Job: 351706 Aegypten u Levante 17 2007 KERN ZP - Datum: …img2.tapuz.co.il/forums/1_152854328.pdf · 30.11.2007 · Job: 351706 Aegypten u Levante 17_2007 KERN ZP - Datum: 11/30/2007

Job: 351706 Aegypten u Levante 17_2007 KERN ZP - Datum: 11/30/2007 - Bogen/Seite: 1

Herausgeber/Editor MANFRED BIETAK

ÄGYPTEN UND LEVANTEEGYPT AND THE LEVANT

XVII/2007

Titelei ˜L.qxp 15.11.2007 13:50 Seite 1

Digital Pre-Press.eps





XVII2007

Redaktion: ERNST CZERNY

KOMMISSION FÜR ÄGYPTEN UND LEVANTE DER ÖSTERREICHISCHEN AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN

INSTITUT FÜR ÄGYPTOLOGIE DER UNIVERSITÄT WIEN

ÖSTERREICHISCHES ARCHÄOLOGISCHES INSTITUT KAIRO




Vorgelegt von w. M. MANFRED BIETAK in der Sitzung vom 12. Oktober 2007

Gedruckt mit der Unterstützung

der Universität Wienund des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts

Alle Rechte vorbehaltenISBN 978-3-7001-4012-2

ISSN 1015–5104Copyright © 2007 by Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien

Grafik, Satz, Layout: Angela SchwabDruck: Druckerei Ferdinand Berger & Söhne GesmbH, Horn

http://hw.oeaw.ac.at/4012-2http://verlag.oeaw.ac.at

Special Research Programme SCIEM 2000“The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterrannean

in the Second Millenium B.C.”of the Austrian Academy of Sciences

at the Austrian Science Fund

Spezialforschungsbereich (SCIEM 2000)„Die Synchronisierung der Hochkulturen im östlichen Mittelmeerraum

im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.“der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften

beim Fonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung

Wien 2007




Die Zeitschrift Ägypten und Levante ist Ä&L abzukürzen.

The Journal Egypt and the Levant should be abbreviated E&L.







Abkürzungen/Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Vorwort/Introduction von/by Manfred Bietak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

N. Allon, Seth is Baal – Evidence from the Egyptian Script . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

H. Barnard, Additional Remarks on Blemmyes, Beja and Eastern Desert Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

M. Bietak und I. Forstner-Müller, Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosidenzeit

bei cEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabca, Vorbericht für das Frühjahr 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

E.C.M. van den Brink, R. Gophna and A. Ovadiah, Burial Cave 2 in the Azor-Holon Cemetery: An Early Bronze Age I Tomb with Egyptian Finds . . . . . . 59

I. Finkelstein and E. Piasetzky, Radiocarbon Dating and Philistine Chronologywith an Addendum on el-Ahwat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

I. Forstner-Müller, The Colonization/Urbanization of the Tell Area A/II at Tell el-Dabca and its Chronological Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

I. Forstner-Müller, T. Herbich, W. Müller, Ch. Schweitzer and M. Weissl,Geophysical Survey 2007 at Tell el- Dabca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

F. Höflmayer, Ägyptische Skarabäen auf Kreta und ihre Bedeutung für die absolute Chronologie der minoischen Altpalastzeit (MM IB –MM IIB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

J.K. Hoffmeier and K.A. Kitchen, Reshep and Astarte in North Sinai:A Recently Discovered Stela from Tell el-Borg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

E.S. Marcus, Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription . . . . . . 137

M.A.S. Martin and R. Ben-Dov, Egyptian and Egyptian-Style Pottery at Tel Dan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

N.Ch. Math, Eine innere Chronologie der Badarikultur? Möglichkeiten und Aspekte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

D. Morandi Bonacossi, The Chronology of the Royal Palace of Qatna Revisited.A Reply to a Paper by Mirko Novák, Egypt and the Levant 14, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

T. Mühlenbruch, Die Synchronisierung der nördlichen Levante und Kilikiensmit der ägäischen Spätbronzezeit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

H. Refai, Zur Entwicklung der königlichen Jenseitsabsicherung in den thebanischen Totentempeln des Neuen Reiches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

R. Schiestl, The Coffin from Tomb I at Byblos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

A. Winkels, Restauratorisch-naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung von tuthmosidischen Putzen auscEzbet Helmi / Tell el Dabca – Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung altägyptischer Kalkputztechnik . . . . . 273

E. Yannai, New Typology and Chronology of the Grey Lustrous Wheel Made Ware in Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

Inhaltsverzeichnis/Contents

007_014 ˜L 17.qxd 19.11.2007 10:07 Seite 7



007_014 ˜L 17.qxd 08.11.2007 15:53 Seite 8



Abkürzungen/Abbreviations

Ä&L Ägypten & Levante. Zeitschrift für ägyptischeArchäologie und deren Nachbargebiete, Wien

AA Archäologischer Anzeiger. Jahrbuch des Deut-schen Archäologischen Instituts, Berlin

AAAS Les annales archéologiques Arabes Syriennes.Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire, Damascus

AASOR Annual of the American Schools of OrientalResearch, Cambridge, Mass.

ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jor-dan, Amman

ADAIK Abhandlungen des Deutschen ArchäologischenInstituts, Abteilung Kairo, Berlin

AHL Archaeology and History in Lebanon, London

AJA American Journal of Archaeology, New York,Baltimore, Norwood

AR Archaeological Reports, London

ArchDelt Archaiologikon Deltion, Athen

AS Anatolian Studies. Journal of the British Insti-tute of Archaeology at Ankara, London

ASAE Annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte,Kairo

AV Archäologische Veröffentlichungen. DeutschesArchäologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo,Wiedbaden

BAAL Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises,Beirut

BaM Baghdater Mitteilungen, Deutsches Archäolo-gisches Institut, Orient-Abteilung, Mainz

BAR International Series British Archaeological Reports, Inter-national Series, London

BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of OrientalResearch, New Haven

BdE Bibliothèque d’étude, Le Caire

Beiträge Bf. Beiträge zur ägyptischen Bauforschung undAltertumskunde, Wiesbaden, Zürich, Kairo

BICS Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies,London

BIFAO Bulletin de l’lnstitut français d’archéologie orien-tale , Le Caire

BSA The Annual of the British School at Athens,London

BSAE British School of Archaeology in Egypt

BSFE Bulletin de la societe française d’égypte , Paris

CChEM Contributions to the Chronology of the EasternMediterranean, Wien

CdE Chronique d`égypte , Bruxelles

CMS MATZ, F., PINI, I., and MÜLLER, W. (eds.)1964-. Corpus der Minoischen und MykenischenSiegel. Berlin; 2002-. Mainz am Rhein.

CRAI Compte rendue de la rencontre assyriologiqueinternationale, verschiedene Orte

CRIPEL Cahiers de recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologieet d’Égyptologie de Lille, Lille

DFIFAO Documents de Fouilles de l’Institut françaisd’archéologie orientale du Caire, Le Caire

EA Egyptian Archaeology. The Bulletin of theEgypt Exploration Society, London

E&L see Ä&L

EEF Egypt Excavation Fund, London

EES Excav. Mem Egypt Exploration Society Excavation Mem-oir, London

ESI Excavations and Surveys in Israel, Jerusalem

GM Göttinger Miszellen, Göttingen

GOF Göttinger Orientforschungen

HA Hadashot Arkheologiyot, Jerusalem

HA/ESI Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Sur-veys in Israel, Jerusalem

IAA Reports Israel antiquity Authority Reports, Jerusalem

IEJ Israel Exploration Journal, Jerusalem

JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society, NewHaven, Conn.

