Greece and the Levant in the 10th–9th centuries BC. A view from Tel Rehov

SVENSKA INSTITUTEN I ATHEN OCH ROM INSTITUTUM ATHENIENSE ATQUE INSTITUTUM ROMANUM REGNI SUECIAE Opuscula Annual of the Swedish Institutes at Athens and Rome 12 2019 STOCKHOLM Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Prof. Gunnel Ekroth, Uppsala, Chairman Prof. Arne Jönsson, Lund, Vice-chairman Mrs Kristina Björksten Jersenius, Stockholm, Treasurer Dr Susanne Berndt, Stockholm, Secretary Dr David Westberg, Uppsala Dr Sabrina Norlander-Eliasson, Stockholm Prof. Peter M. Fischer, Göteborg Prof. Anne-Marie Leander Touati, Lund Dr Lena Sjögren, Stockholm Dr Lewis Webb, Göteborg Dr Jenny Wallensten, Athens Dr Ulf R. Hansson, Rome EDITOR Dr Julia Habetzeder Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies Stockholm University SE-106 91 Stockholm editor@ecsi.se SECRETARY’S ADDRESS Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies Stockholm University SE-106 91 Stockholm secretary@ecsi.se DISTRIBUTOR eddy.se ab Box 1310 SE-621 24 Visby For general information, see www.ecsi.se For subscriptions, prices and delivery, see http://ecsi.bokorder.se Published with the aid of a grant from The Swedish Research Council (2017-01912) The English text was revised by Rebecca Montague, Hindon, Salisbury, UK Opuscula is a peer reviewed journal. Contributions to Opuscula should be sent to the Secretary of the Editorial Committee before 1 November every year. Contributors are requested to include an abstract summarizing the main points and principal conclusions of their article. For style of references to be adopted, see www.ecsi.se. Books for review should be sent to the Secretary of the Editorial Committee. ISSN 2000-0898 ISBN 978-91-977799-1-3 © Svenska Institutet i Athen and Svenska Institutet i Rom Printed by TMG STHLM, Sweden 2019 Cover illustrations from Ingvarsson et al. in this volume, p. 23. Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> AMIHAI MAZAR & NOTA KOUROU Greece and the Levant in the 10th–9th centuries BC A view from Tel Rehov Abstract Abbreviations used in this paper Tel Rehov in the Beth Shean Valley, northern Israel, yielded 14 Greek (mainly Euboean and Attic) pottery sherds from the Late Protogeometric to Middle Geometric periods. This is the largest number of Greek sherds from these periods found at a single site in the Southern Levant in stratigraphic contexts. Since the Tel Rehov strata, well-dated by a large number of 14C dates, yielded some of the richest assemblages of finds from the 10–9th centuries BC in this region, the Greek sherds provide an opportunity to examine both their absolute dating in context and to discuss the nature of the relations between the two regions. Six of the 14 sherds were published previously (Coldstream & Mazar 2003); in the present paper, we describe the finds from Tel Rehov and other sites in the Southern Levant according to five chronological divisions, update previous discussions, and add new data and discussion based on a revised understanding of the site’s stratigraphy and interpretation of the radiocarbon data. To a large degree, the results confirm the chronological framework established by Nicolas Coldstream in 1968, although in a few cases some changes may be suggested which depend on interpretation of the radiometric data. As to the nature of the relations between Greece, in particular Euboea, and the Levant in this period, we refer to earlier ideas concerning these relations and emphasize new avenues of research raised by the discovery that copper from the Arabah Valley mines, which operated until the mid-9th century BC, served for producing ceremonial cauldrons in Greece. It is suggested that Tel Rehov played a role in such an international trading system, involving a route through Transjordan and the Jordan Valley.* LH = Late Helladic SM = Submycenaean PG = Protogeometric EPG = Early Protogeometric MPG = Middle Protogeometric Keywords: Levant, Greece, Euboea, Iron Age, Tel Rehov, Greek Pottery, Proto-Geometric pottery, Gemometric pottery LPG = Late Protogeometric SPG = Sub-Protogeometric EG = Early Geometric MG = Middle Geometric LG = Late Geometric Introduction The relations between Greece and the Levant during the Early Iron Age have been the focus of several studies in the last two decades, due to the findings at Lefkandi on the one hand, and Greek pottery at a number of Levantine sites on the other hand.1 The recent discovery that copper from Faynan in southern Jordan was utilized in producing Greek tripod cauldrons at Olympia2 raises a new interest in these connections, so far evidenced on Near Eastern soil entirely by pottery. The problem is that the Greek pottery sherds found in the Levant came mostly from unstratified or poorly stratified contexts. However, in recent years, a number of Greek sherds belonging to this period were discovered in reliable stratified contexts at Dor and Megiddo and in particular at Tel Rehov (Fig. 1).3 In this paper, we will assess the evidence provided by 14 pottery items from Tel Rehov in northern Israel, representing vessels (an “item” as defined here is sometimes composed of several sherds) of Euboean PG to SPG and Attic EG to MG https://doi.org/10.30549/opathrom-12-12 1 * The excavations at Tel Rehov were carried out between 1997–2012 under the direction of Amihai Mazar on behalf of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and sponsored by Mr John Camp. The authors are thankful to the editors, to an anonymous reviewer, and to Ayelet Gilboa for constructive comments. Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> Clairmont 1955; Coldstream 1998; 2003; 2008; Coldstream & Bikai 1988; Perreault 1991; Waldbaum 1994, 55–59; Fantalkin 2001; Lemos 2002, 24–26 & 228; Gilboa & Sharon 2003, 67–72; Luke 2003; Kourou 2008; 2009; Fantalkin et al. 2011; 2014. 2 Cf. Kiderlen et al. 2016; Yahalom-Mack 2017. 3 Similar finds have been found also at Sidon, cf. Coldstream 2008; Doumet-Serhal 2009; Gimatzidis forthcoming. Two Greek sherds, as yet unidentified, were discovered recently at Tell Abel Beth-Maachah (oral information from Nava Panitz Cohen). 370 • AMIHAI MAZAR & NOTA KOUROU • GREECE AND THE LEVANT IN THE 10TH–9TH CENTURIES BC and Phoenician pottery. Six of these items (Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11) were published in 2003, and the following discussion of these items is based on the late Nicolas Coldstream’s comments in this publication.4 Eight additional items have been discovered during later excavation seasons. This collection allows a re-examination of various aspects of the connections between Greece, the Levant, and Cyprus during the Iron Age and more specifically, during the period from the late 11th to the 9th centuries BC. In the following paper, we used the catalogue number of the Greek sherds from Tel Rehov as they will appear in the forthcoming final report.5 Tel Rehov: stratigraphy and chronology of the 11th–8th centuries BC Tel Rehov (often spelled Reḥob; Arabic: Tell eṣ-Ṣarem) is located in the Beth Shean Valley, which is part of the Jordan valley, in northern Israel, 5 km south of Tel Beth Shean, between the Gilboa Ridge and the Jordan River, close to the main north–south route traversing the Jordan Valley and a route leading west to east from the Jezreel Valley towards Pella (Figs. 1–3). An abundance of fertile land and springs made this site a desirable location for a major settlement, even though its location in the valley lacked any strategic advantage. Indeed, the 10 ha site was the location of one of the largest cities in the region between the 15th and 9th centuries BC. Eleven excavation seasons were conducted at the site between 1997–2012.6 While the Late Bronze and Iron I periods (15th–early 10th centuries BC) were excavated on a small scale, the Iron IIA levels (Strata VI–IV, 10th–9th centuries BC) were excavated on a large scale, providing the richest data on this period in northern Israel. Exceptional architecture, large pottery assemblages, and extensive collections of various artefacts from this period were recovered, including a collection of Cypriot and Phoenician pottery. The dating of the strata at Tel Rehov is based on a combination of the comparative study of pottery assemblages from well-stratified sites, historical considerations, and an exceptionally large number of radiometric dates. A total of Fig. 1. Map of sites mentioned in the paper. II pottery. This is the largest collection of Greek pottery from these periods found in stratified contexts at a single site in the Southern Levant to date. Most of the sherds came from reliable stratigraphic contexts, together with rich local Iron I–IIA pottery assemblages, as well as imported Cypriot Geometric Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> 4 Coldstream & Mazar 2003; Mazar 2004. The correlation between the catalogue numbers used in 2003 and the ones used in the present paper is as follows (2003 numbers are in squared brackets): 2 [=1]; 3 [=2]; 5 [=3]; 7 [=4]; 6 [=5–6]; 11 [=7–8]. The publication in the final report (Mazar et al. forthcoming) will include technical descriptions of the sherds, such as fabric and colours, which were omitted from the present article. 5 Mazar et al. forthcoming. 6 Mazar 2008b; 2015; 2016a; 2016b; Mazar & Panitz-Cohen forthcoming. GREECE AND THE LEVANT IN THE 10TH–9TH CENTURIES BC • AMIHAI MAZAR & NOTA KOUROU • 371 Fig. 3. Topographic plan of Tel Rehov and excavation areas. Fig. 2. Aerial view of the western part of Tel Rehov, looking south (Photograph: Albatros). 153 14C dates from 45 Iron Age samples, mostly charred grain and olive stones, were measured, 110 of them (representing 27 samples) from Iron IIA contexts.7 Two Bayesian models were constructed based on these dates, one for Areas C and D and one for Area B. All the dates from the Iron IIA (Strata VI–IV) are in the 10th and 9th centuries, yet there are also difficulties: 1. There are several outliers which could be identified, using OxCal software; 2. Occasionally samples from the same context or stratum yielded considerably different dates, which would be acceptable in terms of radiometric dating but provide too wide a range for our required resolution of less than half a century; 3. The Bayesian model for Areas C and D (where most of the dates originate) resulted in condensation of Strata VI, V, and IV into a time frame of about 50 years between 920–860 BC. This appears to be much too narrow a time slot for three strata with several sub-phases and clear changes in the pottery assemblage between Stratum VI and 7 Mazar et al. 2005; additional dates, Bayesian models and discussion will be published in Mazar & Streit forthcoming. Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> Strata V–IV. The Bayesian model from Area B (Strata V– IV alone) provided a wider range; furthermore, one sample measured several times from Area E (un-modelled) provided lower dates in the 9th century BC for the end of Stratum IV compared to the dates provided by the Bayesian models. These rather complex results of the radiocarbon evidence will be referred in more detail in the chronological discussions later in this article. Table 1 shows the stratigraphic sequence at Tel Rehov between the 11th and 8th centuries BC with final strata numbers, local strata numbers in each of the excavation areas where Greek pottery was recovered, absolute dates suggested by Amihai Mazar, based on a combination of the radiometric dates with archaeological and historical considerations (when the latter do not contradict the un-modelled radiometric dates), and a list of the Greek sherds found in each of the strata (showing the catalogue number and the Greek period). Table 2 presents the comparative stratigraphy and dating of sites in the Southern Levant where Greek pottery was found. In the following, we first present the data concerning Greek PG–MG ceramic finds in the Southern Levant according to five chronological divisions. In each division, the existing finds are presented, followed by the finds from Tel Rehov. This section is followed by a chronological discussion arranged according to the Greek periodization; in the last section, an attempt is made to understand the nature of 372 • AMIHAI MAZAR & NOTA KOUROU • GREECE AND THE LEVANT IN THE 10TH–9TH CENTURIES BC Table 1. General and local strata in Areas B, C, E, and G at Tel Rehov, archaeological periods, suggested dates, and appearance of Greek sherds in each stratum. General Stratum Area B Area C Area E Area G VII VI B-6 C-3 C-2 E-2 V B-5b C-1b E-1b G-2b G-2a G-1b V-IV B-5a/B-5a C-1a/C-1b E-1a/E-1b G-1a/G-1b Late 10th century to c. 830 IV B-5a C-1a E-1a G-1a 9th century until c. 830 III B-4 B-3 B-2 – – – – – – II Topsoil, unstratified Period Suggested dates BC Iron IB 11th–early 10th centuries Early Iron IIA c. 980(?) to c. 920(?) Late Iron IIA Iron IIB Late 10th/ early 9th century Late 9th century until 732 Late 8th century Greek sherds (Cat. no., period) 1, MPG/LPG 3, LPG/SPG 4, LPG/SPG I 2, LPG/SPG 9, EG II 6, SPG II 10, EG II 7, SPG I–IIIa 8, SPG II 11, Early MG I 12, MG I 13, MG I/II – 5, LPG/SPG 14, Late(?) MG? the relations between Greece and the Levant in the 10th–9th centuries BC. It should be emphasized that all the items mentioned below are sherds, sometimes small ones. Such sherds may of course have shifted from one context to another due to various site formation processes (pits, rodents, erosion, etc.). In each case, we explain the stratigraphic context and its reliability. in Philistia.9 Note that the transition from SM to PG, dated by the conventional Aegean chronology to c. 1050/1025 BC, is now supported by radiocarbon dates, although the Bayesian model results for this transition are somewhat later (second half of the 11th century, c. 1025 BC).10 A fragment from a deep EPG skyphos found at Tell Afis and recognized as possibly Argive completes the list of the earliest Greek ceramic styles found in the Near East.11 The data: Greek pottery in the Southern Levant EUBOEAN MIDDLE PROTOGEOMETRIC/EARLY PROTOGEOMETRIC Very few MPG/LPG sherds from these periods were found in the Levant in general and in the Southern Levant in particular.12 Prominent among them is a bowl from Tel Hadar, which was identified by Coldstream as a variant of a Euboean MPG or an early LPG lebes,13 although its form and the composition of the decoration have no exact parallels in Greece and its precise attribution to one of these phases remains elusive. Günter Kopcke attributed this vessel to the end of the PG or beginning of the EG.14 Two MPG/LPG sherds came from Dor, one from a LPG cup with a zig-zag decoration,15 and the other from a large open vessel painted with concentric circles, SUBMYCENEAN AND EARLY PROTOGEOMETRIC The earliest post-LH IIIC pottery in the Southern Levant is a fragment of a deep bowl with a wavy band decoration from Tell es-Safi (biblical Gath), defined as either SM or EPG and of Argive origin. This residual sherd was found in a constructional fill of a 9th-century BC building and could originate from either Stratum A-5 (Iron I) or A-4 (Early Iron IIA).8 In the publication, this sherd is identified as EPG and thus is dated to the second half of the 11th/early 10th centuries BC based on general considerations relating to the EPG period. In light of the uncertainties concerning definitions of SM and Early PG vis a vis regional developments in Greece itself, and the lack of secure anchors for dating these phases, an earlier date should be considered, especially in view of its discovery 8 Maeir et al. 2009. With the exception of a MG I pyxis from Tambourit (cf. Courbin 1977) no other vase from a Near Eastern context has been attributed an Argive origin. Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> 9 Cf. Maeir et al. 2009, 72–74 for the end of Aegean imports in the Levant at the end of the Bronze Age and relevant problems. 10 Toffolo et al. 2013, 8–9; Fantalkin et al. 2014, 37. 11 Bonatz 1998, 225, fig. 3:7; Luke 2003, 35, fig. 13. 12 Listed in Lemos 2002, 228 (all prior to the Tel Rehov finds); also, in Coldstream 1968, 303; Perreault 1991; Luke 2003, 31–44. 13 Coldstream 1998, 357–359. 14 Kopcke 2002. 15 Fantalkin 2001, 118–119; Gilboa & Sharon 2003, 22, 69–70, fig. 11:19. The cup was previously defined as MPG/LPG yet Gilboa an- GREECE AND THE LEVANT IN THE 10TH–9TH CENTURIES BC • AMIHAI MAZAR & NOTA KOUROU • 373 identified as MPG.16 Both came from Phase 8c in Area D2, attributed by Ayelet Gilboa and Ilan Sharon to their “Ir1|2 horizon”, which correlates with the Early Iron IIA. Two sherds from Tyre Stratum XI (perhaps correlated with our Early Iron IIA), can be attributed to this period: an amphora and a skyphos decorated with full circles.17 Additional sherds from Tyre are unstratified and/or not illustrated.18 At Tel Rehov, a single sherd can be attributed to this phase. No. 1. Rim and body sherd of a MPG/LPG Euboean cup or skyphos (Area C, Reg. No. 104171, Locus 10412, Stratum C-3 [=VII]19 (Figs. 4–5, No. 1). The short, slightly flaring lip with a pronounced curve at the shoulder joint suggests a deep bowl, a cup or skyphos, of a type that is first attested in the SM period, but becomes common in the LPG period.20 The lip profile also suits that of the high-handled pyxis known from LPG Euboea,21 or Attica,22 but the paint on the interior indicates an open vase instead. The profile of our sherd better suits a MPG or LPG lip formation of a cup or skyphos.23 The decoration of PG cups and skyphoi presents a wide variation mostly with circles or semicircles,24 but our sherd probably belongs to the monochrome type with a reserved band on the rim. This type has a long history at Lefkandi throughout the PG period, with a steady stylistic evolution starting with a high splaying lip in the SM and the EPG periods and gradually ending up with a short flaring lip in the LPG.25 The sherd was found in a 0.20 m-thick layer of fallen bricks sealed by a sub-floor layer of a Stratum C-2 [=VI] building. The brick debris layer in which the sherd was found sealed two debris layers above a floor of Stratum C-3 [=VII]. Therefore, the sherd is attributed to the uppermost accumulation of Stratum C-3, the latest Iron I phase at Tel Rehov. nounced us that the sherd was recently identified by Irene Lemos as LPG (personal communication). 16 Stern 2000, pl. 9:4. 17 Bikai 1978, pl. 30:1 & 30:3; Lemos 2002, 228. 18 Nitsche 1986–1987; Coldstream & Bikai 1988, 38–40; Coldstream 1998, 353–357; Lemos 2002, 227; Gilboa & Sharon 2003, 68–69. 19 In each catalogue entry the local stratum number in the particular excavation area at Tel Rehov is cited, followed by the general stratum which appears in Roman numerals in brackets. 20 For the evolution of the type, cf. Popham & Sackett 1979, 294, fig. 7 (cups) and 298, fig. 8 (skyphoi). The type remains popular in the following period as well, but mostly in Attic workshops, cf. e.g. Coldstream 1968, pl. 1:b and 1:c. 21 Cf. e.g. Popham & Lemos 1996, pl. 52:9. 22 Cf. e.g. Kraiker & Kübler 1939, pl. 50, inv. 599. 23 Cf. Popham & Sackett 1979, 294, fig. 7:D and 7:E (cups) and 298, fig. 8:F (skyphoi). 24 Cf. Lemos 2002, 27–46. 25 Cf. Lemos 2002, figs. 11:1 and 12:10 (EPG), 23:9, and 24:5 (MPG), 54:3 and 63:1 (LPG). Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> EUBOEAN LATE PROTOGEOMETRIC/SUB-PROTOGEOMETRIC I AND SUB-PROTOGEOMETRIC I–III26 Very few fragments of Greek pottery from this period were found in the Southern Levant. A pendent-semicircle skyphos came from Tell Abu Hawam was attributed to Stratum III, though it was not found in a secure context. Stratum III corresponds with Strata V–IV at Tel Rehov (late 10–9th centuries BC).27 At Megiddo, a fragment of a bowl (perhaps the type decorated with pendent semicircles, although the decoration was not preserved) was found in Level Q-5 of the Tel Aviv University excavations which equals Stratum VB, attributed by the excavators to the early Iron IIA and dated to the second half of the 10th century BC.28 Tyre Stratum X yielded one fragment of a pendent-semicircle skyphos, while pieces from unstratified contexts include 21 other pendent-semicircle skyphoi, as well as twelve circle skyphoi, 16 plates, three krater rims, and four amphorae.29 The skyphos-type of the Tyre fragment from Stratum X is difficult to classify according to Rosalinde Kearsley’s typology based on the ratios of the vase’s height to rim and base diameters and the height of lip and foot. The Tyre fragment is basically from the shoulder of the vase with only a slight part of the lip surviving, but since it is offset, the vase cannot be of type 1 with a straight lip and this, together with the strongly rounded body, assigns it to type 2 or 3. Sherds coming from four LPG Euboean amphorae have been found at Bassit,30 but their context is not entirely clear. To this small collection Tel Rehov adds seven Euboean sherds. Nos. 2–6 are defined as LPG/SPG and Nos. 7–8 are defined as SPG I–IIIa and SPG I-II. The following are brief descriptions and discussion of these sherds. No. 2. Body sherd of a LPG/SPG I, Euboean large krater (Area E, Reg. No. 56111/37, Locus 5629, Stratum E-1b [=V]). Found sealed by a stone floor of Stratum IV31 (Figs. 4–5, No. 2). For the vase type and date see below under No 3. No. 3. Body sherd of a LPG/SPG I, Euboean large krater, similar to No. 2 (Area G, Reg. No. 50305/1, Locus 5021, Stratum 26 The title LPG/SPG given to this section refers to Euboean types that could be defined as belonging to either of the two phases LPG or SPG or just to SPG. 27 Hamilton 1934–1935, pl. 12:96; Desborough 1952, 193; Coldstream 1968, 303, and 305; Waldbaum 1994, 56; Fantalkin 2001, 119. 28 Fantalkin et al. 2014, 34–35, fig. 3. 29 Bikai 1978, 66, pl. 24:6; Nitsche 1986–1987, 17–20, fig. 3:1; Lemos 2002, 228. 30 Cf. Courbin 1993. 31 Coldstream & Mazar 2003, 32, no. 1. 374 • AMIHAI MAZAR & NOTA KOUROU • GREECE AND THE LEVANT IN THE 10TH–9TH CENTURIES BC Fig. 4. Cat. Nos. 1–5, Euboean PG sherds (1:2). G-2a [=VI]). Found in brick debris layer between two floor surfaces, both attributed to Stratum G-2a32 (Figs. 4–5, No. 3). The sherd comes from the lower body part of a PG highfooted krater of the same type as the sherd No. 2, which is a body fragment from the widest diameter of another krater. The PG high-footed krater decorated with large sets of concentric circles separated by groups of vertical lines that may often enclose rectilinear motifs, is a popular vessel type.33 As noted by Coldstream, who identified and discussed the sherds Nos. 2 and 3,34 the type is absent from the cemeteries 32 33 34 Coldstream & Mazar 2003, 32, no. 2. Desborough in Popham & Sackett 1979, 327–329. Coldstream & Mazar 2003, 32, nos. 1–2. Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> of Lefkandi, but it is well documented by LPG and SPG fragments from the settlement of Xeropolis at Leflkandi.35 Complete kraters of this type are known only from the cemetery of Marmariani in Thessaly.36 Thessalian high-footed kraters are thought to derive from Euboean models and thus their dating has a wide range from LPG to SPG IIIa.37 Our sherd is dated 35 Cf. Popham & Sackett 1979, pls. 28:70/P1; 29:B for some parallels in the SPG deposit from Area SL, but a LPG date cannot be excluded. 36 Desborough 1952, pl. 23. 37 Cf. Coldstream & Mazar 2003, 36–37. GREECE AND THE LEVANT IN THE 10TH–9TH CENTURIES BC • AMIHAI MAZAR & NOTA KOUROU • 375 rim, and a conical foot, which is a standard Euboean shape.40 The decoration with concentric circles is common on kraters, but the small size of this fragment does not allow any certain reconstruction of the general decorative scheme, although it seems to conform better to that with circles lined up plainly in a frieze.41 No. 5. Rim and body sherd of a LPG/SPG I Euboean skyphos (Area C, Reg. No. 14006/10, Locus 1405, topsoil)42 (Figs. 4–5, No. 5). This sherd, identified by Coldstream,43 comes from the shoulder of a characteristic and widely exported LPG/SPG I skyphos type decorated with pendent concentric semicircles. The oblique daub of paint at the left-hand break indicates a horizontal handle and a position of the sherd near its root. The sherd belongs to Kearsley’s type 2, which has a low ring foot, slightly concave lip and sharply offset rim.44 The stylistic and chronological evolution of pendent semicircle skyphoi, which are well documented at Lefkandi, is reflected in the successive changes of shape and decoration. There is a gradual evolution in the design of the sets of semicircles, which are separated from each other on early examples, but become intersecting one another later. Similarly, the form changes drastically in time and the lip profile from large and high on early examples turns to low and narrow on later ones. The profile of our sherd has a close counterpart at Lefkandi in Toumba Tomb 42 with sets of semicircles intersecting one another, which is dated to SPG I.45 Fig. 5. Cat. Nos. 1–5, Photographs (1:2). to the LPG period on the basis of parallels from the deposit in Area SL at Lefkandi that included LPG fragments.38 No. 4. Body sherd of a large LPG/SPG I Euboean krater, similar to Nos. 2–3 (Area C, Reg. No. 75144/1, Locus 7491, Stratum C-2 [=VI]). Found on a beaten-earth floor of a room in Building CT (Figs. 4–5, No. 4). This shoulder sherd preserves the lower part of a set of concentric circles and its profile conforms to that of the almost straight-sided krater represented at Lefkandi by an intact large-size krater and some other mostly fragmentary examples of medium size.39 Our fragment seems to belong to the standard krater type with thick straight-sided walls, a flat 38 39 Popham & Sackett 1979, 49; cf. Coldstream & Mazar 2003, 36–37. Cf. Lemos 2002, figs. 71:2, 74:1, 75:1–2. Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> No. 6. Body sherds of a SPG II Euboean large, elaborate pyxis (Figs. 6–7). Six sherds of the same vessel were found in Area B, scattered in five different loci over a distance of 9 m, with height differences of up to 1 m, in an open area which suffered from erosion prior to the construction of Stratum IV. Six of these sherds were combined into two large fragments belonging to the main frieze of the vessel and including three battlements and a lattice pattern. Fragment 1: three joining sherds from two different loci (Reg. Nos. 42496/1–2, Locus 4242, Stratum B-5 [=V–IV]; Reg. No. 42065/7, Locus 3243, Stratum B-5a [=IV]). Fragment 2: three joining sherds from three different loci (Reg. No. 42320, Locus 4223, Stratum B-5a [=IV]; Reg. 40 For the typology of Euboean kraters, see Lemos 2002, 48–52. Also, cf. Catling & Lemos 1990, pl. 54. 41 Cf. e.g. Catling & Lemos 1990, pl. 53, no. 271, krater-bowl of medium size. But it does occur on larger kraters, cf. e.g. Popham & Sackett 1979, pl. 35. 42 Coldstream & Mazar 2003, 33, no. 3. 43 Cf. Coldstream & Mazar 2003, 33, no. 3. 44 Kearsley 1989, 87–93, type 2. 45 Popham & Lemos 1996, pl. 46:6; for the date see Popham et al. 1982, 245. 376 • AMIHAI MAZAR & NOTA KOUROU • GREECE AND THE LEVANT IN THE 10TH–9TH CENTURIES BC Fig. 6. Cat. No. 6, Euboean SPG II pyxis (1:2). No. 62164, Locus 6223, Stratum B-5 [=V–IV]; Reg. Nos. 62196/2, 1, Locus 6246, Stratum B-5 [=V–IV]). The sherds were found in layers of brick debris and ashy occupation debris in the western and central part of Area B. This was an open space between two buildings in Stratum B-5a, and a new structure was founded in this area in Stratum B-5a. Three of the five loci in which the sherds were found came from earth layers where it was impossible to distinguish between Strata B-5b and B-5a [=general Strata V–IV]. Two other loci were attributed to layers related to the construction Stratum B-5a [=Stratum IV]. The scatter of sherds of the same vessel over such a large area is one of the indications that levelling operations were conducted by the builders of Stratum B-5a in this area. If this interpretation is correct, then the vessel should be attributed to the previous phase, Stratum B-5b [=general Stratum V].46 These six sherds come from a PG large globular pyxis of a type current in Euboea during the SPG II–IIIa styles. The Euboean globular pyxis with a sharply everted lip and a low foot, which is decorated with a battlement or other rectilinear motifs of the local repertoire, descends from Attic LPG models.47 In Euboea it is a short-lived type, current only in SPG II– IIIa styles. Our pyxis finds its closest parallel in a pyxis from Toumba Tomb 80, which is precisely dated in SPG II.48 An Attic EG II lipless pyxis with an inset rim from the same tomb, which contained quite a number of local Euboean SPG II vessels,49 provides “a useful correlation with the contemporary Attic sequence”.50 As noted by Coldstream, who identified our vase and dated it to the SPG II period, the globular pyxis with battlement occurs in single graves at Lefkandi together with pendent semicircle skyphoi of types also represented in Rehov.51 But this vessel type was not frequently exported and the only other occurrence of such a vessel in the Levant is in a Phoenician tomb at Tambourit in coastal Lebanon.52 No. 7. Body sherd of a Euboean SPG I–IIIa skyphos with intersecting pendent semicircles (Area C, Reg. No. 24160/4, Locus 2405, Stratum C-1a [=IV]). Found in destruction layer in a well-defined room (Figs. 8–9, No. 7). This sherd, identified by Coldstream,53 belongs to the pendent semicircle skyphos type with the relatively deep profile, known from skyphoi found in the Lefkandi graves of SPG I– IIIa styles.54 Later skyphoi are shallower versions and become frequent after the abandonment of the known Lefkandi cemeteries.55 48 46 In the first publication (Coldstream & Mazar 2003, 34, nos. 5–6) these sherds were attributed to general Stratum V since, at that time, both local Strata B-5b and B-5a were thought to correlate with this stratum while Stratum B-4 was correlated with general Stratum IV. This was revised in later excavation seasons so that Stratum B-5b correlates with general Stratum V and Stratum B-5a with general Stratum IV. 47 Desborough in Popham & Sackett 1979, 327–329. Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Popham & Lemos 1996, pl. 81. Popham & Lemos 1996, 81, no. 40. Coldstream in Coldstream & Mazar 2003, 34–35, nos. 5–6. Coldstream in Coldstream & Mazar 2003, 39. Courbin 1977. Coldstream in Coldstream & Mazar 2003, 33, no. 4. Kearsley 1989, types 2, and 3. Kearsley 1989, types 4, and 5. GREECE AND THE LEVANT IN THE 10TH–9TH CENTURIES BC • AMIHAI MAZAR & NOTA KOUROU • 377 Fig. 6a. A complete pyxis, similar to Cat. No. 6, from Lefkandi, Palia Parivolia Grave 21 (reproduced with permission from Popham & Sackett 1979, pl. 136:1). No. 8. Body sherd of a Euboean SPG I/II bowl (Area C, Reg. No. 114136, Locus 10492, Stratum C-1a [=IV]). Found in destruction debris on the floor of a room in Building CP, an exceptional building containing a rich variety of finds (Figs. 8–9, No. 8). The vigorously curved profile of this fragment and the entirely painted interior suggest a globular bowl of an odd type, which cannot be exactly paralleled among open vases at Lefkandi or anywhere else. A small bowl from a Lefkandian grave dated to the SPG I56 and an almost identical vase from Naxos found in a LPG grave,57 both handmade and slipped, offer good parallels to our vase, especially as its lustrous black surface points to black-slipped wares known from Euboea,58 and a few other sites in the central Aegean.59 The rounded contour of the Tel Rehov vase is similar to that of the globular pyxis, which is a common closed shape in LPG and SPG styles.60 In Euboea, the globular pyxis normally has a dark background with only a reserved decorative zone on Fig. 7. Cat. No. 6 (photographs). its belly or more rarely a little higher towards the shoulder,61 but monochrome examples also occur and a pyxis of this type from the SPG I–II tomb 47 of the Palaia Perivolia cemetery at Lefkandi suggests the same date for our vase.62 ATTIC EARLY GEOMETRIC No Attic vases in an EG style have been identified in the Levant. A glazed cup from Tell Abu Hawam Stratum III found together with a fragment of a SPG III pendent semicircle skyphos of type 5 was defined by Willian Hamilton as Attic EG II,63 but this was strongly questioned by Coldstream, who based on fabric and shape identified it as Atticizing MG I— possibly Cycladic.64 At Tel Rehov, two sherds can be attributed to this style. No. 9. Rim and body sherd of an Attic EG II skyphos or a onehandled cup (Area C, Reg. No. 104170, Locus 9451, Stratum 61 56 57 58 59 60 Popham & Sackett 1979, pl. 268:a. Kourou 2015, 92, fig. 10. Cf. e.g. Popham & Sackett 1979, 346–347. Cf. e.g. Lemos 2002, 83. Cf. Popham & Sackett 1979, 327–331; Lemos 2002, 77–79. Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> Popham & Sackett 1979, pl. 102. Cf. Popham & Sackett 1979, pl. 151:10. 63 Hamilton 1934–1935, 23–24, pl. 2:96 and pl. 13:95. Cf. also, Clairmont 1955, 99.veh; Waldbaum 1994, 56, figs. 2–3 and for the pendent semicircle skyphos, cf. Kearsley 1989, 63, no. 212. 64 Coldstream 1968, 303. Cf. also, Courbin 1993, 95. 62 378 • AMIHAI MAZAR & NOTA KOUROU • GREECE AND THE LEVANT IN THE 10TH–9TH CENTURIES BC Fig. 8. Cat. Nos. 7–8: Euboean SPG; Cat. Nos. 9–11: Attic EG; Cat. Nos. 12–13: Attic MG; Cat. No. 14: Euboean(?) Late MG. Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> GREECE AND THE LEVANT IN THE 10TH–9TH CENTURIES BC • AMIHAI MAZAR & NOTA KOUROU • 379 Fig. 9. Cat. Nos. 7–14, photographs (1:2). C-1b [=V]). Found in the area of the apiary sealed by thick destruction debris (Figs. 8–9, No. 9). The short offset lip points to an EG II form of a shallow skyphos, or a one-handled cup. The groups of small vertical lines on the reserved inner side of the lip, which constitute a typical element of EG and MG Attic skyphoi,65 imply that the vase could hardly have been another shape. Contemporary cups normally have a simple reserved line at that place instead.66 No. 10. Lip and rim sherd of an EG II Attic krater (Area E, Reg. No. 46122/12, Locus 4610, Stratum E-1a–b [=IV–V]). Found in brick debris in the courtyard of an open-air sanctuary (Figs. 8–9, No. 10). The concave lip turned outwards to form a flat rim conforms precisely to that of large Attic kraters from EG II contexts.67 The large Attic krater, which makes its appearance in EG but develops further in the MG period, is an emblematic shape known in Athens almost exclusively from mortuary contexts. In spite of their richly decorated body, EG Athenian kraters normally have a glazed lip and only later in the MG period a reserved band on the rim gets some decoration of small dots or stripes.68 65 Cf. e.g. Kübler 1954, pl. 89, inv. 247 from Grave 75a and inv. 413 from Grave 14. 66 Cf. e.g. Kübler 1954, pl. 105. 67 Cf. e.g. Kübler 1954, pl. 17, inv. 935 from Grave 2. 68 Cf. e.g. Coldstream 1968, pl. 5:f (MG II). Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> MIDDLE GEOMETRIC I–II Several MG sherds were found in the Southern Levant. Only two came from a reliable stratigraphic context: the first is a cup from Tell Abu Hawam Stratum III, defined by Coldstream as possibly Cycladic with Attic elements.69 Another skyphos fragment from the same site, “stored in the Palestinian Archaeological Museum (PAM/Rockefeller)” is assumed to be from the same context, but the vase is of a later MG II/LG I date.70 Another MG sherd is a handle fragment of a Greek krater from Tel Beth Shean Stratum P-8’ (early to mid-8th century BC), identified as most probably belonging to MG II.71 The design has good parallels in Attica, but the handle has a bichrome decoration, which may imply a local Near Eastern or Cypriot workshop.72 Additional MG sherds came from unreliable contexts. These include two sherds of a single Attic MG I–II bowl from Megiddo73 from the Strata V–IV range, a cup from Tel Miqne found in unclear context,74 69 Coldstream 1968, 303; Waldbaum 1994, 56, figs. 2–3. Herrera & Balensi 1986, 169–171, fig. 1:c. 71 Kourou, cited in Mazar 2006, 378–380, pl. 26:12. 72 Cf. Locally made Near Eastern pottery in a Greek Geometric style is not common. Beyond the Tel Beth Shean sherd only two other fragments have been claimed as local Near Eastern imitations of Greek Geometric wares: one from Bassit and another from Tell Rachidieh (cf. Luke 2003, 38, and 41). The so-called Al Mina ware (Boardman 1959) was finally proved to be of Cypriot production ( Jones 1986, 694). 73 Clairmont 1955, pl. 20:1–2; similar to our No. 11, see below. 74 Waldbaum 1994, 57, fig. 6. 