Dating the Iron Age I/II transition in Israel: first intercomparison results
Open accessAbstract
Nearly a decade ago, a different chronology than the conventional absolute chronology for the early Iron Age in Israel was suggested. The new, lower chronology “transfers” Iron Age I and Iron Age IIA contexts in Israel, traditionally dated to the 11th and 10th centuries BCE, to the 10th and 9th centuries, respectively. Thus, it places the Iron I|IIA transition at about 920–900 BCE. This alternative chronology carries important implications for Israelite history, historiography, and Bible research, as well as for the chronologies of other regions around the Mediterranean. Relevant radiocarbon data sets published to date, which were measured at different sites by different laboratories, were claimed to be incompatible. Therefore, the question of agreement between laboratories and dating methods needs to be addressed at the outset of any study attempting to resolve such a tight chronological dilemma. This paper addresses results pertaining to this issue as part of a comprehensive attempt to date the early Iron Age in Israel based on many sites, employing different measuring techniques in 2 laboratories. The intercomparison results demonstrate that: a) the agreement between the 2 laboratories is well within the standard in the 14 C community and that no bias can be detected in either laboratory; and b) calculating the Iron I|IIa transition in 3 different ways (twice independently by the measurements obtained at the 2 labs and then by combining the dates of both) indicates that the lower chronology is the preferable one.
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 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 Boaretto et al. 2005
In “Can 14C Dating Resolve the Levantine Iron Age Dilemma?” (page unavailable), the paper says its calculated transition dates range from 910 to 875 BCE, not 940 to 900 BCE. Its Abstract describes 920–900 BCE as the previously proposed lower chronology, rather than the date range produced by this project. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredBoaretto et al. (2005) published 68 radiocarbon dates relating to 30 samples from 10 Iron Age sites in Israel as part of their Early Iron Age Dating Project.
“Boaretto et al. (2005) published 68 radiocarbon dates relating to 30 samples from 10 Iron Age sites in Israel as part of their Early Iron Age Dating Project.”
From <sup>14</sup>C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response (2008) · cites this paper as Boaretto et al. (2005)
The Materials and Methods section describes an Israeli Iron Age radiocarbon study and says this paper presents its intercomparison subset. But the Assessment of Bias reports 90 individual measurements from 22 samples for one comparison, while the broader study involved over 400 analyses from about 20 sites. Our copy does not substantiate the claimed 68 dates, 30 samples, or 10 sites for this publication, or identify the study by the project name given. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe difference between the results and those of Boaretto et al. (2005) is a minor difference of a mere ~50 yr and may not be fully resolvable by 14C.
“This sounds like a minor difference of a mere ~50 yr compared to the results ofBoaretto et al. (2005), and may not be fully resolvable by14 C; yet, these years are at the very heart of the chronological and historical debate concerning the 10th century BCE.”
From <sup>14</sup>C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response (2008) · cites this paper as Boaretto et al. (2005)
The Introduction (page unavailable) says a roughly 60-year chronological difference is close to the radiocarbon precision limit, supporting the caution about resolving a difference of about 50 years. The paper reports its own Iron I/II transition dates as 910–875 BCE, but it does not establish the citing authors’ approximately 50-year difference from their results. In “Can 14 C Dating Resolve the Levantine Iron Age Dilemma?” (page unavailable), it says radiocarbon can resolve the dilemma if enough measurements are available. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredBoaretto et al. identify QS1 (T-18161 = 3932a, aa) from Tell Qasile X as an outlier.
“They identify QS1 (T-18161 = 3932a, aa) from Tell Qasile X as an outlier.”
From <sup>14</sup>C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response (2008) · cites this paper as Boaretto et al. 2005
Table 4, in “Can ¹⁴C Dating Resolve the Levantine Iron Age Dilemma?” (page unavailable), explicitly lists T18161aa among four outliers in the combined Rehovot–Tucson analysis. The passages from our copy do not establish that this measurement is QS1 (3932a, aa) from Tell Qasile X, so that identification remains unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredBoaretto et al. (2005) presented Bayesian models calculating the transition from Iron Age I to Iron Age II in Israel to be about 900 BCE instead of the conventional date of about 1000 BCE.
“they also presented results of Bayesian models, calculating the transition from Iron Age I to Iron Age II in Israel to be about 900 BCE instead of the conventional date of about 1000 BCE.”
From <sup>14</sup>C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response (2008) · cites this paper as Boaretto et al. (2005)
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 Boaretto et al. (2005)
The single date QS2 from Tell Qasile could change the results considerably, especially when only the dates from Boaretto et al. (2005) are included in the analysis.
“In our case, the single date QS2 from Tell Qasile could change the results considerably, especially when only the dates from Boaretto et al. (2005) are included in the analysis.”
From <sup>14</sup>C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response (2008) · cites this paper as Boaretto et al. (2005)
The 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 Boaretto et al. (2005)
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 Boaretto et al. 2005
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 Boaretto et al. 2005
The 2 dates BD1-2 from Bethsaida are not definitely attributed to Iron I or Iron II by Boaretto et al. (2005).
“We have not included in Model A the 2 dates BD1-2 from Bethsaida, since these are not definitely attributed to Iron I or Iron II by Boaretto et al. (2005)”
From <sup>14</sup>C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response (2008) · cites this paper as Boaretto et al. 2005
The Introduction discusses uncertain Iron Age assignments at Tel Rehov, but not the two Bethsaida dates. Searches of our copy for Bethsaida, BD1, and BD2 found no passage addressing whether those dates were assigned to Iron I or Iron II. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSample MQ1-2 was published by Boaretto et al. (2005) as belonging to Tel Miqne Stratum IV.
“Sample (=MQ1-2) was published byBoaretto et al. (2005) as belonging to Tel Miqne Stratum IV”
From <sup>14</sup>C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response (2008) · cites this paper as Boaretto et al. 2005
The Materials and Methods passage says the study used samples from Iron Age sites, but the passages retrieved from our copy do not identify sample MQ1-2 or assign it to Tel Miqne Stratum IV. Searches for “MQ1-2,” “Tel Miqne,” and “Stratum IV” did not establish the claimed attribution. (LLM, conf=0.70)
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
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965 · see citing works
Gilboa, A., & Sharon, I. (2003) · Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research · doi:10.2307/1357808 · Cited by 141 · cited 5× · see citing works
“They are about 30 yr higher than the transition dates calculated based on the Dor dates alone (880–850, e.g. Gilboa and Sharon 2003: Table 21)—another issue awaiting investigation.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Bevington PR, Robinson DK. 1992. Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences. Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill.
- Bronk Ramsey C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and the analysis of stratigraphy, the OxCal program. Radio- carbon 37(2):425-30.
- Bronk Ramsey C. 2000. Comment on "The use of Baye- sian statistics for 14 C dates of chronologically ordered samples: a critical analysis." Radiocarbon 42(2):199- 202.
- Coldstream JN, Mazar A. 2003. Greek pottery from Tel Rehov and Iron Age chronology. Israel Exploration Journal 53:29-48.
- Gilboa A, Sharon I. 2001. Early Iron Age radiometric dates from Tel Dor: preliminary implications for Phoenicia, and beyond. Radiocarbon 43(3):1343- 51.
- Mazar A. 2004. Greek and Levantine Iron Age chronol- ogy: a rejoinder. Israel Exploration Journal 54:24-36.
- Scott EM. 2003. The Fourth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (FIRI). Radiocarbon 45(2):35-150.
- Sharon I. 2001. "Transition dating"-a heuristic mathe- matical approach to the collation of 14 C dates from stratified sequences. Radiocarbon 43(3):345-54.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates
Bronk Ramsey, C. (2009) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200033865 · Cited by 8,725 · see citing works
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
Boaretto, E., Finkelstein, I., & Shahack-Gross, R. (2010) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200044982 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Self-citationIron 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
- Authors
- Boaretto, E., Jull, A. J. T., Gilboa, A., & Sharon, I.
- Affiliations
- Weizmann Institute of Science (IL)
- University of Arizona (US)
- University of Haifa (IL)
- Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
- Corresponding author
- Boaretto, Elisabetta
- Venue
- Radiocarbon
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2005
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 39-55
- ISSN
- 0033-8222 (ISSN-L)
- 1945-5755
- OpenAlex
- W1522735093
- Cited by
- 49
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 3.17
- 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 (0115488)
- 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
- radiocarbon dating, interlaboratory comparison, Israelite history, biblical chronology, 9th century BCE
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
