[Magazine] The Biblical Archaeologist. Vol. 36. No 3

32 Pages·1973·3.16 MB·English

The
OF-1
Biblical
Archaeologist
Publishedb y
TheA mericanS choolso f OrientalR esearch
126I nmanS treet, Cambridge,M ass. 02139
tigt
1(cid:127)
I(cid:127)
.-(cid:127)i
;"I
Volume 36 No. 3 September,1 973
78 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. 36,
The Biblical Archaeologist is published quarterly (February, May, September, Decem-
ber) by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Its purpose is to provide readable, non-
technical, yet thoroughly reliable accounts of archaeological discoveries as they relate
to the Bible. Authors wishing to submit unsolicited articles should write the editors for style and
format instructions before submitting manuscripts.
Editors: Edward F. Campbell, Jr. and II. Darrell Lance, with the assistance of Floyd V. Filson
in New Testament matters. Editorial correspondence should be sent to the editors at 800 XVest
Belden Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60614.
Art Editor: Robert II. Johnston, Rochester Institute of Technology.
Editorial Board: G. Ernest Wright, Ilarvard University; Frank M. Cross, Jr., Harvard Uni-
versity; William G. Dever, Jerusalem; John S. Ilolladay, Jr., University of Toronto.
Subscriptions: $5.00 per year, payable to the American Schools of Oriental Research,
126 Inman Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139. Associate members of ASOR receive
the BA automatically. Ten or more subscriptions for group use, mailed and billed to one address,
$3.50 per year apiece. Subscriptions in England are available through B. IH. Blackwell, Ltd.,
Broad Street, Oxford.
Back Numbers: $1.50 per issue, 1960 to present: $1.75 per issue, 1950-59; $2.00 per issue
before 1950. Please remit with order, to the ASOR office.
The journal is indexed in Art Index, Index to Religious Periodical Literature, Christian Periodi-
cal Index, and a. the end of every fifth volume of the journal itself.
Second class postage PAID at Cambridge, Massachusetts and additional offices.
Copyright by American Schools of Oriental Research, 1973
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BY TRANSCRIPT PRINTING COMPANY
PETERBOROUGH, N. IH.
Contents
King Solomon's Palaces, by David Ussishkin ...............................78
Recent Books Received ............. ........................................106
Cover: The wooden paneling of the walls in Barrakib's Palace K in Ziniirli as reconstructed by
the excavators on the basis of the archaeological evidence.
King Solomon's Palaces
DAVIDU SSISHKIN
Tel Aviv University
King Solomon's reign over Israel and Judah from approximately
970 to 930 B.C. was characterized by peace and great prosperity, and
his kingdom stretched from the borders of Egypt to the Euphrates. This
period forms a cornerstone in the archaeology of the Holy Land. On
the one hand, long and detailed descriptions of Solomon's glorious reign
and building activities appear in the Old Testament. On the other hand,
substantial remains of the Solomonic period have been uncovered dur-
ing the excavation of various sites in Israel; and much comparative
material has been discovered in the neighboring countries. It is the ex-
istence of these two sources of information, the texts and the archaeo-
logical remains; which makes this period so fascinating in the study of
biblical archaeology; for although these sources are based on different
concepts, they are mutually dependent and combine to form a coherent
picture. As we shall see throughout this study, the biblical descriptions
1973, 3) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 79
corroborate the archaeological data recovered in the excavations, throw
light on them, and help in their dating and interpretation; and con-
versely, the archaeological remains illustrate the biblical text and help
to clarify the obscure parts. The, famous illustration of this corrobora-
tive parallelism is the verse in I Kings 9:15: "And this is the record of
the forced labor which King Solomon conscripted to build the house
of the Lord, his own palace, the Mlillo, the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor
and Megiddo and Gezer." This passage was the focal point in the dis-
covery and interpretation of the Solomonic monumental city-gates at
Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer. Another fascinating illustration of the
parallelism between the biblical and material sources can be found in
the case of King Solomon's royal palaces. With Professor Y. Yadin's
discovery of a new palace in \legiddo-described for the first time in
BA 33 (1970) -it seems appropriate to re-evaluate the problems of the
palaces and describe them in detail for the readers of The Biblical Ar-
chaeologist.
