317 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXII N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2015 318 RECENT DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE MIDDLE AND THE LATE BRONZE AGES IN THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN: 1 ) PART I Manfred BIETAK Austrian Academy of Sciences Institute of Oriental and European Archaeology Abstract InrecentyearsdiscussionsofthechronologyoftheBronzeand IronAgesintheEasternMediterraneanhasplayedamajorrolein research,withspecialfocusonthedatingoftheMinoaneruption of the Thera volcano. Historical and radiocarbon dating in some casesappeartoproducedifferentresults.Thediscussionsarepub- licised with much passion and conviction and by some scientists withpropaganda,withlobbyingandrepetitivepublication.Time’s Up!presentsthepapersofaconferenceinDenmarkwhichoffered aforumforthesediscussions.Thevolumeisreviewedin-depth. The editors leave no doubt as to their view, as the title already suggests, that it is time to acknowledge specific radiocarbon measurements of the date of the Thera eruption as the definitive resolution of the debate. It was perhaps good to let some time pass since the appearance of this publication in order to view at the results of this conference with more distance. The main editor of the volume is an Egyptologist and his qualification for publishing and contributing on a chronology conference is his involvement and co-authorship of a book on Egyptian chronology under the leadership of the renowned Egyptologist Eric Hornung. 2 ) The reason for organising this conference at Sandbjerg in Denmark was the investigation and radiocarbon dating of a branch of an olive tree from the island of Thera by two scientists of the University of Aarhus who wanted to present their results and discuss them with their colleagues. Following the editor’s preface and editor’s introduction is the keynote article of Walter L. Friedrich (geologist) and Jan Heinemeier (nuclear physicist) on the geological position of branches of two olive trees from the western edge of the major island. As a coda at the end of the book the radiocar- bon evaluation of the first branch of the olive tree is offered by the same authors and by the nuclear physicists Bernd Kromer (Heidelberg lab) and Christopher Bronk Ramsey (Oxford lab). Remains of branches of two olive trees were retrieved from the inner edge of the caldera south of Cape Alonaki in cavities which indicate that the trees stood upright and were probably still alive when the eruption happened. It seems that remains of a Bronze Age olive grove had been found. The first branch was investigated by X ray tomography in order to recognise tree rings. Four groups of 13 to 23 rings were 1 ) Review article on David A. Warburton (ed.), Time’s Up! Dating the Minoan eruption of Santorini: Acts of the Minoan Eruption Chronology Workshop, Sandbjerg November 2007, initiated by Jan Heinemeier & Walter L. Friedrich, Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, vol. 10, Athens 2009: Aarhus University Press. ISBN 978-87-7934-024-4. The writer is indebted to Otto Cichocki, Walter Kutschera, Peter Warren and Malcolm Wiener for reading this manuscript and for criticism. All mistakes are, however, mine. 2 ) E. Hornung, R. Krauss, D.A. Warburton, AncientEgyptianChronol- ogy, Leiden 2006. evaluated with median dates which were used to wiggle match the branch within the IntCal04 calibration curve. The overall median date of the eruption is specified as 1613±13 BC as a result of Bayesian statistical analysis. This result ranges within the expected radiocarbon dates on the eruption of the Thera volcano thus far published (see Manning et al. in the volume under review). It is even toward the lower end of the radiocarbon dates proposed thus far. Nevertheless the methodology of the olive branch investi- gation drew strong criticism from archaeobotanists as ever- green trees in the moderate Mediterranean do not develop annual tree rings but show density fluctuations without sharp borders. They may be caused by periodical draught and this may happen not only once a year. 3 ) The Danish scientists insist, however, on the correctness of their date even without annual tree rings. 4 ) The critics on the other hand maintain that no proof was offered that either the tree or the branch were alive at the time of the eruption. Long-dead branches can be seen in many olive groves in Greece still well pre- served after many years in this arid climate. Impressions of leaves found on a lower horizon of this site, the so-called precursor layer, can be claimed as evidence that the particu- lar branch was still alive at the time of the eruption. They may, however, be remains of normal deposits in such groves, leaves from any tree nearby, carried over distance by winds at any time. Moreover the cavity in which the branch was found was much larger than the actual branch remains and no evidence of the bark, the so-called waney edge which marks the end of the lifespan of the tree, was presented by the team. 5 ) It seems that the branch may have lost its outer layer and approximately one half of its concentric rings (as shown on fig. 3 in Heinemeier et al., the volume under review), prob- ably by decomposition and abrasion. If this is so, the carbon dates cannot be tied to the eruption event itself but could date decades earlier. Unfortunately dates of a second much larger branch are still unpublished nine years after the discovery by the same team. In part I: Evidence, geology, archaeology & chronology Alexander R. McBirney from the Department of Geological Sciences of the Oregon University presents a Volcanicchro- nology of Santorini which goes back nearly half a million years BP. He explains the different periods of eruption his- tory and periods of relative calm after major eruptions such as the Minoan eruption. He cautiously predicts signs of future increased activity. Floyd W. McCoy, volcanologist and oceanographer from the Department of Natural Sciences, Univ. Hawai, offers the paper Theeruptionwithinthedebateaboutthedate. It has, however, nothing to do with the date but is a useful summary with schematic sections on the tectonic setting, the recon- struction of the pre-eruption landscape, and the phases and 3 ) P. Cherubini et al., PLoS ONE 8(1): e54730. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0054730; idem, Antiquity 88 (2014), 267-273; P.I. Kuniholm, Antiquity 88 (2014), 287-288. — The findings of the plant anatomists have, however, been strongly rejected by W.L. Friedrich et al., Antiquity 88 (2014), 274-247 and Sturt Manning et al., Antiquity 88 (2014), 1164-1171, without responding to the criticism about the missing bark edge and the size of the cavity where the branch had been found which suggests that part of the outer layers of the branch may be missing. 4 ) W.L. Friedrich et al.,Antiquity 88 (2014), 274-247. 5 ) I owe this observation to Otto Cichocki from the Vienna Institute of Archaeological Science.
Transcript
317 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXII N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2015 318
RECENT DISCUSSIONS ABOUTTHE CHRONOLOGY OF THE MIDDLE
AND THE LATE BRONZE AGESIN THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN:1) PART I
The editors leave no doubt as to their view, as the title already suggests, that it is time to acknowledge specific radio carbon measurements of the date of the Thera eruption as the definitive resolution of the debate. It was perhaps good to let some time pass since the appearance of this publication in order to view at the results of this conference with more distance.
The main editor of the volume is an Egyptologist and his qualification for publishing and contributing on a chronology conference is his involvement and co-authorship of a book on Egyptian chronology under the leadership of the renowned Egyptologist Eric Hornung.2)
The reason for organising this conference at Sandbjerg in Denmark was the investigation and radiocarbon dating ofa branch of an olive tree from the island of Thera by two scientists of the University of Aarhus who wanted to present their results and discuss them with their colleagues.
Following the editor’s preface and editor’s introduction is the keynote article of Walter L. Friedrich (geologist) and Jan Heinemeier (nuclear physicist) on the geological position of branches of two olive trees from the western edge of the major island. As a coda at the end of the book the radiocar-bon evaluation of the first branch of the olive tree is offered by the same authors and by the nuclear physicists Bernd Kromer (Heidelberg lab) and Christopher Bronk Ramsey (Oxford lab).
