{ "version": "PASS89.42", "generated": "2026-09-17", "count": 72, "events": [ { "siteId": "lachish", "sequenceId": "lachish-area-s-lb", "sequenceTitle": "Lachish Area S lower Late Bronze sequence", "id": "lachish-s2-laminated-accumulation", "start": -1450, "end": -1330, "label": "S-2 laminated burnt-lens accumulation", "kind": "repeated depositional / activity-lens accumulation", "evidence": "The published Area S sequence describes S-2 as a vertically ordered laminated deposit containing successive seed-rich burnt lenses; that superposition supplies the relative order used in Bayesian modeling.", "confidence": "high for repeated stratified deposition; broad calendar envelope is model-dependent", "relation": "Formation history inside Level S-2; provides the ordering constraint for the determination series.", "caution": "The displayed range is a broad synthesis of the modeled sequence and must not be read as continuous burning or as one destruction event.", "referenceIds": [ "webster-lachish-lb-2019" ] }, { "siteId": "hazor", "sequenceId": "hazor-upper-city", "sequenceTitle": "Hazor upper-city phase sequence", "id": "hazor-post-lb-resettlement-transition", "start": -1230, "end": -1200, "label": "Conflagration-to-Iron I resettlement transition", "kind": "destruction debris / abandonment / resettlement", "evidence": "The terminal Late Bronze palace-city destruction is followed by a substantially more limited Iron I occupation rather than simple architectural continuity.", "confidence": "high for the destruction and settlement break; transition span modeled", "relation": "Separates the palace-city horizon from the post-destruction Iron I settlement.", "caution": "The modeled 1230–1200 BCE transition is not a measured duration of abandonment and does not identify the destroyer.", "referenceIds": [ "bechar-hazor-2021" ] }, { "siteId": "jericho", "sequenceId": "jericho-periods", "sequenceTitle": "Tell es-Sultan Bronze–Iron period crosswalk", "id": "jericho-lb-upper-truncation", "start": -1400, "end": -1190, "label": "Upper Late Bronze deposits affected by levelling / erosion", "kind": "erosion / truncation / levelling", "evidence": "The updated Tell es-Sultan synthesis describes the upper Late Bronze deposits as preservation-limited and affected by later levelling and erosion.", "confidence": "high that preservation is materially compromised; timing of individual truncation episodes broad", "relation": "Affects interpretation of Sultan Vb / Late Bronze IIA–IIB deposits.", "caution": "The displayed range marks the archaeological deposits affected, not a claim that erosion operated continuously from 1400 to 1190 BCE.", "referenceIds": [ "nigro-yasine-jericho-2024", "nigro-jericho-2023" ] }, { "siteId": "jericho", "sequenceId": "jericho-periods", "sequenceTitle": "Tell es-Sultan Bronze–Iron period crosswalk", "id": "jericho-post-lb-reuse", "start": -1190, "end": -1000, "label": "Post-destruction Early Iron reuse of the Middle Building zone", "kind": "reuse / rebuilding transition", "evidence": "The Italian-Palestinian Expedition reports that the Late Bronze Middle Building was destroyed and subsequently reused during the Early Iron Age.", "confidence": "high for destruction followed by reuse; exact tempo of reuse broad", "relation": "Bridges the terminal Sultan Vb destruction and Sultan VIa occupation.", "caution": "Reuse does not prove immediate uninterrupted occupation or identify the agent responsible for the preceding destruction.", "referenceIds": [ "nigro-jericho-season-2020", "nigro-yasine-jericho-2024" ] }, { "siteId": "khirbet-qeiyafa", "sequenceId": "qeiyafa-sequence", "sequenceTitle": "Khirbet Qeiyafa occupation sequence", "id": "qeiyafa-long-hiatus", "start": -970, "end": -350, "label": "Long hiatus between fortified Iron city and later reuse", "kind": "abandonment / hiatus", "evidence": "The early fortified city terminates before a much later Hellenistic–Byzantine reuse horizon, leaving no controlled continuous occupation in this registry between them.", "confidence": "high for separation of the major horizons", "relation": "Separates the early fortified occupation from later reuse.", "caution": "The gap is a controlled-sequence statement, not proof that no episodic activity whatsoever occurred at the mound.", "referenceIds": [ "cambridge-qeiyafa-state", "cambridge-qeiyafa-second", "cambridge-qeiyafa-bayesian" ] }, { "siteId": "arad", "sequenceId": "arad-fortress", "sequenceTitle": "Tel Arad fortress-mound sequence", "id": "arad-successive-fortress-rebuilds", "start": -900, "end": -586, "label": "Successive Judahite fortress rebuilding sequence", "kind": "construction / rebuilding / reuse", "evidence": "Strata XI–VI record repeated fortress rebuilding and reuse on the mound rather than one static Iron Age fortress.", "confidence": "high relative architectural sequence; internal absolute boundaries uneven", "relation": "Formation process spanning the Judahite fortress sequence.", "caution": "The row summarizes repeated building episodes; it must not be read as continuous construction activity throughout the entire span.", "referenceIds": [ "v23-arad-final-publication", "v61-arad-herzog-2002", "v61-arad-singer-avitz-2002" ] }, { "siteId": "arad", "sequenceId": "arad-fortress", "sequenceTitle": "Tel Arad fortress-mound sequence", "id": "arad-shrine-decommissioning", "start": -760, "end": -735, "label": "Deliberate shrine decommissioning", "kind": "cult-site closure / architectural decommissioning", "evidence": "The revised fortress sequence places the shrine’s abolition by the end of Stratum IX, before the later Stratum VIII destruction horizon.", "confidence": "high for closure sequence; moderate for named-royal attribution", "relation": "Formation history of the Judahite shrine within the fortress sequence.", "caution": "Do not convert the stratigraphic closure automatically into a royal order by Hezekiah; that attribution is a historical hypothesis.", "referenceIds": [ "v23-arad-final-publication", "herzog-cult-reform-judah" ] }, { "siteId": "megiddo", "sequenceId": "megiddo-iron", "sequenceTitle": "Megiddo — UoC/site-wide Iron Age crosswalk", "id": "megiddo-six-chambered-gate-build", "start": -950, "end": -880, "label": "Six-chambered gate construction phase", "kind": "monumental construction", "evidence": "Strata VA–IVB include construction of the six-chambered gate and associated monumental architecture.", "confidence": "high relative sequence; absolute dating debated", "relation": "Construction process within VA–IVB.", "caution": "Architectural dating is central to the Low/Modified/Conventional Chronology debate and should not be converted into a ruler attribution automatically.", "referenceIds": [ "v23-megiddo-gates", "v60-megiddo-vi-2022", "v60-megiddo-eneae-2008" ] }, { "siteId": "megiddo", "sequenceId": "megiddo-iron", "sequenceTitle": "Megiddo — UoC/site-wide Iron Age crosswalk", "id": "megiddo-gate-reuse-replacement", "start": -880, "end": -760, "label": "Gate reuse followed by replacement in Stratum IVA", "kind": "reuse / replacement construction", "evidence": "The six-chambered gate was reused early in IVA and later replaced by a four-chambered gate as the city plan developed.", "confidence": "high relative sequence", "relation": "Architectural biography within Stratum IVA.", "caution": "The broad phase range is a chronological envelope for multiple architectural acts, not a single event.", "referenceIds": [ "v23-megiddo-gates", "v60-megiddo-vi-2022", "v60-megiddo-eneae-2008" ] }, { "siteId": "megiddo", "sequenceId": "megiddo-iron", "sequenceTitle": "Megiddo — UoC/site-wide Iron Age crosswalk", "id": "megiddo-post732-assyrian-reorganization", "start": -732, "end": -700, "label": "Post-732 Assyrian reorganization and rebuilding", "kind": "post-destruction rebuilding / imperial urban reorganization", "evidence": "The destruction of the Israelite Stratum IVA city is followed by an Assyrian-period urban sequence (Stratum III), including palatial/administrative architecture.", "confidence": "high for sequence; duration broad", "relation": "Separates the 732 BCE terminal destruction from subsequent Assyrian rebuilding and continued occupation.", "caution": "The plotted 732–700 BCE span is a broad formation-process window, not an exact construction date for every Stratum III building.", "referenceIds": [ "v60-megiddo-eneae-2008", "shaar-levant-mesopotamia-2022" ] }, { "siteId": "shiloh", "sequenceId": "shiloh-bronze-iron", "sequenceTitle": "Shiloh Middle Bronze–Iron Age synthesis", "id": "shiloh-post-iron-i-hiatus", "start": -1050, "end": -1000, "label": "Post-destruction abandonment / hiatus before later reuse", "kind": "abandonment / hiatus", "evidence": "The principal Iron I occupation terminates in a destruction horizon and the later reuse is represented separately rather than as direct architectural continuity.", "confidence": "moderate–high for a break; duration broad", "relation": "Separates the Iron I destruction from the later Iron II reuse horizon.", "caution": "The displayed 50-year gap is a modeled research interval between broad phase envelopes, not a claim that the site was entirely empty for exactly fifty years.", "referenceIds": [ "v243-shiloh-final-report", "shiloh-preliminary-1985" ] }, { "siteId": "samaria", "sequenceId": "samaria-acropolis", "sequenceTitle": "Samaria / Sebaste — Israelite acropolis building-period sequence", "id": "samaria-bpiii-repair-reuse", "start": -800, "end": -780, "label": "Building Period III rebuilding, repair, and masonry reuse", "kind": "rebuilding / repair / reuse", "evidence": "Building Period III preserves rebuilding and repair with reuse of earlier masonry in the royal quarter.", "confidence": "moderate–high relative sequence", "relation": "Internal acropolis rebuilding after earlier royal phases.", "caution": "Exact ruler attribution and short absolute boundaries remain schematic.", "referenceIds": [ "v59-samaria-buildings-1942", "v59-samaria-tappy-2001", "v59-samaria-franklin-2005", "v243-samaria-excavations" ] }, { "siteId": "samaria", "sequenceId": "samaria-acropolis", "sequenceTitle": "Samaria / Sebaste — Israelite acropolis building-period sequence", "id": "samaria-later-cutting-reuse", "start": -332, "end": 300, "label": "Later rebuilding, bedrock cutting, dismantling, and stone reuse", "kind": "truncation / quarrying / rebuilding / reuse", "evidence": "Hellenistic and Herodian/Roman construction cut into earlier levels, dismantled masonry, and reused stone, complicating preservation of the Israelite acropolis.", "confidence": "high as a preservation control; duration broad", "relation": "Major post-depositional formation history affecting earlier floors and walls.", "caution": "The broad range combines multiple later building episodes; it is not one continuous destructive process.", "referenceIds": [ "v59-samaria-buildings-1942", "v59-samaria-tappy-2001", "v59-samaria-franklin-2005", "v243-samaria-excavations" ] }, { "siteId": "tel-dan", "sequenceId": "tel-dan-iron-later", "sequenceTitle": "Tel Dan — Iron Age / later site-wide synthesis crosswalk", "id": "dan-gate-fortification-development", "start": -1000, "end": -850, "label": "Urban fortification and gate-complex development", "kind": "construction / urban rebuilding", "evidence": "Dense tenth–ninth-century BCE occupation precedes the monumental Strata III–II gate complexes that dominate the Iron IIB city.", "confidence": "moderate–high", "relation": "Architectural development between the early Iron II city and the eighth-century monumental phase.", "caution": "The broad range summarizes multiple building episodes; it is not a single construction event.", "referenceIds": [ "tel-dan-fifty-stratigraphy-2016", "kaniewski-tel-dan-2017" ] }, { "siteId": "tel-dan", "sequenceId": "tel-dan-iron-later", "sequenceTitle": "Tel Dan — Iron Age / later site-wide synthesis crosswalk", "id": "dan-post-earthquake-repair-transition", "start": -760, "end": -732, "label": "Post-earthquake occupation, repair, and terminal eighth-century disruption", "kind": "repair / continued occupation / disruption", "evidence": "The city continued after the mid-eighth-century earthquake and was again partially destroyed later in the eighth century, before the end of the major Iron IIB gate-city horizon.", "confidence": "moderate–high for sequence; exact historical attribution debated", "relation": "Separates the earthquake horizon from the later Assyrian-period political/military disruption.", "caution": "The later partial destruction is often associated with Tiglath-Pileser III, but the archaeological damage and the historical attribution remain distinct.", "referenceIds": [ "kaniewski-tel-dan-2017" ] }, { "siteId": "tel-dan", "sequenceId": "tel-dan-iron-later", "sequenceTitle": "Tel Dan — Iron Age / later site-wide synthesis crosswalk", "id": "dan-later-sacred-reuse-process", "start": -539, "end": 200, "label": "Later sacred-precinct reuse and architectural reassessment", "kind": "reuse / rebuilding / residual architecture", "evidence": "Later Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman activity in the sacred precinct complicates older attempts to assign all monumental remains to Iron Age royal building programs.", "confidence": "moderate; reassessment ongoing", "relation": "Formation history affecting interpretation of the sacred precinct.", "caution": "This broad row flags cumulative reuse, not one continuous building project.", "referenceIds": [ "tel-dan-sacred-precinct-2025" ] }, { "siteId": "tel-rehov", "sequenceId": "tel-rehov-iron", "sequenceTitle": "Tel Reḥov Iron I–IIA ladder", "id": "rehov-v-to-iv-repair-transition", "start": -850, "end": -830, "label": "Stratum V destruction clearance, repair, and Stratum IV reuse", "kind": "clearance / repair / reuse", "evidence": "Excavation synthesis shows that the Stratum V destruction was not a uniform total erasure: debris was cleared in places and earlier walls/buildings could be repaired or reused in Stratum IV.", "confidence": "high for local observations; moderate as a site-wide summary", "relation": "Formation process linking the Stratum V destruction and Stratum IV occupation.", "caution": "This is a site-wide synthesis of local observations; individual excavation areas preserve different transitions.", "referenceIds": [ "rehov-radiocarbon-ladder-2005" ] }, { "siteId": "tel-rehov", "sequenceId": "tel-rehov-iron", "sequenceTitle": "Tel Reḥov Iron I–IIA