Khirbet Qeiyafa: Late Iron Age I in Spite of It All — Once Again
The debate regarding the periodical attribution of the Khirbet Qeiyafa pottery assemblage to the Iron Age I or IIA is still ongoing. In a recent issue of this journal, Kang (2015) responded to an earlier article published by me (Singer-Avitz 2012) and attributed this assemblage to a transitional Iro...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Soc.
2016
|
| Dans: |
Israel exploration journal
Année: 2016, Volume: 66, Numéro: 2, Pages: 232-244 |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Édition parallèle: | Non-électronique
|
| Résumé: | The debate regarding the periodical attribution of the Khirbet Qeiyafa pottery assemblage to the Iron Age I or IIA is still ongoing. In a recent issue of this journal, Kang (2015) responded to an earlier article published by me (Singer-Avitz 2012) and attributed this assemblage to a transitional Iron I–IIA period. Despite this conclusion, he suggested that the site's original dating to the Iron IIA should be maintained. In the current paper, I shall briefly address some of Kang's statements and discuss the notion of 'transitional period'. |
|---|---|
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Israel exploration journal
|