Gezer

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

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

from William J. Dever in 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).

Exploration and Excavations

Ortiz and Wolff (2017)

from 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

redating the city defenses such as Macalister’s “inner wall, “outer wall,” and the “Maccabean castle”
dating the famous “high place”
clarifying the Middle and Late Bronze Age domestic levels
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)

from William J. Dever in 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

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

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

Normal Size

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)
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 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

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)
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 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)

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

Stratigraphy

Ortiz and Wolff (2017)

from Ortiz and Wolff (2017:8)

Tel Gezer Master Stratigraphic Chart 2006-2011

Ortiz and Wolff (2017)

Gezer Iron Age Debates

from Ortiz and Wolff (2017:7)

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

8th century BCE earthquake

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).

Titled, 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).

Titled 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 however 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)

from Younker (1991)

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)

from Dever (1992)

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.

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).
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)

from Dever and Younker (1991)

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)

from Dever (1993)

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).

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
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.
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.
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).
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)

from Austin et. al. (2000)

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)

from Alexander Fantalkin and Israel Finkelstein (2006:22-24)

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)

from Danzig (2011:25-26)

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)

from 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.

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 Outer face offset of Outer Wall built in 10th cent. BCE 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 Inner face offset of Outer Wall (Macalister's "Tower VI") founded in 10th cent. B.C. 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 Inner face offset of Outer Wall (Macalister's "Tower VI") founded in 10th cent. B.C. 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 Inner face offset of Outer Wall (Macalister's "Tower VI") founded in 10th cent. B.C. 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

Modified by JW from Plate 19 of Younker (1991)

Deformation Map

Modified by JW from Plate 19 of Younker (1991)

Intensity Estimates

8th century BCE earthquake

Earthquake Archeological Effects chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

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 Outer face offset of Outer Wall built in 10th cent. BCE 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 Inner face offset of Outer Wall (Macalister's "Tower VI") founded in 10th cent. B.C. 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 Inner face offset of Outer Wall (Macalister's "Tower VI") founded in 10th cent. B.C. 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 Inner face offset of Outer Wall (Macalister's "Tower VI") founded in 10th cent. B.C. 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.

Alexander Fantalkin & Israel Finkelstein (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

I. Finkelstein, 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

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

Steven M. Ortiz and Samuel R. Wolff (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.

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.

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): .

Samuel R. Wolff (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

Wikipedia page for Gezer

from wikipedia

Wikipedia page for Gezer Calendar

from wikipedia

kmz's for Site Visits

kmz's

download these files into Google Earth on your phone, tablet, or computer
Google Earth download page

kmz	Description	Reference
Right Click to download	Master Gezer kmz file	various