Megiddo

Published in Tel Aviv, vol. 47, 2020, pp. 246-255.
The stratigraphy and chronology of the Iron Age gates at Megiddo, particularly the so-called 'Solomonic', six-chambered Gate 2156, have been the subject of a long scholarly debate. In a recent issue of Tel Aviv, Finkelstein et al. described their recent soundings in the area of these gates and suggested a new interpretation of their history. The present paper argues that - contrary to the conclusions of Finkelstein et al.- the stratigraphy and history of this gatehouse should be understood as suggested by the University of Chicago excavators.

Eighteenth Dynasty pharaoh Thutmose III conquered the ancient city-state of Megiddo in the late fifteenth-century BC as a part of his first campaign into Syria-Palestine. This victory, part of the first campaign in history for which there is an extant detailed account, ensured that Thutmose III would be remembered as one of Egypt’s greatest warrior pharaohs. He began to reverse the military decline that occurred during the reigns of Thutmose II and Hatshepsut by crushing a strengthening rebellion, reclaiming Egyptian military dominance over northern Palestine, gaining substantial booty and tribute for Egypt, and exerting control over communications routes between Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia. While the exact date of the battle is uncertain, what is certain is that the conquest of Megiddo highlighted Thutmose’s skill as a military commander. He analyzed the available intelligence to devise a daring plan to take the enemy coalition off guard. He took advantage of the terrain, his numerical superiority, and used deception to exploit the tactical weakness of his opponent. The Battle of Megiddo was an impressive victory for Thutmose III, and it set Egypt on a path of military dominance in the region that lasted nearly two hundred years.

In light of the large wine processing installation found in Jezreel in 2013, the pre-Deuteronomistic Naboth story is imagined as featuring a rich Naboth who offended a weak Israelite king. Since the Assyrian conquest of the Jezreel Valley, the Israelite king had little political clout over the region and could thus be snubbed, til the queen of the rump kingdom of Samaria arranged a meeting with the governor of Megiddo.

ABSTRACT: This lecture focuses initially on the Battle of Megiddo, looking at the circumstances behind the Canaanite "rebellion," Thutmose III's reaction and march northward across the Sinai and through southern Canaan, his decision over which approach to take to Megiddo, the arrival and preparations at the Qina Valley near Megiddo, his successful battle, albeit marred by a fateful lapse in discipline by his soldiers (who plunder the enemy camp), the seven month siege, building of an enclosure around Megiddo to retain the numerous Canaanite princes (of the coalition force), the eventual surrender of Megiddo (after supplies dwindled and infighting broke out within the town), and the aftermath of the siege (including booty, captives, oaths of allegiance), and the fate of the various Cananaite princes, their entourages, and inhabitants of Megiddo. The second part of the lecture continues with an outline of the various military campaigns, tours of inspection, expeditions, and receipt of tribute from Canaan between years 23 and 42, and highlights the events of a few of these campaigns from official and private documents. The lecture concludes with an overview of activity in Nubia, domestic affairs, construction projects, Thutmose III's legacy, and his mortuary complex and burial place. REVISED: Some edits, new images, formatting, etc. (Feb. 12, 2021).

Megiddo is one of the most important cities in the ancient Near East. In Christian tradition Megiddo is a symbol of wars and conflict - Armageddon. Large-scale archaeological excavations have been conducted at Megiddo for more than one hundred years. The present book summarizes the history of Megiddo and its archaeological findings in clear and simple language. For twenty years the author was co-director of Tel Aviv University ongoing excavations at Megiddo.
      The book was published in 2018. A PDF of the complete book is attached herewith. A hard copy can be obtained from the Israel Exploration Society in Jerusalem.

This 2-volume set, edited by I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern, is the second in the series of final publications of the Megiddo Expedition. It reports the finds in the 1998-2002 seasons, with several references to the campaign of 2004.
      It was published in 2006 by the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University (Monograph Series 24)

This paper spatially and temporally synthesizes data on Iron Age metallurgy in the
Levant to reveal patterns in development of ironworking in the Levant within its regional,
cultural and chronological framework. The synthesized data was used to produce a series of
maps that visually represent the changes in metallurgy over a 620 year period. The paper focuses
on the dissemination of ironworking technology as well as regional differences in its usage.

