Я думаю, Вы не совсем правы.
Хорошо. Подождите до четверга. Я буду в библиотеке и сделаю выписки из книг.
Ждем-с.. До первой пятничной звезды..
Итак, вы хочите песен? - их есть у меня.
Что нам нужно? Дано: Извержение вулкана Тера как стимул к реформам Эхнатона. Требуется определить - когда было извержение. Для этого необходимо определить корреляцию между слоем, относящемся к извержению и слоями относящимися к ММIII b и LMIa с соответствующими слоями в Египте, Кипре и Крите.
"Of particular interest is the find at several sites within the citadel of numerous nodules of pumice, all of which appear in stratification of the early Eighteenth Dynasty. According to scientific analysis, the pumice derives from the eruption of the Santorini volcano and probably was transported by sea to the coast north of Avaris. In the settlement site to the east of platform H/I in which numerous royal name scarabs were found, the pumice could be dated into the period alter Ahmose and before Tuthinosis III. Similar finds of pumice have been documented at Tell el-Hebwa I in northern Sinai on top of the Hyksos-period occupation, and they also derive from Santorini, according to scientific analysis. Thus far, no such pumice has been found in earlier levels at Tell el-Daba. This seems to make a strong case for a date of eruption between 1515 and 1460 B.C., according to the present Egyptian chronology. Such a date is also corroborated by the presence of Cypriot White Slip I ware in Santorini, which does not appear so far in Egypt prior to the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty. To investigate this problem more thoroughly, future probing operations at Tell el-Daba will attempt to recover volcanic ash in stratigraphically controlled contexts." (M. Bietak, “The Center of Hyksos Rule: Avaris (Tell El-Daba)”, in E. D. Oren (editor), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, Philadelphia 1997, pp. 124-125).
"If our assumption is correct - that not only the paintings in area H/III and H/II but also those from the secondary dumps north of the platform H/I date to the beginning of the 18th Dynasty after the fall of Avaris (after c. 1530 BC) - then the paintings at Thera should be roughly contemporary. This dating is corroborated by the presence of Late Cypriot White Slip I ware at both sites. So far White Slip I ware has appeared in secure contexts at Tell el-Dabca only from stratum C (18th Dynasty) onwards. A Proto White Slip bowl has been found in a tomb dating to the end of the Hyksos Period (late stratum D/2). If we were to adopt the more recent high chronology for the Santorini (Thera) explosion at about 1628 BC, based on radiocarbon and dendrochronology, we would have to raise the dates of Egyptian chronology by some 130 years. Apart from the serious problems this would cause to the Egyptian chronological framework and astrochronology, we would have to fill 130 years of Egyptian history. Currently no Egyptologist would accept such a proposition.
In connection with the Santorini correlation there is another important observation to be made. Within the middle-class settlement east of platform H/I and within the palatial compound H/II and its eastern extension in H/III, many pieces of pumice have been found, which the sea probably carried to the coast near Avaris . Neutron activitation analysis carried out at the reactor Seibersdorf, Vienna, and the results of other scientific investigations (undertaken by Prof. Anton Preisinger, Technical University, Vienna) indicate that the pumice originated from the explosion of the volcano of Santorini. Its chronological context at Tell el-Dabca within a single restricted stratum of the New Kingdom dates it to sometime after the reign of Ahmose and before that of Thutmose HI (c. 1500 BC). This is perfectly in keeping with the traditional dating of the volcanic eruption of Santorini. Adherents of the high chronology for the explosion of Santorini have suggested that this pumice may have lain in the vicinity of Avaris for a long time and was only picked up during the time of the New Kingdom. This is possible, as the materials retrieved in H/I and H/III were collected in workshops. But in that case it is strange that no pumice has been found at Tell el-Dabca in strata of the Hyksos period, although major areas of the latter period have been investigated since 1966. Pumice only appeared when we began to excavate New Kingdom remains in three different areas. One lump also appeared in area A/II-k/13 above the Hyksos period; however, it was in a secondary context. Mohammed Abd el-Maksoud, the excavator of Tell el-Habwa in Northern Sinai, informs me that similar lumps of pumice have been found on top of the Second Intermediate Period occupation at that site. Scientists have proved that these pieces also originated from Santorini. Several more lumps were retrieved by Abd el-Maksoud on a nearby ancient seashore. A thorough search for further volcanic emissions in New Kingdom and Hyksos period levels at Tell el-Dabca is planned. This research should certainly be useful for synchronizing the chronology of Egypt and the Aegean world and there is a very good chance that it will finally be possible to link firmly the eruption of Santorini and Late Minoan and Late Helladic chronology with Egyptian stratigraphy and chronology." (Bietak, Manfred. 1996. Avaris: The Capital of the Hyksos. Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dab`A. The first Raymond and Beverly Sackler Foundation distinguished lecture in Egyptology. London: British Museum Press.pp. 76-78)
"On an archaeological basis, the final abandonment of Akrotiri and the eruption of the volcano are generally agreed to have occurred no later than the end of LM IA" (Eriksson K. O. 1992 Late Cypriot I and Thera: Relative Chronology in the Eactern Meditteranean. pp. 153. in Acta Cypria. Acts of an Internstional Congree on Cypriote Archaeology, Held in Goteborg on 22-24 August 1991. Part 3, ed Astrom. SIMA-Pocketbooks 120. Jonsereds.)
"Late Cypriot and Late Minoan Pottery in Egypt
As mentioned above, Merrillees proposed that there was a synchronism between LC IA and the end SIP. This was based largely on his assessment of tomb groups containing Cypriot pottery found in Egypt. He concluded that there were two WP VI vessels, two BR I vessels and four RLW-m vessels that were found in tombs that could be dated exclusively to the end SEP. In examining the contexts of the RLW-m spindle bottles it can be concluded that there is little evidence for dating them only to the end SIP.
One of the RLW-m ware spindle bottles came from Tomb 158 at Deir Rifeh. Along with it were recorded nine local ceramic forms which Merrillees compared with similar vessels of SIP date, which then enabled him to date the tomb to the second half of the SIP. However, the simplicity of the shapes meant they were long-lived and XVIIIth Dynasty parallels can also be cited. It is considered therefore that the tomb provides no evidence for dating the spindle bottle in the SIP.
The three other RLW-m ware spindle bottles dated to the SIP came from Chamber A of Tomb SA 29 at Aniba. The other finds from Chamber A were few and included two stucco masks, two bronze ear rings, two bronze finger rings, a bronze needle, three kohl pots, four scarabs and a scaraboid. Despite the fact that there were no human remains, and that the tomb had almost certainly been plundered at some point, it is possible that there were no more than two bodies placed in this chamber. The other pottery in the chamber appears to form a homogeneous group as Merrillees observed, but it can be dated later than the second half of the SIP. The main reason why he dated the contents of the chamber so early was probably based on the presence of black topped (Kerma?) ware and fragments of TeY ware. However, both these wares do continue to appear in XVIIIth Dynasty contexts. In conjunction with the evidence from the Shaft and Chamber D of this tomb it seems likely that the earliest burial cannot be dated before the reign of Amenhotep I. As for the claim that WP VI and BR I also occur in end SIP contexts, examination shows that the associated evidence does not allow the date to be determined with any degree of accuracy. Therefore, it is proposed that there is no LC I pottery found in tomb contexts in Egypt before the XVIIIth Dynasty.
To challenge the last statement there is recent evidence from the settlement at Kom Rabia (Memphis). Amidst an accumulation of silty lenses built up against a house wall, the lower half of a BR I juglet was recorded. The accompanying finds included late SIP local pottery. Bourriau maintains that the SIP date for the layer is secure and the deposit was sealed by layers of sand which are interpreted as separating the Middle Kingdom occupation from the New Kingdom. The body of the juglet is in one piece, missing only the neck, handle and relief lines on the body, and is in a good state of preservation compared with the tiny sherds of BR I that come from the XVIIIth Dynasty settlement layers of the site. There is no parallel for it in Egypt, but a vessel with similar relief decoration was recorded in Stratum 3 of Tomb 3 at Ayia Irini, Cyprus. This layer of the tomb also contained Iron Age pottery although the preceding strata of this tomb are all LC I in date, and of interest is the presence of LHIIA pottery in Stratum 5.