70 380 • AMIHAI MAZAR & NOTA KOUROU • GREECE AND THE LEVANT IN THE 10TH–9TH CENTURIES BC and eleven MG II sherds found at Samaria.75 A small number of MG sherds have been found in the Northern Levant at several coastal sites of the Phoenician littoral, in the ʻAmuq Plain and at Hama.76 At Tel Rehov, we can add four items to this list. No. 11a–b. Two sherds of an Attic Early MG I skyphos (Area C, Reg. No. 54318, Locus 5445, Stratum C-1a [=IV]). The fragment includes a rim, body, and part of the handle (Area C, Reg. No. 54317, Locus 5444, Stratum C-1a [=IV] body fragment) (Figs. 8–9, No. 11). The two sherds, most probably belonging to the same skyphos, were found in a thick destruction layer in two adjacent small rooms of Building CF, which was destroyed by fire at the end of Stratum IV. This building yielded a significant collection of pottery, cult objects, an inscription, and other finds, and is considered to be the house of an élite family. The fragments from both sites were first recognized by Coldstream as belonging to a characteristic MG I skyphos type,77 which is known in the Southern Levant from two rim fragments found in a not-entirely clear context at Megiddo.78 The vase type with a broad and shallow body, a low offset lip and a ring foot occurs in Attic graves of an early MG I date,79 which are contemporary with SPG IIIa at Lefkandi. As already noted by Coldstream,80 the decoration of our skyphos with a multiple zigzag in a reserved panel and groups of bars placed in a narrow, reserved band inside the rim implies a date slightly earlier than that of the Megiddo skyphos whose rim is simply coated in the manner of EG II skyphoi with only a reserved window panel on shoulder.81 The shape of the Attic skyphos has a steady evolution from a wide, low body form in the EG to a deeper one in the MG that becomes even deeper in MG II. The Tel Rehov No. 11 skyphos finds its best parallels in MG I, such as the skyphos in Kerameikos Grave 12, which dates to the last phase of MG I, 850 BC.82 No. 12. Lip and body sherd of an Attic or Atticizing MG I skyphos or of a one-handled cup (Area C, Reg. No. 105152, 75 Luke 2003, 34 (with references). Two EGII/MGI sherds were recently found in a 9th century context at Tel Abel Beth-Maachah, the northernmost mound in Israel. Our thanks to N. Panitz Cohen, R. Mullins and N. Yahalom Mack for this information and for the opportunity to examine these sherds wether physically or through photographs. 76 Clairmont 1955, 98–100; Coldstream 1968, 302–304, and 310–316; Waldbaum 1994, 57–59; Luke 2003. 77 Coldstream in Coldstream & Mazar 2003, 35–36, nos. 7–8. 78 Clairmont 1955, pl. 20:1–2. 79 Cf. Kübler 1954, pl. 89, nos. 886–887; Coldstream 1968, 303–304 (the skyphoi are from the Geometric Grave 13 in the Athenian Kerameikos cemetery). 80 Coldstream in Coldstream & Mazar 2003, 37–38. 81 Coldstream 1968, 15, pl. 2:b. 82 Cf. e.g. Kübler 1954, pl. 89, inv. 892. Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> Locus 10487, Stratum C-1a [=IV]). Found in destruction debris on a floor in the western part of Building CX (Figs. 8–9, No. 12). The low, offset lip better corresponds to that current on MG I Attic cups or skyphoi, which continue the EG fairly short-lip type. The single horizontal line decorating the reserved lip points to the same style as in MG II, when there is more than one line on the by-then vertical lip.83 The spreading out of black paint on this sherd seems larger than that common on MG I skyphoi accommodating an elongated panel between the handles. It rather suggests a one-handled cup, either black-glazed, which is a very common type in MG I84 or with a relatively short panel in between the handles.85 No. 13. Rim and body sherd of an Attic MG I/II skyphos or a one-handled cup (Area B, Reg. No. 42381, Locus 2265, Stratum B-3’ [=III]). Found on a beaten-earth floor dated by 14C to the 8th century BC (Figs. 8–9, No. 13). The barely visible plastic wart on the shoulder of this sherd suggests a one- handled cup rather than a skyphos. One-handled cups with plastic warts on the shoulder become common from the EG,86 but the reserved surface suggests a slightly later date in MG I/II and more specifically at the end of MG I (c. 800 BC). Also pointing to the same date is the short, slightly offset rim starting to get an almost-vertical profile of the type that dominates in MG II.87 Plastic warts are more common on Atticizing cups,88 but the fabric of this sherd indicates an Attic workshop. No. 14. Base and lower part of the body of an Atticizing Euboean MG II skyphos or cup (Area C, Reg. No. 24093/3, Locus 2403). Found in topsoil in Area C, just above Stratum IV architecture in an area which was not settled after the destruction of Stratum IV (Figs. 8–9, No. 14). The identification of this sherd is not entirely safe as its surface is very much damaged and eroded. The profile of this sherd with a short ring base and the wide flare of the walls conforms to that of a skyphos or a one-handled cup of MG II style.89 The poorly preserved painted decoration makes identification difficult, but it seems that there is a band of black glaze just above the ring base and some horizontal lines slightly higher. If this reading of the glaze is correct then it points to a MG II late type of skyphos with a richly decorated frieze in 83 Cf. e.g. Coldstream 1968, pl. 2:b (MG I) and pl. 3:b (MG II). Kübler 1954, pl. 89, no. 886 from Grave 13. 85 For a close Atticizing parallels from Naxos, cf. Kourou 1999, fig. 19, AK 44. 86 E.g., Coldstream 1968, pl. 23:e. 87 Cf. e.g. Kübler 1954, pl. 90, no. 2142 from Grave 42 (MG I) and pl. 90, no. 1282 from Grave 69 (MG II). 88 E.g. Kourou 1999, pl. 40, AK 45–46, and colour plate 2. 89 Cf. e.g. Coldstream 1968, pl. 4:c. 84 GREECE AND THE LEVANT IN THE 10TH–9TH CENTURIES BC • AMIHAI MAZAR & NOTA KOUROU • 381 the Attic style higher up.90 But the possibility of a late pendent semicircle skyphos of a SPG III date (Kearsley’s type 6)91 cannot be ruled out. The interior appears to be painted or slipped in solid black. The buff clay would fit an Euboean origin. The contribution of the Tel Rehov sherds to the chronological issue The chronology of Greece in the PG and the Geometric periods, as established by Vincent Desborough in 1952 and Coldstream in 1968, was based on the rather flimsy evidence available at the time. Desborough relied on an estimation of the duration of each phase and on the single pendent semicircles skyphos from Tell Abu Hawam Stratum III,92 while Coldstream depended on a few SPG and Geometric sherds found in the Levant in the early years of archaeological research,93 most of them from dubious contexts.94 Since then, only a few additional Greek sherds have been found in the Southern Levant in secure stratigraphic contexts, with Tel Rehov yielding the largest group of such sherds. These new discoveries, as well as some along the Phoenician littoral, in the Northern Levant and Cyprus, provide a more reliable basis for the chronology of these periods in Greece. When discussing the absolute chronology of the PG to MG periods in Greece, Coldstream addressed the problem posed by the (then) two known alternative chronological systems for the 10th–9th centuries BC in Palestine: the “High Chronology” (which he termed “Hazorite”) and the “Low Chronology” (which he termed “Samaritan”, as established by John Crowfoot and Kathleen Kenyon for Samaria), for which he opted.95 The two alternatives correspond more or less to the currently termed High (or Traditional) Chronology96 versus the Low Chronology as presented by Israel Finkelstein and others in Israeli archaeology.97 Between these two systems stands the Modified Iron Age Chronology, suggested by one of the authors (Mazar) in 2003. According to this system, the Iron IIA lasted most of the 10th and 9th centuries BC, with two phases: Early and Late.98 Table 2 provides a simplified comparison between these three systems. In this paper, we utilize the Modified Chronology. In the following discussion, arranged by Greek periods MPG/LPG to MG, we present chronological argumentations based on the finds at Tel Rehov and to some extent on the finds at other sites in the Southern Levant mentioned in the previous section; we also discuss a few debated issues related to the dates suggested above. EUBOEAN MIDDLE PROTOGEOMETRIC/LATE PROTOGEOMETRIC The MPG or early LPG bowl from Tel Hadar and the late MPG or early LPG sherd No. 1 from Tel Rehov came from Late Iron I contexts, while the two MPG/LPG sherds from Dor came from Early Iron IIA context (called by the excavators “Ir1|Ir2 horizon”), and the two items from Tyre XI should probably be correlated with the latter period. These items show that the MPG/LPG phases should be correlated with the later decades of the Iron I and the Early Iron IIA in terms of current Israeli archaeology. The absolute date of the transition from Iron I to Iron IIA is a debated issue. The conventional date is 1000 BC,99 while the Low Chronology as suggested by Finkelstein in 1996 and by Sharon, Gilboa, Timothy Jull and Elisabetta Boaretto (2007) lowers this date to c. 920/900 BC.100 A “trapezoidal” approach to Bayesian modelling suggested by Sharen Lee, Mazar and Christopher Bronk Ramsey, based on 420 14C dates from Israel, suggested a transition between Iron I/Iron II starting between 987–947 and ending between 951–917 BC with the middle of the transition between 959–940 BC (all dates are in 1σ or 68% probability range).101 However, radiocarbon dates from the latest Iron I destruction layers in Israel point to an early 10th century BC date. Thus the violent destruction of Megiddo VIA was dated to the late 11th–first half of the 10th century BC or to 1047–996 BC.102 Similar assemblages such 90 Cf. e.g. Verdan et al. 2008, pl. 17:60 (skyphos MG II late). Cf. Kearsley 1989, 103, fig. 41:a. 92 Desborough 1952, 293–295. 93 Coldstream 1968, 302–310. 94 For a survey of the research see Fantalkin 2001. 95 Coldstream 1968, 303–310. In a more recent paper, Coldstream (2003) presented his view in support of the Low Chronology, particularly in relation to the 9th-century BC date of the MG period, yet his view was based mainly on the dubious stratigraphic attribution of the MG skyphos from Megiddo. See comment by David Ussishkin in the Addendum to this paper (p. 254) and Mazar 2004, 27–35. Note that Saltz (1978) attempted to utilize the High Chronology in her treatment of Greek Geometric pottery in the East. 96 As utilized, for example, in Stern 1993; Mazar 1990. 97 Finkelstein 1996; somewhat modified in Finkelstein & Piasetzky 2009; 2011. See also Sharon et al. 2007b. 91 Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> 98 Cf. Mazar in Coldstream & Mazar 2003, 40–44; Mazar 2005; 2008a; 2011. The division of the Iron IIA into Early Iron IIA and Late Iron IIA, first suggested by Zeev Herzog and Lily Singer-Avitz (2006) is now accepted by all archaeologists in Israel. 99 Stern 1993; Mazar 1990, 30. 100 Finkelstein 1996, 184; Fantalkin 2001, 118; Sharon et al. 2007b, 22; Maeir et al. 2009, 69, n. 62. 101 Lee et al. 2013. 102 Finkelstein & Piasetzky 2009; 2011. In spite of these high dates Finkelstein & Piasetzky (2009, 266 and elsewhere) claimed that the Iron I continued even after these destructions in certain sites in the Jordan Valley (Tell el Hama, Tel Rehov, Tel Hadar) well into the second half of the 10th century BC. In the view of Mazar there is no justification for this claim. 382 • AMIHAI MAZAR & NOTA KOUROU • GREECE AND THE LEVANT IN THE 10TH–9TH CENTURIES BC Table 2. Comparative table of sites yielding Greek pottery in the Southern Levant and suggested dates according to the High, Modified, and Low Chronologies. Iron IAV High ChronologyI Modified ChronologyII BC BC 1200–1150 1200–1140 Iron IBVI 1150–1000 1140–1000/980(?) Early Iron IIA 1000–900 1000/980(?)–920/900 925–875 VI Late Iron IIA Iron IIB 900–700 920/900–830 c. 830–730 V–IV IIIA–B Period Low ChronologyIII Tel Rehov BC 1175–1125 D-7 D-6 1125–925 VII 875–800 800–730 Dor VIIA – VIB VIA Ir1 (divided into four subphases) Ir1|2 IV1–2 XIV (?) XIII IV3–4 XII–X(?) Ir2a Ir2b III – X?