ladder", "id": "rehov-stratum-iv-abandonment", "date": -830, "label": "Lower-city abandonment after terminal Stratum IV fire", "kind": "destruction debris / abandonment", "evidence": "The Area C Stratum IV quarter was completely destroyed by severe fire, after which the lower city was abandoned.", "confidence": "high for Area C and lower-city abandonment; exact absolute coordinate broad", "relation": "Terminal formation event for the lower-city Stratum IV occupation.", "caution": "The -830 coordinate is a modeled end point within the current broad Iron IIA ladder, not an independently exact fire year.", "referenceIds": [ "panitz-cohen-rehov-2022" ] }, { "siteId": "hazor", "sequenceId": "hazor-lower-city-h", "sequenceTitle": "Hazor Lower City — Area H", "id": "hazor-h2-two-builds", "start": -1550, "end": -1400, "label": "Two construction phases of the Area H propylaeum / gate complex", "kind": "construction / rebuild", "evidence": "Area H Stratum 2 preserves two architectural construction phases in the propylaeum/gate complex.", "confidence": "high for local architectural succession; absolute band broad", "relation": "Internal architectural development within Stratum 2.", "caution": "Two construction phases do not imply two site-wide strata and should not be synchronized automatically with upper-city rebuilding.", "referenceIds": [ "hazor-lower-city-2026" ] }, { "siteId": "hazor", "sequenceId": "hazor-lower-city-h", "sequenceTitle": "Hazor Lower City — Area H", "id": "hazor-h1b-drainage-deposits", "start": -1400, "end": -1300, "label": "Drainage installations and miniature-vessel depositional activity", "kind": "installation / structured deposition", "evidence": "Stratum 1b includes drainage channels and miniature-vessel deposits that mark changes in use of the Lower City Area H complex.", "confidence": "high for local context; function remains interpretive", "relation": "Formation/use process within Stratum 1b.", "caution": "The deposits are local to Area H and cannot be generalized to the entire lower city without additional excavation evidence.", "referenceIds": [ "hazor-lower-city-2026" ] }, { "siteId": "tel-rehov", "sequenceId": "tel-rehov-area-c", "sequenceTitle": "Tel Reḥov — Area C local column", "id": "rehov-c-v-collapse-sealed", "start": -850, "end": -830, "label": "Stratum V collapse cleared / sealed by Stratum IV construction and reuse", "kind": "collapse / sealing / reuse", "evidence": "Burnt Stratum V collapse extended beneath later Stratum IV Building L; portions of earlier buildings were reused while other destruction debris was cleared before Stratum IV floors and walls were established.", "confidence": "high local stratigraphic relation", "relation": "Links C1b / Stratum V destruction to C1a / Stratum IV architecture.", "caution": "The transition combines several local formation processes and should not be treated as a single instantaneous rebuilding event.", "referenceIds": [ "rehov-radiocarbon-ladder-2005" ] }, { "siteId": "tel-rehov", "sequenceId": "tel-rehov-area-c", "sequenceTitle": "Tel Reḥov — Area C local column", "id": "rehov-c-stratum-iv-terminal-fire", "date": -830, "label": "Severe terminal fire and abandonment of the lower city", "kind": "burn / collapse / abandonment", "evidence": "The Stratum IV Area C architectural quarter was completely destroyed by severe fire, leaving rich destruction debris directly beneath topsoil and ending lower-city occupation.", "confidence": "high for local fire and abandonment; absolute date broad", "relation": "Terminates Area C Phase C1a / Stratum IV.", "caution": "The physical fire is secure; the exact calendar year and historical agent remain separate questions.", "referenceIds": [ "panitz-cohen-rehov-2022" ] }, { "siteId": "tel-rehov", "sequenceId": "tel-rehov-area-d", "sequenceTitle": "Tel Reḥov — Area D local column", "id": "rehov-d5-sealed-by-d4", "date": -1080, "label": "D-5 occupation debris sealed by D-4", "kind": "sealing / superposition", "evidence": "Published Area D stratigraphy records D-5 occupation debris sealed by the succeeding D-4 phase, providing a direct local superposition control.", "confidence": "high local stratigraphic relation; boundary date modeled", "relation": "Directly links D-5 below D-4.", "caution": "The -1080 coordinate is the visualization boundary between broad phase ranges, not an independently dated sealing event.", "referenceIds": [ "rehov-radiocarbon-ladder-2005" ] }, { "siteId": "tel-rehov", "sequenceId": "tel-rehov-area-d", "sequenceTitle": "Tel Reḥov — Area D local column", "id": "rehov-d-v-iv-transition", "start": -850, "end": -830, "label": "D-1b to D-1a destruction / reuse transition", "kind": "destruction clearance / reuse", "evidence": "Area D participates in the published Stratum V–IV transition; local correlation is tied to the wider radiocarbon-linked site ladder.", "confidence": "moderate–high; cross-area correlation modeled", "relation": "Links D-1b (≈ V) to D-1a (≈ IV).", "caution": "Local Area D order is secure, while equivalence to the site-wide Strata V–IV framework remains a cross-area model.", "referenceIds": [ "rehov-radiocarbon-ladder-2005" ] }, { "siteId": "jerusalem", "sequenceId": "jerusalem-city-david-area-e", "sequenceTitle": "Jerusalem — City of David Area E", "id": "jer-area-e-slope-erosion", "start": -1900, "end": -586, "label": "Steep-slope erosion / uneven preservation control", "kind": "erosion / truncation", "evidence": "Area E lies on a steep, erosion-prone eastern slope; preservation varies substantially and gaps cannot automatically be read as sitewide abandonment.", "confidence": "high as a taphonomic control; timing diffuse", "relation": "Affects interpretation of the Middle Bronze through Iron Age sequence.", "caution": "The range marks deposits potentially affected by long-term slope processes, not a continuously active single erosion event.", "referenceIds": [ "v56-jerusalem-area-e-2012" ] }, { "siteId": "jerusalem", "sequenceId": "jerusalem-city-david-area-e", "sequenceTitle": "Jerusalem — City of David Area E", "id": "jer-area-e-hellenistic-terracing", "start": -332, "end": -63, "label": "Hellenistic terracing and cist-grave activity", "kind": "terracing / cut-and-fill / funerary deposition", "evidence": "The Hellenistic horizon includes terracing and cist-grave activity that reshaped the slope and the preservation of earlier deposits.", "confidence": "high local context", "relation": "Formation process within the Hellenistic Area E horizon.", "caution": "Terracing and burial activity are formation processes, not a single occupation floor.", "referenceIds": [ "v56-jerusalem-area-e-2012" ] }, { "siteId": "jerusalem", "sequenceId": "jerusalem-givati-m1", "sequenceTitle": "Jerusalem — Givʿati Parking Lot Area M1", "id": "jer-givati-persian-fills", "start": -539, "end": -332, "label": "Persian-period fills without associated architecture", "kind": "fill / secondary deposition", "evidence": "Area M1 contains substantial Persian-period fills, but the final report explicitly does not classify them as an occupation stratum because no associated architectural remains were present.", "confidence": "high", "relation": "Non-stratum depositional horizon between the Iron Age and Hellenistic