{ "version": "43.8", "generated": "2026-09-23", "title": "Architecture & Built Environment Workbench", "methodNote": "Built environments are phased archaeological systems. The workbench separates preserved fabric, reconstruction, function, construction/use-life, historical attribution and biblical relevance so a wall never silently becomes a named king or event.", "methodRules": [ { "title": "Standing architecture is a phase, not a person", "text": "A wall, gate or palace can be dated and characterized without securely naming its builder. Historical attribution requires an independent chain of evidence." }, { "title": "Construction date is not use-life", "text": "Buildings are repaired, enlarged, robbed, resurfaced and reused. The first construction horizon, later modifications and final destruction must remain separate." }, { "title": "Plan similarity is not identity", "text": "Four-room houses, six-chambered gates, tripartite temples and casemate walls can spread across regions and polities. Typological resemblance alone does not prove ethnicity, dynasty or direct copying." }, { "title": "Reconstruction is not preservation", "text": "Plans and 3D reconstructions contain inferred wall heights, roofs, circulation and missing elements. The workbench distinguishes excavated fabric from restored appearance." }, { "title": "Function is an argument", "text": "A room becomes a shrine, stable, palace, synagogue, storehouse or administrative hall through converging architecture, installations, finds and spatial context—not by floor plan alone." }, { "title": "Monumentality is not a state census", "text": "Large architecture can indicate organized labor and resources, but it does not by itself calculate population size, political borders or the administrative reach of a kingdom." }, { "title": "Biblical adjacency is not authentication", "text": "Placing a structure beside a biblical episode explains relevance. It does not mean the building independently proves the named person, event or literary chronology." }, { "title": "Absence of a building is not absence of an institution", "text": "Later rebuilding, inaccessible areas, erosion and limited excavation can erase or hide structures. Conversely, textual description cannot substitute for an excavated building." } ], "sources": [ { "id": "tel-dan-gate-structural-2013", "title": "The three-arched Middle Bronze Age gate at Tel Dan: A structural investigation of an extraordinary archaeological site", "authors": "A. Shaked et al.", "year": 2013, "kind": "peer-reviewed architectural / structural study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.07.015", "note": "Examines the mudbrick gatehouse and its three preserved true arches. Architectural dating and preservation are secure; the popular name “Abraham’s Gate” is not an identification of Abraham." }, { "id": "bietak-avaris-palaces-1996", "title": "Avaris and the Beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty", "authors": "Manfred Bietak", "year": 1996, "kind": "archaeological synthesis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3406/bsfe.1996.2361", "note": "Discusses elite and palatial architecture at Tell el-Dabʿa/Avaris across the Hyksos–early New Kingdom transition." }, { "id": "qantir-central-city-2025", "title": "The Central City – Qantir/Pi-Ramesses", "authors": "Qantir–Piramesse Project contributors", "year": 2025, "kind": "archaeological final-report synthesis", "url": "https://www.rmo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/PALMA-27_9789464261196.pdf", "note": "Synthesizes palace, workshop, stable, temple and domestic sectors at the Ramesside capital. Individual features belong to different excavation and prospection zones." }, { "id": "qantir-chariotry-2022", "title": "Qantir/Piramesse: Chariotry, Workshops and Stable Architecture", "authors": "Qantir/Piramesse research team", "year": 2022, "kind": "archaeological synthesis", "url": "https://cris.unibo.it/handle/11585/904670", "note": "Useful for the scale and specialized function of the royal-city workshops and stable complex." }, { "id": "jericho-tellsultan-unesco", "title": "Ancient Jericho/Tell es-Sultan archaeological synthesis", "authors": "UNESCO / Tell es-Sultan documentation", "year": 2023, "kind": "site synthesis", "url": "https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1687/", "note": "Provides the long architectural sequence and monumental fortification context. Biblical-event correlation remains a separate chronological question." }, { "id": "bechar-hazor-2021", "title": "The Late Bronze Age Destruction at Hazor and Its Architectural Context", "authors": "Shlomit Bechar", "year": 2021, "kind": "peer-reviewed excavation synthesis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1553/AEUNDL31S45", "note": "Treats the end of Late Bronze Hazor and its monumental architecture. Destruction context does not identify the attacker by itself." }, { "id": "shiloh-city-planning-1987", "title": "The Casemate Wall, the Four Room House, and Early Planning in the Israelite City", "authors": "Yigal Shiloh", "year": 1987, "kind": "peer-reviewed comparative architecture / urbanism", "url": "https://doi.org/10.2307/1356991", "note": "Classic comparison of casemate fortifications and four-room-house planning. Architectural patterning is not an automatic ethnic diagnostic." }, { "id": "garfinkel-qeiyafa-planning", "title": "Early City Planning in the Kingdom of Judah: Khirbet Qeiyafa, Beth Shemesh 4, Tell en-Naṣbeh, Khirbet ed-Dawwara, and Lachish V", "authors": "Yosef Garfinkel", "year": 2021, "kind": "peer-reviewed urban-planning synthesis", "url": "https://cris.huji.ac.il/en/publications/early-city-planning-in-the-kingdom-of-judah-khirbet-qeiyafa-beth--2/", "note": "Compares casemate walls and perimeter houses. The political attribution of the earliest examples remains an interpretive step beyond the plan itself." }, { "id": "gezer-chronology-2023", "title": "The chronology of Gezer from the end of the Late Bronze Age through Iron Age II: A meeting point for radiocarbon, archaeology, Egyptology and the Bible", "authors": "Lyndelle C. Webster et al.", "year": 2023, "kind": "peer-reviewed stratigraphic / architectural chronology", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293119", "note": "Dates the Iron IIA city with six-chambered gate, casemate wall/glacis and administrative architecture while keeping phase associations explicit." }, { "id": "megiddo-gates-2019", "title": "The Iron Age Gates of Megiddo: New Evidence and Updated Interpretations", "authors": "Israel Finkelstein, Matthew J. Adams, Erin Hall, Eythan Levy", "year": 2019, "kind": "peer-reviewed architectural / stratigraphic study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1080/03344355.2019.1650492", "note": "Re-excavation of the gate sequence: Gate 3165 in VIA; Gate 2156 in VA–IVB; later four- and two-chambered gates in IVA and III." }, { "id": "megiddo-omrides-2025", "title": "Megiddo of the Omride Dynasty", "authors": "Israel Finkelstein", "year": 2025, "kind": "peer-reviewed architectural / chronological synthesis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1086/736851", "note": "Argues that Stratum VA–IVB, including the six-chambered gate and major ashlar palaces, belongs in the first half of the ninth century BCE under the paper’s chronological model." }, { "id": "tel-moza-temple-2015", "title": "The Iron IIA Judahite Temple at Tel Moza", "authors": "Shua Kisilevitz", "year": 2015, "kind": "peer-reviewed temple-architecture study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1179/0334435515Z.00000000052", "note": "Excavated Iron IIA temple complex with courtyard installations and cult assemblage a few kilometres from Jerusalem." }, { "id": "solomon-temple-context-2019", "title": "The Temple of Solomon in Iron Age Context", "authors": "Comparative architectural study", "year": 2019, "kind": "peer-reviewed comparative temple study", "url": "https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/3/198", "note": "Uses excavated Levantine temples to contextualize the biblical description. Parallels do not excavate Jerusalem’s First Temple or date the literary text by themselves." }, { "id": "jerusalem-palace-critique-2007", "title": "Has King David’s Palace in Jerusalem Been Found?", "authors": "Israel Finkelstein, Lily Singer-Avitz, Ze’ev Herzog and David Ussishkin", "year": 2007, "kind": "peer-reviewed attribution critique", "url": "https://cris.tau.ac.il/en/publications/has-king-davids-palace-in-jerusalem-been-found/", "note": "Challenges the identification and dating of the Large Stone Structure as David’s palace." }, { "id": "jerusalem-large-stone-faust-2010", "title": "The Large Stone Structure in the City of David: A Reexamination", "authors": "Avraham Faust", "year": 2010, "kind": "peer-reviewed attribution / chronology study", "url": "https://cris.haifa.ac.il/en/publications/the-large-stone-structure-in-the-city-of-david-a-reexamination/", "note": "Argues for earlier construction and continued use. Included alongside critical readings because the attribution remains contested." }, { "id": "samaria-omride-palace-2004", "title": "Samaria: From the bedrock to the Omride Palace", "authors": "Norma Franklin", "year": 2004, "kind": "peer-reviewed architectural stratigraphy", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1179/lev.2004.36.1.189", "note": "Reconstructs the early monumental palace compound at Samaria and its relation to earlier remains." }, { "id": "tel-dan-precinct-2025", "title": "The Sacred Precinct of Tel Dan Revisited", "authors": "Levana Tsfania-Zias", "year": 2025, "kind": "peer-reviewed architectural reassessment", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1086/734979", "note": "Reassigns much architecture traditionally labeled Iron Age to Persian, Hellenistic or Roman phases. A major caution against mapping visible ruins directly onto Jeroboam’s sanctuary." }, { "id": "arad-final-publication", "title": "The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad: Final Publication Project", "authors": "White-Levy Program / Tel Arad research team", "year": 2026, "kind": "final-publication project", "url": "https://whitelevy.fas.harvard.edu/fortress-mound-tel-arad-excavated-yohanan-aharoni-1962-1967", "note": "Synthesizes fortress phases and the shrine complex. The fortification sequence spans multiple rebuilds rather than one fixed “Solomonic” phase." }, { "id": "broad-wall-jerusalem", "title": "The Broad Wall and the Expansion of Iron Age Jerusalem", "authors": "Jerusalem archaeological synthesis", "year": 2024, "kind": "historical archaeology / fortification synthesis", "url": "https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.40545267", "note": "Treats the Broad Wall within Jerusalem’s Bronze and Iron Age urban sequence. The late-eighth-century context is strong; a named builder is a separate historical attribution." }, { "id": "siloam-engineering-2006", "title": "Tunnel engineering in the Iron Age: Geoarchaeology of the Siloam Tunnel, Jerusalem", "authors": "Amos Frumkin and Aryeh Shimron", "year": 2006, "kind": "peer-reviewed engineering / geoarchaeology", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.07.018", "note": "Treats the roughly 533 m tunnel as a planned engineering work and combines geological, radiometric and historical evidence around the late eighth century BCE." }, { "id": "siloam-karst-2002", "title": "The History of the Gihon Spring and the Siloam Tunnel: A Reassessment", "authors": "Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron", "year": 2002, "kind": "peer-reviewed archaeological / hydrological reassessment", "url": "https://doi.org/10.2307/1357715", "note": "Important for separating natural karst features, earlier water systems and the later tunnel engineering." }, { "id": "lachish-ramp-2021", "title": "Constructing the Assyrian Siege Ramp at Lachish", "authors": "Yosef Garfinkel et al.", "year": 2021, "kind": "peer-reviewed siege-architecture study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/ojoa.12231", "note": "Integrates archaeology, topography, Assyrian imagery and photogrammetry to reconstruct the 701 BCE siege ramp." }, { "id": "persian-jerusalem-wall-2008", "title": "Jerusalem in the Persian (and Early Hellenistic) Period and the Wall of Nehemiah", "authors": "Israel Finkelstein", "year": 2008, "kind": "peer-reviewed urban-archaeology debate", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/0309089208093928", "note": "Questions whether the archaeological record can securely identify a Persian-period fortification with Nehemiah’s wall." }, { "id": "elephantine-temple-2004", "title": "The Jewish Temple at Elephantine", "authors": "Stephen G. Rosenberg", "year": 2004, "kind": "peer-reviewed archaeology / documentary synthesis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.2307/4149987", "note": "Combines papyrological descriptions and archaeological remains to discuss the YHW temple. Reconstruction is necessarily more tentative than the documentary fact that a temple existed." }, { "id": "qumran-archaeology-2024", "title": "Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls", "authors": "Qumran archaeological synthesis", "year": 2024, "kind": "Oxford Research Encyclopedia synthesis", "url": "https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/62249/chapter-abstract/551359071", "note": "Reviews communal spaces, miqva’ot, workshops, cemetery, animal-bone deposits and ceramics while stressing interpretive debates over site function and community identity." }, { "id": "wilsons-arch-2020", "title": "Radiocarbon dating and microarchaeology untangle the history of Jerusalem’s Wilson’s Arch", "authors": "Johanna Regev et al.", "year": 2020, "kind": "peer-reviewed architectural chronology", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233307", "note": "Combines radiocarbon and microarchaeology to phase the arch and associated monumental construction before the 66 CE revolt." }, { "id": "jerusalem-pilgrimage-road-2024", "title": "The Jerusalem pilgrimage road in the Second Temple period: an anthropological and archaeological perspective", "authors": "Jerusalem pilgrimage-road research team", "year": 2024, "kind": "peer-reviewed urban / ritual landscape study", "url": "https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-024-02079-1", "note": "Treats the Siloam Pool and stepped street as parts of a monumental pilgrimage landscape. Function remains inferred from architecture, finds and historical setting together." }, { "id": "siloam-pool-iaa-2023", "title": "The Second Temple Period Pool of Siloam: Identification and Function", "authors": "Israel Antiquities Authority researchers", "year": 2023, "kind": "peer-reviewed excavation report", "url": "https://doi.org/10.70967/2948-040X.1031", "note": "Excavation-based discussion of the large stepped pool and its Second Temple-period function." }, { "id": "bethesda-pools-2017", "title": "The Water Pools and the Pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the Late Second Temple Period", "authors": "David Gurevich", "year": 2017, "kind": "peer-reviewed water-infrastructure / pilgrimage study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1080/00310328.2017.1310563", "note": "Places Bethzatha/Bethesda within the broader phenomenon of large Jerusalem pools; architectural history is multi-phase." }, { "id": "caesarea-cornell", "title": "Caesarea Maritima: Herodian Promontory Palace and Urban Archaeology", "authors": "Cornell Archaeology", "year": 2026, "kind": "research-project synthesis", "url": "https://archaeology.cornell.edu/caesarea-maritima", "note": "Summarizes the Herodian promontory palace, including upper and lower palace components. The city’s harbor, palace and civic monuments require separate phasing." }, { "id": "herodium-approach-jra", "title": "Excavation of the approach to the mountain palace-fortress at Herodium", "authors": "Ehud Netzer expedition researchers", "year": 2015, "kind": "peer-reviewed excavation report", "url": "https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-roman-archaeology/article/abs/excavation-of-the-approach-to-the-mountain-palacefortress-at-herodium/C1941EE6D70A0580F04C57E873F2AE1A", "note": "Documents staged monumental access to the palace-fortress and later modifications associated with Herod’s funerary landscape." }, { "id": "herodium-mausoleum-debate", "title": "The Mausoleum at Herodium and the Identification of Herod’s Tomb", "authors": "Herodium architectural debate", "year": 2014, "kind": "peer-reviewed attribution debate", "url": "https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1179/1743130114Y.0000000018", "note": "Useful for keeping the excavated mausoleum architecture separate from the stronger claim that a particular assemblage securely identifies Herod’s burial." }, { "id": "nazareth-domestic-2012", "title": "Archaeology of an Early Roman-period dwelling at Nazareth", "authors": "Ken Dark", "year": 2012, "kind": "peer-reviewed domestic-architecture study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581512001308", "note": "Documents a stratified, partly rock-cut Early Roman domestic structure beneath the Sisters of Nazareth convent. It contextualizes village life but does not identify occupants." }, { "id": "magdala-synagogue-2020", "title": "The Synagogue at Magdala: Between Localized Practice and Reference to the Temple", "authors": "Lutz Doering", "year": 2020, "kind": "peer-reviewed synagogue / ritual-space study", "url": "https://cris.uni-muenster.de/portal/en/publication/73869173", "note": "Examines the excavated Early Roman synagogue and its architectural/ritual setting." }, { "id": "capernaum-synagogue-method", "title": "A First-Century Synagogue in Capernaum? Issues of Historical Method", "authors": "Wally V. Cirafesi", "year": 2018, "kind": "peer-reviewed architectural attribution study", "url": "https://portal.research.lu.se/en/publications/a-first-century-synagogue-in-capernaum-issues-of-historical-metho/", "note": "Evaluates the claim for a purpose-built first-century synagogue beneath the later limestone synagogue; the identification remains debated." }, { "id": "masada-encyclopedia", "title": "Masada: Architectural and Excavation Synthesis", "authors": "Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land", "year": 2026, "kind": "site synthesis", "url": "https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/book/the-new-encyclopedia-of-archaeological-excavations-in-the-holy-land/masada/", "note": "Summarizes Herodian palace architecture, storerooms, later rebel reuse and the surrounding Roman siege system as distinct phases." }, { "id": "dura-christian-2024", "title": "The Christian Building at Dura-Europos: Rethinking the Archaeology of the World’s Oldest House Church", "authors": "David K. Pettegrew", "year": 2024, "kind": "peer-reviewed architectural reassessment", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1086/730388", "note": "Rejects an overly simple one-step conversion model and reconstructs a phased Christian house that retained domestic functions while being adapted for ritual use." }, { "id": "gerizim-temple-model-2020", "title": "The Temple on Mount Gerizim: A Model for the Reconstruction of the Israelite Temple", "authors": "Mount Gerizim architectural study", "year": 2020, "kind": "peer-reviewed architectural / historical study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11020073", "note": "Synthesizes the Persian- and Hellenistic-period sanctuary complex while distinguishing excavated precinct architecture from reconstructed temple form." }, { "id": "arie-gerizim-revisiting", "title": "Revisiting Mount Gerizim: The Foundation of the Sacred Precinct and the Early Samaritan Temple", "authors": "Eran Arie", "year": null, "kind": "peer-reviewed archaeological reassessment", "url": "https://cris.haifa.ac.il/en/publications/revisiting-mount-gerizim-the-foundation-of-the-sacred-precinct-an/", "note": "Reassesses the foundation date and architectural interpretation of the earliest sacred precinct; used here to preserve the uncertainty surrounding the precise Persian-period temple plan." }, { "id": "stager-schloen-master-ashkelon1-2008", "title": "Ashkelon 1: Introduction and Overview (1985–2006)", "authors": "Lawrence E. Stager; J. David Schloen; Daniel M. Master", "year": 2008, "kind": "final excavation publication", "url": "https://hmane.harvard.edu/publications/ashkelon-1" }, { "id": "stager-schloen-voss-ashkelon6-2018", "title": "Ashkelon 6: The Middle Bronze Age Ramparts and Gates of the North Slope and Later Fortification", "authors": "Lawrence E. Stager; J. David Schloen; Ross J. Voss", "year": 2018, "kind": "final excavation publication", "url": "https://hmane.harvard.edu/publications/ashkelon-6-middle-bronze-age-ramparts-and-gates-north-slope-and-later" }, { "id": "stager-master-schloen-ashkelon3-2011", "title": "Ashkelon 3: The Seventh Century B.C.", "authors": "Lawrence E. Stager; Daniel M. Master; J. David Schloen", "year": 2011, "kind": "final excavation publication", "url": "https://hmane.harvard.edu/publications/ashkelon-3" }, { "id": "nigro-yasine-jericho-2024", "title": "Interim report on the excavations at Tell es-Sultan, ancient Jericho (2019–2023): the Bronze and Iron Age cities", "authors": "Lorenzo Nigro; Jehad Yasine", "year": 2024, "kind": "peer-reviewed excavation report", "url": "https://doi.org/10.53131/VO2724-587X2024-2_4", "note": "Publishes the recent Areas G/H palace, Middle Building and Iron Age house sequence together with the updated Sultan-period framework." }, { "id": "hazor-lower-city-2026", "title": "Tel Ḥaẓor, the Lower City (G-42/2023)", "authors": "Shlomit Bechar", "year": 2026, "kind": "Israel Antiquities Authority excavation report", "url": "https://publications.iaa.org.il/ha-esi/vol138/iss1/21/", "note": "Area H1/H2 re-excavation of temple-gate, drainage, favissa and LB II activity." }, { "id": "runjajic-hazor-gate-2023", "title": "Fire at the gate of Hazor: A micro-geoarchaeological study of the depositional history of a Bronze Age City gate", "authors": "Runjajić et al.", "year": 2023, "kind": "peer-reviewed micro-geoarchaeological study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2023.103914", "note": "Reconstructs occupation surfaces, gate fire/collapse and subsequent disuse in Area K." }, { "id": "megiddo-horse-industry-2025", "title": "Horse Industry City: Eighth-Century BCE Megiddo", "authors": "Israel Finkelstein", "year": 2025, "kind": "peer-reviewed urban / architectural synthesis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1086/736849", "note": "Treats Stratum IVA as an early Iron IIB city with four-entry gate, water system, administrative/cult building and stable complexes, ending in 732 BCE." }, { "id": "lachish-fourth-expedition-2021", "title": "The Canaanite and Judean Cities of Lachish, Israel: Preliminary Report of the Fourth Expedition, 2013–2017", "authors": "Yosef Garfinkel et al.", "year": 2021, "kind": "peer-reviewed excavation synthesis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3764/aja.125.3.0419", "note": "Summarizes the renewed excavation, the long Bronze/Iron sequence, Level III siege landscape, the internal counter-ramp, and the rebuilding/destruction history relevant to the Site Dossier." }, { "id": "ganor-kreimerman-lachish-2019", "title": "An Eighth-Century B.C.E. Gate Shrine at Tel Lachish, Israel", "authors": "", "year": null, "kind": "Peer-reviewed archaeology", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1086/703343", "note": "" }, { "id": "kleiman-lachish-2020", "title": "The Iron IIB Gate Shrine at Lachish: An Alternative Interpretation", "authors": "", "year": null, "kind": "Peer-reviewed archaeological response", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1080/03344355.2020.1707447", "note": "" }, { "id": "ussishkin-lachish-gate-2021", "title": "Was a “Gate Shrine” Built at the Level III Inner City Gate of Lachish? A Response to Ganor and Kreimerman", "authors": "", "year": null, "kind": "Peer-reviewed archaeological response", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1086/712425", "note": "" }, { "id": "rehov-area-c-architecture-2020", "title": "Area C: Stratigraphy and Architecture", "authors": "Nava Panitz-Cohen and Amihai Mazar", "year": 2020, "kind": "final-report architecture chapter", "url": "https://cris.huji.ac.il/en/publications/area-c-stratigraphy-and-architecture", "note": "Primary final-report architecture source for the lower-mound Area C sequence and apiary quarter." }, { "id": "panitz-cohen-rehov-2022", "title": "The Exceptional Ninth-Century BCE Northwestern Quarter at Tel Reḥov", "authors": "Nava Panitz-Cohen and Amihai Mazar", "year": 2022, "kind": "peer-reviewed architectural synthesis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1086/719594", "note": "Synthesizes the mudbrick Stratum IV northwestern quarter and its terminal fire." }, { "id": "mazar-rehov-apiary-2008", "title": "Iron Age beehives at Tel Reḥov in the Jordan Valley", "authors": "Amihai Mazar and Nava Panitz-Cohen", "year": 2008, "kind": "peer-reviewed apiary excavation study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00097271", "note": "Publishes the Area C apiary installation and its archaeological setting." }, { "id": "ekron-field-iv-iic-final-2017", "title": "Tel Miqne-Ekron Excavations, Field IV Lower—The Elite Zone, Part 2: The Iron Age IIC Late Philistine City", "authors": "Seymour Gitin, Trude Dothan, Yosef Garfinkel", "year": 2017, "kind": "final excavation report", "url": "https://hmane.harvard.edu/publications/pp1-margin-00px-00px-00px-00px-font-120px-consolas-webkit-text-stroke-000000", "note": "Final report for Strata Pre-IC, IC, IB and IA, including comprehensive ceramic study and late Philistine urban history." }, { "id": "ekron-temple-650-final-2022", "title": "Tel Miqne-Ekron Excavations 1994–1996, Field IV Upper and Field V: Iron Age IIC Temple Complex 650", "authors": "Seymour Gitin, Steven M. Ortiz, Trude Dothan", "year": 2022, "kind": "final excavation report", "url": "https://hmane.harvard.edu/publications/tel-miqne-ekron-excavations-1994%E2%80%931996-field-iv-upper-and-field-v-elite-zone", "note": "Final publication of Temple Complex 650, its architecture, ceramic assemblage, small finds and Ekron Royal Dedicatory Inscription; the major Stratum IB phase was destroyed in 604 BCE." }, { "id": "tel-dan-daniv-2019", "title": "DAN IV — The Iron Age I Settlement: The Avraham Biran Excavations (1966–1999)", "authors": "David Ilan et al.", "year": 2019, "kind": "final excavation report", "url": "https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvw04drv", "note": "Comprehensive final report for the Iron Age I occupation, architecture, ceramics, metallurgy, ritual contexts, faunal remains, archaeobotany and specialist analyses at Tel Dan." }, { "id": "davis-tel-dan-cult-2013", "title": "Tel Dan in Its Northern Cultic Context", "authors": "Andrew R. Davis", "year": 2013, "kind": "archaeological monograph", "url": "https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt5vjz66", "note": "Detailed treatment of Area T Iron II sacred-precinct stratigraphy, especially Strata III and II, with explicit distinction between archaeological and textual/historical interpretation." }, { "id": "biran-naveh-tel-dan-1993", "title": "An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan", "authors": "Avraham Biran; Joseph Naveh", "year": 1993, "kind": "primary excavation/epigraphic publication", "url": "https://www.jstor.org/stable/27926300", "note": "Initial publication of Fragment A, recovered in secondary use in the gate-area wall bordering the paved piazza." }, { "id": "biran-naveh-tel-dan-1995", "title": "The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment", "authors": "Avraham Biran; Joseph Naveh", "year": 1995, "kind": "primary excavation/epigraphic publication", "url": "https://www.jstor.org/stable/27926361", "note": "Publication of Fragments B1 and B2 and their secondary-reuse contexts in/above the late ninth–early eighth-century gate-area pavement and wall system." }, { "id": "v243-shiloh-final-report", "title": "Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site", "url": "https://cris.tau.ac.il/en/publications/shiloh-the-archaeology-of-a-biblical-site/", "kind": "Final excavation report / institutional record" }, { "id": "shiloh-petrography-1993", "title": "Petrographic Analyses of Middle Bronze III, Late Bronze and Iron Age I Ceramic Assemblages", "authors": "Jonathan Glass; Yuval Goren; Shlomo Bunimovitz; Israel Finkelstein", "year": 1993, "kind": "petrographic ceramic-provenance study / final-report chapter", "url": "https://cris.bgu.ac.il/en/publications/petrographic-analyses-of-middle-bronze-iii-late-bronze-and-iron-a/", "note": "Petrographic study of Shiloh MB III, LB and Iron I assemblages, including the provenance of collared-rim pithoi from the Iron I pillared buildings." }, { "id": "v56-shechem-campbell-2002", "title": "Shechem III: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Shechem/Tell Balatah", "authors": "Edward F. Campbell, Lee C. Ellenberger, G. R. H. Wright", "year": 2002, "kind": "final excavation report / cross-expedition synthesis", "url": "https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5615/j.ctt2jc9x9", "note": "Final publication integrating the Austro-German and Joint Expedition stratigraphic systems. General strata are site-wide correlations rather than a claim that every field preserves every phase." }, { "id": "cambridge-tel-eton", "title": "The Governor's Residency at Tel ‘Eton, the United Monarchy, and the Impact of the Old-House Effect", "authors": "Faust and Sapir", "year": 2018, "kind": "peer-reviewed radiocarbon study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.10" }, { "id": "v62-eton-faust-2011", "title": "The Excavations at Tel ‘Eton (2006–2009): A Preliminary Report", "authors": "Avraham Faust", "year": 2011, "kind": "peer-reviewed excavation report", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1179/003103211X13092562976171", "note": "Publishes the A–D temporary-stratum table and the late-eighth-century destruction sequence." }, { "id": "beersheba-final-2016", "title": "Beer-Sheba III: The Early Iron IIA Enclosed Settlement and the Late Iron IIA–Iron IIB Cities", "authors": "Ze’ev Herzog; Lily Singer-Avitz", "year": 2016, "kind": "final excavation report — stratigraphy, architecture, pottery, artifacts and ecofacts", "url": "https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/jj.8763120", "note": "Final publication of the Iron Age city, including stratigraphy/architecture, pottery and ecofacts." }, { "id": "tel-zayit-tappy-2017", "title": "The Archaeology and History of Tel Zayit: A Record of Liminal Life", "authors": "Ron E. Tappy", "year": 2017, "kind": "excavation synthesis / site-history chapter", "url": "https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/j.ctv1bxh4cw.11", "note": "Synthesizes the Late Bronze and Iron Age stratigraphic, architectural and ceramic history of Tel Zayit as a Shephelah borderland site." }, { "id": "beth-shean-final-iii-2009", "title": "Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Volume III: The 13th–11th Century BCE Strata in Areas N and S", "authors": "Nava Panitz-Cohen; Amihai Mazar (eds.)", "year": 2009, "kind": "final excavation report — stratigraphy, architecture, pottery and finds", "url": "https://cris.huji.ac.il/en/publications/excavations-at-tel-beth-shean-1989-1996-volume-iii-the-13th-11th-/", "note": "Final publication of Areas N and S, including Egyptian-garrison-town stratigraphy/architecture and local, Egyptian-style and imported pottery." }, { "id": "aphek-antipatris-ii-2009", "title": "Aphek-Antipatris II: The Remains on the Acropolis (The Moshe Kochavi and Pirhiya Beck Excavations)", "authors": "Yuval Gadot; Esther Yadin (eds.)", "year": 2009, "kind": "final excavation report — acropolis architecture and pottery", "url": "https://whitelevy.fas.harvard.edu/publications/aphek-antipatris-ii-remains-acropolis-moshe-kochavi-and-pirhiya-beck", "note": "Final report of Middle/Late Bronze and Iron Age acropolis remains, including Palace VI and the Late Bronze–Iron transition pottery." }, { "id": "bethsaida-vol4-2009", "title": "Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee, Volume 4", "authors": "Rami Arav; Richard A. Freund (eds.)", "year": 2009, "kind": "final excavation reports and specialist studies", "url": "https://bethsaidaarchaeology.