Ancient Near East: Late Bronze-Iron Age chronology
The discovery of a new inscription of the Neo-Hittite “Great King” Hartapu has renewed the long-s... more The discovery of a new inscription of the Neo-Hittite “Great King” Hartapu has renewed the long-standing controversy over his date. He has been variously dated as early as the 13th century BC, because of the Imperial Hittite style of some of his inscriptions, and as late as the 8th century BC because of the Assyrian influenced representation of Hartapu on his rock carving at Kızıldağ in the Tabal region. A midway compromise date is offered here. A date for Hartapu in the early 9th century BC would suit both the historical circumstances and the art historical considerations: it accounts for his reference to the Muški, known to have been near Tabal at that time, and also for the iconography. There remains tension, however, with the standard dates of the Hittite Empire, a problem that has constantly recurred in the chronological studies of the early Neo-Hittite monuments and inscriptions of southern Anatolia and Syria.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The question of Kassite chronology was greatly complicated when, in 1982, Veysel Donbaz published... more The question of Kassite chronology was greatly complicated when, in 1982, Veysel Donbaz published a clay tablet (A. 1998 = Bab 39031) from the Istanbul Museum, which refers to business matters “from the accession year of Kadashman-Enlil to the twelfth year of Kadashman-Turgu, king”. The order of the two kings seems to flatly contradict that of the
pair Kadašman-Turgu and Kadašman-Enlil, known from a letter of Hattusili III of Hatti (13th century BC).
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Beth-Shean has always been a complicated, somewhat problem site, in terms of its stratigraphy and... more Beth-Shean has always been a complicated, somewhat problem site, in terms of its stratigraphy and history. Though the Roman–Byzantine city of Scythopolis at the foot of the mound was excavated from 1984 onwards, the only previous extensive work on the tell itself — aside from a brief season by the Hebrew University in 1983 — was by the University of Pennsylvania Museum in the 1920s and 1930s. The early work, which suffered long publication delays, left many questions about the site unanswered, making the new reports, from the 1989–1996 excavations of the Hebrew University, more than welcome.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
James, P., Thorpe, I. J., Kokkinos, N., Morkot, R. & Frankish, J., “Centuries of Darkness: A Reply to Critics”, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2:1 (1992), 127-130.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
P. James & P. van der Veen (eds), Solomon and Shishak: Current Perspectives from Archaeology, Epigraphy, History and Chronology. Proceedings of the Third BICANE Colloquium held at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge 26-27 March, 2011 (BAR International Series 2732), Oxford: Archaeopress, 236-257, 2018
Egyptian texts are notorious for not referring to enemy or subject kings by name, to the extent o... more Egyptian texts are notorious for not referring to enemy or subject kings by name, to the extent of sometimes not mentioning the existence of such rulers. Yet it has become increasingly clear – from a range of evidence including results from recent art-historical analyses – that the Egyptian New Kingdom ‘empire’ in Syro-Palestine was largely controlled through a system of vassal rulers. Archaeological evidence can be used to posit the existence of a local dynasty based at Jerusalem during the time of the late 19th and early 20th Dynasties, c. 1200 BC on conventional dating. The monumental architecture there shows that there was an organised state, while connections with Egypt are shown by the fragments of an apparent Egyptianising building (palace or tomb?) and other Egyptian objects. If we allow this hypothetical dynasty to have ruled a wider territory, including Megiddo and the Jordan Valley then a surprising series of parallels appears with the activities of the Davidic dynasty. It is acknowledged that the plan and furnishing of Solomon’s Temple belong to a Late Bronze tradition. Are the figures of David and Solomon based on memories of a Late Bronze dynasty centred on Jerusalem of is there something fundamentally wrong with the archaeological dating based on Egyptian chronology?
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Centuries of Darkness website: Internet Notes and Papers C, https://www.centuries.co.uk/replies.htm
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
This paper begins with a historiographic survey of the treatment of Ramesses III’s claimed war ca... more This paper begins with a historiographic survey of the treatment of Ramesses III’s claimed war campaigns in the Levant. Inevitably this involves questions regarding the so-called “Sea Peoples.” There have been extraordinary fluctuations in attitudes towards Ramesses III’s war records over the last century or more – briefly reviewed and assessed here. His lists of Levantine toponyms also pose considerable problems of interpretation. A more systematic approach to their analysis is offered, concentrating on the “Great Asiatic List” from the Medinet Habu temple and its parallels with a list from Ramesses II. A middle way between “minimalist” and “maximalist” views of the extent of Ramesses III’s campaigns is explored. This results in some new identifications which throw light not only on the geography of Ramesses III’s campaigns but also his date.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
James, P., Thorpe, I. J., Kokkinos, N., Morkot, R. & Frankish, J., Centuries of Darkness: Context, Methodology and Implications, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1:2 (1991), 228-35. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 1991
An invited paper written to coincide with the publication of Centuries of Darkness. Our paper was... more An invited paper written to coincide with the publication of Centuries of Darkness. Our paper was published as part of a Review Feature (pp. 227-253) together with these responses: Kenneth Kitchen: "Egyptian Chronology: Problem or Solution? (pp. 235-239); Barry Kemp: "Examining Ancient Crises" (pp. 239-244); Nicholas Postgate: "The Chronology of Assyria - An Insurmountable Obstacle" (pp. 244-246); Anthony Snodgrass: "The Aegean Angle" (pp. 246-247); Andrew and Susan Sherratt: "Urnfield Reflections" (pp. 247-250).
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The presently accepted ceramic chronology places the earliest episodes of Greek colonisation in L... more The presently accepted ceramic chronology places the earliest episodes of Greek colonisation in Libya some three to four decades earlier than the traditional historical dates. A similar offset between the archaeological and historical chronologies can be seen at Naukratis and other Archaic Greek sites. A review of ‘fixed points’ for Archaic dating shows that the balance of evidence now strongly favours a reduction of late seventh to early sixth century BC Greek ceramic chronology by three to four decades. Such a reduction would bring harmony between the archaeological and historical pictures for the founding of the Cyrenaican colonies, restoring confidence in the account given by Herodotus.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The dating of the short-lived settlement at Meẓad Ḥashavyahu near the coast of southern Palestine... more The dating of the short-lived settlement at Meẓad Ḥashavyahu near the coast of southern Palestine has long been the subject of controversy. Because of the Greek pottery finds there it became embroiled in sometimes circular arguments over the chronology of Early Corinthian and related Archaic pottery styles. These issues and the related question of the fall of pre-Persian Ashkelon are reviewed and a lower dating offered for the site (as allowed by John Holladay as early as 1976) in the early 6th rather than late 7th century BC. The site was almost certainly a small fortress housing a garrison of Greek mercenaries, placed strategically to support the nearby harbour-town of Yavneh-Yam – both being under Egyptian control. The question is raised as to which historical circumstances would best suit the construction of Meẓad Ḥashavyahu by the 26th Dynasty pharaohs. It is argued from a number of lines of evidence that the fortress was constructed as part of the ambitious maritime policy of Apries (589-570 BC) and that it was abandoned near the end of his reign when the Babylonians advanced towards Egypt.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
A fresh approach is offered to the tangled arguments that surround the dating of late Iron Age Ek... more A fresh approach is offered to the tangled arguments that surround the dating of late Iron Age Ekron (Tel Miqne). The only firm historical peg for dating the late Iron strata is provided by the temple inscription of Ikausu, an Ekronite ruler mentioned in Assyrian records in the second quarter of the seventh century BCE. From this evidence, somewhat lower dates than those of the excavators are argued for Strata IC to IA. The lower chronology suggested here should resolve the differences between various scholars regarding the character and historical associations of Ekron’s final Iron Age strata. Ramifications for the related debate over the dating of Greek Archaic pottery are considered.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
pair Kadašman-Turgu and Kadašman-Enlil, known from a letter of Hattusili III of Hatti (13th century BC).
pair Kadašman-Turgu and Kadašman-Enlil, known from a letter of Hattusili III of Hatti (13th century BC).
Kenneth Kitchen and other Egyptologists have claimed that a 10th-century BC date for Shoshenq I (founder of the 22nd Dynasty) can be arrived at not only from a philological identification with the biblical Shishak, but from chronological ‘dead-reckoning’ backwards through the Third Intermediate Period. One problem here is: where is the fixed point from which one begins retrocalculation? Kitchen himself counts backwards from his ‘Osorkon IV’, whom he identifies with the like-named king from the Piye Stela and the Shilkanni mentioned in Assyrian records in 716 BC. Yet there is no firm evidence that such an Osorkon ‘IV’ ever existed, while there is a mounting case for a return to the position of earlier Egyptologists that the king in question was the well-attested Osorkon III, presently dated to the first quarter of the 8th century BC. Equating him with the Osorkon of Piye would require lowering the dates of Osorkon III (and the last incumbents of the 22nd Dynasty) by some 40-50 years – a position strongly supported by archaeological, art-historical and genealogical evidence. Using these later dates, dead-reckoning backwards through the Dynasty (using the Pasenhor genealogy, Apis bull records and attested reign lengths) brings us to a date for Shoshenq I in the second half of the 9th century. This would place him a century later than the biblical Shishak, making the equation of the two untenable. Another candidate needs to be sought for the biblical ‘king Shishak’.
Part II: This section of the article follows up a model we proposed for the early 21st Dynasty in JEgH (2010), which suggested that Piankh held the pontificate while Herihor was king. Such a model could resolve the recent debate regarding the order of HPAs Herihor and Piankh. Here the next major controversy of 21st Dynasty chronology is addressed – the question of whether the high year dates from the time of HPA Menkheperre belonged to King Psusennes or Amenemope of Tanis. It is argued that they belonged to neither, but to the wḥm-mswt or “Renaissance” era which started late in the reign of Ramesses XI. Allocating the high datelines from the pontificate of Menkheperre to the wḥm-mswt would resolve a number of otherwise intractable problems, and results in a shortening of 21st Dynasty chronology by some four decades, in step with both archaeological and genealogical evidence.
Cornell University, to have dated the tree-rings in a Bronze Age bowl from Mycenae.
Superscript numbers next to dates refer to the publication dates of calibrations for the
Gordion Master Sequence (GMS), the yardstick of Anatolian dendrochronology which
has been periodically adjusted both upwards and downwards in time as the ADP have
attempted to refine the dating of the Sequence (see James 2012: 144).
Publishers’ Blurb
The Old World has confronted archaeologists with many riddles, perhaps the most tantalising of which is the Dark Age, an economic and cultural recession so devastating it lasted for 400 years from 1200 to 800 BC. Or did it? The dates for the Near East and Mediterranean are derived from the highly regarded chronology of ancient Egypt, but could not that itself have been miscalculated? This is the pioneering theory proposed by Peter James in an intricate piece of scholarly detective work. Deciphering the clues from papyri and pottery, he and his team of experts search layer by layer through the excavated treasures of a vast area from Spain to Iran and from Denmark to Sudan, until they reach Egypt, the root of the labyrinthine riddle. It is here that they unearth 250 years of ‘ghost history’.
Once these are eliminated, fresh perspective is thrown not only on the reality of the Dark Age, but also on the Trojan War, the foundation of Rome, the origin of the Greek alphabet and the Golden Age of King Solomon. Centuries of Darkness is a masterpiece of archaeological reasoning which will revolutionise our view of the ancient world.