Iron Age Chronology Research Articles

Tel Rehov and Iron Age Chronology

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.

Dor and Iron Age Chronology: Scarabs, Ceramic Sequence and 14C

Recently, Stefan Münger proposed that Egyptian so-called 'mass-produced' stamp-seal amulets may be traced to a Tanite origin and dated to the late 21st–early 22nd Egyptian Dynasties. Among these, it has been suggested that some scarabs bear the name of Siamun of the late 21st Dynasty, who ruled in the first half of the 10th century BCE. Since in Palestine these scarab seals first occur in late Iron Age I contexts, Münger suggests that they corroborate the 'low Iron Age chronology', which incorporates most of the 10th century in Iron Age I rather than in Iron Age II. The site of Tel Dor, on Israel's Carmel coast, produced the best stratified group of these scarabs, including one that was identified as bearing the name Siamun. This paper elucidates the archaeological context of these finds and discusses their chronological repercussions vis-à-vis Münger's proposal.

An Archaeological Contribution to the Early Iron Age Chronological Debate: Alternative Chronologies for Phoenicia and Their Effects on the Levant, Cyprus, and Greece

The debate over the chronology of the early Iron Age in Israel by far transcends Palestinian archaeology, history, and biblical historiography. Chronologies for most of the adjacent regions, and th...

Response to Comment on “ 14 C Dates from Tel Rehov: Iron-Age Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings”

Our investigation at Tel Rehov ([ 1 ][1]) aimed at obtaining reproducible high-quality 14C dates that could serve as an independent chronological basis ([ 2 ][2]). Finkelstein and Piasetzky ([ 3 ][3]) charge that in the results of that study ([ 4 ][4]) we ignored previously published dates from Tel

Wrong and Right; High and Low 14C Dates from Tel Rehov and Iron Age Chronology

Bruins, van der Plicht and Mazar (2003a) recently presented a new set of 14C measurements from Tel Rehov and interpret them as supporting at least part of the conventional chronology system for the Iron Age strata in the Levant. The present article takes issue with the provenance of the samples and with Bruins, van der Plicht and Mazar's methodology, historical arguments and interpretation of the measurements using the calibration curve. The article shows that the new readings from Tel Rehov far from support the conventional chronology. First, there is an alternative interpretation for the readings from Tel Rehov V, which falls in the very late 10th century BCE. Second, Tel Rehov IV is the contemporary of Megiddo VA (VA–IVB) and hence the latter, with its ashlar palaces, must be dated to the first half of the 9th century BCE. This means that the new Tel Rehov measurements support the most important component of the Low Chronology system.

Wrong and Right; High and Low <SUP>14</SUP>C Dates from Tel Rehov and Iron Age Chronology

Wrong and Right; High and Low <SUP>14</SUP>C Dates from Tel Rehov and Iron Age Chronology

Some Aegean Reactions to the Chronological Debate in the Southern Levant

This paper presents an Aegean angle on the current discussion about Early Iron Age chronology in the eastern half of the Mediterranean. Although lacking any evidence for absolute dates, the Aegean possesses a sound relative sequence, firmly based on several hundred closed groups, in single graves, of whole pots; these show a clear development evident in gradual changes of shape and of painted decoration. These small 'chronological calls' help to illustrate the pace of stylistic development in the various regional schools of Protogeometric and Geometric pottery.Early Greek exports to five sites in the Southern Levant—Samaria, Megiddo, Tel Rehov, Tel Hadar and Tel Dor—offer some hope of pegging the Greek sequence to reliable absolute dates obtained from Near Eastern historical records. Even if the quality of these correlations may sometimes be far from ideal, their cumulative evidence nevertheless produces an internally coherent picture for the Greek relative sequence. And, when one is face to face with a choice between the 'high' and 'low' chronologies currently being advanced in the southern Levant, the latter alternative offers by far the more credible pace of stylistic change in the Aegean.

