Part One:
Was this “another Gezer”?
by
Damien F. Mackey
“There was another Gezer on the south-west of Canaan, the inhabitants
of which David and his warriors smote, 1 Sam. xxvii. 8”.
John Brown
Archaeology, when considered in a revised context, may seem to favour the view that that the city of Gezer sacked by the biblical “Pharaoh king of Egypt” (I Kings 9:16) was at the site of Tel Gezer in central Israel. I have written on this:
…. Thutmose I fits nicely into place for Velikovsky as … [the] Pharaoh, who attacked Gezer.
Dr. John Bimson once argued that this identification appears to be supported archaeologically. Dr. Velikovsky had identified David’s era as the same as that of the 18th dynasty pharaoh, Thutmose I, as Dr. J. Bimson tells when providing an appropriate stratigraphy (“Can there be a Revised Chronology without a Revised Stratigraphy?”, SIS: Proceedings. Glasgow Conference, April, 1978):
In Velikovsky’s chronology, this pharaoh is identified as Thutmose I [ref. Ages in Chaos, iii, “Two Suzerains”] … In the revised stratigraphy considered here, we would expect to find evidence for this destruction of Gezer at some point during LB [Late Bronze] I, and sure enough we do, including dramatic evidence of burning [ref. Dever et al., Gezer I (1970, pp.54-55 …)].
….
[End of quote]
John Brown, though, in his A Dictionary of the Holy Bible: Containing an Historical Account (Volume 1, p. 521), has actually written there of what he calls “another Gezer”:
There was another Gezer on the south-west of Canaan, the inhabitants of which David and his warriors smote, 1 Sam. xxvii. 8. Possibly these Gezrites might be a colony from north Gezer, and might have changed the name of Gerar into Gezer. These Gezrites or Gerarites are probably the Gerreans and Gerrenians in the time of the Maccabees. Whether it was south or rather north Gezer, that Pharaoh king of Egypt took from the Canaanites, and burnt with fire, and gave as a dowry with his daughter to Solomon, who repaired it, is not altogether certain, I Kings ix. 15, 16.
[End of quote]
This quote admittedly presents us with a somewhat confusing array of G-place-names!
But I suspect that John Brown may be correct in his view of “another Gezer”, that is, “Gerar”.
Maps tend to place Gerar (often with a question mark) somewhere near Beersheba.
The Egyptians in the time of Abram (Abraham), at least - so I have argued - also ruled over Philistine Gerar. And this has important ramifications for my connecting of the biblical Tamar, sister of Absalom, with both the realm of king Talmai of southern Geshur (or Gezer?) and my necessarily tentative identification of king Talmai as Eighteenth Dynasty Egypt’s Thutmose I, said to have been the ‘father’ of Hatshepsut (= my Tamar).
On this, e.g. see my article:
Sad decline of the sage Achitophel
https://www.academia.edu/39821513/Sad_decline_of_the_sage_Achitophel
Critical for this present article is Dr. John Osgood’s section, “The Philistine Question” (in his article, “The Times of Abraham”: http://creation.com/the-times-of-abraham):
We have placed the end of the Chalcolithic of the Negev, En-gedi, Trans Jordan and Taleilat Ghassul at approximately 1870 B.C., being approximately at Abraham's 80th year. Early Bronze I Palestine (EB I) would follow this, significantly for our discussions. Stratum V therefore at early Arad (Chalcolithic) ends at 1870 B.C., and the next stratum, Stratum IV (EB I), would begin after this.
Stratum IV begins therefore some time after 1870 B.C.. This is a new culture significantly different from Stratum V.112
Belonging to Stratum IV, Amiram found a sherd with the name of Narmer (First Dynasty of Egypt),10, 13 and she dates Stratum IV to the early part of the Egyptian Dynasty I and the later part of Canaan EB I. Amiram feels forced to conclude a chronological gap between Stratum V (Chalcolithic) at Arad and Stratum IV EB I at Arad.12:116 However, this is based on the assumption of time periods on the accepted scale of Canaan's history, long time periods which are here rejected.
The chronological conclusion is strong that Abraham's life-time corresponds to the Chalcolithic in Egypt, through at least a portion of Dynasty I of Egypt, which equals Ghassul IV through to EB I in Palestine. The possibilites for the Egyptian king of the Abrahamic narrative are therefore:-
1. A late northern Chalcolithic king of Egypt, or
2. Menes or Narmer, be they separate or the same king (Genesis 12:10-20).
Of these, the chronological scheme would favour a late Chalcolithic (Gerzean) king of northern Egypt, just before the unification under Menes.
Thus the Egyptian Dynastic period would start approximately 1860 B.C.
[End of quote]
b
Apparently, then, the era of Abram must equate very closely, at least, to the time of the celebrated, but little known, king, NARMER.
I have argued elsewhere that Narmer may have been a non-Egyptian ruler, that he may even have been the mighty Akkadian king, Naram-Sin – and possibly the very Nimrod himself:
Nimrod a “mighty man”
(9) Nimrod a “mighty man” | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Now most crucially - for my alignment of the apparently Philistine king, Abimelech, with the “Pharaoh” of Egypt, as explained elsewhere – Dr. Osgood goes on to tell of archaeological evidence for “Egyptian (cum Philistine) migration” into southern Canaan at this time (ibid.):
Clearly, if this were the case, by this scheme the Philistines were in Canaan already, and must therefore have at least begun their migration in the late Chalcolithic of Egypt and Palestine.
Therefore, we need to look in southwest Canaan for evidence of Egyptian (cum Philistine) migration, beginning in the late Chalcolithic and possibly reaching into EB I (depending on the cause and rapidity of migration), in order to define the earliest Philistine settlement of Canaan from Egyptian stock. Is there such evidence? The answer is a clear and categorical YES.
Amiram, Beit-Ariah and Glass14 discussed the same period in relationship between Canaan and Egypt. So did Oren.15
Of the period Oren says:
‘Canaanite Early Bronze I-II and Egyptian late pre-Dynastic and early Dynastic periods’15:200
He says of the findings in Canaan:
‘The majority of Egyptian vessels belong to the First Dynasty repertoire while a few sherds can be assigned with certainty to the late pre-Dynastic period.’15:203(emphasis mine)
He continues:
‘The occurrence of Egyptian material which is not later than the First Dynasty alongside EB A I-II pottery types has been noted in surface collections and especially in controlled excavations in southern Canaan.
This indicates that the appearance and distinction of the material of First Dynasty in northern Sinai and southern Canaan should be viewed as one related historical phenomenon.’15:203(emphasis mine)
The area surveyed was between Suez and Wadi El-Arish. ED I-II had intensive settlement in this area.
He continues further:
‘Furthermore, the wide distribution of Egyptian material and the somewhat permanent nature of the sites in Sinai and southern Canaan can no longer be viewed as the results of trade relations only. In all likelihood Egypt used northern Sinai as a springboard for forcing her way into Canaan with the result that all of southern Canaan became an Egyptian domain and its resources were exploited on a large scale.’15:204(emphasis mine)
And again:
‘The contacts which began in pre-Dynastic times, were most intensive during the First Dynasty period’15:204(emphasis mine)
Ram Gopha16 is bolder about this event or phenomenon, insisting on it being a migration:
‘Today we seem to be justified in assuming some kind of immigration of people from Egypt to southern Canaan...’16:31
Further:
‘the Egyptian migration during the First Dynasty period may be seen as an intensification of previously existing relationships between the two countries.
These relations had already begun in the Ghassulian Chalcolithic period but reached sizable proportions only in the Late Pre-Dynastic period’ (first phases of Palestinian EB I).16:35(emphasis mine)
The testimony is clear. Excavation at Tel Areini identifies such an Egyptian migration and settlement starting in the Chalcolithic period.17 There was definitely a migration of Egyptian people of some sort from northern Egypt into southern Palestine, and particularly the region that was later known as Philistia.16:32
The testimony of Scripture is clear that there were Philistines who came from Egypt into Palestine in the days of Abraham.
This revised chronology identifies such a migration in the days of the Ghassulians, who I insist, perished during the early days of Abraham's sojourn in Canaan. This period must then be grossly redated in accordance with biblical expectations, instead of evolutionary assumptions.
[End of quotes]
I further wrote:
Tamar and the Kingdom of Geshur
What, though, does this have to do with the Queen of Sheba?
Or with the great Queen Hatshepsut who the biblical queen … was …?
….
Or even more directly, for the benefit of this article, what does this have to do with Tamar, the very daughter of King David – she being another of my alter egos for Hatshepsut/Sheba? ….
If the biblical Queen of Sheba were both Queen Hatshepsut and biblical Tamar (as above), then she must have been - just like my composite Pharaoh-Abimelech - both a ruler of Egypt (as Hatshepsut most certainly was, the 18th dynasty) (corresponding to Abram’s “Pharaoh”) and one also having royal influence over the Philistines (corresponding to “Abimelech”).
That Tamar was the sister of David’s son, Absalom, we learn from 2 Samuel 13:1: “In the course of time, Amnon son of David fell in love with Tamar, the beautiful sister of Absalom son of David”.
Tamar was also royally connected (apart from the throne of Judah) to the kingdom of Geshur. Though Geshur is usually thought to have been situated in Aram (Syria), I, however, would prefer Diana Edelman’s view that this “Geshur” was a southern kingdom (“Tel Masos, Geshur, and David”, JNES, Vol. 47, No. 4, Oct., 1988, p. 256: http://www.jstor.org/stable/544878):
David, while in residence in his new capital of Judah at Hebron fathered Absalom with Maacah, daughter of Talmai, King of Geshur. His first two sons were mothered by his wives Ahinoam and Abigail, whom he had married while living in the wilderness, prior to his service to Achish of Gath. His marriage to Maacah must therefore have taken place in the opening years of his kingship at Hebron.
The political nature of his marriage to Maacah has been recognized in the past …. It has always been assumed, however, that Talmai was king of the northern kingdom of Geshur in the Golan.
It seems more reasonable to conclude, however, that Talmai was king of the southern Geshur. Whether or not he remained a Philistine vassal after setting up his own state at Hebron, it would have been a politically expedient move for David to ally himself with one or more of the groups he had formerly been raiding as a Philistine mercenary. Peaceful relations with groups living just to the south of his new state would have allowed the king to concentrate his limited resources on other endeavors. His ability to enter a treaty with southern Geshur, had he remained a Philistine vassal himself, would have been conditioned on the lack of formal declaration of war between the Philistines and Geshur. No vassal was allowed to enter a treaty with a declared enemy of its overlord. The postulated alliance with Talmai, king of Geshur, would have provided David with military aid when he needed it. At the same time, it could have provided him with a market for his goods and possibly additional economic opportunities. ….
[End of quote]
In the Hebrew name of “Geshur” (גְּשׁוּר), I think that the Bible may be referring to a land, perhaps meaning “Valley of Shur” (Ge Shur), rather than just to a single site.
Compare 1 Samuel 27:8: “Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites. (From ancient times these peoples had lived in the land extending to Shur and Egypt.)”.
So - and nicely, it seems, in accordance with this present article - Geshur was a land that stood somewhat adjacent to Egypt (see Geshuri on Osgood’s map, his Figure 9).
….
It would have been more fitting for Talmai to have been the king of a land, rather than of a single city. Now Edelman has written of this very situation - with her Tel Masos site in mind (whilst rejecting “Aram” as probably an incorrect gloss):
With the above comments in mind, Tel Masos becomes an attractive candidate for the political center of southern Geshur. If one can put any weight in Talmai's characterization as "king," Tel Masos is the only site south of the Judahite hills that is large enough to associate with a possible kingdom. In spite of Finkelstein's suggestion that Masos probably only reached the political level of a chiefdom, its 200-odd-year existence by the time under consideration, and its postulated role as a major trans-shipping center and headquarters for the northwestern branch of the incense trade route, would seem to have required a developed administration to regulate the flow of goods, and would seem to presume a stabilized leadership. To me, this suggests its attainment of statehood and monarchy.
