Hittites in the 6th century?

[Duncan Head]

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

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.

The idea that an Achaemenid-era site would produce plentiful bronze weaponry and no iron is an absurdity. (Helmets and armour are an irrelevancy, this is spearheads, knives, and so on.)

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

The Enkomi tombs are dated in the first instance by the local pottery (LCII-III). The pots may have originally been dated by reference to an Egyptian chronology, I really don't know, but there are plenty of radiocarbon dates for the LC sequence now.

[Patrick Waterson]

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

Uluburun is still being used as a key dendrochronological confirmatory plank, if one may use the word, for the framework of conventional chronology in general and Egyptian in particular.  It also has the merit of being readily available online whereas the studies Tom alludes to do not appear to be.

Why, incidentally, are participants in this thread concentrating on peripheral incidentals and not seeking to address the basic evidence of written sources?  Is it in hope of finding some obscure falsus in unum which will then be used to proclaim falsus in omnibus?

And yes, the Enkomi materials depend directly upon Egyptian dating.  I checked this point with staff at the British Museum.

Patrick

[tadamson]

Hi Patrick,

First an apology,  I do not intend to disparage you personally, or any attempt to reconcile chronology (and there are several more recent attempts in print).

I am serious that starting with Velikovsky is not a good plan (and unlike many scientists I have read all his books). His basic concepts (eg Venus errupting out of Jupiter) are wrong on so many levels that it's impossible for scientist to take anything he says as valid. Though his biggest 'sin' was for the New York literati to push him as a new prophet. 

I also think that the "Sea Peoples were actually Persian mercenaries" bit was probably the worst example possible to try and support the chronology.  As Duncan and I have tried to point out the ships, dress and equipment at MH is very clearly Late Bronze Age and not Archamenid. 

As for access to sources, my primary, and by far best, is through the Open University library site (I am a perpetual student).  I will try to get you anything specific that you are interested in and can't get though.
AWOL http://ancientworldonline.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/alphabetical-list-of-open-access.html is another very useful access portal.

It's hard to see written sources as 'basic', the vast majority for the period are untranslated (particularly non Egyptian stuff).  Plus translation is an art not a science, we tend to miss a LOT when we don't have the appropriate cultural background.

Tom..

[Patrick Waterson]

Thanks, Tom.  Very decent of you. 

I quite happily agree that Velikovsky had some unusual ideas, and some worked out better than others while some did not work at all.  A bit like the rest of us in that respect ... at least he was not afraid to try them out.

However I am interested in checking out the chronology scheme rather than the man, so if we avoid mention of the V-word and just look at the timescale and historical side of things, would that be OK?

On the subject of Ramses III and all that, like your good self and Duncan I have looked through examples of 'Bronze Age' ships and Medinet Habu vessels but do not quite see the close correspondence claimed; it seems to me more like the assumption that there are various common themes (e.g. the famous Mycenaean two-duck-head motifs, which are interesting in themselves but which we do not as far as I know see on Mycenaean ships) and that these common themes indicate cultural identity, which to my mind does not necessarily quite pan out.  Same with the troops' equipment etc. - one can see vague resemblances here and there, but nothing like the precise match with the Enkomi ivories.  There also seem to be cases (though not in this discussion) of creating a typology of weapons from the Medinet Habu reliefs, classifying them as Bronze Age, and then using them to insist that the Medinet Habu reliefs are Bronze Age because they show Bronze Age weapons.  But enough of my gripes.

You have been trying to point out to me with diligent patience that Achaemenid vessels have roll-over sterns while Medinet Habu ships do not.  This is indeed true, at least for Achaemenid galleys.  I appreciate your offer to source materials for me and would be interested to see some examples of Achaemenid (particularly Sidonian) transports with such sterns, as the 'Pereset' ships at Medinet Habu do appear to be transports and not galleys - at least they have sails up and are not using oars in the middle of a naval action, so if they are galleys they have been fairly comprehensively surprised.  Also against their being galleys is that even when the ships are overturned there is not an oar in sight. http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/images/seapeoples04.jpg

While you are prefectly correct that translation can never convey the sense and feel of the original, and may miss out or mistake elements of the original meaning, the existing translated sources are quite copious and do seem to provide the scholarly world with their basic historical scheme to which art, epigraphy and indeed archaeology itself are just adjuncts.  I think we can go at least 75% of the way with original source texts (perhaps a bit less with translations) and they will always be the backbone of any chronological scheme - conventional, Rohl, James or anyone else.  The really important ones (at least in the eyes of the original 19th-early 20th century scholars) were royal inscriptions and various steles, tablets and papyri - and it seems to me that arguments tend to centre not so much on what the source says as when they said it (cf. Gardiner's Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage, aka Papyrus Ipuwer).

When we get to Greek sources (and yes, there is an element of argument over some of the things they say but not when they said it) we can be reasonably sure of the broad translation, less so of the finer points, and a look back at the original Greek can be illuminating when it comes to details.  It is a pity that there is no Perseus Project for Assyrian, Babylonian, Neshili/Hattili and Egyptian sources, but maybe the next generation will be better provided for.

All of which really intends to say that the historical sources I have seen (admittedly a fraction of those extant, but quite a useful fraction as it includes those on which chronology is largely based) do provide a surprising amount of support for the chronology I have been examining (avoiding reference to a certain individual).  To keep this from being an overlong post one instance only will be mentioned: Herodotus and the pharaohs of Egypt.  The revised chronology (as I shall call it) was drawn up without reliance upon Herodotus (his account was touched upon a few times, but only peripherally).  Yet Herodotus (in Book II) holds the key to Egyptian chronology, and his sequence of 18th Dynasty-Libyan-Ethiopian-19th Dynasty-Persian corroborates the revised chronology in all its essentials.  To say this was a surprising discovery was an understatement.

That is one of the reasons I stay with the revised chronology.  There are several others.

Patrick

[tadamson]

Thanks, Tom.  Very decent of you. 

I quite happily agree that Velikovsky had some unusual ideas, and some worked out better than others while some did not work at all.  A bit like the rest of us in that respect ... at least he was not afraid to try them out.

Sadly much of it is absolute nonsense. He looked at myths (good), he derived some theories (good), then he made up absolutely impossible stuff (really stupid, totally blew his credibility)

However I am interested in checking out the chronology scheme rather than the man, so if we avoid mention of the V-word and just look at the timescale and historical side of things, would that be OK?

Yes BUT there needs to be a reason for suggesting changes.

On the subject of Ramses III and all that, like your good self and Duncan I have looked through examples of 'Bronze Age' ships and Medinet Habu vessels but do not quite see the close correspondence claimed; it seems to me more like the assumption that there are various common themes (e.g. the famous Mycenaean two-duck-head motifs, which are interesting in themselves but which we do not as far as I know see on Mycenaean ships) and that these common themes indicate cultural identity, which to my mind does not necessarily quite pan out.  Same with the troops' equipment etc. - one can see vague resemblances here and there, but nothing like the precise match with the Enkomi ivories.  There also seem to be cases (though not in this discussion) of creating a typology of weapons from the Medinet Habu reliefs, classifying them as Bronze Age, and then using them to insist that the Medinet Habu reliefs are Bronze Age because they show Bronze Age weapons.  But enough of my gripes.

You really need to go back and look at stuff, the MH ships are VERY SIMILAR to other Late Bronze Age non galleys. NOTHI|NG like Archaemenid transports.

You have been trying to point out to me with diligent patience that Achaemenid vessels have roll-over sterns while Medinet Habu ships do not.  This is indeed true, at least for Achaemenid galleys.  I appreciate your offer to source materials for me and would be interested to see some examples of Achaemenid (particularly Sidonian) transports with such sterns, as the 'Pereset' ships at Medinet Habu do appear to be transports and not galleys - at least they have sails up and are not using oars in the middle of a naval action, so if they are galleys they have been fairly comprehensively surprised.  Also against their being galleys is that even when the ships are overturned there is not an oar in sight. http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/images/seapeoples04.jpg

Agreed transports are not galleys. Archaemenid transports are identical to Greek merchants.  No ram, no hog back tie, different front and back, no 'duck head' posts, VERY different from the MH ships.

Many of the features in the MH ships are replicated in other Late Bronze Age transports, many of which are dated very closely (ie within 20 years).

While you are prefectly correct that translation can never convey the sense and feel of the original, and may miss out or mistake elements of the original meaning, the existing translated sources are quite copious and do seem to provide the scholarly world with their basic historical scheme to which art, epigraphy and indeed archaeology itself are just adjuncts.  I think we can go at least 75% of the way with original source texts (perhaps a bit less with translations) and they will always be the backbone of any chronological scheme - conventional, Rohl, James or anyone else.  The really important ones (at least in the eyes of the original 19th-early 20th century scholars) were royal inscriptions and various steles, tablets and papyri - and it seems to me that arguments tend to centre not so much on what the source says as when they said it (cf. Gardiner's Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage, aka Papyrus Ipuwer).

Yoy really need to look at some of these rather than what's reported in V and others.

When we get to Greek sources (and yes, there is an element of argument over some of the things they say but not when they said it) we can be reasonably sure of the broad translation, less so of the finer points, and a look back at the original Greek can be illuminating when it comes to details.  It is a pity that there is no Perseus Project for Assyrian, Babylonian, Neshili/Hattili and Egyptian sources, but maybe the next generation will be better provided for.
{/quote]

I read Greek, ancent, classical and modern. You are very, very optamistic :-)

All of which really intends to say that the historical sources I have seen (admittedly a fraction of those extant, but quite a useful fraction as it includes those on which chronology is largely based) do provide a surprising amount of support for the chronology I have been examining (avoiding reference to a certain individual).  To keep this from being an overlong post one instance only will be mentioned: Herodotus and the pharaohs of Egypt.  The revised chronology (as I shall call it) was drawn up without reliance upon Herodotus (his account was touched upon a few times, but only peripherally).  Yet Herodotus (in Book II) holds the key to Egyptian chronology, and his sequence of 18th Dynasty-Libyan-Ethiopian-19th Dynasty-Persian corroborates the revised chronology in all its essentials.  To say this was a surprising discovery was an understatement.

You need to look at the Greek.

That is one of the reasons I stay with the revised chronology.  There are several others.

Patrick

[Patrick Waterson]

The idea that an Achaemenid-era site would produce plentiful bronze weaponry and no iron is an absurdity. (Helmets and armour are an irrelevancy, this is spearheads, knives, and so on.)

The Enkomi tombs are dated in the first instance by the local pottery (LCII-III). The pots may have originally been dated by reference to an Egyptian chronology, I really don't know, but there are plenty of radiocarbon dates for the LC sequence now.

Actually Enkomi has produced traces of iron weaponry, e.g.: "Iron was scarce in the Cypro–Mycenaean graves of Enkomi. A small knife with a carved handle had left traces of an iron blade." (source: http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/l/lang/andrew/homer/chapter9.html) While one swallow does not necessarily make a summer, it does at least suggest that other iron blades may have been present, but did not survive.

The dating by pottery scheme ultimately relies upon the chronology of Egypt.

Patrick

[Patrick Waterson]

OK, points in order:

Yes BUT there needs to be a reason for suggesting changes.

Two reasons, in fact: 1) the original version fails to satisfy and 2) the replacement version does, or at least appears to.

You really need to go back and look at stuff, the MH ships are VERY SIMILAR to other Late Bronze Age non galleys. NOTHI|NG like Archaemenid transports.

I did, but am still trying to find pics of Achaemenid (particularly Sidonian) transports before any conclusions can be drawn. 

Archaemenid transports are identical to Greek merchants.  No ram, no hog back tie, different front and back, no 'duck head' posts, VERY different from the MH ships.

Were they really identical to Greek merchants?  I have doubts, given the Persian reliance on Phoenician navies, besides which I get the impression you are mixing in descriptions of the Medinet Habu Egyptian galleys.  I am looking at straight comparisons with the Pereset sail-only ships.

Yoy really need to look at some of these rather than what's reported in V and others.

I do: Breasted's Ancient Records of Egypt; Luckenbill's Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia (despite the title he only does Assyria), such Amarna letters and Boghazkoi tablets as are available outside academic circles, and where possible a look at the original hieroglyphic texts (my cuneiform is not up to reading original tablets).  The point is to look at aspects of history that V did not cover in his books or unpublished essays and see how they pan out - that, to my mind, is the real test.

You need to look at the Greek.

Guess what ... 

Patrick

[Erpingham]

The dating by pottery scheme ultimately relies upon the chronology of Egypt.

Patrick

Actually, it is more complicated that that.  With the usual caveat that this is not my period, I have read/seen enough to say that there are an interlocking set of artefact series which provide the dating sequences in the Ancient Near East.  The problem with this "take an isolated example" approach is it fails to allow for this.  You cannot just decide that the Enkomi material dates to the 4th century BC because there is no hard dating, so it could date to anywhen.  You have to consider how it relates to elsewhere and can you redate all of those sites, which may involve other artefact series and so on in widening ripples, some of which may have more scientifically derived dates (I know you don't like scientific dating because it can be vague.  I don't like the fact we don't have enough in many cases to tightly date periods, so we have lengthy debates on shifting things about).

I'm also not sure where in one of your earlier posts you say that bronze age weapon typology (I'm guessing you mean swords mainly) relies on the MH reliefs.  From what I've seen it uses a lot of excavated weapons, plus artistic representations, across a swathe of the mediterranean and into Europe.  Would you care to explain, as this is rather on topic about Ancient Warfare?  Is it just a variant of your contention all dating derives from Egypt?

[Patrick Waterson]

I checked with Thomas Kiely at the British Museum, and his advice was that the dating of Enkomi ultimately depends upon that of Egypt.

So far we have looked at only the 'Pereset' represented in Enkomi art, but there is, as you rightly observe, much more to be found at and regarding Enkomi.  As usual with East Med and Near Eastern sites, it had schizophrenic scholarly interpretation of what the actual dates should be - Egyptology eventually won out.  http://www.varchive.org/dag/enkomi.htm

Bronze Age weapon typology does not per se rely on the Medinet Habu reliefs, and I am sorry if I gave that incorrect impression.  I intended to convey that Medinet Habu weaponry had found its way into general Bronze Age weapon typology to the extent that it was being used as a criterion of 'Bronze-Ageishness'.  Actual 'Bronze Age' weaponry (if by this we mean Mycenaean era weaponry) has many branches in its own right, both in the Mediterranean and in Europe.

Patrick

[tadamson]

Apologies for intermittent posts [that WORK thing, to inject a four letter word, keeps interrupting].

First problem with dating schemes is that the data is vast and interlocking. When Keily says that Enkomi dating relies on Egypt dates, he means that the artefacts are cross referenced to the, far more common, Egyptian ones, this gives date sequences.  These sequences then tie in with stratification, and some 'scientific' dates (which are mostly ranges). As Patrick points out this whole edifice provides much amusement, entertainment, discussion (feuding is sometimes a better word!) amongst the assorted academics (archaeologists, historians, linguists, chemists, restorers, art historians etc...)

Dendrochronology is the potential 'silver bullet'.  Nothern European archaeology has been revolutionised by the development of complete sequences for common species. This gives a exact date for when a particular piece of wood actually grew. If you can approximate how close that was to the edge of the three when felled, how long it took to be seasoned, and then worked etc you get a very good date for the item.
Timbers from Enkomi are important for Egyptology as they are part of the evidence to build a full sequence for Ceadars in the Levant.  That sequence would date many remnants of ships and buildings very tightly (as masts and spars tended to be from timbers with little more than the bark removed  they would date the ship/building to within a few years).  This work doesn't rely on Enkomi dating (part of the 'silver bullet' appeal of the technology).

There is also an astonishing amount of data yet to be assimilated. The Diyala project is a typical example (http://diyalaproject.uchicago.edu login as guest/guest).  Thousands of objects still waiting to be analysed, potentially enough documentation to give a fairly firm grounding to Mesopotamian chronology (volunteers urgently needed).

As an aside, I'm fairly certain that one of the craters with the MH style ships on it was in a log lined tomb that dated to 1050 BCE or something like that, it was in a paper that discussed pottery dating [I think..  my books and I are still separated, but all in the UK now  ]       

Tom..

[Patrick Waterson]

Dendrochronology is indeed useful: the so-called 'year of no growth', currently identified as 1628 BC, allows one to pinpoint the Exodus as occurring in 1629 BC (the year preceding the year of no growth; the Hebrew account mentions vegetation being fairly comprehensively incinerated).

Dating by dendrochronology in the absence of major disasters relies on identifying the relevant species at the site in question and then tying in the ring patterns with the master scheme.  It would be interesting (if possible) to do this for sites like Lacish (sacked at a date determinable from Assyrian and Hebrew records, so leaving Egyptology out of the equation), as this would give a common departure point for dendrochronology and radiocarbon dating, which could then be calibrated together rather than against a chronology that may or may not be accurate.

Do we know of anyone who is calibrating radiocarbon dating by dendrochronology?

This is of course getting us some way from the Neo-Babylonian Empire's northern half in Anatolia (the original thread subject), so if I may be permitted to guide the thread back in that direction, we return to historical records.  One of the key features of the revised chronology is the discovery, or claim, that Ramses II of the 19th Dynasty is in fact Pharaoh Necho of the Bible and the Nekos of the Greek histories.

Now why would they call him 'Necho'?  'Ramses' in Eyptian means 'victorious', and 'Nekos' in Greek seems to be derived from 'Nika' (victory), but this may be just a fortunate coincidence.  The actual reason might be the following.

Opening one's copy of Call it Qids (as the easiest source for the majority of members to use), and looking on the first page of Ian Russell Lowell's immaculately researched historical background, one sees that Ramses sets out from his eponymous capital Pi-Ramesse A-nakhtu ("Domain of Ramses-the-Great-of-Victories").  The 't' in 'nakhtu' (plural of 'nakht', great) is by this period practically silent, so to a hearer the word would sound like 'nakhu' - or, as our knowledge of Egyptian vowels is approximate rather than precise, more probably 'nekhu'.

Patrick

[Jim Webster]

Do we know of anyone who is calibrating radiocarbon dating by dendrochronology?

You might find http://www.radiocarbon.com/tree-ring-calibration.htm interesting, looks as if a lot of work is being done

Jim

[Erpingham]

Do we know of anyone who is calibrating radiocarbon dating by dendrochronology?

The original radio-carbon calibration curves were of course based on dendrochronological sequences from the bristlecone pine.  So dendro and radio carbon have been tied together for a long time.  The big advantage of dendro dates is that they can be much more accurate than even modern C14 dates.  The downside is ideally you need regional sequences - hence the interest in the Lebanon Cedar sequences.  Also possible in the mix is magnetic dating - best for kilns but possibly usable on hordes of baked tablets, if you excavate appropriately.

[Erpingham]

  Actual 'Bronze Age' weaponry (if by this we mean Mycenaean era weaponry) has many branches in its own right, both in the Mediterranean and in Europe.

Patrick

Returning for a moment to weaponry, the Myceneans and MH.  I note you date the Mycenean era as Bronze Age and, indeed, weapons of similar types to those used by the Myceneans turn up further north in the more securely dated European Bronze Age.  Do you have an explanation as to why Bronze Age weapon types endured in the coastal levant, in order to be issued to the Greek mercenaries who are depicted on the MH reliefs?  Or are we assuming a class of weapons keeping the style of Bronze Age weapons developed in this area?

One other check on the Myceneans.  Your dating of the Trojan War puts it post Mycenean era.  This presumably fits with your discounting the Greek Dark Age, seeing a continuity from Mycenean directly into Geometric?  I assume you date thus because Homer clearly refers to two fighting styles for his heroes, so we assume that the war takes place at a time of transition?  Or do you have other sources e.g. Hittite?

[Patrick Waterson]

Do we know of anyone who is calibrating radiocarbon dating by dendrochronology?

You might find http://www.radiocarbon.com/tree-ring-calibration.htm interesting, looks as if a lot of work is being done

Jim

Thanks for that, Jim: I shall keep an eye on this.

I do wonder why the resultant calibrated radiocarbon dates still need a 'confidence level', though.  The basic idea behind tying in with dendrochronology is to get a reliable set of data - I suppose it is the usual 'plus-minus' thing that somehow seems inseparable from the whole radiocarbon process.

And yes Anthony, quite correct, and we can throw in thermo-luminescence where pottery is involved.  The difficulties seem to arise because these processes do not always give the dates expected.

Re-use of materials can also throw the occasional damp log into the woodpile.

Patrick