The Royal Palace in Jerusalem
When King Solomon ascended the throne, Jerusalem stretched
along the ridge labeled by scholars the "South-East Hill," the "Hill of
Ophel," or the "City of David" (Fig. 1). At present, the ridge is situ-
ated to the south of the Turkish city-wall, in the section between the
Dung Gate and the south-east corner of the Old City, or in other words,
to the south of Haram el-Sherif where the Dome of the Rock and el-
Aksa mosque were subsequently built. Solomon increased the area of
the walled city on its northern side by incorporating in it the hill of
Moriah on which the Haram el-Sherif is now situated. There he con-
structed a royal enclosure or royal acropolis which contained the tem-
ple and his royal palace. As is the case in other royal cities in the An-
cient East, the Solomonic enclosure was built at the edge of the city
rather than in its center, and at its highest point, thus dominating the
entire capital. The area of the Solomonic enclosure is now covered by
the Haramn,a nd it is agreed by most scholars that the temple was built
on the very spot where the Dome of the Rock now stands. The royal
palace seems to have been built to the south of the temple. Archaeo-
logical investigations cannot be carried out in the area of the Haram;
and in any case, it is very doubtful whether Solomonic remains are
preserved at all as the whole hill was leveled and rebuilt by King Herod
the Great. Hence our evidence on Solomon's royal palace in Jerusalem,
which obviously was the largest building constructed by that king, is
confined to the biblical descriptions combined with comparative ar-
chaeological material.
80 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. 36,
TEMPLE
PALACE
1
1
/ 1 SPRING GI ON
0 loom.
Fig. 1. Conjectural plan of Solomonic Jerusalem. The present walls of the Old City and the
Haram el-Sherif are included for orientation.
1973, 3) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 81
In I Kings 7:1-12 the biblical record gives a brief account of the
palace in question. The shortness of the account may be due to the
attitude of the editors of the Book of Kings who included in the text
a detailed description of the "house of the Lord" while hardly paying
attention to the neighboring secular palace, though the latter was larger
in size and took a longer period to build. The record appears to be
accurate, but its briefness and the use of technical terms make it diffi-
cult to fully comprehend the text. The measurement used in the de-
scription is the ancient local cubit, which is either the shorter cubit, ca.
44.5 cm. or 17.5 inches, or the longer cubit, ca. 52.5 cm. or 20.65 inches
in length. We shall start our discussion by quoting the biblical verses
mentioned above, but we must remind the reader that a translation of
a biblical text-and in particular a somewhat obscure text like this one-
tends to be an interpretation as well. The description runs as follows:
(1) Solomon had been engaged on his house for thirteen years by the
time he had finished it. (2) He built the house of the forest of Leb-
anon which was a hundred cubits long, fifty broad, and thirty high;
and it contained four (=three, in the Septuagint translation) rows
of cedar columns crowned with cedar capitals (?). (3) It was paneled
with cedar beams which extended over the beams (?), which in turn
rested upon forty-five columns, arranged fifteen in a row. (4) There
were sequpim in three rows, and mehezah against mehezah three times.
(5) And all the doors and the jambs and the Sequpim (?) had right
angles, and mehezah against mehezah three times. (6) He made the
hall of columns, fifty cubits long and thirty cubits broad, and a hall
and columns with a cornice in front of them. (7) He built the hall
for the throne, which is the hall of judgment where he was to give
judgment; this was paneled in cedar from one side of the floor to the
other. (8) His own house where he was to reside in the other court
behind the hall was made in the same way; and he made a house for
Pharaoh's daughter whom he had married, constructed like the hall.
(9) All these, on the inner and outer sides, from foundation to cop-
ing, and from outside (?) to the great court, were (constructed) of
measured (?) ashlar stones of good quality (?), dressed with chisel (?).
(10) The foundations were of large stones of good quality (?), stones
of ten cubits and stones of eight cubits. (11) And above were mea-
sured (?) ashlar stones of good quality (?) and cedar. (12) And the
great court around, built of three courses of ashlar stones and one
course of cedar beams (?) .
It seems clear from the description that the palace-often labeled
"the king's house"-was constructed within a "great court" which prob-
82 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. 36,
ably separated it from the temple and other structures in the acropolis.
Inside the great court were built six units which were introduced con-
secutively:
1. "The.house of the forest of Lebanon." This unit alone was nearly
tire same size as the temple.
2. The "hall of columns," a rectangular hall which was about 75
feet long and 45 feet wide.
3. The "hall for the throne," also called the "hall of judgment."
This was the main ceremonial hall of the palace in which the king's
magnificent throne to be described below was undoubtedly placed.
4. "The other court," which was "within the hall." The living
quarters of the palace adjoined this court.
5 "His own house where he was to reside" which obviously was the
king's private abode.
6. "A house for Pharaoh's daughter," which was a separate dwell-
ing unit withlin the palace built for Solomon's famous wife, who prob-
ably was the daughter of Pharaoh Siamun.1 This unit may also have
included the living quarters for other wives and concubines as well.
What (lid the palace look like? The biblical description is so brief
that it is impossible to reconstruct the edifice and its ground plan solely
on the basis of the written evidence, and we have to turn to the aid of
the archaeological data. Several scholars have attempted to interpret the
text and reconstruct the palace using comparative archaeological mater-
ial;2 our own attempt to do so which is published elsewhere3 forms the
basis for the discussion below.
When studying the problem of the reconstruction of the edifice, it
seems that two assumptions concerning the interpretation of the text
should be adopted. A few attempts at reconstruction assumed that the
palace contained several separate buildings, each comprising one of the
above units. "Tle house of the forest of Lebanon" was undoubtedly a
prominent, detached building. But it seems (following Benzinger and
Watzinger) that the other five units listed above were incorporated into
one single structure. The second assumption, based on the first one, is
that the biblical account discusses the different units of the palace con-
secutively, beginning at the entrance and working toward the far side
in the order in which they would be seen by anyone entering and pass-
1. On Solomon's Egyptian father-in-law see K. A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period
in Egypt (1973), pp. 280-283.
2. See, for example, the studies which are cited below: I. Benzinger, Hebriiische Archijologie,
(3rd ed. 1927), pp. 211ff.; C. Watzinger, Denkmiler Paldstinas (1933), Vol. I, pp. 95-97;
K. Galling, Biblisches Reallexikon (1937), p. 411; H. Vincent and M. Steve, JJrusalem de I'Ancien
Testament, Parts II-III (1956), pp. 423-431.
3. D. Ussishkin, Israel Exploration Journal 16 (1966), 174-186; 20 (1970), 213-215.
1973, 3) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 83
Altintepe
Karatepe Sak?Qgdz-~
Sakac
*Zincirli
Tell
Holaf
IT Tel Tayonot
Alolach
Byblos
o Damascus
Slyre 0 50 100Miles
Fig. 2. Map of sites mentioned in the article.
ing through the "hall of columns;" from there one entered the "hall
for the throne," then "the other court," and finally the living quarters
surrounding the latter. It may be added that the biblical description
of Solomon'st emple seems to introduce the three units of the temple in
84 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. 36,
a similar sequence, namely, the outermost first and the innermost last
(I Kings 6; II Chron. 3).
When lo6king for comparative architectural data generally con-
temporaneous with the description of the palace, we turn northwards
to Syria and southern Anatolia where Phoenician, Aramean, and Neo-
Hittite kingdoms flourished during the 10th - 8th centuries B.C. The
biblical record describes in great detail how Solomon-whose people
did not possess an architectural tradition of their own nor the necessary
technical knowledge-brought masons, craftsmen, and building mater-
ial from the Phoenician kingdoms of Tyre and Byblos for the construc-
tion of the temple. The biblical descriptions of the temple accord well
with our knowledge of contemporary Phoenician architecture and art,
and it can be safely assumed that the architects and builders of the
adjacent palace complex were also brought from Phoenicia. All the
above-mentioned kingdoms were undoubtedly connected with the Phoe-
nician culture which inspired Solomonic architecture. Therefore, let
us change the course of our discussion and turn for a while to survey
the palaces in the northern kingdoms.
