50 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:1 (2011)

Trends, Tools, Techniques, andTrends, Tools, Techniques, and

ForumorumThe Iron Age

Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing?

IntroductionAn article by one of us fifteen years ago (Finkelstein 1996)

instigated a fierce debate over the chronology of the Iron Age strata in the Levant (summaries of opinions in Finkelstein 2005; Mazar 2005); the debate still lingers on today. Establish-ing a firm, absolute chronology for the Iron Age strata has far-reaching implications on regions far beyond the Levant (e.g., Coldstream 2003) and on biblical history (see, e.g., different attitudes in Finkelstein 2010; Mazar 2010).

In the early years of the debate, discussion focused on stratig-raphy, ceramic typology, finds at key sites, and historical consid-erations (e.g., Finkelstein 1996; Mazar 1997) and soon reached a stalemate. But starting a decade ago, attention turned to radio-carbon dating. This avenue was dramatically enhanced by the large-scale Iron Age Dating Project, in which a large number of samples from many strata representing the different ceramic phases of the Iron Age in both the north and south of Israel were dated (Boaretto et al. 2005; Sharon et al. 2007; for specific sites, see, e.g., Gilboa and Sharon 2003 for Tel Dor; Mazar et al. 2005 for Tel Rehov; Boaretto 2006 for Megiddo). This short review summarizes the state of the art as it stands today. Though an agreement regarding Iron Age chronology has not yet been reached, it is fair to say that understanding between the “rival” camps is growing and that the gaps are closing.

Relative Chronology The relative chronology of the Levant in the Iron Age, that is,

the sequence of ceramic typology phases based on stratigraphy, is now well-established and widely agreed upon. The period is divided into seven phases (see, e.g., Zimhoni 1997; Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004, 2006; Mazar et al. 2005; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2006).

1. Early Iron I—Giloh in the highlands and the Philistine monochrome strata in the southern coastal plain

2. Middle Iron I—Shiloh V in the highlands and the Phi-listine bichrome strata in the southern coastal plain

3. Late Iron I—Megiddo VIA and its contemporaries in the northern valleys; Qasile X in the southern coastal plain

4. Early Iron IIA—Megiddo VB and its contemporaries in the north; Lachish V, Arad XII, and their contempo-raries in the south

5. Late Iron IIA—Megiddo VA–IVB, Rehov IV, and their contemporaries in the north; Lachish IV, Beer-sheba V, Tell es-Safi Stratum A3 (previously titled Temporary Stratum 4), and their cotemporaries in the south

6. Iron IIB—Megiddo IVA in the north and Lachish III in the south

7. Iron IIC—Lachish II and its contemporaries

Past DatesThe chronology of the Iron IIB–C is not disputed, as it rests

on solid archaeological and historical grounds. (In any event, radiocarbon cannot help in this case because of the flat section in the calibration curve: “the Hallstatt Plateau.”) Hence from the beginning, the debate focused on the late Iron I and the two phases of Iron IIA.

We should first clarify the lines of dispute at the beginning of the debate. According to the Conventional Chronology, the Iron IIA covered the period of time between circa 1000 b.c.e.and 925/900 b.c.e.—approximately the time of the supposed united monarchy (e.g., Mazar 1990; New Encyclopedia 1993, 4:1529; note that 925 b.c.e. relates to the dating of the Sheshonq I campaign according to 1 Kgs 14:25). According to the Low Chronology, the Iron IIA covered the period of time between circa 930/920 and the second half of the ninth century b.c.e. A few years later Mazar introduced a third dating system that he titled the “Modified Conventional Chronology,” according to which the Iron IIA should be placed between circa 980 and 840/830 b.c.e. (Mazar 2005). At the same time, Herzog and Singer-Avitz (2004, 2006) proposed to date the Iron IIA to circa 950–800 b.c.e. Sharon et al. (2007) pointed to the possibility of a circa 900 b.c.e. Iron I/IIA transition.

As the reader can see, from the outset the debate focused on two questions: the beginning of the Iron IIA (1000, 980, or 930/20 b.c.e.) and the end of the Iron IIA (925 or the second half of the ninth century, as late as 800 b.c.e.). To this one can add a third question: the date of transition from the early to late Iron IIA.

The End of the Iron IIAThe question of the end of the Iron IIA was resolved imme-

diately with the introduction of 14C measurements to Iron Age archaeology (fig. 1). The first step was the radiometric results for samples taken from the destruction layers of late Iron IIA Strata V and IV at Tel Rehov, which led Mazar to down-date the Iron IIA/B boundary to approximately 830 b.c.e. (Mazar and Carmi

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:1 (2011) 51

Theories in Archaeology TodayTheories in Archaeology Today

2001). Later work indicated that other late Iron IIA destruction layers should probably be dated to the second half of the ninth century, possibly until roughly 800 b.c.e. (Finkelstein and Pias-etzky 2009; fig. 2).1 We refer to the two destruction layers at Tell el-Hammah in the north and to the devastation of Tell es-Safi (location of biblical Gath) in the south (for the latter, this date is reached assuming that the destruction is related to the days of Hazael, king of Damascus). Finally, the pottery assemblage retrieved from the destruction of Level 3 at Beth-shemesh is described by the excavators as transitional IIA/B (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2006, 2:419–20); 14C determinations for samples from this layer seem to date this destruction in the first half of the eighth century b.c.e. (Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2009).

The Beginning of the Iron IIAThe date for the beginning of the Iron IIA, that is, the tran-

sition from the Iron I to the Iron II, is still disputed. Mazar (2005) puts the transition in 980 b.c.e. (see recently a possibility of a lower date in ca. 960 b.c.e. in Mazar and Bronk Ramsey 2010, 1682), while Sharon et al. (2007), as well as the two of us (recently Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010a), put it in the second half of or late tenth century b.c.e.

It now seems that certain late Iron I strata, such as Megiddo VIA in the north and Qasile X in the south (the data for the latter is less consistent), came to their end in violent destruc-tions at the beginning of the tenth century. However, these

destructions could have occurred dur-ing the course of the period; in other words, they do not necessarily mark its end. Indeed, other late Iron I strata, such as Tel Dor, Tel Rehov, and possi-bly Tell Hammah (the former two with no destruction horizon), lasted later, until the second half of the tenth cen-tury. Taking a broader view, all Bayesian models that have so far been published based on 14C results from a large num-ber of sites and strata put the transition in the second half of the tenth century (summary table in Finkelstein and Pias-etzky 2010a; fig. 3).

In this case we can also turn to a his-torical clue. The list of towns that refers to the campaign of Sheshonq I (bibli-cal Shishak in 1 Kgs 14:25) mentions Megiddo and Arad. If one relies only on Egyptian chronology (that is, without the biblical reference), the exact date of this

campaign is difficult to establish (e.g., Ash 1999, 34; Ben-Dor Evian forthcoming). Still, the alternatives cannot go beyond the second half of the tenth century b.c.e. Regarding Megiddo, a fragment of a stela of Sheshonq I was found at the site, unfortu-nately, not in a clean or clear context. Since Stratum VIA at the site was destroyed in the early tenth century, the pharaoh must have established the stela in the settlement of Stratum VB of the early Iron IIA (assuming that he did not erect it on a deso-late hill, when the site was unoccupied a short while after the devastation of Stratum VIA). Regarding Arad, assuming that Arad Rabah of the Sheshonq I list is identified at Tel Arad, the site does not have a late Iron I layer, and hence it is reasonable to assume that the list relates to the early Iron IIA settlement of Stratum XII. Therefore, as things stand today, when Sheshonq I campaigned in the second half of the tenth century, Megiddo VB and Arad XII must already have existed.

All this means that the Iron IIA pottery tradition had already been established not too late in the second half of the tenth century b.c.e. In any event, it seems logical to argue that the transition between the two pottery traditions—of the late Iron I and the early Iron IIA—was gradual and took place over several decades.

The Transition from the Early to Late Iron IIAA Bayesian model based on a large number of 14C deter-

minations that we have recently published (Finkelstein and

Figure 1. Extraction of charred grain seeds for 14C dating at Megiddo.

52 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:1 (2011)

Piasetzky 2010b; fig. 3) puts the early Iron IIA in circa 920–880 b.c.e. and the transition from the early to late Iron IIA between circa 900 and 865 b.c.e. (63 percent agreement between the data and the model). This makes sense historically, as the late Iron IIA palaces at Megiddo and the Jezreel compound should probably be related to the height of the Omride dynasty of Israel in the days of King Ahab (873–852 b.c.e.). On the other hand, approximately twenty 14C determinations from the early Iron IIA Negev Highlands sites of Atar Haroa and Nahal Boqer provided dates “deep” in the ninth century b.c.e. (Boaretto, Finkelstein, and Shahack-Gross 2010). Although one can argue that at these sites, isolated and located away from the main centers of ceramic production, early Iron IIA forms could have lingered for a while, these dates show that one can hardly push the transition from the early to late Iron IIA too early, say, to roughly 900 b.c.e.

SummaryRadiocarbon 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 debat-ing 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 histori-cal 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 mid-tenth century b.c.e.

Israel Finkelstein and Eli PiasetzkyTel Aviv University

Figure 2. Radiocarbon-dated destruction layers from the Late Bronze III (no. 1) to the Iron IIA/B transition (no. 8).

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:1 (2011) 53

Note1. The dates given in this article are based on an exceptionally large body of measurements. For example, our Bayesian model for six phases in the Iron Age (Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010b) is based on 339 determinations, from 143 samples, from thirty-eight strata, at eighteen sites, measured in six laboratories, using three dating methods. Note that the dates are founded on short-lived samples only (that is, not charcoal, which may introduce the Old Wood Effect) and are given in 68 percent probability (1 σ).

ReferencesAsh, P. S. 1999. David, Solomon and Egypt: A Reassessment. Journal for

the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 297. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Ben-Dor Evian, S. Forthcoming. Shishak’s Karnak Reliefs: More Than Just Name Rings. In Egypt, Canaan and Israel: History, Imperialism, Ideology and Literature, ed. S. Bar, D. Kahn and J. J. Shirley. Leiden: Brill.

Boaretto, E. 2006. Radiocarbon Dates. Pp. 550–57 in Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Seasons, ed. I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, and B. Halpern. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Insti-tute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.

Boaretto, E., I. Finkelstein, and R. Shahack-Gross. 2010. Radiocarbon Results from the Iron IIA Site of Atar Haroa in the Negev High-lands and Their Archaeological and Historical Implications. Radio-carbon 52:1–12.

Boaretto, E., T. A. J. Jull, A. Gilboa, and I. Sharon. 2005. Dating the Iron

Age I/II Transition in Israel: First Intercomparison Results. Radio-carbon 47:39–55.

Bunimovitz, S., and Z. Lederman. 2006. The Early Israelite Monarchy in the Sorek Valley: Tel Beth-Shemesh and Tel Batash (Timnah) in the 10th and 9th Centuries BCE. Pp. 407–27 in vol. 2 of “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar, ed. A. M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji. 2 vols. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.

Coldstream, N. 2003. Some Aegean Reactions to the Chronological Debate in the Southern Levant. Tel Aviv 30:247–58.

Finkelstein, I. 1996. The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View. Levant 28:177–87.

———. 2005. A Low Chronology Update: Archaeology, History and Bible. Pp. 31–42 in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, ed. T. E. Levy and T. Higham. London: Equinox.

———. 2010. A Great United Monarchy? Archaeological and Histori-cal Perspectives. Pp. 3–28 in One God—One Cult—One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives, ed. R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 405. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Finkelstein, I., and E. Piasetzky. 2006. The Iron I–IIA in the Highlands and Beyond: 14C Anchors, Pottery Phases and the Shoshenq I Cam-paign. Levant 38:45–61.

———. 2009. Radiocarbon-Dated Destruction Layers: A Skeleton for Iron Age Chronology in the Levant. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 28:255–74.

———. 2010a. The Iron I/IIA Transition in the Levant: A Reply to Mazar

Figure 3. Results of a Bayesian model for six ceramic phases and six transitions in the Iron Age. For extra caution, the date of each phase is set between the earliest 68 percent (1 σ) limit for its beginning bound-ary and the latest 68 percent limit of its end boundary. The transition is dated between the earliest 68 percent limit of the end of the ceramic phase before it, and the latest 68 percent of the beginning boundary of the ceramic phase after it.

54 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 74:1 (2011)

and Bronk Ramsey and a New Perspective. Radiocarbon 52:1667–80.

———. 2010b. Radiocarbon Dating the Iron Age in the Levant: A Bayes-ian Model for Six Ceramic Phases and Six Transitions. Antiquity 84:374–85.

Gilboa, A., and I. Sharon. 2003. An Archaeological Contribution to the Early Iron Age Chronological Debate: Alternative Chronologies for Phoenicia and Their Effects on the Levant, Cyprus and Greece. Bul-letin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 332:7–80.

Herzog, Z., and L. Singer-Avitz. 2004. Redefining the Centre: The Emer-gence of State in Judah. Tel Aviv 31:209–44.

———. 2006. Sub-dividing the Iron IIA in Northern Israel: A Suggested Solution to the Chronological Debate. Tel Aviv 33:163–95.

Mazar, A. 1990. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000–586 b.c.e. New York: Doubleday.

———. 1997. Iron Age Chronology: A Reply to I. Finkelstein. Levant 29:157–67.

———. 2005. The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant: Its History, the Current Situation, and a Sug-gested Resolution. Pp. 15–30 in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, ed. T. E. Levy and T. Higham. Lon-don: Equinox.

———. 2010. Archaeology and the Biblical Narrative: The Case of the United Monarchy. Pp. 29–58 in One God—One Cult—One Nation:

Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives, ed. R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 405. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Mazar, A., and Bronk Ramsey, C. 2010. A Response to Finkelstein and Piasetzky’s Criticism and “New Perspective.” Radiocarbon 52:1681–88.

Mazar, A., H. J. Bruins, N. Panitz-Cohen, and J. van der Plicht. 2005. Ladder of Time at Tel Rehov: Stratigraphy, Archaeological Context, Pottery and Radiocarbon Dates. Pp. 193–255 in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, ed. T. E. Levy and T. Higham. London: Equinox.

Mazar, A., and I. Carmi. 2001. Radiocarbon Dates from Iron Age Strata at Tel Beth Shean and Tel Rehov. Radiocarbon 43:1333–42.

New Encyclopedia. 1993. Chronological Tables. Pp. 1529–33 in vol. 4 of The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta; New York: Simon & Schuster.

Sharon, I., A. Gilboa, T. A. J. Jull, and E. Boaretto. 2007. Report on the First Stage of the Iron Age Dating Project in Israel: Supporting a Low Chronology. Radiocarbon 49:1–46.

Zimhoni, O. 1997. Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel: Typological, Archaeological, and Chronological Aspects. Tel Aviv, Occasional Publications 2. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv Uni-versity.