Search

Fil: Finkelstein, Israel. Universidad de Tel Aviv; Israel Introduction: In the first half of the eighth century b.c.e., Israel ruled over the lion’s share of the territory of the two Hebrew kingdoms (fig. 1), and its population accounted for three quarters of the people of Israel and Judah combined (Broshi and Finkelstein 1992). Israel was stronger than Judah both militarily and economically, and in the first half of the ninth century and in the first half of the eighth century—almost half the time the two kingdoms co-existed—Israel dominated the southern kingdom. Nonetheless, Israel has lingered in the shadow of Judah, both in the story told in the Hebrew Bible and in the attention paid to it by modern scholarship...

We consider the consequences of a shared brand name such as geographical names used to identify high quality products, for the incentives of otherwise autonomous firms to invest in quality. We contend that such collective brand labels improve communication between sellers and consumers, when the scale of production is too small for individual firms to establish reputations on a stand alone basis. This has two opposing effects on member firms' incentives to invest in quality. On the one hand, it increases investment incentives by increasing the visibility and transparency of individual member firms, which increases the return from investment in quality. On the other hand, it creates an incentive to free ride on the group's reputation, which can lead to less investment in quality. We identify parmater values under which collective branding delivers higher quality than is achievable by stand alone firms.

Sumario -- The pottery of Edom: A Correction / Israel Finkelstein & Lily Singer-Avitz -- The Jezirah Burnished Ware / Stefano Valentini -- The Cordage from Berenike (1994-2000): The Statics / André J. Veldmeijer -- A Reevaluation of the Use of !bz and bhy in Elephantine / Alejandro F. Botta -- Four Ur III Administrative Tablets in the Possesion of Professor Francis Carroll, University of Manitoba / John Nielsen -- Una actualización de la Cronología Baja: arqueología, historia y Biblia / Israel Finkelstein -- The Alleged “Anchor Point” of 732 BC for the Destrction of Hazor V / Peter James -- The “Wicked Priest” in Egyptology and Amarna Studies: A Reconsideration / Samuel Jackson -- Violencia fenicia en el Mediterráneo Oriental / Jordi Vidal -- Reportes de Excavación -- The Leatherwork from Deir el-Bachit: Preliminary Report / André J. Veldmeijer -- Reseñas bibliográficas -- Política editorial e instrucciones para los colaboradores -- Direcciones para envío de artículos y reseñas bibliográficas -- Colaboraciones en numeros anteriores

Fil: Finkelstein, Israel. Universidad de Tel Aviv. Instituto de Arqueología; Israel Abstract: The aim of this article is to present an up-to-date overview of the Low Chronology system for the late Iron I and early Iron II strata in the Levant, a system which I first proposed in two articles which were published about a decade ago. These articles have stimulated a fierce debate, which was a major stimulant behind the introduction of large-scale radiocarbon projects into Iron Age archaeology. And though the gap between my system and the reasonable voice in the traditional camp is narrowing (the “modified conventional chronology”) the dispute is far from being resolved. Resumen: El objetivo de este artículo es presentar una descripción actualizada del sistema de Cronología Baja para los estratos del Hierro I tardío y el Hierro II temprano en el Levante, un sistema que primeramente propuse en dos artículos que fueron publicados hace una década2. Estos artículos han estimulado un intenso debate3, que fue un gran estímulo detrás de la introducción de proyectos de radiocarbono de gran escala en la arqueología de la Edad de Hierro. Y aunque se está cerrando la brecha entre mi sistema y la voz razonable en el campo tradicional (la “cronología convencional modificada”4), el conflicto está lejos de estar resuelto.

Fil: Finkelstein, Israel. Universidad de Tel Aviv. Instituto de Arqueología; Israel Fil: Singer-Avitz, Lily. Universidad de Tel Aviv. Instituto de Arqueología; Israel Abstract: This article deals with several claims recently made by Levy et al.1 regarding pottery from Edom and sites in the Negev. Building their argument on two assumptions—that Khirbet en-Nahas constitutes part of Edom and that the fortress there dates to the 10th century BCE—they maintain that sites on the Edomite plateau had been dated to the late 7th–6th centuries BCE based on a single find—the seal impression carrying the inscription “Qos Gabr king of Edom”—and hint that this pottery should in fact be dated earlier. And based on the architectural similarity between the fortress at Khirbet en-Nahas and the fortresses of Tell el-Kheleifeh at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba and of En HaÐeva in the western Arabah south of the Dead Sea, they date the latter two to the 10th century BCE, several centuries earlier than the broadly-accepted date in the Iron IIB/C. In this article we take issue with these claims. We show that dating the sites on the Edomite plateau to the late 8th-to-early 6th centuries BCE is backed by meticulous comparison to well-stratified and dated sites in southern Judah. We also show that the fortresses of Tell el-Kheleifeh and En HaÐeva cannot be dated earlier than the late 8th century. We then deal with the reasons for Levy et al.’s errors. Resumen: Este artículo se refiere a varias afirmaciones hechas recientemente por Levy et al.2 respecto de la cerámica de Edom y sitios en el Negev quienes, forjando sus argumentos en base a dos supuestos—que Khirbet en-Nahas es parte constituyente de Edom y que su fortaleza data del siglo X a.C.— sostienen que los sitios en la meseta edomita fueron datados a finales del siglo VII y el VI a.C. en base a un único hallazgo—la impresión de sello con la inscripción “Qos Gabr rey de Edom”—e insinúan que esta cerámica debe ser, de hecho, datada más tempranamente. Y, basados en la similitud arquitectónica entre la fortaleza de Khirbet en-Nahas y las fortalezas de Tell el- Kheleifeh, en la entrada del Golfo de Aqaba, y de En HaÐeva, en el Arabá occidental al sur del Mar Muerto, datan las dos últimas en el siglo X a.C., varios siglos antes que la fecha comúnmente aceptada en el Hierro IIB/C. En este artículo nos oponemos a estas afirmaciones. Demostramos que la datación de los sitios en la meseta edomita entre finales del siglo VIII a.C. y principios del VI a.C. está basada en una meticulosa comparación con sitios bien estratificados y datados de Judá meridional. También demostramos que las fortalezas de Tell el-Kheleifeh y En HaÐeva no pueden ser datadas antes de finales del siglo VIII a.C. para luego tratar las razones de los errores de Levy et al.