Omride Palatial Architecture as Symbol in Action: Between State Formation, Obliteration, and Heritage

Abstract

Previous articleNext article FreeOmride Palatial Architecture as Symbol in Action: Between State Formation, Obliteration, and HeritageOmer Sergi and Yuval GadotOmer SergiTel Aviv University* Search for more articles by this author and Yuval GadotTel Aviv University* Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreIntroductionBy the early 9th century bc, as the Omride dynasty rose to power, Israel emerged on the historical scene as a territorial entity in northern Canaan; it was the culmination of a long process that had already begun in the 11th and 10th centuries.1 The Omrides established their rule over vast territories in the southern Levant; in addition to their core territory in the highlands of Samaria (see below), they controlled the northern valleys (Jezreel, Beth-shean, and the Hula Valleys), the lower Galilee, and parts of the Transjordan Plateau.2 As is usually the case with powerful monarchies, the strength and wealth of the Omrides’ material culture, especially their palatial architecture, played an active role in integrating divergent groups into a single socio-political unit compliant with the new ruling house. Dominating royal compounds were established at Samaria, Megiddo, and Jezreel, together with fortresses and smaller royal centers throughout the kingdom.3 Yet despite the fact that they brought their newly formed kingdom to a state of political, economic, and military triumph,4 their rule came to an abrupt end: following the defeat of Joram, son of Ahab, the last Omride king, in the battle of Ramoth-gilead (2 Kings 8:28–29, 9:14–16),5 Jehu, son of Nimshi, a senior officer in Joram’s army, usurped power in a bloody coup that slaughtered all descendants of the Omride dynasty in Israel (2 Kings 9–10; Hosea 1:4).6Archaeological evidence shows that, like the fate of the dynasty’s kings, their palaces in Samaria, Megiddo, and Jezreel suffered a termination that eradicated or entirely changed their presence in the landscape. Although this architectural turning point has been noted by many,7 its social and political implications have not been dealt with in a comprehensive manner. Not only have the palaces’ individual fates not been studied; their overall function as active symbols in the establishment and removal of the Omrides has been bypassed. We argue here that attention should be given to the meaning of the eradication of the Omride palaces. Was the razing of these bastions mere coincidence that stemmed from constructional needs, or were they intentional violent acts designed to erase all memory of the Omride dynasty?In the following, we will merge the detailed historical narrative, the relatively exhaustive archaeological record, and the theoretical archaeological approaches to the ideological role of monumental architecture in early state societies in order to discuss the Omride palatial architecture within the context of the rise and fall of this dynasty. We will evaluate the political and social implications of the establishment and elimination of the Omride palaces. We will argue that the acts of obliteration, rather than being purely constructional, should be understood as acts of war against the heritage and memory of the Omride dynasty, and that they correspond well with the heritage of the Omrides as reflected in the biblical text.Monumental Architecture and Political HegemonyMonumental architecture, like any other component of material culture, plays an active role in the creation, maintenance, and transformation of social order and ideology.8 According to Bruce Trigger, monumental architecture stands above normative, everyday architecture because one of its purposes is conspicuous consumption, which extends the ability to allocate, control, and supposedly “waste” necessary human and material resources.9 J. D. Moore has added a number of other criteria for recognizing monumentality, among them visibility.10 Accordingly, conspicuous consumption is effective only when it is noticeable to large numbers of people. Monumental buildings should therefore always be above average in terms of visibility. For these reasons, monumental architecture serves as an active symbol, conveying the iconography of political power spatially. In some cases, monumental structures (palaces and temples alike) become permanent expressions of the ideology that links a group to its territory.11 In other cases, when a charismatic king is able to expand and unite lands that were formerly under the control of other entities, palaces served the ruling elite as vehicles for gaining legitimacy and integrating the elites of the territories taken over into the newly-formed political entity.12While most scholars have concentrated on studying the establishment of palatial architecture, we wish to focus on the destruction or abandonment of monumental buildings. Since palaces are active political symbols, there should be little doubt that the destruction of these buildings is also a dynamic political act: a reflection of changes taking place in social and political conditions, and thus also in the ruling ideology. Scholars have recognized the political power of abandoned sites standing for all to see above ground.13 In the southern Levant, this phenomenon has been recognized at Hazor, where the ruins of the royal temple of the Canaanite city state were left standing within the newly-built Iron I settlement, possibly used for cult activities.14 One should also consider other cases in which a formerly visible political symbol was obliterated from the landscape, as was the case of the palace of Ramat Raḥel.15 In the former case, the ruined palaces became the focus of historical narratives and mythologies. In the latter case, the act of obliteration was directed at erasing from memory all recollection of the palace that expressed the might of the dynasty.The social processes taking place during the early Iron Age in the southern Levant, together with a critical reading of the relevant biblical sources, provide a rare opportunity to move beyond theory and examine the role of monumental architecture in early state societies. The case of Omride palatial architecture demonstrates not only the function of palaces within state formation, but also the active role they played when power shifted from one dynasty to the next.The Archaeological EvidenceSamariaAlthough three stratigraphic phases have been attributed to early Iron Age Samaria, dating them according to pottery typology is impossible.16 The earliest of the phases is an agricultural estate, represented by rock-cut installations.17 The next phase (Building Period I) is characterized by the reshaping of the hilltop: the highest part of the rocky summit was leveled off and separated from its surroundings by an artificial, ca. 4 m high rock-cut scarp. A monumental building, interpreted by most scholars as a palace, was then built with ashlar masonry on this rocky platform.18 As mentioned above, visibility is an essential component in palace design; the scarp was cut in order to situate the palace in a position that would look imposing in the surrounding landscape.During the next phase (Building Period II), the plan of the edifice changed completely. A large casemate wall was constructed around the summit, creating a huge elevated podium that artificially extended the area of the summit to the west, north, south, and east. As a result, the scarp that had been cut by the builders of the first palace was now buried under an artificial fill, effectively eliminating the previous palace’s high profile and merging it with other buildings.19As mentioned above, pottery typology is inadequate for dating this architectural transition; from the outset, therefore, research on the subject has been based on written sources, namely the biblical text. The first excavators of Samaria (the Harvard Expedition) assumed that only a short time had elapsed between the two building periods; they assigned the palace of Building Period I to the reign of Omri, and the enclosure to the reign of his son, Ahab.20 The second expedition to Samaria (the Joint Expedition) noted this chronological problem, although they did not suggest a different scheme.21 G. E. Wright was the first to recommend lowering the date of Building Period II to the reign of Jehu (ca. 842–810 bc), but he relied on typological observations that are by now mostly irrelevant.22Norma Franklin restudied the stratigraphy of the site and concluded that some of the building techniques that characterize Building Period II in Samaria find their parallel only in Megiddo IVA, an administrative and horse-trading center dated to the 8th century bc (see below). She therefore suggested that Building Period II in Samaria be dated to the early 8th century bc, and be identified with the last kings of the Nimshide dynasty (Joash and Jeroboam II).23 Franklin’s conclusions were rejected by David Ussishkin, who argued convincingly against the use of building techniques as a chronological marker.24 Yet Ussishkin failed to present sufficient stratigraphical evidence to support his idea that the palace and the enclosure surrounding it were built at the same time. He dismissed the stratigraphical observations of the site’s excavators, arguing that it does not make sense that a “huge monumental, royal palace, one of the most prominent public structures in ancient Israel, is considered to have been built in splendid isolation on the summit of a barren hill, while the compound that surrounds it was only built later.”25 He further points out that the palace of Building Period I and the enclosure of Building Period II were constructed in precisely the same orientation, suggesting that they were built according to a single architectural plan at the same time.26 However, similar orientation of architectural elements does not necessarily indicate that they are contemporaneous. In the case of Samaria, the former palace was integrated within the newly-built enclosure and was still in use. Hence, the similar orientation is self-evident and can hardly be taken as a chronological or stratigraphical marker. Furthermore, there is nothing unreasonable in the erection of an isolated palace on a hill that was only subsequently added by a royal enclosure around it. Similar architectural developments were observed in the administrative center in Ramat Raḥel: Building Period I (late 8th/early 7th century bc) consisted of a tower or palace erected on a summit of a hill that was reshaped by cutting a ca. 3m high scarp on its western, northern, and southern sides. Only some 100–150 years later, a massive royal compound with courtyards and casemate walls was added to the initially isolated palace. 27We therefore concur with Franklin’s chronological conclusion, albeit with somewhat different argumentation: the key architectural element that differentiates the two main building periods is the rock scarp, which was meant to emphasize the palace built on it, and was later covered by the casemate enclosure. We believe that it is less reasonable that Ahab, Omri’s successor, would cover up the impressive work of his father, the founder of the dynasty. Thus Building Period II should be attributed to the subsequent dynasty.28MegiddoTwo main Iron Age strata were noted at Megiddo: VA–IVB and IVA.29 Stratum VA–IVB was, at least in its later stage (see further below), a ceremonial center, as can be deduced from the establishment of Palace 6000 and Palace 1723.30 Stratum IVA, on the other hand, was by nature an administrative nexus with most of its grounds devoted to horse breeding.31 It should be remembered that the site of Megiddo served as an urban and cultic center as early as the Early Bronze Age and through the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. As such, Megiddo should be understood as a traditional urban center dominating the western Jezreel Valley and holding a monopoly over international trade passing through Wadi ʿAra. In this respect, the transition from Strata VIA to VB marks a complex turning point in the city’s history. The excavators of Megiddo have correctly noted that following the complete destruction of the last Canaanite city (Stratum VIA), the site was abandoned for several decades.32 Settlement was renewed but subsequently became restricted to the upper tell only; and, after thousands of years of continuous use, no cult activities were conducted in the cultic area (Area BB).33 According to Israel Finkelstein, the establishment of Stratum VB marks the takeover of Megiddo by the Israelites.34 Whether this is true or not, it is clear that the Stratum VB settlement was a small, humble village that grew with time,35 and some sectors of the city, especially the domestic quarters, retained their traditional function.36 These houses developed gradually over time and had localized stratigraphy. At a certain point in time (defined as Stratum VA–IVB, but recognized only at specific locations on the tell), two new palaces were erected on the northern and southern sections of the mound (Palace 6000 and Palace 1723, respectively). The building technique of the palaces (the use of large masonry stones, their laying, and the use of mason’s marks) are all fine example of Iron Age craftsmanship and technique.37Chronologically, even though it has been argued that the two palaces had already been built in the second half of the 10th century and thus attributed to Solomon,38 the discussion of the history of the United Monarchy thus far has shown that this option is less reasonable; a more favorable option is that Palace 6000 and Palace 1723 date to the early 9th century, and should be attributed to the Omrides.Stratum VA–IVB was destroyed close to the end of the 9th century, probably by Hazael.39 The rebuilding of Megiddo in Stratum IVA marks a complete break from the earlier city: most important for our discussion is the fact that both palaces were completely dismantled, and their ashlar stones were either reshaped and reused elsewhere, or completely buried below ground. Even more significant is the complete change in the plan of the city. With the elimination of the two palaces came the building of the two courtyard compounds at the north and the south of the tell, currently understood as stables.40 The city was surrounded for the first time by a solidly-built city wall, and a new gate was constructed in the north. This dramatic change would have been noticed by anyone dealing with Megiddo,41 but for the most part the causes for the radical elimination of a royal center and the re-building of an administrative or commercial center on top of it were explained away as functional.It seems to us that the complete change in the city’s nature should be explored against the background of the history of the Omride dynasty. Evidently only with the establishment