Publications
Response to Comment on "14C Dates from Tel Rehov: Iron-Age Chronology,
Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings"
Hendrik J. Bruins, Ben-Gurion University of
the Negev, Jacob Blaustein Institute for Desert Research, Department Man
in the Desert, Sede Boker Campus, 84990, Israel
Johannes van der Plicht, University of
Groningen, Centre for Isotope Research, Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen,
Netherlands
Amihai Mazar, The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, Institute of Archaeology, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem 91904,
Israel
27 May 2003; accepted 16 September 2003
Our investigation at Tel Rehov (1) aimed at obtaining reproducible high-quality 14C dates that could serve as an independent
chronological basis (2). Finkelstein and
Piasetzky (3) charge that in the results of
that study (4) we ignored previously published
dates from Tel Rehov (5). We deliberately did
not include these dates because of their consistent disparities. The
basis for comparison is Locus 2425 of Tel Rehov, which yielded a large
heap of charred cereal grains, previously dated by the Weizmann
Institute (Rehovot) and University of Arizona 14C laboratories (5). The
average Rehovot date (excluding one outlier in order to pass the chi
squared test) (6) was 2699 ± 7 years
before the 14C present (yr B.P.)
(T=13.2, 5%=14.1). The average Arizona date for the same cereal
grains (5) is 2749 ± 16 yr B.P.
(T=7.1, 5%=15.5), a difference of 50 B.P. years. The average of
two coherent Groningen dates of the same grains of locus 2425 is 2788
± 14 yr B.P., about 90 B.P. years older than the Rehovot date.
Moreover, other Groningen dates for the end of Stratum V are similar to
those for Locus 2425, which amount, altogether, to 12 dates giving
(6) an average of 2776 ± 5 yr B.P.
(T=8.6,5%=19.7).
As the radiocarbon dating method is pushed to the limit
of resolution, which is required for Near Eastern archaeology of the
Bronze and Iron Ages (7), comparatively small
differences in dating results among individual 14C labs, which have not previously been too much
of an issue in prehistoric context, have become crucial for the periods
cited above. The variability of results performed in a single
laboratory, under as near identical conditions as possible, constitutes
the repeatability (8). The variation in
results under widely varying conditions in different laboratories
constitutes the reproducibility. Thus, the quality of performance of an
individual laboratory can be assessed and compared with that of other
laboratories (8, 9).
 Figure 1. The Tel Rehov Iron Age sequence for the 10th and 9th centuries B.C.E. The full, nondifferentiated, 1σ calibrated age ranges of Phases D3 and D2 and Strata VI, V, and IV are shown in relation to the calibration curve. The horizontal scale is in calendar years and the vertical scale is in conventional radiocarbon years. The respective σ ranges are centered around the BP midpoints for graphical clarity to prevent vertical overlap. D3 is transitional late Iron I to early Iron IIA. All other layers are Iron IIA. Stratum VI is older than V; V and IV are destruction layers, signifying the respective end of these cities. |
The published dates of Tel Dor (10) and forthcoming dates of Megiddo (11) are said to support a Low Chronology (12) and contradict our results for Tel Rehov. More
research concerning the reproducibility of 14C dates among labs involved, as outlined above
(8, 9), may resolve this
contradiction. Megiddo Stratum IVB- V A is very important in the
chronological debate because its pottery and other artifacts are similar
to those found at Tel Rehov Strata VI to IV.
Our 34 published dates of Tel Rehov from the University
of Groningen Centre for Isotope Research (4) – based on
two dating methods, accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) and proportional
gas counting (PGC) (two 14C labs in the same
institution) – comply with a high reproducibility standard.
Moreover, all the samples were taken from well stratified contexts,
usually from destruc tion debris inside rooms above floor surfaces. Only
one sample came from a refuse layer (Phase 02, Locus 1802), which
contained only Iron IIA pottery. The samples derived from pits (Phase
0-3) came from well stratified contexts, containing a transitional Late
Iron Age I/IIA ceramic assemblage. The dated seeds are in all cases
derived from clusters found together in a reliable context. The
reliability of the stratigraphic sequence at Tel Rehov is proven by the
consistency of the entire Groningen radiocarbon series
(4).
Rehov is mentioned at Karnak (Egypt) as a place
conquered by Pharaoh Shoshenq I. It is tempting to relate our
destruction dates of Rehov Stratum V to this pharaoh, but the precise
historical date of Shoshenq I within the second half of the 10th century
B.C.E. remains a factor of uncertainty. However, our results (4) show that the ceramic assemblage of Iron IIA began
in the first half of the 10th century B.C.E (Fig. 1). The life-span of
the city of Rehov Stratum V must be older than our 14C dates, which are based on charred seeds from
its destructive end. The preceding city of Stratum VI was older still.
Therefore, the suggestion by Finkelstein and Piasetzky (in their figure
1) to place Rehov Stratum VI and V tightly together in the last quarter
of the 10th century B.C.E. is unrealistic.
The full 1σ ranges from Phase 03 to Stratum IV
are shown in our figure. The association between Stratum VI and the
wiggle of 970 to 960 B.C.E. (4) seems more
plausible in view of the tell stratigraphy. Even Stratum IV has an age
range beginning in the 10th century B.C.E. All these results support a
Revised Traditional Chronology for the Iron Age IIA in the southern
Levant, covering a time span of about 980 to 840 B.C.E. (4, 13), in contrast to the Low
Chronology of around 900 to 840 B.C.E. suggested by Finkelstein (12).
References and Notes
3. I. Finkelstein, E. Piasetzky,
Science 302, 568; www.
sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/302/5645/568b. (back)
14. We thank S. W. Manning (Reading
University) and C. Bronk Ramsey (Oxford University) for important
comments and statistical evaluations of Stratum V. (back)