Riddles of the Bible s02e03 Episode Script
Kings Of Israel
Once upon a time, a small boy slew a giant and saved his people.
The Bible says he went on to conquer Jerusalem, and give the wandering lsraelites a home.
His son, Solomon the Wise, built them a temple, put the Arc Of The Covenant in it and filled their coffers with wealth.
David and Solomon made lsrael a nation.
Were they historical figures or mere legends? After 3,000 years, can any trace of these Biblical giants survive? From lsrael to Egypt, from Syria to Jordan, follow the intriguing trail of evidence in search of the lost kings of lsrael.
lt's a story familiar to most of us.
The ultimate saga of the underdog.
3,000 years ago, in the dusty valley of Gath, the inexperienced army of the lsraelites stood face to face against the mighty Philistine army.
(Roar of battIe) For hundreds of years, the story of the lsraelites had been one of sorrow and wandering, slavery and flight into wilderness.
But that was about to change.
(Chanting) The battle-hardened Philistine warriors were ready to wreak havoc.
Their ten-foot champion, Goliath, called for a single combat to decide the battle.
No-one dared step forward until a young boy took up his slingshot, a stoneand his courage .
.
and fired.
He stunned the giant.
And when Goliath fell to the ground, David triumphantly cut off Goliath's head with his own sword.
lt was David who went on to conquer Jerusalem and give the Jews a home at last.
200 years of wandering and fighting since the exodus were over.
According to the Bible, his son Solomon was no less extraordinary.
He famously showed his wisdom when two mothers appeared before him, each claiming the same baby as hers.
Solomon ordered a knife to be pointed at the baby.
One of the women pleaded with him to spare the child, even if the other got the baby.
Solomon judged her to be the real mother.
He strengthened his father's kingdom, (Prayers) Without David and Solomon, there would be no Jewish land.
David and SoIomon are very important figures in IsraeIite history.
EspeciaIIy David.
He pIays such an important roIe in the Iater traditions .
.
of Judah and IsraeI and, much Iater, even Christian traditions.
David is revered not just by the Jewish people.
Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary.
And Muslims revere David and Solomon as holy prophets.
The legends of David and Solomon run like golden threads through the texts of three monotheistic religions.
So the question of whether they lived or not is no small matter to millions of people today.
Sceptics have dismissed the stories asjust that.
.
stories.
To begin an investigation into the reality of David and Solomon, one first has to know when exactly they might have lived.
Fortunately, on this matter, there is a great deal of scholarly consensus.
If David and SoIomon had existed, it wouId have been in the tenth century BCE.
This is something that every schoIar agrees upon.
Everything eIse they argue about.
But if they Iived, it wouId have been the tenth century BCE.
Archaeologists have been digging for more than 1 00 years in Jerusalem, searching for any solid evidence from the tenth century, however small, that David and Solomon actually existed.
When we are asked, we archaeoIogists, what have we found from the tenth century BC - that is, the days of David and SoIomon in JerusaIem - I have to be honest: very, very IittIe.
But lack of physical evidence is not proof that David and Solomon were merely mythological figures.
(Shouting) One of the reasons why archaeologists have come up empty-handed is because this ancient city is the epicentre of one of the world's most brutal and long-standing land disputes.
Any quest to seek out the past gets caught up in the politics of the present.
But that's not the only problem.
Jerusalem is one of the cradles of civilisation, continuously occupied for thousands of years.
Razed and rebuilt many times.
Can we really expect to find any clues to David and Solomon in a city that has had so many makeovers since their time? There is one place in this amazing city that has been relatively untouched.
And it is underground.
Here in the oldest part of the city, known as the City of David, archaeologist Ronny Reich may have found an intriguing confirmation of a Biblical story of David.
According to the book of Samuel, David used an ancient tunnel or gutter system to lay siege to the city of Jerusalem, which was ruled by his enemies.
.
the Jebusites.
''And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, he shaII be chief and captain.
'' If indeed David has captured JerusaIem as the OId Testament teIIs us, then there was a huge fortification for him to overcome.
And there were underground rock cuts, tunneIs, which he couId take advantage of and find himseIf into the city in a cIandestine way and capture it by surprise.
But until recently, the only tunnel archaeologists had found was from a much later period.
You see here, coming out from the rock, from beIow me, are the waters of the Spring Gihon - of the bibIicaI spring Gihon.
Today it fIows into that tunneI, which is Hezekiah's TunneI.
800BC.
800BC.
Too recent.
As was King Hezekiah - a descendent of King David who built this tunnel to channel water into the city.
For decades, archaeologists knew only of this tunnel.
But Ronny Reich recently discovered a more ancient tunnel not far from here.
The find caught the attention of archaeologists and Biblical scholars.
You can see it's rock cut by man from surface, down.
And covered with huge bouIders.
This is 800BC, whereas this one is 1 800BC.
Shards of pottery found among these huge boulders helped Ronny establish that this tunnel dated to around 1,800BC.
So it existed here well before David.
Could this be the tunnel that David used to capture Jerusalem and make it his capital? The BibIicaI story teIIs us how David captured the city but we're not exactIy sure what exactIy went on.
The word that is used may be described as a water tunneI.
It couId aIso be a grappIing hook.
It couId aIso be a scaIing Iadder.
We reaIIy don't know the situation.
If we know the meaning of the ancient Hebrew word, and if Ronny Reich has discovered the proper set of tunneIs, then we might be abIe to say that the Hebrew BibIicaI account is correct.
But there are so many ifs invoIved that we reaIIy don't know what we can and can't say.
The search for David in his own city has revealed a tunnel that might tell us of his clever tactics, but little else about David himself.
lt turns out that the best evidence we have for David comes not from his city or his people, but from his arch enemies.
(BattIe cries) David, the Bible says, was a superb military ruler.
After establishing his kingdom with its capital in Jerusalem, David led the lsraelites from one victory to another in battles against his mighty neighbours.
.
the Moabites, the Edomites, the Ammonites and the Aramaeans.
With this conquered land, he established the Davidic Empire that extended over both sides of the Jordan River, as far as the Mediterranean Sea, paving the way for his son Solomon to inherit a strong empire, in which, for the first time, it was safe to build the holy temple .
.
and finally house the holiest of holy relics.
The Arc Of The Covenant.
And the greatest testament to David's importance and, as yet, the most tangible clue that David was a real human made of flesh and blood, comes from an enemy king who records a victory over David's descendants on a piece of stone called the Tel Dan Stele.
The TeI Dan SteIe is a monumentaI stone inscription .
.
incised with Ietters.
It is written in Aramaic.
Put up by an Aramaic king, who cIaims that he has conquered 70 cities.
And he is setting up this particuIar steIe to commemorate this occasion.
One of the conquests, he claims, shook Biblical archaeology to its core.
The six Ietters say ''Beth David''.
There's the beth and the yodh, the tav, the daIeth, the vav and then again the daIeth.
Beth David.
These words, Beth David, when translated into English, read House of David.
This is the first time the House of David, or even the name David, has been found on a non-Biblical source.
For all those who'd been searching for evidence of David's existence, these six letters were the ultimate find.
lt was clear that David was no mere tribal leader.
He was the founder of a nation that lived on long after his own death.
The discovery of the TeI Dan SteIe in 1 993 and 1 994 was probabIy the singIe most important discovery reIated to David that's ever been found, because it's the first mention of David or the House of David outside the BibIe that we've got.
It shows that David, or a House of David, did exist.
So perhaps, as the Bible says, David was a great king who led his people to victory in battle, making his kingdom both large and great.
Great enough that his descendants attracted the attention of an enemy king.
More fragments of David's story can be put together from evidence left behind by his other enemies.
And the Philistines, one of his biggest rivals, are proving to be a rich cache of information.
ln fact, David's first victory, even before he became king, was against the Philistine giant, Goliath of Gath.
Based on both archaeological evidence and historical sources, archaeologists like Aren Maeir have determined that this mound is the remains of the city of Gath.
We're now standing on TeII es-Safi which is a Iarge ancient mound, which is identified as Gath of the PhiIistine.
Gath was one of the biggest of the Philistine cities and the Bible mentions it specifically.
To have found Gath is a huge boost for archaeologists looking for evidence of Biblical stories from the time of David.
The tenth century BC.
We have very, very impressive evidence of the PhiIistine Gath from the tweIfth, eIeventh, tenth and ninth century.
Then there is a very substantiaI destruction IeveI in which the entire city is destroyed.
Although David is not credited with the destruction of the city, the Bible simply stops mentioning Gath around this time.
Archaeologists previously had no explanation for why Gath had dropped off the Biblical radar screen.
But now they know.
Gath was no longer mentioned because it no longer existed.
A Philistine city destroyed at the time of David's conquests, hometown of Goliath.
ls this the proof that David existed? lt's not enough for some archaeologists.
Since we found the cities, incIuding Gath, maybe we couId argue that David existed as weII.
AIternativeIy, one couId take the opposing view that the peopIe writing the BibIe knew the historicaI context, were abIe to write the story with convincing detaiIs, and simpIy pIace David into the story.
There's no way to teII which is correct.
But another one of King David's famous enemies can offer more tangible clues.
The Bible tells us that the Kingdom of lsrael spread under the control of David and his army, and one of his major military victories was over the powerful kingdom of Edom.
''And he put garrisons in Edom.
Throughout aII of Edom, he put garrisons.
And aII they of Edom became David's servants.
And the Lord preserved David whithersoever he went.
'' Until recently, there was no evidence that the Edomites were anything but a band of nomads, and it was thought that Biblical writers merely exaggerated their stature to magnify the greatness of David's victory over them.
But some believe all that changed when Jordanian archaeologist Dr Mohammad Najjar and his colleagues started research on ancient copper-producing societies in the deserts of Jordan, formerly the lands of Edom.
They stumbled on evidence that the Edomites may have been a power to be reckoned with.
These bIack things here, we caII them sIags.
SIags are mainIy the waste product of copper production.
From ancient times up until now, the only way to refine copper has been to heat mined copper ore in furnaces.
All that's left after the copper is extracted are these worthless black rocks.
But they are an important clue to archaeologists.
Judging by the amount of this black mineral dotted around the area, Najjar and his team realised that this kind of copper production must have been part of a centrally organised society.
A bird's-eye view of the walls confirms what the copper signifies.
The signature outline of a large building or, as Dr Najjar says, a large fortress.
ln fact, it's one of the largest lron Age fortresses found anywhere in the region of Jordan, lsrael and Sinai.
That means that Edomite society was probably not nomadic as was previously thought.
lt may have been a highly advanced and centralised society, one that could have attracted the destructive attention of someone like King David.
Radiocarbon dating shows that they may have thrived at the right time.
We proved that the Edomites existed.
They were here in the tweIfth, eIeventh, tenth century, and ninth century.
And if this is true archaeoIogicaIIy, if this is scientificaIIy proven, maybe that was true that David was fighting with the Edomites in the area.
But if David left his mark on Edom, we have yet to find it.
As Dr Najjar and his team continue to excavate here, maybe something in this rubble will shake the world of Biblical archaeology and provide that proverbial smoking gun of David's true power.
From the adult King David, conqueror of Jerusalem, our search for clues leads us back to the young David, and his most famous single act.
''Now the PhiIistines gathered together their armies to battIe.
And there went out a champion, out of the camp of the PhiIistines, named GoIiath of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.
'' Six cubits and a span is around three metres tall.
A terrifying sight to the young David.
We all know what happened next.
David answered Goliath's challenge and slew the giant with nothing but a slingshot.
For centuries, the story of a puny boy who stood up to a bully has captivated us.
To believers, it's a true story of courage, determination and faith in God.
To sceptics, it's merely a fable.
And certainly, of all David's exploits, this one has the ring of a myth.
So no-one was expecting to find evidence of Goliath.
But then a tiny piece of baked clay showed up .
.
that amazed everyone.
Archaeologists and Biblical scholars alike.
I'm hoIding here the shard the Iron Age shard from the tenth century BCE, which was found at TeII es-Safi in 2005.
Written in the language of the early Philistines, the word etched out here would be pronounced Awlates.
Once that very name was moved and heard by a Semite, they changed the pronunciation.
So instead of ''awI'' they pronounced it ''goI''.
To the Hebrew ear, Awlates would have sounded like Golates, and then been further transformed in Goliath.
Does that mean that this pot shard belonged to Goliath? The Goliath of the Bible? lt probably didn't belong to Goliath himself, because the shard dates to a time period slightly after he was supposed to have lived.
But what it does tell archaeologists is that there were Philistines in Gath around and after the time of David, and at least one of them called himself Goliath.
We have here a very nice exampIe in which we can show that, in tenth-century PhiIistine Gath, the peopIe who Iived there - the PhiIistines - used names simiIar to the name GoIiath.
I think we can extrapoIate from that that the BibIicaI text describing David and GoIiath seems to retain a very, very strong historicaI kerneI of the earIy PhiIistine cuIturaI reaIia.
That means that this story is based on reaI events, reaI peopIe, reaI historicaI background.
But for some scholars, there's an awful lot that's wrong about the Goliath of the Bible.
We cannot read this story as reaIIy a simpIistic historicaI testimony for David in the tenth century BC.
Take the armour of GoIiath in the story.
Described in detaiIs.
''He had a heImet of bronze on his head and he was armed with a coat of maiI, and the weight of the coat was 5,000 shekeIs of bronze.
And he had greaves of bronze upon his Iegs and a javeIin of bronze sIung between his shouIders.
And the shaft of his spear was Iike a weaver's beam, and his spear's head weighed 600 sheckIes of iron.
lt turns out that the clothes Goliath is described as wearing are anachronistic.
They didn't exist at the time.
Neighbouring Egyptians had encountered the Philistines as well and their records show the Philistines in what are now considered more accurate clothes for the time.
Egyptologist Ted Brock helps us interpret a battle scene engraving, that shows Philistine warriors in confrontation with the Egyptians.
The vivid battle scene, with soldiers on boats fighting and dying, shows what the Philistines were wearing at the time.
BROCK: The PhiIistines were wearing this feathery type of headdress.
They wore some sort of armour, probabIy not metaI, but more IikeIy Ieather.
They carried round shieIds and they had Iong, tapering swords.
GoIiath, in fact, is described not as a tenth-century or eIeventh or tweIfth-century BC soIdier, but as the heavy Greek soIdiers of the seventh to fifth centuries BC.
Why is Goliath's outfit about 300 years ahead of its time? Because the people who wrote the account of David and Goliath lived 300 years later.
A shard from just after the time of David indicates that there could have been Philistines named Goliath.
But the clothing described in the Bible seems to be totally wrong.
And what of David himself? Could his details have been similarly retrofitted to make him appear larger than life? And what about the exploits of his famous son, Solomon? Did he really build the first temple put the Arc Of The Covenant there and take 700 wives? lf it was King David who brought the lsraelites to Jerusalem, it was his son, Solomon, who really made the City of David famous.
The popular image of Solomon is unique for an ancient king.
We know of him as the wise ruler.
The builder of the sacred temple.
But most of all, we know him for his domestic arrangements as the keeper of 700 wives.
Solomon is synonymous with peace, wisdom, wealth and grandeur.
The Bible tells us he built a temple in Jerusalem and filled it with treasures, covering the inner sanctum and the altar with pure gold.
His palace was filled with gold relics and his throne inlaid with ivory.
He was greater in riches and wisdom than all the other kings of the earth.
But where are these treasures now? Where are the ruins of his spectacular temple? We have to admit that there is a sort of contradiction between the BibIicaI account of these two kings and their activities, especiaIIy SoIomon buiIding so niceIy-described paIaces.
The tempIe itseIf, etc.
And on the other side, we don't have these houses or these paIaces found at aII.
We don't even have the garbage of these paIaces.
And for paIaces, you are Iooking for objects of prestige.
So there's a contradiction between what is written and between what is found.
Did King Solomon and his empire really not leave behind any archaeological footprint? ArchaeoIogicaIIy, whether King SoIomon existed To be fair with you, the answer, if we're strictIy speaking about archaeoIogy, the answer shouId be negative.
But here in Jerusalem, the faithful believe that Solomon built the first temple, and that it was razed and then built again and destroyed again.
(Screaming) These people await the time when the third incarnation of the original temple can be built.
lnconveniently, where the beautiful lslamic mosque now stands.
The temple, more than anything, is Solomon's most lasting legacy.
ln faith, at least.
But what about cold, hard stone? The Book of Kings is replete with details of this temple.
Dressed masonry with interlaced cedar beams, quarry-dressed stones, elaborate columns, rooms with carved olivewood cherubs and an inner sanctum made of pure gold.
So we are Ieft with a very fuII BibIicaI description of a gIorious tempIe but no physicaI tempIe on earth, in JerusaIem, or even nearby.
Some have said, according to the description of SoIomon's tempIe, that there's no way it couId have existed.
It was too Iavish, too eIaborate.
So the argument was that Solomon's temple was merely too magnificent to have been built and decorated in the tenth century.
But in 1 980, archaeologists were astounded when they found a temple from Solomon's time in Ain Dara.
.
Syria.
lt proved to be a stunning parallel to Solomon's temple.
These ruins were once covered with a mud-brick superstructure.
Though that is now lost, the facade and interior walls are carved with hundreds of reliefs depicting lions, cherubs, mythical creatures and ornate geometric designs, just as the Bible says.
''The coIumns were then erected adjacent to the porch of the tempIe.
One to the right, caIIed Jachin, and the other to the Ieft, caIIed Boaz.
'' Like Solomon's temple, the Ain Dara temple was approached by a courtyard paved with flagstones.
And only the bases of the two columns that would have held up the roof of the portico still stand.
What we find is a tempIe that matches, both in ornamentation and in design.
We find that there are over 33 features that they share in common.
SoIomon cannot be credited with buiIding the Ain Dara tempIe, so we can say that SoIomon borrows from the cuIturaI traditions of his region.
The tempIe of SoIomon is not an outIandish creation of some author's imagination, but actuaIIy a tempIe that fits very niceIy within an existing typoIogy, that has ornamentation and that even has a IeveI of weaIth that wouId be very befitting of a typicaI ancient Near Eastern kingdom from this period.
One couId aIso argue, though, that since the Iater BibIicaI writers, if they were Iater, knew what tempIes from that period Iooked Iike that they're simpIy describing a tempIe from a coupIe of centuries from before their time and saying that's what SoIomon's tempIe Iooked Iike.
UntiI we actuaIIy find SoIomon's tempIe on the tempIe mount, it's going to be hard to say one way or the other.
Not a single artefact from the temple has been found to date.
And there may be no stone anywhere in Jerusalem that says, ''l am Solomon and l was here.
'' But there seems to be an explanation for where his fabulous treasure may have gone.
lsrael was sandwiched between some of the mightiest empires of the time.
The Assyrians in the north and the Egyptians to the south.
Several Egyptian pharaohs who marched north into lsrael recorded their victories in stone.
A pharaoh named Sheshonq l invaded his northern neighbour around 925BC, a few years after Solomon's death.
And it's an invasion that the Bible almost certainly recounts as well.
Egyptologist Ted Brock takes us to the famous engraving that records Sheshonq's version of the story.
On the outside of the hypostyIe haII at Karnak TempIe we have Iots of war reIiefs from different periods, from Rameses II down to what's of interest to us here.
The triumphaI scene of Sheshonq I.
And it's of interest in particuIar because there is a possibIe correIation between what's commemorated here and is scriptured in the BibIe.
According to the Bible, an Egyptian pharaoh called Shishak invaded the lsraelite kingdom.
Historians and archaeologists agree that Shishak is the Hebrew name for Sheshonq.
''Shishak king of Egypt came up against JerusaIem and he took away the treasure of the house of the Lord.
And the treasures of the king's house.
He took everything.
He aIso carried away the goId shieIds which SoIomon had made.
The puzzling thing about the relief is there's no mention of Jerusalem among the many cities Sheshonq conquered.
But the Bible describes him ransacking the holy city and looting the treasure of Solomon.
(BattIe cries) The relief is so badly damaged that even the prominent image of the king is not preserved.
All that's left is a blank space.
Perhaps the conquest of Jerusalem was similarly wiped out.
You have to reaIise that much of the inscription is broken, so perhaps it was mentioned in the broken part.
But to some, this explanation seems too convenient.
JerusaIem is not mentioned there and Judah is not mentioned there and I have a surprise for you: not a singIe town, city or viIIage in Judah is mentioned in that text.
CLINE: What it boiIs down to is that either Shishak didn't attack JerusaIem and Judah in the first pIace, or that he didn't bother to incIude them in the inscription.
