Peter Kirby

Finkelstein and Silberman make this argument for the later dating of the allegedly Solomonic structures at Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer: "And there is an even more troubling chronological problem: the bit hilani palaces of Iron Age Syria—which were supposed to be the prototypes for the Solomonic palaces at Megiddo—appear for the first time in Syria in the early ninth century BCE, at least a half century after the time of Solomon. How would it have been possible for Solomon's architects to adopt an architectural style that did not yet exist?" (The Bible Unearthed, p. 140) Have other archaeologists disputed the dating of the Syrian palaces, or is there general agreement that the Megiddo palaces were built after the time of Solomon?

best,
Peter Kirby

Celsus

Finkelstein is pretty much on his own in assigning a low chronology to the stables at Megiddo, etc. I believe (but then again, he personally was involved in fieldwork at Megiddo, for example). I'm a bit at a disadvantage since my girlfriend currently has my copy of The Bible Unearthed. The bit hilani architecture isn't all that compelling, since styles evolve rather than suddenly appear, sometimes over the course of centuries. Anyway, from this site on Megiddo (and not to be confused with the strata at Tel Rehov cited earlier):

• Stratum VIA is to be dated either to the 11th century (according to the prevailing chronology) or to the 10th century (if one accepts the Low Chronology). In any case, the remains of of Stratum VIA indicate that Megiddo constituted a major city at the time, the last which exhibited features of “Canaanite” material culture. In subsequent strata, the typical Iron Age II pottery assemblages, with their hallmark red-burnished wares, take over. In terms of relative chronology, there is no doubt that the assemblage is post-Philistine Bichrome, in fact, later than most of the ensuing “degenerated” Philistine types. From the absolute chronology point of view, this evidence seems to strengthen the possibility of dating Stratum VIA later than the 11th century BCE.

He disagrees with Ussishkin, and it's safe to say that Finkelstein does not represent the consensus. Of course, this really isn't that big a problem at all, nor does it have much bearing on the Bible. It's just a matter of when a distinct Israelite culture emerged.

Joel