thedebateonlba eia libre

The debate on the Absolute Chronology for the End of the Late Bronze Age and the

Beginning of the Early Iron Age in Greece in its Mediterranean Context

Intro

The debate on the absolute chronology for the end of the Late Bronze Age (henceforth LBA) and

the beginning of the Early Iron Age (EIA) is one of the e most complex problems affecting the

reconstruction of the formation process of Greek (and Eastern Mediterranean) cultures of historic

age. Similarly to the preceding Middle and Late Bronze ages, the traditional chronological

reconstruction, that fixes the Bronze/Iron transition in Greece to about 1050 BC, has been

questioned following a) the radiocarbon results from a restricted number of Key-sites (Manning and

Weininger, 1992; Manning et al. 2001a), b) the reanalysis of levantine contexts that have yielded

imported products of the Greek proto-geometric period (Finkelstein e Piasetzky, 2003a,

2003b,2003c, 2006; Hagens, 2006).

The End of the Bronze Age in the Eastern Mediterranean: Definitions

The end of the Late Bronze Age, whose periodisation is heavily dependent on the framework of

archaeological interrelations between different regions of the eastern Mediterranean, has been

defined on the base of different phenomena occurring in the Near eastern and Aegean/Cypriot

archaeological record, thus leading to possible terminological ambiguity (Hagens, 2006).

In an extreme sum, the scholarly definition of the Bronze/Iron transition is based on the observation

of a series of new trends in the archaeological record, the most relevant being:

(1) The fall of the international trade network of the LBA eastern Mediterranean following the

destruction of Mycenaean centres and the movements of the People of the Sea;

(2) The appearance of LH III C 1b (Submycenean) wares in several centres of the Levant, in

levels corresponding more or less to the time of People of the Sea arrival, after Ramesses

III's yr. 8 battle (dated to 1175 BC in the traditional chronology);

In the Aegean and mainland Greece area the LBA/EIA transition is linked to a long series of social

and economical changes (including destruction horizons at different sites attesting a political

discontinuity with the preceding phases) attested in the archaeological records, and changes in

material culture (with the appearance of new ceramic typologies and decorations) that took place in

a slightly later period, if compared to the LBA/EIA transition in the Levant, whose chronology has

been defined on the basis of a relatively small number of imports of Aegean origin from levantine

contexts that have yielded also (or are linkable to) Egyptian imported fossil-guides.

During the last 50 years (for example Desborough, 1952) this correlations have often been

questioned, particularly from the incertitude about contexts stratigraphical reliability. A good

example at this regard may be found in the chronological datum-line offered by the Egyptian vase

bearing the cartouche of queen Tawseret (1193-1186 BC in the traditional chronology), found at

Deir 'Alla in association with LH III B ware (Hagens, 2006), that has been used to argument the

chronological correspondence between the fall of the Mycenaean trade network and the levantine

sites dated to the (early) XII century BC (Drews, 1993). This chronological correlation is however

questionable for two main reasons:

(1) A significant part of the mentioned contexts has yielded mixed materials belonging to older

phases also (LH III A), thus throwing some doubts on the effectively possible relevance of

Heirloom effects (Hagens, 2006);

(2) Following (1), it seems not possible at the present stage to determine the effective life-span

of some prestige import productions (as those found at Deir 'Alla) that may certainly have

been kept in use/circulation for a significant time after the fall of the Mycenaean network;

Another argument for the chronological correlation of the fall of the Mycenaean trading network

with the LBA/EIA transition in the Levant is to be found on the analysis of the diplomatic relations

attested in some palatial archives (mostly Ugarit) that allow a reconstruction of the international

maritime trade in this period.

The correspondence between Alshya-Cyprus and Ugarit, attested in the town archive (Drews, 1993)

shows how the two areas kept in contact until a period later than the end of Tawseret's reign and the

destruction of the city (Hagens, 2006). However, this correlation does not allow to link the absolute

chronology of the destruction of Ugarit with Cypriot LC II C as well, as the term Alashya may refer

more to a particular centre in Cyprus than to the whole island: this seems particularly likely if one

holds the identification of Alashya with the site of Alassa-Palaeotaverna, (Karageorghis, 2002) as

valid, as this site survived the destructions of the end of the LC II and continued to flourish in the

subsequent LC III A (Karageorghis, 2002).

The record of LH III B imports in Cyprus seem to show a sensible interruption before the end of the

LC II C period, a phenomenon that may be situated in the course of the progressive collapse of the

international Late Bronze Age trading network, which in turn seems to be a longer and more

articulated process than previously thought (Karageorghis, 2002).

LH III C 1b (Submycenean) imported wares in the Levant coming from contexts that are linkable to

Ramesse III's reign in Egypt (i.e. Around 1175 BC in the traditional chronology), that have been

used for the interlinked chronology of the end of the LBA may not be used in turn to date the LH III

B/LH III C 1b transition in the Aegean without running the risk of falling into a circular argument,

given, in particular, the lack of elements to determine the effectively time-span of the LH III C 1a

phase (Hagens, 2006).

This incertitude may effectively imply that the production and international spread of LH III B

wares may as well have took place several decades prior to the destruction of Ugarit, and up to 50

calendar yrs prior to Ramesses III's reign in Egypt.

