New Egyptian "city" and cemetery found at Abydos

[Duncan Head]

http://www.egyptindependent.com//news/ancient-residential-city-cemetery-discovered-abydos

Calling it a "city" may be over-generous, but a residential area, anyway:

The cemetery and residential city most probably belonged to senior officials who were responsible for building the cemeteries of the royal family in Abydos city.

[Patrick Waterson]

The interesting part is the dating: if this is the official figure and not a confusion between 5316 BC and 5316 years ago, it pushes back the occupancy of Abydos by quite a few generations.

[Andreas Johansson]

The interesting part is the dating: if this is the official figure and not a confusion between 5316 BC and 5316 years ago, it pushes back the occupancy of Abydos by quite a few generations.

That they call it "the beginning of an important dynastic period" seems a strong hint at confusion. Either that or their chronology or terminology is seriously nonstandard.

[Duncan Head]

The Guardian version - at https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/nov/23/egypt-unearths-lost-city-first-dynasty-sohag-province - calls it "7,000 years old" but the BTL commenters have the same doubts as expressed here:

The newspaper Egypt Independent states: "The head of the Egyptian Antiquities Sector, Mahmoud Afify, announced Wednesday the discovery of a cemetery and a residential city dating back to 5,316 BCE, the beginning of an important dynastic period." I think the reporter made a simple mistake and was unfamiliar with English acronyms such as BCE. The figure 5316 obviously comes from adding 2016 to 3300 BCE, which is squarely in the Pre-Dynastic Era, with an uncertainty of give or take 200 years at least.

A very bad researched article from Reuters! The Luxor Times says 5000+ years old (from now), not 7000. It says nothing about iron tools!

In this case, my money's on the Luxor Times as being the better-informed.

[Patrick Waterson]

In this case, my money's on the Luxor Times as being the better-informed.

Certainly better informed than the Guardian, otherwise we would have to conclude that the Egyptian Antiquities department has just added 2,000 years to Egyptian recorded history without telling anyone.  Had they in fact just discovered another 2,000 years of tourist-worthy history, one would expect them to make somewhat more of the disclosure.

[Tim]

And think what it would do to the Short-Chronology theory...