« Friday Loanword: šaknu
Main
The Theology of Cats »

October 4, 2008

What Was Wall 4026 at Gezer and Why Did They Build It?

This is part one of a two or three part series.

Off and on for the last couple of weeks I've been playing armchair archaeologist. What is the subject of my play? Well, here's a picture that might help.

East balk, Field II, area 4 at Gezer, 1973

This is part of the east bulk of Gezer Field II, area 4. Under the direction of Sy Gitin and ultimately Joe Seger, I was area supervisor there in 1973. That slumping mass of mud brick and stone that you see in section is wall 4026. Wall 4026 was part of the Middle Bronze II defensive system at Gezer and the ancient Gezerites built it on the outer edge of the summit of their glacis. The meter stick is resting on glacis' summit plateau. You can see to the right of this compressed chalk plateau the start of the ~45° decent of the glacis. A stone protruding from the balk marks the outer edge of the summit plateau. I'll have more to say about this stone and the glacis in my next post on wall 4026. The wall has two parts (loci): the mud brick part, L4026B, and the stone part, L4026A.

Joe Seger suggests the following interpretative choices for wall 4026.

  1. Wall 4026 was originally built in one construction phase, with a foundation of mud bricks (4026B) and with its upper courses augmented on the inside by the addition of a stone revetment (4026A) faced in mud plaster.
  2. The wall was built originally only as a mud-brick structure, which in a later phase was augmented internally by the addition of the supplementary stone revetment facing (4026A).
  3. The wall was originally built with mud-brick foundation courses (4026B), atop of which stood a thinner stone wall, faced on both sides with mud plaster. Subsequently (perhaps as the brick foundations slumped to the south), this upper wall (4026A) collapsed inward, down onto the remnants of the lower brick courses.
  4. Stone Wall 4026A was built as a vertical wall plastered on both faces and free standing in its upper courses. It was founded on and against the north side of Wall 4026B as part of a secondary building phase and subsequently collapsed south against and on top of the slumped 4026B bricks.

He follows this with these observations:

The choice from among these alternatives ultimately relates to the interpretation of the wall’s nature and function. The most likely interpretation is that Wall 4026 served as a defensive parapet or outer screening wall set on the edge of the glacis plateau. It would thus have formed a protected room or corridor along the foot of the MB fortification wall (i.e., along the outside of Macalister’s Inner Wall system). Wall segments positioned just outside the main wall line on the plateau of the glacis with the same putative functions were found in Field IV (see chap. III.A.3.c and plan IV). Though it has not yet been confirmed by excavation, it can be presumed from the Field IV evidence that the line of the Inner Wall in Field II, rising up from the glacis, also lies behind Wall 4026 still hidden by the Area 4 north balk. If Wall 4026 functioned as a screen wall as we here propose, then the almost 2 m of its preserved height appears to be sufficient for that purpose, suggesting that either alternative (1) or (2) provide the most likely interpretation for the details of its architectural history.

This is from a pre-publication draft of the forthcoming Gezer VII volume from which I quote with Joe's gracious permission. It is possible that some of the wording and formatting may change slightly in publication but according to Joe, this draft is well copy edited. Since the draft does not reflect the final pagination, I can only tell you that this is from Chapter IV, Section 2, "The Stratigraphy in Field II Areas 4 and 14, a. Phase 15: The Middle Bronze II Glacis and Related Structures (Stratum XVIII)."

While I agree with Joe's observations and, like him, think wall 4026 was a "defensive parapet or screening wall" (I have a memory of calling it a "screening wall" in my daybook and locus lists at the time but memory can be a rather capricious thing), I believe a more detailed but still likely explanation of its function can help decide between his first two alternatives. That will be one of the topics in my forthcoming post(s) in this series.

Update: Take this link to the second post in this series.

Reference:

Seger, Joe D., Gezer VII: The Middle Bronze and Later Fortifications in Fields II, IV, and VIII, edited by Joe D. Seger and James W. Hardin with contributions by Seymour Gitin, James W. Hardin, John. R. Osborne, and Karen E. Seger, Annual of Hebrew Union College/Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, (forthcoming)

Posted by Duane Smith at October 4, 2008 1:55 PM | Read more on Archaeology |

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2655

Tags: