Radiocarbon, Gezer, and Egypt

The challenges of radiocarbon dating a multi-period tel such as Gezer are many. The Tandy expedition employed various methods to overcome problems by adhering to certain collection strategies and stratigraphic affiliations of the samples. Additionally, in order to overcome possible bias in the results, the Tandy expedition used a Bayesian model based only on the stratigraphic sequencing with no “historical or typological constraints.” The Egyptian historical record was considered when interpreting the results—and this will be the topic of my short entry. But before I delve into the Egyptian records, I must address the typological record, or the lack of it. The Late Bronze Age and the early Iron Age consist of subphases that have been proven to be of some importance for the historical reconstruction. It is therefore crucial to understand the relative chronology of the three Gezer strata that constitute the Iron I (10B, 10A, and 9) and the three strata that constitute the Iron IIA (8B, 8A, and 7). The lack of a detailed ceramic typology for these strata hinders the ability to correlate them with other sites and reduces the compatibility between these and historical events.The synchronization between Egyptian and Levantine chronologies is not as straightforward as one would wish. The reliance on recorded sightings of ancient astronomical events has produced two parallel Egyptian chronologies, known as high and low. These tend to differ particularly at the end of the New Kingdom era—the period that is relevant to the transition from the Bronze to the Iron Age in the Levant (Shortland 2013). The Tandy expedition relies on published radiocarbon models dating Egyptian accession dates, but one should recognize that these too are based on historical constraints (Bronk Ramsey 2013), which in turn affect the interpretation of the Gezer model.From the perspective of Egyptian history, the destruction of the elite residency of Gezer Stratum 12B could certainly have some relation to the campaign of Merenptah mentioned in the so-called Israel Stela, but some reservations should be kept in mind. The first concerns the question of ascribing destruction layers to Egyptian campaigns, when this policy is questionable. Egyptian campaign strategies were intended to extract continual profit and revenue from the Levantine city-states. Destroying the governmental infrastructure might result in the opposite effect. The second regards the specific mention of two other cities on the stela: Yeno’am and Ashkelon. The identification of the first remains unsure, but Ashkelon shows no sign of destruction in the seemingly parallel LB II Phase 21 in Grid 38. This phase was radiocarbon-dated to the early twelfth century BCE, although admittedly the samples were not ideal (Asscher et al. 2021: 79). The evidence from Ashkelon exemplifies the problematic assumption that Egyptian campaigns equal destruction layers. Alternatively, and if indeed the destruction is limited to the elite building, one could assume that it was not Merenptah but rather local rebels who attacked the presumably Egyptian-related elite in an attempt to rebel against Egyptian rule, causing the Merenptah campaign to the region.The next LB III stratum, Stratum 11, includes Philistine 2 pottery and is carbon-dated to 1183–1136 BCE, somewhat predating the conventional date for the appearance of this pottery type. Traditionally, the appearance of Philistine 1 pottery is dated to the time of Ramesses III, ca. 1170 BCE, and treated as the material evidence for the settlement of the Sea Peoples in southwestern Canaan (Phase 20 in Grid 38 at Ashkelon; Master, Stager, and Yasur-Landau 2011). Elsewhere, I have suggested that such a connection between Philistine 1 pottery and the Egyptian records on the Sea Peoples (Medinet Habu reliefs and inscriptions and the Papyrus Harris) is based on a misconception, namely the assumption that Papyrus Harris documents the settlement of Sea Peoples in Egyptian forts in Canaan, when in fact it states clearly that the Sea Peoples captives were brought to Egypt itself (Ben-Dor Evian 2017). The present appearance of Philistine 2 pottery in early twelfth-century BCE Gezer seems to further untangle the knot that ties Philistine 1 pottery with the reign of Ramesses III and his encounters with the Sea Peoples. Moreover, the radiocarbon evidence from Gezer suggests that Philistine 2 pottery appeared immediately after the destruction of the previous Stratum 12, therefore leaving no possible gap for the appearance of Philistine 1 pottery. This has far-reaching implications for the entire Philistine sphere beyond the scope of the present entry.Stratum 11 appears to have continued to evolve without interruption for about one hundred years ending with the destruction of Stratum 10A, sometime during the eleventh century BCE. It is unlikely that this destruction is related to Siamun, or to any other ruler of the Egyptian Twenty-First Dynasty, not merely because the dates do not overlap, as stated by the Tandy expedition, but also because there is no historical evidence to support Egyptian campaigns at this time. The scant records from Egypt that can shed some light on the eleventh century BCE in the Levant, namely the report of Wenamun, make no mention of military control in western Asia, and the so-called Siamun campaign is in fact based on a vague biblical passage and on the supposed contemporaneity of Solomon and Siamun (Ben-Dor Evian 2018: 5). The claim, by some scholars, that Siamun launched a campaign against Philistia is based on a fragment of a relief showing the king smiting an enemy of unknown identity (Green 1978; Kitchen 2003: 109; for the relief, see Montet 1947: pl. IX:A). One should not equate images of the pharaoh smiting his enemies with actual campaigns, as these images are icons of the Pharaoh’s legitimacy of rulership and do not represent specific events (Hall 1986).The destruction of Stratum 10A marked the end of the Late Bronze Age and was followed by a new cultural phase in the history of Gezer. Apparently, the Iron I was represented only in Stratum 9 as an “intermediary phase with domestic unit,” although elsewhere this stratum was referred to as an Iron IIA level (Ortiz and Wolff 2021: 226). This was followed by the (late?) Iron IIA Stratum 8B with a large administrative building and a new casemate wall. Radiocarbon data place the construction of this town in the first part of the tenth century BCE, although the excavators state that this is based on only “a few reliable direct dates from Stratum 8.” This date is indeed quite early for this phase, as noted by the excavators, since similar developments in Lachish IV and Beth Shemesh 3 are generally ascribed to the late Iron IIA and dated to the late tenth and ninth century BCE.The violent end of Stratum 8 in the mid-tenth century BCE, which the excavators of Gezer suggest was brought on by Pharaoh Sheshonq’s campaign, is again the subject of a questionable equation between Egyptian campaigns and destruction layers. The radiocarbon dates for the destruction of Stratum 8 are 969–940 BCE (1σ) or 991–930 BCE (2σ). Unfortunately, there are no good radiocarbon dates for the reign of Sheshonq. Thomas Schneider has proposed an early accession date, at 962 BCE (Schneider 2010), but an analysis by Gerard Broekman suggested an accession range between 945 to 925 BCE, emphasizing that these dates fall well within the general radiocarbon evidence for Egyptian chronology (Broekman 2011: 58, 76). Yet, radiocarbon evidence for the reign of the early Twenty-Second Dynasty is still lacking, as the sampled materials predate it. The latest samples are ascribed to the reign of Amenemope in the middle of the Twenty-First Dynasty, at the very beginning of the tenth century BCE (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2010). Amenemope was followed by three kings of questionable reign lengths before the foundation of the new Twenty-Second Dynasty by Sheshonq I (Schneider 2010: 374, table 1).1 Thus, current radiocarbon evidence can neither support nor reject the suggested dates for Sheshonq’s accession (Ben-Dor Evian and Finkelstein 2023: 104). The date of the campaign is also unknown and could have occurred anywhere within the 21 known regnal years of Sheshonq, although I favor a date in the first decade of his reign (Ben-Dor Evian 2011; and see already Dodson 2000: 9). Notably, the traditional date of the campaign at 926 BCE (based on the synchronization with the biblical text) falls just outside the radiocarbon dates for the destruction of Stratum 8.On a wider scale, the identification of the “Sheshonq horizon” in the archaeological levels of the southern Levant is based on the mention of Arad in Sheshonq’s Karnak triumphal relief. The earliest Iron Age layer in Arad is Stratum XII, which is the only stratum that can be dated to the tenth century BCE, therefore identified with Sheshonq’s Arad (Mazar and Netzer 1986; Finkelstein 2002: 114; Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004: 229). Stratum XII yielded a limited ceramic assemblage, which nevertheless has provided a cluster of pottery forms that can be paralleled in the early Iron IIA strata throughout the Negev Highlands, the Beersheba Valley, and the Shephelah at sites such as: Lachish V, Masos II–I, Beersheba VII, Batash IV, Tel Harasim IVd, Tel Zafit IV (formerly V) (Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004; Ben-Dor Evian 2015).A substantial amount of radiometric dates retrieved from this phase in the Negev Highlands now dates it from the middle of the tenth century BC to the late tenth or early ninth century BCE, or even later (Boaretto, Finkelstein, and Shahack-Gross 2010; Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006: 32; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010: 381). The “Sheshonq horizon” in the south is therefore dated from the mid-tenth century BCE to the mid-ninth century BCE and is equivalent not only to Sheshonq’s reign but also to the reigns of his successors. Notably, none of these sites suffered a violent end; rather, they were abandoned. Therefore, the overall date and history of Stratum 8 differs considerably from the Sheshonq horizon.Finally, there is the question of the actual mention of Gezer in the Sheshonq record. Simply put, it is just not mentioned in the triumphal relief. Of course it might be among the eroded place-names, but to assume its destruction based on hypothesized text and undocumented destruction practices is perhaps premature at this stage.Based on the ceramic sequence presented elsewhere (Ortiz and Wolff 2021: 226), it seems that Stratum 9 should be equated with the early Iron IIA as part of the “Sheshonq horizon,” consisting of humble domestic units and developing without disruption into the more substantial late Iron IIA in Stratum 8.To conclude, substantial events that took place in Gezer throughout the Late Bronze and early Iron Age coincide with significant events in Egyptian history, attesting to the immense impact of Egypt over the southern Levant.