Bethsaida and Other Fortified Cities in Northern Israel during Iron Age II (Batchelder Biblical...

Batchelder Biblical Archaeology Conference November 2006

p. 1

BETHSAIDA AND OTHER FORTIFIED CITIES IN NORTHERN ISRAEL

DURING IRON AGE II

By Boyd Seevers, Ph.D.

Northwestern College, St. Paul, Minnesota

INTRODUCTION

In 1996, the excavations directed by Rami Arav at the site of Bethsaida (et-Tell) in

northern Israel began to reveal a massive city gate from the 10th

century B.C.E. The Iron Age

IIB (925-732 B.C.E.) city gate turned out to be part of a double-gate complex that has proven to

be the largest and best preserved city gate yet uncovered in the region. It made up part of the

city’s fortifications, along with the massive city walls and impressive, paved approach road.

This article will seek to describe these fortifications at IA II Bethsaida in their cultural context.

It will begin with a brief discussion of the function of such gates and fortifications, then describe

the relevant finds uncovered so far at Bethsaida, and finally compare them with the known

contemporary fortifications of nearby sites in northern Israel.

FUNCTION OF CITY GATES

City gates and fortifications such as those unearthed at Bethsaida served to protect and

foster the life of ancient cities, which acted as hubs for wider regions. The large and impressive

elements of the IA city found so far at Bethsaida reflect a height of city-building in the IA II

period, one of several such periods in antiquity. Stambaugh points out that urbanization in the

ancient Levant ran in millennial cycles, reaching peaks in each of the Early Bronze (ca. 3000

B.C.E.), Middle Bronze (ca. 2000 B.C.E.), and Iron Ages (ca. 1000 B.C.E.), each following

periods more characterized by villages and weak cities (1992, 1031-32). The establishment of


p. 2

the large city of Bethsaida in ca. mid-10 c B.C.E. (IA II) fits this pattern well. It was built after

the less urban Late Bronze and IA I periods when cities had no fortifications, reused

fortifications from the Middle Bronze Age, or arranged the settlements in simple oval belts that

protected central courtyards. In IA II, by contrast, well planned cities like Bethsaida emerged

with clear planning, well made administrative buildings, and strong fortifications. The largest of

these cities served as royal capitals or other major administrative centers (Stambaugh 1992,

1037-40; Isserlin 1998, 111-34; A. Mazar 1990, 463-4). Indeed, based on its size, Bethsaida

appears to have served both as an administrative center and capital of the kingdom of Geshur

from the city’s foundation ca. 950 B.C.E. until its destruction in 732 B.C.E.1 (see Fig. 1).

Figure 1 – Location of Geshur (after Arav 1994, Fig. 2; see Ma’oz 1992 for borders)

A key part of the life of these cities was the gate complex and associated fortifications

which had to manage numerous conflicting roles. They promoted and inhibited growth, stopped

1 Arav n.d., under The Excavations. Arav also notes that if Bethsaida was indeed the capital of the kingdom of

Geshur as he suggests, it is the only one of the eight capital cities of the 10th

century B.C.E. in the southern Levant

that has yielded IA monumental finds to date. Sela (Edom), Damascus (Aram), Rabbah (Ammon), and Dibon

(Moab) either have not been identified or have not produced IA finds. Tyre (Phoenicia), Samaria (Israel) and

Jerusalem (Judah) have yielded remains from the 10th

century B.C.E., but these are far less substantial than those of

Bethsaida. Cf. Finkelstein (1999, 61), who suggests that the site may have been built by Hazael of Aram.


p. 3

and enhanced the flow of traffic, and served both military and civic functions. The fortifications

acted to protect the city and thus promote its growth, but their very presence limited its

maximum size. They were designed to stop armies, bandits and other hostile elements from

entering the cities, yet had to allow traffic to flow in and out of the city with a minimum of

hindrance. In addition, the natural funneling of traffic through the city’s gate or gates made them

natural meeting places and thus common sites for commercial, judicial, religious, and other

functions (Herzog 1976, V; 1992, 844-452). The majority of these functions can be seen built

into the IA II gate complex at Bethsaida as described in the following section.

FORTIFICATIONS AT BETHSAIDA

In addition to illustrating the typical functions of city gates, the fortifications at Bethsaida

also reflect the best defenses available at the time of IA II. Thick, solid walls like at Bethsaida

provided more protection than hollow casemate walls, still in use at some sites at this time. City

walls were typically 2-7 meters thick (A. Mazar 1990, 465-66), and the 6-8 meter thick walls at

Bethsaida were among the largest. Walls were often built of mud-brick on top of a modest stone

foundation, but some, like at Bethsaida, were made largely or entirely of stone. Certain cities

also had a second, outer wall as well as a glacis, a hard sloping surface extending out from the

base of a wall. Both the glacis and second wall were designed to prevent attackers from

approaching the main walls with equipment such as battering rams. Bethsaida had these features

too. Finally, gate complexes varied in size and strength, and as was mentioned earlier, Bethsaida

boasted a double-gate complex of unparalleled size.3

2 For references to biblical passages that illustrate these functions, see B. Mazar 1990, 469.

3 For more complete discussions of types of fortifications, see Isserlin (1998, 134-37), Herzog (1992, 848-52), B.

Mazar (1990, 465-70), and the somewhat dated but helpful Yadin (1963, vol. 2).


p. 4

The massive fortifications at Bethsaida apparently date to the city’s beginnings.4 The city

wall and the Bit Hilani palace (Arav 1999, 45-84) that would have served as the city’s

administrative center, apparently both date to IA IIA (950-850 B.C.E.; Stratum 6). In IA IIB

(850-732 B.C.E.; Stratum 5) the builders reused the city wall but rebuilt and expanded the gate

complex, to be discussed below.

The city was built just east of the Jordan River on a hill of basalt that extends south from

the Golan Heights toward the Sea of Galilee. The site cover approximately 8 hectares (ca. 20

acres; Arav 1995, 3), making Bethsaida one of the largest Iron Age cities in the southern Levant

(Arav n.d., Introduction5). The hill is surrounded by ravines on the east, south and west (see Fig.

2), making the northern side the most accessible. Both the modern and ancient roads approach

the site from that direction. The ancient road has been traced for several hundred meters, leading

toward the city from a north-northeasterly direction with the plateau of the Golan in the distance.

The Approach to the City Gate

The ancient road approaches the city on the eastern side of the mound, skirting the deep

ravine on that side. To help protect the city, the builders of Bethsaida brought the road up to the

northeastern corner of the city, then ran it alongside the city walls. The ravine ensured that

attackers had to approach the gate on this road, keeping them within easy range of defenders

posted on top of the walls. The builders of Bethsaida also constructed three terraces on the

eastern side of the mound, apparently in order to widen the hill and make room for their wide but

well protected approach. The approach road averages four meters in width, apparently wide

4 Some potsherds and a very small number of architectural remains at Bethsaida date to the Early Bronze Age, the

earliest of the site’s seven known strata. However, given the paucity of the EB finds, the IA strata appear to present

the first meaningful phases of occupation. The final four of the site’s seven strata date from IA IIC (732 B.C.E.)

through the 20th

century C.E. (Arav 1999, 14-15). 5 Unless otherwise noted, the material in the rest of this section is drawn from Arav n.d., Architecture.


p. 5

Fig. 2 - Bethsaida topographical map with the IA II city gate complex and double walls, and the

Bit Hilani palace to the north (Arav 2005, 28)


p. 6

enough for two ox-drawn carts to pass.6 The gentle incline of ca. 6.5 degrees approaching the

gate makes for an easy ascent. The final 50 meters was paved in Stratum 6 with basalt

cobblestones ca. 30-40 cm in diameter, carefully fitted to one another. These made for a highly

durable pavement that apparently continued to be used until the city wall collapsed and covered

it, probably during an earthquake. Roman tombs dug into the road with accompanying Roman

potsherds dating to the 1st-4

th centuries C.E. suggest that the road was in use until this time,

making a lifespan for the road of approximately 1000 years.

The City Walls

The city walls that ran parallel to this road for part of their distance have been exposed

north of the gate complex as well as a 56-meter long section on the northern side of the city (see

Fig. 3). Sections in both of these areas show that Bethsaida had a large, inner wall and a

smaller, outer wall. The walls were apparently built in the mid-10 c B.C.E. (Str. 6) and

continued in use from the late 10 – late 8 c B.C.E. (Str. 5).

The city’s builders went to great efforts when constructing the large, inner wall. Arav7

notes that the builders cleared the area for the wall down to bedrock before beginning

construction. The wall’s outer face had a revetment wall, a facing built to sustain an

embankment such as a glacis. The revetment followed the city wall at a distance of 3.5 meters,

creating a free rampart that would have kept battering rams away from the main city wall. The

builders used large boulders (some 0.9 x 0.7 x 0.5 m) to make the revetment wall, and then

6 For further discussion see Arav n.d., Architecture: The Approach to the City Gate.

7 Description of city walls taken from Arav 1999, 84-85, 102-4 as well as Arav n.d., The City Walls.


p. 7

Fig. 3 – Section of city wall along northern side of Bethsaida (from Bethsaida vol. 2, Map 10)

added a glacis made of crushed limestone mixed with red earth taken from the bed of the nearby

Jordan River. The glacis was only two meters wide, but reached the top of the revetment at a

height of more than two meters. This created a slope of approximately 32 percent, providing a

steep barrier for attackers trying to approach and penetrate the main city wall.

When the northern wall made a slight turn (see Fig. 3) that could have created a

potentially weaker point, the builders created an 11.4 meter-long protrusion to strengthen the

area. Two more similar offsets were excavated in the north, 9.5 and 8 meters apart to the west,

projecting 0.6 and 1.5 meters from the wall. The inner face of the wall was constructed in mirror

fashion, creating sections with reinforced thickening of the already substantial walls. In between

the protrusions the wall averages 6.2 meters thick, and at the protrusions, 7.2 to 8 meters thick.


p. 8

The inner and outer faces of this wall were made of massive boulders weighing several

hundred kilograms each, with smaller stones filling the space between. At the more vulnerable

corners of the offsets or towers, the builders used even larger stones (see notations on Fig. 3),

some weighing more than one metric ton. Remnants of plaster on some of the stones indicate

that the outer face of the wall was covered with thick white plaster, presenting a large,

impressive white wall that would have contrasted with the dark soil and black basalt rock of the

region. The wall has survived up to a height of three meters in places.

The excavations at Bethsaida have also shown that a second, outer wall also surrounded

the city (see both walls entering from lower right in Fig. 4). Like the glacis, it also apparently

functioned to keep attackers away from the inner wall. The outer wall was thinner, lower and

poorer in quality than the inner wall, with a thickness of 1.25 to 2.4 meters. Thirty meters of the

outer wall have been uncovered so far. The area between the inner and outer walls was paved

with basalt cobblestones, and would have served as a thoroughfare for traffic skirting the city.

