No title

The BIBLICAL

ARCHAEOLOGIS

Publishedby

THEAMERICAN OFORIENTAL SCHOOLS RESEARCH 126 Inman Street, Cambridge, Mass.

December, 1971

Vol. XXXIV

.1

4

No. 4

.

-~??

t,, 1

Fig.

..

1. Gezer's Solomonic Gate, Field IH, looking from rear toward entrance. Photo by Robert B.

Wright.

Contents FurtherExcavations at Gezer,1967-71,by WilliamG. Dever,H. DarrellLance,Reuben G. Bullard,Dan P. Cole, AnitaM. Furshpan,John S. Holladay,Jr., Joe D. Seger, and RobertB. Wright........................................... 94

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

94

is published quarterly (February, May, September, DecemThe Biblical Archaeologist ber) by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Its purpose is to meet the need for a readable, non-technical, yet thoroughly reliable account of archaeological discoveries as they relate to the Bible. Editor: Edward F. Campbell, Jr. with the assistance of Floyd V. Filson in New Testament matters. Editorial correspondence should be sent to the editor at 800 West Belden Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60614. Editorial Board: tW. F. Albright, Johns Hopkins University; G. Ernest Wright, Harvard University; Frank M. Cross, Jr., Harvard University; William G. Dever, Jerusalem. $5.00 per year, payable to the American Schools of Oriental Research, Subscriptions: 02139. Associate members of ASOR receive 126 Inman Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts the BA automatically. Ten or more subscriptions for group use, mailed and billed to one address, $3.50 per year apiece. Subscriptions in England are available through B. H. Blackwell, Ltd., Broad Street, Oxford. Back Numbers: $1.50 per issue, 1960 to present: $1.75 per issue, 1950-59; $2.00 per issue before 1950. Please remit with order, to the ASOR office. The journal is indexed in Art Index, Index to Religious Periodical Literature, and at the end of every fifth volume of the journal itself. Second class postage PAID at Cambridge, Massachusetts and additional offices. Copyright by American Schools of Oriental Research, 1971 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BY TRANSCRIPT PRINTING COMPANY PETERBOROUGH, N. H.

Further Excavations at Gezer, 1967-1971 DANP. LANCE,REUBENG. BULLARD, WILLIAMG. DEVER,H. DARRELL ROBERT D. SEGER, S. M. HOLLADAY, ANITA JR., FURSHPAN, JOE JOHN COLE, B. WRIGHT.

An earlier issue of The Biblical Archaeologist1carried an account of excavations at Gezer from the time of R.A.S. Macalister in 1902-09 up through the third season of the Hebrew Union College/Harvard Semitic Museum Excavations in 1966. But at that point we were still almost at the beginning of our work, and the campaigns of 1967-71 have seen many important new discoveries.2 The origin of the Gezer project, its basic personnel and support, its objectives, and something of its strategy for a projecotedeight years of excavation were all sketched in the first BA report. The project has grown considerablybut has followed the original plan quite closely. The Core Staff has changed but little, with the retirement of Robert Greenberg as architect in 1966, and ithe appointment of Dr. Reuben G. Bullard of the University of Cincinnati as member of the Core Staff and geologist in 1969 (consultant remained as advisors since 1966).3 Drs. G. Ernest Wright and Nelson Glueck 1. William G. Dever, BA, XXX (1967), 47-62. See also the articles by H. Darrell Lance and James F. Ross in the same issue. 2. We dug for three weeks in the spring and four weeks in the summer of 1967; for three weeks in the spring and six weeks in the summer of 1968; for three weeks in the spring, six weeks in the summer, and two weeks in the fall of 1969; for five weeks in the spring and seven weeks in the summer of 1970; and for seven weeks in the summer of 1971. Dr. William G. Dever was director (Dr. Joe D. Seger for the fall of 1969 and spring of 1970) and Dr. H. Darrell Lance associate director for all seasons. The sponsoring institution was the Hebrew Union College Biblical and Archaeological School, Jerusalem, with some assistance from the Harvard Semitic Museum. Financial support was provided by a grant gratefully acknowledged from the Smithsonian Institution in Washington. We regret that the members of our excellent supervisory and recording staffs cannot be mentioned for lack of spa?e. 3. The Core Staff comprises the authors of this article plus Norma Dever, administrative assistant,

1966-1971.

1971, 4)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

95

(the latter uniil his unitimely death in February of 1971). The original group of student volunteers has swelled to more than 1,000 "Gezergraduates", several of whom have gone on to graduate work in the field; and a few Gezer alumni are now directing excavations of their own.4 The major objectives of the project have all been reached;and it now enters a new phase of more restricted field work for a final season or 'two, with the emphasis shifting 'to the publication of the finds.5 The first of ten or eleven projected volumes has already appeared: Gezer I: Preliminary Report of the 1964-66 Seasons.6Other volumes are well advanced, and it is expected that they will appear as Annuals of the HUCBASJ at tihe rate of approximatelyone a year for the next several years. Following is a summary of the more important results of the 1967-1971 seasons.7 I. Field

I, 1967-1988

Readers of the BA will recall that we began our excavations at Gezer in 1964 by opening Field I, a trench 10 feet wide and almost 189 feet long which cut through the deep debris of the western end of the mound and extended over the "Inner"and "Outer Walls" (Fig. 2). Our purpose was to get a "quick"look at the entire stratificationof the mound from cultivation layer down to bedrock and also to recover fresh materials against the faces of the two wall systems in order to date them. Speed is a relative term in archaeology,and it took us six separate campaigns stretchedover five years to reach our goal; but this we did in 1968. Bedrock was reached in all areas not filled by the massive fortifications. Pocking the surface of the limestone were twenty or so artificial cuttings, commonly known as "cup marks,"probablyfor the grinding of grain. We had known from material recovered in Macalister'sexcavations 'that the earliest occupation of the mound occurredin the late 'fourthmillennium B.C., toward the end of the Chalcolithic age, the so-called "Ghassulian-Beersheba" period. Thus we were not surprisedto find traces of this culture as our Stratum 14 on virgin soil among the outcrops of bedrock. Bits of the typical comets (horn-shaped cups) were plentiful; and pieces, more rare, of the fine white Gezer "CreamWare" also appeared,along with basalt bowl rims with incised 4. Notably at Tell el-Hesi (Dr. John Worrell); Kh. Shema (Dr. Eric Meyers); and Idalion in Cyprus (Dr. Anita Furshpan and Mr. Lawrence Stager). 5. The present Core Staff retired with the close of the 1971 season. Dr. Dever became director of the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, while Dr. Seger moved to the HUCBASJ as archaeological director. Dr. Seger will direct seasons in 1972 and 1973. 6. William G. Dever, H. Darrell Lance, G. Ernest Wright, Annual of the HUCBASJ, Vol. I (1970); hereafter cited as Gezer I (HUC), to distinguish it from R.A.S. Macalister, The Excavation of Gezer, Vols. I-III (1912), cited as Gezer I-III (PEF). 7. Authors of portions of this article are as follows: Dever--Introduction, VH, Conclusion; III. Dever rewrote portions and Cole-IV; Furshpan-VI; Holladay-V; Lance-I; Seger-II, edited the whole. These individuals were also responsible for the work of excavation in the field. The unusual number of authors of this article reflects the team approach adopted for the Gezer project. Thus Core Staff members Bullard as geologist and Wright as photographer are listed as authors because of their general contributions to the work and to the specific conclusions advanced here.

?

+

•

2.I

2s

..

..

I

..

2

,

20 ,o

. 1.

.

1 e I

I.

4

It

12

II

10

9

J

,oo

WAme

IN ER

.....

C5 L) ON •J~~

FIELD TI

vs C)

,N[0))1

XCVTD

/

x~l

n

nowou

v'le

n

FIELD NUNEXCAVATED)

(UNEXCAVATrD)

FFIELD

+

C(9

\\

rl

FIEDD 1-/ UI

Li

U OUTER

ALL"

IV FIELD +GEZE

IGEZER

0cn

Fig.

2. Plan of Gezer, showing major features and principal excav

1971, 4)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

97

decoration.However, no structureswere found, only what was apparentlythe hearth of a campsite. From under the surface of the campsite was recovered a lovely bone pendant, carvedin a fine spiralpattern. The next two strata above bedrock (Strata 13 and 12) and probably Stratum 11 as well must all be attributedto the Early Bronze I and II periods (ca. 3200-2600 B. C.). The depth of debris deposited during this period was considerable, more than eight feet; and there were a number of discernible phases in Strata 11 and 12. Although few significant objects or pieces of architecturewere found in these strata,'thelarge quantity of closely-stratified Early Bronze pottery will hopefully provide new clarity for the ceramic evolution of the period. Following Stratum 11 there evidently was a period of abandonmentand erosion in this area of the mound, although we know that life continued intermittently at other places on the site (Fig. 16). Our next clear stratum, Stratum 10, is from the late Middle Bronze IIB or early IIC period, about 1650 B.C., but just what exactly was going on between the end of Stratum 11 and the establishment of Stratum 10 is not clear. The pottery of the last phase of Stratum 11 is curiously mixed - sometimespure Early Bronze, sometimes containing sherds which are definitely from the Middle Bronze Age. A period of abandonmentfollowed by filling and leveling operations,mixing the pottery, would account best for the situation. The two succeeding strata, 9 and 8, are of the MB IIC period (ca. 1650-1550 B.C.). The findings from these periods are not particularlyimportant except for one - the solution of the mystery of the gigantic Tower 5017, the date of which had puzzled us since it was first uncovered in 1965. Readers of our earlier report will recall that we had dated Tower 5017, the thickened part of the wall system dubbed by Macalisterthe "InnerWall," to MB IIA, ca. 1800 B.C.8 More 'than 50 feet across, it is the largest singlephase structure ever discovered in Palestine (see section, Fig. 3). Although one or two courses have been robbed from its southern edge, it still stands almost 14 feet high at its inner face. Atop this, at least along the outer edge, would have stood an even higher wall of mudbrick,creating a -towerof imposing dimensions, intended no doubt to guard the approach to the "South Gate" in our Field IV (see below). On top of the tower we had found in 1965 some sealed deposits which had yielded a number of sherds of flaring bowls with a band of bright red burnished slip around the inside of the rims, pottery typical of MB IIA/B, ca. 1800 B.C. Since these were the latest sherds we found in these deposits, we assumed that they came from the time the tower passed out of use and was covered over by later deposits. 8. Dever, BA, XXX (1967),

54-56; the date was lowered in Gezer I (HUC),

41-42.

C

A#Aeal~ie

C

u

.......

0-? 3

jA43

C)

.....3 JC

'OmitP Cave

r

/0,+ro PL?C~r7WEST KC

a'c

c7%

Pmm

GEZER

BAL

-FIELD

Fig.

3. Simplified section of Field I, showing fortifications; foundation trench Tower 5017 is at right.

1971, 4)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

99

As we continued the slow and careful processof excavation season after season down 'the inner face of the 'tower, we became increasingly uneasy; for the stratificationmade less and less sense the,lower we went. Since our working hypothesis was that ithe constructionsurface of the tower was at or near the base, we expected 'tofind successive strataclearly running against the inner face of the tower as the level of the city rose behind the wall. But this did not prove 'to be 'the case. Surfaceswhich were distinct to the north of the tower disappearedbefore 'they reached its inner face. And what we did find against the inner face was a stratigrapher'snightmare - faint surfaces, random heaps of rocks, and meaningless dribs and drabs of walls. Moreover, although the material against 'the face of the tower yielded quantities of pottery of the Middle Bronze IIA period, 'therewas a small but disconcertingly steady flow of sherds wh'ich were a century or two later, MB IIB-C. This state of perplexity and frustrationcontinued right up -tothe final season. Not until then could we begin 'to see the forest instead of the obscuring branches of unrelated trees. As it 'turnedout, the surface from which work had begun on the tower was not at the bottom of the 'tower,but on the contrary, almost level with the top. We had been digging down the face of the tower inside what was in effect a mammoth foundation trench. The situation can clearly be seen from the section in Fig. 3. The builders began from the Stratum 9 surface indicated by the arrow. They cut back into the edge of the 'then-existingmound 'to make a level platform on which 'to place their enormous structure. As they laid each row of stones, they then dumped fill material (full of 'that troublesome MB IIA pottery!) into 'their foundation trench behind the rising inner face of the tower. Another course of stones, another layer of fill, and so on. That the workmen could no longer see the lower courses as 'they worked on the upper seems indicated by the fact that although the tower slopes slightly inward at first, the top course overhangs as if the workers had lost track of 'their vertical, not likely if 'the wall had been built 'free-standing(see section, Fig. 3). At one point about halfway along the construction, it seems that 'a huge 'heap of stones (see Fig. 3) was piled up on a shelf createdby 'the foundation trench and the processof building and filling continued. When the tower was completed, the top stonework barely exceeded in height 'the level of the mound from which the builders began! From the pottery associated with the Stratum 9 surface from which the gigantic foundation trench was cut and the pottery found in the foundation trench itself, down to and even in among the lowest course of stones, it can with reasonable certalinty be concluded that Tower 5017 and 'the "Inner Wall" system were built in the MB IIC period, probably about 1600 B.C. Stratum 8 represents their firstperiod of use.

100

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXIV,

As we reported earlier,9the outside of the tower (and indeed the "Inner Wall" as a whole) was reinforced with a glacis, a slope of beaten chalk, sometime after the tower was built. (Work in Field IV 'in 1971 has confirmed our hypothesis 'that 'the glacis is a secondary addition, probably of Stratum 7; below.) Although these glacis are known from other sites of the period, ,see the Gezer example is of special interest because it reveals clearly how it was made (see section, Fig. 3). First, a peaked ridge of crushed chalk was laid parallel 'to'the outer face of the tower. This ridge served like the rim of a pie; and behind the ridge, between it and the face of Tower 5017, was ,then poured a "filling"of field soil and 'tell debris to make a plateau with a sloping side formed by the still-exposedouter side of the ridge of chalk. Next, on top of the plateau and along its outer edge, anotherridge of crushed chalk was laid with the outer edge of the ridge continuing the upward slope of the glacis at the desired angle of about 45 degrees. Another layer of fill was poured in between 'the new ridge and the face of the tower, creating a second plateau. A new ridge was built, more fill put in, and the process continued entire slope until the desired height of about 15 feet was reached. Finally, .the evidently thus created was reinforced by another layer of crushed chalk, tamped into place while still moist. The resulting surface was so compactthat it was impervious even to ground water, and the finished product appeared from the exterioras though it were constructedof solid chalk. After nearly two centuries of use, the "InnerWall" system together with the "South Gate" was destroyed, sometime in the 15th century B.C. By the 14th century B.C. it was supersededby the "OuterWall," labeled by us Wall 9011 in Field I (see section, Fig. 3). At first we thought this wall might have been constructed at the same time as Tower 5017 and the glacis, serving as an outer rampart.But when fully excavated, it was seen to have been built into a trench which cut down through the complicatedinner structureof the glacis, showing that wall 9011 was later than the glacis. Unlike Tower 5017, Wall 9011 was founded on the bedrock - at least along its outer face but like its massive neighbor, it too was provided with a glacis, albeit a relatively uncomplicated one which was supported at the bottom by a two-tier retaining wall. Since !the opening to 'Cave I.10A (see below) was sealed by the retaining wall, and since some pottery of 'the Late Bronze IIA period was found in the upper levels of this cave, it seems that at least the retaining wall and and the glacis of Wall 9011 must be dated to about 1400 B.C., or Stratum 6 (the "AmarnaAge"). Probably Wall 9011 and the entire "Outer Wall" system should be dated to the same period, although as one can readily see from the section (Fig. 3), 'theglacis has been cut off from Wall 9011 by 9. Dever, BA, XXX (1967), 56-57 and Fig. 10; cf. now Gezer I (HUC), Bullard, BA, XXXIII (1970), 118-19.

42-43. See also Reuben

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1971, 4)

101

later attempts to repairthe wall; and thus there is no proof that the wall and the glacis were built at the same time. Wall 9011 survives to a height of more than 15 feet. Whether this present height was original is unclear, since the "Outer Wall" system was apparentlyretrenchedand refurbishedin the 10th century B.C. by Solomon's builders and again in the 2nd century B.C. by the Maccabees (Fig. 3, 16). The foundations, however, clearly go back to the middle of the second millennium so that when it finally passed out of use, the "Outer Wall" had served as Gezer's main fortification wall for well over a thousand years.'0 II. Field

IV:

The "South

Gate" and the MB II Fortifications

Among the impressive architectural discoveries of Macalister's excavations was the "South Gate" of the "Inner Wall" system of the city. From his published reports, it presented itself as one of the most substantial and best preserved mudbrick gates ever to have been found in Palestine. Located at the southern end of his westernmost trenches, and just to the east of our Field I (Fig. 2), it was a natural subject for reinvestigation.The general area was designated Field IV and was excavated between 1967 and 1971. It is now clear that Macalistermisunderstooda number of the structural elements involved. Two examples will serve to illustrate this. (1) His plan of the gate complex showed it to be a massive mudbrick structurewith a solid mudbrick extender wall up to 32 feet thick.1 Our investigationshave shown that the extender wall was neither solid mudbrick nor 32 feet 'thick, but rather a wall with substantial stone foundations just over 10 feet thick. Macalister had apparently found sections of mudbrick still in situ on top of 'the stone foundations had 'takenthis together with the destructiondebris ,and massivemudbrickwall.12 behind the wall as a single (2) Macalister'searly plan also includes a section through a structure describedas a "bankof brickworkfaced with lime,"lying between the "Inner" and "OuterWalls" adjacentto the gate. He believed -this to be part of his socalled "Middle Wall," which he dated to the "Pre-Semitic"(Early Bronze) period.13 On 'the basis of work in Field I, we already suspected that this "bank"was none other than a plasteredglacis, integrally related to the "Inner Wall" system. Whereas in Field I the connection between the "Inner Wall" (our Tower 5017) and the glacis top had been interrupted by later Roman quarrying activities (Fig. 3), in Field IV 'the glacis could be traced directly up to the stones of both Tower 5017 and of the extender wall. An area of almost one hundred squareyards of 'the preservedglacis surfacehas now been 10. For the later domestic levels of Field I, Strata 7-1 (dug in 1964-66), see Fig. 16 and the earlier report in BA, XXX (1967), 58-62. 11. Gezer III (PEF), P1. III. 12. Note that Fig. 2 has corrected the plan of the extender wall and "South Gate," whereas the plan which we published in Gezer I (HUC), Plan I, simply followed Macalister. 13. Palestine Exploration Quarterly, XXXVI (1904), 206-07; Gezer I (HUC), 42-43.

102

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

cleared. Probes the chalk and into the underlying fills produced ,through sherds in abundance, with the latest material consistently belonging to the late MB IIC period, ca., 1550 B.C., confirming the date we had advancedon the basis of our clearancein Field I. By contrast, Macalister's planning of the "South Gate" proved to be quite accurate.14To date, excavations have recleared approximatelyone half of the passagewaydown its stone paving. The gate is indeed a remarkable ,tois flanked structure.The passageway by three pairs of huge orthostatswhich measure over six feet in height and almost ten feet long, and the brick superstructure still rises in places to more than 17 feet (Fig. 4). Supplementary

i,

Fig.

,Id

4. "South Gate" of Middle Bronze IIC, ca. 1600 B.C., in Field IV. Scale is one meter, just over three feet. Photo by Robert B. Wright.

leveling platforms, built of large boulders on top of the orthostats,give evidence 'that the passageway was originally covered over. Although Macalister had cleared the gateway down to and below its final street surface, traces of charcoal and brick debris could still be isolated at the bases of several of the orthostats,testifying to the violent destruction that ended its use. It was this same destruction that produced the heavy fall of brick taken by Macalister as part of the extender wall. Indeed, Macalister'smistake has 14. Gezer I (PEF), 240-43.

1971, 4)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

103

proved fortunate, for beneath this undisturbeddebris we have found domestic installations related to 'the final phase of 'the wall's use and to its destruction. The destruction debris produced abundant restorable pottery of late MB IIC/LB I type. There is little doubt that this destruction is to be related to that of Stratum 7 in adjacent Field I. Both are probably'tobe credited to the campaigns of Thutmosis III in his conquest of Palestine ca. 1468 B.C."5 At the inner junature between Tower 5017 and the extender wall, a deep section was cut below this final destruction phase to check the earlier stratification and to probe the founding of the walls. This produced interesting results. The foundationsof 'theextender wall were discoveredalmostimmediately below the final surfaces. This wall clearly belongs to a sreLondaryphase of the fortifications- to which must also be assigned the plaster glacis and most likely -the orthostat phase of the gateway itself - which must be dated to late MB IIC, ca. 1550 B.C., equivalent to Stratum 7 in Field I. Directly below the extender wall and on the same axis an earlier wall appeared.The construction technique of this wall, using cyclopean stones, comparesclosely with that of Tower 5017. It is founded at approximatelythe same level and appears to be partially bonded into the tower's lower courses (although this will have 'to be checked by further investigation). Like Tower 5017, this wall is founded directly on EB fills. The earliest surfaces related 'to 'this wall produced 'transitionalMB IIB/MB IIC pottery. Thus the evidence supplements that from excavations along the inner face of Tower 5017 in Field I and fixes a date for founding phase of the MB II fortificationsca. 1600 ,the in MB B.C., IIC, equivalent to Stratum 8 in Field I (Fig. 16). III.

The Field

I Caves

In Macalister'soriginal publication a substantialchapterwas dedicated to the Gezer caves. Many of his more graphic finds derived from the numerous caves, cisterns, and ,tombs'thathe found cut into 'the Eocene bedrockbeneath the domestic strata on the tell. It was not until after the fifth season of our excavationsin 1968, however, that we ourselves had the opportunityto investigate two such openings. One was located adjacent to Area 3 in Field I Upper, inside the line of fortifications.The other appearedat the extreme south end of the field, cutting the bedrock below Area 10 on the slope outside the "Outer Wall" (Fig. 3). Excavations in both caves 'were begun in October of 1969. The upper cave, designated Cave I.3A, was a small chamber, eight feet in diameterand a little more than five feet in depth. Its relationshipto -thebasal strataof Field I overlying it indicated that it must have belonged 'to one of the earliest horizons of 'the city's occupation. This proved to be correct. Beneath a covering 15. Cf. Gezer I (HUC),

Stratum

7 to Thutmosis

50, 55, where we dated the end of Stratum 8 to Thutmosis III and

IV. Since

that was written

(1969)

additional

evidence

has accumulated

which makes the view forwarded here more likely. See also the discussion of Field VI below.

104

THE BIBLICALARCHIAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

fill of loose brown soil and field stones, a heavy layer of black charcoal-filled soil was encountered. Below this were the remains of an Early Bronze living and storage installation. Smashed across the cave floor were several large storejarsand a number of bowls and other small ceramic vessels, all Et IA in type and easily restorable. Liberally mixed with these remains were great quantities of grains and seeds. Three intact basalt bowls and a number of round stone pestles, as well as miscellaneous flint blades, completed the assemblage. The complex had undoubtedly been used for the storage and preparation of food. In addition, it had also at one time been used, at least temporarily, as a pigsty. This rather curious datum derives from the analysis of bone fragments collected through careful sifting. According to environmentalist Anthony J. Legge of Cambridge University, these included a high percentage of foetal pig bones. In any event, the cave's useful life was finally ended by an extensive fire. Carbon 14 analysis of the charcoal remains corroborates ceramic evidence and fixes the date in the early EB I period, ,the ca. 3100 B.C. It is probable that all of Macalister's"Troglodyte dwellings" belong to this horizon.16 The 1969 fall excavationsin the southern cave, Cave I.10A, were not at all as productive as 'those in upper Field I. In the first season only a heavy Late Bronze II fill was encountered. It was not until t'he spring season of 1970, after another week and a half of digging, that work produced significant results. At this point, with excavations having reached some 16 feet below the bedrock surface, our probes revealed the first evidence of a rich level of LB I burials. Careful clearanceof the remaining fill exposed a chamber roughly circular in plan and just over eight feet in diameter.It had been carefully prepared as a tomb, with a raised platform around the sides. The opening through which we had gained access from above was simply accidental; the original entrance into the chamberwas found leading away to the southeast at the same level as the burials. All evidence within the chamber indicated that it had been used for primary burials. However, only two or possibly three of the skeletons were still articulated. The rest of the remains had been pushed into rough piles along the back of the platformaround the cave walls. More 'thansixty different individuals could be identified from these disheveled remains.'7 Mixed with these bones was a rich assortmentof both local LB I pottery and imported Cypriot wares. Over a hundred whole or restorable vessels were recovered plus a good collection of bronze artifacts. Among the latter were 16. The actual date was 3040 - 110 B.C. On Macalister's "Troglodytes," dated by him to "Pre-Semitic," see Gezer I (PEF) 6-7; Chap. IV, passim, and 285-88. For a reassessment, see G. E. Wright, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, LXIX (1937), 67-78; J. A. Callaway, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, XCIV (1962), 104-17. 17. All data on skeletal remains is based on analysis by Physical Anthropologist David J. Finkel of Adelphi University.

1971, 4)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

105

51(1

~~I ...

,i

..

)-

I)o

Fig.

5. Objects from Cave I.10A, 15th, 14th centuries B.C.; (a) scarab ring; (b) "kohl tube" for cosmetics; (c) glass ointment vase. Scale is in inches.

bracelets, earrings, and pins, as well as several knife blades and numerous arrowheads. Of special note was a fine bronze signet ring with a well-cut scarab of the typical Hyksos anra type still in its setting (Fig. 5a). A number several bearing of other scarabs and seals were also recovered, among ,them The B.C. the prenomen of Thutmosis III, ca. 1490-1436 presence of these a date at the establishes scarabs, together with the ceramic evidence, clearly LB IB/LB IIA transition,ca. 1400 B.C., for the final use of the main chamber (I. 10A Lower). With these materialswas also found a diverse collection of more exotic objects. These included two ceramic zoomorphic figurines. One is a bull, typical of Late Bronze imports from Cyprus. The other is in local Palestinian ware and its genus is somewhat questionable;possibly it is a lion. The prize

106

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

finds of the 1970 spring season were two carved limestone "kohl tubes" for eye cosmetics (Fig. 5b). These were in the form of rampantmonkey figures supporting a kind of basket. Close parallels for these (although carved from ivory) have been noted from 12th Dynasty Egyptian contexts. Easily the most interesting and importantpiece of the tomb'sfurnishings was the ceramic sarcophagusfound on the platform just inside the chmaber to the left of the entrance tunnel. It measured70 by 28 inches and 16 inches deep, and was made entirely of terra cotta. It was equipped with 12 handles and a lid. No piece even remotely comparablehas been found in Palestine at this early period. The only known parallels come from Aegean sources, the closest comparisons being with the larnax coffins of the Middle Minoan culture of the mid-second millennium B.C. on Cyprus and Crete.'8 In company with the sizable collection of imported Cypriot pottery, this evidence clearly suggests that Gezer enjoyed close contacts with the Aegean world during the mid-secondmillennium B.C. The contents of the sarcophagus,however, proved disappointing. Apart from one importedcup and a small bronze bracelet, it produced only skeletal remains. Surprisingly,it contained bones of thirteen different individuals;but only three of the skeletons were complete, and all but one were of children under twelve years of age. With the removalof the sarcophagusthe 1970 spring campaigncame to a conclusion. During the summer season excavations proceeded primarily within the enitrancetunnel. Here additional burials were found, not only on the original level, but also on a second level, superimposedabove it. This phase (I.10OAUpper), found only in the tunnel, apparently represents the very last stage of the tomb's use, after a section of the roof had collapsed and subsequent filling had covered the earlier burials. The interval between these phases cannot have been long, however, as the same patterns of burial practice continued. In both phases bones and artifacts were found heaped along one side of the passageway, and in the upper level two more articulated skeletons were uncovered. Similar continuity is reflectedin the pottery, with LB IB ceramic traditions in both local and imported wares still present. Significantly, a single fragmentary example of a Cypriot Milk Bowl was found in the upper phase near the doorway, fixing the termination of the tomb's use within the early LB II period, ca. 14th century B.C. Many additional bronzesand other objects were also included with these upper phase remains. Among the more interesting were a small pedestal bowl carved in alabaster and a rectangular serpentine seal bearing an Egyptian winged genius figure. The most precious object, however, was found just Annual of the British School at Athens, LXIII (1968), 219-27. 18. Cf. B. Rutkowski, especially indebted to Dr. Trude Dothan who was the first to point out these parallels.

We

are

1971, 4)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

107

inside the entrance at the head of what must have been the last Fpersonto be buried within the tomb (Fig. 6). "Sarah",as this last skeleton was soon named, proved to be a female of about 34 years. She had been provided with a beautiful Egyptian glass vase as a funerary token, typically light blue-grey in color, with white to yellow wavy bands around its neck (Fig. 5c). Although broken in antiquity, it was complete and could easily be restored.It represents one of the earliest whole examples of sand-core molded glass ("Amarna"glass) yet to be found in Palestine. ....'. iiii::: i::::::i:::::::::?;:.::-: ::?:.:-:-

~~~~.-.~a~Xi~G;~S~I~9a6~:`'::'::: ::-;:-:i:i.if B~B~IB ?::::~:::::r::::

,::::: -':'i:i~Bi i:iiiii:::::::':'l:ir:l:ia' ~ii~aj~~Zi:~:r:l::I . ;.:i::::?i-:::::j_-.,:,:,:r:~:::,:,?I -:::: ,:,:j,:::jd:',-:i:-:-?:i:i:i-_:i:~r?? ::i":',::' _jil: :~:::: :: iis:ii::i:l::-ii::': ::::i:::::::~-:i:,a ::: ::::?: :::il:':l:_::i:: :.:;::i::--:::-:::::::r:,:::j, :":?:?::::i:;j"i?e ::::::::: :':'::.:': .......; :j::::a:i:i::,: r::;:::::j::::: :::?-:"?i:?,:&i::a:~i;:ti.?iiii :?:-:i:l:::l:I::: --::::::: :::::::: :~::-~:-;::::::-: :?:;::?r::? -: :i-:-:?:: :?:::I::I?:::j::':""''':'~iiiiii'iiiib'' i:i:r:,:i?i ::I:ii:j':s:l:.:.:lii:::::;i:i::i::~?i:. ~i;i~jiiil~ :-.:?-~?.:i?:-:1::?:.?;:,-::::~~:j:\,::: ::::i::r4::::::: ~PiBLi ~l:::::i: i~j~ii:i:~-si :?::-:---::::::::i:::::i ~i:i::I:::?:i: a:r:?'i~?l~ilii'i:;i;i ipi:~?~;iiiiiiiiiiiiq:~i .::.: 4~C:8:i il:::I'P-:.iillii;l:ii~?~:;jiiijl-~';:~~ iiiii-ill::f 'I::jfi~.ji ~i!g ~~;:-i,;;:':;'::i-_:;l:i:I:::::'.:d .If;::j:~~~i:~i~i::::: _:::i::i: ~~-:i~,~r:iiiiiili~:ai:: ?~ Ij:: 8::. !81::.': j::::::: :::i::-:::: :::; ir;. .?n:-:::::::i :i:i:i,!i:ii

~iS:.iiid;iiZi;;i' ~l"~.:':::::i!~i''

?:~:?j:lss :i::,

~s~

:?:

I~ii:B ~iiiiii~~PilZiQ

:?

Phn'; B::::,,

?i~-~i~;:1::::::::? --.?. ~:: :-:::::::Z::-:-':':::i.~9)~ ::W:i::-::-::: :'::::aii .:::?rr:::::::: :li::

)iirr.::::::::ir~ 5i~

"i:::i: :: :;:?:::-:::?:; ~:~::i::::::::j:~::::::~:::::i: ::-:::: ::: ::::::::iji?;::1: ~:~:iii-l:::::-:

ia

i::: I:j

~111

Fig.

6. One of the final burials in the entranceway of Cave I.10A. Note the earlier burials pushed aside and the glass ointment vase at the head of the final burial (see Fig. 5c). Photo by Robert B. Wright.

Work in the summer of 1970 ended just as the blocking wall, with its doorway forming the tomb's entrance, had been reached. Invcstiation of this entrance was resumed in 1971. While no dramaticnew finds appeared, this work helped to clarify the overall history of the cave. It now seems probable that it was originally excavated for use as a cistern. Subsequently, in the mid-15th century B.C., it was preparedas a tomb by the dumping of a heavy fill of chalk boulders into it; this chalk very likely came from the cutting of the lateral entrance tunnel to replace the vertical shaft. The chamber was completedby the addition of a stone wall acrossthe tunnel passage,creating a narrow doorway which was closed by a large blocking stone. The tomb apparently was used periodically through the late 15th century (I.10A Lower). Finally, with the collapse of a section of its roof, the main chamber was rendered inaccessible. For a brief time, the entrance tunnel remained in use for additional burials (I.10A Upper). Then, sometime in the early 14th

108

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

century B.C., perhapsin connection with the building of the "OuterWall" of Stratum 6 in Field I, its portals were sealed for the last time9. IV. Field

II, 1968-70

Field II was opened in 1965, midway along the south perimeterof the tell between the Bronze Age gateway (Fields I and IV) and the Solomonic gateway (Field III; see Fig. 2). The initial purpose of the field was to establish the date and identity of a wall running along the south slope and to test for the presence of strata which might fill the occupational gap reflected in Field I between the 11th century B.C. and the Hellenistic age (Fig. 16). As reportedearlier, work during the 1965 and 1966 seasons revealed that the wall in question (Waell 1001) had been founded immediately on a mid10th century destruction level.20 This strengthened the likelihood that it was the inner wall of a Solomonic casemate fortification and prepared for the opening of Field III to to the east to reinvestigate Macallister's"Maccabean Castle" with which wall appeared to relate. Besides clear evidence for ,the Iron I and 'the Solomonic period, these initial seasons in Field II uncovered indications that Gezer was occupied during Iron II and again in the Persian and Hellenistic-Roman periods. This reportwill cover three subsequent seasons of work in Field II between 1968 and 1970.21 We found overall a total of 12 separable strata of building activity since the beginning of the Iron Age, with essentially unbroken occupation until the Babylonian destruction of 587/586 B.C. and evidence of two building phases during the Persian period and two during the Hellenistic age (Fig. 16). Field II also has demonstratedwhy almost a millennium of building activity between the 11ithand 2nd centuries B.C. was so poorly represented in Field I and in Macalister's excavations elsewhere on the tell. The explanation lies in the combination of three factors. First, the Iron II and Persian deposits provedto be particularlythin; the debris between the Solomonic and Hellenistic surfaces in Field II was confined to approximatelysix feet of debris, half of that depth accountedfor by two destructiondeposits. Secondly, during several building phases, there had been extensive reuse or robbing of earlier structures and (the digging of numerous pits, some for storage silos, some apparently for waste disposal, some perhaps to collect soil for agricultural purposesor brick-making.The third and perhaps most importantfactor reducing the available evidence from these centuries is the ambitious character of the building activity in the final two periods of occupation at Gezer; both 'the Maccabean and the Roman builders had (trenchedvery deeply into the layers of debris them, quarryingfor building stones, before laybeneaath 19. The revetment wall for the glacis of the "Outer Wall" blocks the shaft to Cave I.1OA; cf. Fig. 3. 20. Dever, BA, XXX (1967), 59-61; Gezer I (HUC), 31-32, 61-62. 21. Field II was not excavated in 1967.

and upper entrance

109

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1971, 4)

ing their surfaces and walls, The result of all this was to leave only isolated fragments of the surfaces and structures belonging to the Iron age and Persian periods.22Nonetheless, Field II more than justified the labors expended in it by helping to clarify and complete the history of occupation at Gezer. In the 1968-1970 seasons, work in Field II was limiltedto Areas 1-3, the field's areas. The deepest penetration original and northernmostthree of .the inner fortificationwall, where a Solomonic was made in Area 1, beneath ,the B.C. domestic surface wilth an associated late 13th cobbled century partially terrace wall was exposed the area. Stratum 13 was terminatedby ,throughout a fiery destruction,(the resulting mudbrickand roof collapse crushing in place a number of store-jarsand other vessels. The destruction debris contained a variety of interesting small objects, including two finely worked faience cylinder seals in Late Miitannianstyle (Fig. 7a, b).

aa

"

t Jq .

.,-"

?:

i" b

! ?t ,4

o. "

....

Fig.

7. Objects from Field II: (a, b) faience cylinder seals and clay impressions made from them, ca. 13th century B.C.; (c) limestone incense altar, late 10th century B.C. Scale is in inches.

An earthen surface was established immediately over the destruction debris, reusing and supplementing the stone socle of a Stratum 13 wall. Stratum 12, however, still belongs to the late 13th century, possibly extending into the early 12th century B.C. Its only equivalent elsewhere on the mound is the period of "post-6"pitting in Field VI (see below). The major Stratum 11 wall representeda relatively ambiltiousconstruction for this portion of the tell. North of the wall was an interior domestic cooking area, with a compactedearthen floor and a dung-firedtabuinor oven 22. These had been missed almost entirely by Macalister, leading scholars to conclude from his publication that there was "an almost complete gap in the history of occupation at Gezer between the tenth and the fifth centuries" (Albright, Archaeology of Palestine [rev. ed., 1960], 31).

110

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXXIV,

near a large flat "table-stone"perhaps used for food preparation.The pottery from this stratum clearly postdates the LB IIB period. The forms and pastes are what would be expected in early 12th century materials, but no trace is found of the painted decoration associated with the fully-developed Philistine wares. Despite this anomaly, Stratum 11 belongs to the early 12th century transitional period reflected in Stratum 5E in Field VI, where the painted pottery was also rarebut present (Fig. 16). The first occurrencein Field II of demonstrablyPhilistine pottery was in Stratum 10, although it was not accompanied by major building activity.

Stratum 10 (corresponding Stratum 4 of Field I and probably to Stratum ,to 5C of Field VI; Fig. 16) saw a continued use of the major wall, a resurfacing of the room to the north, and a rebuilding of the upper portion of the same tabi'n. Stratum 9 above this of ithe late 12th/early Ilth century B.C. brought a - just as this period change in the function assigned to this space on the ,tell did in Field VI. The area was converted to industrial use. An exteriorearthen surface compacted over layers of local field clays sealed over the earlier interiorwalls and surfaces.Casually-builtparallel stub walls separatedbin areas, one of which contained a pile of field clay (for brick-making?)and another of which contained a pile of stones of a size suitable for paving but also of a size and mineral content suitable for lime slaking. Staff Geologist Reuben Bullard noted that some of the stones were of exotic provenance, from the Mediterranean coast, strengthening the suggestion that these piles represent intentionally gaitheredraw materials for some building or industrial operations in the vicinity in the late Philistine period. Strata 8-7 represent the "Post-Philistine/Pre-Solomonic"period. A late 11th century B.C. horizon of pottery (Stratum 8, parallel to Stratum 4B in Field VI) marked the next discernible phase in Field II, at which time the north half of Area 1 was covered with successive layers of residue from a lime-slaking operation farther to the north. Some modest east-west walls also were laid, one at the beginning, the other near the end of this period. Above this a Stratum 7 courtyardof the early 10th century B.C. (contemporarywith Field VI, Stratum 4A) was represented by an exterior surface, shallow pits, and two north-south walls. Stratum 7 was brought to a violent end in the

the smotheredash and mudbrickcollapse mid-lO0thcentury B.C., reflected in the Solomonic casemate wall in Area 1. beneath preserved immediately The mid-lO0thcentury rebuilding of Gezer, most dramaticallyattested in the Field III gateway (below), was represented in Field II by elements of domestic construction of Stratum 6B, exposed in all three areas north of Casemate Wall 1001. These include a stone-linedbin, several wall fragments, earthen interior and exterior surfaces, a metaled surface, and a domestic cob-

1971, 4)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

111

bled surface with associated stone wall-lines forming the southeast corner of a house. These elemenitsreflect a general building activity associatedwith the Solomonic fortification program, although the limited exposure in the field and the numerous interruptions from later pits and trenches make only partial architecturalreconstructionpossible. The cobbled surface and a segment of earthen surface nearby in Area 3 were covered by the smothered wood ash and collapsed mudbrick of a destruction late in the 10th century, to judge from the pottery sealed in the destruction debris. Elsewhere in the field, however, there was no evidence of burning or discontinuity at the end of Stratum 6B. Walls continue in use and both earthen and metaled surfaces accumulated uninterruptedly up to layers where early 9th century B.C. pottery is found. This suggests that if Pharaoh Shishak's claim to have conquered Gezer in his campaign of 918 B.C. is to be credited, the destruction was mostly confined to the Solomonic gateway, and this part of the city would appear to have avoided a general destruction. The burning and collapse of the house described above may reflect localized fires at the time of the conquest, intentional burning at the hands of Egyptian soldiers after a capture,or may be completely unrelated to a conquest of Gezer. One of the more interesting objects to come from the Stratum 6B destruction debris was a small square-sidedincense altar made of local chalk with stick figures on two sides. The figure holds a lance (or lightning bolt?) in a stance suggestiveof Ba'al (Fig. 7c). Whatever the cause of 'the burning in the late 10th century B.C. in Area 3, it is now evident that there was no abandonment of Gezer at this time. Both earthen and metaled surfaces of Stratum 6 in all three areas continued to accumulate alongside the major walls uninterruptedly from mid10th century into at least the early 9th century B.C., so much so that the preand post-Shishakmaterialswere at first isolated only as "Stratum6".23Further exposure revealed that there was, in fact, some new building activity associated with the 10th/9th century upper portions of surfaces, now redesignated Stratum 6A. A cooking tabuinwas establishedin Area 3 along with a domestic metaled surface after the destruction of the earlier house. The tabfn went through two phases of construction and use while metaled resurfacing accumulated alongside it. On -the west side of Area 3 a new wall was laid which was to continue in use through at least two subsequentstrata. Whether, in fact, there was any lengthy abandonment of Gezer during Iron II, ca. 900 to 600 B.C. is questionable on the basis of the evidence now available. The bits and tatters of surfaces and interrupted walls of Field II were modest to begin with and even less impressiveafter being devastatedby the trenchings and pits of later periods. The mid-9th century B.C. is still not 23. Cf. GezerI (HUC), 32-33, 63.

112

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

well attested. Nevertheless, it is clear from the stratigraphicseparationsthat there was an occupation phase beginning in the late 9th century B.C. (Stratum 5B); another phase beginning in the 8th century B.C. (Stratum 5A); and a phase in the 7th/early 6th century B.C. (Stratum 4). Both Stratum 5A and Stratum4 were terminatedby destructionsaccompaniedby extensive burning. The Stratum 5 destructionmay be attributableto the Assyrian campaigns of 725-722 B.C. or perhaps to a campaign by Tiglath-pileserIII in 734 or 733 B.C.24The deep destruction debris of Stratum 4 clearly points to the Babylonian campaign of 587/586 B.C. Occasional sherds from the Persian period had been encounteredin late fills elsewhere on the tell, buttField II has yielded the firstoccupation deposits and architecture.There appear, in fact, to have been at least two phases of building activity in the 5th-4th centuries B.C. A Stratum 3A stone silo stratigraphicallysucceeded a Stratum 3B cooking oven and surface which, in turn, overlay the Stratum4 destruction.A small areaexcavateddirectly east of Area 3 during the 1971 season by the Cambridge University environmental studies team confirmed the evidence from Field II that the Persian period contained more than one substantialarchitecturalbuilding phase and increases the hope that a large exposure projectedfor the 1972-73 seasons (as "Field VII") may prove productive. Little needs to be added to what has already been reported of Strata 2 and 1 of the Hellenistic and Roman periods in Fields II,25 except to note that a separationbetween two phases of Hellenistic building, Strata2B and 2A, is now confirmed. V. Field

III:

The Solomonic

Gateway

It was clear from the beginning of our excavationsat Gezer that one of the prime areas of investigation would have to be Macalister's"Maccabean Castle", elements of which had been convincingly reinterpreted by Prof. Yigael Yadin as belonging to an Israelite gateway of the Solomonic era probably forming part of the refortificationof Gezer mentioned in I Kings

9: 15-17.26

Preparationsfor excavation of the gateway area had begun in 1965 in Field II which was laid out to catch the westward extension of the Solomonic casematewall. The success of this endeavorencouraged us to hope for similar success in the area of the gate itself. Certainly it seemed odd that Macalister, who knew something of Hellenistic pottery, should have been so far wrong in his dating of the gate structurewhich lay at the eastern end of our stretch 33. See below for the evidence from 24. Lance, BA, XXX (1967), 43-44; Gezer I (HUC), Field III. 61-62. 25. Dever, BA, XXX (1967), 80-86. See also 26. Gezer I (PEF), 209-23; Y. Yadin, Israel Exploration Journal, VIII (1958), by 103-04, and the discussion the convenient summary by G. E. Wright in BA, XXI (1958), 39-42. Lance in BA, XXX (1967),

1971, 4)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

113

of indisputably 10th century casemate wall. Had the Hellenists completely removed all traces of earlier occupation?Macalister'splans showed a peculiar diagonal building exactly where Yadin's reconstruction indicated the other half of the gate should have been. Had this building replaced the earlier structure completely? Or did significant remains of earlier levels yet remain sealed beneath it? Excavation proper began in the summer of 1967. The chief problem initially was to determine the limits of Macalister'sintrusion. Fortunately in most areas the "ceramic"evidence was relatively abundant. Sherds of cheap chinaware, oil-lamp chimneys, medicine bottles, egg-shells, and tin cans littered the ground. Two small buildings overlying the gateway delayed us for a time. Meticulously excavated and recorded, they were decisively dated by the tin cans and china cup fragments sealed under their floors. We had located Macalister'sexcavation houses, casually mentioned in his reports but nowhere located on his plans or sketches. Work in 1967 was largely confined to excavation in the western half of the gateway, alreadyplanned by Macalister.The general plan of the expected gateway soon emerged: half of a four-entry or six-chambered building, constructed of large well-coursed stones roughly dressed and laid in headerstretcher fashion at corners and pier-ends. Well-dressed or "ashlar"masonry was confined to the area of the entrance proper. A heavy threshold stone complete with bolt sockets and drag-marksstood on its side in secondary reuse, with a shallower and cruder socket for a bolt on its new top surface. But what of the other half of the Solomonic gateway? A probe in the center area of the eastern half of the field soon located the diagonal wall of the long slanting room shown in Macalister'splans as the eastern mate to the chambered western half of our presumed Solomonic gate. It rode above the level of a heavy stone wall which lined up exactly with the third pier in the western half of the gateway. The Hellenists had not robbed out all the eastern portionsof the gateway, as we had feared. As excavation proceeded through the summers of 1968 and 1969, it became increasingly clear why Macalister called the entire complex "Maccabean". For throughoutmost of the area excavatedby him the coherent remains must have been Hellenistic. During this period the western half of the gate, including the remains of the two-chamberedgateway, seems to have stood as a ruined mound, with the Hellenistic roadway entering the galte entrance (rebuilt in the Maccabean occupation of the site) and running through the open area immediatelywest of the slanting building. Work on the earlier levels of Field II continued through 1971. By this time we were able to put together a detailed account of the constructionof a royal Solomonic gateway and its subsequent history through the early 9th

114

THIE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

4

L

Ir

I

I

SOL.M.iC-GATE

SOLOMONICGATE Fig.

I

o 1 2 3 4M

8. Plan of earliest phase of Solomonic Gate, Field III (schematized).

century, with importantclues as to the later use of the area in the 8th and 7th centuries and again in the Hellenistic period. Deep probes below foundation level showed that the gateway and its connecting casemate wall system had been built on a massive imported fill, leveling out a terraceon a hillside where natural contours of the mound had created a drainage slope of at least two acres. There were no signs of destruction in the area immediately under the gateway, although large chunks of charcoal and quantities of pottery in the fill indicated that it had been brought from an area heavily destroyedimmediatelyprior to the refortification of the city.27 The pottery throughout this fill was uniformly early 10th century material, corresponding exactly to the destruction materials from the 1966 27. Close study of Macalister's plans in Gezer III (PEF), and Pls. IV-VI, shows Frontispiece that the Late Bronze/Iron I gate is probably to be located just here. If it was destroyed by Pharaoh in the destruction in I Kings 9:16, that would explain the location of the Soz'omonic mentioned

gate, as well as its sub-foundation fill.

1971, 4)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

115

excavations in Field II. This pottery was a debased continuation of the late Philistine wares, now decorated with a streaky red slip rather resembling a dark "grain-wash"slip. Burnished wares were conspicuous by their total absurfacesimmediatelyabove sence, although the Solomonic and post-Solomnonic indeed had the typical red hand-burnishedbowls, thickened-rimkraters,and closely-burnishedjugs. Moderately rare in the earlier levels, these increased in frequency towardthe end of the 10th century B.C. The plan of the gateway in its earliest phase, Stratum 6 (Fig. 8), as Yadin had already observed, was essentially a mirrorimage of the Megiddo gateway, even to the original width of the entrance, later obscured by the Hellenistic rebuild. The massive stone piers formed socles for a superstructure of mudbrick,and the resulting building must have stood at least two or three stories above the surrounding area. To judge from the account in II Samuel 18:33 (19:1), the superstructureof the typical gateway of the time housed governmental or military quarters, presumably the command headquarters and lookout posts for the city defense forces. The problems of the founding of such a massive building upon soft earthen fill were met by building each half of the gateway so as to present a uniform aspect to the earth beneath, so that the structure would "settle"evenly. Thus at Gezer the apparent "walls" closing off the front of each bay of the gateway were continuous with the founding course of the other walls, but strictly foundationalin character.The original floor surfaces either ran over the tops of these "rafts",as we called them, or utilized them as thresholds. The street crossed a heavy threshold at the north end of the gateway building and ran through the center of the building at a slightly lower level than that of the rooms to either side; there were indicationsthat either a rampor steps led up to a raised thresholdleading out of the city. There was only one set of doors- those at the outer entrance of the building. The chief feature of initerestin the internal structure of the gateway was the elaboratesystem of low plasteredstone benches which ran around the three sides of all the rooms (Figs. 1, 8). From the first discovery of these benches, which continued to be rebuilt throughout the entire history of the multiple-entrywaygate, we were struck by the appropriatenessof the setting to the familiar biblical phrase "judgment in the gate," as well as its suitability for the more everyday functions of trade and neighborly discussion among the city fathers. To date, these benches are only paralleledby those of later gateways at Tell en-Nasbeh, Khirbet el-KOm,and to a lesser degree, Dan - although the totally ruined superstructureof the Hazor gateway leaves open a possibility that it, too, might have been similarly furnished. Evidence for trade was forthcoming in the form of the relative abundance of storejarware, kraters,and peculiar one-handled bowls termed "grain-scoops"

116

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

by G. E. Wright and associatedwith storehousesand gateways at Beth-shemesh and Hazor, among other sites. Other than small bowls, probably used for drinking cups, normal household vessels were relatively rare. At the entrance of the gate, 'in the eastern end of the first room, a large stone water trough was installed, affording drinking water for thirsty beasts of burden entering the precincts of the city (Fig. 1). The inner chambersor bays were certainly roofed, as the presence of a downspout drain attests. Windows piercing the mudbrick walls must have been necessary to provide light to the inner bays; certainly lamps were not common in the pottery finds. To the north of the gateway building more benches continued, following the northern line of the northernmostpier, then turning north to disappear in the balk. The western court thus formed was blocked by a wall with a doorway opening out into the street, while the eastern area seems to have been more in the nature of an open plaza (Fig. 8). Whether or not the enclosed area was used for a council chamber must remain a question, but the suggestion seems a reasonable one. In any case, both complexes gave way to an open plaza without benches in the next phase. With the exception of the street area itself, the entire area of the gateway, including the passageways to the east and west of the gate building, was finely plastered with crushed chalk paste. Much attention was given to finish and detail, with the resulting building undoubtedly reflecting most admirablythe glories of the Solomonic building program. Yet, splendid as it was, the building suffered from a fundamental architectural oversight. In its earliest phase (Stratum 6) the entire drainage of the slope was funneled through six small drains located at floor level in the two casemates connected to the gate building - Macalister'senigmatic "kokhim"!28Perhaps a small drainagechannel ran down the center of the street. In any case, it was not enough. Within a very short time, in Stratum 5, the plan of the building was altered to incorporatethe large central drain which became a standard feature of the later phases of the gateway as well as an important component of the Maccabean rebuilding program(Figs. 1, 8). At the north-westcorner a downspoutdrain was added, leading water off into the new central drain. We found no evidence for the covering of this formidable obstacle to trafficthrough the gate, but rather the opposite. Successive street surfaces simply ran up to the curbstones of the drain. Possibly a boardwalk bridged the drain; but if it did, we found no trace of it or provisions for securing it in place. A raising of street levels inside the gateway necessitated the raising of floor levels inside the rooms and the consequent rebuilding of the benches around the walls of each of the rooms. 217. This evidence also disposes of Yadin's suggestion, 28. Gezer I (PEF), that the "kokhim" were mortises for wooden steps to the second floor.

however

ingenious,

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1971, 4)

117

At the end of Stratum 5, following a rather longer period of use than was evidenced by the Stratum 6 structure, a violent destructionwas attested by great quantities of calcined stone at the inner corners of the entrances to the casemates and by quantities of destruction material overlying Stratum 5 floor surfaces both within and outside of the gate building. From materials sealed within these deposits, it was clear that this destructionhad to be dated to the very end of the 10th century B.C. and must representthe evidence for Pharaoh Shishak's great Palestinian campaign ca. 918 B.C. (I Kings 14:25). Outstanding among the small finds in this destruction was a small copper juglet, the obvious prototype for the red-burnisheddipper juglet of the late 10th/early 9th century B.C. (Fig. 9a). Aside from the quality of the building itself, this was the sole testimony of the excavationsin Field III to the storied wealth of the Solomonic era.

._

~

?E.

.?

,••

?l.?

?C

Fig.

•

i'

~~~,

%G

9. Objects from the gate, Field III: (a) bronze juglet, late 10th century B.C.; (b) bowl rim of "Samaria Ware B" with the Hebrew letters (b)hh, late 8th century B.C. Scale is in inches.

The thoroughnessof the destructionof the gateway is evidenced by the fact that the casemateswere never reopened. But the gate itself was immediately rebuilt in Stratum 4. The piers at the entrance were either rebuilt (the eastern pier, including, in all probability, the eastern jamb of the entryway itself) or doubled in thickness (the western pier). The main north/south piers were raised to the height of the formernorth casemate wall for part of their length. These modificationshad the net effect of taking the load off the fire-damagedsouthwest and southeast corners of the building. It is probably at this time also that the central drain was redirected from a southeasterlyto a southwesterly direction, reflecting the destruction of the outer gateway (down the slope from Field III) and its consequent abandonment.

118

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

With a thickening of the entrance pier of the western half of the gateway in Stratum 4, the old arrangementof three chambers on a side could no longer be maintained. Over half the width of the first western chamber was now taken up by the buttress wall. So the second pier from the south on each side was removed below floor level, benches were constructed along sides of the newly-enlarged chambers, and the four-entrywaygate became a or four-chamberedgate. Since the change in plan was necesthree-en~tryway sitated by local circumstancesrather than by design, and since the much more symmetrical three-entrywaygate at Megiddo exhibits every sign of being a planned replacement,29it seems that the Gezer post-Shishak or Stratum 4 gateway is the prototype of a new series of royal three-entrywaygates of the 9th century B.C. Here our closely connected stratification ended, with only raising of floor surfaces and streets, some improvements to the collecting basin of the central drain just north of the gate, and the incorporationof auxiliary drains witnessing to continued use of the gateway throughout the remainder of Stratum 4 (late 9th-8th centuries B.C.). There is some evidence that much later building operations periodically cleared out street and interior accumulations, taking levels down nearly to those of the early 9th century. At any rate, the only sign of destruction material deriving from the campaign of Tiglath-pileser III in 733 B.C. was a long wedge of undisturbed ash overlying the "raft"stones and street surface immediately to the west of the gate entrance. Here remnants of the third quarter of the 8th century B.C. rested directly upon a plastered surface which in turn overlay materialsof the midninth century. From this horizon comes a bowl rim inscribed with the Hebrew letters (b)hh (Fig. 9b). The Assyrian gate of Stratum 3 which rose over these ruins must remain somewhat enigmatic. The Hellenists and Macalister did not leave us much to go on. Yet, even here, 7th century B.C. pottery in the foundation trench for a new "feeder"drain witnesses that the central drain was still in use. And what evidence we have points to exactly the sort of two-entryway gate which was very much in vogue during the late 8th and 7th centuries B.C., carrying out the parallelismof the "MaccabeanCastle" at Gezer to the Megiddo series of gateways to a degree undreamed of at the beginning of 1967. Evidence for the Babyloniandestructionin 587/586 B.C. was not found in the gateway itself, although it had been found earlierin the excavation of the casemate wall in Field II. We were able to distinguish two Ilellenistic phases, Strata2 and 1. The earlier, datable to the early 2nd century B.C. on ceramic grounds, lay directly 29. The Megiddo gate was converted from a four-entryway gate in Stratum 5A/4B to a threeentryway gate in Stratum 4A, with a two-entryway gate finally in Stratum 3. Cf. G. Loud,

Megiddo II (1948),

46ff.; Y. Yadin, BA, XXXIII (1970),

86-87.

1971,4)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

119

over 9th century streets and building remains, indicating that subsequent occupation debris had been cleared away prior to reconstruction.In places, this clearing operation had even penetrated to 10th century levels. Pockets of 8th and 7th/6th century debris survived here and there, but nowhere in continuous stratification.The slanting building was built in this period. To judge by its general plan, this building probably functioned as a government storehouse. Since, according to I Macc. 9:52, the Seleucid general Bacchides garrisoned Gezer following the Maccabean uprising, we would expect to find quartermasterstores in conjunction with defensive installations. The Stratum 2 occupation was brief and producedlittle depth of stratification. Immediately succeeding it was a massive rebuilding effort in Stratum 1, which included a reconstructionof the west jamb of the gateway, narrowing it from 14 to 10 feet. Since the original ashlar stones seem to have been utilized in this rebuilding, the new west jamb was quite similar to its eastern (original) counterpart,giving the reconstructedgate a misleading appearance of originality.30The outer rampartswere renovated, using the wedge-shaped bossed stones with wide-chisel marginal drafting, typical of the late Hellenistic period. The great central drain was cleared and reused, and the slanting building was massively reflooredwith an 8 to 12 inch thick layer of packed marl over a 4 to 6 inch layer of stony fill. At this time the ruin-heap west of the multiple-entryway gate and its two-entrance successor seem to have been revetted with a curb wall to prevent its washing into the street area, but otherwise left untouched. Street levels were raised about 20 inches in conjunction with the consolidation of the drain cover and the raising of the level of the threshold. The threshold stone itself was raised and turned on its side. This impressive reconstruction of the gate area in Stratum 1 may be credited to the enterprising Simon Maccabeus, who rebuilt Gezer as a fortified city following his captureof it in 142 B.C.31Despite the great appearance of strength and stability which the reconstructionconveyed, however, it was clearly largely a matterof outward show for psychologicaleffect. The exterior rebuilding of the entrance was not structural,but decorative. Ceramic comparisonsof the materialsin the sub-streetfill and successive street resurfacingswith other known groups of posit-150B.C. pottery confirm the Simonide dating of Stratum 1. The presence of small amounts of Eastern terra sigillata in these layers should be noted. This concurs with the new evidence from Tell Anafa in the Lake Huleh region for the early introduction of this ware into Palestine.32By the Herodian period Gezer with its outlying 30. See Fig. 1; the discovery of this deception removes the only discrepancy in Yadin's table of comparative measurements of the Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer gates: op. cit. (n. 26), 86. 31. Lance, BA, XXX (1967), 46-47. 32. Oral communication of Prof. Saul S. Weinberg, University of Missouri.

120

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

territorieswas little more than a private estate, hardly in need of a monumental gateway. VI. Field

V: The "High

Place"

of the enigmatic"HighPlace" In 1968 we undertookthe re-excavation On the northside of the mound,in a dip below the found by Macalister.33 acropolis,Macalisteruncovereda line of ten monolithsrunning roughly Therewas considerable north-south. disparityin the heightsof the stonesand in theirdressing;two weremorethan 10 feet high. All exceptone, StoneVII, were local limestone.Aroundthe basesof the stoneswas a low curb and a

•Clc..,

7:?,

OFo

%Ara

'O

Fig. 10. The "High Place," Field V, ca. 1600 B.C., as restored. Note a tower of the "Inner Wall" in background at left. Photo by Theodore A. Rosen.

on the westof StonesV and VI narrowpavingof limestonechips,interrupted a rectangularcavity 15 inches with block limestone a by large rectangular In the the into cut generalvicinityhe found two top (Figs. 10, 11). deep infant number of a brokenmonoliths, jar-burials,two interconnectedcaves humanbones. He called all of some in bedrock,and a cisterncontaining these elementsthe "High Place,"and, drawingheavilyon biblicalconcepts an eclectic of "HighPlaces"and passageslike Isaiah57:3ff,he reconstructed oracularconsultationin the two caves, cultuswhich involvedchild-sacrifice, and the use of the rectagularblockeitheras an altaror as the base for a cult He thoughtthat Stone II and one of the brokenstones pillaror "asherah." of a deity and his consort,while the other stoneswere were representative 33. Gezer I (PEF), 105-07; II, 381-406.

1971, 4)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

121

divine guardians of the city. According to Macalister the "High Place" grew up gradually in his "FirstSemitic" period (ca. 2500-1800) and culminated in

his "ThirdSemitic"period(ca. 1400-1000B.C.).

Unfortunately, Macalister'smethods of digging and publication made it difficult to accept all of his attributions of date or function. For those who accepted Macalister'sexplanation, the Gezer complex became the very paradigm of a "High Place." Other scholars disagreed, some seeing the standing stones as having primarilya mortuaryfunction. One critic even proposedthat the stones were the structural remains of a stable. The re-excavationwas undertaken to resolve some of these ambiguities of date, construction, and function remaining from the earlier excavation. Macalister had covered up the "High Place" with his dump, so the first task was to relocate it and clear away his debris. After hand-dugprobesin the 1967 season, the dump was removed in the fall of that year. The actual excavation took place during the spring and summer seasons of 1968. That fall and winter the area was reconstructedand restored(Fig. 10). We found that Macalister had left the standing stones and rectangular block undisturbedon a narrow corridorof soil, but he had dug down to bedrock all around them, thereby isolating these features from all the others. Thus restrictedto this narrow corridoraround the stones, we laid out a series of trenches which bisected each stone, so that we obtained a longitudinal section linking all the standing stones and a lateral section through each. The remaining Macalister dump was first removed and then the undisturbed soil layers dug out in the reverse order of their deposition. By doing this, we discoveredthat there were five main phases of human occupation in the area. The three earliest phases represented(Strata 5-3) had no connection with the alignment of the standing stones. Only Strata 2 and 1 concerned the "High Place" proper. Stratum 5 represents the earliest occupation of the area, in EB I, ca. 3200-2900 B.C. The inhabitants lived directly on bedrock which had been drilled with the same kinds of "cup marks"or mortarsas those found in Field I. Macalister's two interconnected "oracle"caves almost certainly belong to this phase. In Stratum 4 there is evidence of some architecture- walls and an expanse of plaster surface, perhaps a large open court. This phase belongs to EB II, ca. 2900-2600 B.C. Substantial architecturalfragments were found in Stratum 3, but the most intriguing find was a child jar-burial packed around with small boulders and topped with a flagstone. This burial clearly belonged to the domestic architectureof the Stratum 3 occupation and was not stratigraphicallyconnected with the alignment of standing stones from Stratum 2. Furthermore,the distinctive pottery dates the burial to MB IIA/B, ca. 1800 B.C., some two centuries earlier than the "High Place."

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

122

Stratum 2 was the phase of construction of the "High Place". Two facts of major importanceemerged: first, the ten standing stones had all been erected simultaneously; and, secondly, the rectangularstone block belonged with the stones as an integral part of the whole installation from the beginning. The ten stones were set down into shallow foundation trenches and chocked to keep them erect. Around the bases of the stones was built a platform of cobble-sizedfieldstones with an outer curbing of boulders. This platform was interruptedbetween Stones V and VI by a recess containing the rectangular stone block. At this point the block and Stones V and VI on the west side

•

.•,

.••

Li.:..,;

?t

,i'?; r

-

Fig. 11. Corner of "basin" and Stone V, Field V, showing two phases of plaster surface; curbstones and lower surface date to about 1600 B.C.; upper surface, of poorer construction, is from about 1400 B.C. Photo by Robert B. Wright.

were set into a plaster-like surface containing fragments of burned animal bone and teeth (see Fig. 11). The rectangular hole in the top of the stone block was deliberately cut; the unabraided sides of the cavity argue against its use as a base for another stone and for a use as a container for a liquid, perhaps blood. South of the stone block and west of Stones V and IV there were traces of a second and later phase of the "High Place," Stratum 1, consisting of a layer of marl chips overlying the original platform and plaster surface (see Fig. 11). All traces of occupation subsequent to Stratum 1 had been removedby Macalister.Analysis of the pottery found in Stratum 2 dates the construction of "High Place" to MB IIC (ca. 1600 B.C.) and the ,the later modificationin Stratum 1 to LB I or early IIA (ca. 15th-14th centuries B.C.).34 34. In the debris which Macalister dumped back into his trenches there was no more than a handful of Iron Age or later sherds, suggesting strongly that the "High Place" went out of use after the Late Bronze period.

1971, 4)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

123

While the date is clear, the question of the function of the installation is not easily or definitively resolved. Interpretationssuggesting that the stones were part of a stable could be dismissedbefore reexcavaltion.This installation is not domestic nor is it demonstrablyindustrial. A recent study of all standing stones in Palestine isolates four main functions - commemorative,memorial, cultic, and legal.35The fact that the Gezer stones were erected simultaneously surely eliminates a mortuaryor memorial interpretation. It is less easy to decide among the other three. An examination of other groups of standing stones in Palestine is not particularlyhelpful. Those groups sharing most features in common with Gezer (Lejji*n and Beth-shemesh) are the least secure in interpretation.Those most secure in interpretation(Byblos and Hazor) share fewest features with the Gezer stones, are mortuaryin function, occur in a definitely cultic context, and differ in date. While the Gezer "High Place" has some possibly cultic features (,the stone block which could be explained as an altar or laver, together with the burned bone, which suggests some form of sacrifice or meat offering), it is not connected with a temple or an enclosed sacred area, nor were cultic accessoriesof any kind found associatedwith the stones. There was no evidence to suggest a connection between the alignment and the caves, while the jar-burialin Stratum 3 strongly suggests that the other infant-burials found by Macalister were similarly domestic and not part of the "High Place." Perhaps the explanation which best fits the data we have is to be found in a combination of the other two categories commemorationof an event and the witnessing of a ,the individuals or contract between legal groups, specifically, covenant-making. Support for such an interpretationcan be found in an analysis of the ritual practices associatedwith treaty- and covenant-makingin Palestine and Syria.36These involve some or all of the following elements: (1) the setting up of a stone or stones; (2) oath-taking;(3) the sacrificeof blood; and (4) a covenant meal. In extra-biblicalsourcesthe setting up of stones is attested by the Sefire treaty inscriptions. Oath-taking is everywhere regarded as an essential part of all covenant-making,as is the sacrifice of blood. The animal sacrificedor the meaning attached to the action may vary. A treaty text from Mari mentions the slaying of an ass, while a treaty between Abba-An of Yamkhad and Yarim-Lim of Alalakh links oath-taking with cutting the throat of a lamb. A covenant meal is attested in the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon and appearsin Semitic nomadiccovenant traditions. A cursory examination of biblical covenant scenariosshows the same intimate relationshipbetween the setting up of stones, oath-taking,the sacrifice 35. C. Graesser, Jr., "Studies in Masseb6t" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 1970). An article by Graesser, on the subject will appear soon in BA. 36. For a full discussion, see D. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (1963).

Harvard

University,

124

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

of blood, and participationin a covenant meal (see, for example, Gen. 26:2533 and 31:49-54; Deut. 27:2-8; Joshua 3-5). The most elaborate description of covenant ceremonial is the account of the covenant between Yahweh and Israel in Ex. 24:1-11 which includes all four elements of ritual practice. These brief examples show the close association between covenantmaking and certain rituals which might serve to explain the data at Gezer the alignment of stones, the altar or laver, and the burned bone. If, as in the literary tradition of Sinai and Gilgal, each covenanting unit contributed its own stone, this would account adequately for the most striking feature of the Gezer "High Place" - the alignment of stones and the great disparityin their sizes. The rectangularstone block serves best to contain liquids and it would be the place where a sacrificeof blood most probablytook place, making it the focal point of the ceremony (as it is in the legal traditions) and the central part of the installation.The burned bone and teeth could be explained as either a burnt offering or, in the absence of any altar platform for burnt offering, as the remains of a covenant meal. The identity of the covenanters and the nature of the covenant is suggested by what we know elsewhere of Gezer in the MB IIC period. Around 1600 B.C., after a period of decline, Gezer underwent a rapid renascenceand entered a period of great growth and prosperity. The "Inner Wall" and "South Gate" belong to this period as do the impressivestructuresof Stratum 8 in Field VI (see Fig. 16). Is ilt possible that the renewed strength of Gezer derived from an act of union among local groups or settlements in the area, performedat the "High Place"? VII: Field VI: "The Acropolis"

From the beginning of our excavationsat Gezer in 1964 we planned the project in two phases: (1) the re-excavation of Macalister's monumental architecture,using smaller stratigraphicsoundings of our own for control; and (2) during the later seasons, a major exposure somewhere on the mound to sample the main strata more extensively. Field I had originally been laid out on the south slopes, but in a way that it would connect with a sizable area to be opened later on the summit of the mound, near the shrine of the Wali and therefore untouched by Macalister (Fig. 2). This area was begun in the spring of 1969 as Field VI, and during the summer seasons following was expanded to comprisean areaof 30 five-meter(15 foot) squares.As work was gradually finished in the older fields during the 1969-1971 seasons, Field VI became 'the major focus for our excavations. We decided to leave certain structuresin situ, reducing the size of the field somewhat; but the 12 most promising squares were continued nearly to bedrock;and by the end of the 1971 season we had 11 strata and a connected sequence of much of the mound's history.

1971, 4)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

125

Trusting Petrie's habit of literally "sniffing out" the location of the palace on a mound by seeing what areas got the best breeze and the best view, we had always hoped to find importantpublic and private buildings on the acropolis - certainly the most imposing and most strategically located area of the mound. After all, both Macalisterand Rowe had consideredit the prime area for excavation;and having approachedit from first one side and then the other, both were frustrated in not being able to get at it.37 The periods we were most interested in were the Solomonic era of the 10th century B. C. and the "AmarnaAge" of the 14th century B.C. - both splendid eras, well-known from the literary sources. We hoped to produce the significant monumental architecture that we had missed in our investigations elsewhere on the mound. We should have known better than to violate one of the "Parkinson'sLaws" of field archaeology: "Finds vary inversely in proportionto the expectationsof the excavator."Solomon was nowhere to be found on the acropolis, and -the evidence the Amarna people had been thoughtful enough to leave for us was gotten to first by their immediate successors! Only with Stratum 5 of the Philistine period could we begin to gather up the scatteredstrandsof the story of the variousphases of occupation on the acropolis. The investigation of earlier strata eventually carried us all the way back to Stratum 11 of the third millennium. In the interest of historical continuity, we shall treat the lowest and earliest levels first. Strata 11 and 10 call for li'ttlecomment, as they were cleared over a very small extent; they belong to EB I and II, ca. 3200-2600 B.C., equivalent to Strata 13-11 and Cave I.3A of Field I. Walls were of small stones, usually two or more rows wide. The ratherpoor earthen surfaces were founded on a fill of dark brown soil and rubble, just above bedrock. The pottery was like that of the Field I EB, handmade and rather coarse, although with considerable paint and occasionallywith fine burnish. Evidently the Early Bronze occupation on the acropolis had been less substan'tialthan in Field I, perhaps because of the exposed location on the unfortifiedhilltop.38 There was a gap in occupation between about 2600 and 1800 B.C., correspondingto that which we had noted everywhere on the mound (filled only by scant sherdsof EB IIA and MB I from Macalister'sexcavations). The Middle Bronze II period at Gezer seems to have begun only with MB IIB/C elsewhere, although we had found numerous sherds of MB IIA/B in fills. The mystery was pleasantly resolved when we found this earlier material in context in Stratum 9 in Field VI, dated solidly to MB IIA/B (ca. 1800-1750 B.C.) by good quantities of pottery, including restorable vessels from a sump, a silo, and -two infant jar-burials.The earliest pot37. See Gezer I (PEF), 49; A. Rowe, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, LXVII (1935), 38. It is virtually certain that Gezer was unfortified before MB IIC.

32-33.

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

126

ware,beautifullyfashionedon terywas the best- delicate,almost"eggshell" over a darkred slip to an almostglaze-like a fast wheel and hand-burnished finish. The Stratum9 domesticstructurescomprisedpartsof severalhouses and courtyards,with at least threephases.The areawas well drained,with the runoffwaterbeing conductedinto a largecisternhewn in bedrockand reachedby the stone-linedshaft. The most remarkable structurewas a wellof the earliest (9C), preservedbuilding phase partly subterraneanand reachedby three descendingsteps. Its walls were preservedwaist-high,and ,

,eV.,

r

pi.

•'

[1 ,jL

:

-- ,

r~

~~i

,

Fig. 12. Plastered granary of Stratum 9, Field VI, ca. 1800 B.C. Note stone-lined silos both inside and outside the building and steps descending into building. Photo by William G. Dever.

both walls and floor were sealed with a continuous coat of fine plaster up to six inches thick (Fig. 12). There are virtually no parallels for such a building in MB IIA (a period not well known in Palestine), or even earlier, for that matter. The plaster seems to have been designed to keep out rodents. A stonelined pit sunk in the floor was found filled with barley, and there were two other stone silos just outside the entrance. Thus the evidence suggests a granary. Stratum 9 lasted a long time, ca. 1800-1600 B.C., representing a peaceful era of continuous occupation (with a possible gap in late MB IIB, ca. 1700-1650 B.C.). However, the city was not fortified until the following period, in Stratum 8 of MB IIC-LB I, ca. 1600-1460 B.C. The domestic

1971, 4)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

127

structures of Stratum 8 were largely modificationsand reuses of the Stratum 9 structures, indicating further continuity of occupation. However, there were signs of the increased prosperityand vigor of the city, particularlythe building of a massive structureof cyclopean masonry,abutting a fine cobbled street seven feet in width. The city walls located by Macalister must have run just north of this building, which may have been a public structureof some sort, but they lay outside the limits of Field VI (Fig. 2). The Strata 9-8 complex was violently destroyed,just as were the contemporary MB II levels in Fields I and IV, sometime in the early 15th century B.C. This destructionwas probablythe work of PharaohThutmosis III, whose inscriptionson the walls of the Temple of Karnakclaim a destructionof Gezer on his first campaign to Palestine, ca. 1468 B.C. Gezer must have been deserted 'throughmuch of the rest of the 15th century B.C. (LB IB). Apart from 'the lower levels of Cave 1.1OAdescribedearlier, the archaeologicalrecord is silent. Analysis of the 60 or more skeletons in Cave I. 10A Lower indicated an average age of only 28 at the time of death, which was mostly of natural causes. Many bones showed signs of advanced arthritis, probably caused by stoop-labor.This intriguing evidence suggests a period of extreme hardship for the inhabitants of the nearly desertedcity of Gezer in the generation or 'twofollowing the Egyptian destructions. Gezer recovered rapidly under the strong Egyptian influence of the "Amama Age" in the 14th century B.C. Ten letters of various kings of Gezer to the Pharaohs have been found, witnessing to a lively exchange of goods and cultural influences.39Stratum 7 belongs to this era, and it produced, as expected, good quantities of Egyptian material, especially fragments of Amarna glass, glass beads, faience pendants, scarabs,etc. In pits of Stratum 6 (but probablybelonging originally to Stratum 7) were found three pieces of fine gold foil and an imported Egyptian statuette base bearing a cartouche Also found together in a cache in the with the name of "Sobelk-nefru-ankh." corner of a wall were a clay crucible with bits of molten copper clinging to it and a perfectly preserved bronze serpent ca. eight inches long, evidently a cobra. Unfortunately, little else attested the glories of the Amarna Age, for deep pits and robber trenches of Stratum 6 and later had all but completely destroyed the Stratum 7 structures. Nevertheless, the projected lines of the walls ran up to six feet in width in places; elsewhere plastered and stonecapped drains showed the careful layout of the domestic areas. Although little remained except tantalizing bits and pieces, it was clear that the "Amarna Age" at Gezer had been impressiveindeed. 39. On the Amarna letters from Gezer and the period in general, see Ross, BA XXX (1967), 62-70.

128

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

No large-scale destruction could be observed at the end of Stratum 7; but when Stratum 6 buildings were erected, almost no elements of Stratum 7 survived to be reused, and the new plan and orientationwere generally quite different. Again, little of Stratum 6 survived, since ilt was almost completely destroyed by extensive "post-6"pitting and earth-movingoperations, mostly for robbing of what appeared to have been very substantial stone structures. We did find two phases of plaster surfaces, as much as six-eight inches thick, extending over an area of 40 by 60 feet or more, perhapsa large open court.

COMPLEX CYCLOPEAN

3

Fig. 13. Schematic plan of the "Cyclopean Complex" of Stratum 5 D-E, Field VI; probably a public granary of the early 12th cent. B.C.

Between the end of Stratum 6 and the beginning of the Philistine occupation in Stratum 5, there was little sign of human activity except the post6 pits. A similar picture emerged in stratum 12 of Field II (above). The evidence suggestsa partialhiatus in occupationin the late 13th/very early 12th centuries B.C., perhaps a post-destructionperiod. It would be tempting to relate this to the destructionclaimed by Pharaoh Merneptah, ca. 1220 B.C.40 This may be premature,but it would help to explain the curious fact that nowhere in Fields I, II or VI did we encounter a real destructionaccompanying the arrival of the Philistines or "Sea Peoples"in the early 12th century B.C.: the site had already been destroyed slightly earlier and was nearly deserted. 40. See BA, XXX (1967),

37, 58 for Merneptah and the earlier evidence at Gezer.

1971, 4)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

129

Stratum5 had at least five majorphasesand belongedto the 12th and early 11llthcenturiesB.C., the periodof Philistinedominationat Gezer.The earlieststructure(5E) was a publicbuildingof cyclopeanmasonry,built just abovethe level of the Stratum6 structures(Fig. 13). Its many smallrooms were found filled with grindingimplementsand storejarswith grain and otherprovisions- all smashedwhen the buildingwas 'thoroughly destroyed sometimeabout the middle of the 12th century B.C. Philistine painted potteryin situ in the debrisindicatesthat it was the Philistineswho had built this complex.Havingarrivedat Gezerabout 1175 B.C. and established themselvesratherpeacefully,they seem to have been threatenedin turn by otherwavesof the "SeaPeoples."Overan extensiveareaoutsidethe granary, some four feet of threshing-floor depositshad built up, as was shown by microscopicanalysisof quantitiesof charredwheat and barley in the accumulationsof packedearthensurfaces.41 After the destructionthe "CyclopeanComplex"was rebuilt(5D), only to be destroyedagain, towardthe end of -the 12th centuryB.C. This time the whole area,includingthe threshingfloors,was abandonedas a public areaand convertedinto an areaof privatehouses(Stratum5A-C). Does this indicatea new wave of Philistineswho weremoresecurelyentrenched,with the result that therewas morediversifiedactivityand prosperityin the late 12th and early 11th centuriesB.C.? Whateverthe explanation,two fine patricianhousesof the courtyardtype werebuilt on the upperterrace,replacing the granarycomplex.One of them,the "NorthwestHouse",is especially impressive,nearly40 by 30 feet in dimensions,with at leasteight roomsanda centralcorridor(Fig. 14). These two houseswere destroyedin a greatfire shortlyafter 1100 B.C. This left such great quantitiesof collapsedstones, mudbrick,and fragmentsof burnedbeams(one nearlyfour feet long) that someof the roomswere neverclearedout. Amongthe findsin the debrisof the "NorthwestHouse"were human and animalfigurines;a basaltpotter's wheel;fine bronzeimplements;and,mostastonishingly(since the Philistines were not circumcised,accordingto the Bible), a life-sizedcircumcisedterra cotta phallus (Fig. 15). The two courtyardhouses were partiallyrebuilt, destroyedonce again,and finallyrebuiltverypoorlya thirdtime. But it was clear that the Philistinecultureat Gezerwas nearexhaustionby the middle of the 11thcenturyB.C.;Stratum4 succeededStratum5 withouteven a destruction,and the distinctivePhilistinepotterymerelyceasesto be made. The last level which left any coherentfeaturesat all in Field VI was Stratum4A-B,of the late 11th/early10th centuriesB.C. It producedlittle 41. Flotation and identification were done by Mr. A. J. Legge, Research Fellow in paleo-botany and paleo-zoology of Cambridge University. Mr. Legge and his team of environmental experts worked at Gezer in the 1970 and 1971 seasons, as part of a research project under the direction of Prof. E. S. Higgs.

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

130

more than poor house walls, courtyardswith ovens, a large stone basin or trough, and a wine vat similar to that found in the Philistine levels of Field never I.42 The pottery of Stratum 4 was the degenerate red-slipped ware, the "Post-Philistine/Pre-Solomonic" burnished, that had earlier characterized horizon in Field II, Strata 8-7. The most significant evidence produced by four feet of bricky Stratum 4 was a massive destruction which left up ,to to be cordebris overlying the structures. This destruction is undoubtedly related with that of Stratum 7 in Field II and the pre-gatephase of Field III; and it provides further confirmation of the campaigns of the Egyptian Pharaoh who according to I Kings 9:15-17 "capturedGezer and burned it with fire"before ceding it to Solomon, probablyaround 950 B.C.

ii";

_._--

0

h

-

----------_-_ ---

.

-r

,

-_~ N

W

A. PHILISTINE

HOUSE

Fig. 14. Schematic plan of a courtyard house of the late 12th cent. B.C. in Stratum 5 A-C of Field VI. Unblackened portions were not excavated but have been restored conjecturally on the plan.

Above Stratum 4, virtually all occupational levels had been removed, either by destruction in antiquity or, more likely, by the extensive erosion of the post-Romanperiod, as well as by later burials which had penetrated to a depth of six feet or more. "Stratum3" of the Solomonic period was attested by no more than one or two pits. "Stratum2" is representedby nothing except 42. See Dever, BA, XXX (1967),

58-59, Fig. 13.

1971, 4)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

\'

:i

~y

%I

'K.BIr ~.-

ii

r

4I?i

131

*

,a r

4

tIII'~

.

Fig. 15. Objects from the Northwest House (Fig. 14): (a) ceramic duck head; (b) ceramic toylike couch, possibly cultic (like ones found at Ashdod); (c) bottom half of an Astarte fertility plaque; (d) basalt tournette or potter's wheel; (e) terra cotta model of curcumcised phallus; (f) bronze chisel point. Scale is in inches.

scattered sherds of the 9th-6th centuries B.C. (A stretch of massive citadel wall more than eight feet wide, now ruined below surface levels and impossible to date, may belong to the Solomonic, or more likely, the Assyrian period; it is constructed of ashlarsand rough header-stones,probably Solomonic but in secondary use.) "Stratum 1" designates only some deep rubbish pits and trenches of the 2nd century B.C. There the history of the acropolis ends, until the building of the shrine of the Wali in the 16th century A.D. Conclusion

Our eight seasons of excavation at Gezer have still left many questions unanswered. Nevertheless, we can now give at least a sketch of the history of one of the most importantsites in Palestine. A preliminarycorrelationof the

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,

132

0-4< ?o >~ =~on

uX

c-

a,

0

X

X

X

I

C

pX

X

00

01-

P

P

I

wf3f

,

c-

00-4

C0

01:

C5~ noo

;~~ III Po,

w

coo Ro

ec~O

%C cs 00

-,

o~o

OpPIP

I

0

I-~'I

P0PPl

I

r

00

00

0

,-0'

In

p

C0p

00

*0 0

I

o

0C C

ob3

0

01

I

.O

C~

I~E.?

p

0Ao

P~

00

\O

-1-01

00

0."

%0

-

--]

1-01

N

>

occupational phases in- the Various fields reveals that thrde are at least 26 strata on the mounds, more than the number of any other published site in Palestine - and in striking contrast to the mere eight strata discerned by Macalister! Although we have hesitated to use final stratum designations in the foregoing discussion, a correlationof strata with provisionalnumbers and an outline of the occupationalhistoryof Gezer is providedin Fig. 16. Acknowledgment

Through an oversight, we neglected to credit the photographs in BA XXXIV.3 (September, 1971), Figs. 1, 4 and 5 to Theodore A. Rosen.