Open this page in a new tab

Gezer

Aerial View of Tel Gezer Tel Gezer

click on image to explore this site on a new tab in govmap.gov.il


Names
Transliterated Name Source Name
Gezer or Tel Gezer Hebrew גֶּזֶר
Tell Jezar or Tell el-Jezari Arabic تل الجزر
Ga-az-ru Assyrian Akkadian
Gazara
Gadara ? Josephus
Introduction
Introduction

Gezer is located in the Shephelah - a transition region between the Judean Mountains and the coastal plain. Roughly halfway between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, it had a long history of occupation starting at least at the end of the 4th millennium BCE in the Chalcolithic. Although there were later occupations, it's heyday appears to have ended in the Iron Age ( William J. Dever in Stern et al, 1993 v. 2).

History

Stern et al (1993 v. 2)

The earliest mention of the site is in an inscription of Thutmose III (c. 1490- 1436 BCE) on the walls of the great Temple of Amon at Karnak. There, a scene commemorating this pharaoh's victories on his first campaign to Asia in 1468 BCE portrays bound captives from Gezer. A short inscription of Thutmose IV (c. 1410-1402 BCE) in his mortuary temple at Thebes refers to Hurrian captives from a city, the name of which is broken but is almost certainly Gezer. During the tumultuous Amarna period, in the fourteenth century BCE, Gezer figures prominently among Canaanite city-states under nominal Egyptian rule. In the corpus of the el-Amarna letters are ten from three different kings of Gezer. Perhaps the best-known Egyptian reference to Gezer is that of Merneptah (c. 1207 BCE) in his "Israel" stela, in which it is claimed that Israel has been destroyed and Gezer seized. The conquest of Gezer is also celebrated in another inscription of this pharaoh, found at Amada.

A relief of Tiglath-pileser III, king of Assyria (c. 745-728 BCE), found on the walls of his palace at Nimrud, depicts the siege and capture of a city called Ga-az-ru. This is undoubtedly Gezer in Canaan, and the background would be the campaign of the Assyrian monarch in Philistia in 734-733 BCE. References to Gezer in the Bible itself are not as numerous as might be expected. However, that simply reflects the reality that, on the one hand, Gezer had already passed the peak of its power by the Iron Age and that, on the other, it lay on the periphery of lsrael's effective control until rather late in the biblical period. In the period of the Israelite conquest, it is recorded that the Israelites under Joshua met a coalition of kings near Gezer in the famous Battle of Makkedah, in the Ayalon Valley. Although Horam, the king of Gezer, was killed, the text does not say specifically that Gezer itself was captured (Jos. 10:33, 12:12). Later, according to several passages, "Gezer and its pasture lands" were allotted to the tribe of Joseph (or "Ephraim", cf. Jos. 16:3, 10; Jg. 1:29; 1 Chr. 6:66, 7:28). However, the footnote that the Israelites "did not drive out the Canaanites, who dwelt in Gezer" makes it clear that the Israelite claim was more imaginary than real. Gezer was also set aside as a Levitical city (Jos. 21:21), but again it is unlikely that it was actually settled by Israelites. The same ambiguity is reflected in several references to David's campaigns against the Philistines, where Gezer is usually regarded as in the buffer zone between Philistia and Israel, although it is implied that it was actually the farthest outpost of Philistine influence (2 Sam. 5:25; 1 Chr. 14:16, 20:4). The most significant biblical reference to Gezer - and now confirmed as the most reliable historically - is 1 Kings 9:15-17, where it is recorded that the city was finally ceded to Solomon by the pharaoh as a dowry in giving his daughter to the Israelite king in marriage. Thereafter, Solomon fortified Gezer, along with Jerusalem, Megiddo, and Hazor.

There are no further references until post-biblical literature, in which Gezer appears to have played a significant role in the Maccabean wars. The Seleucid general Bacchides fortified Gezer (by then known as Gazara) along with a number of other Judean cities (1 Macc. 9:52). In 142 BCE, Simon Maccabaeus besieged Gezer and took it, after which he refortified it and then built himself a residence there (1 Macc. 13:43;--48). His son, John Hyrcanus, made his headquarters at Gezer when he became commander of the Jewish armies the next year (1 Macc. 13:53).

Webster et al. (2023)

Gezer is mentioned in Egyptian, Assyrian and biblical texts–sources that carry varying weight for reconstructing history. The Egyptian and Assyrian texts are contemporary with the events they describe and thus generally accepted as describing real events (notwithstanding political biases of the authors). The biblical texts were written centuries later and thus the historical realities behind them are less clear and more strongly debated.

Gezer was well-known to the Egyptians since at least the 18th Dynasty. During the 15th century BC, this town appears in the topographic list of Thutmose III, and Thutmose IV claims to have captured Hurrians nearby [1]. The chronology of these rulers is supported by radiocarbon dating, with accession years estimated in the range 1518–1501 BC and 1434–1420 BC respectively (95.4% probability) [2–4]. By the 14th century BC, Gezer was one of the dominant city-states in central-southern Canaan, its rulers featuring prominently in the Amarna correspondence [5, 6]. Towards the end of the Late Bronze Age, Merneptah (accession 1241–1219 BC, 95.4%) launched a campaign into southern Canaan, evidently to quell a rebellion that broke out at the end of Ramesses II’ long reign [7, 8]. Gezer is one of few sites singled out as having been captured. In his stele we read:
“Carried off is Canaan with every evil, Brought away is Ascalon, taken is Gezer, Yenoam is reduced to non-existence; Israel is laid waste having no seed.” [9]
The historicity of Merneptah’s southern Levantine campaign and his attack on Gezer (dated to his 5th year) enjoys wide acceptance [10]. Further evidence comes from the Amada Stela, where the king proudly titles himself as the “subduer of Gezer” [9] and the event may even be depicted in a battle relief at Karnak [11].

Whether the biblical text preserves memories of Gezer as a prominent Canaanite centre is debated [12, 13]. The Bible is a major source for the Iron Age southern Levant, and though written down centuries later, most scholars consider that it reflects some early realities. The overall evidence suggests that by the early Iron Age, Gezer lay at the border between emerging coastal and highland polities and was a frontier for conflict: “there arose a war with the Philistines at Gezer” (1 Chr. 20:4; see also 2 Sam. 5:25 and 1 Chr. 14:16).

During the timeframe of the debated ‘United Monarchy’, Gezer appears in several intriguing texts. 1 Kings 9:15–17 mentions Gezer’s capture, burning and presentation as a wedding gift by Solomon’s father-in-law–an unnamed Egyptian king; it then claims that Solomon proceeded to build up Gezer, along with Megiddo, Hazor and other towns. Scholarly views vary regarding the composition and redaction of this text and the mix of early and/or later realities reflected (e.g. [14–16]). For those who would see a historical capture of Gezer during the 10th century BC, Siamun of the 21st Dynasty has most often been suggested as the unnamed king [17–20].

Sheshonq I, the Libyan founder of the 22nd Egyptian dynasty (accession 988–945 BC, 95.4%), left a toponym list and triumphal relief at Karnak that includes many southern Levantine sites; toponym no. 11 or 12 may be Gezer, though there are alternate readings (Makkedah and Gaza respectively) [19, 21–27]. While the textual and archaeological evidence does not support viewing the Karnak relief simply as a list of sites attacked or destroyed by Sheshonq I [25], most scholars consider that a campaign into the southern Levant did occur, perhaps partly (or primarily?) aimed at disrupting or controlling the copper trade [28–30].

Sheshonq I is commonly equated with biblical “Shishak king of Egypt”, who is described as attacking Jerusalem in the 5th regnal year of Solomon’s son Rehoboam (1 Kings 14:25–26; 2 Chron. 12:2–9) [19–32]. If the rulers are indeed equivalent, and an attack on Jerusalem historical, then Gezer likely also came under pressure since it guards the western end of the main route leading up to Jerusalem [32, 33].

The last major reference to Gezer during the Iron Age occurs in contemporary Assyrian sources: a siege of Gezer (Ga-az-ru) by Tiglath-pileser III, dated by textual evidence to 734 BC, is depicted in a palace relief at Nimrud [34–36].

Exploration and Excavations

Webster et al. (2023)

Fig 2.

Location of the Tandy excavation relative to previous archaeological fieldwork at Gezer.

Image adapted from [41] (front plan) under a CC BY license, with permission from J. Seger, original copyright 2013.

Webster et al. (2023)

Figure 2

Gezer has been the subject of archaeological fieldwork for over a century, with many parts of the site investigated (Fig 2). Macalister was the first to excavate (1902–1909) [37], but his rudimentary excavation methods seriously limit our ability to integrate the findings into a reconstruction of the site’s history [38]. This is unfortunate, since he excavated nearly 60% of the tell – a fact that leaves few locations available to modern excavators. Nonetheless, Macalister exposed a number of key structures that should be associated with the Late Bronze and Iron Age cities. These include portions of city gates and fortification walls along the southern edge of the site, in the saddle area between Gezer’s western and eastern mounds [37, 39, 40].

Following projects of limited scope by Weill in 1912–1913 and 1923–1924 [42], and Rowe in 1934 [43–45], the next expedition to undertake extensive excavation, this time using careful stratigraphic methods, was by Hebrew Union College (HUC) under the direction of Wright, Dever, Lance and Seger between 1964 and 1974. Remains of the late LBA and Iron Age were explored particularly in Fields II [46, 47], Field III [48, 49], Field VI [50] and Field VII [51, 52]. In the saddle area, Field VII presented the most detailed Iron Age sequence, while Iron II fortification systems and part of an administrative building were explored in Field III. Exploration of features initially exposed but misdated by Macalister revealed six- and four-chambered city gates and a casemate wall.

Dever returned to Gezer for two additional seasons in 1984 and 1990 in an effort to clarify the date of the ‘Outer Wall’ and lower gateway, and to explore the Iron II administrative building west of the six-chambered gate in Field III [53–57].

Fieldwork at Gezer was renewed between 2006 and 2017 by Ortiz and Wolff, focused on creating a wide exposure of the Iron Age city between HUC Fields VII and III (Fig 3). Ten seasons of excavation under the auspices of the Tandy Institute of Archaeology (Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) revealed continuous occupation through three strata of the late LBA to Iron I and four of Iron II (cf. [58–61], final publication in preparation) (Table 1). The plans attest to the changing nature of activity near the city gate–sometimes domestic and at other times administrative. Earlier periods (LBA–Iron I) were represented mainly in the western portion of the excavated area, and Iron II in the east. For convenience, the excavation project is referred to throughout this article as the Tandy expedition, but note that during the publication phase the project was moved to the Lanier Center for Archaeology at Lipscomb University.

From 2010–2018, an excavation by Warner, Yannai and Tsuk under the auspices of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary (NOBTS) and the Israel National Parks Authority (INPA) revisited Field IV and the adjacent water system. The main goal was to re-expose the water system (previously known to Macalister), clarifying its date (now considered MBA) and how it functioned [62, 63].

Throughout this article, site-wide strata are denoted with Roman numerals and those of single excavation fields with Arabic numerals. The latter refer to the Tandy Expedition except where otherwise specified.

Gezer’s archaeology has played a significant role in many debates related to the chronology of the southern Levant during the late LBA through Iron Age (Table 2). Key issues at Gezer that have remained unclear until recently include:
  • The extent and date of destruction at the end of the LBA, which the excavators suggest may be associated with Merneptah. HUC attributed limited burnt remains and smashed pottery in Field II and large-scale trenching in Field VI (the acropolis) with Stratum XV and the end of the LBA [47, 50]; much clearer evidence has now come from the excavations of the Tandy expedition. Still, our ability to securely set the absolute date of the destruction and test the viability of potential historical correlations using solely pottery and finds is severely limited.

  • The chronology of so-called ‘Philistine’ material culture [2, 64–72]. Gezer is not a core Philistine-related site, but characteristic pottery appears quite suddenly in Stratum XIII, making up 5% of the relevant pottery assemblage in Fields VI [50] and the Tandy excavation. It first occurs as Philistine 2 (Bichrome) ware, and no indisputable examples of Philistine 1 (Monochrome) are known ([73, 74] contra [75]). A single sherd of Philistine 1 has been identified in the Tandy excavation (S. Gitin, personal communication). Determining the absolute chronology of when ‘Philistine’ influence first reached Gezer is of considerable interest, since it could enhance our understanding of social interactions during the LBA to Iron Age transition.

  • The date of the ‘Outer Wall’ and lower gateway to either the LBA or Iron Age [55–57, 76– 82]. The existence or lack of a fortification system at Gezer during the LBA has been vigorously debated, and fortification during the early Iron Age was also unclear until the Tandy expedition.

  • The date and political association of monumental building activity in Stratum VIII, with its casemate wall, six-chambered gate and large administrative building. This marked change at Gezer was traditionally dated to the 10th century BC [49, 53–55, 59–61], the gate initially featuring in chronological discussions due to Yadin’s association of six-chambered gates at Gezer, Hazor and Megiddo with 1 Kings 9:15 and Solomonic building activity [39]. The now well-recognised wide distribution of such gates shows that the style was not restricted to a particular kingdom nor were they necessarily built at the same time [83, 84]. Following a low chronology for the Iron I to IIA transition, Finkelstein and others dated Stratum VIII to the 9th century BC and suggested associating it with the northern Israelite kingdom under the Omride dynasty [81, 85–88]. Recent intense archaeological research in the Shephelah shows Gezer Stratum VIII to be part of a pattern indicative of political expansion. Various models have been proposed, and the phenomena is usually seen as the result of westward expansion by Judah or polities based in Jerusalem or the Benjamin plateau [89–93].

  • The date and possible historical association for the destruction of Stratum VIII. HUC and the Tandy expedition placed the destruction in the second part of the 10th century BC, drawing an association with Shishak / Sheshonq I. A low chronology scenario, on the other hand, would put the event well inside the 9th century BC, and Finkelstein has suggested associating it with the ca. 830 BC campaign of the Aramaean ruler Hazael [75].
Stratigraphy of Gezer Table 2

Iron Age chronology of the southern Levant

Webster et al. (2023)

Table 2

Ortiz and Wolff (2017)

The first intensive exploration of Tel Gezer was conducted by R. A. S. Macalister during the years 1902–1905 and 1907–1909, under the auspices of the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF). Macalister published the results of these early excavations in three volumes (1912). Macalister excavated nearly 40 percent of the tel. Unfortunately, the methods of excavation were very primitive, as Macalister dug the site in strips and backfilled each trench. As a result of his excavations, he distinguished eight levels of occupation.

The next excavator at Gezer was Raymond-Charles Weill, known for his excavations in Jerusalem before and after World War I (1913–1914 and 1923–1924) under the patronage of Baron Rothschild. In 1914 and again in 1924, Weill excavated lands around Tel Gezer that had been acquired by Baron Rothschild. Not much was reported on these excavations until a recent publication by Aren Maeir (2004). In 1934, renewed excavations were conducted under the direction of Alan Rowe under the auspices of the Palestine Exploration Society. This excavation was terminated after a short season. Only preliminary reports were produced, but the data from the excavation is available at the offices of the Palestine Exploration Fund and the Israel Antiquities Authority.

The American Gezer Project began in 1964 under the auspices of the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion and the Harvard Semitic Museum, with Nelson Glueck and Ernest Wright as advisors. William G. Dever led the Phase I excavations (1964–1971) of the HUC-Harvard excavations. Phase II was led by Joe D. Seger (1972–1974). These excavations distinguished twenty-one stratigraphic levels from the Late Chalcolithic to the Roman period. Currently, five large final report volumes have been produced (Dever, Lance, and Wright 1970; Dever 1974; Gitin 1990; Dever, Lance, and Bullard 1986; and Seger, Lance, and Bullard 1988), with two more on the small finds and the Middle Bronze Age fortifications of Field IV in advanced stages of publication. Two additional seasons by Dever were conducted in 1984 and 1990.

The main results of Phase I were
  1. redating the city defenses such as Macalister’s “inner wall, “outer wall,” and the “Maccabean castle”
  2. dating the famous “high place”
  3. clarifying the Middle and Late Bronze Age domestic levels
  4. illuminating the “Philistine” Iron Age I horizon
The objectives of the Phase II excavations were to investigate the city’s Iron Age and later stratigraphy and to expand investigations of the Middle Bronze Age southern gate in Field IV.

The current Tel Gezer Excavation project is a long-term project directed by Dr. Steven M. Ortiz of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and Dr. Samuel Wolff of the Israel Antiquities Authority. The excavation is sponsored by the Tandy Institute for Archaeology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and receives financial support from a consortium of institutions: Ashland Theological Seminary, Clear Creek Bible College, Marian Eakins Archaeological Museum, Lancaster Bible College, Lycoming College, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, St. Mary’s University College, and New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. The excavations are carried out within the Tel Gezer National Park and benefit from the cooperation of the National Parks Authority. The excavation project also receives support from Kibbutz Gezer and the Karmei Yosef Community Association. The project is affiliated with the American Schools of Oriental Research. The project consists of a field school where an average of sixty to ninety students and staff participate each season. To date, students and staff have come from the United States, Denmark, Canada, Korea, India, Palestinian Territories, and Israel.

Stern et al (1993 v. 2)

The first excavations at Gezer were conducted between 1902 and 1909 by R. A. S. Macalister for the Palestine Exploration Fund. The findings were published in three substantial volumes in 1912. These excavations were the largest yet undertaken by the fund or anyone else in Palestine, not surpassed in size or importance until the Germans worked at Jericho and the Americans at Samaria in 1908. Macalister began at the eastern end of the mound with a series of trenches, each about 10 m wide, running the entire width of the mound. Hedugeach trench down to bedrock(as deep as 13 m in some places). Then, proceeding to the next trench, he dumped the debris into the trench he had just completed. Although his notion of stratification was primitive-- even judged by the standards of the day - he was able to recognize as many as nine strata. In the excavation report he combined his architectural remains into six large plans. Each purports to represent a coherent stratum but is actually a composite of elements several centuries apart. The pottery was grouped according to seven general periods, some covering as many as eight hundred years: Pre-Semitic, First through Fourth Semitic, Hellenistic, and Roman-Byzantine. The remaining material was published by categories rather than by chronological periods - all the burials together, all the domestic architecture, all the cult objects, all the metal and lithic objects - and scarcely a single item can be related to the general strata, let alone to specific buildings.

What was to have been the beginning of a second series of excavations was sponsored at Gezer by the Palestine Exploration Fund in the summer of 1934, under the direction of A. Rowe. He opened an area just west of the acropolis, which both Macalister and he were unable to touch because of the Muslim cemetery and the shrine of a holy man, a weli. However, bedrock was reached in a short time, and the excavations were abandoned. The only significant exposure, apart from an Early Bronze Age cave, was a Middle Bronze Age tower that probably belongs to the inner wall (see below).

In 1964, G. E. Wright initiated a new ten-year project at Gezer, sponsored by the Hebrew Union College Biblical and Archaeological School (later the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology) in Jerusalem and supported chiefly by grants from the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., with some assistance from the Harvard Semitic Museum. The project was directed in 1964-1965 by Wright (thereafter, he was adviser to it), from 1966 through 1971 by W. G. Dever, and from 1972 to 1974 by J.D. Seger. H. D. Lance was associate director, and Glueck was adviser to it from 1964 through 1971. Dever directed the final seasons in 1984 and 1990.

Maps, Aerial Views, Plans, and Illustrations
Maps, Aerial Views, Plans, and Illustrations

Maps

Normal Size

  • Map of Major Iron Age
    Figure 2

    Major Iron Age sites of the coastal plain, Shephelah, and hill country of Judah.

    Ortiz and Wolff (2017)
    sites of the coastal plain, Shephelah, and hill country of Judah from Ortiz and Wolff (2017)
  • Location Map from
    The cities and roads around Gezer – during the Canaanite and Israelite periods with Gezer marked as a red point

    (Bible Mapper 3.0)

    Used with permission from BibleWalks.com
    BibleWalks.com
  • Fig. 1 Location Map
    Fig 1.

    Location of Gezer and sites mentioned in the text.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    from Webster et al. (2023)

Magnified

  • Map of Major Iron Age
    Figure 2

    Major Iron Age sites of the coastal plain, Shephelah, and hill country of Judah.

    Ortiz and Wolff (2017)
    sites of the coastal plain, Shephelah, and hill country of Judah from Ortiz and Wolff (2017)
  • Location Map from
    The cities and roads around Gezer – during the Canaanite and Israelite periods with Gezer marked as a red point

    (Bible Mapper 3.0)

    Used with permission from BibleWalks.com
    BibleWalks.com
  • Fig. 1 Location Map
    Fig 1.

    Location of Gezer and sites mentioned in the text.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    from Webster et al. (2023)

Aerial Views

  • Oblique Aerial View of Tel Gezer
    Aerial View of Tel Gezer

    Click on Image for high resolution magnifiable image

    Used with permission from Biblewalks.com
    from BibleWalks.com
  • Annotated Aerial View of
    Annotated Aerial View of Tel Gezer

    Used with permission from BibleWalks.com
    Tel Gezer from BibleWalks.com
  • Tel Gezer in Google Earth
    Tel Gezer

    click on image to explore this site on a new tab in Google Earth
  • Tel Gezer on govmap.gov.il
    Tel Gezer

    click on image to explore this site on a new tab in govmap.gov.il

Plans

Site Plans

Normal Size

  • Fig. 2 Site plan from
    Fig 2.

    Location of the Tandy excavation relative to previous archaeological fieldwork at Gezer.

    Image adapted from [41] (front plan) under a CC BY license, with permission from J. Seger, original copyright 2013.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    Webster et al. (2023)
  • Plan of the mound and
    Gezer: plan of the mound, excavation fields, and principal remains.

    Stern et al (1993 v. 3)
    excavation areas from Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
  • Plate 4 - Plan of Tel Gezer
    Plate 4

    Plan of Tel Gezer

    Younker (1991)
    from Younker (1991)

Magnified

  • Fig. 2 Site plan from
    Fig 2.

