CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 141Archaeology and ancient environmental studiesAncient and Medieval Archaeology StudiesBiblical Studies and Interpretation

Absolute Chronology of Megiddo, Israel, in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages: High-Resolution Radiocarbon Dating

Open access
Toffolo, Michael B, Arie, Eran, Martin, Mario A S, Boaretto, Elisabetta, Finkelstein, Israel·2014·Radiocarbon
DOI 10.2458/56.16899
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Megiddo (Israel) is a key site for the study of the stratigraphy, chronology, and history of the Bronze and Iron ages in the Levant. The article presents a Bayesian chronological model for seven ceramic typology phases and 10 stratigraphic horizons at this site, covering the Late Bronze and much of the Iron Age. The model is based on 78 samples, which provided 190 determinations—the most thorough set of radiocarbon determinations known so far in a single site in the Levant. This set of data provides a reliable skeleton for the discussion of cultural processes and historical events in the region and beyond, including the periods of the Egyptian Empire in Canaan and the Northern Kingdom of Israel.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This paper presents a Bayesian radiocarbon chronology for Late Bronze and Iron Age Megiddo, based on 78 samples and 190 determinations, covering seven ceramic phases and ten stratigraphic horizons. It provides the first detailed radiocarbon-based system for the Late Bronze Age in the Levant and constrains several key transitions, while leaving the Middle Bronze/Late Bronze and Iron I/IIA transitions unresolved.

Key findings

  • The model is based on 78 short-lived samples yielding 190 determinations, described as the most thorough set of ¹⁴C determinations known from a single site in the Levant.
  • Key modeled transitions include: Iron I/IIA at 985–935 BCE (with a terminus post quem); early/late Iron I at 1035–1010 BCE in Area H, 1105–1050 BCE in Area K, and 1065–1025 BCE in the General Model; LB III/Iron I at 1100–1055 BCE (General); LB IIB/III at 1180–1135 BCE (General); and LB IIA/B at 1290–1200 BCE (General).
  • The LB IIA/IIB transition falls within the 13th century BCE, and the LB IIB/III transition falls during the 12th century BCE, according well with the Egyptian changeover from the 19th to the 20th Dynasty.
  • The Middle Bronze/Late Bronze transition cannot be resolved: there are no dates for the end phases of the Middle Bronze, and in Area K the pottery transition occurred within Level K-10; the Area K model places LB I/IIA near 1500 BCE, while the General Model allows both alternatives.

Methods

  • Sampling targeted only F loci (primary deposition contexts such as floors, occupational debris, and destruction layers) from four excavation areas (K, H, M, F); most samples were charred olive pits, with some wheat, lentils, and human bone.
  • Charred seeds were pretreated with acid-base-acid (ABA), checked by FTIR, oxidized with CuO at 900°C, prepared as graphite, and measured by AMS; ¹⁴C ages were δ¹³C-corrected and calibrated using Reimer et al. (2009) in OxCal v.4.1.7.
  • Bayesian models were built separately for Areas H and K and as a General Model including Areas M and F; dates were grouped as contiguous phases or sequences according to stratigraphy, with typology imposing contemporaneity between areas in the General Model. All ranges are ±1σ (68.2%) unless otherwise specified.

Limitations

  • Stated: the Middle Bronze/Late Bronze transition cannot be resolved because end-MB phases lack dates and the transition in Area K occurred within Level K-10; no radiocarbon dates exist for Level H-8, so the actual Iron I/IIA transition cannot be calculated; Level K-5 and H-7 are represented by single samples; H-13 samples are not limited by dates from an earlier level; several samples are outliers or show low agreement; and the Late Bronze Age calibration plateau (ca. 1300–1150 BCE) creates overlap between LB II and LB III.
  • Evident from the text: Areas M and F could not support independent Bayesian models because only two levels in Area M and one in Area F provided samples, and those samples gave single dates; some levels discussed are not yet published; and the H-12 dates show low agreement and wide probability distributions that the authors say they cannot currently explain.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2458/56.16899

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

19 of 44 cited sources checked · 17 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingown data
    § RESULTS · p. 17

    The LB III/Iron I transition in the General Model dates to 1100-1055 BCE.

    “LB III/Iron I | 1095-1045 | 1135-1090 | 1100-1055”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § RESULTS · p. 17

    The LB IIB/III transition in the General Model dates to 1180-1135 BCE.

    “LB IIB/III | 1125-1070 | 1185-1135 | 1180-1135”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § RESULTS · p. 17

    The Early Iron I/late Iron I transition in Model K dates to 1105-1050 BCE.

    “Early Iron I/late Iron I | 1035-1010 | 1105-1050 | 1065-1025”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § RESULTS · p. 17

    The K-10/K-9 transition in Areas H and K dates to 1560-1510 BCE (68.2% probability) based on Models H-K.

    “| | LB I/IIA | K-10/K-9 | 1560-1510”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § RESULTS · p. 17

    The LB IIB/III transition in Model H dates to 1125-1070 BCE.

