You say: "Recalculated how? Do you have access to the IntCal09 program?"
It's not so difficult. You can freely download both Oxcal and Intcal calculators from the internet. The Oxcal program is not as intuïtive as the Intcal program. You can freely download the latest version of Calib (Calib601, exactly the one they or their references have been using and refering to as "Calib-Rev. 6.0.1", and from which my data also come from) which uses the latest IntCal09 data as database, from here: http://calib.qub.ac.uk/calib/
I have checked the data of table 1 of the article, and it is clear that they are close enough to the Intcal data, but they are all rounded to the nearest tenth. Rounding numbers is one thing one should NOT yet do in such an early stage. Anyhow, they have been selective in some cases in choosing the date range that suited their purpose best.
In their article they claim: "The samples pooled in the matrix (Table 1) are statistically the same at the 95% confidence level using a Chi-square (χ2) test (sample key 7, where T = 6.09<14.1). The weighted average date (2962±14 14C yr BP) gives a 1 sigma (σ) calibrated age range of 1215–1190 BC with 34.3% relative probability and another age range of 1180–1160 BC with 26% relative probability, using Calib-Rev. 6.0.1  and Oxcal 4.1  with IntCal09. Calibrated age ranges in details at 60.3% of the 100% dating probability (Fig. 4). Hence, there are two chronological possibilities for the calibrated date of the destruction Level 7A, between the end of the 13th century and the beginning of the 12th century BC or the first half of the 12th century BC. By contrasting historical-archaeological and radiocarbon-based data sets, the best candidate for the destruction date of the harbour town is the Sea People invasion."
I note the following: 1. Since they give us only rounded figures in their table 1, on which they say above that they have mixed Oxcal with Intcal considerations (not specified in their table 1), we cannot even check their so-called "weighted average" which is magically given as a precise (!) figure!!!! We are forced to recalculate all the RC data ourselves in both Oxcal 4.1 and in Intcal09 separately, in order to find out what they have been up to. Nobody is going to go into that much trouble in order to check on their data, especially not with the out-dated Oxcal, which also has various specific options in the way it is calculated, but with Intcal it's peanuts. So far the data actually follow the IntCal ranges, but there are some inconsistencies in their choice of date range, as I've said before. Anyhow, there is no way you can mix Oxcal with Intcal data in any scientific way, and if you do, you still have to give us both the Oxcal and Intcal data seperately, as well as your method of mixing/combining/averaging. 2. There is no certainty at all that the destruction layer was indeed caused by the Sea Peoples. There is also no certainty at all as to whether this destruction occurred before or after the battles with either Merenptah and/or Ramesses III. But since the authors already assume a low chronology, they also seem to assume à priori that the destruction occurred (shortly) before the battles with Ramesses III.
Their article further on says: "The cuneiform tablet RS 86.2230 , sent by the Egyptian Bay (1194–1190 BC), the Great Chancellor of the Pharaoh Siptah-Queen Tawsret, to the last king of Ugarit provides the final evidence of a living kingdom at the dawn of the 12th century BC. A document from Egypt relating the execution of Bay as a traitor in Siptah's regnal year 5, states that the cuneiform tablet RS 86.2230 must have been written before an historical date of 1190 BC ."
They really assume too much here as to the minimum date of Bay's letters. It does not prove their dating scheme to be correct.
You say: You are reading into the article something that isn't there. They do not describe the calibrated dates as weighted.
And here is where they say they have "refined" their weighted "radiocarbon" results with both "archaeological", historical and astronomical considerations:
The radiocarbon results, in relation to archaeological and historical data, lead us to propose a date of 1194–1190 BC for the Sea People event in the northern Levant. This radiocarbon-based archaeological date can be refined with the astronomical observation related on the cuneiform tablet KTU 1.78 (RS 12.061) found among the ruins of Ugarit. The sun eclipse depicted on the cuneiform tablet KTU 1.78 was dated to the 21 January 1192 BC , suggesting that the destruction of the city and the fall of the kingdom occurred after this observation.
Before you know it they make you believe that this combined and "refined" date is the radiocarbon date-range itself, and they consistently present it themselves as such:
The date of 1192–1190 BC for the Sea People invasions in the northern Levant, and the end of the ancient Eastern Mediterranean world fits the radiocarbon, historical, archaeological and astronomical data.
They do not fit at all! The radio-cabon date ranges point to a higher date instead. Their "refinement" is already a farce since there is no such thing as an "archaeological" date, because all archaeological dates are based on certain presumed historical dates. Astronomical dates too not so certain but in any case cannot be used to "refine" an RC-date. Yet the authors claim to have done just that.
You say: To accuse the authors of weighting their data by non-RC factors when all they did was to apply ordinary arithmetic to RC dates is excessive and undermines the credibility of your critique.
As you can see, the authors overrule their own RC data by adding into the mix the historical and astronomical data they believe in and then go on from there, still calling their dates "radio-carbon" data, just as proponents of the Bayesian formula do. That is what I cally "trickery". It undermines the credibility of the article. Of course we can still call such dates "radio-carbon based", but only until so far, and not make them sound like radioin-carbon dates themselves, only to make them sound more solid than they are. It is certainly tricky not to fall for the trap.
...smacks of Luddism mmm, Luddism seems to have been an honest massive uprise to preserve the jobs of professional textile handworkers and to oppose to automated machinery that could be run by any uneducated person: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite. :)
Getting back to the paper, my impressions when I read it was that the application of KTU 1.78 and a low Egyptian chronology are at least naive, and that seems to be the consensus here.
But on the RC side I think it would be more productive to try to arrive at a clear understanding of how the authors actually calibrated the dates than to accuse them of deliberately fudging the results.
How the authors calibrated the dates, is already clear. The dates in the table are in fact Intcal dates, rounded to the nearest 0, and in one case the nearest 5, and in a few cases I detected selectiveness. Apparently they meant with Oxcal that they had compared it with the usually slightly higher dates of Oxcal, and since higher dates than the intcal dates would not have served their low-dated conviction they have simply dropped Oxcal altogether.
It would be more productive though, to check out the origin of those selectively chosen RC dates, and which dates they have discarded, since the whole table of RC dates is unnaturally smooth in a way you would never see in any other table of RC dates and that is why I suspect them of giving us a plain false total picture of RC dates. You are right that I cannot accuse them directly of falsification, since I don't have access to their background notes and lab-results, but their table 1 I cannot call trustworthy to either to say the least.
On April 24 I attended a lecture in New York on “New Evidence for the Sea People in Anatolia,” by Robert Koehl, professor of archaeology at Hunter College. In brief, Koehl interprets Late Helladic... more
So, it seems we have Egypt attacked by some group of people who either "claim to be from Island civilizations" or were for some other reason "determined to be from a civiized area that was "made up... more
Ron. The use of the term "Isle" in the Egyptian texts does not appear to be applied to the whole confederation. In one case specifically it is applied to the Denyen and we do know that Cyprus was... more
Today I contacted Professor Koehl to make sure that I accurately summarized his lecture on the Sea People and Anatolia. He pointed out an error... "It's Mycenaean IIIC Middle that is the basis for... more
"Today I contacted Professor Koehl to make sure that I accurately summarized his lecture on the Sea People and Anatolia. He pointed out an error... "It's Mycenaean IIIC Middle that is the basis for... more
>>>>>>How to distinguish between pottery appearing as a result of trade with pottery appearing as a result of invasion? Jon S. Destruction layers. Koehl interprets the evidence as showing a pattern... more
Clark. People who migrate tend to assemble storage containers for the journey, simply because a migration takes planning. Assuming anyone migrated to the Levant from the Aegean, where is the pottery... more
>>>>>...There are no Aegean-style burials, there are no Aegean-style weapons, there are no Aegean-style foundations for homes, palaces or meeting centers. Jon S. If I understand Koehl's position, the ... more
"If I understand Koehl's position, the Sea Peoples moved eastward through southern Anatolia. They conquered and settled the Amuq valley ("northern Philistia"). Their migration toward Egypt came... more
Destruction layers. Koehl interprets the evidence as showing a pattern of conquest and settlement by the Sea Peoples. Their subsequent movement down the coast of Canaan followed the same pattern. It... more
Dear Jon S., I thought that the "Peoples of the Sea" came via both the land and the Sea? But perhaps I am wrong. Besides, just what remains would be left if the entire purpose of the Sea Lane attack... more
Ron, There are also lots of theories out there claiming that these sea peoples were ET's or the Maya's from Central America. They make for good science fiction, just like Fomenko's theories, but not... more
My dear Ian, Regarde', I fail to see any reason for you to insulate your opinion into what has become an almost personal discussion! Forthwith, you should either be quite, or propose some other... more
Dear Ron. "I thought that the "Peoples of the Sea" came via both the land and the Sea? But perhaps I am wrong." But where does this assumption come from, not from archaeology, neither from ancient... more
MY dear Jon! I thought it was particularly clear! Did the "People of the Sea(s)" only attack "Port Cities?", via the Sea? Is there not mentioned words about their "Laager?", or "baggage train", and... more
Ron. You ask.. "Is there not mentioned words about their "Laager?", or "baggage train", and other means of assualt?" Unless you are able to provide a quote I must assume you are referring to the text ... more
So Sir Chris, Do the events have any relationship to chronology? That is can the oldeset events have any solid times? Or if not, are there any periods between the so called "ancient" invasions and... more
Thank you Chris for that. I previously accepted the common theory that the Sea Peoples were either Ionian or Cilician. What this paper, in common with most other material, does not explain, is how... more
Has anyone on this site ever really looked at the carvings in stone that have been reproduced from Medinet Habu? If so, you can instantly see headgear that will remind one of the headgear of the... more
"Has anyone on this site ever really looked at the carvings in stone that have been reproduced from Medinet Habu?" It should be viewed as a prerequisit in any debate on their origins. Tunics with a... more
Jon, I just thought I would post part of a missive of mine concerning this problem that exists between us. It is long! On other sites found within the Inter-Net, I have made posts concerning the... more
From my small missive already posted and mostly ignored, are these facts; http://www.history.navy.mil/trivia/triv4-4a.htm "Chevrons Chevron is a French word meaning rafter or roof, which is what a... more
Sorry but my above post exceeded the limits of this site! but If any of you want the rest of it, I got it! And, for a good laugh, here is what the "Huffington Post" has as its latest evaulation of... more
Dear Jon! I know that certain sources have tended to lend credence to the idea that it was made up of "Plumes" and I would guess meaning "Plumes of feathers?" But that is merely an assumption, since... more
Ron. Are you suggesting that horse-hair offers better protection that feathers? Perhaps the headgear was not intended to offer protection, afterall body armour was not prevalent in these wars and... more
Jon, you wrote; "Are you suggesting that horse-hair offers better protection that feathers? Yes, I do so suggest, since these stiff bristles, imbeded within a slab of wood would certainly offer some... more
Jon, whilst I have not yet seen your evidence, I will here post mine. http://mail.aol.com/36081-111/aol-6/en-us/Suite.aspx I hope it comes thru! You will see the apparent "Chevrons" in varing numbers ... more
Why Jon, just why can't you accept such an idea? I am holding in my hands or rather looking at a shoe polish brush, whith very stiff horse hair bristles sticking out of it. Interestingly it is even... more
Jon, At this site you can well see some examples that resemble the head gear found at Medinet Habu! http://www.ebay.com/sch/Clothing-Shoes-Accessories-/11450/i.html?_nkw=horsehair+shoe+brush You... more
Dear Jon, Perhaps you have never "polished shoes" with wax? If you have not, which is common amoung the "young" people of today, you might well have used a "Horse Hair" brush to polish the leather?... more
"Dear Jon, and others; Just how many of you have read the works of Velikovsky? Actually Ron, the only thing that Velikovsky got right was the inaccuracy of Radio-Carbon dating, at that time. Regards, ... more
A former admirer of Velikovsky's, I came to see that his technique of using Biblical texts as a template for shortening ancient chronology was faulty. However, I think his book "Oedipus and Ahknaton" ... more
Dear Clark, Yes there does exist the possiblity that the good meaning Docktor will be proven correct on at least some of his amazing deductions, and if so, then the rotten supporting pilings of... more
If I might, I will try to let you understand my reasoning. That is, after this event, I.e., the attack upon Egypt during the rule of a King that we now refer to as Necho II (I believe), and as well... more
Hi Chris, Here's what I think. The article is not very trustworth. It is led by an a priori bias towards the low Egyptian chronology and the calibrated radiocarbon dates are based on a mixture of... more
Hi Ian I do not really follow you. Why do you choose to use only one piece of data from Level 7A, that yields a radiocarbon age of 3020±40 AMS 14 C yr BP? Why not the sample at 2910±40 AMS 14 C yr... more
Hi Joe, According to personal communication by Frans Wiggermann T 98-119 was followed by T 96-1. Therein Ahi-malik, the governor of Emar, instigates peace talks with the king of Karkemis. Thus Emar... more
Hi Tory, The official buildings of Tell Sabi Abyad fell in ruins before, already under Ninurta-apil-ekur. He abolished the kingship of Hanigalbat and the career of its king Ili-pada, the owner of... more
Hi Michael, Where can I read more specifics about the occupation of Tell Sabi Abyad and its excavated strata? To be abandoned and never again occupied since Ninurta-apil-Ekur seems a bit far-fetched. ... more
Hi Tory, "Where can I read more specifics about the occupation of Tell Sabi Abyad and its excavated strata? To be abandoned and never again occupied since Ninurta-apil-Ekur seems a bit far-fetched."... more
Hi Delvon, Thank you for that. Kim Duistermaat writes that Tell Sabi Abyad has Late Bronze Age remains from the 14th or beginning of the 13th century BC. At the end of the 13th century, after a... more
Hi Michael, There was more than one king of Assyria named Assur-Nirari. Are you absolutely sure there was only ever one ruler of Hanigalbat named Ili-pada? There was a limmu Ili-pada in the time of... more
Hi Tory, T 96-1 is one of the texts, found together and the content belong together. The Ili-pada in this texts succeeded Sulmanu-musabsi as Viceroy in the last year(s) of Tukulti-ninurta I. (letter... more
Hi Tory, Sulmanu-musabsi appears as "Grand Vizir" in documents, dated to the eponym years of Abi-ili (son of Katiri) and Sulmanu-suma-usur toward the end of the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I. In the... more
Hi Michael Devil's advocate here. I understand Sulmanu-musabsi the "Grand Vizier" is mentioned on documents dated to the limmu years of Abi-ili son of Katiri and Sulmanu-suma-usur. These limmu dated... more
Hi Michael Yes I know the royal inscriptions of Tukulti-Ninurta I. However I do not know that any are dated by the Abi-ili and Sulmanu-suma-usur limmus who are attested at Tell Seh Hamad. I am not... more
Hi Tory, Other limus (especially Ina-Assur-sumi-asbat) appear in the royal inscriptions of Tukulti-Ninurta I. These in turn have a relationship with other texts of these limus and this with eponyms,... more
Hi Tory So what is the undisputable evidence linking the limmus of Abi-ili son of Katiri and Sulmanu-suma-usur to the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I? For starters see my post 6019 of 19 Feb 2006 which... more
Hi Joe I assume Level 6 up to Level 3 are simply building phases and not sealed destruction layers. My experience is that the lifespan and history of building phases are notoriously difficult to... more
Hi all, in addition to the temporal classification of Ili-pada: In T96-1 (Steward Tamitte to Ili-pada) there is, as already said, mentioned a conflict between Karkemis and Emar. That must have been... more
Hi Joe, If there is a connection then maybe the latest date for a large scale Sea People invasion becomes the last year of Aššur-nadin-apli (for me 1195). One may ask the same question concerning the ... more
