The Gap between Historical and Science based Dating
Manfred Bietak

There is no doubt that in future the exact sciences will have the lead in assessing the chronology of the second millennium BC and the more so in the time before. But we still have to cover a long way till this would happen. Even if breakthroughs happen, the historical chronology cannot be dispensed with as it provides the cultural and historical framework without which the radiocarbon data, the dendro-chronology and even the identification of particles in the Greenland ice would float meaningless. The present gap in absolute dating between historical dating and scientific data interpretation seems now wider than ever and all attempts to bridge that gap have to be considered as failed. Despite announcements of a definite High Aegean chronology there is only reason to be sceptical and cautious. It may take still five years till a solution, acceptable for all scholars involved, could be achieved. Till then we need more particles from the Greenland ice, much more short live-samples for radiocarbon dating from good in situ contexts in the Aegean, the Levant and especially well dated samples from Egypt, in order to record and explore the difference of the radiocarbon- and the Egyptian historical dates better. The data at our disposal are insufficient and their interpretation often biased. One has also to work hard to get much more samples of Lebanese cedar wood because if we cannot bridge the gap from present time till the period of our research we shall have another floating dendro-chronology dependent on radiocarbon dating. We also hope that our American colleagues will be successful to close the Anatolian floating chronology.