2. Transition from Bronze to Iron Age The move from LB III to Iron I

3. Subdivisions of Iron Age  Until mid-sixties –Iron Age I: 1200 - 920/900 B.C.E. –Iron Age II: 920 - 586 B.C.E.  Aharoni and Amiran (1958 following Hazor) –Iron Age I: 1200 - 1000 B.C.E. –Iron Age II: 1000 - 840 B.C.E. –Iron Age III: 840 - 586 B.C.E.  Aharoni and Amiran is from the article we read earlier; what were their reasons?

4. Historical Reasons for Subdivisions  notice that each of the systems uses key historical dates –1200 –1000 –920 –840 –586  this is because historical events change the material culture in many cases

5. Historical events near the end of the Bronze Age  Hittite empire is in decline  Egyptian empire is in decline  many destructions in Hittite and Egyptian controlled areas  sites in Canaan are also destroyed  reasons are probably famine and external forces that defeat these people  Thus, the international trade contacts that characterized the Late Bronze Age die out

6.  Origination of new peoples: –Israel –Philistia –Edom –Moab –Phoenicians in Canaan  Importation of Mycenean and Cypriot pottery ceases –trade routes were affected, so imports fall –international contact falls off

7. “Transition Sites”  Many sites were destroyed at end of the Late Bronze Age and then resettled immediately with an Egyptian influence, but there were not “imports”  Nice example: Lachish –Stratum VII: Fosse Temple (LB w/ imports) –Stratum VI: Iron Age Ia without imports  Lachish can be used for both end of Iron Age in 1200 and in 1150

8. Area S Fosse Temple

9.  Dated to Late Bronze Age –had Mycen. imports –had pottery corresponding to Lachish Level VI?  British excavation dated to = Level VI  Tel Aviv: new information showed that it was equal with Level VII

10. Isometric Drawing of Fosse Temple

11. Temple at Beth Shean

12. Lachish Area S: Level VII

13. Area S: Level VI

14. Relative Chronology  British excavations related Fosse Temple III to Level VI  Tel Aviv excavations showed that Fosse Temple III related to Level VII in Area S  Culture of both strata was “Canaanite” as well as the architecture  the city was unfortified in both strata  Tel Aviv: found absolute date for Level VI

15. Cartouche of Rameses III

16. Importance of cartouche  Rameses III reigned 1182 - 1151  cartouche found on bronze object sealed by destruction of Level VI  therefore, destruction of Level VI must have been later than 1182  need to allow time for object to be made, imported to Lachish, go out of use and break, and finally be discarded in “trash”  thus, a date around 1150 seems probable

17. Absolute Chronology  later than Level VI: gap in occupation  Level VI: –unfortified city –Acropolis Temple –public building –destroyed by fire ca. 1150  Level VII: –Fosse Temple III and unfortifed city –destroyed by fire earlier than Level VI –maybe??? ca. 1200

18. Division of LBA and Iron I  Lachish does not have My imports in Level VI (= destruction date of ca. 1150)  material culture and architecture of both strata are similar even though Egyptian / Canaanite distinction made  Thus, I think that lack of My. imports is part of the end of the Late Bronze, but not dividing line between LBA and Iron Age

19. Reasons for 1150 as end of LB  1. Egypt rules until after 1150  2. Canaanite cities existed until ca. 1150  3. continuation of Canaanite material culture  4. import of My. pottery: end ca. 1200 should be viewed as localized to those areas  5. Iron appears in Late Bronze Age, but only extensively used in Canaan after 1150  6. intensive settlement in highlands by Israelites starts around 1200 –this supports earlier date for end of Late Bronze

20. Conclusions relevant for us  continuity with Canaanite culture at end of Late Bronze and start of 12th century  many destructions in beginning of 12th century, but with rebuilding by same peoples under Egyptian control  around 1150, Egyptian and Hittite empires fall into decline and leave a vacuum of power in Canaan

22. Iron I Period Settlement  Settlement goes up drastically  it is hard to account for this settlement by internal revolts and settlements in hill country  it seems that some outside came in an settled in the hill country

23. Number of Sites

24. Area of Settlement (hectares)

32. Settlement from inside  Material culture does not change drastically  Look at Stager’s criteria for Wednesday in this regard  Pottery is hard to separate  Architecture is hard to separate