Chronological dating techniques

Moreover, as so much emphasis is put on questions of different calibration methods and different statistical manipulations, sometimes the archaeological evidence is neglected and the data are not properly presented.The first stage in every discussion should be the proper presentation of the main archaeological finds—that is, stratigraphy and pottery.But it is much more useful regarding broader archaeological periods.

chronological dating techniques-11

Since these “long-term” samples may introduce the “old wood” effect, any calculation of precise absolute dates based on “long-term” samples is unreliable and may easily lead to errors of up to several decades or even more.

For this reason, researchers prefer to use “short-life” samples, such as seeds, grain or olive pits. In many studies, particular radio-carbon dates are not considered valid because they do not match the majority of dated samples from the site in question.

But the absolute date after calibration depends on which calibration formula is used. This uncertainty ranges from 20 years (for high-precision dating) through intermediate values of 50–100 years, and in some cases up to 100–150 years. For interpreting the results, different statistical models are used by different researchers.

The results, depending on the calibration, can be quite different. Naturally, different statistical models for interpretation of the same data will produce different results. After processing the data with all these scientific tools, most archaeologists “improve” the given dates in accordance with broader archaeological and historical considerations.

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.

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.

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.

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.