Hittites in the 6th century?

[Patrick Waterson]

As promised, herewith an outline of the revised chronology for the Ancient Near East.

Because the chronology of the ancient world depends heavily, and in some cases entirely, on Egyptian chronology, it is necessary first to correct the chronology of Egypt.  Briefly, this requires:

No substantive changes prior to 1800 BC and the end of the 12th Dynasty, except to note the arrival of Jacob's family in the reign of Senusert I, c.2,000 BC.

13th Dynasty: c.1800-1629 BC (latter date coincides with Hebrew Exodus).

1628-c.1100 BC: Hyksos period (XV and XVI Hyksos Dynasties contemporary with XIV and XVII Egyptian Dynasties - the latter hold only parts of the country).  [Hammurabi and Zimri-lim at start of period; Hebrews under Judges and/or Philistines]

c.1100-819 BC: 18th Dynasty [contemporary with Mycenaean Greece, Kingdom of Israel (and Judaea) and Assyria from Tiglath-pileser I to Shamshi-adad V]

819-c.720 BC: Libyan ('22nd') Dynasty (includes Horemheb). [Trojan War c.817-807 BC]

c.720-663 BC: Libyan ('23rd' Dynasty) kinglets and Ethiopian ('25th Dynasty') invasions

663-525 BC: 19th Dynasty [contemporary with Ashurbanipal and last Assyrian kings and subsequently Neo-Babylonian/Chaldean Empire]

525-c.390 BC: Persian conquest (so-called '21st Dynasty' theocrats governed for Persians, cf. similar arrangement in Judaea with Ezra) and occasional revolts.

c.390-343 BC: 20th Dynasty inaugurated by Acoris (Ushikhaure Setnakht); repels Persian invasions until 343 BC

Thereafter Hellenistic/Ptolemaic, Roman, Arab, Ottoman and present periods without substantive change.

Please observe: '26th Dynasty' is repetition of 19th Dynasty from material in Greek and Hebrew sources.  '30th Dynasty' is similar repetition of 20th Dynasty.


Implications (inter alia):

1) Mycenaean Greece flourishes c.1100-800 BC and directly abuts geometric and colonies period.

2) Assyrian history c.1200-900 BC substantially revised, particularly to identify successors of Tiglath-pileser I as being kinglets ruling simultaneously (Amenhotep II brings seven of them to Egypt c.920 BC).

3) 'Hittite' Empire belongs to 19th Dynasty (663-525 BC) dating period and flourishes c.610-550 BC with Syrian 'neo-Hittite' city-state cultures actually being 'proto-Hittite'.  8th century 'Haldians' appear to be Chaldean precursor state.

4) So-called 'Sea peoples' are 7th century Greek, Lydian and Carian mercenaries (19th Dynasty) and Greek mercenaries and Asia Minor subjects of Persia (20th Dynasty) and have nothing to do with the Bronze Age.

5) There was no 'general collapse of civilisation' c.1200 BC: this is simply the result of misdating Egyptian dynasties.

6) Presence of 'Hittite' (Neo-Babylonian) stratum above Assyrian-Phrygian stratum at Gordium, Kanesh etc. does not need bizzare excuses or redating to explain.

7) Biblical account actually meshes with Egyptian history at several useful points (e.g. Exodus, Queen of Sheba, Amarna period) allowing re-evaluation of reliability of Hebrew historical sources.

etc.

Please ask any questions that occur/request any necessary clarifications.  If wondering who first misnumbered the dynasties, the answer is Manetho (3rd century BC).

Patrick

[Erpingham]

Fascinating stuff.  How does your new chronology fit with the scientific dating e.g. radiocarbon?  Do you need to propose a new calibration curve for C14?

[Patrick Waterson]

Actually for the most part it seems to fit quite well, at least from the few snippets I can find, e.g. a rush mat from Tutankhamun's tomb dating to c.820 BC (with the usual plus/minus for this far back).  This, like the other fits, was a comparatively early test, before 'recalibration' became the rage and the earlier results were dismissed as resulting from 'contamination'.  Even with 'recalibration' a fair number of 18th Dynasty period readings seem to end up in the 1000-900 BC bracket, so daters have taken to 'smoothing' with various statistical models in an attempt to suppress the 'anomalous' readings.

There was a bit of discussion of this on Ancmed last year, noting the sources.

Patrick

[Duncan Head]

4) So-called 'Sea peoples' are 7th century Greek, Lydian and Carian mercenaries (19th Dynasty) and Greek mercenaries and Asia Minor subjects of Persia (20th Dynasty) and have nothing to do with the Bronze Age.

That's the bit that always makes me laugh. Almost the only explicit sources we have for the Sea Peoples are the Egyptian victory monuments, and the soldiers on those look absolutely nothing like any Greeks or Achaemenid-era Anatolians.

[Jim Webster]

4) So-called 'Sea peoples' are 7th century Greek, Lydian and Carian mercenaries (19th Dynasty) and Greek mercenaries and Asia Minor subjects of Persia (20th Dynasty) and have nothing to do with the Bronze Age.

