No title

The BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOG .orPublished by THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH Jerusalem and Bagdad Room 102, 6 Div...

Author: American Schools of Oriental Research

82 downloads 258 Views 5MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

The BIBLICAL

ARCHAEOLOG

.orPublished by THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH Jerusalem and Bagdad Room 102, 6 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, Mass.

VOL. XXX

May, 1967 ??? ~??

Y r I?"'

c!?

,,;I fI~i~ i :% ?~?.~? I/\P i

t- ??

i -~ r r

i

~

i\'1;\1

trl1(?~fl i

\'i

/J;

1

r/

No. 2

1

1--?

Fri

i-

-I ri 'r!

r

L L.

I

?i-

F

_1

''

I

r

1:I rr

1~c'II

1? .c r

~~ ;'~b?

Fig. 1. The "Gezer calendar," from the time of Solomon, about 925 B.C.; the text gives agricultural seasons.

Contents Gezer in the Land and in History, by H. Darrell Lance Excavations at Gezer, by William G. Dever ................. ............................................34 ................47 Gezer in the Tell el-Amarna Letters, by James F. Ross Recent Books Received ..................................................71 ................................................62

34

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXX,

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 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: W. F. Albright, Johns Hopkins University; G. Ernest Wright, Harvard University; Frank M. Cross, Jr., Harvard University. Service Agency, 31 East 10th Subscriptions: $2.00 per year, payable to Stechert-Hafner Street, New York, New York, 10003. Associate members of the American Schools of Oriental Research receive the journal automatically. Ten or more subscriptions for group use mailed and billed to the same address, $1.50 per year for each. Subscriptions run for the calendar year. In England: seventeen shillings per year, payable to B. H. Blackwell, Ltd., Broad Street, Oxford. Back Numbers: Available at each, or $2.25 per volume, from the Stechert-Hafner Service 60? When ordering one issue only, please remit with order. Agency. No orders under $1.00 accepted. 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, 1967. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BY TRANSCRIPT PRINTING COMPANY PETERBOROUGH, N. H.

Gezer in the Land and in History

H. DARRELLLANCE* Colgate Rochester

Divinity

School

Few of the mounds of Palestine can claim a more splendid natural setting than the mound of Gezer. The hill itself (Fig. 2) which the tell crowns does not especially impress the approaching visitor; it is neither as high nor as large as its neighbor to the south. Only when he reaches the summit of the mound and turns to look at the plain from which he has just climbed does the visitor begin to understand why Gezer was one of the chief cities of pre-Roman Palestine. For Gezer is built on the northernmostridge of the Shephelah, the low hills of Eocene limestone which stretch from here to the south along the western flank of the Judean highlands; and although the top of the mound rises only 200-300 feet above the surrounding plain, there are higher hills only to the south of it.' Consequently the view from the top is truly magnificent-practically unobstructed for miles in the other three directions. High on the eastern horizon are the heights of the central ridge with the conical hill where Kiriath-Jearimwas located easily distinguishable; a few miles beyond, out of sight, is Jerusalem.At the foot of the hills lies the opening of the valley of Aijalon to the north of the promontorywhere stands the modern monasteryof Latrun. * I would like to thank Prof. G. Ernest Wright for his kind assistance in the preparation of this article, particularly in putting at my disposal two unpublished studies of the history of Gezer. Special thanks are also due Robert Wright, photographer of the new Gezer excavations, who so skillfully prepared the photographs which accompany this article; in the case of the "royal stamp" jar handles, his copy is better than the original! 1. For more on the interesting geography of the Gezer region, see D. Baly, The Geography of the Bible (1957), esp. Chaps. XI and XII.

1967, 2)


35

To the north and west the view is limited only by the haze that accompanies the high humidity of the region. R. A. S. Macalister, the first excavator of Gezer, reported that on clear days even the Carmel range, some sixty miles to the north, could be dimly discerned. The members of the new Hebrew Union College Excavations, however, confess to some skepticism concerning this claim of Macalister. In the more than twelve weeks we have spent at the site in autumn, spring, and summer seasons and in all kinds of weather, our most determined squinting has not carried us much beyond Tel Aviv. To the west, though, the sand dunes along the coast thirteen miles away are usually clearly visible; and the Philistine plain can be traced to the southwest to Ashdod and beyond toward Ashkelon. Only directly south is the view obstructed, but a watchpost on the hilltop to the south would have given the Gezerites an equally commanding view in this direction.

-L Volbc?? aftc-

Fig. 2. The mound of Gezer from the southeast. The new excavations are near the high debris heaps left of center. In the slight saddle in the center stood the Solomonic gate. This photo, and others not otherwise credited, are by W. G. Dever.

Why this impressive overlook has an importance far beyond aesthetic reasons becomes apparent when one examines a map of the ancient roads of Palestine. For the great highway which for millennia angled across Palestine carrying trade and conquering armies between Egypt and Mesopotamia passed to the west of Gezer within a few miles. Another important road, although not of the same rank as the first, led from Joppa up through the valley of Aijalon to Bethel and Jerusalem. Gezer on its height commanded both of these roads, and a strong garrison stationed there would be able to intercept and turn back anyone deemed to be undesirable. And no invader coming from south or north could afford to permit strong unfriendly forces control of this position; his supply lines and communications would be subject to constant harassment.

36


(Vol. XXX,

There are other reasons for Gezer's greatness. To the west, north, and northeast fertile fields stretch for miles from the foot of the mound. When Conder and Kitchener made their famous survey of Palestine, they were struck by the number of wine presses in the Gezer area, and even today the visitor approaching the mound from the west passes through scores of acres of vineyards. With the rolling hills to the south and southeast suitable for pasturing sheep and goats, the area was capable of supporting a huge population; the size of the Gezer city-state would have been limited only by external deterrenceor internal indifference. Another blessing enjoyed by the site is an abundant water supply. In the winter there are springs in the valley to the south of the mound near which Arab Bedouin still camp. But at the east end of the tell is a strong spring which the Arabs of Macalister's day called 'Ain Yerdeh. It flows all year round. This source though copious had the disadvantage of being located far outside the walls of the city, presenting enough of a defense problem that at one period the Gezerites found it necessary to expend the tremendous amounts of time and money necessary to dig a water tunnel inside the walls, solving at least for a while this disability. All of these favorable geographical factors combined to make Gezer one of the largest and most prosperouscities in the land. Although the area inside the ruined walls has yet to be accuratelymeasured, the mound which is shaped something like a sausage with a blunted west end is ca. 710 yards long and 220 to 275 yards wide, giving it a total area of about thirty acres.2 When this figure is compared to the seven and one-half acres of Tell Beit Mirsim (biblical Debir) and the thirteen acres of Megiddo,3 one begins to realize something of Gezer's stature among her sister cities of Palestine. Gezer in History

The first reference we have to Gezer in literary or inscriptional material occurs in one of the reliefs which decorate the great temple of Amon at Karnak in Egypt. Incised at the direction of Pharaoh Thutmose III to commemorate his campaign into Syria in 1468 B.C., it shows rows of stylized Asiatic prisonerseach identified by the name of the town of origin, of which one is Gezer.4 One of this Pharaoh's successors, Thutmose IV (ca. 14101402 B.C.), has a short inscriptionin his mortuarytemple at Thebes in which he mentions that he brought captives from a city, the name of which is partially broken but which is almost certainly Gezer.5 He calls these captives Kharu which is the Egyptian term for the biblical Horites. Although the 2. Dr. Dever in his article below gives an estimate of about 27 acres. Until the mound is acthere is no way to decide the matter; but on the basis of current estimated curately surveyed, I feel that even my figure of 30 acres may be too modest. measurements, 3. W. F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine (1956), p. 18. 4. See J. B. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East in Pictures, nos. 312 and 313. 5. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts (1955), p. 248.

1967, 2)


37

Egyptians tended to call anyone from Syria during this period a Horite, there may be good evidence that there were indeed Hurrians (Horites) living in the vicinity of Gezer during this period.6 Gezer's role in the complicated happenings of the Amarna period is explained by Dr. Ross in his article in this issue. From Gezer itself comes a badly broken fragment of a letter of the period, evidently from some imperious Egyptian official to the government of Gezer. The near-by town of Kiddimu is mentioned (biblical Gittaim?), perhaps Tell Ras Abu Hamid, a few miles to the northwest of Gezer. Something is evidently being demanded of the Gezerites by the Egyptians, but the tablet is too badly broken to make out for certain what it is.7 Toward the end of the 13th century B.C. when the Israelites were finding their first foothold in the land of Canaan, Pharaoh Merneptah marched up into Palestine to put down rebellious subjects, as most of his predecessorsof the 18th and 19th Dynasties had done. In the stele (Fig. 3) which Merneptah had inscribed to celebrate this campaign along with his victory over invading Libyans, we have the first and only reference to Israel in Egyptian records.8Merneptah not only claims to have cut off the seed of Israel, but also to have taken Gezer. In another of his inscriptions found at Amada he again celebrates his conquest of Gezer. Meanwhile in Canaan, the Israelites were not faring as well as Merneptah against Gezer. Although tradition has it that the Israelites defeated a contingent of Gezerites and Horam, their king, who had come to the aid of the Canaanites in Lachish (Josh. 10:33 and 12:12), they were not able to take the city itself (Josh. 16:10, Judges 1:29). In the troubled years following Israel's entrance into Canaan the people faced many military challenges, but the most:serious came from the Philistines-a challenge so strong as ultimately to force the Israelites to abandon their tribal league structure for a more centralized monarchy. We now see that the Philistines controlled a territory at their fullest expansion much larger than simply the lands around their main cities of Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron.9 From both old and new excavations at Gezer and from attempts to reconstruct current events on the basis of the biblical records,it is probablethat the Philistines controlled this city as well, strategically located as it was on the edge of their plain. From the references to the "Canaanites" of Gezer in Joshua 16:10, Judges 1:29, and I Kings 9:16, it appears that the, Philistines merely ruled the city; they did not themselves 6. 7. 8. 9.

See the forthcoming Preliminary Report of the Hebrew Union College Excavations of 1964-66. Albright, BASOR, No. 92 (Dec., 1943), pp. 28-30. Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pp. 376-78. For new insights into the Philistine problem, see Wright, BA, XXIX (1966), 70-86.

38


(Vol. XXX,

'''

d 'Z1! c, ',tTr tJ L~i~Z~rJ~; :it [1*: ' :

;i

;:~Ylc ii ~)~l~~e~7~?a~cd;i~li1T~[l~ab~,tl~bJ~ '' rl r` r! .SC ptl ;1 tr

rt ~?;C.d ~'* r't a:,; ?.Lr~e ;:?~~Lt~ ~i

c?:

() rr!Y

i Lbr

'6; ''r ?i -S;

' r

Ji-P9: ?t ?,

~.jj~~

..1

,r

t?

r

''(' : i.: : ~;`-n~Tf4Y~-~,~c~j irlt~ * 1'Ct ? ,,I i~LOr O 'P Lli~t~T')~ f~~c f'. LL ~C~*~ ?? ~T~r~4 1??? ,r ?i,;?u i?~ ?~r i! 1~,j~~?f~~ r

:1 Y

u 1' 'I? 111

II I ?rrq ,r: r?-

J

r? ~~c;U C~:k^h~ili~~C1?~l~d~ill

,, ,'

?*t :r

'?

i

~?~ ,'4 "

r

~i~

?)~I

-1,,2. r~

,?

i~S~C~ifi

~ca!

Ift?i: T~t~T

1 ;? .P' -C~?

~t; irLr-?C1 t ~ *- L? n;i t

i-~

D rt~l

rv

r .i.IC*I?~t*? t &!~f?~F~ c~t =: ?t!~J.)e 1.;~Ttlt~~~Pdt' ~r .I

???gV*l1 Q~~;t It ?s~ .?fi~ i`?.1Ct3 R"~t ...; : ??'`L' 1 cr'rt I .?r~f1~9~1~; E~:

i;

f J ?~: =~ ,,~

t:v

?,

c1,

,,gii ?

cr?

r 'C' r~*

I;s L'i~*~

I ?r C * ,~

P ?' ?~

I

a.:

~t~~lL' C~~ i'

Fig. 3. Merneptah's stele found at Thebes. It contains the only reference to "Israel" in Egyptian records. Photo from W. M. F. Petrie, Six Temples at Thebes, 1896.

1967, 2)


39

dwell there. But if the Philistines were in control of Gezer, then it is understandable why Gezer with its surrounding area seems to have been one of the pivotal points in David's frequent battles with them (II Sam. 5:25 and the variant in I Chron. 14:16; also I Chron. 20:4). Certainly the most intriguing biblical reference to Gezer is found in I Kings 9:15-16. There the writer gives a list of building projects of King Solomon among which are "the walls of Jerusalem,and Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer. Pharaoh, king of Egypt, had gone up, captured Gezer, and burned it with fire and had slaughtered the Canaanites who lived in the city and had given it as dowry to his daughter, Solomon's wife." Readers of BA are already familiar with the recent discoveries and developments which have located the Solomonic walls and gates at all of these cities except Jerusalem. The magnificent Solomonic gate complex at Megiddo had been known since the American excavations there in the 1930's.10It was composed of two parts-an outer gate with two piers through which one passed before turning to the left to enter the second part, a large gate with four piers which led into the city proper (Fig. 4). A similar gate, without the outer works, was discovered by Yigael Yadin and his associates in their excavations at Hazor;" but unlike the apparent situation at Megiddo, the Hazor gate was found to be connected to a casemate wall, i.e. two parallel walls joined at intervals by cross walls to form chamberswhich can either be entered by doors through the inside wall and used as store chambers or else can be filled full of rubble to create a wall solid all the way through. Yadin noticed the similarity-indeed almost the identity-of the plans of these two Solomonic gates and because of the passage in I Kings 9:15 wondered if there might be some trace of another such structure at Gezer. Macalister had discovered what he considered to be some towers of the Solomonic period but mentioned nothing of a gate or casemate wall. Undaunted, Prof. Yadin carefully examined all of Macalister's plans and found mixed with the plan of a building called by Macalister a "Maccabean castle" of the 2nd century B.C.,12 a casemate wall, an outer gate with two piers and half of a large inner gate with four piers! Once the extraneous walls and structures are removed from Macalister's plan, the pattern becomes clear and there can be little doubt about Yadin's detective work.13The arrangement of the outer and inner is just like Megiddo except that for topographical reasons, gates,the Gezer one approaches gate from the left instead of from the right. The and dimensions of the three gates are so similar that Yadin concludes plans 10. 11. 12. 13. BA,

Wright, BA, XIII (1950), 39-46. Y. Yadin, BA, XXI (1958), Fig. 1 and pp. 45-47. R. A. S. Macalister, The Excavations of Gezer, I (1912), 217. For details, see Israel Exploration Journal, VIII (1958), 80-86. For a summary, see Wright, XXI (1958), 103f.

40


(Vol. XXX,

they must all have been built from the same plans, evidence of Solomon's efficient central government.14

1"014.

9 lo 04

,o, ,.

i

5

Fig. 4. The Solomonic gates at Hazor (upper left), Megiddo (right), and Gezer (lower left). The reconstructed Gezer gate should be compared with Macalister's original drawing of it as part of the "Maccabean castle" in Fig. 8 below. From Israel Exploration Journal, VIII (1958), 84-85.

But we have by no means answered all the intriguing questions posed by these few verses of I Kings 9. In verse 16 we have a short explanation of how Gezer came to be part of Solomon's realm, but like many "explanations," it raises as many questions as it answers. If David had been strong enough to conquer the enemies of Israel in all directions, why had he refrained from seizing Gezer which is in a strategic spot right on the border of his heartland? What is Pharaoh doing this far out of his country? Why should he bring an army all this distance just to conquer one city for his daughter, even assuming he had a greater than average share of fatherly affection? What Pharaoh was this, anyway? In recent years these questions have received close attention from several scholars and reasonable answers have been forthcoming. In the first place, it appears that for good and sufficient reasons, David did not totally conquer the territory occupied by the Philistines of which Gezer was a part.15 He probably took Gath and all or part of the territory 14. Yadin has now shown in a brief excavation at that the solid wall associated with the Solomonic gate by the excavators is to be datedMegiddo to the 9th cent., probably to the reign of Ahab, and that the original Solomonic wall was of casemate type here as well; see BA, XXIII (1960), 62-68. 15. A. Malamat, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, XXII (1963), 14ff.

1967, 2)


41

of Ekron but did not attempt to push his conquests out toward Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Gaza. Gezer also was reprieved although isolated. In a recent article in these pages (see note 10) Prof. Wright has collected the evidence necessary to show that the Philistines were most probably in some sort of vassal relationship with Egypt; it could well be that David refrained from sending his powerful armies against them from a desire not to tread too heavily upon the toes of the Egyptian overlord. In any case, at the end of David's reign Gezer still had not been brought into the Israelite realm but was occupied by Canaanites and evidently ruled by the Philistines. At this point partly through the intrigues of Nathan, the prophet, and David's favorite wife, Bathsheba, Solomon was designated heir and successor by the dying king (I Kings 1). But as not infrequently happened in the ancient Near East, the road of the heir apparent was heavily mined by the ambitious and the envious; not until Solomon had dispatched several actual and potential troublemakerscould it be said that "the kingdom was firmly in Solomon's hands" (I Kings 2:46). Since David's empire was by far the strongest power in the area at the time, these troubles of Solomon would be watched with interest by neighboring states. It was something of a pattern in the ancient world that when one ruler died, other nations would sniff along the borders to test the new king before he was firmly established and try if possible to snatch away a morsel or two of territoryor at the least some booty from the nation in crisis. Pharaoh Shishak of Egypt followed this age old custom with eminent success a few years after the death of Solomon (I Kings 14:25-26). Thus it has been convincingly proposed by scholars and most completely argued by Abraham Malamat16 that shortly after the death of David, one of the Pharaohsof the 21st Dynasty made a military foray into Palestine ostensibly to reassertthe Egyptian hegemony over Philistia but also to test the mettle of the successorof the mighty David. There are problems of chronology in the 21st Dynasty, but the best candidate for this king seems to be Siamun, the next to last in the series. In any case there is good evidence from the excavation of Tel Mor, the port of Ashdod, that that site also, along with Gezer and perhaps Beth-shemesh,was destroyed in the middle of the 10th century B.C. Here then we may have evidence that Pharaoh's journey north had greater intent and consequences than the conquest of Gezer alone. Malamat further proposes that this adventure of Pharaoh, a military campaign on the very borders of Solomon's kingdom, brought him more than he had bargained for, namely a direct confrontationwith the still young and vigorous son of David. That Pharaoh came off second best in this contest seems to be indicated by the implications of the marriage of Pharaoh's 16. Ibid., pp. 1Off.

42

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXX,

daughter to Solomon (I Kings 3:1). For this is the only firmly attested instance in which a daughter of Pharaoh, as distinguished from other female relatives, was given in marriage to a foreign king.17 In a letter from the Egyptian royal archives found at el-Amarna, it is revealed that one of the Kassitekings then ruling in Babyloniahas been denied a daughter of Pharaoh as a wife on the grounds that no daughter of Pharaohhad ever been given to anyone (outside Egypt) in marriage. With admirable ingenuity but questionable integrity the Kassite monarch then asks that simply a beautiful woman be sent; no one in Babylonia would know the difference!" Thus it appears that the marriage of Pharaoh's daughter to Solomon is a violation of a longstanding custom, and it is plausible to suppose that it reveals the relative strength of Pharaoh and Solomon. Gezer may not have been the only piece of territoryto pass into Solomon's hands at this time; the passage in I Kings 9:16, as Malamat points out, is only concerned with how one city, Gezer, became Israelite. To think of Solomon as a warriorstrong enough to force territorial concessions and a diplomatic marriage from Egypt is not difficult when we consider that this is at the beginning of his reign when the power amassed by David is still undissipated. Also it explains the puzzling story of Gezer and Pharaoh's daughter which otherwise remains a mystery. As mentioned above, after the death of Solomon and the civil war which followed, splitting the kingdom in two, Pharaoh Shishak, the founder of the strong 22nd Dynasty, made a raid into Palestine ca. 918 B.C., exacting heavy tribute from King Rehoboam of Judah and carving a path of destruction across the northern kingdom, Israel. Upon his return home the victorious Pharaoh, like his famous predecessor,Thutmose III, had a relief carved on the walls of the temple of Amon at Karnak,again listing the towns he conquered, each representedby a prisoner.According to the most recent reading of this list, Gezer appears to be included along with the nearby towns of Rubuti (mentioned in the Amarnaletters) and Aijalon. From about this time comes one of Macalister'smost famous discoveries, the Gezer "calendar" (Fig. 1). Scratched on a piece of soft white limestone small enough to hold in the palm ef the hand, it is a sort of mnemonic poem having to do with the agricultural activities of the twelve months of the year.19As the earliest known Hebrew inscription, it is of particular interest to scholars since it provides a relatively fixed date to help in the study of the development of the Hebrew language. From all indications, Gezer was abandoned for a while after its destruction by Shishak. We know from sherds found on the tell that the city was reinhabitedby the 8th century, but exactly when this took place has not been 17. Malamat, BA, XXI (1958), 97ff. 18. J. A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, I (1915), letter 4:4-13. 19. Translated in Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 32A0.


1967, 2)

43

determined. From the palace of the Assyrian monarch Tiglath-pileser III in Nimrud (biblical Calah) comes a sculptured relief which may be the next mention of our city. Like far too many of the priceless objects recoveredin early excavations, this particular sculpture has disappeared and only the drawing survives to us (Fig. 5). The cuneiform writing in the upper right hand corner has first (reading as usual in Akkadian from left to right) the determinative sign for "city" and then the signs which have the values ga-az-ru. So some city of Gazru is the subject of the relief; the problem is knowing if our Gezer is the one. Just as there were several "Gaths" and "Socohs" there may have been more than one Gezer.

b4

t Tr! ,.,:rr. TrT,,

7-11 -T-. TT 00

Cl00

OU

i tO

1111

rl OOj ( ..

Fig. 5. The Assyrian siege of Gazru as depicted on a relief from the palace of Tiglath-pileser III at Nimrud. From A. H. Layard, The Monuments of Nineveh.

The relief shows the assault of the city. In traditional Assyrian style the stages of the battle are all depicted as happening simultaneously. The defenders of the city have already thrown down their weapons and are begging for mercy. At the left an archer, protected by a large movable shield held by another soldier, makes ready to send off his arrow. In the foreground, the wall of the city is being jabbed and pried apart by a siege machine usual-

44


(Vol. XXX,

ly called a "batteringram." This term is somewhat misleading since it tends to call to mind the sort of contraption used by the Romans-a heavy beam suspended from a superstructureand swung back and forth, doing its damage by the sheer impetus of its weight. The type of machine pictured here uses a more subtle approach.The poles appear to be much lighter in weight. They are capped with metal heads shaped like an ax blade or a spear point, and the metal head is used to pry and to dig, more than to pound. The loosened stones or bricks, as shown in the relief, rain down to the foot of the wall. Perhaps some more neutral term such as "breaching machine" would better describe this siege weapon than does "battering ram."20 A strong argument for identifying this relief with our Gezer is the fact that in 734 B.C. Tiglath-pileser sent his army against Philistia as the first step in a series of military campaigns which were to make the Assyrians effective masters of all Palestine. The next year they returned with the northern kingdom of Israel as their target and lopped off all Israelite possessions outside the central hill country of Samaria, turning Gilead, Galilee, and the coastal plain north of Gezer into Assyrian provinces (II Kings 15:29). Either of these campaigns could have seen the destruction of Gezer. Given the city's strategic location near the great highway, it is quite possible that Tiglath-pileser took it in 734 in order to secure his flanks while he moved on south into Philistia. With the Assyrians militarily active in the vicinity of Gezer for two successive years, the chances seem high that it is indeed our Gezer which is pictured in the relief in question. External references to Gezer cease for several hundred years, but the mound itself has furnished hints of what went on in the meantime. From Joshua 16:3 and 16:10 we learn that Gezer was on the southern border of the tribal holdings of Ephraim although designated one of the Levitical cities (Josh. 21:21). This would put Gezer in the northern kingdom, Israel, at the time of the split after the death of Solomon. The Assyriansput an end to Israel in 721 B.C. and the division into Assyrian provincesbegun by Tiglathpileser III was completed. By that time, therefore, if not before, Gezer must have become part of the Assyrian Empire. Firm evidence of strong Assyrian presence was furnished by two cuneiform tablets found at Gezer by Macalister written in Akkadian and dating from the middle of the 7th century B.C. They are not complete but appear to be contractsdealing with business matters. Only one name in the documents is Hebrew, a Nethaniah; the witnesses mostly bear Assyrian names. This heavy predominance of Assyrian names may mean that Gezer had been resettled or garrisonedwith Assyrians after 20. For more on Assyrian siege machines and techniques, see Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands (1963), II, 313ff.


1967, 2)

45

its earlier destruction. This would not be surprising in view of its strategic location. One of the historical puzzles left us by Macalister'sexcavations is embodied in the so-called "royal stamp" jar handles shown in Fig. 6. These familiar handles, found in excavations by the hundreds, have with rare exceptions a two-line inscription: on top the word Imlk ("belonging to the king") and underneath the name of one of four cities-Hebron, Socoh, Ziph, or an unknown place, MmInt,usually made pronounceable as Memshath. Between the two lines is found either a flying scarab (in the center example in Fig. 6) or what is probablya winged sun disc (the handles on either side).

c?j

- i: r?

?:

r t

~~\?; I tC'?

/y

.z?e,? n*;

r? r

I

I f~~~C~L~

c

.+.

rl r

1

,*

c

?r

O *

.r rq~ r(LISa

i

c

? 'r:

9P'

C' r ~S

,.,,,

k, r?

c?e .f

?r

''z,3.

Fig. 6. Jar handles found at Gezer with royal stamps from the late Judean monarchy. The design on the one in the center is a flying scarab beetle; the two on the sides show flying sun discs (?). The top line of Hebrew writing on each reads "belonging to the king;" the bottom line reads "Hebron" (center handle) or "Socoh" (side handles). From Macalister, Bible Side-Lights from the Mound of Gezer.

Now the problem is this: despite the great numbers of these handles known, they have all been found, with only two exceptions, within the territoryof the southern kingdom of Judah. The two exceptions are Jericho, where only a single handle was recovered, and Gezer. Unfortunately Macalister never tabulates his stamped handles, but from his occasional references throughout his preliminaryreportsand his statementat the end of the dig that the amount of handles he found was "a small basket-full,"21we may judge there were between fifteen and twenty. This does not compare with the more than 300 found at Lachish, but it does compare with the nineteen found at Bethshemesh, a town well within the borders of Judah. Now from the biblical and archaeologicalevidence we know that Gezer was part of the kingdom of [srael and later part of the Assyrian Empire. What then are these handles L1. Macalister, Bible Side-Lights from the Mound of Gezer (1907),

p. 160.

46


(Vol. XXX,

doing at Gezer? There is at least a partial explanation. We know that in the latter part of the 7th century which saw the collapse of Assyrian power, King Josiah of Judah took control of much of what had been the northern kingdom of Israel, including Gezer and its surrounding territory.The stamped handles of the winged sun disc variety are generally dated to the time of Josiah and later, so this might account for their presence at Gezer. But if the presence of the handles at Gezer is explained by Josiah's expansion, why were there no handles found at Bethel which Josiah also took (II Kings 23:15) or at Megiddo (II Kings 23:29, II Chron. 35:22)? Secondly, although the Josianic expansion might explain the presence of the winged sun disc stamps, how does one explain the finding of the flying scarabtype which most scholars date to the middle of the 7th century or earlier, a time during which Gezer was part of the Assyrian Empire as shown by the cuneiform contracts?Could it be that the flying scarab handles also date from the time of Josiah? As a matter of fact, Prof. Frank M. Cross, Jr. has indicated in conversationhis preference for a Josianic date for all the royal stamp handles on the basis of present evidence;22if this should prove to be the case, our problem would be solved except for the absence of royal stamps elsewhere in the north. I hope to return to this puzzle on another occasion. From the Hebrew Union College Excavations, we know that Gezer was destroyed by the Babylonians along with the Judean kingdom at the beginning of the 6th century B.C. and that it was reinhabited during the succeeding Persian period. We find it mentioned again in I and II Maccabees and in Josephus in connection with the Jewish revolt against the religious persecution of the Seleucid kings of Syria in whose realm Palestine now lay. It would not be possible to explain Gezer's role in detail (or Gazara as it was now called) without laying out at length the complicated story of the marchings and countermarchingsof the Syrians and the Maccabean rebels for many years after the revolt broke out in 167 B.C., but a few events may be mentioned. The city was in Syrian hands during the early part of the war and at one point when the Jewish revolt was in sore straits after Judas Maccabeus had been killed in battle in 160 B.C., the Seleucid general Bacchides fortified and garrisonedGazara along with a number of other cities in Judea in an attempt to pacify the land (I Macc. 9:52). In 142 B.C. Simon, brother of Judas and now the leader of the rebels, besieged Gazara and took it, expelling from it the population who had been friendly to the Syrians. He then strengthened its fortifications and built himself a residence there (I Macc. 13:43-48). If a Greek graffitofound by Macalister has been properly deciphered, it contains the candid opinion of one of those citizens of Gezer 22. My thanks to Prof. Cross for permission to be quoted on this point.

1967, 2)


47

who was not at all happy about the Maccabean victory. It seems to say something like "To blazes with Simon's palace!" and is signed by one Pampras, who no doubt then found it wise to get out of town!23 The next year after the hated Syrian garrisonin Jerusalem, which had managed to survive all efforts to remove it, was finally expelled, Simon made his son, John Hyrcanus, commanderof the army with headquartersat Gazara (I Macc. 13:53). It thus must have been one of the chief cities of the realm at that time. Although tombs excavated by Macalister show that habitation in the vicinity continued after the tell itself was deserted, the latest occupation on the mound correspondsto the probable date of the famous Gezer boundary inscriptions, i.e. ca. 100 A.D. These inscriptions accentuate Gezer's uniqueness among the tells of Palestine; nothing like them has been found elsewhere. So far seven are known; six were published by Macalister and a seventh was discovered in 1964 by the members of Kibbutz Nahshon. They are found in an arc to the east and south of the mound and, given their position, indicate that there are probably still others to be located. One of the seven is unique and has never been deciphered; the other six were evidently originally all intended to be alike. In one line in Greek letters (Fig. 7) is Alkiou, the possessive form of the name Alkios, meaning "belonging to Alkios." The other line of Hebrew letters is usually carvedso that it appearsupside down when reading the Greek; this second line read thm gzr, i.e. "the boundary of Gezer." These inscriptions have never been satisfactorily explained. Some see them as marking the limit of a Sabbath day's walk from the gate of the city; others have suggested that Alkios was an official who had the border marked. Wright has recently proposed the attractive theory that by the time these inscriptionswere carved, the area of Gezer had become a large private estate, owned by someone called Alkios and farmed by a village of workerswho lived on the tell. If for the moment these inscriptions partially retain their secret, the very fact of their existence underlines again the amazing variety and richness of the finds from this mound and hopefully provides a good omen of other discoveries of equal interest to come forth from the new excavations.

Excavations at Gezer WILLIAM G. DEVER

Hebrew

Union College,

Jerusalem,

Israel

Palestinian archaeology was scarcely out of its infancy in 1902, when Robert Alexander Stewart Macalister began excavations on behalf of the Palestine Exploration Fund which were to occupy him at the great site of 23. Macalister, Gezer I, 211ff. Also, R. WV. Hamilton, article "Gezer" in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962).


48

(Vol. XXX,

Gezer nearly continuously for some seven years. Four years earlier, after training as a surveyor and draftsman, and doing some field work in Ireland and England, Macalister had come out at the age of twenty-eight to take up an appointment as the Assistant Field Secretary of the Fund. He worked at first with the American archaeologist F. J. Bliss, Petrie's successor at Tell el-Hesi, at four tells in the Shephelah, Tell es-Safi, (either Gath or Libnah), Tell Zakariyeh (Azekah), Tell el-Judeideh (Moresheth-Gath), and Tell Sandahannah (Mareshah, Marissa), the result being a joint publication, Excavations in Palestine, 1898-1900 (London, 1902).

oT~

d'

,,~

.

r

',

.; ".,

?

-

• ,,

,.?

: ; t

i"~

'.

• ,

f.-

Fig. 7. The new boundary inscription discovered southeast of the tell by members of Kibbutz Nahshon. The bottom line reads Alkion in Greek, the top (upside down) tIhm gzr 'boundary of Gezer'.

The excavations at Gezer were the largest yet undertaken by the Fund or anyone else in Palestine, not surpassed in size or importance until the Germans began at Jericho and the Americans at Samaria in 1908. Advance notices in the Quarterly of the Fund and public subscriptions had raised both high hopes and ample funds when the firman (or excavation permit) finally came through from the Turkish authorities and work began on June 14, 1902. Working single-handedly, except for an Egyptian foreman, and employing upwards of 200 men, women and boys from the village of AbuShusheh on the slopes of the tell, Macalister commenced at the eastern end of the tell with a series of trenches each feet wide and running the fort5y entire width of the tell (see Fig. 8). He dug each trench down to bedrock, as deep as forty-two feet in some areas; then, proceeding to the next, he dumped his debris in the trench he had just completed, intending, as he put

1967, 2)


49

it, "to turn over the whole mound." The work in the field continued yearround, except for a few days lost during the winter rains, or as a result of interruptions such as the outbreak of cholera in 1903, until 1905, when the initial permit expired. A renewal allowed the work to begin again in the spring of 1907 and continue through 1909. Then, his permit, his budget, and apparently his endurance exhausted, and the excavation of nearly twothirds of the twenty-seven acre mound completed, Macalister accepted an appointment as Professor of Celtic Archaeology in University College, Dublin, and retired from Palestinian archaeology.Although he lived until 1951, he never returned to the field except for a brief excavation on the hill of Ophel in Jerusalem in 1923. The voluminous reports on Gezer which he had sent home to the Quarterly of the Fund, which appearedin nearly every issue between 1902 and 1909, he distilled into three large volumes, sumptuously illustrated from the more than 10,000 photographs and drawings he had made himself at the site, and published just three years after the conclusion of the field work as The Excavationof Gezer.1 Macalister'sfinds had been rich indeed. The excavationsproducedmonumental architecture, including four city wall systems (see Fig. 8 for the following). These were the "Middle Wall", probably Early Bronze (third millennium B.C.); the "Inner Wall", with its three-entrywaygate, probably Middle Bronze IIA (ca. 1900-1750 B.C.); the "Outer Wall" belonging mainly to the Late Bronze period (ca. 1550-1200 B.C.), but probably reused in the Israelite and even as late as the Maccabean period; and a casemate wall and typical four-entryway gate of the Solomonic period, not discerned as such and published by Macalister as part of his "Maccabean Castle." Other architectural finds were a water tunnel similar to the one at Megiddo, 219 feet long, cut through solid rock to an undergroundspring;the famous "Gezer High Place" (Heb. bamah), a mortuaryshrine with ten large standing stelae (mas.seb6t); and numerous domestic installations. Epigraphic material was conspicuous, considering that few sites in Palestine have produced many inscriptions; from Gezer came the "Gezer Potsherd" in Proto-Sinaitic script from the early 2nd millennium B.C. (although it was found after the excavation by a visitor to the site); cuneiform tablets from the Amarna Age (14th cent. B.C.) and the Neo-Assyrian period; the "Gezer Calendar", from the late 10th century B.C., the earliest known Hebrew inscription (Fig. 1); "royal stamped jar handles" of the 7/6th centuries B.C. (Fig. 6); and six boundary inscriptions in the vicinity of the tell from the Roman period, bearing the name "Gezer" (Fig. 7). Among the small finds were the type-vessels of the 1. Published in London by John Murray for the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1912, in three volumes; hereafter referred to as Gezer.

50


(Vol. XXX,

Chalcolithic "Cream Ware" of the late 4th millennium B.C.; important deposits of the beginning of the Early Bronze age, ca. 3000 B.C.; Egyptian imports from the 12th to the 18th Dynasties (ca. 1900 to 1300 B.C.); beautiful painted Philistine pottery; silver vessels of the Persian period; and a mass of other material from the mound, as well as from nearly 300 tombs cleared in the vicinity. (Maklrbr) TVr:h

r 21 21120' 1 1Itolr? IaIM U o L30I 2P120 • IA 125121232

~4

U

'II'

(CAD),

Excavalion

"Inner

~I

it

"Middle-all"

Place" "High re (r1934) ReservoirIne eetr Arb Arl Cc~tcy 7 (Unexcavated) ~I II Castle-(Unexcavated) tl

Rowe

S ri

i

Innlner Wall"

ft

If

2I tI" 10 ,o1 9 10 7, i 6i15 I

---Maccabean

I Field I'wVrr II"S.W.Ga

\GI

Water Tunnel

L

r

Fed1

....CW*+ '(~)I?#

Wall"

Z GEZER

.......+'ItJ

•'"Outer

Fig. 8. Plan of Gezer, showing excavations of Macalister, Rowe, and Hebrew Union College. An Assessment

of the Work of Macalister

When the three massive volumes of The Excavation of Gezer appeared in 1912, they were rightly hailed by reviewersas "a monument of beelike industry." Unfortunately, due to the way in which it was excavated, the material proved largely useless in reconstructing the history of the site. In explaining the presentation of the material in the Preface, Macalister had acknowledged his original intention "to follow the natural division of the remains into epochs and culture levels, and to give a bird's eve view of the city's life, so far as excavations could reveal it, at each successive stage of the city's history." But he continued, "The complexity of the stratificationof the mound itself made it difficult to carry through the work of description in the form proposed." Concealed in these apparently casual statements lies a confession of frustration and ultimately of defeat which the orderly presentation of the material in the remainder of the volumes belies. What happened is clear. In the troubled days of the Ottoman Empire, Macalister was convinced that Palestine was rapidly being plundered of its antiquities. Thus he was almost obsessed by the determination to excavate the entire mound before the expiration of his permit. Working resolutely alone, trying vainly to handle all the field direction, surveying, draft-

1967, 2)


51

ing, photography, recording, and the rest, despite almost superhuman efforts Macalister was very nearly buried under the accumulation of his own excavated material. A clue to his plight may be seen in the plans, which are drawn with his customary skill and flair; but a quick check at any point will reveal the absence of so much as a single elevation, errors of ten meters or more when elements repeated on different plans are superimposed, and even failure to note compass bearings accurately.2 What is worse, each plan, although conveying an impression of a complete city plan of the period, is in reality a composite of several different levels, and consequently makes neither architectural nor historical sense. Another clue is the decision to publish the material ("artificially", it was admitted) by categories-all the burials together, all the domestic architecture together, all the defense works, all the cultic objects, etc.rather than following a chronological or stratigraphical sequence. Thus there is a chapter on "The Gezerite House", which, despite its being based on the excavation of successive levels of nearly an entire city, for want of chronological information tells us next to nothing about domestic architecture in any one period. Not being able to coordinate his strata when he moved from one completed and filled-in trench to the next, Macalister discerned as few as two strata in some areas and no more than eight anywhere on the mound. (Our small soundings have already revealed some fifteen strata, and we have penetrated only as far as levels of the early 2nd millennium B.C., with some thirteen feet of 3rd millennium deposits below yet untouched!) Accordingly, he was not able to untangle the complex stratigraphic relationships between architectural elements3 or specify the find-spots of pottery and small objects. As he rationalized it, "The exact spot in the mound where any ordinary object chanced to lie is not generally of great importance." Consequently, the pottery, for instance, is published simply according to seven general periods, some covering as much as 800 years-"Pre-Semitic," "First" through "Fourth Semitic" periods, "Hellenistic," and "Roman/Byzantine." The tragedy of the Gezer excavations is simply that a mass of rich material was unwittingly torn out of historical context and published in such a way as to make it largely useless for historical reconstruction. Yet if Macalister had observed and recorded the find-spots of objects, especially 2. Note that the plan in Fig. 8, although a composite of several of Macalister's plans and corrected as far as possible by recent surveys, is still not accurate in all details. The line of the "Outer Wall" and some of its towers, in particular, is conjectural in places, since Macalister simply followed the wall by trenching along it at various points and did not excavate it fully. 3. Macalister was remarkably well aware of some of the problems and principles of stratigraphic excavation, as his discussion in Gezer I, 158-67 shows; but he neglected to follow his insights, undoubtedly because he did not provide adequate staff for close supervision of the field work.

52


(Vol. XXX,

pottery, had published a more representativeselection, and had related the finds to the plans-whether or not he understood the significance of the material at the time-we could have used our more precise knowledge of the date of certain key items to redate most of the architecturein the various levels and thus could have salvaged much of the material dug by him. As it is, it is irrevocablylost. The 1934 Excavations

As better-staffed excavations during the 1920's and 1930's began to publish and comparisons were made with Macalister's work at Gezer, it became apparent that new excavations at the site were desirable. Accordingly, Alan Rowe undertook a six-week campaign in the summer of 1934, again on behalf of the Palestine Exploration Fund, in order to determine whether another large-scale excavation would be feasible. Since Macalister had considered the modern Arab cemetery on the western summit of the tell, which he had not been able to touch, the ancient acropolis of the city and the most promising area of all, Rowe opened an area just beyond it to the west. Surprisingly, bedrock was reached in a very short time, so that the only significant exposure, aside from an Early Bronze burial cave and various cuttings in the rocky shelf itself, was a massive tower belonging probably to the Middle Bronze period (see Fig. 8). The choice of areas was unfortunate, and plans for continued excavations were abandoned. At the conclusion of his report in the Quarterly, Rowe expressed the same hope as Macalister had, that some day the acropolis itself should be investigated.4 The Hebrew

Union College Excavations,

1964-1966

Ever since 1937, when he had been assigned Gezer as a dissertation topic by W. F. Albright and had worked through the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze material, G. Ernest Wright had been interested in the site. Since he found it necessary to work out the ceramic chronology for the whole country during the late 4th and 3rd millennia B.C. before he could handle the Gezer materials properly, Dr. Wright had to delay the detailed reworking of Gezer, publishing his initial studies in a single article on "The Troglodytes of Gezer."5 Not until he was the visiting Archaeological Director of the Hebrew Union College Biblical and Archaeological School in Jerusalem, Israel, in 1964-65, did he have an opportunity to pursue his fascination with Gezer. As Dr. Nelson Glueck, the founder and president of the new school, was looking for a suitable field project, Dr. Wright proposed a small sounding at Gezer, and Dr. Glueck readily agreed. Assisted by two of his Harvard doctoral students who were doing their dissertations 4. A. Rowe, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, LXVII (1935), 5. Palestine Exploration Quarterly, LXIX (1937), 67-78.

19-33.

1967, 2)


53

li I 9140

it~s~ii-04

~l~l~8~ ~kp'~41

k

:

61

Ar?

... ...

