bet an court

8/3/2019 Bet an Court

1/5

Archueomrtry 29, 1 (1987), 45-49. Printed in Great Britain

RESEARCH NOTES AN D APPLICATION REPORTSDATING TH E AEG EAN LATE BRO N ZE AG E WITHR A D I O C A R B O N *

P . P . B E T A N C O U R TDeparinzent of Art History, Tvler School of Art. Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, U . S . A .

When Cadogan wrote Dating the Aegean Bronze Age without radiocarbon (1978), thiswriter agreed completely with the view that the absolu te dating of the Aegean La te BronzeAge was already established. Correlations with Egypt and other parts of the easternM editerranean seemed secure, an d virtually all Aegean prehistorians felt that radiocarbondates could be tested by com parison with the Aegean ch rono logy. By this reasoning, theradiocarbon dates for Late Minoan (LM) I/Late Cycladic (LC) I Thera were rejectedbecause they suggested a dat e ab ou t a century earlier than the traditional dates (Betan-court a nd Weinstein 1976). The assum ptions must now be reconsidered.Th e series of radiocarbon dates from the LC IA settlement a t Akrotiri o n The ra is oneof the longest series from any European site. A subset of short-lived samples, processed bythe University of Pennsylvania laboratory, remains today one of the most internallyconsistent group s of dates (M ichael 1976, Michael a nd W einstein 1977). Th e evidence fromthis grou p needs only a su mm ary here because it is well know n, having been discussed manytimes in the literature (Betancou rt an d W einstein 1976 pp. 332-333, illustration 1, Michael1977, W einstein a nd Betancou rt 1977). The entire series processed by th e Pennsylvanialaboratory is particularly useful because the species that yielded the charcoal were deter-mined, and the contexts were archaeologically secure. If one omits from consideration thedates derived from undersized samples, those from contexts before the LM IA/LC IAdestruction, an d those from long-lived trees which should da te building materials erectedwell before the destruction, one is left with ten samples, all from twigs, grain and othershort-lived material. After calibration, this groups yields dates w ith a cluster in the seven-teenth century B.C., by whatever valid calibration or statistical method which may beemployed. In sh ort, the series is insistent on a da te in the seventeenth century B .C. for theend of LM IA and LC IA.The difficulties with this conclusion, admirably summarized by Cadogan (1 978), stemfrom the fact that this date is ab ou t a century earlier than the traditional chronology basedon interrelations w ith the eastern M editerranean. Several explanations have been advancedin efforts to explain the discrepancy, but none are satisfactory. As Michael noted when hefirst advanced the theory, emissions of volcanic carbon dioxide which would raise theresultant da tes of plants ne ar fumaroles d o not explain the consistent results obtained fromseveral different materials tak en from different storage areas (1977 p. 794). Samples takenfrom short-lived materials might be expected to yield dev iant results with one o r two da tes

* A comment by P. M . Warren on his paper will be presented in Archaeometry 29 (2), 1987.

45


2/5

46 P . P . Betancourtbecause of short-range variations in absorbe d car bo n (Baxter an d W alton 1971), but thisscatter effect is minimized if large g roups of da tes ar e averaged, a s is the case with the seriesfrom Thera (Stuiver 1982 pp. 12-23). An island effect which causes distortions (Olsson,c ited in h t r o m 1984 p . 5 ) has no serious validity and is not substantiated by radiocarbondates from elsewhere in the Aegean, such as the island of Kea (B etanco urt an d Law n 1984figure 3). In summary, no scientific explanation suggests the Theran dates should bediscounted. On the contrary, they form a tight, consistent series. The only drawback toaccepting them is the archaeological evidence, and much has happened to force a re-evalua-tion i.2 this quarter in the last few years. In recent discussions of the chron ology of L M IA ,Warren has presented tw o main barriers t o an early chro nolog y (1984, 1985). Th e first isthe Khy an lid, a stone lid inscribed with the nam e of the Hykso s king K hy an . It was foundat K nossos in a context described as M M IIIB (Evans 1921-1935 I pp .41 84 21 , figures 303and 304B). The same context, however, also contained LM I or later stone vases(Pomerance 1984b) an d LM III A po ttery (Palmer 1969 pp. 63-64), so that the lid cannotbe used as a keystone of chronology by todays stan da rds of scholarship. The secondprobkm is more complex. If LM IA is raised, then later periods must either be expanded,or they must also be raised slightly, an accordion effect which changes several dates. AsWarren notes, the correlation of LM IB with the reign of Tuthmosis 111 has long beenaccepted because of finds of Aegean pottery in the eastern Mediterranean.The relevant evidence for these periods is as follows:

( I ) LM lTIA:Z/LH IIIA:2 Th e traditional chron ology assigns this period to c.1375-1330 B.C. (Cad ogan 1978 p.210), o n the basis of LH IIIA:2 sherds a t Amarna.However, L H IIIB sherds are also amo ng the Am arn an finds (Hankey 1973). If LH IIIB(and the contemporary LM IIIB) had already begun by the Amarnan period (secondquarter of the fourteenth century B.C.), then the rather long L M IIIA:2/LH IIIA:2 musthave begun in the previous century.Th e A m arna n evidence indicates that the traditional dateof c . 1425/140&1375 B.C. (Cadogan 1978) is not possible. A sq ua t alabastro n from A nibaplaces at least part of this period as early as the reign of Tuthmosis 111. Th e Egyptiancontext of the vase, To m b SA 17 a t Aniba , has been discussed in tw o independent studies,both of which agree on the firmness of the dating, in the Eighteenth Dy nasty an d n o laterthan the reign of Tuthmosis 111 (Weinstein 1983, K em p a nd Merrillees 1980 pp . 242-244,253--254). Th e alab astro n is a local (?)copy of Aegean work. All the best parallels for theornament come from Crete but have never been properly discussed. Spirals on the uppershoulder are rendered as da rk lines with the co rners painted solid, a technique which givesthe false impression of light-on -dark spirals if the vase is seen only in photographs but isactua!ly dark-on-light; the technique is common in the Knossian pottery of LM 1IIA:I(Pop ham 1970 plate 18B,D, E left, plate 44 D lower center, Niemeier 1985 figure 43 Nos.19-20, 27-28). O n the bo tto m of the vase is a rosette set within a deco rative circle, a motifwhich is also at home in LM 1IIA:I (Popham 1970 plate 7D), as earlier rosettes lack theenclosing borde r. A crescent band is also from L M IIIA: 1 (Popham 1970 plates 3 4F upperright, 41A, 45B). The shape of the vase, a squat alabastron with a baggy shape, begins inLM 1: and becomes more common in L M IIIA; earlier LM IB and LH IIA examples aredifferent in that they always have a higher maxim um diam eter (for LM IB see Betancourt1983 No. 65, Hallager 1973 p. 442 figure 2; for L H IIA see Daw kins an d D ro op 1910-1 9 11plate I 1 No. 137). Th e only possible conclusion is tha t the vessel is a copy of Minoan work

(2) LM IIIA: l /L H IIIA: 1


3/5

Dating the Aegean Late Bronze Age with radiocarbon 47from L M IIIA: 1, so tha t this period must have already begun d uring the reign of Tuthm osis111. A scarab of A men hotep I11 in an LM 1IIA:l context a t Knossos (Cadoga n 1978 p. 210)suggests the period lasted until late in the fifteenth century B.C.

(3) LM II /L H IIB The only secure evidence is a vase from L H IIB from K ahu n froman Egyptian to mb dated to the reign of Tuthm osis I11 (Hankey an d Tufnell 1973). ThisMycenaean import indicates that LH IIB an d the contemporary LM I1 were contemporaryor earlier than the reign of Tuthmosis 111.

(4)LM IB/LH IIA If LH IIB and LM IIIA: 1 vases were already in use du ring the reignof Tuthmosis 111, then it is highly likely the LM IB pottery from this period representsheirlooms, buried some years after their manufacture. In this category are a single straysherd from T aan ek, destroyed in the twenty-third year of Tuthm osis I11 (L ap p 1967), theLH IIA jar f rom Tom b 20 at Thebes (Davies 1913), an d others. On e must only date by thelatest material found in a specific period; earlier objects are extremely numerous in all times(see the lists of Pomerance 1984a).(5) LM IA/L H I No Aegean imp orts occur in w ell-dated east M editerranean contexts,bu t influences may exist. A jug from el-Lisht in Egyp t found with Tell-el-Yahudiyah W areand decorated with birds and dolphins in Yahudiyah Ware technique should be dated toPalestinian M B 11, contem porary with the Second Intermediate period in Eg ypt (Kem p an dMerrillees 1980 pp . 22&225). Th e best parallel for the dolphins is the dec oration on a vasefrom Pacheia Am mo s in Crete (Seager 1916 plates 8-9), da ted to L M I by both P opham(Mountjoy et al . 1978 p. 148 note 21) an d by the present a uth or , although the excavatorconsidered it earlier. It suggests tha t L M I was already un der way before the EighteenthDynasty.

D I S C U S S I O NBy the present stan dar ds of strict scholarship, very little archaeological evidence exists forthe beginning of the Late Bronze Age. The evidence that does exist suggests that thetraditional chronology is about a century too late. Only if LM I/L H I began during theSecond Intermediate period can the situation ac com mod ate the jug from el-Lisht. No soundevidence exists for LM IB, but LM II/LH IIB was already in progress by the time ofTuthmosis I11 (jar from Kahun) and LM II1A:l must also have begun before the end ofthis pha raohs reign (alabastron from An iba). Such a picture is completely com patible withthe chrono logy derived from rad iocarbo n d ates. A tentative scheme is suggested in table 1.The implications o f the high chronology a re widespread. All of the Aegean cultures from

Table 1 Tentative chronology for the Aegean

Crete Greece DatesLM IA LH IA c. 1700-1610B.C.LM IB LH IIA c. 1610-1550B.C.LM I1 LH IIB c. 1550-1490B.C.LM IIIA:1 LH M A :1 c . 149&1430/10B.C.LM IIIA:2 LH IIIA:2 c. 1430/1&1365 B.C.LM IIIB LH IIIB C. 1365-1200B.C.


4/5

48 P. P. Betancourtthe beginning of the Late Bronze Age move back about a century. As a result, several ofthe problems confronting those dealing with Aegean chronology, particularly in its rela-tions with northern Europe, find satisfactory solutions. The Mycenaean Shaft Graves arenow closer in date to the Wessex Culture, with its faience beads, and to the northernEuro pean cultures, with their Aegean-related metalwork and Baltic am be r (for the extremedifficulties caused by the trad ition al Aegean c hro nology see the discussion of Bou zek 1985p. 19 and pass im) . Another piece of evidence which fits with the high chronology is a frosteffect n the grow th ring of bristlecone pines grow ing at high altitudes, sug gesting a volcaniceruption a year or two before 1625 B.C., du rin g the Hyk sos period of Egypt ( La Ma rcheand Hirschboeck 1984). In view of the large am ou nt of ash ejected by the Th eran eruption(Nin kovic h and Heezen 1965, Bond and Spark s 1976), a temper ature disrup tion w ould beexpected for this event. an d th e 1625 ring is the only fros t ring in the secon d millenniumB.C. A ma jor Theran eru ption d uring the early Eighteenth Dy nasty, when Egyptian recordsare extremely complete, goes strangely unreported in a nation preoccupied with celestialphenom ena (discussion, with different conclusions. in Pom erance 1970); an eruption in thepreceding Second Intermediate period would not leave records. The latest imports atAkrotiri, on Thera, are LM IA objects from Crete and Palestinian MB I1 stone vases,datable to the Hyksos period (W arren 1979 p. 88). Signs of Aegean influence at the verybeginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty, such as the dagger of Queen Ah-hotep with itsstylized an d highly angu lar M inoan rockwork (Smith 1965 figure 37) ma ke m ore sense fordevelclped stage s of LM I instead of the end of MM 111.In conclusion. if we were t o ign ore earlier prejudices completely and erect a new Aegeanchronology today, i t would be somew hat different from the received tradition. T his aut ho rwithdraws many of the opinions he expressed a decade ago (Betancourt and Weinstein1976); the Aegean Late Bronze Age probably began durin g the Hyk sos period, a ndradiocarbon was correct all along.

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T SThe conclusions expressed here were first presented in a seminar a t Co lum bia U niversity, by th e invitation of EdithPorada. Th e author would like to express his thank s to Edith Porada for her many years of encouragement tochronoiogical studies involving the eastern Mediterranean cultures. The field is richer fo r her efforts.

R E F E R E N C E SAstrow. P.. 1984. Middle Minoan chronology. Srudies in Aegean chronology, Goteborg: Paul Astroms Forlag .Baxter. M. S . and Walton, A, . 1971. Fluctuations of atmospheric carbon-14 concentrations during the pastBetancourt P. P.. 1983, Minoan ohjects esca rare dfro m Vasilike. Pseira . , . and other sires, Philadelphia: Univer-Betancourt, P. P. and Lawn. B., 1984. Th e Cyclades and ra dioc arbo n chronology, in Theprehistoric C j d a d e s (edsBetancourt. P. P. and Weinstein, G . A . . 1976, Carbon-14 an d the beginning of the L ate Bronze Age in the Aegean.Bond, A an d Sparks, S. J. . 1976. Th e Mino an e ruption of Santorini. Greece, J . Geol. Soc. London 132. 1-16.Bouzek. J . . 1985, The Aegean, Anarolia and Europe: cirltural inrerrelations in the secondmillennium B.C., Goteborg:Cadogz n. G.. 1978. Dating the Aegean Bronze Age without radiocarbon. Archaeotneiry 20 , ( 2 ) , 209-214.Davies. N. d e G . , 1913. Fire Thehan romhs. plate 41, London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

century. Proc. R . S or . London. Ser. A 321. 105-127.sity Museum. University of Pennsylvania.J . A . MacGillivray and R. L. N. Bar ber), Edinburgh: D epartme nt of Classical Archaeology.A m J . Archaeol. 80, 329-348.

Paul Astrorns Forlag.


5/5

Dating the Aegean Late Bronze Age with radiocarbon 49Dawkins. R . M . and Dr oo p, J. P. . 191(f191 I , Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos, 1911, Annual Br. Sch. AthensEvans, A. J. . 1921-1935, The Palace o Minos at Knossos, London: Macmillan.Hallager, E., 1973, Min oan K ydon ia. Excavations 1973, Athens Ann. Archaeol. 6. 442, figure 2.Hankey, V.. 1973, The A egean deposit at el Amarna. in Acts Int. Archaeol. Symp. on The Myrenaeans in theHankey, V. and Tufnell, O., 1973. The T om b of Maket and i ts Mycenaean imp ort , Annual Br. Sch. Afhens 68,Kem p, B. J. and Merrillees, R. S., 1980, Minoan pottery in secondmillennium Egypt. Mainz: Phil ipp von Z abern.La Marche. V. C ., J r . and Hirschboeck, K. K., 1984, Fro st rings in trees as record s of majo r volcanic eruptions,Lapp , P. W., 1967, The 1966 excavations a t Tell Taan nek, Bull. Am. Sch. Oriental Res. 185, 33-34. figu re 23 .Michael, H. N.. 1976, Radiocarbon dates from Akrotiri on Thera, Temple Universitv Aegean Symp. 1, pp . 7-9.Michael, H . N.. 1977, Radiocarbon dates from the site of Akrotiri, Thera, 1967-1977. in Thera and the AegeanMichael, H. N. and Weinstein, G. A, , 1977, New radiocarbon dates from Akrotiri , Thera, Temple UniversityMountjoy, P. A,. Jones, R. E. and Che rry, J. F., 1978, Provenance studies of th e LM IB/LH IIA m arine style,Niemeier, W . -D., 1985, Die Palaststilkeraniik von Knossos, Berlin: Deutsches Archaologisches Institut.Ninkovich. D., a nd Heezen, B., 1965, Santo rini tephra, in Submarine geology and geophysics, Proc. 17th Synip..Palmer, L. R., 1969, A new guide to the Palace o Knossos, London: Faber and Faber.Pomerance. L. , 1970, The Jinal collapse of Santorini (T he ra ) 1400 B.C . or 1200 B.C.?, Goteborg: Paul AstromsPom erance, L.. 19 84a. Th e mythog enesis of Minoan chronology. Studies in Aegean chronology, pp. 8-14,Pomerance, L., 1984b. A note on the carved stone ewers from the Khyan lid deposit, in Studies in AegeanPoph am, M., 1970, Th e destruction of the palace at Knossos, Goteborg: Paul Astroms Forlag.Seager, R. B., 1916, The cemetery of Puchvammos, C rete, Philadelphia: F ree M useum of Science and Art.Smith, W. S., 1965, Inferco nnec tions in the ancient Near E ast, N ew Hav en: Yale University Press.Stuiver. M., 1982. A high-precision calibration of the A .D. radiocarbon t ime scale. Radiocarbon 24 , 1-26.Warren, P. M., 1979, The stone vessels from the Bronze Age settlement at Akrotiri, Thera, ArchaiologikesWa rren, P.. 1984. Abso lute dating of the Bronze age eruption of Thera (Santorini), Nature 308 (5959), 492-493.Warren, P. M., 1985, Review of Minoa n pottery in second millennium Egypt (B . J . Kemp and R. S . Merrillees).

Classical Rev. 35, 147-151.Weinstein. G.A. an d Betan court, P. P. , 1977, Problems of interpretation of the Akrotiri radiocarbon dates, inThera and the Aegean World, Vol. I (ed. Christos Doumas), pp. 805-814, L ondo n: Thera and the AegeanWorld.Weinstein, J. A,. 1983, To mb SA 17 at Aniba and its Aegean vase, in Minoan objects e.ucavated.from Vasilike,Pseira , . . and other sites (ed. P. P. Betan court), Appendix A, Philadelphia: University Museum.

11, 1-22.

Eastern M editerranean, Nicosia, London: British School at Athens.103-111.

Nature 301, 121-126.

World. Vol. I (ed. Christos Dou mas) , pp. 791-795, Lond on: Thera and th e Aegean World.Aegean Symp. 2 , pp . 27-30.Annual Br. Sch. Athens 13, 143-1 71.

pp , 41 3 4 5 2 . B ristol: Colston Research Society.

Forlag.Goteburg: Paul Astroms Forlag.

Chronology, pp. 15-25, Goteb org: Paul Astroms Fo rlag.

Ephemeris, 82-1 13.

bet an court

Documents