Those last three links (up there a little bit), uh, let's see, the Smenkhkhare one, has a pic of the Nefertiti scarab, and unfortunately not much else about that (just one paragraph about the wreck itself, I think). Here's more excerpt from the UluBurun thing I posted over there.
In the hope of obtaining an absolute date for the ship, seven wood samples taken from the keel-plank, planking, and cedar logs were submitted to Peter Kuniholm of Comell University for dendrochronological dating. While some samples did not have a sufficient number of tree rings to match the established master sequence, others with more rings appeared not to match at all. A large log-like piece of undetermined purpose, but with its outer layers trimmed, yielded a date of 1441 B.C. ±37 years, the uncertainty factor arising from the carbon dating of samples constituting the floating master conifer-ring sequence.
Imagine -- the tree ring sequence matches something else entirely, but the EXPECTED date range doesn't include this sequence, so we give up. :') To quote my own bad self,
The biggest mystery is, if the (at the time) 100 year old piece of log was part of the wreck, how is it that the rings tested from "the keel-plank, planking, and cedar logs... didn't match at all"? IMHO, the reason is obvious -- the ship doesn't date from that time, so the dendrochronological wiggle-match wouldn't work, or rather, yielded a date incompatible with other features of the wreck. The rings which didn't match at all instead matched a series of years such that the trees themselves hadn't grown when the ship went down. ;')
Something else from the files, probably posted it on FR before, dunno though:
Dendrochronological Dating, Results And Open Problems
by Mark Baillie
In 1984 Val LaMarche and Kathy Hirschboeck pointed out a severe frost ring in their Californian bristlecone pine tree-ring record relating to the calendar year 1627 BC. Their suggestion that this frost event might have been due to the eruption of the Santorini volcano in the Aegean is still a source of active debate. Their work stimulated the observation of a series of narrowest-ring events in an Irish oak chronology at dates 3195 BC, 2345 BC, 1159 BC, 207 BC and AD 540. These dates, it turns out, fall in the vicinity of several possibly traumatic environmental events marked in human records by such phenomena as dynastic changes, Dark Ages and plagues (Baillie 1995).
Not surprisingly, in his abstract Baillie mentions no synchronism in the Irish tree ring sequences to match the supposed mammoth eruption in the 17th c. But there's one in California? Not by a jug o' s-. The 207 BC synch would match the only historical record (Strabo) which survives from ancient literature. The rest correspond to other things, as would the bristlecones, and for that matter, so could the 207 BC squeeze.
I posted this as an FR topic, I believe, I wanna go offline and have some real life stuff tonight.
New Ice-Core Evidence Challenges the 1620s age
for the Santorini (Minoan) Eruption
by Gregory A. Zielinski
and Mark S. Germani
13 July 1997
Determining a reliable calendrical age of the Santorini (Minoan) eruption is necessary to place the impact of the eruption into its proper context within Bronze Age society in the Aegean region. The high-resolution record of the deposition of volcanically produced acids on polar ice sheets, as available in the SO42-time series from ice cores (a direct signal), and the high-resolution record of the climatic impact of past volcanism inferred in tree rings (a secondary signal) have been widely used to assign a 1628/1627 age to the eruption. The layer of ice in the GISP2 (Greenland) ice core corresponding to 1623±36 , which is probably correlative to the 1628/1627 event, not only contains a large volcanic-SO42-spike, but it contains volcanic glass. Composition of this glass does not match the composition of glass from the Santorini eruption, thus severely challenging the 1620sage for the eruption. Similarly, the GISP2 glass does not match the composition of glass from other eruptions (Aniakchak, Mt. St. Helens, Vesuvius) thought to have occurred in the 17th centurynor does it match potential Icelandic sources. These findings suggest that an eruption not documented in the geological record is responsible for the many climate-proxy signals in the late 1620s . Although these findings do not unequivocally discount the 1620s age, we recommend that 1628/1627 no longer be held as the "definitive" age for the Santorini eruption.
ulu burun site:freerepublic.com
Google
whoops, forgot the fancy stuff: I posted this as an FR topic, I believe, I wanna go offline and have some real life stuff tonight.
New Ice-Core Evidence
Challenges the 1620s
age for the Santorini
(Minoan) Eruption
by Gregory A. Zielinski
and Mark S. Germani
13 July 1997
Determining a reliable calendrical age of the Santorini (Minoan) eruption is necessary to place the impact of the eruption into its proper context within Bronze Age society in the Aegean region. The high-resolution record of the deposition of volcanically produced acids on polar ice sheets, as available in the SO42-time series from ice cores (a direct signal), and the high-resolution record of the climatic impact of past volcanism inferred in tree rings (a secondary signal) have been widely used to assign a 1628/1627 age to the eruption. The layer of ice in the GISP2 (Greenland) ice core corresponding to 1623±36 , which is probably correlative to the 1628/1627 event, not only contains a large volcanic-SO42-spike, but it contains volcanic glass. Composition of this glass does not match the composition of glass from the Santorini eruption, thus severely challenging the 1620s age for the eruption. Similarly, the GISP2 glass does not match the composition of glass from other eruptions (Aniakchak, Mt. St. Helens, Vesuvius) thought to have occurred in the 17th century nor does it match potential Icelandic sources. These findings suggest that an eruption not documented in the geological record is responsible for the many climate-proxy signals in the late 1620s . Although these findings do not unequivocally discount the 1620s age, we recommend that 1628/1627 no longer be held as the "definitive" age for the Santorini eruption.