Aspects of ancient Near Eastern chronology (c. 1600-700 BC)

Aspects of ancient Near Eastern chronology (c. 1600-700 BC)

P.J. Furlong

University of Melbourne: Doctor of Philosophy (2007)

Abstract

There can be no more important topic in historical studies than chronology, for it is chronology which gives meaning to history by placing individuals, events and material remains within their true sequence. If this sequence does not match historical actuality, then, the historical narrative drawn from the available evidence may appear confused, incomplete or even contradictory.

The history of the Near East is bound together by an accurate and continuous absolute chronology which stretches back to the early first millennium BC. However, beyond that point in time we are forced to rely upon relative chronologies for the histories of the Great Kingdoms of Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria and Hatti, amongst others. Scholars have pieced together these relative chronologies over the last one-two centuries using information from King-lists, royal annals and administrative documents. The end result of this major enterprise is, today, what can best be described as an extremely complex but little understood jigsaw puzzle composed of a multiplicity of loosely connected data.

Moreover, many of the pieces of this puzzle are missing. For example, while the relative chronology of the Egyptian New Kingdom (18th-20th Dynasties) is fairly well established, it is separated from the absolute chronology of the 7th century BC Saite Dynasty by the chronologically indeterminate and confused Third Intermediate Period (21st-25th Dynasties). Meanwhile, Assyrian chronology is generally considered reliable as far back as the 14th century BC. However, there are almost 100 years during the 11th-10th centuries BC from which practically no contemporary Assyrian documents have survived, thereby raising doubt in the minds of some writers over the true chronology of this period. And as for the known synchronisms between Egyptian and Mesopotamian monarchs which are now seen as confirming the historical reliability of the current Late Bronze Age Near Eastern chronology, these synchronisms are not without their own significant difficulties.

Click here to read this article from the University of Melbourne

<a HREF="http://ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?rt=tf_ssw&#038;ServiceVersion=20070822&#038;MarketPlace=US&#038;ID=V20070822%2FUS%2Fmedievalistsn-20%2F8003%2F59e769de-bddf-429e-9a66-c4e3f7973929&#038;Operation=NoScript">Amazon.com Widgets</a><a HREF="http://ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?rt=tf_ssw&#038;ServiceVersion=20070822&#038;MarketPlace=US&#038;ID=V20070822%2FUS%2Fmedievalistsn-20%2F8003%2Ff9b43e1d-1aac-48ff-811f-9741a86576c2&#038;Operation=NoScript">Amazon.com Widgets</a>