A New Dawn for the Dark Age? Shifting Paradigms in Mediterranean Iron Age Chronology / L'âge obscur se fait-il jour de nouveau? Les paradigmes changeants de la chronologie de l'âge du Fer en Méditerranée: Proceedings of the XV UISPP World Congress (Lisbon 4-9 September 2006) / Actes du XV Congrès Mondial (Lisbonne 4-9 Septembre 2006) Vol. 9 Session C53 9781407303512, 9781407333786

Citation preview

BAR S1871 2008

UNION INTERNATIONALE DES SCIENCES PRÉHISTORIQUES ET PROTOHISTORIQUES INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR PREHISTORIC AND PROTOHISTORIC SCIENCES PROCEEDINGS OF THE XV WORLD CONGRESS (LISBON, 4-9 SEPTEMBER 2006) ACTES DU XV CONGRÈS MONDIAL (LISBONNE, 4-9 SEPTEMBRE 2006) Series Editor: Luiz Oosterbeek VOL. 9

BRANDHERM & TRACHSEL (Eds) A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE?

B A R

Session C35

A New Dawn for the Dark Age? Shifting Paradigms in Mediterranean Iron Age Chronology L'âge obscur se fait-il jour de nouveau? Les paradigmes changeants de la chronologie de l'âge du Fer en Méditerranée Edited by

Dirk Brandherm and Martin Trachsel

BAR International Series 1871 2008

UNION INTERNATIONALE DES SCIENCES PRÉHISTORIQUES ET PROTOHISTORIQUES INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR PREHISTORIC AND PROTOHISTORIC SCIENCES PROCEEDINGS OF THE XV WORLD CONGRESS (LISBON, 4-9 SEPTEMBER 2006) ACTES DU XV CONGRÈS MONDIAL (LISBONNE, 4-9 SEPTEMBRE 2006) Series Editor: Luiz Oosterbeek VOL. 9

Session C35

A New Dawn for the Dark Age? Shifting Paradigms in Mediterranean Iron Age Chronology L'âge obscur se fait-il jour de nouveau? Les paradigmes changeants de la chronologie de l'âge du Fer en Méditerranée Edited by

Dirk Brandherm and Martin Trachsel

BAR International Series 1871 2008

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1871 Proceedings of the XV World Congress of the International Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences Actes du XV Congrès Mondial de l’Union Internationale des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques A New Dawn for the Dark Age? Shifting Paradigms in Mediterranean Iron Age Chronology / L'âge obscur se fait-il jour de nouveau? Les paradigmes changeants de la chronologie de l'âge du Fer en Méditerranée © UISPP / IUPPS and the editors and contributors severally and the Publisher 2008 Outgoing President: Vítor Oliveira Jorge Outgoing Secretary General: Jean Bourgeois Congress Secretary General: Luiz Oosterbeek (Series Editor) Incoming President: Pedro Ignacio Shmitz Incoming Secretary General: Luiz Oosterbeek Signed papers are the responsibility of their authors alone. Les texts signés sont de la seule responsabilité de ses auteurs. Contacts: Secretary of U.I.S.P.P. – International Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences Instituto Politécnico de Tomar, Av. Dr. Cândido Madureira 13, 2300 TOMAR Email: [email protected], www.uispp.ipt.pt The authors' moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407303512 paperback ISBN 9781407333786 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407303512 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2008. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Editors’ preface ..................................................................................................................... 1 Western challenges to East Mediterranean chronological frameworks ................................. 3 Francisco J. Núñez Calvo Dark Age pottery from southern Aeolis............................................................................... 29 Kaan İren The beginning of the Iron Age in Thrace: archaeological evidence and questions of chronology .......................................................................................... 45 Elena Bozhinova Steps towards a revised chronology of Greek Geometric pottery........................................ 59 Martin Trachsel Italian metalwork of the 11th-9th centuries BC and the absolute chronology of the Dark Age Mediterranean...................................................................................... 77 Christopher Pare The Iron Age in the Mediterranean: recent radiocarbon research at the University of Groningen..................................................................................... 103 Albert J. Nijboer and Hans van der Plicht Relative and absolute chronology of Latium vetus from the Bronze Age to the transition to the Orientalizing period.................................................................. 119 Anna Maria Bietti Sestieri and Anna De Santis The chronology of the Late Bronze Age in western Iberia and the beginning of the Phoenician colonization in the western Mediterranean...................................... 135 Mariano Torres Ortiz Greek and Phoenician potsherds between East and West: a chronological dilemma?....... 149 Dirk Brandherm Editors’ postscript and prospects for future research ....................................................... 175

i

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1.1. Comparison between the stratigraphy of Tyre and al-Bass, different proposals for structuring the Phoenician pottery sequence and the chronological framework of Biblical Archaeology .......................................................... 5 Fig. 1.2. Calibrated 14C dates from Kuntillet Ajjrud. The thick black lines represent the full 2σ range, while the white stripes on them indicate the range with the highest statistical probability.......................................................................................... 13 Fig. 1.3. Chronological framework of the Phoenician Iron Age and reference assemblages included in the discussion.......................................................................... 13 Fig. 1.4. Proposed periodization for the Phoenician Iron Age showing the characteristic ceramic types of each sequential moment .......................................... 14 Fig. 1.5. Funerary assemblage from Khalde ........................................................................ 16 Fig. 1.6. Probable funerary assemblage from Qasmieh area................................................ 17 Fig. 2.1. Dark Age pottery from southern Aeolis: * PG (incl. SubPG) ▲Geometric ................................................................................... 30 Fig. 2.2. Aeolian connections in the Protogeometric period and in the Geometric period.................................................................................................. 30 Fig. 2.3. Protogeometric (1–6) and Geometric (7. 8) pottery from southern Aeolis...................................................................................................... 36 Fig. 2.4. Geometric (8–12. 15) and Protocorinthian (13. 14) pottery from southern Aeolis ............................................................................ 37 Fig. 2.5. Protogeometric (1–5) and Geometric (6. 7) pottery from southern Aeolis; 1 = cat. 1; 2 = cat. 2; 3 = cat. 5; 4. 5 = cat. 6; 6 = cat. 7; 7 = cat. 9 ................................ 38 Fig. 2.6. Geometric pottery from southern Aeolis; 1 = cat. 8; 2 = cat. 12; 3. 4 = cat. 10; 5. 6 = cat. 15................................................................................................ 39 Fig. 3.1. Dragoyna: imported pottery in LH IIIA style ........................................................ 51 Fig. 3.2. Koprivlen: imported pottery in LH IIIB style........................................................ 52 Fig. 4.1. Typological synchronization between the Hallstatt region and selected Italian chronologies. The dates BC on the left are based on dendrochronology, those on the right on the conventional chronology of Greek pottery ............................. 60 Fig. 4.2. Stylistically earliest Euboean (above) and Corinthian pottery (below) found in Pithekoussaï, Ischia, Italy ................................................................................ 61 Fig. 4.3. Development of Corinthian kotylai and aryballoi from Middle Geometric II to Middle Protocorinthian.................................................... 62 ii

Fig. 4.4. Lefkandi-Xeropolis. A typologically latest vessels from ‘deposit A’, the last phase of the settlement. B typologically latest vessels from ‘deposit B’, the level below ............................................................................................................... 63 Fig. 4.5. Corinthian pottery presence in Greek colonies founded in Italy before 700 BC. For a full discussion see Trachsel 2004, 181–191 ................................ 64 Fig. 4.6. Stratigraphical and typological links between Attic/Euboean and Corinthian Geometric, phases synchronized according to Coldstream 1968 ................. 65 Fig. 4.7. Stratigraphical and typological links between Attic/Euboean and Corinthian Geometric, phases synchronized by the author ..................................... 66 Fig. 4.8. Final synchronization of Early Iron Age chronologies between Central Europe and the Mediterranean ............................................................ 70 Fig. 4.9. 2-sigma values of radiocarbon dates from Kastanas plotted above the calibration curve. Grouped by phases and positioned according to the conventional chronology. Numbers correspond to the Kastanas phases .................. 73 Fig. 4.10. Same as fig. 4.9, but this time the radiocarbon groups have been positioned according to the principles of wiggle matching ............................................ 73 Fig. 5.1. Overview of the main chronological schemes for the later Urnfield period (Ha B) in the area north-west of the Alps ........................................................... 78 Fig. 5.2. Synchronisation between chronological phases for the Urnfield period in the area north-west of the Alps and in northern Italy................................................. 79 Fig. 5.3. Synchronisation between regional chronologies for the BF and PF from different parts of Italy and their relationship to the chronological phases in Central Europe................................................................................................ 80 Fig. 5.4. Synchronisation between chronological schemes for the Late Bronze Age of Central Europe and different parts of the Mediterranean........................................... 80 Fig. 5.5. A Graves with pins and knives of BF 2 in northern Italy: 1. 2 Fontanella, grave 10; 3. 4 Frattesina, Narde grave 227; 5–8 Fontanella, grave 7; B Fibulae from the Limone hoard, typical for BF 3a ....................................... 81 Fig. 5.6. Objects from graves and hoards of BF 2 (A-D) and BF 3a (E-G) from Frattesina: A Zanotto grave 41/1980; B Hoard I; C Hoard IV; D Hoard II; E1–6 Narde grave 39 (E7 Narde grave 52 and E8 Bismantova are shown as suggested reconstructions for E3. 4); F Zanotto grave III/1978; G Zanotto grave 21/1979 ............................................................................................... 83 Fig. 5.7. Grave finds of BF 3b in north-east Italy: A Frattesina, Zanotto grave 31/80; B Gazzo Veronese, grave 74; C Gazzo Veronese, grave 134; D Angarano; E Gazzo Veronese, grave 111; F Gazzo Veronese, grave 96 ......................................... 84 Fig. 5.8. Grave inventories from Madonna del Piano (Catania): A grave 26; B grave 194 .................................................................................................................... 86 Fig. 5.9. A Swords of BF 3b/Ha B2: 1 Piediluco II/“Contigliano”; 2 Montagna del Campo; 3 Škocjan-Brežec, grave 124/125; 4 Weinheim; 5 Kirschgartshausen; 6 unprovenanced (Moravia?); B Swords of BF 3a (1) and BF 3b/Ha B2 (2–5): 1 Southern Italy; 2 Trilj; 3. 4 Celldömölk-Sághegy, hoard II; 5 Kastav ........................ 88 Fig. 5.10. A. B Latest Mycenean and Submycenean fibulae: A1 Perati, chamber-tomb 74; A2 Elátia, chamber-tomb 12; A3 Pilóna, chamber-tomb 4; B1 Lefkandi, Skoubris grave 22; B2 Athens, Kerameikos grave 33; B3 Athens, Kerameikos grave 108; B4 Athens, Kerameikos grave 44; B5 Athens, Kerameikos grave 42; B6 Athens, Kerameikos grave 108; B7 Lefkandi, Skoubris grave 15B; B8 Lefkandi, Skoubris grave 19; B9 Lefkandi, Skoubris grave 43; C Italian pins of BF 2 (1. 2) compared with Submycenean pins from Athens and Lefkandi (3–7): C1 Fontanella, grave 7; C2 Frattesina, hoard I; C3. 4 Lefkandi, Skoubris grave 62; C5 Athens, Kerameikos SM grave 41; C6. 7 Athens, Kerameikos SM grave 70 .......... 89

iii

Fig. 5.11. A Bronze fibulae and amber beads from Dridu, Wallachia; B Bronze two-looped knee-fibulae from Drmno (1), Korbovo (2), Vajuga (3), Lukjanovka (4), Strumok (5), Cazaclia (6) and Lucaşueca (7); C Arched fibulae from Lefkandi, Toumba cemetery, graves 5, 22, 27 and 32............................... 91 Fig. 5.12. The development of the “Monachil” (6), “Megiddo” (11. 12. 14. 15) and “Cypriot” (13) fibulae from the Cassibile type (1. 2): 1 Modica; 2 Castelluccio; 3 Beaume-les-Créancey; 4 Huelva; 5 Cerro de la Miel; 6 Monachil; 7 Mola d’Agris; 8 Cerro Alcalà; 9 Lefkandi, Palia Perivolia grave 3; 10 Lefkandi, Toumba grave 13; 11 Cyprus; 12 Amathus, grave 523; 13 Ayia Irini, grave 3; 14 Megiddo; 15 Achziv ..................................................... 93 Fig. 5.13. Distribution of amber beads of Tiryns (circles) and Allumiere type (triangles) ............................................................................................................... 94 Fig. 6.1. Celano, Tumulus 4 and associated artefacts (a. b); Tumulus 5 and associated artefacts (c. d)....................................................................................... 107 Fig. 6.2. Rome, Quadrato di Torre Spaccata, the artefacts from Tomb 1 with radiocarbon date GrA-16411 2810±50 BP................................................................... 109 Fig. 6.3. Huelva, average radiocarbon dates of both the River and Town deposit............. 111 Fig. 6.4. Achziv-Huelva fibulae, 10th century BC.............................................................. 112 Fig. 7.1. The situation of Ancient Lazio relative to the central zone of the Italian peninsula ................................................................................................. 120 Fig. 7.2. Ancient Lazio, Final Bronze Age-early. The core area is the coastal plain. Both archaeological and historical data indicate a strong connection of the two major sites, Lavinium and Ardea, with Etruria .................................................... 122 Fig. 7.3. Latial period I, Final Bronze Age-late. The core area of ancient Lazio is around Monte Cavo in the Alban Hills and the adjacent area. The archaeological record shows a concentration of complexes; according to the historical sources, the hills were the home of the federal cult of the Popoli Albenses .............................................................................. 123 Fig. 7.4. Early Iron Age, ca. 9th–8th century BC. The core area of ancient Lazio shifts from the Alban Hills to Rome; the situation of the site is strategic for interregional connections with both Etruria and southern Italy ................................... 123 Fig. 7.5. Final Bronze Age-early. Protovillanovan aspect of ancient Lazio and southern Etruria. Biconical urn from cremation grave at Pratica di Mare – Lavinium; large stilted bow fibulae with two knobs from the Protovillanovan hoard of Coste del Marano ........................................................................................... 124 Fig. 7.6. Final Bronze Age-early and -late. Distribution of stilted bow fibulae: 1. Allumiere (Coste del Marano, Valle del Campaccio, Poggio La Pozza) and Sasso di Furbara; 2. Ficana (Acilia); 3. Pratica di Mare, Ardea, Campo del Fico, Rimessone; 4. Capua; 5. Fucino; 6. L’Aquila; 7. Sulmona; 8. Castelfranco Lamoncelio; 9. Rome, Arch of Augustus; 10. Alban Hilis; 11. Campania ............................................................................................................... 124 Fig. 7.7. Rome (Arch of Augustus, tomb 2) Final Bronze Age-late – Latial Period I ....... 125 Fig. 7.8. Caserta (Carinaro, tomb 12) Final Bronze Age-late – Latial Period I. The close cultural connection between Lazio and Campania is indicated by occurrence in Campania of a cremation ritual quite similar to that of Lazio, with miniature grave-goods and roof-lid to the urn (cf. Fig. 7.7)...................... 125 Fig. 7.9. Osteria dell’Osa, tomb 158, with a sword, indicating a military-political role (Early Iron Age-early – Latial Period II) .............................................................. 126 Fig. 7.10. Osteria dell’Osa, tomb 142, with a knife and statuette which indicate the religious role of the deceased (Early Iron Age-early – Latial Period II) ................ 126

iv

Fig. 7.11. Early Iron Age-early. Typological-functional similarities in the pottery repertoire of ancient Lazio (Osteria dell’Osa cemetery) and of the fossa-grave communities of Campania-Calabria (Torre Galli cemetery)..................... 127 Fig. 7.12. A Similarities in shape and decoration of arch fibulae from ancient Lazio and Campania-Calabria; B Bronze ornaments of south-Italian type from the Latial cemetery of Osteria dell’Osa ............................................................... 127 Fig. 7.13. Early Iron Age-early. Different organizational principles between ancient Lazio (left) and fossa-grave communities of Calabria-Campania ................... 128 Fig. 7.14. Early Iron Age-late – Latial Period III. Bronze hoard from Ardea. All the artifacts belong to late Villanovan types .......................................................... 130 Fig. 7.15. Final Bronze Age-early, coastal zone of ancient Lazio – Sites on large isolated plateaux: Ardea and Pratica di Mare – Lavinium ........................................... 130 Fig. 7.16. Early Iron Age, Latial period IIB–III: the main settlement of Rome is on the central hills (Capitol, Palatine, Velia), and in the Forum valley, the cemeteries shift to the adjacent hills (Esquiline, Quirinal, Viminal)...................... 131 Fig. 8.1. Iberian sites mentioned in the text: 1 São Julião; 2 Nossa Senhora da Guia; 3 Monte do Frado; 4 Moreirinha; 5 Monte do Trigo; 6 Alcaçova do Santarem; 7 Quinta do Marcelo and Quinta do Almaraz; 8 Roça do Casal do Meio; 9 Ría de Huelva; 10 Huelva (c/ Méndez Núñez – Plaza de las Monjas); 11 Cádiz; 12 Castillo de Doña Blanca; 13 Convento de las Concepcionistas (Vejer de la Frontera); 14 Llanete de los Moros; 15 Cerro de la Mora and Cerro de la Miel; 16 Morro de Mezquitilla; 17 Peña Negra; 18 Lixus......................... 136 Fig. 9.1. a Conventional absolute chronology for the Greek Geometric pottery sequence; b hypothetical ‘high’ chronology according to Coldstream; c hypothetical ‘low’ chronology, taking into account both the Assiros dendro-dates and the radiometric data from Tel Dor; A = Assiros, B = Beth Shean, D = Tel Dor, H = Tel Hadar, M = Megiddo, R = Tel Rehov, S = Samaria......................................................................................... 151 Fig. 9.2. Sites from the southern Levant with stratified imports of Greek Geometric pottery; numbers correspond to entries in the catalogue at the end of this paper......... 152 Fig. 9.3. Greek Geometric pottery from Huelva (1–8), Tel Dor (9 = cat. 29) and Tel Rehov (10 = cat. 21; 11 = cat. 24; 12 = cat. 25; 13 = cat. 23; 14 = cat. 22) ................................................................................................................. 154 Fig. 9.4. Diagnostic pottery types from settlement phase B1 at the Morro de Mezquitilla.......................................................................................... 158 Fig. 9.5. Calibrated 14C determinations from contexts with the earliest imports of Phoenician pottery in the Iberian Peninsula ................................................................. 158 Fig. 9.6. Calibrated 14C determinations from a second phase of Phoenician activity in the Far West ................................................................................................ 160 Fig. 9.7. Calibrated 14C determinations from the earliest Phoenician settlement phase at Carthage ......................................................................................................... 161 Fig. 9.8. Calibrated 14C determinations from strata V and VI A at Meggido .................... 161 Fig. 9.9. Calibrated 14C determinations from strata P-7 and S-1 at Beth Shean................. 163 Fig. 9.10. Calibrated 14C determinations from strata V and VI at Tel Rehov .................... 165 Fig. 9.11. Calibrated 14C determinations from strata D2/8b, D2/8c, D2/9 and G/7 at Tel Dor........................................................................................................ 166 Fig. 9.12. Revised chronology for the Greek Geometric pottery sequence according to Trachsel, in relation to south Levantine sites with Greek imports; A = Tell Abu Hawam, B = Beth Shean, D = Tel Dor, H = Tel Hadar, M = Megiddo, R = Tel Rehov, S = Samaria, T = Tyre ........................................................................ 167 v

LIST OF TABLES

Tab. 6.1 Radiocarbon dates available for Latium vetus referring to the period Late Bronze Age-Iron Age / Early Orientalizing period. Collagen is the datable fraction for preserved bone; apatite for cremated bone. The laboratory codes for Groningen are GrN (conventional) and GrA (AMS). Radiocarbon results of lesser quality on account of the discussed radiocarbon quality parameters or on account of the sample are given in italics ........................................................... 106 Tab. 9.1 Radiocarbon determinations from context with early Greek and Phoenician imports in the Iberian Peninsula (Torres 1998, 58; Arruda 1999/2000, 217; Carrilero et al. 2002, tab. 9 A; Pingel 2002, 245 f.; Pingel 2006, 147 f.; Nijboer – van der Plicht 2006, tab. 1) .......................................................................... 156 Tab. 9.2 Radiocarbon determinations from the earliest levels at Carthage and Lixus (Docter et al. 2005, tab. B; Álvarez – Gómez 2005, 177) ........................... 159 Tab. 9.3 Radiocarbon determinations from strata H5 (V) and K4 (VIA) at Megiddo (Boaretto et al. 2005, tab. 1)...................................................................... 162 Tab. 9.4 Radiocarbon determinations from strata S-1 and P-7 at Beth Shean (Mazar – Carmi 2001, tab. 4. 7) ................................................................................... 162 Tab. 9.5 Radiocarbon determinations from strata IV to VI at Tel Rehov; only short-lived samples from contexts that can unambiguously related to the overall stratigraphy of the site are included in this table (Mazar – Carmi 2001, tab. 6; Bruins et al. 2003a. tab. S1; Boaretto et al. 2005, tab. 3; Mazar et al. 2005, tab. 13.3; 13.4) ................................... 163 Tab. 9.6 Radiocarbon determinations from strata G/7 and D2/8b–9 at Tel Dor (Sharon 2001, fig. 1; Gilboa – Sharon 2003, tab. 22) ................................. 165

vi

EDITORS’ PREFACE Much of our current chronological framework for the first half of the last millennium BC in the Mediterranean was established before the advent of science-based dating methods. Until quite recently, this framework has remained largely unaffected by the various ‘radiocarbon revolutions’ which since the nineteen-sixties have had such a dramatic effect on the absolute chronology of most earlier periods. Also, unlike the situation in temperate Europe, where during the last decades dendro-dates from well-defined archaeological context have come to provide an increasingly dense network of chronological ‘fixed points’, for the first and late second millennium BC in the Mediterranean such evidence only has started to become available in recent years.

confronted some years ago, while each of us was labouring on a book project of his own, struggling amongst other things with the absolute chronology of the Bronze Age / Iron Age transition in Italy (M.T.) and Iberia (D.B.) respectively. Looking into the situation in neighbouring, and sometimes not-so-neighbouring regions, we soon realized that the contradictions we encountered were part of a much more general problem, and that discussions of chronological issues by colleagues in different parts of the Mediterranean were all too often taking place in isolation from each other, rarely addressing the underlying methodological issues in a coherent manner. Clearly, what was needed here was a much broader forum to discuss these issues.

Ultimately then, Early Iron Age chronology in many regions of the Mediterranean still rests on ‘historical’ dates attributed to the various styles of Greek Geometric pottery, which are partly based on information provided by ancient authors, and partly derived from Near Eastern chronology through imports of Greek pottery in the Levant. Lately, however, new dendro-dates and radiocarbon determinations have come into increasing conflict with this conventional framework. The resulting problems are thrown into particularly sharp relief where ‘indigenous’ chronologies from the non-classical Mediterranean lands, established by scientific methods, conflict with the conventional dating of Greek and Phoenician imports.

So, with the XVth UISPP congress in Lisbon coming up, attracting specialists from many different countries, we decided to seize the opportunity and organize a colloquium which would provide such a forum, convinced that by analysing and comparing the problems encountered at different points of contact between distinct regional chronologies, new perspectives for their solution would open up. The principal aim of the Lisbon colloquium was to overcome the restrictions of regional or other specialisations and to provide a forum for a truly interdisciplinary discourse, in the broadest sense, bringing together scholars from all relevant areas of interest, be they experts in science-based dating methods, in Biblical, Phoenician and Greek archaeology, or any other field of Mediterranean Iron Age archaeology. On a methodological level, regarding absolute chronology all of them are confronted with the same set of problems, basically boiling down to the question of how to relate material culture to dendrochronology, radiocarbon determinations and historical dates.

Such is the case e.g. in Italy, southern France and the Iberian Peninsula, where the solution all too often has been to explain away the resulting discrepancies by resorting to ad hoc concepts such as ‘heirloom theories’, ill-defined ‘transitional phases’ or similar ruses, mostly avoiding any discussion of the underlying methodological issues. In order to address these, a broader approach is needed, which pays particular attention to the specific problems raised by the juxtaposition of ‘historical’ and science-based dates.

As these problems tend to get more complex in regions without historical records or science-based dates of their own, where absolute chronologies are usually ‘imported’ by means of dated artifacts from regions where such evidence is more readily available, some more specific questions we hoped to discuss in Lisbon were related to the recent advances in Near Eastern Iron Age archaeology and their repercussions on the chronology of Greek Geometric pottery, to current chronological issues in Dark Age Greece and the Aegean, and to the dating of early Greek and Phoenician activities abroad.

The same problems currently plague chronological discussion at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, where fresh data have brought about a renewed and rather controversial debate concerning Levantine Iron Age chronology. As imports of Greek Geometric pottery from some of the relevant Syro-Palestinian sites in the past have been employed to extrapolate ‘historical’ dates not only for Dark Age Greece, but also for early Greek and Phoenician activities abroad, any changes in the East are bound to knock-on and affect the Iron Age absolute chronology of Mediterranean cultures from Italy to the Iberian Peninsula, and beyond.

While each of the participants in the Lisbon colloquium will have their own views as to which degree these aims have been met, these proceedings hopefully will lead readers to question some of their conventional wisdom and help them in drawing their own conclusions concerning many of the issues mentioned above.

This was the situation with which the organizers of the Lisbon colloquium and editors of this volume were

1

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

early Phoenician stratigraphic, ceramic and radiocarbon sequences and their implications for the West”, all contributions to the colloquium are included in this volume.

With the regrettable exception of the two papers presented in Lisbon by Alfredo Mederos on “The dating of the Trojan War and its implications for Late Bronze Age chronology in the Mediterranean” and Ayelet Gilboa, Ilan Sharon and Elisabetta Boaretto “Not dark at all: updating

Dirk Brandherm, Martin Trachsel

Editorial note

Cover illustration credits

The conventions for the abbreviation of journal titles and series follow the guidelines of the German Archaeological Institute (www.dainst.org/index_141_en.html). The arrangement of the papers in this volume is by regional focus of the respective contribution and generally follows a geographical order from East to West. Credit for the translation of the abstract texts into French goes to Renate Heckendorf.

Design by Andrzej Kuczminski, incorporating motifs from an Assyrian relief from the Palace of Sennacherib at Niniveh (after a line drawing by Sir Austen Henry Layard), an unprovenanced Middle Geometric amphora (Kunst- und Antikensammlungen der Ruhr-Universität Bochum), an unprovenanced Cypriote fibula (private collection) and the Intcal98 calibration curve (OxCal 3.9).

2

WESTERN CHALLENGES TO EAST MEDITERRANEAN CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS Francisco J. NÚÑEZ CALVO Instituto de Estudios Islámicos y de Oriente Próximo, c/ Di putados 19–21, E-50004 Zaragoza, Spain, e-mail: [email protected] Abstract: The archaeology of metropolitan Phoenicia faces a series of challenges: firstly to demonstrate that it is a proper branch of the discipline on a par with other, better established archaeologies; and secondly to achieve a reconciliation with contradictory evidence from colonial milieus and neighbouring areas especially in absolute chronology. As long as there are insufficient chronological reference points from Phoenicia itself, chronological cross-referencing with other areas will remain necessary. Importing foreign chronologies, however, has its pitfalls, particularly if the problems of the respective wider chronological frameworks are not duly taken into account. This paper aims to explore these problems, better to understand their repercussions on Phoenician chronology, and also to compare the chronological evidence from metropolitan and colonial Phoenicia. Keywords: relative chronology, absolute chronology, Phoenician pottery, Biblical Archaeology, radiocarbon dates Résumé: L’archéologie de la Phénicie métropolitaine est actuellement confrontée à une série de défis: d’abord, elle doit faire valoir sa réputation en tant que branche véritable de la discipline qui va de pair avec d’autres archéologies déjà mieux établies. Deuxièmement, elle se trouve en présence de données recueillies dans les colonies et dans les régions voisines qui semblent contredire un certain nombre de ses résultats. Ce constat s’applique particulièrement au domaine de la chronologie absolue. Tant que les points de référence chronologique ne seront pas disponibles en nombre suffisant en Phénicie elle-même, le recoupement chronologique avec d’autres régions restera indispensable. Cependant, le recours aux chronologies étrangères recèle bien des pièges, surtout si les problèmes concernant les différents cadres chronologiques au sein leurs propres zones d’origine ne sont pas dûment prises en considération. Ainsi, le but du présent article consiste d’une part à explorer ces problèmes, afin de mieux comprendre leurs répercussions sur la chronologie phénicienne, et d’autre part à comparer les indicateurs chronologiques en Phénicie métropolitaine avec ceux des comptoirs. Mots clé: chronologie relative, chronologie absolue, céramique phénicienne, archéologie biblique, datations au radiocarbone Abriss: Die Archäologie des phönizischen Mutterlandes sieht sich einer Reihe von Herausforderungen gegenüber: zum einen gilt es, ihren Charakter als eigenständige Disziplin gegenüber anderen, besser etablierten Archäologien zu behaupten; an zweiter Stelle hat sie sich mit Forschungsergebnissen aus anderen Bereichen auseinanderzusetzen, die ihren Erkenntnissen zu widersprechen scheinen. Dies betrifft etwa die absolute Chronologie. Solange für das phönizische Mutterland nicht hinreichende chronologische Fixpunkte zur Verfügung stehen, wird es notwendig bleiben, auf Daten aus anderen Regionen zurückzugreifen. Der Rückgriff auf fremde Chronologien birgt jedoch eigene Schwierigkeiten, besonders wenn die chronologischen Probleme der Ursprungsregion nicht angemessen berücksichtigt werden. Ziel dieses Beitrags ist es daher, diese Probleme näher zu beleuchten, um ihre Auswirkungen auf die für das phönizische Mutterland entwickelten Chronologiemodelle besser zu verstehen. Schlüsselwörter: relative Chronologie, absolute Chronologie, phönizische Keramik, Radiokarbondatierung

Archaeologists require their research to make chronological sense. This may seem self-evident. However, there are times when fulfilling this requirement is difficult, as in the case of Phoenician chronology.

gical sequence which in our opinion are of particular relevance, while the second will consider the chronological possibilities based on the Eastern Mediterranean evidence and the way it can be interpreted.

The aim of this paper is to illustrate the complex state of research on Phoenician chronology, which has been complicated even more by new results from Central and Western Mediterranean sites. Nevertheless, even though here we are taking a clear position, in favour of the ‘low chronology’1, this article has been conceived more as a reflection on the subject than a mere display of data in support or refutation of any existing model. Therefore, the intention is to offer a personal view, which in many ways will serve as a commentary to approaches and opinions expressed by other scholars.

Relative chronology Phoenician Archaeology lacks scholarly conventions concerning its chrono-sequential framework, especially regarding the pottery sequence. Leaving aside the factors that have led to this situation, the facts of the matter are that, in the first place, a lot of work still needs to be done, particularly on its sequential aspects. Except of some proposals from outside Phoenician Archaeology, for example Amiran’s sequential scheme2, which have been used as a reference for a long time, there were some attempts in this direction in the past, like the periodization by Chapman3 or Culican4. However, the seeds of a proper Phoenician sequence were planted somewhat later: the four sequential horizons defined by

METROPOLITAN PHOENICIA This first part of the article has been divided into two sections, one dealing with some aspects of the chronolo-

2

Amiran 1969. Chapman 1972, 180 f. 4 Culican 1982. 3

1

Núñez 2004a, 357.

3

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Bikai5. Unfortunately, little attention has been paid to this scheme, perhaps because it originated in a study of Phoenician pottery from Cyprus, but also because of the terminology employed to name her horizons, each after an eponymous site: Kouklia, Salamis, Kition, and Amathus. Another problem has been their allocated dates, derived as they are from Cypriot Iron Age chronology. However, what cannot be denied is the close correspondence between Bikai’s Cypriot sequence and the stratigraphy of Tyre and other sites in metropolitan Phoenicia. Apart from Sarepta6, the site of al-Bass7, being the cemetery of Phoenician Tyre, mostly mirrors the structure of this sequence8.

