CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1Geophysical Methods and ApplicationsGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism StudiesCultural Heritage Materials Analysis

Pre‐Excavation Identification and Dating of Iron Age Destruction Events

Open access
Vaknin, Yoav, Granot, Roi, Shalom, Nitsan, Buzaglo‐Yoresh, Eldar, Keidar‐Goldberg, Ayelet, Münger, Stefan·2025·Archaeological Prospection
DOI 10.1002/arp.70003
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

To maximize extracted data while minimizing excavated areas, archaeologists increasingly use archaeological surveys, geophysical surveys and remote sensing to gain comprehensive regional pictures and decide if and where to excavate. The goal of this effort is to leave sufficient unexcavated areas for future generations and save time and resources required for fieldwork. Standard pre‐excavation methods can neither securely identify nor date destruction layers, which are particularly important for determining the stratigraphy and chronology of archaeological finds. Here, we present a combination of pre‐excavation archaeomagnetic research and magnetic surveys which enabled identification and dating of burnt destruction layers at two sites in the Beth‐Shean Valley, Israel. We show that sun‐dried mudbricks had collapsed during conflagration, resulting in a hard matrix, still partially exposed on the surface. It is characterized by a strong and unified magnetic signal, generating total‐field magnetic anomalies and enabling determination of the scope of the fire. Using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy, we estimated firing temperatures. Archaeomagnetic dating suggests that the observed destructions occurred in the late 10th or early 9th century bce , potentially during the military campaign of Pharaoh Shoshenq I, mentioned in Egyptian historical sources and the Hebrew Bible.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Pre-excavation magnetic surveys combined with archaeomagnetic analysis identified and dated burnt destruction layers at Tel Nisa and Tel Zofim in the Beth-Shean Valley, Israel. Archaeomagnetic dating suggests the destructions occurred in the late 10th or early 9th century BCE, possibly during Pharaoh Shoshenq I’s campaign.

Key findings

  • A low-resolution (~5 m) magnetic survey over the entire Tel Nisa mound and a high-resolution (0.5 m) survey found a strong positive anomaly in the southeastern top, split into two positive anomalies by a modern dirt road; burnt collapsed mudbricks produced a strong, unified magnetic signal.
  • Of 323 specimens that underwent demagnetization, 319 yielded a strong and unified magnetic signal; mean directions from 44 Tel Nisa samples and 15 Tel Zofim samples met selection criteria (K > 50, α95 < 15, at least two specimens per sample), while 9 samples failed.
  • Thermal demagnetization on 129 oriented specimens gave minimum ancient heating temperatures of 460°C–620°C, and FTIR indicated all archaeological samples were heated to 500°C–700°C.
  • Archaeomagnetic dating using LAC v.2.0 and two methods yielded overlapping results; the preferred Tel Nisa date range is late 10th–early 9th century BCE (68.2% range of option B: 960–888 BCE), and a focused excavation later exposed Iron IIA destruction remains including three partly restorable cylindrical holemouth jars.

Methods

  • Magnetic surveys at Tel Nisa in May–July 2024: a low-resolution (~5 m) fluxgate survey and a high-resolution (0.5 m) proton magnetometer survey over a 32 × 24.5 m grid with 50 cm point spacing, with solar-activity correction.
  • Oriented samples from burnt collapsed mudbricks and nine pottery fragments were subjected to AF and thermal demagnetization for archaeomagnetic directions; FTIR compared archaeological samples with control samples heated to 400°C–1000°C; paleointensity used Thellier-type IZZI experiments with pTRM checks, anisotropy, and cooling-rate experiments.
  • Dating used the Levantine Archaeomagnetic Curve LAC v.2.0 with the AH-RJMCMC method of Livermore et al. (2018) and the algorithm of Serrano et al. (2024); Tel Nisa was the focus, with reduced methods at Tel Zofim, Tel Ashtori, and Tel Zemed, plus a 60-polygon pedestrian survey and later small excavation around NS03.

Limitations

  • Stated: the method may be less effective at sites where mudbricks were not commonly used, at sites built mainly of strongly magnetized materials such as basaltic rocks, or at multilayered sites where the burnt destruction layer is not close to the mound surface.
  • Stated: at Tel Zofim, dating is hard to constrain beyond three date ranges due to lack of additional chronological information; single surface bricks at Tel Ashtori and Tel Zemed cannot securely identify destruction layers or provide precise dating.
  • Stated: precise FTIR temperature assignments are limited by similar wavenumbers of some peaks and composition variations in both archaeological and control samples. Evident: at Tel Zofim, fragmentary collapsed bricks may have shifted after cooling, as 5 of 15 samples yielded directions outside the expected cone.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/arp.70003

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

4 of 23 cited sources checked · 4 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Thermal demagnetization results indicated minimum ancient heating temperatures in the range of 460°C-620°C for specimens from Tel Nisa and Tel Zofim.

    “from Tel Nisa and 11 specimens from Tel Zofim were in the range of 460°C-620°C.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The comparison of FTIR results of the archaeological samples from all four sites with those of control samples indicates that all archaeological samples were heated to temperatures in the range of 500°C-700°C.

    “The comparison of FTIR results of the archaeological samples from all four sites with those of control samples indicates that all archaeological samples were heated to temperatures in the range of 500°C-700°C.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    A combination of pre-excavation archaeomagnetic research and magnetic surveys enabled identification and dating of burnt destruction layers at two sites in the Beth-Shean Valley, Israel.

    “Here, we present a combination of pre-excavation archaeomagnetic research and magnetic surveys which enabled identification and dating of burnt destruction layers at two sites in the Beth-Shean Valley, Israel.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Sun-dried mudbricks had collapsed during conflagration, resulting in a hard matrix still partially exposed on the surface.

    “We show that sun-dried mudbricks had collapsed during conflagration, resulting in a hard matrix, still partially exposed on the surface.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The mean direction results of 44 samples from Tel Nisa and 15 samples from Tel Zofim met the selection criteria (K > 50, α95 < 15, at least two specimens per sample).

    “Figure 3 and Tables S1 and S2 show the mean direction results of 44 samples from Tel Nisa (Figure 3a) and 15 samples from Tel Zofim (Figure 3b), which met the selection criteria (K > 50, α 95 < 15, at least two specimens per sample).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 22
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 4

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Archaeomagnetic study of destruction layers has enabled the reconstruction of destruction events and the development of a reliable dating tool.

    “Recently, the archaeomagnetic study of destruction layers has enabled the reconstruction of destruction events (Vaknin et al. 2020(Vaknin et al. , 2023b) ) and the development of a reliable dating tool (Shaar et al. 2022;Vaknin et al. 2024Vaknin et al. , 2022)).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Vaknin et al. 2020 source
    • cites Vaknin et al. 2023b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Shaar et al. 2022 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The direction results clearly point to a destruction by fire at Tel Nisa and Tel Zofim and securely connect the time of the magnetic acquisition to the destruction date.

    “As demonstrated in Jerusalem (Vaknin et al. 2020) and at other excavated sites (Vaknin et al. 2023b(Vaknin et al. , 2022)), the direction results (Figure 3a,b) clearly point to a destruction by fire at Tel Nisa and Tel Zofim and securely connect the time of the magnetic acquisition to the destruction date.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Vaknin et al. 2020 source
    • cites Vaknin et al. 2023b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Vaknin et al. 2022 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The strongest anomaly was found at the southeastern top part of the mound, where burnt bricks were partly exposed on the surface.

    “The strongest anomaly was found at the southeastern top part of the mound, where burnt bricks were partly exposed on the surface.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Of the 323 specimens which underwent demagnetization experiments, 319 yielded a strong and unified magnetic signal indicative of fired bricks and pottery and thus passed the specimen selection criteria.

    “Of the 323 specimens which underwent demagnetization experiments, 319 yielded a strong and unified magnetic signal (Figure S6), indicative of fired bricks and pottery (Vaknin et al. 2023b) and thus passed our specimen selection criteria (SI Extended Results).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Vaknin et al. 2023b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The hard matrix is characterized by a strong and unified magnetic signal, generating total-field magnetic anomalies and enabling determination of the scope of the fire.

    “It is characterized by a strong and unified magnetic signal, generating total-field magnetic anomalies and enabling determination of the scope of the fire.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy, firing temperatures were estimated.

    “Using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy, we estimated firing temperatures.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Ten samples from Tel Zofim yielded directions within the expected direction cone, whereas five samples yielded other directions.

    “Ten samples from Tel Zofim yielded directions within the expected direction cone, whereas five samples yielded other directions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Burnt bricks were identified on the surface of two other sites, outside the studied area, further supporting the applicability of the method.

    “This applicability is further supported by burnt bricks which we identified on the surface of two other sites, outside the studied area (Figure S18).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The pottery from the destruction layer is dated to the Iron IIA, which is commonly dated to the 10th-9th centuries BCE.

    “The pottery from the destruction layer is dated to the Iron IIA, which is commonly dated to the 10th-9th centuries bce.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The studied destruction layer is located close to the top of the mound and almost no sherds from the Late Bronze Age were found on the flat top of the mound or on the top third of the slopes.

    “The studied destruction layer is located close to the top of the mound and almost no sherds from the Late Bronze Age were found on the flat top of the mound or on the top third of the slopes (Polygons T1-T12.S1-S16 in Figure S17).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Destruction layers are often reliably dated through radiocarbon analysis or historical records and thus serve as chronological anchors for entire sites or broader regions.

    “They are often reliably dated through radiocarbon analysis or historical records and thus serve as chronological anchors for entire sites or even broader regions (Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2009 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Archaeomagnetic studies of destruction layers, as well as radiocarbon dating of such layers, were carried out only after the layers had been exposed by excavation.

    “Archaeomagnetic studies of destruction layers, as well as radiocarbon dating of such layers (Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2009), were carried out only after the layers had been exposed by excavation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2009 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Magnetic anomalies can also be generated by other features, such as modern disturbances, burnt installations such as ovens and kilns, or walls built of pre-fired bricks.

    “However, magnetic anomalies can also be generated by other features, such as modern disturbances, burnt installations such as ovens and kilns (Hatakeyama et al. 2018) or walls built of pre-fired bricks (Khawaja et al. 2024).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hatakeyama et al. 2018 source
    • cites Khawaja et al. 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The magnetic anomaly originating from solar activity was subtracted from the total measured magnetic anomaly, cancelling the influence of external fields.

    “Based on these measurements, we then subtracted the magnetic anomaly originating from solar activity from the total measured magnetic anomaly, thus cancelling the influence of external fields.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Standard pre-excavation methods can neither securely identify nor date destruction layers.

    “Standard pre-excavation methods can neither securely identify nor date destruction layers, which are particularly important for determining the stratigraphy and chronology of archaeological finds.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Peters et al. 2017

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In general, archaeomagnetic dating is usually carried out after excavation and is rarely used to date finds found on the surface.

    “In general, archaeomagnetic dating is usually carried out after excavation and is rarely used to date finds found on the surface (Peters et al. 2017).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Peters et al. 2017

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The two Iron Age bricks demonstrate the presence of burnt bricks on the surface of unexcavated Iron Age sites, corroborating the applicability of the method introduced here.

    “However, they demonstrate the presence of burnt bricks on the surface of unexcavated Iron Age sites, corroborating the applicability of the method introduced here.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The two Iron Age bricks found on the surface of Tel Zemed and Tel Ashtori cannot be used for secure identification of destruction layers or precise dating.

    “The two Iron Age bricks found on the surface of Tel Zemed and Tel Ashtori cannot be used for secure identification of destruction layers or precise dating.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The dates from Tel Nisa and Tel Zofim overlap significantly, and it is therefore possible that these sites were destroyed by fire during the same period.

    “The dates from Tel Nisa and Tel Zofim overlap significantly, and it is therefore possible that these sites were destroyed by fire during the same period.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The 8th century stratum at Tel Nisa most likely postdates the studied destruction layer and should be expected to be found above this destruction layer.

    “Therefore, we conclude that the 8th century stratum at Tel Nisa most likely postdates the studied destruction layer and should be expected to be found above this destruction layer.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Mudbricks fired to temperatures higher than ~400°C are durable, tend not to disintegrate in water, and thus better withstand erosion.

    “Mudbricks fired to temperatures higher than ~400°C are durable, tend not to disintegrate in water (Vaknin et al. 2023b) and thus better withstand erosion.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Vaknin et al. 2023b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The methodology presented here may be less effective in sites in which mudbricks were not commonly used, in sites built mainly of strongly magnetized construction materials such as basaltic rocks, or in multilayered sites in which the burnt destruction layer is not close to the surface of the mound.

    “The methodology presented here may be less effective in sites in which mudbricks were not commonly used, in sites built mainly of strongly magnetized construction materials, such as basaltic rocks or in multilayered sites in which the burnt destruction layer is not close to the surface of the mound.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    No destruction layer has been securely tied to Shoshenq I's campaign, despite many southern Levantine sites being mentioned on the list.

    “Although many sites in the southern Levant are mentioned on the list, no destruction layer has been securely tied to this event, leading some scholars to suggest that the campaign did not include any destructions (Na'aman 1998(Na'aman , 2007)).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Na'aman 1998

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Na'aman 2007 source
23 of 23

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Pre-firing bricks began in the southern Levant only during the Roman Period.

    “We assume that pre-firing bricks began in the southern Levant only during the Roman Period (Vaknin et al. 2023b), and therefore conclude that these bricks had most likely been burnt during a conflagration.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The Tel Nisa destruction occurred in the late 10th-early 9th century BCE (Date Range B).

    “Our assumption regarding the date of the Tel Nisa destruction was indeed corroborated by the preliminary results of the excavation.”
2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Hughes G. R., 1954, Reliefs Inscriptions at Karnak
  2. Kreimerman I., 2017, The Archaeology of Social Breakdown
  3. Mazar A., 2006, Excavations at Tel Beth‐Shean, 1989–1996 I, 26
  4. Na'aman N., 1998, Shishak's Campaign to Palestine as Reflected by the Epigraphic, Biblical and Archaeological Evidence (Hebrew), Zion, 63, 247
  5. Vaknin Y., 2023, “And in Length of Days Understanding” (Job 12:12): Essays on Archaeology in the Eastern Mediterranean and Beyond in Honor of Thomas E. Levy, 787
  6. Zori N., 1962, The Beth‐Shean Valley: The 17th Archaeological Convention, 135

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Vaknin, Y., Granot, R., Shalom, N., Buzaglo‐Yoresh, E., Keidar‐Goldberg, A., & Münger, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
  • Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg (DE)
  • Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
Corresponding author
Vaknin, Yoav
ORCID
Venue
Archaeological Prospection
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2025-08-21
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
1021-1030
ISSN
  • 1075-2196 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0763
DOI
10.1002/arp.70003
OpenAlex
W4413436979
Semantic Scholar
32594dfc43c59604172724a1f8b789dfa9af232b
Cited by
1
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
0.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Archaeological Prospection (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Funders
  • European Commission (HORIZON2020, 804490)
  • Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Ocean Engineering › Geophysical Methods and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Cultural Heritage Materials Analysis
Keywords
archaeomagnetic dating, Iron Age, conflagration, magnetic survey, total field magnetic anomalies, stratigraphy, non-invasive archaeology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-26.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-26.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review