–IX VIII–II Gap? VB IVB–VA IVA Tell Abu Hawam – TyreIV Megiddo – Comments: IAccording to Stern 1993, 1529. IIAccording to Mazar (Colstream & Mazar 2003, 40–44; Mazar 2005; 2008a). Note that the transition Iron I/IIA could occur during the first half of the 10th century BC. IIIAccording to Gilboa et al. 2018, Vol. I, 30, table 2:1. IVRelative sequence following Gilboa & Sharon 2003. VAlternative term: “Late Bronze III” (Finkelstein & Piasetzky 2011); LB|Ir1 (Gilboa et al. 2018). VIAlternative term “Iron I” (Finkelstein & Piasetzky 2011; Gilboa & Sharon 2003). as Yoqneam XVII, Tell Keisan 9, and Tell Qasile X were also dated to the early 10th century BC.103 A very similar pottery assemblage from Tell Abu el-Kharaz Stratum IX was dated by 14C to the late 12th to mid-11th centuries BC.104 Two 14C dates from Tel Hadar Stratum IV were calibrated to 1043– 979 BC (1σ),105 while an additional series of dates from the same context provided the range of 1017–940 BC (1σ).106 A terminal date for the Iron I of c. 1000 BC is supported by the evidence from Khirbet Qeiyafa, a single-period site attributed to a transitional Iron I/Iron IIA phase, dated by a coherent series of 14C dates to the late 11th–early 10th centuries BC.107 The evidence for dating the end of Stratum VII at Tel Rehov is rather complex. No 14C dates are available from Area C Stratum C-3, where the LPG sherd No. 1 was found. In the nearby Area D, the last Iron Age I architectural phase (Stratum D-4) was dated by 14C dates to 1074–1011 (1σ). It was followed by Stratum D-3 which included only a cluster of pits found in a limited area, containing a small amount of Iron I pottery. Radiometric dates from these pits yielded the wide range 1046–911 (1σ), some of these dates overlapping those from the preceding and following strata. In the view of Mazar, these pits represent short-lived activity following the end of Stratum D-4, perhaps at the end of the 11th century or beginning of the 10th century BC. The Bayesian model for Tel 103 Mazar & Bronk Ramsey 2008, 166–168, and 176. Fischer 2013, 515–516. 105 Sharon et al. 2007b, 42; Mazar & Bronk Ramsey 2008, 165–167. 106 Cited by Fantalkin et al. 2014, 31. The Tel Hadar pottery assemblage is still unpublished, yet the pottery forms which were published in preliminary reports and have been circulated in unpublished pottery plates recall Megiddo VI and Tell Abu el-Kharaz IX. Gilboa & Sharon (2003, 68) and Fantalkin et al. (2014, 31, table 2, and 34), claimed that the Tel Hadar pottery assemblage may postdate Megiddo VI. It is difficult to justify this separation. 107 Garfinkel et al. 2012. 104 Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> Rehov Areas C and D resulted in a transition date from Iron I to Iron II (Strata VII to VI) in the range 936–911 (1σ) or 962–907 (2σ).108 This result would fit the low chronology. Yet the unmodelled dates from Stratum VI and additional considerations justify, in the opinion of Mazar, an earlier date in the first half of the 10th century from the transition between the Iron I and Iron IIA (Strata VII to VI in Tel Rehov, see details concerning Stratum VI in the following section). A Bayesian model suggested by Alexander Fantalkin, Finkelstein and Eli Piasetzky for sites with Greek imports in the Levant dates LPG to 973–903 BC (1σ).109 Coldstream’s date for the transition from MPG to LPG c. 950 BC110 would fit all the Bayesian models mentioned above, but would be too low by at least c. 30 years if Mazar’s date of c. 980 BC mentioned above for the end of Stratum VII is accepted. Such a raise of the MPG/LPG transition would require a condensing of the EPG and MPG to a time span of c. 50 years, in line with the dates suggested by Mervyn Popham and Hugh Sackett for Euboea.111 As mentioned, the date 980 BC suggested by Mazar remains debatable, and a more flexible date during the first half of the 10th century BC for the end of Stratum VII at Tel Rehov and the end of LPG may be more realistic. EUBOEAN LATE PROTOGEOMETRIC/SUB-PROTOGEOMETRIC Four sherds in our collection were defined as Euboean LPG/ SPG (Nos. 2–5). Nos. 3–4 came from the Early Iron IIA Stratum VI, No. 2 came from a Stratum V context, and No. 5 from topsoil. The precise date of Stratum VI in the 10th century 108 109 110 111 Mazar & Streit forthcoming; see already Sharon et al. 2007a. Fantalkin et al. 2014, 31. Coldstream 1968, 327; also Lemos 2002, 24–26. Popham & Sackett 1979, 356–368. GREECE AND THE LEVANT IN THE 10TH–9TH CENTURIES BC • AMIHAI MAZAR & NOTA KOUROU • 383 BC depends on the radiometric data. Three short-lived samples from Area C with a total of 18 repetitions were measured. The calibrated 1σ dates were 968–898 (Sample R18, average of five repetitions); 994–924 (Sample R19, average of three repetitions) and 968–856 (Sample R20, average of ten repetitions). These indicate a time range covering large part of the 10th century BC. The Bayesian model for Areas C and D suggests the start of Stratum VI in the range 936–911 CalBC and its end to the range 919–916 CalBC. The beginning of the following Stratum V is dated by this model to the years 911– 896 CalBC, and in the model for Area B: 948–896 CalBC. These dates appear to allow Stratum VI too short a time span, as this stratum has two phases and a pottery assemblage of its own which differs from the previous and later strata. In the opinion of Mazar, a longer time range is needed for Stratum VI, as is evidenced by the calibrated unmodelled dates. Therefore, a transition date during the first half of the 10th century between the end of Stratum VII (end of Iron I) and Stratum VI (Early Iron IIA) is suggested. The date c. 980 BC is just an estimation, and it could be somewhat lower. In any event, Coldstream’s dates for the LPG (950–900 BC) would fit the time span of Stratum VI, or at least part of it. His dates of the Euboean SPG (900–850 BC) postdate the time range of Stratum VI. The sherd from Megiddo Stratum Q-5 (correlated with Stratum VB of the Chicago University excavations) mentioned above has been attributed recently to the LPG, although it is admitted that stylistically it could be either LPG or SPG. This is an arbitrary decision based on the authors’ assumption that Stratum VB should be defined as Early Iron IIA (dated by them to the 10th century BC).112 EUBOEAN SUB-PROTOGEOMETRIC We assume that the elaborate SPG II Euboean pyxis No. 6 arrived at the site during the time of Stratum V. We noted the appearance of this vessel type at Lefkandi in Tomb 80 together with SPG pendent semicircle skyphoi like our No. 7, as well as with an Attic MG skyphos like our No. 11. The date of Stratum V is based on six radiometric dates with 18 repetitions from secure loci; these provided dates in the late 10th and early 9th centuries BC.113 The Bayesian 112 Fantalkin et al. 2014, 34–35. In the opinion of Mazar the definition of Stratum VB as Early Iron IIA is questionable since the published pottery is identical to that from Stratum IV–VA which is defined as Late Iron IIA. The only difference is the lack of Cypriot Black on Red (III) in Stratum VB. 113 The following is list of the average 1σ CalBC dates from Stratum V, with the sample number. R24 (four repetitions): 902–843; R25: (three repetitions): 928–900; R26 (five repetitions): 926–898; R28 (four repetitions) 894–836; R29a (one repetition) 1008–912; R29b (one repetition) 896–833. Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> model for Areas C and D would condense these dates to c. 919–896 CalBC while the Bayesian model for Area B provided a wider range: 948–861 CalBC. These dates are close, although somewhat higher than Coldstream’s estimated dates for the Euboean SPG II of 875–850 BC. Sherds Nos. 7 (Euboean SPG I–IIIa) and 8 (SPG I/IΙ ) came from Stratum IV which, according to our dates, started c. 890/880 BC and ended in a violent destruction attributed to an Aramean conquest c. 840/830 BC.114 Thus these two sherds perhaps arrived to the site during the time of Stratum V or in the early days of Stratum IV. Note that no clear SPG III sherds were identified at Tel Rehov, a fact that may fit Coldstream’s date of this phase to c. 850–750, mostly after the destruction of Stratum IV at Tel Rehov. ATTIC EARLY GEOMETRIC The Attic EG II sherd No. 9 was found in Stratum V which, in our view, ended no later than c. 890/880 BC. Coldstream’s date for the beginning of the period c. 875 BC would be close to the terminal date of this stratum. The Attic EG II sherd No. 10 was attributed to a Strata V– IV context (where no separation between the two strata could be made). The latter days of Stratum V or the early days of Stratum IV would fit Coldstream’s dates. MIDDLE GEOMETRIC Although much weight was given in previous discussions of MG chronology to the two sherds from Megiddo and Tell Abu Hawam,115 other scholars denied their value for chronology due to their insecure contexts.116 The two MG sherds Nos. 11 and 12 from Tel Rehov were found in the Stratum IV destruction layer. The suggested destruction date of this city of c. 840/830 BC (see n. 114) would provide a terminus ante quem for the appearance of MG pottery at Tel Rehov. The Attic MG period was dated by Coldstream (1968) to 850–750 BC; if correct, the two 114 The Bayesian model for Areas C and D, based on three samples with eleven repetitions suggests the range 904–863 BC (1σ) for the end of Stratum IV; however, the lowest unmodelled dates in this groups are 850, 848, and 809 CalBC. The Bayesian date for Area B, based on three samples with seven repetitions resulted in the date 906–838 CalBC (1σ) for the end of Stratum IV. Two unmodelled dates from Area E are available: one with five repetitions provided the date 832–810 CalBC (1σ) and another (single measurement) provided the dates 920–835 CalBC (1σ). Based on the unmodelled lowest available dates from these contexts and considering the historical feasibility that the destruction of Stratum IV was caused by Hazael early in his reign, the range c. 840–830 BC is preferred by Mazar as the most probable destruction date of Stratum IV. 115 Coldstream 1968, 303–304; 2003. 116 Waldbaum 1994, 56–57; Ussishkin in an addendum to Coldstream 2003; Fantalkin 2001, 119–121; Maeir et al. 2009, 69, n. 63. 384 • AMIHAI MAZAR & NOTA KOUROU • GREECE AND THE LEVANT IN THE 10TH–9TH CENTURIES BC vessels represented by these sherds arrived at Tel Rehov close to the beginning of this period in Greece, and arrived to Tel Rehov towards the end days of Stratum IV. The MG I/II sherd No. 13 was found in Stratum IIIA of the Iron IIB (mid-8th century BC) and may fit the latter part of the MG II period, which was dated by Coldstream to 800–760 BC. Sherd No. 14, found in topsoil above Stratum IV destruction debris in Area C, was hesitantly identified as Late MG, yet this identification remains insecure. The painted handle from Beth Shean Stratum P-8’ mentioned above, dated to the first half of the 8th century BC, provides another correlation between the MG and the Iron IIB in Israel. LATE GEOMETRIC The LG is beyond the scope of the present discussion, yet it should be noted that the number of LG sherds in the Southern Levant is extremely small,117 although at Tyre, Sidon, and Al Mina they are more prevalent. CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE CHRONOLOGICAL ISSUE The basic chronological framework as suggested by Coldstream in 1968 and still dominating Greek chronology118 is supported by the data in this paper. However, it should be emphasized that in spite of the numerous radiometric dates from Tel Rehov, precise dates at a resolution of less than 50 years for the Iron Age I–IIA depend very much on different possible interpretations of the unmodelled radiometric dates viz a viz the results of Bayesian models and additional archaeological and historical considerations.119 The only significant suggestion here is to raise the beginning of the LPG by 30–50 years, but as mentioned above this suggestion is based on Mazar’s considerations concerning the transition from Iron I to Iron II and the dates of Stratum VI, while the radiocarbon dates from the latter stratum would confirm Coldstream’s dates (Table 3). Tel Rehov and the nature of the Greek-Levantine connections during the 10th–9th centuries BC Greco-Levantine connections during the Iron Age have been discussed from many angles, but mainly on the basis of pottery found at coastal sites.120 Finds from inland sites were almost always confined to isolated items, so the pottery from Tel Rehov is the first time that a considerable number of Greek sherds have been discovered at a site located far from the coast. Tel Rehov is an inland site in the Jordan Valley close to an important route connecting Cisjordan with Transjordan. Tel Hadar