'06#A

Fig. 9. Wall 5017 (Macalister's "Inner Wall"), in Field I, Areas 5-7, from about 1850-1700 B.C. Note the glacis in the balk at left (from later phase). The graduated stick in foreground is metric; one mark equals 10 centimeters, or about four inches. Photo by P. Machinist.

that year (the writer, and H. Darrell Lance, to whom Dr. Wright had "willed" the restudy of Gezer as a thesis project), and using students, fac-

54


(Vol. XXX,

ulty and friends of Hebrew Union College as volunteer laborers, Dr. Wright directed three campaigns at Gezer in November/December, 1964, then in March/April, and again in July, 1965. Out of this modest effort grew the present long-range excavations, with Drs. Wright and Glueck comprising the Advisory Committee, the present writer as Director, and Professor Lance (now of Colgate Rochester Divinity School) as Associate Director. The Hebrew Union College is the major sponsoring institution, with small financial support drawn from the Harvard Semitic Museum. During the winter of 1965-66 a "core staff" of young archaeologists and other specialists was recruited, most of them having put in several seasons' apprenticeship with the Drew-McCormick-ASOR excavations at Shechem in Jordan. Present members include, in addition to the above: Dan Cole, of Lake Forest College; Anita Furshpan, of the University of Connecticut; John S. Holladay, Jr., of Princeton University; Joe D. Seger, of Hartford Seminary Foundation; with Robert Wright as Photographer; Robert Greenberg, architect, of the New York firm of Marcel Breuer; and Norma Dever as Registrar. The second campaign took place from July 4 to July 29, 1966, directed by the writer, who had meanwhile been appointed as a long-term resident faculty member of the Jerusalem school. The core staff was joined by a group of some seventy volunteer workers, mostly clergymen, professors and students, representing forty-six colleges and universities in America, Europe and Israel. The entire staff lived in the newly completed excavation camp, on the western spur of the tell on the site of the old Bergheim estate of Macalister's day. Many of the students participated in a unique educational venture, attending lectures in the afternoons and evenings on field methodology, the archaeological history of Palestine, and the excavations past and present at Gezer. Those who completed a paper after the conclusion of the season received two hours of graduate credit through Hebrew Union College. This programwas so successful that it will be continued in future years. The third season, with a total staff of over 100, will run from June 26 through August 4, 1967. It is expected that work at the site will continue for at least four seasons beyond that, and perhaps much longer. Results

of the Recent Excavations

We may give a very brief summary of the results of the most recent excavations by focusing attention on several periods which have been particularly well illuminated thereby. The first, representing the lowest level we have yet reached, is Middle Bronze IIA, ca. 1900-1750 B.C. To this period, in all likelihood, belongs the massive Wall 5017 encountered in


1967, 2)

55

Areas 5-7 of Field I. A portion of this wall just west of the gate had been cleared and planned by Macalister, but the small scale of his plans had tended to obscure its width. As we could still see the corner of this wall or tower protruding from Macalister's last trench, we laid out Field I in the fall of 1964 so as to come down directly on top of it and thus get debris sections against it and date it (see Field I in Fig. 8, Areas numbered 1-10 from north to south). By the July, 1965, season the top of the wall had been reached, and subsequent work in July, 1966, carried us down the outer face. This structure, probably the stone foundation for one of the two mudbrick towers flanking the southwest gate, is the largest stone structure ever found in Palestine-just over fifty-one feet in width, and at least thirteen feet high (as we have not yet reached the foundations, it may prove to be considerably higher). Some of the cyclopean stones are nearly five feet across. It is surprisingly well-built, the large stones carefully fitted and chocked with smaller stones, and the outer face roughly hammer-dressed (see Fig. 9).

I'v Awl,+

, 1?4 ok?;C~?:?:

.r

f ..,

t

i?"

,

co?3~ it' r N6,r ??1?-? I~~CMIA' ~Y~?Pi~~.'3~cr~-~3~;'?=':;i~~ :??~y~ri ,;3]~r"WTI~ i ?.'??~i~-l ilkrN~ff

Fig. 10. The outer face of Wall 5017, with MB IIC glacis in balk at left. Note how the mudbrick superstructure on the wall, and the top of the glacis, have been cut off by erosion and by Roman robbing operations. Photo by P. Machinist.

It is clear from deposits of pottery from the top of the wall belonging to MB late IIA (or early MB IIB at latest), that the first phase of the wall's

56


(Vol. XXX,

use was over by about 1750-1700 B.C. When was this massive wall built? We have not yet reached occupation levels correspondingto the first phase inside the wall, which appear to lie several yards below its top, nor have we reached the foundation levels of the wall itself anywhere, in order to get sealed pottery which will provide a date for its construction. However, Macalister published a single four-spoutedlamp, a unique and indisputable Middle Bronze I type which cannot fall later than about 1850 B.C. at latest; by chance this lamp came from a burial cave in the northern end of Trench 28, overlaid immediately by the "Inner Wall". Thus, if we can trust Macalister's contention that the "Inner Wall" on the north is continuous with that on the south side of the tell, we have proof that Wall 5017 was founded after ca. 1850 B.C., and the first phase must therefore date 1850-1750/1700 B.C. An explanation for such massive fortifications may be found in the hypothesis that Gezer during Middle Bronze IIA was a great city state like Megiddo, Shechem and other sites, under the aegis of the renascent 12th Dynasty in Egypt, which reassertedits political ambitions in Palestine following the end of the "second Intermediate"period, ca. 1991 B.C., bringing to an end the preceding era of semi-nomadicincursions ("Middle Bronze I"), and resulting in a revival of urbanization. Indeed, one of the few 12th Dynasty objects found on Palestinian soil to date is a statuette of one "Heqab", an Egyptian official, found by Macalister in a pit in the south end of Trench 29. Why was a wall representing such formidable efforts abandoned so soon after its erection? A hypothesis advanced by one member of our staff (Dr. Cole), on the basis of a comparativestudy of the Middle Bronze IIB pottery of Shechem and other sites, is that many coastal and Shephelah cities like Gezer were destroyed and subsequently deserted about 1750-1700 B.C., probablyin connection with the earliest movements of the so-called "Hyksos" (now better simply "Amorites").6 At any rate, when Wall 5017 was reused it was altered radically,perhapsby the newcomers. Middle Bronze II B/C, ca. 1650-1550 B.C.

One of the most important discoveries of the 1966 season was a glacis, or plastered slope, built against the outer face of Wall 5017 and apparently connecting originally with a mudbrick superstructureadded to the wall at the same time as the glacis. The mudbrick is entirely eroded in the portion exposed in Field I, but may be seen in photographs of Macalister's "Inner Wall", especially the new prints we have had made from the original glass plates. The glacis is constructed of alternate layers of damp brown clay and soft chalk chips, laid down in an almost geometric pattern (Fig. 10), then 6. With J. van Seters, The Hyksos: A New Investigation (1966).


1967, 2)

57

finished off with a hard-packedwhite plaster surface. The result is a steep plastered slope some twenty-five feet in height at an angle of 450. Also during the 1966 season Wall 9011 was unearthed in Area 9, twenty feet farther down the slope (Macalister's "Outer Wall"; see Fig. 8). This was much less impressivethan Wall 5017, only eleven and one-half feet in width. *44-

*

,

!

-

# /

'A-'.

gb -:

. -'".L

.

-

.'

...

,

-t.

n."

14-j

.'

,J~

.•"r ?"-

..

• .,

.", :• . j , .-

i'

-?--r

Fig. 11. Burned roof-beam on the flagstone floor of Stratum 7 (15th cent. B.C.), in Field I, Area 2.

Whether it was erected as an outer retaining wall contemporarywith the glacis (the typical "battered wall" of Middle Bronze II) or belongs instead to the Late Bronze I period, is not yet clear. Such fortifications have been best interpreted by Yigael Yadin as a defense against the battering ram, introduced in Syria/Palestine about this time.7 Nearly identical glacis from MB IIB-C have been found at Dan, Hazor, Megiddo, Shechem, Jericho, Tell Beit Mirsim, Lachish, Tell Fara' (south), Tell el-'Ajjcil,and other sites in Palestine. Macalister had spoken of a pile of "limestone chippings and other rubbish" thrown in between the "Inner" and "Outer Walls" nearly all around the tell, and had even shown in section and plans (though without comment) a curious truncated-cone structure against the face of the "Outer Wall".8 These clues, together with our recent excavations, show without doubt that Gezer was among the most strongly fortified sites in Palestine during the 17th century B.C. If we are correct in our estimate of the gap in occupation during MB IIB and have dated the sealed sherds from the plastered glacis correctly to MB IIC (rather than MB IIB), these fortifications are also among the latest of those known to belong to Middle Bronze II. 7. Y. Yadin, BASOR, No. 137 (Feb., 1955), pp. 23-32. 8. See Fig. 8; Gezer I, Fig. 125, p. 242; Fig. 131, p. 254.

58


(Vol. XXX,

Late Bronze I, ca. 1550-1400 B.C.

In Field I, Stratum 7, belonging to the 15th century B.C., is of interest chiefly for its evidence of a massive destruction. In Area 3 more than three feet of destruction debris-a jumble of fallen stones, burned mudbrick, and ashes-overlay the smashed pottery on the floors. In a roofed courtyard in Area 2 the remains of a shallow silo dug into the packed-earthfloor could be perfectly traced by the ring of white ash where the straw clinging to the sides of the silo was carbonized when smouldering mudbrick fell into it. On a flagstone pavement nearby, a section of the roof, made of parallel wooden poles split in two and covered with twigs, mud and straw, had collapsed in flames and fallen upside down, with fragments of the beams charred but astonishingly well preserved (see Fig. 11). From this debris, subsequently levelled up with fill for Stratum 6 in Area 3, had already come the prize find of the 1965 season, a tiny but exquisitely done portion of the envelope of a clay cuneiform tablet. Though broken most tantalizingly, it reads in part on the inside, "To the King . . ."; on the outside is a list of names.9

To whom is the violent destruction of Stratum 7 to be attributed?Egyptian recordsindicate that either Thutmosis III in 1468 B.C. or Thutmosis IV at the end of that century may be the culprit (see p. 36). A final determination will probably have to await the recovery of more material from this level elsewhere on the mound. The Philistine

Period,

ca. 1200-1000 B.C.

Strata 6 and 5 belong to the 14th and 13th centuries B.C., respectively, or Late Bronze II. Although they are of interest, they may be passed over here except to note an especially fine terra cotta "Astarte"plaque, from a pit in a Stratum 6 context. It is in the familiar Egyptianizing style, showing the nude goddess with ringlets of hair like the Egyptian goddess "Hathor", and grasping two lotus stalks in her hand (see Fig. 12). Stratum 5 belongs to the 13th century since the imported Mycenean and Cypriote pottery typical of that period is represented in it. Whether it was destroyed at the end of this century by Pharaoh Merneptah (see p. 37) or continued on into the first part of the 12th century cannot be decided until further excavation gives us additional evidence. At any rate, it is Stratum 4 of the 12th and Stratum 3 of the 11th century B.C. that provide indisputable evidence for the Philistine occupation of Gezer. The characteristicpainted Philistine pottery appears in abundance. Although we have little domestic architecture as yet, there was found in Area 1 of Field I during the 1965 season, a well-preservedwine-vat of unique 9. To be published by A. Shaffer of the Hebrew University in our forthcoming Preliminary Re-

port of the First Two Seasons of the Excavations

at Gezer.

1967, 2)


59

type. The base was made from a single large stone; three small channels cut across the surface, with a deep sump at one end to collect the juice (see Fig. 13). The side walls were built up about thirty inches with small stones, then plastered inside and out. The vat was constructed in Stratum 4 and was originally free-standing;it was partially destroyed,a small painted juglet being buried in the destruction debris on the surrounding floor, but rebuilt in Stratum 3 (although now sunken below floor levels).

I?r..~-?

.. L4

\4-

a

P

r

Fig. 12. A 14th century terra cotta "Astarte" plaque showing Egyptian style goddess with ringlets of hair and lotus stalks in hands.

The Post-Philistine

Period,

ca. 10th Century B.C.

There is a complete gap thus far in Field I between the end of the

11th centuryB.C. and the 2nd centuryB.C. For this reasonField II, farther east on the southernslopes (see Fig. 8) was openedduringJuly, 1965, by Directorof Hebrew JamesF. Ross,just beginninghis termas Archaeological Union College for 1965-66. Here the missing strata have been encountered,

as hoped,and maNybe coordinatedvery tentatively(since we are just beginning to excavatethe connectinglevels) with those of Field I as follows:


60

(Vol. XXX,

Date 1st. 1 1 century A.D. 175125 B.C. 2 2 3 5/4th centuries B.C. 4 7/6th centuries B.C. 8th century B.C. 5 late 10th century B.C. 6 7 mid-10th century B.C. 8 early 10th century B.C. 11th century B.C. 9 (?) 3 12th 10 4 century B.C. (?) Strata 8 and 7 in Field II, reached thus far only in Area 1 (and perhaps ultimately to be combined as separate phases of a single stratum) are of particular interest. Both are marked by a complete absence of the painted geometric designs of Philistine wares of Strata 4 and 3 of Field I; the characteristic pottery, instead, now has a thin red slip (possibly a degenerate paint), never, so far as we can tell at present, burnished. Typologically, therefore, it falls precisely between the 11th century painted pottery and the heavy red slipped wares, usually burnished, which are introduced in the late 10th century Stratum 6 of Field II (see below). Overlying the scorched earthen floors of Stratum 7 was a dramatic destruction level-black ash, chunks of charred timbers, calcined plaster, tumbled stones, and mudbrick debris-reaching a depth of twxentyinches (see Fig. 14). Since the pottery from these levels (described above) is mid10th century B.C. in date, it is highly likely that in this debris we have vivid evidence of the destruction of the Egyptian Pharaoh, probably Siamun (ca. 960-930 B.C.), who according to I Kings 9:15-16 "went up and captured Gezer and burnt it with fire" before presenting the city to Solomon as his daughter's dowry when he gave her in marriageto the Israelite king. Field II

Field I

The Solomonic

Period,

Late 10th Century B.C.

The text from I Kings just cited speaks of Solomon's using forced labor to build (in the case of Gezer, "to rebuild") "the walls of Jerusalem and Hazor and Megiddo and Gezer." Although the "Gezer calendar" found by Macalister dated from the time of Solomon, he published little else that could be attributed to the period, leading nearly all scholars to assume that Gezer was abandoned during most of the Iron age (10th to 5th centuries B.C.). However, after excavating a four-entrywaySolomonic gate and casemate wall at Hazor, Yadin re-examinedMacalister'splans of his "Maccabean Castle" (see Fig. 8) and suggested with brilliant intuition that elements of this plan were in reality parts of the Solomonic gate and casemate wall at

1967, 2)


61

Gezer (see p. 39 and Fig. 4). One of our chief reasons for laying out Field II as we did in the summer of 1965 was that we could trace on the surface west of the area of the "Maccabean Castle" what looked as though it might be a city wall. When we began excavating in Area 1 (the areas in Field II are numbered from the north 3, 2, 1, 4; see Fig. 8), in short order a wellbuilt wall between five and six feet in width and preserved to a height of just under five feet appeared (see Fig. 16). This seems to be a continuation of the line of the inner wall shown farther east on Macalister'splans, the outer wall being eroded down the slope. North of the wall a continuous build-up of earthen floors, as well as a large stone storage bin against the face of the wall and another smaller bin nearby, indicate that this area just inside the city walls was a courtyard.The sealed pottery from the floors and the make-up below was characteristic red-burnishedware of the late 10th century B.C. So Yadin's hunch was correct-Solomon did indeed rebuild Gezer! What is more, our excavations have demonstratedthat this rebuilding followed very closely upon the destruction of the Egyptian Pharaoh, for the casemate wall, our Wall 1001, was founded immediately upon the mid10th century B.C. destruction debris we have described above (see the section through the wall, its surfaces, and the underlying debris in Fig. 13). Moreover, we have shown in both Areas 1 and 2 of Field II that this wall certainly continued to be reused in the 8th century B.C. (Stratum 5) and in fact down to the destruction of Nebuchadnezzar in 587 B.C., for which there is vivid evidence (Stratum 4; see Fig. 14 for both strata). Only the 9th century B.C., when Gezer may have been deserted following the destruction of Pharaoh Shishak, 918 B.C., is thus far unilluminated by the archaeologicalevidence, so we expect to be able soon to explain the enigmatic "gap" in the Israelite occupation of Gezer. The Maccabean

Period,

ca. 175-125 B.C.

Skipping over the Persian period (5th/4th centuries B.C.), for which we are just beginning to get the most tantalizing bits of evidence, we come to the Hellenistic era, when Gezer figures prominently in the Maccabean wars of independence. In Areas 2 and 3 of Field II, as well as in Areas 1 and 2 of Field I, we have found a substantial 2nd century B.C. stratum. House walls are constructed of finer masonry than that of the Iron age; courtyards are equipped with large mortars and tannuirs or ovens; terrace walls are exceptionally well laid out. Since these levels are just below the modern surface of the tell, extended excavations could easily lay bare a sizeable portion of the Hellenistic city. Our date for Stratum 2 is provided by a good quantity of characteristic late Hellenistic pottery, including some of the fine red-glazed wares. Close

62


(Vol. XXX,

with some 180 vesselsfroma cisternat Tell Mlor,nearAshdod'o comparisons and dated by Rhodianstampedjar handlesand importedwaresto ca. 175150 B.C., help to fix the date. Since Roman wares like terra sigilatta waresdo not appearuntil later,in Stratum1, we have a convenientend for this stratumtowardthe close of the 2nd centuryB.C. Save for a thin occupationduringRomantimes,down to the firstcentury A.D., when the Gezerboundaryinscriptionsmay indicatethat the site was a large estate (see Fig. 7 and p. 47), Gezer was subsequentlyuninhabited.Only duringthe summers,when the HebrewUnion Collegeexcavation camp on the westernspur of the tell is bustlingwith activity,does this dead city come to life again!

Gezer in the Tell el-Amarna Letters1 JAMES F. Ross The Theological

School, Drew University

The vast majority of the Tell el-Amarna tablets were discovered in Egypt in 1887, and were given their definitive edition in 1915. Subsequently several other tablets appeared, and the total now reaches 378 pieces, of which 356 are letters, either between the Egyptian Pharaohs and other rulers of the ancient Near East (forty-three items), or the Egyptian court and its vassals in Syro-Palestine.2Almost all of the letters come from the latter years of Amenophis III, who reigned from ca. 1402-1364 B.C., and from the time of his son, Amenophis IV (ca. 1364-47 B.C.), better known as Akhenaten. It was a period of international unrest; the Hittites were threatening the northern borders of the Egyptian empire, and various landless groups were seeking to find a place in the Fertile Crescent. Furthermorethe city-states in Syria and Palestine were in constant tension with each other and with the ruling power in Egypt; a great many of the letters contain complaints from a given ruler about the actions of his neighbors, as well as appeals for Egyptian aid. Among the Canaanite city-statesplaying a prominent role in the letters is Gezer. It owed its importance largely to its geographic position. Gezer is 10. Excavated by M. Dothan of the Department of Antiquities in Israel courtesy of H. C. Kee, who is preparing the collection for publication.

and mentioned

here by

1. This is an abridgement of an article in Bulletin No. 8 of the Museum Haaretz, Tel Aviv (June, and is published here with the kind permission of the Museum's director, Dr. C. Elperin. 1966), The original contains several references to works in modern Hebrew, H. Reviv, particularly 1-7. Tarbiz, XXIII (1963/1964), 2. For an excellent introduction to the letters, see E. F. Campbell, Jr., BA, XXIII (1960), 2-22, which contains references to major publications and discussions of the texts. Recently MI. F. Ala chapter entitled "The Amarna Letters from Palestine" bright has contributed to the revised edition of the Cambridge Ancient History (Fasc. 51, 1966; hereafter CAH). In what follows, the letters are numbered in accord with Campbell's number 378 is assigned system (BA, XXIII,4); to the Gezer letter published by A. R. Millard in the Palestine Exploration Ouarterly XCVII (1965), 140-43, P1. XXV.

1967, 2)


63

situated at the border of the Shephelah and the Philistine plain, and in ancient times controlled both an important route from the coast to the interior (now traversedin large part by the Jerusalem-TelAviv highway) and the "Way of the Sea" (Isa. 9:1), which led from Damascus to Egypt by way of Hazor, Megiddo, Aphek, and Gezer. Thus it was in a position either to support or attack the Egyptian strongholds in Gaza and Joppa. It is no wonder that control of Gezer was a crucial factor in the political situation of the 14th century B.C., and that a Pharaoh of a later age, Merneptah, proudly called himself the "Binder of Gezer."3

PI ~si~t

ATr?

lk

Fig. 13. Philistine wine-vat from 12/11th cents. B.C. (Strata 4/3), dipper juglet on the floor near the vat.

Field I, Area 1. Note the

In the period prior to the writing of the Tell el-Amarna letters, Gezer was firmly under Egyptian control. Apparently the city was faithful to the Pharaohs of the 20th and 19th centuries B.C., for its name does not appear in the Execration Texts of this period, objects on which the Egyptians wrote the names and rulers of enemy cities. However, it is listed among the conquests of Thutmose III (ca. 1490-1436 B.C.), and this may indicate a previous rebellion on the part of the city. And in the reign of one of the next two Pharaohs, either Amenophis II (ca. 1436-1410 B.C.) or Thutmose IV 3. J. H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, III (1906),

258f., no. 606.

64


(Vol. XXX,

(ca. 1410-1402 B.C.), we have a fragmentary letter found at Gezer itself.4 It is apparently from the Pharaoh to the prince of Gezer, and complains that the latter does not come into his presence, nor is the Egyptian commissioner properly received. Finally the author demands that seven oxen be given. We may conclude that Gezer was at odds with Egypt, and it is interesting to note that Thutmose IV was eventually forced to conquer the city; in a brief mortuaryinscription it is said that he settled Kharu (Horites, i.e., Canaanites) captured at Gez[er] in his "Fortification"(probably temple estates) in Thebes.' We have no references to Gezer during the first thirty years of Thutmose IV's successor, Amenophis III, the first Pharaoh of the Tell el-Amarna letters, and therefore we are unable to trace the background of the subsequent events. But from the last phase of his reign Gezer is mentioned in two letters from Lab'ayu, the powerful ruler of the city-state around Shechem. In one he protests his loyalty to the Pharaoh and says that his only "sin" was that he "entered the city of Gezer" (253:18-22). In the other, which bears a date probably to be read "year [3]2" (of Amenophis III, i.e., ca 1370 B.C.),6 Lab'ayu again refers to this "entry", and remarks that he "said publicly: 'Will the king take my property, and the property of Milkilu, where (is it)?' " He goes on to complain, " 'I know the things which Milkilu has done against me.' "' From these words we may conjecture that Lab'ayu of Shechem and Milkilu of Gezer had once collaboratedwith each other, but later there was a parting of the ways. The first point is supported by references to the two kings together in a letter from Ba'lu-UR.SAG, the prince of Gitipadalla: "May the king [let me] see the [destruction] of Milkilu [and La]b'ayu" (249:15-17). Apparently Milkilu was the stronger partner, or at least more of a threat to Ba'lu-UR.SAG; earlier in the same letter there is one certain and one probable reference to the rebellious deeds of Milkilu alone, as well as a note that he has given his servants to (provided troops for) his father-in-law, Tagu, the prince of Ginti-carmel.8The allies thus provided a considerable threat to Egypt, controlling, as they did, the northwest (Tagu in Carmel), the center (Lab'ayu in Shechem), and the southwest (Milkilu in Gezer). Unfortunately we do not know the reasons 4. R. A. S. Macalister, Gezer I, 30f., and frontispiece, Fig. 4. See esp. W. F Albright, BASOR, No. 92 (Dec., 1943), pp. 28-30, and A. Malamat, Scripta Hierosolymitana, VIII (1961), 228-31. 5. J. A. Wilson in J. B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts (hereafter ANET), p. 248. 6. For the difficult question of the reading of this date, see Campbell in G. E. Wright, Shechem (1965), p. 198. 7. Letter 254:19ff. As noted by J. A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, J (1915), p. 813, the concluding words should be attached to Lab'ayu's public complaint rather than to his direct remarks to the Pharaoh. 8. Letter 249:5-10. In 263:33f., Tagu and Lab'ayu are mentioned together, but the context is broken. Later we shall see an alliance among Tagu, Milkilu, and the sons of Lab'ayu. Letter 289:18f. gives us Tagu's homeland; the exact location of Ginti-carmel is unknown, but it is, of course, in the Carmel region. We have three letters from Tagu himself (264-265 and probably 266), in which he tells the Pharaoh that he has tried to keep the caravans moving, and protests his undying loyalty.

