In the Bible, King Solomon was the wealthy monarch who ruled over Israel about 3,000 years ago. While many scholars today believe he in fact existed, others remain skeptical. The question is if there is actually any archaeological evidence that sheds light on Solomon’s existence and his supposed wealth.
The problem of Solomon’s historicity
The fundamental challenge in determining whether Solomon really existed is that no contemporary or near-contemporary inscription has been found that mentions him. If such an inscription were ever discovered, it would single-handedly resolve the debate.
In the absence of such clear evidence, how can we assess this issue? How can we determine whether King Solomon likely existed, beyond the testimony of the Bible? One logical method is to compare what the Bible says about Solomon’s activities as king with the archaeological record. We can focus specifically on large-scale undertakings—the sort of projects most likely to have left traces that survive today.
Solomon’s prosperous kingdom
One straightforward claim in the Bible’s account of Solomon’s reign is that the population of Israel grew significantly. In a summary of Solomon’s rule, 1 Kings 4:20 states:
“The people of Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sand on the seashore; they ate, they drank and they were happy.”
The second part of this description falls outside the scope of archaeology. The first part, however, is something we might expect to find reflected in the archaeological record. So, what does archaeology reveal?
Excavations indicate that the population of ancient Israel increased sharply at the beginning of Iron Age IIA, around 1000 BC. This corresponds closely to the period when Solomon is traditionally thought to have ruled.
Construction projects
The Bible also makes specific claims about Solomon’s construction activities. For example, 1 Kings 9:15 states that he built up, or fortified, the cities of Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, which stretched from north to south across the ancient territory of Israel.
Archaeologists have found that all three cities were indeed fortified around the same time, at the start of Iron Age IIA. Moreover, each city was fortified with a distinctive six-chambered gate—an unusual design that was used identically in all three locations. This strongly supports the idea that a single king commissioned the fortifications, as the Bible describes, suggesting that Solomon may indeed have existed.
The evidence is even more striking considering that the Israelite territory had already been divided between the southern Kingdom of Judah and the northern Kingdom of Israel by the ninth century BC. The fact that these three cities were fortified in the same way indicates that a single ruler may have exercised authority over both kingdoms at the time.
Solomon’s wealth
A key part of the Bible’s account of Solomon is that he was extraordinarily wealthy. If Solomon truly existed, is there any evidence of his enormous wealth? One specific claim is that silver was abundant in Israel during his reign.
A 2013 study provides compelling support for this claim. Researchers examined silver hoards found across Israel from approximately the time of Solomon and noted:
“Within the context of the wider Mediterranean world, the hacksilber hoards found… are conspicuous as the only identifiable multi-site concentration of silver hoards datable between 1200 and 800 BC … Outside of Cisjordan, no contemporary silver hoards have been found in the Mediterranean.”
This suggests that ancient Israel during Solomon’s time did indeed have an unusual abundance of silver—something unparalleled elsewhere in the Mediterranean world, making it truly remarkable.
Furthermore, chemical analyses of the silver indicate that most of it came from either Sardinia or Spain. This is noteworthy because the Bible states that Solomon’s silver largely came from Tarshish. Most scholars today identify Tarshish with Spain, though some favor Sardinia. In either case, these findings strongly support the conclusion that Solomon likely existed.
How Egyptian archaeology shows that King Solomon did exist
Evidence from Egypt also supports the existence of Solomon. According to the Bible, within the first few years after Solomon’s death, Pharaoh Shishak attacked the Israelites and plundered the wealth of Jerusalem, Solomon’s capital.
Most historians agree that the Bible’s Shishak corresponds to Pharaoh Shoshenq I from secular history. Egyptian records confirm that he did attack the land of the Israelites, and these documents indicate that the attack occurred shortly before his death.
Shoshenq I was not considered a remarkable king, like Ramesses the Great or Thutmose III. Yet immediately after plundering the Israelites, something changed. In the brief period between his attack and death, he suddenly undertook extensive building projects across Egypt.
Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen described this as a “sudden, uncharacteristic, almost obscene ‘lottery-style’ explosion of spending.” This suggests that Shoshenq acquired a substantial amount of wealth from the campaign against the Israelites.
Furthermore, a few years later, Shoshenq’s son Osorkon is recorded as donating 383 tons of silver and gold to the Egyptian temples—the largest known temple donation by any Egyptian king.
What could explain such an extraordinary influx of wealth immediately after Shoshenq’s attack? The most logical conclusion is that the Bible’s narrative is historically plausible: Solomon likely existed and possessed the great wealth described in the biblical accounts. Without this context, the sudden abundance of Shoshenq and Osorkon’s resources would remain difficult to explain.
See all the latest news from Greece and the world at Greekreporter.com. Contact our newsroom to report an update or send your story, photos and videos. Follow GR on Google News and subscribe here to our daily email!
