Hazor, Dor and Megiddo in the Time of Ahab and under Assyrian Rule Author(s): EPHRAIM STERN Source: Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 40, No. 1 (1990), pp. 12-30 Published by: Israel Exploration Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27926166 Accessed: 20-10-2017 06:56 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms Israel Exploration Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Israel Exploration Journal This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Hazor, Dor and Megiddo in the Time of Ahab and under Assyrian Rule* EPHRAIM STERN Institute of Archaeology The Hebrew University of Jerusalem INTRODUCTION IN the early 1960s, shortly after the publication of his well-known article, 'Hazor, Gezer and Megiddo in Solomon's Time',1 the late Y. Yadin advised me to undertake an examination of the fortifications and gates of Palestine as the subject of my master's thesis. After completing it, I published some of my conclusions on the Iron Age gates,2 to which I now return after excavating two gates at Dor. In his article Yadin argued that since at Hazor, in the tenth century B.C.E. Stratum X, a six-chambered gate had been found, which was identical in its dimensions and plan to the gate found at Megiddo and was also similar to the gate unearthed by Macalister at Gezer, this was conclusive evidence that the three gates had been built by Solomon, in full agreement with the statement in 1 Kings 9:15. For some reason, no later Iron Age gates were discovered or excavated at Hazor. 'Solomon's Gate' was the only one unearthed there, even though other fortifications and public buildings were uncovered ? notably, the walls, fortress, storerooms and water system ? attributed to later kings. Yadin was thus forced to establish the sequence of the development of Iron Age gates mainly on the basis of changes in the plans of the gates at Megiddo. These evolved from a gate of six chambers to one of four chambers, and lastly to one of two chambers.3 The stratigraphy and chronology of the Solomonic Gate at Hazor are generally accepted, and the examination of the six-chambered gate at Gezer by the Hebrew Union College expedition under the direction of W. Dever4 seems to confirm the chronological basis of Yadin's hypothesis. (Only the date of Gezer's Outer Gate has * A longer version of this article was originally published in Hebrew in El 20 (1989), pp. 233-248. 1 In A. Maiamat (ed.): The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, Jerusalem, 1961, pp. 66-109 (Hebrew, English summary, p. xi); and cf. also idem, Hazor ? The Head of All Those Kingdoms (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1970), London, 1972, pp. 147-164. 2 See E. Stern: The Fortified City Gate and the Struggle for It Under the Monarchy, in J. Liver (ed.): The Military History of the Land of Israel in Biblical Times, Jerusalem, 1964, pp. 400-409 (Hebrew). 3 See Y. Yadin: Megiddo of the Kings of Israel, A 33 (1970), pp. 73-79; idem, Megiddo, Notes and News, IEJ 16 (1966), pp. 278-280; ibid. 17 (1967), pp. 119-121; ibid. 22 (1972), pp. 161-164. 4 Cf. also Y. Yadin: Solomon's City Wall and Gate at Gezer, IEJ 8 (1958), pp. 80-86; W.G. Dever: Further Excavations at Gezer, BA 34 (1971), pp. 112-120, Fig. 8. This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms HAZOR, DOR AND MEGIDDO 13 been called into question.)5 Megiddo thus remains the only site which is a constant object of dispute as to its building phases in the period of the Monarchy. Unlike Hazor and Gezer, at Megiddo it was impossible to carry out new excavations in the area of the gates. Yadin, who was fully aware of the fact that the most effective way to re-examine the results of an old excavation is to conduct new excavations, did what was possible under the circumstances. Instead of re-interpreting the results of the original excavators, as others had done before him, he performed what he called a 'post-mortem' on the mound of Megiddo.6 Indeed, the conclusions of this excavation, which are well-known to all those interested in the subject, and to which he repeatedly turned in his writings,7 indicated that the Iron Age fortifications of Megiddo should be classified as follows: Stratum VA-IVB = Six-chambered gate and casemate wall (Solomonic period) Stratum IVA1 = Six-chambered gate and offset-inset wall (time of Jeroboam I) Stratum IV = Four-chambered gate and offset-inset wall (time of Ahab) Stratum III = Two-chambered gate and offset-inset wall (period of Assyrian rule) Strata II-I = Unfortified settlement with fortress (Babylonian Persian period) These conclusions were based on a careful and meticulous stratigraphie excavation whose results were substantiated by numerous finds. They were also later verified by Y. Shiloh, who carried out a fresh examination of the plans, records and photographs prepared by the earlier excavators and kept in the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.8 Unfortunately, the gatehouse proper and the walls associated with it could not be excavated anew by Yadin. The only evidence available for them was contained in the final excavation report and also in the field diaries, in which the American excavators had recorded various incidental remarks and other personal impressions. Several other archaeologists also stepped into this breach ? Z. Herzog and Y. Aharoni, for example9 ? who arrived at different conclusions, on the basis of the same evidence. 5 See . Herzog: The City Gate in Eret Israel and its Neighbouring Countries, Tel Aviv, 1976, pp. 125-129 (Hebrew, English summary); A. Zertal: The Gates of Gezer, El 15 (1981), pp. 222-228 (Hebrew); I. Finkelstein: The Date of the Gezer Outer Wall, Tel Aviv 8 (1981), pp. 136-145. 6 Cf. Y. Yadin: Hazor ? The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible, New York, 1973. 7 Cf. above, nn. 3 and 6, and also Yadin (above, n. 1, 1972), pp. 147-164; idem (above, n. 6). 8 See Y. Shiloh: Solomon's Gate at Megiddo as Recorded by Its Excavator, R. Lamon, Chicago, Levant 12 (1980), pp. 69-76. 9 See Herzog (above, n. 5), pp. 102-118; Y. Aharoni: The Archaeology of the Land of Israel, Philadelphia, 1982, pp. 200-211; idem, The Stratification of Israelite Megiddo, JNES 31 (1972), pp. 302-311. This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 14 EPHRAIM STERN They maintained that during the course of Stratum VA (which they dated to the time of David and not of Solomon), the fortifications of the city consisted of a series of interconnected buildings which were constructed along the periphery of the mound. Only in Stratum IVB was the six-chambered gate erected, which from the outset was attached to an offset-inset wall. Nevertheless, aside from the argument about the walls, there was general agreement that the six-chambered gate dated to the time of Solomon, the four-chambered gate (Stratum IVA) to the time of Ahab and that the two-chambered gate of Stratum III belonged to the period of Assyrian rule. A totally different interpretation was recently proposed by D. Ussishkin, based on nearly the same records and photographs. Ussishkin, in his explanation of the evidence, maintained that although it is true that Stratum VA-IVB dates from the time of Solomon, the fortifications of this stratum were created by the row of peripheral structures, whereas the six-chambered gate and the offset-inset wall associated with it date from the time of Ahab.10 Since it is possible, on the basis of the same facts and records, to arrive at 10 See D. Ussishkin: Was the 'Solomonic' City Gate at Megiddo Built by King Solomon? BASOR 239 (1981), pp. 1-18. Yadin had already demonstrated that the suggested date of Lachish's six-chambered gate was in question here, and he also answered him in a cogent article ? Y. Yadin A Rejoinder, ibid., pp. 19-23. I would not have broached this subject if Ussishkin had not resumed this controversy in his second excavation report of Lachish, which appeared after Yadin had published his rejoinder. See D. Ussishkin: Excavations at Tel Lachish, 1978-1983: Second Preliminary Report, Tel Aviv 10 (1983), pp. 97-108. Ussishkin suggested there that the six-chambered gate at Lachish was constructed by Asa or Jehoshaphat in the ninth century B.C.E. (cf. his article in Qadmoniot 15 [1982], pp. 42-56 [Hebrew]), and as far as I can gather, he gives two reasons for this: 1. The archaeological evidence does not provide any clues as to the date and circumstances of the construction of the Level IV city'(7eMvzv, p. 171); 2.V. Fritz (following others) recently again assigned the list of Rehoboam's fortresses in Judah, among them Lachish, to the time of Josiah.