1967, 2)


65

for the break-up of the coalition; possibly Milkilu was frightened by the capture of the Shechemite cities, in spite of a non-aggressionpact made in the presence of an Egyptian official, and went over to the Egyptian side.9 1

2z3.oo

St. 2 A9-.'Soft sBi-ky

klal

0L*s01061

Z2

1.0

l W, III Gt-.y

WestSection N--

Fig. 14. Simplified section on the west edge of Field II, Area 1. Refer to the text for explanations.

At any rate, when Amenophis III sent troops and took some property from Milkilu a similar This defection on the part Lab'ayu, escaped punishment. of his former ally naturally enraged Lab'ayu, and he "entered" Gezer in order to proclaim "publicly" his disgust; most probably he intended to raise the citizens against their ruler. However this may be, Milkilu made a trip to Egypt (270:12-13), probably at the order of the Pharaoh; perhaps it was during his absence that Lab'ayu took the opportunity to visit Gezer. After the reconciliation between Milkilu and the Pharaoh, the latter felt confident in ordering him to send concubines, precious goods, and "every good thing"; he even honored him with the title "(free-)man, chief".1o Unfortunately for Milkilu, the highest Egyptian official in Palestine, Yanhamu, was not informed of the rapprochement.After Milkilu's return from Egypt, Yanhamu demanded from him not only 2000 pieces of silver, but also his wife and children (270:9-21; cf. 271:22-27). Still, the tone of Milkilu's own letters is that of an obedient servant. He assures the king 9. The capture of the cities is reported in the third letter from Lab'ayu, 252. The identity of the assailants is unknown, and the significance of the pact is unclear. See Albright, BASOR, No. 89 (Feb., 1943), pp. 29-32. 10. Letter 369; see G. Dossin, Revue d'Assyriologie, XXXI (1934), 125-36. As Dossin out, the king in question must be Amenophis III, since he says, "Behold, the god Amon points has placed the upper land, the lower land, the rising of the sun, and the setting of the sun under the two feet of the king" (lines 28ff.; Albright's translation, ANET, p. 487). His son would, of course, have used the name of his own god, Aten.

66


(Vol. XXX,

that the "place" (Gezer) is safe (267:15-20), and that he is sending tribute (268:16-20). But he had to suffer for this pro-Egyptianpolicy. The Habiru raiders, undoubtedly instigated, if not led, by his former colleague, Lab'ayu, attacked him and his new-found friend, Shuwardata, who was probably the prince of Hebron." Indeed he seems to be afraid that even his own servants will attack him (271:17-21); perhaps Lab'ayu's seditious words had found their mark. In the meantime Lab'ayu had turned to the north. He captured Gitipadalla and Giti-rimuni, and attacked Shunama (biblical Shunem), Burquna, and Harabu (250:12-14, 42-46). All of these are in or near the valley of Jezreel. Obviously Lab'ayu's objective was Megiddo, the chief Egyptian base in the area, and Biridiya, the prince of that city, writes a despairing letter in which he says that the fortressis under siege, and pleads for Egyptian help (letter 244). Certainly Milkilu must have shared Biridiya's anxiety. If Lab'ayu were to secure his position in the north, he would then turn to the south, and probably the first target would be the turncoat ruler of Gezer. It looked as if the whole land would soon have Shechem as its capital. But at this critical juncture there occurred an event which changed the subsequent course of Palestinian history: Lab'ayu was captured by Biridiva. On the Pharaoh's order he was to have been sent from Megiddo to Egypt, but he bribed his escorts and escaped. His freedom was of brief duration; before Biridiya could recapture him, Lab'ayu was killed by men of Qena (letter 245 and 250:17-18). For Biridiya of Megiddo, Lab'ayu's death meant a time of relative peace and security; now he could till his fields, and even work with a corvee in Shunem, far down the valley of Jezreel (letter 365). But for Milkilu of Gezer, the situation was even more promising; now he had a chance to become sole ruler in the land. Trusting that the Egyptians would be slow to divine his intentions, he formed a new coalition of malcontents, many of whom had a previous record of anti-Egyptian activity. His neighbor to the east, Shuwardata of the Hebron area, and his father-in-law, Tagu of Carmel, were probably persuaded with ease (289:1iff.; 290:5ff.). Other allies were the men of Ashkelon, Gath, Keilah, and Lachish (287:14f.; 290:9)apparently the citizens of the latter city murdered their king to go over to the rebels (288:43f.). But the most important converts were the sons of Lab'avu; Ba'lu-UR.SAG reports that the messenger of Milklilu is in constant attendance upon them (250:53ff.), and although there are hopes of resisting the Shechmites, he knows that the real danger is from Gezer: 11. Letter 271. For the Habiru in the Amarna period, see NI. Greenberg, The Hab/piru (1955), esp. pp. 32-50, 70-76, and Albright, CAH, pp. 14ff.

1967, 2)


67

"Behold, Milkilu wants to destroy the land of the king, my lord" (lines 55f.). So also 'Abdu-Heba of Jerusalem recognizes Milkilu's role. He informs the Pharaoh, "Milkilu has written to Tagu and the sons of (Lab'ayu): 'Truly you are of my house. Give all that they desire to the men of Keilah and let us indeed break off (with) Jerusalem!' "12 The coalition had some astounding early successes. Milkilu and his allies, with the help of others called merely Habiru, captured Rubutu, and proceeded to seize Beth-Ninurta, which is usually equated with biblical Bethlehem.13 And across the Jordan, one of the sons of Lab'ayu, a certain Mut-Ba'lu, established himself in Pella, and, in spite of his protestations of innocence in letter 255, interfered with Egyptian caravans to the kingdom of Mitanni.

wo:.: .

.

.

..

4,

Fig. 15. Bronze arrowhead from the 10th cent. B.C. destruction debris (probably left by Pharaoh Siamun), used as makeup for floors of the founding phase of Solomon's casemate wall in Field II, Area 1. The measure shows three centimeters, or one and three-sixteenths inches.

So the coalition controlled the valley of Jezreel, with a bridgehead across the Jordan; the central highlands around Shechem; the Shephelah; and probably most of the Philistine plain. It is no wonder that 'Abdu-Heba cried out, Let the king take care for his land! The land of the king is (as good as) lost; all of it is taken from me. There is hostility against me from the land of Seir to Ginti-carmel. There is peace for all the (other) governors, but hostility against me. I am (like) a Habiru, and I do not see the eyes of the king, my lord, for hostility is determined against me, since (I am) a ship in the midst of the sea. The arm of the mighty king captures the land of Naharaim and the land of Cush, but now the Habiru capture the cities of the king. (288:23-38) 12. Letter 289:25-29, following Campbell, Shechem, pp. 200f.; for a somewhat different rendering, see Albright, CAH, p. 20 and note 6. 13. Rubutu is perhaps biblical Rabbah, near Jerusalem (Josh. 15:60); see Y. Aharoni, Vetus Testamentum, IX (1959), 229f. It is unlikely that this is the Rubutu of the earlier Taanach letters (No. 1:26). For another opinion on the identity of Beth-Ninurta, see J. Lewy, Journal of Biblical Literature, LIX (1940), 519 ff., who reads "the house of the god Shulman" and refers the name to Jerusalem itself.

68


(Vol. XXX,

But again the tide turned, this time in favor of Egypt. Apparently the hastily-made alliance began to break up. We have a letter from Shuwardata, Milkilu's erstwhile ally, in which he says he is fighting against the Habiru in the company of his former enemy, 'Abdu-Heba; indeed, he claims to have had the help of the princes of Acco and Achshaph at one time.14 However, the decisive factor was probably the death of Milkilu himself. To be sure, we have no specific reference to this event, unless a doubtful passage in letter 250 is so to be interpreted. But there are no further references to Milkilu after the Jerusalem letters, and the subsequent rulers of Gezer are clearly faithful servants of Egypt. This change in the political situation is probably also the result of a military campaign by Amenophis IV (Akhenaten) to Palestine.'5 However this may be, it is clear that the successors of Milkilu in Gezer were contemporaries of this Pharaoh, and it is probable that Milkilu disappeared early in his reign. Contrary to assumptionsmade when scholars first studied the Amarna letters, Akhenaten was able to bring about a certain stability in Canaan, in contrast to the turbulent situation in the last days of his father. We have the names of and letters from two of Milkilu's successors. It may be that Yapahu is the earlier in point of time. In letters 297-300, 378 he writes to the king telling of raids by the Sutu (nomads nominally in the service of Egypt), and reporting that his younger brother has gone over to the Habiru. And he claims that he is loyal, "like my father", and is guarding the "place" of the king. It is just possible that this "father" is none other than Milkilu himself; elsewhere we have sons citing dubious examples of their fathers' loyalty.16 As for Yapahu's "younger brother", this may be Ba'lu-shipti, the ruler of Gezer who writes letter 292-295. He tells of enemies from the mountains, and says that he has built a "house" by the name of Manhatu for the archers of the king (292:28-32). This may well be biblical Manahath (I Chron. 8:6 and Josh. 15:59 Septuagint), and is possibly to be located at modern Malhah, on the outskirts of Jerusalem. If so, we have evidence that the power of Gezer still reached far into the interior. In two letters Ba'lu-shipti complains of the actions of a certain Peya, the son of Gulate, against Gezer; he plundered it, and demanded ransom for prisoners which is more than three times as high as that asked by common brigands from the mountains (292:41-52). And this Peya has taken away the men whom Ba'lu-shipti had sent to protect 14. Letter 366. Cp. Albright, ANET, p. 487, note 16, who suggests that this letter may come from the period before Lab'ayu's death. This is unlikely, since 'Abdu-Heba was a contemporary of Lab'ayu's sons, and not of Lab'ayu himself. 15. See Israel Exploration Journal, XVI (1966), 80, for a summary of an article in Hebrew by H. Reviv, Yediot, XXX (1966), 45-51. 16. Mut-Ba'lu has the gall to say, "Behold, [La]b'ayu, my father, [served] the king, his lord, " (255:14-18). [anizI hle] sent on [every cajravan . . .


1967, 2)

69

the Egyptian base at Joppa (294:16-24). It thus appears that Peya was an Egyptian official who was (at least in Ba'lu-shipti's opinion) misusing his office.17Elsewhere this prince of Gezer complains of attacks from his neighbors, the identity of whom is obscure, and appeals for Egyptian help; his city Gamteti is in particular danger (295:12-rev. 7). And, like most authors of Amarna letters, he affirms his loyalty to the king: "A brick may move from beneath its fellows, but I will not move from beneath the feet of the king, my lord" (292:13-17).

,?,

U

.".

AA

...

.,.

.. .

,_-

Fig. 16. The inner line of Solomonic casemate wall in Field II, Area 1 (Stratum 6). The cornering wall in foreground is from reuse in the 8th cent. B.C. (Stratum 5). The circular bin at left was reused as late as the Hellenistic period (Stratum 2).

As for the connection between Yapahu and Ba'lu-shipti, it is certain that they came from the same period, since they both mention a certain Egyptian commissioner, Maya (292:33; 300:26). Thus it is unlikely that they were father and son. If they were brothers, Yapahu would seem to be the elder, since he complains about his rebellious "younger brother". Finally, if we really have two sons of Milkilu, in 292-295, and in 297-300, 378, we may note the letters of a certain princess NIN.UR.MAH of Sab/puma who informs the king that "the whole land of the king is falling away to the Habiru." She goes on to say that Aijalon and Zorah have been attacked, and that "the two sons of Milkilu came within a finger's breadth of being 17. W. F. Albright, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, V (1946),

19.

1967, 2)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST RECENT

71

BOOKS RECEIVED

William F. Albright, Archaeology, Historical Analogy, and Early Biblical Tradition. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1966. Pp. 69 + ix. $2.75. William F. Albright, New Horizons in Biblical Research. Lindon, New York, and Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1966. Pp. 51 + ix. $1.70. Two small volumes packed with Dr. Albright's incisive thought. Each contains three lectures, the first set being the Rockwell Lectures at Rice University and the second the Whidden Lectures for 1961 at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. The Rockwell Lectures begin with a treatise on the way in which the discovery of the historical setting for the Bible has opened up "the historical interpretation of early Hebrew literature." The other two lectures then are on Abraham and Samuel, recalling studies which Dr. Albright has published in BASOR and as the Goldenson Lecture for 1961 at Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. The Whidden Lectures include a general treatment of archaeology and Israelite tradition, a study of "the ancient Israelite mind" which carries forward Dr. Albright's studies of "empirico-logical" thought and involves him in the "Hebrew-thought-compared-with-Greek" controversy, and a survey of Dead Sea Scroll research in relation to the New Testament. Betty Hartman Wolf, Journey through the Holy Land. Garden City: Doubleday, 1967. Pp. 267 + xiv. 5 maps. $4.95. A thoroughly delightful and accurate presentation of travel and tourist information for anyone who would like to get behind the touristic facade of modern Jordan and look closely at both the ancient and the modern life of the Holy Land. Mrs. Wolf is the wife of Dr. C. Umhau Wolf, who has written for the BA about Eusebius. She writes so engagingly that one can do his traveling with her while sitting in his armchair at home. Nine pages at the end of the volume contain some sensible travel tips. Agnes Carr Vaughan, Zenobia of Palmyra. Garden City: Doubleday, 1967. Pp. xiv. 8 photographs. $4.95. "A dramatic chronicle" is what the dust jacket calls this story of the fabulous queen of the desert oasis city of southern Syria, connected by trade and cultural contacts to Bosra and Petra and flourishing in the third century of the Christian era. Miss Vaughan, who is Classics professor emeritus at Smith College, has used her lively imagination together with the growing collection of historical data to reconstruct the life and setting of the gifted woman who opposed the might of Rome and of the Emperor Aurelian. Her reconstruction, although on occasion fanciful, is always gripping. 250

+

Lenore Cohen, Buried Treasure in Bible Lands. Ward Ritchie Press, 1965 (distributed by Lane Book & Magazine Co., Menlo Park, California). Pp. 225 + xii. 38 photographs. $4.95. A popularly written, chronologically arranged presentation of Palestinian history and pre-history, with a glance at Egypt and Mesopotamia. Miss Cohen has written about the Bible for children on other occasions, and she aims here at younger readers, but produces a story effective for anyone who wants a simplified and sympathetic overview of the subject. Her chapter on daily life at Gezer in monarchic times, which is a fictionalized account of the schoolboy who produced the Gezer calendar (see the frontispiece of this issue), is not bad at all! Her description of volunteer work at Tell Arad, on pages 15-18, left me gasping, but it succeeds in depicting how a greenhorn comes to appreciate the care with which one must learn to do archaeological work.

72


(Vol. XXX,

Wendell Phillips, Unknown Oman. New York: David McKay, 1966. Pp. 319 + xiv. 24 photographs and 5 maps. $6.95. Wendell Phillips has Lecome scmething of a legend while still a young man. Those who recall his swashbuckling tale of the expedition into the Arabian Peninsula

called Qataban and Sheba (1955), will rightly anticipate another rollicking book. Oman, along the Arabian Ocean on the east point of the rough triangle which is the Arabian Peninsula, providesPhillips with rich materialfor his pungent pen. Of special interest to BA readers will be the chapter on frankincensefrom Dhofar, with its account of excavation at Khor Rori, Hanun, and Andhur, the only pre-Islamicsites in this southernpart of Oman; Dr. Gus W. Van Beek's article on frankincenseand myrrh in the September, 1960, BA gives the backgroundfor the subject. For the rest, Phillips writes about innumerablefeatures of the life of Oman in a style that reminds one of Richard Halliburton.

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION (Act of October 23, 1962; Section 4369, Title 39, United States Code) 1. Date of Filing: April 12, 1967 2. Title of Publication: The Biblical Archaeologist 3. Frequency of issue: Quarterly - February, May, September, December 4. Location of Known Office of Publication: Room 102, 6 Divinity Ave., Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 5. Location of the Headquarters or General Business Offices of the publishers (not printers): Room 102, 6 Divinity Ave., Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 6. Names and Addresses of Publisher, Editor, and Managing Editor: Publisher: The American Schools of Oriental Research, Room 102, 6 Divinity Ave., Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 Editor: Edward F. Campbell, Jr., 800 WV. Belden Avenue, Chicago, Ill. 60614 Managing Editor: none 7. Owner (If owned by a corporation, its names and address must be stated and also immediately thereunder the names and addresses of stockholders owning or holding 1 percent or more of total amount of stock. If not owned by a corporation, the names and addresses of the individual owners must be given. If owned by a partnership or other unincorporated firm, its name and address, as well as that of each individual must be given.) American Schools of Oriental Research, Room 102, 6 Divinity Ave., Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 8. Known Bondholders, Mortgagees and other security holders owning or holding 1 percent or more of total amount of bonds, mortgages or other securities (If there are none so state): None. 9. Paragraphs 7 and 8 include, in cases where the stockholder or security holder appears upon the books of the company as trustee or in any other fiduciary relation, the name of the person or corporation for whom such trustee is acting; also the statements in the two paragraphs show the affiant's full knowledge and belief as to the circumstances and conditions under which stockholders and security holders who do not appear upon the books of the company as trustees, hold stocks and securities in a capacity other than that of a bona fida owner. Names and addresses of individuals who are stockholders of a corporation which itself is a stockholder or holder of bonds, mortgages or other securities of the publishing corporation have been included in paragraphs 7 and 8 when the interests of such individuals are equivalent to 1 percent or more of the total amount of the stock or securities of the publishing corporation. 10. A. Total no. copies printed: 6000 B. Paid circulation: 1) sales through dealers, vendors: none 2) mail subscriptions: 5300 C. Total paid circulation: 5300 D. Free distribution: 130 E. Total distribution: 5430 F. Office use, left-over, unaccounted, spoiled after printing: 570 G. Total: 6000

70

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

(Vol. XXX,

hit."18 Naturally it is not at all certain that these "sons" are respectively

Yapahu and Ba'lu-shipti,but it is interesting to speculate that in NIN.UR.MAH's letters we have evidence that the Habiru were attacking sons of Milkilu who had gone over to the Egyptian camp. There are no further references to Gezer or its rulers in the Tell elAmarna letters. Apparently an anti-Egyptian party gained control of the city some time in the following century and a half, for Merneptah (ca. 1223-1211 B.C.), in addition to calling himself the "Binder of Gezer", singles out the city for special mention as one of his conquests in Canaan.19 But a later Pharaoh (Siamun of the 21st dynasty?) was forced to capture Gezer and slay the Canaanites in it, whereupon he gave it as a dowry to his daughter, the wife of King Solomon of Israel (I Kings 9:16).20 POSsibly in the time following Merneptah's conquest Gezer had fallen into the hands of the Philistines; excavations at Gezer have found evidence of Philistine occupation, as Dr. Dever's article in this issue reports. But with these last remarks we have gone beyond the bounds of our subject and entered a new phase of Gezer's history. Returning to the Amarna age, we may summarize the results of this study by noting that Gezer is, in many respects, the key to the history of the period. Its relationships to Egypt and its neighboring city-states are symptomatic of Palestinian power politics. The city ran the gamut of proud independence under M1\ilkiluto cringing subservience under his successors. And control of Gezer was a mark of supremacy in the affairs of the land; unlike Jerusalem, or even Shechem, it could not be by-passed or ignored. Were it not for the accidents of history, Gezer, rather than remaining a relatively insignificant border city, might have become the effective capital of Israel. It was no small gift that Pharaoh gave to his son-in-law, Solomon of Israel. [A substantial financial contribution from the sponsors of the Gezer excavations, Hebrew Union College, has made possible the publication of this unusually long issue of the BA, almost completely devoted to the story of Gezer. Our special !thanksare due to Dr. Nelson Glueck. - EFC] 18. Letters 273 and 274. See Albright, BASOR, No. 89 (Feb., 1943), 15-17. Albright's equation of Sab/puma with biblical Zaphon, at the mouth of the Jabbok in Transjordan, is generally accepted, but it is difficult to understand how NIN.UR.MAH could have intimate knowledge of events in the area of Gezer if she lived so far away. H. Clauss, Zeitschrift des Deutschen PatlistinaVereins, XXX (1907), 50, suggests the Zeboim resettled by Benjaminites returning from the Exile. Since this Zeboim was near Lod (Neh. 11:34f.) and thus in the vicinity of Gezer, Aijalon, and Zorah, it may be the site in question. 19. In the famous Israel stela, translated by Wilson in ANET, pp. 376ff. Merneptah's conquest probably took place in 1219 B.C. 20. A. Malamat, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, XXII (1963), 10-17.

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

No title

Recommend Documents