Home Published articles

Destruction of Jericho City IV Dated to ~1400 BC by Pumice

from Thera, Pottery, Scarabs, and Relative Radiocarbon Dates

The presentation on the pages following was given at the annual meeting of the

Near East Archaeological Society at their annual meeting, November 18, 2015, in

Atlanta Georgia. In keeping with an audience that included archaeologists

currently working in the field, the talk’s original title was “Anomalies in

Radiocarbon Dating, LB and Earlier, Are Not the Invention of Biblical

Archaeologists.” The presentation consisted of 16 PowerPoint slides, shown

below. Each slide is followed by the lecture notes for the presenter.

Abstract. Radiocarbon dating of the Theran eruption has placed the event between

1627 and 1600 BC at the 95% confidence level. The art and pottery motifs at the

site of Akrotiri, buried under the tephra, were dated by archaeologists to the Late

Minoan 1A, about 150 years later than this ‘scientific’ date, thus producing a

conflict between archaeologists (especially Egyptologists) and those who hold the

radiocarbon dates paramount. The presentation focused on a very strong evidence

in favor of the archaeologists: the sudden appearance of Theran pumice at Tell el

Dab‘a stratum C/2, dated by Manfred Bietak to the reigns of Thutmose III and

Amenhotep II (roughly 1450 to 1400 BC). Both pharaohs are represented by

scarabs in this layer. The same is true of pumice found in the Levant (Tell el-

‘Ajjul, Ashkelon, Tel Na‘ami) “only from the Late Bronze Age onwards, whilst all

pumice from Middle Bronze Age strata is from other volcanoes” (Bietak 2004).

Currently, no one has refuted such statements by respected Egyptologists and

Levantine archaeologists. The pumice evidence thus places the Theran eruption

about 1450 BC or slightly thereafter. The unadjusted BP (Before Present)

radiocarbon date for the LB destruction of Jericho City IV is 45 ± 15 years later

than the BP date for Thera. By comparing BP dates instead of the controversial

‘adjusted’ 14C dates, the destruction level at Jericho City IV dates to the late 15th

or early 14th centuries BC, in agreement with the Late Bronze pottery from the site

examined by Bryant Wood and John Garstang, and in conflict with Kathleen

Kenyon’s much-quoted “Middle Bronze” date of 1580-1550 BC for the

destruction.

===================================NOTES========================================

The purpose of my talk is not to give a balanced presentation of all sides in the current debate.

It is instead to show that there is a problem.

The amount of data connected with this issue is immense, and it all cannot be covered here.

However, I do welcome comments from the audience wherever you think that I have left out

something of importance.

===================================NOTES========================================

Some have said that this was the biggest volcanic explosion in historical times. The explosion

sent a tsunami across the Mediterranean and deposited a thick layer of tephra on the island

itself.

The dates given in the Science article are apparently verified by organic material affected by the

tsunami and volcanic ash from Thera on top of that at Palaikastro, Crete (Bruins et al. 2009).

Red square indicates location of Akrotiri, the town buried under tephra from the eruption.

Note added after the talk: The following book was pointed out to me after I had given the

presentation: Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective, eds. Thomas E. Levy, Thomas

Schneider, W. H. C. Propp, and Brad C. Sparks (Springer, 2015). A chapter in this book has a title

similar to the summary at the bottom of my slide 8, but even more stronger: “Dating the

Theran Eruption: Archaeological Science Versus Nonsense Science,” by Malcom H. Wiener, pp.

131-43. Wiener questions the statistical methods for the 14C date of the Thera Olive branch,

and also cites radiocarbon dating of plants near volcanoes on Hawaii and elsewhere that give

too early dates. He dates the Thera eruption after 1530 BC, still considerably earlier than the

earliest presence of Theran pumice in Tell el-Dab‘a stratum C/2 (dated ~1450-1400 by Bietak).

===================================NOTES========================================

This is a reconstruction, based on samples found in the rubbish heap at Tell el-Dab‘a and compared to a

similar Minoan frieze (from Crete?).

The discovery of these Minoan friezes that were originally on the walls the 18th Dynasty Palace F has

been considered one of the most important findings in 20th century archaeology. The discovery of

Theran pumice in the layer above, C/2, however, is far more important in shedding light on the history

and chronology of the ANE in the second millennium BC. This will be discussed shortly.

===================================NOTES========================================

Purpose of this slide is to introduce work of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in the Delta of Egypt. If

Bietak wasn’t an internationally recognized expert in archaeology, he would not have been invited to

give the plenary address at this meeting of distinguished researchers in that field. The theme of his talk

was the disparity between radiocarbon and archaeological dates in their excavations in Egypt’s Delta

region (Avaris/Tell el-Daba).

