No title

bi o cal rcaeol o A Publicationof the AmericanSchools of OrientalResearch st Volume47 Number 4 December 1984 -Ar...

Author: American Schools of Oriental Research

9 downloads 393 Views 21MB 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

bi

o

cal

rcaeol o

A Publicationof the AmericanSchools of OrientalResearch

st

Volume47 Number 4

December 1984

-Arc IqL3

f925

4

19373

19 5

19~~~9c Tii 7

1

?9

6

?4 t6

19

3 79

f9 19

190 9

Publications from the

Harvard Semitic Museum Courtesy

AmericanSchools of Oriental Research: Essential Guides to the Ancient Near East

Since its foundingin 1900, the AmericanSchools of OrientalResearchhas pioneeredNorth Americanand internationalresearchprojectsinto the fascinating worldof the ancient Near East. ASOR publicationsrepresentthe highest standardsin disseminatingthe resultsof this researchto the non-specialistand the scholar.The followingsamplingof ASOR publicationsis of interestto all generallibrariesas well as specializedcollections in religion,archaeology,or the Near East.

American Archaeology in the Mideast:A History of the American Schools of Oriental Research by PhilipJ. King Thisengagingbooktracesthe longstandingAmericaninterestin exploring the worldof the Bible.Whilefocusing on Americanexcavationsand primarily Dr.Kingpresentsa greatdealof surveys, on othernationalresearch information effortsaswellas the intellectualcurrents whichhaveshapedarchaeological research in the NearEast. "Thereaderis leftwiththe cumulative of a remarkable impression pieceof historicalwriting.... King'sbookwillproveto be a valuableadditionto the libraryof archaeology." -Theology Today ISBN0-89757-508-3

andskillfullywritten.... a finechoicefor "Lucidly anypublicoracademiclibrary." 4th ed. -MagazinesforLibraries,

BiblicalArchaeologist

The leadingillustrated magazineon the entireworldof the ancientNearEast.Since it beganin 1938,BAhasoffereditsreaders andreadability. Published reliability quarterly, it reviewsnot onlywhathasbeenfound,but whatthesediscoveries contributeto ourunderstandingof the worldof the ancientNearEast. See insertforsubscription information.

Forsubscriptions to Biblical Archaeologist, sendorderto:ASORSubscription Services, 4243 SpruceStreet,Philadelphia, PA19104

cloth$15.00

The BiblicalArchaeologistReader, Vols. 1 and 2

The BiblicalArchaeologistReader,

Vol. 4, ed. byEdwardE Campbell,Jr. Thishighlyregarded seriesoffersreprints andDavidNoel Freedman of seminalstudieswhichfirstappeared in The latestissuein thisseriescollectsthe Biblical from1938-1963. mostsignificantarticleswhichappeared Archaeologist A widediversityof topicsarerepresented in BAbetween1969-1975.The selections fromthe worldof the OldTestament includegeneralconsiderations of the aims to the socialenvironmentof of BiblicalArchaeology, patriarchs Archaeologyand the CommonLife,Archaeologyandthe earlyChristianity. Vol.1 ed. byG. ErnestWrightand of ReligiousLife,andthe contributions DavidNoel Freedman to a greaterunderstanding of archaeology ISBN0-89757-501-6 paper$6.00 the background to the NewTestament. Vol.2 ed.byDavidNoel Freedman and Publishedjointlywiththe AlmondPress. Jr.

Edward E Campbell, ISBN0-89757-502-4

paper$6.00

ISBN0-907459-34-X ISBN0-907459-35-8

Bibliographyof Holy Land Sites

Thisextremelyusefulworklistsallsignificantarchaeological on sites publications in the LevantandTransjordan. The bibin 1971and originallyappeared liography hasnowbeenfullybroughtupto datewith the publication of Part2. Published jointly with the HebrewUnionCollege. Part1 EleanorK.Vogel,comp. ISBN0-87820-626-4 paper$5.00 Part2 (1970-1981)EleanorK.Vogeland BrooksHoltzclaw, comps. ISBN0-87820-625-6 paper$5.00

cloth$24.95 paper$ 9.95

on ASORpublications, write:Eisenbrauns, ToorderASORbooksorformoreinformation P.O.B.275,WinonaLake,IN 46590

BiblialArchaeolg t A Publicationof the AmericanSchools of OrientalResearch

Volume47 Number 4

December 1984

Page206

Page224

Page240

197 ASOR at 85 PhilipJ.King

224 Noah and the Flood in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Tradition P

246 Biblical Archaeologist Update

A past presidentof the American Schools of Oriental Researchhighlights the organization's85 yearsof studying the history of the ancient Near East and eastern Mediterranean.

206 Gezer Revisited:New Excavationsof the Solomonic and Assyrian PeriodDefenses

William G. Dever The ten-yearexcavationprojectat Gezer ended in 1973. In 1984 the excavatorsreturnedfor another season in orderto settle a naggingcontroversy and to fill in some importantgaps in our knowledgeof the site.

220 BA Portrait

Zimri-Lim Takesthe GrandIbur

Jack Lewis An eminent scholar surveysthe diverseresponsesto the story of the flood found in the three majorreligions of the Middle East.

240 The Museum Trail

The Petrie Museum of EgyptianArchaeology, University College London

BarbaraAdams This importantcollection, the core of which is made up of artifactsfrom Sir FlindersPetrie'ssixty-plusyears of archaeologicaleffort,coversthe full rangeof Egypt'scomplex history.

JackM. Sasson Using informationfrom fifteen justtranslatedtexts, this article addsto the descriptiongiven in our June 1984 issue of the last king to occupy the famous palace at Mari.

253 A Note on Artistic of the Representations SecondTempleof Jerusalem Asher S.

Kaufman The pictorial informationon coins is often enigmatic and requiresthe use of relatedliteraryevidence to be properlyinterpreted.This is especially true for the portrayalof the Second of Jerusalem. Temple

Sir FlindersPetrie ValerieM. Fargo As a result of Petrie'smonumental work at the turn of the century,he is recognizedas having single-handedly establishedNear Easternarchaeology as a scientific discipline.

DEPARTMENTS 195

Introducingthe Authors

196 Fromthe Editor'sDesk 255

Book Reviews

Biblical Archaeologist is published with the financial assistance of the Endowment for Biblical Research, Boston (formerlyZion Research Foundation), a nonsectarian foundation for the study of the Bible and the history of the Christian Church.

BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/DECEMBER 1984

193

Biblical

Archaeologist

Editor EricM. Meyers ExecutiveEditor MartinWilcox Associate Editor JamesW.Flanagan Assistant Editor KarenS. Hoglund Book Review Editor PeterB. Machinist EditorialAssistants Melanie Arrowood Daniel M. Cohen Sue Ann Curtis Art Director LindaHuff AdvertisingDirector KennethG. Hoglund EditorialCommittee LloydR. Bailey Carole Fontaine VolkmarFritz LawrenceT. Geraty David M. Gunn A. T. Kraabel BaruchA. Levine Carol L. Meyers JackSasson JohnWilkinson

Announcing the appearance of a new series, Excavations and Surveys in Israel, the English translation of Hadashot Arkhthe Archaeological eologiyot, Newsletter of the Department of Antiquities and Museums.

Biblical Archaeologist (ISSN 0006-0895) is published quarterly (March, June, September, December) by the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), a nonprofit, nonsectarian educational organization with administrative offices at 4243 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Annual subscription rates are $16 for individuals and $25 for institutions. There is a special annual rate of $14 for students and retirees. Current single issues are $5 ($4 for students and retirees). Outside the U.S., U.S. possessions, and Canada, add $2 for annual subscriptions and $1 for single issues. Subscription orders and correspondence should be sent to ASOR Subscription Services, P.O. Box 3000, Department BB, Denville, NJ 07834. Article proposals, manuscripts, and editorial correspondence should be sent to the ASOR Publications Office, P.O. Box H.M., Duke Station, Durham, NC 27706. Unsolicited manuscripts must be accompanied by a self-addressed, stamped envelope. Foreign contributors should furnish international reply coupons. Advertising correspondence should be addressed to the ASOR Publications Office, P.O.Box H.M., Duke Station, Durham, NC 27706 (telephone: 919-684-3075). Composition by Liberated Types, Ltd., Durham, NC. Printed by PBMGraphics Inc., Raleigh, NC. Second-class postage paid at Philadelphia, PA 19104 and additional offices. Postmaster: Send address changes to ASOR Subscription Services, PO. Box 3000, Department BB, Denville, NJ 07834.

Copyright ? 1984 by the American Schools of Oriental Research. OF 0

L) O

194

cT ?

This new series is published by the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in cooperation with the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums and the Israel Exploration Society. Each volume of this series presents an overview of archaeological activities in Israel -- large and small scale excavations, salvage work, surveys and other research - in a given year. Volume 1 is available for purchase in the United States from Eisenbrauns, P.O.B. 275, Winona Lake, Indiana 46590 at a cost of $9.00. In Israel, it can be purchased from the Israel P.O.B. Exploration Society, Jerusalem at a member's 7041, cost of $7.00. The volume is also available to visitors to the Albright Institute, at the Israel Exploration Society's member's price.

1984 BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST/DECEMBER

Excavations

and in

Surveys Israel

1982

Volume

1

English Edition of Hadashot Arkheologiyot Archaeological Newsletter of the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums, Numbers 78-81 Jerusalem 1982

BarbaraAdams

JackP Lewis ValerieM. Fargo

William G. Dever

Philip1.King

Asher S. Kaufman

Introducing the

Philip J.King is Professorof Biblical Studies at Boston College. A past presidentof the American Schools of OrientalResearch, Dr. King has been actively engagedin field archaeologyunder ASOR auspices for overtwenty years, and a recent book of his, American Archaeology

in the Mideast (Philadelphia: The

American Schools of Oriental Research, 1983), presents the history of ASOR.His currentresearchfocuses on archaeology's contribution to the study of the prophetsof the eighth century B.C.E.

William G. Dever is Vice Presidentfor ArchaeologicalPolicy of the American Schools of Oriental Research.With a Ph.D. from HarvardUniversity,he has directedseveralexcavations,including the one at Gezer in 1966-1971 and 1984. He is presently Professor of Near East Archaeology at the University of Arizona, and he just completed a six-yearstint as Editorof the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Among

many otherprojects,Dr. Deveris now at work on a popularbook on Gezer. ValerieM. Fargoreceived her Ph.D. in Near EasternArchaeology from the University of Chicago. She is Assistant to the Director of the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago, and Project Director of the Joint Expedition to Tell el-Hesi in Israel. Jack P. Lewis is Professor of Bible at the Harding Graduate School of Religion in Memphis, Tennessee. With Ph.D.s from HarvardUniversity andfrom HebrewUnion College, Dr. Lewis has authorednumerous books, including The Interpretationof

Authors

JackM. Sasson

Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature (Leiden:

E. J.Brill, 1968; reprintedin 1978).He is also on the editorial

boards of Restoration Quarterly and the Journal of Hebraic Studies.

BarbaraAdams is Curator of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeologyat University College London.She is the authorof Ancient Hierakonpolis and Supplement (Warminster, England:

Aris & Phillips, 1974) and now excavates at the site with the American team led by Dr. Michael A. Hoffman of the University of South Carolina under the auspices of the American ResearchCenter in Egypt.Her latest publication, with Richard Jaeschke, is Koptos Lions (Milwaukee: Milwaukee Public Museum, 1984). JackM. Sasson receivedhis Ph.D.from BrandeisUniversity.He is Professorof Religion at the University of North Carolinaat Chapel Hill and AdjunctProfessorof Religion at Duke University. Dr. Sasson has published widely, especially on Mari, and among his writings is a commentary on the Book of Ruth published in 1979by JohnsHopkins University Press. Asher S. Kaufmanwas educated at George Heriot's School in Edinburgh,Scotland. He received his Ph.D. from Edinburgh University. Since 1959 he has been a faculty member of the Hebrew University of Jerusalemin the Department of Physics (nowthe RacahInstitute of Physics).He has been interestedfor many years in Temple research (preciselocation and architectural form).


195

Elizabeth B. Moynihan

From

The

the

Editor's

Desk

foundingof the AmericanSchoolsof Ori- history,a time that most of us believe will be crucial to its

ental Researchin 1900was an expression of the fascination that the ancient Near East held for people in the United States. In the eighty-five since then, which has witnessed ASOR's often years in what we now refer to as the Middle work pioneering has steadily grown, and so has our that fascination East, organization. Today ASOR is an international organization, with field projects,researchinstitutes, numerous publications (including Biblical Archaeologist), and both individual and institutional members. Its vitality has led to the recent election, for the first time, of a chairman of the boardof trustees. Ourgoverningbody felt that ASORhad become so dynamic and multifaceted that one of its members, a "firstamong equals,"should work virtually on a day-to-daybasis with its officers and staff. Our first chairman is Mrs.ElizabethB. Moynihan, and I am proudto introduce her here to the readersof BA and friendsof ASOR.Mrs.Moynihanbringsto this important role an extensive backgroundin projectmanagement and in architecturalhistory. Among her many activities, she has managed the campaigns of her husband, New York SenatorDaniel P.Moynihan, and written the book Paradise as a Garden: The Gardens of Persian and Mogul India (New York:Braziller,1979).Wearefortunateindeed to have someone of her ability at this time in ASOR's

196


continued success. ASORat eighty-fivefaces increasingfinancial commitments in every aspect of its operation, and during the upcoming yearMrs.Moynihanwill be leading an effortto increase our endowment. This capital campaign will insure a solid base for current programsand should lay the groundworkfor additional projects that have been identified as valuablebut which currentresources make impossible to carryout. This issue of BA is playing a part in this effortwith two important articles. The first, by Philip King, a past president of ASOR, is an enlightening essay on the history of our organization, and the second, by William G. Dever, our currentvice presidentfor archaeologicalprojects,is a lively and captivating presentation of the fortification system at Gezer. These two papersmanifest ASOR'spast and present, and we ask your help as subscribers to BA and as friends and members of ASOR in promoting its future. Together,I think we will find it an exciting task.

Eric M. Meyers Editor

at

G.ErnestWright examining potterywithoneof his area at Shechem. supervisors

by

Philipj

King

Foundedin 1900 with 26 institutional members in the United States and one overseasinstitute in Jerusalem, the American Schools of Oriental Research has participated in most of the important archaeological events in the Middle East during the past 85 years, including the discovery and publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the work at Tell Beit Mirsim, Jerash, Gezer, Tell el-Hesi, Meiron, and many other famous Holy Land sites. Its numerous publications, such as the annuals and monographs, the Bulletin of ASOR, the ASOR Newsletter, the Journalof Cuneiform Studies,and BiblicalArchaeologist,have played an important role in disseminating information on these discoveries to scholarly and general audiences alike. It has also grown impressively as an organization during this time, presently consisting of 162 institutional members from throughoutthe world including universities, colleges, seminaries, and museums; 3 research and educational institutes (The W Albright Institute of ArchaeF. ological Researchin Jerusalem;the American Centerof Oriental Researchin Amman, Jordan;


197

and the CyprusAmerican Archaeological Research Institute in Nicosia, Cyprus);approximately 40 affiliated fieldwork projects; several centers in the United States, including its administrative office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and its publications office in Durham, North Carolina; and nearly 7,500 individual members. As ASOR enters its eighty-sixth year, the officers, trustees, and members would like to invite all those who are interested in the history of the ancient Near East and easternMediterraneanto join them in a yearlongcelebrationofASOR'spast and a look towardsits future.7bkick off this celebration, I have asked Philip King, a past president of the organization, to write about some of the highlights of ASOR's work so far. It is a pleasure for me to present this article, and I would urgeanyone who is interested in learning more about us to see ProfessorKing'sbook American Archae-

ology in the Mideast:A Historyof the AmericanSchoolsof

Oriental Research(WinonaLake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1983) or to contact any of our members, officers, or institutions. EricM. Meyers Editor

rchaeology has come a long way in the last

century.At onetimeit hadseriouscompeti-

tion from treasurehunting. Forinstance there was the clandestine operationby the Englishman Montague B. Parker whose scandalous activities were summarized in The New YorkTimes headline of May 7, 1911:"AMysterious Expedition, ApparentlyNot Composed of Archaeologists, Hunts Strange Treasure Under the Mosque of Omar, Sets the Moslems in a Ferment, and May Cause Diplomatic Incident."Determined to locate the treasureof Solomon'sTempleallegedly buried beneath the Temple Mount, the notorious Parkersparedno means, including bribery,to achieve his objective.In conducting his treasurehunt Parkercleared the tunnels and shafts opened earlier by Charles Warren in his own authentic exploration of undergroundJerusalem. Parkerhoped those subterraneanpassages would lead to the Temple treasure. Jews accused Parker of desecrating the tombs of David and Solomon, while Moslems charged him with profaning the sanctuary of the Dome of the Rock.At the same time scholarsresident in Jerusalem became suspicious. The New York Times cited the misgivings of Richard Gottheil: "None of the party appeared to be archaeologists." The newspaper report continued: "They [Parkerand company] made such a mystery of what they did that nobody could follow their work." The upshot of the aborted treasure hunt was that the so-called excavators barely escaped with their lives and, needless to say, found nothing. Unfortunately his misadventure has not deterred others in the same pursuit. The American Schools of Oriental Research, better

198


Sir FlindersPetriein the gardenof the school in Jerusalem(upper left), standing between Nelson Glueck on the left and P L. O. Guy, the excavatorof Megiddo(upperright),and in the library of the Jerusalemschool (above).This seminal figureof modern archaeology spent his last years at the ASOR school in Jerusalem,where he died in 1942.

TheoldestofASOR'soverseas theAlbrightin institutes, wasfoundedin 1900 Jerusalem andhasbecomean international centerfor scholarlyresearch.

known by the acronymASOR,came into being in 1900.In that year ASOR established its first overseasinstitute in Jerusalemto promote scholarly researchin the Near East and thereby to counteract the treasure hunters. ASOR's constitution stated: The main objectof saidSchoolshallbe to enable properlyqualifiedpersonsto prosecuteBiblical, linguistic, archaeological,historical, and other kindredstudiesandresearchesundermorefavorableconditionsthancan be securedat a distance fromthe HolyLand.

AmericansExplorethe Holy Land The buildings of the Jerusalemschool, which were constructedin Nineteenth-Century before the establishment of ASOR'sJerusalem 1925. Long School a handfulof Americansparticipatedin the rediscoveryof the Holy Land.The most distinguished, EdwardRobinson,was the first scientific explorerof issue). Bliss completed Petrie'sdig at Tell el Hesi on the Palestine(see King 1983a).Equippedwith little more northern edge of the Negev and also excavated at Jeruthan compass, thermometer, telescope, measuring tape, and Bible, he succeeded in identifying over one hundred biblical sites. In 1848,a decade afterRobinson'sfirst trip to Palestine, William F. Lynch of the United States navy explored along the JordanRiver and circumnavigated the Dead Sea. This first scientific survey of the Dead Sea was an important contribution to science. It produced, in addition to maps and drawings,reportson the flora and fauna of the Dead Sea, its geology, and an analysis of the water content. The oft-statedfact that the Dead Sea is 1,300feet below the level of the Mediterraneanwas first established by the Lynchexpedition. FrederickJ.Bliss was among the first archaeologists to excavatesystematically in Palestine.Bornin Beirut as the son of an American missionary, he was trained by the redoubtable British Egyptologist, Sir W. M. Flinders Petrie (see the BAPortraitof PetriebyValerieFargoin this

salem and other important sites. Unlike many of his peers Bliss was not attracted to field archaeology by apparentglamour. Workingalone at Tell el Hesi and at the same time plagued with poor health, Bliss found the inevitable annoyances of life on a dig hardto take. At the end of one especially difficult season at Hesi, he rejoiced: "Freefor a while from all the careand worryand responsibility, dirt, dust of ages, fleas, squabbles."On another occasion, frustratedby the lack of discovery at Hesi, he called the site a "fraud."And yet another time, when blinded by Hesi dust, he referredto the profession of an archaeologistas "asilly life."

From 1900 to the End of WorldWarI From ASOR'sinception at the turn of the century until the end of WorldWarI annual appointees, most of whom were leading biblical scholars, directed the Jerusalem School. The more intrepidones embarkedon some rather


199

daring trips to become acquainted with the environs of Palestine. Director in 1904-1905, Nathaniel Schmidt of Cornell University undertook a grueling inspection tour of the Dead Sea region, the Edomite territory, and the Negev. In circumnavigating the Dead Sea he and his students had some hair-raisingexperiences.In the course of exploration,he recounted,his partywas surroundedby "aswarm of savages,not encumbered with much clothing, but armedto the teeth with swords,guns, pistols, and knives."He continued: "Wetried to get our boat out, but deemed it most expedient to let them drag it ashore, when guns were pointed at us and our food and blankets were carriedaway."In their exploration of the Dead Sea, Schmidt and his companions were as courageous as William Lynchduringhis perilous expedition fifty-seven years earlier. RichardJ.H. Gottheil, professorof rabbinic literature and Semitic languagesat Columbia University was director of the Jerusalem School from 1909 to 1910. In the course of the year Gottheil concentrated on Arabic manuscripts and inscriptions and compiled a complete catalog of the Arabic manuscripts housed in the public libraryof the Kutainahfamily and in the privatelibraries of the Jar-Allahand al-Buderifamilies. This project was the first of several undertakingsby ASOR in the field of Islam.

200

1984 BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGISTIDECEMBER

William F.Albright and His Students At the end of WorldWarI William E Albrightbecame the

firstlong-term director oftheJerusalem School.Albright was the scholar who played the chief role in shaping the destiny of ASOR. As a precocious youngster he had an insatiable curiosity about the ancient Near East. The classic at that time, History of Babylonia and Assyria by R. W Rogers,fired Albright with such youthful enthusiasm that he could hardly wait to get to Jerusalembefore, as he feared,all the tells had been dug. On the occasion of Albright's appointment to Jerusalem, James A. Montgomery, ASOR's first president, remarked:"Itmay be that he [Albright]can provehimself as the coming director for a term of years."Apparently Albright passed the test, for he served as director of the JerusalemSchool for over a dozen years. Takinga genuine interest in promisingyoung scholars, Albright gave many of them their initial start. Benjamin Mazar, one of Israel'smost distinguished scholars, was one of them. Mazar still boasts of his closeness to Albright. It began with Albright's dig at Tell Beit Mirsim, where Mazarmasteredthe intricacies of stratigraphyand typology. Mazarwas one of the first Palestinian Jewsto conduct his own excavation. In 1936, an especially troubled year because of riots, strikes, and curfews, he began to dig at

Beth Shearim (known as "SheikhAbreik"in Arabic) in southwestern Galilee. An important site in Jewish history,Beth Shearim was a significant rabbinic center, and its cemetery became a central Jewish necropolis. Mazar relates with pride that he preparedhis Beth Shearim materials for publication in the basement of the Jerusalem School. Nelson Glueck also exerted a strong influence on ASOR'shistory. Like Albright, he, too, was a long-term director of the JerusalemSchool. Trainedby Albright at Tell Beit Mirsim, Glueck became an excavator but is better known as an explorerin the traditionof the pioneer EdwardRobinson. During his comprehensive surveys of Transjordanand the Negev, Glueck visited more than fifteen hundred sites, and many of his identifications have stood the test of time. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 was the most electrifying event in the history of biblical archaeology. As often happens, the find was accidental-the Bedouin stumbled upon the manuscripts secreted in a cave on the west side of the Dead Sea.ASORwas not part of the actual discovery but afterwardshelped in several ways. The Syrian Orthodox Metropolitan of Jerusalem arrangedfor the scrolls to be brought to the Jerusalem School for evaluation. Examining the cache, John C. Treverrecognized the uniqueness of the find and sought permission to photograph the manuscripts. When he dispatchedprints of the Isaiah Scroll to Albright at Johns Hopkins University for his appraisal,the response came by air letter: on the greatestmanMyheartiestcongratulations uscriptdiscoveryof moderntimes! There is no doubtin my mindthat the scriptis morearchaic thanthatoftheNashpapyrus. I shouldprefera date around 100 B.C. What an absolutelyincredible find!And there can happilynot be the slightest doubtin the worldaboutthe genuinenessof the manuscript.

G. ErnestWrightand the Foundingof Biblical Archaeologist One of ASOR'smost influential leaders was G. Ernest Wright,a versatile scholar distinguished in both biblical theology and archaeology.The convergenceof these two disciplines was central to his conception of biblical studies. Holding to his basic position that revelation comes throughevent, Wrightunderstoodbiblical faith as rooted in history and saw it as archaeology'sfunction to recoverthe historical foundation of the Judeo-Christian tradition. An inspiring teacher,he trained a whole generation of field archaeologistsin his classes at Harvardand in the field at Tell Balatah (ancient Shechem). Almost everyAmerican archaeologistdirecting a dig today came under Wright'sinfluence. Wrightmade anotherenduringcontribution to biblical archaeology by launching the Biblical Archaeologist, intended to provide the general readerwith reliable and current information about Near Eastern archaeology, especially as it contributes to an understanding of the Bible. When the first issue of this journal appearedin 1938 it consisted of a mere four pages, at an annual subscription rate of 50 cents.

Past directorof the Jerusalem school, Nelson Glueck, is shown on the far left in his role as explorer(as he surveyed the area near JebelHamr Idfan)and on the near left as archaeologist (in his excavations at Tellel Kheleifehfrom 1938 to 1940).Right: John C. T7ever,the first person to photographthe Dead Sea Scrolls at the Jerusalemschool is shown here at the Claremont Library.Farright: Nelson Glueck resting at the springof Dan duringa field trip taken by the Jerusalem school in 1947.


201

At ASOR'sinstituteinJordan,a centralconcernis thatcommercial andarchaeological development preservation go handin hand.

Left:Nelson Glueck and William G. Dever at Gezerin 1971.Above: Between 1950 and 1956 successive directorsof the Jerusalemschool conducted excavations at biblical Dibon (modernDhiban), known as the capital of the ancient Moabite kingdom and as the findspot of the famous Moabite Stone.