architectural sequences.", "caution": "The fills attest Persian-period material/deposition at the site; they do not by themselves constitute a Persian architectural occupation stratum.", "referenceIds": [ "v56-jerusalem-givati-m1-2013" ] }, { "siteId": "jerusalem", "sequenceId": "jerusalem-givati-m1", "sequenceTitle": "Jerusalem — Givʿati Parking Lot Area M1", "id": "jer-givati-post586-reorganization", "start": -586, "end": -539, "label": "Post-586 destruction clearance / urban reorganization interval", "kind": "destruction aftermath / clearance / reorganization", "evidence": "The late Iron Age architecture ends in the 586 BCE destruction; subsequent Persian-period evidence is dominated in Area M1 by fills rather than a directly continuous architectural stratum.", "confidence": "moderate as local formation-history synthesis", "relation": "Separates the destroyed late Iron architecture from later Persian deposition.", "caution": "This local interval must not be generalized into a claim that all of Jerusalem was unoccupied after 586 BCE.", "referenceIds": [ "v56-jerusalem-givati-m1-2013" ] }, { "siteId": "gezer", "sequenceId": "gezer-tandy-sequence", "sequenceTitle": "Gezer — Tandy excavation sequence", "id": "gezer-12b-12a-rebuild", "start": -1218, "end": -1136, "label": "Post-12B rebuilding into Stratum 12A / 11", "kind": "reconstruction / architectural replacement", "evidence": "After the Stratum 12B destruction the elite residence was repaired/rebuilt in 12A before a new architectural plan appeared in Stratum 11.", "confidence": "high for stratigraphic succession", "relation": "Separates the destructive end of 12B from subsequent rebuilding and later replanning.", "caution": "The displayed span brackets a sequence of rebuilding, not one continuous construction event.", "referenceIds": [ "v56-gezer-webster-2023" ] }, { "siteId": "gezer", "sequenceId": "gezer-tandy-sequence", "sequenceTitle": "Gezer — Tandy excavation sequence", "id": "gezer-9-reuse", "start": -1080, "end": -1000, "label": "Stratum 9 ephemeral rebuild reusing Stratum 10 fabric", "kind": "architectural reuse / short-lived reoccupation", "evidence": "Stratum 9 builders constructed directly on the destroyed Stratum 10 horizon and integrated/reused earlier walls; the phase is described as ephemeral.", "confidence": "high for local reuse relationship", "relation": "Formation/reuse process between the 10A destruction and monumental Stratum 8 city.", "caution": "Reuse does not mean institutional continuity or identify the political authority behind the phase.", "referenceIds": [ "v56-gezer-webster-2023" ] }, { "siteId": "gezer", "sequenceId": "gezer-tandy-sequence", "sequenceTitle": "Gezer — Tandy excavation sequence", "id": "gezer-8-to-7-reorganization", "start": -969, "end": -913, "label": "Post-Stratum 8 domestic reorganization and fortification reuse", "kind": "rebuilding / functional reorganization", "evidence": "After the Stratum 8 destruction, the gate area shifted from administrative to domestic use; the casemate wall was reused and the gate rebuilt on a four-chambered plan.", "confidence": "high", "relation": "Explains the functional and architectural shift from monumental Stratum 8 to domestic Stratum 7.", "caution": "Reuse of fortification fabric is not evidence that political control remained unchanged.", "referenceIds": [ "v56-gezer-webster-2023" ] }, { "siteId": "gezer", "sequenceId": "gezer-tandy-sequence", "sequenceTitle": "Gezer — Tandy excavation sequence", "id": "gezer-7-to-6-hiatus", "start": -885, "end": -800, "label": "Possible occupation gap / reduced use on the southern edge", "kind": "occupational hiatus / reduced settlement", "evidence": "The revised early end of Stratum 7 raises the possibility of a gap or strongly reduced occupation before Iron IIB Stratum 6 on the southern edge of the site.", "confidence": "provisional", "relation": "Records a possible non-depositional or reduced-use interval rather than forcing continuous occupation.", "caution": "This is a site-sector hypothesis based on the current sequence and should not be projected automatically across all of Gezer.", "referenceIds": [ "v56-gezer-webster-2023" ] }, { "siteId": "shechem", "sequenceId": "shechem-general-strata", "sequenceTitle": "Shechem / Tell Balata — 24-stratum general crosswalk", "id": "shechem-post-mb-hiatus", "start": -1550, "end": -1450, "label": "Post-Middle-Bronze occupational hiatus", "kind": "abandonment / hiatus", "evidence": "The controlled general sequence contains a gap between terminal Stratum XV and renewed Stratum XIV occupation.", "confidence": "high for the registered sequence gap", "relation": "Separates terminal Middle Bronze destruction from later Late Bronze reoccupation.", "caution": "The modeled gap summarizes the published site sequence and should not be converted into a precise year-by-year vacancy claim.", "referenceIds": [ "v56-shechem-campbell-2002", "v58-shechem-toombs-1972" ] }, { "siteId": "shechem", "sequenceId": "shechem-general-strata", "sequenceTitle": "Shechem / Tell Balata — 24-stratum general crosswalk", "id": "shechem-post-iron-i-hiatus", "start": -1100, "end": -975, "label": "Post-Iron I destruction hiatus", "kind": "abandonment / hiatus", "evidence": "After the terminal Iron I horizon, the general sequence resumes with Stratum X following a substantial gap.", "confidence": "high for sequence gap; dates broad", "relation": "Separates Stratum XI from Stratum X.", "caution": "The exact duration is model-dependent within the broad phase bands.", "referenceIds": [ "v56-shechem-campbell-2002", "v58-shechem-toombs-1972" ] }, { "siteId": "shechem", "sequenceId": "shechem-general-strata", "sequenceTitle": "Shechem / Tell Balata — 24-stratum general crosswalk", "id": "shechem-vi-reoccupation", "start": -724, "end": -600, "label": "Impoverished reoccupation and reuse after Assyrian-era destruction", "kind": "reoccupation / reuse", "evidence": "Stratum VI represents post-destruction occupation/reuse distinct from the preceding Israelite city horizon.", "confidence": "moderate–high", "relation": "Formation/use process following Stratum VII's terminal horizon.", "caution": "Reoccupation intensity and political identity should not be inferred from the stratigraphic label alone.", "referenceIds": [ "v56-shechem-campbell-2002", "v58-shechem-toombs-1972" ] }, { "siteId": "avaris", "sequenceId": "avaris-master-crosswalk", "sequenceTitle": "Avaris / Tell el-Dabʿa — published master phase crosswalk", "id": "avaris-master-n1-m-hiatus", "start": -1950, "end": -1920, "label": "Published N/1 → M hiatus", "kind": "hiatus / non-occupation interval", "evidence": "The master crosswalk preserves a chronological gap between N/1 and M rather than drawing a continuous occupation band.", "confidence": "high as registered crosswalk gap", "relation": "Separates General Phase N/1 from M.", "caution": "This is a crosswalked local/site synthesis gap, not proof that every sector of Avaris was empty.", "referenceIds": [ "v60-avaris-bietak-2022", "v60-avaris-kutschera-2012" ] }, { "siteId": "avaris", "sequenceId": "avaris-master-crosswalk", "sequenceTitle": "Avaris / Tell el-Dabʿa — published master phase