[Magazine] The Biblical Archaeologist. Vol. 34. No 4

40 Pages·1971·4.26 MB·English

The
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
Publishedb y
THEA MERICSACNH OOOLFSO RIENTRAELS EARCH
126 Inman Street, Cambridge, Mass.
Vol. XXXIV December, 1971 No. 4
.1 .
4 -~??
t,,
1 ..
Fig. 1. Gezer's Solomonic Gate, Field IH, looking from rear toward entrance. Photo by Robert B.
Wright.
Contents
FurtherE xcavationast Gezer,1 967-71b, y WilliamG . Dever,H . DarrelLl ance,R euben
G. BullardD, an P. Cole, AnitaM . FurshpanJ, ohn S. HolladayJ, r., Joe D. Seger,
and RobertB . Wright. .......................................... 94
94 THE BIBLICALA RCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,
The Biblical Archaeologist is published quarterly (February, May, September, Decem-
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.
Subscriptions: $5.00 per year, payable to the American Schools of Oriental Research,
126 Inman Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139. Associate members of ASOR receive
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
WILLIAMG . DEVER,H . DARRELLL ANCER, EUBENG . BULLARDD, ANP .
COLE, ANITA M. FURSHPAN,J OHN S. HOLLADAYJ,R ., JOED . SEGER,R OBERT
B. WRIGHT.
An earlier issue of The Biblical Archaeologist1c arried 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 im-
portant new discoveries.2
The origin of the Gezer project, its basic personnel and support, its
objectives, and something of its strategy for a projecotede ight years of ex-
cavation were all sketched in the first BA report. The project has grown con-
siderably but 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
since 1966).3 Drs. G. Ernest Wright and Nelson Glueck remained as advisors
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 as-
sistant, 1966-1971.
1971, 4) THE BIBLICALA RCHAEOLOGIST 95
(the latter uniil his unitimely death in February of 1971). The original
group of student volunteers has swelled to more than 1,000 "Gezerg raduates",
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 ob-
jectives 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.6 Other volumes are well advanced, and it is expected that they will
appear as Annuals of the HUCBASJ at tihe rate of approximatelyo ne 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 ex-
tended over the "Inner" and "Outer Walls" (Fig. 2). Our purpose was to
get a "quick"l ook at the entire stratificationo f 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,a nd it took us six separate campaigns stretched over 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,"p robablyf or the grinding of grain. We had
known from material recovered in Macalister'se xcavations 'that the earliest
occupation of the mound occurredi n the late 'fourthm illennium B.C., toward
the end of the Chalcolithic age, the so-called "Ghassulian-Beershebap"e riod.
Thus we were not surprised to 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 "CreamW are" also appeared,a long 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 Excava-
tion 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;
Cole-IV; Furshpan-VI; Holladay-V; Lance-I; Seger-II, III. Dever rewrote portions and
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.
+ ? + +
(cid:127) 2.I 2s .. .. .. I 2 , 20 ,o 1. . 1e I J I .. 4 It 12 II 10 9 e 7 6 2
,oo
WAme I A--2 29,570(AM P .1,,
INE R (1P)
.....
CL)5
ON ALL \
Cvs) FIELDT I (cid:127)J~~ N[0,)-) 1 XCVTD
/
n
x~l v'le nowou n NUNEXCAVAFTIEELDD)
(UNEXCAVATrD)
FFIELD U OUTER ALL"
C(9 + rl \\ UFII 1EL/-D iD FIEILVD
+GEZE
IGEZER
0cn Fig. 2. Plan of Gezer, showing major features and principal excavations.
1971, 4) THE BIBLICALA RCHAEOLOGIST 97
decoration.H owever, no structuresw ere found, only what was apparentlyt he
hearth of a campsite. From under the surface of the campsite was recovered
a lovely bone pendant, carvedi n a fine spiralp attern.
The next two strata above bedrock (Strata 13 and 12) and probably
Stratum 11 as well must all be attributedt o 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
architecturew ere found in these strata,' the large 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 abandonmenta nd
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 - sometimesp ure Early Bronze, some-
times containing sherds which are definitely from the Middle Bronze Age. A
period of abandonmentf ollowed by filling and leveling operations,m ixing 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 particularlyi mpor-
tant 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 Macalistert he "Inner Wall,"
to MB IIA, ca. 1800 B.C.8 More 'than 50 feet across, it is the largest single-
phase 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 -tower of im-
posing 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 Eroieovno i
A#Aeal~ie Pmm
C
u0 -? ....... .....3
3 jA43 JC
C) 'OmitP T-Sir J3
Si4r el f
Cave r /0,+ro
PL?C~r7KWCE ST BAL
a'c
c7% GEZER -FIELD 0 1 L
Fig. 3. Simplified section of Field I, showing fortifications; foundation trench for "Inner Wall"/
Tower 5017 is at right.
1971, 4) THE BIBLICALA RCHAEOLOGIST 99
As we continued the slow and careful process of excavation season after
season down 'the inner face of the 'tower, we became increasingly uneasy;
for the stratificationm ade less and less sense the, lower we went. Since our
working hypothesis was that ithe construction surface of the tower was at or
near the base, we expected 'tof ind successive stratac learly 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. Surfacesw hich were distinct to the north of the
tower disappearedb efore 'they reached its inner face. And what we did find
against the inner face was a stratigrapher'sn ightmare - faint surfaces, ran-
dom 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, 'there was a small but disconcert-
ingly steady flow of sherds wh'ich were a century or two later, MB IIB-C.
This state of perplexity and frustrationc ontinued right up -to the final season.
Not until then could we begin 'to see the forest instead of the obscuring
branches of unrelated trees. As it 'turned out, the surface from which work
had begun on the tower was not at the bottom of the 'tower,b ut on the con-
trary, 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-existingm ound '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 created by 'the foundation trench and the processo f build-
ing 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 rep-
resents their first period of use.
100 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXXIV,
As we reported earlier,9t he 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 con-
firmed 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, ,tsheee 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"o f field soil and 'tell debris to make a plateau with a
sloping side formed by the still-exposedo uter side of the ridge of chalk. Next,
on top of the plateau and along its outer edge, another ridge 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
until the desired height of about 15 feet was reached. Finally, entire slope
.the
thus created was reinforced by another layer of crushed chalk, evidently
tamped into place while still moist. The resulting surface was so compact that
it was impervious even to ground water, and the finished product appeared
from the exteriora s though it were constructedo f solid chalk.
After nearly two centuries of use, the "Inner Wall" system together with
the "South Gate" was destroyed, sometime in the 15th century B.C. By the
14th century B.C. it was supersededb y the "OuterW all," 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 complicated inner structure of 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 rela-
tively 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 "AmarnaA ge"). 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), 'the glacis has been cut off from Wall 9011 by
9. Dever, BA, XXX (1967), 56-57 and Fig. 10; cf. now Gezer I (HUC), 42-43. See also Reuben
Bullard, BA, XXXIII (1970), 118-19.
1971, 4) THE BIBLICALA RCHAEOLOGIST 101
later attempts to repairt he 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
apparentlyr etrenched and refurbishedi n 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 mil-
lennium 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 excava-
tions 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.T he general area
was designated Field IV and was excavated between 1967 and 1971.
It is now clear that Macalister misunderstooda 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 structurew ith a solid
mudbrick extender wall up to 32 feet thick.1 Our investigations have 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 'takent his together with the destructiond ebris
,and
behind the wall as a single massive mudbrickw all.12
(2) Macalister'se arly plan also includes a section through a structure
described as a "banko f brickworkf aced with lime," lying between the "Inner"
and "OuterW alls" adjacent to the gate. He believed -this to be part of his so-
called "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"w as none other than a plasteredg lacis, 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 square yards of 'the preservedg lacis surface has 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 BIBLICALA RCHAEOLOGIST (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 advanced on
the basis of our clearancei n Field I.
By contrast, Macalister's planning of the "South Gate" proved to be
quite accurate.14T o date, excavations have recleared approximatelyo ne half
of the passageway down its stone paving. The gate is indeed a remarkable
,to
structure. The passagewayi s flanked by three pairs of huge orthostatsw hich
measure over six feet in height and almost ten feet long, and the brick super-
structure still rises in places to more than 17 feet (Fig. 4). Supplementary
i,
,Id
Fig. 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,g ive evi-
dence '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,t estifying 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'sm istake has
14. Gezer I (PEF), 240-43.