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.

But the absolute date after calibration depends on which calibration formula is used. This uncertainty ranges from 20 years (for high-precision dating) through intermediate values of 50–100 years, and in some cases up to 100–150 years. For interpreting the results, different statistical models are used by different researchers.

The results, depending on the calibration, can be quite different. Naturally, different statistical models for interpretation of the same data will produce different results. After processing the data with all these scientific tools, most archaeologists “improve” the given dates in accordance with broader archaeological and historical considerations.

The archaeological evidence is often not mentioned.

Moreover, this archaeological evidence is not available and cannot be examined.

In other words the particular sample is either too late or too early No doubt the rejection of certain dates as “outliers” and their exclusion from the model may lead to different dates.

Omitting outliers would be acceptable only so long as it is being done in a consistent, transparent way. Radiocarbon years differ from calendar years because the former are dependent on the varying content of carbon-14 in the atmosphere.For all these reasons, contrasting dates have been reached in the ongoing chronological debate concerning the Iron Age.A decisive solution is far from being accomplished.Since these “long-term” samples may introduce the “old wood” effect, any calculation of precise absolute dates based on “long-term” samples is unreliable and may easily lead to errors of up to several decades or even more.For this reason, researchers prefer to use “short-life” samples, such as seeds, grain or olive pits. In many studies, particular radio-carbon dates are not considered valid because they do not match the majority of dated samples from the site in question.In the following article, “Carbon 14—The Solution to Dating David and Solomon? Calibration procedures are complex and periodically revised as new information comes to light, skewing the radiocarbon dating accuracy.