Abnormal Interests

« Outrage to Action
Main
The Ever Popular Paragogic Nun and Scribal Training in Ancient Israel »

June 13, 2007

Searching High and Low

A couple of days ago I bought Sharon, et al, "Report on the First Stage of the Iron Age Dating Project in Israel: Supporting a Low Chronology" in the latest issue of Radiocarbon ($13.60, cheap by some standards). I've been working my way through its 46 pages. There's lots of meat to engage the archaeologist but the results provided in Table 8, "Calculated dates" (41-44) if they hold up will have archeologist talking for a long time. But even more influential and problematic to some may be the charts showing the results of various models for the transition from Iron Age I to Iron Age II in Palestine presented on pages 19-21.

To start, archaeologists and historians cannot ignore this study. It must be addressed one way or the other. Let's look at the results for Hazor and Aphek. I will use only the 95% probability range of the "Cautious estimation." The authors also offer a 65% probability range for both their "Cautious estimation" and their "Combined estimation." I am also only showing short lived samples, olive pits, seeds and the like. Charcoal often gives strange and older estimates. However, no one wishing to get the complete story can simply ignore those results. I ignore them here for purposes of focus, perhaps too much focus, and manageable summary. For reference, I compare their estimates with Mazar, 24. Sharon et. al, 18, use the range 1015-975 BCE as the so-called High Chronology boundary between Iron Age I and Iron Age IIa and 925-885 BCE for the Low Chronology boundary.

Hazor Stratum XII-XI
Relative assignment: Iron Age I
Mazar: 1200-1000/980 BCE
Sharon et al:

• Sample 3702, olive pits, 1420-1050 BCE

Hazor Stratum Xa
Relative assignment: Iron Age IIa
Mazar: 1000/980-840/830 BCE
Sharon et al:

• Sample 3784, olive pits, 900-760 BCE


• Sample 3786, olive pit, 920-760 BCE

Aphek Stratum X8
Relative assignment: Iron Age I/II (Mazar Iron Age II)
Mazar: 1000/980-840/830 BCE
Sharon et al:

• Sample 2667, seeds, 895-795 BCE

The Hazor Iron Age IIa numbers tend to be on the low side but might well still support a high chronology. The same is true of the Aphek results when taken by alone. There's wiggle room in these numbers for just about everyone.

The truth is that the individual results for these two sites and the 19 other sites studied do not mean much when taken alone. But when the data from all 21 sites are synthesized, an amazing picture results. The authors use three different models to demonstrate the resulting pattern. While the results of each model differ, they all point in the same general direction. Here's a chart, one of 36, that illustrates one way of looking at the combined estimates. This chart is from Figure 6 on page 19. It uses the authors' "focused model" along with their "cautious" estimates. This particular chart includes misfits but excludes charcoal samples.

Note: the authors use Ir for Iron Age. As the authors' say, 22, "Clearly the choice of the model and statistical treatment does affect the results, in the extreme case by as much as a century." Their highest Iron Age I to Iron Age II transition date is 950 BCE; their lowest, 850 BCE. Typically, the results were in the 900-850 BCE range. The lower number in this range is lower than the lowest Low Chronology Iron Age I to Iron Age IIa boundary that the authors' used in making their various charts.

There are at least two areas where one might attack the study: the calibration perimeters and the models themselves. I am not competent to discuss either. However, having read the study, I can no long assume that the low chronology is wrong. In fact, I now believe a lower chronology if not "the low chronology" is likely correct. But what do I know? It will take the interaction between working archaeologists to come to a new consensus, but none of them can avoid this study.

Thanks to Jim West for pointing me to Aren of Tell Es-Safi/Gath fame who cited the Sharon et al paper.

References:

Posted by Duane Smith at June 13, 2007 3:29 PM | Read more on Archaeology |

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2142

Tags: