Tel Aviv Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University ISSN: 0334-4355 (Print) 2040-4786 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ytav20 Early Iron Age Tombs in Northern Israel Revisited Gunnar Lehmann & Oz Varoner To cite this article: Gunnar Lehmann & Oz Varoner (2018) Early Iron Age Tombs in Northern Israel Revisited, Tel Aviv, 45:2, 235-272, DOI: 10.1080/03344355.2018.1494785 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03344355.2018.1494785 View supplementary material Published online: 10 Sep 2018. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 2 View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ytav20 TEL AVIV Vol. 45, 2018, 235–272 Early Iron Age Tombs in Northern Israel Revisited Gunnar Lehmann and Oz Varoner Ben-Gurion University of the Negev This study defines early Iron Age burials in Northern Israel as a coherent assemblage with traditions that are archaeologically distinguishable from those of northern Phoenician and southern Philistine societies. These burial traditions are distinct from funerary customs of the Late Bronze Age and Iron IIB. The study discusses the main developments and regional differentiations of early Iron Age burial traditions with an emphasis on their chronological contexts. Keywords Early Iron Age, Burials, Early Iron Age pottery, Northern Israel The excavated graves of the early Iron Age, defined here as burials of the Iron I and Iron IIA, shed important light on the development of ancient Israel. This study focuses on burials in the northern part of the central hill-country, the Coastal Plain of the Sharon, the Jezreel Valley and the northern Jordan Valley. Regarding chronology, over the last 15 years, major research has provided new insights into the development and the relative dates of early Iron Age ceramics in Northern Israel and Phoenicia (Gilboa 2001; Gilboa and Sharon 2003; Arie 2006, 2013a, b), providing a backbone for the relative chronology of our study region. Types of early Iron Age burials The map in Fig. 1 gives the sites of burials in our sample. The burial types relevant to our discussion are:1 • • • • • 1 Simple graves Cist graves Simple caves Caves with a shaft Complex caves For a more detailed explanation, see Online Supplementary Material 1, Early Iron Age Burial Types. © The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 2018 DOI 10.1080/03344355.2018.1494785 236 GUNNAR LEHMANN AND OZ VARONER • Rock-cut regularly shaped tombs with rectangular chambers, which appear at the end of the Iron IIA • Bronze Age rock tombs re-used in the early Iron Age Notably, there are no cremation burials during the early Iron Age in our study area. All age groups were interred in multiple burials (Wenning 1997: 90). Local funerary pottery Pottery is the most frequent artefact found in the early Iron Age tombs in our study region (for details and references, see table, Pottery Types, in Online Supplementary Material 2). While pottery is essential for establishing the relative chronology of burials, it also provides evidence for burial rituals, social status and the economic relations of the Figure 1 Early Iron Age burials in the study region. EARLY IRON AGE TOMBS IN NORTHERN ISRAEL REVISITED 237 kinship groups burying their dead. Vessels were most probably not deposited empty, but would have contained food offerings and/or remains of a funeral banquet (Bloch-Smith 1992: 105–108, 122–126; Kamlah 2009: 262–263). In dating the early Iron Age burials, this study follows the revised chronological framework developed by Herzog and Singer-Avitz (2006, 2011). The burials discussed are relatively dated by comparing the pottery finds with stratified ceramic assemblages of key excavations such as Megiddo2 and Dor.3 Other excavations with stratified early Iron Age pottery assemblages include Tell Keisan, Yokneam, Tel Qasile, Rosh Zayit, Taanach and Tell el–Far>ah (N).4 Absolute chronology is achieved with the large number of radiocarbon determinations from recent years. All in all we reexamined 128 burials, focusing on almost 90 tombs from which pottery was recovered. All identified funerary vessels from these burials were analysed and a comprehensive typology prepared. The typology encompasses approximately 100 types and subtypes. The pottery types, burial data and selected datable artefacts were entered in seriation and cluster analyses. Due to space limitations, we do not present the seriation here in full detail. The transition from the Iron I to the Iron IIA and especially the pottery assemblage of the early Iron IIA remain somewhat elusive. Many sites in the Jezreel Valley, the Akko Plain and the area surrounding the Sea of Galilee, were destroyed during the Iron I/IIA transition. As a result, the published pottery assemblages from the Iron I and early Iron IIA levels appear distinct. This may be somewhat misleading. Evidence at sites that were not destroyed, such as Dor (Gilboa and Sharon 2003: 34–35), demonstrate that the development of pottery styles during this transition was in fact gradual. We examined the frequencies in which particular types of pottery occurred (Figs. 2–10). Among the local productions, bowls (marked B in the figures), or open serving vessels, are the most frequent vessels in early Iron Age funerary contexts. They are followed by juglets (JL) and lamps (L). Less frequent are jugs (JG), pyxides (PX), storage (or rather transport) jars (SJ), chalices (G) and kraters (K). ‘Cups-and-saucers’ (CS), cooking-pots (CP) and especially cooking jars (CJ) as well as zoomorphic vessels (Z) are rare. Imported pottery reached our study region from Cyprus and Phoenicia. Among the Phoenician imports are flasks (or ‘Pilgrim Bottles’[PL], more below) that constitute one of the most frequent types in Iron I burials. During the Iron I and IIA, some of the key types occurred throughout our study region with no regional differentiation. There was also no recognizable correlation of particular pottery types with specific burial types. Bowls and lamps appear frequently in burials of Iron I and IIA (Fig. 12). Significant changes are visible in the drop in the numbers of storage jars and flasks in Iron IIA burials. More frequent types in Iron IIA burials are jugs and juglets together with chalices, pyxides and cooking-pots. However, since most types continue from Iron I to Iron IIA, these modifications do not constitute radical transformations of funeral customs. 2 Zarzecki-Peleg 2005; Arie 2006, 2013a, 2013b. 3 Gilboa 1995, 2001; Gilboa, Waiman-Barak and Sharon 2015. 4 Rast and Glock 1978; Briend and Humbert 1980; Chambon 1984; Gal and Alexandre 2000; Ben–Tor et al. 2005. 238 GUNNAR LEHMANN AND OZ VARONER Figure 2 Iron I pottery types found in burials (*type continued in Iron IIA). EARLY IRON AGE TOMBS IN NORTHERN ISRAEL REVISITED FIGURE 239 2 Iron I pottery types found in burials Type Vessel form Burial (Reference) B1 Bowl Megiddo T1090 A (Guy and Engberg 1938: Pl. 73: 6) B2 Bowl Nahal Yifat T2 (Arie 2011: Fig. 9.3.1: 3) B3 Bowl >Askar Cave 1 (Magen and Eisenstadt 2004: Pl. 11: 2) B4 Bowl Tell en-Nasbeh T32 (Wampler 1947: 1235) B5 Bowl Deir Abu Da>if (Magen and Eisenstadt 2004: Pl. 19: 2) B6 Bowl Taiyiba (Yannai 2002: Fig. 2: 2) B7 Bowl Nahal Yif>at T6 (Arie 2011: Fig. 9.3.2:1) B8 Bowl Nahal Yif>at T7 (Arie 2011: Fig. 9.3.2:4) B9 Bowl Megiddo T11 (Guy and Engberg 1938: Pl. 164:2) B10 Bowl Tell en-Nasbeh T54 (Wampler 1947: 1236) B11 Bowl Megiddo T1090 B (Guy and Engberg 1938: Pl. 73:11) B12 Bowl Megiddo T29 (Guy and Engberg 1938: Fig. 68:4) B13 Bowl Majdal (Yannai 1993: Fig. 1:5) B14 Bowl Megiddo T221 B (Guy and Engberg 1938: Pl. 70:11) Philistine pottery and in particular bell-shaped bowls are extremely rare in the funerary assemblages of our study region. The only three bell-shaped bowls that appeared in northern burials are from the early Iron I Megiddo graves T1101 C (Guy and Engberg 1938: Pl. 8: 22), Megiddo 94/F/42 (Finkelstein, Zimhoni and Kafri 2000: Fig. 11.1: 2) and Majdal (Yannai 1993: Fig. 1: 6). A jug found in >Afula Tomb 2 is monochrome red painted with motifs resembling the Iron I Philistine styles at Qasile and Tell el-Far>ah (S) (Dothan 1955: Fig. 20: 2). Late Philistine Decorated Ware is also extremely rare in early Iron Age burials discussed here. This group of pottery, also known as Ashdod Ware, is typical of Iron IIA in southern Israel (Ben-Shlomo, Shai and Maeir 2004). The only example in our sample seems to be a juglet from Gibeon (Dajani 1953: Pl. 9: 28, not illustrated here). Pottery types which occurred in Iron I burials were also used in settlement contexts. Only a few types represent specialized pottery types for ritual use (e.g., askoi or zoomorphic vessels), yet even these do not appear exclusively in burial sites. Imported funerary pottery Early Iron Age ceramic burial imports were mainly from Phoenicia and Cyprus. A detailed analysis of the fabric of Phoenician types demonstrated that some had been produced at Tyre while others had been manufactured on the Carmel coast in or near Dor (Gilboa and Goren 2015). We therefore define Phoenician pottery as vessels produced from the Carmel coast in the south to Lebanon in the north, with Phoenicia in this sense representing a social and economic phenomenon with flexible borders rather than an ethnic identity. An important component of Phoenician pottery in the funerary contexts discussed here are flasks or pilgrim bottles (Type PL). These vessels are small lentoid flasks decorated with spirals or concentric circles. They date to the Iron I and disappear with the beginning of 240 GUNNAR LEHMANN AND OZ VARONER Figure 3 Iron I pottery types found in burials (cont.) (*type continued in Iron IIA). EARLY IRON AGE TOMBS IN NORTHERN ISRAEL REVISITED