If there was any bias in the radiocarbon dates, you would think that it would be to make the radiocarbon

dates agree with the dates assigned by the Austrians to their archaeological findings.

===================================NOTES========================================

The Minoan-type fresco described above adorned the wall of one of these palaces, but due to settling of

the mud-bricks used in construction, the frescoes did not last long. Their remains had to be pieced

together from a dump site by the palaces.

The two palaces were separated by an artificial lake. Their distance apart is 150 cubits by the old

Egyptian cubit (so Bietak). This implies that the cubit used by Moses was 20.6 inches instead of the later

18 inches. In particular, it means that Noah’s Ark was 515 feet long, not 450 feet.

===================================NOTES========================================

I need to explain this, since it is not obvious what is intended at first glance. Bietak has superimposed

fragments from the 18th-Dynasty palace mural onto the griffin that was part of a mural on Thera.

Bietak places the paintings in level C3, ~1480 to 1440 BC (low chronology).

===================================NOTES========================================

In this chart, strata C3 and C2 are dated by Bietak and his co-workers at from about 1470 to 1440 and

1440 to 1400 BC based on the stratigraphic record and his (low chronology) dates for the 18th Dynasty.

Notice the regularity of these data. The offset is quite consistent; what can explain it? Certainly not a

lengthening of the Egyptian chronology! It can be explained by improper tree-ring matching. The

calibration curve should be corrected by secure archaeological data like this, not by tree rings—at least

for this period in history and this region (also the Levant in 1400 BC and earlier).

15th century offset is about 170 - 200 years, compared to about 120 years for earlier samples. Maybe

venting of old carbon from Thera made plants growing in this region in the 15th century have less 14C.

Bob Porter, memo to me on 9 Nov 2015: “Separate dendrochronologies from America, Germany and

UK have been constructed and then carbon dated (typically at 10 year intervals) to produce calibration

curves. The International Calibration curve is typically made up of an average of the carbon dates from

several regions for each 10 year period (as counted back in the dendrochronologies). Only the UK data

(Belfast) has been released (and found wanting); the Germans and Americans refuse to release theirs

although they all publish countless articles about their dendrochronologies.”

Oxford results, on well-provenanced plants from Thebes, are basically in agreement with

archaeological dates; actually slightly higher than the 18th Dynasty “High Chronology”. But Bruins & van

der Plicht, “Charcoal Radiocarbon Dates of Tell el-Dab‘a (SCIEM 3, 65-77) agree with Bietak that for

early levels there, radiocarbon dates are 100 to 200 years earlier than archaeological dates. Why doesn’t

someone start with the raw data and refute these results?

===================================NOTES========================================

This is like saying “Science vs. the Bible”. It implies a conflict in which one is right and the other

is wrong.

I’m not altogether convinced that possible problems with dendrochronolgy completely explain

the disparities. There may be additional complications, such as regional effects.

===================================NOTES========================================

In SCIEM 3, p. 15, Figure 2 puts Theran pumice in level C/2, which the chart on p. 14 puts in range 1440

to 1400 BC. Figure 2 puts “Paintings” in stratum C/3, which is dated from about 1480 to 1440 BC. (Bietak

2005)

p. 17 of SCIEM 3: “Also, the massive first appearance of Theran pumice in archaeological contexts (thus

far nearly 400 samples) in the Late Bronze Age in the Levant and in the Thutmoside Period in Egypt and

not before, would have to be explained as lingering for two centuries on the beaches of Egypt and the

Levant before being used, while thus far all pumice found in MB-contexts and in Egypt in the SIP were

from other volcanoes.”

Column 215 of Bietak, 2004 (Bibliotheca Orientalis review of Manning) says Theran pumice was found in

large quantities at Tell el-‘Ajjul, Ashkelon, Tel Na‘ami, “only from the Late Bronze Age onwards, whilst all

pumice from Middle Bronze Age strata is from other volcanoes.”

===================================NOTES========================================

Read all of this slide.

===================================NOTES========================================

No distortions because of problems with dendrochronology and the calibration curves in such

an approach. The problem was that they continued to build on the supposition that the 1623-

1601 BC date for the Thera eruption was correct, rather than dating this event to the LB period

as required by the pumice and reinforced by the LB pottery found in the same layers, both

Egypt and the Levant.

===================================NOTES========================================

Now let’s look at radiocarbon dates for Jericho. These results will be summarized on the next

slide. But read the first sentence from this slide. We need to think about what is said here in

relation to what is said on the rest of the slide.

It seems that consistency would demand that if all these earlier radiocarbon dates for Jericho

are ‘too early’ for the archaeological dating that was commonly accepted before the 14C data

were published, then these results should also call into question the radiocarbon dating for MB

or LB at Jericho City IV. This rather logical conclusion apparently is never considered by the

academic community.

