So will this change the dates we normally see in textbooks for the Hittite and Phrygian civilizations? It sounds like the type of discovery Immanuel Velikovsky would have liked to see.
And without the bark, there's not even a clue about how much later the tree was cut down to make the gate. :')Do the results from the developing dendrochronology for Anatolia agree or disagree with CoD?Only the results from one Hittite site have been formally published, those from Tille Höyük on the Euphrates. These were striking. The construction of the last phase of the Tille Höyük Gateway is dated to 1101 + 1 BC, with its use lying in the 11th century BC. Yet Tille Höyük was an Imperial Hittite outpost, which on the conventional chronology would have been constructed about 1300 BC, and destroyed c. 1190 BC. The dendro-date is clearly impossible for the conventional chronology. Furthermore, the best fit for this sample (using the normal T-score statistical test) is actually in 942 + 1 BC (James et al. 1998, 41, n. 10)! An extra statistical test had to be introduced to avoid this awkward conclusion.
Peter James et al
CoD FAQ
A date of 1305 BC for the Late Bronze Age shipwreck of Uluburun was trumpeted as confirmation of the generally accepted chronology... In the recent Science paper it was virtually retracted... Another date of 1621 BC for a wooden bowl from the Shaft Graves at Mycenae has been categorically withdrawn. -- Peter James, "The Dendrochronology Debate", Minerva, v13 n4 (July/August 2002), p. 18
