synchronisation of civilisations in the eastern mediterranean, 2007

005_012 Contents.qxd 04.06.2007 16:57 Seite 8

MANFRED BIETAK, ERNST CZERNY (EDITORS)

THE SYNCHRONISATION OF CIVILISATIONS IN THE EASTERNMEDITERRANEAN IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM B.C. III

TITBIET_berger_neu.PMD 18.06.2007, 11:191

S T E R R E I C H I S C H E A K A D E M I E D E R W I S S E N S C H A F T E NDENKSCHRIFTEN DER GESAMTAKADEMIE, BAND XXXVII

Contributions to the Chronologyof the Eastern Mediterranean

Edited by Manfred Bietakand Hermann Hunger

Volume IX


S T E R R E I C H I S C H E A K A D E M I E D E R W I S S E N S C H A F T E NDENKSCHRIFTEN DER GESAMTAKADEMIE, BAND XXXVII

THE SYNCHRONISATION OF CIVILISATIONSIN THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN IN THE

SECOND MILLENNIUM B.C. III

Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 2nd EuroConferenceVienna, 28th of May 1st of June 2003

Editedby

MANFRED BIETAK and ERNST CZERNY

Editorial Committee: Irene Kaplan and Angela Schwab


Vorgelegt von w. M. MANFRED BIETAK in der Sitzung am 24. Juni 2005

Gedruckt mit Untersttzung der European Commission, High-level Scientific Conferenceswww.cordis.lu/improving/conferences

Spezialforschungsbereich SCIEM 2000Die Synchronisierung der Hochkulturen im stlichen Mittelmeerraum

im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.der sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften

beim Fonds zur Frderungder wissenschaftlichen Forschung.

Alle Rechte vorbehalten

ISBN 978-3-7001-3527-2

Copyright 2007 by sterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien

Grafik, Satz, Layout: Angela SchwabDruck: Druckerei Ferdinand Berger & Shne GesmbH, Horn

Printed and bound in Austria

http://hw.oeaw.ac.at/3527-2http://verlag.oeaw.ac.at

Special Research Programme SCIEM 2000The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean

in the Second Millennium B.C.of the Austrian Academy of Sciences at the Austrian Science Fund

British Library Cataloguing in Publication data.A Catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library.

Die verwendete Papiersorte ist aus chlorfrei gebleichtem Zellstoff hergestellt,frei von surebildenden Bestandteilen und alterungsbestndig.


CCOONNTTEENNTTSS

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

MANFRED BIETAK, ERNST CZERNY, Preface by the Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN:: HHIIGGHH AANNDD LLOOWW CCHHRROONNOOLLOOGGYY

MANFRED BIETAK and FELIX HFLMAYER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

SSCCIIEENNCCEE AANNDD CCHHRROONNOOLLOOGGYY

MALCOLM H. WIENERTimes Change: The Current State of the Debate in Old World Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

MAX BICHLER, BARBARA DUMA, HEINZ HUBER, and ANDREAS MUSILEKDistinction of Pre-Minoan Pumice from Santorini, Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

MAX BICHLER, HEINZ HUBER, and PETER WARRENProject Thera Ashes Pumice Sample from Knossos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

HENDRIK J. BRUINSCharcoal Radiocarbon Dates of Tell el-Dabca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

HENDRIK J. BRUINS, AMIHAI MAZAR, and JOHANNES VAN DER PLICHTThe End of the 2nd Millennium BCE and the Transition from Iron I to Iron IIA: Radiocarbon Dates of Tel Rehov, Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

STURT W. MANNINGClarifying the High v. Low Aegean/Cypriot Chronology for the Mid Second Millennium BC: Assessing the Evidence, Interpretive Frameworks, and Current State of the Debate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

NICOLAS J.G. PEARCE, JOHN A. WESTGATE, SHERI J. PREECE, WARREN J. EASTWOOD,WILLIAM T. PERKINS, and JOANNA S. HART

Reinterpretation of Greenland Ice-core Data Recognises the Presence of the Late Holocene Aniakchak Tephra (Alaska), not the Minoan Tephra (Santorini), at 1645 BC. . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

ILAN SHARON, AYELET GILBOA, and ELISABETTA BOARETTO14C and the Early Iron Age of Israel Where are we really at? A Commentary on theTel Rehov Radiometric Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

URO ANDERLI and MARIA G. FIRNEISFirst Lunar Crescents for Babylon in the 2nd Millennium B.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

CCHHRROONNOOLLOOGGIICCAALL AANNDD AARRCCHHAAEEOOLLOOGGIICCAALL SSTTAATTEEMMEENNTTSS:: EEGGYYPPTT

KENNETH A. KITCHENEgyptian and Related Chronologies Look, no Sciences, no Pots! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

ROLF KRAUSSAn Egyptian Chronology for Dynasties XIII to XXV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

KATHERINA ASLANIDOUSome Ornamental Scenes on the Wall Paintings from Tell el Dabca: Iconography and Context . . . . . . 191

DAVID A. ASTONKom Rabica, Ezbet Helmi, and Saqqara NK 3507. A Study in Cross-Dating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

BETTINA BADERA Tale of Two Cities: First Results of a Comparison Between Avaris and Memphis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

MANFRED BIETAKBronze Age Paintings in the Levant: Chronological and Cultural Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269


PERLA FUSCALDOTell el-Dabca: Some Remarks on the Pottery from cEzbet Helmi (Areas H/III and H/VI, Strata e/1 and d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

HELEN JACQUET-GORDONA Habitation Site at Karnak North Prior to the New Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

TEODOZJA RZEUSKASome Remarks on the Egyptian kernoi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325

CCHHRROONNOOLLOOGGIICCAALL AANNDD AARRCCHHAAEEOOLLOOGGIICCAALL SSTTAATTEEMMEENNTTSS:: TTHHEE LLEEVVAANNTT AANNDD SSYYRRIIAA

SANDRA ANTONETTIIntra moenia Middle Bronze Age Burials at Tell es-Sultan: A Chronological Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . 337

MICHAL ARTZYTell Abu Hawam: News from the Late Bronze Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357

FRANS VAN KOPPENSyrian Trade Routes of the Mari Age and MB II Hazor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367

MARIO A.S. MARTINA Collection of Egyptian and Egyptian-style Pottery at Beth Shean. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375

MIRKO NOVK

Mittani Empire and the Question of Absolute Chronology: Some Archaeological Considerations. . . . . 389

LUCA PEYRONELLate Old Syrian Fortifications and Middle Syrian Re-Occupation on the Western Rampart at Tell Mardikh-Ebla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403

UWE SIEVERTSENNew Research on Middle Bronze Age Chronology of Western Syria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423

JEAN-PAUL THALMANNA Seldom Used Parameter in Pottery Studies: the Capacity of Pottery Vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431

CCHHRROONNOOLLOOGGIICCAALL AANNDD AARRCCHHAAEEOOLLOOGGIICCAALL SSTTAATTEEMMEENNTTSS:: TTHHEE AAEEGGEEAANN,, CCYYPPRRUUSS AANNDD AADDJJAACCEENNTT AARREEAASS

LINDY CREWEThe Foundation of Enkomi: A New Analysis of the Stratigraphic Sequence and Regional Ceramic Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439

WALTER GAUSS and RUDOLFINE SMETANAEarly and Middle Bronze Age Stratigraphy and Pottery from Aegina Kolonna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451

PETER PAVKNew Perspectives on Troia VI Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473

JACKE PHILIPPSThe Amenhotep III Plaques from Mycenae: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479Comparison, Contrast and a Question of Chronology

PETER M. WARREN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495A New Pumice Analysis from Knossos and the End of Late Minoan I A

SSEECCTTIIOONN:: MMYYCCEENNAAEEAANNSS AANNDD PPHHIILLIISSTTIINNEESS IINN TTHHEE LLEEVVAANNTT

SIGRID DEGER-JALKOTZYSection Mycenaeans and Philistines in the Levant: Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501

PAUL STRMSinda and the Absolute Chronology of Late Cypriote IIIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505

Contents6


Contents

TRISTAN J. BARAKOCoexistence and Impermeability: Egyptians and Philistines in Southern Canaan During the Twelfth Century BCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509

ISRAEL FINKELSTEINIs the Philistine Paradigm Still Viable? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517

ELISABETH FRENCHThe Impact on Correlations to the Levant of the Recent Stratigraphic Evidence from the Argolid. . . 525

MARTA GUZOWSKA and ASSAF YASUR-LANDAUThe Mycenaean Pottery from Tel Aphek: Chronology and Patterns of Trade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537

SOPHOCLES HADJISAVVASThe Public Face of the Absolute Chronology for Cypriot Prehistory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547

REINHARD JUNGTell Kazel and the Mycenaean Contacts with Amurru (Syria) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551

AMIHAI MAZARMyc IIIC in the Land Israel: Its Distribution, Date and Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571

PENELOPE A. MOUNTJOYThe Dating of the Early LC IIIA Phase at Enkomi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583

CONSTANCE VON RDENExchange Between Cyprus and Crete in the Dark Ages? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595

DAVID USSISHKINLachish and the Date of the Philistine Settlement in Canaan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601

ASSAF YASUR-LANDAULets Do the Time Warp again: Migration Processes and the Absolute Chronology of the Philistine Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609

SHARON ZUCKERMANDating the Destruction of Canaanite Hazor without Mycenaean Pottery? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621

7


&L gypten und LevanteA gyptologische Abhandlungen, WiesbadenAAA Archaiologika analekta ex Athenon, AthnesAAAS Les Annales Archologiques Arabes Syriennes, AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental

Research, Cambridge Mass. AT gypten und Altes Testament. Studien zu

Geschichte, Kultur und Religion gyptens unddes Alten

ABSA The Annual of the British School at Athens, Lon-don

ActaArch Acta Archaeologica, KopenhagenADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jor-

dan, AmmanAegaeum Aegaeum. Annales darchologie genne de l'U-

niversit de Lige, LigeF gyptologische Forschungen, GlckstadtAfO Archiv fr Orientforschung, WienAHL Anistoriton History Library. Electronic Journal of

History, Archaeology and Art History,http://www.anistor.co.hol.gr/index.htm

AHw W. VON SODEN, Akkadisches Handwrterbuch,Wiesbaden

AION Annali dellIstituto universitario orientale diNapoli, Neapel

AJA American Journal of Archaeology, New York, Bal-timore, Norwood

Akkadica Akkadica. Priodique bimestriel de la Fondationassyriologique Georges Dossin, Bruxelles

American Anthropologist American anthropologist: Journal ofthe American Anthropological Association, Arling-ton, Va.

AnatSt Anatolian Studies. Journal of the British Insti-tute of Archaeology at Ankara, London

Antiquity Antiquity: a quarterly review of archaeology,Oxford

AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament. Verffentlichun-gen zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orientsund des Alten Testaments, K. BERGERHOF, M.DIETRICH et O. LORETZ (eds.), Mnster.

ArchEph Arcaiologik Efhmerj, AthenARE Ancient Records of Egypt, Volumes IIV (Reissue),

translated by J.H. BREASTED, New York, 1962.Original publication: Chicago, 1906.

ARM Archives Royales de Mari, AS AnSt Anatolian Studies. Journal of the British Institute

of Archaeology at Ankara, LondonASAE Annales du Service des Antiquits de l`gypte,

KairoASAE Annales du service des antiquites de lgypte, CaireASAtene Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Athene e

delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente, RomeASE The Archaeological Survey of Egypt, LondonASE Archaeological Survey in Egypt, London.ASN Archaeological Survey of Nubia, KairoASOR American Schools of Oriental ResearchcAtiqot cAtiqot. Journal of the Israel Department of Antiq-

uities, Jerusalem

AV Archologische Verffentlichungen. DeutschesArchologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo,Berlin/Mainz am Rhein

BA The Biblical Archaeologist. American Schools ofOriental Research, Michigan, New Haven

BAR Biblical Archaeological ReviewBAR Inter.Ser. British Archaeological Reports, International

Series, LondonBASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental

Research, New HavenBCH Bulletin de correspondance hellnique, AthensBdE Bibliothque dtude, Institut Franais dArcho-

logie Orientale, KairoBdL Bulletin de Liason, Le CaireBerytus Berytus. Archaeological Studies, Muse dar-

chologie et universit amricaine de Beyrouth,Beirut

BES Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar. ColumbiaUniversity, Brooklyn, New York

BICS Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Lon-don

BIE Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society,Jerusalem

BollMonMusPont Monumenti Musei e Gallerie Pontificie, Bol-lettino, Citt del Vaticano

BSA British School of Archaeology at Athens BSAE British School of Archaeology in Egypt, LondonCAJ Cambridge Archaeological Journal, CambridgeCCE Cahier de la Cramique gyptienne, KairoCChEM Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern

Mediterranean, ViennaCMS MATZ, F., PINI, I., and MLLER W. (eds.) 1964.

Corpus der Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel(22 vols +). Berlin; 2002. Mainz am Rhein

CNIP The Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Ancient NearEastern Studies, University of Copenhagen,Museum Tusculanum Press, Copenhagen

CRIPEL Cahiers de recherches de linstitut de Papyrologie etdEgyptologie de Lille; Socit Urbaines en gypteet au Soudan, Lille

CurrAnthr Current Anthropology, ChicagoDE Discussions in Egyptology, OxfordDemography Demography :a publ. of the Population Association

of America, Washington D.C.E&L see &LEEF Egypt Exploration Fund, LondonEES Excav.Mem. Egypt Exploration Society Excavation Mem-

oir, LondonEI Eretz Israel, JerusalemEos Eos. Commentarii Societatis philologiae polono-

rum, WroclawERA Egyptian Research Account, London.FIFAO Fouilles de linstitut franais d'archologie orientale

du Caire, Le CaireGM Gttinger Miszellen, GttingenHB Hildesheimer gyptologische Beitrge, HildesheimHesperia Hesperia. Journal of the American School of

Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton

AABBBBRREEVVIIAATTIIOONNSS


HortScience HortScience. A publ. by the American Society ofHorticultural Science, St. Joseph, Mich. [u.a.]

IAA Reports Israel Antiquites Authority Reports, JerusalemIEJ Israel Exploration Journal, JerusalemIraq Iraq. British School of Archaeology in Iraq, Lon-

don JACF The Journal of the Ancient Chronology ForumJAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society, New

Haven, Conn.JAS Journal of Archaeological Science, London, New

YorkJCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies, New Haven - Bal-

timoreJdI/ JdAI Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archologischen Instituts,

BerlinJEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, LondonJHA Journal for the History of Astronomy, CambridgeJMA Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, LondonJMS Journal of Mediterranean Studies. History, Cul-

ture and Society in the Mediterranean World,Msida

JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies, ChicagoJSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament,

SheffieldKMT KMT. A modern journal of ancient Egypt, San

FranciscoKtema Ktema: civilisations de l'orient, de la Grce et de

Rome antiques, StrasbourgKush Kush. Journal of the Sudan Antiquities Service,

KhartumKVHAA Kungliga Vitterhets Historie and Antikvitets

Akademien Konferense, StockholmL Lexikon der gyptologie, ed. by W. HELCK, W.

WESTENDORF, 7 vols. Wiesbaden 1972 ff.LAAA Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology,

LiverpoolLD Erg. K.R. LEPSIUS, Denkmaeler aus Aegypten und

Aethiopien, Ergnzungsband ed. by E. NAVILLE,Leipzig 1913.

LD K.R. LEPSIUS, Denkmaeler aus Aegypten undAethiopien, 12 vols., Berlin 1849-58, reprintedOsnabrck 1970; Text, 5 vols., ed. by E. NAVILLE,Leipzig 1897-1913.

Levant Levant. Journal of the British School of Archae-ology in Jerusalem and the British Institute atAmman for Archaeology and History, London

MDAIK Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archologischen Insti-tuts, Abteilung Kairo, Berlin, ab 1970: Mainz

MDOG Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft, BerlinMMJ Metropolitan Museum Journal, New York..MSAE Materiali e studi archeologici di Ebla, RomOBO SA Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica,

Freiburg (Swizerland)OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Fribourg - GttingenOIP Oriental Institute Publications, University of

Chicago, ChicagoOJA Oxford Journal of Archaeology, OxfordJh Jahreshefte des sterreichischen Archologischen

Institutes in Wien, WienOLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, LeuvenOpAth Opuscula atheniensia. Annual ofthe Swedish

Institute at Athens. Acta Instituti AtheniensisRegni Sueciae, Lund

Or Orientalia, Nova Series, RomeOriens Antiquus Oriens Antiquus. Rivista del Centro per le

antichit e la storia dellarte del Vicino Oriente,Rome

PAE Praktika tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Etaireias,Athens

PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly, LondonPoM IIV A.J. EVANS, The Palace of Minos, London

19211935PSBA Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology,

LondonPZ Prhistorische Zeitschrift, BerlinQGer Quaderni di Gerico, RomaRDAC Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus,

NicosiaRdE Revue d'gyptologie, ParisRecTrav Recueil de Travaux rlatifs la philologie et

l'archologie gyptiennes et assyriennes, ParisRlA Reallexikon der Assyriologie, Mnchen - Berlin.SAGA Studien zur Archologie und Geschichte Altgyp-

tens, HeidelbergSAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, ChicagoSCCNH Studies in the Culture and Civilization of Nuzi and

the Hurrians, BethesdaSDAIK Sonderschriften des Deutschen Archologischen

Instituts, Abteilung Kairo, MainzSIMA Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology. A Hand-

book of Archaeology, Gteborg, Jonsered, Sve-dalen

SIMA PB Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, Pocket-bookSJE T. SVE-SDERBERG (ed.), The Scandinavian

Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia Publications,Lund

Syria Syria. Revue dart oriental et darchologie, ParisTA Tel Aviv. Journal of the Tel Aviv University

Institute of Archaeology, Tel AvivThera IVII S. MARINATOS, Thera IVII, 19671973, Athens

19681976TUAT Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments,

GterslohTBA-AR Turkish Academy of Sciences Journal of Archaeol-

ogy, AnkaraUAVA Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiati-

schen Archologie, Ergnzungsbnde zur ZA, Mn-chen - Berlin

UF Ugarit-Forschungen. Internationales Jahrbuchfr die Altertumskunde Syrien-Palstinas, Neun-kirchen - Vluyn

UZK Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des sterrei-chischen Archologischen Institutes, Wien

WA World Archaeology, LondonWVDOG Wissenschaftliche Verffentlichungen der Deutschen

Orientgesellschaft, BerlinWZKM Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde des MorgenlandesZA Zeitschrift fr Assyriologie, Mnchen - Berlin.ZS Zeitschrift fr gyptische Sprache und Altertums-

kunde, Leipzig, BerlinZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesell-

schaft, LeipzigZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palstina-Vereins, Stutt-

gart - Wiesbaden

Abbreviations10


The phenomenon of time is looked upon within thisconference from very different angles and back-grounds as well as from different regions of research.The picture that each of us has formed is thereforedifferent and it is only natural that groups with sim-ilar backgrounds share similar ideas. Putting ourknowledge and experiences together we may achievea major breakthrough. This cannot be done withinone, two or three conferences and the research workin between. But, step by step, progress is achieved indetailed work and even if our results are not the sameas the outcomes of groups working with other meth-ods, we should not be vexed but should see differencesas a phenomenon that we can learn to understand.We believe that the international co-operation inmethods and evaluation of chronologies was neverbefore so intensive and great as it is at present and,even if major differences still exist they are mile-stones on the rocky path to a solution. The SCIEM2000-team would like to thank wholeheartedly all ofour colleagues who have participated and contributedto this conference.

This volume contains no less than 45 articles, allbased on lectures given during the 2nd SCIEM 2000Euro-conference. As in the two previously publishedThe Synchronisation of Civilisations volumes, thearticles are arranged in two main groups, viz Scienceand Chronology and Chronological and archaeologi-cal statements, the latter group being divided accord-ing to different regions of the Eastern Mediterranean.The last chapter, Section: Mycenaeans and Philistinesin the Levant, includes the proceedings of a specialmeeting on that topic within the frame of the SCIEMconference, headed by Sigrid Jalkotzy-Deger.

Atop of all these manifold papers, an introducto-ry statement by M. Bietak and F. Hfelmayer pin-points the crucial question concerning the ongoingresearch in Eastern Mediterranean chronology. Theirstatement suggests possible ways for future researchto reconcile the different chronological schemesobtained by the means of historical chronology andscientific research, which, at first glance seem to leadto aporia.

The editors hope that the following articles,which cover a wide range of different aspects ofchronological and archaeological research both indetailed studies and in more general surveys, mayfind a broad acceptance among many readers andscholars.

Manfred Bietak as a First Speaker of SCIEM 2000would like to thank the European Commission, theAustrian Research Fund and the Austrian Academyof Sciences who have financed this conference and theprinting of this volume. The Austrian Academy alsohosted the conference at its premises in Vienna. TheCity of Vienna and the Austrian Academy gave recep-tions for the participants of this conference and thusset an agreeable and stimulating atmosphere for themeetings. We would also like to especially thank Dag-mar Melman and Angela Schwab who organised theconference with lan and initiative. Angela Schwabalso produced the layout. For counselling and over-seeing of the manuscript we would like to thankHannes Weinberger of the Austrian Academy.

Manfred BietakErnst Czerny

PPRREEFFAACCEE BBYY TTHHEE EEDDIITTOORRSS


1 See BIETAK 2003: 2334.2 MANNING 1999: passim; MANNING et al. 2002: 733744; MAN-

NING & BRONK RAMSEY 2003: 111133; BRONK RAMSEY etal. 2004: 325344; last MANNING et al. 2006: 565569.

3 LAMARCHE & HIRSCHBOEK 1984: 121126; BAILLIE &MUNRO 1988: 344346; MANNING et al. 2001: 25322535.

4 HAMMER 2000: 3537; HAMMER et al. 2003: 8794.5 PEARCE et al. 2004; PEARCE et al. in this volume showed that

the trace elements of the particles of the GRIP core wouldfit even better to the Aniakchak volcano in Alaska. See alsoKEENAN 2003: 1097, who refutes the identification of theparticles in question on statistical grounds. Max Bichler

from the Atomic Institute of the Austrian Universities andSCIEM 2000 (personal communication) made it clear thatthe particles are too small to allow at present a reliableidentification with a specific volcano.

6 MANNING & SEWELL 2002: 264291; MANNING et al. 2006:565569.

7 HORNUNG 1964; BIERBRIER 1975; KITCHEN 1986; 1987;1996; VON BECKERATH 1994; 1997. For a recent reappraisalsee MLLER 2006; KRAUSS & HORNUNG 2006.

8 BRINKMAN 1972: 271281; 1976: 67; DE MARTINO 2004:3839.

IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN:: HHIIGGHH AANNDD LLOOWW CCHHRROONNOOLLOOGGYY

Since the founding of the international researchprogramme SCIEM 2000, which led to this confer-ence, we have been working toward establishing ageneral framework of interregional chronology ofthe second millennium BC. In the course of the dis-cussions and the previously and recently publishedexchanges, it became clear that this aim could beachieved in reasonable time only within the relativechronology, which means that the periodisation ofthe different regions in the Eastern Mediterraneancould be shown through their relationships to eachother. In order to apply such a scheme with absolutedates, we still have the problem of two chronologies:the historical chronology, based mainly on Egypt-ian and Assyrian chronologies and their interrela-tionship and radiocarbon chronology.1 Despite allattempts to discuss these differences away or atleast to minimize them, one has to realise that thereare periods with a considerable difference betweenradiocarbon- and historical chronology which can-not be denied nor be reconciled at the moment.2

However, other sciences being involved, we hope fordecisive results.

It can already be considered progress last but notleast within this congress that in the dating of theThera eruption, the package of 14C, the Greenland ice-core- and/or dendrochronology which looked in com-bination very impressive for some time and had stim-ulated alliances has been dissolved for various rea-sons. Raising the radiocarbon dates for the Theraeruption from the late towards the middle of the 17thcentury and thus breaking it away from the 1628/27

dendro-signal in the northern hemisphere,3 broughtthem very near to the date of tiny volcanic glass par-ticles found in a Greenland ice layer (GRIP core),identified by SIMS as originating from the Minoaneruption and dated according to the count of the year-ly ice deposition to 1645 BC.4 A rapprochement wassaid to have been a coincidence after the identificationof the particles with the Thera eruption could not beproven sufficiently.5 Nevertheless, after the ice parti-cles were abandoned as an anchor and external proof,the radiocarbon determination for the Thera eruptioncame down again to c. 1620 BC.6 A flirt with the1628/27 BC dendrosignal is not repeated for the timebeing and this way is good. The high chronology restsnow on the strength and weakness of the radiocarbondating alone.

The alternative to Radiocarbon dating, theEgyptian chronology, is based on a combination ofastrochronology (Sothis- and lunar dates), incom-plete or corrupted king lists, incomplete regnal data,genealogies of officials and time estimates based onthem and even such records as the stelae of the holyApis bulls, recording their lifespan and the kingsunder which they were born or have passed away.7

Such dead reckoning from undisputed dates of thefirst millennium backwards, such as the conquest ofEgypt by Cambyses at 525 BC, is today the preferredmethod of arriving at a historical chronology of theNew Kingdom. Historical Egyptian chronology alsorelies on the interrelationship with other chronologiessuch as the Assyrian one,8 which offers with itseponyms lists a framework which is considered with-

Manfred Bietak and Felix Hflmayer

013_024 Introduction.qxd 08.05.2007 12:57 Seite 13

in minor margins of error fairly accurate. Thechronological experts in Egyptology agree on a datefor the beginning of the New Kingdom from c. 1550to 1540 BC. There is also an understanding that themargin of error may be within 20 years both ways,but this would put pressure on the genealogies and onsome specific lengths of reign (eg. Tuthmosis II,Tuthmosis IV, Horemheb).

The two systems the radiocarbon method andthe historical chronology have periods of agree-ment such as the 14th and 13th centuries BC. It is,however, wrong to claim the time from the 18th cen-tury BC backwards as a period of agreement again,thus limiting the disagreement to two to three cen-turies. For the time before the New Kingdom wedont have such a close control over the historicalchronology as we do for the New Kingdom, especial-ly not for the time of the Old Kingdom. The radio-carbon dates obtained from this period are also notconsistent.9 For the Middle Kingdom, we have a dis-

agreement within the historical chronology betweena high and a low chronology, which are about 42years apart. Therefore we are not in the position tosay if the radiocarbon dates are in agreement withthe historical chronology or not.

On the contrary, the recent investigation of radio-carbon dates from short-lived samples throughoutthe stratigraphy of Tell el-Dabca by the VERA labo-ratory, covering successive strata from the 20th to the15th centuries BC, shows a series of time consistentdates with an offset between 100 and 150 years high-er than the historical chronology when using the highchronology of the Middle Kingdom to cover the firstpart of this stratigraphy (Fig. 1). The dates of thesuccessive strata are anchored by two historicaldatum lines to the year 5 of Sesostris III (1868 BChigh chronology) and the conquest and abandonmentof Avaris c. 1530 BC.10 Eleven phases of occupation(KD/2) are sandwiched evenly in between. Thespace of flexibility as demanded by W. Dever, J.

Manfred Bietak and Felix Hflmayer14

9 ZDIARSKY 2005: 129158. 10 BIETAK 2002: 2838, fig. 2.

Tell el-DabaPhases

N13 M L K I FH

G4

G13

E3

E2

E1

D3

D2

D1.2

D1.1

C3

C2

C1

Historical Chronologyof Egypt modgniKweNmodgniKelddiM Hyksos

Calendar Date [BC]

2 range after sequencing

? THERA ?

2100 2000 1900 1800 1700 1600 1500 1400

Fig. 1 Preliminary results of radiocarbon dates taken from the stratigraphy of Tell el-Dabca and their offset towards historical chronology (courtesy of Walter Kutschera)


Weinstein and S. Manning,11 is very limited. If onewould lengthen the time span of one stratum one hasto squeeze the others to an extent that is not accept-able. Within certain limits, such adjustments havebeen made from the beginning of the system whensub-phases appeared (ph. G/13) (Fig. 2).

Besides this, there are cross dates to other sitessuch as a combination of ceramic types of the early13th Dynasty from phase G/4 (allways dated accord-ing to pottery seriation to the beginning of the 13thDynasty) which could be related to the moat between

phases 14/13 at Ashkelon with a large number ofEgyptian seal impressions of the early 13th Dynastyin the course of a stratigraphie compare project12

(Fig. 3). Those seals definitely proved the precision ofthe Tell el-Dabca chronology which is recognized nowlargely by specialists of MB research and even by lowchronologys strongest critic W. Dever.13

The establishment of Avaris as an interregionalcentre and as the seat of a major kingdom, 108 years(time span of the 15th Dynasty according to theTurin Canon) before the New Kingdom occupation

Introduction: High and Low Chronology 15

11 DEVER 1992: 610; WEINSTEIN 1992: 2832; MANNING1999: 328.

12 STAGER 2002: 353363; BIETAK, KOPETZKI & STAGER forth-coming.

13 D. BEN-TOR 1994: 11; 1997: 16364; A. BEN TOR 2004:5253 see also the rapprochement with similar chronologiesof WEINSTEIN 1992: 38; 1995: 8490; COHEN 2002: 134136.

Fig. 2 The phasing, the stratigraphy of Tell Tell el-Dabca and the two historical datumlines (after BIETAK 2002, fig. 1)


(c. 1640 BC) can be recognized by the sudden enlarge-ment of the town to c. 250 ha and by the industriali-sation of the pottery production during phase E/2 atTell el-Dabca.14 In addition, the seriation of potterytypes helps to establish cross relationships to othersites with great precision.15

Of course Tell el-Dabca alone cannot establishinterregional chronology, but the above paragraphson its local chronology should show that the offsetbetween the series of radiocarbon dates from Tell el-Dabca and the Egyptian historical chronology isindeed real as well as significant. This time difference

of ca. 100 years or more repeats the offset betweentraditional (low) chronology (Thera eruptionaround 1500 BC) and the new radiocarbon-basedhigh Aegean chronology (middle to second half of17th century BC). Therefore, it would not make senseto try to remedy this situation by unilaterally raisingthe Aegean chronology by 100 to 150 years, claimingthat a new proportion of the relationship betweenEgypt and the Aegean has been found.16 The previousgeneration of scholars who have established the his-torical chronology by comparative methods of pre-historic archaeology were certainly no fools and havedone their best to establish a timeframe based onexports and imports, with all the difficulties such astime lags and heirloom effects involved. Even if themutual exports between Egypt and the Aegean worldare scarce or questionable in the 17th and the 16thcentury BC, one can successfully work out a relativechronology for the time before and after those cen-turies and is able to fill the gap in between by a mutu-al assessment of Cypriot pottery in Egypt andEgyptian exports to Cyprus.

To keep the unilateral rise of Aegean chronologyversus Egyptian is most difficult and leads repeated-ly to results, which would need a lot of explanation tobe even minutely possible. For example, one has toput a MC III-tomb at Arpera Mosphilos with threeTell el-Yahudiya/Lisht Ware jugs dating to the firsthalf of the 16th century BC17 (dangerously near thesupposed high Theran eruption date in the secondhalf of the 17th century BC) to the end of MC III ifnot to the transition to LC I18 without taking intoaccount the time lag between production, trans-portation to northern Cyprus (which is claimed tohave no connection to Egypt) and the deposition ofthe jug into the tomb. This should however be thetime when the LC Bronze Age should have alreadystarted, according to a LC IA2 WS I bowl in pre-eruption Thera.19 Such a chronological scenario isvery difficult to accept, even if we adjust Phase E/3,


14 BIETAK, FORSTNER-MLLER & MLINAR 2003: 171181.15 BIETAK 1991: 3147; 2002: 3042.16 MANNING et al. 2006: 565569.17 MERRILLEES 1974: 49, 52, fig. 31/1416, fig. 3840. All jugs

are of the Levanto-Egyptian group of TY Ware, Piriform1b and c. no. 14, with kettle rim, and three zones of deco-ration typologically fall into the Phase F at Tell el-Dabcaand may have been produced in the Levant, no. 15 has arolled rim and is therefore late in this series, falling intoPhase E/3 and no. 16 with a candlestick rim and segment-ed striped decoration is equally late and typologicallyanticipates already the Piriform 2 jugs of the Hyksos Peri-

od. It has two good parallels in Phase E/3 in Tell el-Dabca,which is the period shortly before the Hyksos time, i.e. firsthalf till middle of the 17th century. The three jugs fittogether and form an assemblage.

18 STRM 1957: 197, n. 6, dates the tomb to the middle of theMC III period, in a later publication into mature MC III(STRM 1965: 120, pls. VI; XV: E.11.; MERRILLEES 1974:4377) because of a flattened base of a WP III jug andparallels of a spouted RP III bowl suggests a date in a latestage of MC III but definitely excludes a LC I date.

19 On the bowl and its bibliography see MERRILLEES 2001:195202.

Fig. 3 The synchronisation of the phases of Tell el-Dabca andAshkelon (after BIETAK, KOPETZKY and STAGER forthcoming)


Introduction: High and Low Chronology

when the jug was produced, in a flexible way 2030years backwards and squeeze the phases F and G/13towards the rock solid phase G/4. Also such anadjustment would lead to highly unlikely results. Onehas to inflate the regional development and toexplain why specific Middle and Late Cypriot wareswould appear first in northwestern Cyprus more than100 years later in the same succession in south-east-ern Cyprus and finally more than 100 to 150 yearslater in the same succession in Egypt. Such a time lagmay be credible within a shorter delay of 25 years or so,but such a succession of ceramic type groups, whichreflects a production and market chronology, cannot beexpected to have been kept up after a delay of over onehundred years or more. This is an entirely unrealisticscenario, especially as we have to assume that exportsaccommodate the demands of the consumers. Itseems that the succession of Middle and Late Cypri-ot wares, as observed in Cyprus for example atMaroni,20 can also be found in a very similar succes-sion in the stratification of Tell el-Dabca, Ashkelonand in the new excavations of Peter Fischer at Tellel-cAjjl (Fig. 4). This would contradict a long delaybetween production and deposition at the above men-tioned sites in Egypt and the Levant.

Trying to make a case for the high chronology,Manning also had to explain without a detailed typo-logical treatment and material analysis that the Ther-an WS I bowl is of northern Cypriot production,despite leading experts like Karageorghis and Mer-rillees having different opinions believing it to be fromthe southern part of the island.21 Also, the LB Canaan-ite jars found in Thera must be declared as MB.

Furthermore, one has to deny various strong syn-chronisms for the Aegean LM IA and LM IB periodwith Egypt. There are good typological reasons foran early 18th Dynasty date of an Egyptian calciteointment jar found in a LH I-shaft-grave in Circle Ain Mycenae,22 showing that LM IA (which is more orless contemporary with LH I) must have ended afterthe beginning of the 18th Dynasty in Egypt. In addi-tion to that, the fact that the vessel was reworked toa bridge-spouted jar shows that this import alreadyhad a history: it was produced in Egypt, exported to

Crete, reworked on Crete, transported to the main-land, used for an unknown period, and then deposit-ed in the shaft-grave.

On the other hand, evidence for LM IA in Egyptis scarce at best, but the transition from LM IA to IBcan be narrowed down between the date of theyoungest Egyptian object found in a LM IA-contextin the Aegean and the first appearance of LM IB inEgypt. There are at least some useful contexts withLM IB material, that have been discovered in Egypt.The dating of the context of the much-discussed LMI-sherd found at Kom Rabica23 is part of the contri-bution of David Aston in this volume. It is sufficienthere to state that he provides evidence that the con-text of that sherd should be regarded as contempo-rary with strata c or d at cEzbet Helmi and thereforeshould be dated to the Tuthmoside period.24 Fromthe Saqqara Teti Pyramid tomb NE 1, there is a LMIB-alabastron and a LH IIA ring-handled cup.Together with the Aegean imports, BR I and RLWMwere found, and the Egyptian pottery from this tombshould be dated to the time of Hatshepsut and Tuth-mosis III.25 Other contexts of LM IB pottery areeither inconclusive (like Abydos or Sedment) or con-firm the first appearance of LM IB in the time of theTuthmosides in Egypt (e.g. Gurob tomb 245, where aLH IIA-alabastron was found26). Therefore, it seemsclear to us that the transition to LM IB should beplaced around 1480, the time of the early Tuthmo-sides, considering the unknown time between produc-tion and deposition of the above-mentioned,reworked Egyptian jar from Mycenae.

Also, the massive first appearance of Theranpumice in archaeological contexts (thus far nearly400 samples) in the Late Bronze Age in the Levantand in the Tuthmoside Period in Egypt and notbefore,27 would have to be explained as lingering fortwo centuries on the beaches of Egypt and the Lev-ant before being used, while thus far all pumicefound in MB-contexts and in Egypt in the SIP werefrom other volcanoes. This is mounting evidence infavour of the traditional relative or even lowerchronology, which cannot be easily brushed aside.

In toto, there are too many extreme explanations

17

20 CADOGAN et al. 2001: 7588. See also MANNING et al. 2006:471488.

21 MERRILLEES 2001: 93; KARAGEORGHIS 1990: pls. VI; XV:E.11.

22 WARREN 2006: 308.

23 BOURRIAU & ERIKSSON 1997: 95120.24 ASTON this volume.25 See WARREN 2006: 311 with references.26 WARREN & HANKEY 1989: 144; WARREN 2006: 313.27 BICHLER et al. 2002: 5570; BICHLER et al. 2003: 1121.



Fig

. 4 P

atte

rns

ofoc

curr

enci

es o

fM

iddl

e an

d L

ate

Cyp

riot

pot

tery

and

oth

er s

peci

al w

ares

in t

he s

trat

igra

phie

s of

Tel

l el-

Dab

c a, A

shke

lon,

Tel

l el-

c Ajj

l, a

nd L

achi

sh


necessary to accept the unilateral rise of Aegean LateBronze Age chronology. This construction is basedonly on a large number of implausible situations andis therefore not credible. Such a unilateral rise is alsonot necessary, as it seems that for the 17th to the 15thcenturies the offsets of radiocarbon versus tradition-al chronology are the same in Egypt and the Aegean.Therefore one can come only to the conclusion thateither the radiocarbon chronology or the historic

chronology is wrong, or both have a defect. In such acase, the mutual control would not be possible with-out the help of an independent absolute datingmethod such as dendrochronology. As we have notyet succeeded in closing the floating dendrochronolo-gies in Asia Minor and in the eastern Mediterranean,we may only compare the results of the two systemsstarting from a point of reasonable agreement, thedating of the latest ring of the keel of the Ulun


Fig. 5 Differences in the periodisation of the Minoan and Cypriot chronologies based on the historical chronology of Egypt,showing the offset towards the radiocarbon based periodisation


Burun shipwreck to 1364+15/26, using the 2s-range.28 As there was also a scarab of queen Neferti-ty (13531341 BC) found in this ship , the lifespan ofthe ship and of the queen seem to fit perfectlytogether.29 Also, the calibrated radiocarbon dates ofTell el-Amarna do not contradict the historicalchronology, having no observable offset, as the sec-ond half of the 14th century lies perfectly within themargin of error.30

Working our way backwards, we can observe anincreasingly higher date by the radiocarbon technol-ogy versus the historical chronology (see table inFig. 5). With the end of LM IA we arrive at a datingdifference of 120 to 130 years. In order to harmonisethe two chronologies, one would be obliged to inflatethe regnal years of kings of the 15th and early 14thcentury. This would be possible with the kings Tuth-mosis II and Tuthmosis IV reaching a practicallyunsupportable maximum of 20 years and creatingamong the high officials of this time unusually highages. But, to reach the age of 100 or even more iscompletely out of the question. This shows that themajor reason (or fault) for this offset cannot beblamed on historical chronology. That there is an off-set and not a false understanding in the relationshipof the Egyptian and the Aegean periodisation (sothe thesis of Sturt Manning)31 is shown by the Tellel-Dabca-series of Walter Kutschera et al. (Fig. 1)and by the late first appearance of Thera pumice inthe archaeological contexts of Egypt and the Levanti.e. not before the Late Bronze Age in the Levantand not before the Tuthmoside Period, i.e. 15th cen-tury in Egypt.32 This phenomenon cannot beexplained by a change in technology, as pumice wasalso found before, however only in much smalleramounts. The fact that this pumice lay along oldbeaches of the 2nd millennium BC in North Sinaiwould explain the sudden and massive appearance atsome sites (in addition to Tell el-Dabca, Tell Hebwaand Tell el-cAjjl) and the sudden availability oflarge quantities of pumice, which formerly had to beimported.

In summation, the agreement between 14C andhistorical chronology in the 14th century and thesharp rise of an offset a century earlier of up to 100to 150 years as well as in the preceding centuries onlyshows that the calibrated radiocarbon dates present-ed by Manning, Bronk Ramsey et al. cannot be con-sidered as a series of chronometric precision, but as aseries where the precision seems to deviate consider-ably from the 15th century backwards. This conclu-sion is the more cogent one as within the historicalchronology of the 18th Dynasty with its dense net-work of regnal and genealogical data nobody couldclaim that a mistake of more than 100 years couldhave mounted up from the Amarna period to theearly Tuthmosides (within a century).

Under such auspices, one has to ask if it would notbe worthwhile to investigate if a systemic failure inthe Mediterranean 14C evaluation could be discovered,or if the absorption of 14C was, for environmental rea-sons, different from the 15th century BC backwards.Probably, we do not know enough about what mayaffect radiocarbon and its evaluation process. For thisreason it, would be very important to close the gaps inAnatolian dendrochronology and to do the same withthe cedar tree from Lebanon. Such new standardscould be used to build up regional calibration.

In the nearer future we may collect more 14C-samples from Tell el-Dabca, especially to see, if theoffset slows down in the 14th century, for which wedo not yet have strata, as the occupation of theAmarna and post Amarna Period are denuded. Thenew project of the Oxford University laboratoryunder Christopher Bronk Ramsey, intending tomeasure well-dated Egyptian samples, is mostimportant for enlarging the experience with Egypt-ian samples. The same is true of the project of sam-pling well-dated papyri by Ezra Marcus. Accordingto our opinion, the relationship between historicaldates and 14C-dates of the New Kingdom would beof particular interest in order to see if the offsetfrom the 15th century backwards could be verifiedalso on new material.


28 NEWTON et al. 2005: 115116.29 WEINSTEIN in BASS et al. 1989: 1729.30 SWITSUR 1984: 179188; HASSAN & ROBINSON 1987: 133.31 MANNING 1999: passim; MANNING et al. 2002: 733744; MAN-

NING & BRONK RAMSEY 2003: 111133; BRONK RAMSEY etal. 2004: 325344; MANNING et al. 2006: 565569.

32 The transition between MB and LB is put for conveniencesake at 1550 BC because for the destruction of the MB citiesfor a long time Ahmose was made responsible, who hardlyproceeded beyond southern Palestine. Also the Ahmose

activities at Sharuhen only happened after the conquest ofAvaris c. 1530 BC. In the meantime it became clear thatmany of those destructions happened later and possibly aslate as from the year 22 = 1557 BC of Tuthmosis IIIonwards (DEVER 1992: 14; BIETAK 1991: 5762). In themeantime objects from Egypt, dating into the 18thDynasty were found in MB IIC contexts at Beth Shean(MAZAR 2003: 328, fig. 5) and at Kabri (Black LustrousWheelmade Ware in tomb 902, see KEMPINSKI 2002:117119, fig. 5.61/812).


Introduction: High and Low Chronology

In Egyptian chronology there are also problemsin the first half of the first and the whole second mil-lennium as well as the time before which also have tobe worked out in respect to maximal margins oferrors. A special conference was organised in Vienna(2005)33 to address this theme and more work onthese issues is being pursued in the meantime.

In respect to a realistic timetable to achieve abreakthrough, archaeologists could continue to refinethe regional relative chronologies and establish, withmutual exports and datum lines of first appearances,

especially of wide spread artefacts, a general relativechronology of the Eastern Mediterranean. Oneshould do this without being biased by absolutechronologies. One may expect that at least achievingthe relative interregional timetables could solve someproblems in absolute chronology. Most of the contri-butions to this conference were parts of this collec-tive endeavour. Above all, it seems to be most impor-tant that scientists should take the differencebetween Radiocarbon and historical chronology asseriously as we do.

21

33 Egypt & Time. SCIEM2000 Workshop on Precision and Accuracy of the Egyptian Historical Chronology. Vienna, 30 June 2 July 2005. Proceedings in Egypt and the Levant 16 (2006).

BBiibblliiooggrraapphhyy

ASTON, D. A.

2007 Kom Rabica, Ezbet Helmi and Saqqara NK 3507. AStudy in Cross-Dating, 207248, in: M. BIETAK and E.CZERNY (eds.), 2007.

STRM, P.

1957 The Middle Cypriote Bronze Age, Lund.

1965 Excavations in Kalopsidha and Ayos Iakovos in Cyprus,SIMA 2, Lund.

BAILLIE, M.G.L. and MUNRO, M.A.R.

1988 Irish Tree-Rings, Santorini and Volcanic Dust Veils,Nature 332, 344346.

BASS, G.F., PULAK, C., COLLON, D. & WEINSTEIN, J.

1989 The Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun: 1986 Cam-paign, AJA 93: 129.

BEN-TOR, A.

2004 Hazor and Chronology, E&L 14: 4567.

BEN-TOR, D.

1994 The Historical Implications of Middle KingdomScarabs Found in Palestine Bearing Private Namesand Titles of Officials, BASOR 294: 722.

1997 The Relations between Egypt and Palestine in theMiddle Kingdom as Reflected by ContemporaryCanaanite Scarabs, IEJ 47, 162189.

BICHLER, M., EXLER, M., PELTZ, C. and SAMINGER, S.

2003 Thera Ashes, 1121, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), 2003.

BICHLER, M., PELTZ, C., SAMINGER, S. and EXLER, M.

2002 Aegean Tephra An Analytical Approach to a Con-troversy about Chronology, E&L 12: 5570.

BIETAK, M.

1991 Egypt and Canaan During the Middle Bronze Age,BASOR 282: 2872.

2002 Relative and Absolute Chronology of the MiddleBronze Age: Comments on the Present Stage ofResearch, 3042, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), 2002.

2003 Science versus Archaeology: Problems and Conse-quences of High Aegean Chronology, 2334, in: M.BIETAK (ed.), 2003.

BIETAK, M., FORSTNER-MLLER, I. and MLINAR, C.

2003 The Beginning of the Hyksos Period at Tell el-Dabca:A Subtle Change in Material Culture, 171181, in: P.FISCHER (ed.), Contributions to the Archaeology andHistory of the Bronze and Iron Ages in the EasternMediterranean. Studies in Honour of Paul strm.sterreichisches Archologisches Insitut Sonder-schriften Band 39, Vienna.

BIETAK, M., KOPETZKY, K. and STAGER, L.

forthc. Stratigraphie compare nouvelle: The Synchronisa-tion of Ashkelon and Tell el-Dabca. in: J.C.MAGUERON, P. DE MIROSCHEDJI & J.P. THALMANN (eds.),Proceedings of the IIIrd ICAANE Conference in Paris2001, Paris.

BIETAK, M. (ed.)

2002 The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant. Proceedings of anInternational Conference on MB II A Ceramic Material,Vienna 24th26th of January 2001, CChEM 3, Vienna.

2003 The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the EasternMediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II. Pro-ceedings of the SCIEM 2000 EuroConference, Hain-dorf 2nd of May7th of May 2001. CChEM 4, Vienna.


BIETAK, M. and CZERNY, E. (eds.)

2007 The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the EasternMediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. III. Pro-ceedings of the SCIEM 2000 2nd EuroConference, Vien-na, 28th of May1st of June 2003, CChEM 9, Vienna.

VON BECKERATH, J.

1994 Chronologie des gyptischen Neuen Reiches, HB 39,Hildesheim.

1997 Chronologie des pharaonischen gypten, MS 46, Mainz.

BOURRIAU, J. and ERIKSSON, K.O.

1997 A Late Minoan Sherd from an Early 18th DynastyContext at Kom Rabica, Memphis, 95120, in: J.PHILLIPS, L. BELL, B.B. WILLIAMS, J. HOCH and R.J.LEPROHON (eds.), Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and theNear East. Studies in Honour of Martha Rhoads Bell,vol. I, San Antonio, Tx.

BIERBRIER, M.

1975 The Late New Kingdom in Egypt, Warminster.

BRINKMAN, J.A.

1972 Foreign Relations of Babylonia from 1600 to 625 BC:the Documentary Evidence, AJA 76: 271281.

1976 Materials and Studies for Kassite History Vol. 1, A Cat-alogue of Cuneiform Sources Pertaining to SpecificMonarchs of the Kassite Dynasty, Chicago.

BRONK RAMSEY, C., MANNING, S.W. and GALIMBERTI, M.

2004 Dating the Volcanic Eruption at Thera, Radiocarbon46: 325344.

CADOGAN, G., HERSCHER, E., RUSSELL, P. and MANNING, S.W.

2001 Maroni-Vournes: a Long White Slip Sequence and itsChronology, 7588, in: V. KARAGEORGHIS (ed.), 2001.

COHEN, S.L.

2002 Canaanites, Chronologies, and Connections. The Rela-tionship of Middle Bronze Age IIA Canaan to MiddleKingdom Egypt, Studies in the Archaeology and His-tory of the Levant 3, Winona Lake, Ind.

DEVER, W.G.

1992 The Chronology of Syria-Palestine in the Second Mil-lennium B.C.E.: A Review of Current Issues, BASOR288: 125.

HAMMER, C.U.

2000 What can Greenland Ice Core Data Say About theThera Eruption in the 2nd Millennium BC? 3537, in:M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisationsin the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second MillenniumB.C. Proceedings of an International Symposium atSchlo Haindorf, 15th17th of November 1996 and at theAustrian Academy, Vienna, 11th12th of May 1998.CChEM 1, Vienna.

HAMMER, C.U., KURAT, G., HOPPE, P., GRUM, W. and CLAUSEN,H.B.

2003 Thera Eruption Date 1645 BC Confirmed By New IceCore Data? 8794, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), 2003.

HASSAN, F.A. and ROBINSON, S.W.

1987 High-Precision Radiocarbon Chronometry of Ancient

Egypt, and Comparisons with Nubia, Palestine andMesopotamia, Antiquity 61: 119135.

HORNUNG, E.

1964 Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und Geschichte desNeuen Reiches, A 11, Wiesbaden.

HUNGER, H. and PRUZSINSZKY, R. (eds.)

2004 Mesopotamian Dark Age Revisited. Proceedings of anInternational Conference of SCIEM 2000. Vienna8th9th November 2002. CChEM 6, Vienna.

KARAGEORGHIS, V.

1990 Tombs at Palaepaphos 1. Teratsoudhia. Elimylia, Nicosia.

KARAGEORGHIS, V. (ed.)

2001 The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus. Pro-ceedings of an International Conference organized by theAnastasios G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia in Honor ofMalcolm Wiener, Nicosia 29th30th October 1998,CChEM 2, Vienna.

KEENAN, D.J.

2003 Volcanic Ash Retrieved from the GRIP Ice Core is notfrom Thera. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 4(11):9009 doi:10.1029/2003GC000588.

KEMPINSKI, A.

2002 Tel Kabri, The 19861993 Excavation Seasons, Tel AvivUniversity, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute ofArchaeology Monograph Series 20, Tel Aviv.

KITCHEN, K.A.

1986 The Third Intermediate Period (1100650 BC)2nd edi-tion, Warminster.

1987 The Basics of Egyptian Chronology in Relation to theBronze Age, 3755, in: P. ASTRM (ed.), High, Middleor Low? Acts of an International Colloquium onAbsolute Chronology held at the University of Gothenburg20th22nd August 1987, Part 1, Gothenburg.

1996 The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt: A Cur-rent Assessment, Acta Archaeologica 67: 118.

KRAUSS, R. and HORNUNG, E.

2006 Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Leiden.

MANNING, S.W.

1999 A Test of Time. The Volcano of Thera and the Chronol-ogy and History of the Aegean and East Mediterraneanin the Mid Second Millennium BC, Oxford.

MANNING, S.W. and BRONK RAMSEY, C.

2003 A Late Minoan III Absolute Chronology for theAegean Combining Archaeology with Radiocarbon,111133, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), 2003.

MANNING, S.W., BRONK RAMSEY, C., DOUMAS, C., MARKETOU,T., CADOGAN, G. and PEARSON, C.L.

2002 New Evidence for an Early Date for the Aegean LateBronze Age and Thera Eruption, Antiquity 76:733744.

MANNING, S.W., BRONK RAMSEY, C., KUTSCHERA, W., HIGHAM,T., KROMER, B., STEIER, P. and WILD, E.-M.

2006 Chronology for the Aegean Late Bronze Age17001400 B.C., Science 312: 565569.




MANNING, S.W., CREWE, L. and SEWELL, D.A.

2006 Further Light on Early LCI Connections at Maroni,471488, in: E. CZERNY, I. HEIN, H. HUNGER, D.MELMAN & A. SCHWAB (eds.), Timelines, Studies inHonour of Manfred Bietak, OLA 149.2, Leuven-Paris-Dudley, MA.

MANNING, S.W., KROMER, B., KUNIHOLM, P.I. andNEWTON, M.W.

2001 Anatolian Tree-Rings and a New Chronology for theEast Mediterranean Bronze-Iron Ages, Science 294:25322535.

MANNING, S.W. and SEWELL, D.A.

2002 Volcanoes and History: A Significant Relationship?The Case of Santorini, 264291, in: R. TORRENCE andJ. GRATTAN (eds.), Natural Disasters and CulturalChange, London and New York.

DE MARTINO, S.

2004 A Tentative Chronology of the Kingdom of Mittanifrom its Rise to the Reign of Turatta, 3542, in:HUNGER and PRUZSINSZKY 2004.

MAZAR, A.

2003 Beth Shean in the Second Millennium B.C.E.: FromCanaanite Town to Egyptian Stronghold, 323339, in:M. BIETAK (ed.), 2003.

MERRILLEES, R.S.

1974 Trade and Transcendence in The Bronze Age Levant,SIMA 39, Gothenburg.

2001 Some Cypriote White Slip Pottery from the Aegean,195202, in: V. KARAGEORGHIS (ed.), 2001.

MLLER, V.

2006 Egyptian Chronology, E&L 16: 203230.

NEWTON, M.W., TALAMO, S., PULAK, C., KROMER, B. andKUNIHOLM, P.

2005 Die Datierung des Schiffswracks von Uluburun,115116, in: Das Schiff von Uluburun. Welthandel vor3000 Jahren. Katalog der Ausstellung des DeutschenBergbau-Museums Bochum vom 15. Juli 2005 bis 16.Juli 2006, Bochum.

LAMARCHE, V.C. and HIRSCHBOECK, K.K.

1984 Frost Rings in Trees as Records of Major VolcanicEruptions, Nature 307, 121126.

PEARCE, N.J.G., WESTGATE, J.A., PREECE, S.J., EASTWOOD,W.J. and PERKINS, W.T.

2004 Identification of Aniakchak (Alaska) Tephra in Green-land Ice Core Challenges the 1645 BC Date for MinoanEruption of Santorini. Geochemistry, Geophysics,Geosystems 5(3):Q03005 doi:10.1029/2003GC000672.

PEARCE, N.J.G., WESTGATE, J.A., PREECE, S.J., EASTWOOD,W.J., PERKINS, W.T. and HART, J.S.

2007 Reinterpretation of Greenland Ice-Core Data Recog-nises the Presence of the Late Holocene AnaiakchakTephra (Alaska), not the Minoan Tephra (Santorini),at 1645 BC., 139148, M. BIETAK and E. CZERNY(eds.), 2007.

STAGER, L.

2002 The MBIIA Ceramic Sequence at Tel Ashkelon and itsImplications for the Port Power Model of Trade,353363, in: M. BIETAK (ed.), 2002.

SWITSUR, V.R.

1984 Radiocarbon Date Calibration Using HistoricallyDated Specimens From Egypt and New RadiocarbonDeterminations for El-Amarna, 178188, in: B. KEMP,Amarna Reports I, London.

WARREN, P.

2006 The Date of the Thera Eruption in Relation to Aegean-Egyptian Interconnections and the Egyptian Histor-ical Chronology, 305321, in: E. CZERNY, I. HEIN,H. HUNGER, D. MELMAN and A. SCHWAB (eds.), Time-lines, Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, OLA 149.2,Leuven-Paris-Dudley, MA.

WARREN, P. and HANKEY, V.

1989 Aegean Bronze Age Chronology, Bristol.

WEINSTEIN, J.M.

1992 The Chronology of Palestine in the Early Second Mil-lennium B.C.E., BASOR 288: 2746.

1995 Reflections on the Chronology of Tell el-Dabca,8490, in: W.V. DAVIES and L. SCHOFIELD (eds.),Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant. Interconnections inthe Second Millennium BC, London.

ZDIARSKY, A.

2005 Die Radiokarbondatierung und ihre Anwendung in dergyptologie. Methodik und Daten. Unpublished MA-thesis, Vienna University.


* Institute for Aegean Prehistory

TTIIMMEESS CCHHAANNGGEE::TTHHEE CCUURRRREENNTT SSTTAATTEE OOFF TTHHEE DDEEBBAATTEE IINN OOLLDD WWOORRLLDD CCHHRROONNOOLLOOGGYY

Questions of chronological contemporaneity are atthe heart of current discussions of the interactionand reciprocal influence between the early civiliza-tions of the Mediterranean world. In order to consid-er such interactions, whether in the broad terms ofworld systems theory and core-periphery analysis orwith respect to more precise modalities of interac-tion, it is necessary to establish what phase of Civi-lization A was in contact with what phase of Civi-lization B. No wonder, then, that chronology exercis-es its fascination. However, as Kenneth Kitchen hasobserved, chronology is not an academic disciplinebut a disease (Kitchen, pers. comm. of 1 February2003, for which I am most grateful), or as I would say,an addiction, and indeed once one is hooked, it ishard to recover, whatever the cost to the historicalwork for which the chronological information was ini-tially sought. Moreover, one pursues chronologyknowing that whatever is said may be obsolete by thetime it is published.

Chronological progress with respect to the ancientMediterranean civilizations of the third and secondmillennia B.C. requires bridging the gap between thetwo cultures, scientific and humanistic, describedhalf a century ago by the British scientist, novelistand distinguished civil servant C.P. Snow. Accordingto Snow, the two cultures existed in a state of mutu-al disdain and in almost total ignorance of the basicpremises of the other (SNOW 1959; 1967; see alsoMUHLY 2003). In Old World archaeology and ancienthistory the problem has been particularly acute attimes, with some practitioners trained in art history,classics and Near Eastern or Egyptian studies lack-ing basic knowledge of the strengths and limitationsof the relevant sciences or of statistics. Conversely,many scientists working on archaeological materialare unable to gauge the strengths or partial limita-tions of Egyptian and Near Eastern text-based dat-ing, or the current state of understanding of Egypt-ian astronomy, or the reliability of data and inter-pretations from sciences other than their own.

Indeed, even with the broad disciplines of Old Worldarchaeology and linguistics, an information explosionhas resulted in many cases in increasing specializa-tion and concomitant difficulties in communicationacross geographic and material-based specializations.Communication shows signs of improvement, howev-er, as archaeometry develops as a major subdisciplineand more students are trained in archaeological sci-ence. Growing sophistication in science amongarchaeologists is accompanied, however, by growingcomplexity and the arrival of information, some ofpotential critical chronological importance, from newand unfamiliar sources and sciences.

EEGGYYPPTTIIAANN AASSTTRROONNOOMMYY,, TTEEXXTTSS AANNDD IINNTTEERRCCOONNNNEECCTTIIOONNSS

It seems appropriate to begin a synopsis of the cur-rent state of the debate in Old World chronologywith the first of the sciences harnessed to the task,astronomy, and in particular the astronomical datesfrom Egypt. These of course come in two forms:Sothic dates, i.e., observations of the first rising ofthe dog star Sirius, and lunar dates, based in Egypton the day when the crescent moon is no longer visi-ble (unlike Babylonia where lunar dates are measuredfrom the first visibility of the new moon). A recentpaper by the late Patrick OMara casts doubt on thereliability of the basic critical assertion of Censori-nus, an Egyptian third century A.D. Roman gram-marian, who reported that a heliacal rising of Sothishad occurred on Egyptian civil new years day inA.D. 139. OMara notes that the date asserted wasthe birthday of Censorinus great patron and that,uniquely in this case, Censorinus gave no data to sup-port his statement. OMara accepts another text, theCanopus Decree, but argues that the resultant Sothicdates can vary by twelve years (OMARA 2003). TheSothic calendar question is primarily relevant to Mid-dle Kingdom Egypt, because of the importance ofthe date proposed by PARKER (1950) of 1872 B.C. fora heliacal rising of Sirius recorded on a particulardate in the seventh year of Senwosret III. R. Krauss

Malcolm H. Wiener*

025_048 Wiener.qxd 08.05.2007 14:34 Seite 25

believes that the Parker date is untenable because theattributions of the Illahun lunar dates on whichParker based his computations were incorrect andthat on the basis of lunar dates the seventh year ofSenwosret III falls in 183130 B.C. Krauss lunar cal-culations imply an end date for the Twelfth Dynastyof 176059 B.C. (KRAUSS, this volume).

Lunar dates remain controversial in somerespects. Calculation of crescent visibility is difficultbecause of the complexity of the moons orbit andthe requirement of extreme accuracy Keplerthought the computation of the exact time of con-junction impossible and because of the difficulty ofdeveloping impartial criteria of visibility at variouspossible locations. R.A. Wells argues that the originalEgyptian lunar observations yield so large a numberof alternative readings and dates that no determi-nate calendrical system can be demonstrated. Recentexperimental archaeology shows that it is difficult toobtain agreement among observers as to the day onwhich the old lunar crescent is no longer visible(WELLS 2002; 1992; SPALINGER 1992a). R. KRAUSS(this volume) remarks that the experiments in ques-tion did not involve experienced professionalobservers as would likely have been the case inancient Egypt, but also notes that dust storms orovercast skies can make observations difficult, par-ticularly at certain times of the year.

R. Krauss believes, however, that 1479 B.C. can beestablished as the precise year of the accession ofTuthmosis III with a high degree of probability. Heargues that it is possible in almost all cases to elimi-nate many of the alternative interpretations ofrecorded lunar sightings stressed by Wells by virtueof their incompatibility with historical and otherdata at various points in the chain of dates which thediscarded alternative readings would require(KRAUSS, this volume). Confirmation is found in ahistorical chain buttressed by astronomical observa-tions from various reigns which R. Krauss believesrequires an accession date between 147976 B.C. forTuthmosis III on independent grounds (I am mostgrateful to R. Krauss for making his cogent analysisavailable to me prior to publication).

If, however, astronomical uncertainty could beshown to exist, how significant a difference would itmake for Egyptian absolute chronology, particularlyfor the New Kingdom? Recall that without referenceto astronomy K. Kitchen, by adding the last knownregnal years of rulers and analyzing other data, wasable to affirm an accession date for Ramses II notlater than 1270 B.C. at the very latest, but more like-ly between 1274 and 1279 B.C. (KITCHEN 1987; 1996,

113; 2002, 9). This result fits independently-derivedAssyrian/Babylonian regnal dates considered accu-rate to within about a decade back to 1400 B.C.,which are securely connected to Egyptian chronologythrough correspondence between Egyptian and NearEastern rulers (KNUDTZON 1915; MORAN 1992;RAINEY 1978; COHEN and WESTBROOK 2000; DIET-RICH and LORETZ 1985; ROHL and NEWGROSH 1988;CAMPBELL 1964; ALBRIGHT 1975). The prevailing NearEastern chronology, as set forth by Brinkman, posit-ing an eight-year overlap between the reigns of Nin-urta-apil-Ekur of Assur and Meli-Shipak of Babylon(BRINKMAN 1972, 272273; 1976, 3133) has recentlyreceived confirmation through the discovery at Assurof tablets containing correspondence between theserulers (FRAHM n.d.; Brinkman, pers. comm.). TheKitchen schema is also consistent with the date of925/26 B.C. proposed by Thiele half a century ago forthe invasion by Shishak in the fifth year of Rehoboamreported in the Hebrew Bible (THIELE 1983), a datewhich cannot be moved by more than about a decadegiven the secure date of 853 B.C. in the Assyrianannals for the battle of Qarqar during the reign ofAhab. R. Krauss believes that Egyptian lunar obser-vations independently establish 926/25 B.C. as thedate of the invasion by Shishak/Shoshenq I as setforth in his contribution to this volume.

Because the lunar date closest to 127079 B.C. forthe accession of Ramses II was already believed to be1279 B.C. on the earlier analyses of Krauss, vonBeckerath and Hornung, Kitchen reasoned that oneor more pharaohs or high priests might have ruled orserved slightly longer than their last known year. Heaccordingly accepted 1279 B.C. for the accession ofRamses II, and hence 1479 B.C. for the accession ofTuthmosis III via a series of texts covering the inter-vening two centuries. These dates thus form the basisof the current standard, widely accepted EgyptianChronology for the New Kingdom (KITCHEN 1987;1992; 1995; 1996, 113; 2002). If the lunar datescould no longer be maintained as suggested by R.A.Wells, then it would seem preferable to cite the criti-cal Tuthmosis III accession date as c. 1475 B.C.,rather than as 1479 B.C. (K. Kitchen has kindlyinformed me that he concurs with this suggestion ina pers. comm. of 25 February 2003, for which I ammost grateful). The difference is accordingly minor.It is, however, far from clear that any change is nec-essary, for if R. Krauss is correct, then 1479 B.C.remains the exact year for the accession of Tuthmo-sis III and hence constitutes the earliest exact yeardate for any civilization at the present time. (Astron-omy apart, the earliest certain annual date estab-

Malcolm H. Wiener26

025_048 Wiener.qxd 08.05.2007 14:34 Seite 26

Times Change: The Current State of the Debate in Old World Chronology

lished via continuous written records is the year 911B.C. from the Assyrian annals.) Both K. Kitchen andR. Krauss concur that if the accession year of Tuth-mosis III is 1479 B.C., then texts and inscriptionssuggest c. 1539 B.C. as the most likely date for theaccession of Ahmose and the beginning of the NewKingdom. The conquest of Avaris and the expulsionof the Hyksos from Egypt between the eleventh andtwenty-second year of Ahmose, but more likely clos-er to the latter (BIETAK 1996, 81; BOURRIAU 1997,159) would thus occur between 1528 and 1517 B.C.,followed by the first campaign of Ahmose in the NearEast, including his three-year siege of the importantsite of Sharuhen. The appearance of considerablenumbers of New Kingdom artifacts in the Near Eastpresumably follows these events in time (see below).

IICCEE--CCOORREE DDAATTIINNGG

Let us now consider proposals for dating the AegeanBronze Age by recent scientific observations, begin-ning with the argument from the Greenland ice cores.Work at the frontier of science with respect to thedifficult extraction of the cores, the counting of theirannual laminations, and the chemical analysis ofglass shards, each much smaller than the width of thehuman hair, has led Hammer et al. to propose thatthe eruption of Thera, in the mature-to-final phase ofLate Minoan IA, can be dated to 1645 4 B.C.(HAMMER et al. 2001; 2003). While some haveexpressed surprise that ice-core dating could be soprecise, Hammer and Clausen note that the layershave been counted separately by themselves and twostudents, and that the counting was repeated yearslater with the same results (HAMMER, pers. comm.).Moreover, the ice-core record contained shards iden-tified as coming from the eruption of Vesuvius inA.D. 79 in an ice-core lamination counted to be onlyone year away from the known date. The putativeone-year error A.D. 79, the actual year of the erup-tion, rather than A.D. 80, when the tephra shouldhave reached Greenland, in Hammers view isattributed by Hammer to a difficult-to-read ice-corelamination in the year A.D. 1936, when one yearcould be read as two (Hammer, pers. comm. of 21March 2001, for which I am most grateful). Accord-ingly, it appears that the 1645 4 B.C. date range forthe glass shards in question is likely to be correct.Leading proponents of the Aegean Long Chronologyat one point advocated combining this date rangewith the dates resulting from a proposed upwardshift of 22 +4/7 years in the dates for the Anatolianfloating tree-ring chronology (see below) which wouldplace the growth spurt evident in the logs from Por-

suk near the Cilician Gates in 1650 +4/-7 B.C. (MAN-NING et al. 2001). A date between 1650 and 1643 B.C.for the eruption is consistent with both claims.

While the date of the particles in the Greenlandcore seems reasonably secure, the Theran origin pro-posed for these glass shards is not. Only volcanicshards no larger than a few microns are light enough toreach Greenland from Thera before falling out of thestratosphere, but such minute particles are challengingto source chemically with sufficient precision to distin-guish between similar eruptions, although it is possibleto exclude clearly dissimilar sources. (See HAMMER etal. 2003; KEENAN 2003; PEARCE et al. 2004.)

It is clear from the papers cited that the terms ofdiscussion have moved considerably since the presen-tation of the Extended Abstract by HAMMER et al.(2001) at the 2001 SCIEM EuroConference, whichshould not be regarded as surprising given the enor-mous challenge presented by the task. Proponents ofthe identification of the Greenland glass shards asTheran no longer believe that similarity in the bulkelements supports the proposition, or that a similareuropium anomaly exists in the Theran and Green-land shards, but rather that the abundances of theremaining rare earth elements, with the exception ofstrontium, are sufficiently similar to constitute com-pelling evidence for Thera as the source of the Green-land shards (HAMMER et al. 2001; 2003). D.J. Keenancontends, however, that the similarities are no greaterthan those between the Greenland shards and tephrafrom the eruption of Toba in Indonesia in 75,000 B.P.with respect to the twelve Toba rare earth elementstested, and moreover, that differences in compositionin four of the bulk elements between the Greenlandand Theran shards preclude Thera as a likely source(Keenan, pers. comm. with accompanying data, forwhich I am most grateful; now see KEENAN 2003. Forthe Toba eruption, see PEARCE et al. 1999). The Daw-son eruption in Alaska about 25,000 years ago alsoproduced very similar tephra (PEARCE et al. 2003;KEENAN 2003). Indeed, the empirical evidence sug-gests that massive rhyolitic mantle-sourced eruptionstend in general to produce tephra with similar rareearth element compositions (KEENAN 2003).

PEARCE et al. (2004) after detailed study alsodeclare that the dissimilarity in chemical constituentsshows that the Theran eruption was not the source ofthe Greenland shards. Indeed, Pearce et al. go further,concluding that not Thera but Aniakchak in theAleutian Chain, which experienced a mid-second mil-lennium B.C. eruption, is the highly likely source ofthe Greenland shards on the basis of extremely closesimilarity of chemical composition (see also WIENER

27

025_048 Wiener.qxd 08.05.2007 14:34 Seite 27

2003, 875876, n. 65; for Aniakchak see BEGT et al.1992). S. Manning has kindly informed me that inlight of the recent analysis he regards the ice-coredata as irrelevant to the date of the Theran eruption(pers. comm., for which I am most grateful; see MAN-NING, this volume; RAMSEY et al. 2004).

A program of analysis of all glass shards in theice-core record for the period between 1650 and 1500B.C. would be desirable, but even a massive eruptionwould not necessarily leave an acidity signal on everysquare meter of Greenland (WIENER 2003; ROBOCK2000 and pers. comm., for which I am most grateful;ROBOCK and FREE 1995).

DDEENNDDRROOCCHHRROONNOOLLOOGGYY

The potential contribution of dendrochronology toOld World chronology is evident. Because of the cen-tury-long history of data collection and analysis inthe southwest United States, excavators of NativeAmerican sites sometimes know the exact year eachroom in a building and each building at a site wasconstructed. It has even been possible in someinstances to determine which communities sharedcommon logging areas, and which did not (NASH2000, 6082). In England, Ireland and Germany,trees with recognizable overlapping years because ofsimilar weather patterns enable us to construct con-tinuous chronologies back to the Neolithic. In theNear East and Aegean the sequence is not yet com-plete, due in part to gaps during the Classical era andparticularly during the Roman Empire, when thewood used was imported from the entire Romanworld from the Baltic to the Levant and hence oftenreflects climate patterns that cannot be compared. Afloating chronology has been constructed, however,that forms a continuous sequence from the twenty-seventh to the seventh century B.C., incorporating atits core a 1,028-year sequence of juniper logs fromGordion and including the juniper from Porsuk pre-viously mentioned. The absolute dates of the floatingchronology are now fixed in all likelihood to within+8/10 years, as established by a comparison betweenfifty-two decadal radiocarbon determinations fromthe Anatolian junipers and the 1998 internationalcalibration curve (INTCAL98) which is based onmeasurements of German and Irish oak, and by thefact that component parts of the Anatolian sequenceend in closely dated historical contexts at Gordion inPhrygia and particularly at Ayanis in Urartu (NEW-TON and KUNIHOLM 2004).

A prior suggestion that the floating chronologycould be anchored absolutely by the appearance inthe Anatolian sequence of tree-ring events 469 years

apart, just as in the oaks of Ireland and Englandwhere the events are dated to c. 1628 and 1159 B.C.,has been withdrawn in light of subsequent research(MANNING 1999, 313314; 2004b; MANNING et al.2001; RENFREW 1996). The event previously placedat c. 1159 B.C. has not been found in logs subse-quently examined, indicating that the event mayhave been local. Moreover, radiocarbon measure-ments of the Anatolian juniper sequence by Man-ning, Kromer, Kuniholm and Newton against theEuropean oak-based INTCAL98 calibration curvedeterminations and against their own measure-ments of German oak for the seventeenth and six-teenth centuries B.C. led to the conclusion that abetter fit is obtainable by shifting the Anatolianfloating sequence back 22 +4/7 years, as describedabove. The adjustment would shift the previouslyproposed date for the major growth spurt experi-enced by all sixty-one of the Porsuk trees from theyear 1628 B.C. to 1650 +4/7 B.C. (MANNING et al.2001). The result would thus fit the proposed datefor the appearance of the glass shards in the Green-land ice core (whose relevance to the Theran erup-tion, however, is now widely debated, even by itsformer proponents, as noted above), while removingthe Anatolian floating chronology from the 1628B.C. date for a major climate event reflected in treerings in the pines of California and the oaks of Ger-many, Ireland and England, previously identifiedwith the Theran eruption by proponents of theAegean Long Chronology, but now also deemed bymost to be irrelevant (MANNING and SEWELL 2002;MANNING, this volume). Dendrochronologicalresearch thus far has revealed no indication of a sig-nificant growth anomaly in the trees of California,Ireland, England or Germany around 165040 B.C.While the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) icecore witnesses a volcanic event around 1626 B.C.,the signal is clearly much less pronounced than the1645 4 B.C. event (CLAUSEN et al. 1997). It shouldbe noted, however, that the magnitude of an acidityspike is only loosely correlated to the VolcanicExplosivity Index (VEI) of the eruption causingthe spike (KEENAN forthcoming, table 1). Amongthe other factors which influence the magnitude arethe sulfur content of the eruption, the prevailingcirculation conditions in the stratosphere andatmosphere, and the location of the eruption(ROBOCK 2000). Similarly, it now appears doubtfulthat any of the B.C. events visible in the Irish oaksare the result of volcano-induced weather anomalies(MANNING and SEWELL 2002; Manning, pers. comm.of 17 February 2003).

Malcolm H. Wiener28

025_048 Wiener.qxd 08.05.2007 14:34 Seite 28

Times Change: The Current State of the Debate in Old World Chronology

As to the growth spurt in the Porsuk trees nowplaced at 1650 +4/7 B.C., however, Kuniholmargues that whatever the effects of the Theraneruption elsewhere, the trees used at Porsuk, 820km. downwind of Thera, would probably haveresponded to the additional moisture resulting fromrainstorms caused by the eruption. The local effectsof non-local eruptions can vary significantly, how-ever. The logs of Gordion, from a semi-arid zone inAnatolia where additional moisture might beexpected to have a significant effect, do not showany unusual effect near this date (KUNIHOLM et al.1996, 780782; Kuniholm and Newton, pers. comm.of 19 November 2002, for which I am most grate-ful). Of course the identification of the Aniakchakeruption as the source of the glass shards in theGreenland ice core at 1645 4 B.C. suggests the pos-sibility that the Porsuk log growth spurt of 1650+4/7 B.C., if caused by a weather-forcing volcanicevent, may possibly be attributable to this Alaskaneruption also. Recent work on the Porsuk dating,however, suggests that there may be no overlap indates (165350 B.C. best dates for Porsuk anomaly,1645 4 B.C. for Aniakchak [Kuniholm, pers.comm.; Manning, pers. comm.]). It is particularlyworth noting that the raising of the Porsuk logslast ring dates to 1573 +4/7 B.C. (pursuant to therevised radiocarbon/historical analysis discussedabove) also removes the Porsuk evidence from theargument of silence against a post-1570 B.C. erup-tion of Thera consistent with the Aegean ShortChronology.

To date no indication of a growth anomaly possi-bly related to a volcanic eruption has been reportedin the trees of Ireland, England, Germany or Cali-fornia for the period 15701470 B.C. (The initial Cal-ifornia bristlecone pine database was severely limit-ed with respect to the number of trees and extent ofarea examined for the relevant period [LAMARCHEand HIRSCHBOECK 1984]. Work now underway atthe University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-RingResearch seeks to expand the database with respectto the period 16751450 B.C. [unpublished report of

Director T.W. SWETNAM of 7 June 2002].) Theabsence of any such indication during the periodfavored by advocates of the Aegean Short Chronol-ogy for the Theran eruption was once a major tenetof the Long Chronology position, but furtherresearch and reflection have led to reconsiderationof the value of this negative dendrochronologicalevidence. It is now well understood that many fac-tors other than the degree of explosivity affectwhether an eruption is represented in the tree-ringrecord. These include the proximity of the volcano,the amount of aerosol released, its sulfur content,prevailing circulation conditions in the stratosphereand atmosphere, offsetting or reinforcing weatherfactors such as El Nio or La Nia conditions, thetime of year in relation to the growing season of thetrees in question, whether the trees exist in a robustor marginal environment with respect to tempera-ture and water, and the age and condition of thetrees at the time of the event (GRATTAN 2002; JACO-BY 2002; BRUNSTEIN 1996; IRWIN and BARNES 1980;ALLARD et al. 1991). Conversely, many non-volcanicclimate and weather related factors, includinghighly local conditions, can cause growth spurts orinterruptions in trees.

RRAADDIIOOCCAARRBBOONN DDAATTIINNGG

Recent years have seen major progress in the sci-ence and art of radiocarbon dating. Improved tech-niques of measurement at high precision laborato-ries, including lengthened counting periods at accel-erator mass spectrometry facilities and periods ofmeasurement of up to ten days at radiometric mea-surement laboratories where feasible and affordable,more stringent pretreatment protocols, andincreased cooperation between laboratories toreduce inter-lab measurement discrepancies, haveall contributed to a narrowing of proposed dateranges published, which after calibration combinestatistical and judgmental factors (KROMER et al.2001, 2530; see in general SCOTT 2003, esp. 287;MANNING 2004a; forthcoming).1 Within the pastdecade, however, high precision laboratories have

29

1 The State of Research is well described by O. CICHOCKI etal. (2003, 102): In order to measure radiocarbon ages it isnecessary to find the amount of radiocarbon in a sample.This can be achieved either by measuring the radioactivityof the sample (the conventional beta-counting method) orby directly counting the radiocarbon atoms using a methodcalled accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS). The mainadvantage of AMS over the conventional beta-counting

method is the much greater sensitivity of the measure-ment. In AMS the radiocarbon atoms are directly detectedinstead of waiting for them to decay. The physical samplesizes required are typically 1000 times smaller, allowingmuch greater choice of samples and enabling very selectivechemical pre-treatment. However, handling small amountsof sample material increases the danger of contamination.Since minute additions of non-genuine carbon can lead to

025_048 Wiener.qxd 08.05.2007 14:34 Seite 29

sometimes provided quite different date ranges formaterials divided between them, as in the case ofthe reported dates a century apart for the TurinShroud as well as for the control material of knownfirst century B.C./A.D. date (TAYLOR 1997, 8485).Examples of recent and more limited inter-labora-tory measurement differences are provided in Man-ning (2004a). Some high precision laboratoriesacknowledge slight ongoing biases, e.g., a conserv-ative upper limit of an additional unknown labora-tory error in the Heidelberg facility is eight radio-carbon years (KROMER et al. 2001, 2530).

The one standard deviation bands in which bothradiocarbon ages and calibrated dates are normallystated (pursuant to the conventional Gaussian bellcurve distribution) by definition provide only a 68%statistical chance of encompassing an accurate radio-carbon age or calibrated date under the best of col-lection and pretreatment circumstances. While thetwo sigma, 95% probability, bands for uncalibrated14C ages are twice those of the one sigma bands e.g.,sixty years instead of thirty years the calibratedbands quoted take into account various factors,including the number and duration of determina-tions, their precision (i.e., similarity to one another)and the nature of their fit to the calibration curve.Such judgments are necessarily partly subjective (seee.g., MANNING 1995, 126129) and are sometimesopen to dispute (WIENER 2003).

All statements of probability made in the courseof analyzing 14C determinations refer in

synchronisation of civilisations in the eastern mediterranean, 2007

Documents