The Chronology of Syria-Palestine in the Second Millennium B. C. E

The Chronology of Syria-Palestine in the Second Millennium B. C. E.: A Review of CurrentIssuesAuthor(s): William G. DeverReviewed work(s):Source: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 288 (Nov., 1992), pp. 1-25Published by: The American Schools of Oriental ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357228 .Accessed: 26/01/2012 03:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357228?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

The Chronology of Syria-Palestine in the

Second Millennium B.C.E.: A Review

of Current Issues*

WILLIAM G. DEVER

Department of Near Eastern Studies University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ 85721

The chronology of the Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, and early Iron Ages in Syria- Palestine is in a state of flux, as a result of recently discovered archaeological and textual data. This article reconsiders a number of fundamental issues, both in relative and absolute chronologies, for the second millennium B.C.E. The emphasis is on critical analysis of data, comparative Levantine context, and current scholarship, rather than on definitive solutions of the problems.

convenient starting point for the discussion is the standard reference for Levan- tine chronology, Relative Chronologies

in Old World Archaeology, which even in its recent third revision chooses to end at ca. 2,000 B.C.E.1 The current article, therefore, covers the

subsequent Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, and early Iron Ages, down to ca. 1,000 B.C.E. It focuses pri- marily on recent literature and selected current problems in the chronology of Syria and Palestine. Palestine will loom larger in this treatment only because it is relatively better known through excavation. A tentative framework will be provided by figs. 1-5. Unless otherwise stated, Egyptian dates for the Middle Kingdom will follow Kitchen (1989b: 152, 153), and those for the New King- dom will follow the most recent "low" chronology now rapidly being adopted by most authorities (Kitchen 1989a; 1989b; but cf. Ward 1992). This usage is largely in discussion, however, and must be weighed against the preference of most Pales- tinian specialists until recently (including myself) for a "middle" chronology.

One caveat is necessary at the outset. While the ultimate goal of all archaeological and historical

chronological studies is an absolute chronology, fixed with such scientific precision that it com- mends itself to all scholars, that goal is rarely at- tainable. Thus all chronological arguments for the ancient Near East begin with relative sequences, based on exceedingly complex chains of evidence that are largely circumstantial; with even one piece of new data, one link may break, and the chain will fall apart. Moreover, the attempt to move from relative to absolute chronology often results in a classic circular, argument, in which appeal is made to one unspecified variable to explain another. These inherent limitations mean that the current study will be inconclusive in many ways, but it may nevertheless update the discussion by clearing away some of the debris of older, now unsatisfactory formulations, so that we move closer to a new synthesis.

THE END OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE AND THE TRANSITION TO MIDDLE BRONZE

For the period preceding this survey-variously styled as Albright's "MB I," the "Intermediate" phase of Kenyon and others, or now more fre- quently the "EB IV" period of this writer and numerous authorities (see fig. 1)-we possess only unsatisfactory dates, ca. 2400/2300-2000 B.C.E. being merely a convention. The few available radiocarbon dates-from Hama J, Selenkahiye,

*Editor's note: The four chronology articles in this issue were planned and solicited by my predecessor, Walter E. Rast. William G. Dever kindly assumed responsibility for organizing and arranging them in their final form. I thank both for their contributions and assistance. - J. W. F.

1

2 WILLIAM G. DEVER BASOR 288

Umm al-Habachi, and Tell Nebi Mend in Syria; and from Bab edh-Dhrac, Jericho, and Be'er Re- sisim in Palestine-yield a range of ca. 2300-2000 B.C.E. for the floruit of the main phases, but nothing to indicate the end of the overall period, and thus the beginning of the true Middle Bronze Age.2 Albright's original estimate of 1900 B.C.E. had been raised by a century or so according to a general consensus of scholars, but solely on the strength of relative chronology: EB IV in Syria-Palestine was seen as roughly coeval with the "First Intermedi- ate" period in Egypt, ca. 2315-1991 B.C.E. (although not necessarily comparable culturally). The tendency until recently to raise dates runs counter, of course, to several other current trends (below). Any determination is likely to continue to be made, however, on individual understandings of the relative lengths and complexity of phases within EB IV and the subsequent MB I phase, rather than on any presumably "fixed" datum

points. One thing is clear: both EB IV and MB I have been so spectacularly illuminated by recent discoveries that to foreshorten either phase arbi-

trarily threatens to do violence to the data that we now have (see further below).3

THE FIRST PHASE OF THE MIDDLE

BRONZE AGE, MIDDLE BRONZE I, CA. 2000/1950-1800 B.C.E.

The first phase of the true Middle Bronze Age- Albright's MB IIA, our MB I-represents the rapid renascence of urban life following several centuries of decline (at least in Palestine). It is marked by the

reoccupation of abandoned Early Bronze Age tell sites; the establishment of many new settlements that would soon grow into fortified urban centers; a shift from pastoralism and ruralism back to inten- sive agriculture, industry, and international trade; new technologies, especially in ceramics and met-

allurgy; the development of sophisticated artistic canons; and a trajectory that would lead within a few centuries to the full flowering of the Middle Bronze Age "Canaanite" culture and civilization. Recent synthetic studies, based on much newly excavated data, have clarified the period and set it into historical-cultural context for the first time (see fig. 1; cf. Dever 1976; 1987; Gerstenblith 1983, all with full references).

In this article we shall consider only chronology. If EB IV is contemporary with the "First Interme- diate" period in Egypt, then it follows that the beginning of the true Middle Bronze Age will coin-

cide roughly with Dynasty 12 and the beginning of the Middle Kingdom, formerly fixed by astronomi- cal reckoning at ca. 1991 B.C.E. (Parker), but now ca. 1963 B.C.E. according to Kitchen's (1989b: 153) corrected "high" chronology. Bietak (1991: 54) has argued that our MB I begins only ca. 1900 B.C.E., in keeping generally with his low chronology, but Weinstein (1992a: 31-32) has shown that such a date applies, at best, only to Egypt. Weinstein's own preference for the beginning of MB I (his MB IIA) in Syria-Palestine, however, is not much higher (i.e., shortly before 1900 B.C.E.; Weinstein 1992a: 32, 38). Weinstein's only evidence, however, apart from the absence of early 12th Dynasty remains at Tell el-DabCa, and of Egyptian imports of similar date in Palestine, consists of an EB IV eye axe on a tomb painting at Beni Hasan, dated ca. 1900 B.C.E.; and a scarab of Amenemhet IV, ca. 1798-1789 B.C.E., in Tomb 303A at Tell el-CAjjfil, which he thinks is an heirloom, not associated with the demonstrably MB I (= MB IIA) assemblage of pottery and bronzes (Weinstein 1992a: 33, 34, 40). However, the eye axe, while apparently confined to EB IV in Syria-Palestine (Dever 1975; contra Philip 1989: 51-53) and replaced by the duckbill axe in MB I, may well have been in use longer in Egypt, where it seems to have originated (in the Old Kingdom epsilon axe). As for the CAjj01 Amen- emhet IV scarab, Weinstein's placing it as an heirloom, antedating the otherwise homogeneous MB I (= MB IIA), assemblage is not only somewhat arbi- trary, but it would apparently throw the scarab back into EB IV-for him a "Dark Age" in which there was absolutely no contact with Egypt, and not a single Egyptian import in the entire known archaeological assemblage in Palestine. The less forced argument is to date Tomb 303A as a whole, which is late MB I, to the time of Amenemhet IV, ca. 1790 B.C.E., as on my chronology. It can then be argued that the end of MB I in Syria-Palestine falls ca. 1775 B.C.E., roughly with the end of Dynasty 12 (ca. 1786 B.C.E.; Kitchen 1989b: 153), a date ca. 25 years lower than I have previously held (with a following "transitional MB I/II," ca. 1775-1750 B.C.E.; see below).

International Synchronisms

The general elements of the proposed international synchronisms were recognized long ago from such data as the Tale of Sinuhe, an Egyptian wanderer in Syria-Palestine; the Beni Hasan wall painting, depicting a party of Asiatic traders in the

1992 THE CHRONOLOGY OF SYRIA-PALESTINE: CURRENT ISSUES 3

Bietak (1991) Dever (1992) Albright Kenyon/British Israeli consensus Egyptian Dynasty Tell el-DabCa

1st Intermediate EB IV MB I Interm. EB-MB MB I 6th - 11th MB I

2300-2000 BC 2100-1800 2250-1950 BC

Middle Kingdom MB I MB IIA MB I MB IIA 12th MB IIA

2000-1775 BC 1800-1700 BC 1950-1750 BC 1700 BC

MB I/II ---- --- 12th/13th MB IIA/B

1775-1750 BC 2nd Intermediate

MB II MB IIB MB II MB IIB (13th + 14th) MB IIB

1750-1650 BC 1700-1575.BC 1750-1550 BC "Hyksos" 1700-1600 BC MB III MB IIC (15th - 16th, 17th) MB IIC

1650-1500 BC 1575-1500 BC 17th 1600-1530 BC Destructions

New Kingdom MB III/LB IA LB IA "Groups" A, B LB I 18th MB IIC/LB IA 1500-1450 BC 1500-1450 BC 1550-1400 BC 1600-1450 BC

LB IB LB IB C (early) LB IB 1450-1400 BC 1450-1400 BC 1450--

LB IIA LB IIA C, gap?, D LB IIA 19th

1400-1300 BC 1400-1300 BC

LB lIB LB IIB E, F, G LB IIB 1300-1225 1300-1200 BC

Destructions, disturbances: Israelites, "Sea Peoples," others

Iron IA Iron IA Iron I Iron I 20th 1225- - 1200-1150 BC 1200-1000 BC

Iron IB Iron IB

1150-1000 BC

Fig. 1. Comparative table of Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, and Iron Age terminologies and dates, according to various authorities.


early 12th Dynasty; and the well-known Berlin, Brussels, and Mirgisseh "Execration texts," containing a wealth of Syro-Palestinian information, dated possibly to the reigns of Amenemhet I and Sesostris III (ca. 1963-1934 B.C.E., and ca. 1862- 1843 B.C.E., respectively; Kitchen 1989b: 153); a number of Egyptian 12th Dynasty objects found in Syria-Palestine; and the Tod deposit, a mixed hoard of Levantine objects found in a temple dedi- cated to Amenemhet II.

Tomb and Burial Deposits in Syria-Palestine. More specific information, however, is to be derived from a number of MB I cemeteries in central and southern Syria that have long been known but have been neglected by all but a few specialists. Particularly significant are the tombs along the coast at L6b6ca, Kafer-Garra (Ruweis6), and Qray6, near Sidon, published in the 1930s; Sin el- Fil; and Amrith. Additional MB I tombs are known from inland sites between Hama and Damascus, such as Hama H, Qatna, Dn6bi, Selimy6, Os-

maniy6, Tell CAs, Khan Sheikhoun, Tell Masin, Yabrud, and Tell et-Tin. Farther north, near Aleppo on the Euphrates, Tell Hadidi and Halawa are relevant.4 Yet few of those tombs, despite very close parallels to Palestine in tomb, ceramic, and metallic types, yield much evidence for fixed chronology.

The rich tombs at Kafer-Garra (Ruweis6) may be taken as illustrative of the difficulty. The several tombs with scarabs (24 in Tomb 66, for example) would seem to offer the best hope. The original ex- cavator thought most of them dated to Dynasty 12

(Guiges 1938: 63). Later (and better) authorities have expressed other opinions, from early Dynasty 12/MB I (Ward 1987: 507, with reference to earlier work; Tufnell 1975-1976: 10, 17); late MB I-transitional MB I/IIA (Weinstein 1975: 8, 9); late Dy- nasty 12, or preferably Dynasty 13 (O'Connor 1985: 36); or even Dynasty 13-early Dynasty 15 (Kemp and Merrillees 1980: 45). The difficulties here are precisely those encountered in the scarabs in the Montet Jar (below). Thus there is a scarab bearing the name of Sesostris I (ca. 1943-1898 B.C.E.; Kitchen 1989b: 153) in Tomb 66 at Kafer- darra (Ruweis6), and taken by Tufnell (1975- 1976) as dating the largely MB I assemblage. Even though I follow Tufnell (contra Gerstenblith 1983: 43), one could argue that this scarab is an heirloom, or even manufactured later than Sesostris' time, as was often the case with scarabs bearing the names of royal personages (thus O'Connor 1985: 36). (See further Weinstein 1992a; note, however, that I re-

gard Tomb 57 as pure MB I, Tomb 66 as mostly MB I, with some MB II admixture).

Similar difficulties are encountered in MB I tombs in Palestine. Only a handful have produced scarabs, none with royal names, except possibly Tomb 303A at Tell el-CAjj0il (for a review of the evidence, see Weinstein 1975: 1-7; Tufnell 1980).5 A few purely decorative scarabs in MB I tombs at Megiddo and Jericho can be tentatively correlated with a ceramic, and thus potentially a stratigraphic, sequence; but there is as yet no agreement on the absolute date of scarabs of this type.6

The Byblian Connection. Of particular significance is the Byblian connection. Thus much comparative weight has been placed since Albright's day on such discoveries as the famous Montet Jar and Royal Tombs I-IV. Albright had argued (1966) that the Montet Jar, an offering urn found in 1933 among many such deposits in the temple pre- cincts (Jarre 394), could be dated to the first half of the 18th century B.C.E. Furthermore, since the jar was comparable to typical Palestinian MB I (Al- bright's MB IIA) forms, he advanced a similar date for the metal implements and the scarabs, so that one could thus place MB I (at least the end) well down into the 18th century B.C.E.

