Cited by 209Archaeology and ancient environmental studiesAncient Mediterranean Archaeology and HistoryAncient and Medieval Archaeology Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 93 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 9 of the 41 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: New Analysis for a High Chronology

Open access

Regev, Johanna, De Miroschedji, Pierre, Greenberg, Raphael, Braun, Eliot, Greenhut, Zvi, Boaretto, Elisabetta·2012·Radiocarbon

DOI 10.1017/s003382220004724x

Open this paper in CoChat — free account Open PDF

Abstract

The chronology of the Early Bronze Age (EBA) in the southern Levant and the synchronization between the sites, considering seriation and radiocarbon dates, have shown large inconsistencies and disagreement. We have assembled 420 14 C dates, most of them previously published and a few provided directly by the excavators. The dates have been re-evaluated on the basis of their archaeological context and using analytical criteria. Bayesian modeling has been applied to the selected dates in relation to the given seriation of the EBA subperiods (EB I, II III, IV). Sites with 2 or more sequential sub-phases were individually modeled in order to define the transitions between the subperiods. The new chronology indicates that the EB I–II transition occurred site-dependently between 3200–2900 BC, with EB II–III around 2900 BC, and EB III–IV ∼2500 BC.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This paper compiles and re-evaluates 420 radiocarbon dates from 57 southern Levantine Early Bronze Age sites and applies Bayesian modeling to propose a high chronology. It argues that key EBA transitions were earlier and sometimes site-dependent, with EB II–III around 2900 BC and EB III–IV around 2500 BC.

Key findings

From 420 dates, after context review and outlier removal, the final analysis used 189 samples; modeled transitions are EB I–II site-dependent between 3200–2900 BC, EB II–III around 2900 BC, and EB III–IV around 2500 BC.
The most secure EB IB–EB II transition at Tel Yarmuth and Tell Abu al-Kharaz falls between 3050 and 2950 BC; EB II–III is modeled at Yarmuth and Tell el-Umeiri at 3000–2900 BC, Jericho at 2950–2850 BC, and Bet Yerah at 3000–2750 BC, suggesting ~2900 BC, at least 200 yr earlier than conventional dates.
EB III latest dates mostly lie between 2500 and 2450 BC, with only 4 of 56 good-context EB III dates later than 2450/2500 BC; EB IV begins around 2500 BC for most sites, though Beer Resisim starts as early as 2850 BC and the latest EB IV ends after 2000 BC.
The EB IA–IB transition, where modeled, spans 3450–3100 BC at different sites; no EB III–IV transition could be modeled because no site has both EB III and EB IV radiocarbon-dated.

Methods

The authors compiled 420 14C dates from 57 sites; 60 arid-zone samples were excluded, leaving 360 dates from 41 southern Levantine sites, calibrated with OxCal v4.1.6 and IntCal09.
Dates were re-evaluated by archaeological context and analytical criteria; 313 culturally definable dates were plotted, 99 were removed for archaeological reasons, 14 as 14C outliers, leaving 200, and 11 more were removed during modeling, leaving 189 final samples.
Bayesian models were run per site with phases and contiguous or sequential boundaries; samples below 60% agreement were treated as outliers and removed, and separate models using seeds only were run to assess the old-wood effect.

Limitations

The paper states that many samples come from published and unpublished sources with variable quality and completeness; exact locations and contexts are often obscure, stratigraphic disturbance varies, terminology differs among excavators, and attribution sometimes relies on the excavator’s word.
The paper states that charcoal/wood can introduce an old-wood effect, calibration plateaus and wiggles reduce precision, no EB III–IV transition could be modeled, some transitions rest on few dates, arid-zone dates were excluded, no bones were dated, and only 10 samples came from storage installations or jars.
Evident from the text: the final chronology depends on outlier removal and site-by-site modeling choices; combining sites produced different results, and the authors recommend modeling sites individually.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s003382220004724x

