Re: Absolute dating of Eastern Mediterranean prehistory
- From: "Lars Wilson" <siaxares@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:44:00 -0600
"Peter Alaca." <p.alaca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4790f416$0$2722$dbd49001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
THANKS, again Peter for these references. Here's what I got that was
pertinent out of the next one:
On the following pages you will find a lot of relevant
papers. The last two links I posted before.
Eveline van der Steen & Piotr Bienkowski
<http://www.wadiarabahproject.man.ac.uk/titlepage/news/Antiquity/WAP%20review.htm>
Our main critique, that the BCal modelling of the calibrated C14 dates
pushed these dates back significantly, is addressed in Higham et al.?s
paper. In short: the BCal modelling does NOT push the dates back. If we look
at Area A: ?The Oxford results show that the modelling has had a limited
influence. The posterior distributions show little difference when compared
with the original radiocarbon likelihoods themselves?. And for area S: ?The
Bayesian analysis yielded little additional chronometric data compared with
that derived from the radiocarbon likelihoods.? (Higham et al. 2005,167).
Comparison of the tables in this paper suggests that in order to reach the
spectacular early dates published in Antiquity 2004, the authors have used
the maximum (95.4%) probability range of the BCal results. However, how they
reached the modal values (the ?value with the highest probability?,
according to the Antiquity paper) remains enigmatic.
In the new publications, the data published in Antiquity 2004 have been
combined with the results of new radiocarbon samples, but the confusion
continues. For example, Levy et al. 2005 provide a sequence for area A based
on these new results, stating that stratum A4a is dated by two samples (GrA
25318 (calBC 1210-1045) and GrA 25354 (calBC 1185-1180, 1125-945) (Levy et
al. 2005,138). These samples were taken from stratum A3, but ascribed to
A4a, seemingly because they were too early. The paper by Higham et al.
discards these two results, ironically on the basis of the Bayesian
modelling, as unreliable (Higham et al. 2005,170).
The four-chamber gate of A3 is dated by Levy et al. to the early 10th
century on the basis of the original Oxford lab sample (OxA 12366 [calBC
1000-985]). Two other, new samples, GrA 25321 and GrA 25322, which would
date the building to the 9th century (Levy et al. 2005,138; Higham et al.
2005,170) are pushed into the next stratum. Higham et al. date the
transition (boundary probability) between A4a and A3 to 900 BC, and
consequently, the building of the gate to after 900 BC. So, again, there is
a discrepancy between the results of Higham et al.?s analysis of the
radiocarbon data, and Levy et al.?s interpretation of them, of about 100
years.
MY COMMENT: Several samples found at the same level did give different
dates ranging over 100 years, underscoring, perhaps the importance of
archaeological care in gathering samples. But while this becomes an issue
for this 4-chamber gate, it would not be the same issue for the single
sample found for level City IV at Rehov. A single sample dated by the
above 95.4% PROBABILITY RANGE. But please note they found "enigmatic" the
reference to the "value with the highest probability" suggesting a specific
year or very narrow range of years for this methology. So again, nobody is
MISREADING or misinterpreting this new averaging method, though it is not
accepted as an absolute proof reference across the board by some. The
range of dates though are not contradictory to Shishak's invasion in 871
BCE. The latest-dated scenario for the gates being built in the 9th
century would only mean either it was built late in Solomon's reign which
occurs from 910-870 BCE, or built by Omri or Ahab. Just in passing,
SIX-chambered gates were found at Migiddo, Gizer and Hazor, but a later
dated gate of four chambers above this level. So four-chambered gates were
more typical of Omri-Ahab than Solomon. Thus the structure itself just on
casual and certainly a lay observation is that it favors 9th century rather
than earlier. But if it was built earlier it wouldn't matter. It would
mean it was simply built by someone other than David or Solomon. David
appears on the scene not until 950 BCE per precise Biblical dating.
So thanks for the reference, but this is not about Rehov specifically.
Of note, though the huge controversity and fighting and concern over this
are with those who desperately need to establish David to the late 10th
century at least to try and match the current Biblical dating. What they
don't realize is that that dating will be historically adjusted down by 54
years eventually and thus Solomon and David will sit most comfortably where
all the RC14 dating is pushing it, which is into the mid-10th and early 9th
centuries BCE. Where it belongs and where the Bible timeline dates it, and
now where the revised Anstey-Josephus timeline would date it as well; the
A-J timeline and the Biblical dating are in sync with the 709 BCE eclipse
dating for the Assyrian eponym eclipse, which also dates Shishak's invasion
to 871 BCE.
Lars Wilson
The Beth-Shean Valley Archaeological Project
http://www.rehov.org/project/publications.htm
http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publications/
--
"The moment we want to believe something,
we suddenly see all the arguments for it,
and become blind to the arguments against it."
George Bernard Shaw
.
- References:
- Absolute dating of Eastern Mediterranean prehistory
- From: Peter Alaca.
- Absolute dating of Eastern Mediterranean prehistory
- Prev by Date: Re: Age of the Universe: Biblical extremism vs Archaeology
- Next by Date: Re: Age of the Universe: Biblical extremism vs Archaeology
- Previous by thread: Re: Absolute dating of Eastern Mediterranean prehistory
- Next by thread: Re: Absolute dating of Eastern Mediterranean prehistory
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
