This article reviews the major problems in the political history of Megiddo during the early Iron Age (Iron Age I–IIA), at the time of the early monarchic period in Israel (eleventh–ninth centuries BCE). Megiddo has been central to an ongoing debate over the nature of the early monarchic period in Israel and the exact chronology of the Iron Age I–IIA periods. This importance derives both from the extensive excavations of the relevant strata at Megiddo (VIA, VB and VA-IVB) as well as Megiddo’s appearance in relevant historical sources, namely the Hebrew Bible, which claims that Solomon “built” Megiddo, and its appearance in the campaign list of pharaoh Sheshonq I. Though the fragment of a stela of Sheshonq I was found at Megiddo, it was only found after having been discarded and so its stratigraphic attribution is unclear. Radiocarbon dating from these strata has assisted to some degree but still left dating and historical questions quite open. This article will demonstrate that the political history of Megiddo during the early Iron Age is beset with ambiguities in the evidence, which have been divided into seven ambiguities for the purpose of the discussion here. When these ambiguities are taken into account, it becomes clear that the interpreter has much latitude in making their reconstruction, specifically in how they date strata and associate them with putative historical developments. Different cases can be made for associating particular strata and their termination with Solomon, Sheshonq or even later kings, but none can claim to objectively be the correct or superior reconstruction.

No abstract

This article reviews the two opposing sides of the ongoing debate concerning the historicity of the biblical United Monarchy, the kingdom of David and Solomon. After discussing the scholarly background of archaeological research into the 10th century BCE and Iron IIA period, it discusses the major chronological and historical revision proposed by Israel Finkelstein and the counterarguments deployed by Amihai Mazar. After discussing particular issues highlighted by the archaeology of Jerusalem and Khirbet Qeiyafa, the article closes with a brief reflection on how attitudes towards the Deuteronomistic History have affected this debate, with particular reference to the differing evaluations of Finkelstein and Baruch Halpern regarding its usability in historical reconstruction of the United Monarchy.

The early 10th-century BCE pottery assemblage from Khirbet al-Ra‘I is presented. The assemblage, which came from a few rooms that were suddenly destroyed, offers a large number of complete profiles. This is the second largest pottery assemblage, after that of Khirbet Qeiyafa, of this poorly known ceramic phase.