Steven M. Ortiz and Samuel R. Wolff GEZER

1
Steven M. Ortiz and Samuel R. Wolff
GEZER 2014 REPORT
(License No. G52-2014)
Figure 1: Aerial (north at top)
The Tel Gezer Excavation project is a long-term joint project addressing chronological
reevaluations, ethnic and social boundaries, and state formation in the southern Levant.
To date, the project has conducted seven summer field seasons. The seventh season of the
renewed excavation of Tel Gezer took place between 23 June and 18 July 2014. The
excavations were directed by Dr. Steven M. Ortiz of the Tandy Institute for Archaeology
at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and Dr. Sam Wolff of the Israel
Antiquities Authority. The excavations were sponsored by the Tandy Institute for
Archaeology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The project also received
financial support by a consortium of institutions: Andrews University (associate),
Ashland Theological Seminary, Clear Creek Bible College, Emmaus Bible College,
2
Lycoming College, Marian Eakins Archaeological Museum, and Lancaster Bible College
and Graduate School. The excavations were carried out within the Tel Gezer National
Park and benefit from the cooperation of the National Parks Authority. The excavation
project also received support from Kibbutz Gezer and the Karmei Yosef Community
Association. The Project is affiliated with the American Schools of Oriental Research.
Figure 2: 2014 Participants
INTRODUCTION
Just over 55 participants from the consortium schools as well as other students and
volunteers from several countries (U.S., Israel, Palestinian Authority) participated in the
project. The Tel Gezer expedition included: Gary Arbino (senior field archaeologist),
Cameron Coyle (field archaeologist), Beth Ortiz (camp manager) Lin Pruitt (Material
Culture Manager and Educational Coordinator), Julie Harrison (Pottery Lab Manager),
and Shachar Stefanski, Kibbutz Hulda. Area supervisors were: M. Barbosa, J. Chatfield,
J. Jewell, R. DeWitt-Knauth, K. Miller, G. Nagagreh, and A. Wegman; Assistant Area
Supervisors were: Sirius Cheng, Steve Sanchez, Brian Stachowski, Philip Webb, and
3
Charles Wilson; zooarchaeology: L. Horowitz; architect/draftsman: J. Rosenberg,
computer database designer: D. Pride.
The research goal of the project is to investigate state formation and regional boundaries
in the northern Shephelah by investigating the Iron Age cultural horizon at Tel Gezer.
These broad research trends in Iron Age archaeology are being addressed by current
research projects in the Shephelah and Southern Coastal Plain; specifically ethnic and
political boundaries in the Judean Hills and the Philistine coastal plain.
FIELD STRATEGY
Work continued in the two major fields (E and W). Field E encompasses an area west of
the Iron Age Gate Complex (Field III of the HUC excavations). The goals of this area are
to investigate the urbanization process of the Iron Age City. Field W is located west of
Field E. The goal of this field is to 1) investigate the several Iron Age occupation
horizons of the tell, and 2) provide data from Iron Age domestic quarters to compare and
contrast with the public buildings to the southeast in Field E. It also includes a northsouth sondage to investigate the relationship between the Iron Age wall and the “outer”
wall.
Field E was formerly called Field A. This field includes an east-west section of squares
from the Iron Age gate to the west exposing the city fortification system and its relation
to building activity built up against the city wall and an area north of the fortification wall
where a series of large public buildings are located. Currently in Field E we have three
strata that have been defined and are exposed. In the 2014 season, our goals were twofold, 1) remove unexcavated walls and surfaces of 9th and 8th century strata in the field, 2)
start to excavate the 10th century stratum, particularly in the eastern part of the field to
connect with the previous work of the HUC excavations. The 2014 goals for Field W
were to continue excavations to the north, excavate expediently to the Late Bronze Age
strata, and continue exploring the fortification systems in the sondage and searching for
the wall line of the outer wall.
4
GOALS AND ISSUES FOR THE 2014 SEASON
1. One of the questions in Field W is how many strata and/or phases of the Iron Age I
are in this area of the tel. It is clear that we have more than one phase based on
surfaces, yet evidence of only one major destruction was discerned. One of the
difficulties is the exposure of our Iron Age I destruction is limited to rooms adjacent
to the city wall and these rooms only produced complete storejars that have a long
life-span. They are similar to other storejars that are dated to the 11th and early 10th
centuries BCE. In addition, Field W is located in the slope of the western hill where
contemporary occupation levels have decreasing elevation levels from west to east.
2. The above question will be addressed by expanding the northern squares of Field W
as well as to the east to get a more complete plan of the 10th century stratum and the
Iron Age I plan. Perhaps beneath the 10th century plan will be undisturbed strata of
the Iron Age I.
3. The continued excavation in Field E to the 10th century stratum in order to get a
complete plan of the urbanization process west of the Iron Age Gate Complex.
4. The above goal can only be accomplished with the dismantling of the tripartite
buildings of Stratum 6. This project was partially started at the beginning of the
2013 season.
The work in both fields progressed slowly due to the following factors: 1) reinterpretation
of the Iron Age II retention wall system as a reused Iron Age I city wall, 2) difficult
stratigraphy of the various Iron Age walls in Field W necessitated slow and careful
removal of various walls. In Field E, it was assumed that we would quickly be on our
Stratum 7 (9th century BCE) levels immediately. In reality, the 8th century BCE tripartite
Building A had very extensive foundations as well as disruption of this area by several
Hellenistic structures (Wall 61023, Kilns 41010 and 61058) as well as pits and earlier
excavations by Macalister. The discernment of two building phases of the 8th century
BCE buildings (e.g. Stratum 6) also slowed the removal of the Stratum 6 building as we
spent time documenting and excavating the rebuilding of Building A. The 9th century was
only discerned in two squares with the possible remnants of wall lines in other squares
(W61040 and W61043).
5
OVERVIEW— 2014 RESULTS
Major results of the 2014 season were:
1. Phase 6: In areas A4/5 remnants of a building with a thick heavy plaster floor was
excavated. This is either another building or the northern wall of Administrative
Building B excavated in previous seasons.
2. Phase 7 (9th c. BCE): The Phase 7 destruction was revealed and excavated within
a room unit north of previous excavations of this destruction (e.g. Square C8 and
C7). This destruction was located in Area C6.
3. Phase 7 northern enclosing wall line. The northern wall line of the various units
excavated in previous seasons was also established. It is now confirmed that the
Phase 7 occupation reused walls of Phase 8 (10th c) [Wall 61059]. It was also
confirmed that Wall 31041 dates to this phase.
4. Phase 8 (10th c. BCE). About 200 square meters were exposed of Phase 8 in Field
E. This wide exposure united elements of the 1984 HUC excavations (e.g. Basin
and walls). In addition we were able to correct the original schematic plan of
“Palace 10000” of the HUC excavations.
5. We have a tentative plan of the 10th c Building Complex directly to the west of
Palace 10000. This complex consists of an open courtyard abutting the north face
of the casemate wall with two rooms on the north end of this courtyard. Massive
ashlar stones were also excavated (exposed in 1984 HUC excavations and our
2012 excavation season). It is now clear that what we thought was just rock
tumble is actually the north-south wall line between Palace 10000 and our
Building Complex.
6. We have an overall plan developing of Phase 8. We have defined five major
building complexes (including HUC Palace 10,000).
7. In addition, we have defined at least two phases of Phase 8. Our interpretation can
only be tentative as to whether this represents a new stratum or if it is just a
rebuild of the same stratum. These two phases were only found in Building 1 in
Field W. The second phase of this building consists of a more robust rebuild (e.g.
walls with two courses instead of one). This is a similar location to a second phase
of our Phase 6 (8th century BCE). 1) Perhaps Field W allowed for a better
discernment of these phases, 2) this is where the slope is steep (buildings are
6
constructed on the eastern slope of the western hill) and there needed to be
rebuilds due to stability or erosion), 3) preservation of this phase was due to its
location on the slope and did not get removed by later building activities and/or
excavations (e.g. Macalister).
8. We have added to the plan of our Iron Age I Strata. We have nearly 500 square
meters of horizontal exposure. We can discern five units and a courtyard or street.
In four of these units we have at least two complete storejars in each building unit.
In the fifth unit we have the remains of a tabun.
9. The addition of a wall stub (W 72038) was exposed in Area A8. It is in line with
the northern wall line of the Late Bronze Age building of Stratum 11. If this is the
continuation of the wall line, then the building is at least 20 m in length.
7
Tel Gezer Master Stratigraphic Chart 2006-2014
Preliminary Strata
Field E (formerly A)
Field W (formerly A-sondage and B)
1
Topsoil, Modern
Excavation Dumps
HUC dump
Trenches, rock piles
HUC Dump (V, W, Y)
2
Bergheim Estate, Abu
Shusheh, Macalister
Backfill
Backfill
Hellenistic
Wall corner, pottery kilns, reused IA
walls(?)
