Michele D. Stillinger, Joshua M. Feinberg, Ellery Frahm 2015

“Refining the Archaeomagnetic Dating Curve for the Near East: New Intensity Data from Bronze Age Ceramics at Tell Mozan, Syria,”
Journal of Archaeological Science 53, pp. 345-355.
DOI.

“Uncertainty in radiocarbon dates for the Near East, caused by a bimodal distribution of ages due to the natural fluctuations of ¹⁴C in the atmosphere, has demonstrated the need for an alternative absolute dating technique to aid in the construction of site chronologies.
     Here we present a new archaeointensity reference curve model for the first three millennia BCE for the Levant (Syria, Israel, Jordan) for use in archaeomagnetic dating and contribute twelve new intensity results to an increasingly dense geomagnetic field record for the period between 2400 and 1200 BCE in the Near East. Archaeomagnetic analysis was conducted on ceramic samples (i.e. pottery sherds) from seven sequential and well-constrained occupational layers at the site of Tell Mozan (Bronze Age Urkesh) in northeastern Syria, resulting in a 90% success rate by specimen (n = 42) for archaeointensity determination and an 86% correspondence between the model and the archaeologically derived dates within one standard deviation (1s). Age standard deviations as low as ±24 years were obtained after integration with stratigraphic constraints.
     We also outline the techniques and sampling procedures of archaeomagnetic dating in a manner suitable for the non-paleomagnetist while detailing methodology for archaeomagnetic researchers” [author’s abstract, on p. 345; © Elsevier Ltd.].

As already stated in aforementioned author’s abstract, this paper aims at redefining the chronology of Urkesh and other sites through the medium of archaeomagnetic analyses.

Paragraph 1, ‘Introduction’, displays the theoretical background, mentioning pivotal works such as Libby et. al. 1949 and Renfrew 1979.

Paragraph 2 provides us with an “archaeological overview of Tell Mozan” (p. 346) [table 1 on p. 347 displays a chronology of Urkesh; adapted from Urkesh Chronology].

Paragraph 3 offers a discussion about “materials & sampling procedures” (p. 346).

Paragraph 4 (from p. 347 onwards) describes ‘rock magnetic analysis‘, defining concepts and procedures as ‘susceptibility’ (sub-paragraph 4.1); ‘magnetic hysteresis’ (sub-paragraph 4.2); ‘alternating field (AF) demagnetization’ (sub-paragraph 4.3).

Paragraph 5 deals with “archaeointensity methods” (p. 349ff.), precising the following topics: ‘thermal analysis’ (sub-paragraph 5.1); ‘correction for magnetic anisotropy’ (sub-paragraph 5.2); ‘cooling rate correction’ (sub-paragraph 5.3); ‘final selection criteria’ (sub-paragraph 5.4).

Paragraph 6 presents “archaeointensity results from Tell Mozan” (p. 351), Table 2 displaying ‘average magnetic intensity and archaeological correlation’.

Paragraph 7 concludes the paper offering a discussion of all the aforementioned data.
[NB: Appendix A, provided in digital version only, adjoins supplementary data].