Cited by 36Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism StudiesMetallurgy and Cultural ArtifactsArchaeology and ancient environmental studies

ARCHAEOMAGNETIC DATING OF COPPER SMELTING SITE F2 IN THE TIMNA VALLEY (ISRAEL) AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE MODELLING OF ANCIENT TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS

Open access
BEN‐YOSEF, E., TAUXE, L., LEVY, T. E.·2010·Archaeometry

Abstract

Site F2 in the Timna Valley, Israel, is a small copper smelting site of ‘primitive’ technology, dated by its excavator to the Pottery Neolithic (sixth to fifth millennium bce). This early date challenges the common view of the beginning of smelting technology in the Levant and has been contested by various scholars since its publication. In this study, we present results of archaeointensity experiments conducted on slag fragments from the site. The slag yielded an excellent ancient geomagnetic value (64.1 ± 1.1 μT) that, when compared to the Levantine master curve, suggests an age not older than the second millennium and most probably between the 13th and 11th centuries bce. In addition to demonstrating the applicability of geomagnetic archaeointensity experiments to independent dating of slag, we discuss the implications of the current results for the socio‐historical picture of the Timna Valley, and in particular for the way in which technological developments were previously modelled in the archaeometallurgical research on the region.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1475-4754.2010.00528.x

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
BEN‐YOSEF, E., TAUXE, L., & LEVY, T. E.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Scripps Institution of Oceanography (US)
Venue
Archaeometry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-04-26
Volume
52
Issue
6
Pages
1110-1121
ISSN
  • 0003-813X (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-4754
OpenAlex
W2135635134
Cited by
36
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Archaeometry (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (0636051)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
  • Social Sciences › Archeology › Metallurgy and Cultural Artifacts
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
Keywords
archaeomagnetic dating, copper smelting, slag, archaeointensity, geomagnetic field intensity, Pottery Neolithic, Iron Age, Levant, archaeometallurgy, technological change

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.

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