Evidence for King Solomon's tower in Jerusalem By Arthur ChryslerAnd this is the reason of the levy which king Solomon raised; for to build the house of the Lord, and his own house, and Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, and Megiddo, and Gezer (I Kings 9:15) KATHLEEN KENYON'S COMMENTS “Interesting supporting evidence was derived from Site S II, at a distance of 155 metres north-east of Site H and 105 metres south-west of the present south-east corner of the temple platform. Here we located Warrens Byzantine wall, with spectacular evidence of his perilous trench beneath it by which he followed its line. Beneath, and several building phases earlier, was a wall on bedrock, somewhat to the west of the Byzantine wall, with, projecting east from it, and running under the Byzantine structure, a wall which probably belonged to a projecting tower. The date of these earliest walls, on the basis of the deposits against them, is, on the field estimate of the pottery, eighth century B.C. or earlier. The interesting point is that these walls were constructed of re-used stones of the character identified as Phoenician at Samaria, with irregularly projecting bosses having unequal margins on one, two, or three sides. Solomon’s use of Phoenician masons is undoubted, and it is a reasonable inference that, close at hand, there was a wall of the time of Solomon, from which the builders of the eighth century B.C. derived their stones. The combined evidence of the various sites therefore indicates that on the east side Solomon joined the town to which he succeeded to the platform of his new Temple by a wall along the eastern crest of the eastern ridge” (Kathleen Kenyon, Digging Up Jerusalem, 1974, pp. 115-116).” 
|
YIGAL SHILOH’S COMMENTS:
“In the northern part of the City of David (Kenyon’s S II), crude ashlar masonry has come to light, described by the excavator as in secondary use in the 8th century BCE. Two fragments of a Proto-Aeolic capital (J 1; PL. 15:1) were found amongst the ashlar debris at the top of the eastern slope above the Gihon Spring. Elsewhere we have suggested that several of the Quarry sites found by Kenyon in the Armenian quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem are of the Iron Age, prior to settlement of that part of the city in the 8th century BCE. In recent excavations there, this has been confirmed stratigraphically. In Jerusalem, however, the limestone quarried in the Iron Age was of the meleke variety, harder and finer than the nari” (Yigal Shiloh, The Proto-Aeolic Capital and Israelite Ashlar Masonry (Qedem 11; Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1979, p.58). The widespread application of all the forms of ashlar masonry in the 10th-9th centuries BCE is represented in table 6. We have seen that the various types of construction appear already in Megiddo stratum IVB-VA of the 10th century BCE. To this same period, we also ascribe the building of the gate and towers in the “outer wall” at Gezer. Samaria strata I-II, Hazor stratum VIII, Megiddo stratum IVA and Beth-Shean upper stratum V were built in the 9th century BCE. The excavators in Dan rely mainly upon historical descriptions in ascribing the beginnings of the ashlar constructions there to the reign of Jeroboam I, in the late 10th century BCE, but the principle phase continued also into the 9th century BCE. The problem of dating at Ramat Rahel is treated elsewhere; in the initial stratum there, stratum VB, ashlar masonry already appears; the excavators held that it began there, too, in the 9th century BCE. Thus, ashlar masonry was executed primarily in the 10th-9th centuries BCE – the days of Solomon and Ahab. Such constructions continued to serve in some of the cities, as at Samaria, Megiddo and Dan, till the end of the period of Israelite rule there, and at Ramat Rahel even until the fall of Judah, at the very end of the Iron Age” (Yigal Shiloh, The Proto-Aeolic Capital and Israelite Ashlar Masonry (Qedem 11; Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1979, p.68). |
EILAT MAZAR’S COMMENTS:
“The southern face of the Byzantine city wall left standing by Kenyon would now be dismantled, allowing us to reveal more of the impressive northeastern wall of the Extra Tower. And, indeed, we were able to double the length of the exposed segment, which now measured 8 m long and reached 5.5 m in height. The newly uncovered stones also displayed the same drafted margins and protruding bosses, laid in alternating long horizontal and narrow vertical stones. …As it turned out, the Byzantine wall was found to be built directly on top of Second Temple period walls, which in turn were built on top of undisturbed First Temple period earth fills that descended to a depth of 2 m above bedrock. These fills abutted the outer face of the northeastern wall of the Extra Tower, thus providing the terminus ante quem, or latest possible date, for its construction. This was a wonderful surprise because we did not expect to come across any undisturbed layers following Kenyon’s excavations in the area.
Due to the importance of these fills, Hagai took special care to pay close attention to the differences between the various layers, and was able to isolate about ten sub-phases that lay one on top of the other in a slanted direction, from the Royal Structure southward to the northeastern side of the Extra Tower. It became quite clear that we were dealing with massive accumulations of refuse that had been thrown out from the Royal Structure onto the steep slope below.
…We now needed to take into account that the Extra Tower was added to the fortified complex, which included the Royal Structure and gatehouse complex, as a reinforcement of what was a highly strategic area and could have been built any time between the late 10th and late 8th century. In hindsight, a more precise dating could have been supplied had Kenyon herself subdivided the fills adjacent to the Extra Tower, especially since, as we know today, these 8th-century refuse layers covered and extended over the wall uncovered in 1986. However, even though these reached the steep bedrock in the slope beyond the wall, the finds that could have been isolated in the area between the wall, the Royal Structure, and the Extra Tower – but which were concealed by the 8th-century layers – would have given a more secure terminus ante quem for the construction of the tower” (Eilat Mazar, Discovering the Solomonic Wall in Jerusalem, 2011, pp. 115-119).
“In my grandfather’s Temple Mount excavations, a large wall was uncovered adjacent to the outer eastern corner of what we know today to be the Royal Structure, preserved to a height of 4 m and a width of 2.4 m and displaying a similar construction style. When viewing it from the north, it was possible to see that it was built directly upon bedrock. We were able to follow it along a straight line for 37 meters toward the northeast, and its straight route makes sense when taking into account the topography of the Ophel: the wall lies on the straightest part of the otherwise curving hilltop, and so we dubbed it the Straight wall. We were eager to learn more about the wall that seemed to conform so well to the fortification line that emerged from the Gatehouse complex and the Royal Structure. This fortification line gradually ascended the slope of the hill until reaching a straighter topographical line along which this wall was built. …We cleaned a small area of about 1x1 m at the foot of the juncture of the southeastern wall of the Royal Structure with the Straight Wall, where we assumed that any earlier remains would have been disturbed by the later cistern, and were thus surprised to uncover a number of undisturbed stratified layers from the First Temple period lying adjacent to the southeastern face of both walls down to bedrock. We thus had the unexpected fortune to collect more finds that would add even more data to our understanding of the Royal Structure and dating of the Straight Wall. Although the excavation area was very small, it was obvious that we could get answers to some crucial questions.
…We were sure that excavating such a small area with a depth of 2.25 m would not take long, two or three days at most. No one could have imagined that it would last a month and a half! Brent essentially scratched off layer by thin layer in order to make sure that he would not miss any valuable data, revealing a picture of refuse thrown out from the Royal Structure which piled up at the foot of its outer wall. Needless to say, all the earth fills from his excavation were sent for wet sifting, with the lowest 20 cm found to contain mainly bowl and jar sherds, similar to those found in the lower gatehouse fill, and dated to the second half of the 10th century. The continuation of this lowest layer in the direction of the Extra Tower in the west may very well have been the lowest layer missed by Kenyon during her excavation in this square, which could have supplied a much earlier terminus ante quem for the construction of the tower. However, it seemed that Kenyon was right in dating at least some of the stratified layers, probably those above the lower 20 cm, primarily to the 8th century.
The refuse layers that abutted the Royal Structure and the Straight Wall were similar to those that abutted the Extra Tower and should thus be considered part of the same accumulation” (Eilat Mazar, Discovering the Solomonic Wall in Jerusalem, 2011, pp. 120-123).
“The southern face of the Byzantine city wall left standing by Kenyon would now be dismantled, allowing us to reveal more of the impressive northeastern wall of the Extra Tower. And, indeed, we were able to double the length of the exposed segment, which now measured 8 m long and reached 5.5 m in height. The newly uncovered stones also displayed the same drafted margins and protruding bosses, laid in alternating long horizontal and narrow vertical stones. …As it turned out, the Byzantine wall was found to be built directly on top of Second Temple period walls, which in turn were built on top of undisturbed First Temple period earth fills that descended to a depth of 2 m above bedrock. These fills abutted the outer face of the northeastern wall of the Extra Tower, thus providing the terminus ante quem, or latest possible date, for its construction. This was a wonderful surprise because we did not expect to come across any undisturbed layers following Kenyon’s excavations in the area.
Due to the importance of these fills, Hagai took special care to pay close attention to the differences between the various layers, and was able to isolate about ten sub-phases that lay one on top of the other in a slanted direction, from the Royal Structure southward to the northeastern side of the Extra Tower. It became quite clear that we were dealing with massive accumulations of refuse that had been thrown out from the Royal Structure onto the steep slope below.
…We now needed to take into account that the Extra Tower was added to the fortified complex, which included the Royal Structure and gatehouse complex, as a reinforcement of what was a highly strategic area and could have been built any time between the late 10th and late 8th century. In hindsight, a more precise dating could have been supplied had Kenyon herself subdivided the fills adjacent to the Extra Tower, especially since, as we know today, these 8th-century refuse layers covered and extended over the wall uncovered in 1986. However, even though these reached the steep bedrock in the slope beyond the wall, the finds that could have been isolated in the area between the wall, the Royal Structure, and the Extra Tower – but which were concealed by the 8th-century layers – would have given a more secure terminus ante quem for the construction of the tower” (Eilat Mazar, Discovering the Solomonic Wall in Jerusalem, 2011, pp. 115-119).
