Essay Question:

Israelite art and architecture is often described as of Phoenician origin. Discuss this, with reference to both architecture (including building techniques) and ivory carving.

Essay written by David Rohl (3rd Year Ancient History/Egyptology).

Submitted to Peter Parr on the 22nd March 1990.

Israelite culture in the 10th and 9th Centuries – its influences as described in the Old Testament and its identification in the archaeology of Palestine

Introduction

The primary impetus for excavations in Palestine was, and perhaps still is, the 'search' for confirmation of the Old Testament in the archaeological record of the region.

The great building phase of the Israelite kings began, according to the biblical tradition, in the reign of Solomon (971-931) when the Milo, palaces and temple of Jerusalem were constructed and other building works were undertaken at the cities of Megiddo, Gezer and Hazor [1 Kings 9:15]. After spending 20 years on his building activities in Jerusalem, Solomon 'fortified Tadmor in the desert and all the storage towns which he had built in Hamath. He also built Upper Beth-Horon and Lower Beth-Horon as fortified towns with walls and gates and bars, also Baalath and all Solomon’s storage towns, all the towns for his chariots and horses, and everything which Solomon was pleased to build in Jerusalem, in the Lebanon and throughout the territory under his rule.' [2 Chronicles 8:4-6]

Then, following the Schism in 931 BC (Thiele’s chronology), a second phase of monumental construction was inaugurated, this time by the seventh and eighth kings of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, Omri (885-874) and Ahab (874-853), who founded (Omri) and extended (Ahab) the new capital at Samaria. It is these two great cultural phases that are generally meant when the question of Israelite art and architecture is discussed.

Interest in the role of the Phoenicians in determining the style and technology of Israelite artistic development was understandable, given the prominence of such figures as the two Hirams of Tyre (king and craftsman) and Jezabel daughter of Ethbaal (Ithobaal) who became Ahab’s principal wife in the second quarter of the 9th century. The association between Israel and Phoenicia is therefore very marked in our major literary source – the Old Testament books of 1 Kings and Chronicles. But can one say the same for the archaeological record?

Part I: Problems of Israelite Stratigraphy

The Age of Solomon

One of the great problems with the current stratigraphical scheme for Palestine is the relative impoverishment of the period of Israel's greatest cultural achievement – the reign of Solomon. Pritchard notes that the archaeological remains of the Early Iron Age IIA (Aharoni/Amiran = Kenyon’s IA I = Albright’s IA IC):

"... suggest a cultural level which was apparently lacking in both artistic sophistication and wealth." [Pritchard, 1974, p. 35]

And Kenyon is similarly mystified by this strange phenomenon:

"Archaeology has provided us with little direct evidence of the glories of Solomon's court, and has shown that, away from the capital, the civilisation was not of a very high order, nor are there striking signs of economic prosperity ... The sites which have provided the best archaeological evidence, moreover, do little to illustrate another aspect of Solomon's innovations known to us from the Bible, his activities as a merchant prince. Almost no recognisably imported objects have been found in levels of this period in Palestine proper." [Kenyon, 1970, pp. 255-56]

Given that the building works of Solomon at 'the capital' (i.e. Jerusalem) have not been unearthed, Kenyon is admitting to the complete absence of evidence of prosperity in 'Solomonic' Iron Age Palestine. This situation is compounded by the richness of finds both before (in the last phases of the LBA) and after (EIA IIB = Kenyon's late EIA I = Albright’s EIA IIA) this so-called 'Solomonic Period'.

At Megiddo, Strata VIII to VIIA of the LBA have provided substantial remains of large buildings utilising ashlar stonework including the 'migdol' temple 2048, two palaces and a direct entry gateway; a cache of ivory carvings was also found in the 'treasury' associated with the VIIA palace which 'constitutes the largest and richest collection of Canaanite carved ivory yet discovered' [Yadin, 1977, p. 849]. In addition, a 'treasure' of gold objects was unearthed in room 3100 of the earlier Stratum VIII palace.

Structures of Megiddo Strata VA/IVB to IVA, on the other hand, include the great six-chambered gate 2156 (attributed by Yadin to Stratum VA/IVB), building 338, the 'stables' 407 and 1576, and perhaps the solid offset/inset city wall 325 – all of which have been attributed primarily to Ahab, according to the majority of scholars. On the other hand, Aharoni advocates Yadin’s reassignment of the six-chambered gate to his Stratum 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." [Aharoni, 1972, p. 302]

This is an infamous example of a famous archaeologist imposing his authority on an issue and making a statement which is wholly unacceptable. As Ussishkin points out:

"The emphasis of the Solomonic constructions at Megiddo mentioned in 1 Kgs 9:15 was clearly on monumental palace-compounds rather than on strong fortifications." [Ussishkin, 1980, p. 17]

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' – but no such statement is available for the three cities so often given as examples of Solomon's work. 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." [ibid., p. 17]

The trouble with statements such as that of Aharoni, and of others before him, is that if they are repeated enough times they become accepted 'facts' and subsequent arguments, however well reasoned, can stem from what is in effect an unsubstantiated and erroneous starting point. In this particular case, common sense and reason have prevailed and the majority of scholars are more cautious with their analysis of Iron Age Levantine stratigraphy. But I am not so sure that similar mistakes have not been made in the past which have remained uncorrected and still pervade the chronological framework within which the archaeologist and historian of the ancient Near East has to work.

Between Megiddo Strata VIIA and IVA are the levels associated with the late Judges Period and the era of David and Solomon, with either Stratum VB or VA/IVB normally assigned to the latter. Strata VI to VB are the least impressive occupation levels for the whole period under discussion – a situation perhaps compatible with the history of Judges, but certainly not for the cultural pinnacle associated with the time of Solomon. The most popular view, then, is that that the next 'combined' Stratum VA/IVB is, in fact, that of Solomon, and that VB must approximately belong to the time of David. Stratum VA/IVB does contain notable buildings (palaces 1723 and 6000, building 1482 – and, according to Yadin, gate 2156), but, as we have noted, these are not associated with any ivories, goldwork 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 cannot be associated with Solomon’s chariotry (but see below).

The archaeological remains at Jerusalem which would settle the question as to what precisely Solomonic architecture actually looked like have still to be uncovered due to the intensive modern occupation of the site, so we are mainly dependent on Megiddo for our views on the culture of the United Monarchy, with Hazor and Gezer shedding some further light on the period.

All this is not very promising for our discussion of Israelite art and architecture, so perhaps we should first turn to the site of Samaria to deal with the building works of Omri and Ahab whose activities we can be reasonably confident of locating in the archaeological record. I will then return to the Solomonic question later, in order to put forward an alternative view to that currently accepted.

Samaria Periods I and II

We know from 1 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 to assume that the earliest structures on the site would be Omrid, as the Bible implies that this king was the founder of a new city; and indeed, a fine solid ashlar wall was unearthed which was associated with a 25 cms thick compacted limestone floor laid directly upon the solid rock at the summit of the hill (Period I). This, the excavators agreed, was the work of Omri during the last six years of his reign, and the slightly later terrace extension of the hill, with its ashlar casemate retaining wall, must therefore have been the work of Ahab his successor (Period II).

However, 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 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, …" [Kenyon, 1957, p. 94]

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, Period II is a similar story:

"No distinctions could be drawn between the ware of Periods I and II." [ibid.]

In other words, Period II pottery was also EIA I in typology. When we look in more detail we find the types are characteristic of Tell Beit Mirsim Stratum B and of Gibeah Stratum II of the 11th to 10th centuries, whilst others find parallels in Megiddo Stratum V. A few quotations from Kenyon’s report will illustrate the point [Kenyon, 1957, pp. 94-107]:

On a ring burnished red slip disc-based bowl (Q 4754):

"Sherds of this type of ware occur only in Periods I and II. M[egiddo] I, pl. 30. 114, from stratum V is a somewhat similar bowl, with a similar combination of hand and wheel burnishing, and ibid. 115 has a similar disc base."

On a Period I poorly burnished red slip bowl (Q 4755):

"Bowls of this technique occur only in Periods I and II. Similar rims are plentiful at Gibeah, stratum II (eleventh to tenth centuries B.C.), pl. xxvi, where however they are never ring-burnished, but are not found in Gibeah III (ninth to seventh centuries B.C.)."

On a Period I globular, moulded rim storage jar (Q 2290):

"This type of storage jar does not continue in Early Iron II, for it is lacking in T. Beit Mirsim stratum A, and Duweir Level III. … A plump form, in every way comparable, except for the lack of the ridge on the neck, is M[egiddo] I, pl. 20. 121, from stratum V, while another Megiddo form (ib. 124) from the same level has the ridge on the neck, but is less plump. The form is thus clearly an E.I. I. one."

On a Period I burnished red slip round-mouthed jug (Q 1350) of which 'about forty similar jugs were found in the same deposit':

"Round-mouthed jugs with handles to a ridge on the neck are common at Megiddo in stratum V, e.g. M[egiddo] I, pl. 6. 146-7, pl. 7. 162, 174, similarly hand-burnished, but the form is not identical."

To my mind, there is no doubt that the pottery associated with Periods I and II closely parallels that normally attributed to 11th and 10th century strata at other sites.

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 are 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 VA/IVB and, in the current chronological scheme, Solomon’s activities have to be assigned to the impoverished period of Megiddo VI to VB!

So what explanation can we offer to ease this obvious difficulty? Well, what about disassociating the pottery of Periods I and II from the ashlar buildings? Is it possible that the pottery comes from an occupation of the hill by Shemer's ancestors? A reasonable idea, but does it stand up to investigation? In my view, the answer must be a fairly firm 'no' on the basis of all normal stratigraphic criteria, because the EIA 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 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." [Kenyon, 1957, p. 104]

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 adamant that there is no such evidence. 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)." [op. cit., p. 102]

There was some Early Bronze 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." [op. cit., p. 99]

This is entirely different to the situation with the EIA I material which has clear associations with the buildings of Periods I and II. I will quote 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."

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." [Avigad, 1978, p. 1041]

It is interesting to me 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 Palestinian chronology, which depends entirely on the crumbling edifice of Egyptian chronology – unfortunately Levantine archaeologists have not as yet noticed the ever widening cracks in this edifice which some Egyptologists are desperately trying to paper over.

In Levantine archaeology no-one has dared to suggest the obvious – that the end of EIA 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 1200 BC. Aharoni and Amiran [I.E.J. Vol. 8 & Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land] assign 200 years to EIA I which is as least heading in the right direction, if even then still too long by a century for my taste. Simply stated, the reason why the idea of a short EIA 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 5 of Ramesses II, currently dated to 1179 BC [Kitchen, 1987, p. 52] – thus the Iron Age must have begun in the 12th century.

However, in the New Chronology proposed by myself and others [see JACF I & II, SAC I, SIS Review, SIS Workshop, etc.], Ramesses III should be dated to around 870 BC, and therefore EIA I would begin in the 9th century – the same century as the building activities of Omri and Ahab. The cultural apogee of the Solomonic period would then fall 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, however, require Strata VIIA to VB at Megiddo to have lasted only a short time – around three to four generations (between 950 and 860 BC), roughly one stratum per generation. We will return to this idea when discussing the so-called 'Solomonic stables' and the art of the Solomonic period, in particular, the ivories.

Part II: Israelite Architecture

The Proto-aeolic column capital

Perhaps the most characteristic motif which has been associated with Israelite monumental art is the 'Proto-Aeolic' or 'palm-leaf' pillar capital, found at a number of sites across Palestine. Whatever one does with the chronology of the monarchy period, it is clear that this motif must be associated with one Israelite period or another. We can therefore safely assign the palm capitals of Palestine to the Israelites.

The considerable quantity of palm capitals so far discovered have been, in almost every case, reused in structures of strata later than the original building from whence they came. Thus it has been necessary to make calculated judgements as to from which buildings the capitals originated.

At Hazor, two capitals were found in Stratum VII. They were located in such a way that it was obviously a secondary use. The excavator assumed that they originally came from the Stratum VIII citadel entrance, which he dated to the time of Ahab because of the close design parallels to the Megiddo IVA gate [Shiloh, 1979, p. 1].

Megiddo itself has provided thirteen capitals. A number were found near building 338 of Stratum VA/IVB. But eleven of the thirteen were found in strata no earlier than Stratum III – they were all in secondary use. The real key to their original stratigraphical location was the discovery of two palm capitals (M2 and M11) in Stratum VA/IVB. None were found in Stratum IVA. Thus it is generally agreed that virtually the whole Megiddo collection can be attributed to building 338 of Stratum VA/IVB [ibid., p. 2] – the building period I would assign to Ahab c. 860.

At Samaria, seven capitals were found – all in secondary use. They were assumed to be from Period I and Period II [ibid., p. 7].

Ramat-Rahel has produced ten Proto-Aeolic capitals. Aharoni has proposed an original assignment to Stratum VA of the 7th century, whereas Shiloh goes for Stratum VB of the 9th century, thus making all the capitals from the different sites originate in the same century [ibid., p. 8].

At Israel's Solomonic capital of Jerusalem, only one palm capital has so far turned up [ibid., p. 10].

The origins of the palm-leaf capital

The pendent palm-leaf motif is to be found all over the ancient Near East and in different periods.

At Tel Halaf the palace of Kapara contains orthostats with the palm-tree motif carved in relief. The palace is normally dated to the 10th century. Similar designs are also found in the wall paintings at Mari from as early as the 18th century. Assyrian palace reliefs of the first half of 1st Millennium (from the 9th century onwards) continually use this motif and it is also found on Neo-Hittite orthostats. From much later we find Cyprus of the 7th-5th centuries utilising much the same design in its monumental architecture; the island has so far produced twenty-nine capitals. The spread of the palm motif amongst the cultures of the region is thus considerable and the time period wide.

