Cited by 34Biblical Studies and InterpretationArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesAncient and Medieval Archaeology Studies

The Iron I/IIA transition in the Levant: a reply to Mazar and Bronk Ramsey and a new perspective

Open access
Finkelstein, Israel, Piasetzky, Eli·2010·Radiocarbon

Abstract

Mazar and Bronk Ramsey (2008) recently proposed that the Iron I/IIA transition in the Levant took place during the first half of the 10th century. In the first part of this article, we challenge their method and conclusions. We argue against the inclusion of charcoal in their model, which could lead to an “old wood effect.” We also argue that in dealing with a transition date, all available data must be taken into consideration. In the second part of the article, we propose Bayesian Model I for the Iron I/IIA transition, which is based on 2 sets of data—for the periods immediately before and after this transition. Our model, along with the other 11 published Bayesian models for this transition that used only short-lived samples, agrees with the Low Chronology system for the Iron Age strata in the Levant and negates all other proposals, including Mazar's Modified Conventional Chronology. The Iron I/IIA transition occurred during the second half of the 10th century. In the third part of the article, we present a new insight on the Iron I/IIA transition. We propose that the late Iron I cities came to an end in a gradual process and interpret this proposal with Bayesian Model II. Mazar and Bronk Ramsey (2008) recently challenged Sharon et al. (2007; also Boaretto et al. 2005) and us (e.g. Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2003, 2007a,b) regarding the date of transition from the Iron I to the Iron IIA in the Levant. While we and Sharon et al. placed this transition in the second half of the 10th century BCE, Mazar and Bronk Ramsey positioned it “during the first half of the 10th century BCE” and argued that “the second half of the 10th century BCE should be included in the Iron IIA” (Mazar and Bronk Ramsey 2008:178). We discuss some problems in the methodology of Mazar and Bronk Ramsey that may have influenced their results. In particular, we discuss 1) the exclusion of data; 2) the inclusion of data (charcoal samples); and 3) show that even according to Mazar and Bronk Ramsey, excluding these samples position the late Iron I/IIA transition in the late 10th century. Finally, we present our own 2 Bayesian models for the Iron I/IIA transition.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s003382220005640x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 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).”
  • 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.”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. R3c https://doi.org/10.1017/S003382220005640X Published online by Cambridge University Press REFERENCES Figure 7 Results of Model II, showing the gradual late Iron I deterioration during the 10th century and the beginning of the Iron IIA in the second half of the 10th century.
  2. Boaretto E, Jull AJT, Gilboa A, Sharon I. 2005. Dating the Iron I/II transition in Israel: first intercomparison results. Radiocarbon 47(1):39-55.
  3. Boaretto E, Finkelstein I, Shahack-Gross R. 2010. Radio- carbon results from the Iron IIA site of Atar Haroa in the Negev Highlands and their archaeological and his- torical implications. Radiocarbon 52(1):1-12.
  4. Bronk Ramsey C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal program. Radio- carbon 37(2):425-30.
  5. Finkelstein I, Piasetzky E. 2003. Recent radiocarbon re- sults and King Solomon. Antiquity 77(298):771-9.
  6. Finkelstein I, Piasetzky E. 2006. 14 C and the Iron Age chronology debate: Rehov, Khirbet en-Nahas, Dan, and Megiddo. Radiocarbon 48(3):373-86.
  7. Gadot Y. 2003. Continuity and change: cultural processes in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages in Israel's central coastal plain [PhD dissertation]. Tel Aviv University.
  8. Mazar A. 1981. Giloh: an early Israelite settlement site near Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 31:1-36.
  9. Schiffer MB. 1986. Radiocarbon dating and the "old wood" problem: the case of the Hohokam chronology. Journal of Archaeological Science 13(1):13-30.
  10. Scott EM, Cook GT, Naysmith P, Bryant C, O'Donnell D. 2007. A report on Phase 1 of the 5th International Ra- diocarbon Intercomparison (VIRI). Radiocarbon 49(2):409-26.
  11. Shahack-Gross R, Finkelstein I. 2008. Subsistence prac- tices in an arid environment: a geoarchaeological inves- tigation in an Iron Age site, the Negev Highlands, Is- rael. Journal of Archaeological Science 35(4):965-82.
  12. Sharon I, Gilboa A, Jull AJT, Boaretto E. 2007. Report on the first stage of the Iron Age Dating Project in Israel: supporting a Low Chronology. Radiocarbon 49(1):1- 46.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Finkelstein, I., & Piasetzky, E.
Affiliations
Tel Aviv University (IL)
Venue
Radiocarbon
Published
2010
Volume
52
Issue
4
Pages
1667-1680
ISSN
  • 0033-8222 (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-5755
OpenAlex
W2190881687
Cited by
34
References
3
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
61.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Radiocarbon (publishedVersion)
  • UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Tel Aviv University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Biblical Studies and Interpretation
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient and Medieval Archaeology Studies
Keywords
Levant, Iron Age chronology, 10th century BCE, charcoal samples

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