ReViews

064

The publication of Megiddo III is an event. It is not, as one might suppose from the title, the third volume to be published on the current excavations at Megiddo, but rather the first. The volume number is based on the fact that more than half a century ago the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute published Megiddo I and Megiddo II, which cover its own excavation of the site in the 1920s and 1930s.^a Megiddo III is the first report from Tel Aviv University’s renewed excavation of the site, led by Israel Finkelstein and David Ussishkin. Just to complicate things, Megiddo III consists of Volumes 1 and 2—the impressive final report of three preliminary soundings in 1992 and 1993 and two full-scale seasons in 1994 and 1996.¹

This is an extraordinarily prompt publication, and that is surely one reason why the appearance of Megiddo III is an event. It contrasts sharply—as it is meant to²—with excavations at some other sites, both major and minor, for which decades have passed without the appearance of a final report and in some cases without even the publication of any scientific preliminary reports. Megiddo III is thus a gentle (though not-so-subtle) prod to the excavators of these other sites.

The Megiddo excavators fear that if publication is delayed, such a mountain of material will accumulate as to defy processing. The fact is that with modern methods of retrieval an excavation does produce a mountain of material. Tiny bones, whether fish or mammal, fragments of charred wood, the detritus of the ages—everything is collected and processed and classified. In the Megiddo excavation, diggers collected seeds, carbonized fruit, wheat and barley grains (but not pollen), even owl dung. With the aid of a computer, this material can be viewed from a multitude of perspectives, and a nearly infinite number of comparisons becomes possible. Every pottery sherd—and there are tons of them in every excavation—can be analyzed and classified in numerous ways. Indeed, a separate chapter in this report is devoted to the excavation’s extremely sophisticated data management system, which should be useful to future excavations.

Megiddo III also reflects the hallmark of the new—that is, modern—archaeology: An excavation is no longer the work of a single individual or even of a pair of codirectors. It is the work of a vast team. Typically, the team of a large modern excavation in Israel is led by an Israeli field archaeologist (in this case, two leading members of the Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology, Ussishkin and Finkelstein) with an American or other foreign partner (here, Baruch Halpern of Pennsylvania State University, who heads the “academic program,” whatever that means). The foreign partner often draws in the volunteers, whose fees keep the dig going.

Finkelstein, Ussishkin and Halpern are listed not as the authors of Megiddo III, but as its editors. The title page lists 25 other people who have made authorial contributions to the report. The reports on the individual excavation areas are written by area supervisors. Experts in various related disciplines have written the sections on mammal remains, fish bones, mollusk shells, archaeobotanical finds, radiocarbon dates and other specialized high-tech investigations.

All the data are here. Whether they include any earthshaking revelations is another question. Mostly, it is a matter of straightening out (or attempting to straighten out) 066the confused stratigraphy and chronology left by the previous excavators. A typical conclusion: “The renewed excavations in the building largely clarified many of the problems related to the ground plan of the building and the courtyard to its east and resolved the question of its date.” But the truth is that important issues remain unresolved. The section on “archaeological and historical conclusions” is peppered with phrases like, “according to Finkelstein” and “according to Ussishkin,” indicating disagreement even among the experts.

As is well known, Finkelstein has recently plumped for a new “low chronology” that essentially moves down by about a century what was previously thought to be evidence of the 11th and 10th centuries B.C.E., the latter being the time of David and Solomon and the United Monarchy. Finkelstein is extremely confident that he is right and that his position will ultimately be adopted by the archaeological community. In the meantime, his views are opposed by such leading archaeologists as Amihai Mazar of Hebrew University, excavator of Tel Rehov;^b Amnon Ben-Tor of Hebrew University, excavator of Hazor;^c Lawrence Stager of Harvard University, excavator of Ashkelon; and William Dever of the University of Arizona, excavator of Gezer. More to the point, Finkelstein’s low chronology has not been accepted even by his codirector at Megiddo, David Ussishkin. Ussishkin tells us that “on archaeological grounds it is quite possible (though not necessary) that some or all of [the structures in Stratum VA-IVB] originate in the 10th century B.C.E., during Solomon’s reign,” which is what the traditional chronology holds. In short, as Halpern notes in his contribution to the report, “The history of Megiddo in the period corresponding to Strata VI, VB and VA–IVB is increasingly controverted.”

Another well-known crux relates to the date of the nearly identical six-chambered gates at Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer.^d Yigael Yadin, Israel’s most illustrious archaeologist, famously related these gates to 1 Kings 9:15, which tells us that Solomon fortified Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. Both Finkelstein and Ussishkin agree that the Megiddo gate belongs not to Stratum VA-IVB (the “quite possible” Solomonic level, according to Ussishkin), but to the next, later level; so the gate, they say, cannot be Solomonic. However, again, not everyone on the Megiddo team agrees: Halpern would assign the gate to a level traditionally associated with King Solomon. Moreover, Amihai Mazar continues to date the gate to the earlier period (based on the stratigraphy of Beth-Shean and Rehov). And Ben-Tor and Dever continue to insist that their nearly identical gates (at Hazor and Gezer, respectively) date to the earlier period.³ Stager asserts that all three gates confirm 1 Kings 9:15.

Does the famous seal of “Shema‘ the servant of Jeroboam,” found long ago at Megiddo, refer to King Jeroboam I (the earliest king of the northern kingdom of Israel) or Jeroboam II (who ruled Israel about 130 years later)?^e Jeroboam I, says Ussishkin. Jeroboam II, says Finkelstein. If Ussishkin is 068right, Finkelstein’s low chronology must be wrong. Ussishkin, however, is in the minority on the attribution of the seal.