“In my grandfather’s Temple Mount excavations, a large wall was uncovered adjacent to the outer eastern corner of what we know today to be the Royal Structure, preserved to a height of 4 m and a width of 2.4 m and displaying a similar construction style. When viewing it from the north, it was possible to see that it was built directly upon bedrock. We were able to follow it along a straight line for 37 meters toward the northeast, and its straight route makes sense when taking into account the topography of the Ophel: the wall lies on the straightest part of the otherwise curving hilltop, and so we dubbed it the Straight wall. We were eager to learn more about the wall that seemed to conform so well to the fortification line that emerged from the Gatehouse complex and the Royal Structure. This fortification line gradually ascended the slope of the hill until reaching a straighter topographical line along which this wall was built. …We cleaned a small area of about 1x1 m at the foot of the juncture of the southeastern wall of the Royal Structure with the Straight Wall, where we assumed that any earlier remains would have been disturbed by the later cistern, and were thus surprised to uncover a number of undisturbed stratified layers from the First Temple period lying adjacent to the southeastern face of both walls down to bedrock. We thus had the unexpected fortune to collect more finds that would add even more data to our understanding of the Royal Structure and dating of the Straight Wall. Although the excavation area was very small, it was obvious that we could get answers to some crucial questions.
…We were sure that excavating such a small area with a depth of 2.25 m would not take long, two or three days at most. No one could have imagined that it would last a month and a half! Brent essentially scratched off layer by thin layer in order to make sure that he would not miss any valuable data, revealing a picture of refuse thrown out from the Royal Structure which piled up at the foot of its outer wall. Needless to say, all the earth fills from his excavation were sent for wet sifting, with the lowest 20 cm found to contain mainly bowl and jar sherds, similar to those found in the lower gatehouse fill, and dated to the second half of the 10th century. The continuation of this lowest layer in the direction of the Extra Tower in the west may very well have been the lowest layer missed by Kenyon during her excavation in this square, which could have supplied a much earlier terminus ante quem for the construction of the tower. However, it seemed that Kenyon was right in dating at least some of the stratified layers, probably those above the lower 20 cm, primarily to the 8th century.
The refuse layers that abutted the Royal Structure and the Straight Wall were similar to those that abutted the Extra Tower and should thus be considered part of the same accumulation” (Eilat Mazar, Discovering the Solomonic Wall in Jerusalem, 2011, pp. 120-123).
With these three accounts taken together, it is reasonable to assign the construction of the Extra Tower to Phoenician masons from the time of King Solomon.
"What is the practical significance of, "O Jerusalem, built as a city that is compact together" (Tehillim 122:3), beyond the symbolic significance?
Some wish to argue that the reference is to the expansion of the city westward during the period of Chizkiyahu, when Jerusalem expanded to the entire western ridge. "Compact together" thus refers to the joining of the City of David and Mount Moriya on the eastern ridge to the western ridge.
We prefer the view that the reference is to the joining of the royal city to the site of the Mikdash. This joining was executed in full and perfect fashion by King Shlomo as a direct continuation of David's work:
The building of the house of God (I Melakhim 6-7) and its incorporation into the city through the building of a wall that surrounded the city and the Mikdash (I Melakhim 9:15). In this way, he joined "Shalem" and "Ye'ra'eh," the city and the Mikdash.
The building of the royal house as part of the entire entity of the house of God (I Melakhim 7:1-12).
The location of the royal house also points to the connection between the city and the house of God. The royal house was built at the foot of the house of God – in the Milo (I Melakhim 9:24; II Divrei Ha-yamim 5:11) - representing the kingdom as a whole, which brought individuals together and turned them into a single nation that would serve God with a single heart" (Rav Yitzchak Levy, Lecture 107: The Mikdash and Jerusalem as a Place that Unites all of Israel).
Some wish to argue that the reference is to the expansion of the city westward during the period of Chizkiyahu, when Jerusalem expanded to the entire western ridge. "Compact together" thus refers to the joining of the City of David and Mount Moriya on the eastern ridge to the western ridge.
We prefer the view that the reference is to the joining of the royal city to the site of the Mikdash. This joining was executed in full and perfect fashion by King Shlomo as a direct continuation of David's work:
The building of the house of God (I Melakhim 6-7) and its incorporation into the city through the building of a wall that surrounded the city and the Mikdash (I Melakhim 9:15). In this way, he joined "Shalem" and "Ye'ra'eh," the city and the Mikdash.
The building of the royal house as part of the entire entity of the house of God (I Melakhim 7:1-12).
The location of the royal house also points to the connection between the city and the house of God. The royal house was built at the foot of the house of God – in the Milo (I Melakhim 9:24; II Divrei Ha-yamim 5:11) - representing the kingdom as a whole, which brought individuals together and turned them into a single nation that would serve God with a single heart" (Rav Yitzchak Levy, Lecture 107: The Mikdash and Jerusalem as a Place that Unites all of Israel).
