Solomon’s Powerplay: Gezer’s Royal Complex Confirmed

By Steven Ortiz, Samuel WolffMany BAR readers are familiar with the famous passage of 1 Kings 9:15–16, which notes that among his many claims to fame, Solomon fortified the royal cities of Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer. Beginning with Yigael Yadin, many archaeologists of the last century identified key fortifications and structures from these sites with Solomon’s building program in the tenth century BCE, although others have since come to question the dating and attribution of these remains.In this article, we present new archaeological evidence from Gezer that in the time of Solomon, the city did indeed boast a monumental gate and administrative complex that was meant to convey power and authority over newly acquired territories in the Shephelah (the foothills between the coastal plain and the Judean hill country). Our findings are the result of a decade-long excavation project, which we co-directed from 2006 to 2017. The project aimed to study the chronology, history, and urban planning of one of southern Israel’s most important and strategic sites during the Bronze and Iron Ages.To understand the dramatic changes that occurred during Solomon’s reign, we have to start in the late 13th century BCE, when the thriving Canaanite city of Gezer was destroyed, most likely by the Egyptian pharaoh Merneptah.^a This campaign was one of Egypt’s last major attempts to reassert control over the city-states and vassals of southern Canaan. Out of the ashes, Gezer was rebuilt with a simple but effective perimeter wall that surrounded dwellings, storerooms, and wealthy courtyard houses. From traditions preserved in the Bible, we learn that this new city, which lasted several hundred years before it too met a fiery end, may have aided local Canaanite rulers during Joshua’s campaign (Joshua 10:33). We also read that it served as a refuge for the Philistines when they were being pursued by David (2 Samuel 5:17–25), and was destroyed by an Egyptian pharaoh (possibly Siamun) before being given as a dowry to Solomon (1 Kings 9:16).^bIt was during Solomon’s reign, in the mid-tenth century, that Gezer underwent a radical change. It became a well-fortified city with a massive six-chambered gate, an adjoining casemate wall, and a large administrative building. Although previous excavations had already revealed significant portions of these structures, our work focused on fully exposing the administrative building and surrounding features as well as the full length of the casemate wall. The results, which we review here, confirm that during the tenth century, Gezer was a fortified city most likely administered by a royal authority.Gezer has long been known for its six-chambered gate, which many archaeologists dated to the tenth century and attributed to King Solomon. Already in the 1950s, Yadin hypothesized that the so-called “Maccabean Castle” revealed during R.A.S. Macalister’s excavations at Gezer in the early 20th century was actually a six-chambered gate similar to the “Solomonic” gates identified at Megiddo and Hazor.¹ Subsequent excavations, led by William Dever, confirmed the dating and identification of the six-chambered gate, which was a massive two-story structure with foundations constructed of hewn limestone boulders and huge ashlar blocks. It contained six chambers, three on each side, and had two imposing towers that dominated the entrance. It also featured a well-designed drainage system with a covered channel running beneath the gateway that directed surface water outside the city walls.Adjoining the gate was a well-built casemate wall made up of at least four rooms or cells, which our excavation traced to the west of the gate complex for a length of nearly 100 feet. Interestingly, the wall does not appear to have extended much farther than this, suggesting it was built primarily to enhance the fortifications immediately around the city’s gate.Abutting the casemate wall was a large administrative building measuring more than 60 by 40 feet. The building consisted of a large courtyard surrounded by several well-built rooms and divided by a central partition made of finely dressed ashlars. It had two entrances, one in the east that gave access to the gate complex via a narrow alleyway and another in the west that likely served as the building’s main public entrance. There was also a smaller entrance in the north that accessed a nearby street. Some of the rooms featured industrial installations, such as olive presses, grinding surfaces, and tabuns (clay ovens) for preparing meals. Particularly notable were two rooms in the southeast of the structure with thick walls constructed from roughly dressed stones and ashlars. The thickness of the walls and the rooms’ direct access to the alleyway suggest a specific use for this portion of the building. Perhaps it was part of a guard tower associated with the gate complex but built directly into the administrative building.The plan of the administrative building is similar to other Iron Age structures from the southern Levant that are often interpreted as palaces, including buildings excavated at Hazor, Megiddo, and Samaria. Formerly referred to as bit hilani, this type of palace was typically built on or near the city’s summit and featured side entrances, central courtyards, ashlar masonry, and an internal layout reminiscent of pillared houses.² Although Gezer’s building has many of these same features, it was not built on the site’s acropolis but next to the gate. All of its rooms had access to the central courtyard, and there was little evidence of routine domestic activity. This suggests that the building was an administrative center, not a royal residence.Immediately north of the administrative building we excavated portions of a stone-paved street and staircase that likely served as one of the main routes between the gate complex and the western side of the city. Interestingly, the street level is about 1.5 feet higher than the floors of the administrative building, which suggests the structure may have been built into the slope of the site. Though the street hasn’t been fully excavated, we believe it led to a large stone-paved plaza that greeted those entering the city through the main gate.Gezer’s gate complex, casemate wall, and administrative building were all violently destroyed in the mid- to late-tenth century. We, along with earlier excavators, attribute this destruction to the Egyptian pharaoh Shoshenq I (biblical Shishak), who campaigned through much of Israel and Judah in c. 925 BCE (1 Kings 14:25–26; 2 Chronicles 12:4).^c The administrative building was completely ruined and buried beneath a thick layer of rubbly debris. The few finds discovered on the floors indicate that many of the city’s inhabitants may have fled prior to Shoshenq’s attack. A rare find was an exquisite game board decorated with five beautiful rosettes and likely used to play the popular game Twenty Squares.Taken together, the efforts at fortification and city planning suggest direction and oversight from a central authority. In light of the material culture and new radiocarbon evidence (see sidebar), we believe these grand monumental works can finally and conclusively be dated to the mid-tenth century, that is, to the time of King Solomon. But what function did this building program serve, and was it effective?Recent excavations in the Shephelah, at sites like Timna, Beth Shemesh, and Burna (biblical Libnah), have shown that this region was a contested middle ground between the Philistines on the coast, the early Judahite state in the highlands, and the scattered remnants of the Canaanite population. During the 11th and tenth centuries, these groups did not have fixed borders but rather expanded and contracted based on fluid social relationships and shifting political alliances. Our excavations have similarly shown that Gezer shifted from being a Canaanite city aligned with Philistia in the 11th century to becoming a fortified administrative center of the expanding Judahite state in the tenth century.We believe this shift in Gezer’s political allegiance can also be seen in the biblical stories related to Judah’s growth and westward expansion during the reigns of David and Solomon. When David brought the northern tribes formerly aligned with Saul under his control (2 Samuel 3:12), he then conquered Jerusalem, consolidating his power over the southern tribes. The Philistines, upon hearing of the unification of the tribes and the establishment of David’s capital at Jerusalem, marched to the highlands, to the Valley of Rephaim, to face this rising power (2 Samuel 5:17–25). David defeated the Philistines and drove them from their strongholds, “from Geba all the way to Gezer.” This story suggests, therefore, that at least during the time of David, Gezer was still a Canaanite city closely aligned with the Philistines.By the time of Solomon, however, things had changed. Gezer was no longer a safe haven for the Philistines but was a city under the auspices of Jerusalem. Unlike David, whose influence grew because of his battlefield exploits, Solomon expanded his kingdom through statecraft and alliances. Indeed, in the Bible, there are no accounts of Solomon engaged in battle, only stories of marriage alliances with Egypt (1 Kings 3:1) and economic partnerships with Hiram king of Tyre (1 Kings 9:10–14) and the Queen of Sheba (1 Kings 10).Based on our excavations, we believe that the city’s gate, casemate wall, and administrative building were part of a royal construction effort intended to imprint Judah’s administrative presence on the settlement. If we combine this observation with the biblical tradition regarding Gezer’s incorporation into Judah during the reign of Solomon as recorded in 1 Kings 9:15–16, we can speculate that these monumental constructions were an expression of Judahite dominance over newly acquired territory. This may help to explain why the occupants of the administrative building seem to have abandoned it prior to its destruction. One can easily imagine officials from Jerusalem, sent to Gezer to administer rule over a peripheral territory, retreating to the safety of the capital ahead of the Egyptian campaign. (BAR > Summer 2024)