All the assumptions in that synchronism, however, are debatable. The jar itself, now more fully published (Tufnell 1969), is a characteristically one-of-a-kind Byblian burial urn, not directly comparable to Palestinian MB I forms (Dever 1976: 11). The contents, moreover, are not homogeneous. For example, Albright (1966: 27) referred to the toggle pins as typically MB I (his MB IIA), based on personal observation; but examination of the evidence (Montet 1928-1929: 123; fig. 55) shows that the pins are all of the typical EB IV "club- headed" variety (as are the torques). The other metals and the figurines are not clearly datable in my opinion, and in any case they are probably part of a composite hoard, as would be expected. As for the scarabs, subsequent studies by specialists have produced a variety of dates for the Montet Jar collection (i.e., for the latest items and thus the deposit itself): late Dynasty 11 (Tufnell and Ward 1966: 227; Ward 1978b); early second millennium, 20th- 19th century B.C.E. (Porada 1966: 254); early Dy- nasty 12, specifically the 20th century B.C.E. (Ward 1987: 509-12; Gerstenblith 1983: 103; Saghieh 1983: 50, on the basis of context, i.e., her Stratum 4, Phase 8); Dynasty 13-early Dynasty 15 (Kemp and Merrillees 1980: 45); or even exclusively Dy-


nasty 15 (i.e., beginning as late as ca. 1650 B.C.E.; O'Connor 1985: 32, 33).

The controversy over the date of those classes of "design" scarabs (cf. O'Connor 1985; Ward 1987 for the issues) is part of a larger methodolog- ical dispute that unfortunately cannot be resolved here. Yet it is a moot point if, as I contend, the Montet Jar is a composite hoard, and furthermore cannot be connected definitively with either the stratification of Syrian sites of the late EB-early MB or Palestinian MB I.7 I agree with several others who have pointed out the mixture of EB IV and MB I elements in the jar, as well as its contents (cf. Gerstenblith 1983: 103; Ward 1987: 512), but this is irrelevant for the current article. Certainly the Montet Jar cannot simply be dated specifically to the "19th century B.C.E."; regarded as "transitional" EB IV/MB I; and then used in circular fashion to argue that MB I begins as late as the mid-late 19th century B.C.E., as Bietak does (1989: 97; see further below).

Chronological arguments based on the Byblos Royal Tombs suffer from similar deficiencies. Again Albright, from visual inspection of the material (and memory?), had argued that the pottery was closely comparable to his Palestinian MB IIA. He had then proposed ingeniously to restore the name on an alabaster from Tomb IV inscribed tn as "Yantin," and then to identify this individual with

"Yantin-CAmmu" of Byblos, a known contemporary of Zimri-lim of Mari and thus also of both Hammu- rabi of Babylon and Neferhotep I of Egypt-all to be dated roughly within the 18th century B.C.E. on Albright's preferred "low chronology."8 Thus Al- bright lowered the date of all four Royal Tombs to ca. 1800-1720 B.C.E., and accordingly revised his original date of 1900-1750 B.C.E. for MB I (his MB IIA) to ca. 1800-1700 B.C.E. (cf. 1964; 1965; 1966).

This "ultra-low" chronology was followed by Kenyon (1973), although for somewhat different reasons. Moreover, despite the fact that it remains

idiosyncratic, it has recently been taken up and

vigorously championed by the Egyptologist Man- fred Bietak, since he believes that it best fits his Palestinian material (sic) at Tell el-DabCa in the Delta (below). Bietak, however, had originally (1979) overlooked the refutation of Albright's use of the Royal Tombs by Kitchen (1967) and myself (1976; cf. later, Gerstenblith 1983: 102, 103). Only in his later treatments (as 1989: 97) does Bietak acknowledge that Albright's use of the Byblian Royal Tomb evidence is not unassailable; and even

here he seems unaware that no Palestinian archaeologist today follows Albright's arguments or his low chronology. Not only was the linguistic argument weak all along (see Kitchen 1967), but now the full publication of the material by Tufnell (1969) makes it clear that the pottery was probably mixed by the excavators and may well span MB I and MB II, and in any case is not "typical" of Pal- estinian MB I pottery at all. The latter point was suggested by Tufnell (1966), made even more ex- plicit by me (1976: 11), and followed by others like Gerstenblith (1983: 102, 103). Even if Al- bright's several assumptions were granted, this would only date the end of MB I, not the beginning. Bietak has recently (1989: 97) responded to these points, but simply to restate Albright's argument, adding his own opinion that the small bowls and cooking pots, perhaps from Tomb I (with inscribed objects from the period of Amenemhet III), could now be compared with those from Ras el-

CAin/Tel Aphek in Phases 1 and 2. Perhaps so, but how does that yield a "fixed chronology"-especially one like Bietak's "ultra-low" chronology of ca. 1850-1700 B.C.E. for MB I? Bietak simply ig- nores the opinion of Palestinian specialists that the Royal Tombs are too atypical to provide a firm synchronism with Palestinian MB I, and too uncer- tain in date themselves to offer chronological precision for any phase in MB I or MB II. It is time that the supposed chronological evidence derived from both the Byblian Montet Jar and the Royal Tombs be recognized for what it is, i.e., largely irrelevant and insignificant, except possibly for the former's implication for scarab dates (see further Weinstein 1992a).

Other Data and International Synchronisms. A similar assessment must be made of other deposits long known and often cited in discussions of interconnections between Syria, Palestine, and Egypt in MB I, particularly the Tod treasure from Egypt and the many Egyptian Dynasty 12 statuettes found in the southern Levant. The Tod deposit, dated to the time of Amenemhet II (ca. 1901-1860 B.C.E.; Kitchen 1989b: 153), had been regarded by Albright as containing Syrian MB I material (his MB IIA) alongside silver cups of Middle Minoan I style, thus providing a useful synchronism. More recently, however, it has become clear that the range of the material is equivalent to MM I-II and III, just as the Mesopotamian material spans the Early Dynas- tic-Old Babylonian periods (cf. Kitchen 1989a: 47). In any case, since Middle Minoan I-III dates


are in flux (Walberg 1989), the proposed synchronism offers nothing for absolute chronology- another circular argument. The same uncertainties bedevil the attempt to use the occurrence of Ka- mares ware of MM IA style in tombs at Ugarit and elsewhere together with Syrian MB I pottery and bronzes.

Finally, the attempt to correlate MM I-II with Middle Cypriot I-II, to achieve a three-way synchronism with Syria-Palestine, results largely in circular reasoning and inconclusive arguments. For instance, I demonstrated in 1976 that Cypriot Pen- dant Line pottery was imported into Palestine first in MB I, not in MB II (Albright's MB IIB) as previously thought (Dever 1976: 14, n. 104; followed independently by Salz 1977; Johnson 1982). Pen- dant Line pottery begins in Cyprus in the Middle Cypriot II, variously dated to the late 19th century B.C.E. ("high" chronology); the early 18th century B.C.E. ("middle" chronology); or the late 18th century B.C.E. ("low" chronology; see further Astrtim 1989: 62). Given the alternate dates, I had previously opted for the "high" Cypriot chronology, since it fits best with the "middle" chronology for Palestinian MB I; but admittedly that is a matter of preference, i.e., merely a convenient relative chronology (cf. fig. 1).

To extend our international chronological net- work still further does not help much more for Syria-Palestine. Thus Anatolia could be brought into the picture via Gerstenblith's proposed link of Palestinian MB I pottery with pottery of the Karum Kanish of Killtepe Ib (1983: 105), but the link is vi- tiated both by the subjective nature of the ceramic comparisons and by the necessary dependence of Killtepe Ib on various disputed systems of Mesopo- tamian chronology.9 I had proposed (1976: 13-15) a general comparison between Palestinian MB I painted wares, the Anatolian "Cappadocian" wares, the "North Syrian Painted Simple Wares," and the well known Khabur wares of northern Mesopota- mia. Absolute dates, however, for all those wares would hinge upon the Khabur ware. That is usually dated on the basis of tombs at Chagar Bazar to the time of Shamsi-Adad I (ca. 1813-1781 B.C.E. "low" chronology); but I have shown (Dever 1976: 14) that the attribution to either Level 3/2 or 1 is uncer- tain, and this ware could easily have begun as early as the mid-19th century B.C.E., contemporary with mid-late MB I in Palestine. Yet the above synchronisms themselves are debated (cf. Tubb 1983: 50- 55), and even if confirmed would yield only a relative chronology at present.

This "counsel of despair" may lead now to newer data for MB I. It might seem helpful to review the results of excavations of the past 20 years or so to prospect for better stratified material (see fig. 2; cf. Dever 1976; 1987; Gerstenblith 1983), but the wealth of excavated material has little direct bearing on chronology, beyond relative comparisons. For instance, more and more scarabs are now known from what appear to be solid MB I contexts. Few, if any, however, are royal-name scarabs; the absolute date of the "design" scarabs is hotly debated (cf. Weinstein 1975; O'Connor 1985; Ward 1984; 1987); and, even in the best of circumstances, scarabs that can be dated absolutely by literary sources are often heirlooms and provide only a terminus post quem. It must also be stressed that absolutely no textual evidence bearing on chronology has yet turned up in Palestinian MB I contexts (see further below).

One vexing problem of local Palestinian chronology concerns the attempt to date the earliest emergence of the fortifications that characterize most Middle Bronze Age sites. Albright and others who followed him had long held that many fortifi- cation systems originated in the very first phase, MB I (his MB IIA). That assumption was chal- lenged, however, by Yadin, who argued that all the city walls and gates were first constructed in MB II (1978). Few followed Yadin, and the Tel Aviv school, in particular, sought to refute him by point- ing to a number of sites, which they demonstrated to have been fortified already in MB I (Kochavi, Beck, Gophna 1979; see further fig. 2 here). De- spite the fact that Yadin's theory is passe today, the resolution of the problem of the sequence of fortifications in Palestine yields only a relative, not an absolute, chronology. There is, as far as I am aware, no way of dating the earliest city walls without reference to literary sources, and thus far we cannot establish any such connection. In Syria there has been even less precision. Thus Matthiae dates the Ebla defenses to ca. 2000-1800 B.C.E., but the matter must remain open.10

Tell Mardikh and Tell el-DabCa. Since some of the more recent Palestinian MB I material can be correlated with Syria and Egypt, some have assumed that we should seek fixed synchronisms there. For instance, Matthiae's spectacular excavations at Tell Mardikh/Ebla have brought to light several elements of his Mardikh IIIA (ca. 2000- 1800 B.C.E. in Matthiae's opinion), such as the West- ern Palace (="Palace Q"), and the tombs of the


EB IV 2000/ MB I 1800/ MB II MB III 1550/ LB IA (=NMBI1) 1950 B.C. (=IIA) 1750 B.C. (=IIB) 1650 B.C. (=IIC) 1500 B.C.

Dan - domestic levels Tomb Embankment r gap? Domestic

levels)a XVil Hazor "Pre XVII" (sherds) XVII (L.C. IV) Wall'" XVI (L.C. III) partial (sherds) 1970 tomb ) Embankment .. T. 1-33, Area C gap

Ginnosar T. 1, 4 lower Kfar Szold Ginnosar T. 2/3 (upper) T. 4 upper tombs

XV Megiddo XV-XIII (part) XII-XI Wall X IX -- (sherds) T. 2151. 3138, 3141, 3143, 3147, Gate

3150, 3157, 3162, 3165, 4016 42,44, 644 31acis1

251 3070 Shaft- 4046, 5090, 5130, 5106, 5114, T.3109 T.3075 T. 3175 T. 253 T. 3095 T. 2031 tombs 5118, 5147, 5167, 5171, 5177, 3083 257 4055

5178, 5181 + 2120, 4105, 5062-63 T.24 4100 T. 911A:, D; 912B, D =Kenyoh's "Tomb Groups' k B C D E F G ?) H

tell phases: K L M N O P slight remains -

. Domestic levels (2 phases) - 4 ? Intramural burials

Tell CAmr T. 1, 2, 4 Tacanach Wall, glacis "North Beth-shan Ccmctcry"

TT.•111; 9?2 gap? XB XA - ? Rehov T. 6 Tell Kittan

1956 tomb (middle) 1956 tomb (upper) Nahariveh Kabri "Palace"

(shcrds) EarlySanctuary Latter phases of Sanctuary gap Akko sherds mbankment ?

Gate Tel Mevorukh gap Achzib ? Dothan Embankment TiFaimi

" walls

Tell Far .) Trench 692 Niveau 5 (=V) T. I-L ..

Glacis T. AD, AN, B, W, Y; 16 (part) T. A, F, H, AM; 3, 5. 16 1 5, 11, 12 Embankment

- gap

Wall C Gate T. C, E Shechem Wall D ------* Embankment ---- Walls A. B gap

Temenos 1 Temenos 2, 3 Temenos 4, 5 NW, E GatcsTemcnos 6, 7 XXII-XXI XX XIX XVII XVI-XV

6 Tell el-Hayyv t 5 4 3 2 1 gap tombs Jericho

. wall .1? (3 phases)

tel_ glacis gap Kcnyon's "Tomb Group" I 11 II[ IV V ?

T. K3 villages Southern Transiordan-gap gap Amman tombs

Gibeon 15 KILH 8; Level 4 - ? 7 ,T 13, 18 tombs T. 31-31A (upper), 58 (upper) T. 14, 22, 45, 64A T. 11, 35-37, T.. 19-21, 30, gap

42 )35, 36.