Some Aegean Reactions to the Chronological Debate in the Southern Levant

This paper presents an Aegean angle on the current discussion about Early Iron Age chronology in the eastern half of the Mediterranean. Although lacking any evidence for absolute dates, the Aegean possesses a sound relative sequence, firmly based on several hundred closed groups, in single graves, of whole pots; these show a clear development evident in gradual changes of shape and of painted decoration. These small 'chronological calls' help to illustrate the pace of stylistic development in the various regional schools of Protogeometric and Geometric pottery.Early Greek exports to five sites in the Southern Levant—Samaria, Megiddo, Tel Rehov, Tel Hadar and Tel Dor—offer some hope of pegging the Greek sequence to reliable absolute dates obtained from Near Eastern historical records. Even if the quality of these correlations may sometimes be far from ideal, their cumulative evidence nevertheless produces an internally coherent picture for the Greek relative sequence. And, when one is face to face with a choice between the 'high' and 'low' chronologies currently being advanced in the southern Levant, the latter alternative offers by far the more credible pace of stylistic change in the Aegean.

Direct thermoluminescence chronology for Early Iron Age smelting technology on the Gambaga Escarpment, Ghana

We present luminescence dates which demonstrate a full-blown smelting technology in Northern Ghana, West Africa, during the Early Iron Age. Our chronology is based on thermoluminescence (TL) dating of quartz grains extracted from the walls of three iron smelters located at the Birimi site in the Northern Region of Ghana. Two of the smelters yielded statistically indistinguishable ages of 1080±70 and 1090±60 years, while the third yielded a higher age of 1600±100 years. All are significantly older than the sole direct radiocarbon date of 550–330 calBP (460±90 BP) obtained on a furnace in the Northern Region. The TL ages indicate that iron smelting was well established in the Northern Region before the middle of the first millennium AD, and corroborate the validity of a number of similarly early radiocarbon dates associated with Early Iron Age ceramics but not directly associated with smelting activity, from other sites in northern Ghana. The iron working remains at Birimi are located on a river terrace, only a few tens of meters west of a dense Kintampo occupation. Radiocarbon and TL dates for the Kintampo complex demonstrate that the Iron Age and Kintampo components at Birimi are clearly non-contemporaneous. The occurrence of two distinct layers of goethite within 150 cm of the terrace surface, both of which are clearly exposed in the scarp of the terrace upon which the smelters are situated, indicates that the industrial site was deliberately sited to take advantage of the readily available source material. This premise is confirmed by geochemical analyses of sediment, goethite, and slag from the smelting site. We therefore propose that the frequent proximity of Kintampo and iron production sites is incidental, in the sense that each group exploited different resources offered by a riverbank location.

Egyptian Stamp-Seal Amulets and Their Implications for the Chronology of the Early Iron Age

Egyptian Stamp-Seal Amulets and Their Implications for the Chronology of the Early Iron Age

Egyptian Stamp-Seal Amulets and Their Implications for the Chronology of the Early Iron Age

The paper introduces a clearly definable group of Egyptian stamp-seal amulets that provides a new, non-biblical anchor for the absolute chronology of Palestine in the Iron Age. The items in this group—found in large numbers in the Egyptian Delta, Palestine, and Cyprus—were probably produced in the Delta in the time of Pharaohs Siam un and Sheshonq I, in the mid-10th century BCE. In Palestine they appear for the first time in the temporal horizon represented by strata such as Arad XII and Megiddo VI. Accordingly, it is suggested that the date of material remains traditionally attributed to the United Monarchy in Israel should be lowered by ca. 50 years.

Excavations at Van-Yoncatepe Fortress and Necropolis

A ceramic oven containing pots and bowls, found in an illegal excavation in 1995 at the southwestern corner of the fortress, demonstrates that these were produced locally. The fact that the kiln was not emptied may indicate that the occupants left the site in a hurry (Belli 1996:149). At first the reason was unclear but after three years of excavating at the fortress we surmised that an unexpected fire caused confusion and people fled in panic. The cause of the fire has not yet been ascertained. There may have been an attack by enemies or just an accident somewhere in the fortress. We hope to find more answers in the coming years.The cultural transition in the Van region from the second millennium BCE to the Early Iron Age and then the Urartian Period is not fully understood. The discovery of the Early Iron Age ceramics and iron objects found so far at Yoncatepe plus further excavation seasons planned for this site will contribute to clarifying the local nature of this transition.We believe that both the architectural and burial customs as well as the tomb deposits should be considered characteristic of the Early Iron Age. Furthermore, this new datum from the Yoncatepe excavations necessitates a reevaluation of the Early Iron Age chronology for the Van region.

Near Eastern Destruction Datings as Sources for Greek and Near Eastern Iron Age Chronology, Archaeological and Historical Studies: The Cases of Samaria (722 B. C.) and Tarsus (696 B. C.). Stig Forsberg

<i>Near Eastern Destruction Datings as Sources for Greek and Near Eastern Iron Age Chronology, Archaeological and Historical Studies: The Cases of Samaria (722 B. C.) and Tarsus (696 B. C.)</i>. Stig Forsberg

P. Magee. « The chronology of southeast Arabian Iron Age », Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 7, (1996), pp. 240-252.

Cette serie d’articles aux titres ambitieux, voire pretentieux, et au contenu souvent redondant, et moins original que ne le suggere l’A, interesse l’Iran au titre de voisin, car il est reconnu comme region d’origine de certains traits culturels, bien souvent faute de mieux ou sur la base d’idees anciennes qu’il faudrait reevaluer. La periodisation et la chronologie de l’âge du Fer de la Peninsule d’Oman, largement calquees sur celles de l’Iran, l’origine de la metallurgie du fer, de grandes ...

Chronological Separation, Geographical Segregation, or Ethnic Demarcation? Ethnography and the Iron Age Low Chronology

The traditional Iron Age chronology has recently been challenged by I. Finkelstein who proposed a wholesale lowering of its dates. The cornerstone of the new chronology is the seeming absence of Ph...

Notes on the Stratigraphy and Chronology of Iron Age Ta'anach

Notes on the Stratigraphy and Chronology of Iron Age Ta'anach

Notes on the Stratigraphy and Chronology of Iron Age Ta'anach

Ce bref article est consacre a l'etude stratigraphique et la chronologique des strates du site de Taanach, en Israel, a l'âge du Fer. L'A se fonde sur l'analyse de la ceramique des diverses phases de la periode citee.

Jezreel—Its contribution to iron age chronology

The results of the excavations at Tel Jezreel have challenged our understanding of the Solomonic period and the beginning of the monarchies in Judah and Israel. The similarity between the pottery at Omride Jezreel and “Solomonic”; Megiddo seems to favour a redating of the Solomonic levels in the area to the Omride period. However, evidence of a pre‐Om‐ride settlement at Jezreel may still suggest a Solomonic era or at least a beginning of the monarchy in northern Israel before the Omride dynasty.

Lower Galilee during the Iron Age

Introduction Figures Tables 1. Ecological Environment Geographical Structure Geba ot Allonim Central Lower Galilee Eastern Lower Galilee Water Sources Roads Units of Landscape Settlement Southern Unit Northern Unit Eastern Unit 2. Field Survey Southern Subregion Northern Subregion Eastern Subregion 3. Excavations in Lower Galilee Tel Mador (Khirbet Abu Mudawer I blin) Tel Qarney Hittin Hurbat Ro sh Zayitt 4. Lower Galilee in the Bronze Age Settlement in the Early Bronze Age Settlement in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages 5. Pottery-Typological and Chronological Analysis Introduction Typology Pithoi Storage Jars Jugs Kraters Bowls Cooking Pots Conclusions Iron Age Chronology 6. Settlement of the Tribes of Israel Introduction Central Lower Galilee Eastern Lower Galilee The Fringes of the Jezre el Valley 7. The Period of the Monarchy Distribution of the Sites and Their Characteristics Inheritance of the Tribes Zebulun Asher Naphtali Issachar History of Settlement during the Monarchy Bibliography

La cronologia della prima eta del ferro laziale attraverso i dati delle sepolture

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY IRON AGE IN LATIUM AS REVEALED BY BURIAL DATAIn this paper the problem of the chronology of early Iron Age (ninth-eighth century BC) burials in Latium is considered. Since the beginning of the sixties many scholars have considered this problem from different points of view. Müller-Karpe suggested a relative chronology which, in general terms, is still in use. In recent years a considerable increase in the amount of archaeological evidence has made it necessary to revise the chronological sequence. It has been possible to design a table which associates graves with metal and pottery types. In this table Müller-Karpe's phases are divided into two subphases which are related to different stages in the development of the early Iron Age in the Italian peninsula. On the basis of this chronology it seems that use of the necropolis of the Forum ceased at the end of phase IIA1, with an early moving of burials of the Esquiline area.A short account is also given of the questions which relate to absolute chronology, and an attempt is made to relate the phases of the early Iron Age in Latium, and in the Italian peninsula in general, to recent dates proposed for the late Urnfield culture in central Europe.