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/bethsaida-vol4-toc.pdf", "note": "Includes the final report on Area A Stratum V city gate plus petrography, pollen, archaeobotany and carbon-14 studies." }, { "id": "kinneret-urban-center-2011", "title": "Kinneret—An Urban Center at the Crossroads: Excavations on Iron IB Tel Kinrot at the Lake of Galilee", "authors": "Stefan Münger; Jürgen Zangenberg; Juha Pakkala", "year": 2011, "kind": "peer-reviewed excavation synthesis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.5615/neareastarch.74.2.0068", "note": "Synthesis of the Iron IB urban settlement, architecture and regional material culture at Tel Kinrot." }, { "id": "kinneret-iaa-2009", "title": "Tel Kinrot, Kinneret Regional Project — 2008 Excavation Report", "authors": "Kinneret Regional Project", "year": 2009, "kind": "excavation report", "url": "https://hadashot.iaa.org.il/Report_Detail_eng.aspx?id=1080&print=nopic", "note": "Reports well-preserved Iron IB architecture, activity installations, pottery assemblages and paleobotanical observations in Field I." }, { "id": "beit-mirsim-renewed-2023", "title": "In the Footsteps of Albright: The Renewed Excavations at Tell Beit Mirsim", "authors": "Igor Kreimerman; Itamar Weissbein; Pnina Torn Broers; Ofer Naveh", "year": 2023, "kind": "peer-reviewed excavation report", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1086/723462", "note": "Renewed excavation of Iron Age IIB domestic architecture, including a four-room house and olive-oil press." }, { "id": "kition-bamboula-2025", "title": "Completion of the 2025 excavation season at Kition–Bamboula", "authors": "Cyprus Department of Antiquities / French Archaeological Mission", "year": 2025, "kind": "official excavation report", "url": "https://www.gov.cy/en/culture/completion-of-the-2025-excavation-season-of-the-french-archaeological-mission-conducted-at-kition-bamboula-in-october-2025/", "note": "Reports Sondage 11 Archaic stone-and-mudbrick architecture with an in-situ Cypro-Archaic ceramic assemblage beneath later Classical disturbance." }, { "id": "tyre-archaeology-2024", "title": "The Archaeology of Tyre: The Joint Lebanese, Spanish, and Polish Excavations in the Phoenician Homeland", "authors": "María Eugenia Aubet; Francisco J. Núñez; Ali Badawi", "year": 2024, "kind": "peer-reviewed excavation synthesis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1086/731396", "note": "Current synthesis of the Iron Age al-Bass cemetery and the acropolis excavation program." }, { "id": "achziv-cemeteries-2002", "title": "The Akhziv Cemeteries: The Ben-Dor Excavations, 1941–1944", "authors": "Michal Dayagi-Mendels", "year": 2002, "kind": "IAA final excavation report", "url": "https://publications.iaa.org.il/iaareports/62/", "note": "Final report for two Iron Age Phoenician cemeteries, including tomb typology, stratigraphy, pottery and small finds." }, { "id": "amman-airport-anu", "title": "Material from the Late Bronze Age Temple at Amman", "authors": "Australian National University Classics Museum; J. R. Green introduction", "year": 2026, "kind": "institutional collection / excavation synthesis", "url": "https://slll.cass.anu.edu.au/classics-museum/catalogue/collections/material-late-bronze-age-temple-amman", "note": "Summarizes the 1955 rescue work and Hennessy 1966 excavation, three architectural phases, c. 1400–1200 BCE date and burned human/animal/bird remains." }, { "id": "serabit-bm-hathor-temple", "title": "Serabit el-Khadim temple of Hathor collection context", "authors": "British Museum", "year": 2026, "kind": "museum archaeological collection record", "url": "https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA497", "note": "Museum excavation context for material from the Hathor temple and mining-sanctuary landscape at Serabit el-Khadim." }, { "id": "tophet-mccarty-2019", "title": "The Tophet and Infant Sacrifice", "authors": "Matthew M. McCarty", "year": 2019, "kind": "scholarly tophet synthesis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190499341.013.21", "note": "Comparative synthesis emphasizing variability among tophet sanctuaries and the need to separate ritual deposition from assumptions about individual cause of death." }, { "id": "tophet-xella-2023", "title": "The Levantine Roots of the tophet Sanctuary", "authors": "Paolo Xella", "year": 2023, "kind": "peer-reviewed historical/epigraphic synthesis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1515/jah-2023-0015", "note": "Assesses colonial chronology, epigraphy and literary evidence for Phoenician roots of western tophet institutions while recognizing the absent securely excavated eastern tophet." }, { "id": "zita-cerezo-roman-2024", "title": "The life and death of cremated infants and children from the Neo-Punic tophet at Zita, Tunisia", "authors": "Jessica I. Cerezo-Román et al.", "year": 2024, "kind": "peer-reviewed bioarchaeological study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2024.85", "note": "Osteological analysis of twelve cremated infants/children; identifies health stress and careful mortuary treatment without concrete osteological indication of sacrifice." } ], "profiles": [ { "id": "tel-dan-middle-bronze-gate", "title": "Tel Dan Middle Bronze gate and true-arch engineering", "era": "Middle Bronze Age", "period": "c. 18th century BCE", "region": "Upper Jordan Valley", "structureType": "Fortification / gate", "attributionStatus": "secure-context", "confidence": "High", "signal": "A monumental mudbrick gatehouse preserves three complete true arches beneath later site levels.", "observations": [ "The gatehouse belongs to the Middle Bronze Age city and was deliberately buried or filled, aiding exceptional preservation.", "Structural study treats the arches as genuine load-bearing architectural elements rather than modern reconstructions." ], "phaseModel": "The preserved gate is Middle Bronze; later Tel Dan occupation belongs to different urban and cultic phases.", "functionInference": "City gate controlling access through a fortified urban perimeter.", "historicalContext": "Shows sophisticated Bronze Age mudbrick engineering in the northern Levant.", "biblicalContext": "Useful background for the world of the patriarchal narratives and later Dan, but it is not an archaeological identification of Abraham or Genesis 14.", "boundary": "“Abraham’s Gate” is a modern interpretive nickname. The architecture can be dated; the passage of Abraham through this gate cannot be demonstrated.", "eventIds": [ "abraham-call" ], "siteIds": [ "tel-dan" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Tel Dan" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "tel-dan-gate-structural-2013" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 2, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 2 }, { "id": "avaris-palatial-riverfront", "title": "Avaris: palatial, riverfront and elite architecture", "era": "Middle Bronze–early New Kingdom", "period": "Hyksos to early 18th Dynasty", "region": "Eastern Nile Delta", "structureType": "Palace / harbor landscape", "attributionStatus": "multi-phase", "confidence": "High", "signal": "Tell el-Dabʿa preserves a large urban sequence with elite compounds, palatial architecture and a river-oriented landscape.", "observations": [ "Architecture developed across multiple Hyksos and early New Kingdom phases rather than one static “Hyksos city.”", "Palatial complexes and imported Aegean-style wall painting belong to specific elite contexts after the Hyksos political transition." ], "phaseModel": "Urban and palace zones change materially across the Second Intermediate Period–early 18th Dynasty transition.", "functionInference": "Royal/elite residence, administration and river-connected urban access.", "historicalContext": "Provides built-environment context for the Hyksos capital and its transformation under the early New Kingdom.", "biblicalContext": "Directly contextualizes the project’s Hyksos/Joseph and Hyksos-expulsion horizons without identifying Joseph, Moses or any biblical individual.", "boundary": "Avaris is historically relevant to the Egyptian setting; architectural relevance is contextual, not a named biblical-person attestation.", "eventIds": [ "hyksos-egypt", "hyksos-expulsion" ], "siteIds": [ "avaris" ], "artifactIds": [ "avaris-site" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Avaris", "Tell el-Dabʿa" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "bietak-avaris-palaces-1996" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 6 }, { "id": "pi-ramesses-royal-city", "title": "Pi-Ramesses: royal city, workshops and stable complexes", "era": "Late Bronze Age", "period": "13th–12th centuries BCE", "region": "Eastern Nile Delta", "structureType": "Royal city / industrial infrastructure", "attributionStatus": "secure-context", "confidence": "High", "signal": "Qantir preserves the administrative, industrial and equid/chariot infrastructure of the Ramesside royal capital.", "observations": [ "Excavated and magnetically mapped zones include official buildings, workshops, bronze-working facilities, stables and domestic architecture.", "The city is a spatially extensive capital whose sectors cannot be collapsed into a single palace plan." ], "phaseModel": "Ramesside construction and use spans more than one reign and sector; later abandonment and reuse must be separated from the city’s peak.", "functionInference": "Royal administration, chariotry, industrial production, storage and residence.", "historicalContext": "Materializes the scale and specialization of the Ramesside capital in the eastern Delta.", "biblicalContext": "Directly contextualizes the biblical toponym Raamses/Rameses and the project’s Ramesside Exodus setting, without demonstrating the Exodus itself.", "boundary": "Identifying Qantir/Pi-Ramesses is much stronger than identifying any specific labor force described in Exodus.", "eventIds": [ "ramesses-reign", "exodus" ], "siteIds": [ "piramesse" ], "artifactIds": [ "pi-ramesses-site" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Pi-Ramesses", "Qantir" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "qantir-central-city-2025", "qantir-chariotry-2022" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 5, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 5 }, { "id": "jericho-middle-bronze-fortifications", "title": "Jericho: Middle Bronze fortification system and later occupational problem", "era": "Middle / Late Bronze Age", "period": "Middle Bronze fortifications with later Bronze Age sequence", "region": "Jordan Valley", "structureType": "Fortification / urban defense", "attributionStatus": "multi-phase", "confidence": "High for the fortifications; disputed for biblical correlation", "signal": "Tell es-Sultan preserves major Bronze Age defensive architecture, but the relationship between those walls, later erosion/occupation and Joshua chronology is a separate problem.", "observations": [ "Monumental fortifications belong to defined Bronze Age phases rather than an undifferentiated “Jericho wall.”", "Architectural remains must be read together with stratigraphy and absolute dating; later biblical identification cannot be inferred from the existence of walls alone." ], "phaseModel": "Multiple fortification and occupation horizons precede the Iron Age; the critical question is which strata existed at any proposed conquest date.", "functionInference": "Urban defense and control of a major oasis settlement.", "historicalContext": "Provides the architectural half of the Jericho chronology debate.", "biblicalContext": "Relevant to Joshua 6 because the narrative presupposes a fortified city, but the date and destruction attribution must come from stratigraphy/chronometry rather than typological matching.", "boundary": "A fortified Bronze Age Jericho does not by itself date Joshua, identify a destruction agent, or resolve competing conquest chronologies.", "eventIds": [ "jericho-campaign" ], "siteIds": [ "jericho" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Jericho" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "jericho-tellsultan-unesco" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 4, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 4 }, { "id": "hazor-late-bronze-monumental-core", "title": "Hazor: Late Bronze palace, gate and destruction horizon", "era": "Late Bronze Age", "period": "13th century BCE destruction horizon", "region": "Upper Galilee", "structureType": "Palace / gate / urban core", "attributionStatus": "secure-context", "confidence": "High for the destruction; debated for attacker", "signal": "Hazor’s monumental Late Bronze urban core ended in an intense destruction that affected major architecture.", "observations": [ "Excavated monumental buildings and gateways preserve fire/destruction evidence at the end of the Late Bronze Age.", "Earlier and later architectural phases at Hazor must be separated from the terminal Late Bronze destruction." ], "phaseModel": "The terminal Late Bronze destruction seals an architectural horizon followed by Iron Age reoccupation.", "functionInference": "Royal/administrative urban center and city defense.", "historicalContext": "Documents the violent end of a major Canaanite city in the period of regional upheaval.", "biblicalContext": "Highly relevant to Joshua’s Hazor account and later Israelite Hazor, but the destruction layer does not name Joshua or another attacker.", "boundary": "Destruction compatibility is not event identification; chronology and agency remain separate questions.", "eventIds": [ "hazor-northern-campaign" ], "siteIds": [ "hazor" ], "artifactIds": [ "hazor-late-bronze-destruction" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Hazor" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "bechar-hazor-2021" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 4 }, { "id": "iron-i-casemate-four-room-system", "title": "Casemate walls and four-room houses as an Iron Age planning package", "era": "Iron I–II", "period": "c. 12th–8th centuries BCE", "region": "Southern Levant", "structureType": "Domestic / fortification typology", "attributionStatus": "comparative-context", "confidence": "Moderate", "signal": "A recurring combination of perimeter houses, casemate defenses and four-room domestic plans becomes important in discussions of highland and Judahite urbanism.", "observations": [ "Four-room-house variants occur across a broad spatial and chronological range.", "Casemate walls can be integrated with domestic buildings, but similar layouts do not require one ethnic or royal builder." ], "phaseModel": "The architectural package changes through Iron I and II and must be evaluated site by site.", "functionInference": "Domestic organization linked with urban defense and storage.", "historicalContext": "Helps compare the built environments of early highland settlements and later fortified towns.", "biblicalContext": "Provides material context for Judges–monarchy settlement history without dating any individual Judge or proving Israelite ethnicity from house plan alone.", "boundary": "Architecture can support regional cultural models, but no single house type should be treated as an ethnic fingerprint.", "eventIds": [ "judges", "david", "solomon" ], "siteIds": [], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "four-room house", "casemate" ], "settlementIds": [ "iron-i-central-highland-wave", "judah-highland-demographic-core" ], "sourceIds": [ "shiloh-city-planning-1987" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "comparative-not-applicable", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 0, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 0 }, { "id": "khirbet-qeiyafa-fortified-plan", "title": "Khirbet Qeiyafa: casemate city wall, two gates and perimeter houses", "era": "Iron I / early Iron IIA", "period": "early 10th century BCE", "region": "Elah Valley / Shephelah", "structureType": "Fortified town / urban planning", "attributionStatus": "debated-attribution", "confidence": "High for plan; debated for polity", "signal": "Khirbet Qeiyafa preserves an unusually coherent fortified plan with casemate wall, two four-chambered gates and houses abutting the fortification.", "observations": [ "The fortification circuit and gates are excavated features, not hypothetical reconstructions.", "The city plan has been compared with later Judahite sites, but political/ethnic attribution is an additional inference." ], "phaseModel": "A short-lived fortified occupation provides a tight architectural horizon; exact political ownership is debated.", "functionInference": "Fortified administrative/urban center overlooking the Elah Valley.", "historicalContext": "Important for the question of early 10th-century state-level building and planning in the Shephelah.", "biblicalContext": "Relevant to the Davidic-monarchy debate, not a direct archaeological record of David or the David–Goliath narrative.", "boundary": "A 10th-century fortified town can inform state-formation models without proving who ordered its construction.", "eventIds": [ "david" ], "siteIds": [ "khirbet-qeiyafa" ], "artifactIds": [ "khirbet-qeiyafa-ostracon" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Khirbet Qeiyafa" ], "settlementIds": [ "shephelah-iron-i-to-ii" ], "sourceIds": [ "garfinkel-qeiyafa-planning" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 3 }, { "id": "gezer-iron-iia-gate-city", "title": "Gezer: Iron IIA gate, casemate/glacis and administrative architecture", "era": "Iron IIA", "period": "early–mid 10th century BCE for Stratum 8; builder debated", "region": "Shephelah", "structureType": "Gate / fortification / administration", "attributionStatus": "debated-attribution", "confidence": "High for phase; debated for builder", "signal": "Tandy/HUC stratigraphy plus Bayesian radiocarbon places the Stratum 8 six-chambered gate, casemate wall/glacis and courtyard-type administrative building in a securely Iron IIA, first-half-of-the-10th-century horizon.", "observations": [ "Stratum 8 includes a massive six-chambered gate, casemate fortification, stone-covered glacis, monumental pavement/stairway and a c. 19 × 12 m courtyard-type administrative building with at least 15 rooms/areas.", "The Stratum 8 administrative building and adjacent gate sector suffered a major mid-10th-century destruction; the Outer Wall/lower-gateway association remains debated." ], "phaseModel": "Construction/start of Stratum 8 is modeled at 998–957 BCE (68.3% HPD); destruction at 969–940 BCE (68.3% HPD).", "functionInference": "Urban defense and administration.", "historicalContext": "The chronology rules out a ninth-century construction for Stratum 8 but still does not uniquely identify the polity or ruler that built it.", "biblicalContext": "The horizon is chronologically relevant to the Gezer notice in 1 Kings 9, but the archaeological phase does not independently identify Solomon as builder.", "boundary": "“Six-chambered gate” is an architectural form, not a royal signature; chronological compatibility is not historical attribution.", "eventIds": [ "solomon" ], "siteIds": [ "gezer" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Gezer" ], "settlementIds": [ "shephelah-iron-i-to-ii" ], "sourceIds": [ "gezer-chronology-2023" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 4 }, { "id": "megiddo-gates-palaces", "title": "Megiddo: six-chambered gate, palaces and the Solomon–Omride attribution shift", "era": "Iron IIA", "period": "10th–9th centuries BCE", "region": "Jezreel Valley", "structureType": "Gate / palace / monumental urbanism", "attributionStatus": "debated-attribution", "confidence": "High for architecture; debated for dynasty", "signal": "Megiddo’s monumental Iron Age gate and palace architecture remains central to the chronology of the early monarchy, with major scholarship shifting parts of the complex from Solomon to an Omride horizon.", "observations": [ "The six-chambered gate and monumental buildings are real excavated features.", "Their assignment to one royal dynasty has changed as ceramic, stratigraphic and radiocarbon models have been revised." ], "phaseModel": "Multiple Iron Age construction horizons mean “Megiddo’s monumental architecture” cannot be treated as one building event.", "functionInference": "Fortification, elite residence/administration and controlled circulation.", "historicalContext": "A textbook case of why architectural attribution must follow chronology rather than inherited labels.", "biblicalContext": "Relevant to Solomon’s building list and the Omride state; it should display the attribution debate rather than force either king into the masonry.", "boundary": "Monumental architecture is secure; the responsible dynasty is a historical model under continuing chronological debate.", "eventIds": [ "solomon", "omri-samaria" ], "siteIds": [ "megiddo" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Megiddo" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "megiddo-gates-2019", "megiddo-omrides-2025" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 5, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 8 }, { "id": "tel-moza-temple-complex", "title": "Tel Moẓa: Iron IIA temple complex beside Jerusalem", "era": "Iron IIA", "period": "10th–9th centuries BCE", "region": "Jerusalem corridor", "structureType": "Temple / cult architecture", "attributionStatus": "secure-context", "confidence": "High", "signal": "Excavation exposed a substantial Iron IIA temple with courtyard, altar/installations and cultic material a few kilometres from Jerusalem.", "observations": [ "The temple has a recognizable monumental plan and dedicated cultic courtyard.", "Its cult assemblage belongs to an excavated Judahite-context site rather than a textual reconstruction." ], "phaseModel": "Established in Iron IIA and modified through later phases; specific ritual practices can vary across its use-life.", "functionInference": "Public cult/ritual complex with associated offerings and installations.", "historicalContext": "Demonstrates that monumental temple architecture existed within Judah outside Jerusalem during the monarchic period.", "biblicalContext": "Important comparative context for biblical discussions of centralized worship and local shrines. It does not excavate Solomon’s Temple.", "boundary": "The existence of the Moẓa temple complicates simple centralization models; it neither validates nor falsifies the biblical temple description by itself.", "eventIds": [ "tel-moza-temple", "solomon" ], "siteIds": [ "tel-moza" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Tel Moza", "temple" ], "settlementIds": [ "judah-highland-demographic-core" ], "sourceIds": [ "tel-moza-temple-2015" ], "crossLinks": [ { "label": "High Places & Centralization study", "url": "cult-centralization.html" } ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 4, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 4 }, { "id": "levantine-tripartite-temple-comparison", "title": "Levantine tripartite temples and the architectural context of Solomon’s Temple description", "era": "Iron Age comparative", "period": "2nd–1st millennium BCE parallels", "region": "Levant / northern Syria / Judah", "structureType": "Temple typology", "attributionStatus": "comparative-context", "confidence": "Moderate", "signal": "Excavated temples such as Tel Moẓa, ʿAin Dara and Tell Tayinat provide architectural comparanda for the tripartite temple described in Kings.", "observations": [ "Long-room/tripartite temple plans and shared architectural conventions occur across the wider Levant.", "The biblical description can be compared with real Iron Age forms even though the First Temple platform itself is archaeologically inaccessible." ], "phaseModel": "Comparanda span different centuries and polities; similarity must not be flattened into a single prototype.", "functionInference": "Monumental cult architecture using regionally shared design conventions.", "historicalContext": "Shows that the literary temple description is architecturally intelligible within Iron Age Near Eastern building traditions.", "biblicalContext": "Provides contextual plausibility for 1 Kings 6–7 without furnishing an excavated plan of Solomon’s Temple or proving the text’s composition date.", "boundary": "Parallel architecture establishes a repertoire, not direct dependence or historical identification.", "eventIds": [ "first-temple-dedication", "solomon" ], "siteIds": [ "tel-moza" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "temple architecture" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "solomon-temple-context-2019", "tel-moza-temple-2015" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "comparative-not-applicable", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 0, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 0 }, { "id": "jerusalem-large-stepped-stone", "title": "Jerusalem: Large Stone Structure and Stepped Stone Structure attribution debate", "era": "Iron I–II", "period": "late 11th–10th centuries BCE debated", "region": "Jerusalem / City of David", "structureType": "Monumental structure / retaining system", "attributionStatus": "debated-attribution", "confidence": "Moderate", "signal": "Large masonry and the adjacent stepped support system are central to claims about early royal Jerusalem, but their phasing and identification remain contested.", "observations": [ "The structures are physically substantial and stratigraphically complex.", "Published interpretations disagree over construction date, architectural unity and whether the complex can be called a palace." ], "phaseModel": "Earlier fabric, later additions and the relationship between the Large and Stepped Stone Structures are disputed.", "functionInference": "Possible monumental/elite or retaining architecture; exact function remains contested.", "historicalContext": "Directly bears on how monumental Jerusalem was around the early monarchy.", "biblicalContext": "Relevant to David’s capture of Jerusalem and palace traditions, but “David’s palace” is not a neutral archaeological label.", "boundary": "The workbench deliberately preserves both the early-monarchy interpretation and substantial published objections; no named builder is treated as excavated fact.", "eventIds": [ "david-captures-jerusalem", "david" ], "siteIds": [ "jerusalem" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Jerusalem", "City of David" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "jerusalem-palace-critique-2007", "jerusalem-large-stone-faust-2010" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 3 }, { "id": "samaria-omride-palace", "title": "Samaria: Omride palace platform and royal acropolis", "era": "Iron IIA–B", "period": "9th century BCE onward", "region": "Samaria highlands", "structureType": "Palace / acropolis", "attributionStatus": "secure-context", "confidence": "High", "signal": "Samaria preserves a major royal acropolis whose earliest monumental palace horizon is closely associated with the Omride foundation of the capital.", "observations": [ "Large-scale bedrock preparation and ashlar architecture created a royal compound.", "Later royal and imperial phases reused and altered the acropolis." ], "phaseModel": "The palace core belongs to the early northern-kingdom capital, followed by later modifications.", "functionInference": "Royal residence, administration and display.", "historicalContext": "Materializes the centralizing investment behind the new capital of the northern kingdom.", "biblicalContext": "Strong architectural context for Omri’s establishment of Samaria in 1 Kings 16; individual rooms cannot be assigned to specific narrated episodes.", "boundary": "Association of the capital with the Omride dynasty is historically strong, but architectural details should not be turned into reconstructions of particular biblical scenes.", "eventIds": [ "omri-samaria" ], "siteIds": [ "samaria" ], "artifactIds": [ "samaria-ostraca" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Samaria" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "samaria-omride-palace-2004" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 5, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 10 }, { "id": "tel-dan-sacred-precinct-reassessment", "title": "Tel Dan sacred precinct: architecture after the 2025 rephasing", "era": "Iron Age–Roman", "period": "multiple phases, heavily reassessed", "region": "Upper Jordan Valley", "structureType": "Cult precinct / monumental platform", "attributionStatus": "debated-attribution", "confidence": "Moderate", "signal": "The sacred precinct is real, but a major 2025 reassessment argues that much visible architecture once assigned to the Iron Age belongs to substantially later periods.", "observations": [ "Cult activity at Tel Dan spans multiple periods.", "Architectural elements traditionally used to reconstruct Jeroboam’s sanctuary require rephasing under the new study." ], "phaseModel": "Iron Age cultic horizons must be distinguished from Persian, Hellenistic and Roman rebuilding.", "functionInference": "Cultic precinct with changing installations and monumental forms across centuries.", "historicalContext": "Demonstrates how legacy architectural labels can survive after stratigraphic interpretation changes.", "biblicalContext": "Relevant to the golden-calf sanctuary tradition and northern cult, but the visible platform cannot simply be labeled “Jeroboam’s high place.”", "boundary": "This profile intentionally downgrades architectural certainty where newer stratigraphic work does so.", "eventIds": [ "divided-kingdom" ], "siteIds": [ "tel-dan" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Tel Dan" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "tel-dan-precinct-2025" ], "crossLinks": [ { "label": "High Places & Centralization study", "url": "cult-centralization.html" } ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 4, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 4 }, { "id": "arad-fortress-shrine", "title": "Arad: fortress sequence and Judahite shrine", "era": "Iron II", "period": "9th–early 6th centuries BCE", "region": "Negev / southern Judah", "structureType": "Fortress / shrine", "attributionStatus": "multi-phase", "confidence": "High", "signal": "Tel Arad’s fortress mound preserves repeated Iron Age rebuilding together with a small shrine complex inside the fortified administrative site.", "observations": [ "The fortress is not a single-phase building; walls, gates and internal rooms were repeatedly altered.", "The shrine’s architecture and cult installations belong to a controlled archaeological context and should be separated from later interpretations of reform." ], "phaseModel": "Village