sign in sign up
<<
Home , 1 Kings 9, City gate, Ephraim Stern, Gezer, Tel Lachish

Hazor, Dor and Megiddo in the Time of Ahab and under Assyrian Rule Author(s): EPHRAIM STERN Source: Exploration Journal, Vol. 40, No. 1 (1990), pp. 12-30 Published by: Israel Exploration Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27926166 Accessed: 20-10-2017 06:56 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms

Israel Exploration Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Israel Exploration Journal

This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Hazor, Dor and Megiddo in the Time of Ahab and under Assyrian Rule*

EPHRAIM STERN Institute of Archaeology The Hebrew University of

INTRODUCTION

IN the early 1960s, shortly after the publication of his well-known article, 'Hazor, and Megiddo in 's Time',1 the late Y. Yadin advised me to undertake an examination of the and of Palestine as the subject of my master's thesis. After completing it, I published some of my conclusions on the gates,2 to which I now return after excavating two gates at Dor. In his article Yadin argued that since at Hazor, in the tenth century B.C.E. Stratum X, a six-chambered had been found, which was identical in its dimensions and plan to the gate found at Megiddo and was also similar to the gate unearthed by Macalister at Gezer, this was conclusive evidence that the three gates had been built by Solomon, in full agreement with the statement in :15. For some reason, no later Iron Age gates were discovered or excavated at Hazor. 'Solomon's Gate' was the only one unearthed there, even though other fortifications and public buildings were uncovered ? notably, the walls, fortress, storerooms and water system ? attributed to later kings. Yadin was thus forced to establish the sequence of the development of Iron Age gates mainly on the basis of changes in the plans of the gates at Megiddo. These evolved from a gate of six chambers to one of four chambers, and lastly to one of two chambers.3 The stratigraphy and chronology of the Solomonic Gate at Hazor are generally accepted, and the examination of the six-chambered gate at Gezer by the Hebrew Union College expedition under the direction of W. Dever4 seems to confirm the chronological basis of Yadin's hypothesis. (Only the date of Gezer's Outer Gate has

* A longer version of this article was originally published in Hebrew in 20 (1989), pp. 233-248. 1 In A. Maiamat (ed.): The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, Jerusalem, 1961, pp. 66-109 (Hebrew, English summary, p. xi); and cf. also idem, Hazor ? The Head of All Those Kingdoms (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1970), , 1972, pp. 147-164. 2 See E. Stern: The Fortified and the Struggle for It Under the Monarchy, in J. Liver (ed.): The Military History of the in Biblical Times, Jerusalem, 1964, pp. 400-409 (Hebrew). 3 See Y. Yadin: Megiddo of the Kings of Israel, A 33 (1970), pp. 73-79; idem, Megiddo, Notes and News, IEJ 16 (1966), pp. 278-280; ibid. 17 (1967), pp. 119-121; ibid. 22 (1972), pp. 161-164. 4 Cf. also Y. Yadin: Solomon's City Wall and Gate at Gezer, IEJ 8 (1958), pp. 80-86; W.G. Dever: Further Excavations at Gezer, BA 34 (1971), pp. 112-120, Fig. 8.

This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms HAZOR, DOR AND MEGIDDO 13 been called into question.)5 Megiddo thus remains the only site which is a constant object of dispute as to its building phases in the period of the Monarchy. Unlike Hazor and Gezer, at Megiddo it was impossible to carry out new excavations in the area of the gates. Yadin, who was fully aware of the fact that the most effective way to re-examine the results of an old excavation is to conduct new excavations, did what was possible under the circumstances. Instead of re-interpreting the results of the original excavators, as others had done before him, he performed what he called a 'post-mortem' on the mound of Megiddo.6 Indeed, the conclusions of this excavation, which are well-known to all those interested in the subject, and to which he repeatedly turned in his writings,7 indicated that the Iron Age fortifications of Megiddo should be classified as follows: Stratum VA-IVB = Six-chambered gate and wall (Solomonic period) Stratum IVA1 = Six-chambered gate and offset-inset wall (time of Jeroboam I) Stratum IV = Four-chambered gate and offset-inset wall (time of Ahab) Stratum III = Two-chambered gate and offset-inset wall (period of Assyrian rule) Strata II-I = Unfortified settlement with fortress (Babylonian Persian period) These conclusions were based on a careful and meticulous stratigraphie excavation whose results were substantiated by numerous finds. They were also later verified by Y. , who carried out a fresh examination of the plans, records and photographs prepared by the earlier excavators and kept in the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.8 Unfortunately, the proper and the walls associated with it could not be excavated anew by Yadin. The only evidence available for them was contained in the final excavation report and also in the field diaries, in which the American excavators had recorded various incidental remarks and other personal impressions. Several other archaeologists also stepped into this breach ? Z. Herzog and Y. Aharoni, for example9 ? who arrived at different conclusions, on the basis of the same evidence.

5 See . Herzog: The City Gate in Eret Israel and its Neighbouring Countries, , 1976, pp. 125-129 (Hebrew, English summary); A. Zertal: The Gates of Gezer, El 15 (1981), pp. 222-228 (Hebrew); I. Finkelstein: The Date of the Gezer Outer Wall, Tel Aviv 8 (1981), pp. 136-145. 6 Cf. Y. Yadin: Hazor ? The Rediscovery of a Great of the , New York, 1973. 7 Cf. above, nn. 3 and 6, and also Yadin (above, n. 1, 1972), pp. 147-164; idem (above, n. 6). 8 See Y. Shiloh: Solomon's Gate at Megiddo as Recorded by Its Excavator, R. Lamon, Chicago, 12 (1980), pp. 69-76. 9 See Herzog (above, n. 5), pp. 102-118; Y. Aharoni: The Archaeology of the Land of Israel, Philadelphia, 1982, pp. 200-211; idem, The Stratification of Israelite Megiddo, JNES 31 (1972), pp. 302-311.