Yes Joe, You wrote in your last sentence; "Pick up a serious work and its just a mass of black type." And no truer words have ever been spoken! Thanks! This is because of the advent and quickly... more
Hi Joe, Thanks for responding. You asked me: I do not really follow you. Why do you choose to use only one piece of data from Level 7A, that yields a radiocarbon age of 3020±40 AMS 14C yr BP? Why not ... more
Yes Ian and others, It does seem that their does exist numerous problems with 14C dating. But I would suggest that it is more serious than you can conceive. So I will suggest that you move all of... more
No Ron, There are no numberous problems with 14C dating. You must be mixed up with Velikovsky's days, when that was indeed the case. But those problems have long been solved in the mean time. The 14C ... more
My dear Ian, I hope you are well? But your deigned reliance upon a dating method that is nothing but a "Whore" to historians and chronologists, etc. is exaspertrating to say the least! So you realize ... more
Dear Ron, And Malta is indeed one of the oldest cultures. What's your problem with that? Do you have anti-Malta sentiments for some reason? The RC data of the article I critisized are not RC problems ... more
"There are two main political camps: those who do anything to discredit the biblical narative and others who will do anything to prove the Bible right in every word." Think this is an exaggeration.... more
Ian: "There are two main political camps: those who do anything to discredit the biblical narative and others who will do anything to prove the Bible right in every word." Marianne: "Think this is an ... more
Marianne, I mostly disagreed with your statement that Israel depends on that Bible alone in a claim for right to existence. Ok, I agree that the statement was a bit too bold. Of course Israel will... more
Tory too takes all this much too personal. Like everywhere else in the world, the younger generation of Israel might not give a shit anymore about the Bible, save the orthodox rabbis and would-be... more
Tory, You're still taking it far too personal. And you must be joking to pretend you know everything about Israel just because you are a citizen there. Do you think that all Americans know what is... more
If you want to know something real about Holland and its politics you don't go to India and talk to someone who has never been to Holland and does not speak the language. That's how stupid your... more
Tory, Your assertions are overly stupid. You assume too much. Do you really think I talked to some Indian to get information from Israel. I talked to archaeologists in Israel to know some things... more
the Bible constitutes the national pride of the state of Israel, their very legitimation for being there in the first place. If someone proves the Bible to be one big horrific lie from beginning to... more
Hi Ian -- What is the source for the table you included in your comments? It is not obvious how to reconcile this table or your statement " For the 1-sigma range [the paper] chooses to keep to the... more
I found an article here interesting http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/07/12/The-Philistines-Enter-Canaan-Were-They-Egyptian-Lackeys-or-Invading-Conquerors.aspx#Article It seems to maintain... more
Hi Chris, I only added recalculated Intcal09 calibration data based on the radiocarbon dates as given in their own table 1. The data I compared my recalculations with are the calibrated data they... more
God almighty one takes a week out on the road and a mild suggestion for a discussion on chronometric methods mutates into a flame-war about whether the Bible is a theological basis for the existence... more
Re: A tight RC date for the Sea Peoples? Ian Onvlee,Thu May 24 07:26
"That the destruction layer was caused by the Sea Peoples is not just an assumption. It seems well-supported by the changes in material culture they summarise." If we are referring to Levantine... more
Jon -- I was referring to the statements in the article that the pre-destruction site was characterised by " a large variety of Mycenean (Late Helladic IIIB), local Late Helladic IIIC Early and Late... more
Chris. You write: I was referring to the statements in the article that the pre-destruction site was characterised by "a large variety of Mycenean (Late Helladic IIIB), local Late Helladic IIIC Early ... more
Jon, You pointed out: 1. Generally, peoples who wrought destruction without settling are peoples who have no need of somewhere to settle. An argument which flies in the face of the conventional... more