--- In ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org
, Graham Hagens <rgrahamh@...> wrote:
> One of the points of divergence involves the utilization of
> the technique known as 'sequence analysis' which Manning and
> co-authors have used extensively in the past.
> The weakness of this approach is that it sometimes requires the
> author to make assumption about the duration of particular
> archaeological strata, or sequences, 'for which there may little
> external evidence.
> I would argue that utilization of 'single point' data is less
> prone to interpretive errors.
> Graham Hagens
> --- On Thu, 4/30/09, BjÃ¶rn Lindborg <bjorn07se@...> wrote:
[The URL of the Manning article is
> 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.]
> Björn Lindborg
Hi Graham (and All),
Manning and co-authors are not the only ones that use 'sequence
analysis' (Bayesian analysis). It seems to be the usual method when
for some reasons, single 14C measurements don't give decisive
results, e.g. when the calibration curve is 'wiggly' because of
fluctuating atmospheric 14-CO2 levels in the past. This is the case
at ca. 1250-1120 BC and was probably one main reason for Manning to
write his article. We see this in his Figs. 8 and 9, "Calibrated
calendar age ranges for the average of the 20 simulated radiocarbon
ages for 1200 BCE (2961±7 BP)". Even an absurdly tiny error of ±1,
thus 2961±1 BP above, still leads to a similar calibration outcome:
12511240, or 12121190, or 11771160, or 11431131 BCE at 1sigma.
The spokespersons for the 'Low' Palestinian Iron Age chronology
(Boaretto et al., "Dating the Iron Age I/II Transition in Israel"
in Radiocarbon, Vol 47:1) also state:
<< In the present study, we employ the standard Bayesian inference
approach (Bronk Ramsey 1994, 1995). >>
Finkelstein uses a similar method in his criticism of the 'High'
Tel Rehov chronology.
In such 14C catastrophy areas, single measurements may be 'less
prone to interpretive errors' as you write, but also less reliable
for absolute dating purposes because of the wide ranges obtained.