Jerusalem 18 17 gap 34,57 sherds Bethe - sherds 1

gap? Wall 4 5

Motta Cave 1-2 NW Gate Motzagap (lower) Domestic levels) Cave 1-2 (upper)

tombs Bcth-shcmcsh T. 2 (= 12) lower; 9 VI (part) T. 3 (=B), 17 T. 2 (= 12) V Wall gap

1972 Campsite

?.upr

Gate

Gezer XXII XXI XX fortifications XIX XVIII ? gap T. I (lo wer

•T

(upper); II.30 T. I (middle), 2?, 3? T. 28, II

-fl Ory's T. 2, 4, 6

tombs Kochavi's wall (2 ph.) ) gap? Second "Palace" "Prc-palace" "Palace

Sharon survey sites Tel-Aviv/Jaffa area Fortifications

Tombs (1926, 1948, 1948 Domestic levels ? Domestic levels Tombs Tell Zeror 21-20 tWall s 19-18 gap?

tGlacis yr- Tell ole" sherds &--Glacis ? Yabneh-yam sherds ? Wall

Gate, Ph.t Gate, Ph. II Tell Beit Mirsim 1965 tomb

I-H G-F E E D gap caves Lachishl Sherds, NW Section T. 157, 173 cis T. 119, 129, 143 "2000" Cem. Cave 1504 (part) Cave 6002 Revetment - gap?

Ashkelon Gate Glacisl ----- 2 -- 3 4 Tell en-Nagikeh

Tell el-Hesv "Phoemican City" Petrie's "Amorite City" (part) gap? Bliss' "City Sub. " Hesy "City Ib"

. . .) ? "City I"

"100-200"Cem. Tell c-lAii•l "Courtyard "City II, Palace II" "Palace III" Cemetery" Defenses 2 gap

Tell Farcah (S.) gap? 500 Cemetery Ncgcv gap I gap Ashdod "XIX" (+ Tel Mor)

.. gap

I

Fig. 2. Stratigraphic chart of Palestinian Middle Bronze Age sites.


Royal Necropolis in Area Q. The "Tomb of the Princess" is dated by Matthiae to late MB I/early MB II, or ca. 1825-1800 B.C.E. largely on the basis of the still-strong MB I cast of the pottery. The

appearance of such classic MB I forms as "eye- juglets" in the "North Syrian Painted Ware" tradi- tion, however, could date the tomb somewhat earlier, even in mid-MB I."1

The other hypogeum tomb in Area Q, the "Tomb of the Lord of the Goats," is dated somewhat later

by Matthiae, ca. 1750 B.C.E. (or early Mardikh IIIB), even though it is simply one chamber of a bi- lobate tomb, sharing the dromos entrance with the "Princess" tomb. Matthiae bases his conclusion not only on the notion that the pottery is more advanced typologically, but also upon the presence of a stone vase bearing the name of "Hetepibre," presumably the same individual as the ninth pharaoh of Dynasty 12, whose date would be ca. 1775 B.C.E. (see further Weinstein 1992a). Theoretically, the

inscription could yield almost the only certain, fixed date for the transition from MB I to MB II-- if it could be shown that the pottery and metals do indeed characterize such a transitional phase (see further below), and if the identification with the pharaoh in question were indisputable (see Bietak 1991; 22, for the possibility of Amenemhet I). I leave the inscription to others, but point out that the "Tomb of the Lord of the Goats" contained three

samples of fenestrated axeheads, one of the broad

eye type, and two of the narrow, elongated duckbill

variety. Matthiae argues that the two types overlap, and that they are in proper place in the "early MB II" context in which he would place the tomb (1980). Yet he overlooks the clear evidence elsewhere in Syria-Palestine that these two types are mutually exclusive, the broad axe confined to EB IV, and the duckbill axe to MB I, wherever there are controlled contexts. Furthermore, even the advanced duckbill variety does not occur later than MB I (unless occasionally in the transitional MB

I/II phase, ca. 1775-1750 B.C.E.; below), being replaced by the narrow shaft-hole variety at the beginning of MB II. This evidence has been amply documented (cf. Oren 1971; Dever 1975: 30, 31; Tubb 1982; Philip 1989: 51-53). Further confirma- tion comes from the well known Beni Hasan wall painting, dated ca. 1875 B.C.E., which despite Bie- tak's skepticism does depict just such an axe, com- plete with the odd curving wooden handle that has actually been found preserved in the contemporary MB I tombs at Baghouz, near Mari (du Mesnil du Buisson 1948: pls. 47, 54, 56).12 All this evidence

is ignored not only by Matthiae but also by Bietak (1989: 94; 1991: 49). Either the axes are heirlooms (the eye axe is certainly so); the "Tomb of the Lord of the Goats" should be dated earlier, ca. late 19th century B.C.E.; or the date for the end of MB I must be lowered to ca. 1750 B.C.E. Although present evidence is inconclusive, I prefer the second option. Nevertheless, the date of the tomb, even if it could be determined absolutely, would not help us to de- cide definitely between the "middle" and the "low" chronologies for Palestine (as Bietak supposes: 1989: 94; see further Weinstein 1992a).

In Egypt, the most significant site for purposes of Levantine interconnections and chronology is easily Tell el-Dabca in the eastern Delta, the ancient Hyksos capital of Avaris, which has been excavated since 1966 by the Austrians under Bie- tak (see especially 1979; 1984; 1989; 1991 and references therein). With the earliest preliminary reports, and particularly the first syntheses (as 1980), it became apparent to Syro-Palestinian specialists that the material culture of Bietak's early phases, Strata G-F, is largely Palestinian--especially the tomb, metallic, and ceramic types, which are classic MB I. Bietak's "low chronology," however, ca. 1850-1700 B.C.E. for MB I, robs the material of much of its significance by placing it late and thus obscuring the early, peaceful infiltration of Asiatics into the Delta. Not only has Bietak stuck to this low chronology, but he has attempted to force it on the archaeology of Syria-Palestine- despite the strong protests of both Palestinian archaeologists and some Egyptologists (cf. Ward 1987). Since one of the latter, Weinstein, deals ex- tensively with the fallacies of Bietak's chronological arguments in this issue of the Bulletin, I will refer mostly to my own counter-arguments elsewhere, on archaeological grounds (1985; 1991a; cf. also Weinstein 1975; 1992a).

The essential differences in chronology between Bietak and myself may be grasped most easily by reference to fig. 3. The differences are most obvious, and most crucial for the Tell el-Dabca strata that cover our MB I, Strata H-G, and especially for my "transitional MB I/II" horizon (see below), represented precisely by Tell el-DabCa Stratum F. Bietak (at least more recently) has correctly recognized the transitional nature of Stratum F, but he first gave it a median date of ca. 1660 B.C.E. (on the low chronology that he prefers; see Bietak 1984: 478). Work- ing back from that date, he dates all the Tell el- Dabca MB I strata-and with that, Palestinian MB I-quite late, as much as 100 years too late for


Tell el-DabCa Arch. Phase Bietak Bietak Bietak Dever Weinstein Stratum in Palestine 1984 1989 1991 1992 1992

Tell A II Area F/I

H = d1/2 early MB I 1750 BC MB IIA 2 2000/ (= IIA) 1720 1800-1775 BC 1950-1875 C

G/4 = d/l mid MB I 1800-1700 BC 1775-1725 BC 1875-1800 BC ca. 1750 BC (= IIA) 1710 BC

1690 G/3-1 = C late MB I MB IIA 3

(= IIA) 1750-1725 BC 1800-1775 BC ca. 1725 BC

F = b/3 "trans. MB /III" 1680 BC 1700-1670 BC *MB IIA/B *(= IIA/B) 1660 1725-1700 BC *1775-1750 BC 1725-1700 BC

E/3 = b/2 early MB II 1640 BC MB IIB 1 (= IIB) 1620 1700-1660 BC 1750-1700 BC 1700 - -

1670-1600 BC E/2 = b/l mid MB 11 Tr. MB IIB 1/2

(= IIB) 1660-1630 BC 1700-1675 BC 1600 BC 1590

Hvksos/Dyn. 15

E/l = bh2-2/2 late MB II MB IIB 2 (= 11B) 1630-1600 BC 1675-1625 BC

D/3 = a/2 early MB III 1570 BC Tr. MB IIB2-IIC (= IIC) 1560 1600-1540 BC 1600-1570 BC 1625-1575 BC

D/2 = late MB III 1540 MB IIC (= IIC) 1530 1570-1540 BC 1575-1530 BC

D/I Post-1530 BC Post-1540 BC 1530-1475 BC

B ca 1310- 1080 BC

A Ptolemaic

Fig. 3. Phasing and dates for Tell el-Dabca. according to various authorities. * = Newly proposed "transitional MB I/II" (= IIA/B) period of Bietak, Dever.

the earliest phases. But what is Bietak's evidence for the absolute chronology of this crucial Stratum F? In 1984, he could adduce only two scarabs, one supposedly 13th Dynasty, and one unpublished with a corrupt inscription (Bietak 1984: 478). The first could support either Bietak's or my chronology, if it is early 13th Dynasty; the second constitutes no evidence at all (cf. Dever 1991a: 75). In 1991, he adds

as further evidence two limestone door jambs, possibly from Stratum F Temple III but found in late Rammeside pits, inscribed with the name of Nehesy, a king he dates to the late 18th century B.C.E.; and a seal found in an MB I tomb with a name and the title of "deputy treasurer," which he dates to the 13th or even 14th(!) Dynasty, although without specify- ing why (Bietak 1991: 51). Again, the last item is


useless for fixed chronology; and the NeIhesy blocks, very dubious evidence indeed, have been dealt with both by myself and Weinstein (Dever 1985: 78; Weinstein 1992a: 30, 31). Thus it is apparent that Bietak has no real grounds for dating his Stratum F so late, or even past the 12th Dynasty-and certainly no grounds for lowering the related Pales- tinian MB I (his MB IIA) so drastically. While Weinstein does not accept Bietak's methodology either, he prefers for his own reasons to see my MB I "overlapping significantly" with the early 13th Dynasty, ending ca. 1725 B.C.E. (Weinstein 1975: 1; cf. Weinstein 1992a: 29, 34, 38). Weinstein's reasons for that view, however, come not from Tell

el-DabCa, but from his understanding of my Pales- tinian late MB I and "transitional MB I/II" (his late MB IIA) deposits, their overall stratigraphic relations, and particularly several scarabs some of which may be 13th Dynasty (plus a few from Syrian tombs, such as Ruweis6 Tomb 66, 73 (Weinstein 1992a: 34, 35, 36, 37). His arguments seem neither compelling nor decisive in choosing between Wein- stein's 1725 B.C.E. or my 1750 B.C.E. date for the end of MB I and transitional MB I/II horizon-although our collective arguments do, I think, eliminate Bie- tak's low chronology.

While Weinstein and I both refute Bietak's "ultra-low" MB I chronology, Weinstein adopts what I would call a "moderately low" chronology, while I have preferred, until this treatment, a "middle" (not "high") chronology of ca. 2000/1950- 1800 B.C.E. for MB I, more recently incorporating a provisional, transitional MB I/II phase ca. 1775- 1750 B.C.E. (see below; cf. fig. 1., and compare with Weinstein 1992a; fig. 1). Bietak has now responded obliquely to us both, as well as to Ward (1987), but without really confronting the considerable evidence we adduce against him (see Bietak 1984: 472, 482; 1989; 96-99; cf. the fuller presentation of the evidence now in Bietak 1991).13 Meanwhile, pending fuller publication of the Tell el-DabCa data by Bietak, and a demonstra- tion that renders it conclusive, proponents of the "middle" (or possibly Weinstein's "moderately low") chronologies apparently will prevail where Syria-Palestine is concerned.

MIDDLE BRONZE II, CA. 1800/1750-1650 B.C.E.

Albright's second Middle Bronze phase, MB IIB, which he originally dated ca. 1750-1650 B.C.E., will

be considered here as "Middle Bronze II"-separat- ing it from a final phase (MB IIC, or our MB III) in contrast to Israeli usage (Kempinski 1983; cf. Bien- kowski 1989). The period witnesses a further, very impressive momentum of the second-millennium reurbanization of Syria-Palestine noted above. Its principal characteristics are the expansion and for- tification of sites already settled in MB I; the development of a more distinctly local "Canaanite" culture (especially in Palestine), with somewhat fewer foreign contacts; and the standardization of such industries as the manufacture of pottery and bronzes.

The Beginning of MB II (Albright's MB IIB)

It is difficult to date the beginning of the MB II period, since in the archaeological record there are no specific political events that would set it off from the preceding MB I, although there are general distinguishing characteristics overall. Albright originally placed it ca. 1750 B.C.E., then lowered that to ca. 1700 B.C.E., followed by Kenyon (and now Bietak; see above, on the end of MB I). More recently, however, MB II has been dated by convention as beginning ca. 1800 B.C.E. (cf. B. Mazar 1968: 97; Dever 1973; 1976; Matthiae 1975; 1984). As a matter of principle, however, we could consider the shift from Dynasty 12 to 13, ca. 1786 B.C.E. (not 1759 B.C.E. as on the "low" chronology; Kitchen 1989b: 153), as a convenient starting- point. Weinstein, however, argues that the end of MB I (= MB IIA) overlaps with Dynasty 13 (see especially 1992a: 29, 38), so that he prefers to see the shift from MB I to MB II ca. 1725 B.C.E., in line with what might be called a "moderately low" chronology in contrast to my "middle" or Bietak's "low" chronology. I would propose, instead, ending MB I proper ca. 1775 B.C.E. then positing a "transitional MB I/II" phase, ca. 1775-1750 B.C.E., which seems increasingly called for (see fig. 1). To the latter, for instance, might belong such groups as the 1974 rampart tomb at Dan (Biran 1974: 273-74); Hazor "pre-XVIII" and the 1971 tomb (Yadin 1972: 201-6); and certain Gezer materials. Positing such a transitional phase will also resolve the apparent difference between myself and Weinstein's "moderately low" chronology (see further below).14

International Synchronisms

Links with Mesopotamia. The well-known references in the Mari texts to tin-trading caravans


stopping at Dan and Hazor in northern Palestine (Malamat 1989) would seem promising for absolute chronology, since most of those texts date to the time of Shamsi-Adad I, who in turn overlapped the first years of Hammurabi of Babylon. The argument would then run that the references to the cities at Dan and Hazor would presumably be to those of the MB II period, not MB I, since only then would those Palestinian sites have grown large enough and prosperous enough to have sustained such international trade. Since most of the Mari texts date to the reign of Shamshi-Adad I, and by extrapolation to the early years of Hammurabi, we should be able to arrive at a date for Palestinian MB II.

Any attempt at a direct synchronism with Meso- potamia, however, is bedeviled by the uncertainty among Assyriologists as to the most likely dates for the Old Babylonian period. Thus Hammurabi is dated by various authorities as follows:

"Ultra-high" chronology = ca. 1900 B.C.E. (Landsberger)

"High" chronology = 1848-1806 B.C.E.

(Goetze) "Middle" chronology = 1792-1750 B.C.E.

(Smith, CAH3) "Low" chronology = 1728-1686 B.C.E.

(Albright) "Ultra-low" chronology = 1704-1662 B.C.E.

(Bihl-Weidner)

While the highest two and the lowest dates are in-

creasingly ruled out, there has been little consensus on a choice between the "middle" and the "low" dates. The most recent international symposium at

Gothenburg in 1987 (see Astrdm 1989) could not resolve the matter, and specifically disavowed the notion that radiocarbon dates could permit the choice between alternatives. But a general consensus did

emerge that the historical and archaeological evidence at present tends to support the "low" chronol-

ogy for Hammurabi (i.e., 1728-1686 B.C.E.; Astrom 1989). One can only agree with Yadin (1972: 107, 108) that we cannot maintain both the "middle chronology" and a date of ca. 1750 B.C.E. for the beginning of MB II. That is why I have preferred ca. 1800 B.C.E. since 1976; but if the Mesopotamian "low

chronology" were to be confirmed, then we should probably lower the dates for Palestine as well, in line with Albright's penultimate 1750 B.C.E.

Synchronisms with Egypt. Our usual recourse to astronomically fixed dates in Egypt is not partic-

ularly helpful for MB I, since there are no specific historical events that can be correlated for the two areas, such as, for instance, Egyptian campaigns in Palestine. Indeed, it is striking how little Egyptian influence is detectable in Palestine in MB II, in contrast to the abundance of evidence for MB I- probably due to the relatively isolated internal cultural development of Palestine in that period. Regarding my MB II as roughly contemporary with Egyptian Dynasty 13, as suggested above, is merely a convenience.

A possible direct link has been seen between Palestine and Egypt, i.e., between what might be regarded as a "pre-Hyksos" phase in Palestinian MB II, and the "early Second Intermediate" period in Egypt. Bietak's recent excavations at Tell el- Dabca in the Delta have, in fact, brought to light the long-lost Hyksos capital of Avaris. I have argued (Dever 1985; 1991a) that Strata E/3-1 are exactly contemporary with my Palestinian MB II; and further that the "Asiatic" settlement and material culture at Tell el-DabCa (Strata G-E) are specifically Palestinian in character. In that view, Stratum E would represent the gradual, peaceful buildup of the power base from which the Hyksos rulers of Dynasty 15 launched their successful coup ca. 1650 B.C.E. Even if that equation should prove correct, however, it still would not allow us to date MB II in absolute terms, since the date of Dabca E/3-1 is disputed. Bietak dates E/3-1 to ca. 1675- 1600 B.C.E., while I prefer (as do most Palestinian specialists) ca. 1750-1650 B.C.E. Everything hinges on Bietak's correlation of Dabca Stratum E with Kenyon's "Tomb Groups" I-III at Jericho; but such

typological sequences are notoriously subjective and by definition can rarely offer fixed dates. Bie- tak has attempted to read a scarab in a Group II burial as "Nubkheperre," dating him ca. 1650 B.C.E.; and another scarab in a Group III burial as

Mayibre/Sheshi, a well-known Hyksos king of Dy- nasty 15, ca. 1600 B.C.E. Largely on the evidence of those supposedly "late" tomb groups and ceramic parallels with Tell el-DabCa E/3-1, Bietak defends his low chronology for both Egypt and Palestinian MB II. Ward, however (1987: 521-23), probably the leading authority on scarabs, has shown that Bietak's reading of those two scarabs (and one other) is wrong, and thus the proposed synchronism falls apart (see further Dever 1991a; Bietak 1989, 1991, partly in response).

Syrian Connections. Palestine, by all indications, ought to be considered in close relation with


Syria in this period, but the Syrian sites have been too poorly excavated and published until recently to provide any reliable stratigraphic sequences. That is certainly the case with Byblos, Ugarit, Qadesh, and Qatna, and even with Hama (see fig. 2 for rough correlations). Happily, the excavations of Matthiae and others at Tell Mardikh, ancient Ebla, provide, at last, a properly dug site. Matthiae

equates his Mardikh IIIB largely with my MB II, dating it ca. 1800-1600 B.C.E., assuming that it, like so many sites in Syria, was destroyed by the Hittites.15 Yet there are no published data that would yield absolute dates for the beginning of Mardikh IIIB, such as connections with histori- cally-fixed texts or events in either Egypt or Meso- potamia. Also, direct comparisons between the material culture in Palestine and a Syro-Mesopota- mian site like Mardikh are too distant and impre- cise for chronological purposes generally.

Cypriot Imports and Chronology. Trade with

Cyprus, which in our view began already in MB I, now intensifies, as witness the increasing incidence of such Cypriot ceramic styles as Pendant Line, White Painted III-VI, and even Black-on-Red wares. Yet those wares cannot be dated independently in Cyprus, and indeed are often dated by reference to their occurrence in Palestine, and thus

they yield only circular arguments. As a measure of the difficulty, we may note only some of the current variance in Middle Cypriot II dates among specialists, ranging from Gjerstad's original 1900- 1750 B.C.E. to Catling's and Astr6m's 1700-1600 B.C.E. (see further Astraim 1989: 63; add now Mer- rillees 1992; MC II = 1850-1750 B.C.E.)

The Problem of Inner Phasing

Figure 2 shows that several Syro-Palestinian sites exhibit multiple phases, as would be expected in a period that covers 100-125 years (cf. Dever 1974, on Shechem). Thus far, however, we have no means of assigning exact dates to those subphases, except by "dead reckoning" from the presumed beginning and end dates for the overall period. A related problem is whether there is a gap in occupation at some sites in early MB II, as proposed by Cole (1984: 96), especially those along the coast. In my opinion, recent excavations do not entirely solve the problem, but they do tend to highlight the continuity of MB I-II occupation at most sites, a continuity that extends then into MB III.

MIDDLE BRONZE III, CA. 1650-1500 B.C.E.

My MB III, the final part of the Middle Bronze Age, is Albright's "Middle Bronze IIC," dated by him ca. 1650-1550 B.C.E. This period has been considered by most scholars as a phase separate from the preceding MB II, although that is a distinction not recognized by Kenyon, for instance, or by the major- ity of Israeli archaeologists (thus Kempinski 1983: 1-4; but cf. Mazar 1968: 97; add now Bienkowski 1989). Thus my MB II and III would be combined.

MB III as a Distinct, Separate Phase

The American periodization was originally based on Tell Beit Mirsim D and E, but it has been confirmed subsequently at other sites with multiple mid-to-late Middle Bronze Age phasing, particularly Shechem and Gezer (Seger 1975; Cole 1984; Dever 1987). The number and complexity of the final Middle Bronze phases at many sites is not due simply, in my opinion, to the American preference for finer-grained stratigraphic separation. It is rather a reflection of the fact that the major urban sites of Palestine did undergo further elaboration-particularly in the proliferation of defense works-in such a way that this period merits characterization as a distinct and separate phase. It is set off furthermore by other monumental architecture, such as palaces and temples; by certain developments in local ceramics (see especially Cole 1984); by such achieve- ments as the first appearance of an alphabetic script (the "Proto-Sinaitic" or "Proto-Canaanite" alpha- bet); and above all by the full flowering of the local "Canaanite" culture, for Palestine now reached the zenith of its urban development and international- ism, not to be surpassed until the Roman period.16 Finally, this phase (and not the previous) is exactly equivalent to the climax of the Hyksos or Asiatic occupation of Egypt and the rise of Semitic rulers to power under Dynasty 15, ca. 1650-1550/1500 B.C.E.

(below). If, as I hold, the local dynasts of Palestin- ian MB III and the Hyksos interlopers in Egypt were Semitic "first cousins," and the later derived from Palestine in the preceding period, then this equivalency alone would set off this final Middle Bronze phase as a separate entity.

MB III and Tell el-DabCa

The archaeological situation at Tell el-DabCa in the Egyptian Delta would seem to bear out the pro-


posed equivalency. There Bietak equates the levels from E/1 through D/3-2 with Dynasty 15 and the Hyksos ascendancy, quite correctly in my opinion, even to his absolute date of ca. 1650-1540 B.C.E. for this period (using the Beckerath/Helck/Hor- nung "low" chronology; ca. 20 years later on the Krauss "ultra-low" chronology; cf. Bietak 1984: 472-79). Those phases are marked by increased density of occupation at the site; family burials in vaults under the floors; a more Egyptianizing pottery and material culture; Cypriot Bichrome and White Slip I imports; and a general disturbance at the end of D/2, which virtually ends occupation until the Ramesside period (Stratum B). Although Bietak tends to regard the end of D/2 as due to something less drastic than a wholesale "destruction," he does suggest equating the event with the well known siege of Avaris under Ahmose I, the first king of Dynasty 18. The latter's rule may now be fixed at 1550-1525 B.C.E., according to the Beckerath/Helck/Hornung "low" chronology (Bie- tak 1984: 473), giving a date for his 11th year and the fall of Tell el-DabCa/Avaris of 1539 B.C.E. (see further below).17

Inner Phasing of MB III

While the general contemporaneity of Palestin- ian MB III and the Dynasty 15/Hyksos rule may be assumed, ca. 1650-1550 B.C.E. (ca. 1637-1529 B.C.E. on the "low" chronology), there is little basis

upon which to divide the period into subphases. To be sure, the successive reigns of six Hyksos rulers can be reconstructed.18 The 38 or 39 known scarabs of those rulers that have been found in Palestine have been conveniently collected and analyzed by Weinstein (1981), who demonstrates that most of them come from southern and central Palestine, the

presumed "homeland" of the Hyksos, and indeed 30 are from sites destroyed at the end of MB III. Those data, however, merely confirm the range of MB III, i.e., to Dynasty 15, to ca. 1650-1550 B.C.E., since we cannot connect individual events or archaeological subphases in Palestine to the reign of any particular Hyksos ruler. The remaining three dozen or so nonroyal, name-and-title scarabs of MB III (Gi- veon 1974; 1976) are even less helpful.

The End of the MB III Period

Virtually all Palestinian specialists since Al- bright have coordinated the end of MB III (his MB IIC) with the Egyptian campaigns in Asia that

were the apparent cause of at least partial destructions of nearly every site. They began under Kamose, the last king of Dynasty 17, ca. 1550 B.C.E. (see further below), as the Hyksos began to be expelled from Egyptian under the Theban renascence. They continued well into Dynasty 18 as Egyptian pharaohs campaigned almost annually- especially Thutmosis III (ca. 1479-1425 B.C.E., "low" chronology; Kitchen 1989a: 40, 41, 47), to whom may well be attributed the final destructions at such sites as Megiddo, Tacanach, Gezer, and Tell elCAjjfl on his first Asiatic campaign in his 22nd year (see further below).

While the stratigraphic record at the sites in Pal- estine is dramatically clear regarding destruction levels (as maintained, for instance in Dever 1985; cf. Weinstein 1981), several Egyptologists recently have sought to minimize, or even to eliminate, the Egyptian role (Shea 1979; Redford 1979; Bien- kowski 1986: 127; Hoffmeier 1989; 1990; but see rebuttals by Dever 1990a; Weinstein 1991). If, however, the destructions are the result of both Egyptian vengeance upon the Hyksos homeland and the de- sire to reduce the Asiatic power bases to guard against further incursions, we may be able to correlate campaigns of known date with the destruction of specific strata at a number of sites. Suggested correlations will be seen at a glance in fig. 2. But sorting out the many campaigns in the various Egyptian texts, then assigning them to an exact phase among the numerous destructions and disturbances at Palestinian sites, is extremely difficult.

We have, however, several recourses. One would be to try to "rationalize" Egyptian intent and strategy, as Weinstein (1981) has attempted, to infer a progression of battle routes that would extend over the main phase of the conquest of Pales- tine, which most agree must be dated between ca. 1540 and 1460 B.C.E. (i.e., from Ahmose I to Thut- mosis III's first Asiatic campaign in his 22nd/23rd year, ca. 1457 B.C.E.). In that case, the most strate- gic sites would likely be besieged first, starting with Tell el-Dabca/Avaris itself, then extending from south to north up through Palestine and into Syria, beginning with Sharuhen (now probably not Tell el-FarCah but Tell el-CAjjfil1). On the other hand, the larger and more heavily fortified sites may have had to be reduced several times before their final capture; and other sites may have held out through repeated sieges until they were finally destroyed.

The facts do indeed support such a complex recon- struction, especially if we take a second recourse,


namely ceramic typology. We can start with the fact that Tell el-DabCa in the Delta suffered a devastating blow at the end of Stratum D/2, which Bietak dates ca. 1540 B.C.E. and rightly connects with the well known siege of Avaris by Ahmose (above). Accord- ing to Egyptian records, Sharuhen in south Palestine was then besieged; whether that site is located at Tel

el-FarCah or Tell el-CAjjfl, both exhibit late Middle Bronze destruction levels (cf. fig. 2). Farther north, Shechem has no less than three MB III destruction levels, the last of them exhibiting such diagnostic MB III/LB IA wares (below) as Chocolate-on-White and Gray Lustrous pottery (Dever 1974). Still later, probably, are the final destructions of Megiddo X, Tacanach, Gezer XVIII, and Tell el-CAjjfIl ("City II," "Palace II"), for all produce Cypriot Bichrome ware on this horizon (Megiddo in Stratum IX), a more characteristically Late Bronze IA/Late Cypriot I

style, usually dated ca. 1550-1450 B.C.E. by Cypriot specialists (below). (It should also be noted that Dabca D/2 also has Cypriot White Slip I ware, exceedingly rare in Palestinian destruction levels; see

Astr6m 1989: 58; cf. Gittlen 1981: 50.) A final recourse would be to try to reconstruct

an actual archaeohistorical context for the best known of the Egyptian forays, based for example on Thutmosis III's Karnak inscription and its battle itinerary of his campaign in the spring of 1457 B.C.E. (on the "low" chronology; Kitchen 1989a: 40, 41, 47). I have indeed argued that Megiddo, Tacanach, Gezer, and Tell el-cAjjfl, for instance, listed (except, of course, Tell el-CAjjfl) in the inscription, were actually taken in that year.19 Many of the other Palestinian sites, however, must have fallen earlier and are listed by Thutmosis III simply as propaganda. That is manifestly the case with the Syrian sites, some all the way up to the Upper Euphrates, for, like Ebla, most had fallen prey to the Hittite advance as early as ca. 1600 B.C.E.

One Syrian site, Alalakh, is an exception to the, above generalization, but must be mentioned at least briefly in connection with chronology. The end of Level VII had been dated originally by Woolley to ca. 1750 B.C.E., then used by Sidney Smith in 1940 as a basis for the "middle" chronology, assuming that it was destroyed by Murlili I. Albright, however, dated Level VII to his MB IIC and used it as support for his "low" chronology. Texts found at Boghazktiy in 1957, however, confirm that it was Hattulili who destroyed Alalakh (presumably Level VII). Now the whole matter has been reopened, by Collon (1975), Kempinski (1983), and especially by Gates (1981;

1989) and McClellan (1989). The latter shows, conclusively in my opinion, that Level VII immediately predates Level VI, which must be characterized as LB IA since it witnesses the appearance of Cypriot Monochrome, Bichrome, and Base Ring I wares (see further below). Thus Level VII equates precisely with my MB III, and it should end ca. 1575 B.C.E. (Gates) or slightly later. I would prefer 1550 B.C.E. Certainly the mid-17th century B.C.E. dates of Collon, and Kempinski are completely ruled out.20

THE LATE BRONZE I PERIOD, CA. 1500-1400 B.C.E.

The Late Bronze Age has been traditionally divided into LB I and LB II at ca. 1400 B.C.E., each with several phases, since Albright's day, and that division is followed here, even though it is based largely on Palestine and is not easily applicable to Syria (see fig. 4 for the following). Late Bronze I, spanning most of the 15th century B.C.E., can be conveniently subdivided, as Albright did it, into LB IA, the brief period following the earlier Egyp- tian destructions, represented as a gap in occupation at many sites; and LB IB, the period of recovery (see further Leonard 1989 on the Late Bronze period in general, and especially pp. 6, 7 for convenient chronological charts).

LB IA, or "Transitional MB III/LB IA," ca. 1500-1450 B.C.E.

Defining LB IA as a "post-destruction" horizon entails placing it immediately after the latest of the major Egyptian campaigns discussed above, which could be considered those of Thutmosis III in his 22nd year, ca. 1457 B.C.E. Here, however, we must make a brief excursion into matters of Egyptian absolute chronology.

Any discussion of the Late Bronze Age in Syria-Palestine must begin, in fact, with the chronology of Egypt, now more than ever, for in LB I-II the Egyptian New Kingdom dominated the entire area, following the destructions discussed above. That fact remains fundamental, however one may understand the exact nature of the Egyp- tian hold over southwestern Asia.21

Matters would be relatively simple, were it not for the fact that Egyptian chronology for the new Kingdom is in flux. The salient points are treated


MB 131 155001 L"3IA L3-IB 1 LB H3A LB 11Hib Iron iA (=fMB tC) 1500 B.C. (1450) 1400 B.C. (1300) 120) B.C.

Hazor XVI • 7021, 8130, 9024L ? 4---XV (=L.C.2) XIV (= L.C.1B) XIII (=L.C.1A) XII

artial gap ? I T. 8144-45, 8065 C.9024U

rPost-XV "I i Dan ! "Clhariot Vase" tomb VII VI (gap) Meciddo (1468)

X AA IX =BB VIIB 1- gap AA VIII (=BB VIIA\ AA VIIB - -VIIA \KK =Ph.Q. gap T. 4, 217C, kKK=Ph.5/ T. 38, 731L, 877, 911A,

T. 75, 77, 78, 251 1101C, 1145A, B 912B,D, 989A.C

1100, 1145 Ta'anach Tel Yin'am VIB Tacanach IA

"LB I Bld " & St, partial MB I 1

- 2-I; LB I haft & gap gap? Tel Oashish 6 City Court Cistern;

"South Slope Cave," P .3-1 _Yocne'am 14 . ..

13 Intramural burials

. I Tel Kittan temple (111)

Bcth-shan "Thut. 111" "Pri-Amenophis" g "Amenophis III" "Seti 1" T. 4275573t3 3 Temple Temple T. 27, 29A-C Temple Temple

XB XA I IX - VIII VII VI Anthro. Coffins

. 60, 90, 107, 219, 241

Tell Abu Hawam V (founded) " IVA Nahariveh Sanctuary (end) --4 ?

- Akko Affuleh IV IIIB

Tell -Farah (N.) "Persin Garden" tombs 1f r XIll ap .4 Niveau 4 (=VI) - Niveau 4 -----

T. 60, 110, 160 T. 10, 50, 120 Tel Mevorakh XI X X IX I VIII-

Xv hechem gap XIV - Xll Fort.Temp.2a a XII 4 XI Temenos 8

.I ? .. ..

Deir All "Sanctuary" -- T. 101 ?

Jericho I Tell es-Saidiyeh tombs Garstang's "

gap "Palace" & "Aid. Bldg. ? gap T. 40. 50 T. 13U I Gibcon KK=Area H

gap - T. 10A-B . ?

Shiloh gap

. ? (slight occupation)

Bethel Domestic Icvcls "1 gaB FL

.... ....

Reused fortifications f Beth-shemesh V gap IVA T c

IVB ) T. 10, 11 Jerusalem Terraced E. Slopes

Dominus Flevit tombs

G r Amiran tomb

GcerA ek"Palace* . t

"1 XVI ) XVII XVI XV XIV•

XIII I C. 1.10.AL C. I.10.AU

"Outer Wall" VI Lachisyh t ("Fosse Temple" I "Fosse Temple" 11 "Fosse Temple" III

gap T. 1005, 4004 T. 216, 501, 536, 1003, 1006, T. 508, 532, 556, T.570 4011, 4040, etc. 559, 571, 4013

Tell Belt Mirsim Summit Temple (Lachish) Level VII Level VI 0ap D ------ gap C1 C2 1

X IX Tell Batash VIII-) VII "Palace" ' VI ("XIX") - Ashdod gap . XVIll XVII-XVI

- XV-XIV Tel Si or III

Tell el-FarCah (S.) elMor-7 6 gap T.902, 75,914, "500 Cenm.

Y 936, 939, 949, etc. S Nazileh L "900 Cem.

Bap 1 11-10 9 8-7

"City 11" 1 Bliss -CitL z • (gap) Bliss' "City III" "City IVbt"y b Tell el- AiiA01

r Tell esh-Sharica IX ?

"City II, (Cit I , PaI. I - "Palace" 111A ( "Palace" IIIB •JPalace"

IV (fort) Pa2.

' Z T. 252, 253, 1517, 1519 many tombs ) "Govcrnor's Tomb"

Lahav IXB IXA I VIII VII Deir al-Balah Deir al-Balah Anthropoid coffins 1ranstordan

. . Pella tombs- tell Sites in Gilead Amman Temple ------ ? Moab & Edom

(Glueck) Amman, Irtbid tombs Pella (Glueck) Madeba tomb

Kenyon's Poucry Gps. A, B (gap) C D E F

Fig. 4. Stratigraphic chart of Palestinian Late Bronze Age sites.


Chronology

Higher Lower

Dynasty 18 1550-1304 B.C.E. 1539-1295 B.C.E. Ahmose I 1550-1525 1539-1514 Thutmosis III 1490-1436 1479-1425 Thutmosis IV 1410-1402 1392-1382 Amenophis IV 1364-1347 1352-1336

Dynasty 17 1304-1200 B.C.E. 1295-1186 B.C.E. Seti I 1303-1290 1295-1279 Ramesses II 1290-1224 1279-1213 Merenptah 1223-1211 1213-1203

Fig. 5. Absolute dates for the Egyptian New Kingdom.

elsewhere (see Ward 1992). For our purposes, we may simply note variant opinions for those kings whose dates are relevant for Palestinian synchronisms. While at least four systems from "ultra- high" to "ultra-low" obtain at certain points, the essential differences may be grouped here simply into a "higher" and a "lower" range (fig. 5).22

Following the new lower dates, which seem now to command the greatest following, LB IA would have to begin as late as ca. 1450 B.C.E., i.e., after Thutmosis III's first Asiatic campaign in 1457 B.C.E., his 22nd year. That is awkward, however.

Albright's LB IA extended from ca. 1550-1450 B.C.E., because he adopted a rather simplistic scheme that tended to put all the Egyptian destructions early. The more complex data today suggest a long, drawn-out process, with the final "mop up" campaigns as late as Thutmose III. At the same time, the current reduction in absolute chronology lowers the dates even further. The result is that Al-

bright's "LB IA" would be simply compressed out of existence-that is, if we allow for an LB IB recovery phase ca. 1450-1400 B.C.E.

In place of "LB IA," I would suggest that we posit a brief, composite transitional "MB III/LB IA" phase, ca. 1500-1450 B.C.E. (fig. 1), which would embrace both the later campaigns that ended MB III (i.e., after those of Ahmose I and Ameno- phis I), especially those of Thutmosis III, in addi- tion to the gap in occupation at many sites already destroyed. There are many indications that allow- ing for such a transitional phase is useful, even essential. First, that usage more accurately describes the stratigraphic complexity, which apparently reflects the gradual and extended nature of the

Egyptian conquest and occupation of Palestine that finally brought all the fortified MB III sites to an end (see further below). Second, it takes into account the difficulty that virtually all scholars acknowledge in discerning a clear ceramic break between the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. The di- lemma is felt and is often expressed in such ques- tions as, "Is this destruction level MB III, or LB I?" What is really at issue is a ceramic distinction, however, because that is almost always the im- plicit criterion for dating destruction layers. The specific diagnostic wares in question are Cypriot Bichrome, Monochrome, White Slip I, and Base Ring I wares; locally made Chocolate-on-White wares (perhaps of Cypriot inspiration); and, in certain cases, Syrian-style Gray Lustrous wares (Oren 1971). When those wares are absent, the destruction layer may be said to be early, i.e., late MB III; when they are present, it may be said to be slightly later, or early LB IA.

Such a distinction is probably valid. That is, much of the confusion is semantic (thus Kempinski 1983: 221-24) and could obviously be avoided by simply focusing on that phase in which there occur multiple late MB III destructions or the distinctive presence or absence of the wares discussed above as a variable, and then defining that phase as "transitional MB III/LB IA." In terms of relative chronology, such a scheme has considerable appeal.

In absolute chronology, however, can we pin down such a phase? Unfortunately, we cannot, despite the easily recognizable Cypriot wares whose sudden and brief appearance may be said to characterize "MB III/LB IA." The reason is simply that those wares cannot be dated independently in


Cyprus, and indeed they have usually been dated by reference to Palestine-the classic tautology noted at the outset. Those wares cannot even be assigned to relative phases with confidence, for Cypriot authorities disagree widely. As an example of the difficulty, White Slip I may be thought to begin in "Late Cypriot IA"; but proposed dates for the beginning of that phase on Cyprus vary from 1650 (Merrillees) to 1550 B.C.E. (Catling, Salz, Dever).23 For Palestine, only the lowest possible dates seem to fit, since White Slip I is exceedingly rare in the destruction levels that end our Middle Bronze sites. Of course, we must allow for the possibility that Cypriot wares may have begun earlier in Cyprus, but were ex- ported to Palestine only after a generation or so. At

any rate, given the vagaries of the situation, the best criterion for the relative dates of destruction levels in late MB III or within "MB III/LB IA" may be the presence or absence of Bichrome ware. Thus above and in fig. 2, Tacanach, Megiddo X, Gezer XVIII, and Tell elCAjjOil "City II" are placed in the latter phase, for all have produced Bichrome ware in or

immediately above the final destruction layer.

LB IB, ca. 1450-1400 B.C.E.

LB IB, following the scheme above, would have to begin ca. 1450 B.C.E. or shortly thereafter (see fig. 4 for the following). If this phase is defined, however, as usual-i.e., as the "post-destruction/ recovery" period-there is no way to separate it

precisely from the full-blown LB IIA phase that follows, ca. 1400 B.C.E. being merely a convention. As Gonen (1984) has shown, most sites recovered

slowly, some not at all; nearly all were diminished in size, even well into LB II; and all (in her opinion)24 remained unfortified, except for sporadic re- use of the ruined Middle Bronze Age city walls. LB IB would correlate well with LH IB/LM IIA

(Hankey 1989; her dates would work out to ca. 1460-1425 B.C.E.); but since Aegean chronology is not yet absolutely fixed, this synchronism yields only a relative chronology.25

LB IIA in Syria-Palestine is best correlated with LH IIIA:1-2 and LM IIIA:1-2 in the Aegean (Hankey 1989: 53, ca. 1380-1310 B.C.E.). Once again, however, this yields only a relative chronology-apart from the dates fixed for the middle of the period by the occurrence of Late Mycenaean IIIA:2 sherds at el-Amarna in palace ruins dated to the reigns of Akhenaten (ca. 1352-1336 B.C.E.) and Tutankhamun (ca. 1336-1327 B.C.E.; Hankey 1989: 48 and references therein).

It would be convenient to end LB IIA with the general decline and upheaval upon Akhenaten's death, but the shift to Dynasty 19 and the campaigns of Seti I (formerly 1303-1290, but now 1295-1279 B.C.E.; Kitchen 1989a: 52) mark a break that is more readily discernible stratigraphically. Seeing himself as the successor of the great Dy- nasty 18 Kings Ahmose and Thutmosis III, Seti I began his first "Renaissance" year by moving north in the name of the ferocious god Amun, through Palestine and into southern Syria as far as the out- posts of Hittite control. A number of destruction levels of that period may perhaps be attributed to Seti I (see fig. 4), particularly at Beth-shan, where two basalt victory stelae have been recovered (probably from Level IX). Thus ca. 1300 B.C.E. may be conveniently regarded as a turning point, after which, throughout LB IIB, Palestine slowly de- clined, as did the Egyptian hold over Palestine.

THE LATE BRONZE II PERIOD, CA. 1400-1300 B.C.E.

Late Bronze II is usually divided into LB IIA and LB IIB, the dividing line being ca. 1300 B.C.E.

LB IIA, ca. 1400-1300 B.C.E.

The first phase is often termed the "Amarna Age," based on the well-known correspondence between petty princes at Syro-Palestinian city- states and Amenophis IV, or "Akhenaten," found at the latter's newly founded capital at el-Amarna in Upper Egypt. There are indeed correlations between LB IIA sites in Palestine and the Amarna letters, which can, of course, be assigned mostly to the reign of Akhenaten and thus dated ca. 1352- 1336 B.C.E. (on the "low" chronology). The sites would include Egyptian-style "residencies" at a number of urban centers; a plethora of Egyptian goods at many sites; artifacts and burials that re- flect the sort of social and economic conditions de- scribed in the letters; the same sort of Late Mycenaean IIIA pottery found at el-Amarna; etc. Yet these are merely general comparisons; they do not yield a fixed date for our LB IIA, beyond the mid-14th century B.C.E., broadly speaking. All one can say is that this century, brilliantly illuminated by the Amarna letters, does indeed represent the zenith of cultural development in Palestine in the Late Bronze Age, just as it is a brief "golden age" in New Kingdom Egypt.


LB IIB, ca. 1300-1200 B.C.E.

This phase sees a general continuity in ceramics, except for the deterioration of most forms of local pottery and the cessation of Late Mycenaean IIIB imports ca. 1225-1200 B.C.E.26 The campaigns of Ramesses II into Syria, mostly directed against the Hittites, are not reflected in the stratigraphic record in Palestine, nor are the Syrian sites well enough dug and recorded to yield reliable correlations. The historicity of the campaign of Ramesses' successor Merenptah in his fifth year (ca. 1217 or 1207 B.C.E.), commemorated in his well known victory (or "Israel") Stela, has been doubted by some scholars, or attributed by others to Ramesses II; but some Palestinian sites do apparently suffer a destruction on this horizon. A fragment of a stela mentioning Merenptah was found (although not in context) at Megiddo. Gezer, mentioned by name on the Victory Stela, has a partial destruction and hiatus in occupation that can be dated to approxi- mately this horizon, as we have shown.27

Whatever the prospects for division within LB IIB, the end-and with that, the end of the long Bronze Age sequence in Syria-Palestine-can be fixed by a number of historical data in ca. 1200 B.C.E., with the beginning of the Iron Age.

THE EARLY IRON AGE, CA. 1200 B.C.E.

The end of LB IIB and the beginning of Iron I in Syria-Palestine coincides with the general, widespread upheaval that marks the transition from the Bronze to the Iron Age in the Mediterranean and the Levant, and thus it is well cross-dated from all sides. The actual course of events in Syria- Palestine, however-not to mention an explanation of their causes-is often beyond our grasp, as witness the exceedingly complex stratification of most sites at this juncture.28

Beyond the preliminary attempt to group the materials in fig. 6, we can only point out on the basis of new data that matters are much more complex than earlier analyses had suggested. In particular, significant regional differences have been obscured; destructions have been exaggerated, or simplistically attributed to ethnic groups such as "Sea Peoples" or "Israelites"; and the degree of cultural continuity has been underestimated (Dever 1992a; Dever, in press b). In Palestine, it is necessary to distinguish those sites at which Egyptian late 19th Dynasty influence continued well past

1200 B.C.E. under Ramesses III, and even as late as Ramesses VI, ca. 1140 B.C.E. as Weinstein (1981; 1992b) has shown. Second, the appearance of the early "Sea Peoples," specifically the Philistines, must now be understood more in terms of gradual cultural change and assimilation than of wholesale destruction and annihilation of the local Canaanite population.29 Similarly, long-held notions of an Is- raelite "conquest" of Canaan ca. 1200 B.C.E., derived largely from the biblical book of Joshua, have yielded recently to newer archaeological data and more sophisticated "peaceful infiltration," "peasants' revolt," or "symbiosis" models, empha- sizing cultural continuity (Finkelstein 1988; Dever 1991b; 1992b; Dever, in press b) and socioeco- nomic and cultural changes that lasted throughout the 12th and into the early 11th century B.C.E. Thus, although the transition from the Bronze to the Iron Age can be characterized as the gradual collapse of the Late Bronze Age Canaanite culture and its eventual replacement by an ethnically mixed population in Syria-Palestine between the late 13th and the late 12th centuries B.C.E., the successive phases of that transition are difficult to date with precision.30

"Sea Peoples"

For the settlement of the "Sea Peoples" along the coast, especially the Philistines, the well-known attempt by Ramesses III to turn them back in his eighth year, ca. 1177 B.C.E. ("low" chronology), is still the best fixed point. It is increasingly clear, however, that the diagnostic Philistine Bichrome pottery-following late Mycenaean IIIC:Ib motifs and a derivative locally-made Monochrome ware- did not begin to appear for a generation or so, perhaps ca. 1140 B.C.E. (A. Mazar 1985; Singer 1988), rather than ca. 1175 B.C.E., as formerly thought (cf. T. Dothan 1982). A faience vase with a cartouche of Queen Tausert, dating to ca. 1209-1200 B.C.E. ("middle" chronology; ca. 1188-1186 B.C.E. "low"), was found in a destruction layer at Deir CAlla in the Jordan Valley, just below Philistine pottery (Fran- ken 1961: pl. 5) and together with several undeci- pherable clay tablets, but that may not be evidence of a Philistine invasion. Another cartouche of Tausert occurs together with Philistine Mono- chrome pottery at Acco (M. Dothan 1985: 111). Bowls with Egyptian heiratic inscriptions have been found at both Lachish and Tel Sharia in levels associated with destructions at the transition from Late Bronze to early Iron I, yielding a date in the


reign of Ramesses III.31 A cartouche of Seti II (ca. 1199-1193 B.C.E., "low" chronology) was found in the "Governor's Residence" at Tell el-Farcah (S.), together with Philistine pottery, but the stratigraphic situation is unclear (Oren 1984: 47, 48). Similarly, the destruction of the LB IIB palace at Aphek is well dated to ca. 1230 B.C.E. by cuneiform tablets that identify two governors and link them directly to Ugarit and Egypt (Singer 1983; cf. Beck and Kochavi 1985), although the destruction can only be presumed due to incursions of Sea Peoples, i.e., the agents of the destructions are unknown. The Egyptian "Tale of Wen-Amun," dated to ca. 1070 B.C.E., places groups of the Sea Peoples such as the Sherden and the Tjeker along the coast near Byblos, but this datum is too late to be especially helpful.32

"Early Israelites"

The earliest stage of the Israelite settlement in Canaan is still fixed by Merenptah's mention of a people (sic) known as "Israel" on his "Victory Stele" mentioned above, ca. 1207 B.C.E. At Tel Ma- sos near Beersheba, possibly biblical Hormah, an early Iron Age, probably "Israelite," settlement founded de novo produced a scarab with a short- ened prenomen of Seti II, ca. 1199-1193 B.C.E. (Fritz and Kempinski 1983: 102-4), but it was a surface find.33 Another presumed "early Israelite" site (but probably not a sanctuary, as claimed) is the Mt. Ebal installation, dated on the basis of two scarabs and a seal to the late 13th century B.C.E. (Brandl 1986-1987).

We now know more than 300 other presumably "early Israelite" sites, many of them small villages first established in the hill country sometime in the late 13th or early 12th century B.C.E. and persisting until the founding of the United Monarchy of Israel in the late 11th century B.C.E. The material culture of those "Proto-Israelite" sites (as I prefer to call them) is, however, just beginning to be distin-

guished from that of the end of the Canaanite Late Bronze Age/Iron I horizon generally, since most of the sites are known only through surface survey (see

Finkelstein 1988 for the basic data; Dever, in press b for critique; Dever 1992b for the history of the discussion, bibliography, and possible synthesis). Extensive survey work, together with the excavation of a handful of sites, suggests a very complex inner phasing, but thus far we can only assign the relative phases broadly to the 12th to 11th centuries B.C.E. through dead-reckoning. A few attempts have been made to seriate such ceramic forms as cooking pots, and on that basis to work out a more detailed and precise settlement history, and even ethnic movements of "Proto-Israelites" from Transjordan into Western Palestine and down toward the Coastal Plain (cf. Finkelstein 1988; and especially Zertal 1991). Those efforts, however, rest on faulty methodology, as well as doubtful presuppositions in some cases (Dever 1992b). Even at best, the result would yield only a relative chronology of the "Proto-Israelite" sites in question.

Only in the late 1 lth century B.C.E. in Palestine during the rise of the Israelite Monarchy under Saul and his successors, can the archaeological sequence be linked with historical events witnessed by literary accounts. Whatever reservations one may have about the Books of Kings as reliable history in the modern sense, those accounts can be synchronized with Egyptian, Assyrian, and Baby- lonian records, often verified astronomically, in such a way as to yield a chronology for late Iron I (and Iron II) that is fixed within a margin of a very few years. With the beginning of the Monarchy and the rise of an Israelite national identity and material culture, and the long transition from the Bronze to the Iron Age may be said to be com- plete, at least in Palestine.

In Syria, the 12th and 11lth centuries B.C.E., following the destruction of many Late Bronze Age sites like Ugarit and Ras Ibn Hani, has long been regarded as something of a "Dark Age," supposedly like that in other areas of the Eastern Mediterranean. More recently, however, the darkness has begun to be expelled, and in time Syria may begin to shed light on the period parallel to the rise of Israel, i.e. the early history of the Neo-Hittite city-states, the Aramaeans, and the Phoenicians, among others.34

NOTES

1 See Ehrich (1965). The article on Syria-Palestine for the third edition (1992) was written by L. E. Stager, to whom I am indebted for an advance copy of the manu- script. Add Tadmor (1970); Aurenche, Evin, and Hours (1987); Astr6m (1989).

2See, respectively, Fugmann (1958: 281; 2310 B.C. ? 140; 2230 B.C. + 120; 2210 B.C. ? 120); Van Loon (1979: 111; 2413 and 2340 B.C., calibrated); Dubertret and Dunand (1954-1955: 74; ca. 2280-1960 B.C.); Mathias and Parr (1989: 29; 2490 B.C. ? 160; 2450 B.C.


+ 130); Schaub and Rast (1989: 502; 2325-2135 B.c.; 2405-2165 B.c.; 2140-1880 B.c., calibrated); Kenyon and Holland (1983: XL; 763; 1990 B.C., 2060 B.C., calibrated). Several dates for Be'er Resisim (unpublished) cluster around 2200 B.C.E. An unpublished date of ca. 2341-2044 B.C.E. comes from oil residue from an EB IV

storejar from Tell Handaquq in the Jordan Valley, ana-

lyzed at the University of Arizona by my student John

Mabry (personal communication). For earlier phases of EB I-III, in the fourth-third millennia B.C.E., there is now a tendency to raise all dates by a century or more, due largely to calibrated radiocarbon dates. Coupled with the tendency more recently, however, to lower dates for the second millennium B.C.E., this threatens to

pull our chronology apart, rather than telescoping it. 3For recent synthetic treatments of EB IV, see Dever

(1980; 1992d). On MB I, see Dever (1976; 1987); Ger- stenblith (1983); Tubb (1983).

4Full bibliography is found in Dever (1976); Ger- stenblith (1983); Tubb (1983); and add now, on Halawa, Orthmann (1981).

5The scarab attributed by Tufnell to Amenemhet IV, ca. 1798-1789 B.C.E. (Kitchen 1989b: 153), in Tomb 303a would fit well with the late MB I or MB I/II assemblage. If the attribution is correct, we would have to

modify Weinstein's statement (1975: 9, n. 73) that "not a

single Middle Kingdom royal name scarab occurs in an

indisputable MB IIA (my MB I) context in Palestine." See now his correction in Weinstein (1992a: 34, 40).

6See Tufnell (1984) in general. Add Tufnell (1973) on

Megiddo; on Jericho, see Kirkbride (1965); Bietak (1984: 482-85); Ward (1987: 518-23). Update the discussion of scarabs now by reference to Weinstein (1992a).

7Others who see the Montet Jar as basically irrelevant for our concerns include Gerstenblith (1983: 40, 41, 104g and Weinstein (1992a: 36).

See Albright (1964) and subsequent refinements (1965; 1966); add now Kitchen (1989a: 48) for an update.

9One piece of more recent evidence, however, would tie in Anatolia, namely the report of a Cypriot Pendant Line jug, of the same type that I had suggested first ap- pears in Palestine as early as MB I (Dever 1976: 14, n. 104), in Ktiltepe Ib (Astrim 1989: 62). Kuiltepe Ib would date to the time of Shamshi-Adad I, ca. 1813- 1782 B.C.E. on the "middle" chronology.

10See, for instance, Matthiae (1984: 19-21). Since it is not specified to which subphase of Matthiae's Mardikh IIIA the fortifications belong, however, we cannot date them precisely within MB I. Many of the Palestinian and Syrian Middle Bronze defense elements may derive ulti- mately from Anatolia, where similar fortifications characterize early Hittite sites; but such a correlation again offers only a relative chronology somewhere in the early second millennium B.C.E.

11Note in particular the "eye juglet," Matthiae (1979: fig. P). Caution is necessary, however, since the pottery of Syria apparently shows greater continuity from MB I into MB II than that of Palestine.

12See Bietak (1989: 94), contradicting Oren (1971: 113, 136), myself (Dever 1975), and Gerstenblith (1983: 104) on the representation of the "duckbill" axe at Beni Hasan. As far as I am aware, no one has yet noted the parallels between the curving handles at Beni Hasan and Baghouz, since the latter material is often overlooked (but see Dever 1976: 13, n. 97).

13See further Dever (1991a); and especially Wein- stein (1992a: 28-32). See also references in n. 14 here.

14Weinstein (1975: 10, 11; 1992) argues for a slight overlap of Palestinian MB I with Dynasty 13 in Egypt, and thus for a "moderately low" chronology, contra Bie- tak's "low" chronology, placing the MB I-II transition ca. 1750 B.C.E. The "transitional MB I/II" phase proposed here would satisfy Weinstein's overall scheme; cf. also Epstein (1974); and, by implication, Gerstenblith's "MB IC" (1983: 106).

15See Matthiae (1984: 22, 23, 30). Sauer's extensive

surveys in Syria have shown that most of the Middle Bronze sites there end similarly early (personal communication). The claims of Thutmosis III to have destroyed some of those sites later would then be mere boasting; see further the exchange of views of Hoffmeier (1989; 1990); Dever (1990); Weinstein (1991).

See most recently Seger (1975); Cole (1984); Dever (1987). For attempts to refute the separation of MB III (Albright's MB IIC) as a distinct phase, see Kem- pinski (1983: 1-4; 221-24); Bienkowski (1989); and references therein.

17See Bietak (1989: 79, 96-99). Originally Bietak (1980: 268) had suggested a "destruction" connected with the fall of Hyksos Avaris, with large-scale aban- donment following throughout Strata D/I. An even lower chronology (Kitchen 1989a: 52) would yield a date of ca. 1539-1514 B.C.E. for Ahmose I.

18See further von Beckerath (1964: 127-37, 223); Bietak (1984: 478-79 and references therein); cf. Kempinski (1983: 58-78); Weinstein (1981: 8-10). The table here follows Beckerath dates of ca. 1652-1544 B.C.E.; however, cf. Kitchen (1989a: 50) for still lower dates, ca. 1637-1529 B.C.E.

19See Dever (1985: 80) and references therein; cf. also Weinstein (1981: 2-12).

20For full references to the discussion, see McClellan (1989), and add Gates (1989). I have maintained an end- date of ca. 1550 B.C.E. for Alalakh VII for many years (cf. Dever 1985: fig. 1).

21 The most authoritative review of the evidence is Weinstein (1981); and on Palestine and Egypt in general in the Late Bronze Age, add now Leonard (1989).

22As Kitchen (1989a: 52). See further Ward (1992: 62, 63) and references therein. For earlier discussions of Egypto- Palestinian chronology on this horizon, cf. Bietak (1984); Dever (1985); and add Bietak (1989; 1991a); Dever (1991).

23For discussion and full references, see Astrijm (1989: 63); and add now Merrillees (1992).

24For a contrary view, based on dating Gezer's famous Outer Wall to LB IIA, see Dever (1986).


25 See the cautions of Hankey (1989: 53-55). Hankey and many others favor a "low" chronology for the Mi- noan and Mycenaean pottery; but see Kemp and Mer- rillees (1980) for a higher range.

26The conventional date of ca. 1225 B.C.E. for the end of LH IIIB (i.e., Late Mycenaean IIIB)-long a bench- mark in the usage of Syro-Palestinian archaeologists-- has probably been maintained largely for its apparent conjunction with the 1225 B.C.E. date of Albright, Yadin, and others for the Israelite "conquest." Hankey (1989: 53-55, citing also Betancourt) proposes, however, to lower this date to ca. 1200 B.C.E., which would seem to accord better with recent data. See further below on the recent lowering of Philistine Bichrome wares, following Late Mycenaean IIIC:Ib motifs (with A. Mazar 1985).

27For the Merenptah "destruction layer" at Gezer, see Dever et al. (1974: 50). Add now Stager (1985);

Singer (1988). See further Weinstein (1981; 1992b); Na'aman

(1982); Stager (1985); Ussishkin (1983); Singer (1988); Dever (1992a).

29See now A. Mazar (1985), which supplements and in some cases corrects the standard view of T. Dothan (1982) and most previous scholars.

300n the Late Bronze/Early Iron Age horizon, see further discussions, with full references, in Dever (1992b; Dever in press b); add now Weinstein (1992b).

31On Lachish, see Goldwasser (1982), lowering the

previous reading of Merenptah to Ramesses III (ca. 1184-1153 B.C.E.; "low" chronology); cf. also Ussishkin (1983: 168-70), on a Level VI cast bronze plaque bear-

ing a cartouche of Ramesses III. On Sharia, see Gold- wasser (1984), reading the inscriptions on bowls from Stratum IX as the 20th year of Ramesses III, or ca. 1154 B.C.E. Cf. Weinstein (1992b).

32For the most recent discussion of the settlement

history of the "Sea Peoples" in Palestine, see Singer (1988); and for a somewhat radical view of the material culture, cf. Bonimovitz (1990).

33Both J. Weinstein and A. Schulman, however, in- form me that this scarab can only be dated broadly to the late Ramesside period.

34See further, in brief, Dever (1992a); for details, see other papers in this issue, a report of a Symposium at Brown University in 1990, especially those of A. Cau- bet, M. Yon, and H. Sader, all of which add much new data on the supposed "Dark Age."

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albright, W. F. 1964 The Eighteenth-Century Princes of Byblos

and the Chronology of Middle Bronze. Bulle- tin of the American Schools of Oriental Re- search 176: 38-46.

1965 Further Light on the History of Middle- Bronze Byblos. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 179: 38-43.

1966 Remarks on the Chronology of Early Bronze IV-Middle Bronze IIA in Phoenicia and

Syria-Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 184: 26-35.

Astr6m, P. 1989 The Chronology of the Middle Cypriote

Bronze Age. Pp. 57-66 in High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on

Chronology Held at the University of Gothen-

burg, 20th-22nd August, 1987, Part 1, ed. P. Astr6m. Gothenburg: Astr6m.

Astr6m, P., ed. 1989 High, Middle, or Low? Acts of an International

Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg, 20th-22nd Au-

gust, 1987, Parts 1-3. Gothenburg: Astrom. Aurenche, O.; Evin, J.; and Hours, F., eds.

1987 Chronologies in the Near East, Relative

Chronology and Absolute Chronology 16,000-4,000 B.P. Proceedings of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique Inter- national Symposium, Lyon, November 24th-

28th, 1986. BAR International Series 379. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Beck, P., and Kochavi, M. 1985 A Dated Assemblage of the Late 13 Century

B.C.E. from the Egyptian Residency at

Aphek. Tel Aviv 12: 29-42. von Beckerath, J.

1964 Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte der Zweiten Zwischenzeit in Agypten. Gluck- stadt: Augstin.

Bienkowski, P. 1986 Jericho in the Late Bronze Age. Warminster:

Aris and Phillips. 1989 The Division of Middle Bronze IIB-C in Pal-

estine. Levant 21: 169-79. Bietak, M.

1979 Avaris and Piramesse: Archaeological Explo- ration in the Eastern Nile Delta. Reprinted from Proceedings of the British Academy 45, 1979: 225-89.

1984 Problems of Middle Bronze Age Chronology: New Evidence from Egypt. American Journal of Archaeology 88: 471-85.

1989 The Middle Bronze Age of the Levant-A New Approach to Relative and Absolute

Chronology. Pp. 78-123 in High, Middle, or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg, 20th-22nd August, 1987, Part. 3, ed. P. Astrom. Gothenburg: Astr6m.


1991 Egypt and Canaan During the Middle Bronze

Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Ori- ental Research 281: 27-72.

Biran, A. 1974 Tel Dan. Israel Exploration Journal 24: 262-

64. Brandl, B.

1986- Two Scarabs and a Trapezoidal Seal from Mt. 1987 Ebal. Tel Aviv 13-14: 166-72.

Bonimovitz, S. 1990 Problems in the "Ethnic" Identification of the

Philistine Culture. Tel Aviv 17: 210-22. Cole, D. P.

1984 Shechem I. The Middle Bronze IIB Pottery. Winona Lake, IN: American Schools of Ori- ental Research.

Collon, D. 1975 The Seal Impressions from Tell Atchana/Ala-

lakh. Neukirchen-Vluyn. Dever, W. G.

1973 The EB IV-MB I Horizon in Transjordan and Southern Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 210: 37-63.

1974 The MB IIC Stratification in the Northwest Gate Area at Shechem. Bulletin of the Ameri- can Schools of Oriental Research 216: 31- 52.

1975 MB IIA Cemeteries at CAin es-Samiyeh and

Sinjil. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 217: 23-36.

1976 The Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in

Syria-Palestine. Pp. 3-38 in Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God. Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright, eds. F. M. Cross, W. E. Lemke, and P. D. Miller. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

1980 New Vistas on the EB IV ("MB I") Horizon in Syria-Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 237: 35-64.

1985 Relations between Syria-Palestine and Egypt in the "Hyksos" Period. Pp. 69-87 in Pales- tine in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in Honor of Olga Tufnell, ed. J. N. Tubb. Warminster: Aries and Phillips.

1986 Late Bronze Age and Solomonic Defenses at Gezer: New Evidence. Bulletin of the Ameri- can Schools of Oriental Research 262: 9-34.

1987 The Middle Bronze Age: The Zenith of the Urban Canaanite Era. Biblical Archaeologist 50: 148-77.

1990 "Hyksos," Egyptian Destructions, and the End of the Palestinian Middle Bronze Age. Levant 22: 75.81.

1991a Tell el-DabCa and Levantine Middle Bronze Age Chronology: A Rejoinder to Manfred Bietak. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 281: 73-79.

1991b Archaeological Data on the Israelite Settle- ment: A Review of Two Recent Works. Bul- letin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 284: 77-79.

1992a Canaanites, Sea Peoples, and Proto-Israelites: Palestine at the Beginning of the Iron Age. Pp. 99-110 in The Crisis Years: the 12th Century B.C. From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris, eds. W. A. Ward and M. S. Jou- kowsky. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt.

1992b Unresolved Issues in the Early History of Is- rael: Toward a Synthesis of Archaeological and Textual Reconstructions. Pp. 195-208 in The Bible and The Politics of Exegesis: Es- says in Honor of Norman K. Gottwald on His Sixty-fifth Birthday, eds. D. L. Jobling, P. L. Day, and G. T. Shepard. Boston: Pilgrim.

In press a Pastoral Nomadism and the End of the Urban Early Bronze Age in Palestine. Pp. 1-16 in Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspective.

In press b Ceramic Continuity, Ethnicity in the Archaeo- logical Record, and the Question of Israelite Origins. In Eretz-Israel (the Malamat volume).

Dever, W. G., et al. 1974 Gezer II: Report of the 1966-70 Seasons in

Fields I and II. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College.

Dothan, M. 1985 Ten Seasons of Excavations at Ancient Acco.

Qadmoniot 18: 2-14. (Hebrew) Dothan, T.

1982 The Philistines and their Material Culture. New Haven: Yale.

du Mesnil du Buisson, R. 1948 Baghouz: L'Ancienne Corsote: Le tell archai-

que et la N&cropole de l'dge du Bronze. Lei- den: Brill.

Dubertret, C.; and Dunand, M. 1954- Les gisements ossifers de Khirbet el-Umba- 1955 chi et de H6bariye (Safa). Annales archeolo-

giques arabes syriennes 4-5: 59-76. Ehrich, R. W., ed.

1965 Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago.

1992 Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Epstein, C. 1974 Middle Bronze Age Tombs at Kfar Szold and

Ginosar. CAtiqot 7: 13-39. (Hebrew) Finkelstein, I.

1988 The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Finkelstein, I., and Na'aman, N., eds. 1990 From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeologi-

cal and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi. (Hebrew)


Franken, H. J. 1961 The Excavations at Deir CAlla in Jordan. Ve-

tus Testamentum 11: 361-721. Fritz, V., and Kempinski, A.

1983 Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Hirbet al-MSi' (Tel MaidS). Wiesbaden: Harrassow- itz.

Fugmann, E. 1958 Hama: Fouilles et Recherches de la Fondation

Carlsberg 1931-1938. II, 1: L'architecture des periodes prd-hellinistiques. Copenhagen: Nationalmuseet.

Gates, M. H. 1981 Alalakh Levels VI and V: A Chronological Re-

assessment. Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 4/2. Malibu: Undena.

1989 Alalakh and Chronology Again. Pp. 60-86 in High, Middle, or Low? Acts of an Interna- tional Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg, 20th- 22nd August, 1987, Part 2, ed. P. Astr6m. Gothenburg: Astrim.

Gerstenblith, P. 1983 The Levant at the Beginning of the Middle

Bronze Age: American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series 5. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Gittlen, B. 1981 The Cultural and Chronological Implications

of the Cypro-Palestinian Trade During the Late Bronze Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 241: 49-59.

Giveon, R. 1974 Hyksos Scarabs with Names of Kings and

Officials from Canaan. Chronique de'Egypte 49: 222-33.

1976 New Egyptian Seals with Titles and Names from Canaan. Tel Aviv 3: 127-33.

1983 An Inscription of Rameses III from Lachish. Tel Aviv 10: 176-77.

Goldwasser, O. 1982 The Lachish Hieratic Bowl Once Again. Tel

Aviv 9: 137-38. 1984 Hieratic Inscriptions from Tel Serac in South-

ern Canaan. Tel Aviv 11: 77-93. Gonen, R.

1984 Urban Canaan in the Late Bronze Period. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 253: 61-73.

Guigues, P. E. 1938 Lebeca, Kafer-iarra, Qray6, N6cropoles de

la r6gion, sidonienne (suite). Bulletin de Musde de Berouth 2: 27-72.

Hankey, V. 1989 The Chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze

Age. Pp. 39-59 in High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Abso- lute Chronology Held at the University of

Gothenburg, 20th-22nd August, 1987, Part 2, ed. P. AstrOm. Gothenburg: Astr6m.

Hoffmeier, J. K. 1989 Reconsidering Egypt's Part in the Termina-

tion of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine. Levant 21: 181-93.

1990 Some Thoughts on William G. Dever's "'Hyksos', Egyptian Destructions, and the End of the Palestinian Middle Bronze Age." Levant 22: 83-89.

Johnson, P. 1982 The Middle Cypriot Pottery Found in Pales-

tine. Opuscula Atheniensia 14: 49-72.

Kemp, B. J., and Merillees, R. S. 1982 Minoan Pottery in Second Millennium Egypt.

Mainz: Zabern.

Kempinski, A. 1983 Syrien und Paliistina (Kanaan) in der letzten

Phase der Mittelbronze IIB-Zeit (1650-1570 v. Chr.). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Kenyon, K. M. 1973 Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age. CAH3,

vol. 2, part 1: 525-56.

Kenyon, K. M., and Holland, T. A. 1983 Excavations at Jericho, vol. 5. London Brit-

ish School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Kirkbride, D.

1965 Appendix E. Scarabs. Pp. 580-655 in Exca- vations at Jericho, II. The Tombs Excavated in 1955-58, ed. K. M. Kenyon. London: Brit- ish School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.

Kitchen, K. A. 1967 Byblos, Egypt, and Mari in the Early Second

Millennium B.C. Orientalia NS 36: 39-54. 1989a The Basics of Egyptian Chronology in Rela-

tion to the Bronze Age. Pp. 37-55 in High, Middle, or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg, 20th-22nd Au- gust, 1987, Part 1, ed. P. Astr6m. Gothen-

burg: Astrom. 1989b Supplementary Notes on "The Basics of

Egyptian Chronology." Pp. 152-59 in High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Col- loquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the

University of Gothenburg, 20th-22nd August, 1987, Part 3, ed. P. Astrom. Gothenburg: Astrim.

Kochavi, M.; Beck, P.; and Gophna, R. 1979 Aphek-Antipatris, Te1 Polg, Tel Zer~r and

Te1 Burga: Four Fortified Sites of the Middle Bronze Age IIA in the Sharon Plain. Zeit- schrift des deutschen Paliistina-Vereins 95: 121-65.

Leonard, A., Jr. 1989 The Late Bronze Age. Biblical Archaeologist

52: 4-39.


Malamat, A. 1989 Hazor and Mari. Eretz-Israel 20 (Yadin vol-

ume): 68-71 (Hebrew, with English abstracts) Mathias, V. T., and Parr, P. J.

1989 The Early Phases at Tell Nebi Mend: A Pre-

liminary Account. Levant 21: 23-32. Matthiae, P.

1975 Ebla in the Period of the Amorite Dynasties and the Dynasty of Akkad: Recent Archaeo-

logical Discoveries at Tell Mardikh (1975). Sources and Monographs of the Ancient Near East 1/6. Malibu: Undena.

1979 Scavi a Tell Mardikh-Ebla, 1978: rapporto sommario. Studi Eblaiti 1/9-12: 129-84.

1980 Sulle asce fenestrate del "Signore dei Ca-

pridi." Studi Eblaiti 111/3-4: 53-62. 1984 New Discoveries at Ebla: The Excavation of

the Western Palace and the Royal Necropolis of the Amorite Period. Biblical Archaeologist 47: 18-32.

Mazar, A. 1985 The Emergence of the Philistine Material Cul-

ture. Israel Exploration Journal 35: 95-107. Mazar, B.

1968 The Middle Bronze Age in Palestine. Israel

Exploration Journal 18: 65-97. McClellan, T. L.

1989 The Chronology and Ceramic Assemblages of Alalakh. Pp. 181-212 in Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to Helene J. Kantor, eds. A. E. Leonard, Jr., and B. B. Williams. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 47.

Chicago: University of Chicago. Merrillees, R. S.

1992 The Absolute Chronology of the Bronze Age in

Cyprus: A Revision. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 288: 48-52.

Montet, P. 1928/ Byblos et l',gypte. Texte et Atlas. Biblitheque 1929 arch6ologique et historique 11. Paris: Geuthner.

O'Connor, D. 1985 The Chronology of Scarabs of the Middle

Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period. Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 15: 1-41.

Oren, E. D. 1971 A Middle Bronze Age I Warrior Tomb at

Beth-Shan. Zeitschrift des deutschen Paldis- tina-Vereins 87: 109-39.

1984 "Governors' Residences" in Canaan under the New Kingdom: A Case Study in Egyptian Administration. Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 14: 37-56.

Orthmann, W. 1981 Halawa 1977 bis 1979. VorliiufigerBericht iiber

die 1. bis. 3. Grabungskampagne. Bonn: Habelt.

Philip, G. 1989 Metal Weapons of the Early and Middle

Bronze Ages in Syria-Palestine. BAR Interna- tional Series 526. Oxford: British Archaeo-

logical Reports. Porada, E.

1966 Les Cylindres de la Jarre Montet, Syria 43: 243-58.

1984 The Cylinder Seal from Tell el-DabCa. Ameri- can Journal of Archaeology 88: 485-88.

Posener, G. 1971 Syria and Palestine c. 2160-1780 B.C.: Rela-

tions with Egypt. Pp. 532-58 in CAH3, vol. 1, part 2. London: Cambridge University.

Redford, D. B. 1979 A Gate Inscription from Karnak and Egyptian

Involvement in Western Asia During the

Early Eighteenth Dynasty. Journal of the American Oriental Society 99: 270-87.

Richard. S. 1980 Toward a Consensus of Opinion on the End

of the Early Bronze Age in Palestine-Trans-

jordan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 237: 5-34.

Sagieh, M. 1983 Byblos in the Third Millennium B.c. Warmin-

ster: Aris and Phillips. Salz, D. L.

1977 The Chronology of the Middle Cypriot Period. Report of the Department of Antiqui- ties in Cyprus 1977: 51-70.

Schaub, R. T., and Rast, W. E., eds. 1989 Bab edh-DhraC: Excavations in the Cemetery

Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965-67). Winona Lake, IN: American Schools of Ori- ental Research.

Seger, J. D. 1975 The MB II Fortifications at Shechem and

Gezer-A Hyksos Retrospective. Eretz-Israel 12 (Glueck volume): 34*-45*.

Shea, W. 1979 The Conquests of Sharuhen and Megiddo Re-

considered. Israel Exploration Journal 29: 1-5.

Singer, I. 1983 Takuhlinu and Haya: Two Governors in the

Ugaritic Letter from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 10: 3-25.

1988 Merneptah's Campaign to Canaan and the Egyptian Occupation of the Southern Coastal Plain of Palestine in the Ramesside Period. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 269: 1-10.

Stager, L. E. 1985 Merneptah, Israel and Sea Peoples: New

Light on an Old Relief. Eretz-lsrael 18 (Avi- gad volume): 56*-64*.


Tadmor, H. 1970 The Chronology of the Ancient Near East in

the Second Millennium B.C. Pp. 63-101 in World History of the Jewish People, vol. 2, ed. B. Mazar. New Brunswick: Rutgers.

Tubb, J. N. 1982 A Crescentic Axehead from Amarna (Syria)

and an Examination of Similar Axeheads from the Near East. Iraq 44: 1-12.

1983 The MBIIA Period in Palestine: Its Relation- ship with Syria and its Origin. Levant 15: 49- 62.

Tufnell, O. 1969 The Pottery from Royal Tombs I-III at Byb-

los. Berytus 18: 5-33. 1973 The Middle Bronze Age Scarab-seals from

Burials on the Mound at Megiddo. Levant 5: 69-82.

1975- Tomb 66 at Ruweis6, near Sidon. Berytus 24: 1976 5-25. 1980 A Review of the Contents of Cave 303 at Tell

CAjjOil. CAtiqot 14 (English series): 37-48. Tufnell, O., ed.

1984 Scarab Seals and Their Contribution to His- tory in the Early Second Millennium B.C. Studies on Scarab Seals 2. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.

Tufnell, 0., and Ward, W. A. 1966 Relations between Byblos, Egypt and Meso-

potamia at the End of the Third Millennium B.C. Syria 43: 165-241.

Ussishkin, D. 1983 Excavations at Tel Lachish 1977-1983: Sec-

ond Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 10: 97-185. Van Loon, M.

1979 1974 and 1975 Preliminary Results of the Ex- cavations at Selenkahiye Near Meskene, Syria. Pp. 97-112 in Archaeological Reports from the Tabqa Dam Project: Euphrates Val- ley, Syria, ed. D. N. Freedman. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 44.

Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Orien- tal Research.

Walberg, G. 1989 Middle Minoan Chronology: Relative and

Absolute. Pp. 67-73 in High, Middle, or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg, 20th-22nd August, 1987, Part 1, ed. P. Astrim. Gothenberg: Astr~im.

Ward, W. A. 1978a Studies on Scarab Seals, Volume L Pre-12th

Dynasty Scarab Seals. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.

1978b Scarabs from the Montet Jar, A Late Eleventh Dynasty Collection at Byblos. Berytus 26: 37-53.

1984 Royal-name Scarabs. Pp. 151-92 in Scarab Seals and Their Contribution to History in the Early Second Millennium B.c. Studies on Scarab Seals 2. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.

1987 Scarab Typology and Archaeological Con- text. American Journal of Archaeology 91: 507-32.

1992 The Present Status of Egyptian Chronology. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 288: 53-66.

Weinstein, J. M. 1975 Egyptian Relations with Palestine in the

Middle Kingdom. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 217: 1-16.

1981 The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: a Reas- sessment. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 241: 1-28.

1991 Egypt and the Middle Bronze IIC/Late Bronze IA Transition in Palestine. Levant 23: 105-15.

1992a The Chronology of Palestine in the Early Second Millennium B.C.E. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research: 27- 46.

1992b The Collapse of the Egyptian Empire in the Southern Levant. Pp. 142-50. In The Crisis Years: the 12th Century B.C. From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris, eds. W. A. Ward and M. S. Joukowsky. Dubuque: Kendall/ Hunt.

Williams, B. B. 1975 Archaeological and Historical Problems of

the Second Intermediate Period. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.

Yadin, Y. 1972 Hazor, the Head of All Those Kingdoms. Lon-

don: Oxford. 1978 The Nature of Settlement During the Middle

Bronze IIA Period in Israel and the Problem of the Aphek Fortifications. Zeitschrift des deutschen Paldistina-Vereins 94: 1-23.

Zertal, A. 1991 Israel Enters Canaan-Following the Pottery

Trail. Biblical Archaeology Review 17/5: 28- 47.

Documents

The Chronology of Syria-Palestine in the Second Millennium B. C. E