MANFRED BIETAK, ERNST CZERNY (EDITORS) THE SYNCHRONISATION OF CIVILISATIONS IN THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM B.C. III ÖSTERREICHISCHE AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN DENKSCHRIFTEN DER GESAMTAKADEMIE, BAND XXXVII Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Manfred Bietak and Hermann Hunger Volume IX ÖSTERREICHISCHE AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN DENKSCHRIFTEN DER GESAMTAKADEMIE, BAND XXXVII THE SYNCHRONISATION OF CIVILISATIONS IN THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM B.C. III Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd EuroConference Vienna, 28th of May – 1st of June 2003 Edited by MANFRED BIETAK and ERNST CZERNY Editorial Committee: Irene Kaplan and Angela Schwab Vorgelegt von w. M. MANFRED BIETAK in der Sitzung am 24. Juni 2005 Gedruckt mit Unterstützung der European Commission, High-level Scientific Conferences www.cordis.lu/improving/conferences Spezialforschungsbereich SCIEM 2000 „Die Synchronisierung der Hochkulturen im östlichen Mittelmeerraum im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.“ der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften beim Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung. Special Research Programme SCIEM 2000 „The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C.“ of the Austrian Academy of Sciences at the Austrian Science Fund British Library Cataloguing in Publication data. A Catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library. Die verwendete Papiersorte ist aus chlorfrei gebleichtem Zellstoff hergestellt, frei von säurebildenden Bestandteilen und alterungsbeständig. Alle Rechte vorbehalten ISBN 978-3-7001-3527-2 Copyright © 2007 by Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien Grafik, Satz, Layout: Angela Schwab Druck: Druckerei Ferdinand Berger & Söhne GesmbH, Horn Printed and bound in Austria http://hw.oeaw.ac.at/3527-2 http://verlag.oeaw.ac.at CONTENTS Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 MANFRED BIETAK, ERNST CZERNY, Preface by the Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 INTRODUCTION : H IGH AND LOW CHRONOLOGY MANFRED BIETAK and FELIX HÖFLMAYER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SCIENCE AND 13 CHRONOLOGY MALCOLM H. WIENER Times Change: The Current State of the Debate in Old World Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 MAX BICHLER, BARBARA DUMA, HEINZ HUBER, and ANDREAS MUSILEK Distinction of Pre-Minoan Pumice from Santorini, Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 MAX BICHLER, HEINZ HUBER, and PETER WARREN Project Thera Ashes – Pumice Sample from Knossos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 HENDRIK J. BRUINS Charcoal Radiocarbon Dates of Tell el-Dabca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 HENDRIK J. BRUINS, AMIHAI MAZAR, and JOHANNES VAN DER PLICHT The End of the 2nd Millennium BCE and the Transition from Iron I to Iron IIA: Radiocarbon Dates of Tel Rehov, Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 STURT W. MANNING Clarifying the ‘High’ v. ‘Low’ Aegean/Cypriot Chronology for the Mid Second Millennium BC: Assessing the Evidence, Interpretive Frameworks, and Current State of the Debate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 NICOLAS J.G. PEARCE, JOHN A. WESTGATE, SHERI J. PREECE, WARREN J. EASTWOOD, WILLIAM T. PERKINS, and JOANNA S. HART Reinterpretation of Greenland Ice-core Data Recognises the Presence of the Late Holocene Aniakchak Tephra (Alaska), not the Minoan Tephra (Santorini), at 1645 BC. . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 ILAN SHARON, AYELET GILBOA, and ELISABETTA BOARETTO 14C and the Early Iron Age of Israel – Where are we really at? A Commentary on the Tel Rehov Radiometric Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 UROŠ ANDERLI… and MARIA G. FIRNEIS First Lunar Crescents for Babylon in the 2nd Millennium B.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 CHRONOLOGICAL AND A R C H A E O L O G I C A L S T A T E M E N T S : E GYPT KENNETH A. KITCHEN Egyptian and Related Chronologies – Look, no Sciences, no Pots! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 ROLF KRAUSS An Egyptian Chronology for Dynasties XIII to XXV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 KATHERINA ASLANIDOU Some Ornamental Scenes on the Wall Paintings from Tell el Dabca: Iconography and Context . . . . . . 191 DAVID A. ASTON Kom Rabica, Ezbet Helmi, and Saqqara NK 3507. A Study in Cross-Dating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 BETTINA BADER A Tale of Two Cities: First Results of a Comparison Between Avaris and Memphis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 MANFRED BIETAK Bronze Age Paintings in the Levant: Chronological and Cultural Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 6 Contents PERLA FUSCALDO Tell el-Dabca: Some Remarks on the Pottery from cEzbet Helmi (Areas H/III and H/VI, Strata e/1 and d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 HELEN JACQUET-GORDON A Habitation Site at Karnak North Prior to the New Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 TEODOZJA RZEUSKA Some Remarks on the Egyptian kernoi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 CH R O N O L O G I C A L AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STATEMENTS : T HE LEVANT AND S YRIA SANDRA ANTONETTI Intra moenia Middle Bronze Age Burials at Tell es-Sultan: A Chronological Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 MICHAL ARTZY Tell Abu Hawam: News from the Late Bronze Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357 FRANS VAN KOPPEN Syrian Trade Routes of the Mari Age and MB II Hazor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 MARIO A.S. MARTIN A Collection of Egyptian and Egyptian-style Pottery at Beth Shean. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 MIRKO NOVÁK Mittani Empire and the Question of Absolute Chronology: Some Archaeological Considerations. . . . . 389 LUCA PEYRONEL Late Old Syrian Fortifications and Middle Syrian Re-Occupation on the Western Rampart at Tell Mardikh-Ebla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403 UWE SIEVERTSEN New Research on Middle Bronze Age Chronology of Western Syria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423 JEAN-PAUL THALMANN A Seldom Used Parameter in Pottery Studies: the Capacity of Pottery Vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431 CHRONOLOGICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STATEMENTS : T HE AEGEAN , C YPRUS AND A D J A C E N T A REAS LINDY CREWE The Foundation of Enkomi: A New Analysis of the Stratigraphic Sequence and Regional Ceramic Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439 WALTER GAUSS and RUDOLFINE SMETANA Early and Middle Bronze Age Stratigraphy and Pottery from Aegina Kolonna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451 PETER PAVÚK New Perspectives on Troia VI Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473 JACKE PHILIPPS The Amenhotep III ‘Plaques’ from Mycenae: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison, Contrast and a Question of Chronology PETER M. WARREN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A New Pumice Analysis from Knossos and the End of Late Minoan I A SECTION : M YCENAEANS AND PH I L I S T I N E S IN THE 479 495 L EVANT SIGRID DEGER-JALKOTZY Section “Mycenaeans and Philistines in the Levant”: Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501 PAUL ÅSTRÖM Sinda and the Absolute Chronology of Late Cypriote IIIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505 Contents 7 TRISTAN J. BARAKO Coexistence and Impermeability: Egyptians and Philistines in Southern Canaan During the Twelfth Century BCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509 ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN Is the Philistine Paradigm Still Viable? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517 ELISABETH FRENCH The Impact on Correlations to the Levant of the Recent Stratigraphic Evidence from the Argolid. . . 525 MARTA GUZOWSKA and ASSAF YASUR-LANDAU The Mycenaean Pottery from Tel Aphek: Chronology and Patterns of Trade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537 SOPHOCLES HADJISAVVAS The Public Face of the Absolute Chronology for Cypriot Prehistory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547 REINHARD JUNG Tell Kazel and the Mycenaean Contacts with Amurru (Syria) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551 AMIHAI MAZAR Myc IIIC in the Land Israel: Its Distribution, Date and Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571 PENELOPE A. MOUNTJOY The Dating of the Early LC IIIA Phase at Enkomi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583 CONSTANCE VON RÜDEN Exchange Between Cyprus and Crete in the ‘Dark Ages’? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595 DAVID USSISHKIN Lachish and the Date of the Philistine Settlement in Canaan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601 ASSAF YASUR-LANDAU Let’s Do the Time Warp again: Migration Processes and the Absolute Chronology of the Philistine Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609 SHARON ZUCKERMAN Dating the Destruction of Canaanite Hazor without Mycenaean Pottery? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621 THE END 2nd MILLENNIUM BCE AND THE TRANSITION FROM IRON I IIA: RADIOCARBON DATES OF TEL REHOV, ISRAEL OF THE TO IRON Hendrik J. Bruins,* Amihai Mazar,**and Johannes van der Plicht*** INTRODUCTION The Iron Age in Israel covers approximately the last two centuries of the 2nd millennium BCE and continues until the Babylonian conquest in 586 BCE. Division of the Iron Age is based on ceramic styles, architecture and associated relations with literary data. Various systems have been proposed. Until the late 1960s many scholars used the following subdivision: 1200–920/900 BCE for Iron Age I and 920/900–586 BCE for Iron Age II (WRIGHT 1961:96–101).1 Following the excavations at Hazor (YADIN 1961), a new division was proposed by AHARONI and AMIRAN (1958). They suggested a tripartite division of the Iron Age (which they called “Israelite Period”) into three subperiods: I) 1200–1000; II) 1000–84; III) 840–587. Henceforth, the date 1000 BCE for the transition from Iron I to Iron II was accepted in all major publications. The term Iron IIA was used by some to include both the 10th and 9th century, such as BEN-TOR (1992:2) and BARKAY (1992:305), as well as Mazar since 2001 (MAZAR and CARMI 2001:1340–1341; COLDSTREAM and MAZAR 2003:40–44). Others confined the Iron IIA period only to the 10th century, mainly referring to the time of the Israelite United Monarchy of David and Solomon (STERN 1992:1529; MAZAR 1990; HERR 1997). The discovery of a ceramic assemblage similar to Iron IIA in the destruction layer of Jezreel (USSISHKIN and WOODHEAD, 1994), a royal citadel of the Omride Dynasty (9th century, ca 885–843 BCE), led to the renewal of an old debate concerning the attribution of pottery and architectural assemblages to either the 10th or the 9th century BCE. FINKELSTEIN (1996) renewed the ideas of CROWFOOT (1940) and to some extent KENYON (1964) – the latter only concerning the pottery – that the cultural horizon attributed by most scholars to the 10th century should be associated with the Omride Dynasty in the 9th century. He also claimed that the boundary between Iron I and Iron IIA should be lowered by about 80 years, from ca 1000 BCE to ca 920 BCE. The historical implications are obvious: all the buildings and cultural assemblages related by various scholars to David and Solomon should be attributed to the Omride Dynasty. Thus the “archaeology of the United Monarchy” is allegedly eliminated. The lowering of the Iron Age chronology gave legitimacy to skeptic evaluations of the historicity of the United Monarchy (FINKELSTEIN 1999). This suggestion raised fierce archaeological controversy, in which chronology is at the heart of the debate (MAZAR 1997; BEN-TOR 2000; BEN-TOR and BEN-AMI 1998; FINKELSTEIN 2002). Radiocarbon dating did not play any role in these archaeological time assessments and divisions of the Iron Age. The need for an independent, high-precision, 14C chronology in Near Eastern archaeology of the Bronze and Iron Ages was advocated in the 1980s by BRUINS and MOOK (1989). Gradually a growing awareness developed concerning the potential significance of such impartial chronological measurements for the Iron Age dilemma. However, chronological questions within a time resolution of one century are at the limit of single calibrated 14C dates, due to the wiggles in the calibration curve. Stratified series may have a far better time-resolution potential, but quality control through repeated measurements and interlaboratory comparison are essential in the high precision and accuracy demands of the historical periods of the Near East (VAN DER PLICHT and BRUINS 2001). Investigations by MAZAR and CARMI (2001) gave ambiguous results concerning 14C dates from Iron Age layers at Tel Beth Shean and Tel Rehov. Some dates measured in the Rehovot Radiocarbon Laboratory * *** ** Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Jacob Blaustein Institute for Desert Research, Department Man in the Desert, Sede Boker Campus, 84990, Israel. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Institute of Archaeology, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel. 1 University of Groningen, Centre for Isotope Research, Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands. The date 920 or 918 BCE was related to the military campaign by Shoshenq I (biblical Shishak) in the Land of Israel, documented both at Karnak (Egypt) and in the Hebrew Bible. 80 Hendrik J. Bruins, Amihai Mazar, and Johannes van der Plicht appear too young by a large margin of a few centuries, too low even for the Low Chronology (such as those from Phase D-3; MAZAR and CARMI 2001:1336; concerning the 18 dates from Locus 2425 see below, p. 91). GILBOA and SHARON (2001) published the results of radiocarbon measurements of charcoal samples from Tel Dor (SHARON 2001), which were accepted by them as evidence to support the Low Chronology, because many of the radiometric dates were up to a century lower than the conventional ceramic chronology. We note that all these dates were measured by the Rehovot Radiocarbon Laboratory. In addition, the Tel Dor samples in the above investigation consist of multi-year charcoal with a possible old wood effect. Hence the age difference of the young radiocarbon dates in comparison with the conventional chronology is even more pronounced! GILBOA and SHARON (2001:1343) succinctly described some principal repercussions of the Low Chronology: (a) “11th century archaeological strata and various material phenomena should be assigned to the 10th, and 10th century ones to the 9th”; (b) This “would by and large ‘rob’ the United Monarchy of material remains compatible with an organized state”. This claim is based on 14C dates of charcoal samples, measured by only one laboratory. Quality control of radiocarbon dating is not a minor issue, particularly when high temporal resolution is required. Radiocarbon laboratories are usually aware of the need to evaluate the quality of the dates they produce. “The two questions of reliability and reproducibility of routinely acquired 14C dates have been and continue to be of interest to both providers and users. One of the most direct means of assessing these properties has been through organized interlaboratory comparisons” (SCOTT et al. 1998:331). Results of the Third International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (TIRI) and the Fourth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (FIRI) have recently been published (SCOTT, 2003). A detailed, high-quality series of radiocarbon dates from Tel Rehov, was obtained at the Centre for Isotope Research, University of Groningen (The Netherlands), using two different 14C laboratories: (1) Conventional measurements of radioactive carbon using Proportional Gas Counting (PGC) and (2) Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS). All samples were pretreated with the acid/alkali/acid (AAA) method (MOOK and WATERBOLK 1985). The purified organic matter of each sample was subsequently converted into CO2. For AMS dating (VAN DER PLICHT et al. 2000), the CO2 gas underwent additional treatment to convert it into solid graphite. The consistent series of radiocarbon dates, based on charred short- Fig. 1 Location map of Tel Rehov lived samples, enabled stratigraphic wiggle matching (BRUINS, VAN DER PLICHT and MAZAR 2003a). The results show a sequential time-series that ranges from the 12th to the 9th centuries BCE. The calibrated radiocarbon dating sequence gives independent evidence, based on scientific methods and independent from historical or biblical data, that Iron Age IIA pottery continued to be in use for a rather long period, covering large parts of both the 10th and 9th century BCE, thus supporting the time frame suggested by Aharoni and Amiran and accepted by Barkay, Ben Tor and lately by Mazar (references above). FINKELSTEIN and PIASETZKY (2003a, 2003b) contested our conclusions, trying to place the Groningen radiocarbon dates into the Low Chronology system. We rejected their arguments in a technical reply (BRUINS, VAN DER PLICHT and MAZAR 2003b). In the current article we have the opportunity to present our results in much more detail than was possible in the articles published in Science. Following the arguments by FINKELSTEIN and PIASETZKY (2003a, 2003b), we need to compare the Groningen radiocarbon results in detail with the Rehovot radiocarbon dates. In this article, we focus our attention on the radiocarbon chronology of the Iron I period and the transition to the Iron Age IIA period. The reasons are twofold (1) The SCIEM 2000 Program is directed at the 2nd mil- The End of the 2nd Millennium BCE and the Transition from Iron I to Iron IIA: Radiocarbon Dates of Tel Rehov, Israel Final Stratum Area D Area C Area E – – E-0 I – – II – – III – – Area F Area G Area B Area A Period Age assessment B-0 A-1a Late Arab Undated burials B-1 A-1b Early Arab 8–12th century CE Iron Age IIC Late 8th early 7th(?) century BCE Iron Age IIB Until 732 BCE. B-2 B-3 IV – C-1a E-1a F-1 G-1 B-4* V D-1(?) C-1b E-1b 2 2 5a* 5b VI D-1(?)–D-2 C-2 VII D-3 C-3 E-2 F-3-4 G-3 A-2 A-3a 81 A-3b A-4 Until ca. 830–840 BCE Iron Age IIA From ca. 980 B-6 Iron Age IB D-4 D-5 Until 990–980 BCE ca. 1130 (?) BCE th D-6 D-7 Iron Age IA 12 century BCE D-8 D-9a D-9b Late Bronze IIB 13 century BCE D-10 Late Bronze I–IIA 15 –14 century BCE D-11 MB/LBI 16 century BCE th th th th * Needs further clarification in the future. It is possible that 5a should be correlated with general Stratum IV Table 1 Stratigraphic table of Tel Rehov, showing the correlation between local phases in the different excavation areas and the general strata numbers lennium BCE. (2) The amount of radiocarbon dates and required figures, as well as the archaeological context, are too much for detailed treatment in one article. A future paper will deal more extensively with the Iron Age IIA period (MAZAR, BRUINS, PANITZ-COHEN and VAN DER PLICHT in preparation). RADIOCARBON DATES OF TEL REHOV Tel Rehov is a large site, covering 10 hectares, situated at an important geographic junction, 28 km south of Lake Kinneret and 5 km south of Beth Shean (Figure 1). Six excavation seasons in the years 1997 to 2003 revealed complex stratigraphic sequences in seven excavation areas, yielding rich material assemblages, mainly from the Iron Age IIA period (MAZAR 2 The excavations at Tel Rehov, directed by A.Mazar, are conducted under the auspices of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University and sponsored by Mr. John Camp. Our thanks to Mr. Harm-Jan Streurman, Mrs. Anita 1999; MAZAR 2002; MAZAR in press).2 The first two series of radiocarbon measurements, consisting altogether of 24 dates from seven loci, were measured during the years 1998–1999 in the 14C Laboratory of the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot and the AMS Laboratory of the University of Arizona (MAZAR and CARMI 2001). Another series of more than 30 dates from 14 loci were measured during 2001–2002 at the University of Groningen (BRUINS, VAN DER PLICHT and MAZAR 2003a, 2003b). Both conventional and AMS measurement techniques were used at the latter institution, according to sample size and for quality control. All these dates together constitute the largest group of radiometric measurements from a single Iron Age site in the Levant. T. Aerts-Bijma and Mr. Stef Wijma for carefully preparing and measuring the radiocarbon samples at the Centre for Isotope Research of Groningen University. 82 Hendrik J. Bruins, Amihai Mazar, and Johannes van der Plicht The great majority of the organic materials used in the 14C determinations consist of short-lived charred grains and olive pits. Most samples came from the best stratigraphic contexts available in each stratum, as explained in detail below.3 The relative stratigraphy in each of the excavation areas at Tel Rehov is shown in Table 1. Iron Age I layers were excavated so far only in Area D and thus the local phase numbers of this area were retained. The Iron II layers were excavated at several areas of the tell, each area with its own respective stratigraphic phase numbers. An attempt was made to correlate these local stratigraphic phases into a comprehensive overall strata framework (marked in Roman numerals in the 1st column of Table 1). This correlation may become further refined in future excavations. THE IRON AGE I The excavations at Tel Rehov exhibited successive layers of the Iron Age I period in Area D (Figure 2 and 3), a 5 m wide step trench on the western slope of the lower city (MAZAR 1999:9–16). This trench yielded 11 stratigraphic phases (D11–D1), as summarised in Table 1. The lower four phases are characterised by Late Bronze Age pottery. The five following phases yielded Iron Age I pottery while the uppermost two phases yielded Iron IIA pottery.4 Area D is attached to Area C, and thus the last two phases can be correlated with the large exposures of Iron IIA strata in Area C. Phase D-6 Fig. 2 Area D of Tel Rehov; the Late Bronze Age is exhibited in the lower part of the section, while the Iron Age phases 6, 5, 4, 3 and 2 (discussed in the text) appear in the upper part Phases D-7 and D-6 yielded pottery similar to the ceramic horizon of nearby Tel Beth Shean Level VI (University of Pennsylvania excavations) or Strata S-4 and S-3 (the Hebrew University excavations; MAZAR 1993; 2003a: 324, 333–337). These levels at Beth Shean can thus be securely dated to the time of the 20th Dynasty, most probably related to the reigns of Pharaohs Ramesses III to VI. Phase D-7 exhibited several walls, floors and two foundation deposits with lamp and bowls, typical for the period under consideration, yet no charred organic remains were found. The later Phase D-6, which yielded charred seeds for radiocarbon dating, displayed several floor surfaces but very little architecture. The small amount of pottery from Phase D-6 included also two sherds of imported Mycenaean IIIC pottery, just like at Tel Beth Shean in the correlated levels. Charred olive pits found in Locus 2874 and Locus 2836 of Phase D-6 were dated in Groningen by both Conventional (Proportional Gas Counting – PGC) and AMS techniques (laboratory codes GrN and GrA, respectively). Locus 2874 constitutes a plastered basin sunk from a floor in Square P4, sealed by brick debris. The other Locus 2836 from Square N4 is a layer of occupation debris that includes organic deposits and ash patches at levels 83.39–82.86. The Groningen AMS and PGC dates of Locus 2874 were 2935 ± 45 BP (GrA-19034) and 2880 ± 30 BP (GrN26120), respectively (Table 2). The results are well 3 4 FINKELSTEIN and PIASEZTKY (2003a, 2003b) criticize some of our contexts as unreliable. We reject this criticism, as we explain the nature of each context in some detail in the following paragraphs. We use here the term Iron IA for the period of the Egyptian 20th Dynasty, following the terminology in STERN (ed.) 1993. Some Israeli scholars include this period in the Late Bronze Age (USSISHKIN 1985; GILBOA and SHARON 2003). The End of the 2nd Millennium BCE and the Transition from Iron I to Iron IIA: Radiocarbon Dates of Tel Rehov, Israel Fig. 3a Selected pottery forms from Phase D-4 83 84 Hendrik J. Bruins, Amihai Mazar, and Johannes van der Plicht Fig. 3b Selected pottery forms from Phase D-3 within 2s from each other and therefore acceptable. The weighted average has a smaller standard deviation 2897 ± 25 BP. The Groningen dates of Locus 2836 were 2950 ± 50 BP (GrA-18826) and 2920 ± 30 BP (GrN-26118), respectively by AMS and PGC. The two results are even closer, within 1s from each other. The average date is 2928 ± 26 yr BP. The calibration curve remains at a rather similar level, albeit with many wiggles, for much of the 13th to 11th century BCE (radiocarbon year period of about 3020–2880 BP). Therefore, the calibration of individual loci will inevitably result in wide age ranges. The undifferentiated 1s calibrated range for the average date of Locus 2874 is 1125–1020 BCE, while the more precise average result of Locus 2836 results in a 1s calibrated range of 1209–1050 BCE. Looking again at the four individual dating results for Phase D-6 in conventional BP years, three are almost similar (2920 ± 30, 2950 ± 50, 2935 ± 45), while one is somewhat younger (2880 ± 30). The average of Locus 2836, therefore, may reflect Phase D-6 more accurately. Its full calibrated range is graphi- cally shown in Figure 4. Considering the stratigraphic sequence and the ceramic assemblage, the period 1130–1090 BCE within the calibrated result seems most likely for this stratum. A sample of charred olive pits found on a floor surface in the same phase (Locus 1876) was dated at the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot (RT-3119; MAZAR and CARMI 2001:1336). The resulting date of 2685 ± 40BP is 243 years younger than the Groningen average. Its calibrated date in the 9th century BCE is much too young by all standards as already mentioned (MAZAR and CARMI 2001:1336). Phases D-5 and D-4. Phases D-5 and D-4 constitute two distinct architectural periods, characterised by a north-south oriented street flanked by buildings on both sides. The occupation debris of D5, sealed by that of D-4, has hardly been excavated. However, living surfaces of Phase D4 were excavated in the street as well as in a courtyard paved with cobble stones during its initial phase. The original floor surfaces in both cases were 2s Calibrated Date 1998 Curve OxCal v3.9 (year BCE) same 997–989 ( 8.5%) 974–954 (25.9%) 944–919 (33.8%) 999–913 (91.8%) 912–905 ( 3.6%) –20.80 same 892–880 (11.4%) 836–799 (56.8%) 900–795 (95.4%) 2835 ± 45 2720 ± 30 –23.03 –22.33 2835 ± 45 1046–920 (68.2%) 1128–896 (93.5%) 877–857 (1.9%) GrA-16757 2820 ± 50 –22.51 same 1042–1031 (3.8%) 1022–901 (64.4%) 1126–891 (87.0%) 881–835 (8.4%) Olive pits Charcoal GrA-12889 GrA-16848 2870 ± 70 2895 ± 40 –25.29 –24.41 2870 ± 70 1188–1181 ( 2.1%) 1150–1144 ( 1.6%) 1128– 970 (55.2%) 960– 928 ( 9.3%) 1260–1228 ( 3.8%) 1221– 894 (88.8%) 878– 839 ( 2.9%) 48115 Olive pits GrA-21044 GrA-21056 GrA-21183 2845 ± 35 2825 ± 35 2820 ± 50 –22.05 –23.30 –23.35 2832 ± 22 1004–970 (40.0%) 959–934 (28.2%) 1044–918 (95.4%) 1836 48450 Olive pits GrN-26121 GrA-18825 2890 ± 30 2870 ± 50 –22.95 –22.99 2885 ± 26 1125–1119 ( 3.3%) 1112–1098 (10.0%) 1087–1059 (18.0%) 1053–1005 (36.9%) 1189–1179 ( 2.9%) 1154–1143 ( 2.2%) 1129– 996 (86.3%) 990–974 ( 2.5%) 955–943 ( 1.6%) D-4 Iron IB 1845 48556 Seeds GrA-21046 GrA-21057 GrA-21184 2905 ± 35 2945 ± 35 2920 ± 50 –22.49 –23.10 –24.12 2924 ± 22 1208–1202 ( 3.6%) 1189–1179 ( 7.2%) 1154–1142 ( 8.1%) 1129–1108 (15.1%) 1102–1067 (23.7%) 1065–1050 (10.4%) 1254–1244 ( 2.3%) 1212–1199 ( 6.2%) 1192–1139 (25.7%) 1132–1020 (61.2%) D-4 Iron IB 1845 28243 Olive pits RT-3121 2800 ± 40 –21.10 same 999– 902 (68.2%) 1044–887 (81.6%) 884–833 (13.8%) D-6 Iron IA 1876 28536 Olive pits RT-3119 2685 ± 40 –20.70 same 896–876 (18.1%) 858–852 ( 4.2%) 841–802 (45.9%) 905–797 (95.4%) D-6 Iron IA 2836 28352 Olive pits GrN-26118 GrA-18826 2920 ± 30 2950 ± 50 –22.28 –22.46 2928 ± 26 1209–1201 ( 5.1%) 1190–1178 ( 7.9%) 1159–1141 (11.3%) 1130–1108 (13.8%) 1102–1067 (20.8%) 1066–1050 ( 9.2%) 1257–1239 ( 4.9%) 1213–1197 ( 7.4%) 1194–1138 (28.1%) 1133–1018 (55.0%) D-6 Iron IA 2874 28901 Olive pits GrA-19034 GrN-26120 2935 ± 45 2880 ± 30 –22.14 –22.36 2897 ± 25 1126–1040 (60.6%) 1032–1020 ( 7.6%) 1210–1200 ( 2.0%) 1191–1177 ( 4.5%) 1161–1141 ( 4.6%) 1130–1000 (84.3%) Locus Basket Charred Organic Material Lab No C Date (BP) d C (‰) 14 C Date BP or Average used in calibration D-2 Iron IIA 1802 18119 Olive pits GrN-26112 2805 ± 15 –22.46 D-3 Iron IB–IIA transition 1858 28395 Olive pits RT-3120 2670 ± 40 D-3 Iron IB–IIA transition 2862 28493 Olive pits GrA-19033 GrN-26119 D-3 Iron IB–IIA transition 4815 48105 Olive pits D-3 Iron IB–IIA transition 4816 48103 D-3 Iron IB–IIA transition 4830 D-4 Iron IB 14 13 85 Table 2 Radiocarbon dating results from Area D at Tel Rehov, showing stratigraphic relationships. Most dates are from Groningen (GrN signifies measurement by PGC and GrA by AMS). All three dates from Rehovot (RT) are much younger and should be rejected in this intercomparison of three labs. The 18 Groningen dates in this list had only one outlier (GrN-26119), which is also rejected (all rejections in italics). The other 17 Groningen dates constitute a coherent set of measurements The End of the 2nd Millennium BCE and the Transition from Iron I to Iron IIA: Radiocarbon Dates of Tel Rehov, Israel 1s Calibrated Date 1998 Curve OxCal v3.9 (year BCE) Phase 86 Hendrik J. Bruins, Amihai Mazar, and Johannes van der Plicht Atmospheric data from STUIVER et al. (1998); OxCal v3.9 BRONK RAMSEY (2003); cub r:2 sd:12 prob usp[strat] Average Phase D 6, Locus 2836 : 2928±26BP Radiocarbon determination 3100 BP 3000 BP 2900 BP 2800 BP 2700 BP 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 Calibrated date BCE Fig. 4 Calibrated date of Iron IA, Phase D6, Locus 2836, using OxCal v3.9 (BRONK RAMSEY 2003) and the INTCAL 98 calibration curve (STUIVER and VAN DER PLICHT 1998). (Concerning the subsequent calibration figures, OxCal and INTCAL 98 are also used, see always above graph, but not mentioned repeatedly in the lower caption) Atmospheric data from STUIVER et al. (1998); OxCal v3.9 BRONK RAMSEY (2003); cub r:2 sd:12 prob usp[strat] Radiocarbon determination 3100BP Average Phase D 4b, Locus 1845 : 2924±22BP 3050BP 3000BP 2950BP 2900BP 2850BP 2800BP 2750BP 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 Calibrated date BCE Fig. 5 Calibrated date of Iron IB, Phase D4b, Locus 1845 900 The End of the 2nd Millennium BCE and the Transition from Iron I to Iron IIA: Radiocarbon Dates of Tel Rehov, Israel 87 Atmospheric data from STUIVER et al. (1998); OxCal v3.9 BRONK RAMSEY (2003); cub r:2 sd:12 prob usp[strat] Radiocarbon determination 3100BP Average Phase D 4a, Locus 1825 : 2885±26BP 3000BP 2900BP 2800BP 2700BP 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 Calibrated date BCE Fig, 6 Calibrated date of Iron IB, Phase D-4a, Locus 1825 raised from time to time during the duration of Phase D-4, resulting in a succession of striated surfaces. The ceramic assemblage from this phase is typical for the Iron Age IB period(Fig. 3a; for further discussion of the pottery see MAZAR et. al. 2005). A sizable cluster of charred seeds was found on the cobble floor of the courtyard (Locus 1845) of Phase D-4b, below thick accumulation of occupation striations. Therefore, the archaeological context of the seeds is first grade. The seeds were dated at the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot and also at the University of Groningen. The 14C determination at Rehovot gave a date of 2800 ± 40 BP (RT-3121) (MAZAR and CARMI 2001:1336 Table 3), while three AMS dates of seeds from the same locus in Groningen gave consistently older dates: 2905 ± 35 BP (GrA-21046), 2945 ± 35 (GrA-21057) and 2920 ± 50 BP (GrA-21184). The Groningen results are close to each other, mostly within 1s, indicating high-quality dates with robust repeatability (SCOTT 2003). The Groningen weighted average for Locus 1845 of Phase D4 is 2924 ± 22 yr BP. The single Rehovot date is about 124 radiocarbon years younger, which would result in a calibrated age range in the 10th century BCE, which is generally considered too young for Iron IB. However, the consistent Groningen results give an older calibrated 1s age range of 1208–1050 BCE (Fig. 5) for Phase D4b. The principle of stratified archaeological wiggle matching (BRUINS, VAN DER PLICHT and MAZAR 2003a) demands that successive layers cannot have the same position on the calibration curve but must follow each other in time. Taking into consideration the stratigraphic sequence of Phase D-4 above the unexcavated Phase D-5 and the position of the latter above the dated Phase D-6, a date of ca. 1100–1050 BCE seems most likely for Phase D-4b. In Locus 1825 (Phase D-4a), a cluster of charred olive pits was found on the highest floor surface among those that occur above cobble floor 1845. The olive pits were dated in Groningen by both the PGC and AMS lab facilities. The results of the same sample by these two different 14C measurement techniques gave very similar dates, which underline the outstanding reproducibility (SCOTT et al. 1998; SCOTT 2003) status of both facilities in Groningen. The PGC result is 2890 ± 30 yr BP (GrN-26121) and the AMS result is 2870 ± 50 yr BP (GrA-18825), giving a weighted average of 2885 ± 26 yr BP which is about 39 radiocarbon years younger than the Phase D4b sample found on the cobble floor below. This may provide a reasonable time range for the accumulation of floor surfaces in the same place during phases D-4b and D-4a. A reasonable date for Phase D-4a within the calibrated age range (Fig. 6), considering the BP difference (40 yr) with cobble floor 1845 and the principle of 88 Hendrik J. Bruins, Amihai Mazar, and Johannes van der Plicht stratified archaeological wiggle matching, would be ca 1060–1010 BCE. The Groningen radiocarbon dates agree very well with the conventional archaeological dates for the Iron IB pottery, found in Phase D-4. Phase D-3 Phase D-3 in Area D included a very peculiar feature: more than 30 small and shallow pits were found concentrated in an accumulation layer less than one meter thick. Some of the pits penetrated the underlying destruction debris of Phase D-4 and also cut each other. The human activities recorded by these pits seem to represent a considerable time span. Some of the pits were plastered with thin white plaster. The pits contained only small amounts of pottery sherds of homogeneous types, which can be classified to the end of Iron I (Fig. 3b). The layer of pits is sealed by Locus 1802 (Phase D-2), a thick layer of refuse that is characterised by distinct Iron IIA pottery, related to Strata V and VI in the adjacent Area C. The pits were probably used for refuse disposal and/or food storage. Each pit of Phase D-3 represents a homogeneous feature from a stratigraphic viewpoint, situated in between D-4 and D-2. It does not mean of course that each pit was made and used exactly at the same time, yet the entire accumulation of pits is sealed from above and below by distinct stratigraphic features. The organic samples found in these pits are not isolated single seeds but clusters of olive stones, albeit in small concentrations. Thus there is no foundation for the charge by FINKELSTEIN and PIASETZKY (2003a) that these pits are an unreliable context for our 14C dates (BRUINS, VAN DER PLICHT and MAZAR 2003a, 2003b). Phase D-3 – Pit 4830 A cluster of charred olive stones was found (basket 48115) at the bottom level (85.15) of a shallow pit (Locus 4830) in Square Q4 within levels 85.35–85.15. The sample was investigated in Groningen, where, following standard pre-treatment, three sub-samples were prepared for measurement by AMS. The triplicate results are as follows: 2845 ± 35 BP (GrA-21044), 2825 ± 35 BP (GrA-21056), 2820 ± 50 BP (GrA21183). The three measurements are very close, within 1s from each other, which underlines the measurement repeatability quality of the AMS facility. The weighted average date of the three measurements is 2832 ± 22 BP. The calibrated age (Fig. 7) gives two possible options in the 1s range: 1004–970 (40.0%) and 959–934 (28.2%). The first period 1004–970 has clearly the highest relative probability. This result fits very well with the suggestion by MAZAR (above) to place the boundary for the transition from Iron I to Iron IIA at about 980 BCE. Both calibrated radiocarbon date options are clearly too old for the Low Chronology theory, which places the above transition approximately at 920 BCE. Phase D-3 – Pit 4816 This is a plastered pit cut into mudbrick wall 4859 of Phase D-4. It had two plastered surfaces inside, and the sample (Basket 48103) of charred olive stone fragments and fine charcoal was found between these two surfaces at level 85.67m. Thus this is a closed context. The charred olive stone fragments were dated in Groningen by AMS, giving a date of 2870 ± 70 BP (GrA-12889). The amount of material was small, even for AMS, resulting in a somewhat larger standard deviation. The fine charcoal was dated separately, also by AMS, giving a date of 2895 ± 40 BP (GrA-16848). The results are close to each other, within 1s, which gives confidence in their reliability, while the charcoal is slightly older than the olive pit fragments, as might be expected. Looking closer at the date for the olive pit fragments, the BP result is the same as the youngest date (GrA-18825) for Phase D4a. Therefore, this pit (Locus 4816) is older than the former (Locus 4830) and reflects human activities in the 11th century BCE. Phase D-3 – Pit 4815 This is a non-plastered pit within levels 85.53–84.76, in which a cluster of 15 charred olive stones was found at level 85.11 (Basket 48105). Some of these olive stones were measured in Groningen by AMS, yielding a date of 2820 ± 50 BP (GrA-16757). This dating result is very similar as those for Pit 4830. As we have only one AMS date, the relatively large standard deviation of 50 BP years results in a calibrated date with a wide age range (Fig. 8). The 1s ranges are 1042–1031 (3.8%) and 1022–901 (64.4%) BCE. The time resolution of the radiocarbon date in this case is not sufficient to distinguish unambiguously between 980 or 920 BCE as possible dates for the transition between Iron I and Iron IIA, as both options fall within the 1s result. Nevertheless, 980 BCE is clearly situated in the central most likely part of the calibration result, whereas 920 BCE is located at the young margin of the 14C outcome (Fig. 8), which has a lower probability level. This particular result underlines the significance of high-precision dates with a low standard deviation (BRUINS and MOOK 1989; VAN DER PLICHT and BRUINS 2001). Such results can be obtained with the PGC tech- The End of the 2nd Millennium BCE and the Transition from Iron I to Iron IIA: Radiocarbon Dates of Tel Rehov, Israel Radiocarbon determination Atmospheric data from STUIVER et al. (1998); OxCal v3.9 BRONK RAMSEY (2003); cub r:2 sd:12 prob usp[strat] Phase D 3 Locus (Pit) 4830: 3000BP 2832 ± 22 BP 2900BP 2800BP 2700BP 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 Calibrated date BCE Fig. 7 Calibrated date of one of the storage/refuse pits (Locus 4830) in Phase D-3 Atmospheric data from STUIVER et al. (1998); OxCal v3.9 BRONK RAMSEY (2003); cub r:2 sd:12 prob usp[strat] Radiocarbon determination 3100BP Phase D 3 Locus (Pit) 4815 : 2820± 50BP 3000BP 2900BP 2800BP 2700BP 2600BP 2500BP 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 Calibrated date BCE Fig. 8 Calibrated date of one of the storage/refuse pits (Locus 4815) in Phase D3 700 89 90 Hendrik J. Bruins, Amihai Mazar, and Johannes van der Plicht Atmospheric data from STUIVER et al. (1998); OxCal v3.9 BRONK RAMSEY (2003); cub r:2 sd:12 prob usp[strat] Radiocarbon determination 3100BP Phase D3 Locus (Pit) 2862 : 2835±45BP 3000BP 2900BP 2800BP 2700BP 2600BP 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 Calibrated date BCE Fig. 9 Calibrated date of one of the storage/refuse pits (Locus 2862) in Phase D3 Stratum Area and Locus Local Phase IV C-1a 5498 V B-5 4218 V C-1b 2422 V C-1b 2425 V C-1b 2441 VI C-2 4426 VI C-2 4426 V/VI D-2 1802 1s Calibrated Date 1998 Curve OxCal v3.9 (year BCE) 2 s Calibrated Date 1998 Curve OxCal v3.9 (year BCE) 2755 ± 25 918–893 (25.0%) 879–837 (43.2%) 970–959 ( 6.0%) 934–830 (89.4%) 2786 ± 22 995–991 ( 1.9%) 973–956 (19.4%) 942–899 (46.9%) 969–961 (11.2%) 925–897 (55.7%) 872–870 ( 1.3%) 971–959 (20.7%) 935–903 (47.5%) 999–895 (83.7%) 877–841 (11.7%) 2776 ± 9 969–960 (15.2%) 925–899 (53.0%) 971–958 (18.2%) 938–895 (64.6%) 877–843 (12.6%) 2761 ± 14 919–896 (34.5%) 877–857 (21.4%) 853–841 (12.3%) 995–991 ( 2.0%) 973–956 (18.8%) 942–898 (47.4%) 997–989 ( 8.5%) 974–954 (25.9%) 944–919 (33.8%) 969–960 ( 5.9%) 929–888 (43.4%) 883–834 (46.1%) 998–981 ( 6.9%) 977–894 (74.1%) 878–839 (14.4%) 999–913 (91.8%) 912–905 ( 3.6%) 14 14 Lab No C Date (BP) GrA-21152 GrA-21154 GrA-21267 GrA-21034 GrA-21047 GrA-21179 GrN-27361 GrN-27362 GrN-27412 GrN-26114 GrN-26115 2770 ± 2730 ± 2760 ± 2760 ± 2820 ± 2770 ± 2764 ± 2777 ± 2785 ± 2775 ± 2800 ± 50 50 35 35 35 50 11 13 28 20 20 GrN-26116 GrN-26117 GrN-27385 GrN-27386 GrN-27366 2810 ± 20 2775 ± 25 2771 ± 15 2761 ± 15 2761 ± 14 GrA-21043 GrA-21054 GrA-21182 GrN-26112 2755 ± 35 2805 ± 35 2800 ± 50 2805 ± 15 C Date BP or Average used in calibration 2771 ± 8 2788 ± 14 2784 ± 22 2805 ± 15 970–959 (12.7%) 935–894 (62.0%) 878–840 (20.7%) 998–981 ( 5.7%) 976–896 (86.9%) 876–860 ( 2.8%) Table 3 Calibrated Groningen radiocarbon dates of Tel Rehov Iron IIA Strata, in relation to the stratigraphy and archaeological context Ceramic type and context Building F Stratum IV Destruction Stratum V Destruction Stratum V Destruction Building G Silo room Stratum V Destruction Building G Stratum V Destruction Building A Stratum VI Building A Stratum VI Refuse deposits from Strata VI and V The End of the 2nd Millennium BCE and the Transition from Iron I to Iron IIA: Radiocarbon Dates of Tel Rehov, Israel nique if the sample is large enough, usually 20 grams or more. Multiple measurements with AMS of the same organic sample will also enable the calculation of a weighted average with a relatively low standard deviation. The previous Pit 4830 is a good example. The triplicate results 2845 ± 35 BP (GrA-21044), 2825 ± 35 BP (GrA-21056), 2820 ± 50 BP (GrA-21183) gave a weighted average date of 2832 ± 22 BP. Notice that GrA-21056 within this series is exactly identical with the single date for Pit 4815. This suggests that both pits were used in the same time period. Phase D-3 – Pit 2862 This is a shallow plastered pit, in which a cluster of several charred olive stones was found at level 85.62 (Basket 28493). The sample was dated in Groningen both by AMS and PGC. The AMS measurement gave a date of 2835 ± 45 BP (GrA-19033), which is very similar to the dating results for Pit 4815 and Pit 4830. The Proportional Gas Counter (PGC) produced in this case a rare outlier (difference of about 4s), which is clearly too young: 2720 ± 30 BP (GrN26119). Since the difference between the two dates is beyond 2s, it is not acceptable to calculate a weighted average. The AMS date should be regarded as reliable, fitting many of the other dates for Phase D-3. The calibrated result of this date (Fig. 9) is again rather wide, due to the standard deviation of 45 years of the BP date (GrA-19033). The 1s age range is 1046–920 (68.2%) BCE. The time resolution of this result is not sufficient to separate unambiguously between the 980 and 920 BCE options for the transition between Iron I and Iron IIA. However, 980 BCE is again located in the most probable central part of the calibrated date, while 920 BCE is situated at the lower boundary of the 1s range. Phase D-3 – Pit 1858 Pit 1858 in Square P4 is a 0.94 m deep pit in which four successive plastered floor surfaces were defined. One sample of olive stones found at the middle level of this pit was measured by the 14C laboratory in Rehovot (RT-3120). The date of 2670 ± 40 BP (RT3120) is definitely too young and the calibrated age in the 9th century BCE is much too low for the pottery assemblage found in Phase D-3 (MAZAR and CARMI 2001:1336). THE IRON AGE IIA The Iron Age IIA period will only be treated in this article in relation to our age assessment for the transition between Iron I and Iron II. The excavations at Tel Rehov exhibited widespread exposures of the 91 Iron Age IIA period in six different excavation areas. Separate stratigraphic phases were counted in each one of these areas (MAZAR 1999, for results of the first two seasons). The correlation of the various local phases into a comprehensive stratigraphic frame is not easy, but our current understanding is represented by three general strata numbers: VI, V and IV (Table 1). Both the local phases and general strata numbers are mentioned in Table 3, in relation to the 20 coherent Groningen radiocarbon dates of Iron Age IIA layers (BRUINS, VAN DER PLICHT, MAZAR 2003a): 16 from Area C, three from Area B and one from Area D (Phase D-2). Another 18 radiocarbon dates from Locus 2425 in Area C were measured at Rehovot and Arizona and published earlier, as well as three dates of charred beams from this period measured at Rehovot (MAZAR and CARMI 2001:1337–1339). Area D – Phase D-2 This phase in Area D included a one meter thick layer of refuse debris (levels 87.19–86.10 m) close to the slope of the mound, containing homogeneous Iron IIA pottery. This refuse was probably dumped from the nearby buildings in Area C (Phases C-2 and C-1b; general Strata VI and V). A cluster of olive stones came from the lowest level of this debris layer (Square D2, Basket 18119, level 86.11). The single PGC radiocarbon measurement of the relatively large sample of olive pits, conducted in Groningen, resulted in a high-precision date with a low standard deviation: 2805 ± 15 BP (GrN-26112). The calibration of this precise date into calendar years (Fig. 10) gives, however, a wider range, due to the wiggles in the calibration curve. Both the 1s and 2s range cover the entire 10th century BCE. This result is, nevertheless, significant, because Iron IIA in the Low Chronology view should be mainly situated in the 9th century BCE, while the above result places Phase D-2 exclusively in the 10th century BCE. Although the last 20 years of the 10th century BCE are still acceptable in the Low Chronology view, this range has a probability of only 3.6% out of a total of 95.4% (= 2s). Area C – Stratum VI The town and associated buildings of Stratum VI in Area C (local Phase C-2) belong to the earlier part of the Iron IIA period. The pottery from this stratum is somewhat different from that of the following two strata (V and IV), yet it definitely belongs to the Iron IIA period. Red slip and burnish are abundant here, but entirely absent in the earlier Iron I period, including the pits of Phase D-3. The samples dated at 92 Hendrik J. Bruins, Amihai Mazar, and Johannes van der Plicht 3000BP Atmospheric data from STUIVER et al. (1998); OxCal v3.9 BRONK RAMSEY (2003); cub r:2 sd:12 prob usp[strat] Phase D2 Locus 1802 : 2805±15BP Radiocarbon determination 2950BP 2900BP 2850BP 2800BP 2750BP 2700BP 2650BP 1100 1000 900 800 Calibrated date BCE Fig. 10 Calibrated date (GrN-26112) of a large cluster of charred olive stones from the Iron IIA layer in Area D (Phase D-2, Locus 1802) Radiocarbon determination 3000BP Atmospheric data from STUIVER et al. (1998); OxCal v3.9 BRONK RAMSEY (2003); cub r:2 sd:12 prob usp[strat] AMS Average Stratum VI C2 L 4426 2784 ± 22 BP 2900BP 2800BP 2700BP 2600BP 1100 1000 900 800 Calibrated date BCE Fig. 11 The average of three AMS dates (2784 ± 22 BP) of Iron IIA Stratum VI in Area C (Phase C2), calibrated into calendar years The End of the 2nd Millennium BCE and the Transition from Iron I to Iron IIA: Radiocarbon Dates of Tel Rehov, Israel Groningen came from Locus 4426 in Building D (Basket 44166, level 85.45), a beaten earth floor in a room, covered by a 0.85 m thick layer of occupation debris and decayed bricks. The sample consisted of a cluster of charred grains found above the floor. The amount of grains was large enough to make one measurement in Groningen with PGC, which resulted in a high-precision date with a small standard deviation: 2761 ± 14 yr BP (GrN-27366). However, a remaining fraction of the sample, composed of charred broken grains and fine charcoal was dated in triplicate by AMS. One should not be alarmed here by the word “charcoal”, because the fine black powder amongst the broken grains is most likely derived from the seeds or associated short-lived material (threshing remains, husks). No wood remains were seen. Two of the AMS dates gave similar results: 2805 ± 35 yr BP (GrA-21054) and 2800 ± 50 yr BP (GrA-21182). A third AMS measurement yielded a somewhat younger date: 2755 ± 35 yr BP (GrA-21043). Since the younger AMS date is still within its 2s range from the two older dates, the result is statistically acceptable. The two older dates are practically the same as the date for Phase D-2, described above. The weighted average of the three AMS dates is 2784 ± 22 BP. The difference between the above average AMS date (based on three measurements) and the single PGC date (2761 ± 14 yr BP, GrN-27366) is only 23 radiocarbon BP years. Such a small difference is fully acceptable in the physical sense of radiocarbon dating, as 2761 ± 14 and 2784 ± 22 overlap well within 1s. However, in archaeological terms, the difference becomes, in this case, significant after calibration in calendar years. The 1s calibrated age range of the average AMS date is 995–991 ( 2.0%), 973–956 (18.8%), 942–898 (47.4%) BCE (Fig. 11). This result is almost entirely situated in the 10th century BCE. On the other hand the 1s calibrated age range of the single PGC date is significantly younger: 919–896 (34.5%), 877–857 (21.4%), 853–841 (12.3%). This gives two distinct options in the 9th century BCE, while the range with the highest relative probability is in the last 20 years of the 10th century BCE. Looking at the calibration curve (Figure 11), it is clear that the BP date of the AMS average “hits” the calibration curve at two principal spots: (1) the wiggle between 980–950 BCE and the younger area between 940–900 BCE. The latter option has the highest relative probability (47.4%) as compared to 18.8% for the older option of 973–956 BCE. The last 40 years of the 10th century BCE are statistically favoured, because this section represents more “prob- 93 ability volume” in the calibration curve than the section of the wiggle around 970 BCE. Nevertheless, stratified archaeological wiggle matching does give preference to the “first hit” with the calibration curve around 970 BCE, because successive layers cannot have the same position on the calibration curve but must follow each other in time (BRUINS, VAN DER PLICHT and MAZAR, 2003a:316). Stratum VI is to be placed on the calibration curve between the position of Phase D-3 (Stratum VII) and Stratum V. The many high-quality dates from the destruction layer of Stratum V (Table 3) clearly favour the last 40 years of the 10th century BCE (Figure 12 and 13). Moreover, the dates for Stratum V relate to the very end of this city. Its period of existence must predate these radiocarbon dates by a certain time span. Hence it seems inconceivable in stratigraphic terms to date Stratum VI to the same period as V. There are also clear differences between the pottery assemblages of these two strata, as the ceramic remains of Stratum VI are somewhat older than Stratum V. Therefore, putting all the criteria together, Stratum VI (Phase C2 in Area C) would fit best in the period 975–950 BCE, the second most likely period in the 1s range of the calibrated age of the average AMS date. Radiocarbon BP dates for the calendar period 975–950 are younger or similar in age as compared to BP dates of the later calendar period 950–910, due to the wiggle of 975–950 BCE. The somewhat younger PGC date (GrN-27366) may, therefore, be compatible with this wiggle. It is important to realize that the wiggle is based on dendrochronological data through radiocarbon measurements of groups of 10 tree-rings (decadal) or 20 tree-rings (bidecadal) (STUIVER et al., 1998). The radiocarbon measurements of Stratum VI are based on a short-lived sample –seeds– with a time span of about one year or even less (growing season). Past 14C variations in the atmosphere are not captured in such detail by the calibration curve itself, due to the comparatively “coarse” decadal and bidecadal measurements. Therefore, it might be important in this case to make a special primary study of this wiggle through 14C measurements by AMS of each individual tree ring in the available dendrochronological series for the period 980–940 BCE or even for the entire 10th century. Such detailed measurements have been carried out for older Bronze Age periods (VOGEL and VAN DER PLICHT, 1993). Area C – Strata V and IV These younger strata within the Iron Age IIA period are outside the focus of this paper, which deals with Iron Age I and the transition to Iron IIA. Extensive 94 Hendrik J. Bruins, Amihai Mazar, and Johannes van der Plicht Atmospheric data from STUIVER et al. (1998); OxCal v3.9 BRONK RAMSEY (2003); cub r:2 sd:12 prob usp[strat] Radiocarbon determination Stratum V Phase C 1b L 2441 : 2776±9 BP 2850BP 2800BP 2750BP 2700BP 2650BP 1000 950 900 850 Calibrated date BCE Fig. 12 The average of three Groningen AMS dates (2776 ± 9 BP) of Iron IIA Stratum V in Area C (Phase C-1b) Radiocarbon determination 3000BP Atmospheric data from STUIVER et al. (1998); OxCal v3.9 BRONK RAMSEY (2003); cub r:2 sd:12 prob usp[strat] Stratum IV (C 1a) Locus 5498 : 2755±25BP 2900BP 2800BP 2700BP 2600BP 1100 1000 900 800 Calibrated date BCE Fig. 13 The average of three Groningen AMS dates (2784 ± 22 BP) of Iron IIA Stratum VI in area C (Phase C2) The End of the 2nd Millennium BCE and the Transition from Iron I to Iron IIA: Radiocarbon Dates of Tel Rehov, Israel treatment of the Tel Rehov radiocarbon dates of these latter strata (shown in Table 3) will be published elsewhere (MAZAR et al. 2005). For the sake of comparison with radiocarbon results from older layers, the calibration of the average date of Stratum V Locus 2441 is shown in Fig. 12. Four PGC dates from relatively large, charred, cereal grain samples found above a floor under a thick destruction layer gave a weighted average of 2776 ± 9 BP. The very small standard deviation results from the averaging calculation of the included dates, which have standard deviations in the range of 14 to 25. The 1s calibrated age gives the ranges 969–960 (15.2%) and 925–899 (53.0%) BCE, but excludes the 9th century. The 2s calibrated range of course gives a wider spectrum: 971–958 (18.2%), 938–895 (64.6%), 877–843 (12.6%). Thus the 9th century has a probability of only 13% out of 95%. The most likely 2s range for the destruction of city V is the period 938–895 BCE with a probability of 65%. As Rehov is mentioned in the list of places raided by Pharaoh Shoshenq I (Shishak) during his military campaign (KITCHEN 1986: 187–239; B. MAZAR 1986), we cannot ignore these literary sources in the evaluation of our 14C time series. It is quite fascinating that our radiocarbon dates for the destruction of Stratum V are more or less in the same time span as historical assessments for the period of Shoshenq I (BRUINS, VAN DER PLICHT and MAZAR 2003a). The precise time of Shoshenq’s campaign is unclear; the year 925 suggested by KITCHEN is most widely cited, but his argumentation depends to a large extent on biblical chronology and leaves the door open for somewhat higher or lower options (KITCHEN 1986: 187–239; 2000:40–41). It is difficult for intrinsic reasons to prove a correlation between a destruction layer and a historical event. Yet in our case the association seems logical and fitting the circumstances.5 Concerning the comparison between the dates of Locus 2425, as dated in Rehovot and Arizona, and in Groningen by both PGC and AMS, see BRUINS, VAN DER PLICHT, MAZAR (2003b). A more detailed treatment of these differences will be presented in a future paper dealing extensively with Iron Age IIA. For a more detailed treatment of these differences see MAZAR et. al. 2005. Stratum IV (local Phase C-1a) is the youngest Iron IIA Stratum at Tel Rehov. A sample of charred cereal grains from this Stratum was investigated in 5 95 Groningen by AMS dating. The sample came from Locus 5498, of Building F in Area C, a room in a very well preserved building with mudbrick walls standing to a height of over one meter. The grain sample (Basket 54702) was found inside a pottery jug above the floor at level 86.10 m, covered by 1.18 m thick destruction debris. Many restorable pottery vessels and a unique cult object were found in this room. The three AMS dates 2770 ± 50 (GrA-21152); 2730 ± 50 (GrA-21154) and 2760 ± 35 (GrA-21267) form a robust series, as the results show excellent repeatability within one standard deviation from each other. The weighted average date of 2755 ± 25 yr BP gives a calibrated age in the 1s range with two options: 918–893 (25.0%) and 879–837 (43.2%). Though the last 18 years of the 10th century BCE have still a relatively high relative probability, the 9th century period of 879–837 is clearly favoured with 43.2%. The calibrated results in the 2s range are 970–959 (6.0%) and 934–830 (89.4%). The destruction of Stratum IV and the abandonment of the lower city at Tel Rehov most probably occurred during the 9th century prior to ca 830 BCE. This event may be related to one of the historical episodes during this period. The wars between Israel and Aram during the time of Hazael ca 840–830 BCE are reasonable options, though earlier events in the 9th century should not be excluded. CONCLUSIONS Quality control in radiocarbon dating is important in order to have meaningful results in the historical archaeological periods of the Near East (VAN DER PLICHT and BRUINS 2001; SCOTT 2003). Both archaeological and physical elements are involved. The Groningen dates of Tel Rehov come from a detailed stratigraphic series of reliable sequenced contexts, each providing short-lived samples. In physical scientific terms, internal quality assessment and lab intercomparison of the Groningen dates are based on two fundamentally different radiocarbon techniques, (pre)treated and measured in two independent laboratories – Conventional PGC (GrN) and AMS (GrA). The repeatability of the measurements, which is a most important indicator of quality and accuracy, is generally outstanding. There are only few exceptions. Sometimes, the difference is slightly problematic, as the resolution of radiocarbon dating is pushed to the limit. This was the case for the lower part of Phase FINKELSTEIN and PIASETZKY (2003b: 286–277) don’t accept this correlation. Instead, they suggest an absurd historical reconstruction. A detailed reply will be published elsewhere. 96 Hendrik J. Bruins, Amihai Mazar, and Johannes van der Plicht D6 (Locus 2874) and for Stratum VI. However, the age difference in both cases between the PGC and AMS dates is still within 2s, which shows that we are really touching upon system resolution rather than apparent mistakes. Our research resulted, incidentally, also in an unplanned intercomparison with radiocarbon dates from Rehovot, as the same samples or loci were measured in certain cases by three labs: Groningen PGC, Groningen AMS and Rehovot. It is indeed worrying that all Rehovot dates of short-lived Iron I samples from Tel Rehov are younger than the two Groningen labs by a century or more. A similar difference between Groningen and Rehovot was already noted for most of the Iron Age IIA dates of Stratum V, Locus 2425 (BRUINS, VAN DER PLICHT and MAZAR 2003b). It does not mean that other dates measured in Rehovot suffer from a similar bias.6 However, the serious discrepancies outlined above, make it inevitable that the Rehovot dates on samples from other sites like Dor and Megiddo (SHARON 2001; GILBOA and SHARON 2001; 2003; FINKELSTEIN and PIASETZKY 2003a, 2003b, 2003c) should now be examined also by other 14C laboratories, including pretreatment and all steps involved. Large deviations are not uncommon in radiometric measurements (SCOTT et al. 1998; SCOTT 2003). For example, the Radiocarbon Laboratory of the British Museum issued a detailed statement in 1990 that its radiocarbon dates measured in the period 1980–1984 were on average too young by 200–300 years (BOWMAN et al., 1990). A retroactive re-evaluation of the dates was conducted, as far as possible, and the new, corrected dates were published, albeit with a necessary large standard deviation. Radiocarbon measurements in Groningen of short-lived Early Bronze Age samples from Jericho were indeed 200–300 years older than dates on similar samples measured in the British Museum Lab during 1980–1984 (BRUINS and VAN DER PLICHT 1998). This is another case of unplanned intercomparison, on EB samples, which incidentally underlines the accuracy of the Groningen dating record. The Groningen 14C series on short-lived charred organic material from Tel Rehov, presented together in stratigraphic order in the concluding Figure 14, 6 The 13 dates from Beth Shean measured in Rehovot (MAZAR and CARMI 2001; MAZAR 2003:332) appear to be acceptable, though most of them have a chronological range after calibration that is too wide for effective evaluation. lead us to the following summary and conclusions concerning Iron Age I and the transition to Iron Age IIA: 1. The Iron Age IA of Phase D-6 in Area D has a calibrated 1s age range that covers the entire 12th and part of the 11th centuries BCE. The slightly lower date for Locus 2874 is related to one date being somewhat younger, as compared to the other three dates of this phase, which are very coherent. Yet this date is still within the 2s measurement range of the other D-6 samples. Ceramic types in both Phases D-7 and D-6 seem to favour a date in the 12th century BCE, possibly related to the time of Egyptian presence in the region during the 20th Dynasty, and to Strata S4 and S-3 at Beth Shean (MAZAR 2003a: 324 Table 1; 333–337). Phase D-6 probably belongs to the last phase of this period. 2. Phase D-4 of the Iron Age IB has a calibrated 1s age range that covers both the 12th and 11th centuries BCE. The many wiggles, coupled with the rather similar BP position of the calibration curve for this time period, make precise dating difficult. However, Phases D-6 and D-4 cannot occupy the same position on the calibration curve and thus Phase D-4 should be located in the younger part of the calibrated age range, i.e. in the 11th century BCE. 3. Phase D-3 has a calibrated 1s age range that covers the last part of the 11th century BCE and the early 10th century BCE. This phase marks the transition from Iron I to Iron IIA. 4. Phase D-2 contains unambiguous types of Iron IIA pottery. Its 1s calibrated age range covers the first 80 years of the 10th century BCE. 5. Phase C-2 (general Stratum VI) is stratigraphically the oldest Iron IIA city in Area C. The single PGC date is slightly younger than the average of three AMS dates. Taking the latter average, the 1s calibrated age range covers the entire 10th century BCE. However, considering the detailed calibrated options (Table 3, Figure 11), coupled with the fact that successive Strata cannot occupy the same position on the calibration curve, the period 975–950 BCE, is favoured. A considerable time duration for phases C2 (=VI) and C1b (=V) also fits the differences in the pottery assemblages of these two strata. Attention that the criticism of our results by FINKELSTEIN and PIASETZKY (2003a, 2003b) is based to a significant extent on dates measured in Rehovot during the 1990’s.. The End of the 2nd Millennium BCE and the Transition from Iron I to Iron IIA: Radiocarbon Dates of Tel Rehov, Israel 97 suggestion by Finkelstein that the transition from Iron I to Iron IIA took place around 920 BCE, indicated by the blue line in Figure 14, clearly does not fit the radiocarbon dates. 6. The calibration results of the various loci from Phase C-1b (=general Stratum V) place the highest relative probability within broadly the last 40 to 20 years of the 10th century BCE. The time span of the city must predate the radiocarbon results, based on charred grains found in the final destruction layer of this city. Hence the approximate period 950–910 BCE for Stratum V would fit well with the calibrated dates and stratigraphy. 9. The Iron IIA period had a rather long duration, including most of the 10th as well as the 9th centuries. This was already proposed by Aharoni and Amiran, by Ben-Tor, by Barkay and now also by Mazar, who suggests a time frame between 980–830 for this archaeological period. 7. Stratum IV is the last Iron Age IIA city at Tel Rehov. The dated charred cereal grains come again from a sealed destruction layer. The 1s calibrated age range for the end of city IV has one option in the last part of the 10th century BCE and a more likely option in the 9th century BCE, but not later than 830 BCE. 10. The significance of our results for the debate concerning the archaeological nature of the United Monarchy is obvious: cultural assemblages traditionally dated to the 10th century (the assumed time of David and Solomon) can remain in this time period and don’t have to be lowered to the 9th century, as proposed by Finkelstein’s “Low Chronology”. On the other hand, the longevity of the Iron IIA assemblages and their continuity into the 9th century leaves the door open for various interpretations to date specific buildings, such as the Megiddo palaces, either in the 10th or in the 9th century. Yet these issues are beyond the scope of this paper. 8. Our radiocarbon results show that the transition from Iron I to Iron IIA occurred during the first half of the 10th century BCE (Figure 14), though there is some overlapping between the end of the Iron Age I (Stratum D-3) and the suggested date for the Iron IIA (Phases D-2 and C-2 (=general Stratum VI), as should be expected for a transition boundary. The 3100BP 3000BP D6 D4b D4a 2900BP D3 V IV 2800BP VI 2700BP 1300 1200 1000 1100 900 800 BCE Fig. 14 Concluding graph (based on BRUINS, VAN DER PLICHT and MAZAR, 2003a) showing the radiocarbon dating results (BP scale on y-axis) of the various strata on the calibration curve in stratigraphic order to indicate the calibrated range on the historical timescale (x-axis). Notice that the Iron I / Iron II transition occurs between Stratum D-3 and VI, approximately around 980 BCE. 98 Hendrik J. Bruins, Amihai Mazar, and Johannes van der Plicht Bibliography AHARONI, Y., and AMIRAN, R. FINKELSTEIN, I. and PIASETZKY, E. 1958 2003a Comments on “14C Dates from Tel Rehov: Iron Age Chronology, Pharaohs and Hebrew Kings”, Science 302, No. 5645 (24 October 2003), 658b. A New Scheme for the Subdivision of the Iron Age in Palestine, IEJ 8,171–184. BARKAY, G. 1992 The Iron Age II–III, in: A. BEN-TOR (ed.) The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, New Haven, 302–373. BEN-TOR, A. 1992 2000 Introduction, in: A. BEN-TOR (ed.) The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, New Haven, 1–9. Hazor and the Chronology of Northern Israel: A Reply to Israel Finkelstein, BASOR 317, 9–16. 2003b Wrong and Right: High and Low, 14C dates from Tel Rehov and Iron Age Chronology, Tel Aviv 30, 283–295. 2003c Recent Radiocarbon Results and King Solomon, Antiquity 77, 771–779. GILBOA, A. and SHARON, I. 2001 Early Iron Age Radiometric Dates from Tel Dor: Preliminary Implications for Phoenicia and Beyond. Radiocarbon 43, 1343–1352. 2003 An Archaeological Contribution to the Early Iron Age Chronological Debate: Alternative Chronologies for Phoenicia and Their Effects on the Levant, Cyprus and Greece, BASOR 332: 7–80. BEN-TOR, A. and BEN-AMI, D. 1998 Hazor and the Archaeology of the 10th Century B.C.E., IEJ 48:1–37. BOWMAN, S.G.E., AMBERS, J.C. and LEESE, M.N. 1990 Re-evaluation of British Museum radiocarbon dates issued between 1980 and 1984; Radiocarbon 32(1), 59–79. HERR, L.G. 1997 BRONK RAMSEY C. 1995 Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis of Stratigraphy: The OxCal Program, Radiocarbon 37(2), 425–430. 2001 Development of the Radiocarbon Program OxCal. Radiocarbon, 43 (2A), 355–363. 2003 OxCal Program v3.9, Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, University of Oxford. BRUINS, H.J. and MOOK, W.G. 1989 The need for a calibrated radiocarbon chronology of Near Eastern archaeology, Radiocarbon 31(3), 1019–1029. KENYON, K.M. 1964 Early Bronze Jericho: High Precision 14C dates of short-lived Palaeobotanic remains, Radiocarbon 40, 621–628. Megiddo, Hazor, Samaria and Chronology, Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, University of London 4,143–156. KITCHEN, K.A. 1986 The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 2nd edition. Warminster. 2000 The historical chronology of ancient Egypt, a current assessment, in: M. BIETAK (ed.) The Synchronization of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C., CChEM 1, Vienna, 39–52. BRUINS, H.J. and VAN DER PLICHT, J. 1998 The Iron Age II period: Emerging nations, Biblical Archaeologist 60(2). MAZAR, A. 1990 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible (10,000–586 B.C.E.), Doubleday, New York. 1992 Dates from Tel Rehov: Iron Age Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings, Science Vol. 300, No. 5617, (11 April 2003), 315–318. The Iron Age I, in: A. BEN-TOR (ed.) The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, New Haven, 258–301. 1993 2003b Response to Comment on “14C Dates from Tel Rehov: Iron-Age Chronology, Pharaohs and Hebrew Kings”. Science 302, No. 5645 (24 October 2003), 568c. Beth Shean in the Iron Age: Preliminary Report and Conclusions of the 1990–1991 Excavations, IEJ 43, 201–229. 1997 Iron Age Chronology: A Reply to I. Finkelstein, Levant 29, 157–167. COLDSTREAM, N. and MAZAR, A. 1999 The 1997–1998 Excavations at Tel Rehov: Preliminary Report, IEJ 49, 1–42. BRUINS, H.J., VAN DER PLICHT, J. and MAZAR, A. 2003a 2003 14C Greek Pottery from Tel Rehov and Iron Age Chronology, IEJ 53, 29–48. CROWFOOT, J.W. 1940 Megiddo – A Review, PEQ 132–147. FINKELSTEIN. I. 1996 The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View, Levant 28, 177–187. 1999 State Formation in Israel and Judah, Near Eastern Archaeology 62, 35– 52. 2002 Chronology Rejoinder, PEQ 134, 118–129. 2003a Beth Shean in the Second Millennium B.C.E.: From Canaanite Town to Egyptian Stronghold, 323–340, in: M. BIETAK (ed.) The Synchronisation of Civilization in the Eastern Mediterranean in Second Millennium B.C. II, CChEM 4, Vienna. 2003b The Excavations at Tel Rehov and their Significance for the Study of the Iron Age in Israel, EI 27, 143–160. in press Tel Rehov: The Contribution of the Excavations to the Study of the Iron Age in Northern Israel, Pro- The End of the 2nd Millennium BCE and the Transition from Iron I to Iron IIA: Radiocarbon Dates of Tel Rehov, Israel ceeding of the Second International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. (2 ICAANE). STUIVER, M. and VAN DER PLICHT, J. (eds.) 1998 INTCAL98, Calibration Issue, Radiocarbon 40 (3). MAZAR, A. and CARMI, I. STUIVER, M., and REIMER, P.J. 2001 1993 Radiocarbon Dates from Iron Age Strata at Tel Beth Shean and Tel Rehov, Radiocarbon 43, 1333–1342. MAZAR, A., BRUINS, H.J., PANITZ-COHEN, N. and VAN DER PLICHT, J. 2005 Ladder of Time at Tel Rehov: Stratigraphy, Archaeological Context, Pottery and Radiocarbon Dates, 193–255, in: T. LEVY and T. HIGHAM (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating – Archaeology, Text and Science. London. MAZAR, B. 1986 Pharaoh Shishak’s Campaign to the Land of Israel, 139–150, in: MAZAR, B., The Early Biblical Period, Historical Studies (edited by S. AHITUV and B.A. LEVINE), Jerusalem. MOOK, W.G. and WATERBOLK, H.T. 1985 Handbook for Archaeologists, no. 3, Radiocarbon Dating, Strasbourg. SCOTT, E.M. (ed.) 2003 The Third International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (TIRI) and the Fourth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (FIRI), 1990–2002, Radiocarbon 45(2), 135–408. Extended 14C database and revised CALIB 3.0 14C age calibration program, Radiocarbon 35, 215–230. STUIVER, M., REIMER, P.J., BARD, E., BECK, J.W., BURR, G.S., HUGHEN, K.A., KROMER, B., MCCORMAC, G., VAN DER PLICHT, J., and SPURK, M. 1998 INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000–0 cal BP, Radiocarbon 40 (3), 1041–1084. USSISHKIN, D. 1985 Levels VII and VI at Tel Lachish and the End of the Late Bronze Age in Canaan. 213–230, in: J.N.TUBB (ed.), Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages, Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell, London. USSISHKIN, D. and WOODHEAD, J. 1994 Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1992–1993: Second Preliminary Report, Levant 26, 1–48. VAN DER PLICHT, J. and BRUINS, H.J. (2001) Radiocarbon dating in Near-Eastern contexts: confusion and quality control. Radiocarbon 43(3):1155–1166. VAN DER PLICHT, J., WIJMA, S., AERTS, A.T., PERTUISOT, M.H. and MEIJER, H.A.J. 2000 Status report: the Groningen AMS facility, Nuclear Instruments and Methods B172, 58–65. SCOTT, E.M., HARKNESS, D.D. and COOK, G.T. VOGEL, J. C. and VAN DER PLICHT, J. 1998 1993 Interlaboratory Comparisons: Lessons Learned, Radiocarbon 40(1), 331–340. Calibration Curve for Short-Lived 1900–3900 BC, Radiocarbon 35(1), 87–92. STERN, E, (ed.) YADIN, Y. 1993 1961 The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, (revised edition) New York. 99 Samples, Hazor: The Third and Fourth Seasons, 1957–1958, Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.