--- In ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org
, Graham Hagens <rgrahamh@...> wrote:
> Stuart Manning: WHY RADIOCARBON DATING 1200 BCE
> IS DIFFICULT: A SIDELIGHT ON DATING THE END OF THE LATE BRONZE AGE
AND THE CONTRARIAN CONTRIBUTION
> Scripta Mediterranea 27-28 (2006-2007) 53--80
> It is available on the web.
> I am the Contrarian referred to in the title
> Graham Hagens
> From: zmbq <itay@...>
> Subject: [ANE-2] Re: Qayafa chronology and palaeography
> To: ANEemail@example.com
> Date: Saturday, April 25, 2009, 4:22 PM
> I will check your Radiocarbon article to for more information, as
well. If you can provide me with a reference to Manning's challenge
I would appreciate it.
> Itay Zandbank
we read (p. 54):
<< Radiocarbon analysis of archaeological sites is necessarily a
holistic study. This paper employs as its example the impossibility
of narrowly/successfully dating a context of 1200 BCE by single‑case
(or single set) radiocarbon dating. Such a context can only be
successfully dated unambiguously and with precision via a sequence
analysis. At the same time, the contrarian attack nicely forces
clarification of the situation and so serves us well, since it makes
the case it seeks to attack clearer and stronger in the long run. >>
It's interesting to note that the high and low schools in Palestine
Iron Age chronology (Mazar and Bronk Ramsey vs. Sharon and Gilboa)
arrive at their resp. positions by analysis of basically the same
raw 14C dates.
[I think the Radiocarbon article by Mazar and Bronk Ramsey (Vol.
50:2 pp. 159-180; August 2008) is not yet available on the web.]