CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20Archaeology and ancient environmental studiesBiblical Studies and InterpretationAncient Egypt and Archaeology

The chronology of Gezer from the end of the late bronze age to iron age II: A meeting point for radiocarbon, archaeology egyptology and the Bible

Open access
Webster, Lyndelle C., Wolff, Samuel R., Ortiz, Steven M., Barbosa, Marcella, Coyle, Cameron, Arbino, Gary P., Dee, Michael W., Hua, Quan +1 more·2023·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0293119PMC PMC10651010
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The ancient southern Levantine city of Gezer is well-known from Egyptian, Biblical and Assyrian sources, associated with power struggles, conquests, and intriguing tales involving figures such as Milkilu and Amenhotep III, Merneptah, the Philistines, Solomon and his unidentified pharaonic father-in-law, and Shishak / Sheshonq I. Since the identity of Gezer with “Tell Jezer” is quite literally ‘set in stone’ by some dozen boundary inscriptions, along with impressive Bronze and Iron Age remains, research at this site provides a unique opportunity to compare text and archaeology, as well as bring to light the undocumented everyday lives of the city’s inhabitants. In this endeavour, independent scientific dating is crucial for anchoring the remains chronologically. This paper presents the first substantial radiocarbon dataset and Bayesian chronological analysis for Gezer spanning the last part of the Late Bronze Age (LBA; LB IIB) through Iron Age II. The dataset derives from an essentially continuous stratigraphic sequence exposed in recent years by the Tandy expedition along the central-southern edge of the site. The results allow us for the first time to independently determine the site chronology, test the viability (from a chronological perspective) of proposed historical correlations, and contribute to debates on Philistine and Iron Age chronology.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This paper presents the first substantial radiocarbon dataset and Bayesian chronological analysis for Tel Gezer from the late Late Bronze Age through Iron Age II, based on 35 dates from the Tandy expedition’s continuous stratigraphic sequence. It anchors key destruction and construction horizons between the late 13th and early 9th centuries BC and tests the chronological feasibility of proposed historical correlations.

Key findings

  • The Stratum 12B elite residence destruction is dated to 1218–1172 BC (68.3% hpd), compatible with Merneptah’s campaign; Stratum 11 begins 1183–1136 BC (68.3% hpd), and Philistine 2 / bichrome pottery may have reached Gezer around the mid-12th century BC, almost certainly by the last decades of the century (Stratum 11: 1162–1112 BC, 68.3% hpd).
  • Stratum 8 monumental architecture begins 998–957 BC (68.3% hpd) and is destroyed 969–940 BC (68.3% hpd), ruling out a 9th-century BC date for Stratum VIII; Stratum 7 ends 927–885 BC (68.3% hpd), firmly ruling out association with Hazael’s ca. 830 BC campaign.
  • The end of Stratum 10A is dated 1080–1021 BC (68.3% hpd), making correlation of Siamun or Solomon with that destruction unlikely; the Stratum 8 destruction may have ended during Sheshonq I’s reign, though the common 925 BC biblical date for Shishak’s campaign shows a modest discrepancy of <10 years at 95.4% and <20 years at 68.3%.

Methods

  • Thirty-five AMS radiocarbon dates were run from seven strata/sub-strata (Stratum 12B through 7), mostly on single-entity charred seeds, with one bone collagen date; measurements were made at five laboratories, primarily ANSTO (15 dates), Groningen (9), and BETA Analytic (9).
  • Samples were pretreated with ABA (bone collagen via gelatinization/ultrafiltration), calibrated using OxCal v4.4 and IntCal20, and modelled in Bayesian sequences of phases according to archaeological stratigraphic order, with no historical constraints applied.
  • The preferred Model B uses OxCal’s ‘General’ outlier model with 5% prior outlier probability and excludes two Stratum 8 outliers (Beta-436538 and Beta-436540); weighted averages were applied only for measurements from the same seed when passing the χ2 test.

Limitations

  • The paper states that no dateable material was obtained for Stratum 12A, only one sample reliably dates Stratum 9, Stratum 8 has limited measurements, and Stratum 6 was not dated because its expected position falls on the Hallstatt Plateau; radiocarbon offsets are possible but likely small (around one to two decades at most).
  • The paper notes that some contexts are less secure: two Stratum 8 dates came from seeds found close to surfaces but not in large clusters, and seeds from Vat L82048 were in generally unburnt destruction debris; the Bayesian models use only radiocarbon data and stratigraphic order within the Tandy field, with no historical constraints.
  • Evident from the text: the study tests only chronological feasibility of historical correlations, not proof of specific associations, and the authors caution that calibrated/modelled ranges should be interpreted in terms of decades given combined sampling, measurement, calibration, and modelling limitations.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0293119

Cites

149 of 149 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

12 of 165 cited sources checked · 4 supported · 1 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Regional and growing radiocarbon offsets are small in magnitude, around one to two decades at most.

    “How the regional and growing offsets varied through time is not yet well understood, but all evidence indicates they are small in magnitude, around one to two decades at most.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim3 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [139] MW Dee, 2010, Investigating the likelihood of a reservoir offset in the radiocarbon record for ancient Egypt, Journal of Archaeological Science source
    • cites [140] MW Dee, 2013 source
    • cites [141] SW Manning, 2018, Fluctuating radiocarbon offsets observed in the southern Levant and implications for archaeological chronology debates, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences source

      The Discussion reports a time-varying southern Levant offset of about 19 ± 5 radiocarbon years, consistent with an offset on the order of one to two decades. But it also reports intervals at about 24 ± 5 radiocarbon years and says the dating effects can be substantial, so the claim’s ‘at most’ ceiling is not supported. The indexed copy provides no page number for these Discussion passages. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [142] SW Manning, 2020, Mediterranean radiocarbon offsets and calendar dates for prehistory, Science Advances source

      The Results section (‘Mediterranean 14C offsets’; page unavailable) reports typical offsets of approximately 16–32 radiocarbon years, with an exception attributed to another process. Although these are described as modest offsets, the reported typical range exceeds the claimed maximum of one to two decades. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [143] SW Manning, 2020, Radiocarbon offsets and old world chronology as relevant to Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia and Thera (Santorini)., Scientific Reports. source
  • Premisecitation

    Large datasets covering long, continuous stratigraphic sequences are best able to contribute to chronological debates, since prior knowledge of relative order can be used to constrain radiocarbon probabilities using Bayesian statistics.

    “Large datasets covering long, continuous stratigraphic sequences are best able to contribute to chronological debates, since prior knowledge of relative order can be used to constrain the radiocarbon probabilities using Bayesian statistics [116–118].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [116] CE Buck, 1991, Combining archaeological and radiocarbon information: a Bayesian approach to calibration., Antiquity source
    • cites [117] CE Buck, 1992, Calibration of radiocarbon results pertaining to related archaeological events, Journal of Archaeological Science source
    • cites [118] C. Bronk Ramsey, 2009, Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates., Radiocarbon source

      The Relative Constraints section explains that stratigraphic order can be incorporated as a prior in Bayesian chronological models. The Multiple Phases section calls analyses with well-defined stratigraphic constraints especially robust and powerful, but it does not say that datasets must be large or cover long, continuous sequences to contribute most to chronological debates. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationcitation

    The results for Strata 9 and 8 fit acceptably with 14C results from transitional Iron I/IIA strata at other sites in the same region: Khirbet Qeiyafa, Khirbet al-Rai (Level VII) and Beth Shemesh (Level 4).

    “The results for Strata 9 and 8 fit acceptably with 14C results from transitional Iron I/IIA strata at other sites in the same region: Khirbet Qeiyafa [91, 109, 110], Khirbet al-Rai (Level VII) [91] and Beth Shemesh (Level 4) [106, 107].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [91] Y Garfinkel, 2019, Lachish fortifications and state formation in the biblical kingdom of Judah in light of radiometric datings., Radiocarbon source
    • cites [109] Y Garfinkel, 2012, State formation in Judah: biblical tradition, modern historical theories, and radiometric dates at Khirbet Qeiyafa., Radiocarbon source
    • cites [110] Y Garfinkel, 2015, King David’s city at Khirbet Qeiyafa: results of the second radiocarbon dating project., Radiocarbon source
  • Findingown data

    Philistine pottery ('Philistine 2' ware) appears for the first time in Stratum 11.

    “Notably, Philistine pottery (‘Philistine 2’ ware) appears for the first time in this horizon.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The set of independently calibrated radiocarbon dates from Tandy Strata 12B-7 generally reflect the stratigraphic order well.

    “The set of independently calibrated radiocarbon dates from Tandy Strata 12B–7 generally reflect the stratigraphic order well (Table 3, Fig 9).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 38
  • May combine two claims. 53

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    We initially chose not to radiocarbon date Stratum 6 because its expected chronological position (destroyed in 734 BC) would place it on the Hallstatt Plateau.

    “We initially chose not to radiocarbon date Stratum 6 because its expected chronological position (destroyed in 734 BC) would place it on the Hallstatt Plateau [124].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [124] I. Hajdas, 2008, Radiocarbon dating and its applications in Quaternary studies, E&G Quaternary Science Journal source

      The discussion of the calibration curve (section 7; page not available) says the Hallstatt Plateau complicates precise radiocarbon dating, supporting the general rationale. But it dates the plateau to approximately 700–400 BC, so it does not establish that 734 BC falls on it. The paper does not address Stratum 6 or the citing authors’ decision not to date it. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Available data from Tel Miqne (Ekron) and Beth Shemesh give distinctly lower estimates for the strata in which Philistine 2 pottery first appear: Start Miqne VIB at 1118-1059 BC and Start Beth Shemesh 6 at 1081-989 BC (both 68.3% hpd).

    “Available data from Tel Miqne (Ekron) and Beth Shemesh give distinctly lower estimates for the strata in which Philistine 2 pottery first appear: Start Miqne VIB at 1118–1059BC and Start Beth Shemesh 6 at 1081–989 BC (both 68.3% hpd).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [98] I Sharon, 2007, Report on the first stage of the Iron Age dating project in Israel: supporting a low chronology., Radiocarbon source

      Tables 2–5 list Tel Miqne VIb and Beth Shemesh 6 among the dated early Iron I contexts, and the sample-date listing gives a calibrated range for Beth Shemesh 6. But the cited paper does not give the claimed 68.3% start-date ranges of 1118–1059 BC and 1081–989 BC, or identify both strata as where Philistine 2 pottery first appears. Those specific claims are not supported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [152] S Bunimovitz, 2016

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The Gezer result closely matches recent 14C results from Ashkelon (Start 19B: 1173-1131 BC, 68.3% hpd) and is compatible with Tell es-Safi (Gath) (Start A6: 1220-1138 BC, 68.3% hpd).

    “The result closely matches recent 14C results from Ashkelon (Start 19B: 1173–1131 BC, 68.3% hpd) [111] and is compatible with Tell es-Safi (Gath) (Start A6: 1220–1138 BC, 68.3% hpd) (Fig 11) ([104], see analysis in [2]).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [111] Y Asscher, 2021, A radiocarbon sequence for the Late Bronze to Iron Age transition at Ashkelon: timing early Philistine pottery., Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research source
    • cites [104] Y Asscher, 2015, Radiocarbon dating shows an early appearance of Philistine material culture in Tell es-Safi/Gath, Philistia., Radiocarbon source
    • cites [2] L. Webster, 2021

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The earlier dates for the Iron I to IIA transition from southern sites stand in contrast to later estimates from northern sites such as Dor and Rehov, suggesting the need for a more nuanced approach.

    “The earlier dates for the Iron I to IIA transition emerging from southern sites stand in contrast to later estimates from sites in the north such as Dor [98] and Rehov [103], suggesting the need for a more nuanced approach to the chronology of this period that explores potential delays in material culture change in different parts of the country.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [98] I Sharon, 2007, Report on the first stage of the Iron Age dating project in Israel: supporting a low chronology., Radiocarbon source

      In Previous Research (page unavailable), the paper says Rehov’s Iron I–IIA boundary could fall in the later 10th century BCE, but describes that as a subsidiary possibility in the Rehov model, not its primary estimate. In Relative Periodization (page unavailable), it says correlation with southern sites is complex and that it lacked samples from Judah, so it does not establish the claimed north–south contrast or regional delay in material-culture change. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [103] A Mazar, 2020

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The discrepancy between Gezer and Tel Miqne/Beth Shemesh may be due to data limitations: key strata at Tel Miqne are represented by single contexts, and measurements for Level 6 at Beth Shemesh come from a single olive pit.

    “However, a close review (for details, see [2]) suggests that the discrepancy may be due to data limitations: key strata at Tel Miqne are represented by single contexts [98], and measurements for Level 6 at Beth Shemesh come from a single olive pit [152].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [2] L. Webster, 2021

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

    • cites [98] I Sharon, 2007, Report on the first stage of the Iron Age dating project in Israel: supporting a low chronology., Radiocarbon source

      Tables 3–5 (page unavailable) list one sample for Tel Miqne VIIb and VIb, and one sample for Beth Shemesh Level 6. The sample listing identifies Beth Shemesh 6 (3934) as olive pits, but does not establish that it came from a single pit. The cited passages also do not attribute the discrepancy with Gezer to these data limitations. (LLM, conf=0.81)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [152] S Bunimovitz, 2016

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Gezer did not share the fate of Lachish and Azekah, which suffered site-wide destructions in the second part of the 12th century BC and were abandoned for more than a century.

    “Perhaps for this reason, Gezer did not share the fate of Lachish and Azekah, which suffered impressive site-wide destructions in the second part of the 12th century BC, after which they were abandoned for more than a century [2, 91, 108, 150, 151].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [2] L. Webster, 2021

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

    • cites [91] Y Garfinkel, 2019, Lachish fortifications and state formation in the biblical kingdom of Judah in light of radiometric datings., Radiocarbon source
    • cites [108] L Webster, 2018, Preliminary radiocarbon results for Late Bronze Age strata at Tel Azekah and their Implications., Radiocarbon source

      The Results and Discussion (page not available) says both Azekah and Lachish experienced traumatic events at the end of the Late Bronze Age, in the late 12th century BCE. The excavation discussion describes widespread destruction at Azekah and abandonment of its extra-mural quarter until Iron Age IIB, but does not establish that both entire sites were abandoned for more than a century. The paper does not address Gezer’s contrasting fate. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Gezer was apparently fortified during Iron I: a portion of the city wall was revealed along the edge of the slope, directly over the remains of Stratum 12.

    “Gezer was apparently fortified during Iron I: a portion of the city wall was revealed along the edge of the slope, directly over the remains of Stratum 12.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Stratum 12B is the earliest horizon for which a wide exposure has been achieved and features a large building ca. 15 m x 20 m.

    “Stratum 12B (XV; LB IIB) is the earliest horizon for which a wide exposure has been achieved and features a large building (ca. 15 m x 20 m) (Fig 4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A new fortification system featuring a massive six-chambered gate, casemate wall and new stone-covered glacis was built in this part of the site, and a large administrative building laid out close by.

    “A new fortification system featuring a massive six-chambered gate, casemate wall and new stone-covered glacis was built in this part of the site, and a large administrative building laid out close by.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingcitation

    A single sherd of Philistine 1 has been identified in the Tandy excavation.

    “A single sherd of Philistine 1 has been identified in the Tandy excavation (S. Gitin, personal communication).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The Stratum 12B building was destroyed in a fiery conflagration, whose calamitous nature is evidenced by the remains of three individuals.

    “The Stratum 12B building was destroyed in a fiery conflagration, whose calamitous nature is evidenced by the remains of three individuals.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Most walls of the administrative building had fallen in the same direction (westward) and the structure was buried in up to 1.5 m of mudbrick debris.

    “Most walls of the administrative building had fallen in the same direction (westward) and the structure was buried in up to 1.5 m of mudbrick debris; concentrations of boulders filled some rooms.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Excluding the two outliers does not have a major impact on model outcomes but provides narrower estimates for Stratum 8 and its boundaries.

    “This does not have a major impact on model outcomes but does provide narrower and arguably more realistic estimates for Stratum 8 and its boundaries; hence we prefer this model.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Dates from multiple laboratories and AMS runs show good agreement, including five pairs of measurements on fragments of the same olive pit.

    “Dates from multiple laboratories and AMS runs show good agreement, including five pairs of measurements on fragments of the same olive pit (marked blue in Fig 9 and by an asterisk in Table 3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    Earlier periods (LBA-Iron I) were represented mainly in the western portion of the excavated area, and Iron II in the east.

    “Earlier periods (LBA–Iron I) were represented mainly in the western portion of the excavated area, and Iron II in the east.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There is limited overlap with the 14C-based estimate for the accession year of Siamun (1019-977 BC, 95.4% hpd) and none with traditional estimates for his reign (978-959 BC or 995-976 BC).

    “There is limited overlap with the 14C-based estimate for the accession year of Siamun (1019–977 BC, 95.4% hpd) and none with traditional estimates for his reign (978–959 BC [146] or 995–976 BC [145]).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [146] KA Kitchen, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [145] T. Schneider, 2010, Contributions to the chronology of the New Kingdom and the Third Intermediate period., Ägypten und Levante. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The end of Tandy Stratum 10A is estimated by 14C within the 11th century BC, contemporary with the 21st Dynasty of Egypt but too early for Solomon by any estimate.

    “The end of Tandy Stratum 10A is estimated by 14C within the 11th century BC, contemporary with the 21st Dynasty of Egypt but too early for Solomon by any estimate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Stratum 7 was not particularly long-lived; it fell to a destructive event near the close of the 10th century BC or early decades of the 9th century BC (927-885, 68.3% hpd).

    “It was not particularly long-lived, as the site once again fell prey to a destructive event near the close of the 10th century BC or early decades of the 9th century BC (927–885, 68.3% hpd).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The Tandy excavation shows substantial re-organization and planning of the city quarter and construction of a city wall in 1183-1136 BC (68.3% hpd, Start Stratum 11).

    “The Tandy excavation shows a substantial re-organization and planning of the city quarter and construction of a city wall in the timeframe 1183–1136 BC (68.3% hpd, Start Stratum 11).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There is minimal overlap at 68.3% between the end boundaries of Stratum 7 and Tell es-Safi Level A3, and none with Tel Zayit Level I even at 95.4% hpd.

    “There is minimal overlap at 68.3% between the end boundaries of Stratum 7 and Tell es-Safi Level A3, and none with Tel Zayit Level I even at 95.4% hpd.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    We do not reach good agreement between 14C-based dates for Stratum 8 and Sheshonq I and the commonly cited historical-biblical date for Shishak's campaign (925 BC); the discrepancy is modest (<10 years at 95.4% and <20 years at 68.3%).

    “We do not, however, reach good agreement between 14C-based dates for Stratum 8 and Sheshonq I on the one hand, and the commonly cited historical-biblical date for Shishak’s campaign on the other: 925 BC based on Rehoboam’s 5th year and synchronisms between later Israelite/Judahite reigns and Assyrian chronology. The discrepancy is modest, however: <10 years at 95.4% and <20 years at 68.3%.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Sheshonq I is commonly equated with biblical 'Shishak king of Egypt'.

    “Sheshonq I is commonly equated with biblical “Shishak king of Egypt””
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 10 sources checked
    • cites [19] N. Na’aman, 1992, Israel, Edom and Egypt in the 10th century B.C.E., Tel Aviv source
    • cites [20] KA Kitchen, 2003 source
    • cites [21] B. Mazar, 1957

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [22] Y. Aharoni, 1979

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [23] S. Ahituv, 1984 source
    • cites [24] KA Kitchen, 1986

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [25] KA Wilson, 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [26] RK Ritner, 2009
    • cites [27] M. Weippert, 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [28] A Fantalkin, 2006, The Sheshonq I campaign and the 8th-century BCE earthquake–more on the archaeology and history of the South in the Iron I-IIa., Tel Aviv. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    The Egyptian and Assyrian texts are contemporary with the events they describe and are generally accepted as describing real events.

    “The Egyptian and Assyrian texts are contemporary with the events they describe and thus generally accepted as describing real events (notwithstanding political biases of the authors).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Towards the end of the Late Bronze Age, Merneptah launched a campaign into southern Canaan, evidently to quell a rebellion that broke out at the end of Ramesses II's long reign.

    “Towards the end of the Late Bronze Age, Merneptah (accession 1241–1219 BC, 95.4%) launched a campaign into southern Canaan, evidently to quell a rebellion that broke out at the end of Ramesses II’ long reign [7, 8].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [7] I. Singer, 1988, Merneptah’s campaign to Canaan and the Egyptian occupation of the southern coastal plain of Palestine in the Ramesside Period, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research source
    • cites [8] EF Morris, 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Macalister excavated nearly 60% of the tell, leaving few locations available to modern excavators.

    “he excavated nearly 60% of the tell–a fact that leaves few locations available to modern excavators.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [37] RAS Macalister

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The chronology of Thutmose III and Thutmose IV is supported by radiocarbon dating, with accession years estimated in the range 1518-1501 BC and 1434-1420 BC respectively (95.4% probability).

    “The chronology of these rulers is supported by radiocarbon dating, with accession years estimated in the range 1518–1501 BC and 1434–1420 BC respectively (95.4% probability) [2–4].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [2] L. Webster, 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [3] MW Dee, 2013 source
    • cites [4] SW Manning, 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Sheshonq I's accession is 988-945 BC (95.4%).

    “Sheshonq I, the Libyan founder of the 22nd Egyptian dynasty (accession 988–945 BC, 95.4%)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 8 sources checked
    • cites [19] N. Na’aman, 1992, Israel, Edom and Egypt in the 10th century B.C.E., Tel Aviv source
    • cites [21] B. Mazar, 1957

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [22] Y. Aharoni, 1979

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [23] S. Ahituv, 1984 source
    • cites [24] KA Kitchen, 1986

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [25] KA Wilson, 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [26] RK Ritner, 2009
    • cites [27] M. Weippert, 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    The historicity of Merneptah's southern Levantine campaign and his attack on Gezer (dated to his 5th year) enjoys wide acceptance.

    “The historicity of Merneptah’s southern Levantine campaign and his attack on Gezer (dated to his 5th year) enjoys wide acceptance [10].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [10] MG Hasel, 1998 source

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

    Premisecitation

    The HUC expedition between 1964 and 1974 used careful stratigraphic methods.

    “the next expedition to undertake extensive excavation, this time using careful stratigraphic methods, was by Hebrew Union College (HUC) under the direction of Wright, Dever, Lance and Seger between 1964 and 1974.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 7 sources checked
    • cites [46] WG Dever, 1970

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [47] WG Dever, 1974

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [48] WG Dever, 1971, Further excavations at Gezer, 1967–1971., Biblical Archaeologist source
    • cites [49] JS Holladay, 1990, Red slip, burnish, and the Solomonic gateway at Gezer., Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research source
    • cites [50] WG Dever, 1986

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [51] S. Gitin, 1990

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [52] S. Gitin, 1996

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Gezer is one of few sites singled out as having been captured in Merneptah's stele.

    “Gezer is one of few sites singled out as having been captured.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [9] KA Kitchen, 2003

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Merneptah's accession is 1241-1219 BC (95.4%).

    “Merneptah (accession 1241–1219 BC, 95.4%)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [7] I. Singer, 1988, Merneptah’s campaign to Canaan and the Egyptian occupation of the southern coastal plain of Palestine in the Ramesside Period, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research source
    • cites [8] EF Morris, 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisereasoning

    The biblical texts were written centuries later and the historical realities behind them are less clear and more strongly debated.

    “The biblical texts were written centuries later and thus the historical realities behind them are less clear and more strongly debated.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Gezer is securely identified with Tell Jezer.

    “Gezer is securely identified with Tell Jezer (ITM/NIG grid ref. 192513, 640728)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisenone given

    HUC and the Tandy expedition placed the destruction of Stratum VIII in the second part of the 10th century BC, drawing an association with Shishak / Sheshonq I.

    “HUC and the Tandy expedition placed the destruction in the second part of the 10th century BC, drawing an association with Shishak / Sheshonq I.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Finkelstein has associated the construction of both the Outer Wall and lower gateway with Stratum VII (= Tandy Stratum 7).

    “Finkelstein [75] has associated the construction of both with Stratum VII (= Tandy Stratum 7).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [75] I. Finkelstein, 2002, Gezer revisited and revised, Tel Aviv source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Philistine pottery first occurs as Philistine 2 (Bichrome) ware, and no indisputable examples of Philistine 1 (Monochrome) are known.

    “It first occurs as Philistine 2 (Bichrome) ware, and no indisputable examples of Philistine 1 (Monochrome) are known ([73, 74] contra [75]).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [73] T Dothan, 2004, A preliminary study of the Mycenaean IIIC:1 pottery assemblages from Tel Miqne-Ekron and Ashdod., Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research source
    • cites [74] WG Dever, 2003, Visiting the real Gezer: a reply to Israel Finkelstein., Tel Aviv. source
    • cites [75] I. Finkelstein, 2002, Gezer revisited and revised, Tel Aviv source

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

    Premisecitation

    In the saddle area, Field VII presented the most detailed Iron Age sequence.

    “In the saddle area, Field VII presented the most detailed Iron Age sequence”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [51] S. Gitin, 1990

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [52] S. Gitin, 1996

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    HUC would add the Outer Wall and lower gateway to the fortification system of Stratum 8, but the stratigraphic associations of these elements is debated.

    “To the fortification system of Stratum 8, HUC would add the Outer Wall and lower gateway [55], but the stratigraphic associations of these elements is debated.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [55] WG Dever, 1986, Late Bronze Age and Solomonic defenses at Gezer: new evidence., Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The two Stratum 12B dates (GrM-13317 and GrM-13321) appear somewhat early but are from large seed concentrations burnt in situ and should be reliable.

    “Two Stratum 12B dates (GrM-13317 and GrM-13321) also appear somewhat early (though with better overlap), but these samples are from large seed concentrations that were certainly burnt in situ and should be reliable; we suspect this may be simply a matter of measurement statistics, or the seeds include material from slightly earlier in the life of Stratum 12B.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Finkelstein suggested associating the destruction of Stratum VIII with the ca. 830 BC campaign of the Aramaean ruler Hazael.

    “Finkelstein has suggested associating it with the ca. 830 BC campaign of the Aramaean ruler Hazael [75].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [75] I. Finkelstein, 2002, Gezer revisited and revised, Tel Aviv source

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

    Premisecitation

    Recent intense archaeological research in the Shephelah shows Gezer Stratum VIII to be part of a pattern indicative of political expansion.

    “Recent intense archaeological research in the Shephelah shows Gezer Stratum VIII to be part of a pattern indicative of political expansion.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [89] S Bunimovitz, 2016
    • cites [90] A. Faust, 2013, The Shephelah in the Iron Age: a new look on the settlement of Judah., Palestine Exploration Quarterly. source
    • cites [91] Y Garfinkel, 2019, Lachish fortifications and state formation in the biblical kingdom of Judah in light of radiometric datings., Radiocarbon source
    • cites [92] O. Sergi, 2017, The emergence of Judah as a political entity between Jerusalem and Benjamin, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [93] I Finkelstein, 2020 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Almost the whole late LBA through Iron IIA stratigraphy, from Stratum 12B through 7, was addressed, with data lacking only for Stratum 12A.

    “Almost the whole late LBA through Iron IIA stratigraphy, from Stratum 12B through 7 was addressed (Table 3), with data lacking only for Stratum 12A.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisereasoning

    The development of independent, robust chronologies through the application of radiocarbon dating and Bayesian modelling provides a major advance.

    “The development of independent, robust chronologies through the application of radiocarbon dating and Bayesian modelling provides a major advance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Finkelstein and others dated Stratum VIII to the 9th century BC and suggested associating it with the northern Israelite kingdom under the Omride dynasty.

    “Following a low chronology for the Iron I to IIA transition, Finkelstein and others dated Stratum VIII to the 9th century BC and suggested associating it with the northern Israelite kingdom under the Omride dynasty [81, 85–88].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [81] D. Ussishkin, 1990, Notes on Megiddo, Gezer, Ashdod, and Tel Batash in the tenth to ninth centuries BC., Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research source
    • cites [85] GJ Wightman, 1990, The myth of Solomon, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. source
    • cites [86] I. Finkelstein, 1990, On archaeological methods and historical considerations: Iron Age II Gezer and Samaria., Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. source
    • cites [87] I. Finkelstein, 1996, The archaeology of the United Monarchy: an alternative view, Levant source
    • cites [88] I. Finkelstein, 2000, Omride architecture., Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Interpretationown data

    The plans attest to the changing nature of activity near the city gate, sometimes domestic and at other times administrative.

    “The plans attest to the changing nature of activity near the city gate–sometimes domestic and at other times administrative.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    In southern Cisjordan many radiocarbon datasets are small and have major gaps; even at Lachish there is a centuries-long gap during Iron I.

    “However, in southern Cisjordan many of the datasets are small and have major gaps; even at Lachish, which until now has offered the longest Iron Age sequence, there is a centuries-long gap during Iron I.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    The destruction of Stratum 7 was initially thought to date to the second part of the 9th century BC and associated with the campaign of the Aramaean ruler Hazael ca. 830 BC.

    “The destruction was initially thought to date to the second part of the 9th century BC and associated with the campaign of the Aramaean ruler Hazael ca. 830 BC, which destroyed the nearby city of Gath (2 Kings 12:17) and possibly other sites [60]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [60] SM Ortiz, 2017 source

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

    Premisecitation

    HUC attributed limited burnt remains and smashed pottery in Field II and large-scale trenching in Field VI with Stratum XV and the end of the LBA.

    “HUC attributed limited burnt remains and smashed pottery in Field II and large-scale trenching in Field VI (the acropolis) with Stratum XV and the end of the LBA [47, 50]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [47] WG Dever, 1974

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [50] WG Dever, 1986

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Macalister encountered the gate and casemate but misdated them to the Hellenistic period.

    “Macalister encountered the gate and casemate but misdated them to the Hellenistic period [37].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [37] RAS Macalister

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The wide distribution of six-chambered gates shows that the style was not restricted to a particular kingdom nor were they necessarily built at the same time.

    “The now well-recognised wide distribution of such gates shows that the style was not restricted to a particular kingdom nor were they necessarily built at the same time [83, 84].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [83] DA Frese, 2015, Chambered gatehouses in the Iron II southern Levant: their architecture and function., Levant source
    • cites [84] DA Frese, 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Chronology is one key test for establishing the basic feasibility of potential archaeological-textual correlations; it can demonstrate possible contemporaneity of rulers/events and strata or it may show a correlation to be improbable or impossible.

    “Chronology is one key test for establishing the basic feasibility of potential archaeological-textual correlations; it can demonstrate possible contemporaneity of rulers/events and strata or it may show a correlation to be improbable or impossible.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The domestic buildings of Stratum 6 show clear evidence of destruction by fire, and the end of the stratum has been associated with the campaign of Tiglath Pileser III.

    “The domestic buildings show clear evidence of destruction by fire, and the end of the stratum has been associated with the historically well-known campaign of the Assyrian monarch Tiglath Pileser III [35, 60].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [35] SR Wolff, 2021, The date of destruction of Gezer Stratum VI., Tel Aviv source
    • cites [60] SM Ortiz, 2017 source

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

    Premisecitation

    A low chronology scenario would put the destruction of Stratum VIII well inside the 9th century BC.

    “A low chronology scenario, on the other hand, would put the event well inside the 9th century BC”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [75] I. Finkelstein, 2002, Gezer revisited and revised, Tel Aviv source

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    The inhabitants seem to have been forewarned against an impending disaster, as the building was found largely empty.

    “The inhabitants seem to have been forewarned against an impending disaster, as the building was found largely empty.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Extra-biblical evidence indicates that early highland rulers (Saul, David, Solomon) were real historical figures, and most scholars see an early historical foundation to the later narrative development of the texts.

    “While scholars can debate the degree to which the accounts of these early highland rulers reflect historical memories, extra-biblical evidence indicates they were real historical figures [164–166], and most scholars see an early historical foundation to the later narrative development of the texts [167–172].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 9 sources checked
    • cites [164] A Biran, 1995, The Tel Dan inscription: a new fragment, Israel Exploration Journal
    • cites [165] WM Schniedewind, 1996, Tel Dan stela: New light on Aramaic and Jehu’s revolt., Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research source
    • cites [166] A. Lemaire, 1994, La dynastic davidique (BYT DWD) dans deux inscriptions ouest-sémitiques du IXe siècle av. J.-C, Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [167] N. Na’aman, 2009, Saul, Benjamin and the emergence of ‘Biblical Israel’ (part 1)., Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft source
    • cites [168] N. Na’aman, 2009, Saul, Benjamin and the emergence of ‘Biblical Israel’ (part 2)., Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. source
    • cites [169] I Finkelstein, 2011, Saul, Benjamin and the emergence of “Biblical Israel”: an alternative view., Zeitschrift für die altttestamentliche Wissenschaft. source
    • cites [170] I Finkelstein, 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [171] A Mazar, 2010 source
    • cites [172] JJ Krause, 2020 source

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

    Study design and conductown data

    All elements of the models converged at ≥95%.

    “All elements of the models converged at ≥95%.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The 10th century BC 14C-based date for early expansion in the Shephelah rules out an association with the northern Israelite Omride dynasty, but is chronologically compatible with Saul, David and/or Solomon.

    “The 10th century BC 14C-based date for early expansion in the Shephelah notably rules out an association with the northern Israelite Omride dynasty (contra [88]), however it is chronologically compatible with Saul, David and/or Solomon, whose text-based dating (albeit approximate) falls in the 10th century BC (perhaps also the late 11th century BC).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [88] I. Finkelstein, 2000, Omride architecture., Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    The overall pattern of destruction/disruption is commonly viewed as part of a period of turmoil ('Crisis Years') affecting the wider eastern Mediterranean region.

    “the overall pattern is commonly viewed as part of a period of turmoil (the so-called ‘Crisis Years’) that affected the wider eastern Mediterranean region [147, 148].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [147] WA Ward, 1992

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [148] AB Knapp, 2016, Crisis in context: the end of the Late Bronze Age in the eastern Mediterranean, American Journal of Archaeology source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The nature and fortification of Lachish V is disputed and its start date is not well-defined by 14C, but probably falls in the 10th century BC.

    “The nature and fortification of Lachish V is disputed [91, 155–157] and its start date is not well-defined by 14C, but probably falls in the 10th century BC [2, 91].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [91] Y Garfinkel, 2019, Lachish fortifications and state formation in the biblical kingdom of Judah in light of radiometric datings., Radiocarbon source
    • cites [155] I. Finkelstein, 2020, Iron age chronology and biblical history rejoinders: the Late Bronze / Iron Age transition, Tel ʿEton and Lachish, Palestine Exploration Quarterly source
    • cites [156] D. Ussishkin, 2022, The city walls of Lachish: Response to Yosef Garfinkel, Michael Hasel, Martin Klingbeil and their colleagues, Palestine Exploration Quarterly. source
    • cites [157] Lachish in the Bronze and Iron Ages: a reply to Garfinkel, 2022, 2021 and comments on current discussions., Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [2] L. Webster, 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This destruction event seems to have been site-wide, reflected in nearby Field VII, local Str. 8 and perhaps also Field VI, local Str. 4.

    “This event seems to have been site-wide, reflected in nearby Field VII, local Str. 8 and perhaps also Field VI, local Str. 4.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    The Shephelah region during Iron I and Iron IIA is generally seen as a 'middle ground' between coastal ('Philistine') and highland polities.

    “The Shephelah region during the Iron I and Iron IIA is generally seen as a ‘middle ground’ between coastal (‘Philistine’) and highland polities [158].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [158] AM Maeir, 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The Iron I to IIA transition cannot be later than Stratum 8, since this horizon is unambiguously Iron IIA, but it could be slightly earlier since Stratum 9 may be Iron I or Iron IIA.

    “The transition cannot be later than Stratum 8, since this horizon is unambiguously Iron IIA, however it could (at least in theory) be slightly earlier since the attribution of intermediate Stratum 9 may be Iron I or Iron IIA.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    The Iron I/IIA transition sees the onset of monumental buildings and fortifications indicative of central administration and the development or expansion of polities.

    “The Iron I/IIA transition sees the onset of monumental buildings and fortifications indicative of central administration and the development or expansion of polities.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Lachish Level VII shows evidence of widespread destruction and is well-dated by radiocarbon to 1218-1191 BC (68.3% hpd).

    “Lachish Level VII shows evidence of widespread destruction and is well-dated by radiocarbon to 1218–1191 BC (68.3% hpd; Fig 11) [2].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] L. Webster, 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The 14C-based Egyptian model puts Merneptah's accession at 1241-1219 BC (95.4% hpd) and Seti II at 1232-1209 (95.4% hpd).

    “The 14C-based Egyptian model puts his accession at 1241–1219 BC (95.4% hpd) and that of Seti II at 1232–1209 (95.4% hpd).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [3] MW Dee, 2013 source
    • cites [4] SW Manning, 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Bunimovitz and Lederman define this region as a buffer zone that experienced 'alternating prosperity and decline'.

    “Bunimovitz and Lederman define this region as a buffer zone that experienced “alternating prosperity and decline” [159].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [159] S Bunimovitz, 2017 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The 14C-based results from Stratum 7 open another possibility for correlation with Shishak/Sheshonq I; the end boundary (927-885 BC, 68.3% hpd) includes the common biblical date for Shishak's campaign but does not fit well with current 14C-based estimates for Sheshonq I.

    “The 14C-based results from Stratum 7 open another possibility for correlation with Shishak / Sheshonq I. The end boundary (927–885 BC, 68.3% hpd) includes the common biblical date for Shishak’s campaign, but does not fit well with current 14C-based estimates for Sheshonq I.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The traditional Egyptian chronology puts Sheshonq I's reign at 945-924 BC or 962-941 BC.

    “(The traditional Egyptian chronology puts Sheshonq I’s reign at 945–924 BC [146] or 962–941 BC [145].)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [146] KA Kitchen, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [145] T. Schneider, 2010, Contributions to the chronology of the New Kingdom and the Third Intermediate period., Ägypten und Levante. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premiseown data

    A 14C-based estimate for Sheshonq I puts his accession at 988-945 BC (95.4%) and the end of his reign at 967-934 BC (95.4%).

    “A 14C-based estimate for Sheshonq I puts his accession at 988–945 BC (95.4%) and the end of his reign at 967–934 BC (95.4%).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    There is room to debate the biblical date for Shishak's campaign; estimates for Rehoboam's 5th year are generally placed between ca. 930 and 915 BC, but one could argue for dates as high as ca. 970 BC.

    “There is room to debate the biblical date for Shishak’s campaign. Estimates for the 5th year of Rehoboam are generally placed between ca. 930 and 915 BC [180–183] but one could potentially argue for dates as high as ca. 970 BC [184].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [180] WF Albright, 1953, New light from Egypt on the chronology and history of Israel and Judah., Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research source
    • cites [181] JM Miller, 1967, Another look at the chronology of the early Divided Monarchy, Journal of Biblical Literature source
    • cites [182] JH Hayes, 1988

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [183] J. Hughes, 1990

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [184] PS Ash, 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Sheshonq I is located at the tail end of the New Kingdom radiocarbon model; the quantity of 14C data for the 21st Dynasty is limited and small inaccuracies in New Kingdom reign lengths could cumulatively pull this reign too high.

    “Sheshonq I is located at the tail end of the New Kingdom radiocarbon model. The quantity of 14C data for the 21st Dynasty is limited (13 dates, of which 9 are from one reign: Amenemnisu) and small inaccuracies in New Kingdom reign lengths (often based on maximum attested regnal years) could cumulatively pull this reign too high.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The refined dating of Stratum 7 demonstrates that the Aijalon Valley was still a contested area at the end of the 10th century BC and that the polity represented by the Stratum 8 monumental city was short-lived.

    “The refined dating of Stratum 7 demonstrates that the Aijalon Valley was still a contested area at the end of the 10th century BC and that the polity represented by the Stratum 8 monumental city was short-lived.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Radiocarbon suggests that Khirbet al-Rai and perhaps also Khirbet Qeiyafa were destroyed before Gezer Stratum 8, consistent with pottery evidence.

    “Radiocarbon suggests that Khirbet al-Rai and perhaps also Khirbet Qeiyafa were destroyed before Gezer Stratum 8 (Fig 11), consistent with the pottery evidence.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The Tel Zayit Level I destruction dates as much as a century after Tandy Stratum 7, perhaps even later than Hazael's reign (end of Level I: 796-772 BC, 68.3% hpd).

    “The Tel Zayit Level I destruction dates as much as a century after Tandy Stratum 7, perhaps even later than Hazael’s reign (end of Level I: 796–772 BC, 68.3% hpd).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    The most logical historical reconstruction based on archaeological remains and 14C dates is the westward expansion of a nascent Judah already in the 10th century BC.

    “The Tandy excavation directors consider that the most logical historical reconstruction based on the archaeological remains and 14C dates is the westward expansion of a nascent Judah already in the 10th century BC (cf. [174] and [175] which confine Judah’s expansion to the 9th century BC).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [174] O. Sergi, 2013, Judah’s expansion in historical context., Tel Aviv source
    • cites [175] N. Na’aman, 2013, The kingdom of Judah in the 9th century BCE: text analysis versus archaeological research, Tel Aviv source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The 14C evidence at Gath converges well with Hazael's campaign: a simple Bayesian model places the end of Tell es-Safi A3 at 887-798 BC (68.3% hpd).

    “Unlike the situation at Gezer, the 14C evidence at Gath–the only city specifically mentioned in 2 Kings 12:17 as having been attacked by Hazael–converges well with Hazael’s campaign: a simple Bayesian model places the end of Tell es-Safi A3 at 887–798 BC (68.3% hpd).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    For the date of Stratum 6, the paper must rely for now on the evidence of the pottery and finds [35].

    “For the date of Stratum 6 we must rely for now on the evidence of the pottery and finds [35].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [35] SR Wolff, 2021, The date of destruction of Gezer Stratum VI., Tel Aviv source

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

    Premisecitation

    The pottery assemblages at Khirbet Qeiyafa and Khirbet al-Rai are classified by excavators as early Iron IIA but by other scholars as Iron I or transitional Iron I/IIA.

    “The pottery assemblages at Khirbet Qeiyafa and Khirbet al-Rai are classified by the excavators as early Iron IIA [176, 177] but by other scholars as Iron I [178, 179] or transitional Iron I/IIA [154].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [176] H-G Kang, 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [177] Z Thomas, 2021, The early Iron Age IIA ceramic assemblage from Khirbet al-Ra‘i, Jerusalem Journal of Archaeology source
    • cites [178] L. Singer-Avitz, 2010, The relative chronology of Khirbet Qeiyafa., Tel Aviv source
78 of 78

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The probability of a date being an outlier follows a Student's t distribution, and an initial 5% prior probability is assumed.

    “The probability of a date being an outlier is assumed to follow a Student’s t distribution (the so-called ‘General’ model) and an initial 5% prior probability is assumed.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The Egyptian 14C model assumes Aston's ultra-high reign lengths for Thutmoses III through Ramesses II and reign lengths from Schneider for all other rulers.

    “the model assumes Aston’s ultra-high reign lengths for Thutmoses III through Ramesses II [144], and reign lengths from Schneider [145] for all other rulers.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    No internal order is assumed between dates inside the same phase.

    “No internal order was assumed between dates inside the same phase.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The samples may be expected to represent the use of the building, predominantly its last years.

    “Overall, the samples may be expected to represent the use of the building, predominantly its last years.”
4 of 4

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. L. Webster, 2021, Synchronising the Chronologies of the Late Bronze Age Southern Levant and Egypt: A Radiocarbon Dating Perspective [PhD dissertation].
  2. SW Manning, 2014, A Test of Time and A Test of Time Revisited
  3. EF Morris, 2005, Military Bases and the Evolution of Foreign Policy in Egyptian’s New Kingdom
  4. KA Kitchen, 2003, Translations. Volume IV. Merenptah and the Late Nineteenth Dynasty
  5. EA Knauf, 2001, The Land that I Will Show You: Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honour of J Maxwell Miller, 119
  6. B. Mazar, 1957, In: Volume du Congrès, Strasbourg 1956. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 4, 57
  7. R Gundacker, Sheshonq and Shishaq: philological and linguistic perspectives., Sheshonq (Shishak) in Palestine Proceedings of an International and Transdisciplinary Conference at the Austrian Archaeological Institute (Austrian Academy of Sciences), Vienna, 31 May– 1 June 2021.
  8. SM Ortiz, The Sheshonq redemption: an analysis of the current and previous excavation results of the 10th century BCE destruction at Tel Gezer., Sheshonq (Shishak) in Palestine Proceedings of an International and Transdisciplinary Conference at the Austrian Archaeological Institute (Austrian Academy of Sciences), Vienna, 31 May– 1 June 2021.
  9. L. Webster, Radiocarbon dating, Sheshonq I, and Iron Age chronology, Sheshonq (Shishak) in Palestine Proceedings of an International and Transdisciplinary Conference at the Austrian Archaeological Institute (Austrian Academy of Sciences), Vienna, 31 May– 1 June 2021.
  10. RAS Macalister, The Excavation of Gezer: 1902–1905 and 1907–1909., 1911
  11. R-C Weill, 1947, Campagne de 1923–1924
  12. AM Maeir, 2004, Finds from Raymond-Charles Weill’s Excavations in 1914 and 1921 (sic).
  13. WG Dever, 1970, Gezer I: Preliminary Report of the 1964–66 Seasons
  14. WG Dever, 1974, Gezer II: Report of the 1967–70 Seasons in Fields I and II
  15. WG Dever, 1986, The 1969–71 Seasons in Field VI, the “Acropolis”.
  16. S. Gitin, 1990, Gezer III: A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II, Persian and Hellenistic Periods at Tell Gezer.
  17. DA Warner, 2015, Villain or Visionary? RAS Macalister and the Archaeology of Palestine, 56
  18. DA Warner, 2017, Archaeological views: one thing leads to another., Biblical Archaeology Review, 43, 26
  19. I. Finkelstein, 2018, Philistine chronology: an update, Israel Exploration Journal, 68, 221
  20. A. Zertal, 1981, The gates of Gezer, Eretz-Israel., 15, 222
  21. DA Frese, 2020, The Form, Function, and Symbolism of the Civic Forum in the Southern Levant.
  22. I. Finkelstein, 2000, Omride architecture., Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 116, 114
  23. O. Sergi, 2017, The emergence of Judah as a political entity between Jerusalem and Benjamin, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins, 133, 1
  24. I Finkelstein, 2020, Saul, Benjamin, and the Emergence of Monarchy in Israel., 33
  25. E. Boaretto, 2022, Megiddo VI: The 2010–2014 Seasons., 1438
  26. A Mazar, 2009, Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996 Volume III: The 13th–11th century BCE Strata in Areas N and S., 1
  27. A Mazar, 2020, Tel Reḥov: A Bronze and Iron Age city in the Beth-Shean Valley Volume V: Various Objects and Natural-Science Studies., 455
  28. CH Wilson, 2017, An Iron Age IIB Elite Four-Room House at Gezer: Finds, Function, and Comparanda [MA thesis].
  29. WG Mook, 1983, 14C and Archaeology., 31
  30. KA Kitchen, 2000, The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millenium BC, 39
  31. WA Ward, 1992, The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris.
  32. S Kleiman, 2016, A snapshot of the destruction layer of Tell Zakariye/Tel Azekah seen against the backdrop of the final days of the Late Bronze Age., Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 132, 105
  33. G Barkay, 2004, The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) Volume I., 316
  34. S Münger, A seal impression on a clay stopper from Tel Gezer., Forthcoming
  35. Lachish in the Bronze and Iron Ages: a reply to Garfinkel, 2022, 2021 and comments on current discussions., Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins., 138, 242
  36. RE Tappy, 2009, Exploring the Long Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, 449
  37. A. Lemaire, 1994, La dynastic davidique (BYT DWD) dans deux inscriptions ouest-sémitiques du IXe siècle av. J.-C, Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici, 11, 17
  38. I Finkelstein, 2006, David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible Sacred Kings and the Roots of Western Tradition
  39. Ć. Filip, 2015, King like All the Nations? Kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the Bible and History, 9
  40. H-G Kang, 2018, Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 6. Excavation report 2007–2013: The Iron Age Pottery
  41. JH Hayes, 1988, A New Chronology for The Kings of Israel and Judah
  42. J. Hughes, 1990, Secrets of the Times. Myth and History in Biblical Chronology
  43. PS Ash, 1998, The Relationship Between Egypt and Palestine during the Time of David and Solomon: A Reexamination of the Evidence [PhD dissertation].

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Webster, L. C., Wolff, S. R., Ortiz, S. M., Barbosa, M., Coyle, C., Arbino, G. P., Dee, M. W., Hua, Q., & Jacobsen, G. E.
Affiliations
  • Austrian Academy of Sciences (AT)
  • W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research (IL)
  • Lipscomb University (US)
  • Gateway Seminary (US)
  • University of Groningen (NL)
  • Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (AU)
Corresponding author
Webster, Lyndelle C.
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2023-11-15
Volume
18
Issue
11
Pages
e0293119
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0293119
PMC
PMC10651010
OpenAlex
W4388705745
Semantic Scholar
cb56f9e69f0183c0e03ca605a5e16b95b458e035
Cited by
20
References
134
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 14
FWCI
4.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Austrian Science Fund (Y-932)
  • Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (AP11332)
  • Tandy Institute for Archaeology
  • American Society of Overseas Research (Heritage Excavation Fellowship)
  • Lipscomb University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Biblical Studies and Interpretation
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient Egypt and Archaeology
Keywords
Gezer, radiocarbon dating, Late Bronze Age, Iron Age II, Philistines, biblical chronology, Amenhotep III, Southern Levant, stratigraphic sequence
MeSH terms
Archaeology, Bayes Theorem, Bible, Time, Radiometric Dating

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