crosswalk", "id": "avaris-master-c2-c1-hiatus", "start": -1410, "end": -1360, "label": "Published C/2 → C/1 hiatus / loss interval", "kind": "hiatus / preservation gap", "evidence": "The master sequence contains a gap between C/2 and C/1 that is retained rather than interpolated away.", "confidence": "high as registered sequence gap", "relation": "Separates General Phase C/2 from C/1.", "caution": "The gap can reflect local non-occupation, denudation, or preservation history; it is not automatically a sitewide abandonment.", "referenceIds": [ "v60-avaris-bietak-2022", "v60-avaris-kutschera-2012" ] }, { "siteId": "avaris", "sequenceId": "avaris-fi", "sequenceTitle": "Avaris — Area F/I (new centre / MB-population)", "id": "avaris-fi-e1-d2-hiatus", "start": -1950, "end": -1830, "label": "Area F/I long local hiatus", "kind": "hiatus / non-occupation interval", "evidence": "The Area F/I column has no controlled occupation phase between e/1 and d/2 in the published local sequence.", "confidence": "high for local sequence gap", "relation": "Separates F/I e/1 from d/2.", "caution": "A local hiatus cannot be generalized to all Avaris excavation areas.", "referenceIds": [ "v60-avaris-bietak-2022", "v60-avaris-kutschera-2012" ] }, { "siteId": "avaris", "sequenceId": "avaris-ai-iv", "sequenceTitle": "Avaris — Areas A/I–IV (eastern town)", "id": "avaris-aiiv-post-squatter-hiatus", "start": -1470, "end": -1300, "label": "Eastern-town post-squatter hiatus", "kind": "hiatus / loss / non-occupation interval", "evidence": "The local A/I–IV column preserves a long gap between the squatter occupation and the later B/3 horizon.", "confidence": "high for local sequence gap", "relation": "Separates the squatter phase from B/3.", "caution": "This local gap is not equivalent to abandonment of the entire eastern Delta settlement.", "referenceIds": [ "v60-avaris-bietak-2022", "v60-avaris-kutschera-2012" ] }, { "siteId": "avaris", "sequenceId": "avaris-hi-vi", "sequenceTitle": "Avaris — Areas H/I–VI (ʿEzbet Helmi palace district)", "id": "avaris-hivi-c-b-hiatus", "start": -1440, "end": -1360, "label": "Palace-district c → b hiatus", "kind": "hiatus / denudation / non-occupation interval", "evidence": "The H/I–VI palace-district column contains a gap after phase c before the later phase b horizon.", "confidence": "high for local sequence gap", "relation": "Separates H/I–VI c from b.", "caution": "The gap is local and may combine non-occupation and preservation/denudation processes.", "referenceIds": [ "v60-avaris-bietak-2022", "v60-avaris-kutschera-2012" ] }, { "siteId": "megiddo", "sequenceId": "megiddo-area-h", "sequenceTitle": "Megiddo — Area H local column", "id": "meg-h2-post732-transition", "start": -732, "end": -700, "label": "Area H H-2 post-destruction transition", "kind": "reoccupation / rebuilding transition", "evidence": "H-2 is stratigraphically sandwiched between the H-3 destruction and the Assyrian palatial H-1 horizon.", "confidence": "high relative placement; calendar span schematic", "relation": "Models the local interval between destruction and the mature Assyrian architectural phase.", "caution": "The broad duration is a visualization envelope, not an independently measured construction interval.", "referenceIds": [ "v60-megiddo-eneae-2008" ] }, { "siteId": "tel-eton", "sequenceId": "tel-eton-area-b", "sequenceTitle": "Tel ‘Eton — Area B deep sequence", "id": "eton-b-post701-hiatus", "start": -701, "end": -400, "label": "Long post-destruction abandonment / occupational gap", "kind": "abandonment / hiatus", "evidence": "After the late-eighth-century destruction, the Area B sequence resumes only with much later Persian/Hellenistic reuse.", "confidence": "high for local sequence gap", "relation": "Separates B3 from B2.", "caution": "The gap is Area B/local and does not prove complete absence of every activity across the entire mound.", "referenceIds": [ "v62-eton-faust-2011", "v62-eton-interregional-2014", "cambridge-tel-eton" ] }, { "siteId": "tel-eton", "sequenceId": "tel-eton-area-b", "sequenceTitle": "Tel ‘Eton — Area B deep sequence", "id": "eton-b2-room-reuse", "start": -400, "end": -300, "label": "Reuse of abandoned rooms and installations", "kind": "architectural reuse / secondary occupation", "evidence": "Late Persian/early Hellenistic activity reused older rooms and installations rather than representing simple continuity from the Iron Age city.", "confidence": "high local sequence", "relation": "Formation/use process within B2.", "caution": "Reuse may incorporate older walls and residual material; it should not be used to redate the underlying Iron Age construction.", "referenceIds": [ "v62-eton-faust-2011", "v62-eton-interregional-2014", "cambridge-tel-eton" ] }, { "siteId": "tel-eton", "sequenceId": "tel-eton-area-b", "sequenceTitle": "Tel ‘Eton — Area B deep sequence", "id": "eton-b1-byzantine-terracing", "start": 400, "end": 650, "label": "Byzantine agricultural terrace construction and truncation", "kind": "terracing / truncation / redeposition", "evidence": "Byzantine terracing reshaped the slope and removed or disturbed earlier deposits in portions of Area B.", "confidence": "high", "relation": "Major post-depositional process affecting preservation of earlier strata.", "caution": "Absence of an older layer beneath a terrace can reflect truncation rather than ancient non-occupation.", "referenceIds": [ "v62-eton-faust-2011", "v62-eton-interregional-2014", "cambridge-tel-eton" ] }, { "siteId": "tel-eton", "sequenceId": "tel-eton-area-c", "sequenceTitle": "Tel ‘Eton — Area C lower-city column", "id": "eton-c1-intrusive-pits", "start": -400, "end": -300, "label": "Persian/Hellenistic pits cutting Iron Age occupation", "kind": "intrusive cuts / secondary deposition", "evidence": "Fourth-century BCE pits in Area C cut down into the earlier Iron Age occupation, locally disturbing the older stratigraphic context.", "confidence": "high local stratigraphic relation", "relation": "Later intrusive features truncate and redeposit material from the underlying Area C Iron Age horizon.", "caution": "Material recovered from an intrusive pit cannot automatically be assigned to the date of the older deposits it cuts, and residual Iron Age material may occur in later fills.", "referenceIds": [ "v62-eton-faust-2011", "v62-eton-interregional-2014", "cambridge-tel-eton" ] }, { "siteId": "elephantine", "sequenceId": "elephantine-yhw-precinct", "sequenceTitle": "Elephantine — YHW temple / Judean precinct sequence", "id": "elephantine-post410-rebuild-process", "start": -410, "end": -350, "label": "Post-410 reconstruction / reconfigured precinct use", "kind": "rebuilding / reconfiguration", "evidence": "After the documented 410 BCE destruction, petitions and surviving archaeology indicate attempted or reconfigured rebuilding rather than uninterrupted continuity.", "confidence": "high for historical rebuilding effort; architecture incomplete", "relation": "Formation history of the post-destruction YHW precinct.", "caution": "Documentary chronology is more precise than the surviving architectural remains; the physical extent of rebuilding is incomplete.", "referenceIds": [ "v243-elephantine-dai", "p8121-elephantine-arnold-2023" ] }, { "siteId": "jerusalem", "sequenceId": "jerusalem-ophel-a2009", "sequenceTitle": "Jerusalem — Ophel Area A2009", "id": "jer-ophel-a2009-refuse-accumulation", "start": -800, "end": -700, "label": "Iron IIB refuse-dump accumulation at foot of the Ophel building complex", "kind": "secondary deposition / refuse accumulation", "evidence": "Area A2009 preserves sloping/accumulated refuse layers containing pottery, fauna, sealings and other administrative debris; the deposits are secondary recovery contexts rather than intact document-use floors.", "confidence": "high for formation process; calendar span deliberately broad", "relation": "Formation process within the Area A2009 Iron IIB phase.", "caution": "The range describes the broad archaeological horizon represented by the deposits, not one instantaneous dumping event and not proof that every object originated in a specifically named building.", "referenceIds": [ "p824-ophel-final-vol2-2018" ] }, { "siteId": "jerusalem", "sequenceId": "jerusalem-ophel-a2012", "sequenceTitle": "Jerusalem — Ophel Area A2012", "id": "jer-ophel-a2012-l223c-stabilizer-fill", "start": -1000, "end": -900, "label": "L.223C pithos-fragment stabilizing fill beneath second floor", "kind": "construction fill / secondary deposition", "evidence": "Fragments from seven large pithoi, including the inscribed rim, were intentionally used as stabilizing fill under the second floor of the building.", "confidence": "very high artifact-specific feature context", "relation": "Construction formation process within the early Iron IIA building phase.", "caution": "Secondary architectural fill fixes the recovery/construction context but not the vessel’s original use location, workshop, owner, or exact year of manufacture.", "referenceIds": [ "p824-ophel-pithos-2013" ] }, { "siteId": "mount-gerizim", "sequenceId": "mount-gerizim-sacred-precinct", "sequenceTitle": "Mount Gerizim — sacred precinct sequence", "id": "gerizim-sacrificial-ash-accumulation", "label": "Repeated sacrificial ash and bone accumulation", "kind": "ritual disposal / secondary accumulation", "evidence": "Burnt animal bones occur in thick ash deposits and concentrated disposal zones around the precinct, consistent with repeated altar-cleaning and ritual-waste management rather than one destruction episode.", "caution": "The deposits aggregate repeated sacrificial/disposal activity and must not be plotted as one event horizon.", "referenceIds": [ "gerizim-temple-model-2020" ], "start": -475, "end": -110, "confidence": "high for repeated ritual accumulation; low for event-style precision" }, { "siteId": "mount-gerizim", "sequenceId": "mount-gerizim-sacred-precinct", "sequenceTitle": "Mount Gerizim — sacred precinct sequence", "id": "gerizim-hellenistic-rebuild", "label": "Monumental Hellenistic enlargement over the earlier precinct", "kind": "rebuilding / architectural transformation", "date": -200, "evidence": "The early precinct was dramatically enlarged and reorganized in the Hellenistic phase, creating a larger sanctuary complex around/over Persian-period remains.", "caution": "Later monumental architecture cannot be projected backward unchanged into the Persian-period phase.", "referenceIds": [ "gerizim-temple-model-2020", "arie-gerizim-revisiting" ], "confidence": "high for Hellenistic monumental enlargement; exact construction year approximate" }, { "siteId": "jerusalem", "sequenceId": "jerusalem-temple-mount-southwest", "sequenceTitle": "Jerusalem — Temple Mount Southwest / Archaeological Park", "id": "jer-tm-sw-70-architectural-fall", "start": 70, "end": 70, "label": "Architectural fall onto the southwest street", "kind": "collapse / destruction debris", "evidence": "Temple Mount architectural blocks fell onto and buried portions of the paved street during the 70 CE destruction.", "confidence": "high", "relation": "Formation process creating the destruction-debris deposit that included the Trumpeting Place stone.", "caution": "A fallen stone’s debris position is not identical to its original architectural emplacement.", "referenceIds": [ "src-mazar-trumpeting-1978" ] }, { "siteId": "motya-tophet", "sequenceId": "motya-tophet-urnfield", "sequenceTitle": "Motya — Tophet urnfield depositional sequence", "id": "motya-tophet-sanctuary-establishment", "start": -800, "end": -750, "label": "Sanctuary delimitation / initial urnfield establishment", "kind": "sanctuary establishment / construction", "evidence": "Nigro’s periodization places construction of the southern sanctuary boundary and earliest depositional-field use in the opening Phoenician horizon.", "confidence": "moderate-high for broad horizon", "relation": "Establishes the bounded sacred/depositional zone before the mature urnfield sequence.", "caution": "The calendar band is intentionally broad and does not imply one construction year.", "referenceIds": [ "nigro-motya-periodization-2022" ] }, { "siteId": "motya-tophet", "sequenceId": "motya-tophet-urnfield", "sequenceTitle": "Motya — Tophet urnfield depositional sequence", "id": "motya-tophet-progressive-urnfield-build-up", "start": -750, "end": -300, "label": "Repeated urn deposition and progressive field build-up", "kind": "repeated ritual deposition / artificial ground accumulation", "evidence": "The sanctuary developed through successive superposed depositional strata, with documented eastward extension in the middle sequence and continued use until abandonment around 300 BCE.", "confidence": "high for repeated depositional process; not continuous at uniform intensity", "relation": "Formation process underlying the eight-stratum urnfield succession.", "caution": "This is a long-duration formation envelope, not a single event and not evidence by itself for cause of death of deposited individuals.", "referenceIds": [ "nigro-motya-periodization-2022", "orsingher-tophet-vessels-2015" ] }, { "siteId": "sulcis-tophet", "sequenceId": "sulcis-tophet-depositional-framework", "sequenceTitle": "Sulcis / Sulky — Tophet spatial-depositional framework", "id": "sulcis-tophet-bedrock-basin-deposition", "start": -750, "end": -100, "label": "Deposition into separate bedrock cracks / basins with vertical overlap", "kind": "repeated ritual deposition / natural-basin infill", "evidence": "Urns were placed in deep cracks and natural crevices in trachytic bedrock, creating separate depositional basins and repeated overlap rather than a continuous artificial terrace sequence.", "confidence": "high", "relation": "Explains why Sulcis is modeled as a depositional framework rather than a unified stratigraphic column.", "caution": "The broad duration represents cumulative sanctuary formation, not a single continuous deposit.", "referenceIds": [ "orsingher-tophet-vessels-2015" ] }, { "siteId": "sulcis-tophet", "sequenceId": "sulcis-tophet-depositional-framework", "sequenceTitle": "Sulcis / Sulky — Tophet spatial-depositional framework", "id": "sulcis-tophet-upper-level-loss", "start": -400, "end": -100, "label": "Upper-level loss / later removal affecting the youngest urn horizons", "kind": "post-depositional truncation / removal", "evidence": "Published discussion notes that many upper-level urns, commonly fourth–second century BCE, were removed over time, complicating vertical