This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 14 EPHRAIM STERN

They maintained that during the course of Stratum VA (which they dated to the time of David and not of Solomon), the fortifications of the city consisted of a series of interconnected buildings which were constructed along the periphery of the mound. Only in Stratum IVB was the six-chambered gate erected, which from the outset was attached to an offset-inset wall. Nevertheless, aside from the argument about the walls, there was general agreement that the six-chambered gate dated to the time of Solomon, the four-chambered gate (Stratum IVA) to the time of Ahab and that the two-chambered gate of Stratum III belonged to the period of Assyrian rule. A totally different interpretation was recently proposed by D. Ussishkin, based on nearly the same records and photographs. Ussishkin, in his explanation of the evidence, maintained that although it is true that Stratum VA-IVB dates from the time of Solomon, the fortifications of this stratum were created by the row of peripheral structures, whereas the six-chambered gate and the offset-inset wall associated with it date from the time of Ahab.10 Since it is possible, on the basis of the same facts and records, to arrive at

10 See D. Ussishkin: Was the 'Solomonic' City Gate at Megiddo Built by King Solomon? BASOR 239 (1981), pp. 1-18. Yadin had already demonstrated that the suggested date of Lachish's six-chambered gate was in question here, and he also answered him in a cogent article ? Y. Yadin A Rejoinder, ibid., pp. 19-23. I would not have broached this subject if Ussishkin had not resumed this controversy in his second excavation report of Lachish, which appeared after Yadin had published his rejoinder. See D. Ussishkin: Excavations at , 1978-1983: Second Preliminary Report, Tel Aviv 10 (1983), pp. 97-108. Ussishkin suggested there that the six-chambered gate at Lachish was constructed by Asa or in the ninth century B.C.E. (cf. his article in Qadmoniot 15 [1982], pp. 42-56 [Hebrew]), and as far as I can gather, he gives two reasons for this: 1. The archaeological evidence does not provide any clues as to the date and circumstances of the construction of the Level IV city'(7eMvzv, p. 171); 2.V. Fritz (following others) recently again assigned the list of Rehoboam's fortresses in Judah, among them Lachish, to the time of Josiah. See V. Fritz: The 'List of Rehoboam's Fortresses' in 2 Chr. 11:5-12 ? A Document from the Time of Josiah, El 15 (1981), pp. 46*-53*. Ussishkin therefore concludes that 'as long as the reliability of Rehoboam's list is debatable, the question of the founding date of the Level IV city must remain open...'. Regarding the first reason, i.e. the absence of internal evidence from Lachish, this is a problem of the excavator and the excavations, and we must await further evidence and the full publication, in accordance with the principle that lack of evidence is not in itself proof. As for the attribution to Josiah, N. Na'aman has recently suggested that this list be attributed to King ; see N. Na'aman: Hezekiah's Fortified Cities and the LMLK Stamps, BASOR 261 (1986), pp. 5-21; and other scholars, including the present author, tend to attribute the original list to the period of Rehoboam. I have no idea how an argument on the reliability and attribution of a biblical list should be resolved. Moreover, it is now becoming increasingly evident from archaeological studies that it is actually in Judah that finds are lacking for the ninth century B.C.E. It is possible that the main reason for this may be the fact that none of the cities in central Judah suffered destruction during Shishak's campaign and the buildings, fortifications and gates all continued to function from the end of the tenth to the end of the eighth centuries B.C.E. Since at each site we find the remains of the last phase of its existence, it is not surprising that in Judah the six-chambered gate continued to be a commonplace feature in later periods, down to the seventh century, as was recently revealed in the excavations at Tel Ira. See I. Beit-Arien: Ira ? A Royal City from the Times of the Judaean Kings, Qadmoniot 18 (1985), pp. 17-25 (Hebrew). See 'Postscript' at the end of this article.

This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms HAZOR, DOR AND MEGIDDO 15

such widely divergent conclusions (and I have included here only the most recent viewpoints), I think it is of importance that we examine two fundamental points before undertaking a re-evaluation of the chronology and development of Megiddo's gates in the Iron Age. 1. Despite the fact that the Megiddo excavations are among the most important ever carried out in Israel, the multiplicity of excavators, the timing of the excavation reports and even the form and method of publications make them one of the most problematic sources of information in the archaeology of Palestine. The errors resulting from this have had an enormous influence on innumerable areas of Palestinian archaeology over many years. This is also evident in the vast literature connected with the excavations, which far exceeds the original report and includes attempts to make corrections in each stratum and every detail in the report. Having personally carried out a painstaking examination of the remains of the upper two strata (II-I), I can attest to an almost total confusion of buildings, stratigraphy and chronology, which will be discussed below. Contradictions can even be found between the final report (in which- the consensus is undoubtedly a compromise between opposing viewpoints) and the field diaries. 2. The second point, which in my opinion is of far greater import, is the use of the principle of regional subdivision. This principle, which appears to be generally accepted by archaeologists and which for some time has even determined the manner in which excavations have been conducted, presupposes that differences ? sometimes even basic ones ? exist between the material cultures of the different regions of Palestine. This principle is now applied to numerous disciplines, and first and foremost, to pottery typology. Since Ruth Amiran in her classic study differentiated between northern and southern ceramic types, further subdivisions involving different regions and numerous regional groups of vessels have become commonplace for all periods.11 The same principle has also been applied to architecture. Some years ago the present writer, along with other archaeologists, noted examples of regional architecture whch dated from the Iron Age and the Persian period. It was maintained, for example, that 1) Israelite-Phoenician building continued to exist in Palestine throughout the period of the independent kingdoms, but after 733/732 B.C.E., when the north fell to the Assyrians, two architectural styles co-existed in the country. Assyrian architecture appeared in the north and Israelite-Phoenician architecture in the south, and continued down to the time of the Babylonian conquest.12 2) In addition, in the coastal region, which was occupied by the Phoenicians, the Israelite-Phoenician style continued in use until the third or even the second century

11 On this matter see for example Y. Portugali: A Field Methodology for Regional Archaeology (The Survey 1981), Tel Aviv 9 (1982), pp. 170-188. 12 See E. Stern: Palestine at the Close of the Period of the Monarchy: An Archaeological Survey, BA 38 (1975), pp. 26-54.

This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 16 EPHRAIM STERN

B.C.E.13 These are only two examples, but many more exist, from other periods as well. The significance of this principle for our subject is obvious. It is in direct opposition to the method I followed in my earliest study of the Iron Age fortifications. Instead of speaking of a general 'development', that is, a comprehensive network of changes in the whole system of Iron Age fortifications in Palestine, we must speak of a 'development' (i.e. foreign influences, the continuation of tradition and changes from one period to another) of the individual political units in this period. The individual history of each of these states ? Israel, Judah, , , Edom, Moab, Ammon ? in the latter part of the Iron Age is to a large extent unrelated. In each of these states, dissimilar elements were in force: there were different kings, officials, and architects, and each had his own specific needs, specialized workers and different financial resources. Although the architectural plans exhibit a large degree of uniformity and the use to which they were put may seem similar throughout these kingdoms and in the various periods, the continuity in each of these political units was determined by the stability of its own population. We cannot therefore justifiably compare the gates of the Judaean kingdom with those of Israel, but only the gates dating from the time of the United Monarchy. After the period of the United Monarchy, each of the kingdoms developed along separate lines. Even the periods of increased construction in the two kingdoms did not always coincide but were usually dependent on the ruler of the time. The first great builder of fortifications in Judah (according to the biblical sources) was Rehoboam, and in Israel it was apparently Ahab. There was a time gap between the two kings and each was influenced by a different tradition. If these two observations are accepted, then we must draw the following inevitable conclusions: 1) The detailed history and chronology of the Megiddo gates can be re-examined mainly through the study of the history of identical gates uncovered at other recently excavated sites. 2) From the time of the division of the kingdom onwards, these sites must be situated within the bounds of the Israelite kingdom ? and only there. 3) From the time of the Assyrian conquest onwards, the entire area under the direct rule of the Assyrians was subject to the same historical process, and it was again completely separate from the independent southern kingdoms.

EXCAVATIONS AT DOR

According to the biblical evidence, the period of the United Monarchy, especially the reign of Solomon, was a period of prosperity for Dor. The city became the capital

13 See E. Stern: Excavations at and the Late Phoenician Elements in the Architecture of Palestine, BASOR 225 (1977), pp. 17-27; and also I. Sharon: Phoenician and Greek Ashlar Construction Techniques at , Israel, BASOR 267 (1987), pp. 21-42.

This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms HAZOR, DOR AND MEGIDDO 17

of the fourth administrative district under the rule of the governor Ben-Abinadab, the king's son-in-law (1 Kings 4:11). This harbour city was undoubtedly one of the centres of maritime activity and its use was shared by Solomon and Hiram, king of Tyre. This period of prosperity was revealed in the excavations at Dor in several places where the remains attest to strong Phoenician influence. No tangible evidence of the fortifications of this city, however, has yet been uncovered, though in two areas on the eastern side of the mound a thick mud-brick wall was found at the base of the fortifications, which may possibly belong to this period (see below). Thus, in contrast to Hazor and Megiddo, we still have no evidence that can throw light on the fortifications of this century. At the same time, it should also be emphasized that no remains of a six-chambered gate have as yet been discovered here.

The four-chambered gate14 On the eastern side of the city the stone foundation of a four-chambered gate with two projecting towers was found. The foundation was uncovered in both sections of Area B: the northern part in Area Bl and the southern part in Area B2. It has been assigned to Phase 7 (until the excavation areas inside the city are enlarged and a final correlation between the phases in the various areas is established, we will avoid using the term 'stratum*). Although its outer line has been carefully examined along its entire length and width, several more seasons of intensive effort will be necessary in order to enable us to uncover the foundation in its entirety. The comparative table below presents its measurements and those of the gate at Megiddo.

Dimensions in Width of Thickness of Width of Front chambers Rear chambers metres passage* walls forward towers Fa?ade Depth Length Width Width Depth Width Depth

Dor 20.5 16.5 4.5 2.0 2.5 4.5 3.7 5.8 3.4 5.8 Megiddo 25.0 15.0 4.2 2.3 2.2 5.0 3.0 8.2 3.0 8.2

including spaces between piers

14 This discussion of the gates at Dor and their absolute and relative chronology reflects the conclusions of the writer following the completion of the ninth season of excavations (1988). It should be noted, however, that their excavation has not yet terminated, for, unlike the majority of the other Israelite and Judaean city gates (, Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer, Lachish, etc.), they lay buried beneath massive fortifications of the Hellenistic and Roman periods. One or more excavation seasons will be needed to clear these and expose the gates in their entirety. As noted above, another obstacle is our intention

This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 18 EPHRAIM STERN

The comparison shows that, despite the close resemblance in plan to Megiddo's (four-chambered) gate, the gate at Dor is smaller and at first glance differs mainly in the strength of its construction. The width of the outer walls, 2.5 m., is achieved here by means of only two huge boulders, each weighing more than a ton. Made of limestone, they were apparently quarried, hewn and brought from the nearby Carmel range (in contrast to the later building at Dor, which was built wholly of the local kurkar sandstone).15 The great stone foundation was built up and not laid in dug-out foundation trenches.16 The entire area was undoubtedly levelled and smoothed after the remains of the buildings of the underlying stratum had been razed down to their foundations and floors. The base of the foundation was then erected as a single unit. The top of the foundation walls was also levelled and smoothed and the interstices between the huge boulders were filled with smaller stones. The superstructure rising above the thick, level walls was composed of mud-brick walls. The roof, which covered the entire area of the gatehouse, was supported on either side by the three strong piers. The roof of the projecting towers probably extended above the roof of the gatehouse proper but, of course, no remains of these have survived. Between the chambers and the gate's passageway, partition walls were built on both sides and the width of the lower part of the walls is generally equal to the width of the piers; the upper part of the walls is narrower. These may have been built at the same time as the stone foundation. The partition walls only extended to the passageway's floor level, and were intended to contain the fill of the inner chamber and prevent it from spilling out. On completion of the great stone foundation, the area of the chambers, of the passageway and apparently also of the entrance on both sides (especially the outer one, on the slope of the mound) was filled with a homogeneous fill of grey ashes at the bottom and sand from the sea shore above it. One of the main problems of stone foundations of this type, which has puzzled archaeologists at other sites (especially Megiddo), is whether, during the period of its use, the foundation was wholly buried underground or whether it was partly exposed. We believe that this problem of stratigraphie significance can now be

