Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [ANE-2] Re: C14 dating of Ancient Egypt

Expand Messages
  • David Hall
    The recent C-14 study seems to indicate Shoshenq conventional regnal years within about 10 years; more studies might be required to provide specific
    Message 1 of 12 , Jun 21, 2010
      The recent C-14 study seems to indicate Shoshenq conventional regnal years within about 10 years; more studies might be required to provide specific details.
       
      It is guesswork Shoshenq may have destroyed Tel Rehov and other cities in Israel.  He may have merely collected tribute from the cities he marched on; if he did not destroy them.  There is no evidence Israel was uninhabited during the time of Shoshenq; there is merely controversy about what layers were from his era.  The study of objects from the beginning of the New Kingdom (that is the beginning of the LBA in Canaan) produced a near match between the conventional chronology of Egypt and the C-14 dating of items from close to the beginning of the reign of Ahmose, the first pharoah of the NK.  This seems to be a major breakthrough in affirming the conventional chronology based on regnal lists and Assyrian/Babylonian eclipse observations and the accuracy of recent calibrated C-14 dating technology.  More C-14 studies might lead to new discoveries about the history of the ANE.   
       
      David Q. Hall
      Falls Church, Virgnia



      --- On Sun, 6/20/10, Lisbeth S. Fried <lizfried@...> wrote:


      From: Lisbeth S. Fried <lizfried@...>
      Subject: RE: [ANE-2] Re: C14 dating of Ancient Egypt
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Sunday, June 20, 2010, 7:06 PM


       



      What are the years for Sheshonk?

      His excursion into Judah is the basis for the traditional dating of the
      Judean kings.

      Liz

      Lisbeth S. Fried, Ph.D.

      Department of Near Eastern Studies

      and the Frankel Center for Judaic Studies

      University of Michigan

      202 S. Thayer -- Room 4111

      Ann Arbor, MI 48104

      www.lizfried.com <http://www.lizfried.com/>

      _____

      From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      David Hall
      Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 10:34 AM
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: C14 dating of Ancient Egypt

      The new C-14 dates for the New Kingdom/18th dynasty beginning c. 1550 now
      changed to c. 1560 may not greatly alter existing theories based on the
      conventional chronology for this time period. A ten year change over a
      3570 year interval (3570 BP) provides for a margin of error little more than
      1/4 of a percent. The chronology used fifty years ago for the LBA in Egypt
      is proven more accurate than inacurate.

      David Q. Hall
      Falls Church, Virginia

      --- On Fri, 6/18/10, Joseph I. Lauer <josephlauer@...
      <mailto:josephlauer%40hotmail.com> > wrote:

      From: Joseph I. Lauer <josephlauer@...
      <mailto:josephlauer%40hotmail.com> >
      Subject: [ANE-2] Re: C14 dating of Ancient Egypt
      To: "ANE-2" <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com> >
      Date: Friday, June 18, 2010, 3:20 PM

      See also the summary of the related Science magazine Perspective article
      "Dating Pharaonic Egypt" at
      http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/328/5985/1489
      In addition, media articles concerning the articles (with some comments)
      may also be accessed.
      Science Now "New Dates for Egypt's Pharaohs" at
      http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/06/new-dates-for-egypts-pharaohs.
      html
      NatureNews "Egyptian kingdoms dated -- Radioactive isotopes nail the
      timeline of Egyptian dynasties" at
      http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100617/full/news.2010.304.html
      Discovery News "Ancient Egypt's Pharaohs Dated Using Plants --
      Archaeologists finally have a clear timeline for the ruling dynasties of
      ancient Egypt thanks to carbon dating" at
      http://news.discovery.com/archaeology/ancient-egypt-radiocarbon-dating.html
      The Ben-Gurion University press release regarding the Perspective
      article "Dating Pharaonic Egypt" and its author, Prof. Hendrik J. Bruins,
      may be read (via EurekAlert!) at
      http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-06/aabu-nao061710.php
      The release, entitled "New analysis on problems between archaeology and
      pharaonic chronology, based on radiocarbon dating", may also be read at
      other sites under that title.
      Joseph I. Lauer
      Brooklyn, New York

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]











      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • wllacer
      Graham Bayesian Statistics (the method used inside OxCal) is an inference tool, which depends rather on the model of interaction -sequencing- of the data, than
      Message 2 of 12 , Jun 22, 2010
        Graham
        Bayesian Statistics (the method used inside OxCal) is an inference tool, which depends rather on the model of interaction -sequencing- of the data, than on the sheer number of data points. The fact that a more or less accurate virtual "stratigraphy" - the sequence of rulers- can be built in this case, makes it fitting for such an analysis, even with a limited number of data (in fact, 180 something measures where used).

        A conservative approach of this study would read, less that exact pinpointing of dates -even for the NK, they allow for an interval of 25 years-; to look for exclusions of "null hipotesis". If you look at the graphics at the SOM, "low chronology" dates are sistematically outside de 95% range for the OK, and, in some reconstructions (Hornung) also for the NK. Some would object that two sigma (around 95%) is still weak, but gives a serious indicative that the "Low chronology" is incompatible with C14 data, almost for sure for the OK and "a very good bet" for the NK

        All of this notwithstanding, one of the fraities of the OxCal method (taking for granted the correct inference engine for the physical event studied is used; and that the "stratigraphical" model is compatible with the reality) is the risk that, with a short number of data points, non excised outliers can bias the inference engine. More data points on a given layer means more chances of detecting outliers and/of reducing its impact

        Regards
        Werner Llácer
        --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, Graham Hagens <rgrahamh@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > --- On Fri, 6/18/10, wllacer <wllacer@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > >
        > > Seems to support a High (but not ultrahigh) and -perhaps,
        > > depends- the nail in the coffin of the Low Chronology (there
        > > and related places)
        > >
        >
        > 'Perhaps, depends' seems appropriate.
        > This data would certainly seem to limit the range of the 'low chronology' debate - but the question remains, by how much?
        >
        > The abstract states that 211 well contexted and short lived samples were analysed. This is impressive.
        > However the sample time range exceeds 1500 years (2650-1100 BCE).
        > 14 per century is quite sparse - at least compared to LB Greece or IA Syro-Palestine where vastly more samples have been RC analysed, and where disagreements on the 5-8 decadal scale still exist.
        >
        >
        > Graham Hagens
        > Hamilton, ON
        >
      • Graham Hagens
        Moderators: apologies. I neglected to add my name & address to this submission. Please insert. Thanks Graham Hagens Hamilton, Ontario ... Graham Hagens
        Message 3 of 12 , Jul 18, 2010
          Moderators: apologies. I neglected to add my name & address to this submission.
          Please insert.

          Thanks

          Graham Hagens
          Hamilton, Ontario


          --- On Sun, 7/18/10, Graham Hagens <rgrahamh@...> wrote:

          > From: Graham Hagens <rgrahamh@...>
          > Subject: C14 dating of Ancient Egypt
          > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
          > Date: Sunday, July 18, 2010, 9:38 AM
          >
          > Apologies for the late response to this string related to
          > the article by Bronk Ramesey et.al. (Science 2010:
          > 1554-1557), it took some time to study the data closely.
          >
          > This important article reports the results and statistical
          > interpretation of 211 radiocarbon (RC) analyses of material
          > associated with various Egyptian pharaohs between the 2nd
          > and 21st dynasties, a period of over 1500 years.  By
          > integrating these data with existing reign length models the
          > reach the conclusion that the conventional dating schemes
          > are reasonably secure.  At the outset they claim that
          > the statistical method they have developed is capable of
          > reducing the error range of ancient RC dating from about 5%
          > to 2.5% (p.1554).  Later in the text however the
          > accuracy of some dates near the beginning of the New Kingdom
          > are discussed within the range of a single decade: an error
          > range close to 0.5%.  Clearly a thorough critique of
          > the methodology employed to reach such remarkable success is
          > required.   This note identifies 4 areas of
          > concern which might be included in such a study:
          >
          > 1. Provenance
          > None of the samples analyzed derived from recent
          > discoveries.  All derived from collections placed in
          > various museums during the 19th and early 20th centuries.
          > The authors admit that they ‘were reliant on the judgment
          > of excavators and curators and on the integrity of the
          > collections.’ To some extent it is possible to test the
          > validity of this assumption by comparing results obtained
          > from different collections which were attributed to a
          > particular Pharaoh. They are not always the same.  For
          > example, sets of samples associated with Pharaoh Hatshepsut
          > from 4 different  locations give the following
          > estimates of calendar dating BCE:  Paris 
          > 1600-1540 (4), Paris  1500-1440 (7),  New
          > York  1500-1440(13), Oxford  1250-1150(1). (Note:
          > IntCal calibration using  YBP data in Table S1; number
          > of samples in each set bracketed). 
          >  
          > 2. Outliers
          > Uncertain provenance combined with numerous sources of
          > contamination may well have contributed to the always
          > difficult process of identifying outliers in large sets of
          > data.  Over 20% of the data obtained were either
          > excluded from the model, or discounted in the calculations
          > due to suspicion of being be outliers.  For example a
          > set of data associated with Ramesses/Sety I was removed from
          > consideration because the RC data yielded a calendar date
          > 200 years higher than expected.  However data linked to
          > Ramesses II were included in spite of being about 120 years
          > higher than the modeled estimate (Table S1, 3240, 3145
          > YBP).   In another example, some data were
          > rejected for being too low: in the 17 point set 
          > associated with Akhenaten, 6 were identified being
          > outliers.    Without those outliers the RC date
          > (Table S1, 3050) would yield a calendar date close to the
          > 1350 BCE predicted by the model.  When included however
          > the calendar range drops more than a
          > century to ca. 1200 BCE. 
          >
          > Uncertainties concerning provenance and contamination are
          > exacerbated by the uneven distribution of the samples: 
          > around 40% of the total number of analyses derive from just
          > two 18th Dynasty Pharaohs, Hatshepsut and Thutmosis
          > III.  Consequently the model employs a large number of
          > very small sets consisting of 1-3 data points with
          > concomitant high standard deviations. The further one
          > deviates from the high data density 18th dynasty, the more
          > uncertain the data provided by the statistical algorithm.
          >
          > For example, only one set of results  from the
          > 20-21st  dyns, has more than 3 data points.  This
          > is the 11 values associated with Amenemnisu.  The
          > accession dating of this Pharaoh calculated by the model
          > of  1054-1044 BCE (Table S8) is about a decade higher
          > than the conventional value 1041.  Direct calibration
          > of those data provided in Table S1 (including the 19 year
          > regional offset correction), however, yields an accession
          > date of ca 1020,  below rather than above the
          > conventional dating 
          >
          > 3. Circular reasoning 
          > The opening lines state that the authors used a ‘Bayesian
          > model incorporating historical information on reign
          > lengths’ to resolve problems result from ‘floating
          > chronologies linked to the absolute calendar by a few
          > ancient astronomical  observations, which remain a
          > source of debate.’ They go on to caution that for this
          > reason, none of  the dates calculated by the model
          > should be used to estimate reign lengths. 
          > The problem is that the reign lengths utilized in the model
          > depend to some extent on the very astronomical
          > observations  which the authors hope to displace. For
          > example, the estimates of many of the reign lengths within
          > the 19th-20th dyns are influenced by the belief that they
          > are anchored at the high and low ends by the astronomical
          > dating of the accession of Ramesses II, and the historically
          > attested invasion of Palestine by Shoshenq I.  Such
          > circular reasoning is exacerbated by the low density of data
          > within that timeframe discussed above.
          >    
          > 4. Regional offsets
          > The authors allow for a small regional correction (-19
          > years) to take into account a small RC offset detected in
          > plant material grown in Egypt between 1700 -1900 CE. 
          > However there is no good evidence that ancient offsets can
          > be estimated with such linearity.  The nature of
          > regional offsets remains poorly understood.  Various
          > contributing factors such as latitude, integration of
          > different  sources of the calibration curve, and the
          > influence of  old carbon from oceanic upwelling or
          > volcanoes have been identified.  Moreover some other
          > studies from this region, including those related to the
          > disputes concerning the destruction of Santorini have
          > suggested the existence of much larger offsets exist 
          > (p.1557 and refs.)
          >
          > In conclusion, it seems unlikely that this study, for all
          > its strengths, is capable of resolving differences on the
          > decadal scale within the 3000-4000 YBP timeframe.  It
          > would therefore be premature to suggest that these new data
          > might be utilized to resolving  debates such as those
          > related to the dating of  Iron I/II Syro-Palestine,
          > where the competing positions are less than 5 to 8 decades
          > apart.
          >

          Graham Hagens
          Hamilton, Ontario
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Ian Onvlee
          Hi Graham, I agree that this new C-14 study is once again not an independent study. The decission whether a date is an outlier or not is purely guesswork and
          Message 4 of 12 , Jul 19, 2010
            Hi Graham,

            I agree that this new C-14 study is once again not an independent study. The
            decission whether a date is an outlier or not is purely guesswork and relies on
            what is conventionally expected, hence circular reasoning. I have enough faith
            in C14-dates within a certain margin, say +/- 50-100 years, but I don't like the
            exclusion of so-called outliers to get the wanted results. They simply try to
            save face by doing so. I want to see all the results and decide for myself
            whether the data are sufficient to conclude anything specific.  

            Regards,
            Ian Onvlee 
            The Hague, the Netherlands




            ________________________________
            From: Graham Hagens <rgrahamh@...>
            To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Sun, July 18, 2010 6:32:15 PM
            Subject: [ANE-2] Re: C14 dating of Ancient Egypt

             
            Moderators: apologies. I neglected to add my name & address to this submission.
            Please insert.

            Thanks

            Graham Hagens
            Hamilton, Ontario

            --- On Sun, 7/18/10, Graham Hagens <rgrahamh@...> wrote:

            > From: Graham Hagens <rgrahamh@...>
            > Subject: C14 dating of Ancient Egypt
            > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
            > Date: Sunday, July 18, 2010, 9:38 AM
            >
            > Apologies for the late response to this string related to
            > the article by Bronk Ramesey et.al. (Science 2010:
            > 1554-1557), it took some time to study the data closely.
            >
            > This important article reports the results and statistical
            > interpretation of 211 radiocarbon (RC) analyses of material
            > associated with various Egyptian pharaohs between the 2nd
            > and 21st dynasties, a period of over 1500 years.  By
            > integrating these data with existing reign length models the
            > reach the conclusion that the conventional dating schemes
            > are reasonably secure.  At the outset they claim that
            > the statistical method they have developed is capable of
            > reducing the error range of ancient RC dating from about 5%
            > to 2.5% (p.1554).  Later in the text however the
            > accuracy of some dates near the beginning of the New Kingdom
            > are discussed within the range of a single decade: an error
            > range close to 0.5%.  Clearly a thorough critique of
            > the methodology employed to reach such remarkable success is
            > required.   This note identifies 4 areas of
            > concern which might be included in such a study:
            >
            > 1. Provenance
            > None of the samples analyzed derived from recent
            > discoveries.  All derived from collections placed in
            > various museums during the 19th and early 20th centuries.
            > The authors admit that they ‘were reliant on the judgment
            > of excavators and curators and on the integrity of the
            > collections.’ To some extent it is possible to test the
            > validity of this assumption by comparing results obtained
            > from different collections which were attributed to a
            > particular Pharaoh. They are not always the same.  For
            > example, sets of samples associated with Pharaoh Hatshepsut
            > from 4 different  locations give the following
            > estimates of calendar dating BCE:  Paris 
            > 1600-1540 (4), Paris  1500-1440 (7),  New
            > York  1500-1440(13), Oxford  1250-1150(1). (Note:
            > IntCal calibration using  YBP data in Table S1; number
            > of samples in each set bracketed). 
            >  
            > 2. Outliers
            > Uncertain provenance combined with numerous sources of
            > contamination may well have contributed to the always
            > difficult process of identifying outliers in large sets of
            > data.  Over 20% of the data obtained were either
            > excluded from the model, or discounted in the calculations
            > due to suspicion of being be outliers.  For example a
            > set of data associated with Ramesses/Sety I was removed from
            > consideration because the RC data yielded a calendar date
            > 200 years higher than expected.  However data linked to
            > Ramesses II were included in spite of being about 120 years
            > higher than the modeled estimate (Table S1, 3240, 3145
            > YBP).   In another example, some data were
            > rejected for being too low: in the 17 point set 
            > associated with Akhenaten, 6 were identified being
            > outliers.    Without those outliers the RC date
            > (Table S1, 3050) would yield a calendar date close to the
            > 1350 BCE predicted by the model.  When included however
            > the calendar range drops more than a
            > century to ca. 1200 BCE. 
            >
            > Uncertainties concerning provenance and contamination are
            > exacerbated by the uneven distribution of the samples: 
            > around 40% of the total number of analyses derive from just
            > two 18th Dynasty Pharaohs, Hatshepsut and Thutmosis
            > III.  Consequently the model employs a large number of
            > very small sets consisting of 1-3 data points with
            > concomitant high standard deviations. The further one
            > deviates from the high data density 18th dynasty, the more
            > uncertain the data provided by the statistical algorithm.
            >
            > For example, only one set of results  from the
            > 20-21st  dyns, has more than 3 data points.  This
            > is the 11 values associated with Amenemnisu.  The
            > accession dating of this Pharaoh calculated by the model
            > of  1054-1044 BCE (Table S8) is about a decade higher
            > than the conventional value 1041.  Direct calibration
            > of those data provided in Table S1 (including the 19 year
            > regional offset correction), however, yields an accession
            > date of ca 1020,  below rather than above the
            > conventional dating 
            >
            > 3. Circular reasoning 
            > The opening lines state that the authors used a ‘Bayesian
            > model incorporating historical information on reign
            > lengths’ to resolve problems result from ‘floating
            > chronologies linked to the absolute calendar by a few
            > ancient astronomical  observations, which remain a
            > source of debate.’ They go on to caution that for this
            > reason, none of  the dates calculated by the model
            > should be used to estimate reign lengths. 
            > The problem is that the reign lengths utilized in the model
            > depend to some extent on the very astronomical
            > observations  which the authors hope to displace. For
            > example, the estimates of many of the reign lengths within
            > the 19th-20th dyns are influenced by the belief that they
            > are anchored at the high and low ends by the astronomical
            > dating of the accession of Ramesses II, and the historically
            > attested invasion of Palestine by Shoshenq I.  Such
            > circular reasoning is exacerbated by the low density of data
            > within that timeframe discussed above.
            >    
            > 4. Regional offsets
            > The authors allow for a small regional correction (-19
            > years) to take into account a small RC offset detected in
            > plant material grown in Egypt between 1700 -1900 CE. 
            > However there is no good evidence that ancient offsets can
            > be estimated with such linearity.  The nature of
            > regional offsets remains poorly understood.  Various
            > contributing factors such as latitude, integration of
            > different  sources of the calibration curve, and the
            > influence of  old carbon from oceanic upwelling or
            > volcanoes have been identified.  Moreover some other
            > studies from this region, including those related to the
            > disputes concerning the destruction of Santorini have
            > suggested the existence of much larger offsets exist 
            > (p.1557 and refs.)
            >
            > In conclusion, it seems unlikely that this study, for all
            > its strengths, is capable of resolving differences on the
            > decadal scale within the 3000-4000 YBP timeframe.  It
            > would therefore be premature to suggest that these new data
            > might be utilized to resolving  debates such as those
            > related to the dating of  Iron I/II Syro-Palestine,
            > where the competing positions are less than 5 to 8 decades
            > apart.
            >

            Graham Hagens
            Hamilton, Ontario
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >







            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.