Evidence of occupation at Megiddo was uncovered from the Chalcolithic period (about 4000 B.C.E.) through the Late Roman period—about 22 different strata. Yet evidence of occupation during Early Bronze II (mid-third millennium B.C.E.) is missing, even though major architecture was found dating to Early Bronze I (early third millennium B.C.E.) and Early Bronze III (late third millennium B.C.E.). Indeed, in Early Bronze I (EBI), Megiddo was “heavily settled,” the new excavators tell us. They ask us to believe that the site was abandoned in EBII, however. But, oddly, there is no evidence of destruction at the end of EBI. I call attention to the absence of an EBII occupation precisely because it is so unimportant. There cannot be more than half a dozen people in the entire world who really care whether or not Megiddo was abandoned and unoccupied in EBII. This is radically different from the debate over whether or not Jerusalem was occupied in the 10th century B.C.E., the period of David and Solomon, where a similar paucity of occupational evidence presents itself. In lectures and personal conversations, at least one of the senior Megiddo excavators stoutly maintains that Megiddo was not inhabited in EBII. And all the carefully collected and analyzed material in their report supports this conclusion. Yet no one really believes him—for the simple reason that it defies common sense that a site so strategically important (guarding the entrance to the Wadi Ara), so geographically central (on the famed Via Maris) and so rich in water and arable land should be occupied for millennia but abandoned for no apparent reason during this relatively short period. I have spoken with a number of Early Bronze Age specialists who concur in this judgment and explain, for example, that in their view EBII appears to be missing simply because the pottery of EBII is indistinguishable from that of EBIII.

The Megiddo excavators, however, omit any EBII level in their chart of stratigraphic sequences; furthermore, they claim that other sites in the area were also abandoned in EBII—but they also hedge their bets. Perhaps, they say, there was “a very small settlement … in the unexcavated areas of the site.”⁴ Isn’t it also possible that their pottery chronology is in error? Archaeology is still an inexact science. Or, perhaps more accurately, we must be very careful of the 071conclusions we draw from the limited archaeological evidence available to us, especially conclusions based on the lack of affirmative archaeological evidence.

The team of excavators is also working to present the site effectively to the thousands of tourists who visit every year. Indeed, Megiddo is one of the most popular tourist sites in Israel, largely because of its identification as Armageddon.⁵ To assure the attractive appearance of the site, areas were backfilled after excavation if they were not to be restored and conserved. Sometimes, however, “debris has been dumped over the dump of the Oriental Institute excavations.” This should be an absolute no-no. The excavators are destroying the possibility of extracting what may be valuable material from the old dumps (an excavation dump is where excavated earth is deposited). In the 1920s and 1930s, when the Oriental Institute conducted its excavations at this important site, excavation methods were not as refined as they are today. The Oriental Institute team did not sift the excavated dirt to make sure that no small finds were missed; they did not dip potsherds in water to see whether there was an inscription on them. There is no doubt that old dumps should be sifted and carefully examined to see whether any useful material can be found in them. (The Biblical Archaeology Society has sponsored a small pilot project at Megiddo for that very purpose.) Such an operation could someday yield important finds, as suggested by the many artifacts that have been found in and near dumps. At Megiddo itself, a cuneiform tablet containing a Mesopotamian version of the Flood story was found near one of the old dumps.⁶ A fragment of a stela commissioned by Shishak (the pharaoh known as Sheshonq in Egyptian sources), who destroyed Megiddo in about 925 B.C.E., was also found in the Megiddo dump. During the current excavations, an Egyptian scarab was found when an old dump was removed to get at a new excavation area.

Prior excavations at Megiddo have produced extremely rich finds—the Gilgamesh tablet, the seal of Shema‘ and the Shishak stela; beautiful painted pottery; a hoard of complete stone altars, many of which are horned; a hoard of ivories; bronze and painted ceramic cult stands; and on and on. Oddly, the new excavations are largely devoid of dramatic pieces that might make their way into a museum exhibit. Indeed, the most impressive new finds that I noted in the report are a small clay cult stand and a steatite seal with a cross-hatch pattern on its underside and a nicely carved lion-shaped handle. The most extensive inscription the new excavations have uncovered contains only a letter or two.

So what conclusions can we draw from this report? An unfair question at this point, the excavators might say. The purpose of Megiddo III is simply to record the data. And that the excavators have done extremely well—and promptly. Yet it somehow leaves one unsatisfied to read such commonplaces as “long-distance Iron Age trade is unsurprising” or to find that something “reinforces the documented evidence of contact with Egypt.” The conclusion to Yuval Goren’s discussion of an Early Bronze Age assemblage of Egyptian-style pottery found in the new excavations could well apply to the entire report: “While these are some of the interpretations that suggest themselves, others are possible. They must, however, remain within the realm of speculation until more evidence, enabling better interpretation of the archaeological record, is found.”

The publication of Megiddo III is an event. It is not, as one might suppose from the title, the third volume to be published on the current excavations at Megiddo, but rather the first. The volume number is based on the fact that more than half a century ago the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute published Megiddo I and Megiddo II, which cover its own excavation of the site in the 1920s and 1930s.a Megiddo III is the first report from Tel Aviv University’s renewed excavation of the site, led by Israel Finkelstein and David Ussishkin. Just to complicate […]