Excavations carried out in the summer of 2018 shed new light on the entire system of four super-imposed Iron Age gates at Megiddo, including the celebrated ‘Solomonic gate’, which has played a pivotal role in biblical archaeology discussions since the 1930s. A fragmentary gate, earliest in the system (Gate 3165) dates to Stratum VIA in the late Iron I and was destroyed along with the entire city represented by this layer. The six-chambered ‘Solomonic gate’ (Gate 2156) was built during the days of Stratum VA-IVB in the late Iron IIA—the time of the Omride dynasty. Remains of two additional gates—of four and two chambers (described here as Gates 500b and 500a)—date to the time of Strata IVA and III (both Iron IIB) respectively.

(Please note that the 2018 excavation found new evidence which affects the conclusion presented below. Read the notification of change in the front matter of the paper.) This paper deals with the controversy about Megiddo’s six-chambered gate (Gate 2156) which was ascribed by Yigael Yadin to the Solomonic building program mentioned in 1 Kings 9:15: “And this is the reason of the tribute work which king Solomon raised in order to build the house of JHWH, and his own house, and the Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, and Megiddo, and Gezer.” In the late 1950ies, Yadin had discovered similarities between the six-chambered gates at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, and therefore dated those structures to the reign of Solomon in the 10th century BC. But there are very strong arguments against this dating. The discussion mainly concentrates on stratigraphy: Gate 2156 lies in Stratum IVA (High Chronology: 9th-8th century BC; Low Chronology: 8th century BC). However, if Solomon is considered the builder of Gate 2156, we would expect it to lie in Megiddo’s Stratum VA-IVB (High Chronology: 10th century BC) or even an earlier stratum according to Low Chronology. This is why some scholars put forward that Gate 2156 had an earlier phase in Stratum VA-IVB. My personal conclusion is that there are some noteworthy hints that Gate 2156 once had a Str. VA-IVB floor at the level around the second ashlar course. Advocates of the High Chronology and of the historicity of Solomon – among whom I count myself – could thus indeed opine that Gate 2156 was constructed under Solomon’s reign. But firstly, this kind of argumentation is quite weak from an epistemological point of view: in order to connect archaeological finds to historical events and people, it is not sufficient that nothing prevents such a connection, but there has to be clear evidence for it. Secondly, all the typological arguments pointing in favor of Yadin’s theory have been refuted: A close reading of 1 Kings 9:15 does not support the idea that the fortifications of Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer must be similar. Moreover, there are also six-chambered gates in Philistine Ashdod and Judean Lachish, and those two cannot have Solomon as their builder. Thirdly, there is no convincing evidence for the required hypothetical floor: If we assume an earlier stage of Gate 2156 in Str. VA-IVB, we must assume that the Chicago excavators had made mistakes in their documentation. That is not impossible, but we should be careful with this reproach. To conclude, there are strong objections to an earlier phase of Gate 2156, so from an epistemological point of view, it is safer to date Gate 2156 to the 9th-8th century BC. Therefore, Megiddo’s six-chambered gate most probably cannot be ascribed to Solomon.

In a recent article in this journal we presented the results of our 2018 excavations in the area of the six-chambered gate at Megiddo (Finkelstein et al. 2019). Ussishkin (2020) challenged our interpretation, reiterating his past theories regarding the Megiddo gates. Here we present data which negate his views.

ABSTRACT At Ain Shems (Beth-Shemesh) in 1911–1912, Duncan Mackenzie exposed a massive city wall and its ‘South Gate’. Mackenzie published only a schematic plan of the gate, which he dated back to the ‘Canaanite period’, and covered it at the end of his work. The gate comprises one of the finest examples of Middle Bronze city gates known from the Land of Israel, yet its asymmetrical plan and final date of use remained a puzzle for almost a century. Combining archaeological clues on the ground with a study of Mackenzie's unpublished documents in the PEF archive, the authors' renewed excavations at Tel Beth-Shemesh, located the hidden ‘South Gate’ and exposed it anew. The new excavation revealed unknown details about the gate's plan and determined Late Bronze IIA as the terminus ad quem for its function as a gate. A reassessment of the ‘South Gate’ architecture, roofing, and system of closure provides new insights concerning its daily functioning, and raises doubts about the conventional uniform reconstruction of known MB gates. The role of Beth-Shemesh as a fortified MBIIB-C city in the northern Shephelah is discussed vis-à-vis its neighbouring sites: Tel Batash, Tel Miqne, and Gezer.

A review article based on evidence available up to April 2005.

Excavated in the years 1999-2001 within the programme of archaeological exploration of the defensive system of the ancient city of Ebla, the Northern Gate (labelled as Aleppo Gate) in Area DD has been only partially investigated. In particular, excavations showed the organization of the defensive system on the external eastern side of the rampart with the presence of a tower (following the line of the earthen rampart) and rooms, probably workshops or places for commercial and industrial activities. Despite the lack of any evidence of the typical architectural structure of Middle Bronze gates, the present paper attempts a reconstruction of the organization and arrangement of spaces, based on the comparison with the two most complete and well-preserved gates of Ebla in Area A (South-West) and Area BB (North-East).

most of the area covered by the present salvage excavation had previously been dug by B. Mazar and Ben-Dov, usually down to bedrock, and this was followed by conservation work. Thus, only a few undisturbed locations were left for us to excavate. We also dismantled some walls to facilitate reconstruction. In the case of some architectural elements, the previous expedition left no dating material, and we had to accept their conclusions without being able to recheck them. Among these elements are the easternmost of the series of large Umayyad buildings and the large Byzantine building on the southeastern side of the excavation area. These structures are not described in this report although they appear on our plans and sections. Likewise, we have no data on post-Umayyad buildings or deposits in the area of our excavation. Our excavation (30 x 21 m) is bounded on the north by the southern wall of the Herodian Temple Mount next to the blocked ‘Triple Gate.’ It includes four areas, extending from north to south . Area A, directly in front of the ‘Triple Gate,’ contains a large miqwe (ritual bath). Area B contains three rock-cut, vaulted rooms supporting the monumental staircase to the ‘Triple Gate.’ In Area C, south of the vaulted rooms, we dismantled two reconstructed walls, excavated the fills and exposed the entire rock-cut surface on which the walls stood. In Area D we cleaned a previously excavated rock-cut room, dubbed the ‘Secco Room.’ We shall first present the architecture and stratigraphy of Areas A–D, followed by a description of some of the artifacts and architectural fragments we uncovered, many of which originated in Herod’s Royal Stoa. Some of these fragments have bearing on the reconstruction of the Royal Stoa and so we shall conclude with a present a brief, new evaluation of this building.

At Ain Shems (Beth-Shemesh) in 1911–1912, Duncan Mackenzie exposed a massive city wall and its ‘South Gate’. Mackenzie published only a schematic plan of the gate, which he dated back to the ‘Canaanite period’, and covered it at the end of his work. The gate comprises one of the finest examples of Middle Bronze city gates known from the Land of Israel, yet its asymmetrical plan and final date of use remained a puzzle for almost a century. Combining archaeological clues on the ground with a study of Mackenzie’s unpublished documents in the PEF archive, the authors’ renewed excavations at Tel Beth-Shemesh, located the hidden ‘South Gate’ and exposed it anew. The new excavation revealed unknown details about the gate’s plan and determined Late Bronze IIA as the terminus ad quem for its function as a gate. A reassessment of the ‘South Gate’ architecture, roofing, and system of closure provides new insights concerning its daily functioning, and raises doubts about the conventional uniform reconstruction of known MB gates. The role of Beth-Shemesh as a fortified MBIIB-C city in the northern Shephelah is discussed vis-à-vis its neighbouring sites: Tel Batash, Tel Miqne, and Gezer.