Report on the first stage of the Iron Age dating project in Israel: supporting a low chronology.
Open accessAbstract
The traditional chronology of ancient Israel in the 11th–9th centuries BCE was constructed mainly by correlating archaeological phenomena with biblical narratives and with Bible-derived chronology. The chronology of Cyprus and Greece, and hence of points further west, are in turn based on that of the Levant. Thus, a newly proposed chronology, about 75–100 yr lower than the conventional one, bears crucial implications not only for biblical history and historiography but also for cultural processes around the Mediterranean. A comprehensive radiocarbon program was initiated to try and resolve this dilemma. It involves several hundreds of measurements from 21 sites in Israel. Creating the extensive databases necessary for the resolution of tight chronological problems typical of historical periods involves issues of quality control, statistical treatment, modeling, and robustness analysis. The results of the first phase of the dating program favor the new, lower chronology.
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?
Sharon et al. (2007:8-9) decided to eliminate the highest date in the sample 3932 set as an outlier.
“Sharon et al. (2007:8-9) discuss the problem of sample 3932 and decided to eliminate the highest date in this set as an outlier.”
From <sup>14</sup>C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response (2008) · cites this paper as Sharon et al. 2007:8-9
The Outlier Analysis discusses removing the highest date, 3932aa, as a possibility, but explicitly says the outlier-removal procedure reached an acceptable fit before any sample 3932 measurement was removed. The authors conclude that the prudent course was to leave both measurements in. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe earlier dates for the Iron I to IIA transition from southern sites stand in contrast to later estimates from northern sites such as Dor and Rehov, suggesting the need for a more nuanced approach.
“The earlier dates for the Iron I to IIA transition emerging from southern sites stand in contrast to later estimates from sites in the north such as Dor [98] and Rehov [103], suggesting the need for a more nuanced approach to the chronology of this period that explores potential delays in material culture change in different parts of the country.”
From The chronology of Gezer from the end of the late bronze age to iron age II: A meeting point for radiocarbon, archaeology egyptology and the Bible (2023) · cites this paper as [98]
In Previous Research (page unavailable), the paper says Rehov’s Iron I–IIA boundary could fall in the later 10th century BCE, but describes that as a subsidiary possibility in the Rehov model, not its primary estimate. In Relative Periodization (page unavailable), it says correlation with southern sites is complex and that it lacked samples from Judah, so it does not establish the claimed north–south contrast or regional delay in material-culture change. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAvailable data from Tel Miqne (Ekron) and Beth Shemesh give distinctly lower estimates for the strata in which Philistine 2 pottery first appear: Start Miqne VIB at 1118-1059 BC and Start Beth Shemesh 6 at 1081-989 BC (both 68.3% hpd).
“Available data from Tel Miqne (Ekron) and Beth Shemesh give distinctly lower estimates for the strata in which Philistine 2 pottery first appear: Start Miqne VIB at 1118–1059BC and Start Beth Shemesh 6 at 1081–989 BC (both 68.3% hpd).”
From The chronology of Gezer from the end of the late bronze age to iron age II: A meeting point for radiocarbon, archaeology egyptology and the Bible (2023) · cites this paper as [98]
Tables 2–5 list Tel Miqne VIb and Beth Shemesh 6 among the dated early Iron I contexts, and the sample-date listing gives a calibrated range for Beth Shemesh 6. But the cited paper does not give the claimed 68.3% start-date ranges of 1118–1059 BC and 1081–989 BC, or identify both strata as where Philistine 2 pottery first appears. Those specific claims are not supported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe discrepancy between Gezer and Tel Miqne/Beth Shemesh may be due to data limitations: key strata at Tel Miqne are represented by single contexts, and measurements for Level 6 at Beth Shemesh come from a single olive pit.
“However, a close review (for details, see [2]) suggests that the discrepancy may be due to data limitations: key strata at Tel Miqne are represented by single contexts [98], and measurements for Level 6 at Beth Shemesh come from a single olive pit [152].”
From The chronology of Gezer from the end of the late bronze age to iron age II: A meeting point for radiocarbon, archaeology egyptology and the Bible (2023) · cites this paper as [98]
Tables 3–5 (page unavailable) list one sample for Tel Miqne VIIb and VIb, and one sample for Beth Shemesh Level 6. The sample listing identifies Beth Shemesh 6 (3934) as olive pits, but does not establish that it came from a single pit. The cited passages also do not attribute the discrepancy with Gezer to these data limitations. (LLM, conf=0.81)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSample 3949 (MG13 and MG14) from Megiddo Level H5 clearly supports a 10th century BCE date, with an average calibrated date of 1000-930 BCE.
“Sample 3949 (MG13 and MG14) clearly supports a 10th century BCE date (its average calibrated date is 1000-930 BCE; Sharon et al. 2007: 43)”
From <sup>14</sup>C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response (2008) · cites this paper as Sharon et al. 2007
Table 2 identifies sample 3949 as from Megiddo H5, and the calibrated-date listing (entry 67–68, indexed under References; page unavailable) gives a 1005–930 BCE range, close to the claimed 1000–930 BCE. But it also gives wider calibrated ranges extending outside the 10th century, so the claim that the sample clearly establishes a 10th-century date overstates the evidence. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The average calibrated dates of Tel Hadar Stratum IV are 1043-979 BCE in the 68% probability range.
“The average calibrated dates of this context (referring only to the dates published by Sharon et al. 2007) are 1043-979 BCE in the 68% probability range”
From <sup>14</sup>C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response (2008) · cites this paper as Sharon et al. 2007
The paper’s date table (shown in our copy under References; page unavailable) reports two Tel Hadar IV samples, with individual calibrated ranges of 1010–850 BCE and 1050–995 BCE. It supplies the underlying dates but does not report an average calibrated 68% range of 1043–979 BCE; that range appears to be the citing authors’ calculation. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSample 4501.1-3 is omitted from Table 1 because its date is much too low.
“We omit sample 4501.1-3(Sharonetal. 2007:24)as it is much too low.”
From <sup>14</sup>C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response (2008) · cites this paper as Sharon et al. 2007:24
Table 2 (page not available in our copy) lists sample 4501 from Megiddo K/6, supporting the citation as an identification of the sample. The passages found do not identify measurements 4501.1–3 specifically. In the citing sentence, the decision to omit the sample because it is “much too low” is the citing authors’ own, not a finding attributed to Sharon et al. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThis sample from Tell Qasile is critical to the model.
“This sample from Tell Qasile is critical to the model (as recognized and discussed by Sharon et al. [2005Sharon et al. [ :86-89, 2007:8-9]:8-9])”
From <sup>14</sup>C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response (2008) · cites this paper as Sharon et al. 2007
The Outlier Analysis identifies Tell Qasile sample 3932 and discusses its replicated measurements; Table 4 lists it among the samples in the focused model (page numbers unavailable in our copy). These passages support that the sample was discussed and used in the model, but do not establish that it was critical to the model. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn Tel Rehov, Stratum VI represents the earlier phase of the period and strata V-IV the later phase.
“The division of the Iron Age IIA into 2 sub-periods-early and late-as suggested by Herzog and Avitz-Singer (2006; see also Sharon et al. 2007:10-13 and our comment above in relation to Tel Dor) is now substantiated in the excavations of Tel Rehov, where Stratum VI represents the earlier phase of the period and strata V-IV the later phase.”
From <sup>14</sup>C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response (2008) · cites this paper as Sharon et al. 2007
In ‘Relative Periodization of the Iron Age I–IIA in Israel’ (page unavailable), the paper tentatively places Tel Rehov stratum VI in the transitional horizon preceding classical Iron IIA. ‘Previous Research’ also calls VI the lowest Iron IIA stratum. Our copy does not identify strata V–IV as the later phase, so it supports only the earlier-phase part of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe division of the Iron Age IIA into 2 sub-periods-early and late-is now substantiated in the excavations of Tel Rehov.
“The division of the Iron Age IIA into 2 sub-periods-early and late-as suggested by Herzog and Avitz-Singer (2006; see also Sharon et al. 2007:10-13 and our comment above in relation to Tel Dor) is now substantiated in the excavations of Tel Rehov, where Stratum VI represents the earlier phase of the period and strata V-IV the later phase.”
From <sup>14</sup>C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response (2008) · cites this paper as Sharon et al. 2007
In “Relative Periodization of the Iron Age I–IIA in Israel” (page unavailable), the paper discusses an early/later Iron IIA distinction proposed for Judah and suggests that Tel Rehov stratum VI corresponds to a transitional horizon sometimes called early Iron IIA. It also says divisions within Iron IIA are difficult. It does not say that the Tel Rehov excavations substantiate a two-part division or identify strata V–IV as its later phase. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe average 2741 ± 18 for sample 3782 given by Sharon et al. (2007:43) must be a mistake, so the average 2645 ± 31 (Sharon et al. 2007:35) is used instead.
“We use here the average 2645 ± 31(Sharon et al. (2007:35) rather than 2741 ± 18(Sharon et al. 2007:43), which must be a mistake.”
From <sup>14</sup>C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response (2008) · cites this paper as Sharon et al. (2007)
The Hazor Xa (3782) entry in the paper’s dates table (page unavailable in our copy) gives 2741 ± 18 BP, as the citing sentence says. Our copy does not show the attributed 2645 ± 31 average for that sample; the same entry instead lists 2653 ± 60 as another estimate. The judgment that 2741 ± 18 is a mistake is the citing authors’ own conclusion, not a claim attributed to Sharon et al. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe large-scale Iron Age dating project put the transition from the late Iron I to the Iron IIA in the last 40 years of the 10th century, about 940-900 BCE.
“The results of this project put the transition from the late Iron I to the Iron IIA in the last 40 yr of the 10th century, i.e. about 940-900 BCE (Boaretto et al. 2005;Sharon et al. 2007), which makes ~940 BCE the earliest possible date for the Iron IIA sites in the Negev Highlands.”
From Radiocarbon Results from the Iron IIA Site of Atar Haroa in the Negev Highlands and their Archaeological and Historical Implications (2010) · cites this paper as Sharon et al. 2007
In the paper’s “Low” discussion (page unavailable), most model runs place the Iron I–II transition around the turn of the 10th century BCE, broadly consistent with about 900 BCE. But the paper does not place it specifically within 940–900 BCE: it reports model-dependent boundaries, with typical variation in the 900–850 BCE range. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe absolute chronology of the Late Bronze and Iron Age horizons is debated, including the beginning of the LB, the LB I-II, the details of the LB III/Iron I transition and the Iron I/II transition.
“Yet, the absolute chronology of these horizons is debated, for instance regarding the beginning of the LB (see below), the LB I-II, the details of the LB III/Iron I transition 6 and the Iron I/II transition (e.g., Sharon et al. 2007; Mazar and Bronk Ramsey 2008; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010b).”
From Absolute Chronology of Megiddo, Israel, in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages: High-Resolution Radiocarbon Dating (2014) · cites this paper as Sharon et al. 2007
The “Relative Periodization of the Iron Age I–IIA in Israel” section explicitly describes debate over the Late Bronze–Iron I transition, and the paper compares competing dates for the Iron I/II transition. Our copy does not address debate over the beginning of the Late Bronze Age or the LB I–II boundary. No page numbers are available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe Bayesian models presented in the second part of the paper are based on the same data and use the same method as Boaretto et al. (2005), yet using additional dates (mainly from Sharon et al. 2007) and removing outliers to the extent needed to achieve good internal consistency.
“Our Bayesian models presented in the second part of the paper are based on the same data and use the same method asBoaretto et al. (2005), yet using additional dates (mainly fromSharon et al. 2007) and removing outliers to the extent needed to achieve good internal consistency.”
From <sup>14</sup>C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response (2008) · cites this paper as Sharon et al. 2007
The calibrated date of sample 4286 (1190-1030 BCE at 68% probability) may fit both the high and low chronologies and thus does not help resolve the debate over the earliest Philistine settlement.
“The calibrated date of this sample(Sharon et al. 2007:24, 41) between 1190-1030 at 68% probability may fit both the excavator's and Mazar's date 1180-1140/30 BCE (during the time of the Egyptian 20th Dynasty) as well as Ussishkin and Finkelstein's lower dates (1140/30-1200 BCE) and thus does not help to resolve this debate.”
From <sup>14</sup>C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response (2008) · cites this paper as Sharon et al. 2007:24, 41
The conclusion that the transition from Iron I to Iron II occurred about 900 BCE is questionable.
“The conclusion presented by Gilboa and Sharon (2003), Boaretto et al. (2005), and Sharon et al. (Sharon et al. 2007:18-22)-that the transition from Iron I to Iron II occurred about 900 BCE-is questionable.”
From <sup>14</sup>C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response (2008) · cites this paper as Sharon et al. 2007
The calibrated date of Bethsaida sample 4281 (BD1-2) is 1000-930 BCE.
“The calibrated date of 1000-930 BCE (Sharon et al. 2007:43)”
From <sup>14</sup>C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response (2008) · cites this paper as Sharon et al. 2007
Sharon et al. (2007) present two contradictory averages for sample 3782.
“Sharon et al. (2007) present 2 contradictory averages for sample 3782.”
From <sup>14</sup>C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response (2008) · cites this paper as Sharon et al. (2007)
Thus far unpublished new measurements were grouped with dates from previous studies in order to cover the whole stratigraphic sequence from the Middle Bronze-Late Bronze transition through to the late Iron IIA.
“Thus far unpublished, new measurements (marked with an asterisk), were grouped with dates from previous studies (Boaretto et al. 2005; Finkelstein et al. 2006; Sharon et al. 2007; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2007; Gilboa et al. 2013) in order to cover the whole stratigraphic sequence from the Middle Bronze (hereafter MB)-LB transition through to the late Iron IIA.”
From Absolute Chronology of Megiddo, Israel, in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages: High-Resolution Radiocarbon Dating (2014) · cites this paper as Sharon et al. 2007
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 et al. 2007
Rigorous programs of dating the Iron Age phases have been underway in the last decade.
“Rigorous programs of dating the Iron Age phases have been underway in the last decade (e.g., Boaretto et al. 2005; Sharon et al. 2007; Mazar and Bronk Ramsey 2008; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010a).”
From Absolute Chronology of Megiddo, Israel, in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages: High-Resolution Radiocarbon Dating (2014) · cites this paper as Sharon et al. 2007
The disputed transition from the late Iron I to the Iron IIA falls in the range 985-935 BCE, meaning that it cannot be decided according to the Megiddo data.
“The disputed transition from the late Iron I to the Iron IIA (Sharon et al. 2007; Mazar and Bronk Ramsey 2008; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010b) falls in the range 985-935 (Fig. 9), meaning that it cannot be decided according to the Megiddo data.”
From Absolute Chronology of Megiddo, Israel, in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages: High-Resolution Radiocarbon Dating (2014) · cites this paper as Sharon et al. 2007
In Sharon et al. (2007:27), sample MQ1-2 was marked as 'Stratum Vb (or IV??).'
“inSharon et al. (2007:27) it was marked as”
From <sup>14</sup>C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response (2008) · cites this paper as Sharon et al. 2007:27
The sample tables in our copy (Tables 2–4; page numbers unavailable) list Tel Miqne samples by numeric identifiers, including samples assigned to Vb. Searches for “MQ1-2” and “Vb (or IV??)” found no passage linking that sample to the quoted designation, so the specific attribution cannot be verified. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Gilboa, A., & Sharon, I. (2003) · Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research · doi:10.2307/1357808 · Cited by 141 · cited 13× · see citing works
“Though we devised a new chronological terminology for Phoenicia (Gilboa and Sharon 2003:10–11), the basic typological criteria with which we attempted the subdivision of the Iron Age I are well known and widely accepted in the archaeological community.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationA preliminary study of the Mycenaean IIIC:1 pottery assemblages from Tel Miqne-Ekron and Ashdod.
Dothan, T., & Zukerman, A. (2004) · Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research · doi:10.2307/1357793 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
The present status of Egyptian chronology
Ward, W. A. (1992) · Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research · doi:10.2307/1357231 · Cited by 14 · cited 1× · see citing works
“It was synchronized by linking archaeological finds and phenomena across different, often faraway regions, and pegged to an absolute time scale by a few ancient astronomical observations, the understanding of which is in dispute (cf. Ward 1992).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- Ir I(e) olive pits 2857 25 1060-940 BC 1120-930 BC 2857 25 1060-940 BC 1120-930 BC https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200041886 Published online by Cambridge University Press Tel Dor D2/12 (4525)
- Alon D, Mintz G, Cohen I, Weiner S, Boaretto E. 2002. The use of Raman spectroscopy to monitor the re- moval of humic substances from charcoal: quality control for 14 C dating of charcoal. Radiocarbon 44(1): 1-11.
- Anderson WP. 1990. The beginnings of Phoenician pot- tery: vessel shape, style, and ceramic technology in the early phases of the Phoenician Iron Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 279:35- 55.
- Ben-Shlomo D, Shai I, Maeir AM. 2004. Late Philistine decorated ware ("Ashdod ware"): typology, chronol- ogy, and production centers. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 335:1-35.
- Bevington PR, Robinson DK. 1992. Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences. Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill. 384 p.
- Boaretto A, Jull AJT, Gilboa A, Sharon I. 2005. Dating the Iron Age I/II transition in Israel: first intercompar- ison results. Radiocarbon 47(1):39-55.
- Bruins HJ, van der Plicht J, Mazar A. 2003. 14 C dates from Tel Rehov: Iron-Age chronology, pharaohs and Hebrew kings. Science 300(5617):315-8.
- D'Agata AL, Goren Y, Mommsen H, Schwedt A, Yasur- Landau A. 2005. Imported pottery of LH IIIC style from Israel. Style, provenance, and chronology. In: Laffineur R, Greco E, editors. Aegeum 25, Emporia, Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th international conference. Ath- ens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14-18 April 2004, Université de Liege. p 371-9.
- Finkelstein I. 2000. The Philistine settlements: when, how and how many. In: The Philistines and Their World: A Reassessment. University Museum Mono- graph 108, University Symposium Series 11. Philadel- phia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. p 159-80.
- Finkelstein I, Silberman NA. 2001. The Bible Un- earthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. New York: Free Press. 400 p.
- Finkelstein I, Silberman NA. 2006. David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition. New York: Free Press. 352 p.
- Gilboa A. 1999a. The dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome pottery. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 316:1-21.
- Gilboa A, Sharon I. 2001. Early Iron Age radiometric dates from Tel Dor: preliminary implications for Phoenicia, and beyond. Radiocarbon 43(3):1343-51.
- Holden C. 2003. Dates boost conventional wisdom about Solomon's splendor. Science 300(5617):229-31.
- Manning SW, Weninger B, South AK, Kling B, Kuni- holm, PI, Muhly JD, Hadjisavvas S, Sewell DA, Ca- dogan G. 2001. Absolute age range of the Late Cypriot IIC period on Cyprus. Antiquity 75(288):328-40.
- Manning SW, Bronk Ramsey C, Kutschera W, Higham T, Kromer B, Steier P, Wild EM. 2006. Chronology for the Aegean Late Bronze Age 1700-1400 B.C. Science 312(5773):565-9.
- Mazar A. 2004. Greek and Levantine Iron Age chronol- ogy: a rejoinder. Israel Exploration Journal 54:24-36.
- Reimer PJ, Baillie MGL, Bard E, Bayliss A, Beck JW, Bertrand C, Blackwell PG, Buck CE, Burr G, Cutler KB, Damon PE, Edwards RL, Fairbanks RG, Friedrich M, Guilderson TP, Hughen KA, Kromer B, McCor- mac FG, Manning S, Bronk Ramsey C, Reimer RW, Remmele S, Southon JR, Stuiver M, Talamo S, Taylor FW, van der Plicht J, Weyhenmeyer CE. 2004. IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0-26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46(3):1029-58.
- Scott EM. 2003. The Fourth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (FIRI). Radiocarbon 45(2):35-150.
- Sharon I, Gilboa A, Boaretto E. Forthcoming. 14 C and the early Iron Age of Israel -Where are we really at? A commentary on the Tel Rehov radiometric dates. In: Bietak M, editor. The Synchronisation of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millen- nium B.C. Proceedings of the 2nd EuroConference of SCIEM 2000. 28 May-1 June 2003. Vienna: Österrei- chischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
- Stone BJ. 1995. The Philistines and acculturation: culture change and ethnic continuity in the Iron Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 298:7- 32.
- Yizhaq M, Mintz G, Cohen I, Khalaily H, Weiner S, Bo- aretto E. 2005. Quality controlled radiocarbon dating of bones and charcoal from the early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) of Motza (Israel). Radiocarbon 47(2):193-206.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dealing with outliers and offsets in radiocarbon dating
Bronk Ramsey, C. (2009) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200034093 · Cited by 1,204 · see citing works
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
Self-citation<sup>14</sup>C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response
Mazar, A., & Bronk Ramsey, C. (2008) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200033506 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Manning, S. W., Griggs, C., Lorentzen, B., Bronk Ramsey, C., Chivall, D., Jull, A. J. T., & Lange, T. E. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1719420115 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Self-citationBoaretto, E., Finkelstein, I., & Shahack-Gross, R. (2010) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200044982 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Self-citationPetchey, F., & Clark, G. (2011) · Quaternary Geochronology · doi:10.1016/j.quageo.2011.08.001 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Iron Age Mediterranean Chronology: A Reply
Bruins, H. J., Nijboer, A. J., & van der Plicht, J. (2011) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200034470 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Asscher, Y., Cabanes, D., Hitchcock, L. A., Maeir, A. M., Weiner, S., & Boaretto, E. (2015) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.2458/azu_rc.57.18391 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Self-citationRadiocarbon dating the Late Bronze Age: Cultural and Historical Considerations on Megiddo and Beyond
Martin, M. A. S., Finkelstein, I., & Piasetzky, E. (2020) · Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research · doi:10.1086/709576 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Webster, L. C., Wolff, S. R., Ortiz, S. M., Barbosa, M., Coyle, C., Arbino, G. P., Dee, M. W., Hua, Q., & Jacobsen, G. E. (2023) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0293119 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
The Beth Shean Valley and its Vicinity in the 10th Century BCE
Mazar, A. (2021) · Jerusalem Journal of Archaeology · doi:10.52486/01.00001.10 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Assyrian Chronology and Ideology of Kingship: The Impact on Biblical Historiography and Religion
Derstine, P. (2024) · Religions · doi:10.3390/rel15070804 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sharon, I., Gilboa, A., Jull, A. J. T., & Boaretto, E.
- Affiliations
- Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
- University of Haifa (IL)
- University of Arizona (US)
- Weizmann Institute of Science (IL)
- Corresponding author
- Sharon, Ilan
- Venue
- Radiocarbon
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2007
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-46
- ISSN
- 0033-8222 (ISSN-L)
- 1945-5755
- OpenAlex
- W1499926557
- Cited by
- 140
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 8.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Radiocarbon (publishedVersion)
- UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Georgia Department of Transportation
- Weizmann Institute of Science
- Hebrew University of Jerusalem
- Israel Science Foundation
- University of Haifa
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Biblical Studies and Interpretation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient and Medieval Archaeology Studies
- Keywords
- Iron Age chronology, radiocarbon dating, ancient Israel, biblical chronology, Levant, Cyprus, Greece, historical archaeology, robustness analysis
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
