Skip to comments.New analysis on problems between archaeology and pharaonic chronology, based on radiocarbon dating
Posted on 06/17/2010 1:57:51 PM PDT by decimon
Article by Ben-Gurion University of the Negev professor published in Science magazine
BEER-SHEVA, ISRAEL June 17, 2010 -- In a just published article in Science magazine (June 18, 2010), Prof. Hendrik J. Bruins of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev presents novel implications related to new developments in the radiocarbon dating of Pharaonic Egypt.
The article reports that, for the first time, it is possible to relate the Minoan Santorini eruption with Egyptian Historical Chronology solely on the basis of radiocarbon dates. Thus, it appears that the eruption preceded the 18th Dynasty and occurred during the Hyksos Period. Moreover, conventional association of Egyptian history with archaeological phases at Tell el-Dab'a, the ancient capital of the Hyksos, located in the northeastern region of the Nile delta, do not fit in terms of radiocarbon dating.
Bruins is a researcher in the University's Department of Man in the Desert at the Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research and is affiliated with the Department of Bible, Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies. His research focuses on the 2nd millennium B.C.
"Major problems exist here in relation to the Santorini eruption between archaeological dating, radiocarbon dating and association between archaeological strata in the field and Egyptian Historical Chronology," said Bruins.
In 2006, Bruins received the Dutch Royal Award Officer in the Order of Orange-Nassau in the name of Her Majesty Queen Beatrix for achievements in policy-oriented studies on drought, hazard assessment and contingency planning in drylands, geo-archaeological desert research and innovative chronological studies about the ancient Near East.
He first came to Ben-Gurion University in 1976 as an instructor in the Department of Geography, then worked in the early 1980s for the Israel Antiquities Authority in the framework of the Negev Emergency Archaeological Survey. Bruins developed novel geo-archaeological research techniques, pioneered excavations in ancient agricultural terraces in the Negev highlands and discovered extensive tsunami deposits in Crete (Palaikastro), related to the Minoan Santorini eruption.
He also carried out research at the Ein el-Qudeirat oasis of northeastern Sinai, associated by some scholars with biblical Kadesh-Barnea. There, he became aware of the vital need to measure time in both archaeological and environmental studies with the same methodology: radiocarbon dating. This was the beginning of innovative research in cooperation with one of the best radiocarbon labs in the world situated at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. Several major archaeological sites in Israel are currently under investigation, as well as rural desert sites in the Negev.
For more information, contact Prof. Hendrik Bruins, email@example.com; office: 972-8-6596863; cell: 972-52-3930392
About American Associates, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
American Associates, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (AABGU) plays a vital role in sustaining David Ben-Gurion's vision, creating a world-class institution of education and research in the Israeli desert, nurturing the Negev community and sharing the University's expertise locally and around the globe. With some 20,000 students on campuses in Beer-Sheva, Sede Boqer and Eilat in Israel's southern desert, BGU is a university with a conscience, where the highest academic standards are integrated with community involvement, committed to sustainable development of the Negev. For more information, please visit www.aabgu.org.
Time after time ping.
did you just ping Cyndi Laupner? That’s so unusual...
Geology vs Egyptian Historical Chronology
Egyptian Historical Chronology loses again.
Please summarize it for those who are going blind this late in the day.
“is it bad for the Jews?”
( : >)
The article reports that, for the first time, it is possible to relate the Minoan Santorini eruption with Egyptian Historical Chronology solely on the basis of radiocarbon dates. Thus, it appears that the eruption preceded the 18th Dynasty and occurred during the Hyksos Period. Moreover, conventional association of Egyptian history with archaeological phases at Tell el-Dab'a, the ancient capital of the Hyksos, located in the northeastern region of the Nile delta, do not fit in terms of radiocarbon dating.Well, I have to tell ya, the headline had me pretty optimistic, but the story is a huge letdown. Here's an example of radiocarbon dating kicking the ass of the conventional pseudochronology:
Heh, and I'll forgo quoting something about the Nefertiti artifact taken off the Ulu Burun wreck -- suffice to say the RC dating of the wreck was saddled on immediately as being a fabulous verification of the entire dendrochronological series of the e Med, and a verification of the conventional pseudochronology, but as the ramification of the RC date dawned on the handful of brighter ones, the RC dating was itself thrown out and repudiated as irrelevant. It was cool.Did Joshua Destroy Canaanite Hatzor?However, when Ben-Tor began his excavations in 1990 he came upon a palace near Yadin's which he dated, by means of its ceramics, to a few hundred years later - that is, to the last half of the second millennium or Late Bronze (LB) period... "We had taken it for granted that there were two palaces," he says. "I now think Yadin erred and that the palace whose corner he excavated may perhaps be part of the same Late Bronze palace we've been excavating, not an earlier palace from the Middle Bronze period. It will take another two weeks of digging next season to prove it, one way or the other."
by Clarence H. Wagner, Jr.
|· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe ·|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· Archaeology · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·
science catches up. Again. (Actually, the link between Santorini and the Exodus has been pretty well established for decades...I remember a study by Woods Hole scholars back in the late ‘60’s. Let me GOOGLE
Yep - 1967
Bronk Ramsey and his colleagues also found some discrepancies in the radiocarbon levels of the Nile Valley, but they suggest that these are due to ancient Egypt's unusual growing season, which is concentrated in the winter months. For the most part, the new chronology simply narrows down the various historical scenarios that researchers have been considering for ancient Egypt.Wow, so, IOW, nothing has changed -- when radiocarbon dates DON'T prop up the pseudochronology, it's attributed to some unexplained, unspecified problem with Egypt; but regardless, such things are only good for narrowing down the dates, which we're already sure of. Hogwash!
So is the consensus that RC dating works everywhere except Egypt where it is often off by 600 years more or less?
Aw, please? ;-)
Imagine an eruption that blows up a mountain and leaves a ‘lake’ this size?
:’) The Egyptian dates, when too low, are rejected as the consequence of whatever magically delicious (but always unspecified) property has supposedly scrambled the results. I’d like to see cosmic ray exposure dating on the Ramesseum (the big temple that got cut out of the cliff and moved to save it from the waters rising behind the Aswan high dam), because there’s good reason to believe that the heads of those statues were never covered by sand or soil. And when the results come back 700+ years too low, it’ll be said that either the test was done wrong, or that the statues *must have* been covered for seven centuries sometime during their existence. ;’)
The Testimony of Radiocarbon Dating
[Dr. John Iles of Ontario, actually did succeed in one such an endeavor. In 1977 N. B. Millet, curator of the Egyptian Department of the Royal Ontario Museum, described the historical background of the mummy of Nakht, which the Canadian Medical Association was analyzing. According to Millet Nakht was “invariably described as the weaver of the kny temple” of King Setnakht, the first ruler of the Twentieth Dynasty and father of Ramses III. Millet wrote about Nakht’s mummy that there was “unusually clear evidence of its date.”(17)
Upon reading the report, Dr. Iles wrote a letter to the Canadian Medical Association’s Journal, asking that a Carbon 14 test be performed.(18)
The death of King Setnakht, the first ruler of the Twentieth Dynasty, is conventionally dated at -1198.
On Dr. Iles’ initiative, the Royal Ontario Museum submitted linen wrappings from the mummy of Nakht to Dalhousie University for radiocarbon testing. On November 9, 1979, W. C. Hart of Dalhousie University wrote to Dr. Iles: “The date on linen wrappings from the mummy of Nakht is: DAL-350 2295 +/- 75 years before the present (1950),” meaning -345 +/- 75. Dr. Iles reported these results in a letter to the association’s journal. (March 8, 1980).
The radiocarbon date for this well-documented sample,(19) -345 +/- 75 corresponds almost precisely with the revised date for Ramses III but differs from the conventional date by ca. 800 years. — JNS]
In the hope of obtaining an absolute date for the ship, seven wood samples taken from the keel-plank, planking, and cedar logs were submitted to Peter Kuniholm of Comell University for dendrochronological dating. While some samples did not have a sufficient number of tree rings to match the established master sequence, others with more rings appeared not to match at all. A large log-like piece of undetermined purpose, but with its outer layers trimmed, yielded a date of 1441 B.C. ±37 years, the uncertainty factor arising from the carbon dating of samples constituting the floating master conifer-ring sequence.Imagine -- the tree ring sequence matches something else entirely, but the EXPECTED date range doesn't include this sequence, so we give up. :') To quote my own bad self,
The biggest mystery is, if the (at the time) 100 year old piece of log was part of the wreck, how is it that the rings tested from "the keel-plank, planking, and cedar logs... didn't match at all"? IMHO, the reason is obvious -- the ship doesn't date from that time, so the dendrochronological wiggle-match wouldn't work, or rather, yielded a date incompatible with other features of the wreck. The rings which didn't match at all instead matched a series of years such that the trees themselves hadn't grown when the ship went down. ;')Something else from the files, probably posted it on FR before, dunno though:
Not surprisingly, in his abstract Baillie mentions no synchronism in the Irish tree ring sequences to match the supposed mammoth eruption in the 17th c. But there's one in California? Not by a jug o' s-. The 207 BC synch would match the only historical record (Strabo) which survives from ancient literature. The rest correspond to other things, as would the bristlecones, and for that matter, so could the 207 BC squeeze.Dendrochronological Dating, Results And Open ProblemsIn 1984 Val LaMarche and Kathy Hirschboeck pointed out a severe frost ring in their Californian bristlecone pine tree-ring record relating to the calendar year 1627 BC. Their suggestion that this frost event might have been due to the eruption of the Santorini volcano in the Aegean is still a source of active debate. Their work stimulated the observation of a series of narrowest-ring events in an Irish oak chronology at dates 3195 BC, 2345 BC, 1159 BC, 207 BC and AD 540. These dates, it turns out, fall in the vicinity of several possibly traumatic environmental events marked in human records by such phenomena as dynastic changes, Dark Ages and plagues (Baillie 1995).
by Mark Baillie
ulu burun site:freerepublic.comNew Ice-Core Evidence Challenges the 1620s ageDetermining a reliable calendrical age of the Santorini (Minoan) eruption is necessary to place the impact of the eruption into its proper context within Bronze Age society in the Aegean region. The high-resolution record of the deposition of volcanically produced acids on polar ice sheets, as available in the SO42-time series from ice cores (a direct signal), and the high-resolution record of the climatic impact of past volcanism inferred in tree rings (a secondary signal) have been widely used to assign a 1628/1627 age to the eruption. The layer of ice in the GISP2 (Greenland) ice core corresponding to 1623Â±36 , which is probably correlative to the 1628/1627 event, not only contains a large volcanic-SO42-spike, but it contains volcanic glass. Composition of this glass does not match the composition of glass from the Santorini eruption, thus severely challenging the 1620sage for the eruption. Similarly, the GISP2 glass does not match the composition of glass from other eruptions (Aniakchak, Mt. St. Helens, Vesuvius) thought to have occurred in the 17th centurynor does it match potential Icelandic sources. These findings suggest that an eruption not documented in the geological record is responsible for the many climate-proxy signals in the late 1620s . Although these findings do not unequivocally discount the 1620s age, we recommend that 1628/1627 no longer be held as the "definitive" age for the Santorini eruption.
for the Santorini (Minoan) Eruption
by Gregory A. Zielinski
and Mark S. Germani
13 July 1997
New Ice-Core EvidenceDetermining a reliable calendrical age of the Santorini (Minoan) eruption is necessary to place the impact of the eruption into its proper context within Bronze Age society in the Aegean region. The high-resolution record of the deposition of volcanically produced acids on polar ice sheets, as available in the SO42-time series from ice cores (a direct signal), and the high-resolution record of the climatic impact of past volcanism inferred in tree rings (a secondary signal) have been widely used to assign a 1628/1627 age to the eruption. The layer of ice in the GISP2 (Greenland) ice core corresponding to 1623±36 , which is probably correlative to the 1628/1627 event, not only contains a large volcanic-SO42-spike, but it contains volcanic glass. Composition of this glass does not match the composition of glass from the Santorini eruption, thus severely challenging the 1620s age for the eruption. Similarly, the GISP2 glass does not match the composition of glass from other eruptions (Aniakchak, Mt. St. Helens, Vesuvius) thought to have occurred in the 17th century nor does it match potential Icelandic sources. These findings suggest that an eruption not documented in the geological record is responsible for the many climate-proxy signals in the late 1620s . Although these findings do not unequivocally discount the 1620s age, we recommend that 1628/1627 no longer be held as the "definitive" age for the Santorini eruption.
Challenges the 1620s
age for the Santorini
by Gregory A. Zielinski
and Mark S. Germani
13 July 1997
Identification of Aniakchak (Alaska) tephraMinute shards of volcanic glass recovered from the 1645 ± 4 BC layer in the Greenland GRIP ice core have recently been claimed to originate from the Minoan eruption of Santorini [Hammer et al., 2003]. This is a significant claim because a precise age for the Minoan eruption provides an important time constraint on the evolution of civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean. There are however significant differences between the concentrations of SiO2, TiO2, MgO, Ba, Sr, Nb and LREE between the ice core glass and the Minoan eruption, such that they cannot be correlatives. New chemical analyses of tephra from the Late Holocene eruption of the Aniakchak Volcano in Alaska, however, show a remarkable similarity to the ice core glass for all elements, and this eruption is proposed as the most likely source of the glass in the GRIP ice core. This provides a precise date of 1645 BC for the eruption of Aniakchak and is the first firm identification of Alaskan tephra in the Greenland ice cores. The age of the Minoan eruption of Santorini, however, remains unresolved.
in Greenland ice core
challenges the 1645 BC date
for Minoan eruption of Santorini
Nicholas J. G. Pearce
John A. Westgate and Shari J. Preece
Warren J. Eastwood
William T. Perkins
by my buddy Berosus:
(sez “this article has been deleted”, and in the Wayback Machine, the newest three or so say the same thing)
The Battleground (Who Destroyed Megiddo? Was It David Or Shishak?)
Bibical Archaeology | 10-23-2003 | Timothy P. Harrison
Posted on 10/23/2003 4:49:06 PM PDT by blam
Anatolian tree-ring studies are untrustworthy
The Limehouse Cut | 30 October 2005 | Douglas J. Keenan
Posted on 02/03/2006 8:59:13 AM PST by SunkenCiv
Theban Mapping Project (Valley of the Kings etc)
Theban Mapping Project | 1980s to present | Kent Weeks et al
Posted on 01/13/2005 8:03:55 PM PST by SunkenCiv
What does it mean, Gene? What the Farouk, Luke?
Tut, tut, mummy's the word.
[piano plays] walkin in Memphis...
.....Egyptian Historical Chronology loses again......
British scholarship loses..... finally
you mean that pharoah had an MSM to say how great he was all the time too?
radiocarbon egypt site:freerepublic.com
While the results of Ramsey's research may present a compelling reason to revise records for the two millennia when Egypt dominated the Mediterranean world, Hawass remains categorical in his rejection of the technique: "Not even in five thousand years could carbon dating help archeology. We can use other kinds of methods like geoarcheology, which is very important, or DNA, or laser scanning, but carbon dating is useless. This science will never develop. In archeology, we consider carbon dating results imaginary."
Imagine there’s no carbon dating,
it’s easy if you try.
Should we go by the posting date of this thread or does it need a carbon job?
Electron spin resonance would be more apropos.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.