https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0232906
Possibly needing to shift the dating 50-150 years earlier than previously thought
I wince at the whole idea of chronological revision, these days. But at first sight this looks fairly sensible, if perhaps still preliminary.
agreed...there is a lot of rigour in the investigation and analysis
Quote from: Duncan Head on June 01, 2020, 10:38:07 AM
I wince at the whole idea of chronological revision, these days. But at first sight this looks fairly sensible, if perhaps still preliminary.
I think we do need to separate the need to clarify the relationship of stratigraphic sequences with the incredibly convoluted radio carbon picture in this period and major surgery based on reinterpreted Egyptian king lists. This seems to be an evidence based study and therefore potentially useful.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 01, 2020, 11:35:02 AM
Quote from: Duncan Head on June 01, 2020, 10:38:07 AM
I wince at the whole idea of chronological revision, these days. But at first sight this looks fairly sensible, if perhaps still preliminary.
I think we do need to separate the need to clarify the relationship of stratigraphic sequences with the incredibly convoluted radio carbon picture in this period and major surgery based on reinterpreted Egyptian king lists. This seems to be an evidence based study and therefore potentially useful.
quite correct. The Egyptian king lists make my head spin....this study is straight forward by comparison!