Tree Rings, Egyptian Dates, and Thera

[Henry Hillbrath]

There has already been some discussion here on alt.archaeology about
the recent "Letter to Nature:" "Anatolian tree rings and the
absolute chronology of the eastern Mediterranean, 2220-718 BC," ( by
Peter Ian Kuniholm et al, Nature, Vol 381, 27 June 1996, page 780-
782 and the "view" of it by Colin Renfrew, "Kings, Tree Rings, and
the Old World," same issue, page 733.)

I think that this is a *very* important paper, and I have a few more
comments, for what they are worth. Not just on what Kuniholm and
Renfrew said, but, also on the background, and what was not said.

The paper by Kuniholm is one that some of us have been waiting to
see, with baited breath, for a while now. It has been well
publicized that the tree ring group at Cornell, who have been
working on Aegean dendrochronology sequences for some time, were
getting ready to reveal some important new stuff, including the
"final answer" on the eruption of Thera. Is it 1628, or isn't it?

(you don't have to wait, Kuniholm says yes, Renfrew says he wants
more evidence. No big surprise in either case.)

This is one more round in a controversy that has been going on since
the early '70s. It is not quite over yet, but, these papers seem to
be setting the stage for the "fat lady."

The new data that Kuniholm et al present is much as had been
expected. The most important stuff is that some tree ring samples
have been found, at a site named "Porsuk" which span the magic 1628
BC date. Porsuk is 840 km east of Thera. The samples from Porsuk
have been combined with other samples to form a "floating" sequence
1503 years long, which Kuniholm proposes spans the period in the
title of the paper, 2220-718 BC, a period that is of considerable
interest to a lot of people. And, in the right place, too.

Ring number 854 of the sequence is a *real* "ringer." It shows an
"event much more dramatic and clearly defined than any other growth
anomaly in 6500 years of Aegean tree-ring chronologies..."

By "wiggle matching" 18 samples from a single log from a different
part of the chronology to a C14 calibration curve, the date of ring
854 is 1641 +76/-22 BC. A "window," it will be noted, that includes
1628. For doubters, 470 years later, another ring has an anomaly
"significant but much smaller than ..." that of ring 854. If ring
854 is 1628, then this smaller anomaly is 1159 BC, which is where
Baillie has reported on an anomaly in European chronologies.

Can't ask for better than that! Almost too good. There is one small
point, the growth anomaly of ring 854 is that of enhanced growth,
250 to 739 percent of normal. (The average is 241.6 percent. I would
like to know how that happens.)

All the other anomalies that I know of that were thought to be due
to dust clouds are reduced growth, or missing rings. Kuniholm
doesn't seem bothered by this. "such and exceptional growth event
must be due to unusually high and sustained soil moisture and
content and a sharp drop in midsummer evapotranspiration, that is,
for a short time there was unusually cool and wet weather."

Although I didn't expect that, and never heard of anything similar,
it doesn't seem too surprising that a dust cloud could enhance
growth if moisture is more important than sunlight, which is
certainly could be in some locations. Whether more, or less, growth
would occur would be very sensitive to location. In the California
bristlecone pines, which are located very near the frost line
anyway, the result of a dust plume would very understandably be what
is observed. Summer frost damage. The same is true for trees in
northern Europe. Those happen to be the trees and areas which have
had the most dendro studies.

Increased rain is also an observed effect volcanic eruptions. The
Chinese, describing what is very likely the Thera eruption (and if
not, some volcanic eruption) state that floods were one of the
unusual weather conditions they observed.

In 1816, there was the "Year with No Summer," (or "Eighteen Hundred
and Froze to Death") which caused wide spread crop failures in
various parts of the world (but, contrary to some versions, had no
effect on Napoleon, who was already on St. Helena at the time.) This
is no though to have been the result of the eruption of Tambora
(Indonesia). This was one of the largest eruptions known in
historical times, VEI (discussed later) of 7.

In New England, the corn ("Indian Corn" or "Maize") crop was
seriously affected by frosts in June and August. But, the "wheat and
rye never yielded more abundantly." In Virginia, a few hundred miles
south, the effect is scarcely noticeable in records kept by Thomas
Jefferson.

New England and Virginia are a long way from Indonesia. The effects
closer to an eruption are likely to be more noticeable, and more
variable. At the very least, it doesn't make sense to start looking
for an explanation not involving the Thera eruption if the anomaly
occurs at the correct time. A bit much of a coincidence if there
were two climatic disturbances, in opposite directions, in the same
window.

My feeling is that Kuniholm has got it right, and I expect this
sequence to be much used for dating (at the very least, everyone is
going to check to see how their results compare.) and I expect many
further confirmations.

Some confirmations are already available. One immediate result of
this new chronology is that "wood found as a part of the cargo on
the Kas/Uluburun shipwreck has a last preserved ring of 1316 BC,
other finds include Mycenaean pottery from Greece (the most recent
material present is early Late Hellenic IIIB...), and a unique gold
scarab of Nefertiti, wife of Akhenaten, pharaoh of Egypt. These
provide links to the chronologies of the Aegean and Egypt, and
confirm conventional 14-12 century BC chronology against recent
radical critiques [James, P. et al, "Centuries of Darkness..."]"

Confirming 12-14 century BC dates is one for the traditionalists.
But, there is some bad news for them, also. "Can't have one with out
the other." [It was not Kuniholm who said that, but some one else.
But, they must have been talking about dendro sequences, as that is
the way they work. The whole thing has to go together, not like
historical records, where on can fudge a bit here, up date a bit
there, down date some place else. The whole thing slides back and
forth and everything depends on everything else.]

Kuniholm says: "If sustained, a date of 1628 BC for the Thera
eruption will require a major revision of Aegean chronology at the
beginning of the Late Bronze Age, raising the date of the eruption,
and the associated Minoan, Mycenaean and Cycladic archaeological
phases, from ~1500 BC to 1628 BC. Sets of material and stylistic
linkages between the Aegean, Cypriot, Levantine and Egyptian
cultures mean that this revision will lead to large changes in Old
World chronology and history in the 18-15th centuries BC,
Longstanding assumptions and conventions in both Egyptian and Old
World chronology and history will need to be re-examined."

I would guess that Kuniholm doesn't have the slightest doubt about
his findings, but, those are the sort of soft words one has to use
to get past peer review, sometimes.

How does he expect his findings to be "sustained?"

"...definitive confirmation must await the identification of Thera
eruption products in a dated ice core, as has now been achieved for
several more recent eruptions [Zielinski, et al. Holocene 5, 129-
140. I haven't seen that one, but, sounds important. Zielinski is
the author of a major paper on dating volcanic eruptions from
Greenland ice core data.]

Actually, there is nothing very surprising, except for the excess
growth anomaly, in what was actually said. The paper mostly deals
with the careful, through sort of work that is necessary to confirm
a lot of things that have already been speculated on, and for which
convincing evidence has already been presented. And, it does provide
a useful new tool for dating wood in the near east, Egypt, Greece
and nearby areas. Kuniholm's comments on Thera being the origin of
the growth anomaly are slightly remarkable, as whether the 1628
event is, or is not, Thera is really not the main issue as far as
his sequence is concerned.

He could have either argued that it was the 1628 event observed in
other dendro sequences without expressing a specific preference for
an origin. Or, he could have given other evidence, which has been
around for a while, and is probably more significant for the source
of the event than the tree rings are.

Nor is the rebuttal by Renfrew very surprising, either. Not if you
are familiar with Renfrew, and you know where he is coming from. For
those that do not know him, he was formerly the "doyen" of
archaeology at Cambridge University. If he were a U. S. politician
rather than an archaeologist, he would be denouncing Newt, Pat, Rush
and the rest as "Bleeding Heart Pinko Liberals." Although he may
have made a few speculations of his own, and has stepped on a few
linguistic toes by wandering afield, Renfrew has always been a bit
tough on other peoples flights of fancy.

In particular, Renfrew is the epitome of anti-diffusion. If a thing
exists, according to Renfrew, it was invented right there, in that
spot, until proven otherwise. And, he wants a lot of proof.
Specifically, he is chiefly associated with the refutation of the
idea that the east, Minos and Egypt, ever had any effect on Europe.
(I am sure that there are exceptions, even for Renfrew.)

I am not presuming to say that Renfrew has ever been wrong. Nor, am
I saying that he has not had some progressive ideas. He has.

He was very early to recognize the importance of Thera, and has been
active in organizing the once a decade Thera conferences. And, he is
a proponent of dendrochronology, and has been for at least the last
25 years.

"The goal of constructing a precise, reliable chronology for the
eastern Mediterranean, based on tree-ring dating and supported by
radiocarbon determination, is now clearly in sight...."

"...when the Anatolian tree-ring sequence can confidently be used to
give absolute dates for the time range from 3000 BC, the entire
prehistoric and early historic chronology of Egypt and the Near East
will have to be revised, using the more secure chronological
framework that dendrochronology can offer. "

And, he says nice things about Kuniholm and his colleagues in the
best tradition of academic etiquette. "Their work offers the best
hope we have for a really sound chronology for the later
prehistory..."

Renfrew is *not* one of those with his head in the sand, who thinks
that scientific dating is going to go away, and can be ignored. He
just doesn't intend to go without a fight, not on some particular
points that he is sensitive about.

One thing that Renfrew did do which seemed out of character to me
was that at the Thera III conference, he seemed quite willing to
accept the 1628 BC dating. Some people here on s. archaeology
thought his opinion was the position adopted by the conference (he
was one of the organizers) and I got badly beaten up by those that
thought that I was opposing the "official" date.

Well, he seems to have revised his view.

"Hitherto, it has been the historical chronologies of Egypt and the
Near East...which have offered the bedrock for the absolute
chronology of the eastern Mediterranean."

...

"All this is now on the brink of being reversed ... The historical
chronologies of Egypt and the Near East will assume a secondary
status, being calibrated according to the links with what will in
the future be the primary area [Anatolia] for the master
chronology."

"But has that day been reached? The wiggle-matching, based on 18
radiocarbon determinations...looks sound enough, but not as precise
as one might wish. Kuniholm et al. claim that the chronology is
anchored by the "remarkable growth anomaly", seen in the 36 trees
from Porsuk... which they choose to equate with the major growth
anomalies at 1628/1627 BC in Europe and the United States. But
before re-structuring the entire chronology of the Near East on the
basis of the new primacy of this Anatolian chronological system, we
much ask just how compelling is this equation between the Porsuk
growth event and the widespread event of 1628 BC?"

He then questions how a dust mantel can cause growth. He continues:

"Kuniholm et al. complicate the story further by reasserting the
long-standing suggestion that the special Northern Hemisphere marker
event of 1628 BC was itself caused by the eruption of Thera,
conventionally dated more than a century later than this. The
alternative cause might be an as yet unidentified volcano, whether
in Iceland or Alaska or elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere.
Recently, the advocates of the conventional (lower) chronology have
taken great comfort from the discovery of pumice, presumably
deriving from the great eruption at Thera, in strata which follow
those of the late Hyksos palace recently unearth at Tell Dab'a in
Lower Egypt. Deposits associated with that palace contained
fragments of fresco paintings of Minoan character closely resembling
some of those found in Thera and dating from the period there
immediately before the great eruption."

"Because these pumice finds seem to link the Theran eruption
securely with a time at the beginning of the XVIIIth dynasty of
Egypt (usually set at about 1550 BC), to adopt the date of 1628 BC
proposed by Kuniholm et. al. would imply very substantial changes to
the historical chronology of Ancient Egypt. That cannot be ruled
out, but such changes would need to be based upon more than a
suppositious correlation between the Thera eruption and the 1628 BC
even seen in the Northern Hemisphere tree rings and ice cores
(although the ice cores were initially interpreted as indication a
global event at 1645 BC)."

Renfrew is one of the most prestigious archaeologists around. I am
not any sort of archaeologist, but I have no problem trusting my
judgment on measurement science as well as I trust Renfrew (or
Kuniholm). In this case, I think he is shooting blanks, and more
than that, Renfrew is "blowing smoke" too, in an effort to make his
case sound stronger than it is.

What does Renfrew want as proof?

"One grain of Theran tephra at the appropriate point in a single
Greenland ice core would be enough to establish a sound link going
beyond mere supposition. Alternatively, and unassailable causal link
between the Theran eruption and the growth anomaly in the Porsuk
trees would do very nicely." That is almost exactly what Kuniholm
said, which sounds like the editors of Nature may have brokered a
compromise acceptable to both parties.

That is a summary of most of the points in the paper, as well as
critique by Renfrew.

The most important part of any scientific debate, is, of course, the
stuff that doesn't get said but which "everyone" knows.

(Continued in another article)

Henry Hillbrath

[Henry Hillbrath]

(Continued from a previous article)

In a previous article, I summarized what Kuniholm and Renfrew had to
say in the June 27 issue of Nature about Anatolian tree rings.

So, now "Page 2, the rest of the story..."

In this article, I hope to give some of the background, and what is
"between the lines" in the paper and critique.

Renfrew is a really smart guy, he knows a lot more about this stuff
than he is telling us.

In the first place, he knows where the 1645 Greenland ice core date
he talks about came from (Hammer et al., Nature, 1987) and he knows
what estimate error limit (+/- 20 years) goes with it. And that
Cadogan (also in Nature, 1987) made this same argument then. (I am
not sure, but, I bet that Cadogan is one of Renfrew's Cambridge
associates.) And, Renfrew knows that Sturt Manning said that
Cadogan's arguments for a later date:

"...not correct. Only traditional pottery studies support this
view....Cadogan argues that because three independent scientific
techniques (ice core, dendrochronology and radiocarbon) produce
results which very by only 30 years over 3,600 years, they should
all be rejected. Instead, he asks us to accept a subjective
archaeological date a century later."

("Dating of the Santorini Eruption," Nature 332 31/3: 401 (1988).)

So, Renfrew's argument is old news, and has been for nearly a
decade. I think that most people familiar with this work accepted
Manning's view, not Cadogan's.

And, I suspect that Renfrew also knows that in a more recent paper
on Greenland ice cores by Zielinski et al. (Science, 13 May 1994)
found a high acid level in the 1623 BC layer, an almost perfect time
match for a 1628 Thera event. (It was a sulfate ion residual level
of 167, the seventh highest found in the last 4000 years. However,
Zielinski pointedly declined to get involved in the Thera dating can
of worms. It is Zielinski that has more recently has been
"fingerprinting" tephra samples in the Greenland ice cores. And, it
is apparently Zielinski that both Renfrew and Kuniholm have elected
to settle this thorny question for them.)

(BTW, though I haven't gotten around to digging out the Hammer
paper, and, Zielinski does not give a complete explanation of the
method used to determine the dates of the ice layers. He refers to
another, obscure, paper for fuller explanation. But, he does say
"The depth-age scale of the core was developed through the counting
of annual signals observed in physical properties, through
electrical conductivity methods (ECM), and in laser-light scattering
characteristics of the ice. The ECM signal observed in the GISP2
[The core they are reporting on] core from several large historical
volcanic eruptions, as correlated with ECM records in other ice
cored from Greenland, and the identification of volcanic glass from
some of these same eruptions established distance time lines to
calibrate the annual counting." So, there are several methods of
counting layers, and these were checked with with historical
eruptions, but, none of the methods involve C 14.)

Renfrew also knows that there are other confirmations of the link of
the 1628 date to Thera. Some of the radiocarbon dates that support
the 1628 date are those of samples from Thera, under the tephra,
there is no doubt at all which eruption those samples represent. A
recent calibration of two sets of samples from Thera (Bruins and der
Pilcht, Nature, 18 July, "the Exodus enigma", using four different
methods, give a total range of 1695 to 1539 BC. Except for one
ambiguous result, the dates are 1695 to 1603.)

Renfrew says "Already, many scholars will be content to use the
arguments [of] Kuniholm et al...." Bruins and der Pilcht are some
of those scholars.

Renfrew doesn't mention the radiocarbon dates from Thera. Probably
he feels that they have already been discredited about 25 years ago
by a couple of radiocarbon guys that cast doubt on them by proposing
an "island effect." That was a big mistake on their part. They did
it in order to accommodate views like Renfrew's. The "island effect"
has since been disavowed by most radiocarbon specialists, and by
trying to be "nice guys" these guys only muddied the water. So much
for trying to be nice guys.

There are also radiocarbon dates, from above and below the Thera
tephra layer, from sites far away from any "island effect." One such
result, from the sediment in a lake bed, is reported in "Volcanic
shards from Santorini (Upper Minoan ash) in the Nile Delta, Egypt,"
Stanley and Sheng, Nature. 24 April, 1986. They obtained a date,
admittedly not as precise as one could ask for, of 3595 BP with a
minimum of 3512 BP. That is comparable to (actually, even higher
than) the date of 3356 calibrated by Bruins and der Pilcht for
Thera. There are also similar results from Black Sea bottom cores.
(I have lost the "cite" on that one, anyone have it?)

Renfrew also doesn't mention the 1159 BC event which Baillie gives
such importance to ("A Slice Through Time," Bratsford, London,
1995). Oddly, neither does Zielinski. Nor does "Volcanoes of the
World," Simkin and Siebert, Smithsonian Institution and Geoscience
Press, ISBN 0-945005-12-1, which attempts to list all known volcanic
eruptions for the last 10,000 years. S&S may not have them all, but
they do have 7886 of them, from 1511 volcanoes. They don't have much
to say about Thera, either. They only give a date of 1650 BC and a
Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) of 6, with no reference for either.
(Zielinski, and Simkin and Siebert developed their lists in
conjunction with one another.) I don't understand why everyone is
ignoring Baillie, and that bothers me a bit. If correct, the 1159
event certainly seems to be very strong support, a virtual "lock,"
for the Kuniholm results. Far stronger than the 1628 event, alone,
with or without the problem of enhanced growth.

Though there is no specific discussion of the Thera eruption, there
is some very interesting information in Simkin and Siebert on VEIs
which does indirectly bear on the question of the identity of the
volcano of the 1628 event. The VEI is a recent attempt by
volcanologists to have some sort of a scale to describe the size of
eruptions. It was deliberately chosen to resemble the Richter Scale
for earthquakes. (Like the Richter scale, it is logarithmic, and
like the Richter scale, 7 is big, and a 10 has never been observed.
A VEI of 6 is ten times as "big" as one of VEI 5 and one tenth the
"size" of one of VEI 7).

Anything with a VEI of 3 or bigger can be described as "severe,"
"violent" or "terrific." VEI 4 and bigger can also be described as
"cataclysmic," "paroxysmal," or "colossal." The vocabulary seems to
be inadequate for the larger VEIs.

For scale, the Pelee eruption, which destroyed St. Pierre in 1902
was a 4, St. Helens 1980 was VEI=5 (10 "Pelees"), Krakatau 1883 was
VEI=6 (100 "Pelees," there are 36 VEI=6 events in S&S and 10 in
Zielinski's ice core in the last 2000 years, both world wide.) and
Tambora 1815 ("Year with no Summer. " ) and one in China in 1026 are
the only historical eruptions with VEI=7 (1000 "Pelees") that I
know of. (Those two are in the Zielinski data. There are 2 others
in S&S, somewhere.)

The VEI is admittedly a very crude estimate. It can be derived in
several ways. The most "scientific" is from ash volume, a VEI of 6
corresponds to an ash volume of 1e10 to 1e11 cubic meters of Tephra.
Simkin and Siebert state that they have a second significant digit
for some eruptions, but, they truncated all of them to one digit.
Therefore, a 6.01 and a 6.99 are both listed as "6."

Crude as it is, Simkin and Siebert give an astounding correlation of
VEI with world wide frequency of occurrence. It seems incredibly
linear. World wide, VEIs of 4 occur once a year, VEI=5-once every 10
years, VEI=6-once per century, and VEI=7-once per millennium.

Though VEI gives a rough idea of the volume of ash (tephra) erupted,
it does not really have any thing to do with explosivity, that I can
see, as it has nothing to do with rate of release of ash. More
importantly, as Simkin and Siebert point out, it is a complete
failure as a measure of the effect on climate, which is more closely
related to the emission of sulfur. They cite the examples of El
Chichon 1982 (VEI 4+) and St. Helens 1980 (VEI 5), Even though the
VEI would indicate they are about the same, the former had 10 times
the sulfur emission, and a much larger effect on climate. The sulfur
emission from Thera has been much disputed, and there is no
agreement on how large it was. Therefore, there is no way to tell
from the sulfate residual what the source likely was, and, there is
no way to tell just how big the climatic effect was, either.

No matter what the details of VEI, sulfur emission, etc. The Thera
eruption was a very large, and rare, event. Only a few years ago, it
was entirely possible to miss an eruption the size of Thera in the
geological record. In fact, it was missed, in that until the
excavations were started by Marinatos, there was very little, if
any, awareness that such a major eruption had occurred in the Aegean
in the Bronze Age. The volcanologists are moving a lot quicker than
the archaeologists, and missing an eruption this large is rapidly
becoming like getting on an elevator and not noticing that one is
sharing it with an elephant.

Of course, give enough time, it is possible that two VEI events can
take place near to each other in space in time, but, it is not very
likely. There are no other VEI 6 in the European area that I have
found, not even in Iceland. (Zielinski gives Vesuvius, 77 AD as VEI
5, but, my notes from Simkin and Siebert say 6. If they up-sized it,
I didn't see any explanation of why.)

What Renfrew is asking us to believe in rehashing the proposal that
the 1628 event was some volcano other than Thera, which just
happened to go off at the same time, is roughly like: We got on the
elevator with an elephant, and, with out noticing it, we got off
with a completely different elephant.

As many people are aware, in addition to the dendrochronology,
radiocarbon, and ice cores, the Chinese also seem to have left
historical records of observations of the 1628 event. Kevin Prang,
who has studied these records extensively, is happy with the tree
ring date, but, I, myself, find these records to be a bit to
"suppositious" to be of any help. (Though the reverse may not be
true, 1628 may help tie down Chinese dates.)

Bottom line: The Kuniholm results look solid as a rock, the new
"Gold Standard" of chronology in the Aegean and mid east. I think
that Renfrew knows this. He has very carefully prepared his story
for when he is forced to accept the new dates. But, he isn't quite
ready to let go. (one thinks of Kelvin, the greatest physicist of
his time, single handed, by dint of personality, holding back
quantum physics back by a decade or more at the end of his life.)
When one looks at the traditional methods he is hanging onto,
pottery sequences with assumed intervals with nothing to support
them other than tradition, and historical and astronomical records
with many holes and multiple interpretations, it seems a bit sad.

The fact that both Renfrew and Kuniholm agree to a "definitive
confirmation" by the identification of Theran tephra in a Greenland
ice core suggests to me that they both expect that to happen, like
*real soon now.* Maybe they know something that I don't. It would
also seem that there are more likely places to find tephra from
Thera, in an ice core, or a varve, or a sea bottom core, than
Greenland (and, as I recall, and, as I pointed out, there are
already some such results.) Turkey, and further east, is where I
would be looking.

With or with out that "magic grain," I expect to see a lot of
workers following Bruins and der Pilcht accepting and using the
Kuniholm results, with or without confirmation. I also expect to see
Kuniholm and the Cornell group, as well as others, expanding the
floating chronology, adding more C14 and historical and
archaeological dates. At this point, the results are already
starting "moving of themselves."

I do not know much about dates in Egypt, or really care all that
much. I don't know how much of an impact this is going to have
there. Frank Yurco doesn't think it is going to be that much (I
haven't found anything that he said on Egypt yet that I didn't agree
with.) I do admit that, considering the attitude of some of the
Egypt guys earlier in the dating of Thera, that there is some
satisfaction that it is now going to be Thera dating Egypt, rather
than the other way around.

The Fat Lady is warming up. Paradigms are beginning to shift. Dates,
some of them, are going to start to move, too. Those that don't go
with the flow are going to get run over.

That is my opinion.

Are there any others?

Henry Hillbrath

[Chris Bennett]

In article <sourisDv...@netcom.com>, sou...@netcom.com (Henry
Hillbrath) wrote:

<snip extremely long and very interesting article>

>
> I do not know much about dates in Egypt, or really care all that
> much. I don't know how much of an impact this is going to have
> there. Frank Yurco doesn't think it is going to be that much (I
> haven't found anything that he said on Egypt yet that I didn't agree
> with.) I do admit that, considering the attitude of some of the
> Egypt guys earlier in the dating of Thera, that there is some
> satisfaction that it is now going to be Thera dating Egypt, rather
> than the other way around.
>
> The Fat Lady is warming up. Paradigms are beginning to shift. Dates,
> some of them, are going to start to move, too. Those that don't go
> with the flow are going to get run over.
>
> That is my opinion.
>
> Are there any others?
>
> Henry Hillbrath

Yes.

18th dynasty historical analysis does indeed allow some imprecision in the
dating, but this amounts to about 3 decades in about 270 years -- i.e.
about 10% overall. In order to align Bietak's and Kuniholm's
interpretations as they stand you need to add _at_least_ 70 years to the
current _maximal_ estimate of the 18th dynasty duration -- an additional
increase of 26%.

Saying that you don't care about this problem is both arrogant and
foolish. You should care. Think about what it means. 70 years is just
about 3 additional generations to be added to the 18th dynasty. This is
one of the best documented dynasties in Egyptian history. How are you
going to do it? Whistle up another three pharaohs who left not a trace
but who reigned nearly 20 years a piece? Add a decade or more to the
reign of every pharaoh whose reign length is somewhat open to question
(even though the Wente/van Siclen reconstruction already has most of them
at maximal lengths)?

Yurco's suggestion that it's all OK because Thera can be interpreted as
setting the preconditions for a successful Theban revolt still conflicts
with the Tell el-Dab'a data: Bietak's pumice dates from a period AFTER the
18th dynasty seized control of Avaris. For this to work, Yurco must first
show the error in Bietak's analysis that allows the pumice to be dated to
a Hyksos level instead of the 18th dynasty. From what I've read about
this elsewhere, this synchronism seems pretty secure because it is tied,
amongst other things, to 18th dynasty royal scarabs. If a report I saw
recently in sci.archaeology is correct, Bietak is actually moving in the
other direction, dating the Minoan frescos found at the next level down to
the 18th dynasty rather than the Hyksos, which just compounds the problem!

What are the options for reconciling these two analyses?

Suppose an error exists in the dendro analysis of some 70-100 years, as
the Egyptian data would suggest. How could this be?

1) Kuniholm has a sequence of c1500 years which is, as you point out,
anchored to two "events" also recorded in independently-derived tree-ring
sequences. This double anchor suggests the _relative_ dating of at least
that portion of his sequence which lies between them (which is the
relevant section here) is almost certainly correct.

2) The Kas/Uluburun shipwreck, on Kuniholm's analysis, is dated to some
unspecified time after 1316 BC. From (1), the dating of this relative to
his sequence markers is almost certainly correct, so a minimum 70 year
error in absolute dating would move the wreck to a date after 1246. That
would make the gold Nefertiti scarab something of an antique, but not
impossibly so for a valuable object like this. I have no idea what it
does for early Late Hellenic IIIB pottery -- any potter care to comment?

3) The ice-core data appears to be consistent with the dendro dates, BUT
we don't know for sure that it is Thera which is recorded in this data.
The tephra analysis suggested by Renfrew is the best test. Failing that,
I would like to know whether any Mediterranean volcanic event of KNOWN
date is recorded in the ice-cores -- in particular the Vesuvius eruption
of AD 70 -- does anyone know?

4) The _absolute_ dating depends on the calibrated C14 dates (i.e. the raw
C14 date is corrected against calibration curves based on other tree ring
sequences) which are then wiggle-fitted against essentially the same
curves.

Thus, IF there is an error in Kuniholm's dating THEN it is most likely a
result of an error in the construction of the C14 calibration curves.
But, that's not the whole story. There is apparently no mid 16th century
event recorded in the ice-cores. So, in order to confirm this theory, the
tephra test must fail: if the "1628" event in the ice-cap is not Thera,
then it means that Thera almost certainly isn't there.

Suppose instead the error lies on the Egyptian side. What are the options?

1) The Tell el-Dab'a data is misinterpreted. This seems unlikely to me
but I'm open to argument -- fire away.

2) The error lies entirely within 18th dynasty chronology. The start of
the 18th dynasty must be raised by 70-100 years but the end is correctly
dated. This appears to be the position held by Kuniholm. As outlined
above, I think this is unworkable.

3) The error is systematic and uniform -- i.e. it is a 70-100 year offset
that affects all of New Kingdom chronology up to some date. From comments
I have seen here on Mike Baillie's latest book "A Slice Through Time"
(which I am trying to get) this appears to be his position, with the end
of dynasty 20 redated from 1069 to c1140 (up c70 years). I presume he is
not so foolish as to correlate Shishak with a LATE 22nd dynasty pharaoh.
If so, the dating of Shoshenq I must stand. This means he is adding these
70 years to the 21st dynasty.

[Can you confirm this 2nd-hand summary of his views?]

This has much the same problem as (2), only worse. The 21st dynasty only
lasted 115 years on conventional reckoning -- we need to extend it by
nearly 70%. The reign lengths ARE much more poorly documented than the
18th, but the likelihood of distributing 70 years (or more) over them is
pretty small. You're certainly going to find it tough to add three
generations to the dynasty.

4) The error is systematic and cumulative -- i.e. the 70-100 years must be
accounted for over a much larger period of time than just the 18th
dynasty. Again, unless we wish to challenge the chronology of the Judean
kings, or to reidentify Shishak, the error must be corrected by the time
of his accession, c945. On this measure, we have about 7 centuries to
play with to hide our 70 years.

On the face of it this is much the best bet for the Theran school.
However Baillie's instinct is right on what the Egyptian data can actually
stand. The 18th dynasty starting point is already a maximal analysis.
There's also really not too much room to move in the 19th and 20th
dynasties (and what there is tends to be a reduction not an expansion).
So you get forced back to a large chunk of position (3). Which doesn't
work.

As I said to Dr Yurco, I don't know what the solution is, but I do know
its not a problem to be dismissed lightly -- on either side.

Cheers,

Chris

[Chris Camfield]

I just have a small (perhaps unscientific) question: If the
growth-spurt period recorded is _not_ the result of the Theran
eruption, wouldn't that mean the tree rings show no evidence of the
eruption at all? How likely is that?

Chris
--
Christopher Camfield - ccam...@uwaterloo.ca - BMath Joint CS/C&O
"And the Crow and the Jackal and the Jackfish
Are suited up to go another round / I'll be up to my ticker in dead-beats
When the cold steel hammer swings down" (BRJ)

[Alan M. Dunsmuir]

In article <sourisDv...@netcom.com>, Henry Hillbrath
<sou...@netcom.com> writes

>The Fat Lady is warming up. Paradigms are beginning to shift. Dates,
>some of them, are going to start to move, too. Those that don't go
>with the flow are going to get run over.

Thank you for both your posts, Henry. They make an excellent summary of
the current position. (Tho' I too find Renfrew's stance hard to
understand. Paradigms usually snap - they're very rigid and brittle,
rather than evolve gradually - whether consciously or not - into
something quite new. Or are you suggesting that his *has* already
snapped, and that that the current pussy-footing is simplly window-
dressing in a hope of minimising subsequent public embarrassment?)
--
Alan M. Dunsmuir

[Henry Hillbrath]

cben...@adnc.com (Chris Bennett) writes:

>In article <sourisDv...@netcom.com>, sou...@netcom.com (Henry
>Hillbrath) wrote:

><snip extremely long and very interesting article>
>>
>> I do not know much about dates in Egypt, or really care all that
>> much. I don't know how much of an impact this is going to have
>> there. Frank Yurco doesn't think it is going to be that much (I
>> haven't found anything that he said on Egypt yet that I didn't agree
>> with.) I do admit that, considering the attitude of some of the
>> Egypt guys earlier in the dating of Thera, that there is some
>> satisfaction that it is now going to be Thera dating Egypt, rather
>> than the other way around.

[snip]

>18th dynasty historical analysis does indeed allow some imprecision in the
>dating, but this amounts to about 3 decades in about 270 years -- i.e.
>about 10% overall. In order to align Bietak's and Kuniholm's
>interpretations as they stand you need to add _at_least_ 70 years to the
>current _maximal_ estimate of the 18th dynasty duration -- an additional
>increase of 26%.

>Saying that you don't care about this problem is both arrogant and
>foolish. You should care.

Maybe I am arrogant, and foolish, and maybe I should care. But, I am
really only mildly curious about Egypt, I am much more interested in the
Aegean. Just my personal area of interest. What I was trying to say,
maybe not too well, is I am not selling anything. I don't care if
Egyptian dating is high, low or middle.

But, for various reasons, I have acquired more information that anyone
needs about dendrochronology, and the Thera dating.

I am passing on what I have found out.

> Think about what it means. 70 years is just
>about 3 additional generations to be added to the 18th dynasty. This is
>one of the best documented dynasties in Egyptian history. How are you
>going to do it? Whistle up another three pharaohs who left not a trace
>but who reigned nearly 20 years a piece? Add a decade or more to the
>reign of every pharaoh whose reign length is somewhat open to question
>(even though the Wente/van Siclen reconstruction already has most of them
>at maximal lengths)?

If I added up all the U. S. presidents that I know anything about, I
would conclude that George Washington was elected in around 1850. But, he
was actually elected in 1788. The discrepancy doesn't go a way, because
my memory is poor. Or, because there is no chance that I can figure out
who the missing guys are.

>Yurco's suggestion that it's all OK because Thera can be interpreted as
>setting the preconditions for a successful Theban revolt still conflicts
>with the Tell el-Dab'a data: Bietak's pumice dates from a period AFTER the
>18th dynasty seized control of Avaris. For this to work, Yurco must first
>show the error in Bietak's analysis that allows the pumice to be dated to
>a Hyksos level instead of the 18th dynasty. From what I've read about
>this elsewhere, this synchronism seems pretty secure because it is tied,
>amongst other things, to 18th dynasty royal scarabs. If a report I saw
>recently in sci.archaeology is correct, Bietak is actually moving in the
>other direction, dating the Minoan frescos found at the next level down to
>the 18th dynasty rather than the Hyksos, which just compounds the problem!

Prof. Yurco has said that he is working on a paper that is going to clear
all this up. I am sure we are all waiting with great anticipation.

>What are the options for reconciling these two analyses?

>Suppose an error exists in the dendro analysis of some 70-100 years, as
>the Egyptian data would suggest. How could this be?

>1) Kuniholm has a sequence of c1500 years which is, as you point out,
>anchored to two "events" also recorded in independently-derived tree-ring
>sequences. This double anchor suggests the _relative_ dating of at least
>that portion of his sequence which lies between them (which is the
>relevant section here) is almost certainly correct.

The whole sequence is linked together. The anchor events control all the
sequence, not just the part between them. But, 1628 to 1159 BC would seem
to be the most important part, anyway.

>2) The Kas/Uluburun shipwreck, on Kuniholm's analysis, is dated to some
>unspecified time after 1316 BC. From (1), the dating of this relative to
>his sequence markers is almost certainly correct, so a minimum 70 year
>error in absolute dating would move the wreck to a date after 1246. That
>would make the gold Nefertiti scarab something of an antique, but not
>impossibly so for a valuable object like this. I have no idea what it
>does for early Late Hellenic IIIB pottery -- any potter care to comment?

As Renfrew says, "There is nothing more tantalizing than a 'floating'
tree-ring chronology." Well, maybe I would not have said "tantalizing."
Fascinating, maybe.

The absolute chronology of the floating sequence can be determined in any
number of ways. But, every thing that is dated by comparison with the
sequence becomes a new confirmation, each one of which may be more or
less compelling. But, the sequence cannot be moved without moving
everything. And, it cannot be stretched, or squashed, in whole or in part,
to accommodate particular dates (as incomplete historical chronologies can
be, and have traditionally have been.)

I wouldn't say the Kas wreck would be one of the main confirmations, but,
it seems to fit, and by doing so, it becomes a secondary confirmation.

>3) The ice-core data appears to be consistent with the dendro dates, BUT
>we don't know for sure that it is Thera which is recorded in this data.
>The tephra analysis suggested by Renfrew is the best test.

Why is ice core better than C14 on the tephra layer, (which has already
been done, at multiple sites)?

OK, so ice is more precise (and, we are not likely to find any
"fingerprintable" tephra in the tree rings) but, C14 leaves very little
doubt that 1628 has to be the approximate date. And, there is only *one*
event in the tree rings that fits.

I have a feeling that Kuniholm accepts "mediation by ice," is because he
thinks it is going to happen, RSN, anyway. The evidence for his sequence
is quite strong enough without it.

> Failing that,
>I would like to know whether any Mediterranean volcanic event of KNOWN
>date is recorded in the ice-cores -- in particular the Vesuvius eruption
>of AD 70 -- does anyone know?

Well, that I *do* know. It does, and is reported in the Zielinski paper.
Just for fun, I went through all the SO4 residuals reported there
for the last 4000 years. Out of the 15 highest, there are 4 unknowns (one
of them in 1695 BC). The highest was in 1259 AD, and Zielinski suspects
El Chichon, in Mexico. Of the rest, 6 were in Iceland, There was one each
in Kamchatka, Alaska, Italy (Vesuvius 79 AD, according to Zielinski but,
it shows up in the 77 AD layer. There is a tolerance.). Tambora,
Indonesia, and the 1628 BC event (in the 1623 BC Greenland layer.)

I see one other, smaller signal from an eruption of Vesuvius, and one of
Vulcano, no other European ones.

So, 1628 was big, in that there were strong signals in Calif., Greenland,
Europe, and Turkey. And, one of those was a really strong, enhanced
growth signal, which suggests that it was close by (and therefore the
mixed.) Combined with all the C 14 dates, it really looks like 1628 is
Thera, without added confirmation. It could hardly be any were other
than Thera in Europe, where is the ash? And it could hardly be outside
Europe. How could Turkey be enhanced growth? I think that Kuniholm has
found a real winner. A "classic" marker event, a new milestone in
dendrochronology.

>4) The _absolute_ dating depends on the calibrated C14 dates (i.e. the raw
>C14 date is corrected against calibration curves based on other tree ring
>sequences) which are then wiggle-fitted against essentially the same
>curves.

>Thus, IF there is an error in Kuniholm's dating THEN it is most likely a
>result of an error in the construction of the C14 calibration curves.
>But, that's not the whole story.

I don't know if you mean Kuniholm's C 14 in particular, or C 14 in
general. I guess that even I feel that just one set of C 14 dates from
one log is not totally satisfying, and, I expect quite a few more will be
forthcoming.

As far as C 14 in general, though it has its problems, there is no
question in my mind that the method is sound, within limits. The only
part of Rohl's book that I thought was correct (and, he was referring to
someone else's work, it that *all* Egyptian dates (before 1000 BC, maybe,
as I recall) are inconsistent with the C 14 results, and that there is a
systematic increase in the disagreement for earlier times. I think that
dendro and tephra are going to confirm the C 14 results, right down the
line.

> There is apparently no mid 16th century
>event recorded in the ice-cores.

Zielinski found three small ones. The closest "open" date is an unknown
"monster" in 1695 BC. Shall I put you down for that one? (Until Zielinski
publishes on tephra in the ice layers.)

> So, in order to confirm this theory, the
>tephra test must fail: if the "1628" event in the ice-cap is not Thera,
>then it means that Thera almost certainly isn't there.

Which is just barely possible, if Thera was a very low sulfur eruption.
And, there was a high sulfur eruption, a very big one, just at the same
time, somewhere else.

It is a *lot* easier for me to accept that there are a few missing kings
than that either the C14 is wrong, or that there were two eruptions. But,
there more confirmation than just those two points.

>Suppose instead the error lies on the Egyptian side. What are the options?

[snip]

I won't comment on the Egyptian data.

>that affects all of New Kingdom chronology up to some date. From comments
>I have seen here on Mike Baillie's latest book "A Slice Through Time"
>(which I am trying to get) this appears to be his position, with the end
>of dynasty 20 redated from 1069 to c1140 (up c70 years). I presume he is
>not so foolish as to correlate Shishak with a LATE 22nd dynasty pharaoh.
>If so, the dating of Shoshenq I must stand. This means he is adding these
>70 years to the 21st dynasty.

>[Can you confirm this 2nd-hand summary of his views?]

I have not read any of Baillie's original work. Only secondary reports. I
really should hunt that up.

>This has much the same problem as (2), only worse. The 21st dynasty only
>lasted 115 years on conventional reckoning -- we need to extend it by
>nearly 70%. The reign lengths ARE much more poorly documented than the
>18th, but the likelihood of distributing 70 years (or more) over them is
>pretty small. You're certainly going to find it tough to add three
>generations to the dynasty.

>4) The error is systematic and cumulative -- i.e. the 70-100 years must be
>accounted for over a much larger period of time than just the 18th
>dynasty. Again, unless we wish to challenge the chronology of the Judean
>kings, or to reidentify Shishak, the error must be corrected by the time
>of his accession, c945. On this measure, we have about 7 centuries to
>play with to hide our 70 years.

Yes, but *I* don't have to find the problem. There is very little chance
that there is a problem with Kuniholm's dates. Experts have been arguing
about the Egypt dates for hundreds of years. The "scientific" data is not
more than 50 years old. The new dates were not perfect to begin with,
but, they are rapidly converging. Dendrochronology, ice cores, and tephra
chronology are fields that are progressing rapidly, and there will be not
one, but multiple confirmations of these results in the next decade. The
arguments from Egypt will still be about where they are now.

No need to wait, it is time to accept the new "gold standard." What ever
has to be done in Egypt, has to be done.

>On the face of it this is much the best bet for the Theran school.
>However Baillie's instinct is right on what the Egyptian data can actually
>stand. The 18th dynasty starting point is already a maximal analysis.
>There's also really not too much room to move in the 19th and 20th
>dynasties (and what there is tends to be a reduction not an expansion).
>So you get forced back to a large chunk of position (3). Which doesn't
>work.

>As I said to Dr Yurco, I don't know what the solution is, but I do know
>its not a problem to be dismissed lightly -- on either side.

I think that was were we were in the mid '80s. The tree guys, ice guys,
and volcano guys have gone and gotten a *lot* more data. They are now
sure. Time to go. The Egypt guys still want more time. Sorry, time is up.

I guess that sounds hard, but, that is the way that I see the facts.
Holding on to the old, comfortable dates is just delaying the crunch.
Egyptian history once drove the dating bus, but, that is no longer the
case.

When the paradigm shifts, those that do not shift...

Well, I will spare everyone the horrid details.

Henry Hillbrath

[Alan M. Dunsmuir]

In article <sourisDv...@netcom.com>, Henry Hillbrath
<sou...@netcom.com> writes

>Even when paradigms do snap, there is always, traditionally, someone that
>doesn't get the word. And, in some cases, the result of that has not been
>very good for those individuals reputations.
>
>Renfrew seems torn, he doesn't want to let go, but, he doesn't want to
>get trampled, either. And, I suspect the thinks "the end is nigh."

I am reminded, from about 30-40 years ago, of the Classics Professor at
Edinburgh (whose name I can't remember - which sadly may be a fitting
obituary) who went to his death denying that Linear B represented a
written Greek dialect.
--
Alan M. Dunsmuir

[Henry Hillbrath]

"Alan M. Dunsmuir" <al...@moonrake.demon.co.uk> writes:

>In article <sourisDv...@netcom.com>, Henry Hillbrath
><sou...@netcom.com> writes

>>The Fat Lady is warming up. Paradigms are beginning to shift. Dates,
>>some of them, are going to start to move, too. Those that don't go
>>with the flow are going to get run over.

>Thank you for both your posts, Henry. They make an excellent summary of
>the current position.

Thank you.

> (Tho' I too find Renfrew's stance hard to
>understand.

So do I. There are well known ways of going about this business of being
the last to get the word, but Renfrew is not following the rules.

There have been several previous examples, in the history of this
particular dating, of "delayed publications." The first mention of the
1628 event, in conjunction with Thera, was in an interview with Victor
Lamarche in 1976, published in the "National Geographic." Lamarche didn't
make it to "Nature" until 1984. Baillie's results on Irish tree rings
were known soon afterward, but, he didn't publish until '89.

Hammer, Cadogan, and Manning all published in Nature in 1987.

I suspect the quote I gave from Cadogan represents Renfrew's view at that
time.

But, that view seems to have been generally rejected, and at the Thera III
conference (1990), Renfrew seemed to have given in, so much that, as I
pointed out, I got flamed here for saying that "1628" was not the "official
position of the conference.

Now, he has reverted to the old arguments, and is ignoring other more
recent evidence.

But, he took a lot of pains to mark out his escape route.

I can't figure out what he is doing.

> Paradigms
usually snap - they're very rigid and
brittle, >rather than evolve gradually - whether consciously or not - into
>something quite new. Or are you suggesting that his *has* already
>snapped, and that that the current pussy-footing is simplly window-
>dressing in a hope of minimising subsequent public embarrassment?)

It is true that when paradigms go, they go in a hurry. But, that point is
not always apparent, except perhaps with the objectivity which comes
later.

I won't attempt to say just now when the break was. '87, '90, now, or at
some time in the near future. But, the "1628" idea has been around for 20
years now. All the best qualified people have tried to make it go away.
There does not seem to have been any new evidence against it found in the
last decade, and a lot of evidence for it.

So, I think the trend is clear.

Even when paradigms do snap, there is always, traditionally, someone that
doesn't get the word. And, in some cases, the result of that has not been
very good for those individuals reputations.

Renfrew seems torn, he doesn't want to let go, but, he doesn't want to
get trampled, either. And, I suspect the thinks "the end is nigh."

I was satisfied after Thera III, partly based on what Renfrew said and is
now backing away from. But, based on the evidence, also.

After Kuinholm, I can't see that there is any doubt, and I haven't heard
any objection from anyone except Renfrew. If Renfrew had taken that
position a Thera III, I would have just thought that he was being the
arch conservative, and ignored him anyway. No news when "dog bites man."

And, I suppose that it doesn't really make a lot of difference, exactly
when the change over occurs. But, I think that traditionalists should
not pay so much attention to Renfrew's hopeful words that the old order
may survive. Rather, they should be watching what he is doing, moving
toward the fire exit.

Henry Hillbrath

[Henry Hillbrath]

"Alan M. Dunsmuir" <al...@moonrake.demon.co.uk> writes:

>In article <sourisDv...@netcom.com>, Henry Hillbrath
><sou...@netcom.com> writes

>>Even when paradigms do snap, there is always, traditionally, someone that
>>doesn't get the word. And, in some cases, the result of that has not been
>>very good for those individuals reputations.
>>
>>Renfrew seems torn, he doesn't want to let go, but, he doesn't want to
>>get trampled, either. And, I suspect the thinks "the end is nigh."

>I am reminded, from about 30-40 years ago, of the Classics Professor at

>Edinburgh (whose name I can't remember - which sadly may be a fitting
>obituary) who went to his death denying that Linear B represented a
>written Greek dialect.

That is what I mean by "doing it in the traditional manner."

Lord Kelvin, the "doyen" of 19th century physics, lived until after
Einstein published on Special Relativity, and, he stoutly resisted *any*
thing having to do with quantum physics until his death.

In the well known book on Maya Script (which I have given away, and the
author of which I can't remember) there is a long discussion about some
influential American, who thought that Mayan was an "idea" script, and
who not only flamed everyone who thought it was phonetic, but, accused
them of being communist sympathizers. And, he never gave up. No progress
was made in that field until he was dead.

The last time I checked, there were still some geologists, mostly
Russian, in that case, who were still holding out against plate tectonics.

There are numerous other cases.

Henry Hillbrath

[Chris Bennett]

In article <sourisDv...@netcom.com>, sou...@netcom.com (Henry
Hillbrath) wrote:

> "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <al...@moonrake.demon.co.uk> writes:
>

<snip>

>
> So do I. There are well known ways of going about this business of being
> the last to get the word, but Renfrew is not following the rules.
>

<snip>

>
> But, he took a lot of pains to mark out his escape route.
>
> I can't figure out what he is doing.
>
> > Paradigms
> usually snap - they're very rigid and
> brittle, >rather than evolve gradually - whether consciously or not - into
> >something quite new. Or are you suggesting that his *has* already
> >snapped, and that that the current pussy-footing is simplly window-
> >dressing in a hope of minimising subsequent public embarrassment?)
>

<snip>

>
> And, I suppose that it doesn't really make a lot of difference, exactly
> when the change over occurs. But, I think that traditionalists should
> not pay so much attention to Renfrew's hopeful words that the old order
> may survive. Rather, they should be watching what he is doing, moving
> toward the fire exit.
>
> Henry Hillbrath

Gentlemen, gentlemen, before you start congratulating each other on your
victories why don't you solve the little question of the Tell el-Dab'a
pumice? Maybe this is where Dr Renfrew has a concern (that's certainly
how I read his article). Do that and you might have something to crow
about!

CHris

[August Matthusen]

Henry,

Thanks for starting some interesting *scientific* discussion. I need
to hit the library to get some of the references you cited. Just to
answer one of your questions, the tephra from the Black Sea near Turkey
was reported by Guichard, Carey, Arthur, Sigurdsson, and Arnold, 1993,
"Tephra from the Minoan eruption of Santorini in sediments of the Black
Sea", _Nature_, vol 363, pp 610-612.

Regards,
August Matthusen

[Stella Nemeth]

sou...@netcom.com (Henry Hillbrath) wrote:

>I think that was were we were in the mid '80s. The tree guys, ice guys,
>and volcano guys have gone and gotten a *lot* more data. They are now
>sure. Time to go. The Egypt guys still want more time. Sorry, time is up.

>I guess that sounds hard, but, that is the way that I see the facts.
>Holding on to the old, comfortable dates is just delaying the crunch.
>Egyptian history once drove the dating bus, but, that is no longer the
>case.

Let's say that you are right. That the last piece of confirmation
comes in and 1628 turns out to be the right date. Let me try to
explain the problem the "Egypt guys" have. I don't have the kind of
background Chris has, but I do a pretty good job of reverbalizing what
I learn and understand.

The major problem is that the Egypt guys seem to have one date on the
dendro line. If 1628 is Thera, and if Thera ash has show up in that
early 18th Dynasty site we've been talking about, then that one date
is pinned down. Thera = one particular year in the early 18th
Dynasty. (Requires a contemporary textual reference to a king year,
of course.) But none of the other dates are pinned down because the
Cornell group hasn't done the Egyptian wood dating that was scheduled
for this year as yet. Or it has been done, and hasn't been published.
Or it is ongoing.

Even if this really is the gold standard in dating, the Egypt guys
don't have enough information to actually build a chronology on it
yet.

Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com

[Chris Bennett]

In message <sourisDv...@netcom.com>, sou...@netcom.com (Henry
Hillbrath) wrote:

[snip]

>> Think about what it means. 70 years is just
>>about 3 additional generations to be added to the 18th dynasty. This is
>>one of the best documented dynasties in Egyptian history. How are you
>>going to do it? Whistle up another three pharaohs who left not a trace
>>but who reigned nearly 20 years a piece? Add a decade or more to the
>>reign of every pharaoh whose reign length is somewhat open to question
>>(even though the Wente/van Siclen reconstruction already has most of them
>>at maximal lengths)?
>
> If I added up all the U. S. presidents that I know anything about, I
> would conclude that George Washington was elected in around 1850. But, he
> was actually elected in 1788. The discrepancy doesn't go a way, because
> my memory is poor. Or, because there is no chance that I can figure out
> who the missing guys are.

Excuse me!?? Have you ever looked at a single discussion of the Egyptian
historical record? It certainly isn't perfect but we have made a number
of discoveries outside Manetho you know. Of course, if you don't want to
examine the data you can make any sweeping generalisations you like,
they're just not worth listening to.

>>Yurco's suggestion that it's all OK because Thera can be interpreted as
>>setting the preconditions for a successful Theban revolt still conflicts
>>with the Tell el-Dab'a data: Bietak's pumice dates from a period AFTER the
>>18th dynasty seized control of Avaris. For this to work, Yurco must first
>>show the error in Bietak's analysis that allows the pumice to be dated to
>>a Hyksos level instead of the 18th dynasty. From what I've read about
>>this elsewhere, this synchronism seems pretty secure because it is tied,
>>amongst other things, to 18th dynasty royal scarabs. If a report I saw
>>recently in sci.archaeology is correct, Bietak is actually moving in the
>>other direction, dating the Minoan frescos found at the next level down to
>>the 18th dynasty rather than the Hyksos, which just compounds the problem!
>>
> Prof. Yurco has said that he is working on a paper that is going to clear
> all this up. I am sure we are all waiting with great anticipation.

I must have missed this statement, but yes I'd like to see it.

I've been reviewing what little I have about what Bietak has found, it
doesn't include the papers referenced by Renfrew which I intend to get
ASAP! His initial discovery was of pumice in a workshop dated between
Amenhotep I and Thutmose III by scarabs, however this is not an original
deposit layer but a secondary collection. By itself, this actually could
allow Thera to be late Hyksos, as _conventional_ Egyptian chronology
requires -- and is somewhat consistent with Yurco's model (though not
totally, as I tried to point out). I have misplaced another discussion
where I recall a refrence to an actual 18th dynasty deposit layer. The
existence of such a layer is certainly consistent with the attitude taken
by both Kuniholm and Renfrew in the current discussion.

<snip>

>>2) The Kas/Uluburun shipwreck, on Kuniholm's analysis, is dated to some
>>unspecified time after 1316 BC. From (1), the dating of this relative to
>>his sequence markers is almost certainly correct, so a minimum 70 year
>>error in absolute dating would move the wreck to a date after 1246. That
>>would make the gold Nefertiti scarab something of an antique, but not
>>impossibly so for a valuable object like this. I have no idea what it

>>does for early Late Hellenic [sic -- Helladic -- CJB] IIIB pottery --

any potter care to comment?

>As Renfrew says, "There is nothing more tantalizing than a 'floating'
>tree-ring chronology." Well, maybe I would not have said "tantalizing."
>Fascinating, maybe.
>
>The absolute chronology of the floating sequence can be determined in any
>number of ways. But, every thing that is dated by comparison with the
>sequence becomes a new confirmation, each one of which may be more or
>less compelling. But, the sequence cannot be moved without moving
>everything. And, it cannot be stretched, or squashed, in whole or in part,
>to accommodate particular dates (as incomplete historical chronologies can
>be, and have traditionally have been.)

In principle true, however there is always the possibility of
synchronisation error. One of the points that Rohl made in his
discussions of dendrochronology was to refer to the work of Yamaguchi, who
apparently showed that it was quite easy to generate false tree-ring
correlations between overlapping samples. By profession I am in
telecommunications. False signal synchronisation of this type is a major
design issue in this field, and people have to go to great lengths to
avoid it, so I have a lot of sympathy with this argument, at least in
principle. I haven't seen this mentioned outside Rohl -- though I also
haven't deeply studied the literature.

>
>I wouldn't say the Kas wreck would be one of the main confirmations, but,
>it seems to fit, and by doing so, it becomes a secondary confirmation.

Its significance, and presumably the reason Kuniholm stressed it, is for
directly synchronising the Anatolian sequence to Egyptian chronology.

>>3) The ice-core data appears to be consistent with the dendro dates, BUT
>>we don't know for sure that it is Thera which is recorded in this data.
>>The tephra analysis suggested by Renfrew is the best test.
>
>Why is ice core better than C14 on the tephra layer, (which has already
>been done, at multiple sites)?

Isn't it obvious? Its a completely independent yardstick; dendro and C14
are intertwined.

<snip>

>> Failing that,
>>I would like to know whether any Mediterranean volcanic event of KNOWN
>>date is recorded in the ice-cores -- in particular the Vesuvius eruption
>>of AD 70 -- does anyone know?
>
>Well, that I *do* know. It does, and is reported in the Zielinski paper.
>Just for fun, I went through all the SO4 residuals reported there
>for the last 4000 years. Out of the 15 highest, there are 4 unknowns (one
>of them in 1695 BC). The highest was in 1259 AD, and Zielinski suspects
>El Chichon, in Mexico. Of the rest, 6 were in Iceland, There was one each
>in Kamchatka, Alaska, Italy (Vesuvius 79 AD, according to Zielinski but,
>it shows up in the 77 AD layer. There is a tolerance.). Tambora,
>Indonesia, and the 1628 BC event (in the 1623 BC Greenland layer.)
>
>I see one other, smaller signal from an eruption of Vesuvius, and one of
>Vulcano, no other European ones.

<snip>

THanks for the data. It establishes the existence theorem: an eruption
like Thera should set up an ice-core trace.

>>4) The _absolute_ dating depends on the calibrated C14 dates (i.e. the raw
>>C14 date is corrected against calibration curves based on other tree ring
>>sequences) which are then wiggle-fitted against essentially the same
>>curves.
>
>>Thus, IF there is an error in Kuniholm's dating THEN it is most likely a
>>result of an error in the construction of the C14 calibration curves.
>>But, that's not the whole story.
>
>I don't know if you mean Kuniholm's C 14 in particular, or C 14 in
>general. I guess that even I feel that just one set of C 14 dates from
>one log is not totally satisfying, and, I expect quite a few more will be
>forthcoming.

C14 in general. Kuniholm depends on the calibration curve. THe argument
was that if there is any error in Kuniholm's results, at least for
1628-1157, it is not his but in the calibration curve.

> As far as C 14 in general, though it has its problems, there is no
> question in my mind that the method is sound, within limits. The only
> part of Rohl's book that I thought was correct (and, he was referring to
> someone else's work, it that *all* Egyptian dates (before 1000 BC, maybe,
> as I recall) are inconsistent with the C 14 results, and that there is a
> systematic increase in the disagreement for earlier times. I think that
> dendro and tephra are going to confirm the C 14 results, right down the
> line.

Out of curiosity, I would be interested to know WHY you thought Rohl was
wrong in his arguments for collapsing TIP chronology. Most of his
arguments for this are classical Egyptological analyses of historical data
-- interpretation of inscriptions and genealogies etc. He knows his stuff
and on many of his points he makes a good, often ingenious, argument. You
can see this even more in some of his JACF articles. He's almost always
wrong, in my view, but you often have to go deep into the details to see
_exactly_ why he is wrong, and that involves digging into the
Egyptological literature. But you don't appear to be interested in
Egyptological analysis even as a mode of argument. So how did you go
about assessing his case on points where it doesn't relate to
dendrochronology or to C14 dating?

>> There is apparently no mid 16th century
>>event recorded in the ice-cores.
>
> Zielinski found three small ones. The closest "open" date is an unknown
>"monster" in 1695 BC. Shall I put you down for that one? (Until Zielinski
> publishes on tephra in the ice layers.)

Nope. Find me one in the region 1560-1460 and I'm your man!

>> So, in order to confirm this theory, the
>>tephra test must fail: if the "1628" event in the ice-cap is not Thera,
>>then it means that Thera almost certainly isn't there.
>
>Which is just barely possible, if Thera was a very low sulfur eruption.
>And, there was a high sulfur eruption, a very big one, just at the same
>time, somewhere else.

Aren't we able to determine whether Thera was low or high sulphur? I'm
surprised. This seems like a pretty basic question to me.

>
>It is a *lot* easier for me to accept that there are a few missing kings
>than that either the C14 is wrong, or that there were two eruptions. But,
>there more confirmation than just those two points.

And that is precisely the point at issue. You are willing to accept
missing kings a priori, because you haven't reviewed the evidence.

>>Suppose instead the error lies on the Egyptian side. What are the options?
>
> [snip]
>
> I won't comment on the Egyptian data.

Actually, you have. You dismiss it out of hand, without examination.
That is simply not good enough. For any dating of THera to be acceptable
it has to be made to square with ALL the evidence, and not just the lines
of evidence that suit.

<snip>

>>4) The error is systematic and cumulative -- i.e. the 70-100 years must be
>>accounted for over a much larger period of time than just the 18th
>>dynasty. Again, unless we wish to challenge the chronology of the Judean
>>kings, or to reidentify Shishak, the error must be corrected by the time
>>of his accession, c945. On this measure, we have about 7 centuries to
>>play with to hide our 70 years.
>
>Yes, but *I* don't have to find the problem. There is very little chance
>that there is a problem with Kuniholm's dates. Experts have been arguing
>about the Egypt dates for hundreds of years. The "scientific" data is not
>more than 50 years old. The new dates were not perfect to begin with,
>but, they are rapidly converging. Dendrochronology, ice cores, and tephra
>chronology are fields that are progressing rapidly, and there will be not
>one, but multiple confirmations of these results in the next decade. The
>arguments from Egypt will still be about where they are now.
>
>No need to wait, it is time to accept the new "gold standard." What ever
>has to be done in Egypt, has to be done.

Sorry, but until the historical record, which has indeed been excavated,
analysed, debated and refined for some 200 years, is woven into the "gold
standard" the standard isn't ready for use.

I'm more than willing to accept the possibility that Egyptian chronology
can be reworked to place Thera at 1628 BC in the early 18th dynasty, I
just want to see how its done -- is that really so much to ask? I have
looked at it closely enough to be sure its a non-trivial problem. Some
pro-Thera Egyptologist with a lot of time and a good mastery of the
literature needs to take up the cudgels, and work through the details of
about seven centuries of Egyptian history.

This should have been attempted long before now, even though the
chronological survey articles I have seen, by people like Kitchen,
strongly imply that it can't be done. Maybe Yurco is now having a go, I
hope so. But declaring victory without a convincing new Egyptian
chronology just doesn't cut it.

<snip>

>>As I said to Dr Yurco, I don't know what the solution is, but I do know
>>its not a problem to be dismissed lightly -- on either side.
>

> I think that was were we were in the mid '80s. The tree guys, ice guys,
> and volcano guys have gone and gotten a *lot* more data. They are now
> sure. Time to go. The Egypt guys still want more time. Sorry, time is up.

The "Egypt guys" have also gotten more data -- specifically, Manfred
Bietak. Why not look at it?

>
> I guess that sounds hard, but, that is the way that I see the facts.
> Holding on to the old, comfortable dates is just delaying the crunch.
> Egyptian history once drove the dating bus, but, that is no longer the
> case.
>

> When the paradigm shifts, those that do not shift...
>
> Well, I will spare everyone the horrid details.

And thank you for that small mercy, Comrade Stalin!

What I read here is a hardening of the party line, a closing of the mind,
a blanket refusal to acknowledge the existence of real problems and real
issues. Its a rather frightening spectacle.

Chris

[Joe Bernstein]

In article <sourisDv...@netcom.com>, sou...@netcom.com (Henry
Hillbrath) wrote:

>"Alan M. Dunsmuir" <al...@moonrake.demon.co.uk> writes:
>

>>I am reminded, from about 30-40 years ago, of the Classics Professor at
>>Edinburgh (whose name I can't remember - which sadly may be a fitting
>>obituary) who went to his death denying that Linear B represented a
>>written Greek dialect.
>
>That is what I mean by "doing it in the traditional manner."
>
>Lord Kelvin, the "doyen" of 19th century physics, lived until after
>Einstein published on Special Relativity, and, he stoutly resisted *any*
>thing having to do with quantum physics until his death.
>
>In the well known book on Maya Script (which I have given away, and the
>author of which I can't remember) there is a long discussion about some
>influential American, who thought that Mayan was an "idea" script, and
>who not only flamed everyone who thought it was phonetic, but, accused
>them of being communist sympathizers. And, he never gave up. No progress
>was made in that field until he was dead.
>
>The last time I checked, there were still some geologists, mostly
>Russian, in that case, who were still holding out against plate tectonics.
>
>There are numerous other cases.

I wonder what the current status of my own favourite is.

In the early 1980s (I think), Philip Kohl, a prominent American Marxist
archaeologist, undertook to introduce some Soviet work he'd learned of on
the region once known as Bactria. He called the most interesting of
several cultures in the area the "Namazga civilization". He went so far
as to translate a book full of essays on the subject by Soviet scholars
and get this published.

Well, the introduction to that book was something else. The Soviet
scholars had dated the civilisation to between 2000 and 1500 BC, based on
radiocarbon dates they'd obtained. This, by the way, is the conventional
dating of the Indus Valley civilisation.

Kohl, in the introduction, commented that the radiocarbon dates in
question were uncalibrated. Calibrated, the civilisation turns out to
follow pretty much the same trajectory as Mesopotamia and Egypt in the
third millennium BC -- as does the Indus Valley civilisation. Kohl
attributed the Soviets' reluctance to calibrate to an ideological loyalty
to diffusionism, which required that Mesopotamia be the original
civilisation and chronologically first.

Do ex-Soviet archaeologists still deny the general appropriateness of
radiocarbon date calibration? Are they imitating Kelvin here? Or did
they maybe soften their opposition, providing precedents for Renfrew?

Meanwhile, another angle on the above...

I did a *lot* of work in 1986 on radiocarbon dates from South Asia, and
fully concurred with Kohl's approach (though I no longer recall whether I
actually dug up all the info and calibrated myself, as I did for the 1st
millennium BC Indian dates). As best I was able to tell, both Indus
Valley and Namazga civilisations ended during the old-fashioned
radiocarbon date "blackout" of 2100 - 1900 BC, and both developed into
urbanism during the first half of the third millennium BC.

Well, I've been mostly out of touch since 1987, and find this newsgroup
and its kin rather more accessible than the necessary free time to
re-establish any familiarity whatever with the literature. (In that
regard, I'd really like to thank Mr. Hillbrath for an article that
*exemplifies* what I want out of such a newsgroup as this, a clear and
comprehensive presentation of evidence, intertwined with the sort of
context that is otherwise available only from sustained acquaintance with
the literature. I would be grateful if Mr. Bennett could spare the time
to provide a similar examination of the Egyptological evidence he's
citing; as it is, we spectators are only able to appreciate one side of
the argument. I'll admit this is the first Thera thread I've followed,
oddly enough on Steve Whittet's recommendation. :-)

I found in Dejanews a thread on soc.history.moderated not long ago on the
origins of civilisation, in which much of the discussion consisted of
"correcting" the original poster by asserting that Mesopotamia was the
oldest civilisation, and much of the rest consisted of reassertions of the
sorts of theories Gordon Childe and Karl Wittfogel were purveying fifty
years ago. Yet Mesopotamia-first still seems to be the reigning view in
archaeology, too. When, ten years ago, I concluded that Egypt, Harappa
and Namazga were contemporary, was I all wet?

I realise it's a bit silly of me to ask for disproof of an assertion I'm
not backing up with any evidence (other than Kohl's introduction).
However, I'd appreciate a reply, whether in the form "Yes/No, you
were/weren't all wet, and here's the proof/cites" or in the form "Here's
what you have to post before your question can be answered". Either way,
it might be appropriate to put this question in a new thread.

Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, free-lance writer, bank clerk, and bookstore worker
speaking for myself and nobody else j...@sfbooks.com
but... co-proponent for soc.history.ancient, now under
discussion in news.groups

[Henry Hillbrath]

cben...@adnc.com (Chris Bennett) writes:

>In message <sourisDv...@netcom.com>, sou...@netcom.com (Henry
>Hillbrath) wrote:

In message <sourisDv...@netcom.com>, sou...@netcom.com (Henry
Hillbrath) wrote:

[snip]
>

>> If I added up all the U. S. presidents that I know anything about, I
>> would conclude that George Washington was elected in around 1850. But, he
>> was actually elected in 1788. The discrepancy doesn't go a way, because
>> my memory is poor. Or, because there is no chance that I can figure out
>> who the missing guys are.
>
>Excuse me!?? Have you ever looked at a single discussion of the Egyptian
>historical record?

Yes, I have. I have read quite a few of them, as a matter of fact.

>It certainly isn't perfect but we have made a number
>of discoveries outside Manetho you know. Of course, if you don't want to

>examine the data you can make any sweeping generalizations you like,

>they're just not worth listening to.
>

I am trying not to make any sweeping generalizations about Egyptian
history, because I know that I do not have any expertise on it.

I also know that there is a long tradition in which Egyptian dates
always prevail against dates from outside. What I have been trying
to say, among other things, is that particular paradigm is on its
way out.

The "scientific" dates are now sufficiently strong that they have
priority over the Historical ones. I know that is a shock to a lot
of people, but, that is the way it is.

>>>Yurco's suggestion that it's all OK because Thera can be interpreted as
>>>setting the preconditions for a successful Theban revolt still conflicts
>>>with the Tell el-Dab'a data: Bietak's pumice dates from a period AFTER the
>>>18th dynasty seized control of Avaris. For this to work, Yurco must first
>>>show the error in Bietak's analysis that allows the pumice to be dated to
>>>a Hyksos level instead of the 18th dynasty. From what I've read about
>>>this elsewhere, this synchronism seems pretty secure because it is tied,
>>>amongst other things, to 18th dynasty royal scarabs. If a report I saw
>>>recently in sci.archaeology is correct, Bietak is actually moving in the
>>>other direction, dating the Minoan frescos found at the next level down to
>>>the 18th dynasty rather than the Hyksos, which just compounds the problem!
>>>

I am very interested in what Bietak is doing, but, I have not run
down the references, and I don't know the details of this work, or
if it has been published, even. But, whether it fits, or it doesn't
fit, the ash layer, if it is Theran ash, did arrive in 1628. That
is "scientific" years, not Egyptian historical ones.

I don't have a clue as to how to resolve the difference.

>> Prof. Yurco has said that he is working on a paper that is going to clear
>> all this up. I am sure we are all waiting with great anticipation.
>
>
>I must have missed this statement, but yes I'd like to see it.

That is just my recollection of what he said here on sci.
archaeology a few months back.

[snip]

>>The absolute chronology of the floating sequence can be determined in any
>>number of ways. But, every thing that is dated by comparison with the
>>sequence becomes a new confirmation, each one of which may be more or
>>less compelling. But, the sequence cannot be moved without moving
>>everything. And, it cannot be stretched, or squashed, in whole or in part,
>>to accommodate particular dates (as incomplete historical chronologies can
>>be, and have traditionally have been.)
>
>
>In principle true, however there is always the possibility of
>synchronisation error. One of the points that Rohl made in his discussions
>of dendrochronology was to refer to the work of Yamaguchi, who
>apparently showed that it was quite easy to generate false tree-ring
>correlations between overlapping samples. By profession I am in
>telecommunications. False signal synchronisation of this type is a major
>design issue in this field, and people have to go to great lengths to
>avoid it, so I have a lot of sympathy with this argument, at least in
>principle. I haven't seen this mentioned outside Rohl -- though I also
>haven't deeply studied the literature.
>

I saw that discussion. I think, in fact, that what Yamaguchi showed
was that he found *one* such false match. Actually, a spot where a
short sequence matched with a longer one in two different places.

I can see that could happen if there were a spot in the sequence
where there was only one overlapping pair of samples. That is one
reason, I am sure, that one doesn't base the sequence on one "row of
logs" from the present back, but, instead the investigators use
multiple samples, with multiple over laps.

It seemed to me that Rohl had no explanation for any "scientific"
dates, and quoted the only negative data he could find, then waved
his arms and said "you see, you can't trust any of this stuff."
OTOH, he is trusting his own interpretation of data that has been
interpreted in a number of different ways, and he gets a very
different answer than is generally accepted.

[snip]

[snip]

>
>>>3) The ice-core data appears to be consistent with the dendro dates, BUT
>>>we don't know for sure that it is Thera which is recorded in this data.
>>>The tephra analysis suggested by Renfrew is the best test.
>>
>>Why is ice core better than C14 on the tephra layer, (which has already
>>been done, at multiple sites)?
>
>Isn't it obvious? Its a completely independent yardstick; dendro and C14
>are intertwined.

No, that is not obvious to me. Maybe because I know *how* they are
intertwined, and that is not a problem for me. There are dendro
sequences that are independent of any C14, data, at all. C14 is
used in a couple of ways to "transfer" absolute dendro sequences to
the Aegean area, but, not in a way that compromises the independence
of the dendro.

[snip]

>>
>>I don't know if you mean Kuniholm's C 14 in particular, or C 14 in
>>general. I guess that even I feel that just one set of C 14 dates from
>>one log is not totally satisfying, and, I expect quite a few more will be
>>forthcoming.
>
>C14 in general. Kuniholm depends on the calibration curve. THe argument
>was that if there is any error in Kuniholm's results, at least for
>1628-1157, it is not his but in the calibration curve.
>

I have a lot of faith in C14. But, there is no denying that it does
not have sufficient precision to answer a lot of the questions that
we would like to have the answers to.

I think the best way to look at the C14 data in this case is that it
is like scaffolding. Scaffolding is necessary in order to build the
cathedral. But, once the building is complete, the scaffolding comes
down, and the building is no longer dependent on it. Kuniholm used
C14 to build his sequence. But, once it was complete, and links were
found to other dendro sequences, the C14 goes away.

I do not expect this to be the last, by any means, work done on
dendrochronology, in the Aegean, or else where. And, I wouldn't go
quite so far as to say that the Aegean sequence is proven beyond all
doubt. But, I think the hand is writing on the wall. The sequence is
there. It is bound to be validated, over and over again. The odds
that it could move are very slight. It is time to start fitting the
historical data to the sequence. It is too late for the sequence to
be moved to fit the historical data. Any refutation will have to be
external, and that is not at all likely.

>> As far as C 14 in general, though it has its problems, there is no
>> question in my mind that the method is sound, within limits. The only
>> part of Rohl's book that I thought was correct (and, he was referring to
>> someone else's work, it that *all* Egyptian dates (before 1000 BC, maybe,
>> as I recall) are inconsistent with the C 14 results, and that there is a
>> systematic increase in the disagreement for earlier times. I think that
>> dendro and tephra are going to confirm the C 14 results, right down the
>> line.
>
>
>Out of curiosity, I would be interested to know WHY you thought Rohl was
>wrong in his arguments for collapsing TIP chronology. Most of his
>arguments for this are classical Egyptological analyses of historical data
>-- interpretation of inscriptions and genealogies etc. He knows his stuff
>and on many of his points he makes a good, often ingenious, argument. You
>can see this even more in some of his JACF articles. He's almost always
>wrong, in my view, but you often have to go deep into the details to see
>_exactly_ why he is wrong, and that involves digging into the
>Egyptological literature. But you don't appear to be interested in
>Egyptological analysis even as a mode of argument. So how did you go
>about assessing his case on points where it doesn't relate to
>dendrochronology or to C14 dating?
>

I know something about "scientific dating" and about Aegean
chronology. It has been apparent for some time that there was a big
problem with links to Egypt if the 1628 date is confirmed. I
consider that it has not been confirmed, but, I was not entirely
convinced when I perused Rohl.

The paper that Rohl includes as an appendix shows that there is an
increasing disagreement between C14 dates and historical ones,
according to the traditional dates. I already had an idea of how
such a bias could occur. Things very seldom get added into the
historical record, but, it is easy to see how they can get dropped
out. And, there is a tendency of many historians to "down date" at
every opportunity. That would look exactly like the data that Rohl
presents. When I figured out that his solution to that was to
disregard all scientific dating, and to in fact, move all possible
dates in the opposite direction, I lost interest.

>>> There is apparently no mid 16th century
>>>event recorded in the ice-cores.
>>
>> Zielinski found three small ones. The closest "open" date is an unknown
>>"monster" in 1695 BC. Shall I put you down for that one? (Until Zielinski
>> publishes on tephra in the ice layers.)
>
>Nope. Find me one in the region 1560-1460 and I'm your man!

Sorry, there are no suitable events open in that time period.

:>)

[snip]
>>
>> I won't comment on the Egyptian data.
>
>Actually, you have. You dismiss it out of hand, without examination.
>That is simply not good enough. For any dating of THera to be acceptable
>it has to be made to square with ALL the evidence, and not just the lines
>of evidence that suit.
>
><snip>
>

>>No need to wait, it is time to accept the new "gold standard." What ever

>>has to be done in Egypt, has to be done.
>
>
>Sorry, but until the historical record, which has indeed been excavated,
>analysed, debated and refined for some 200 years, is woven into the "gold
>standard" the standard isn't ready for use.
>
>I'm more than willing to accept the possibility that Egyptian chronology
>can be reworked to place Thera at 1628 BC in the early 18th dynasty, I
>just want to see how its done -- is that really so much to ask? I have
>looked at it closely enough to be sure its a non-trivial problem. Some
>pro-Thera Egyptologist with a lot of time and a good mastery of the
>literature needs to take up the cudgels, and work through the details of
>about seven centuries of Egyptian history.
>
>This should have been attempted long before now, even though the
>chronological survey articles I have seen, by people like Kitchen,
>strongly imply that it can't be done. Maybe Yurco is now having a go, I
>hope so. But declaring victory without a convincing new Egyptian
>chronology just doesn't cut it.

I think that what you are saying, and what I am saying are two sides
of the same thing, we are just expressing it differently.

I do not think that we should look at it from the standpoint of
"pro" or "anti" Thera. Thera is what it is.

And, it is not a matter of "declaring victory," certainly not for
me, I am only an observer. And, I do not have any ax to grind, one
way or the other as far as high or low chronologies go. (I do admit
to having "discovered" Thera rather early, and having been convinced
from the beginning that it was *big* stuff. And, for quite a while,
I was frustrated by the fact that the "establishment" wanted to
ignore it. But, I certainly didn't anticipate that it was going to
raise Egyptian chronology.)

I have forgotten some of the technical jargon in the paradigm shift
cult. But, there is a concept that is relevant. That is, that
everything that existed before, has to exist afterward, too. And
that the new paradigm has to explain all the old data, but, often
with a "higher insight." Newtonian mechanics all still work in the
"modern" theory, but, only with in limits.

It is not required that it be apparent to everyone, or anyone, how
all this is going to work while the paradigm is shifting. But, there
are going to be some experts in each particular field that are going
to be able to figure out how the old data fits the new model. And,
there may well be some that refuse to change the traditional view.
(There may even be some Rohls, who go off on some new tangent.)

In science, one is suppose to look on problems, and paradigm shifts
are problems on a grand scale, as opportunities to learn. We are
about to get a lot smarter, but, I am not the one that is going to
figure out how Egypt fits into the new picture.

There was a "window" in which Egyptian historical chronology was
given a hearing, on an equal, and in fact, superior, position to the
other disciplines. However, progress in the different fields has
taken place at different rates. The "weighting" of methods has
shifted, and the damn is broken. If not totally gone, it will be
soon. Time, as I have said, to start adapting to the new order.

Having said that, let me distinguish between what I think is proven,
what I think I could prove, and my opinion as to what is going to
happen. I think that Kuniholm's sequence is proven. I think maybe I
can explain that to someone who is disposed to understand, but, I
can't prove it, and the fact that a Egyptian chronology is going to
be strongly affected is just an opinion.

>>>As I said to Dr Yurco, I don't know what the solution is, but I do know
>>>its not a problem to be dismissed lightly -- on either side.
>>
>> I think that was were we were in the mid '80s. The tree guys, ice guys,
>> and volcano guys have gone and gotten a *lot* more data. They are now
>> sure. Time to go. The Egypt guys still want more time. Sorry, time is up.
>
>The "Egypt guys" have also gotten more data -- specifically, Manfred
>Bietak. Why not look at it?

I have looked at some of it, and I am interested in seeing more. So
far, I would have to say that though Bietak's finds are very
interesting, I haven't been overwhelmed by his interpretation of
them.

From what Renfrew says, what Bietak has recently found is now just
one more link that is going to tie the Egyptian chronology into the
Aegean one. A rope that is going to further drag down the old order.
There is no longer a chance that this link can control the new
chronology. My opinion.

>>
>> I guess that sounds hard, but, that is the way that I see the facts.
>> Holding on to the old, comfortable dates is just delaying the crunch.
>> Egyptian history once drove the dating bus, but, that is no longer the
>> case.
>>
>> When the paradigm shifts, those that do not shift...
>>
>> Well, I will spare everyone the horrid details.
>
>And thank you for that small mercy, Comrade Stalin!
>
>What I read here is a hardening of the party line, a closing of the mind,
>a blanket refusal to acknowledge the existence of real problems and real
>issues. Its a rather frightening spectacle.

Yes, paradigm shifts are a bit frightening. And, some people do get
hurt. Now, understand, I don't propose to personally start the
"virtual" liquidation those that do not accept the new dogma. But, I
have observed in similar situations in the past that there are those
that will.

Henry Hillbrath

[Henry Hillbrath]

S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth) writes:

>sou...@netcom.com (Henry Hillbrath) wrote:

>>I think that was were we were in the mid '80s. The tree guys, ice guys,
>>and volcano guys have gone and gotten a *lot* more data. They are now
>>sure. Time to go. The Egypt guys still want more time. Sorry, time is up.

>>I guess that sounds hard, but, that is the way that I see the facts.
>>Holding on to the old, comfortable dates is just delaying the crunch.
>>Egyptian history once drove the dating bus, but, that is no longer the
>>case.

>Let's say that you are right. That the last piece of confirmation

>comes in and 1628 turns out to be the right date.

There will not likely be a "last piece." Just more and more pieces. And,
I think that there are already enough pieces that we can say that 1628 is
the "working hypothisis" that needs to be used if one wants any
credibility in this field.

> Let me try to
>explain the problem the "Egypt guys" have. I don't have the kind of
>background Chris has, but I do a pretty good job of reverbalizing what
>I learn and understand.

>The major problem is that the Egypt guys seem to have one date on the
>dendro line. If 1628 is Thera, and if Thera ash has show up in that
>early 18th Dynasty site we've been talking about, then that one date
>is pinned down. Thera = one particular year in the early 18th
>Dynasty. (Requires a contemporary textual reference to a king year,
>of course.) But none of the other dates are pinned down because the
>Cornell group hasn't done the Egyptian wood dating that was scheduled
>for this year as yet. Or it has been done, and hasn't been published.
>Or it is ongoing.

I don't think that the Cornell group is to be held responsible for
meeting any particular schedule on this. And, dendrochronology in Egypt
is going to be a long, involved process, that will have to be done by a
lot of people.

>Even if this really is the gold standard in dating, the Egypt guys
>don't have enough information to actually build a chronology on it
>yet.

When Egypt was the "Gold Standard" everyone else had the same problem.
How to link their finds to Egyptian dates. Now, the problem is reversed.
That is all.

But, there are already more than just the single date to work with.

In fact, I have the impression that there are quite a few C14 dates that
just haven't been used, because they didn't "fit." At least, that is what
Rohl's appendix said.

Henry Hillbrath

[Steve Whittet]

In article <4uirqv$l...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM
says...
>
>sou...@netcom.com (Henry Hillbrath) wrote:
>
>
>>...in the mid '80s. The tree guys, ice guys,

>>and volcano guys have gone and gotten a *lot* more data. They are now
>>sure. Time to go. The Egypt guys still want more time. Sorry, time is up.

>>...Holding on to the old, comfortable dates is just delaying the crunch.

>>Egyptian history once drove the dating bus, but, that is no longer the
>>case.
>

>Let's say that you are right. That the last piece of confirmation

>comes in and 1628 turns out to be the right date. Let me try to
>explain the problem the "Egypt guys" have. ...
>
>...the Egypt guys seem to have one date on the dendro line...

I don't think it has been conclusively shown that there is
any correlation.

1.) As has been pointed out matching tree rings
from areas thousands of miles apart with different climates
and weather patterns is at best speculative.

2.) Pumice can be deposited from any volcanic event.

3.) Any deposit of pumice is likely to be of very similar
composition to any other deposit of pumice.

4.) A small nearby event can deposit as much pumice as
a large event much farther away.

5.) Small events occur with much greater frequency than large events.

6.) Egypt is on a major rift where faults earthquakes and vulcanism
occur regularly.

7.) This makes tying the deposits of pumice found in Egypt
to one particular volcano hinge on finding some material
included in the pumice which could only have come from Thera

8.) No such marker has yet been found to my knowledge.

>If 1628 is Thera,...

Henry seems to have done a good job of establishing that.

>and if Thera ash has show up ...

That is the real question. What proof is there that the
ash originated at Thera? Why couldn't it have come from
a smaller closer event?

>in that early 18th Dynasty site...

Apparently even the date of the site is questionable hinging
on the presence of a scarab which could have been an antique
handed down through one or more generations.

>then that one date is pinned down.

I think that in all fairness Stella, if you pin down one
date in the XVIIIth Dynasty, then the rest of that Dynasty
is well enough documented to slide along with it.

>Thera = one particular year in the early 18th Dynasty.

If Thera is 1628 it is not XVIIIth Dynasty, but 2nd intermediate
period. The 2nd intermediate period (1640-1532 BC)was one of
great confusion which is what you might expect if there was
a cataclysim of the size and type described.

It is followed almost immediately by the arrival of the Hyksos

>(Requires a contemporary textual reference to a king year,of course.)

Not necessarily. If Thera occured during the 2nd Intermediate
there would be no well documented king years to reference.

>But none of the other dates are pinned down because the
>Cornell group hasn't done the Egyptian wood dating that was scheduled
>for this year as yet.

The wood dating is going to be inconclusive unless it is tied to
wood dates from sites near to Egypt and then those are worked into
other sites getting closer and closer to Thera so that there is no
large gap in the associated climatology.

>Or it has been done, and hasn't been published. Or it is ongoing.

If it were conclusive I expect it would have made a few headlines
and even we would have seen it by now...

>
>Even if this really is the gold standard in dating, the Egypt guys
>don't have enough information to actually build a chronology on it
>yet.

Sorry, but until there is more data, the simple truth is,
we are still talking apples and oranges here.
>
>
>Stella Nemeth
>s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
>
steve

[Henry Hillbrath]

cben...@adnc.com (Chris Bennett) writes:

>In message <sourisDv...@netcom.com>, sou...@netcom.com (Henry
>Hillbrath) wrote:

[snip]

>>Which is just barely possible, if Thera was a very low sulfur eruption.

>>And, there was a high sulfur eruption, a very big one, just at the same
>>time, somewhere else.

>Aren't we able to determine whether Thera was low or high sulphur? I'm
>surprised. This seems like a pretty basic question to me.

Sorry, there was so much of this, I missed replying to some of it.

I don't have any explanation of why, but, until recently, there seems to
have been very little done on what we might call "volcano archaeology."
And, I guess that I should have mentioned that.

When Spyridon Marinatos started digging on Thera, he invited some
oceanographers from Woods Hole in to investigate the area. One of the
questions he put to them was: "Is this a volcano." That is pretty basic,
and, I can't imagine that he really had any doubt about it. But, that was
pretty much the level that everyone was starting from in the late '60s.

Even though there was evidence that had been known from the early 1800s,
when the Theran tephra was being mined for construction elsewhere, it was
not generally recognized that there had been a major eruption in Bronze
Age times. And, there was just about zero recognition that it was one of
the major eruptions of the last few thousand years, bigger most now think
than Krakatoa, and comparable to (but a bit smaller) than Tambora.

The study of ancient volcanos has very much advanced since then, and to a
large extent, the study of Thera has stimulated that study. Many theories
have been developed, tested on Thera, and rejected, already.

Thera was, AFAIK, the very first ancient volcano for which attempts were
made to estimate the sulfur emissions from the surviving geology. Much
later, the Greenland ice cap data gives a direct measure of how much
sulfur was transported there. From what I have read, and what Kuinholm
says, the success at correlating field measurements and atmospheric models
with ice cap deposition is zip.

Thera also had a major role in the development of the VEI concept. It was
developed, partly, as a way to quantify the effect of volcanic eruptions
on climate. But, it did not include any consideration of sulfur
output, since there was no data. It is now recognized that with out
the sulfur effect, VEI does not correlate with climatic effect.

Even though not all the answers are in on Thera, it is probably the most
extensively studied, and best understood, and best dated, of any
prehistoric volcano. But, the field of ancient vulcanism is advancing
very rapidly. By leaps and bounds. And, the ice cap work is in the
forefront of this activity.

The advance that is going on now is direct "fingerprinting" of tephra
from specific eruptions in the ice layers. This work is going to have (is
already starting to have) tremendous impact on ancient chronology. As
big, or bigger, than C14. And, it is complementary to C14.

Every dig has someone looking for pots, or flints, or what
ever. The day is coming, very soon, when every one will have someone
looking for "volcanic micro shards" and, if not, the dating will have no
creditability. Thera, and Egypt, are leading the way.

>>
>>It is a *lot* easier for me to accept that there are a few missing kings
>>than that either the C14 is wrong, or that there were two eruptions. But,
>>there more confirmation than just those two points.

>And that is precisely the point at issue. You are willing to accept
>missing kings a priori, because you haven't reviewed the evidence.

Acutually, I have looked at it, I just don't want to discuss it. But,
although there are some periods, like the 18th Dynasty, during which
things were *thought* to be in good shape, there are other periods during
which a battallion of kings could be missing and not noticed.

Now there is going to be an independent test.

Henry Hillbrath

[Henry Hillbrath]

whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:

>In article <4uirqv$l...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM
>says...
>>
>>sou...@netcom.com (Henry Hillbrath) wrote:
>>
>>

>>>...in the mid '80s. The tree guys, ice guys,

>>>and volcano guys have gone and gotten a *lot* more data. They are now
>>>sure. Time to go. The Egypt guys still want more time. Sorry, time is up.
>

>>>...Holding on to the old, comfortable dates is just delaying the crunch.

>>>Egyptian history once drove the dating bus, but, that is no longer the
>>>case.
>>

>>Let's say that you are right. That the last piece of confirmation
>>comes in and 1628 turns out to be the right date. Let me try to
>>explain the problem the "Egypt guys" have. ...
>>
>>...the Egypt guys seem to have one date on the dendro line...
>
>I don't think it has been conclusively shown that there is
>any correlation.

Sorry, Steve. I think you are hip shooting here. Giving us your
opinion of how things *should* be, but without any reference to what
is actually happening, or has been reported in the "peer reviewed
literature."

>
>1.) As has been pointed out matching tree rings
>from areas thousands of miles apart with different climates
>and weather patterns is at best speculative.
>

There are some problems with matching rings from different areas,
true. And, it has been necessary to construct independent dendro
sequences from different areas in order to check just how big these
problems are. But, much of that work has been done.

It is now generally accepted by the dendro chronologists, but, not
necessarily by traditional archaeologists, that there are "marker"
events which do show up, world wide, (at least hemisphere wide) and
which can be used to tie sequences together. That is what this
discussion is about.

As it happens, the 1628 event, which was Thera, is the best known of
these in archaeological circles. There are others.

>2.) Pumice can be deposited from any volcanic event.

Many, at the least.

>
>3.) Any deposit of pumice is likely to be of very similar
>composition to any other deposit of pumice.
>

That is just as up to data a view as saying that "One finger smudge
on a murder weapon is very much like another." or "Every one's DNA
is just like anyone else's."

Different eruptions, even from the same volcano, produce tephra that
is distinct from other tephra. Just how distinct, and how reliably
it can be identified is still open to debate, but, the tephra
people, who are the ones that have thought about it, certainly think
they can "fingerprint" tephra, certainly as well as pots, or
scarabs, can be.

>4.) A small nearby event can deposit as much pumice as
>a large event much farther away.
>

That is true.

>5.) Small events occur with much greater frequency than large
events.
>

And, that is also.

>6.) Egypt is on a major rift where faults earthquakes and vulcanism
>occur regularly.
>

I do not think that any of the east African rift system is in Egypt,
certainly not close to the Nile Delta. The Red Sea is part of the
rift system, but I do not know of any tephra emissions from there.

I do not have Simkin and Silbert at hand, nor any copies of the
section on Africa. My handy CD-ROM encyclopedia only mentions Mount
Kilimanjaro as "semiactive" in the whole continent. Zielinski lists
about 40 eruptions that have been identified in the Greenland ice
cap in the last 4000 years. Some from as far away as Indonesia. None
of them (that I see) are from Africa. .

>7.) This makes tying the deposits of pumice found in Egypt
>to one particular volcano hinge on finding some material
>included in the pumice which could only have come from Thera
>

And, that is the reason that the tephra is "fingerprinted."

>8.) No such marker has yet been found to my knowledge.

You need to check the literature, your knowledge base needs
updating.

>
>>If 1628 is Thera,...
>
>Henry seems to have done a good job of establishing that.
>
>>and if Thera ash has show up ...
>
>That is the real question. What proof is there that the
>ash originated at Thera? Why couldn't it have come from
>a smaller closer event?

Where?

The Thera layer can be identified, and "fingerprinted" from Thera,
to the Black Sea, Israel, and across northern Egypt. Many samples
have now been fingerprinted by a number of workers. Even in the Nile
Delta, it is much more prominent than any other tephra layer of
historical times.

You seem to think that most everything is "speculation." You are
speculating about tephra chronology with no connection to the rest
of the world.

Some tephra found in Bietak's excavation was identified by his group
as from Thera, and accepted as such by Renfrew. If you want to be
more conservative than Renfrew, that is fine by me, but, don't
expect to get much consideration of your views. And, I think that
such conservatism doesn't match well with your hyper liberal views
of diffusion and linguistics.

>
>>in that early 18th Dynasty site...
>
>Apparently even the date of the site is questionable hinging
>on the presence of a scarab which could have been an antique
>handed down through one or more generations.
>

[snip]

The challenge of "antiques" or of subsequent burial, can be made
against virtually every archaeological find. Yet stratification is
accepted as possibly the most powerful and fundamental tool of
archaeology. *Some* stuff is in the right place.

>
>If Thera is 1628 it is not XVIIIth Dynasty, but 2nd intermediate
>period. The 2nd intermediate period (1640-1532 BC)was one of
>great confusion which is what you might expect if there was
>a cataclysim of the size and type described.

According to Chris, Bietak doesn't agree. But, what does he know?

>
>It is followed almost immediately by the arrival of the Hyksos
>

Again, according to Chris, 1628 may be after the Hyksos *left.*
Isn't it wonderful to have all these dates exactly tied down?

>>(Requires a contemporary textual reference to a king year,of
course.)
>
>Not necessarily. If Thera occured during the 2nd Intermediate
>there would be no well documented king years to reference.
>
>>But none of the other dates are pinned down because the
>>Cornell group hasn't done the Egyptian wood dating that was
scheduled
>>for this year as yet.
>
>The wood dating is going to be inconclusive unless it is tied to
>wood dates from sites near to Egypt and then those are worked into
>other sites getting closer and closer to Thera so that there is no
>large gap in the associated climatology.
>

Very little of the wood found in Egypt in archaeological contexts
came from there. Most of it came from Palestine, not very far at all
from where most of Kuniholm's sequence came from (mostly Turkey, for
this particular sequence.) There has been no conclusive work done on
just how far apart trees can be and still be correlated, but, the
thought is continents, not "counties." Turkey is pretty close to
Lebanon, dendro chronologically. And, if the climatic conditions are
not similar, the process is self correcting, as there won't be any
matches. Dendrochronologists are well aware of these problems, and
aren't even going to discuss dates they can't back up.

>
>>Or it has been done, and hasn't been published. Or it is ongoing.
>
>If it were conclusive I expect it would have made a few headlines
>and even we would have seen it by now...
>>
>>Even if this really is the gold standard in dating, the Egypt guys
>>don't have enough information to actually build a chronology on it
>>yet.
>
>Sorry, but until there is more data, the simple truth is,
>we are still talking apples and oranges here.
>>

Yes, some of us are talking about what has been found, and some are
talking about what might exist, or not exist, in theory. There is
already a lot of data, and it is time to talk about data, not
waiting for the last word on some things and building castles on
total voids on others.

Henry Hillbrath

[Henry Hillbrath]

j...@sfbooks.com (Joe Bernstein) writes:

>In article <sourisDv...@netcom.com>, sou...@netcom.com (Henry
>Hillbrath) wrote:

>>"Alan M. Dunsmuir" <al...@moonrake.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>
>>In the well known book on Maya Script (which I have given away, and the
>>author of which I can't remember)

A message here, in another thread, reminds me, the author was M. Coe.

>there is a long discussion about some
>>influential American, who thought that Mayan was an "idea" script, and
>>who not only flamed everyone who thought it was phonetic, but, accused
>>them of being communist sympathizers. And, he never gave up. No progress
>>was made in that field until he was dead.
>>
>>The last time I checked, there were still some geologists, mostly
>>Russian, in that case, who were still holding out against plate tectonics.
>>
>>There are numerous other cases.

>I wonder what the current status of my own favourite is.

>In the early 1980s (I think), Philip Kohl, a prominent American Marxist
>archaeologist, undertook to introduce some Soviet work he'd learned of on
>the region once known as Bactria. He called the most interesting of
>several cultures in the area the "Namazga civilization". He went so far
>as to translate a book full of essays on the subject by Soviet scholars
>and get this published.

I don't know about that.

I do know something about some former Soviet work, particularly in my
field (rocket propulsion.)

In Louisiana, there is a saying, "Even a blind pig finds some nuts."

The Soviets were not "blind pigs" and they found a lot of nuts. Some that
we overlooked.

But, there was a lot of political interference, and far from everything
they did was good.

That is exactly the mistake that the guy Coe talks about made. He ignored
what the Russian was saying, because there was some political context to
it, and, because it didn't agree with his preconceived notion.

In fact, despite all odds, this guy, locked up in a room in St.
Petersburg, with only a few books, got almost all the answers, things
that the people in CA were missing.

A lot of the work that was going on there on linguistics is still highly
controversial, but, it is vastly different than the impression that was
obtained of it through chinks in the Iron Curtain, and, right or wrong,
the work of former Soviet linguists has been a major impact in the field
since the breakup.

Some of the rocket stuff seemed do weird that I though that it must be
disinformation when I first heard about it. But, a lot of it turns out to
be true. OTOH, there are large areas in which they knew what we were
doing, and refused to follow, even though I think we were right.

> (In that
>regard, I'd really like to thank Mr. Hillbrath for an article that
>*exemplifies* what I want out of such a newsgroup as this, a clear and
>comprehensive presentation of evidence, intertwined with the sort of
>context that is otherwise available only from sustained acquaintance with
>the literature.

Thank you.

[August Matthusen]

In <sourisDv...@netcom.com> sou...@netcom.com (Henry Hillbrath)
writes:
>
>cben...@adnc.com (Chris Bennett) writes:

Another point to consider about Rohl's arguments (which he presented in
sci.arch, but which I didn't see in his book): He was trying to date
Thera to c. 1150 BC (I think from Bietak finding the tephra layer).
This date flies in the face of either of the prevailing dates of
c. 1628 based on the C-14, ice cores, and world-wide dendro which was
available at the time or the c. 1500 BC which was based on Minoan
archaeology.

Regards,
August Matthusen

[Steve Whittet]

In article <sourisDv...@netcom.com>, sou...@netcom.com says...

>
>whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:
>
>>In article <4uirqv$l...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
>S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM
>>says...
>>>
>>>sou...@netcom.com (Henry Hillbrath) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>...in the mid '80s. The tree guys, ice guys,
>>>>and volcano guys have gone and gotten a *lot* more data. They are now
>>>>sure. Time to go. The Egypt guys still want more time. Sorry, time is up.
>>
>>>>...Holding on to the old, comfortable dates is just delaying the crunch.
>>>>Egyptian history once drove the dating bus, but, that is no longer the
>>>>case.
>>>
>>>Let's say that you are right. That the last piece of confirmation
>>>comes in and 1628 turns out to be the right date. Let me try to
>>>explain the problem the "Egypt guys" have. ...
>>>
>>>...the Egypt guys seem to have one date on the dendro line...
>>
>>I don't think it has been conclusively shown that there is
>>any correlation.
>
>Sorry, Steve. I think you are hip shooting here. Giving us your
>opinion of how things *should* be, but without any reference to what
>is actually happening, or has been reported in the "peer reviewed
>literature."

ok,

Obviously the picture has been rapidly improving over the last
couple of decades, but are we really there yet?

start with this while I look for something more recent...

Aegean Dendrochronology Project December 1990 Progress Report

"The chronology of every country in ancient Western Asia bristles with
problems."
---W.C. Hayes, Cambridge Ancient History I.1, (1970)

"...one should at last be able to settle a further problem
that has bedevilled the historical chronologies over the past
40 years, namely, the existence of three main versions, high,
middle, and low chronologies, in both Egypt and Mesopotamia.

Between the two extremes, the middle chronology is now the favourite,
but as it represents a compromise, it is not necessarily therefore
correct. The chaos caused by six historical chronologies, and three
radiocarbon ones (uncorrected with 5568 half life, uncorrected with
5570 half life and the corrected one, which should henceforth be solely
used), has made a synthesis of Near Eastern (grosso modo, including Egypt,
Middle East, and Indus valley) cultural development almost impossible,
r, at best, so fraught with chronological hurdles as to be virtually
useless."
---J. Mellaart Antiquity (1979)

"However, much of the period of time [with which Kuniholm is]
concerned contains well-detailed ceramic chronologies for most questions.
Thus the recent end of the tree-ring chronology is of little interest for
anthropological archaeology."
---anonymous NSF Reviewer (1988)

"Ha! Ha! and, again, Ha!"
---Peter I. Kuniholm (unpublished) (1990)

What we have been trying to do about this:

The work of the Aegean Dendrochronology Project has been
and continues to be the building of long tree-ring chronologies
for the Eastern half of the Mediterranean with the aim of helping
to bring some kind of rational order to Aegean and Near Eastern
chronology from the Neolithic to the Present.

[The question is what do we use to connect the tree ring
chronology to a specific date in Egyptian history? I would
think a bit of wood from the boats in the chambers below
the Great Pyramid would be a nice link, but it is apparently
too early. Perhaps a bit of Tutankamens furniture?]

See the summary bargraph of our achievements as of October 1990
on the next page. Since these chronologies are self-standing
(i.e., independent of king-lists, generations of potters, etc.),
beginning with the tree-rings of the living forests of Turkey,
Greece, Yugoslavia, Lebanon, Italy, and Cyprus, extending the
sequences back through the rings of timbers collected from medieval
monuments, and then continuing as far as the evidence will take us
(Chalcolithic, so far, with Neolithic in sight), we feel free from
some of the frustrations evident in the first two quotations above
and of which the author of the third seems unaware.

That is to say, we do not have to take a high, middle or low stance
when we begin, and indeed we like to think that we are in a better
position to shed light on some of the thornier chronological issues
than many of our colleagues.

The event of our year:

In August and September 1989 personnel from the Ankara Museum
conducted a rescue excavation in three tumuli at Kizlarkaya,
a few kilometers north of Gordion. In one of them, a simple
rectangle of juniper slabs formed the grave chamber.

Since up to a century of sapwood is missing, our best guess is
that the tomb dates from the mid-8th century B.C. But since 911
(!) annual rings are preserved in these slabs, the resulting graph
not only crossdates with the long Gordion master chronology but
also with the 677 year long Middle Bronze Age chronology published
last year in Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç which most Patrons
received last summer.

Now have a look at a drastically scaled-down version
(reduced from 150 inches) on page 4 of the long graph
cited in note 4 on the bargraph.

At a glance one can see a continuous 1503-year dendrochronological
sequence (shown here in two lines) which runs from the mid-23rd
century B.C. to the mid-8th century B.C. (The histogram underneath
shows how many rings were included in the graph, some 35,000 in all.)

Numbers and comments in the table below show the building years
of six major monuments, some which are associated with well-known
personages from the Assyrian King List. Other years are associated
with pottery and other objects of well-known and studied types or
classes.

Since the linking of the Bronze Age and Iron Age sequences of this
long chronology is only weeks old, we have not had a chance to do
more than speculate on the implications for the various other
chronologies cited by Mellaart above. At the worst we now have
a tenth chronology with which to muddy the waters even further.

At the best we may have the beginning of an independent solution
for this seemingly intractable problem.

The point is that this 1503-year dendrochronological sequence,
lacking for the present a link to the long absolute chronologies
of the 2nd millennium A.D. and pinned in place by 18 radiocarbon
dates for specifically selected rings, may move up or down a little
but not much.

The technique by which it was placed is known as wiggle-matching,
and a drawing by Bernd Kromer, Heidelberg, of the Gordion
radiocarbon dates as they fit the calibrated master radiocarbon
curve is also shown below.

Thes results will be submitted for publication later this winter.

Thus, for example, if the reader wishes to move ring 730 up a few
years to accommodate the high chronology then everything else on
the graph must move up an equal number of years.

The same applies for moving it down. Our goal is to get to the point
where we can move the graph no longer and can get down to the serious
business of studying the archaeology and history of the Aegean and
the Near East with a time control that has hitherto been lacking.

The Bronze Age/Iron Age chronology, of course, is only one aspect of
our effort. Of almost equal interest to many of our friends are the
long Medieval/Modern chronologies which include the entire second
millennium A.D. and wood from over 100 medieval monuments.

What the work of the last dozen years has enabled us to do is to
build a wood 'library' by which a number of archaeological,
historical, or art-historical problems may be solved and to
which other scholars may readily refer. This resource is
unique for the Aegean and the Near East.

SUMMER 1990:
Last summer we did our usual 9400 mile trip through the Aegean
and Balkans, bringing back some 400 samples form 53 sites.

Riding shotgun the whole way were Hope Kuniholm (this year's Lab Boss)
and Joan Ramage. Providing an extra pair of hand eastbound was
karen Rubinson and westbound Eleanor Kuniholm.

OLDEST SITE:
Aceramic Neolithic charcoal from Asikli Höyük (about 9000 B.C.)

MOST FAMOUS SITE:
The cleaning of Heinrich Schliemann's Great Trench at Troy yielded
an entire dufflebag of Troy I charcoal collected at the end of August,
already measured by Carol Griggs (this year's INSTAP fellow), and
appearing on the bargraph in the middle of the third millennium B.C.
Ten samples from the Troy chronology are already in Heidelberg for
wiggle-matching by Herr Kromer.

LONGEST SEQUENCE:
The Gordion-Kizlarkaya tumulus mentioned above with up to 862 rings
apiece, measured by mid-September and by the end of the month filling
the gap between the Iron Age and Bronze Age chronologies which had
plagued us for years. If every period yielded wood of this quality,
our lives would be a lot simpler.

ROMAN:
(always a problem because there is usually so little of it): A salvage
excavation by the Malatya Museum personnel of a late 1st century A.D.
barrel- vaulted tomb near Darende yielded a dozen boards which
ought to cover the transition from AD to BC.

LAB WORK:
We have a full crew this year: 11 new students, 5 old-timers
(in addition to Hope and Carol: Miles McCredie our programmer,
Esra Köseataç our utility infielder, and Joan Ramage who has
just finished typing 1200 envelopes for this mailing.)

Since dendrochronology is labor-intensive (the bargraph on page
2 is a synthesis of over 7 million ring-measurements), having veterans
available to help coach the new talent has resulted in a great
saving of time and effort.

PROSPECTS:
As I said at the beginning of this report, I think we are on the verge of
having a free-standing,independent means by which to try to resolve the
various predicaments that make the study of Aegean and Near Eastern
archaeology the chronological quagmire to which both Hayes and Mellaart were
alluding. If we can do that, the whole enterprise will have been well worth
the effort.

This graph shows how 17 selected decades cut from Gordion MMT wood and then
individually radiocarbon dated at Heidelberg fit against the calibrated
radiocarbon curve. Only one is an outlier, and then not by very much. The
maximum possible error is 37 years ±. The heavier line in the middle is the
mean, and the two lines above and below represent one standard deviation from
the mean. Thus the slight wiggle left or right is theoretically possible.

The entire 1503 year tree-ring chronology is therefore wiggle-matched. It
begins in 2259 B.C. ±37 with the oldest ring at Kültepe's Warsama Sarayi and
ends in 757 B.C. ± 37 with the last ring in the Midas Mound Tumulus at
Gordion.

Collecting Statistics for Summer 1990

YUGOSLAVIA
Slavonski Pozega
3
Sisak (Celtic), = Segestica
13
Sevnica, Ajdovski Gradec
19
Slovenia, Vrhnika
5
Slovenia, Murska Sobota, Lendava
1
Ljubljanski Grad
1
Dubrovnik, Onofrije Fountain
4
Sisak, Roman Settlement (East)
10
TURKEY
Claros (pre-Orientalizing)
5
iznik, Walls
5
Gordion, Kizlarkaya A Tumulus
5
Gordion Midas Mound Tumulus
1
Amasya, Gümüs, Darphane Camii
8
Kastamonou, Kasabaköy, Mahmut Bey
2
Sinop, Boyabat Castle
5
Sinop, Balatlar Kilise
6
Sinop, City Walls
4
Sinop, Göktepe, Daztepe Mevkisi
9
Sinop, Soyuk, Findiklidüz Mevkii
8
Samsun, Bafra, Íkiztepe
1
Kizilirmak Riverbed
1
Samsun, Terme, Merkez Pazar Camii
3
Samsun, Çarsamba, Mezarlik Camii
14
Ordu, Melet Irmagi (Riverbed)
1
Giresun, Shipwreck
2
Trabzon, Torul Ísletmesi, various
11
Bayburt, Demirözü Çiftetas, Büyüktepe
1
Erzurum, Çifte Minareli Medrese
2
Elazig, Harput, Ulu Camii
2
Elazig, Mollakendi, IV. Murat Camii
5
Elazig, Keban Dam (Euphrates River)
1
Elazig, Eti Bank Mine explorations
1
Malatya, Arslantepe
2
Malatya, Darende, Yenice Tumulus
12
Adiyaman, Tille Höyük
24
Urfa, Harran Camii
1
Batman, Hasankeyf, Ulu Camii
1
Batman, Hasankeyf, Koç Camii
2
Van, Gevas
3
Van, Ayanis
42
Van, Kale, Süleyman Han Camii (bag)
1
Van, Kale, Kule Girisi
1
Van, Dilkaya
3
Nigde, Çamardi, Göltepe (more soon)
1
Aksaray, Asikli Höyük (more coming)
4
Konya, Karahöyük
13
Konya, Beysehir, Kubadabat Sarayi
14
Çanakkale, Troy I
est.100
Çanakkale, Scamander Riverbed
1
Bursa, Ilipinar (ident.only)
6
SYRIA
Tell Brak
3
Ugarit (coming)
0
TOTAL
367++

[ADP Home]

last revised 19960311 mjb
snip...

>>
>>Sorry, but until there is more data, the simple truth is,
>>we are still talking apples and oranges here.
>>>
>
>Yes, some of us are talking about what has been found, and some are
>talking about what might exist, or not exist, in theory. There is
>already a lot of data, and it is time to talk about data, not
>waiting for the last word on some things and building castles on
>total voids on others.
>
>Henry Hillbrath

steve

[Steve Whittet]

In article <sourisDv...@netcom.com>, sou...@netcom.com says...

I have been looking Henry. While the data is accumulating
in a very encouraging manner, there still seems to remain
a lot of work to be done before a single definitive chronology
is established

AEGEAN DENDROCHRONOLOGY PROJECT
DECEMBER 1994 PROGRESS REPORT

Highlights of dendrochronological dating results for 1994
are presented below in more or less reverse chronological order.

Our total of over 6000 years of tree-ring sequences has been
added to mainly in the Early Byzantine centuries and Early
Bronze Age.

Thus last year's bargraph with its schematic summary sent out
in December 1993 is a reasonable facsimile of where we are right
now and is not repeated in this report.

Samsun, Kavak, Bekdemirköy, Cami Late 15th/early 16th century;
and 1876 Bark

Oh, that every period in history might yield wood like this!
It took a day and a half to collect,...more than half a millennium
a day, and the better part of a semester to measure, but it
was certainly worth the trouble.

The small village of Bekdemir is 10 kms E. of Kavak, about
45 kms S. of Samsun at an altitude of 575m. above the Black Sea.

Next to the meydan or village square is a small, unpretentious
wooden mosque which holds about 45 people comfortably.

The mosque is an almost square box, made of large adzed, undecorated
(with two exceptions),
oak planks, averaging 5cm. thick and ranging from 20cm. to 44cm. high.
[When I got back to
Ithaca, N.Y., I asked at the local lumber yard how much oak timbers
measuring 2" x 15" x 30
feet might cost, and the man just laughed at me.] The average height of
a plank is 38cm.,
although the planks nearer the ground are generally larger than the
planks nearer the roof. The
first and second story are separated by two extra-wide horizontal planks
decorated with a
moulding and a row of palmettes carved in relief, painted green and
yellow. These wider planks
also mark the transition from the mosque proper to the gallery or
kadinlar mahfili. The floorboards
and joists of the latter do not project outside the shell of the
building. All planks are lap-joined to
one another so that the ends project about 25cm. from the corners. We
also saw evidence of
vertical dowelling. The mosque is divided halfway down both east and
west walls by vertical
struts. Only the two decorated timbers span the entire building. The
rest of the mosque,
punctuated as it is by windows and the vertical struts, is made up of
rather short (two to three
meter) lengths of planking. To the eye all the exterior planking seems
to be about equally
weathered, and the preparation of the woodwork seems identical except
for the two ornamented
courses. There are no obvious signs that this might represent more than
one building phase.

Not much is known about the mosque's date. An inscription over the
mihrab dates from about
120 years ago. Nobody in the village knows whether the inscription
refers to the date of the
decoration (süsleme) of the mosque, or to the installation of the mihrab
and minber, or to the
mosque's rebuilding. The timbers of the mosque are said (local folk
memory) to have been
brought from the former village of Ortaköy near the river below
Bekdemir. A 92 year old informant
said his 110 year old grandmother told him the mosque was in its present
form during all of her
lifetime.

We first made rough ring-counts on all sides of the building, marking
each plank with a piece of
tape. Most planks had 100+ rings; some had 200+; others had 300+. The
highest ring-count was
358. At least two timbers had the bark preserved, and we estimated that
we should be able to
build a chronology at least 400 years long. Over a day and a half, with
time out to repair a clutch,
Jennifer Fine, Laura Steele, and Mary Jaye Bruce collected 42 samples.
We finished with a
chronology of 398 years for the first floor and 395 for the second
floor. Since the two chronologies
overlapped, although just barely, the final total for the mosque is 789
years from 1088 to 1876.

Of considerable interest is that both the local folk-memory and the
tentative inscriptional
interpretation of the history of the mosque seem to be correct. The
oldest timbers, those nearest
the ground and below the ornamental moulding, were cut from trees which
were born as early as
the 11th century and were felled shortly after the middle of the 15th
century. There are no signs
of reuse on any of these timbers, so, if the story of a rebuilt mosque
is true, the form and
dimensions must have been the same for both the old and the new
building. Above the
ornamental palmette moulding which runs across the building about two
meters above the porch
floor are timbers which were cut in 1876. The bark is present on two of
them.

Several questions remain unanswered. If a mosque was well-enough
preserved so that it could be
moved to Bekdemir and re-erected, why were there just enough timbers for
the lower half of the
building? Did Building #1 burn at the old location, thereby rendering
half the timbers unusable? If
so, there are no signs of burning or other damage on any of the older
timbers at Bekdemir. If the
whole mosque was moved intact to Bekdemir and then fire or some
catastrophe occurred,
thereby destroying the upper half, there is neither any folk
recollection of it nor signs indicating
an incendiary reason for the rebuilding. It is also curious that there
is no intermixture of old and
new timbers. Downstairs is 100% old wood, and upstairs is 100% new wood.

The Bekdemir mosque and its tree-ring chronology serves as a cross-check
or a time- control on
the correct chronological placement of some 65 buildings or chronologies
ranging in date from
the 12th century to the 20th, and ranging as far afield as 1300
kilometers or over 800 miles. The
monuments include Islamic structures, Orthodox (both Greek and Serbian)
churches and
monasteries, civil buildings, and military fortifications. Combining
Bekdemir with the forest
chronology from Zonguldak Yenice, we now have a Black Sea Oak chronology
over 1000 years
long. Several distant sea-side monuments whose tree-ring profiles
closely match Bekdemir may
have been built with oak imported from the Black Sea coast. They include
Istanbul Hg. Sophia
NW Buttress, Thessaloniki Octagonal Tower 2I, and Çanakkale Hasan Pasa
Köskü.

A non-chronological observation may be made here for the one timber
whose pith rings at either
end may be dated. It took 22 years to grow 6.90 meters or 22'7".
Konya, Karatay Medrese repairs
1832vv
In a much more elegant building than the little mosque at Bekdemir the
dating was almost as
straightforward. The Karatay Medrese, a religious school dated to 1251,
fell into disrepair and at
some unspecified time or times was rebuilt, especially along its outer
walls shown without
hatching in A. Kuran's plan above. The Konya Museum Director was curious
as to the specific
date, and we have now told him that both these double rows of stretchers
are of cedar cut shortly
after 1832. Not a scrap is from the 13th century.
Bilecik, Vezirhan
657 Bark
This kervansaray on one of the old silk roads, largely destroyed by fire
in 1331 A.H. (A.D.
1912/1913), was a foundation of Köprülü Mehmet Pasa. I am told by
colleagues (but have not
seen the text myself) that Kâtip Çelebi in the Cihannuma gives the date
as A.H. 1070 or
1659/1660, a year or two after he died(!) This apparent discrepancy will
have to remain a curiosity
until I can track down the reference. Kathy Leeper, Laura Nogelo, and
Mary Jaye Bruce shown
here in the act of collection, are studiously ignoring the wooden stage
on which a rock concert
had been held the night before.
Afyon, Emirdag, Amorium, Step trench
564vv and mid 1st Millennium vv
Junipers from a mixed (but late) context in a step-trench on the north
side of the acropolis at
Amorium have a last preserved ring of 1564. How many rings are missing
due to fire we do not
know. From Trench AB, a triangular tower on the south side of the city,
we have a 226 year cedar
chronology put together from several hundred burned fragments. The
excavator, Dr. Christopher
Lightfoot, estimates that the tower was built in the late 5th century
and was destroyed by the
Arabs in 838. This cedar chronology does not yet fit anything else we
have available from this
approximate period. A report on Amorium will appear in the December 1994
issue of Anatolian
Studies.
Beysehir, Kubadabad Sarayi
231 Bark
Juniper pilings from the north end of this building excavated by Prof.
Dr. Rüçhan Arik and earlier
investigated by Katharina Otto-Dorn and Mehmet Önder, were all cut in
1231 during the lifetime of
Sultan Alaeddin Keykubad (1220-1236) whose summer palace the Kubadabad
Sarayi is
supposed to have been.
Sivas, Divrigi, Darüssifasi, Hünkâr Mahfili
240, 1665, 1766
This construction is a real curiosity. In a corner of the Divrigi
Darüssifasi, a majestic building
famous for its ornate stonework, is an improbably crude platform, or
mahfil, bearing little or no
relation to the intricately carved stonework around it. Modern
restoration of the roof at Divrigi was
in progress when we arrived--with quantities of new and old timbers
heaped on every side--which
should have warned us of the possible dangers in interpretation of
reused wood from other
centuries. Of the five datable timbers in the mahfil, two are from the
13th century (1240 or the
time of the building's construction); two are from 1665; and one is from
1766. Several timbers
show cuttings which serve no current purpose, indicating prior use. Our
best interpretation is that
the so-called Hünkâr Mahfili is a construction of the 18th century or
later, incorporating material
from the 13th, 17th, and 18th centuries. The mahfil at Divrigi is a rare
instance of a single
construction where the wooden members date from a span of over five
centuries. If only the two
pieces from the 13th century had been sampled, an entirely erroneous
conclusion about the date
of the mahfil might have been reached.
Bursa, Yildirim Darüssifasi
1400 Bark
This is a late 14th Century hospital/asylum built and endowed by Sultan
Yildirim Beyazit, ruined
in the earthquake of 1855, later used for a powder magazine, now
undergoing restoration. The
ensemble covers an area of 30 x 53 meters. Along the façades of the
courtyard on three sides is
a portico giving access to rooms about 3 x 4 meters each, each provided
with a chimney,
presumably for the patients and inmates. On the south and north larger
spaces were presumably
for dining, cooking, and for the work of the medical staff. Toilets were
installed in the north-east
corner (running water a century before Columbus!) These latrines were
supplied with water by an
underground canal which passed under the eastern wing of the
construction.

According to the vakfiye [foundation document] of 1400, three doctors
and two pharmacists were
attached to the establishment. The text fixes their daily pay as well as
the salary of the service
personnel including a cook, a baker, and a dozen serbetci [literally
sherbet-sellers, but probably
male nurses]. It indicates as well how the sick were to be fed and notes
how the building is to be
maintained and provided with the necessary revenues or donations for
operation.

Although Albert Gabriel gives the building date as "between 1391 and
1395," the oak timbers in
this hospital were cut in 1400, the same year as the date of the
vakfiye. Although, no doubt, later
repairs were made to the monument, none can be attested
dendrochronologically. Interestingly,
the dendrochronological profile for this building is so similar to that
of the Yesil Cami, also a
foundation of Yildirim Beyazit, that we believe the trees must have been
cut from the same part of
the same forest.
Russia, Pazyryk Kurgans
4th/3rd centuries B.C.?
Our colleague Dr. Leonid Marsadolov of the Hermitage Museum in St.
Petersburg sent us a box
of Siberian larch sections from the Scythian kurgans at Pazyryk in the
High Altai of Siberia. In
less than three weeks we had them combined into a 255 year floating
chronology. It is easy to
see how each tumulus dates against one another, but there is no
connection yet with anything
we have in Anatolia. The 4th/3rd centuries are one of our "gaps", and it
may be that Achaemenid
wood from Erzurum, for example, may fit. The Altai is so far away,
however, that I am not holding
my breath for a crossdate.
Gordion, Tumulus Z
977vv B.C.±37
Tumulus Z, partially dug in 1969, was the last Tumulus excavated by
Rodney Young. The wood
sat on a shelf among bags of pottery at Gordion until the summer of 1994
when it was
re-discovered and given to us. Christine Latini took one day to glue it
together, a second to sand
it, and a third to measure it. On the fourth day she dated it. No
sapwood is present, and perhaps
a century or more of exterior rings is lacking.

Syria, Tell Brak, Mitannian Palace
1293vv B.C.±37
A single lump of charcoal from the anteroom of this structure
dates to 1293vv B.C.±37.
An unknown number of rings is missing. The excavator, Dr. Joan Oates,
thinks that the building dates from repairs after destructions
by Adad-nirari I and Shalmaneser I early in the 13th century.

Çorum, Ortaköy, Large Hittite Building
1304vv B.C.±37
Additional samples recovered from the Ortaköy building in the
summer of 1993 thanks to excavator Dr. Aygül Süel allowed us
to add fifteen years to the date of 1319vv B.C.±37 reported
last year. We still do not have the bark which would give us
a felling date, so we await the luck of her spade in forthcoming
excavation seasons.

Konya, Karahöyük, Excavations of 1953, Level 1, Room 8:
1927vv B.C.±37

Excavations of 1974, Level 1, Room 4:
1839vv B.C.±37
Excavations of 1990, Trench X, Room 1:
1784vv B.C.±37
Excavations of 1992, Trench X, Room 4:
1782vv B.C.±37
Excavations of 1956(?), Trench C, Level 4:
1956vv B.C.±37

Several Middle Bronze Age rooms excavated by Prof. Dr. Sedat Alp have last
preserved rings as shown.
Our understanding of the context is that the two rooms in Trench X should be
approximately
contemporary. In spite of the unequal damage from fire their last preserved
rings are separated by only
two years. We defer other commentary until all the rooms are published by the
excavator.
Nigde, Çamardi, Göltepe
1979vv B.C.±37
One burned piece of wood from this mining site being excavated by Prof.
Aslihan Yener has a
last preserved ring at 1979vv B.C.±37. (Göltepe 1993, context
A26-0100-009, MRN 3635, pit fill.)
We have no idea how many rings are missing. We understand from Dr. Yener
that the context is
probably EB III.
Aksaray, Acemhöyük, Northwest Trench
2671-2169 B.C.±10
Twenty-four juniper timbers (two burnt ones were illustrated in last
year's report) excavated by
Prof. Aliye Öztan, mainly longitudinal stretchers inside walls near the
floor levels of a series of
service buildings, form a 503 year long chronology. The associated small
finds such as pottery,
sealings, and the like, are entirely Middle Bronze Age. Much to our
distress, as we reported to
you, we were unable to fit this sequence with our existing MBA
chronology. So we sacrificed two
of the longer pieces and sent them to Heidelberg for radiocarbon
wiggle-matching. To our
pleasant surprise they fit right into a five century gap in our long
third millennium tree-ring
sequences from 2671 B.C. to 2169 B.C.±10. Indeed, they may overlap with
the 1761 year
chronology announced in previous years, but the overlap is not yet long
enough for us to prove it
on dendrochronological grounds. Several timbers show signs of burning on
one end. Thus, we
could have guessed in advance of the 14C results that we had reused
material.

We conclude, especially after looking at the distribution of the
end-dates, that these timbers
must have formed part of perhaps only a single EB III building which was
partially destroyed by
fire. The wood was recovered and saved for future use. In contrast to
the Sarikaya Palace and the
Hatipler Tepesi Building nearby where no reused wood at all was
employed, these more humble
structures (perhaps kitchens?) are built entirely from recycled
material. If the Middle Bronze Age
tree-ring chronology did not exist with which to compare the
dendrochronological results from the
Northwest Trench, and if we had not paid attention to the signs of
burning, we might have
incorrectly concluded that the MBA belongs in the 22nd century B.C. and
earlier.
Konya, Karahöyük Early (Levels 6/7)
2181 B.C.±10
One long juniper beam (198 rings) estimated by Professor Alp as coming
from his Levels 6/7
crossdates beautifully with the Acemhöyük Early Master Chronology. Its
last ring as
wiggle-matched is approximately 2181 B.C.
Ínegöl, Höyük
2299 B.C.±10
An oak post with some sapwood preserved, exposed by a bulldozer and
rescued by a local
amateur potter along with Early Bronze pottery (consisting of cups with
high-swung loop handles,
bichrome dishes, and long-necked grey ware), crossdates with the
Acemhöyük Master
Chronology. Its last ring as wiggle-matched is approximately 2299 B.C.
Bulgaria, Bourgas, Kiten, EBA Settlement
2715 B.C. ± 10 years
An Early Bronze Age settlement now under the waters of the Black Sea
near Sozopol yielded a
285 year oak sequence in five phases, now wiggle-matched so that phase
one is 2778±10 years
and phase five is 2715 B.C.±10 years. The site is thought by the
excavators to date from the
middle of the Early Bronze Age, or about the same time as Ezero. Above
is Mecki Pohl, now our
programmer and systems analyst, celebrating the collection of 104 posts
by the Bulgarian divers
in 1989 by waving his chainsaw over his head in an altogether reckless
manner, and to the left is
the neat way in which Dr. Bernd Kromer was able to fit the tree-rings
and the radiocarbon
together. As with the Bekdemir wood, quantity plus quality yield results
that are worth talking
about.
Eskisehir, Demircihüyük
705vv B.C.±10
An oak chronology from the Early Bronze Age site of Demircihüyük only
360 kms. to the
southeast of Kiten, thought to date some time after 2730 BC (Korfmann
and Kromer, 1993),
crossdates with Kiten with its last ring ten years after the last ring
at Kiten, that is to say at 2705
B.C.±10. There is no convincing crossdate between Kiten and Sozopol, the
only other oak
master chronology of that approximate period. The only chronology
available from EBA Troy is
pine (Pinus brutia). The other long EBA chronology from Acemhöyük
mentioned above is juniper
(Juniperus sp.) These two conifer chronologies do not crossdate with the
Kiten oak.

Publications forthcoming:

Many subscribers to this list should expect reports in the reasonably near
future on
"Dendrochronology," in P. E. McGovern, ed., "Archaeometry," (AJA, 1995:1); "A
513- Year Buxus
Chronology for the Roman Ship at Comacchio (Ferrara)," (Bollettino di
Archeologia, 1995); The
Dendrochronology of Panel Paintings," in The Science of Oil Painting by W. S.
Taft and J. W. Mayer
(Academic Press, probably 1995); and "Extensions to the Long Chronologies,"
in the Theme Volume of
the Proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on Archaeometry (Ankara,
maybe 1995).

Acknowledgments Part 1:

As should be clear from the foregoing, we operate 12 months a year, and
thanks are due to a variety of
stalwarts. Presiding over the lab in general (and me in particular) and
overseeing the measurement and
analysis of more than 2000 samples this year has been Christine Latini.
Maclaren North shared in this
work until June. Maryanne Newton is our first M.A. student and expects to
have her thesis wrapped up
by summer 1995. Maryanne also went on an extended three-month safari through
Anatolia, including a
long spell as a staff member at Aceramic Asikli Höyük, after the rest of us
had to return for the
beginning of classes, and she came back with so much wood and charcoal that
the auditor questioned
why she had to buy so many suitcases. Mary Jaye Bruce converts numbers into
words on a fulltime
basis. The 1994 field crew shown in some of the photographs above was Mary
Jaye, Jennifer Fine, and
Laura Steele. Mecki Pohl has replaced Mark Sanford as our computer programmer
and systems
analyst, and from time to time he gets useful avuncular advice from Miles
McCredie who built much of
our system in the first place. Old-timers in the lab, in addition to all of
the field crew, are Pat Carr, Kristi
Dahm, and Robert Hooker. And then there are the ten rookies this term and
nine last semester who
were the beginning students in the dendrochronology course. Radiocarbon
determinations were
performed by Dr. Bernd Kromer, Labor für Umweltphysik, Heidelberg. And
finally there are all the people
whose work over the years helped produce the summary below. Since the map was
drawn last spring,
the numbers are already out of date, but it gives you an approximate notion
of how we are marching
along.

Acknowledgments Part 2:

Feeding this multitude and transporting them hither and yon has been made
possible by major
multi-year grants from the National Science Foundation which just awarded us
one outright for
1994-1996, the National Endowment for the Humanities a gifts-and-matching one
for 1994-1997, and the
Malcolm H. Wiener Foundation. 307 Patrons sent in gifts ranging from $5 to
$75,000 totaling $102,590.
To all our thanks!

Summer 1994 Aegean Dendrochronology Project Sample Collection

AMO-46-65 Afyon, Amorium 20
ACM-162-171 Aksaray, Acemhöyük 10
CNL-1-9 Aksaray, Akhisar, Çanli Kilise 9
ASH-1994-1-15 Aksaray, Asikli Höyük 15
AMS-1-2 Amasya, Samlar Mezarligi 2
GOR-169-172 Ankara, Polatli, Gordion, Tumulus Z, etc. 4
GOR-2 Ankara, Polatli, Gordion, Midas Mound Tumulus 1
KAS-5 Antalya, Kas, Uluburun (more expected) 1
APH-1-4 Aphrodisias, Theater, S. Analemma, Byzantine 4
AYD-1-13 Aydin, Íkizdere Köyü, Kocaalan Mevkisi 13
AYI-1-2 Aydin, Merkez, Ímambaba Mevkisi 2
ILI-1-4 Bursa, Ilipinar 4
ORT-17-19 Çorum, Ortaköy 3
TUL-1 Elazig, Tülintepe 1
SOS-1-5 Erzurum, Sos Höyük 5
KIN-1-6 Hatay, Kinet Höyük 6
FKB-4-15 Ízmir, Foça, Kaleburnu 12
FOC-27-35 Ízmir, Foça, Archaic Gate 9
KLZ-1-3 Ízmir, Klazomenai 3
LMT-1-2 Ízmir, Limantepe 2
PNZ-1-3 Ízmir, Menemen, Panaztepe 3
GLC-2-11 Ízmir, Ödemis, Gölcük 10
KUL-59-62 Kayseri, Kültepe, Karum, Level II 4
KAH-1994-1-24 Kirsehir, Kaman, Kalehöyük 24
CTL-16-20 Konya, Çumra, Çatal Höyük 5
INC-1-5 Konya, Ínce Minareli Medrese 5
KTY-1-15 Konya, Karatay Medrese 15
KSM-1-2 Konya, Sahipata Mescidi 2
KSS-1-4 Konya, Selçuklu Sarayi 4
AEZ-1A&B Kütahya, Aezanoi 1
KSO-52-69 Kütahya, Seyitömer Höyük 121
ASL-66-131 Malatya, Arslantepe (200++ lumps) 66
GTK-1-8 Manisa, Alasehir, Gavurtepe 8
GOL-1-5 Nigde, Göllüdag 5
POR-1-9 Nigde, Ulukisla, Porsuk 9
ESK-1-11 Ordu, Ünye, Íkizce, Eski Cami 11
IKZ-1994/1-2 Samsun, Bafra, Íkiztepe 2
BEK-1-42 Samsun, Kavak, Bekdemirköy, Cami 42
KEL-1-2 Silifke, Kelenderis 2
TRO-144-152 Troy IV and VII 50
40 sites (as of November 1994): 515 samples

Plus: 57 Kgs. of wood from LBA Körçë, Albania, plus promised wood from
Greece, plus a box from
Aceramic Neolithic Hallan Çemi. Plus???

Peter Ian Kuniholm
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
modified 19 March 1995 cel

>>Sorry, but until there is more data, the simple truth is,
>>we are still talking apples and oranges here.
>>>
>
>Yes, some of us are talking about what has been found, and some are
>talking about what might exist, or not exist, in theory. There is
>already a lot of data, and it is time to talk about data, not
>waiting for the last word on some things and building castles on
>total voids on others.

So bottom line can we put these sequences together with our
chronology of Egypt yet? I think the Mitanni sequence alone
locks Rohl out of the picture, but we could do better I think.
>
>Henry Hillbrath

steve

[Chris Bennett]

It looks like my newsreader has missed some articles, time to scan through
DejaNews. However, since I am being quoted here, I should comment on
parts of this:

In article <sourisDv...@netcom.com>, sou...@netcom.com (Henry
Hillbrath) wrote:

> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:
>
> >In article <4uirqv$l...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM
> >says...

<snip>

[Argument by Steve Whittet that the Tell al Dab'a pumice could come from a
small local volcano]

Here I entirely agree with Henry. For this to work you must first point
to a "small volcano" near the Nile Delta. And given that tephra analysis
exists it should be straightforward enough to establish whether this is
THeran tephra. I don't know if it has been done, but it certainly can be.

>
> Some tephra found in Bietak's excavation was identified by his group
> as from Thera, and accepted as such by Renfrew. If you want to be
> more conservative than Renfrew, that is fine by me, but, don't
> expect to get much consideration of your views. And, I think that
> such conservatism doesn't match well with your hyper liberal views
> of diffusion and linguistics.
> >
> >>in that early 18th Dynasty site...
> >
> >Apparently even the date of the site is questionable hinging
> >on the presence of a scarab which could have been an antique
> >handed down through one or more generations.
> >
>

Not "a" scarab but multiple scarabs naming pharoahs between Amenhotep I
and Thutmose III. I have now dug up from my files a small discussion in K
Foster & R Ritner JNES 55 (1996) 1, on p9-10, which refers to "numerous
pieces of rounded pumice, shells and snails, suggestive of water
deposition" being found in the same post-Hyksos stratigraphic layer as the
famous Minoan fresco fragments.

The comment about the scarab being an antique happens to be wrong, for
this reason, but if it were correct it would suggest that Thera happened
AFTER the king named in the scarab, ie in the MID 18th dynasty or later!

> [snip]

> >
> >If Thera is 1628 it is not XVIIIth Dynasty, but 2nd intermediate
> >period. The 2nd intermediate period (1640-1532 BC)was one of
> >great confusion which is what you might expect if there was
> >a cataclysim of the size and type described.
>
> According to Chris, Bietak doesn't agree. But, what does he know?

STeve's comment on the SIP is putting the cart before the horse -- the
question here is precisely whether the Thera event occurred in the SIP or
the 18th dynasty. An absolute date for Therea then TELLS us what the SIP
or 18th dynasty dates should be.

If "he" is me, I _don't_ know what Bietak's views actually are since I
haven't yet read his papers, I'm just inferring that he dates Thera to the
early 18th dynasty because of what I've read about his finds.

The 1640-1532 dating is actually the lowest [conventional] SIP dating
under discussion by the Egyptologists (and depends on a new definition of
the SIP, as starting with the Hyksos invasion rather than the 13th
dynasty, as was previously used). You could probably push this to
c1670-1560 on the high chronology. The SIP is rather looser
chronologically than the 18th dynasty, and my own vote is for a mid-high
MK chronology with a low NK chronology, making the core SIP dates
c1690-c1530, FWIW.

> >
> >It is followed almost immediately by the arrival of the Hyksos
> >
> Again, according to Chris, 1628 may be after the Hyksos *left.*
> Isn't it wonderful to have all these dates exactly tied down?
>

1628 would be after the Hyksos departure if and only if: 1628 was Thera
AND Bietak's punimce is confirmed to be THeran in an 18th dynasty layer.

<snip>

> >>
> >>Even if this really is the gold standard in dating, the Egypt guys
> >>don't have enough information to actually build a chronology on it
> >>yet.
> >
> >Sorry, but until there is more data, the simple truth is,
> >we are still talking apples and oranges here.
> >>
>
> Yes, some of us are talking about what has been found, and some are
> talking about what might exist, or not exist, in theory. There is
> already a lot of data, and it is time to talk about data, not
> waiting for the last word on some things and building castles on
> total voids on others.
>

Here again I agree with Henry. THe Egyptologists do have lots of data.
More than enough for someone -- not necessarily an Egyptologist -- to
devise an experimental chronology based on 1628 = Thera = early in the
18th dynasty (say, year 11 of Ahmes) and show either where the necessary
degrees of freedom are or exactly how it cannot be made to work. My
strong suspicion is that it can't be made to work, which would make one or
both of the hypothetical equations break down. But that is a worthwhile
result.

Where Henry and I disagree is that I don't think the THera date can be
regarded as established until this exercise has been completed and a
workable experimental chronology, that reconciles the king lists, the
genealogies, the successions of priests and officials, the external regnal
synchronisms, and the astronomical synchronisms, has been demonstrated.
Do this and I would be happy, nay delighted, to accept it.

Incidentally, I don't think this is what Dr Yurco is doing. In looking at
the JNES paper quoted above, I also noted a comment from him on sci.arch,
dated April 22, to the effect that the 1628 date, combined with
dendrochronology, "will nail down solidly, New Kingdom Egyptian chronology
at where mainstream scholars have it today" (as opposed to Rohl). That
is also the tone of his comments here the other day, where he argued that
Thera set the preconditions for the Theban revolt. It rather looks to me
that he is going to challenge Bietak's (inferred) stratigraphic
conclusions. Even so, I still think there is at least 30 years between
Thera and the start of the Theban result, on the highest conventional NK
chronology and with the most optimistic assumptions about the period
before Ahmes.

Cheers,
CHris

[Chris Bennett]

In article <4ulcgb$l...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
matt...@ix.netcom.com(August Matthusen) wrote:

<snip Henry Hillbrath's discussion of his response to Rohl's general arguments>

>
> Another point to consider about Rohl's arguments (which he presented in
> sci.arch, but which I didn't see in his book): He was trying to date
> Thera to c. 1150 BC (I think from Bietak finding the tephra layer).
> This date flies in the face of either of the prevailing dates of
> c. 1628 based on the C-14, ice cores, and world-wide dendro which was
> available at the time or the c. 1500 BC which was based on Minoan
> archaeology.
>
> Regards,
> August Matthusen

Rohl's thesis is that Thera should be identified with the 1159 event
conventionally associated with Hekla III. This happens to fit very well
with his redating of the early 18th dynasty on other grounds, and
therefore with Bietak's pumice. He had various arguments related to the
viability of the C14 readings underlying the 1628 event which concluded
that they did not in fact do so. As is usual with Rohl, they were
thought-provoking and sounded plausible, and I do not have the knowledge
to assess whether or not there is anything to them. I suspect that if I
read the literature more deeply I would discover a number of flaws.

My problem with this line of argument is that it is not consistent with
his other arguments on dendrochronology. You can only argue that the 1159
event is Thera if you first accept that the tree-rings show an 1159
event. But elsewhere he goes to some pains to argue that the tree-ring
sequence is flawed and unreliable, and therefore the C14 calibration curve
is wrong. I feel he's trying to have his cake and eat it.

Cheers,
Chris

[Alan M. Dunsmuir]

In article <sourisDv...@netcom.com>, Henry Hillbrath
<sou...@netcom.com> writes

>A message here, in another thread, reminds me, the author was M. Coe.

My apologies (on behalf of my personal poltergeist) for not having
responded immediately on this. As I read your message, I turned to my
bookshelves to pull out my copy of "Breaking the Maya Code", in order to
read its author's name, only to find it mysteriously vanished <g>. There
then followed a frantic, but fruitless, 30 minute search around the four
walls of my study, before I convinced myself that it would turn up of
its own accord, when it wished to.

This morning, after I read that you had had your question answered
elsewhere, I found it nestling, smugly and inexplicably, in the middle
of a shelf of books on a variety of chess openings.
--
Alan M. Dunsmuir

[Chris Bennett]

In article <joe-110896...@stars.pr.mcs.net>, j...@sfbooks.com (Joe
Bernstein) wrote:

<snip>

>
> Well, I've been mostly out of touch since 1987, and find this newsgroup
> and its kin rather more accessible than the necessary free time to
> re-establish any familiarity whatever with the literature. (In that
> regard, I'd really like to thank Mr. Hillbrath for an article that
> *exemplifies* what I want out of such a newsgroup as this, a clear and
> comprehensive presentation of evidence, intertwined with the sort of
> context that is otherwise available only from sustained acquaintance with
> the literature. I would be grateful if Mr. Bennett could spare the time
> to provide a similar examination of the Egyptological evidence he's
> citing; as it is, we spectators are only able to appreciate one side of
> the argument. I'll admit this is the first Thera thread I've followed,
> oddly enough on Steve Whittet's recommendation. :-)

<snip>

Fair enough. I'll see what I can do, though the next week or so is going
to be a zoo, so I ask your indulgence for a little.

Chris

[Frank Joseph Yurco]

Dear Henry,

Thanks for your long and detailed, but sound arguments. Yes, Renfrew's
skepticism about Thera 1628 B.C. is hard to fathom, especially, as he was
very strongly in favor of 1628 B.C. after the last Thera Conference. I
suspect we have here the cold feet of someone not willing to take the plunge
and deal with the eruption dated 1628 B.C. and its possible ramifications.
As I've already posted, I don't see particular problems in Egypt, as it
falls in the Hyksos period. I have suggested that it may have enabled the
Thebans to revolt against the Hyksos, as the volcanic impacts would have
been heaviest on the Delta, where the Hyksos were based. Also, I noted
to those who doubt that Dynasty 17 can be stretched back to 1628 B.C.,
that first, the dynsaty's hard dates are few and precious, with Kamose
given a minimal year 3, based upon his stelae, and the rest of the dynasty
pure guesswork. Also you have Ahhotep I as a regent queen for some years,
as noted by Ahmose on his thanksgiving stela for her.

The principal effects, chronology wise will be on Aegean chronology,
but that chronology as it is floats, and depends on Egypt. Lastly, the
pumice that Bietak found at Tell ed Daba, has so far not been chemically
analyzed, so it is premature to speculate if it comes from Thera. There
are viable deposits of pumice elsewhere in the Aegean, and pumice was
a marketable commodity in Egypt and elsewhere. As it is, they described the
pumice as well rounded, suggesting that it has lain around for some time
and weathered, before it was deposited in the stratum Bietak found.

All this renders extended discussion about this pumice premature. Thanks
again for your valuable postings.

Sincerely,
Frank J. Yurco
University of Chicago

--
Frank Joseph Yurco fjy...@midway.uchicago.edu

[Frank Joseph Yurco]

Dear Chris,

Yes, I am aware of the pumice Bietak found, but until they do chemical
analysis of it and tie it firmly to Thera Santorini, it is preliminary to
speculate about its origin. Such chemical analysis was done in the 1970's
on a particle of thepra (ash) found in one of the shallow Delta lakes, and
it chemically was assigned to Thera-Santorini. What you're up against in
Bietak's pumice deposit, are first, it was described as well rounded, suggest-
ing that prior to burial in the stratum Bietak found, it had been exposed
for a while and weathered. Secondly, if you consult Lucas, Materials and
Industries.....4th ed., 1962, you'll find that pumice was a commodity that
the Egyptians used as an abrasive, and hence was imported. The Greek Islands
have long been known for pumice deposits, and throughout antiquity several
exported pumice widely. Therefore, it is all important to wait for the
chemical analysis of Bietak's pumice.

Secondly, as for the 1628 B.C. date of Thera-Santorini's eruption. I do
believe that it will not seriously disturb Dynasty 18, because, if you
use the Wente-VanSiclen chronology, the discrepcency is lowered, and secondly,
the earlier Dynasty 17 reigns are highly uncertain. Kamose's three years
are a minimum from his stelae. He well might have reigned longer. Seqenenre-
Ta'aa's reign is guesswork at best. Ahmose, son of Abana's autobiography
might be help. He started his military career under Ahmose, and his father
was a soldier under Sequenre Ta'aa, so there are two generations. Again,
we are not certain when the revolt of the Thebans started. Seqenenre-Ta'aa
was killed in battle, but the revolt may have started earlier, under
Senakhtenre Ta'aa, or earlier still. Add to this that Queen Ahhotep I
served for some time as regent for one of the kings, Kamose, perhaps.
With all the uncertainties about Dynasty 17, and the fact that Kamose is
given a minimal length reign, based on his highest regnal date, there is
room for lengthening out the 17th Dynasty particularly. I agree that
Dynasty 18 is better documented, but there too, in some cases reigns are
dated by highest date attested, a situation that guarantees a minimal
chronology at best.

Most sincerely,

[Chris Bennett]

I'm SO glad I found DejaNews, my local news reader seems to trash 50% of
everything before I get the chance to read it. Anyhow, I hope that this
discussion is still a useful exposition of views, which in many ways are not
so far apart....

In message <sourisDv...@netcom.com>, sou...@netcom.com (Henry
Hillbrath) wrote
>
> cben...@adnc.com (Chris Bennett) writes:
>
> >In message <sourisDv...@netcom.com>, sou...@netcom.com (Henry
> >Hillbrath) wrote:
>
<snip>

> I also know that there is a long tradition in which Egyptian dates
> always prevail against dates from outside. What I have been trying
> to say, among other things, is that particular paradigm is on its
> way out.

Here I do agree with you. Once this yardstick is agreed to be error-free
then it will become the established paradigm. We disagree on how we should
agree it is error-free. In my view, reconciliation with the pre-existing
yardstick is the conclusive test: you can either show how one chronology or
the other is conceptually in error, or you can derive the same results better
and more accurately in the new scheme than in the old. The THera-based
dendro yardstick doesn't do that till the Egyptian dates are reconciled --
which MAY lead to a readjustment in Thera.

<snip>

> >>>
> I am very interested in what Bietak is doing, but, I have not run
> down the references, and I don't know the details of this work, or
> if it has been published, even. But, whether it fits, or it doesn't
> fit, the ash layer, if it is Theran ash, did arrive in 1628. That
> is "scientific" years, not Egyptian historical ones.
>
> I don't have a clue as to how to resolve the difference.
>

I believe the references are those in Renfrew's Nature article. When I get
them (pprobably 2-3 weeks) I can confirm.

> >
<snip intro to overlap discussion>

>
> I can see that could happen if there were a spot in the sequence
> where there was only one overlapping pair of samples. That is one
> reason, I am sure, that one doesn't base the sequence on one "row of
> logs" from the present back, but, instead the investigators use
> multiple samples, with multiple over laps.
>

Sounds reasonable, I hope somene has done the calculations on what is the
degree of confirmatory overlap required to reduce the probability of false
sync to an acceptable level, say 1 in 10^5?

> It seemed to me that Rohl had no explanation for any "scientific"
> dates, and quoted the only negative data he could find, then waved
> his arms and said "you see, you can't trust any of this stuff."
> OTOH, he is trusting his own interpretation of data that has been
> interpreted in a number of different ways, and he gets a very
> different answer than is generally accepted.
>

Not quite, he also quoted results that he felt had been unjustly discarded
which agreed with his dates. OTOH one can say that statements like
"Arguments against Thera's candidacy .. based on petrochemical evidence
suggesting that its SO2 production was too small to account for .... the
large H2SO4 peaks.... can now be dismissed because it is clear that
petrochemical analysis seriously underestimates SO2 emissions" [Kuniholm]
sound more than a little arm-wavey to me -- we can't prove Thera generated
enough SO2 therefore we'll assume that it did????

<snip>

>
> I do not expect this to be the last, by any means, work done on
> dendrochronology, in the Aegean, or else where. And, I wouldn't go
> quite so far as to say that the Aegean sequence is proven beyond all
> doubt. But, I think the hand is writing on the wall. The sequence is
> there. It is bound to be validated, over and over again. The odds
> that it could move are very slight. It is time to start fitting the
> historical data to the sequence. It is too late for the sequence to
> be moved to fit the historical data. Any refutation will have to be
> external, and that is not at all likely.

It is certainly time to fit the historical data to the sequence. But, as a
test of whether the sequence works or not.

>
> The paper that Rohl includes as an appendix shows that there is an
> increasing disagreement between C14 dates and historical ones,
> according to the traditional dates. I already had an idea of how
> such a bias could occur. Things very seldom get added into the
> historical record, but, it is easy to see how they can get dropped
> out. And, there is a tendency of many historians to "down date" at
> every opportunity. That would look exactly like the data that Rohl
> presents. When I figured out that his solution to that was to
> disregard all scientific dating, and to in fact, move all possible
> dates in the opposite direction, I lost interest.
>

I agree that the down-dating phenomenon is real, though it is also a
phenomenon of increased volume of data driving out the gaps. But it doesn't
always occur, even in places where perhaps it should. For example, many
Egyptologists support a 28 year reign for Horemhab even though there is no
contemporary evidence past his 13th (or 15th? -- memory) year, in order to
maintain what seems to me a very questionable inscription.

There are other tests which don't depend entirely on inscriptional evidence.
For example the paper that most strongly supports the current reign-length of
Thutmosis II at 3 years rather than 13 relied in large part on statistical
frequencies of scarabs and other artefacts compared to those dated in
adjacent reigns. Similarly, the 20th dynasty chronology has been crosschecked
against the implications for non-royal genealogies: eg does a given dating
scheme require impossibly long generation times in some family or other?

Also, you can't argue for relative drifts of arbitrary size. There are
astronomical crosschecks -- for example, the accessions of Ramses II and
Thutmosis III can each only occur on two dates out of a 25-year lunar cycle,
so, in effect, you can only move these kings up or down in steps of 11 or 14
years. There is, finally, a step-function effect: adding or dropping whole
kings, especially for reigns of more than a couple of years, is not really an
option in the new kingdom (the SIP is another matter).

Hence my concern about the difficulty of the reconciliation effort based on a
1628 BC date being in the NK. Kuniholm requires conventional 14th century
dates but wants to raise current 16th century dates to the 17th century. The
maximal Wente/van Siclen genealogy is especially generous to 18th dynasty
kings, notably Thutmosis II, Thutmosis IV, Akhenaten and Horemhab -- no
downwards creep there. Yet it is still at least 70 years short. Even if you
kept Wente/van Siclen for the 18th dynasty but raised Ramses II 25 years from
1279 to 1304 -- the most that Egytologists would consider because of
cross-links with other ANE cultures -- you are still half a century short.

<snip>

>
> I have forgotten some of the technical jargon in the paradigm shift
> cult. But, there is a concept that is relevant. That is, that
> everything that existed before, has to exist afterward, too. And
> that the new paradigm has to explain all the old data, but, often
> with a "higher insight."

PRECISELY!!! Once that has been done you have validated the paradigm shift.
And not before. That is the philosophical point -- really, the ONLY point --
we are arguing.

>
> Having said that, let me distinguish between what I think is proven,
> what I think I could prove, and my opinion as to what is going to
> happen. I think that Kuniholm's sequence is proven. I think maybe I
> can explain that to someone who is disposed to understand, but, I
> can't prove it, and the fact that a Egyptian chronology is going to
> be strongly affected is just an opinion.
>

I think that Kuniholm's sequence is proven within the limits of the dendro
paradigm, which are not yet, to my mind, finally determined, and I think you
have given an excellent, and very clear, explanation of the background to
that.

<snip>

CHris

[August Matthusen]

In <321018...@adnc.com> Chris Bennett <cben...@adnc.com> writes:

>Not quite, he also quoted results that he felt had been unjustly
>discarded which agreed with his dates. OTOH one can say that
>statements like "Arguments against Thera's candidacy .. based on
>petrochemical evidence suggesting that its SO2 production was too
>small to account for .... the large H2SO4 peaks.... can now be
>dismissed because it is clear that petrochemical analysis seriously
>underestimates SO2 emissions" [Kuniholm] sound more than a little
>arm-wavey to me -- we can't prove Thera generated enough SO2 therefore
>we'll assume that it did????

I don't think that's what they are saying there. What I get out of the
quoted material is: They seem to be arguing against some previous
negative evidence. It appears that the rock chemistry was being used
to provide estimates of SO2 and these estimates indicated Thera could
not have produced enough SO2 for the H2SO4 spike observed in the ice
cores. Recent work on correlating rock chemistry to SO2 output
apparently indicates that the previous estimates for Thera were too
small. Unless he really has no basis to discard the previous estimates
(does he cite some recent work or just indicate the initial estimates
were off?) then he appears to have a valid argument.

Regards,
August Matthusen

[Henry Hillbrath]

whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:

>In article <4uirqv$l...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM
>says...
>>

>>sou...@netcom.com (Henry Hillbrath) wrote:
>>
[snip]

>4.) A small nearby event can deposit as much pumice as
>a large event much farther away.

>5.) Small events occur with much greater frequency than large events.

>6.) Egypt is on a major rift where faults earthquakes and vulcanism
>occur regularly.

I had to go and check this out. The local lib. has Simkin and Silbert,
but, it was checked out.

I did find several references which are sufficient to address this issue.

I do have a xerox of a very small scale map in S&S that shows were all
their eruptions (all known ones in the last 10,000 years) were. It is
very hard to read, because I shows *only* the eruptions. But, I also
found several versions of a "standard" map that shows where all the
earthquakes of the 1960s (first decade in which the accuracy of the
locations were good enough that the map "popped into focus.")

Volcanos and earthquakes go together. And, there are more measurable
earthquakes in a decade than there are eruptions in 1000 decades.

There is one eruption that may be in Algeria.

Earthquakes mark the middle of the Red Sea, and outline an "Arabian"
plate, which is a bit active on the southeast side of the peninsula. There
is also more active boundary which runs along the north side of the Gulf
and another boundary running across southern Turkey continuing along the
Aegean arc.

In Africa, there is a line of activity which starts at a three way
intersection (famous in plate tectonic circles) and runs off to the
southwest. Most of the African volcanos are along that boundary.

There are a few other, isolated, volcanic activity areas, Jebel Marra in
Sudan, Tibesti in Chad, and Ahoggar in Sudan.

All those are further from the Nile Delta than Thera. And, probably not
in the right position to deposit tephra in lower Egypt.

(A tangential point, one of the books mentions that Emi Koussi, in the
Tibesti Complex, is the easiest landmark on the entire earth for American
Astronauts to pick up from orbit. "... because its dark massif rises up in
such stark contrast against the ochrous wastes of the desert." ("Volcano:
a Planetary perspective." Peter Francis, Oxford University Press, 1993,
ISBN 0 19 854452 9. A really nice, general book on volcanos which I had
not seen before. It even has a chapter on dendrochronology and the ice
cap data, but, it is a bit behind events.)

In between the plate boundaries I described (and, in general), which
includes all of Egypt, and most of North Africa, the area is as inactive,
earthquake and volcano wise, as just about any place on earth. Like
Brazil. Or Scandinavia.

Tephra, no matter where it is found, has to identified before it can be
dated. But, tephra found in Egypt is very likely from the Aegean.

Henry Hillbrath

[Henry Hillbrath]

matt...@ix.netcom.com(August Matthusen) writes:

>In <321018...@adnc.com> Chris Bennett <cben...@adnc.com> writes:

>>Not quite, he also quoted results that he felt had been unjustly
>>discarded which agreed with his dates. OTOH one can say that
>>statements like "Arguments against Thera's candidacy .. based on
>>petrochemical evidence suggesting that its SO2 production was too
>>small to account for .... the large H2SO4 peaks.... can now be
>>dismissed because it is clear that petrochemical analysis seriously
>>underestimates SO2 emissions" [Kuniholm] sound more than a little
>>arm-wavey to me -- we can't prove Thera generated enough SO2 therefore
>>we'll assume that it did????

>I don't think that's what they are saying there. What I get out of the

>quoted material is: They seem to be arguing against some previous
>negative evidence. It appears that the rock chemistry was being used
>to provide estimates of SO2 and these estimates indicated Thera could
>not have produced enough SO2 for the H2SO4 spike observed in the ice
>cores. Recent work on correlating rock chemistry to SO2 output
>apparently indicates that the previous estimates for Thera were too
>small. Unless he really has no basis to discard the previous estimates
>(does he cite some recent work or just indicate the initial estimates
>were off?) then he appears to have a valid argument.

>Regards,
>August Matthusen

Like a lot of scientific papers (well, *all* scientific) papers, the one
by Kuinholm is written in a sort of "code."

There were *six* references for those two sentences, and, it is
understood that those six papers are to be inserted into this paper at
those points, by the usual rules.

I started to discuss those references in this response, but, my ISP
crashed, and I am having to do this over.

I will write more, off line, and post later.

Henry Hillbrath

[Henry Hillbrath]

fjy...@midway.uchicago.edu (Frank Joseph Yurco) writes:

>Dear Henry,

>Thanks for your long and detailed, but sound arguments.

Thank you.

> Yes, Renfrew's
>skepticism about Thera 1628 B.C. is hard to fathom, especially, as he was
>very strongly in favor of 1628 B.C. after the last Thera Conference. I
>suspect we have here the cold feet of someone not willing to take the plunge
>and deal with the eruption dated 1628 B.C. and its possible ramifications.

Yes. And, I once researched a discussion in a different field in which
one of the participants argued, in essence, that gas would not flow from
a pressure vessel to the vacuum of space. He concluded one of his
"flames" on this by saying that "If anyone can show that I am wrong, I
will be the first to admit my error."

With in a month or two of that, one of the pre-eminent engineers of the
time did show his error. That was in 1871, and the guy still hasn't
issued a retraction, that I can find.

Just becase Renfrew *says* he will give in, if he gets one more proof,
doesn't mean he really will.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he didn't waffle again. Even if
there are more than a few grains of Theran glass in the right ice layer.
He may very well think of some new proof that he wants.

[snip]

>The principal effects, chronology wise will be on Aegean chronology,
>but that chronology as it is floats, and depends on Egypt.

I can't see that any of this is going to resolve anything with respect to
Thera/Crete until the links with Egypt have been reexamined.

I don't know if the Minoan collapse can be moved all the way back to
1628, or not, but, it now looks like that is at least possible.

> Lastly, the
>pumice that Bietak found at Tell ed Daba, has so far not been chemically
>analyzed, so it is premature to speculate if it comes from Thera.

It is really surprising that it has not been analyzed yet.

I have the feeling that there is a need for one, or at most, a few, labs
set up to do tephra analysis. In most of the papers I have seen, the
investigators were doing it for themselves. And, some of them didn't seem
to be that sure of themselves.

There are already "primary" labs for things like C14 and metals analysis,
seems like tephra needs one.

[snip]

Henry Hillbrath

[David Rohl]

Chris Bennett wrote:

>... given that tephra analysis exists it should be straightforward
>enough to establish whether this is THeran tephra. I don't know if it

>has been done, but it certainly can be.

Frank Yurco also wrote:

>Yes, I am aware of the pumice Bietak found, but until they do chemical
>analysis of it and tie it firmly to Thera Santorini, it is preliminary to
>speculate about its origin. Such chemical analysis was done in the
>1970's on a particle of thepra (ash) found in one of the shallow Delta
>lakes, and it chemically was assigned to Thera-Santorini. What you're
>up against in Bietak's pumice deposit, are first, it was described as

>well rounded, suggesting that prior to burial in the stratum Bietak

>found, it had been exposed for a while and weathered. Secondly, if you
>consult Lucas, Materials and Industries.....4th ed., 1962, you'll find that
>pumice was a commodity that the Egyptians used as an abrasive, and
>hence was imported. The Greek Islands have long been known for
>pumice deposits, and throughout antiquity several exported pumice
>widely. Therefore, it is all important to wait for the chemical analysis
>of Bietak's pumice.

Back in 1994 Bietak asked me if I could get one of the pieces of pumice
from the Ezbet Helmi palace analysed using my contacts at the
Institute of Archaeology in London. However, things got a little
complicated due to the fact that the work could not be publicised for
various reasons. New laboratory analyses have been undertaken more
recently which, I have been reliably informed, confirms that the pumice
found at Avaris (Ezbet Helmi/Tell ed-Daba) is definately Theran.

Yes, the pumice is rounded and it was certainly going to be used for
cleaning animal skins (so it was collected as a tool). But other
elements strongly suggest that the pumice arrived as a water born
deposit, either outside the fortress of Avaris via the Pelusiac branch of
the Nile (the tsunami perhaps even breaching the walls through a
gateway) or on the nearby coast. These points of interest are (a) the
pumice was found along with an equally large deposit of Mediterranean
sea shells; (b) most of the pumice pieces were found in a small
workshop but some were found scatterred in the vineyard to the north
of the palace platform; and (c) there is absolutely no archaeological
evidence at the site of pumice in earlier or later strata (this last point
is substantiated by a similar find of exactly the same date at Tell el-
Hebua in northern Sinai).

The dating of the deposit of pumice has taken a recent, new twist since
Bietak is now suggesting that the platform palace is an early 18th
Dynasty structure and not a Hyksos royal residence after all. This would
date the pumice to later in the 18th Dynasty (remember that the scarab
range in the stratum is Ahmose I to Amenhotep II). The pumice was
found in the stratum above the frescoes which now must be dated to the
reigns of Ahmose and Amenhotep I according to Bietakıs latest thinking.

Regards,

David Rohl

[Henry Hillbrath]

Chris Bennett <cben...@adnc.com> writes:

>I'm SO glad I found DejaNews, my local news reader seems to trash 50% of
>everything before I get the chance to read it. Anyhow, I hope that this
>discussion is still a useful exposition of views, which in many ways are
>not so far apart....

I don't think we have any disagreement at all, really.

I have been attempting to explain what I think the process if
*going* to be, while you have been discussion what it *should* be.

The process of paradigm shift has not, in my observation, every been
a very pretty one. But, that is the way life is!

>
>In message <sourisDv...@netcom.com>, sou...@netcom.com (Henry
>Hillbrath) wrote
>>
>> cben...@adnc.com (Chris Bennett) writes:
>>
>> >In message <sourisDv...@netcom.com>, sou...@netcom.com (Henry
>> >Hillbrath) wrote:
>>
><snip>
>
>> I also know that there is a long tradition in which Egyptian dates
>> always prevail against dates from outside. What I have been trying
>> to say, among other things, is that particular paradigm is on its
>> way out.
>
>Here I do agree with you. Once this yardstick is agreed to be error-free
>then it will become the established paradigm.

The rule seems to more follow that in "Through the Looking Glass."

"Execution first, trial afterward."

When one side or the other gets the upper hand, the paradigm will
shift. Anyone still holding on to the old model will be publicly
humiliated, and any surveyors will attempt to pick up the pieces.

> We disagree on how we should
>agree it is error-free. In my view, reconciliation with the pre-existing
>yardstick is the conclusive test: you can either show how one chronology or
>the other is conceptually in error, or you can derive the same results better
>and more accurately in the new scheme than in the old. The THera-based
>dendro yardstick doesn't do that till the Egyptian dates are reconciled --
>which MAY lead to a readjustment in Thera.
>

There was a time when Egyptian dates did have a big effect on the
acceptance of new "scientific" dates. But, the natural scientists,
who march to a somewhat different drummer, have had enough of that,
and are now (my perception) proceeding on their own.

[snip]

>>
>> I can see that could happen if there were a spot in the sequence
>> where there was only one overlapping pair of samples. That is one
>> reason, I am sure, that one doesn't base the sequence on one "row of
>> logs" from the present back, but, instead the investigators use
>> multiple samples, with multiple over laps.
>>
>Sounds reasonable, I hope somene has done the calculations on what is the
>degree of confirmatory overlap required to reduce the probability of false
>sync to an acceptable level, say 1 in 10^5?

Kuniholm, and other dendrochronligists, have used statistical methods to attempt
to estimate the probabilities of matches. But, the real proof will be in the
predictive value of the scales. Every new date, of wood or of anything else,
matched with the sequence increases the certainty. The way to verify the method
is to use it.

>
>> It seemed to me that Rohl had no explanation for any "scientific"
>> dates, and quoted the only negative data he could find, then waved
>> his arms and said "you see, you can't trust any of this stuff."
>> OTOH, he is trusting his own interpretation of data that has been
>> interpreted in a number of different ways, and he gets a very
>> different answer than is generally accepted.
>>
>
>Not quite, he also quoted results that he felt had been unjustly discarded
>which agreed with his dates. OTOH one can say that statements like
>"Arguments against Thera's candidacy .. based on petrochemical evidence
>suggesting that its SO2 production was too small to account for .... the
>large H2SO4 peaks.... can now be dismissed because it is clear that
>petrochemical analysis seriously underestimates SO2 emissions"
>[Kuniholm] sound more than a little arm-wavey to me -- we can't
>prove Thera generated enough SO2 therefore we'll assume that
> it did????
>

This was somewhat my fault, as I decided that it was too much
trouble to type all the darn references in Kuniholm's paper. The two
sentences about sulfur had six references, three for low sulfur,
three for unproved.

They are, (low):

Vogel, Nature, 334 (534-537) 1990
Beget, Holocene 2 (51-56), 1992
Sigurdsson, Thera III

(unproved)

Gerlach, J. Volcan. geotherm. Res. 62, (317-337), 1994
Manning, Oxf. J. Archaeol. 11, (245-253), 1992
Baillie, A Slice through Time, 1995

I have dim recollection of having looked at the Thera III paper. I
think that it is important to recognize that this is very cutting
edge stuff, and that the first papers listed represented attempts to
correlate geological field work with the first ever measurements of
sulfate residuals in ice.

I have now read the discussion in the Francis book that I cited in
an earlier post. He has related information, and points out how
difficult this problem really is. And, maybe the picture that I have
given of the vulcanology is a bit simplistic.

The strongest signal in Hammers 1980 paper was a "mystery cloud" in
536 AD. This was reported by several ancient writers, in Rome,
Turkey and Syria. A modern researcher concluded that this was *by
far* bigger than any eruption in the last three millennia. But, no
one knows where it was. Maybe Rabaul in New Guinea, or maybe White
River in the Yukon.

Another "massive" signal was apparently from the eruption of Laki
(Iceland) in 1783, which was entirely a lava flow. Conventional
wisdom was that lava flows should not affect atmospheric SO2 at all.

The 1980 St. Helens eruption had lavas that contained 100 ppm of
sulfur. Laki had 800-1000 ppm, El Chichon 1982 had a "spectacular"
12500 ppm.

There is a lot about sulfur emission and deposition that the
volcanologists are just beginning to figure out.

This has a bearing on what the results of the Thera eruption would
have been on the climate, and on Minoan, and other, civilizations
and populations. But, it does not have much, if any, effect on tying
the 1628 event to Thera, or on the Aegean dendro sequence. Events
the size of 1628 are rare, from a climate and sulfur deposition
stand point, and events of the ash volume of Thera are also very
rare. The date is established better than most, if not all,
prehistoric volcanoes, just based on C14, or even Egyptian dates.
There is still the problem with the extremely low probability of two
such events happening so close together that they only leave one
signature, not two.

Francis had one more new bit of data that I hadn't been aware of. He
says that Jebel Marra in Sudan had a "colossal" eruption about 3500
BP, "an event that may have showered ash on Pharaonic Egypt." That
is very interesting, a candidate for another eruption at the same
time as Thera, but there are several things to remember. "Colossal"
only qualifies as a VEI 4 and up. The date is not at all certain,
and Sudan is south of Egypt. As Francis points out, almost all
volcanic plumes go east. Certainly east-west. I can't find Jebel
Marra right off, but, everything in Sudan is further from the delta
than Thera, and would require a much bigger deviation from an east-
west axis.

Any tephra that is found, in Egypt or elsewhere, can be
"fingerprinted" for origin.

Jebel Marra , and the Chad volcanoes, are other opportunities for
Egyptian markers.

[snip]

>
>I agree that the down-dating phenomenon is real, though it is also a
>phenomenon of increased volume of data driving out the gaps. But it doesn't
>always occur, even in places where perhaps it should. For example, many
>Egyptologists support a 28 year reign for Horemhab even though there is no
>contemporary evidence past his 13th (or 15th? -- memory) year, in order to
>maintain what seems to me a very questionable inscription.
>

Hopefully, when there are a few more external dates available, the
history is all going to become clear. Realistically, we will be just
as confused, but "On a higher level, about more important things."

[snip]

>>
>> I have forgotten some of the technical jargon in the paradigm shift
>> cult. But, there is a concept that is relevant. That is, that
>> everything that existed before, has to exist afterward, too. And
>> that the new paradigm has to explain all the old data, but, often
>> with a "higher insight."
>
>PRECISELY!!! Once that has been done you have validated the paradigm shift.
>And not before. That is the philosophical point -- really, the ONLY point --
>we are arguing.

I think the term that I was looking for is "correspondence." There
must be a correspondence between everything in the new model and the
old one. But, as I said, the shift has always happened first, and
the correspondences worked out afterward. I mainly base this on having
watched the "shift" on plate tectonics as it happened, but, there are
other examples.

Henry Hillbrath

[Henry Hillbrath]

matt...@ix.netcom.com(August Matthusen) writes:

>In <321018...@adnc.com> Chris Bennett <cben...@adnc.com> writes:

>>Not quite, he also quoted results that he felt had been unjustly
>>discarded which agreed with his dates. OTOH one can say that
>>statements like "Arguments against Thera's candidacy .. based on
>>petrochemical evidence suggesting that its SO2 production was too
>>small to account for .... the large H2SO4 peaks.... can now be
>>dismissed because it is clear that petrochemical analysis seriously
>>underestimates SO2 emissions" [Kuniholm] sound more than a little
>>arm-wavey to me -- we can't prove Thera generated enough SO2 therefore
>>we'll assume that it did????

>I don't think that's what they are saying there. What I get out of the

>quoted material is: They seem to be arguing against some previous
>negative evidence. It appears that the rock chemistry was being used
>to provide estimates of SO2 and these estimates indicated Thera could
>not have produced enough SO2 for the H2SO4 spike observed in the ice
>cores. Recent work on correlating rock chemistry to SO2 output
>apparently indicates that the previous estimates for Thera were too
>small. Unless he really has no basis to discard the previous estimates
>(does he cite some recent work or just indicate the initial estimates
>were off?) then he appears to have a valid argument.

I attempted to answer this, and gave the references, in a reply to Chris
that I just posted.

Henry Hillbrath

[Chris Bennett]

In article <83996470...@rohl.demon.co.uk>, David Rohl
<Da...@rohl.demon.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

> Yes, the pumice is rounded and it was certainly going to be used for
> cleaning animal skins (so it was collected as a tool). But other
> elements strongly suggest that the pumice arrived as a water born
> deposit, either outside the fortress of Avaris via the Pelusiac branch of
> the Nile (the tsunami perhaps even breaching the walls through a
> gateway) or on the nearby coast. These points of interest are (a) the
> pumice was found along with an equally large deposit of Mediterranean
> sea shells; (b) most of the pumice pieces were found in a small
> workshop but some were found scatterred in the vineyard to the north
> of the palace platform; and (c) there is absolutely no archaeological
> evidence at the site of pumice in earlier or later strata (this last point
> is substantiated by a similar find of exactly the same date at Tell el-
> Hebua in northern Sinai).
>
> The dating of the deposit of pumice has taken a recent, new twist since
> Bietak is now suggesting that the platform palace is an early 18th
> Dynasty structure and not a Hyksos royal residence after all. This would
> date the pumice to later in the 18th Dynasty (remember that the scarab
> range in the stratum is Ahmose I to Amenhotep II). The pumice was
> found in the stratum above the frescoes which now must be dated to the

> reigns of Ahmose and Amenhotep I according to Bietak零 latest thinking.
>

David --

THanks for the additional info. The tsunami model is interesting -- the
natural question it suggests is whether there is any evidence that the
palace was demolished by water rather human agency? Also, pending my
getting Bietak's papers, has he found any evidence of ash, distinct from
pumice?

CHeers,
Chris

[Steve Whittet]

In article <sourisDw...@netcom.com>, sou...@netcom.com says...

>
>whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:
>
>>In article <4uirqv$l...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM
>>says...
>>>

>>>sou...@netcom.com (Henry Hillbrath) wrote:
>>>
>[snip]
>
>>4.) A small nearby event can deposit as much pumice as
>>a large event much farther away.

>
>>5.) Small events occur with much greater frequency than large events.
>
>>6.) Egypt is on a major rift where faults earthquakes and vulcanism
>>occur regularly.
>
>I had to go and check this out.

http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/europe_west_asia/saudi_arabia
/harrat.html

Harrat Hutaymah, Saudi Arabia

A large (70,000 square miles; 180,000 square km)
alkali basalt province is located on the Arabian
Plate in Saudi Arabia.

This volcanism is related to the rifting of the
Arabian and African plates and the formation of
the Red Sea. Prior to rifting, the area
was a stable craton. Volcanism began about
40-50 million years ago as the crust was stretched
laterally.

Most of the rifting and volcanism has
occurred in the last 30 million years.

In the last 5 million years, volcanism along the
divergent plate boundary beneath the Red Sea has produced
tholeitic basalt, similar to basalts at mid-ocean
ridge. Thornber (1990). Volcanism is distributed
asymmetrically with respect to the Red Sea.

Large areas are covered with basalt on the
Saudi Arabian Plate. No volcanism has occurred at
similar latitudes on the African Plate.

The ages for the volcanic rocks and heat-flow
data suggest conditions favorable for producing magma
are migrating northeasterly from the present location
of the Red Sea spreading axis (Gettings, written
communication, 1989 in Thornber, 1990).
Bohannon and others (1989).

Volcanic vents of the Harrat Hutaymah
volcanic province. Numbers indicate
locations mentioned in the text.

1.Al Hutaymah
2.Jabal Salma
3.Harrat al Didadib
4.Samra as Safra
5.Harrat ad Dakhana
6.Tabah
7.Jabal Dilham
8.Harrat ad Dehama
9.Jabal Halat Utaynah
10.Jabal Awared
11.Shurmah cone
12.Jabal al Misharikah
13.Jabal Duwayrah

Arabian geologists call alkali basalt fields
harrats. "Harrat" is the possessive form of
the Arabic word "harrat", which means
"stony area volcanic country or lava field."
Numerous harrats are aligned along the west
margin of the Saudi Arabian Plate subparallel
to the Red Sea.

The local lib. has Simkin and Silbert,
>but, it was checked out.

>
>I did find several references which are sufficient to address this issue.
>
>I do have a xerox of a very small scale map in S&S that shows were all
>their eruptions (all known ones in the last 10,000 years) were.

Sorry Henry, But I think you are shooting from the hip here.

Since we agree volcanic plumes usually travel from west to east,
It seems reasonable to also look at the Tibesti area of Chad.

Leaving out Arabia and Palestine which are very active,
but to the east, and Moroco and the Cape Verdes which
are very active but too far west, The Tibesti area which
borders Egypt to the west seems a reasonable place to look.

http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/africa/africa.html

[The rest of the volcanoes in the African Region are too far away
as you have pointed out, but Tibesti is located to Egypts west]

Cape Verde Is.
Fogo

Canary Islands
Gran Canaria Teide

* Chad
Emi Koussi Oyoye
Tibesti Tieroko
Toon Tousside
Voon Yega

Ethiopia
Afar Region Alid
Amoissa Ayelu
Butajira Dendi and Wonchi
Edd Erta Ale
Fantale Garabaldi
Mega Rift Volcanoes
Sabober Zukwala

Indian Ocean
Reunion Karthala, Comore Islands

Kenya
Longonot Marsabit
North Island Nyambeni
South Island Suswa

Rwanda
Karisimbi Sabinyo
Visoke

Sudan
Jebel Marra

Tanzania
Gelai Ketumbaine
Ngorongoro Kilimanjaro
Southern Rift Volcanoes

Uganda
Katwe-Kikorongo Mikeno
Gahinga Virunga-Bufumbira

Zaire
Nyamuragira Nyiragongo

[source from VolcanoWorld ]

We might begin by asking if pumice and ash, which are relatively
light, tend to be blown around like sand and thus might continue to
be deposited by wind erosion until the original deposit covering
some 350 square miles to a depth of several meters is exhausted.

This would allow deposits to occur at a time other than the time
of an eruption

There are some interesting references in the literature:

Harrell, J. A., and Brown, V. M., 1992, The Worlds Oldest Surviving
Geological Map - the 1150 Bc Turin Papyrus from Egypt:
Journal of Geology, v. 100, No. 1, p. 3-18.

Kamel, A. F., 1994, Regional Fracture Analysis South Latitude
29-Degrees-N of Egypt and Their Influence on Earthquakes:
Natural Hazards, v. 9, No. 1-2, p. 235-245.

Keeley, M. L., 1994, Phanerozoic Evolution of the Basins of Northern Egypt
and Adjacent Areas: Geologische Rundschau, v. 83, No. 4, p. 728-742.

Kroner, A., Kruger, J., and Rashwan, A. A. A., 1994,
Age and Tectonic Setting of Granitoid
Gneisses in the Eastern Desert of Egypt and South-West Sinai:
Geologische Rundschau, v. 83, No. 3, p. 502-513.

Abdel-Monem, A. A., and Heikel, M. A., 1981,
Major element composition, magma type and
tectonic environment of the Mesozoic to Recent basalts,
Egypt: a review: Bulletin of the Faculty Earth Sciences,
Assiut University, v. 4, p. 121-148.

Albritton, C. C., Brooks, J. E., Issawi, B., and Swedan, A., 1990,
Origin of the Qattara Depression, Egypt: Geological Society of America
Bulletin, v. 102, No. 7, p. 952-960.

Allam, A., and Khalil, H., 1989, Geology and Stratigraphy of
Gebel-Qabeliat Area, Southwestern Sinai,
Egypt: Journal of African Earth Sciences and the Middle East,
v. 9, No. 1, p. 59-67.

Frei, L. S., and Freund, R., 1990,
Spatial and temporal relationships between two sets of strike-
slip faults in southeastern Sinai: Tectonophysics, v. 180, p. 111-122.

Gindy, A. R., 1991, Origin of the Qattara Depression,
Egypt - Discussion: Geological Society of
America Bulletin, v. 103, No. 10, p. 1374-1375.

Moustafa, A., and Khalil, S., 1995,
Rejuvenation of the Tethyan passive continental margin
of northern Sinai; deformation style and age (Gebel Yelleq area):
Tectonophysics, v. 241, p. 225-238.

Moustafa, A. R., 1992, The Feiran tilted blocks: an example
of a synthetic transfer zone, eastern side of Suez rift:
Annales Tectonicae, v. 6, no. 2, p. 193-201.

Moustafa, A. R., and Khalil, M. H., 1989, North Sinai
structures and tectonic evolution,: Middle
East Research Center, Ain Shams University, v. 3, p. 215-231.

Moustafa, A. R., and Mosbah, K., 1988, Late Cretaceous-Early
Tertiary Dextral Transpression in North Sinai: Reactivation
of the Tethyan Continental Margin: American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin, v. 72, p. 1015.

Omara, S., 1964, Diapiric structures in Egypt and Syria:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin, v. 48, p. 1116-1125.

Ragab, A. I., 1993, a geodynamic model for the distribution
of the oceanic plate slivers within a Pan-African orogenic belt,
Eastern Desert, Egypt: J. Geodynamics, v. 17, no. 1-2, p. 21-26.

Belazi, H. S., 1989, The Geology of the Nafoora Oilfield,
Sirte Basin, Libya: Journal of Petroleum
Geology, v. 12, No. 3, p. 353-366.

Bobier, C., Viguier, C., Chaari, A., and Chine, A., 1991,
The Post-Triassic Sedimentary Cover of
Tunisia - Seismic Sequences and Structure: Tectonophysics,
v. 195, No. 2-4, p. 371+.

Boccaletti, M., Cello, G., and Tortorici, L., 1988,
Structure and tectonic significance of the north-south
axis of Tunisia: Annales Tectonicae, v. 2, p. 12-20.

Bosworth, W., 1989, Basin and Range style tectonics
in East Africa: Journal of African Earth
Sciences,
v. 8, no. 2-4, p. 191-201.

Cahen, L., and Snelling, N. J., 1984,
The geochronology and evolution of Africa: Oxford,
Clarendon
Press, 512 p.

Carmignani, L., Giammarino, S., Giglia, G., and Pertusati, P. C.,
1990, The Qasr-As-Sahabi Succession and the Neogene Evolution
of the Sirte Basin (Libya): Journal of African Earth
Sciences and the Middle East, v. 10, No. 4, p. 753-769.

Chekhovich, V. D., and Zonenshayn, L. P., 1976,
Main features of structure and tectonic
development of the North African folded region
in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic: Geotectonics,
v. 10, p. 178-188.

Conant, L. C., and H.Gondarzi, G., 1967,
Stratigraphic and tectonic framework of Libya:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin, v. 51, p. 719-730.

Dautria, J. M., and Lesquer, A., 1989,
an Example of the Relationship Between Rift and Dome -
Recent Geodynamic Evolution of the Hoggar Swell and
of Its Nearby Regions (Central Sahara, Southern Algeria
and Eastern Niger): Tectonophysics, v. 163, No. 1-2, p. 45-61.

Davidson, J. P., and Ian R. Wilson, 1989, Evolution of an alkali
basalt-trachyte suite from Jebel Marra volcano, Sudan, through
assimilation and fractional crystallization:
Earth and Planetary Science Letters,v. 95, p. 141-160.

Guiraud, R., Bellion, Y., Benkhelil, J., and Moreau, C., 1987,
Post-Hercynian tectonics in Northern and
Western Africa: Geological Journal, v. 22, p. 433-466.

Gumati, Y. D., and Nairn, A. E. M., 1991, Tectonic Subsidence
of the Sirte Basin, Libya: Journal of
Petroleum Geology, v. 14, No. 1, p. 93-102.

Morley, C. K., Nelson, R. A., Patton, T. L., and Munn, S. G., 1990,
Transfer zones in the East African rift system and their relevance to
hydrocarbon exploration in rifts: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 74, p. 1234-1253.

Moustafa, A., and Khalil, M., 1994, Rejuvenation of the
eastern Mediterranean passive continental
margin in northern and central Sinai;
new data from the Themed Fault: Geology Magazine,
v.131, no. , p. 435-448.

Rebai, S., 1993, Recent Tectonics in Northern Tunisia: coexistence of
compressive and extensionalstructures: Annales Tectonicae, v. 7,
no. 2, p. 129-141.

Snoke, A., Schamel, S., and Karasek, R., 1988,
Structural evolution of Djebel Debadib Anticline:
a clue to the regional tectonic style of the Tunsian Atlas:
Tectonics, v. 7, p. 497-516.

Stanley, D. J., 1990, Recent Subsidence and Northeast Tilting of the
Nile-Delta, Egypt: Marine Geology,
v. 94, No. 1-2, p. 147-154.

Sultan, M., Arvidson, R. E., Sturchio, N. C., and Guinness, E. A., 1987,
Lithologic mapping in arid regions with Landsat thematic mapper data:
Meatiq dome, Egypt: Geological Society of America
Bulletin, v. 99, no. 12, p. 748-762.

Thorpe, R. S., and Smith, K., 1974, Distribution of Cenozoic volcanism in
Africa: Earth andPlanetary Science Letters, v. 22, p. 91-95.

Tricart, P., Torelli, L., Argnani, A., Rekhiss, F., and others,
1994, Extensional Collapse Related To Compressional Uplift
in the Alpine Chain Off Northern Tunisia (Central Mediterranean):
Tectonophysics,
v. 238, No. 1-4, p. 317-329.

NORTH AFRICA: GEOPHYSICS

Abdel-Rahman, E. M., and Rizkalla, R. I., 1984,
Crustal structure of the northern Western Desert of Egypt
as derived from gravity data: Bulletin of the Faculty of Science,
Assiut University, v. 52, no.2, p.601-615.

Adams, R. D., and Barazangi, M., 1984,
Seismotectonics and seismology in the Arab region; a
brief summary and future plans: Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, v. 74, no. 3, p.1011-1030.

Ammar, A. A., and Rabie, S. I., 1992,
Schematic Relief of the Near-Surface and Deep-Seated
Magnetic Basement, Using Local-Power Spectra, Gabal El-Erediya Area,
Eastern Desert, Egypt: Journal of African Earth Sciences and the
Middle East, v. 14, No. 1, p. 147-152.

Aoudia, A., and Meghraoui, M., 1995, Seismotectonics in the Tell Atlas of
Algeria: the Cavaignac (Abou El Hassan) earthquake of 25.08.1922 (M(s) =
5.9): Tectonophysics, v. 248, p. 263-276.

Badawi, H. S., and Mourad, S. A., 1994, Observations from
the 12 October 1992 Dahshour Earthquake
in Egypt: Natural Hazards, v. 10, No. 3, p. 261-274.

Rabie, S. I., and Ammar, A. A., 1990, Pattern of the Main Tectonic Trends
from Remote Geophysics, Geological Structures and Satellite Imagery, Central
Eastern Desert, Egypt: International Journal of Remote Sensing, v. 11, No. 4,
p. 669-683.

Barazangi, M., 1983, a summary of the seismotectonics of the
Arab region, in Cidlinsky, K., and Rouhban, B., eds., Assessment and
mitigation of earthquake risk in the Arab region: Paris,
France, UNESCO, p. 43-58.

Bendhia, H., 1991, Thermal Regime and Hydrodynamics in Tunisia and Algeria:
Geophysics, v.56, no.7, p. 1093-1102.

Bezzeghoud, M., Ayadi, A., Sebai, A., and Benhallou, H., 1993,
Seismogenic zone survey by Algerian Telemetred Seismological Network
case-study of Rouina earthquake January 19, 1992 M=5.2:
Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors.

Bockel, M., 1972, Structure de la cronte in Algerie d'apres les ondes
seismiques: Annalae Geofisica, v. 25, p. 339-358.

Bounif, A., Haessler, H., and Meghraoui, M., 1987, The Constantine
(northeast Algeria) earthquake of October 27, 1985: surface ruptures and
aftershock study: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v.
v. 85,p. 451-460.

Buness, H., Giese, P., Bobier, C., Eva, C., Merlanti, F., Pedone, R.,
Jenatton, L., Nguyen, D. T., Thouvenot, F., Egloff, F., Makris, J.,
Lozej, A., Maistrello, M., Scarascia, S., Tabacco, I., Burollet,
P.F., Morelli, C., Nicholich, R., Zaghouani, T., Egger, A., Freeman, R.,
and Mueller, S., 1992, The EGT'85 seismic experiment in Tunisia; a
reconnaissance of the deep structures: Tectonophysics, v. 207,
no.1-2, p. 245-267.

Chihi, L., 1992, Seismotectonic study in central and southern Tunisia:
Tectonophysics, v. 209, p.175-178.

Dlala, M., 1992, Seismotectonic study in northern Tunisia:
Tectonophysics, v. 209, p. 171-174.

Elsayed, A., Wahlstrom, R., and Kulhanek, O., 1994, Seismic Hazard of Egypt:
Natural Hazards,v. 10,No. 3, p. 247-259.

Elsirafe, A. M., and Abie, S. I., 1990, Contribution of Aeromagnetics To
Structural Mapping of Gabal Gattar Area, North Eastern Desert, Egypt:
Journal of African Earth Sciences and the Middle East, v. 11,
No. 1-2, p. 119-128.

Gaffet, S., Massinon, B., Plantet, J.-L., and Cansi, Y., 1994, Modelling
local seismograms of French nuclear test in Taourirt tan Afella massif,
Hoggar, Algeria: Geophysical Journal International, v.
119, no.3, p. 964-974.

H'Faiedh, M., Dorel, J., and Dubois, J., 1985, Crustal anomalies under the
Tunisian seismograph array using teleseismic P waves: Tectonophysics, v. 118,
no. 1-2, p. 131-141.

King, G. C. P., and Vita-Finzi, C., 1981, Active folding in the Algerian
earthquake of 10 October 1980: Nature, v. 292, p. 22-26.

Kovachev, S. A., Kuzin, I. P., Shoda, O. Y., and Soloviev, S. L., 1991,
Attenuation of S-waves in the lithosphere of the Sea of Crete according to
OBS observations: Physics of the Earth and
Planetary Interiors, v. 69, p. 101-111.
.

Lesquer, A., Takherist, D., Dautria, J. M., and Hadiouche, O., 1990,
Geophysical and Petrological Evidence for the Presence of an
Anomalous Upper Mantle Beneath the Sahara Basins (Algeria):
Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 96, No. 3-4, p. 407-418.

Makris, J., Rihm, R., Allam, A., 1988, Some Geophysical Aspects of the
Evolution and Structure of the Crust in Egypt, in Greiling, S. E.-G. a. R.
O., ed., The Pan-African Belt of Northeast Africa and Adjacent
Areas, Tectonic Evolution and Economic Aspects of a Late Proterozoic Orogen:
Braunschweig, Friedr.Vieweg & Sohn, p. 345-369.

Meghraoui, M., 1988, Paleoseismic study on the El Asnam (Algeria) thrust
fault, in Bonnin, J., et al.,ed., Seismic Hazard in Mediterranean Regions:
Dordrecht/Boston/London, Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. 333-346.

Meghraoui, M., Cisternas, A., and Philip, H., 1986, Seismotectonics of the
lower Cheliff basin: Structural background of the El Asnam (Algeria)
earthquake: Tectonics, v. 5, p. 809-836.

Poupinet, G., Souriau, A., and Jenatton, L., 1993, a Test on the Earths Core
Mantle Boundary Structure with Antipodal Data - Example of Fiji-Tonga
Earthquakes Recorded in Tamanrasset, Algeria:
Geophysical Journal International, v. 113, No. 3, p. 684-692.

Research Group for Lithospheric Structure in Tunisia, 1992, The EGT'85
seismic experiment in Tunisia: a reconnaissance of the deep structures:
Tectonophysics, v. 207, p. 245-267.

Seno, T., and Saito, A., 1994, Recent East African earthquakes
in the lower crust: Earth and Planetary
Science Letters, v. 121, p. 125-136.

Suleiman, A. S., and Doser, D. I., 1995, The seismicity,
seismotectonics and earthquake hazards of Libya, with detailed
analysis of the 1935 April 19, M = 7.1 earthquake sequence: Geophysical
Journal International, v. 120, no. 2, p. 312-322.

Vita-Finzi, C., 1989, Temporal Clustering of Paleoseismic Events
on the Oued Fodda Fault, Algeria -
Comment: Geology, v. 17, No. 9, p. 865-865.

Vogt, J., 1993, Further Research on the Historical Seismicity of Tunisia:
Terra Nova, v. 5, No. 5,p. 475-476.

Westaway, R., 1990, The Tripoli, Libya, Earthquake of September 4, 1974 -
Implications for the Active Tectonics of the Central Mediterranean:
Tectonics, v. 9, No. 2, p. 231-248.

Yielding, G., Jackson, J. A., King, G. C. P., Sinvhal, H., Vita-Finzi, C.,
and Wood, R. M., 1981, Relations between surface deformation, seismicity,
rupture characteristics and fault geometry during the
El Asnam (Algeria) earthquake of 10 October 1980: Earth Planetary Science
Letters, v. 56, p. 287-304.

Young, M. E., Izzeldin, H. G., and Burr, A. F., 1989, Bouguer and
isostatic gravity anomalies in NW Sudan and their implication for
petroleum exploration: .

It is
>very hard to read, because I shows *only* the eruptions. But, I also
>found several versions of a "standard" map that shows where all the
>earthquakes of the 1960s (first decade in which the accuracy of the
>locations were good enough that the map "popped into focus.")

Earthquakes are a pretty good indicator of volcanicly active areas

>
>Volcanos and earthquakes go together. And, there are more measurable
>earthquakes in a decade than there are eruptions in 1000 decades.
>
>There is one eruption that may be in Algeria.
>
>Earthquakes mark the middle of the Red Sea, and outline an "Arabian"
>plate, which is a bit active on the southeast side of the peninsula. There
>is also more active boundary which runs along the north side of the Gulf
>and another boundary running across southern Turkey continuing along the
>Aegean arc.
>
>In Africa, there is a line of activity which starts at a three way
>intersection (famous in plate tectonic circles) and runs off to the
>southwest. Most of the African volcanos are along that boundary.
>
>There are a few other, isolated, volcanic activity areas, Jebel Marra in
>Sudan, Tibesti in Chad, and Ahoggar in Sudan.

>
>All those are further from the Nile Delta than Thera. And, probably not
>in the right position to deposit tephra in lower Egypt.

Keep in mind that Egypt extends south of the tropic of cancer
Thera is considerably farther North of Thebes, the capital of
Egypt in the XVIIIth Dynasty, than Tibesti is to its west.

Elsewhere you have pointed out that the efluvia of volcanoes
normally blows west to east, not North to south.

Tibesti in Chad is in the right place, close to Egypt and to its west.

>
>(A tangential point, one of the books mentions that Emi Koussi, in the
>Tibesti Complex, is the easiest landmark on the entire earth for American
>Astronauts to pick up from orbit. "... because its dark massif rises up in
>such stark contrast against the ochrous wastes of the desert." ("Volcano:
>a Planetary perspective." Peter Francis, Oxford University Press, 1993,
>ISBN 0 19 854452 9. A really nice, general book on volcanos which I had
>not seen before. It even has a chapter on dendrochronology and the ice
>cap data, but, it is a bit behind events.)

Tibesti is a huge volcanic complex

>
>In between the plate boundaries I described (and, in general), which
>includes all of Egypt, and most of North Africa, the area is as inactive,
>earthquake and volcano wise, as just about any place on earth. Like
>Brazil. Or Scandinavia.
>
>Tephra, no matter where it is found, has to identified before it can be
>dated. But, tephra found in Egypt is very likely from the Aegean.

Not if the tephra tends to blow west to east.
>
>Henry Hillbrath
>
>
steve

[August Matthusen]

In <4uu0jr$q...@shore.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)

writes:
>
>In article <sourisDw...@netcom.com>, sou...@netcom.com says...
>>
>>whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:
>>
>>>In article <4uirqv$l...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM
>>>says...
>>>>
>>>>sou...@netcom.com (Henry Hillbrath) wrote:
>>>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>4.) A small nearby event can deposit as much pumice as
>>>a large event much farther away.
>>
>>>5.) Small events occur with much greater frequency than large
events.
>>
>>>6.) Egypt is on a major rift where faults earthquakes and vulcanism
>>>occur regularly.

Steve,

I think you're overlooking how well a tephra can be identified using
its geochemistry. Like Henry said this is akin to fingerprinting.
Even when multiple eruptive events have occured at the same volcano
they can differentiate tephras using geochemical ratios.

[snip]

>
>A large (70,000 square miles; 180,000 square km)
>alkali basalt province is located on the Arabian
>Plate in Saudi Arabia.

This volcano is not going to produce tephras. Basaltic volcanoes erupt
like Hawaiian-style eruptions with lava that flows freely. They are
very silicic poor. Tephras come from viscous silicic-rich magmas which
do not flow very well, but erupt explosively like Saint Helens or
Pinatubo or the one in Alaska a few years ago.

[snip lots of discussion of basaltic volcanoes and references]

>Earthquakes are a pretty good indicator of volcanicly active areas

Not always. It depends on the plate tectonic regime also. For
example, there are lots of big earthquakes along the San Andreas fault
which is not known for its volcanos.

>Elsewhere you have pointed out that the efluvia of volcanoes
>normally blows west to east, not North to south.

This is just based on prevailing wind patterns and is not always a
truism. One of the largest eruptions in the U.S. was at Yellowstone
about 640000 years ago. The tephra (Lava Creek B) is *all* over:
Southern California, Texas, New Mexico, Kansas, etc. I'd love to know
what it ranks on the VEI.

You also have to consider that when one of these huge eruptions starts
going off, its going to have an influence on existing weather patterns.

>Tibesti in Chad is in the right place, close to Egypt and to its west.

But is it silicic or basaltic? From your description below (dark
massif, huge) it sounds basaltic.

>>(A tangential point, one of the books mentions that Emi Koussi, in
the
>>Tibesti Complex, is the easiest landmark on the entire earth for
American
>>Astronauts to pick up from orbit. "... because its dark massif rises
up in
>>such stark contrast against the ochrous wastes of the desert."
("Volcano:
>>a Planetary perspective." Peter Francis, Oxford University Press,
1993,
>>ISBN 0 19 854452 9. A really nice, general book on volcanos which I
had
>>not seen before. It even has a chapter on dendrochronology and the
ice
>>cap data, but, it is a bit behind events.)
>
>Tibesti is a huge volcanic complex

>[snip]

Regards,
August Matthusen

[Chris Bennett]

Thanks for your comments! -- Chris

In message <Dw1HD...@midway.uchicago.edu> fjy...@midway.uchicago.edu
(Frank Joseph Yurco) wrote:

> Dear Chris,

>
> Yes, I am aware of the pumice Bietak found, but until they do chemical
> analysis of it and tie it firmly to Thera Santorini, it is preliminary to
> speculate about its origin. Such chemical analysis was done in the 1970's on a
> particle of thepra (ash) found in one of the shallow Delta lakes, and it
> chemically was assigned to Thera-Santorini. What you're up against in Bietak's

> pumice deposit, are first, it was described as well rounded, suggest-ing that

> prior to burial in the stratum Bietak found, it had been exposed for a while
> and weathered. Secondly, if you consult Lucas, Materials and
> Industries.....4th ed., 1962, you'll find that pumice was a commodity that the
> Egyptians used as an abrasive, and hence was imported. The Greek Islands have
> long been known for pumice deposits, and throughout antiquity several
> exported pumice widely. Therefore, it is all important to wait for the
> chemical analysis of Bietak's pumice.

I'm still waiting on Bietak's papers.... David Rohl seems to have
addressed the issue of chemical composition, and while pumice was a
tradable commodity, it seems hard to believe that sea shells and snail
shells were. Based on what I have read so far, this looks Theran, and
probably locally deposited, by water. What is more open to doubt in my
mind is whether the deposition is contemporary with the find location. It
would be a pity if the find could not be stratigraphically dated, because
that would at least throw the issue into clear relief: either 1628 was
not Thera or the 18th dynasy started before 1628.

>
> Secondly, as for the 1628 B.C. date of Thera-Santorini's eruption. I do
> believe that it will not seriously disturb Dynasty 18, because, if you
use the

> Wente-Van Siclen chronology, the discrepcency is lowered, and secondly, the

> earlier Dynasty 17 reigns are highly uncertain. Kamose's three years are a

> minimum from his stelae. He well might have reigned longer. Seqenenre-Ta'aa's

> reign is guesswork at best. Ahmose, son of Abana's autobiography might be
> help. He started his military career under Ahmose, and his father was a
> soldier under Sequenre Ta'aa, so there are two generations. Again, we are not
> certain when the revolt of the Thebans started. Seqenenre-Ta'aa was killed in
> battle, but the revolt may have started earlier, under Senakhtenre Ta'aa, or
> earlier still. Add to this that Queen Ahhotep I served for some time as
regent
> for one of the kings, Kamose, perhaps. With all the uncertainties about
> Dynasty 17, and the fact that Kamose is given a minimal length reign, based on
> his highest regnal date, there is room for lengthening out the 17th Dynasty
> particularly. I agree that Dynasty 18 is better documented, but there too, in
> some cases reigns are dated by highest date attested, a situation that
> guarantees a minimal chronology at best.

Here I have to disagree with you. Wente/van Siclen tends to be maximal,
not minimal, in its reign-length estimates, witness Thutmose II, Thutmose
IV, Akhenaten (minimal coregency) and Horemhab.

Also, I have looked at the 17th dynasty in some detail, and I believe
there is NOT that much room to manoeuvre in its dates.

Lets start with the reign length of Kamose. This was almost certainly short:

1) Ahmes was the son of Seqenenre Ta'o:

-- Princess Ahmes, daughter of Sit-Djehuti and Seqenenre Ta'o, is
described as a king's sister. Therefore at least one son of Seqenenre
Ta'o was a king..

-- Seqenenre married a queen Ahhotep. A queen Ahhotep was the mother of Ahmes.

-- Marianne Eaton-Kraus has done a convincing analysis on the two known
coffins of queens Ahhotep, to show that they can readily be interpreted as
belonging to a single individual, having been made at widely separated
points in her career. There being no other evidence suggesting a second
queen Ahhotep, Occam's Razor says we should assume one.

2) Ahmes was almost certainly a child when he succeeded, with his mother
as regent. Its hard to say when he began effective rule, but the
indications, as argued by Vandersleyen, seem to me to argue that his first
decade at least was under his mother's regency. For example:

-- No real activity is reported before year 11.

-- The evidence of marriage and children is all late in the reign

-- His mother was clearly an effective authority in her own right during
Ahmes' reign. She appears to have died in the reign of Amenhotep I,
therefore she was relatively young on Ahmes' (and Kamose's) accession; she
survived her husband by at least 3 + 22 = 25 years

-- The same pattern is seen with Ahmes-Nefertari, who appears to have been
regent for Amenhotep I, who lived to support the accession of Thutmosis I,
and who died most likely in his year 5. She therefore outlived her father
by at least 3 + 22 + 21 + 5 = 51 years.

If Kamose was succeeded by a minor who was not his son but the son of
Seqenenre, then the interval between the death of Seqenenre and the
accession of Ahmes must have been short. This is buttressed by the fact
that Kamose has no known children (possibly except Sit-Kamose) - we don't
even know his queen, or if he had one. The highest figure I have seen
suggested for Kamose is 6 years (which is the figure I used). In view of
the above, I find it hard to see how you can argue for a significantly
larger figure. My own belief, largely based on his rishi coffin, is that
he died in the revolt he launched so grandiloquently, making his reign
length 3-4 years.

Turning to the start of the Theban revolt itself: Later Egyptian
tradition seems clear on this, see pSallier, the story of Apepi, Seqenenre
and the hippopotami. Seqenenre is the man.

If I may make an inference, you are allowing for the possibility for an
earlier start for the revolt on the widely-held belief that Senakhtenre
founded a new ruling family and was the father of Seqenenre. Even if this
were true, it has no guaranteed bearing on the matter. In fact there is
not a single shred of evidence to support it. What we know is that
Seqenenre was the son of a king and a non-royal woman (Tetisheri), and
that Senakhtenre was his immediate predecessor (though even this is not
guaranteed). That is all. It is a fair inference that Senakhtenre and
Seqenenre were closely related, but the evidence does not justify the
conclusion that Senakhtenre was Seqenenre's father. If Seqenenre was not
Senakhtenre's son then the unknown king his father was a predecessor of
Senakhtenre, and the latter cannot be regarded as a dynastic founder.

My own belief is that they were brothers. This is based on their nomens
(I am pleased to see that you accept that Ta'o-o was the nomen of
Senakhtenre, despite Vandersleyen's doubts). There is a precedent for the
naming pattern Ta'o-o/Ta'o, namely the two mid-17th dynasty kings
Inyotef-o/Inyotef, and we know these two kings were brothers. Ta'o-o
apparently means "Ta'o the Great" or "Ta'o the Elder". He was hardly
great, and "the elder" would fit with them being brothers. This is not a
new argument - Meyer believed it early in the century - and it has never
been refuted, just ignored.

As to the reign length of Seqenenre, I agree we have no direct evidence.
It seems to have been reasonably long, judging by the number of known
children that he had, including about a half dozen by Ahhotep, and it
seems he was not too old when he died, judging by his mummy (the identity
of which there seems to me to be no reason to doubt). The average 18th
dynasty reign was 22-24 years, and Bierbrier has argued for an average
intergenerational interval of 25 years for the New Kingdom. Also, we know
that his (phase of the) revolt started after the accession of Apepi. So,
15 years seems to be a minimal estimate. The 20 years I used seems a
reasonable maximum to me given his youth at death, but I'll happily give
you 25 or even 30 FTSOA - not much more though.

Which, using Wente/van Siclen, still gives me a maximal estimate of
1570+6+30 = 1606 - over two decades shy of 1628=Thera for the start of the
Theban revolt. There is more than enough time here for two generations
for the soldier Ahmes and his son Abana; indeed, the real question is
whether there isn't too much time!

You can read my own reconstruction of the 17th dynasty in some recent GM
notes (GM 141/3/5/7/9 and 151). There is a way I can fit 1628=Thera into
it (preferably with the LOW NK chronology), which is somewhat in line with
your thought.

My suggested reconstruction gives the following kinglist preceding Ahmes:

Sekhemre-Shedtawi Sebekemsaf ("Shedtawi")
Three Inyotefs -- Nubkheperre at c1600
Rahotep
Sekhemre-wadjkhau Sebekemsaf ("wadjkhau")
[Wepwawetemsaf?]
[Senusert IV and maybe another Senusert?]
Senakhtenre Ta'o etc.

(You may well not agree with this, but bear with me FTSOA).

The kings before Shedtawi ("Saviour of the Two Lands") left virtually no
trace. Blocks of the Hyksos king Khian are found at Gebelein, S of
Thebes. Shedtawi has left little trace now, but we know there was quite a
bit of evidence of him in Ramessid times. Nubkheperre and Rahotep are
known to have built defensive measures to the north. Nubkheperre and
particularly Wadjkhau are known as civil rebuilders, and event Senusert IV
has left a monumental statue in Karnak. Then we have the period of
Theban/Hyksos warfare: no trace of Senakhtenre, Seqenenre certainly and
Kamose probably killed in the struggle, blocks naming Apepi at Gebelein,
and oblique references to years of poverty in later Ahmosid stelae.

Speculative history: After an initial struggle, the early 17th dynasty
are puppets under the Hyksos (Seuserenre even takes the same prenomen as
Khian). Thera. The Hyksos are weakened, as you suggest. Shortly
afterwards, the south secedes, but more or less peacefully under
Shedtawi. (About this time, the Sebeknakht family loses the governorship
of El-Kab after several generations.) Nubkheperre/Rahotep build defences
to the north. However, civil society revives in independence,
particularly under Wadjkhau. A generation or two after Thera, the Hyksos
have also recovered, and (possibly exploiting a division in the south --
is the significance of Tetisheri's non-royal origin a succession feud?).
The Hyksos briefly reimpose control, under Apepi, but now the south is
stronger: warfare, defeat of Seqenenre and Kamose, maybe Ahmose is
established as a child puppet. But a decade or two later, taking
advantages of weaknesses revealed after the long reign of Apepi, the south
turns the tables, this time victoriously.

Speculative, instinctual, and depends heavily on my reconstruction of the
17th dynasty. I would not try to defend this. But the chronology gives
you 1628 for THera without doing chronological violence either to the 18th
dynasty or to the late 17th.

Cheers,
Chris

[Steve Whittet]

In article <sourisDw...@netcom.com>, sou...@netcom.com says...
>

>matt...@ix.netcom.com(August Matthusen) writes:
>
>>In <321018...@adnc.com> Chris Bennett <cben...@adnc.com> writes:
>

>>>Not quite, he also quoted results that he felt had been unjustly
>>>discarded which agreed with his dates. OTOH one can say that
>>>statements like "Arguments against Thera's candidacy

...snip...

Recent work on correlating rock chemistry to SO2 output
>>apparently indicates that the previous estimates for Thera were too
>>small. Unless he really has no basis to discard the previous estimates
>>(does he cite some recent work or just indicate the initial estimates
>>were off?) then he appears to have a valid argument.
>
>I attempted to answer this, and gave the references, in a reply to Chris
>that I just posted.
>
>Henry Hillbrath

In addition to the dendrochronology, vulcanology, Egyptian chronology,
and speculation, there are also some pottery dates to contend with...

I found this online at:

http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/ASOR/BA/Redmount.html
>
==============================================================
Ethnicity, Pottery, and the Hyksos at Tell El-Maskhuta in the
Egyptian Delta

By Carol A. Redmount

Determining the ethnicity of an ancient people or culture on the basis of archaeological evidence is a
very tricky proposition (Shennan 1989). Even anthropologists working with living cultures (and live
informants), as well as historians immersed in extensive written sources, find that ethnicity is a
"slippery concept" at best and that establishing ethnic definitions and boundaries is no easy task.
Ideally, archaeologists should strive to combine all available archaeological and historical data when
studying ancient patterns of ethnicity and ethnic groupings. This approach is certainly the most fruitful
when dealing with the literate and complex societies of the ancient Near East and Egypt.

Occasionally, a lucky combination of archaeological discoveries, inscriptions, and other historical
evidence permits scholars to correlate with virtual certainty a specific people with a particular material
culture. Such is the case with the Hyksos, who were once a mysterious presence in a period of
Egyptian history still largely regarded as a dark age.

The Hyksos

The Hyksos first appeared on the Egyptian historical scene as the enigmatic Fifteenth and Sixteenth
Dynasties (ca. 1663-1555 bce) of Egypt's complex Second Intermediate Period (ca. 1782-1570 bce).
The Second Intermediate Period is contemporary with the later part of the Middle Bronze Age of the
Levant (ca. 2000-1550 bce). The Fifteenth Dynasty, or "greater" Hyksos kings, consisted of foreigners
based in the eastern Delta who ruled at least part of Upper Egypt and at times may have controlled all of
Upper Egypt and Nubia as well (Kemp 1983:153ff.; SaveSoderbergh 1956; Giveon 1983). Later tradition
recalled a brutally oppressive rule that is generally not confirmed by contemporary references. The
Sixteenth Dynasty, or "lesser" Hyksos kings, most likely were vassals of the Fifteenth Dynasty. The
Hyksos were finally driven out of Egypt at the end of the Seventeenth and beginning of the Eighteenth
Dynasties in a series of campaigns that extended in some cases into southern Palestine.

At first, written sources provided our only evidence for the Hyksos and also gave the first indications of
their non-Egyptian character. Hyksos is what Redford calls "the Greek garbling" (Redford 1992:100) of
ancient Egyptian hk3w h3swt for "rulers of foreign lands." Contemporary Egyptian texts from the end of
the Second Intermediate Period and the early Eighteenth Dynasty refer to these foreigners more
specifically as '3mw, generally translated as "Asiatics." The majority of preserved Hyksos personal
names, our most important source for the language used by the Hyksos, are West Semitic (Redford
1992:100). The texts associated with the Hyksos are generally scattered, piecemeal, and scarce. No
new important textual discoveries have occurred recently, and scholars have discussed the known
documents extensively, even exhaustively.1 Part of this discussion has included a lively but
inconclusive debate regarding the origins and affiliations of the Hyksos.

Beginning in the mid-1960s, our knowledge of the Hyksos changed radically. At this time, Dr. Manfred
Bietak, the director of the Austrian Institute in Cairo, began excavating at the large east Delta site of Tell
el-Dab'a (Bietak 1968, 1970). At Dab'a, Bietak found evidence of an extensive occupation belonging to
an intrusive, non-Egyptian population. The material culture of this foreign occupation was identical in
many ways to that of Middle Bronze Age Syria-Palestine, with the earliest Canaanite finds coming from
Middle Bronze IIA traditions and the latest from a "very Egyptianized MBIIC culture."2 Scholars now
identify the non-Egyptian inhabitants of Dab'a with the Asiatic Hyksos of the Egyptian texts, and Tell
el-Dab'a with the Hyksos capital of Avaris. Thus the basic ethnic affiliation of the Hyksos is securely
established: the Hyksos originated in the Levant from Middle Bronze Age "Canaanite" ethnic stock.

A number of other sites in the eastern Nile Delta also have produced archaeological finds of Canaanite
material culture and are now associated with the Hyksos occupation of Egypt (Bietak 1975:102,
1994:23, 25; van den Brink 1982:55; Petrie 1906; Redmount 1989:225-28.; Tufnell 1978). Apart from Tell
el-Maskhuta, these sites and their associated finds are generally poorly known. Almost all are situated
east of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, usually considered to be the strategic western limit of Hyksos
occupation. A recent Dutch survey, however, found two sites with Asiatic material located west of the
Tanitic Nile branch (van den Brink 1987:19). Thus far only two Hyksos-occupied sites, Tell el-Dab'a and
Tell el-Maskhuta, have been excavated in enough detail and published sufficiently (although not
completely) to provide adequate data for a preliminary characterization of the Hyksos material culture in
Egypt. One of these sites, Dab'a, was a capital and a major urban center; the other, Maskhuta, was a
was a more modest and less central settlement. Together they provide complementary evidence for
defining Hyksos material culture.

Canaanite influence dominated the material culture of the Hyksos settlements at both sites in aspects
such as architecture (for example, Dab'a had more than one classic Canaanite temple), burial customs
(including donkey burials), jewelry and other items of personal adornment, weapons, and ceramics. At
both Dab'a and Maskhuta, however, Egyptian cultural traits were interwoven with the Canaanite (Bietak
1992:31; Redmount 1989:251-57.). At both sites there were also cultural elements that evolved locally in
the eastern Nile delta. Interestingly, both Tell el-Dab'a and Tell el-Maskhuta reveal evidence of Hyksos
inhabitants robbing Hyksos tombs, as excavators found robber trenches into tombs sealed by later
deposits that were still Hyksos. Bietak has suggested that more than one movement of Canaanites into
Tell el-Dab'a occurred (Bietak 1987:50-52.); the same may also have been true at Tell el-Maskhuta. One
of the key elements of Hyksos material culture, the pottery, appears to be a highly sensitive indicator of
cultural affiliation and development. Since the pottery corpus from Tell el-Dab'a is only partly published
(Bietak 1991), I shall concentrate here upon the Hyksos pottery found at Tell el-Maskhuta.

Hyksos Pottery from Tell El-Maskhuta

Tell el-Maskhuta is a large mound of ruins located in the eastern half of the Wadi Tumilat, between Tell
el-Retabah and Lake Timsah. Between 1978 and 1985, a University of Toronto team led by Professor J.
S. Holladay, Jr. conducted five seasons of excavations at the site (Holladay 1982; MacDonald 1980;
Redmount 1989:229-270). The earliest finds consisted of six phases of Hyksos occupation comprising a
settlement and associated tombs. Maskhuta was then abandoned until the Saite Period some thousand
years later (the Saite Period, or Dynasty 26, dates to ca. 664-525 bce, and is named after the Delta site
of Sais, modern Sa el-Hagar, the seat of the 26th Dynasty). Thus the Hyksos material culture was
isolated in time, and the pottery belonging to the Hyksos phases could be distinguished clearly.

Study of this pottery indicates that although some ceramic development occurred over the six strata of
Hyksos occupation at Maskhuta, the changes were not extensive. On the whole, stylistic variation over
time is limited, and the pottery exhibits a basic uniformity through all six Hyksos phases (see
Redmount 1989:244-252; 770-901 for a more extended treatment of this pottery). The Hyksos ceramic
corpus therefore can be treated as a whole, and the major characteristics of this corpus are reviewed
below.

Everyday household wares predominate in the Hyksos corpus, plain fine wares are very rare, and
decorated fine wares are notable for their comparative scarcity. Forms include Syrian, Palestinian,
Egyptian, and independently evolved eastern Delta traditions. Simple shapes far outnumber elaborate
ones. The most common pottery forms during this period at Maskhuta are mass-produced,
flat-bottomed cups; carinated bowls; platter bowls; ring stands; handmade and holemouth cooking pots;
and a wide-mouth water jar with a squared-off, externally folded rectangular rim. There is no specialized
lamp form: the bases of broken bowls, cups, or small jars were used for this purpose.

The vast majority of the pottery was manufactured from either Nile silts or marl clays, the two primary
raw materials used in Egyptian pottery making (see Nordstrom and Bourriau 1993:160ff. for Egyptian
ceramic fabrics and sources). Marl clays and Nile silts were usually not used for the same pot types.
For example, cooking pots, cups, platter bowls, ring stands, Tell el-Yehudiyah ware juglets, black and
red polished juglets, beakers, and certain groups of jars were produced mostly from Nile silts. Carinated
bowls, a small jar form (about the same size as the flat-bottomed cups) dubbed a "jarlet" by the
expedition artists, wide-mouth jars, and a number of other jar types were made mostly from marl clays.
Interestingly, it appears that if a vessel occurred in the non-normative fabric for its type, some effort was
made to ensure the proper finished appearance. For example, platter bowls formed of marl clay were
usually slipped red to provide the desired exterior look of a Nile silt; a carinated bowl manufactured from
silt might be slipped white to resemble a marl clay.

Imported pottery at Tell el-Maskhuta comes from Cyprus, Palestine, Upper Egypt, and possibly Syria.
Of particular importance is a group of two-handled store jars, probably imported (presumably along with
their contents of olive oil or wine) from Syria-Palestine. These store jars had a non-Egyptian fabric with
large, white to gray calcite/limestone inclusions. Cypriote White Painted Vl juglets formed a second
group of clearly imported wares (Merrillees 1968:148); of the few examples found at the site, some were
genuine imports from Cyprus while others were probably non-local imitations, most likely manufactured
in Palestine.

Canaanite Influences on Pottery from Maskhuta

Canaanite customs can be detected in many of the forms and some of the manufacturing and decorative
techniques of the Hyksos pottery from Maskhuta. The use of the fast wheel for most of the pottery, the
predominance of flat to ring bases (Egyptian bases tend to be rounded or pointed), the deep red slip,
and the pattern and radial burnishing of platter bowls-all reflect Canaanite practices.

Many of the pottery forms found in Hyksos Maskhuta also come from Canaan. For example, the crude,
flat-bottomed, handmade Middle Bronze Age IIA cooking pots predominate in the earlier Hyksos strata
at the site. In the later Hyksos strata, these handmade cooking pots all but disappear and a holemouth
form, also Canaanite in origin, becomes the cooking pot of choice. The black and red polished juglets,
and the punctate or grooved Tell el-Yehudiyah ware juglets from Tell el-Maskhuta all fall later in the
typological sequence and are generally characteristic of forms common to Middle Bronze Age IIB rather
than to Middle Bronze Age IIA (Bietak 1985, 1994:122-4; Kaplan 1980). A considerable number of the
carinated and platter bowls, as well as a range of jar types, also find their home in the Levant.

Both imported and imitation Canaanite storejars were found at the site, including two almost complete
vessels used for infant burials, both missing their rims. The remaining examples were all very
fragmentary. These storejars had handles, which is a Canaanite, not an Egyptian practice, and slightly
convex bases. The imported jars were manufactured from several different but distinctive Palestinian
fabrics, mainly characterized by large calcite inclusions. The rim forms, where preserved, appear to
come mostly from Middle Bronze Age IIA or transitional Middle Bronze Age IIA/B traditions. However,
the most distinctive, classical Middle Bronze Age IIA storejar shapes and types common to Canaan
were not present at the site or were very rare. Imported jars occurred in all phases, but the percentage
of imported Palestinian wares in any given stratum was low, and there were twice as many imported
sherds (expressed as percent of total indicator sherds) in the earliest Hyksos phases as there were in
the latest.

Taken as a whole, the assemblage of Hyksos pottery from Tell el-Maskhuta bears closest resemblance
in form and in manufacturing techniques to Middle Bronze Age Syria-Palestine. The overwhelming
predominance of wheel-made vessels with flat, low ring or disc bases; the deep red slip, often
unburnished; the radial and pattern burnishing of platter bowls; the cooking pot types; the majority of the
carinated and platter bowl shapes; the juglet forms; the Syro-Palestinian storejars; and a number of the
other jar types all point towards Canaanite origins. The repertoire is heavily un-Egyptian, with notable
exceptions and, in broad terms, fits most comfortably with customs current to the north.

However, the absence or rarity of a considerable number of Canaanite pottery characteristics and forms,
including a number of those considered hallmarks of the Middle Bronze Age, is also striking. These
include gutter rims, double or triple strand jug/juglet handles, high ring or pedestal bases, elaborately
profiled jar rims, thin-walled fine wares, dipper juglets, shoulder-handled jugs, triangular-rim cookpots,
goblets, vases, closed carinated bowl forms, rilled rim bowls, kraters, lamps, and a good many of the jar
forms.

Thus at Maskhuta the undoubtedly strong cultural connection of the pottery with Canaan consists
primarily of a general, macro-level resemblance. Comparison with any of the major pottery corpora from
Syria or Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age demonstrates individual points of specific contact, most
frequent with MBIIB Palestine (e.g., two examples of MBIIB curlicue-handled bowls, made of local clay),
but no more. The total assemblage of Hyksos pottery from Maskhuta does not correspond closely to
that of any other published pottery corpus from either Palestine or Syria, despite the fact that individual
elements may have clear parallels. Nor can the Maskhuta repertoire be considered typical of any of the
proposed chronological subdivisions (A and B-Kempinski 1983; Bienkowski 1989; or A, B and C/I,II and
III-Dever 1985, 1992) of the Middle Bronze Age, although the largest number of parallels occur with
Middle Bronze Age IIB or transitional Middle Bronze Age IIA/B. Moreover, both the geographical and
temporal affiliations of this Hyksos pottery with the Levant are eclectic. Northern, Syrian forms appear
side by side with southern, Palestinian forms, and Middle Bronze Age IIA types are associated with
Middle Bronze Age IIB types in ways that do not occur in the Levant. Middle Bronze Age IIC types do
not occur at all at Maskhuta. Indeed, there is a distinctive cast to the Maskhuta pottery corpus that
warns against a too facile grouping of this corpus into categories and divisions used for Canaanite
Middle Bronze Age pottery.

Egyptian Influence on Pottery from Maskhuta

Egyptian influence on the Hyksos pottery corpus from Maskhuta is more limited than the Canaanite, but
it is still substantial. In terms of form, this influence includes wide mouth storage/water jars with
elongated rectangular and externally folded rims, beakers, ringstands, everted lip bowls, some of the
carinated and platter bowl varieties, and some of the jar types. In terms of manufacturing technique
(Arnold 1993), Egyptian characteristics include pare cutting or scraping, which occurs frequently on
beakers, ringstands and cup bases. Following Egyptian traditions, handles are rare in the corpus.
Comparison with Thirteenth Dynasty pottery from Dahshur (Arnold 1982) indicates a number of
similarities between the two pottery repertoires, particularly in the form types mentioned above.

Local Delta Developments in the Hyksos Pottery from Maskhuta

Local ceramic evolution also appears within the Hyksos ceramic corpus from Maskhuta. Thus, for
example, MBIIA red cross platter bowls, known from Canaan and also from Tell el-Dab'a, evolve into the
red star platter bowls found at Maskhuta. A characteristic flat bottomed cup form and variety of small jar
develop. Both handmade and holemouth cooking pots preserve their general Levantine form, but the
types current at Maskhuta exhibit subtle yet distinctive differences in shape and decoration from their
Syro-Palestinian prototypes. A more rigorous typological analysis, far beyond the scope of this review,
probably also would pinpoint additional local variants, particularly among the jar and bowl types.

Discussion

The selective use and amalgamation of Canaanite and Egyptian ceramic traits, along with the evolution
of local customs, reflect the development of a dynamic eastern Delta pottery tradition. The Hyksos
pottery from Maskhuta exhibits a combination of four basic elements: 1) a dominating but generalized
Middle Bronze Age Canaanite heritage; 2) occasional points of specific form contact with Syria and with
Palestine; 3) selected Egyptian ceramic traditions and forms; and 4) new, locally evolved ceramic
elements. I believe that the culture that produced this pottery probably belonged to at least a second
generation immigrant Asiatic population. Enough time has elapsed from the initial entry into Egypt
(represented by the earliest Hyksos phases that occur at Tell el-Dab'a, but not Tell el-Maskhuta) to
allow for the development of a characteristic eastern Delta, or "Hyksos," material culture. This material
culture is a composite of Canaanite and Egyptian traditions, with the former predominating, to which
locally developed traits have been added. Symbolic of the interaction between the two principal cultures
are the affiliations of the most basic domestic pottery: the cooking pots belong to Syria-Palestine and
the wide-mouth water jars are at home in Egypt.

Conclusions

It is time now to return full circle to the question of ethnicity with which this work began. While we can
state with some certainty that the ethnic affiliations of the Hyksos are Canaanite, we can go no further
at present. I have argued (Redmount 1989:265-70.) that we should see the Hyksos as the southernmost
extension of the cultural developments and population movements, poorly understood at present, that
led to the reurbanization of Palestine during the Middle Bronze Age IIA period (ca. 2000-1750 bce).
According to this interpretation, three cultural provinces, all branches of a common Canaanite tree,
developed as the Middle Bronze Age culture moved south. The Syrian cultural area emerged first, the
Palestinian second, the Egyptian last. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing whether, or to what
degree, such regional groupings of material culture should be identified with particular ethnic groups. I
have argued also that in the process of settlement and adaptation to a new land, a "Hyksos" culture,
representing the southernmost and latest of the three variants of Middle Bronze Age Canaanite
traditions, emerged in the eastern Delta. The development of this culture can at present be understood
most readily by reference to Hyksos pottery, but this pottery is merely one aspect of a larger corpus of
Hyksos data. The mature Hyksos material culture can be differentiated from the mature material
cultures associated with the other two major Canaanite cultural regions of the time. As a cultural
phenomenon, therefore, the Hyksos are peculiarly Egyptian, and there is every reason to question
whether the term has any useful meaning in Syro-Palestinian Middle Bronze Age contexts.

The study of Hyksos material culture in the eastern Delta is still in its infancy. Extensive Asiatic
remains in the area were discovered only comparatively recently, and the full implications of these finds
are still imperfectly understood. As with most ground breaking archaeological discoveries, the early
stages of investigation and analysis have produced apparent contradictions and inconsistencies. There
are problems with the evidence, as well as differing interpretations. Further excavation and research,
additional discoveries, and the progressive accumulation of data from a wide variety of sources should
help resolve many of the issues in the future and may also shed additional light on more specific
questions of ethnicity, ethnic affiliations, and ethnic groupings as these relate to the Hyksos.

Notes

(1) See e.g., Gardiner 1916, Gunn and Gardiner 1918; Save-Soderbergh 1951; Von Beckerath 1964; Alt
1961; Van Seters 1966; Helck 1971; Redford 1970, 1992; Habachi 1972; Bietak 1980, 1994; Giveon
1983.

(2) Bietak 1991:25; 1992:29; for details on the Dab'a finds see, Bietak 1979, 1980, 1983, 1985, 1987,
1989, 1991, 1994; for absolute dating-a topic of some controversy-see Bietak 1984, 1991, 1992; Dever
1985, 1991, 1992; Weinstein 1992.

Bibliography

Alt, A.
1961 Die Herkunft der Hyksos in Neuer Sicht Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Arnold, D.
1982 Keramikbearbeitung in Dahschur 1976-1981. Mitteilungen des Deutschen ArchŠologischen
Instituts Abteilung Kairo 38:25-65.

1993 Techniques and Traditions of Manufacture in the Pottery of Ancient Egypt. Pp. 7-102 in An
Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery, edited by D. Arnold and J. Bourriau. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp
Von Zabern.

von Beckerath, J.
1964 Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte der Zweiten Zwischenzeit in €gypten. €gyptologische
Forschungen 23. Gluckstadt: J. J. Augustin.

Bienkowski, P.
1989 The Division of Middle Bronze IIB-C in Palestine. Levant 21:169-179.

Bietak, M.
1968 VorlŠufiger Bericht Ÿber die erste und zweite Kampagne der ˜sterreichischen Ausgrabungen auf
Tell Ed-Dab'a im Ostdelta €gyptens (1966, 1967). Mitteilungen des Deutschen ArchŠologischen
Instituts Abteilung Kairo 23:79-114.

1970 VorlŠufiger Bericht Ÿber die dritte Kampagne der šsterreichischen Ausgrabungen auf Tell ed Dab'a
im Ostdelta €gyptens. Mitteilungen des Deutschen ArchŠologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 26:15-41.

1975 Tell el-Dab'a II. Wien: Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1979 Avaris and
Piramesse:Archaeological Exploration in the Eastern Nile Delta Proceedings of the British Academy
LXV. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

1980 Hyksos. Pp. 93-103 in Lexikon der€gyptologie III, edited by Wolfgang Helck. Weisbaden: Otto
Harrowitz.

1983 Some News About Trade and Trade Warfare in Egypt and the Ancient Near East. Marhaba
3:41-43.

1984 Problems of Middle Bronze Age Chronology: New Evidence from Egypt. American Joumal of
Archaeology 88:471-88.

1985a Eine Palastanlage aus der Zeit des spŠten Mittleren Reichs und andere Forschungsergebnisse
aus dem šstlichen Nil delta (Tell el-Dab'a 1979-1984). Sonder. Anzeiger der Philosophisch-historischen
Klasse …sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 121:312-49.

1985b Tell ed-Dab'a. Pp. 321 -23 in Lexikon der €gyptologie Vl, edited by Wolfgang Helck. Weisbaden:
Otto Harrowitz.

1985c Tell el-Jahudija-Keramik. Pp. 335-48 in Lexikon der €gyptologie Vl, edited by Wolfgang Helck.
Weisbaden: Otto Harrowitz.

1985d ArchŠologischer Befund und historische Interpretation am Beispiel der Tell el-Yahudiya-Ware.
Pp. 7-34 in Akten des vierten intemationalen €gyptologen Kongresses Munchen 1985, edited by S.
Schoske. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.

1987 Canaanites in the Eastern Nile Delta. Pp. 41-56 in Egypt, Israel, Sinai, edited by A. F. Rainey.
Jerusalem: Tel Aviv University Press.

1989 Servant Burials in the Middle Bronze Age Culture of the Eastern Nile Delta. Eretz Israel 20:30-43.

1991a Egypt and Canaan During the Middle Bronze Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Onental
Research 281:27-72.

1991b Tell el-Dab'a V: Ein Friedhofsbezirk der mittleren Bronzezeitkultur mit Totentempel und
Seidlungsschichten. Teil 1. Wien: …sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

1992 Die Chronologie €gyptens und der Beginn der Mittleren Bronzezeit-Kultur. Pp.29-37 in €gypten
und Levante III, edited by M. Bietak. Wien: …sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

1994 Historische und archaologische Einfuhrung. Pp. 17-58 in Pharaonen und Fremde: Dynastien im
Dunkel. Wien: Museen der Stadt Wien.

Dever, W. G.
1985 Relations Between Syria-Palestine and Egypt in the 'Hyksos' Period. Pp. 69-87 in Palestine in the
Bronze and Iron Ages, edited by J. N. Tubb. Oiga Tufnell Festschrift. London: Institute of Archaeology.

1991 Tell el-Dab'a and Levantine Middle Bronze Age Chronology: A Rejoinder to Manfred Bietak. Bulletin
of the American Schools of Oriental Research 281:73-79.

1992a The Chronology of Syria-Palestine in the Second Millennium B.C.E: A Review of Current Issues.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 288:1-25.

1992b The Chronolgy of Syria-Palestine in the Second Millennium B.C. Pp. 39-51 in €gypten und
Levante III, edited by M. Bietak. Wien: …sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Gardiner, A. H.
1916 The Defeat of the Hyksos by Kamose: The Carnarvon Table, No.l. Joumal of Egyptian Archaeology
3:95-110.

Giveon, R.
1983 The Hyksos in the South. Pp. 155-161 in Fontes atque Pontes. Helmut Brunner Festschrift.
Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Gunn, B. and Gardiner, A. H.
1918 New Renderings of Egyptian Texts. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 5:36-56.

Habachi, L.
1972 The Second Stela of Kamose. Abhandlungen des Deutschen ArchŠologischen Instituts Kairo 8.
GlŸckstadt: J. J. Augustin.

Helck, W.
1971 Die Beziehungen €gyptens zur Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz.

Holladay, J. S., Jr.
1982 Tell el-Maskhuta. Cities of the Delta Part III, American Research Center in Egypt Reports Volume
6. Malibu: Undena Publications.

Kaplan, M.F.
1980 The Origin and Distribution of Tell el- Yahudiyeh Ware. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 62.
Goteborg: Paul Astroms.

Kemp, B. J.
1983 Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period c. 2681--1552 BC. Pp. 71-182 in
Ancient Egypt: A Social History, edited by B. G. Trigger et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kempinski, A.
1983 Syrien und Palastina (Kanaan) in der letzten Phase der Mittelbronze IIB-Zeit (1650-1570) v. Chr.
Agypten und altes Testament 4. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

MacDonald, B.
1980 Excavations at Tell el-Maskhuta. Biblical Archaeologist 43:49-58.

Merrillees, R. S.
1968 The Cypriote Bronze Age Pottery Found in Egypt. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 18.
Lund: Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology.

Nordstrom, H.-A. and Bourriau, J.
1993 Ceramic Technology: Clays and Fabrics. Pp. 143-190 in An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian
Pottery, edited by D. Arnold and J. Bourriau. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp Von Zabern.

Petrie, W. M. F.
1906 Hyksos and Israelite Cities. British School of Archaeology in Egypt Publications 12. London:
Bernard Quaritch.

Redford, D. B.
1970 The Hyksos in History and Tradition. Orientalia 39:1-52.

1992 Egypt, Canaan, and lsrael in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Redmount, C. A.
1989 On an Egyptian/Asiatic Frontier: An Archaeological History of the Wadi Tumilat. Ph.D. Diss,
University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.

Rice, P. M.
1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Save-Soderbergh, T.
1951 The Hyksos Rule in Egypt. Joumal of Egyptian Archaeology 37:53-71.

1956 The Nubian Kingdom of the Second Intermediate Period. Kush 4:54-61.

Shennan, S., ed.
1989 Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity. London: Unwin Hyman.

Tufnell, O.
1978 Graves at Tell el-Yehudiyeh: Reviewed after a Lifetime. Pp. 76-100 in Archaeology in the Levant:
Essays for Kathleen Kenyon, edited by P. R. S. Moorey and P. J. Parr. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.

Van den Brink, E. C. M.
1982 Tombs and Burial Customs at Tell el-Dab'a. Veršffentlichungen der Institute fŸr Afrikanistik und
€gyptologie der UniversitŠt Wien Nr. 23. Vienna: …sterreichischen Archaologischen Institutes.

1987 A Geo-archaeological Survey in the North-eastern Nile Delta, Egypt: the First Two Seasons, a
Preliminary Report. Mitteilungen des Deutschen ArchŠlogischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 43:7-31.

Van Seters, J.
1966 The Hyksos: A New Investigation. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Weinstein, J. M.
1992 The Chronology of Palestine in the Early Second Millennium B.C.E. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 288:27-46.

Not a bad bibliography

steve

[Henry Hillbrath]

whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:

[snip]

>I am curious how a seventy mile crater blown through several
>different geological sequences can be typified as one particular
>kind of tephera with a distinctive "fingerprint"

Thera, if that is what you are talking about, is closer to 7 miles
across, than seventy.

>First of all, sulpher deposits are often the result of airborne
>sedimentation from the regions large petrochemical deposits,
>having little or nothing to do with the unassociated vulcanism.

That statement makes no sense to me, at all. "petrochemical?"
"unassociated vulcanism?"

>Igneous formations are often intrusive of other formations
>including sedimentary and metamorphic structures.

>For example, igneous Qtb formations refered to as Basalt flows,
>often include cinder cones, dikes and necks along with some
>rhyolite and andesite flows and tuffs.

>Thats a range of material right there from cinder to glass to
>sponge like tufts.

>It produces gravel, sand and cinders, volcanic ash, and clay,
>sometimes mixed with limestone, gypsum and salt from the
>sedimentary layers the igneous layers exploded through.

>Tv material including andesite, rhyolite latite and dacite flows,
>welded tuff and tuffs mixed in with quaternary flows of Tvb
>material, dark andesite, basaltic andesite and basalt is common.

>The mafic and ultra mafic rocks often include deposits of gold
>where intrusive igneous cones penetrate the underlying granite
>such as at the wadi ham ma'at in Egypt.

>Lv rhyolite, andesite, and latite flows, welded tuffs and tuffs
>are sometimes mixed with intrusive ignious Li rocks consisting
>mainly of granite and monzonite which are usually porphoritic.

>This is due to structural activity including uplift, large scale
>thrust and normal faulting mixed with igneous intrusion and volcanism
>penetrating the ongoing regional folding

>These formations often are rich in copper, lead and zinc.

>Mv formations of Rhyolite to andesite of Mezozoic age penetrated
>by intrusive igneous Mi formations mixed with metamorphic rocks
>gneiss, schist, some mixed sandstone and limestone containing
>some uranium also appear throughout the region.

>Bottom line, a region seventy miles across could contain thirty
>or forty distinct structures in various concentrations. Each of
>these would produce tephera of a different composition.

Well, it is obvious that you have been ingesting a lot of data on
volcanos, but, have not yet digested it.

It is quite true that there are a lot of different rocks in Thera, or any
large volcano. And, different volcanos, and different eruptions of the
same volcano, even the same eruption of the same volcano at different
stages of the eruption, produce different kinds of "ash." (Volcanic ash,
of course, has nothing to do with "wood ash" or "cigar ash." And, it has
a size range associated with it. "Tephra" is a more general term, which
includes all size ranges, and doesn't have the "baggage" of the term
"ash," so it is the one I prefer to use.)

Volcanic eruptions come in all flavors. But, in the eruption of Thera,
and a lot of other volcanos, there are stages when they sit happily
spewing out ash which is not a mixture of all the stuff in the region,
but, has a composition determined by the contents of the "magma chamber."
This tephra, or ash, represents a large part of the volume of the
material ejected. Much of this tephra is particulate, and much of it is
of very small size.

In a cataclysmic explosion, as befell Thera, a lot of stuff gets thrown
into the atmosphere, in all size ranges. A rock the size of a house, or
your head, or your fist, may go up a long way, but, it follows a
ballistic trajectory, and it come down a few miles, or tens of miles, from
the eruption. But, the "fines" are greatly affected by atmospheric drag,
and they may not settle out for days, or weeks, and the particles can
travel for hundreds, thousand and tens of thousands, of miles.

Sea bottom cores, taken at various distances from Thera, or other
eruptions, start out with a assortment of junk in them, but, a few miles away,
they come to be dominated by a particular size particle, and, many of
those particles have very similar composition. The typical tephra fines
(20 to 40 micrometers) from Thera is volcanic glass, not sulfur, sedimentary
rock, and all that other stuff. And, the glass has a distinctive
composition, index of refraction, etc. It is this component of the tephra
that it "fingerprinted."

Of course, there is a lot of tephra that constructed a layer in the cone
of the part of Thera that remains. And, some tephra didn't sink
immedediately on contact with the sea surface, and formed rafts that floated
about for a time, before sinking, or being washed ashore, perhaps by a
tsunami from the eruption. This stuff has a assortment of things in it, but,
if the fines are sifted out, there are many of the "fingerprint"
particles found also.

Bottom line is that volcanos, and tephrachronology, are complex fields.
Not as complex as the creation of languages, but, complex. And, there are
people that have spent a long time studying them. One should pause for a
moment or two to see what they have to say, before rejecting their
conclusions based on a few enclyclopedia articles.

Henry Hillbrath

[August Matthusen]

In <4v4f2c$c...@shore.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
writes:

>Hi August,

>
>I am curious how a seventy mile crater blown through several
>different geological sequences can be typified as one particular
>kind of tephera with a distinctive "fingerprint"

The crater isn't just a hole. It is also a conduit for the magma being
erupted. These erupted materials will leave deposits which are thicker
close to the volcano and thin away from it. Stratigraphic methods can
lso be used to differentiate eruptions. The tephras will have similar
chemistries wherever they are found and will also be similar to
rhyolites of tuffs deposited from the eruption.

>First of all, sulpher deposits are often the result of airborne
>sedimentation from the regions large petrochemical deposits,
>having little or nothing to do with the unassociated vulcanism.

When I saw the quote from Kuniholm, I was puzzled by his use of the
word "petrochemical" because, like you above, I associate its use with
oil and petroleum products. It appears Kuniholm is using it to mean
rock geochemistry. The study of rocks is called petrology from
"petros" for rock. So the way I interpret Kuniholm's "petrochmical" is
"rock geochemistry".

>Igneous formations are often intrusive of other formations
>including sedimentary and metamorphic structures.

Yes, but igneous *intrusive* rocks are not erupted (extrusive rocks)
and can be differentiated from extrusives based on crystal size.

Steve, from where did you get this info? It appears to be large-scale
map unit descriptions or strat column descriptions where they break up
strata into units (Qtb = Quaternary tuffs and basalts; Mv = Mesozoic
volcanics; etc.). This is not decribing a specific rock or tephra;
it's describing a group of rocks lumped together for mapping purposes.

>Bottom line, a region seventy miles across could contain thirty
>or forty distinct structures in various concentrations. Each of
>these would produce tephera of a different composition.

Yes, silicic volcanism can produce caldera which cover large areas and
are the site of multiple eruptive events over time. Examples are
Yellowstone caldera, Southwest Nevada volcanic field, and the Jemez
volcanic field by Los Alamos in New Mexico. In each case the multiple
eruptive events have been studied, dated, identified based on the
eruptive products (rhyolite, tuff, tephra), and the volcanic history
understood.

Regards,
August Matthusen

[Henry Hillbrath]

matt...@ix.netcom.com(August Matthusen) writes:

>In <4v4f2c$c...@shore.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
>writes:

>>Hi August,
>>
>>I am curious how a seventy mile crater blown through several
>>different geological sequences can be typified as one particular
>>kind of tephera with a distinctive "fingerprint"

>The crater isn't just a hole. It is also a conduit for the magma being
>erupted. These erupted materials will leave deposits which are thicker
>close to the volcano and thin away from it. Stratigraphic methods can
>lso be used to differentiate eruptions. The tephras will have similar
>chemistries wherever they are found and will also be similar to
>rhyolites of tuffs deposited from the eruption.

>>First of all, sulpher deposits are often the result of airborne
>>sedimentation from the regions large petrochemical deposits,
>>having little or nothing to do with the unassociated vulcanism.

>When I saw the quote from Kuniholm, I was puzzled by his use of the
>word "petrochemical" because, like you above, I associate its use with
>oil and petroleum products. It appears Kuniholm is using it to mean
>rock geochemistry. The study of rocks is called petrology from
>"petros" for rock. So the way I interpret Kuniholm's "petrochmical" is
>"rock geochemistry".

Whoa!!!

I don't know where this started. Was it *moi* who quoted Kuniholm on
this?

If so, I am going to blame my spell checker, for making a correction with
out asking me.

I cannot find anything in Kuniholm's paper that says anything but
"petrological." It is a bit confusing. "petro"="stone." "petroleum"="oil
from stones." But when I see "petrochemical," nothing in my mind says
"chemistry of rocks."

And, Kuniholm didn't say anything about oil, or oil chemistry.

Henry Hillbrath

[Steve Whittet]

In article <4up6f6$a...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, matt...@ix.netcom.co
says...

>
>In <321018...@adnc.com> Chris Bennett <cben...@adnc.com> writes:
>

>>Not quite, he also quoted results that he felt had been unjustly
>>discarded which agreed with his dates. OTOH one can say that
>>statements like "Arguments against Thera's candidacy .. based on
>>petrochemical evidence suggesting that its SO2 production was too
>>small to account for .... the large H2SO4 peaks.... can now be
>>dismissed because it is clear that petrochemical analysis seriously
>>underestimates SO2 emissions" [Kuniholm] sound more than a little
>>arm-wavey to me -- we can't prove Thera generated enough SO2 therefore
>>we'll assume that it did????
>

>I don't think that's what they are saying there. What I get out of the
>quoted material is: They seem to be arguing against some previous
>negative evidence. It appears that the rock chemistry was being used
>to provide estimates of SO2 and these estimates indicated Thera could
>not have produced enough SO2 for the H2SO4 spike observed in the ice

>cores. Recent work on correlating rock chemistry to SO2 output

>apparently indicates that the previous estimates for Thera were too
>small. Unless he really has no basis to discard the previous estimates
>(does he cite some recent work or just indicate the initial estimates
>were off?) then he appears to have a valid argument.
>

>Regards,
>August Matthusen

Hi August,

I am curious how a seventy mile crater blown through several
different geological sequences can be typified as one particular
kind of tephera with a distinctive "fingerprint"

First of all, sulpher deposits are often the result of airborne

sedimentation from the regions large petrochemical deposits,
having little or nothing to do with the unassociated vulcanism.

Igneous formations are often intrusive of other formations

including sedimentary and metamorphic structures.

For example, igneous Qtb formations refered to as Basalt flows,

Bottom line, a region seventy miles across could contain thirty

or forty distinct structures in various concentrations. Each of
these would produce tephera of a different composition.

steve

[Henry Hillbrath]

matt...@ix.netcom.com(August Matthusen) writes:

>In <sourisDw...@netcom.com> sou...@netcom.com (Henry Hillbrath)
>writes:
>[snip]

>>Whoa!!!
>>
>>I don't know where this started. Was it *moi* who quoted Kuniholm on
>>this?

>No, see one of Chris's posts quoted below..

Ah, Ha!!!

We caught the guilty scoundrel. No punishment to severe for him!

:>)

Now, if it *had* been *moi...*

Just kidding Chris, I am sure that there are lots of those errors in the
stuff I retyped.

>>
>>If so, I am going to blame my spell checker, for making a correction
>>with out asking me.

I think that we should assume that is what it was. You only have to get
just one little letter wrong, and, with the wonders of modern life, a
minor, obvious error, by one click at the wrong time, becomes a whole new
word. I have nightmares about that!

(pssst... Chris. You can claim that, no matter what the cause was. hh)

>> >>I cannot find anything in Kuniholm's
paper that says
anything but >>"petrological." It is a bit confusing. "petro"="stone."
>>"petroleum"="oil from stones." But when I see "petrochemical,"
>>nothing in my mind says "chemistry of rocks."

>Neither does mine, usually, but when I saw the post quoted below, that
>was the only meaning that seemed to make sense.

>>And, Kuniholm didn't say anything about oil, or oil chemistry.

>No, it wasn't from one of your posts. One of Chris Bennett's had the
>following in it:

>[begin quote]
>Subject: Re: Tree Rings, Egyptian Dates, and Thera
>From: Chris Bennett <cben...@adnc.com>
>Date: 1996/08/12
>Message-Id: <321018...@adnc.com>
>To: sou...@netcom.com
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-Ascii
>Organization: adnc.com
>X-Url:
>http://xp3.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=%3csourisD...@netcom.com
>3e&search=thread&threaded=1&NTL=1&server=dnserver.db96q3&CONTEXT=839906
>49.22051&hitnum=23
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Reply-To: cben...@adnc.com
>Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Macintosh; I; 68K)

>[snip]

>Not quite, he also quoted results that he felt had been unjustly
>discarded which agreed with his dates. OTOH one can say that
>statements like "Arguments against Thera's candidacy .. based on
>petrochemical evidence suggesting that its SO2 production was too small

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"petrological"

>to account for .... the large H2SO4 peaks.... can now be dismissed
>because it is clear that petrochemical analysis seriously

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"petrological"

>underestimates SO2 emissions" [Kuniholm] sound more than a little
>arm-wavey to me -- we can't prove Thera generated enough SO2 therefore
>we'll assume that it did????

>[snip]
>[end quote]

>Is the use of the word petrochemical a typo for petrological?

Yes, exactly. And, I was totally incapable of catching that, as I had
already read the original, and so just skipped right over Chris' message.

> I still
>haven't been able to get Kuniholm's paper as the library has sent those
>copies of _Nature_ off for binding.

Darn archaic paper stuff.

My closest library that has it routes the darn thing, so that no one can
see it very quickly, except the guy at the head of the routing list! He
probably is seldom interested.

Nature does have a web site, but, they only have abstracts of the
"Letters." I think they have full text of some of the review articles.

Henry Hillbrath

[Steve Whittet]

In article <sourisDw...@netcom.com>, sou...@netcom.com says...
>

>matt...@ix.netcom.com(August Matthusen) writes:
>
>>In <4v4f2c$c...@shore.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
>>writes:
>

>>>Hi August,
>>>
>>>I am curious how a seventy mile crater blown through several
>>>different geological sequences can be typified as one particular
>>>kind of tephera with a distinctive "fingerprint"
>

>>The crater isn't just a hole. It is also a conduit for the magma being
>>erupted. These erupted materials will leave deposits which are thicker
>>close to the volcano and thin away from it. Stratigraphic methods can
>>lso be used to differentiate eruptions. The tephras will have similar
>>chemistries wherever they are found and will also be similar to
>>rhyolites of tuffs deposited from the eruption.
>

>>>First of all, sulpher deposits are often the result of airborne
>>>sedimentation from the regions large petrochemical deposits,
>>>having little or nothing to do with the unassociated vulcanism.
>

>>When I saw the quote from Kuniholm, I was puzzled by his use of the
>>word "petrochemical" because, like you above, I associate its use with
>>oil and petroleum products. It appears Kuniholm is using it to mean
>>rock geochemistry. The study of rocks is called petrology from
>>"petros" for rock. So the way I interpret Kuniholm's "petrochmical" is
>>"rock geochemistry".
>

>Whoa!!!
>
>I don't know where this started. Was it *moi* who quoted Kuniholm on
>this?
>

>If so, I am going to blame my spell checker, for making a correction with
>out asking me.
>

>I cannot find anything in Kuniholm's paper that says anything but
>"petrological." It is a bit confusing. "petro"="stone." "petroleum"="oil
>from stones." But when I see "petrochemical," nothing in my mind says
>"chemistry of rocks."
>

>And, Kuniholm didn't say anything about oil, or oil chemistry.

You are correct that "Kuniholm didn't say anything about oil, or oil
chemistry."

The term petrochemical in the context August describes it
was in something posted by Chris, it had nothing to do with
any information you provided Henry.

Actually I was not refering to what Kuniholm had said,
regardless of whether or not it was properly cited,
when I made my statement.

We are getting our information from a wide range of sources.
I posted an extensive bibliography which touches on some of them.
My interest goes back a few years and I have had time to collect
my own information.

Specifically, I have seen the high sulphur airbone sedimentation
from petrochemical deposits covering vast tracts of land to a
considerable depth in areas subject to vulcanism near Egypt.

The fields are so rich in natural gas that it vents carrying
with it a good deal of sulpher. Tibesti, for example, would
recieve deposits from Libya, Tunesia and Algeria.

My thought was that a large scale eruption would blow a wide
range of material into the air. If it happens to blow under
a sulpher deposit you would get a lot of sulfer in the mix.

While these materials are reasonably well understood in situ,
on the ground, once you blow them up into the stratosphere,
where they are likely to get some contamination from other
materials in the explosion, their composition may change.

The airborn particles from an eruption are often microscopically
fine and sometimes recombine with other materials traveling
in the tephra cloud with them.

A second issue was that pumice, which seems to be a part of
the material collected at Tell el-dab, was used for its
abrasive properties.

Since it is described as rounded and water placed it
doesn't appear the tephera is in a pattern consistent
with airborn depositation.

In other words it is apparently mixed with other non volcanic
materials, shows signs of having been worn down and might
well have been imported from somewhere else...

>Henry Hillbrath

steve

[August Matthusen]

In <sourisDw...@netcom.com> sou...@netcom.com (Henry Hillbrath)
writes:
[snip]

>Whoa!!!
>
>I don't know where this started. Was it *moi* who quoted Kuniholm on
>this?

No, see one of Chris's posts quoted below..

>

>If so, I am going to blame my spell checker, for making a correction
>with out asking me.
>
>I cannot find anything in Kuniholm's paper that says anything but
>"petrological." It is a bit confusing. "petro"="stone."
>"petroleum"="oil from stones." But when I see "petrochemical,"
>nothing in my mind says "chemistry of rocks."

Neither does mine, usually, but when I saw the post quoted below, that

was the only meaning that seemed to make sense.

>And, Kuniholm didn't say anything about oil, or oil chemistry.

No, it wasn't from one of your posts. One of Chris Bennett's had the
following in it:

[begin quote]
Subject: Re: Tree Rings, Egyptian Dates, and Thera
From: Chris Bennett <cben...@adnc.com>
Date: 1996/08/12
Message-Id: <321018...@adnc.com>
To: sou...@netcom.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-Ascii
Organization: adnc.com
X-Url:
http://xp3.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=%3csourisD...@netcom.com
3e&search=thread&threaded=1&NTL=1&server=dnserver.db96q3&CONTEXT=839906
49.22051&hitnum=23
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: cben...@adnc.com
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Macintosh; I; 68K)

[snip]

Not quite, he also quoted results that he felt had been unjustly
discarded which agreed with his dates. OTOH one can say that
statements like "Arguments against Thera's candidacy .. based on
petrochemical evidence suggesting that its SO2 production was too small
to account for .... the large H2SO4 peaks.... can now be dismissed
because it is clear that petrochemical analysis seriously
underestimates SO2 emissions" [Kuniholm] sound more than a little
arm-wavey to me -- we can't prove Thera generated enough SO2 therefore
we'll assume that it did????

[snip]
[end quote]

Is the use of the word petrochemical a typo for petrological? I still

haven't been able to get Kuniholm's paper as the library has sent those
copies of _Nature_ off for binding.

Regards,
August Matthusen

[August Matthusen]

In <sourisDw...@netcom.com> sou...@netcom.com (Henry Hillbrath)
writes:

[summation: "petrological" for "petrochemical"]

Thanks for the clarification; it makes more sense now. Dang
spell-checkers anyway. I had a friend, who when you ran her name
through a spell checker, it came out as "One Curvaceous". I never
could bring myself to correct the spell checker so that it didn't do
that.

Regards,
August Matthusen

[Henry Hillbrath]

matt...@ix.netcom.com(August Matthusen) writes:

>In <4v703l$2...@shore.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
>writes:
>

[snip]

>Tephra is highly silicic, once it hits the atmosphere and cools into
>glassy shards it's going to be very chemically inert to incorporation
>of other materials.

" tephara ... all solid particles emitted by a volcano during an eruption.

"Tephra particles range in size from extremely fine ash with
approximately the consistence of confectioner's sugar to large pieces
several feet in diameter."

"Tephra comes in various forms, including bombs, masses of fluid magma
that solidify in flight, and lapilli, gravel-like-bits of lava."

"Almost all volcanoes release tephra when erupting, although some
eruption produce far more than others."

That is from David Ritchie, Encyclopedia of Earthquakes and Volcanos.

Note that it is even more than just all the solid stuff that comes out,
it is even the liquid stuff that solidifies before it lands.

That is the sense that I use the term "tephra" in. What you have
described is a typical sort tephra.

[snip]

>Yeah, I was a bit confused by David's info. I haven't seen Bietak's
>paper (library doesn't have it). I had originally thought that a layer
>of tephra had been found by Bietak, but now it's described as pumice
>apparently in a workman's area. Pumice is a rock which consists of
>tiny air bubbles surrounded by the cooled silicic glass. When these
>bubbles burst before or during cooling you get the tiny tephra
>particles (sand grain size to microscopic). When these bubbles weld
>together during the erption into a frothy mass you get pumice: a very
>light rock which will float (because it's mostly surrounded pores) and
>which, as you note, is valued as an abrasive (good old silicic-rich
>glass; Moh's hardness about 6-7).

What you describe is the strict definition of pumice. But, I wouldn't
bank too much on anyone but a mineraloligist description to be sure that
is what was found.

The tephra from Thera formed rafts. That is known from many deposits
found in various locations. Just why it did that, I don't know. A lump of
the glass the size of ones fist would sink like a rock. But, apparently,
there was other other stuff, or the fine glass stuck together with
entrapped air.

Thera glass makes perfectly good abrasive, even if it isn't pumice. And,
it makes good concrete, too. And lots of it was mined, and there is lots
of it in Egypt, used for construction on the Suez Canal.

> I don't think there is any
>indication of mixing with other materials during or after eruption from
>what David wrote.
>
>I don't remember where I saw it but someone had suggested that huge
>blocks of floating pumice from the eruption of Thera were also
>partially responsible for disrupting shippping in the Med after Thera.
>These probably did result from the erption and it would make sense that
>some would wash up at Egypt and that the Egyptians would gather it for
>use as an abrasive. Possibly even traveling to collect or mine the
>pumice. Using a block as an abrasive would round the block but not the
>grains. This would make the use of the Theran eruption as a dating
>tool for Tell el-dab a bit more problematic as the pumice could be
>collected and used for quite some time after the eruption whereas if
>the tephra layer had been found stratigraphically in situ it would
>provide a discrete time horizon.

Right on. But, weathering, and maybe water immersion, could round
individual grains.

Henry Hillbrath

[August Matthusen]

In <4v703l$2...@shore.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
writes:

[snip]

>We are getting our information from a wide range of sources.

>I posted an extensive bibliography which touches on some of them.
>My interest goes back a few years and I have had time to collect
>my own information.
>
>Specifically, I have seen the high sulphur airbone sedimentation
>from petrochemical deposits covering vast tracts of land to a
>considerable depth in areas subject to vulcanism near Egypt.
>
>The fields are so rich in natural gas that it vents carrying
>with it a good deal of sulpher. Tibesti, for example, would
>recieve deposits from Libya, Tunesia and Algeria.
>
>My thought was that a large scale eruption would blow a wide
>range of material into the air. If it happens to blow under
>a sulpher deposit you would get a lot of sulfer in the mix.

The amount of magma coming from the magma chamber is much greater than
the size of the conduit. Usually the magma is not hot enough to melt
wall rock from the conduit, rather the wall rock is incorporated as
xenoliths (foreign rocks) into the cooled lava. If sulpher were along
the the pathway, it is possible the minor amounts intersected by the
eruption could be incorporated into the eruption but it would probably
be exsolved in the eruption as a gas.

>While these materials are reasonably well understood in situ,
>on the ground, once you blow them up into the stratosphere,
>where they are likely to get some contamination from other
>materials in the explosion, their composition may change.
>
>The airborn particles from an eruption are often microscopically
>fine and sometimes recombine with other materials traveling
>in the tephra cloud with them.

Tephra is highly silicic, once it hits the atmosphere and cools into

glassy shards it's going to be very chemically inert to incorporation
of other materials.

>A second issue was that pumice, which seems to be a part of

>the material collected at Tell el-dab, was used for its
>abrasive properties.

>Since it is described as rounded and water placed it
>doesn't appear the tephera is in a pattern consistent
>with airborn depositation.
>
>In other words it is apparently mixed with other non volcanic
>materials, shows signs of having been worn down and might
>well have been imported from somewhere else...

Yeah, I was a bit confused by David's info. I haven't seen Bietak's

paper (library doesn't have it). I had originally thought that a layer
of tephra had been found by Bietak, but now it's described as pumice
apparently in a workman's area. Pumice is a rock which consists of
tiny air bubbles surrounded by the cooled silicic glass. When these
bubbles burst before or during cooling you get the tiny tephra
particles (sand grain size to microscopic). When these bubbles weld
together during the erption into a frothy mass you get pumice: a very
light rock which will float (because it's mostly surrounded pores) and
which, as you note, is valued as an abrasive (good old silicic-rich

glass; Moh's hardness about 6-7). I don't think there is any

indication of mixing with other materials during or after eruption from
what David wrote.

I don't remember where I saw it but someone had suggested that huge
blocks of floating pumice from the eruption of Thera were also
partially responsible for disrupting shippping in the Med after Thera.
These probably did result from the erption and it would make sense that
some would wash up at Egypt and that the Egyptians would gather it for
use as an abrasive. Possibly even traveling to collect or mine the
pumice. Using a block as an abrasive would round the block but not the
grains. This would make the use of the Theran eruption as a dating
tool for Tell el-dab a bit more problematic as the pumice could be
collected and used for quite some time after the eruption whereas if
the tephra layer had been found stratigraphically in situ it would
provide a discrete time horizon.

Regards,
August Matthusen

[Henry Hillbrath]

whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:

>In article <sourisDw...@netcom.com>, sou...@netcom.com says...
>>
>>matt...@ix.netcom.com(August Matthusen) writes:
>>
>>>In <4v4f2c$c...@shore.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
>>>writes:

>In article <sourisDw...@netcom.com>, sou...@netcom.com says...
>>
>>matt...@ix.netcom.com(August Matthusen) writes:
>>

>>>In <4v4f2c$c...@shore.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
>>>writes:
>>
[snip]
>

>My thought was that a large scale eruption would blow a wide
>range of material into the air.

That is true. But, by actual examination of sea bottom cores, a few
miles away from Thera, out to a couple of hundred miles, there is a
layer of uniform composition and varying thickness. A large part of
that layer are volcanic glass shards of 20 to 60 micrometers. (you
can check Sparks, et al, Mar. Geol. 54, 131-167 (1984) on that).
These tiny "microshards" are the "fingerprints" I was talking about.

Tephrachronology has been around for a while, but, the ability to
find, and identify, these "microshards" is only about a decade old,
and has only begun to be applied.

>If it happens to blow under
>a sulpher deposit you would get a lot of sulfer in the mix.
>

Sulfur (as SO2) is also a constituent of the magma gases. How much
is dependent on what kind of rocks went into making up the magma.

There may be some confusion here, as, until very recently, what the
ice cap guys have been looking at is SO4 ion in the ice, which is
precipitated with the snow. That is quite different from what they
are doing now, which is to detect microshards.

>While these materials are reasonably well understood in situ,
>on the ground, once you blow them up into the stratosphere,
>where they are likely to get some contamination from other
>materials in the explosion, their composition may change.
>

The SO2 is changed, but in a "reasonably well understood" way. It
gets oxidized, and absorbs water, to become sulfuric acid, which is
eventually trapped in rain or snow.

Glass shards are not much affected by floating around in the
atmosphere for a while.

>The airborn particles from an eruption are often microscopically
>fine and sometimes recombine with other materials traveling
>in the tephra cloud with them.
>

I am not aware of this. Can you provide any information on this?
Recombine with what other materials? Fine particles may react
with oxygen, water, or even SO2/3, but, they are not very likely
to react with each other while they are in a cloud!

>A second issue was that pumice, which seems to be a part of
>the material collected at Tell el-dab, was used for its
>abrasive properties.
>
>Since it is described as rounded and water placed it

>doesn't appear the tephra is in a pattern consistent

>with airborn depositation.
>
>In other words it is apparently mixed with other non volcanic
>materials, shows signs of having been worn down and might
>well have been imported from somewhere else...

I suppose that if Bietak ever gets around to reporting on this, we
may have some understanding of what he found. But, yes, I agree with
you that the description of this particular find is not too
interesting. The tephra could be almost any age. At most, it
provides a very loose "prior to" date which weakly supports all the
other evidence for the date of the Thera eruption, which is now
accepted by most workers as being the "1628" event.

To be of maximum value for archaeological dating purposes, it is
necessary to find the microshards in situ, in soil that has not been
disturbed (and, with an archaeological context, of course). This is
very difficult to do. It requires a lot of expertise, and a lot of
work. Probably nothing like this has been found in an archaeological
context in Egypt, yet. But, the microshards are in there, somewhere.
And, someone will find them , eventually.

In the mean time, there is a lot going on. Interlocking work on
tephra, tree rings, C14 as well as other techniques (including pots,
which have their uses, once they have been calibrated.) In special
(non archaeological) contexts, the study of microshards has already
provided strong support for the date of the Thera eruption, and for
Kuniholm's dendro sequence. And, both Renfrew and Kuniholm expect
microshards to be found in Greenland ice, and, apparently, they
think it will be soon. Jointly, these techniques have produced
Kuniholm's dendrochronological sequence that can be used for
absolute dating in Egypt, and the rest of the Aegean and near
eastern area.. Very few dates have yet been tied to the sequence,
but, that will happen, too. And probably very soon.

You don't seem to be too happy about this, but, you have not
articulated your objection so that I (or anyone else, AFAIK) can
figure out how to address your concern.

Henry Hillbrath

[Stella Nemeth]

matt...@ix.netcom.com(August Matthusen) wrote:

>... I don't think there is any

>indication of mixing with other materials during or after eruption from
>what David wrote.

I believe that somewhere in this thread there is a description of
tephra mixed with shells, collected from a floating mass.

Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com

[August Matthusen]

In <sourisDw...@netcom.com> sou...@netcom.com (Henry Hillbrath)
writes:

>matt...@ix.netcom.com(August Matthusen) writes:

>>Tephra is highly silicic, once it hits the atmosphere and cools into
>>glassy shards it's going to be very chemically inert to incorporation
>>of other materials.

>" tephara ... all solid particles emitted by a volcano during an
eruption.

>"Tephra particles range in size from extremely fine ash with
>approximately the consistence of confectioner's sugar to large pieces
>several feet in diameter."

>"Tephra comes in various forms, including bombs, masses of fluid magma

>that solidify in flight, and lapilli, gravel-like-bits of lava."

>"Almost all volcanoes release tephra when erupting, although some
>eruption produce far more than others."

>That is from David Ritchie, Encyclopedia of Earthquakes and Volcanos.

>Note that it is even more than just all the solid stuff that comes
>out, it is even the liquid stuff that solidifies before it lands.

>That is the sense that I use the term "tephra" in. What you have
>described is a typical sort tephra.

You're right about the strict definition of tephra incorporating
the larger ejecta. I usually don't think of the bigger particles as
tephra, as most tephrochronology is done on the smaller particles which
form discrete layers at considerable distances from the volcanic vent.

[snip]

>>Yeah, I was a bit confused by David's info. I haven't seen
Bietak's
>>paper (library doesn't have it). I had originally thought that a
layer
>>of tephra had been found by Bietak, but now it's described as pumice
>>apparently in a workman's area. Pumice is a rock which consists of
>>tiny air bubbles surrounded by the cooled silicic glass. When these
>>bubbles burst before or during cooling you get the tiny tephra
>>particles (sand grain size to microscopic). When these bubbles weld
>>together during the erption into a frothy mass you get pumice: a very
>>light rock which will float (because it's mostly surrounded pores)
and
>>which, as you note, is valued as an abrasive (good old silicic-rich
>>glass; Moh's hardness about 6-7).

>What you describe is the strict definition of pumice. But, I wouldn't

>bank too much on anyone but a mineraloligist description to be sure
>that is what was found.

Pumice is the word that was used and it seems to fit. The definition
of pumice is: "A light-colored cellular glassy rock commonly having
the composition of rhyolite. It is often sufficiently bouyant to
float on water and is economically useful as a light weight aggregate
and as an abrasive." (Bates and Jackson, Dictionary of Geologic
Terms, 3rd ed.) I'd suggest that more people would use the word pumice
correctly than would use tephra. Pumice has had economic uses for a
long time whereas the word tephra was only coined recently, as you
noted.

>The tephra from Thera formed rafts. That is known from many deposits
>found in various locations. Just why it did that, I don't know. A lump
>of the glass the size of ones fist would sink like a rock. But,
>apparently, there was other other stuff, or the fine glass stuck
>together with entrapped air.

Yep, a lump of solid volcanic glass (obsidian) would sink (like a rock
:-)). However, pumice is mostly air (pore space) encapsulated in
thin-walled glass bubbles.

>Thera glass makes perfectly good abrasive, even if it isn't pumice.
>And, it makes good concrete, too. And lots of it was mined, and there
>is lots of it in Egypt, used for construction on the Suez Canal.

>> I don't think there is any

>>indication of mixing with other materials during or after eruption
from
>>what David wrote.

>>I don't remember where I saw it but someone had suggested that huge

>>blocks of floating pumice from the eruption of Thera were also
>>partially responsible for disrupting shippping in the Med after
Thera.
>>These probably did result from the erption and it would make sense
that
>>some would wash up at Egypt and that the Egyptians would gather it
for
>>use as an abrasive. Possibly even traveling to collect or mine the
>>pumice. Using a block as an abrasive would round the block but not
the
>>grains. This would make the use of the Theran eruption as a dating
>>tool for Tell el-dab a bit more problematic as the pumice could be
>>collected and used for quite some time after the eruption whereas if
>>the tephra layer had been found stratigraphically in situ it would
>>provide a discrete time horizon.

>Right on. But, weathering, and maybe water immersion, could round
>individual grains.

Yes, weathering and water immersion could alter the glass to clays
and/or zeolites, but this would render it useless as an abrasive or
aggregate. The pumice is most useful as an abrasive because of the
volcanic glass bubbles which compose it. As the pumice wears away more
bubbles break exposing the walls of the microscopic glass bubble walls.

[Pat Zalewski]

If you look at Volcaneos and tree rings you also have to look at wind
direction shifts. I live near and active volcaneo here in New Zealand and it
has been blowing its top lately, and where the ash lands and how far depends
on the winds and the height or the ash. You then have to check other volcaneos
in the region and do a computer model of wind direction and height and cross
your fingers and hope they are also not recorded in tree rings as well.

[August Matthusen]

In <4v9qfh$s...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> S.NE...@IX.NETCOM.COM
(Stella Nemeth) writes:
>matt...@ix.netcom.com(August Matthusen) wrote:

>... I don't think there is any

>indication of mixing with other materials during or after eruption
>from what David wrote.

This originally started about the idea of fingerprinting tephras
geochemically, so I was trying to make the point that once the magma
cooled into a tephra the geochemistry would not change. Even if found
with sea shells the chemistry of the tephra should be distinctive.

>I believe that somewhere in this thread there is a description of
>tephra mixed with shells, collected from a floating mass.

Yes, here is what David Rohl posted on it:
[begin quoted text]

Yes, the pumice is rounded and it was certainly going to be used
for cleaning animal skins (so it was collected as a tool). But other
elements strongly suggest that the pumice arrived as a water born

deposit, either outside the fortress of Avaris via the Pelusiac

branch of the Nile (the tsunami perhaps even breaching the walls
through a gateway) or on the nearby coast. These points of interest are
(a) the pumice was found along with an equally large deposit of
Mediterranean sea shells; (b) most of the pumice pieces were found in a
small workshop but some were found scatterred in the vineyard to the
north of the palace platform; and (c) there is absolutely no
archaeological evidence at the site of pumice in earlier or later
strata (this last point is substantiated by a similar find of exactly
the same date at Tell el-Hebua in northern Sinai).

[end quoted text]

Maybe if David is still around he could clarify some of the questions
that came up over this: What were the sizes of some of these pieces of
pumice? Were the sea shells and pumice in a workroom (as if moved
there for work) or found together in a natural environment? Is the
rounding of the pumice rounding of pumice pieces (from possible use) or
rounding of grains from transport or weathering?

Regards,
August Matthusen

[Chris Bennett]

THis is in response to comments made by Steve Whittet on this thread,
which I accidentally erased, in reply to an article of mine.

Steve -

Thanks for your note. Let me respond briefly to the two issues you raised:

1) I have still not got Bietak's articles, so I can't tell you what they
actually say. Initially I was going on the interpretations of others. At
this point, based on the solid information I have so far, I agree with you
that his finds may not actually require the equation Thera = early 18th
dynasty. However, there are respectable people on both sides who believe
they do, or probably do, imply this equation. This equation is assumed by
both Kuniholm and Renfrew in their discussions in Nature 381, though from
different viewpoints. It is also assumed by Ritner in his JNES article
earlier this year. Kuniholm says this synchronism means the early 18th
dynasty must be redated, Renfrew uses it to throw doubt on the 1628 date.
That is the background to the postings you read.

To be fair to Kuniholm, his exact statement is not based on the Tell
el-Dab'a finds, but on the clear persistence of Minoan contacts well into
the 18th dynasty - e.g. the murals on the wall of the tomb of Rekhmire.
The key Kuniholm quote coms from the end of his article: "If sustained, a
date of 1628 BC for the Thera eruption will require a major revision of
Aegean chronology at the beginning of the late Bronze Age... Sets of
material and stylistic linkages between the Aegean, Cypriot, Levantine and
Egyptian cultures mean that this revision will lead to large changes in
Old World chronology and history in the 18th-15th centuries BC.
Longstanding assumptions and conventions in both Egyptian and Old World
chronology and history will need to be re-examined." .

2) I agree that, absent an 18th dynasty synchronisation, 1628 is well into
the Second Intermediate Period. Yurco's view, as given here, is that 1628
triggered the Theban revolt (and therefore supports the high Wente/van
Siclen Egyptian chronology). My point here is that, while the SIP is
poorly known, it is not a blank slate. With the best will in the world we
know enough about the late SIP that I believe we may be sure that Yurco's
model doesn't work - its at least a generation too short.

BTW, where do you get FIVE 21st dynasties from? I'm having enough trouble
with two!

Cheers,
Chris

[Steve Whittet]

In article <cbennett-210...@adnline23.adnc.com>, cben...@adnc.com
says...

>
>THis is in response to comments made by Steve Whittet on this thread,
>which I accidentally erased, in reply to an article of mine.
>
>Steve -
>
>Thanks for your note. Let me respond briefly to the two issues you raised:
>
>1) I have still not got Bietak's articles, so I can't tell you what they
>actually say. Initially I was going on the interpretations of others. At
>this point, based on the solid information I have so far, I agree with you
>that his finds may not actually require the equation Thera = early 18th
>dynasty.

Ok, what would it take to prove the testable hypothesis?

I. Allow that volcanic events spew out ash which can blow around
on the wind like sand for a rather long period of time.

II. Suppose there is a possibility that the tephera
at a given site comes from another smaller, nearer volcano

III.) We need a tephra match.

A.)I have not yet seen one produced
B.)If it were produced we would need to show it was
a.) airborn depositation (to exclude somebody
dumping a load of pumice that washed up on a beach
some centuries earlier back at their workshop
to use as an abrasive)
b.)associated with a non intrusive datable Egyptian marker.

> However, there are respectable people on both sides who believe
>they do, or probably do, imply this equation.

IV. Assume you get the match and no marker

V. Assume Thera is absolutely unarguably 1628 BC

VI. Why couldn't the site be 2nd intermediate with no effect
on Egyptian chronology whatsoever?

It looks like both the tephera match and the Egyptian marker
are required and I have not as yet seen either.

> This equation is assumed by
>both Kuniholm and Renfrew in their discussions in Nature 381, though from
>different viewpoints.

This just makes the findings of both contraversial and resolves nothing.

It is also assumed by Ritner in his JNES article
>earlier this year. Kuniholm says this synchronism means the early 18th
>dynasty must be redated, Renfrew uses it to throw doubt on the 1628 date.
>That is the background to the postings you read.
>
>To be fair to Kuniholm, his exact statement is not based on the Tell
>el-Dab'a finds, but on the clear persistence of Minoan contacts well into
>the 18th dynasty - e.g. the murals on the wall of the tomb of Rekhmire.

Why does that suprise us? Suppose Thera has more of an effect
on Crete than Egypt and c 1628 the surviving small bands of
Minoans move en masse to Egypts delta where they remain as a
distinct ethnic group into the XVIIIth dynasty some centuries
later; much like the Irish who escaped the potatoe famine are
still a recognisable ethnic group in Boston to this day...

>The key Kuniholm quote coms from the end of his article:
>"If sustained, a date of 1628 BC for the Thera eruption
>will require a major revision of Aegean chronology at the
>beginning of the late Bronze Age...

Why? Aren't there periods equivalent to the 2nd intermediate
in the existing Aegean chronology?

>Sets of material and stylistic linkages between the
>Aegean, Cypriot, Levantine and Egyptian cultures mean
>that this revision will lead to large changes in
>Old World chronology and history in the 18th-15th centuries BC.

Why? All I see is that it will allow that there were more
connections than have been recognized at an earlier date...

>Longstanding assumptions and conventions in both Egyptian and Old World
>chronology and history will need to be re-examined."

Well, some of us don't have exactly the same sets
of assumptions as others to begin with...

>
>2) I agree that, absent an 18th dynasty synchronisation, 1628 is well into
>the Second Intermediate Period.

Ok,

>Yurco's view, as given here, is that 1628 triggered the
>Theban revolt (and therefore supports the high Wente/van
>Siclen Egyptian chronology).

I see a discrepancy of one or more generations there.

>My point here is that, while the SIP is
>poorly known, it is not a blank slate.

I agree

>With the best will in the world we know enough about
>the late SIP that I believe we may be sure that Yurco's
>model doesn't work - its at least a generation too short.

I agree

>
>BTW, where do you get FIVE 21st dynasties from?

Rulers in different places.
Start with Dynasty XX from Thebes
Neferkare setepenre has no "usr" in his cartouch
and no "son of the son" between nomen and prenomen

Something has disrupted the normal process

Rameses XI has a cartouch more in keeping with the XXIst Dynasty

Rameses XII returns to having a "usr" in his cartouch

then the 3rd intermediate overlaps
with the XXIst and XXIInd Dynasties

Smendes and Osochor seem to parallel Shoshenq and OrskonI

then Dynasty XXI from Tanis,

The XXIst dynasty begins by favoring "Khepera"
and "mr" in the cartouches
then Dynasty XXI from Thebes.
Is all over the place

then Dynasty XXII from Bubastis
After Shoshenq and OrskonI returns to the "usrs"
then Dynasty XXIII from Tanis
Dynasty XXIV from sais
Dynasty XXIV from Ethiopia

I divided up the dynasties by where the kings ruled from.
What you get is several chronologically overlapping local rulers.
actually, overlapping rulers, not necessarily dynasties

I had a long Email discussion with Stella about this when she was
reading Pharoahs and kings. In particular the Orskons
are troublesome. Orskon I follows Shoshenq in Bubastis
in the XXIInd Dynasty as Osochor follows Smendes in the XXIst
from Tanis.

I'm having enough trouble
>with two!
>
>Cheers,
>Chris

likewise

steve

[Frank Joseph Yurco]

Dear Steve,

There are no five Dynasty XXI families! Ramesses XI (There is no Ramesses
XII) was the last pharaoh of Dynasty XX, ruling from Per-Ramesses originally.
Smendes, with Herihor's support proclaimed the rival Dynasty XXI, in regnal
year 19 of Ramesses XI. Ramesses XI went on to reign to about regnal year
28, but increasingly in obscurity, as the Late Ramesside Letters indicate,
as the new XXIst Dynasty entrenched itself in Tanis, and Herihor developed
his theocratic high priestly state in Thebes.

It has long been suspected that Dynasty XXI, or at least the high priests
of Thebes, were Libyan in origin. This argument derives from the names of
certain members of Herihor's family, and secondly, from the mysterious
King Osochor. Recently, a text of this King Osochor was found, and the
name proved to be Osorkon. So, yes, Dynasty XXI and its Theban high priest
counterparts were probably of Libyan origin.

They have nothing to do with the family of Shoshenq I, save that Shoshenq I
married his son, Osorkon, to Maat-ka-re, a daughter of the last Dynasty
XXI king. This was a standard way for a new dynasty to accomodate itself
with the powers that were, by intermarriage. Now, despite the rantings of
Peter James et al and David Rohl, Shoshenq I was the king who defeated
Rehoboam of Judaea, and was thereby able to add the First Court onto the
Karnak Temple, where he then added his scene and texts of the victory.
Incidently, Osorkon I, his son and successor, added his own scenes and
texts inside the Bubastide Portal, as the gateway is known, a fact that
further invalidates James et al and Rohl's arguments. Osorkon I also
tried to invade Judaea, but his general was repulsed, as a Biblical
citation mentions. Later, Dynasty XXII achieved a rapprochment with Judaea
and Israel, and in 853 B.C., Osorkon II contributed a thousand troops
to the anti-Assyrian coalition that won a victory at the Battle of Qarqar.
This, by the way is a solid cross synchronism with Israel, Judaea, and
Assyria, that again James et al and Rohl fail to accomodate. The Libyans
finally fragmented, when Pedubast I proclaimed a rival dynasty against
Prince Osorkon, son of Takelot II, around 805 B.C. He may have had the
connivance of Sheshonq V, but this had the catastrophic effect of encouraging
others, and so the 8th century B.C. spectacle of rival dynasties emerged,
that Isaiah, the Prophet, decried, as Egypt, the broken reed. It was
finally the Kushites, Piye, first and Shabaka that laid this chaos to
rest, and who restored Memphis as the capital, and briefly unified Kush
and Egypt into a super-state, under Dynasty XXV. Dynasty XXIV was brief,
Tefnakhte of Sais and his son, Bakenrenef, or Bocchoris, whom Shabaka
defeated.

So, the only real parallel dynasties are the ten year Dynasty XX and XXI
period, 1080-1070 B.C., and then 805 B.C., when Dynasty XXIII and XXII
co-existed, and after 720 B.C., Dynasty XXIV emerged from Sais, but the
Kushites quashed the whole thing. Again, you have a grand synchronism
in 712 B.C., when Shabaka extradited Yamanai the rebel Canaanite, to Sargon II
of Assyria, and another, in 701 B.C., when Shabaka, Shebitku, and Taharqa
as prince, organized a campaign that while not wholly successful, did
save Hezekiah from an almost certain execution by the Assyrians under
Sennacherib, either flaying alive or worse.

So, that is another grand synchronism between Egypt, Israel, and Assyria.

Most sincerely,

Frank J. Yurco
University of Chicago

--
Frank Joseph Yurco fjy...@midway.uchicago.edu

[Chris Bennett]

This thread seems to be dying down, but, since I just got hold of the
famous Bietak papers quoted by Renfrew, I thought I should give a brief
summary of them and their relevance to the Thera/Egypt debate. I only got
the two cited articles, but my impression from the second is that this
issue of A&L has others that may be relevant.

The key points are (a) that formal publication of the Tell el-Dab'a pumice
finds is not yet available and (b) no primary ash deposits have yet been
found.

Bietak & N. Marinatos "The Minoan Wall Paintings from Avaris", A&L 5
(1995) 49-62

This reports on the frescoes which have been found at Tell el-Dab'a, and
has many fascinating copies and reconstructions. It does not mention the
pumice at all. The key point is that, stylistically and technically, the
frescoes are closest to the examples found at Thera, and hence are to be
dated to the same time. The frescoes are found in late Hyksos/early 18th
dynasty layers. Thematically, they show ritual themes exemplified by
Knossos, which is stylisically rather later.

Bietak's hypothesis is that these frescos indicate a high-level
relationship between the Hyksos and Crete, such as a dynastic marriage.
This is objected to in the following article on the grounds that no ritual
objects of any kind were found. [Personally, I think this is a non-issue,
since later Egyptian tradition (Manetho) clearly records that the Hyksos
were expelled, taking their belongings with them. Any resident Minoans
would be caught up in that activity.]

Discussion, ibid 121-133.

This is a record of a discussion of the preceding paper(s), with
particular discussion of the pumice on pp121-125. The major points here
are:

1) Pumice deposits have been found at four widely separated sites in Tell
el-Dab'a, and also at sites in Northern Sinai, in each case in an early
18th dynasty layer.

2) The deposits are secondary in all cases. The pumice is worn,
consistent with being water-borne.

3) In no case is there any sign of pumice in the preceding Hyksos-era layer.

Bietak recognises that so far this is not a conclusive synchronism between
Thera and the 18th dynasty. However, his view is that this evidence
allows for some delay between Thera and the deposition of the pumice, but
not much: the pumice is more likely to be from a local deposit on the
beaches, rather than having been imported.

In conjunction with the frescoes, pottery and scarab findings, he believes
strongly that his excavations show that Thera happened around the early
18th dynasty. He sees no way to reconcile a 1627 date with the Egyptian
regnal and genealogical evidence - pretty much exactly for the reasons I
gave earlier in this thread. He believes that since C14 calibration was
established there is a consistent discrepancy of 100-150 years between
historical dating and "scientific" dating and (I infer) expects that the
source of error will eventually be found in the C14 calibration curve.

CHris

[Serge Rosmorduc]

>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Bennett <cben...@adnc.com> writes:
Chris> Bietak's hypothesis is that these frescos indicate a high-level
Chris> relationship between the Hyksos and Crete, such as a dynastic
Chris> marriage. This is objected to in the following article on the
Chris> grounds that no ritual objects of any kind were found.
Chris> [Personally, I think this is a non-issue, since later Egyptian
Chris> tradition (Manetho) clearly records that the Hyksos were
Chris> expelled, taking their belongings with them. Any resident
Chris> Minoans would be caught up in that activity.]

As a number of posting have indicated, Bietak has changed his mind on this
point. He now thinks the frescos are late 17th/early 18th dynasty ; he
links them with a fortified palace that would have been built by Kamose. He
also remark a number of hints for rather close relations between Minoean
and Theban rulers, in particular a few objects (Kamosis' (or Ahmosis?)
dagger, for example), and a strange title held by a Theban queen (Ahmes
Nefertari ? can't remember) : Mistress of the Haou-Nebou, a term which
probably designates the "Egean" islands. As the said queen was daughter to
a Theban ruler, the title was most probably honorific, but along with the
frescos it points to close diplomatical relations between the Theban and
the Minoean. Bietak's guess is that it might have been concretised with a
marriage with a Minoean princess (in part because some of the frescos
contain griffons, which are supposedly a symbol linked with Minoean
godesses/priestess/queens). I think he supposes the Minoean might have
helped the Egyptian with their navy during the final process of expelling
the Hyksos.

Source : Bulletin de la Societe Francaise d'Egyptologie, octobre 95.

regards,

--

Serge Rosmorduc,

ros...@lifac1.ens-cachan.fr
lifac
ENS de Cachan
61, avenue du Pr\'esident Wilson
94235 Cachan Cedex
tel (16 1) 47 40 24 93
fax (16 1) 47 40 24 64
http://weblifac.ens-cachan.fr/~rosmord/AEgypt.html

[Chris Bennett]

In article <ROSMORD.96...@cachou.ens-cachan.fr>,
ros...@cachou.ens-cachan.fr (Serge Rosmorduc) wrote:

Serge -- Thanks for the update; I doubt he thinks of Avaris as late 17th
dynasty since Avaris fell to Ahmes, but I believe that he now thinks the
whole complex was early 18th dynasty. The title you are refering to is
held by queen Ahhotep, mother of Ahmes; Aegean themes were also found on
items buried with a queen Ahhotep who may or may not have been the same
woman. See P. Janosi, JACF 5 (1991/2) 99. -- Chris