So why then have some scholars given the name 'Phoenician palmette' to the motif? Why indeed, when not a single capital has actually turned up in the Lebanon?

Shiloh is adamant that the palm-tree motif  'is a development of the Syro-Palestinian – Mesopotamian sphere' – [Shiloh, 1979, p. 43]. But he still acknowledges that its first appearance as a feature of monumental architecture is to be found in Palestine:

"... the Proto-Aeolic capitals from Megiddo of the 10th century BCE ... are the oldest known architectural elements per se bearing this motif. The depiction on the relief from Sippar of the 9th century BCE, and the various depictions in the Assyrian palace reliefs are of the earliest known representational evidence of this motif in architectural elements such as capitals." [ibid., p. 45].

Could it be then that the Israelite masons introduced the palm-leaf capital prior to anyone else? Some have suggested that the two great pillars 'Jachin and Boaz' which stood before the entrance to Solomon's temple at Jerusalem were capped with Proto-Aeolic capitals and that the 'lily-work' decoration on the walls of the temple [1 Kings 7:15-22] was also an early version of this motif.

As an Egyptologist, I would tentatively offer an alternative suggestion to throw into the pot for the origin of the Proto-Aeolic capital by identifying it not with the palm but with the Madonna Lilly. This white long-stemmed lily was sacred to the Egyptians from pre-dynastic times – even though it could not have been indigenous to that country. It did, however, grow on the Mount Carmel range in Palestine. Given the strong cultural influences that Egypt must have had in the Israelite court of the Solomonic era, might it not be possible that a sacred motif associated with kingship in Egypt, but based on a plant indigenous to Israel, would be taken up by the Israelite monarchy for use in their own palace architecture?

Whatever the origin of this motif, I see no reason whatsoever to connect these capitals with Phoenicia.

Ashlar Masonry

This is the second major architectural feature associated with Israelite culture.

Ashlars have been found at Hazor in Stratum VIII and at Megiddo in Strata IVB-VA and IVA – in gate 2156, water-gallery 629, palace 1723, building 1482 and palace 6000. The masonry of Stratum IVA at Megiddo 'is generally of simpler quality' than that of the earlier stratum [Shiloh, 1979, p. 52].

At Tanaach, ashlars were reused in '9th century strata', having been quarried from an earlier structure.

Bethshan Stratum V provides more ashlar masonry. This level was originally attributed to Ramesses III but is now regarded as Ahabic. Needless to say, in the New Chronology, Ahab was on the throne of Israel soon after Ramesses III in Egypt.

At Samaria, the 'ostraca house' and the 'house of ivory' were built of fieldstone construction and not ashlars [ibid., p. 57]. But, as we have noted, the palace and inner wall of Period I are of fine smooth dressed ashlar. The later casemate and terrace walls are, however, somewhat cruder with marginal dressing being the order of the day rather than the fully dressed surface. I have been unable to discover if the marginally dressed blocks were located only in the foundations of the wall, or on the inner face which would have been covered by the terrace fill, or if they were a feature of the outer surface where they would have been visible.

Ramat-Rahel has ashlar masonry in Strata VB and VA – from the 9th century down to the end of the Iron Age, whilst at Jerusalem, blocks have been found in secondary use in an 8th century context, according to Kenyon.

Ashlar blocks in the gate and towers at Gezer are integrated into fieldstone masonry and the whole is dated to the 10th century.

The normal 'Israelite' building method with ashlars was to use alternative headers and stretchers in a wall two blocks thick. This provided a strong interlocking structure to monumental Israelite architecture. When a wall or building required a broader ground plan, the interior, within the ashlar outer shell, was usually filled with rubble and small field stones. It seems probable that offset marginal drafting was only adopted for the parts of walls which were to be buried. Walls above the foundation level appear to have, in most cases, a fine saw-smooth finish. But this theory may be undone by the Samaria casemate which possibly had exposed marginally dressed blocks.

Ashlar Masonry found outside Palestine

In Mesopotamia, marginally drafted ashlars have been found to a limited extent at Nimrud, Khorsabad, Nineveh and Ashur. This building activity is associated with the works of Sargon II [Shiloh, 1979, p. 72] – that is after the destruction of Samaria (Period VI) and the deportation of a part of Israel's population in 722 BC. Could the technique have been copied from the buildings of Israel's capital, or were Samarian masons set to work on the buildings of Sargon? – one of the two seems likely.

When we turn to the so-called 'Phoenician ashlars' of Lebanon, we find that they are, in fact, all Hellenistic or Byzantine [ibid., p. 73]. We currently have no ashlar buildings whatsoever in Phoenicia for the whole Iron Age.

"On those sites which have been examined over and over again – such as Sidon and Byblos – so far no relevant evidence from the Iron Age has come to light. There is no possibility today – in the light of the archaeological finds – of determining the existence of a clear connection between the ashlar masonry of Judah and Israel and Iron Age Phoenicia." [ibid., p. 84]

Indeed, the only substantial 'Phoenician' site in the 10th-9th centuries is the colony of Kition on Cyprus where the evidence suggests that Phoenician building practice was to use orthostat construction similar, therefore, to that of northern Syria and not Palestine [ibid., p. 84].

The earliest example of offset bossed ashlars 'exactly like those of Samaria and Megiddo' is to be found at Ugarit in the final stratum before the city's destruction at the end of the Bronze Age [Crowfoot & Crowfoot, 1942, p. 6]. In my view Ugarit cannot be classed as a Phoenician city; its connections are clearly with northern Syria and the Semitic cultures of the inland regions of the LBA - the city did not exist in the Iron Age. In spite of the fact that Israelite culture reached its apogee some 200 years after the end of Ugarit, it could be argued that the latter has its closest affinities with Israelite culture. This is manifested in a number of ways, not least in Ugarit's literature and language. In architecture it is a similar story, with the very type of masonry associated with Ahab at Samaria found in the Ugarit city destroyed by the Sea Peoples just before or during the reign of Ramesses III. Without labouring the point, I note again that in the New Chronology, Ramesses III and Ahab are near contemporaries.

Methods of construction

"All these buildings [of Solomon in Jerusalem] were of special stones cut to measure, trimmed on the inner and outer sides with the saw, from the foundations to the coping – the foundations were of special stones, huge stones, of ten and eight cubits, and, above these, special stones, cut to measure, and cedar wood – and, on the outside, the great court had three courses of dressed stone round it and one course of cedar beams; ..." [1 Kings 7:12]

The Late Bronze Age gate of Megiddo Stratum VIII was found to have been constructed with a fugitive wood layer after every third stone course, exactly as is described above in 1 Kings 7:12 [Wilson & Allen, 1984, p. 22]. The Stratum IVA gate at Megiddo also has a similar feature, but there the fugitive layer is between the second and third courses. Three walls at Samaria also have a fugitive course [Loud, 1948, p. 47] but I am unable at this time (through lack of access to Samaria I) to determine if this lies between courses two and three or three and four. My guess would be that the fugitive course lies between two and three, on chronological grounds, whereas the Solomonic builders of the Late Bronze Age employed a fugitive course at every third course. Whatever the chronology one uses, the wood beam fugitive course is clearly a method of construction which can be associated with Israelite architecture – but that is not the same thing as saying that this was a feature exclusive to the Israelites.

A similar comparison can be made between the Solomonic Temple at Jerusalem and the Megiddo Temple 2048 (Strata VIII-VII), which, as we have seen, makes use of ashlar masonry.

"In a recent study of the First Temple in Jerusalem, it has been concluded that the origins of its building plan and of its various details are to be sought in the local Canaanite culture in this country. Before seeking these origins in more remote regions, such as Ugarit, we should refer by way of analogy to Canaanite Megiddo, where examples of stone masonry can be seen in the temple of strata VIII-VIA, which in basic plan resemble the gates of the Iron Age in Israel." [Shiloh, 1979, p. 85]

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 put forward the proposition that perhaps Ahab should be associated with Stratum VA/IVB on the grounds of Kenyon's pottery analysis of Samaria. 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 them, but with a slightly different orientation, in the locality of the 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, …" [Davies, 1988, p. 139]

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, …" [ibid., p. 133]

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." [ibid., p. 135]

In other words, a) there is no stratigraphic depth between Stratum VIIB and Stratum IVA in this area – which makes one wonder how long the chronological interval between these two periods actually was, 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 very 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. A plan of the Stratum VIIB structure would be extremely useful in determining the function of the building.

Alternatively, is this 'massive structure' not part of the Stratum VIII temple 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.'" [ibid., p. 139]

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." [ibid., p. 132]

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." [Wightman, 1985, p. 125]

Given that, in the New Chronology, Shishak is to be identified with Ramesses II (the Sysu of Papyrus Anastasi I and the Riamashesha of the Hittite Treaty) who conquered the city of Shalem in his 8th Year, there is absolutely no reason to assume a destruction of Megiddo by Shishak. This association was entirely derived from the Year 20 campaign of Shoshenk I (Semitic Susinku), which is now dated to the 8th century in the new scheme.

Part Three: New Parameters for Israelite Art and Architecture

The purpose of much of what has preceded this section of the essay was to establish exactly what chronological period was to be understood as 'Israelite', or more specifically 'Israelite monarchy'. It would have been possible to restrict the answer to the essay question just to the 9th century onwards, but this would have been to ignore the most celebrated period of Israelite culture – the age of Solomon. In attempting to include the latter, it has been necessary to open up a long discussion on the stratigraphy of Megiddo and Samaria in the light of the New Chronology. Now we may finally attend to the fundamental issues of the essay question itself – but with a brand new concept of what we term the 'Solomonic Age'.

In order to discuss the art and architecture of Israel in this new scheme, we must include the last 80 years of the Late Bronze Age to which Solomon and the early kings of the post Schism era are now to be tentatively assigned.

This entirely changes the picture. Now, the new Solomonic stratum at Megiddo has precisely the cosmopolitan elements one would expect from the Old Testament view of Solomon’s reign. He is described there in the 'heroic' mould of the Late Bronze Age, and now, in the new scheme, Solomon stands chronologically shoulder to metaphorical shoulder with the heroes of the Trojan War, Ramesses the Great, and the Hittite war lords Shuppiluliuma and Muwatalli. An heroic Israelite king living in an heroic age. Indeed, the Israelite 'nearin' (the elite force of young soldiers in Solomon’s army) turn up at Kadesh to save the skin of the Egyptian pharaoh.

Solomon's ashlar-built palace at Megiddo possesses rich ivory carvings and gold treasure. His great temple at Jerusalem is modelled on the Stratum VIII temple of Megiddo, to which he adds two pillars to the entrance – Megiddo's own 'Jachin and Boaz'. The Old Testament tells us that Solomon's builders employed a fugitive layer of wood beams between every third and fourth course of ashlars in the state buildings, and archaeology has shown that this building technique was already in use at Megiddo, where the Late Bronze Age gateway has this same feature.

Contemporary with Solomon's building operations in Israel, the North Syrians are constructing their ashlar buildings at Ugarit (perhaps part of the 'everything which Solomon was pleased to build in ... the Lebanon and throughout the territory under his rule'?). Both at Byblos and Sidon there are thriving Bronze Age cities – unlike in the later Iron Age when virtually no monumental architecture has been found. The Phoenicians are now actually attested archaeologically in the period when they are close allies of Israel, rather than shadows in an impoverished Early Iron Age Phoenicia.

Ivory in the Art of the Israelite Kingdom

When we turn to the question of ivory carving as a decoration feature in Israelite art, the Old Testament informs us that the most notable periods are again during the reigns of Solomon and Ahab. To the latter is attributed the building of an 'ivory house' at Samaria [1 Kings 22:39], whilst Solomon is credited with the making of a magnificent ivory throne (amongst other things) with lions on either side (arm?). The design of the Solomonic throne is reminiscent of both the throne of Ahiram of Byblos, carved on his sarcophagus, and, in particular, the throne of a Late Bronze Age Levantine ruler, carved on the ivory handle found in the Megiddo ivory cache of Stratum VII. Both of these thrones have winged sphinxes acting as arm-rests.

Amongst the ivory carvings found at Samaria were a pair of magnificent lions which must have formerly belonged to the arms of a throne or chair [Crowfoot & Crowfoot, 1938, p. 24-5 & pl. IX]. The excavators have suggested that these and the other pieces were from Ahab’s house of ivory, forming parts of furniture and wall-panelling.

We have so far mentioned the two ivory deposits found in Palestine, at Megiddo and Samaria. However, there are two other find locations of similar ivories further to the north, at Arslan Tash and Calah (Nimrud). The Nimrud ivories are thought to be from the palace of Sargon II (c. 722), at the time when Samaria’s population was deported to Assyria – they are un-Assyrian in style, the motifs being Levanto-Egyptian. These ivories are so remarkably similar to those from Samaria (which were associated with a destruction as many were blackened by conflagration), that it seems obvious to suggest that the Nimrud ivories are in fact booty from Samaria and that both collections should be treated as a single corpus.

The Arslan Tash ivories appear to be slightly later in date [ibid., p. 5] and this would fit well with the finding of the name of Hazael, king of Damascus, on one item. Hazael's reign began just a generation after the close of Ahab's reign in Samaria (c. 842 BC).

One thing is quite apparent from all the ivories under discussion here – they are all heavily influenced by the art of Egypt. The question that has to be asked, however, is if that influence was direct or via another culture such as the Phoenicians. So far, I have argued that there is no direct archaeological evidence of Phoenician artistic or technical influence on Israel, and in masonry working and stone architecture that is certainly very much the case. With ivory carving the situation is not much better. Again there is a complete absence of ivory carving in the archaeological record of Iron Age Lebanon. The biblical texts refer to the Phoenicians essentially as wood-workers, and Hiram the craftsman, as 'a worker in bronze' [1 Kings 7:13-14]. Indeed, Solomon's request to king Hiram for artists and craftsmen specifically leaves out mention of ivory carving:

"... send me a man skilled at working in gold, silver, bronze, iron, scarlet, crimson and violet materials, and he who knows the art of engraving too, …" [2 Chronicles 2:7]

Although based on negative argumentation, it is apparent from this request that ivory carvers were not required, perhaps because Solomon had access to this skill from elsewhere – the obvious candidate being Egypt. However, Egypt's long association with Byblos does give some latitude to the idea that Hiram's craftsmen included ivory workers well versed in the motifs and designs of Egypt, and so the possibility should not be entirely excluded.

Crowfoot and Crowfoot devote much of their publication on the Samaria ivories to comparisons with Egyptian designs, and there is no need to go into individual cases beyond a correction to one of their chronological comparisons. In their plate II, they show a seated 'Hah' figure carrying in each hand the 'renpet' (year) symbol, which was found at Samaria. In their text, they then compare this motif to a lintel frieze from the Temple of Khonsu at Karnak where eight such figures are shown, and indeed the comparison is a good one. However, their dating of the Egyptian relief is rather too generalised and leaves them able to suggest that their Samarian figure is 'not far removed from them [i.e. the Egyptian figures] in date'. The inscription above the Karnak figures names the First Prophet of Amun Pinudjem, who could be either Pinudjem I, son of HPA Piankh, or Pinudjem II, son of HPA Menkheperre. Both HPAs served in the 21st Dynasty, one some 220 years and the other about 115 years before Ahab’s accession in the orthodox chronology. Therefore, the Egyptian relief is considerably earlier than its Samarian counterpart. In the New Chronology the interval is just one or two generations with the Egyptian relief carved after the Samarian ivory, assuming it to belong to Ahab’s house of ivory.

One further comment on Crowfoot and Crowfoot's conclusions concerning the source of ivory carving expertise is quite amusing to me and neatly brings together the elements of this discussion on ivory:

"Waves of Egyptian influence broke over Syria at various times. At first glance one might be disposed to connect this wave with the story of Wenamon: 'Amon equips all lands, said Zakarbaal king of Byblos to Wenamon, he equips them, having first equipped the land of Egypt whence thou camest. For craftsmanship came forth from it to reach my place of abode; and teaching came forth from it to reach my place of abode.' The double reference to craftsmanship and teaching, the latter being interpreted as subject-matter, seems apposite to ivories. But in point of fact these words were spoken two hundred years before the time of Ahab, and if Zakarbaal really used them, he was probably talking politely with his tongue in his cheek, as an Indian politician might talk about Western civilization." [Crowfoot & Crowfoot, 1938, pp. 50-51]

Here we have the link we have been looking for. From the mouth of a Phoenician king (via Wenamun) we learn that Egyptian craftsmen had come to Byblos to teach their skills, but 200 yearsto soon for any direct link to Ahab. This again is resolved in the new chronological scheme because Zakarbaal's words are spoken only a generation after the time of Ahab – the king of Israel lived at the very time when Egypt was sending out craftsmen to teach Egyptian skills to their Levantine counterparts.

Summary

We have discussed all the so-called Phoenician features in Israelite art and architecture that I am aware of and come to the conclusion that there is virtually no evidence of Phoenician influence in the archaeological record of Palestine. To a large part, this is the case because of the absence of Iron Age monumental architecture for the Lebanese Early Iron Age in comparison to the previous period.

"... a review of the architectural-archaeological material on the Iron Age sites in Phoenicia is entirely negative, as the material stands today. This should be emphasized, for many publications continued to apply terminology which outwardly implies architectural evidence for the existence of cultural ties between Phoenicia and Israel in the Iron Age – while in fact all such evidence is either later in date or is derived from historical or biblical sources." [Shiloh, 1979, p. 73]

Where scholars have tried to make this same connection with regard to building techniques the evidence is equally stark. We have observed that marginally dressed ashlars have not been found in the Lebanon, and Shiloh has also argued that the application of a fugitive timber course, so typical of Israelite architecture, is also of non-Phoenician origin:

"This notable substitution of stone for wood is also often ascribed to Phoenicia, even though we have before us a local technique characterizing private construction in Israel from the beginning of the Iron Age on, much earlier than the political-economic treaties made between Phoenicia and the Kingdom of Israel in the 10th century BCE." [Shiloh, 1979, p. 86]

This is the one occasion where I take issue with Shiloh, because, if the Phoenicians made any sort of contribution to Israelite architecture, it surely would have involved the use of wood. It seems highly unlikely to me that the Israelites would have developed an architectural technique using timber beams in a land short of good timber, unless they (a) had access to cedar of Lebanon and (b) the necessary skilled wood-cutters to implement this design technique.

