Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:41:17.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dating the Iron Age I/II Transition in Israel: First Intercomparison Results

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Elisabetta Boaretto ,
A J Timothy Jull ,
Ayelet Gilboa  and
Ilan Sharon
Elisabetta Boaretto*
Affiliation:
Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel 76100
A J Timothy Jull
Affiliation:
NSF-Arizona AMS Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA.
Ayelet Gilboa
Affiliation:
Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Mt. Carmel, Haifa, Israel 31905
Ilan Sharon
Affiliation:
Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel 91905
*
Corresponding author. Email: [email protected].
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Nearly a decade ago, a different chronology than the conventional absolute chronology for the early Iron Age in Israel was suggested. The new, lower chronology “transfers” Iron Age I and Iron Age IIA contexts in Israel, traditionally dated to the 11th and 10th centuries BCE, to the 10th and 9th centuries, respectively. Thus, it places the Iron I|IIA transition at about 920–900 BCE. This alternative chronology carries important implications for Israelite history, historiography, and Bible research, as well as for the chronologies of other regions around the Mediterranean. Relevant radiocarbon data sets published to date, which were measured at different sites by different laboratories, were claimed to be incompatible. Therefore, the question of agreement between laboratories and dating methods needs to be addressed at the outset of any study attempting to resolve such a tight chronological dilemma. This paper addresses results pertaining to this issue as part of a comprehensive attempt to date the early Iron Age in Israel based on many sites, employing different measuring techniques in 2 laboratories. The intercomparison results demonstrate that: a) the agreement between the 2 laboratories is well within the standard in the 14C community and that no bias can be detected in either laboratory; and b) calculating the Iron I|IIa transition in 3 different ways (twice independently by the measurements obtained at the 2 labs and then by combining the dates of both) indicates that the lower chronology is the preferable one.

Type
Articles
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , 2005 , pp. 39 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

References

Bevington, PR, Robinson, DK. 1992. Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences. Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Bland, JM, Altman, DG. 1986. Statistical method for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet 1:307–10.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1994. Analysis of chronological information and radiocarbon calibration, the program OxCal. Archaeological Computing Newsletter 41:11–6.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and the analysis of stratigraphy, the OxCal program. Radiocarbon 37(2):425–30.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2000. Comment on “The use of Bayesian statistics for 14C dates of chronologically ordered samples: a critical analysis.” Radiocarbon 42(2):199–202.Google Scholar
Bruins, H, van der Plicht, J, Mazar, A. 2003. Response to comment on “14C dates from Tel Rehov: Iron-Age chronology, pharaohs and Hebrew kings.” Science 302:568c.Google Scholar
Coldstream, JN. 2003. Some Aegean reactions to the chronological debate in the southern Levant. Tel Aviv 30:247–58.Google Scholar
Coldstream, JN, Mazar, A. 2003. Greek pottery from Tel Rehov and Iron Age chronology. Israel Exploration Journal 53:29–48.Google Scholar
Fantalkin, A. 2001. Low Chronology and the Greek protogeometric and geometric pottery in the southern Levant. Levant 33:117–25.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, I. 1996. The archaeology of the United Monarchy: an alternative view. Levant 27:177–87.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, I, Piasetzky, E. 2003. Wrong and right; high and low: 14C dates from Tel Rehov and Iron Age chronology. Tel Aviv 30:283–95.Google Scholar
Gilboa, A, Sharon, I. 2001. Early Iron Age radiometric dates from Tel Dor: preliminary implications for Phoenicia, and beyond. Radiocarbon 43(3):1343–51.Google Scholar
Gilboa, A, Sharon, I. 2003. An archaeological contribution to the early Iron Age chronological debate: alternative chronologies for Phoenicia and their effects on the Levant, Cyprus and Greece. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 332:7–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holden, C. 2003. Dates boost conventional wisdom about Solomon's splendor. Science 300:229–31.Google Scholar
Kopcke, G. 2002. 1000 BCE? 900 BCE? A Greek vase from Lake Galilee. In: Ehrenberg, E, editor. Leaving No Stones Unturned: Essays on the Ancient Near East and Egypt in Honor of Donald P Hansen. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. p 109–17.Google Scholar
Mazar, A. 2004. Greek and Levantine Iron Age chronology: a rejoinder. Israel Exploration Journal 54:24–36.Google Scholar
Scott, EM. 2003. The Fourth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (FIRI). Radiocarbon 45(2):35–150.Google Scholar
Sharon, I. 2001. “Transition dating”—a heuristic mathematical approach to the collation of 14C dates from stratified sequences. Radiocarbon 43(3):345–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharon, I, Gilboa, A, Boaretto, E. Forthcoming. 14C and the early Iron Age of Israel—Where are we really at? A commentary on the Tel Rehov radiometric dates. Proceedings of the 2nd EuroConference SCIEM 2000. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar