To this rather limited sample we can now add eight LPG, SPG and Geometric sherds, representing six different vessels, found at Tel Rehov in the Beth-Shean Valley (fig. 1). This is the largest concentration of Greek pottery from the Iron Age IIA (tenth-ninth centuries BCE) found in Israel thus far (3). Most of the sherds come from good stratigraphic contexts, together with rich and well-defined local assemblages and Phoenician and Cypriote imported pottery. The archaeological and historical evidence, as well as 14C dates, provide important data for dating these contexts. The Greek sherds, albeit a small assemblage, thus represent a significant contribution to the subject of the relationships between Greece and the Levant during the tenth-ninth centuries. The Iron IIA levels at Tel Rehov also yielded a good number of Cypro-Geometric sherds, which allow for a re-examination of the correlation between Levantine, Cypriote and Greek chronologies (4).

As in every stratigraphic excavation of a multi-layered mound, the excavation at Tel Rehov has its problems. Complicated stratigraphy resulting from continuous construction, partial destruction, and rebuilding of mudbrick structures creates difficulties not only in the correlation between the various local phases in each excavation area, but sometimes even between the different parts of a large excavation area itself. Thus, local phase numbers were assigned in each excavation area, while the terms Strata VI-IV, often used in this paper, represent an attempt to correlate these local phases. These terms reflect our conclusions that there were three main building phases throughout the city during the Iron Age IIA. The relative stratigraphy in each of the excavation areas is quite clear, and the pottery assemblages, mainly from Strata V and IV, are rich and homogeneous.

Table 1 presents the correlations between the phases in the areas that produced Greek pottery. The numbers in bold within square brackets refer to the catalogue numbers listed below, while the right column notes the Greek periods represented by these sherds.

The body sherds nos. 1 and 2 (figs. 2-3) conform to a widespread Aegean type of PG krater with a high foot, decorated with large sets of concentric circles: these are separated by groups of vertical lines that may often enclose rectilinear motifs (Desborough in Lefkandi I: 327-329). To judge from the profiles, no. 1 is from the widest diameter and no. 2 from the lower part of the body. Unfortunately, the development of the PG krater is poorly documented at Lefkandi: we have no whole examples, since the form is absent from the grave goods; our only comparanda are a few fragments from the settlement. There are some parallels in the SPG deposit from Area SL (Lefkandi I: pls. 28:70/Pl, 29:B), but an LPG date for both pieces cannot be excluded. For a view of a complete vessel with similar decoration we must turn to krater no. 143 from Marmariani in Thessaly (Desborough 1952: pl. 23), stylistically one of the earliest of a local LPG-SPG series influenced by Euboea. For dating these pieces in Euboean terms, then, the limitations of the available evidence allows us only a very wide margin between LPG and SPG IlIa, the terminal date of the deposit from Area SL.

Rather more helpful are the comparanda for the other Euboean pieces. The skyphos rim no. 3 (fig. 4), with its sharply offset and slightly concave lip, is characteristic of the favourite Euboean type with a low ring foot, decorated with pendent concentric circles. A position near a horizontal handle is indicated by the oblique daub of paint at the left-hand break, which would occur near the handle root. The relatively high lip suggests an early stage in the development of these widely exported skyphoi (Kearsley 1989: 87-93, Type 2). The profile has a close counterpart in Toumba Grave 42.6 (Lefkandi III: pl. 46), dated to SPG I (on the dating see Popham, Touloupa and Sackett 1982: 245). That skyphos already shows the sets of semi-circles intersecting one another, in contrast to their sep~ration on the earlier specimens of this class in LPG (e.g., Lefkandi I: pl. 128, Palia Perivolia Grave 3.14). Thus, for chronology, the intersection of the circles on the body fragment no. 4 (fig. 5) is less diagnostic than the relatively deep profile, seen in the skyphoi found in the Lefkandi graves of SPG I-IIIa (Kearsley 1989: Types 2 and 3), in contrast to the shallower versions gaining currency after the abandonment of the known Lefkandi cemeteries (Kearsley 1989: Types 4 and 5).

The most closely datable form in the Euboean sequence is represented by nos. 5 and 6 (fig. 6), from a large globular pyxis decorated with a latticed battlement in a wide reserved zone within a dark background. This form, with a sharply everted lip and a low foot, was derived from an Attic LPG prototype, and continues into SPGa, when it is decorated with a local repertoire of rectilinear motifs (Desborough in Lefkandi I: 327-329), the battlement being one among many. The cemeteries of Lefkandi offer three similar pyxides (Lefkandi I: pl. 109, Skoubris Grave 59a5; pl. 136, Palia Perivolia Grave 21.1, here fig. 8; Lefkandi III: pl. 81, Toumba Grave 80.46), all datable within a fairly narrow chronological span of SPG II-IlIa. Of these, the closest parallel to our pieces in size as well as in decoration is from Toumba Grave 80.46 (Lefkandi III: pl. 81), in a large group of predominantly SPG II vessels, also containing an Athenian EG II lipless pyxis with inset rim (no. 40), which provides a useful correlation with the contemporary Attic sequence. SPG II, then, is the most likely date for our fragments nos. 5 and 6.

Finally, we consider the Attic skyphos fragments nos. 7 and 8 (fig. 7), from a type that is no stranger to the Levant. From an almost identical vessel come the two rim sherds of the skyphos found at Megiddo (Clairmont 1955: pl. 20:1-2), from a context that has been the subject of much debate; the only apparent difference lies in the treatment of the lip, lined on the Megiddo sherds, but coated on our no. 7. The fragments from both sites come from a broad and shallow type of skyphos with a low offset lip and a ring foot; the main decoration consists of a multiple zigzag in a reserved panel, and groups of bars are placed in a narrow reserved band inside the rim. The best parallels for both skyphoi are from the Geometric Grave 13 in the Athenian Kerameikos cemetery, belonging to an early stage of Attic MGI (Kubler 1954: pl. 93; Coldstream 1968: 303-304), contemporary with the latest graves at Lefkandi in Euboean SPG IlIa. The coating of the lip on no. 7 may perhaps indicate a slightly earlier stage than that of the Megiddo pieces, recalling the total enclosure of the decoration within a reserved 'window panel' common in Attic EG II (Coldstream 1968: 15, pl. 2b).

Here we should note that similar exports of early Attic MG I skyphoi also appear in the latest graves of Lefkandi (Lefkandi I: pl. 185, Toumba Grave 31.5; Lefkandi III: pl. 83, Toumba Grave 80.27), where fine Attic pottery was becoming a popular alternative to the local ware (Coldstream 1996: 137-145). It seems quite likely, then, that all these Greek imports to Tel Rehov were conveyed in Euboean ships, without any need for us to suppose a parallel Athenian initiative.

What was the status of these Greek vessels at Tel Rehov? As drinking crockery, the skyphoi and kraters could have been considered exotic and luxurious in the context; but these two forms recur among early Greek exports to other Levantine sites, notably Tyre (Coldstream and Bikai 1988). Altogether exceptional, however, is the Euboean globular pyxis (nos. 5 and 6), a form that at Lefkandi is virtually confined to offerings in graves. In the Levant, its only other occurrence is as a cremation urn in a chamber tomb at the Phoenician coastal site of Tambourit, tentatively identified as Argive (Courbin 1977). But the pyxis was traditionally a storage vessel for small objects, sometimes of a precious nature; one recalls especially the Cretan PG globular pyxis buried under the threshold of the re-used Minoan tholos tomb at Tekke near Knossos, and containing a treasure of gold ornaments of Near Eastern character (Boardman 1967: 68-69). One wonders, then, whether our pyxis may have constituted an ad hominem gift, as has been suggested for the even more unusual Euboean PG vessel found at Tel Hadar, a miniature clay version of the prestigious bronze cauldrons offered at the pan-Hellenic sanctuaries of Olympia and Delphi (Coldstream 2000: 17-18). It should be remarked that both Tel Hadar and Tel Rehov lie on busy trade routes inland, where the goodwill of local chiefs might well have been courted by traders from overseas.

Thus far, only relative dates have been cited for the Greek sherds, in the form of abbreviations for successive phases in the Euboean and Attic sequences. For their absolute chronology, the stratification at Tel Rehov now offers a most important watershed separating Strata IV and III, when the destruction and abandonment of the lower town is thought to have been caused by disturbances in the 830s arising from the fall of the Omride Dynasty of Israel and the wars with King Hazael of Syria. This destruction would supply a terminus ante quem for the sherds of the Attic early MG I skyphos (nos. 7 and 8) in Stratum IV, found in a building destroyed by fire. A more solid confirmation would thus be obtained for a previous supposition that the Attic MG I phase began around 850, based on less secure and frequently questioned evidence from Megiddo (Coldstream 1968: 303-304, 310; Fantalkin 2001: 119).

As for the Euboean pieces, it may seem a happy coincidence that the skyphos (no. 4) and pyxis fragments (nos. 5 and 6) find good parallels among the whole vessels from the single grave 80 at Lefkandi, from which a sensitive local sequence has been built up. Or is it a coincidence? The first two-thirds of the ninth century BCE, for Lefkandi and Tel Rehov alike, mark a period of prosperity and lively commercial connections; but a recession may be seen, both in the destruction of Stratum IV at Tel Rehov and in the abandonment of the known cemeteries at Lefkandi, where a sudden reverse has been suspected with signs of a burnt destruction in Area SL (Lefkandi I: 364). These two events cannot be distant in time. It remains to be seen whether the absence of Greek imports in Stratum III is typical of other horizons in the southern Levant as a possible consequence of these reverses. It is clear, however, that the commercial energies of the Euboeans had recovered at least by the second half of the eighth century BCE, when their exports of LG pottery abound at Tyre and Al Mina.

Less clear is the absolute date dividing Stratum IV from V, to which the kraters (nos. 2 and 3) and pyxis fragments (nos. 5 and 6) belong. In Euboean terms, as we have seen, the krater sherds are datable only within a very wide margin, LPG-SPG IlIa; but the globular pyxis with a battlement design seems to have been a shortlived type current only in SPG II-IIIa - within the bracket 875-825, according to current estimates for Aegean absolute dates. In the single graves of Lefkandi one would not expect the pottery to vary widely in date. It so happens that in two graves these battlement pyxides keep company with the two forms represented in Statum IV: in Skoubris Grave 59 (Lefkandi I: pl. 109), with skyphoi like our no. 4 with intersecting pendent semi-circles, and in Toumba Grave 80 (Lefkandi III: pls. 81:46, 83:27), with an Attic early MG I skyphos like our nos. 7 and 8, with multiple zigzags. Thus, of the two alternative dates proposed for the end of Stratum V – a destruction by Pharaoh Shoshenq I (biblical Shishak) c. 925 (8) or early ninth century BCE – the latter is the more easily reconciled with the internal Aegean chronology, based on association within several hundred single graves, associations of whole pots with painted decoration.

The core of the debate is the question of which archaeological assemblages should be dated to the tenth century BCE. The most common view over the past 30 years has been that in the northern part of Israel, Megiddo Strata VB and IVB- VA and Hazor Xb and Xa are typical tenth-century contexts, while Megiddo VIA is considered typical of the late eleventh century BCE (e.g., Mazar 1990: 301, 372-373, among others). At the two ends of the debated period stand incontrovertible well-dated assemblages. At the upper end, we have the early twelfth-century BCE strata containing Egyptian 20th-Dynasty finds. The best example is perhaps Beth-Shean, where Canaanite, Egyptian and Mycenaean IIIC pottery (the last probably of Cypriote production; see Sherratt and Mazar, forthcoming) was found in well-stratified and well-dated contexts. For the lower end, there is a general consensus as to the identification of eighth-century BCE pottery assemblages, which continued in use until the Assyrian conquests (in 732 and 722 in northern Israel), such as those from Megiddo Stratum IV A, Hazor Strata VI-V, Beth-Shean local Stratum P7 and Tel Rehov Stratum III (9) There is also considerable agreement as to the nature of ninth-century BCE assemblages from the north: pottery assemblages from the destruction of Jezreel provide a secure point of departure since, based on acceptable biblical data, Jezreel was most probably destroyed after the end of the Omride Dynasty, between 840 and 830 (Zimhoni 1997: 13-28). Assemblages similar to those from Jezreel come from other Iron Age IIA northern sites like Megiddo Stratum VB and IVB-VA (the so-called 'Solomonic' city), Yoqneʿam Strata XV-XlV, Taanach Periods IIA-IIB, Tel Rehov Strata VI-IV, and Tel ʿAmal 3-4, Rosh Zayit Strata III-lIb-a, Tell Abu Hawam Stratum III, Samaria Periods II-IV, Tell el-Farʿah VIIb-VIIa and Hazor Strata X-VIII, although the last differ somewhat due to regional factors. The debate in fact centers on the duration of the pottery assemblage from the above-mentioned strata. Finkelstein (1996; 1998a; 1998b), based on the finds at Jezreel, suggested a ninth-century BCE dating for all the above-mentioned strata, thus lowering traditional tenth-century dates into the ninth century. He also suggested that the gap thus created in the tenth century BCE should be filled by the assemblages traditionally dated to the eleventh century BCE. Consequently, he attributed the violent destruction of Megiddo VIA (a rich city with Canaanite material culture continuing in Late Bronze Age traditions) and YoqneCam XVII to Sheshonq I (Finkelstein 1998b: 208) (10). His dissenters claim that that such a wholesale lowering of the dating is impossible. On the one hand, it would create inexplicable gaps in the eleventh century BCE, and on the other, it would require condensing several strata at certain sites into a too narrow time-frame in the ninth century BCE. As a result, five stratigraphic phases at Hazor (Xb-VIII) and three at Tel Rehov (Strata VI-IV) would have to be dated to the ninth century BCE (prior to 830), an improbable supposition (11).

