New evidence for Middle Bronze Age chronology from the Syro-Anatolian frontier

Studies linking textual and archaeological evidence from Kültepe, Mari and Acemhöyük with dendrochronological and radiocarbon evidence from Kültepe and Acemhöyük have created an independent dating framework for Mesopotamian chronology.

“For the Mesopotamian chronology, studies linking textual and archaeological evidence, especially from Kültepe, Mari and Acemhöyük (Türkiye), with dendrochronological and radiocarbon evidence from Kültepe and Acemhöyük, have created an independent dating framework (Barjamovic et al. 2012;Manning et al. 2016Manning et al. , 2020)).”

• cites Barjamovic et al. 2012Not checked — no full text of the source
• cites Manning et al. 2016 sourceSupported
• cites Manning et al. 2020 sourcePartly supported

  The Results sections on the Anatolian Middle Bronze Age tree-ring series and Mesopotamian chronology link textual and archaeological associations at Kültepe and Acemhöyük with tree-ring and radiocarbon dates to assess Mesopotamian chronology. Our copy does not identify Mari as part of that evidence, so the named-site detail is not fully supported; page numbers are unavailable. (LLM, conf=0.84)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

These vessel types offer comparisons with final MB II repertoires at Tilmen Höyük, Alalakh, Ebla, Kinet Höyük, Umm el-Marra, Zeytinli Bahçe Höyük and Lidar Höyük.

“These offer comparisons with the final MB II repertoires at Tilmen Höyük (Levels IIb-c), Alalakh (Level VII), Ebla (Mardikh IIIB2), Kinet Höyük (Period 16), Umm el-Marra (Period IIIa-c), Zeytinli Bahçe Höyük (Building VII) and Lidar Höyük (Phase 5/Level 8) (Figure 5B-I, K-M, O-P; Morgan & Soldi 2021).”

• cites Morgan & Soldi 2021Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

The assemblage of complete vessels from Zincirli Area 2 allows comparison with late MB II sites across the Northern Levant and Cilicia.

“The assemblage of complete vessels from Zincirli Area 2 allows comparison with late MB II sites across the Northern Levant and Cilicia.”

The assemblage of pottery from the Zincirli destruction affords key synchronisms with final Middle Bronze Age strata at other sites in the Northern Levant, Cilicia and Anatolia.

“The destruction is dated with unusual precision by 11 short-lived radiocarbon samples from closed contexts, and the assemblage of pottery found therein affords key synchronisms with final Middle Bronze Age strata at other sites in the Northern Levant, Cilicia and Anatolia.”

A synchronism with Middle Bronze Age Anatolia is offered by single-handled globular 'pilgrim' flasks, of which Complex DD yielded many examples, including seven complete and in situ.

“A synchronism with Middle Bronze Age Anatolia is offered by single-handled globular 'pilgrim' flasks, of which Complex DD yielded many examples, including seven complete and in situ (Figure 6A & D).”

The most probable 68.3 per cent HPD region in Model 3b lies at 1627-1608 BC (95.4% range 1667-1646 [9.1%], 1643-1594 [86.4%] BC).

“The most probable 68.3 per cent highest posterior density region in Model 3b lies at 1627-1608 BC (95.4% range 1667-1646 [9.1%], 1643-1594 [86.4%]BC).”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The seeds used for radiocarbon dating were stored for a few years at most and were carbonised in a single conflagration.

The approximately 73.2% highest posterior density range from the combination of all eight modelled dating probability distributions for the Phase 4 Destruction Boundary lies c. 1662-1606 BC.

“The approximately 73.2% highest posterior density (hpd) range from the combination of all these probability distributions lies c. 1662-1606 BC”

All models yield similar results: the most probable date range (68.3% HPD) for the Phase 4 destruction falls in, or mainly indicates, the mid to later seventeenth century BC.

“All models yield similar results: the most probable date range (68.3% highest posterior density) for the Phase 4 destruction falls in, or mainly indicates, the mid to later seventeenth century BC (Figures 9a & S5).”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The seeds used for radiocarbon dating were stored for a few years at most and were carbonised in a single conflagration.

Bayesian chronological modelling of radiocarbon dates on short-lived samples from closed contexts in destruction deposits at Zincirli gives the most precise dates yet available for the final phase of the Middle Bronze Age in the Northern Levant.

“Bayesian chronological modelling of radiocarbon dates on short-lived samples from closed contexts in destruction deposits at Zincirli gives the most precise dates yet available for the final phase of the Middle Bronze Age in the Northern Levant.”

Even allowing for possible small regional radiocarbon offsets and calibration-curve issues, the modelled age ranges are only slightly later, perhaps indicating a most probable 68.3 per cent date range in the later seventeenth century BC.

“Even allowing for possible small regional radiocarbon offsets and calibration-curve issues (Models 3a and 3b), the modelled age ranges are only slightly later, perhaps indicating a most probable 68.3 per cent date range in the later seventeenth century BC.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The seeds used for radiocarbon dating were stored for a few years at most and were carbonised in a single conflagration.

The combination of probability from all models gives a smallest continuous most probable and greater than 50 per cent probability region c. 1662-1606 BC, containing approximately 73.2 per cent of the probability.

“The combination of the probability from all models gives a smallest continuous most probable and greater than 50 per cent probability region c. 1662-1606 BC, containing approximately 73.2 per cent of the probability (Figure 9a).”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The seeds used for radiocarbon dating were stored for a few years at most and were carbonised in a single conflagration.

The combination of the preferred 'b' approach models, using Model 1b excluding the residual OxA-36326, Model 2b and Model 3b, finds that the single most likely, approximately 56.2% hpd range lies c. 1632-1610 BC.

“the combination of the preferred 'b' approach models, using Model 1b excluding the residual OxA-36326, Model 2b and Model 3b, finds that the single most likely, approximately 56.2% hpd range lies c. 1632-1610 BC”

The most probable 59.8 per cent HPD region in Model 2b lies at 1637-1614 BC (95.4% range 1670-1607 BC).

“The most probable 59.8 per cent highest posterior density region in Model 2b lies at 1637-1614 BC (95.4% range 1670-1607 BC).”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The seeds used for radiocarbon dating were stored for a few years at most and were carbonised in a single conflagration.

If Tilmen Höyük is Zalb/war, the destruction of its MB II stratum can probably be attributed to the attack of Hattusili I.

“If Tilmen Höyük is Zalb/war, the destruction of its MB II stratum can probably be attributed to the attack of Ḫ attusili I.”

The ceramic similarities provide a chronological link with historical events.

“The ceramic similarities provide a chronological link with historical events.”

New results from the Northern Levant affirm higher dates for the Middle Bronze Age.

“New results from the Northern Levant-the region that links the Mesopotamian and Eastern Mediterranean chronologies-affirm these higher dates for the Middle Bronze Age.”

The destruction at Zincirli is dated with unusual precision by 11 short-lived radiocarbon samples from closed contexts.

“The destruction is dated with unusual precision by 11 short-lived radiocarbon samples from closed contexts, and the assemblage of pottery found therein affords key synchronisms with final Middle Bronze Age strata at other sites in the Northern Levant, Cilicia and Anatolia.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The seeds used for radiocarbon dating were stored for a few years at most and were carbonised in a single conflagration.

Pilgrim flasks have been recovered from Karum levels II and I at Kültepe-Kanesh, where they were identified as Northern Levantine imports.

“They have also been recovered from Karum levels II and I at Kültepe-Kanesh, where they were identified as Northern Levantine imports (Emre 1994(Emre , 1995)).”

• cites Emre 1994Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Emre 1995Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Revision of the Tell el-Dabʿa chronology raises the end of the Middle Bronze Age in the Eastern Mediterranean to c. 1600 BC.

“Meanwhile, revision of the Tell el-Dabʿa chronology, reconciling its radiocarbon dates and archaeo-historical chronology with new radiocarbon dates from sites in the Central and Southern Levant, raises the end of the Middle Bronze Age in the Eastern Mediterranean to c. 1600 BC (Höflmayer et al. 2016a(Höflmayer et al. , 2016b;;Höflmayer 2019;Höflmayer & Manning 2022;pace Bietak 2021).”

• cites Höflmayer et al. 2016aNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Höflmayer et al. 2016bNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Höflmayer & Manning 2022 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Zalba(r) appears as an initial target of Hittite king Hattusili I, whose Annals recount his destruction of the city.

“Zalba(r) appears as an initial target of the Hittite king Ḫ attusili I (conventionally, hMC c. 1650-1620 BC), whose Annals (CTH 4, §2-3, A i 9-14; Košak et al. 2021) recount his destruction of the city (Beckman 2006: 219-20).”

• cites Košak et al. 2021Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Beckman 2006Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Bichrome-painted flasks such as those at Zincirli are otherwise found only at Kültepe Karum Ia (or sometimes Level I without specification), as well as Umm el-Marra.

“Bichrome-painted flasks, such as those at Zincirli, are otherwise found only at Kültepe Karum Ia (or sometimes Level I without specification) (type A1a in Emre 1995), as well as Umm el-Marra (G.Schwartz, pers. comm.).”

• cites Emre 1995Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites G. Schwartz, pers. comm.Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

The transition between Karum Ib and Ia occurred around the last decade of the eighteenth century (hMC).

“The transition between Karum Ib and Ia occurred around the last decade of the eighteenth century (hMC;Barjamovic et al. 2012: 51-52).”

• cites Barjamovic et al. 2012: 51-52Not checked — no full text of the source

The radiocarbon dates from Zincirli were obtained on short-lived samples from closed contexts in destruction deposits.

“Bayesian chronological modelling of radiocarbon dates on short-lived samples from closed contexts in destruction deposits at Zincirli gives the most precise dates yet available for the final phase of the Middle Bronze Age in the Northern Levant.”

New high-precision dates from Zincirli support accumulating radiocarbon evidence from other Northern Levantine sites that presents a generally consistent picture for MB II absolute chronology.

“The new high-precision dates from Zincirli support accumulating radiocarbon evidence from other Northern Levantine sites that presents a generally consistent picture for MB II absolute chronology (Figure 10).”

Recent upward revision of the Eastern Mediterranean chronology also supports a seventeenth-century BC date.

“As noted above, recent upward revision of the Eastern Mediterranean chronology also supports a seventeenth-century BC date.”

Radiocarbon results from final Middle Bronze Age destructions at Kinet Höyük, Ebla, Oylum Höyük, Umm el-Marra, and Lidar Höyük are mostly compatible with a late seventeenth-century BC date for this horizon.

“Radiocarbon results from final Middle Bronze Age destructions at Kinet Höyük in Cilicia, Ebla (Mardikh IIIB2), Oylum Höyük and Umm el-Marra to the south, and Lidar Höyük on the Euphrates (Figure 10), are also mostly compatible with a late seventeenth-century BC date for this horizon.”

The destruction of Zincirli Complex DD can be synchronised on archaeological and ceramic grounds with destruction layers attributed to the Hittite campaigns against the Northern Levant, marking the final phase of the Middle Bronze Age.

“The destruction of Zincirli Complex DD can be synchronised on archaeological and ceramic grounds with destruction layers attributed to the Hittite campaigns against the Northern Levant, marking the final phase of the Middle Bronze Age.”

The ceramic parallels suggest a direct chronological link between these two contexts.

“suggesting a direct chronological link between these two contexts.”

• cites Emre 1995Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Tübitak-0461 is moved into the MBII destruction phase in Models 2a, 3a, 2b and 3b.

“Tübitak-0461 is moved into the MBII destruction phase in Models 2a, 3a, 2b and 3b, as indicated by the dashed red arrow.”

OxA-36326 is excluded in Models 2a, 2b, 3a and 3b as a probably residual EBIV sample.

“OxA-36326 is excluded in Models 2a, 2b, 3a and 3b as a probably residual EBIV sample, as indicated by the orange arrow.”

The probable radiocarbon date for Zincirli's destruction, c. 1632-1610 BC, presents the most precise evidence thus far for the absolute chronology of these events.

“The probable radiocarbon date for Zincirli's destruction, c. 1632-1610 BC, presents the most precise evidence thus far for the absolute chronology of these events.”

The very few later dates are likely outliers.

“The very few later dates are likely outliers.”

Their attestation at Zincirli suggests the possibility of an end date for Karum Ia that is even slightly later, in the reign of Hattusili I.

“Their attestation at Zincirli suggests the possibility of an end date for Karum Ia that is even slightly later, in the reign of Ḫ attusili I.”

New radiocarbon data from both Syro-Anatolia and Egypt find no contradiction at sites such as Alalakh, where the two chronological systems overlap.

“New radiocarbon data from both Syro-Anatolia and Egypt thus find no contradiction at sites such as Alalakh, where the two chronological systems overlap.”

The new radiocarbon evidence from Zincirli and other sites in this region connecting the Near East and Eastern Mediterranean, in concert with radiocarbon and dendrochronological evidence from Anatolia, the Southern Levant and Egypt, is consistent only with the Syro-Mesopotamian High-Middle/Low-Middle Chronology.

“Significantly, the new radiocarbon evidence from Zincirli and other sites in this region connecting the Near East and Eastern Mediterranean-in concert with radiocarbon and dendrochronological evidence from Anatolia, the Southern Levant and Egypt-is consistent only with the Syro-Mesopotamian High-Middle/Low-Middle Chronology.”

Samples from later and earlier contexts bracket the destruction date.

“Samples from later and earlier contexts bracket the destruction date.”

Zincirli appears to have been part of the production region for this commodity.

“Zincirli appears to have been part of the production region for this commodity (Morgan & Richardson 2020).”

• cites Morgan & Richardson 2020 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source