Why the Majority of Radiocarbon Results are Insufficient to Establish any New Historical Conclusions

First, watch this video by C0nc0rdance.

Secondly, read up a little on the debate between the advocates of the Modified High Chronology (Mazar, Bruins, van Der Plicht), independent researchers (Sharon 2001, Boaretto 2005, Sharon 2007), and Israel Finkelstein (here). For some understanding of terms, click the “Chronology” tab at the top of this blog.

Notice how relevant C0nc0rdance’s video is to this debate. Most samples in question in these debates either have a high margin of uncertainty, cross the calibration curve twice (cf. Rehov results), or, as in the case of Dor, obviously wrong in quite a few instances.

This is why I suggest using the following as “gold standards” of establishing chronology by means of radiocarbon dating:

a. A large amount of consistent and unambiguous samples from single-period sites such as ‘Atar Haroa.

b. A large amount of consistent and roughly correct dates from a stratified site (the best example for the Iron I would be Ekron).

Author: pithom

An atheist with an interest in the history of the ancient Near East. Author of the Against Jebel al-Lawz Wordpress blog.

Read the Comment Policy Before Commenting.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: