Best different dating methods in archaeology pdf

best different dating methods in archaeology pdf

Dating methods in Scandinavian archaeology. Archaeology 5: When Is It Dated? Dating Methods and Archaeology. Encyclopedia of Archaeology || DATING METHODS, OVERVIEW. Dating Geomagnetic Polarity Zones. Radiocarbon dating and archaeology. Dating techniques in archaeology and paleoanthropology. Use of Luminescence Dating in Archaeology. About Us. Contact.

best different dating methods in archaeology pdf

• • • Notes on dating problems archaeology Low .pdf • • Original filename: Notes_on_dating_problems_archaeology_Low.pdf This PDF 1.5 document has been generated by Zamzar, and has been sent on pdf-archive.com on 17/05/2017 at 07:38, from IP address 73.222.x.x.

The current document download page has been viewed 101 times. File size: 182 KB (28 pages). Privacy: public file 12/31/2016 Archaeology, The Low Chronology Paradigm and the "state of indescribable confusion" Problems in Dating Biblical Events and Periods Contents Archaeology, The Low Chronology Paradigm and the "state of indescribable confusion" ......................2 Introduction................................................................................................................................................2 I Low Chronology Paradigm .....................................................................................................................2 1.0...........................................................................................................................................................2 2.0...........................................................................................................................................................3 3.

0..........................................................................................................................................................4 4.0...........................................................................................................................................................4 5.

0..........................................................................................................................................................4 II Criticisms of the Low Chronology Paradigm?.......................................................................................5 Sources For Egyptian History..................................................................................................................10 III Problems with Archaeology Dating Generally ...................................................................................11 Manetho's Dates .......................................................................................................................................16 Criticism of Consensus Chronology ........................................................................................................17 Pseusennes II............................................................................................................................................19 Siamun .....................................................................................................................................................19 Egyptian Chronology as a source of Cross Dating ..................................................................................22 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................23 Abbreviations: BDB Brown Driver Briggs Fau.

Fausett Bible and Encyclopedia Dictionary IEBF Illustrated Encyclopedia of Bible Facts TNJE The New Jewish Encyclopedia Str. Strongs Bibliography and Appendices 1 Archaeology, The Low Chronology Paradigm and the "state of indescribable confusion" Introduction What is the nature and relationship of the two classes of data now available for writing a history of ancient Israel; texts and archaeological evidence?

This is a question raised by Dever (Dever 1997) and as relevant today as it was when he raised it. This paper seeks to take a short but critical look at the low chronology paradigm of Israel Finkelstein the archaeologist.

In this paradigm archaeological data is given priority over the literary sources of contained in the biblical text. In this paper we will review the paradigm and critique it. We will then go on to look at some of the limitations in using archaeological data to reconstruct history. We will do this by reviewing the situation in the dating of Egyptian chronology, through Manetho, a criticism of the consensus and this will set the problem into relief by observing how difficult it is to see which Pharaoh reigned alongside King Solomon using archaeological data even of some of the most reliable kind.

We finish with seeing how Egyptian Chronology is sometimes used to date biblical events despite the lack of absolute dates. This gives the scholar pause in being too certain about dating anything in the second millennium BCE and backwards. The paper is in the form of notes so the result will be very limited in application and yet they need to be noted.

I Low Chronology Paradigm Finkelstein in laying out his alternative paradigm (Kuhn 1962) of chronology lays out what we can call five pillars1 which underlie his course of action in regard to archaeology and its relationship to the history of Israel and the biblical text.

The five pillars are 1.0 The destruction of the present paradigm which has the biblical text as a clear source of historical 1 Following his terminology regarding the prevailing paradigm. 2 evidence and guide in reading the archeological evidence. It is at time a secondary source and at other times a primary source. By pointing out the weaknesses of the present paradigm repeatedly, Finkelstein advances its downfall at every opportunity2.

2.0 Presenting an alternative hypothesis knowing that in the theory of paradigm shifts (Kuhn 1962) there is always and alternative hypothesis ready to take over from the collapsing paradigm. So here Finkelstein points out in 1996: "In what follows, I wish to discuss the search for the archaeology of the United Monarchy free of any conventional wisdom, text bias, or irrelevant sentimentality. I will try to demonstrate that there is an alternative hypothesis to the prevailing theory, though I will not be able to prove it (nor would any scholar be able to prove the prevailing view; the alternative view is no less appealing and historically sound than the accepted one" (I.

Finkelstein, 1996). So Finkelstein makes clear his intention both in the title of the paper and in the paper itself3. The language he uses in approaching the task is the language of science, theory and hypothesis.

His low chronology view he claims is unprovable and no better than the present view but seeks to remove the text bias, conventional wisdom and irrelevant sentimentality4. He does not tell us what he will replace text bias5 with nor which wisdom he intends to use instead of conventional wisdom.

In this strategy because Finkelstein will go to an area to reinterpret the archaeological evidence in light of the new paradigm, on the clear understanding that in the world of knowledge there are always many ways to read one set of facts. This is more so in archaeology when the material is dumb, with inscriptions it is a very different but still the method is used by the minimalists. Finkelstein's intention is to show "there is an alternative hypothesis to the prevailing theory"(Finkelstein 1996 p.170).

For example Finkelstein critiques what he calls "the pillars" of the present paradigmatic interpretation of the Megiddo four entry gate being assigned to the (I. Finkelstein 2005, 32), (I. Finkelstein 1996, 178) (Finkelstein, Ussisskin and et.al 2007) It is clear then Finkelstein's goal is not historical truth but something that will challenge the prevailing theory 4 This sentimentality element may refer to the frustration those who are follow the accepted standards of present day scholarship feel when him and his colleagues will not accept any reading of the archaeological signs except that it agrees with their theory.

So we see in the case of Garfinkel 5 Perhaps bias towards archeological artifacts and findings 2 3 3 10th century time of Solomon. Finkelstein: "The attribution of the four entry gate" to those days have been challenged: "the Megiddo gates seems to post-date Stratum VA and IVB(Ussishkin 1980). "All three foundations of the archaeology of the United Monarchy has been shown to be far from reliable, undisputed chronological anchors" (I.

Finkelstein 1996). This leaves the road open for an alternative paradigm. The principle applied is very simple it is much easier to destroy a building, however solid, than it is to build one, or in one hour you can pull down a building which took six months or even a few years to build. 3. 0 Traditional archaeology and biblical exegesis focusing on sites related to the Omride Dynasty, where there are more straightforward clues. These are Samaria and Jezreel. Ashlar evidence which connects Samaria with Megiddo Stratum VA-IVB.

These blocks have unique masons' marks (Lamon and Shipton 1939 p.25). They are connected to two palaces one of which one in Megiddo and the other in Samaria and one is dated to the tenth century and the other to the ninth.

With Biblical testimony that Samaria was built by Omri and Assyrians texts talking about bit omri. Also a destruction layer in Jezreel which was in the Omride compound produced a pottery assemblage identical to Megiddo VA and IVB which was originally dated to 10th century BC (Zimhoni 1997 p38-39).

For him in both these cases only down dating is possible. 4.0 Possible Pillar: Mass produced Egyptian amulets from the time of Simamun and Sheshonq I (10th Century BC) Again dated by the Bible to 926BCE. They appear in Megiddo VIA which was previously dated to 11th century. 5. 0 The down dating of the Philistine pottery bichrome ware from 1100 to 950 BCE and redating the tenth century strata (Megiddo VA/IVB, Gezer IX-VIII, and Hazor X-XI).

Finkelstein moves on to seek some 4 anchors for Iron II chronology. He decides to do it with pottery. The upper anchor was Ramses III activity in Canaan. The presence of locally made Monochrome ware (Mycenean IIIc;1b family) represents the initial phase. In addition he adds the Medinet Habu inscription and the Harris Papyri I. He sees evidence of the Egyptian domination in southern Canaan until Ramses VI and that the Monochrome pottery should be dated to 1135-1100 or later and that that the local bichrome that developed from it should be dated when from 1100 or so unto the ca 950 BCE.

This was opposed to the Alt Albright paradigm that Philistines were settled in southern Palestine by Ramses III in his forts that dated it to 1175-1150. The upper date then is Ramses III and the lower date for early Iron age chronology is in the late eight century with the invasion by Sennacherib in 701BCE. He sees the problem as to how to fill the 450 year gap. There is a problem because the Mesha stone was found on the surface at Dibon, the fragment of the Stela of Shoshenq from Megiddo was retrieved from a dump and the fragment from stele at Dan were reused in a later strata (I.

Finkelstein 1996, 180). He points to the possibility of the Shoshenq campaign which he dates to 926BC6 but understands that it is not certain which destruction layers could be assigned to it. II Criticisms of the Low Chronology Paradigm Garfinkel (Garfinkel 2011) serious criticism on the minimalist position argues they were overly subjective in their attempts at reclassifying biblical historiography to biblical fiction, hence removing its authority as a primary or even secondary source: After minmalists had concluded David was a fiction, the Tel Dan inscription dropped into the field of battle like a bolt of lightning out of a clear blue sky striking the minimalist position at the foundation, even at the place of their assumptions that David was literary.

Garfinkel(2011) describes what happened next: The minimalists reacted in panic, leading to a number of suggestions that now seem ridiculous. The Hebrew bytdwd should be read not as the House of David, but as a place name… in parallel to the 6 Basing his dating on biblical evidence 5 well-known place name Ashdod . Other minimalist suggestions included 'House of Uncle', 'House of Kettle', and 'House of Beloved'.

Nowadays arguments like these can be classified as displaying 'paradigm collapse trauma' that is literary compilations of groundless arguments masquerading as scientific writing through footnotes, references, and publication in professional journal. The Tel Dan Inscription ended the first phase of the debate regarding the historicity of the Hebrew Bible (Garfinkel 2011) However although it looked like panic it was actually the process needed to maintain the alternative paradigm which they are seeking to impose on the discipline biblical archaeology.

Dever (1997) also picked up on the unreasonableness of some of Low chronology paradigms suggestions regarding the four entry gate at Megiddo that is reassigning from the 10th to the 9th century thus removing another monumental building from Solomon's repetoire and Solomon's cities.

"What are the grounds, for separating the four entry gateway, reassigning it to Strata IVA, and positing as absolute date in the 9th century BCE? Ussishkin's stratigraphic arguments are intriguing, but certainly unconvincing, since they are based entirely on the excavation and recording of the Chicago excavators, open to almost any reinterpretation one may propose" (Dever 1997).

That is of course the point to propose an alternative view in line with the paradigm they are trying to impose. Dever saw clearly this strategy in the case of Wightman a colleague of Finkelstein "Wightman's arguments, as far as I can see, rest entirely on the baseless caricature of "biblical archaeology" and those he think espouse it"7 (Dever 1997, 236).

Here Dever clearly points out one purpose behind the alternative paradigm for Wightman, to remove the influence of the Bible where possible. In looking at the situation regarding the reclassifying of the four entry gateway by Ussishkin and Herzog Dever notes that after their "re-dating scheme, they are left with a city of Solomon (Herzog Str.

VA, Ussishkin's str. IVB) Although Finkelstein refers approvingly to Wightman's summary of the history of research of the tenth century he also dismisses his attempts to lower the date of Megiddo in light of the results of Samaria because the "stratigraphy in Samaria and the relationship between the architecture and the pottery are chaotic, and the pottery that had been published was so little it could not give a sound conclusion (I.

Finkelstein 1996, 179) 7 6 that has monumental architecture such as palaces 1723 and 6000; a building (1482) for "royal administrative officers" or "scribes" and elite residences (building 2163) and clear evidence of social stratification . yet this city is like no other "royal cities" in that it has no city walls (Yadin's eastern casemate they think is simply a row of houses), and only a simple gate…Such theoretical reconstructions are what I meant above in speaking of violating the rule of common sense…The revisionists' scenario may be possible, given Megiddo's notorious stratigraphy, but does it make sense?

Are there any empirical data to support such radical re-workings of Megiddo? I suggest not. (Dever 1997, 237) Dever thinks that it does not make sense. Although it is understandable that with the intention of forcing a paradigm shift you must move strategically in planning your progress this can lead to problematic use of data.

For example whereas Finkelstein may have high level critical methodology when he deals with archaeological sites and is able to find the loop holes and so expose the weaknesses he does not necessarily give a better alternative and he knows it (I. Finkelstein 1996). The point made by Dever regarding the unique royal city with no walls needs to be paid heed to.

The second thing is if one is driven by a vision so that when you cannot see the way forward you simply say "There are methodological issues', and then when finding you can see the way to critique the other paradigm you do that, you are not seeking historical truth but just to follow an agenda. Your work can be seen as propaganda and not research, this danger also lies in the fact that so many of the reassessments of sites are done by Finkelstein and Ussishkin, and other the in low chronology school.

This must also cause irritation in professional archaeologists who know that if there results point to the 10th century for a monumental structure it is likely the Tel Aviv school will be unlikely to ever accept the professional competence of the archaeologists and will look for any stray pottery sherds from the wrong period that got between the rocks, or to reinterpret a the building one just assessed.

This problem is seen in the case of E Mazar. She dated cup marks to the Chalcolithic period. 7 Finkelstein and team concluded "it is not the only possibility" (Finkelstein, Ussisskin and et.al 2007, 147). It is the case that there is never only one possibility. She dated the "brown earth accumulation" to between the Chalcolithic and Middle bronze-age, the alternative hypothesis for Finkelstein was "The latter argument holds only if the 'brown earth accumulation' indeed represents an accumulation of in situ activity rather than a fill, or make up construction" thus for Finkelstein "The 'brown earth' accumulation' seems to be too thin for accumulation of several centuries…it could have been brought here from another location" (Finkelstein, Ussisskin and et.al 2007, 147).

With this kind of systematic peer pressure Finkelstein asserts "The reader should also pay attention to the most illuminating fact that all desertions are from the traditional to the low chronology. Dever has now prepared the ground for his own desertion "caution is indicated at the moment; but one should allow the possibility of slightly lower 10th-9th centuries BCE dates'. (I. Finkelstein 2005). This is of course the language of war and Finkelstein is indeed a revolutionary at war with the prevailing theory helped by his flexibility with principles.

In 1996 Finkelstein criticized Yadin, Guy and others for using the Bible texts to illuminate their results and as historical evidence. However problematically nine years later Finkelstein began to lean on the Bible text in a more robust way than they did.

The difference being that he appears to have not been critical enough and did not cite from which text he was referring to (I. Finkelstein 2005, 37). For example he cites the Tel Dan Stele as reflecting the situation with Jehu and the destruction of Ahab, he cites but one biblical scholar as authority.

This appears to be a double standard and can only lead to the alternative paradigm having a short life. Other criticisms include Mazar's density of strata criticism "too many strata are left in northern Israel for a relatively short period of time until the Assyrian take over in 732 BCE" (A.

Mazar 1997). The fact that the low chronology paradigm possibly dates the Megiddo four entry gate to the 9th century still leaves two monumental gates in Hazor and Gezer pointing to a Solomonic period beyond the .

The results from Finkelstein's low chronology paradigm are used by the minimalist schools in 8


best different dating methods in archaeology pdf

best different dating methods in archaeology pdf - Dating Techniques In Archaeology


best different dating methods in archaeology pdf

Field Methods in ArchaeologyThomas Hester, Harry Shafer, Kenneth L. Feder 1 / 5Publisher : McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/LanguagesRelease Date : 2 / 5ISBN : 1559347996Author : Thomas Hester, Harry Shafer, Kenneth L.

FederDownload Herehttp://bit.ly/ebook_apetiga 3 / 5http://bit.ly/ebook_apetigaThis highly regarded comprehensive guide provides an up-to-date overview of the variety of methodsused in field archaeology, from research design to excavation strategies to conservation of artifactsand record-keeping.

