There's been considerable debate after Yadin wrote this. Yadin precedes Finkelstein and Finkelstein's Low Chronology is a response to the Yadin Solomonic paradigm. After Yadin posited it in the late 70s over the subsequent 20 years or so it has been slowly chipped away and today virtually no one takes it all that seriously. The problems suggested are that if one takes the strata Hazor X and place it in the time frame of Solomon's rebuilding projects, one creates chaos with strata IX, VIII and VII. This is a problem for dating the strata and can be solved by simply dating strata X to the 9th century BCE.
Yigaelth Yadin isn’t to be taken as the source but a reference by Mazar from 2003 that Yadin was probably correct in the late 70’s. Finkelstein precedes Mazar and Mazar’s refutation of Finkelsteins’s Low Chronology is a response to the Finkelstein non-Solomonic paradigm. The Low Chronology was first proposed in the early 80’s, over the subsequent 30 years or so it has been slowly chipped away and today virtually no one takes it all that seriously.Revisionism began on the archaeological front in the early 1980s, when several archaeologists o the Tel Aviv University set out to lower the conventional 10th century date of the distinctive four-entryway city gates and casement (or double) walls at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer to the early-mid-9th century BCE.’, Dever, ‘Biblical and Syro-Palestinian Archaeology’, in Perdue (ed.), ‘The Blackwell companion to the Hebrew Bible’, p. 137 (2001). Mazar concluded that Finkelstein’s suggestion to push the date of the Philistine Monochrome pottery beyond the end of the Egyptian presence in Canaan is based upon a debatable assumption.
The Tel Aviv school‘s, idiosyncratic Low Chronology wasn’t accepted by the Jerusalem School, or by any European or American archaeologist, (It still isn’t widely accepted, even by all Tel Aviv archaeologists). The Blackwell companion to the Hebrew Bible’, p. 137 (2001). Isn’t this the school of most if not all of your sources come from?
Anabel Zarzeki focused on the Iron Age stratigraphy of northern assemblages. Zarzeki-Peleg presented a ceramic typological study of three important northern sites (Megiddo, Jokneam, and Hazor) and concluded that the stratigraphical redating of the Low Chronology is not possible.
The most significant studies, all opposed to Finkelstein’s “low chronology,” are those of Zarzeki-Peleg, 1997; Ben-Tor and Ben-Ami, 1998; and Mazar, 19991.’, Dever, ‘Biblical and Syro-Palestinian Archaeology’, in Perdue (ed.), ‘The Blackwell companion to the Hebrew Bible’, p. 202 (2001).
In the meantime, Finkelstein’s views are opposed by such leading archaeologists
as Amihai Mazar of Hebrew University, excavator of Tel Rehov;* Amnon Ben-Tor of Hebrew University, excavator of Hazor;* Lawrence Stager of Harvard University, excavator of Ashkelon; and William Dever of the University of Arizona, excavator of Gezer. More to the point, Finkelstein’s low chronology has not been accepted even by his codirector at Megiddo, David Ussishkin. Ussishkin tells us that “on archaeological grounds it is quite possible (though not necessary) that some or all of [the structures in Stratum VA-IVB] originate in the 10th century B.C.E., during Solomon’s reign,” which is what the traditional chronology holds.’, Shanks, ‘Reviews: Megiddo III—The 1992–1996 Seasons, Israel Finkelstein, David Ussishkin and Baruch Halpern, Editors’, Biblical Archaeology Review (6.06), November/December 2000.
It should not go unnoticed that
not a single other ranking Syro-Palestinian archaeologist in the world has come out in print in support of Finkelstein’s ‘low chronology’.’, Dever, ‘Histories and Non-Histories of Ancient Israel: The Question of the United Monarchy’, in Day (ed.), ‘In Search of Pre-exilic Israel: proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar’, p. 73 (2003).
The overwhelming consensus is, now more than ever, against Finkelstein’s low chronology, and therefore against his ‘new vision’ of ancient Israel.’, Dever, in Tel Aviv, volumes 30-31, p. 278 (2003).
Demolishing Finkelstein’s supposed late date for the appearance of Philistine Bichrome pottery, based on an argument entirely from silence,
leaves him without a leg to stand on for the remainder of his Iron I ‘low chronology’. While he continues to present it as fact, even claiming a growing consensus
, there is not a shred of empirical (that is, stratigraphic) evidence to support this chronology.’, Dever, ‘Histories and Non-Histories of Ancient Israel: The Question of the United Monarchy’, in Day (ed.), ‘In Search of Pre-exilic Israel: proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar’, p. 73 (2003).
Most senior archaeologists reject Finkelstein’s low chronology.’, Shanks, ‘Radiocarbon Dating: How to Find Your True Love’, Biblical Archaeology Review (31.01), January/February 2005; he cites ‘
Amihai Mazar, Ephraim Stern, Amnon Ben-Tor, all of Hebrew University; Lawrence Stager of Harvard; William Dever and Seymour Gitin, the former and present directors of the Albright Institute in Jerusalem; and even Baruch Halpern, co-director with Finkelstein and David Ussishkin of the current excavation of Megiddo.’, but adds ‘But at this level of scholarship, you don’t simply count noses; you reason and argue!
Currently, Finkelstein is
the only outspoken proponent of the Low Chronology.’, Ortiz, ‘Deconstructing and Reconstructing the United Monarch’ , in Hoffmeier & Millard (eds.), ‘The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions’, p. 128 (2004).
I didn't say that other positions hold no academic weight, remember that I said that I used to disagree with my peers when I was studying religion? I don't personally see how the position of a historical David can be maintained in the light of the data without reading the biblical text into the archaeological data in some way or another, and I personally wouldn't be inclined to do it because the Dtr historiographer is at the very least an Exilic school of writers (though I'd be more inclined to a Persian era), the author(s) seem to write what can be seen as a coherent whole after Jehoiachin (597 BCE).
Not giving recognition to the opposing position, out side of acknowledging they exist, is the same thing as dismissing them altogether. Which you then do by presenting them as a defeated minority who can rarely even be found today. You've misrepresented your own position as the majority view when is basically one specific school. You've misrepresented the evidence as well. I've no problem accepting your sources as scholars in the field. That their positions are part of the ongoing debate. Hopefully I've in no way misrepresented them. Again I ask, in light of your misrepresentation of your own position as well as the current concensus of the majority of archaeologists and the evidence, why should you be taken seriously?