I think he didn't bother to incIude them in the inscription because JerusaIem and Judah didn't put up a fight.
Fight or no fight, at least we have a plausible explanation for the missing treasure.
Shishak took it.
But the Pharaoh records other lsraelite cities he invaded.
Some of these cities, the BibIe teIIs us, beIonged to SoIomon.
Three of the cities that are mentioned here were excavated.
And that is Hazor.
Hazor in upper GaIiIee.
Megiddo and Gezer, which is northwest of JerusaIem.
ls there evidence for Solomon in these cities? Luckily for us, Megiddo is an archaeologist's paradise.
A mound that has layer upon layer of ancient cities stretching back some 6,000 years.
And among the layers, archaeologists thought they found a city from Solomon's time.
FINKELSTEIN: WeII, this is the famous ''SoIomonic Gate'' .
.
which, for many, is one of the symboIs of SoIomonic grandeur.
And this gate was identified with the time of King SoIomon because of one verse in the BibIe.
1 Kings 9:1 5 which speaks about construction activity of King SoIomon.
''And this is the reason of the Ievy which King SoIomon raised.
For to buiId the house of the Lord and his own house and MiIIo and the waII of JerusaIem and Hazor and Megiddo and Gezer.
'' During his reign, Solomon is supposed to have built these sturdy six-chambered gates with a passage between them.
Similar gates have been found at Hazor and Gezer.
But the dating of these doesn't seem to match Solomon's gates from the Bible.
Few archaeoIogists, in my opinion, stiII beIieve that this is a SoIomonic gate.
As far as I can judge, most archaeoIogists today wouId not take it as a tenth-century gate.
These gates and the imperial grandeur that they once denoted, almost certainly belong to Solomon's successors.
But are there other layers of civilisation in these rich ruins that could belong to the time of Solomon? There is one more place in Megiddo that experts will look for the great king, before returning to his Jerusalem.
This is Megiddo.
One of the most fabled and fought-over pieces of real estate in the world.
34 battles have been fought here.
And the book of Revelation tells us that the final battle of Armageddon will take place here.
Armageddon literally means ''hill of Megiddo''.
According to the Bible, King Solomon made Megiddo a royal province.
But since the city was occupied well before that, archaeologists have discovered multiple levels of civilisation here, making it difficult to find traces of Solomon himself.
But one verse in the Bible about Solomon's obsession with horses gave archaeologists hope.
''And SoIomon gathered together chariots and horsemen, and he has 1 ,400 chariots and 1 2,000 horsemen, whom he bestowed in the cities for chariots.
And with the King at JerusaIem.
'' The BibIe teIIs us that SoIomon buiIt severaI types of cities and among them, he says (Speaks Hebrew) .
.
that means cities for the chariots.
lf Solomon had so many chariots, he'd have had immense stables to house the horses.
Stables whose remains might still exist.
And, indeed, excavators did find stables.
Many stables.
The stabIes at Megiddo were excavated in the 1 920s by the team from the University of Chicago, one of the biggest excavations ever undertaken in the Iand of IsraeI.
And in the '20s, the excavators made the Iink between the buiIdings which were identified as stabIes.
And the two verses in the BibIe which are not connected, they made the Iink between the verse speaking about SoIomon as a constructor, as a buiIder at Megiddo and SoIomon as a great horse trader in a city of chariots and horses and so on.
Deborah Cantrell is an archaeologist as well as a horse trader, who has worked extensively in Megiddo.
She draws parallels between an ancient horse-training facility and a modern one in the United States.
This is a training stabIe and I beIieve Megiddo was a training stabIe because these are performance horses, they're athIetes, and they're required to perform every day and Iearn their job and Iearn their duty.
And at Megiddo, for chariot horses, their duty was to carry the king or to carry the army officers or to fight in battIe.
Like its modern equivalent, the stables in Megiddo opened directly into the training facility.
One of the most important things about horse training is keeping the horse encIosed.
TRAINER: .
.
When the time is right.
Now he needs to jump a bit.
And the training that is put into these animaIs made them so vaIuabIe.
Trained chariot horses were the singIe most expensive commodity in the ancient Near East for over 1 ,000 years.
Practical evidence, like the comparison of the Megiddo structures with modern stables has convinced most archaeologists that these were stables.
I think that the accumuIating evidence showed that these are, indeed, stabIes.
They may be stables, but were they Solomon's? And when we dig a pIace Iike Megiddo - we have more than 20 cities Iike this, one on top of the other - and the question is which one of those cities can be attributed to a certain century, to a certain king, or a ruIer.
In our particuIar subject that we discuss now, the question is which IeveI at Megiddo can be dated to the time of SoIomon? Which to the time of his successor? Even if we know that they are stabIes, or even if we think that they are, we stiII don't know who buiIt them.
Yes, it might have been SoIomon.
But it couId just have easiIy have been any one of a number of kings that foIIowed him.
So around the Holy Land and in the inscriptions of his enemies, we see an elusive shadow of the great Solomon.
But no hard evidence.
But another ruin in Jerusalem has been sparking interest among archaeologists and Biblical scholars looking for confirmation of Solomon's building activities.
I'm standing here between two waIIs which beIong to two houses dating back to the seventh century BC.
2,700 years ago.
Behind me and there above you can see a strange structure.
Stepped, Iarge stones.
The massive amount of stones tells archaeologists that this could be the foundation of a large building, a fortress wall, or even a palace.
This is the onIy candidate, if at aII which might be dragged chronoIogicaIIy into the tenth century.
If, indeed, it was constructed in the tenth century, then historians or BibIe schoIars happiIy connect it with the activities of David and SoIomon in JerusaIem in that particuIar century.
CLINE: If the stepped stone structure does date to the tenth century BC, then it might have been part of the MiIIo that SoIomon is said to have fortified.
Again, we just don't know what the stepped stone structure was.
There is no sign saying what it was.
Just Iike we have the TeI Dan SteIe for David, we need an inscription for SoIomon, and we don't have that yet.
And without an inscription, these are nothing more than a few questionable blocks of stone, and no definitive sign of this lost king of lsrael.
David, slayer of Goliath, conqueror of Jerusalem and father of a line leading to Jesus.
Solomon, builder of the first temple, wise beyond words.
ln lslam, these two are considered prophets as well as kings.
They exist in the pages of the holy texts Will we ever find any direct archaeological evidence for their existence? When we deaI with archaeoIogicaI data and reconstruction of ancient texts, we are more often than not deaIing with probabiIities and not proof.
The archaeoIogists, the scientists are trying to ascertain exactIy who they were, when they were and how important they were.
But for the faithfuI, that doesn't reaIIy matter.
If they existed or not, it wiII not change history.
I mean, their significance to history, the importance to history, exists anyway.
David and Solomon may be so far over the horizon of history that we will never know what they were.
Great kings.
Tribal elders.
Or heroes compiled from stories, handed down over the centuries.
Evidence of their existence may not matter one way or another to the faithful now.
