--- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, "verncrisler" <vcrisler3@...> wrote:
>
> --- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, "bjorn07se" <bjorn07se@> wrote:
> > The chronology expressed in Mazar et al. (pp. 26-28) at <snip>
> > seems a little weird. It could be described as a *very* High
> > Chronology. This chapter was not written by Mazar but taken from
> > the dissertation (1993) by Avi Ofer "which was carried out under
> > the supervision of Professors Moshe Kochavi and Nadav Na'aman".
>
> One of the standard works on Holy Land archaeology is Amihai
Mazar's *Archaeology of the Land of the Bible*, 1990. His dates
for the Iron Age (p. 372) are:
>
> Iron 1a – c. 1200 BC to c. 1150 BC
> Iron 1b – c. 1150 BC to c. 1000 BC
> Iron 2a – c. 1000 BC to c. 925 BC
> Iron 2b – c. 925 BC to 732/701 BC
> Iron 2c – 732/701 BC to 600/586 BC
>
> And yes Ofer's chronology is a little higher, but it still
references most of Iron 2a to the 10th century (Solomonic period),
and Iron 2b to the 9th century (Omride/Ahab period). Cf., *Studies
in the archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan*, 2001, pp.
26-28.
>

The excellent Chapter by Amihai Mazar, "The Debate over the
Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant" in "The Bible and
Radiocarbon Dating" (Thomas E. Levy & Thomas Higham, Editors, 2005),
previously found at
http://www.rehov.org/Iron%20Age%20Chronology%20Debate.pdf
has now been hijacked and turned into some commersial site. I was
able to save it in an HTML version from a 'cache memory' at
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:3TNkVJzet8wJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=sv&as_\
sdt=2000
but there are problems with the format and numerous mis-spellings.

According to Mazar himself, his chronology (2005) is here given as
<< Current Suggestion (A. Mazar)
Iron IA: 1200-1140/1130 BCE
Iron IB: 1150/40-ca. 980 BCE
Iron IIa: ca. 980-ca. 840/830 BCE
Iron IIb: ca. 840/830-732/701 BCE
>>

In the Low Chronology by Finkelstein, Iron Age starts ca. 1150 BC
(e.g. in 'The Bible Unearthed'), so Iron I is extended to ca. 250
years, which seems very long, IMO, in contrast to the compressed
Iron IIA.


> Recall also that these BC dates (as well as those of the Greek &
Cypriote material) are ultimately dependent upon the link to Egypt.
For instance, Iron 1a is linked to the alleged BC dates for Tewosret
and Ramses 3.
>

It's true that e.g. scarabs from early Dyn. 20 are found in Iron IA
strata, and the Greek and Cypriote chronologies were assembled
without the aid of radiocarbon. These chronologies have lately been
challenged by new 14C data, which are totally independent of Egypt.
(I have mentioned some 14C results from the central and western
Mediterranean area which seem to corroborate the standard Egyptian
TIP dates.)


> For a short history of changes in dating for Iron 2a, see Ernst A
Knauf, in Lester L. Grabbe, *Israel in Transition: From Late Bronze
II to Iron IIa: The Archaeology*, 2008, p. 99. Briefly, Iron 2a was
approximately placed in the 10th century BC, and Iron 2b in the 9th
century BC. Advocates of the Low Chronology challenged these dates
and argued that Iron 2a should begin later, pointing to 14C dates
that place key Iron Age material in the 9th century.
>

These are the High and Low Chronologies, resp. Agreed.


> Mazar and other traditionalists, not wanting to accept
Finkelstein's Low Chronology argued for stretching Iron 2a to cover
both 10th & 9th century in what they call a Modified Conventional
Chronology. Of course, the problem is that radiocarbon dates for
these archaeological strata are contradictory, but rather than admit
this, Mazar & colleagues continue to trust in the unfaithful mistress
of radiocarbon dating.
>

I would say that Finkelstein too relies on the found (uncalibrated)
radiocarbon results, although he uses the wiggly parts of the
calibration curve in early Iron Age (at 1200-1120, 1100-1050, and
esp. at 1000-930 and 900-830 BC) to opt for lower *calibrated* dates.
These wiggles make the 14C dates ambiguous, but not necessarily
contradictory. Revisionist chronologies which follow Finkelstein's
(Low) chronology for Iron Age IIA but want to neglect his dates for
the LB/Iron border might, more rightly, be accused of unfaithfulness.
The beauty and (general) usefulness of radiocarbon dating stem from
its non-reliance on any special conviction, creed or policy other
than a verifiable, scientific method of collecting and processing
data.


> > An Iron IIA period ca. 980-840/830 BC as a combination of 10th
> > century "Solomonic" and 9th century "Omride" is the recent,
> > widely recognised consensus. E.g., look at the Radiocarbon papers
> > mentioned in my post at
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_chronology/message/3528
> > by Mazar and the Groningen group. Their chronology might be seen
> > as []'state of [the] art' as far as Levantine MCC dates are
> > concerned. The last strata (destruction layers) of Iron IB are
> > 14C dated to ca. 1000 BC and the transition to Iron IIA is under
> > way one or two generations into the 10th century BC.
>
>
> State of the art if you ignore the other radiocarbon labs. And as
you say, "Perhaps this is not the right time or forum to debate the
High/Modified Conventional vs. Low Chronology in detail. The dispute
between Mazar and Finkelstein will certainly go on for a long time to
come."
>
> Hopefully, both will come to their senses and accept New Courville.
> ;-)

Unless they forget the results of radiocarbon dating, this seems
wishful/wistful thinking to me.


> > See also my post at
> >
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_chronology/message/3549
> > where I mention the fact that this chronology is compatible with
> > new radiocarbon dates for cultures in the central and western
> > Mediterranean area.
>
>
> For problems in 14C dating for this period, and the fallacy of
relying on Greco-Mediterranean chronology, see the essay by Sharon,
Gilboa, and Boaretto in the same volume, pp. 177ff.
>

I was able to download Grabbe, "Israel in Transition: . . " but the
crucial pages were missing. This book (2008) is hardly expected to
comment on the paper in Radiocarbon 51(1), pp. 213-242 (2009): "The
Iron Age Around the Mediterranean: A High Chronology Perspective from
the Groningen Radiocarbon Database" by van der Plicht, Bruins and
Nijboer.

The "fallacy of relying on Greco-Mediterranean chronology" was
exemplified in my post #3549 where I noted that
<< Cypriot Black-on-Red pottery starts to appear in Palestine in
the period 1050-950 BC (High chron.; say ca. 1000 BC), but it was
manufactured in Cyprus only from CG III, ca. 850-700 BC in the local
(Low) chronology. >>

Low chronologies try to lower the Levantine dates to conform with
the Cypriote chronology, but the new radiocarbon results (Macedonia,
Italy, Carthage, Spain) seem to support the higher chronology.


Best wishes, Björn