    “LB IIB/III | 1125-1070 | 1185-1135 | 1180-1135”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 45
  • May combine two claims. 40
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 3

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § RESULTS · p. 8

    Thus far unpublished new measurements were grouped with dates from previous studies in order to cover the whole stratigraphic sequence from the Middle Bronze-Late Bronze transition through to the late Iron IIA.

    “Thus far unpublished, new measurements (marked with an asterisk), were grouped with dates from previous studies (Boaretto et al. 2005; Finkelstein et al. 2006; Sharon et al. 2007; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2007; Gilboa et al. 2013) in order to cover the whole stratigraphic sequence from the Middle Bronze (hereafter MB)-LB transition through to the late Iron IIA.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Boaretto et al. 2005 source
    • cites Finkelstein et al. 2006
    • cites Sharon et al. 2007 source

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

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Sampling strategy · p. 7

    The sampling strategy follows guidelines given in recent studies on the absolute chronology of the Iron Age in the eastern Mediterranean and southern Levant.

    “The strategy employed in sampling materials for dating follows the guidelines given in recent studies on the absolute chronology of the Iron Age in the eastern Mediterranean and southern Levant (Sharon 2001; Sharon et al. 2007; van der Plicht et al. 2009; Boaretto 2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Sharon 2001 source
    • cites Sharon et al. 2007 source
    • cites van der Plicht et al. 2009 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Radiocarbon dating · p. 8

    Calibrated ages in calendar years have been obtained from the calibration tables of Reimer et al. (2009) using OxCal v. 4.1.7.

    “Calibrated ages in calendar years have been obtained from the calibration tables of Reimer et al. (2009) using OxCal v. 4.1.7 (Bronk Ramsey 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Reimer et al. (2009) source
    • cites Bronk Ramsey 2010

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning
    § INTRODUCTION · p. 3

    The absolute chronology of the Late Bronze and Iron Age horizons is debated, including the beginning of the LB, the LB I-II, the details of the LB III/Iron I transition and the Iron I/II transition.

    “Yet, the absolute chronology of these horizons is debated, for instance regarding the beginning of the LB (see below), the LB I-II, the details of the LB III/Iron I transition 6 and the Iron I/II transition (e.g., Sharon et al. 2007; Mazar and Bronk Ramsey 2008; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010b).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Sharon et al. 2007 source

      The “Relative Periodization of the Iron Age I–IIA in Israel” section explicitly describes debate over the Late Bronze–Iron I transition, and the paper compares competing dates for the Iron I/II transition. Our copy does not address debate over the beginning of the Late Bronze Age or the LB I–II boundary. No page numbers are available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Mazar and Bronk Ramsey 2008 source
    • cites Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010b source

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

    Premisecitation
    § INTRODUCTION · p. 3

    Rigorous programs of dating the Iron Age phases have been underway in the last decade.

    “Rigorous programs of dating the Iron Age phases have been underway in the last decade (e.g., Boaretto et al. 2005; Sharon et al. 2007; Mazar and Bronk Ramsey 2008; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010a).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Boaretto et al. 2005 source
    • cites Sharon et al. 2007 source
    • cites Mazar and Bronk Ramsey 2008 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Radiocarbon dating · p. 7

    Charred seeds were pretreated with an acid-base-acid (ABA) procedure to remove all contaminants, following the methods of Yizhaq et al. (2005) and Rebollo et al. (2008).

    “Charred seeds were pretreated with an acid-base-acid (ABA) procedure to remove all the contaminants, following the methods of Yizhaq et al. (2005) and Rebollo et al. (2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Yizhaq et al. (2005) source

      The Charcoal Purification section describes an acid-alkali-acid cleaning procedure, so the paper supports the methodological reference in part. It applies that procedure to charcoal, not charred seeds, and the Discussion says most removable humic acid was extracted but residual fluorescence remained; it does not establish removal of all contaminants. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Rebollo et al. (2008) source

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

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Radiocarbon dating · p. 8

    14C ages are reported in conventional 14C years before present (BP) following the international convention.

    “14 C ages are reported in conventional 14 C years before present (BP) following the international convention (Stuiver and Polach 1977).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stuiver and Polach 1977 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Sampling strategy · p. 7

    Dates obtained from single short-lived samples found at different locations within the same locus should not be averaged, even if they are contemporary from a stratigraphic point of view.

    “As shown by Toffolo et al. (2012), dates obtained from single short-lived samples found at different locations within the same locus should not be averaged, even if they are contemporary from a stratigraphic point of view.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Toffolo et al. (2012) source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Sampling strategy · p. 7

    The difference of opinions regarding the debated Iron I/II transition is limited to a few decades.

    “This is essential when dealing with cases such as the debated Iron I/II transition (Mazar and Bronk Ramsey 2008; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010a), in which the difference of opinions is limited to a few decades.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Mazar and Bronk Ramsey 2008 source
    • cites Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010a

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § DISCUSSION · p. 22

    The disputed transition from the late Iron I to the Iron IIA falls in the range 985-935 BCE, meaning that it cannot be decided according to the Megiddo data.

