A DENDROCHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE ASSYRIAN COLONY PERIOD IN ASIA MINOR

The link between the MBA chronology and the Gordion chronology is problematic at best, resulting from an attempt to connect the two via a dendrochronological bridge, a Juniperus spp. chronology from Porsuk.

“But the link between the MBA chronology and the Gordion chronology is problematic at best, resulting from an attempt to connect the two via a dendrochronological ‘bridge’, a Juniperus spp. chronology from Porsuk (POR) (southeast Anatolia) [21–23, 31, 40, 42].”

The Gordion Juniperus spp. chronology is well-established and near-absolutely placed in time.

“The Gordion (GOR) Juniperus spp. chronology is likewise well-established and near-absolutely placed in time [22, 23, 31, 40, 41].”

Dendrochronological evidence for Kültepe and Acemhöyük is relevant and robust.

“It has previously been shown that dendrochronological evidence for two MBA sites, Kültepe and Acemhöyük, is relevant and robust [20, 23].”

Wood from the construction of the Waršama Palace with bark preserved allows dating of the exact year the tree was felled, offering a potential date for the palace's construction within a year or so and a potential tie point with the REL.

“There is wood (Juniperus spp.) from the construction of the Waršama Palace with bark preserved, which allows dating of the exact year that the tree was felled, thereby offering a potential date for the palace’s construction within a year or so [23], and a potential tie point with the REL [5].”

Robust Juniperus spp. tree-ring chronologies from Kültepe, Acemhöyük, and Karahöyük Konya securely crossdate following standard dendrochronological methods and evaluation, both within and between sites, and combine into a robust floating 300-year MBA juniper chronology.

“Robust Juniperus spp. tree-ring chronologies from three Middle Bronze Age (MBA) sites in Anatolia (Fig 2)–Kültepe (KUL) and Acemhöyük (ACM), plus one other site, Karahöyük Konya (KBK) [20, 23, 31] (and see Section A in S1 File)–do securely crossdate following standard dendrochronological methods and evaluation [32–39], both within and between sites with no doubt as to veracity”

The wiggle-match of the 14C ages and the MBA tree-ring chronology indicates a precise placement for the MBA chronology likely ~13-16 years earlier than previously suggested on the basis of the withdrawn and non-secure dendrochronological crossdates with the Porsuk chronology.

“The wiggle-match of the 14C ages and the MBA tree-ring chronology (Figs 4–6, Table 2) indicates a precise placement for the MBA chronology likely ~13–16 years earlier than previously suggested [22, 23, 40] on the basis of the withdrawn and non-secure dendrochronological crossdates with the Porsuk chronology (Fig 7).”

Some samples indicate later additions/repairs: 22-24 years later at the Waršama Palace, at least 61 years later at the Waršama Palace, and at least 8 years later at the Sarıkaya Palace; these suggest minimum lifetimes for the structures as >61 years and >8 years respectively.

“These suggest minimum lifetimes for the structures as >61 years and >8 years respectively.”

The previous date for the Sarıkaya Palace (1774 +4/-7 BCE) was problematic because it left construction occurring more or less when Šamši-Adad I died.

“Although this previous date favored the Middle Chronology, it was problematic as it left the construction of the Sarıkaya Palace at Acemhöyük (then given as 1774 +4/-7 BCE [22, 23]) occurring more or less when Šamši-Adad I died (REL197 = 1776 BCE on the Middle Chronology–and not long before Šamši-Adad I’s death on the Low Middle Chronology).”

If the previously published crossdates and positions were correct, then all the chronologies should yield approximately the same calendar age ranges for RY776; they do not.

“If the previously published crossdates and positions were correct (e.g. [21–23, 31, 40, 41]), then all the chronologies should yield approximately the same calendar age ranges for RY776. They do not.”