‘Transition dating’ – a heuristic mathematical approach to the collation of radiocarbon dates from stratified sequences
Open accessAbstract
A heuristic approach, nicknamed “transition dating,” was used to date sequences of early Iron Age contexts using a series of 14 C determinations. The basic principles of transition dating are simple and intuitive: 1) attempt to date transitions between periods, phases, etc. rather than the phases themselves, and 2) the most plausible date for that transition is one that is later than the dates from contexts preceding it, and is still earlier than the dates succeeding it. Hypotheses regarding the actual date of each transition may be evaluated using an appropriate loss function. These loss functions can also be adjusted or weighted by the user to account differentially for the various factors causing the distortion or “fuzz” in the dates.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The sampling strategy follows guidelines given in recent studies on the absolute chronology of the Iron Age in the eastern Mediterranean and southern Levant.
“The strategy employed in sampling materials for dating follows the guidelines given in recent studies on the absolute chronology of the Iron Age in the eastern Mediterranean and southern Levant (Sharon 2001; Sharon et al. 2007; van der Plicht et al. 2009; Boaretto 2009).”
From Absolute Chronology of Megiddo, Israel, in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages: High-Resolution Radiocarbon Dating (2014) · cites this paper as Sharon 2001
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Bronk Ramsey C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and the analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal Program. Radio- carbon 37(2): 425-30.
- Gilboa A. 1999. The dynamics of Phoenician bichrome pottery-a view from Tel Dor. Bulletin of the American Society of Oriental Research 316:1-21.
- Goodman LA. 1984. The analysis of cross-classified data having ordered categories. Cambridge: Harvard Uni- versity Press.
- van der Plicht J. 1993. The Groningen radiocarbon cali- bration program. Radiocarbon 35(1):231-37.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Toffolo, M. B., Arie, E., Martin, M. A. S., Boaretto, E., & Finkelstein, I. (2014) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.2458/56.16899 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sharon, I.
- Affiliations
- Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
- Corresponding author
- Sharon, Ilan
- ORCID
- Sharon, Ilan
- Venue
- Radiocarbon
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2001
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 2A
- Pages
- 345-354
- ISSN
- 0033-8222 (ISSN-L)
- 1945-5755
- OpenAlex
- W2494927332
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 2.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Radiocarbon (publishedVersion)
- UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Hebrew University of Jerusalem
- Israel Science Foundation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient and Medieval Archaeology Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Archaeological and Geological Studies
- Keywords
- radiocarbon dating, Early Iron Age, phase transitions, loss functions
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