The dating of Tel Rehov Strata VI-IV is still an open question, but advances have recently been made in this regard by combining 14C dates and chrono-historical evidence (Mazar 1999: 37-42; Mazar and Carmi 2001: 1339-1340; Bruins, Van der Plicht and Mazar 2003). The end of this period, represented by the destruction of Tel Rehov IV and Jezreel, probably occurred between 840 and 830, during the events following the fall of the Omride Dynasty: Jehu's revolt, Shalmanesser III's invasion, or the wars against the Aramaeans. This destruction was followed by the abandonment of the lower city at Tel Rehov, thus reducing the size of the city by half. But what are the durations and dating of Strata VI and V? Generally, there is a great degree of continuity in terms of both architecture and pottery from Stratum V to Stratum IV, even though certain parts of Stratum V were violently destroyed by fire and replaced by new buildings in Stratum IV. It is tempting to associate this partial destruction of Stratum V with the conquest of Rehov by Sheshonq I (biblical Shishak), who mentions this city (as well as Beth-Shean) in his topographical list at Karnak. This hypothesis would imply a time-span of some 80-90 years between the destructions of Strata V and IV, with the local pottery from both strata almost identical. If this dating is correct, it would indicate that the pottery assemblages of the second half of the tenth century BCE continued until c. 840-830 BCE. Stratum VI, in which red-slipped and hand-burnished pottery begin to appear, would then be even earlier, dating from the first part of the tenth century BCE. A duration of more than a century for a pottery assemblage in the Levant should not be surprising; it is normal in every period in this region.

14C dates from Tel Rehov appear to confirm this dating. Eighteen dates of grain from one storage room at Tel Rehov (Locus 2425) were rather ambiguous: of the 1 sigma calibrated dates, three were only in the tenth century BCE, 11 were only in the ninth century BCE, and six covered parts of both centuries. None provided a date later than 800 (Mazar and Carmi 2001: 1337-1339) (12). Wood from the foundations of a Stratum V building appears to be dated to the tenth century BCE (Mazar and Carmi 2001: 1337). 14C dates recently prepared at the University of Groningen using the gas-counting method on short-life samples from Strata VI-V provide a date for the destruction of these strata during the tenth century BCE; these dates in fact support our supposition that Stratum V was destroyed by Shishak (Bruins, Van der Plicht and Mazar 2003). A date from Stratum IV confirms that this city was destroyed during the ninth century, no later than 830 BCE, (13), and corroborates the long duration of the Iron Age IIA pottery assemblage – from c. 980 until c. 840/830 (14). An alternative possibility is that Stratum VI should be dated to the tenth century BCE and Stratum V to the early part of the ninth century BCE. In that case, however, it would be difficult to explain the violent destruction of parts of Stratum V, and this interpretation would contradict the 14C dates suggested by the Groningen laboratory.

Sherds nos. 1-2 from Stratum V can be dated as early as the tenth century BCE, perhaps prior to 925 (if the Stratum V destruction is attributed to Sheshonq I). No.2 may even be assigned to Stratum VI, some time in the mid-tenth century BCE. These dates fit Desborough's dates for LPG to '960 to after 900 B.C.' (1952: 294). The fragment of a Euboean pendent semi-circles skyphos from Stratum IV (no. 4 above) is consistent with our proposed date for that stratum, since Euboean SPG skyphoi continued to be in use, according to Coldstream, throughout the MG period in Euboea (850-750).

The SPG II-IlIa Euboean pyxis (nos. 5-6) poses a problem. If indeed it belongs to Stratum V and if Stratum V was indeed destroyed by Sheshonq I, it would predate the date suggested by Coldstream (see above, p. 37) by some 50 years. Yet we must be cautious: further excavations are needed to provide a solid basis for the correlation between the local stratigraphic phases in Area B and those in the other areas. It is possible that there were more occupation phases in Area B, in which case the pyxis may have belonged to a later phase than the main destruction of Stratum V.

The Attic MG skyphos from Stratum IV (nos. 7-8) represents the last days of the lower city at Rehov, shortly before it was violently destroyed c. 840-830. It should be borne in mind that Coldstream's date for the beginning of MG at 850 was based on a similar skyphos from Megiddo, from an unclear context. The Tel Rehov context of the MG skyphos is well dated, and thus provides a solid foundation for this date.

To the data from Tel Rehov we should add the handle sherd of an MG II vessel from Beth-Shean. It came from local Stratum P8 (15), which was sealed by a large Stratum P7 building that was violently destroyed, most probably by the Assyrians in 732. Thus, Stratum P8 can be dated to the late ninth or the beginning of the eighth century BCE, which would fit Coldstream's dates for the MG II of 800-760 (16).