But if it does turn up, it will matter to all.
The Bible says he went on to conquer Jerusalem, and give the wandering lsraelites a home.
His son, Solomon the Wise, built them a temple, put the Arc Of The Covenant in it and filled their coffers with wealth.
David and Solomon made lsrael a nation.
Were they historical figures or mere legends? After 3,000 years, can any trace of these Biblical giants survive? From lsrael to Egypt, from Syria to Jordan, follow the intriguing trail of evidence in search of the lost kings of lsrael.
lt's a story familiar to most of us.
The ultimate saga of the underdog.
3,000 years ago, in the dusty valley of Gath, the inexperienced army of the lsraelites stood face to face against the mighty Philistine army.
(Roar of battIe) For hundreds of years, the story of the lsraelites had been one of sorrow and wandering, slavery and flight into wilderness.
But that was about to change.
(Chanting) The battle-hardened Philistine warriors were ready to wreak havoc.
Their ten-foot champion, Goliath, called for a single combat to decide the battle.
No-one dared step forward until a young boy took up his slingshot, a stoneand his courage .
.
and fired.
He stunned the giant.
And when Goliath fell to the ground, David triumphantly cut off Goliath's head with his own sword.
lt was David who went on to conquer Jerusalem and give the Jews a home at last.
200 years of wandering and fighting since the exodus were over.
According to the Bible, his son Solomon was no less extraordinary.
He famously showed his wisdom when two mothers appeared before him, each claiming the same baby as hers.
Solomon ordered a knife to be pointed at the baby.
One of the women pleaded with him to spare the child, even if the other got the baby.
Solomon judged her to be the real mother.
He strengthened his father's kingdom, (Prayers) Without David and Solomon, there would be no Jewish land.
David and SoIomon are very important figures in IsraeIite history.
EspeciaIIy David.
He pIays such an important roIe in the Iater traditions .
.
of Judah and IsraeI and, much Iater, even Christian traditions.
David is revered not just by the Jewish people.
Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary.
And Muslims revere David and Solomon as holy prophets.
The legends of David and Solomon run like golden threads through the texts of three monotheistic religions.
So the question of whether they lived or not is no small matter to millions of people today.
Sceptics have dismissed the stories asjust that.
.
stories.
To begin an investigation into the reality of David and Solomon, one first has to know when exactly they might have lived.
Fortunately, on this matter, there is a great deal of scholarly consensus.
If David and SoIomon had existed, it wouId have been in the tenth century BCE.
This is something that every schoIar agrees upon.
Everything eIse they argue about.
But if they Iived, it wouId have been the tenth century BCE.
Archaeologists have been digging for more than 1 00 years in Jerusalem, searching for any solid evidence from the tenth century, however small, that David and Solomon actually existed.
When we are asked, we archaeoIogists, what have we found from the tenth century BC - that is, the days of David and SoIomon in JerusaIem - I have to be honest: very, very IittIe.
But lack of physical evidence is not proof that David and Solomon were merely mythological figures.
(Shouting) One of the reasons why archaeologists have come up empty-handed is because this ancient city is the epicentre of one of the world's most brutal and long-standing land disputes.
Any quest to seek out the past gets caught up in the politics of the present.
But that's not the only problem.
Jerusalem is one of the cradles of civilisation, continuously occupied for thousands of years.
Razed and rebuilt many times.
Can we really expect to find any clues to David and Solomon in a city that has had so many makeovers since their time? There is one place in this amazing city that has been relatively untouched.
And it is underground.
Here in the oldest part of the city, known as the City of David, archaeologist Ronny Reich may have found an intriguing confirmation of a Biblical story of David.
According to the book of Samuel, David used an ancient tunnel or gutter system to lay siege to the city of Jerusalem, which was ruled by his enemies.
.
the Jebusites.
''And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, he shaII be chief and captain.
'' If indeed David has captured JerusaIem as the OId Testament teIIs us, then there was a huge fortification for him to overcome.
And there were underground rock cuts, tunneIs, which he couId take advantage of and find himseIf into the city in a cIandestine way and capture it by surprise.
But until recently, the only tunnel archaeologists had found was from a much later period.
You see here, coming out from the rock, from beIow me, are the waters of the Spring Gihon - of the bibIicaI spring Gihon.
Today it fIows into that tunneI, which is Hezekiah's TunneI.
800BC.
800BC.
Too recent.
As was King Hezekiah - a descendent of King David who built this tunnel to channel water into the city.
For decades, archaeologists knew only of this tunnel.
But Ronny Reich recently discovered a more ancient tunnel not far from here.
The find caught the attention of archaeologists and Biblical scholars.
You can see it's rock cut by man from surface, down.
And covered with huge bouIders.
This is 800BC, whereas this one is 1 800BC.
Shards of pottery found among these huge boulders helped Ronny establish that this tunnel dated to around 1,800BC.
So it existed here well before David.
Could this be the tunnel that David used to capture Jerusalem and make it his capital? The BibIicaI story teIIs us how David captured the city but we're not exactIy sure what exactIy went on.
The word that is used may be described as a water tunneI.
It couId aIso be a grappIing hook.
It couId aIso be a scaIing Iadder.
We reaIIy don't know the situation.
If we know the meaning of the ancient Hebrew word, and if Ronny Reich has discovered the proper set of tunneIs, then we might be abIe to say that the Hebrew BibIicaI account is correct.
But there are so many ifs invoIved that we reaIIy don't know what we can and can't say.
The search for David in his own city has revealed a tunnel that might tell us of his clever tactics, but little else about David himself.
lt turns out that the best evidence we have for David comes not from his city or his people, but from his arch enemies.
(BattIe cries) David, the Bible says, was a superb military ruler.
After establishing his kingdom with its capital in Jerusalem, David led the lsraelites from one victory to another in battles against his mighty neighbours.
.
the Moabites, the Edomites, the Ammonites and the Aramaeans.
With this conquered land, he established the Davidic Empire that extended over both sides of the Jordan River, as far as the Mediterranean Sea, paving the way for his son Solomon to inherit a strong empire, in which, for the first time, it was safe to build the holy temple .
.
and finally house the holiest of holy relics.
The Arc Of The Covenant.
And the greatest testament to David's importance and, as yet, the most tangible clue that David was a real human made of flesh and blood, comes from an enemy king who records a victory over David's descendants on a piece of stone called the Tel Dan Stele.
The TeI Dan SteIe is a monumentaI stone inscription .
.
incised with Ietters.
It is written in Aramaic.
Put up by an Aramaic king, who cIaims that he has conquered 70 cities.
And he is setting up this particuIar steIe to commemorate this occasion.
One of the conquests, he claims, shook Biblical archaeology to its core.
The six Ietters say ''Beth David''.
There's the beth and the yodh, the tav, the daIeth, the vav and then again the daIeth.
Beth David.
These words, Beth David, when translated into English, read House of David.
This is the first time the House of David, or even the name David, has been found on a non-Biblical source.
For all those who'd been searching for evidence of David's existence, these six letters were the ultimate find.
lt was clear that David was no mere tribal leader.
He was the founder of a nation that lived on long after his own death.
The discovery of the TeI Dan SteIe in 1 993 and 1 994 was probabIy the singIe most important discovery reIated to David that's ever been found, because it's the first mention of David or the House of David outside the BibIe that we've got.
It shows that David, or a House of David, did exist.
So perhaps, as the Bible says, David was a great king who led his people to victory in battle, making his kingdom both large and great.
Great enough that his descendants attracted the attention of an enemy king.
More fragments of David's story can be put together from evidence left behind by his other enemies.
And the Philistines, one of his biggest rivals, are proving to be a rich cache of information.
ln fact, David's first victory, even before he became king, was against the Philistine giant, Goliath of Gath.
Based on both archaeological evidence and historical sources, archaeologists like Aren Maeir have determined that this mound is the remains of the city of Gath.
We're now standing on TeII es-Safi which is a Iarge ancient mound, which is identified as Gath of the PhiIistine.
Gath was one of the biggest of the Philistine cities and the Bible mentions it specifically.
To have found Gath is a huge boost for archaeologists looking for evidence of Biblical stories from the time of David.
The tenth century BC.
We have very, very impressive evidence of the PhiIistine Gath from the tweIfth, eIeventh, tenth and ninth century.
Then there is a very substantiaI destruction IeveI in which the entire city is destroyed.
Although David is not credited with the destruction of the city, the Bible simply stops mentioning Gath around this time.
Archaeologists previously had no explanation for why Gath had dropped off the Biblical radar screen.
But now they know.
Gath was no longer mentioned because it no longer existed.
A Philistine city destroyed at the time of David's conquests, hometown of Goliath.
ls this the proof that David existed? lt's not enough for some archaeologists.
Since we found the cities, incIuding Gath, maybe we couId argue that David existed as weII.
AIternativeIy, one couId take the opposing view that the peopIe writing the BibIe knew the historicaI context, were abIe to write the story with convincing detaiIs, and simpIy pIace David into the story.
There's no way to teII which is correct.
But another one of King David's famous enemies can offer more tangible clues.
The Bible tells us that the Kingdom of lsrael spread under the control of David and his army, and one of his major military victories was over the powerful kingdom of Edom.
''And he put garrisons in Edom.
Throughout aII of Edom, he put garrisons.
And aII they of Edom became David's servants.
And the Lord preserved David whithersoever he went.
'' Until recently, there was no evidence that the Edomites were anything but a band of nomads, and it was thought that Biblical writers merely exaggerated their stature to magnify the greatness of David's victory over them.
But some believe all that changed when Jordanian archaeologist Dr Mohammad Najjar and his colleagues started research on ancient copper-producing societies in the deserts of Jordan, formerly the lands of Edom.
They stumbled on evidence that the Edomites may have been a power to be reckoned with.
These bIack things here, we caII them sIags.
SIags are mainIy the waste product of copper production.
From ancient times up until now, the only way to refine copper has been to heat mined copper ore in furnaces.
All that's left after the copper is extracted are these worthless black rocks.
But they are an important clue to archaeologists.
Judging by the amount of this black mineral dotted around the area, Najjar and his team realised that this kind of copper production must have been part of a centrally organised society.
A bird's-eye view of the walls confirms what the copper signifies.
The signature outline of a large building or, as Dr Najjar says, a large fortress.
ln fact, it's one of the largest lron Age fortresses found anywhere in the region of Jordan, lsrael and Sinai.
That means that Edomite society was probably not nomadic as was previously thought.
lt may have been a highly advanced and centralised society, one that could have attracted the destructive attention of someone like King David.
Radiocarbon dating shows that they may have thrived at the right time.
We proved that the Edomites existed.
They were here in the tweIfth, eIeventh, tenth century, and ninth century.
And if this is true archaeoIogicaIIy, if this is scientificaIIy proven, maybe that was true that David was fighting with the Edomites in the area.
But if David left his mark on Edom, we have yet to find it.
As Dr Najjar and his team continue to excavate here, maybe something in this rubble will shake the world of Biblical archaeology and provide that proverbial smoking gun of David's true power.
From the adult King David, conqueror of Jerusalem, our search for clues leads us back to the young David, and his most famous single act.
''Now the PhiIistines gathered together their armies to battIe.
And there went out a champion, out of the camp of the PhiIistines, named GoIiath of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.
'' Six cubits and a span is around three metres tall.
A terrifying sight to the young David.
We all know what happened next.
David answered Goliath's challenge and slew the giant with nothing but a slingshot.
For centuries, the story of a puny boy who stood up to a bully has captivated us.
To believers, it's a true story of courage, determination and faith in God.
To sceptics, it's merely a fable.
And certainly, of all David's exploits, this one has the ring of a myth.
So no-one was expecting to find evidence of Goliath.
But then a tiny piece of baked clay showed up .
.
that amazed everyone.
Archaeologists and Biblical scholars alike.
I'm hoIding here the shard the Iron Age shard from the tenth century BCE, which was found at TeII es-Safi in 2005.
Written in the language of the early Philistines, the word etched out here would be pronounced Awlates.
Once that very name was moved and heard by a Semite, they changed the pronunciation.
So instead of ''awI'' they pronounced it ''goI''.
To the Hebrew ear, Awlates would have sounded like Golates, and then been further transformed in Goliath.
Does that mean that this pot shard belonged to Goliath? The Goliath of the Bible? lt probably didn't belong to Goliath himself, because the shard dates to a time period slightly after he was supposed to have lived.
But what it does tell archaeologists is that there were Philistines in Gath around and after the time of David, and at least one of them called himself Goliath.
We have here a very nice exampIe in which we can show that, in tenth-century PhiIistine Gath, the peopIe who Iived there - the PhiIistines - used names simiIar to the name GoIiath.
I think we can extrapoIate from that that the BibIicaI text describing David and GoIiath seems to retain a very, very strong historicaI kerneI of the earIy PhiIistine cuIturaI reaIia.
That means that this story is based on reaI events, reaI peopIe, reaI historicaI background.
But for some scholars, there's an awful lot that's wrong about the Goliath of the Bible.
We cannot read this story as reaIIy a simpIistic historicaI testimony for David in the tenth century BC.
Take the armour of GoIiath in the story.
Described in detaiIs.
''He had a heImet of bronze on his head and he was armed with a coat of maiI, and the weight of the coat was 5,000 shekeIs of bronze.
And he had greaves of bronze upon his Iegs and a javeIin of bronze sIung between his shouIders.
And the shaft of his spear was Iike a weaver's beam, and his spear's head weighed 600 sheckIes of iron.
lt turns out that the clothes Goliath is described as wearing are anachronistic.
They didn't exist at the time.
Neighbouring Egyptians had encountered the Philistines as well and their records show the Philistines in what are now considered more accurate clothes for the time.
Egyptologist Ted Brock helps us interpret a battle scene engraving, that shows Philistine warriors in confrontation with the Egyptians.
The vivid battle scene, with soldiers on boats fighting and dying, shows what the Philistines were wearing at the time.
BROCK: The PhiIistines were wearing this feathery type of headdress.
They wore some sort of armour, probabIy not metaI, but more IikeIy Ieather.
They carried round shieIds and they had Iong, tapering swords.
GoIiath, in fact, is described not as a tenth-century or eIeventh or tweIfth-century BC soIdier, but as the heavy Greek soIdiers of the seventh to fifth centuries BC.
Why is Goliath's outfit about 300 years ahead of its time? Because the people who wrote the account of David and Goliath lived 300 years later.
A shard from just after the time of David indicates that there could have been Philistines named Goliath.
But the clothing described in the Bible seems to be totally wrong.
And what of David himself? Could his details have been similarly retrofitted to make him appear larger than life? And what about the exploits of his famous son, Solomon? Did he really build the first temple put the Arc Of The Covenant there and take 700 wives? lf it was King David who brought the lsraelites to Jerusalem, it was his son, Solomon, who really made the City of David famous.
The popular image of Solomon is unique for an ancient king.
We know of him as the wise ruler.
The builder of the sacred temple.
But most of all, we know him for his domestic arrangements as the keeper of 700 wives.
Solomon is synonymous with peace, wisdom, wealth and grandeur.
The Bible tells us he built a temple in Jerusalem and filled it with treasures, covering the inner sanctum and the altar with pure gold.
His palace was filled with gold relics and his throne inlaid with ivory.
He was greater in riches and wisdom than all the other kings of the earth.
But where are these treasures now? Where are the ruins of his spectacular temple? We have to admit that there is a sort of contradiction between the BibIicaI account of these two kings and their activities, especiaIIy SoIomon buiIding so niceIy-described paIaces.
The tempIe itseIf, etc.
And on the other side, we don't have these houses or these paIaces found at aII.
We don't even have the garbage of these paIaces.
And for paIaces, you are Iooking for objects of prestige.
So there's a contradiction between what is written and between what is found.
Did King Solomon and his empire really not leave behind any archaeological footprint? ArchaeoIogicaIIy, whether King SoIomon existed To be fair with you, the answer, if we're strictIy speaking about archaeoIogy, the answer shouId be negative.
But here in Jerusalem, the faithful believe that Solomon built the first temple, and that it was razed and then built again and destroyed again.
(Screaming) These people await the time when the third incarnation of the original temple can be built.
lnconveniently, where the beautiful lslamic mosque now stands.
The temple, more than anything, is Solomon's most lasting legacy.
ln faith, at least.
But what about cold, hard stone? The Book of Kings is replete with details of this temple.
Dressed masonry with interlaced cedar beams, quarry-dressed stones, elaborate columns, rooms with carved olivewood cherubs and an inner sanctum made of pure gold.
So we are Ieft with a very fuII BibIicaI description of a gIorious tempIe but no physicaI tempIe on earth, in JerusaIem, or even nearby.
Some have said, according to the description of SoIomon's tempIe, that there's no way it couId have existed.
It was too Iavish, too eIaborate.
So the argument was that Solomon's temple was merely too magnificent to have been built and decorated in the tenth century.
But in 1 980, archaeologists were astounded when they found a temple from Solomon's time in Ain Dara.
.
Syria.
lt proved to be a stunning parallel to Solomon's temple.
These ruins were once covered with a mud-brick superstructure.
Though that is now lost, the facade and interior walls are carved with hundreds of reliefs depicting lions, cherubs, mythical creatures and ornate geometric designs, just as the Bible says.
''The coIumns were then erected adjacent to the porch of the tempIe.
One to the right, caIIed Jachin, and the other to the Ieft, caIIed Boaz.
'' Like Solomon's temple, the Ain Dara temple was approached by a courtyard paved with flagstones.
And only the bases of the two columns that would have held up the roof of the portico still stand.
What we find is a tempIe that matches, both in ornamentation and in design.
We find that there are over 33 features that they share in common.
SoIomon cannot be credited with buiIding the Ain Dara tempIe, so we can say that SoIomon borrows from the cuIturaI traditions of his region.
The tempIe of SoIomon is not an outIandish creation of some author's imagination, but actuaIIy a tempIe that fits very niceIy within an existing typoIogy, that has ornamentation and that even has a IeveI of weaIth that wouId be very befitting of a typicaI ancient Near Eastern kingdom from this period.
One couId aIso argue, though, that since the Iater BibIicaI writers, if they were Iater, knew what tempIes from that period Iooked Iike that they're simpIy describing a tempIe from a coupIe of centuries from before their time and saying that's what SoIomon's tempIe Iooked Iike.
UntiI we actuaIIy find SoIomon's tempIe on the tempIe mount, it's going to be hard to say one way or the other.
Not a single artefact from the temple has been found to date.
And there may be no stone anywhere in Jerusalem that says, ''l am Solomon and l was here.
'' But there seems to be an explanation for where his fabulous treasure may have gone.
lsrael was sandwiched between some of the mightiest empires of the time.
The Assyrians in the north and the Egyptians to the south.
Several Egyptian pharaohs who marched north into lsrael recorded their victories in stone.
A pharaoh named Sheshonq l invaded his northern neighbour around 925BC, a few years after Solomon's death.
And it's an invasion that the Bible almost certainly recounts as well.
Egyptologist Ted Brock takes us to the famous engraving that records Sheshonq's version of the story.
On the outside of the hypostyIe haII at Karnak TempIe we have Iots of war reIiefs from different periods, from Rameses II down to what's of interest to us here.
The triumphaI scene of Sheshonq I.
And it's of interest in particuIar because there is a possibIe correIation between what's commemorated here and is scriptured in the BibIe.
According to the Bible, an Egyptian pharaoh called Shishak invaded the lsraelite kingdom.
Historians and archaeologists agree that Shishak is the Hebrew name for Sheshonq.
''Shishak king of Egypt came up against JerusaIem and he took away the treasure of the house of the Lord.
And the treasures of the king's house.
He took everything.
He aIso carried away the goId shieIds which SoIomon had made.
The puzzling thing about the relief is there's no mention of Jerusalem among the many cities Sheshonq conquered.
But the Bible describes him ransacking the holy city and looting the treasure of Solomon.
(BattIe cries) The relief is so badly damaged that even the prominent image of the king is not preserved.
All that's left is a blank space.
Perhaps the conquest of Jerusalem was similarly wiped out.
You have to reaIise that much of the inscription is broken, so perhaps it was mentioned in the broken part.
But to some, this explanation seems too convenient.
JerusaIem is not mentioned there and Judah is not mentioned there and I have a surprise for you: not a singIe town, city or viIIage in Judah is mentioned in that text.
CLINE: What it boiIs down to is that either Shishak didn't attack JerusaIem and Judah in the first pIace, or that he didn't bother to incIude them in the inscription.
