Following the rich archaeological phases of the Late Bronze Age, we have a period known as Iron Age I. At Megiddo the strata of this phase are designated VIB, VIA and VB and are represented by mudbrick settlements with no large ashlar buildings. Structures of Megiddo's next Iron Age IIA Stratum VA/IVB, on the other side of this somewhat impoverished period, include 'Palaces' 1723 and 6000 and Building 1482, all built of fine ashlars. The following Stratum IVA contained the great six-chambered Gate 2156 (attributed by Yigael Yadin to Stratum VA/IVB but by the excavators and others to IVA), Building 338, the 'Stables' 407 and 1576, and the solid offset/inset city Wall 325.

Yohanan Aharoni [25] advocates Yadin's reassignment of the six-chambered gate to Stratum VA/IVB and comes up with the following statement:

“... this is one of the rare examples in archaeology where the exact date of a building can be determined even without the discovery of any inscription. These considerations lead to a fundamental starting point for the stratigraphy of Megiddo at the period under discussion: the assumption that the stratum IVB gate was built by Solomon evidently must be accepted as certain.”

This is the sort of problem we face when dealing with 'biblical archaeology'. What evidence is there for such a categoric pronouncement - even coming from so renowned a scholar as Aharoni (such having been oft repeated by his eminent Israeli colleagues, especially, and most forcefully, by the great Yadin)? As David Ussishkin points out:

“The emphasis of the Solomonic constructions at Megiddo mentioned in I Kgs 9:15 was clearly on monumental palace-compounds rather than on strong fortifications.” [26]

There is no Old Testament evidence that Solomon built gateways at Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer. When we look for such activities, we do indeed find that Solomon 'built Upper Beth-Horon and Lower Beth-Horon as fortified towns with walls and gates and bars' [27] – but no such statement is available for the three cities so often given as examples of Solomon's great defensive works. Ussishkin has also shown that the so-called 'Solomonic Gate' is neither exclusive to the period of Solomon nor to the three cities which Aharoni and others are so convinced supply us with the proof of Solomon's place in the archaeology of Palestine:

“Summing up the indirect evidence, it seems clear that the six-chambered gate type was popular throughout the country during the 10th-9th centuries B.C., rather than being an exclusive type of gate constructed only in Solomon's royal cities.” [28]

The trouble with statements such as that of Aharoni, and of others before him, is that, if they are repeated often enough, they become accepted 'facts' and subsequent archaeo-historical arguments, however well reasoned, may stem from what is in effect an unsubstantiated and erroneous starting point. As noted above, this has been very much the case within the discipline of Egyptian chronology.

With Stratum VA/IVB at Megiddo thus attributed to the building activities of Solomon, it was then only a short step to assign the fine buildings of the succeeding Stratum IVA to the Omrid dynasty.

Continuing along this logic path, between Megiddo Strata VIIA and VA/IVB must be the levels associated with the period of Judges and the era of David. The three strata VIB to VB are the least impressive occupation levels for the whole period under discussion – a situation quite compatible with the history of Israel at that time. So, it is understandable that archaeologists have chosen to assign the next 'combined' Stratum VA/IVB to the era of Solomon (and VB approximately to the time of David) – after all, the rich Bronze Age levels at Megiddo are far too remote in time to be considered 'Solomonic' in the chronological model currently in use. It can hardly be the fault of the biblical archaeologists if Egyptology has bequeathed to them a chronological framework which might be as much as 350 years in error in terms of the date for the end of the Bronze Age. Solomon, therefore, has to be associated with the relatively prosperous Iron Age Stratum VA/IVB – there is no real alternative in the orthodox chronological scheme. This stratum does contain notable buildings, but these are not associated with any ivories, gold work or imported pottery – precisely the artefacts we should expect from the Solomonic era. It must also be noted that the so-called 'Solomonic stables' are located in Stratum IVA and not VA/IVB, so these can no longer be associated with Solomon's chariotry as was originally proposed. So, the question of identifying Solomonic archaeological remains is not so clear cut as we are given to understand from the popular books on biblical archaeology, nor for that matter in the standard reference works on the university student's reading list.

Our discussion of Solomonic architecture must be interrupted at this point so that we can turn our attention to the royal city of Samaria. It is with this key archaeological site that we are introduced to the building works of Omri and Ahab whose building activities we can be much more confident of locating in the archaeological record. I will then return to the Solomonic question later, in order to elaborate upon the alternative view to that currently accepted.

Samaria Periods I and II

We know from I Kings 16:23-24 that: 'for two talents of silver he [Omri] bought the hill of Samaria from Shemer and on it built a town which he named Samaria after Shemer who had owned the hill'.

It was fairly reasonable, therefore, to assume that the earliest major structures on the site would be Omrid, as the Bible implies that this king was the founder of the new city of Samaria; and indeed, a fine solid ashlar wall was unearthed which was associated with a 25cms thick compacted limestone floor laid directly upon the solid rock at the summit of the hill (Kenyon's Period I). This, the excavators agreed, was the work of Omri during the last six years of his reign, and the later terrace extension of the hill, with its ashlar casemate retaining wall, must therefore have been the work of his successor Ahab (Period II).

However, once again we have a difficulty, for the pottery associated with the two building phases appears to be at odds with these assumptions. In dealing with the Period I pottery, the results of Kathleen Kenyon's analysis are quite specific:

“The pottery of this period is quite distinct from that of later periods. In form it has analogies with sites which are dated to Early Iron I, ...” [29]

The problem here is that Omri's building phase at Samaria is dated to 880-874 – during Aharoni/Amiran's Early Iron Age IIB. To compound the problem:

“No distinctions could be drawn between the ware of Periods I and II.” [30]

In other words, Period II pottery was also Early Iron Age I (EIA I) in typology. When we look in more detail at Kenyon's analysis we find that she sees the types as characteristic of Megiddo V, Tell Beit Mirsim Stratum B and of Gibeah Stratum II. More recently, Lawrence Stager has taken things further, noting close parallels with pottery of Megiddo Strata VII to VI, Tanaach Strata IA to IIA and Tell Qasile Strata XI to X, all apparently of a date 'no later than the 11th century B.C.' [31]. So, according to the ceramic specialists, the type of pottery found in Samaria Periods I and II, dated by Kenyon to Omri and Ahab, is elsewhere located in the pre-Solomonic strata!

To many specialists, there is little doubt that the pottery assemblage associated with Periods I and II closely parallels that normally attributed to the 11th and 10th century strata at other sites – as much as 220 years earlier than the historical date for the founding of Samaria and possibly even earlier if Stager's findings are taken into consideration.

Beit Mirsim B and Gibeah II came to an end approximately at the same time as Hazor X and Megiddo VA/IVB – in other words, if Kenyon is right about the Period I and II pottery at Samaria, and if the buildings of these periods remain attributable to Omri and Ahab, then these two kings could not have been the builders of Megiddo IVA, but must be associated with the 'Solomonic' buildings of the earlier VA/IVB phase. In the current chronological scheme, Solomon's activities would then have to be pushed back into the impoverished period of Megiddo VIA to VB! On the other hand, if Stager is correct (as I believe) in identifying close parallels between Samaria Periods I and II pottery and that from Megiddo VIIA, we may be able to postulate that Samaria was founded in the very earliest phase of the Iron Age and so the reigns of Omri and Ahab would indeed be contemporary with Stratum VIIA at Megiddo. Solomon would then find his place in the rich stratum of Megiddo VIIB as previously argued on solely chronological grounds.

So what explanation might be offered by the orthodox scholars to ease the obvious difficulties that have come to light between the pottery, archaeology and history of Samaria? Well, what about disassociating the pottery of Periods I and II from the ashlar walls at Samaria? Is it possible that the pottery comes from an occupation of the hill by Shemer's ancestors as Stager has suggested [32]? A reasonable idea, but does it stand up to investigation? In my view (and that of Kenyon) the answer must be a firm 'no' on the basis of all normal stratigraphic criteria, because the Early Iron Age I pottery was found in the filling of the casemate wall of Period II and also amongst fill material in the terrace between the solid wall (161) of Period I and the Period II casemate wall:

“The pottery of this period [Period II] came entirely from the filling imported to raise the level between wall 161 and the newly built casemates, and inside the casemates themselves.” [33]

If the material is not that used by the builders of the walls, then a wholesale levelling of an earlier occupation of the hill must be considered of which some evidence must surely exist in the excavation reports. However, Kenyon is quite clear that there is no significant evidence of such an occupation. She freely and honestly admits to the dilemma she finds herself in with the dating of the pottery:

“If this dating is correct it would imply that there had been a slight E.I. I occupation of the site prior to Period I, of which there is no other evidence at all, ...” [my emphasis] [34]

There was some Early Bronze Age pottery at Samaria, but this was found in hollows in the rock beneath the floors of Period I:

“In a number of pockets in the rock were deposits of chocolate-coloured soil which contained predominantly Early Bronze Age pottery. None of these were however pure, but contained some Israelite pottery as well, presumably as the result of clearing up before the Israelite building operations.” [35]

This is entirely different to the situation with the Iron Age I material which has clear associations with the buildings of Periods I and II. To quote Nahman Avigad's summary of the position:

“The pottery of period I was found in the fills of the structures of period I, according to Kathleen Kenyon's terminology, and she attributes this pottery to the construction period of the buildings, claiming that it was brought by the builders in the time of Omri. ... These conclusions, however, are disputed by W. F. Albright, Y. Aharoni, R. Amiran, and G. E. Wright ... on the grounds of a typological comparison with pottery from other excavations, they date it [i.e. the pottery] earlier, to the tenth and beginning of the ninth century B.C.” [36]

He then goes on to state Kenyon's convictions on the dating of the occupation levels at Samaria:

“... when discussing the pottery she states that there was no trace of occupation from the beginning of the Early Bronze Age until the time of Omri. This controversy has not yet been resolved from the methodological standpoint, and the stratigraphic problem will be clarified only with further excavation.” [37]

It is interesting that Avigad believes the problem can only be solved by new excavation. In my view this will only confirm Kenyon's findings, because the real problem is a Palestinian chronology which for the pre-Ahab era depends entirely on the crumbling edifice of Egyptian chronology.

In Levantine archaeology no-one has dared to suggest the obvious - that the end of IA I must be brought down to c. 800 BC, as Kenyon has it (precisely because of her work at Samaria); but that it cannot then have lasted 400 years back to c. 1200 BC. Aharoni and Amiran [38] assign 200 years to IA I which is as least heading in the right direction, if even then still too long by at least a century for the New Chronology model. Simply stated, the reason why the idea of a short IA I, ending in 800 BC, is unthinkable is because the end of the Late Bronze Age is tied to Egyptian chronology and the Sea Peoples invasion in Year 8 of Ramesses III, currently dated to 1176 BC [39] - thus the Iron Age must have begun in the 12th century.

However, in the New Chronology Year 8 of Ramesses III may be dated to around 847 BC and, therefore, IA I would have begun in the 9th century – the same century as the building activities of Omri and Ahab. The cultural apogee of the Solomonic period would then manifest itself near the end of the Late Bronze Age – the equivalent of Megiddo VIIB – the precise time when Palestinian archaeology has provided a wealth of material compatible with the image of Solomon portrayed in the Old Testament. This would then suggest that Omri and Ahab were perhaps associated with Megiddo Stratum VIIA – in line with the highest limit of Stager's proposed pottery dating for Samaria Period I.

Solomon's stables

If we now turn to the 'Solomonic stables' problem, we may find the New Chronology opens up new solutions. It has been long appreciated that the so-called 'Solomonic stables' of Megiddo Stratum IVA cannot belong to the time of Solomon, but to some later king of Israel. The popular choice again is Ahab. I have proposed that Ahab should be associated either with Stratum VA/IVB (on the grounds of Kenyon's pottery analysis of Samaria) or Stratum VIIA (using Stager's higher dating for the same pottery). Thus the stables are even further removed from Solomon's time.

Recently, however, some astute research on the part of .... Davies has perhaps retrieved the situation. He has shown that there were in fact very similar buildings to the Stratum IVA stables immediately beneath the stable compound in the locality of the Bronze Age temple. Davies quotes from a despatch to the Oriental Institute from Loud, the excavator of Megiddo, dated to 1939:

“... an earlier building, probably very similar to the stable [of Stratum IVA] and orientated similarly, was largely destroyed for building material for the final stable. And that, in turn, partly utilised a massive third structure, obliquely orientated ...” [40]

Davies has achieved some excellent 're-excavation' results simply by careful study of the original excavation report and the unpublished archives of the Megiddo expedition:

“The excavators distinguish between the stables of Stratum IV, walls which certainly belong to Stratum VIIB, which was destroyed or demolished c. 1200 B.C., and walls about whose date they were uncertain - they may be from Stratum V or VI or VII. We may ignore the walls of Stratum VIIB, which are much too early to be Solomonic, ...” [41]

Given the obvious statement that I do not agree that we should ignore the walls of Stratum VIIB, it does appear that 'stables' did exist at Megiddo in an earlier period – the question is which period? Davies makes the following interesting observation:

“... in this part of the mound remains of different strata are very mixed up; walls of Stratum VIIB sometimes lie very close to the floor surface of Stratum IV.” [42]

In other words, a) there is no stratigraphic depth between Stratum VIIB and Stratum IVA in this area, and b) it is extremely difficult therefore to date these newly discovered stables to any specific stratum which the excavators have discerned in other areas of the site. It is entirely possible that they are Late Bronze Age (i.e. late Stratum VII, or, indeed, with the New Chronology in mind, I would even suggest that the 'massive structure' of 'Stratum VIIB' may be what we should really be looking at in respect of any Solomonic stables.

Alternatively, is this 'massive structure' not part of the Stratum VIII temple complex and therefore earlier than the period of VIIB? This would enable us to assign Davies' newly discovered 'stables' to VIIB, precisely the time of the Solomonic era in the New Chronology. There is certainly confusion over the walls which Davies now attributes to the Solomonic stables (his 'middle building') because the excavators actually place them with the buildings of Stratum VIII or VIIB in their excavation notes and correspondence. For example, in discussing the same Loud letter, Davies notes the following:

But strangely, in the letter, Loud was proposing a much earlier date for the 'middle building':

"Whether that middle period will remain VIII, as tentatively assigned, or can better be assigned to VIIB on parallels from the palace, has yet to be determined." [43]

Perhaps it would be wise to leave a decision as to the period of these new stables until the results of new excavations beneath the Stratum IVA stables in other parts of the site have been published:

“... it should be remembered that as much as half the summit of the mound has not yet been excavated down to the 10th century levels.” [44]

As it stands at this moment, there is nothing that I can see which prevents an assignment of these earlier stables to the Late Bronze Age, and the duration of the Early Iron Age I and II at Megiddo remains indeterminable on purely archaeological grounds.

With the Iron II structural series, however, absolute chronology is hampered by the absence of clear destruction levels: there is no evidence that all the 'VA' or 'IVB' domestic structures were destroyed by conflagration, nor that their periods of occupation came to an end at a single time. There is no clear evidence for a Shishak destruction level at Megiddo. The traces of burning within a few of the domestic buildings of 'stratum V' have yet to be shown to be synchronous, to have been caused by military intervention, and to have been caused specifically by Shishak's army. Any attempt to satisfy all three requirements is bound to move beyond the data into the realm of speculation. [45]

So far, I have attempted to demonstrate that the archaeology of Palestine, when synchronised with the New Chronology, tends to provide biblical scholarship with a much superior 'biblical archaeology' framework than that currently in use. But what about the historical picture in relationship to Egypt?