of leaving these two superimposed gates standing in situ for visitors to view. Though the evidence at our disposal is not final, I expect no far-reaching changes. It should also be noted that the present discussion is based on our main findings and conclusions, without going into detailed stratigraphical data. These will be published separately in the near future, together with all the appendices, cross sections and stratigraphical and typological data which have been prepared by my colleagues, I. Sharon, J. Berg and Ayelet Gilboa. My thanks are due to J. Berg for drawing the plans presented here. The air photograph was taken by Z. Radovan and the others by L.R. Lanigan. " Cf. E. Stern: The Walls of Dor, IEJ 38 (1988), pp. 6-14. 16 For a detailed and exact description of the construction process of the foundation of a gate (Megiddo), which is also surprisingly similar to the one followed at Dor (the four-chambered gate), see Ussishkin (above, n. 10), pp. 10-12.

This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms HAZOR, DOR AND MEGIDDO 19 partially resolved. On one of the outer walls excavated ? the south-western wall of the south-western chamber (facing the interior of the city and the gate's inner square) ? we found a row of seven plain orthostats in situ (PL 2: A, B). They were well dressed and had smooth, undecorated faces. Judging from the level of the floor inside the gate, which dated from the time of its destruction by the Assyrians (PL 2:C) and on which lay charred wooden beams and potsherds (see below), most of the surface of the orthostats projected above the floor level of the gate's foundation. If, however, the floors were raised during the 150 years of the existence of the gate in the ninth-eighth centuries B.C.E. (see below), then it is very likely that at the time of the gate's construction, the orthostats were exposed to their full height. What would have been the sense of having them decorate the inside of the gate where they could not be seen? It seems most probable that the upper part of the foundation extended above surface level and any attempt to storm it or undermine it would necessitate boring a passage through its stones.17 We can, therefore, summarize the sections of the gate as follows (from the outside inwards): the outer gate (?), from which two walls enclosing a pebble-paved square of the outer gate extended to an inner gate. The inner gatehouse was composed of four chambers and two projecting, blocked-off forward towers. A paved passageway led to the inner gate square. Since we did not remove the later walls in front of the gate, we have no way of ascertaining the form of the stone sockets or whether they were preserved. It is clear, however, that near the inner sides of the two south-western piers (i.e. the ones facing the interior of the city) there were no stone sockets. We can conclude, therefore, that this gate, like all others of this type in Palestine (see below), had none. Moreover, like all the other Palestinian gates of this type, it had only two doors. Another feature that should be noted here, which also appears to belong to the four-chambered gate, is two large rectangular stone basins discovered in the middle of the eastern walls of the chambers of the two-chambered gate, on the same level. One was found in the south and the other in the north. Basins of this type have also been found in other gates and have been interpreted as receptacles which held water for travellers, both men and animals, approaching the gate.18 The stratigraphy and chronology of the gate were examined in the following probes: 1. A section dug beneath the area of the southern chambers; 2. A section dug in the gate's passageway; 3. A large area (Bl) to the north of the gate.

17 For the significance of these orthostats, see above. 18 Similar stone basins have also been found in gates at Gezer and Tell el-Far'ah (N). Cf. also Z. Herzog (above, n. 5), pp. 101-102, 126. The stone basin in the gate at Gezer is interpreted by the excavators as a water trough for beasts of burden. According to Herzog ? with whom we agree ? the basin could also have contained drinking water for passersby or perhaps for the civil personnel stationed there. At all events, these basins are common features.

This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 20 EPHRAIM STERN

In the first two sections, directly below the gate's stone foundation, were found clay and lime floors, some paved with shells, and narrow stone walls, resembling house walls. Of greater importance are the remains of buildings, some of them very large, that were cleared in Area Bl. These are part of a series of buildings ascribed to phases of settlement from the eleventh century B.C.E. onwards (numbered Phases 12-8 in this area). Here again it was clear that the gate, which was assigned to Phase 7 in this area, cut into the remains of Phase 8 of the tenth century B.C.E. or 'floated' above them. In any event it was later in date.19 The date of the destruction of the gate can be fixed on the basis of two criteria: the date of the two-chambered gate above it (see below); and fragments of pottery from the end of the eighth century B.C.E., which were strewn on the clay floor of the inner gate square. These were found together with charred wooden beams attesting to the gate's destruction in a fierce conflagration. Among the sherds were Greek Late Geometric pieces of the second half of the eighth century B.C.E. Summing up, we can conclude that the remains discovered so far indicate that the gate was built after the tenth century B.C.E. as part of a large and extensive construction project which included a wall (see below) and probably also a great many buildings inside the city. This building complex was used until the end of the eighth century B.C.E., when the gate and its entire surroundings were destroyed by fire. Turning now to the historical significance of this find, we have seen above that the four-chambered gate can be assigned to well into the ninth century B.C.E. It continued in use down to the end of the eighth century B.C.E., namely, to the period after the fall of the city in 918 B.C.E. to Shishak (who also conquered Megiddo and left a stele there),20 and ending with its destruction by the Assyrian army during the reign of Tiglath Pileser III in 733/732 B.C.E.21 The questions to be considered now concern who was responsible for the construction of this impressive , and what was its purpose. Taking into account the historical background, the answers are plain. In 881 B.C.E., after the division of the monarchy and a period of decline, Omri ruled Israel

19 As noted above (n. 14), these remains will be published in an appendix on the stratigraphy, prepared by I. Sharon and J. Berg, in a forthcoming comprehensive report on the gate. 20 See A. Rainey: Shishak, in Ens. Miqr. 7, cols. 651-661, and see additional bibliography there (Hebrew); and also R.S. Lamon and G.M. Shipton: Megiddo I, Chicago, 1939, p. 60, Fig. 70; B. Mazar: The Campaign of Pharaoh Shishak to Palestine, VT Supplement 4 (1957), pp. 57-66; K.A. Kitchen: The Third Intermediate Period in , Warminster, 1973, pp. 432-447. 21 Cf. A. Maiamat: The Wars of Israel and , in Liver (above n. 2), pp. 241-260 (Hebrew); H. Tadmor: The Assyrian Campaigns to Philistia, ibid., pp. 261-285 (Hebrew); I. Eph'al: Assyrian Dominion in Palestine, in A. Maiamat and I. Eph4al (eds.): The World History of the Jewish People, The Age of the Monarchies: Political History, Jerusalem, 1982, pp. 276-289 (see additional bibliography there).

This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms HAZOR, DOR AND MEGIDDO 21 for about 12 years. During the last six years of his reign, he moved his capital to and built a new city there. His son Ahab enjoyed a very long reign (22 years ? 871-852/1 B.C.E.), during which he continued and expanded his father's enterprises (for the purpose of our discussion, the end of Omri's reign and all of Ahab's, a total of 28 years, constitute a single period of time which cannot be subdivided from the archaeological standpoint). The biblical author, who displayed little affection for Ahab because of his marriage to Jezebel and his sanction of the cult of Ba'al (1 Kings 16:29-37), nevertheless recognized his worth and wrote of his merits: 'and all the cities that he built, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel'? (1 Kings 22:39). Even the Talmud commended him and his father for the cities they built in Israel.22 Some of the buildings he erected are mentioned in the Bible: the 'ivory house' in Samaria (1 Kings 22:39),23 his palace in Jezreel and the ' of Jezreel' (1 Kings 21:1, 23), etc. The archaeological picture revealed in the cities of the Israelite kingdom is even clearer and firmly supports Ahab's title of 'builder of cities'. We will mention here only the excavations at Samaria, where the king's luxurious palace was uncovered, together with storerooms, remains of the ivory house and sections of its wall. These are generally accepted today to be the work of Ahab.24 Yadin, in his excavations at Megiddo, ascribed all of Stratum IVA to Ahab, including the four-chambered gate, the offset-inset wall, the palaces, the two stable complexes and the water system. Even though Aharoni and Herzog disagreed with Yadin over details connected with these and other buildings and their significance, in principle there is general agreement that Stratum IVA, including the four-chambered gate, was indeed built by Ahab.25 Very impressive building projects excavated in other cities in the Israelite kingdom have also been attributed to Ahab. At Hazor these include the great fortifications, the offset-inset wall enclosing a much larger area, the fortress, the large storage building and the water system uncovered in Stratum VIII;26 at Tel Dan, the monumental gate and the central bamah21 It is also very likely that the four-chambered gate

22 See for example, BT Sanh?drin 102b: *R. Yofoanan said: Why did Omri win the kingship? Because he added one city to the Holy Land.' I am grateful to my friend, Prof. J. Elbaum, for pointing this out to me. 23 See Y. Yadin: The 'House of Ba'al' of Ahab and Jezebel in Samaria and that of Athalia in Judah, in P.R.S. Moorey and P.J. Parr (eds.): Archaeology in the Levant, Essays for Kathleen Kenyon, Warminster, 1978, pp. 127-135. 24 J.W. Crowfoot, Kathleen M. Kenyon and E.L. Sukenik: The Buildings of Samaria, London, 1942; see also N. Avigad: Samaria, EAEHL 4, pp. 1032-1049. 25 See Yadin (above, n. 3); Herzog (above, n. 9); Aharoni (above, n. 9). 26 See Yadin (above, n. 6). 27 The only information available on this gate is contained in the last preliminary excavation report ? A. Biran: Tell Dan Five Years Later, A 43 (1980), pp. 168-182: The possibility that the city gate and strong defenses of Dan were the result of Ahab's building activities was not excluded in our 1974 report... Five

This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 22 EPHRAIM STERN discovered at Beth-Shean,28 and perhaps also that at Gezer,29 were built by this king. Dor should now be added to this list. The excavation of additional cities in the Israelite kingdom (i.e. Jezreel) will without a doubt reveal other monumental construction projects initiated by Ahab. Even from the partial picture revealed thus far by the archaeological evidence, Ahab should be considered one of the greatest builders in Palestine prior to the time of Herod.

The two-chambered gate This gate was built for the most part above the four-chambered gate and in Area it was attributed to Phase 5.30 It has been almost completely excavated. years later, archaeological research shows that the four-room main gate, the outer gate, the city wall, the flagstone pavement and probably the tower of the upper gate are all the work of Ahab' (ibid., pp. 176-177, my italics). Elsewhere, in the same article, Biran also attributed Phase II of the bamah (the main phase) to Ahab. Now, ten years after the 'Five Years Later' report, in reply to a request for more details, Prof. Biran replied in a letter that this conclusion is not entirely accurate, but added no additional information. We shall have to await the publication of a more definitive report. 28 See A. Rowe: The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan, Philadelphia, 1940, pp. 1-2, Fig. 2; W.F. James: The Iron Age at Beth Shan, Philadelphia, 1966, p. 41. James attributed the gate to Stratum V (upper) and considered its date contemporary with Gate IV at Megiddo and Periods VI-IV at Samaria, i.e. not before the second half of the ninth century B.C.E. (ibid., p. 46); cf. also Herzog (above, n. 5), pp. 118-119 and Fig. 97. 29 In n. 4 above, we mentioned Yadin's articles on the six-chambered gate at Gezer, its excavation and that of the superimposed four- and two-chambered gates by W.G. Dever. We also noted (above, n. 5) various dissenting articles subsequently published on the date of the outer wall and outer gate at Gezer (e.g. those by Herzog, Zertal, Finkelstein), as a result of which Dever returned to the site in 1984 and re-excavated the area of the upper and lower gates. His results are presented in three articles ? W.G. Dever: Gezer Revisited: New Excavations of the Solomonic and Assyrian Period Defences, A 47 (1984), pp. 206-218; idem, Solomonic and Assyrian Period Palaces at Gezer, IEJ 35 (1985), pp. 217-230; idem, Late and Solomonic Defences at Gezer: New Evidence, BASOR 262 (1986), pp. 9-34. According to Dever, the six-chambered gate and the outer gate do indeed date from the tenth century B.C.E. (Solomonic period ? Stratum VIII). The four-chambered gate was built in the ninth century B.C.E. (Stratum VII) and the two-chambered gate is attributed to Stratum VI, i.e. the end of the ninth century B.C.E. This was destroyed by the Assyrians at the end of the eighth century B.C.E. This last date is astonishing for a city whose importance in the Assyrian period is now becoming increasingly evident (cf. for example R. Reich and B. Brandl: Gezer Under Assyrian Rule, PEQ 117 [1985], pp. 41-54). The presence of an Assyrian palace with unique stone sockets and the remains of an archive attests that the city served as a regional centre in this period and was without doubt fortified. In my opinion, the history of the fortifications and the date of the three gates at Gezer are identical in their development and dates with those of the other Israelite cities. In one respect, however, Gezer's fate differs from that of the other Israelite cities: it was held by Judaean kings and rulers during three separate periods, as is shown by the discovery of Imlk stamps from the time of Hezekiah, rosette stamps from the time of Josiah, and stamps from the Persian period (see Stern, above, n. 12). 30 Phase 6 in this area is confined to a short, broad wall, which seems to have separated the two gates. See E. Stern and I. Sharon: Tel Dor, 1986, IEJ 37 (1987), p. 207 and Fig. 2. This, however, was more likely some sort of supporting wall which may have held the layers of fill of the upper gate and did not represent a separate building phase.