All these problems can, at least in part, be resolved by looking for our Phoenician connection in an earlier period – that is the end of the Late Bronze Age (LB IIB). This is what is advocated in the New Chronology, and, in fact, precisely what results from the proposed revision of Third Intermediate Period Chronology (revised on internal Egyptian evidence). With Saul and David equated with the Levantine Habiru of the late 18th Dynasty and Solomon as a contemporary of Ramesses II, we can put forward possible Israelite ties with LB Ugarit, as well as Bronze Age Byblos, Tyre and Sidon. We have monumental ashlar-built architecture at Megiddo associated with treasures of ivory and gold. We even have a ruler seated on a lion/sphinx throne from Megiddo who, with a bit of imagination, might be a dead ringer for Solomon himself. We might go as far as to tentatively suggest that the Phoenician king Ahiram, buried in the royal cemetery at Byblos (and in whose tomb jars of Ramesses II were found) could be the Phoenician king Hiram who did so much to help in the great building program of the United Monarchy period. However, chronological problems associated with this tomb are well known and full of traps for the unwary, so it would be prudent not to put any weight on this idea beyond suggesting it as an intriguing possibility.

Ussishkin's suggestion that the Megiddo Stratum VA/IVB palace 1723 was a bit-hilani building perhaps fits more satisfactorily with a mid-9th century date in the reign of Ahab, rather than a Solomonic 10th century date – the Syrian bit-hilani palace predominates in the north during the 8th and 7th centuries. However, it does appear that the Stratum VIII palace at Megiddo may also have been a bit-hilani design, with characteristic two-columned portico entrance; so chronological arguments based on building plans can be misleading. It is not possible here to discuss the reassignment of destruction levels at the Palestinian sites which would be necessary with this new scheme, and issues such as the piece of ivory bearing the cartouche of Ramesses III found in the Megiddo VIIA cache have to be weighed-in against this proposal. It is therefore entirely possible that Ahab’s chronological position relative to Ramesses III may have to be adjusted by a generation or so, but to return the Egyptian king to the 12th century is entirely unnecessary. To also return Solomon to 'a cultural level which was apparently lacking in both artistic sophistication and wealth' would be to compound the intellectual dark age of the Alt and Noth school which has attempted to deprive us of much of the romance of ancient history by turning the likes of Moses, Joshua, David and Solomon into mythological beings, whilst others have done the same for the heroes of the Trojan War.

Wouldn't it be rather nice if we could at least bring some of our Israelite hero kings out of the mists of mythology and re-establish them and their associated cultures back at the centre of the historical stage? All it takes is an open mind, a touch of imagination and a love of ancient history and culture – stir well and hey presto we have all the ingredients to make ourselves a splendid new multi-layered cake with which to celebrate.

Bibliography

Albright W. F. (1954): From the Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore).

Avi-Yonah M. (ed.) (1976): Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. II (London).

Aharoni Y. (1972): 'The Stratification of Israelite Megiddo' in JNES 31, pp. 302-11.

Crowfoot J. W. & Crowfoot G. M. (1938): Samaria-Sebaste. Reports of the Work of the Joint Expedition in 1931-33 and of the British Expedition in 1935. No. 2: Early Ivories from Samaria.

   (1942): Samaria-Sebaste: The buildings at Samaria (London).

Davies G. I. (19..): 'Solomonic Stables at Megiddo After All?' in PEQ, pp. 130-141.

Holladay J. S. (1976): 'Of Sherds and Strata: Contributions Towards an Understanding of the Archaeology of the Divided Monarchy' in Cross F. M. et al. Magnolia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God (New York), pp. 272 & 282.

Kenyon K. (1970): Archaeology of the Holy Land (London).

Kenyon K. M. (1957): 'Israelite Pottery: Stratified Groups' in Crowfoot J. W., Crowfoot G. M. & Kenyon K. M. (1957): The Objects from Samaria (London), pp. 94-107.

Loud G/Megiddo Expedition (1948): Megiddo II, Text, (Chicago)

Pritchard J. B. (1974): 'The Age of Solomon' in J. B. Pritchard (ed.): Solomon and Sheba (London), p. 35.

Shiloh, Y. (1979): 'The proto-Aeolic capital and Israelite ashlar masonry' in Quedem 11. Ussishkin D. (1979): ‘Answers at Lachish’ in BAR V:6, pp. 16-38.

   (1980): 'Was the “Solomonic” City Gate at Megiddo Built by King Solomon?' in BASOR 239, pp. 1-18.

Wightman G. J. (1985): 'Megiddo VIA-III: Associated Structures and Chronology' in Levant XVII, pp. 117-29.

Yadin Y. (1977): 'Megiddo' in Avi-Yonah M. & Stern E. (eds.): Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. III (London).