More From This User
Islam’s ‘Public Enemy #1’
Though he is little known in the West, Coptic priest Zakaria Botros — named I...
Archaeological Views: Carbon 14—The Solution to Dating David and Solomon?By Lily Singer-AvitzLily Singer-AvitzThe 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 thehistory and material culture of the reigns of David and Solomon.According to the so-called high chronology, the transition occurred around 1000 or 980 B.C.E. It isgenerally recognized that David conquered Jerusalem in about 1000 B.C.E. According to the lowchronology, the transition to Iron Age IIa occurred around 920–900 B.C.E. Other opinions place thetransition somewhere between the two—in about 950 B.C.The date is important because the date you choose will determine whether David and Solomon reigned inthe archaeologically poor and archaeologically poorly documented Iron I or in the comparatively richand richly documented Iron IIa.However, the differences in data between the various schools are not dramatically far apart. They range between 30 and 80 years.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 onany organic substance, like wood or grain. 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. The hope of many scholars whofeel that this science-based radiocarbon research will bring the debate to its longed-for solution is, in myview, difficult to adopt.The question I would like to raise is whether radiocarbon dating is really more precise, objective andreliable than the traditional way of dating when applied to the problem of the date of the transition fromIron I to Iron IIa. This question is sharpened in light of the fact that the uncertainty in the usualradiocarbon readings (plus or minus 25 years or so) may be as large as the difference in dates in thedebate.The radiocarbon dating has several serious difficulties:(1)
Sample selection.
Measuring the remaining carbon-14 content in “long-term” organic samples, suchas wood, will provide the date of
growth
of the tree, rather than the date of the archaeological stratum inwhich the sample was found. Furthermore, wooden beams were reused in later strata, which can result ineven greater differences in date. 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 leadto 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.(2)
Outliers.
In many studies, particular radio-carbon dates are not considered valid because they do notmatch the majority of dated samples from the site in question. In other words the particular sample iseither too late or too early. No doubt the rejection of certain dates as “outliers” and their exclusion fromthe model may lead to different dates. Omitting outliers would be acceptable only so long as it is beingdone in a consistent, transparent way.(3)
Calibration.
Radiocarbon years differ from calendar years because the former are dependent on thevarying content of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. Therefore a complex procedure known as calibration
Print Page | Biblical Archaeology Reviewhttp://www.bib-arch.org/print.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=35&Issue...1 of 212-Jun-09 10:03 PM
of 00
Leave a Comment
i read somewhere that there was an error in the carbon 14 dating process, but that they continue to use it anyways, that is very stupid if it it is true.