of the two palaces was Megiddo incorporated into the newly-formed polity of the Omrides (and in contrast to Finkelstein’s aforementioned view). These two monumental buildings served in all their splendor to symbolize the strength of the kingdom and the kings. It is no coincidence then that the fate of the palaces resembles that of the kings of the dynasty. Palace 6000, which shows partial evidence of a violent collapse,42 was completely dismantled by the builders of the Stratum IV “stables” (Compound 407).43 There is no way to discern how much of the palace was still standing when the builders of the compound arrived. It is, however, clear that all of the palace walls had been completely razed to foundation level, and that in some cases the foundation stones had been robbed, and new floors and walls laid directly above the palace’s foundations.44 It is apparent that the builders of Compound 407 had no intention of re-using or re-adjusting the walls of the carefully-built palace that was razed down to its foundation level. Palace 1723 suffered a similar fate; its walls were all dismantled to give way for the building of the Stratum IV city wall, and the newly-built southern stables.45 Franklin has recently suggested a different sequence, according to which Palace 1723 had already lost its importance during the lifetime of Strata VA–IVB (her V), and that Strata IV building activity in this area also included Courtyard 1693 (traditionally viewed as the Palace 1723 Courtyard) and Building 1616 (traditionally part of Strata III).46 No matter which of the two views one accepts, the fate of Palace 1723 is the same: all of its superstructure was dismantled to give way for a 1.6 m fill, or as the action was described by the first excavators of Megiddo: “After the IVB palace had been systematically plundered for its cut stone, the ground level over the resulting depression was restored by a filling.”47JezreelJezreel is the site that is most frequently associated with the building projects of the Omrides. Like Samaria, it seems that a rural settlement preceded the establishment of a royal compound at the site,48 while the erection of the compound also involved the reshaping of the natural hill. Here, the royal compound consisted of a grand scale casemate enclosure in a uniform plan, creating a leveled platform or podium. Towers were probably installed in the corners of the enclosure (though only two of them, on the eastern corners, were actually found) and a gate was built on the southern side. The royal enclosure was surrounded by two additional elements that required a substantial amount of work: a rock-cut moat and a glacis.49 The pottery assemblage indicates that the Jezreel royal compound was in use for a short period during the Late Iron IIA.50 On the one hand, it has been suggested that Jezreel was destroyed by Hazael,51 but evidence for a destruction is inconclusive, as this has only been traced in the southeast corner tower.52 On the other hand, evidence for robbing the ashlar stones and for post-enclosure occupation by squatters is present.53 It seems, therefore, that the monumental compound of Jezreel was deliberately abandoned and robbed.DiscussionOmride Palaces and State Formation in IsraelIn both Samaria and Jezreel, the erection of royal compounds included the reshaping of natural hills to accentuate the visibility of the buildings and mark them within the landscape as symbols of power. This is emphasized by the fact that they were built on what were previously agricultural estates that had no preceding urban or monumental traditions. Therefore, they reflect the power and wealth of a new, emerging elite in the Samarian highlands and Jezreel Valley that had chosen to leave the former traditional centers of power (e.g., Shechem and Meiddo/Ta’anach) and thus to express a new authority within a new political entity. The substantial amount of work needed in order to erect these new centers of power required recruiting labor from the surrounding regions;54 this labor force acknowledged its subordination to the Omrides by its very participation in the building project.55 The palaces were therefore not only symbols of power but also a means to impose that power on the local inhabitants. In this regard, there was not much difference between imposing Omride rule in the Canaanite hill country or in the Jezreel Valley.In the case of Samaria, evidence exists which indicates that the palace of Building Period I was integrated into, rather than diminished by, the former agricultural estate.56 It was agricultural wealth that initially differentiated the emerging elite, and subsequently was translated into political hegemony. Accordingly, it may also be argued that the Omrides originated from clans settled in the Samarian highlands. The lavish palace in Samaria, the Omrides’ core territory and homeland, therefore functioned as the location in which their power was demonstrated through rituals, and through the