Singer-Avitz claims the material evidence of archaeological stratigraphy, including pottery finds, should not take second place. A useful tool but only one and not the only when it comes to determining Bible chronology. According to the low chronology, the transition to Iron Age IIa occurred around 920–900 B. However, the differences in data between the various schools are not dramatically far apart. In an attempt to solve this chronological problem and to achieve a more accurate date for the transition period, many scholars have resorted to carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) analysis, which can be performed on any organic substance, like wood or grain.
The date of the transition from the archaeological period known as Iron Age I to Iron Age IIa is a particularly hotly disputed topic, especially because the date of the transition is crucial for elucidating the history and material culture of the reigns of David and Solomon. It is generally recognized that David conquered Jerusalem in about 1000 B. Radio-carbon dating is regarded by many scholars as accurate, precise and scientific, in contrast to the old cultural-historical methods of dating archaeological strata, which the devotees of radiocarbon regard as inaccurate and intuitive.
Dig into the illuminating world of the Bible with a BAS All-Access membership.
Combine a one-year tablet and print subscription to BAR with membership in the BAS Library to start your journey into the ancient past today!
According to the so-called high chronology, the transition occurred around 1000 or 980 B. The hope of many scholars who feel that this science-based radiocarbon research will bring the debate to its longed-for solution is, in my view, difficult to adopt.
The question I would like to raise is whether radiocarbon dating is really more precise, objective and reliable than the traditional way of dating when applied to the problem of the date of the transition from Iron I to Iron IIa.
The calibration curve is revised periodically as more data are continuously accumulated.In short, radiocarbon is not the be-all and end-all of the problem.Let’s not ignore traditional archaeological dating methods. Tagged with archaeological, archaeological evidence, archaeological finds, archaeologist, archaeologists, archaeology, archaeology review, bib arch org, bible, bible chronology, bible history, bible history daily, biblical, biblical arch, Biblical Archaeology, biblical archaeology review, biblicalarchaeology, biblicalarchaeology.org, Cyber Archaeology in the Holy Land The Future of the Past, holy land, iron age, jerusalem, judah, khirbet qeiyafa, king david, low chronology, philistine, qeiyafa, radiocarbon dating accuracy, solomon, tel aviv, the holy land, what is radiocarbon dating.This question is sharpened in light of the fact that the uncertainty in the usual radiocarbon readings (plus or minus 25 years or so) may be as large as the difference in dates in the debate. Measuring the remaining carbon-14 content in “long-term” organic samples, such as wood, will provide the date of growth of the tree, rather than the date of the archaeological stratum in which the sample was found.Furthermore, wooden beams were reused in later strata, which can result in even greater differences in date.For all these reasons, contrasting dates have been reached in the ongoing chronological debate concerning the Iron Age.A decisive solution is far from being accomplished.Ultimately, radiocarbon dating accuracy for calculating Iron Age dates, and consequentially Bible chronology has varied from researcher to researcher.When it comes to Bible chronology the difference between a “high” and “low” chronology is a matter of mere decades not centuries. Other opinions place the transition somewhere between the two—in about 950 B. The date is important because the date you choose will determine whether David and Solomon reigned in the archaeologically poor and archaeologically poorly documented Iron I or in the comparatively rich and richly documented Iron IIa.Based on the material finds it is possible to compare sites and regions and create a cultural-chronological horizon.In some cases today scholars are comparing radiocarbon dates, even before publishing the finds.