Remains of branches of two olive trees were retrieved from the inner edge of the caldera south of Cape Alonaki in cavities which indicate that the trees stood upright and were probably still alive when the eruption happened. It seems that remains of a Bronze Age olive grove had been found. The first branch was investigated by X ray tomography in order to recognise tree rings. Four groups of 13 to 23 rings were
1) Review article on David A. Warburton (ed.), Time’s Up! Dating the Minoan eruption of Santorini: Acts of the Minoan Eruption Chronology Workshop, Sandbjerg November 2007, initiated by Jan Heinemeier & Walter L. Friedrich, Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, vol. 10, Athens 2009: Aarhus University Press. ISBN 978-87-7934-024-4.
The writer is indebted to Otto Cichocki, Walter Kutschera, Peter Warren and Malcolm Wiener for reading this manuscript and for criticism. All mistakes are, however, mine.
2) E. Hornung, R. Krauss, D.A. Warburton, Ancient�Egyptian�Chronol-ogy,�Leiden 2006.
evaluated with median dates which were used to wiggle match the branch within the IntCal04 calibration curve. The overall median date of the eruption is specified as 1613±13 BC as a result of Bayesian statistical analysis. This result ranges within the expected radiocarbon dates on the eruption of the Thera volcano thus far published (see Manning et al. in the volume under review). It is even toward the lower end of the radiocarbon dates proposed thus far.
Nevertheless the methodology of the olive branch investi-gation drew strong criticism from archaeobotanists as ever-green trees in the moderate Mediterranean do not develop annual tree rings but show density fluctuations without sharp borders. They may be caused by periodical draught and this may happen not only once a year.3) The Danish scientists insist, however, on the correctness of their date even without annual tree rings.4) The critics on the other hand maintain that no proof was offered that either the tree or the branch were alive at the time of the eruption. Long-dead branches can be seen in many olive groves in Greece still well pre-served after many years in this arid climate. Impressions of leaves found on a lower horizon of this site, the so-called precursor layer, can be claimed as evidence that the particu-lar branch was still alive at the time of the eruption. They may, however, be remains of normal deposits in such groves, leaves from any tree nearby, carried over distance by winds at any time.
Moreover the cavity in which the branch was found was much larger than the actual branch remains and no evidence of the bark, the so-called waney edge which marks the end of the lifespan of the tree, was presented by the team.5) It seems that the branch may have lost its outer layer and approximately one half of its concentric rings (as shown on fig. 3 in Heinemeier et al., the volume under review), prob-ably by decomposition and abrasion. If this is so, the carbon dates cannot be tied to the eruption event itself but could date decades earlier. Unfortunately dates of a second much larger branch are still unpublished nine years after the discovery by the same team.
In part I: Evidence,�geology,�archaeology�&�chronology Alexander R. McBirney from the Department of Geological Sciences of the Oregon University presents a Volcanic�chro-nology�of�Santorini which goes back nearly half a million years BP. He explains the different periods of eruption his-tory and periods of relative calm after major eruptions such as the Minoan eruption. He cautiously predicts signs of future increased activity.
Floyd W. McCoy, volcanologist and oceanographer from the Department of Natural Sciences, Univ. Hawai, offers the paper The�eruption�within�the�debate�about�the�date. It has, however, nothing to do with the date but is a useful summary with schematic sections on the tectonic setting, the recon-struction of the pre-eruption landscape, and the phases and
3) P. Cherubini et al., PLoS ONE 8(1): e54730. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054730; idem, Antiquity 88 (2014), 267-273; P.I. Kuniholm, Antiquity 88 (2014), 287-288. — The findings of the plant anatomists have, however, been strongly rejected by W.L. Friedrich et al., Antiquity 88 (2014), 274-247 and Sturt Manning et al., Antiquity 88 (2014), 1164-1171, without responding to the criticism about the missing bark edge and the size of the cavity where the branch had been found which suggests that part of the outer layers of the branch may be missing.
4) W.L. Friedrich et al.,�Antiquity 88 (2014), 274-247.5) I owe this observation to Otto Cichocki from the Vienna Institute of
319 CHRONOLOGY OF THE MIDDLE AND THE LATE BRONZE AGES 320
the effects of the eruption. This is also the theme of the fol-lowing article by Walter L. Friedrich and Nikolaos Sigalas The�effects�of�the�Minoan�eruption with rich illustrations on the effects of the eruption on houses and organic remains of the Bronze Age settlement of Akrotiri. The observations are based on investigations at three different sites on the island of Thera including the site of the olive trees (see above). The reconstruction of pre-eruption Thera is slightly different than that of the previous contribution.
Next come three important articles on the impact of the Minoan eruption on sites exposed to the Thera event includ-ing one or several tsunamis on the easternmost part of the northern coast of Crete, at the southern edge of the Gulf of Mirabello. These sites are situated only about 140 km south-southeast of the island of Thera.
The prominent Aegeanist Philip P. Betancourt of Temple University deals with Evidence�from�Pseira�for�the�Santorini�eruption; Jeffrey S. Soles of the University of North Caro-lina with The�impact�of�the�Minoan�eruption�of�Santorini�on�Mochlos,�a�small�Minoan�town�on�the�north�coast�of�Crete; and Thomas M. Brogan, Director of the Institute for Aegean Prehistory Study Center for East Crete, and Chrysa Sofianou of the 24th Ephorate of Antiquities with Papadiokambos:�new�evidence� for� the� impact�of� the�Theran�eruption�on� the�northern�coast�of�Crete. All three articles deal with the depo-sition of tephra from the Thera Minoan eruption, causing collapse of buildings and resettlement afterwards. It is impor-tant that all three sites show that the eruption happened at the end of LM IA. Specific traces of effects and deposits of tsu-namis were observed on Pseira.6) For Mochlos the excava-tors made a strong case for a sudden increase of settlement just before the eruption, suggesting that this phenomenon was caused by refugees from Thera, chased away by tremors before the eruption. Indeed the architecture of the rebuilding phase shows houses with features which are in plan and mode of construction typical for domestic architecture at Thera.
In a chapter to be considered central for the conference, Rolf Krauss and David Warburton present their view on “The�basis� for� the�Egyptian�dates”. Seven different tracks for constructing the Egyptian chronology are presented in a manner very useful for readers not familiar with Egyptian chronology. The biological record of the physical remains of royals is, however, omitted though it is a legitimate source of information for age estimates in comparison to possible regnal years, for instance.
The research tracks followed are: 1. Dead reckoning, tak-ing the highest recorded regnal year of a king. The writers acknowledge that this will result in a minimalistic assess-ment of the chronological possibilities as unrecorded but possible years of reign remain unconsidered in the calcula-tion. 2. King lists, which are problematic in that they are edited with politically motivated omissions. 3. Genealogies over several generations with records of contemporary kings in order to check the feasibility of the dynastic timespans. 4. Synchronisms of Egyptian with Mesopotamian, Mittanian or Hittite kings, particularly as recorded in the Amarna let-ters and the Boghazköy correspondence. Mesopotamian
6) For tsunami deposits at Palaikastro see H.J. Bruins et al., Journal�of�Archaeological�Science 35 (2008), 191-212. His conclusions are challenged by M.H. Wiener, “A Point in Time”, in: Cretan� Offerings, Fs Peter Warren, London 2010, 369, n. 25.
chronology is especially firm from the 14th century BC onwards. 5. Archaeological typology and stratigraphy bring-ing into play strata which can be related to well-dated kings. 6. Radiocarbon dating, especially when radiocarbon meas-urements are subject to Bayesian constraints provided by known succession of reigns, some of known duration via texts, as done by the Oxford Group. (These 6 tracks are con-sidered by the authors under the heading of “relative chro-nology”.) 7. Only astrochronology such as provided by lunar and Sothic dates could according to the authors, pro-vide absolute dates. As lunar events are repetitive they may therefore only provide timeframes into which the results of the other mentioned methods, especially dead reckoning and Sothic fixpoints, fit or not. Then follows a dead reckoning exercise from the earliest historically acknowledged date of 525 BC, the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses, backwards in time. From dynasty to dynasty the lacunae add to uncertain-ties and therefore the results are minimalist and lead to a particularly low chronology with Thutmose III. reigning from 1468 BC onwards. For kings like Thutmose I or Thut-mose II, only minimal reigns are considered. For Thutmose II only one year is allowed, although more and more monu-ments turn up for this king, for example recently at Duqqi Gel in Nubia and at Tell Hebwa near Qantara. A simple con-sideration challenges this kind of chronological calculation. Thutmose II’s accession to the throne was described in the tomb inscription of Inneni as “the falcon in the nest” i.e. he was still a child.7) How could he have fathered two children, one with the queen and one with a concubine, then pass away after one year, with Thutmose III already born and fit for the throne as a minor?
A shortening of the reign of Horemheb from 27 to 14-15 regnal years was considered in these calculations but although the authors knew of the publication of Jared Miller about the synchronisation between Horemheb and Mursilis II based on a recorded sun eclipse in Hattusas,8) they did not use this information. This overlap of reigns — if acknowledged — firmly places the reign of Horemheb between 1314-1300 BC, and thus would destroy the chronology presented in their central article for this conference. Further, the necessity to accord Seti I only 9 years because of the highest dating of the numerous wine dockets in his tomb9) and the necessity to raise the beginning of the reign of Ramses II to 1290 BC was a later development in chronological research not yet taken into consideration in the article of Krauss and Warburton.
Not quite satisfactory but innovative for this reader is the account on Sothic dating. The authors acknowledge thatthe calculation of the dates depends on the geographic posi-tion of observing the rise of the Sothis star after its period of disappearance (i.e. whether at Memphis, Thebes or First Cataract). It is well known that Rolf Krauss prefers for chronological reasons the First Cataract as place of the obser-vation for the rise of Sothis.10) The low Illahun Sothis date
SMEA 50, 2008, 533-554. — G. Wilhelm, Die�Welt�des�Orients�39 (2009), 108–16.
9) D.A. Aston, Egypt�and�the�Levant 22/23 (2912/13), 289-315.10) Inter alia: R. Krauss,�Sothis�und�Monddaten, HÄB 20, Hildesheim
1985; An Egyptian Chronology for Dynasties XIII-XXV, in: M. Bietak and E. Czerny, The�Synchronisation�of�Civilisations�in�the�Eastern�Mediterra-nean�III, CCeM 9, Vienna 2007, 173-189.
321 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXII N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2015 322
was supported not least because the combination with lunar dates preserved in the Illahun papyri of the reigns of Sesostris III and Amenemhat III provides the best fit.11) Thus besides the “dead reckoning” and the addition of known or estimated reign lengths the foundations of a very low chro-nology are pre-programmed. This results in the rejectionof the identification of the throne name Djeserkare‘ of Amenhotep I in the papyrus Ebers which mentions another rise of Sothis in the year 9 of this king because it would not fit the proposed chronology. Instead of dropping the Ebers date altogether as proposed with a different line of reasoning by W. Helck12) and U. Luft13), the authors, referring to the reservations by A. Erman about the reading of the dsr-sign, proposed a different king without — following Erman — presenting an alternative reading. In the end, they chose instead the last Hyksos Khamudi whose throne name isnot known! Thus, nobody can disprove this daring identification.
If we look, however, at the three signs of the cartouche the first, a round sign, would fit well the R‘, the second is an “arm”-sign, and the third is a k3. In the framework of this three signs combination, there is no other “arm” hieroglyph that could fit in but dsr. Moreover, one can observe a palaeo-graphic tendency in papyrus Eber to write the “arm” hiero-glyphs with an elongated circle as can be seen in Möller I 101 (Eber 95,11). Such round upper arm variations are still known in the days of Amenhotep II, e.g. Möller II, 107 (Lederhs). It seems that the second sign in the cartouche is an “arm holding an item” which could be a possible varia-tion on the dsr sign. Under the circumstances of the context of the “arm” sign in the cartouche it can hardly be anything else but a dsr. Indeed, no another alternative reading is suggested.
It is clear that the writers were eager to move the date of the papyrus, and the name of Amenhotep I is an almost unsurpassable hurdle in this case. As the palaeography of the hieratic limits the number of candidates available if it is not Amenhotep I, Khamudi was chosen. However, the authors presented no reason to relate Khamudi to the cartouche in papyrus Ebers.
David Warburton adds a postscript on the chronology, stratigraphy and typology of Tell el-Dab‘a, a site crucial for the understanding of chronology and history of the Second Intermediate Period in northern Egypt and the eastern Medi-terranean. He believes himself qualified to offer strong criti-cism of the published chronology and stratigraphy of the site and claims that although the evidence of this site is frequently used for establishing an interregional chronology based on stratigraphic contexts and imports, only few sections are pub-lished. He furthermore claims that on published sections the identification of the strata is not evident for the deposits
11) Ulrich Luft, who is not even cited in this chapter and is missed in the bibliography of the book under review, used also the moon dates, however with a less perfect fit, to position the Illahun Sothis date to 1865, finally to 1867 BC: U. Luft, SAK�16 (1989), 217-233; id., Die�chronologische�Fix-ierung�des�Mittleren�Reiches�nach�dem�Tempelarchiv�von�Illahun, Vienna 1992, 224-229; id., E&L 16 (2006), 309-316. His line of reasoning got independent support from Peter J. Huber, Journal�of�Egyptian�History�4/2 (2011), 172-227, Rita Gautschy, ZÄS 138 (2011), 1-19, and despite reser-vation about observation conditions by Thomas Schneider, E&L 18 (2008), 290.
12) W. Helck, GM 67 (1983), 49.13) U. Luft,�GM 92 (1986), 69-77.
displayed.14) If he would only have consulted the detailed description of the published sections in the book, he could not have made such statements.15) As the radiocarbon sam-ples from Tell el-Dab‘a produced continuous offsets of over 120 years and more,16) Warburton finally came up with the suggestion, that the phases and strata at Tell el-Dab‘a should be dated according to the radiocarbon results. He insists “It�is�no�longer�possible� to�speak�of�an�anomaly�[of the radio-carbon dates]:� the�anomaly� is� the�archaeological�dating,” (p. 144) as if Tell el-Dab‘a is the only site at which one could observe this big offset between radiocarbon dates and histori-cal chronology. The same kind of offset can be found in the Aegean (see the contributions of Malcolm Wiener, Peter Warren and Felix Höflmayer) and at many sites in the Levant (as an example, the destruction layer of Ebla where a faience scarab of the late Hyksos Period has the same high radiocar-bon dates as the terminal Hyksos phase D/2 at Tell el-Dab‘a.17)
One has to question the wisdom of the statement of David Warburton quoted above as it would mean dating the temple of ‘Ezbet Rushdi of Phase K at Tell el-Dab‘a, whose plot was assigned18) according to a stela in the 5th year of Sesostris III19) (ca. 1868 BC according to Kitchen, Luft and most experts, and 1831 BC according to Warburton and Krauss) at least 120-150 years earlier than the historical chronology. Moreover, one would have to date the end of the occupation of Avaris (c. 1530 BC, and 1504 BC according to Warburton and Krauss) to about 1650 BC, with the New Kingdom beginning then! Phase C/2, dated by the excavators at Tell el-Dab‘a according to scarabs of Thutmose I, Thutmose III and Amenhotep II (termini�post�quos!) and ceramic evidence to the later reign of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II, i.e. into the second half of the 15th century, should be fixed according to radiocarbon dates and Warburton to the first half of the 16th century BC. The Egyptological reader would understand that this is impossible to accept and that there is a remarkable radiocarbon offset to explain.
Paradoxically Warburton does not appear to realise that his own very low chronology enlarges even more the already existing offset from radiocarbon chronology which he tries to defend in connection with the 14C results from Tell el-Dab‘a. The group of the Oxford Research Laboratory under Christopher Bronk Ramsey has published an Egyptian chro-nology based on radiocarbon dates of samples tied to the specific reign of a king and presented in a Bayesian analysis with boundaries supplied by the known succession and esti-mated length of reign of Egyptian kings. 20) The Oxford group rejected the low chronology of Krauss and Warburton in favour of the standard Egyptian historical chronology (which
14) P. Fuscaldo, Tell�el-Dab‘a X/1, plans II-VII.15) Ibidem, 129-132.16) W. Kutschera et al., Radiocarbon vol. 54, No. 3-4 (2012), 407-422.17) K. Kopetzky, in preparation.18) The plot measured according to this stela comprises 26 mḥ what is
equivalent to the area of the early phase of the temple19) S. Adam, Annales�du�Service�des�Antiquités�de�l’Égypte 55 (1959)
pl. IX, misunderstood the text; H.G. Fischer, Revue� d’Égyptologie 13 (1961), 107-109 identified the measurements on the stela as area measure-ment; final discussion: M. Bietak, Egypt�and�the�Levant 8 (1998), 17-19.
20) C. Bronk-Ramsey et al., Science�328 (18 June 2010), 1554-1557; A.J. Shortland & C. Bronk Ramsey, Radiocarbon�and�the�Chronologies�of�Ancient�Egypt, Oxford 2013. — From historical point of view and therefore for other reasons, the low chronology was also rejected by T. Schneider, E&L 18 (2008), 275-313.
323 CHRONOLOGY OF THE MIDDLE AND THE LATE BRONZE AGES 324
is applied, by the way, to date the stratigraphy at Tell el-Dab‘a).21)
One may say finally, that the post�scriptum of David War-burton is the weakest contribution to the whole collection of articles. It also breaks the rules of objectivity which is expected from an editor.
Without any speculative approach Hermann Hunger, How�uncertain�is�Mesopotamian�chronology? gives a concise and sober account on the present state of research of Babylonian and Assyrian chronology, explaining possibilities to parallel both on the basis of synchronisms of rulers. The Assyrian chronology is of particular importance. It consists of king lists and lists of years named after high officials (eponyms). Unfortunately one cannot establish a continuous sequence from the preserved lists. One has to wait for the publication of newly discovered eponym lists from Kültepe. The early lists from the first half of the second mill. BC can be pinned down according to a mentioned solar eclipse. Later eponym lists are dated by other astronomic events such as lunar eclipses attached to a specific year. As the lists are not com-plete and the ability to link the parts with the help of astro-chronology are debatable, a possibility was opened withthe discovery of the Venus tabets with omina concerning the appearance and disappearance of the planet Venus linked to the reign of king Ammisaduqa. As the calendar dates of these tablets are copies of nearly a millennium later and much cor-rupted, this leaves space for emendations and differing results in the absolute chronology defined as “High”, “Middle” and “Low Chronologies” ending the dynasty of Hammurapi at 1651, 1595 or 1531 BC. In 1998 a team under H. Gasche from Ghent University came up with a “New Chronology” which ends the Old Babylonian Kingdom with 1499 BC.
The mathematician P. Huber from Harvard University has evaluated the Venus tablets of the reign of Ammisaduqa and came to the conclusion that only the “High Chronology” can be supported whereas the same tablets and other evidence supports the Middle Chronology22) as do the dendro-date 1774 (+4/-7) BC from beams of the palace of Açemhöyük in which seal impressions of Shamshi Adad I have been found. As the timespan between cutting the wood and its use and the lifespan of the palace as well as the relationship between the seal impression and the beams is unknown, this evidence cannot be conclusive in favour of the “Middle Chronology”. Hermann Hunger spreads out all this conflicting evidence and leaves the decision for “High”, “Middle” and “Low” or “New” open.
Since the publication of this volume, the scientist Joachim Mebert from Tubingen recalculated the astronomical data of the Venus tablets and came up with a low chronology, 8 years lower than the “Low Chronology”.23) Although not without criticism,24) such a position is easier to reconcile with the synchronisation of the Mari-correspondence, Hazor and Tell el-Dab‘a during the transition of Middle Bronze
21) C. Bronk Ramsey et al., Science 328 (2010), 1556.22) Recently supported by G. Barjamovic et al., Ups�and�Downs�at�
Kanesh—Observations�on�Chronology,�History�and�Society� in� the�Old�Assyrian�Period, Leiden 2012; T. de Jong, Jaarbericht�“Ex Oriente Lux”�44 (2012), 147-67.
23) J. Mebert, Die�Venustafel�des�Ammi-Saduqa�und�ihre�Bedeutung�für�die�astronomische�Datierung�der�altbabylonischen�Zeit, Vienna 2010.
24) P.J. Huber, Zeitschrift� für�Assyrologie 101 (2011), 309-320; T. de Jong, Journal�oft�he�American�Oriental�Society 133 (2013), 366; idem, Jaarbericht�“Ex�oriente�lux” 44 (2012-2013) 147-163.
IIA-B to early Middle Bronze IIB.25) If Conventional Egyp-tian Chronology is applied, this synchronism rules out the “High”, the “Middle” and Low Mesopotamian Chronolo-gies and is only possible with the Mebert and the New Chro-nologies (Fig. 1). If the Egyptian Chronology is raised by 25 years, the “High” and the “Middle” Mesopotamian Chronologies are still not possible, the “Low” and the “Mebert” Chronology are feasible while the “New” Chro-nology can be ruled out. But this is a reflection of a new development which was not yet published during the produc-tion of the conference papers of Sandbjerg.
Part II of the book is devoted to: Debate:�typology,�chro-nology,�methodology. It starts with five papers — most of them with an archaeological approach — in favour of low Aegean chronology, followed by a series of papers, mainly scientific ones, supporting the high Aegean chronology.
