Tel Beth-Shean in the Tenth-Ninth Centuries BCE: A Chronological Query and Its Possible Archaeomagnetic Resolution

Tel Beth-Shean in the Tenth–Ninth Centuries BCE: A Chronological Query and Its Possible Archaeomagnetic Resolution Yoav Vaknin , Amihai Mazar , Ron Shaar , and Erez Ben-Yosef Abstract In this article, we show how an archaeomagnetic study can help resolve a chronological dilemma related to the correlation and the relative and absolute dating of Iron IIA strata in two adjacent sites: Tel Beth-Shean and Tel Reḥov, located 5 km apart in the Beth-Shean Valley in northern Israel. The excavations at Tel Reḥov revealed three Iron IIA strata (VI-IV), two of which (V-IV), attributed to the late Iron IIA, yielded rich identical ceramic assemblages. These strata cover a time range from the late tenth century to the mid-to-late ninth century BCE, based on a significant number of radiocarbon dates, comparative studies and historical considerations. At Beth-Shean, massive structures of a public nature were found in Stratum S-1a, with pottery similar to that of Tel Reḥov V and IV, but it was difficult to provide a tighter dating. An archaeomagnetic study of burnt mudbricks and a burnt beehive at Tel Reḥov showed a clear difference between Stratum V and Stratum IV. The destruction of Stratum IV corresponded to the destructions of other sites, all attributed to Hazael’s military campaign (s) to the region in the second half of the ninth century BCE. The magnetic signal recorded in the destruction of Stratum S-1a at Beth-Shean corresponded with that of the destruction of the apiary of Stratum V at Tel Reḥov (late tenth to early ninth centuries BCE) and is significantly different from that of Stratum IV at Tel Reḥov. These results, pointing to an earlier date of the destruction of Stratum S-1a at Beth-Shean, are significant for resolving chronological and historical questions Y. Vaknin (*) Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel e-mail: yoavvaknin@mail.tau.ac.il A. Mazar · R. Shaar The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel e-mail: mazar@huji.ac.il; ron.shaar@mail.huji.ac.il E. Ben-Yosef Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel e-mail: ebenyose@tauex.tau.ac.il © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Ben-Yosef, I. W. N. Jones (eds.), “And in Length of Days Understanding” (Job 12:12): Essays on Archaeology in the Eastern Mediterranean and Beyond in Honor of Thomas E. Levy, Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27330-8_34 787 788 Y. Vaknin et al. relating to northern Israel in the Iron IIA, a period which stands at the heart of the continued debate concerning the historicity of biblical narratives. Keywords Archaeomagnetism · Tel Rehov · Beth-Shean · Iron Age · Biblical archaeology · Dating · Hazael 1 Introduction 1.1 Background This article demonstrates how archaeomagnetism can help resolve a chronological debate related to three Iron Age IIA strata in Tel Beth-Shean and Tel Reḥov, located 5 km apart in the Beth-Shean Valley. The possible synchronization between two different late Iron Age IIA strata in Tel Reḥov and one stratum at Tel Beth-Shean has been debated since they were excavated. The Iron IIA period stands at the heart of a continued debate concerning the interface between archaeology and biblical narratives, mainly those related to the alleged kingdoms of David and Solomon and the early history of the independent kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Resolving chronological issues related to this period is essential for the utilization of archaeological finds in the reconstruction of the cultural and political development in this period. The following is a contribution to this issue, dedicated to our friend and colleague Thomas Levy, whose work at Faynan was groundbreaking for understanding this period. 1.2 Defining the Archaeological Query Several Iron Age strata yielding rich material culture assemblages have been revealed at both Tel Beth-Shean and Tel Reḥov. Our interest here is in the Iron IIA period, which covers a time range in the tenth and ninth centuries BCE based on a significant number of radiocarbon dates, comparative studies and historical considerations (Mazar, 2016, 2020, 2021). The period is divided into early Iron IIA and late Iron IIA (Herzog & Singer-Avitz, 2006). Tel Beth-Shean. Levels V and IV in the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania excavations during the 1920s belong to the Iron II period (James, 1966). Level V covers a wide chronological range in the Iron IIA and perhaps the early part of the Iron IIB. A well-planned quarter was exposed on the summit of the mound, yet the stratigraphic resolution is too vague to enable precise dating of these finds. Renewed excavations directed by A. Mazar from 1989 to 1996 revisited the Iron Age strata in two excavation areas, P and S (Mazar, 2006). In Area P it was possible to excavate a substantial residential building of the Iron IIB (eighth century Tel Beth-Shean in the Tenth–Ninth Centuries BCE: A Chronological Query… 789 BCE); earlier phases were examined there only in narrow probes. In Area S, on the summit of the mound, the previous excavations had removed the Iron IIB remains and also exposed the top of structural remains of the Iron IIA. In the new excavations, these remains were further exposed and Iron I strata were excavated below them so that a refined stratigraphic sequence from Iron I to Iron II was achieved. Two architectural phases belonging to the Iron IIA were identified, both with similar pottery. The earlier phase, denoted Stratum S-1b, is known only from a limited excavated area (Mazar, 2006: 174–180). Only a small amount of pottery from this phase was available (Mazar, 2006: 398–403, Plates 6–8). This pottery assemblage is typical of the Iron IIA but due to the limited number of examples, it is difficult to determine whether it should be attributed to the early or late phases of the Iron IIA. However, two of the items from this assemblage appear to be characteristic of the late Iron IIA (Mazar, 2006: 401, 4012, Plates 7: 5 and 8: 14). The later phase, denoted Stratum S-1a, yielded remains of four massive structures of public nature, called Buildings A-D (Fig. 1) (Mazar, 2006: 180–196). These buildings had wide walls with large basalt stone foundations, supporting mudbrick superstructures. In some locations wooden beams were placed on the stone foundations, creating a leveled and flexible foundation for the mudbrick superstructure. Only parts of these buildings were preserved; other parts had been removed during the earlier excavations or eroded. All these buildings were destroyed by severe fire that caused bricks to melt into white powder. In Building A the mudbricks were fired to a hard, reddish matrix recalling fired pottery (Fig. 2). In the publication it was suggested that these buildings had been part of the well-planned complex of Level V excavated by the University Museum expedition farther west (Mazar, 2006: 193, Fig. 7.5). The rather large collection of pottery from these buildings is typical of the late Iron IIA. A concentration of “Hippo” type storage jars was found in a destruction level in one of the rooms in Building A (Room 88721). The assemblage also includes red slipped bowls and imported Cypriot Black on Red pottery, all typical of the late Iron IIA and similar to the pottery assemblage of Tel Reḥov Strata V and IV (Mazar, 2006: 404–415, Plates 9–14). For the absolute date of this assemblage see below. Two radiocarbon dates were obtained from wooden beams used during the construction of the buildings in Stratum S-1a. One of these dates is approximately two centuries later than the other. The later date, which is 2955 BP calibrated to 1050–920 Cal. BCE in 68.2% probability, may be taken as providing a terminus post quem for the construction of the buildings, but it could also be contemporary or very close to the construction date. In any case, neither date contributes significantly to the absolute dating of the buildings’ destruction (Mazar, 2006: 723). Tel Reḥov The Iron IIA period is the main period excavated in this large mound. It was exposed in several excavation areas and yielded an exceptionally rich assemblage of pottery and artifacts (for the final report, see Mazar & Panitz-Cohen, 2020). In each of the excavation areas local stratigraphic sequence was established and correlation between the areas resulted in the definition of three major Iron IIA strata: Stratum VI of the early Iron IIA and Strata V and IV of the late Iron IIA (Figs. 3 and 4). These latter two strata yielded similar pottery assemblages. In certain parts of the 790 Y. Vaknin et al. Fig. 1 Schematic plan of Buildings A-D in Stratum S-1a at Beth-Shean. (From Mazar, 2006: 182 Fig. 7.2). The location of the archaeomagnetic samples (SH01) is marked in red excavation (in particular the apiary zone in Area C) Stratum V was destroyed in a conflagration, while in other areas the transition from V to IV was a peaceful one, with buildings continuing to be in use with some modifications. Stratum IV came to an end in a great conflagration, attributed to a conquest by Hazael, King of Aram Damascus, probably ca. 840–830 BCE (Mazar, 2016, 2020). A large number of radiocarbon dates from Strata VI-IV were published and Bayesian models were constructed (Bruins et al., 2003; Mazar et al., 2005; Mazar & Streit, 2020). These Tel Beth-Shean in the Tenth–Ninth Centuries BCE: A Chronological Query… 791 Fig. 2 View of Building A in Beth-Shean Stratum S-1a, looking southwest. The stone foundation is visible in the northern part of the structure and the mudbrick superstructure is visible in the southern part. The location of the archaeomagnetic samples (SH01) is marked in red, where flat mudbricks are located in their original position. The collapsed mudbrick material which can be seen to the west of SH01 was removed prior to the archaeomagnetic sampling. The mudbrick walls west of Building A belong to Strata S-2 and S-3 of the Iron Age I period. (Photo: Mazar, 2006: 181, Photo 7.9) have provided a range of dates in the tenth century BCE for Stratum VI, in the late tenth and early ninth centuries BCE for Stratum V and in the ninth century BCE for Stratum IV. Table 1 shows the results of the Bayesian models, suggesting relatively tight dating for the different strata. Yet, close examination of the actual dates and taking into consideration the late 9th century BCE dates from Area E show a more complex picture (Mazar & Streit, 2020). A major question concerning these two archaeological sites is the destruction date of Building A (as well as B and C) at Beth-Shean Stratum S-1a. In the publication the issue was presented as follows: This pottery [of Stratum S-1A] resembles to a large extent… the assemblages found at nearby Tell el-Ḥammah, Tel Reḥov Strata VI–IV [so in the original; can now be refined to V-IV] and Tel ‘Amal and those from Megiddo Strata VB and VA-IVB and Rosh Zayit Strata 2–3. The absolute date of this assemblage is the subject of current debate. It could belong to the tenth century BCE, in which case the buildings could be related to the United Monarchy administration and the destruction to the campaign of Shoshenq I (biblical Shishak), who mentions Beth-Shean among the cities he conquered. However, as demonstrated at Jezreel and Tel Reḥov, the same pottery continued in use well into the ninth ­century—this level, therefore, could also belong to the Omride period. This question 792 Y. Vaknin et al. Fig. 3 Schematic plan of Stratum V in Area C at Tel Reḥov. (Tel Reḥov Expedition, Drawing: J. Rosenberg) remains unresolved at Beth-Shean, due to the lack of sufficient stratigraphic phases, such as those excavated at Tel Reḥov. (Mazar, 2006: 32) In the final publication of Tel Reḥov excavations this issue was discussed again and it was suggested that Beth-Shean Stratum S-1a had come to an end at the same time as Tel Reḥov Stratum IV, perhaps at the hands of Hazael in ca. 840/830 BCE (Mazar, 2020: 113–114 and Table 4.2). A difference of almost 100 years between the two possible dates for this destruction resulted from the identical pottery types found at Tel Reḥov Strata V and IV and in Beth-Shean Stratum S-1a. The two alternative scenarios are presented in Table 2. 1.3 Archaeomagnetism The direction and intensity of Earth’s magnetic field are constantly changing. People have been directly measuring the direction of the field for the past ca. 400 years and its intensity for the past ca. 190 years. Paleomagnetism deals with the reconstruction of the magnetic field in periods that predate direct measurement. In order to do so, paleomagnetists measure the magnetic field recorded in different materials, mainly 793 Tel Beth-Shean in the Tenth–Ninth Centuries BCE: A Chronological Query… Fig. 4 Schematic plan of Stratum IV in Area C at Tel Reḥov. The locations of the archaeomagnetic samples (RH02, RH03) are marked in red. (Tel Reḥov Expedition, Drawing: J. Rosenberg with additions by authors) Table 1 Results of a Bayesian model for secure dates from Areas C + D and B at Tel Reḥov in 1σ, 68% probability) and 2σ (95.4% probability) CalBC showing dates for Strata VI–IV (not including unmodeled dates from Area E; Compiled from Mazar & Streit, 2020: 486–487, Tables 4.87, 4.88) End of IV Transition V–IV Transition VI–V Beginning of VI Areas C + D 1σ CalBC 904–863 911–896 919–916 936–911 2σ CalBC 910–817 916–886 925–902 962–907 Area B 1σ CalBC 906–838 916–861 948–896 2σ CalBC 914–822 922–848 985–851 geological ones. In the interdisciplinary field of archaeomagnetism the ancient magnetic field is measured from archaeological materials, such as burnt features or pottery. Archaeomagnetism is mutually beneficial to archaeology and geophysics. On the one hand archaeomagnetists use geophysical tools in order to answer archaeological questions. On the other hand, geophysicists use well-dated archaeological materials in order to reconstruct spatial and temporal variations of the geomagnetic field. This reconstruction sheds light on the mechanisms responsible for the changes in the field. 794 Y. Vaknin et al. Table 2 Iron IIA strata at Beth-Shean and Tel Reḥov, with two optional correlations between the sites and suggested dates Tel Reḥov general Period stratum Late IV Iron V IIA Beth-Shean correlation option 1 – S-1a Beth-Shean correlation option 2 S-1a S-1b Date (BCE) as suggested in publication (modified chronology) Early 9th century until 840-830 Late 10th to early 9th centuries Early Iron IIA S-1b (?) Gap (?) Gap (?) From ca. 980/960 to ca. 920? VI In order to understand how archaeological finds can help reconstruct the ancient geomagnetic field, one needs a basic understanding of how archaeological materials record the field. Many archaeological materials, such as clay objects, contain ferromagnetic minerals (such as magnetite Fe3O4). On the atomic level one can imagine the magnetic signal of these minerals as a tiny needle of a compass. As long as the needle is free to move it will “prefer” to align with the magnetic field around it. Similarly, the magnetic signal of ferromagnetic minerals can also sometimes change its direction but, unlike the compass needle, this ability depends on the temperature. Above the ‘Blocking Temperature’ (TB), which depends on both the mineralogy and the grain size, the magnetization of a ferromagnetic mineral can change its direction and therefore it tends to align with Earth’s magnetic field. Below TB the magnetic signal is fixed. Archaeological materials that have not been burnt often contain ferromagnetic minerals but the magnetic signals of the different minerals are randomly oriented and their total magnetic signal is very weak. However, when archaeological materials have been heated to high temperatures (at least several hundred degrees) the magnetic signals of the different minerals align in the direction of the geomagnetic field. When these materials cool down, their magnetic signals become “locked.” The total magnetic signal, which is the sum of the magnetic signals of all the different minerals within a sample, is a vector that can be defined by its direction and intensity. The intensity of the vector depends on the intensity of the ambient magnetic field and the direction of the vector is parallel to the field. Therefore, measuring the recorded signal in a sample enables reconstruction of the direction and intensity of the ancient geomagnetic field. In order to demonstrate the archaeomagnetic method, one can think of an ancient kiln that was used for firing pottery vessels. Ferromagnetic minerals are usually found both in the vessels and in the furnace walls. After the firing, while the furnace cooled down, the furnace and the vessels recorded the geomagnetic field. In order to reconstruct the direction of the geomagnetic field during the fire the archaeological materials must be sampled in the orientation in which they had cooled down. If the furnace walls are unearthed in their original position, they can be used in order to reconstruct the direction of the field. Once the pottery vessels have been taken out of the furnace, they cannot be used for Tel Beth-Shean in the Tenth–Ninth Centuries BCE: A Chronological Query… 795 reconstruction of the direction of the field. Both the furnace and the vessels can be used in order to reconstruct the intensity of the field. Since the geomagnetic field is sometimes characterized by local anomalies, the geomagnetic field during a certain period needs to be reconstructed separately in different parts of the world (a 1000 km radius is commonly used). The dating of the archaeological materials is based on the common dating methods (historical sources, radiocarbon, ceramic typology, etc.). However, a large and well-dated database of archaeomagnetic data from a certain region can enable reconstruction of the changes in the geomagnetic field over time and can be used for dating. In the southern Levant, the growing archaeomagnetic database (Ben-Yosef et al., 2017; Shaar et al., 2011, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022; Vaknin et al., 2020, 2022) can be used as a basis for developing an archaeomagnetic dating tool. A large percentage of the southern-­ Levant archaeomagnetic dataset represents the Iron Age. Many of the data points from this period are very well dated, thanks to extensive archaeological research focused on the chronology of this period. Besides chronological applications (e.g., Ben-Yosef et al., 2010; Peters et al., 2017; Vaknin et al., 2022) archaeomagnetism can be used as a useful tool for reconstructing site formation processes. For example, it can determine whether archaeological materials have been burnt, determine whether they had cooled down in the orientation in which they were unearthed and shed light on the firing temperature (Shahack-Gross et al., 2018; Vaknin et al., 2020). 2 Materials and Methods For a full description of the methods and acceptance criteria used for this research, see previous publications (Shaar et al., 2022; Vaknin et al., 2022). 2.1 Archaeomagnetic Features and Groups and Their Ages We define here an ‘archaeomagnetic group’ as a collection of burnt materials which presumably recorded the magnetic field at a certain point in time and is used for reconstructing the intensity of the ancient field (termed hereafter “archaeointensity”). An “archaeomagnetic feature” is defined as a burnt archaeological find (such as a kiln, tabun or a burnt mudbrick wall) which is sampled in the orientation in which it cooled down and enables reconstruction of both the direction and intensity of the field. Table 3 lists the studied archaeomagnetic groups and features from Tel Reḥov and Beth-Shean, along with other published archaeological sites (Vaknin et al., 2022) dated to the same period of time and thus relevant to the chronological discussion. The age range assigned to every group and feature is based on the different dating methods (radiocarbon, ceramic typology, historical considerations). 796 Y. Vaknin et al. Table 3 The archaeomagnetic groups and features studied for archaeointensity and archaeomagnetic directiona Archaeomagnetic group for archaeointensity Bet_Shean_destr Archaeomagnetic feature for archaeomagnetic direction Beth-Shean_structure Reḥov_str_IV_destr Reḥov_structure Reḥov_str_V_destr Gath_destr Gath_structure Tevet_level_V_destr Tevet_kiln Tevet_level_VII_destr – Zayit_level_XIII_ destr – Location, stratum/ level and archaeological feature Tel Bet-Shean, Stratum S-1a, Building A Tel Reḥov, Stratum IV, Building CF Tel Reḥov, Stratum V, apiary and related structures Gath (Tell es-Safi)_ Strata A3 and M1. Ḥorvat Tevet, Level V Ḥorvat Tevet, Level VII Tel Zayit, Level XIII Age Assigned range age (BCE)b (BCE)c 900 940–820 830 870–820 900 930–880 830 845–815 830 900 900–800 940–840 830 870–790 The groups and features that are the focus of this paper are marked in bold. Published data from other archaeological sites used as reference are mentioned as well b These assigned ages were set by the authors arbitrarily, according to different chronological considerations including the archaeomagnetic results presented here. These ages are not part of the prior data for the archaeomagnetic dating model. For details see: Vaknin et al. (2022) c These age ranges are part of the prior data for the archaeomagnetic dating model. These age ranges are based on radiocarbon data and/or historical constraints when applicable. They are also based on other archaeological considerations. Non-analytic archaeological age ranges are generally wider and include all the possible corrections to absolute timescales. The archaeomagnetic results are not considered in the prior ages to prevent circular reasoning. For details see: Vaknin et al. (2022) a 2.2 Archaeomagnetic Directions Archaeomagnetic directions from Stratum S-1a at Beth-Shean were obtained from a burnt mudbrick wall in building A (SH01. Figures 1, 2, 5). From Stratum IV at Tel Reḥov archaeomagnetic directions were obtained from a burnt layer of mud plaster covering a mudbrick wall in Building CF (RH02. Figures 4, 6, 7). In order to ensure that the sampled walls in both features had not shifted since they were burnt, we measured the orientation of their outer surfaces. The top surfaces of the bricks in SH01 were horizontal and the outer surfaces of the bricks (in SH01) and the plaster (in RH02) were vertical. From Stratum V at Tel Reḥov we were not able to sample any burnt material in its original position and thus could not reconstruct the archaeomagnetic direction (Figs. 5 and 6). In order to create flat surfaces, we polished the outer surface of the bricks prior to sampling. On the flat surfaces we marked horizontal lines (Figs. 5, 7) and Tel Beth-Shean in the Tenth–Ninth Centuries BCE: A Chronological Query… 797 Fig. 5 Sampling burnt mudbricks from Stratum S-1a at Beth-Shean (SH01) for archaeomagnetic direction measured their field orientation relative to the geographic north. These oriented samples were cut into specimens in the laboratory while the field orientation measurements were maintained. We then measured the magnetic signal recorded in every specimen. In order to make sure that the recorded magnetic signal was stable and was recorded during a single event, we carried out demagnetization experiments in which the magnetization of each specimen was gradually erased in a series of demagnetization steps. After each demagnetization step the remaining signal was measured. During demagnetization experiments the magnetic vector of each specimen weakens gradually but in cases in which the magnetic signal was recorded during one event, the directions of gradually-demagnetized vectors remain similar. After measuring the direction recorded in each oriented specimen, we used statistical tools in order to calculate the mean direction of every archaeomagnetic feature and its corresponding statistical error. 2.3 Archaeointensity In order to reconstruct the intensity of the ancient field (archaeointensity) we sampled materials which had been burnt during destruction events from all relevant strata. For archaeointensity measurements from Tel Reḥov Stratum IV, we sampled one sample which had been sampled for direction (RH02E) and 9 additional unoriented samples (RH03A-I) from the 4 walls of Room 5444 in Building CF (Fig. 8). We prepared 3–7 specimens from each of these samples. From Stratum S-1a at 798 Y. Vaknin et al. Fig. 6 View of Building CF at Tel Reḥov, looking south. The locations of the archaeomagnetic samples (RH02, RH03) are marked in red. (Note that only the upper parts of the walls belong to Stratum IV. The picture was taken after the excavation had reached the levels of Strata V and VI) Beth-Shean we used 5 samples for archaeointensity from the same bricks used for archaeomagnetic direction and prepared 3–4 specimens from every sample. From Stratum V at Tel Reḥov we used one sample for archaeointensity (RH05C): a mud beehive which had been burnt during the destruction of the apiary (Fig. 9). Three unoriented specimens from this sample were demagnetized in order to make sure that the magnetization was strong and unified, which is critical for the success of the archaeointensity experiments. We prepared 15 specimens from this sample for archaeointensity experiments, an exceptionally large number of specimens, due to the small number of samples. 2.4 Rock Magnetism Several additional experiments were carried out in order to shed light on the nature of the magnetic minerals and the temperature of the fire (For technical details regarding these experiments see: Vaknin et al., 2020). Tel Beth-Shean in the Tenth–Ninth Centuries BCE: A Chronological Query… 799 Fig. 7 Sampling burnt mudbricks from Stratum IV at Tel Reḥov (RH02) for archaeomagnetic direction. The locations of some of the samples for archaeointensity (RH03A, B. K) are marked as well Fig. 8 The sampling of burnt mudbricks in Stratum IV at Tel Reḥov (RH03) for archaeointensity 800 Y. Vaknin et al. Fig. 9 Mud beehives from Stratum V at Tel Reḥov (a) The unearthed beehives during the excavations. (b, c) sampling a mud beehive (RH05C) for archaeointensity in the laboratory 3 Results 3.1 Archaeomagnetic Direction The archaeomagnetic direction results from Beth-Shean, Tel Reḥov and other previously published archaeological sites from the same period are displayed in Fig. 10b, c. All 26 specimens from Tel Beth-Shean Stratum S-1a, all 26 specimens from Stratum IV at Tel Reḥov and all three preliminary specimens from the beehive unearthed in Stratum V at Tel Reḥov yielded a strong magnetic signal. The direction of the recorded field in all these specimens remained nearly unchanged during the demagnetization steps (Fig. 11). These results, graphically expressed as straight lines converging to the origin in Fig. 11, reinforce the archaeological observation that all these materials were burnt to high temperatures and that the magnetic information recorded in each of them represents one heating event. All 26 specimens from Reḥov Stratum IV yielded well-clustered directions. From Tel Beth-Shean Stratum S-1a, 25 specimens yielded directions clustered Tel Beth-Shean in the Tenth–Ninth Centuries BCE: A Chronological Query… 801 Fig. 10 Archaeomagnetic results: (a) Intensity. (b) Declination. (c) Inclination. The destruction layers mentioned in the text are marked with colored circles. Other previously published data from Israel (squares) and Syria (diamonds) are marked in grey. The destruction layers from Tel Reḥov and Tel Beth-Shean are highlighted in bold together and one specimen (SH01D05a) with a different direction was rejected as an outlier. These results are displayed in Table 4 along with published results from two other archaeological sites: the destruction of Gath (Tell es-Safi) attributed to Hazael by the excavator (Maeir, 2020) and most other scholars and a kiln which presumably went out of use during the destruction of Level V at Ḥorvat Tevet in about the same period (Sergi et al., 2021). The calculated direction of the field is represented by the angle between the horizontal component of the paleomagnetic vector and the geographic north (Declination) and the angle between the paleomagnetic vector and the horizontal plane (Inclination). The statistical parameter k (Fisher, 1953) 802 Y. Vaknin et al. SH01A01a NRM=3.04e-06 Am^2 N RH02G02c NRM=3.04e-06 Am^2 N RH05C01c NRM=1.17e-05 Am^2 60.0mT 40.0mT 60.0mT 40.0mT 30.0mT 4.0mT 30.0mT 20.0mT 8.0mT 20.0mT 16.0mT 16.0mT 12.0mT 12.0mT 12.0mT 16.0mT 8.0mT 8.0mT 20.0mT 4.0mT 4.0mT E ,D 30.0mT E ,D X-axis rotated to NRM x y ,z Fig. 11 Representative results from the demagnetization experiments. (a) Beth-Shean, Stratum S-1a. (b) Tel Reḥov Stratum IV. (c) Tel Reḥov Stratum V. Each subplot represents a demagnetization experiment of one specimen. Since the magnetic signal is a 3-dimensional vector, it is displayed by 2 lines (red and blue), each representing the projection of the vector on a different plane. The original magnetization is gradually erased by an increasingly strong magnetic field (4.0 mT, 8.0 mT etc.) All three graphs display a strong magnetic vector (natural remanent magnetization – NRM) and straight lines converging to the origin indicating stable magnetization Table 4 Direction results Archaeomagnetic feature Beth-­Shean_ structure Reḥov_str_IV_ structure Stratum, structure Stratum S-1a, Building A Stratum IV, Building CF Gath_structure Stratum A3 Tevet_kiln Level V Age (range) 900 (940– 820) 830 (870– 820) 830 (845– 815) 830 (900– 800) n specimens (out of measured specimens) Dec Inc k α95 CSD 25 (26) 9.3 59.1 847 1.0 2.8 26 (26) 13.1 62.2 496 1.3 3.6 62 (62) 15.1 61.5 189 1.3 5.9 20 (22) 14.7 63.2 420 1.6 4 represents the degree of scatter around the mean paleomagnetic direction. A cutoff value of k ≥ 50 is used here as a selection criterion. The α95 and Circular Standard Deviation (CSD) represent the angular error around the mean direction. The relatively high k and low α95 and CSD imply that the results from both archaeomagnetic features reliably represent the direction of the geomagnetic field at the time of the destruction of each of these ancient sites. Tel Beth-Shean in the Tenth–Ninth Centuries BCE: A Chronological Query… 803 3.2 Archaeointensity and Thermomagnetic Curves The archaeointensity results from Beth-Shean, Tel Reḥov and other previously published archaeological sites from the same period are displayed in Fig. 10a as the Virtual Axial Dipole Moment (VADM). From Stratum S-1a at Tel Beth-Shean we measured 17 specimens from 5 different samples (mudbricks). Sixteen of the specimens met the specimen acceptance criteria. One sample (SH01B) out of the 5 did not meet the sample acceptance criteria and was rejected. From Stratum IV at Tel Reḥov we measured 45 specimens from 9 samples (mudbricks). Forty specimens and 8 samples met the acceptance criteria. All 15 specimens from the beehive from Reḥov Stratum V (RH05C) met the