redistribution of wealth among other members of the local society.The royal compound in Jezreel played a different role in the evolution of the Omride kingdom. The reshaping of the hill and the erection of a massive enclosure probably overrode any former rural settlement at the site. Unlike Samaria, which was more lavish and styled, the enclosure of Jezreel appeared more military in nature, as demonstrated by its fortification (the towers, moat, and glacis). For this reason, the excavators suggested that the Jezreel compound functioned as a military headquarters.57 H. G. M. Williamson, followed by Finkelstein, emphasized the role of Jezreel as a symbol of power meant to (in his words) “intimidate” the local population.58Indeed, the Omrides were not natives of the Jezreel Valley, and therefore they probably had to impose their rule over it; but that does not imply that Jezreel, unlike Samaria, was intended to intimidate the local population. If this had been the case, we would have expected a military appearance for other buildings erected by the Omrides in the Jezreel Valley. But as the Megiddo palaces demonstrate (see below), this was not necessarily so. On the other hand, like Samaria, Jezreel was newly built on an isolated hill; it required a substantial amount of work and the subordination of the local population. Thus Jezreel—like Samaria—should be seen as a symbol of the new political power rising in northern Canaan. In this case, it probably symbolized Omride military power, and therefore the military function of the compound should not be dismissed, especially when considering that the Omride military effort was directed at Syria and northern Transjordan. There is no contradiction between the functional and the symbolic nature of a building, and therefore even as a military headquarters, Jezreel was one more symbol in a network of Omride symbols of power, creating the image of a unified polity under the authority they imposed on semi-independent communities. In this regard, the location chosen for the Omride royal compound is telling: it is situated on the northern edge of the Samarian highlands, on a ridge overlooking the eastern Jezreel Valley. Thus, the site not only allowed command of the entire valley; it also created a connection between the valley and the highlands. The Jezreel royal compound represents the expansion of Omride political hegemony from its core territory in the highlands into the lowlands.Megiddo, in contrast, was the established seat of local rulers who controlled the western part of the Jezreel Valley. This meant that the Omrides had to cope with the traditional status of Megiddo and to integrate it into their territorial polity. Thus, rather than reshaping the entire site, the Omrides established two new palaces, adding them to a town plan that displays additional modifications.59 It is reasonable to believe, therefore, that these palaces were also spaces where the local ruling families of Megiddo could be integrated with the newly emerging highland elite through rituals and the redistribution of wealth.The Omride Palaces in Changing Political ConditionsAs the Omride dynasty collapsed and the Nimshides came to power, the changes in socio-political conditions made their mark on the landscape. Samaria and Megiddo were completely reshaped and rebuilt, effectively erasing or hiding the former architectural symbols of Omride hegemony. We suggest that this was an intentional act designed to obliterate the physical Omride presence from the landscape.60 This corresponds to similar tendencies reflected in the royal historiographic literature often attributed to the Nimshide court.It is commonly believed that the story of Jehu’s revolt and the extermination of the Omride dynasty in 2 Kings 9:1–10:28 is based on a pre-Deuteronomistic account,61 presenting the revolt in a positive light: Jehu’s violent attack on the Omrides is presented as an act inspired by YHWH to remove a sinful dynasty from the throne of Israel. The murder of the Omrides is further justified as retribution for the murder of Naboth (2 Kings 9:21b, 25–26).62 The clear anti-Omride and pro-Nimshide nature of the original account suggests that it was composed as royal propaganda during the reign of the Nimshide dynasty, probably in the days Jeroboam II.63 This should also be accepted as the context for the composition of the pre-Deuteronomistic account for Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kings 21).64 This account portrays the ruthless rule of Ahab and his wife Jezebel, who used murderous means to implement their royal prerogative. Nadav Naʾaman suggested that the story preserves an authentic memory of an incident related to the establishment of the royal compound in Jezreel.65 Yet there can be little doubt that the account was written in order to portray the Omride rule as cruel and even foreign. This kind of anti-Omride propaganda should be attributed to the royal scribes of the Nimshide dynasty, probably during the reign of Jeroboam II.66The composition of the anti-Omride accounts and the obliteration of the Omride palaces in Samaria and Megiddo should therefore be viewed as two sides of the same coin—the establishment of the legitimacy of a new royal dynasty by diminishing the achievements of its predecessors. The Nimshide dynasty slandered the Omride reputation in royal historiography and obliterated its memory from the physical landscape. It was the obliteration of the physical symbols of Omride power that allowed the further reshaping of their image in the Israelite collective memory: only in the absence of physical remains for their material achievements could their political and cultural heritage be so easily undermined.The Omride royal compound in Jezreel met a different fate: it was abandoned and left in ruins. Williamson explains the fate of Jezreel by the fact that it was identified solely with Omride rule, and was thus left deserted as a symbol of its demise.67 However, considering the prominent place of Jezreel in the royal historiographic literature composed in the Nimishide court, it seems that the site was more than only a symbol of Omride demise. The two pre-Deuteronomistic accounts discussed above also present Jezreel as the place where Ahab killed Naboth, and where Jehu slaughtered the Omrides in retaliation. Thus, Jezreel was not only the symbol of Omride demise; it was also the symbol of the sin that brought about their demise—their murderous regime. As Jezreel stood in ruins, it was a living monument for the anti-Omride accounts composed in the Nimshide court (and see above, our discussion regarding the active role of ruined sites such as Hazor).Unlike the Omrides, the Nimshides did not build a royal compound in the Jezreel Valley. The name Nimshi is inscribed on potsherds dated to the late 10th–9th centuries bc from Tel Amal and Tel Rehov in the Beth-shean Valley and Khirbet Tannin in the northern highlands of Manasseh.68 Assuming that Nimshi was the name of a clan situated in these regions,69 it is possible that their political authority over the eastern parts of the valleys was well established and did not require further building projects. Thus, they could leave Jezreel in ruins as a symbol of the past “foreign” Omride rule in the region. A different strategy was needed in Samaria, the core territory of the Omrides. In order to reinforce their political power, the Nimshide kings not only hid the Omride building activity; they completely transformed the site, effectively creating a new symbol of power.ConclusionsOmride palatial architecture provides an interesting example of the use of monumental architecture within the context of state formation. It also offers a case study of the fate of monumental architecture as founding dynasties collapse. The Omride palaces at Samaria, Megiddo, and Jezreel were magnificent monuments, accentuated by the reshaping of the landscape surrounding them. They reflected the power and wealth of new elite whose core territory was in the highlands of Samaria, but whose political hegemony extended into the Jezreel Valley. They were all newly built—in the case of Samaria and Jezreel, on former agricultural estates, and in the case of Megiddo, at the traditional seat of a local ruler, within a new town layout. This fact highlighted the status of the elite as a core group of a new political formation, disconnected from the traditional centers of power. The actual construction of the palaces, which necessitated a substantial amount of material and human resources, was an effective means to reinforce Omride political hegemony over the population of both the highlands and the valleys. Beside their functional, administrative, and military roles, these palaces were also places for rituals meant to merge diverse segments of local society under Omride rule and through Omride wealth. These monuments created a network of symbols for Omride hegemony that integrated different territories under their rule. Omride success in establishing a territorial-political entity under centralized rule may be seen first and foremost in the fact that their newly built capital, Samaria, was also maintained as the kingdom’s capital after their demise, and even after the destruction of Israel.It was the Omrides’ achievements and success that was denied by the Nimshides, the succeeding ruling family, whose founder usurped the Omride throne in a bloody coup. We have suggested that during the reigns of Joash and Jeroboam II (and after the recovery from the Aramean subjugation) the Nimshide kings deliberately eliminated, hid, and erased the Omride palaces in Samaria, Jezreel, and Megiddo. These acts correspond to and complement a similar tendency observed in the royal historiography attributed to the Nimshide court. The pre-Deuteronomistic accounts of Naboth’s vineyard and of Jehu’s revolt present Omride rule as foreign and ruthless, and Jehu’s revolt as a divine act. These accoun