• from Mazar (2014)

• from Finkelstein and Piasetzky (2009)

• from Finkelstein and Piasetzky (2010)

• from Finkelstein and Piasetzky (2010)

• from Mazar (2014)

• from Finkelstein and Piasetzky (2009)

• from Finkelstein and Piasetzky (2010)

• from Finkelstein (2013:6-7)

Figures Discussion


2. Recent Advances in Archaeology

A clarification about chronology is in place here. Our knowledge of the chronology — both relative and absolute — of the Iron Age strata and monuments in the Levant has been truly revolutionized. In terms of relative chronology, intensification of the study of pottery assemblages from secure stratigraphic contexts at sites such as Megiddo and Tel Rehov in the north and Lachish in the south opened the way to establish a secure division of the Iron Age into six ceramic typology phases:

• early and late Iron I (Arie 2006; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2006)
• early and late Iron IIA (Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004, 2006; Zimhoni 2004a; A. Mazar et al. 2005; Arie 2013)
• Iron IIB and Iron IIC (Zimhoni 2004b)

In terms of absolute chronology, intensive radiocarbon studies enable accurate dating of these phases in a resolution of fifty years and less. his can now be done free of past arguments, which were based on uncritical reading of the biblical text (e.g., Yadin 1970; Dever 1997). In this book I will be using the dates that result from two studies:

1. A statistical model based on a large number of radiocarbon determinations: 229 results from 143 samples that came from 38 strata at 18 sites located in both the north and south of Israel (Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010, based on Sharon et al. 2007 and other studies; Table 1 here³). The radiocarbon results from Israel are the most intensive for such a short period of time and small piece of land ever presented in the archaeology of the ancient Near East.
   
   
   Table 1
   
   Dates of ceramic phases in the Levant and the transition between them according to recent radiocarbon results (based on a Bayesian model, 63 percent agreement between the model and the data)
   
   Finkelstein (2013:7)



2. A statistical model for a single site — Megiddo: circa 100 radiocarbon determinations from about 60 samples for 10 layers at Megiddo, which cover circa 600 years between circa 1400 and 800 B.C.E. (Tofolo et al. forthcoming; demonstration in Fig. 2). Megiddo is especially reliable for such a model because the time span in question features four major destruction layers that produced many organic samples from reliable contexts. This, too, is unprecedented: no other site has ever produced such a number of results for such a dense stratigraphic sequence. The general model (table 1) represents a conservative approach for determining the dates. It creates certain overlaps in the dates of the phases and a fairly broad range for the transition periods. When this model is adapted to historical reasoning (e.g., the end of Egyptian rule in the Late Bronze III), one gets the following dates, which will be used in this book (Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2011):
   

   Phase	Date
   Late Bronze III	twelfth century until circa 1130 B.C.E.
   Early Iron I	late 12th century and 1st half of the 11th century B.C.E.
   Late Iron I	2nd half of the 11th century and 1st half of the 10th century B.C.E.
   Early Iron IIA	last decades of the 10th century and the early 9th century B.C.E.
   Late Iron IIA	rest of the 9th century and the early 8th century B.C.E.
   Iron IIB	rest of the 8th century and the early 7th century B.C.E.

• from Mazar (2014)

Finkelstein’s Low Chronology (LC)

Since 1996, Finkelstein (1995, 1996) went one step further by suggesting the wholesale lowering by 50 - 80 years of archaeological assemblages traditionally attributed to the 12th—10th centuries BC E. His first point was the date of the appearance of the local Mycenaean IIIC or ‘Philistine Monochrome’ pottery. Following Ussishkin (1985), he suggested lowering the appearance of this pottery by 50 years until after the end of the Egyptian presence in Canaan. This subject is beyond the scope of the present discussion, but it should be mentioned that several recent studies and discoveries, such as those at Ashkelon, negate this approach; in fact, none of the excavators of Philistia find this suggestion acceptable. It also creates unsolvable problems in correlating the archaeology of Philistia with that of Cyprus (Dothan and Zukerman 2003 ; Mazar 1985 and forthcoming; Sherratt and Master [Chapters 9 and 20, this volume;). ¹⁴C dates for this period are not of much help, due to the many wiggles and complicated shape of the calibration curve for the 11th and 12th centuries BCE . Consequently, Finkelstein suggested lowering the dates of late Iron Age I assemblages from the late 11th century to the 10th century BCE and the lowering of traditional 10th century BCE assemblages to the 9th century BCE. His view became known as the ‘Low Chronology’ for the Iron Age of Israel. This suggestion empties the 10th century BCE of its traditional contents. Sites and strata that were traditionally dated to the late 11th century BCE, such as Megiddo VIA, are dated to the 10th century BCE, until Shishak’s campaign (Finkelstein 1998a, 1998b, 1999b, 2002a, 2002b, 2004, and Chapters 3 and 17, this volume). In a separate study based on ¹⁴C dates from Tel Dor, Ayelet Gilboa and Ilan Sharon suggest an even lower chronology from that suggested by Finkelstein (see below).