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

9 of 41 cited sources checked · 5 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“These early dates for the beginning of the EB IA are consistent with the high 14 C dates obtained for the preceding Late Chalcolithic”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > Early Bronze I (EB I)
What the sources say
- Supported
  The Conclusion’s Table 3 reports radiocarbon dates for Late Chalcolithic contexts at Teleilat Ghassul, including calibrated ranges extending to 4085 BC. The Introduction places the latest Jordan Valley Chalcolithic strata around 3900 BC and describes earliest EB I dates as delimiting that chronology. These passages support the cited source’s role in establishing the preceding Late Chalcolithic dates; the comparison with the citing paper’s EB IA dates is the citing authors’ inference. (LLM, conf=0.86)
  cites Bourke et al. 2001 source
- Supported
  The Introduction says the early radiocarbon dates for Early Bronze Age sites were consistent with the dates from Late Chalcolithic Teleilat Ghassul. The Conclusion likewise says the Ghassul dates are consistent with new assays concerning the beginning of the succeeding Early Bronze Age. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.93)
  cites Bourke et al. 2004 source
- Supported
  In “Building a Chronological Framework for the Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant” (page unavailable), the paper says radiocarbon dates suggest early EB I may have begun around 3600 BCE. It also reports dates extending into the late fourth millennium BCE from clearly defined Chalcolithic contexts, consistent with the claimed chronology. (LLM, conf=0.86)
  cites Burton and Levy 2001 source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The dates from arid zones in the south, published by Avner and Carmi (2001), are not considered in this work as the material culture connected with them is meager and incompletely published.”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > Removal of Samples with Unclear Stratigraphie Contexts
What the sources say
- Supported
  The Appendix (Table 2) presents radiocarbon dates for sites in the deserts of southern Jordan, the Negev, and Sinai, supporting the citation's identification of the dates published by Avner and Carmi. The decision not to consider those dates, and the reason given, belong to the citing authors rather than being attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.91)
  cites Avner and Carmi 2001 source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In the Early Bronze Age, production rates of 14 C fluctuated, resulting in several plateaus and wiggles in the calibration curve (Reimer et al. 2004(Reimer et al. , 2009)).”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > Modeling Methods for the Early Bronze Age
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Reimer et al. 2004
- Partly supported
  The Introduction (page not provided) says atmospheric ¹⁴C varied in the past, and “The IntCal09 Curve” says the curve covers the Early Bronze Age by incorporating IntCal04 data for 0–12,000 cal BP. The passages do not establish that production-rate fluctuations specifically caused several plateaus and wiggles during the Early Bronze Age. (LLM, conf=0.82)
  cites Reimer et al. 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“This result is similar to that suggested by the sequence of dates from Pella (Bourke et al. 2009).”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > Modeled:
What the sources say
- Supported
  The Discussion states that the EB IB–EB II transition at Pella appears to have occurred around 3200/3100 cal BC. The Conclusion says the new dates support that placement, providing the Pella result to which the citing sentence refers; the citing paper’s own result is not specified here for a direct comparison. (LLM, conf=0.87)
  cites Bourke et al. 2009 source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The new chronology indicates that the EB I-II transition occurred site-dependently between 3200-2900 BC”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- The authors state this as an assumption: In a known sequence of archaeological events, the lowest layer formed before any and all overlying layers.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and EB III-IV -2500 BC.”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- The authors state this as an assumption: In a known sequence of archaeological events, the lowest layer formed before any and all overlying layers.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with EB II-III around 2900 BC”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- The authors state this as an assumption: In a known sequence of archaeological events, the lowest layer formed before any and all overlying layers.

Show all 106 claims

Probably not a substantial claim. 54
It may state two separate claims as one. 58
The quote only partly states this claim. 1