In the last two decades, these contextual incertitudes have brought to the formulation of (at least)

three different chronological scenarios for the interlinked chronologies for the LBA/EIA transition

in the eastern Mediterranean:

Submycenean and Proto-geometric wares in the Levant and the Low chronology

Being dependent to a long series of possible sources of incertitude, the traditional chronological

reconstruction for the beginning of the EIA in the Aegean and mainland Greece has been mostly

drawn on the basis of archaeologically attested exports of Late/Submycenean and Proto-geometric

wares in the Levant (for a general sum of chronologically relevant imports see Fantalkin, 2001 and

2003). However, since there is no available extra-biblical source for the historical chronology of the

areas in question (with the notable exception of Egypt) during the EI I and II (between the

chronological datum-lines offered by Ramesses III's battle against the People of the Sea and the

Assyrian King-lists of the VIII century BC), the absolute periodisation of Submycenean and Proto-

geometric Greece remains fundamentally hypothetical at least until the end of the IX century BC

(Fantalkin, 2001, 2003; Lemos, 2002).

For what concerns the beginning of the Proto-geometric period, a good example of the above-

mentioned uncertainties is to be found in the Aegean imports from the sites of Tel Hadar (Kochavi,

1996; Fantalkin, 2001) and Tel Dor (Gilboa and Sharon, 1997; Fantalkin, 2001):

(1) Tel Hadar: fragments of a Proto-geometric lebes of Euboean origin (attributed by

Coldstream, 1998, to the Middle Proto-geometric-MPG) has been found in a level belonging

to stratum IV (Kochavi, 2006), and is to be dated to the middle X century BC, if the parallel

with Lefkandi holds valid (Fantalkin, 2001). However, a slightly later date of production

may not be excluded (Kopcke, 2003). This periodisation seems problematic if compared

with the 1100 980 BC life-span attributed by the excavator to the stratum (Kochavi, 2006);

(2) Tel Dor: several fragments of LPG pottery have been found in contexts belonging to the

level 8b (dated by the excavators to IA IB-IIA, corresponding to 1050 950 BC) in the D/2

area of the site. The absolute chronology of these fragments seems once again problematic,

given the fact that the main parallels for these productions in Greece has been dated to after

950 BC (Coldstream, 1952);

Both sites have been quoted in recent studies by A. Fantalkin (2001, 2003) as supporting the so-

called Ultra-Low Chronology (ULC Finkelstein and Piasetzky, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c, 2006;

Fantalkin, 2001, 2003). The interlinked chronology for the Submycenean-Protogeometric transition

is effectively based on a limited number of Aegean imports found in levantine contexts (Saltz, 1978;

Francis and Vickers, 1985; James, 1991; Fantalkin, 2001, 2003), that seem to show a gap of about

50 to 100 calendar years between the periodisation of PG imports in the Levant and the traditional

chronology of the PG period in mainland Greece, a gap that may be hypothetically resolved by the

adoption of the ULC (Fantalkin, 2001, 2006; Finkelstein e Piasetzky, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c, 2006).

The most relevant context for the period in question (apart from the two above-mentioned) are:

(1) Tell Abu Hawam: A fragment of a semi-circular skyphos and a complete one-handled cup,

both datable to the Early-to-Middle Geometric period (EG-MG), have been found in the

course of the 30's excavations at the site in a context attributed to level III (Hamilton, 1935).

This level has been dated by the excavators to about 925 BC, but reliability of the geometric

imports context is questioned (Fantalkin, 2001), having yielded also fragments that have

been dated by Coldstream (1977) to the time between the end of the IX and the half of the

VIII centuries BC, and a fragment of LPG pottery also (Hamilton, 1935);

(2) Megiddo: At least five fragments of Geometric wares (of Aegean or Cypriot origin,

Fantalkin, 2001) have been found in a context attributed conversely to phase V (Clairmont,

1995), early IV (Riis, 1970), or transitional VA/IVB (Coldstream, 1968). Coldstream

(1968) recognised this fragments as belonging to typical Attic Middle Geometric

productions, and used them to correlate the level in question with the MG in mainland

Greece (Coldstream, 1968; Riis, 1970; Fantalkin, 2001), but given the uncertainties

affecting the periodisation of the level in question this chronological datum-line seems not

reliable (Fantalkin, 2001);

(3) Samaria: At least eleven fragments of Attic MG II have been found at the site. Four of the

fragments were unearthed in the early XX century (Reisner et al., 1924), from an

unregistered context. The other seven were found in the 50's excavations (Crawford et al.

1957), in levels attributed to the early VI century BC, and another six MG II fragments were

found in Hellenistic-to-roman age contexts, showing the scarce reliability of these findings

in determining an interlinked absolute chronology for the Early Iron Age imports (Fantalkin,

2001);

Following this scenario, even if levantine contexts have not yielded any unequivocal argument for

shifting the Proto-geometric-Geometric transition in mainland Greece from the traditional interval

of 900/875 BC, the interlinked traditional chronologies (Desborough, 1952; Coldstream, 1968),

seem to be questionable.