Fig. 4 - Virtual double walls and city gate < http://www.unomaha.edu/bethsaida/vrml/gate.wrl>

http://www.unomaha.edu/bethsaida/vrml/


p. 9

The Gate Complex

An army that wished to attack Bethsaida would have had to approach next to the double

walls, as discussed earlier, then attempted to penetrate the large (ca. 17 x 35 m - Arav 1999, 26)

gate complex, located on the eastern side of the city (see Fig. 5). Placing the gate on the east

Fig. 5 – The IA II city gate, double walls, and Bit Hilani palace (from Arav 2005, n.p.)

rather than on the more accessible north forced attackers to skirt the walls with defenders

undoubtedly raining down fire from above. The attackers would have to penetrate the double

doors of an outer gate, visible in Figure 4. They would then find themselves in a single room ca.

12 x 7 m, of which only the western wing has survived. The Assyrian army which penetrated

the city through the gate in 732 B.C.E. apparently tore down the entire eastern side of the gate

complex (see Fig. 6) and rolled its stones into the ravine.


p. 10

Fig. 6 – Virtual City Gate of IA II Bethsaida < http://www.unomaha.edu/bethsaida/vrml/

gate.wrl>

After passing through the outer gate, attackers would find themselves in a spacious,

paved courtyard in the middle of the gate complex. Defenders ringing the top of the gate

compound could fire at attackers from all angles (see Figure 6). The courtyard measures

approximately 191 m2, larger than similar IA II courtyards found at Megiddo (172 m

2) and Dan

(79 m2). During peacetime, an estimated 200 people could use the courtyard at any one time,

making the place eminently suitable in peacetime for the various commercial, religious and other

activities mentioned earlier. A total of 25 m of stone benches lined the walls of the courtyard at

Bethsaida. They were 20 cm high and covered with plaster and white wash. The courtyard also

served as the site for religious functions, as shown by the five stelae uncovered there, one on

each side of both pairs of gates and a single stele with a carving of an Aramean god on of top of

the stepped high place to the right of the inner gate (see Figure 7 and Arav n.d. for a more

complete discussion).



p. 11

Fig. 7 – Virtual view of courtyard of gate complex. Note inner gates, benches, three steles near

inner doors. < http://www.unomaha.edu/bethsaida/vrml/gate.wrl>

Walls and towers surrounded the courtyard on all sides. Large towers (12.5 x 5.6 m; see

Fig. 6) flanked the inner gate on the west side of the courtyard. A bastion or lookout tower stood

on the southeast, connected to the outer gate by a thick wall (see Fig. 6).

From within the gate courtyard, attackers had to make a right-hand turn to attack the

heavier, 4-m wide main gate from within the gate compound. Bethsaida’s inner gate complex is

the largest yet uncovered in the entire region, as noted earlier.8 It was built from large, coarsely-

dressed fieldstones covered in plaster and white wash. The stone construction survived to a

height of three meters in one part of the gate. Sun-dried mud-bricks that had collapsed from the

upper levels show that the second and third stories were made of brick, and the entire

construction was covered with plaster and white wash.

8 See Arav n.d. (esp. table under The Inner City Gate) for measurements and further discussion. Also note Arav’s

conjecture that the city gates of other capitals in the region, not yet uncovered, may have been as large.



p. 12

The inner gate has piers that form four chambers, as was common in IA II, leaving a 4 m-

wide road between the chambers (see Fig. 5). The four chambers measure ca. 10 x 3 m each

(Arav 1999, 27-30). Their main function appears to have been for storage of grain, perhaps as

much as one ton in each chamber. Excavations uncovered a layer of charred barley

approximately one meter thick in one chamber, obviously burned when the Assyrians penetrated

the gate and conquered the city. Chamber 4 on the northeast side of the gate is closest to the

stepped high place on the other side of the doors, and that chamber yielded thousands of

potshards during excavation, evidently from offering vessels used for rituals conducted at the

high places.

Despite Bethsaida’s impressive and well made gate complex, walls and approach road,

the Assyrian army did penetrate the fortifications and conquer the city in 732 B.C.E. The

Assyrians apparently attacked the gate complex rather than the much more accessible northern

wall of the city. On the north, the 6-8 m thick inner wall, the 2 m thick rampart set out 3.5 m

from the wall, plus the steep 2 m wide glacis and then a 2 m thick outer wall, combined to form a

set of fortifications over 15 m deep. These defenses apparently discouraged any attack on the

north, as no sling stones, arrowheads or ashes appeared in the excavations in that area.

Instead the Assyrians attacked the gate complex on the east, despite the obvious

challenges. The Assyrians would have used battering rams to flatten the doors of the outer gate,

where excavators found bits of carbonized wood. Large numbers of bent arrowheads, sling

stones of various sizes, and spear- and lance-heads recovered in the gate area attest to the

ferocity of the battle. The attackers would have brought their battering ram into the courtyard of

the gate complex and turned it toward the inner gate, despite what was probably withering fire


p. 13

from the defenders ringing the courtyard. The ram then penetrated the inner doors and the

Assyrians entered and finished capturing the city.

Afterward the Assyrians probably drove out the inhabitants with their possessions, and

then further destroyed parts of the city and its fortifications. The gods of Bethsaida received

particularly brutal treatment. The ritual objects stored at the gate were thoroughly smashed, as

noted earlier. The attackers broke off the tops of the stelae, thus “beheading” the gods. The stele

carved with the picture of the chief god was broken into multiple pieces. Such treatment was

obviously intended to show the superiority of the Assyrian gods over the gods of the vanquished.

