Tree-Rings, Kings, and Old World

Archaeology and Environment:

Papers Presented in Honor of

Peter Ian Kuniholm

Edited by

Sturt W. Manning & Mary Jaye Bruce

Oxbow BooksOxford and Oakville

Contents

ForewordA. Colin Renfrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Preface and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Contributors to the Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Bibliography of Peter Ian Kuniholm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Peter Kuniholm’s Dendro TimeFritz H. Schweingruber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Perspective: Archaeology, History, and Chronology from Penn to the Presentand BeyondJames Muhly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Excursions into Absolute ChronologyM. G. L. Baillie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

One Hundred Years of Dendroarchaeology: Dating, Human Behavior, and PastClimateJeffrey S. Dean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

The Absolute Dating of Wasserburg Buchau: A Long Story of Tree-ring ResearchA. Billamboz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Is there a Separate Tree-ring Pattern for Mediterranean Oak?Tomasz Wazny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Dendrochronological Research at Rosslauf (Bressanone, Italy)Maria Ivana Pezzo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

The Development of the Regional Oak Tree-ring Chronology from the RomanSites in Celje (Slovenia) and Sisak (Croatia)Aleksandar Durman, Andrej Gaspari, Tom Levanic, Matjaz Novsak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Dendroclimatology in the Near East and Eastern Mediterranean RegionRamzi Touchan and Malcolm K. Hughes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

A 924-year Regional Oak Tree-ring Chronology for North Central TurkeyCarol B. Griggs, Peter I. Kuniholm, Maryanne W. Newton, Jennifer D. Watkins, andSturt W. Manning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

iv

Dendrochronology on Pinus nigra in the Taygetos Mountains, SouthernPeloponnisosRobert Brandes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Could Absolutely Dated Tree-ring Chemistry Provide a Means to Dating theMajor Volcanic Eruptions of the Holocene?Charlotte L. Pearson and Sturt W. Manning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Dendrochemistry of Pinus sylvestris Trees from a Turkish ForestD. K. Hauck and K. Unlu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Neutron Activation Analysis of Dendrochronologically Dated TreesK. Unlu, P. I. Kuniholm, D. K. Hauck, N. O. Cetiner, and J. J. Chiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Third Millennium BC Aegean Chronology: Old and New Data from thePerspective of the Third Millennium ADOurania Kouka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Middle Helladic Lerna: Relative and Absolute ChronologiesSofia Voutsaki, Albert J. Nijboer, and Carol Zerner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Absolute Age of the Uluburun Shipwreck: A Key Late Bronze Age Time-Capsulefor the East MediterraneanSturt W. Manning, Cemal Pulak, Bernd Kromer, Sahra Talamo, Christopher Bronk Ramsey,and Michael Dee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

How About the Pace of Change for a Change of Pace?Jeremy B. Rutter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Archaeologists and Scientists: Bridging the Credibility GapElizabeth French and Kim Shelton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

Central Lydia Archaeological Survey: Documenting the Prehistoric throughIron Age periodsChristina Luke and Christopher H. Roosevelt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

The Chronology of Phrygian GordionMary M. Voigt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

The End of Chronology: New Directions in the Archaeology of the CentralAnatolian Iron AgeGeoffrey D. Summers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

The Rise and Fall of the Hittite Empire in the Light of DendroarchaeologicalResearchAndreas Muller-Karpe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

Aegean Absolute Chronology: Where did it go wrong?Christos Doumas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

The Thera Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

Cold Fusion: The Uneasy Alliance of History and ScienceMalcolm H. Wiener . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

Contents v

Santorini Eruption Radiocarbon Dated to 1627–1600 BC: Further DiscussionWalter L. Friedrich, Bernd Kromer, Michael Friedrich, Jan Heinemeier, Tom Pfeiffer, andSahra Talamo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

Dating the Santorini/Thera Eruption by Radiocarbon: Further Discussion (AD2006–2007)Sturt W. Manning, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Walter Kutschera, Thomas Higham,Bernd Kromer, Peter Steier, and Eva M. Wild . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

Thera DiscussionMalcolm H. Wiener, Walter L. Friedrich, and Sturt W. Manning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

Middle Helladic Lerna: Relative and AbsoluteChronologies

Sofia Voutsaki, Albert J. Nijboer, and Carol Zerner

Abstract: This paper will present the first results of the radiocarbon analysis of human bones from MiddleHelladic sites in the Argolid. The main aim of the analysis is to provide a coherent set of radiocarbon datafrom several sites and from all sub-phases of the MH period. In this paper we concentrate on the results fromLerna, and we discuss the problems arising when integrating relative and absolute dates. It is the first timethat a systematic large-scale program of 14C analyses from MH sites has been undertaken; in fact, the mainlandhas been largely ignored in the recent chronological debate in Aegean prehistory. We therefore hope that ouranalyses will not only refine the MH sequence, but will also add a new dimension to the debates surrounding thechronology of the Aegean Bronze Age.

1. Introduction

This paper presents the results of radiocarbon analy-sis from human skeletal material from Middle Helladic(hereafter MH) Lerna, and discusses the problemsarising when comparing and integrating sequences ofabsolute and relative dates. The radiocarbon analy-sis presented here is part of a wider interdisciplinaryproject: the MH Argolid Project, financed by theNetherlands Organization for Scientific Research andthe University of Groningen, the Netherlands. Theaim of the wider project is to reconstruct the socialorganization of MH communities and to interpret theimportant social, political and cultural changes thattook place in the southern Greek mainland during theMH period and the transition to the LH (see Vout-saki 2005; and http://www.MHArgolid.nl). This isbeing pursued by means of an integrated analysis offunerary, skeletal, and settlement data from the MHArgolid. The radiocarbon analysis is part of the exam-ination of the funerary data, as the samples analyzedhave been taken from human remains.

2. The Analysis

2.1 Introduction

Before presenting the aims and methods of the anal-ysis, we would like to start with some introductoryremarks on the position of radiocarbon analysis inAegean prehistory. Despite the fact that significant

progress has been made in this field, there are stillserious problems that hamper the integration of rel-ative and absolute dates in the Aegean. It has beenpointed out already several times (i.e. Manning 1996:29) that collaboration between archaeologists and sci-entists rarely occurs. Radiocarbon analyses are oftenplaced in an Appendix at the end of the final publi-cation, but are not really integrated into the researchdesign of archaeological projects (although notable ex-ceptions exist). Second, the coverage of the differentperiods is very uneven: while there is a substantialnumber of measurements for the Early Bronze Age(Manning 1995), there are very few dates for the ear-lier part of the Middle Bronze Age. Again, this wasstressed already in the 1970s (Cadogan 1978: 20),but three decades later the situation has changed onlymarginally (see also Manning 1996: 30). The situationis better in MB III and especially in LB I (Hoflmayer2005) because of the debate surrounding the eruptionof the Thera volcano; not surprisingly, there are fewerdates from the later part of the LBA (Wiener 1998;Manning and Weninger 1992). In addition, the cov-erage of different regions is clearly uneven: there aremany dates from the Cyclades, but by far the ma-jority comes from Akrotiri. There are considerablyfewer measurements from Crete, while the mainlandhas remained virtually absent from the chronologicaldebates in Aegean archaeology (Manning 2005: 113).Moreover, there are many sporadic measurements,rarely more than one or two from sites that have been

152 Voutsaki et al.

Lerna BlackburnSample Grave No. Grave No. Skel No. Age BP 13δ(‰) %C

GrA-28046 BD 27 12 Lerna 103 3830 ±35 -19.21 42.1GrA-28051 BD 14 32 Lerna 91 3730 ±35 -19.08 43.1GrA-28213 DE 71 and 25 Lerna 239 3640 ±45 -19.70 43.8

72 (double burial;239 buried first)

GrA-28054 D 22 47 Lerna 52 3595 ±35 -19.28 41.4GrA-28053 BD 9 123 Lerna 87 3595 ±35 -19.38 41.0GrA-28045 H 1 136 Lerna 31 3585 ±35 -20.30 41.1GrA-28050 BD 19 80 Lerna 95 3560 ±35 -19.00 43.3GrA-28039 A 1 152 Lerna 2 3545 ±35 -19.15 42.2GrA-28048 BD 21 79 Lerna 97 3535 ±35 -19.67 42.8GrA-28041 D 20 52 Lerna 50 3530 ±35 -19.74 41.8GrA-28044 B 13 58 Lerna 44 3520 ±35 19.56 42.2GrA-28040 D 9 182 Lerna 28 3510 ±35 -19.50 43.0GrA-28159 DE 55 100 Lerna 198 3510 ±40 -19.44 40.7GrA-28211 J 5 63 Lerna 218 3510 ±50 -19.96 41.9GrA-28043 DE 64 103 Lerna 204 3495 ±40 -20.05 43.9GrA-28157 BE 30 22 Lerna 137 (5 3475 ±40 -19.50 39.9

skeletons buriedat once)

GrA-28160 J4 A 84 Lerna 216 3440 ±40 -19.77 40.8(double burial;216 uppergrave; later)

Table 1: The quality of the 14C results. Please note: the Laboratory Sample Number is followed by the Lerna Grave Number toallow easy identification of the archaeological context.

extensively excavated over longer periods, but veryfew series of measurements and even fewer completesequences. Again, this situation was lamented in the1970s (Betancourt and Weinstein 1976: 330; Betan-court et al. 1978: 202) but has not really been rectified(Manning 1996: 29). Many of the old measurementsare not always reliable, as they were taken before thesignificant improvements in radiocarbon dating pro-cedures (Manning 1998: 301). Finally, very few ra-diocarbon dates come with good and extensive con-textual information. While there is a lot of discussionabout short-lived (e.g. seeds) versus long-lived sam-ples (e.g. wood, charcoal), less attention is paid tothe fact that a sample may come from inside a floor,from the floor deposit, or from the destruction layerabove the floor—but these are significant differencesthat need to be taken into account when integratingabsolute and relative dates. Once more, this problemhas been raised repeatedly (i.e. Betancourt and We-instein: 331; see also pertinent remarks by Whitelaw1996: 233).

We see therefore that these problems have beenrecognized since the 1970s, but there are still few sys-tematic and problem-oriented programs of 14C analy-

sis in Aegean prehistory. Our project hopes to redressthis situation: We are undertaking an extensive pro-gram of analyses, taking a series of samples from dif-ferent MH sites in the Argolid. We sample six burialsfrom each sub-phase of the MH period (i.e. 6 fromMH I, 6 from MH II, 6 from MH III), and we tryto include burials that can be placed in the earlier orlater part of each sub-phase (though this is not alwayspossible). In this way, we can set up a compendium ofdates for all the sites we are studying and reconstructwhole sequences for the entire MH period. While herewe present only the results from Lerna, we are sam-pling all sites with a substantial number of burials.So far we have taken 19 samples from Lerna, 7 fromArgos-Aspis, 12 from Asine-East cemetery, and 9 fromAsine-Barbouna (the cemeteries in Aspis and Asineare not in use throughout the MH period, hence thesmaller number of samples). We also plan to analyzeskeletons from the Argos “tumuli,” and possibly theprehistoric cemeteries at Mycenae and Midea.

We analyze human bones, and thereby avoid theproblems encountered when analyzing long-lived ma-terials such as wood or charcoal. By sampling humanskeletons (more often than not from single burials)

Middle Helladic Lerna: Relative and Absolute Chronologies 153

Lerna BlackburnSample Grave No. Grave No. Skel No. Age BP 13δ(‰) %C

GrA-28261 B 21A 88 Lerna 67 3700 ±45 -23.50 0.8

Table 2: Result with deficient quality parameters.

rather than wood, charcoal, or seeds found in settle-ment layers, we date a specific depositional episoderather than settlement deposits which may have ac-cumulated over a period of unknown duration (Ni-jboer and van der Plicht 2008). We use the AMS(Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) rather than the con-ventional 14C method; the latter may be more accu-rate, but it requires much larger samples (250g ver-sus 5g necessary when using the AMS method). Wedecided to use AMS because of the need to preservethe Lerna skeletal assemblage for future generationsof researchers. The analyses have been carried out atthe Centre of Isotope Research, University of Gronin-gen (for requirements see Nijboer and van der Plicht2008).

We take samples exclusively from well excavatedand extensively documented cemeteries, and notablyfrom well preserved tombs which can be dated withreasonable accuracy. In the case of Lerna, in partic-ular, we sample only tombs with clear stratigraphiccontexts whose relative date has been carefully con-trolled (and sometimes revised) by Carol Zerner. Ofcourse, we should not underestimate the complexityof the MH sequence at Lerna; we are dealing with alarge intramural cemetery with a complex history ofuse (Blackburn 1970; Zerner 1978), and with severalareas used interchangeably for burial and for habi-tation (Milka, in press). This situation has certainadvantages, as many graves have clear stratigraphicassociations with earlier or later houses. However,these stratigraphic associations may sometimes pro-vide only a terminus ante or post quem. In effect,when integrating absolute and relative dates, we com-pare two ranges of possible dates: just as 14C datescome with a certain margin of error, the relative dateof a grave may also sometimes span more than oneceramic sub-phase (e.g. a grave may be MH I or MHII early). Interpreting radiocarbon dates in an archae-ological context involves precisely this: trying to rec-oncile two ranges of possible dates. Therefore, slightmodifications of the relative date in the light of ra-diocarbon results are permissible—as long as we staywithin the range dictated by both the stratigraphy ofthe site and the 14C measurements.

2.2 The Results

The quality of the radiocarbon data, as can be seen inTable 1, is good (for a definition of quality parameters,see Nijboer and van der Plicht 2008).

Only one sample from Lerna (Table 2) did not con-tain any collagen and the measurement was based onthe residue. This sample has not been included in theanalysis.

It should also be added that we have carried out anextensive program of stable isotopes analysis (we havesampled 48 burials from MH Lerna alone) in orderto establish the diet of the MH population in Lerna(see Voutsaki et al., in press; Triantaphyllou et al.2008). The results, in particular the rather low δ15N values, allow us to establish that the inhabitantsof Lerna did not rely on marine resources during theMH period. In this way, we can rule out the “reservoireffect” (Lanting and van der Plicht 1998) and increaseconfidence in the accuracy of our results (Figure 2).

2.3. Discussion of the results

The aims of the analysis are to increase the chrono-logical resolution of the analysis of funerary and set-tlement data, and to refine the MH chronological se-quence. What we want to achieve is a more accuratedefinition of both the boundaries of the MH periodand its internal sub-divisions. Therefore, the discus-sion here will proceed by examining one by one thechronological divisions of the MH period. Figure 2,which presents once more the results of the analysis,as well as an indication of their relative date, will bethe basis of the discussion.

(i) The EH III/MH I boundary The accepted datefor the beginning of the MBA has been placed in2100/2000 bc, i.e. around or just before the begin-ning of the 2nd millennium (Cadogan 1978: 213; War-ren and Hankey 1989: 124; Manning 1995). We havetaken three measurements from tombs which had aMH I relative date: the results from DE 71 & 72 andBD 14 fall clearly within the accepted range, but sug-gest that the beginning of the period should be placedaround 2100 bc rather than at 2000 bc. In contrast,the result from BD 27 (Figure 3), the burial of a childof 2-3 years old accompanied by a one-handled cup

154 Voutsaki et al.

Figure 1: The results of the analysis.

Middle Helladic Lerna: Relative and Absolute Chronologies 155

Figure 2: The results of the analysis: relative and absolute dates.

(Figure 4), has a range of 2460-2140 bc at 2σ proba-bility level (95.4%) (Figure 5). While the grave had atfirst been dated to MH I, possibly MH I early, its ab-solute date suggests that it may have to be placed ear-lier, i.e. in the late EH III period, or in the transitionbetween EH III/MH I. Indeed the cup could perfectlywell belong to the EH III period. A renewed exam-ination of the stratigraphic context by Carol Zernerconcluded that a date in late EH III or in the EHIII/MH I transition is equally acceptable.

We see therefore that the absolute dates may some-times be used to reconsider the relative date, as longas one has confidence in the sample and its context—otherwise, we may enter a circular argument, as hasoften been done in the past. As we stressed above,the relative dating often covers a certain range, espe-cially when (as is so often the case in the MH period)

the grave contains either no diagnostic offerings, orno offerings whatsoever. As we stressed above, the in-tegration of relative and “absolute” dates is often anexercise in comparing and attempting to reconcile tworanges of possible dates.

(ii) The MH I/MH II division The beginning ofthe MH II period is placed probably around 1900 bc(Dietz 1991: 317; Rutter 2001: 106). The Lerna re-sults confirm this: all three MH I measurements liebefore 1900 bc. We could therefore tentatively con-clude that the MH I period lasts approximately from2100 to 1900 bc. Some caution is of course necessary,as we have only very few measurements from the MH Iperiod. In order to corroborate this date, we ought totake more samples from MH I burials. Unfortunately,outside Lerna, EH III–MH I burials have been foundonly during the old excavations in the Lower Town of

156 Voutsaki et al.

Figure 3: Child burial in grave BD 27.

Figure 4: One-handled cup found in BD 27.

Asine (Frodin and Persson 1938; Nordquist 1987), butthe skeletons from those excavations have gone miss-ing. While we could sample more EH III burials fromLerna, they are all neonates and may not be suitablefor 14C analysis. Needless to say, we also need to com-pare the Lerna analysis with results recently obtainedfrom contemporary sites, e.g. Kolonna in Aegina (forthe results of the recent investigations see Gauss andSmetana, in press).

(iii) The MH II/MH III division is dated 1750–1720 bc by Manning (1995), while Dietz places thetransition around 1800 bc (Dietz 1991: 317). Unfor-tunately, the Lerna results cannot help us decide onthis issue: the results fall too close together and wetherefore cannot distinguish between MH II and MHIII. Two examples can illustrate the problem: BD 19(Figure 6), a cist grave containing an adult man buriedwith a Cycladic jug (Figure 7) and a strainer jug, isfirmly dated in MH III because of the shape of the jug;in addition, the fact that the grave is opened above a

MH II house confirms this date. The 14C result (Fig-ure 8) has a range of 2020–1770 bc at 2σ probabilitylevel (95.4%) which is compatible with a date in MHIII, but cannot exclude a date in MH II.

In contrast, BE 30, a pit grave containing five buri-als which seem to have been buried simultaneously, isquite firmly dated in MH II: it was opened into the ru-ins of a MH I–II house, while in MH III another housewas built on top. However, the result of 1900–1680 bcat 2σ probability level (Figure 9) is compatible witha date in MH II, but cannot exclude a MH III date.

The inability to distinguish the MH II and MHIII periods in the absolute sequence and the ratherbroad range of 14C dates has to do with the shape ofthe calibration curve in this period and the relativelyshort duration of these sub-phases. Here we evidentlyreach the limits of precision of the radiocarbon method(see Warren 1996: 283–284; admitted also by Manning1996: 30) which may be overcome only with the useof Bayesian statistics.

Therefore, while there are important differencesbetween MH II and MH III in terms of ceramicchanges and historical developments, the MH II–IIIboundary cannot be accurately defined in our analy-sis. It should be emphasized that we encounter thesame problem in Asine–East Cemetery which is alsoin use in MH II and MH III (Voutsaki et al., in press).We may be able to move forward by concentrating onthe burials whose relative dates are most secure and bycombining measurements from different graves belong-ing to the same phase. However, there are problems:despite widespread practice, this procedure is not re-ally statistically valid. It should also be stressed thatdefining what constitutes a most secure context is notstraightforward. There are cases where stratigraphicassociations are quite secure, as in the graves in Lernathat are in use after a house is abandoned and beforea new house is built in the same location. The situa-tion in extramural cemeteries is very different. Whilethere are fewer stratigraphic restrictions, extramuralgraves sometimes (but not always) contain more (andmore diagnostic) offerings, as they date mostly to lateMH II and MH III. Therefore, separating the mostsecurely dated graves is not an easy task; we have toaccept that there are degrees of certainty and accuracyin relative dating. This is an important point, whichshould be taken into account when combining mea-surements or applying different statistical methods ongroups of measurements.

(iv) The MH III/LHI boundary. The durationof the MH III period and the transition to the LHI period are heavily debated. Establishing synchro-nisms between the mainland and Minoan Crete is notstraightforward (Girella, in press); in fact, the Cretansequence itself in MMIII–LMI is subject to debate (see

Middle Helladic Lerna: Relative and Absolute Chronologies 157

Figure 5: 14C result from grave BD 27.

Figure 6: Adult man buried in grave BD 19. Figure 7: Cycladic jug from BD 19.

158 Voutsaki et al.

Figure 8: 14C result from grave BD 19.

Figure 9: 14C result from grave BE 30.

Middle Helladic Lerna: Relative and Absolute Chronologies 159

papers in Felten et al. 2007). On the other hand, thereare few secure synchronisms with the Near East (Man-ning 1996: 17). According to the “Low Chronology”(Warren and Hankey 1989; Warren 1996; Bietak 2003;Wiener 2003) the transition takes place around 1600bc, while the “High Chronology” (Betancourt 1987;most recent results, Manning et al. 2006) places itaround 1700 bc.

All Lerna samples from graves with a relative datein MH III (5 samples) produce results which are earlierthan 1700 bc. The only grave to cross the 1700 bcboundary (Figure 12) is J 4A, a semi-cist grave withan adult man (Figure 10) accompanied by a ratherundiagnostic bowl (Figure 11). The grave is dated tothe “Shaft Grave era,” i.e. MH III–LH I, because of itsstratigraphic associations (the grave is opened partlyon top of MH II grave J 4B).

Figure 10: Adult man buried in grave J 4A.

These results may render support to the “HighChronology” (Manning et al. 2006). But againsome caution is necessary: we have only five measure-ments from Lerna, and there are few other comparablemeasurements from the mainland. The results fromTsoungiza are rather inconsistent (Bronk Ramsey etal. 2004), while many graves in Asine-East Cemeteryspan precisely this transition MH III–LH I. The Asineresults cannot be discussed here in detail, but it shouldbe pointed out that in Asine the relative date of gravesis less secure: we are dealing with extramural graveswhich have fewer stratigraphic associations, while atthe same time they rarely contain diagnostic offerings(see Voutsaki et al., in press).

Figure 11: Bowl from J 4A.

3. Summary and Conclusions

We have suggested that the MH I period lasted from2100 to 1900 bc. If we accept that the MH III periodfinished around 1700 bc, then the date proposed byDietz for MH II (1900–1800 bc) seems preferable. Weneed to be aware, of course, that this suggestion isbased more on common sense than on actual results.If we want to summarize our results, we come up withthe sub-divisions presented in Table 3. It cannot beemphasized enough that these sub-divisions are onlytentative, as the analysis is still in progress.

MH I 2100?–1900 B.C.MH II 1900–1800? B.C.MH III 1800?–1700 B.C.

Table 3: Tentative sub-divisions of the MH period

To conclude: the radiocarbon analysis of MH buri-als from Lerna has produced a tight and coherent se-quence with a good correspondence between absoluteand relative dates. Therefore, despite the considerabledifficulties encountered when integrating relative andabsolute chronologies, progress can be made—even if,in the particular case, we have not been able to distin-guish the MH II from the MH III burials. The case weare dealing with, the Middle Bronze Age mainland, isparticularly difficult because there are problems withboth the relative and the absolute sequences. On theone hand, the stratigraphic problems in both intra-mural and extramural cemeteries, the rarity of offer-ings in the graves, the uneven (and imperfectly under-stood) rate of change in MH ceramics, the differencesin the ceramic assemblages between regions and evenbetween sites in the same region, and the difficultiesin establishing synchronisms with the Minoan or Cy-cladic sequences mean that relative dating is ratherinsecure. On the other hand, the shape of the calibra-tion curve in this period, the relatively short duration

160 Voutsaki et al.

Figure 12: 14C result from grave J 4A.

of the sub-phases of the MH period, but also the rar-ity of comparative data and the virtual absence of sys-tematic programs of radiocarbon analysis in the MHmainland add to the inherent problems of applying theradiocarbon method (discussed by Warren 1998: 324;Wiener 2003). We therefore have to adopt a balancedapproach, and try to avoid the polarization which hascharacterized in recent years the debate surroundingthe chronology of the Aegean Bronze Age. Both rel-ative and absolute dates come with a certain range;neither method is infallible, and neither method isfully precise. However, progress can be made andthe two sets of data can be integrated, if we under-take systematic, extensive, and problem-oriented pro-grams of analyses, and if we consider the nature ofthe samples—and their archeological contexts—veryclosely.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Sturt Manning for invitingus to participate in the Conference in honour of Pe-ter Kuniholm, which proved a very stimulating and(largely thanks to Peter Kuniholm’s contagious en-thusiasm!) deeply enjoyable event. Further thanks tothe entire team at Cornell, and particularly to MaryJaye Bruce, for their hospitality.

We are grateful to the Netherlands Organizationof Scientific Research and the University of Gronin-

gen, the Netherlands, for their generous funding ofthe MH Argolid Project. We would like to express ourthanks to the successive Ephors of the 4th Ephorate ofClassical and Prehistoric Antiquities, Mrs. Zoi Asla-matzidou and Mrs. Anna Banaka, as well as the De-partment of Conservation, Greek Ministry of Culture,for granting us a permit to re-examine and samplethe MH burials from Lerna. We thank the AmericanSchool of Classical Studies, as well as Dr. M. Wiencke,Dr. C. Zerner, and Dr. E. Banks for granting us per-mission to study and sample the Lerna skeletons. Wewould also like to acknowledge the assistance of thestaff at the 4th Ephorate, particularly Dr. AlkistisPapadimitriou. The personnel in the Museum of Ar-gos have been extremely helpful; we thank them all.We are grateful to Todd Whitelaw for his insightfulcorrections on the first draft. Eleni Milka has assistedwith the tabulation of the contextual data, TomekHertig, the project assistant, has produced the graphs,and Siebe Boersma has helped with the illustrations.Finally, we would like to thank the editors for theirpatience.

References

Betancourt, P.P. 1987. Dating the Aegean Late Bronze Agewith radiocarbon. Archaeometry 29(1): 45–49.

Middle Helladic Lerna: Relative and Absolute Chronologies 161

Betancourt, P.P., and Weinstein, G. 1976. Carbon-14 and thebeginning of the LBA in the Aegean. American Journal ofArchaeology 80: 329–348.

Betancourt, P.P., Michael, H.N., and Weinstein, G.A. 1978.Calibration and the radiocarbon chronology of Late Minoan1B. Archaeometry 20(2): 200–203.

Bietak, M. 2003. Science versus archaeology: Problems andconsequences of High Aegean Chronology. In M. Bietak(ed.), The synchronization of civilizations in the easternMediterranean in the second millennium B.C. Proceedingsof the SCIEM 2000—EuroConference, Haindorf, 2–7 May2001 : 23–33. Vienna: Osterreichischen Akademie der Wis-senschaften.

Blackburn, E.T. 1970. Middle Helladic graves and burial cus-toms with special reference to Lerna in the Argolid. Ph.D.Dissertation, University of Cincinnati.

Bronk Ramsey, C., Manning, S.W., and Galimberti, M. 2004.Towards high-precision AMS: progress and limitation. Ra-diocarbon 46(1): 325–344.

Cadogan, G. 1978. Dating the Aegean Bronze Age withoutradiocarbon. Archaeometry 20(2): 209–214.

Dietz, S. 1991. The Argolid at the transition to the MycenaeanAge: Studies in the chronology and cultural development inthe Shaft Grave period. Copenhagen: The National Museumof Denmark.

Felten, F., Gauss, W., and Smetana, R. (eds.) 2007. MiddleHelladic Pottery and Synchronisms. Proceedings of the In-ternational Workshop SCIEM 2000, Salzburg, 31 October–2 November 2004. Vienna: Osterreichischen Akademie derWissenschaften.

Frodin, O., and Persson, A.W. 1938. Asine. The Results ofthe Swedish Excavations, 1922–1930. Stockholm: General-stabens Litografiska Anstalts Forlag.

Gauss, W., and Smetana, R. In press. Aegina Kolonna in theMiddle Bronze Age. In G. Touchais, A. Philippa-Touchais,S. Voutsaki, and J. Wright (eds.), MESOHELLADIKA: TheGreek mainland in the Middle Bronze Age. Proceedings ofthe International Conference, Athens, 8–12 March 2006.Supplement, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique.

Girella, L. In press. MH III and MM III: Ceramic synchronismsin the transition to the Late Bronze Age. In G. Touchais,A. Philippa-Touchais, S. Voutsaki, and J. Wright (eds.),MESOHELLADIKA: The Greek mainland in the MiddleBronze Age. Proceedings of the International Conference,Athens, 8–12 March 2006. Supplement, Bulletin de Corre-spondance Hellenique.

Hoflmayer, F. 2005. Die absolute Datierung der spaten Mit-telbronzezeit und der fruhen Spatbronzezeit in der Agais.Magister Dissertation, University of Vienna.

Lanting, J.N., and van der Plicht, J. 1998. Reservoir effect andapparent 14C ages. The Journal of Irish Archaeology IX:151–165.

Manning, S.W. 1995. The absolute chronology of the AegeanEarly Bronze Age: Archaeology, radiocarbon, and history.Sheffield: Sheffield University Press.

Manning, S.W. 1996. Dating the Aegean Bronze Age: with-out, with and beyond, radiocarbon. In K. Randsborg (ed.),Absolute chronology: Archaeological Europe 2500-500 bc:15-37. Acta Archaeologica 67. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.

Manning, S.W. 1998. Aegean and Sardinian Chronology: radio-carbon, calibration and Thera. In M.S. Balmuth and R.H.Tykot. (eds.), Sardinian and Aegean Chronology. Towardsthe resolution of relative and absolute dating in the Mediter-ranean. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Med-ford, Massachusetts, 17–19 March 1995 : 297–307. Studiesin Sardinian Archaeology 5. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Manning, S.W. 2005. Simulation and the date of the Theraneruption: outlining what we do and do not know from ra-

diocarbon. In A. Dakouri-Hild and S. Sherratt (eds.), AU-TOCHTHON: Papers presented to O.T.P.K. Dickinson onthe occasion of his retirement : 97-114. BAR InternationalSeries 1432. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Manning, S.W., and Weninger, B. 1992. A light in the dark:archaeological wiggle matching and the absolute chronologyof the close of the Aegean Bronze Age. Antiquity 66: 636–663.

Manning, S.W., Bronk Ramsey, C., Kutschera, W., Higham,T., Kromer, B., Steier, P., and Wild, E.M. 2006. Chronol-ogy for the Aegean late Bronze Age 1700-1400 bc. Science312(5573): 565–569.

Milka, E. In press. Burials upon the ruins of abandoned housesin the MH Argolid. In G. Touchais, A. Philippa-Touchais, S.Voutsaki, and J. Wright (eds.), MESOHELLADIKA: TheGreek mainland in the Middle Bronze Age. Proceedingsof the International Conference, Athens, 8-12 March 2006.Supplement, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique.

Nijboer, A.J., and van der Plicht, H. 2008. The Iron Age ofthe Mediterranean: recent radiocarbon research at the Uni-versity of Groningen. In D. Brandhern and M. Trachsel(eds.), A new dawn for the dark Age? Shifting paradigmsin Mediterranean Iron Age chronology. Proceedings of theXV Congress of the International Union for Prehistoric andProtohistoric Sciences, Lisbon, 4-9 September 2006 : 103–118. BAR International Series 1871. Oxford: Archaeo-press.

Nordquist, G.C. 1987. A Middle Helladic village: Asine in theArgolid. Boreas, Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterraneanand Near Eastern Civilization 16. Uppsala.

Rutter, J.B. 2001. Review of Aegean Prehistory II: Theprepalatial Bronze Age of the southern and central Greekmainland. In T. Cullen (ed.), Aegean Prehistory: a review.American Journal of Archaeology Supplement 1. Boston:Archaeological Institute of America.

Triantaphyllou, S., Richards, M., Zerner, C., and Voutsaki, S.2008. Isotopic dietary reconstruction of humans from Mid-dle Bronze Age Lerna, Argolid, Greece. Journal of Archae-ological Science 35: 3028–3034.

Voutsaki, S., Dietz, S., and Nijboer, A.J. In press. Radiocar-bon analysis and the history of the East Cemetery, Asine.Opuscula.

Warren, P. 1996. The Aegean and the limits of radiocarbon dat-ing. In K. Randsborg (ed.), Absolute chronology: Archae-ological Europe 2500-500 bc: 283-290. Acta Archaeologica67. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.

Warren, P., and Hankey, V. 1989. The absolute chronology ofthe Aegean Bronze Age. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press.

Whitelaw, T. 1996. Review of Manning, The absolute chronol-ogy of the Aegean Early Bronze Age: Archaeology, radio-carbon, and history. Antiquity 70: 232-234.

Wiener, M.H. 1998. The absolute chronology of Late HelladicIIIA2. In M.S. Balmuth and R.H. Tykot. (eds.), Sardinianand Aegean Chronology. Towards the resolution of relativeand absolute dating in the Mediterranean. Proceedings ofthe International Colloquium, Medford, Massachusetts, 17-19 March 1995 : 309-319. Studies in Sardinian Archaeology5. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Wiener, M.H. 2003. Time out: The current impasse in BronzeAge archaeological dating. In K. Polinger Foster and R.Laffineur (eds.), METRON. Measuring the Aegean BronzeAge. Proceedings of the 9th International Aegean Confer-ence, New Haven, 18-21 April 2002 : 363-399. Aegaeum 24.Liege and Austin.

Zerner, C.W. 1978. The beginning of the Middle Helladic Pe-riod at Lerna. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cincinnati.

Article submitted July 2007