In reviewing the biblical passages that mention Talmai and Geshur, only 2 Sam. 15:8, which mentions Absalom's sojourn with his father-in-law in retrospect, associates Talmai and his Geshur with the better-known northern kingdom. The qualifier "in Aram" appears after Geshur only in this verse and has the suspicious appearance of a gloss, since Geshur itself is a sufficient geographical marker. Elsewhere, references to Talmai and his state (2 Sam. 3:3; 13:37, 38; 14:23; 32; 1 Chron. 3:2) can all be construed to apply to southern Geshur.
It can be noted that references to northern Geshur are regularly paired with the adjoining territory of Maacah (Deut. 3:14; Josh. 12:5; 13:3, 11, 13). The single exception is 1 Chron. 2:23, where it is paired with Aram.
Perhaps the latter text inspired the gloss in 2 Sam. 15:8. ….
[End of quote]
Thutmose I’s famous (so-called) ‘daughter’, Hatshepsut, who does figure in the Bible, apparently, but not as a “Pharaoh” (which she would become later, nonetheless), and who was brilliantly identified by Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky as the biblical “Queen of Sheba” (or “Queen of the South”), was not specified in Thutmose I’s documents as his daughter.
Though not of royal Egyptian blood, Thutmose I had married pharaoh Amenhotep I’s sister, according to some views. ….
Thutmose I is generally considered to have become the father of Hatshepsut. “Yet”, according to Gay Robins” (“The Enigma of Hatshepsut”), “none of Thutmose I's monuments even mentions his daughter”:
https://www.baslibrary.org/archaeology-odyssey/2/1/11
But what I have suggested is that pharaoh Thutmose I, when crowning Hatshepsut, used a tri-partite coronation ceremony that uncannily followed the tri-partite pattern of David’s coronation of his son, Solomon.
On this, see my article:
Thutmose I Crowns Hatshepsut
https://www.academia.edu/26201708/Thutmose_I_Crowns_Hatshepsut
Part Two:
Tel Masos as the site of ancient Beersheba?
“Tel Masos becomes an attractive candidate for the political center
of southern Geshur. If one can put any weight in Talmai's characterization
as "king," Tel Masos is the only site south of the Judahite hills that is
large enough to associate with a possible kingdom”.
Diana Edelman
If ancient Beersheba were truly the capital city of a southern (“Geshurian”) kingdom (see my):
The Queen of Beer(sheba)
https://www.academia.edu/26354213/The_Queen_of_Beer_sheba_
then, also presuming that Diana Edelman is correct in her above description of Tel Masos as “the only [southern] site … large enough” - {and despite what I may previously have thought about its suitability} - Tel Masos may be the only plausible location for the city taken by “Pharaoh king of Egypt” for his daughter’s dowry (I Kings 9:16), to be regarded (in my context) as the Geshurian/Gezerian city of Beersheba.
Let us recall what Diana Edelman had to say about Tel Masos (“Tel Masos, Geshur, and David”, JNES, Vol. 47, No. 4, Oct., 1988, p. 256):
With the above comments in mind, Tel Masos becomes an attractive candidate for the political center of southern Geshur. If one can put any weight in Talmai's characterization as "king," Tel Masos is the only site south of the Judahite hills that is large enough to associate with a possible kingdom. In spite of Finkelstein's suggestion that Masos probably only reached the political level of a chiefdom, its 200-odd-year existence by the time under consideration, and its postulated role as a major trans-shipping center and headquarters for the northwestern branch of the incense trade route, would seem to have required a developed administration to regulate the flow of goods, and would seem to presume a stabilized leadership. To me, this suggests its attainment of statehood and monarchy. ….
[End of quote]
Now, consider these descriptions by Diana Edelman in the context of the biblical “Queen of (Beer)Sheba”:
…. “only site south of the Judahite hills that is large enough to associate with a possible kingdom”;
“role as a major trans-shipping center and headquarters for the northwestern branch of the incense trade route”;
“a developed administration to regulate the flow of goods”;
“a stabilized leadership”;
“attainment of statehood and monarchy”.
I Kings 10:10: “And she gave the king 120 talents of gold, large quantities of spices, and precious stones. Never again were so many spices brought in as those the queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon”.
It would greatly streamline things for my revision if the capital city of (presumably a land) “Gezer” seized by “Pharaoh king of Egypt” were the same city as that from which his daughter would rule as “Queen of the South”.
According to my reconstructions, that biblical “Pharaoh” was Thutmose I (of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty), the same as the biblical Talmai king of Geshur, and his “daughter” (so-called) was Tamar, “sister” of Absalom, who became ruler of Egypt and Ethiopia, as Hatshepsut.
The generally accepted site for ancient Beersheba, Tel Beer-sheba, does not seem to me to fit well archaeologically - mostly too late for the Davidic-Solomonic age (at least in terms of the revised chronologies), C12th-11th’s BC conventional, but needing to be lowered significantly.
We know that the early Patriarchs were there.
Abraham, in fact, gave the place its name (Genesis 21:22-34).
That would be Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze. According to the following chart there was a seemingly insignificant settlement at the site during Chalcolithic:
https://biblewalks.com/sites/TelBeerSheba.html
The city was built in several phases, as identified by the archaeologists:
Period Stratum Date State of the city Main Findings
Ottoman 20th C Fortification of the Turkish army during WW1; conquered in 1917
Early Arab 7th-8th C A.D. Fortress
Roman 2nd-3rd C A.D. Diamond-shaped fortress;
The Roman/Byzantine city moved westward to area of the modern city.
Herodian 1st C B.C.-1st C A.D. Large fortress Bathhouse, two plastered pools
Hellenistic 3rd-2nd C Temple
Persian 5th-4th C B.C. Small fortress Dozens of storage pits to support the soldiers and horses
Iron (Israelite) 1 Beginning 7th C B.C. attempt to reestablish the city, but soon was abandoned
" 2,3 8th C B.C. administrative city, casemate wall; probably destroyed by Assyrians in 701BC. Fortifications changes, new gate, outer gate removed, water system renewed, storehouse, palace, temple dismantled, basement house
" 4,5 9th C B.C. administrative city, solid wall;
Probably destroyed by earthquake outer and inner gates, water system, residential area
" 6 9th C B.C. temporary work camp
" 7 10th C B.C. enclosed settlement (20 dwellings, 100 persons) four-room houses
" 8,9 12th-11th C huts, first dwellings on south side pits for grain storage; deep well was hewn at this time
Chalcolithic 4th Millennium B.C. settlement sherds; no architectural remains
According to Yohanan Aharoni (“Excavations at Tel-Beer-sheba 1969-1971”, JSTOR 53-54, 1972, p. 111), city life began there “only in the Iron age”:
Its identification with biblical Be'er-sheba is generally accepted since this is the only true city-mound in the vicinity; and the ancient name has been preserved in the Arabic name of the mound, Tell es-Seba'. The only scholar who doubted this identification was Albrecht Alt. …. From the prominent appearance of the artificial mound he concluded that this was a place of Bronze age fortifications, and the biblical tradition preserved no remembrance of a Canaanite city at Beersheba. Alt's argument may be right; however, his observations were wrong. No Canaanite city existed at Tel Beer-sheba. Our excavations showed that the city was founded only in the Iron age ….
[End of quote]
The site of Tell Masos has, on the other hand, appropriately for Abraham’s Beersheba, a Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze level, about which we read at:
https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/tel-masos/
The History of Occupation
The earliest settlement discovered by the excavators in Tel Masos dates from the Late Chalcolithic period. The remains of the period dating from the end of the Chal¬colithic and beginning of the Early Bronze Age were found completely covered by the settlement of the Iron Age I period (the period of the Settlement of the Tribes of Israel—ca 1200 B.C.) [sic]. The Chalcolithic settle-ment is about 15 acres in area. The same Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age period is also found in Tel Malhata. The two settlements formed part of a larger complex of similar settlements along the Wadi Beer-sheba, and one may assume the existence of smaller settlements between these two.
The inhabitants of Tel Masos lived in caves dug in the loess soil. This kind of underground housing was common in the culture of Beer-sheba. One such cave has been excavated in Tel Masos; its pottery assemblage points to the end of the Chal¬colithic and the beginning of the transitional phase to the Early Bronze Age. ….
[End of quote]
Regarding the Davidic - and hence also Talmaic - archaeological era, the probably temporary Davidic settlement at Jericho has been located by Dr. John Osgood (as I have quoted elsewhere) at MB IIC: “One can assume that some repopulation by Israelites took place in this strong city, and it is certain that there was a place of habitation at Jericho during David's reign (see 2 Samuel 10:5) MB IIC/LB I by this scheme”.
And we find that Tel Masos was fortified at this approximate time:
https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/tel-masos/
Six hundred meters to the southwest of the main settlement, the remains of a fortified enclosure from Middle Bronze II were dis¬covered. This fort, which protected the route running through Wadi Beer-sheba, was occupied for only a short period in the middle of the 18th century B.C. [sic].
Mackey’s comment: Significantly, the conventional “18th century B.C.” was actually the time of King Hammurabi of Babylon, needing to be ‘demoted’ on the time scale to the time of David and Solomon. See e.g. my series:
Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon
beginning with:
https://www.academia.edu/35404463/Hammurabi_and_Zimri-Lim_as_Contemporaries_of_Solomon
About both Chalcolithic and Middle Bronze stratigraphy at Tel Masos we read more at: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195065121.001.0001/acref-9780195065121-e-680
Could the two successive MB forts mentioned below represent the work, now of Thutmose I (King Talmai), and now of King Solomon? “Within the MB enclosure, two fortified settlements can be distinguished, the older of which was demolished when the subsequent one was built”.
The tell owes its formation to a settlement dated to the end of Iron II (seventh century bce); resettlement took place, however, at the end of the Byzantine period.
There is a former Iron I village (1200–1000 bce) [sic] situated northeast of the tell, with some remains dating to the Chalcolithic period. The fortified enclosure on the southern bank of the wadi was constructed during the Middle Bronze Age II–III and was abandoned during the same period.
Altogether, five periods of occupation can be distinguished: Chalcolithic earth dwellings; a fortified MB II–III enclosure; an Early Iron Age village; a settlement from the seventh century bce; and a monastery dating from the seventh–eighth centuries ce.
The Chalcolithic material is meager and neither the pottery nor the implements exhibit any peculiarities.
The funds come mainly from one subterranean dwelling dug into the loess; later, in the Iron I, a house was built on top of it.
No exact date within the range of the period from 3600–3200 bce can be given. The site belongs to the so-called Beersheba culture, known throughout the Negev.
Within the MB enclosure, two fortified settlements can be distinguished, the older of which was demolished when the subsequent one was built. The embankment enclosed a square with sides approximately 100 m in length, but a large part of the site had been washed away by the wadi that runs next to it. These settlements probably represent an attempt on the part of the coastal cities to control the route leading to the east; they yielded homogeneous ceramics that date to the seventeenth century bce. ….
[End of quote]
There is Levantine evidence, and some Egyptian also, which would be appropriate to the reign of the cosmopolitan King Solomon: “The diverse nature of this assemblage shows that the village had wide-ranging connections in every direction”:
…. The finds from Tel Masos include both local and imported ceramic wares; an example of early Phoenician ivory art; and a remarkably large number of copper and bronze objects. The imported ware include bichrome-style vessels from the Phoenician coast; sherds of Philistine pottery from the coastal plain; so-called Midianite ware originating in northwest Arabia; and fragments of Egyptian “flowerpots.” The diverse nature of this assemblage shows that the village had wide-ranging connections in every direction. The large quantity of copper and bronze implements indicates that copperworking played an important role. A scarab made of steatite bears the motif of a pharaoh defeating his foes ….
[End of quote]
