Roughly between the years 800 and 400 BCE—that is, just in the middle of the span of time the Hebrew Bible describes—radiocarbon dating, often used to determine the approximate age of ancient objects, is woefully inaccurate. But recently archaeologists have been experimenting with a new method, based on the electromagnetism. Amanda Borschel-Dan explains:

The magnetic field is a constantly shifting invisible shield stemming from magnetic ore in the earth’s core, which scientists believe may hold a key for the creation and continuation of life as we know it. Archaeological findings such as pottery sherds, bricks, roof tiles, and furnaces record the earth’s magnetic field as they are burned at high temperatures, causing their magnetic minerals to be re-magnetized to the direction and magnitude of the field when they were heated. These data are similar to fingerprints and are unique to the date they were recorded. The destruction layers of biblical military conquests provide copious materials from the slash-and-burn campaigns.

The more the technique is performed on archaeological sites that can serve as “anchor dates”—dates that have a high certainty of historicity, such as the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE—the more the researchers can compare results and build more complete dating tables, as well as computer models of one of the most enigmatic subjects in physics, the magnetic field.

At [one] site, Tel Beth She’an, a decades-long argument over when the destruction occurred was put to rest through the new dating tool. . . . Finding that Beth She’an was probably destroyed 70-100 years earlier than previously thought places the city’s downfall at the time of the military campaign of the Egyptian Pharaoh Shoshenq [the biblical Shishak], the researchers believe. According to a Tel Aviv University press release, this Holy Land campaign is described in the Bible and in an inscription on a wall of the Temple of Amun in Karnak, Egypt, which mentions Beth She’an as one of his conquests.

In the past few days, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the al-Qaeda offshoot that led the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad, has consolidated its rule in the core parts of Syria. Its leader, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, has made a series of public statements, sat for a CNN interview, and discarded his nomme de guerre for his birth name, Ahmad al-Shara—trying to present an image of moderation. But to what extent is this simply a ruse? And what sort of relationship does he envision with Israel?

In an interview with John Haltiwanger, Aaron Zelin gives an overview of Shara’s career, explains why HTS and Islamic State are deeply hostile to each other, and tries to answer these questions:

As we know, Hamas has had a base in Damascus going back years. The question is: would HTS provide an office for Hamas there, especially as it’s now been beaten up in Gaza and been discredited in many ways, with rumors about its office leaving Doha? That’s one of the bigger questions, especially since, pre-October 7, 2023, HTS would support any Hamas rocket attacks across the border. And then HTS cheered on the October 7 attacks and eulogized [the Hamas leaders] Ismail Haniyeh and Yahya Sinwar when they were killed. They’re very pro-Palestinian.

Nonetheless, Zelin believes HTS’s split with al-Qaeda is substantive, even if “we need to be cognizant that they also aren’t these liberal democrats.”

If so, how should Western powers consider their relations with the new Syrian government? Kyle Orton, who likewise thinks the changes to HTS are “not solely a public-relations gambit,” considers whether the UK should take HTS off its list of terrorist groups:

The better approach for now is probably to keep HTS on the proscribed list and engage the group covertly through the intelligence services. That way, the UK can reach a clearer picture of what is being dealt with and test how amenable the group is to following through on promises relating to security and human rights. Israel is known to be following this course, and so, it seems, is the U.S. In this scenario, HTS would receive the political benefit of overt contact as the endpoint of engagement, not the start.