Re: Qayafa chronology and palaeography
- --- In ANEemail@example.com, Graham Hagens <rgrahamh@...> wrote:
>AND THE CONTRARIAN CONTRIBUTION
> Stuart Manning: WHY RADIOCARBON DATING 1200 BCE
> IS DIFFICULT: A SIDELIGHT ON DATING THE END OF THE LATE BRONZE AGE
> Scripta Mediterranea 27-28 (2006-2007) 53--80well. If you can provide me with a reference to Manning's challenge
> 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: ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: Saturday, April 25, 2009, 4:22 PM
> I will check your Radiocarbon article to for more information, as
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.]
- The material assemblage (primarily pottery) that I have seen from Kh. Qayafa has types that continue late Iron I types (but not all types and relatively few types typical of "Philistia" in the late Iron I), but at the same time, has various types that seem to indicate an early Iron IIA dating (but many typical types of the slightly later Iron IIA are missing). From what I have seen, the assemblage is different from contemporary assemblages in Philistia (e.g., Tell es-Safi/Gath) AND from the far too little we know from late Iron I/early Iron Age II Judah (such sites as Jerusalem/City of David [yes, there is this phase in Jerusalem, despite what is often written], Kh. Dewara, etc.).
Until more is published from the site, we can all talk ourselves blue in the face, each sticking to his/her own presuppositions.
And yes, to get good 14C dating (one can that "prove" or "disprove" this or that theory), one would need a series of stratigraphically-sequenced clusters of single year cultigens, all from extremely well-defined and secure contexts. Statistical manipulation is only secondary to this.
At times one get the feeling that we all suffer from: too little secure data - too much talk...
"Telling it at Gath" ...