is similarly located inland, on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. The collection of 14 Greek sherds from Early Iron Age contexts at Tel Rehov, representing Euboean LPG and SPG, as well as Attic MG styles, in five different strata (VII–III) and in four different excavation areas is an exceptional phenomenon indicating the durable commercial links and trade networks of this important city. The site had evidently strong connections with the Phoenician coast and Cyprus, as indicated by Phoenician Bichrome and Red Slip and Cypriot White Painted, Bichrome, and Black-on-Red pottery found in Strata VI–IV.121 The evidence for the import of Anatolian bee swarms to the unique industrial apiary discovered in Stratum V at Tel Rehov is an evidence for longrange trade relations of this city (in this case either through Phoenicia or through inland Syria).122 In these transactions an important trading station was probably the fort at Horbat Rosh Zayit (Strata IIb–a), on the border between the Phoenician and Israelite territories in the western Galilee, which yielded abundant Phoenician and Cypriot pottery, in addition to a local pottery assemblage that is surprisingly similar to that of Strata V–IV at Tel Rehov.123 It is likely that the Greek pottery reached Tel Rehov from Tyre, Sidon, or from another coastal city such as Dor or Akko either via Cyprus or through direct trade relations between Phoenicia and Euboea. The number of Near Eastern finds at Lefkandi and Eretria indicate that Euboea must have played a major role in these international connections. The sequence of the Euobean sherds at Tel Rehov can be clearly fixed starting with the MPG/LPG sherd (No. 1), which represents the first of the Greek ceramics to arrive at the site. Following the 120 117 For two LG bowl sherds from Dor, see Waldbaum 1994, fig. 7:a, and 7:b; Stern 2000, pl. 1:6. 118 Thus Lemos (2002, 24–26) on the PG period. 119 This is in contrast to Gilboa & Sharon (2003, 71), who suggest that the Low Chronology better fits the Greek chronology. Note that the dates presented by Fantalkin et al. 2014, 31 are fairly similar to those suggested here. Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> Cf. Luke 2003 (with references); Coldstream 1998; 2008; Lemos 2002, 53–60; Fantalkin 2001; Gilboa & Sharon 2003; Gilboa et al. 2008, 155; Kourou 2012. 121 A total of 82 Cypriot and 62 Phoenician pottery items from Tel Rehov will be published by Joanna Smith and Mazar respectively in the final report (Mazar & Panitz-Cohen forthcoming). 122 Bloch et al. 2010; Mazar 2016a; 2018. 123 Gal & Alexandre 2000. GREECE AND THE LEVANT IN THE 10TH–9TH CENTURIES BC • AMIHAI MAZAR & NOTA KOUROU • 385 Table 3. Appearance of Greek sherds at Tel Rehov and at other sites in the Southern Levant, few sporadic Greek sherds in SM or EPG styles arranged by the Greek period designations. in the Levant and some isolated Levantine finds at EPG Lefkandi that constitute a prelude to this Tel Rehov, Other sites Coldstream dates (1968) East-West trail, the LPG ceramic style in Euboea No. Attica Euboea coincides with the first stage of regular contacts with the Near East demonstrated by a considerSM or EPG Tell es-Safi sherd able number of Near Eastern imports at LefkanMPG Tel Hadar IV lebes di, as well as by the appearance of Euboean LPG Dor two sherds, Area D Phase 124 LPG 1 pottery in the Near East. A number of other 8c (Early Iron IIA) slightly later Euboean sherds at Tel Rehov in Tyre XI two published sherds LPG/SPG styles (Nos. 2–8) complement this LPG/SPG 2, 3, 4, 5 important stage of regular contacts between the Megiddo VB sherd SPG I–II 6, 7I, 8 900–850 Tyre: several sherds Eastern Mediterranean and Euboea. Tell Abu Hawam III (?) Coldstream interpreted the Euboean LPG Euboean skyphos pottery found at Tyre in relation to the prestiEG II 9, 10 Tell Abu Hawam III (?) cup 900–850 gious Near Eastern objects found in the PG roy(context insecure) 125 al burial at Lefkandi. He went as far as to sugMG I 11, 12 850–800 gest that there might have been marital relations MG II 13, 14 800–760 between Tyre and the king of Lefkandi during LG I–II 760–700 that period. Independent of this hypothesis, however, the Near Eastern imports at Lefkandi, Comment: INo. 7 defined as SPG I–IIIA. as well as ceramic Euboean imports at Tyre, Dor, Tell Abu Hawam, Megiddo, and Tel Rehov indicate a porary with the Euboean PG and SPG. The production of firm relationship between the Euboean Gulf and the Near the bronze tripod cauldrons in Greece lasted from the PG to East during the period of the LPG and SPG I–II styles. Who the start of the LG, but it may be suggested that some of the the carriers of the Euboean pots to the Levantine coast were later ones were produced from recycled metal. Such trade in is difficult to decide, but evidently not only Phoenicians but copper, probably through middlemen, between Faynan and also Cypriots should be considered, perhaps in joint venGreece, is usually explained as being conducted through the tures targeting the Euboean Gulf, in which Euboeans were Arabah Valley, and the central and northern Negev, to coastal eventually involved. cities like Gaza, Ashkelon, or Ashdod (Fig. 1). Some think The economic background for these connections must be that the large kingdom of Gath (Tell es-Safi) which flourished considered. One possibility is that the Greek vessels first arduring the 10th–9th centuries BC dominated this trade, alrived at Phoenician coastal cities and from there were exported though it seems to be far too north and removed from the as luxury items to inland cities such as Tel Rehov, in the framedirect route to Gaza or Ashkelon.129 A second, less plausible work of mutual trade. But since the finds of Greek pottery at possibility, is that copper was transported to Egypt through inland sites is so rare, we suggest a more specific economic acthe Negev and Northern Sinai, and then exported from Egypt tivity. We recall the recent unexpected discovery that bronze to Greece. No Greek pottery from this period was found in cauldrons in Greece were produced from copper originating southern Israel, but since such trade was probably carried out in the Faynan mines in the Arabah.126 It should be noted that by middlemen (perhaps Phoenicians) we should not expect to Coldstream already defined the Tel Hadar bowl as “a miniafind a “Greek pottery trail” along this route. We raise a third ture clay version of the prestigious bronze cauldrons offered at possibility, namely that perhaps a branch of the copper trade the pan-Hellenic sanctuaries of Olympia and Delphi”.127 The used the road along the eastern Arabah, east of the Dead Sea Arabah copper mines at both Faynan and Timnaʿ operated to the eastern Jordan Valley, the Beth Shean Valley, the Jezreel during the late 11th to mid-9th centuries BC,128 i.e. contemValley, Phoenicia, and Cyprus.130 This alternative route by- 124 Cf. Kourou 2012. Coldstream & Bikai 1988; Coldstream 1998, 356–357; 2000, 16–21. 126 Kiderlen et al. 2016; Yahalom-Mack 2017. 127 Coldstream 2000, 17–18. 128 Levy et al. 2012; 2014. Further south, the copper mines at Timna’ operated during the same time period. 125 Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> 129 For support of this view see Ben-Yosef & Sergi 2018, with references to earlier views. The idea was first suggested by Finkelstein and Fantalkin and rejected by Aren Maeir, the excavator of Tell es-Safi, Gath. 130 For the route along the eastern Arabah, see Ben-Yosef et al. 2014, 543–547, and fig. 6:39. Several sites along the eastern Jordan Valley (Tell Deir `Alla, Tell Damiyeh, Tel el-Mazar, Tell es-Sa`idiyeh, Tell Abu el-Ha- 386 • AMIHAI MAZAR & NOTA KOUROU • GREECE AND THE LEVANT IN THE 10TH–9TH CENTURIES BC passed Philistia and Egypt, and may have been preferred due to political or other reasons. A still-longer route from Faynan is the one leading to the Edom highlands near Busayra, via the “King’s Highway” of Transjordan to the Jordan valley. Tel Rehov could have played an important role along both these routes, and this may explain the exceptional presence of Greek pottery in this city during the heyday of copper production in the Arabah (10th to mid-9th centuries BC). The fact that vessels used in Lefkandi and elsewhere as grave goods (such as the rare pyxis No. 6) were found in occupation levels at Tel Rehov indicates that such vessels had a different meaning in the Levant; they may have been brought to Tel Rehov through the Phoenician port cities mentioned above, probably by Phoenician merchants, as exotic, prestigious gifts to local leaders or merchants. Interestingly, during the second half of the 9th century BC, much of this economic system came to an end. The copper mines at the Arabah (Faynan and Timna) ceased their operation.131 Tel Rehov and other sites (most notably Tell es-Safi-Gath) were heavily destroyed, most probably by Hazael, king of Damascus, between 840–830 BC or somewhat later. Some scholars believe that Hazael’s motivation was to take over the copper trade, yet his military conquests in fact resulted in the termination of this trade system and of the copper-mining activity in the Arabah, and the revival of Cypriot copper production and trade.132 We cannot be sure whether this historical reconstruction is correct. A crisis occurred during the same time (mid-9th century BC) at Lefkandi, where the cemeteries were abandoned and a destruction layer was found in Area SL, all dated to approximately the same time.133 The decline of Euboean ceramic imports at Tel Rehov, which seems to correspond with the appearance of the SPG IIIa style in Euboea (c. 850 BC according to Coldstream’s chronology), coincides with a drop in Near Eastern imports at Lefkandi attested during the period of SPG IIIa styles (equivalent to MG I Attic).134 A number of Attic sherds at Tel Rehov in EG II (Nos. 9–10) and MG styles (Nos. 11–13 and possibly 14) that were now imported instead of the Euboean vases, represent another distinct stage of Aegean ceramic arrivals at this site (although one of them, No. 9, defined as EG II, was found in Stratum V of the late 10th– early 9th centuries BC). Coldstream has suggested that Attic MG pottery arrived in the Levant by way of Euboea, thanks to the special relations it enjoyed with the Eastern Mediterranean, and because Euboea imported Attic pottery at that time.135 What is certain is that the appearance of Attic pottery in the Near East marks a dramatic shift in maritime trade networks, whose repercussions were also felt in the Central and Western Mediterranean, where new networks that traded Phoenician, Cypriot, and Greek pottery (Attic and Euboean) appear for the first time. The MG period is a prosperous phase of development in the Aegean that resulted in the consolidation of the city-state system. There is progress everywhere, but the most significant evidence for prosperity comes from Attica, where a number of new coastal settlements now appear and there is an increase of Near Eastern imports in MG graves accompanied by a dramatic drop in Cypriot imports, which until that time were the only foreign objects found in Attic graves.136 Metalwork suddenly thrived, produced in a ProtoOrientalizing style under Levantine influence and possibly implemented by the establishment of small guilds of Near Eastern craftsmen in Attica. The silver mines at Lavrion must have played a significant role in the attraction of Levantines to Attica. Located in Eastern Attica, the Lavrion mines were easily accessible to anyone sailing in the Euboean Gulf, where trade with Levantines during the 10th and 9th centuries BC is well demonstrated by the finds at Lefkandi. The exploitation of the Lavrion mines, involving also copper and galena, had a long tradition going back “at least as early as the Middle Helladic period and continuing into the Late Helladic IIIC1 period”.137 After the 12th century BC, the operation of silverworking is less well known, but it is generally accepted that it continued sporadically throughout the Iron Age. Good evidence of silver processing in the area of the West necropolis of Thorikos (just north of modern Lavrion) consisting of fragments of litharge excavated in an EG building with benches and basins that served as a silver workshop, attest to the operation of the mines in the 9th century BC, while a PG vase found in situ inside a rectangular structure together with litharge fragments imply an earlier use of the workshop in the 10th century BC.138 According to ceramic evidence from a number of installations with benches and basins that served as washing units at Thorikos, the main industrial centre for extracting silver at Lavrion, there was a rapid increase in processing the 135 raz, Pella) were settled during the Iron IIA period and could have taken place in such a trade route. 131 Levy et al. 2012; 2014, 985–987. 132 Ben-Yosef & Sergi 2018, 471–474 with references to earlier suggestions. On the revival of copper production in Cyprus see Kassianidou 2012; 2014; Yahalom-Mack et al. 2014, 174. 133 Popham & Sackett 1979, 364; Coldstream in Coldstream & Mazar 2003, 39. 134 Cf. Kourou 2012, 219. Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> Cf. Coldstream in Coldstream & Mazar 2003, 38–39. Coldstream 1977, 52; Kourou 2012, 220. 137 Stos-Gale & Gale 1982, 467 present the results of lead-isotope and neutron activation analyses of lead and silver artefacts from the shaft graves of Mycenae, among some other sites, and lead-silver ores from Lavrion. For fragments of litharge discovered in the main room of a Middle Helladic building with benches and basins (dated c. 1500 BC) and evidently operating as a silver workshop in the Middle Helladic period, cf. Bingen 1967b. 138 Bingen 1967a, 29, figs. 15–16. 136 GREECE AND THE LEVANT IN THE 10TH–9TH CENTURIES BC • AMIHAI MAZAR & NOTA KOUROU • 387 galena ore which contained silver in the MG period.139 Given the fact that silver was extremely valuable and very much in demand in the Near East, where it was rare, its availability at Lavrion on the easily accessible coast of Eastern Attica must have comprised a strong attraction for the Levantines. 140 Evidently the transfer of such commodities was carried out through trade networks in which Euboeans played a decisive role. Desborough, followed by Irene Lemos, suggested an "Euboean koine” based on similar archaeological traits (mainly pottery) found in wider parts of central-eastern Greece, from Boeotia to Thessaly and coastal Macedonia to Skyros, Skiathos, and some Northern Cycladic islands.141 The archaeological evidence from Lefkandi points to the existence of a polity of some sort, perhaps a commercial alliance, which centred on the significant sea lane of the Euboean Gulf and conducted trade relations with various parts of Greece, but also with Cyprus and the Levant. It is interesting to note that in addition to the commonly circulating small bowls at Tel Rehov there is a pyxis and four kraters (three of Euboean origin [Nos. 2–5], one of Attic fabrication [No. 10]). The Euboean globular pyxis (No. 6), which is known in the Levant by an example from Tambourit and two from Tyre,142 is a shape with a particular function in the Aegean, basically for small-scale storage, perhaps for cosmetics, ointments, or precious objects,143 and it was therefore possibly a proper “ad hominem gift, as has been suggested for the even more unusual Euboean PG vessel found at Tel Hadar”.144 The three Euboean kraters and the large Attic MG krater represent a Greek shape which was thought to be only rarely exported, evidently because of its size. Yet, the Tel Rehov kraters are not an isolated case in the Levant. There is another krater from Samaria, three from Tyre, and one from Hama, all Attic,145 and the shape is also well represented in Cyprus by Attic and Eu- 139 Cf. Coldstream 1977, 70; Bingen 1967b, 38–42, figs. 44–48. Silver was a traditional medium of exchange in the Ancient Near East, cf. Aruz 2014, 116. As a standard of equivalence and a means of payment already in the Bronze Age and as a pre-coinage medium of currency, it is inextricably linked with Near Eastern economics ("the silver question”, cf. Peyronel 2010). However, so far scientific analysis (in particular isotope analysis) has not revealed the presence of silver from Lavrion in the Levant during the 10th–9th centuries BC. 141 Lemos 2002, 212–221, and 224. For the wide distribution of pendent semicircle skyphoi and their impact or imitations in the Eastern Mediterranean cf. Kerschner & Lemos 2014. 142 Courbin 1977 (Tambourit); Coldstream & Bikai 1988, 41, nos. 87, and 90–96 (Tyre). 143 Cf. Boardman 1967 for a Cretan PG globular pyxis at Tekke near Knossos, which contained a treasure of gold ornaments of Near Eastern character. 144 Coldstream, in Coldstream & Mazar 2003, 38–39. 145 Cf. Luke 2003, 33 (with references). 140 Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> boean examples.146 In Geometric Greece, the krater was essential equipment for the symposium and thus it carried the symbolism of status and wealth of the aristocracy.147 Possibly this symbolism accompanied these large pots when sent abroad so that they should be considered as sumptuous and exotic products. In the same spirit skyphoi found in the Levant have been considered exotic and luxurious gifts in their new context and perhaps the lebes from Tel Hadar had the same connotation. However, the presence of amphorae at Bassit indicates that a commercial use of the Greek vases found in the Levant should not be overlooked.148 In conclusion The controversy over the character of Greek imports in the Levant is evidently beyond the scope of this paper, as Greek pottery arrived at Tel Rehov almost certainly by middlemen who transported it as part of an extensive trade system. Such a system could involve various commodities, among them metals: copper from the Arabah Valley (perhaps transported to some extent through Transjordan and the Jordan Valley) and silver from Lavrion. The appearance of imported Greek, Phoenician, and Cypriot pottery at Tel Rehov during the 10th–9th centuries BC (before the violent destruction of Stratum IV, most probably by Hazael) indicates the city’s prosperity and dynamic economic activity and contributes to our knowledge of the far-reaching commercial connections at that time, in which the Euboean Gulf on the one hand and the Phoenician coastal cities of Tyre and Sidon on the other were probably major players. Tel Rehov took part in this international trade as an important city located on one of the major trade routes connecting Phoenicia with Transjordan. AMIHAI MAZAR The Institue of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Mt Scopus, Jerusalem Israel 9190401 mazar@huji.ac.il NOTA KOUROU University of Athens, Department of Archaeology University Campus 15784 Zographou, Athens Greece nkourou@arch.uoagr 146 Cf. e.g. Dikaios 1963 for the large Attic krater from the Royal Tomb 1 at Salamis in Cyprus. 147 For this reason in MG Athens a large krater frequently marked a warrior grave, cf. e.g. Kübler 1954, pls. 16–23. 148 As carriers of commodities perhaps wine or olive oil, as already suggested by Courbin 1993. 388 • AMIHAI MAZAR & NOTA KOUROU • GREECE AND THE LEVANT IN THE 10TH–9TH CENTURIES BC Bibliography Aruz, J. 2014. ‘Art and artworks of interaction across the Mediterranean’, in Assyria to Iberia at the dawn of the Classical Age, ed. J. Aruz, New York, 112–124. Ben Yosef, E., M. Najjar & T.E. Levy 2014, ‘Local Iron Age trade routes in Northern Edom’, in New insights into the Iron Age archaeology of Edom, Southern Jordan, eds. T.E. Levy, M. Najjar & E. Ben-Yosef, Los Angeles, 493–576. Ben-Yosef, E. & O. Sergi 2018. ‘The destruction of Gath by Hazael and the Arabah copper industry. A reassessment’, in Tell it in Gath. Studies in the history and archaeology of Israel. Essays in honor of Aren M. Maeir on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, eds. I. Shai, J.R. Chadwick, L. Hitchcock, A. Dagan, C. McKinny & J. Uziel, Münster, 461–480. Clairmont, C. 1955. ‘Greek pottery from the Near East. Introduction’, Berytus 11, 85–141. Coldstream, N. 1968. Greek Geometric pottery, London. Coldstream, N. 1977. Geometric Greece, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203472781 Coldstream, N. 1998. ‘The first exchanges between Euboeans and Phoenicians. Who took the initiative?’, in Mediterranean people in transition. Thirteenth to early tenth centuries BCE, eds. S. Gitin, A. Mazar & E. Stern, Jerusalem, 353–360. Coldstream, N. 2000. ‘Exchanges between Phoenicians and early Greeks’, National Museum News. Beirut 11, 15–32. Bikai, P. 1978. The pottery of Tyre, Westminster. Coldstream, N. 2003. ‘Some Aegean reactions to the chronological debate in the Southern Levant’, TelAviv 30, 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1179/tav.2003.2003.2.247 Bingen, J. 1967a. ‘L’établissement du IX siècle et les nécropoles du secteur ouest 4’, in Thorikos II. 1964. Rapport préliminaire sur la deuxième campagne de fouilles, ed. F.H. Mussche, Brussels, 25–46. Coldstream, N. 2008. ‘Early Greek exports to Phoenicia and the Eastern Mediterranean’, in Networking patterns of the Bronze and Iron Age Levant, eds. C. DoumetSerhal, A. Rabate & A. Resek, Beirut, 168–188. Bingen, J. 1967b. ‘L’établissement géométrique et la nécropole ouest’, in Thorikos III. 1965. Rapport préliminaire sur la troisième campagne de fouilles, ed. F.H. Mussche, Brussels, 31–56. Coldstream, J.N. & P.M. Bikai 1988. ‘Early Greek pottery in Tyre and Cyprus. Some preliminary comparisons’, RDAC 1988:2, 35–44. Bloch, G., T.M. Francoy, I. Wachtel, N. Panitz-Cohen, S. Fuchs & A. Mazar 2010. ‘Industrial apiculture in the Jordan Valley during Biblical times with Anatolian honeybees’, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107:25, 11240–11244. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003265107 Coldstream, N. & A. Mazar 2003. ‘Greek pottery from Tel Rehov and Iron Age chronology’, IEJ 53, 29–48. Courbin, P. 1977. ‘Une pyxis géométrique argienne(?) au Liban’, Berytus 25, 147–157. Courbin, P. 1993. ‘Fragments d’amphores protogeometriques grecques a Bassit’, Hesperia 62, 95–113. https://doi.org/10.2307/148251 Boardman, J. 1959. ‘Greek potters at Al Mina?’, AnatST 9, 163–169. https://doi.org/10.2307/3642337 Desborough, V.R.d’A. 1952. Protogeometric pottery, Oxford. Boardman, J. 1967. ‘The Khaniale Tekke Tombs II’, BSA 62, 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245400014088 Doumet-Serhal, C. 2009. ‘Excavating Sidon’, in A decade of archaeology and history in the Lebanon, eds. A. Rabate & A. Resek, Beirut, 102–123. Bonatz, D. 1998. ‘Imported pottery’, in Tel Afis, Syria. Scavi sull’acropoli 1988–1992. Ricerche di archeologia del Vicino Oriente, eds. S.M. Cecchini & S. Mazzoni, Pisa, 211–228. Fantalkin, A. 2001. ‘Low Chronology and Greek Protogeometric and Geometric pottery in the Southern Levant’, Levant 33, 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1179/lev.2001.33.1.117 Catling, R.W.V. & I.S. Lemos 1990. Lefkandi II:1. The Protogeometric building at Toumba. The pottery, Oxford. Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> Dikaios, P. 1963. ‘A “royal” tomb at Salamis, Cyprus’, AA 1963, 126–208. GREECE AND THE LEVANT IN THE 10TH–9TH CENTURIES BC • AMIHAI MAZAR & NOTA KOUROU • 389 Fantalkin, A., I. Finkelstein & E. Piasetzky 2011. ‘Iron Age Mediterranean chronology. A rejoinder’, Radiocarbon 53, 179–198. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033822200034469 Fantalkin, A., I. Finkelstein & E. Piasetzky 2014. ‘Late Helladic to Middle Geometric Aegean and contemporary Cypriot chronologies. A radiocarbon view from the Levant’, BASOR 373, 25–48. https://doi.org/10.5615/bullamerschoorie.373.0025 Finkelstein, I. 1996. ‘The archaeology of the united monarchy. An alternative view’, Levant 28, 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1179/007589196790216767 Finkelstein, I. & E. Piasetzky 2009. ‘Radiocarbon-dated destruction layers. A skeleton for Iron Age chronology in the Levant’, OJA 28:3, 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0092.2009.00328.x Finkelstein, I. & E. Piasetzky 2011. ‘The Iron Age chronology debate. Is the gap narrowing?’, NEA 74:1, 50–54. https://doi.org/10.5615/neareastarch.74.1.0050 Fischer, P. 2013. Tell Abu al-Kharaz in the Jordan Valley III. The Iron Age, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.26530/oapen_465030 Gal, Z. & Y. Alexandre 2000. Ḥorbat Rosh Zayit (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports, 8), Jerusalem. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1fzhfg1 Garfinkel, Y., K. Streit, S. Ganor & M. Hasel 2012. ‘State formation in Judah. Biblical tradition, modern historical theories and radiocarbon dates at Khirbet Qeiyafa’, Radiocarbon 54, 359–369. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033822200047147 Gilboa, A. & I. Sharon 2003. ‘An archaeological contribution to the Early Iron Age chronological debate. Alternative chronologies for Phoenicia and their effects on the Levant, Cyprus and Greece’, BASOR 332, 7–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/1357808 Gilboa, A., I. Sharon & E. Boaretto 2008. ‘Tel Dor and the chronology of Phoenician “pre-colonization” stages’, in Beyond the homeland. Markers in Phoenician chronology (Ancient Near Eastern Studies. Suppl., 28), ed. C. Sagona, Leuven, 113–204. Gilboa, A., I. Sharon, J.R. Zorn & S. Matskevitch 2018. Excavations at Dor. Final report 2A–C (Qedem Reports, 10–12), Jerusalem. Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> Gimatzidis, S. forthcoming. ‘The materiality of feasting at Sidon. Entangled ideologies on the maritime routes of Mediterranean’, in Proceedings of the archaeological symposium “Three global harbours of the ancient world. Tyre, Sidon, Byblos” held in Beirut 25–29 October 2017 (BAAL, Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises—Hors Série, 8), Beirut. Hamilton R.W. 1934–1935. ‘Excavations at Tell Abu Hawam’, QDAP 4, 1–69. Herrera, M.D. & J. Balensi 1986. 'More about the Greek Geometric pottery at Tell Abu Hawam', Levant 18:1, 169–171. https://doi.org/10.1179/007589186790586047 Herzog, Z. & L. Singer-Avitz 2006. ‘Sub-dividing the Iron IIA in northern Israel. A suggested solution to the chronological debate’, TelAviv 33, 163–195. https://doi.org/10.1179/tav.2006.2006.2.163 Jones, R. 1986. Greek and Cypriot pottery. A review of scientific studies, Athens. Kassianidou, V. 2012. ‘The origin and use of metals in Iron Age Cyprus’, in Cyprus and the Aegean in the Iron Age. The legacy of Nicolas Coldstream, ed. M. Iacovou, Nicosia, 229–260. Kassianidou, V. 2014. ‘Cypriot copper for the Iron Age world of the Eastern Mediterranean’, in Structure, measurement and meaning. Studies on prehistoric Cyprus in honour of David Frankel, ed. J. Webb, Uppsala, 261–271. Kearsley, R. 1989. The pendent semi-circle skyphos. A study of its development and chronology and an examination of its evidence for Euboean activity at Al Mina, London. Kerschner, M. & I. Lemos, eds. 2014. Archaeometric analyses of Euboean and Euboean related pottery. New results and their interpretations. Proceedings of the round table conference held at the Austrian Archaeological Institute in Athens, 15 and 16 April 2011 (ÖJh Ergänzungsheft, 15), Vienna. Kiderlen, M., M. Bode, A. Hauptmann & Y. Bassiakos 2016. ‘Tripod cauldrons produced at Olympia give evidence for trade with copper from Faynan ( Jordan) to South West Greece, c. 950–750 BCE’, JAS Reports 8, 303–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.06.013 390 • AMIHAI MAZAR & NOTA KOUROU • GREECE AND THE LEVANT IN THE 10TH–9TH CENTURIES BC Kopcke, G. 2002. ‘1000 B.C.E.? 900 B.C.E.? A Greek vase from Lake Galilee’, in Leaving no stones unturned. Essays on the ancient Near East and Egypt in honor of Donald P. Hansen, ed. E. Ehrenberg, Winona Lake, 109–117. Kourou, N. 1999. The Southern Cemetery of Naxos=Το Νότιο Νεκροταφείο της Νάξου, Athens. Kourou, N. 2008. ‘Markers in Phoenician chronology. The evidence from the Aegean’, in Beyond the homeland. Markers in Phoenician chronology (Ancient Near Eastern Studies. Suppl., 28), ed. C. Sagona, Leuven, 305–364. Kourou, N. 2009. ‘The Aegean and the Levant in the Early Iron Age. Recent developments’, in Interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean. Lebanon in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Proceedings of the international symposium (BAAL, Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises—Hors Série, 6), ed. A.-M. Maila-Afeiche, Beirut, 361–374. Kourou, N. 2012 (pr. 2015). ‘Cypriots and Levantines in the Central Aegean during the Geometric Period. The nature of contacts’, MeditArch 25, 215–227. Kourou, N. 2015. ‘Early Iron Age mortuary contexts in the Cyclades. Pots, function and symbolism’, in Pots, workshops and Early Iron Age society. Function and role of ceramics in Early Greece. Proceedings of the international symposium held at the Université libre de Bruxelles 14–16 November 2013, ed. V. Vlachou, Bruxelles, 83–105. Kraiker, W. & K. Kübler 1939. Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen I. Die Nekropolen des 12. bis 10. Jahrhunderts, Berlin. Levy, T.E., M. Najjar & E. Ben-Yosef 2014. New insights into the Iron Age archaeology of Edom, southern Jordan, Los Angeles. Luke, J. 2003. Ports of trade. Al Mina and Geometric Greek pottery in the Levant (BAR, 1100), Oxford. Maeir, A.M., A. Fantalkin & A. Zukerman 2009. ‘The earliest Greek import in the Iron Age Levant. New evidence from Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel’, Ancient West and East 8, 57–80. https://doi.org/10.2143/awe.8.0.2045838 Mazar, A. 1990. The archaeology of the land of the Bible (ca. 10,000–586 B.C.E.), New York. Mazar, A. 2004. ‘Greek and Levantine Iron Age chronology. A rejoinder’, IEJ 54, 24–36. Mazar, A. 2005. ‘The debate over the chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant. Its history, the current situation and a suggested resolution’, in The Bible and radiocarbon dating. Archaeology, text and science, eds. T. Levy & T. Higham, London, 15–30. Mazar, A. 2006. Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996. 1. From the Late Bronze Age IIB to the medieval period, Jerusalem. Mazar, A. 2008a. ‘From 1200 to 850 B.C.E. Remarks on some selected archaeological issues’, in Israel in transition. From Late Bronze II to Iron IIa (c. 1250–850 BCE), ed. L. Grabbe, New York & London, 86–121. Mazar, A. 2008b. ‘Rehov, Tel’, in The new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern, Jerusalem, 2013–2018. Kübler, K. 1954. Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen V:1. Die Nekropole des 10 bis 8 Jahrhunderts, Berlin. Mazar, A. 2011. ‘The Iron Age chronology debate. Is the gap narrowing? Another viewpoint’, NEA 74:2, 105–110. https://doi.org/10.5615/neareastarch.74.2.0105 Lee, S., A. Mazar & C. Bronk Ramsey 2013. ‘Iron Age chronology in Israel. Results from modeling with a Trapezoidal Bayesian framework’, Radiocarbon 55:2, 731–740. https://doi.org/10.1017/s003382220005788x Mazar, A. 2015. ‘Religious practices and cult objects during the Iron Age IIA at Tel Rehov and their implications regarding religion in Northern Israel’, Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 4:1, 25–55. https://doi.org/10.1628/219222715x14343676549142 Lemos, I. 2002. The Protogeometric Aegean, Oxford. Mazar, A. 2016a. ‘Discoveries from Tel Rehov. The early days of the Israelite monarchy’, in It is the land of honey. Exhibition catalogue. Eretz Israel Museum, ed. I. Ziffer, Tel Aviv, 13–156 & 9e-67e. Levy, T.E., E. Ben-Yosef & M. Najjar 2012. ‘New perspectives on Iron Age copper production and society in the Faynan region, Jordan’, in Eastern Mediterranean metallurgy and metalwork in the second millennium B.C. A conference in honour of James D. Muhly, eds. V. Kassianidou & G. Pappasavas, London, 197–214. Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> GREECE AND THE LEVANT IN THE 10TH–9TH CENTURIES BC • AMIHAI MAZAR & NOTA KOUROU • 391 Mazar, A. 2016b. ‘Culture, identity and politics relating to Tel Rehov in the 10th–9th centuries BCE’, in In search of Aram and Israel. Politics, culture and the question of identity, eds. O. Sergi, M. Oeming & I. de-Hulster, Tübingen, 89–120. Mazar, A. 2018. ‘The Iron Age apiary at Tel Rehov, Israel’, in Beekeeping in the Mediterranean. From antiquity to the present, eds. F. Hatjina, G. Mavrofridis & R. Jones, Nea Moudania, 40–49. Mazar, A. & C. Bronk Ramsey 2008. ‘14C dates and the Iron Age chronology of Israel. A response’, Radiocarbon 50:2, 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033822200033506 Mazar, A. & N. Panitz-Cohen, eds. forthcoming. The excavations at Tel Rehov, 1997–2012 (Qedem), Jerusalem. Mazar, A. & K. Streit forthcoming. ‘The radiometric dates from Tel Rehov’, in The excavations at Tel Rehov, 1997–2012 (Qedem), eds. A. Mazar & N. PanitzCohen, Jerusalem. Mazar, A., H.J. Bruins, N. Panitz-Cohen & J. van der Plicht 2005. ‘Ladder of time at Tel Rehov. Stratigraphy, archaeological context, pottery and radiocarbon dates’, in The Bible and radiocarbon dating. Archaeology, text and science, eds. T. Levy & T. Higham, London, 195–255. Mazar, A., N. Kouru & N. Coldstream forthcoming. ‘The Greek pottery’, in The excavations at Tel Rehov, 1997–2012 (Qedem), eds. A. Mazar & N. PanitzCohen, Jerusalem. Nitsche, A. 1986–1987. ‘Bemerkungen zu Chronologie und Herkunft der Protogeometrischen und Geometrischen Importkeramik von Tyros’, Hamburger Beiträge zur Archäologie 13/14, 7–49. Perreault, J. 1991. ‘Les débuts de la présence effective de Grecs sur la côte syro-palestinienne à l’âge du fer’, in O ελληνισμός στην Ανατολή. Πρακτικά Α Διεθνούς Αρχαιολογικού Συνεδρίου, Δελφοί 6-9 Νοεμβρίου 1986, ed. the European Cultural Center of Delphi, Athens, 393–406. Peyronel, L. 2010. ‘Ancient Near Eastern economics. The silver question between methodology and archaeological data’, in Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, May, 5th–10th 2009, ‘Sapienza’—Università di Roma, eds. P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, L. Nigro & N. Marchetti, Wiesbaden, 925–948. Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> Popham, M.R. & I.S. Lemos, eds. 1996. Lefkandi III. The Toumba Cemetery. Plates, Oxford. Popham, M.R. & L.H. Sackett, eds. 1979. Lefkandi I. The Iron Age, Oxford. Popham, M.R., E. Touloupa & L.H. Sackett 1982. ‘Further excavations of the Toumba Cemetery at Lefkandi. 1981’, BSA 77, 213–248. https://doi.org/10.1017/s006824540000513x Saltz, D. 1978. Greek Geometric pottery in the East. The chronological implications. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University. Sharon, I., A. Gilboa & E. Boaretto 2007a. ‘14C and the Early Iron Age in Israel—Where are we really at? A commentary on the Tel Rehov radiometric dates’, in The synchronization of civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the second millennium B.C. III., eds. M. Bietak & E. Czerny, Vienna, 149–156. Sharon, I, A. Gilboa, T. Jull & E. Boaretto 2007b. ‘Report on the first stage of the Iron Age dating project in Israel. Supporting a low chronology’, Radiocarbon 49:1, 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033822200041886 Stern, E. ed. 1993. The new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the Holy Land, Jerusalem. Stern, E. 20002. Dor–The ruler of the seas, Jerusalem. Stos-Gale, Z.A. & N.H. Gale 1982. ‘The sources of Mycenaean silver and lead’, JFA 9:4, 467–485. https://doi.org/10.2307/529683 Toffolo, M.B., A. Fantalkin, I.S. Lemos, R.C.S. Felsch, W.-D. Niemeier, G.D.R. Sanders, I. Finkelstein & E. Boaretto 2013. ‘Towards an absolute chronology for the Aegean Iron Age. New radiocarbon dates from Lefkandi, Kalapodi and Corinth’, PLoS ONE 8:12, e83117. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083117 Verdan, S., A. Kenzelmann Pfyffer, Cl. Léderrey 2008, Eretria XX. Fouilles et Recherches. Céramique Géométrique d’Érétrie, Lausanne. Waldbaum, J.C. 1994. ‘Early Greek contacts with the Southern Levant ca. 1000–600 B.C. The Eastern perspective’, BASOR 293, 53–66. https://doi.org/10.2307/1357277 392 • AMIHAI MAZAR & NOTA KOUROU • GREECE AND THE LEVANT IN THE 10TH–9TH CENTURIES BC Yahalom-Mack, N. 2017. ‘Metal production and trade at the turn of the first millennium BCE. Some answers, new questions’, in Rethinking Israel. Studies in the history and archaeology of ancient Israel in honor of Israel Finkelstein, eds. O. Liphshitz, Y. Gadot & M. Adams, Winona Lake, 451–462. Licensed t o <openaccess@ecsi.se> Yahalom-Mack, N., E. Galilil, I. Segal, A. Eliyahu-Behar, E. Boaretto, S. Silshtein & I. Finkelstein 2014. ‘New insights into Levantine copper trade. Analysis of ingots from the Bronze and Iron Ages in Israel, JAS 45, 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.02.004