Moreover, as so much emphasis is put on questions of different calibration methods and different statistical manipulations, sometimes the archaeological evidence is neglected and the data are not properly presented.The first stage in every discussion should be the proper presentation of the main archaeological finds—that is, stratigraphy and pottery.According to the so-called high chronology, the transition occurred around 1000 or 980 B. The hope of many scholars who feel that this science-based radiocarbon research will bring the debate to its longed-for solution is, in my view, difficult to adopt.The question I would like to raise is whether radiocarbon dating is really more precise, objective and reliable than the traditional way of dating when applied to the problem of the date of the transition from Iron I to Iron IIa.Based on the very same data, but employing different statistical methods, the various schools have reached quite diverse conclusions.I do not mean to reject radiocarbon methodology for archaeological dating.Dig into the illuminating world of the Bible with a BAS All-Access membership.
The calibration curve is revised periodically as more data are continuously accumulated.
Based on the material finds it is possible to compare sites and regions and create a cultural-chronological horizon.
In some cases today scholars are comparing radiocarbon dates, even before publishing the finds.
But it is much more useful regarding broader archaeological periods.
The differences in the various dates for the transition from Iron I to Iron IIa are too small to be helped much by radiocarbon dating.