Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Qayafa chronology and palaeography

Expand Messages
  • arenmaeir
    The material assemblage (primarily pottery) that I have seen from Kh. Qayafa has types that continue late Iron I types (but not all types and relatively few
    Message 1 of 68 , May 18, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      The material assemblage (primarily pottery) that I have seen from Kh. Qayafa has types that continue late Iron I types (but not all types and relatively few types typical of "Philistia" in the late Iron I), but at the same time, has various types that seem to indicate an early Iron IIA dating (but many typical types of the slightly later Iron IIA are missing). From what I have seen, the assemblage is different from contemporary assemblages in Philistia (e.g., Tell es-Safi/Gath) AND from the far too little we know from late Iron I/early Iron Age II Judah (such sites as Jerusalem/City of David [yes, there is this phase in Jerusalem, despite what is often written], Kh. Dewara, etc.).

      Until more is published from the site, we can all talk ourselves blue in the face, each sticking to his/her own presuppositions.

      And yes, to get good 14C dating (one can that "prove" or "disprove" this or that theory), one would need a series of stratigraphically-sequenced clusters of single year cultigens, all from extremely well-defined and secure contexts. Statistical manipulation is only secondary to this.

      At times one get the feeling that we all suffer from: too little secure data - too much talk...

      Aren Maeir
      "Telling it at Gath" ...
    • arenmaeir
      The material assemblage (primarily pottery) that I have seen from Kh. Qayafa has types that continue late Iron I types (but not all types and relatively few
      Message 68 of 68 , May 18, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        The material assemblage (primarily pottery) that I have seen from Kh. Qayafa has types that continue late Iron I types (but not all types and relatively few types typical of "Philistia" in the late Iron I), but at the same time, has various types that seem to indicate an early Iron IIA dating (but many typical types of the slightly later Iron IIA are missing). From what I have seen, the assemblage is different from contemporary assemblages in Philistia (e.g., Tell es-Safi/Gath) AND from the far too little we know from late Iron I/early Iron Age II Judah (such sites as Jerusalem/City of David [yes, there is this phase in Jerusalem, despite what is often written], Kh. Dewara, etc.).

        Until more is published from the site, we can all talk ourselves blue in the face, each sticking to his/her own presuppositions.

        And yes, to get good 14C dating (one can that "prove" or "disprove" this or that theory), one would need a series of stratigraphically-sequenced clusters of single year cultigens, all from extremely well-defined and secure contexts. Statistical manipulation is only secondary to this.

        At times one get the feeling that we all suffer from: too little secure data - too much talk...

        Aren Maeir
        "Telling it at Gath" ...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.