The paper of J. Alexander MacGillivray on Thera,�Hat-shepsut,�and� the�Keftiu is based on the assumption that the seismic destruction level (SDL) at the end of the MM IIIB period and the volcanic destruction level (VDL) caused by the eruption of Thera late in the phase LM IA can be found in historical Egyptian texts and are therefore well dated. The first event is identified with the description of unusual severe weather conditions in Egypt described on the so-called “Tempest Stela” of pharaoh Ahmose,26) the founder of the 18th Dynasty. The second event, the Thera eruption, is thought to be found in the famous Speos Artemidos inscrip-tion of Queen Hatshepsut in combination with the text on the Ptolemaic naos from Saft el-Henna, which should reflect traumatic climatic happenings at the time of Thutmose III. Based on one of the highest possible historical chronologies of Ancient Egypt the two events would occur in c. 1572 and shortly after 1500 BC and would mark the transition of MM IIIB to LM IA and the end of LM IA. Persuasive as this construction looks at first it has to be rejected for several reasons. The described symptoms such as darkness, rain, lightning recalled in the “Tempest Stela” of Ahmose seem not to reflect a seismic but, more likely, a volcanic event. Secondly, no regnal date is preserved from the stela. For epigraphic reasons the stela may date from year 1 until before year 22 of king Ahmose. This provides variability in dating of at least 21 years. The association of the second event (VDL) with the cited inscription of queen Hatshepsut and its connection to the Ptolemaic naos inscription c. thousand years later is based on a daring text-interpretation by Hans Goedicke. 27) Hardly any other Egyptologist would be ready to follow this conclusion.
The following article by Karen Polinger Foster from Yale University, Johannes H. Sterba, Georg Steinhauser and Max Bichler from the University of Technology at Vienna The�Thera�eruption�and�Egypt:�pumice,� texts,�and�chronology deals with the above mentioned “Tempest Stela” of Ahmose. The first author, who has repeatedly published and re-visited this theme puts forward all reasons to accept this text as a genuine account of the effects of a huge volcanic eruption for which only the volcano of Thera could be responsible. One has to concede that she makes this case highly likely or
25) A. Ben-Tor, Egypt�and�the�Levant 14 (2004), 45-67.26) J.H. Sterba et al., Journal� of�Archaeological� Science�36 (2009),
1738-44; see below the contribution of Karen Polinger Foster et al.27) H. Goedicke, The�Speos�Artemidos� Inscription�of�Hatshepsut�and�
325 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXII N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2015 326
at least acceptable, especially as the other authors in coopera-tion with her identified numerous pumice samples from Egyptian tombs. Samples from the Theran Minoan eruption have only been obtained from contexts of the New Kingdom onwards. Previous investigations within the SCIEM 2000 programme produced the same results on a hoard of nearly 400 samples from Egypt and the Levant. Theran pumice thus far has only been found in contexts from the New Kingdom and the Late Bronze Age onwards while earlier samples were all from earlier eruptions of other volcanoes.
The renowned Aegean scholar Peter Warren from Bristol University who together with Vronwy Hankey published the seminal book on Aegean Bronze Age chronology,28) has
28) P.M.�Warren�and�V. Hankey, Aegean�Bronze�Age�Chronology, Bris-tol, 1989. Updates by P. Warren in: OLA 149, Leuven 2006, 305-321; in: CMS Beiheft 8, Mainz 2010, 383-394;
repeatedly updated his results. In his paper The�date�of� the�Late�Bronze�Age�eruption�of�Santorini he summarises the reasons for his position which depends on artefact exchange between Egypt, the eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean. Thus the Egyptian historical chronology is applied to date the Aegean Middle and Late Bronze Ages.29) He shows an Egyp-tian stone vessel imitating an exotic jug as customary in the Thutmosid Period, specifically in the form of a jug of Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware, from Shaft Grave IV and an
29) P. Warren uses a middle chronology, starting the New Kingdom with c. 1540 BC, see for example: K.A. Kitchen, The Basics of Egyptian Chro-nology in Relation to the Bronze Age, in: P.�Aström (ed.),�High,�Middle�or�Low?�Acts�of�an�International�Colloquium�on�Absolute�Chronology�held�at�the�University�of�Gothenburg�20th-22nd�August�1987,�Gothenburg 1987, 37−55; idem, The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt: A Current Assessment,�Acta�Archaeologica�67, (1996), 1-18.
Fig. 1. — The Synchronisation of Egyptian, Levantine and Mesopotamian Chronology according to the Synchronisation of Tell el-Dab‘a and Hazor: Results according to the High, the Conventional and the Low Egyptian Chronology.
327 CHRONOLOGY OF THE MIDDLE AND THE LATE BRONZE AGES 328
Egyptian alabastron from the period of Ahmose to Amenho-tep I from Shaft Grave V. The Shaft Grave chronology in relation to the Minoan and Cycladic chronologies is secured by mutual exchange between Crete, the Cycladic islands and the Greek mainland. A bridge-spouted vase of late LH I or transition to LH IIA was found in the West House in Akrotiri and shows that this transition happened before the eruption and parallels a similar evidence from Palaikastro in Crete. Peter Warren lists a whole array of Aegean finds in Egyptian tomb contexts to show the position of LM IB in relation to Egyptian chronology, the time of early 18th Dynasty centring mainly in the reign of Thutmose III. He also discusses the famous appearance of a Cypriot White Slip I-bowl in Thera in a pre-eruption level, found by early French excavators and its significance for the chronology in relation to Egypt with the same results as in case of other discussed artefacts, show-ing that the spread of this ceramic ware falls into the early 18th Dynasty. This also provides significant information about the date of the Minoan eruption. Warren dismisses the absolutely unproven claim of Sturt Manning that this ware was produced earlier in northern Cyprus than in the south-eastern sector of this island. Moreover, typologicallythe object of discussion seems to have been produced in the southern part of Cyprus.
The paper of Felix Höflmayer Aegean-Egyptian�synchro-nisms�and�radiocarbon�chronology is a short version of his PhD dissertation.30) He comes more or less to the same conclusion as Peter Warren, that no consensus can be found between historical and the radiocarbon chronology asserted by Manning, Friedrich et al. for the period of LM IA-B, by focusing in a very methodical fashion on the evidence for the transitions between LH/LM IIIA 1-2 and end of LM II, LM IB/LH IIA to LM II/LH IIB and LM IA/LHI to LM IB/LH IIA and incorporating new material. He acknowledges, how-ever, that one cannot ignore radiocarbon chronology and should find a dialogue in order to explain the difference in the results.31)
Malcolm H. Wiener’s The�state�of� the�debate�about� the�date�of�the�Theran�eruption is the only article which reviews in a critical way the methods of radiocarbon chronology besides also discussing other scientific methods in obtaining dates for the Minoan eruption of Thera. The acid layers and tephra particles obtained in the Greenland ice cores were once considered as firm evidence for an eruption date of 1645 BC which would fit also to the pre-olive tree era 14C-dates for Thera until it turned out that the particles were both too small and too variant in measurements to produce secure evidence. The SIMS results in fact fit the eruption of Aniakchak in Alaska, believed to have occurred in the time range of the samples.32) It was not possible to obtain original samples of the same context level for a more advanced rep-etition of the SIMS tests in Gothenburg. The samples offered for this test investigation were from another level and con-tained some volcanic particles which cannot be tied to the
30) F. Höflmayer, Die�Synchronisierung�der�minoischen�Alt-�und�Neu-palastzeit�mit�der�ägyptischen�Chronologie,�CCeM 32, Vienna 2012.
