Ronald Wallenfels – författare

Many years ago, archaeologist George Hanfmann wrote that: ‘a word of caution must be added regarding the so-called ‘absolute’ dates. Because the Near East is so vital for the chronologies of the European, Central Asiatic … areas, it is well to remind ourselves from time to time that the two great pillars of the chronology of the Bronze Age, the Egyptian and the Mesopotamian, are not two stout towers resting on immovable foundations.’ His first pillar, the chronology of Egypt, has come under increasing scrutiny, particularly with respect to the ‘Third Intermediate Period’, which separates the 26th Dynasty from Egypt’s earlier history. To establish firmer dates for New Kingdom Egypt, scholars now point to synchronisms with Mesopotamia. Yet, how valid are these synchronisms? In many respects, Mesopotamian chronology seems antagonistic rather than complementary to the Egyptian. Egypt provides the dates for the Late Bronze Age Hittite empire, while Assyria controls those of the Neo-Hittite kingdoms that succeeded it in northern Syria during the Iron Age. Here, Imperial Hittite styles come into conflict with indications from Assyrian-dated artistic sequences. Similarly, at Byblos, links with Neo-Assyrian art have raised a mystery concerning its royal inscriptions, while Israel remains the focal point of heated debates in Iron Age archaeology. An option is simply to lower the start of the Iron Age, and there is much evidence from Mesopotamia consistent with this. The articles in this volume deal with several important aspects of ‘Assyria and the West’ (as related to the so-called ‘Dark Age’).