Scholars’ Corner: Is the Solomonic City Gate at Megiddo Really Solomonic?

008

In the 1930s, a team of archaeologists from the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute uncovered a massive six-chambered city gateway at the great mound of Megiddo. The excavators assigned the gate to the period from 1000–800 B.C.; they ascribed the construction of the gate to King Solomon.¹

In the 1950s and 1960s, excavations at Hazor and Gezer revealed city gates that were virtually identical to the Megiddo gate. Not only did they have the same plan, but their dimensions were very similar. All three gateways were constructed of the same material—well-dressed ashlar stone blocks, well-matched and carefully laid out. Each gate had six chambers, and at the outer corners were two towers that joined the city wall.

Based on both the archaeological evidence and the Biblical evidence, scholars unanimously concluded that all three gates had been constructed by King Solomon—who had obviously used the same royal architect at all three sites.

Aside from the archaeological arguments in favor of this conclusion, the Biblical accounts of Solomon’s reign indicate that he undertook extensive building projects. Although many were in Jerusalem, Solomon also constructed city walls at several other major cities in his domain. Indeed, Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer are mentioned specifically: “King Solomon conscripted [forced labor] to build … the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer” (1 Kings 9:15).

In addition to this passage, the Bible states that the buildings in Jerusalem were made of “costly stones hewn according to measure, sawed with saws, back and front” (1 Kings 7:9). This description fits the well-hewn and carefully sized ashlar blocks found in the gates of Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer.

Ezekiel describes a vision of a future temple (Ezekiel 40:42) that is similar in many respects to Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem. The measurements of the walls of the courtyard gateway of Ezekiel’s temple (Ezekiel 40:5–16) correspond well to those of the excavated gates at Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. The gateway described in Ezekiel had three rooms on each side, as did these other gates.

In general, the stratigraphic and ceramic evidence from Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer indicated that all three gates belonged to the Iron Age, and their identical plans suggested that they had been built at about the same time.

There seemed little question that here was a prime example of the Bible and archaeology illuminating and supporting each other.

Recently, however, David Ussishkin, an Israeli archaeologist from Tel Aviv University, has raised new questions and argued that the Megiddo gateway was not built by King Solomon.² He questions the dating of the Megiddo gateway, even though he accepts the fact that the Hazor and Gezer gateways were built by King Solomon. The Megiddo gate, he concludes, was built about 50 years after King Solomon’s reign, probably by King Ahab.

Hebrew University’s Yigael Yadin vigorously contests Ussishkin’s conclusion.³ The arguments are technical but fascinating.

Ussishkin’s argument is based principally on the stratigraphy at Megiddo. To follow this argument, it is important to bear in mind two strata—stratum Va–IVb and stratum IVa, which lies on top of it.^a

The stratum Va–IVb city is, as Ussishkin suggests, “an important settlement … uncovered in all areas.” It included two imposing compounds, one on the northern and the other on the southern part of the mound. Each compound contained a palace built on a monumental scale in the Phoenician style. Cult buildings were also discovered in this stratum, as well as densely built domestic structures. This city was destroyed by a violent fire. Huge quantities of pottery, cult objects and other artifacts were sealed under a heavy layer of destruction debris.

The later city of stratum IVa was different. It was a fortified garrison city It was surrounded by a solid, stone-built wall (known as wall 325) containing offsets and insets of similar length on both the outside and inside. Ussishkin contends that the stratum IVa city was in fact “a city for chariots and a city for horsemen,” to use the Biblical phrase (1 Kings 9:19). Many of the structures in the city made secondary use of the beautiful ashlar blocks originally used in the earlier city of stratum Va–IVb.

The stratum Va–IVb city is the first level containing a major prosperous city that lies above an earlier city whose destruction must be dated after the reign of Ramesses III (1198–1166 B.C.). (We know this earlier destruction occurred after the reign of Ramesses III because a scarab of Ramesses III and a pen case bearing his name in an oval cartouche were found in the destruction debris of this stratum.) The Bible tells us that Solomon built on a grand scale. So it seems clear that stratum Va–IVb must be the Solomonic city of Megiddo. On this almost all scholars, including both Ussishkin and Yadin, are agreed.

This stratum Va–IVb city was probably destroyed by the Egyptian Pharaoh Shishak I (940–919 B.C.), who invaded Palestine about 925 B.C. and, by his own account, conquered Megiddo.

The later city at Megiddo represented by stratum IVa was built in the ninth century, probably by King Ahab.

The question is whether the monumental six-chambered gate at Megiddo belongs to stratum Va–IVb (the Solomonic city) or to the stratum IVa city (King Ahab’s city).

The original American excavators had decided, after considerable study and vacillation, that there was only one floor associated with the six-chambered gate, and therefore the gate had been in use in only one stratum. In order to recheck the stratigraphy of what the original excavators called stratum IV, a team headed by Yigael Yadin renewed excavations at Megiddo for several short seasons beginning in 1960. By using the more refined techniques available 30 years after the Chicago excavations, Yadin was able to clarify several important points.⁴ Yadin’s soundings in the gate area demonstrated that there were actually two floors or pavements leading up to the gateway at different levels.

The lower floor is chalk-paved and leads up to the first course of ashlar masonry of the gateway The upper pavement—also chalkpaved—leads to the fifth course of ashlar masonry of the gate, the highest level preserved at the time of excavation.

Ussishkin argues that the lower pavement led to a now largely destroyed Solomonic gateway and that the upper pavement led to the existing six-chambered gateway, which must be post-Solomonic.

Ussishkin contends that the four courses of the gateway below the upper pavement are in 010fact the built-up foundation walls of the gateway. Ussishkin explains that there are two types of foundation walls. The first, and more common, is laid in a “trench,” which is dug into the existing surface and penetrates lower strata. The wall itself is then built on top of this buried foundation. The second method is to build a foundation wall on the existing surface. Supposedly, in this method construction fill supported the lowest courses of the foundation wall, hence the term “built-up” foundation wall. Built-up foundation walls hardly penetrate the lower strata; at most, the existing surface is leveled or, as Ussishkin describes it, a “very shallow, superficial trench” is built so the foundation wall can be built on even ground.

According to Ussishkin, the foundation walls of the surviving Megiddo gateway were massive, but they were of the “built-up” type; they were laid on the existing surface. The outer foundation walls were connected internally by less sturdy walls called sleeper walls. The thresholds to the chambers were laid on these sleeper walls.

Ground level of the gateway was at the upper pavement, says Ussishkin. The lower pavement is not associated with the existing gateway but with an earlier gateway, which was actually built by Solomon and which was destroyed in the destruction of the stratum Va–IVb city. Ussishkin believes previous scholars who studied this problem were misled by the lower pavement, which they incorrectly connected with the existing gateway. They assumed—erroneously—that the upper pavement was associated with a subsequent use of the gateway in a later period. But, says Ussishkin, the lower pavement cannot be associated with the existing gateway because if it were, the existing gateway would have no foundation.

Ussishkin marshals other evidence in support of his conclusion that the existing gateway is post-Solomonic and belongs to the stratum IVa city. He finds this gateway connected with the offset-inset city wall of the stratum IVa city, which was a fortified garrison city. Ussishkin finds no indication of an earlier casemate wall, characteristic of the Solomonic period, connected to the existing gateway. Casemate walls, consisting of two parallel walls connected every so often by short cross-walls, were found connected to the Solomonic gates both at Gezer and at Hazor, but Ussishkin finds the casemate wall at Megiddo was not connected to the six-chambered gateway.

In addition, Ussishkin thinks it much more logical to assume that the Solomonic gateway at Megiddo was destroyed along with the rest of the city in the great destruction that brought an end to the stratum Va–IVb city. It would be very unusual for the Solomonic gate to survive such a destruction, says Ussishkin; on the contrary, “We would have expected the gatehouse to be burnt and demolished in a military conquest of the kind that caused the end of stratum Va–IVb.” The ashlar stones in the gateway may have come from the earlier, destroyed Solomonic gateway, Ussishkin admits, but in the excavated gateway, uncovered 50 years ago, these ashlars are in secondary use, that is, re-used in a later gate.

Ussishkin posits a badly preserved, small Solomonic gatehouse associated with the lower approach to the city, a gatehouse that was meant mainly to provide access to the city. This he contrasts with the massive gate complex of the later fortified garrison city 012“meant mainly to defend the city.” Ussishkin finds this consistent with the radical change in the city between stratum Va–IVb and stratum IVa. In the earlier, Solomonic stratum, the emphasis was on monumental palace-compounds rather than on strong fortifications. Only after the Solomonic city was destroyed and a new city rebuilt by a later administration did the emphasis change to strong fortifications. Thus, Ussishkin concludes, the massive six-chambered gate must be assigned to the stratum IVa post-Solomonic city, probably built by King Ahab.

In a powerful rejoinder, Yigael Yadin argues that the Megiddo gate was originally used in the stratum Va–IVb Solomonic city.

Ussishkin’s fundamental mistake, says Yadin, was that he failed to consider a third type of foundation construction in addition to the “built-up” foundation and the “dug-in” trench foundation: that is, no foundation.

“It is surprising that [Ussishkin] did not study more carefully a third building method: no foundations proper, i.e., foundations neither dug in nor built up. This method was employed when the builders believed that the wall construction and the nature of the soil and debris below the building were sufficient to support the structure.”

Such was the case with the Megiddo gate, according to Yadin. The stability of the gate was assured by its thick walls and the solid debris upon which it was built. Yadin cites several examples of such no-foundation gates that the original excavators found at Megiddo itself. One of these lasted through several strata for 400 years. Thus, the six-chambered gate’s construction must be associated with the lower pavement, which Ussishkin admits led to a Solomonic gateway.