reconstruction.", "confidence": "high that removal affected the record; exact episodes of removal not dated", "relation": "Post-depositional process degrading the youngest part of the urnfield record.", "caution": "The displayed band dates the deposits known to be especially affected, not the exact dates when all removals occurred.", "referenceIds": [ "orsingher-tophet-vessels-2015" ] }, { "siteId": "ashkelon", "sequenceId": "ashkelon-grid2-mb", "sequenceTitle": "Ashkelon Grid 2 / North Slope Middle Bronze fortification sequence", "id": "ashkelon-grid2-fortification-rebuilding", "start": -1825, "end": -1500, "label": "Repeated North Slope gate/rampart rebuilding", "kind": "fortification construction / massive earth-moving", "evidence": "The North Slope sequence developed through successive gate and rampart projects, each involving major construction and fill movement.", "confidence": "high for repeated construction process", "relation": "Long-duration formation envelope underlying Phases 14–10.", "caution": "This is not one continuous building event and does not imply identical function or duration for every gate phase.", "referenceIds": [ "stager-schloen-voss-ashkelon6-2018" ] }, { "siteId": "ashkelon", "sequenceId": "ashkelon-grid2-mb", "sequenceTitle": "Ashkelon Grid 2 / North Slope Middle Bronze fortification sequence", "id": "ashkelon-phase10-sealing", "start": -1600, "end": -1500, "label": "Phase 11 gate/shrine complex sealed beneath final rampart fill", "kind": "burial / sealing by fortification fill", "evidence": "In Phases 10–9, rampart fill covered the Phase 11 footgate, corridor and courtyard sanctuary.", "confidence": "high", "relation": "Explains preservation and stratigraphic termination of the Phase 11 architectural complex.", "caution": "Sealing under rampart fill is a formation process, not evidence that the sanctuary ended in a violent destruction.", "referenceIds": [ "stager-schloen-master-ashkelon1-2008", "stager-schloen-voss-ashkelon6-2018" ] }, { "siteId": "ashkelon", "sequenceId": "ashkelon-grid38-lb-iron1", "sequenceTitle": "Ashkelon Grid 38 Late Bronze–Iron I transition sequence", "id": "ashkelon-g38-21-20-transition", "start": -1200, "end": -1150, "label": "Phase 21→20 non-destructive transition", "kind": "abandonment / rebuilding / cultural transition", "evidence": "Published excavation synthesis reports no extensive destruction between the Egyptian-associated Phase 21 and earliest Philistine Phase 20 in Grid 38.", "confidence": "high for absence of a major destruction in the excavated area", "relation": "Separates a major cultural/architectural transition from a destruction event.", "caution": "Absence of a destruction horizon in Grid 38 does not prove a peaceful transition across every sector of the city.", "referenceIds": [ "master-stager-yasur-ashkelon-2011", "stager-schloen-master-ashkelon1-2008" ] }, { "siteId": "ashkelon", "sequenceId": "ashkelon-grid38-604", "sequenceTitle": "Ashkelon Grid 38 seventh-century winery / 604 BCE destruction", "id": "ashkelon-g38-604-conflagration", "start": -604, "end": -604, "label": "Burning and rapid sealing of winery-sector assemblages", "kind": "destruction-deposit formation / conflagration", "evidence": "The terminal fire/destruction preserved architectural and economic assemblages within the winery sector.", "confidence": "high", "relation": "Creates the sealed archaeological snapshot used by multiple artifact and scientific studies.", "caution": "A destruction deposit mixes behavior immediately before the attack with collapse/fire processes during the event.", "referenceIds": [ "stager-master-schloen-ashkelon3-2011" ] }, { "siteId": "ashkelon", "sequenceId": "ashkelon-grid50-604", "sequenceTitle": "Ashkelon Grid 50 marketplace / 604 BCE destruction", "id": "ashkelon-g50-604-conflagration", "start": -604, "end": -604, "label": "Marketplace conflagration and collapse", "kind": "destruction-deposit formation / conflagration", "evidence": "Extreme burning and structural collapse sealed shops, storage and administrative contexts in the marketplace sector.", "confidence": "high", "relation": "Formation process responsible for preservation of the 604 BCE commercial assemblage.", "caution": "Fire and collapse can move or mingle material within rooms; use locus-level records where available.", "referenceIds": [ "stager-master-schloen-ashkelon3-2011", "weiss-kislev-ashkelon-plants-2004" ] }, { "siteId": "jericho", "sequenceId": "jericho-area-gh-spring-hill", "sequenceTitle": "Jericho Areas G/H — Spring Hill palace, Middle Building and Iron I sequence", "id": "jericho-gh-lb-reuse", "start": -1550, "end": -1400, "label": "Late Bronze reuse of Middle Bronze palace fabric", "kind": "architectural reuse / rebuilding", "evidence": "After the Sultan IVc destruction, parts of the palace fabric were reused when the Late Bronze Middle Building complex was erected.", "confidence": "high for reuse relationship", "relation": "Connects the terminal Middle Bronze palace destruction to the Sultan Va building horizon.", "caution": "Architectural reuse does not imply institutional or population continuity.", "referenceIds": [ "nigro-yasine-jericho-2024" ] }, { "siteId": "jericho", "sequenceId": "jericho-area-gh-spring-hill", "sequenceTitle": "Jericho Areas G/H — Spring Hill palace, Middle Building and Iron I sequence", "id": "jericho-gh-iron-reuse", "start": -1136, "end": -960, "label": "Iron IB house construction over Late Bronze walling", "kind": "reuse / secondary building material", "evidence": "The Sultan VIa2 house was built over the northern stretch of W.2333 and reused burnt Middle/Late Bronze bricks.", "confidence": "high for stratigraphic superposition", "relation": "Iron I domestic architecture physically reuses earlier Late Bronze and Middle Bronze fabric.", "caution": "Reuse is a formation process and should not be read as proof of uninterrupted occupation from the Late Bronze phase.", "referenceIds": [ "nigro-yasine-jericho-2024" ] }, { "siteId": "jericho", "sequenceId": "jericho-south-ae-fortifications", "sequenceTitle": "Jericho Areas A/E — Middle Bronze ramparts, Late Bronze wall and Iron I reuse", "id": "jericho-ae-rampart-superposition", "start": -1650, "end": -1550, "label": "Rampart II constructed across/over Rampart I landscape", "kind": "fortification rebuilding / superposition", "evidence": "The Cyclopean Wall and Sultan IVc rampart cut or overlaid parts of the earlier Sultan IVb defensive landscape and associated street/destruction deposits.", "confidence": "high for stratigraphic superposition", "relation": "Records the replacement of the MB II fortification scheme by the MB III defensive line.", "caution": "The event is architectural reorganization rather than a single instantaneous city-wide rebuilding date.", "referenceIds": [ "nigro-yasine-jericho-2024" ] }, { "siteId": "jericho", "sequenceId": "jericho-south-ae-fortifications", "sequenceTitle": "Jericho Areas A/E — Middle Bronze ramparts, Late Bronze wall and Iron I reuse", "id": "jericho-ae-lb-wall-reuse", "start": -1550, "end": -1400, "label": "Late Bronze wall built on Middle Bronze Cyclopean Wall", "kind": "architectural reuse / superposition", "evidence": "Sultan Va orange-mudbrick walling