Go to top

Archeological References


Stern et al (1993)

Age Dates Comments
Early Bronze IA-B 3300-3000 BCE
Early Bronze II 3000-2700 BCE
Early Bronze III 2700-2200 BCE
Middle Bronze I 2200-2000 BCE ‎EB IV - Intermediate Bronze
Middle Bronze IIA 2000-1750 BCE
Middle Bronze IIB 1750-1550 BCE
Late Bronze I 1550-1400 BCE
Late Bronze IIA 1400-1300 BCE
Late Bronze IIB 1300-1200 BCE
Iron IA 1200-1150 BCE
Iron IB 1150-1100 BCE
Iron IIA 1000-900 BCE
Iron IIB 900-700 BCE
Iron IIC 700-586 BCE
Babylonian & Persian 586-332 BCE
Early Hellenistic 332-167 BCE
Late Hellenistic 167-37 BCE
Early Roman 37 BCE - 132 CE
Herodian 37 BCE - 70 CE
Late Roman 132-324 CE
Byzantine 324-638 CE
Early Arab 638-1099 CE Umayyad & Abbasid‎
Crusader & Ayyubid 1099-1291 CE
Late Arab 1291-1516 CE Fatimid & Mameluke‎
Ottoman 1516-1917 CE

Meyers et al (1997)

Phase Dates Variants
Early Bronze IA-B 3400-3100 BCE
Early Bronze II 3100-2650 BCE
Early Bronze III 2650-2300 BCE
Early Bronze IVA-C 2300-2000 BCE Intermediate Early-Middle Bronze, Middle Bronze I‎
Middle Bronze I 2000-1800 BCE ‎Middle Bronze IIA
Middle Bronze II 1800-1650 BCE ‎Middle Bronze IIB‎
Middle Bronze III 1650-1500 BCE ‎‎Middle Bronze IIC
Late Bronze IA 1500-1450 BCE
Late Bronze IIB 1450-1400 BCE
Late Bronze IIA 1400-1300 BCE
Late Bronze IIB 1300-1200 BCE
Iron IA 1200-1125 BCE
Iron IB 1125-1000 BCE
Iron IC 1000-925 BCE Iron IIA‎
Iron IIA 925-722 BCE Iron IIB‎
Iron IIB 722-586 BCE ‎Iron IIC
Iron III 586-520 BCE Neo-Babylonian‎
Early Persian 520-450 BCE
Late Persian 450-332 BCE
Early Hellenistic 332-200 BCE
Late Hellenistic 200-63 BCE
Early Roman 63 BCE - 135 CE
Middle Roman 135-250 CE
Late Roman 250-363 CE
Early Byzantine 363-460 CE
Late Byzantine 460-638 CE
Early Arab 638-1099 CE
Crusader & Ayyubid 1099-1291 CE
Late Arab 1291-1516 CE
Ottoman 1516-1917 CE

Chronological Scheme for the Levant from Palmisano et al. (2019)

Table 1

A chronological scheme for the Levant (after Finkelstein 2010 and 2011; Regev et al. 2012; Sharon 2013).

Palmisano et al. (2019)

Traditional and Revised Early and Middle Bronze Age Chronology from Fall et al. (2023)

Table 1

Traditional and revised Early and Middle Bronze Age chronologies for the Southern Levant. (Traditional chronology based on Dever 1992; Levy 1995:fig. 3; revised chronology based on Regev et al. 2012; Fall et al. 2021; Höflmayer and Manning 2022.)

Fall et al. (2023)

Walmsley (2007) based on D. Whitcomb - Islamic

Age Dates Comments
Early Islamic I 600-800 CE
Early Islamic II 800-1000 CE
Middle Islamic I 1000-1200 CE
Middle Islamic II 1200-1400 CE

Nabatean Periods and Monarchs

Nabataean monarchs and their regnal dates Figure 2.3

List of the Nabataean monarchs and their regnal dates

Dolinka (2006)

The Iron Age in the Southern Levant



Avi-Yonah, M. (1975). The Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Israel Exploration Society and Massada Press. English Version.

Volume I - Abu Ghosh to Dothan - can be borrowed with a free account at archive.org.. I
Volume II - Eboda to Jerusalem.. II
Volume III - Jisr Banat Ya'aqub to Nassana - can be borrowed with a free account at archive.org.. III
Volume IV - Or Ha-Ner to Tel Zeror - can be borrowed with a free account at archive.org.. IV


Negev, A. and S. Gibson (2004). Archaeological encyclopedia of the Holy Land, Bloomsbury Publishing - can be borrowed with a free account at archive.org

Negev, A. and N. A. Silberman (1990). The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land 3rd Edition , Prentice Hall Press - can be borrowed with a free account at archive.org

Negev, A.(1980). The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall Press.. N

Negev, A. (1972) Archaeological encyclopedia of the Holy Land 1st Edition. - can be borrowed with a free account at archive.org.

Negev, A. (1986). Nabatean archaeology today. New York, New York Univ. Press. - can be borrowed with a free account at archive.org.





Pottery References
Nabatean Fineware Pottery


Chronology of Nabatean finewares Typology and chronology of the Nabataean fine ware


Chronology of Nabatean finewares


Typology and chronology of the Nabataean fine ware

Both from Schmid (1995)

Petra in General ?

Typo-chronology for the NPFW bowls Figure 1.3

Typo-chronology for the NPFW bowls developed by Schmid (2000: abb. 98)

Dolinka (2006)

Journals and Publications


Hadashot Arkheologiyot - Excavations and Surveys in Israel

Hadashot Arkheologiyot - Extended Reports

Hadashot Arkheologiyot - Search page

Hadashot Arkheologiyot at JSTOR - good for older issues

Atiqot - past issues

Atiqot on JSTOR - goes back to the 1990's

Qadmoniot: A Journal for the Antiquities of Eretz-Israel and Bible Lands on JSTOR


Israel Exploration Journal (IEJ) at JSTOR

Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society at JSTOR

IAA List of Publications

IAA archives - 1919-1948

IAA Reports at JSTOR

Hadashot Arkheologiyot - List of References

Palestinian Exploration Quarterly Back Issues. (also available at Taylor and Francis and z library)

Qedem Reports at JSTOR

Lebanon and Syria

Aerial Images

Aerial Images





Other References

Other References

Maps and Archaeological Maps

Online Maps and Atlases
Collection of Archaeo Maps

Bronze Age Sites of the Southern Levant

Normal Size

  • Fig. 2.1 Early Bronze I Sites from Greenberg (2019)
  • Fig. 3.1 Early Bronze II and III Sites from Greenberg (2019)
  • Fig. 4.1 Intermediate Bronze Sites from Greenberg (2019)
  • Fig. 5.2 Middle Bronze Sites from Greenberg (2019)
  • Fig. 6.1 Late Bronze Sites from Greenberg (2019)


  • Fig. 2.1 Early Bronze I Sites from Greenberg (2019)
  • Fig. 3.1 Early Bronze II and III Sites from Greenberg (2019)
  • Fig. 4.1 Intermediate Bronze Sites from Greenberg (2019)
  • Fig. 5.2 Middle Bronze Sites from Greenberg (2019)
  • Fig. 6.1 Late Bronze Sites from Greenberg (2019)

Bronze and Iron Age

Bronze and Iron Age
Description Image Source
Major Bronze and Iron Age Sites
in Israel and Jordan
Fig. 4.1 - Mazar et. al. (2020 v.1)
Bronze and Iron Age Sites
in Central Jordan Valley
Fig. 1.1 - Mazar et. al. (2020 v.1)
Bronze and Iron Age Sites
in Central Jordan Valley
Fig. 3.2 - Mazar et. al. (2020 v.1)


Description Image Source
Judean Desert Fig. 10.1 - Taxel et al (2009)

Judean Desert

Judean Desert
Description Image Source
Monasteries in
the Desert of Jerusalem
Early Arab Period
Map - Patrich (2011)
Judean Desert Fig. 1 - Hirschfeld (1993)
Location map of the monastery of Euthymius Fig. 2 - Hirschfeld (1993)
Satellite monasteries around the monastery of Euthymius Fig. 3 - Hirschfeld (1993)

Byzantine/Early Islamic Palestine

Byzantine/Early Islamic Palestine
Description Image Source
Coastal Palestine 644-800 CE Fig. 1 - Taxel (2013)
Early Islamic Palestine Fig. 1 - Taxel (2019)
Provincial Borders of the ajnad Fig. 3 - Walmsley (2007)
E Mediterranean - early 8th century Fig. 3 - Walmsley (2007)
Late Roman and Early Islamic provincs Fig. 4.1 - Blanke and Walmsley (2022)


Description Image Source
Sites along the Incense Road Fig. 1 - Erickson-Gini and Israel (2013)
The Incense Road Fig. 1a - Zohar and Erickson-Gini (2019)
North Incense Road Fig. 4c - Zohar and Erickson-Gini (2019)
Central Incense Road Fig. 4b - Zohar and Erickson-Gini (2019)
South Incense Road Fig. 4a - Zohar and Erickson-Gini (2019)
The region between Sha’ar Ramon and Oboda Fig. 5 - Zohar and Erickson-Gini (2019)
Roman Roads Fig. 2c - Zohar and Erickson-Gini (2019)
The Road to Oboda Fig. 2a - Zohar and Erickson-Gini (2019)
Map of Roman castella and roads Fig. 2 - Dolinka (2007)

Jerusalem Old City and environs

Jerusalem Old City and environs
Description Image Source
Jerusalems Historical Basin Emek Shaveh (2017)
The Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif
Archaeology in a
Political Context
Temple Mount Emek Shaveh (2017)
The Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif
Archaeology in a
Political Context
Silwan Emek Shaveh (2017)
The Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif
Archaeology in a
Political Context
Temple Mount Fig. 2 - Gibson (2020)
Silwan Emek Shaveh (2017)
The Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif
Archaeology in a
Political Context
Haram - Umayyad Period Map 1 - Elad (1995)
Inset to Map 1 Map 1a - Elad (1995)
Legend to Map 1 and 1a Map 1 and 1a Legend - Elad (1995)
Haram - Muslim Pilgrimmage - ~1050 CE Map 2 - Elad (1995)
Inset to Map 2 Map 2a - Elad (1995)
Legend to Map 2 and 2a Map 2 Legend - Elad (1995)
Jerusalem - 638-1099 CE Map 3 - Elad (1995)
Map 3 Legend Map 3 Legend - Elad (1995)
Notes - Elad's Map 1

Map 1

The main problem when preparing a map of the Haram in the Umayyad period is that the majority of the Arabic sources are from later periods and mostly relate to those periods.

Another significant problem is that the names of constructions and their locations have changed in the course of time. The double danger arises, therefore, of mistakenly attributing anachronistic names and dates to buildings found in the Haram to-day but were built at the latest in the later Middle Ages.

On luckier occasions, an early tradition may have been traced relating some details on one monument or another in Jerusalem, of the Umayyad period, but even then it is usually impossible to determine the exact location.

Using the guide lines drawn up here, I was able to assert that the Gate of Repentance (Bab al-Tawba), during the Umayyad period, was in close proximity to Mihrab Maryam. However, the location of the latter place in the south-east corner of the Haram can only be attributed (with reservation) to the end of the 9th century and clearly so to the 10th and 11th centuries. Although the eastern Mihrab Dawud is mentioned by the early (7th-8th century) sources, I was unable to locate it.

The same considerations were important in locating the Dome of the Chain (Bab al-Silsila), the Gate of The Divine Presence (Bab al-Sakina), the Dome of Ascension (Qubbat al-Mi `raj) and other monuments on the Haram from the Umayyad period.

I only used the procedure just described when places or monuments were mentioned in a source that I estimated to date back to the Umayyad period. Not included in this map are monuments mentioned by late sources which allude to their existence during the Umayyad period, such as the mention by al-Muhallabi (mid-10th century) of the Dome of the Scale (Qubbat al-Mizan) and the Dome of the Gathering (Qubbat al-Mahshar). Still, al-Muhallabi does refer to the Dome of Ascension (Qubbat al-Mi `riij) and the Dome of the Prophet (Qubbat al-Nabi), which were both mentioned by much earlier sources in their account of the Umayyad period. Al-Muhallabi's description of the latter monuments may, therefore, serve as additional proof to earlier sources, that these indeed existed in the Umayyad period.




Casana, J., Goodman, D., & Ferwerda, C. (2023). A wall or a road? A remote sensing-based investigation of fortifications on Rome's eastern frontier. Antiquity, 1-18. doi:10.15184/aqy.2023.153 - open access

  • Horvat Tov in Google Earth
  • Horvat Tov on govmap.gov.il
  • Unexcavated Fortress (?) just N of Horvat Tov on govmap.gov.il

Terms and Definitions


terminus post quem - the earliest possible date for something.
terminus ante quem - the latest possible date for something..
terminus a quo - the earliest possible date for something.
terminus ad quem - the point at which something ends or finishes.






when iron is heated up above it's Curie temperature (approx 770 °C) it becomes non-magnetic. When clay is fired in a kiln, it's generally heated to at least 990°C and often hotter.

So, once the iron is heated past 770°C, it loses it's magnetism. Once it cools back down below 770°, it then regains it's magnetism and what will happen is that the magnetic domains in the iron will tend to line up in the direction of any external magnetic field - which would be the Earth's field.

Now, while they do not know which way the pots were facing in the kiln, nor do they know what direction the kiln was facing, the orientation and arrangement of the magnetic domains can show the strength of the magnetic field and, knowing that the handles in the pots were generally horizontal, they can also show the azimuth of the field - the direction it's pointing up or down.

... During the 1st millennium BCE, the kingdom of Judah was a bustling urban civilization, full of markets, bureaucrats, and scholars. They used an ancient lunar calendar system, and chroniclers noted the years of each new political regime as well as other significant social changes. At Tel Socoh, in Judah, there was a small industry devoted to the production of storage jars, and the artisans there carefully stamped the ruling monarch's symbols into each jar's handle. When archaeologists compare historical records with these symbols, it's relatively straightforward to get an exact date for a jar's manufacture. Luckily for geoscientists in the 21st century, jar handles tend to survive longer than other bits of pottery.

Hassul et al. (2024)

2.1. Judean Stamped Storage Jars

The practice of stamping storage jars with royal seals as part of a taxation administrative system was widespread in Judah between the 8th and the 2nd centuries BCE (Lipschits, 2021). During the manufacturing of large oval four‐handled storage jars, some specific jars were pre-labeled by stamping an impression onto the wet clay just before firing. These stamped jars were used for delivering goods, such as wine or oil as tax. Over time, due to political and economic changes, the seal impression systems evolved; some systems went out of use and other systems replaced them. As a result, the different families of seals, each distinguished by a unique symbolic motif, formed a continuous typological framework that can be linked to an absolute historical chronology.

The Judahite stamped jar system has been thoroughly studied (Bocher & Lipschits, 2013; Koch & Lip schits, 2013; Lipschits, 2021; Lipschits & Vanderhooft, 2011, 2014; Lipschits et al., 2010; Ornan & Lip schits, 2020; Vanderhooft & Lipschits, 2007) and was recently summarized by Lipschits (2021), who provided a comprehensive classification of the seals according to their iconographic motifs and time of use. Figure 1 displays the seven main impression categories discussed in this study and their age spans. Each impression category has a series of variants, hereafter referred to as “types,” and even “sub-types.” Archaeologically, it is difficult to distinguish between the time of use of the various types within a specific impression category. Hence, we group the archaeomagnetic samples according to type and assign them similar age spans in an effort to investigate possible temporal relationships. The collection we use was excavated from several sites, mostly from Ramat Rahel and Tel Azekah, but also from Socoh and several excavations in Jerusalem (Figure 2, Table S1). Only the type is used as a consideration for arranging samples into groups, while the location in which the jar was found is a parameter that is not taken into account when defining groups. Our work continues the study of Ben-Yosef et al. (2017), who carried out an archaeointensity analysis of stamped jars and reported data from 27 samples: 23 of which belong to the main impression categories shown in Figure 1,three of which are private stamps that are not shown in the figure and one is an incision impression (concentric circle). These data are included in our revised analysis as detailed below.

The lmlk impression system was the first to be used. It consists of three main components: the Hebrew word lmlk, meaning “(belonging) to the king” in the upper part of the stamp impression, a royal emblem in the center, and a name of a place in the lower part. The combinations of two different royal emblems, four names of places and several patterns for the positioning of the letters around the symbol define nineteen different seal types. The lmlk impression system is divided into two categories: lmlk early and lmlk late. The former was in use before the destruction of Judah by Sennacherib in 701 BCE, and the latter was in use under the first era of the Assyrian administration in the 7th century BCE. The three “lmlk late” types studied here- MIIb, ZIIb and XII (Figure S1 in Supporting Information S1) are dated to 701–630 BCE, following the maximum age range of the lmlk im pressions suggested by Ben-Yosef et al. (2017).

The Rosette impressions are small and rounded and bear a single rosette motif with no inscription. The stamp types differ in the number and shape of the petals, the existence or non-existence of a frame, and an inner core. The Rosette stamp impressions went out of use during the final destruction of Judah by the Babylonians in 586 BCE.The date of their introduction is less clear, so we set the earliest possible date to 660 BCE, following Vaknin et al. (2020).

The Lion impressions are small and mostly rounded in shape. They include the image of a lion depicted in profile in various positions, with no inscription. Six types are studied here: lion type 3,4,5,6,7, and 8 (Figure S2 in Supporting Information S1). The Lion impression system was in use under Babylonian rule, that is, after the 586 BCEdestruction of Judah. When the Persians took over Judah in ca. 539 BCE, this system was gradually replaced by the yhwd stamp impression system. Thus, the use of Lion impressions is estimated between 586 BCE and ca. 520 BCE.

The yhwd impressions represent a transition from the use of symbols to script only. This complex system consists of 17 types with more than 50 variations. It was used for about 400 years from the late 6th century BCE until the second half of the 2nd century BCE. The yhwd impressions are chronologically divided into three categories: early, middle, and late (Figure S3 in Supporting Information S1) on the basis of the following criteria: their paleographic properties, a linguistic study of the transition from Aramaic to the Hebrew language, comparison of the impressions with the yhwd coins minted in the same periods of time, and on the basis of the historical context of the development of Judah under the rule of the Persian, Ptolemaic and the Seleucid empires (Lipschits & Vanderhooft, 2011).

The yrslm impressions represent a new era with the reappearance of iconographic elements alongside writing. The impressions include a pentagram with a script in ancient Hebrew reading yrslm (“Jerusalem”) between its vertices. Here, we focus on five types: a, b, c, d, and f (Figure S4 in Supporting Information S1), where we unite type c and type d into a single type labeled c/d because of the difficulty in distinguishing between them. The yrslm impression is associated with the weakening of the imperial hold on the region, the Maccabean revolt (ca. 167 160 BCE), and regaining full independence under Simon Maccabaeus (142 BCE). Therefore, we estimate the age span of yrslm impressions to ca. 200–140 BCE (Bocher & Lipschits, 2013)


Judean stamp impressions and chronological framework

 Figure 1

Judean stamp impressions and chronological framework. Each panel in the top row shows a schematic illustration, a representative picture of a stamp category, and its estimated age of use. The number of types (archaeomagnetic groups) analyzed in this study is indicated in brackets under the impression name. The time scale indicates the main historically dated events mentioned in the text. The lower row shows the age of the other archaeological contexts; all ages provided are BCE.

Redrawn following Lipschits (2021).

Hassul et al. (2024)

LAC.v.2.0 (Levantine archaeomagnetic curve)

 Figure 8

LAC.v.2.0 and comparison with predictions of geomagnetic models. The black curve and gray area show the mean values and the 95% credible interval. Models were calculated for the location of Jerusalem (31.78°N, 35.20°E).

Hassul et al. (2024)

Levantine Iron Age Anomaly (LIAA)

 Figure 9

Duration of the Levantine Iron Age Anomaly.
  1. LAC.v.2.0: data and curve during the first two millennia BCE
  2. Rate of change in field intensity and VADM [virtual axial dipole moment]
The solid curve and gray area in (a,b) show the mean values and the 95% credible interval. The duration of the LIAA [Levantine Iron Age Anomaly] was determined based on the rate of change

Hassul et al. (2024)

Wikipedia Pages

Archaeomagnetic dating