Cited by 141Ancient Mediterranean Archaeology and HistoryBiblical Studies and InterpretationArchaeology and ancient environmental studies

An Archaeological Contribution to the Early Iron Age Chronological Debate: Alternative Chronologies for Phoenicia and Their Effects on the Levant, Cyprus, and Greece

Gilboa, Ayelet, Sharon, Ilan·2003·Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

Abstract

The debate over the chronology of the early Iron Age in Israel by far transcends Palestinian archaeology, history, and biblical historiography. Chronologies for most of the adjacent regions, and those of entities farther afield, such as Cyprus and Greece, are largely dependent on the Levant. The debate has centered to date mainly on historical considerations, adjusting the chronologies of the material record to the different proposed scenarios. This article advocates an opposite approach, namely, constructing detailed artifactual, mainly ceramic sequences, anchoring these to an absolute time scale by 14C dating, and only then correlating them with historical data. Southern Phoenicia is proposed as a starting point for such an endeavor. Not only does it offer the most detailed stratigraphic/ceramic sequence to date for the early Iron Age in the Southern Levant, its commercial ties provide a wealth of ceramic indices for correlating the Phoenician sequence with other series of the Levant and farther Mediterranean regions. To a large extent these overcome problems of regionalism, which otherwise hamper attempts at chronological cross-correlations in this relatively fragmented period. Two alternative chronologies are presented: the traditional, high chronology, which has been established mainly on the basis of biblical/historical considerations, and the newly proposed low one, which is supported by radiometric dates from Tel Dor. The adoption of either one will entail a revision…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/1357808

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The conclusion that the transition from Iron I to Iron II occurred about 900 BCE is questionable.

    “The conclusion presented by Gilboa and Sharon (2003), Boaretto et al. (2005), and Sharon et al. (Sharon et al. 2007:18-22)-that the transition from Iron I to Iron II occurred about 900 BCE-is questionable.”

    From <sup>14</sup>C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response (2008) · cites this paper as Gilboa and Sharon (2003)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gilboa, A., & Sharon, I.
Venue
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
Published
2003-11
Volume
332
Pages
7-80
ISSN
  • 0003-097X (ISSN-L)
  • 2161-8062
OpenAlex
W2329004667
Cited by
141
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
FWCI
39.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient Mediterranean Archaeology and History
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Biblical Studies and Interpretation
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
Keywords
ceramic sequence, radiocarbon dating, Tel Dor, Southern Levant, Cyprus, Phoenician trade, absolute chronology, biblical chronology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review