Greek and Levantine Iron Age Chronology:A Rejoinder

Anrner MazRR

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

IN an article published in this journal, Prof. Nicolas Coldstream and myselfdiscussed a group of imported Protogeometric (PG), Euboean Sub-protogeometric(SPG) and Middle Geometric (MG) sherds from Tel Rellov, revealed instratigraphic contexts dated to the Iron Age IIa of Israel (Coldstream and Mazar2003). The following rejoinder includes three issues:

L Publication of additional sherds belonging to the Euboean SPG pyxis from Tel

Rehov and some further information on the circumstances of this discoveryand its date;

II. A response to a paper published recently by Coldstream (2003);

III. A response to recent suggestions by Gilboa and Sharon (2003) concerning the

chronology of the Iron Age in the Levant as well as in Cyprus and Greece in the

PG, SPG and Geometric periods.

I

In the 2003 season at Tel Rellov we discovered in Area B three additional sherds ofthe rare Euboean Sub-Protogeometric II-III pyxis published in our previous paper(Coldstream and Mazar 2003: 34*35,37 and figs. 6a-b).1 The new sherds are

numbered here nos. 9-L1, continuing the numbering of the Greek sherds from Tel

Rehov in that paper. Two of the new sherds joined sherd no. 6, forming a large partof the body of this vessel (fig. 1).2

No. 9. Registration no.62164; Area B, Locus 6223; Stratum B-5 (lower part of fig. 1). This is

the largest ofthe new sherds. Loctts6223 is a layer ofoccupation debris ofStratumB-5, not far from the location of sherd no. 6 of the previous publication.

No. L0. Registration no. 621.9612; Area B, Locts 6246. This small sherd joined sherds nos. 6

and 9 (see right end of fig. 1).

No. l.1. Registration no. 621.9611.; Area B, Locls 6246. This tiny sherd includes part of the

The excavations at Tel Rehog directed by the author, are conducted under the auspices ofthe Institute ofArchaeology ofthe Hebrew University ofJerusalem and are sponsored byMr. John Camp. The field supervisor of Area B in 2003 was Naama Yahalom.Note that in Coldstream and Mazar 2003 the pictures related to figs. 6a and 6b weremisplaced: fig. 6a shows sherd no. 6 and fig. 6b shows sherd no. 5 (the latter composed ofthree joined sherds).

IEJ s4 (2004):24-36 24

GREEK AND LEVANTINE IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig.1. Sherd no. 6 of Euboean pyxis from Tel Rehov, including two joined sherds (nos. 9 and

10) found in 2003

lattice pattern of the main frieze. Although it did not join any of the other sherds, itclearly belongs to the same vessel. Locts 6246 is a layer of brick debris related to

occupation iayer of Stratum B-5.

The three joined sherds, nos. 6,9 and 10 (fig. 1), belong to the main frieze of this

vessel and include three 'battlements' and a lattice pattern, like the previously

published sherd no. 5. Thus, we now have two large parts of this vessel, each

composed of three joined sherds, found in five different loci of the same

stratigraphic horizon, scattered in an area 3 m. wide and1.2 m. long (tig.2). All the

loci in which these sherds were found (Loci3243,4223,4242,6223 and6246)belong

to the same stratigraphic horizon and architectural unit, with the exception of

Locus 6246, whictr appears to belong to a different unit.In Area B Stratum B-5 we detected remains of four structures. Two buildings at

the western and eastern edges of the area were destroyed by heavy fire, yet such

destruction by fire was not detected in the area between these buildings, where the

pyxis sherds were found. A large building was exposed at the southern side of the

area, and north of it there were several walls of another building, located in the

central part ofthe area, though its plan is far from clear. In this area we also found

25

26 AMIHAIMAZAR

F G

1* azzz

* 4223

+3243 4

o

1

20 20

19 19

E F G

O = Sherd 5 :k = Sherd 6

Fig. 2. Schematic plan of Tel Rehov, Area B, Stratum B-5, showing loci containing sherds ofSPG Euboean pyxis and Locus 4218, which provided C1a date

some evidence of two constructional phases, both belonging to Stratum B-5. Allthese buildings were sealed by a massive double wall fortification (?) system ofStratum B-4. The pyxis sherds were scattered in the area of the central andsouthern units, perhaps due to the levelling work conducted by the builders of thefollowing stratum. It is obvious that the elaborate Euboean pyxis must have alreadybeen out of use, broken and scattered when the construction of Stratum B-4 tookplace. The local pottery assemblage found in both Strata B-5 and B-4, thoughcomposed mainly of sherds, is typical of the Iron Age IIA at Tel Rehov, known fromthe rich assemblages of many restored vessels revealed in Areas C, E and G (forexamples, see Mazar 1999:39, fig.24;2003: 153-155, figs. 18-19).

GREEK AND LEVANTINE IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

We obtained three Cla dates from charred grain collected in Locus 42L8 of the

same horizon (see fig. 2 for location;Bruins et a\.2003a:table S1). The average date

ofthese three dates is2786t22BP, the calibrated 1o range is between 973 and898BCE and the 2o range is 998-830 BCE.3 Surprisingly, this is the only radiometricevidence available so far for dating the Euboean PGM. The lower end of the Lo

range may fit Coldstream's dates for this phase (see further below).

II

A recent paper by Coldstream (2003) concludes with the statement: '...the "lowchronology" advanced in Israel offers the more credible pace of development in the

Aegean' (Coldstream 2003: 255-256;.+ 1 assume that the term 'low chronology'refers to Finkelstein's Low Chronology, which was suggested in 1996 and has

become an issue of continuous debate ever since (for references and discussion,

see my comments in Coldstream and Mazar 2003: 40-44). It appears to me thatColdstream's statement is based on three misconceptions: an erroneous context

of a single pottery sherd from Megiddo; a questionable dating of the Tel Hadar

bowl; and misevaluation of the implications of the 'low chronology' on Greek

chronology.Coldstream discusses four cases of Greek imports: at Samaria, Megiddo, Dor

and Tel Hadar. The MG II sherds of a pedestalled krater from Samaria (Coldstream

2003:249-250, fig. 1) raise no problem since all agree tothe possible eighth-centuryBCE context of this vessel. However, the two rim sherds of a MG I skyphos fromMegiddo (Coldstream 2003:249-25L, fig. 2 on p. 250) raise a problem. One was

found out of context, and the other was discussed by Coldstream (2003: 251) as if itcame from Stratum IVB*VA at Megiddo. Yet the sherd was clearly found in apost'Stratum IVB-VA context: either in Stratum IVA or out of context. This was clarifiedby Coldstream himself in the addendum to his paper, based on a letter from Prof.

David Ussishkin (Coldstream 2003:256). According to Riis (1.970:1.44-L45 and n.

587), based on information supplied by the archive of the Oriental Institute of the

University of Chicago, the sherd was found in Locus 376, an open area between

Building 338 and the city wall 325 which was constructed in Stratum IVA and

continued to be in use in Stratum III. Building 338 is attributed to Stratum IVA by

These dates were achieved in the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) laboratory at

the University of Groningen by Prof. H. van der Plicht and his team. Averages and

calibration were calculated by H. Bruins (The Ben-Gurion University of the Negev),

using OxCal version 3.5 software. The individual BP dates are: GRA-2|03{ 2760+35;

GRA-2 1 047: 2820 + 35; GRA-21L7 9 : 27 7 0 !50 BP.