This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms HAZOR, DOR AND MEGIDDO 23

The following comparative table presents the dimensions of the gates of Dor and Megiddo.

Dimensions Width of Thickness of walls Chambers passages Fa?ade Depth Length Width Width Depth

Dor 28.5 8.0 4.5 1.5 2.0 2.9 10.5 Megiddo 24.5 12.5 4.2 2.2 2.6 4.6 8.0

A large section of an outer square extending east of the gate was cleared in the excavations. It was completely paved with medium-sized flagstones. The square was bounded by side walls, only one section of which has been exposed so far, on the southern and eastern sides (see Fig. 1, PI. 3:A). This led to an outer complex beyond the excavated area. The two gate chambers, which measure 2x10.5 m., 'sit' on top of the three walls of the eastern projecting chambers of the preceding gate, which serve as their foundations (see Fig. 1). However, since the earlier gate chambers measure 3.4x5.8 m., the later chambers project further on the northern and southern sides. The foundation of this gate is also made of limestone blocks, but the stones are much smaller. The walls of the chambers are also much narrower (see table), so that the foundations of the earlier gate project on either side of it. The gate's two chambers were almost completely cleared, but only the southern part of the passageway between them was exposed. Its northern half, as well as the large stone-built drainage channel, remains buried beneath the Hellenistic and Roman gates, which as noted above will be preserved. Judging from the southern

This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 24 EPHRAIM STERN half, it is evident that the entire gatehouse floor was originally paved with beautiful, well-fitting ashlars. A clay floor (or floors) may have been added at a later period. A lane, made of solid, beaten sandstone mixed with stones, led from the inside of the gate to the interior of the city. Only a small section of this was excavated. In the inner corner of the southern doorpost a unique stone socket was found in situ. It consists of two parts: a lower rounded basalt bowl, worn smooth from use, and a crescent-shaped limestone coverstone (PL 3:B). The door hinge was originally held by the basalt socket, and the door itself revolved around a limestone panel which had made grooves in the coverstone. These grooves clearly show the direction of the gate. When wide open the door was held in place by a small stop in the southern doorpost. When shut, it was probably bolted to the opposite door by means of a horizontal bar. A vertical bar secured it to the floor: a deep, well-dressed recess intended to receive the end of the bar was found in the stone threshold in the middle of the gate (PL 3:B). The leaf of a second door also extended to the middle of the doorway, but this side has not yet been excavated. A ledge in the outer side of the threshold prevented the doors from swinging outwards. Since no socket was found in the gate's inner entrance, there was apparently only a single pair of double doors on the outside ? as was common in all the other gates in Palestine. The chronology of the two-chambered gate was fixed on the basis of the following criteria: 1) It was constructed on top of the four-chambered gate, which was destroyed by the Assyrians at the end of the eighth century B.C.E. (Phase 7). 2) The stone socket, and especially the coverstone, belong to a type which is found in Palestine only in Assyrian buildings,31 indicating that the gate was built during the Assyrian period. 3) On the floors of the gate and of the buildings associated with it inside the city, pottery was found dating from the middle of the fourth century B.C.E. 4) Remains of a fortification built in typical Phoenician style of limestone piers and rubble walls (Phase 4) were uncovered above the gate. This was part of a casemate-like fortification, or more probably was formed by peripheral structures whose walls were interconnected at the edge of the city to create a kind of defence wall. This was a weak type of fortification, used at Dor from about the middle of the fourth century to the beginning or middle of the third century B.C.E., when it was replaced by a more solid wall during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus.32

31 For this entire subject, see Reich and Brandl (above, n. 29), pp. 41-54, especially p. 45 and Figs. 4-5. The coverstone is called 'horseshoe-shaped' there, and many examples from Palestine and outside it are presented as parallels. 32 * On this subject, see Stern (above, n. 15).

This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms HAZOR, DOR AND MEGIDDO 25

We can conclude from this that the two-chambered gate was built in the Assyrian period and continued in existence until about the middle of the fourth century B.C.E. From the historical standpoint, the finds can be interpreted as follows: the destruction of the preceding city by the Assyrian armies in 733 / 732 B.C.E. agrees with what is known from the biblical and Assyrian sources.33 No later written sources exist that can throw light on the length of time the city lay in ruins or when it was resettled. On the basis of the archaeological evidence, it now appears that the destruction of the city by the Assyrians which, in keeping with their usual practice, was associated with large-scale expulsions of the population, was not of long duration: the city was rebuilt a very short time after its destruction and we know that it quickly became the capital of a province.34 More surprising is the great length of time the city continued to exist. According to all the evidence, its fortification system continued to function without interruption till the middle of the fourth century B.C.E., i.e. throughout the Assyrian period, during the Babylonian period and well into the Persian period ? as long as the city served as the capital of a province. Its final destruction was probably brought about by the great Phoenician rebellion against the Persians, who in retaliation razed all the northern coastal cities. The cities further inland under the direct or indirect rule of Tyre or Sidon were also destroyed.35 This fact is of great importance for understanding the latest gates at Megiddo (see below). Before considering this problem, however, it should be mentioned that the walls of Dor which are associated with the four-chambered and two-chambered gates are both solid and of offset-inset type, as in Megiddo (Fig. 2, PL 3:C).36 Up to now it has been accepted by all scholars37 that Stratum III at Megiddo was established by the Assyrians, who rebuilt the offset-inset wall, repaired all traces of its destruction (that is, its second and third phases), and constructed the two-chambered gate. This is in full agreement with the findings from the excavations at Dor. On the other hand, the excavators and the various interpreters could not fix the exact

33 Cf. . 21, above. 34 Cf. recent studies ? Aharoni (above, n. 9), pp. 251-252; Eph'al (above, n. 21); further confirmation has also been provided by the finds from the excavations, which include Assyrian seals and pottery. Cf. E. Stern: Excavations at Tel Dor, Qadmoniot 20 (1988), p. 69 (Hebrew). 35 For this rebellion and its results, see D. Barag: The Effects of the Tennes Rebellion on Palestine, BASOR 183 (1966), pp. 6-12; E. Stern: The Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period, Warminster, 1982, pp. 254-255; and idem, Archaeological Aspects of the History of the Shephelah and the Coast at the Beginning of the 4th Century B.C., in B. Uffenheimer (ed.): Bible and Jewish History, Studies Dedicated to the Memory of J. Liver, Tel Aviv, 1971, pp. 207-221 (Hebrew). 36 For this matter, see mainly Stern and Sharon (above, n. 30), pp. 205-207, and idem, Tel Dor 1987, IEJ (forthcoming). 37 Cf. Y. Yadin: Megiddo of the Kings of Israel, BA 33 (1970), p. 70; Aharoni (above, n. 34), pp. 251-252; Herzog (above, n. 5), p. 18; Stern (above, n. 12), p. 31).

This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Fig. 2. Dor: reconstruction of the city-walls in Area Cl.

-^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^C^^^^P^^^t ^^CQnPQSiT? STONE/M?DBRICK WALL

?HELLENiSTIC FORTIFICATION WALL

This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms HAZOR, DOR AND MEGIDDO 27 date of destruction of this advanced system of fortifications, nor could they agree on who was responsible for its ruin. There are several possibilities.38 Several years ago, before the excavations at Dor had begun, during a re examination of the upper two strata at Megiddo (II-I) and a re-evaluation of its stratigraphy,39 I became aware of the importance of the city in this period. The remains of this period at Megiddo consisted of three complexes. The first was a large fortress in Area C, built on the plan of the Assyrian courtyard house. Schumacher had excavated a small part of it and Fisher had cleared most of the rest of it, but neither of them left any stratigraphical plans of the building. In the final publication, the fortress was ascribed to Strata II-I, and was considered the only fortress at that time on the site, for two reasons: its south-eastern corner was built above the offset-inset Wall 325, putting it out of commission,40 and a section of a residential quarter discovered in Area A, on the southern side of the mound, was attributed to Stratum I. The examination of its plan published by the excavators, however, indicates that earlier elements were intermingled here.41 More important for our subject, however, is the complex situated in Area D, which I originally interpreted as the 'entrance gate of the city'.42 It consisted of two parts: the rebuilt two-chambered gate which led into a fortified area, that also contained barracks. This area terminated in an additional inner gate. At the time I maintained that 'if we reconstruct the Megiddo gate according to the plan of the gate at Gordion, it will be evident that the partly cleared entrance (loci 603-604),43 is not the actual outer entrance of the city but an inner one. The outer gate was situated nearby or on the site of the gates of the Israelite period, though nothing has remained of them.'44 The date of Stratum I at Megiddo was originally the subject of much debate: in the title of the chapter devoted to Stratum I in the final publication,45 it was dated to approximately 350 B.C.E. In the summary dealing with the chronology of the stratum the date is also fixed shortly 'after the middle of the 4th century B.C.E.'.46 In my re-evaluation of the dates of Stratum I at Megiddo, I disagreed with this and maintained that a settlement continued to exist there until its destruction

38 Cf. Stern (above, . 12), p. 31. At that time I assigned the construction of Stratum II to Josiah. See also A. Maiamat: Josiah's Bid for Armageddon, in The Gaster Festschrift (The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 5), 1973, pp. 267-278. 39 See Stern (above, n. 35), pp. 5-8, 52, 240. 40 Cf. Lamon and Shipton (above, n. 20), pp. 83-87, Figs. 95-97. But see also my reservations regarding the entire subject: Stern (above, n. 35), pp. 5-8. 41 Stern (above, n. 35), p. 6, and also Fig. 14 on p. 7. 42 Stern (above, n. 35), p. 261, n. 18. 43 See Lamon and Shipton (above, n. 20), p. 101, Fig. 117. 44 And cf. Stern (above, n. 35), p. 261 (end of n. 18 to Chapter II). 45 Lamon and Shipton (above, n. 20), p. 88. 46 Lamon and Shipton (above, n. 20), p. 91.