    Location of the Tandy excavation relative to previous archaeological fieldwork at Gezer.

    Image adapted from [41] (front plan) under a CC BY license, with permission from J. Seger, original copyright 2013.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    Webster et al. (2023)
  • Plan of the mound and
    Gezer: plan of the mound, excavation fields, and principal remains.

    Stern et al (1993 v. 3)
    excavation areas from Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
  • Plate 4 - Plan of Tel Gezer
    Plate 4

    Plan of Tel Gezer

    Younker (1991)
    from Younker (1991)

Area Plans

North Wall

Normal Size

  • Plate 19 - Hand drawn plan
    Plate 19

    Detail of Field XI (after Macalister). Note approximate locations of Squares 21 and 22.

    Younker (1991)
    of Outer and Inner Walls in Field XI (North Wall) from Younker (1991)
  • Plate III.1 - Plan of Inner and
    Plate III.1

    E/23. Field XI, Areas 20-22

    Dever (1992)
    Outer Walls in Field XI from Dever (1992)

Magnified

  • Plate 19 - Hand drawn plan
    Plate 19

    Detail of Field XI (after Macalister). Note approximate locations of Squares 21 and 22.

    Younker (1991)
    of Outer and Inner Walls in Field XI (North Wall) from Younker (1991)
  • Plate III.1 - Plan of Inner and
    Plate III.1

    E/23. Field XI, Areas 20-22

    Dever (1992)
    Outer Walls in Field XI from Dever (1992)

South Gate Area

Normal Size

  • Fig. 3 Photo/Plan of fields
    Fig 3

    Aerial view of the Tandy excavations, with a wide exposure of iron age strata on the central-southern edge of the Gezer mound between fields VII and III of Hebrew Union College.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    III and VII (South Gate) from Webster et al. (2023)
  • Fig. 4 Plan of Stratum 12B
    Fig 4

    Plan of Tandy excavation stratum 12B elite residence with radiocarbon dated contexts marked. The insert shows Individual #3.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    elite residence in South Gate area from Webster et al. (2023)
  • Fig. 6 Plan of Strata 10A & 9
    Fig 6

    Plan of Tandy excavation strata 10A and 9 with radiocarbon dated contexts marked.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    in South Gate area from Webster et al. (2023)
  • Fig. 7 Plan of Stratum 8
    Fig 7

    Plan of Tandy excavation stratum 8 with radiocarbon dated contexts in the courtyard-type administrative building marked.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    in South Gate area from Webster et al. (2023)
  • Fig. 8 Plan of Stratum 7
    Fig 8

    Plan of Tandy excavation stratum 7 domestic units with radiocarbon dated contexts marked.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    in South Gate area from Webster et al. (2023)

Magnified

  • Fig. 3 Photo/Plan of fields
    Fig 3

    Aerial view of the Tandy excavations, with a wide exposure of iron age strata on the central-southern edge of the Gezer mound between fields VII and III of Hebrew Union College.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    III and VII (South Gate) from Webster et al. (2023)
  • Fig. 4 Plan of Stratum 12B
    Fig 4

    Plan of Tandy excavation stratum 12B elite residence with radiocarbon dated contexts marked. The insert shows Individual #3.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    elite residence in South Gate area from Webster et al. (2023)
  • Fig. 6 Plan of Strata 10A & 9
    Fig 6

    Plan of Tandy excavation strata 10A and 9 with radiocarbon dated contexts marked.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    in South Gate area from Webster et al. (2023)
  • Fig. 7 Plan of Stratum 8
    Fig 7

    Plan of Tandy excavation stratum 8 with radiocarbon dated contexts in the courtyard-type administrative building marked.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    in South Gate area from Webster et al. (2023)
  • Fig. 8 Plan of Stratum 7
    Fig 8

    Plan of Tandy excavation stratum 7 domestic units with radiocarbon dated contexts marked.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    in South Gate area from Webster et al. (2023)

Maps and Plans from Macalister (1912)

Normal Size

  • Plate VIII - Map of    
    Plate VI

    Plan of Hellenistic Period [JW: Dever (1992) says this is Iron Age]

    Macalister (1912 v. 3)
    the surroundings of Gezer from Macalister (1912 v. 3) (follow link to bigger image)
  • Plan of the excavations
    Key Plan of the Excavations showing their relation to the area of the city

    Macalister (1912 v. 3)
    from Macalister (1912 v. 3)
  • Plate II - Plan of    
    Plate III

    Plan of 1st Semitic Period

    Macalister (1912 v. 3)
    1st Semitic Period from and according to Macalister (1912 v. 3) (follow link to bigger image)
  • Plate III - Plan of    
    Plate III

    Plan of 2nd Semitic Period

    Macalister (1912 v. 3)
    2nd Semitic Period from and according to Macalister (1912 v. 3) (follow link to bigger image)
  • Plate IV - Plan of    
    Plate IV

    Plan of 3rd Semitic Period

    Macalister (1912 v. 3)
    3rd Semitic Period from and according to Macalister (1912 v. 3) (follow link to bigger image)
  • Plate V - Plan of    
    Plate V

    Plan of 4th Semitic Period

    Macalister (1912 v. 3)
    4th Semitic Period from and according to Macalister (1912 v. 3) (follow link to bigger image)
  • Plate VI - Plan of    
    Plate VI

    Plan of Hellenistic Period [JW: Dever (1992) says this is Iron Age]

    Macalister (1912 v. 3)
    Hellenistic Period [JW: Dever (1992) says this is Iron Age] from and according to Macalister (1912 v. 3) (follow link to bigger image)

Magnified

  • Plate VIII - Map of    
    Plate VI

    Plan of Hellenistic Period [JW: Dever (1992) says this is Iron Age]

    Macalister (1912 v. 3)
    the surroundings of Gezer from Macalister (1912 v. 3) (follow link to bigger image)
  • Plan of the excavations
    Key Plan of the Excavations showing their relation to the area of the city

    Macalister (1912 v. 3)
    from Macalister (1912 v. 3)
  • Plate II - Plan of    
    Plate III

    Plan of 1st Semitic Period

    Macalister (1912 v. 3)
    1st Semitic Period from and according to Macalister (1912 v. 3) (follow link to bigger image)
  • Plate III - Plan of    
    Plate III

    Plan of 2nd Semitic Period

    Macalister (1912 v. 3)
    2nd Semitic Period from and according to Macalister (1912 v. 3) (follow link to bigger image)
  • Plate IV - Plan of    
    Plate IV

    Plan of 3rd Semitic Period

    Macalister (1912 v. 3)
    3rd Semitic Period from and according to Macalister (1912 v. 3) (follow link to bigger image)
  • Plate V - Plan of    
    Plate V

    Plan of 4th Semitic Period

    Macalister (1912 v. 3)
    4th Semitic Period from and according to Macalister (1912 v. 3) (follow link to bigger image)
  • Plate VI - Plan of    
    Plate VI

    Plan of Hellenistic Period [JW: Dever (1992) says this is Iron Age]

    Macalister (1912 v. 3)
    Hellenistic Period [JW: Dever (1992) says this is Iron Age] from and according to Macalister (1912 v. 3) (follow link to bigger image)

Illustrations

  • Artist's Rendition of Gezer
    Artist's Rendition of Gezer during the Iron Age. View from the South.

    Used with permission from BibleWalks.com
    during the Iron Age from BibleWalks.com

Chronology
Chronology and Stratigraphy

Stratigraphy - HUC and Tandy excavations

Webster et al. (2023)

Stratigraphic Table

Stratigraphy of Gezer Table 1

Stratigraphy of the Gezer Tandy excavation, with reference to HUC (Hebrew Union College) stratigraphy.

Webster et al. (2023)


Detailed Discussion of Individual Stratum

South Gate Stratum
(Tandy excavation)		 Site-wide stratum
(HUC excavation)		 Period Discussion
12B XV LB IIB
Discussion

Stratum 12B (XV; LB IIB) is the earliest horizon for which a wide exposure has been achieved and features a large building (ca. 15 m x 20 m) (Fig 4). The building extends all the way to the slope edge and has partially eroded away, such that the southern closing wall can only tentatively be reconstructed. There are two major room units (A–C and D) and a courtyard (E); Room F forms an auxiliary western room or part of an adjacent building. Working Room A includes a stone vat and a well-worn disc-shaped working surface that was initially interpreted as a pillar base; small finds here included a scarab of Amenhotep III, a cylinder seal and several gold foil pieces. Several key finds were also retrieved from Room D, particularly a bifacial plaque with the cartouche of Thutmose III – a typical 19th Dynasty product commemorating the 18th Dynasty ruler. The overall nature and function of the Phase 12B building is uncertain, but the excavators suggest it served as an elite residency [58].

The fact that the Stratum 12B building extended to the slope edge, and that probes downslope failed to find a continuation of the Outer Wall (controversially dated by HUC to the LBA) may suggest that Gezer was unfortified during the LBA. Alternatively, a simple LBA city wall–perhaps doubling as the southern wall of the residence and adjacent buildings–may have eroded away from the slope.

The Stratum 12B building was destroyed in a fiery conflagration, whose calamitous nature is evidenced by the remains of three individuals. The badly burnt remains of an adult and child (Individuals #1, #2) were discovered on the floor of Room A, and an adult female evidently killed by the collapsing building was found in the southwest corner of Unit D (Individual #3; Fig 4 inset). Burnt destruction debris and restorable pottery were encountered in multiple rooms.

Stratum 12B was assigned to LB IIB based on pottery, the 19th Dynasty bifacial plaque and the stratigraphic position below the distinctly Iron I Stratum 11. The destruction horizon has been associated with the campaign of Merneptah [58, 59].

In other excavation fields at Gezer only fragmentary in situ remains may be dated to LB IIB: Field I (local Str. 5) and Field II (local Str. 13) [46, 47]. Following new 14C dating in Field VI, we can no longer associate any in situ remains with the 13th (nor 14th) centuries BC [2]. The destruction at the end of LB IIB may be represented in Field II (local Str. 13), where HUC exposed smashed storage jars and other vessels below a 25 cm layer of ash, charred beams and mudbrick debris. Widespread trenching in Field VI (local Str. 7) cannot be associated with this event

12A XIV Iron IA
Discussion

Stratum 12A (XIV; Iron IA). The inhabitants of Gezer evidently quickly re-established themselves following the destruction, as is indicated by a minor rebuild of the elite residency, and by similar re-use of architecture in Field II (local Str. 12) [47]. This phase is dated to Iron IA.

11 XIII–XII Iron IA/B
Discussion

In Stratum 11 (XIII–XII; Iron IA/B) the layout changed completely (Fig 5 left). Gezer was apparently fortified during Iron I: a portion of the city wall was revealed along the edge of the slope, directly over the remains of Stratum 12. Little is known regarding the city gate or other elements of this fortification system. Against the northern face of the city wall, a row of irregularly sized units (1–5) was built, interpreted as storage rooms and perhaps forming a precursor to the Iron II casemate system. Further inside the city some 150 m2 of a building complex was exposed; this includes a large pillared room (D) and other partially-defined spaces to the north (A) and east (B, C, E, F). Stratum 11 has been dated to Iron IA/B. Notably, Philistine pottery (‘Philistine 2’ ware) appears for the first time in this horizon.

10 XI–IX Iron IB
Discussion

Stratum 10 (XI–IX; Iron IB) with its two sub-phases reflects modifications to the plan of the Stratum 11 complex (Fig 5 right). Surfaces were replaced and dividing walls added or removed until an arrangement of four spaces (A–D) was reached in Stratum 10A (Fig 6 left). In this last sub-phase an east-west street is evident, running along the northern wall of the complex. The fortification wall and row of units adjoining the complex to the south were used in Stratum 10 without modification.

Stratum 10A was violently destroyed, with evidence found in almost all rooms. The same event may be represented in Fields II (local Str. 7A), VI (local Str. 4) and VII (local Str. 8) [49, 50, 51]. There is no indication of intervening destruction events during Strata 11–10; HUC identified multiple Iron I destruction horizons only in Field VI, in Granary 24000 (local Str. 6) and the courtyard houses of local Stratum 5 [50].

Amongst the burnt debris of Stratum 10A, the Tandy expedition retrieved complete and restorable vessels characteristic of Iron IB. Room 3 of Stratum 10A yielded several mushroomshaped clay stoppers, one of which bore a stamp seal impression that has been tentatively associated with the reigns of Siamun and Sheshonq I in the 10th century BC [119, 120]. This seemed compatible with HUC’s proposed connection of the Stratum IX destruction with Siamun or another 21st Dynasty ruler based on 1 Kings 9:16 [47]

9 Iron I/IIA
Discussion

Stratum 9 (Iron I/IIA) is an ephemeral phase that comprises the rebuild of a domestic structure (Fig 6 right). The builders were well aware of the destroyed Stratum 10 horizon and built directly on its architecture, integrating or reusing some architectural elements (e.g. Room 4 walls of Stratum 10). Stratum 9 seems to be associated with a new city wall that was subsequently further transformed in Stratum 8. The stratum may belong to late Iron I or early Iron IIA.

8 VIII Iron IIA
Discussion

Stratum 8 (VIII; Iron IIA) signals a major transformation at Gezer, with the appearance of monumental architecture (Fig 7). A new fortification system featuring a massive six-chambered gate, casemate wall and new stone-covered glacis was built in this part of the site, and a large administrative building laid out close by. Macalister encountered the gate and casemate but misdated them to the Hellenistic period [37]. Both were investigated stratigraphically by HUC after Yadin identified the gate’s partial plan in Macalister’s drawings–similar to gates at Hazor (X) and Megiddo (Str. VA–IVB) [39, 48, 49]. The Tandy expedition re-exposed ca. 27 m of the casemate wall west of the gate (after which it gives way to a single wall line) and identified an accompanying stone-covered glacis. To the fortification system of Stratum 8, HUC would add the Outer Wall and lower gateway [55], but the stratigraphic associations of these elements is debated. Finkelstein [75] has associated the construction of both with Stratum VII (= Tandy Stratum 7).

Abutting the interior of the casemate wall and separated from the gate structure only by a narrow alley is the large Courtyard-type Administrative Building, of which a limited portion was excavated by HUC (as ‘Palace 10000’) [54]. Full exposure by the Tandy expedition revealed a ca. 19 x 12 m building with at least 15 distinct rooms/areas (Fig 7). The rectangular plan with small rooms arranged around a large central courtyard fits the Iron Age tradition of large administrative buildings (e.g. Megiddo Palace 6000) and echoes the so-called bit hilani-type palaces of the northern Levant. Buildings of this style in the southern Levant have been called Lateral-Access Podium (LAP) structures [121] or Central Hall Tetra-Partite Residencies [122]. The eastern part of the building (adjacent to the city gate) includes several thick-walled chambers that may have formed part of a defensive tower. Several rooms in the northwest feature neatly plastered floors, and ashlar masonry blocks formed a divider in the central courtyard. The administrative building is bordered to the north by a street and monumental stairway. Immediately to the west, the Tandy team exposed a large open courtyard, a small pillared building and several domestic building units built on either side of an east-west street.

Stratum 8 seems to have suffered a major destructive event. Most walls of the administrative building had fallen in the same direction (westward) and the structure was buried in up to 1.5 m of mudbrick debris; concentrations of boulders filled some rooms. The inhabitants seem to have been forewarned against an impending disaster, as the building was found largely empty. HUC found evidence of destruction in the adjacent six-chambered gate, as well as in Field VII [48, 49, 51]. Pottery from the Tandy and HUC excavations put Stratum 8 (VIII) firmly in Iron IIA.

7 VII Iron IIA
Discussion

In Stratum 7 (VII; Iron IIA) the character of the gate area changed from administrative to domestic, and adjoining units were built along the north face of the city wall (Fig 8). One fully excavated building unit (D) includes a main pillared room and an interconnected group of storage and work rooms. The casemate wall was re-used but the gate was rebuilt with a fourchambered plan [48, 49].

Stratum 7 came to a sudden end, as evidenced by a destruction layer in the pillared unit that included a large assemblage of Iron IIA restorable vessels. The destruction was initially thought to date to the second part of the 9th century BC and associated with the campaign of the Aramaean ruler Hazael ca. 830 BC, which destroyed the nearby city of Gath (2 Kings 12:17) and possibly other sites [60]; ceramic parallels were initially drawn with Tell es-Safi (Gath) and Tel Zayit.

6 VI Iron IIB
Discussion

In Stratum 6 (VI; Iron IIB) the character of the architecture changed again, and three major public buildings were erected west of the city gate. In the northwestern part of its excavation, the Tandy expedition exposed a Four Room House [123], similar to but significantly larger than others found in adjacent Field VII [51]. The domestic buildings show clear evidence of destruction by fire, and the end of the stratum has been associated with the historically well-known campaign of the Assyrian monarch Tiglath Pileser III [35, 60].

Ortiz and Wolff (2017)

Stratigraphy of Gezer Tel Gezer Master Stratigraphic Chart 2006-2011

Ortiz and Wolff (2017)


Radiocarbon dates from the Tandy excavation - Webster et al. (2023)

Bayesian Model A (all samples)

Stratigraphy of Gezer Figure 10A

Bayesian 14C model A for the Tandy excavation

The models use OxCal’s outlier analysis. Model A includes all data.

  • Individual probability distributions before and after modelling are shown in light and dark grey respectively.
  • Calculated transition boundaries are colored green, while date estimates for strata are red.
  • Highest posterior density (hpd) ranges after modelling (68.3% and 95.4%) are marked with bars below each result.
  • Prior and posterior outlier probabilities are indicated in square brackets after the laboratory number and locus.
  • The OxCal code is provided in S1 Appendix.


Webster et al. (2023)


Bayesian Model B (two outliers removed)

Stratigraphy of Gezer Figure 10B

Bayesian 14C model B for the Tandy excavation

The models use OxCal’s outlier analysis. Model B excludes two outliers in Tandy Stratum 8 (Beta-436538 and Beta-436540).

  • Individual probability distributions before and after modelling are shown in light and dark grey respectively.
  • Calculated transition boundaries are colored green, while date estimates for strata are red.
  • Highest posterior density (hpd) ranges after modelling (68.3% and 95.4%) are marked with bars below each result.
  • Prior and posterior outlier probabilities are indicated in square brackets after the laboratory number and locus.
  • The OxCal code is provided in S1 Appendix.


Webster et al. (2023)


Bayesian Model A vs. Model B

Stratigraphy of Gezer Stratigraphy of Gezer Figure 10

Bayesian 14C models (A and B) for the Tandy excavation

The models use OxCal’s outlier analysis. Model A includes all data. Model B excludes two outliers in Tandy Stratum 8 (Beta-436538 and Beta-436540).

  • Individual probability distributions before and after modelling are shown in light and dark grey respectively.
  • Calculated transition boundaries are colored green, while date estimates for strata are red.
  • Highest posterior density (hpd) ranges after modelling (68.3% and 95.4%) are marked with bars below each result.
  • Prior and posterior outlier probabilities are indicated in square brackets after the laboratory number and locus.
  • The OxCal code is provided in S1 Appendix.


Webster et al. (2023)


14C dated transitions at Gezer with key data from nearby sites and the Egyptian chronology

Stratigraphy of Gezer Figure 11

Comparison of 14C dated transitions at Gezer with key data from nearby sites and the Egyptian chronology.

The 14C - based Egyptian chronology follows Dee [3] and Manning [4] and is updated with IntCal20 [137]. It assumes the ultra-high reign lengths of Aston [144] for Thutmoses III through Ramesses II and reign lengths from Schneider [145] for all others. Absolute date estimates based on traditional methods are shown for Schneider (same line as the 14C - based estimates) and Kitchen [146] (separate line below). Key results from sites neighboring Gezer are colored brown. Source models and data references for these sites are provided in S1 Appendix.

Webster et al. (2023)


Discussion

Sampling

Short-lived organic materials (primarily charred seeds) suitable for radiocarbon dating were collected throughout the ten Tandy excavation seasons, found in association with floors, installations, phytolith layers, burials and destruction layers. During the 2017 field season, the lead author worked with the team to improve the retrieval rate of smaller seeds/fragments from the most secure contexts (i.e. low likelihood of residual or intrusive material) by using targeted fine dry sieving. Samples for dating were selected to represent the series of overlying occupation horizons, where possible using multiple contexts and at least three measurements per stratum. Priority was given to contexts with evidence of in situ burning or larger concentrations of organic material (seed clusters, phytolith layers). Almost the whole late LBA through Iron IIA stratigraphy, from Stratum 12B through 7 was addressed (Table 3), with data lacking only for Stratum 12A. We initially chose not to radiocarbon date Stratum 6 because its expected chronological position (destroyed in 734 BC) would place it on the Hallstatt Plateau [124].

Samples for Stratum 12B derive from a wide variety of contexts across the elite residency (Fig 4). Charred seeds were obtained from the burnt contents of a tabun (L94101; Room D), from ash-filled contents (L94108) of a bin (L94106; Room E) and burnt destruction debris on the floor of Room A (L94032, L94052). L94052 is a concentration of charred seeds found together with restorable pottery. Also associated with Stratum 12B are seeds obtained from Vat L82047 (contents L82048); destruction debris within the vat was generally unburnt, making the charred seeds from this context somewhat less secure. The unburnt fully articulated skeleton of Individual #3 (L94120) provided bone collagen for dating. Overall, the samples may be expected to represent the use of the building, predominantly its last years. No dateable material was obtained for the subsequent rebuild of the elite residency (Str. 12A).

Samples from Stratum 11 derive from organic-rich deposits spread across a plaster floor (L92030 and L92040; Room D), and from a foundation deposit (L92008; Room B) (Fig 5 left). Stratum 10B is represented by a concentration of charred olive pits (L92010) on cobbled surface L82064, immediately adjacent to bin L92020 in Room A; three measurements were made from L92010 (Fig 5 right). Stratum 10A samples come from seeds on the plaster floor (L82040) of Room B, and a seed concentration associated with storage jars in Room A (L82026; Fig 6 left). Just one sample was identified that can reliably date Stratum 9: seeds on cobbled surface L82023 (Fig 6 right).

From the Stratum 8 Courtyard-type Administrative Building, several charred seeds were found on the plastered floors of Rooms 1 and 2 (L71042 and L71037), and others above the courtyard surface of Room 6 (L81011) (Fig 7). Plentiful charred seeds for dating Stratum 7 were obtained from rooms in Unit D, most notably destruction debris (L81002) in Room 5 and the burnt contents of a tabun (L81034) in Room 6 (Fig 8). Additional seeds were found while dismantling the plaster surface of Room 5 (L81025) and within a dog burial north of Unit C (L91050).

Lab Results Table

Table 3

Radiocarbon dates from the Tandy excavation at Tel Gezer.

All measurements were made on charred seeds, with the exception of SANU-60015 (bone collagen). Adjacent pairs of results marked with an asterisk (*) were measured on the same seed. hpd = highest probability density.

Webster et al. (2023)


Radiocarbon dating

A total of 35 radiocarbon dates were run from seven strata / sub-strata, most represented by at least four measurements (Table 3). Multiple measurements were made for several contexts with large seed concentrations (e.g. Str. 12 17/94052, Str. 10B 16/92010, Str. 10A 15/82040 and Str. 7 15/81034). 14C measurement by Accelerator Mass Spectrometer (AMS) was carried out at five laboratories, primarily the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) (15 dates), the University of Groningen (9 dates) and BETA Analytic (9 dates). All measurements were made on single entity charred seeds, except for one measurement on bone collagen (SANU-60015, Australian National University facility). Samples were pretreated using an Acid-Base-Acid (ABA) protocol to remove carbon-bearing contaminants [126, 127]; in one case the measurement was made on the humic acid component (GrM-13317). Following ABA, the bone collagen was extracted using a gelatinization and ultrafiltration protocol [128]. Pretreated samples were combusted and the resultant CO2 converted to graphite, a portion of which was used to determine δ13C by Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry (IRMS) for isotopic fractionation correction. AMS 14C measurement, along with standards and blanks, was made using a MICADAS (IonPlus®) accelerator at Groningen and ETH Zürich [129, 130], the ANTARES 10MV, STAR 2MV HVEE or VEGA 1MV NEC accelerators at ANSTO [131–133] and the Single Stage AMS at ANU [134].

Radiocarbon ages are reported in 14C years before present (BP) following international convention [135, 136]. Calibrated ages in calendar years were obtained using OxCal v 4.4 [118] and IntCal20 [137] interpolated to yearly intervals (Resolution = 1). Age ranges are given at 68.3% and 95.4% highest probability density (hpd; or ‘highest posterior density’ for modelled ranges).

Five ANSTO dates (prefix ‘OZX’) were revised by the laboratory after unstable current was noted in the AMS run, the correction giving younger ages by approximately 50 14C years BP. This was validated by additional measurements (prefix ‘OZZ’) on the same seed or context.

Bayesian Modelling

To obtain more precise chronological information, radiocarbon data was combined with a priori knowledge of relative stratigraphic order using a Bayesian approach [116–118]. Using OxCal v 4.4, dates were arranged in a sequence of ‘phases’ according to the archaeological strata. No internal order was assumed between dates inside the same phase. Single boundaries indicate phases that are contiguous (i.e. strata thought to follow one another without a gap), while an extra boundary and empty phase were introduced where radiocarbon data is lacking (e.g. Stratum 12A). Between Phases 9 and 8 an extra boundary was used due to the especially marked change in architecture and possible gap, and the low data quantity (single date) representing Phase 9. Weighted averages were applied only for measurements from the same seed and only when these pass the χ2 test. Note that the Bayesian models use only radiocarbon data and stratigraphic order within the Tandy excavation field; no constraints from historical information were applied.

There are two approaches to addressing outliers in OxCal [138]. A common strategy has been to iteratively remove dates with the lowest agreement index from the model until the overall model agreement index exceeds 60%. This can sometimes result in the complete exclusion of a substantial portion of data. A second approach utilises OxCal’s outlier functionality to automatically identify and downweigh poorly fitting data. The probability of a date being an outlier is assumed to follow a Student’s t distribution (the so-called ‘General’ model) and an initial 5% prior probability is assumed. The model subsequently calculates posterior outlier probabilities for all dates based on the model fit. These assumptions are appropriate for short-lived materials, which comprise all the Tandy excavation radiocarbon samples. The second approach to outliers–which is the one primarily employed here–is preferable because it generally reduces the need to manually eliminate dates from models. It is, however, sometimes still prudent to test the effect of fully excluding those dates identified as probable outliers, to ensure they are not unduly influencing the model. For robust modelling, both approaches to outliers should yield very similar results. For the purpose of comparison we provide a model using agreement indices in the supplementary data.

Results

14C data before modelling

The set of independently calibrated radiocarbon dates from Tandy Strata 12B–7 generally reflect the stratigraphic order well (Table 3, Fig 9). The great majority of results are consistent within each stratum/sub-stratum, bearing in mind effects due to the shape of the calibration curve. Dates from multiple laboratories and AMS runs show good agreement, including five pairs of measurements on fragments of the same olive pit (marked blue in Fig 9 and by an asterisk in Table 3).

Two dates in Stratum 8 (Beta-436538 and Beta-436540) seem to be outliers; these seeds were found close to surfaces but not in large clusters and hence the risk of residual material is higher. Two Stratum 12B dates (GrM-13317 and GrM-13321) also appear somewhat early (though with better overlap), but these samples are from large seed concentrations that were certainly burnt in situ and should be reliable; we suspect this may be simply a matter of measurement statistics, or the seeds include material from slightly earlier in the life of Stratum 12B.

Bayesian modelling of 14C data with stratigraphy

Constraining the radiocarbon data with stratigraphic order using a Bayesian approach, Fig 10 Model A utilises all dates and applies OxCal’s ‘General’ outlier model with 5% prior outlier probabilities. The prior and posterior outliers are displayed for each date, after the laboratory code and locus. Only Beta-436538 and Beta-436540 of Stratum 8 show distinctly elevated posterior probabilities of being outliers (44% and 66% respectively). Since these two samples fit poorly with the surrounding data and their contexts are less secure (not seed clusters or burnt in situ, though found on floors), we opted to run a second version of the Bayesian model in which they are fully excluded (Fig 10 Model B). This does not have a major impact on model outcomes but does provide narrower and arguably more realistic estimates for Stratum 8 and its boundaries; hence we prefer this model.

For the purpose of comparison, a model that uses the alternate approach to outliers (i.e. agreement indices and manual, iterative removal of dates) is provided (Model C, S1 Fig). The results are very similar to Models A and B. To reach an overall model agreement index >60%, three dates were iteratively removed, including the same two Stratum 8 dates, and OZ-V267 of Stratum 7.

The output from all models is provided in S1 and S2 Tables, and the OxCal code in S1 Appendix. All elements of the models converged at ≥95%. In the following discussion, results are cited from our preferred model (B) unless specified otherwise. Table 4 summarises key results from Model B: phase transitions and use-length estimates, the latter obtained using OxCal’s ‘Date’ function.

The Bayesian models place Stratum 12 in the 13th century BC, although we cannot yet reliably ascertain when this occupation horizon began. This must await further excavation, particularly of underlying Stratum 13. The end of Stratum 12B is more easily ascertained: constrained with the help of overlying strata, the destruction of the elite residence is placed 1218–1172 BC (68.3% highest posterior density, hpd). The subsequent rebuild of the residence (Str. 12A), though lacking direct data, evidently belongs to the first half of the 12th century BC, and soon gave way to the completely new architecture of Stratum 11 (Start, 1183–1136 BC, 68.3% hpd). Stratum 11 characterised the second half of the 12th century BC, with the modifications of Stratum 10 continuing into the first part of the 11th century BC (10B: 1116–1077 and 10A: 1090–1048, 68.3% hpd). The destruction of Stratum 10A is estimated at 1080–1021 BC (68.3% hpd).

Intermediary Stratum 9, though represented by just one direct data point, is essentially constrained to the second part of the 11th century BC. The transformation of Gezer in Stratum 8, with the erection of fortifications and the Courtyard-type Administrative Building, likely began in the early part of the 10th century BC (998–957 BC, 68.3% hpd). If the two outliers Beta-436538 and Beta-436540 are included in the model (i.e. down-weighted rather than omitted), the start boundary of Stratum 8 includes the late 11th century BC (Model A: 1041–967, 68.3% hpd). Stratum 8 was used during the first part of the 10th century BC, until its destruction near the middle of the century (969–940 BC, 68.3% hpd). While we would ideally like to have additional radiocarbon dates for Stratum 8, the chronological position of this horizon is hard to dispute thanks to constraint provided by overlying Stratum 7.

Stratum 7, with its shift to domestic architecture in the gate area, was used primarily during the later part of the 10th century BC. It was not particularly long-lived, as the site once again fell prey to a destructive event near the close of the 10th century BC or early decades of the 9th century BC (927–885, 68.3% hpd).

Potential effect of radiocarbon offsets

The existence and effect of small radiocarbon offsets relative to the calibration curve have recently been a focus of investigation [139–143]. These can arise due to differences in region and growing season of the dated sample compared to the northern hemisphere tree data underlying IntCal; a further contribution can also come from measurement factors (e.g. AMS versus decay-counting). How the regional and growing offsets varied through time is not yet well understood, but all evidence indicates they are small in magnitude, around one to two decades at most. S2 Fig provides a test case whereby a hypothetical offset of 19±5 years is applied to Model B, by using the Delta_R function to shift dates before calibration. 19±5 years is likely an over-estimate, noting that most measurements were made on olive pits, which have a similar (summer) growing season to the northern hemisphere trees underlying IntCal20. The effect of such an offset on the Gezer results is modest, shifting results later by not more than a few decades.

Discussion

The new radiocarbon series from the Tandy expedition allows us to better establish the absolute chronology of Gezer from the close of the LBA through Iron Age IIA. Since relatively few sites in this region were continuously occupied during the LBA to Iron Age transition (and even fewer of these are well-dated with radiocarbon), a key contribution is made to understanding the archaeology of the Shephelah and coastal plain. Gezer’s strategic position and frequent appearance in textual sources, and the availability of a radiocarbon-based chronology for Egypt, provides a rather unique opportunity to re-examine the impact on Gezer of the complex political changes that occurred in the region during the LBA to Iron Age transition. Bearing in mind the limitations of texts and questions of historicity, we may use the independent radiocarbon chronology of Gezer to test–from a strictly chronological point-of-view–the viability of proposed direct correlations between archaeological remains and recorded events or phenomena.

Fig 11 summarises the 14C-based dates of stratigraphic transitions at Gezer (using the preferred Model B), plotting them alongside radiocarbon results from other southern Levantine sites as well as the 14C-based and traditional accession dates for Egyptian rulers Ramesses II through Sheshonq I. Note that the New Kingdom model follows Dee [3] and Manning [4] and has been updated with IntCal20 [137]. Combining radiocarbon data with known regnal order and lengths (but no traditional absolute data), the model assumes Aston’s ultra-high reign lengths for Thutmoses III through Ramesses II [144], and reign lengths from Schneider [145] for all other rulers. 14C-based results from other southern Levantine sites were obtained using single-site models, for which OxCal code and data references are provided in S1 Appendix.

Radiocarbon data from the Tandy excavation confirms that Gezer was continuously occupied from the 13th through 10th centuries BC, despite multiple disruptive events and rebuilding episodes. The elite residency of Stratum 12B, with its signs of wealth and links to Egypt, provides a window on Gezer during the 13th century BC that is currently only available in this part of the site. The sudden and fiery destruction of this building, in which multiple individuals were killed, occurred in the timeframe 1218–1172 BC (68.3% hpd; or 1244–1148 at 95.4% hpd). The impact of the event on the rest of the town is uncertain, though it may also have left traces in Field II. Various human or natural causes could be invoked to explain the destruction, but we note that the date is compatible with Merneptah’s campaign and his claim to have conquered Gezer (Fig 11). The 14C-based Egyptian model puts his accession at 1241–1219 BC (95.4% hpd) and that of Seti II at 1232–1209 (95.4% hpd). (Models using other reign length assumptions yield similar or slightly higher accession dates for these rulers.) Using the traditional approach to Egyptian chronology, Kitchen would date Merneptah’s reign at 1213–1203 BC [146], while Schneider would place it at 1224–1214 BC [145]. Applying a hypothetical offset of 19±5 year tends to weaken the fit between the Stratum 12B destruction (1198–1152 BC, 68.3% hpd; 1213–1131, 95.4% hpd) and Merneptah, whose reign in the Egyptian 14C-based model does not change by more than a few years.

The destruction of Stratum 12B fits well with radiocarbon data for destructive/disruptive events at other sites in the southern Levant [2]. It is notably similar to the destruction of Lachish–another major LBA city-state just 33 km to the south. Lachish Level VII shows evidence of widespread destruction and is well-dated by radiocarbon to 1218–1191 BC (68.3% hpd; Fig 11) [2]. While the direct causes of destruction or disruption at individual sites probably varied, and the events may have been separated by some years, the overall pattern is commonly viewed as part of a period of turmoil (the so-called ‘Crisis Years’) that affected the wider eastern Mediterranean region [147, 148]. Merneptah’s campaign and attempts to retain control of the southern Levant, appear to be a response to city-states and towns who were rebelling against Egyptian rule. Lachish is not mentioned by Merneptah but given its importance and proximity to Gezer we may speculate that it joined the rebellion or was targeted for its loyalty to Egypt; the latter is perhaps suggested by the strengthening Egyptian influence evident in the architecture and material culture of subsequent Level VI [149].

Gezer evidently recovered quickly with the rebuild of Stratum 12A in the first part of the 12th century BC. The site’s status within the next (last) phase of Egyptian rule in the southern Levant is uncertain, but it does not appear to have had the elevated status of sites like Lachish (VI) and Azekah, which show accumulating wealth and strengthened ties with the Egyptian administration [150]. Perhaps for this reason, Gezer did not share the fate of Lachish and Azekah, which suffered impressive site-wide destructions in the second part of the 12th century BC, after which they were abandoned for more than a century [2, 91, 108, 150, 151].

The Tandy excavation shows a substantial re-organization and planning of the city quarter and construction of a city wall in the timeframe 1183–1136 BC (68.3% hpd, Start Stratum 11). In this new setting, we see the arrival of so-called ‘Philistine’ pottery at Gezer, as type 2 / bichrome. Assuming the ware was indeed associated with the founding and main use of Stratum 11, the radiocarbon result suggests this pottery may have reached Gezer around the mid-12th century BC. It was almost certainly present by the last decades of the century (Stratum 11 phase estimate: 1162–1112 BC, 68.3% hpd).

Gezer provides one of the most robust 14C-based estimates currently available for Philistine 2 pottery and its first occurrence at the borders of Philistia. The result closely matches recent 14C results from Ashkelon (Start 19B: 1173–1131 BC, 68.3% hpd) [111] and is compatible with Tell es-Safi (Gath) (Start A6: 1220–1138 BC, 68.3% hpd) (Fig 11) ([104], see analysis in [2]). Available data from Tel Miqne (Ekron) and Beth Shemesh give distinctly lower estimates for the strata in which Philistine 2 pottery first appear: Start Miqne VIB at 1118–1059BC and Start Beth Shemesh 6 at 1081–989 BC (both 68.3% hpd). However, a close review (for details, see [2]) suggests that the discrepancy may be due to data limitations: key strata at Tel Miqne are represented by single contexts [98], and measurements for Level 6 at Beth Shemesh come from a single olive pit [152].

Occupation at Gezer continued well into the 11th century BC. There are indications of multiple disruption episodes in other parts of the site that are contemporary with Strata 11–10, notably Field VI (local Str. 6 ‘Granary’ and local Str. 5 Courtyard Houses) [50]. Unfortunately, these lack 14C data, but they may reflect Gezer’s position during Iron I, in a border/conflict region between emerging polities. In the southern part of the Gezer mound, destruction came in the timeframe 1080–1021 BC (68.3% hpd; or 1097–999 at 95.4% hpd), with the end of Tandy Stratum 10 (Stratum IX). This event seems to have been site-wide, reflected in nearby Field VII, local Str. 8 and perhaps also Field VI, local Str. 4.

HUC’s correlation of Stratum IX with Solomon’s era or Siamun, judged solely from the chronological point-of-view, seems improbable. The end of Tandy Stratum 10A is estimated by 14C within the 11th century BC, contemporary with the 21st Dynasty of Egypt but too early for Solomon by any estimate. There is limited overlap with the 14C-based estimate for the accession year of Siamun (1019–977 BC, 95.4% hpd) and none with traditional estimates for his reign (978–959 BC [146] or 995–976 BC [145]). Aside from any specific historical association at Gezer, the Tandy 14C results indicate that stamp seal impressions of the type found in the destruction can predate the reigns of Siamun and Sheshonq I. Indeed, the latest analysis of these seals associates them more broadly with the 21st Dynasty (i.e. 1110–945 BC, 95.4% hpd by the 14C Egyptian chronology) [153].

The construction of Stratum VIII (Tandy Stratum 8) likely occurred in the first part of the 10th century BC (Start 8: 998–957 BC, 68.3% hpd; 1023–942 BC, 95.4% hpd). The data and model–with constraints provided by overlying Stratum 7 –rule out a 9th century BC date for Stratum VIII (contra [81, 85–88]). The start of Stratum 8 provides an estimate for the Iron I to IIA material culture transition in this geographic area. The transition cannot be later than Stratum 8, since this horizon is unambiguously Iron IIA, however it could (at least in theory) be slightly earlier since the attribution of intermediate Stratum 9 may be Iron I or Iron IIA. The results for Strata 9 and 8 fit acceptably with 14C results from transitional Iron I/IIA strata at other sites in the same region: Khirbet Qeiyafa [91, 109, 110], Khirbet al-Rai (Level VII) [91] and Beth Shemesh (Level 4) [106, 107]. Note that the boundaries shown in Fig 11 were calculated using independent single-site models that do not equate strata a priori based on pottery (cf. [154]). The earlier dates for the Iron I to IIA transition emerging from southern sites stand in contrast to later estimates from sites in the north such as Dor [98] and Rehov [103], suggesting the need for a more nuanced approach to the chronology of this period that explores potential delays in material culture change in different parts of the country.

The Iron I/IIA transition sees the onset of monumental buildings and fortifications indicative of central administration and the development or expansion of polities. Notably, radiocarbon shows that the phenomena appeared at Gezer and Khirbet Qeiyafa in a similarly early timeframe: late 11th or early 10th century BC. The start of Khirbet Qeiyafa should be treated somewhat cautiously since this is a single occupation horizon (thus with less constraint available for modelling) and most of the dates likely pertain to the later part of the stratum; nonetheless the founding of this well-fortified site, like Gezer, cannot date beyond the first part of the 10th century BC. Other 14C-dated strata with indications of central administration may be somewhat later. The nature and fortification of Lachish V is disputed [91, 155–157] and its start date is not well-defined by 14C, but probably falls in the 10th century BC [2, 91]. More definitive evidence of central administration at Lachish (Level IV) and Beth Shemesh (Level 3) is 14C-dated to the second part of the 10th or first part of the 9th century BC (Fig 11). The radiocarbon evidence thus suggests a prolonged process of expansion in the Shephelah.

The Shephelah region during the Iron I and Iron IIA is generally seen as a ‘middle ground’ between coastal (‘Philistine’) and highland polities [158]. Bunimovitz and Lederman define this region as a buffer zone that experienced “alternating prosperity and decline” [159]. Some scholars have discussed ‘Canaanite resistance’ [160] or a ‘Canaanite enclave’ [90] in the Shephelah, though identities are speculative and hard to access archaeologically; indeed, at a border site such as Gezer, identities or political alignments may have changed multiple times. To explain the growth in settlements and appearance of sites with monumental architecture and fortifications during Iron IIA, various models have been proposed: a westward expansion of a nascent Judah [89–91, 161] or another polity based in Jerusalem or the Benjamin Plateau [92, 93], formation of localised chiefdoms [162], the economic influence of the strong coastal (‘Philistine’) site of Gath [163], or a combination of these factors. The 10th century BC 14C-based date for early expansion in the Shephelah notably rules out an association with the northern Israelite Omride dynasty (contra [88]), however it is chronologically compatible with Saul, David and/or Solomon, whose text-based dating (albeit approximate) falls in the 10th century BC (perhaps also the late 11th century BC). While scholars can debate the degree to which the accounts of these early highland rulers reflect historical memories, extra-biblical evidence indicates they were real historical figures [164–166], and most scholars see an early historical foundation to the later narrative development of the texts [167–172].

We propose that Gezer Stratum VIII represents a shift in political alignment of the city, corresponding to current models of state development in the region during the Iron Age IIA. (For a recent summary of the various theories of state development see [173]). The Tandy excavation directors consider that the most logical historical reconstruction based on the archaeological remains and 14C dates is the westward expansion of a nascent Judah already in the 10th century BC (cf. [174] and [175] which confine Judah’s expansion to the 9th century BC). The refined dating of Stratum 7 demonstrates that the Aijalon Valley was still a contested area at the end of the 10th century BC and that the polity represented by the Stratum 8 monumental city was short-lived.

Stratum 8 came to an end already in the mid-10th century BC (969–940 BC at 68.3% hpd; or 991–930 BC at 95.4% hpd). Radiocarbon suggests that Khirbet al-Rai and perhaps also Khirbet Qeiyafa were destroyed before Gezer Stratum 8 (Fig 11), consistent with the pottery evidence. The pottery assemblages at Khirbet Qeiyafa and Khirbet al-Rai are classified by the excavators as early Iron IIA [176, 177] but by other scholars as Iron I [178, 179] or transitional Iron I/IIA [154].