Domestic buildings (A4/5),
“pulpit” & basin
Ceramic
Pit (A4)
Retaining wall (A4/5)
Ceramic, Dog burials, pits
V/W “Kitchen Room”, Silo (W2), Large Silo
(Z6) wall stubs, pits
3
4
5
6A
6B
7
Persian
Late Iron Age II
IA IIc
Destruction
IA IIb
th
8
(Assyrian
Destruction)
IA IIb
th
th
9 -8
th)
IA IIb (9
IA IIa
8A
Late 10
th
HUC
Excavations
Strata IIA-C,
III
IV
V
Public:
Rebuilds of Administrative Buildings
A-B;
A5/B5 wall
Rebuilt fortification walls,
HUC: 4-chambered gate
Administrative Buildings A-B
Plaster surface (B5)
Domestic:
4 room house, courtyard
Concrete Pave (A4), A5/B5 wall
Large building: “curb” and cobbles (W4) and
Walls (Z5, W5), Rebuild Industrial Building C
HUC: domestic buildings in Field VII
Industrial Building C (Oil Production?)
Plaster Surface (A5)
VIA
Domestic: Units A-C
Unit D – rebuild of 10th, enlarged and
strengthened.
Rebuild/Strengthen city planBuildings 52136, 52057: larger walls plus
cobble floor and tabun
and repair of City Wall – buttressing interior
VIB
Rebuild/Strengthen city plan and
repair of City Wall – e.g: Casemate 12
door filled in
HUCIII: Rebuild of drain and 6
chambered Gate and
Casemate Wall & Gatehouse
--
VIIA
Destruction
8B
9
10
A
10B
IA IIa
th
Mid-10
Public:
Casemate city-wall
HUCIII: 6 chambered Gate
Casemate fortification
Initial Intermural Building Plan – near
Gate especially
Fortifications:
Single-line City-wall and rebuild glacis
Public: Initial building plan – thin walls in
west
Construction substructures for
defenses
Crib walls connected to casemate (B9)
– reuse of Stratum 9 city wall as
substructure for new city wall–
construction phase of Casemate and
Iron IIA city wall
Crib wall connected to casemate (Z9) –
construction phase of Casemate and Iron IIA
city wall
Domestic Structures: minor rebuilding
of Units C and E
Domestic Structures: minor rebuilding of
Units A, B, D
Fortifications city wall
Domestic Structures: Units C and E
Domestic Structures: Units A, B, D
Fortifications city wall
Destruction
IA Ic
th
th
11 /10
IA Ib
th
th
12 /11
th
IA Ia/b( 12 )
VIIB (mid
th
10 )
VIII (late
th
th
11 /early 10
Siamun Des.)
XI-IXA (Phil)
th
XII (early 12 )
Glacis and curb
“Platform” in V9
11
Destruction
LB
12
MB
Wall 11097 in D9
Ceramic
Pillared Building – 2nd Phase
Possible Massabot in A8
Pillared Building 1st Phase
Walls and Glacis
XIV (LB II)
8
EXCAVATION RESULTS
LATE BRONZE
In the 2011 season, a small exposure of a Late Bronze Age destruction and components
of a LB Pillared building (Area Y8) was found. This was stratigraphically below the Iron
Age glacis in Field W. In 2013 with the attempted excavation and removal of Iron Age
walls, the continuation of this LB destruction layer was discovered. This is isolated on the
southern edge of Field W, south of the Iron Age I wall. This allowed for a more thorough
investigation of the Late Bronze Age destruction. Several vessels (cooking pot, krater,
store jars) were found in the destruction; as well as a scarab of Amenhotep III and three
cylinder seals. In previous seasons, elements of this LB destruction layer were also found
in probes beneath the Iron Age glacis. Several fragments of Cypriot and Mycenaean
pottery were found in these exposures. With this major exposure, all components of this
LB destruction are able to be coalesced and a date to the 14th c. BCE can be established.
This 14th c. BCE destruction matches other LB IIB destructions in the region (e.g. Beth
Shemesh, Timnah- Batash, Azekah, and Jaffa).
Fig 3: Late Bronze Age (Stratum 11) [in green]
Our 2014 goals were to excavate the squares to the north to get a complete Iron Age I
plan of the field, not anticipating to reveal anymore of our Late Bronze Age stratum. In
9
the process of excavating our Iron Age I strata (Strata 9 and 10), we found another part of
the Late Bronze Age Building. This was added to our plan (Fig 4). This wall line was
found in Area A8.
Figs. 4: Late Bronze Age Building (Stratum 11)
This limited exposure has revealed more components of a pillared building or complex of
rooms. While we have a tentative plan of the building or complex, the function of this
building is still unclear. The large pillar base found in previous seasons allows us to
postulate that this was a public building or the home of a prominent resident. Some of the
finds included a roof roller and large grinders.
Previous publications noted that the Late Bronze Age Stratum is found on the edge of the
slope with the southern extent eroded down the slope. It was built directly on the Middle
Bronze Age glacis. Based on this data, we proposed that there was no LB city wall (at
least in this area) and that the LB did not reuse the MB fortifications. Excavations this
season continued to support this pattern. Sometime in the Iron Age I, a city wall was built
directly over the Late Bronze Age destruction and occupation. An Iron Age II glacis was
built over the Iron Age I wall and provides evidence for the extent of the slope during this
period. While our investigations into the Late Bronze Age is still in its initial stages,
10
perhaps this destruction is indicative of the unrest between the Canaanite city-states as
reflected in the Amarna correspondence.
IRON AGE I WALL AND DESTRUCTION
Last season we exposed an Iron Age I city wall beneath our Iron Age II Wall. In addition
we started to discern various units. The plan of the Iron Age I stratum was a major goal
this season in Field W. Part of the issue is the topography of Field W as this field sits on
the eastern slope of the western hill; and 2) walls of Iron Age II (e.g. Stratum 7 and 8)
remained from the 2013 season, thus separating stratigraphic connections between
building components in Field W and E. A senior staff member (Arbino) postulated that
some of the walls in Field E that were tentatively attributed to Stratum 7 actually belong
to Stratum 9. Hence one of the major goals was to remove all later stratigraphic elements
and connect the walls between both fields to get a complete stratigraphic plan of the Iron
age I city. While this slowed down the progress, the focus on the tight stratigraphy as
walls and balks were removed proved Arbino’s stratigraphic postulates. We now have an
accurate spatial analysis of the various building units of our Stratum 9 and further defined
the layout of the city (see Fig. 5 and G. Arbino, 2014 Field W Report). Each of these
building units is constructed of a single course of unhewn stone.
Those units against the city wall, had their southern wall line incorporated into the city
wall (Units A, B, and C). Some of the walls we thought were Iron Age II we now have to
redate to the Iron Age I City (W51117, W51009, W51119). We now have to change the
plan of our 9th century city. We knew this terracing of the Iron Age I city existed from
last season, as each unit (where we found complete vessels-mostly store jars) sloped in
elevation from the NW to the SE. Finds from this Iron Age I city include: Philistine
pottery and an Ashdoda Head (Philistine Figurine of a goddess). These finds hint at the
Philistine and coastal influence on this Canaanite city. In addition we have a spearhead,
arrowheads, and balistae.
11
Figure 5: Iron Age I (Stratum 9-10)
We found several restorable storejars within these units. Unit A (yellow) consists of three
rooms. Its southern wall is integrated into the city wall. The western end of the building is
unexcavated. The excavated area of this unit is 10 x 8 m. Two of the rooms each
contained a complete storejar. To the east of this unit is Unit B, which appears to be a
cellar or basement as the surface level was nearly ½ meter lower. This Unit is a single
rectangular room, 3 x 6 m. Unit B had nearly half a meter of an ashy fill. Within this unit
were two storage jars up against the northern wall. In the middle of the room was a multihandled krater. Within the ashy destruction debris were several mushroom-shaped clay
stoppers. One of these stoppers contained the stamp seal which according to Stefan
12
Munger, belongs to a type referred as Early Iron Age Mass-produced seals, which date to
the Iron Age I or slightly later. Munger has proposed that these seals reflect a small
campaign by Siamun.
Unit C, possibly connected with the subterranean Unit B because their southern walls
were built as a single wall-line, which is also the line of the city-wall. Unit C, 8 x 4 m,
contains two rooms. Each room contained a storage jar. To the north of Unit C was one
of the largest units, possibly 12 x 10 m. This unit contained a tabun with a white plastered
or phytolith surface. To the west of this unit was Unit D. This unit, 10 x 8 m, contained
several rooms. It also had two complete storage jars, iron implement, bronze spear butt,
and a fragment of a unique vessel. Unit E was highly disturbed by later activity; only a
beaten earth surface and tabun were discerned. This unit is about 12 x 12 m in area.
All of these units were constructed with singe row walls constructed of unhewn stones.
The exception are Units A-C where the southern wall was the city wall. These were
domestic units. None of these units with the exception of Unit E were the typical
courtyard house (Gilboa, Sharon, and Zorn, 2014). The HUC excavations uncovered two
Iron Age I courtyard houses on the acropolis (Field VI). When the Field W Iron Age
domestic units are compared to the two on the acropolis, it is clear that these are of a
poorer quality. It is possible that the Iron Age Courtyard houses on the acropolis were
elite compared to this quarter found next to the southern city wall. The Iron Age I
destruction and city wall were a surprise. While we knew that the HUC excavations
revealed Iron Age I occupation, it was only found in Field VI on the acropolis, with
minor ceramic evidence on the southern end of the tel. We now have evidence for at least
two domestic quarters of the Iron Age City. Unlike the courtyard houses on the acropolis,
we found minimal Philistine bichrome pottery in the fills and debris of the Iron Age I.
IRON AGE II
This season we finally exposed architectural features and clean, undisturbed occupation
associated with the earliest phase of the six-chambered gate. This is our Stratum 8 (HUC
VIII). In previous seasons, not much has been exposed of the Iron Age IIA occupation
13
(10th c. BCE). In Field W, only the remnants of a cobbled surface and the outlines of
buildings were left by Macalister. Earlier excavations of HUC and Dever have exposed
the 10th century structures near the gate (his Palace 10000). We have now defined at least
Figure 6: Stratum 8A (phase destroyed by Shishak)
five architectural units of the Stratum 8 Iron Age city plan. Four of these units are built
against the north face of the casemate wall and are west of the six-chambered gate (see
Fig 6). Three of these units (I-III) were already excavated in previous seasons. Unit II has
evidence of two phases (see below). Unit V was also previously excavated by HUC in
1984. Unit IV was partially excavated this season (see below).
Field W: Stratum 8
In the process of removing walls of later phases to obtain a complete stratigraphic plan of
the Iron Age I plan in Field W (see Fig. 5), evidence of rebuilds and building alterations
were discerned. Most of the surfaces have been removed or destroyed by later Hellenistic
building activity and Macalister excavations; nevertheless, it became apparent that there
is evidence of another earlier phase (see Fig 7). It appears that Stratum 8 reused wall
14
lines of the Iron Age I (e.g. Stratum 9 and 10). These walls continued to be constructed as
single row unhewn stone foundations with a mudbrick superstructure. Later, one of the
units was remodeled and used stone walls with two rows of unhewn pillars (see walls
21074 and 11101, 11100, and 31016 in Figure 6 [located in the west in Areas Y7 and Z
7/8]).
Figure 7: Stratum 8B
Field E: Stratum 8A
In regards to Stratum 8, we had our most productive season this past summer. One of our
major goals was to excavate components of Stratum 8 in Field E. We now have a 10th
century BCE city plan emerging (see Fig. 6). We have tentatively identified two
complexes. To the east are the remnants of the HUC excavations; this is what Dever
called Palace 10000 and Soldier’s Barracks (Unit V). To the west of this complex is a
second set of structures. We have isolated a courtyard abutting the casemate wall with
two rooms. These complexes are built with large rough field stones. What is unique is
that the corner of the buildings have ashlar stones. There is a major wall separating these
two complexes built mostly of ashlar blocks. These were tipped over from the east to the
15
west. We are tentatively associating this with the Shishak destruction that was postulated
by the HUC excavations. This wall was already identified by Dever.1
The rooms are not fully excavated; we are about 20 cm to ½ a meter above the surface
levels. This past season, we uncovered a game board. This game board features the
standard layout of the Game of Twenty Squares. This board features three parallel rows
of squares, laid out in groups of four, twelve, and four, with rosettes marking five of the
twenty squares. The quality of the game board suggests its identification as a prestige
object, and perhaps indicates an elite usage of Room A. Hopefully, the completed
excavation of this room in the 2015 season will provide additional data to consider in this
interpretation. Retrieved from these rooms were olive pits, pounding stones, gaming
pieces (3), a spindle whorl, slings stones, and projectile points. A number of large bones
were recovered, including a well-preserved (sheep?) horn, and bovine mandible from two
different animals.
