David Merling
And
Randall W. Younker
An exciting discovery sheds new light on an old site
David Merling is Associate Director of the Institute of Archeology and Curator of the Horn Archaeological Museum at Andrews University, Berrien Springs MI. Randall W. Younker is Director of the Institute of Archaeology at Andrews University and is Director of the Tell Jalul excavation in Jordan.
During a recent excavation in Israel, archaeologists unearthed important new evidence that sheds light on Biblical events. The site of their discoveries is Tel Gezer, a 30-acre mound at the base of the foothills 15 mi west of Jerusalem. Because of its strategic location, Gezer became a powerful city in antiquity and is mentioned many times in the Bible. It is also cited in various Egyptian inscriptions, including those from the Late Bronze Age pharaohs Thutmose III, Thutmose IV, and Merneptah.
From the Bible we learn that the ancient inhabitants of Gezer suffered defeat from the conquering Israelites, but were difficult to control. The Bible records that Horam, king of Gezer, sought to support his ally the king of Lachish against the advance of the Israelites, only to be killed and his entire army destroyed (Jos 10:33). Despite this devastating loss, the people of Gezer managed to maintain their independence. When the Israelite tribes divided Canaan among themselves, Gezer was assigned to the tribe of Ephraim (Jos 16:3) and later allotted to the priestly family of Kohath (Jos 21:21). The Canaanite city of Gezer was not destroyed, but its inhabitants became forced laborers for the Israelites (Jos 16:10; Jgs 1:29, 30). Probably the defenseless inhabitants, having lost their king and army, sued for peace (Dt 20:10–11).
Gezer, however, was only tentatively in Israel’s domain. During the ongoing warfare between the Israelities and Philistines, Gezer was a border/buffer city (2 Sm 5:25; 1 Chr 14:16; 20:4). Not until the time of King Solomon was Gezer finally under the full control of the Israelites. First Kings 9:16 records that Solomon’s Egyptian wife received the city of Gezer as a dowry from her father, Pharaoh, king of Egypt. This gift prompted Solomon to rebuild Gezer (v 17).
BSP 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 89
Early Excavations
Because of its large size, strategic location, and Biblical connections, Tel Gezer (ancient Gezer) has figured prominently in the archaeological reconstruction of Old Testament Israel. Excavations at this site began in 1902 under R.A.S. Macalister, sponsored by the Palestine Exploration Fund (see Archaeology and Biblical Research, Spring 1992, pp. 59-60). The seven-year expedition was the largest and most important archaeological excavation in Palestine up to that time.1 Macalister employed as many as 200 workers year-round from sunrise to sunset, except for an occasional pause caused by outbreaks of malaria and cholera (Macalister 1912: 51–53). His strategy was to dig to bedrock in 10-m wide swatches spanning the width of the tell. He began at the eastern end of Tel Gezer and worked west. As Macalister’s workers trenched across the mound, they dumped the newly excavated dirt into the previously dug trench, in effect turning the site upside down—a practice quite unacceptable by today’s standards.
Nevertheless, Macalister uncovered many interesting and helpful discoveries. He found portions of an outer city wall, 10 large monoliths,2 the famous “Gezer Calendar,” and a large water shaft on the magnitude of those discovered at Gibeon, Hazor, and Megiddo; he also directed some creative research on ancient winepresses. However, with so many workers and Macalister their only supervisor, the
William G. Dever (center, facing camera) explains the excavations in the Solomonic gate area at Gezer to Associates for Biblical Research diggers who visited the site in July, 1990.
BSP 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 90
end result of the excavation was, by modern standards, an archaeological disaster. The major problem with Macalister’s work was that one archaeologist could not properly direct or interpret such a large undertaking. To his credit, Macalister published his finds in three large volumes. Unfortunately, they are difficult to use because of their many faulty interpretations and incorrect dates.
In 1934 new excavations began under A. Rowe, but these were limited to only one season, with little material from Bible times uncovered. In 1964, reorganizing the historical importance of Gezer, G. E. Wright, professor of archaeology at Harvard University, began a new series of excavations there. After the first two seasons the excavations came under the direction of W. G. Dever (1966–1971); Wright continued as adviser to the project.3 In the 1972–1973 season J. D. Seger directed the project, with H. D. Lance as associate. The archaeological work during these excavations was some of the most important conducted during the 1960s and 1970s. Despite having to work around Macalister’s dumps, the Gezer team managed to greatly clarify the archaeological history of Gezer.
University of Arizona archaeology student Sean McLachlan explains three destruction layers in the Solomonic Gate area at Gezer: (1) by an unnamed pharaoh of Egypt who gave Gezer as a wedding gift to his daughter, Solomon’s wife (1 Kgs 9:16); (2) by Pharaoh Shishak ca. 925 BC (1 Kgs 14:25–26; 2 Chr 12:7–9); and (3) Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, ca. 734 BC.
Lingering Questions
The Gezer project was completed in 1973; however, to solve lingering archaeological questions, two additional seasons were undertaken in 1984 and 1990 (Dever 1984; 1993). Specifically, the remaining questions deal with the dating of the “Outer Wall,” which surrounds the city, and the dating of the gate area, commonly referred to as the “Solomonic gate.”4 To understand the results of the 1990 season, one needs to understand some of the following current archaeological issues.
For many years archaeologists have deducted from both archaeological and Biblical evidence that certain cities had monumental architecture built by King Solomon. According to 1 Kings 9:15:
Now this is the account of the forced labor which King Solomon levied to build the house of the Lord, his own house, the Millo, the wall of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer (NASB).
BSP 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 91
Y. Yadin, the dean of Israeli archaeologists, first suggested that Solomon’s building activity, noted in the above text, was reflected in the large six-chambered gateways he had identified at Hazor and Megiddo. He was also the first to recognize a similar gate at Gezer, finding it in one of Macalister’s line drawings labeled “Maccabean castle.” Macalister’s plan was seen by Yadin to contain one half of what he suspected to be a Solomonic gate. When the 1960’s Gezer excavations began, Yadin visited with the directors and correctly predicted where they would find the gate—in Macalister’s Maccabean castle.
Associated with each of these gates and other supposedly Solomonic remains was a unique “red-slipped pottery.”5 The majority of archaeologists have considered this unique Iron I “red-slipped” pottery a hallmark of the tenth century BC, and it has been specifically associated with King Solomon’s building activities.6 Thus, Solomonic strata7 have been identified at a large number of archaeological sites, providing a corpus of information about the tenth century and the building activities of the time of Solomon.
A few scholars, however, have recently begun to question the Solomonic dating of these strata, wanting to date the aforementioned red-slipped pottery to the ninth century.8 The practical result of such a redating would be the lack of any archaeological evidence for the Solomonic kingdom.
Dever writes:
Yet I cannot imagine that the founding of the United Monarchy, and especially the reign of Solomon, will have left virtually no discernible traces in the archaeological record. And make no mistake about it: the implication of moving Hazor X, Megiddo VA/IVB, and Gezer VIII [these numbers represent the Solomonic strata, i.e., the red-slipped pottery] all down into the ninth century BC is precisely [his emphasis] that (1990:123).
Archaeologists have discovered that different historic periods were distinguished by distinctive styles of pottery. By finding similar pottery at different archaeological sites, archaeologist are able to develop a “relative” chronology.9 The usefulness of a relative chronology, however, is its association with an “absolute” date or starting point.10
The key to the controversy of the dating of the red-slipped pottery is the interpretation of the excavations at Samaria. Unfortunately, Kathleen Kenyon’s interpretation of the finds at Samaria have been disputed ever since they were first published.11 Kenyon assumed that Samaria was unoccupied from the early third milennium BC until Omri began construction around 880 BC (Kenyon 1985: 260). Since she found this same red-slipped pottery beneath Omri’s building activity, she assumed it dated to the time of Omri. The practical result of dating this red-slipped ware to the time of Omri would be the redating of all Solomonic strata to the time of Omri. Kenyon’s conclusions were almost immediately disputed by G. E. Wright and other scholars. They interpreted the pottery from Samaria as evidence of an earlier settlement on the site.12 We determined to clarify the relationship between Gezer’s Solomonic gate and the red-slipped pottery, and perhaps, find evidence to clarify the larger question of archaeological evidence for the reign of King Solomon.
The other major issue facing the 1990
BSP 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 92
excavation team was the question of the date of Gezer’s “Outer Wall.” A number of archaeologists have recently concluded that few, if any, cites during the Late Bronze Age had outer city walls.13 Despite the reports of both Macalister and Dever that a Late Bronze Age wall was indeed found at Gezer, its dating is disputed (Macalister 1912:236–56; Dever Lance and Wright 1970: 43–44; Dever et al. 1974: 35–39).
Discovering An Earthquake
To attempt to clarify both questions, archaeologists and students under the direction of W. G. Dever, mentioned previously, who is professor of archaeology at the University of Arizona, and Randall W. Younker, director of the Institute of Archaeology at Andrews University, excavated for five weeks. In addition, during the last few days of the dig a surprising discovery was unearthed that appears to corroborate an earthquake mentioned in the Bible.
Dever and Younker divided the excavation team into two crews. Dever led a detachment of students on the southern edge of the tel in investigating Field III, the Solomonic gate, while Younker and his workers opened a series of probes to the north in Field XI. According to Macalister’s plans of this latter area, he had uncovered the Late Bronze Age Outer Wall and found some towers he speculated Solomon had later built into the wall. Our group hoped to locate both features.
In Field III the preliminary job was the cleaning of the gate complex, which was visible but overgrown with weeds. Since the six-chambered gate at Gezer is one of the best preserved in the country, we decided to excavate immediately next to the gate on the east side, thus preserving the gate while at the same time allowing the excavators to determine the relationship of the gate foundation and the red-slipped ware. By the end of the summer, Field III had yielded excellent results. It has now been clearly shown that the Solomonic gate was indeed founded in a stratum characterized by the red-slipped ware.14 Below the foundation of the gate, and at the same time the red-slipped ware dominated, we discovered a destruction layer with obvious burned debris that correlates with the Bible account of the capture and burning of Gezer by the Pharaoh of Egypt, who then gave Gezer to his daughter, the wife of Solomon (1 Kgs 9:16).
In Field XI the primary responsibilities were to remove the dump left by Macalister, then locate, determine, and date each building phase of the Outer Wall and its towers. The work in Field XI went slowly and especially at the beginning of the season, was a disappointing process. The most difficult task was locating the Outer Wall at a point where a tower was also located. We decided to find one of the large buildings that Macalister had drawn and expand to the Outer Wall and tower from there. During the first week we had a bulldozer remove the remains of Macalister’s dump. Tons of earth were removed without dislodging a single building stone. Finally, the foundation of the large building emerged, what appeared to be the “Egyptian residency.”15 We dug probes to find the inside of the Outer Wall and tower. We quickly discovered, to our excitement, several ashlar stones, possible evidence of Solomonic building technique.16
Unfortunately, the foundation of the wall and tower was discovered
BSP 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 93
after only a few courses. The evidence suggested that this section of the wall had been built, or at the least rebuilt during the Hellenistic Period (at least 600 years after Solomon’s time).
A New Probe
We then decided to open a new probe along the inner face of the Outer Wall, a little farther to the east. This new probe produced an impressive eighth century BC wall. Excavation revealed that the very foundation stones of the wall had been split from bedrock to the top of the exposed wall. In addition, the upper course of the wall had fallen inward, while the lower courses tilted outward. This generated much discussion among the staff, with some of the native Californians arguing that this appeared to be evidence of an earthquake. Other visiting scholars agreed with this interpretation. They believe this leaning wall is the best evidence thus far recovered for the earthquake mentioned in Amos 1:1 (“…What he saw…two years before the earthquake, when Uzziah was king of Judah…”).
Despite that exciting discovery, the excavation team was clearly frustrated. With only a few days of the excavation remaining, it seemed that the critics were right. We had found no evidence for a Solomonic or Late Bronze Age city wall.
