317 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXII N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2015 318
RECENT DISCUSSIONS ABOUT evaluated with median dates which were used to wiggle THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE MIDDLE match the branch within the IntCal04 calibration curve. The AND THE LATE BRONZE AGES overall median date of the eruption is specified as 1613±13 IN THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN:1) PART I BC as a result of Bayesian statistical analysis. This result ranges within the expected radiocarbon dates on the eruption Manfred BIETAK of the Thera volcano thus far published (see Manning et al. Austrian Academy of Sciences in the volume under review). It is even toward the lower end Institute of Oriental and European Archaeology of the radiocarbon dates proposed thus far. Nevertheless the methodology of the olive branch investi- Abstract gation drew strong criticism from archaeobotanists as ever- green trees in the moderate Mediterranean do not develop In recent years discussions of the chronology of the Bronze and annual tree rings but show density fluctuations without sharp Iron Ages in the Eastern Mediterranean has played a major role in borders. They may be caused by periodical draught and this research, with special focus on the dating of the Minoan eruption may happen not only once a year.3) The Danish scientists of the Thera volcano. Historical and radiocarbon dating in some insist, however, on the correctness of their date even without cases appear to produce different results. The discussions are pub- annual tree rings.4) The critics on the other hand maintain licised with much passion and conviction and by some scientists that no proof was offered that either the tree or the branch with propaganda, with lobbying and repetitive publication. Time’s Up! presents the papers of a conference in Denmark which offered were alive at the time of the eruption. Long-dead branches a forum for these discussions. The volume is reviewed in-depth. can be seen in many olive groves in Greece still well pre- served after many years in this arid climate. Impressions of The editors leave no doubt as to their view, as the title leaves found on a lower horizon of this site, the so-called already suggests, that it is time to acknowledge specific precursor layer, can be claimed as evidence that the particu- radio carbon measurements of the date of the Thera eruption lar branch was still alive at the time of the eruption. They as the definitive resolution of the debate. It was perhaps good may, however, be remains of normal deposits in such groves, to let some time pass since the appearance of this publication leaves from any tree nearby, carried over distance by winds in order to view at the results of this conference with more at any time. distance. Moreover the cavity in which the branch was found was The main editor of the volume is an Egyptologist and his much larger than the actual branch remains and no evidence qualification for publishing and contributing on a chronology of the bark, the so-called waney edge which marks the end 5 conference is his involvement and co-authorship of a book of the lifespan of the tree, was presented by the team. ) It on Egyptian chronology under the leadership of the renowned seems that the branch may have lost its outer layer and Egyptologist Eric Hornung.2) approximately one half of its concentric rings (as shown on The reason for organising this conference at Sandbjerg in fig. 3 in Heinemeier et al., the volume under review), prob- Denmark was the investigation and radiocarbon dating of ably by decomposition and abrasion. If this is so, the carbon a branch of an olive tree from the island of Thera by two dates cannot be tied to the eruption event itself but could date scientists of the University of Aarhus who wanted to present decades earlier. Unfortunately dates of a second much larger their results and discuss them with their colleagues. branch are still unpublished nine years after the discovery by Following the editor’s preface and editor’s introduction is the same team. the keynote article of Walter L. Friedrich (geologist) and Jan In part I: Evidence, geology, archaeology & chronology Heinemeier (nuclear physicist) on the geological position of Alexander R. McBirney from the Department of Geological branches of two olive trees from the western edge of the Sciences of the Oregon University presents a Volcanic chro- major island. As a coda at the end of the book the radiocar- nology of Santorini which goes back nearly half a million bon evaluation of the first branch of the olive tree is offered years BP. He explains the different periods of eruption his- by the same authors and by the nuclear physicists Bernd tory and periods of relative calm after major eruptions such Kromer (Heidelberg lab) and Christopher Bronk Ramsey as the Minoan eruption. He cautiously predicts signs of (Oxford lab). future increased activity. Remains of branches of two olive trees were retrieved Floyd W. McCoy, volcanologist and oceanographer from from the inner edge of the caldera south of Cape Alonaki in the Department of Natural Sciences, Univ. Hawai, offers the cavities which indicate that the trees stood upright and were paper The eruption within the debate about the date. It has, probably still alive when the eruption happened. It seems that however, nothing to do with the date but is a useful summary remains of a Bronze Age olive grove had been found. The with schematic sections on the tectonic setting, the recon- first branch was investigated by X ray tomography in order struction of the pre-eruption landscape, and the phases and to recognise tree rings. Four groups of 13 to 23 rings were
3) P. Cherubini et al., PLoS ONE 8(1): e54730. doi:10.1371/journal. 1) Review article on David A. Warburton (ed.), Time’s Up! Dating the pone.0054730; idem, Antiquity 88 (2014), 267-273; P.I. Kuniholm, Minoan eruption of Santorini: Acts of the Minoan Eruption Chronology Antiquity 88 (2014), 287-288. — The findings of the plant anatomists have, Workshop, Sandbjerg November 2007, initiated by Jan Heinemeier & however, been strongly rejected by W.L. Friedrich et al., Antiquity 88 Walter L. Friedrich, Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, vol. 10, (2014), 274-247 and Sturt Manning et al., Antiquity 88 (2014), 1164-1171, Athens 2009: Aarhus University Press. ISBN 978-87-7934-024-4. without responding to the criticism about the missing bark edge and the The writer is indebted to Otto Cichocki, Walter Kutschera, Peter Warren size of the cavity where the branch had been found which suggests that part and Malcolm Wiener for reading this manuscript and for criticism. All of the outer layers of the branch may be missing. mistakes are, however, mine. 4) W.L. Friedrich et al., Antiquity 88 (2014), 274-247. 2) E. Hornung, R. Krauss, D.A. Warburton, Ancient Egyptian Chronol- 5) I owe this observation to Otto Cichocki from the Vienna Institute of ogy, Leiden 2006. Archaeological Science.
998291_Bior2015_3-4_01.indd8291_Bior2015_3-4_01.indd 296296 88/10/15/10/15 009:069:06 319 CHRONOLOGY OF THE MIDDLE AND THE LATE BRONZE AGES 320
the effects of the eruption. This is also the theme of the fol- chronology is especially firm from the 14th century BC lowing article by Walter L. Friedrich and Nikolaos Sigalas onwards. 5. Archaeological typology and stratigraphy bring- The effects of the Minoan eruption with rich illustrations on ing into play strata which can be related to well-dated kings. the effects of the eruption on houses and organic remains of 6. Radiocarbon dating, especially when radiocarbon meas- the Bronze Age settlement of Akrotiri. The observations are urements are subject to Bayesian constraints provided by based on investigations at three different sites on the island known succession of reigns, some of known duration via of Thera including the site of the olive trees (see above). The texts, as done by the Oxford Group. (These 6 tracks are con- reconstruction of pre-eruption Thera is slightly different than sidered by the authors under the heading of “relative chro- that of the previous contribution. nology”.) 7. Only astrochronology such as provided by Next come three important articles on the impact of the lunar and Sothic dates could according to the authors, pro- Minoan eruption on sites exposed to the Thera event includ- vide absolute dates. As lunar events are repetitive they may ing one or several tsunamis on the easternmost part of the therefore only provide timeframes into which the results of northern coast of Crete, at the southern edge of the Gulf of the other mentioned methods, especially dead reckoning and Mirabello. These sites are situated only about 140 km south- Sothic fixpoints, fit or not. Then follows a dead reckoning southeast of the island of Thera. exercise from the earliest historically acknowledged date of The prominent Aegeanist Philip P. Betancourt of Temple 525 BC, the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses, backwards in University deals with Evidence from Pseira for the Santorini time. From dynasty to dynasty the lacunae add to uncertain- eruption; Jeffrey S. Soles of the University of North Caro- ties and therefore the results are minimalist and lead to a lina with The impact of the Minoan eruption of Santorini on particularly low chronology with Thutmose III. reigning Mochlos, a small Minoan town on the north coast of Crete; from 1468 BC onwards. For kings like Thutmose I or Thut- and Thomas M. Brogan, Director of the Institute for Aegean mose II, only minimal reigns are considered. For Thutmose Prehistory Study Center for East Crete, and Chrysa Sofianou II only one year is allowed, although more and more monu- of the 24th Ephorate of Antiquities with Papadiokambos: ments turn up for this king, for example recently at Duqqi new evidence for the impact of the Theran eruption on the Gel in Nubia and at Tell Hebwa near Qantara. A simple con- northern coast of Crete. All three articles deal with the depo- sideration challenges this kind of chronological calculation. sition of tephra from the Thera Minoan eruption, causing Thutmose II’s accession to the throne was described in the collapse of buildings and resettlement afterwards. It is impor- tomb inscription of Inneni as “the falcon in the nest” i.e. he tant that all three sites show that the eruption happened at the was still a child.7) How could he have fathered two children, end of LM IA. Specific traces of effects and deposits of tsu- one with the queen and one with a concubine, then pass away namis were observed on Pseira.6) For Mochlos the excava- after one year, with Thutmose III already born and fit for the tors made a strong case for a sudden increase of settlement throne as a minor? just before the eruption, suggesting that this phenomenon A shortening of the reign of Horemheb from 27 to 14-15 was caused by refugees from Thera, chased away by tremors regnal years was considered in these calculations but although before the eruption. Indeed the architecture of the rebuilding the authors knew of the publication of Jared Miller about the phase shows houses with features which are in plan and synchronisation between Horemheb and Mursilis II based on mode of construction typical for domestic architecture at a recorded sun eclipse in Hattusas,8) they did not use this Thera. information. This overlap of reigns — if acknowledged — In a chapter to be considered central for the conference, firmly places the reign of Horemheb between 1314-1300 BC, Rolf Krauss and David Warburton present their view on and thus would destroy the chronology presented in their “The basis for the Egyptian dates”. Seven different tracks central article for this conference. Further, the necessity to for constructing the Egyptian chronology are presented in a accord Seti I only 9 years because of the highest dating of manner very useful for readers not familiar with Egyptian the numerous wine dockets in his tomb9) and the necessity chronology. The biological record of the physical remains of to raise the beginning of the reign of Ramses II to 1290 BC royals is, however, omitted though it is a legitimate source was a later development in chronological research not yet of information for age estimates in comparison to possible taken into consideration in the article of Krauss and regnal years, for instance. Warburton. The research tracks followed are: 1. Dead reckoning, tak- Not quite satisfactory but innovative for this reader is the ing the highest recorded regnal year of a king. The writers account on Sothic dating. The authors acknowledge that acknowledge that this will result in a minimalistic assess- the calculation of the dates depends on the geographic posi- ment of the chronological possibilities as unrecorded but tion of observing the rise of the Sothis star after its period of possible years of reign remain unconsidered in the calcula- disappearance (i.e. whether at Memphis, Thebes or First tion. 2. King lists, which are problematic in that they are Cataract). It is well known that Rolf Krauss prefers for edited with politically motivated omissions. 3. Genealogies chronological reasons the First Cataract as place of the obser- over several generations with records of contemporary kings vation for the rise of Sothis.10) The low Illahun Sothis date in order to check the feasibility of the dynastic timespans. 4. Synchronisms of Egyptian with Mesopotamian, Mittanian 7) T. Schneider, E&L 20 (2010), 373-409. or Hittite kings, particularly as recorded in the Amarna let- 8) J.L. Miller, Altorientalische Forschungen 34 (2007), 252–293; id. ters and the Boghazköy correspondence. Mesopotamian SMEA 50, 2008, 533-554. — G. Wilhelm, Die Welt des Orients 39 (2009), 108–16. 9) D.A. Aston, Egypt and the Levant 22/23 (2912/13), 289-315. 6) For tsunami deposits at Palaikastro see H.J. Bruins et al., Journal of 10) Inter alia: R. Krauss, Sothis und Monddaten, HÄB 20, Hildesheim Archaeological Science 35 (2008), 191-212. His conclusions are challenged 1985; An Egyptian Chronology for Dynasties XIII-XXV, in: M. Bietak and by M.H. Wiener, “A Point in Time”, in: Cretan Offerings, Fs Peter E. Czerny, The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterra- Warren, London 2010, 369, n. 25. nean III, CCeM 9, Vienna 2007, 173-189.
998291_Bior2015_3-4_01.indd8291_Bior2015_3-4_01.indd 297297 88/10/15/10/15 009:069:06 321 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXII N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2015 322
was supported not least because the combination with lunar displayed.14) If he would only have consulted the detailed dates preserved in the Illahun papyri of the reigns of description of the published sections in the book, he could Sesostris III and Amenemhat III provides the best fit.11) Thus not have made such statements.15) As the radiocarbon sam- besides the “dead reckoning” and the addition of known or ples from Tell el-Dab‘a produced continuous offsets of over estimated reign lengths the foundations of a very low chro- 120 years and more,16) Warburton finally came up with the nology are pre-programmed. This results in the rejection suggestion, that the phases and strata at Tell el-Dab‘a should of the identification of the throne name Djeserkare‘ of be dated according to the radiocarbon results. He insists “It Amenhotep I in the papyrus Ebers which mentions another is no longer possible to speak of an anomaly [of the radio- rise of Sothis in the year 9 of this king because it would not carbon dates]: the anomaly is the archaeological dating,” fit the proposed chronology. Instead of dropping the Ebers (p. 144) as if Tell el-Dab‘a is the only site at which one could date altogether as proposed with a different line of reasoning observe this big offset between radiocarbon dates and histori- by W. Helck12) and U. Luft13), the authors, referring to the cal chronology. The same kind of offset can be found in the reservations by A. Erman about the reading of the dsr-sign, Aegean (see the contributions of Malcolm Wiener, Peter proposed a different king without — following Erman — Warren and Felix Höflmayer) and at many sites in the Levant presenting an alternative reading. In the end, they chose (as an example, the destruction layer of Ebla where a faience instead the last Hyksos Khamudi whose throne name is scarab of the late Hyksos Period has the same high radiocar- not known! Thus, nobody can disprove this daring bon dates as the terminal Hyksos phase D/2 at Tell identification. el-Dab‘a.17) If we look, however, at the three signs of the cartouche the One has to question the wisdom of the statement of David first, a round sign, would fit well the R‘, the second is an Warburton quoted above as it would mean dating the temple “arm”-sign, and the third is a k3. In the framework of this of ‘Ezbet Rushdi of Phase K at Tell el-Dab‘a, whose plot three signs combination, there is no other “arm” hieroglyph was assigned18) according to a stela in the 5th year of Sesostris that could fit in but dsr. Moreover, one can observe a palaeo- III19) (ca. 1868 BC according to Kitchen, Luft and most graphic tendency in papyrus Eber to write the “arm” hiero- experts, and 1831 BC according to Warburton and Krauss) glyphs with an elongated circle as can be seen in Möller I at least 120-150 years earlier than the historical chronology. 101 (Eber 95,11). Such round upper arm variations are still Moreover, one would have to date the end of the occupation known in the days of Amenhotep II, e.g. Möller II, 107 of Avaris (c. 1530 BC, and 1504 BC according to Warburton (Lederhs). It seems that the second sign in the cartouche is and Krauss) to about 1650 BC, with the New Kingdom an “arm holding an item” which could be a possible varia- beginning then! Phase C/2, dated by the excavators at Tell tion on the dsr sign. Under the circumstances of the context el-Dab‘a according to scarabs of Thutmose I, Thutmose III of the “arm” sign in the cartouche it can hardly be anything and Amenhotep II (termini post quos!) and ceramic evidence else but a dsr. Indeed, no another alternative reading is to the later reign of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II, i.e. into suggested. the second half of the 15th century, should be fixed according It is clear that the writers were eager to move the date of to radiocarbon dates and Warburton to the first half of the the papyrus, and the name of Amenhotep I is an almost 16th century BC. The Egyptological reader would understand unsurpassable hurdle in this case. As the palaeography of the that this is impossible to accept and that there is a remarkable hieratic limits the number of candidates available if it is not radiocarbon offset to explain. Amenhotep I, Khamudi was chosen. However, the authors Paradoxically Warburton does not appear to realise that presented no reason to relate Khamudi to the cartouche in his own very low chronology enlarges even more the already papyrus Ebers. existing offset from radiocarbon chronology which he tries David Warburton adds a postscript on the chronology, to defend in connection with the 14C results from Tell el- stratigraphy and typology of Tell el-Dab‘a, a site crucial for Dab‘a. The group of the Oxford Research Laboratory under the understanding of chronology and history of the Second Christopher Bronk Ramsey has published an Egyptian chro- Intermediate Period in northern Egypt and the eastern Medi- nology based on radiocarbon dates of samples tied to the terranean. He believes himself qualified to offer strong criti- specific reign of a king and presented in a Bayesian analysis cism of the published chronology and stratigraphy of the site with boundaries supplied by the known succession and esti- and claims that although the evidence of this site is frequently mated length of reign of Egyptian kings. 20) The Oxford group used for establishing an interregional chronology based on rejected the low chronology of Krauss and Warburton in stratigraphic contexts and imports, only few sections are pub- favour of the standard Egyptian historical chronology (which lished. He furthermore claims that on published sections the identification of the strata is not evident for the deposits 14) P. Fuscaldo, Tell el-Dab‘a X/1, plans II-VII. 15) Ibidem, 129-132. 16) W. Kutschera et al., Radiocarbon vol. 54, No. 3-4 (2012), 407-422. 11) Ulrich Luft, who is not even cited in this chapter and is missed in the 17) K. Kopetzky, in preparation. bibliography of the book under review, used also the moon dates, however 18) The plot measured according to this stela comprises 26 mḥ what is with a less perfect fit, to position the Illahun Sothis date to 1865, finally to equivalent to the area of the early phase of the temple 1867 BC: U. Luft, SAK 16 (1989), 217-233; id., Die chronologische Fix- 19) S. Adam, Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 55 (1959) ierung des Mittleren Reiches nach dem Tempelarchiv von Illahun, Vienna pl. IX, misunderstood the text; H.G. Fischer, Revue d’Égyptologie 13 1992, 224-229; id., E&L 16 (2006), 309-316. His line of reasoning got (1961), 107-109 identified the measurements on the stela as area measure- independent support from Peter J. Huber, Journal of Egyptian History 4/2 ment; final discussion: M. Bietak, Egypt and the Levant 8 (1998), 17-19. (2011), 172-227, Rita Gautschy, ZÄS 138 (2011), 1-19, and despite reser- 20) C. Bronk-Ramsey et al., Science 328 (18 June 2010), 1554-1557; vation about observation conditions by Thomas Schneider, E&L 18 (2008), A.J. Shortland & C. Bronk Ramsey, Radiocarbon and the Chronologies of 290. Ancient Egypt, Oxford 2013. — From historical point of view and therefore 12) W. Helck, GM 67 (1983), 49. for other reasons, the low chronology was also rejected by T. Schneider, 13) U. Luft, GM 92 (1986), 69-77. E&L 18 (2008), 275-313.
998291_Bior2015_3-4_01.indd8291_Bior2015_3-4_01.indd 298298 88/10/15/10/15 009:069:06 323 CHRONOLOGY OF THE MIDDLE AND THE LATE BRONZE AGES 324
is applied, by the way, to date the stratigraphy at Tell IIA-B to early Middle Bronze IIB.25) If Conventional Egyp- el-Dab‘a).21) tian Chronology is applied, this synchronism rules out the One may say finally, that the post scriptum of David War- “High”, the “Middle” and Low Mesopotamian Chronolo- burton is the weakest contribution to the whole collection of gies and is only possible with the Mebert and the New Chro- articles. It also breaks the rules of objectivity which is nologies (Fig. 1). If the Egyptian Chronology is raised by expected from an editor. 25 years, the “High” and the “Middle” Mesopotamian Without any speculative approach Hermann Hunger, How Chronologies are still not possible, the “Low” and the uncertain is Mesopotamian chronology? gives a concise and “Mebert” Chronology are feasible while the “New” Chro- sober account on the present state of research of Babylonian nology can be ruled out. But this is a reflection of a new and Assyrian chronology, explaining possibilities to parallel development which was not yet published during the produc- both on the basis of synchronisms of rulers. The Assyrian tion of the conference papers of Sandbjerg. chronology is of particular importance. It consists of king Part II of the book is devoted to: Debate: typology, chro- lists and lists of years named after high officials (eponyms). nology, methodology. It starts with five papers — most of Unfortunately one cannot establish a continuous sequence them with an archaeological approach — in favour of low from the preserved lists. One has to wait for the publication Aegean chronology, followed by a series of papers, mainly of newly discovered eponym lists from Kültepe. The early scientific ones, supporting the high Aegean chronology. lists from the first half of the second mill. BC can be pinned The paper of J. Alexander MacGillivray on Thera, Hat- down according to a mentioned solar eclipse. Later eponym shepsut, and the Keftiu is based on the assumption that the lists are dated by other astronomic events such as lunar seismic destruction level (SDL) at the end of the MM IIIB eclipses attached to a specific year. As the lists are not com- period and the volcanic destruction level (VDL) caused by plete and the ability to link the parts with the help of astro- the eruption of Thera late in the phase LM IA can be found chronology are debatable, a possibility was opened with in historical Egyptian texts and are therefore well dated. The the discovery of the Venus tabets with omina concerning the first event is identified with the description of unusual severe appearance and disappearance of the planet Venus linked to weather conditions in Egypt described on the so-called the reign of king Ammisaduqa. As the calendar dates of these “Tempest Stela” of pharaoh Ahmose,26) the founder of the tablets are copies of nearly a millennium later and much cor- 18th Dynasty. The second event, the Thera eruption, is rupted, this leaves space for emendations and differing results thought to be found in the famous Speos Artemidos inscrip- in the absolute chronology defined as “High”, “Middle” and tion of Queen Hatshepsut in combination with the text on the “Low Chronologies” ending the dynasty of Hammurapi at Ptolemaic naos from Saft el-Henna, which should reflect 1651, 1595 or 1531 BC. In 1998 a team under H. Gasche traumatic climatic happenings at the time of Thutmose III. from Ghent University came up with a “New Chronology” Based on one of the highest possible historical chronologies which ends the Old Babylonian Kingdom with 1499 BC. of Ancient Egypt the two events would occur in c. 1572 and The mathematician P. Huber from Harvard University has shortly after 1500 BC and would mark the transition of MM evaluated the Venus tablets of the reign of Ammisaduqa and IIIB to LM IA and the end of LM IA. Persuasive as this came to the conclusion that only the “High Chronology” can construction looks at first it has to be rejected for several be supported whereas the same tablets and other evidence reasons. The described symptoms such as darkness, rain, supports the Middle Chronology22) as do the dendro-date lightning recalled in the “Tempest Stela” of Ahmose seem 1774 (+4/-7) BC from beams of the palace of Açemhöyük in not to reflect a seismic but, more likely, a volcanic event. which seal impressions of Shamshi Adad I have been found. Secondly, no regnal date is preserved from the stela. For As the timespan between cutting the wood and its use and epigraphic reasons the stela may date from year 1 until before the lifespan of the palace as well as the relationship between year 22 of king Ahmose. This provides variability in dating the seal impression and the beams is unknown, this evidence of at least 21 years. The association of the second event cannot be conclusive in favour of the “Middle Chronology”. (VDL) with the cited inscription of queen Hatshepsut and its Hermann Hunger spreads out all this conflicting evidence connection to the Ptolemaic naos inscription c. thousand and leaves the decision for “High”, “Middle” and “Low” years later is based on a daring text-interpretation by Hans or “New” open. Goedicke. 27) Hardly any other Egyptologist would be ready Since the publication of this volume, the scientist Joachim to follow this conclusion. Mebert from Tubingen recalculated the astronomical data of The following article by Karen Polinger Foster from Yale the Venus tablets and came up with a low chronology, University, Johannes H. Sterba, Georg Steinhauser and Max 8 years lower than the “Low Chronology”.23) Although not Bichler from the University of Technology at Vienna The without criticism,24) such a position is easier to reconcile Thera eruption and Egypt: pumice, texts, and chronology with the synchronisation of the Mari-correspondence, Hazor deals with the above mentioned “Tempest Stela” of Ahmose. and Tell el-Dab‘a during the transition of Middle Bronze The first author, who has repeatedly published and re-visited this theme puts forward all reasons to accept this text as a genuine account of the effects of a huge volcanic eruption 21) C. Bronk Ramsey et al., Science 328 (2010), 1556. for which only the volcano of Thera could be responsible. 22) Recently supported by G. Barjamovic et al., Ups and Downs at Kanesh—Observations on Chronology, History and Society in the Old One has to concede that she makes this case highly likely or Assyrian Period, Leiden 2012; T. de Jong, Jaarbericht “Ex Oriente Lux” 44 (2012), 147-67. 23) J. Mebert, Die Venustafel des Ammi-Saduqa und ihre Bedeutung für 25) A. Ben-Tor, Egypt and the Levant 14 (2004), 45-67. die astronomische Datierung der altbabylonischen Zeit, Vienna 2010. 26) J.H. Sterba et al., Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009), 24) P.J. Huber, Zeitschrift für Assyrologie 101 (2011), 309-320; T. de 1738-44; see below the contribution of Karen Polinger Foster et al. Jong, Journal oft he American Oriental Society 133 (2013), 366; idem, 27) H. Goedicke, The Speos Artemidos Inscription of Hatshepsut and Jaarbericht “Ex oriente lux” 44 (2012-2013) 147-163. Related Discussions, Oaksville, Ct. 2004.
998291_Bior2015_3-4_01.indd8291_Bior2015_3-4_01.indd 299299 88/10/15/10/15 009:069:06 325 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXII N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2015 326
Fig. 1. — The Synchronisation of Egyptian, Levantine and Mesopotamian Chronology according to the Synchronisation of Tell el-Dab‘a and Hazor: Results according to the High, the Conventional and the Low Egyptian Chronology.
at least acceptable, especially as the other authors in coopera- repeatedly updated his results. In his paper The date of the tion with her identified numerous pumice samples from Late Bronze Age eruption of Santorini he summarises the Egyptian tombs. Samples from the Theran Minoan eruption reasons for his position which depends on artefact exchange have only been obtained from contexts of the New Kingdom between Egypt, the eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean. onwards. Previous investigations within the SCIEM 2000 Thus the Egyptian historical chronology is applied to date the programme produced the same results on a hoard of nearly Aegean Middle and Late Bronze Ages.29) He shows an Egyp- 400 samples from Egypt and the Levant. Theran pumice thus tian stone vessel imitating an exotic jug as customary in the far has only been found in contexts from the New Kingdom Thutmosid Period, specifically in the form of a jug of Red and the Late Bronze Age onwards while earlier samples were Lustrous Wheel-made Ware, from Shaft Grave IV and an all from earlier eruptions of other volcanoes. The renowned Aegean scholar Peter Warren from Bristol University who together with Vronwy Hankey published the 29) P. Warren uses a middle chronology, starting the New Kingdom with seminal book on Aegean Bronze Age chronology,28) has c. 1540 BC, see for example: K.A. Kitchen, The Basics of Egyptian Chro- nology in Relation to the Bronze Age, in: P. Aström (ed.), High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology held at 28) P.M. Warren and V. Hankey, Aegean Bronze Age Chronology, Bris- the University of Gothenburg 20th-22nd August 1987, Gothenburg 1987, tol, 1989. Updates by P. Warren in: OLA 149, Leuven 2006, 305-321; in: 37−55; idem, The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt: A Current CMS Beiheft 8, Mainz 2010, 383-394; Assessment, Acta Archaeologica 67, (1996), 1-18.
998291_Bior2015_3-4_01.indd8291_Bior2015_3-4_01.indd 300300 88/10/15/10/15 009:069:06 327 CHRONOLOGY OF THE MIDDLE AND THE LATE BRONZE AGES 328
Egyptian alabastron from the period of Ahmose to Amenho- Thera eruption.33) The dendro-indicaton of an event at 1628/7 tep I from Shaft Grave V. The Shaft Grave chronology in BC, has now largely been abandoned with regard to the relation to the Minoan and Cycladic chronologies is secured Theran eruption, as has the spike in the Porsuk tree rings at by mutual exchange between Crete, the Cycladic islands and c. 1642 BC. What remains is radiocarbon chronology. the Greek mainland. A bridge-spouted vase of late LH I or Wiener discusses many complicating factors routinely transition to LH IIA was found in the West House in Akrotiri ignored in the presentation of radiocarbon dates. The sea- and shows that this transition happened before the eruption sonal variations of radiocarbon in the atmosphere (winter and parallels a similar evidence from Palaikastro in Crete. growth versus summer growth) was only recently researched Peter Warren lists a whole array of Aegean finds in Egyptian and taken into consideration by the Oxford team under Chris- tomb contexts to show the position of LM IB in relation to topher Bronk Ramsey and Michael Dee and amounts to an Egyptian chronology, the time of early 18th Dynasty centring offset of 19±5 years in the 18th and 19th century AD.34) It is mainly in the reign of Thutmose III. He also discusses the far from sure, however, if similar offsets could be expected famous appearance of a Cypriot White Slip I-bowl in Thera in antiquity. Today seasonal variations in radiocarbon age in a pre-eruption level, found by early French excavators and estimates between the summer high and the winter low fall its significance for the chronology in relation to Egypt with generally between 8 and 32 radiocarbon years, but with occa- the same results as in case of other discussed artefacts, show- sional greater variations.35) ing that the spread of this ceramic ware falls into the early Wiener further notes that the measurements, from which 18th Dynasty. This also provides significant information the calibration curve is constructed, are too few and only bi- about the date of the Minoan eruption. Warren dismisses the decadal or decadal, whereas the seeds from which measure- absolutely unproven claim of Sturt Manning that this ware ments are made grow in weeks or months, resulting in a was produced earlier in northern Cyprus than in the south- potential divergence between the seed measurement and the eastern sector of this island. Moreover, typologically semi-decadal or decadal average. Moreover some of the the object of discussion seems to have been produced in the measurements presented are old and erroneous, produced southern part of Cyprus. before the introduction of high precision measurements. The paper of Felix Höflmayer Aegean-Egyptian synchro- Another problem is seen in assumption of high precision in nisms and radiocarbon chronology is a short version of his the application of the Bayesian probability analyses connect- PhD dissertation.30) He comes more or less to the same ing sample measurements to the calibration curve. More conclusion as Peter Warren, that no consensus can be found problems are caused by release of 14C-depleted carbon between historical and the radiocarbon chronology asserted through upwelling of the sea, groundwater and volcanic by Manning, Friedrich et al. for the period of LM IA-B, by vents. The existence of such effects have been observed on focusing in a very methodical fashion on the evidence for the Thera and surrounding waters.36) Such known offsets are transitions between LH/LM IIIA 1-2 and end of LM II, LM only rarely taken into consideration in radiocarbon based IB/LH IIA to LM II/LH IIB and LM IA/LHI to LM IB/LH chronological analyses. These factors are known but more IIA and incorporating new material. He acknowledges, how- research should be conducted to become more knowledgea- ever, that one cannot ignore radiocarbon chronology and ble about these effects. Another requirement for more should find a dialogue in order to explain the difference in research is presented by the already established uptake of the results.31) depleted carbon through the roots of plants. Even if only Malcolm H. Wiener’s The state of the debate about the minor quantities such as 1% are absorbed the effect could be date of the Theran eruption is the only article which reviews an increased age of 80 years. in a critical way the methods of radiocarbon chronology Different laboratories produce offsets from each other besides also discussing other scientific methods in obtaining which are tested and known. They are considered minor in dates for the Minoan eruption of Thera. The acid layers and radiocarbon years but this shows that lab conditions and the tephra particles obtained in the Greenland ice cores were preparation of samples affect the results. As the machines once considered as firm evidence for an eruption date of and the preparation techniques are similar in the leading 1645 BC which would fit also to the pre-olive tree era laboratories, it is difficult to know how much the offset from 14C-dates for Thera until it turned out that the particles were reality could be. both too small and too variant in measurements to produce The radiocarbon age of measurements of samples of secure evidence. The SIMS results in fact fit the eruption of known date from the Southern Hemisphere is shown by Aniakchak in Alaska, believed to have occurred in the time recent studies to be higher by between 8 to 80 years range of the samples.32) It was not possible to obtain original (41±14 years) than those of the Northern Hemisphere. It is samples of the same context level for a more advanced rep- thought that the much larger sea surface in the Southern etition of the SIMS tests in Gothenburg. The samples offered Hemisphere results in the ejection of old carbon from the for this test investigation were from another level and con- tained some volcanic particles which cannot be tied to the 33) P.M. Fischer and M.J. Whitehouse, Quantitative SIMS (IMS1270) of particles from the GRIP Greenland Ice Core and Thera, paper presented at the SCIEM 2000 workshop “Ashes and Ice”, Vienna 8-10 July 2004. No tephra from Thera were found in the ±1645 BC horizon. The tephra found was most likely from the eruption of the Alaskan volcano Anjakchak. 30) F. Höflmayer, Die Synchronisierung der minoischen Alt- und Neu- The results were not published, as the requested samples of other layers palastzeit mit der ägyptischen Chronologie, CCeM 32, Vienna 2012. from the Greenland Ice core were not put under the disposal of the Goth- 31) In the meantime Felix Höflmayer had abandoned completely the enburg research group. Peter Fischer, personal communication 2015. findings of his dissertation and joined the camp of Sturt Manning. See 34) M. Dee et al., Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010), 687/693. Höflmayer in: S. Manning et al., Antiquity 88 (2014), 1164-1171, 35) M.H. Wiener, in: Cretan Offerings (Fs P. Warren), London 2010, 370. 1171-1179. 36) F.W. McCoy and G. Heiken, Volcanic Hazards and Disasters in 32) N.J.G. Pearce et al., Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 5.3. Human Antiquity, Boulder 2010, 48.
998291_Bior2015_3-4_01.indd8291_Bior2015_3-4_01.indd 301301 88/10/15/10/15 009:069:06 329 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXII N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2015 330
deep sea into the southern atmosphere by upwelling. It seems research: Beyond the Santorini eruption: Some notes on dat- that such an effect is also possible in the environment of ing the Late Minoan IB period on Crete, and implications for large bodies of sea in the Northern Hemisphere. There the Cretan-Egyptian relations in the 15th century BC (and espe- calibration curve was constructed from trees (mainly German cially LM II).42) Based on stratigraphic and ceramic studies oak) which are far away from the sea whereas the Southern by Jerry Rutter, Manning claims that the Phase LM IB has a Hemisphere calibration curve was produced from trees not much longer duration than hitherto thought. No archaeologi- far from the sea.37) On the Japanese islands Cypress wood of cal reasons are presented to distinguish between “early”, the known cutting date of 389 AD has been sampled in “late”, “final” and “destruction”- phases. Most scholars 5-years intervals. The result was a minimal offset of dealing with this period gave it only 80-100 years or even 72 years.38) Other wood samples from Japan produced simi- less. Short-lived samples from Khania, Myrtos Pyrgos and lar result for BC dates.39) That proximity to the sea should Mochlos were evaluated together, using results from the have such an effect contradicts the rule that the atmosphere Oxford Lab. LM II samples from Knossos are added for quickly absorbs the uptake of old carbon from a water-body contrast. and in a short time produces a mix. This principle seems not The results of the former three sites display a spectrum of to apply to the divided hemispheres and seems also not to 230 radiocarbon years for LM IB which is, however, within apply to the situation of the Japanese measurements cited. It the variability of 14C dating. As a result the author gives a is perhaps thinkable that the division line of the northern and range for LM IB of c. 1600 to 1470/60, but a glimpse at the southern atmosphere is not in strict keeping with the equator. modelled results on pp. 218-219 shows that LM IB could last The body of the Pacific which is besides the southern Atlan- fairly well until the second half of the 15th century BC tic responsible for the offset in the southern hemisphere whereas LM II occupied the last third of this century, which extends also far into the northern hemisphere. The cited is compatible with the low Aegean chronology. LM IB-Early results from Japan only show how much research is required in Khania shows its centre within the first third of the to gain more control over regional impacts on radiocarbon 16th century, according to the radiocarbon analysis presented. measurements. This is not compatible with the Low Chronology which dates Another critical note is added on the radiocarbon measure- the eruption and the terminal phase of LM IA in the latter ments of seeds from the volcanic destruction deposit on half of the 16th century BC. Thera on which so much subsequent discussion relies. The The historical/archaeological proposals of Manning are central dates of measurements are as much as 350 radiocar- contradictory even within his own definitions of archaeologi- bon years apart, and at the one-sigma-distance up to 500 years cal periods. He uses only his interpretations of the results of apart, yet the measurements have been inappropriately com- radiocarbon dating to put them into relation with the Egyp- bined to produce a radiocarbon age with an error range of tian historical chronology, while neglecting the evidence of ±7.5 years! archaeology and art history. On p. 221 he claims he can state Next Malcolm Wiener points out that Thera is surrounded with high precision that Thutmose III came to the throne by sources of 14C-defficient carbon which must have an between 6 to 20 years after the LM IB-Late destruction at effect on the 14C age of the vegetation. This statement is Myrtos Pyrgos. On p. 222, however he agrees that there is backed up by ample scientific literature. The effect is a high an overlap between the end of LM IB and the reign of this concentration of helium and CO2 in the soils of the central king. The Vapheio cup representations in the tomb of Senen- part of the island.40) Investigations about the uptake of defi- mut, a high official under Hatshepsut, are dismissed as heir- cient 14C via photosynthesis by the leaves or in small quanti- looms although they date primarily to LM IA. The evidence ties via the roots are indicated. Such effects are well known of Peter Warren’s stone vessel imports from the 18th Dynasty in Italy, where gas emission fields from the Apennines to the found in Shaft grave IV and V are also dismissed: “No dem- centre of Sicily frequently cause radiocarbon measurements onstration against a SIP [Second Intermediate Period] date is that are too early for levels datable historically.41) Scientists really possible. If the radiocarbon evidence prevails, then one are of course aware of the abovementioned problems in 14C should be considering manufacture also perhaps in the Delta dating but it seems that thus far only limited control has been region…” (p. 224). This is, however, wishful thinking. No achieved to balance the different reasons of offsets. It seems such vessels have been found in Egypt during the SIP, and it that given such considerations that there is still much research is also not true that we lack SIP assemblages in Lower Egypt. necessary to make radiocarbon dating a reliable tool for chro- At Tell el-Dab‘a alone hundreds of tombs were unearthed nology in historical periods requiring a high degree of preci- from this period. Very few contained stone vessels, but none sion in order to achieve reliable results. had the shape of the cited Shaft Grave vessels. Moreover, the Contrary to the previous highly critical article, dealing stone vessel production was concentrated in Upper and Mid- with all the problems of radiocarbon dating, especially in a dle Egypt and not in the Delta. The imitation of a Red Lus- volcanic environment, the paper of Sturt Manning from the trous Wheelmade Jug from Shaft Grave IV cannot have been Laboratory for Near Eastern and Aegean Dendrochronology produced in the SIP. This ware is also unknown at the very at Cornell tries to inspire faith in the superiority of radiocar- beginning of the 18th Dynasty and only first appears in the bon results over the methods of archaeological/historical time of Amenhotep I with a floruit under Thutmose III.43)
37) G. Hagens, Egypt and the Levant 24 (2014), 173-190. 42) In the meantime Sturt Manning has updated his research with a series 38) M. Imamura et al., Radiocarbon 49 (2007), 331-337. of papers, the most recent ones are: S. Manning et al., Antiquity 88 (2014), 39) Ozaki et al., Radiocarbon 49 (2007), 473-479. 1164-1179; S. Manning, A Test of Time and a Test of Time Revisited, 40) McCoy and Heiken, Volcanic hazards and disasters in human antiq- Oxford 2014, which need independent reviewing. uity, Boulder 2000, 48 43) K. Eriksson, The Red Lustrous Wheel-Made Ware, SIMA 103, Jon- 41) Lit. In M.H. Wiener, in: Cretan Offerings, London 2010, 371. sereds 1993, 96-98; I. Hein in Hein(ed.), The Lustrous Wares, CCeM 13,
998291_Bior2015_3-4_01.indd8291_Bior2015_3-4_01.indd 302302 88/10/15/10/15 009:069:06 331 CHRONOLOGY OF THE MIDDLE AND THE LATE BRONZE AGES 332
Fig. 2. — Comparative stratigraphy using key sites to show the repetitive pattern of first appearances and time-spans of specific pottery classes, especially of Cypriot pottery (© M. Bietak, I. Hein, K. Kopetzky, L.Stager, J.-P. Thalman).
Moreover its imitation as a stone vessel must have happened WS I bowl has been identified on typological grounds as after the first appearance of this pottery. originating from southern and not northern Cyprus by both Manning also dismisses the overwhelming evidence of the Vassos Karageorghis and Robert Merrillees.46) It is a serious first appearance of Thera pumice after the beginning of obstacle for the high Aegean chronology, particularly inas- the New Kingdom in Egypt and the Levant and the total much as the bowl must have been in use for some time absence of any such finds during the Middle Bronze Age or before the eruption as it was repaired in antiquity. An end of the SIP when the samples of pumices found can be identified the LM IA Period in the late 17th century seems out of ques- with earlier volcanic eruptions from other sources.44) He also tion on the basis of current evidence. ignores the evidence of the earliest appearance of White After assessing the LM IB period which falls after the Slip I (WS I) Ware, which is disseminated together with Minoan eruption, Sturt Manning together with Christopher Base Ring I Ware and Red Lustrous-Wheelmade Ware — Bronk Ramsey assess in the next paper the radiocarbon dat- everywhere in Egypt only after the beginning of the Thut- ing of the prelude to this event in LM IA: The dating of the mosid Period. As a WS I bowl was found by the old French earlier Late Minoan IA period: a brief note. One wonders excavations on Thera in a pre-eruption context this is cogent why the second author who was also responsible for the evidence for a low chronology, dating the Theran eruption to radiocarbon dates of LM IB was not co-author of the previ- the early New Kingdom. In order to circumvent these prob- ous paper as it is customary in science. Perhaps he does not lems, Manning claims that this ware appears in Northern share the views concerning the radiocarbon data which Man- Cyprus earlier, which must have amounted at least a time ning expressed in the previous article. span of 100-150 years. There is no evidence for such an The problem is that there are not many samples from the extraordinary statement. He cites as a proof his Fn 77 in early phase of LM IA available. Manning also has difficulty which he quotes himself. 45) Serious petrographic and typo- in the definition of this phase as he gives a range for the logical analyses are required to support such a position, but samples from Kommos across LM IA-Early, whereas Luca none is provided. One has to be very particular in this case Girella defines this material as MM IIIA-B.47) Manning is as the WS I-bowl from Thera is an important piece of evi- aware of the difference in interpreting this material but does dence which cannot be waved aside as a “déjà vu”. The not explain why he prefers a LM IA-Early dating. The sam-
Vienna 2007, 79-84; even the high chronologist R.S. Merrillees now, in 46) R.S. Merrillees, in: The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus, Hein, op.cit. 152. ed. by V. Karageorghis, CCEM II, Vienna 1990, 93; V. Karageorghis, 44) See above the article of K. Polinger Foster et al. In this volume. Tombs at Palepaphos I. Teratsoudhia 2, Elimylia 27, Nicosia 1990, 57-60, 45) His own citation: „see e.g. Manning et al. 2006c, 482-5, (also Man- Pls. VI;, XV:E, 11. ning 2007, 118-9) which details such a case”. But no details can be found 47) L. Girella, in: F. Felten et al. (eds.), Middle Helladic Pottery and there. Synchronisms, CCeM 14, z6 Vienna 2007, 233-255.
998291_Bior2015_3-4_01.indd8291_Bior2015_3-4_01.indd 303303 88/10/15/10/15 009:069:06 333 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXII N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2015 334
ples are in any event charcoal from architectural wood and Egyptian red- and black-burnished juglets from Thera have therefore irrelevant because of the old wood effect. So also no context and are therefore not helpful in the chronological are the samples from Trianda/Rhodes and from the LM IA- research. Their typology would put them into the phases E/1- Early context from Akrotiri. The short-lived samples used in D/3 in Tell el-Dab‘a, which would be the end of the 17th and this study to date LM IA (Late?) are all from Akrotiri. The the first half of the 16th century BC. others are from LM IB (Khania, Myrtos-Pyrgos and Moch- Peter Fischer from Gothenburg University, in The chro- los, see above). Therefore in the comparative study (with or nology of Tell el-‘Ajjul, Gaza: Stratigraphy, Thera pumice without the Akrotiri samples to show that there is no differ- and radiocarbon dating, tries to please everybody and is ence), the latter results rest on old wood alone besides two often cited as support of the high chronology. The evidence bone samples from Miletus. The analysis could be explained he provides points to the opposite direction, however. His as deriving from what samples were available at the time for stratigraphy parallels in many respects that from Tell el- radiocarbon analysis, but this path is not taken. Methodologi- Dab‘a. With Bichrome Ware, BLWM-Ware, White Painted cally speaking, this is a weakness in this study which has to V/VI and Red Slip Wares, Horizon 6 compares to the assem- be addressed. We would need short-lived late LM IA sam- blage in Phase D/1 at Tell el Dab‘a, the earliest New King- ples outside Thera integrated in this study. Such sample dom level there (Fig. 2). With the combination of first measurements have been published in the meantime by appearances of BR I, RLWM, WS I and the Thera pumice, H.J. Bruins and J. van der Plicht in form of cattle bones from Tell el-‘Ajjul’s Horizon 5 parallels Phases C/3-2 at Tell el tsunami deposits at Palaikastro.48) The dates would fit to the Dab‘a which date to the Thutmosid period (Thutmose III- Thera samples besides that they encompass about 80 radio- Amenhotep II with scarabs of both, possibly beginning with carbon years. These data are used to discuss away the pos- Thutmose I). This date is confirmed by typical pottery from sible old carbon effect on Thera by vents. One has to ques- this period. Also the succeeding Horizons H/3-4 with BR II tion, however, how genuine the tsunami materials can be as and WS II show a continuation of this stratigraphy. The date the aggressive flooding erodes and transports older materials. given by Peter Fischer for the beginning of H5 with 1560 BC One should also consider the apparent 80-year difference in with pottery of the Thutmosid Period is not archaeologically radiocarbon measurements of the bones of cattle assumed to verifiable and even not in accord with the 14C dates. They have died at the same time. fall into the second part of the 16th century BC, earlier by What is striking is that in the modelled date of the transi- 50-60 years than the archaeological contextual interconnec- tion from early-Mature to Late LM IA on figs. 2, 4, 6, 8 the tions, and only at the extreme wide margin reach the high early part with the peak falls fairly well into the second half chronology which Peter Fischer proposes in this paper. One of the 18th century BC which could be explained by the old cannot even harmonise the evidence available by using a wood effect or the misjudgement in placing the material from high Egyptian chronology with Thutmose III starting his Kommos in LM IA-Early instead of MM IIIB. This is not reign at 1490 or even at 1504 BC — neither of which is explained but rather ignored because on the overall graph proposed in this volume, but now taken into consideration by Fig. 10 LM IA starts not with 1750 but with 1700 and ends David Aston50). To accommodate the high Aegean chronol- with 1600 BC and LM IB ends at 1470/60 BC. This means ogy, this would still not be enough by more than 60-70 years, that Sturt Manning is himself aware that these radiocarbon but Peter Fischer expressed the hope to find Theran pumice dates are too high and has corrected them silently to fit the and WS I in his horizon H/6 or even earlier. As discussed dates he proposed years ago. This is therefore not an exercise above, thus far from over 400 samples from archaeological in exact sciences. sites not a single particle of Theran pumice has been retrieved Robert Merrillees, Chronological conundrums: Cypriot from contexts before the New Kingdom/Late Bronze Age in and Levantine imports from Thera, uses all his diplomatic the Levant. skills to explain the presence of the WS I bowl in a pre- Anette Højen Sørensen from the University of Aarhus eruption context in Thera in terms of High, Medium and Low brings An update on the chronological value of Minoica in Chronologies. As a high chronologist himself he sees that the Levant and Cyprus. It is a useful paper which addresses even starting Late Cypriot Bronze Age at 1650 BC to accom- the contexts of Minoan products in the Levant and Cyprus, modate this ceramic class (which first appears after the but does not contribute to the debate about the date of the beginning of LC I) from its first production until the Thera Thera eruption. The royal tombs of Byblos, often used in event is hardly possible. In this case the event has to be dated chronological discussions, do not date to the late 12th Dynasty, at the end of the 17th century and even in such a case the as suggested previously, but according to epigraphic and wear and tear and the repair of the object under discussion ceramic evidence to the 14th Dynasty (Tombs I, II) and to the does not fit into this scheme. He therefore feels obliged to Hyksos Period (Tomb III) according to a ground-breaking raise the beginning of LC I by 25-30 years, which is unreal- new study of Karin Kopetzky.51) The Egyptian royal objects istic, given the fact that LC I material has its first appearance with names of Amenemhat III and IV were not diplomatic in Egypt only at the end of the Hyksos Period (c. middle of gifts but only a part of an excessive trade of looted objects 16th cent. BC), while WS I, BR I and RLWM Wares do not during the 14th and 15th Dynasties.52) surface before the Thutmosid Period in Egypt. Enough mate- rial from Tell el-Dab‘a has been published to assess this situ- 49 ation. ) The Egyptian Tell el-Yahudiya Ware and the L.C. Maguire, Tell el-Dab‘a XXI, UZK XXXIII, Vienna 2009 (with several detailed preliminary reports from 1995 onwards); 50) D.A. Aston, Egypt and the Levant 22-23(2012-2013), 289-315. 48) H.J. Bruins et al., Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008), 51) K. Kopetzky, Tell el-Dab‘a XX, Vienna 2010, 167; eadem, in: 191-212. W. Grajetzki and G. Miniaci (eds.), The World of Middle Kingdom Egypt 49) M. Bietak & I. Hein, In: The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age (2000-1550 BC), GHP Egyptology (in print). Cyprus, CCeM 2, Vienna 2001, 171-194. 52) Ibidem.
998291_Bior2015_3-4_01.indd8291_Bior2015_3-4_01.indd 304304 88/10/15/10/15 009:069:06 335 « L’HERMÈS ARABE » DE KEVIN VAN BLADEL 336
Raimund Muscheler, a geologist of the University of Lund, with his article 14C and 10Be around 1650 BC: are there contradictions between tree ring and ice core time scales? reviews the contradictory claims of different scien- tists to have found evidence of the Thera eruption by radio- carbon dating of the olive branch from Thera and the discov- ery of acid layers, one containing tephra shards in three Greenland ice-cores dated to 1642±5 BC. As a connection to the Minoan eruption could not be established, the chrono- logical disparity between it and the radiocarbon measure- ments from the olive branch are irrelevant, but it nevertheless remains an interesting comparative study of the 10Be from the ice-core measurements and the 14C obtained from the tree-ring measurements in relation to the INTCAL 98 and 04 calibration curves. The final article on the olive branch by Heinemaier, Friedrich, Kromer and Bronk Ramsey has been already commented upon in connection with the first article by Heinemeier and Friedrich (see above). An epilogue by the editor David A. Warburton is surpris- ingly balanced. He speaks of two camps, of those who believe in science, and those who believe in historical/ archaeological evidence. He forgot to mention those who believe in a dialogue between science and historical/archaeo- logical research which should, however, not lead to a one- sided preference of historic data which fit the results of radiocarbon measurements and estimates best. The two prin- cipal approaches should be conducted independently other- wise mutual control is lost. Periods of greater differences should be closely scrutinised by both camps with innovative research until the reason for the offset is found. Susan Sherratt has expressed the dilemma in an unparalleled way in 2005:53) “narrative history is one thing, ceramics (and their approximate relative chronologies) another, high preci- sion absolute dating yet another. They may touch each other from time to time, but we cannot weld them consistently and seamlessly together, let alone subordinate them to the privi- leged service of the first of these. They each represent differ- ent ways of measuring passage of time, and together, but kept conceptually separate, they can greatly enrich our appreciation of the complexity of ancient life and society, from temps recitatif to longue durée”.
53) In: T.E. Levy & T. Higham, The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating, London & Oaksville 2005, 123.
998291_Bior2015_3-4_01.indd8291_Bior2015_3-4_01.indd 305305 88/10/15/10/15 009:069:06