The Kings of Israel – 8 / Solomon – 3 / 3

King Solomon –Literacy

Epigraphic discoveries from the period of the United Kingdom are still very rare. An exception is the famous Gezer calendar, a small limestone tablet containing a list of the 12 months with the agricultural work performed in each month. However, this inscription may well be Philistian Semitic rather than Hebrew.

Despite this paucity, the period of David and Solomon was probably an important period of literary creation, much of it composed to support ideological and political goals of the government. Although a matter of considerable scholarly dispute, Israelite historiography probably began at this time.  It is likely that its development paralleled that of Phoenician historiography . It may have begun with a history of David’s accession written by Abiathar the priest or by someone close to him.  David and, even more so, Solomon probably promoted the writing of a history that brought together the early Israelite traditions originally connected with different sanctuaries (Shechem, Hebron, Beersheba, Shiloh, etc.).  The original unification of these early traditions may have been the work of the famous and much discussed Yahwist.  The Yahwist (also called J) is the earliest strand of tradition in the Pentateuch, according to the so-called documentary hypothesis, which divides the Pentateuch into four different strands, the others being E (for Elohist), P (Priestly Code and history) and D (Deuteronomist). J probably established the tradition of the 12 sons of Jacob and was the first to present Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as members of the same family.

Solomon’s complex state administration required officials who could read and write. The development of national historical and legal traditions, as well as a new royal ideology, also required literate scribes. We may therefore assume that there were scribes and probably schools in Jerusalem  and in the capitals of the administrative districts  as well as in some of the ancient Canaanite city-states. The tradition of Solomon “the wise … who declared 3,000 proverbs and 1,005 songs” is clearly an exaggeration (1 Kings 4:32 [Old Testament] = 1 Kings 5:12 [Hebrew Bible]); nevertheless, the Solomonic period, probably in part under Egyptian influence (note the use of hieratic ciphers in later Hebrew epigraphy), no doubt saw the birth of an important stream of Hebrew literature connected with royal ideology.

The Archaeology of the Solomonic period

Archaeology also sheds some light on the activities of Solomon as a builder and on the contemporaneous transformation of Israelite society. According to William G. Dever, the tenth-century BCE architectural remains “are not only the earliest evidence we possess of monumental architecture in ancient Israel but [the buildings] are among the most impressive.”

The Solomonic Temple was probably completely destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE After the Israelites returned from the Babylonian Exile, a second Temple was built. This Temple was rebuilt by Herod the Great in the first century BCE and subsequently burned by the Romans in 70 CE According to Ernest-Marie Laperrousaz, however, part of the Solomonic retaining wall of the Temple Mount (the platform on which the Temple stood) can still be seen on the eastern side of the Temple Mount as it exists today  (This particular part of the wall begins north of the so-called straight joint on the eastern wall of the Temple Mount, 105.5 feet north of its southeast corner.)

The  excavations in the City of David (a spur south of the present Temple Mount), led by Yigal Shiloh, have uncovered a huge Stepped-Stone Structure probably built to support an enlarged platform on top of the northern part of the City of David. The platform may have supported a public building—perhaps the royal palace; or the Stepped-Stone Structure may be the famous millo mentioned in 1 Kings 9:15. However this last interpretation is conjectural and the dating of this structure is disputed (13th/12th or 10th century BCE), as is the date of the monumental archaeological fragments (10th or 9th century BCE) found north of the Ophel that could be connected with Solomon’s palace. 

Other remains from the City of David that have been dated to the tenth century B.C.E. include a few walls discovered by Yigal Shiloh and a wall fragment excavated by Kathleen Kenyon. Further, Jane Cahill, who is preparing Shiloh’s excavation for publication, has recently argued that the Stepped-Stone Structure (which she dates to the 13th/12th century BCE) was partially dismantled in the tenth century to accommodate the construction of houses on top. 