The Bit-hilhini
A common type of ceremonial palace, universally labeled today by
scholars as the bit-hilan$i,4w as built by the rulers in southern Anatolia
and northern Syria during our period. This type of building already
appears in northern Syria during the Late Bronze age, and the royal
palaces of Alalach and Ugarit are built in this fashion.5 It became very
popular during the Iron age, and several bit-hilani palaces dated to the
10th - 7th centuries B.C. have been unearthed in Tell Halaf (biblical
Gozan), Karatepe, Sakgag6zii Zingirli, and Tell Tayanat (Fig. 2). It
is reasonable to assume that the royal palaces in southern Syria and
Phoenicia, unexcavated so far, are based on a similar ground plan.
The architectural principles of the bit-hilani can be best introduced
in connection with the ground plan of a typical example (Fig. 3). The
bit-hilani is a self-contained building which is generally characterized
by a number of specific features. The entrance to the building is through
a portico which may have one, two, or three columns. The entrance is
set in the long wall of a rectangular hall (A in Fig. 3). A small side-
room (C) is built beside the entrance hall. The main hall of the build-
ing (D) is located behind the entrance hall and the side-room; and in
this case, the length of the main hall is similar to the combined length
4. Bit-hildni is spelled this way throughout the article, as the type used for printing the
BA does not have a hooked h.
5. On the bit-hilini see H. Frankfort, Iraq 14 (1952), 120-131.
1973, 3) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 85
of the entrance hall and the side room. A few small rooms (E-K) are
built behind and beside the main hall, forming the back of the build-
ing. A staircase, or a square tower which probably supported a staircase
(B), is built to the right or left of the entrance hall. The shape and
the construction of the superstructure of the building are open to con-
jecture, and hence we can only guess how the main hall was lit. The
main hall was undoubtedly roofed, and it served as the throne room in
the royal palaces. The hall may have been lit by clerestory lighting, its
ceiling being higher than that of the adjoining rooms.
E
D
0 5 rOm .
Fig. 3. A ground plan of Hilani III at Zingirli; only the foundations of the building were pre-
served and thus all the entrances are arbitrarily indicated.
Although nowadays the whole building is called a bit-hilani, it
seems that in antiquity the term hilini denoted only the magnificent
porticoed entrance which is so typical of that kind of building. This
term apparently stems from the Hittite term Hilammar which appears
in the Hittite texts of the Late Bronze age. During the Iron age the
hilani is mentioned several times in the inscriptions of the Assyrian
kings who-influenced by "western fashion"-incorporated such a por-
ticoed entrance into their own buildings in Assyria.6 Sennacherib, for
6. The Assyrian Dictionary (Chicago), Vol. VI, pp. 184-185.
86 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. 36,
instance, records that ". . . a room with windows like (that) of a Hittite
palace, which in the language of Amutrrul is called bit-hiliini, I built ..."
M 0
H R
0 50m.
Fig. 4. Plan of the acropolis of Zinqirli; the city extended around the acropolis and is not shown
here.
The best comparative archaeological material for our purpose comes
from Zinqirli, the site of the capital of thle kingdom of Sam'al. The rul-
ing house of Sam'al was founded during the 10th century, and Sam'al
remained an independent kingdom till the end of the 8th century B.C.
Zinqirli was excavated by a German expedition about eighty years ago.
The royal acropolis of the city was unearthed, and it contained several
bit-hilhni's built by the kings of Sam'al (Fig. 4).7 Palace J was built by
7. All the bit-hildni's are described in detail in the excavation report. See F. von Luschan
and others, Ausgrahuntgen in Sendschirli II (1898), III (1902), IV (1911).