Archaeologica.org

King Solomon-era fortifications revealed in Israel excavation
By Staff
Jul 18, 2006

JERUSALEM (BP)-—More than 30 years have passed since a major expedition has attempted to reveal the history of Tel Gezer, the ancient city of King Solomon fame located between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. This summer the biblical site has been re-excavated by a joint expedition of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and the Israel Antiquities Authority.

Just a simple statement of which religious-based institution is running the expedition....except for the attribution to Solomon which is the point of the dispute. They state it as a fait d'accompli which, for those blinded by faith, it may as well be.

The expedition is led by co-directors Steven M. Ortiz of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and Sam Wolff of the Israel Antiquities Authority. The project encompasses several consortium members: Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Marian Eakins Archaeological Museum, Lycoming College, Lancaster Bible College and Grace Seminary. More than 60 students and staff members participated in the inaugural season this summer from June 4 through July 7. In addition, the excavations drew support from local residents of Kibbutz Gezer and Karmi Yosef.

Hmmm.....lots of Baptists, there....but still no information about the site which could be debated.

Some secular archaeologists doubt the reality of many people and places named in the Bible, but the current work at the Tel Gezer location may prove useful in verifying various biblical accounts.

Perhaps the most honest line. It "may prove useful" and then again, it may not.

This year's excavations have revealed more than 40 meters of a massive fortification system associated with the six-chambered gate common in the building projects of King Solomon. Solomon’s extensive building projects are recorded in the biblical account of his activities throughout his kingdom and at his capital city of Jerusalem (1 Kings 9:15-17).

Argument #1. The sites at Gezer, Hazor, and Samarra were located on hill tops. In order to get a flat building surface of sufficient size a retaining wall was built around the hill and dirt and debris was dumped inside to create the buildable space. Herod the Great used a similar technique when he re-designed the Temple Mount in Jerusalem some 8 centuries later. Finkelstein and a host of archaeologists now attribute this technique to the Omride Dynasty, a century later. I rather doubt that these people found anything attributable to Solomon in these walls. Let's remember that the issue is not THE WALLS but rather when they were built. These people are not scholars....they are seekers.


The Tel Gezer fortification systems were constructed in the typical fortress wall system consisting of two parallel walls with dividing walls interspersed about every five meters. Scholars are not sure of the function of this system. The rooms do not have doorways and therefore served as some type of basement storage system entered from above or were filled with soil and rubble as a less labor-intensive construction.

Actually, they were casemate walls which are essentially a series of rooms which are connected. They are filled with soil and rubble (they got that part right) not as a labor saving mechanism but as an engineering trick to stabilize the massive weight being piled up inside the retaining wall. IN any case, these do not appear to have served as 'fortifications.'

In addition to this large fortification system, two major destructions tentatively dated to the Egyptian pharaohs of Merneptah and Siamun were exposed. The famous Merneptah Stela (end of the 13th century B.C.), where the name Israel is first mentioned in ancient historical records outside the Bible, mentions a major campaign in ancient Palestine that included the destruction of Gezer. Siamun (mid-10th century B.C.) is identified by many scholars as the pharaoh who conquered Gezer and gave it as a dowry when his daughter married Solomon (1 Kings 9:15).

There were lots of people running around destroying things as the LBA came to an end and the Iron Age began. Unfortunately, there were still people running around destroying things a century later. They cover their asses by saying that the dates are 'tentative." Fine. Get back to us when you are ready to make a conclusion.

While the ancient site of Tel Gezer was extensively excavated by R.A.S. Macalister in the early 1900s and by Hebrew Union College in the 1960s and ’70s, many questions still remain concerning the nature of the city during the period of the United Monarchy of the Ancient Israelite Kingdom. The goals of the renewed excavations are to investigate the major fortification systems on the south edge of the site as well as excavate several cultural horizons in order to better understand the growth and development of the Iron Age city.

Not the least of which is the question of whether or not there ever was a United Monarchy. These people are wedded to the idea that there had to have been because it says so in the bible. That is not anywhere good enough for me. Come up with some artifacts.

While parts of the large fortification system have been exposed by previous excavations, several new discoveries were obtained this season. The first was a major rebuilding of the part of the city near the fortification. Some time in the eighth century B.C. a large pillared building and a second unit consisting of several storage rooms were constructed directly abutting the 10th-century B.C. fortification. The pillared building was six and a half meters by four meters and the second unit of rooms covered an area seven meters in length.

No one doubts an 8th century BC use for the site but they make a declarative statement that the earlier site wa 10th century but where is the evidence? Oh, that's right....in the bible.

The renewed excavations coincide with the celebration of the July 10 opening of the site by the Israel Nature and Parks Authority as a national park. While most of the preparation was carried out by the Israeli authority, it is part of the excavation project’s future goals to assist in the conservation of the site. Thus, participants of the Tel Gezer excavation assisted by clearing the years of overgrown brush that covered the Solomonic and Canaanite Gates.

Isn't that cute....Solomon the tribal chieftain gets a gate named after him. Attribution - not evidence.

The Tel Gezer project is a long-term initiative to investigate the growth and development of the ancient city of Gezer. In addition, it is a field school to train the next generation of students. Students participate in an intensive program of archaeological fieldwork with evening lectures and a study program where they travel throughout the various regions of Israel. The project is open to all students and adult volunteers. Information can be obtained from the project website at www.gezerproject.org.
--30--

I bet they stick a nightly prayer meeting in with the lectures, eh Arch?

Just a simple statement of which religious-based institution is running the expedition....except for the attribution to Solomon which is the point of the dispute. They state it as a fait d'accompli which, for those blinded by faith, it may as well be.

Hmmm.....lots of Baptists, there....but still no information about the site which could be debated

Perhaps the most honest line. It "may prove useful" and then again, it may not.

Finkelstein and a host of archaeologists now attribute this technique to the Omride Dynasty, a century later

These people are not scholars....they are seekers

Actually, they were casemate walls which are essentially a series of rooms which are connected. They are filled with soil and rubble (they got that part right) not as a labor saving mechanism but as an engineering trick to stabilize the massive weight being piled up inside the retaining wall. IN any case, these do not appear to have served as 'fortifications.'

They cover their asses by saying that the dates are 'tentative." Fine. Get back to us when you are ready to make a conclusion

No one doubts an 8th century BC use for the site but they make a declarative statement that the earlier site wa 10th century but where is the evidence? Oh, that's right....in the bible.

Isn't that cute....Solomon the tribal chieftain gets a gate named after him. Attribution - not evidence

I bet they stick a nightly prayer meeting in with the lectures, eh Arch?

citing finkelstein isn't going to cut it with me as i feel he ignores data makes conclusions based upon other limiting factors.

this could be subject to opinion and without hard data, like blueprints or books on how to build, we may not know the real purpose of the rooms

the Bible is one source that is valid,

probably along with a sermon and taking of the offering, i rarely have been in a church meeting where the opportunity to give money was ignored

archaeologist wrote:p.s. you picked the easiest one for you to analyze as it has the less of a science nature about it.

There is a full discussion in that book you refuse to read.

But, of course, you haven't actually read any of his books so you are simply relying on the fact that he says things you do not want to hear

You accept it because of faith. I reject it because there is little evidence to substantiate it.

Amen.

one such is his easy dismissal of data that forces him to re-consider his viewpoint. anotheris his refusal to prove many of his theories.