occupation precedes the fortress; multiple fortress phases continue intermittently into the early sixth century BCE.", "functionInference": "Frontier administration, storage, defense and cult.", "historicalContext": "Shows the institutional architecture of Judah’s southern frontier.", "biblicalContext": "Relevant to monarchic Judah, cult centralization debates and the Arad ostraca; direct linkage to a specific king’s reform is interpretive.", "boundary": "A shrine that changes or goes out of use does not, by itself, identify Hezekiah or Josiah as the agent.", "eventIds": [ "sennacherib", "josiah" ], "siteIds": [ "arad" ], "artifactIds": [ "arad-ostraca" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Arad" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "arad-final-publication" ], "crossLinks": [ { "label": "High Places & Centralization study", "url": "cult-centralization.html" } ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 6, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 10 }, { "id": "jerusalem-broad-wall", "title": "Jerusalem Broad Wall: late-eighth-century western expansion and fortification", "era": "Iron IIB", "period": "late 8th century BCE", "region": "Jerusalem", "structureType": "Fortification", "attributionStatus": "secure-context", "confidence": "High", "signal": "A massive wall cutting through earlier domestic remains documents the fortification of Jerusalem’s expanded western hill in the late eighth century BCE.", "observations": [ "The wall’s scale and route demonstrate major urban defensive construction.", "Its relationship to the expanded city should be read alongside settlement growth rather than as a free-standing royal monument." ], "phaseModel": "Construction belongs to the late eighth-century expansion; later city history reused and obscured portions of the fortification.", "functionInference": "Urban defense around the enlarged city.", "historicalContext": "Fits the period of Assyrian pressure and Jerusalem’s demographic expansion.", "biblicalContext": "Strong context for Hezekiah/Sennacherib-era Jerusalem, but the masonry itself does not preserve a builder inscription.", "boundary": "Chronological fit with Hezekiah’s reign is strong contextual evidence; named royal authorship remains a historical attribution.", "eventIds": [ "sennacherib", "hezekiah-tunnel" ], "siteIds": [ "jerusalem" ], "artifactIds": [ "broad-wall" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Jerusalem" ], "settlementIds": [ "jerusalem-iron-ii-growth" ], "sourceIds": [ "broad-wall-jerusalem" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 1, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 1 }, { "id": "siloam-gihon-water-system", "title": "Gihon–Siloam water system: channels, tunnel and urban engineering", "era": "Iron II", "period": "late 8th century BCE with earlier components", "region": "Jerusalem / City of David", "structureType": "Water infrastructure", "attributionStatus": "multi-phase", "confidence": "High", "signal": "Jerusalem’s water system combines natural karst, earlier channels and the long Siloam Tunnel, requiring a layered engineering history rather than a single “Hezekiah system.”", "observations": [ "The Siloam Tunnel is a deliberately engineered conduit roughly 533 m long.", "Earlier waterworks and natural fissures matter for understanding how the tunnel was surveyed and cut." ], "phaseModel": "Earlier channels and access systems precede the late-eighth-century tunnel; later use continues beyond its construction event.", "functionInference": "Secure urban water transfer from the Gihon toward the Siloam basin.", "historicalContext": "A rare case where architecture, geology, radiometric evidence and an inscription converge on late Iron II Jerusalem.", "biblicalContext": "Directly relevant to 2 Kings 20:20 and 2 Chronicles 32:30, while engineering details need not match every traditional reconstruction.", "boundary": "The convergence strongly supports late-eighth-century construction; it does not require every part of Jerusalem’s water system to have been built by Hezekiah.", "eventIds": [ "hezekiah-tunnel", "sennacherib" ], "siteIds": [ "jerusalem" ], "artifactIds": [ "hezekiah-tunnel", "siloam-inscription" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Siloam Tunnel", "Jerusalem" ], "settlementIds": [ "jerusalem-iron-ii-growth" ], "sourceIds": [ "siloam-engineering-2006", "siloam-karst-2002" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 1, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 1 }, { "id": "lachish-fortifications-siege-system", "title": "Lachish: Judahite fortifications and the Assyrian siege ramp system", "era": "Iron IIB", "period": "8th century BCE / 701 BCE destruction", "region": "Shephelah", "structureType": "Fortification / siege works", "attributionStatus": "secure-context", "confidence": "High", "signal": "At Lachish, urban defenses, the Assyrian attack ramp and the destruction horizon form an unusually well-connected siege landscape.", "observations": [ "The Assyrian ramp is an excavated topographic and construction feature outside the city defenses.", "Assyrian reliefs, archaeology and landscape analysis independently illuminate different parts of the same siege system." ], "phaseModel": "Judahite fortifications predate the 701 assault; siege works and destruction belong to the attack horizon; later city phases rebuild the site.", "functionInference": "Urban defense versus engineered assault access.", "historicalContext": "One of the strongest architectural/archaeological correlations between an Assyrian campaign and a specific Judahite city.", "biblicalContext": "Directly contextualizes Sennacherib’s 701 BCE campaign; the biblical account, royal inscriptions and reliefs still need source-critical comparison rather than collapse into one record.", "boundary": "The siege of Lachish is historically secure; individual tactical reconstructions remain models.", "eventIds": [ "sennacherib" ], "siteIds": [ "lachish" ], "artifactIds": [ "lachish-siege-ramp", "lachish-reliefs" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Lachish" ], "settlementIds": [ "shephelah-701-disruption" ], "sourceIds": [ "lachish-ramp-2021" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 4, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 4 }, { "id": "persian-jerusalem-fortification-question", "title": "Persian-period Jerusalem and the archaeological problem of Nehemiah’s wall", "era": "Persian period", "period": "5th century BCE", "region": "Jerusalem", "structureType": "Fortification / urban perimeter", "attributionStatus": "debated-attribution", "confidence": "Low–Moderate", "signal": "The textual rebuilding of Jerusalem’s wall is clear in Nehemiah, but archaeological identification of a surviving fifth-century fortification line remains contested.", "observations": [ "Persian-period Jerusalem has a comparatively thin and difficult archaeological footprint.", "Later Hasmonean, Herodian and Roman construction heavily reshaped the city’s perimeter." ], "phaseModel": "Possible Persian elements must be distinguished from Iron Age walls and later Hellenistic fortifications.", "functionInference": "Defensive enclosure and urban boundary, if securely identified.", "historicalContext": "A case where textual evidence is stronger than the architectural visibility of the proposed project.", "biblicalContext": "Relevant to Nehemiah 2–6, but the workbench refuses to label ambiguous masonry “Nehemiah’s Wall” without phase-specific evidence.", "boundary": "Failure to isolate the wall archaeologically is not proof the rebuilding never happened; naming a wall from the text is not proof it is Persian.", "eventIds": [ "nehemiah-wall", "ezra-nehemiah" ], "siteIds": [ "jerusalem" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Persian Jerusalem" ], "settlementIds": [ "persian-jerusalem-scale" ], "sourceIds": [ "persian-jerusalem-wall-2008" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 1, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 1 }, { "id": "elephantine-yhw-temple", "title": "Elephantine YHW temple: textually secure institution, archaeologically incomplete footprint", "era": "Persian period", "period": "5th century BCE", "region": "Elephantine, Egypt", "structureType": "Temple / community architecture", "attributionStatus": "debated-attribution", "confidence": "High for temple existence; moderate for plan", "signal": "Aramaic papyri securely attest a Jewish temple to YHW at Elephantine and its destruction in 410 BCE; the exact architectural footprint and detailed reconstruction remain less secure than the documentary evidence.", "observations": [ "Documents describe the temple, its destruction in 410 BCE and efforts to rebuild.", "Archaeological remains and site topography allow partial reconstruction, but the plan is not preserved with the completeness of a freestanding excavated temple." ], "phaseModel": "The temple existed before 410 BCE, was destroyed, and became the subject of rebuilding correspondence.", "functionInference": "Community cult center embedded in a Persian-period military/urban settlement.", "historicalContext": "Shows a functioning Jewish/Yahwistic temple outside Jerusalem during the Persian period.", "biblicalContext": "Important context for postexilic Judaism and the complexity of temple centralization; it is not a biblical temple mentioned in Ezra-Nehemiah.", "boundary": "Textual attestation of the temple does not itself excavate a building plan. Broader Persian-period or Khnum-temple archaeology must not be relabeled as the YHW temple without an explicit archaeological crosswalk.", "eventIds": [ "elephantine-community" ], "siteIds": [ "elephantine" ], "artifactIds": [ "elephantine-papyri" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Elephantine" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "elephantine-temple-2004" ], "crossLinks": [ { "label": "High Places & Centralization study", "url": "cult-centralization.html" } ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 4 }, { "id": "qumran-built-environment", "title": "Qumran: communal, ritual and industrial architecture", "era": "Hasmonean–Early Roman", "period": "2nd century BCE–1st century CE", "region": "Dead Sea / Judaean Desert", "structureType": "Communal complex / ritual infrastructure", "attributionStatus": "multi-phase", "confidence": "High for structures; debated for community model", "signal": "Qumran’s built environment includes water installations and miqva’ot, communal rooms, pantries, workshops and adjacent cemetery space.", "observations": [ "Distinctive water/ritual installations and communal-use rooms are archaeologically documented.", "The interpretation of the site as an Essene sectarian center is strong but remains a synthesis of architecture, texts, ceramics and historical sources—not a label carved into the walls." ], "phaseModel": "Hasmonean and Herodian phases, earthquake/damage episodes and later use must be separated.", "functionInference": "Residential, communal, ritual, storage and productive functions in a highly organized complex.", "historicalContext": "Provides the architectural context in which the Dead Sea Scrolls community question is evaluated.", "biblicalContext": "Highly relevant to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism; the architecture cannot assign every manuscript to a room or prove a single sectarian identity by itself.", "boundary": "Site function and manuscript provenance overlap but are not identical questions.", "eventIds": [ "dead-sea-scrolls-community" ], "siteIds": [ "qumran" ], "artifactIds": [ "great-isaiah-scroll", "biblical-dead-sea-scrolls" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Qumran" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "qumran-archaeology-2024" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 4, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 4 }, { "id": "herodian-temple-mount-expansion", "title": "Herodian Temple Mount: retaining walls, monumental bridges and phased expansion", "era": "Herodian–Early Roman", "period": "late 1st century BCE–1st century CE", "region": "Jerusalem", "structureType": "Temple platform / monumental infrastructure", "attributionStatus": "multi-phase", "confidence": "High", "signal": "The Temple Mount expansion and its western access system preserve multiple construction stages, including Wilson’s Arch and associated monumental masonry.", "observations": [ "Radiocarbon/microarchaeology places an initial Wilson’s Arch stage in the Herodian or immediately post-Herodian period and enlargement before the revolt.", "The platform, bridges, streets and adjacent monumental spaces were constructed and modified over decades." ], "phaseModel": "Herodian initiation does not make every visible stone the product of one moment; early first-century enlargement continued the monumental program.", "functionInference": "Temple-platform support, access, circulation, ritual and civic display.", "historicalContext": "Materializes the extraordinary construction program that framed Jerusalem in Yeshua’s lifetime.", "biblicalContext": "Direct context for Herod’s Temple, Gospel temple scenes and the 70 CE destruction; it does not preserve the sanctuary building itself.", "boundary": "“Herodian” is a broad construction program; exact subphases and responsible administration vary.", "eventIds": [ "herod-temple", "ministry", "jerusalem-temple-destroyed-70" ], "siteIds": [ "jerusalem" ], "artifactIds": [ "trumpeting-place-inscription", "temple-warning-inscription" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Wilson’s Arch", "Temple Mount" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "wilsons-arch-2020" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 2, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 3 }, { "id": "siloam-pool-pilgrimage-street", "title": "Siloam Pool and stepped pilgrimage street", "era": "Second Temple / Early Roman", "period": "1st century BCE–1st century CE", "region": "Jerusalem / City of David", "structureType": "Pool / street / pilgrimage infrastructure", "attributionStatus": "secure-context", "confidence": "High", "signal": "A large stepped pool at Siloam and the monumental street rising toward the Temple formed part of Jerusalem’s southern urban and pilgrimage landscape.", "observations": [ "The pool has broad stair systems and substantial retaining architecture.", "The adjacent monumental street was built in stages and functioned as a major north–south route toward the Temple zone." ], "phaseModel": "Late Second Temple rebuilding over earlier water infrastructure culminates in Early Roman monumentalization.", "functionInference": "Water management, gathering and ceremonial/pilgrimage circulation.", "historicalContext": "Shows how urban infrastructure channelled movement through festival-period Jerusalem.", "biblicalContext": "Provides direct topographic context for John 9’s Pool of Siloam and Gospel-era Jerusalem without proving a particular healing event.", "boundary": "Identifying the pool is a site-identification claim; authenticating an individual Gospel episode would require different evidence.", "eventIds": [ "ministry", "herod-temple" ], "siteIds": [ "jerusalem" ], "artifactIds": [ "siloam-pool" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Siloam Pool", "Jerusalem pilgrimage road" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "jerusalem-pilgrimage-road-2024", "siloam-pool-iaa-2023" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 3 }, { "id": "bethesda-bethzatha-pool-complex", "title": "Bethesda/Bethzatha: twin-pool complex and later healing sanctuary", "era": "Hellenistic–Roman", "period": "2nd century BCE–Roman period", "region": "Jerusalem", "structureType": "Pool / water infrastructure / sanctuary", "attributionStatus": "multi-phase", "confidence": "High for complex; moderate for exact Gospel-phase layout", "signal": "The Bethesda/Bethzatha area preserves large pools and later monumental/sanctuary construction across several phases.", "observations": [ "The pools existed within a broader Jerusalem water-management landscape before later Roman/Byzantine development.", "Later healing-cult and ecclesiastical construction can obscure what was present in the early first century CE." ], "phaseModel": "Hellenistic/Early Roman water infrastructure precedes later sanctuary and church phases.", "functionInference": "Water storage/management with later ritual and healing-associated uses.", "historicalContext": "A strong example of why a Gospel toponym can be real while the standing architecture is mostly later.", "biblicalContext": "Relevant to John 5 and the reference to a pool with porticoes; exact first-century architectural details must be reconstructed cautiously.", "boundary": "Later monumentalization should not be projected backward as the precise setting of the Gospel episode.", "eventIds": [ "ministry" ], "siteIds": [ "jerusalem" ], "artifactIds": [ "bethesda-pool" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Bethesda", "Jerusalem" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "bethesda-pools-2017" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 3 }, { "id": "caesarea-herodian-harbor-palace", "title": "Caesarea Maritima: harbor, promontory palace and civic infrastructure", "era": "Herodian–Roman", "period": "late 1st century BCE–1st century CE", "region": "Mediterranean coast / Caesarea", "structureType": "Harbor / palace / civic complex", "attributionStatus": "multi-phase", "confidence": "High", "signal": "Herod’s new port city combined artificial harbor engineering, a sea-facing palace and monumental civic architecture on an unprecedented Judean scale.", "observations": [ "The promontory palace includes upper and lower architectural components, with a central courtyard and sea-facing installations.", "The harbor, palace, entertainment buildings and later Roman administrative spaces belong to related but separately phased urban systems." ], "phaseModel": "Herodian foundations were repeatedly rebuilt and adapted under Roman governors and later administrations.", "functionInference": "Royal/administrative residence, maritime trade, civic display and imperial connectivity.", "historicalContext": "Explains why Caesarea rapidly became the Roman administrative center of Judaea.", "biblicalContext": "Direct context for Pilate’s inscription and Paul’s Caesarea imprisonment; individual rooms cannot be assigned to Gospel/Acts scenes without further evidence.", "boundary": "Site-level historical association is secure; scene-level architectural identification is usually not.", "eventIds": [ "herod", "tiberius-pilate", "paul-caesarea-imprisonment" ], "siteIds": [ "caesarea-maritima" ], "artifactIds": [ "pilate-inscription", "herodian-coins" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Caesarea" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "caesarea-cornell" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 3 }, { "id": "herodium-palace-fortress-mausoleum", "title": "Herodium: palace-fortress, monumental approach and mausoleum landscape", "era": "Herodian–Early Roman", "period": "late 1st century BCE", "region": "Judaean Desert / Herodium", "structureType": "Palace-fortress / funerary monument", "attributionStatus": "multi-phase", "confidence": "High for complex; debated for tomb identification details", "signal": "Herodium combines a circular palace-fortress, lower-palace complex, monumental approach and mausoleum in a deliberately engineered royal landscape.", "observations": [ "The hilltop palace-fortress and lower complex served distinct residential/ceremonial functions.", "The monumental stair/approach and mausoleum underwent staged construction and later modification." ], "phaseModel": "Herodian palace construction was followed by funerary monumentalization and later rebel reuse.", "functionInference": "Royal residence, display, defense and funerary commemoration.", "historicalContext": "One of the clearest built expressions of Herod’s kingship and monumental self-presentation.", "biblicalContext": "Relevant to Herod’s reign and death traditions; the exact identification of excavated tomb remains has been debated even while the site’s Herodian character is secure.", "boundary": "Herodian site attribution is strong; a specific ruined mausoleum assemblage should not be made more certain than the excavated evidence allows.", "eventIds": [ "herod", "herod-death" ], "siteIds": [ "herodium" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Herodium" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "herodium-approach-jra", "herodium-mausoleum-debate" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 4, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 4 }, { "id": "nazareth-early-roman-house", "title": "Nazareth: Early Roman domestic architecture", "era": "Early Roman", "period": "1st century BCE–1st century CE", "region": "Lower Galilee / Nazareth", "structureType": "Domestic architecture", "attributionStatus": "secure-context", "confidence": "High for date/context; no occupant identification", "signal": "A stratified, partly rock-cut domestic building provides rare direct evidence for village architecture in Early Roman Nazareth.", "observations": [ "Stone-built and rock-cut components belong to an Early Roman domestic sequence.", "Later Byzantine and medieval religious construction overlies and reinterprets the earlier house." ], "phaseModel": "The domestic horizon precedes later ecclesiastical use of the location.", "functionInference": "Household residence in a small Galilean village.", "historicalContext": "Provides material context for the scale and domestic character of Nazareth around the first century.", "biblicalContext": "Relevant to the Gospel setting of Yeshua’s upbringing, but no excavated house can be assigned to Yeshua or his family without direct evidence.", "boundary": "A first-century house in Nazareth confirms occupation and domestic form, not the identity of its residents.", "eventIds": [ "return-nazareth", "ministry" ], "siteIds": [ "nazareth" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Nazareth" ], "settlementIds": [ "nazareth-early-roman-village" ], "sourceIds": [ "nazareth-domestic-2012" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 2, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 2 }, { "id": "magdala-early-roman-synagogue", "title": "Magdala: Early Roman synagogue and ritual space", "era": "Early Roman", "period": "1st century BCE–1st century CE", "region": "Sea of Galilee / Magdala", "structureType": "Synagogue / communal ritual architecture", "attributionStatus": "secure-context", "confidence": "High", "signal": "Magdala preserves a purpose-built Early Roman synagogue with benches, decorated features and the well-known Magdala Stone.", "observations": [ "The synagogue’s plan creates a communal gathering space with benches around the room.", "The Magdala Stone belongs to the architectural context and carries imagery often interpreted in relation to the Jerusalem Temple." ], "phaseModel": "The synagogue belongs to the Early Roman town before its later destruction/abandonment phases.", "functionInference": "Assembly, teaching and communal religious practice.", "historicalContext": "Provides rare excavated evidence for synagogue architecture in Galilee during the Gospel period.", "biblicalContext": "Directly contextualizes Gospel references to synagogues in Galilee, while not establishing that Yeshua visited this particular building.", "boundary": "Period-appropriate synagogue architecture is contextual evidence, not an attested itinerary.", "eventIds": [ "ministry" ], "siteIds": [ "magdala" ], "artifactIds": [ "magdala-stone" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Magdala" ], "settlementIds": [ "galilee-early-roman-expansion" ], "sourceIds": [ "magdala-synagogue-2020" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 2, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 2 }, { "id": "capernaum-synagogue-under-limestone", "title": "Capernaum: the debated first-century synagogue beneath the later limestone building", "era": "Early Roman–Late Roman", "period": "1st century CE hypothesis beneath 4th/5th-century synagogue", "region": "Sea of Galilee / Capernaum", "structureType": "Synagogue / stratified public building", "attributionStatus": "debated-attribution", "confidence": "Moderate–Low for first-century purpose-built synagogue", "signal": "Earlier basalt walls and deposits beneath the monumental white-limestone synagogue have been used to argue for a first-century predecessor, but the architectural case is disputed.", "observations": [ "The standing limestone synagogue is later than the Gospel period.", "Earlier remains under it are real, but whether they form a purpose-built first-century synagogue is the critical question." ], "phaseModel": "Potential Early Roman underlying phase is separated from the much later monumental synagogue above.", "functionInference": "Possible assembly/synagogue function in the earlier phase; secure synagogue function for the later building.", "historicalContext": "A methodological warning against using a famous standing monument as if it were automatically the building mentioned in a first-century text.", "biblicalContext": "Relevant to Gospel synagogue scenes at Capernaum, but the exact first-century building remains debated.", "boundary": "The correct statement is “possible earlier synagogue beneath a later synagogue,” not “the synagogue where Yeshua taught has been excavated.”", "eventIds": [ "ministry" ], "siteIds": [ "capernaum" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Capernaum" ], "settlementIds": [ "galilee-early-roman-expansion" ], "sourceIds": [ "capernaum-synagogue-method" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 2, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 2 }, { "id": "masada-palace-rebel-siege-layers", "title": "Masada: Herodian palace architecture, rebel reuse and Roman siege landscape", "era": "Herodian–Flavian", "period": "late 1st century BCE–73/74 CE", "region": "Judaean Desert / Masada", "structureType": "Palace-fortress / siege works", "attributionStatus": "multi-phase", "confidence": "High", "signal": "Masada’s architecture preserves a Herodian palace-fortress, adaptations by revolt-era occupants and an external Roman siege system.", "observations": [ "Herodian palaces, storerooms, cisterns and fortification walls predate the First Revolt occupation.", "Roman camps, circumvallation and assault works belong to the siege, while internal modifications document later reuse." ], "phaseModel": "Herodian construction → rebel occupation/adaptation → Roman siege and capture; these phases must not be merged.", "functionInference": "Royal refuge/storage, later insurgent occupation, then Roman siege containment and assault.", "historicalContext": "Makes the final phase of the First Jewish Revolt visible as an entire built landscape.", "biblicalContext": "Relevant to the post-biblical continuation of Second Temple history and the 73/74 CE siege; Josephus remains a literary source to compare rather than a floor-plan key.", "boundary": "Architecture can test siege logistics and reuse; it does not automatically confirm every reported episode or speech.", "eventIds": [ "first-jewish-revolt", "masada-falls" ], "siteIds": [ "masada" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Masada" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "masada-encyclopedia" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 4, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 4 }, { "id": "dura-christian-building", "title": "Dura-Europos Christian Building: phased adaptation rather than a simple “house church” conversion", "era": "Roman / early Christianity", "period": "late 2nd–mid 3rd century CE", "region": "Dura-Europos, Syria", "structureType": "Domestic / Christian ritual architecture", "attributionStatus": "debated-attribution", "confidence": "High for Christian use; revised for phase model", "signal": "The Christian Building is securely associated with Christian ritual use, but 2024 reassessment replaces a one-time complete conversion model with a more gradual, mixed domestic/ritual history.", "observations": [ "House M8A retained domestic features while spaces were adapted for Christian activity.", "The baptistery and painted rooms belong within a multi-phase building history rather than a single instant conversion event." ], "phaseModel": "Initial construction may be earlier than the traditional 232 CE date; Christian adaptations accumulated before the city’s destruction in 256 CE.", "functionInference": "Combined domestic and Christian communal/ritual activity.", "historicalContext": "Provides rare architectural evidence for how some early Christian groups inhabited and modified ordinary urban houses.", "biblicalContext": "Post-biblical context for the development of Christian worship spaces after the New Testament period.", "boundary": "The term “oldest house church” can hide the revised phased interpretation; Christian use is secure, the classic domus-ecclesiae model is not.", "eventIds": [], "siteIds": [ "dura-europos" ], "artifactIds": [ "dura-europos-christian-building" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Dura-Europos" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "dura-christian-2024" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 3 }, { "id": "mount-gerizim-sacred-precinct", "title": "Mount Gerizim: Persian-period sacred precinct and Hellenistic expansion", "era": "Persian–Hellenistic", "period": "5th century–c. 110 BCE", "region": "Samaria", "structureType": "Sacred precinct / sanctuary complex", "attributionStatus": "secure-precinct-debated-temple-plan", "confidence": "High for sacred precinct; debated for exact Persian-period temple architecture", "signal": "Excavation documents a major sacred precinct on Mount Gerizim, founded in the Persian period and expanded monumentally in the Hellenistic period.", "observations": [ "The earliest monumental sacred enclosure is generally dated to the Persian period, commonly the fifth century BCE.", "The sanctuary complex was expanded substantially in the Hellenistic period and preserves abundant evidence of cult and sacrifice." ], "phaseModel": "Persian-period sacred enclosure and cult activity → Hellenistic monumental expansion → destruction of the Hellenistic sanctuary complex around 110 BCE.", "functionInference": "Major Samaritan/Yahwistic sacred precinct and sacrificial center outside Jerusalem.", "historicalContext": "Gerizim demonstrates durable institutional cult plurality after the exile and supplies a post-exilic control on models of Jerusalem centralization.", "biblicalContext": "Relevant to the later Jerusalem–Gerizim sanctuary dispute and to the history of post-exilic Yahwism; it should not be projected backward as evidence that Jerusalem lacked central importance.", "boundary": "The sacred precinct is archaeologically secure, but the exact plan and identification of a Persian-period temple building inside it remain debated; do not render a fully recovered Solomon-style temple as excavated fact.", "eventIds": [], "siteIds": [ "mount-gerizim" ], "artifactIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "gerizim-temple-model-2020", "arie-gerizim-revisiting" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Mount Gerizim", "Samaritan sanctuary" ], "settlementIds": [], "crossLinks": [ { "label": "Mount Gerizim site dossier", "url": "archaeology-material-culture-lab.html?site=mount-gerizim" }, { "label": "High Places & Centralization study", "url": "cult-centralization.html" } ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 4 }, { "id": "ashkelon-north-slope-fortifications", "title": "Ashkelon North Slope: Middle Bronze gates, ramparts and calf sanctuary", "era": "Middle Bronze Age", "period": "Grid 2 Phases 14–10 · c. early 2nd millennium to 16th/15th c. BCE", "region": "Southern Coastal Plain", "structureType": "Fortification / gate / roadside sanctuary", "attributionStatus": "secure multi-phase excavation context", "confidence": "High", "signal": "Successive monumental mudbrick gates and ramparts culminate in a Phase 11 footgate/sanctuary complex and later final rampart sealing.", "observations": [ "Grid 2 preserves four successive Middle Bronze gate phases (Gates 1–4) within a major rampart system.", "Building 179, the silver-calf sanctuary, belongs to Phase 11 beside Gate 4; later rampart fill covered the complex in the final Middle Bronze phase." ], "phaseModel": "Phases 14→13→12→11→10 are kept as local North Slope architectural phases with broad overlapping absolute ranges.", "functionInference": "Fortified city access and rampart control, with a small cultic installation integrated into the Phase 11 approach/corridor zone.", "historicalContext": "Documents long-term urban investment and rebuilding at a major Middle Bronze coastal city.", "biblicalContext": "Provides comparative Canaanite urban/cult architecture for the broader Bronze Age setting; it is not a direct biblical-event identification.", "boundary": "The sanctuary context is secure; deity identity and any connection to Exodus calf traditions remain interpretive/comparative.", "eventIds": [], "siteIds": [ "ashkelon" ], "artifactIds": [ "ashkelon-silver-calf" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Ashkelon", "Middle Bronze Ashkelon" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "stager-schloen-master-ashkelon1-2008", "stager-schloen-voss-ashkelon6-2018" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 5, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 5 }, { "id": "ashkelon-604-urban-economy", "title": "Ashkelon 604 BCE: winery and marketplace urban sectors", "era": "Iron Age IIC", "period": "7th century BCE · destroyed 604 BCE", "region": "Southern Coastal Plain", "structureType": "Winery / marketplace / commercial-administrative quarter", "attributionStatus": "secure destruction horizon", "confidence": "High", "signal": "Grid 38 winery and Grid 50 marketplace architecture preserve two complementary sectors of the seventh-century economy sealed by the same 604 BCE destruction.", "observations": [ "Grid 38 preserves wine-production architecture and associated urban buildings terminating in the 604 BCE destruction.", "Grid 50 preserves a marketplace/commercial-administrative district with shops, storage and heavily burned destruction contexts." ], "phaseModel": "Two local excavation phases—Grid 38 Phase 14 and Grid 50 Phase 7—are synchronized only at their shared terminal 604 BCE horizon.", "functionInference": "Specialized production, storage, commerce and administration within the late Philistine city.", "historicalContext": "The destruction provides an unusually sharp archaeological snapshot of Ashkelon immediately before Babylonian conquest.", "biblicalContext": "Contextualizes the Neo-Babylonian transformation of the southern Levant; it does not turn each excavated object into a direct textual witness.", "boundary": "Shared destruction date does not collapse Grid 38 and Grid 50 into one stratigraphic column.", "eventIds": [ "ashkelon-604" ], "siteIds": [ "ashkelon" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Ashkelon 604", "Ashkelon plant economy" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "stager-master-schloen-ashkelon3-2011" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 4 }, { "id": "jericho-spring-hill-palatial-succession", "title": "Jericho Spring Hill: Middle Bronze palaces, Late Bronze Middle Building and Iron I houses", "era": "Middle Bronze II–Iron I", "period": "c. 1800–960 BCE with occupational gaps", "region": "Jordan Valley", "structureType": "Palace / elite building / domestic reuse sequence", "attributionStatus": "secure local architectural succession; historical labels such as “Hyksos Palace” are conventional excavation names", "confidence": "High for local stratigraphic succession", "signal": "Areas G/H preserve a building biography from the Sultan IVb palace through its Sultan IVc reconstruction, Late Bronze reuse in the Middle Building horizon, and Iron IB domestic occupation built partly over earlier walling.", "observations": [ "The Sultan IVb palace contained courtyards, storerooms and rooms; its destruction deposits included storage jars with charred grain.", "The Sultan IVc reconstruction was violently burned, after which Late Bronze rooms associated with Garstang’s Middle Building reused parts of the earlier fabric.", "Sultan VIa2 houses were then built over portions of the Late Bronze wall system and reused burnt Middle/Late Bronze bricks." ], "phaseModel": "Keep the Spring Hill local sequence separate from the Areas A/E fortification sequence and translate both through explicit Sultan-period crosswalks.", "functionInference": "Elite/palatial occupation in the Middle Bronze phases, reduced Late Bronze reuse, and later domestic occupation in Iron I.", "historicalContext": "Makes Jericho’s occupation history visible as repeated rebuilding and reuse rather than a single “wall fell / city empty” episode.", "biblicalContext": "Relevant to conquest chronology only as stratigraphic and chronological context; the architecture does not identify Joshua or a named destroyer.", "boundary": "Conventional building names and broad period assignments must not be turned into ethnic identifications; architectural survival is area-specific.", "eventIds": [ "jericho-campaign" ], "siteIds": [ "jericho" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Jericho", "Tell es-Sultan", "Jericho radiocarbon" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "nigro-yasine-jericho-2024", "rc-jericho-bruins-vdp" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 4, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 5 }, { "id": "hazor-lower-city-area-h-temple-gate", "title": "Hazor Lower City Area H: Orthostats Temple approach, propylaeum and ritual infrastructure", "era": "Middle Bronze–Late Bronze II", "period": "Strata 3–1A/B", "region": "Upper Galilee", "structureType": "Temple-gate / propylaeum / drainage and ritual infrastructure", "attributionStatus": "secure local architectural sequence", "confidence": "High for local sequence; function of individual deposits varies", "signal": "Areas H1/H2 preserve the approach to the Orthostats Temple, including the propylaeum/gate, a ritual favissa, drainage channels and open-courtyard activity across Middle and Late Bronze phases.", "observations": [ "Stratum 2 preserves two construction phases of the propylaeum/gate complex.", "Stratum 1B drainage channels contained numerous miniature vessels, while Stratum 1A preserves later floors/artifact clusters and reduced architecture.", "Area H2 adds domestic/activity evidence beside the temple zone, including cooking vessels and a tabun." ], "phaseModel": "Treat H1/H2 as a local temple-adjacent sequence; do not force each local activity into the Upper City palace column.", "functionInference": "Temple approach, drainage management, ritual/structured deposition and adjacent food-preparation/courtyard activity.", "historicalContext": "Shows how cultic and infrastructural activity changed during Hazor’s Late Bronze decline rather than presenting the Lower City as one undifferentiated burn layer.", "biblicalContext": "Contextual to the terminal Hazor destruction question; architecture alone does not identify the attacker.", "boundary": "The lower-city architectural history is local and cannot by itself settle citywide 1B/1A synchronization.", "eventIds": [ "hazor-northern-campaign" ], "siteIds": [ "hazor" ], "artifactIds": [ "hazor-late-bronze-destruction" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Hazor Lower City", "Hazor Area H" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "hazor-lower-city-2026" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 5 }, { "id": "hazor-lower-city-area-k-gate", "title": "Hazor Lower City Area K: Bronze Age city gate and fire-collapse sequence", "era": "Middle Bronze–Late Bronze II", "period": "Strata 3–1B", "region": "Upper Galilee", "structureType": "City gate / passage / collapsed superstructure", "attributionStatus": "secure local fire/collapse process; attacker unresolved", "confidence": "Very high for local formation process", "signal": "Area K preserves a gate occupation sequence ending in a major single fiery collapse; micro-geoarchaeology differentiates floor, burned roof, upper-story accumulation and final burnt debris.", "observations": [ "No destructive break was detected between Strata 3 and 2 in the sampled gate section.", "The Stratum 1B sequence includes the gate floor, heavily burned roof material, overlying unburned accumulation and final burned debris.", "Minimal anthropogenic activity above the destruction horizon indicates post-collapse disuse." ], "phaseModel": "Keep the local gate destruction in the Area K column and compare it to Area H/Upper City through explicit scenario-sensitive crosswalks.", "functionInference": "Urban gate controlling access to Hazor’s Lower City.", "historicalContext": "Provides a high-resolution depositional history for one of Hazor’s terminal Late Bronze destruction contexts.", "biblicalContext": "Strong evidence for a violent terminal-LB destruction at Hazor; not a direct identification of Joshua or Israel as the agent.", "boundary": "Microstratigraphy reconstructs how the gate burned, not who burned it or whether every sector failed in exactly the same episode.", "eventIds": [ "hazor-northern-campaign" ], "siteIds": [ "hazor" ], "artifactIds": [ "hazor-late-bronze-destruction" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Hazor gate fire", "Hazor micro-geoarchaeology" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "runjajic-hazor-gate-2023" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 5, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 6 }, { "id": "megiddo-va-ivb-palace-gate", "title": "Megiddo Stratum VA–IVB: six-chambered gate and ashlar-palace horizon", "era": "Late Iron IIA", "period": "9th century BCE · chronology model dependent", "region": "Jezreel Valley", "structureType": "Fortification gate / ashlar palaces / monumental urban plan", "attributionStatus": "chronology-based attribution debated historically", "confidence": "High for stratigraphic association; historical dynasty depends on chronology model", "signal": "Renewed excavation places Gate 2156 in Stratum VA–IVB; recent synthesis also associates the major ashlar-palace horizon with this phase and dates it to the first half of the ninth century under the Finkelstein-led model.", "observations": [ "Gate 2156 is stratigraphically later than the VIA gate and belongs to VA–IVB.", "The monumental palace/gate horizon has historically been labelled “Solomonic,” but recent low/modified chronology work places it later.", "Architectural form alone does not assign a ruler." ], "phaseModel": "Treat VA–IVB as a distinct monumental phase from the later IVA stable/water-system city.", "functionInference": "Fortified access, elite/administrative residence and monumental urban display.", "historicalContext": "Central to debates over state formation and the relative scale of tenth- versus ninth-century construction.", "biblicalContext": "Relevant to 1 Kings 9:15 and to Omride state formation; neither association is read directly from the masonry.", "boundary": "The stratigraphic phase is secure; precise royal attribution is a separate historical inference.", "eventIds": [ "solomon", "omri-samaria" ], "siteIds": [ "megiddo" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Megiddo radiocarbon", "Megiddo Stratum VA-IVB" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "megiddo-gates-2019", "megiddo-omrides-2025" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 1, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 2 }, { "id": "megiddo-iva-horse-industry", "title": "Megiddo Stratum IVA: eighth-century gate, water system and horse-industry city", "era": "Iron IIB", "period": "first half of the 8th century BCE → 732 BCE", "region": "Jezreel Valley", "structureType": "Fortified urban system / water works / administrative-cult building / stables", "attributionStatus": "secure phase; political/historical setting strongly contextualized", "confidence": "High for phase and functions; exact construction episodes remain area-specific", "signal": "Stratum IVA preserves the largest concentration of Northern Kingdom monumental architecture at Megiddo, including the four-entry gate, water system, administrative/cult building and extensive three-aisled stable complexes; the city terminates at the 732 BCE Assyrian conquest horizon.", "observations": [ "Area H H-3 and Area Q Q-2 provide local terminal-destruction contexts.", "The three-aisled pillared buildings are interpreted as stables in the recent synthesis.", "The 732 BCE endpoint is independently reinforced by historical and archaeomagnetic chronology." ], "phaseModel": "Keep construction/use of the IVA city separate from its terminal 732 BCE destruction and the subsequent Assyrian Stratum III rebuilding.", "functionInference": "Fortified administrative city with substantial horse-breeding/training infrastructure and water-management investment.", "historicalContext": "Represents the mature Northern Kingdom immediately before Assyrian annexation of the region.", "biblicalContext": "Contextual to the late Northern Kingdom and Neo-Assyrian expansion; the architecture itself does not narrate a biblical episode.", "boundary": "The 732 BCE historical endpoint is strong; not every excavated IVA sector preserves identical fire or collapse evidence.", "eventIds": [ "tiglath-pileser" ], "siteIds": [ "megiddo" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Megiddo archaeomagnetism", "Megiddo H-3", "Megiddo Q-2" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "megiddo-horse-industry-2025", "shaar-levant-mesopotamia-2022" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 4 }, { "id": "lachish-level-iii-gatehouse", "title": "Lachish Level III inner gatehouse and contested southern chamber", "era": "Iron IIB", "period": "late 8th century BCE → 701 BCE", "region": "Shephelah", "structureType": "Six-chambered city gate / administrative and contested cultic space", "attributionStatus": "secure architectural context; chamber function debated", "confidence": "High for gate phase and 701 BCE destruction; disputed for shrine/reform interpretation", "signal": "The Level III six-chambered inner gate is a secure part of the fortified Judahite city destroyed in 701 BCE. Excavation of the southern wing exposed an innermost chamber whose cultic interpretation and proposed pre-701 desecration remain disputed in peer-reviewed literature.", "observations": [ "The gatehouse belongs to Level III and was destroyed in the 701 BCE Assyrian conquest.", "Ganor and Kreimerman interpret the innermost southern chamber as a gate shrine later desecrated and sealed.", "Ussishkin argues the chamber was secular and rejects the Hezekian reform interpretation; Kleiman also offers an alternative reading of the sequence." ], "phaseModel": "Separate secure gate architecture and destruction from the debated function/history of one chamber.", "functionInference": "Fortified access and gate administration are secure; cultic use of the disputed chamber is an interpretation rather than a settled observation.", "historicalContext": "The gate complex belongs to the Judahite city besieged by Sennacherib in 701 BCE.", "biblicalContext": "The chamber debate is relevant to discussions of Hezekiah’s cult reform, but archaeology does not name the reformer or make the shrine identification uncontested.", "boundary": "Do not promote broken altar-horn / latrine interpretations into direct confirmation of a biblical reform while the chamber function and sequence remain disputed.", "eventIds": [ "sennacherib" ], "siteIds": [ "lachish" ], "artifactIds": [ "lachish-siege-ramp" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Lachish 701", "Lachish gate" ], "settlementIds": [ "shephelah-701-disruption" ], "sourceIds": [ "ganor-kreimerman-lachish-2019", "kleiman-lachish-2020", "ussishkin-lachish-gate-2021", "lachish-fourth-expedition-2021" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 2, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 2 }, { "id": "gezer-stratum7-domestic-gate", "title": "Gezer: Stratum 7 domestic quarter and four-chambered gate reuse", "era": "Iron IIA", "period": "later 10th–early 9th century BCE", "region": "Shephelah", "structureType": "Domestic quarter / reused fortification / gate", "attributionStatus": "secure-phase-unknown-agent", "confidence": "High for phase and architectural transition", "signal": "After the Stratum 8 destruction, the gate sector changed from administrative/monumental use to domestic occupation while earlier fortification fabric was reused and the gate rebuilt on a four-chambered plan.", "observations": [ "Domestic units A–E were built along the north face of the reused city wall.", "Unit D included a pillared main room with connected storage/work rooms; the phase ended in a sudden destruction sealing restorable Iron IIA vessels." ], "phaseModel": "Stratum 7 is modeled at 957–913 BCE (68.3% HPD) with its terminal boundary at 927–885 BCE.", "functionInference": "Domestic production/storage within a reorganized gate-sector urban plan.", "historicalContext": "Demonstrates rapid functional reorganization after the monumental Stratum 8 city and provides a separate destruction horizon near the 10th/9th-century transition.", "biblicalContext": "Earlier Hazael correlations are chronologically ruled out; the layer should not be forced onto a named biblical conflict.", "boundary": "Architectural reuse and destruction establish local urban history, not the identity of an attacker or political regime.", "eventIds": [], "siteIds": [ "gezer" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Gezer radiocarbon Stratum 7" ], "settlementIds": [ "shephelah-iron-i-to-ii" ], "sourceIds": [ "gezer-chronology-2023" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 3 }, { "id": "gezer-stratum6-public-city", "title": "Gezer: Stratum 6 Iron IIB public buildings and final Assyrian-period destruction", "era": "Iron IIB", "period": "9th–8th centuries BCE; terminal late 730s BCE horizon", "region": "Shephelah", "structureType": "Public/administrative buildings / domestic architecture / fortification reuse", "attributionStatus": "historically-correlated", "confidence": "High for architectural phase and destruction; moderate-high for exact historical correlation", "signal": "Stratum 6 marks renewed Iron IIB public construction west of the gate together with large domestic architecture and reused fortifications, ending in a fire destruction associated with the Assyrian expansion under Tiglath-pileser III.", "observations": [ "Three major public buildings were erected west of the city gate; the Tandy excavation also exposed a large Four Room House.", "Domestic architecture shows clear fire destruction at the end of the phase." ], "phaseModel": "Broad Iron IIB span; unlike Strata 12B–7, the founding date is not yet tightly constrained by the published Tandy radiocarbon model.", "functionInference": "Public/administrative and domestic urban use before terminal destruction.", "historicalContext": "Provides the late Iron Age endpoint of the gate-area sequence and connects Gezer to the Assyrian restructuring of the southern Levant.", "biblicalContext": "Historically adjacent to the Assyrian expansion that reshaped Israel and Judah, but the dossier does not treat every Stratum 6 room as a direct witness to one textual episode.", "boundary": "The end-horizon correlation is historically informed; additional 14C would be needed to give Stratum 6 the same absolute-control density as earlier Tandy phases.", "eventIds": [ "tiglath-pileser" ], "siteIds": [ "gezer" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Gezer Stratum VI destruction" ], "settlementIds": [ "shephelah-iron-i-to-ii" ], "sourceIds": [ "gezer-chronology-2023" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 2, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 2 }, { "id": "tel-rehov-stratum-v-apiary", "title": "Tel Reḥov Area C Stratum V: industrial apiary courtyard", "era": "Iron IIA", "period": "late 10th–early 9th century BCE", "region": "Beth-Shean Valley", "structureType": "Industrial courtyard / apiary installation", "attributionStatus": "secure-function-from-installations", "confidence": "Exceptional for beekeeping function; moderate for reconstructed original hive count", "signal": "Area C Stratum V contained a purpose-built urban apiary: rows of unfired clay-cylinder hives arranged in a bounded open space, with preserved combs and bee remains confirming function.", "observations": [ "Excavation exposed about 30 clay cylinders; reconstruction suggests a much larger installation, commonly estimated around 100–180 hives depending on restoration assumptions.", "The hives were arranged in rows/tiers within the urban quarter rather than outside the settlement, indicating specialized production embedded in the city.", "The installation belongs to the C1b / Stratum V occupation and was sealed by the destruction/rebuilding sequence." ], "phaseModel": "Bind to Area C C1b / site-wide Stratum V; keep the apiary installation distinct from the later C1a / Stratum IV quarter.", "functionInference": "Large-scale managed apiculture for honey/wax and associated exchange/consumption.", "historicalContext": "Evidence for specialized Iron IIA urban production and trade in the Beth-Shean Valley.", "biblicalContext": "Relevant to the historical economy behind ancient honey production, but it does not prove that any biblical use of “honey” refers specifically to bee honey or to Tel Reḥov.", "boundary": "The installation function is secured by direct bee remains; the original total number of hives and organization of ownership are reconstructions.", "eventIds": [ "tel-rehov-apiary" ], "siteIds": [ "tel-rehov" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Tel Rehov bees", "Tel Rehov pollen", "Tel Rehov radiocarbon" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "rehov-area-c-architecture-2020", "mazar-rehov-apiary-2008" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 3 }, { "id": "tel-rehov-stratum-iv-northwest-quarter", "title": "Tel Reḥov Area C Stratum IV: planned northwestern quarter and Building CP", "era": "Iron IIA", "period": "9th century BCE, ending in terminal fire", "region": "Beth-Shean Valley", "structureType": "Mudbrick urban quarter / elite-industrial-cultic complex", "attributionStatus": "secure-phase-function-mixed", "confidence": "High for plan, phase and destruction; functions differ by building", "signal": "The final lower-city Area C phase reused and reorganized earlier fabric into a planned mudbrick quarter whose buildings preserve domestic, industrial, cultic and administrative signals; all were terminated by a severe fire.", "observations": [ "The quarter is composed of interrelated mudbrick buildings organized on a planned layout, with Building CP especially large and unusual.", "Destruction debris preserves quotidian, cultic and industrial materials as well as inscriptions with personal names.", "The terminal fire ended occupation in the lower city and left the Stratum IV remains just below topsoil." ], "phaseModel": "Area C C1a / site-wide Stratum IV; explicitly later than the Stratum V apiary/destruction horizon.", "functionInference": "Mixed urban quarter with unusually rich household, industrial, cultic and administrative activity rather than a single-purpose complex.", "historicalContext": "Represents the final prosperous Iron IIA phase before lower-city abandonment.", "biblicalContext": "The final destruction is historically relevant to Aramean pressure, but the architecture itself does not identify Hazael as destroyer.", "boundary": "Building functions are reconstructed from architecture and assemblages; the named historical agent of the terminal fire remains separate.", "eventIds": [ "hazael-aram-damascus", "jehu" ], "siteIds": [ "tel-rehov" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Tel Rehov Stratum IV destruction", "Tel Rehov archaeomagnetism" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "panitz-cohen-rehov-2022", "mazar-rehov-2022" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 2, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 3 }, { "id": "ekron-temple-complex-650", "title": "Tel Miqne-Ekron Temple Complex 650 and late Philistine elite zone", "era": "Iron Age IIC", "period": "Stratum IB, c. 625–604 BCE", "region": "Southern Coastal Plain / Philistia", "structureType": "Monumental public/temple complex", "attributionStatus": "secure-context-function-interpreted-from-plan-and-finds", "confidence": "High", "signal": "Temple Complex 650 was a large monumental public/cult building in the late Philistine elite zone, destroyed at the end of Stratum IB in 604 BCE and associated with the Ekron Royal Dedicatory Inscription.", "observations": [ "The final report treats Temple Complex 650 as one of the largest Iron Age monumental structures excavated in Israel/Jordan.", "The complex preserves stratified architecture, a large ceramic assemblage, ivory and other small finds, and the royal dedicatory inscription.", "Later Building 850 reused portions of the destroyed complex rather than continuing the same Iron Age phase." ], "phaseModel": "Bind the active complex to Field IV Upper Stratum IB; treat later Building 850 as post-destruction reuse rather than an extension of the temple phase.", "functionInference": "Elite public/cult complex embedded in Ekron’s seventh-century urban core.", "historicalContext": "Represents Ekron at its late Iron IIC zenith within the Neo-Assyrian/Egyptian/Neo-Babylonian geopolitical transition.", "biblicalContext": "Provides direct archaeological context for late Philistine Ekron and its rulers; it does not independently establish the historicity of every biblical episode involving Ekron.", "boundary": "The building, context and 604 BCE destruction are secure; fine-grained ritual reconstruction and identification of every deity/cult practice require separate evidence.", "eventIds": [], "siteIds": [ "tel-miqne-ekron" ], "artifactIds": [ "ekron-royal-inscription" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Ekron Temple Complex 650", "Ekron ceramics", "Ekron faunal" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "ekron-temple-650-final-2022" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 4 }, { "id": "ekron-field-iii-olive-oil-industry", "title": "Tel Miqne-Ekron Field III olive-oil industrial zone", "era": "Iron Age IIC", "period": "7th century BCE, especially Stratum IB", "region": "Southern Coastal Plain / Philistia", "structureType": "Urban industrial quarter / olive-oil production installations", "attributionStatus": "secure-functional-installations", "confidence": "High", "signal": "Field III and adjacent lower-city sectors preserve dense standardized olive-oil production installations with crushing basins, presses, stone weights and storage facilities, demonstrating specialized urban industry at late Iron Age Ekron.", "observations": [ "Excavated installations combine crushing basins, pressing facilities and heavy perforated stone weights in repeated production units.", "Storage jars and associated rooms connect extraction with handling/storage inside a planned urban industrial zone.", "The mature Stratum IB installations terminate with the 604 BCE destruction horizon." ], "phaseModel": "Track Field III IC expansion separately from the mature IB industrial phase; synchronize only the terminal 604 BCE horizon with the elite zone.", "functionInference": "Large-scale specialized olive-oil production integrated into the city’s late Iron IIC economy.", "historicalContext": "Fits Ekron’s seventh-century growth under imperial-vassal conditions and its role in regional agricultural production/exchange.", "biblicalContext": "Useful economic context for Philistine Ekron; the industry itself does not identify a named biblical ruler or episode.", "boundary": "Production function is secured by the installations; citywide output estimates and political control of production are reconstructions beyond the excavated devices alone.", "eventIds": [], "siteIds": [ "tel-miqne-ekron" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Ekron olive oil", "Ekron industrial zone" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "ekron-field-iv-iic-final-2017", "ekron-temple-650-final-2022" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 3 }, { "id": "tel-dan-ironi-domestic-metallurgy", "title": "Tel Dan Areas A–B/B Iron I domestic, metallurgical and ritual built environment", "era": "Iron Age I", "period": "Strata VI–V, 12th–11th centuries BCE", "region": "Upper Jordan Valley / Hula Valley", "structureType": "Domestic quarter / metallurgical installations / small ritual contexts", "attributionStatus": "secure-excavation-context", "confidence": "High", "signal": "Areas A–B/B preserve dense Iron I houses, storage/working spaces, metalworking installations and localized ritual features beneath later monumental Iron II architecture.", "observations": [ "Stratum V was densely built and includes numerous metalworking contexts.", "Standing stones and a small ritual structure/cult corner are preserved in Area B-East Stratum V.", "The final report treats architecture, ceramics, metal, faunal and botanical evidence as one integrated Iron I settlement corpus." ], "phaseModel": "Separate Strata VI and V occupation from the later IVB rebuilding; do not back-project the later royal sanctuary into these Iron I domestic/ritual contexts.", "functionInference": "Mixed domestic, craft-production and localized ritual occupation rather than a single monumental state installation.", "historicalContext": "Documents a complex northern settlement during the transition from Late Bronze imperial systems to Iron Age local polities.", "biblicalContext": "Relevant to the archaeology of early Dan/Laish, but the material sequence alone does not prove a specific Judges migration episode or tribal identity.", "boundary": "Craft, domestic and ritual features are excavated observations; ethnic and textual identifications require independent evidence.", "eventIds": [ "judges-dan-migration" ], "siteIds": [ "tel-dan" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Tel Dan Iron I metallurgy", "Tel Dan Area B ritual" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "tel-dan-daniv-2019" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 3 }, { "id": "tel-dan-ironii-gate-piazza", "title": "Tel Dan Iron II gate, paved piazza and stele-reuse architecture", "era": "Iron Age IIB", "period": "9th–8th centuries BCE", "region": "Upper Jordan Valley / Hula Valley", "structureType": "Monumental gate / processional-piazza complex", "attributionStatus": "secure-architecture-with-historical-attribution-separated", "confidence": "High", "signal": "A monumental gate complex and paved approach/piazza framed the Iron II city entrance; broken Tel Dan Stele fragments were reused in wall/pavement contexts before the terminal eighth-century destruction.", "observations": [ "Fragment A was found in secondary use in a wall bordering the paved piazza at the outer gate.", "Fragment B2 was reused as a flat building/paving stone; pottery beneath the pavement dates that construction/rebuilding to the end of the ninth or beginning of the eighth century BCE.", "Destruction debris sealed the gate/pavement system by the late eighth century." ], "phaseModel": "Model mid-ninth-century gate construction, late-ninth/early-eighth-century rebuilding/stele reuse, and the terminal eighth-century destruction as separate phases.", "functionInference": "Monumental city entrance and ceremonial/administrative approach whose fabric was repeatedly rebuilt and reused.", "historicalContext": "The terminal destruction is commonly synchronized with Tiglath-pileser III, but the gate architecture and secondary-reuse contexts are archaeologically prior observations.", "biblicalContext": "Provides the physical context in which the Aramaic stele fragments survived; it does not identify the original location of the stele or independently prove the narrative scale of the Davidic kingdom.", "boundary": "Secondary reuse dates the reuse of fragments, not their original carving or emplacement.", "eventIds": [ "tel-dan-stele" ], "siteIds": [ "tel-dan" ], "artifactIds": [ "tel-dan-stele" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Tel Dan gate architecture", "Tel Dan stele context" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "biran-naveh-tel-dan-1993", "biran-naveh-tel-dan-1995" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 4, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 5 }, { "id": "shiloh-ironi-storage-complex", "title": "Shiloh: Iron I pillared storage complex and silos", "era": "Iron I", "period": "12th–11th centuries BCE", "region": "Central highlands / Ephraim hill country", "structureType": "Pillared storage / redistribution architecture", "attributionStatus": "secure-architecture-debated-institutional-function", "confidence": "High for storage architecture; moderate for institutional interpretation", "signal": "Iron I Shiloh preserves unusually substantial pillared storage buildings, silos and dense storage-vessel assemblages relative to the small occupied area of the site.", "observations": [ "Pillared buildings on the western slope include spaces packed with large storage vessels rather than ordinary domestic assemblages.", "Stone-built silos and storage installations occur elsewhere at the site, supporting an organized storage/redistribution component." ], "phaseModel": "Iron I storage architecture belongs to the Stratum V occupation and terminates with the site’s late Iron I destruction/abandonment horizon.", "functionInference": "Large-scale storage and redistribution; possible administrative or cult-support function.", "historicalContext": "Shiloh is unusual among Iron I highland sites for evidence of public/communal storage architecture and may have served its surrounding settlement system.", "biblicalContext": "The architecture is relevant to traditions of Shiloh as a regional sanctuary, but it does not locate the Tabernacle or directly identify the Ark narrative.", "boundary": "Storage and redistribution are archaeological inferences; sanctuary-specific ownership, tithes and named biblical personnel remain historical/textual correlations.", "eventIds": [ "shiloh-samuel", "ark-captured-aphek" ], "siteIds": [ "shiloh" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Shiloh", "collared-rim pithoi", "storage" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "v243-shiloh-final-report", "shiloh-petrography-1993" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 4 }, { "id": "shechem-fortress-temple-fortifications", "title": "Shechem: Middle Bronze fortifications and Fortress Temple precinct", "era": "Middle Bronze IIB–IIC / Late Bronze reuse", "period": "c. 18th–13th centuries BCE", "region": "Central highlands / Tell Balata", "structureType": "Fortifications, monumental gate and sacred/public precinct", "attributionStatus": "secure-architecture-debated-specific-function", "confidence": "High for architecture and sequence; moderate for detailed cultic reconstruction", "signal": "Tell Balata preserves a massive Middle Bronze defensive system and monumental acropolis/temple architecture that anchors the site’s urban scale long before the Iron Age traditions attached to Shechem.", "observations": [ "The final stratigraphic publication documents multiple Middle Bronze construction stages in the western fortifications and acropolis.", "A large Fortress Temple / sacred-public precinct dominates the acropolis sequence and underwent reuse/rebuilding into later Bronze Age phases." ], "phaseModel": "The monumental public works span several Middle Bronze strata and later rebuilding; they must not be collapsed into one construction event.", "functionInference": "Urban defense plus monumental public/cultic architecture.", "historicalContext": "The architecture demonstrates Shechem’s role as a major Canaanite center within the central hill country and provides the physical setting for the later Late Bronze polity known from regional texts.", "biblicalContext": "Relevant to Shechem traditions, but the walls and temple do not independently identify Abraham, Jacob, Joshua, Abimelech or a covenant ceremony.", "boundary": "Architectural function and sequence are archaeological; named-event attribution remains textual/historical correlation.", "eventIds": [ "shechem-joshua-death", "judge-abimelech" ], "siteIds": [ "shechem" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Tell Balata", "Shechem architecture" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "v56-shechem-campbell-2002" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 9 }, { "id": "tel-eton-building101-elite-residence", "title": "Tel ‘Eton: Building 101 elite four-space residence", "era": "Iron IIA–IIB", "period": "construction argued in late 11th–10th century; destruction in late 8th century BCE", "region": "Southern Shephelah / Judahite highland fringe", "structureType": "Large four-space elite residence / proposed governor’s residency", "attributionStatus": "secure-building-debated-political-attribution", "confidence": "High for building form and destruction; debated for initial construction date and office attribution", "signal": "Building 101 is a large, well-built longitudinal four-space house whose long life and late-eighth-century fiery destruction make it a key test case for dating building construction rather than merely terminal floors.", "observations": [ "The structure’s scale, position and construction quality distinguish it from ordinary houses at the site.", "Radiocarbon samples from floor make-up and a foundation deposit were used to argue for an early construction phase; the house then remained in use until its late-eighth-century destruction." ], "phaseModel": "Construction deposits, long-term maintenance/cleaning and terminal destruction are kept as separate parts of the building biography.", "functionInference": "Elite residence; possible administrative/governor function.", "historicalContext": "The building contributes to debates over the timing and scale of Judahite social complexity.", "biblicalContext": "A tenth-century construction date would be historically relevant to early Judah, but archaeology does not identify the resident or a named monarch.", "boundary": "Large architecture + early construction evidence does not by itself prove a United Monarchy attribution; political ownership is a downstream inference.", "eventIds": [], "siteIds": [ "tel-eton" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Tel Eton old house effect", "Building 101" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "cambridge-tel-eton", "v62-eton-faust-2011" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 3 }, { "id": "beersheba-planned-iron-age-city", "title": "Tel Be’er Sheva: planned Iron Age city, storehouses and water system", "era": "Iron IIA–IIB", "period": "10th/9th–late 8th centuries BCE", "region": "Beersheba Valley / southern Judah", "structureType": "Fortified administrative town, storehouses and urban water system", "attributionStatus": "secure-architecture", "confidence": "High", "signal": "The final publication documents a deliberately organized fortified town with gate, casemate defenses, administrative/storage architecture and a substantial water-supply system that remained in use across multiple Iron Age city phases.", "observations": [ "The Stratum II plan preserves streets, domestic/administrative blocks and large storehouse complexes.", "The internal water system was constructed with the fortified city and underwent later structural/functional changes.", "The four-horned altar had been dismantled and reused before the terminal destruction, showing a separate cult-decommissioning process." ], "phaseModel": "Early enclosed settlement → successive fortified-city phases → Stratum II terminal destruction; infrastructure changed through use rather than forming one construction episode.", "functionInference": "Regional administrative, provisioning and defensive center.", "historicalContext": "The urban plan is central to reconstructing the organization of southern Judah in the Iron Age.", "biblicalContext": "The city is relevant to Judahite administrative history, but individual buildings cannot be assigned to named biblical officials without direct evidence.", "boundary": "Urban planning demonstrates administration and investment; it does not by itself identify the commissioning king or prove a specific reform.", "eventIds": [], "siteIds": [ "beersheba" ], "artifactIds": [ "beersheba-horned-altar" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Beersheba archaeomagnetism", "Beersheba water system" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "beersheba-final-2016", "herzog-cult-reform-judah" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 3 }, { "id": "tel-zayit-iron-iia-summit-building", "title": "Tel Zayit: Iron IIA summit building and tenth-century destruction horizon", "era": "Iron IIA", "period": "10th–early 9th century BCE", "region": "Southern Shephelah borderland", "structureType": "Substantial summit public/domestic complex", "attributionStatus": "secure-architecture-debated-political-affiliation", "confidence": "High for stratigraphic placement; moderate for institutional function", "signal": "Excavation on the summit exposed substantial tenth-century architecture with adjacent rooms, floor assemblages and a destructive conflagration; the reused stone carrying the Tel Zayit abecedary belonged to this architectural context.", "observations": [ "Burned mudbrick debris sealed rooms with flagstone and beaten-earth floors.", "The associated pottery and a radiocarbon-dated cooking-pot context place construction/use within the tenth-century Iron IIA horizon." ], "phaseModel": "Tenth-century building/use → destructive conflagration → early-ninth-century rebuilding; later Iron Age levels form separate phases.", "functionInference": "Substantial settlement/public architecture within a strategic borderland town.", "historicalContext": "The building and literacy evidence show a developed community in the tenth-century Shephelah without by themselves fixing political allegiance.", "biblicalContext": "Relevant to debates over early Judah/Philistia borderlands, but the architecture does not identify a named biblical town or ruler.", "boundary": "Architecture, script and chronology do not automatically resolve political identity or the proposed identification of Tel Zayit with Libnah.", "eventIds": [], "siteIds": [ "tel-zayit" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Tel Zayit radiocarbon", "Tel Zayit archaeomagnetism" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "tel-zayit-tappy-2017" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 2, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 2 }, { "id": "beth-shean-egyptian-garrison-areas-n-s", "title": "Tel Beth-Shean: Egyptian garrison-town architecture in Areas N and S", "era": "Late Bronze IIB–early Iron I", "period": "13th–11th centuries BCE", "region": "Beth-Shean Valley", "structureType": "Garrison-town, administrative/public and domestic architecture", "attributionStatus": "secure-architecture", "confidence": "High", "signal": "The final Areas N/S publication documents a substantial New Kingdom garrison-town sequence with Egyptian-affiliated public/administrative architecture, domestic/storage contexts and successive destruction/rebuilding episodes.", "observations": [ "Areas N and S preserve multiple architectural phases rather than one monolithic Egyptian occupation.", "Burned storage/building contexts in N-4 and S-3a belong to distinct local destruction horizons already carried by the controlled stratigraphy.", "Architecture and finds document strong Egyptian institutional presence alongside local Canaanite material traditions." ], "phaseModel": "New Kingdom garrison-town phases → local destruction/rebuilding episodes → post-imperial early Iron transition; N and S remain independent excavation columns.", "functionInference": "Imperial garrison, administration, storage and urban domestic activity.", "historicalContext": "Beth-Shean was a major Egyptian-controlled center in the northern Jordan Valley during the 19th–20th Dynasties and continued through the collapse of imperial control.", "biblicalContext": "Relevant to the wider Late Bronze/Iron transition and later Israelite settlement landscape, but individual buildings are not direct biblical-event identifications.", "boundary": "Egyptian institutional architecture identifies political-cultural presence; it does not by itself identify the agent responsible for each destruction horizon.", "eventIds": [], "siteIds": [ "beth-shean" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Beth-Shean radiocarbon", "Beth-Shean Egyptian garrison" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "beth-shean-final-iii-2009" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 4, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 7 }, { "id": "aphek-palace-vi-egyptian-governor", "title": "Tel Aphek: Palace VI / Egyptian Governor’s Residence", "era": "Late Bronze IIB", "period": "late 13th century BCE", "region": "Sharon Plain / central coastal corridor", "structureType": "Freestanding Egyptian administrative residence / palace", "attributionStatus": "secure-architecture-and-egyptian-administration", "confidence": "Very high", "signal": "The final acropolis report identifies Palace VI as the last and best-preserved palace in a long sequence, a freestanding Egyptian Governor’s Residence sealed by violent destruction.", "observations": [ "Collapsed and burned upper-storey debris sealed rich in-situ finds.", "The assemblage includes Egyptian-affiliated material and written documents consistent with imperial administration.", "The destruction marks the end of the Late Bronze palace phase before different Iron Age occupations appeared on the leveled acropolis." ], "phaseModel": "Earlier palace sequence → Palace VI Egyptian administrative residence → violent late-13th-century destruction → post-palace Iron I reoccupation.", "functionInference": "Egyptian imperial administration at a strategic crossroads.", "historicalContext": "Aphek controlled a major inland/coastal route and preserves unusually direct evidence for Egyptian governance immediately before the terminal Late Bronze transition.", "biblicalContext": "The destruction belongs to the broader period relevant to early Israel/Philistia emergence but cannot be assigned to Joshua or a named Sea Peoples group from the architecture alone.", "boundary": "The building’s administrative character and destruction are secure; the identity of the destroying force is not.", "eventIds": [], "siteIds": [ "aphek" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Aphek Palace VI", "Aphek radiocarbon" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "aphek-antipatris-ii-2009" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 4, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 5 }, { "id": "bethsaida-iron-ii-gate-palace", "title": "Bethsaida / et-Tell: Iron II monumental gate, palace and granary complex", "era": "Iron IIA–IIB", "period": "10th/9th–8th centuries BCE", "region": "northeast Sea of Galilee / Geshur", "structureType": "Fortified city gate, palace and storage complex", "attributionStatus": "secure-architecture-debated-polity-identification", "confidence": "High for excavated architecture", "signal": "The Iron Age city is defined by massive basalt fortifications, a monumental gate system, a bit-hilani-style palace and granary/storage buildings, with the Stratum V gate destroyed in a severe conflagration.", "observations": [ "The gate complex includes massive towers, paved approach/courtyard and a four-chamber inner gatehouse.", "A large palace and storage facilities belong to the Iron II urban plan.", "Stratum V ended in a major fiery destruction with collapse and weapon evidence in the gate area." ], "phaseModel": "Stratum 6 foundation/monumental city → Stratum 5 continued urban use/rebuilding → terminal late-eighth-century destruction → later reuse.", "functionInference": "Fortified regional administrative/elite center with substantial storage capacity.", "historicalContext": "The excavators associate the Iron Age city with Geshur; the late-eighth-century destruction is widely correlated with Assyrian expansion.", "biblicalContext": "Relevant to traditions about Geshur and the later Bethsaida region; the architecture itself does not establish a specific biblical ruler or event.", "boundary": "Monumentality and gate cult/administration do not independently prove capital status, ethnic identity or named kingship.", "eventIds": [], "siteIds": [ "bethsaida" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Bethsaida archaeomagnetism", "Bethsaida Iron Age gate" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "bethsaida-vol4-2009" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 3 }, { "id": "kinnerot-iron-ib-lower-town", "title": "Tel Kinnerot: Iron IB lower-town planned urban complex", "era": "Iron IB", "period": "11th–10th centuries BCE (broad archaeological horizon)", "region": "northwest Sea of Galilee", "structureType": "Planned lower-town domestic/urban complex with activity installations", "attributionStatus": "secure-architecture", "confidence": "High", "signal": "Field I exposes unusually well-preserved Iron IB architecture with planned building units, terracing, benches, podia, troughs, ovens and storage/food-processing spaces, followed by several post-destruction reoccupation layers.", "observations": [ "The main complex was laid out as a planned unit rather than growing only by ad hoc additions.", "Rooms preserve installations and in-situ small finds/pottery associated with food preparation and storage.", "Later overlying habitation phases show substantial post-destruction resettlement rather than a single brief squatter episode." ], "phaseModel": "Iron IB foundation/main urban horizon → destruction → multiple post-destruction reoccupation phases; later eighth-century history is represented separately by the Assyrian anchor framework.", "functionInference": "Urban domestic, storage and craft/food-processing complex in a strategically placed lakeside center.", "historicalContext": "Tel Kinrot provides a key dataset for regional interaction in the northern Levant before the consolidation of later territorial kingdoms.", "biblicalContext": "The site is identified with Kinneret, but the Iron IB architecture does not directly identify a biblical ruler or tribal event.", "boundary": "Material affinities and urban organization do not map one-to-one onto ethnicity or political identity.", "eventIds": [], "siteIds": [ "tel-kinnerot" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Tel Kinrot archaeobotany", "Tel Kinnerot archaeomagnetism" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "kinneret-urban-center-2011", "kinneret-iaa-2009" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 3 }, { "id": "beit-mirsim-renewed-iron-iib-quarter", "title": "Tell Beit Mirsim: renewed Iron IIB domestic quarter and olive-oil production", "era": "Iron IIB", "period": "8th century BCE (renewed-excavation horizon)", "region": "Judean Shephelah", "structureType": "Domestic four-room-house complex and olive-oil installation", "attributionStatus": "secure-architecture", "confidence": "High", "signal": "Renewed excavations exposed exceptionally well-preserved Iron IIB domestic architecture, including a four-room-house-type building and an olive-oil press, opening a new economic/activity-area dataset at the classic type-site.", "observations": [ "Well-preserved domestic rooms allow reconstruction of activity areas.", "A four-room-house-type plan is present in the renewed excavation.", "An olive-oil press provides direct evidence for household/local production." ], "phaseModel": "Iron IIB domestic occupation and production → late-eighth-century destruction horizon tested regionally by archaeomagnetism; exact correlation between every renewed room and legacy stratum requires context-specific publication.", "functionInference": "Domestic residence plus agricultural-processing/economic activity.", "historicalContext": "The renewed work shifts Tell Beit Mirsim from a ceramic type-site alone toward household/economic archaeology of Judah.", "biblicalContext": "The site is important for reconstructing Judahite material culture; exact ancient-name and named-campaign correlations remain separate historical questions.", "boundary": "Four-room architecture and oil production are cultural/economic observations, not automatic ethnic or royal identifiers.", "eventIds": [], "siteIds": [ "tell-beit-mirsim" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Tell Beit Mirsim archaeomagnetism", "Tell Beit Mirsim Iron IIB" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "beit-mirsim-renewed-2023" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 2, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 2 }, { "id": "kition-bamboula-archaic-room-s11", "title": "Kition-Bamboula Sondage 11: Cypro-Archaic stone-and-mudbrick room", "era": "Cypro-Archaic", "period": "8th–7th centuries BCE", "region": "Kition / Larnaca, Cyprus", "structureType": "Stone-footed mudbrick room / urban occupation", "attributionStatus": "secure-excavated-context", "confidence": "High", "signal": "North of the later Classical pit, Sondage 11 preserved an Archaic room with stone walls, mudbrick superstructure and surviving white plaster; collapse sealed the room’s vessel furniture in situ.", "observations": [ "Wall 978 retained a white plaster coating on its inner face.", "Collapsed mudbrick superstructure sealed vessels against the northern and eastern walls.", "Later Classical activity cut or covered portions of the earlier occupation, so the Archaic room is kept distinct from the fourth-century BCE pit/floor sequence." ], "phaseModel": "Cypro-Archaic room occupation and collapse → later Classical levelling/pit activity; no site-wide Kition sequence is inferred from this local trench.", "functionInference": "Urban room with storage/container use; a more specific household or cult function is not forced from the vessel layout alone.", "historicalContext": "Provides direct architecture for Phoenician-period Kition beyond the inscriptional/administrative record.", "biblicalContext": "Comparative Phoenician context only; the room does not identify a biblical event or population movement.", "boundary": "Local Sondage 11 stratigraphy must not be generalized into the full occupational sequence of Kition.", "eventIds": [], "siteIds": [ "kition-phoenician" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Kition Bamboula pottery" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "kition-bamboula-2025" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 3 }, { "id": "tyre-al-bass-phoenician-cemetery", "title": "Tyre al-Bass: Iron Age Phoenician cemetery as a distinct mortuary landscape", "era": "Iron Age Phoenician", "period": "Iron Age", "region": "Tyre, Lebanon", "structureType": "Cemetery / funerary architecture", "attributionStatus": "secure-excavated-context", "confidence": "High", "signal": "The long-running Tyre project treats the Iron Age cemetery of al-Bass as a major excavation focus distinct from the acropolis of the ancient island, preserving a controlled Phoenician mortuary context.", "observations": [ "al-Bass is an excavated Iron Age cemetery rather than an inferred homeland analogue for western tophets.", "Cemetery architecture and assemblages belong to a mortuary landscape spatially separate from the island/acropolis excavations.", "The cemetery provides the archaeological frame for specialized ceramic and archaeometric studies." ], "phaseModel": "Use al-Bass as a mortuary context; do not merge it into a synthetic island-city architectural sequence.", "functionInference": "Phoenician cemetery serving repeated burial and funerary-ritual activity.", "historicalContext": "Direct homeland evidence for Phoenician mortuary practice at Tyre.", "biblicalContext": "Useful comparative context for Phoenician culture known from biblical texts; it does not establish an eastern tophet or named biblical rite.", "boundary": "Cremation/funerary evidence at Tyre must not be treated as proof that the western tophet institution was present here in the same form.", "eventIds": [], "siteIds": [ "tyre-phoenician" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Tyre al-Bass pottery archaeometry" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "tyre-archaeology-2024" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 2, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 2 }, { "id": "achziv-phoenician-cemeteries", "title": "Akhziv: Iron Age Phoenician shaft-tomb cemeteries", "era": "Iron Age Phoenician", "period": "Iron Age", "region": "Northern coast of Israel", "structureType": "Rock-hewn shaft tombs with burial chambers / cemetery", "attributionStatus": "secure-excavated-context", "confidence": "High", "signal": "The Ez-Zib and Er-Ras cemeteries preserve excavated Phoenician tomb architecture; most documented graves are rock-hewn shaft tombs opening into burial chambers.", "observations": [ "Two major Iron Age cemetery zones were excavated east and south of Tel Akhziv.", "Most tombs in the final report are rock-hewn shaft tombs with burial chambers.", "Tomb architecture, burial assemblages and the settlement tell remain analytically distinct contexts." ], "phaseModel": "Tomb-by-tomb funerary contexts rather than a synthetic settlement stratigraphic column.", "functionInference": "Phoenician cemetery with repeated family/community mortuary use.", "historicalContext": "Provides direct eastern Phoenician funerary evidence for comparison with Mediterranean colonial cemeteries and tophets.", "biblicalContext": "Regional Phoenician context only; no tomb is identified with a biblical individual or event.", "boundary": "Phoenician cremation/burial practice at Akhziv cannot be equated automatically with western tophet ritual or child sacrifice.", "eventIds": [], "siteIds": [ "achziv-phoenician" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Akhziv cemetery pottery" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "achziv-cemeteries-2002" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 2, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 2 }, { "id": "amman-airport-lba-three-phase-complex", "title": "Amman Airport: three-phase Late Bronze architectural complex", "era": "Late Bronze Age", "period": "c. 1400–1200 BCE", "region": "Amman, Jordan", "structureType": "Monumental / ritual-mortuary complex (function debated)", "attributionStatus": "secure-architecture-function-debated", "confidence": "High for three phases and date range; lower for ritual function", "signal": "Rescue excavation and Hennessy’s 1966 work identified three successive architectural phases in a Late Bronze complex used approximately 1400–1200 BCE.", "observations": [ "The complex was first exposed during airport construction in 1955 and re-investigated in 1966.", "Three successive architectural phases are recognized within the Late Bronze use span.", "Deposits included burned human, animal and bird remains, but their ritual meaning remains debated." ], "phaseModel": "Three successive Late Bronze phases are retained as an architectural sequence without inventing project phase IDs or locus boundaries absent from the normalized source record.", "functionInference": "A fire-related ritual/mortuary interpretation has been proposed; exact function remains debated.", "historicalContext": "Provides a Transjordanian Late Bronze ceremonial/mortuary context with substantial eastern Mediterranean connections.", "biblicalContext": "Useful background for Late Bronze Transjordan only; it is not an archaeological identification of a named biblical rite or population.", "boundary": "Burned remains do not independently demonstrate infant sacrifice; observation, fire-cult interpretation and sacrifice hypothesis remain separate layers.", "eventIds": [], "siteIds": [ "amman-airport-lb" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Amman Airport Late Bronze human remains", "Amman Airport Mycenaean pottery" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "amman-airport-anu" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 3 }, { "id": "serabit-hathor-mining-sanctuary", "title": "Serabit el-Khadim: Hathor temple and turquoise-mining sanctuary landscape", "era": "Middle Kingdom–New Kingdom", "period": "c. 12th Dynasty through Ramesside activity", "region": "South Sinai", "structureType": "Mining sanctuary / temple / votive landscape", "attributionStatus": "secure-site-function", "confidence": "High", "signal": "Excavated architecture and votive monuments identify Serabit as a major sanctuary of Hathor closely associated with turquoise-mining expeditions and repeated Egyptian state/private commemoration.", "observations": [ "Temple and adjacent votive monuments are directly associated with the mining landscape.", "Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom material record repeated expeditionary use rather than one short occupation episode.", "West Semitic Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions occur within this Egyptian cult/mining environment, demonstrating cultural contact without making the sanctuary non-Egyptian." ], "phaseModel": "Long-lived sanctuary with repeated expeditionary additions and reuse; not collapsed into a single stratigraphic phase.", "functionInference": "Cult center supporting and commemorating Egyptian turquoise-mining expeditions.", "historicalContext": "Provides direct material context for Egyptian activity and West Semitic participation in Sinai across the Bronze Age.", "biblicalContext": "Relevant cultural background for Egyptian–West Semitic contact in Sinai; it does not identify the Exodus route or a biblical individual.", "boundary": "Cultural contact and bilingual/cross-cultural religious evidence do not prove that a specific biblical group authored every inscription or used the sanctuary in a biblical episode.", "eventIds": [], "siteIds": [ "serabit-el-khadim" ], "artifactIds": [ "serabit-proto-sinaitic-sphinx" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Serabit glass LA-ICP-MS", "Serabit ceramics petrography" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "serabit-bm-hathor-temple" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 3 }, { "id": "carthage-tophet-sanctuary-field", "title": "Carthage Salammbo: long-lived tophet urn-and-stela sanctuary field", "era": "Phoenician–Punic", "period": "c. 8th–2nd centuries BCE", "region": "North Africa / Carthage", "structureType": "Open-air cremation-deposition sanctuary / urn field / stela field", "attributionStatus": "secure-sanctuary-context", "confidence": "High", "signal": "Repeated urn burial, votive monuments and animal/human cremation deposits define a long-lived specialized ritual landscape distinct from the ordinary cemetery.", "observations": [ "Cremated very young humans and animals occur in dedicated urn deposits.", "Votive stelae/cippi belong to the same broad sanctuary institution.", "The tophet is a ritual deposition system; it is not an ordinary household or settlement quarter." ], "phaseModel": "Long-duration sanctuary growth; no synthetic master vertical column is asserted in this project.", "functionInference": "Specialized votive/cremation sanctuary.", "historicalContext": "Major comparative control for Phoenician/Punic molk/tophet practice.", "biblicalContext": "Useful comparative evidence for West Semitic child-burning/Topheth terminology, but centuries later than the Late Bronze conquest horizon.", "boundary": "Sanctuary context establishes ritual deposition; it does not by itself determine the cause of death of every child.", "eventIds": [], "siteIds": [ "carthage-tophet" ], "artifactIds": [ "carthage-tophet-urn-assemblage", "carthage-early-mlk-stelae" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Carthage tophet osteology", "Carthage animal offerings" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "tophet-mccarty-2019" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 2, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 2 }, { "id": "motya-tophet-sanctuary-urnfield", "title": "Motya: tophet sanctuary and eight-stratum urnfield", "era": "Phoenician–Punic", "period": "8th–4th/3rd centuries BCE", "region": "Sicily / Motya", "structureType": "Open-air tophet sanctuary / stratified urnfield", "attributionStatus": "controlled-local-sequence", "confidence": "High", "signal": "The sanctuary preserves a published eight-stratum urnfield sequence with expansion and long-term repeated deposition.", "observations": [ "Urnfield deposition is stratigraphically ordered through Strata VII to I,1.", "The field expands spatially during its use history.", "Human and animal cremation deposits belong to a specialized sanctuary distinct from the ordinary necropolis." ], "phaseModel": "Uses the existing motya-tophet-urnfield sequence rather than a second synthetic model.", "functionInference": "Specialized votive/cremation sanctuary.", "historicalContext": "One of the earliest western Phoenician tophet institutions.", "biblicalContext": "Comparative Iron Age West Semitic ritual evidence only.", "boundary": "Tophet deposition and animal offering do not assign individual human cause of death.", "eventIds": [], "siteIds": [ "motya-tophet" ], "artifactIds": [ "motya-mlkt-vow-stele" ], "scienceQueries": [], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "nigro-motya-periodization-2022", "tophet-mccarty-2019" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 3, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 10 }, { "id": "sulcis-tophet-sanctuary-landscape", "title": "Sulcis/Sulky: tophet sanctuary organized through bedrock depositional basins", "era": "Phoenician–Punic", "period": "c. mid-8th–2nd centuries BCE", "region": "Sardinia / Sulcis", "structureType": "Tophet sanctuary / bedrock urn-deposition landscape", "attributionStatus": "source-bounded-depositional-framework", "confidence": "High", "signal": "Urns were placed in separate natural bedrock cracks and basins with overlapping horizontal/vertical development rather than one simple master column.", "observations": [ "Earliest activity clusters on the higher trachytic spur.", "Later deposition expands eastward.", "Upper levels were affected by loss/removal, limiting vertical reconstruction." ], "phaseModel": "Uses the existing sulcis-tophet-depositional-framework; deliberately not recast as a conventional stratigraphic column.", "functionInference": "Specialized tophet sanctuary with repeated basin infill.", "historicalContext": "Independent Sardinian evidence for western Phoenician/Punic tophet practice and mlk terminology.", "biblicalContext": "Comparative Iron Age West Semitic ritual evidence only.", "boundary": "Spatial/depositional pattern does not identify the cause of death of each deposited infant.", "eventIds": [], "siteIds": [ "sulcis-tophet" ], "artifactIds": [ "sulcis-mlk-baal-stele" ], "scienceQueries": [], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "orsingher-tophet-vessels-2015", "tophet-mccarty-2019" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 2, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 2 }, { "id": "tharros-tophet-sanctuary", "title": "Tharros: tophet cremation sanctuary and urn-deposition context", "era": "Phoenician–Punic", "period": "Iron Age–Punic", "region": "Sardinia / Tharros", "structureType": "Tophet sanctuary / cremation urn field", "attributionStatus": "secure-sanctuary-context", "confidence": "Moderate–High", "signal": "Cremation urns containing human infants and very young ovicaprids define a specialized ritual-deposition context.", "observations": [ "Human infant cremations recur in the sanctuary.", "Very young sheep/goats are repeatedly associated with the ritual assemblage.", "Possible seasonal scheduling belongs to interpretation of the faunal age profile, not to human cause of death." ], "phaseModel": "No synthetic master column asserted at current project resolution.", "functionInference": "Specialized cremation/votive sanctuary.", "historicalContext": "Important Sardinian comparative control for tophet animal offerings.", "biblicalContext": "Comparative Iron Age evidence only.", "boundary": "Seasonality can indicate ritual scheduling but cannot demonstrate that a human infant was intentionally killed.", "eventIds": [], "siteIds": [ "tharros-tophet" ], "artifactIds": [], "scienceQueries": [ "Tharros ovicaprid age profile" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "tophet-mccarty-2019", "tharros-fedele-foster-1988" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 2, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 2 }, { "id": "zita-tophet-sanctuary", "title": "Zita: Neo-Punic tophet cremation and mortuary sanctuary", "era": "Neo-Punic / Roman transition", "period": "late Punic–early Roman North Africa", "region": "Tunisia / Zita", "structureType": "Tophet cremation-deposition sanctuary", "attributionStatus": "controlled-bioarchaeological-context", "confidence": "High", "signal": "Controlled excavation context preserves cremated infants/children whose osteology can be assessed independently of literary claims about sacrifice.", "observations": [ "Twelve analyzed infants/children form a controlled cremation assemblage.", "Mortuary treatment was careful and structured.", "Health stress is visible in several individuals; no concrete skeletal indication of sacrificial killing was identified." ], "phaseModel": "Bioarchaeological assemblage context; no synthetic site-wide master column asserted.", "functionInference": "Tophet mortuary/ritual sanctuary.", "historicalContext": "Critical natural-death control within the broader tophet debate.", "biblicalContext": "Comparative evidence illustrating why tophet deposition cannot automatically equal sacrificial killing.", "boundary": "The sample demonstrates compatibility with natural death; it does not prove sacrifice never occurred at Zita or elsewhere.", "eventIds": [], "siteIds": [ "zita-tophet" ], "artifactIds": [ "zita-tophet-child-assemblage" ], "scienceQueries": [ "Zita cremated infant bioarchaeology" ], "settlementIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "zita-cerezo-roman-2024" ], "phaseOverlayStatus": "exact-stratigraphy", "phaseOverlayStageCount": 2, "phaseOverlayTargetCount": 2 } ], "architectureProfilesByArtifact": { "avaris-site": [ "avaris-palatial-riverfront" ], "pi-ramesses-site": [ "pi-ramesses-royal-city" ], "hazor-late-bronze-destruction": [ "hazor-late-bronze-monumental-core" ], "khirbet-qeiyafa-ostracon": [ "khirbet-qeiyafa-fortified-plan" ], "samaria-ostraca": [ "samaria-omride-palace" ], "arad-ostraca": [ "arad-fortress-shrine" ], "broad-wall": [ "jerusalem-broad-wall" ], "hezekiah-tunnel": [ "siloam-gihon-water-system" ], "siloam-inscription": [ "siloam-gihon-water-system" ], "lachish-siege-ramp": [ "lachish-fortifications-siege-system" ], "lachish-reliefs": [ "lachish-fortifications-siege-system" ], "elephantine-papyri": [ "elephantine-yhw-temple" ], "great-isaiah-scroll": [ "qumran-built-environment" ], "biblical-dead-sea-scrolls": [ "qumran-built-environment" ], "trumpeting-place-inscription": [ "herodian-temple-mount-expansion" ], "temple-warning-inscription": [ "herodian-temple-mount-expansion" ], "siloam-pool": [ "siloam-pool-pilgrimage-street" ], "bethesda-pool": [ "bethesda-bethzatha-pool-complex" ], "pilate-inscription": [ "caesarea-herodian-harbor-palace" ], "herodian-coins": [ "caesarea-herodian-harbor-palace" ], "magdala-stone": [ "magdala-early-roman-synagogue" ], "dura-europos-christian-building": [ "dura-christian-building" ], "ekron-royal-inscription": [ "ekron-temple-complex-650" ], "tel-dan-stele": [ "tel-dan-ironii-gate-piazza" ] }, "architectureProfilesBySite": { "tel-dan": [ "tel-dan-middle-bronze-gate", "tel-dan-sacred-precinct-reassessment", "tel-dan-ironi-domestic-metallurgy", "tel-dan-ironii-gate-piazza" ], "avaris": [ "avaris-palatial-riverfront" ], "piramesse": [ "pi-ramesses-royal-city" ], "jericho": [ "jericho-middle-bronze-fortifications", "jericho-spring-hill-palatial-succession" ], "hazor": [ "hazor-late-bronze-monumental-core", "hazor-lower-city-area-h-temple-gate", "hazor-lower-city-area-k-gate" ], "khirbet-qeiyafa": [ "khirbet-qeiyafa-fortified-plan" ], "gezer": [ "gezer-iron-iia-gate-city", "gezer-stratum7-domestic-gate", "gezer-stratum6-public-city" ], "megiddo": [ "megiddo-gates-palaces", "megiddo-va-ivb-palace-gate", "megiddo-iva-horse-industry" ], "tel-moza": [ "tel-moza-temple-complex", "levantine-tripartite-temple-comparison" ], "jerusalem": [ "jerusalem-large-stepped-stone", "jerusalem-broad-wall", "siloam-gihon-water-system", "persian-jerusalem-fortification-question", "herodian-temple-mount-expansion", "siloam-pool-pilgrimage-street", "bethesda-bethzatha-pool-complex" ], "samaria": [ "samaria-omride-palace" ], "arad": [ "arad-fortress-shrine" ], "lachish": [ "lachish-fortifications-siege-system", "lachish-level-iii-gatehouse" ], "elephantine": [ "elephantine-yhw-temple" ], "qumran": [ "qumran-built-environment" ], "dura-europos": [ "dura-christian-building" ], "mount-gerizim": [ "mount-gerizim-sacred-precinct" ], "ashkelon": [ "ashkelon-north-slope-fortifications", "ashkelon-604-urban-economy" ], "tel-rehov": [ "tel-rehov-stratum-v-apiary", "tel-rehov-stratum-iv-northwest-quarter" ], "tel-miqne-ekron": [ "ekron-temple-complex-650", "ekron-field-iii-olive-oil-industry" ], "shiloh": [ "shiloh-ironi-storage-complex" ], "shechem": [ "shechem-fortress-temple-fortifications" ], "tel-eton": [ "tel-eton-building101-elite-residence" ], "beersheba": [ "beersheba-planned-iron-age-city" ], "tel-zayit": [ "tel-zayit-iron-iia-summit-building" ], "beth-shean": [ "beth-shean-egyptian-garrison-areas-n-s" ], "aphek": [ "aphek-palace-vi-egyptian-governor" ], "bethsaida": [ "bethsaida-iron-ii-gate-palace" ], "tel-kinnerot": [ "kinnerot-iron-ib-lower-town" ], "tell-beit-mirsim": [ "beit-mirsim-renewed-iron-iib-quarter" ], "kition-phoenician": [ "kition-bamboula-archaic-room-s11" ], "tyre-phoenician": [ "tyre-al-bass-phoenician-cemetery" ], "achziv-phoenician": [ "achziv-phoenician-cemeteries" ], "amman-airport-lb": [ "amman-airport-lba-three-phase-complex" ], "serabit-el-khadim": [ "serabit-hathor-mining-sanctuary" ], "carthage-tophet": [ "carthage-tophet-sanctuary-field" ], "motya-tophet": [ "motya-tophet-sanctuary-urnfield" ], "sulcis-tophet": [ "sulcis-tophet-sanctuary-landscape" ], "tharros-tophet": [ "tharros-tophet-sanctuary" ], "zita-tophet": [ "zita-tophet-sanctuary" ] }, "counts": { "profiles": 68, "sources": 80, "regions": 47, "eventLinks": 68, "siteLinks": 61, "artifactLinks": 35, "scienceQueries": 108, "settlementLinks": 15, "debatedAttributions": 18, "phaseOverlayProfiles": 66, "phaseOverlayStages": 198, "phaseOverlayTargets": 246 }, "build": "PASS89.70-ARCHITECTURE-PHASE-COMPLETION", "phaseOverlayMethod": { "title": "Architectural building biographies / phase overlays", "rule": "Only explicit source-controlled phase, horizon, formation, or local-context crosswalks are drawn. Context frameworks are labeled and are never presented as site-wide master stratigraphy; no link is inferred from calendar overlap alone.", "display": "Construction, use, modification, destruction and reuse are shown as distinct lifecycle states. One profile can have multiple local columns; a later phase never silently extends an earlier function or attribution.", "boundary": "Profiles without an exact project crosswalk retain their prose phase model and are labeled phase-model-only. This is missing granularity, not evidence of a single-phase monument." }, "phaseOverlayStageOrder": [ "construction", "use", "modification", "destruction", "reuse" ], "phaseOverlays": [ { "id": "avaris-palatial-riverfront--1", "profileId": "avaris-palatial-riverfront", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Palace-district establishment and rebuilding", "note": "The local H/I–VI column exposes successive palace-district building phases rather than a single Hyksos/New Kingdom palace.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "avaris-hi-vi", "targetId": "avaris-h-g" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "avaris-hi-vi", "targetId": "avaris-h-e2f" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "avaris-hi-vi", "targetId": "avaris-h-e12" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "avaris-hi-vi", "targetId": "avaris-h-e11" } ] }, { "id": "avaris-palatial-riverfront--2", "profileId": "avaris-palatial-riverfront", "order": 2, "stage": "use", "label": "Painted-palace phase", "note": "The painted-palace horizon is isolated as its own use phase instead of being projected across the whole Avaris sequence.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "avaris-hi-vi", "targetId": "avaris-h-d" } ] }, { "id": "avaris-palatial-riverfront--3", "profileId": "avaris-palatial-riverfront", "order": 3, "stage": "modification", "label": "Post-palace/pumice horizon", "note": "The following local phase is displayed separately so later deposits do not become part of the painted-palace fabric by default.", "confidence": "Moderate–High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "avaris-hi-vi", "targetId": "avaris-h-c" } ] }, { "id": "pi-ramesses-royal-city--1", "profileId": "pi-ramesses-royal-city", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Earlier living quarters", "note": "Area Q IV begins here as residential/occupation fabric before the later workshop and stable transformations.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "piramesse-qiv", "targetId": "piramesse-qiv-bef" } ] }, { "id": "pi-ramesses-royal-city--2", "profileId": "pi-ramesses-royal-city", "order": 2, "stage": "modification", "label": "Ramesses II workshop conversion", "note": "The same sector shifts into specialized workshop use in a later controlled phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "piramesse-qiv", "targetId": "piramesse-qiv-bcde" } ] }, { "id": "pi-ramesses-royal-city--3", "profileId": "pi-ramesses-royal-city", "order": 3, "stage": "use", "label": "Royal stable / horse-stud use", "note": "Stable architecture is kept as a distinct use horizon rather than merged with the earlier workshops.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "piramesse-qiv", "targetId": "piramesse-qiv-bbc" } ] }, { "id": "pi-ramesses-royal-city--4", "profileId": "pi-ramesses-royal-city", "order": 4, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Squatter reuse", "note": "Post-palatial reuse is shown as reuse, not as continued royal-city function.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "piramesse-qiv", "targetId": "piramesse-qiv-ba" } ] }, { "id": "pi-ramesses-royal-city--5", "profileId": "pi-ramesses-royal-city", "order": 5, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Later cemetery use", "note": "The final local land-use change is separated from Ramesside urban architecture.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "piramesse-qiv", "targetId": "piramesse-qiv-cemetery" } ] }, { "id": "jericho-middle-bronze-fortifications--1", "profileId": "jericho-middle-bronze-fortifications", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Rampart I / Curvilinear Stone Structure", "note": "The first controlled fortification horizon in Areas A/E.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "jericho-south-ae-fortifications", "targetId": "jericho-ae-ivb" } ] }, { "id": "jericho-middle-bronze-fortifications--2", "profileId": "jericho-middle-bronze-fortifications", "order": 2, "stage": "modification", "label": "Rampart II / Cyclopean Wall", "note": "A later fortification phase replaces or modifies the earlier system.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "jericho-south-ae-fortifications", "targetId": "jericho-ae-ivc" } ] }, { "id": "jericho-middle-bronze-fortifications--3", "profileId": "jericho-middle-bronze-fortifications", "order": 3, "stage": "modification", "label": "Late Bronze wall reuse", "note": "Late Bronze walling is explicitly kept separate from the Middle Bronze ramparts.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "jericho-south-ae-fortifications", "targetId": "jericho-ae-va" } ] }, { "id": "jericho-middle-bronze-fortifications--4", "profileId": "jericho-middle-bronze-fortifications", "order": 4, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Iron IB installation over earlier walling", "note": "Later reuse is shown as a new occupation relationship, not survival of an unchanged Bronze Age fortification.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "jericho-south-ae-fortifications", "targetId": "jericho-ae-via2" } ] }, { "id": "hazor-late-bronze-monumental-core--1", "profileId": "hazor-late-bronze-monumental-core", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Late Bronze palace city", "note": "The monumental core is bound to the controlled Late Bronze upper-city phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "hazor-upper-city", "targetId": "hazor-lb" } ] }, { "id": "hazor-late-bronze-monumental-core--2", "profileId": "hazor-late-bronze-monumental-core", "order": 2, "stage": "destruction", "label": "Terminal Late Bronze palace destruction", "note": "The burn/destruction horizon is a separate event row, not part of the occupation phase itself.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "hazor-upper-city", "targetId": "hazor-lb-destruction" } ] }, { "id": "hazor-late-bronze-monumental-core--3", "profileId": "hazor-late-bronze-monumental-core", "order": 3, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Iron I resettlement after conflagration", "note": "Post-destruction settlement is kept distinct from the Canaanite palace city.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "hazor-upper-city", "targetId": "hazor-post-lb-resettlement-transition" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "hazor-upper-city", "targetId": "hazor-iron-i" } ] }, { "id": "khirbet-qeiyafa-fortified-plan--1", "profileId": "khirbet-qeiyafa-fortified-plan", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Fortified Iron Age city", "note": "The coherent fortified plan belongs to the short-lived controlled city phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "qeiyafa-sequence", "targetId": "qeiyafa-iron" } ] }, { "id": "khirbet-qeiyafa-fortified-plan--2", "profileId": "khirbet-qeiyafa-fortified-plan", "order": 2, "stage": "destruction", "label": "Fortified-city destruction / abandonment", "note": "The terminal horizon is separated from the question of who founded the city.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "qeiyafa-sequence", "targetId": "qeiyafa-terminal-destruction" } ] }, { "id": "khirbet-qeiyafa-fortified-plan--3", "profileId": "khirbet-qeiyafa-fortified-plan", "order": 3, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Much later reuse", "note": "Later activity is not allowed to extend the Iron Age city biography continuously.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "qeiyafa-sequence", "targetId": "qeiyafa-later" } ] }, { "id": "gezer-iron-iia-gate-city--1", "profileId": "gezer-iron-iia-gate-city", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Stratum 8 monumental city", "note": "The six-chambered gate, casemate/glacis and administrative architecture are bound to Tandy Stratum 8.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "gezer-tandy-sequence", "targetId": "gezer-tandy-8" } ] }, { "id": "gezer-iron-iia-gate-city--2", "profileId": "gezer-iron-iia-gate-city", "order": 2, "stage": "destruction", "label": "Stratum 8 destruction", "note": "The end of the monumental phase is displayed independently from its construction and use.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "gezer-tandy-sequence", "targetId": "gezer-tandy-8-destruction" } ] }, { "id": "gezer-iron-iia-gate-city--3", "profileId": "gezer-iron-iia-gate-city", "order": 3, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Post-Stratum 8 domestic reorganization", "note": "Fortification fabric survives into a changed domestic/gate arrangement; architectural continuity is not functional or political continuity.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "gezer-tandy-sequence", "targetId": "gezer-8-to-7-reorganization" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "gezer-tandy-sequence", "targetId": "gezer-tandy-7" } ] }, { "id": "megiddo-gates-palaces--1", "profileId": "megiddo-gates-palaces", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Stratum VIA gate horizon", "note": "Gate 3165 is kept in the VIA phase rather than folded into later monumental plans.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "megiddo-iron", "targetId": "megiddo-via" } ] }, { "id": "megiddo-gates-palaces--2", "profileId": "megiddo-gates-palaces", "order": 2, "stage": "construction", "label": "VA–IVB six-chambered gate / palace horizon", "note": "The six-chambered gate construction belongs to the VA–IVB monumental phase in the current crosswalk.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "megiddo-iron", "targetId": "megiddo-six-chambered-gate-build" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "megiddo-iron", "targetId": "megiddo-va-ivb" } ] }, { "id": "megiddo-gates-palaces--3", "profileId": "megiddo-gates-palaces", "order": 3, "stage": "modification", "label": "IVA gate replacement and urban reorganization", "note": "Later gate architecture is displayed as replacement/reuse, not a single continuous “Solomonic” gate.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "megiddo-iron", "targetId": "megiddo-gate-reuse-replacement" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "megiddo-iron", "targetId": "megiddo-iva" } ] }, { "id": "megiddo-gates-palaces--4", "profileId": "megiddo-gates-palaces", "order": 4, "stage": "destruction", "label": "IVA terminal destruction", "note": "The 732 BCE terminal horizon is kept separate from the duration of the IVA city.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "megiddo-iron", "targetId": "megiddo-iva-732-destruction" } ] }, { "id": "megiddo-gates-palaces--5", "profileId": "megiddo-gates-palaces", "order": 5, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Assyrian Stratum III reorganization", "note": "Post-conquest rebuilding is a new architectural system rather than continued Northern Kingdom use.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "megiddo-iron", "targetId": "megiddo-post732-assyrian-reorganization" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "megiddo-iron", "targetId": "megiddo-iii" } ] }, { "id": "tel-moza-temple-complex--1", "profileId": "tel-moza-temple-complex", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Earliest preserved courtyard phase", "note": "The temple courtyard biography begins with the earliest controlled Iron IIA phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "tel-moza-temple-courtyard", "targetId": "moza-temple-p1" } ] }, { "id": "tel-moza-temple-complex--2", "profileId": "tel-moza-temple-complex", "order": 2, "stage": "use", "label": "Continued Iron IIA use", "note": "The second courtyard phase preserves continued cultic use.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "tel-moza-temple-courtyard", "targetId": "moza-temple-p2" } ] }, { "id": "tel-moza-temple-complex--3", "profileId": "tel-moza-temple-complex", "order": 3, "stage": "modification", "label": "Later Iron II use and modification", "note": "Later courtyard phases are displayed independently from the initial construction horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "tel-moza-temple-courtyard", "targetId": "moza-temple-p3" } ] }, { "id": "tel-moza-temple-complex--4", "profileId": "tel-moza-temple-complex", "order": 4, "stage": "use", "label": "Terminal preserved Iron II use", "note": "The latest preserved temple-courtyard phase is kept distinct from the earlier phases.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "tel-moza-temple-courtyard", "targetId": "moza-temple-p4" } ] }, { "id": "jerusalem-large-stepped-stone--1", "profileId": "jerusalem-large-stepped-stone", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Iron IIA monumental-building horizon", "note": "The earliest controlled summit monument phase is linked without deciding the building’s royal attribution.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "jerusalem-city-david-summit", "targetId": "jer-summit-iron-iia-monumental" } ] }, { "id": "jerusalem-large-stepped-stone--2", "profileId": "jerusalem-large-stepped-stone", "order": 2, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Later Iron II occupation and reuse", "note": "Later occupation and additions are separated from the initial monument horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "jerusalem-city-david-summit", "targetId": "jer-summit-late-iron-use" } ] }, { "id": "jerusalem-large-stepped-stone--3", "profileId": "jerusalem-large-stepped-stone", "order": 3, "stage": "destruction", "label": "586 BCE summit destruction/collapse", "note": "The terminal collapse is linked without using it to settle the monument’s original function.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "jerusalem-city-david-summit", "targetId": "jerusalem-summit-586" } ] }, { "id": "samaria-omride-palace--1", "profileId": "samaria-omride-palace", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Early royal-acropolis construction", "note": "Building Period I is treated as the first controlled palace/acropolis phase in the local sequence.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "samaria-acropolis", "targetId": "samaria-bp-i" } ] }, { "id": "samaria-omride-palace--2", "profileId": "samaria-omride-palace", "order": 2, "stage": "use", "label": "Successive Israelite royal-acropolis phases", "note": "Later Israelite building periods are kept as a sequence rather than one undifferentiated Omride palace.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "samaria-acropolis", "targetId": "samaria-bp-ii" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "samaria-acropolis", "targetId": "samaria-bp-iii" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "samaria-acropolis", "targetId": "samaria-bp-iv" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "samaria-acropolis", "targetId": "samaria-bp-v" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "samaria-acropolis", "targetId": "samaria-bp-vi" } ] }, { "id": "samaria-omride-palace--3", "profileId": "samaria-omride-palace", "order": 3, "stage": "modification", "label": "Repair and masonry reuse", "note": "Building Period III repair/reuse is explicitly modeled as a modification process.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "samaria-acropolis", "targetId": "samaria-bpiii-repair-reuse" } ] }, { "id": "samaria-omride-palace--4", "profileId": "samaria-omride-palace", "order": 4, "stage": "destruction", "label": "Assyrian conquest-era transition", "note": "The conquest/burn horizon is separated from both the earlier palace phases and later provincial occupation.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "samaria-acropolis", "targetId": "samaria-assyrian-conquest-horizon" } ] }, { "id": "samaria-omride-palace--5", "profileId": "samaria-omride-palace", "order": 5, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Provincial and later rebuilding", "note": "Assyrian/post-Assyrian occupation and later cutting/reuse are shown as later biographies of the acropolis fabric.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "samaria-acropolis", "targetId": "samaria-assyrian-provincial" }, { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "samaria-acropolis", "targetId": "samaria-later-cutting-reuse" } ] }, { "id": "tel-dan-sacred-precinct-reassessment--1", "profileId": "tel-dan-sacred-precinct-reassessment", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Pre-Yellow-Floor / early Iron II precinct horizon", "note": "The earlier Area T phase is kept separate from the better-known later sacred phases.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "tel-dan-area-t-ironii", "targetId": "dan-t-iva" } ] }, { "id": "tel-dan-sacred-precinct-reassessment--2", "profileId": "tel-dan-sacred-precinct-reassessment", "order": 2, "stage": "use", "label": "Yellow Floor sacred phase", "note": "The ninth-century sacred phase is shown as its own controlled architectural horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "tel-dan-area-t-ironii", "targetId": "dan-t-iii" } ] }, { "id": "tel-dan-sacred-precinct-reassessment--3", "profileId": "tel-dan-sacred-precinct-reassessment", "order": 3, "stage": "modification", "label": "Eighth-century sacred phase", "note": "Later Iron II sacred architecture is separated from the preceding phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "tel-dan-area-t-ironii", "targetId": "dan-t-ii" } ] }, { "id": "tel-dan-sacred-precinct-reassessment--4", "profileId": "tel-dan-sacred-precinct-reassessment", "order": 4, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Persian–Hellenistic–Roman sacred-precinct reuse", "note": "Visible later sacred architecture is explicitly prevented from being back-projected into Iron Age Dan.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "tel-dan-iron-later", "targetId": "dan-later-sacred" } ] }, { "id": "arad-fortress-shrine--1", "profileId": "arad-fortress-shrine", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "First Judahite fortress", "note": "The first fortress is shown as a discrete construction horizon after earlier mound occupation.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "arad-fortress", "targetId": "arad-xi" } ] }, { "id": "arad-fortress-shrine--2", "profileId": "arad-fortress-shrine", "order": 2, "stage": "use", "label": "Fortress and shrine phase", "note": "The shrine belongs to a particular fortress phase rather than to the entire life of the mound.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "arad-fortress", "targetId": "arad-x" } ] }, { "id": "arad-fortress-shrine--3", "profileId": "arad-fortress-shrine", "order": 3, "stage": "modification", "label": "Terminal shrine phase and decommissioning", "note": "The final shrine horizon and its deliberate closure are shown separately.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "arad-fortress", "targetId": "arad-ix" }, { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "arad-fortress", "targetId": "arad-shrine-decommissioning" } ] }, { "id": "arad-fortress-shrine--4", "profileId": "arad-fortress-shrine", "order": 4, "stage": "destruction", "label": "Late-eighth-century fortress destruction", "note": "The Stratum VIII destruction is a later fortress event after shrine closure.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "arad-fortress", "targetId": "arad-viii" }, { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "arad-fortress", "targetId": "arad-viii-destruction-701" } ] }, { "id": "arad-fortress-shrine--5", "profileId": "arad-fortress-shrine", "order": 5, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Successive seventh–sixth-century fortress rebuilding", "note": "Later fortress phases are displayed as rebuilding/reuse rather than continuity of one static fortress.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "arad-fortress", "targetId": "arad-vii" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "arad-fortress", "targetId": "arad-vi" }, { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "arad-fortress", "targetId": "arad-successive-fortress-rebuilds" } ] }, { "id": "arad-fortress-shrine--6", "profileId": "arad-fortress-shrine", "order": 6, "stage": "destruction", "label": "Terminal Judahite fortress destruction", "note": "The final Judahite fortress ends in its own early-sixth-century destruction horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "arad-fortress", "targetId": "arad-fortress-terminal-586" } ] }, { "id": "jerusalem-broad-wall--1", "profileId": "jerusalem-broad-wall", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Late-eighth-century western-hill fortification", "note": "The Broad Wall is bound to the controlled Iron IIB western-hill expansion horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "jerusalem-western-hill-broad-wall", "targetId": "jer-western-hill-iron-iib-fortification" } ] }, { "id": "siloam-gihon-water-system--1", "profileId": "siloam-gihon-water-system", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Tunnel cutting, plastering and inscription horizon", "note": "The late-eighth-century tunnel event is linked to its controlled phase without collapsing earlier Gihon water systems into it.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "jerusalem-siloam-tunnel", "targetId": "jer-siloam-tunnel-iron-iib" } ] }, { "id": "lachish-fortifications-siege-system--1", "profileId": "lachish-fortifications-siege-system", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Level III fortified gate city", "note": "The gate and defensive architecture are represented in their pre-siege Level III occupation.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "lachish-gate-complex", "targetId": "lachish-gate-iii" } ] }, { "id": "lachish-fortifications-siege-system--2", "profileId": "lachish-fortifications-siege-system", "order": 2, "stage": "destruction", "label": "701 BCE gate destruction", "note": "Siege/destruction is a point horizon, not the entire life of the fortification.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "lachish-gate-complex", "targetId": "lachish-gate-iii-701" } ] }, { "id": "lachish-fortifications-siege-system--3", "profileId": "lachish-fortifications-siege-system", "order": 3, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Level II rebuilt gate complex", "note": "The later Judahite gate is explicitly separated from the Level III architecture.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "lachish-gate-complex", "targetId": "lachish-gate-ii" } ] }, { "id": "lachish-fortifications-siege-system--4", "profileId": "lachish-fortifications-siege-system", "order": 4, "stage": "destruction", "label": "586 BCE terminal gate destruction", "note": "The Level II terminal destruction is a second, independent architectural endpoint.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "lachish-gate-complex", "targetId": "lachish-gate-ii-586" } ] }, { "id": "persian-jerusalem-fortification-question--1", "profileId": "persian-jerusalem-fortification-question", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Restricted Persian-period Area E remains", "note": "The current project has controlled Persian-period remains in Area E, but the overlay does not promote them into a securely identified city-wall system.", "confidence": "Moderate", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "jerusalem-city-david-area-e", "targetId": "jer-area-e-persian" } ] }, { "id": "elephantine-yhw-temple--1", "profileId": "elephantine-yhw-temple", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "YHW temple / Judean precinct in use", "note": "The temple’s Persian-period use is represented as a duration phase before the documented destruction.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "elephantine-yhw-precinct", "targetId": "elephantine-yhw-use" } ] }, { "id": "elephantine-yhw-temple--2", "profileId": "elephantine-yhw-temple", "order": 2, "stage": "destruction", "label": "410 BCE temple destruction", "note": "The historically documented destruction is kept as its own event horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "elephantine-yhw-precinct", "targetId": "elephantine-yhw-410" } ] }, { "id": "elephantine-yhw-temple--3", "profileId": "elephantine-yhw-temple", "order": 3, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Post-410 rebuilding / reconfigured use", "note": "Post-destruction rebuilding evidence is separated from uninterrupted temple continuity.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "elephantine-yhw-precinct", "targetId": "elephantine-post410-rebuild-process" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "elephantine-yhw-precinct", "targetId": "elephantine-yhw-post410" } ] }, { "id": "qumran-built-environment--1", "profileId": "qumran-built-environment", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Hasmonean establishment / development", "note": "The earliest controlled settlement phase is shown separately from Herodian rebuilding.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "qumran-periods", "targetId": "qumran-hasmonean" } ] }, { "id": "qumran-built-environment--2", "profileId": "qumran-built-environment", "order": 2, "stage": "destruction", "label": "31 BCE earthquake damage", "note": "Damage is modeled as a seismic horizon rather than a permanent abandonment event.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "qumran-periods", "targetId": "qumran-earthquake-31" } ] }, { "id": "qumran-built-environment--3", "profileId": "qumran-built-environment", "order": 3, "stage": "modification", "label": "Herodian / Early Roman rebuilding and occupation", "note": "Post-earthquake rebuilding/use is a separate phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "qumran-periods", "targetId": "qumran-herodian" } ] }, { "id": "qumran-built-environment--4", "profileId": "qumran-built-environment", "order": 4, "stage": "destruction", "label": "68 CE final destruction / abandonment", "note": "The settlement’s terminal horizon is kept independent from the earlier earthquake.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "qumran-periods", "targetId": "qumran-terminal-68" } ] }, { "id": "herodian-temple-mount-expansion--1", "profileId": "herodian-temple-mount-expansion", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Herodian / Early Roman monumental precinct", "note": "The southwest precinct and street are bound to the controlled Early Roman monumental phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "jerusalem-temple-mount-southwest", "targetId": "jer-tm-sw-early-roman" } ] }, { "id": "herodian-temple-mount-expansion--2", "profileId": "herodian-temple-mount-expansion", "order": 2, "stage": "destruction", "label": "70 CE architectural collapse", "note": "The destruction/collapse horizon is displayed separately from the decades-long monumental program.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "jerusalem-temple-mount-southwest", "targetId": "jerusalem-temple-sw-70" }, { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "jerusalem-temple-mount-southwest", "targetId": "jer-tm-sw-70-architectural-fall" } ] }, { "id": "dura-christian-building--1", "profileId": "dura-christian-building", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Domestic precursor", "note": "The building begins as a domestic structure before Christian adaptation.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "dura-christian-building", "targetId": "dura-ch-domestic" } ] }, { "id": "dura-christian-building--2", "profileId": "dura-christian-building", "order": 2, "stage": "modification", "label": "Christian community-building adaptation", "note": "The baptistery/community adaptation is a later functional and architectural transformation.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "dura-christian-building", "targetId": "dura-ch-adapted" } ] }, { "id": "dura-christian-building--3", "profileId": "dura-christian-building", "order": 3, "stage": "destruction", "label": "256 CE defensive burial / terminal abandonment", "note": "The terminal horizon is siege-related burial and abandonment, not a generic burn layer.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "dura-christian-building", "targetId": "dura-ch-256" } ] }, { "id": "mount-gerizim-sacred-precinct--1", "profileId": "mount-gerizim-sacred-precinct", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Persian-period sacred precinct", "note": "The earliest controlled precinct is separated from the monumental Hellenistic complex.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "mount-gerizim-sacred-precinct", "targetId": "gerizim-persian-precinct" } ] }, { "id": "mount-gerizim-sacred-precinct--2", "profileId": "mount-gerizim-sacred-precinct", "order": 2, "stage": "modification", "label": "Hellenistic monumental enlargement", "note": "The later sanctuary expansion is modeled as a transformation of the earlier precinct.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "mount-gerizim-sacred-precinct", "targetId": "gerizim-hellenistic-rebuild" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "mount-gerizim-sacred-precinct", "targetId": "gerizim-hellenistic-expansion" } ] }, { "id": "mount-gerizim-sacred-precinct--3", "profileId": "mount-gerizim-sacred-precinct", "order": 3, "stage": "destruction", "label": "Hasmonean destruction", "note": "The terminal Hellenistic destruction is kept centuries apart from the sanctuary’s foundation.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "mount-gerizim-sacred-precinct", "targetId": "gerizim-hyrcanus-destruction" } ] }, { "id": "ashkelon-north-slope-fortifications--1", "profileId": "ashkelon-north-slope-fortifications", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Gate 1", "note": "Each North Slope gate/rampart horizon is displayed as its own local architectural phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "ashkelon-grid2-mb", "targetId": "ashkelon-g2-p14" } ] }, { "id": "ashkelon-north-slope-fortifications--2", "profileId": "ashkelon-north-slope-fortifications", "order": 2, "stage": "modification", "label": "Gate 2", "note": "Each North Slope gate/rampart horizon is displayed as its own local architectural phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "ashkelon-grid2-mb", "targetId": "ashkelon-g2-p13" } ] }, { "id": "ashkelon-north-slope-fortifications--3", "profileId": "ashkelon-north-slope-fortifications", "order": 3, "stage": "modification", "label": "Gate 3", "note": "Each North Slope gate/rampart horizon is displayed as its own local architectural phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "ashkelon-grid2-mb", "targetId": "ashkelon-g2-p12" } ] }, { "id": "ashkelon-north-slope-fortifications--4", "profileId": "ashkelon-north-slope-fortifications", "order": 4, "stage": "modification", "label": "Gate 4 / sanctuary phase", "note": "Each North Slope gate/rampart horizon is displayed as its own local architectural phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "ashkelon-grid2-mb", "targetId": "ashkelon-g2-p11" } ] }, { "id": "ashkelon-north-slope-fortifications--5", "profileId": "ashkelon-north-slope-fortifications", "order": 5, "stage": "use", "label": "Final Middle Bronze rampart", "note": "Each North Slope gate/rampart horizon is displayed as its own local architectural phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "ashkelon-grid2-mb", "targetId": "ashkelon-g2-p10" } ] }, { "id": "ashkelon-604-urban-economy--1", "profileId": "ashkelon-604-urban-economy", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Grid 38 winery occupation", "note": "The winery sector is retained as its own local terminal seventh-century phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "ashkelon-grid38-604", "targetId": "ashkelon-g38-p14-604" } ] }, { "id": "ashkelon-604-urban-economy--2", "profileId": "ashkelon-604-urban-economy", "order": 2, "stage": "use", "label": "Grid 50 marketplace occupation", "note": "The marketplace is a separate local column synchronized only at the terminal horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "ashkelon-grid50-604", "targetId": "ashkelon-g50-p7-604" } ] }, { "id": "ashkelon-604-urban-economy--3", "profileId": "ashkelon-604-urban-economy", "order": 3, "stage": "destruction", "label": "604 BCE synchronized destruction", "note": "Both local destruction horizons are shown together without collapsing the two excavation areas into one stratum.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "ashkelon-grid38-604", "targetId": "ashkelon-g38-604-destruction" }, { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "ashkelon-grid50-604", "targetId": "ashkelon-g50-604-destruction" } ] }, { "id": "jericho-spring-hill-palatial-succession--1", "profileId": "jericho-spring-hill-palatial-succession", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Sultan IVb palace", "note": "The earliest Spring Hill palace phase is isolated as the beginning of the local building biography.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "jericho-area-gh-spring-hill", "targetId": "jericho-gh-ivb" } ] }, { "id": "jericho-spring-hill-palatial-succession--2", "profileId": "jericho-spring-hill-palatial-succession", "order": 2, "stage": "modification", "label": "Sultan IVc reconstructed palace", "note": "The reconstructed “Hyksos Palace” is a later local architectural phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "jericho-area-gh-spring-hill", "targetId": "jericho-gh-ivc" } ] }, { "id": "jericho-spring-hill-palatial-succession--3", "profileId": "jericho-spring-hill-palatial-succession", "order": 3, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Late Bronze Middle Building horizon", "note": "Late Bronze rooms reuse earlier fabric but are not treated as the same palace phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "jericho-area-gh-spring-hill", "targetId": "jericho-gh-va" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "jericho-area-gh-spring-hill", "targetId": "jericho-gh-vb" } ] }, { "id": "jericho-spring-hill-palatial-succession--4", "profileId": "jericho-spring-hill-palatial-succession", "order": 4, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Iron IB domestic occupation", "note": "Iron IB houses over earlier walling are displayed as later reuse.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "jericho-area-gh-spring-hill", "targetId": "jericho-gh-via2" } ] }, { "id": "hazor-lower-city-area-h-temple-gate--1", "profileId": "hazor-lower-city-area-h-temple-gate", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Stratum 2 propylaeum/gate construction", "note": "Two construction phases in the local gate approach are retained as a controlled formation process.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "hazor-lower-city-h", "targetId": "hazor-lower-h-2" }, { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "hazor-lower-city-h", "targetId": "hazor-h2-two-builds" } ] }, { "id": "hazor-lower-city-area-h-temple-gate--2", "profileId": "hazor-lower-city-area-h-temple-gate", "order": 2, "stage": "modification", "label": "Stratum 1B drainage and depositional activity", "note": "Drainage/ritual activity is shown as a later modification/use horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "hazor-lower-city-h", "targetId": "hazor-lower-h-1b" }, { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "hazor-lower-city-h", "targetId": "hazor-h1b-drainage-deposits" } ] }, { "id": "hazor-lower-city-area-h-temple-gate--3", "profileId": "hazor-lower-city-area-h-temple-gate", "order": 3, "stage": "use", "label": "Stratum 1A later floors / reduced architecture", "note": "The latest Area H phase is kept separate from the earlier monumental gate approach.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "hazor-lower-city-h", "targetId": "hazor-lower-h-1a" } ] }, { "id": "hazor-lower-city-area-k-gate--1", "profileId": "hazor-lower-city-area-k-gate", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Middle Bronze gate occupation", "note": "The earliest local gate occupation is a distinct phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "hazor-lower-city-k-gate", "targetId": "hazor-k-3" } ] }, { "id": "hazor-lower-city-area-k-gate--2", "profileId": "hazor-lower-city-area-k-gate", "order": 2, "stage": "modification", "label": "Late Bronze I gate continuity", "note": "The Strata 3→2 transition is modeled as continuity/modification rather than an invented destruction.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "hazor-lower-city-k-gate", "targetId": "hazor-k-3-to-2-continuity" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "hazor-lower-city-k-gate", "targetId": "hazor-k-2" } ] }, { "id": "hazor-lower-city-area-k-gate--3", "profileId": "hazor-lower-city-area-k-gate", "order": 3, "stage": "use", "label": "Final gate-use horizon", "note": "Stratum 1B contains the final controlled gate sequence before collapse.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "hazor-lower-city-k-gate", "targetId": "hazor-k-1b" } ] }, { "id": "hazor-lower-city-area-k-gate--4", "profileId": "hazor-lower-city-area-k-gate", "order": 4, "stage": "destruction", "label": "Fiery gate collapse", "note": "The collapse is a discrete destruction horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "hazor-lower-city-k-gate", "targetId": "hazor-k-1b-fire-collapse" } ] }, { "id": "hazor-lower-city-area-k-gate--5", "profileId": "hazor-lower-city-area-k-gate", "order": 5, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Post-collapse disuse / minimal activity", "note": "The post-fire formation row records disuse rather than forcing immediate rebuilding.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "hazor-lower-city-k-gate", "targetId": "hazor-k-postfire-disuse" } ] }, { "id": "megiddo-va-ivb-palace-gate--1", "profileId": "megiddo-va-ivb-palace-gate", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "VA–IVB gate construction", "note": "Gate 2156 and the monumental VA–IVB horizon are linked to the controlled site-wide phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "megiddo-iron", "targetId": "megiddo-six-chambered-gate-build" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "megiddo-iron", "targetId": "megiddo-va-ivb" } ] }, { "id": "megiddo-iva-horse-industry--1", "profileId": "megiddo-iva-horse-industry", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Stratum IVA monumental city", "note": "Stable/administrative/water-system architecture belongs to the controlled IVA phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "megiddo-iron", "targetId": "megiddo-iva" } ] }, { "id": "megiddo-iva-horse-industry--2", "profileId": "megiddo-iva-horse-industry", "order": 2, "stage": "destruction", "label": "732 BCE terminal destruction", "note": "The end of the IVA city is shown as a point destruction horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "megiddo-iron", "targetId": "megiddo-iva-732-destruction" } ] }, { "id": "megiddo-iva-horse-industry--3", "profileId": "megiddo-iva-horse-industry", "order": 3, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Post-732 Assyrian reorganization", "note": "Post-conquest rebuilding is a new urban system.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "megiddo-iron", "targetId": "megiddo-post732-assyrian-reorganization" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "megiddo-iron", "targetId": "megiddo-iii" } ] }, { "id": "lachish-level-iii-gatehouse--1", "profileId": "lachish-level-iii-gatehouse", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Level III inner gate complex", "note": "The gatehouse is bound directly to its controlled Level III phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "lachish-gate-complex", "targetId": "lachish-gate-iii" } ] }, { "id": "lachish-level-iii-gatehouse--2", "profileId": "lachish-level-iii-gatehouse", "order": 2, "stage": "destruction", "label": "701 BCE gate destruction", "note": "The gate’s terminal horizon is shown separately from debates about one chamber’s function.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "lachish-gate-complex", "targetId": "lachish-gate-iii-701" } ] }, { "id": "gezer-stratum7-domestic-gate--1", "profileId": "gezer-stratum7-domestic-gate", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Post-Stratum 8 domestic reorganization", "note": "Construction of the domestic/gate arrangement is represented by the explicit reorganization process.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "gezer-tandy-sequence", "targetId": "gezer-8-to-7-reorganization" } ] }, { "id": "gezer-stratum7-domestic-gate--2", "profileId": "gezer-stratum7-domestic-gate", "order": 2, "stage": "use", "label": "Stratum 7 domestic/gate phase", "note": "The reused fortification fabric and domestic units belong to the controlled Stratum 7 phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "gezer-tandy-sequence", "targetId": "gezer-tandy-7" } ] }, { "id": "gezer-stratum7-domestic-gate--3", "profileId": "gezer-stratum7-domestic-gate", "order": 3, "stage": "destruction", "label": "Stratum 7 destruction", "note": "The domestic quarter ends in a separate destruction horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "gezer-tandy-sequence", "targetId": "gezer-tandy-7-destruction" } ] }, { "id": "gezer-stratum6-public-city--1", "profileId": "gezer-stratum6-public-city", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Iron IIB public-city phase", "note": "Public and domestic architecture is bound to Tandy Stratum 6.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "gezer-tandy-sequence", "targetId": "gezer-tandy-6" } ] }, { "id": "gezer-stratum6-public-city--2", "profileId": "gezer-stratum6-public-city", "order": 2, "stage": "destruction", "label": "Stratum 6 fire destruction", "note": "The phase ends in its own fire horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "gezer-tandy-sequence", "targetId": "gezer-tandy-6-destruction" } ] }, { "id": "tel-rehov-stratum-v-apiary--1", "profileId": "tel-rehov-stratum-v-apiary", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Area C C1b / Stratum V apiary use", "note": "The apiary is bound to the controlled C1b phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "tel-rehov-area-c", "targetId": "rehov-c1b" } ] }, { "id": "tel-rehov-stratum-v-apiary--2", "profileId": "tel-rehov-stratum-v-apiary", "order": 2, "stage": "destruction", "label": "Stratum V destroyed-building horizon", "note": "The apiary phase ends in a controlled destruction horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "tel-rehov-area-c", "targetId": "rehov-c1b-destruction" } ] }, { "id": "tel-rehov-stratum-v-apiary--3", "profileId": "tel-rehov-stratum-v-apiary", "order": 3, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Clearance/sealing by Stratum IV construction", "note": "The transition into the later quarter is modeled as a formation/reuse process.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "tel-rehov-area-c", "targetId": "rehov-c-v-collapse-sealed" } ] }, { "id": "tel-rehov-stratum-iv-northwest-quarter--1", "profileId": "tel-rehov-stratum-iv-northwest-quarter", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Area C C1a / Stratum IV quarter", "note": "The planned final lower-city quarter is bound to the C1a phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "tel-rehov-area-c", "targetId": "rehov-c1a" } ] }, { "id": "tel-rehov-stratum-iv-northwest-quarter--2", "profileId": "tel-rehov-stratum-iv-northwest-quarter", "order": 2, "stage": "destruction", "label": "Terminal severe fire", "note": "The final lower-city fire is isolated from the duration of the quarter.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "tel-rehov-area-c", "targetId": "rehov-c1a-terminal-destruction" }, { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "tel-rehov-area-c", "targetId": "rehov-c-stratum-iv-terminal-fire" } ] }, { "id": "ekron-temple-complex-650--1", "profileId": "ekron-temple-complex-650", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Temple Complex 650 / Stratum IB", "note": "The monumental cult/public building is bound to its active final Iron Age phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "ekron-field-iv-upper-iic", "targetId": "ekron-fivu-ib" } ] }, { "id": "ekron-temple-complex-650--2", "profileId": "ekron-temple-complex-650", "order": 2, "stage": "destruction", "label": "604 BCE destruction", "note": "The terminal destruction is a separate horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "ekron-field-iv-upper-iic", "targetId": "ekron-fivu-604-destruction" } ] }, { "id": "ekron-temple-complex-650--3", "profileId": "ekron-temple-complex-650", "order": 3, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Post-604 Building 850 reuse", "note": "Later reuse of walls is explicitly not treated as continuation of Temple Complex 650.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "ekron-field-iv-upper-iic", "targetId": "ekron-fivu-post604-wall-reuse" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "ekron-field-iv-upper-iic", "targetId": "ekron-fivu-post604-reuse" } ] }, { "id": "ekron-field-iii-olive-oil-industry--1", "profileId": "ekron-field-iii-olive-oil-industry", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Stratum IC industrial expansion", "note": "The industrial quarter’s expansion is separated from its later mature phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "ekron-field-iii-industrial", "targetId": "ekron-fiii-ic" } ] }, { "id": "ekron-field-iii-olive-oil-industry--2", "profileId": "ekron-field-iii-olive-oil-industry", "order": 2, "stage": "use", "label": "Stratum IB mature olive-oil industry", "note": "The mature standardized production horizon is its own controlled phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "ekron-field-iii-industrial", "targetId": "ekron-fiii-ib" } ] }, { "id": "ekron-field-iii-olive-oil-industry--3", "profileId": "ekron-field-iii-olive-oil-industry", "order": 3, "stage": "destruction", "label": "604 BCE industrial-zone destruction", "note": "The industrial system terminates in a separate destruction horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "ekron-field-iii-industrial", "targetId": "ekron-fiii-604-destruction" } ] }, { "id": "tel-dan-ironi-domestic-metallurgy--1", "profileId": "tel-dan-ironi-domestic-metallurgy", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Stratum VI early Iron I occupation", "note": "Early domestic/activity architecture is kept apart from later dense Stratum V settlement.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "tel-dan-area-b-ironi", "targetId": "dan-b-vi" } ] }, { "id": "tel-dan-ironi-domestic-metallurgy--2", "profileId": "tel-dan-ironi-domestic-metallurgy", "order": 2, "stage": "use", "label": "Stratum V dense settlement / metalworking", "note": "The main Iron I domestic and metallurgical horizon is explicitly phase-linked.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "tel-dan-area-b-ironi", "targetId": "dan-b-v" } ] }, { "id": "tel-dan-ironi-domestic-metallurgy--3", "profileId": "tel-dan-ironi-domestic-metallurgy", "order": 3, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Stratum IVB rebuilding", "note": "Later rebuilding is shown as a new horizon rather than back-projecting Iron II monumentality into Stratum V.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "tel-dan-area-b-ironi", "targetId": "dan-b-ivb" } ] }, { "id": "tel-dan-ironii-gate-piazza--1", "profileId": "tel-dan-ironii-gate-piazza", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Mid-ninth-century outer gate / piazza", "note": "The gate/piazza biography starts with the controlled mid-ninth-century phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "tel-dan-gate-stele-reuse", "targetId": "dan-gate-mid9" } ] }, { "id": "tel-dan-ironii-gate-piazza--2", "profileId": "tel-dan-ironii-gate-piazza", "order": 2, "stage": "modification", "label": "Late ninth–early eighth-century rebuilding and stele reuse", "note": "Rebuilding/paving and secondary inscription reuse are treated as a later transformation.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "tel-dan-gate-stele-reuse", "targetId": "dan-gate-late9-early8" }, { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "tel-dan-gate-stele-reuse", "targetId": "dan-stele-secondary-reuse-process" } ] }, { "id": "tel-dan-ironii-gate-piazza--3", "profileId": "tel-dan-ironii-gate-piazza", "order": 3, "stage": "use", "label": "Later eighth-century gate-city occupation", "note": "The rebuilt gate system remains in use before terminal conquest.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "tel-dan-gate-stele-reuse", "targetId": "dan-gate-pre732" } ] }, { "id": "tel-dan-ironii-gate-piazza--4", "profileId": "tel-dan-ironii-gate-piazza", "order": 4, "stage": "destruction", "label": "Terminal eighth-century destruction", "note": "The sealing destruction constrains the reused stele fragments but does not date their original carving.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "tel-dan-gate-stele-reuse", "targetId": "dan-gate-732-destruction" } ] }, { "id": "shiloh-ironi-storage-complex--1", "profileId": "shiloh-ironi-storage-complex", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Iron I storage/occupation phase", "note": "The storage complex is bound to the site’s controlled Iron I occupation.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "shiloh-bronze-iron", "targetId": "shiloh-iron-i" } ] }, { "id": "shiloh-ironi-storage-complex--2", "profileId": "shiloh-ironi-storage-complex", "order": 2, "stage": "destruction", "label": "Late Iron I destruction", "note": "The terminal horizon is a separate event from the storage buildings’ use-life.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "shiloh-bronze-iron", "targetId": "shiloh-iron-i-destruction" } ] }, { "id": "shiloh-ironi-storage-complex--3", "profileId": "shiloh-ironi-storage-complex", "order": 3, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Post-destruction hiatus and later reuse", "note": "Abandonment/hiatus and later activity are not merged with the Iron I storage system.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "shiloh-bronze-iron", "targetId": "shiloh-post-iron-i-hiatus" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "shiloh-bronze-iron", "targetId": "shiloh-later" } ] }, { "id": "shechem-fortress-temple-fortifications--1", "profileId": "shechem-fortress-temple-fortifications", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Middle Bronze monumental urban sequence", "note": "Selected Middle Bronze strata are exposed as successive controlled horizons rather than one “fortress temple period.”", "confidence": "Moderate–High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "shechem-general-strata", "targetId": "shechem-xxii" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "shechem-general-strata", "targetId": "shechem-xxi" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "shechem-general-strata", "targetId": "shechem-xx" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "shechem-general-strata", "targetId": "shechem-xix" } ] }, { "id": "shechem-fortress-temple-fortifications--2", "profileId": "shechem-fortress-temple-fortifications", "order": 2, "stage": "modification", "label": "Later Middle Bronze rebuilding / reuse", "note": "The later Middle Bronze acropolis and fortification stages remain a sequence of rebuilds.", "confidence": "Moderate–High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "shechem-general-strata", "targetId": "shechem-xviii" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "shechem-general-strata", "targetId": "shechem-xvii" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "shechem-general-strata", "targetId": "shechem-xvi" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "shechem-general-strata", "targetId": "shechem-xv" } ] }, { "id": "shechem-fortress-temple-fortifications--3", "profileId": "shechem-fortress-temple-fortifications", "order": 3, "stage": "destruction", "label": "Terminal Middle Bronze destruction", "note": "The end of the monumental Middle Bronze city is separated from the life of the preceding structures.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "shechem-general-strata", "targetId": "shechem-xv-1550" } ] }, { "id": "tel-eton-building101-elite-residence--1", "profileId": "tel-eton-building101-elite-residence", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Building 101 construction / long-use phase", "note": "The controlled biography keeps initial construction and the long occupation together where the current project phase cannot resolve them further.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "tel-eton-building101", "targetId": "eton-b101-use" } ] }, { "id": "tel-eton-building101-elite-residence--2", "profileId": "tel-eton-building101-elite-residence", "order": 2, "stage": "destruction", "label": "701 BCE building destruction", "note": "The final floors and destruction do not automatically date the original construction.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "tel-eton-building101", "targetId": "eton-b101-destruction" } ] }, { "id": "tel-eton-building101-elite-residence--3", "profileId": "tel-eton-building101-elite-residence", "order": 3, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Immediate post-destruction reoccupation", "note": "Area A preserves a short later reoccupation that is separate from Building 101’s main biography.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "tel-eton-area-a", "targetId": "eton-a3" } ] }, { "id": "beersheba-planned-iron-age-city--1", "profileId": "beersheba-planned-iron-age-city", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Stratum II fortified city", "note": "The best-preserved planned city phase is bound to the controlled late-eighth-century stratum.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "beersheba-701-anchor", "targetId": "beersheba-stratum-ii" } ] }, { "id": "beersheba-planned-iron-age-city--2", "profileId": "beersheba-planned-iron-age-city", "order": 2, "stage": "destruction", "label": "701 BCE candidate destruction", "note": "The terminal city horizon is displayed as a destruction event rather than the construction date.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "beersheba-701-anchor", "targetId": "beersheba-701-destruction" } ] }, { "id": "beersheba-planned-iron-age-city--3", "profileId": "beersheba-planned-iron-age-city", "order": 3, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Post-destruction squatter/reuse horizon", "note": "Later reuse is separated from the planned fortified city.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "beersheba-701-anchor", "targetId": "beersheba-stratum-i" } ] }, { "id": "tel-zayit-iron-iia-summit-building--1", "profileId": "tel-zayit-iron-iia-summit-building", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Level XI summit occupation", "note": "The architecture and abecedary context are bound to the controlled Level XI occupation.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "tel-zayit-xi-701-anchor", "targetId": "zayit-xi" } ] }, { "id": "tel-zayit-iron-iia-summit-building--2", "profileId": "tel-zayit-iron-iia-summit-building", "order": 2, "stage": "destruction", "label": "Level XI conflagration", "note": "The destructive end of the phase is kept independent from its construction date.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "tel-zayit-xi-701-anchor", "targetId": "zayit-xi-701-destruction" } ] }, { "id": "beth-shean-egyptian-garrison-areas-n-s--1", "profileId": "beth-shean-egyptian-garrison-areas-n-s", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Area N garrison-town phases", "note": "Area N phases are shown in their own column and are not silently merged with Area S.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "beth-shean-area-n", "targetId": "beth-shean-n5" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "beth-shean-area-n", "targetId": "beth-shean-n4" } ] }, { "id": "beth-shean-egyptian-garrison-areas-n-s--2", "profileId": "beth-shean-egyptian-garrison-areas-n-s", "order": 2, "stage": "destruction", "label": "Area N heavy-fire horizon", "note": "The Area N destruction is a local horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "beth-shean-area-n", "targetId": "beth-shean-n4-fire" } ] }, { "id": "beth-shean-egyptian-garrison-areas-n-s--3", "profileId": "beth-shean-egyptian-garrison-areas-n-s", "order": 3, "stage": "use", "label": "Area S garrison-town phases", "note": "Area S remains an independent local sequence.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "beth-shean-area-s", "targetId": "beth-shean-s4" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "beth-shean-area-s", "targetId": "beth-shean-s3b" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "beth-shean-area-s", "targetId": "beth-shean-s3a" } ] }, { "id": "beth-shean-egyptian-garrison-areas-n-s--4", "profileId": "beth-shean-egyptian-garrison-areas-n-s", "order": 4, "stage": "destruction", "label": "Area S severe-fire horizon", "note": "The Area S fire is not forced into the same event as the Area N destruction.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "beth-shean-area-s", "targetId": "beth-shean-s3a-fire" } ] }, { "id": "aphek-palace-vi-egyptian-governor--1", "profileId": "aphek-palace-vi-egyptian-governor", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Palace V predecessor", "note": "The preceding palace phase is kept visible so Palace VI is not treated as the site’s only palatial horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "aphek-area-x", "targetId": "aphek-x13" } ] }, { "id": "aphek-palace-vi-egyptian-governor--2", "profileId": "aphek-palace-vi-egyptian-governor", "order": 2, "stage": "construction", "label": "Palace VI / Egyptian governor’s residence", "note": "The final Late Bronze palace is bound directly to X12.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "aphek-area-x", "targetId": "aphek-x12" } ] }, { "id": "aphek-palace-vi-egyptian-governor--3", "profileId": "aphek-palace-vi-egyptian-governor", "order": 3, "stage": "destruction", "label": "Palace VI violent destruction", "note": "The terminal palace destruction is its own controlled horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "aphek-area-x", "targetId": "aphek-x12-destruction" } ] }, { "id": "aphek-palace-vi-egyptian-governor--4", "profileId": "aphek-palace-vi-egyptian-governor", "order": 4, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Post-palace reoccupation", "note": "Later Iron I activity is not treated as continued palace function.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "aphek-area-x", "targetId": "aphek-x11" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "aphek-area-x", "targetId": "aphek-x10" } ] }, { "id": "bethsaida-iron-ii-gate-palace--1", "profileId": "bethsaida-iron-ii-gate-palace", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Late Iron II monumental city", "note": "The current controlled column captures the final pre-Assyrian gate/palace city horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "bethsaida-assyrian-anchor", "targetId": "bethsaida-pre732" } ] }, { "id": "bethsaida-iron-ii-gate-palace--2", "profileId": "bethsaida-iron-ii-gate-palace", "order": 2, "stage": "destruction", "label": "733–732 BCE destruction", "note": "The gate-city’s terminal destruction is a separate event horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "bethsaida-assyrian-anchor", "targetId": "bethsaida-732-destruction" } ] }, { "id": "bethsaida-iron-ii-gate-palace--3", "profileId": "bethsaida-iron-ii-gate-palace", "order": 3, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Post-destruction / Assyrian-period horizon", "note": "Later use is explicitly separated from the preceding monumental city.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "bethsaida-assyrian-anchor", "targetId": "bethsaida-post732" } ] }, { "id": "beit-mirsim-renewed-iron-iib-quarter--1", "profileId": "beit-mirsim-renewed-iron-iib-quarter", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Late-eighth-century Iron IIB occupation", "note": "The renewed domestic/production quarter is bound to the controlled late-eighth-century phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "beit-mirsim-701-anchor", "targetId": "beit-mirsim-late8" } ] }, { "id": "beit-mirsim-renewed-iron-iib-quarter--2", "profileId": "beit-mirsim-renewed-iron-iib-quarter", "order": 2, "stage": "destruction", "label": "Late-eighth-century destruction", "note": "The terminal destruction is shown as its own horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "horizon", "sequenceId": "beit-mirsim-701-anchor", "targetId": "beit-mirsim-701-destruction" } ] }, { "id": "motya-tophet-sanctuary-urnfield--1", "profileId": "motya-tophet-sanctuary-urnfield", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Sanctuary delimitation / initial urnfield", "note": "The first formation process establishes the bounded sacred/depositional zone.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "motya-tophet-urnfield", "targetId": "motya-tophet-sanctuary-establishment" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "motya-tophet-urnfield", "targetId": "motya-tophet-stratum-vii" } ] }, { "id": "motya-tophet-sanctuary-urnfield--2", "profileId": "motya-tophet-sanctuary-urnfield", "order": 2, "stage": "use", "label": "Middle urnfield sequence and eastward growth", "note": "Successive depositional phases are retained as a long-duration use sequence rather than collapsed into one event.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "motya-tophet-urnfield", "targetId": "motya-tophet-stratum-vi" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "motya-tophet-urnfield", "targetId": "motya-tophet-stratum-v" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "motya-tophet-urnfield", "targetId": "motya-tophet-stratum-iv" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "motya-tophet-urnfield", "targetId": "motya-tophet-stratum-iii" } ] }, { "id": "motya-tophet-sanctuary-urnfield--3", "profileId": "motya-tophet-sanctuary-urnfield", "order": 3, "stage": "use", "label": "Late urnfield sequence", "note": "The latest depositional phases remain explicit through the final Tophet horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "motya-tophet-urnfield", "targetId": "motya-tophet-stratum-ii" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "motya-tophet-urnfield", "targetId": "motya-tophet-stratum-i2" }, { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "motya-tophet-urnfield", "targetId": "motya-tophet-stratum-i1" }, { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "motya-tophet-urnfield", "targetId": "motya-tophet-progressive-urnfield-build-up" } ] }, { "id": "sulcis-tophet-sanctuary-landscape--1", "profileId": "sulcis-tophet-sanctuary-landscape", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Archaic sanctuary core", "note": "The controlled depositional framework begins with the higher-spur core.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "sulcis-tophet-depositional-framework", "targetId": "sulcis-tophet-archaic-core" } ] }, { "id": "sulcis-tophet-sanctuary-landscape--2", "profileId": "sulcis-tophet-sanctuary-landscape", "order": 2, "stage": "modification", "label": "Later eastward sanctuary deposition", "note": "Later growth is shown as spatial/chronological expansion, not one unchanged sanctuary phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "sulcis-tophet-depositional-framework", "targetId": "sulcis-tophet-eastward-later" } ] }, { "id": "tel-dan-middle-bronze-gate--1", "profileId": "tel-dan-middle-bronze-gate", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Middle Bronze gatehouse", "note": "Construction/use belongs to the controlled Middle Bronze gate phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "tel-dan-middle-bronze-gate", "targetId": "dan-mb-gate-use" } ] }, { "id": "tel-dan-middle-bronze-gate--2", "profileId": "tel-dan-middle-bronze-gate", "order": 2, "stage": "modification", "label": "Deliberate burial and preservation", "note": "Later filling/burial is modeled as a formation process, not continued gate use.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "tel-dan-middle-bronze-gate", "targetId": "dan-mb-gate-burial" } ] }, { "id": "siloam-pool-pilgrimage-street--1", "profileId": "siloam-pool-pilgrimage-street", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Late Second Temple pool redevelopment", "note": "Stepped pool architecture belongs to the late Second Temple urban-water phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "jerusalem-siloam-second-temple", "targetId": "siloam-late-second-temple-pool" } ] }, { "id": "siloam-pool-pilgrimage-street--2", "profileId": "siloam-pool-pilgrimage-street", "order": 2, "stage": "modification", "label": "Early Roman monumental street", "note": "The pilgrimage street is a distinct staged monumentalization of the southern urban route.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "jerusalem-siloam-second-temple", "targetId": "siloam-early-roman-street" } ] }, { "id": "siloam-pool-pilgrimage-street--3", "profileId": "siloam-pool-pilgrimage-street", "order": 3, "stage": "destruction", "label": "70 CE terminal urban disruption", "note": "The end of the Second Temple urban system is kept separate from construction.", "confidence": "Moderate–High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "jerusalem-siloam-second-temple", "targetId": "siloam-70-disruption" } ] }, { "id": "bethesda-bethzatha-pool-complex--1", "profileId": "bethesda-bethzatha-pool-complex", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Hellenistic–Early Roman pool infrastructure", "note": "The Gospel-period landscape is tied to the earlier water complex rather than projected from later standing structures.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "jerusalem-bethesda-complex", "targetId": "bethesda-water-infrastructure" } ] }, { "id": "bethesda-bethzatha-pool-complex--2", "profileId": "bethesda-bethzatha-pool-complex", "order": 2, "stage": "modification", "label": "Roman healing-sanctuary phase", "note": "Later sanctuary architecture is shown as a separate Roman transformation.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "jerusalem-bethesda-complex", "targetId": "bethesda-roman-sanctuary" } ] }, { "id": "bethesda-bethzatha-pool-complex--3", "profileId": "bethesda-bethzatha-pool-complex", "order": 3, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Byzantine ecclesiastical reuse", "note": "Church construction is explicitly later reuse of the location.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "jerusalem-bethesda-complex", "targetId": "bethesda-byzantine-church" } ] }, { "id": "caesarea-herodian-harbor-palace--1", "profileId": "caesarea-herodian-harbor-palace", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Herodian urban foundation", "note": "Herodian harbor/palace/civic foundation", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "caesarea-herodian-roman", "targetId": "caesarea-herodian-foundation" } ] }, { "id": "caesarea-herodian-harbor-palace--2", "profileId": "caesarea-herodian-harbor-palace", "order": 2, "stage": "use", "label": "Roman administrative adaptation", "note": "The palace-city becomes an imperial/provincial administrative system.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "caesarea-herodian-roman", "targetId": "caesarea-roman-administrative" } ] }, { "id": "caesarea-herodian-harbor-palace--3", "profileId": "caesarea-herodian-harbor-palace", "order": 3, "stage": "modification", "label": "Later Roman rebuilding", "note": "Later adaptation is separated from the Herodian foundation.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "caesarea-herodian-roman", "targetId": "caesarea-later-roman-rebuild" } ] }, { "id": "herodium-palace-fortress-mausoleum--1", "profileId": "herodium-palace-fortress-mausoleum", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Palace-fortress phase", "note": "Royal residential/defensive core.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "herodium-palace-funerary", "targetId": "herodium-palace-phase" } ] }, { "id": "herodium-palace-fortress-mausoleum--2", "profileId": "herodium-palace-fortress-mausoleum", "order": 2, "stage": "modification", "label": "Funerary monumentalization", "note": "Approach and mausoleum landscape transform the complex.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "herodium-palace-funerary", "targetId": "herodium-funerary-phase" } ] }, { "id": "herodium-palace-fortress-mausoleum--3", "profileId": "herodium-palace-fortress-mausoleum", "order": 3, "stage": "reuse", "label": "First Revolt reuse", "note": "Royal architecture is adapted by revolt-era occupants.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "herodium-palace-funerary", "targetId": "herodium-first-revolt-reuse" } ] }, { "id": "herodium-palace-fortress-mausoleum--4", "profileId": "herodium-palace-fortress-mausoleum", "order": 4, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Bar Kokhba-period reuse", "note": "A later rebel horizon is kept distinct.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "herodium-palace-funerary", "targetId": "herodium-bar-kokhba-reuse" } ] }, { "id": "nazareth-early-roman-house--1", "profileId": "nazareth-early-roman-house", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Early Roman domestic occupation", "note": "The excavated house is bound to its domestic horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "nazareth-early-roman-dwelling", "targetId": "nazareth-house-use" } ] }, { "id": "nazareth-early-roman-house--2", "profileId": "nazareth-early-roman-house", "order": 2, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Later ecclesiastical reuse", "note": "Later Christian use does not retroactively identify the original occupants.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "nazareth-early-roman-dwelling", "targetId": "nazareth-later-ecclesiastical" } ] }, { "id": "magdala-early-roman-synagogue--1", "profileId": "magdala-early-roman-synagogue", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Early Roman synagogue", "note": "Construction/use belongs to the Early Roman town.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "magdala-synagogue-local", "targetId": "magdala-synagogue-use" } ] }, { "id": "magdala-early-roman-synagogue--2", "profileId": "magdala-early-roman-synagogue", "order": 2, "stage": "destruction", "label": "Termination of synagogue use", "note": "The end of use is modeled broadly rather than assigned an unsupported exact destruction date.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "magdala-synagogue-local", "targetId": "magdala-synagogue-termination" } ] }, { "id": "capernaum-synagogue-under-limestone--1", "profileId": "capernaum-synagogue-under-limestone", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Underlying basalt phase", "note": "The debated earlier synagogue hypothesis is isolated from the later monument.", "confidence": "Moderate", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "capernaum-synagogue-local", "targetId": "capernaum-underlying-basalt" } ] }, { "id": "capernaum-synagogue-under-limestone--2", "profileId": "capernaum-synagogue-under-limestone", "order": 2, "stage": "construction", "label": "Later limestone synagogue", "note": "The secure monumental building belongs to a later phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "capernaum-synagogue-local", "targetId": "capernaum-limestone-synagogue" } ] }, { "id": "masada-palace-rebel-siege-layers--1", "profileId": "masada-palace-rebel-siege-layers", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Herodian palace-fortress", "note": "Royal construction/use horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "masada-palace-revolt-siege", "targetId": "masada-herodian-palace" } ] }, { "id": "masada-palace-rebel-siege-layers--2", "profileId": "masada-palace-rebel-siege-layers", "order": 2, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Rebel adaptation", "note": "Herodian spaces are reused during the revolt.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "masada-palace-revolt-siege", "targetId": "masada-rebel-reuse" } ] }, { "id": "masada-palace-rebel-siege-layers--3", "profileId": "masada-palace-rebel-siege-layers", "order": 3, "stage": "destruction", "label": "Roman siege and capture", "note": "Siege/capture is a transition process, not part of Herodian construction.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "masada-palace-revolt-siege", "targetId": "masada-siege-capture" } ] }, { "id": "masada-palace-rebel-siege-layers--4", "profileId": "masada-palace-rebel-siege-layers", "order": 4, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Roman post-capture occupation", "note": "Later military use follows the rebel horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "masada-palace-revolt-siege", "targetId": "masada-roman-postcapture" } ] }, { "id": "kinnerot-iron-ib-lower-town--1", "profileId": "kinnerot-iron-ib-lower-town", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Iron IB planned lower town", "note": "Main urban complex belongs to the Iron IB horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "kinnerot-ironib-lower-town", "targetId": "kinnerot-ironib-main" } ] }, { "id": "kinnerot-iron-ib-lower-town--2", "profileId": "kinnerot-iron-ib-lower-town", "order": 2, "stage": "destruction", "label": "Main-horizon destruction", "note": "Destruction is kept as a formation transition because absolute date is broad.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "kinnerot-ironib-lower-town", "targetId": "kinnerot-ironib-destruction" } ] }, { "id": "kinnerot-iron-ib-lower-town--3", "profileId": "kinnerot-iron-ib-lower-town", "order": 3, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Post-destruction reoccupation", "note": "Later phases do not extend the original city unchanged.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "kinnerot-ironib-lower-town", "targetId": "kinnerot-postdestruction-reuse" } ] }, { "id": "kition-bamboula-archaic-room-s11--1", "profileId": "kition-bamboula-archaic-room-s11", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Cypro-Archaic room occupation", "note": "The room and assemblage are tied to the local trench phase.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "kition-bamboula-s11-architecture", "targetId": "kition-s11-archaic-room" } ] }, { "id": "kition-bamboula-archaic-room-s11--2", "profileId": "kition-bamboula-archaic-room-s11", "order": 2, "stage": "destruction", "label": "Mudbrick collapse / sealing", "note": "Collapse is modeled separately from occupation.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "kition-bamboula-s11-architecture", "targetId": "kition-s11-collapse" } ] }, { "id": "kition-bamboula-archaic-room-s11--3", "profileId": "kition-bamboula-archaic-room-s11", "order": 3, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Classical disturbance", "note": "Later levelling and pits are later site use, not part of the Archaic room.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "kition-bamboula-s11-architecture", "targetId": "kition-s11-classical-disturbance" } ] }, { "id": "tyre-al-bass-phoenician-cemetery--1", "profileId": "tyre-al-bass-phoenician-cemetery", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Iron Age cemetery use", "note": "Al-Bass remains a mortuary landscape rather than a proxy for the island city.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "tyre-al-bass-cemetery-context", "targetId": "tyre-al-bass-cemetery-use" } ] }, { "id": "tyre-al-bass-phoenician-cemetery--2", "profileId": "tyre-al-bass-phoenician-cemetery", "order": 2, "stage": "modification", "label": "Repeated funerary accumulation", "note": "Repeated burial is represented as formation history.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "tyre-al-bass-cemetery-context", "targetId": "tyre-al-bass-repeated-burial" } ] }, { "id": "achziv-phoenician-cemeteries--1", "profileId": "achziv-phoenician-cemeteries", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Rock-cut shaft-tomb architecture", "note": "Tomb construction/use is tied to controlled cemetery context.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "achziv-cemetery-context", "targetId": "achziv-rockcut-tombs" } ] }, { "id": "achziv-phoenician-cemeteries--2", "profileId": "achziv-phoenician-cemeteries", "order": 2, "stage": "reuse", "label": "Repeated tomb use", "note": "Family/community reuse remains a formation process, not a synthetic settlement stratum.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "achziv-cemetery-context", "targetId": "achziv-repeated-tomb-use" } ] }, { "id": "amman-airport-lba-three-phase-complex--1", "profileId": "amman-airport-lba-three-phase-complex", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Architectural Phase 1", "note": "First relative phase; no invented internal absolute boundary.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "amman-airport-three-phase", "targetId": "amman-airport-phase-1" } ] }, { "id": "amman-airport-lba-three-phase-complex--2", "profileId": "amman-airport-lba-three-phase-complex", "order": 2, "stage": "modification", "label": "Architectural Phase 2", "note": "Second relative phase within the same broad Late Bronze range.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "amman-airport-three-phase", "targetId": "amman-airport-phase-2" } ] }, { "id": "amman-airport-lba-three-phase-complex--3", "profileId": "amman-airport-lba-three-phase-complex", "order": 3, "stage": "modification", "label": "Architectural Phase 3", "note": "Third relative phase; sequence order is stronger than absolute internal dates.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "amman-airport-three-phase", "targetId": "amman-airport-phase-3" } ] }, { "id": "serabit-hathor-mining-sanctuary--1", "profileId": "serabit-hathor-mining-sanctuary", "order": 1, "stage": "construction", "label": "Middle Kingdom sanctuary", "note": "Early sanctuary/mining landscape.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "serabit-sanctuary-phases", "targetId": "serabit-middle-kingdom" } ] }, { "id": "serabit-hathor-mining-sanctuary--2", "profileId": "serabit-hathor-mining-sanctuary", "order": 2, "stage": "modification", "label": "New Kingdom expansion", "note": "Repeated additions and reuse are separated from foundation.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "serabit-sanctuary-phases", "targetId": "serabit-new-kingdom" } ] }, { "id": "serabit-hathor-mining-sanctuary--3", "profileId": "serabit-hathor-mining-sanctuary", "order": 3, "stage": "use", "label": "Ramesside activity", "note": "Later expeditionary use remains a distinct horizon.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "serabit-sanctuary-phases", "targetId": "serabit-ramesside" } ] }, { "id": "carthage-tophet-sanctuary-field--1", "profileId": "carthage-tophet-sanctuary-field", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Long-duration sanctuary use", "note": "Controlled tophet context without a fabricated site-wide column.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "carthage-tophet-context", "targetId": "carthage-tophet-long-use" } ] }, { "id": "carthage-tophet-sanctuary-field--2", "profileId": "carthage-tophet-sanctuary-field", "order": 2, "stage": "modification", "label": "Progressive urn/stela accumulation", "note": "Landscape growth is a formation process.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "carthage-tophet-context", "targetId": "carthage-tophet-accumulation" } ] }, { "id": "tharros-tophet-sanctuary--1", "profileId": "tharros-tophet-sanctuary", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Tophet sanctuary use", "note": "Controlled specialized ritual-deposition context.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "tharros-tophet-context", "targetId": "tharros-tophet-use" } ] }, { "id": "tharros-tophet-sanctuary--2", "profileId": "tharros-tophet-sanctuary", "order": 2, "stage": "modification", "label": "Repeated urn deposition", "note": "Formation history is explicit.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "tharros-tophet-context", "targetId": "tharros-tophet-accumulation" } ] }, { "id": "zita-tophet-sanctuary--1", "profileId": "zita-tophet-sanctuary", "order": 1, "stage": "use", "label": "Neo-Punic tophet assemblage context", "note": "Controlled mortuary/ritual context for the analyzed assemblage.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "phase", "sequenceId": "zita-tophet-context", "targetId": "zita-tophet-assemblage" } ] }, { "id": "zita-tophet-sanctuary--2", "profileId": "zita-tophet-sanctuary", "order": 2, "stage": "modification", "label": "Structured cremation deposition", "note": "Mortuary formation process separated from cause-of-death interpretation.", "confidence": "High", "targets": [ { "kind": "formation", "sequenceId": "zita-tophet-context", "targetId": "zita-tophet-mortuary-deposition" } ] } ], "phaseOverlayAudit": { "status": "explicit-crosswalks-only", "profilesWithExactOverlays": 66, "profilesWithoutExactOverlays": 2, "eligibleProfiles": 66, "eligibleProfilesWithOverlays": 66, "eligibleCoveragePercent": 100, "intentionallyComparativeNotApplicable": [ "iron-i-casemate-four-room-system", "levantine-tripartite-temple-comparison" ], "overlayStages": 198, "exactStratigraphyTargets": 246, "stageCounts": { "construction": 41, "use": 48, "modification": 33, "destruction": 42, "reuse": 34 }, "unlinkedProfileIds": [ "iron-i-casemate-four-room-system", "levantine-tripartite-temple-comparison" ], "note": "All site-specific built-environment profiles now have explicit controlled phase/context overlays. The only unlinked records are cross-site typology comparators for which a single local stratigraphic column would be methodologically wrong." } }