Troy and Anatolian Early Bronze Age Chronology

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The use of an absolute chronological framework based on tree-ring calibrated C-14 dates has been recently proposed by D. F. Easton in his attempt “… to come to grips with the crucial and difficult dating of Troy” (Easton 1976:146). Easton points out that unlike Tarsus, whose relative dating vis-a-vis Mesopotamia and Egypt is stable, Troy's relative chronology is not agreed upon and this “impinges not only on Anatolia, but on the Aegean and Bulgaria as well”.In establishing his chronology Easton uses, in addition to “the normal comparative methods”, two sources: (a) radiocarbon dates which, after calibration, especially when using Suess's calibration curve, affect both relative and absolute dating, (b) his reassessed stratigraphy of the Bronze Age levels at Troy (Easton 1976; 1977).Easton in his new chronological structure has not taken into consideration certain facts and opinions surrounding tree-ring calibrated radiocarbon dating. In view of the persisting controversy regarding this scientific dating method, it is premature, at least as far as Anatolia is concerned, to replace the relative dates derived from historical synchronisms with calibrated “absolute” C-14 dates.

This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit: