Iron age chronology: A reply to i. finkelstein

This paper contests I. Finkelstein's proposed low chronology for the mid-twelfth to mid-eighth centuries BCE. Though indeed there are few, if any, chronological ‘anchors’ during this period, it is claimed that the suggested low chronology is based on flimsy evidence, and creates new unsolvable problems, instead of resolving the older ones. Pushing the date of the Philistine Monochrome pottery phase (local Myc. IIIC) beyond the end of the Egyptian presence in Canaan is based on a debatable assumption. It led Finkelstein to suggest a wholesale lowering of the date of later assemblages. The extension of the Iron Age I material culture into the late tenth century BCE is unjustified and leads to a distorted archaeological picture of the period of the United Monarchy, and ultimately to misleading historical conclusions. The conclusions pertaining to the ninth–eighth centuries do not allow sufficient time for the complex stratigraphic development documented at several sites, such as Hazor. The stratigraphic and ceramic evidence shows that in each region of the country there was a slow development in pottery forms during the tenth–eighth centuries BCE. Ceramic chronology is a complex and intricate subject beset with difficulties and must be supported by the integration of other evidence. New data from ¹⁴C shortlived samples offer potential solutions.