tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6760875.post7907871545538241812..comments2023-11-02T10:29:04.103+00:00Comments on Egyptology News: Dating the Predynastic for beginners - Part 1Andiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03342690442454499340noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6760875.post-66215394881138271052010-04-23T22:27:29.195+01:002010-04-23T22:27:29.195+01:00Very helpful piece though Andy - I think I will us...Very helpful piece though Andy - I think I will use this as my easy reference!Datinghttp://www.luvfree.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6760875.post-61104406953032669542008-07-30T21:35:00.000+01:002008-07-30T21:35:00.000+01:00Sad to disappoint you, but I'm not a "lover" of Eg...Sad to disappoint you, but I'm not a "lover" of Egypt before Narmer and after Nectanebo II, as hystory (it's my "crazy opinion") began with Sumerians and ends with Persian Empire fall. :-)<BR/><BR/>I read an article similar to your post on "Pharaon Magazine" (yes, it's written pharaon: "italianized" english word, because in italian pharaoh is "faraone"): this kind of articles are useful to help to diradate fog in my mind about Predynastic.<BR/><BR/>I'm not expert on this argument, but, as organic chemist, I can say that's impossible to date pottery with radiocarbon (everyone who can tell I'm wrong is welcome), so I think relative datation will survive along.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6760875.post-79488232866126780432008-07-30T21:18:00.000+01:002008-07-30T21:18:00.000+01:00Like John I am an armchair egyptologist, however m...Like John I am an armchair egyptologist, however my prefered period is pre-dynastic / early dynastic. So I am quite familar with the dating models. My personal preference has always been Kaiser's early model, I find the revised model too complicated!<BR/><BR/>Initially when dynasties 0 and 00 were used I disliked the terms but now I think they are a good way to show a continuity. They go some way to prevent the (still common) misconception that Dyanstic Egypt just started from out of nowhere.<BR/><BR/>My main gripe is that books do not state which model they are going to use, and that they should have an easy reference table in the appendices to show correlation with the other main models.<BR/><BR/>Very helpful piece though Andy - I think I will use this as my easy reference!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6760875.post-17642056720127340802008-07-30T20:35:00.000+01:002008-07-30T20:35:00.000+01:00Hello JohnThank you very much for the comment - se...Hello John<BR/><BR/>Thank you very much for the comment - seriously appreciated. I'll wait to collect a few more creative criticisms and then rewrite the piece. I am very grateful that you took the time - and I can see that you're absolutely right too.<BR/><BR/>All the very best<BR/>AndieAndiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03342690442454499340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6760875.post-17872398074230891132008-07-30T20:25:00.000+01:002008-07-30T20:25:00.000+01:00As an armchair egyptologist/archaeologist, I have ...As an armchair egyptologist/archaeologist, I have not much experience with Pre-Dynastic Egypt (popular sources being heavily weighted to New Kingdom), so I am a good example of a "relative beginner". <BR/><BR/>The only major confusion for me was the reference early on to "The main weakness of Kaiser’s 1957 model..." and then later "Kaiser’s 1956 and 1990 versions are the most commonly used..."?<BR/><BR/>I liked the chronological table but would have liked it split up a bit more into "actual date" [BC?], Petrie's Scheme [for legacy material], Kaiser '57 and Kaiser '90.<BR/><BR/>Wilkinson's Chronological Table [T. Wilkinson in M.D.A.I.K. 56 , 2000 p. 39] on this Francesco Rafaelle page http://xoomer.alice.it/francescoraf/hesyra/synthesis.htm is interesting because it gives the sites/artifacts that support the chronologies, as well as, a location reference, but may be a bit too cluttered for the novice.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11796763692988825229noreply@blogger.com