31) In the meantime Felix Höflmayer had abandoned completely the findings of his dissertation and joined the camp of Sturt Manning. See Höflmayer in: S. Manning et al., Antiquity 88 (2014), 1164-1171, 1171-1179.
32) N.J.G. Pearce et al., Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 5.3.
Thera eruption.33) The dendro-indicaton of an event at 1628/7 BC, has now largely been abandoned with regard to the Theran eruption, as has the spike in the Porsuk tree rings at c. 1642 BC. What remains is radiocarbon chronology.
Wiener discusses many complicating factors routinely ignored in the presentation of radiocarbon dates. The sea-sonal variations of radiocarbon in the atmosphere (winter growth versus summer growth) was only recently researched and taken into consideration by the Oxford team under Chris-topher Bronk Ramsey and Michael Dee and amounts to an offset of 19±5 years in the 18th and 19th century AD.34) It is far from sure, however, if similar offsets could be expected in antiquity. Today seasonal variations in radiocarbon age estimates between the summer high and the winter low fall generally between 8 and 32 radiocarbon years, but with occa-sional greater variations.35)
Wiener further notes that the measurements, from which the calibration curve is constructed, are too few and only bi-decadal or decadal, whereas the seeds from which measure-ments are made grow in weeks or months, resulting in a potential divergence between the seed measurement and the semi-decadal or decadal average. Moreover some of the measurements presented are old and erroneous, produced before the introduction of high precision measurements. Another problem is seen in assumption of high precision in the application of the Bayesian probability analyses connect-ing sample measurements to the calibration curve. More problems are caused by release of 14C-depleted carbon through upwelling of the sea, groundwater and volcanic vents. The existence of such effects have been observed on Thera and surrounding waters.36) Such known offsets are only rarely taken into consideration in radiocarbon based chronological analyses. These factors are known but more research should be conducted to become more knowledgea-ble about these effects. Another requirement for more research is presented by the already established uptake of depleted carbon through the roots of plants. Even if only minor quantities such as 1% are absorbed the effect could be an increased age of 80 years.
Different laboratories produce offsets from each other which are tested and known. They are considered minor in radiocarbon years but this shows that lab conditions and the preparation of samples affect the results. As the machines and the preparation techniques are similar in the leading laboratories, it is difficult to know how much the offset from reality could be.
The radiocarbon age of measurements of samples of known date from the Southern Hemisphere is shown by recent studies to be higher by between 8 to 80 years (41±14 years) than those of the Northern Hemisphere. It is thought that the much larger sea surface in the Southern Hemisphere results in the ejection of old carbon from the
33) P.M. Fischer and M.J. Whitehouse, Quantitative SIMS (IMS1270) of particles from the GRIP Greenland Ice Core and Thera, paper presented at the SCIEM 2000 workshop “Ashes and Ice”, Vienna 8-10 July 2004. No tephra from Thera were found in the ±1645 BC horizon. The tephra found was most likely from the eruption of the Alaskan volcano Anjakchak. The results were not published, as the requested samples of other layers from the Greenland Ice core were not put under the disposal of the Goth-enburg research group. Peter Fischer, personal communication 2015.
34) M. Dee et al., Journal�of�Archaeological�Science 37 (2010), 687/693.35) M.H. Wiener, in: Cretan�Offerings (Fs P. Warren), London 2010, 370.36) F.W. McCoy and G. Heiken, Volcanic�Hazards�and�Disasters� in�
329 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXII N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2015 330
deep sea into the southern atmosphere by upwelling. It seems that such an effect is also possible in the environment of large bodies of sea in the Northern Hemisphere. There the calibration curve was constructed from trees (mainly German oak) which are far away from the sea whereas the Southern Hemisphere calibration curve was produced from trees not far from the sea.37) On the Japanese islands Cypress wood of the known cutting date of 389 AD has been sampled in 5-years intervals. The result was a minimal offset of 72 years.38) Other wood samples from Japan produced simi-lar result for BC dates.39) That proximity to the sea should have such an effect contradicts the rule that the atmosphere quickly absorbs the uptake of old carbon from a water-body and in a short time produces a mix. This principle seems not to apply to the divided hemispheres and seems also not to apply to the situation of the Japanese measurements cited. It is perhaps thinkable that the division line of the northern and southern atmosphere is not in strict keeping with the equator. The body of the Pacific which is besides the southern Atlan-tic responsible for the offset in the southern hemisphere extends also far into the northern hemisphere. The cited results from Japan only show how much research is required to gain more control over regional impacts on radiocarbon measurements.
Another critical note is added on the radiocarbon measure-ments of seeds from the volcanic destruction deposit on Thera on which so much subsequent discussion relies. The central dates of measurements are as much as 350 radiocar-bon years apart, and at the one-sigma-distance up to 500 years apart, yet the measurements have been inappropriately com-bined to produce a radiocarbon age with an error range of ±7.5 years!
Next Malcolm Wiener points out that Thera is surrounded by sources of 14C-defficient carbon which must have an effect on the 14C age of the vegetation. This statement is backed up by ample scientific literature. The effect is a high concentration of helium and CO2 in the soils of the central part of the island.40) Investigations about the uptake of defi-cient 14C via photosynthesis by the leaves or in small quanti-ties via the roots are indicated. Such effects are well known in Italy, where gas emission fields from the Apennines to the centre of Sicily frequently cause radiocarbon measurements that are too early for levels datable historically.41) Scientists are of course aware of the abovementioned problems in 14C dating but it seems that thus far only limited control has been achieved to balance the different reasons of offsets. It seems that given such considerations that there is still much research necessary to make radiocarbon dating a reliable tool for chro-nology in historical periods requiring a high degree of preci-sion in order to achieve reliable results.
Contrary to the previous highly critical article, dealing with all the problems of radiocarbon dating, especially in a volcanic environment, the paper of Sturt Manning from the Laboratory for Near Eastern and Aegean Dendrochronology at Cornell tries to inspire faith in the superiority of radiocar-bon results over the methods of archaeological/historical
37) G. Hagens, Egypt�and�the�Levant 24 (2014), 173-190.38) M. Imamura et al., Radiocarbon 49 (2007), 331-337.39) Ozaki et al., Radiocarbon 49 (2007), 473-479.40) McCoy and Heiken, Volcanic�hazards�and�disasters�in�human�antiq-
uity, Boulder 2000, 4841) Lit. In M.H. Wiener, in: Cretan�Offerings, London 2010, 371.
research: Beyond�the�Santorini�eruption:�Some�notes�on�dat-ing�the�Late�Minoan�IB�period�on�Crete,�and�implications�for�Cretan-Egyptian�relations�in�the�15th�century�BC�(and�espe-cially�LM�II).42) Based on stratigraphic and ceramic studies by Jerry Rutter, Manning claims that the Phase LM IB has a much longer duration than hitherto thought. No archaeologi-cal reasons are presented to distinguish between “early”, “late”, “final” and “destruction”- phases. Most scholars dealing with this period gave it only 80-100 years or even less. Short-lived samples from Khania, Myrtos Pyrgos and Mochlos were evaluated together, using results from the Oxford Lab. LM II samples from Knossos are added for contrast.
The results of the former three sites display a spectrum of 230 radiocarbon years for LM IB which is, however, within the variability of 14C dating. As a result the author gives a range for LM IB of c. 1600 to 1470/60, but a glimpse at the modelled results on pp. 218-219 shows that LM IB could last fairly well until the second half of the 15th century BC whereas LM II occupied the last third of this century, which is compatible with the low Aegean chronology. LM IB-Early in Khania shows its centre within the first third of the 16th century, according to the radiocarbon analysis presented. This is not compatible with the Low Chronology which dates the eruption and the terminal phase of LM IA in the latter half of the 16th century BC.
The historical/archaeological proposals of Manning are contradictory even within his own definitions of archaeologi-cal periods. He uses only his interpretations of the results of radiocarbon dating to put them into relation with the Egyp-tian historical chronology, while neglecting the evidence of archaeology and art history. On p. 221 he claims he can state with high precision that Thutmose III came to the throne between 6 to 20 years after the LM IB-Late destruction at Myrtos Pyrgos. On p. 222, however he agrees that there is an overlap between the end of LM IB and the reign of this king. The Vapheio cup representations in the tomb of Senen-mut, a high official under Hatshepsut, are dismissed as heir-looms although they date primarily to LM IA. The evidence of Peter Warren’s stone vessel imports from the 18th Dynasty found in Shaft grave IV and V are also dismissed: “No dem-onstration against a SIP [Second Intermediate Period] date is really possible. If the radiocarbon evidence prevails, then one should be considering manufacture also perhaps in the Delta region…” (p. 224). This is, however, wishful thinking. No such vessels have been found in Egypt during the SIP, and it is also not true that we lack SIP assemblages in Lower Egypt. At Tell el-Dab‘a alone hundreds of tombs were unearthed from this period. Very few contained stone vessels, but none had the shape of the cited Shaft Grave vessels. Moreover, the stone vessel production was concentrated in Upper and Mid-dle Egypt and not in the Delta. The imitation of a Red Lus-trous Wheelmade Jug from Shaft Grave IV cannot have been produced in the SIP. This ware is also unknown at the very beginning of the 18th Dynasty and only first appears in the time of Amenhotep I with a floruit under Thutmose III.43)
42) In the meantime Sturt Manning has updated his research with a series of papers, the most recent ones are: S. Manning et al., Antiquity 88 (2014), 1164-1179; S. Manning, A�Test� of�Time�and�a�Test� of�Time�Revisited,�Oxford 2014, which need independent reviewing.
43) K. Eriksson, The�Red�Lustrous�Wheel-Made�Ware, SIMA 103, Jon-sereds 1993, 96-98; I. Hein in Hein(ed.), The�Lustrous�Wares, CCeM 13,
331 CHRONOLOGY OF THE MIDDLE AND THE LATE BRONZE AGES 332
Moreover its imitation as a stone vessel must have happened after the first appearance of this pottery.
Manning also dismisses the overwhelming evidence of the first appearance of Thera pumice after the beginning ofthe New Kingdom in Egypt and the Levant and the total absence of any such finds during the Middle Bronze Age or the SIP when the samples of pumices found can be identified with earlier volcanic eruptions from other sources.44) He also ignores the evidence of the earliest appearance of White Slip I (WS I) Ware, which is disseminated together with Base Ring I Ware and Red Lustrous-Wheelmade Ware — everywhere in Egypt only after the beginning of the Thut-mosid Period. As a WS I bowl was found by the old French excavations on Thera in a pre-eruption context this is cogent evidence for a low chronology, dating the Theran eruption to the early New Kingdom. In order to circumvent these prob-lems, Manning claims that this ware appears in Northern Cyprus earlier, which must have amounted at least a time span of 100-150 years. There is no evidence for such an extraordinary statement. He cites as a proof his Fn 77 in which he quotes himself. 45) Serious petrographic and typo-logical analyses are required to support such a position, but none is provided. One has to be very particular in this case as the WS I-bowl from Thera is an important piece of evi-dence which cannot be waved aside as a “déjà vu”. The
Vienna 2007, 79-84; even the high chronologist R.S. Merrillees now, in Hein, op.cit. 152.
44) See above the article of K. Polinger Foster et al. In this volume.45) His own citation: „see e.g. Manning et al. 2006c, 482-5, (also Man-
ning 2007, 118-9) which details such a case”. But no details can be found there.
WS I bowl has been identified on typological grounds as originating from southern and not northern Cyprus by both Vassos Karageorghis and Robert Merrillees.46) It is a serious obstacle for the high Aegean chronology, particularly inas-much as the bowl must have been in use for some time before the eruption as it was repaired in antiquity. An end of the LM IA Period in the late 17th century seems out of ques-tion on the basis of current evidence.
After assessing the LM IB period which falls after the Minoan eruption, Sturt Manning together with Christopher Bronk Ramsey assess in the next paper the radiocarbon dat-ing of the prelude to this event in LM�IA:�The�dating�of�the�earlier�Late�Minoan�IA�period:�a�brief�note. One wonders why the second author who was also responsible for the radiocarbon dates of LM IB was not co-author of the previ-ous paper as it is customary in science. Perhaps he does not share the views concerning the radiocarbon data which Man-ning expressed in the previous article.
The problem is that there are not many samples from the early phase of LM IA available. Manning also has difficulty in the definition of this phase as he gives a range for the samples from Kommos across LM IA-Early, whereas Luca Girella defines this material as MM IIIA-B.47) Manning is aware of the difference in interpreting this material but does not explain why he prefers a LM IA-Early dating. The sam-
46) R.S. Merrillees, in: The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus, ed. by V. Karageorghis, CCEM II, Vienna 1990, 93; V. Karageorghis, Tombs at Palepaphos I. Teratsoudhia 2, Elimylia 27, Nicosia 1990, 57-60, Pls. VI;, XV:E, 11.
47) L. Girella, in: F. Felten et al. (eds.), Middle�Helladic�Pottery�and�Synchronisms, CCeM 14, z6 Vienna 2007, 233-255.
333 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXII N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2015 334
ples are in any event charcoal from architectural wood and therefore irrelevant because of the old wood effect. So also are the samples from Trianda/Rhodes and from the LM IA-Early context from Akrotiri. The short-lived samples used in this study to date LM IA (Late?) are all from Akrotiri. The others are from LM IB (Khania, Myrtos-Pyrgos and Moch-los, see above). Therefore in the comparative study (with or without the Akrotiri samples to show that there is no differ-ence), the latter results rest on old wood alone besides two bone samples from Miletus. The analysis could be explained as deriving from what samples were available at the time for radiocarbon analysis, but this path is not taken. Methodologi-cally speaking, this is a weakness in this study which has to be addressed. We would need short-lived late LM IA sam-ples outside Thera integrated in this study. Such sample measurements have been published in the meantime by H.J. Bruins and J. van der Plicht in form of cattle bones from tsunami deposits at Palaikastro.48) The dates would fit to the Thera samples besides that they encompass about 80 radio-carbon years. These data are used to discuss away the pos-sible old carbon effect on Thera by vents. One has to ques-tion, however, how genuine the tsunami materials can be as the aggressive flooding erodes and transports older materials. One should also consider the apparent 80-year difference in radiocarbon measurements of the bones of cattle assumed to have died at the same time.
What is striking is that in the modelled date of the transi-tion from early-Mature to Late LM IA on figs. 2, 4, 6, 8 the early part with the peak falls fairly well into the second half of the 18th century BC which could be explained by the old wood effect or the misjudgement in placing the material from Kommos in LM IA-Early instead of MM IIIB. This is not explained but rather ignored because on the overall graph Fig. 10 LM IA starts not with 1750 but with 1700 and ends with 1600 BC and LM IB ends at 1470/60 BC. This means that Sturt Manning is himself aware that these radiocarbon dates are too high and has corrected them silently to fit the dates he proposed years ago. This is therefore not an exercise in exact sciences.
Robert Merrillees, Chronological�conundrums:�Cypriot�and�Levantine� imports� from�Thera, uses all his diplomatic skills to explain the presence of the WS I bowl in a pre-eruption context in Thera in terms of High, Medium and Low Chronologies. As a high chronologist himself he sees that even starting Late Cypriot Bronze Age at 1650 BC to accom-modate this ceramic class (which first appears after the beginning of LC I) from its first production until the Thera event is hardly possible. In this case the event has to be dated at the end of the 17th century and even in such a case the wear and tear and the repair of the object under discussion does not fit into this scheme. He therefore feels obliged to raise the beginning of LC I by 25-30 years, which is unreal-istic, given the fact that LC I material has its first appearance in Egypt only at the end of the Hyksos Period (c. middle of 16th cent. BC), while WS I, BR I and RLWM Wares do not surface before the Thutmosid Period in Egypt. Enough mate-rial from Tell el-Dab‘a has been published to assess this situ-ation.49) The Egyptian Tell el-Yahudiya Ware and the
48) H.J. Bruins et al., Journal�of�Archaeological�Science 35 (2008), 191-212.
49) M. Bietak & I. Hein, In: The�White�Slip�Ware�of�Late�Bronze�Age�Cyprus,�CCeM 2, Vienna 2001, 171-194.
Egyptian red- and black-burnished juglets from Thera have no context and are therefore not helpful in the chronological research. Their typology would put them into the phases E/1- D/3 in Tell el-Dab‘a, which would be the end of the 17th and the first half of the 16th century BC.
Peter Fischer from Gothenburg University, in The�chro-nology�of�Tell�el-‘Ajjul,�Gaza:�Stratigraphy,�Thera�pumice�and� radiocarbon�dating, tries to please everybody and is often cited as support of the high chronology. The evidence he provides points to the opposite direction, however. His stratigraphy parallels in many respects that from Tell el-Dab‘a. With Bichrome Ware, BLWM-Ware, White Painted V/VI and Red Slip Wares, Horizon 6 compares to the assem-blage in Phase D/1 at Tell el Dab‘a, the earliest New King-dom level there (Fig. 2). With the combination of first appearances of BR I, RLWM, WS I and the Thera pumice, Tell el-‘Ajjul’s Horizon 5 parallels Phases C/3-2 at Tell el Dab‘a which date to the Thutmosid period (Thutmose III-Amenhotep II with scarabs of both, possibly beginning with Thutmose I). This date is confirmed by typical pottery from this period. Also the succeeding Horizons H/3-4 with BR II and WS II show a continuation of this stratigraphy. The date given by Peter Fischer for the beginning of H5 with 1560 BC with pottery of the Thutmosid Period is not archaeologically verifiable and even not in accord with the 14C dates. They fall into the second part of the 16th century BC, earlier by 50-60 years than the archaeological contextual interconnec-tions, and only at the extreme wide margin reach the high chronology which Peter Fischer proposes in this paper. One cannot even harmonise the evidence available by using a high Egyptian chronology with Thutmose III starting his reign at 1490 or even at 1504 BC — neither of which is proposed in this volume, but now taken into consideration by David Aston50). To accommodate the high Aegean chronol-ogy, this would still not be enough by more than 60-70 years, but Peter Fischer expressed the hope to find Theran pumice and WS I in his horizon H/6 or even earlier. As discussed above, thus far from over 400 samples from archaeological sites not a single particle of Theran pumice has been retrieved from contexts before the New Kingdom/Late Bronze Age in the Levant.
Anette Højen Sørensen from the University of Aarhus brings An�update�on� the�chronological�value�of�Minoica� in�the�Levant�and�Cyprus. It is a useful paper which addresses the contexts of Minoan products in the Levant and Cyprus, but does not contribute to the debate about the date of the Thera eruption. The royal tombs of Byblos, often used in chronological discussions, do not date to the late 12th Dynasty, as suggested previously, but according to epigraphic and ceramic evidence to the 14th Dynasty (Tombs I, II) and to the Hyksos Period (Tomb III) according to a ground-breaking new study of Karin Kopetzky.51) The Egyptian royal objects with names of Amenemhat III and IV were not diplomatic gifts but only a part of an excessive trade of looted objects during the 14th and 15th Dynasties.52)
L.C. Maguire,�Tell� el-Dab‘a�XXI,�UZK XXXIII, Vienna 2009 (with several detailed preliminary reports from 1995 onwards);
Raimund Muscheler, a geologist of the University of Lund, with his article 14C�and�10Be�around�1650�BC:�are�there� contradictions� between� tree� ring� and� ice� core� time�scales? reviews the contradictory claims of different scien-tists to have found evidence of the Thera eruption by radio-carbon dating of the olive branch from Thera and the discov-ery of acid layers, one containing tephra shards in three Greenland ice-cores dated to 1642±5 BC. As a connection to the Minoan eruption could not be established, the chrono-logical disparity between it and the radiocarbon measure-ments from the olive branch are irrelevant, but it nevertheless remains an interesting comparative study of the 10Be from the ice-core measurements and the 14C obtained from the tree-ring measurements in relation to the INTCAL 98 and 04 calibration curves. The final article on the olive branch by Heinemaier, Friedrich, Kromer and Bronk Ramsey has been already commented upon in connection with the first article by Heinemeier and Friedrich (see above).
An epilogue by the editor David A. Warburton is surpris-ingly balanced. He speaks of two camps, of those who believe in science, and those who believe in historical/archaeological evidence. He forgot to mention those who believe in a dialogue between science and historical/archaeo-logical research which should, however, not lead to a one-sided preference of historic data which fit the results of radiocarbon measurements and estimates best. The two prin-cipal approaches should be conducted independently other-wise mutual control is lost. Periods of greater differences should be closely scrutinised by both camps with innovative research until the reason for the offset is found. Susan Sherratt has expressed the dilemma in an unparalleled way in 2005:53) “narrative�history� is�one� thing,�ceramics� (and�their�approximate�relative�chronologies)�another,�high�preci-sion�absolute�dating�yet�another.�They�may�touch�each�other�from�time�to�time,�but�we�cannot�weld�them�consistently�and�seamlessly�together,�let�alone�subordinate�them�to�the�privi-leged�service�of�the�first�of�these.�They�each�represent�differ-ent�ways�of�measuring�passage�of� time,�and� together,�but�kept� conceptually� separate,� they� can� greatly� enrich� our�appreciation�of� the�complexity�of�ancient� life�and�society,�from�temps�recitatif�to�longue�durée”.
53) In: T.E. Levy & T. Higham, The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating, London & Oaksville 2005, 123.
![M. Karwowski; An Ithyphallic Celtic Figurine from Oberleiserberg, [in:] S. Berecki (ed.); Iron Age Rites and Rituals in the Carpathian Basin, Bibliotheca Musei Marisiensis – Seria](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/63147b2b85333559270cbadc/m-karwowski-an-ithyphallic-celtic-figurine-from-oberleiserberg-in-s-berecki.jpg)
