MEGIDDO (PLACE). City in the Jezreel Valley. Although the king of Megiddo is said to have been killed by the Israelites on their initial foray into Canaan (Joshua 12:21) and Megiddo was assigned to the tribe of Manasseh (Joshua 17:11), the Manassites were unable to accommodate the city. (Judges 1:27). The site is mentioned in the Song of Songs (Judges 5:19), but it is unclear whether the reference is a geographic landmark or a statement implying occupation. Ultimately, the Israelites took control of the site and it came under Solomon’s administrative organization (1 Kings 4:12). He later fortified it along with Jerusalem, Hazor, and Gezer (1 Kings 9:15). Ahaziah was killed by Jehu and died at Megiddo (2 Kings 9:27), and Josiah was later killed there when he met Necho (2 Kings 23:29).
—
A. Site and identification
B. History of explorations
C. Excavation Results
1. The first settlements
2. The Canaanite city
3. The Israelite city
4. The later periods
—
A. Site and identification
The ancient city is represented by a large mound, Tel Megiddo (Hebrew), also known as Tell el-Mutesellim (Arabic for “the governor’s saying”; MR 167221). The mound rises ca. 30 m above the surrounding plain and measures approx. 300 × 230 m, with an area of 50 dunams. Including the tracks, the mound covers an area of 74 dunams. A lower terrace extending to the NE of the mound was also inhabited during various periods. The settlement drew its water from two springs, Ain el-Kubbi to the NE of the site and another spring at the bottom of the W slope.
Megiddo is located in the western part of the Jezreel Valley, almost at the foot of Mount Carmel. It is located not far from where the Naḥal Iron (Wâdı̄ Ara) stream enters the Jezreel Valley. Along this stream passed the main road (Via Maris) from Egypt to Syria; and the Naḥal Iron strait is the best point where the route can be controlled, hence the special strategic importance of Megiddo in ancient times (and today). Thus, with ample water sources and a nearby fertile valley, located along an international trade highway, and being of singular strategic importance, Megiddo became one of the most important centers in the country.
The identification of ancient Megiddo with Lejjun, ca. 1.5km S of the mound, it was first proposed in 1322 AD by the Jewish writer Eshtori Haparchi in his book Kaftor Waperach and independently in 1838 by E. Robinson during his first visit to Palestine.
B. History of explorations
The excavation of Megiddo was initiated by the German Society for the Study of Palestine. It was the first major German excavation project in the Holy Land, and a large part of the costs were borne by Kaiser Wilhelm II. G. Schumacher, an architect who had previously conducted a study in the Golan, directed the excavations, which took place between 1903 and 1905. Schumacher (1908) surveyed the site and its surroundings, cut a 20 m wide trench through the mound. from N to S, he cut a series of trenches 3–5 m wide along the summit and slopes, dug two monumental Iron Age buildings on the summit (the Tempelburg and the Palast), and studied tombs and other remains in the vicinity of the site. The findings were later analyzed by Watzinger (1929).
In 1925 excavations were resumed by the Chicago Oriental Institute under the direction of JH Breasted. From its inception, the project was planned on a grand scale, aiming for a horizontal exposure of one room layer after another throughout the mound. See Fig ME G.01. The neglect of details and vertical relationships, essential for understanding the stratigraphy, as well as the preparation of surface excavation reports, characterized the work. Many of the later difficulties in interpreting the findings stem from these shortcomings. No attempt was made to correlate the work with the German findings; and as a result, the plans and reports of the Oriental Institute ignore crucial architectural data uncovered by Schumacher.
Fisher (1929) was director from 1925 to 1927. He built an expedition house on the lower NE terrace of the mound, prepared a ramp on the E slope to remove debris, and excavated an area to the E of the site where debris could be dumped. At the top he excavated the area on the E side where Schumacher had discovered the Tempelburg.
Guy (1931) was director from 1927 to 1934. He cleared an area further E of the mound, where the earliest remains and graves from many periods were discovered (Engberg and Shipton 1934; Guy 1938). He discovered the remains of the Israelite strata throughout the summit (areas AE), including the city gate and stable complexes (Lamon and Shipton 1939), and cleaned up the water system (Lamon 1935). Guy introduced the use of a camera attached to a balloon to take aerial photos of the excavations.
Loud directed the work from 1935 to 1939, when the project ended due to World War II. He concentrated his efforts in selected areas (AA-DD), where he penetrated lower strata. In area BB, a wide trench on the E side of the site was dug into virgin soil. The results of his work were not properly published due to war conditions (Loud 1948; Shipton 1939).
Between 1960 and 1972, Yadin (1960, 1970, 1972) carried out small-scale excavations in the NE part of the site and near the -gallery- on the W side to clarify the stratigraphy of earlier temples in area BB. In 1974, Eitan (1974) further studied the Iron Age remains discovered at the lower end of Slope E.
CHRONIC TABLE
(Dates BCE Unless otherwise noted)
Periods and Dates
Strata
special data
PN B-EB I (6000-2950 / 2900)
20th-19th
Stages VII-IV
EB II–IV (2950 / 2900-2200)
XVIII-XV
BA IV (2200-2000)
fourteenth
shaft tombs
MB I (2000-1800)
XIII-XII
Middle Kingdom of Egypt
MB II-III (1800-1550)
XI–X
Egypt Second Intermediate
LB I-III (1550-1130)
IX–VIIA
New Kingdom of Egypt
Iron AI – B (1130-1000)
VIB-VIA
Iron IC (1000-930)
VB
David’s reign
VA–IVB
Solomon’s reign
Iron IIA–B (930-734)
VAT
divided monarchy
Iron IIC (734 – ca. 600)
III-II
assyrian government
Babylonian-Persian (ca. 600-332)
Yo
Conquered by Alexander
Roman (31 AD 324)
New settlement in Lejjun
C. Excavation Results
1. The first settlements. a. Neolithic. Stratum XX represents the beginning of settlement in the bedrock discovered in area BB. Remains of stone and brick walls, floors, pits and chimneys cut into the rock surface were reported. Serrated flint sickle blades and pottery shards from the Yarmūkian culture date the settlement to the Pottery Neolithic B period. Loud considered one cave (labeled stratum -XX) to be earlier in date, assigning it to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period.
B. Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I. Remains of EB I in Stages VII-IV were discovered in the excavated area to the E of the mound (Engberg and Shipton 1934), indicating that the unfortified settlement of EB I extended to a large area E of the site. In Stage IV two “apseal” buildings were discovered, rectangular buildings with a rounded end, which are typical of that period. The ceramic repertoire is characterized by gray burnished “Esdraelon” pottery and “grain washed” pottery. A group of cylinder seal impressions stamped on ceramic vessels found in Stage IV show connections to Syria, Mesopotamia, and Egypt (Beck 1975).
Stratum XIX in area BB is represented by a composite temple that extends on slope E of the site. The temple was the first of several sanctuaries built in this general area until the Iron Age (Epstein 1973; Dunayevsky and Kempinski 1973). The shrine was a rectangular room, its entrance located in one of the long walls facing slope E. Several stone slabs running down the center of the room and adjacent to the walls must have been foundations for pillars or other objects. In front of the entrance a rectangular adobe platform was built, apparently an altar, which was enlarged at a later stage. It is possible that a poorly preserved room to the N of the sanctuary served as a similar second sanctuary. A sloping courtyard surrounded by a curved wall stretched out in front of the building. A round installation ascribed to stratum XVIII (No. 4034), next to which a unique ceremonial copper spear was found, probably formed a cult basin in the patio. Remains of two layers of stone paving were found in the courtyard. On some of the stone slabs there were engraved figures of men and animals in hunting scenes and decorative patterns.
The plan of the temple resembles that of the Ghassulian Chalcolithic sanctuary at En-Gedi. Typical Ghassulian pottery, particularly bugles and other finds, were found here (and not elsewhere in Megiddo). Early Bronze I pottery is also reported from this area. This situation can be explained in two ways. One possibility is that the temple originates from the Chalcolithic period. Similar to the En-Gedi shrine, it may have been an isolated shrine located on a hillside not far from a spring and facing the valley to the E; but it could also have been located in a Ghassulian settlement that extends into the unexcavated parts of the site. A second possibility is that the temple belongs to the EB I settlement,
C. Early Bronze II-III. These periods are covered by strata XVIII-XV in area BB. Kenyon (1958), Thompson (1970), Dunayevsky and Kempinski (1973), Kempinski (1989), and Brandfon (1977) attempted to elucidate the stratigraphy and chronology.
An enormous wall was built in stratum XVIII. Built of stone, it was ca. 4-5 m wide and ca. conserved. 4m high. In stratum XVII it expanded, becoming ca. 8m thick. An inward turn at the edge of the BB area shows that it does not surround the entire site. Kenyon’s (1958:52*) suggestion that in its early stage the wall was simply a retaining wall supporting the adjoining building built on the slope is very appealing. The city wall indicates that Megiddo became a smaller but fortified settlement in EB II.
Altar 4017 was built in stratum XVII on the summit, near the edge of Slope E, where the stratum XIX temple once stood. It is a circular structure built in stone, ca. 8 m in diameter and 1.5 m high, with a flight of seven steps leading to its top. A fence wall surrounded it and large amounts of bones and pottery were found inside. See…