Folia Theologica 16. (2005)
Solomon Pasala: Archaeological Evidences for Solomonic period
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCES 135 2.1.4. Gczcr: The city guarding the entrance to the Ahalon Valley, at the center of the coastal line and the northern shephelah, was excavated early in the century (1902-09) by R.A.S. Macalister. However, only the modern excavation of W. G. Dever, H. D. Lance and others in 1964-73 clarified and correctly dated the splendid four entry-way city gate and casemate wall of field 111 to the Solomonic period. These foldings are more impressive than the findings of Megiddo excavations. It is likely that a casemate building west of the gate is of the tenth century "palace" similar to that of the Solomonic in Megiddo27. 2.2.1. The characteristic features of Solomonic architecture Each of the cites mentioned above exhibit identical architectural and archeological elements characteristic of the major centers in Solomon's kingdom28. Yadin would summarize these characteristic features of Solomonic architecture as follows:- 6 chamber gates- case mate walls- Bit Hilatti palaces- 4 room houses- Ashlar masonry- Proto Ionic capitals- Red slipped, hand burnished pottery. These features are found in Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer and other places. Therefore, Yadin attributes these layers to Solomon basing on the Bible. 2.2.2. Challenges to Yadin's position. Yadin's conclusion has been challenged by several scholars like Kenyon, Aharoni, Herzog and Ussishkin29. When Kenyon produced the long-awaited publication of Israelite pottery from Samaria, her views on the Iron Age chronology met with a "knee-jerk" reaction from all sections of the Palestinian archaeological community. Her low chronology for the tenth and ninth centuries BC was flatly rejected30. 27 W.G. Dever, «Monumental Architecture», 279. 28 Y. AHARONI, - Y. YADIN, - Y. SHILOH, «Megiddo», 1019. 29 Y. AHARONI, - Y. YADIN, - Y. SHILOH, «Megiddo», 1021 30 G.J. WIGHTMAN. «The Myth of Solomon», Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 277/278 (May 1990) 5.