I think he didn't bother to incIude them in the inscription because JerusaIem and Judah didn't put up a fight.
Fight or no fight, at least we have a plausible explanation for the missing treasure.
Shishak took it.
But the Pharaoh records other lsraelite cities he invaded.
Some of these cities, the BibIe teIIs us, beIonged to SoIomon.
Three of the cities that are mentioned here were excavated.
And that is Hazor.
Hazor in upper GaIiIee.
Megiddo and Gezer, which is northwest of JerusaIem.
ls there evidence for Solomon in these cities? Luckily for us, Megiddo is an archaeologist's paradise.
A mound that has layer upon layer of ancient cities stretching back some 6,000 years.
And among the layers, archaeologists thought they found a city from Solomon's time.
FINKELSTEIN: WeII, this is the famous ''SoIomonic Gate'' .
.
which, for many, is one of the symboIs of SoIomonic grandeur.
And this gate was identified with the time of King SoIomon because of one verse in the BibIe.
1 Kings 9:1 5 which speaks about construction activity of King SoIomon.
''And this is the reason of the Ievy which King SoIomon raised.
For to buiId the house of the Lord and his own house and MiIIo and the waII of JerusaIem and Hazor and Megiddo and Gezer.
'' During his reign, Solomon is supposed to have built these sturdy six-chambered gates with a passage between them.
Similar gates have been found at Hazor and Gezer.
But the dating of these doesn't seem to match Solomon's gates from the Bible.
Few archaeoIogists, in my opinion, stiII beIieve that this is a SoIomonic gate.
As far as I can judge, most archaeoIogists today wouId not take it as a tenth-century gate.
These gates and the imperial grandeur that they once denoted, almost certainly belong to Solomon's successors.
But are there other layers of civilisation in these rich ruins that could belong to the time of Solomon? There is one more place in Megiddo that experts will look for the great king, before returning to his Jerusalem.
This is Megiddo.
One of the most fabled and fought-over pieces of real estate in the world.
34 battles have been fought here.
And the book of Revelation tells us that the final battle of Armageddon will take place here.
Armageddon literally means ''hill of Megiddo''.
According to the Bible, King Solomon made Megiddo a royal province.
But since the city was occupied well before that, archaeologists have discovered multiple levels of civilisation here, making it difficult to find traces of Solomon himself.
But one verse in the Bible about Solomon's obsession with horses gave archaeologists hope.
''And SoIomon gathered together chariots and horsemen, and he has 1 ,400 chariots and 1 2,000 horsemen, whom he bestowed in the cities for chariots.
And with the King at JerusaIem.
'' The BibIe teIIs us that SoIomon buiIt severaI types of cities and among them, he says (Speaks Hebrew) .
.
that means cities for the chariots.
lf Solomon had so many chariots, he'd have had immense stables to house the horses.
Stables whose remains might still exist.
And, indeed, excavators did find stables.
Many stables.
The stabIes at Megiddo were excavated in the 1 920s by the team from the University of Chicago, one of the biggest excavations ever undertaken in the Iand of IsraeI.
And in the '20s, the excavators made the Iink between the buiIdings which were identified as stabIes.
And the two verses in the BibIe which are not connected, they made the Iink between the verse speaking about SoIomon as a constructor, as a buiIder at Megiddo and SoIomon as a great horse trader in a city of chariots and horses and so on.
Deborah Cantrell is an archaeologist as well as a horse trader, who has worked extensively in Megiddo.
She draws parallels between an ancient horse-training facility and a modern one in the United States.
This is a training stabIe and I beIieve Megiddo was a training stabIe because these are performance horses, they're athIetes, and they're required to perform every day and Iearn their job and Iearn their duty.
And at Megiddo, for chariot horses, their duty was to carry the king or to carry the army officers or to fight in battIe.
Like its modern equivalent, the stables in Megiddo opened directly into the training facility.
One of the most important things about horse training is keeping the horse encIosed.
TRAINER: .
.
When the time is right.
Now he needs to jump a bit.
And the training that is put into these animaIs made them so vaIuabIe.
Trained chariot horses were the singIe most expensive commodity in the ancient Near East for over 1 ,000 years.
Practical evidence, like the comparison of the Megiddo structures with modern stables has convinced most archaeologists that these were stables.
I think that the accumuIating evidence showed that these are, indeed, stabIes.
They may be stables, but were they Solomon's? And when we dig a pIace Iike Megiddo - we have more than 20 cities Iike this, one on top of the other - and the question is which one of those cities can be attributed to a certain century, to a certain king, or a ruIer.
In our particuIar subject that we discuss now, the question is which IeveI at Megiddo can be dated to the time of SoIomon? Which to the time of his successor? Even if we know that they are stabIes, or even if we think that they are, we stiII don't know who buiIt them.
Yes, it might have been SoIomon.
But it couId just have easiIy have been any one of a number of kings that foIIowed him.
So around the Holy Land and in the inscriptions of his enemies, we see an elusive shadow of the great Solomon.
But no hard evidence.
But another ruin in Jerusalem has been sparking interest among archaeologists and Biblical scholars looking for confirmation of Solomon's building activities.
I'm standing here between two waIIs which beIong to two houses dating back to the seventh century BC.
2,700 years ago.
Behind me and there above you can see a strange structure.
Stepped, Iarge stones.
The massive amount of stones tells archaeologists that this could be the foundation of a large building, a fortress wall, or even a palace.
This is the onIy candidate, if at aII which might be dragged chronoIogicaIIy into the tenth century.
If, indeed, it was constructed in the tenth century, then historians or BibIe schoIars happiIy connect it with the activities of David and SoIomon in JerusaIem in that particuIar century.
CLINE: If the stepped stone structure does date to the tenth century BC, then it might have been part of the MiIIo that SoIomon is said to have fortified.
Again, we just don't know what the stepped stone structure was.
There is no sign saying what it was.
Just Iike we have the TeI Dan SteIe for David, we need an inscription for SoIomon, and we don't have that yet.
And without an inscription, these are nothing more than a few questionable blocks of stone, and no definitive sign of this lost king of lsrael.
David, slayer of Goliath, conqueror of Jerusalem and father of a line leading to Jesus.
Solomon, builder of the first temple, wise beyond words.
ln lslam, these two are considered prophets as well as kings.
They exist in the pages of the holy texts Will we ever find any direct archaeological evidence for their existence? When we deaI with archaeoIogicaI data and reconstruction of ancient texts, we are more often than not deaIing with probabiIities and not proof.
The archaeoIogists, the scientists are trying to ascertain exactIy who they were, when they were and how important they were.
But for the faithfuI, that doesn't reaIIy matter.
If they existed or not, it wiII not change history.
I mean, their significance to history, the importance to history, exists anyway.
David and Solomon may be so far over the horizon of history that we will never know what they were.
Great kings.
Tribal elders.
Or heroes compiled from stories, handed down over the centuries.
Evidence of their existence may not matter one way or another to the faithful now.
But if it does turn up, it will matter to all.