ASOR in Jerusalem,Baghdad,Jordan,Carthage,and Cyprus Working in a particularly volatile region of the world, ASOR has had to be sensitive to partisan politics while alwaysremainingevenhanded.In 1923ASORestablished in Baghdadits second overseas institute. Modern Iraq, roughly coextensive with ancient Mesopotamia, holds a special interest forbiblical scholarsbecause of its illumination of biblical events. Unfortunately at the moment the political climate is not conducive to sustained American work in Iraq,and the institute is not active, but in the past ASOR made a notable contribution to the archaeology of that country. The partitioning of Palestine in 1948 had the unfortunate effect of cutting ASORoff from its friends in modern Israel.The realignment of internationalbordersbetween Israel and Jordan after the war of 1967 restored this relationship. Before 1967 the JerusalemSchool served as ASOR'sbase in Jordan;after 1967 ASOR established in Amman a new institute, the American Center of Oriental Research,better known as ACOR. At the same time ASOR renamed its JerusalemSchool the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research (AIAR)in honor of its most renowned director. ASOR also aspired to open an institute in Beirut to serve as a center for the study of Phoenician history and culture, but political turmoil preventedit. Now it may be too late. Instead,in the 1970sASORturnedtowardtwo of the principal colonies of ancient Phoenicia-Carthage and Cyprus-and opened institutes. Strategically located, Cyprus is a natural bridge between east and west and is, therefore,the obvious meeting place for classical and Near Easternarchaeologists.Civilization on Cyprus

202


dates as early as 7,000 B.C., and all the archaeological periods are under investigation from the Neolithic age through the Byzantine, Medieval, and Ottoman eras. ASOR'sCyprusAmerican ArchaeologicalResearchInstitute (CAARI),so well directedby StuartSwiny,is actively engaged in the extensive archaeological research underway on the island. Swiny also excavates at Sotira Kaminoudhia, a settlement and cemetery site in the Limassol district, important for the transitional Chalcolithic/EarlyBronzeAge. Making allowance for the traditions of the host countries, ASOR'soverseasinstitutes operatebasically in the same way. Each has a hostel to accommodate resident scholars. In addition to providing support services for archaeological field projects, such as excavations and surveys, these centers sponsor extensive educational programs, consisting of lectures, seminars, field trips, and exhibits. The institute libraries support these common programsas well as independent research.Most of the scholars in residence receive their financing from ASOR's generous fellowships. Funded by government grants and private donations, in academic year 19851986 ASOR will distribute more than $170,000 in research fellowships, professorships, scholarships, and travelgrants. As the oldest of ASOR'soverseas centers the Albright Institute in Jerusalemconducts the most comprehensive educational program. Its energetic director, Seymour Gitin, is responsible for the Albright Institute's newly expandedprogramand improvedfacilities. In addition to overseeing a variety of scholarly activities, Gitin also codirects with TrudeDothan of the HebrewUniversity a joint American-Israelidig at Tell Miqne (probablyPhilistine Ekron)in the JudahiteShephelah.Also, through his initiative, Hadashot Arkheologiyot, the indispensable

newsletter of the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums, will now be available on a regular basis in Englishunder the title Excavations and Surveysin Israel. This is an extraordinaryservice to the American archaeological community. Because Israel'sown archaeological community comprises such a largenumber of professional members, the Albright Institute no longer serves as a base for many digs, as Amman does. Instead, the Albright Institute is becoming an important international center for scholarly research and intellectual exchange. In the spirit of Albright's day it continues to be a congenial meeting place for Americans, Israelis, and scholars of other nationalities. The history of ACOR in Jordanis a great success story. Manyhave contributedto its birth andgrowth,but no one so much as JamesA. Sauer,one of its long-termdirectors. ACOR was born in 1968 in a rented building on Jebel Amman. It immediately outgrew that house and a succession of rented quarters. Sixteen years later a threestorey permanent building situated on a hill across the street from the University of Jordanand near the British and German archaeologicalinstitutes is under construction. The site of the new building is a gift of the Jordanian government. In addition, ACOR has received private funding from Americans and Jordanians,as well as a substantial grant from the United States government in recognition of ACOR's contribution as an American institution to the history and archaeology of Jordan.On the occasion of the ground-breakingceremony on August 4, 1984 Prince RaadIbn Zeid observed: One of ACOR's outstanding achievements has been to help integrate archaeology into the education of young Jordanians,and to promote our understanding of archaeology as a dynamic and interdisciplinaryfield of study that has many relevant applications to the problems of developing countries throughout the area. Today the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordanis burgeoning with archaeological activity, ranging from excavations

Topleft: The directorof the Taanachexcavations from 1963 to 1968, Paul Lapp(wearingthe cap),is shown escortingmembers of the JordanianDepartment of Antiquities around the site. Topright: The author, Philip J.King(on the left), and Melvin K. Lyonsin Jordan.As ASOR'smedical director,Dr. Lyonsprepareda handbook entitled The Careand Feedingof Dirt Archaeologists(1978)which addressed problems of health care and hygienic standards of dig camps. It has since become an important referencemanual for hundreds of staff members and volunteersassociated with excavations.Above: The currentpresident of ASOR, JamesA. Sauer,is shown here relaxing at the WadiRamm Desert Post in Jordan.

and surveys to restoration and conservation of monumental sites. SeveralAmerican archaeologists,following in the footsteps of Nelson Glueck, are conducting topographical surveys in Jordan;they have identified hundreds of new sites in previously neglected areas of the

country.On the southern bank of the Wadiel Hasa on the Jordanianplateau, for example, Burton MacDonald pinpointed more than 1,000 archaeological sites, while J. Maxwell Miller identified another 500 sites in the Moab plain. Donald O. Henry has been doing a surface survey of

prehistoric sites in southern Jordan,most of which have neverbeen explored.These surveysareproducingthe raw material for the writing of an archaeological history of the region. One of the most dramatic discoveries in recent times occurred on the eastern outskirts of Amman at Ain


203

ASOR'sinstitutein Cyprusserves as a meetingplacefor classicaland NearEasternarchaeologists. Ghazal where Gary Rollefson has been excavating.This Neolithic site yielded a spectacular collection of plaster human figures which are 8,000 years old. Comparablein significance to the Neolithic finds at Jerichoand Beidha, Ain Ghazal, accordingto the excavator,may be the best preservedand largest Neolithic settlement in the Near East. The rapid population growth and industrial development in Jordan, requiring construction of roads and factories, inevitably destroy ancient sites. While archaeologists find this disquieting, they do not think the country should become a museum. Insteadof competing with one another, archaeologists and engineers are encouragedto work together for the preservationof Jordan's cultural heritagewithout standingin the way of economic progress.Commercial growth and archaeologicalpreservation can go hand in hand when there is cooperation. David W.McCreery,the vigorous directorof ACOR, and JamesA. Sauer,the president of ASOR, have published a timely booklet, Economic Development and Archaeology in the Middle East, which addressesthese critical issues. All of the ACOR-sponsoredfield projects underway in Jordanare dedicated to protecting and preserving the cultural heritage of the land beyondthe JordanRiver. ASOR Thday When JamesSauerbecame presidentof ASORin 1982the organization'sadministrative headquartersmoved from Cambridge,Massachusetts to a double house on Spruce Street, Philadelphia, at the edge of the University of Pennsylvania campus. ASOR had come full circle-in this same building James Montgomery, ASOR's first president (1912-1933), had his offices. Also, Sauer fills the same academic post held by Montgomery. The newly acquiredbuilding in Philadelphia not only houses the administrativeoffices of ASORbut also has a hostel for students and visitors. Recently ASOR took an important step when it elected its first chairpersonof the board of trustees. Elizabeth Moynihan was the unanimous choice; she will work closely with the ASOR president in fund-raisingand in a number of other undertakings. The president also has the support and assistance of two excellent vice presidents- EricM. Meyersof Duke University is responsible for the ASOR publications and William G. Dever of the University of Arizona oversees all archaeological field projects affiliated with ASOR. Sauer,Meyers,and Dever-all former students of

204


William G. Dever,ASOR'svice president for archaeologicalprojects, is shown here leading a tour of TelDan in the summer of 1984. He is to the left of whom, looking back, is followed by Carol Meyers-AbrahamMalamat-and by AvrahamBiran,the directorof excavations at Dan. Immediately behind Dr. Biranare, on his right, James A. Sauer,president of ASOR, and, on his left, EricM. Meyers,ASOR's vice president forpublications. At the back is LawrenceE. Stager.