specimen acceptance criteria. All the intensity results of the samples which passed the criteria are presented in Table 5. The results from these samples were used in order to calculate the mean intensity result of each group and the standard deviation, as presented in Table 6 along with results from other published archaeological sites. In order to reconstruct the intensity of the ancient field we gradually erased the original magnetic signal (which had been recorded during the conflagration— marked in blue in Fig. 12a, c) and recorded a new magnetic signal in a controlled environment in the lab (marked in red in Fig. 12a, c). The erasing and recording steps were carried out by heating the specimens to increasingly high temperatures. In the vast majority of specimens from the two strata at Tel Reḥov and from Stratum S-1a at Beth-Shean the original magnetic signal was almost entirely erased between 300 °C and 400 °C. Therefore, these samples were heated during the conflagration Table 5 Intensity results (according to samples) Stratum, Archaeomagnetic archaeological group feature Beth-Shean_destr Stratum S-1a, Building A Reḥov_str_V_ destr Reḥov_str_IV_ destr Stratum V, apiary Stratum IV, Building CF Standard n Mean deviation Sample/s specimens (μT) (μT) SH01A 3 69.3 1.6 SH01C 4 62.2 0.4 SH01D 3 62.4 1.3 SH01E 3 60.9 0.6 RH05C 15 64 3.8 Lower error bound (μT) 65.1 57.7 58.3 55.8 57.5 Higher error bound (μT) 73.6 68.7 65.6 65.2 71.1 RH02E RH03A RH03C RH03D RH03E RH03F RH03G RH03H RH03I 74.4 70.6 74.6 77.2 84.6 62 64.1 76.9 67.1 90.1 81.1 84.5 99.7 84.6 74.5 76.1 95.2 78.9 5 4 5 7 5 4 3 4 3 83.1 74.1 77 88.9 84.6 68.6 67.9 85.2 73.6 2.4 0.2 1.2 3.2 5.8 4.5 0.8 0.3 0.1 Stratum V, apiary Stratum IV, Building CF Stratum A3, Stratum M1 Reḥov_str_V_destr Reḥov_str_IV_destr Gath_destr Level V Level XIII Tevet_level_V_destr Zayit_level_XIII_ destr Tevet_level_VII_destr Level VII Stratum, archaeological feature Stratum S-1a, Building A Archaeomagnetic group Beth-Shean_destr Age 900 (940–820) 900 (930–880) 830 (870–820) 830 (845–815) 900 (940–840) 830 (900–800) 830 (870–790) Table 6 Intensity results (according to archaeomagnetic groups) 5 6 2 12 9 1 N samples 4 28 24 8 44 40 15 n specimens 13 80.2 78.5 66 76.7 78.1 64 Mean field (μT) 63.7 2.4 2.9 3.9 7.6 7.6 3.8 Standard deviation(σ) 3.8 153.6 148.4 124.7 146.7 148 121.2 VADM (ZAm2) 120.6 4.5 5.5 7.4 14.5 14.4 7.1 VADM_ sigma 7.1 804 Y. Vaknin et al. Tel Beth-Shean in the Tenth–Ninth Centuries BCE: A Chronological Query… SH01C04d SH01C 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 100 200 300 400 Temperature (°C) RH03E01a (c) 1.0 0 100 (d)1.0 200 300 400 500 Temperature (°C) RH03E 0.8 0.8 Susceptability Normalized magnetization (b)1.0 Susceptability Normalized magnetization (a) 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 100 200 300 400 Temperature (°C) 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Temperature (°C) 805 100, heat 100, cool 200, heat 200, cool 300, heat 300, cool 400, heat 400, cool 500, heat 500, cool 600, heat 600, cool 700, heat 700, cool 500 700 100, heat 100, cool 200, heat 200, cool 300, heat 300, cool 400, heat 400, cool 500, heat 500, cool 600, heat 600, cool 700, heat 700, cool 500 700 Fig. 12 Representative results of the archaeointensity experiments and thermomagnetic curves. (a, b) Beth-Shean Stratum S-1a. (c, d) Tel Reḥov Stratum IV. In graphs (a) and (c) the Y-axis represents the magnitude of magnetization normalized according to the primary magnetization (recorded during the conflagration). The blue line represents the original magnetization, starting at 1.0 by definition, and decreasing as the temperature steps rise, until it is completely erased. The red line represents the magnetization “recorded” in the lab, starting at 0 by definition, and increasing as the temperature steps rise, until it reaches its maximum. Graphs (b) and (d) display the magnetic susceptibility (Y-axis) according to temperature (X-axis). The magnetic susceptibility was measured in repeated heating cycles at progressively elevated peak temperatures (every color represents one cycle) to at least 300–400 °C. At temperature steps higher than this range the samples gained no substantial magnetic signal in the lab. In addition to the archaeointensity results (Fig. 12a, c) Fig. 12 displays representative thermomagnetic curves from Beth-Shean (Fig. 12b) and Tel Reḥov (Fig. 12d). Each color represents one heating and cooling cycle. The thermomagnetic curves are nearly reversible, i.e., every time the sampled material reached a certain temperature its susceptibility was similar to the susceptibility previously measured at that temperature. This demonstrates little alteration of the magnetic minerals during this experiment, which indicates stability of the magnetic minerals up to 600 °C and often 700 °C. In the vast majority of specimens from Tel Reḥov and Tel Beth-Shean the main and final drop in susceptibility occurred between ca. 300 °C to ca. 400 °C. Thus, the magnetic properties displayed in the archaeointensity experiments and in the thermomagnetic curves 806 Y. Vaknin et al. indicate that in the mudbricks in these two archaeological sites and in the mud beehives at Tel Reḥov the Curie temperature (Tc- the temperature above which the magnetic minerals lose their magnetic properties) of the main magnetic component is ca. 300 °C to ca. 400 °C. Interestingly, in the vast majority of burnt mudbricks sampled in 15 other archaeological sites in the southern Levant the main and final drop in susceptibility occurred at much higher temperatures, between ca. 550 °C to ca. 580 °C, indicating the presence of magnetite (Vaknin et al., 2022). It seems likely that the unique magnetic properties of the samples from Beth-Shean and Tel Reḥov are related to the composition of the mud used for construction in these two neighboring archaeological sites in the Beth-Shean Valley. 4 Discussion and Conclusions Choosing between the two alternatives presented in Table 2 has significant historical implications. The archaeomagnetic study contributes to resolving at least part of this query. The archaeointensity analysis showed a clear difference between the burnt beehive from Stratum V and burnt bricks from Stratum IV at Tel Reḥov (Fig. 10). According to the archaeointensity and archaeomagnetic direction results, the destruction of Stratum IV showed outstanding correspondence with the destructions of other archaeological sites and, in particular, Tell es-Safi (Gath), safely attributed to Hazael in the second half of the ninth century BCE, thus supporting the hypothesis that Stratum IV at Tel Reḥov also fell prey to Hazael’s conquests (Mazar, 2016: 107–112; 2020: 126–127). In contrast both the intensity as well as the direction of the geomagnetic field recorded in the destruction of Stratum S-1a at Beth-­ Shean are significantly different from those of Stratum IV at Tel Reḥov, while the intensity corresponds with that of the destruction of the apiary of Stratum V at Tel Reḥov (as previously mentioned, no direction could be measured from this context). These results imply a correlation between Beth-Shean Stratum S-1a and Reḥov Stratum V and indicate a considerable chronological gap that separated the destructions of these two strata from that of Stratum IV at Tel Reḥov. Based on this result and the radiometric dates from Stratum V at Tel Reḥov it would mean that the public buildings at Beth-Shean S-1a as well as Stratum V at Tel Reḥov predated the Omride Dynasty in Israel. One option is that these two strata corresponded with the first kings of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, the most significant of whom, according to the biblical narrative, is Baasha. Our archaeomagnetic study thus supports the assumption that the late Iron IIA started in northern Israel in the last quarter of the tenth century BCE, corresponding with the early days of the northern kingdom (Mazar, 2011: 107; 2020: 113, Table 4.2, 119–122). Another, more radical, option is to attribute these buildings at Beth-Shean to the Solomonic era, which remains one of the most controversial issues in the history and archaeology of the Iron Age. We have to recall that the topographic list of Shoshenq I (biblical Shishak) following his military raid in ca. 920 BCE mentions Beth-Shean and Reḥov side by side. Is it possible to identify these two cities with Beth-Shean Stratum S-1a and Tel Reḥov Tel Beth-Shean in the Tenth–Ninth Centuries BCE: A Chronological Query… 807 Stratum V? The latter possibility was suggested by the excavators in light of the results of the first four excavation seasons at Tel Reḥov (Bruins et al., 2003) but was taken with reservation in the final publication (Mazar, 2020: 123–124; for a more hesitant statement that leaves this possibility open see: Mazar, 2021: 261–263). The archaeomagnetic dating of the destruction of Stratum S-1a at Beth-Shean may revive this suggestion (Fig. 13. For details, see Vaknin et al., 2022). This dating is based on the archaeointensity results from Beth-Shean Stratum S-1a, from the other strata discussed here and from other previously published results (Shaar et al., 2022). Besides these results the input for our model is the age range of every group (Table 6). For instance, in the case of Beth-Shean the prior date is 940–820 BCE. The result of the archaeomagnetic dating must be, by definition, within this range. Within this age range, the archaeomagnetic model “prefers” the dates for which the intensity results from Beth-Shean “agree” with the model of archaeointensity changes (light green area in Fig. 10a). For the full description of the archaeointensity model and the dating according to this model, see Shaar et al. (2022) and Livermore et al. (2018). While the archaeomagnetic dating of the destruction of Stratum S-1a at Beth-­ Shean points to 935–900 BCE (68.2% probability), most of the radiocarbon dates from Tel Reḥov V, as well as the results of the Bayesian models, appear to point to a slightly later date. Furthermore, the attribution of destruction levels to Shoshenq is highly debatable (Mazar, 2020: 123–124; 2021: 261–263 for extended discussion). Fig. 13 Archaeomagnetic dating of the destruction of Building A in Stratum S-1a at Beth-Shean 808 Y. Vaknin et al. The results of this study suggest that the late Iron IIA public buildings, reflecting central administration, were constructed at Beth-Shean either during the Solomonic era or during the pre-Omride phase in the history of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and were destroyed violently during this same time range. The reason for the destruction cannot be determined with any certainty. Our results may point to the raid of Shoshenq I, but the severe destruction could also be a result of a historical or natural event in the following decades, either at the end of the tenth or the beginning of the ninth centuries BCE. Stratum V at Tel Reḥov with its apiary must have existed during this same time range. Since both these contexts can be safely attributed to the late Iron IIA, these conclusions are significant regarding the debate concerning Iron Age chronology of the tenth–ninth centuries BCE as well as the emergence of the early state in Israel. They support the conclusions reached at Tel Reḥov (based on radiometric dates) that the transition between the early and late Iron IIA occurred during the last third or quarter of the tenth century BCE, that during this time Tel Reḥov was a well-planned town, including the unique apiary, and suggest that the monumental architecture at Beth-Shean Stratum S-1a was constructed during this time and most probably destroyed prior to the rise of the Omride dynasty. As this article is published in a volume in honor of Tom Levy, we should mention the fact that the period under discussion here corresponds to the peak of copper production at Faynan and Timna. One of us (A. Mazar) has suggested that some of the copper trade was carried out through Transjordan and the Jordan Valley towards the Phoenician coast, where the copper was traded with far-off destinations like Greece. It has also been suggested that Tel Reḥov and perhaps also Tel Beth-Shean were part of this trading system (Mazar, 2020: 103, 105; 2021: 263). References Ben-Yosef, E., Tauxe, L., & Levy, T. E. (2010). Archaeomagnetic dating of copper smelting site F2 in Timna Valley (Israel) and its implication on modeling ancient technological developments. Archaeometry, 52(6), 1110–1121. Ben-Yosef, E., Millman, M., Shaar, R., Tauxe, L., & Lipschits, O. (2017). Six centuries of geomagnetic intensity variations recorded by royal Judean stamped jar handles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(9), 2160–2165. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1615797114 Bruins, H. J., van der Plicht, J., & Mazar, A. (2003). C-14 dates from Tel Rehov: Iron-Age chronology, pharaohs, and Hebrew kings. Science, 300(5617), 315–318. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1082776 Fisher, R. A. (1953). Dispersion on a sphere. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 217(1130), 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1098/ rspa.1953.0064 Herzog, Z., & Singer-Avitz, L. (2006). Sub-dividing the Iron Age IIA in Northern Israel: A suggested solution to the chronological debate. Tel Aviv, 33(2), 163–195. https://doi.org/10.1179/ tav.2006.2006.2.163 James, F. W. (1966). The iron age at Beth Shan. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Tel Beth-Shean in the Tenth–Ninth Centuries BCE: A Chronological Query… 809 Livermore, P. W., Fournier, A., Gallet, Y., & Bodin, T. (2018). Transdimensional inference of archeomagnetic intensity change. Geophysical Journal International, 215(3), 2008–2034. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggy383 Maeir, A. (2020). Introduction and overview. In A. Maeir & J. Uziel (Eds.), Tell es-Safi/Gath II: Excavations and studies (pp. 1–52). Zaphon. Mazar, A. (2006). Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996: Volume 1 – From the Late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period. Israel Exploration Society and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Mazar, A. (2011). The Iron Age chronology debate: Is the gap narrowing? Another viewpoint. Near Eastern Archaeology, 74(2), 105–111. https://doi.org/10.5615/neareastarch.74.2.0105 Mazar, A. (2016). Culture, identity and politics relating to Tel Reḥov in the 10th–9th centuries BCE. In O. Sergi, M. Oeming, & I. J. de Hulster (Eds.), In search for Aram and Israel: Politics, culture and identity (pp. 89–120). Mohr Siebeck. Mazar, A. (2020). The Tel Reḥov excavations: Overview and synthesis. In A. Mazar & N. Panitz-­ Cohen (Eds.), Tel Reḥov: A Bronze and Iron Age city in the Beth-Shean Valley I (pp. 69–140). Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Mazar, A. (2021). The Beth Shean Valley and its vicinity in the 10th century BCE. Jerusalem Journal of Archaeology, 241–271. Mazar, A., & Panitz-Cohen, N. (2020). Tel Reḥov: A Bronze and Iron Age city in the Beth-Shean Valley. Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Mazar, A., & Streit, K. (2020). The radiometric dates from Tel Reḥov. In A. Mazar & N. Panitz-­ Cohen (Eds.), Tel Reḥov, a Bronze and Iron Age city in the Beth-Shean Valley. The Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Mazar, A., Bruins, H. J., Panitz-Cohen, N., & van der Plicht, J. (2005). Ladder of time at Tel Reḥov: Stratigraphy, archaeological context, pottery and radiocarbon dates. In T. E. Levy & T. Higham (Eds.), The bible and radiocarbon dating. Archaeology, text and science (pp. 193–255). Equinox. Peters, I., Tauxe, L., & Ben-Yosef, E. (2017). Archaeomagnetic dating of Pyrotechnological contexts: A case study for copper smelting sites in the central Timna Valley, Israel: Copper smelting sites in the central Timna Valley, Israel. Archaeometry, 60, 554–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/ arcm.12322 Sergi, O., Bezzel, H., Tsur, Y., & Covello-Paran, K. (2021). Ḥorvat Ṭevet in the Jezreel Valley: A Royal Israelite Estate. In K. Covello-Paran, A. Erlich, & R. Beeri (Eds.), New studies in the archaeology of northern Israel (pp. 31–48). The Israel Antiquities Authority. https://doi. org/10.2307/j.ctv1rr6ddq.5 Shaar, R., Ben-Yosef, E., Ron, H., Tauxe, L., Agnon, A., & Kessel, R. (2011). Geomagnetic field intensity: How high can it get? How fast can it change? Constraints from Iron Age copper slag. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 301, 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2010.11.013 Shaar, R., Tauxe, L., Ron, H., Ebert, Y., Zuckerman, S., Finkelstein, I., et al. (2016). Large geomagnetic field anomalies revealed in Bronze and Iron Age archaeomagentic data from Tel Megiddo and Tel Hazor, Israel. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 442, 173–185. Shaar, R., Hassul, E., Raphael, K., Ebert, Y., Segal, Y., Eden, I., et al. (2018). The first catalog of archaeomagnetic directions from Israel with 4000 years of geomagnetic secular variations. Frontiers in Earth Science, 6, 164. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00164 Shaar, R., Bechar, S., Finkelstein, I., Gallet, Y., Martin, M. A. S., Ebert, Y., et al. (2020). Synchronizing Geomagnetic Field Intensity Records in the Levant Between the 23rd and 15th Centuries BCE: Chronological and Methodological Implications. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 21(12), e2020GC009251. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GC009251 Shaar, R., Gallet, Y., Vaknin, Y., Gonen, L., Martin, M. A. S., Adams, M. J., & Finkelstein, I. (2022). Archaeomagnetism in the Levant and Mesopotamia reveals the largest changes in the geomagnetic field. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 127, e2022JB024962. 810 Y. Vaknin et al. Shahack-Gross, R., Shaar, R., Hassul, E., Ebert, Y., Forget, M., Nowaczyk, N., et al. (2018). Fire and collapse: Untangling the formation of destruction layers using archeomagnetism. Geoarchaeology, 33, 513–528. https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.21668 Vaknin, Y., Shaar, R., Gadot, Y., Shalev, Y., Lipschits, O., & Ben-Yosef, E. (2020). The Earth’s magnetic field in Jerusalem during the Babylonian destruction: A unique reference for field behavior and an anchor for archaeomagnetic dating. PLoS One, 15(8), e0237029. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237029 Vaknin, Y., Shaar, R., Lipschits, O., & Ben-Yosef, E. (2022). Reconstructing biblical military campaigns using geomagnetic field data. PNAS, 119(44), e2209117119.