Also from the recent excavations at Kom Rabia an Aegean sherd was recorded that provides further evidence of contact between the Minoan world and Egypt of the early XVIIIth Dynasty. The sherd, RAT 530.1301, was found on the top of the sand, (already mentioned above in connection with the BR I body juglet), in deposit 530. So, it was immediately above the sand, which has been interpreted as an interval between the SIP and early Virility Dynasty, and below deposit 308/334, which contained a scarab of Thutmosis I. Deposit 530 was dated preliminarily to the time covering the reigns of Ahmose to Amenhotep I,
partly on the basis of the pottery, but certainly influenced by the fact that the following deposit had the scarab of Thutmosis I.
The Aegean sherd has been most recently described and discussed by Warren and Hankey who questioned Bourriau's preliminary attribution of the sherd to LH IIB (or LH IIA, LH HIA:1 and 2). Instead they preferred to recognize it as a Minoan piece, with the decoration suggesting either a LM IA or B date, and proposed that the sherd was part of the neck/collar from a conical rhyton, baggy alabastron, or bridge spouted jar. In conclusion, Warren and Hankey suggested that, stylistically, it should belong to LM IB (or perhaps LH IIA or even LM IA). Microscopic examination of the piece could indicate that it is not a Mycenaean fabric but rather Minoan, as Warren and Hankey suggest. A good parallel for the sherd is with the rim of a LM IB bridge spouted jar. However, because the bridge spouted jar form can also date to LM LA, and because no exact comparison has yet been found for the row of dots round the neck of the Kom Rabia sherd, it is proposed, at this stage, that it may be either LM IA or LM LB. This attribution of the sherd does not conflict with the early XVIIIth Dynasty context in which it was found, although a low chronologist may prefer to attribute the style to LM IA rather than to LM IB. As for the scarab of Thutmosis I found in the following deposit it only provides a terminus post quern and it cannot be assumed, as Bourriau suggests, that "scarabs of this pharaoh were short lived"." (ibid. 167-170).
"late Cypriot Pottery from Thera
The WSI bowl reported to have come from a LMIa destruction level on Thera would also indicate that cIa and LMIa are contemporary. It cannot, however, be used to move the beginning of the LC IA period back to ca 1700 BC by claiming that it is more characteristic of LC IB, therefore implying that LCIB and LM IA are contemporary, rather than LC IA and LM IA. This is because if the beginning of LC IA is moved up to 1700 BC, and if the high chronologists date the beginning of the Egyptian XVIIIth Dynasty somewhere during the 16th century BC, then LC I would cover a period of ca 300 years. This range is established on the basis that the lower limit of LC I can be placed somewhere during the reign of Amenhotep n, or possibly in the beginning of Amenhotep III's. The theory that LC I lasted ca 300 years, from 1700 BC till ca 1408 BC, is not supported by the available archaeological evidence from Cyprus."(ibid. 173-174).
"The Date of the Thera Eruption and Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware
The presence of two RLW-m ware spindle bottles in LM IB settlement levels in Crete produced what Manning called "two chronological hiccups" for Marinates' theory which attempted to link the eruption of Thera with the destruction of Minoan civilization. The problem arises if it is accepted that the eruption of Thera was a factor involved in the LM IB destruction levels on Crete. It then follows that the presence of RLW-m ware spindle bottles, which Manning (after Merrillees) does not date earlier than the beginning of the 16th century BC, would mean that the destruction of LM IB levels on Crete would have to be dated nearly a century after when he would date the eruption, in the later 17th century BC. That RLW-m ware does not support a link between the eruption of Thera and the destruction of LM IB Crete, using the dates put forward by Manning for the eruption and the beginning of RLW-m ware, is only one part of the problem.
Disregarding the problems associated with a high date for the eruption, the basis for Manning's early 16th century BC date for RLW-m ware needs some explaining. It is based on Merrillees` analysis of this ware's occurrence in Egypt in which he established an end SIP date for its earliest appearance in tombs, occurrences that have been discussed and refuted above. The opinion here is that it is unlikely that the ware can be dated in Egypt much before the reign of Amenhotep I. In Cyprus its earliest recorded occurrence is in a LC IA level at Enkomi, but there is little other evidence for this period that is not contaminated, and it is better represented from LC IB onwards, particularly in LC HA. However, as further confirmation of a LC LA/end SIP correlation Manning accepted a LC IA date for the beginning of this ware in Cyprus, as well as Merrillees' dating of the earliest occurrence of the ware in Egypt to the end SIP.