ErnestWright- are an impressive triad with vast experience in Near Easternarchaeology.Buildingon the dedication and hardwork of numerous scholarly predecessors, they are providingASOR with creative leadership,compatible with all the new developments in Near Eastern archaeology. On its eightieth birthdayASOR stoppedto take a look both backward and forward. After reviewing its past ASOR then planned for the future, specifically for the critical half-decadebetween 1980 and 1985. A task force formulated a set of goals which the trustees approved. The first goal is a summary of all the rest: To initiate,encourageand supportresearchinto the publicunderstanding of the peoplesandculturesof the NearEastandtheirwiderspheresof interactionfrom earliest times to the modern informedprojperiod,especiallyarchaeologically ects whichareintegrativeandinterdisciplinary. The ASOR goals conform well to the state of the archaeological art in the Near East on the threshold of 1985. As with many disciplines, the passage of time and the explosion of knowledge have made archaeologyquite complex. In the past twenty years almost every aspect of Near Easternarchaeologyhas changed.In the first place, both the temporal and the geographical horizons of archaeologyhave broadenedconsiderably.Todayarchaeologists are vitally concerned with every period, from Paleolithic to the Ottoman era; from the geographical perspective,surveysand excavationsareunderwayin the

ASOR is sponsoring projects in Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan,Syria,Tunisia,Turkey,and North Yemen.Politics permitting, ASORmay resume work in Iraqand begin in Lebanon.In Middle Easterncountries where ASORdoes not have overseas institutes, it maintains scholarly contact through membership in the following cognate organizations: the American Institute of IranianStudies, the American Institute for Yemeni Studies, the American Research Center in Egypt, and the American Research Institute in Turkey.These institutes as well as ASOR are all members of the Council of American Overseas ResearchCenters.Foundedin 1981,this council was created by agreement of its members to provide a forum for increased communication and cooperation among American overseasresearch centers.

The tour at Dan stops to inspect a balk. In the foregroundon the left is AbrahamMalamat. Other tourmembers are,from the left, William G. Dever,ASOR trustee JonasGreenfield,JamesA. Sauer, and EricM. Meyers.On either side of Dr. Meyersare excavation staff members.

lands extending from Tunisia to Iraqand from Turkeyto Yemen. Todayarchaeologyis interdisciplinary.Field archaeologists work side by side with natural and social scientists including geologists, physical and cultural anthropologists, paleoethnobotanists, hydrologists, and ethnographers. Also floral and faunal remains, often neglected in the recent past, are commanding special attention. Archaeology is benefiting greatly from improved techniques of retrieval, recording, and analysis of data. Thermoluminescence, for example, is especially useful in dating pottery and other fired clay artifacts, and neutron activation analysis can even establish the provenance of the clay used in making the pottery. Atomic absorption spectrometry and other techniques can now determine the sources of stones in ancient construction and of metals in ancient tools and weapons. New world archaeology with its emphasis on anthropology has directed the interest of Near Eastern archaeologists to such phenomena as social change, ancient economics, tradepatterns, and population shifts. Consequently, Near Eastern archaeology'sprimary interest in political history has shifted to a broaderconcern for the total environment of past societies and the human impact upon them. Consonant with the broadergeographicalperspective,

Conclusion It is a sadfact that the treasurehunting in the Middle East has not completely stopped.Would-bearchaeologists,for example, continue to expend money, time, and effort in search of Noah's ark. Buyuk Aghri Daghi, a remote promontory in northeastern Turkeywithin the boundaries of the land of Ararat,has been the target of several American expeditions in pursuit of the ark. Radiocarbon analysis of wood fragmentsfoundthere, however,yields a date no more ancient than the seventh to eighth centuries A.D. The most recent episode of searching for Noah's ark was reportedby The New YorkTimes whose headline read,"TurksHold American OverClaim to the Ark."This American, claiming to have found remains of the ark on Mount Ararat,was carryinga bag of dirt and rocks from the mountain as proofof his discovery.After studying the confiscated material geologists at the Istanbul Archaeological Museum declaredit had no historical value. The continuing good work of ASOR,however,makes it possible to see these efforts clearly in their properperspective: as small bursts of misguided energy in a field where much important and lasting work is being done. Without question the American Schools of Oriental Researchis at the forefrontof Near Easternarchaeology and allied disciplines. But it can continue to lead the way only through the cooperation of all of its membersindividuals, institutions, corporations,and trustees-for that was the key to ASOR'ssuccess duringits first eightyfour years. Suggestions for FurtherReading King,P. J. 1983a EdwardRobinson:BiblicalScholar.Biblical Archaeologist46: 230-32. 1983b American Archaeology in the Mideast. A History of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Philadelphia:The American Schools of OrientalResearch. McCreery,D. W.,and Sauer,J.A. 1984 EconomicDevelopmentand Archaeologyin the Middle East. Amman, Jordan,and Philadelphia,PA:Departmentof Antiquities and the American Schools of OrientalResearch.


205

Gezer Revisite

A view of TelGezerlooking north. Field I is to the left. Field III, the Solomonic gate area, is to the right. In the foregroundare the ancient approachroads from the Aijalon Valley.

New

Excavations of and

the

Assyrian Period

Solomonic

Defenses

G.DEVER BYWILLIAM

When

Alexanderone observerput it), field method Robert

StewartMacalister dug the great site of Gezer near the Aijalon Valley eighty years ago (1902-1909), Palestinian or biblical archaeologywas in its infancy.Indeed, these were the first large-scaleexcavations in the Holy Land.Despite the excavator's enormous energy and enterprise (a "monument of bee-like activity,"as

206

was then so primitive that with the excavation'spublication in 1912it graduallybecame evident that the vast exposure of Gezer'scity plan in Macalister's"First"through "Fourth Semitic"levels could not be dated accurately,much less understood adequately.Forexample, among Macalister'smost important discoveries was a gatewaycomplex near


the "OuterWall"of the city that he interpretedas a private entrance to a "MaccabeanCastle,"or to be exact, the palace of Simon Maccabeus in the second century B.C. Beforehe left Gezer in 1909, Macalisterbackfilled the area to protect it, and it was soon forgotten.But half a century later, Yigael Yadinreinterpretedthis complex, sight unseen, as a tenthcentury Solomonic city gate with

four entryways (Yadin1958).Yadin based his interpretationon the almost exact tenth-century parallels then known from his own excavations at Hazor and Megiddo,as well as the referencein 1 Kings 9:15-17 to Solomon'sbuilding activities at these three sites in addition to Jerusalem. Yadin'sbrilliant hunch was confirmed by the HarvardSemitic Museum- Hebrew Union College excavations from 1967 to 1970 in field III,when the city gate was fully cleared using modern methods and was dated to the Solomonic era with reuse phases in the Assyrian and the Hellenistic periods (Deverand others 1971: 112-20). Macalister had regardedthe gate complex as later than the "Outer Wall,"that is, it was set into a breach of an earlier,partially destroyedcity wall. Macalister had traced this massive rampart-the outermost of the fortification walls encircling Gezer-for a distance of some thirteen hundredyards.He dated the original construction to his "Third Semitic"period (roughlyour Late Bronze Age, around 1500- 1200 B.c.), but he noted that the many towers of well-dressed ashlar masonry were secondarily inserted into the wall and that the semicircular bastions built arounda few of the outer towers were later still. He concluded that the ashlar towers were a Solomonic rebuild, comparingthe masonry with the fine ashlar blocks that the German archaeologist Gottlieb Schumacherwas bringing to light then (1903-1905) at Solomonic Megiddo.The final addition of the bastions he placed in the period of the Maccabeanwars in the second century

B.c.

New Excavationsat Gezer We excavatedMacalister's"Outer Wall"and several of its towers in our fields I, II, V, and IX from 1964 to 1973 and arguedboth stratigraphically and ceramically that, for once(!),Macalister had been amazingly accurate in his dates.

PharaohkingofEgypt hadgoneup and capturedGezerand burntit withfire.... andhadgivenit as dowryto his daughter (1Kings9:16). diedI

;,

s

W t"nner e

Wall"

\

(Gap

High PPVlac "High

Plac"

:I. S

Excavation

(19,14)eWl

i:i

Field

I

(Unexcavated)

SGate

reach

.

--JAI

..

Overallplan of Gezershowing the variousexcavations. The "palace"west of the field-Ill gate, as well as the "Gatehouse"(orouter gateway) and the "OuterWall,"are shown as they were understoodprior to the 1984 season.

Specifically,we attempted to demonstrate that the "OuterWall" was basically a Late BronzeIIA construction of the well-known Amarna Age of the fourteenth century B.c., for the archives found at Akhenaton'scapital of El Amarna in Egyptrevealthat Gezer was a major city-state of ancient Palestine during that period (Dever,Lance, and Wright 1970:43-44; Dever and others 1974:36-39; Dever 1973a and 1982 and referencesthere).We concluded that this city wall probably functioned until the tenthcentury Egyptiandestruction mentioned in 1 Kings 9:16 and 17. This text declares that the pharaoh "burnedGezer with fire"before ceding the city to Solomon as a dowry to accompanyhis daughterin marriageto the Israelite king. The

A Continuing Controversy Despite Gezer'shard-wonreputation for pioneering the newer and more precise British-Americanstratigraphic (also known as the or "balk-debris "Wheeler-Kenyon" layer")methods in Israel (Dever 1973a and 1973b),several reviewers rejectedour interpretationof the evidence when we presented it in detail in Gezer I (Dever,Lance,and Wright 1970)and II (Deverand others 1974).Among them was Dame Kathleen Kenyon (1977),who attempted to redate all three phases of the "OuterWall"to the Hellenistic period. Already the Israeli scholar Aharon Kempinski had arguedthat the first phase of this city wall dated to the IronAge, probablyfrom the ninth to eighth centuries B.c. (Kempinski1972;see the reply in

1984 BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGISTIDECEMBER

207

Dever 1973c).More recently three younger archaeologists of the Tel Aviv Institute of Archaeology have published articles (Finklestein 1981; Zertal 1981;and Bunimovitz 1983), trying to reworkthe Gezer evidence -Macalister's and ours-to come out with a similar date. Thus, while few disputed our Solomonic date for the inner four-entrywaygate and the adjoiningstretch of casemate walls, severalauthorities arguedthat Macalister'souter "Gatehouse"and his "OuterWall"were later additions in the IronAge, perhapsbuilt in the Assyrian period in the ninth to eighth centuries B.c. Severalcritics pointed out that our LateBronzedate for the "Outer Wall"was anomalous: Everyother known fortification system in use in ancient Palestine at this time was simply a reuse of the Middle Bronze Age city walls. Weheld out for an original construction during the LateBronzeAge, however,not only on the basis of our new evidence but also on the assumption that at Gezer there was no other candidate for a LateBronzeAge wall. The Middle Bronzewalls had been destroyedaround 1500 B.C.and never reused, but in our view it was unthinkable that Gezer had remained unwalled in the Amarna Age (see the detailed reply to Kenyon,Kempinski, and Zertal in Dever 1982).Thus, Macalister'scareful description of relative phases, newer stratigraphic evidence, refined ceramic dating, and "deadreckoning"on the basis of historical considerations all supported our interpretation. Resolve to Returnto the Field Our ten-yearexcavationprojectat Gezer had come to an end on schedule in 1973 and none of the senior staff-least of all myself-had any intentions of going back for further fieldwork. Most had gone on to direct other projects in Israel, Cyprus, or Egypt,and all were more concerned with completing the projected series of seven final report

208

WhenI saw Gezerin thespringof 1984, SoutheasternBaptistTheological Seminary in WakeForest,North exactlytwentyyears Carolina. Elmo and Hannah Scoggin from the seminary joined the Devers afterwefirstwent and eight Arizona doctoral students there,thesitewas to make up the supervisorystaff, and the seminary also sent a group deserted and of twenty-five stalwart seminarians -the most redoubtablevolunteer with weeds. overgrown work force I'veever seen. In affiliation with the original sponsor,the volumes than with bringing to light Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion, and now also additional material. Nevertheless, I under the umbrella of the American decided that it was a disgraceful situation- a reflection on our much- Schools of Oriental Research,we vaunted modern methods -to allow worked for five weeks in Juneand a major,well-published city wall July.Despite limited time and system to remain in such dispute money, a makeshift camp, and a miniscule work force for such an that authorities could vary by as ambitious project-not to mention much as twelve hundredyears on the skepticism of a lot of watchful the question of its date, not to critics -we revivedsome of the mention its interpretation(Dever I determined to Gezer project'sold momentum and 1982).Accordingly, for a short team back to season Gezer go spirit. It was not the "BigDig" in the summer of 1984 to resolve, if of the infamous movie by that title that we had once filmed there, but it possible, some of these controversies. I thought, "Enoughof this run- was a nostalgic, often exhilarating season. And we managedto achieve ning battle in the literature- let us have some new and more conclusive all our archaeologicalobjectives.1 data!" But it was not to be so easy.When The 1984 Season I saw Gezer in the spring of 1984, Our primaryaim for the 1984 season was to cut some new sections exactly twenty years after we first went there to work, the site was de- against the "OuterWall"so as to date serted and overgrownwith weeds. it more firmly. But we also intended Our once-marvellousdig camp, with to clear awayMacalister'smassive facilities for one hundredand forty dump heaps from the outer "Gatehad been dismantled. house" of the Solomonic city gate, long people, I whom unseen proby anyone now living and My graduatestudents, had to recruit as staff, mostly posed published only sketchily, in orderto confirm its characterand date. been in kindergartenwhen we first startedto dig at Gezer!I did arrange Finally,as a long shot - a bonus, if it with nearbyKibbutzGezer for them worked-we decided to recleara to house and feed up to forty diggers large casemate wall and doublein the coming summer, but at the courtyard building shown on last minute they could provideonly Macalister's plan adjoining the gate on the west, hoping that it might space for us to erect a makeshift own. cook on our and prove to be a Solomonic structure camp similar to Yadin's "Palace 6000" at There were many times in late I the when rued and summer Megiddo (Yadin 1970). spring day I had decided to go back to The Lower Tlrrace Gezer. Nevertheless, we found modest funding from the University The area of the "Gatehouse" and "Outer Wall"was dubbed the "lower of Arizona and the National Geoterrace" because of its situation well well as from as graphicSociety,


downslope from the main gate. Beforewe could even begin to develop an excavation strategy,however, we had to locate these long-buried structures,which was no easy task, even with monumental architecture, since we knew from experience that Macalister'splans were frequently off by ten meters or more. Ploughing through Macalister'sdump heaps, which were twenty feet high, and removing severalhundredtons of dirt was feasible only with a bull-

OutrWall" atehous" breach Drawingsof archaeologicalphotographsby LindaHuff.

\/4 "OuterWall"

/r, r

3

Y, ~-----rc

and the "OuterWall" Macalister'splan of the "palace,"the "Gatehouse," Tobp: from The Excavationof Gezer, volume III,plan VI.Note the breachin the "OuterWall."Right: The "Gatehouse"afterpartial clearance. (1)Ashlar drain;(2) substreet;(3)ashlarpiers;and (4)probe into the tenth-century-B.c. fills. The original roadway surface was removed by Macalister.Below: This rough ashlar block with an inscribed "H,"a mason'smark, was found in Macalister'sdump overthe "Gatehouse."

C~

~.

I LT~LIJ

rl

5 v

J

3 4 21

dozer, that much-maligned bete noir of the modern archaeologist. Our driver,Ovadiah,was such an artist with the giant machine that we peeled the debris awayto bare the "Gatehouse"and "OuterWall" (which, sure enough, were not where they should have been!),scarcely dislodging a single in situ stone. An initial surprise awaitedus when the first element on the lower terrace,the "Gatehouse,"was cleared. It was constructed of rather fine ashlar masonry,preservedfive courses high in the north wall. Macalister had not published an

adequatedescription or even a single photographof the "Gatehouse" (exceptin his curious, obscure book Bible Sidelights from Gezer,which we had not seen). The ashlar blocks and their courses were nearly identical to the well-known Solomonic masonry at Megiddo and other sites.

On one block still in situ in a nearby tower, as well as on another block in the Macalister dump from this area, we noted masons' marks

-

an "H"

and a backward-facing"ELthat are paralleledonly at Megiddo.Astonishingly, this fine ashlar masonry was found even in the large drain


209

Innergate 0 V Vdrain __

o__ _ _A

__

_

Casematewall cesspool

vats fragment of water conduit

"Gatehouse astern

Tower

H

casemate wall

"OuterWall"

Approachroad

"Gatehouse" end of drain

Above left: Macalister'splan of the "MaccabeanCastle"from The Excavation of Gezer, volume I, figure 104. Under building H, which dated to the Hellenistic period, the eastern half of the Solomonic four-entrywaycity gate was uncovered.Above right: A new plan of the Solomonic inner-gatearea, including the "Gatehouse"and the "OuterWall,"based on a field survey by Wolfgang Schleicher.Below right: A section throughthe plasteredglacis from the Middle BronzeAge. (1)The glacis; (2) the foundation trenchfor the "Outer Wall'"and (3) the tenth-century-B.c.mudbrick revetment built on top of (4) the "OuterWall."

running below the roadwayand inside the south wall of the gatewhich was invisible to all but the original builders. Macalister had, of course, removed all occupational material down to street levels. But in soundings well below that we found deep, densely packed fills that servedas the "Gatehouse"foundations. They produced consistent mid- to late-tenthcentury-B.C.sherds-the first hard evidence we had for the date of the "Gatehouse."We also noted a heavy stone substreet, obviously intended as a defense against possible subsidence of the fills that carriedthe roadwayup the steep slope. But as the tilted ashlars of the drain showed dramatically,severe slippage had occurredanyway.(One suspects that some engineer'shead rolled when an investigation was held!)A final observationwas that both the angle and the dimensions of the "Gatehouse,"as shown on Macalister'splan, were inaccurate, so a

210

new architecturalsurvey of the entire areawas carriedout.2 Our strategyfor dating the second element on the lower terrace,the nearby"OuterWall,"was, we thought, deceptively simple, but it provedsimply deceptive!We would dig upslope from the inner face, below where Macalisterhad penetrated, in orderto reach undisturbed, datableliving surfaces against the wall. The "uglyfact that killed the elegant theory"was the massive "InnerWall"and glacis, or plastered embankment, of the Middle Bronze Age (around 1650-1500 B.C.), which

we encountered unexpectedly,filling much of the area. It turned out that here, exactly as we had found it in field I, the "OuterWall"was set tightly against an earlier glacis, which was scarpedback to receive it. Moreover,both the exposed plasteredslope and the old inner city wall continued in use upslope


1~

-----i ~

3-

1---- I ;s

from the new city wall, so that there never were any accumulating structures or living surfaces inside the "OuterWall."Thus our first deep trench inevitably failed to date the wall conclusively, except to show that it was later than the Middle BronzeAge city walls. The section, when driven all the way up the slope, did, however,revealfor the first time in the Gezer excavations all the various defense systems in a single sounding-the "InnerWall," the "OuterWall,"and the Solomonic casemate wall, the latter well dated here to the tenth century B.C.

x.2;-

"I

7k7l. I,' ~

~

g_

U-i C- 3ch~

?--4

The "OuterWall."(1)Tenth-century-B. c. uppercourses and mudbrick revetmentsectioned at right;(2) tenth-century-B.c.terrace walls for fills; (3) second-century-B.c.buttress;and (4) the Macalister dump.

Another Try compensate for the erosion of the natural terraintowardthe valley Our next attempt came outside the below was ingenious, but not al"OuterWall,"ordinarilynot considered a promising areafor in situ, together successful. First, they datable deposits. But here we had a brought in tons of fill to partially bit of well-deservedluck: Macalister level the slope. Then they began to build an interlocking system of had trenched along the top of the stone terraces,continuing to fill up wall only deeply enough to map it. and over these walls - a sort of subBelow that we dug down the face of terraneanhoneycomb that consolithe wall all the way to bedrock, an dated the deep fills. All this enor14 or 23 feet. astonishing courses, mous effort was below groundlevel, that he had written (Macalister found this wall standing no more simply to form a foundation for the than 11 to 12 feet high.) Furtherroadwayup to the outer gate. To we encountered a maze of guardthe roadway,the engineers more, built on top of the fill a tower and buttresses revetments, terraces, the at first inscrutable wall, against (approximately8 by 10 feet and but at last untangled and dated with constructed of good, typical Solomonic ashlar,or drafted,masonry), painstaking excavation, not to mention many drawn sections. against the face of the outer wall. the relative of sequence Gradually Finally,they plasteredthe face of the at least three phases became clear. wall for a distance, then carefully The lowest phase we had reached in laid against that a low revetment or the last week of the excavation, curb of several courses of mudbrick. was dated The date of these elaborateconphase 3, by large quantities of characteristicIsraelite handstructions, based on associated burnished sherds of the late tenth pottery and the style of masonry, It was a massive was clearly Solomonic. But we century B.C. filling and construction operation of the recognizedas was pointed out Solomonic engineers, obviously incessantly by our many archaeoto with the designed cope steep logical visitors - that none of this of the mound below the inner slopes interesting and valuable new evia outer dence datedthe "OuterWall"itself. gate by creating second, city All of our structures could be secwall and gate system to go with the ondary,in which case our theory four-entrywaygate and casemate wall upslope. Their solution to that the original wall dated earlier,

to the Late BronzeAge, was still tenable. The ashlar tower, for instance, looked like it was indeed inserted, as Macalister had thought of his towers.But there was no way to be sure, since careful workmanship could have simply disguised the joint. In our second (andfinal) attempt to date the "OuterWall,"we had been racinghard against time. The day before our last possible day of excavation I began to despair.Skillful strategy (we thought!),heroic earthmoving efforts by the volunteers, and steady,painstaking work by the staff where it counted most, under greatpressure,had almost paid off -but not quite. The final element of proof still eluded us. Wouldwe find it? Wasthere time? One thing had intrigued me all along: the Solomonic ashlar tower was founded nearly halfway up the face of the "OuterWall."Wouldthe builders have done that intentionally, if they were also the builders of the lower courses? Also, a sharp-eyed area supervisorhad pointed out a week before, in another deep sounding, apparentdifferences in the upper and the lower courses. Could we have two building phases? On the final morning, in a burst of inspiration and optimism, we drove the trench desperatelydown. In the


211

21s oo

Right: A deep sounding where the bonded join between the foundations of the Solomonic ashlar tower at left and the uppercourses of the "OuterWall"at right is shown. Below is the c. trench which cuts throughthe earlier dark organicmaterial chalk-filled tenth-century-B. against the lower courses of the "OuterWall"on bedrock.Note the slightly differentmasonry and alignment. Below: This simplified drawing of a section throughareas 17-20 of field III shows the Middle BronzeII Trench Mac. "InnerWall"and glacis, the CASEMATE 16002 Late Bronze-IronI "Outer 17004 Ph. 3 Wall,"and the Solomonic 17009 casemate wall upslope. 10t 2. 17011 WAIl 17014

--

17013

17029 "INNER

last two hours of the last day,we made it, finally hitting bedrock! Then we quickly cleaned the section to see it more clearly, and there literally popped into view a textbook example of a deep retrenching of the bottom three or four courses of the wall sitting on bedrock. Above the hardwhite chalk packed into the backfilled trench, the ashlar tower was founded. There was only one possible explanation for the sequence of features clearly visible in this section. The Solomonic engineers had found the stub of the "OuterWall"and had dug a trench down through severalfeet of dark brown organic debris accumulated against the wall face, apparentlyto check its footing. Then they had immediately backfilled the trench with packed chalk, founded the tower on that, and finally carriedthe wall on up for another nine or ten courses with smaller, roughly dressed masonry,but including some ashlarblocks where the tower bonded with the wall masonry.And the more we looked at the wall, the more it was clear that there was a difference in characterand even in alignment in the lower several courses and in the superstructure. Thus we now had a "phase4,"the original construction phase of the "OuterWall,"indisputably earlier, and enough so that it had had time to accumulate severalfeet of debris against its outer face. Such a massive pre-tenth-century-B.C. wall can

212

WALL" 17022 MB II Ph.8

Revetment

-Ph

3 Mac.

GLACS

Trench

--

Ph.8

hardlyhave been built in the Philistine era of the twelfth to eleventh centuries B.C., much less in the period of decline at the end of the LateBronzeAge in the thirteenth century B.C. Historical as well as stratigraphicconsiderations force us back at least into LateBronzeIIA, the AmarnaAge of the fourteenth

REBUILD 18003 10th c. 3 =Ph.

Revetment Ph.3 -

-

century B.C., as we had argued all

along. But now we had sufficient evidence that the burden of proof was on anyone who would argue otherwise. The dramatic section alone was almost literally black and white proof. Although the properunderstanding and dating of phases 3 and 4 were the most gratifyingresults of the 1984 season, the uppermost phases of the "OuterWall"complex also contributed to the later history of the city gate. Phase 2 consisted of a massive T-shapedbuttress against the wall that was difficult to date, but probablybelongs to the ninth century B.C. It rode over the stub of the tower,which had evidently been destroyed,like the upper gate, in the raid of the EgyptianpharaohShishak around 918 B.c. A final large but

crudely constructed phase-1buttress rose abovethe phase-2 buttress, datedby pottery and glass fragments to the Hellenistic period, when we know that Gezer'sIronAge gateway was reused for the last time in the


OUTER

WALL" 19002 LBII Ph.7

204.00m 0

1

2

3 m.

course of the Maccabeanrefortification of the site. One enigma was the "breach"that Macalister has shown on his plans, which was nearly twenty feet long and located between the broken end of the "OuterWall"and the north wall of the "Gatehouse."It did, indeed, persist all the way down to founding or street levels. But surely the wall must originally have connected with the "Gatehouse"to close the lower line of fortifications. What we encountered in the breach, however,were two phases of roughly coursed rubble fill. The lower phase, connected with the phase-2 buttress, was badly burned. We are inclined to regardthis as evidence of the Assyrian siege and destruction of

517 \-tr

_,

Upper: Outerface of the "OuterWall."(1)Plaster and mudbrick revetment of upper(Solomonic)courses with some ashlar blocks showing; (4) two (2) Solomonic ashlar tower;(3)ninth-century-B.c."T-buttress"; phases of rubble filling in the breach;and (5)tenth-century-B.c.terrace walls and fills. Lower:Solomonic ashlar tower of the "Outer Wall."(1)7tvophases of rubble filling in the "breach"in the wall; c. terracefor sub(2)ninth-century-B.c.buttress;(3) tenth-century-B. roadway fills; and (4) tenth-century-B.c.tower.

1

1~

s

Tiglath-pileser III around 734 B.C.A

well-known relief from the palace of this king mentions "Gezer"in cuneiform and actually portraysan Assyrian battering ram drawnup against the turretedtowers of the city and breachingthe wall, possibly near the gate, which was the most vulnerable point. As Professor BenyaminMazar,Israel'sveteran archaeologist, asked when he visited us the last week, could we be gazing upon the very spot where Tiglathpileser drew up his war engines to breach Gezer's city walls that fateful year? A final rubble repairabovethe burn layerbelonged in all probability to phase 1 and the final trauma of Gezer in the Maccabean wars.

The Upper Tbrrace While things were in a state of awful suspense on the lower terrace,half our work crew, for whom there was no room in the small probes there, had been excavatingsteadily but almost leisurely on the upperterrace, in the supposed"palace"west of the uppergate. I had studied Macalister's one minute plan and exactly two sentences of text(!)on this building, which had long intrigued me. I felt that if Yadincould play hunches, so could I, and his own Solomonic "Palace6000"at Megiddo,excavated in the 1960s, might provethe clue (Yadin1970).The two buildings certainly seemed similar: Assyrianstyle bit hilhni open-courtstructures, built into the casemate city wall, and both incorporatingcorner

4

towers.The Megiddo"palace"measured approximately70 by 95 feet, but, if I were correct, the Gezer structure was even larger- about 60 by 120 feet. Anticipation was high as we began. But here, too, there were surprises. The biggest surprisewas that there were not one but at least two "palaces,"hopelessly entangled, as we had often discoveredto our chagrin, on Macalister'splans. We carefully bulldozed tons of dump, only to discoverthat the uppermost building had been almost completely trenched out, and even partially removed,by Macalister.At first we could neither date nor make sense of the tatters of walls. We assumed that this ephemeral building had not been drawnby Macalister,so we


213

Above left: A plasteredpillar fromphase 3 which was reusedin the wall of a building fromphase 1 on the upperterrace.Note Macalister'sbackfill trench to the left, behind the meterstick. This was typical of the phase-1 building. Above right: TheAssyrian is depicted in this siege of Gazru ("Gezer") drawing of a relief from the palace of Tiglathpileser III at Nimrud. Below right: View of field III looking south. The overgrownSolomonic gate of the 1967-1970 excavationsis at the left, and the new areas in the "palace" are at the right. Note the plasteredlane between the two complexes (in the center)and the drop-offof the terrainto the valley below. Beyond,to the left of this photograph,is the Valley of Aijalon.

probedon below, looking for "our" palace. So intent were we on reaching tenth-century-B.c.levels that it was a day or two before it dawned on us that there was no lower palatial building (eventhough we did reach some in situ courtyardsand restorable tenth-century pottery).Then, in looking back over our shoulder,we realized that we could connect our fragmentarywalls with elements of Macalister'splan, even though the plan was confused and on too small a scale to allow for detailed comparisons. The conclusive proof came when we located a curious stone half-circlethat had not been previously excavated - then discovered

the other half of this silo on Macalister'splan, dug by him seventyfive years ago. A bit more probing,

214

and we were able to expose and correctly chart all the remaining traces of Macalister'supperbuilding, which became our phase 1. But how were we to date this building since its walls were trenched out and left standing isolated on stubs of debris? Fortunately,we were able to excavate one of these stubs under the walls,


and from this small pocket of undisturbedand sealed material we retrieveda few cooking pot rims that date to the late ninth or eighth centuries B.C. Thus the phase-1 "palace" was probablybuilt sometime in the eighth century B.c., then destroyed

by the Assyrians. This upper IronAge II structure,

as hypothetically reconstructed from correctedelements of both Macalister'splan and ours, can be interpretedonly hesitantly.3It meal•-sured approximately40 by 120 feet, i excluding the casemate wall (which i was, however,integral to it). The west half, rooms 1-4, may have had a residential purpose, to judgefrom the silo in room 1. The plan borrows some aspects from the familiar 12 "Israelite"or four-roomhouse, such 13 16 1C5] as a central corridor/courtyardand stone walls incorporatingupright pillars. The east half was evidently a barracksunit adjoiningthe Compositeplan of phase 1 on the upperterrace(eighth century B.c.;see note 3 below). Assyrian-periodtwo-entrywaycity gate. The major features are: (1)room 1, an entrance corridorand guardroom;(2)room 6, possibly a double-chamberedstairwell in a corner tower; (3)room 7, certainly an open courtyard,perhapsa small "paradeground"of sorts; and (4)rooms 8 and 9, clearly small guardroomsopening onto both the "palace"and the lane leading to the west guardroomof the city gate (tower 11). The tenth-century-B.c.casemate (rooms 12-16) had been cleared out and reused after an earlier destruction (probablyby the pharaoh Shishak) in connection with the phase-1"palace."This is clear,both from the poor rebuild of the upper courses of the inner casemate wall between rooms 9 and 12 as well as from the destruction debris of casemate 12, which spilled over into guardroom9. This ashy mudbrick 'Cdebris contained numerous partially restorablevessels of the late eighth (( century B.C., more than one hundred

SI)

ii

1

••M.

clay loomweights (many severely burned), and two iron arrowheads. The stones of the upper courses some completely calcined into lime by the fierce heat of the fire - fell down both into the casemate and directly onto the guardroom floor. Thus, even though Macalister had almost completely trenched out this building (in several places we found smashed early-twentieth-century

1

Nil

1N

-

K

/

~

cr!

Guardrooms8 and 9, as seen looking east across the lane to tower 11 of the Solomonic gate. (1)Phase-1and phase-2 floors in section; (2)IronII rebuild of the uppercourses of the (3)inner casemate wall which was destroyedat the end of phase 1.


215

porcelain china on the floorsMacalister'sdinner plates!),we have a firm Assyrian-periodhorizon for the phase-1"palace"or barracks, with the end securely dated to the

the building, along with the fourentryway city gate, had been violently destroyedin the late tenth century B.C.,probably in the Shishak

734 B.C.destruction. This is, no

doubt, the same Assyrian destruction encountered by us earlier in the adjoininguppergate in field IIIas well as in the 1984 season in the lower "Gatehouse"and "OuterWall" area. Now that we had successfully integratednearly all the elements of Macalister's"palace"into an eighthresidencecentury-B.C.-structure barracksadjoiningthe gate, we had to probebelow for our putative tenth-century "palace."First, much to our surprise,the walls of guardrooms 8 and 9 continued to go down to much lower levels, with a succession of floors dating to the ninth and tenth centuries B.C.When completely cleared some of the walls stood over six feet high, a rarefind in Iron Age archaeology.The ninth-century, or phase-2, floor levels are clear, as is the fact that the main walls from phase 3 were rebuilt and reused. But the overallplan of this structure adjoining the gate is uncertain, except for the reuse of guardrooms8 and 9. Apparently,following the Shishak destruction in the late tenth century B.C., the guardroomswere rebuilt of necessity in phase 2, but the remainder of the phase-3 building was too badly destroyedto repair.In general, this fits with the known historical and archaeologicaldata, which indicate that Gezer was in decline in the

Displaced blocks from the west wall of room 7 of the tenth-century-B. C. "palace"from phase 3. The robbertrench(1)is barely visible at the left.

raid alreadymentioned. Everywhere overlyingthe floors there was up to three feet of plastery debris,with wet-smoothed white wall plaster fragments of extraordinarilyhigh quality. The same quality is seen in the masonry,which is of massive, roughly squaredblocks. Along the west wall, these fine building blocks had tumbled over in disarrayand remainedwhere they fell. Here and there, however,the wall had been robbeddown to its foundation course, the robbertrench being clearly visible in the sections. Despite the fact that this large courtyardbuilding had been looted before its destruction and was found by us almost empty, a few smashed storejarsand bowls on the floor gaveus a date of the mid to late tenth century B.C.

In probingfurther down for our

The plan of this building was relatively simple. Room 7 was certainly an open courtyard,cobbled in places. Room 5 was a small entrance court, flanked by a probablestairwell for a corner tower,room 6. This court was also entered from the gate lane to the east. A side-courtto the right as one came in, room 4, had a large, well-preservedlimestone basin in the corner.This installation had two carvedchannels at the rim on each side that overflowedinto two large storejarswith the necks broken off, set flush into the plaster floor. Studies of such installations have shown that they were olive presses. The olives were crushed in the

expected phase-3 "palace,"it quickly became apparent that guardrooms 8 and 9 had certainly been built in the mid to late tenth century B.C.,when the four-entryway city gate and casemate wall were constructed. Their entrances opened off the fine plastered lane leading along the west wall of the gate into tower 11, and their floors were continuous with this paving. These small, secure

basin, then warm water was poured in which floated off the clarified oil into the settling basins. At first we regarded this large stone basin (which some volunteers promptly dubbed "Bathsheba's bath," complete with soap dishes!) as an odd feature of a monumental building adjoining the public gateway. But, in fact, similar presses have been found not only in royal, but even in temple precincts.

early to middle ninth century B.C.

216

:,I

/

7

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