We finished the 3rd week of excavations now, and are about to start the 4th and final week. The 3rd week was absolutely astounding, with some phenomenal results from different areas and periods.
Several noteworthy finds can be mentioned:
In Area D, in the lower city, Joe, Amit and their team uncovered a “motherload” of finds from the 9th century BCE destruction level (which we relate to Hazael of Aram). In one square, they uncovered around 30 vessels, most completely restorable, and in fact, some absolutely complete. They also uncovered a set of loomweights in situ, and several grounding stones, installations, and metal implemenets. The finds were literarly “popping out of the ground”, so much so that we had to work till 8 pm on Thursday to remove all the finds. Needless to say, we slept very well this weekend.
In Area A, we had a VERY important find. In the sub-area being excavated by Louise Hitchcock and her team, we may have uncovered what may be the MOST IMPORTANT FIND OF THE SEASON!!! Right under the well-preserved and well-dated late 9th century BCE destruction level, Louise and her team uncovered a small portion of an earlier Iron Age IIA level (which we had already partially uncovered in previous seasons). This level, which is about 30-40 cm below the 9th century level, and is above earlier levels containing late Iron Age I pottery, contained a nice selection of early Iron Age IIA pottery (red slipped, hand burnished). What was particularly important that in this level we found a round, Philistine hearth, along with several well defined clusters of grape pips. In addition, we found a clay sealing with an impression that is dated by Stefan Muenger (in an article in the journal “Tel Aviv” 2003) to the mid 10th century BCE. To make things short, the finds from this level, along with potential 14C dates that we should get from it, may provide solid data for dating an earlier phase in the Iron Age IIA!! As is well-known, the fierce debate that has been going on about the chronology of the Iron Age and of the 10th/9th century in particular, in fact started regarding the chronology of Iron Age Philistia. This new find may provide some secure and well-controlled data for this debate!! As soon as we have the 14C dates from this level, this will be of much importance!!! As of now, one cannot say whether it will support the “conventional” (e.g., Mazar) or the “lower” (e.g. Finkelstein) chronology – we will have to wait!!
In Area P, Rona and her team continued to expose the large early Iron Age I building with remains of a very interesting granary/food storage room, with well-dated pottery, botanical finds, and other things.
In Area F, one of the big surprises was what appears to be a very nice EB level below the MB fortifications. Also, very nice remains of the two 8th cent. BCE levels were exposed, right above the 9th century destruction level.
Here are some pictures from the excavations:
This is a picture of some of the 9th cent. finds from Area D in the 2nd week.
Here is a view of the “phytolith room” in Area F – apparently remains of an Iron Age I food storage room.
This is a nice piece of a Myc IIIC bell-shaped bowl from Area F from one of the very early Iron Age I levels, nice evidence of the initial stage of the Philistine settlement at Gath in the very early Iron Age, after the destruction of Canaanite Gath at the end of the LB.
All told, we had a great week, and hopefully, as usual, the most interesting finds will pop up in the last week.
Aren
11 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 27, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Avi Woolf
So how long will it take for the 14C results to come in?
July 27, 2008 at 2:53 pm
arenmaeir
Avi,
About a half a year or so.
Aren
July 27, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Avi Woolf
I can’t wait…
July 29, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Louise Hitchcock
Finding the 10th c was a team effort and we couldn’t have done it without our Queen of Hearths, Linda!
Louise
July 30, 2008 at 5:59 am
G.M. Grena
Congratulations on your discoveries! Thanks for sharing your progress with us! For those of us who don’t have ready-access to back-issues of TA (I purchased some earlier this year, but they were apparently lost in transit … twice), can you give a 1-sentence description of Muenger’s impression? Is it iconic/aniconic? Script? Known in many other specimens, or is this only the 2nd? Etc. I’m also curious how the other specimen was dated to the 10th century. Can you put that into a single sentence?
August 1, 2008 at 12:42 pm
arenmaeir
These seasls and impressions have been dated to the reigns of Siamun and Sheshonq I and most date their appearance in the Land of Israel to the mid-10th century BCE.
They are iconic but anepigraphic.
Aren
August 14, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Some of the “goings on” in Area A « The Tell es-Safi/Gath Excavations Official (and Unofficial) Weblog
[...] of the “goings on” in Area A As mentioned in previous posts, Louise Hitchcock and her team in Area A2, came up with some very interesting finds. Among others, [...]
August 19, 2008 at 7:47 pm
turkey
thanks docs perfect you
These seasls and impressions have been dated to the reigns of Siamun and Sheshonq I and most date their appearance in the Land of Israel to the mid-10th century BCE.
They are iconic but anepigraphic.
September 2, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Johnny C Godowski
As of now, one cannot say whether it will support the “conventional” (e.g., Mazar) or the “lower” (e.g. Finkelstein) chronology – we will have to wait!!
At Immanuel Velikovsky’s request, items from the tomb of Tutankhamon were carbon dated –
Velikovsky’s work in chronology led him to deduce that the age of king Tut would be in the mid eighth, not twelfth. Fred Mainwaring of Univ of Pennsylvania did the tests, which confirmed Velikovsky’s dating. British museum refused to publish – calling the results “contaminated”
no other tests have ever been done to settle the matter – so if your results appear “contaminated” – get the data anyway – and check it against Velikovsky’s chronology.
So many people made a furor about Worlds in Collision that they never even became aware of his chronological work. Isaac Newton had begun a chronology revision that in many ways paralleled Velikovsky’s – and now many scholars are calling for a similar revision – a downdating that would eliminate the dark ages of greece, which are an artifact of errant chronology and not a physical phenomenon.
These tests have bearing on the chronology, and should not be rejected as contaminated if the results appear some four to six hundred years younger than either of the modern scholars chronologies would expect.
Unless there is awareness of this issue, yet another crucial test for the actual chronology of the ancient near east will be rejected out of hand without knowlege.
The greek dark ages are a scholarly error, not a physical phenomenon. Publish the results of the physical C14 tests. “contaminated” or not.
September 3, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Johnny C Godowski
a small correction: my “mid eighth, not twelfth” should have read “mid ninth, not fourteenth”.
Also there is the question, what is the specific basis for dating these seals and impressions to the reigns of Siamun and Sheshonq I?
if the only basis is the chronolgy itself, then it is suspect, as is the chronology.
for those who would want to know more about these views and why the C14 tests are indeed so relevant to the chronology question – some interesting links
Interesting links:
http://www.centuries.co.uk/quotes.htm
http://www.centuries.co.uk/faq.htm#q7
http://www.centuries.co.uk/finkelstein-review.pdf
there are indeed divergent views – as scholars we should be aware of all of them
when even scholars disagree – especially then, we do tests – that’s what tests are for.
It’s important not to dismiss the test results out of hand for lack of knowlege of these reductionist views of the ancient chronology.
If indeed the dark ages of greece are a scholarly error and not a physical phenomenon, the tests will show that, as they did in 1969 [Mainwaring]
When that happens, let’s not make the same mistake twice – it has been forty years since the results of the first test were rejected out of hand – forty years of wandering in the wilderness lost without a correct chronology – that is the price we’ve paid for not paying attention to the initial tests.
As for me – I would prefer not to waste the next forty years of my life with the wrong chronology- It’s been forty years since the last test – this time -it’s time to get it right.
- Show quoted text -
September 4, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Johnny C Godowski
point of clarification of the above – brief as possible – of course c14 will verify the age of the layers excavated onsite in Israel; but to confirm the Egyptian reigns touted as corresponding, we must ALSO perform C14 tests on the Egyptian, and have these match. Otherwise we merely have a chronological assertion, not a test of the chronology itself.