The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Previous syntheses of EBA 14 C dates have generally indicated slightly earlier dates than those of the traditional chronological schemes”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Richard 1980 source
- Partly supported
  The Early Bronze age section reports some radiocarbon results earlier than archaeological expectations, including an initial series from Ai that was 300–700 years too early. It treats those results as erroneous, however, and says subsequent Ai dates agreed with expectations. It does not establish that syntheses generally favored slightly earlier dates than traditional schemes (page unavailable in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.82)
  cites Weinstein 1984 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Joffe 1993
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Of these, 60 samples originate from sites in the arid zone (Avner and Carmi 2001), whose material culture assemblages are difficult to assign to a particular EB subphase.”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > SITES, CONTEXTS, AND SAMPLES
What the sources say
- Partly supported
  The appendix (Table 2; page unavailable) lists radiocarbon dates from desert sites, and ‘Settlement Duration of Desert Sites’ explains that pottery and flint tools once assigned to EB-II have a wider date range, supporting the difficulty of assigning sites to an EB subphase. ‘Settlement Patterns Based on Radiocarbon Dating’ reports 175 dates from 73 sites, but our copy does not identify the cited 60-sample subset; the 420-date total belongs to the citing document’s framing. (LLM, conf=0.85)
  cites Avner and Carmi 2001 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 60
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The agreement between the posterior distribution of the data and the prior distribution follows the convention of OxCal ν 4.1 where 60% is taken as the threshold for acceptance for individual and overall agreement indices”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > Modeling Methods for the Early Bronze Age
What the sources say
- Partly supported
  In “Inconsistencies Between Measurements and the Model,” the paper describes an individual agreement index with a reasonable minimum acceptable value around 60%, and says overall indices falling much below 60% warrant investigation. It does not present 60% as a firm acceptance threshold: it explicitly says the agreement-index approach has no well-defined cut-off. The comparison is between posterior distributions under the full model and a null prior, rather than simply between a posterior and a prior distribution. (LLM, conf=0.85)
  cites Bronk Ramsey 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 420 samples include 139 from short-lived (e.g.seed, cloth, goat coprolite, and eggshell) and 270 from long-lived (e.g.wood charcoal and wood) sources.For 11 samples, this information is lacking.”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > SITES, CONTEXTS, AND SAMPLES
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 420
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Short-lived samples provide higher accuracy for dating the context than long-lived samples.
In the paper
“Based on stratigraphically more detailed models, sample RTT-5286 also becomes an outlier, and sample RT-2965 is also a clear outlier (Regev et al., these proceedings).”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > Yarmuth
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Regev et al., these proceedings
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“EB IA-IB: 3330-3150 BC.”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > Radiocarbon Sampling and Analysis
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: fails
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The archaeological subphase attributions of the 14C samples are correct.
- Rests on an assumption: The 14C measurements are accurate and reflect the true age of the samples.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Four additional sites (Modi'in, Taur Ikhbeineh, Sataf, and Kabri) where 1 4 C dates were obtained show some variations for the dated samples of EB IA, but they are generally younger and date closer to 3500 BC or even later.”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > Radiocarbon Sampling and Analysis
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The archaeological subphase attributions of the 14C samples are correct.
- Rests on an assumption: The 14C measurements are accurate and reflect the true age of the samples.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Agreement of the model is 87%.”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > Radiocarbon Sampling and Analysis
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 184
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The archaeological subphase attributions of the 14C samples are correct.
- Rests on an assumption: The 14C measurements are accurate and reflect the true age of the samples.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using the OxCal agreement values (A%) on dates, the identified outliers for EBI are RTT-3902*, GrA-222*6315*6332*, OxA-5096*, RTT-5436*, RTT-5437*, RTT-5435*; for EB II: RT-2210, OxA-2813, GrN-18540* (A% = 31).”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > Radiocarbon Sampling and Analysis
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The archaeological subphase attributions of the 14C samples are correct.
- Rests on an assumption: The 14C measurements are accurate and reflect the true age of the samples.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Currently, all the EB IA date ranges (except RT-2567 and -2247/8, which are considered outliers in the modeling) end before 3380 BC, and most of them even before 3500 BC”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > Radiocarbon Sampling and Analysis
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The archaeological subphase attributions of the 14C samples are correct.
- Rests on an assumption: The 14C measurements are accurate and reflect the true age of the samples.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the model with contiguous boundaries, 21 samples are removed as outliers (RT-2154*, RT-2324, Beta-134011, RTT-5435*, RT-2210, OxA-2813, GrN-18540*, GrN-18545*, GrN-18546*, OxA-2814, GrN-18541*, OxA-*5092, OxA-2810, Beta-134009, Beta-134010, Hd-19610, TH-2000-105(1), TH-2000-106(2), Hd-19625, BM-1780, Beta-163588) and still some additional samples remain slightly below 60% agreement.”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > Radiocarbon Sampling and Analysis
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 21
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The archaeological subphase attributions of the 14C samples are correct.
- Rests on an assumption: The 14C measurements are accurate and reflect the true age of the samples.
In the paper
“The very earliest dates from Ashqelon EB IA are questionable, since the site also had a Chalcolithic occupation, and the pottery associated with the earliest dates could be mixed EB and Chalcolithic assemblages”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > Removal of Samples with Unclear Stratigraphie Contexts
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Braun and Gophna 2004
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedSingle case
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Based on 14 C dates in Ashqelon Area E, Golani (2004) has proposed an earlier date for the beginning of EB I A, closer to 3800 BC, similar to the date of 3700 suggested by Yekutieli (2007), based on 14 C dates from a cluster of sites at Ashqelon.”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > Early Bronze I (EB I)
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Golani 2004
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Yekutieli 2007
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“At Kh. ez-Zeraqun, only 4 dates out of 16 (Genz 2002) are securely connected to the EB III horizon, while the remainders were discarded as being suspected of old-wood effects”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > Removal of Samples with Unclear Stratigraphie Contexts
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Genz 2002
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The differences in chronology for the EB I are mostly due to how the 14 C dates are associated with the archaeological contexts they purport to date (Boaretto 2007), which Egyptian chronology is used, and the way their correlations with south Levantine chronology are interpreted.”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > Early Bronze I (EB I)
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Boaretto 2007 source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“only a correct association of a sample to an archaeological context means that the date will provide meaningful results (Boaretto 2007).”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > SITES, CONTEXTS, AND SAMPLES
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Boaretto 2007 source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Recent work on individual sites such as Tell esh-Shuna North for EB I (Philip 2001(Philip , 2008)), Tel Yarmuth for EB I-III (Regev et al., these proceedings), the EB I-II transition at Pella (Bourke et al. 2009), and the EB II-III transition at Jericho (Bruins and van der Plicht 2001) has indicated the possibility of substantial chronological revisions.”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Philip 2001
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Philip 2008 source
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Regev et al.
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The date ranges recently suggested for EB I are 3500-3050 BC (de Miroschedji 2006) and 3500-3150/2950 BC (Braun and Gophna 2004).”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > Early Bronze I (EB I)
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites de Miroschedji 2006
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Braun and Gophna 2004
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Hence, the data suggest that many EB III sites were abandoned about or before 2500 BC, which suggests a shift upward of -200 yr from the conventional date of 2300 BC suggested by some scholars (e.g.Mazar 1992;de Miroschedji 2000).”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > The EB lll-EB IV/IBA Transition
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Mazar 1992
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites de Miroschedji 2000
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedn = 56
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Conventionally, it is dated -2700-2600 BC and correlated with the beginning of the 3rd Dynasty in Egypt (Mazar 1992;de Miroschedji 2000), although an earlier date of -2800 BC has been suggested, on various grounds (Philip and Millard 2000;Greenberg 2002).”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > The EB ll-EB III Transition
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Mazar 1992
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites de Miroschedji 2000
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Philip and Millard 2000
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The end of the EB III cultural horizon is traditionally seen as contemporaneous with the reign of Pepi I (de Miroschedji 2012), variously dated by Egyptologists to 2321-2287 BC (Shaw 2000) or 2289-2255 BC (Baines and Malek 1980), and recently by 14 C to 2399-2310 BC ( 1σ) or 2389-2349 BC (2σ) (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2010).”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > The EB lll-EB IV/IBA Transition
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites de Miroschedji 2012
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Shaw 2000 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bronk Ramsey et al. 2010 source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The EB IB to EB II transition is conventionally dated to the beginning of the 1st Dynasty, at about 3000 BC (Braun 201 la).”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > Modeled:
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Braun 2011a
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This might suggest the dates were derived from the latest EB IB phase.”
§ CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: NEW ANALYSIS FOR A HIGH CHRONOLOGY > Radiocarbon Sampling and Analysis
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedSingle case
Tests✗ Asserted: fails✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The calibration curve has a plateau between about 3400-3100 BC that makes the beginning of EB IB difficult to pinpoint.
- Rests on an assumption: The archaeological subphase attributions of the 14C samples are correct.
- Rests on an assumption: The 14C measurements are accurate and reflect the true age of the samples.

95 of 95

The paper relies on this without support.
The EBA in the southern Levant has no historical chronology of its own and has traditionally relied on historical chronologies of neighboring countries, particularly Egypt.
“The Early Bronze Age (henceforth EBA; the mid-4th to end of the 3rd millennium BCE) in the southern Levant has no historical chronology of its own, and thus has traditionally relied on historical chronologies of neighboring countries, particularly Egypt.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A general overview of all available EBA dates related to published cultural material has not been previously attempted.
“Yet, even though it has been frequently noted that newly published 14 C dates are often earlier than expected (Bruins and van der Pli-cht 2001;Golani and Segal 2002;Golani 2004;Anderson 2006;Holdorf 2010), a general overview of all available EBA dates related to published cultural material has not been previously attempted.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Short-lived samples provide higher accuracy for dating the context than long-lived samples.
“While there is a general consensus that short-lived samples provide higher accuracy for dating the context than long-lived samples, it is necessary to determine if short-lived samples, and in particular seeds, were grouped in clusters or scattered in archaeological sediments.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In a known sequence of archaeological events, the lowest layer formed before any and all overlying layers.
“At sites where samples from more than 1 sequential deposit exist, dates were grouped into distinct archaeological phases, such that in a known sequence of archaeological events, the lowest layer is reasonably assumed to have formed before any and all overlying layers.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Within each site internal stratigraphy is consistent, but separate sites might have similar cultures prevailing over varied lengths of time.
“since it was taken as a logical rule that within each site internal stratigraphy would be consistent, but separate sites might have similar cultures prevailing over varied lengths of time (due to their particular settlement trajectories).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The excavators' designations of chronocultural divisions are adequate for modeling despite disagreements among the authors.
“For purposes of this modeling, we have simplified the chronocultural divisions and maintained the excavators' designations, although at least one of the authors is in strong disagreement with some of the identifications suggested”
The paper relies on this without support.
The calibration curve has a plateau between about 3400-3100 BC that makes the beginning of EB IB difficult to pinpoint.
“Additionally, the calibration plateau between about 3400-3100 BC makes the beginning of EB IB difficult to pinpoint.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The archaeological subphase attributions of the 14C samples are correct.
“Calibrated l 4 C dates of 313 samples from 41 sites, all samples that could be attributed to EBA subphases.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The 14C measurements are accurate and reflect the true age of the samples.
“Each line depicts a single 1 4 C measurement with ±1σ range and is colored according to its archaeological subphase”

9 of 9

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

Reported 2σ date range is narrower than the 1σ range
Minor
The reported 2σ interval lies within, rather than encompassing, the reported 1σ interval. A wider probability interval for the same date cannot exclude values included in the narrower one.

1 of 1

IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP
Reimer, P. J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. W., Blackwell, P. G., Ramsey, C. B., Buck, C. E., Cheng, H., Edwards, R. L., Friedrich, M., et al. (2013) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947 · Cited by 14,591
Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates
Bronk Ramsey, C. (2009) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200033865 · Cited by 8,725
IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 years cal BP
Reimer, P. J., Baillie, M. G. L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. W., Blackwell, P. G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C. E., Burr, G. S., Edwards, R. L., et al. (2009) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200034202 · Cited by 4,290
Intcal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0–26 Cal Kyr BP
(2004) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200032999 · Cited by 3,673
LII. An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. By the late Rev. Mr. Bayes, F. R. S. communicated by Mr. Price, in a letter to John Canton, A. M. F. R. S
Bayes, T. (1763) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London · doi:10.1098/rstl.1763.0053 · Cited by 3,023
AN ESSAY TOWARDS SOLVING A PROBLEM IN THE DOCTRINE OF CHANCES
BAYES (1958) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/45.3-4.296 · Cited by 2,939
Chronologies in Old World Archaeology.
Evans, J. D., & Ehrich, R. W. (1967) · Man · doi:10.2307/2798670 · Cited by 533
Radiocarbon Dates, II
Libby, W. F. (1951) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.114.2960.291 · Cited by 434
Radiocarbon dating and the “old wood” problem: The case of the Hohokam chronology
Schiffer, M. B. (1986) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/0305-4403(86)90024-5 · Cited by 425
Ancient Egyptian Chronology
(2006) · doi:10.1163/9789047404002 · Cited by 365