    “The disputed transition from the late Iron I to the Iron IIA (Sharon et al. 2007; Mazar and Bronk Ramsey 2008; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010b) falls in the range 985-935 (Fig. 9), meaning that it cannot be decided according to the Megiddo data.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Sharon et al. 2007 source
    • cites Mazar and Bronk Ramsey 2008 source
    • cites Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010b source

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § RESULTS · p. 17

    The H-12/H-11 transition in Areas H and K dates to 1095-1045 BCE (68.2% probability) based on Models H-K.

    “H-12/H-11 | 1095-1045 | Within early Iron I | |”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingown data
    § Model H: Area H · p. 18

    Model H shows the absolute dates for Area H.

    “Model H (Tables 4-5; Fig. 6) shows the absolute dates for Area H.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § RESULTS · p. 17

    The LB I/IIA transition in the General Model dates to 1480-1475 BCE (2.6%) and 1435-1375 BCE (65.6%).

    “LB I/IIA | | 1560-1510 | 1480-1475 (2.6%) |”
    • Also stated in: § RESULTS · p. 17 · plain
      “| | | | 1435-1375 (65.6%) |”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § RESULTS · p. 17

    The H-11/H-10 transition in Areas H and K dates to 1060-1025 BCE (68.2% probability) based on Models H-K.

    “H-11/H-10 | 1060-1025 | Within early Iron I | |”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingreasoning
    § General Model · p. 20

    In the General Model, the only difference from Model H lies in the range of TPQ2, which is now 960±10.

    “The only difference lies in the range of TPQ2, which is now 960±10.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § General Model · p. 20

    Samples RTK-6762 and RTK-6769 of Level H-12 still have low agreement as in Model H, and this is also the case for RTK-6763.

    “Samples RTK-6762 and RTK-6769 of Level H-12 still have low agreement as in Model H, and this is also the case for RTK-6763.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § DISCUSSION · p. 22

    The LB IIB/III transition (Levels K-7/6 and H-13/12) falls during the 12th century BCE, which accords well with the historical changeover in Egypt from the 19th to the 20th Dynasties.

    “The LB IIB/III transition (Levels K-7/6 and H-13/12; Fig. 9) falls during the 12 th century BCE, which accords well with the historical changeover in Egypt from the 19 th to the 20 th Dynasties.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Model K: Area K · p. 19

    The agreement between the data and Model K is 64%, achieved only after excluding five dates identified as outliers: RTK-6399-2 and RTK-6715 (K-10), RTK-6398-3 (K-9), RTT-5885.2 (K-7), and RTT-4501 (K-6).

    “The agreement between the data and the model is 64%, but this result was achieved only after excluding from the plot five dates, identified as outliers by the model, namely RTK-6399-2 and RTK-6715 (K-10), RTK-6398-3 (K-9), RTT-5885.2 (K-7) and RTT-4501 (K-6).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The entire set of samples from locus 12/K/15 is contemporary to all other samples from Level K-10.
    • Rests on an assumption: The radiocarbon dates included in the models accurately date the archaeological events they are associated with, except for the identified outliers.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Model K: Area K · p. 20

    The olive press installation yielded two other assemblages, RTT-4499 and RTT-4500, which show a much older age, consistent with all other K-6 dates.

    “This installation yielded two other assemblages, RTT-4499 and RTT-4500, which show a much older age, consistent with all other K-6 dates (Table 5).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingnone given
    § Model K: Area K · p. 20

    RTT-3944 is slightly older than other samples of the K-4 destruction layer.

    “RTT3944 is slightly older than other samples of the K-4 destruction layer.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § General Model · p. 20

    RTT-3939 (Level K-4) is slightly too young compared to the dates of H-9, and RTT-3944 (Level K-4) is too old; still they have not been excluded from the model.

    “The same holds true for RTT-3939 (Level K-4), which is slightly too young compared to the dates of H-9, and RTT-3944 (Level K-4), which is too old; still they have not been excluded from the model.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § Model H: Area H · p. 19

    The lowest TPQ2 allowed by Model H is 950±10, which results in an Iron I/II transition at 960-935 BCE.

    “The lowest TPQ2 allowed by the model is set at 950±10, which results in a transition at 960-935 BCE (Table 5).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § DISCUSSION · p. 21

    The General Model, influenced by Area F results, puts the LB I/IIA transition later and hence allows both alternatives for the MB/LB transition.

    “the model for the entire site (influenced by the results of Area F; Fig. 9) puts the LB I/IIA transition later and hence allows both alternatives for the MB/LB transition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The samples from different excavation areas can be combined into a single general model despite the noted stratigraphic differences.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § General Model · p. 20

    The General Model covers the entire LB-to-Iron IIA sequence, with an agreement of 69% between the data and the model, and three new outliers in addition to the seven mentioned previously.

    “This plot covers the entire LB-to-Iron IIA sequence, with an agreement of 69% between the data and the model, and three new outliers (in addition to the seven mentioned previously).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The samples from different excavation areas can be combined into a single general model despite the noted stratigraphic differences.
    • Rests on an assumption: The radiocarbon dates included in the models accurately date the archaeological events they are associated with, except for the identified outliers.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § General Model · p. 20

    The samples excluded by the General Model are RTK-6749 from Level K-10, RTK-6398-1 from Level K-9 (too old to be located after the F-10a date), and RTT-3940 from Level K-4 (too young to be before the sample from Level H-7).

    “The samples excluded by the model are RTK-6749 from Level K-10, RTK-6398-1 from Level K-9 (too old to be located after the F-10a date) and RTT-3940 from Level K-4 (too young to be before the sample from Level H-7).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingnone given
    § Model H: Area H · p. 18

    Level H-12 is represented by a thick, ca. 50 cm accumulation of living surfaces.

    “Indeed, this level is represented by a thick, ca. 50 cm accumulation of living surfaces.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Model H: Area H · p. 18

    The Area H Bayesian model has an overall agreement index of 76% between the data and the model, with two outliers determined by the model.

    “The Area H plot shows an overall agreement index of 76% between the data and the model, with two outliers determined by the model.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The radiocarbon dates included in the models accurately date the archaeological events they are associated with, except for the identified outliers.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Sampling strategy · p. 7

    Single olives or seeds from different depths and positions in the same archaeological context should be measured separately and not mixed in order to obtain more material for the measurement.

    “This also implies that single olives or seeds from different depths and positions in the same archaeological context should be measured separately and not mixed in order to obtain more material for the measurement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § INTRODUCTION · p. 3

    Models using dates from samples retrieved in a large number of sites have advantages in geographical scope but face methodological problems such as different sample-retrieval procedures and inclusion of sites with less-than-ideal ceramic control and different methods of excavation.

    “Models which use dates for samples that were retrieved in a large number of sites, such as those suggested for the Iron Age have clear advantages, e.g., in their geographical scope, but face methodological problems such as different sample-retrieval procedures and inclusion of sites with less-than-ideal ceramic control and different methods of excavation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Megiddo · p. 5

    The written sources mentioning Megiddo facilitate links between the archaeological and historical records.

    “They facilitate links between the archaeological and historical records.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Megiddo is mentioned in all great archives/writings of the ancient Near East (Egyptian, Assyrian, the Hebrew Bible, and a single Hittite document).

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

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Megiddo · p. 5

    The site is being carefully excavated, with a ratio of experienced archaeologists to student volunteers in each area of 1-to-4 or 5.

    “The site is being carefully excavated. The ratio of experienced archaeologists to student volunteers in each area is 1-to-4 or 5.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § ABSTRACT · p. 2

    The set of 190 determinations from 78 samples is the most thorough set of 14C determinations known so far in a single site in the Levant and the most comprehensive dating project thus far undertaken in any single site in the Levant.

    “The model is based on 78 samples which provided 190 determinations - the most thorough set of 14 C determinations known so far in a single site in the Levant.”
    • Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · p. 3 · plain
      “This is the most comprehensive dating project thus far undertaken in any single site in the Levant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation
    § INTRODUCTION · p. 3

    Dates for Late Bronze strata have also been published for Lachish, Rehov, Beth-Shean, and Aphek.

    “Dates for Late Bronze strata have also been published (e.g., Carmi and Ussishkin 2004 for Lachish; Mazar et al. 2005 for Rehov; Mazar 2007 and 2009 for Beth-Shean; Boaretto et al. 2009 for Aphek - Fig. 1)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Carmi and Ussishkin 2004

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

    • cites Mazar et al. 2005

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

    • cites Boaretto et al. 2009

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Sampling strategy · p. 7

    Only F loci were chosen for radiocarbon dating and for the Bayesian models, and they make 20-25% of the loci per excavation season.

    “Only F loci were chosen for radiocarbon dating and thus for the Bayesian models presented here (they make 20-25% of the loci per excavation season).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Sampling strategy · p. 7

    The F loci are primary deposition locations, which are safely assigned stratigraphically.

    “These are therefore primary deposition locations, which are safely assigned stratigraphically.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning
    § RESULTS · p. 9

    The distinction between single-area and general models defines the nature of the outlier as stratigraphic versus typological.

    “This distinction defines also the nature of the outlier (stratigraphic vs. typological).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation
    § INTRODUCTION · p. 3

    There is a need to establish a full absolute sequence in a single site.

    “Thus, voices have been raised regarding the need to establish a full absolute sequence in a single site (Levy et al. 2010: 844).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Levy et al. 2010: 844 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § Megiddo · p. 5

    Megiddo is the ultimate site for a full chronological model for the Late Bronze and Iron Ages.

    “Megiddo is the ultimate site for a full chronological model for the Late Bronze and Iron Ages.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Megiddo · p. 5

    Because the destruction layers feature large assemblages of finds, they can serve as reliable pegs enabling secure control over phases of ceramic typology and provide an especially large number of samples for radiocarbon dating.

    “Because they feature large assemblages of finds, they can serve as reliable pegs which enable secure control over phases of ceramic typology (relative chronology) and provide an especially large number of samples for radiocarbon dating.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning
    § RESULTS · p. 9

    In a model for a single area, stratigraphy is the main parameter that imposes the sequence on the radiocarbon dates, while in the general model, which puts together more than one area, typology imposes contemporaneity between levels in different areas.

    “Note that in a model for a single area stratigraphy is the main parameter that imposes the sequence on the radiocarbon dates, while in the general model, which puts together more than one area, typology imposes contemporaneity between levels in different areas.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Sampling strategy · p. 7

    Contexts which yielded good dating material were carefully screened.

    “Contexts which yielded good dating material were carefully screened.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § Sampling strategy · p. 7

    Destruction layers are especially important because complete ceramic vessels and clusters of charred olive pits or seeds are found buried under thick collapse debris which represents a short event at the very end of a given level.

    “Destruction layers are especially important, as complete ceramic vessels and clusters of charred olive pits or seeds are found buried under thick collapse debris which represents a short event at the very end of a given level.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Megiddo · p. 5

    Because of the importance of Megiddo, its ceramic assemblages include Egyptian and Aegean forms, which can help establish chronological links with neighboring lands.

    “Because of the importance of the site, its ceramic assemblages include Egyptian and Aegean forms, which can help establishing chronological links with neighboring lands.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Radiocarbon dating · p. 8

    The amount of carbon obtained was enough for the AMS measurements.

    “The amount of carbon obtained was enough for the AMS measurements.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data
    § Model H: Area H · p. 18

    In Model H, the dates are grouped in a sequence of contiguous phases except for Level H-7, which is surrounded by gaps left for Levels H-8 and H-6, for which no radiocarbon determinations are available.

    “The dates are grouped in a sequence of contiguous phases (i.e. one starts as the previous one ends) except for Level H-7, that is surrounded by 'gaps' left for Levels H-8 and H-6, for which no radiocarbon determinations are available.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Radiocarbon dating · p. 7

    The purity of the charcoal was checked by means of FTIR spectrometry prior to oxidation in vacuum with CuO at 900°C and for the preparation as graphite.

    “The purity of the charcoal was checked by means of FTIR spectrometry prior to oxidation in vacuum with CuO at 900°C and for the preparation as graphite.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation
    § Model H: Area H · p. 18

    According to the radiocarbon model for the Iron Age (Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010a), the entire Iron IIA lasted for less than 150 years.

    “according to the radiocarbon model for the Iron Age (Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010a) the entire Iron IIA, which is represented in Area H by four levels, two of them quite substantial, lasted for less than 150 years.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2010a

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § RESULTS · p. 8

    The total number of measurements considered is 190 on 78 short-lived samples, with standard deviations as low as ±15 yr BP after combining multiple independent measurements of the same samples.

    “The total number of measurements considered here is 190 on 78 short-lived samples, with standard deviations as low as ±15 yr BP after combining multiple independent measurements of the same samples.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation
    § INTRODUCTION · p. 2

    Scholars can accurately identify five Late Bronze Age horizons and six Iron Age horizons for the Late Bronze and Iron Age time span.

    “Thus, scholars can now accurately identify five Late Bronze Age horizons (hereafter LB IA, IB, IIA, IIB and III - e.g., Panitz-Cohen 2006; Mullins 2007; Gadot 2009; Martin 2013; Arie 2013b) and six Iron Age horizons (early and late Iron I, early and late IIA, IIB and IIC - e.g., Zimhoni 2004; Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004 and 2006; Arie 2006; Arie 2013c) for this time span”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Panitz-Cohen 2006

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

    • cites Zimhoni 2004

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

    • cites Arie 2006

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

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

    Premisecitation
    § INTRODUCTION · p. 2

    The relative chronology of the Levant in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages is well-studied and has been established by investigating typological differences in large pottery assemblages.

    “The relative chronology of the Levant in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages is well-studied. It has been established by investigating typological differences in large pottery assemblages.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Panitz-Cohen 2006

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

    • cites Mullins 2007

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

    • cites Gadot 2009

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

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Radiocarbon dating · p. 8

    All calculated 14C ages have been corrected for isotopic fractionation based on the stable carbon isotope ratio (δ13C value).

    “All calculated 14 C ages have been corrected for isotopic fractionation based on the stable carbon isotope ratio (δ 13 C value).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Bayesian modeling · p. 8

    Control over the stratigraphic sequence in different excavation areas, and association to a cultural period based on ceramic typology considerations, allowed comparisons between phases and transitions in different locations at the site.

    “Control over the stratigraphic sequence in different excavation areas, and association to a cultural period based on ceramic typology considerations, allowed comparisons between phases and transitions in different locations at the site.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § ABSTRACT · p. 2

    Megiddo is a key site for the study of the stratigraphy, chronology and history of the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Levant.

    “Megiddo (Israel) is a key site for the study of the stratigraphy, chronology and history of the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Levant.”
    • Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · p. 3 · plain
      “Megiddo has long been considered a key site for the archaeology of the Levant (e.g., Davies 1986; Kempinski 1989), including the chronologies of both the Late Bronze and the Iron Age.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Davies 1986

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

    • cites Kempinski 1989

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Sampling strategy · p. 7

    Separate measurement of single olives or seeds is especially important in layers which did not terminate in a large conflagration.

    “This is so especially in layers which did not terminate in a large conflagration.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § Megiddo · p. 5

    No other site in the Levant features this set of factors.

    “No other site in the Levant features this set of factors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § INTRODUCTION · p. 3

    The model covers ten stratigraphic phases and is based on 190 determinations from 78 samples, retrieved from four different excavation areas.

    “Our model covers ten stratigraphic phases (Table 1) and is based on 190 determinations from 78 samples, retrieved from four different excavation areas.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § INTRODUCTION · p. 3

    The present study is the most complete dating program applied to a single multi-layered site and the first full radiocarbon-based model for the Late Bronze Age.

    “This is the most complete dating program applied to a single multi-layered site and the first full radiocarbon-based model for the Late Bronze Age.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationnone given
    § CONCLUSIONS · p. 22

    The Megiddo model also shows the benefit of a site with more than one area of excavation, which enables rechecking delicate chronological issues and engaging in intra-site analysis.

    “It also shows the benefit of a site with more than one area of excavation, which enable rechecking delicate chronological issues and engaging in intra-site analysis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § CONCLUSIONS · p. 22

    The detailed radiocarbon data for the Late Bronze and Iron Ages at Megiddo, unparalleled in any other site in the Levant, shed light on the cultural processes that took place at Megiddo and beyond in the critical centuries between roughly 1600/1500 and 800 BCE.

    “The detailed radiocarbon data for the Late Bronze and Iron Ages at Megiddo - unparalleled in any other site in the Levant, shed light on the cultural processes that took place at Megiddo and beyond in the critical centuries between roughly 1600/1500 and 800 BCE.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § General Model · p. 20

    The difference in the LB IB/IIA transition is explained by the presence of the F-10a date, which is younger compared to most K-10 dates and therefore lowers the result.

    “This is explained by the presence of the F-10a date, which is younger compared to most of the K-10 dates, and therefore lowers the result.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning
    § DISCUSSION · p. 21

    The discrepancy between the models may lie in a short occupational gap in Area K in the late LB I (Level K-10); a late LB I occupation phase in Area F is missing in Area K.

    “The reason for this discrepancy between the models may lie in a short occupational gap in Area K in the late LB I (Level K-10); in other words, a late LB I occupation phase in Area F is missing in Area K.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § General Model · p. 20

    Level H-12 starts parallel to Levels K-6 and M-6 of the LB III, but continues into the early Iron I; habitation in Area H continued after a partial destruction in Areas K and M.

    “2) Level H-12 starts parallel to Levels K-6 and M-6 of the LB III, but continues into the early Iron I (in other words, habitation in Area H continued after a partial destruction in Areas K and M).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation
    § DISCUSSION · p. 21

    The late LB I nature of the assemblage in Area F may be hinted at by an Egyptian import that best fits in the later days of Thutmose III or even later.

    “The late LB I nature of the assemblage in Area F may also be hinted at by an Egyptian import that best fits in the later days of Thutmose III (his sole reign) or even later (Martin 2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Martin 2009

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § DISCUSSION · p. 22

    Because only a single date is available for Level K-5 and the stratigraphy is denser in Area H, the preferred date for the early/late Iron I transition is that provided by Area H, sometime in the second half of the 11th century BCE.

    “Since only a single date is available for Level K-5, and as the stratigraphy is denser (with more data on both the pottery assemblages and radiocarbon results) in Area H, we would prefer the date provided by the latter - sometime in the second half of the 11 th century BCE.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § General Model · p. 20

    The archaeological evidence, especially the pottery assemblages, does not suggest a difference in date between the end of Levels K-4 and H-9.

    “note that the archaeological evidence, especially the pottery assemblages, does not suggest a difference in date between the end of Levels K-4 and H-9”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data
    § Model K: Area K · p. 19

    Level K-5 features fragmentary remains and is represented in the model by a single sample.

    “Level K-5 features fragmentary remains and is represented here by a single sample.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Model K: Area K · p. 20

    It is impossible to establish the transition between the MB III and the LB IA because Level K-10 covers the end of the MB III and the beginning of the LB IA.

    “It is impossible to establish the transition between the MB III and the LB IA, considering that Level K-10 covers the end of the former and the beginning of the latter.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § General Model · p. 20

    The situation in which Level H-12 starts parallel to Levels K-6 and M-6 but continues into the early Iron I is impossible to express in OxCal terms.

    “Note that this situation is impossible to express in OxCal terms.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationown data
    § DISCUSSION · p. 21

    The date of the LB I to LB IIA transition (Levels K-10/9) may provide a clue to the MB/LB transition, though the results are inconclusive.

    “The date of transition from the LB I to the LB IIA (Levels K-10/9) may provide a clue, though the results are inconclusive.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Model H: Area H · p. 18

    At this stage the authors cannot explain the wide probability distribution for Level H-12.

    “At this stage we cannot explain such wide probability distribution for this level.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationnone given
    § CONCLUSIONS · p. 22

    The Megiddo model shows the advantage of working in a site of continuous habitation with good control over the pottery assemblages.

    “The Megiddo model shows the advantage of working in a site of continuous habitation with good control over the pottery assemblages.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § DISCUSSION · p. 21

    Such an inconsistency (continuity in one sector and a gap in another) may happen at a large site such as Megiddo.

    “Such an inconsistency (continuity in one sector and a gap in another) may happen at a large site such as Megiddo.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § DISCUSSION · p. 22

    The LB III/Iron I transition (Levels K-6/5 and H-12/11) is difficult to fix because pottery-wise Level H-12 starts in the LB III and continues into the early days of the Iron I.

    “The LB III/Iron I transition (Levels K-6/5 and H-12/11; Fig. 9) is difficult to fix because of the fact that pottery-wise Level H-12 starts in the LB III and continues into the early days of the Iron I.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data
    § Model H: Area H · p. 18

    The agreement of the two samples from Level H-13 with Model H should be considered cautiously because they are not limited by dates from an earlier level.

    “The agreement of the two samples from Level H-13 with Model H should be considered cautiously since they are not limited by dates from an earlier level.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § General Model · p. 20

    The TPQ2 of 960±10 is the lowest allowed by the General Model, taking into account that some dates of Level K-4 are younger compared to dates of Level H-9 and therefore tend to push down the end of the Iron I destruction event.

    “This is the lowest TPQ allowed by the model, taking into account that some of the dates of Level K-4 are younger compared to the dates of Level H-9, and therefore tend to 'push down' the end of the Iron I destruction event”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § General Model · p. 20

    Level K-10 covers both the end of the MB and the LB I, while Level F-10 covers the LB I only.

    “Some differences in the stratigraphy/relative chronology between areas should be noted: 1) Level K-10 covers both the end of the MB and the LB I, while Level F-10 covers the LB I only;”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Model K: Area K · p. 20

    The younger-than-expected date of RTT-5885.2 is probably due to its problematic stratigraphic affiliation: it was collected from a floor identified during removal of a baulk, with no reliable Level K-7 floors found to its sides.

    “This is probably because of the problematic stratigraphic affiliation of this sample: it was collected from a floor identified during the removal of a baulk, with no reliable Level K-7 floors found to its sides (Table 3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § DISCUSSION · p. 21

    The Megiddo data cannot currently resolve the date of the MB/LB transition because there are no dates for the end phases of the Middle Bronze and in Area K the transition in the pottery tradition occurred within the life of Level K-10.

    “For now the Megiddo data cannot resolve this issue, because: a) We do not have yet dates for the end phases of the Middle Bronze; b) in Area K the transition in the pottery tradition occurred within the life of Level K-10.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data
    § Model H: Area H · p. 18

    Level H-7 is represented by one sample only.

    “Note that Level H-7 is represented by one sample only.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Model H: Area H · p. 18

    The textile sample RTK-6511 seems to have been used for a long period of time, creating an 'old textile' effect.

    “This piece of cloth seems to have been used for a long period of time, creating a sort of 'old textile' effect.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
80 of 80

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No comprehensive project for dating the entire Late Bronze sequence has thus far been attempted.

    “but no comprehensive project for dating the entire Late Bronze sequence has thus far been attempted.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Megiddo was inhabited continuously, with no major occupational gaps during the Late Bronze and Iron Ages.

    “The site was inhabited continuously, with no major occupational gaps (to differ from Hazor, for instance, which was deserted in the LB III and in part of the Iron I, and Lachish, which was abandoned in the Iron I).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Megiddo is mentioned in all great archives/writings of the ancient Near East (Egyptian, Assyrian, the Hebrew Bible, and a single Hittite document).

    “Megiddo is mentioned in a plethora of written sources (it is the only site in the Levant which is mentioned in all great archives/writings of the ancient Near East Egyptian, Assyrian, the Hebrew Bible and a single Hittite document), in connection to major events in the Late Bronze-Iron Age sequence.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Archaeological layers may represent long periods of time.

    “Also, archaeological layers may represent long periods of time.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The relationship between single samples in a layer is often unknown; they could have been deposited in different events in the history of a given layer.

    “Considering that the relationship between single samples is often unknown - i.e. they could have been deposited in different events in the history of a given layer - where possible we preferred to work with clusters of charred seeds (to differ from single items).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    From a ceramic point of view, the later portion of Level H-12 pertains to the early Iron I.

    “Note that from a ceramic point of view the later portion of Level H-12 pertains to the early Iron I.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The ceramic assemblage of Level H-12 covers both the LB III and the beginning of the early Iron I.

    “The ceramic assemblage of Level H-12 covers both the LB III and the beginning of the early Iron I”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The entire set of samples from locus 12/K/15 is contemporary to all other samples from Level K-10.

    “The results for this locus were put in stratigraphic order according to the different elevations; the entire set is contemporary to all other samples from this level.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The samples from different excavation areas can be combined into a single general model despite the noted stratigraphic differences.

    “Some differences in the stratigraphy/relative chronology between areas should be noted: 1) Level K-10 covers both the end of the MB and the LB I, while Level F-10 covers the LB I only; 2) Level H-12 starts parallel to Levels K-6 and M-6 of the LB III, but continues into the early Iron I”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The radiocarbon dates included in the models accurately date the archaeological events they are associated with, except for the identified outliers.

    “The agreement between the data and the model is 64%, but this result was achieved only after excluding from the plot five dates, identified as outliers by the model”
10 of 10

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?

  • The three Megiddo outliers were found in close proximity to each other at Level K-10, which is radiocarbon dated to 1581-1545 BCE (domestic occupation) and 1578-1421 BCE (burials; both ±1σ), while the bone of one of the three (I10100) was directly dated (1688-1535 BCE, ±2σ).

    “The three were found in close proximity to each other at Level K-10, which is radiocarbon dated to 1581–1545 BCE (domestic occupation) and 1578–1421 BCE (burials; both ±1σ) (Martin et al., 2020; Toffolo et al., 2014), while the bone of one of the three (I10100) was directly dated (1688–1535 BCE, ±2σ).”

    From The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant (2020) · cites this paper as Toffolo et al., 2014

    The Introduction (p. 4) identifies Level K-10 as containing domestic architecture and intramural burials, and Results Table 4 (p. 17) gives a radiocarbon-based range for the transition from K-10 to K-9. Our copy does not establish that the three individuals were found close together, give the claimed occupation and burial ranges, or identify I10100 and its direct bone date. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The entire sequence at Megiddo is accompanied by a rigorous programme of radiocarbon dating, providing a secure absolute chronology.

    “the entire sequence is accompanied by a rigorous programme of radiocarbon dating, providing a secure absolute chronology (TOFFOLO et al. 2014;BOARETTO in press).”

    From Egyptian Imperial Economy in Canaan: Reaction to the Climate Crisis at the End of the Late Bronze Age (2017) · cites this paper as TOFFOLO et al. 2014

    The Introduction (p. 3) describes a comprehensive radiocarbon programme for Megiddo’s Late Bronze and Iron Age phases, supporting the claim of a rigorous absolute chronology for those periods. But the Conclusions (p. 22) say future work is expected to extend the model to the Middle and Early Bronze Ages to provide a full Bronze and Iron Age sequence; this source does not support 'the entire sequence' as already dated. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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.

  • Silver-hoard sample assigned to different levels

    Minor

    Table 3 assigns RTK-6511, the silver-hoard sample, to Level H-10, while the discussion says it came from Level H-11.

  • RTK-6511 described as both an olive pit and a textile

    Minor

    Table 3's note classifies RTK-6511 as a charred olive pit because it is not among the listed exceptions. The discussion instead identifies it as a textile.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Seger, 1975, The MB II fortifications at Shechem and Gezer: a Hyksos retrospective, Eretz-Israel, 12, 34
  2. Panitz-Cohen, 2006, Timnah (Tel Batash) III. The Finds from the Second Millennium BCE, 9
  3. Arie, 2011, “In the land of the valley”: settlement, social and cultural processes in the Jezreel Valley from the end of the Late Bronze Age to the formation of the monarchy
  4. Boaretto, 2009, Aphek-Antipatris II: The Remains on the Acropolis
  5. Mazar, 2009, Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Volume III: The 13th-11th century BCE strata in Areas N and S, 1
  6. Mazar, 2007, Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Volume II: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R
  7. Arie, 2013a, Megiddo V: The 2004–2008 Seasons
  8. Mullins, 2007, Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Volume II: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R, 390
  9. Carmi, 2004, The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994)
  10. Davies, 1986, Megiddo
  11. Franklin, 2006, Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Season, 54
  12. Gadot, 2009, Aphek-Antipatris II. The Remains of the Acropolis. The Moshe Kochavi and Pirhiya Beck Excavations, 182
  13. Gadot, 2006a, Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Season, 87
  14. Gadot, 2006b, Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Season
  15. Arie, 2006, Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Season, 191
  16. Mazar, 1997, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000–586 BCE

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Toffolo, M. B., Arie, E., Martin, M. A. S., Boaretto, E., & Finkelstein, I.
Affiliations
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
  • Weizmann Institute of Science (IL)
Corresponding author
Toffolo, Michael B
ORCID
Venue
Radiocarbon
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2014
Volume
56
Issue
1
Pages
221-244
ISSN
  • 0033-8222 (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-5755
DOI
10.2458/56.16899
OpenAlex
W2168888548
Cited by
141
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
7.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Radiocarbon (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Oskar-Bordeaux (Universite de Bordeaux) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Louisiana Board of Regents
  • University of Arizona
  • Arizona Board of Regents
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient and Medieval Archaeology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Biblical Studies and Interpretation
Keywords
Megiddo, absolute chronology, Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, ceramic typology, stratigraphic level, radiocarbon dating, Levant, Northern Kingdom of Israel, stratigraphy

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 2026-11-01.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-11-01.

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