Folia Theologica 16. (2005)
Solomon Pasala: Archaeological Evidences for Solomonic period
142 S. PAS AL A the site of Tel-lra in the Beersheba valley which is dated to the eighth and seventh centuries BC. Until the publication of the Samarian pottery, most scholars had focused attention almost exclusively on 1 Kgs 9/15-19 in their attempt to define Solomonic archaeology. It has been what they call "circular reasoning". As matter of a fact, archaeology is not in a position to give definite answers to our problems. This is clear from Finkelstein's statement: "1 will try to demonstrate that there is an alternative hypothesis to the prevailing theory, though 1 will not be able to prove it (nor would any scholar be able to prove the prevailing view)"53. If that is case, a hypothesis cannot become synthesis as long as it has not been proved. Therefore when someone says that there is no archaeological proof for the United Monarchy, it is not a proved fact but a hypothesis. At least up to the present, archaeologists have not been in a position either to prove or disprove the problem of the United Monarchy. Regardless of the debate, it has been widely accepted among Biblical scholars that Solomon's reign was characterized primarily by massive fortifications54 and the Solomonic period witnessed the emergence of a prosperous state with an efficient administrative system. Wightman is of the opinion that the low chronology for Iron Age II is at least equally consistent with the recorded history of the period as is the "high chronology". Examination of the stratigraphic problems at each of the main sites favors adoption of the low chronology. But with the current state of knowledge, a good deal of leeway must still be allowed for an Israelite archeological chronology of the tenth and ninth centuries BC55. We would like conclude saying that we need to agree with what Wightman has said. That seems to me the right attitude, in the context of today, namely while accepting the large consensus on the Solomonic period, we must give way to new excavations and better interpretations. 53 I. FINKELSTEIN, «The Archaeology», 178. 54 G.J. WIGHTMAN, «The Myth of Solomon». 19. 55 G.J. WIGHTMAN, «The Myth of Solomon», 20.