As noted, in 1 Kings 9:15–17 we are told that Solomon rebuilt three Canaanite cities that became part of his kingdom—Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. Major excavations have been conducted at each of these three cities. Yigael Yadin, followed by many others, tried to demonstrate that these three cities were probably rebuilt in about the middle of the tenth century BCE (the time of Solomon).  Yadin and other archaeologists have based their conclusions on the presence of almost identical fortification plans at all three sites. Each city is surrounded by a casemate wall and has a gateway with three chambers on each side (that is, with four pairs of piers) of nearly the same dimensions. Furthermore the ashlars (hewn stones) of these three gateways are dressed the same way. All these similarities in design can best be explained as having been the work of the same architect or school of architects during Solomon’s reign.  These dates and this interpretation have been corroborated by later excavations at Gezer by William Dever  and at Hazor by Amnon Ben-Tor.  The dating of the gate of Megiddo, however, is still a matter of dispute. 

The stratigraphy of Megiddo at the beginning of Iron Age II (beginning in about 1000 BCE) is not at all clear. So, for instance, the structures identified by early American excavators as Solomonic stables  were redated by Yadin to the ninth century BCE  Furthermore, their identification as “stables” is still a matter of dispute.  However, Graham I. Davies has shown that a similar, earlier building at Megiddo might well have been the Solomonic stables.  Most archaeologists date level VA–IVB at Megiddo to the tenth century, corresponding to the Solomonic period.  This dating has recently been questioned by David Ussishkin, who argues that, at least for the “Solomonic” gate, this level must be dated to the ninth century;  moreover, G.J. Wightman and Israel Finkelstein  propose a general shift in the dating, lowering what have been thought of as tenth-century BCE remains to the ninth century. This proposal, however, is beset with major problems and has been rejected by many excavators at other sites.  We can only hope that the renewed excavations at Megiddo will clarify the dating there.

Another town mentioned in 1 Kings 9:18 is “Tamar in the wilderness,” which has been identified with ‘En Hazeva. Excavations led by Rudolph Cohen and Yigal Yisrael at this site have revealed a tenth-century BCE level (stratum VI), which seems to match with Solomonic building. 

More generally, many archaeological sites in ancient Israel appear to have been built or rebuilt around the middle of the tenth century.  These sites include new cities as well as fortresses. Indeed a network of early Iron Age fortresses in the Negev may be connected with Solomon’s reign.  Some of them were later destroyed by Pharaoh Shishak’s military expedition in about 925 BCE

From the point of view of archaeology, the general picture of the mid-tenth century BCE seems to be that of a booming, transitional society. Israelites areas were inhabited not only by farmers and stockbreeders in villages but also, beginning in the tenth century, by craftsmen, merchants and functionaries who served in the army and in the government administration and lived in royal fortified cities. Archaeology attests to the beginning of a process of re-urbanization typical of an early state.  This social change, from a tribal society to an early state under a central administration probably accounts for the appearance of public buildings in the new fortified cities—governors’ palaces, storehouses and administrative buildings.  At about this time, we also begin to find many small precious objects. As Yohanan Aharoni notes, “The change in material culture during the tenth century is discernible not only in luxury items but also especially in ceramics,” which are of a higher quality.  The economic growth and development of new cities was probably connected with a population boom, natural in a period of peace and prosperity. In the area inhabited by Israel, the population could well have doubled in the century that extended from the beginning of Saul’s reign to the end of Solomon’s.  By this time, the sedentary population of the Judahite hills (not including the Shephelah and the Negev) made up probably only 3 percent of the total population of the country.

Social and Political Tensions

This transformation of Israelite society into an early state and the requirements of the new state’s administrative structures were resisted by many levels of Israelite society.  This was especially so among the “house of Israel” (the northern tribes), which wanted to retain its own religious and political traditions. Social tensions were also produced by the mixing of the populations in Solomon’s military conscription and the forced levy (the corvée). All this certainly served to sharpen the antagonisms between Israel and Judah.  No doubt, members of the House of Israel resented the Judahites, who probably held the better positions in the civil government and in the military. Solomon’s death and the political errors of his successor soon revealed the unstable base on which he and David had set their achievements, and probably delayed the further evolution of Israelite and Judahite society into a well-organized national state. Moreover, that evolution would now occur in two separate states.