Replies

Thanks Fred Nerks.

Comparison with the Kyme Ingots, the Bucholz/Bass classification and the prevalence of the shape in Egyptian representations all point to the possibility that the wreck should be dated to the 16th–15th centuries bc. If so, this new wreck in Antalya of unique scientific value. Many modern methods such as 14C and lead isotope analysis, along with the excavation will certainly provide clearer, more accurate information.

When wood from the Uluburun II was RC dated, the wood turned out to be too young, so the sample was claimed to not to have been from the wreck, merely cargo. Really? Then why did you test it? :^)

The latest ring from the lumber was claimed to match the established ring sequences, making the latest ring 1305 BC, which is a floor beneath which the dating of the ship can't go, and that assumes that there are no later dates to be found, and that the ship was built in the year 1305 BC, and sank on its maiden voyage. Ships weren't built from year-old trees, or from green lumber.

Peter James et al point out that from the words in the report, the RC sequences of the rings (whatever they were) were actually *not* matched to the established sequences (it's often called a wiggle match), but rather eyeballed to see if the sequence of the widths of the rings matched.

A gold scarab of Nefertiti (conventional date c. 1370 to c. 1330 BC) was found on Uluburun II, which was also saddled on right away, but it showed a lot of wear from handling, probably centuries' worth). That was the reason the ring match was looked for in the 14th century. And NOT found. And why trying to measure the widths of the rings was done and the RC results presumably thrown out. The team that did the testing are strong advocates of a sort of master chronology from tree rings have actually bailed on their earlier eyeballing finding.

A gold scarab of Nefertiti (conventional date c. 1370 to c. 1330 BC) was found on Uluburun II, which was also saddled on right away, but it showed a lot of wear from handling, probably centuries' worth.

BTW, there is some wear on the artifact, but there's no way to say "centuries of wear" -- most people are familiar with the appearance of coins (gold or not) that have been in circulation for decades and show signs of wear. I should have made clear that the wear on the artifact was estimated -- but if you've seen a photo, judge for yourself how much wear can be estimated. Since the conventional pseudochronology *requires* that very little wear appear on the coin, due to the age the CP requires this ship to be, having a very worn artifact of Nefertiti in the cargo is, at best, problematical. If anything, the Uluburun II wreck has been a nightmare for those who cling to the CP like a dingleberry to an ass hair.

©2012 Pearson Inc. Egyptian. Mutual Influence through Trade: Scarab of Queen Nefertiti,wreck of the Uluburun. ca...

I don't think I'd seen this one before. Same page has a photo of the museum display of the above Nefertiti scarab, along with other artifact displays presumably from the museum. Amulet of Astarte:

Gold pendant from the Uluburun shipwreck (nisudapi)