The Assyrians then set fire to the city gate and burned the wood, grain, oil and other

flammable materials in the complex, perhaps augmented by bitumen brought from Assyria. The

blaze was so intense that it baked the mud-bricks and the plaster that coated the walls, and fused

much of the brick, plaster, rubble and ceramic material into more than a ton of hardened black

“clinkers,” apparently at a temperature higher than 1200º C (ca. 2200º F.). Not surprisingly, the

fire caused the collapse of the gate complex, creating an enormous pile of rubble. After the fire

the Assyrians thoroughly destroyed the entire eastern side of the gate complex, as discussed

earlier, apparently to discourage or prevent the rebuilding and reuse of the gate. Thousands of

tons of stone, earth and clay bricks would have been pushed into the ravine in an operation that

may have taken weeks to complete.9

COMPARISON WITH FORTIFICATIONS OF OTHER CITIES IN NORTHERN ISRAEL

How did the IA II fortifications at Bethsaida compare with those of contemporary cities

in the region? This final section will survey the cities in Bethsaida’s kingdom of Geshur and

then other major cities in northern IA Israel as far south as Megiddo in the Jezreel Valley.

9 Arav, n.d., The Picture of the Destruction. Arav also posits that the Assyrians may have had a part of their army

dedicated to carrying out such destructions.


p. 14

Fortifications in IA II Geshur

IA II Bethsaida apparently served as the capital of the kingdom of Geshur, a region of ca.

350 km2 (135 mi

2) situated east of the Sea of Galilee (see Fig. 1). The name Geshur may appear

in historical texts as early as the Amarna letters (mid-14 c B.C.E.).10

During the 11 c B.C.E.,

Geshur became strong enough to support a kingdom, and by the end of the 11 c, the kingdom

apparently built a new, strong capital at Bethsaida (Ma‘oz 1992, 996; Arav 2004, 6). At about

the same time, Geshur became an ally to King David (2 Sam 3:2-3), and David married Ma‘acah,

the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur. David and Ma‘acah’s son Absalom sought asylum in his

mother’s homeland for three years after killing his half-brother Amnon (2 Sam 13:37-38, 14:23-

32, 15:7-8; see also Kochavi 1989, 2-3).11

An archaeological survey found 27 sites in Geshur settled during MB II, eight in the LB,

and 18 in the IA (Kochavi 1989, 996). Most of the Geshurite sites with significant IA remains

are situated just east of the Sea of Galilee (see Fig. 8). We now turn to survey those with IA

fortifications.

Figure 8 – Sites in Geshur with significant IA II remains

10

The “Land of Ga<su>ru” in EA 256. See Ma‘oz 1992, 996. 11

If Bethsaida had been established by Absalom’s time, he probably found refuge at the site.


p. 15

Tel Hadar

The remains at Tel Hadar seem to illustrate Geshur’s development. The excavator

suggests that the city was established as a royal citadel that acted as the defensive, economic and

commercial center, perhaps for the entire kingdom. The first IA level (Str. II) dates to the 11 c,

and the second (Str. I) to the 9-8 c. The remains from Str. II include two concentric stone walls

25 m apart—a 4 m thick outer wall and a 2.5 m thick inner wall, a configuration unique in

ancient Israel (Kochavi 1989, 15). The inner wall formed a gate on the east where one section of

the wall made a 45º angle with the next section (see Fig. 9).

Figure 9 – Tel Hadar, Stratum II. Note concentric walls, gate on east (from Kochavi 1993b,

551).

The city of Stratum II was destroyed in a great fire during the late 11 c. After a gap of

approximately two centuries, the site was resettled as a small farming village whose builders

reused the outer wall for defense and built over the inner wall. The site’s former importance had


p. 16

been supplanted by the newly built city administrative center at nearby ‘En Gev, discussed next

(Kochavi 1989, 9-11, 15; 1993b, 551-52).

‘En Gev

Following the destruction of Tel Hadar Str. II, a new administrative center was built

farther south along the shores of the Sea of Galilee at ‘En Gev (Kochavi 1989, 15; see Fig. 8).

This site was continuously occupied from its founding in the early 10 c until the Assyrian

campaign of 732 B.C.E. With an area of 3 ha., (ca. 7.5 a.), the site is one of the largest IA sites

in the Golan (Kochavi 1991, 183).

The site has five strata with IA II remains. Stratum V (early-mid 10 c) had a city wall

with a level stone foundation 1.85 m wide, apparently to support a mud-brick wall above (B.

Mazar 1993, 410; 1964, 7). In Stratum IV (mid 10-early 9 c), the mud-brick wall was replaced

by a large casemate wall built of large, undressed stones filled with smaller stones. The outer

line of the casemate was 1.75 m thick, separated by a 1.4 m space from the 1.15 m thick inner

wall, for a total width of 4.3 m. The casemate wall was similar to, but stronger than, the

casemate walls from Hazor (Str. IX-X) and Megiddo (Str. IVB-VA), perhaps because the flatter,

more vulnerable site at ‘En Gev called for stronger walls. B. Mazar interprets the remains of ‘En

Gev V and IV as Israelite. When the city was rebuilt in Stratum III, the builders changed the

layout and built a solid defensive wall instead of a casemate. They used the heavier external wall

from the casemate, and further strengthened sections to form a solid inset-offset wall ranging

from 1.75-3.15 m thick, similar to the walls at Megiddo IVA and Hazor VIII. ‘En Gev III also

had a glacis. Stratum III was destroyed by fire, then rebuilt apparently using the same city wall

and citadel. B. Mazar interprets the similarity of ‘En Gev III and II as the continuation of the

same ethnic group—in this case the Arameans who had captured the region from Israel. The


p. 17

final city of Str. I was unfortified and laid out on a different plan, apparently reflecting a re-

conquest by Israelites who lived there until the city’s final destruction by Assyria in 732 B.C.E.

(B. Mazar 1964, 9-15; 1993, 410-11; Kochavi 1993a, 411-12, who re-dates Str. III to the 9th

c).

IA ‘En Gev was clearly a major city in the region, apparently fought over by the

Arameans and Israelites. Kochavi (1993a, 412) suggests that the site should be identified with

biblical Aphek, where numerous battles between the two peoples took place according to the

biblical text (1 Kgs 20, 2 Kgs 13).

Tel Soreg

The third and final site with IA to be discussed here is Tel Soreg, a small site of less than

one acre situated east of ‘En Gev. It served as the home for farmers who tilled the nearby fields,

and would have been a satellite of ‘En Gev. Remains at the site reflect habitation for two

millennia from as far back as MB I, but the only time Tel Soreg was fortified was in the 9-8 c

Figure 10 – Tel Soreg. Note outer wall, cross-walls of casemate (from Kochavi 1993c, 1410).


p. 18

B.C.E., when ‘En Gev apparently served as a major forward position for the Arameans and Tel

Soreg would have been a fortified outpost as well as an agricultural settlement. The only

remains of note at Tel Soreg consist of a small casemate fort on the northeastern corner of the

site (Kochavi 1993c, 1410; see Fig. 10).

Geshur—Conclusion

This brief survey of Geshurite remains outside of Bethsaida demonstrates that settlement

in Geshur peaked in IA II, and that the fortifications at Bethsaida dwarf those at the other sites,

even compared to the administrative center at ‘En Gev. The Geshurites apparently built Tel

Hadar as an administrative center, perhaps their capital, in the 11th

century. After its destruction,

‘En Gev replaced Tel Hadar as the new primary city east of the Sea of Galilee. The destruction

of Tel Hadar may also have been the impetus for the building of Bethsaida, the kingdom’s

apparent new capital. The following chart summarizes the known information about the

fortifications at these sites in Geshur, with the information for Bethsaida included for

comparison.

Site Date Wall Type Wall Thickness Gate

Tel Hadar Str. II 11 c B.C.E. 2 concentric solid 4 m, 2.5 m Wall at 45º

angle

I 9-8 c Single solid 4 m None

‘En Gev Str. V Early-mid 10 c Stone/mud-brick 1.85 m None

IV Mid 10-early 9 c Casemate 4.3 m None

III Mid 9 c Inset-offset,

glacis, citadel

1.75-3.15 m None

II Mid 9-early 8 c Same as III Same as III None

I Early-mid 8 c None None None


p. 19

Tel Soreg 9-8 c Casemate fort None None

Bethsaida 10-8 c Solid 6-8 m 4-chamber

Figure 11 – Comparison of fortifications in IA II Geshur

Fortifications in IA II Northern Israel

We now turn to look at the significant IA II fortifications in the broader area of northern

Israel. The sites to be surveyed are Dan, Hazor and Kinneret in the north, Jokneam, Megiddo

and Taanach in the Jezreel Valley, and Beth Shean and Rehov in the Beth Shean Valley (see Fig.

12; cf. list in A. Mazar 2005, Table 2.2).

Figure 12 – Major IA II sites in northern Israel

Dan

The large site of Dan (20 ha./50 a.) in far northern Israel has several strata from IA II,

with two major phases of fortifications. The first major phase comes from Str. III (mid-9 c)


p. 20

where one finds a double-gate complex, a city wall, and a pavement (see Fig. 13), similar to the

elements found at Bethsaida. A paved piazza (Fig. 13 #1) led up to the simple outer gate (#2),

followed by a paved courtyard, then a four-chamber inner gate (#3). Like at Bethsaida, the

passage between the gate chambers measures four m wide, and the four 3 x 2 m chamber floors

were unpaved and their walls covered with plaster. The elements are the same as at Bethsaida,

except with two turns instead of one. The courtyard had a 4.5 m long stone bench along its

eastern wall, as well as a unique four-pillared installation, perhaps for royal or religious use.

Five standing stones at the base of the city wall clearly attest to religious activity in Dan’s gate.

The city wall was 4 m wide, built with a basalt stone foundation 3.5 m high, plus mud-brick to a

height of perhaps twelve meters (Biran 1993, 323, 329-30; 1994, 235-45).

Figure 13 – Gate complex at IA II Dan (from Herzog 1997, Fig. 19b).


p. 21

The second major phase dates to the 8 c, when a second gate complex with another four-

chamber gate (#5) was added at the top of the paved road (#4) for additional security, perhaps for

a citadel. The upper gate has four chambers (#5) ca. 4.5 x 3.1 m which flank a passageway of

3.7 m. Both of these gate complexes were destroyed in the second half of the 8 c, apparently

during the same Assyrian invasion that destroyed Bethsaida (Biran 1993, 330; 1994, 250-54).

Hazor

The next site to the south with major IA fortifications is at Hazor, whose appearance in

the Mari documents, Amarna letters, and the Bible (Josh 11:10-13; 2 Kgs 15:29) reflect the

importance of the large site (80 ha./200 a.) for more than a millennium. By the time of IA II,

only the 12 ha. (30 a.) upper mound was fortified. Eleven strata date to the IA (XIII-III), but the

Figure 14a, b, c – Hazor Str. X, VIII, V (from Herzog 1997, Figs. 5.16, 5.20)


p. 22

major fortifications in IA II are as follows: Stratum X (mid-10 c; see Fig. 14a) includes a six-

chamber gate (ca. 18 x 20 m) and a casemate wall (ca. 5 m thick) that enclosed only the western

half of the upper city. These fortifications were ascribed to Solomon by Yadin, but their dating

is now contested (see Finkelstein 1999). In Str. VIII (9 c; see Fig 14b) the builders erected a

large citadel on the western end of the mound and filled in the earlier casemate wall to form a

solid wall ca. 4-6 m thick, which was expanded to encompass the entire upper mound. In Str. V

(8 c; see Fig. 14c), the builders added a solid inset-offset wall ca. 4-6 m thick on three sides of

the citadel in an effort to withstand the impending Assyrian attack. Obviously hey didn’t

succeed, as the Assyrians under Tiglath-pileser III destroyed the city. A layer of ash and rubble

1 m thick attests to the attack (Yadin 1993, 594-603).

Kinneret

The last of the northernmost three IA cities is Kinneret (Tell el-‘Orēme) on the northwest

corner of the Sea of Galilee. Remains at the site reflect habitation from the EB, MB II and IA II

periods, when the city would have dominated the nearby Ginnosar Plain and the international

highway that passed by. The name of the Sea of Galilee in Hebrew comes from this city, a

reflection of the site’s importance.

Excavations at the site show that the first major IA inhabitation was during the late IA I

(late 11c, Str. V, IV12

), when a massive wall of 5 – 12.3 m13

thick encircled an area of about four

ha. (10 a.). The wall had a glacis, an inner revetment (Zangenberg 2005:188), and a mud-brick

12

Dates for strata from Kinneret Regional Project: Stratigraphy, cited 6 Oct 2006. 13

Fritz 1993 (p. 300) and 1999 (p. 98) give the maximum width as 11 m, but Münger 1999 (p. 18) gives 12 m and

Münger personal communication (2006) with the author of this article gives 12.3 m.


p. 23

superstructure. The city was destroyed late 10-early 9 c14

, and rebuilt at the end of the 9-early 8

c (Str. II) on a smaller scale. The wall, now 2.5 - 4 m thick encircled just 0.8 ha. (2 a.) on the

upper part of the site (see Fig. 15). Four large towers, each ca. 400 m2, guarded the northwestern

and northwestern sides, and a two-chamber gate (ca. 14 x 8 m; see Fig. 15) was located on the

east.

Figure 15 – Kinnereth Str. II (9-8 c) with towers, 2-chamber gate (from Herzog 1993, Fig. 5.25)

Excavators found gate’s chambers and passageway filled with two meters of burned mud-brick

and ash, reflecting the city’s destruction in the second half of the 8 c, apparently by Tiglath-

pileser III in 732 B.C.E. (Fritz 1993, 299-300; 1999, 98; Fritz & Münger 2002, 8).

Jokneam

This survey now moves further south to the Jezreel Valley, beginning with Jokneam,

which guarded the westernmost of the three passes through the Carmel Range. The site has 27

14

Fritz (1999, 94) suggests that inhabitants of the city of Str. V-IV were Canaanite, but does not offer a suggestion

as to who may have destroyed it. Given the date of the destruction (late 10-early 9 c), David may have conquered

the city during his expansion.


p. 24

occupational levels, spanning nearly 4,000 years. Jokneam was settled but unfortified in IAI, but

had a well developed fortification system in IA II. Str. XIV (10 c) was protected by a large

casemate wall, replaced in Str. XII (end 10/early 9 c) by a double city wall. The outer was ca. 2

m thick, and the inner ca. 1.5 m thick. A space of ca. 1.5 m in between the walls served as a

passageway (Ben-Tor 1993, 805-8).

Taanach

Toward the southeastern end of the Jezreel Valley along the Carmel Range, one finds the

site of Taanach which did not guard a pass through the Carmel, but did serve as an Israelite

administrative and religious center by the 10 c B.C.E. The fortifications of Str. II (13-9 c)

include an east fortress, plus some fortifications on the west dating to the 12 c, but a clear picture

of the site’s defenses is lacking (Glock 1993, 1428-32).

Megiddo

The third site from the Jezreel Valley, Megiddo, covers an area of about six ha. (15 a.).

The city dominated the central pass through the Carmel Range and thus the major international

highway (Via Maris) that passes the site as it enters the Jezreel Valley. Megiddo was a major

fortified city as far back as the EB period (Aharoni 1993, 1003-9), and during the IA served as

one of Solomon’s administrative centers (1 Kgs 4:12) which he fortified (1 Kgs 9:15) along with

Hazor and Gezer.

Megiddo contains the most IA remains of the cities in the Jezreel Valley, but their dating

is contested. Yadin originally laid out the stratigraphy of Megiddo (see summary in Stern 1990,


p. 25

13-14), but his work has been modified by a number of others.15

Herzog summarizes the IA

remains as follows: Str. VA (see Fig. 16) had no city wall, but a ring of residences protected the

mound, along with a simple gate on the north and a fortress on the south (Herzog 1997, 212).

Figure 16 – Megiddo Str. VA (10 c) with gate, ring of houses, fortress (from Herzog 1993, Fig.

5.15)

15

For example, Ussishkin and Finkelstein propose redating Str. VA-IVB and IVA to a century later than Yadin,

pushing the six-chamber gate and offset-inset wall to the 9th

c (Finkelstein 2000, 140-53; personal communication

2006).


p. 26

Str. IVB (? – 8 c; see Fig. 17) had a gate complex and solid inset-offset walls. The gate

complex started with a two-chamber outer gate, then made a turn to the left, passing through a

six-chamber gate (ca. 20 x 18 m) with solid towers at the front. The attached city wall was 3.6 m

thick, made of a stone foundation and mud-brick superstructure. The 6 m long sections were

offset by .5 - .6 m (Herzog 1997, 226-29). Str. IVA (8 c) continued with the same fortifications

as IVB, except that the gate was rebuilt as a four-chamber gate (25 x 16 m) also connected to the

offset-inset wall (Herzog 1997, 229).


p. 27

Figure 17 – Megiddo Str. IVB (?-8 c) with double gate including 6-chamber gate, offset-inset

wall (from Herzog 1993, Fig. 5.21, labeled as IVA)

Beth Shean

The last two sites surveyed in this paper are located at the eastern end of the Beth Shean

Valley where E-W and N-S routes intersect (see Fig. 12). Only the second site has meaningful

IA II fortifications. The major site of Beth Shean is mentioned in the Bible as a city not

conquered by the Israelites (Josh 17:11; Judg 1:27), as the place where the Philistines hung the

body of Saul (1 Sam 31:10), and as an administrative center under Solomon (1 Kgs 4:12). The

city had three main IA strata, the last of which was apparently destroyed by Tiglath-pileser III

and the Assyrians in the 8 c B.C.E. (A. Mazar 1993, 214-22). The most recent excavations

suggest that the town was not fortified during the IA (A. Mazar 2006, 36).

Rehov

The more important IA II site in the Beth Shean Valley is Rehov, the largest mound in

the valley and the dominant city during the IA. Rehov is located ca. 7 km (4 mi) south of Beth

Shean. Rehov does not appear in the Bible, but the mound was occupied from the EB through

the IA II periods (Vitto 1993, 1272). Rehov Str. VI-V date to the 10 c and Str. IV to the 9 c,

when the city covered the entire 10.2 ha. (26 a.) mound. During Str. III (9-8 c) the city shrank to

half its former size and occupied just the upper mound (A. Mazar n.d., Intro, History, Iron IIA,

Iron IIB).

Surprisingly, the IA fortifications and other buildings exhibit only mud-brick

construction without stone foundations. Wood sometimes appears in the foundations of both

walls and floors, perhaps to provide stability in the event of an earthquake. The cities of Str. VI-


p. 28

V were apparently unfortified (A. Mazar 2000, 43). In Str. IV a tower and a double wall,

possibly a casemate (walls 1.35 & 1.2 m thick), appear, parallel to the slope of the mound. So

far such defensive elements have been found only on the upper mound. In Str. III, a massive but

poorly built 9.5 m thick mud-brick wall appears, apparently constructed hurriedly to withstand

the Assyrian invasion that came in 732 B.C.E. (A. Mazar n.d., Iron Age IIA, IIB; 1999, III. The

Upper Mound, Stratum B-3). As with the other sites surveyed, the fortifications at Rehov failed

to stop the Assyrian attackers. Graphic evidence of this destruction came to light at Rehov in the

form of two human skeletons. One was decapitated; the other, a woman, was thrown into the

corner of a room where she died (A. Mazar 1999, n.p.; 2000, 47).

The IA II fortifications in northern Israel surveyed may be summarized as follows:

Site Date Wall Type Wall Thickness Gate

Dan III Mid 9 c Solid stone/brick 4 m Outer + 4-

chamber

III 8 c Same Same 4-chamber

Hazor X Mid 10 c Casemate 5 m 6-chamber

VIII 9 c Solid, filled

casemate

5 m ?

V 8 c Solid, offset-inset 3 - 5 m ?

Kinnereth V, IV Late 11 c Solid 5 - 12.3 m ?

II 8 c Solid 2.5 - 4 m 2-chamber

Jokneam XIV 10 c Casemate 7 m ?

XII End 10 – early 9 c Double 2 m, 1.5 m ?

Taanach II 13-9 c ? ? ?

Megiddo VA 10 c Residences --- Simple

IVB ? – 8 c Offset-inset 3.6 m 6-chamber


p. 29

IVA 8c Same Same 4-chamber

Beth Shean IA None None None

Rehov IV 9 c Double 1.35 m, 1.2 m ?

III 9 – 8 c Offset-inset 9.5 m ?

Figure 18 – Comparison of fortifications in IA II northern Israel

CONCLUSION

Simply put, the IA II fortifications at Bethsaida have no contemporary peer in the region.

The IA defenses of known Geshurite sites pale in comparison. The defenses at other IA II sites

in northern Israel are often impressive, and some elements may exceed parts of the system at

Bethsaida (walls 9.5, 12.3 m thick at Rehov III and Kinnereth V, IV), but the overall defensive

systems known from these other sites do not match the IA II system at Bethsaida in size,

materials and complexity. Perhaps more remains will come to light at some of these sites (i.e.

Rehov), or other sites in the region may yet yield equally impressive remains. To date however,

the known defensive systems in IA II Geshur and northern Israel do not match those at

Bethsaida. Sadly, none of the defenses, event at Bethsaida, were able to withstand the Assyrian

attack in 732 B.C.E., and the fortifications were all destroyed.


p. 30

LITERATURE CITED

Aharoni, Yohanan. 1993. “Megiddo.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations

in the Holy Land. Ephraim Stern et al., eds. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Arav, Rami. 1995. Bethsaida Excavations: Preliminary Report, 1987-1993. In Bethsaida: A City

by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee, vol. 1. Rami Arav & Richard A. Freund, eds.

Kirksville, Mo.: Truman State Univ. Press.

________. 1999. Bethsaida Excavations: Preliminary Report, 1994-1996. In Bethsaida: A City

by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee, vol. 2. Rami Arav & Richard A. Freund, eds.

Kirksville, Mo.: Truman State Univ. Press.

________. 2004. Toward a Comprehensive History of Geshur. In Bethsaida: A City by the North

Shore of the Sea of Galilee, vol. 3. Rami Arav & Richard A. Freund, eds. Kirksville, Mo.:

Truman State Univ. Press.

________. 2005. Bethsaida Excavations Project: The Season of 2005, Field Report. Cited 24

October 2006. Online: http://www.unomaha.edu/bethsaida/reports/

bethsaida_report_2005_rev.doc

________. n.d. Stratum 5: The City Gate. For Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of

Galilee, vol. 4. Forthcoming.

