This new discovery, so long after these other wrecks, will be a great opportunity to start a new excavation with the advantage of many technological advancements. At this stage, only typological evaluations can be made, since the newly-discovered wreck is still in situ. 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 16th15th 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.
That image you posted on the left says the tablet and statues were found in Michigan while the pendant was found in an Ohio river bed. Images from “Ancient American Magazine”. How reliable or true are these finds? Ancient American has unwittingly published hoaxes before.
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 16th15th 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.