See, for example., Gonen, “Megiddo,” pp. 97–98: “Correlating literary with archaeological evidence for the Amarna period is … problematic. The paucity of direct evidence in the form of scarabs or other royal objects for this period in Canaan is well known. In its absence, dating of the period is based on the presence of Myc. IIIA2 pottery vessels of the type found at the site of El Amarna. However, the validity of the exact correlation between this family of pottery and El Amarna has been questioned. Nevertheless, even if the nature of the Mycenaean pottery at El Amarna was agreed upon, the Mycenaean pottery at Megiddo [and other sites in Canaan] could hardly be used to obtain a secure El Amarna date” (citations omitted).