JARCE Journal of the American Research Center inEgypt, New York

JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, London

JEOL Jaarbericht van het vooraziat.-egyptisch Genoot-schap, Ex Oriente Lux, Leiden

JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Chicago

JSP Judea and Samaria Publication, Jerusalem

JSSEA Journal of the Society for the Study of EgyptianAntiquities, Toronto

LÄ W. HELCK und E. OTTO (eds.), Lexikon derÄgyptologie, Wiesbaden

LingAeg Lingua Aegyptia. Journal of Egyptian Lan-guage Studies, Göttingen

MAG Mitteilungen der Archäologischen Gesellschaft,Graz

MAN MAN: a record of anthropological science. RoyalAnthropological Institute of Great Britainand Ireland, London

M.A.R.I. M.A.R.I. Annales de recherches interdisci-plinaires, Paris

MÄS Münchner Ägyptologische Studien, München

MDAIK Mitteilungen des Deutschen ArchäologischenInstituts Abteilung Kairo, Mainz

MDOG Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft,Berlin

NEAEHL The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excava-tions in the Holy Land (E. STERN ed.), NewYork

OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Fribourg-Göttingen

OBO SA Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica,Fribourg

007_014 ˜L 17.qxd 08.11.2007 15:53 Seite 9



OIP Oriental Institute Publications, University ofChicago, Chicago

OJA Oxford Journal of Archaeology, Oxford

OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, Leuven

OpAth Opuscula atheniensia. Annual of the SwedishInstitute at Athens, Lund

PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly, London

QDAP Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities ofPalestine, Jerusalem, Oxford

RA Revue archéologique, Paris

RB Revue biblique, Jerusalem

RDAC Report of the Department of Antiquities ofCyprus, Nicosia

RdE Revue d’égyptologie, Paris

RlA Das Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasi-atischen Archäologie, Berlin-New York

RSO Ras Shamra-Ougarit, Paris

SAGA Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altä-gyptens, Heidelberg

SAK Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, Hamburg

SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, Chica-go

SDAIK Sonderschriften des Deutschen ArchäologischenInstituts, Abteilung Kairo, Berlin

SIMA Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, Göte-borg, Jonsered

SIMA-Pb Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology Pocket-book, Lund

SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament,Aarhus

SMEA Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici, Roma

TA Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv

UF Ugarit Forschungen, Münster

UMM University Museum Monographs, UniversityMuseum Symposium Series. University ofPennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia

UZK Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Öster-reichischen Archäologischen Institutes, Wien

WB A. ERMAN & H. GRAPOW, Wörterbuch derAegyptischen Sprache 1–5 (Leipzig,1926–1931)

WVDOG Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung derDeutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, Berlin, Leipzig

WZKM Wiener Zeitschrift für die kunde des Mor-genlandes, Wien

ZÄS Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertum-skunde, Leipzig, Berlin

ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins,Stuttgart, Wiesbaden

Abkürzungen/Abbreviations10

007_014 ˜L 17.qxd 08.11.2007 15:53 Seite 10



Das Heft 17 der Zeitschrift enthält 18 Artikel, dieein weites thematisches Feld abdecken. DerSchwerpunkt freilich liegt auf Beiträgen zurArchäologie Ägyptens und der umliegenden Län-der, wie es dem Profil der Zeitschrift entspricht.Der österreichische Grabungsplatz Tell el-Dabca istmit einem aktuellen Vorbericht zur letzten Gra-bungskampagne im Frühjahr 2007 vertreten (M.Bietak und I. Forstner-Müller), die, nach einerUnterbrechung im Jahr davor, neuerlich demPalastareal der 18. Dynastie bei cEzbet Helmigewidmet war. Ebenso wurden die geophysikali-schen Prospektionsarbeiten des Areals von Tell el-Dabca fortgesetzt, und auch die vorläufigen Resul-tate dieser Untersuchungen sind bereits in diesemBand vorgelegt (I. Forstner-Müller et al.).

Bereits länger zurück (1997) liegt die GrabungI. Forstner-Müller’s im Areal A/II im Bereich desnamensgebenden Tells. Die unterste Schichte, diedamals erreicht wurde, reicht in die späte 12. Dyna-stie zurück und läßt sich gut mit etwa gleichzeiti-gen Arealen in den Grabungsflächen von F/I undcEzbet Rushdi korrellieren (“Phase H”). Die Befun-de aus dieser Schichte werden von der Ausgräberinunter dem Titel “The colonization/Urbanizationof the Tell Area A/II at Tell el-Dabca and its chro-nological implications” vorgestellt. Schließlichbefaßt sich auch noch ein naturwissenschaftlichorientierter Beitrag von A. Winkels mit der Erfor-schung der ägyptischen Kalkputztechnik anhandder thutmosidischen Putze aus cEzbet Helmi.

Hosam Refai behandelt mit “Zur Entwicklungder königlichen Jenseitsabsicherung in den theba-nischen Totentempeln des Neuen Reiches” einklassisches ägyptologisches Thema. Zahlreiche wei-tere Artikel führen jedoch in Randbereiche derÄgyptologie. So untersucht N. Math die Möglich-keiten, eine innere Chronologie der Badarikulturnach dem Vorbild derjenigen der Negadekultur zuetablieren.

Der Annalentext Amenemhet II aus Memphisgilt als eine der zentralen historischen Quellen zur12. Dynastie. In einem weitausgreifenden Artikelanalysiert E. Marcus die maritimen Aspekte undImplikationen dieser erstaunlichen Inschrift,deren “historisches Potential” anhand dieser Aus-wertung wohl exemplarisch aufgezeigt wird.

11

Volume no. 17 of this periodical contains 18 arti-cles, covering a wide thematic field. However,according to the profile of this journal, the mainfocus is on contributions to the archaeology ofEgypt and surrounding countries. The Austrianexcavations at Tell el-Dabca are represented by anup to date preliminary report of the last season inspring 2007 (M. Bietak and I. Forstner-Müller).After an intermission the year before, work con-centrated, again, on the palace precinct of the18th Dynasty at cEzbet Helmi. Likewise, the geo-physical survey work of the area of Tell el-Dabcahas been continued and the preliminary resultsof the investigations are published in this volume(I. Forstner-Müller et al.).

The excavations of I. Forstner Müller in areaA/II of the tell date back to 1997. The loweststratum reached then dates to the late 12th

dynasty and shows good correlation with con-temporaneous strata in area F/I and cEzbetRushdi (“Phase H”). The findings of this stra-tum are presented by the excavator under thetitle “The colonization/Urbanization of the TellArea A/II at Tell el-Dabca and its chronologicalimplications”.

Eventually, a science orientated contributionby A. Winkels researches Egyptian lime plastertechnique according to Thutmoside plasterfinds from cEzbet Helmi.

Hosam Refai covers a classic Egyptologicaltheme with his article “Zur Entwicklung derköniglichen Jenseitsabsicherung in den thebani-schen Totentempeln des Neuen Reiches“. How-ever, several other articles deal with marginalthemes in Egyptological research. N. Math, forexample, examines the possibilities to establishan inner chronology of the Badarian Civilisationaccording to the example of the one establishedfor the Nagada culture.