The archaeological reasons for the fall of Jericho City IV in the LB period—end of 15th century

BC—have been covered extensively in the writings of Bryant Wood. Bryant will present this

evidence in his talk following this one.

===================================NOTES========================================

Prior assumptions will determine whether one accepts the radiocarbon dates of B & vdP 1995

or the adjustments suggested by the present slide. For those of us who believe the Bible and

who are acquainted with the many reasons why the archaeological data for Jericho agree with

the Bible, as Bryant has shown in his writings, the answer is clear. For others, however, it is

important to present good archaeological and scientific arguments showing why Kenyon was

wrong.

My professor of OT and Hebrew at Nazarene Theological Seminary, Dr. Harvey Finley, studied

under W. F. Albright. He excavated with Albright in the Levant. Dr. Finley said that the head of

an Arab work gang told him something about their prior work under the supervision of

Kathleen Kenyon. The work-gang boss said that when Kenyon’s Arab laborers brought material

from their digging that disagreed with her ideas, she refused to consider it.

===================================NOTES========================================

In On the Reliability of the OT, Kitchen said that no archaeological remains have been found

supporting a 13th century fall of Jericho to the Israelites because erosion would have washed

away all such evidence. This apparently is still the position of those who support a 13th-century

Exodus. (But there was no 13th-century Exodus; it occurred in the 15th century.)

===================================NOTES========================================

1) Kitchen and others refine all 21st and 22nd Dynasty regnal dates by reference to 2 Chr 12:2.

2) We have here another example where the Bible, used in conjunction with archaeology,

refines or corrects a radiocarbon date.

3) If Doug Petrovich is correct, as I think he is, that the Exodus was in the 9th year of

Amenhotep II, then the Biblical date of the Exodus, 1446 BC, is an anchor point for the

chronology of the 18th Dynasty. It supports a high chronology.

Doug Petrovich’s dates for Amenhotep II (reign started in 1455) would likely place the Thera

eruption in his reign, based on the figures shown in the slide.

Ask the audience: are there any Egyptian records that name the pharaoh of the Exodus?

Answer: Manetho and Cheremon. As quoted in Josephus, both stated, writing in Greek, that the

pharaoh of the Exodus was named Amenophis. Josephus disagreed violently with Manetho and

Cheremon on this, but Josephus utterly confused the Hyksos and the Israelites. This confusion

did not exist in Manetho and Cheremon. Bietak sometimes uses the name ‘Amenophis’ when

referring to Amenhotep II, as do other Egyptologists.

===================================NOTES========================================

Four methods of determining date of Jericho City IV destruction.

1) Bible (book of Joshua; chronology of Solomon; 1 Kgs 6:1). Date: Nisan (spring) 1406 BC.

2) Ceramics (Garstang, Wood). Ceramics are LB1, late 15th century BC. Bietak also said

ceramics in level C/2, which was before Jericho City IV destruction, were LB, whereas

Kenyon said Jericho ceramics were MB; her ceramic reasoning has been effectively refuted

by Wood.

3) Comparing radiocarbon BP dates: Jericho fell ~45 years after Thera eruption in reign of Th

III or Am II. Pumice, ceramic, and Minoan art frescoes in Egypt date eruption to

approximately mid 15th century BC. 14C radiocarbon dates for Jericho grain samples are

about 45 years later plus or minus about 15 years—i.e. late 15th century BC or early 14th

century.

4) Negative evidence: no stratigraphic or artefactual evidence for a 13th century destruction.

Home Published articles

Bibliography

In what follows, SCIEM refers to The Synchronization of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second

Millennium B.C. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Vol. 1 was published in 2002,

M. Bietak editor. Vol 2: 2003, M. Bietak editor. Vol. 3: Manfred Bietak and Ernst Czerny, eds., 2007.

BIETAK, MANFRED

2003 “Science versus Archaeology: Problems and Consequences of High Aegean Chronology,” in Manfred

Bietak, ed., SCIEM 2.

2004 Review of Sturt W. Manning, A Test of Time, (Oxford, 1999), in Bibliotheca Orientalis 61:1-2,

January-April 2004, 200-222. Available on Bietak’s Academia.edu page.

2010 “Minoan presence in the pharaonic naval base of Peru-nefer,” in O. Krzyskowska (ed.), Cretan

Offerings: Studies in Honour of Peter Warren, BSA Studies 18 (London: British School at Athens, 2010)

11–24. The chapter is available on Bietak’s Academia.edu page.

2014 “Radiocarbon and the Thera Eruption”, Antiquity 88:339 (March 2014), pp. 277-282. Available on

Bietak’s Academia.edu page.