To the south of these rooms was a courtyard with a tabun, vat, post holes, remnants of
charred wooden beams, plastered surfaces. Small finds from the courtyard found in close
proximity to this installation include an Egyptian-style faience Bastet bead (B71490) and
fragments of a bull figurine (B71457) with a unique circular appliqué on the forehead.
IRON AGE II: 9TH CENTURY
Our Stratum 7 occupation was excavated in previous seasons. We found four principle
units with evidence for destruction in several of the rooms. We only have a plan for one
of the three complexes. Each unit averaged about 10 x 10 m. in area with 8-10 rooms.
Most of the walls were constructed of a single row of stones. We assumed that most of
the remnants of the Stratum 7 destruction were excavated. We were surprised to find that
a complete room (pillared building) was still preserved. Leading to this assumption was
the line of Stratum 8 walls exposed at the end of last season. It is now clear that Stratum 7
reused some of these Stratum 8 walls in their phase. While the excavation of this
William G. Dever, “Gezer Revisited: New Excavations of the Solomonic and Assyrian
Period Defenses.” The Biblical Archaeologist 47 (1984): 216.
1
16
destruction hindered the goal to expose our Stratum 8 city plan, we were pleased to add a
robust ceramic database and distribution of finds to Unit B.
Figure 8: Stratum 7 (9th century BCE)
In what is typically an administrative quarter of an Iron Age city, these units appear to be
domestic. It is clear that Stratum 7 (9th c.) reused the earlier fortifications and casemate
wall line. The 10th c. monumental architecture (e.g. pillars, ashlars, walls) that is found in
Stratum 8 is missing from this stratum as the area adjacent to the city gate became a
domestic quarter.
CONCLUSION
Our results can be highlighted by the definition and refinement of three major strata.
First off, the Iron Age I city in Field W is starting to come into focus. The removal of the
Iron Age II wall and the eastern expansion of Field W has allowed for a broad exposure.
The project has isolated a domestic quarter with at least five building complexes. This
quarter was built up against, and the southern rooms formed the perimeter city wall.
These buildings are constructed of single row walls. These domestic units are very
different than the buildings found on the acropolis (Field VI) that were excavated by the
17
HUC excavations. When the results of the two excavations are coalesced, it appears that
Gezer had two domestic quarters, 1) on the acropolis are large residencies while 2) on the
southern slope of the western hill are poorer constructed buildings. This stratum was
destroyed sometime during the Iron Age I/II transition. The dating is based on storage
jars and a stopper with a Siamun seal.
A second stratum was the excavation of a pillared room of Stratum 7 (9th century BCE).
This room had a thick layer of destruction with several pottery vessels. This destruction
debris was excavated in previous seasons. We are now able to complete the architectural
plan of the city of Stratum 7.
One of the main goals this season was to start to excavate Stratum 8 (10th c BCE). One of
the goals was to connect the architectural components in the Tandy excavation area (e.g.
Field E) with Dever’s ‘Palace 10,000’ and his ‘Soldier Barracks.’ This stratum consisted
of large boulders from the superstructure of buildings. Naturally the excavation and
removal of these stones slowed down our progress. We removed most of the stones, with
the exception of several ashlar blocks. The surfaces were left unexcavated in order to
systematically excavated the rooms. We initially postulated that the 10th c. BCE city
contained a belt of administrative bldgs.; just like what we had in the 8th century BCE.
The 9th century (excavated 2 seasons ago) had domestic units built up against the
casemate. Based on the work this season, we now know that the 9th century domestic
units originate from the 10th century and were reused in the 9th century. We have to
rethink our Iron Age IIA (e.g. 10th c. BCE/Solomon) city planning and note that the
administrative buildings were isolated west of the gate up to our excavation area (e.g.
“Solomon’s bathtub”). We found evidence of massive ashlar construction up to our
excavation area; this ashlar wall was tipped over. The building north of the courtyard
(Areas D/E 6) was also probably administrative or elite building. We have two rooms that
open out into the courtyard to the south. One room contained the ivory game inlay and
the other room had a bin with bones of calves.
DATING
We are now accumulating four major strata with pottery.
1) We have an 8th century destruction (Four Room House from previous seasons),
18
2) a more robust 9th century destruction (2011 season + Philip’s square),
3) some 10th century (Jerry and Brian’s squares)—with the assumption that next year
we will uncover pottery in the two rooms;
4) and an Iron Age I destruction (adding the pottery that we excavated this season
with pottery from previous seasons). This is going to provide an excellent ceramic
database for this region.