Summary of Iron Age II

The Iron Age II period began about 1000 BC and ended in 586 BC with the Babylonian captivity of ancient Israel. The period is preceded by Iron Age I which began about 1200 BC and ended around 1000 BC. The Iron Age marks the period in human history when people began using iron for tools and weapons of warfare.

The Israelite kings, David and Solomon, lived during Iron Age II. David succeeded Israel’s King Saul who had failed to defeat the Philistines. David defeated the Philistines and united the twelve tribes of the kingdom. David conquered Jerusalem and made it his capitol. David’s son, Solomon, succeeded him and ruled until his death. Both David and Solomon are credited with writing significant portions or all of several books of the Old Testament. Solomon built the great Temple in Jerusalem.

After Solomon, the kingdom was divided into two states, Judah to the south and Israel to the north. Judah consisted of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. Israel consisted of the remaining ten tribes of the former united kingdom. The division of the kingdom was the result of the poor fiscal management and tax policy of Solomon’s successor, Rehoboam. A civil war erupted, polarizing the northern and southern tribes.

Toward the end of the Iron Age II period, the Assyrian Empire projected its military power against the divided kingdom. Assyria captured Samaria in 722 BC, which was the capitol of the northern kingdom of Israel. Judah, the southern kingdom, was crushed by the Assyrians after the uprising led by King Hezekiah. Eventually, the Babylonians rose to power, displacing the Assyrians. The Babylonian King, Nebuchadnezzar, invaded Israel and destroyed Jerusalem, taking the people captive in 586 BC.

During the Iron Age II period, Israel developed a centralized government, initiated large-scale public works programs and standardized its system of weights and measures. The alphabet became widely used at this time.

Overview of square excavated.

I worked in Alli’s square for the last half of the excavation. The strategy of the square was to gradually remove soil and rock (10 centimeters at a time) while keeping the floor of the square level. We had to call in extra help toward the end of the excavation in order to synchronize the floor level of our square with the two adjoining squares (Lynn’s and Mendy’s). We used pickaxes for removing large rocks and mud bricks, and for loosening harder packed soil. Turiahs and khoufas were mainly used for removing soil and smaller rocks. The finer tools, patiches and trowels were used to square balks, define structures and formations and to excavate pottery and other material culture.

Our square was in the residential section of the excavation. Our objective was two-fold. First, we intended to verify the location of the residential area and establish how it may have functioned or related to the administrative area near the “Solomonic Gate.” Second, we intended to locate the “Assyrian destruction” stratum of the square. We were successful in both objectives. Significant finds in our square included several loom weights, a stone pillar (which protruded from the floor of the square by more than a meter by the end of the excavation), several whole pottery vessels, numerous pottery shards, grinding stones, a bulla (piece of clay with a partial seal impression), a dog burial, and other less significant material culture. Other finds may have occurred prior to my joining the square.

Training in Field Techniques

My personal experience was mixed. I did not anticipate the high degree of physical labor involved in the project. The bulk of my time was spent moving wheelbarrows. However, I did enjoy a number of personal finds during my digging experiences, including a grinding stone, a loom weight, a whole pottery jar, and what might be called a sling stone, not to mention many diagnostic potsherds.

There is no doubt that the experience greatly broadened my understanding and appreciation of archaeology. The actual digging process and proper excavation techniques were well explained and reinforced throughout the 4 week project by our field supervisor, Eliot Braun, and our square supervisors, Jason and Alli. However, there was very little discussion of how our square related to the greater field or what the objectives of our square were.

The variety and depth of lectures was important and useful. Perhaps the final lecture was most useful to me personally because it helped put my experience in perspective. The weekend tours added greatly to my learning experience as well. The guides were knowledgeable and informative. The opportunity to compare Tel Gezer’s in-process excavation with other completed excavations, such as Caesarea Maritima’s, was invaluable. Moreover, the touring also significantly improved my understanding of Israel’s topography, geography, climate, and culture. I feel this will be very useful in my personal Bible study and in my preaching ministry.

I feel the program had several weaknesses, which fall mainly into the management and administrative areas:

1. Allowing that some of the administrative frustrations we experienced were due to limited funds, the availability of resources and cultural differences, still, administration of the project was, at times, disorganized. More communication about schedule changes would be helpful
2. More planning could have been put into the meals served it Neve Shalom. This would have enhanced morale, which should be an objective of any project of this sort where strenuous and often monotonous labor can stress the participants.
3. Prior to our first day on the tel, a brief training session on digging techniques and what to look for (material culture) during an excavation would have been very helpful.
4. The pace of the weekend touring was somewhat overwhelming at times given the workload during the week. Visiting En Gedi, the Dead Sea, Qumran and Masada all in one day was exhausting in the desert heat (above 110° Fahrenheit). A slightly lighter weekend travel schedule, with a bit more time for relaxation on the weekends would improve the program.
5. The pottery washing time is ill-advised. After 7 hours on the tel, then lunch and a shower, we were back out in the heat sweating and working in the mid-afternoon. I would suggest that pottery washing be changed to 2 PM (or just after lunch) to allow participants a more useful and relaxing afternoon and evening. This issue was frequently the topic of discussion and complaint among the volunteers the first 2 weeks of the project, and could be easily avoided with a minor time change.
6. Some of the leaders of the project were unprofessional and failed to recognize that we were paying volunteers. I personally spent about $10,000 to attend this year’s project. I was personally and frequently yelled at, snapped at, demeaned, dismissed, ignored, and I witnessed several episodes of these things happening to others. I would prefer not to mention their names in this format, but would be pleased to discuss the matter with anyone in leadership. We were often treated a slaves rather than students and volunteers. For this reason, I would not recommend the project to others unless I was assured that this issue was successfully addressed by the project’s leadership.

Overall, and despite the concerns mentioned above, the hands-on archaeological work combined with the weekend touring provided a well-rounded experience which has greatly enhanced my ability to serve the Lord in ministry, which was my primary objective in taking the two courses.