In Coldstream's reconstruction in particular, a key-argument lies in the absolute chronology of

Megiddo phase VA/IV B, traditionally attributed to a period contemporary with the reign of

Solomon in Israel, with the destruction of the city by the Lybian-Egyptian king Shseshonq I, and

with phases III in Samaria and VII in Hazor (Aharoni and Amiran, 1958). However, the excavators

of the sites (Kanyon, 1957) had already defined phase IV of Megiddo as possibly lasting well into

the second half of the IX century BC. Following Kenyon's reconstruction, that would fix

Megiddo V between 870 and 840 BC, one would obtain a rather too low chronological framework,

which seems hardly acceptable on the basis of the present data, not least because of the possible

uncertainties in the mentioned contexts, admitted by the excavators (Kenyon, 1971).

As a result, it seems that building an absolute chronology for the Proto-geometric and Geometric

periods in Greece through imported items in the Levant runs the risk of falling into a circular

argument (Fantalkin, 2001).

Another interesting example at this regard may be found in the greek imports from Al Mina

(Kearsley, 1989, 1995): Following Kearsley (1989), the production of semi-circular skyphoi in

Greece does not appear before the half of the VIII century BC. Following this assumption, phases

X-VIII of Al Mina would have to be dated to 750-700 BC (Kearsley, 1989), which would imply a

significant lowering of the absolute chronology of the first greek presence at the site (Snodgrass,

1991). This reconstruction has been questioned by Popham and Lemos (1992), who fix the phases

X-VIII of the site to 825-720 BC, following the traditional chronology (Taylor, 1959),

highlighting the fact that Kearsley's periodisation would imply a lowering of the interlinked

chronology by some 75 calendar years even with respect to the ULC hypothesis. This downward

shift seems hardly acceptable (Fantalkin, 2001), and it has to be remember that the excavator of the

site has soon rejected the low reconstruction proposed at first (Kenyon, 1957, 1971).

On the basis of these observations, Fantalkin (2001) concludes that, taking in account (1) the

chronological uncertainties affecting the contexts which have yielded the earliest imports of

Geometric pottery in the Levant (Abu Hawam, Megiddo, Samaria), and (2) the uncertainties in the

interrelation of the relative chronologies of the sites in question, it is unsafe to suggest precise

periodisation for the so-called Aegean Dark Age through eastern Mediterranean contexts just until

the first half of the VIII century BC (Fantalkin, 2001, p.122). However, the Proto-geometric period

in Greece may be at least hypothetically dated to about 980 920 BC, without contradicting any of

the above elements (Fantalkin, 2001; Lemos, 2002).

Tab. 1 - Traditional chronology for the XIV-IX centuries BC

Date BC Levant Aegean Cyprus Egypt

1400-1350 LB II A LH III A1 LC II A/B XVIII Dyn.

1350-1300 LH III A2/B LC II B

XIX Dyn.

1300-1250

LB II B LH III B LC II C

Ramesses II

Merneptah

1250-1175

Ramesses III

1175-1150/30 Iron I A LH III C LC III A

1150/30-1100

Iron I B

LH III C/

Submycenean LC III B

Ramesses IV

1100-1050 LH III C/

Proto-Geometric

Ramesses XI

1050-1000 Proto-Geometric

Cypro-

Geometric I1000-900 Iron II A LPG/EG

Radiocarbon chronology

The ULC hypothesis has recently been the object of an important debate, also following the

radiocarbon measurements obtained from a few sites in the Aegean, the most relevant of which are

Kastanas, Mycenae, Apliki, Maroni and Assiros (Manning e Weninger, 1992, Manning et al., 2001a,

contra Hagens, 2006; Fantalkin, 2011). These sites may offer a key-argument for the radiocarbon chronology of the period in question, in particular as pure levels pertaining to the LBA/EIA

transition in Greece are extremely rare if present at all (Sanders, comm. Perss. 20/11/2010;

Fantalkin, comm. Perss. 12/1/2011). The most relevant case is undoubtedly that of Assiros, a site

that has yielded a long series of samples for radiocarbon and dendrochronological dating (Newton

et al., 2004).

Assiros

Several samples of charcoalised/carbonised beams have been found from 1975 to 1989 in the course

of the excavations conducted by K.A. Wardle, and have been analysed at the Malcolm and Carolyn

Wiener Laboratory for Aegean and Near Eastern Dendrochronology (Newton et al. 2004).

The LBA to EIA transition (phases 9/5 to phase 4) is signaled by a new architectonical phase at the

site, with less complex and regular buildings if compared to the preceding phases, that were often

contoured by organic refuse waste deposits, and that have yielded a different ceramic production

that is always distinguishable from that of the preceding phases (Newton et al., 2004).

The life-span of phase 4 is not easily determinable, but in correspondence with the following phase

3 the site shows a new major architectonical phase with more regular buildings that is soon

followed by a a destruction episode (burned horizon), followed by subsequent reconstruction (phase

2) and a second destruction episode. Samples presented here come from the two destruction

episodes levels, corresponding to the end of phase 3 (ASR 15 and 16) and to the end of phase 2

(ASR 5 and 6-7). Despite the scarcity of chronologically-valuable finds, these two phases were

dated, particularly following the finding of a PG amphora of southern origin on a pavement

attributed to phase 3, to about 1000-950 (phase 3) and to 950-900 BC (phase 2) in the traditional

chronology (Newton et al., 2004), and this periodisation seemed confirmed by a radiocarbon date

giving a result of 280075 BP (BM-1426, Burleigh et al. 1982), but it has recently been questioned

on the basis of the new dendrochronological sequence (Newton et al., 2004).

The dendrochronological sequence for Assiros phases 3 and 2 is complexively 104 years long, and

has been correlated with the Gordion sequence for Anatolia (Manning et al., 2001b), and fixed

through a long series of radiocarbon measurements (Newton et al., 2004). The reliability of this

sequence may be affected by some uncertainties, stemming in particular from the fact that samples

were kept in a warehouse for years, and had consequently shrinked and lost some of the outern rings

(Newton et al., 2004). To try to by-pass this problems, the authors of the sequence introduced a

constant probable growth value (based on the yearly average growth per species) that gives an

hypothetical extimation on the number of missing rings for each sample (Newton et al., 2004).

After wiggle-matching the results seem to show that:

(1) Destruction of phase 2 buildings is to be dated to around 1070 BC;

(2) Destruction of phase 3 buildings is to be dated to between around 1088 and 1095 BC;

(3) Given the presence of PG pottery in phase 3, the beginning of the Proto-geometric period

must have a terminus ante quem in-between 1120 and 1070 BC;

The small difference between the obtained results (204 calendar years) seems to correspond well

to the extimate number of missing ring (-11) by the authors (Newton et al., 2004), but this result, as

well as the correlation of this sequence with the Gordion Master Sequence (Manning et al., 2001b)

is to be treated with caution due to the possible unrecognised uncertainties in the statistical

methodology involved (Keenan, 2004). The results of the 14C measurements for the sequence

(taken at ten years interval) seems however to confirm the results of the dendrochronological

correlation (phase 3 average = 110443 BC, phase 2 average = 109022 BC).

Kastanas and Assiros

Notwithstanding the possible sources of uncertainties affecting the reconstruction of the LBA/EIA

transition in Greece and the Aegean, several attempts have been made to draw an interlinked

chronology for the appearance of Proto-geometric wares in different sites (recently, Catling, 1998;

Lemos, 2002). In particular, a chronological link between the sites of Assiros and Kastanas may be

identified on the basis of the Submycenean to Proto-geometric finds. The earliest imports of

southern ware at Kastanas all come from a phase that yielded also Proto-geometric pottery: as a

result, Kastanas phase 12 has been correlated no more precisely than with phases 3 to 6 at Assiros,

while phase 11 seems to be linkable with reasonable certainty to phase 2 at Assiros (Catling, 1998;

Jung, 2002).

14 C measurements for Kastanas phases 12-10 seem compatible with the traditional chronology

(Jung, 2002), but not with the new dendrochronological sequence from Assiros. This observation is

however strongly dependent on the chronological uncertainties about the sampled levels (Newton,

2004): phase 12, that has been assigned a life-span of more than 150 calendar years, may as well

begin at any time between 1200 and 1100 BC, thus allowing an hypothetical correlation with the

dendrochronological sequence and the new High chronology from Assiros, implying a back-

dating of the Submycenean-Protogeometric transition to about 1100/1070 BC (Manning et al.,

2001; Newton et al., 2004).

Limits and Problems in radiocarbon dating the LH III C-Protogeometric transition

-Radiocarbon dates for the End of the LBA

A confront between the different (and controversial) chronological hypotheses for the eastern

Mediterranean at the End of the LBA as been attempted in a recent study by G. Hagens, published

on Radiocarbon (Hagens, 2006). With regard to the 14C results used as an argument in favour of

the High chronology, Hagens (2006; contra: Manning, 2006), takes in account the following

possible sources of uncertainty:

(1) Old Wood: A significant part of the available 14C measurements come from samples taken

from architectonical beams. In several cases (often hardly recognised), this architectonic

elements are kept in use (and/or re-used) for several decades or even centuries. The fact that

many of the samples tested lack the outer rings (as at Assiros) could surely worsen this

problem;

(2) Contextual Uncertainties: See above;

(3) Problems connected with the Calibration curve: For the period in question, two different

phenomena seem particularly relevant as they may affect the reliability of calibrated results

(as in Manning, 2006):

a- The particular shape of the curve between 3000 and 2400 Uncal BP: in the relevant time-

span for the LBA/EIA transition the curve shows a steep slope followed by a long plateau

(although interrupted by several peaks), affecting the calibration of 14C results with an

uncertainties of up to more than 100 calendar years;

b- Regional variability: the calibration curve offers only a smoothed mean for the whole

Northern Emisphere, that has been obtained combining dendrochronological sequence from

very different geographical areas. This implies that, at a local or even regional level, ther

may be significant unrecognised variations that may be not observable in tree-ring

sequences from adjacent areas (for a sum, see: Wiener, 2007, 2009).

(4) Problems connected with the statistical methodology: Possible sources of uncertainty

stemming from the combination of datasets from different areas are the subject of an

extremely wide bibliography (for a sum see Wiener, 2003, 2007, 2009; Fantuzzi, 2007,

2009). Hagens quotes for example the difference between the means obtained by different

laboratories: this aspect is generally irrelevant with newer measurement (Ramsey, comm.

Perss. 2010), but may be very significant when older dates are taken in account as in this

case.

Tab.2 Comparison between three different laboratories (from Hagens, 2006)

Laboratory Facility Average (n. of tests) Cal BC

Weizmann, Rehovot Liquid Scint. counter 270864 (9) 920-800

Arizona AMS 275350 (8) 970-830

Groninga Prop. Gas counter 278818 (2) 975-905

Mainland Greece and the Aegean

(1) Kastanas:

Presented here is a series of 14C results (Tab. 3) from Manning and Weninger (1992).

Hagens (2006) notes that the majority of results covers a calibrated range which seems too

high, leading him to hypothesise the presence of old wood effects (Hagens, 2006, p. 88).

This impression may have some confirmation in the result of the only measurement on short

lived sample available at the time of publication, which is significantly lower (286065, see

Table 4). These objection by Hagens have been at least partly rejected by Manning (2006)

on the base of the correction offered by the Assiros dendrochronology (see before).

(2) Mycenae (Tab. 4):

In this site also, samples used for radiocarbon dating (Tab. 4) come (in 4 out of 5 cases)

from architectonic beams that may have kept in use for a long time, covering more than one

phase (Manning and Weninger, 1992). This problem, together with some contextual

uncertainties (some of the samples may possibly be residual) and the peculiar slope in the

calibration curve, makes the calibration of dates from about 1200 BC rather ambiguous

(Manning, 2006). Notwithstanding these potential sources of uncertainty, Hagens (2006)

notes that the radiocarbon results may be used for supporting a low chronology (even if

with a sensibly lower probability) as well as an high one, depending on the subjective

judgement of the observer, and quotes other measurements from the dataset (one on short-

lived grains from Myceneae - 2970130 BP, and two from Midea 293570 e 3005100

BP) that may be entirely compatible with the ULC hypothesis.

(3) Cyprus:

For what concerns the LC II C/LC III transition in Cyprus, Hagens (2006) quotes only the

dates from contexts that have been defined secure in the original publication (Manning et

al., 2001), on short-lived samples from the last occupation horizon at the sites of Maroni

(Vournes and Tsaroukkas), plus those obtained from two other contexts from a destruction

level at Apliki, dated to a period slightly later than the last destructions at the former site

(Manning et al. 2001). Calibrated results from these measurements seem rather ambiguous

for the problems quoted above: results from Apliki in particular seem to be older than the

expected date for their context (Tab. 5).

Tab. 3 Radiocarbon dates from Kastanas (from Manning and Weninger, 1992, quoted in Hagens,

2006).

Phase Traditional

chronology BC

n. of samples Unweighted

average

Cal BC

18 LH III A 1400-1350 1 286030 1130-930

17 LH III A 1400-1350 1 318055 1510-1405

16 LH III B 1350-1200 9 313617 1435-1405

14 LH III B 1350-1200 5 312124 1435-1385

13 LH III C 1200-1050 4 294929 1260-1120

12 LH III C 1200-1050 9 298215 1270-1130

11 LH III C 1200-1050 2 296545 1270-1110

10 Protogeom. 1050-900 1 292046 1210-1040

10 Protogeom. 1050-900 1 286065 1130-920

9 Protogeom. 1050-900 1 298050 1300-1120

8 Protogeom. 1050-900 3 295233 1260-1120

Tab. 4 Radiocarbon dates from Mycenae and Midea ((from Manning and Weninger, 1992, quoted

in Hagens, 2006).

Radiocarbon dates from Myceneae

Context Sample Uncal BP Cal BC Tradtional

chronology BC

ULC BC

Mycenean Charcoal 287357 1130-930 1350-1200 1280-1130

LH III B

Building

Charcoal 297449 1300-1120 c.ca 1300 c.ca 1230

LH III B

Building

Charcoal 303565 1400-1210 c.ca 1300 c.ca 1230

LH III B

Building

Charcoal 294849 1260-1050 c.ca 1300 c.ca 1230

Mycenean Charcoal 296150 1290-1080 1350-1200 1280-1130

LH III C

Granary

Seeds, Grain 2970130 1380-1020 1170-1150 1100-1080

Radiocarbon dates from Midea

LH III B final

destruction

Figs 293570 1200-1040 c.ca 1180 c.ca 1130

LH III B final

destruction

Fichi 3005100 1400-1120 c.ca 1180 c.ca 1130

Tab. 5 Radiocarbon measurements from Cyprus (from Manning and Weninger, 1992, quoted in

Hagens, 2006).

Radiocarbon dates from Maroni

Context Sample Uncal BP Cal BC Tradtional

chronology BC

ULC BC

Vournes LC II

C

Olives 296944 1270-1120 c.ca 1220-1200 c.ca 1125

Tsaroukkas Olives 296035 -




Tsaroukkas

Average

295424 1260-1120 c.ca 1220-1200 c.ca 1125

Radiocarbon dates from Apliki

LC II C final Basket 299055 - c.ca 1200 c.ca 1120-1100





Average Basket Average 299521 1310-1130 c.ca 1200 c.ca 1120-1100

LC II C final Barley 299045 - c.ca 1200 c.ca 1120-1100






Average Barley Average 295620 1270-1110 c.ca 1200 c.ca 1120-1100

Syro-Palestine

Even if a large number of sites in Israel and the Syro-Palestinian colouoir have been (or are being)

sampled for radiocarbon dating in the recent years, the radiocarbon dates so far available for

contexts that have yielded (or are linkable to) Aegean imports are not much in number. Amongst the

available data, three sites seem particularly relevant for the subject (Hagens, 2006), as they have

been traditionally kept as key-sequences for the interlinked chronology of the LBA/EIA transition

and early IA in the Levant and Greece: Tel Dor, Bet Shehan and Tel Rehov.

(1) Tel Dor:

Hagens reports 7 results from secure contexts attributed to the IA 1b destruction horizon,

possibly linked to the People of the Sea movements (Stern et al. 1997), and dated between

1120 and 1090/1050 BC in the traditional chronology. The reported results seem to allow

or even favour a low-to- Ultra-low chronology, and the (unweighted) average

presented by Hagens (280669 BP) shows how the destruction level may be dated down to

the second half of the XI century, after calibration (Tab. 6). This interpretation remains

however hardly verifiable for all the above-mentioned sources of uncertainties in calibrating

radiocarbon dates for the period (Manning, 2006).

(2) Bet Shehan:

Three of the measurements considered here (Tab. 6) come from short-lived (grain) samples

found in level IV, phase VIII, dated to a period (1220 1200 BC, Mazar, 1997)

contemporary to Merenptah's reign (1212 1202 BC in Kitchen's chronology). The average

presented by Hagens (295015 BP, calibrated to 1210 1125 BC, Tab. 6) may as well cover

the traditional interval attributed to Merneptah's reign as the interval for his reign

proposed by the ULC (1140 1130 BC, Hagens, 2006).

Another group of measurements come from carbonised linen and grain seeds from the last

Egyptian occupation horizon at the site (phase VI), that has been dated to the period in-

between the reigns of Ramesses III and Ramesses IX (Mazar, 1997). This level has yielded

also some fragment of LH III C pottery that was used by the excavators to favour a

periodisation of 1180 1050/30 BC (Mazar, 1997). The (unweighted) average of the

radiocarbon results (294015BP) can be calibrated to 1210 - 1120 BC, and seems to high to

meet the hypothesis of the ULC (that would require dating this stratum to 1110 1080/60

BC). However, given the fact that the radiocarbon results from this phase seem virtually

undistinguishable from those of the preceding phase VIII, at least some doubt can be cast on

the reliability of samples tested and singular-phases life-span, and do not allow to draw a

conclusive interpretation (Hagens, 2006, p.95)

(3) Tel Rehov:

The two main groups of dates for the period in question come from VII/D6 (Final Bronze

Age Early Iron II, that corresponds to a period in-between the reign of Ramesses III and

the fall of the reign of Israel linkable to Bet Shehan phases VII/VI early) and from VII/D4

(Early Iron Ib) strata. In the first case, the radiocarbon results (Tab. 6) were obtained from

short-lived samples (olives and grain), and have been used by Hagens (2006) to formulate

an (unweighted) average of 291828 BP, that after calibration seems to favour the ULC

(1140 1070 BC) rather than the traditional chronology (1220/1200 1150/1130 BC).

In the second case (phase VII/D4, conventionally dated to 1150 1050 BC) the average of

the radiocarbon results (288850 BP), is even lower and seems once again to favour an

Ultra-low chronology rather than the Traditional one (Hagens, 2006).

Radiocarbon measurements from Tel Rehov later strata (Early Iron II X century BC) are in

good agreement with the Traditional chronology, but since the ULC and Traditional

chronologies do no more differ after 1000/980 BC, those measurements are not taken in

account here.

Tab. 6 - Radiocarbon dates for the beginning of the Iron Age in the Levant (Hagens, 2006)

Radiocarbon dates from Tel Dor

Contexts Uncal BP Cal BC Traditional

chronology BC

ULC BC

B1/12 G/9

(Media)

280669 1160-810 c.ca 1100 c.ca 1030

G/8 285040 1110-930 1090-1070 1020-1000

G/7 279540 1005-900 1050-1000/980 980-fine X sec.

D2/10 279240 1010-900 1050-1000/980 980-fine X sec.

D2/9 272530 900-835 1050-1000/980 980-fine X sec.

Radiocarbon dates from Bet Shehan

Phase VII liv.4

(Average)

295015 1210-1125 1212-1202 1140-1130

Phase VI S-3

(Average)

294015 1210-1120 1180-1150/1130 1110-1080/60

Radiocarbon dates from Tel Rehov

VII/D6 268540 - 1220/1200-

1150/1130

1140-1070

VII/D6 292030 - 1220/1200-

1150/1130

1140-1070

VII/D6 295050 - 1220/1200-

1150/1130

1140-1070

VII/D6 293545 - 1220/1200-

1150/1130

1140-1070

VII/D6 288030 - 1220/1200-

1150/1130

1140-1070

VII/D6 288030 - 1220/1200-

1150/1130

1140-1070

VII/D6 293545 - 1220/1200-

1150/1130

1140-1070

VII/D6 292030 - 1220/1200-

1150/1130

1140-1070

VII/D6 295050 - 1220/1200-

1150/1130

1140-1070

Media 289578 1370-890 1220/1200-

1150/1130

1140-1070

VII/D4 280040 - 1150-1050 1080-980

VII/D4 290535 - 1150-1050 1080-980

VII/D4 294535 - 1150-1050 1080-980

VII/D4 292050 - 1150-1050 1080-980

VII/D4 289030 - 1150-1050 1080-980

VII/D4 287050 - 1150-1050 1080-980

VII/D4 288850 1220-920 1150-1050 1080-980

Conclusions

This study reviews only a part of the radiocarbon measurements available for the 1200 850 BC

period in the Eastern Mediterranean, and particular attention has been paid to the high

radiocarbon chronology of Assiros (Newton et al., 2004) on the one side, and on dates quoted by

Hagens (2006) in favour of the ULC on the other. In recent years, a huge number of new samples

have been collected and analysed from different sites in the Levant, and particularly Israel, and

many of them are still in press or awaiting publication (Fantalkin, comm perss 01/2011). Those new

datasets will certainly shed some new light on the chronological problems highlighted in this study

and others, and on the general debate on the absolute chronology of the LBA/EIA transition in

general.

However, if a definitive conclusion on the subject seems impossible to draw at the present stage,

some consideration may be put forward, following the data considered here:

(1) The chronological elements available from Assiros seem to show that the Traditional

chronology for the Submycenean-Protogeometric transition should be shifted backwards of

at least 50 calendar years. Given the peculiarities of the archaeological contexts that have

yielded elements that can be used for interrelating the Aegean and Levantine chronologies

for the period, this shift seems hardly testable as it could as well be unrecognisable in the

presently available materials. This hypothesis, which would require only small adjustments

in the Traditional chronological framework, is however subject to all the possible sources

of uncertainties mentioned above.

(2) The (re) analysis of archaeological contexts in the Levant that have been used for the

interlinked chronologies of the Eastern Mediterranean has showed that the contextual

uncertainties that afflict the findings of Aegean imports at Abu Hawam, Megiddo, and

Samaria make this contexts unreliable for building an interlinked chronological framework

for the two areas in question (Fantalkin, 2001). The same situation can be observed in Tel

Dor and Tel Hadar sites, whose chronology was established following subjective (or

circular) arguments, including the periodisation of Aegean imports themselves (Fantalkin,

2001).

(3) In the majority of cases, the radiocarbon results do not allow to clearly distinguish between

the different chronological hypotheses: as an answer to the critics by the supporters of the

ULC, Manning et al. (2001) present a huge number of radiocarbon measurements from

Greece and Cyprus, that have given results compatible with the traditional chronology.

Given all the considered problems, including the particular shape of the calibration curve

between 3000 and 2400 BP, the possible presence of old wood and other alteration effects in

the samples tested, and the significant internal variability of the datasets, the results so far

available do not allow to draw a conclusive opinion in favour of one of the chronological

hypotheses or the other.

All these sources of uncertainty are at the base of the present debate between the traditional

Isrealian and Levantine chronology (that dates the first arrival of Greek imported wares in the

Levant to before 980 BC) and the ULC (that would postdate this import to the end of the X century

BC) that at the moment seems unfillable.

In fact, if it is undeniable that both chronological hypotheses are faced with the potential ambiguity

of the contexts used for building an interlinked chronology, and significant chronological shifts

(whether postdating or predating) on contexts that are linked strictly to the Egyptian historical

chronology for the N.K and T.I.P. periods would be hardly acceptable as they would require a

complete revision of the preceding LBA international chronological framework (unless one inserts

some 50 to 100 calendar years unattested in the king-lists), it is also clear that the available

contextual information for the chronology of the Aegean Levantine interrelations in the LBA/EIA

transition is not sufficient to build a reliable interlinked chronology, and more new data seem

necessary before a conclusive opinion can be drawn on this subject.

References

Aharoni, Y., Amiran, R. - 1958 A New Scheme for the Sub-division of Iron Age in

Palestine. IEJ, 8: 171-184.

Burleigh,R., Matthews, K., Ambers, J. - 1982 British Museum Natural Radiocarbon

Measurements XIV. Radiocarbon, 24: 243-4.

Catling, R.W.V., - 1998 The Typology of the Protogeometric and Subprotogeometric

Pottery from Troia and its Aegean Context. Studia Troica, 8: 153-64.

Clairmont, C. - 1955 Greek Pottery from Near East. Introduction. Berytus, 12: 85-141.

Coldstream, J.N. - 1968 Greek Geometric Pottery. London.

Coldstream, J.N. - 1977 Geometric Greece. London.

Coldstream, J.N. - 1998 The First Exchanges Between Euboeans and Phoenicians: Who

took the initiative?. Pp. 353-360 in Gitin, Mazar, Stern (eds.) Mediterranean People in

Transition.

Crowfoot, J.W., Crowfoot, G.M., Kenyon, K.M. - 1957 Samaria-Sebaste III. The Objects

from Samaria. London.

Desborough, V.R. D'A. - 1952 Protogeometric Pottery. Oxford.

Drews, R. - 1993 The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca.

1200 BC. Princeton University Press.

Fantalkin, A. - 2001 Low Chronology and Greek Protogeometric and Geometric Pottery

in the Southern Levant. Levant, 33: 117-125.

Finkelstein, I., Piasetzky, E. - 2003a Comment on 14C Dates from Tel Rehov: Iron Age

Chronology, Pharos and Hebrews Kings, Science 302:568b.

Finkelstein, I., Piasetzky, E. - 2003b Wrong and Right: High and Low 14C Dates from

Tel Rehov and Iron Age Chronology. Tel Aviv 30: 283-95.

Finkelstein, I., Piasetzky, E. - 2003c Recent radiocarbon results and King Solomon.

Antiquity, 77: 771-9.

Finkelstein, I., Piasetzky, E. - 2006 14C and the Iron Age Chronology debate: Rehov,

Khirbet en Nahas, Dan, and Megiddo. Radiocarbon, 48 (III): 373-386.

Francis, E.D., Vickers, M. - 1985 Greek Geometric Pottery at Hama and Its Implications

for New Eastern Chronology. Levant, 17: 131-138.

Hagens, G.- 2006 Testing the Limits: Radiocarbon Dating and the End of the Late Bronze

Age. Radiocarbon, 48 (I): 83-100.

Hamilton, R.W. - 1935 Excavations at Tell Abu Hawam. QDAP, 4: 1-69.

Jung, R. - 2002 Kastanas die Drechscheibenkeramik der Schichten 19-11. Kiel. PAS 18:

226-9.

Kargeorghis, V. - 2002 Cipro. Crocevia di Civilt nel Mediterraneo Orientale, 1600 800

a.C. Milano.

Keenan, D.J. - 2004 Anatolian Tree Rings Studies are Untrustworthy.

Lemos, I.S. - 2002 The Protogeometric Aegean. The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and

Tenth Centuries BC. Oxford.

Gilboa, A., Sharon, I. - 1997 Dor in the Iron Age I period a Port and Trading Settlement

and Cultural and Economic Changes. pp. 12-33 in Regev (ed.) New Studies on the Coastal

Plain, Proceedings of the seventeenth Annual Conference of the Departmen of Land of

Israel Studies. Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan.

James, P.J. Et al. - 1991 Centuries of Darkness: A challenge to the Conventional

Chronology of Old World Archaeology. London.

Kearsley, R.A. - 1989 The Pendent Semi-Circle Skyphos: A Study of its Development and

Chronology and an Examination of it as Evidence for Euboean Activity at Al Mina. Institute

of Classical Studies. Bullettin Supplement 44, University of London.

Kearsley, R.A. - 1995 The Greek Geometric Wares from Al Mina Levels 10-8 and

Associated Pottery. MA 8: 6-81.

Kenyon, K.M. - 1957 The Evidence of the Samaria Pottery and its Bearing on Finds at

Other Sites. In Crowfoot e Kenyon (1957): 198-109.

Kenyon, K.M. - 1971 Royal Cities of the Old Testament. New York.

Kochavi, M. - 1996 The Land of Geshur: History of the Region in the Biblical Period.

Ertz-Israel 25, 184-201 (citato in Fantalkin, 2001).

Kopcke, G. - 2003 A Greek Protogeometric Bowl Krater from Tel Hadar. In Back,

Kochavi, Yadin (eds.) The Early Iron Age Pillared Building Complex. Tel Aviv University

Series.

Manning,S.W., Weninger, B. - 1992 A Light in the Dark: Archaeological Wiggle-

Matching and the Absolute Chronology of the Close of the Aegean Late Bronze Age.

Antiquity, 66: 636-63.

Manning,S.W., Weninger, B., South, A.K., Kling, B., Kuniholm, P.I., Muhly, J.D.,

Hadjisavvas, S., Sewell, A., Cadogan, G., - 2001a Absolute Date-Range for the Late

Cypriot IIC Period on Cyprus. Antiquity, 75: 328-40.

Manning. S.W., Kromer, B., Kuniholm, P.I., Newton, M. - 2001b Anatolian Tree Rings

and a New Chronology for the East Mediterranean Bronze-Iron Ages. Science, 294: 2532-

2535.

Manning, S.W. - 2006 Why Radiocarbon dating 1200 BCE is difficult: a Sidelight on

Dating the End of the Late Bronze Age and the Contrarian Contribution. Scripta

Mediterranea, XVII-XVIII: 53-80.

Mazar, A. - 1997 Four thousand years of History at Tel Bet Shehan. Biblical

Archaeologist, 60(II): 62-76.

Popham, M., Lemos, I. - 1992 Review of Kearsley,R.: The Pendant Semicircle Skyphos.

Gnomon 64: 152-155.

Reisner, G.A., Fisher, C.S., Lyon, D.G. - 1924 Harvard Excavations at Samaria, 1908-

1910. Vol I. Text. Harvard/Cambridge MA.

Riis, P.J. - 1970 Sukas I: The North East Sanctuary and the First Settling of Greeks in

Syria and Palestine. Publications of the Carslberg Expedition to Phoenicia I. Munksgaard.

Saltz, D.L., - 1978 Greek Geometric Pottery in the East: the Chronological Implications.

Ph.d dissertation, Harvard University (citata in Fantalkin, 2001).

Snodgrass, A.M. - 1991 The Aegean Angle. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, I : 246-

247.

Stern, E., Berg, J., Gilboa, A., Sharon, I., Zorn, J. - 1997 Tel Dor, 1994-1995. Preliminary

stratigraphic report. Israel Exploration Journal, 47: 29-56.

Taylor, J. - 1959 The Cypriot and Syrian Pottery from Al Mina, Syria. Iraq, 21: 62-92.

Wardle, K.A. - 1989 Excavations at Assiros Toumba 1988. A preliminary Report. Bristish

School at Athens 84: 447-463.

thedebateonlba eia libre

Documents