Because it was possible that the earlier wall had been dismantled to the point we had begun excavating, we decided to try one more probe. Again the eighth-century wall was quickly exposed. Below that we found evidence of a tenth-century wall, from the time of Solomon! But still no Late Bronze wall. Although we were happy to discover evidence of the eighth century earthquake and were pleased that we had found the Solomonic wall, we
Randall W. Younker (center, back to camera) explains the excavation of the Late Bronze Age “residency” in Field XI at Gezer to Associates for Biblical Research diggers who visited the site in July, 1990.
BSP 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 94
Excavations in Field XI at Gezer in July 1990. Here a series of fortification walls was found from Late Bronze to the eighth century BC.
were puzzled by the lack of evidence for a Late Bronze Age wall.
Still, the base of this tenth-century wall was unusual in that it appeared to have been built with a dirt foundation. We decided to dig below the base of this wall to check its footing. Within a few minutes on the following day, another course of stone began to appear. It was offset from the wall above by about 64 cm,17 indicating it was a separate wall. When the excavation season was complete, we had found seven courses of a Late Bronze Age II city wall. Its date was confirmed by 27 buckets of pure 13th century BC pottery, which was excavated to the bedrock foundation. Gezer was indeed a walled city during the Late Bronze Age!
Scriptural Record Vindicated
To sum up the 1990 excavation season at Tel Gezer, we can say that while the issue of the relationship between the red-slipped Iron I pottery and Solomon may not be settled in everyone’s mind, it is now certain that Gezer’s Iron Age gate was built and the city itself rebuilt when the earliest red-slipped pottery was prevalent, that it was built shortly after a major fiery destruction, and the rebuilding of the city was a major construction project. Certainly the Bible’s account of a destruction of Gezer by an Egyptian pharaoh and its rebuilding by Solomon harmonizes with this evidence.
It now also appears that we have excellent evidence for a Late Bronze Age wall at Gezer. This new information will have an impact on the current and future understanding of the Canaanite Late Bronze Age. Future interpretations of the Late Bronze Age must deal with the reality that some of those cities were defended by walls.
Finally, the evidence of the eighth
BSP 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 95
century earthquake most certainly highlights the statement of Amos 1:1. A few weeks of work at an old site provided much new light!
BSP 7:3 (Summer 1994) p. 96
Bibliography
Bunimovitz, S.
1989 An Egyptian “Governor’s Residence” at Gezer? Another Suggestion. Tel Aviv 15-16:69–76.
Dever, W.G.
1976 Gezer. Pp. 428–43 in Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. vol. 2, ed. M. Avi-Yonah. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.
1984 Gezer Revisited. New Excavations of the Solomonic and Assyrian Period Defenses. Biblical Archaeologist 47:206–18.
1990 Of Myths and Methods. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 277/278:121–30.
1993 Further Evidence on the Date of the Outer Wall at Gezer. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 289:33–54.
Dever, W.G., et al.
1974 Gezer II: Report of the 1967–70 Seasons in Fields I and II. Jerusalem: Annual of the Hebrew Union College/Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology.
Dever, W.G.; Lance, H.D.; and Wright, G.E.
1970 Gezer I: Preliminary Report of the 1964–66 Seasons. Jerusalem: Annual of the Hebrew Union College Biblical and Archaeological School.
Holladay, J.S., Jr.
1990 Red Slip, Burnish, and the Solomonic Gate at Gezer. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 277/278:23–70.
Kenyon, K.M.
1985 Archaeology in the Holy Land. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Macalister, A.S.
1912 The Excavation of Gezer: 1902–1905 and 1907–1909. London: John Murray.
Maeir, A.M.
1989 Remarks on a Supposed “Egyptian Residency” at Gezer. Tel Aviv 15-16:65–67.
Singer, I.
1986 An Egyptian “Governor’s Residency” at Gezer? Tel Aviv 13-14:26–31.
Stager, L.E.
1990 Shemer’s Estate. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 277/278:93–108.
Bible and Spade 7:4 (Autumn 1994)