ABSTRACT
The following exposition of settlement development models accords a different perspective to the current debate concerning the subdivision and chronology of Iron Age IIA. A comparison between the models enhances our understanding of the development continuum, and allows us to distinguish between the various phases within Iron Age II, both at its outset and at the transition between Iron Age IIA and IIB. I believe that these distinctions have far-reaching chronological implications, and enable us to consider the issues from a novel point of view. Tracing the developmental trajectories connected with the various sites permits us to identify similar lines of growth between them, and comprises a basis for proposing a number of sometimes quite dissimilar models. The settlement processes delineated by these models continue across most of the Iron Age IIA-B. Each model features two main stages of settlement, each with its distinctive characteristics. These models are based chiefly upon architectural and urban features, as expressed in settlement layout, internal development (both over the period concerned and in relation to the
second period at the same site), and the ceramic assemblage associated with each period. I have focused upon the relationship between the occupation levels and the nature of their differences. Continuity or discontinuity in layout and the time required to reach the apex of the trajectory are the parameters defining the model, whereas other criteria, such as the settlement’s absolute compass, are less relevant (for definitions such as ‘Major and Secondary Administrative Cities’, ‘Provincial Towns’, etc., see, e.g., Herzog 1992: 250-65). It should be noted that these models evince a marked geographical division, which stresses how different sections of the country experienced different historical vicissitudes. I should like to present three models, each of which offers a special contribution to constructing a common chronological continuum, as well as two additional sites which correspond, albeit not exactly, to the framework of the models. Owing to limitations of scope, I will refrain from presenting a comprehensive discussion of ceramics; I will merely note a few characteristics in order to illustrate my thesis (for recently studies on this issue see Ben-Tor and Zarzecki-Peleg forthcoming; Zarzecki-Peleg forthcoming; Zarzecki-Peleg, Cohen-Anidjar, and Ben-Tor 2005). Model A
This includes Megiddo and Jokneam in Jezreel Valley (Zarzecki-Peleg 2005; for a new stratigraphic and architecture analysis of Megiddo and bibliography see Zarzecki-Peleg forthcoming). Although these cities are stable in terms of area from one period to the next, they evince substantial differences (see Graph 22.1). The first period includes the following strata: Megiddo VC (i.e. K-3b in the excavations of Tel Aviv University; Lehmann, Killebrew, and Gadot [eds.] 2000: 126-28; Zarzecki-Peleg forthcoming), VB, and VA-IVB (Finkelstein, Ussishkin, and Halpern [eds.] 2000; Lamon and Shipton 1939; Loud 1948; Yadin 1972); and Jokneam XVI, XV, and XIV (Zarzecki-Peleg 2005: 90-168). Over the course of Iron Age II, it is possible to follow their gradual development: beginning as interim settlements, they evolve into permanent settlements, and then into actual cities. Only at an advanced phase of this early period are there clear indications of central organization and administrative-governmental buildings: administrative buildings and/or palaces 1723 and 6000 in Megiddo VA-IVB, and a massive casement wall and an installation for supplying water in Jokneam XIV. The pottery is characteristic of Iron Age IIA, but changes can be observed over the course of the period (Finkelstein, Zimhoni, and Kafri 2000: 265ff.; Zarzecki-Peleg 2005: Figs. I.36-I.69; Zarzecki-Peleg forthcoming; Zarzecki-Peleg, Cohen-Anidjar, and Ben-Tor 2005). The cookingpots, for example, provide an excellent index of these changes (Zarzecki-Peleg, Cohen-Anidjar, and Ben-Tor 2005: 294-95). The sampling of pottery from this first phase is relatively small. Nevertheless, new features, not in evidence in the rich assemblages from the end of Iron Age I (Megiddo VIA and Jokneam XVII), occur now. Red slip and irregular, discontinuous burnishing are innovations, and appear, albeit seldom, at the outset (Finkelstein, Zimhoni, and Kafri 2000: Fig. 11.18:11; Zarzecki-Peleg 2005: Fig. I.36:1). Considering that the first phase of Iron Age IIA at these settlements was interim and brief, it is possible to affirm that a number of years elapsed between the end of Iron Age I and the beginning of Iron Age II. Pottery of the Black-on-Red Family appears in Jokneam XV in small quantities, and is typical of the period’s end: Jokneam XIV and Megiddo VA-IVB (Schreiber 2003: 94-103, 187-89; Zarzecki-Peleg forthcoming; ZarzeckiPeleg, Cohen-Anidjar and Ben-Tor 2005: 250-51, 334). It is unclear whether this family occurs in Megiddo VB (Gilboa and Sharon 2003: 57).