The contributors to the volume bring a wealth of expertise on diverse subjectsand offer practical advice on their areas of special interest.Find the Full PDF Herehttp://bit.ly/ebook_apetiga 4 / 5http://bit.ly/ebook_apetigaYou Can Download the PDF Herehttp://bit.ly/ebook_apetigaPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 5 / 5http://bit.ly/ebook_apetigahttp://www.tcpdf.org


best different dating methods in archaeology pdf

We describe the finding of five male bodies from the salt mine of Chehr Abad, Zanjan province, Iran. Radiocarbon determinations suggests that two of the bodies date to the late Sassanian period, while the other three died sometime between 410 B.C. and 350 B.C. We speculate that these deaths may have been the result of an earthquake between 405-380 B.C.

We have also obtained new isotopic data on skin and hair, and conclude that they may not have come from the Zanjan area. A preliminary study of stomach contents and parasite load for one of the bodies has also been carried out. • The archaeological record comprises a macroscopic component represented by strata, artifacts, architectures, installations, graves, etc., and a microscopic component that includes the materials of which artifacts and architectures are made, as well as the sedimentary matrix in which artifacts and architectures are found.

Microarchaeology is thus the study of the microscopic archaeological record, i.e. everything that cannot be seen by naked eye and therefore requires the use of instrumentation. This branch of archaeology is the product of a long tradition of scientific archaeology that goes back to the 19th century. Microarchaeology makes extensive use of analytical methods developed in the field of the natural and life sciences to solve archaeological problems. This is done by integrating the information extracted from the microscopic record with the data obtained from the study of the macroscopic record.

The result is a better interpretation of the archaeological record as a whole. • The radiocarbon dating method was developed by Willard Frank Libby and his team at the University of Chicago between 1946 and 1960, when Libby was awarded the Nobel Prize. My paper will frame the birth and early use of this method through the analysis of three aspects: the historical and political context in which it is rooted, the notion of time embedded in the method, and the academic implications of its use.

By means of this analysis I will provide an example of the bidirectional influx of technology and society on one another, while showing the importance of contextual analysis for the understanding of archaeological methods. • Archaeometry is at the borders of archaeology, epistemologically related to physics, chemistry, geology and other ‘hard’ sciences.

This has led to situations where ‘archaeometrists’ are often involved in the development of new tools and methodologies, sometimes independently of the needs of the archaeological sciences. Archaeologists, based in the social sciences, tending to be in awe of the tools developed by their ‘scientific’ colleagues, might uncritically accept the results obtained from scientific analyses, or be over-suspicious of them.

Increasingly, however, there is a demand from archaeologists for evaluation of their assumptions and results by means of advanced scientific analyses. These scholars recognise the need for assistance in the characterisation of materials and in dealing with thorny problems of chronology.

An approach integrating various disciplinary specialisms is particularly important in the application of sophisticated analytical techniques such as those using ion accelerators. In this overview paper, we review previous work, discuss current developments and problems, assess the potentials and limitations of this interdisciplinary field, and point to the potential of further methods. • We present here evidence of pre-Portuguese presence in the Azores Islands, Portugal, found near the site of Grota do Medo (Posto Santo), discovered by Rodrigues (2013) in Terceira Island, Azores.

This evidence was dated by Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, and indicates the presence of human activity in Terceira Island before or during the XIth century. The evidence consisted in a man-made rock basin, which was found in a site that contains also striking similarities with many other aspects from ancient cultures, including other man-made rock basins, arrangements of large stones which resemble megalithic constructions, and inscriptions in stones which resemble ancient petroglyphs.

Although the dating of this evidence is highly suggestive of the presence of human activity in the Azores Islands long before the arrival of the Portuguese navigators of the XVth century, there is no clear evidence which enables us to identify which specific culture may have existed in the Azores before the Portuguese arrival.


Relative Dating Method
Best different dating methods in archaeology pdf Rating: 8,4/10 1513 reviews
Categories: best dating