FIGURE 241 3 Iron I pottery types found in burials (cont.) Type Vessel form Burial (Reference) B15 Bowl Megiddo T221 B (Guy and Engberg 1938: Pl. 71:5) CP1 Cooking-pot Abu Musarrah (Peleg and Yezerski 2004: Pl. 5:1) CP2 cooking-pot Abu Musarrah (Peleg and Yezerski 2004: Pl. 4:12) CP3 Cooking-pot Taiyiba (Yannai 2002: Fig. 5:12) CP4 Cooking-pot Deir Abu Da>if (Magen and Eisenstadt 2004: Pl. 19:12) CP5 Cooking-pot Abu Musarrah (Peleg and Yezerski 2004: Fig. 5:3) G1 Chalice Taiyiba (Yannai 2002: Fig. 5:1) G2 Chalice Tell en-Nasbeh T32 (Wampler 1947: 1574) G3 Chalice Shadud T33 (Arie 2011: Fig. 9.4.4:13) the Iron IIA (Gilboa 2001: Types FL2, PJ3 and PJ4; Gilboa and Goren 2015: 76–77). The flasks are among the most frequent vessels in the funerary assemblages of our sample and occurred in 34% of the investigated graves. Some of the flasks probably contained exotic spices such as cinnamon and nutmeg (Namdar et al. 2013). In contrast, lentoid flasks with a spoon-shaped neck (Type PL1) are rare in the assemblages discussed here. Compared with the flasks, other Phoenician imports are rare and include mainly bichrome and monochrome globular jugs (Fig. 10: 6).5 The painted decoration displays a configuration of narrow black bands enclosing wider red ones constituting the hallmark of the Phoenician Bichrome style, called ‘enclosed bands pattern’ (Gilboa and Sharon 2003: 28). Recent petrographic research has demonstrated that such globular jugs were produced in Lebanon, the Carmel coast and on Cyprus (Gilboa and Goren 2015). They evolved during the late Iron I and continued in early Iron IIA.6 Globular spouted jugs with a narrow neck and geometric painted motifs (Fig. 4: JG7) belong to the Phoenician coastal tradition (Gilboa and Goren 2015: Fig. 3: 4). They commenced in the Iron I and expired in the Iron IIA. The example illustrated here has a Bichrome painted decoration; it was found at Megiddo T1101 B Upper (Guy and Engberg 1938: Pl. 8: 12). Cypriot imports appear in the early Iron Age burials discussed here in significant numbers only in the late Iron IIA. Most of these imports are in the Cypro–Geometric III style. The only Cypriot vessel in an Iron I burial is a Bichrome II bowl (Fig. 10: 1) found in Megiddo Tomb 221 B (Guy and Engberg 1938: Pl. 72: 8).7 Bichrome II style bowls 5 Abu Musarrah (Peleg and Yezerski 2004: Pl. 6: 6); >Askar Tomb 1 (Magen and Eisenstadt 2004: Pl. 11: 9); Nazareth (Loffreda 1977: Fig. 1: 3 and Fig. 2: 1–2); Megiddo Tomb 04/K/38 (Arie 2006: Fig. 13.51: 11). 6 Loud 1948, Pl. 80: 2; Gilboa and Sharon 2003: 62 with references; Zarzecki-Peleg 2005: Fig. 10: 14–15; Arie 2013b Types J4 and J5. 7 Gjerstad 1948: 249; Arie 2013a: 725; Gilboa dated the bowl to Cypro-Geometric III, which does not fit the Iron I assemblage found in Tomb 221 B (Gilboa 2015: 485, Fig. 4.2.3: 8). 242 GUNNAR LEHMANN AND OZ VARONER Figure 4 Iron I pottery types found in burials (cont.) (*type continued in Iron IIA). EARLY IRON AGE TOMBS IN NORTHERN ISRAEL REVISITED FIGURE 243 4 Iron I pottery types found in burials (cont.) Type Vessel form Burial (Reference) JG1 Spouted jug Megiddo T37 (Guy and Engberg 1938: Pl. 39:6) JG2 Jug Megiddo T221 B (Guy and Engberg 1938: Pl. 72:9) JG3 Jug Tell en-Nasbeh T32 (Wampler 1947: 625) JG4 Amphoriskos >Askar Cave 1 (Magen and Eisenstadt 2004: Pl. 12:1) JG5 Amphoriskos >Askar Cave 1 (Magen and Eisenstadt 2004: Pl. 12:3) JG6 Chalice Nazareth (Loffreda) (Loffreda 1977: Fig. 2:4) JG7 Phoenician bichrome jug Megiddo T1101 B Upper (Guy 1938 and Engberg: Pl. 8:12) K1 Krater Megiddo T1101 B Upper (Guy 1938 and Engberg: Pl. 8:8) L1 Lamp Majdal (Yannai 1993: Fig. 1:9) PL Flask Megiddo T71 (Guy 1938 and Engberg: Pl. 70:3) PL1 Flask Megiddo T39 (Guy 1938 and Engberg: Pl. 68:10) PX1 Pyxis Megiddo T39 (Guy 1938 and Engberg: Pl. 69:2) CS Cup-and-saucer Nahal Yif>at T6 (Arie 2011: Fig. 9.3.2:3) SJ1 Storage jar Megiddo T1090 A (Guy and Engberg 1938: Pl. 73:7) SJ2 Storage jar Megiddo T39 (Guy and Engberg 1938: Pl. 69:1) SJ3 Storage jar Megiddo T62 (Guy and Engberg 1938: Pl. 70:11) SJ3 Storage jar Nazareth (Loffreda) (Loffreda 1977: Fig. 1:1) are commonly dated to the early Iron IIA (Gilboa 2015: 485) and the appearance of such a bowl in an Iron I context is exceptional. The Cypro-Geometric III pottery is mainly represented by small ridged-neck, single handled Black-on-Red juglets (Fig. 10: 2) that date to the late Iron IIA (Gilboa 2015: 487). We found several of these juglets in the burials in our sample. Other Cypro-Geometric III imports include White Painted and Bichrome barrel juglets (Fig. 10: 4) (Gilboa 2015: 487), a Black-on-Red jug,8 Black-on-Red piriform juglets (Fig. 10: 3),9 Black-on-Red bowls10 and a Cypriot bowl with worn off paint from Tell Shadud Tomb 8 (Arie 2011: Fig. 9.4.4: 8). Non-ceramic finds Only a few of the non-ceramic grave goods in early Iron Age burials are useful as chronological markers. Most small finds in graves appear throughout the Iron Age without significant morphological changes and some are even carry-overs from the Bronze Age. The grave goods consist mainly of jewelry, weapons and tools made of bronze or iron as well as bone and shell items. Other rare objects include spindle whorls, ivory pyxides and disks, faience vessels, stone weights and basalt objects.11 8 Mevorakh Tomb 100 (Stern 1978: 31: 1–2). 9 Haifa Tombs 1 and 7 (Guy 1924: Pl. 2: 5, Fig. 3: 32, 37). 10 Haifa Tomb 7 (Guy 1924: Pl. 3: 33) and Megiddo Tomb 76 B (Guy and Engberg 1938: Pl. 74: 17). 11 Abercrombie 1979: 141–168; Bloch-Smith 1992: 63–108; Wenning 1997: 90; Wenning 2005: 156–157. 244 GUNNAR LEHMANN AND OZ VARONER Figure 5 Iron I pottery types found in burials (cont.) (*type continued in Iron IIA). EARLY IRON AGE TOMBS IN NORTHERN ISRAEL REVISITED FIGURE 245 5 Iron I pottery types found in burials (cont.) Type Vessel form Burial (Reference) K1 Krater Megiddo T1101 B Upper (Guy 1938 and Engberg: Pl. 8:8) L1 Lamp Majdal (Yannai 1993: Fig. 1:9) PL Flask Megiddo T71 (Guy 1938 and Engberg: Pl. 70:3) PL1 Flask Megiddo T39 (Guy 1938 and Engberg: Pl. 68:10) PX1 Pyxis Megiddo T39 (Guy 1938 and Engberg: Pl. 69:2) CS Cup-and-saucer Nahal Yif>at T6 (Arie 2011: Fig. 9.3.2:3) SJ1 Storage jar Megiddo T1090 A (Guy 1938 and Engberg: Pl. 73:7) SJ2 Storage jar Megiddo T39 (Guy 1938 and Engberg: Pl. 69:1) SJ3 Storage jar Megiddo T62 (Guy 1938 and Engberg: Pl. 70:11) The most common materials in early Iron Age burials are bronze and iron objects. A significant part of the bronzes analysed from the Jatt hoard originated in the Arabah (Stos-Gale 2006). Unfortunately, additional analyses of metal artefacts have not been done. Most of the metal objects were found in graves that carried over from the Iron I to the Iron IIA or in graves that date to the Iron IIA. Burials that continued from the Iron I to the Iron IIA have proportionally more small finds than the burials that were maintained in one period only, either in the Iron I or the Iron IIA. Materials common in all sub-periods of the early Iron Age are carnelian, bone and shell. All other materials are rare throughout all sub-periods. Gold and ivory were found mostly in Iron I burials, while faience occurred in greater frequency in Iron IIA tombs. The few examples of hematite seem to date to the Iron IIA. About one third of the burials contained metal ornaments such as bracelets, earrings and needles, usually of bronze. Other ornaments and jewelry items include beads, amulets and pendants, some made of carnelian, glass or faience. Weapons as grave goods include knives, daggers, spearheads, arrowheads and armour plates. Long-socket spearheads and lanceolate, short socket spearheads were found at Jatt12 and Tel Zeror Tombs 6 and 8.13 The use of lanceolate, short socket spearheads spread over several centuries, beginning in the Bronze Age. Thus, neither spearheads nor arrowheads provide a sufficient chronological resolution for precise dating. Toggle pins, fibulae, metal vessels, scarabs and seals provide more accurate solutions for dating burials. During the early Iron Age, fibulae replaced the toggle pins. While Tell en-Nasbeh Tomb 32 contained 27 toggle pins, Tomb 5 there, which commenced in the late Iron IIA, did not yield a single toggle pin. In our study region, toggle pins were found in only eight early Iron Age tombs: one dates to the Iron I (Megiddo Tomb 62, Guy and Engberg 1938: Pl. 168: 14, 16); four were in use from the Iron I through the Iron IIA (Nasbeh Tomb 32 and 54, Nisya Tomb 65 and Taiyiba);14 and three date to the Iron IIA only, including the 12 Artzy 2006: Figs. 2.6: 1–5, 6: 1–2, Pls. 11: 2–5, 12:1–3 and Fig. 2.7: 3–5, Pl. 12: 4–6. 13 Ohata 1970: Pl. 63: 6–7. 14 In Tell en-Nasbeh Tomb 32, 28 toggle pins were found and 9 pins in Tomb 54 (McCown 1947: Pl. 108). For Nisya see Livingston 2002: Fig. 7: 1–8 and for Taiyiba Yannai 2002: Fig. 12:1–3. 246 GUNNAR LEHMANN AND OZ VARONER Figure 6 Iron IIA pottery types found in burials. EARLY IRON AGE TOMBS IN NORTHERN ISRAEL REVISITED FIGURE 247 6 Iron IIA pottery types found in burials Type Vessel form Burial (Reference) B16 Bowl Taiyiba (Yannai 2002: Fig. 2:12) B17 Bowl Deir Abu Da>if (Magen and Eisenstadt 2004: Pl. 19:6) B18 Bowl >Illar (Magen and Eisenstadt 2004: Pl. 23:14) B19 Bowl >Illar (Magen and Eisenstadt 2004: Pl. 23:4) B20 Bowl Taiyiba (Yannai 2002: Fig. 3:10) B21 Bowl Taiyiba (Yannai 2002: Fig. 2:18) B22 Bowl Taiyiba (Yannai 2002: Fig. 3:6) B23 Bowl Taiyiba (Yannai 2002: Fig. 4:3) B24 Bowl Baqa el-Gharbiya (Badhi 2000: Fig. 1:6) B25 Bowl Taiyiba (Yannai 2002: Fig. 2:1) B26 Bowl Har Yona (Alexandre 2003: Fig. 2:1) B27 Bowl Shadud T23 (Arie 2011: Fig. 9.4.4:4) B28 Bowl Taiyiba (Yannai 2002: Fig. 3:14) B29 Bowl Taiyiba (Yannai 2002: Fig. 4:9) late Iron IIA (Abu Musarrah, >Askar Tomb 3 and Gibeon).15 Thus, toggle pins were still in use in the Iron IIA and most probably went out of use during the late Iron IIA. Fibulae are rare in early Iron Age tombs and they were found in only three graves. Two types were recorded. The first (Fig. 11: 2) is Pedde’s Type A2.1 (= Giesen Type V) and has a simple bow without ‘beads’ (Pedde 2000; Giesen 2001). Since only fragments of this bow are preserved, it is difficult to distinguish this type from Pede Type A3 (= Giesen Type II). Such fibulae16 appeared in Gibeon (Dajani 1953: Pl. 10:42), Tell en-Nasbeh Tomb 32 (McCown 1947: Pl. 109: 1–2) and Tsur Natan (Alon, Herriott and Varoner 2013: Fig. 7.1: 4). The second type (Fig. 11: 3) is an asymmetrical fibula with two ‘beads,’ Pedde’s Type A2.2 (= Giesen Type VI). It was found in only one example in Tell en-Nasbeh Tomb 32 (McCown 1947: Pl. 109: 3). Pedde’s and Giesen’s absolute dating of these fibulae has to be revised according to the current chronology of the southern Levant. Fibulae with a simple bow without ‘beads’ (Pedde Type A2.1 = Giessen Type V) appear in Cyprus only in Late Cypriot IIIB (Fig. 11: 2), contemporaneous with the early Iron I in our study region. Pedde Type A3 (Giesen Type G II) commenced in Cyprus at the end of the Late Cypriot IIIA, contemporaneous with the LB III, and was used until at least the Cypro-Geometric III, contemporaneous with the late Iron IIA. This type was found in Megiddo Stratum VI and Tell el-Far>ah (N) Stratum VIIb dating to the Iron I and early Iron IIA respectively. Asymmetrical fibulae with two ‘beads’ (Pedde Type A2.2 = Giesen Type VI) commenced in the Late Cypriot IIIB and went out of use in Cypro-Geometric III, contemporaneous with the Iron I–IIB in our study region (Fig. 11: 3). 15 Abu Musarrah (possibly Peleg and Yezerski 2004: Pl. 15: 1); >Askar (Magen and Eisenstadt 2004: Pl. 18: 6–7); Gibeon (Dajani 1953: Pl. 10: 43). 16 Pedde 2000: Type A3 Nos. 80, 87. 248 GUNNAR LEHMANN AND OZ VARONER Figure 7 Iron IIA pottery types found in burials (cont.). EARLY IRON AGE TOMBS IN NORTHERN ISRAEL REVISITED FIGURE 249 7 Iron IIA pottery types found in burials (cont.) Type Vessel form Burial (Reference) CJ Cooking jug Megiddo T37 E (Guy 1938 and Engberg: Pl. 40:3) CJ Cooking jug Megiddo T37 E (Guy 1938 and Engberg: Pl. 39:14) CP6 Cooking-pot Megiddo T37 E (Guy 1938 and Engberg: Pl. 39:13) CP7 Cooking-pot Megiddo T80 C (Guy 1938 and Engberg: Pl. 75:10) CP8 Cooking-pot Deir Abu Da>if (Magen and Eisenstadt 2004: Pl. 19:13) G4 Chalice >Askar Cave 1 (Magen and Eisenstadt 2004: Pl. 11:3) G5 Chalice Tell en-Nasbeh T32 (Wampler 1947: 1572) JG8 Jug Baqa el-Gharbiya (Badhi 2000: Fig. 3:17) JG9 Jug Baqa el-Gharbiya (Badhi 2000: Fig. 3:15) JG10 Jug Tsur Natan (Alon, Herriott and Varoner 2013: Fig. 4.2:11) JG11 Jug Taiyiba (Yannai 2002: Fig. 6:9) JG12 Jug Tsur Natan (Alon, Herriott and Varoner 2013: Fig. 4.2:10) JG13 Jug Tell en-Nasbeh T32 (Wampler 1947: 635) JG14 Jug Tell en-Nasbeh T32 (Wampler 1947: 641) The metal vessels found in early Iron Age tombs are in almost all cases bowls made of bronze. In our sample, they occurred at Abu Musarrah, Megiddo Tomb 62, Tell en-Nasbeh Tomb 32, Taiyiba, Zeror Earth Grave 1 and Zeror Tombs 5 and 6.17 The bowls from burials at Tel Dover are mentioned by Artzy but are not yet published (Artzy 2006: 56). Almost all the bowls, except for a number of vessels at Jatt, are variations of Gershuny’s ‘curved bowls’ with a deep, pounded out base (Gershuny 1985: nos. 33–35, 38–77; Artzy 2006: 55–56) (Fig. 11: 4). The examples of this form on Cyprus define their date more precisely (Matthäus 1985: nos. 331–336): the oldest bowls with an omphalos base date to the Late Bronze Age, while the last examples occurred in the early Iron IIA and did not continue into the late Iron IIA. There were a total of 81 scarabs, scaraboids and seals in our sample, recorded from 13 burials at 10 sites. Seals and scarabs do not always lend themselves to precise dating of the burials in which they are found. They generally undergo morphological changes and as precious items, seals were often kept as heirlooms for long periods. Only 15% of the finds date to the Iron I, 18% to the Iron I–IIA and another 18% to the Iron IIA or later (Keel, Schroer and Münger, personal communication). Altogether, 49% of the of the 81 scarabs and seals do not date to the Iron Age or are of uncertain date, with 4% dating to the Middle Bronze and 9% to the Late Bronze Age. One distinct group of scarabs is the so-called post-Ramesside mass-productions.18 Manufacture of these scarabs commenced during the 21st Dynasty (1069–945 BCE) and ceased at the beginning of the 22nd Dynasty (945–ca. 900 BCE) (Keel 2013: 33). Post17 Peleg and Yezerski 2004: Pl. 16, Guy and Engberg 1938, McCown 1947: 82=Gershuny 1985: no. 58; Yannai 2002: Fig. 10:1; Ohata 1970: 39, 69–70, 71, Pl. 63: 11; Gershuny 1985: nos. 1, 65, 106. 18 Keel 1995b; Münger 2003, 2005, 2007, 2011. 250 GUNNAR LEHMANN AND OZ VARONER Figure 8 Iron IIA pottery types found in burials (cont.). EARLY IRON AGE TOMBS IN NORTHERN ISRAEL REVISITED FIGURE 251 8 Iron IIA pottery types found in burials (cont.) Type Vessel form Burial (Reference) JG8 Jug Baqa el-Gharbiya (Badhi 2000: Fig. 3:17) JG9 Jug Baqa el-Gharbiya (Badhi 2000: Fig. 3:15) JG10 Jug Tsur Natan (Alon, Herriott and Varoner 2013: Fig. 4.2:11) JG11 Jug Taiyiba (Yannai 2002: Fig. 6:9) JG12 Jug Tsur Natan (Alon, Herriott and Varoner 2013: Fig. 4.2:10) JG13 Jug Tell en-Nasbeh T32 (Wampler 1947: 635) JG14 Jug Tell en-Nasbeh T32 (Wampler 1947: 641) Ramesside mass-produced scarabs were found in Tell en-Nasbeh Tomb 32, Nazareth, Nisya Tomb 65, Taiyiba and Tsur Natan, where four such scarabs were found.19 Notably, there were no post-Ramesside mass-productions in the Iron I tombs at Megiddo. Another distinct group of seals in our sample is the truncated cone-shaped stamp seal or conoid (Keel 1995a: 100–103). Eight examples were found, one at Tsur Natan and seven at Tell en-Nasbeh Tombs 32 and 54.20 The hematite conoid at Tsur Natan is Keel’s conoid Type II (1995: 100–102 § 248 and 250).21 Cone-shaped seals of hematite with drill-hole engravings were also found at Tell el-Far>ah (S), Lachish and Megiddo (Keel, Shuval and Uehlinger 1990: 372, Pl. 20: 4 and 21: 1–2).22 In our study region, conoid seals typically occurred in the Iron I and early Iron IIA, although some early conoids were found in the MB IIB and Late Bronze Age contexts (Keel 1995a: 100–103). Schaeffer analysed conoids with an emphasis on finds from Cyprus. He concluded that conoids first appear on Cyprus in Late Cypriot IIIA and disappear at the beginning of the Cypro-Geometric I (Schaeffer 1952: 69–96). Dating the burials Recent progress in pottery studies and radiocarbon dating permit more precise dating of the relative early Iron Age burials. This is summarized in Table 1 and Figures 13 and 14. In many cases, these dates revise those of previous studies. In the lowlands, Iron I burials were excavated throughout the study area (Fig. 1): in the Sharon, the Jezreel Valley and the Upper Galilee. In the central hill-country Iron I burials occur only in two regions: around Shechem and in Benjamin. Where only local pottery is available, it is usually impossible to assign an Iron I burial more precisely to one of the sub-phases of that period. Yet, it is possible to identify specific 19 McCown 1947: Pl. 54:13, 34; Vitto 2001: Fig. 3; Brandl 2002: Fig. 5; Yannai 2002: Fig. 14; Keel 2013: Fig. 5:2–5. 20 Tsur Natan: Keel 2013: Fig. 5.1:6; Tell en–Nasbeh: McCown 1947: Pl. 53: 47, 54: 24, 28–30, p. 295 numbers 31–32 without illustration. 21 For the use of hematite seals, see Keel 1995a: 141 §§ 357–360. 22 Tell el-Far>ah (S) (Keel 2010: no. 220), Lachish (Tufnell 1953: 44A/45:150) and Megiddo (Lamon and Shipton 1939: Pl. 69/70:14). 252 GUNNAR LEHMANN AND OZ VARONER Figure 9 Iron IIA pottery types found in burials (cont.). EARLY IRON AGE TOMBS IN NORTHERN ISRAEL REVISITED FIGURE 253 9 Iron IIA pottery types found in burials (cont.) Type Vessel form Burial (Reference) JL1 Juglet Taiyiba (Yannai 2002: Fig. 7:24) JL2 Juglet >Askar Cave 3 (Magen and Eisenstadt 2004: Pl. 13:21) JL3 Juglet Menorim Cist Grave 3 (Braun 2001: Fig. 5:1) JL4 Juglet >Askar Cave 3 (Magen and Eisenstadt 2004: Pl.13:26) JL5 Juglet Taiyiba (Yannai 2002: Fig. 7:9) JL6 Juglet Deir Abu Da>if (Magen and Eisenstadt 2004: Pl. 20:15) K2 Krater Deir Abu Da>if (Magen and Eisenstadt 2004: Pl. 19:8) L1 Lamp Tell en-Nasbeh T32 (Wampler 1947: 1614) L2 Lamp Taiyiba (Yannai 2002: Fig. 9:12) PX2 Pyxis Taiyiba (Yannai 2002: Fig. 8:2) PX3 Pyxis >Askar Cave 3 (Magen and Eisenstadt 2004: Pl. 13:10) PX4 Pyxis Tell en-Nasbeh T32 (Wampler 1947: 1702) CS Cup-and-saucer Baqa el-Gharbiya (Badhi 2000: Fig. 1:8) Z1 Zoomorphic Tsur Natan (Alon, Herriott and Varoner 2013: Fig. 4:3) Askos Askos Tell en-Nasbeh T32 (Wampler 1947: 623) types of the late Iron I pottery, especially imports such as Phoenician globular jugs (Arie 2013b: Types 4–5) and the Cypro-Geometric I–II imports discussed here. In the central hill-country, there is a conspicuous lack of Iron I burials (e.g., Kletter 2002; Bloch-Smith 2004; Faust 2004; Miller 2005: 69–73). A number of burials mentioned by Bloch-Smith (1992: 80–83) and Miller (2005: 69) as possible Iron I tombs were excluded in our study. None of these burials was excavated, their grave goods are not published and the authors did not distinguish LB III (equivalent to Mazar’s Iron IA; see Mazar 2005) from Iron I pottery (Mazar’s Iron IB). In addition, some pottery that was assigned in the past to the Iron I (Cooley and Pratico 1995: 168) in fact dates to the Iron IIA, for example black juglets that appear in this study as our Type JL1 (Arie 2013a: 705–706 Type JT32). The only Iron I burials in the central hill-country are >Askar Cave 1 and 3, Tell en-Nasbeh Tombs 32 and 54, and Khirbet Nisya Tomb 65, each of which continued to be in use in the Iron IIA. The pottery in burials at Gibeon and Abu Musarrah contain a few types that may date to the Iron I and Iron IIA, yet most of the ceramics in these tombs belong to the Iron IIA. We thus assigned the two tombs to the Iron IIA exclusively. The tomb at Deir Abu Da>if belongs to the Jezreel Valley rather than to the highlands. The Iron I tombs at Zeror, Majdal, Tsur Natan, Taiyiba and Jatt are located in the Sharon Plain and must also be distinguished from highland burials. Even in the biblical tradition, the Sharon Plain was considered out of the reach of the Israelite tribes in the highlands (Judges 1:27). More importantly, the Sharon villages are larger and developed a significantly richer and diverse material culture compared to the small and impoverished highland settlements. This is evident in the density of affluent burials presented here and the Iron I casemate fortifications of Tel Zeror. The early Iron Age tombs in the highlands are simple burial caves, sometimes in complex conjunctions. They were replaced by 254 GUNNAR LEHMANN AND OZ VARONER Figure 10 Iron IIA pottery types including imports found in burials. EARLY IRON AGE TOMBS IN NORTHERN ISRAEL REVISITED FIGURE 255 10 Iron IIA pottery types including imports found in burials Type Vessel form Burial (Reference) SJ4 Amphora Tell en-Nasbeh T54 (Wampler 1947: 523) SJ5 Storage jar >Askar Cave 3 (Magen and Eisenstadt 2004: Pl. 15:4) SJ6 Storage jar Baqa el-Gharbiya (Badhi 2000: Fig. 4:19) >Askar Cave 3 (Magen and Eisenstadt 2004: Pl. 15:6) SJ7 Storage jar SJ8 Storage jar >Askar Cave 1 (Magen and Eisenstadt 2004: Pl. 12:6) 1 Cypriot Bichrome II bowl Megiddo T221B (Guy 1938 and Engberg: Pl. 72:8) 2 Black-on-Red juglet Taiyiba (Yannai 2002: Fig. 8:20) 3 Black-on-Red juglet Haifa T7 (Guy 1924: Pl. 3:38) 4 White Painted III juglet Zeror T5 (Ohata 1967: Pl. 10:3) 5 Phoenician jug Menorim Cist Grave 1 (Braun 2001: Fig. 3:6) 6 Phoenician jug Nazareth (Loffreda) (Loffreda 1977: Fig. 1:3) rock-cut bench tombs in the late Iron IIA, during the transition from the late Iron IIA to the Iron IIB. The rock-cut bench tombs have been sufficiently studied (Fantalkin 2008; Yezerski 2013a; b) and are therefore excluded from our discussion. Tomb 1 at Tel Dothan is a typical loculi tomb in the Late Bronze Age tradition (Gonen 1992: 132–133). There was an internal stratigraphy of five levels within the tomb, the oldest dating to the LB II. The upper two levels, 2 and 1, were dated to the LB III, in our terminology, equivalent to Amihai Mazar’s ‘Iron IA,’—the 12th century BCE (Cooley and Pratico 1995). This parallel terminology of ‘Iron IA’ (Mazar) equaling ‘LB III’ (Ussishkin/ Finkelstein) has caused and is causing considerable confusion among some scholars, who are unfamiliar with the terminology. Furthermore, the absolute chronology of the early reports is today obsolete.23 In a recent study, Gregoricka and Sheridan have published radiocarbon dates for the skeletal remains of individuals interred in Level 1 of Tomb 1 at Tel Dothan (Gregoricka and Sheridan 2016). Most of these dates are consistent with a LB III date in the 12th century BCE. However, one individual was apparently buried in the early 10th century BCE (ibid.: 4, sample UGAM 24334). None of the published artefacts supports such a late burial in Tomb 1 and hence this grave was not included in our sample. The excavators considered Tomb 65 at Khirbet Nisya in Benjamin as one of the earliest Iron I graves in the highlands (Livingston 2002). A reexamination of the published finds suggests that the tomb dates to the Iron I, yet was also used in the Iron IIA. The scarcity of Iron I burials in the highlands is difficult to explain since we have no positive evidence. But as the population was relatively insignificant and dispersed, any of the burials may have been archaeologically ‘invisible’, being simple earth interments containing only few grave goods. Unlike Faust (2004), we do not believe that the simplicity of burials was due to ideological considerations in an egalitarian society that banned elaborate burials. The few known tombs are rich; and the mortuary evidence does not indicate the practice of modesty. 23 Cooley 1968; Cooley and Pratico 1994; Cooley and Pratico 1995. 256 GUNNAR LEHMANN AND OZ VARONER Figure 11 Non-ceramic burial objects. No. Description Burial (Reference) 1 Toggle pin Taiyiba (Yannai 2002: Fig. 12:3) 2 Fibula Type Pedde A2.1 Idalion, Cyprus (Pedde 2000: Pl. 4:29) 3 Fibula Type Pedde A2.2 Lapithos, Cyprus (Pedde 2000: Pl. 5:39) 4 Curved bronze bowl with a deep, pounded out base Taiyiba (Yannai 2002: Fig. 10:1) Even so, there were only a few complex and lavish burials in the highlands during the Iron Age. Burials became more elaborate towards the end of the period, when they included increasingly expensive grave goods and imports. In the Sharon, too, with the exception of Majdal, Iron I tombs (and cemeteries) remained in use throughout the Iron IIA, with additional new burials established in the latter period. The same process is noticeable in the lower Galilee. Only the Jezreel Valley deviates from this pattern. With the destruction of Megiddo Stratum VIA, the burial tradition at the site was interrupted. Individual Iron I burials did not continue in the Iron IIA. The same phenomenon is evident at nearby cemeteries, at Hazore>a and Nahal Yif>at. At Megiddo, settlement resumed after an occupational gap with new Iron IIA burials in Stratum VB. EARLY IRON AGE TOMBS IN NORTHERN ISRAEL REVISITED 257 Figure 12 Frequencies of pottery types in early Iron Age burials. Canaanite-Israelite dichotomy? According to Faust (2006), the early Iron Age population in the central highlands identified itself as the nation of Israel. We do not agree. In terms of socio-economic conditions, the rural tribal societies of the highlands differed noticeably from those in the lowlands; along the Mediterranean coast and in the inland valleys a system of moderately-sized city-states endured from the Late Bronze Age. While the political economy in the highlands was shaped by its kin-based reciprocity and its limited market exchange, the city-states in the lowlands continued the Bronze Age patrimonial palace economy and participated in international trade, which began to thrive once more in the late Iron I. Finkelstein (2003) called this phenomenon ‘New Canaan’and Faust contrasted it with an ethnically unified ‘Israel’ that inhabited the central hill-country (Faust 2012: 230-254; for a critique see Maeir, Hitchcock and Kolska Horwitz 2013: 3). The difference in the political economies of the two regions does not support a ‘Canaanite-Israelite’ ethnic dichotomy (Bloch-Smith 1992: 149). The variances in burial goods detailed by Bloch-Smith24 (ibid.: 142–144) are easily explained with the limited resources of the rural communities in the central hill-country, rather than with an ideology of equality and ideological resistance against ethnic ‘Canaanites’. In fact, a major part of the so-called ‘early Israelite’ culture can be traced to local Levantine (‘Canaanite’) origins. 24 Note that the dates of the burials in her discussion have to be revised. 258 GUNNAR LEHMANN AND OZ VARONER It is unlikely that the fragmented kinship groups in the early Iron Age central highlands operated as a ‘national’ unit with a sense of ethnic consciousness. We assume that neither the fragmented city-states in the lowlands, nor the kinship groups of the highlands acted in the first place as ethnic units. Rather, they operated according to varying local interests (Maeir and Hitchcock 2016). Group identity was certainly a factor in maintaining boundaries between early Iron Age communities. However, identities of kinship groups in stateless societies usually evolved in a bottom-up approach, emphasizing local and diverging interests. Numerous historical examples from comparable societies in Yemen, Afghanistan and North Africa25 demonstrate that local lineages above all follow particularistic interests that override wider ‘ethnic consciousness’. Wealth and social differentiation Regarding wealth, mortuary practice may strive for an ideal that does not simply reflect the social status of the deceased (Hodder 1980: 163). Funeral customs and grave goods constitute social relationships in a dynamic process rather than simply representing them. In living societies, the funeral and its grave goods do not reflect in any mechanical way the distribution of status, rank, power, etc. (Parker Pearson 1982: 112). In some cases, grave goods may not have been provided by the family of the deceased, but represent offerings from peers and dependents. Keeping such caveats in mind, we consider that the time, effort and resources devoted to funerals do provide an indication of the social relationships of the deceased and his/her kin. Biblical accounts of burials of affluent families (Isa 22:15–16) support this assumption (BlochSmith 1992: 149). We hypothesize that groups that maintained burials with affluent grave goods also controlled significant and crucial, yet modest resources of the rural early Israelite society. The burials in our sample differ with regard to length of time they were in use and the number of generations that maintained them. They also differ in the number of interments. These factors have an impact on the amount of finds in a tomb. We may not know how rich an individual in a multiple burial tomb may have been, but we can work with the fact that wealth accumulated in these graves was maintained over generations. Contrasting this data with the type of burials and especially the occurrence of multiple burials within a tomb, patterns emerge. We distinguish four groups with regard to the wealth of the burials. Group 1 represents burials of Iron I and Iron IIA with few finds (less than 15 objects) of low value. These tombs do not contain bronze objects, ornaments and jewelry. There are no scarabs, seals, fibulae or toggle pins among the grave goods. The pottery assemblages are simple and include only bowls, kraters, chalices, juglets and lamps. There are no objects of precious metal. A few special types such as cup-and-saucer vessels and Phoenician flasks (or Pilgrim Bottles) may be present in the assemblage. Except for the Phoenician flasks, there is no imported pottery. The majority of these burials are simple earth pit graves. In most cases there is no data regarding the number of bodies in the earth pits. Where data is available, most earth graves contain one to three interments (Abercrombie 1979: 45; Bloch-Smith 1992: 26). In a few cases, Bronze Age tombs were re-used. 25 Weir 2007; Hart 2000; Glatzer 2002.. EARLY IRON AGE TOMBS IN NORTHERN ISRAEL REVISITED 259 Group 2 resembles Group 1. These burials too contain only a few finds (less than 15 objects) of low value. The pottery assemblages are similar to those in Group 1. The only difference is the occurrence of transport jars, jugs and a few imports of Cypro-Geometric III vessels. Simple earth graves constitute the majority of burials. Other types of Group 2 burials include re-used Bronze Age tombs and simple cave and rock-cut tombs with multiple interments. Where data is available, the earth graves held only one individual. Group 3 burials contain a large variety of pottery types, most of them juglets (in 75% of all burials of Group 3), jugs (75%), bowls (69%), transport jars and lamps (both 60%), chalices (47%), pyxides (38%) and kraters (34%). Rare and exotic pottery types such as our Types JG4, JG5 or SJ4 occur only in this group. There are also imports, both from Phoenicia and Cyprus, all Cypro-Geometric III, with one exception, the Cypro-Geometric II Megiddo T221 B bowl discussed above. The grave goods of this group include bronze objects and ornaments, jewelry, fibulae and toggle pins. Scarabs and seals were found only in graves of this group. The majority of tombs are simple or complex caves, cist graves, as well as a few shaft tombs and re-used Bronze Age tombs. Burials of Group 3 are typically multiple interments and the graves were maintained over several generations. Group 4 forms a sub-group of the cist graves. The variety of pottery types is very limited, mainly to juglets, lamps and transport jars. Even bowls, usually one of the most frequent funeral vessels , are rare in Group 4. While pottery is somewhat scarce, cist graves are furnished with bronze artefacts and valuable items. There are, however, no toggle pins or fibulae in this group. None of the graves contained Cypriot or Phoenician imports. Cist graves can contain multiple burials. Group 4 cist graves were excavated at Menorim and Zeror. According to members of Kibbutz Givat Oz, at least part of the destroyed graves at Tel Kedesh were cist graves. The pattern of Group 4 is apparently not the result of looting, although two cist graves at Zeror (Tombs 8 and 9) were found with removed cover stones. At Menorim, the cist graves were undisturbed, while at Kedesh the evidence is not sufficiently published. That looting was not significant is indicated by the valuable bronze finds that are typical for this group. Group 1 and 2 burials occurred in almost equal numbers from the Iron I through the Iron IIA. Four Group 3 burials date only to the Iron I, while eight Group 3 burials are known from the Iron I and Iron IIA. An additional ten Group 3 graves were created in Iron IIA. Cist graves of Group 4 began in the Iron I, yet the majority date to the Iron IIA. Group 3 burials are typically associated with multiple burials and long-term maintenance over several generations. Group 1 and 2 burials were in use for a distinctively less protracted period. Among the cist graves of Group 4 are some multiple burials with long-term use, yet other cist graves were short-term single burials. The Iron I tombs at Megiddo belong to Group 1 (26 burials), Group 2 (four burials) and Group 3 (three burials). These are the only graves in our sample that represent urban funeral practices. Rich and modestly furnished burials occur during this period side-by side. Yet, most of the 33 Iron I burials at Megiddo represent simple graves and only three belong to the affluent Group 3. This may reflect a socially differentiated urban population. The Iron I tombs at Hazore>a, Nahal Yif>at and Tell Shadud represent simple and rather poor village burials. The graves contained only few goods and are lacking imports and valuable items. 260 GUNNAR LEHMANN AND OZ VARONER Figure 13 Iron I burials. During the Iron IIA, settlement resumed at Megiddo. The burials of this period belong to Groups 2 and 3, but even the Group 3 tombs are only modestly furnished graves. According to the funerary evidence, social differentiation appears to be less articulated. In contrast to the village graves in the Jezreel Valley, some rural tombs in the Sharon are richly furnished. Group 3 burials were found at Taiyiba and Tsur Natan, possibly also Jatt. Zeror, Majdal and Baqa el-Gharbiya represent modest Group 2 and 4 funerals. The burials in the hilly Galilee belong to Groups 2, 3 and 4. Tombs at Menorim, Har Yona and Nazareth belong to the more lavishly furnished Group 3. One of the tombs at Nazareth, excavated by Loffreda (1977), contained Phoenician imports. In addition, at least two Group 4 cist graves were found at Menorim and a modest Group 2 burial was found at Kafr Kama. EARLY IRON AGE TOMBS IN NORTHERN ISRAEL REVISITED 261 Figure 14 Iron IIA burials. The few graves in the central hill-country dating to the Iron I and IIA belong almost exclusively to Group 3 and represent affluent funerals. Among these are the abundant assemblages of Tell en-Nasbeh Tomb 32 and 54, Abu Musarrah, Gibeon and Khirbet Nisya. They are all concentrated in Benjamin and emphasize the importance of this region during this period. The burials at >Askar (Group 3) and other unpublished graves at or near Shechem as well as the grave at Tell el-Far>ah (N) (Group 2) indicate the emerging political and economic power of the communities of Shechem and Tirza in the transition from the Iron I to the early Iron IIA. Comparing burials with the settlement pattern in the area, it is notable that except for Megiddo and the Jezreel Valley, all early Iron Age burials discussed here are located in 262 GUNNAR LEHMANN AND OZ VARONER Figure 15 Selected small finds in Iron I and IIA burials. a rural context. In the highlands, There were only a few affluent groups that maintained the conspicuously rich graves (see Fig. 15). These rural kinship groups, representing the local elites of the region, invested substantially in their tombs to sustain their social relationships and dominance. Archaeologically, this rendered their tombs more visible. It is generally agreed that multiple burials in rural areas of the southern Levant served as tombs for extended family groups (Albertz and Schmitt 2012: 432). Biblical sources mention two basic socioeconomic units, the extended family called bet-ab (Hebrew ‫בית‬ ‫אב‬, literally ‘house of the father’) and the patrilineal clan (Hebrew ‫משפחה‬, mishpaúa). The bet-ab was the basic one and constituted a patrilocal household, which consisted of nuclear, or conjugal, families of consanguineous kinship that shared residence. These extended households were joined in the patrilineal clan, the mishpaúa, an endogamous ‘patronymic EARLY IRON AGE TOMBS IN NORTHERN ISRAEL REVISITED 263 association’ of persons claiming descent from a common ancestor. The residential pattern of the early Iron Age indicates that each bet-ab shared its own inalienable hereditary landholding (Schloen 2001: 122). The inherited land (Hebrew ‫נחלה‬, naúalah) was the most important means of production for the bet-ab, inalienable since it belonged to the dead ancestors as well as to their yet unborn descendants (Brichto 1973: 9). “The ‘living’ household was also, in a sense, the household of the dead, because deceased ancestors continued to participate in the social life of their descendants” (Schloen 2001: 346). In death, the entire family joined together; all ages and genders were equal (Bloch-Smith 1992: 65-71). Rites addressed to the ancestors and performed at their tombs emphasized the ongoing social relationship between them and their living kin on their ancestral land (Albertz and Schmitt 2012: 430, 437; Kamlah 2009: 272; Stager 1985: 23). Conclusions In the lowlands, Iron I burials can be safely identified earlier than in the highlands. In the central hill-country, Iron I burials became visible only with a modest accumulation of wealth in the late Iron I that continued into the Iron IIA. This modest wealth is evident in toggle pins, fibulae, bronze objects and ornaments as well as in early Phoenician pottery found at Abu Musarrah and >Askar. In the lowlands and the highlands, early Iron Age graves continue from the Iron I through the late Iron IIA. The few exceptions in which there is an interruption of burial tradition at the end of the Iron I are all located in the western Jezreel Valley. In the late Iron IIA, the early Iron Age funeral traditions ceased. Almost all the burials we examined were abandoned. Rock-cut graves replaced the old cave tradition. The only graves that were maintained in the Iron IIB are Haifa Tomb 7 and >Illar. This disruption during the late Iron IIA and in the transition from the Iron IIA to the Iron IIB is probably more than a change in the formal style and fashion of burial customs and indicates fundamental changes among the elites of the lineages and kinship groups, who ceased to maintain their old family burials, some of which by then had been in use for 100, if not 200 years. It is probably not a coincidence that the traditional mortuary practices came to end in the time of the Aramean domination by Hazael. The traditional elites may have been affected by the political and economic changes and some of them may have lost their former influence and wealth. After the Aramean domination, Israel re-emerged as a powerful kingdom under Kings Joash and Jeroboam II. Lineages and kinship groups continued to constitute a decisive part of the Israelite society in the Iron IIB, as is evident in the new form of multiple interments in the rock-cut tombs. The elites of the 8th century BCE did not maintain the ancient family burials of the early Iron Age. They probably had no affiliations to the old burials, since they may have evolved from new kinship groups that took advantage of the profound political changes of the late 9th century BCE. 264 GUNNAR LEHMANN AND OZ VARONER TABLE 1 Iron Age burial types and sites Site Burial type Date Abu Musarrah Complex caves Early to late Iron IIA (Iron Peleg and Yezerski 2004: 107–156 IIC dwelling cave) References >Afula Tomb 1 Earth pit Iron I >Afula Tomb 2 Earth pit Iron I Dothan 1955: 42; Arie 2011: 308–309 >Afula Tomb 3 Earth pit – Dothan 1955: 42; Arie 2011: 309 >Askar Tomb 1 Simple cave Iron I to early–late Iron IIA Magen and Eisenstadt 2004 Dothan 1955: 41–42; Arie 2011: 308–309 >Askar Tomb 3 Shaft tomb? Iron I to early–late Iron IIA Magen and Eisenstadt 2004 Baqa el-Gharbiya Rock-cut tomb Late Iron IIA Badhi 2000 Deir Abu Da>if Shaft tomb (no plan) Early to late Iron IIA Magen and Eisenstadt 2004 Dothan Tomb 3 Re-use of bellshaped cistern Early Iron IIA Cooley and Pratico 1995: 167–168 – Rapuano 2001; Wolff 1998; Artzy 2006: 56 Dover, Tel Far>ah (N) Tomb 5 No plan Early to late Iron IIA Chambon 1984: 67, Pl. 58:24–27 Gibeon (Jib) Simple cave, natural krastic cave Early to late Iron IIA Dajani 1953; Eshel 1987: 10–11 Tomb 11 Haifa Tomb 1 Shaft tomb, narrow shaft Early to late Iron IIA Guy 1924 Haifa Tomb 7 Simple cave Early to late Iron IIA (with Guy 1924 Iron IIB) Har Yona Simple cave Iron I to early–late Iron IIA Alexandre 2003: 183-189 Hazore>a Earth pit, stone lined Iron I >Illar (>Eilar) Rock-cut tomb with two chambers and niches, entrance through shaft Late Iron IIA (with Iron Magen and Eisenstadt 2004 IIB) Jatt Burial type unknown, Iron I to early–late Iron IIA Artzy 2006 possibly not a single burial Yannai 2011 Kafr Kama Tomb 2 Shaft Early to late Iron IIA Kedesh cemetery Cist graves Iron I to early–late Iron IIA Stern and Beit-Arieh 1973; Stern and Beit-Arieh 1979 Kedesh Tomb 2 Cist grave – Stern and Beit-Arieh 1973; Stern and Beit-Arieh 1979 Kedesh Tomb 3-1 Cist grave Iron I Stern and Beit-Arieh 1973; Stern and Beit-Arieh 1979 Kedesh Tomb 3-2 Cist grave – Stern and Beit-Arieh 1973; Stern and Beit-Arieh 1979 Kedesh Tomb 4 Cist grave – Stern and Beit-Arieh 1973; Stern and Beit-Arieh 1979 Kedesh Tomb 4-1 Cist grave – Stern and Beit-Arieh 1973; Stern and Beit-Arieh 1979 Majdal Earth pit Iron I Yannai 1993 Megiddo T.1090A Rock chamber tomb, Iron I LB? Guy 1938 and Engberg: 126, Pl. 73, 170 * Megiddo T.1090B rock chamber tomb, LB? Guy 1938 and Engberg: 126, Pl. 73, 170* Iron I Covello-Paran 2008 EARLY IRON AGE TOMBS IN NORTHERN ISRAEL REVISITED Date 265 Site Burial type Megiddo T.1090C Rock chamber tomb, Iron I LB? References Guy 1938 and Engberg: 126, Pl. 73, 170* Megiddo T.11 Re-used MB I grave Iron I Guy 1938 and Engberg: 116, Pl. 164* Megiddo T.1101A Upper Re-used EB caves Iron I Guy 1938 and Engberg: 24-27, Pl. 6–9, 85–87* Megiddo T.1101B Upper Re-used EB caves Iron I Guy 1938 and Engberg: 24–27, Pl. 6–9, 85–87* Megiddo T.1101C Re-used EB caves Iron I Guy 1938 and Engberg: 24–27, Pl. 6–9, 85–87* Megiddo T.221B Simple cave Iron I Guy 1938 and Engberg: 12 –125, Pl. 70–72, 169–170* Megiddo T.27 Complex caves Iron I Guy 1938 and Engberg: 127, Pl. 74, 171 * Megiddo T.29 Re-used MB I grave Iron I Guy 1938 and Engberg: 117, Pl. 68 * Megiddo T.37 Re-used MB I grave Early to late Iron IIA Guy 1938 and Engberg: 74, Pl. 38–40, 136–139* Megiddo T.37E Re-used cistern Early to late Iron IIA Guy 1938 and Engberg: 79, Pl. 39–40, 138* Megiddo T.39 Re-used MB I tomb Iron I Guy 1938 and Engberg: 117, Pl. 68–69, 164–168* Megiddo T.47 Uncertain if tomb; no bone remains Early to late Iron IIA Guy 1938 and Engberg: 127, Pl. 74, 171–172* Megiddo T.62 Rock pit grave Iron I Guy 1938 and Engberg: 119, Pl. 69–70, 168* Megiddo T.64 Uncertain if tomb; no bone remains Early to late Iron IIA Guy 1938 and Engberg: 127, Pl. 74, 171 * Megiddo T.71 Earth pit Iron I Guy 1938 and Engberg: 121, Pl. 70, 169* Megiddo T.72 Earth pit Iron I Guy 1938 and Engberg: 121, Pl. 70* Megiddo T.73 Simple cave Late Iron IIA? Guy 1938 and Engberg: 111, Pl. 64–66, 159–163* Megiddo T.76A Unclear Early to late Iron IIA Guy 1938 and Engberg: 127, Pl. 74, 172–173* Megiddo T.80A Simple cave? badly damaged Iron I Guy 1938 and Engberg: 127–129, Pl. 75, 173–175* Megiddo T.80C Simple cave? badly damaged Early to late Iron IIA Guy 1938 and Engberg: 127–129, Pl. 75, 173–175* Megiddo Tomb 04/K/38 Earth pit? Iron I Gadot et al. 2006: 92; Arie 2006: Fig. 13.51: 11, 14 Megiddo Tomb 1758 Earth pit Iron I Harrison 2004: 20, Fig. 75 Megiddo Tomb 1763 Jar burial child Iron I Harrison 2004: 20, Fig. 87 Megiddo Tomb 1764 Earth pit? Iron I Harrison 2004: 20 Megiddo Tomb 1765 (1) Double pithos child burial Iron I Harrison 2004: 20, Fig. 85 Megiddo Tomb 1765 (2) Earth pit Iron I Harrison 2004: 20, Fig. 85–86 Megiddo Tomb 1766 Earth pit? Iron I Harrison 2004: 20 Megiddo Tomb 1767 Earth pit? Iron I Harrison 2004: 20 Megiddo Tomb 1768 Earth pit? Iron I Harrison 2004: 20 Megiddo Tomb 1770 (1) Earth pit Iron I Harrison 2004: 20, Fig. 73 Megiddo Tomb 1770 (2) Earth pit Iron I Harrison 2004: 20, Fig. 73 266 GUNNAR LEHMANN AND OZ VARONER Site Burial type Date References Megiddo Tomb 1775 Earth pit Iron I Harrison 2004: 20, Fig. 76 Megiddo Tomb 1776 Single jar burial Iron I Harrison 2004: 20, Fig. 77 Megiddo Tomb 1778 Earth pit Iron I Harrison 2004: 20, Fig. 95 Megiddo Tomb 1782 Earth pit? Iron I Harrison 2004: 20 Megiddo Tomb 1828 Earth pit Iron I Harrison 2004: 20, Fig. 70 Megiddo Tomb 1836 Earth pit Iron I Harrison 2004: 20, Fig. 84 Megiddo Tomb 94/F/42 Earth pit Iron I Ilan, Franklin and Hallote 2000: 95-96, Fig. 4.24, 4.25; Finkelstein , Zimhoni and Kafri 2000: 257, Fig. 11: 1 (Megiddo III) Menorim Tomb 1 Cist grave Early to late Iron IIA Braun 2001 Menorim Tomb 2 Cist grave Iron I Braun 2001 Menorim Tomb 3 Cist grave Early to late Iron IIA Braun 2001 Mevorakh Tomb 100 Simple cave Early to late Iron IIA Stern 1978: 62–63, Fig. 16:1, Pl. 31 Nahal Yif>at Tomb 2 Earth pit Iron I Arie 2011: 256–261 Nahal Yif>at Tomb 3 Earth pit Iron I Arie 2011: 256–261 Nahal Yif>at Tomb 4 Earth pit Iron I Arie 2011: 256–261 Nahal Yif>at Tomb 5 Earth pit Iron I Arie 2011: 256-261 Nahal Yif>at Tomb 6 Earth pit Iron I Arie 2011: 256-261 Nahal Yif>at Tomb 7 Earth pit Iron I Arie 2011: 256-261 Nahal Yif>at Tomb 8 Earth pit Iron I Arie 2011: 256-261 Nasbeh, Tell en- Tomb 32 Simple cave Iron I to early–late Iron IIA McCown 1947: 77–82 Nasbeh, Tell en- Tomb 5 Rock-cut tomb with 2 chambers and 3 benches in 1st chamber Late Iron IIA (with Iron McCown 1947: 77–82 IIB) Nasbeh, Tell en- Tomb 54 Complex cave, 2 chambers Iron I to early–late Iron IIA McCown 1947: 77–82 Nazareth Loffreda Tomb Simple cave? Iron I to early Iron IIA Loffreda 1977 Nazareth Vitto Tomb Simple cave Iron I to early Iron IIA Vitto 2001 Nisya Tomb 65 Complex cave Iron I to early Iron IIA connected in a complex cave system, re-used MB II cave Livingstone 2002; Brandl 2002 Qishion Tomb 17 Earth pit – Cohen-Arnon and Amiran 1981: 206, Pl. 33:1; (Arie 2011: 311–312) Qishion Tomb 39 Earth pit Iron I Cohen-Arnon and Amiran 1981: 206–207, Pl. 32; (Arie 2011: 311–312) Qishion Tomb 67 Earth pit Iron I Cohen-Arnon and Amiran 1981: 206, Fig. 4, Pl. 33: 6–7; (Arie 2011: 311–312) Qishion Tomb 89 Earth pit – Cohen-Arnon and Amiran 1981: 206, Pl. 34:1; (Arie 2011: 311–312) Shadud** Tomb 02 Earth pit? Iron I Arie 2011: 264–265, Table 9.4.1. Shadud Tomb 11 Earth pit – Arie 2011: 264-272 Shadud Tomb 12 Earth pits Early to late Iron IIA Arie 2011: 264–272 Shadud Tomb 13 Earth pits – Arie 2011: 264–272 EARLY IRON AGE TOMBS IN NORTHERN ISRAEL REVISITED Site Burial type Date References Shadud Tomb 14 Earth pits – Arie 2011: 264–272 Shadud Tomb 15 Earth pits – Arie 2011: 264–272 Shadud Tomb 16 Earth pits Late Iron IIA Arie 2011: 264–272 Shadud Tomb 17 Earth pits Iron I Arie 2011: 264–272 Shadud Tomb 18 Earth pits Early to late Iron IIA Arie 2011: 264–272 Shadud Tomb 20 Earth pits Late Iron IIA Arie 2011: 264–272 Shadud Tomb 21 Earth pits Early to late Iron IIA Arie 2011: 264–272 Shadud Tomb 23 Earth pits Early to late Iron IIA Arie 2011: 264-272 Shadud Tomb 26 Earth pits – Arie 2011: 264-272 Shadud Tomb 28 Earth pits – Arie 2011: 264-272 Shadud Tomb 29 Earth pits Late Iron IIA Arie 2011: 264-272 Shadud Tomb 31 Earth pits Late Iron IIA Arie 2011: 264-272 Shadud Tomb 32 Earth pits Late Iron IIA Arie 2011: 264-272 Shadud Tomb 33 Earth pits Early to late Iron IIA Arie 2011: 264-272 Shadud Tomb 35 Earth pits – Arie 2011: 264-272 Shadud Tomb 40 Earth pit? Iron IIA Arie 2011: 269, Table 9.4.3. 267 Shadud Tomb 9 Earth pit Iron I Arie 2011: 264-272 Shechem (>Araq et-Tayih) = >Askar? Re-used Bronze Age tomb – Bull et al. 1965: 32–33; Bull and Campbell 1968: 22 (site 2); Campbell 1991:20 Shechem (>Iraq Burin) No data – Bull and Campbell 1968: 38 (Site 38) Shor, Tel Burial A-5208 Earth pit Iron I? Arie 2011: 320–321 Taiyiba Simple cave Iron I to early–late Iron IIA Yannai 2002 Tirat Zvi Grave 2 - Iron I Tsur Natan Simple cave Iron I to early–late Iron IIA Alon, Herriott and Varoner 2013 Zeror Earth Grave 1 Earth pit – Zeror Earth Grave 3 Earth pit – Ohata 1970: 71 (Zeror 3) Zeror Tomb 1 Cist grave Iron I to early Iron IIA Ohata 1967: 38 (Zeror 2) Zeror Tomb 3 Cist grave Early to late Iron IIA Ohata 1967: 38–39 (Zeror 2) Zeror Tomb 4 Cist grave Late Iron IIA Ohata 1967: 39 (Zeror 2) Zeror Tomb 5 Cist grave Iron I to early–late Iron IIA Ohata 1967: 39 (Zeror 2) Zeror Tomb 6 Cist grave Early Iron IIA Ohata 1970: 69–70 (Zeror 3) Zeror Tomb 7 Cist grave – Ohata 1970: 70 (Zeror 3) Zeror Tomb 8 Cist grave – Ohata 1970: 70 (Zeror 3) Zeror Tomb 9 Cist grave – Ohata 1970: 70–71 (Zeror 3) Zori 1962: 189 Site 144 (240) Grave 2 Ohata 1970: 71 (Zeror 3) *For new dating of Megiddo tombs, see Arie 2011: 104. ** Only burials with published finds are included from this site. Tombs found at Afula (Sukenik 1948) are not included in the table. At least one burial, Number 18, from the Sukenik excavations, may date to the LB III or Iron I. However, the evidence is not sufficiently published to be included in this study. A few burials at Beth Shean published by E.O. Oren (1973) appear to date to the Iron I and possibly Iron IIA. These are secondary burials in earlier graves. Among the graves is Tomb 107 with a bowl (ibid.: Fig. 43:1) and a lion scaraboid (Keel 2010: 136 no. 87, dated Iron I–IIA). Additional burials are possibly Tomb 66A–C indicated by pottery finds that may date to the Iron I (Oren 1973: Fig. 42b: 21–22) and Tomb 90 (ibid.: Fig. 44b: 20, 27–30). 268 GUNNAR LEHMANN AND OZ VARONER References Abercrombie, J.R. 1979. Palestinian Burial Practices from 1200 to 600 B.C.E. (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania). Philadelphia. Albertz, R. and Schmitt, R. 2012. Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant. Winona Lake. Alexandre, Y. 2003. An Iron Age IB/IIA Burial Cave at Har Yona, Upper Nazareth. >Atiqot 44: 183–189. Alon, S., Herriott, C. and Varoner, O. 2013. Excavation at Tsur Natan – 2011: An Iron Age Tomb, Byzantine Quarry and Other Remains. Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology 2: 9–82. Arie, E. 2006. The Iron Age I Pottery: Levels K-5 and K-4 and an Intra-Site Spatial Analysis of the Pottery from Stratum VIA. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B. Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 24). Tel Aviv: 191–298. Arie, E. 2011. ‘In the Land of the Valley’: Settlement, Social and Cultural Processes in the Jezreel Valley from the End of the Late Bronze Age to the Formation of the Monarchy (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv. Arie, E. 2013a. The Iron IIA Pottery. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Cline, E.H. Megiddo V: The 2004–2008 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 31). Tel Aviv: 668–828. Arie, E. 2013b. The Late Bronze III and Iron I Pottery: Levels K-6, M-6, M-4 and H-9. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Cline, E.H. Megiddo V: The 2004–2008 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 31). Tel Aviv: 475–667. Artzy, M. 2006. The Jatt Metal Hoard in Northern Canaanite/Phoenician and Cypriote Context (Cuadernos de Arqueologia Mediterranea). Barcelona. Badhi, R. 2000. An Iron Age Burial Cave at Baqa el-Gharbiya. >Atiqot 39: 7*–12*. Ben-Shlomo, D., Shai, I. and Maeir, A.M. 2004. Late Philistine Decorated Ware (‘Ashdod Ware’): Typology, Chronology, and Production Centers. BASOR 335: 1–35. Bloch-Smith, E. 1992. Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead (JSOT.S 123). Sheffield. Bloch-Smith, E. 2004. Resurrecting the Iron I Dead. IEJ 54: 77–91. Brandl, B. 2002. A Dagger Pommel, Two Scarabs and a Seal from Tomb 65 at Khirbet Nisya. >Atiqot 43: 37–48. Braun, E.L. 2001. Iron Age II Burials and Archaeological Investigations at Ḥorbat Menorim (El-Manara), Lower Galilee. >Atiqot 42: 171–182. Brichto, H.C. 1973. Kin, Cult, Land and Afterlife: A Biblical Complex. Hebrew Union College Annual 44: 1–54. Briend, J. and Humbert, J.-B. 1980. Tell Keisan (1971–1976): Une cité phénicienne en Galilée (OBO Series Archaeologica 1). Freiburg and Göttingen. Bull, R.J. and Campbell, E.F. 1968. The Sixth Campaign at Balâṭah (Shechem). BASOR 190: 2–41. Bull, R.J., Callaway, J.A., Campbell, E.F., Ross, J.F. and Wright, G.E. 1965. The Fifth Campaign at Balâṭah (Shechem). BASOR 180: 7–41. Campbell, E.F. 1991. Shechem II: Portrait of a Hill Country Vale: The Shechem Regional Survey. Atlanta. Chambon, A. 1984. Tell el-Far>ah 1: L’âge du Fer. Paris. Cohen-Arnon, C. and Amiran, R. 1981. Excavations at Tel Qishon: Preliminary Report on the 1977–1978 Seasons. EI 15: 205–212 (Hebrew). Cooley, R.E. 1968. The Contribution of Literary Sources to the Study of the Canaanite Burial Pattern (Ph.D. dissertation, New York University). New York. Cooley, R.E. and Pratico, G.D. 1994. Gathered to His People: An Archaeological Illustration from Tell Dothan’s Western Cemetery. In: Coogan, M.D., Exum, J.C. and Stager, L.E. Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King. Louisville: 70–92. Cooley, R.E. and Pratico, G.D. 1995. Tell Dothan: The Western Cemetery, with Comments on Joseph Free’s Excavations, 1953–1964. In: Dever, W.G. Preliminary Excavation Reports: Sardis, Bir Umm Fawakhir, Tell el >Umeiri, the Combined Caesarea Expeditions, and Tell Dothan (AASOR 52). Ann Arbor: 147–190. EARLY IRON AGE TOMBS IN NORTHERN ISRAEL REVISITED 269 Covello-Paran, K. 2008. Rock-Cut Tombs from the Intermediate Bronze and Iron Ages at Kafr Kama, Lower Galilee. >Atiqot 60: 79–91. Dajani, A.K. 1953. An Iron Age Tomb at al-Jib. ADAJ 2: 66–74. Dothan, M. 1955. Excavations at >Afula. >Atiqot 1: 18–63. Eshel, H. 1987. The Late Iron Age Cemetery of Gibeon. IEJ 37: 1–17. Fantalkin, A. 2008. The Appearance of Rock-Cut Bench Tombs in Iron Age Judah as a Reflection of State Formation. In: Fantalkin, A. and Yasur-Landau, A. Bene Israel: Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages in Honour of Israel Finkelstein (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 31). Leiden and Boston: 17–44. Faust, A. 2004. Mortuary Practices, Society and Ideology: The Lack of Iron I Burials in the Highlands in Context. IEJ 54: 174–190. Faust, A. 2006. Israel’s Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion and Resistance (Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology). London and Oakville. Faust, A. 2012. The Archaeology of Israelite Society in Iron Age II. Winona Lake. Finkelstein, I. 2003. City-States to States: Polity Dynamics in the 10th–9th Centuries B.C.E. In: Dever, W.G. and Gitin, S. Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina. Winona Lake: 75–83. Finkelstein, I., Zimhoni, O. and Kafri, A. 2000. The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages from Areas F, K and H and Their Stratigraphic and Chronological Implications. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B. Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 18). Tel Aviv: 244–324. Gadot, Y., Martin, M., Blockman, N. and Arie, E. 2006. Area K (Levels K-5 and K-4, the 1998–2002 Seasons). In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B., eds. Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 24). Tel Aviv: 583–600. Gal, Z. and Alexandre, Y. 2000. Horbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 8). Jerusalem. Gershuny, L. 1985. Bronze Vessels from Israel and Jordan (Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Abteilung 2 Band 6). Munich. Giesen, K. 2001. Zyprische Fibeln: Typologie und Chronologie (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature: Pocketbook 161). Jonsered. Gilboa, A. 1995. The Typology and Chronology of the Iron Age Pottery and the Chronology of Iron Age Assemblages. In: Stern, E. Excavations at Dor, Final Report, Vol. I B: Areas A and C: The Finds (Qedem Reports 2). Jerusalem: 1–49. Gilboa, A. 2001. Southern Phoenicia during Iron Age I–IIA in the Light of the Tel Dor Excavations: The Evidence of Pottery (Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University). Jerusalem. Gilboa, A. 2015. Iron Age I–II Cypriot Imports and Local Imitations. In: Gitin, S. The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors from the Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period. Jerusalem: 483–507. Gilboa, A. and Goren, Y. 2015. Early Iron Age Phoenician Networks: An Optical Mineralogy Study of Phoenician Bichrome and Related Wares in Cyprus. Ancient West and East 14: 73–110. Gilboa, A. and Sharon, I. 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. Gilboa, A., Waiman-Barak, P. and Sharon, I. 2015. Dor, the Carmel Coast and Early Iron Age Mediterranean Exchanges. In: Babbi, A., Bubenheimer-Erhart, F., Marín-Aguilera, B. and Mühl, S. The Mediterranean Mirror: Cultural Contacts in the Mediterranean Sea between 1200 and 750 B.C.: International Post-doc and Young Researcher Conference, Heidelberg, 6–8 October 2012 (Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Tagungen 20). Mainz: 85–109. Gjerstad, E. 1948. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, Vol. 4.2: The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical Periods. Stockholm. Glatzer, B. 2002. The Pashtun Tribal System. In: Pfeffer, G. and Behera, D.K. Concept of Tribal Society (Contemporary Society: Tribal Studies, Vol. 5). New Delhi: 265–282. Gonen, R. 1992. Burial Patterns and Cultural Diversity in Late Bronze Age Canaan (ASOR Dissertation Series 7). Winona Lake. 270 GUNNAR LEHMANN AND OZ VARONER Gregoricka, L.A. and Sheridan, S.G. 2016. Continuity or Conquest? A Multi-Isotope Approach to Investigating Identity in the Early Iron Age of the Southern Levant. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 162: 73–89. Guy, P.L.O. 1924. Mt. Carmel: An Early Iron Age Cemetery near Haifa: Excavated September, 1922. Palestine Museum Bulletin 1: 47–55. Guy, P.L.O. and Engberg, R.M. 1938. Megiddo Tombs (Oriental Institute Publications). Chicago. Harrison, T.P. 2004. Megiddo 3: Final Report on the Stratum VI Excavations (Oriental Institute Publications 127). Chicago. Hart, D.M. 2000. Tribe and Society in Rural Morocco. Portland. Herzog, Z. and Singer-Avitz, L. 2006. Sub-dividing the Iron Age IIA in Northern Israel: A Suggested Solution to the Chronological Debate. Tel Aviv 33: 163–195. Herzog, Z. and Singer-Avitz, L. 2011. Iron Age IIA Occupational Phases in the Coastal Plain of Israel. In: Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N., eds. The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin. Winona Lake: 159–174. Hodder, I. 1980. Social Structure and Cemeteries: A Critical Appraisal. In: Rahtz, P.A., Dickinson, T. and Watts, L. Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries, 1979: The Fourth Anglo-Saxon Symposium at Oxford (British Archaeological Reports, British Series 82). Oxford: 161–169. Ilan, D., Franklin, N. and Hallote, R.S. 2000. Area F. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B., eds. Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons (Monograph of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 18). Tel Aviv: 75–103. Kamlah, J. 2009. Grab und Begräbnis in Israel/Juda: Materielle Befunde, Jenseitsvorstellungen und die Frage des Totenkultes. In: Berlejung, A. and Janowski, B. Tod und Jenseits im alten Israel und in seiner Umwelt: Theologische, religionsgeschichtliche, archäologische und ikonographische Aspekte (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 64). Tübingen: 257–298. Keel, O. 1995a. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel: Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit: Einleitung (OBO Series Archaeologica 10). Freiburg and Göttingen. Keel, O. 1995b. Stamp Seals: Local Problems of Palestinian Workshops in the Second Millennium and Some Remarks on the Preceeding and Succeding Periods. In: Westenholz, J.G. Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East. Jerusalem: 93–142. Keel, O. 2010. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel: Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit, 3: Von Tell el-Far>a Nord bis Tell el-Fir (OBO Series Archaeologica 31). Freiburg and Göttingen. Keel, O. 2013. Glyptics [from the Tsur Natan Grave]. Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology 2: 30–36. Keel, O., Shuval, M. and Uehlinger, C. 1990. Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel, Band 3. Die Frühe Eisenzeit: Ein Workshop (OBO 100). Freiburg and Göttingen. Kletter, R. 2002. People without Burials? The Lack of Iron I Burials in the Central Highlands of Palestine. IEJ 52: 28–48. Lamon, R.S. and Shipton, G.M. 1939. Megiddo I: Seasons of 1925–34, Strata I-V (Oriental Institute Publications 42). Chicago. Livingston, D. 2002. A Middle Bronze Age II and Iron Age I Tomb (No. 65) at Khirbet Nisya. >Atiqot 43: 17–35. Loffreda, S. 1977. Ceramica del Ferro I trovata a Nazaret. Liber Annuus 27: 135–144. Loud, G. 1948. Megiddo II: The Seasons 1935–39 (Oriental Institute Publications 62). Chicago. Maeir, A.M. and Hitchcock, L.A. 2016. ‘And the Canaanite was then in the Land’? A Critical View of the ‘Canaanite Enclave’ in Iron I Southern Canaan. In: Finkelstein, I., Robin, C. and Römer, T. Alphabets, Texts and Artifacts in the Ancient Near East: Studies Presented to Benjamin Sass. Paris: 209–226. Maeir, A.M., Hitchcock, L.A. and Kolska Horwitz, L. 2013. On the Constitution and Transformation of Philistine Identity. OJA 32: 1–38. Magen, Y. and Eisenstadt, I. 2004. Ancient Burial Caves in Samaria. In: Hizmi, H. and de Groot, A. Burial Caves and Sites in Judea and Samaria: From the Bronze and Iron Ages (Judea and Samaria Publications 4). Jerusalem: 1–76. EARLY IRON AGE TOMBS IN NORTHERN ISRAEL REVISITED 271 Matthäus, H. 1985. Metallgefäße und Gefäßuntersätze der Bronzezeit, der geometrischen und archaischen Periode auf Cypern, mit einem Anhang der bronzezeitlichen Schwertfunde auf Cypern (Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Abteilung 2 Band 8). Munich. 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: Levy, T.E. and Higham, T., eds. The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science. London and Oakville: 15–30. McCown, C.C. 1947. Tell en-Naṣbeh Excavated under the Direction of the Late William Frederic Badè, Vol. I: Archaeological and Historical Results. Berkeley and New Haven. Miller, R.D. 2005. Chieftains of the Highland Clans: A History of Israel in the Twelfth and Eleventh Centuries B.C. (The Bible in Its World). Grand Rapids. Münger, S. 2003. Egyptian Stamp-Seal Amulets and Their Implications for the Chronology of the Early Iron Age. Tel Aviv 30: 66–82. Münger, S. 2005. Stamp Seal Amulets and Early Iron Age Chronology. In: Levy, T.E. and Higham, T., eds. The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science. London and Oakville: 381–404. Münger, S. 2007. Stamp Seals and Seal Impressions. In: Cohen, R. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. Excavations at Kadesh Barnea (Tell el-Qudeirat) 1976–1982 (Israel Antiquities Authority, Reports 34). Jerusalem: 237–243. Münger, S. 2011. Studien zur Frühen Eisenzeit in Israel/Palästina (Dissertation zur Erlangung des Titels Doktor der Theologie in evangelischer Theologie der Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Bern). Bern. Namdar, D., Gilboa, A., Neumann, R., Finkelstein, I. and Weiner, S. 2013. Cinnamaldehyde in Early Iron Age Phoenician Flasks Raises the Possibility of Levantine Trade with South East Asia. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 12: 1–19. Ohata, K. 1967. Tel Zeror, Vol. 2: Preliminary Report of the Excavation, Second Season, 1965. Tokyo. Ohata, K. 1970. Tel Zeror, Vol. 3: Report of the Excavation, Third Season, 1965. Tokyo. Oren, E.D. 1973. The Northern Cemetery of Beth-shan (Monographs of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania). Leiden. Parker Pearson, M. 1982. Mortuary Practices, Society and Ideology: An Ethnoarchaeological Study. In: Hodder, I. Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge: 99–113. Pedde, F. 2000. Vorderasiatische Fibeln: Von der Levante bis Iran (Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 24). Saarbrücken. Peleg, Y. and Yezerski, I. 2004. A Dwelling and Burial Cave at Kh. Abu-Musarrah in the Land of Benjamin. In: Hizmi, H. and de Groot, A. Burial Caves and Sites in Judea and Samaria: From the Bronze and Iron Ages (Judea and Samaria Publications 4). Jerusalem: 107–156. Petrie, W.M.F. 1930. Beth-Pelet I (Tell Fara) (Publications of the Egyptian Research Account and British School of Archaeology in Egypt 48). London. Rapuano, Y. 2001. Tel Dover. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 113: 21–23, 19*–21*. Rast, W.E. and Glock, A.E. 1978. Taanach I: Studies in the Iron Age Pottery. Cambridge, MA. Schaeffer, C.F.A. 1952. Enkomi-Alasia I: Nouvelles missions en Chypre, 1946–50 (Publications de la mission archéologique française et de la mission du gouvernement de Chypre à Enkomi 1). Paris. Schloen, J.D. 2001. The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East (Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant 2). Winona Lake. Stager, L.E. 1985. The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel. BASOR 260: 1–35. Stern, E. 1978. Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973–1976): Part 1: From the Iron Age to the Roman Period (Qedem 9). Jerusalem. Stos-Gale, Z.A. 2006. Provenance of Metals from Tel Jatt based on their Lead Isoptope Analyses. In: Artzy, M. The Jatt Metal Hoard in Northern Canaanite/Phoenician and Cypriote Context (Cuadernos de Arqueologia Mediterranea 14). Barcelona: 115–128. Sukenik, E.L. 1948. Archaeological Investigations at >Affula. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 21: 1–79. Tufnell, O. 1953. Lachish III (Tell ed-Duweir): The Iron Age. London and New York. 272 GUNNAR LEHMANN AND OZ VARONER Vitto, F. 2001. An Iron Age Burial Cave in Nazareth. >Atiqot 62: 159–169. Weir, S. 2007. A Tribal Order: Politics and Law in the Mountains of Yemen (Modern Middle East Series 23). Austin. Wenning, R. 1997. Bestattungen im königszeitlichen Juda. Theologischen Quartalsschrift 177: 82–93. Wenning, R. 2005. Medien in der Bestattungskultur im eisenzeitlichen Palästina. In: Frevel, C. Medien im antiken Palästina: Materielle Kommunikation und Medialität als Thema der Palästinaarchäologie (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2, Reihe 10). Tübingen: 137–180. Wolff, S.R. 1998. Archaeology in Israel. AJA 102: 757–807. Yannai, E. 1993. Settlement and Burial Remains at Khirbet Majdal in the Sharon Plain. >Atiqot 22: 1*–8*, 151. Yannai, E. 2002. An Iron Age Burial Cave at eṭ-Ṭaiyiba. >Atiqot 43: 29*–55*, 255. Yannai, E. 2011. An Early Iron Age Cist Grave at Kibbutz Ha-Zore>a. >Atiqot 65: 47–51, 66*. Yezerski, I. 2013a. Iron Age Burial Customs in the Samaria Highlands. Tel Aviv 40: 72–98. Yezerski, I. 2013b. Typology and Chronology of the Iron Age II–III Judahite Rock-cut Tombs. IEJ 63: 50–77. Zarzecki-Peleg, A. 2005. Tel Megiddo during the Iron Age I and IIA–IIB: The Excavations of the Yadin Expedition at Megiddo and Their Contribution for Comprehending the History of this Site and Other Contemporary Sites in Northern Israel (Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University). Jerusalem. Zori, N. 1962. An Archaeological Survey of the Beth Shan Valley. In: The Beth Shan Valley: The 17th Archaeological Convention. Jerusalem: 135–198 (Hebrew).