziah.

We also learn that after six years as king of Israel, Omri apparently thought he had brought a little stability to the governance of the kingdom. (In fact, the Omride dynasty lasted only 33 years—c.883–841 B.C.E.—before it, too, ended with an assassination and a coup d’etat, this time under the leadership of Jehu, but that is another story.) Feeling secure in his rule, Omri decided to move his capital from Tirzah to Samaria:

[Omri] reigned in Tirzah six years. Then he bought the hill of Samaria [Hebrew, Shomron] from Shemer for two talents of silver; he built (a town) on the hill and named that town which he built Samaria, after Shemer, the owner of the hill.

(1 Kings 16:23–24)

It is the city of Samaria that will be the focus of this article.

Samaria was excavated by Harvard University between 1908 and 1910. Eager to find the palace of the Omride kings, the Harvard Expedition focused 029its efforts on the very highest part of the mound. The excavators were soon rewarded by a monumental palace perched on the rocky summit. As if to emphasize the significance of this building, it was constructed of huge, roughly hewn ashlar blocks (some of which were incised with unique mason’s marks) and isolated from its immediate surroundings by a man-made, 13-foot-high rock-cut scarp. That is, the rock was cut away to create a podium on which the palace stood.¹

In the words of the excavators:

The identification of the Israelite buildings, once the rock was reached, was a comparatively easy matter … The earliest building on the crest of the hill, the primary building site, was of royal size and construction, and must have been built during the early possession of the hill by the Israelite kings … The oldest part, the core structure, was built on a pinnacle of rock made by cutting away the sides.

The core structure of this monumental royal palace that towered over the site was called the “Palace of Omri” by the Harvard Expedition. Much later this building period was renamed Building Period I. It was initially thought to be a brief span of time that corresponded to just the last few years of Omri’s reign. However, my research has now shown that the earliest city, represented by the “Palace of Omri” (during Building PeriodI), existed from the time of Omri, his son Ahab, through the dynasty of the usurper Jehu, and beyond. In fact, it was only much later, possibly in the reign of Jeroboam II (c.787–748 B.C.E.), that a huge building project was undertaken that changed the summit drastically. At that time the area of the summit was extended artificially in three directions by the creation of a huge podium. This was achieved by the construction of a massive casemate wall designed to hold a deep earthen fill. The fill was needed to raise the summit area to a uniform elevation. This new, massive, level expanse allowed additional buildings to be built at the same height around the original palace. It is this later phase that the excavators mistakenly called the “Palace of Ahab” (assigning it to the later Building Period II).

To understand the development of the site, we must understand what was there before Omri built his palace. The Harvard Expedition noticed much of this evidence but failed to understand it properly. Another Harvard scholar, Lawrence Stager, observed this failing and published an important article in 1990 in which he designated this earlier occupation Building Period 0.²

From Building Period 0 were a number of rock-cut installations—a variety of cup-marks (rounded 030bowl-like indentations), rock-cut channels, wine presses, grape-treading areas, oil presses and, most important, approximately a hundred bell-shaped cisterns that dotted the summit and lower slopes. Some of these cisterns were cut into the bedrock directly below the palace. Others were cut into the lower-lying bedrock that surrounded the palace.

These installations confirm the wisdom of Omri’s choice of a new capital. It was not simply a small family estate, as might be inferred from a simplistic reading of the Biblical text, but a major commercial enterprise—the extent of which is still unknown—probably for wine and oil production. Based on just the cisterns we know about, they would have held almost 100,000 gallons of liquid. Pre-Omride Samaria was thus a vital economic hub, which was doubtless the reason Omri chose this rocky hill for his capital.

Early on, I noticed that one of these cisterns on the Harvard plan was different. Instead of the classic bell-shaped (also called bottle-shaped) cavity, it was cube-shaped, like a box. Moreover, the Harvard plan showed an entry tunnel that led into this rectangular “cistern” from the scarp face (the scarp cut around the palace). This did not look like a cistern to me! Yet on the excavator’s large, comprehensive Iron Age city plan, it was designated “Cistern 7.”

I then checked some of the other Harvard plans. One of the small minor plans showed what appeared to be the same cistern, but this time it was marked “Tomb 7, ” rather than “Cistern 7.”

The Harvard architect of the early-20th-century dig was Clarence Fisher, a man well known among archaeologists for his expertise, care for detail and reliability—not always true for excavation staff a hundred years ago. Fisher drew not only plans but also section drawings—drawings that showed the installations from the side. On one of his east-west section drawings, I saw a clear outline of a rectangular chamber labeled “Tomb 7.” It was the right size and it was the right orientation to be the enigmatic “Cistern 7” on the main Harvard plan.

Upon further analysis, the mystery deepened, however. On the vertical section drawing, Fisher’s “Tomb 7” was several yards south of what had been marked “Cistern 7” on the main Harvard plan. What was going on? Was there one rock-cut rectangular tomb/cistern or two? And were they tombs that had been re-used as cisterns?

At this point, I decided the only thing to do was go to the site to resolve the mystery.

The tell of ancient Samaria lies about 30 miles northeast of Tel Aviv, a comfortable 40-minute drive. It is also about 9 miles west of Tirzah, the earlier capital of the northern kingdom of Israel. The distance from Tel Aviv is short, but Samaria is a world away in the present political reality. Although the site is in the West Bank, it is managed by the Israel National Parks Authority. Since the most recent intifada (unrest) began in September 2000, its site has been closed to the public.

Not that it is physically difficult to enter. The site is not railed off, and the area around it is still farmed by local villagers. The tell itself is now an 031orchard with almond trees planted over the terraced hill.

Samaria has had a rich history, continuing long after the Biblical period. The city’s name was changed from Samaria to Sebaste by Herod the Great when he rebuilt the city and dedicated it to his patron, Caesar Augustus (Sebastos is Greek for Augustus). Many of the most impressive archaeological remains are from the Roman period, including the famous columned entranceway (see “Sebaste: Tribute to an Emperor” sidebar).

I parked my car on the gravel surface covering what was once the forum of Roman-period Sebaste. I got out of the car armed with the Harvard plans of the site and proceeded to make my way up to the summit in search of Israelite Samaria. It was spring, and the pale pastel pink of the almond blossoms enhanced the greenish grey of the local nari limestone. The ancient city was transformed into an ethereal Garden of Eden.

One of the reasons the site is so verdant is that both the Harvard Expedition and the later Joint Expedition to Samaria (which excavated adjacent areas in the 1930s) were obliged to dig using the so-called strip method of excavation. That is, the excavators tipped the dump of the excavated debris from one strip into the trench of the previously excavated strip—which may account for the fertility of the orchard. For the most part, the site was then reburied during the course of the excavation. In terms of archaeological method, this is terrible. However, it was required because the land had to be returned to the villagers after completion of the dig for replanting. Only the most prominent and spectacular ruins—mainly belonging to the Roman period—were left exposed. Fortunately, Herod built a temple to his patron Augustus on the summit of the hill, over Omri’s palace, partially destroying but also partly preserving it, making it still possible to do a physical examination of the palace building. As I climbed up to the summit, I wondered if Herod had been aware that he was building his Augustan temple over the Omride palace.

032

I proceeded to climb up the steps of the Herodian temple. There, below me, running in an unbroken line from north to south, was the 13-foot-high rock-cut Omride palace scarp. Over the years, however, soil had washed down the hill, partially burying the west face of the palace scarp; as a result just the upper 3 feet or so of the scarp are visible today. Hellenistic elements also run across the area, connecting with or covering up part of the scarp. As I scanned the now-barely-visible rock face, I was not very optimistic that I would be able to find the entrance tunnels that led from the scarp face to the rectangular Tomb/Cistern 7 (or was I looking for entrances to two tunnels starting at the scarp face and leading to two rectangular tombs/cisterns?).

Then suddenly I saw what appeared to be the upper part of a tunnel hidden behind thick blades of grass and spring weeds.

The width of the tunnel matched the width of the tunnel on the small plan made by Clarence Fisher that was marked “Tomb 7.” Because of the piled-up soil, I could not measure the depth of the tunnel, let alone enter and explore either the tunnel or the tomb at the end. From Fisher’s section drawing, however, it seemed pretty clear that this was his Tomb 7, rather than what was marked “Cistern 7” on the main Harvard plan.

I walked north along the scarp. According to the Harvard plan, the scarp was set back about 18 feet (5.5 meters) at one point. Although the two tombs/cisterns (if there were two) were aligned on the same axis, they were shown on the large and small plans to have entrance tunnels of different lengths.

I found the setback, or indent, in the scarp, but it was barely visible because it was behind a Hellenistic-period wall. I nevertheless felt I was getting warm, nearing what I thought might be a second tunnel leading to the second tomb/cistern. But I was soon prevented from walking along the scarp by a much later east-west wall. I climbed the wall. On the other side was a small space. I jumped in. There I found the scarp again. More important, there was an entrance cut into the scarp! There were two tombs/cisterns!

Once again it was impossible to enter the tunnel, which was full of earth and debris that had washed in during the last hundred years. On a later visit to the site, however, I found that modern looters had burrowed through the entrance tunnel, making it possible for me to enter the tomb/cistern and take the picture.

Let’s look more closely at what I now know to be two tomb/cisterns under the Omride palace. The Harvard Expedition left us a detailed description. For simplicity’s sake, I have renamed them, anticipating my conclusion, Tomb A and Tomb B: The tomb marked Cistern 7 on the main Harvard plan is Tomb A. The cavity designated a tomb on Fisher’s small plan I call Tomb B.

Tomb A is located directly below a large central room or courtyard of the palace. The tomb chamber is not quite a cube: It is approximately 11 feet high, 16 feet in one direction and 19 feet in the other direction. The tunnel leading to it is 18 feet (5.5 meters) long and 6 feet high. About halfway through the tunnel, it becomes a rock-cut channel, hewn from above. It was then transformed into a false tunnel by a roof of large stone slabs that rested on ledges cut into the walls. (The fact that the tunnel was cut from above, beneath the floor of the palace confirms that it was cut just before the palace was built; in other words, the tomb was prepared before the palace was built.)

It is clear that both of these rock-cut installations beneath the palace are tombs. They bear no resemblance to the many bell-shaped cisterns found on the site (and elsewhere in this period). On the contrary, these cube-like installations are in the common shape of tombs—and they have entrance tunnels, so they could not have been used as cisterns. Nor could they be tombs that were later used as cisterns: They have been covered by architecture ever since Omri built his palace over them.

Tomb B is exactly the same size as Tomb A, but the entrance tunnel is twice as long—36 feet! That is because the tomb is farther from the face of the scarp because the scarp projects out at this point. The tombs themselves are aligned with one another.

Of course, the big question is: Whose tombs are they?

The Bible tells us that six kings of Israel were buried in Samaria: Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Jehoahaz, Joash and Jeroboam II (1 Kings 16:28, 22:37; 2 Kings 10:35, 13:9, 14:16, 29). Could one or two of these kings have been buried in these tombs?

I believe the answer is yes.

Both tombs were purposely located directly under the floor of the palace. Tomb A was clearly prepared at the same time Omri’s palace was built, as evidenced by the fact that part of the entrance tunnel was dug from the top and then covered with slabs. I believe that Tomb A was the tomb of King Omri. Tomb B may have built at the same time, that is, during Building Period I (the so-called “Omri Palace” period), although it could have been built slightly later by tunneling from the side of the scarp. If it was built at the same time as Tomb A, it might have been intended for Omri’s wife. More likely, it was intended for his son Ahab. When Tomb 033A was built, Omri no doubt anticipated a dynastic successor.³ And the two tombs are identical.

A later king of Israel, possibly Jeroboam II (c.787–748 B.C.E.), enlarged the area surrounding the original palace during the period originally called the “Ahab Palace” period by the Harvard excavators, and later renamed Building Period II. I believe Building Period II began some 60 years or so later than the date proposed by the Harvard Expedition. In order to accommodate the new, larger palace area, the podium on which it sits was extended. A casemate wall was built to enclose the extension and then filled in with up to 16 feet of fill. This extension of the podium covered the palace’s scarp, which had been created in Building Period I. The 13-foot-high rock-cut scarp was no longer visible during Building Period II. It was buried by this deep fill. Before this was done, however, special subterranean antechambers to the tombs were created so that continued access to them was ensured.

This was necessary because royal tombs in antiquity were the locus of religious rituals and thus had to be accessible. The Hebrew Bible may suggest a tradition of caring for and feeding the 034dead. When similar practices attested in texts from neighboring states are found in contemporaneous texts and then found in an archaeological context, this suggests that comparable practices took place in ancient Israelite as well. For example, the ancient Mesopotamians had kispu-rituals, which involved the monthly offering of food and libations and the invocation of the dead person’s name. In this way the feeding of the dead by the living signified that the son was heir to his father, whether that meant ruling his kingdom or merely inheriting his house and land. The tomb of a patriarchal leader, a tribal chief or a king made it clear who was the owner of the land. The tomb would serve as a reminder to their descendants and their subjects of their ancient right to the land.⁴

In Isaiah 14:18 we read that “all the kings of the nations reposed, each one in his own house.” That is, a king was buried in, or rather under, his palace. His tomb symbolized his house. (This is elaborated on in 1 Kings 2:10, 11:43, 14:31, 15:8, 22:51 [Hebrew]; 2 Kings 8:24, 9:28, 12:22 [Hebrew], 14:20, 22, 15:7, 38, 16:20; 2 Chronicles 9:31; and Nehemiah 3:16.) David and his descendants, from Rehoboam to Ahaz, were all buried in their “houses,” that is, in their palaces.

Israel and Judah were not alone in this tradition. Assyrian texts mention “the baked-brick rooms beneath—which no one knows of,” a direct reference to tombs below the palace floor.⁵ The Assyrian king Sennacherib (704–681 B.C.E.) refers to his palace as a “palace of repose, the eternal abode.”⁶ At Assur in Mesopotamia, the tombs of four kings from the 11th to the 9th centuries B.C.E. have been excavated beneath the palace.⁷ Similarly at Khalu, Assurnasirpal built four well-preserved royal tombs below the floor of the domestic quarter of his palace. Inscriptions confirm that they are the 035tombs of the queens of Assyria.⁸

In 721 B.C.E. the northern kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrians, and Samaria was destroyed. Probably on the eve of the final conquest of Samaria by the Assyrian king Sargon II, access to Tomb A was blocked by the Israelites to prevent desecration. A crude wall of stones set in mud mortar blocked the entrance tunnel. The doorway between the two subterranean antechambers was blocked with ashlar masonry.

No human remains or grave goods were found in Tomb A by the Harvard excavators—just a mix of debris, later pottery and animal bones, all contained in a cone-shaped fill that had entered the tomb chamber via a small round aperture bored into the ceiling. This small entry hole was no doubt the work of ancient tomb robbers. It is a phenomenon well known from many sites.

If anything was found in Tomb B, the excavators did not mention it. But it, too, was fitted with an antechamber to ensure access when the summit level was expanded at the outset of Building Period II. Like Tomb A, the entrance tunnel to Tomb B was blocked to prevent desecration, presumably immediately prior to the Assyrian attack that snuffed out the Israelite state, leaving the tombs in repose only to be excavated in the early 20th century and identified as royal tombs almost a hundred years later.

This is the story of an excavation in Massachusetts—actually in Cambridge—more specifically, in the basement of the Harvard Semitic Museum. I was trying to understand the buildings in an ancient capital of Israel. I ended up finding what may be the tombs of the kings. According to the Biblical narrative, the United Kingdom of Israel split in two in the late tenth century B.C.E., after the reigns of David and Solomon. Judah continued to be ruled by the Davidic line with its capital in Jerusalem. The northern kingdom, however, now called Israel, had to establish a new capital. The […]