A comparison of the Stratum 8 destruction with the traditional and radiocarbon-based chronologies of Sheshonq I shows that this stratum may have come to an end during his reign (Fig 11). A 14C-based estimate for Sheshonq I puts his accession at 988–945 BC (95.4%) and the end of his reign at 967–934 BC (95.4%). (The traditional Egyptian chronology puts Sheshonq I’s reign at 945–924 BC [146] or 962–941 BC [145].) We do not, however, reach good agreement between 14C-based dates for Stratum 8 and Sheshonq I on the one hand, and the commonly cited historical-biblical date for Shishak’s campaign on the other: 925 BC based on Rehoboam’s 5th year and synchronisms between later Israelite/Judahite reigns and Assyrian chronology. The discrepancy is modest, however: <10 years at 95.4% and <20 years at 68.3%. This is insufficient to rule out a convergence of the Egyptian sources, the Bible and radiocarbon, since we are conscious that:

  1. There may well be leeway of 10–20 years for the Stratum 8 to 7 transition, given the limited number of Stratum 8 measurements.
  2. There is room to debate the biblical date for Shishak’s campaign. Estimates for the 5th year of Rehoboam are generally placed between ca. 930 and 915 BC [180–183] but one could potentially argue for dates as high as ca. 970 BC [184].
  3. Sheshonq I is located at the tail end of the New Kingdom radiocarbon model. The quantity of 14C data for the 21st Dynasty is limited (13 dates, of which 9 are from one reign: Amenemnisu) and small inaccuracies in New Kingdom reign lengths (often based on maximum attested regnal years) could cumulatively pull this reign too high.

The 14C-based results from Stratum 7 open another possibility for correlation with Shishak / Sheshonq I. The end boundary (927–885 BC, 68.3% hpd) includes the common biblical date for Shishak’s campaign, but does not fit well with current 14C-based estimates for Sheshonq I. In any case, the previously held historical association of Stratum 7 with the Aramean ruler Hazael in the second part of the 9th century BC is firmly ruled out. The end boundary does not include the highest historical date for the campaign (ca. 830 BC) even at 95.4% hpd (970–857 BC). Comparison with 14C data at other sites shows that the event is unlikely to be contemporary with destructions at Tell es-Safi (Gath) and Tel Zayit Level I (Fig 11). There is minimal overlap at 68.3% between the end boundaries of Stratum 7 and Tell es-Safi Level A3, and none with Tel Zayit Level I even at 95.4% hpd. Unlike the situation at Gezer, the 14C evidence at Gath–the only city specifically mentioned in 2 Kings 12:17 as having been attacked by Hazael–converges well with Hazael’s campaign: a simple Bayesian model places the end of Tell es-Safi A3 at 887–798 BC (68.3% hpd). The Tel Zayit Level I destruction dates as much as a century after Tandy Stratum 7, perhaps even later than Hazael’s reign (end of Level I: 796–772 BC, 68.3% hpd). These outcomes raise caution concerning the tendency in scholarship to tightly group destruction layers based on pottery and historical sources; in reality these events may be associated with a wider variety of conflicts (recorded and unrecorded) and spread over a longer period of time. For Tandy Stratum 7, we ought to consider other skirmishes between Judah, Israel and their neighbors during the late 10th and early 9th centuries BC (e.g. 1 Kings 15:16–22), as well as non-military causes.

Gezer does not seem to have suffered any major destruction between ca. 900 BC and the second part of the 8th century BC. The town may have been much reduced in size and importance during this time and, given the earlier-than-expected date of Stratum 7, we should consider whether there was an occupation gap (at least on the southern edge of the site) between Tandy Strata 7 and 6.

For the date of Stratum 6 we must rely for now on the evidence of the pottery and finds [35]. In view of the higher-than-expected date for Stratum 7, adding 14C data for Stratum 6 may in fact be worthwhile, helping to assess its founding date and confirming that the destruction did not occur substantially before 734 BC (e.g. early 8th century BC, before the Hallstatt Plateau).

Background info

OxCal

Radiocarbon calibration



Student's t-distribution



Chi-squared test



Bayesian inference



Gezer Iron Age Debates

Iron Age chronology of the southern Levant - Webster et al. (2023)

Stratigraphy of Gezer Table 2

Iron Age chronology of the southern Levant

Webster et al. (2023)


Gezer Iron Age Debates - Ortiz and Wolff (2017)

A debate over the Iron Age at Gezer arose during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Several scholars challenged the outer wall conclusions of the HUC excavations: Kempinski (1972, 1976) and Kenyon (1977) in their reviews of Gezer I (Dever, Lance, and Wright 1970) and Gezer II (Dever 1974), followed a few years later by Zertal (1981), Finkelstein (1981), and Bunimovitz (1983). Most proposed that the outer wall dated to the Iron Age IIB, although Kenyon dated the wall to the Hellenistic period and Zertal to the post-Assyrian period. During the 1990s an issue of Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research focused on the archaeology of Solomon. While the archaeological data of the Iron Age was primarily discussed, the debate centered on methods and historical correlations. This was the foreshadowing of the “low chronology” proposal that came five years later.

While the issues and debates associated with Solomon at Gezer are complex, some summary observations are in order. Most scholars date the fortifications to the Iron Age period. Most note that the two wall lines (casemate and outer wall) as well as the two gates are an integrated system of defense. Scholars are divided as to whether there are two phases (tenth century and a later rebuilding during the ninth or eighth centuries B.C.E.) or only one. Dever attempted to answer the critics by conducting two single-season excavations in 1984 and 1990, but it is clear that these were not adequate to address the complex stratigraphic issues of Tel Gezer. These stratigraphic issues are compounded by later Hellenistic rebuilding and Macalister’s excavations.

The Iron Age in the Southern Levant

Stratum 12B Destruction - LB IIB - 1218–1172 BCE (68.3% highest posterior density, hpd) - attributed to military conquest

Area Plans

Area Plans

Normal Size

  • Fig. 3 Photo/Plan of fields
    Fig 3

    Aerial view of the Tandy excavations, with a wide exposure of iron age strata on the central-southern edge of the Gezer mound between fields VII and III of Hebrew Union College.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    III and VII (South Gate) from Webster et al. (2023)
  • Fig. 4 Plan of Stratum 12B
    Fig 4

    Plan of Tandy excavation stratum 12B elite residence with radiocarbon dated contexts marked. The insert shows Individual #3.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    elite residence in South Gate area from Webster et al. (2023)

Magnified

  • Fig. 3 Photo/Plan of fields
    Fig 3

    Aerial view of the Tandy excavations, with a wide exposure of iron age strata on the central-southern edge of the Gezer mound between fields VII and III of Hebrew Union College.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    III and VII (South Gate) from Webster et al. (2023)
  • Fig. 4 Plan of Stratum 12B
    Fig 4

    Plan of Tandy excavation stratum 12B elite residence with radiocarbon dated contexts marked. The insert shows Individual #3.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    elite residence in South Gate area from Webster et al. (2023)

Discussion

Webster et al. (2023:9) report that the Stratum 12 B Building in the Southern gate area was destroyed in a fiery conflagration, whose calamitous nature is evidenced by the remains of three individuals. The human remains included a badly burned adult and child in Room A and an adult female evidently killed by the collapsing building. The adult female was found in the southwest corner of Unit D (Individual #3; Fig 4 inset). They also report that burnt destruction debris and restorable pottery was found in multiple rooms.

Webster et al. (2023:9) report that Stratum 12B was assigned to LB IIB based on pottery a 19th Dynasty [of Egypt] bifacial plaque and it's stratigraphic position below the distinctly Iron I Stratum 11. The destruction horizon was associated with the [military] campaign of Merneptah. The Merneptah Stele lists a victory by Merneptah's army over Gezer.

Stratum 10A Destruction - Iron IB - 1080–1021 BCE (68.3% hpd) - attributed to military conquest

Area Plans

Area Plans

Normal Size

  • Fig. 3 Photo/Plan of fields
    Fig 3

    Aerial view of the Tandy excavations, with a wide exposure of iron age strata on the central-southern edge of the Gezer mound between fields VII and III of Hebrew Union College.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    III and VII (South Gate) from Webster et al. (2023)
  • Fig. 6 Plan of Strata 10A & 9
    Fig 6

    Plan of Tandy excavation strata 10A and 9 with radiocarbon dated contexts marked.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    in South Gate area from Webster et al. (2023)

Magnified

  • Fig. 3 Photo/Plan of fields
    Fig 3

    Aerial view of the Tandy excavations, with a wide exposure of iron age strata on the central-southern edge of the Gezer mound between fields VII and III of Hebrew Union College.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    III and VII (South Gate) from Webster et al. (2023)
  • Fig. 6 Plan of Strata 10A & 9
    Fig 6

    Plan of Tandy excavation strata 10A and 9 with radiocarbon dated contexts marked.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    in South Gate area from Webster et al. (2023)

Discussion

Webster et al. (2023:10) report that Stratum 10A was violently destroyed, with evidence found in almost all rooms of structures found in the south gate area. Analogous destruction layers may have also been found in Fields II (local Str. 7A), VI (local Str. 4) and VII (local Str. 8) [49, 50, 51]. Webster et al. (2023:10) further report that HUC identified multiple Iron I destruction horizons only in Field VI, in Granary 24000 (local Str. 6) and the courtyard houses of local Stratum 5 [50]. Webster et al. (2023:11) suggested that this destruction layer may have been a result of military conquest by Siamun or another 21st Dynasty [of Egypt] ruler based on 1 Kings 9:16 which states
Pharaoh king of Egypt had come up and captured Gezer; he destroyed it by fire, killed the Canaanites who dwelt in the town, and gave it as dowry to his daughter, Solomon’s wife.

Stratum 8 Destruction - 969–940 BC, (68.3% hpd) - Iron IIA

Area Plans

Area Plans

Normal Size

  • Fig. 3 Photo/Plan of fields
    Fig 3

    Aerial view of the Tandy excavations, with a wide exposure of iron age strata on the central-southern edge of the Gezer mound between fields VII and III of Hebrew Union College.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    III and VII (South Gate) from Webster et al. (2023)
  • Fig. 7 Plan of Stratum 8
    Fig 7

    Plan of Tandy excavation stratum 8 with radiocarbon dated contexts in the courtyard-type administrative building marked.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    in South Gate area from Webster et al. (2023)

Magnified

  • Fig. 3 Photo/Plan of fields
    Fig 3

    Aerial view of the Tandy excavations, with a wide exposure of iron age strata on the central-southern edge of the Gezer mound between fields VII and III of Hebrew Union College.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    III and VII (South Gate) from Webster et al. (2023)
  • Fig. 7 Plan of Stratum 8
    Fig 7

    Plan of Tandy excavation stratum 8 with radiocarbon dated contexts in the courtyard-type administrative building marked.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    in South Gate area from Webster et al. (2023)

Discussion

Webster et al. (2023:12) report that Stratum 8 seems to have suffered a major destructive event where most walls of the administrative building fell in the same direction - westward. The structure was buried in up to 1.5 m of mudbrick debris and concentrations of boulders filled some rooms. No human remains were found in the building. Webster et al. (2023:12) also report that HUC found evidence of destruction in the adjacent six-chambered gate, as well as in Field VII [48, 49, 51]. Stratum 8 (VIII in the HUC excavations) was firmly dated to Iron IIA by both the Tandy and HUC excavations.

Stratum 7 Destruction - 927–885 BCE (68.3% hpd) - Iron IIA

Area Plans

Area Plans

Normal Size

  • Fig. 3 Photo/Plan of fields
    Fig 3

    Aerial view of the Tandy excavations, with a wide exposure of iron age strata on the central-southern edge of the Gezer mound between fields VII and III of Hebrew Union College.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    III and VII (South Gate) from Webster et al. (2023)
  • Fig. 8 Plan of Stratum 7
    Fig 8

    Plan of Tandy excavation stratum 7 domestic units with radiocarbon dated contexts marked.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    in South Gate area from Webster et al. (2023)

Magnified

  • Fig. 3 Photo/Plan of fields
    Fig 3

    Aerial view of the Tandy excavations, with a wide exposure of iron age strata on the central-southern edge of the Gezer mound between fields VII and III of Hebrew Union College.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    III and VII (South Gate) from Webster et al. (2023)
  • Fig. 8 Plan of Stratum 7
    Fig 8

    Plan of Tandy excavation stratum 7 domestic units with radiocarbon dated contexts marked.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    in South Gate area from Webster et al. (2023)

Discussion

Webster et al. (2023:13) report that Stratum 7 came to a sudden end, as evidenced by a destruction layer in the pillared unit that included a large assemblage of Iron IIA restorable vessels. Although they did not supply a specific date or cause they noted that the destruction was initially thought to date to the second part of the 9th century BC, associated with the campaign of the Aramaean ruler Hazael ca. 830 BC, which destroyed the nearby city of Gath (2 Kings 12:18) and possibly other sites [60].
At that time, King Hazael of Aram came up and attacked Gath and captured it; and Hazael proceeded to march on Jerusalem. - 2 Kings 12:18
They report that ceramic parallels were initially drawn with Tell es-Safi (Gath) and Tel Zayit.

8th century BCE Earthquake (?)

Plates and Figures

Plates and Figures

Plates from Younker (1991)

  • Plate 4 -             
    Plate 4

    Plan of     Tel Gezer



    Younker (1991)
    Plan of     Tel Gezer from Younker (1991).
  • Plate 19 -              
    Plate 19

    Detail of Field XI (after Macalister). Note approximate locations of Squares 21 and 22.

    Younker (1991)
    Hand drawn Plan of     Outer and Inner Walls in Field XI from Younker (1991)
  • Plate 15a -              
    Plate 15a

    JW:
    • Top - ashlars of outer wall
    • Floor - 8th cent. BCE destruction layer


    Younker (1991)
    Photo of Outer Wall and destruction layer (Macalister's "Tower VII") from Younker (1991)
  • Plate 15b -              
    Plate 15b

    1. Outer face offset of Outer Wall built in 10th cent. BCE
    2. 8th cent. BCE destruction layer


    Younker (1991)
    Annotated Sketch of Outer Wall with destruction layer (Macalister's "Tower VII") from Younker (1991)
  • Plate 16a -              
    Plate 16a

    JW: Outer Wall with through-going joints across stones

    Younker (1991)
    Photo of Outer Wall with with through-going joints across stones (Macalister's "Tower VI") from Younker (1991)
  • Plate 16b -              
    Plate 16b

    1. Inner face offset of Outer Wall (Macalister's "Tower VI") founded in 10th cent. B.C.
    2. Remodelled, and destroyed by earthquake in 8th cent. B.C


    Younker (1991)
    Annotated Sketch of Outer Wall with destruction layer (Macalister's Tower VI) from Younker (1991)

Figures from Dever (1993)

  • Figure 13 -              
    Figure 13

    General Plan of     Field XI East showing 1990 excavation areas; note line of Sections β-β', γ—γ' (cf. fig. 14).

    Dever (1993)
    Plan of Field XI East from Dever (1993)
  • Figure 16 -              
    Figure 16

    Schematic rendering of Section γ—γ' through Outer Wall in Field XI, Areas 21 and 22; cf. fig. 13.

    Dever (1993)
    Section γ—γ' through Outer Wall in Field XI from Dever (1993)
  • Figure 14 -             
    Figure 14

    Field XI, Area 20, looking east. Note collapsed line of Outer Wall all along left; in center, cracked offset portion; and, at right, two foundation trenches through Middle Bronze glacis (Section β-β').

    Dever (1993)
    Tilted Wall and through-going cracks in Ashlars from Dever (1993)
  • Figure 15 -              
    Figure 15

    Line of Outer Wall between Field XI, Areas 20 and 21, looking west. Note wall stones still in alignment, but displaced northward, downslope, cf. fig. 14.

    Dever (1993)
    Wall displacement from Dever (1993)
  • Figure 17 -              
    Figure 17

    Field XI, Area 22, looking south, with Section α—α' to right. Below meter stick is LB II Wall 22,002, founded on bedrock; above is Iron Age Wall 22,000, partially plastered. Note differing masonry, offset alignment; cf. fig. 16 for Section γ—γ'.

    Dever (1993)
    LB II and tilted Iron Age Wall from Dever (1993)

Discussion

Archaeoseismic Evidence

Archaeoseismic Evidence is reported from the north part of the site in a location known as Field XI (for the location see Plate 4 of Younker, 1991). The reported evidence includes the following:
  • Debris layers at Macalister's "Tower VII" - Debris layers consisting of fallen ashlar blocks in a bricky fill containing 8th century BCE sherds were found above 10th century BCE fill from an excavation against the outer face of Macalister's "Tower VII". For the location, see Plates 4 and 19 of Younker (1991). Younker (1991) noted that the debris layers may be evidence of both an earlier 8th century earthquake (see below) and a later 8th century B.C. Assyrian destruction (Plates 15a and 15b).

  • Displaced Ashlars, through going joints, and tilted walls at Macalister's "Tower VI" - At Macalister's "Tower VI", the original wall was dated to the 10th century BCE. Younker (1991) reports the following:
    Sometime during the 9th/8th century B.C. the upper courses of the Outer Wall were remodelled with large ashlars to create an offset.17 The ashlar offset was "inserted" more than a meter into the 10th century B.C. wall line.18

    The 9th/8th century ashlar inserts and wall appear to have been destroyed sometime during the 8th century B.C. [JW: See Plates 16a and 16 b from Younker, 1991]. Several lines of evidence suggest that the agent of destruction was an earthquake. For one thing, several sections of the Outer Wall had been clearly displaced from their foundations by as much as 10 to 40 cm. Furthermore, these wall sections were all severely tilted outward toward the north. That this tilting was not due to slow subsidence over a long period of time was evident from the fact that intact sections of upper courses of the inner face of the wall had fallen backwards into the city. Only a very rapid outward tilting of the wall, such as that caused by an earthquake, could cause these upper stones to roll off backwards, away from the tilt. If the wall's outward tilt had occurred slowly, the stones on the top of the wall should have fallen off toward the downward-sloping outer face of the wall.

    The southwest corner of the ashlar insert had been similarly displaced from its foundational cornerstone, although to a lesser degree because of the greater stability of the ashlar construction. However, even the cornerstone had been split longitudinally because of the great pressure created by the lateral movement of the upper courses. This same tremendous pressure also created fissures in the ashlar stones that penetrated through several courses. The reason the foundation stones were not themselves dislodged to any significant degree is probably due to the fact that they were set into levelled-out depressions cut directly into the bedrock.
    Footnotes

    17 The dating for the ashlar insert and the upper courses of the inner face of the Outer Wall was determined by 9th/8th century pottery in their foundation trench (which was dug into the 10th century trench), as well as by the style of the ashlars, which are larger and more rough than the fine, well-hewn, 10th century ashlars found in other sections of the wall (e.g., see above on Macalister Tower VII). This foundation trench was clearly dug into the earlier 10th century trench described above.

    18 It was thought initially that this "insert" was the southwest corner of Macalister's Outer Wall Tower VI. However, clearing along the top of the wall to the east failed to produce the southeast corner of the tower. Ashlars were indeed found in the location where the corner was to be expected, but they were in the wall line and did not form a corner (see, e.g., Y. Shilo, Proto-Aeolic Capital, QEDEM series, vol. 11 [Jerusalem, 1979], p. 51). It therefore appears that the engineers who rebuilt the wall in the 9th/8th century modified the wall along this stretch by creating a series of offsets rather than by inserting a series of towers, as Macalister originally thought (he also dated the inserts to the 10th century B.c.). In fact, this stretch of offsets seems to continue the pattern of offsets that Macalister himself found for the Outer Wall further to the west between trenches 23 and 29 (see Macalister's plan, Plate 4).


  • Tilted, displaced, and folded walls east of "Tower VI" - Dever (1993) reports that the top of the inner face of a long section of the outer wall east of "Tower VI" was displaced 50 cm or more outward, and bowed out in a sweeping curve. In addition, the tops of the wall stones were tilted down-slope at an angle of ca. 10-20 degrees (fig. 15).

  • Tilted wall - In Figure 17, Dever (1993) shows that the Iron Age Wall on top of the LB II wall was tilted. Wall tilt is also shown in the cross section γ—γ' of the Outer Wall in Figure 16 (see Figure 13 for the location of the cross-section). JW: This tilting could be due to downslope creep.

A contradictory argument

Fantalkin and Finkelstein (2006:22 n.3) opine that the tilts observed in Gezer's outer wall could have been caused by centuries of fill-pressure on the city wall, which is located on the slope of the mound, the sections of the wall where alleged archaeoseismic evidence was uncovered were all part of a sub-structure, which was buried in the ground from the outset and hence could hardly have been affected by a quake, and no evidence for a seismic event has ever been found in any free-standing building at Gezer.

Chronological Debates

The dates of construction of the outer walls at Gezer have been a matter of debate mostly concentrated, I think, whether they were built in the 9th or 10th century BCE. In addition, Ortiz and Wolff (2017:7) report that scholars are divided as to whether there are two phases (tenth century and a later rebuilding during the ninth or eighth centuries B.C.E.) or only one.

References
Younker (1991)

Plates
Plates

  • Plate 4 - -             
    Plate 4

    Plan of     Tel Gezer



    Younker (1991)
    Plan of     Tel Gezer from Younker (1991).
  • Plate 19 - -             
    Plate 19

    Detail of Field XI (after Macalister). Note approximate locations of Squares 21 and 22.

    Younker (1991)
    Hand drawn Plan of     Outer and Inner Walls in Field XI from Younker (1991)
  • Plate 6 - -             
    Plate 6

    Plan of     "Egyptian Governor's Residency" (Field XI)

    Younker (1991)
    Plan of     "Egyptian Governor's Residency" (Field XI) from Younker (1991)
  • Plate 14a - -             
    Plate 14a

    JW:
    • Bottom Stones - Inner face of Outer Wall founded in 8th cent. B.C.
    • Top 3 stones - rebuilt wall from Hellenistic times


    Younker (1991)
    Photo of Excavation of inner face of outer wall (Macalister's "Tower VII") from Younker (1991)
  • Plate 14b - -             
    Plate 14b

    1. Inner face of Outer Wall founded in 8th cent. B.C.
    2. rebuilt in Hellenistic times


    Younker (1991)
    Drawing of Excavation of inner face of outer wall (Macalister's "Tower VII") from Younker (1991)
  • Plate 15a - -             
    Plate 15a

    JW:
    • Top - ashlars of outer wall
    • Floor - 8th cent. BCE destruction layer


    Younker (1991)
    Photo of outer face of outer wall and destruction layer (Macalister's "Tower VII") from Younker (1991)
  • Plate 15b - -             
    Plate 15b

    1. Outer face offset of Outer Wall built in 10th cent. BCE
    2. 8th cent. BCE destruction layer


    Younker (1991)
    Annotated Sketch of outer face of outer wall with destruction layer (Macalister's "Tower VII") from Younker (1991)
  • Plate 16a - -             
    Plate 16a

    JW: Outer Wall with through-going joints across stones

    Younker (1991)
    Photo of outer wall with with through-going joints across stones (Macalister's "Tower VI") from Younker (1991)
  • Plate 16b - -             
    Plate 16b

    1. Inner face offset of Outer Wall (Macalister's "Tower VII") founded in 10th cent. B.C.
    2. Remodelled, and destroyed by earthquake in 8th cent. B.C


    Younker (1991)
    Annotated Sketch of outer wall with through-going joints across stones (Macalister's "Tower VI") from Younker (1991)

Discussion

3. Results in Field XI

...

Macalister's Tower VII

According to Macalister, a number of ashlar towers had been inserted into the Late Bronze Age Outer Wall by Solomonic engineers.13 In order to test this claim it was decided to locate his "Tower VII" (situated immediately north of the "Egyptian Governor's Residency," according to Macalister's plan) and open two soundings — one against each of the inner and outer faces of the "tower" — in order to determine if indeed the "towers" were constructed in the manner and at the time Macalister claimed (see Plates 4, 6, and 19).

After clearing off the top of the Outer Wall, however, it was discovered that Macalister's "Tower VII" was not a tower at all, but rather an offset that was similar to what he found further west in his trenches 22-29, a stretch of wall which he described as "rebuilt."14 Macalister had apparently found the same corner as our team and had simply drawn in the other three corners on his plan.

Excavation against the inner face of the "tower" reached bedrock in just over a meter (Plate 14). A foundation trench, which showed up clearly in the eastern balk, indicated that the offset was initially constructed in the 8th century B.C. Later, during the Hellenistic period, a second trench had been dug into the earlier one, suggesting that at least part of the wall was rebuilt during this period. Indeed, the ashlars in the upper two or three courses of the wall were poorly laid. They were uneven and not in the header-stretcher fashion. Thus they were probably reused from the earlier Iron Age construction.

The fact that the earliest architectural phase of the offset dated no earlier than the 8th century B.C. would seem to raise doubts about the claims of those who have argued for an earlier dating of the Outer Wall. However, excavation along the outer face of "Tower VII" revealed at least nine courses (ca. 5 m.) of excellent header-stretcher masonry.15 Although bedrock could not be reached in this sounding, the pottery from the lowest level of fills against the outer face consisted of red-slipped 10th century B.C. wares.

Above these 10th century fills (which were more than 2 m. thick) were at least two plastered surfaces which ran up against the wall face. The debris on these surfaces included fallen ashlar blocks in a bricky fill containing 8th century B.C. sherds. The debris layers may be evidence of both an earlier 8th century earthquake (see below) and a later 8th century B.C. Assyrian destruction (Plate 15). The latter was followed much later by a hasty repair and rebuild, probably during the Maccabean period (2d century B.C.).

Thus, based on the results of the excavation along the outer face of "Tower VII," it appears that the Outer Wall was originally constructed at least by the 10th century B.C., and probably earlier. The discoveries in Square 22 to the east (see below) even suggest the possibility of an initial construction in the LB II. Engineers of the Iron II and Hellenistic periods apparently found it necessary to repair isolated sections of the inner face (which rested on the top of an escarpment), thus leading to the discrepancy between the dates for the construction of the inner and outer faces of the Outer Wall.

Macalister's Tower VI

In the hope of finding a genuine Solomonic tower inserted into a Late Bronze Age wall, it was decided to move east and attempt to locate Macalister's "Tower VI." According to Macalister's top plan, Tower VI was located between 25 m. and 30 m. east of Tower VII (Plate 19). Using the bulldozer to clear away Macalister dump and post-Macalister debris accumulation (which included some 1947 Jordanian army trenches), it was not long before an ashlar block of what appeared to be the southwest corner of Macalister's Outer Wall Tower VI was uncovered.

Unfortunately, excavations indicated that this "tower" was also only an offset (Plate 16). However, the pottery from the foundation trench16 indicated that the earliest phase of this stretch of the Outer Wall was founded probably during the 10th century B.C. Two additional pieces of evidence also support a 10th century B.C. dating. First, a stone of the lowest course of the inner face of the Outer Wall is roughly bossed in a fashion typical of foundation ashlars of the 10th century. Second, this lowest course is clearly cut by the later "tower" or offset, indicating that this stretch of the wall preceded the construction of the "tower." Since the "inserted tower" dated to the 9th/8th century B.C. (see below), the wall must be dated earlier. While this second line of evidence is not sufficient by itself to provide a 10th century date, the bossed ashlar and the 10th century trench combine to make a 10th century B.C. date for this section of the wall most probable.

Sometime during the 9th/8th century B.C. the upper courses of the Outer Wall were remodelled with large ashlars to create an offset.17 The ashlar offset was "inserted" more than a meter into the 10th century B.C. wall line.18

The 9th/8th century ashlar inserts and wall appear to have been destroyed sometime during the 8th century B.C. Several lines of evidence suggest that the agent of destruction was an earthquake. For one thing, several sections of the Outer Wall had been clearly displaced from their foundations by as much as 10 to 40 cm. Furthermore, these wall sections were all severely tilted outward toward the north. That this tilting was not due to slow subsidence over a long period of time was evident from the fact that intact sections of upper courses of the inner face of the wall had fallen backwards into the city. Only a very rapid outward tilting of the wall, such as that caused by an earthquake, could cause these upper stones to roll off backwards, away from the tilt. If the wall's outward tilt had occurred slowly, the stones on the top of the wall should have fallen off toward the downward-sloping outer face of the wall.

The southwest corner of the ashlar insert had been similarly displaced from its foundational cornerstone, although to a lesser degree because of the greater stability of the ashlar construction. However, even the cornerstone had been split longitudinally because of the great pressure created by the lateral movement of the upper courses. This same tremendous pressure also created fissures in the ashlar stones that penetrated through several courses. The reason the foundation stones were not themselves dislodged to any significant degree is probably due to the fact that they were set into levelled-out depressions cut directly into the bedrock.

Evidence for an 8th century B.C. earthquake has been discovered at several other sites, such as Hazor.19 It is not impossible that the wall was destroyed by the well-known earthquake of Amos 1 and Zech 14:5 (ca. 760 B.C.).20
Footnotes

13 See Macalister, Gezer I, pp. 244-256.

14 Ussishkin has argued that Macalister's "rebuilt" section (see Plate 4) corresponds to or marks the position of a monumental building which used this rebuilt stretch as a "back wall." According to Ussishkin, that section was bonded to and ran between two of Macalister's towers, which presumably served as corner towers for this building ("Notes," p. 75). Excavations from the 1990 season indicate that Macalister's rebuilt section extends well to the east of this 30 m. stretch and that what Macalister called "towers" are not necessarily towers at all. Even Macalister admitted that many of the Outer Wall's towers appeared to be little more than "set-offs" and that those on the inner face did not always correspond to those on the outer face (see Macalister, Gezer /, p. 244). That is exactly what was found this season in Probes 9 and 18. Also, it appears that little, if anything, of the Late Bronze Age wall was left in this section of the Outer Wall (described as "rebuilt"). Thus Ussishkin's criticism that the Iron Age builders of this monumental building would have had to line it up to the stub of the Late Bronze Age wall and then remove it to build up the back wall of the monumental building does not hold. The Late Bronze Age wall was probably already missing in this section.

15 The vast difference in the depth to bedrock between the inner and outer faces of the Outer Wall is due to the fact that the wall was built along an escarpment — a point noted by Macalister, Gezer I, p. 244.

16 The sections of both the east and west balks of this probe showed that the Middle Bronze Age glacis, which has been found in all areas where the Outer Wall has been exposed, was cut clear to bedrock by a 10th century B.C. trench to make room for the founding of the wall.

17 The dating for the ashlar insert and the upper courses of the inner face of the Outer Wall was determined by 9th/8th century pottery in their foundation trench (which was dug into the 10th century trench), as well as by the style of the ashlars, which are larger and more rough than the fine, well-hewn, 10th century ashlars found in other sections of the wall (e.g., see above on Macalister Tower VII). This foundation trench was clearly dug into the earlier 10th century trench described above.

18 It was thought initially that this "insert" was the southwest corner of Macalister's Outer Wall Tower VI. However, clearing along the top of the wall to the east failed to produce the southeast corner of the tower. Ashlars were indeed found in the location where the corner was to be expected, but they were in the wall line and did not form a corner (see, e.g., Y. Shilo, Proto-Aeolic Capital, QEDEM series, vol. 11 [Jerusalem, 1979], p. 51). It therefore appears that the engineers who rebuilt the wall in the 9th/8th century modified the wall along this stretch by creating a series of offsets rather than by inserting a series of towers, as Macalister originally thought (he also dated the inserts to the 10th century B.c.). In fact, this stretch of offsets seems to continue the pattern of offsets that Macalister himself found for the Outer Wall further to the west between trenches 23 and 29 (see Macalister's plan, Plate 4).

19 See Y. Yadin, Hazor: The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible (New York, 1975), pp. 149-154.

20 Recent geological studies indicate that the modern town of Ramla (near Gezer) has experienced numerous earthquakes. See E. J. Arieh, "Seismicity of Israel and Adjacent Areas," Ministry of Development Geological Survey Bulletin No. 43 (1967): 1-14.

Dever (1992)

Figures
Figures

  • Plate III.1 - -             
    Plate III.1

    E/23. Field XI, Areas 20-22

    Dever (1992)
    Plan of     Inner and Outer Walls in Filed XI from Dever (1992)
  • Plate III.2 - -             
    Plate III.2

    Outer face of the "Outer Wall" in Field XI, Area 18, showing the offset and upper ashlar courses, with several displaced ashlar blocks lying on and above an 8th century BCE surface; at least three ashlar courses lie below.

    Photo: W.G. Dever

    Dever (1992)
    Outer face of the "Outer Wall" from Dever (1992)
  • Plate III.3 - -             
    Plate III.3

    The "Outer Wall" in Field XI, Area 20, looking east. Note the Middle Bronze glacis, cut by two successive Iron Age foundation trenches; ashlar offset with cracked stones; in foreground, detached and tilted masonry upper courses, with bottom course still in situ on scarped bedrock; in background, further stretch of wall, radically displaced from line of offset/"tower".

    Photo: W.G. Dever

    Dever (1992)
    Cracked "Outer Wall" from Dever (1992)
  • Plate III.4 - -             
    Plate III.4

    "Outer Wall" between Areas 20 and 21 of Field XI. looking north/northwest (over wall top, toward valley below). Note how the wall has pulled apart and collapsed downslope, yet with portions of large boulders still segmented.

    Photo: W.G. Dever

    Dever (1992)
    Laterally Displaced "Outer Wall" from Dever (1992)

Discussion

C. The 1990 Season at Gezer: Iron Age Fortifications and Their Destruction

The 1990 season of excavation at Gezer was planned deliberately to follow up the 1984 season — both focusing on the question of the precise date and character of the Iron Age defenses. These defenses had become the object of heated controversy following the close of the original excavations in 1964-1973 and the subsequent publication of several volumes of final field reports. The details of both the controversy and of the results of the 1984/ 1990 excavations have been published extensively elsewhere and need not detain us here.12 We shall concentrate rather on the evidence for earthquake destruction in Field XI in the 1990 season.

After having investigated Macalister's "Outer Wall" — which we have consistently dated to LB II, with an Iron Age reuse phase beginning in the 10th century BCE — in several fields over the years, we opened in 1990 a large new area along the north perimeter, designated Field XI. This field is located ca. 35-55 m east of the Field V "High Place", straddling both the Middle Bronze "Inner Wall" and the disputed "Outer Wall" and exposing portions of both (Fig. III.1).13

To the west of Field VI, in Areas 9, 10, 15, 16, 18, the "Outer Wall" was a splendidly constructed and well-preserved structure, still standing as much as nine courses and ca. 5 m high. It was set into a deep, backfilled foundation trench along the inner face (cutting the Middle Bronze glacis), founded on or just above bedrock, and constructed of roughly cut ashlar blocks. Along the outer face, where bedrock sloped sharply downhill, the wall stood at least six courses high (we did not reach the founding level) in all-ashlar masonry that was superbly drafted and fitted (Fig. III.2).

This portion of the city wall at first appeared to be one of Macalister's "inserted towers" (in fact, his "no. vii"),14 which both he and myself had regarded as secondary Iron Age additions to an original Late Bronze Age defense wall — in this case, probably 10th century BCE on the basis of the cumulative evidence elsewhere.15 However, since the inner face revealed only a backfilled foundation trench with no preserved living surfaces, and the trench along the outer face could not be driven to founding levels, we had no independent dating evidence here. We did isolate a destruction layer about halfway up the outer face, with a fall of partially broken and displaced ashlar blocks, fallen onto a surface dated by some clear 8th century BCE sherds, probably evidence of the Assyrian destruction so dramatically revealed elsewhere.16 But the date of the construction of the "Outer Wall" here can only be posited by extrapolation, i.e., it must be pre-733 BCE. Whatever the precise date, however, and regardless of whether this portion is indeed "inserted," this stretch of the "Outer Wall" is definitely not a tower. It is more likely a section of an offset-inset wall — precisely as Macalister himself correctly noted much farther to the west, in a section that he marked "rebuilt" on the Plan of     his "Hellenistic" (although it is Iron Age) stratum." It is perhaps noteworthy that offset-inset walls, with their "break-joints" at regular intervals, are presumed to be intended as anti-earthquake devices. (If so, they may indeed have been effective here.)

Farther east in Field VI, especially in Area 32, the "Outer Wall" exhibits a rather different character (Fig. III.3). Here the wall had evidently also been set into a similar backfilled foundation trench, dated possibly by a few 10th century BCE sherds. A secondary trench, however, dated by several 9th/8th century BCE sherds, reached all the way to bedrock, which was now scarped to receive a foundation course of rough ashlar blocks, found still in situ. Above these were two more courses of very large, roughly hewn squared stones, very different from the smaller, finely dressed rectangular blocks in the wall to the west (above). Here, too, there was an offset along the inner face that Macalister had mistakenly interpreted as a "tower" (his "no. vi").18

While the two Iron Age phases in the "Outer Wall" were so crystal clear in the sections that they constituted a "textbook" example of stratigraphy, of more interest was the evidence they preserved of an earthquake destruction of the second, 9th/8th century BCE phase. The evidence was twofold.
  1. First, all three courses of the large rectangular blocks just at the "tower" offset were cracked clear through, from top to bottom, the heavy stones still approximately in place but with a large open gap running from top to bottom (Fig. III.3).
  2. Second, immediately to the west of the "tower" offset, the foundation course (here of marginally drafted ashlars) was still in situ; but the upper two courses of rougher boulders were found radically displaced upward and outward, but still lying in a row — as though they had violently "jumped" off their foundations (Figure III.4).
Now it seems evident that such severe damage cannot have resulted simply from the usual siege tactics carried out at ancient walled Palestinian towns. There was none of the typical evidence of burning: no calcinated stones; no trace of under-mining and collapse; no evidence of battering or forcing of the wall inward. On the contrary, the wall had fallen suddenly outward, "split apart" violently.

For some time I resisted the suggestions of various staff members that perhaps an earthquake was the best explanation. And certainly I — not identifying with traditional "biblical archaeology" — did not have the earthquake of Amos or Zachariah in mind, despite the 9th/8th century BCE date for the wall that we had posited on quite independent archaeological grounds. Nor at the moment did I recall Yadin's earthquake hypothesis at Hazor. Yet, in the end, the evidence seemed overwhelming. Several of our group from California, including Associate Director Randy Younker, had personally seen just such earthquake damage, even to the fact that random areas of the wall had been affected, and this seemed to provide the confirmation that we needed.

A final probe still farther east, in Area 20, yielded further evidence. Here we cleared a stretch of the same wall for some 15 m. At first, our efforts to trace the wall eastward failed. Because we were following the projected line from the "tower" offset on a straight course and had found no stones, we supposed that the top course was robbed out. To our surprise, we later discovered what was clearly the line of the top course curving radically, a long section bowed outward yet still intact. Furthermore, the tops of the whole line of stones were tilted outward at an angle of ca. 10-15 degrees (Figure III.4).

One could, I suppose, argue that here we are dealing simply with subsidence, perhaps because the bedrock dipped downward at this point (as indeed it did). A more reasonable explanation, however, would seem to be an earthquake that displaced the whole section bodily, especially as the foundations were already weak. Certainly a battering ram, or the work of sappers, could not have produced such a peculiar phenomenon as this whole stretch of wall tipped outward. It does indeed resemble rather closely one of Schaeffer's toppled walls at Ugarit.19

Footnotes

12 For orientation and full references, see W.G. Dever, 'Of Myths and Methods,' BASOR 277/278 (1990), pp. 121-130; see also the related articles in this same issue by I. Finkelstein, J.S. Holladay, L.E. Stager, D. Ussishkin and G.J. Wightman. Preliminary reports of the 1990 season will appear soon in IEJ and BASOR.

13 See R.A.S. Macalister, The Excavation of Gezer, London 1912, III, Pls. III, IV; cf. the recent plan in W.G. Dever et. al., Gezer IV. The 1968-71 Seasons in Field VI, the "Acropolis", Jerusalem 1986, Plan I.

14 Macalister (above, n. 13), I, p. 251; III, Pl. V.

15 See references in n. 12 above; and cf. Macalister (above, n. 13), I, pp. 244-251.

16 On the Assyrian destruction, see W.G. Dever, 'Solomonic and Assyrian Period "Palaces" at Gezer,' IEJ 35 (1985), pp. 217-230, and references there.

17 Macalister (above, n. 13), I, pp. 248-251; III, Pls. V, VI.

18 Ibid., I, p. 251; III, Pl. V.

19 Schaeffer (above, n. 2), Fig. 1 (an ashlar wall of Ugarit Bronze Recent 2).

Dever and Younker (1991)

Figures
Figures

  • Figure 1 - -             
    Figure 1

    Tel Gezer, Field XI, Area 20: Offset portion of 'Outer Wall' set into the glacis (at right). Note cracks through ashlars at offset, and the wall on both sides of the offset displaced downslope.

    Dever and Younker (1991)
    Through-going joints in ashlars of Outer Wall from Dever and Younker (1991)
  • Figure 2 - -             
    Figure 2

    Tel Gezer, Field XI, Area 20: 'Outer Wall' (view to the north-west). Note the wall stones displaced and tilted outward, downslope.

    Dever and Younker (1991)
    Lateral displacement of Outer Wall from Dever and Younker (1991)

Discussion

The `Canaanite Castle' and the `Outer Wall'

Objectives 2 and 3 were achieved in newly-opened Field XI (approximately 60 m. east of the Field V `High-Place), encompassing the `Canaanite Castle' and both the lines of the `Inner' and `Outer Walls' at this point.

...

Directly north of the `Castle', the `Outer Wall' was found, built in places directly on bedrock; its cyclopean tower at that point had been incorporated into the later `Castle', probably surviving only as a wall stub and utilized as a cobbled area. Further north and downslope, the `Outer Wall' was encountered, as hoped, running approximately 4.50 m. wide, preserved up to nine courses and 5.00 m. high, also founded mostly on bedrock. What was described and planned by Macalister as his `inserted tower vii', however, turned out to be simply an offset portion of the wall — comparable, for instance, to the portion of the `Outer Wall' further west, marked on his plans as `Rebuilt.' Apparently Macalister mistakenly reconstructed a tower because he dug only one corner and extrapolated the rest on the basis of the true towers he had found elsewhere in this wall. Nonetheless, his observation that this section has a secondary construction phase is essentially correct, because the upper two or three courses along the inner face (all he saw) are indeed a Hellenistic rebuild, re-using the original ashlar blocks. (We were similarly fooled in 1967-1971 by a Maccabean repair of the entryway of the Field III gate.) The outer face of the offset portion proved a surprise, for, in contrast to the tour courses resting on bedrock along the inner face, the wall here was found to go down at least nine courses (or approximately 5.00 m.) in excellent header-stretcher ashlar masonry. We could not, in fact, reach the founding level, but it is probably on bedrock a few more courses down. The pottery from the lowest level of the fills against this outer face consisted of red-slipped tenth-century B.C.E. ware, but no datable living surfaces were found this deep. At around the upper third of the wall face, however, a plaster surface was encountered; just above this there were several displaced and broken ashlar blocks, in a bricky layer containing some eighth-century B.C.E. sherds. Thus, we may have evidence for an Assyrian destruction of the `Outer Wall', followed later by a hasty Maccabean rebuild.

To broaden our exposure, we moved some 30-40 m. to the east and there opened several trenches both inside and outside the 'Outer Wall'. The inner trenches revealed that here the wall had two Iron Age phases. The original wall (Loci 21013/22000) was cut through the Middle Bronze Age chalk glacis, showing a very clear foundation trench back-filled with churned-up glacis material and containing no sherds later than the tenth century B.C.E. This wall was preserved three to four courses high (five to six at the outer face) and was approximately 5.50 m. wide. Directly above this rather poorly-constructed stone wall ran a better built wall (Locus 21000), set back slightly and preserved some three courses or approximately 1.00 m. high. Here, too, the `tower' we expected to find (Macalister's `tower vi') turned out to be simply an offset portion of ashlar masonry (Fig. 1). This later wall, dated by eighth-century B.C.E. sherds in the secondary back-filled trench, was probably destroyed by the well-known earthquake of Amos 1 and Zech. 14:5, c. 760 B.C.E. Not only was the ashlar `tower' cracked from top to bottom and the adjoining boulders violently thrown off their foundations, but a long stretch of the wall to the east was tilted sharply outward in one piece. (Fig. 2). Preliminary research indicates that the Gezer—Ramla region has been subject to repeated earthquake damage in historical times; an earthquake hypothesis, therefore, seems plausible.

The most dramatic evidence came, however, from the cut against the external face of the `Outer Wall' here. Below the two Iron Age phases and founded directly on the sharply sloping bedrock, stood a superbly-constructed wall of roughly-dressed stones, Wall 22002, preserved eight or nine courses and approximately 3.75 m. high (Fig. 3). The first Iron Age wall (tenth century B.C.E.) stood directly atop this wall, but it was offset around 65 cm. and was built of much inferior masonry. At this juncture, a sloping plastered surface created a kind of `glacis' (Locus 22003), associated with later levels of the Iron Age wall (c. ninth century B.C.E.) and clearly going over the top of the earlier wall (i.e., the builders used the stub of the earlier wall simply as a footing). Sealed beneath this glacis was a series of fills, the latest sherds of which were tenth century B.C.E.; below that there was another series of sloping fills. From these deeper fills — running down the lower wall face almost to bedrock and founding levels — came 35 baskets of pottery with nearly pure LB II forms, i.e., with virtually no MB sherds and no Iron Age sherds whatsoever. We conclude that this lowest phase of the `Outer Wall' must have been built in the LB II, and survived to form the foundation for Iron Age Wall 21013/22000. It is noteworthy that the two phases of the `Outer Wall' here in Field VI duplicate almost exactly our finds in Field III in 1984 (and in several other fields previously).

With the results of the 1990 season — a considerably larger exposure of the `Outer Wall' and even clearer evidence of multiple phasing — we consider the controversy over its date settled. We have responded to our critics with two seasons of excavations devoted exclusively to this problem; having produced a mass of new data corroborating our original dating, the burden of proof would now seem to be on the opponents of our views.

Dever (1993)

Figures
Figures

  • Figure 13 - -             
    Figure 13

    General Plan of     Field XI East showing 1990 excavation areas; note line of Sections β-β', γ—γ' (cf. fig. 14).

    Dever (1993)
    Plan of     Field XI East from Dever (1993)
  • Figure 14 - -             
    Figure 14

    Field XI, Area 20, looking east. Note collapsed line of Outer Wall all along left; in center, cracked offset portion; and, at right, two foundation trenches through Middle Bronze glacis (Section β-β').

    Dever (1993)
    Tilted Wall and through-going cracks in Ashlars from Dever (1993)
  • Figure 15 - -             
    Figure 15

    Line of Outer Wall between Field XI, Areas 20 and 21, looking west. Note wall stones still in alignment, but displaced northward, downslope, cf. fig. 14.

    Dever (1993)
    Wall displacement from Dever (1993)
  • Figure 16 - -             
    Figure 16

    Schematic rendering of Section γ—γ' through Outer Wall in Field XI, Areas 21 and 22; cf. fig. 13.

    Dever (1993)
    Section γ—γ' through Outer Wall in Field XI from Dever (1993)
  • Figure 17 - -             
    Figure 17

    Field XI, Area 22, looking south, with Section α—α' to right. Below meter stick is LB II Wall 22,002, founded on bedrock; above is Iron Age Wall 22,000, partially plastered. Note differing masonry, offset alignment; cf. fig. 16 for Section γ—γ'.

    Dever (1993)
    LB II and tilted Iron Age Wall from Dever (1993)

Discussion

Field XI

...

The "Earthquake" Section. Some 25-35 m east of the portion of the Outer Wall just described (fig. 13), we opened another area to see whether the ashlar offset/inset section continued. Here, in Area 20, was another, similar offset that Macalister had published as a "tower" (his "no. vi"). Also similar, but more certain, was the evidence for multiple phasing (see fig. 14 for the following).
  1. Here the MB II glacis was well preserved, exhibiting the same alternating tell debris and chalk layering, with "tongues" keying the sloping plaster into the core, that we had found earlier in Fields I and III.23
  2. The Outer Wall was set into a very clearly visible foundation trench, cut through the glacis to bedrock and backfilled with churned-up glacis material, exactly as it had been to the west. The single foundation course was of roughly dressed, bossed ashlars set directly upon the bedrock, which was scarped to receive it. A few tenth century B.C.E. sherds in the largely sterile fill of the foundation trench might date the construction phase.
  3. Here, too, there was a secondary Iron Age addition, in this case an upper three courses of very large, square hammer-dressed stones at the offset, with undressed boulders elsewhere. The secondary trench for those courses was easily discernible, since it cut through the chalk-filled original trench and was filled only with soft brown, featureless soil. A few ninth/eighth century B.C.E. sherds suggest a date, but the evidence is scant.
  4. The upper three courses showed evidence of violent destruction: the squared stones of the offset were cracked through from top to bottom; and the undressed boulders seemed to have "jumped off" the foundation course of bossed ashlars and had been radically displaced upward and outward, downslope. This evidence suggested to us earthquake disturbance (below).
  5. There was no clear evidence of a Maccabean repair and reuse.
East of Area 20 we attempted to clear a portion of the top of the Outer Wall and to trace the offset section eastward (fig. 13). At first, we could not find the line of the wall at all and so assumed that it was robbed out. Moving somewhat northward, however, we discovered the top of the inner face—a long section displaced 50 cm or more outward, and bowed out in a sweeping curve. Furthermore, the tops of the wall stones here were tilted down-slope at an angle of ca. 10-20 degrees (fig. 15).

The evidence here, taken together with that of Area 20 to the west, is probably best explained by positing an earthquake that severely damaged the wall. Since the upper (offset/inset) phase seems to have been built in the ninth/eighth centuries B.C.E., the best candidate would be the well-known earthquake mentioned in Amos 1:1 and Zechariah 14:5, dated by reference to the reigns of Jeroboam of Israel (ca. 786-744 B.C.E.) and Uzziah of Judah (ca. 786-746 B.C.E.), and thus perhaps falling ca. 760 B.C.E.

Yadin had found similar evidence of tilted and toppled walls at Hazor in Stratum VI of Area A, corroborated by Ben-Tor in the 1990 season.24 And other Syro-Palestinian sites in the Bronze and Iron Ages have produced evidence of destruction that seems explicable only in the light of presumed earthquakes. Indeed, Schaeffer (1948) sought to work out an entire Levantine chronology on the basis of an earthquake of ca. 1365 B.C.E. supposedly referred to in the Amarna letters.25 This is not as speculative as it may sound, for David Amiran and others have shown that there have been numerous historically recorded earthquakes in the Ramla/ Lydda area near Gezer. Indeed, this area is one of the major epicenters of Palestine, second only to the Safad/Nazareth and Jordan Valley epicenters.26 From a methodological viewpoint, the biblical references to a great earthquake that left an indelible memory should be given credence; and the archaeological evidence seems incontrovertible. Certainly the Outer Wall in Field VIII exhibits none of the typical signs of manmade destruction, such as burning, sapping, breaching, being pushed inward by a battering ram. And we are nowhere near the city gate, usually the principal focus of attack. (Elsewhere I have advanced the "earthquake" hypothesis in more detail; see Dever 1991.)

Areas 21, 22; Walls 21,000, 22,000, and 22,002

Still farther east, Areas 21 and 22 were opened up (fig. 13), the former inside the Outer Wall, the latter outside.

...

Much to our astonishment, Area 22 against the outer face of the Outer Wall revealed that just 6-7 m north the bedrock sloped off as much as 5.00 m. Thus the lower Iron Age wall here (as Locus 22,000), built somewhat precariously on the slope, was preserved higher, ca. six courses and ca. 2.00-2.50 m (figs. 16, 17). This wall had tilted outward as much as 10-15 degrees. And at some time, possibly after its earliest use phase, the outer face had been plastered; and a thin, plaster-like glacis (Locus 22,003) had also been added above the sloping accumulation outside the wall. This "glacis" contained sealed beneath it (Loci 22,006; 22,009) a few clear wheel-burnished sherds and so should probably be dated to the ninth century B.C.E. (also fig. 12:5, 6). The addition of plaster may have been an attempt to protect the wall from water (i.e., from subsidence). But the somewhat precarious outward tilt of this wall, together with eighth century B.C.E. Wall 21,000 founded directly atop it (figs. 16, 17), may indicate rather the earthquake damage posited elsewhere (above).
Footnotes

23 Dever, Lance, and Wright 1970: 44; Dever et al. 1974: 34, 35; Dever 1986: 13, 14.

24- Cf. Yadin 1972: 113, 179-82; 1975: 149-57. The observation of the 1990 season is mine and was confirmed on the spot by Amnon Ben-Tor.

25 See Schaeffer 1948: 1-7.

26- See Amiran 1950-1951; 1952 and references there; add now Arieh 1967.

Austin et. al. (2000)

Figures
Figures

  • Figure 3 - -             
    FIG. 3

    Time-stratigraphic correlation chart of Iron IIb excavations throughout an extensive region of Israel and Jordan. Datum for correlation is earthquake debris or rebuilding horizons assigned to a single, 750 B.C. seismic event. Locations of cities are shown in Figure 1. Strata names at each site are from primary archaeological reports.

    Symbols

    • P = pottery date
    • C-14 = radiocarbon date
    • T = dated text material
    • D = military destruction layer with historical date assigned
    • A = historically dated architectural style
    • E = earthquake destruction layer
    • E ? = probable earthquake destruction layer (significant rebuilding horizon without evidence of military conquest)


    Austin et. al. (2000)
    Time-stratigraphic correlation chart of Iron IIb excavations throughout an extensive region of Israel and Jordan from Austin et. al. (2000)
  • Figure 4 - -             
    FIG. 4

    Earthquake damage at Gezer within the excavation of the Iron Age Outer Wall. View is toward the east looking down the line of the wall (Field XI, Area 20) at the northern edge of the mound. The foundation of the wall was constructed on bedrock within a trench against the Middle Bronze, steeply sloped earthen rampart (called a glacis) at the extreme right. Foreground left shows three northward-tilted masonry courses which have jumped northward up to 40 cm off of their in situ bottom course. Large, well-drafted ashlars (an insert into the wall at the middle of photo) are not tilted, but have vertical cracks on three courses, and have moved northward slightly off foundation. Background middle shows further stretch of the Outer Wall, radically displaced northward from the line described by the lowest, in situ foundation blocks. Surface debris at background right includes the uppermost courses of the wall, which collapsed southward into the city. The substantial glacis in the foreground right appears to have buttressed the lower courses on the south side, so the lower portion of the wall deformed by tilting toward the north. Scale is indicated by the large, well-drafted ashlars that each have a height of about 0.5 m (photo courtesy of William G. Dever and Randy Younker).

    Austin et. al. (2000)
    Potential archaeoseismic evidence at Gezer from Austin et. al. (2000)

Discussion

Gezer was a strategic and well-fortified city in the Shephelah of Judah adjacent to the coastal plain some 30 km west northwest of Jerusalem (Fig. 1). Excavations of Iron Age construction at Gezer reveal extraordinary damage to a large section of the Outer Wall (Field XI) on the north side of the city. Figure 4 (center of photo) shows three courses of well-drafted ashlars that are cracked through from top to bottom, with the stones of each higher course being displaced an increasing amount northward. Figure 4 (foreground) shows a northward-leaning section of the wall with three courses of stones that have jumped up to 40 cm northward off their foundation course (Dever, 1992). The inner face of the uppermost courses of the wall fell southward into the city, further evidence for the suddenness of the wall's collapse (Younker, 1991). Stratum VI at Gezer, which contains the earthquake debris, is terminated by the military destruction layer attributed by Dever (1993) to the city's conquest by Tiglath- pileser III in his campaigns of 733-732 B.C. (see Fig. 3). The earthquake evidence at Gezer is dated stratigraphically to 760 B.C. ± 25 years, the year 760 being specified by Dever (1992).

Fantalkin and Finkelstein (2006)

The End of the Late Iron IIA: The Earthquake in the Early 8th Century BCE ?

It is reasonable to assume that the assemblage from Tell es-Safi does not mark the end of the Late Iron IIA. So how long did this pottery repertoire endure after this datum?

Ussishkin proposed (1977: 52; 2004: 83; Barkay and Ussishkin 2004: 447; also Zimhoni 1997: 172-173) that the changeover at Lachish from Level W to Level III was related to the seismic event mentioned in Amos 1:1 and Zechariah 14:5. This gave birth to the theory that a major earthquake was the reason for the transition from the Iron IIA to the Iron IIB. This idea was adopted by Herzog and Singer-Avitz (2004: 230) for the transition from Stratum IV to Stratum III at Tel Beersheba and from Stratum XI to X at Arad (see also Herzog 2002: 97-98; Singer-Avitz 2002: 162). At first glance the earthquake theory looks quite appealing; yet, it is difficult to accept.

As far as we can judge, no evidence of the kind expected to be left by a major earthquake (see, e.g., Marco et al. forthcoming) has ever been found at any Judahite site. The earthquake theory was formulated merely in order to explain a stratigraphic/architectonic change. Indeed, even at Lachish the excavators admit that "no unequivocal proof of this is available" (Barkay and Ussishkin 2004: 447).3

This is in contrast to the north, where evidence for a major seismic event in the 8th century was found at Hazor (the destruction of Stratum VI—Yadin et al. 1960: 24-26; 1989: 41, 44) and possibly also at Megiddo (in Stratum IVA—Marco et al. forthcoming) and Tell Deir Alla (Austin et al. 2000: 659). Indeed, an earthquake is a localized event, which can hardly devastate very large areas such as Israel and Judah combined (ibid.). Hazor, Deir Alla and Megiddo are located along major geological faults—of the Rift Valley and the Carmel Ridge respectively—and hence have always been sensitive to seismic events.4 In contrast, the Shephelah and the Beersheba Valley are far from the Rift Valley and show no evidence of earthquakes in other periods either. Finally, from the ceramic point of view, it is impossible to equate Iron IIA Lachish IV and Arad XI with Iron IIB Hazor VI. Indeed, the fact that the earthquake in the days of Uzziah and Jeroboam II is mentioned only by a prophet who was active in the north, with no reference to it in any Judahite source,5 seems to indicate that Judah was not affected, or at least did not suffer significant damage. The theory that an earthquake was responsible for a major stratigraphic and architectural transition in Judah rests on very shaky ground and should be eliminated from consideration.

In any event, the idea that the potters of Judah changed their repertoire as a result of a seismic event is unacceptable (indeed, no such change can be observed in the north in the transition from Hazor VI to Hazor V). Major changes in ceramic repertoires, such as the shift from the Lachish IV to the Lachish III assemblages, must have been caused by broader economic and political processes, not by a solitary event. So the question remains: What is the date and the reason for the transition from the Late Iron IIA to the Iron IIB ceramic repertoires in the south?

One clue comes from the site of Arad, where three strata—X, IX and VIII-feature quite similar Iron IIB pottery repertoires. Stratum VIII was destroyed by Sennacherib in 701 BCE. Since the sequence of the three strata requires some time, it would be reasonable to assume that the Iron IIB pottery was already fully developed no later than the mid-8th century BCE, and in fact probably earlier (also Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 274-275; Faust 2005: 107, n. 13).

Additional clues come from the north. Stratum VI at Hazor, which probably dates to the first half of the 8th century—the days of Joash and Jeroboam II, after the recovery of lsrael from the Aramean pressure—features Iron IIB pottery, while Strata VIII-VII, which seem to represent the second half of the 9th century (Finkelstein 1999), still feature some Iron IIA types. At Megiddo, Level H-4, which predates Level H-3 (=Stratum IVA) that was destroyed by the Assyrians, also features Iron IIB pottery (Finkelstein forthcoming). The assemblage of Kuntillet 'Ajrud is closely related to the coast and the north and is contemporaneous with Hazor VI and Ashdod VIII (Ayalon 1995: 196-197). 14C measurements of wood remains from the site provide dates in the early 8th century BCE (Carmi and Segal 1996; for this argument, with certain nuances, see also Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 275; Singer-Avitz 2002: 163).

All this means that in the north, the transition from the Iron IIA to the Iron IIB pottery repertoires probably took place around 800 BCE, parallel to the growth of the Assyrian-influenced state economy in Israel, when the Northern Kingdom reached peak prosperity. Since we are dealing with a relatively small country, and since the economies of Israel and Judah were probably related again at that time (under Northern dominance), we would argue that in Judah, too, the transition from the Iron IIA to the Iron IIB should be set ca. 800 BCE. If it turns out that Lachish IV and Beth-shemesh IIa were built after the fall of Gath (below), a somewhat later date would be preferable.
Footnotes

3 Dever (1992) interpreted a tilt in the Outer Wall at Gezer as a result of the earthquake mentioned in Amos 1:1. Yet, no real evidence for a quake exists at Gezer. The changes described by Dever could have been caused by centuries of fill-pressure on the city wall, which is located on the slope of the mound. Note that the sections of the city wall described by Dever were all part of a sub-structure, which was buried in the ground from the outset and hence could hardly have been affected by a quake; also note that no evidence for a seismic event has ever been found in any free-standing building at Gezer.

4 Austin et al. (2000: 667-669) located the epicentre of the earthquake in the Beqa of Lebanon. Yet, this is based on an uncritical reading of the archaeological `evidence' mentioned vis-à-vis the Amos event, including sites such as Lachish and Tel Beersheba (see also the tilted wall at 'En Haseva— ibid.: 662—which could have resulted from pressure of a fill, not necessarily an earthquake).

5 Zechariah 14:5 (part of Deutero-Zechariah) is a late (Hellenistic?) source that could not have had any independent information on this event; he must have relied on Amos 1:1.

Danzig (2011)

William Dever claimed to have discovered evidence for an earthquake in the middle of the 8th century B.C.E. at Tell Gezer87 The focus of his evidence is on the outer wall of the city, in which he has found cracks through several courses of stones, bends in the wall, and stones fallen off of it, supposedly with stretches of courses together88 . Although the arrangement of courses of stones falling in both directions off of a wall is good evidence for an earthquake89 , “collapsed, bulging or outwardly leaning retaining walls are unlikely to be due to earthquake damage alone.”90 And, even though the bottom courses of the wall “were set into leveled-out depressions cut directly into the bedrock,”91 the outward pressure from the inside ground of the tell could very well have caused significant displacement of higher stones. Since Dever offers no other evidence than that of the outer wall at Gezer, our conclusion will have to be open ended until further inspection of the site and/or its reports are completed.

Footnotes

87 William G. Dever, “A Case Study in Biblical Archaeology: The Earthquake of Ca. 760 BCE,” Eretz-Israel 23 (1992), 27*-35*.

88 Randall W. Younker, “A Preliminary Report of the 1990 Season at Tel Gezer: Excavations of the ‘Outer Wall’ and the ‘Solomonic’ Gateway (July 2 to August 10, 1990),” Andrews University Seminary Studies 29:1 (1991), 28.

89 Galadini, et al., “Archaeoseismology,” 403.

90 Ambraseys, “Earthquakes and Archaeology,” 1010.

91 Younker, “Preliminary Report,” 29.

Roberts (2012)

13. Gezer

Gezer’s strategic location at the northern end of the Judean foothills, well known boundary stone inscriptions and large standing stones outside the city have all led it to be subject to a number of excavations in the last 100 years. During the 1990 excavation season, in an attempt to clarify the date and character of the Iron Age defenses, excavators found what they consider to be earthquake damage. Field XI, found along the northern perimeter of the site and 35-55 meters east of Field V contained a portion of the “outer wall,” a feature that Macalister as well as Dever saw as secondary Iron Age additions. Since the inner face, however, had a backfilled foundation trench, Dever had difficulty dating the area. As he did isolate a destruction layer about halfway up the outer face it appeared to be clear evidence of Assyrian destruction. Thus, he argued that the date of the wall (an offset/inset) could only be found by extrapolation but must be dated earlier than the Assyrian destruction (733 BCE). In two areas of the outer wall section there appeared to be evidence of earthquake damage based on two pieces of evidence. Three courses of well-drafted ashlars were cracked through from top to bottom and the stones of each higher course were displaced an increasing amount northward (up to 40 cm northward).

Understanding Dever’s process in ascribing this evidence as earthquake damage is illuminating. He noted that he resisted (“for some time”) suggestions by various staff members that this was due to an earthquake.89 Several members from California had just seen earthquake damage —presumably after the 1989 Loma Prieta quake (also known as the “World Series” earthquake because it struck during game three of the world series) —and according to Dever, “even to the fact that random areas of the wall had been affected, and this seemed to provided the confirmation that we needed.”90 Though this outer wall was set into a deep, backfilled trench, with a large section of wall bowed out, where only the superstructure of the wall was visible, and that the bedrock had dipped downward at the very point where the “earthquake damage” was found, they still arrived at earthquake damage as the most likely result.91

In addition, further scrutiny from engineering is needed to provide adequate study of the damage in question. While it is well known that stone cracks when subjected to earthquakes due to the repeated vibrations, other causes of pressure also can create cracks.92 Michael Steiger and A. Elena Charola in their chapter on “Structural behavior and durability of stone masonry,” in Saving our Architectural Heritage, note that mechanical damage in stone results when stone is subjected to a load or a stress that is above the mechanical resistance it has. Relevant to Gezer’s damage, they state, “Other times, differential soil settlement may be the cause of the cracks in structures, while catastrophic events such as earthquakes are responsible for heavy damages in buildings.”93 Thus, soil compaction could stand as the culprit behind the stone’s cracking and movement, especially as the substructure was not excavated and fill pressure is likely behind the wall.

