The Iron I/IIA transition in the Levant: a reply to Mazar and Bronk Ramsey and a new perspective
Open accessAbstract
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.
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 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 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.”
From Absolute Chronology of Megiddo, Israel, in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages: High-Resolution Radiocarbon Dating (2014) · cites this paper as Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010b
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 6× · see citing works
“Area D-2 Stratum 10-9; the samples came from a building that was abandoned rather than destroyed (Gilboa and Sharon 2003:33–4).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSub-dividing the Iron Age IIA in northern Israel: a suggested solution to the chronological debate
Herzog, Z., & Singer-Avitz, L. (2006) · Tel Aviv · doi:10.1179/tav.2006.2006.2.163 · Cited by 85 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…before the transition and those that come immediately after it (Figure 2; Tables 2–3; for a somewhat similar idea see Sharon et al. 2007): A) the late Iron I (for this ceramic phase see Arie 2006); B) the early phase of the Iron IIA (for this ceramic phase see Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004, 2006).”
Background<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
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Bronk Ramsey C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal program. Radio- carbon 37(2):425-30.
- Finkelstein I, Piasetzky E. 2003. Recent radiocarbon re- sults and King Solomon. Antiquity 77(298):771-9.
- 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.
- 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.
- Mazar A. 1981. Giloh: an early Israelite settlement site near Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 31:1-36.
- Schiffer MB. 1986. Radiocarbon dating and the "old wood" problem: the case of the Hohokam chronology. Journal of Archaeological Science 13(1):13-30.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
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-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
- Finkelstein, I., & Piasetzky, E.
- Affiliations
- Tel Aviv University (IL)
- Venue
- Radiocarbon
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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