W.2154/W.1714 was erected directly on top of the preserved Cyclopean Wall.", "confidence": "high for physical superposition", "relation": "Bridges terminal Sultan IVc destruction and the subsequent Sultan Va fortification remnant.", "caution": "A wall remnant does not demonstrate that the full Middle Bronze defensive system remained functionally intact in the Late Bronze Age.", "referenceIds": [ "nigro-yasine-jericho-2024" ] }, { "siteId": "hazor", "sequenceId": "hazor-lower-city-k-gate", "sequenceTitle": "Hazor Lower City — Area K city gate microstratigraphy", "id": "hazor-k-3-to-2-continuity", "start": -1550, "end": -1400, "label": "No destructive break between gate Strata 3 and 2", "kind": "occupational continuity / surface accumulation", "evidence": "The micro-residue study found continuous anthropogenic input and no evidence for a destruction separating the Middle Bronze Stratum 3 gate from Late Bronze I Stratum 2.", "confidence": "high for the sampled gate section", "relation": "Guards against inserting an unobserved destruction between the two local phases.", "caution": "Absence of a destruction signal in Area K does not prove every part of Hazor was unaffected at the same time.", "referenceIds": [ "runjajic-hazor-gate-2023" ] }, { "siteId": "hazor", "sequenceId": "hazor-lower-city-k-gate", "sequenceTitle": "Hazor Lower City — Area K city gate microstratigraphy", "id": "hazor-k-postfire-disuse", "start": -1230, "end": -1200, "label": "Post-collapse disuse / minimal anthropogenic activity", "kind": "abandonment / reduced use", "evidence": "Minimal anthropogenic residues above the major destruction horizon indicate little renewed use of the gate area after the collapse.", "confidence": "high for the sampled gate section; duration modeled broadly", "relation": "Separates the destruction event from subsequent abandonment/disuse.", "caution": "The modeled terminal-LB span is not a measured duration of abandonment and should not be projected automatically onto the Upper City.", "referenceIds": [ "runjajic-hazor-gate-2023" ] }, { "siteId": "gezer", "sequenceId": "gezer-fieldvi-laminated", "sequenceTitle": "Gezer — HUC Field VI laminated-deposit sequence", "id": "gezer-fieldvi-midden-accumulation", "start": -1535, "end": -1465, "label": "Repeated laminated refuse / activity-area accumulation", "kind": "midden formation / repeated burning and deposition", "evidence": "Archaeobotanical composition is inconsistent with a crop-processing threshing floor and instead reflects multiple plant-remain pathways; field observations support repeated burning and deposition in an open activity area.", "confidence": "high that the old threshing-floor model is weak; midden/multipurpose-area model favored", "relation": "Explains the laminated stratigraphy as cumulative site-formation rather than one occupational floor.", "caution": "The source allows for a multipurpose open area as well as refuse deposition; “midden” is the favored formation model, not a claim that every lamina had an identical origin.", "referenceIds": [ "maltas-webster-gezer-2022" ] }, { "siteId": "gezer", "sequenceId": "gezer-fieldvi-laminated", "sequenceTitle": "Gezer — HUC Field VI laminated-deposit sequence", "id": "gezer-fieldvi-granary-intrusion", "start": -1250, "end": -1100, "label": "Later Granary 24000 built into / after the laminated deposit", "kind": "later construction / stratigraphic intrusion", "evidence": "The so-called Granary 24000 contains late Late Bronze / early Iron material and section drawings indicate it was built into the much earlier laminated deposit rather than being contemporary with it.", "confidence": "high that the old functional association should be abandoned; exact construction date broad", "relation": "Breaks the former laminated-deposit ↔ granary “threshing complex” model.", "caution": "No direct 14C dates currently anchor Granary 24000 in this dossier; the date band remains artifact/ceramic-based and broad.", "referenceIds": [ "maltas-webster-gezer-2022" ] }, { "siteId": "tel-miqne-ekron", "sequenceId": "ekron-field-iv-upper-iic", "sequenceTitle": "Tel Miqne-Ekron — Field IV Upper / Field V Temple Complex 650", "id": "ekron-fivu-post604-wall-reuse", "start": -604, "end": -332, "label": "Post-destruction wall reuse in Building 850", "kind": "architectural reuse / rebuilding", "evidence": "A later Persian–Hellenistic phase reused portions of Temple Complex 650 walls after the Iron Age destruction.", "confidence": "high for reuse; broad date range", "relation": "Post-destruction reuse of the terminal Iron Age architectural footprint.", "caution": "This is not continuity of Temple Complex 650 as an active Iron Age sanctuary.", "referenceIds": [ "ekron-temple-650-final-2022" ] }, { "siteId": "tel-dan", "sequenceId": "tel-dan-area-b-ironi", "sequenceTitle": "Tel Dan — Areas A–B/B Iron I–early Iron II radiocarbon column", "id": "dan-b-post-v-rebuild", "start": -1000, "end": -950, "label": "Post-Stratum V rebuilding into IVB", "kind": "rebuilding / continuity", "evidence": "Substantial IVB occupation overlies the destroyed Stratum V settlement and continues domestic/metallurgical activity.", "confidence": "high relative sequence; absolute range broad", "relation": "Separates destruction of V from the later IVB occupation.", "caution": "Continuity of activity does not imply unchanged political or ethnic identity.", "referenceIds": [ "tel-dan-daniv-2019" ] }, { "siteId": "tel-dan", "sequenceId": "tel-dan-area-t-ironii", "sequenceTitle": "Tel Dan — Area T Iron II sacred-precinct sequence", "id": "dan-t-yellow-floor-installation-reuse", "start": -900, "end": -800, "label": "Yellow Floor installation and repeated reuse", "kind": "floor construction / resurfacing / reuse", "evidence": "A thick crushed-travertine floor served as a major stratigraphic marker and was repeatedly reused/cut in later occupation.", "confidence": "high as a physical surface; later reuse complex", "relation": "Defines the Stratum III cultic horizon while warning against treating every exposure as one untouched construction event.", "caution": "Later Hellenistic reuse/resurfacing complicates architectural assignment.", "referenceIds": [ "davis-tel-dan-cult-2013", "tel-dan-sacred-precinct-2025" ] }, { "siteId": "tel-dan", "sequenceId": "tel-dan-gate-stele-reuse", "sequenceTitle": "Tel Dan — Iron II gate/piazza and Tel Dan Stele secondary-reuse sequence", "id": "dan-stele-secondary-reuse-process", "start": -850, "end": -775, "label": "Breaking and secondary reuse of Tel Dan Stele fragments in gate architecture", "kind": "artifact fragmentation / architectural reuse", "evidence": "Fragment A was built into a wall bordering the gate piazza; B2 was used as a flat stone in the pavement/wall system; B1 was recovered in adjacent secondary debris.", "confidence": "very high for secondary reuse; original breakage date broader", "relation": "Formation process explaining why inscription fragments occur in later gate contexts rather than at their original monument location.", "caution": "The reuse context provides terminus constraints, not the stele’s original emplacement or exact carving date.", "referenceIds": [ "biran-naveh-tel-dan-1993", "biran-naveh-tel-dan-1995" ] } ] }