Abnormal Interests

Let's start with the stones that I call foundation stones. That single stone is one of a line of stones that I excavated in that position across the outer edge of the glacis plateau. Ancient designers likely intended this row of stones to provide stability for the wall at the point it rose from this the highest point of the glacis. Stones, like the one I labeled "S," associated with the northern edge of Wall 4026 may have had a similar function, even if they were set on a working surface rather than the glacis plateau itself. I can't remember for sure if there were a continuous row of stones at that point also but I think there was. My daybook may say. But then again, it may not.

Now let's turn to the lowest course of locus 4026A, the stone portion Wall 4026. Here's a close-up of the interface between the lowest stones of 4026A and the mud bricks of 4026B on which they appear to rest.

Notice the darker, somewhat distorted rectangular brick under the lowest stone. That brick extents from the left most edge of 4026B to well beyond the right of lowest stone of 4026A. This leads me to believe that a step in 4026B was the intended consequence of design and that the stone 4026A was added at some later time. But how much later? Of the four possible alternative Seger suggests he settles on two as most likely.

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).

Of these two alternatives, I think the second is the more likely. I consider it unlikely that a planned structure such as this would be build so that a mud plastered stone augmentation would be founded about three quarters of a meter above the founding level of the wall of which it was to be a part. I also remember, at least I think I remember, that the stones were founded at about that level in the wall across the approximate 2-meter portion of the wall that we removed in the process of sectioning. I have another picture, taken from the east, looking at the east end of what remained of Wall 4026 after sectioning that seems to confirm this memory. Designers who would go to the trouble of including a row of stones at the base of the outer edge of a mud brick wall would surely have founded an interior stone "revetment" at the bottom of such a wall and not ~75 cm above its founding row. There is sporadic evidence that Wall 4026, specifically 4026B, was covered with mud plaster even on the top. If you look closely, you can see some plaster at what was likely the very top of the 4026B. It's quite visible in the first picture of this post. Remember that the wall has slumped to the right under the influence of slow mass movements with the tell. All this indicated to me that 4026B was a finished entity, without even a stone cap, before the "revetment" was added. Of course, there is also evidence that 4026A was itself plastered. I'll take that up later.

Now, let's just assume that Wall 4026 was built without the stone "revetment" and used without it for some time. Under this assumption, Wall 4026 was originally shaped more or less like a fat L in section, a backwards fat L in the east balk, with a "step" where the stone "revetment" was later added. The schematic on the left shows how the defensive configuration might have been at this phase. I do remember that this step extended across the approximate 2-meter portion of the wall that we removed in the process of sectioning.

With Wall 4026(B) being of the order of 2 m high, it was high enough to conceal anyone passing between it and the main wall. But should such an individual take the rather large step and stand on the approximate 40 cm wide step than his head arms and shoulders would be above the top of the wall. I should add that the actual working surface (surface 4053) behind Wall 4026 appears to have been somewhat (~30 cm) above the glacis plateau. My green line in the first picture in this post, which delineates the surface of Wall 4026(B), starts on the right at this working surface. From his position on the step, our defender and his comrades could take defensive actions against an assault.

But what kind of defensive actions? Because Wall 4026(B) appears to lack battlements or crenellation, it is unlikely that in this phase our defender was an archer. Standing on the step, he would have been too close to the wall to have room for the lower portion of his bow and at about a meter thick at the top, he would not have been able to reach over Wall 4026. But he may have used spear or lance. Yadin, 223, directs us to a likely 12th century BCE stele with a deified warrior holding a spear. But Yadin, 80, notes that based on the warriors' helmet some scholars date this stele "to the end of the third millennium." A 13th century BCE relief from the Ramesseum at Thebes shows defenders from a later period using spears to fight off attracters who were standing on ladders (Yadin, 229).

I also think the Ramesseum of Thebes relief may provide yet another parallel to the general configuration of the Gezer fortification system in this phase, one I missed in my last post. Yadin says of it, "At the lower part of the fortification is a low outer wall built on the slope of the mound." It is exactly from this low outer wall that one of the defenders wields his spear. One also sees Syrian defenders using spears from a lower wall in a relief of Ramesses II (Yadin 96). But it is not so clear that the lower fortifications seen in this relief are analogous to Wall 4026 at Gezer. Rather, I think they represent the main city wall with a high tower behind it.

It is also possible that our defender was a slingman. The Ramesseum relief depicts slingmen. So does an earlier wall painting from the tomb of Khety, Tomb 17 at Beni Hasan, ~21st century BCE (Yadin, 159). Because of the thickness of the Wall 4026, I guess that it is more likely that our defender was a slingman. But this is only a guess and it is possible that he defended Gezer by some other means altogether.

Continuing with our assumption, at some later time a stone reinforcement, 4026A, not exactly a revetment, founded on the step, was added to the inside of Wall 4026. The stone additions may have also increased the height of the wall a little. With this addition, the function of the wall must have changed. But to how?

The answer to this question depends to a great extent on how we understand the fills between Wall 4026 and the north bulk. Without excavation, one cannot be sure but it seems reasonable to assume that these fills extended to the main Middle Bronze Age defensive wall. The two identifiable, seemingly mundane, fill deposits have the properly mundane names of L. 4051 and L. 4044. Here, I'm working from the text of the forthcoming Gezer VII volume but the speculation, and there is a lot of it, as to function and exact configuration of the system is my own. I would suggest that these two fill loci, which are clearly visible in the bulk, were part of an intentional redesign of the extramural defensive system at Gezer. Under this hypothesis, a mud plastered stone reinforcement (4026A) was added to Wall 4026 partially to protect Wall 4026 from the pressure of the fill and perhaps, partially to heightened Wall 4026 with an extended plastered stone cap. Such fills and the associated surface (surface 4029A?) at their top could then provide a platform for archers that the original configuration did not allow. The ash lenses, easily visible in the pictures in this post and my previous one, above fill L. 4044 may be indicative of a wooden superstructure above the new stone reinforcement and fill configuration. Speculation gets wilder and wilder but then this is a blog. Perhaps, such a wooden superstructure formed both a roof and a wooden protective facing that came down to the top of the now redesigned Wall 4026. In which case, such a wooden structure, perhaps with plastered front, would have had loopholes for the archers. Remember, there is no evidence for this wooden structure other than the ash lenses on top of fill L. 4044. According to Seger, what little datable material there was, all pottery sherds from a still later fill, came from within the late MB IIC to early LB I periods. So our fills and new working surface must be somewhat younger. How much younger is not clear. I think not much younger.

The schematic drawing to the left illustrates how this might have looked as a section through a loophole. Remember, this is far from being to scale. Kemp, 171, shows a reconstruction, perhaps as fanciful, of exactly this same wall extending on the front below a working surface; fill with working surface; roof, built with wooden beams and front with loopholes that I described above. This reconstruction is of the citadel at Buden that I mentioned in my last post on Wall 4026.

At sometime, perhaps coincidently with the addition of 4026A and the fills, another structure was added to this extramural defensive system at Gezer. This is represented by a north-south running wall founded in fill L. 4044. This wall appears to have formed part of an extramural room of some kind. Or perhaps it was part of the support system for my hypothesized roof. With that teaser, I think I'll break off the story of Wall 4026 and the Gezer extramural fortification system at this point. I need to see some of the graphic material that Seger will publish with the forthcoming Gezer VII volume before I resume my wild speculations in another series.

References: