Radiocarbon Chronology of Iron Age Jerusalem (Regev et al., PNAS 2024)

Overview

Until this study, the absolute dates for Iron Age Jerusalem rested on pottery typology, stratigraphy and the biblical text. Regev and colleagues took single charred items (mostly seeds) from tightly controlled contexts in five excavation areas and dated 103 of them. They also dated 100 individual tree rings from calendar-dated Irish oak to test the calibration curve across the 'Hallstatt plateau' (c. 800-400 BCE), where radiocarbon normally loses resolution.

The paper reports four results. Occupation in the 12th-10th centuries BCE is shown by 18 dates, which the authors call 'widespread occupation of yet undetermined character'. There was extensive building and westward expansion in the 9th century BCE, including Building 100 in the Giv'ati Parking Lot and the Spring Tower area. An earthquake destruction is dated to c. 766-750 BCE, which the authors link to Amos 1:1. Fortifications that had been credited to Hezekiah are reassigned to the later years of Uzziah.

The study also found that measured radiocarbon ages depart from the calibration curve around 730-710 BCE and around 586 BCE. The authors present this as a correction others must apply when dating late Iron Age sites in the region.

What the evidence shows

• 103 archaeological radiocarbon measurements plus 100 single-ring measurements from dated Irish oak (PNAS 2024).
• 18 of the 103 dates (almost 20%) fall in the 12th-10th centuries BCE. Only three of them (RTD10780, 9598, 9585) come from contexts with clearly associated early Iron Age pottery; the rest are charred remains in building materials.
• A twig in Room 17049 (Area U), 'perhaps representing roofing material', dated to the 10th century BCE (RTD11182).
• Dates from beneath the Spring Tower at the Gihon Spring span the 10th-9th centuries BCE.
• A 9th-century BCE date was obtained for construction in Area U (Room 19040) and for the start of Building 100 in the Giv'ati Parking Lot, which the authors say stayed in use until 586 BCE.
• Earthquake horizon: combined 2507 ± 8 uncal BP, calibrated c. 766-750 BCE.
• In Area 70-south, two of three OSL (luminescence) dates were older than the radiocarbon dates from the same spots, with non-overlapping ranges.
• Neither the Stepped Stone Structure nor the Large Stone Structure was sampled; the paper does not mention them.
• The paper names neither David nor Solomon; the biblical references it makes are Amos 1:1 (earthquake) and 2 Kgs 15-16 (Uzziah / Syro-Ephraimite war).

Open questions

• What kind of 10th-century Jerusalem? Regev et al. (PNAS 2024) show 12th-10th century occupation but call it 'of yet undetermined character', because only 3 of the 18 early dates have diagnostic pottery. Y. Garfinkel (JEMAHS 12/4, 2024) sets these dates beside Khirbet Qeiyafa (c. 30 dates, 1000-970 BCE) and the Gezer six-chambered gate dates (Webster et al. 2023) and reads them as a flourishing early kingdom of Judah; he cites Regev et al. for monumental building in 9th-century Jerusalem. The Jerusalem dates alone do not decide whether the 10th-century settlement was a capital.
• Who built the 8th-century fortifications? Regev et al. (2024) date the Mid-Slope fortification to after the c. 760 BCE earthquake and credit it to Uzziah in the Syro-Ephraimite war period. The attribution they revise credited these works to Hezekiah in the late 8th century (their ref. 59); readers who keep Hezekiah usually cite 2 Chr 32:5 and Isa 22:10, but in Regev et al.'s reading the dated sequence puts construction soon after the c. 760 BCE earthquake, earlier than Hezekiah. Vukosavovic, Shalev, Roth, Chalaf and Uziel (Tel Aviv, July 2026, 'In the Wake of the Amos Quake') return to the mid-8th-century fortifications; that article's argument has not been reviewed for this entry.
• Does radiocarbon agree with luminescence? In Area 70-south, two of three OSL dates came out older than radiocarbon from the same spots (PNAS 2024 SI Figs. S39, S41). The paper reports this and leaves it unresolved.
• I. Finkelstein circulated a response in May 2024 ('Observations on the article Regev et al.', academia.edu). The page was not accessible for this entry, so its arguments are not stated here.

Since 2024

• 2024-05PNAS publishes a follow-on piece by Levy, Smith, Najjar, Vaknin and Ben-Yosef, 'Absolute dating, the Bible, and World cultural heritage'. [2]
• 2024-12Garfinkel (JEMAHS 12/4) uses the Jerusalem dates alongside Qeiyafa and Gezer to argue for a 10th-century kingdom of Judah. [3]
• 2025-08The same Weizmann/IAA team dates the Siloam Pool dam to c. 800 BCE (PNAS 122/35), extending the 9th-century waterworks picture. [4]
• 2026-07Vukosavovic et al. publish on the mid-8th-century fortifications after the 'Amos quake' in Tel Aviv. [5]

Sources

1. J. Regev, Y. Gadot, J. Uziel, O. Chalaf, Y. Shalev, H. Roth, N. Shalom, N. Szanton, E. Bocher, C. L. Pearson, D. M. Brown, E. Mintz, L. Regev, E. Boaretto, 'Radiocarbon chronology of Iron Age Jerusalem reveals calibration offsets and architectural developments,' PNAS 121/19 (2024) e2321024121, DOI 10.1073/pnas.2321024121 link excavation report
2. T. E. Levy, N. G. Smith, M. Najjar, Y. Vaknin, E. Ben-Yosef, 'Absolute dating, the Bible, and World cultural heritage,' PNAS 121/22 (2024) e2406594121, DOI 10.1073/pnas.2406594121 link study
3. Y. Garfinkel, 'The Early Kingdom of Judah in Light of Radiometric Dating,' Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 12/4 (2024) 443-448, DOI 10.5325/jeasmedarcherstu.12.4.0443 link study
4. J. Regev, N. Szanton, F. Vukosavovic, I. Berko, Y. Shalev, J. Uziel, E. Mintz, L. Regev, E. Boaretto, 'Radiocarbon dating of Jerusalem's Siloam Dam links climate data and major waterworks,' PNAS 122/35 (2025) e2510396122, DOI 10.1073/pnas.2510396122 link study
5. F. Vukosavovic, Y. Shalev, H. Roth, O. Chalaf, J. Uziel, 'In the Wake of the Amos Quake: The Fortifications of Jerusalem in the Mid-8th Century BCE,' Tel Aviv (online 3 July 2026) 1-21, DOI 10.1080/03344355.2026.2620262 link study

Checked against new publications through 2026-09.