Yadin is clearly correct in associating the six-chambered gateway with the earlier pavement The photographs of the original excavators reveal that the lower pavement runs up (and curves onto) the lowest course of the gateway. Yadin, too, knew this and cites the evidence: The gateway does not cut into this pavement. Thus, the construction of the lowest course of the gateway must have preceded the construction of the lower pavement. This would not have been true if, as Ussishkin argues, the lowest course of the gateway (which he considers a foundation) was laid after the lower pavement that he concedes to be Solomonic. At one point in his article, Ussishkin 013indicates that the foundation of the gateway may “slightly” cut into the lower chalk pavement, but the original excavators’ photograph proves him wrong. The lower chalk pavement runs onto the lowest course of the gateway.

Another feature provides additional evidence that the extant remains of this gate formed its superstructure rather than its foundation, as Ussishkin contends. Between the second and third courses of the gate’s masonry is a layer of packed pebbles and earth 10–20 cm thick appearing only along the facade of the walls. Ussishkin mentions that wooden beams had been placed here, but he neglects to explain their function. The use of wooden beams for decorative purposes is known from a number of sites of this period. There is also a Biblical reference: “The great court [in Jerusalem] had three courses of hewn stone round about, and a course of cedar beams” (1 Kings 7:12). A decorative feature like this would hardly have been used in a foundation wall.

Moreover, a casemate wall, characteristic of Solomonic construction, was probably once associated with the Megiddo gate. At one edge of the city, Yadin’s team of excavators uncovered a large public building; both ends of the outer wall of the building were joined to a casemate wall. The ashlar masonry of this building and of the casemate wall was cut in a style identical to that of the gate. Stratigraphic evidence indicates that this building and the wall belong to the stratum Va–IVb Solomonic city. It is true that this casemate wall could not be traced to the city gate; a large trench had previously been cut through the tell at the critical point. However, Yadin was able to demonstrate that at some points the casemate wall existed beneath the solid offset-inset wall that defended the stratum IVa post-Solomonic garrison city.

Although all of the physical links could not be made, Yadin’s excavation points strongly to two phases of use for the city gate, an earlier one associated with the lower pavement and a casemate wall, and a later one associated with the upper pavement and the solid offset-inset city wall. While it is certainly true, as Ussishkin emphasizes, that no casemate wall has been found in the vicinity of the gate, Ussishkin failed to consider the probability, or even possibility, that the stones from the casemate wall in this vicinity had been robbed and reused by the ninth-century B.C. builders, as was typical all over the site. The existence of a Solomonic casemate elsewhere at Megiddo, along with the evidence of Solomonic casemates associated with gates at other sites, strongly suggests that a casemate wall was also associated with the Solomonic gate at Megiddo.

Yadin also responds to Ussishkin’s surprise that a Solomonic gate—if it was Solomonic—would have survived the destruction of the Solomonic city. Many of the palace rooms were not destroyed, says Yadin. Indeed, the archaeological evidence suggests that Megiddo was conquered only after the rest of Judea and northern Israel had been subjugated by Pharaoh Shishak. Moreover, says Yadin, “It is probable that [Megiddo] fell into the hands of the Egyptians after the population fled.” Yadin finds it not at all surprising that the gate survived; there probably was no siege of the city.

Ussishkin distinguishes between the small, mostly destroyed Solomonic gate, “meant mainly to provide access to the city,” and the massive surviving gate of stratum IVa, “meant mainly to defend the city.” Yadin properly responds that this distinction cannot be sustained—all gates serve both functions. Moreover, the evidence suggests that Solomonic Megiddo was designed to be defended against a siege. For example, it had a hidden water tunnel leading inside the city to supply the city with water in case of siege (see “How Water Tunnels Worked,” BAR 06:02, by Dan Cole).

Moreover, Yadin concludes, “Ussishkin cannot evade the fact that the ‘Solomonic gate’ at Megiddo is identical in plan and measurements with that of Hazor. All he has to say about this phenomenon is: ‘Of special interest is the similarity in measurements between the gates at Megiddo and Hazor.’ Is it merely ‘interesting’?”

To this investigator the evidence is clear: The gate structure at Megiddo was first used in the Solomonic city and is contemporary with the similar gates at Gezer and Hazor. This same gate was subsequently used in the post-Solomonic city, when it was connected with a new solid offset-inset wall that replaced an earlier casemate wall. Thus, the Solomonic gate at Megiddo remains Solomonic.

In the 1930s, a team of archaeologists from the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute uncovered a massive six-chambered city gateway at the great mound of Megiddo. The excavators assigned the gate to the period from 1000–800 B.C.; they ascribed the construction of the gate to King Solomon.1 In the 1950s and 1960s, excavations at Hazor and Gezer revealed city gates that were virtually identical to the Megiddo gate. Not only did they have the same plan, but their dimensions were very similar. All three gateways were constructed of the same material—well-dressed ashlar stone blocks, well-matched and carefully laid out. […]