Historical evidence and archaeological surveys conducted over several decades in the Legio-Megiddo region in the Jezreel Valley, Israel, have pointed to the long-term presence of the Roman VIth Ferrata Legion at the site of el-Manach Hill. In 2013, the Jezreel Valley Regional Project (JVRP) conducted excavations on the northern side of the site. Architectural remains indicative of a Roman castra were uncovered, and finds confirm the presence of Legio VI Ferrata. Current evidence confirms dates for the site as a military base from the early 2nd century CE to its final abandonment by late 3rd to early 4th century CE.

In 746 BCE, Tiglath-pileser III came to the Assyrian throne as a usurper.¹ His foreign policy was markedly different to that of his predecessors: he enlarged the area of Assyrian control, annexed former client states and converted them into Assyrian provinces.² His rule marks the beginning of Assyria's imperial phase³ and, significantly, also the beginning of the end of the Kingdom of Israel. The Northern Kingdom rebelled against Assyrian domination circa 734 BCE – an event heralded by the murder of Pekahiah, the son of Menachem, and the accession of Pekah to the Israelite throne in 736 BCE.⁴ Tiglath-pileser responded to the general unrest in the region by conducting three campaigns⁵ to the west, including at least one against Israel, between the years 734 and 732 BCE.⁶ This resulted

This article presents a new examination of the dating elements of the 7th pylon of the temple of Amun-Ra at Karnak, and some new observations concerning its decoration. Traces of amendments to the lists of “captives” carved on the northern face of the monument suggest that the decoration was added in two distinctive phases. A new dating for the construction of the monument and the execution of its decorative program in the reign of Thutmosis III is proposed.
Cet article propose un réexamen des éléments de datation du VIIe pylône du temple d’Amon-Rê à Karnak et de nouvelles observations concernant sa décoration. Des traces de modification des listes de «peuples vaincus» représentés sur la face nord du monument conduisent à considérer que la décoration du pylône a été réalisée en deux étapes distinctes. Une nouvelle datation dans le règne de Thoutmosis III pour la réalisation du monument et de son programme décoratif est proposée.

The Canaanite Nahariyah temple center is Middle Bronze Age, 2200-1570 BCE. * (CAH: Vol. 1I, Part 1, 111.) The Nahariyah site, excavated between 1954-1955, CE is located about 100 meters from the Mediterranean shore on the seacoast just south of Tyre and Sidon. This center, also similar to Megiddo, includes three temple layers. As Nahariyah is an isolated sanctuary with no associated settlements, it gives rise to the possibility that it was a wayside shrine or ancient caravanserai with an adjacent temple room as was Kuntillet. (CAH: Vol. 1I, Part 1, 110-111.)
* (Alternative dating for Middle Bronze Age Crete is, 2000-1450 BCE.)

Much has been written about the stables of Megiddo Stratum IV since a series of tripartite buildings were discovered in 1928 during excavations conducted by The Oriental Institute under the direction of P. L. O. Guy. The buildings continued to be identified as Solomon’s Stables until the early 1970s, when Yadin conducted a number of small-scale excavations on behalf of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and dated them down to the 9th century BCE; consequently, they became known as Ahab’s Stables (Yadin 1970; 1976). The Megiddo Expedition of Tel Aviv University launched a large-scale excavation of the site in 1992, and excavations in the area of the northern stables (Area L) were resumed in 1998. The Tel Aviv University excavations resulted in the stables being dated later—yet again—to the 8th cen-tury BCE and cautiously attributed to Jeroboam II (Cantrell and Finkelstein 2006: 644–45; Finkelstein 1999: 63–66).

(Please note that the 2018 excavation found new evidence which affects the conclusion presented below. Read the notification of change in the front matter of the paper.)

