No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
The Iron I-IIA in the Highlands and Beyond: 14C Anchors, Pottery Phases and The Shoshenq I Campaign
Abstract
The article discusses the relative order of Iron I and Iron IIA pottery assemblages in three regions: the highlands, the northern valleys and the south (the Beer-sheba Valley and the Shephelah). The authors deploy 14C determinations for four Iron Age destruction layers – Shiloh V, Megiddo VIA, Rehov V and Rehov IV – in order to anchor the relative sequences into an absolute dating system. They then use the results to adjust previous assumptions regarding the sites and layers that Pharaoh Shoshenq I faced in the second half of the 10th century.
... The authors of the present paper recently explored the possibility of constructing a framework for Iron Age chronology in the Levant by assigning radiocarbon dates to a set of destruction layers (Finkelstein & Piasetzky 2009). The data that have been collected in Israel (e.g. ...
... Carmi & Ussishkin 2004;Mazar et al. 2005;Boaretto 2006;Sharon et al. 2007a) combined with the detailed information on the stratigraphy and ceramic phases of the Iron Age (e.g. Mazar & Panitz-Cohen 2001: 273-6;Herzog & Singer-Avitz 2004, 2006Finkelstein & Piasetzky 2006a), now encourage a bolder step: the dating of the entire 1 Iron Age sequence of the Levant -each of the ceramic phases and the transitions between them. This venture also has rewards for the archaeology of neighbouring regions, such as the Aegean basin (e.g. ...
... The structure of the model as shown in Figure 3 is based on knowledge obtained from field stratigraphy, ceramic typology and a few undisputed historical records. The order of nine destruction horizons follows our discussion elsewhere (Finkelstein & Piasetzky 2009). Layers/sites that were not destroyed by fire have been integrated into the destruction layers framework in order to create the full comprehensive structure as shown in Figure 3. ...
The Bayesian model presented in this article is the first attempt to produce a chronological framework for the Iron Age in the Levant, using radiocarbon dating alone. The model derives from 339 determinations on 142 samples taken from 38 strata at 18 sites. The framework proposes six ceramic phases and six transitions which cover
c
. 400 years, between the late twelfth and mid eighth centuries BC. It furnishes us with a new scientific backbone for the history of Iron Age Levant.
The article is supported by an online supplement which can be found in at http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/finkelstein324
... In a situation like this, all results, including those in the 2-σ range, must be included. (Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2006). Close results were obtained for 13 samples from the contemporary Stratum XVII at Yokneam (Boaretto et al. 2005:7). ...
... The results for both are very close. The short-lived samples from Level K-4 produced an average date of 1015-920 BCE (Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2006). The 2 short-lived samples from Level H-5 provided 1-σ dates of 900-805 and 1005-925 BCE. ...
... Adding data from other sites in the region puts the end of the Megiddo VIA horizon at 1005-925 BCE (Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2006). The data for Stratum D-3 at Tel Rehov may indicate another, slightly later phase of the late Iron I in the north of Israel. ...
A recently published volume, The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science (Levy and Higham 2005), provides data related to the debate over the chronology of the Iron Age strata in the Levant (for a review, see Carmi 2006). The present article comments on several chapters in the volume. The article highlights methodological prob- lems, such as insecure stratigraphic provenance of 14C samples, and demonstrates how unjustified selection of data can bias the result. The article offers a new interpretation to some of the results and shows that the full set of measurements from Tel Rehov supports the Low Chronology system.
... Without repeating outdated arguments, suffice it to say that the 14 C dates of samples taken from Level K-4 put the destruction of Stratum VIA sometime in the mid-tenth century B.C.E. (Boaretto 2006;Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2006a). The agent of destruction will be discussed below. ...
... Radiocarbon dates from several sites in the north indeed show that the Iron IIA horizon contemporary to Stratum VA-IVB at Megiddo (Rehov IV, Rosh Zayit, and Hazor IX) came to an end in the middle of the ninth century B.C.E. (see summaries in Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2006a;2006b; for Rehov IV, see Mazar et al. 2005:252). ...
ARRY STAGER has been a close friend since our unforgettable days together under the leadership of Yigael Yadin at the Institute of Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University in 1983–1984. One of Lar-ry's most impressive achievements in the field was the excavation of the late seventh-century B.C.E. de-struction layer at Ashkelon. This was the theme of a typical Stager article in 1996—an excellent combina-tion of archaeology and text, written from the broad-est scope possible (Stager 1996). The exact nature and meaning of "destruction" has never been fully deliberated on in the archaeology of the Levant. The word is used quite freely to describe ashy layers found in a dig. The fact of the matter is that not every ashy layer represents destruction, that not all destructions entail heavy conflagration, and that not all destructions are of the same nature. A real destruction of a settlement should be de-fined by the presence of at least two of the following features: 1. A black layer with charcoal, representing burnt beams, on the floor, usually overlaid with a thick ashy layer. 2. A thick accumulation of collapse—of bricks or stones—on the floor. This accumulation can at times be as much as one meter or more deep. In the case of bricks and a strong fire, the bricks may turn red or even white. 3. In most cases, an accumulation of finds, main-ly broken pottery vessels, on the floors. Megiddo features four destruction layers in a rela-tively short period of ca. 400 years, between the mid-to-late twelfth century and the late eighth century B.C.E. Since the site was thoroughly excavated, in each case the evidence comes from several sectors of the mound (in two of the cases discussed below from the entire tell) and therefore provides a relatively detailed, reliable picture on the fate of the city. This makes Megiddo an excellent "laboratory" for the study of destructions: their magnitude, their vertical dimension, and their horizontal extent. And the rich assemblages of pottery associated with the Megiddo destructions make it easy to compare them to con-temporary events in neighboring sites. One can there-fore deal with both the diachronic (local) and syn-chronic (regional) aspects of the Megiddo destructions. The only problem is that in some cases the University of Chicago's reports do not deal with destructions. Still, sporadic brief references to fire and collapse and the many pictures published in the reports compensate for this shortcoming.
... Concerning the southern Levant, Finkelstein and Piasetzky (2006) attempted to place our dating results into the Low Chronology perspective. They removed 4 of the 5 dates from Stratum VI and retained only 1 comparatively young date obtained on cereal grains. ...
... The weighted average date of the 5 samples is 2772 ± 11 BP, which is the same (within 1 σ) as the single date of the cereal grains (2761 ± 14, GrN-27366). However, the main methodological shortcoming of Finkelstein and Piasetzky (2006) is their disregard for Bayesian sequence analysis (Bruins et al. 2005a). It is precisely this Bayesian analysis that enabled our enhanced chronological conclusions concerning Tel Rehov. ...
In this paper, we present an overview of radiocarbon dating contributions from Groningen, concerning 9 sites from around the Mediterranean region: Israel, Sinai (Egypt), Jordan, Spain, Tunisia, and Italy. Full date lists of the 9 sites are presented. Our 14C dates are discussed in terms of present actual chronological debates. We show that all our 14C dates coherently support a "high chronology" for the Iron Age in each respective area of the Mediterranean region. © 2009 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona.
... Hence, for example, Zertal's attempt to divide the sites into chronological stages should be taken with caution (Zertal 1994, 58-59). A better approach would be to organize assemblages of the pottery of the excavated sites based on chronology, using absolute 14 C dates whenever possible (Finkelstein and Piazetsky 2006). The only site that has been dated by 14 C is Shiloh Stratum V, which was found to have been settled during first half of the eleventh century BCE. ...
... This date also conforms to current thinking in regards to the end of Egyptian rule in Canaan, where the Iron Age is seen to begin once Egyptian suzerainty has ended in the middle of the 20th Dynasty (e.g., Ussishkin 1985;Ben-Dov 2011;Finkelstein and Piasetsky 2011). Bruins et al. 2005;Sharon et al. 2007;Mazar and Bronk Ramsey 2008;Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2009;Asscher et al. 2015;Burke et al. 2017 Boaretto et al. 2005;Mazar et al. 2005;Ullinger et al. 2005;Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2006;2009;Sharon et al. 2007;Mazar and Bronk Ramsey 2008;Toffolo et al. 2014;Asscher et al. 2015). However, the reader must be aware that some scholars begin the Iron Age I more or less with the 20th Dynasty (ca. ...
The Social Archaeology of the Levant - edited by Assaf Yasur-Landau December 2018
... In recent papers it was argued that Khirbet Qeiyafa was probably destroyed by Shoshenq I, together with other sites dated to the late Iron Age I and early Iron Age II such as Gibeon, 'Ai, Khirbet Raddana, Bethel and Khirbet ed-Dawwara (Finkelstein and Fantalkin 2012:54-55;Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2006) . This is a problematic claim, since none of these sites has been radiometrically dated. ...
In 2007 the name “Khirbet Qeiyafa” was still unknown both to professional archaeologists and to the public. In 2008 Khirbet Qeiyafa became world-famous. This spectacular success is entirely due to the figure of King David, who is so well known from the biblical tradition but is a very elusive figure from the archaeological or historical point of view. Nowhere else had an archaeological layer that can be related to this king been uncovered, not even in Jerusalem. For the first time in the archaeology of Judah, a fortified city from the time of King David had been exposed.
The date of the site was obtained by accurate radiometric measurements conducted on short-lived samples of burned olive pits. The location in the Elah Valley, just one day’s walk from Jerusalem, places the site in the core area of the Kingdom of Judah. Moreover, it is exactly in this area and this era that the biblical tradition places the famous combat between the inexperienced and anonymous young shepherd David and the well-equipped giant Philistine warrior Goliath. Khirbet Qeiyafa has become the point of contact between archaeology, biblical studies, ancient history and mythology.
The fieldwork at Khirbet Qeiyafa lasted seven seasons, from 2007 to 2013. This book, written at the end of the excavation phase, summarizes the main results, supplies answers to various issues concerning the site that have been raised over the last few years, and presents a comprehensive interim report. We are using this opportunity to discuss various methodological issues that relate to archaeology and the biblical tradition, and how to combine the two.
... These samples were collected mainly from excavations in progress, whose geographical distribution was mainly limited to the Kingdom of Israel, Philistia, and southern Jordan (e.g. Bruins et al. 2005;Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2006;Sharon et al. 2007;Levy et al. 2008;Mazar and Bronk Ramsey 2008). From the core area of contention, Judah in the 10th and 9th centuries BC, no radiometric samples were tested. ...
During the past 30 yr, the biblical narrative relating to the establishment of a kingdom in Judah has been much debated. Were David and Solomon historical rulers of an urbanized state-level society in the early 10th century BC, or was this level of social development reached only at the end of the 8th century BC, 300 yr later? Recent excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa, the first early Judean city to be dated by radiocarbon, clearly indicate a well-planned, fortified city in Judah as early as the late 11th to early 10th centuries BC. This new data has far-reaching implications for archaeology, history, and biblical studies. © 2012 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona.
... 1130 and 915 BCE, with OxA 19127 (1130–1046 BCE, 59.6%) probably representing an early phase in this sequence and OxA 19588 (996–914 BCE, 68%) a later one. Singer-Avitz (2010) has now shown that the Khirbet Qeiyafa assemblage belongs to the ceramic phase of the late Iron I. Judging from what we know about the pottery assemblages and radiocarbon results from the early and middle Iron I (Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2006, 2009 ...
Based on averaging four radiocarbon determinations, Garfinkel and Ganor (2009) have dated the Iron Age layer at Khirbet Qeiyafa to ca. 1025–975 BCE and declared the demise of the Low Chronology for the Iron Age strata in the Levant. We show that in the case of Khirbet Qeiyafa averaging is not a legitimate procedure. The five available measurements represent the life-span of the site rather than a single event. With the available data, all one can say is that activity at the site started ca. 1050 BCE and ended sometime during the 10th century, no later than 915 BCE. The Khirbet Qeiyafa 14C determinations line up with the large number of measurements from late Iron I sites in both the north and south of Israel and support the Low Chronology.
... The history of the early settlement at Tell le-Ful seems to be similar to that of Khirbet Raddana and et-Tell ('Ai') located ca. 10 km further to the north (Finkelstein 2007) and Khirbet el-Dawwara located ca. 7 km to the northeast (Finkelstein 1990b;Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2006), and possibly also Gibeon (see Finkelstein 2002). These had been Iron I settlements, which continued uninterrupted into the early phase of the Iron IIA period and were then abandoned (in the late 10th century or ca. ...
This article deals with the settlement history of Tell el-Ful from the Iron Age until the Hellenistic period. The author rejects past theories that a great fortress was built at the site in the Iron I period and that the settlement was protected by a casemate wall in the Iron IIC. He also rejects the identification of Tell el-Ful as biblical Gibeah/Gibeah of Saul. The author proposes that the tower excavated by Albright and Lapp was first constructed in the Iron IIC as an Assyrian watchtower commanding the northern approach to Jerusalem, and that it was one link in a system of such forts around the capital of Judah. The author maintains that the building served as a Hellenistic fort in a later phase and suggests the possibility, however speculative, of identifying Tell el-Ful with Pharathon, mentioned as one of the forts constructed by Bacchides in Judea in the early 2nd century BCE, and with Perath/Parah of late-monarchic times.
The tenth century BCE synchronism between Pharaoh Shoshenq I, the founder of the 22nd Dynasty in Egypt, and the biblical Shishak is widely accepted. However, various paradigms exist regarding the understanding of biblical texts and their possible association with archaeological strata. The nineteenth century Wellhausen paradigm theorized that the Law is younger than the Prophets, thereby initiating a Low Chronology and mythologizing much of Israel’s biblical history. Thomas Levy advocated throughout his career an open-minded approach concerning biblical texts and archaeology in the southern Levant. The present paper focuses on the radiocarbon dating results of Tel Megiddo, an Iron Age site of major importance and its possible relationships with biblical texts. The paper evaluates the influence of various scholarly paradigms on chronology, followed by an assessment of Tel Megiddo’s radiocarbon dates, using the latest IntCal 20 calibration curve. Based on nuclear physics, 14C dating results provide inherently unbiased numbers, unaffected by human paradigms and literary theories, whether liberal, conservative or postmodern. The radiocarbon evaluations of Tel Megiddo do not support chronological correlation of a destruction layer with the Shoshenq Campaign, neither the Stratum VIA destruction (former Finkelstein paradigm), nor the Stratum VA-IVB destruction (Yadin and Mazar paradigm). Stratum VB has two radiocarbon dates covering the tenth century BCE, supporting Yadin, who associated Megiddo V with the United Monarchy of Solomon. However, the destruction layer of Stratum VA-IVB dates to the ninth century BCE, supporting Finkelstein who related this devastation to Hazael’s Campaign. The radiocarbon dating results imply that Megiddo V and VA-IVB cover both the tenth century BCE (United Monarchy) and a large part of the ninth century BCE (Omride Dynasty of the Northern Kingdom of Israel). The historical break between the United Monarchy and the Divided Monarchies at Megiddo was apparently not accompanied by a distinct archaeological break. Ceramic studies appear to have difficulties distinguishing between the tenth and the ninth centuries BCE, as judged by the radiocarbon dating results. The stratigraphy and periodization of Megiddo VIA, VB, and VA-IVB should be reassessed in much more detail with radiocarbon dating to sort out the chronology and archaeological history across the tell.KeywordsTel MegiddoDestruction layersIron AgeSynchronismsBiblical associationsParadigmsRadiocarbon dating
The transition between the Late Bronze and Iron Ages in the Southern Levant has become
a popular area of study, regarding aspects of ethnicity, chronology and material culture. For the Shephelah and the southern Coastal Plain, understanding and reconstruction of settlement patterns of this phase are still hinged by the clear dearth of excavated sites of this transitional period. Whereas some scholars maintain that the Canaanite culture flourished in the region until the expansion of Judah in the late Iron Age IIA, others claim that Judah and its material culture are well attested in the region already at the beginning of the Iron Age IIA. An assumed settlement gap has led some scholars to conclude that the increasing number of settlements during the Iron Age IIA cannot be explained through natural growth and therefore must be linked to the expansion of the Kingdom of Judah.
Two sites recently excavated in Ramat Beth Shemesh, Badd el-Banat and Nahִal Nativ, provide a new opportunity to reassess the Shephelah region during this transitional period. The architectural traditions, ceramic assemblages, and location of these sites support the notion of continuity in the settlement pattern and the Canaanite material culture in the region, from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age II.
This article reviews the major problems in the political history of Megiddo during the early Iron Age (Iron Age I–IIA), at the time of the early monarchic period in Israel (eleventh–ninth centuries BCE). Megiddo has been central to an ongoing debate over the nature of the early monarchic period in Israel and the exact chronology of the Iron Age I–IIA periods. This importance derives both from the extensive excavations of the relevant strata at Megiddo (VIA, VB and VA-IVB) as well as Megiddo’s appearance in relevant historical sources, namely the Hebrew Bible, which claims that Solomon “built” Megiddo, and its appearance in the campaign list of pharaoh Sheshonq I. Though the fragment of a stela of Sheshonq I was found at Megiddo, it was only found after having been discarded and so its stratigraphic attribution is unclear. Radiocarbon dating from these strata has assisted to some degree but still left dating and historical questions quite open. This article will demonstrate that the political history of Megiddo during the early Iron Age is beset with ambiguities in the evidence, which have been divided into seven ambiguities for the purpose of the discussion here. When these ambiguities are taken into account, it becomes clear that the interpreter has much latitude in making their reconstruction, specifically in how they date strata and associate them with putative historical developments. Different cases can be made for associating particular strata and their termination with Solomon, Sheshonq or even later kings, but none can claim to objectively be the correct or superior reconstruction.
1 Kings 9:11–14 relates Solomon’s sale of the land of Cabul to Hiram, king of Tyre. Commentaries and studies on this pericope have dealt with its linguistic and historical aspects without reaching consensus on where this land was, what the term ‘Cabul’ actually means, or even whether these verses preserve an actual historic event from the 10th century BCE. This article addresses these issues through a more systematic presentation of the archaeological remains and geographic realities in the Galilee, and in so doing, offers a more contextually derived understanding of the events recorded in 1 Kgs 9:11–14 than has heretofore been offered.
Global climate change has sharpened focus on the social and economic challenges associated with water deficits, particularly in regions where anthropogenic demands exceed supply. This modern condition was also experienced by the people of ancient western Asia, where chronic water shortages were accentuated by recurrent droughts. However, human societies may react to climate change, particularly desiccation, in different ways depending on specific local conditions. Focusing on the biblical site of Tel Dan (present-day Israel), we show the effects of severe precipitation decline in an environment that was well watered and fertile even in times of drought. Such local niches of prosperity became attractive targets for predation when food resources became scarce in surrounding rain-fed areas. We propose that predation forced urban populations to either flee or adopt new subsistence strategies. Predation and abandon-ment, even if only partial, led to the poor maintenance of water networks in and around the city. Once stagnant water surrounded the area, water-borne disease proliferated. Our study shows how climate changes can disrupt social and political structures, cause water system management to collapse, and facilitate marshland expansion.
Two superimposed strata were uncovered at the site-Strata 1 and 2-as well as earlier remains (Stratum -1) and later graves (Stratum 2+). Stratum 1 comprised the corner of a rectangular building, dated to the Persian period. In Stratum 2, dated to Iron Age I, several rectilinear buildings were uncovered. At least one of the buildings had a semisubterranean basement, indicating the existence of an upper story. Based on the considerable storage potential of the pithoi found within some of the structures, it seems that they were used for storage, thereby suggesting an agriculturally based community with a sound economic basis. The bulk of the pottery recovered from the excavation dates from Iron Age I. Best represented in the assemblage are pithoi, several of which bear incised or punctuate decorations. The pithoi from Horbat Avot confirm the basic division into "Galilean" and "Wavy-Band" pithoi, but suggest further subdivisions and a localized typology that may have relevance for sites beyond the region of Upper Galilee. Other finds worthy of mention are a bone knife handle that was carved to resemble a circumcised phallus, two spindle whorls and one loomweight, stone objects and flint tools.
Archaeological research on the Iron Age (1200–500 BC) Levant, a narrow strip of land bounded by the Mediterranean Sea and the Arabian Desert, has been balkanized into smaller culture historical zones structured by modern national borders and disciplinary schools. One consequence of this division has been an inability to articulate broader research themes that span the wider region. This article reviews scholarly debates over the past two decades and identifies shared research interests in issues such as ethnogenesis, the development of territorial polities, economic intensification, and divergent responses to imperial interventions. The broader contributions that Iron Age Levantine archaeology offers global archaeological inquiry become apparent when the evidence from different corners of the region is assembled.
Radiocarbon dating is one of the most important chronological tools applied to archaeology. The technique itself changed the way that archaeologists look at chronology. Instrumental determination of age is superior to estimates based on association, cultural aspects, pottery, and artistic style. Radiocarbon methods have also evolved with time. They have contributed greatly to our understanding of the development of human history and the archaeological record. Some important and recent applications of radiocarbon dating to archaeological studies are presented.
The Iron Age sequence in the southern Levant is one of the most evocative and provocative in ancient history, since it coincides with events remembered in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). The authors show how a scientific chronological framework can be created and contribute an independent voice to the historical debate. They also show that, if archaeology is to complement history, such a framework requires an especially rigorous application of precision, in context definition, data handling and Bayesian radiocarbon dating, and urge such application to forthcoming work at the key Biblical site of Megiddo.
The camel and equid remains from a copper-smelting site — Site 30 at Timna in the southern Arabah excavated by Rothenberg in the 1970s and recently re-dated to the Iron I/Iron II — are analysed in relation to recently published data on the domestication of the dromedary and on the morphology of the various equid taxa present in the Middle East. It is concluded that camels and donkeys were employed in the distribution of copper from Timna and from mines in the eastern Arabah, prior to the large-scale utilization of camels in the incense trade between the Levant and southern Arabia in Iron II.
Combined archaeological data from the Central Jordan Valley indicates that small agricultural villages and a few public buildings occupied the area during the first half of the 10th century BC, all grouped along well-organised irrigation systems. A regional conflagration ended the occupation around 950 BC, after which most of the Central Jordan Valley was deserted for approximately one century. This occupational gap coincided with a period of decreased precipitation. During this arid phase the area was visited by mobile groups who used the summits of the settlement mounds for animal holding and sparse industrial activities. According to the topographical list of Shoshenq I, there were at least four settlements in the Central Jordan Valley: Adamah, Succoth, Penuel and Mahanaim. These places were apparently important enough in c. 925 BC for the Egyptians to neutralise them. But where are the remains of these settlements? This study deals with the intriguing disjunction between archaeological and textual evidence.
A reevaluation of the archaeology of Bethel indicates that the site prospered in the Iron Age I, Iron Age IIB and the late Hellenistic period, that it was weakly settled in the Late Iron Age IIA and the Iron Age IIC, and that it was probably uninhabited or almost deserted in the Babylonian and Persian periods (possibly also in the Early Iron Age IIA). Biblical references to Bethel should be read accordingly. The only possible period for the supposed strong scribal activity at Bethel is the Iron Age IIB, in the 8th century B.C.E., probably before the fall of the Northern Kingdom.
We propose that an early Moabite territorial entity emerged south of Wadi Mujib (the biblical Arnon) in the late Iron I - the late 11th and 10th centuries BC. A chain of fortresses protected Khirbet Balu a-the hub of this polity-on the north and east. The Balu a Stele may be associated with this polity. We further propose that the prime-mover behind the rise of the south Moabite territorial entity was the trade of copper from the Wadi Faynan area south of the Dead Sea. Its abandonment in the late 10th century BC may have been the result of the campaign of Sheshonq I in the south and the diversion of at least part of the Arabah copper flow to the west, in the direction of the Mediterranean coast and Egypt.
Radiocarbon investigations in recent years show beyond doubt that the Iron IIA lasted until approximately 800 B.C.E. The early-to-late Iron IIA transition should be placed in the first half of the ninth century. For the beginning of the Iron IIA (the Iron I/II transition), the differences between the debating camps have now narrowed to a few decades-a gap that is beyond the resolution of radiocarbon results, even when a large number of determinations are deployed. Introducing historical considerations as well as observations related to the pace of change of pottery traditions, the Iron I/II transition could have taken a decade or two and should be put shortly after the midtenth century B.C.E.
It was recently suggested that the introduction of the camel to the southern
Levant occurred in the early Iron Age (late 2nd–early 1st millennia BCE).
Our study of faunal remains from Iron Age sites at Timna, together with
previous studies of Late Bronze and Iron Age sites at Timna and Wadi
Faynan, enable us to pinpoint this event more precisely. The new evidence
indicates that the first significant appearance of camels in the Aravah
Valley was not earlier than the last third of the 10th century BCE. This date
accords with data from the Negev and the settled lands further to the
north when the low chronology is applied to the early Iron IIA.
The following short paper is a response to criticism by Finkelstein and Piasetzky (2010b), published in the present issue of Radiocarbon, of our 2008 paper in Radiocarbon concerning the evaluation of 14C dates from Iron Age levels in Israel published by Boaretto et al. (2005). We refer to criticism concerning exclusion and inclusion of data. We also evaluate new models suggested by Finkelstein and Piasetzky and in particular their suggestion of regional stages marking the end of the Iron Age in Israel. We also comment on several methodological issues. © 2010 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona.
Boaretto et al. (2005) published 68 radiocarbon dates relating to 30 samples from 10 Iron Age sites in Israel as part of their Early Iron Age Dating Project. Though the main goal of their paper was an interlaboratory comparison, they also presented results of Bayesian models, calculating the transition from Iron Age I to Iron Age II in Israel to be about 900 BCE instead of the conventional date of about 1000 BCE. Since this date has great importance for all of Eastern Mediterranean archaeology, in this paper we examine the results in light of the dates published in the above-mentioned article. Our paper was revised in light of new data and interpretations published by Sharon et al. (2007).
Following a survey of the contexts and specific results at each site, we present several Bayesian models. Model C2 suggests the date range of 961–942 BCE (68% probability) for the transition from Iron Age I to Iron Age II, while Model C3 indicates a somewhat later date of 948–919 BCE (compare the date 992–961 BCE calculated at Tel Rehov for the same transition). In our Model D, we calculated this transition date at Megiddo as taking place between 967–943 BCE. Finally, we calculated the range of dates of major destruction levels marking the end of the Iron Age I, with the following results: Megiddo VIA: 1010–943 BCE; Yoqne'am XVII: 1045–997 BCE; Tell Qasile X: 1039–979 BCE; Tel Hadar: 1043–979 BCE (all in the 68.2% probability range). Figure 4 indicates that the transition between Iron I and II probably occurred between these above-mentioned destruction events and the dates achieved in our Models C2 or C3, namely during the first half of the 10th century BCE.
This study emphasizes the sensitivity of Bayesian models to outliers, and for reducing or adding dates from the models. This sensitivity should be taken into account when using Bayesian models for interpreting radiometric dates in relation to subtle chronological questions in historical periods.
The article attempts to reconstruct the history of southern Israel (the Beersheba Valley, the Shephelah and the southern Coastal Plain) in the Late Iron I and Iron IIA. It shows that activity in the so-called 'Tel Masos chiefdom' commenced in the Iron I and peaked in the Early Iron IIA-parallel to the copper mining activity at Khirbet en-NalJas. Regarding the early phase of this time-span, the article proposes that the Sheshonq I campaign did not bring about the destruction of the Tel Masos chiefdom; rather, the major phase of activity in the south-in the Early Iron IIAwas a result of Egyptian involvement in the region. Regarding the end of the Iron IIA, the article rejects the notion that the Iron IIA-IIB transition should be affiliated with the earthquake mentioned in Amos 1: 1; it dates this transition to ca. 800 BCE.
Abstract The article proposes that the Great Wall at Tell en-Nasbeh was built by King Jehoash in the second half of the 9th century BCE. It then sets this city-wall on the broader background of the construction—at the same time—of the first system of fortifications in Judah, a system that also includes Lachish and Beth-shemesh in the west and Beer-sheba and Arad in the south. Finally, the article suggests a scenario that attempts to clarify the tradition in 1 Kings 15:16-22.
Traditionally, relations between egypt and the levant in the early phases of the iron Age have been reconstructed based on the scant historical record and on biblical descriptions. This article introduces a new facet of egyptian regional intervention into the discussion: the presence of egyptian pottery at iron Age sites in israel.
The article examines the evidence for metal-working in the Iron I and Iron IIA, as well as in the Iron IIB in the Land of Israel. The comparative analysis of material from northern valley sites and the Beersheba Valley reveals a discrepancy in the progress of technological development: by the early Iron II A, the iron industry in the south was already relatively well developed, while in the north it remained largely ignored and smiths continued to work in bronze. A striking case is the disparity in the metal-working of the contemporaneous early Iron IIA Beersheba Valley sites of Tel Masos II on the one hand and Arad XII and Beersheba VII on the other. All three sites belonged to the same settlement entity and were located in equal proximity to the Feinan copper production centre. But while Tel Masos II shows extensive evidence of copper-working, which fits its involvement in the Arabah copper trade, Arad XII and Beersheba VII feature marks of an iron-dominated metal industry.
The article reevaluates the archaeology and history of Kadesh Barnea in view of some recent publications. It argues that the finds at the site cover the entire sequence of the Iron Age and later, up to the Persian period. The main conclusions are: (1) Substratum 4c represents the earliest occupation, which dates to the Iron I in the 12th to 10th centuries BCE. The radiocarbon results from seed samples that ostensibly belong to Substratum 4b provide dates in the 10th century BCE, and should be affiliated with this settlement. (2) Substratum 4b is a settlement (rather than an oval fortress) that features at least two phases. It covers the entire sequence of the Iron IIA, between the late 10th and early 8th century BCE. (3) Strata 3–2 feature the remains of a single rectangular fortress with a solid wall built as a foundation for a system of casemates. This fortress was built in the second half of the 8th century, with the Assyrian take-over of the region, and continued to function until ca. 600 BCE. It features three construction phases.
Short-lived samples from an iron Age IIA context at Tell el-Qudeirat in northeastern Sinai, identified by many with biblical Kadesh Barnea, were subjected to radiocarbon dating. The results indicate dates that are very high—even higher than those currently adhered to by proponents of the 'high' iron Age chronology. These dates were obtained after independent measuring in three radiocarbon laboratories. Repeated 14C intercomparisons, in this case and others, have demonstrated that apparent inconsistencies in the dates offered for archaeological facies cannot be attributed to measurement error or bias. Answers must be sought elsewhere.
The article presents textual and archaeological evidence for three phases in the territorial expansion of the Northern Kingdom. In the initial, pre-Omride phase Israel expanded only into the Jezreel Valley. Under the Omrides, the territory of the Northern Kingdom covered the northern valleys as far as Hazor and the mountainous Galilee. In the first half of the 8th century BCE, Israel expanded further north, to the area of Dan and possibly beyond.
We present a full-sequence radiocarbon-based chronological system for the Iron Age in the Levant, anchored on the dating of ten destruction layers for the years 1130–730 BC. We establish the sequence using two methods – the ‘uncalibrated weighted average’ and the Bayesian modelling. Utilizing four dating tools in combination – radiocarbon measurements, field stratigraphy, pottery typology and ancient Near Eastern historical records – facilitates solutions to chronological problems that are far beyond the resolving power of 14C dating alone. The results shed light on disputed issues related to biblical and ancient Near Eastern history, such as the expansion of the early Israelite polity from the highlands to the lowlands; the nature of the Shoshenq I campaign to Canaan; and the evolution of the conflict between northern Israel and Aram Damascus.
The article challenges the notion that Tel Rehov can serve as an anchor for Iron Age chronology. It summarizes the main shortcomings in the analysis of the new 14C readings from Tel Rehov and then points to difficulties in the interpretation of the stratigraphy, pottery (including Greek sherds) and chronology of the site. The author equates Tel Rehov IV with Megiddo VA and concludes that the Megiddo palaces, conventionally described as the best manifestation for the tenth century United Monarchy, date to the early ninth century – the time of the Omride Dynasty in northern Israel.