As explained to me by Prof. Coldstream, this paper is based on his lecture that he

delivered in Paris at the Third International Congress on the Archaeology ofthe AncientNear East (3ICAANE) in May 2002. The paper did not yet include the data from Tel

Rehov, except for a short reference to the MG skyphos from Stratum IV

27

28 AMIHAIMAZAR

BCE.7 The individual dates are: GRA-21152: 2770t50; GRA-21154: 2730+50; GRA-21'267:

2760+30 BP. All three were prepared in the AMS method'

most scholars (e.g., Shiloh 1993).s There is no evidence that the MG I sherd came

from Stratum IVB-VA;this renders coldstream's discussion of the date of the latter

stratum in relation to this Greek sherd (Coldstream 2003: 251) irrelevant. Thus, the

MG I sherd from Megiddo is either a stray sherd or should be attributed to Stratum

IVA. According to the conventional chronology,6 Stratum IVA at Megiddo was

founded during the omride period (the ninth century) and continued to exist until

the Assyrian conquest in732BCE. According to Finkelstein's Low Chronology' it

was built by Manasseh during the first half of the eighth century and destroyed in

732BCE (Finkelstein's view in Finkelstein et a\.2000: 599-600)' The MG I period

was dated by coldstream to c. 850-800 BCE. Acceptance of Finkelstein's Low

chronology would thus require either to lower the MG I period to tll_e eighth

century, a time span given by coldstream to the following MG II period

(Coldstream 2003:254, table ]':A)' or to Suggest that the sherd is in secondary

deposition and originated in the previous level. In any case' this sherd cannot be

defined as fitting the Low Chronology. Adopting this Low Chronology would also

require an extension of the time span allocated to the PG and/or EG periods, which

would run counter to Coldstream's view about the pace of change and time length of

each ofthese styles or sub-periods (Coldstream 2003: 251)'

The finds at Tel Rehov indicate that such a chronological shift is unnecessary'

Two sherds of an early MG I Attic skyphos, similar to the one found at Megiddo,

were unearthed in the destruction debris of a burnt building (Building F) of

Stratum IV Area C at Tel Relrov (Coldstream and Mazar 2003: 35-38)' Stratum IV

was destroyed towards the end of the Iron Age IIA, and following this destruction

the lower city at Tel Relrov (an area of about 5 hectares) was abandoned' Three C1a

dates of charred grain found inside a pottery vessel in that building provided an

average BP date of.2755x.25;the 10. calibrated range is 918-836 BCE and the 2o

range is 970-.830 BCE (Bruin s et a\.2003a: tabte s1).7 Taking into account the fact

that the two earlier strata v and VI at Tel Rel.rov also contained Iron Age IIA

pottery I suggested that stratum IV at Tel Rehov was destroyed sometime during

the ninth century BCE, perhaps during the Aramaean wars following the end of the

omride period, though an earlier date should not be excluded. This attribution may

justify the date of 850 BCE for the beginning of MG I, as suggested by coldstream,

Ussishkin (|989:1'58-162) has suggested that Building 338 might have been constructed

in Stratum IVB-VA and continued in use in stratum IVA. However, it appears that

StratumVwallspenetratebelowthefoundationsofthisbuilding'In this paper the term 'conventional chronology' denotes the chronology of the Iron Age

as sugglsied in many publications like IVEAEHL4:1529 orMazar (1990:30), accordingto

wtrlctr ttre Iron Age IIA is dated to the tenth century BCE. However, as explained below I

now prefer the term 'extended conventional chronology' for the Iron Age IIA: c' 980-840

GREEK AND LEVANTINE IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

although this date should be taken as the latest possible; a somewhat earlier datefor the beginning of the period would be preferable, in my view.8 Thus, the well-stratified MG I skyphos and the radiocarbon dates from Building F at Tel Rehovprovide the best anchor for dating the early MG I period in Greece. If the similarsherd from Megiddo came from Stratum IVA, it may provide a clue for dating theconstruction of this stratum in the ninth century, in accordance with theconventional chronology. However, as noted above, the stratigraphic allocation ofthis sherd remains dubious.

The third item discussed by Coldstream is the unique 'lebes' from Tel Hadar,stylistically attributed by him to'somewhere near the change from Middle to LatePG in the mid L0th century BCE' (Coldstream 2003:252-253 and fig. 3 on p. 255).Coldstream mentions the suggestion of the Tel Hadar excavators, who attributedthe destruction of the site to David, yet concludes that '...again it is the lowerchronology that is consistent with our estimated dates for the EuboeanProtogeometric sequence, whereas a destruction dated by Davidic chronologywould push the beginning of that sequence well back towards 1100 BCE, causinguncomfortable congestion' (Coldstream 2003: 253 and p. 254,table 1:B). The date of1100 BCE, however, is much too high; it is founded on Coldstream's hypothesis thatthe use of this broken vessel, when whole, 'might have been considerably earlierthan the date of the destruction'. This is a fragile hypothesis: the vessel could havereached Tel Hadar shortly before the violent destruction of this site. If Tel Hadarwas indeed destroyed by David, such a conquest could not be dated with anyprecision, since the dates of David's reign are elusive; it could have occurred anytime during the first half of the tenth century BCE. In addition, the historicalvalidity of such an event may be questioned. In fact we cannot say with anycertainty who destroyed Tel Hadar. As I have already explained elsewhere(Coldstream andMazar 2003:29, n. 1), both the local and Phoenician pottery fromTel Hadar can be dated according to the conventional chronology to the first half ofthe tenth century. Coldstream mistakenly stated that the assemblage at Tel Hadarincluded 'over 100 vessels mainly of Phoenician type'. The fact is that the bulk ofthe assemblage at Tel Hadar consists of local vessels (cooking pots, amphorae, etc.)of a limited number of types which cannot be easily dated: the excavators datedthem to the late eleventh century BCE, although the first half of the tenth century is

8 A SPG pyxis similar to the one found in Area B at Tel Rehov (see above) appears inLefkandi in a small tomb group dated to SPG II. The MG I skyphoi from Megiddo and TelRehov belong to the early phase of the MG I period, detected in the Kerameikos cemeteryat Athens, which overlaps the latest SPG IIIa phase at Lefkandi (Coldstream, inColdstream and Mazar 2003: 38). This supports a minimal time break between Strata Vand IV at Tel Relrov, also suggested by the similarity of the local pottery in these twostrata and the C1a dates. It may, therefore, be possible that Stratum IV was destroyedsometime during the first half of the ninth century. This question merits futureexploration.

29

30 AMIHAI MAZAR

also possible (based on the conventional chronology). The only Phoenician importsare globular jugs, which can be dated to anywhere from the mid-eleventh to thetenth century BCE. Tel Hadar appears to have been destroyed before theintroduction of Black-on-Red pottery sometime in the mid-tenth century BCE. Itcan perhaps be correlated with Tel Rehov Stratum VI, which also seems to precedethe appearance of Black-on-Red ware, although it contains red-slipped and hand-burnished pottery and other Iron Age IIA vessels (for a similar view on the TelHadar vessel in terms of relative chronology, see Gilboa and Sharon 2003: 68 withadditional references, though their absolute dates are too low, see below).Coldstream's chronology places the transition from MPG to LPG at c. 950 BCE(Coldstream 2003:254, table 1:A). The suggested date of the Tel Hadar destructionmight be slightly earlier, yet taking into account the questionable stylisticdefinition of this vessel (which has no direct parallel in Euboea),e it seems that itsdate may fit both the conventional chronology as well as the Low Chronology.

The fourth item discussed by Coldstream (2003: 253) is a cup sherd from TelDor, attributed by him to MPG or LPG and by Lemos to LPG (Stern 2000: pl. IX:4right; Gilboa and Sharon 2003: 69-70;22, fig.11:19). Another sherd from Dor isprobably MPG (Stern 2000: pl. IX:4 left; Gilboa and Sharon 2003:69-70). These twosherds are attributed by Gilboa and Sharon to a phase that they term'Ir'1.12horizon'; this is a transitional phase between the conventional Iron Age I and IronAge II, which, they claim, should be dated somewhat later to Megiddo Stratum VIA.It contains a distinctly regional local pottery assemblage (typical ofthe southernPhoenician coast), as well as Phoenician Bichrome pottery and Cypriote WhitePainted I-II wares, yet it pre-dates the appearance of Black-on-Red pottery. Interms of conventional chronology, the date of this assemblage should be in the earlypart of the Iron Age IIA, namely in the first half of the tenth century BCE, andparallel to Tel Rehov Stratum VI. Both MPG and LPG are dated by Coldstream tothe tenth century BCE and thus fit the date of this horizon at Dor according to theconventional chronology. Finkelstein's, as well as Gilboa and Sharon's, suggestedLow Chronology (see below) would require lowering this horizon to the ninthcentury, which would contradict Coldstream's chronology.

At Tel Rehov, several PG and SPG sherds came from Stratum ! while the MG Isherds came from Stratum IV In the chronological discussion related to thesesherds (Coldstream and Mazar 2003: 40-45), I claimed that the traditional Greekdates for the PG and MG periods, as suggested by Coldstream in L968, can beconfirmed in light of the dates of Tel Rehov Strata V and IV providing that we datethe Iron Age IIA in Israel to a considerably long period in both the tenth and ninthcenturies BCE. Such an extended time span for the Iron Age IIA was suggested by

9 Experts differ regarding the precise stylistic attribution of the Tel Hadar vessel. Inparticular, G. Kopcke challenges the Lefkandi classification, calling for earlier dates forthis type of vessel (Kopcke 1998: 362-363; 2002).

GREEK AND LEVANTINE IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Aharoni and Amiran (1958) following the excavations at Hazor and was maintainedby Ben-Tor (1992:1-9) and Barkay (1992), although most other scholars (includingmyself until 2000) dated this period exclusively to the tenth century BCE. Theresults of the Tel Relrov and Tel Jezreel excavations have convinced me to adoptsuch a long range for the Iron Age IIA and I suggested tentative dates between c.980-c. 840/830 BCE for this period (Mazar and Carmi 2001: 1340-1341; Mazar2003: 154-157;Mazar, in Coldstream and Mazar 2003: 40-46) . The Low Chronologywould require dating both Strata V and IV at Tel Rehov to a time span of about 60-80years in the ninth century which would contradict Coldstream's dates of the Greeksherds found in these strata (Coldstream 2003: table 1:A). Only the extended timespan for the Iron Age IIA in Israel, mentioned above, could fit Coldstream'schronology.lo

To sum up this section, in contrast to Coldstream (2003) the Low Chronologycannot be defined as supporting the conventional chronology for Greece, inventedby Coldstream himself.

III

Gilboa and Sharon (2003) have recently published a meticulous discussion of thestratigraphic sequence and pottery assemblages of the Iron Age I and IIA at TelDor. This paper includes a comparative discussion with other Phoenician sites, acomprehensive survey of the Cypriote and Greek imported wares in the Levant anda discussion of the implications of the finds at Dor on the chronology of Cyprus andGreece. The authors conclude with a suggestion (presented with due reservation)for an extremely low absolute chronology for the entire Mediterranean, based on22C14 dates (Gilboa and Sharon 200L; Sharon 2001). Is this chronologyviable? Theradiometric dating, made on charcoal samples from three excavation areas at TelDor, was prepared during the mid- to late 1990s in the Weizmann Institute ofScience laboratory, Rehovot, by I. Carmi and D. Segal, using liquid scintillationcounters (LSC). These dates from Tel Dor samples were not cross-checked inanother laboratory. However, samples from Tel Rehov which were dated at theWeizmann Institute during the same years were cross-checked at two otherlaboratories. The discrepancy that was revealed in turn sheds doubt, in my view, onthe validity of the Tel Dor dates.

Following the first two seasons at Tel Rehov in1,997-1998 we submitted shortlife samples from well-stratified loci to the Weizmann Institute laboratory, where

10 Coldstream 2003: 254, lable 1.:B, is supposed to illustrate the effect of the HighChronology used in Israel on Greek chronology. In my view, this table misrepresents theHigh Chronology (which I prefer to denote 'conventional chronology'; see above, n. 6), as

well as my 'extended conventional chronology' for the Iron Age IIA. The absolute datesgiven in this table for the correlations with Tel Hadar, Tel Dor, Tel Rellov and Megiddoare too high by any standards.

31,

AMIHAIMAZAR32

they were dated using the LSC method' -S-amples

from one concentration of grain

(Locus 2425) wereatso submitted to the univlrsity of Arizona laboratory, where it

wasmeasuredusingtheacceleratormassspectrometry(AMS)method(bothpublished in Mazar and carmi 2001).11 During 2001-2002,samples from the same

Ioci or the same stratigraphic horizons at Tel iehov were dated at the university of

Groningen, using the proportional gas counting (PGC) method (for large samples)

and/or AMS (for smatt su*ples) (Bruins et aI' 2003a)' Altogether' 15 dates are

available from the weizmann Institute, nine from the University of Arizona and 33

from the University of Groningen'12 This large number of dates enables

comparisonofthe,e,ultsofthedifferentlaboratories.Tablelcompares

Table 1. Tel Relrov Phases D-6 to D-3 m et"" O tk"t Ag" Il;

Groningen*Locus Phase Weizmann*

Sample no. BP date Sample no. BP date

1858

2862

4815

4830

481.6

1845

1836

r876

2836

2874

RT-3120

RTT-3805*'F

2670x.40

2785!35D-3

D-3

D-3

D-3

D-3

D-4

D-4

D-6

D-6

D-6

RT-3121 2800140

RT-3119 2685140

GrA-19033GrN-26119

GrA-1"6757

GrA-21044GrA-21056GrA-21183

GrA-12889GrA-16848

GrA-21046GrA-21057GrA-21I84

GrN-26121GrA-18825

GrN-26118GrA-18826

GrA-19034GrN-26120

2835r452720x.30

2820150

28451352825!352820t50

2870t702895!40

2905+352945+352920x.50

28901302870150

2920t302950+50

2935!452880r30

ffironingen: GrN (PGCmethod); GrA (AMS method)'

** Rehovot dat" pr"pu."d # z;ilffi;;ework of the currentproject, directed bv E' Buaretto'

A. Gilboa and I. Sharon'

11

t2

Inthispublicationweexplainedthatsomeofthedatesweretoolatebyl00-g0yearswhencompaied to the conventional chronology-

---- r-^+:+,,+^ ih rha +remework of a

the previouslY Published dates'

;"#fi:fiilff#r*r;;;" dated i;ihe weizmann Institute in the rramework or a

currentprojectoflronag"tt""t"f"gy'directedbyE'Buaretto'A'Gilboaandl'Sharon'Additional samples prepired at Groningen are not yet published; however' they confirm

GREEK AND LEVANTINE IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

uncalibrated radiometric dates (BP) from loci of Strata D6-D3 of the Iron Age I. Allthe loci attributed to a single stratigraphic phase were found close to one another inone or two adjacent excavation squares and in a clear and safe stratigraphiccontext (contra Finkelstein and Piasetzky:2003a:284-285; see detailed discussionin Bruins et al., in press).13 The table clearly shows that the Weizmann Institutedates were consistently lower than the Groningen dates. RTT-3119, prepared in200212003 by E. Boaretto at the Weizmann Institute, fits the Groningen dates and ismuch earlier than RT-3120 from the same stratigraphic horizon, measured during1990.

Locus 2425 of the Iron Age IIA (Phase C-1b = Stratum V) is a small chamber in agranary structure (?) containing a large concentration of charred grain. Twentydates are available from this locus (table 2): nine from the Weizmann Institute, ninefrom the University of Arizona (Mazar and Carmi 2001 :1338, table 6) and two fromthe University of Groningen (PGC method; Bruins et al. 2003a). Statistical

Table 2. Tel Rehov, Area C: charred grain from Locus2425 Stratum V (= C-1)

33

Weizmann (LSC)RT-3122 YearBP

Arizona (AMS)AA30431-U3 YearBP

Groningen*YearBP

A

A1

A2

B

B1

82

BB

1.1

1.2

1.3

21

22

ZJ

3'1,

2700+20

2655+25

2655=25

2720+20

2700+25

2650130

2725+15

2860+20

2710+20

2830+55

2745+50

2730!45

2815+50

2770+50

27r0+45

2685+45

GrN-26114 2775+20

GrN-26115 2800t20

C

D

32 2740L50

x Note additional dates from the destruction of Stratum V in Area C prepared in Groningen:Locus 244L'.2810 Liquid scintillation counters 20;2775+25;2771,+L5;276L+LsLocus 2422: 27 64+ 11; 2777 + 13; 27 85 + 28

Locus 421 8: 27 60 + 35; 2820 + 35; 27 7 0 + 50

13 Finkelstein and Piasetzky (2003a) claimed that the context of some of our samples, andmainly the pits from Stratum D3, are unreliable. In the above-mentioned forthcomingpaper, we explain that these shallow pits were sealed between two clear stratigraphicphases: Strata D4 below and D2 above. The homogenous late Iron I pottery found in thesepits and the coherent series of C1a dates from them taken at Groningen are both evidencefor their being well stratified. All other contexts from which Cia samples were taken in TelRehov are also well stratified, and the samples always contained a reasonable amount ofolive stones or charred grain found together. Thus, Finkelstein and Piasetzky's claims aregroundless.

34 AMIHAI MAZAR

examination of the results prepared by H. Bruins has shown that 'the average

Weizmann date (excluding one outlier in order to pass the chi squared test), is

2699-17 BP (T=13.2,5Vo=L4.1). The average Arizona date for this locus was

2749+L6 BP (T=7.1, 57o=15.5), a difference of 50 BP years. The average of 2

Groningen dates from this locus is 2788+1,4 BP, about 90 BP years older than

Weizmann and 40 years older than Arizona. Moreover, other Groningen dates forthe end of Stratum V are similar to those for Locus 2425, altogether'J.2 dates, giving

an average of 2776+5 BP (T=8.6, 5Vo=I9.7)'(cited from Bruins et a|.2003b).

Gilboa and Sharon claim that the Weizmann Institute dates from Tel Dorprepared during the 1990s would require lowering the chronology of the Iron Age

I-IIA by approximately 100 years. The Weizmann Institute dates from Tel Rehov

prepared during the same time are also low, yet the Groningen cross-dating of the

same horizons or even of the same loci fits the conventional chronology for the IronAge I and the 'extended conventional chronology'ofthe Iron Age IIA, as presented

above. The above comparisonsuggests that at least some of theWeizmann Institute dates takenduring the 1990s suffer from some

kind of error, resulting in dates thatappear systematically too low bY

about a century. Many reasons could

cause such a bias, since radiometricdating is a complex measuringmethod, and our demands in datingthe Iron Age perhaps push this method

to the edges of its ability (Gilboa and

Sharon 2003: 60, n. 1.4, describe manY

possible reasons for errors in theprocess of radiometric dating). These

and other related issues will be

treated in a study by Bruins, van derPlicht and the author (in preparation).My primary intention in this briefcomment was to raise the question ofthe validity of the chronologYsuggested by Gilboa and Sharon,which might have far-reachingimplications on the chronology of the

Levant, Cyprus and Greece in theeleventh-ninth centuries BCE. Twopapers by Finkelstein and Piasetzky(2003a;2003b), which refer to the Tel

Table 3. Coldstream's chronology comparedto the revised conventional chronology of

the Iron Age in Israel

1200

1 150

1 100

1 050

1 000

950

900

850

800

750

700

early

MyclllC middle

late

lron I A

lron I BSM

ca.980 ?

MPG

HLPG .D

R1-6 lron II A

EGIil

R7-8 . MI

II rs

2

MG lron II B

LGI

II

GREEK AND LEVANTINE IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Rehov dates, as measured at the Weizmann Institute during the 1990s, should also

be considered with reservation.The Groningen dates from Tel Rehov provide a consistent and coherent series

which supports the 'extended conventional chronology' for the Iron Age in theLevant, as explained above. As for the Greek chronology, Coldstream'schronological scheme for the PG, EG and MG periods is consistent with the resultsof Tel Rehog while the Euboean SPG pyxis might need to be dated somewhatearlier than the date given to it by Coldstream; a date in the last quarter of the tenthcentury would fit this vessel. Drastic lowering of Iron Age chronology in theLevant, such as that suggested by Finkelstein, Gilboa and Sharon, would requiresubstantial changes in Greek chronology, which, in my view, are unjustified.

REFERENCES

Aharoni, Y. and Amiran, R.

1958 A New Scheme for the Subdivision of the Iron Age in Palestine, IEJ 8: 17L-184

Barkay, G.

1,992 The Iron Age II-III, in Ben-Tor L992:302-373

Ben-Tor, A.1.992 (ed.),The Archaeology of Ancient lsrael, New Haven

2003 Some Aegean Reactions tothe Chronological Debate inthe Southern Levant,TelAviv30:247-258

Coldstream, N. and Mazar, A.2003 Greek Pottery from Tel Rehov and Iron Age Chronology, IEJ 53:29-48

Bruins, H., van der Plicht, J. and Mazar, A.

2003a 1aC Dates from TeI Rehov: Iron Age Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings,sciencevol. 300, no.5617 (11 April): 315-318Response to Comment on '14C Dates from Tel Rehov: Iron Age Chronology, Pharaohs,and Hebrew Kings', Science vol.302 (24 October): 568c

The End of the 2nd Millennium BCE and the Transition from Iron I to Iron IIA:Radiocarbon Dates of Tel Rehov, Israel (paper submitted to proceedings of'Synchronization of Civilizations in the Second Millennium BC', held at Vienna in May2003, edited by M. Bietak)

Finkelstein, I. and Piasetzky, E.

2003a Wrong and Right: High and Low, 14C Dates from Tel Relrov and Iron Age Chronology, TelAviv 30:283-295

2003b Recent Radiocarbon Results and King Solomon, Anfiquity 77:771,-779

Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B.

2000 (eds.), Megiddo III, Tel Aviv

Gilboa, A. and Sharon, I.2001. Early Iron Age Radiometric Dates from TeI Dor: Preliminary Implications for Phoenicia

and Beyond, Radiocarbon 43: 1,343-1,352

35

2003b

In press

36 AMIHAIMAZAR

2003 An Archaeological Contribution to the Early Iron Age Chronological Debate: AlternativeChronologies for Phoenicia and their Effects on the Levant, Cyprus and Greece, BASOR332:7-80

Kopcke, G.

1998 Response to N. coldstream, in Gitin, S., Mazar, A. and stern, E. (eds.), MediterraneanPeoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Eorly Tenth Centuries BCE,Jerusalem: 362-3632002 1000 BCE? 900 BCE? A Greek Vase from Lake Galilee, in E. Ehrenber g (ed..),Leaving Nostones unturned: Essays in Honor of Donald p. Hansen, winona Lake IN: 1.0g-1,r7

Mazar, A.1,990 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, New york1'999 The 1997-1'998 Excavations at Tel Rehov: preliminary Report, IEJ 49: r-422003 The Excavations at TeI Retrov and their Significance for the Study of the lron.Age in

Israel, EI 27 : 1,43-1,60

Mazar, A. and Carmi, I.200r Radiocarbon Dates from Iron Age strata at Ter Beth Shean and rel Relrov, Radiocarbon

43:1333-1.342

Riis, P.J.

1970 Srikcs I, Copenhagen

Sharon, L2001' 'Transition Dating': A Heuristic Mathematical Approach to the Collation of Radiocarbon

Dates from Stratified Sequences, Radicarbon 43:345_354

Shiloh, Y.

1,993 Megiddo, in NEAEHL 3:1,01,6-1,023

Stern, E.2000 Do4 The Ruler ofthe Seos (2nd. ed.), Jerusalem

Ussishkin, D.1,989 Schumacher's Shrine in Building 33g at Megidd o,IEJ 39:1.4g_I72