This paper deals with the controversy about Megiddo’s six-chambered gate (Gate 2156) which was ascribed by Yigael Yadin to the Solomonic building program mentioned in 1 Kings 9:15: “And this is the reason of the tribute work which king Solomon raised in order to build the house of JHWH, and his own house, and the Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, and Megiddo, and Gezer.” In the late 1950ies, Yadin had discovered similarities between the six-chambered gates at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, and therefore dated those structures to the reign of Solomon in the 10th century BC.

But there are very strong arguments against this dating. The discussion mainly concentrates on stratigraphy: Gate 2156 lies in Stratum IVA (High Chronology: 9th-8th century BC; Low Chronology: 8th century BC). However, if Solomon is considered the builder of Gate 2156, we would expect it to lie in Megiddo’s Stratum VA-IVB (High Chronology: 10th century BC) or even an earlier stratum according to Low Chronology. This is why some scholars put forward that Gate 2156 had an earlier phase in Stratum VA-IVB.

My personal conclusion is that there are some noteworthy hints that Gate 2156 once had a Str. VA-IVB floor at the level around the second ashlar course. Advocates of the High Chronology and of the historicity of Solomon – among whom I count myself – could thus indeed opine that Gate 2156 was constructed under Solomon’s reign.

But firstly, this kind of argumentation is quite weak from an epistemological point of view: in order to connect archaeological finds to historical events and people, it is not sufficient that nothing prevents such a connection, but there has to be clear evidence for it.

Secondly, all the typological arguments pointing in favor of Yadin’s theory have been refuted: A close reading of 1 Kings 9:15 does not support the idea that the fortifications of Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer must be similar. Moreover, there are also six-chambered gates in Philistine Ashdod and Judean Lachish, and those two cannot have Solomon as their builder.

Thirdly, there is no convincing evidence for the required hypothetical floor: If we assume an earlier stage of Gate 2156 in Str. VA-IVB, we must assume that the Chicago excavators had made mistakes in their documentation. That is not impossible, but we should be careful with this reproach.

To conclude, there are strong objections to an earlier phase of Gate 2156, so from an epistemological point of view, it is safer to date Gate 2156 to the 9th-8th century BC. Therefore, Megiddo’s six-chambered gate most probably cannot be ascribed to Solomon.

In this paper I revisit a glass female figurine discovered during the Tell el-Mutesellim (Megiddo) excavations at the beginning of the 20th century and exhibited in the Istanbul Archaeology Museums collection since 1904. A detailed analysis and interpretation of the artefact are presented in light of recent research on glass of the second millennium BCE in the Near East.

Keywords: Megiddo, Tell el-Mutesellim, Glass, Female figurines, Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, Istanbul Archaeology Museums

During the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1550-1200 BCE) five great powers-Egypt, Mitanni, Babylon, Ḫatti, and Assyria-arose and divided control of Western Asia among them. Surrounded by subordinate vassals, there was a need to communicate with each other and to strengthen political, military and economic dominance and control over specific regions. This system was based on a large network of messengers, scribes, and skilled personnel. Communication was also conducted through establishing political alliances, treaties, marriage alliances, and a large quantity of royal gift exchanges.

The fragment of an Egyptian statue of Djehutihotep found at Megiddo by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (OI) has been long known. It was found with three uninscribed Egyptian statue fragments reused in the foundations of Temple 2048, attributed to Stratum VII, which was dated by them to the Late Bronze Age IIB, 13th– 12th century BCE. A recent reevaluation of the stratigraphy of the cultic area of Megiddo (OI: Area BB; TAU: Area J) based on new excavations, however, demonstrates that the foundation of Temple 2048 should be assigned to Stratum XII dated to the early Middle Bronze Age II. The new dating of the findspot of the Djehutihotep statue fragment narrows the window of time for the arrival of the statue at Megiddo to the lifetime of Djehutihotep, supports a high chronology for the Middle Bronze Age, and demonstrates direct contact between Egypt and Megiddo in the Middle Bronze Age I. This paper reviews the new data on the archaeological context and reevaluates the implications of Djehutihotep at Megiddo.