No title

OI

Publishedby THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH Jerusalem and Bagdad 126 Inman Street, Cambridge, Mass.

Vol. XXXII

September,1969

No. 3

?~-

ot .?

T 4

(?

,,

,•(J

?

.: -.•

..~ d,, ,r

I

,.

l.?

Fig. 1. The Hazor water system from above and looking toward the west, at the conclusion of excavations. At left can be seen a stretch of the Solomonic casemate wall, and, between it and the shaft entrance, a four-room dwelling. Copyright by Professor Yadin.

50

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

Vol. XXXII

The Biblical Archaeologist is published quarterly (February,May, September,December) by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Its purpose is to meet the need for a readable, non-technical,yet thoroughly reliable account of archaeologicaldiscoveriesas they relate to the Bible. Editor: Edward F. Campbell,Jr., with the assistanceof Floyd V. Filson in New Testament matters.Editorialcorrespondenceshould be sent to the editor at 800 West Belden Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, 60614. Editorial Board: W. F. Albright, Johns Hopkins University; G. Ernest Wright, Harvard University; Frank M. Cross, Jr., Harvard University; William G. Dever, Jerusalem. Subscriptions: $3.00 per year, payable to the American Schools of Oriental Research, 126 Inman Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139. Associate members of ASOR receive the journal automatically.Ten or more subscriptionsfor group use, mailed and billed to the same address, $2.00 per year apiece. Subscriptionsrun for the calendaryear. In England: twenty-four shillings (24s.) per year, payable to B. H. Blackwell, Ltd., Broad Street, Oxford. Back numbers: $1.00 per issue and $3.75 per volume, from the ASOR office. Please make remittancewith order. The journal is indexed in Art Index, Index to Religious PeriodicalLiterature,and at the end of every fifth volume of the journal itself. Second-classpostage PAID at Cambridge,Massachusettsand additionaloffices. Copyrightby AmericanSchools of Oriental Research, 1969. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BY TRANSCRIPT PRINTING COMPANY PETERBOROUGH. N. H.

Contents The Fifth Season of Excavations at Hazor, 1968-1969, by Yigael Yadin..............50 The Water Systems at Hazor and Gezer, by William G. Dever........................71 Recent Books Received ................... ............. .................79......... 80 AvailableIssues of the Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society ..................

The Fifth Season of Excavations at Hazor, 1968-1969 YICAELYADIN The Hebrew University

After an interval of ten years, a fifth season of excavation was conducted at Hazor between mid-July and the end of October 1968; in one area only - that of the water system - work then continued until June 1969.1 The purpose of the renewed digging was to clarify a number of problems left unsolved at the end of the previous seasons and to open some new areas expected to shed additional light on basic issues connected with Hazor's 1. The fifth season of excavations at Hazor was carried out on behalf of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, and the Israel Exploration Society, with the aid of the Ministry of Labor of the Israeli Government. The senior staff consisted of the author as Director of the Expedition; A. Ben-Tor (area A) and Y. Shilo (area L), supervisors of the main areas excavated throughout the season; A. Eytan (area 'BA), Miss M. Batyevsky (area M), B. Hofri (area N), and A. Mazar (area P), supervisors of areas excavated for a few weeks only. The expedition's architects were the late I. Dunayevsky (during the first half of the seasson), G. Kertes and G. Klir. Photographer was Z. Radovan. The administrator was Col. (res.) A. Braker. Miss A. Rosen was secretary and Petty Officer M. Cohen was technical assistant to the Director. Permanent assistants to the area supervisors were Y. Portugali and N. Ne'eman. In addition, students of the Institute of Archaeology took their turn participating for two weeks each. The labor force was about 150. The expedition camp was in Rosh-Pinna. The expedition thanks Solel-Boneh which was in charge of heavy equipment, for their great assistance in loaning a large crane for work on the water system. It also thanks the National Park authority and its director Mr. Y. Yannai, and particularly Mr. Y. Gasko, for their help in erecting levers and wagons for the removal of earth, especially in the water tunnel.

1969, 3)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

51

town planning in various periods. The unsolved problems delayed the publication of the text volume describing seasons III and IV of 1957 and 1958, but preliminary reports on all four seasons appeared in BA, XIX.1 (Feb., 1956), XX.2 (May, 1957), XXI.2 (May, 1958), and XXII.1 (Feb., 1959). These four were edited into one continuous report in The Biblical Archaeologist Reader (1964), pp. 191-224. Among the unsolved problems were the nature and date of the "orthostatbuilding" in area A; the number of Middle Bronze age strata in the upper city; and the exact size of Solomon's city. Among the issues to be explored in new areas, one must single out the water canals discovered outside the area of the tell; the possibility of spotting another gate to the lower city; and, preeminently, the examination of the assumption that Hazor had an underground water system for times of siege. Area A

During the 1958 season, remnants of a large building were discovered in Area A which possessed an entrance built with orthostats.2This building was found beneath the foundations of the Solomonic gate and was attributed by us to stratum XIV, continuing its existence somehow or other through stratumXIII (i.e., through the end of Canaanite Hazor in the 13th century B.C.). The limited area in which this building was discovered did not enable us to determine the exact relationship of some ruins above the building; nor could we clarify the building's characteristicsand purpose. Since the building's importance was obvious from its splendor and placement in the center of the tell - not far from the ruinis of the big building from the Middle Bronze period3 - we decided to enlarge the excavation of area A near the orthostat entrance. This was possible mainly westward, that is west of Solomon's gate of stratumX. That area was suitable for digging also since the building's orthostat entrance indicated that its main direction was westward. Altogether we dug twenty-four squares in an overall area of some 600 square meters. Results here were very important, not only because they enabled us to clarify the problems pertaining to the building and correct some of our previous conclusions about its date, but also because they shed light on the enormous levelling operations undertaken here by Solomon's builders, who in the course of their work demolished some of the upper strata of the intervening Late Bronze period. For that reason, work here was particularly delicate and difficult, but now, it seems to us, we have mastered the complicated problems of the area. At the moment of writing - while the plans and final sorting of the finds have yet to be completed - we can only stress the main discoveries. Even these must be stated with some qualificationswhich will be re-examinedin the final report. 2. Hazor III-IV, Plate X, and Israel Exploration Journal, IX 76. 3. Hazor III-IV, Plates IV-V; Israel Exploration Journal, IX (1959), 77. (1959),

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

52

The Orthostat

Vol. XXXII

Building

We ascertained the orthostat entrance to be in the center of the narrow east wall of a rectangularbuilding spreading westwards,whose measurements are 10.5 meters by 15.5 meters (34/2 by 50 feet). Of its walls, built of brick on stone foundations, only the foundations were found, while thick brick debris covered whole building. Since the original surface of ,the the area slanted east and northwards, the foundations were built on various levels to conform to the pre-existing terrain. We also established that the orthostat entrance itself was constructed in the last phase of the building (a conclusion already reached in the 1958 season); it is easy to show that the orthostatswere deliberately introduced into the alreadyexisting east wall. At the end of the dig we concluded that the building must have been a large temple of long rectangular shape, with an entrance from the east and a platform - rectangular in shape and built of plastered brick facing the entrance at the west end. Despite the building's large size, no trace was found of columns to support the ceiling. Generally speaking, the plan of this building resembles the temple of stratum VIII in Megiddo and to a lesser degree also the temple at Shechem. It is noteworthy that this temple on top of the tell stood in close proximity to the large structure to its south, most probably the palace, and it is possible therefore to define it as a royal temple (in contrast to other temples existing in Hazor, mainly in the lower city), that is, as the temple adjacent to the royal palace. The most important conclusion forced upon us in this connection relates to the building's date and to the nature of the area in the final phases of the Bronze age. It became quite clear - contrary to our previous conclusions based on trial digging only - that this building was demolished and abandoned during the Late Bronze I period. On its floor, and especially on the platfo-rmat the west, we found a large quantity of miniature votive pottery, all of the Late Bronze I period (late 16th and 15th centuries B.C.). To this group seem to belong also the special and rather strange vessels (parts of which were discovered in 1958) which we had earlier attributed to Late Bronze II.4 This conclusion leads to another, more important still, namely that orthostats were first used in Hazor at least as early as Late Bronze I and not, as we had previously assumed, for the first time in Late Bronze II. This does not alter our previous conclusion that the orthostat temples in area H of the lower city were in actual use in the final pjhases of Late Bronze (II-III, the 14th and 13th centuries respectively), since all the finds on the latest floor of that complex (covered by debris caused by a huge conflagration) belong to Late Bronze III (including Mycenean IIIB vessels). It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that the temple of (lower 4. Drawings

appear

in Hazor

III-IV,

Plate

CLIX,

nos. 26-36.

1969, 3)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

53

city) stratum 2 (Late Bronze I) was originally built with orthostats, and that these orthostats were later uprooted and reinstalled when the temple was restoredin the 14th century. Indeed, even the original date of the lion orthostats must be fixed in the 15th century, or even earlier, since they were sculpted at the same time as the other orthostats. From these conclusions it follows not only that the lion orthostatsat Hazor are the earliest known so far, but more significantly that Hazor in the Late Bronze I period had reached its zenith, a fact corroboratedby written documents. An interesting and strange development was observed in area A in the Late Bronze II-III periods. The temple itself was not restored. The enormous amount of brick debris (some two meters or over six feet deep) was not removed. At the same time, the site appears to have retained its sanctity. Around the outside of the building we discovered installations and structures from strata XIV and XIII (representing the Late Bronze II and III periods). There is no doubt as to the general nature of the area. Already in previous seasons we had discovered a group of stelae and offering vessels belonging to the final phase of Late Bronze (stratum XIII), which were erected after the temple's demolition.5 Now it became clear that the whole vicinity of the temple had cultic installations, including probably various temples. The area was littered with relics of cult vessels, bones, etc. It is reasonableto assume, therefore, that the area kept its cultic character, alithough, for reasons unknown to us, the temple itself was not restored. It is also no:eworthy that the cultic activities seem to have taken place around the destroyed building rather than on top of the debris proper, since, despite the upheaval wrought by the builders of the Solomonic gate as they levelled the whole area, we found remains of stratum XII pits cut into the temple debris. On the other hand, no relic was found that could be attributed to the two strata, XIV and XIII, which represent the end of the Late Bronze period. Another important problem which we wished to solve in the 1968 season was the stratificationof the Middle Bronze period on the acropolis; particularly we wanted to fix the dates of its beginning and end. We expected to learn this through the excavation in area BA (see below), but the dig in area A (and in area L, see below also) shed important light on the subject. Already at the end of the 1958 season, we wondered whether there were only two strata of that period on the tell proper. We therefore marked the strata from XVIII downwards (that is, back through Middle Bronze I and into Early Bronze) with an asterisk (for example, XVIII', and see Hazor III-IV, plates CLIV-CLVI). The excavation in area A 5. Hazor III-IV, Plate IX, 3-4.

54

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST Date and/or Period

Strata of Upper City

Strata of Lower City

Vol. XXXII

General Remarks

I II III

-

IV

-

8th cent.

V

-

8th cent.

VI

-

9th cent. 9th cent. 10th-9th cents. 10th cent. 12th-Ilth cents.

VII VIII IX X XII-XI

-

-

XIII

1A

Destroyed by Joshua, ca. 1230 B.C.

XIV

1B

Amarna period

XV "post-XVI"

2 -

Large, well-fortified city Isolated graves; no settlement

XVI

3

Large, well-fortified city

XVII

4

Foundations of lower city, ca. 1750, with its defenses

Hellenistic Persian Assyrian Israelite 8th-7th cents.

LB IIB (III) 13th cent. LB IIA (II) 14th cent. LB I 16th-15th. cents. Transition MB JIC 17th-16th cents. MB IIB 18th-17th cents. First MB II (end of IIA-beginning of IIB)

"pre-XVII"

MB I 21st-19th cents. EB II-III 27th-24th cents.

XVIII XIX-XXI

-

-

A fort A fort A fort A small undefended settlement built after destructionof 732 B.C. Destroyedby Tiglath-pileserIII, 732 B.C. Destroyed by earthquake; see Amos I Post-Ahab Ahab rebuilds Hazor Post-Solomonic Solomon's city First Israelite settlements meager remains of seminomadic character. Period of Deborah.

Earliest MB II settlement, without fortifications -

Meager remains Well-fortifiedcities

Fig. 2. Chart of the stratification at Hazor, augmented by the two transitional strata found in the new excavations.

proved that in fact two more strata,or ratherphases, should be added in the upper city. Under stratumXVII (Middle Bronze IIB, roughly 17501650 B.C.) were found remainsof poor structuresand burialswith pottery of the early part of Middle BronzeIIB or froma transistory phasebetween Middle Bronze IIA and IIB (that is, around 1750 B.C.). Our impression for the moment is that no sizeablecity had yet been built at that time, and that only a small settlementexistedbefore the big city of the begin-

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1969, 3)

55

ning of Middle Bronze IIB came into being. In order to maintain the continuity of strata numbers which had already been fixed, we shall call this phase "pre-XVII."Furthermore, it was made clear that following the destruction of Hazor's stratum XVI at the end of Middle Bronze IIC in the middle of the 16th century, and before its rebuilding (stratum XV) in the Late Bronze age, the area served as a cemetery. In area A we discovered an infant burial in a pot among the debris of stratum XVI. A similar phenomenon was observed in previous seasons in area B," but then we thought it to be an isolated case. It can be assumed, therefore, that these

.,

..

o,-

lrO

,,

.-,

r. 90h 4;:l a--•'

-+

•.+

.

.

;'+7.. +..++:++.

.

.

Fig. 3. Aerial view of Hazor, locating the various excavation sites. Photo by the Israeli air force, from BA, XXII.1 (1959), Fig. 2.

burials (which belong to a transistoryphase from Middle Bronze to Late Bronze) were of people who had returned to Hazor after its destruction and lived in the neighborhood, or even on the mound, in huts or tents. We have designated this phase "post-XVI." Finally, before we leave area A, we must point out an important stratigraphical discovery related to the Early Bronze period. Above a stratum with Khirbet Kerak pottery (Early Bronze III, stratum XX), we found a group of complete vessels from the end of the Early Bronze period. Most probably they should be attributed to stratum XIX, which in the previous 6. Hazor 111-IV, Plate CXCVIII.

56

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

Vol. XXXII

seasons we had related to Early Bronze III because of the few Khirbet Kerak sherds found therein. This conclusion must now be re-examined, since it is possible that these sherds were not in situ when found. In any event, it will now be possible to clarify the development of the settlement on the mound of Hazoerfrcm the end of Early Bronze II (stratum XXI, about the 27th century) through Early Bronze III (Khirbet Kerak period) and until this period's last phase (post-Khirbet Kerak, stratum XIX, 24th century). Area M

The second problem we wished to solve during the fifth season of excavations relates to the perimeter of Solomon's city (stratum X). From results of the 1957-58 seasons,7 it was clear that the city gate of stratum X had been built in the center of the upper mound, while the casemate wall adjoining it stretched from north to south along the width of the mound. The conclusion followed that Solomon's city covered the western half of the tell only. Moreover, excavationsin area G (general square 132)8 proved conclusively that the cities from stratum VIII (Ahab) onwards covered the tell in its entirety, including the eastern half. In contrast to the casemate wall, which surrounded Solomon's city, we discovered in area G a solid wall, built in stratum VIII. These conclusions led some scholars to suggest the possibility that the casemate wall and the gate we had discovered belonged not to the external wall of Solomon's city but only to its acropolis. In order to establish this important and basic point we decided to open a new site - area M - on the north side of the mound, north of the Solomonic gate. The selection of the site was fixed at the theoretical meetingpoint of the city wall-line at the northern side of the tell and the estimated extension of the casemate wall north of the gate (see fig. 2). There we could expect a decisive answer to the question. Should the casemate wall, when reaching the north side, turn west only, then obviously the perimeter of Solomon's city was as we had earlier thought; if, however, the wall were to turn east and west (thus forming a T-shaped junction in the casemate wall), then just as clearly the casemate wall attached to the gate belonged to the acropolis only. The site selected (general square 130)9 covered nine squares, some 225 square me:ers in all. We started off by cutting a trench from west to east in the hope of finding the continuation of the northsouth casemate wall, and sure enough it emerged where expected. In measurements the wall here resembled the one near the gate; its general width was slightly over five meters (about 16V2feet), with its outer wall being 1.5 to 1.6 meters thick (roughly five feet), its inner wall 1.1 meters 7. Hazor III-IV, Plates II-III; Israel Exploration Journal, VIII (1958), 8. Israel Exploration 8. Journal, VIII (1958), 9. For location, see the grid plan in Hazor II, Plate CXCVIII.

3, 80f.

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1969, 3)

57

thick (about 31/2feet), and the space between 2.4 to 2.5 meters thick (about eight feet). Bits of the wall had been uprooted in antiquity; in some places clear evidence of earthquake destruction was visible (stratum VI). Once the direction of the wall was clearly established, we cut a wide north-south trench, perpendicular to the first one, up to the meeting point with the northern wall. Results were quite clear and provided absolute answers to

44 .

.

oili

.?.

c3JI Ir~

•

,~

.?24:: ~!~cT

.-

•Q"

Fig. 4. In the foreground, area M with the joint of the Solomonic casemate wall, turning towards the west (right). To tae left from the joint runs the stratum VIII solid city wall of the time of Ahab. In the background is area A. Copyright by Professor Yadin.

our questions: the casemate wall turned westward only! Moreover, east of the corner of the casemate wall we discoveredthe solid wall of stratum VIII (of which parts had been unearthed in area G), some three meters (ten fect) in width and continuing eastwards. The inner wall of the casemates of this northern sector of the Solomonic wall was well preserved, while the outer was completely destroyed. Instead, the whole casemate had been filled and built up with stones, and the wall's corner had been rebuilt with large ashlar stones, some of which were reused basalt orthostats from the Late Bronze age. This fill-in repair

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

58

Vol. XXXII

was carried out by the builders of the wall of stratum VIII, as they had also done in other parts of area B, in the course of joining the wall to the corner of the casemate wall. The stratum VIII wall does not actually touch the corner (this might have caused a technically vvwecak joint) but reaches a point slightly south of it. Thus an offset of about 1.25 meters (about four feet) was formed. To sum up: excavations in area M proved that our previous conclusions were correct in this point. Solomon's city, enclosed in a casemate wall, stretched over the west half of the mound only; from stratum VIII onwards the city spread eastwards, at which time the additional part was surrounded by a new solid wall. In the west, the earlier casemate wall was embodied in the city's fortification, both through direct reuse and by filling and solidifying it. Area BA

As already mentioned, one of our aims this season was to clarify the stratification of the Middle Bronze II period on the upper city. To this end we selected area BA (in the southwest corner of general square 129), which had already been excavated in 1958.10At that time, a small area was excavated and now we enlarged it over three to four further squares. This excavation clarified the stratification on the mound from the late periods down to the end of the Early Bronze age. Our conclusions, generally, were confirmed, but we managed to comprehend better the relation between the various structures of the Iron age. One should mention in particular the discovery of a well-lined storage pit belonging to stratum XII, the beginning of the Israelite settlement, in which a number of vessels were found intact. This find enriches the rather poor corpus of this interesting period at Hazor. Some burials of the Middle Bronze period were also discovered here. These added to the exact clarification of the stratificationand have also helped to confirm our conclusions in area A. Again it was clear that the earliest settlement of Middle Bronze II should be attributed to the end of Middle Bronze IIA, or rather to the transitional phase between this period and Middle Bronze IIB, right around 1750 B.C. Here too no structures were discovered worthy of note. Results of the excavations in this area will induce some minor changes in the numbering of local strata given in 1958. Area N: Drainage

Canals

While digging the foundations of the Hazor Museum a few years on the site of the expedition camp (general square 176), a canal was ago stumbled upon, well built of huge fieldstones and covered by rough stone slabs. The canal was some two meters or six feet below the present surface, 10. Hazor

III-IV,

Plates

LVII-LIX;

Israel

Exploration

Journal,

IX (1959),

8.

1969, 3)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

59

with a general north-south orientation. This surprising discovery presented a number of problems. When was it built and for what purpose? Irrigation? Drainage? Carrying water into the city? The large quantity of Middle Bronze pottery found around the canal indicated that it was erected at roughly the same time as the Lower City was laid out. In order to elucidate these problems, we conducted a few trial digs in various directions. At the end of the season, the following was clear: a) the direction of the canal's slope was from south to north, that is, toward Hazor's fields; b) near the southwest corner of the expedition's camp, a joining canal was found, emanating from area F; c) the main canal continued southwards, but it then began to curve westwards in the general direction of the gate in area P (see below); d) the main canal continued north for a little distance (out of the expedition camp) until it stopped abruptly. These facts led to several important conclusions. Primarily, we had a well-developed irrigation and drainage network, among the earliest ever discovered in Palestine (beginning in the 18th century and continuing, with repairs, down to the Late Bronze age). It is possible to assume that this network was built under the influence of similar irrigation networks existing in Mesopotamia. Secondly, an important conclusion results from the fact that one of the canals originated in area F. This might explain the purpose of the complicated system of tunnels and canals discoveredthere in 1957.11 Thirdly, the fact that the main canal originates in one of the lower city gates (see more on this below) points also to the general purpose of the network, namely drainage and irrigation. Only after we have studied more carefully the network's plan, direction and slope, will we be able to reach more definitive conclusions. Area P: The Lower City Gate

Already in Hazor I (page 3) we had pointed out the possibility that one of the lower city gates had existed in the corner between the east side of the lower city and the north side of its "eastern spur" (general square 134; cf. Hazor I, plates I-II). At this place runs the present road to Metullah. When the road was built in the 1920's large structures were destroyed, some remnants of which can still be seen today in the banks along the roadside. As the Ministry of Labor of the Israeli government is planning to widen this road, we were asked by the Department of Antiquities to "clear"the area for that purpose by excavating it properly. This we did. Although the excavation was technically difficult and limited - due to lack of time, the proximity of the road, and the existence of a recently planted commemorativeforest which we did not want to uproot, this neces11. Hazor III IV, Plates LXIX-LXX; Israel Exploration Journal, VIII (1958),11.

60

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

Vol. XXXII

sitating our digging between the trees - we managed to uncover the remains of the gaites built there, grasp the basic principles of their respective plans, and most important to discover the nature of the technical connection between the gate and the earthern ramparts,a hitherto unknown datum. The excavation proved that the western towers of the gates were built west cf the new road, while most of the area of the gate passage and the eastern towers was completely churned up when the road was built. Here, as in area K excavated in 1958,12 we discoveredremains of five gates dating from the beginning of Middle Bronze IIB (about 1750 B.C.) to the end of the Late Bronze age (about 1225 B.C.); there were two Middle Bronze

4L

,y-

PA

If .; 140,~ K/~~??l

,0,

L

.#41

Fig. 5. The western tower of the lower city gate in area P, viewed looking west. Copyright by Professor Yadin.

II phases, one Late Bronze I phase and two Late Bronze II-III phases. The gates' plan is generally identical to that in area K: a gate structure with six pilasters and large gate towers, one on either side. These towers consisted of two cells. The galtes themselves were built of brick with stone foundations. The upper surface of the foundations were levelled and paved 12. Hazor

III-IV,

Plates

CXXX-CLXV;

Israel

Exploration

Journal,

IX (1959),

84ff.

1969, 3)

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

61

with pebbles to serve as base for the brick walls. A considerable quantity of broken basalt orthostats was found here, mainly in the debris of the latest phase. Based on the conclusions we h'ad reached in the current season about the orthostats in area A, we can assume that these must originally have lined the gate of lower city stratum 2 (Late Bronze I). It is noteworthy that we discovered the socket of one of the doors by the inner pilaster of the gate, which induces the conclusion that in gates of this type doors were erected at both the inner and outer pilasters. By the gate,:.to its west, ruins of a large Late Bronze II-III structure were found; we did not succeed in establishing its nature, but near it were discovered several orthostats and libation tables. Further digging is required here, to the west, in order to clarify the nature of this building. Among the objects found here one should mention three tortoise-shaped copper ingots, that is, flat at the bottom and convex on top. They were found in one of the gate cells of Late Bronze II-III. The surprise of the dig occurred east of the road, where we found the joint between the gate and the earthen ramparts,which met at a right angle (that is, the meeting point of the eastern rampartof the lower city and the northern rampartof the eastern spur). As noted above, the structural relation between gates and rampartshad to date remained unsolved, but now we could understand it clearly. The difficulityin making the joint was twofold, first because the gate was perforce lower than the rampart,and second because of the difference in construction technique between the gate and the rampart. The excavation showed that 'the joint was achieved through a number of stone-built terraces,which rose gradually from the gate towards the top of the rampart.These terraces served as foundation for a thick and impressive brick wall. It became clear that the joint was effected in two stages, the first in Middle Bronze IIB when the thickness of the brick wall was five meters, and the second in Late Bronze I when the wall was thickened by ten meters, also on stone terraced foundations. It is easy to distinguish between the phases, since in the second phase foundations there were many basalt boulders, of which none are visible in the first phase. The Structure

of the Earthen

Ramparts

It seems fitting, even in this preliminary report, to announce briefly the results gained in two trial trenches (designated A-A and B-B) dug for a few days in 1965 with the aid of mechanical equipment across the thickness of the northern rampartof the "easternspur."The occasion for digging these two trial trenches was the plan on the part of Kibbutz Ayeleth Hashahar to put up a "public hall" nearby. The excavationswere carriedout by the Department of Antiquities and supervised by A. Kempinsky, in close cooperation with the late I. Dunayevsky, Expedition architect, and with

62

ARCHAEOLOGIST Vol. XXXII THE BIBLICAL

the Director of the Expedition. The detailed report, with sections prepared by Kempinsky and Dunayevsky, will be incorporatedinto the final publication. At present, we wish only to mention the -salient points which throw new and important light on the structure of the mighty earthen ramparts which surroundedthe lower city. The minor tests made in previous seasons (in areas C and H) only established the existence of the ramparts,without cutting into their heart. The eastern trench (A-A) is located roughly along the middle of the rampart'slength, near the point where it turns southwards as the result of the topography (junction of squares 135 and 136). The trench was deepened with the aid of a mechanical instrument to as much as five and one-half meters. A further two meters were then dug by hand. It became apparent that in the center of the rampart there existed a core of built-up brick, eight meters (almost twenty-seven feet) wide at the top and from eleven to sixteen meters (from thirty-six to over fifty feet) wide at the base. This core consisted of a "structuralcasemate," three meters or ten feet in width and five meters or sixteen-plus feet in depth, which was filled up with basalt and other stone pebbles together with beaten earth. The northern (outer) face of this structure was almost perpendicular. The rampartitself was thrown against this core in three thick and composite layers. The two bottom ones (sandwich-like) were thrown against the core of the brick wall inclining inwards (that is, in a direction opposite to the natural slope). The top layer, on the other hand, was poured along with the slope's direction, so that the outer slope surface was achieved as it exists today. The slope is covered with a beaten chalky layer some fifteen centimeters (six inches) thick. Inside the city, too, "thrown layers" were traced at angles of 35 to 400, inclining in towards the city. Trench B-B, about 140 meters west of A-A, was cut near the present excavations at area P. This trench was but 2.5 meters deep (about eight feet). We verified that here the rampartwas devoid of the built-up brick core. It consists at this point of a core of beaten earth thickened on the inside by additional layers. As a result of this season's digging, we can state that this area was near the meeting point of the rampartand the terraced wall which connected it with the gate (see above). These facts show -that the method of constructing ramparts in the Middle Bronze II period was very well-developed and sophisticated, and it adapted itself to the topography. Where the terrain necessitated having a considerable slant, the heart of the rampartwas strengthened by the brick core against which it was thrown (similar to the principles of dam construction); in this manner, a solid and stable rampart was achieved which it was difficult to batter and pierce. A similar phenomenon was recently, discovered at Tel Dan, where the core is built of stones.

1969, 3)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

63

The fact that the rampart was composed of several layers and sublayers, thrown in different directions, should induce fresh examination of rampartsat other sites. Do the numerous layers in the so-called glacis ramparts (such as the one at Jericho) indicate the presence of several constructions dating in different periods, or can they be explained instead as the construction technique of a single period? In any event, it is clear beyond doubt that the building of glacis and rampartsin Middle Bronze IIB was a completely new phenomenon, both in conception and construction technique, which was introduced by the city builders of that period with the clear purpose of defending the new large cities and mounds against any possibility of penetration and destruction by battering rams or similar devices. The new data further negate the opinion recently voiced, without sufficient basis, that the glacis and ramparts were but local developments from earlier periods.13 Area L: The Underground

Water System

The prize discovery of the fifth season of excavation is undoubtedly the underground water system from the Israelite period - the largest of its type and more than twice the size of the one at Megiddo. The problem of water supply in time of siege in Israelite Hazor, which was confined to the upper tell only, bothered us from the start of the excavations. In Hazor I (page 2), we mentioned the possibility that the large depression at the southwest corner of the lower city might be part of an underground system to transportwater from the sources west of the mound via tunnel. This possibility still exists (although in the light of the new data about to be presented it is possible that it consisted of a vertical shaft only reaching the water table), but since the depression is at the foot of the tell, it must perforce - if indeed it is a part of the water system - be attributed to the periods in which the lower city existed, that is, the Middle and Late Bronze ages. After my three brief digs at Megiddo,14 it was clear that the famous water system there belongs to the 9th century, or approximatelyto the time of Ahab. And since we now know that the fortification sequences at these two cities in the times of Solomon and Ahab are very similar, I decided in the current season to try to solve the siege-time water supply problem of Hazor. The only spot where the expected vertical shaft of such a system could have existed was the southern part of the tell.15 Here there existed a large, shallow depression (in which we had built one of the expedition's toilets in earlier seasons precisely because of its seclusion from the rest of 13. P. J. Parr, Zeitschrift des Deutschen LXXXIV (1968), 18ff. Obviously the new data from Hazor and Tel Dan wasPaldistina-Vereins, unknown to Parr when he wrote his article. 14. Cf. Israel Exploration Journal, XVI (1966), 142; XVII (1967), 119ff.; and also my article in A. Malamet, ed., The First Temple Period (in Hebrew; 1942), pp. 96ff. 15. General square 109; see the aerial photograph and grid plan in Hazor I, Plates I-II.

64

Vol. XXXII

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

the tell); moreover,at the southern foot of the tell, along the Wadi Waqqas, springs abound to this very day. We allotted, therefore, about half our labor force to the excavation of this area, designated area L. The experience of the excavations at Megiddo, Gibeon and Gezer taught us that the most difficult problem in digging a water system of this sort is to determine the date of its construction;the dating of its final use is, naturally, easier. We decided, therefore, right from the start to get a clear picture of the plan and stratificationof the structures

46?

+ \ ~~t'-imp ?.

qlw~c~,

rdi IVr". L

1.

~~ ?4

.~.AP

T ,F _?

00AIM aw,

rA

4)L

;L 9L~

,

-,c~

C?'dip.)

8

ow y

?Aql

Fig. 6. Area L, the shallow depression along the southern edge of the main tell, where the water system was to come to light. The vie-w looks southeast. Copyright by Professor Yadin.

adjacentto the depression.With the aid of these structures,we would be able to find out which stratawere cut by the hewersof the shaftand which with it. The proximityof the shaft structuresand stratawere contemporary to the edges of the moundled us to believe that nearbywe might find the remainsof the Solomoniccasematewall. Since its date was known,it could of the area. serve as a point of departurefor the generalstratification wide trench one we a To startwith, (that is, five square opened long off the center to south from north ten meterswide) and just squareslong of the depression;this made it tally with the excavationgrid. We experienced many ups and downs until we finallydiscoveredthe expectedshaft.

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1969, 3)

65

The dig was extremely difficult from the technical point of view, and huge cranes had to be employed as we got deeper. In what follows, we shall state only our main conclusions concerning the water system and the history of the area after the water system was destroyed and abandoned. Right at the beginning of the excavation it became clear that in the depression there were none of the normal kinds of structures dating from the periods after the abandonment of the water system down to the final abandonment of the mound. The whole area was filled up with silt containing considerable quantities of late pottery (including Persian, Hellenistic, Byzantine, and late Arabic). It appeared that following the abandonment of the water system and the almost complete blocking of the shaft the depression had been used, during two main periods, as a "pool" in which to hoard rain water. In the last phase (Hellenistic and perhaps Persian - strata I and II), its center had been crudely but closely paved with field stones. Furthermore, the sides of the depression were lined with a sloping terrace on the west, north and east, while in the south the city wall served as additional support. A similar use of an abandoned water shaft as a water-collection pool was discovered at Megiddo.16 Below this level, a number of structureswere discovered, almost circular in shape, made of small field stones and built around the deepest point of the depression. It seemed they were intended to facilitate the drawing of water collected there, especially after rain. Pitchers could be placed on the installations, which were discovered in at least two levels, one underneath the other. Considering the fact that during a rainy year these installations could be covered with silt, it is not necessary to assume that these two levels indicate two proper strata, although it is of course possible. We have not yet terminatedthe final sorting of the sherds found in these levels, but it looks as though the time span of these structures may correspondto that of strata IV-III (late 8th and 7th centuries, after the major destruction of the city in 732 B.C.), or to that of stratum II, the Persian period, or indeed perhaps to both of them. The Original

Water System

The original water system was discovered below the two levels mentioned above; it was full of debris from the fallen supporting walls and silt swept from the slopes towards the shaft, probably immediately following the destruction of stratum V about 732 B.C. (see further below). The system consists of three elements: the vertical shaft, the tunnel and the entrance structure to the shaft. 16. R. S. Lamon,

The

Megiddo

Water

System

(1935),

p. 37.

66

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

Vol. XXXII

The Shaft. The shaft is composed of two parts, an upper segment cut through the strata of the mound, and the lower segment quarried out of the rock. Measurements of the upper segment are nineteen meters from west to east and fifteen meters from south to north (62 by 49 feet). Its depth, from the top of the mound where the altitude is 232 meters above sea level, is about 10 meters or 33 feet. This part was revetted by huge supporting walls, built mainly on the south and west sides where the virgin rock is relatively lower owing to its general southward and westward inclination. The supporting walls were well preserved up to a height of four meters (13 feet), standing highest at the corners. These walls are built on a ledge cut in the bedrock, which sometimes has the character of a foundation trench. The depth of the lower part of the shaft in the north is fourteen meters (46 feet) and in the south eighteen meters (59 feet). Altogether the depth of the shaft is some thirty meters. The upper measurements of the hewn shaft (12.5 by 16 meters, 41 by 52 feet) diminish as one descends. The descent is effected through a rock-cut staircase three meters or ten feet wide. Its first flight is on the southern wall, the second on the west wall, the third on the north, and the fourth on the east wall. The fifth starts again on the south wall, but as they turn westward the stairs take up the whole width of the shaft until they merge with the staircase of the tunnel. The exaggerated width of the stairs raises the possibility that water was drawn by pack animals descending and ascending simultaneously. The Tunnel. The tunnel entrance is on the west side of the bottom of the shaft; it continues in a west-southwestdirection for about twenty-five meters (82 feet) and its stairs incline about ten meters (33 feet), which means that the lowest point of the water system is just about 190 meters above sea level, just the level of the springs south of the mound. At the end of the tunnel, water was reached. While I write this, the debris of this part has not yet been cleared, but our impression is that the tunnel ended in a quarried square pool from which the water was drawn. The tunnel was cut with broad and narrow chisels, and its ceiling, like the one at Megiddo, is a pointed convex. Its average height is four meters (13 feet) and its width the same. This tunnel is obviously a direct continuation of the lower flight of stairs of the shaft, which, as mentioned, cover the whole of the shaft's width at that point. The direction of the tunnel not only surprised us but served as evidence of the geological knowledge of the architects of the water system. Since the springs are at the foot of the mound in the south, we took it for granted that the tunnel would turn in that direction. This would have had a disadvantage, since part of it would have had to be outside the mound. Moreover, the length of the tunnel

1969, 3)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

67

Fig. 7. Looking into the tunnel of the Hazor water system, as it was discovered. The view is from the entrance. Copyright by Professor Yadin.

would have reachedsome 100 meters. And finally it is conceivablethat the slope of the rock would have precludedcutting throughit. In digging westward,on the other hand, the tunnel'splannerssucceededin overcoming all these obstacles.This also attests their knowledgethat, once they reachedthe water level of the outsidesprings,they would probablystrike water inside the mound. This suggeststhe possibilitythat at Gezer, too, the water systemwas so planned as to strikewater on reachingthe water

68

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

Vol. XXXII

table. In this connection it is interesting to quote Macalister:"7 "These difficulties may be most easily solved by supposing that the discovery of the spring was a happy accident, made in the course of quarryinga tunnel for some entirely different purpose - most probably to serve as an exit from the city in time of siege." The Entrance Structure. The approach to the water shaft was from the southeast corner, near the edge of the mound. The structure was carefully planned so as to minimize the slope from the level of the city to the top of the quarried shaft without wasting too much built-up area. The slope consisted of two "descent walks," one from south to north and the other, after a turn-landing, from north to south. The former was built on a deliberate fill, of which the top was made of ground yellowish chalky stone. This walk was originally supported on the west by a revetment wall which separated it from the second walk. On the east it was bounded by a built revetment wall which served simultaneouslyas the outer supporting wall of the whole approach structure. In order to diminish the slope of the second walk, which began on the level of the highest rock to the north, the rock here was quarried to some depth, from north to south. Thus a vertical scarp was created on the west side, on which the western wall of the approach was then built. Later, that area too was filled with layers of ground chalk, until the desired slope was achieved. The entrance to the approach structure, and the exit from it into the shaft, were built from large ashlar stones, some of which had crudely dressed margins. In one of the door-postsa large basalt orthostatwas placed in secondaryuse. The approach structure shows many signs of repairs (see below, in the discussion of the date of the water system). While quarrying the rock in preparationfor the second descent walk, the builders of the approach way had encountered a large bottle-shaped cistern of an earlier period. They cut its neck and filled up the top. This fact is crucial for the determination of the date of constructionof the water system, since in the cistern we found a considerable quantity of intact vessels from the Late Bronze age. Near the entrance we discovered a large structure of the "four-room" type, which seems to have existed in one form or another throughout the life of the water system. One may assume that it served as a dwelling place of the water system's supervisor. The Date of the Water System

Dating the final use of this kind of water system is not particularly difficult. It is, of course, determined by the latest object discovered at its 17. R. A. S. Macalister, Gezer I, p. 263.

1969, 3)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

69

bottom. And, sure enough, the enormous number of sherds and vessels typical of Israelite Hazor (stratum V) found in the debris along the whole depth of the shaft indicated that it existed until Hazor was destroyed in 732 B.C. The problem we had to solve was the date of the quarrying and construction of the water system. To that end, as already explained, we cut a trench from north to south at the beginning of the dig. Its primary objective, among others, was to clarify the general stratification and particularly to determine which was the topmost stratum cut by the builders of the water system. The trench not only yielded the answer to that important question but also served to give further confirmation and details about all the strata of Hazor from Early Bronze onwards. In addition, we uncovered some more casemates of the casemate wall and thus acquired additional important data concerning their history following their construction in Solomon's time, and their destruction in 732 B.C. In the northern part of the trench, it became clear that all the strata of the Bronze age were cut by the builders of the water system. Simultaneously we verified that, in this particular spot, the natural rock was sloping southward; because of that, most of the buildings of all periods were terraced. In some of the Middle Bronze structures, drainage canals were found, which descended towards the south side of the mound. A similar phenomenon was discovered in the Late Bronze structures found below the entrance structure to the water system. One may perhaps assume that the slope was exploited, in periods prior to the construction of the water system, as a convenient passage toward the many springs at the foot of the tell there. It is even possible that a "water gate" existed here, through which the drainage canals passed out of the city. The current season did not permit us to probe these assumptions. The stratificationof the Bronze age periods in this area was identical

with that of areaA. Particularlynoteworthyis the discoveryof a beautiful structurefrom Early Bronze III, with a considerablenumber of Khirbet Keraksherdsfound in a plasteredinstallationneara plasteredbrickbench,

which was constructed all along the walls of a sizable room. The decisive answer to the question of the date of the water system was found in the south section of the trench, between the casemate wall

and the top of the built shaft. The clearly-knowndate of the casematewall served as a certain anchor on which to determine the date of all the structures found on this spot. It became clear that the topmost layer cut by the builders of the water system belonged to stratum X, Solomon's city. (Im-

mediatelybelow that layer were installationsof strataXII-XI, as well as strata belonging to Late Bronze phases II and III with an intact vessel in situ; these strata, of course, were also cut through by the builders.) The

70

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

Vol. XXXII

plan of the stratum X structure and its orientation enabled us to establish that the cutting off of its northern portion did not result from collapse after the system had been abandoned but resulted directly from the digging of the shaft itself. Thus it was established that the earliest date to which the building of the water system can be attributed is post-Solomonic. We can therefore relate it to stratum VIII, that is, to the period in which the whole tell of Hazor was rebuilt and refortified to become once more a firstclass city. Confirma-tionof this conclusion can be gleaned also from the dressing of the ashlar stones of the entrance structure and from the fact that the four-room building originated in stratum VIII. General Conclusions

and Summing-up

The discovery of this gigantic water system, and its dating to the first half of the 9th century, together evoke a picture which also emerges from the latest researches on the dating of the Megiddo water system. One can assume that from the beginning of the 9th century, when the Aramaic and Assyrian menace to Palestine and the neighboring countries became apparent, defense measures were increased generally, and fortifications were particularly strengthened to withstand long siege. In .the light of this conclusion, an importantterm in the inscription of Mesha, king of Moab, seems to gain a new significance. In line 9, Mesha claims, "I built Baalmeon and fashioned in it the '-sh-w-h,"and this term appears again in line 23 where the king speaks of building the facilities of Qarhoh. It seems that this term does not simply signify a water pool, as the various studies of the inscription have maintained, but rather some installation like the water systems of the Megiddo-Hazor-Gibeontype.18The second of the two references then goes on to note that these water systems were executed by "the captives of Israel," suggesting that Mesha borrowed the whole concept from the kings of Israel, who, as can be learned from the new data, excelled in constructing such water systems. The general similarity between the nature of the tunnel at Hazor and that at Gezer suggests, so it seems, that the Gezer water system too should be dated in the beginning of the first millennium, rather than in the Bronze age. We hope that the current excavationsat Gezer will shed further light on that question. The absence of such a water system in the upper city of Hazor during the Bronze age lends new significance to the existence of the huge underground rain-water reservoir within the premises of the palace in area A.19 18. Cf. F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, pp. 41ff. Even Early Hebrew Orthography (1952), the is possible. One could also understand with their restoration, my proposed understanding difficult k-l-'-y h-'-sh-w-h in line 23 as denoting the two typical elements of these water systems, the indicate the shaft and the tunriel. Similarly the expression k-r-t-y h-m-k-r-t-t of line 25 may in making such a water system. Cf. H. Donner and XV. enormous quarrying operation involved und Aramidische Inschriften, II (1964), 178, and also Ben Sira 50:3. R611ig, Kanaandische 19. Hazor III-IV, Plate XV; Israel Exploration Journal, IX (1959),76f.

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1969, 3)

71

The results of the fifth season at Hazor will be published in full in a separate volume, number V in the Hazor series.

The Water Systems at Hazor and Gezer WILLIAM G. DEVER Hebrew

Union College Biblical

and Archaeological

School, Jerusalem

We congratulate Professor Yigael Yadin on the results of his fifth and concluding season of excavationsat Hazor. Once again he has demonstrated that when good field work is supplemented by sound strategy, efficient organization, and keen intuition into historical problems, handsome dividends may be expected. Since the Editor of BA h~asbeen kind enough to invite me to comment briefly on ProfessorYadin's article, I will select two aspects which are of special interest to me. I will deal with the water system at Hazor, perhaps Yadin's most spectular find at the site; and, since allusion is made to the similar system at Gezer, I will summarize whlat we know concerning it. The Hazor Water System

There is no doubt about the importance of Yadin's discovery of the water system at Hazor. The writer was privileged to watch the progress of its excavation almost from the beginning and recently saw it as its final clearance and restoration were being completed. It is a magnificent sight, a remarkable tribute to the hydraulic engineers who designed and built it as well as to its discoverer. Nor can there by any doubt that Yadin's explanation of the rationale of the builders is substantially correct, as parallels at Gezer and elsewhere show (see below). Of course, there is bound to be some discussion of his 9th century date and of the method by which he has arrived at this conclusion. Nevertheless, without the use of power machinery, the water system would never even have been found, let alone dug, since thousands of cubic yards of earth had to be removed from the depression above it and then from the deep and precarious shaft. I suspect that Yadin's date in the 9th century B.C. will prove to be reasonably accurate. The Late Bronze cistern cut by the builders of the shaft and tunnel provides an indisputable terminus post quem and the homogeneous lot of 8th century pottery in the bottom points to an abandonment during the course of the Assyrian destruction. Since there is little

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1969, 3)

71

The results of the fifth season at Hazor will be published in full in a separate volume, number V in the Hazor series.

The Water Systems at Hazor and Gezer WILLIAM G. DEVER Hebrew

Union College Biblical

and Archaeological

School, Jerusalem

We congratulate Professor Yigael Yadin on the results of his fifth and concluding season of excavationsat Hazor. Once again he has demonstrated that when good field work is supplemented by sound strategy, efficient organization, and keen intuition into historical problems, handsome dividends may be expected. Since the Editor of BA h~asbeen kind enough to invite me to comment briefly on ProfessorYadin's article, I will select two aspects which are of special interest to me. I will deal with the water system at Hazor, perhaps Yadin's most spectular find at the site; and, since allusion is made to the similar system at Gezer, I will summarize whlat we know concerning it. The Hazor Water System

There is no doubt about the importance of Yadin's discovery of the water system at Hazor. The writer was privileged to watch the progress of its excavation almost from the beginning and recently saw it as its final clearance and restoration were being completed. It is a magnificent sight, a remarkable tribute to the hydraulic engineers who designed and built it as well as to its discoverer. Nor can there by any doubt that Yadin's explanation of the rationale of the builders is substantially correct, as parallels at Gezer and elsewhere show (see below). Of course, there is bound to be some discussion of his 9th century date and of the method by which he has arrived at this conclusion. Nevertheless, without the use of power machinery, the water system would never even have been found, let alone dug, since thousands of cubic yards of earth had to be removed from the depression above it and then from the deep and precarious shaft. I suspect that Yadin's date in the 9th century B.C. will prove to be reasonably accurate. The Late Bronze cistern cut by the builders of the shaft and tunnel provides an indisputable terminus post quem and the homogeneous lot of 8th century pottery in the bottom points to an abandonment during the course of the Assyrian destruction. Since there is little

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

72

Vol. XXXII

significant occupation of the early Israelite period, the 12th-11th centuries B.C., we are left with a very narrow range of dates for the water system. Yadin rules out one very likely period during the Solomonic era, largely by his observation that a large building connected with the casemate wall and presumably also Solomonic in date is cut by the shaft of the water system. Visual inspection on the site certainly tends to confirm this stratigraphic sequence, but we must await further publication of the evidence before we come to final conclusions.

FIELD It FIELDI '

WATER

TUNNEL

TE S. GA

MB

LB

GEZER Fig.

WALL

-It

WALL

0n50

Trenches 27-30, and of Fields I and II of 8. Plan of the southern portion of Macalister's the location of the water system in relation at Gezer, showing the current excavations Seasons (in to other major features. From Gezer I: Preliminary Report of the 1964-66 press), Plan I. o

The Gezer Water System:

,

Its Discovery

The first excavator of Gezer, R. A. S. Macalister, who worked at the site from 1902-1909, encountered the entrance of the famous water tunnel on bedrock after digging through ten feet of nearly sterile silt in the south end of his Trench 29, just inside the "South Gate" of the "Inner Wall" system (see Fig. 8). After several days' clearance in the keyhole-shaped entrance and down into the vertical shaft, some twenty-seven feet deep, the tunnel itself was discovered,branching off at right angles in an easterly

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1969, 3)

73

direction and sloping down through the rock at an angle of about 38?. The tunnel was almost entirely filled with debris and Macalister had to devote several weeks to its clearance. At the end of the passagewaysome 132 feet long--he came upon a "cave," an enlarged oval chamber measuring twenty-eight by eighty feet. This was nearly filled up with collapsed rock from the roof and with mud and silt, so that the plan could be recovered, but the complete excavation had to be abandoned. Macalister

SECTION A-B

SECTION C-D

SECTION E-F

GEZER

PLAN A

E

Fig. 9. Slightly simplified plan and sections of the Gezer water system, adapted from R. A. S. Macalister, The Excavation of Gezer (1912), III, P1. LII.

dug several trenches and discovered that water was easily reached everywhere, about ninety-five feet below the level of bedrock at the entrance to the tunnel and some 130 feet below the present tell surface. It was not possible even with long probes to reach the bottom of the pool and its depth is thus unknown. Several hundred gallons of water were drawn off and the water level was observed to be constant, so that the water system at one time must have operated effectively. Macalister attempted some rather unsuccessful photographs with the primitive apparatushe had, gave a full description, and drew sketch plans and sections (see adaptation in Fig. 9). A few days laitera severe storm caused the collapse of the embankment above the entrance to the tunnel and further investigation had

74

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

Vol. XXXII

to be abandoned.' The tunnel has gradually silted up farther, so that today it is filled up about halfway with debris. Apart from the shaft at one end and the cave at the other, the water tunnel itself is of considerable interest. There are two clearly recognizable sections. The first is an arch-shapedpassageway averaging twenty to twentytwo feet in height and twelve to fourteen feet in width, cut through the comparativelysoft bedrock which is of Middle and Lower Eocene chalk in this region. A number of smaller niches, some doubtlessly serving as handholds and others perhaps as lamp-niches, may be observed in this section. Midway along this section is an archway left in relief in the rock (see Fig. 9, Section E-F). The second portion of the tunnel penetrates through the much harder siliceous chalk below (Lower Eocene), where the strata are dipping about 90 to the west; here the tunnel is considerably more restricted and the rock face is much less carefully dressed (see Fig. 9). The roughly cut steps which begin at the top of the entrance to the shaft continue all the way down the shaft along the floor of the tunnel, and to the water level at the entrance of the cave. When Was It Built?

There are two major problems left unsolved by Macalister'sexcavation of the Gezer water system: (1) the date of its construction and its relation to the various historical periods of the city's life; and (2) the strategy behind the cutting of the tunnel and the question of how successful it may have been. The date is crucial, especially if one is to compare it with the water system at Jerusalem (the famous "Hezekiah's Tunnel") and those discovered more recently at Megiddo, Gibeon, and now at Hazor. The others are mostly known to belong to the Iron age, specifically to the 9th and 8th centuries B.C. Macalister had originally concluded that the Gezer water system belonged to his "Second Semitic" period, which he dated ca. 1800-1400 B.C. (now Middle Bronze II, with revised dates ca. 1850-1500 B.C.). He came to this conclusion largely on the basis of the fact that the debris accumulated above the silted-up mouth of the entrance contained objects of his "Third Semitic" period, especially Mycenean pottery (our Late Bronze, ca. 1500-1200 B.C. Allowing for a fairly long period of use to account for the dilapidated condition of the tunnel and the steps, he arrived at a date in the first half of the second millennum B.C. for its construction. Unfortunately, this means very little. If the shaft of the tunnel were left open after its abandonment, material from every period in the life of 1. For an account of the water system and its discovery, see R. A. S. Macalister, The Excavation of Gezer (1912), II, 256-265; the plan and sections will be found in Vol. III, Pl. LII.

1969, 3)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

75

the tell-both earlier and later-would have sifted into the deep depressions surrounding the shaft and eventually over the mouth as it gradually silted up. Thus there could even be Hellenistic and Roman shreds in these levels without thereby proving that the date of the construction was immediately pre-Hellenistic or pre-Roman. (Naturally, there would be earlier material in the surrounding soil, as there always is in occupational debris but this would not affect the evidence for dating.) When the Hazor water system was discovered and Yadin's opinion of the date became known, I thought almost at once of the possibility of redating the Gezer water system as well to the Iron age. Yadin had already redated Macalister's "MaccabeanCastle" at Gezer to the Solomonic period, a brilliant hunch which we had confirmed.2 So when he visited us in the field in July and we discussed our respective water systems, members of the staff of the HUCBASJ/Harvard Semitic Museum Excavationsat Gezer were inclined to take his conclusion about the date of the Gezer system quite seriously. Upon closer consideration, the writer would now like to propose that a date more in keeping with Macalister's original opinion - in the Middle or Late Bronze age - would suit the evidence better.3 What evidence is there? There is first of all Macalister'saccount of the stratification;although he was not fully aware of the stratigraphiccomplexities or indeed even of the principles of stratigraphy,his on-the-spot observations are fairly objective and are reported in considerable detail. With these we may now combine the more comprehensiveknowledge of the stratification which we have obtained from the past six years of the current excavations.4 The following points must be considered. a) Macalister describes the location as "in the middle of the court of the 'First Semitic Pal'ace',"which would probably put the water system in the Early Bronze period. The entrance does seem to fit in with the plan of this complex. Nevertheless, Macalister elsewhere states that in the exact area of the shaft, no remains of walls earlier than the "Third Semitic" (or Late Bronze period) were found, except for a few insignificant fragments. Furthermore, the whole purpose of these water systems was to provide a source of water inside the city walls; and since the current excavationshave shown almost certainly that Gezer was an unfortified town in the Early Bronze age,5'the construction of such a system would have made little sense. 2. See William G. Dever, BA, XXX (1967), 60f., H. Darrell Lance, ibid., 39ff., and references there to Yadin's original article. 3. I have not had opportunityto discuss this conclusion,reachedvery recently, with the members of the Core Staff at Gezer. It is, therefore,the writer's personal opinion and not necessarilythe "official"position of the excavation staff or advisors. 4. For the progressof these excavations,see the works cited in n. 2 and especially William G. Dever, H. Darrell Lance, and G. Ernest Wright, Gezer 1: PreliminaryReport of the 1964-66 Seasons, now in press. 5. Macalister's"Central Wall" along the north, which he postulates as the earliest town wall and probably Early Bronze in date, now appearsto be simply part of the Middle Bronze ramparts. In Field I Early Bronze age occupation is in clear evidence, but there is no trace of a town wall, although extensive excavation was carried to bedrock.

76

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

Vol. XXXII

b) At the other end of the chronological scale, a date in the 9th or 8th centuries B.C., like that of the other known water systems, is rather unlikely. Macalister'sreports led nearly all scholars to conclude that Gezer was virtually unoccupied during this period. Altho-ugh the current excavations have recovered sufficient material to fill this "gap" almost entirely, it is clear that the Iron II occupation is indeed very thin. There is probably a gap in the early 9th century, a slight re-occupationin the late 9th and 8th centuries, with more substantial settlement only in the 7th/6th centuries B.C. If a date in the Iron age is to be preferredfor the Gezer water system on the basis of comparable water systems elsewhere, historical and cultural considerationswould require the 10th century, when Gezer was a flourishing and well-defended city under Solomon. However, our excavations in nearby Field I have revealed no Iron age occupation later than Philistine levels of the 11th century B.C.6 c) The Middle and Late Bronze ages remain as possibilities. The former is easily the most substantial period in the history of Gezer, particularlyin Middle Bronze IIC, to which belong the "High Place" and the massive "Inner Wall" with its impressive glacis. Hcwever, a glance at the plans (see Fig. 8) will show that the water tunnel is situated just inside the Middle Bronze city gate - most unlikely if the two are contemporary.(In fact, while cutting a trench over the west tower of the gate we had to be extremely careful to keep workmen from tumbling into the yawning mouth of the tunnel!) Furthermore,evidence from Field I indicates that while there was Middle Bronze occupation in the general area, there were very few structures. This would make the area unsuitable for a water tunnel, since water tunnels could be cut anywhere bedrock was to be reached and would probably have been conveniently sited adjacent to industrial or domestic centers of the town. No one would want to carry water any farther than absolutely necessary. d) The Late Bronze age, all things considered, may be the most likely date for the water system at Gezer. A very careful reading of Macalister's account of the discovery,7 taken together with more recent information, yields the following possible reconstruction.Overlying bedrock in this area were a few tatters of walls, possibly late Chalcolithic or Early Bronze I. Above this were the walls of the "First Semitic Palace," on an orientation unlike that of anything before or after and probablybelonging to the Early Bronze period. The deep foundations for the South Gate, which we now know was built in the Middle Bronze period, probably destroyed most of the lower strata, leaving the area just inside the gate a large open "plaza." 6. See Dever, BA, XXX (1967), 7. See especially Gezer. II, 256.

59.

1969, 3)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

77

By the Late Bronze I period, in the 15th/14tih centuries B.C., the city gate had been shifted elsewhere and this area, expanded and fortified with new enclosure walls (see Fig. 8), had a concenitrationof domestic occupation.8 It may have been in this period that the water system was dug. It is to be rememberedthat this period, the latter part of which brings us into the "Amarnaage," was second only to the Middle Bronze age as a time of great building activity, the "Outer Wall" and the greatest expansion of the city belonging here. It was also a period of extreme threat which would provide a natural background for defensive measures such as the building of a water system inside the city walls. By the end of the Late Bronze age, in the 13th century B.C., the water tunnel seems to have been abandoned, as Macalister reports a nearly sterile layer of silt some ten feet deep was found overlying its mouth, containing what he described as some Mycenean and sub-Mycenean material. This would mean that the general area formed a large drainage basin in the latter part of the Late Bronze period and perhaps into the early Iron age. Most of the structures shown on the plan of Macalister's "Third Semitic" period are probably contemporarywith the water system, as the general layout is plausible. His "Fourth Semitic" plan, showing structures overlying the shaft of the tunnel, is evidently Iron I in part, in keeping with the occupational history known from nearby Field I, but it may also include some later structures. At any rate, it would seem that the shaft and the location of the water system were by now forgotten. How Was the System

Designed

and How Did It Function?

The final problem posed by the water system at Gezer is the strategy of the engineers who built it. Did they dig the shaft at this point because they could observe a spring which they then simply deepened and enlarged? Certainly no evidence of former springs is to be seen today on the surface of the bedrock. It is true that the water tunnels at Megiddo and Gibeon were deliberately dug beneath the city walls to reach a known source of water outside the walls at nearby springs, while the Jerusalem tunnel was a masterful piece of engineering that undertook specifically to conduct spring water inside the city walls. Yadin had expected the Hazor tunnel to be constructed in the same way, but instead found the tunnel at the bottom of the shaft turning in a direction away from the known springs at the base of the tell. His supposition that the engineers simply knew that they would strike water when they reached the water table is supported by the researchof Dr. Reuben G. Bullard, our Staff Geologist at Gezer, from whom we may quote at length: 8. See the plan, Gezer III, IV; note that the maze of walls extends ever over the of the Middle Bronze city wall.P1.In Field I also the Late Bronze domestic structures were top much more extensive than those of the Middle Bronze age.

78

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

Vol. XXXII

The ceiling of the pool area has suffered major collapse some time after the water source began to be used. This rock failure follows the bedding plane lines and suggests that the original excavation of the pool area was not entirely by natural solution processes (if at all), but also the work of the Gezer engineers. The westerly dip of the resistant bedrock units would tend to yield a westerly-trending ground water drainage system, but the Gezer tunnel is cut 1800 in the opposite direction. These considerations prompt the conclusion that the Gezer water tunnel was excavated in part in pursuit of intermittent surface and ground water bedrock solution channels and in part in a quest of a water table observed in the wells of the threshing floor saddle to the south and in the valley springs to the east of the tell. The nearly linear east-west plan of the tunnel is clearly artificial as no observed local joint systems exist on this axis for rock solution processes to exploit. After cutting the first section of the tunnel, the engineers abandoned natural channels and excavated the resistant rock of the second section purely seeking a natural water level. This they found at the 28.80 m. level (Macalister's measurement) below the entrance in the bedrock surface of the tell.9 Admittedly, some of our argument is speculative and suffers the weakness of being based in part on Macalister's excavations. However, even where his chronological conclusions have been shown to be grossly in error, his intuition was remarkably good and his observations, if taken at face value, are usually full and accurate. It is, therefore, possible to rework his material, especially in the light of recent excavations. It is true, as Yadin suggests, that renewed investigation of the Gezer water system would be desirable. It would be an enormous and expensive undertaking, however, and Macalister appears to have exploited the evidence so fully that new excavations might be very disappointing. The one bit of iron-clad evidence for the date would have to come, as Yadin has shown at Hazor, from a stratigraphicconnection with the level from which the shaft was cut. Macalister has excavated to bedrock everywhere and has completely cut the shaft off from its context, so that this would be impossible. Since proper excavation may be out of the question, this resume of the evidence now in hand may serve to recover the importance of the Gezer water system and set it again in the context of the discussion of similar systems elsewhere. 9. Personal communication, September 10, 1969, used with permission. See also Reuben G. Bullard, The Geology of Tell Gezer and its Excavation (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1969), to appear in the Gezer series. Bullard also points out that the material of both the Middle and Late Bronze age glacis is largely unweathered chalk, an ideal quarry for which would have been the excavation of the water system, if it were indeed contemporary. I am indebted to him for these and other observations.

1969, 3)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

79

RECENT BOOKS RECEIVED James B. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East: Supplementary Texts and Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Pp. 294 + viii. $15.00. Readers of the BA are familiar, due to frequent exposure, with the two excellent volumes of pictures and texts which go regularly by the abbreviations ANET and ANEP. The former, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, first appeared in 1950 and contained a vast storehouse of comparative texts elucidating the biblical text and biblical backgrounds; in 1955 a revised, corrected and augmented edition appeared. Its companion, The Ancient Near East in Pictures, appeared in 1954. Just as this issue of the BA goes to final production, there comes to hand the supplementary volume to both publications. It is designed for those who already possess ANEP and either of the two editions of ANET; the texts which augmented the first edition of ANET are reprinted in this volume along with a valuable new selection of important texts. The laws of Ur-Nammu appear here for the first time in an easily accessible form; a great deal of new treaty material is included; from Palestine there are added the "Yavneh Yam" or Mesad Hashavyahu ostracon and three of the Arad ostraca; new also are two large groups of Akkadian letters and Sumerian texts pertaining to the sacred marriage of Dumuzi and Inanna. New photographs augmenting ANEP feature scenes and finds from recent digs and excellent photographs of recent inscriptional material. At the same time as this supplementary volume appears, a full third edition of ANET and a second edition of ANEP issue from Princeton, with the supplementary material interleaved. This resource work, without any doubt, remains indispensable to any serious student of the Bible. S. N. Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite: Aspects of Faith, Myth, and Ritual in Ancient Sumer. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1969. Pp. 170 + xv. $7.50. Based on Dr. Kramer's Patten lectures at Indiana University, this volume analyzes the Dumuzi-Inanna texts mentioned in the previous review. Two introductory chapters survey the Sumerians and their poetry in general, as a valuable preparation for the study of the sacred marriage. Nelson Glueck, The River Jordan. New York, Toronto, London and Sydney: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968. Pp. 235 + xvi. $8.95. This is, in effect, a second edition of Dr. Glueck's classic account of the Jordan river valley and its flanks published in 1946 by Westminster Press. Curiously, virtually no mention is made of the earlier edition, although the text is substantially the same at most points. The new edition has many fewer pictures (68 of them) but they are of vastly improved quality. The map is clearer and useful chronological charts are added. While the text's content remains about the same, Dr. Glueck has somewhat dampened the more sentimental portions of his earlier book and restrained some of his abundant enthusiasm for his material. Yigael Yadin, The Story of Masada. Retold for young readers by Gerald Gottlieb. New York: Random House, 1969. Pp. 156. $3.95. Based on Yadin's Masada (cf. BA, XXIX, 1966, 125ff.) which appeared in 1966, this volume by a New York free-lance writer retells the tale of the dig for young people, often using Yadin's own words. There are a few new pictures, including some from the traveling Masada exhibition. It will take a ten-year old to manage the text, but all the swashbuckle is there!

80

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

Vol. XXXII

D. Winton Thomas, ed., Archaeology and Old Testament Study (Jubilee Volume of the Society for Old Testament Study, 1917-1967.) Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1967. Pp. 493 + xxxii. We are inexcusably late in pointing out this superb volume containing brief but thorough survey articles on excavations at fifteen Palestinian sites and ten sites in surrounding countries, together with treatments of the Negeb, Philistia and Transjordan. Many are written by the excavators themselves, and the others by authorities of appropriate renown. For regular readers of the BA, this volume is a natural. Photographs and maps enhance the volume even further.

Available Issues of the Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society. Extensive remodeling of the facilities at the Jerasulem School has brought once more to light a collection of issues of the Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society. This famous journal began appearing in 1921, the year in which the British Mandate government began its Department of Antiquities. The Society's membership included all the great names of that crucial period of Palestinian exploration and excavation between the two world wars. The Journal's pages are studded with articles by Albright, Glueck, de Vaux, Abel, Garstang, Maisler (Mazar), Sukenik, and many others. Included are many contributions by Tawfiq Canaan on all manner of Arabic customs. The Journal ceased publication in 1941 with its nineteenth volume, and then published one final volume in 1946. The entire stock of back issues was then stored at the Jerusalem School. It is time now to get these valuable journals into the hands of libraries and scholars who can use them. The stock is not complete, unfortunately, but the following issues are available: Vol. III: 2, 3, 4 Vol. XIII: 3, 4

IV: 3, 4 V: 4 VI: 1-2, 3, 4 VII: 4

VIII: 3 XI: 2 XII: 1-2, 3

XIV: 1-2, 3, 4 XV: 1-2, 3-4 XVI: 1, 2-3, 4 XVII: 2, 3-4

XVIII: 1-2, 3-4 XIX: 1-2, 3-4 XX: 1

In the above list, a hyphen indicates a double number of the journal. It is proposed to sell these off at $1.00 for a single number and $1.50 for a double number. This cost includes postage and handling from Jerusalem, and it can only be afforded if orders are sent accompanied by payment directly to the American School of Oriental Research, Post Office Box 19096, Jerusalem, Israel. In addition, three reprints from the journal are available separately. They are "Judicial Courts among the Bedouin of Palestine," by Omar el-Barghuthi, "Haunted Springs and Water Demons in Palestine," by Tawfiq Canaan, and "Annals of Palestine 1821-41," by S. N. Spyridon. The first two are available together for $1.00 and the last separately for the same price. So far as we know, these are the only available specimens of the JPOS. Please spare our hard-working Jerusalem School staff by having payment in dollars accompany any order.