The annals of Amenemhet II from Memphisare regarded as one of the main historicalsources of the 12th dynasty. In a comprehensivearticle E. Marcus analyses the maritime aspectsand implications of this astonishing inscription,thus showing exemplarily the “historical poten-tial” of the inscription.

The last mentioned contribution already

Vorwort Introduction

Von Manfred Bietak By Manfred Bietak

007_014 ˜L 17.qxd 19.11.2007 10:07 Seite 11



Der letztgenannte Beitrag führt thematischbereits in den Bereich der Levante. Aber auchmehrere andere Artikel haben die Archäologie desSyrisch-Palästinensischen Raumes und dessenBeziehungen zu Ägypten zum Gegenstand. E. vanden Brink et al. berichten über ein frühbronzezeit-liches Grab in Azor mit ägyptischem Material, M.Martin und R. Ben-Tov über ägyptische Keramikaus Tel Dan, und J. Hoffmeier und K. Kitchen überdie Verehrung der syrischen Götter Reshep undAstarte im N-Sinai anhand einer neugefundenenStele aus Tell Borg.

Obwohl die Funde aus dem “Royal Tomb I” inByblos bereits 1928 von Montet publiziert wurden,blieben einige im Sarkophag des Königs Abishemugefundene zerbrochene Fayence-Einlagen in ihrerForm und Funktion bis heute unerklärt. R. Schiestlist es nun erstmals gelungen, diese Einlagen sinn-voll zu deuten und zu rekonstruieren. Darausergibt sich, daß der steinerne Sarkophag einen höl-zernen Innensarg ägyptischen Stils enthalten hat.

Aus einem ganz anderen Blickwinkel, nämlichdem des Sprachwissenschaftlers, betrachtet N.Allon einen bestimmten Aspekt ägyptisch-levanti-nischen Kulturkontaktes, indem er aufzeigt, wieder seit der Hyksoszeit bestehende und in der 19.Dynastie kumulierende Synkretismus zwischenSeth und dem semitischen Gott Baal in der Ver-wendung des Seth-“Classifiers” (“Determinativ”)in der ägyptischen Schrift reflektiert wird.

In die Ostwüste und die S-Grenze Ägyptensführt der Beitrag von H. Barnard, der im Anschlußan seinen Artikel in Ä&L 15 nochmals auf die The-matik der sog. “Eastern Desert Ware” und die Pro-blematik der von ihm abgelehnten Zuordnung zuBlemmyern und Beja-Nomaden eingeht.

F. Höflmayer versucht anhand einer neuen,sorgfältigen Auswertung von in Kreta gefundenenägyptischen Skarabäen eine präzise Definition deschronologischen Verhältnisses der altpalastzeit-lichen (mittelminoischen) Phasen zum ägypti-schen Mittleren Reich zu geben.

Schließlich enthält der Band noch einige Arti-kel, die nicht in direkter Beziehung zu ägypti-schem Material stehen. Nachdem M. Novak inÄ&L 14 einen ausführlichen Aufsatz zur Chrono-logie des Königspalastes von Qatna publizierthatte, in dem er die Gründung des Palastes auf-grund der damals verfügbaren Evidenz in die sog.“Mari-Periode” setzte, greift nun D. Morandi Bona-cossi die Diskussion erneut auf, und stellt anhandder von der italienischen Mission durchgeführtenDetailuntersuchungen dar, daß die Gründung des

12

leads into the area of the Levant. However, sev-eral other articles cover aspects of the archaeol-ogy of the Syrian-Palestinian area and intercon-nections with Egypt. E. van den Brink et al.report about an early Bronze Age burial in Azorwith Egyptian material. M. Martin and R. Ben-Tov cover Egyptian ceramics from Tel Dan and J.Hoffmeier and K. Kitchen write about the wor-ship of the Syrian gods Reshep and Astarte onNorthern Sinai according to a newly discoveredstela from Tell Borg.

Several broken faience inlays found in the sar-cophagus of King Abishemu in Byblos remainedunexplained until now, although the finds of the“Royal Tomb I” were already published by Mon-tet in 1928. R. Schiestl succeeds to explain andreconstruct these inlays for the first time in ameaningful way, showing that the stone sarcoph-agus contained a wooden inner coffin of Egypt-ian style.

From the rather different viewpoint of aphilologist N. Allon highlights a certain aspect ofEgyptian-Levantine cultural contact. He showsthat the syncretism between Seth and the Semit-ic god Baal, established in Hyksos times and stillongoing in the 19th dynasty, is reflected in theEgyptian script through the use of the Seth-“Classifier” (“Determinativ”).

H. Barnard’s contribution leads into the East-ern Dessert and to the Southern frontier ofEgypt. He covers, in connection with his articlein E&L 15, again the topic of the so-called “East-ern Desert Ware” and the problems of the attri-bution of this ware to the Blemmyes and Beja-nomads, which he rejects.

F. Höflmayer tries, with a new and thoroughevaluation of Egyptian scarabs found on Crete,to come up with a precise definition of thechronological relationship of the MiddleMinoan phases with the Egyptian Middle King-dom.

Furthermore this volume contains severalarticles not directly dealing with Egyptian mate-rial. M. Novak published a comprehensive articlein E&L 14 on the chronology of the royal palaceat Qatna, dating the foundation of the palace,according to the then available evidence, to theso-called “Mari period”.

However, D. Morandi Bonacossi takes up thediscussion again and shows, that according todetailed studies conducted by the Italian Mis-sion, the foundation of the palace has to bedated after the Mari-period (transition MB/LB).

Vorwort/Introduction

007_014 ˜L 17.qxd 19.11.2007 10:10 Seite 12



Palastes erst nach der Mari-Periode (im Übergangvon MB/LB) erfolgt sein kann. Daraus folgt frei-lich, daß es einen älteren Königspalast in Qatnagegeben haben muß, dessen Lage bisher unbe-kannt ist, der jedoch mit Sicherheit nicht unterdem gegenwärtig vorhandenem Palast zu lokalisie-ren wäre.

Nicht minder kontroversiell diskutiert wird der-zeit die Frage der Chronologie der Philister (IA I-IIA). Hierzu liefern I. Finkelstein und E. Piasetzkyneue Diskussionsbeiträge, welche sich auf neupublizierte 14C-Daten beziehen.

E. Yannai legt eine quasi monographischeBehandlung der ebenfalls sehr unterschiedlichgedeuteten "Grey Lustrous Wheelmade Ware" inIsrael vor, und geht dabei ausführlich auf die zahl-reichen offenen Fragen ein, die mit dieser wenigerforschten Ware immer noch verbunden sind.

T. Mühlenbruch schließlich gibt einen Einblickin ein Sub-Projektes des großen “SCIEM 2000” For-schungsprojekts zur Chronologie des 2. Jahrtau-sends im östlichen Mittelmeerraum. Dabei soll derRaum der nördlichen Levante und Kilikiens mit-hilfe mykenischer Importkeramik an die Chrono-logie der ägäischen Spätbronzezeit angeschlossenwerden.

Der Herausgeber hofft, daß der vorliegendeBand, der sich durch eine Reihe ganz neuer,aktueller Grabungsberichte, sowie durch einigeBeiträge zu derzeit heftig diskutierten Themenauszeichnet, das Interesse einer breiten Leser-schaft finden wird.

13Vorwort/Introduction

Therefore an older royal palace must have exist-ed at Qatna. The location of the older palace,which cannot be localised under the currentlyexisting palace, remains so far unknown.

Not less controversially debated is currentlythe question of the chronology of the Philistines(IAI–IIA). I. Finkelstein and E. Piasetzky presentnew contributions to the discussion with refer-ence to recently published 14C dates.

E. Yannai presents almost a monograph onthe also controversial “Grey Lustrous Wheel-made Ware” in Israel. He highlights several stillopen questions in connection with this littleinvestigated ware.

Eventually T. Mühlenbruch gives an insightinto a sub-project of the SCIEM 2000 researchprogramme dealing with the chronology of the2nd millennium in the Eastern Mediterranean.In the framework of this sub-project it is intend-ed to connect the area of the Northern Levantand Cilicia to the Aegean Late Bronze age withthe aid of the study of Mycenaean importedceramics.

The editor hopes, that this volume with con-tributions ranging from up to date excavationreports to articles on currently hotly debatedissues, will be interesting to a broad audience.

007_014 ˜L 17.qxd 19.11.2007 10:11 Seite 13



007_014 ˜L 17.qxd 08.11.2007 15:53 Seite 14



Results of the first phase of the Iron Age radio-carbon dating program, with a large number ofnew readings, have recently been published(SHARON et al. 2007). Some of the newly publishedmeasurements shed light on several debatedissues related to the archaeology of southernIsrael in the period covering the Iron I and theIron IIA. In what follows we deal with some ofthese issues, mainly the date of the monochromephase of the Philistine settlement and the date oftwo transitions: first, from the Iron I to the IronIIA and next, from the Iron IIA to the Iron IIB. Inan addendum we comment on the Iron I site ofel-Ahwat in northern Israel in relation to theexcavator’s proposal to identify its inhabitantswith a northern group of Sea Peoples.

RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE DATES IN SOUTHERN

ISRAEL: POTTERY SERIATION AND 14C DATES

Pottery assemblages from clearly defined strati-graphical contexts provide the anchors for rela-tive chronology. The latter can be tied to anabsolute ladder by historical data and radiocar-bon dating. Only one reasonably reliable histori-cal anchor is available for southern Israel in theIron I and Iron IIA: the destruction of Tell es-Safi(Gath) by Hazael king of Aram Damascus in thesecond half of the 9th century BCE (MAEIR 2004).This emphasizes the importance of connectingthe relative sequence to a detailed absolute lad-der based on 14C readings.

The following sequence of Iron I–IIA potteryphases in southern Israel is well-established strati-graphically and typologically; almost each of thesephases has now been sampled for radiocarbon dat-ing (SHARON et al. 2007, table 1 in this article):

– The monochrome phase in Philistia, represent-ing the initial stage of Philistine settlement inparticular and the early Iron I in general. It isbest represented at Tel Miqne-Ekron StrataVIIB-VIIA (DOTHAN and ZUKERMAN 2004: 3, 5;GITIN et al. 2006: 29). 14C dates for Stratum VIIBhave now been published.

– The bichrome phase in Philistia (middleIron I).14C measurements for Strata VIB–VB atTel Miqne and Strata 6 and 5 at Beth-shemesh

have just been published (for the sites and theirstratigraphy see BUNIMOVITZ and LEDERMAN

2006; DOTHAN and ZUKERMAN 2004: 4-6 andGITIN et al. 2006: 44, 53 respectively).

– The late-Philistine phase (late Iron I) repre-sented by Stratum X at Tel Qasile (MAZAR 1985;for the difficulty with the 14C results see below),Stratum IV at Tel Miqne and Stratum 4 at Beth-shemesh (DOTHAN et al. 2006: 94; BUNIMOVITZ

and LEDERMAN 2006: 418-419 respectively).

– The Iron IIA, divided into two phases – early andlate (MAZAR and PANITZ-COHEN 2001: 275; HER-ZOG and SINGER-AVITZ 2004). The early Iron IIA isbest represented by Lachish V, Masos II and theNegev Highlands sites. A single date for LachishV was published a few years ago (CARMI andUSSISHKIN 2004). The Late Iron IIA is best repre-sented by Lachish IV and Tell es-Safi IV. 14C datesfor this phase are available from the destructionlayers of Tell es-Safi IV and Tel Zayit (for the lat-ter see TAPPY et al. 2006: 15); two dates forLachish IV were published by CARMI andUSSISHKIN (2004).

– A transitional Iron IIA/B phase, represented byStratum 3 at Beth-shemesh (BUNIMOVITZ andLEDERMAN 2006: 419–420).

Table 1 presents all 14C readings from south-ern Israel now available for these phases and thusused in this article. Following our method(FINKELSTEIN and PIASETZKY 2006a) all short-livedsamples from safe stratigraphical contexts wereincluded except for outliers which are differentby more than 5 s from the average.

The uncalibrated dates for each phase shownin Table 1 were checked for consistency by fittingto a constant. The result of the fit was used as thecombined uncalibrated date for that phase (Table2). In cases where cn > 1 for the fit, we increasedthe error by the square root of the cn . The cali-brated dates were obtained using the IntCal04atmospheric calibration curve (REIMER et al. 2004)by means of the OxCal V 4.0 computer programof BRONK RAMSEY (1995; 2001). In cases where theprogram yielded close ranges we took the full 1srange for each phase. In some cases historical and

RADIOCARBON DATING AND PHILISTINE CHRONOLOGY with an Addendum on el-Ahwat

By Israel Finkelstein and Eliazer Piasetzky

073_082 Finkelstein.qxd 08.11.2007 15:07 Seite 73



74 Israel Finkelstein and Eliazer Piasetzky

Pottery Phase Stratum sampled Sample no. Lab. And

Method* Type of sample

Uncalibratedresults Source

Monochrome(Early Iron I) Miqne VIIB

4286.3 4286.4 4286.5

R AMS Seeds 2950±55 2900±40 2870±60

SHARON et al. 2007

BS** 6 3934.3 3934.4 3934.5

R AMS Olive pits 2830±50 2925±50 2810±50

BS 5 3935.3 3935.4 3935.5

R AMS Olive pits 2830±53 2750±55 2770±65

BS 5 3936.3 3936.4 3936.5

R AMS Olive pits 2810±50 2850±55 2855±65

Miqne VIB 4283.3 4283.4 4283.5

R AMS Olive pits 2915±45 2960±45 2880±45

Bichrome(Middle Iron I)

Miqne VB 4284.3 4284.4 R AMS Seeds 2835±45

2830±45

SHARON et al. 2007

3853.3 3853.4 3953-1

R AMS R AMS T AMS

Lathyrus 2680±35 2747±35 2884±45

3931.1 3931.3 3931.4 3931.5 3931-1 A25535 A25710 A25768

RW LSC R AMS R AMS R AMS T AMS Gr AMS Gr AMS Gr AMS

Lathyrus

2853±20 2820±55 2930±56 2936±41 2852±45 2864±40 2818±38 2897±44

3932.3 3932.4 3932.5 3932.6 3932a 3932aa

R AMS R AMS R AMS R AMS T AMS T AMS

Lathyrus

2745±50 2765±75 2685±50 2650±40 2780±35 2862±40

Late Philistine(Late Iron I)

Qasile X

3933a 3933aa

T AMS T AMS Seeds 2885±40

2878±40

SHARON et al. 2007

Early Iron IIA Lachish V 3159 RW LSC Seeds 2775±55 CARMI and USSISHKIN 2004 4409.3 4409.4 4409.5

R AMS R AMS R AMS

Seeds 2630±45 2693±60 2679±55

Safi IV

4410.3 4410.4 4410.5 A25536 A25711 A25770

R AMS R AMS Gr AMS Gr AMS Gr AMS

Seeds

2748±60 2671±45 2712±45 2700±42 2733±38 2780±44

SHARON et al. 2007

1 Gr Seeds 2750±20 TAPPY et al. 2006 2 Gr AMS Seeds 2730±40 TAPPY et al. 2006

4275-1.3 4275-1.4 4275-1.5

R AMS Seeds 2640±40 2646±45 2745±55

SHARON et al. 2007 TAPPY et al. 2006

Zayit

4275-2.3 R AMS Olive pits 2616±40 SHARON et al. 2007 TAPPY et al. 2006

2908 RW LSC Olive pits 2715±40

Late Iron IIA

Lachish IV 1418 H GPC Pomegranate

seeds 2650±90 CARMI and USSISHKIN 2004

3937.1 3937.3 3937.4 3937.5

RW LSC R AMS R AMS R AMS

Olive pits

2500±35 2524±36 2427±35 2478±34 Iron IIA/B BS 3

3938.3 3938.4 3938.5

R AMS R AMS R AMS

Olive pits 2390±65 2425±40 2505±40

SHARON et al. 2007

R AMS

* Tu = Tucson; Gr = Groningen; R = Sample prepared in Rehovot and measured in Tucson; RW = Rehovot; H = Helsin-ki. AMS = Accelerator Mass Spectrometry; LSC = Liquid Scintillation Counting; GPC = Gas Proportional Counting

** BS = Beth-shemeshTable 1 14C readings for the Iron I and Iron IIA from southern Israel




archeological constrains were used in order tolimit the range of the 14C results; these cases arediscussed in detail below.

Table 2 specifies the pottery phases and theirabsolute chronological range according to the14C results. Two issues should be taken into con-sideration:

A)Qasile X: The results assemble into two cleargroups quite apart from each other and there-fore posing a problem (SHARON et al. 2005:84–87). The two lower dates fall in the 9th cen-tury BCE and are impossible even accordingto the low chronology system. Averaging thetwo sets of high readings one gets an uncali-brated date of 2867±12 – too high comparedto the bichrome phase of Beth-shemesh 6–5and Miqne VIB–VB. Assuming that the sam-ples indeed originated from the well-defineddestruction of Stratum X (MAZAR 1980: 33, 46;1985: 127), we averaged all readings andreached an uncalibrated date of 2850±24. Thisis an example of cn>1(cn. 4.8); the greatuncertainty reflects the quality of the fit. Thecalibrated date – 1050–946 BCE – can be lim-ited to 995-946 BCE if one accepts that QasileX postdates the bichrome phase (needless tosay, since we are dealing with a range, a dateshortly before 995 cannot be excluded). Thisis especially true because the samples of QasileX come from its destruction layer, that is, fromthe end-days of this layer.

B) Beth-shemesh 3 presents a classical case in whichthe combination of 14C results and historicalconsideration provides a better result than eachof them separately. The broad calibrated rangefor this stratum can be narrowed by entering thedatum of ca. 750 BCE as the latest possible datefor this phase (see below).

These results reflect on a few of the problemsrelated to the history and archaeology of south-ern Israel in the 12th to 8th centuries BCE.

II. THE DATE OF THE MONOCHROME PHASE

(THE PHILISTINE SETTLEMENT)

The date of the Philistine settlement in Canaan hasbeen debated in recent years. Supporters of theconventional chronology accept the Philistine Par-adigm (ALBRIGHT 1932: 58; ALT 1944), according towhich the Philistines were settled by Ramesses III inEgyptian strongholds in the southern coastal plainof Canaan following his battles against the Sea Peo-ples in 1175 BCE. Accordingly, they date the earli-est Philistine strata, characterized by monochromepottery (also known as locally made Myc. IIIC: 1b),to ca. 1175–1150/40/30 BCE and the beginning ofthe second phase of Philistine settlement, charac-terized by bichrome pottery, to ca. 1150/40/30BCE (e.g., MAZAR 2007; DOTHAN and ZUKERMAN

2004: 6; SHERRATT 2006 [for the monochromephase]). Other scholars have noted that mono-chrome pottery does not appear in the many stratathat represent the last phase of Egyptian domina-tion in southwestern Canaan, and that Egyptianpottery of the 20th dynasty (we refer to vessels, todiffer from stray sherds) does not appear in themonochrome strata. Accordingly, they date themonochrome phase of the Philistine settlement toca. 1125–1100 BCE (following the Egyptian with-drawal: USSISHKIN 1985: 223; 2007; FINKELSTEIN

1995; NAÝAMAN 2000 [for the monochrome phase])and the bichrome phase from ca. 1100 BCE(FINKELSTEIN 1995). The latter scholars do notaccept the explanation of the traditionalists – thatthe utter separation between the two cultures rep-resents decades of coexistence of contained com-munities at sites located only a few kms distancefrom each other (e.g., Lachish VI and Miqne VIIB),

75Radiocarbon Dating and Philistine Chronology with an Addendum on el-Ahwat

Pottery phase Strata (those providing 14C results are underlined) Uncalibrated date Calibrated date

Monochrom Miqne VIIB 2907±28 1125–1050

Bichrome BS 6, 5; Miqne VIB, VB 2853±16 1050–995

Late Philistine BS 4; Miqne VA, IV; Qasile X 2850±24 995–946*

Early Iron IIA Lachish V 2775±55 996-844

Late Iron IIA Safi IV; Tel Zayit; Lachish IV 2706±16 894–820 (842–820)*

Transitional Iron IIA/B BS 3 2505±30 766–745**

* Constrains were imposed to limit the range yielded by the radiocarbon measurements (see text for details)** Constrain imposed on the date of destruction of Tell es-Safi - not before the accession of Hazael (see below)

Table 2 Relative pottery phases and absolute dates (14C) in southern Israel




1 We wish to thank Ilan Sharon, Ayelet Gilboa and Elisabet-ta Boaretto for providing us with these preliminary results;the measurements are part of a research project support-ed by the Israel Science Foundation and the Israel Acade-my of Sciences and Humanities (grant No. 141/04).

2 For Megiddo K-6, 42.8% + 20% probability together,

excluding the 5.3% probability which falls in the 11th

century BCE – too low according to what we know aboutthis city from Egyptian finds and historical sources (e.g.,SINGER 1988–89; USSISHKIN 1995). For Lachish VI,57.85% probability, excluding the 7.7% and 2.7% proba-bilities for the same reason (USSISHKIN 2004: 69–70).

without exchange of pottery (e.g., FINKELSTEIN

2002a contra DOTHAN 1992: 97; BUNIMOVITZ andFAUST 2001). With no new material from the field,the debate has reached a stalemate.

The Miqne VIIB 14C dates (Table 1) may shednew light on this debate when supplemented bynew readings from Megiddo and Lachish. Werefer to samples from Level K-6 at Megiddo,which equals the University of Chicago’s StratumVIIA (BOARETTO unpublished – Table 3).1 Thisstratum represents the last phase of the Egypto-Canaanite system (Late Bronze III according toUSSISHKIN 1985; 1995; Iron IA according toMAZAR, e.g., 2005: 24). Level VI at Lachish repre-sents the same horizon. Its three 14C determina-tions are consistent with those from Megiddo K-6.

The calibrated dates for Megiddo K-6 andLachish VI are 1193–1113 and 1208–1112 BCE

respectively.2 The uncalibrated date for the twosites combined is 2929±9, which provides a cali-brated date of 1194–1114 BCE.

Looking at the uncalibrated dates, contempo-raneity between Megiddo K-6 and Lachish VI onone hand and Miqne VIIB on the other hand can-not be excluded. This is due to the large uncer-tainty in the measurements compared to thesmall time difference between the strata (only 22years difference between the two readings – small-er than 1 s). Yet, the radiocarbon data point tothe sequential solution as the most probable one(Fig. 1). According to this scenario the twogroups represent sequential horizons: StratumVIIB at Miqne is later than Level K-6 (StratumVIIA) at Megiddo, and Level VI at Lachish. Inother words, according to this solution MiqneVIIB postdates the collapse of Egyptian rule in


Site Laborat. and method* Sample no. Type of

sample Dates Average Source

R AMS 4501.3** 4501.4 4501.5

Olive pits 2790±40 2764±50 2767±40

R AMS

Tu AMS

4499.3 4499.4 4499.5 4499a 4499aa

Olive pits

2880±40 2865±45 2925±40 2907±40 2876±40

R AMS

Tu AMS

4500.3 4500.4 4500.5 4500a 4500aa

Olive pits

2940±40 2906±37 2909±37 3018±60 2947±40

Sharon et al. 2007

5080 2965±30 5081 2955±35 5082 2975±55 5083 3030±150

Megiddo K-6

R AMS

5084

Olive pits

2980±60

2928±11

Boaretto unpublished (preliminary

results) RW LSC 2912 Olive pits 2915±25 RW LSC 2755 Olive pits 2955±25 Lachish VI H GPC 1417 Seeds 2810±100

2931±21 CARMI and USSISHKIN 2004

* For legend see Table 1** Though consistent with each other, the three measurements of Sample 4501 yielded an average uncalibrated date

which is ca. 150 years (six standard deviations) younger than the average of the other samples from this stratum. Wetherefore removed this sample from our analysis

Table 3 14C results from Megiddo Level K-6 (=Stratum VIIA of the University of Chicago excavations) and Lachish VI




Fig 1 The uncalibrated and calibrated dates of Megiddo K-6 and Lachish VI, Miqne VIIB and the bichrome stratasuperimposed on the calibration curve. Egyptian finds and historical sources make it clear that Megiddo K-6 andLachish VI (Late Bronze III) cannot be dated much later than 1130 BCE (SINGER 1988–89; USSISHKIN 1995 for Megiddo;USSISHKIN 2004: 69–70 for Lachish). We entered the 1130 limit into the figure as a vertical red line; it eliminates the

possibility of some of the later Megiddo K-6 and Lachish VI solutions (red crosses)

Canaan (USSISHKIN 1985: 223; 2007; FINKELSTEIN

1995).

THE BICHROME PHASE AND THE IRON I/IIA TRANSITION

Beth-shemesh 6 and 5 and Tel Miqne VIB and VB– the only bichrome strata which provided radio-carbon results thus far – make one group withresults in the same range which postdates the TelMiqne VIIB horizon. This phase, which should beclassified as ‘middle Iron I’ (contemporary toShiloh V in the highlands – FINKELSTEIN andPIASETZKY 2006b), falls in the second half of the11th century BCE.

The radiocarbon dates for these strata haveimplications for the debate on the date of transi-tion from the Iron I to the Iron IIA. Mazar’s Mod-ified Conventional Chronology (2005) wouldplace it at ca. 980 BCE, while supporters of theLow Chronology would put it in the late-10th cen-tury BCE (e.g., FINKELSTEIN and PIASETZKY 2003;FINKELSTEIN 2005; SHARON et al. 2007).

In order to absorb the meaning of theseresults, one needs first to look at the stratigraphyand chronology of Beth-shemesh and Tel Miqne –the two sites that provided the dates (Tables 4–5):

Beth-shemesh 4 and Tel Miqne VA and IV arelate Iron I strata. They postdate the bichromelayers at these sites, which are radiocarbon datedto ca. 1050–995. They should therefore beplaced in the 10th century BCE (dark-gray cellsin Tables 4-5). This would render the dating ofthe Iron I/IIA transition to ca. 980 BCE unlikely(only 70–15 years left for the late Iron I strata –Fig. 2).

Another clue comes from Beth-shemesh 3,which was probably destroyed during the 766–745range (see below). Even if this stratum, with somemonumental construction (BUNIMOVITZ and LED-ERMAN 2006: 415–418) was long-lived, placing theIron I/IIA transition at ca. 980 BCE would makeit a more than 200 year-long stratum, which is alsounlikely (Fig. 2).3


3 The single date from early Iron IIA Lachish V is of no help due to its large uncertainty.




THE IRON IIA/B TRANSITION IN THE SOUTH

There can be no doubt that the assemblage ofTell es-Safi IV (e.g., SHAI and MAEIR 2003)belongs to the late Iron IIA horizon. It is radio-carbon dated to 2707±27, which translates to acalibrated range of 895–820 BCE. Historically, itseems safe to assume that Gath (identified withTell es-Safi) was assaulted and destroyed by Haz-ael king of Damascus sometime in the secondhalf of the 9th century BCE (MAEIR 2004), after842 BCE. Therefore, the combination of the 14Cresults and the historical argument defines the

destruction of Tell es-Safi IV to the 842–820 BCErange.

From the perspectives of both pottery typologyand radiocarbon results the destruction of Beth-shemesh 3 is later than that of Tell es-Safi IV. Typo-logically, this stratum already carries Iron IIA/Btransition forms (for the pottery see BUNIMOVITZ

and LEDERMAN 2006: 419–420). The 14C resultsfrom this stratum – 2505±30 – is significantly lowerthan that of Tell es-Safi IV. Due to the nature of thecalibration curve, Beth-shemesh 3 provides a verybroad absolute date of 766–551 BCE (Fig. 3). Butthis can be narrowed to 766–745 if one introducesan historical consideration (Fig. 3). The LachishIII assemblage in Judah, which is typical of the IronIIB, originates from destruction layers that repre-sent Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah in 701BCE. But the appearance of this assemblage must bedated earlier, probably no later than ca. mid-8th

century BCE (see vertical red line in Fig. 3). Thiseliminates the calibrated possibilities of 688–664and 647–551 BCE (red crosses in Fig. 3).

The date of the Iron IIA/B transition in thesouth has been fixed between ca. 800 and 760BCE (see recent summaries in HERZOG andSINGER-AVITZ 2004: 230; FANTALKIN and FINKEL-STEIN 2006: 22–24). The 14C results support thearchaeological observations by showing that theassemblage from a destruction that occurred inthe 766–745 range is already characterized bytransition forms.

IR I (Bichrome)

BS 3 destruction

Modified Conventional Chronology

Low Chronology

Period of time for BS 3 according to the Modified Conventional Chronology

Only space left for Late Philistine phase according to the Modified Conventional Chronology

IR I (Bichrome)

BS 3 destruction

Modified Conventional Chronology

Low Chronology

Period of time for BS 3 according to the Modified Conventional Chronology

Only space left for Late Philistine phase according to the Modified Conventional Chronology


Fig 2 Unlikely consequences of the Modified Conven-tional Chronology hypothesis. The proposed dates for theIron I/IIA transition according to the Modified Conven-tional Chronology and the Low Chronology are shown as

dashed lines. Dates of strata are shown as gray areas

Str. Period Comments

VIIB Early Iron I, monochrome appears 1125–1050

VIIA Early Iron I, monochrome, still pre-Bichrome

Also down to 1050? DOTHAN and ZUKERMAN 2004: 3

VIB–VB Middle Iron I, bichrome 1050–995

VA

IV Late Iron I

e.g., DOTHAN 2003: 194–195; DOTHAN et al. 2006: 94

Date14C

Str. Period Date Comments 6 5

Middle Iron I, bichrome 1050–995

4 Late Iron I BUNIMOVITZ and LEDERMAN 2006: 411, 418–419

3 Iron IIA, destroyed during Iron IIA/B transition

14

766–745 Destruction in the “first half of the 8th century”BUNIMOVITZ and LEDERMAN 2006: 419

C

Table 5 Tel Miqne stratigraphy

Table 4 Beth-shemesh stratigraphy




ADDENDUM: EL-AHWAT

We wish to comment here on the date of the IronI site of el-Ahwat, located on a ridge overlookingWadi Ara in northern Israel, in the context of Zer-tal’s proposal (e.g., ZERTAL 2001) to identify it as asite founded by a northern group of Sea Peoples.One of us has already rejected this interpretationon purely material culture grounds (FINKELSTEIN

2002b). The 14C date provided for el-Ahwat by arelatively large number of consistent readings(SHARON et al. 2007) adds another argumentagainst Zertal’s theory.

ZERTAL (2001: 215) dated the foundation ofthe site to ca. 1230 BCE according to the “XIXth

dynasty” glyptic material (ZERTAL 1999: 34), andits latest phase of occupation before abandon-ment some 50-60 years later, according to hisreading of the Iron I pottery found at the site.Only two of the scarabs have been published todate. Brandl dated them to the 19th dynasty, inthe 13th century BCE, “since this is the period oftime when the frequency of scarabs bearing thename of Amon-Re is the greatest” (BRANDL 1996:75). Yet, according to another view, their datecannot be fixed more accurately than to the peri-od of the late 19th and 20th Dynasties, ca.1230–1075 BCE (KEEL 1997: 526). Elsewhere,BRANDL (1997) reported briefly on the entire col-lection of glyptic material from el-Ahwat, whichincludes “Hyksos”, 19th Dynasty and 20th Dynastyscarabs. Thus, from the chronological point ofview the glyptic assemblage ostensibly points to afoundation date in the early 12th century. Yet,

even this is not mandatory, as the scarabs couldhave been brought to the site as amulets at asomewhat later date.

Most of the el-Ahwat pottery has not yet beenpublished. Elsewhere, one of us noted (FINKEL-STEIN 2002b) that from the few vessels which havethus far been presented (ZERTAL and MIRKAM 2000:137), from ZERTAL’s description (mainly 1996:44–45) and from what he presented during a visitto the site, they seem to be similar to the Iron I pot-tery found in scores of hill country sites. LateBronze vessels of the 13th century and cooking potsin the Late Bronze tradition are absent (ZERTAL

2001: 219–220). The assemblage is dominated bycollared rim jars, erect or slanted cooking pots withelongated rim, crude round bowls, Iron I jugs, etc.FINKELSTEIN (2002b: 194) suggested that the pot-

Fig 4 14C results for el-Ahwat


Fig 3 Calibration dates for Beth-shemesh 3. The vertical red line marks the year 750 BCE – the approximate beginningof the Lachish III assemblage (Iron IIB) – limiting Beth-shemesh 3 to the early option in the curve (766–745 BCE)




tery of el-Ahwat postdates Megiddo VIIA and thatthe few published vessels should be dated to thetime-frame of Stratum VI at Megiddo.

Recently published 14C dates from el-Ahwat(SHARON et al. 2007) seem to resolve this issue(Table 6, Fig. 4).

The dates for el-Ahwat are somewhat laterthan those obtained for Shiloh V (2888±12:FINKELSTEIN and PIASETZKY 2006b). Megiddo K-5(=Stratum VIB of the University of Chicago exca-vation) has recently provided an uncalibrateddate of 2885±40 (BOARETTO unpublished, see

n. 1), while a large set of readings from MegiddoK-4 (=Stratum VIA of the University of Chicagodig) gave an average uncalibrated date of2848±20 (FINKELSTEIN and PIASETZKY 2006b). El-Ahwat falls close to Megiddo VIA, in the laterphase of the Iron I. Even if the el-Ahwat samplesrepresent the end-days of the site, it is clear that itwas founded much later than proposed by theexcavator. From this point of view as well, el-Ahwat is unrelated to the settlement of the SeaPeoples on the coast of the Levant in the 12th cen-tury BCE.


Laboratory and method* Sample no. Type of

sample Dates Average Date BCE

4270.3 4270.4 4270.5

2828±40 2807±40 2809±40

4271.3 4271.4 4271.5

2858±40 2854±40 2868±40

4272.3 4272.4 4272.5

2822±40 2838±40 2935±40

R AMS

4273.3 4273.4 4273.5

Olive pits

2847±40 2819±40 2780±40

2840±12 1016–942 (68%) 1016–975 (56%)

* R = Sample prepared in Rehovot and measured in Tucson

Table 6 14C results from el-Ahwat

Bibliography

ALBRIGHT, W.F.

1932 The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim, I: The Potteryof the First Three Campaigns, AASOR 12, NewHaven.

ALT, A.

1944 Ägyptische Tempel in Palästina und die Landnah-me der Philister, ZDPV 67, 1–20.

BOARETTO, E.

n.p. Unpublished Preliminary Report on 14C Measure-ments from Megiddo, 2004 Season.

BRANDL, B.

1996 Two Scarabs from Area C at el-Ahwat: A Prelimi-nary Report, 75–78, in: A. ZERTAL (ed.), El-Ahwat:A Fortified Sea People Site near Nahal ‘Iron, A Prelimi-nary Report of the Three First Seasons 1993–1995,Haifa (Hebrew).

1997 The Glyptic Finds from el-Ahwat, in: West and East:Connections between the Western and the Eastern

Mediterranean in the End of the Late Bronze and theBeginning of the Iron Age – New Evidence. Abstracts oflectures in a colloquium held at the University ofHaifa, December 1997.

BRONK RAMSEY, C.

1995 Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis of Stratig-raphy: The OxCal Program, Radiocarbon 37,425–430.

2001 Development of the Radiocarbon ProgramOxCal, Radiocarbon 43, 355–363.

BUNIMOVITZ, S. and FAUST, A.

2001 Chronological Separation, Geographical Segrega-tion, or Ethnic Demarcation? Ethnography andthe Iron Age Low Chronology, BASOR 322, 1–10.

BUNIMOVITZ, S. and LEDERMAN, Z.

2006 The Early Israelite Monarchy in the Sorek Valley:Tel Beth-Shemesh and Tel Batash (Timnah) inthe 10th and 9th Centuries BCE, 407–427, in: A.M.





MAEIR and P. DE MIROSCHEDJI (eds.), I Will Speak theRiddles of Ancient Times: Archaeological and HistoricalStudies in Honor of Amihai Mazar, Winona Lake.

CARMI. I. and USSISHKIN, D.

2004 14C Dates, 2508–2513, in: D. USSISHKIN (ed.), TheRenewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish(1973–1994), vol V, Tel Aviv.

DOTHAN, T.

1992 Social Dislocation and Cultural Change in the12th Century B.C.E., 93–98, in: W.A. WARD and M.SHARP JOUKOWSKY (eds.), The Crisis Years: The 12th

Century B.C. From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris,Dubuque (Iowa).

2003 The Aegean and the Orient: Cultic Interactions,in: W.G. DEVER and S. GITIN (eds.), Symbiosis, Sym-bolism and the Power of the Past: Canaan, AncientIsrael, and their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Agethrough Roman Palestine, Winona Lake, 189–213.

DOTHAN, T., GITIN, S. and ZUKERMAN, A.

2006 The Pottery: Canaanite and Philistine Traditionsand Cypriote and Aegean Imports, 71–101, in:M.W. MEEHL, T. DOTHAN and S. GITIN, Tel Miqne-Ekron Excavations 1995–1996: Field INE East SlopeIron Age I (Early Philistine Period), Jerusalem.

DOTHAN, T. and ZUKERMAN, A.

2004 A Preliminary Study of the Mycenaean IIIC:1 Pot-tery Assemblages from Tel Miqne-Ekron and Ash-dod, BASOR 333, 1–54.

FANTALKIN, A. and FINKELSTEIN, I.

2006 The Sheshonq I Campaign and the 8th CenturyBCE Earthquake: More on the Archaeology andHistory of the South in the Iron I–IIA, Tel Aviv 33,18–42.

FINKELSTEIN, I.

1995 The Date of the Philistine Settlement in Canaan,Tel Aviv 22, 213–239.

2002a Chronology Rejoinder, PEQ 134, 128–139.

2002b El-Ahwat: A Fortified Sea People City? IEJ 52,187–199.

2005 A Low Chronology Update: Archaeology, Historyand Bible, 31–42, in: T.E. LEVY and T. HIGHAM

(eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeolo-gy, Text and Science, London.

FINKELSTEIN, I. and PIASETZKY, E.

2003 Recent Radiocarbon Results and King Solomon,Antiquity 77, 771–779.

2006a 14C and the Iron Age Chronology Debate: Rehov,Khirbet en-Nahas, Dan and Megiddo, Radiocarbon48, 373–386.

2006b The Iron I–IIA in the Highlands and beyond: 14CAnchors, Pottery Phases and the Shoshenq ICampaign, Levant, 38, 45–61.

GITIN, S., MEEHL, M. and DOTHAN, T.

2006 Occupational History – Stratigraphy and Archi-

tecture, 27–67, in: M.W. MEEHL, T. DOTHAN and S.GITIN, Tel Miqne-Ekron Excavations 1995–1996: FieldINE East Slope Iron Age I (Early Philistine Period),Jerusalem.

HERZOG, Z. and SINGER-AVITZ, L.

2004 Redefining the Centre: The Emergence of Statein Judah, Tel Aviv 31, 209–244.

KEEL, O.

1997 Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palastina/Israel.Von den Anfangen bis zur Perserzeit. Catalogue VolumeI, OBO, Series Archaeologica 13, Fribourg.

MAEIR, A.M.

2004 The Historical Background and Dating of AmosVI 2: An Archaeological Perspective from Tell es-Safi/Gath, Vetus Testamentum 54, 319–334.

MAZAR, A.

1980 Excavations at Tell Qasile Part One, The PhilistineSanctuary: Architecture and Cult Objects, Qedem 12,Jerusalem.

1985 Excavations at Tell Qasile Part Two, The PhilistineSanctuary: Various Finds, The Pottery, Conclusions,Appendixes, Qedem 20, Jerusalem.

2005 The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Agein the Southern Levant: Its History, the CurrentSituation, and a Suggested Resolution, 15–30, in:T.E. LEVY and T. HIGHAM (eds.), The Bible andRadiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science,London.

2007 Myc IIIC in the Land Israel: Its Distribution, Dateand Significance, 571–582, M. BIETAK and E.CZERNY (eds.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations inthe Eastern Mediterranean in the Second MillenniumBC. III. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd Euro-Conference, Vienna, 28th of May–1st of June 2003,Vienna.

MAZAR, A. and PANITZ-COHEN, N.

2001 Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Mil-lennium BCE, Text, Qedem 42, Jerusalem.

NAÝAMAN, N.

2000 The Contribution of the Trojan Grey Ware fromLachish and Tel Miqne-Ekron to the Chronologyof the Philistine Monochrome Pottery, BASOR317, 1–8.

REIMER, P.J. et al.

2004 INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibra-tion, 26-0 ka BP, Radiocarbon 46, 1029–1058.

SHAI, I. and MAEIR, A.M.

2003 Pre-lmlk Jars: A New Class of Iron Age IIA StorageJars, Tel Aviv 30, 108–123.

SHARON, I., GILBOA, A., BOARETTO, E. and JULL, T.A.J.

2005 The Early Iron Age Dating Project: Introduction,Methodology, Progress Report and an Update onthe Tel Dor Radiometric Dates, 65–92, in: T.E.LEVY and T. HIGHAM (eds.), The Bible and Radiocar-bon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, London.




SHARON, I., GILBOA, A., JULL, T.A.J. and BOARETTO, E.

2007 Report on the First Stage of the Iron Age DatingProject in Israel: Supporting A Low Chronology,Radiocarbon 49, 1–46.

SHERRATT, S.

2006 The Chronology of the Philistine MonochromePottery: An Outsider’s View, 361–374, in: A.M.MAEIR and P. DE MIROSCHEDJI (eds.), I Will Speak theRiddles of Ancient Times: Archaeological and HistoricalStudies in Honor of Amihai Mazar, Winona Lake.

SINGER, I.

1988–89 The Political Status of Megiddo VIIA, Tel Aviv15–16, 101–112

TAPPY, R.E., MCCARTER, P.K. LUNDBERG, M.J and ZUCKER-MAN, B.

2006 An Abecedary of the Mid-Tenth Century B.C.E.from the Judaean Shephelah, BASOR 344, 5–46.

USSISHKIN, D.

1985 Levels VII and VI at Tel Lachish and the End ofthe Late Bronze Age in Canaan, 213–228, in: J.N.TUBB (ed.), Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages,Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell, London.

1995 The Destruction of Megiddo at the End of theLate Bronze Age and Its Historical Significance,Tel Aviv 22, 240–267.

2004 A Synopsis of the Stratigraphical, Chronologicaland Historical Issues, 50–190, in: USSISHKIN (ed.)D. USSISHKIN (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Exca-vations at Lachish (1973–1994), vol. I, Tel Aviv.

2007 Lachish and the Date of the Philistine Settlementin Canaan, 601–608, in: M. BIETAK and E. CZERNY

(eds.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the East-ern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. III.Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd EuroConference,Vienna, 28th of May–1st of June 2003, Vienna.

ZERTAL, A.

1996 El-Ahwat: A Fortified Sea People Site near Nahal ‘Iron,A Preliminary Report of the Three First Seasons1993–1995, Haifa (Hebrew).

1999 El-Ahwat – 1993–1996, Hadashot Arkheologiyot Exca-vations and Surveys in Israel 110, 32*–34*.

2001 The ‘Corridor-builders’ of Central Israel: Evi-dence for the Settlement of the ‘Northern SeaPeoples’?, 215–232, in: V. KARAGEORGHIS andC.E. MORRIS (eds.), Defensive Settlements of theAegean and the Eastern Mediterranean after c. 1200B.C., Nicosia.

ZERTAL, A. and MIRKAM, N.

2000 The Manasseh Hill Country Survey: From Nahal ‘Ironto Nahal Shechem, Tel Aviv (Hebrew).


