Search

This article reviews recent developments in Cypriot chronology, based on settlement history, regional sequences, ceramic and other typologies, radiocarbon 14 dates, and international synchronisms. The author's own 1977 paper is also updated, especially with reference to critiques of Salz (1977), Coleman (1985), and Åström (1987). The conclusion offers a "trial reformulation" of Cypriot Bronze Age dates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the chronological problems in the study of the ancient Near East are as varied and intractable as ever, the work done on resolving (and discovering) these problems provides an excellent laboratory for studying similar problems elsewhere. At the same time some of the work done on chronological (and by inference genealogical) matters in other areas can elucidate patterns and parameters. Five of these are discussed in this paper: synchronisms; father/son succession; generational/regnal averages; simultaneity masked as sequentiality; and telescoping. While analyzing work on these issues cannot resolve decisively any particular issue in ancient Near East chronology, it does suggest alternative approaches and hypotheses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tel Esur is identifiable with D-f-tj (Djefty) , mentioned by Thutmose III in his description of his march to Megiddo through the ʿAruna Pass. Recent excavations provide the first unequivocal indication that the site was inhabited during the Late Bronze Age as a farm/hamlet, perhaps also a waystation. The main architectural feature is a large partially-excavated structure, whose contents—mainly pottery—were well preserved by a destruction level. We propose that the destruction assemblage dates around the mid-14th century b.c.e. and that the structure was built around 1400 b.c.e. , thus somewhat later than Thutmose III's famed first campaign. Since pottery of this period is known primarily from large/central sites, Tel Esur offers an exceptional glimpse into a 14th century b.c.e. assemblage from the rural Canaanite domain. Currently, it is also the only small site excavated along the ʿAruna Pass between Megiddo and the Sharon, inter alia offering insights about this stretch of the Via Maris during the Late Bronze Age. This is the first synthesis of Tel Esur during this period. We focus on typo-chronology, and on the main characteristics of the ceramic assemblage, including unique phenomena such as storage in Cypriot-Style pithoi and Egyptianizing pottery in a rural setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A coherent deposit of dumped debris, excavated at Gordion in 1950 and the 1990s, was apparently formed during the cleanup following the Achaemenid Persian attack on the city, ca. 540 b.c.e. It offers a first glimpse of life at Gordion during the mid-6th century (end of the Middle Phrygian period, Yassıhöyük Stratigraphic Sequence 5A). Greek imports provide a relatively firm date for the deposit and allow a chronologically specific snapshot of locally produced fine, household, and coarse wares. Vessels made of traditional Phrygian black-polished ware were used primarily for drinking. Lydian influence at the site is seen in the large number of burnished gray stemmed vessels, although the size of Gordion's stemmed dishes and the way in which they were used apparently differ from the Lydian capital, Sardis. Bowls come in a variety of wares, shapes, and sizes, while large jars and jugs are primarily gray-slipped household wares, with some imports. Puzzling is a large terracotta object with pseudomorph appliqués suggesting metal attachments, which may have been a niche for a household cult. This initial presentation of the pottery from the mid-6th-century dump provides insight into multiple concerns and behaviors of Gordion's inhabitants just before the Achaemenid Persian Empire. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a recent article published in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 375, Felix Höflmayer and his colleagues present a set of radiocarbon data from Tell el-Burak on the Lebanese coast and claim that these data argue for dating the early phase of the Middle Bronze Age in the Levant (Middle Bronze Age IIA/I) between ca. 2000 and the early 18th century B.C. Considering these radiocarbon dates, the authors assert that the low chronology for this period suggested by Manfred Bietak, based on archaeological evidence from Tell el-Dab'a, should be raised by roughly 120 years. The aim of this article is to show that ceramic and glyptic evidence from Egypt and the Levant firmly support the low chronology and historical synchronisms proposed by Bietak. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most well-known debates about synagogue dating concerns the synagogues excavated as part of the Meiron Excavation Project. According to the excavators, Eric Meyers, Carol Meyers, James Strange, and Thomas Kraabel, these buildings were constructed in the second and third centuries c.e. Jodi Magness, however, claims that the archaeological evidence supports moving the construction dates into the late-fourth, fifth, and even sixth centuries c.e. This article addresses a methodological issue that significantly affects how we should interpret the competing historical conclusions. Whereas the excavators' chronologies are based on evidence that includes the excavation experience, notes taken in the field, discussions in the field and in the lab, unpublished photos and drawings, personal correspondence, etc., the revised chronologies are based primarily on the published evidence. The problem for the revised chronologies is that archaeological data deteriorate from excavation to publication, which means that the two sides of the debate are not basing their conclusions on the same evidence. Using unpublished data from the Khirbet Shema? and Gush ?alav excavations, this article shows why traditional print archaeological publications are insufficient as sources of data when writing alternative interpretations of archaeological evidence. It also provides evidence that pushes the dating of the Khirbet Shema? and Gush ?alav synagogues in the direction of the excavators' original conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article concentrates on the overall analysis of the glass vessel finds, some published here for the first time, recovered in numerous excavations and surveys in refuge caves, in Judaea, Israel. These caves were used by Jewish refugees fleeing the Roman army in the late stages of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135/136 C.E. The glass vessels consist mostly of daily bowls, beakers, jars, bottles, and jugs. However, a few luxury vessels, such as the renowned molded and wheel-cut bowls from the Cave of Letters, were also found. Therefore, the comprehensive study of the glass finds discovered in refuge caves, used in a time of a major political conflict, offers a rare possibility to promote our understanding of social, cultural, chronological, and regional issues through the study of glass vessel use by a specific ethnic group in a very narrow date frame. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The chronology of Iron Age Israel in general, and that of the Iron Age IIA in Judah in particular, has received a great deal of scholarly attention over the last two decades, especially because of its implications for the debate on the historicity of the United Monarchy. The number of large and well-dated Iron IIA assemblages in Judah, however, is quite small, and in most cases the relevant assemblages are composed of sherds only. The authors of this article are currently preparing for publication a large assemblage of about 200 complete and intact vessels that were unearthed in 1968 by Trude Dothan in an Iron Age IIA tomb below Tel 'Eton. This, along with additional recently published "new" assemblages, warrants a reexamination of the chronology of Judah in this important era. The present article presents the ceramic finds from the tomb at Tel(Eton and then analyzes the recently published assemblages from other sites in Judah. Those assemblages are then organized in relative sequence, from transitional Iron I-IIA assemblages, through early and late Iron IIA assemblages, and up to terminal Iron IIA (or even transitional Iron IIA-IIB) assemblages. Finally, we attempt to offer (approximate) absolute dates for those ceramic horizons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 Philistine Monochrome pottery in 20th Dynasty Egyptian strongholds in southern Canaan and the absence of Egyptian(ized) pottery in Philistine sites. According to Finkelstein, the only viable explanation for this phenomenon is chronological. Adherents of the traditional schema, on the other hand, prefer an interpretation based on cultural segregation and reject the low chronology. Both views, however, are based on the implicit premise that there is a straightforward correlation between the extent of interaction among human groups and the degree of similarity in their material culture. Relying on ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological evidence, we intend to show that this premise is flawed, and that restricted distribution of artifacts does not contradict interaction. This observation on human behavior is enough to cast serious doubts on the foundations and methodology of the low chronology. Furthermore, since symbolic delineation of group identity and boundaries is accentuated at times of competition, items symbolizing cultural identity may be held back in spite of interaction. As competition seems to characterize Iron I Philistia, it is highly tenable that the social meaning of the Philistine Monochrome pottery as well as of its Egyptian counterpart prevented their diffusion and adoption outside the restricted zones in which they communicated group identity and cohesion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]