Other evidence for an early date for RLW-m ware may be provided by a spindle bottle that came from Tomb 62 at Pella in Jordan, which was preliminarily dated to a MB IIC/LB I horizon. Manning used this evidence to suggest that the date of manufacture would have been at some unknown earlier time in the MB Age. Amongst the scarabs found in the tomb one bore the cartouche of Apophis-Auserre and another the cartouche of Khamose, the last rulers of the Hyksos and XVIIth Dynasty respectively. These provide a terminus ante quern for part of the tomb and the associated material does not indicate that the tomb was used much, if at all, before the time of these two rulers. Apart from the early scarabs the local pottery is more characteristic of LB I. The remaining foreign pottery is also from Cyprus and included Monochrome bowls and BLW-m juglets, which again would support a date during LC IA:2-LC IB (=LB I) for the period of use of the tomb when these vessels were interred.
Prior to the evidence from Tomb 62 at Pella the earliest record of a spindle bottle in the area was from near the altar of Structure I of the Fosse Temple at Lachish, dated between Year 23 of Thutmosis III and the beginning of Amenhotep III's reign. Also dated to this time is the spindle bottle from Burial Cave I.10A at Gezer, which came from a level that also contained a locally made ceramic sarcophagus of Minoan type which is discussed below. This evidence for RLW-m ware in Palestine suggests that the Pella spindle bottle be dated to early LB I, or equivalent with the early XVIIIth Dynasty prior to or during the reign of Thutmosis III.
Because it is proposed here that the first appearance of RLW-m ware can be dated to the LC IA:2/ LB I/ early XVIIIth Dynasty horizon, Manning's LC IA/MB EC/end SIP date for its earliest appearance is rejected. The latter synchronism does, of course, allow for the beginning of the ware to be dated before the start of the XVIIIth Dynasty. Using a high chronology for Egypt the initial appearance of the ware could be dated as early as ca 1650 BC, which would then allow one to link a high absolute date for the eruption of Thera with the destruction of LM IB Crete. The uncertainty of the synchronism between LC IA/LB I/end SIP as a date for the appearance of RLW-m ware spindle bottles is, however, apparent to Manning. This is indicated by his consideration that, a lower 16th century BC/ LB I/ LC IA-B date might be more likely synchronism for the date for the first appearance of the spindle bottle on Crete. This would then imply that "the LM IB destructions on Crete would have to be placed after ca 1600/1575 BC". The evidence for the initial date for the appearance of RLW-m ware does suggest that the destruction of LM IB Crete should be dated well after the early 16th century BC, thus moving it further away from Manning's absolute date for the Thera eruption.
One other issue related to the RLW-m ware spindle bottles found in Crete arises from the statement by Manning that, if the date for the earliest appearance of this ware could be determined then it would provide a terminus post quern for the LM IB destruction at Gournia. This statement assumes that the period when the ware was first manufactured was contemporary with the occurrence of this ware at Gournia in the LM IB period. The LM IB period is here linked with the time of Thutmosis HI and the first well documented occurrence of RLW-m ware in Egypt is dated to the time of Amenhotep I (and in Cyprus during LC IA:2). For this reason it cannot be accepted that the LM IB occurrences of this ware in Crete, whilst being early, are contemporary with the earliest appearance of this ware in Egypt and Cyprus.
Of the two recorded examples of this ware from Crete, the spindle bottle from Gournia has been mentioned above and there are also sherds from Kommos. The almost intact example from Gournia was found associated with LM IB pottery. The context of the sherds found at Kommos has been variously dated to either LM IB or LM IIIA:1. If these occurrences at Gournia and Kommos are both LM IB then they should be considered as being contemporary with the reign of Thutmosis III and with the first part of the LC IB period in Cyprus." (ibid. 178-181)
"THE DATE OF THE ERUPTION OF THERA
That the eruption of the Thera volcano occurred towards the end of LM LA is generally accepted. Here it is considered that this period was contemporary with the early rulers of the XVIIIth Dynasty, but whether it extends back into the SIP is uncertain. Warren maintained that as there are extensive depths of LM IA deposits at various Aegean sites that it must have been a long period. He cited what appear to be MB II gypsum vessels from LM IA levels at Thera as evidence for an overlap between MB II and LM IA. However, the evidence, which is not definitely dated to MB IIC, may only show the survival, or perhaps the continued use of MB forms into what would be LB I times. If one could place the eruption in terms of the Egyptian historical record, it would enable the relative date for the end of LM IA to be determined. Most recently Goedicke has used textual evidence from Egypt to date the initial earthquake that rocked Akrotiri to the beginning of the reign of Ahmose, and the actual eruption he placed in the 7th regnal year of Hatshepsut. Thus, we can link the end of the LM IA period with this time in the Egyptian New Kingdom.
Vila. Egyptian Texts which may refer to the Eruption
From the Speos Artemidos inscription of Hatshepsut, as translated by Alan H. Gardiner, Goedicke quoted certain passages that he considered to be references to the effects on Egypt of the eruption of the volcano on Thera. In the text there is also reference to an event, the expulsion of "resident aliens", which Goedicke dates to the 6th year of Hatshepsut's reign. Another text of later date, but considered by Goedicke to refer back to events of the early XVIIIth Dynasty, mentions nine days of raging storms and total darkness. His interpretation of the text allowed him to date it to when Hatshepsut assumed the role of pharaoh in her seventh regnal year, a date which Goedicke felt confirmed the evidence from the Speos Artemidos for the date of the Thera eruption. By using a middle chronology for the XVIIIth Dynasty, which commences the reign of Ahmose at 1544 BC, Goedicke arrived at a date for the eruption in 1483 BC.
Goedicke's date for the eruption of the Thera volcano, in the 7th regnal year of Hatshepsut, is accepted here. In view of the archaeological evidence, it is not possible to accept a late 17th century BC date for this event. The relative synchronisms suggest that the LM IA period is contemporary with the early XVIIIth Dynasty down until the reign of Hatshepsut. If in terms of an Egyptian chronology we date LM IA thus, what does this imply for the LC IA period which is linked with LM IA. This will be examined after first reviewing the other schemes put forward to determine the relative placement and absolute date of the LC I period." (ibid 193-195).
"In the reconstruction presented here, it is taken that LC IB extended down to the end of the reign of Amenhotep n, but that the appearance of BR II ware indicates the following LC n period. The time prior to the beginning or early part of the reign of Thutmosis III represents the LC IA phase. Merrillees' statement that there was an abrupt change from MC to LC styles is rejected as the settlement evidence discussed here shows the continued use of MC in wares. The phasing out of MC III wares and the transition from LC IA:1 to LC IA:2 probably occurred during the reign of Ahmose. The LC IA:1 period was quite short, falling entirely within the first half of this pharaoh's reign. After this time LC IA:2, as defined by the appearance of BR I and WS I wares, began and continued till the beginning or early part of the reign of Thutmosis III. Thus, the absolute chronology for the LC I period as suggested here would be:
LCIA:1 ca 1530-1510 BC
LCIA:2 ca 1510-1460 BC
LCIB ca 1460-1380 BC
An absolute date for the Thera eruption in the late 17th century BC can not be supported in view of the implications it has on the interpretation of the archaeological record for the surrounding countries. It is not possible to move the date for the eruption, which occurred towards the end of the LM IA period, back in time and to take with it the beginning of the LC IA period without altering the chronological sequence in Egypt and Syria/Palestine. It is considered here that LM IA is contemporary with LC IA, the XVIIIth Dynasty from the reign of Ahmose I till the reign of Hatshepsut/Thutmosis HI and with the LB IA period in Syria/Palestine. The LM IB would be contemporary with LC IB, the XVIIIth Dynasty from the reign of Thutmosis III till during the reign of Amenhotep II and with the LB IB period in Syria/Palestine. These general chronological correlations concur with the traditional view regarding the synchronisms to be observed in this period. The major point with which this article differs from the traditional chronology is that the "ultra low" chronology of Professor Helck is applied to the chronological sequences of the east Mediterranean as linked with the Egyptian historical record.
As the eruption of Thera is accepted, after the arguments put forward by Goedicke, as having occurred during the 7th regnal year of Hatshepsut, the absolute date for the eruption, as based on Helck's chronology would be ca 1460 BC. The time before this date, back till the beginning of the Egyptian New Kingdom, is roughly contemporary with LM IA, LC IA and LB IA, (Table 2). This is based on correlations observed between the archaeological records of the areas discussed.
There is no basis to the argument that places the LC IA period prior to the XVIIIth Dynasty because TeY ware as a SIP fabric must, on the basis of LC IA occurrences in Cyprus, suggest an overlap between SIP and LC IA. Nor can one use the occurrence of LC I pottery in Stratum D/2 at Tell ed-Dab'a as evidence for an overlap between LC I and the end SIP, just as there is also no evidence for any LC I pottery in tomb contexts that can be exclusively dated to the end SIP. Any occurrence of LC I pottery in tombs in Egypt can be dated within the XVIIIth Dynasty. At Enkomi and Toumba tou Skourou LM IA pottery can be linked with LC IA:2 and at Enkomi what might be LM IB pottery was found in a LC IB level. A WS I bowl at Thera may indicate that LC IA:2 and the end of LM IA are contemporary. At Toumba tou Skourou a typical Egyptian razor, that cannot be dated earlier than the reign of Thutmosis in, was found with nothing later than LC IB pottery and indicates a link between LC IB and the reign of Thutmosis HI, or perhaps Amenhotep II. In Egypt LM IB pottery and LH II pottery have been traditionally linked with the reign of this pharaoh, and there seems little need to alter this association. Thus a general link between the reign of Thutmosis IE, LM IB, LH II and LC IB can be maintained, . One of the features of this period is the occurrence of the squat version of the RLW-m spindle bottle in Egyptian tombs, many of which can be dated to the reign of Thutmosis III; in LM IB levels on Crete; in LB IB tombs and levels in Palestine, and in LC IB tombs and levels in Cyprus. The recorded occurrences of this ware at Alalakh, from late in Level V to those found in the Niqme-pa palace, destroyed during the life of Level IV, are contemporary with LC IA:2 through to LC HA:1. The LC I pottery recorded in the Fortress dated to Level VI is not accepted as secure evidence for a Level VI start for LC I for the same reason that one would not accept the evidence of the LH HI pottery recorded from this context. At Alalakh the beginning of Level V through to the destruction of the Niqme-pa Palace is considered to be contemporary with the reigns of Ahmose through to Thutmosis IV. This range, from Ahmose to Thutmosis IV, represents a period slightly longer than is proposed here for the LC I period. However, the LM IIIA:l vessel found in a room of Niqme-pa's palace would indicate that it was in use during the LC IIA:1 period, which is when this pottery style occurred in Cyprus.
There is no evidence for taking the beginning of the LC IA period back 100 or more years before the XVIIIth Dynasty, if at all, as some of the chronological schemes for LC I have suggested. Whilst it is possible that the initial phase of LC IA, or LC IA:1, as defined at Toumba tou Skourou may have begun slightly earlier than the XVIIIth Dynasty, this has not been confirmed. That LC I, as defined by the appearance of BR I and WS I, can be placed prior to the beginning of the XVIIIth Dynasty has been argued against, but the BR I juglet from Kom Rabia may require this view to be altered. All other evidence shows that the LC I period should be considered as having been contemporary with the XVIIIth Dynasty.
When all is said and done one must remember that we are trying to refine a chronology for a relatively short length of time. Ahmose-pen-nekhbet was able to serve in the Egyptian military under the rule of Ahmose I, Amenhotep I, Thutmosis I and n, and died enjoying the favours of Hatshepsut and Thutmosis in, which is only ca 60 years. Of course, for the period under discussion, we then have the lengthy reign of Thutmosis III and part of the reign of Amenhotep II which adds another 70 years. That we can even argue for divisions within this period, and that our chronological reckonings mostly differ by such small margins should be a tribute to the available archaeological and historical records." (ibid. 218-221).
Итак, удалось установить, что имеется корелляция между LMIA, LCIA и началом 18-ой династии в Египте. Для полноты картины осталось сравнить данные относительной датировки с датами радиокарбона, о чём будет в следующем посте.
Насколько я помню, поправьте, если ошибаюсь, правящая верхушка древнего Египта широко практиковала инцест. А даже без этого фактора риска европейские династии вырождались, варясь "в собственном соку". Гемофилия, и т.д. Так что рахитичность и "лошадиномордость" вполне могли присутствовать.
Ябедничаю.