2015 “Recent Discussions about the Chronology of the Middle and the Late Bronze Ages in the Eastern

Mediterranean: Part 1” Bibliotheca Orientalis 72:3-4 (2015) 317-335.

BIETAK, MANFRED, AND HÖFLMAYER, FELIX

2005 “Introduction: High and Low Chronology,” SCIEM 3, 13-21. Page 2, Figure 2 puts Theran pumice in

level C/2, which the chart on p. 14 puts in range 1440 to 1400 BC. Figure 2 puts “Paintings” in

stratum C/3, which is dated from about 1480 to 1440 BC. Page 17: “Also, the massive first

appearance of Theran pumice in archaeological contexts (thus far nearly 400 samples) in the Late

Bronze Age in the Levant and in the Tuthmoside Period in Egypt and not before, would have to be

explained as lingering for two centuries on the beaches of Egypt and the Levant before being used,

while thus far all pumice found in MB-contexts and in Egypt in the SIP were from other volcanoes.”

BRUINS, HENDRIK

1998 “Early Bronze Jericho: High-Precision 14C Dates of Short-lived Palaeobotanic Remains,” Radiocarbon

40:2 621-28.

BRUINS, HENDRIK AND VAN DER PLICHT, JOHANNES

1995 “Tell Es-Sultan (Jericho): Radiocarbon Results of Short-Lived Cereal and Multiyear Charcoal Samples

from the End of the Middle Bronze Age” Radiocarbon 37:2 213-20.

1996 “The Exodus Enigma” Nature 382 (18 July 1996) 213-14.

2001 “Radiocarbon Challenges Archaeo-Historical Time Frameworks in the Near East: The Early Bronze Age

of Jericho in Relation to Egypt,” Radiocarbon 43:3 (2001) 1321-32.

BRUINS ET AL.

2009 Hendrik Bruins, Johannes van der Plicht, J. Alexander MacGillivray, “The Minoan Santorini Eruption

and Tsunami Deposits in Palaikastro (Crete): Dating by Geology, Archaeology, 14C, and Egyptian

Chronology” Radiocarbon 51:2 (2009) 397-411.

DEE, M. W.

2013 “A Radiocarbon-based Chronology for the New Kingdom,” A. J. Shortland and C. Bronk Ramsey, eds.,

Radiocarbon and the Chronologies of Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Oxbow books) 65-75.

FISCHER, PETER M.

2003 “The Preliminary Chronology of Tell el-cAjjul: Results of the Renewed Excavations in 1999 and 2000”,

in SCIEM 2, 263-94. Pumice from the Minoan Thera eruption appears for the first time, and in great

quantity, in level H5 at Tell el-cAjjul. The abundance of Cypriot pottery in this level allows identification

as the same time in which pumice first appears at Tell el-Dab‘a: Level C/3. Just as in at Tell el-Dab‘a,

where mature White Slip ware and Chocolate-on-Brown appear first in Level C/3, these same types

appear first at Ajjul in level H5. Therefore the pumice together with the pottery date the Thera event to

approximately 1450 BC and no significant amount earlier. Although not mentioned by Fischer, this is

important because radiocarbon dates, both raw and calibrated, date the destruction of Jericho City IV

from 30 to 60 years after the Thera eruption (Bruins and van der Plicht 1996).

FRIEDRICH ET AL.

2006 Walter L. Friedrich, Bernd Kromer, Michael Friedrich, Jan Heinemeier, Tom Pfeiffer, Sahra Talamo:

“Santorini Eruption Radiocarbon Dated to 1627–1600 B.C.” Science 312 (28 April 2006) 548.

MANNING, STURT W.

1999 A Test of Time (Oxford). Seeks to revise upward the dates for Minoan and other cultures to match the

radiocarbon data. Extensively criticized by Bietak 2004.

REGEV ET AL.

2012 Johanna Regev, Pierre de Miroschedji, Raphael Greenberg, Eliot Braun, Zvi Greenhut, Elisabetta

Boaretto “Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: New Analysis for a High

Chronology,” Radiocarbon 54:2 525-66. Available on Johanna Regev’s Academia.edu page.

For an example of research that supports an agreement between radiocarbon dates and archaeological dates for the

18th Dynasty—specifically the time of Thutmose III—see (Dee 2013). The following chapter in the book, by

Bietak, presents the same chart as shown in Slide 7. Neither author attempts to explain why dates for the 18th

Dynasty reported from the Oxford radiocarbon laboratory (Dee and Bronk Ramsey) differ so significantly from 18th

Dynasty dates reported from the Vienna radiocarbon laboratory (Bietak and Kutschera).

Home Published articles