Dever used Gezer’s location relative to Ramla/Lydda as an additional level of support for the quake by listing a number of quakes that struck Ramla/Lydda, located 15 km from Gezer [JW:Ramla has a site effect because it is built on sand. Gezer is built on harder rock]. His approach is admirable but it only demonstrates that earthquakes, based on the location of their epicenter in relation to Gezer (such as the 1927 earthquake where he lists 45 houses collapsed at Ramla), could have shook Gezer, and not that Gezer was shook in an eighth century quake. This is seen even more clearly when paleoseismic work is incorporated into the discussion. Based upon their study of the core sediment from the Dead Sea, Migowski et al. have been able to suggest locations of epicenters of Levantine quakes over the last 4000 years.94 This is relevant to Dever’s work as he lists quakes that have destroyed or damaged nearby Ramla. The three quakes that rattled Ramla the most—1033/34 CE, 1068 CE, 1546 CE—all have epicenters that are far from the 760 BCE epicenter near the Sea of Galilee which paleoseismologists believe is where Amos’s quake occurred.95 In sum then, while Ramla incurred earthquake damage, the location of the epicenters of these quakes were far from the epicenter of the 760 BCE quake and so this piece of evidence is muted. To achieve further insight into the Gezer evidence a study by engineers of the area and type of stone cracks is a better avenue to clarify the damage that Dever found among the “outer wall.”96 In the meantime, Gezer’s evidence is unconvincing.
Footnotes

89 Dever, “A Case-Study in Biblical Archaeology,” 30*.

90 Dever, “A Case-Study in Biblical Archaeology,” 30*.

91 Dever, “A Case-Study in Biblical Archaeology,” 28*-30*. Randall Younker, “A Preliminary Report of the 1990 Season at Tel Gezer, Excavations of the "Outer Wall" and the "Solomonic" Gateway (July 2 to August 10, 1990),” AUSS 29 (1991): 19-60, argued that the inner face of the uppermost courses of the wall fell southward into the city as further evidence for the suddenness of the wall's collapse. See also a similar critique by Fantalkin and Finkelstein, “Sheshonq I,” 22.

92 L. Binda L and A. Anzani, “Structural behavior and durability of stone masonry,” in Saving our Architectural Heritage: The Conservation of Historic Stone Structures (ed. N. S. Baer and R. Snethlage; New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1997), 113–150. More recently, the Washington Monument suffered a number of cracks following the Virginia earthquake on August 23, 2011. The monument is made up of marble, granite, and bluestone gneiss.

93 Michael Steiger and A. Elena Charola, “Weathering and Deterioration,” in Stone in Architecture: Properties, Durability (4 ed; ed. Siegfried Siegesmund and Rolf Snethlage), 227-316.

94 Migowski et al., “Recurrence Pattern,” 311, “Data of epicentral distance to farthest liquefaction versus seismic moment have been complied for over a hundred modern shallow focus earthquakes.”

95 Migowski et al., “Recurrence Pattern,” 311, lists the epicenter of the 1033/34 CE quake south of the sea of Galilee (one-third of Ramla destroyed), the 1068 CE quake just north of the Gulf of Eilat (Ramla destroyed), and the 1546 CE quake (which Dever lists Ramla as severely damaged), struck very close to Ramla.

96 Dever, “A Case-Study in Biblical Archaeology,” 31*, attempts to situate Gezer in its geotechtonic environment by listing a number of quakes that struck Ramla/Lydda, located 15 km from Gezer. His approach is admirable but it only demonstrates that quakes, based on the location of their epicenter in relation to Gezer (such as the 1927 earthquake where he lists 45 houses collapsed at Ramla), could have shook Gezer, and not that Gezer was shook in an eighth century quake.

Raphael and Agnon (2018)

Period Age Site Damage Description
Iron IIB 900-700 BCE Gezer offset along defense wall in Field VI, Area 32, showing a crack that splits three courses (Dever1992: 28-31).

Stratum 6 Destruction - Iron IIB - attributed to military conquest

Area Plans

Area Plans

Normal Size

  • Fig. 3 Photo/Plan of fields
    Fig 3

    Aerial view of the Tandy excavations, with a wide exposure of iron age strata on the central-southern edge of the Gezer mound between fields VII and III of Hebrew Union College.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    III and VII (South Gate) from Webster et al. (2023)

Magnified

  • Fig. 3 Photo/Plan of fields
    Fig 3

    Aerial view of the Tandy excavations, with a wide exposure of iron age strata on the central-southern edge of the Gezer mound between fields VII and III of Hebrew Union College.

    Webster et al. (2023)
    III and VII (South Gate) from Webster et al. (2023)

Discussion

Webster et al. (2023:13) report that Stratum 6 domestic buildings in the northwestern part of the Tandy excavation came to a sudden end, as evidenced by a destruction layer in the pillared unit that included a large assemblage of Iron IIA restorable vessels. They attributed the destruction to the Assyrian conquests of Tiglath Pileser III (in 734 BCE ?).

Seismic Effects
8th century BCE Earthquake (?)

Effect Location Image Description
Collapsed Wall          
Fallen Ashlar Blocks in a debris layer		 Field XI - outer face outer wall at "Tower VII"
Plate 4

Plan of     Tel Gezer



Younker (1991)
Plate 19

Detail of Field XI (after Macalister). Note approximate locations of Squares 21 and 22.

Younker (1991)
Plate 15a

JW:
  • Top - ashlars of outer wall
  • Floor - 8th cent. BCE destruction layer


Younker (1991)
Plate 15b

  1. Outer face offset of Outer Wall built in 10th cent. BCE
  2. 8th cent. BCE destruction layer


Younker (1991)
  • Debris layers consisting of fallen ashlar blocks in a bricky fill containing 8th century BCE sherds were found above 10th century BCE fill from an excavation against the outer face of Macalister's "Tower VII". - Younker (1991)
  • Younker (1991) noted that the debris layers may be evidence of both an earlier 8th century earthquake (see below) and a later 8th century B.C. Assyrian destruction
  • Tower vii projects 2’ 3¼". It forms part of an insertion in the wall, reaching from 3' o¼"” east of the tower to about the same distance west of it. At these two points straight joints run through the walls, faced, on the tower side, by well-squared stones. It happens, however, that the facing-stones of this tower are not so well cut as those of previous towers. - Macalister (1912 vol.1:251)
Displaced Wall - Shifted Ashlar Blocks Field XI - inner face of outer wall at "Tower VI"
Plate 4

Plan of     Tel Gezer



Younker (1991)
Plate 19

Detail of Field XI (after Macalister). Note approximate locations of Squares 21 and 22.

Younker (1991)
Plate 16a

JW: Are displaced ashlars at the bottom ?

Younker (1991)
Plate 16b

  1. Inner face offset of Outer Wall (Macalister's "Tower VI") founded in 10th cent. B.C.
  2. Remodelled, and destroyed by earthquake in 8th cent. B.C


Younker (1991)
  • several sections of the Outer Wall had been clearly displaced from their foundations by as much as 10 to 40 cm. - Younker, 1991
  • The southwest corner of the ashlar insert had been similarly displaced from its foundational cornerstone, although to a lesser degree because of the greater stability of the ashlar construction. - Younker, 1991
  • The reason the foundation stones were not themselves dislodged to any significant degree is probably due to the fact that they were set into levelled-out depressions cut directly into the bedrock. - Younker, 1991
  • Tower vi is certainly an insertion. The projection is I' 6¾", but pressure from inside, or a settlement of the foundations, has forced the tower and walls outward. There are squared stones with diagonal dressing running through the wall, and owing to the ruined state of the wall itself it can be clearly seen that there was no bond between this masonry and that of the tower. On the west side the tower bonds with the well-cut portion of masonry at the adjacent end of the next stretch. - Macalister (1912 vol.1:251)
Penetrative fractures in masonry blocks - through going joints Field XI - inner face of outer wall at "Tower VI"
Plate 4

Plan of     Tel Gezer



Younker (1991)
Plate 19

Detail of Field XI (after Macalister). Note approximate locations of Squares 21 and 22.

Younker (1991)
Plate 16a

JW: through going joints

Younker (1991)
Plate 16b

  1. Inner face offset of Outer Wall (Macalister's "Tower VI") founded in 10th cent. B.C.
  2. Remodelled, and destroyed by earthquake in 8th cent. B.C


Younker (1991)
  • the cornerstone [southwest corner ?] had been split longitudinally - Younker, 1991
  • fissures in the ashlar stones that penetrated through several courses - Younker, 1991
  • Tower vi is certainly an insertion. The projection is I' 6¾", but pressure from inside, or a settlement of the foundations, has forced the tower and walls outward. There are squared stones with diagonal dressing running through the wall, and owing to the ruined state of the wall itself it can be clearly seen that there was no bond between this masonry and that of the tower. On the west side the tower bonds with the well-cut portion of masonry at the adjacent end of the next stretch. - Macalister (1912 vol.1:251)
  • Joints passing through two or more adjacent blocks (through-going joints) could be formed only under high strain. Such joints require the application of tremendous amounts of energy to overcome the stress shadows, appearing along free surfaces at the block margins (Fisher et al., 1995: Engelder, and Fisher, 1996; Becker and Gross, 1996) and therefore cannot be related to the weathering process. - Korjenkov and Mazor (1999)
Tilted Walls Field XI - inner face of outer wall at "Tower VI"
Plate 4

Plan of     Tel Gezer



Younker (1991)
Plate 19

Detail of Field XI (after Macalister). Note approximate locations of Squares 21 and 22.

Younker (1991)
Plate 16a

JW: through going joints

Younker (1991)
Plate 16b

  1. Inner face offset of Outer Wall (Macalister's "Tower VI") founded in 10th cent. B.C.
  2. Remodelled, and destroyed by earthquake in 8th cent. B.C


Younker (1991)
  • these wall sections were all severely tilted outward toward the north - Younker, 1991
  • this tilting was not due to slow subsidence over a long period of time was evident from the fact that intact sections of upper courses of the inner face of the wall had fallen backwards into the city - Younker, 1991
  • Only a very rapid outward tilting of the wall, such as that caused by an earthquake, could cause these upper stones to roll off backwards, away from the tilt. - Younker, 1991
  • Tower vi is certainly an insertion. The projection is I' 6¾", but pressure from inside, or a settlement of the foundations, has forced the tower and walls outward. There are squared stones with diagonal dressing running through the wall, and owing to the ruined state of the wall itself it can be clearly seen that there was no bond between this masonry and that of the tower. On the west side the tower bonds with the well-cut portion of masonry at the adjacent end of the next stretch. - Macalister (1912 vol.1:251)
  • Fantalkin and Finkelstein (2006:22 n.3) opine that the tilts observed in Gezer's outer wall could have been caused by centuries of fill-pressure on the city wall, which is located on the slope of the mound, the sections of the wall where alleged archaeoseismic evidence was uncovered were all part of a sub-structure, which was buried in the ground from the outset and hence could hardly have been affected by a quake, and no evidence for a seismic event has ever been found in any free-standing building at Gezer.
Tilted, displaced, and folded walls Field XI - East of "Tower VI" in Areas 20 and 21
Plate 4

Plan of     Tel Gezer



Younker (1991)
Plate 19

Detail of Field XI (after Macalister). Note approximate locations of Squares 21 and 22.

Younker (1991)
Figure 13

General Plan of     Field XI East showing 1990 excavation areas; note line of Sections β-β', γ—γ' (cf. fig. 14).

Dever (1993)
Figure 15

Line of Outer Wall between Field XI, Areas 20 and 21, looking west. Note wall stones still in alignment, but displaced northward, downslope, cf. fig. 14.

Dever (1993)
Figure 2

Tel Gezer, Field XI, Area 20: 'Outer Wall' (view to the north-west). Note the wall stones displaced and tilted outward, downslope.

Dever and Younker (1991)
  • Dever (1993) reports that the top of the inner face of a long section of the outer wall east of "Tower VI" was displaced 50 cm or more outward, and bowed out in a sweeping curve. In addition, the tops of the wall stones were tilted down-slope at an angle of ca. 10-20 degrees (fig. 15).
  • Fantalkin and Finkelstein (2006:22 n.3) opine that the tilts observed in Gezer's outer wall could have been caused by centuries of fill-pressure on the city wall, which is located on the slope of the mound, the sections of the wall where alleged archaeoseismic evidence was uncovered were all part of a sub-structure, which was buried in the ground from the outset and hence could hardly have been affected by a quake, and no evidence for a seismic event has ever been found in any free-standing building at Gezer.
Tilted Walls Field XI - Areas 21 and 22
Plate 4

Plan of     Tel Gezer



Younker (1991)
Plate 19

Detail of Field XI (after Macalister). Note approximate locations of Squares 21 and 22.

Younker (1991)
Figure 13

General Plan of     Field XI East showing 1990 excavation areas; note line of Sections β-β', γ—γ' (cf. fig. 14).

Dever (1993)
Figure 16

Schematic rendering of Section γ—γ' through Outer Wall in Field XI, Areas 21 and 22; cf. fig. 13.

Dever (1993)
Figure 17

Field XI, Area 22, looking south, with Section α—α' to right. Below meter stick is LB II Wall 22,002, founded on bedrock; above is Iron Age Wall 22,000, partially plastered. Note differing masonry, offset alignment; cf. fig. 16 for Section γ—γ'.

Dever (1993)
  • In Figure 17, Dever (1993) shows that the Iron Age Wall on top of the LB II wall was tilted. Wall tilt is also shown in the cross section γ—γ' of the Outer Wall in Figure 16
  • JW: This tilting could be due to downslope creep.
  • Fantalkin and Finkelstein (2006:22 n.3) opine that the tilts observed in Gezer's outer wall could have been caused by centuries of fill-pressure on the city wall, which is located on the slope of the mound, the sections of the wall where alleged archaeoseismic evidence was uncovered were all part of a sub-structure, which was buried in the ground from the outset and hence could hardly have been affected by a quake, and no evidence for a seismic event has ever been found in any free-standing building at Gezer.

Deformation Maps
8th century BCE Earthquake (?)

Deformation Map

Modified by JW from Plate 19 of Younker (1991)

Intensity Estimates
8th century BCE Earthquake (?)

Effect Location Image Description Intensity
Collapsed Wall          
Fallen Ashlar Blocks in a debris layer		 Field XI - outer face outer wall at "Tower VII"
Plate 4

Plan of     Tel Gezer



Younker (1991)
Plate 19

Detail of Field XI (after Macalister). Note approximate locations of Squares 21 and 22.

Younker (1991)
Plate 15a

JW:
  • Top - ashlars of outer wall
  • Floor - 8th cent. BCE destruction layer


Younker (1991)
Plate 15b

  1. Outer face offset of Outer Wall built in 10th cent. BCE
  2. 8th cent. BCE destruction layer


Younker (1991)
  • Debris layers consisting of fallen ashlar blocks in a bricky fill containing 8th century BCE sherds were found above 10th century BCE fill from an excavation against the outer face of Macalister's "Tower VII". - Younker (1991)
  • Younker (1991) noted that the debris layers may be evidence of both an earlier 8th century earthquake (see below) and a later 8th century B.C. Assyrian destruction
  • Tower vii projects 2’ 3¼". It forms part of an insertion in the wall, reaching from 3' o¼"” east of the tower to about the same distance west of it. At these two points straight joints run through the walls, faced, on the tower side, by well-squared stones. It happens, however, that the facing-stones of this tower are not so well cut as those of previous towers. - Macalister (1912 vol.1:251)
 VIII+
Displaced Wall - Shifted Ashlar Blocks Field XI - inner face of outer wall at "Tower VI"
Plate 4

Plan of     Tel Gezer



Younker (1991)
Plate 19

Detail of Field XI (after Macalister). Note approximate locations of Squares 21 and 22.

Younker (1991)
Plate 16a

JW: Are displaced ashlars at the bottom ?

Younker (1991)
Plate 16b

  1. Inner face offset of Outer Wall (Macalister's "Tower VI") founded in 10th cent. B.C.
  2. Remodelled, and destroyed by earthquake in 8th cent. B.C


Younker (1991)
  • several sections of the Outer Wall had been clearly displaced from their foundations by as much as 10 to 40 cm. - Younker, 1991
  • The southwest corner of the ashlar insert had been similarly displaced from its foundational cornerstone, although to a lesser degree because of the greater stability of the ashlar construction. - Younker, 1991
  • The reason the foundation stones were not themselves dislodged to any significant degree is probably due to the fact that they were set into levelled-out depressions cut directly into the bedrock. - Younker, 1991
  • Tower vi is certainly an insertion. The projection is I' 6¾", but pressure from inside, or a settlement of the foundations, has forced the tower and walls outward. There are squared stones with diagonal dressing running through the wall, and owing to the ruined state of the wall itself it can be clearly seen that there was no bond between this masonry and that of the tower. On the west side the tower bonds with the well-cut portion of masonry at the adjacent end of the next stretch. - Macalister (1912 vol.1:251)
 VII+
Penetrative fractures in masonry blocks - through going joints Field XI - inner face of outer wall at "Tower VI"
Plate 4

Plan of     Tel Gezer



Younker (1991)
Plate 19

Detail of Field XI (after Macalister). Note approximate locations of Squares 21 and 22.

Younker (1991)
Plate 16a

JW: through going joints

Younker (1991)
Plate 16b

  1. Inner face offset of Outer Wall (Macalister's "Tower VI") founded in 10th cent. B.C.
  2. Remodelled, and destroyed by earthquake in 8th cent. B.C


Younker (1991)
  • the cornerstone [southwest corner ?] had been split longitudinally - Younker, 1991
  • fissures in the ashlar stones that penetrated through several courses - Younker, 1991
  • Tower vi is certainly an insertion. The projection is I' 6¾", but pressure from inside, or a settlement of the foundations, has forced the tower and walls outward. There are squared stones with diagonal dressing running through the wall, and owing to the ruined state of the wall itself it can be clearly seen that there was no bond between this masonry and that of the tower. On the west side the tower bonds with the well-cut portion of masonry at the adjacent end of the next stretch. - Macalister (1912 vol.1:251)
  • Joints passing through two or more adjacent blocks (through-going joints) could be formed only under high strain. Such joints require the application of tremendous amounts of energy to overcome the stress shadows, appearing along free surfaces at the block margins (Fisher et al., 1995: Engelder, and Fisher, 1996; Becker and Gross, 1996) and therefore cannot be related to the weathering process. - Korjenkov and Mazor (1999)
 VI+
Tilted Walls Field XI - inner face of outer wall at "Tower VI"
Plate 4

Plan of     Tel Gezer



Younker (1991)
Plate 19

Detail of Field XI (after Macalister). Note approximate locations of Squares 21 and 22.

Younker (1991)
Plate 16a

JW: through going joints

Younker (1991)
Plate 16b

  1. Inner face offset of Outer Wall (Macalister's "Tower VI") founded in 10th cent. B.C.
  2. Remodelled, and destroyed by earthquake in 8th cent. B.C


Younker (1991)
  • these wall sections were all severely tilted outward toward the north - Younker, 1991
  • this tilting was not due to slow subsidence over a long period of time was evident from the fact that intact sections of upper courses of the inner face of the wall had fallen backwards into the city - Younker, 1991
  • Only a very rapid outward tilting of the wall, such as that caused by an earthquake, could cause these upper stones to roll off backwards, away from the tilt. - Younker, 1991
  • Tower vi is certainly an insertion. The projection is I' 6¾", but pressure from inside, or a settlement of the foundations, has forced the tower and walls outward. There are squared stones with diagonal dressing running through the wall, and owing to the ruined state of the wall itself it can be clearly seen that there was no bond between this masonry and that of the tower. On the west side the tower bonds with the well-cut portion of masonry at the adjacent end of the next stretch. - Macalister (1912 vol.1:251)
  • Fantalkin and Finkelstein (2006:22 n.3) opine that the tilts observed in Gezer's outer wall could have been caused by centuries of fill-pressure on the city wall, which is located on the slope of the mound, the sections of the wall where alleged archaeoseismic evidence was uncovered were all part of a sub-structure, which was buried in the ground from the outset and hence could hardly have been affected by a quake, and no evidence for a seismic event has ever been found in any free-standing building at Gezer.
 VI+
Tilted, displaced, and folded walls Field XI - East of "Tower VI" in Areas 20 and 21
Plate 4

Plan of     Tel Gezer



Younker (1991)
Plate 19

Detail of Field XI (after Macalister). Note approximate locations of Squares 21 and 22.

Younker (1991)
Figure 13

General Plan of     Field XI East showing 1990 excavation areas; note line of Sections β-β', γ—γ' (cf. fig. 14).

Dever (1993)
Figure 15

Line of Outer Wall between Field XI, Areas 20 and 21, looking west. Note wall stones still in alignment, but displaced northward, downslope, cf. fig. 14.

Dever (1993)
Figure 2

Tel Gezer, Field XI, Area 20: 'Outer Wall' (view to the north-west). Note the wall stones displaced and tilted outward, downslope.

Dever and Younker (1991)
  • Dever (1993) reports that the top of the inner face of a long section of the outer wall east of "Tower VI" was displaced 50 cm or more outward, and bowed out in a sweeping curve. In addition, the tops of the wall stones were tilted down-slope at an angle of ca. 10-20 degrees (fig. 15).
  • Fantalkin and Finkelstein (2006:22 n.3) opine that the tilts observed in Gezer's outer wall could have been caused by centuries of fill-pressure on the city wall, which is located on the slope of the mound, the sections of the wall where alleged archaeoseismic evidence was uncovered were all part of a sub-structure, which was buried in the ground from the outset and hence could hardly have been affected by a quake, and no evidence for a seismic event has ever been found in any free-standing building at Gezer.
 VII+
Tilted Walls Field XI - Areas 21 and 22
Plate 4

Plan of     Tel Gezer



Younker (1991)
Plate 19

Detail of Field XI (after Macalister). Note approximate locations of Squares 21 and 22.

Younker (1991)
Figure 13

General Plan of     Field XI East showing 1990 excavation areas; note line of Sections β-β', γ—γ' (cf. fig. 14).

Dever (1993)
Figure 16

Schematic rendering of Section γ—γ' through Outer Wall in Field XI, Areas 21 and 22; cf. fig. 13.

Dever (1993)
Figure 17

Field XI, Area 22, looking south, with Section α—α' to right. Below meter stick is LB II Wall 22,002, founded on bedrock; above is Iron Age Wall 22,000, partially plastered. Note differing masonry, offset alignment; cf. fig. 16 for Section γ—γ'.

Dever (1993)
  • In Figure 17, Dever (1993) shows that the Iron Age Wall on top of the LB II wall was tilted. Wall tilt is also shown in the cross section γ—γ' of the Outer Wall in Figure 16
  • JW: This tilting could be due to downslope creep.
  • Fantalkin and Finkelstein (2006:22 n.3) opine that the tilts observed in Gezer's outer wall could have been caused by centuries of fill-pressure on the city wall, which is located on the slope of the mound, the sections of the wall where alleged archaeoseismic evidence was uncovered were all part of a sub-structure, which was buried in the ground from the outset and hence could hardly have been affected by a quake, and no evidence for a seismic event has ever been found in any free-standing building at Gezer.
 VI+
The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224). This site may be subject to a ridge effect.

Notes and Further Reading
References

Articles and Books

Austin, S. A., et al. (2000). "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." International Geology Review 42(7): 657-671.

Ben-Menahem, A. (1991). "Four Thousand Years of Seismicity along the Dead Sea rift." Journal of Geophysical Research 96((no. B12), 20): 195-120, 216.

Danzig, D. (2011). A Contextual Investigation of Archaeological and Textual Evidence for a Purported mid-8th Century BCE Levantine Earthquake Book of Amos, Dr. Shalom Holtz.

Dever, W. G., Younker, R. W. (1991), ‘Tel Gezer, 1990’, Israel Exploration Journal, 41, 282–286.

Dever (1992). A Case-Study in Biblical Archaeology: The Earthquake of ca. 760 B.C.E: PERA.

Dever, W. G. (1993). "Further Evidence on the Date of the Outer Wall at Gezer." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research(289): 33-54.

Fantalkin, Alexander & Finkelstein, Israel (2006) The Sheshonq I Campaign and the 8th-Century BCE Earthquake-more on the Archaeology and History of the South in the Iron I-IIa, Tel Aviv, 33:1, 18-42

Finkelstein, I., The Date of Gezer's Outer Wall, Tel Aviv 8 (1981), pp. 136-145.

I. Finkelstein, Gezer Revisited and Revised, Tel Aviv 29 (2002), pp. 262-296

Ortiz, Steven, Wolff, Samuel and Arbino, Gary (2011), Tel Gezer - Preliminary Report, Hadashot Arkheologiyot Vol. 123

Ortiz, S., and Wolff, S. (2017). Tel Gezer Excavations 2006–2015: The Transformation of a Border City. Pp. 61–102 in The Shephelah during the Iron Age: Recent Archaeological Studies “. . . as plentiful as sycamore-fig trees in the Shephelah” (1 Kings 10:2; 2 Chronicles 1:15), ed. O. Lipschits and A.M. Maeir. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Ortiz, S., and Wolff, S. (2019) New Evidence for the 10th Century BCE at Tel Gezer, in A. Faust, Y. Garfinkel and M. Mumcuoglu (eds.) State Formation Processes in the 10th Century BCE Levant (Jerusalem Journal of Archaeology 1): 221–240.

Raphael, Kate and Agnon, Amotz (2018). EARTHQUAKES EAST AND WEST OF THE DEAD SEA TRANSFORM IN THE BRONZE AND IRON AGES. Tell it in Gath Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel Essays in Honor of Aren M. Maeir on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday.

Roberts, R. N. (2012). Terra Terror: An Interdisciplinary Study of Earthquakes in Ancient Near Eastern Texts and the Hebrew Bible. Near Eastern Languages and Cultures. Los Angeles, University of California - Los Angeles Doctor of Philosophy.

Younker, Randall W.. "A Preliminary Report of the 1990 Season at Tel Gezer: Excavations of the "Outer Wall" and the "Solomonic" Gateway (July 2 to August 20, 1990)." Andrews University Seminary Studies (AUSS) 29.1 (1991): .

Webster, L. C., et al. (2023). "The chronology of Gezer from the end of the late bronze age to iron age II: A meeting point for radiocarbon, archaeology egyptology and the Bible." PloS ONE 18(11): e0293119.

Wolff, Samuel R. (2021) The Date of Destruction of Gezer Stratum VI, Tel Aviv, 48:1, 73-86

Excavation Reports

R. A. S. Macalister, The Excavation of Gezer Volume 1, London 1912 - open access at archive.org

R. A. S. Macalister, The Excavation of Gezer Volume 2, London 1912 - open access at archive.org

R. A. S. Macalister, The Excavation of Gezer Volume 3, London 1912 - open access at archive.org

W. G. Dever et. al., Preliminary Report of the 1964-66 Seasons (Gezer I), Jerusalem 1970

W. G. Dever et. al., Preliminary Report of the 1964-66 Seasons (Gezer I-II), Jerusalem 1970

W. G. Dever et. al., Report of the 1967-70 Seasons in Fields I and II (Gezer 2), Jerusalem 1974

S. Gitin, A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II, Persian and Hellenistic Periods at Tell Gezer 1-2 (Gezer 3), Jerusalem 1990

W. G. Dever et. al., The 1969-71 Seasons in Field IV, "The Acropolis" 1-2 (Gezer 4), Plates and Plans Jerusalem 1986 - can be borrowed with a free archive.org account

J. D. Seger, The Field I Caves ( Gezer 5), Jerusalem 1988 (Annuals of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archeology)

Gilmour, G. H. and R. G. Bullard (2014). Gezer VI: The Objects from Phases I and II (1964-1974), Pennsylvania State University Press.

Seger, J. D., et al. (2013). Gezer VII: The Middle Bronze and Later Fortifications in Fields II, IV, and VIII, Pennsylvania State University Press.

Manual of Field Excavation: Handbook for Field Archaeologists (eds. W. G. Dever and H. D. Lance), Jerusalem 1978. - can be borrowed with a free archive.org account

Websites

Survey Maps from Archaeological Survey of Israel - see Square 82 (Gezer) and Map point for site 701 (Tel Gezer in the bottom left area of the map)

Tel Gezer at BibleWalks.com

Tel Gezer photos at wikimedia commons

New Orleans Seminary's Archaeology Blog

The Tel Gezer Excavation and Publication Project on the wayback machine

Bibliography from Stern et. al. (1993 v.2)

History

W. F. Albright, BASOR 92 (1943), 28-30

A. Malamat, Scripta Hierosolymitana 8 (1961), 228-231

R. Giveon, VT 14 (1964), 250

A. R. Millard, PEQ 97 (1965), 140-143

J. F. Ross,BA 30 (1967), 62-70

B.·Z. Rosenfeld, IEJ 38 (1988), 235-245.

Main Excavation Reports

R. A. S. Macalister, The Excavation of Gezer 1-3, London 1912

W. G. Dever et. al., Preliminary Report of the 1964-66 Seasons (Gezer 1), Jerusalem 1970

id., Report of the 1967-70 Seasons in Fields I and II (Gezer 2), Jerusalem 1974

S. Gitin, A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II, Persian and Hellenistic Periods at Tell Gezer 1-2 (Gezer 3), Jerusalem 1990

W. G. Dever et. al., The 1969-71 Seasons in Field IV, "The Acropolis" 1-2 (Gezer 4), Jerusalem 1986

J. D. Seger, The Field I Caves ( Gezer 5), Jerusalem 1988 (Annuals of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archeology)

Manual of Held Excavation: Handbook for Field Archaeologists (eds. W. G. Dever and H. D. Lance), Jerusalem 1978.

Other Studies

Clermont-Ganneau, ARP 2, 224-275

W. M. F. Petrie, PEQ 36 (1904), 244-245

F. L. Griffith, ibid. 38 (1906), 121-122

J. L. Myres, ibid. 39 (1907), 240-243

L. H. Vincent, ibid. 40 (1908), 218-229

R. A. S. Macalister, PEQ 41 (1909), 183-189

E. W. G. Masterman, PEQ 66 (1934), 135-140

J. H. Illife, ibid. 67 (1935), 185

A. Rowe, ibid., 19-33; id., QDAP4(1935), 198-201

G. E. Wright, PEQ69 (1937), 67-78; id., BA 21 (1958), 103-104; id., IEJ 15 (1965), 252-253; id., RB 74 (1967), 72-73

R. Amiran, IEJ 5 (1955), 240-245

Y. Yadin, ibid. 8 (1958), 80-86

J. A. Callaway, PEQ 94 (1962), 104-117

W. G. Dever, IEJ 16 (1966), 277-278; 17 (1967), 274-275; 19 (1969), 241-243; 20 (1970), 226- 227; 22 (1972), 158-160; 23 (1973), 23-26; 35 (1985), 64-65, 217-230; (with R. W. Younker) 41 (1991), 282-286; id., BA 30 (1967), 47-62; 32 (1969), 71-78; 34 (1971), 93-132; 47 (1984), 206-218; 50 (1987), 148-177; id., Jerusalem Through the Ages, Jerusalem 1968, 26-33; id., Raggi 8 (1968), 65-74; id., RB 75 (1968), 381-387; 76 (1969), 563-567; 77 (1970), 394-398; 78 (1971), 425-428; 79 (1972), 413-418; 92 (1985), 412-419; id., BTS 116 (1969), I, 8-16; id., AJA 74 (1970), 192; 90 (1986), 223; id., Gezer l (Reviews), AJA 76 (1972), 441-442. -IEJ22 (1972), 183-186.- JBL 92 (1973), 291-293.- PEQ 105 (1973), 170-171.- JAOS 94 (1974), 277-278.- ZDPV 90 (1974), 78-82.- JNES 34 (1975), 297- 299.- Bibliotheca Orienta/is 41 (1984), 222-224; id., Gezer 2 (Reviews), AJA 80 (1976), 307-308.- IEJ26 (1976), 210-214.- JBL 96 (1977), 279-281.- PEQ 109 (1977), 55-58.- BASOR 233 (1979), 70-74.- ZDPV 97 (1981), 114-116; Gezer 4 (Reviews), BAR 14/l (1988), 11.- Orientalia n.s. 58 (1989), 435-437; id., PEQ 105 (1973), 61-70; id., Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982), 19-34; id., ESI 3 (1984), 30-31; id., BASOR 262 (1986), 9-34; 277-278 (1990), 121-130

H. D. Lance, BA 30 (1967), 34-47; id., Magnalia Dei (G. E. Wright Fest.), Garden City, N.Y. 1976, 209-223

A. Bruno, BTS 116 (1969), 3-6

N. Glueck, Syria 46 (1969), 186-187

J. S. Holladay, AJA 73 (1969), 237; id., BASOR 277- 278 (1990), 23-70

R. G. Bullard, BA 33 (1970), 98-132

A. Furshpan, "The Gezer 'High Place'" (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge, Mass. 1970); id., AJA 75 (1971), 202

J.D. Seger, IEJ 20 (1970), 117; 22 (1972), 160-161, 240-242; 23 (1973), 247-251; 24 (1974), 134-135; id., RB 80 (1973), 408-412; 82 (1975), 87-92; id., EI 12 (1975), 34*-45*; id., BA 39 (1976), 142-144; id., BASOR 221 (1976), 133-139; id., Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation (D. Glenn Rose Fest.), Atlanta 1987, 113-128; id., The Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, 24 June-4 July 1990: Abstracts, Jerusalem 1990, 138-139

K. M. Kenyon, Royal Cities of the Old Testament, New York 1971

M. Avi-Yonah, Archaeology (Israel Pocket Library), Jerusalem 1974, 87-91

M. Hughes, PEQ 106 (1974), 2-3

J. M. Weinstein, BASOR 213 (1974), 49-57; 217 (1975), 1-16

S. Izre'el, TA 4 (1977), 159-167; id., Israel Oriental Studies 8 (1978), 13-90

D. Cole, BAR 6/2 (1980), 8-29

S. Gitin, A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II, Persian and Hellenistic Periods at Tell Gezer l-3 (Ph.D. diss., Cincinnati 1979)

J. N. Tubb, PEQ 112 (1980), 1-6

0. Borowski, BAR 7/6 (1981), 58-59

I. Finkelstein, TA 8 (1981), 136-144; id., BASOR 277-278 (1990), 109-119

R. Reich, IEJ31 (1981), 48-52; id. and B. Brandl, PEQ Il7 (1985), 41-54; B. Brandl, IEJ 34 (1984), 173-176; id., Levant 16 (1984), 171-172

Z. Kallai and B. Brandl, ESI l (1982), 31-32; American Archaeology in the Mideast, 168-171

S. Bunimovitz, TA 10 (1983), 61-70; 15-16 (1988-1989), 68-76

E. Pennells, BA 46 (1983), 57-61

H. Shanks, BAR 9/4 (1983), 30-42

P. A. Thomas, BA 47/1 (1984), 33-35

D. Milson, ZDPV 102 (1986), 87-92

I. Singer, TA 13-14 (1986- 1987), 26-31

Y. Shiloh, Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation (D. Glenn Rose Fest.), Atlanta !987, 209-211

Weippert 1988 (Ortsregister)

A. M. Maeir, TA 15-16 (1988-1989), 65-67

J. K. Hoffmeier, Levant 22 (1990), 83-89

L. E. Stager, BASOR 277-278 (1990), 93-107

D. Ussishkin, ibid., 71-91

G. J. Wightman, ibid., 5-22

F. Zayadine, RB 97 (1990), 76

R. W. Younker, AUSS 29 (1991), 19-60.

Gezer Calendar

G. B. Gray, PEQ41 (1909), 189-193

M. Lidzbarski, ibid., 194-195

F. M. Cross, Jr., and D. N. Freedman, Early Hebrew Orthography, New Haven 1952, 46-47

W. Wirgin, EI 6 (1960), 9*-12*

B. D. Rahtjen, PEQ 93 (1961), 70-72

S. Talmon, JAOS 83 (1963), 177-187.

Other epigraphical finds

W. M. F. Petrie, PEQ 34 (1902), 365

T. G. Pinches, ibid. 36 (1904), 229-236

A. H. Sayee, ibid., 236-237

C. H. W. Johns, ibid., 237-244; 37 (1905), 206-219

R. A. S. Macalister, ibid. 38 (1906), 123-124

C. J. Ballet et. al., ibid. 40 (1908), 26-30

P. Dhorme, ibid. 41 (1906), 107-112

W. R. Taylor, JPOS 10 (1930), 16-22, 79-81

E. L. Sukenik, ibid. 13 (1933), 226-231

W. G. Albright, BASOR 92 (1943), 28-30

N. Avigad, PEQ 82 (1950), 43-49

A. R. Millard, ibid. 97 (1965), 140-143

C. Graesser, Jr., BASOR 220 (1975), 63-66

B. Reeking, Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux 27 (1983), 76-89

J. Rosenbaum and J. D. Seger, The Word of the God Shall Go Forth (D. N. Freedman Fest.), Winona Lake, Ind. 1984, 477-495; id., BASOR 264 (1986), 51-60

R. Reich, IEJ 40 (1990), 44-46

J. Schwartz, ibid., 47-57.

Bibliography from Stern et. al. (2008)

Main publications

G. Friend, The Development of a Textile Production Cottage Industry in the 8th Century bce: Tell Gezer, A Case Study (Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the ASOR, Napa, CA 1997)

W. G. Dever, Gezer: A Crossroad in Ancient Israel, Jerusalem 1998 (Heb.)

A. M. Maeir et al., Bronze and Iron Age Tombs at Tel Gezer, Israel: Finds from Raymond-Charles Weill’s Excavations in 1914 and 1921 (BAR/IS 1206), Oxford 2004

ibid. (Review) BASOR 337 (2005), 97–98

G. Gilmore et al., Gezer VI: The Objects from Phases I and II, Jerusalem (in prep.)

Studies

B. Brandl, The Nile Delta in Transition, Tel Aviv 1992, 441–477

W. G. Dever, ABD, 2, New York 1992, 998–1003

id., EI 23 (1992), 27*–35*

id., BASOR 289 (1993), 33–54

id. (& R. W. Younker), ESI 12 (1993), 48–49

id., The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 11

ed. L. K. Handy), Leiden 1997, 217–251

id., OEANE, 2, New York 1997, 396–400

id., TA 30 (2003), 259–282

id., BAR 30/6 (2004), 42–45

L. G. Herr, BASOR 288 (1992), 87–89 (Review)

M. Vilders, PEQ 124 (1992), 69 (Review)

S. J. Bourke, ibid. 125 (1993), 75–77 (Review); A. Kempinski, IEJ 43 (1993), 174–180

P. J. Ray, Jr., NEAS Bulletin 38 (1993), 39–52

J. D. Seger, BAT II, Jerusalem 1993, 559–574

I. Finkelstein, TA 21 (1994), 276–282

29 (2002), 262–296

id., ZDPV 116 (2000), 114–138

id., BAIAS 21 (2003), 96–100

A. Mazar, Scripture and Other Artifacts, Louisville, KY 1994, 247–267

id., Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, Jerusalem 1998, 373–377

H. Shanks, BAR 20/3 (1994), 66–69

E. Yannai, TA 21 (1994), 283–287

id. (et al.), Levant 35 (2003), 101–116

W. Zwickel, Der Tempelkult in Kanaan und Israel (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 10), Tübingen 1994, 65–67

M. D. Coogan, BAR 21/3 (1995), 36–47

J. W. Hardin, ESI 14 (1995), 143

P. E. McGovern, BASOR 297 (1995), 86–88 (Review)

J. P. Van der Westhuizen, Journal for Semitics (Pretoria, University of South Africa) 7 (1995), 1–15

10 (1998–2001), 20–42

12 (2003), 34–57

V. Fritz, The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (JSOT Suppl. Series 228

ed. V. Fritz), Sheffield 1996, 187–195

S. Gitin, Retrieving the Past, Winona Lake, IN 1996, 75–101

L. Nigro, Contributi e materiali di Archeologia orientale 6 (1996), 1–69

M. Görg, BN 91 (1998), 5–6

R. Reich, Eretz 60 (1998), 34–39

id. (& Z. Greenhut), IEJ 52 (2002), 58–63

id. (& E. Shukron), EI 27 (2003), 291*

id. (& E. Shukron), PEQ 135 (2003), 22–29

S. A. Austin, International Geology Review 42 (2000), 657–671

L. Barda, ESI 20 (2000), 42*

E. M. Bietak & K. Kopetzky, Synchronisation, Wien 2000, 106–107

B. Halpern, VT Suppl. 80, Leiden 2000, 79–121

id., David’s Secret Demons (The Bible in its World), Grand Rapids, MI 2001

I. I. Milevski, TA 27 (2000), 91–102

Y. Roman, Eretz 73 (2000), 17–26

B. B. Shefton, Periplous Papers on Classical Art and Archaeology (J. Boardman Fest.

eds. G. R. Tsetskhladze et al.), London 2000, 276–283

J. -P. Vita, ZA 90 (2000), 70–77

U. Hartung, Umm el-Qaab, II, Mainz am Rhein 2001

J. S. Holladay, ASOR Annual Meeting Abstract Book, Boulder, CO 2001, 6

A. Faust, JMA 15 (2002), 53–73

id., BAR 30/2 (2004), 52–53, 62

M. Heltzer, Studies in the History and Culture of the Jews in Babylonia: Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress for Babylonian Jewry Research, June 1998 (eds. Y. Avishur & Z. Yehuda), Or-Yehuda 2002, 85–93

K. A. Kitchen, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 16 (2002), 309–313

id., On the Reliability of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids, MI 2003 (subject index)

W. Thiel, Bibel und Kirche 57 (2002), 95–103

G. J. Van Wijngaarden, Use and Appreciation of Mycenaean Pottery in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy (ca 1600–1200 BC), Amsterdam, 2002, 75–97; Z. Herzog, Saxa Loquentur, Münster 2003, 85–100

N. A. Silberman, Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period (Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 18

eds. A. G. Vaughn & A. E. Killebrew), Leiden 2003, 395–405

H. Goedicke, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 94 (2004), 53–72

Y. Goren et al., Inscribed in Clay, Tel Aviv 2004, 270–279

L. D. Morenz, ZDPV 120 (2004), 1–12

N. Na’aman, IEJ 54 (2004), 92–99

S. M. Ortiz, The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions. The Proceedings of a Symposium, 12–14.8.2001 at Trinity International University (eds. J. K. Hoffmeier & A. Millard), Grand Rapids, MI 2004, 121–147

S. D. Schweitzer, Macht und Herrschaft (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 316

Veröffentlichungen des Arbeitskreises zur Erforschung der Religions-und Kulturgeschichte des Antiken Vorderen Orients 5

ed. C. Sigrist), Münster 2004, 135–156

T. Goodwin, PEQ 137 (2005), 65–76

Gezer calendar

I. Young, VT 42 (1992), 362–375

W. H. Shea, Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 42

eds. J. C. De Moor & W. G. E. Watson), Kevelaer 1993, 243–250

J. Tropper, Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 6 (1993), 228–231

J. Renz, Die Althebräischen Inschriften, 1 (Handbuch der Althebräischen Epigraphik), Darmstadt 1995

D. Pardee, OEANE, 2, New York 1997, 400–401

D. Sivan, IEJ 48 (1998), 101–105

J. A. Emerton, PEQ 131 (1999), 20–23

D. E. Fleming, RB 106 (1999), 8–34

C. Körting, Der Schall des Schofar: Israels Feste im Herbst (ZAW Beihefte 285), Berlin 1999.

Wikipedia pages

Gezer



Gezer Calendar



kmz's for Site Visits
kmz's