Ben-Tor, Amnon. 1993. “Jokneam.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in

the Holy Land. Ephraim Stern et al., eds. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Biran, Avraham. 1993. “Dan.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the

Holy Land. Ephraim Stern et al., eds. New York: Simon & Schuster.

________. 1994. Biblical Dan. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College.

Finkelstein, Israel. 1999. “Hazor and the North in the Iron Age: A Low Chronology

Perspective.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 314: 55-70.

________, David Ussishkin & Baruch Halpern, eds. 2000. Megiddo III: The 1992-1996 Seasons.

2 vol. Monograph Series 18. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology.

Fritz, Volkmar. 1990. Kinneret: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf dem Tell el-‘Orēme am See

Gennesaret 1982-1985. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

________.1993. “Chinnereth, Tel.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in

the Holy Land. Ephraim Stern et al., eds. New York: Simon & Schuster.

http://www.unomaha.edu/bethsaida/


p. 31

________. 1999. “Excavations at Tell el-Oreimeh (Tel Kinrot): Preliminary Report on the 1994-

1997 Seasons.” Tel Aviv 26 (1): 92-115.

________ & Stefan Münger. 2002. “Vorbericht über die zweite Phase der Ausgrabungen in

Kinneret (Tell el-‘Orēme) am See Gennesaret, 1994-1999.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen

Palästina-Vereins 118: 2-32.

Glock, Albert. 1993. “Taanach.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the


Herzog, Ze’ev. 1976. The City-Gate in Eretz-Israel and its Neighboring Countries. Tel Aviv:

Institute of Archaeology

________. 1992. Fortifications (Levant). In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel

Freedman, et al. New York: Doubleday.

________. 1997. Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and Its Social

Implications. Monograph Series 13. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology.

Isserlin, B. S. J. 1998. The Israelites. London: Thames and Hudson.

Kinneret Regional Project. “Kinneret Regional Project: Stratigraphy.” No pages. Cited 6 Oct

2006. Online: http://www.kinneret-excavations.org/site1.html.

Kochavi, Moshe. 1989. “The Land of Geshur Project: Regional Archaeology of the Southern

Golan (1987-1988 Seasons).” Israel Exploration Journal 39, no. 1-2: 1-17.

________. 1991. “The Land of Geshur Project, 1989-1990.” Israel Exploration Journal 41, no.

1-3: 180-84.

________. 1993a. “‘En Gev: Recent Excavations.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological

Excavations in the Holy Land. Ephraim Stern et al., eds. New York: Simon & Schuster.

________. 1993b. “Hadar, Tel.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the


________. 1993c. “Soreg, Tel.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the


Loud, Gordon. 1948. Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935-39. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago.

Ma‘oz, Zvi. 1992. Geshur. In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, et

al. New York: Doubleday.


p. 32

Mazar, Amihai. 1990. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 B.C.E. Anchor Bible

Reference Library. New York: Doubleday.

________. 1993. “Beth-Shean.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the


________. 1999. “The 1997-1998 Excavations at Tel Rehov: Preliminary Report.” Israel

Exploration Journal 49:1-42. Cited 20 Oct 2006. Online: http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/

publications/index1.htm.

________. 2000. “Will Tel Rehov Save the United Monarchy?” Biblical Archaeology Review

Mar/Apr: 38-51, 75

________. 2005. “The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant.”

Pp. 15-30 in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science. T.E.

Levy and T. Higham, eds. London: Equinox.

________. 2006. Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989-1996. Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Institute of

Archaeology, Hebrew University.

________. n.d. “Tel Rehov.” After article submitted to the Encyclopedia of Archaeological

Excavations in the Holy Land, Supplementary Volume, E. Stern, ed. No pages. Cited 20

Oct 2006. Online: http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/Results.htm.

Mazar, Benjamin, et al. 1964. “‘Ein Gev: Excavations in 1961.” Israel Exploration Journal 14,

no. 1-2: 1-49.

________. 1993. “‘En Gev: Excavations on the Mound.” In The New Encyclopedia of

Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Ephraim Stern et al., eds. New York:

Simon & Schuster.

Münger, Stefan. “Kinneret (Tell el-‘Orēme/Tel Kinrot) 1999.” Rundbrief der Schweizerischen

Gesellschaft für orientalische Altertumswissenschaft 45:17-19.

Shiloh, Yigal. 1993. “Megiddo: The Iron Age.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological

Excavations in the Holy Land. Ephraim Stern et al., eds. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Stambaugh, John E. 1992. Cities. In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel

Freedman, et al. New York: Doubleday.

Stern, Ephraim. 1990. “Hazor, Dor and Megiddo in the time of Ahab and under Assyrian Rule.”

Israel Exploration Journal 40: 12-30.

Vitto, Fanny. 1993. “Rehob.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the


http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/

http://www.rehov.org/Iron%20Age%20Chronology%20Debate.pdf




p. 33

Yadin, Y. 1963. The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Studies. 2

vols. Trans. M. Pearlman, from Hebrew. New York: McGraw-Hill.

________. 1993. “Hazor.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy

Land. Ephraim Stern et al., eds. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Zangenberg, Jürgen, Stefan Münger, and Juha Pakkala. 2005. “Excavations on the Sea of Galilee

– The 2004 Season of the German-Finnish-Swiss Expedition to Tel Kinrot.” Jahrbuch des

DEIAHL/Annual of the GPIA 9/10: 187-191.

Bethsaida and Other Fortified Cities in Northern Israel during Iron Age II (Batchelder Biblical...

Documents

Transcript of Bethsaida and Other Fortified Cities in Northern Israel during Iron Age II (Batchelder Biblical...