This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 28 EPHRAIM STERN

by in 333/332 B.C.E., though it was also possible that this settlement 'contained several phases as in the nearby settlements'.47 At that time evidence was not yet available from the excavations at Dor. Now it appears that the last stages of Megiddo can be reconstructed according to my re-evaluation of Strata II-I, and with a greater degree of agreement with the conclusions of its excavators, though with a somewhat different approach. This reconstruction indicates that there is a complete correlation between the fortification systems of Dor and Megiddo: In Stratum III, the Assyrian stratum, the offset-inset wall was repaired and a two-chambered gate constructed. This stratum, with its gate, wall and original residential quarter, continued to exist, in our opinion, till 350 B.C.E.; in the Babylonian or early Persian period several fundamental changes were made in the gate area as a result of new requirements (for example, long, narrow barracks to house the local garrison force replaced the buildings on the open courtyard plan of Stratum III). Josiah apparently approached this city during his attempt to halt the advance of the Egyptian army in 609 B.C.E., and not the Stratum II fortress.48 The wall and gate as well as the settlement at Megiddo were destroyed around 350 B.C.E. by the Persian army during the great revolt of the Phoenicians. Thus, at both Dor and Megiddo a two-chambered gate and offset-inset wall existed from the time of the Assyrian conquest to the middle of the fourth century B.C.E. The fortress in Area C was built above the offset-inset wall, replacing it, and was the only fortification on the site. It was this fortification which was built after the rebellion and it continued to exist until the city's final destruction by the Greek army and its abandonment. The phase at Dor contemporaneous with the fortress at Megiddo is the one containing the 'casemate wall', or more precisely, the row of houses which formed a wall around the periphery of the city.49 These were built after the destruction of the offset-inset wall in approximately 350 B.C.E. and were later replaced by a solid Hellenistic wall erected by Ptolemy II (see above).50 It is possible that the Persians ? after their bitter experience with the Phoenician rebellion ? refused to permit the construction of strong fortifications in these settlements.51 A further difference is that Megiddo was totally abandoned after this phase, whereas Dor was rebuilt (PI. 4:A).

47 Stern (above, . 35), p. 8. 48 In contrast to the widely held assumption (which I shared in the past) that the Stratum II fortress dates from the time of Josiah (above, n. 38). This date was also accepted by the excavators; cf. Lamon and Shipton (above, n. 20), p. xxvii, and also pp. 62-87; and also by Aharoni (above, n. 9, pp. 270-271) and Yadin (above, n. 3, BA, p. 96). For a detailed account of this matter, see Maiamat (above, n. 38). 49 See Stern (above, n. 15), p. 10-11, Fig. 2; Stern and Sharon (above, n. 30), pp. 205-207, Fig. 3. so Cf. Stern (above, n. 15), Fig. 3. 51 On this matter cf. above, n. 35.

This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms HAZOR, DOR AND MEGIDDO 29

HAZOR MEGIDDO DOR

Fig. 3. Comparative table. 1) Hazon six-chambered gate; 2) Megiddo: six-chambered gate; 3) Megiddo: four-chambered gate; 4) Dor: four-chambered gate; 5) Megiddo: two-chambered gate; 6) Dor: two chambered gate; 7) Hazor: Stratum III-II fortress; 8) Megiddo: Stratum II-I fortress; 9) Dor: the 'casemate' wall.

This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 30 EPHRAIM STERN

We turn now to Hazor, which we have so far omitted because neither a four chambered nor a two-chambered gate has been excavated there so far. In this phase the remains at Hazor, Megiddo and Dor again coincide, for at Hazor too a fortress was uncovered with an open courtyard plan, ascribed to Strata III-II. The date of Fortress III could not be established since it yielded no datable remains. The date of Fortress II was fixed by coins to the fourth century B.C.E., specifically to the reign of Artaxerxes III (359/8-338/7 B.C.E.).52 It was destroyed during the conquest of Alexander the Great, so that at Hazor too the fortress existed only during the last phase of the Persian period, exactly as at Megiddo and Dor!53 Hazor, however, differs from the other two cities in that it was not made the capital of a province in the Assyrian, Babylonian or Persian periods, and for this reason it was not rebuilt after the Assyrian conquest (Strata V-IV), and completely lacks an equivalent of Stratum III of Megiddo and Phases 6-5 of Dor. The only important Assyrian-Persian structure existing there 'descended' from the mound to the valley north of it, to the area now occupied by Ayelet ha-Shahar.54 The tell itself was not inhabited throughout this entire period. It may be predicted that while the future excavators of Hazor may very well discover a four-chambered gate there, they will surely find no remains of a two chambered gate (Fig. 3).

POSTSCRIPT

During the short period between the publication of the Hebrew and English versions of the above article, a paper by D. Ussishkin titled 'Schumacher's Shrine in Building 338 at Megiddo' appeared in IEJ 39 (1989), pp. 149-172.1 was surprised to learn that the huge Persian period fortress of Strata II-I was actually nothing but a burial structure for a small sanctuary, or rather chapel, of the tenth century B.C.E. I wish to take this as the best example of the first point made in my article ? i.e. the impracticality of 're-excavating' Megiddo's reports without the support of modern excavations. In a forthcoming issue of this journal, I intend to deal with Ussishkin's conclusions in detail.

52 Cf. Stern (above, . 35), pp. 1-4; Yadin et al.: Razor /, Jerusalem, 1958, p. 52; and cf. also Yadin (above, n. 7), pp. 191-196, who attributes it on the basis of a Tyrian coin to the fourth century B.C.E., to the period of the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great. 53 At both Megiddo and H azor the fortresses were assigned to two distinct strata ? Strata II-I at Megiddo and Strata III-II at Hazor ? but in both cases the fortress consisted of only one building which had undergone minor changes. In one the floor was raised and in the other a partition wall was added, i.e. changes that could be made while the building was in use. 54 R. Reich: The Persian Building at Ayelet ha-Shahar: The Assyrian Palace of Hazor?, IEJ 25 (1975), pp. 233-237; see also Stern (above, n. 35), p. 4.

This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms A: Dor: the stone base of the western wall of B: Dor: the stone base of the western wall of the the four-chambered gate, showing the orthostats four-chambered gate and part of the adjoining along the western face. floor, seen from above.

C: Dor: the row of orthostats in the four-chambered gate. Note how they project above the latest floor level inside the city.

HAZOR, DOR AND MEGIDDO

This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms PLATE 3

A: Dor: aerial view of the city-gate area. Note the two-chambered gate superimposed on the four-chambered gate (shown by black lines). The stone basins in the south-eastern and north eastern corners of the earlier gate can also be seen.

B: Dor: the threshold of the two-chambered C: Dor: the fortification system in Area Cl. gate. To the right is the door socket with its coverstone.

HAZOR, DOR AND MEGIDDO

This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms PLATE 4 ^ ^ : CaSemate W^ 0^ ^

HAZOR, DOR AND MEGIDDO

D: Item B8, Vered Yerifeo. E: Item B9, Vered Yer?>o.

CHISELLED INSCRIPTIONS AND MARKINGS ON A II POTTERY

This content downloaded from 109.67.249.19 on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:56:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms