Hittites in the 6th century?

[Patrick Waterson]

First you say they're Greeks and Anatolians, then because they don't look remotely like Greeks or Anatolians (of the C6-4 BC, at any rate) you suggest they are in Phoenician equipment. Why would they be? Particularly the C7th Saitic-mercenary Greeks, when the whole point of hiring them was their own equipment.

I had the impression that the so-called 'Sea Peoples' being depicted by Ramses III at Medinet Habu were being referred to.  Pharnabazus' expedition of 374 BC was based at Acco for the best part of a year, and it would seem equipped there.

The point of hiring mercenary Greeks was not their own equipment but their own highly effective fighting skills.

The dating of the Enkomi ivories, incidentally, depends entirely and utterly on the date of Ramses III, and moves with him.  It is not a separate or additional adjustment.

Patrick

[Patrick Waterson]

Question 1: how do we know that 'contamination is a major problem with older museum samples'?  Some of them appear to give dates acceptable to present chronology despite their presumed 'contamination'.

Question 2: does 'How do they fit?' refer to before or after statistical model 'recalibration' of the data?

Patrick

1. Well, one way is to look at some of the analyses of the material.  I've read (I can't remember where now) that some Egyptian material shows traces of nicotine and cocaine, which are unlikely to be original - though this is likely to be an extreme case:)  Acceptable dates - the obvious answer is the level of contamination varies.  It is easier to contaminate with younger material for radiocarbon (takes very little "hot" stuff to have an impact).

2. Either.  Does your model fit consistently and well without the need for statistical fiddling?  If so, we might be tempted by Occams Razor to say you may have a point.  If your model is less convincing or even requires as much statistical massaging, we are less likely to see a pressing need to shift the chronology.

The plain fact is that, overall, I do not know.  There seem to be enough fits to look interesting but also far too many results where it is difficult or impossible to relate the datum points on the graphs in the published material to the individual samples and their provenance (one of the effects of statistical approaches is that items tend to be considered collectively rather than individually), so I am not in a position to say whether the pattern holds up overall.

What is evident is that the radiocarbon data sometimes has quite a wide scatter even for material assigned to the same dynasty*, and seems to require heavy massaging to support the current chronology.  We may recall in the earlier Ancmed discussion reference to an article claiming that radiocarbon dating 'proved' conventional chronology, but looking deeper it emerged that radiocarbon readings had been 'calibrated' on 'known' conventional dating, and subsequent radiocarbon readings adjusted by this same 'calibration' had been used to 'prove' that self-same conventional dating, a somewhat circular justification.

*Quite a lot of material identified as 18th Dynasty showed up around 900 BC pre-'calibration'; other material identified as 18th Dynasty gave raw dates much earlier, c.1200-1400.  Naturally, 'contamination' was invoked to explain the c.900 BC results, despite the stringent anti-contamination methodology.

Why, I ask, if the conventional chronology is in fact correct, does its 'supporting' radiocarbon data need such heavy special treatment?  Something is assuredly wrong there: my answer may not necessarily be the 'right' one, but it does fit remarkably well on balance with period historical records, which to my mind is a stronger indicator than picking up the radiocarbon crumbs that fall from the rich institutions' tables.

Ultimately, I am not sure that radiocarbon dating will give a definite answer.

Patrick

[Patrick Waterson]

The Achaemenid coins I know have real galleys on them:

Tom..

Yes, but the Medinet Habu reliefs have Achaemenid transports, not Achaemenid galleys.  Looking at the pictures on the Salimbeti site will reveal the absence of oars in the ships carrying the Pereset.

Patrick

[Jim Webster]

You mean nothing like this: http://www.archaeological-center.com/images/m6a.gif?  [Note the ship next to the burning fortress.]

Patrick

Where's the coin from. The ships don't look a lot like those at Medinet Habu
The total lack of a ram should be worrying

Jim

The coin is Sidonian, considered to be 5th century BC.  Curiously, it seems to be a 3/4 view rather than a profile, and the characteristic bent sternpost (or stempost if intended as a towards-viewer orientation) is the salient feature.  One may remember that the ships carrying the Pereset lacked a bow ram, but had this kind of bent post at bow and stern.

Patrick

assuming the bow is to the left, I thought I could see a ram on that one. I copied it and blew it up and there is a light patch which could be the top of the ram
(it's in front of the tower)

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

I did the same and think you are right: it would also be more usual to have a galley on a coin rather than a sail-only transport.  The bent 'sea peoples' bow post is the salient feature, and it is interesting to see it on a 5th century Sidonian vessel, especially as the Sidonians are considered to have built the original transports for the Achaemenids (source: http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire#Navy).

Patrick

[Duncan Head]

First you say they're Greeks and Anatolians, then because they don't look remotely like Greeks or Anatolians (of the C6-4 BC, at any rate) you suggest they are in Phoenician equipment. Why would they be? Particularly the C7th Saitic-mercenary Greeks, when the whole point of hiring them was their own equipment.

I had the impression that the so-called 'Sea Peoples' being depicted by Ramses III at Medinet Habu were being referred to.

You yourself referred to SeaP's of both XIX and XX dynasties, relating the earlier ones to the C7th Saitic mercs. I was just following your example.

Pharnabazus' expedition of 374 BC was based at Acco for the best part of a year, and it would seem equipped there.

Diodoros says that Pharnabazus "prepared large supplies of war material" at Ake, but that hardly implies re-equipping satrapal and mercenary troops in local styles with which they were not familiar, especially when we know that normal Achaemenid practice was to equip troops in their native styles, when they were raised. 

The point of hiring mercenary Greeks was not their own equipment but their own highly effective fighting skills.

That's why they were called "men of the highly effective phalanx", rather than, say "men of bronze". The two go together.

This gets less, rather than more, convincing as you go on.

[tadamson]

The Achaemenid coins I know have real galleys on them:

Tom..

Yes, but the Medinet Habu reliefs have Achaemenid transports, not Achaemenid galleys.  Looking at the pictures on the Salimbeti site will reveal the absence of oars in the ships carrying the Pereset.

Patrick

No they don't.   The Sea People ships, are very closely related to lots of other late bronze age  (c.1100 BCE and earlier) ship images from all round the Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea  and not at all like Archaemenid period transports.


By the way, I meant to ask:  Patrick, is this your own 'new chronology' or is it one of the previously published ones? I looked back but didn't see any messages that mentioned.

Tom..

[tadamson]

You mean nothing like this: http://www.archaeological-center.com/images/m6a.gif?  [Note the ship next to the burning fortress.]

Patrick

Where's the coin from. The ships don't look a lot like those at Medinet Habu
The total lack of a ram should be worrying

Jim

The coin is Sidonian, considered to be 5th century BC.  Curiously, it seems to be a 3/4 view rather than a profile, and the characteristic bent sternpost (or stempost if intended as a towards-viewer orientation) is the salient feature.  One may remember that the ships carrying the Pereset lacked a bow ram, but had this kind of bent post at bow and stern.

Patrick

The coin is a 1/16 Shekle,  the sternpost is a roll over like a galley (not like MH)  the 'bent' stempost is the front mast projecting over the bow.

There are other similar contemporary coins eg http://www.tantaluscoins.com/coins/37815.php  same outline, more clearly a galley nothing like MH ships.

Tom.. 

[Patrick Waterson]

By the way, I meant to ask:  Patrick, is this your own 'new chronology' or is it one of the previously published ones? I looked back but didn't see any messages that mentioned.

Tom..

I started out attempting to validate or disprove Dr Immanuel Velikovsky's revised chronology (Ages in Chaos, Ramses II and his Time, Peoples of the Sea).  While it is easy to pick holes in trivialities, it is also surprisingly easy to find significant confirmatory evidence, which I was attempting to start airing for Andreas before we became sidetracked over pictures of ships.

The methodology is simple enough: if conventional chronology is right, what would we expect to find at a given date and place?  Conversely, if Dr Velikovsky's chronlogy is right, what would we expect (and for that matter need) to find?  So far, in Herodotus, in the Boghazkoi archives, in the records of Thutmose III and Tiglath-pileser I and in the Amarna letters, the score is Velikovsky 4, conventional dating nil - and I have deliberately picked subjects Velikovsky did not touch upon or completely overlooked, thinking these would have more validity than just re-examining his own evidence.  I have also extended Velikovsky's scheme back by simple deduction (if the Exodus occurred at the end of the Middle Kingdom, then there needs to be some evidence of their entry into Egypt during the Middle Kingdom and of their presence during that time - as it happens, there is plenty).  It fits.

Now if a rank amateur like myself can find such evidence just by looking, it suggests something about the validity of the scheme as a whole.  I feel we should be looking at that rather than limiting ourselves to interpretation of pictures, although everyone is of course free to discuss what interests him.

The coin is a 1/16 Shekle ... the 'bent' stempost is the front mast projecting over the bow.

Tom..

Sorry, Tom, I really cannot see that as a mast.  Please have another look at the pic and the webpage it comes from http://www.archaeological-center.com/en/monographs/m6/ and while there have a peek at the lower Abd-astarte coin and the galley on it, which seems very reminiscent of the Egyptian type at Medinet Habu (not identical, but similarly low, monoremic and with a not dissimilar type of projecting ram).

Patrick

[Patrick Waterson]

Pharnabazus' expedition of 374 BC was based at Acco for the best part of a year, and it would seem equipped there.

Diodoros says that Pharnabazus "prepared large supplies of war material" at Ake, but that hardly implies re-equipping satrapal and mercenary troops in local styles with which they were not familiar, especially when we know that normal Achaemenid practice was to equip troops in their native styles, when they were raised.

But it by no means excludes it.  An invasion of Egypt might have been considered to require special preparation.  Iphicrates might have given specific and particular advice.  Sadly we lack a Xenophon from the army of Ramses III, so have no visual description of the Persian troops involved in the invasion of Egypt, and do not know what was 'normal practice' for such attempts.

Conversely, uniformed 'tribal' invaders from the presumed close of the Mycenaean era would be very hard to explain.  Very hard indeed.  Much harder than a force raised and equipped by a rich and well-resourced empire.

This gets less, rather than more, convincing as you go on.

Then perhaps we do need to expand the subject matter involved. 

Patrick

[Duncan Head]

Diodoros says that Pharnabazus "prepared large supplies of war material" at Ake, but that hardly implies re-equipping satrapal and mercenary troops in local styles with which they were not familiar, especially when we know that normal Achaemenid practice was to equip troops in their native styles, when they were raised.

But it by no means excludes it.

That's getting a bit weak.

An invasion of Egypt might have been considered to require special preparation.  Iphicrates might have given specific and particular advice.  Sadly we lack a Xenophon from the army of Ramses III, so have no visual description of the Persian troops involved in the invasion of Egypt, and do not know what was 'normal practice' for such attempts.

We do know quite lot about what was "normal practice" for the Achaemenid army in general, though. And this isn't it.

Conversely, uniformed 'tribal' invaders from the presumed close of the Mycenaean era would be very hard to explain.  Very hard indeed.  Much harder than a force raised and equipped by a rich and well-resourced empire.

It might be, if they were indeed uniformed. Although we don't really know enough about the Sea Peoples to be sure that they were "tribal". But depicting the enemy in a single stereotyped style of equipment doesn't necessarily mean that they were uniformed in reality - Ramses III's SeaP's are no more "uniform" than, say, Naram-Suen's Lullubi.

The dating of the Enkomi ivories, incidentally, depends entirely and utterly on the date of Ramses III, and moves with him.  It is not a separate or additional adjustment.

Since Patrick regards these ivories as depictions of "fourth-century" "Phoenician" equipment, he presumably thinks that they, like the Medinet Habu SeaPersons in similar gear,

have nothing to do with the Bronze Age

It is curious, therefore, that all the weapons in the tombs these ivories come from are made of...  bronze.

This gets less, rather than more, convincing as you go on.

Then perhaps we do need to expand the subject matter involved. 

BA/EIA chronology isn't my thing, sorry. I'm only commenting on this point because it's funny, in an absurd sort of way.

[tadamson]

... Dr Immanuel Velikovsky's revised chronology (Ages in Chaos, Ramses II and his Time, Peoples of the Sea).   ...

Oh dear........

The man was an out and out nutter...
His chronology have been repeatedly and comprehensively deconstructed.  His scheme involved changes in planetary dynamics, breaking fundamental engineering principle, outright lies, false data and mistranslations of ancient sources. 

The coin is a 1/16 Shekle ... the 'bent' stempost is the front mast projecting over the bow.

Tom..

Sorry, Tom, I really cannot see that as a mast.  Please have another look at the pic and the webpage it comes from http://www.archaeological-center.com/en/monographs/m6/ and while there have a peek at the lower Abd-astarte coin and the galley on it, which seems very reminiscent of the Egyptian type at Medinet Habu (not identical, but similarly low, monoremic and with a not dissimilar type of projecting ram).

Patrick

ALL the galleys have roll over stemposts, VERY different from the MH and other Late Bronze Age ships.

As a final point  you might also want to look at the dendrochronology dating for the Egyptian ship timbers and fortresses that have been dug up over the last two decades or so.  All very strong support for the traditional dating.

Time to give it up.......

Tom..

[Patrick Waterson]

Since Patrick regards these ivories as depictions of "fourth-century" "Phoenician" equipment, he presumably thinks that they, like the Medinet Habu SeaPersons in similar gear,

have nothing to do with the Bronze Age

It is curious, therefore, that all the weapons in the tombs these ivories come from are made of...  bronze.

BA/EIA chronology isn't my thing, sorry.

Nobody's perfect.    But bronze weaponry remained in use well into the iron age - and bronze armour and helmets well into the classical period.  The idea of a division between 'bronze' and 'iron' ages is something of a simplification.

In any case, nothing changes the absolute reliance of Enkomi dating on Egyptian chronology.

Patrick

[Patrick Waterson]

Oh dear........

The man was an out and out nutter...
His chronology have been repeatedly and comprehensively deconstructed.  His scheme involved changes in planetary dynamics, breaking fundamental engineering principle, outright lies, false data and mistranslations of ancient sources. 

Playing the man not the ball ... I would rather see posts confined to substantive matter of an evidential nature, though I shall quote the above once.

ALL the galleys have roll over stemposts, VERY different from the MH and other Late Bronze Age ships.

But not a 'front mast projecting over the bow'?

As a final point  you might also want to look at the dendrochronology dating for the Egyptian ship timbers and fortresses that have been dug up over the last two decades or so.  All very strong support for the traditional dating.

Alas not, see (for example) http://www.centuries.co.uk/uluburun.pdf?oo=0

"The following notes, presented in diary form, document why the Uluburun date is
dubious in the extreme and how its status as a "scientific" date has gradually
unravelled."

Apologists for the conventional chronology are now so desperate that they appear to be employing, and I quote, "outright lies, false data and mistranslations of ancient sources". 

Time to give it up.

Patrick

[Duncan Head]

As a final point  you might also want to look at the dendrochronology dating for the Egyptian ship timbers and fortresses that have been dug up over the last two decades or so.  All very strong support for the traditional dating.

Alas not, see (for example) http://www.centuries.co.uk/uluburun.pdf?oo=0

"The following notes, presented in diary form, document why the Uluburun date is
dubious in the extreme and how its status as a "scientific" date has gradually
unravelled."

Apologists for the conventional chronology are now so desperate that they appear to be employing, and I quote, "outright lies, false data and mistranslations of ancient sources". 

Time to give it up.

Patrick

Uluburun isn't Egyptian, so hardly a response to Tom's point. Now who's "employing ... false data"?