That's the bit that always makes me laugh. Almost the only explicit sources we have for the Sea Peoples are the Egyptian victory monuments, and the soldiers on those look absolutely nothing like any Greeks or Achaemenid-era Anatolians.

This is the bit that got me in our last discussion.
One answer is that the Egyptians used 'recycled' enemies. But so far I've never been told who the enemies were who were 'recycled'

Even more telling to me, is that the ships look nothing like the ships of the Achaemenid era

Jim

[Erpingham]

This, like the other fits, was a comparatively early test, before 'recalibration' became the rage and the earlier results were dismissed as resulting from 'contamination'. 
Patrick

Contamination is a major problem with older museum samples.  You really need to be looking at dates of freshly excavated stuff - either fresh at the time of the result or fresh now.  As I understand it, there are a lot more radiocarbon and other scientific dates from the Near East and Greece.  How do they fit?

[Patrick Waterson]

Contamination is a major problem with older museum samples.  You really need to be looking at dates of freshly excavated stuff - either fresh at the time of the result or fresh now.  As I understand it, there are a lot more radiocarbon and other scientific dates from the Near East and Greece.  How do they fit?

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?

I think if we are to take this further we shall have to dive into specifics.

Patrick

[Patrick Waterson]

Even more telling to me, is that the ships look nothing like the ships of the Achaemenid era

Jim

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

Patrick

[Patrick Waterson]

4) So-called 'Sea peoples' are 7th century Greek, Lydian and Carian mercenaries (19th Dynasty) and Greek mercenaries and Asia Minor subjects of Persia (20th Dynasty) and have nothing to do with the Bronze Age.

That's the bit that always makes me laugh. Almost the only explicit sources we have for the Sea Peoples are the Egyptian victory monuments, and the soldiers on those look absolutely nothing like any Greeks or Achaemenid-era Anatolians.

But they are kitted out in Phoenician equipment (cf. the Enkomi ivories), so that is not a problem.  I would be interested in a somewhat wider view of the chronology as a whole.

Patrick

[Patrick Waterson]

To get back to the original reason for beginning this thread (Andreas' suggestion), part of the revised chronology system identifies the so-called 'Hittite Empire' with its capital at Boghazkoi as the northern half of the Neo-Babylonian Empire of Nabopolassar, Nergilissar, Labash-Marduk, Nebuchadnezzar (Nabu-kudurri-usur), Amel-Marduk ('Evil-Merodach') and Nabonidus.

Nabopolassar is identified as the 'Mursilis' of the archives
Nergilissar is 'Nergil', brother of Hattusilis
Labash-Marduk is 'Kadashman Enlil', ruler of Babylon, son of Nergil and nephew of Hattusilis
Nebuchadnezzar is 'Hattusilis'
Amel-Marduk is 'Tudhaliyas'
Nabonidus is 'Arnuwandas'.

Dates are as per accepted conventional dates for Neo-Babylonian rulers, with a question-mark over Nergilissar and Labash-Marduk, who appear to have preceded Nebuchadnezzar (and a Nergilissar II and Labash-Marduk II who may have followed, albeit briefly).

7th-6th century contemporaries are also mentioned in the archives.  Croesus ('Attarissiyas') I have referred to.  Also present are Alyattes ('Ahhiya/Ahhiyawa') and his Greek tyrant allies Thrasybulus of Miletus ('Tawagalawas of Milwata') and Periander ('Piyamaradus') of Corinth.  At least one Midas ('Madduwattas') is also mentioned, as ruler of or pretender to the throne of Phrygia ('Arzawa').

Stratigraphy, e.g. at Gordium, where the 'Hittite' layer was found above the 8th century 'Phrygian' layer, also places the 'Hittite Empire' in the 7th-6th centuries.

Patrick

[Jim Webster]

Even more telling to me, is that the ships look nothing like the ships of the Achaemenid era

Jim

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

[tadamson]

The Achaemenid coins I know have real galleys on them:

eg:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pharnabazos_fish_sign_coin.jpg
http://www.allempires.com/Forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30714

nothing like the much earlier ships on the Medinet Habu stuff. (and there is a little more evidence for Sea Peoples, mostly Egyptian).  Though even Minoan ships are more advanced than the Medinet Habu ones - but close enough to support a more traditional chronology..

For those lacking Google fingers Andrea Salimbeti's Greek Age of Bronze website has most of the relevant Sea People and Minoan source illustrations, and it's an ok site.

http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/index.htm

Tom..

[Duncan Head]

That's the bit that always makes me laugh. Almost the only explicit sources we have for the Sea Peoples are the Egyptian victory monuments, and the soldiers on those look absolutely nothing like any Greeks or Achaemenid-era Anatolians.

But they are kitted out in Phoenician equipment (cf. the Enkomi ivories), so that is not a problem.

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.

And to make them Phoenician, you have to redate the Enkomi ivories as well.... No, sorry, we have quite a bit of Phoenician stuff from the Achaemenid era and the preceding century or three, and it's nothing like these ivories, nor like the Sea Peoples on the Egyptian monuments.

I would be interested in a somewhat wider view of the chronology as a whole.

Mine is that it's not even convincing enough to discuss.

[Erpingham]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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