Early Bronze Age in Palestine rests upon three relatively independent considerations. First, there is the archeological stratigraphy of the period itself, structured into a comparative sequence whose nomenclature varies, but upon whose substance there is general agreement (Wright: 1937, 1958,. 1961; De Vaux: 1971). Second, datable foreign synchronisms are established through literary sources, art, imported objects, architectural parallels, and pottery analysis (Kantor: 1965; Albright: 1965; Hennessy: 1967). Egyptian synchronisms are most important in the present chronologies, but there are supporting connections with Syrian and Anatolian sites. And third, an increasing number of radiocarbon dates has become available in recent years, presenting us with the potential for an absolute independent of foreign synchronisms. Until recently the most controversial issue was that of a or in dating the beginning of Dynasty 1 in Egypt. Most Egyptologists favor the high chronology, beginning the Ist Dynasty ca. 3100 B.C. (Hayes 1970: 174-80). On the other hand, Palestinian archeologists have generally followed the low of Albright, beginning the Ist Dynasty ca. 2900 B.C. (Albright 1965: 50). A major factor influencing widespread adoption of the low was the apparent lack of enough stratified historical evidence to fill in EB I and III, the two problem periods. Two developments within the last decade alter the rather settled status of Early Bronze Age and require a review of present evidence. First, excavations at Jericho, Ai, and Bab edh-Dhra have produced considerably more stratified historical evidence to fill in the time-span of the period, making the low an option rather than a necessity. Accordingly, while Lapp (1970: 123-24) follows a moderately low chronology of Albright, Hennessy (1967: 85-90) prefers a higher by 100 years and Callaway (1972: 116) adopts a mediating position, JAMES M. WEINSTEIN The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19174
Read full abstract