I want to keep this one going, Spidey, and I figure you'll provoke somebody
if I nudge you...
The claims of Levy et al. seem to rest primarily on radiocarbon dating. Ignoring as best I can this irony, I'd like to visit the other side of the controversy: not the other evidence, textual or artifactual, outside their recent analysis, but the actual radiocarbon dating techniques they employed.
First, from the NY Times article linked in the OP:
NY Times writes:
Piotr Bienkowski of the University of Manchester, England, and Eveline van der Steen of East Carolina University in Greenville, N.C., who have excavated the Edomite highlands, criticized the statistical analysis of the new dating and suggested that the data had been used to support an unjustified interpretation.
"One 'fortress' does not make a kingdom," they argued in a paper. Dr. Levy said the most advanced statistical methods were applied in analyzing the radiocarbon dates, and the laboratory work was conducted at Oxford and the University of Groningen, the Netherlands.
"We realize that our work is far from complete, " Dr. Levy said, and a large team from the University of California will return this fall to Khirbat en-Nahas for a deeper look into the early history of the Edomites.
Here is a link that connects to the original article in Antiquity, the critique from Bienkowski and van der Steen, and subsequent exchanges at the
Wadi Arqabah Project website. The NY Times article link has expired, but the others are still good.
My layman's understanding of what I've read there is that Bienkowski and van der Steen suggest that Levy's radiocarbon statistical analysis is front-loaded with data normally intended to narrow the probable range of dates: stratigraphic relationships between finds in the same dig, etc., with variable parameters for levels of confidence.
Essentially, Bienkowski and van der Steen seem to be suggesting that the calibration was circular, using assumptions that yield the dates preferred. As a red flag, they cite the fact that the calibration performed by Levy, et al.
widened the possible date range rather than narrowing it, while the "most probable" date was pushed to the older end of the range.
I'm still re-reading all this, but I hope we can discuss the science side of this controversy further.
Also, here are some further
listserv discussions at U.Chicago between Bienkowski & van der Steen and Levy, et al's defenders.
Edited by Omnivorous, : Clarity