Using Radiocarbon Dating in Jerusalem

Abstract

The article “Judging Jerusalem” (A. Lawler, News Focus, 2 Feb., p. [588][1]) presents the diverse points of view of many archaeologists on the chronological and political implications of the findings from the City of David excavation. Most of these archaeologists agree that the relative chronology based on ceramic typology cannot determine the age of this site in relation to other sites. There is almost a consensus that radiocarbon dating is the only way to solve this problem. I would have expected the article to provide an evaluation of whether radiocarbon dating can solve this problem by consulting with experts in the field, rather than publishing a quote by an archaeologist comparing radiocarbon dating to a prostitute. The problem translates into whether two events that occurred within a century can be differentiated. Bearing in mind the analytical uncertainty (±30 years) and that the calibration can sometimes significantly increase the probable range of the date, such precise dating is a major scientific challenge. With Ilan Sharon (Hebrew University), Ayelet Gilboa (Haifa University), and Tim Jull (Arizona University), I addressed this issue by dating the transition from Iron Age I to Iron Age II. We compared samples prepared in three laboratories (Weizmann Institute of Science, University of Arizona, and the University of Groningen). No bias was detected, disproving misconceptions that radiocarbon labs have specific agendas besides doing scientific research ([1][2], [2][3]). We paid careful attention to the archaeological contexts of all samples, characterized their states of preservation, and analyzed more than 150 samples. The radiocarbon dates mentioned in the article by Eilat Mazar were performed by me on samples that were chosen after careful discussion with her. Radiocarbon analysis is not a routine technical operation. Our Iron Age study proves that two events can be differentiated within a century. Much depends upon the reliability of the archaeological context from which the sample is taken and upon a deep understanding of the science involved with radiocarbon dating. 1. 1.[↵][4] 1. E. Boaretto, 2. A.J.T. Jull, 3. A. Gilboa, 4. I. Sharon , Radiocarbon 47, 39 (2005). [OpenUrl][5][GeoRef][6][Web of Science][7] 2. 2.[↵][8] 1. I. Sharon, 2. A. Gilboa, 3. A.J.T. Jull, 4. E. Boaretto , Radiocarbon in press. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.315.5812.588 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1. in text [5]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DRadiocarbon%26rft.stitle%253DRadiocarbon%26rft.volume%253D47%26rft.issue%253D1%26rft.spage%253D39%26rft.epage%253D55%26rft.atitle%253DDating%2Bthe%2BIron%2BAge%2BI%252FII%2Btransition%2Bin%2BIsrael%253B%2Bfirst%2Bintercomparison%2Bresults%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [6]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=2005047751&link_type=GEOREF [7]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000231338500007&link_type=ISI [8]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2. in text