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 93 references

7 of the 93 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 48

Burleigh, 1981, Excavations at Jericho. Volume 3; The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell.
de Miroschedji, 2006, I Will Speak in the Riddles of Ancient Times (Ps 78: 2b): Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday., 55
Kitchen, 1987, Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg 20th–22nd August 1987, Part 1., 37
Bonani, 1991, Excavations at Kabri Preliminary Report of 1990 Season., 8
Klimscha, 2009, Radiocarbon Dates from Prehistoric Aqaba and Other Related Sites from the Chalcolithic Period. Prehistoric 'Aqaba., Band 23, 363
Baumgarten, 2004, An excavation at Ashqelon, Afridar-Area J, 'Atiqot, 45
Philip, 2000, Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l'Euphrate aux IVe–IIIe millénaires, Actes du Colloque d'Istanbul, 16–19 décembre 1998, Varia Anatolica XI,
Bourke, 2007, Dating the Cultic Assemblages from the Bronze Age Fortress Temple Complex at Pella in Jordan.
Golani, 2011, Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic: Theory and Transition., Volume 9, 84
Golani, 2004, Salvage excavations at the Early Bronze age site of Ashqelon, Afridar-Area E, 'Atiqot, 45, 9
Carmi, 2000, Megiddo III The 1992–1996 Seasons.
Braun, 2011b, Egypt before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization.
Braun, 2011a, Egypt at Its Origins 3., 975
Bowman, 1990, Radiocarbon Dating. Interpreting the Past.
Segal, 2004a, Determination of age using the 14C method on archaeobotanical samples from Ashqelon, Afridar-Area E, 'Atiqot, 45
Braun, 1996, Cultural diversity and change in the Early Bronze I of Israel and Jordan: towards an understanding of the chronological progression and patterns of regionalism in Early Bronze society
Eisenberg, Tel Hebron Final Report of the IAA Excavation 1999.
Hauptmann, 2000, Zur frühen Metallurgie des Kupfers in Fenan/Jordanien.
Boaretto, 2008, In: Golani A. The Early Bronze Age site of Ashqelon, Afridar-Area M, 'Atiqot, 60
Dever, 1974, Gezer II: Report of the 1967–70 Seasons in Fields I and II.
Adams, 1996, Aspects of Early Egypt., 98
Hedges, 1992, Radiocarbon dates from the AMS system: datelist 14, Archaeometry, 34
Amiran, 1969, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land.
Gibbs, 2010, Excavations at al-Basatin, a late Neolithic and Early Bronze I site in Wadi Ziqlab, northern Jordan, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 54
Braun, 2004, Excavations at Ashqelon, Afridar-Area G, 'Atiqot, 45, 185
Aharoni, 1964, The second season of excavation at Tel Arad (1963), Yediot, 28
Golani, 2002, In Quest of Ancient Settlements and Landscapes.
Boaretto, Radiocarbon Dating of Archaeobotanical Samples from an Early Bronze Age Site of Ashqelon Barnea.
de Miroschedji, 2000, Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant.
Fischer, 2000, Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age Southern Levant.
Joffe, 1993, Settlement and Society in the Early Bronze Age I and II, Southern Levant.
Scheftelowitz, 2002, Tel Kabri: The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons., 19
Philip, 2001, The Archaeology of Jordan., 163
Stager, 1992, Chronologies in Old World Archaeology., Volume 1, 22
Rast, 2003, Bâb edh-Dhrâ: Excavations at the Town Site (1975–1981).
Genz, 2002, Die frühbronzezeitliche Keramik von irbet ez-Zeraqn: Mit Studien zur Chronologie und funktionalen Deutung frühbronzezeitliche Keramik in der südlichen Levante.
Holzer, 2000, Har Shahamon (Desert Kite), Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 109, 165
Segal, 2003, Radiocarbon dates from Horbat Hani (West), 'Atiqot, 44
Lombardo, 2000, Excavations at Jericho, 1998. Preliminary Report on the Second Season of Excavations and Surveys at Tell es-Sultan.
Paz, 2010, Life in the City: The Birth of an Urban Habitus in the Early Bronze Age of Israel.
Stadler, 2008, Tell Abu al-Kharaz in the Jordan Valley.
Segal, 2004c, Rehovot radiocarbon date list VI, 'Atiqot, 48
Zeuner, 1956, The radiocarbon age of Jericho, Antiquity, 30
Yekutieli, 2006, The ceramics of Tel 'Erani, Layer C, Journal of the Serbian Archaeological Society, 22
Segal, 1996, Rehovot radiocarbon datelist V, 'Atiqot, XXIX, 79
Yekutieli, 2007, The relations between Egypt and Canaan in the Early Bronze Age 1–a view from south-western Canaan, Qadmoniot, 134, 66
Holdorf, 2010, Final Report on the Early Bronze IV Area C Gateway and Cemeteries., Volume 1
Segal, 2004b, Radiocarbon dates from Area F, 'Atiqot, 45, 156

Sorted by citations

Items 201–209 of 209

Bronze Age agropastoral management in central Cyprus and along the Jordan Rift
Fall, P. L., Falconer, S. E., Ridder, E., et al. (2025) · Journal of Archaeological Science Reports · doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2025.105119
Megiddo in the Third Millennium BCE
Adams, M. J. (2025) · Near Eastern Archaeology · doi:10.1086/735559
Biography of a Levantine dolmen during the Early Bronze Age: construction, reuse and memory at Rjile (Kufr Yuba, North Jordan)
Steimer-Herbet, T., Rivoira, M. D., al Khasawneh, S., et al. (2025) · Journal of Archaeological Science Reports · doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2025.105536
La mesure des échanges en Méditerranée orientale : les amphores levantines de l'âge du Bronze moyen et récent à l'étude
Cateloy, C. (2022) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/2de7ab95zc5f2z480bzaec6zb5b3f7bd0d29
Early to mid-Holocene climate oscillations and cultural shifts in the eastern Mediterranean
Shtienberg, G., Norris, R. D., Rittenour, T. M., Mahony, K., Plat, K., Mischke, S., Langgut, D., Yasur‐Landau, A., Sivan, D., Bárta, M., et al. (2026) · Quaternary Science Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2026.110028
Mea culpa: revisiting the zooarchaeological perspective on the origins of metal use for quotidian activities at Jericho (Tel es-Sultan)
Greenfield, H. J. (2026) · Frontiers in Environmental Archaeology · doi:10.3389/fearc.2026.1798637
A Longue Durée Perspective of Household Sustainability in the Early Bronze Age Southern Levant: Groundstone Recycling at Tell es-Sâfi/Gath, Israel
Beller, J. A., Greenfield, H. J., Richardson, S. J., et al. (2026) · Journal of Field Archaeology · doi:10.1080/00934690.2026.2696687
“C ., which, according to the new high chronology, roughly aligns with the termination of EB III at other sites in the region (Regev et al. 2012).”
Egypt and the Levant: Networks and Negotiations in the Bronze Age
Mourad, A.-L. (2026) · doi:10.1017/9781009419949
الطفيلة على مر العصور القديمة – دراسة تاريخية أثرية
المقابلة, ي. (2026) · International Journal of Scientific Studies Publishing · doi:10.62690/ijssp30.3.5

Authors: Regev, J., De Miroschedji, P., Greenberg, R., Braun, E., Greenhut, Z., & Boaretto, E.
Affiliations: Bar-Ilan University (IL)
Tel Aviv University (IL)
W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research (IL)
Israel Antiquities Authority (IL)
Weizmann Institute of Science (IL)
Corresponding author: Regev, Johanna
ORCID: Regev, Johanna
Greenberg, Raphael
Boaretto, Elisabetta
Venue: Radiocarbon
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published: 2012
Volume: 54
Issue: 3-4
Pages: 525-566
ISSN: 0033-8222 (ISSN-L)
1945-5755
DOI: 10.1017/s003382220004724x
OpenAlex: W1897707674
Semantic Scholar: 5507422ae5d257842ee3d5bf9371cc588e6c5e14
Cited by: 209
References: 93
Citations by year: 2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 2
FWCI: 9.07
Type: journal article
Language: en
Open access: bronze
doi.org
Licence: www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 1660 d)
Locations: Radiocarbon (publishedVersion)
UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (acceptedVersion)
Funders: W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research
Tel Aviv University
Topics: Social Sciences › Archeology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Ancient Mediterranean Archaeology and History
Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Ancient and Medieval Archaeology Studies
Keywords: Early Bronze Age, Southern Levant, chronology, radiocarbon dates, Bayesian model, seriation

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-17, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-17 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (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

Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: New Analysis for a High Chronology

Abstract

Overview

AI snapshot

TL;DR

Key findings

Methods

Limitations

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Self-check

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Related

Metadata

Record

About these checks