This would be the case of the appearance of ceramic forms that will be typical of the next period, formed by the ‘Kition’ and ‘Amathus’ horizons, cited above, as well as the progressive loss of importance experienced by the painted decoration, while red-slipped surfaces increasingly gain ground. However, certain new ceramic forms only existed during this period, characterizing this period as an entity of its own. This would be the case, for example, with the piriform-bodied trefoil-rimmed jugs13 or the simple rimmed bowls, plain or with bichrome concentric decoration on their inner surface14. In our opinion, based on the al-Bass evidence as well as on a reference type such as the neck-ridge jugs, several corrections can be applied to this basic scheme (Fig. 1.1), which in particular may affect the internal structure of the different periods and the distribution along the chronological axis of certain sequential moments, especially the division of the two ‘full’ periods into certain subperiods15. We will deal with those corrections later, nevertheless, the point is: whatever corrections to this basic scheme might prove necessary, Bikai’s stages do exist and should be maintained as a basis for any future study of the Phoenician sequence. The reason is simple: Bikai’s approach was purely sequential, based on the diachronic and synchronic characteristics of the Phoenician ceramic repertoire, and backed by contextual and stratigraphical evidence. Moreover, even if there are apparent similarities to the traditional division of the Iron Age, the use of a different terminology, abandoning the traditional ‘Iron I-II’ system, provides some distance from other sequences and their inherent problems. This is especially important with regard to Biblical Archaeology, traditionally providing the models on which attempts to establish a relative sequence or an absolute chronology for metropolitan Phoenicia have been based, but experiencing a continuous dispute over the different ways in which the archaeological and historical evidence can be read, combined and interpreted.

These four pottery horizons are characterized by physical and decorative features that make it relatively easy to ascribe individual items to one of them. At a more general level, these horizons could even be synthesized in only three big periods: sequentially speaking, two full ones (‘Kouklia’ on the one hand and ‘Kition-Amathus’ on the other), and a transitional one (‘Salamis’). Keeping in mind the possible existence of local variations during the course of the Phoenician Iron Age, the first of these main periods, ‘Kouklia’, could be represented basically by globular, ring-based and non-ring-based neck-ridge jugs, spouted-jugs with handles from the shoulder to the middle of the neck, and pilgrim-flasks. The typical decoration consists of concentric bands and fillets in red and black, whether on the bodies of the jugs, especially the neckridged ones, or on the pilgrim-flasks (Anderson’s Style III)9. On other occasions, the bichrome scheme becomes lineal on the bodies of certain jugs and big containers, sometimes with the addition of metopic partitions of the shoulders (Anderson’s Style I)10. The second full period would be represented by the ‘Kition’ and ‘Amathus’ horizons11. Both horizons share the same basic ceramic forms, although with differences in the physical and decorative features as they develop over time. These basic ceramic forms are the mushroomrim jugs, the trefoil-rimmed jugs with conical necks, the concave-based and hemi-spherical cups, as well as plates with everted rims. Concerning their decoration, the usual surface treatment of certain forms (especially the cups and the trefoil-rimmed jugs) consist in the application of red slip, while painted decoration is relegated to a complementary role.

If the basic characteristics of Bikai’s horizons are kept in mind, confronting the Phoenician evidence with that provided by Biblical Archaeology brings up several questions that deserve special attention. In the first place, when did the Iron Age begin in Phoenicia? Or asked in another way, when did the Canaanites become Phoenicians? Probably this is not the place to delve into this particular issue, given the fact that, in terms of relative – sequential – as well as absolute chronology, the moment under discussion here is somewhat later. Still, from a more general perspective, it makes good sense to include these questions in our discussion: are changes in material culture always indicators of a new historical situation, e.g. did certain internal and external circumstances faced by the Canaanite cities herald the transition to a new period?

The third period, ‘Salamis’, lies between these two12. Its transitional character makes it a special moment in the sequence, in which physical and decorative resources typical of the first period slowly give place to new ones. 5

Bikai 1987x. See especially Anderson 1988. 7 Aubet 2004a. 8 Núñez 2004a, 285 f. 352–366. 9 Anderson 1988, 335 f. 10 Anderson 1988, 335. 11 Bikai 1988, 53–58. 12 Bikai 1988, 50–53. 6

13

Bikai 1988, pl. 14, 353. 355. 356. 357. 360. 363. 375; 15, 364. Bikai 1988, 21. 23–24 tab. 3A pls. 8–10. 15 For a full explanation of our corrections to this basic scheme, see Núñez forthcoming. 14

4

F.J. NÚÑEZ CALVO: WESTERN CHALLENGES TO EAST MEDITERRANEAN CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS

the Geometric period in Cyprus and the Protogeometric in the Aegean. Nevertheless, it is difficult to tell, if these changes in material culture coincided with changes in the political or social spheres, as seems to be the case in the south, or if the former were a consequence of the latter. Furthermore, if considering this second possibility, the question remains which changes in the socio-economical or political spheres of Canaanite society could have led to a new age in material culture: the end of the Egyptian hegemony, struggles between Canaanite cities, presence of foreign peoples, new cultural influences, ... ? A second aspect to consider is the number of possible subdivisions for this period in Phoenicia, their composition in terms of material culture and their relevance. It has already been indicated that a lot of work remains to be done. At present, however, as has been observed above, Bikai’s four horizons, in conjunction with the corrections that can be applied to her model, allow us to recognize subdivisions within the sequence that provide an articulate structure for the entire framework of relative chronology in Phoenicia and, moreover, make the genuine dynamism of the Phoenician sequence more comprehensible. This is where Bikai’s horizons and their relation with contextual evidence come into play. The features visible in all those horizons, as in the respective contexts, show that changes occurred at a slow pace. Moreover, it seems that changes of form and decoration affected different pottery shapes and types quite independently, i.e. not always at the same time. In fact, the evolution of these forms and their respective types can be conceived as separate lines whose initial and final steps do not necessarily have to coincide in space and time.

Fig. 1.1. Comparison between the stratigraphy of Tyre and al-Bass, different proposals for structuring the Phoenician pottery sequence and the chronological framework of Biblical Archaeology

This might also apply to the very beginning of this new age, where the problem would be the scarcity of contexts that may represent these initial steps in the sequence, as is also the case with other, later moments. Nevertheless, the general tendency could be pictured as a slow but steady movement that, concerning the process in general, gives the impression of being in a state of continuous transition. As a result, the determination of the exact position occupied by certain contexts in the sequence of relative chronology is fairly complicated. Sometimes it is also difficult to comprehend the composition and relevance of certain contexts. This holds especially true with deeply stratified sites, where objects of different cultural and chronological origins can be found together due to different reasons (objects with a long life span, intrusions or chance), and it is even more true when dealing with individual imports. After all, the total evidence recorded at most sites only represents a small, sometimes distorted part of material culture.

From a point of view centring on the relative sequence, relevant changes in Phoenician material culture are visible for the first time in level XIII at Tyre16 and in level E at Sarepta17, characterized by the appearance of typical ‘Kouklia’ horizon pottery shapes and their decorative repertoire18. In Tyre this period lasted until level X according to Bikai, and coincides with the Iron Age Ib of Biblical Archaeology19. Therefore, it seems that in northern Canaan the Iron Age started later than generally assumed for the more southerly parts of the Levant, where the local Iron Ia should be contemporary to Phoenician levels like Tyre XIV or Sarepta G and F, which even produced some of the elements characteristic of Palestinian Iron Ia, such as the Mycenaean IIIC pottery or related wares20. However, the beginning of the Phoenician Iron Age apparently can be synchronized with the start of 16

Bikai 1978a, 56 f. Anderson 1988, 390–396. 18 Bikai 1987, 58–62. 19 See Mazar 1990, 258–299; Gilboa – Sharon 2003, 33 f. 55 tab. 21. 20 For Tyre, see Bikai 1978a, pl. 39, 14. 20; for Sarepta, see Anderson 1988, pls. 28, 19; 30, 10. On the survival of the Late Bronze Age features in those levels, see Anderson 1988, 390, and Bikai 1978a, 65 f. 17

Accordingly, it is difficult to tell if the simple appearance of certain elements, especially those imported from other areas, can always be used to characterize their respective contexts as belonging to a new period. We have already seen the case of Mycenaean IIIC wares found in

5

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Phoenician contexts that kept their local Late Bronze Age character. Another example, later in the sequence, would be that of the red-slipped and the Cypriot Black-on-Red wares, respectively the Phoenician and Cypriot versions of a general phenomenon, or maybe fashion, which can be observed in the whole of the Eastern Mediterranean21. Biblical Archaeology considers these elements as characterristic for a new period, the Iron Age IIa. However, regarding the Phoenician sequence, the appearance of those elements adds new features to a given period or, to put it more correctly, to the evolutionary line, but do not trigger a change in the general character of the sequence at that moment. On the contrary, the main shapes and decoration patterns keep the character of previous moments. As we shall see later on in more detail, these wares do not really represent the beginning of a major new period. If anything, they may represent the beginning of the end of the first major period in the Phoenician sequence, Bikai’s ‘Kouklia’ horizon, instituting the transitional period already cited above.

some elements from material culture, such as certain pots and architectural features27. Later on, this connection was kept by the various revisionist approaches, which maintained the same material characteristics (pottery wares, ceramic forms, types, decorative patterns) for the Iron IIa, while its position in terms of absolute chronology changed. Absolute chronology We have dealt with the nature of the Phoenician ceramic sequence. The next step is to give absolute dates to the evolutionary stages previously described. This will also be the moment to deal in detail with some sequential aspects mentioned above, and which are relevant to the issue discussed here. At this point, there are three elements that come into play: the material sequence, the written records and the scientific dates28. At least theoretically, absolute dates should result from a balanced and generally agreed upon combination of these three approaches. However, the results obtained in recent years have been everything but accepted by all sides involved in the archaeology of the Mediterranean Iron Age. The reason for this situation is not only the nature of the evidence at hand, or the different development of the discipline in the geographical and cultural areas implicated. As S. Sherrat correctly points out, these three factors (relative sequence, history and radiocarbon) are inherently different29. Their respective nature and the way they have to be handled are actually quite distinct. One could even doubt if any given date means the same in all three cases. However, the problem is that we must look for a consensus between them, and here another aspect starts playing an important role: the researcher’s (personal, academic, ...) background and her/his expectations, a factor that should be placed at the centre of the other three. This inclusion does not mean to defend any kind of relativism in this field. There is only one ‘reality’ (what really happened in the past and how), but there are many paths by which we may try to get there. Therefore, the question would be which of these approaches is the correct one.

Actually, Black-on-Red wares appear at Tyre for the first time in level X22, and so do the red-slipped surfaces of some ceramic forms (although the appearance of this latter feature as such seems to occur somewhat earlier). However, only from Tyre V onwards do the morphological and decorative features of the pottery as a whole change into something distinctly new, when the new forms and decorations mentioned above as co-existing with older features in levels IX to VI became dominant, a situation that remained basically unchanged until the arrival of the Persian period. In our opinion, Tyre levels V and IV should rather be considered as the initial phase of Bikai’s combined ‘Kition’ and ‘Amathus’ horizons (Fig. 1.4)23. In fact, the use by scholars of the first appearance of both the red-slip and the Cypriot Black-on-Red as indicators for the beginning of an Iron Age IIa is the result of the connection of certain historical events with specific archaeological contexts by Biblical Archaeology. In other words, scholars that follow the conventional chronology, first outlined by Albright24 and later fleshed out by Yadin25 and Mazar26, identify an important moment in the history of Israel, that of the United Monarchy, with 21 Actually, besides other, more complicated opinions (see especially Schreiber 2003 or Faust 2002), I consider the Cypriot Black-on-Red simply as the adaptation of the basic Cypriot conception of the WhitePainted wares of the Cypro-Geometric I and II periods to a new fashion present in all the Eastern Mediterranean, that is, the application of redslip to the surfaces of certain ceramic types to give them a metallic appearance. Later on, as seems to be the case with other repertoires in general and Cypriot wares in particular, this Black-on-Red ware experienced its own evolution, and was even produced in non-Cypriot centres. 22 Bikai 1978a, 53 f. tab. 13A. See opinions to the contrary in Gilboa – Sharon 2003, 46. 23 Dr. Bikai per. Comm. reports that in the opinion of the late Dr. Anderson, her ‘Salamis’ horizon should be divided into two main phases, which may include, on the one hand, Tyre levels IX to VI, and levels V and IV on the other. This is an idea that I share after considering the old and new evidence at hand. 24 Albright 1932; Albright 1943; Albright 1962, 114–144. 25 See especially Yadin 1960, Yadin 1970 and Yadin 1972. 26 Mazar 2005.

Actually, we have added this subjective element, which acts as a filter when reading the evidence and ultimately conditions its interpretation, because it also plays a determining role in the perception of the relation between the written and the material evidence, and of its correlations. If theoretically the connections between these different sources of information should be traceable and identifiable, we must also consider their real nature and relevance. Simple questions with complicated answers arise from this: what do we really know of the past and by which means? Which part of the material culture of the past has survived for us to observe and how 27

Mazar 1990; Barkay 1992; Herr 1997. Nijboer 2005, 527; Levy – Higham 2005b; Sherrat 2005. 29 Sherrat 2005, 123. 28

6

F.J. NÚÑEZ CALVO: WESTERN CHALLENGES TO EAST MEDITERRANEAN CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS

did this happen? How can we connect what really happened in the past and its material remains? How can we connect material culture and the texts that make reference to the respective societies and historical events? With these questions we do not intend to cast shadows of doubt on every aspect, but raise awareness of the incomplete nature of the evidence and of the danger of establishing simple correlations that many times answer to the scholar’s background. This is especially important when direct and unequivocal anchors between textual remains and the material evidence are scarce. Moreover, as will be seen later, dates obtained by scientific means are not immune with regard to this problem.

the conventional side, Megiddo or Tel Jezreel on the revisionist).

Turning to the situation in metropolitan Phoenicia, the first aspect to point out here is its lack in resources that could provide absolute dates for the sequential framework of its relative chronology. Firstly, a genuine Phoenician history, written by the Phoenicians, in which they play the main role, does not exist. Historical events are only known through cuneiform and Egyptian texts of different nature, the Bible and several classical authors30. Secondly, these events are hardly visible in the available stratigraphies. The nature of excavations undertaken in Lebanon until recent years simply did not allow to establish consistent connections between these two sets of sources, although the destruction of Kamid el-Loz at the end of the Late Bronze Age, or the construction and later abandonment of the glacis of Beirut could be possible exceptions31. Finally, the obtention of absolute dates by means other than from written sources has long been neglected. The only series of radiocarbon dates available so far are those obtained from several tombs from alBass32, whose relevance is rather limited. Given this situation, the logical thing to do seemingly would be to go searching for reference points in neighbouring geographical and cultural areas, whose evidence, local and imported, is interpreted in most cases by scholars based on their own paradigms. This important aspect should lead us to treat these data sources with extreme caution.

The solution should be to forget all existing paradigms, and start again from scratch using a balanced combination of the three factors involved in establishing absolute and relative chronologies: historical record, archaeological evidence and scientific dates. However, if one of these factors has to be paramount this should be the relative sequence of material culture. The reason is simple: once a consensus has been reached on the way in which material culture evolved, the relationship of historical and scientific evidence becomes more secure, incongruities could be avoided, and biased and misguided approaches detected.

The literature on both sides has been enormous, without achieving a much-needed consensus, and now that the arguments based on purely archaeological and historical data have been exhausted, the tendency has been to turn to radiocarbon dates. Unfortunately the problems associated with these are notorious, so now the dispute continues, but about the number and nature of the 14C dates, the way they must be handled, and how they should be interpreted33. The result is that the same radiocarbon dates are used to support both positions34.

Once the sequence has been established, the next problem is to determine the nature and length of the different phases, as well as the pace and the reasons for changes. An example of this would be the Geometric sequence in the Aegean, especially in Athens. Even if the answers to these questions are dealt with a priori, for example by calculating the duration of phases by counting generations, or subject to controversies emanating from other areas35, there can be little doubt about the phases in the Aegean sequence. In fact, it seems that attempts to modify the subdivisions of this period, especially the Protogeometric36, are based on interpreting from outside the Aegean37. This may introduce other problems, however, for some kinds of imported materials can chronologically ‘contaminate’ the context they were found in38. The local sequence should always be awarded priority over foreign materials. However, the dangers in using imports can be countered if the same kind of association is repeated at different sites. Such reservations about the material culture may likewise apply to the written evidence. Sometimes what we think we know of the past keeps us from detecting other interpretations and other, previously unknown events. Actually, the original processes behind a given piece of archaeological evidence

As indicated before, Biblical Archaeology is the most important example here. The southern Levant offers a rich archaeological record, generally very good conditions for its study, and the possibility of relating the archaeological with the historical record, especially the Bible, but also other Hebrew, cuneiform, Aramaic and Egyptian texts. The problem here lies with the different schools of thought, conventional and revisionist on how the archaeological evidence should be related to the biblical accounts. A lot of ink has been spilled on both sides. Still, it is important to remember that both have their academic and ideological paradigms, and are tied by their particular historical / biblical interpretations to their own view of the archaeological evidence. Both have particular sites to support their view (for example, Hazor or Tel Rehov on

33 An example of this new field of problems can be seen in the articles colleted in Levy – Higham 2005a 34 Compare especially the articles devoted to Israel in the Iron Age in Levy – Higham 2005a. 35 Coldstream 1968, 302–331; see, however, Coldstream 2003. 36 Lemos 2002, 3–26; Mederos 2005, 325. 37 For example, Kopcke 2003; Nijboer 2005; Nijboer 2006; Brandherm 2006. 38 See Nijboer 2006, 258 and his criticism on the use of Aegean imports to date Mediterranean sequences.

30

Krinks 1995; Ribichini 1995; Scandone 1995; Xella 1995a; Xella 1995b. 31 Badre 1998. 32 Aubet 2004a, 469–471.

7

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

can be manifold, not necessarily always the ones that we are aware of. In this sense, the lack of an historical record becomes an important advantage in establishing and understanding Phoenician Archaeology. Arriving at a sequence of material culture may be carried out unhindered by historical and ideological distractions.

is not exactly the case: they should rather be related with Samaria PP 3. Nevertheless, even if some of the criticisms concerning the Samaria evidence may be justified, especially those relating to the complicated nature of the excavation and its stratigraphy, it is also important to note that the possibility of a date about one hundred years later for the materials from the respective strata means a real challenge to one of the basic paradigms of the conventional chronological model in Biblical Archaeology42. However, we are now left with a paradox. While the end of Iron IIa originally was linked by this school of thought to Shoshenq’s campaigns against Palestine, its proponents now seem certain that this stage continued to exist well into the 9th century43. Actually, this may render many of the arguments against the nature of the earlier levels at Samaria irrelevant. Accordingly, this should allow us to re-establish Samaria in its role as a key-site, but as a result of the previous interpretation, the importance of its early remains is still largely underestimated.

In the end, choosing one of the two available chronological models and maintaining chronological coherence becomes imperative for Phoenician Archaeology39. This means getting involved in an arena where the role of the Phoenician evidence still needs to be determined and a consensus is not yet in sight. However, from the point of view of Phoenician Archaeology, we should be allowed to look for a historical moment for which the texts provide an exact date, and which may be useful for the Phoenician sequence. It should also be clear that this has nothing to do with sharing any of the paradigms which lie behind the chronological models of Biblical Archaeology. On the contrary, no special interest or bias lies behind the choice, only the intention to take every line of argument into account in a balanced manner.

All things considered, Samaria PP 1 and 244 certainly show a ceramic repertoire that could easily be placed in the first half of Bikai’s ‘Salamis’ horizon45. Moreover, the published evidence, although not too abundant, can also be put in relation with that obtained at other sites which are linked historically to the early phase of Omride Samaria. This would be the case of Tel Fara’h (N), a site identified as the old capital Tirzah, the material from whose levels VIIb and VIIc can be closely related to that from the foundation levels of Samaria46, the pre-omride layers at Tel Jezreel (the location of the winter palace of the kings of Israel)47, Megiddo VB48, Hazor X, and Tel Rehov VI and V, whose differences in terms of material culture are quite small. This is supported by their proposed historical dates, and by both having produced Cypro-Geometric III wares together with some Aegean Late Protogeometric or Sub-Protogeometric imports49. All these contexts are characterized basically by the presence of red slipped and bichrome wares, neck-ridge jugs that show proportionally longer necks, sometimes with everted rims with square-cut lips, certain other forms such as the bowls with curved walls and simple rims, tubular handles on some other bowls and trefoil-rimmed jugs with piriform bodies and long necks, as well as Cypriot Blackon-Red wares.

According to this principle, there would be one possible anchor that arises from the rest: the foundation of the city of Samaria around the year 879 BC by Omri (1 Kings 16: 23–24): (23) In the thirty and first year of Asa king of Judah began Omri to reign over Israel, twelve years: six years reigned he in Tirzah. (24) And he bought the hill Samaria of Shemer for two talents of silver, and built on the hill, and called the name of the city which he built, after the name of Shemer, owner of the hill, Samaria. Together with the Assyrian campaigns of the second half of the 8th century, this is one of the few chronological anchors which appear in the Bible that can be more clearly identified in the archaeological record: a city founded anew, whose location is undisputed, and with an exact date given for its foundation40. It may be important to note that, objectively, the Solomonic strata so far lack such tangible evidence. In fact, this paradigm has its origins in an interpretation of the archaeological evidence which is based on the text of the Bible. The sequential and, therefore, chronological nature of the materials related to the initial levels of Samaria (its building periods 0 and I, which correspond to the pottery periods [PP] 1 and 2 respectively) is controversial, especially because of their alleged similarity with those found in the so-called ‘Solomonic strata’41, something that

42 Among others, see Aharoni – Amiran 1958; Wright 1959a, Wright 1959b and Wright 1965, 98–100; Stager 1990; Dever 1990; Finkelstein 1990; Tappy 1992; Avigad 1992. For scholars that support Kenyon’s postulates see Holladay 1976, Holladay 1990 and Holladay 1993, as well as Wightman 1990. 43 Mazar 2004; Mazar et al. 2005. See the commentaries on this in Sharon et al. 2005, 66. 44 Kenyon 1957, 94, 195 f. 198–209. On these earlier levels, see Tappy 1992 as well as Franklin 2004 and Franklin 2005. 45 For a more detailed explanation of all the Phoenician sequential stages and its correlations, see Núñez forthcoming. 46 Chambon 1984. 47 Zimhoni 1997. 48 Finkelstein et al. 2000, 265–300. 49 Mazar 2005a, 217–236; Coldstream – Mazar 2003.

39

In this sense, see Núñez 2001. On the contrary, Shoshenq’s campaigns against Palestine, even though they can be dated with the same degree of accuracy, are more difficult to identify in site stratigraphies, and tend to be controversial; see Finkelstein 2002; Finkelstein – Piasetzky 2006. 41 Kenyon 1957; Kenyon 1964. For a summary of the history of the research on this site, see Tappy 1992 and Tappy 2001, as well as Franklin 2004. 40

8

F.J. NÚÑEZ CALVO: WESTERN CHALLENGES TO EAST MEDITERRANEAN CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS

970–960 (2.3 %) as well as 940–840 (93.1 %) at 2σ57. The central date of their ranges with a bigger statistical probability are 907 BC at 1σ and 890 BC at 2σ for Rehov VI, and, interestingly, 905 BC at 1σ and again 890 BC at 2σ for Rehov V58, dates that may confirm the relative proximity of both levels in terms of the pottery sequence. At this point we should not forget the chronological connection drawn by Finkelstein between the end of Iron I and Shoshenq’s campaigns59.

In metropolitan Phoenicia, the examples referred to above can be related to level X at Tyre (maybe XI as well), which in Bikai’s opinion closed her ‘Kouklia’ horizon, but which we would rather put into relation with the first half of her ‘Salamis’ horizon (see above). This level X can be connected with the beginning of al-Bass period II, of which urns 49–51 are typical representatives, having produced Cypriot wares that show the transition between Cypro-Geometric II and III50. In this regard, we should not forget that Tyre X is the first level which yielded Cypriot Black-on-Red wares, together with some Aegean SubProtogeometric I–II imports which at Tyre appear for the first time in the preceding level XI. Meanwhile, al-Bass grave group 49–51 finds close counterparts in some of the tombs excavated in Palaepaphos-Skales, especially its tombs 54, 55 and 63, where these Phoenician imports appeared together with early Black-on-Red wares51. Moreover, in order to demonstrate the relevance of these associations, we could cite tomb 79 found in the Euboean cemetery of Lefkandi52. In this tomb, early Cypriot Blackon-Red wares appeared in a Sub-Protogeometric context, together with Phoenician imports similar to those from the contexts cited before, especially the neck-ridge jugs. Therefore, a chronological overlap can be demonstrated to exist between the final stages of Bikai’s ‘Kouklia’ horizon as well as the beginning of her ‘Salamis’ horizon (which in my opinion represent the same moment in the sequence) and the very end of Cypro-Geometric II and early Cypro-Geometric III, as well as Aegean SubProtogeometric I–II (and Aegean Early Geometric).

Using this historical event as a chronological anchor, Finkelstein speaks of a ‘Megiddo VIA’ horizon to which other contexts like Hadar IV may belong. However, it would seem prudent to point out some important facts concerning the relative sequence. In the first place, talking of a general ‘Megiddo VIA horizon’ applicable to the entire Iron Ib may lead to a somewhat erroneous picture of the overall sequence. The reason is that the material found in this stratum (Megiddo VIA) may have connections to the first stage of the Phoenician Early Iron Age (equivalent to the beginning of Bikai’s ‘Kouklia horizon’), characterized basically by globular, rounded based neck-ridge jugs (our ‘Stage B’) and spouted jugs, as well as by some forms derived from the Late Bronze Age, like the bichrome pilgrim-flasks, pyxides and high ringbased craters. These ceramic forms are also present, for example, in level XIII at Tyre (where apart from CyproGeometric I wares, a probable Aegean (Early?) Protogeometric sherd was found)60, Tel Qasile X61, the Iron Ib horizon at Tel Dor62, in Phoenician funerary contexts like Khalde tombs 4, 166 and 16763, or in Cypriot contexts like Palaepahos-Skales tombs 58 and 4964, or Salamis tomb I65. Therefore, these contexts and strata show that the first stage of the Phoenician Early Iron Age is contemporaneous with Cypro-Geometric I and probably also with Aegean Early Protogeometric.

To support these conclusions by means of radiocarbon dates is a somewhat more complicated matter and requires careful consideration of some of the arguments currently fuelling the chronological controversy inside Biblical Archaeology. Conventional chronology dates the end of Tel Rehov VI between 975–955 BC and places Rehov V somewhere between the years 924 and 897 BC, i.e. well in the 10th century BC53. However, the application of a Bayesian approach with the consequent discrimination of certain absolute dates, as well as the calibration ranges used, lead us to be cautious with these results54. In fact, we would view the approach of Finkelstein’s team as preferable, which counts with all the available data55. For them, those two strata have their place in the last third of the 10th century BC56, although the average date is 2761±13 BP for Rehov VI and 2758±13 BP for Rehov V, which gives a range of 925–890 (49.0 %) and 870–850 (19.2 %) at 1σ and 970–950 (4.4 %) and 940–840 (91.0 %) at 2σ for the first case, while the second offers ranges of 920–890 (44.5 %) and 870–850 (19.2 %) at 1σ, and

The average 14C date provided for Megiddo VIA is 2831±31 BP66, which gives a central date of 995 BC at 2σ and 972 BC at 1σ67. These dates can be contrasted with another one collected at Tel Hadar IV68, also supposedly belonging to the same horizon: 2780±25 BP, which gives central dates of 950 BC at 2σ and 935 BC at 1σ69. The 57

For calibrations we have used OxCal 3.10. Dealing with calibrated 14C dates, I prefer to calculate the central values of the ranges with a higher statistical probability, and use them as a reference. In my opinion, using the whole range can lead to confusions and overinterpretation, even in the case of those ranges with the higher statistical probability. Every year range has two ends, so moving towards one or the other can change considerably the picture and, therefore, the interpretation. 59 Finkelstein – Piasetzky 2006; Fantalkin – Finkelstein 2006. 60 Bikai 1978a. 61 Mazar 1985. 62 Gilboa – Sharon 2003, 33 f. 63 Saidah 1966. 64 Karageorghis 1983. 65 Yon 1971. 66 Finkelstein – Piasetzky 2006, 47 f. 67 The ranges are 1090–900 BC at 2σ and 1020–925 BC at 1σ. 68 Piastzky – Finkelstein 2005, 299; Finkelstein – Piasetzky 2006, 48. 69 The ranges for this date are 1010–890 BC (83,3 %) and 880–840 BC (12,1 %) at 2σ, and 975–895 BC at 1σ. 58

50

Núñez 2004a, 354–358; Aubet 2004b, 458. 461 fig. 308, a. Karageorghis 1983. 52 Popham – Lemos 1996, tab. 1 pl. 79, 103. 109. 53 See especially Mazar et al. 2005; van der Plicht – Bruins 2005; Bruins et al. 2005. 54 See commentaries on this in Finkelstein – Piasetzky 2006, 378 note 6. 55 Finkelstein 2005; Piasetzky – Finkelstein 2005; Finkelstein – Piasetzky 2003; Finkelstein – Piasetzky 2006. 56 On the same line of thought would be Boaretto et al 2005. 51

9

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

importance of this stratum is that it offers a closed context, although only little material from it has been published, among it a Middle/Late Protogeometric lebes70. This association is important for the relative sequence of the development of material culture. The second stage of the Phoenician Early Iron Age is characterized especially by the neck-ridged jugs with ring bases and necks proportionally smaller than their bodies. This type has been recorded in level XII at Tyre, where it appeared associated to Cypro-Geometric II wares71. Meanwhile, connections with materials of Aegean origin also occur in Amathus (Cyprus) in the so-called Ahmed Rashim’s Coffee Shop tomb72, where a jug of the type just described was found together with Cypro-Geometric II and Late Protogeometric material. Other similar associations appeared in other funerary contexts from Amathus, like tomb 32973, or tomb 33374. A further context connected to this moment in the sequence could be tomb 22 of the Euboean cemetery of Palia Perivolia, in Lefkandi75, where a Cypro-Geometric II barrel jug similar to one from Tyre XII was found in a Late Protogeometric context76. Therefore, the absolute date of Hadar IV would provide an important chronological reference point for both the first and second stages of the Phoenician Early Iron Age.

absolute dates proposed by Finkelstein’s team for Rehov VI and V, which in terms of the pottery sequence shows later characteristics. So, how should we date the stage in the relative sequence that is represented by Samaria PP 1 and 2 and related contexts in terms of absolute chronology? Taking the historical foundation year 879 BC as a reference point, the dates proposed by Finkelstein’s team could be the more suitable ones, even if we were to place the beginning of this stage, represented in metropolitan Phoenicia by Tyre X and al-Bass urns 49–51, at the end of the 10th century BC. Accordingly, the date of the transition from Late Protogeometric to Sub-Protogeometric as well as the beginning of the Aegean Early Geometric period should also be also raised. On the other hand, the radiocarbon dates from Dor are too low when compared with the historical foundation date of Samaria. Theoretically, in terms of relative chronology, based on the overall pottery sequence, Samaria PP 1 and 2 should be placed after Dor Iron I/II, which, as we have seen, may correspond to the second stage of the Phoenician Early Iron Age (its final moments maybe?). Therefore, following Dor’s chronology, PP 1 and 2 at Samaria should be dated after the first quarter of the 9th century BC at least. However, I have the impression that this stage of the sequence is not represented at this site, or at least, that it has not been recognized as such. The reason is that the next stage represented there, in Dor’s ‘Iron IIa’ levels, shows similarities with Samaria PP 3.

Dor’s Iron I/II could also belong to this moment in the sequence, or maybe to a slightly later one77. The materials produced show similarities to those published from level XII at Tyre, especially the bowls with everted rims and some craters, while the ring-based neck-ridge jug published could belong to a developed variant of those seen at Tyre or in Amathus78. Also the presence of a Cypro-Geometric II bichrome barrel jug79, similar to those found respectively in Tyre and Lefkandi, is a relevant feature here, as are the fragments of a Cypriot decorated storage jar and the rim of a Late Protogeometric cup80, which find parallels in Ahmed Rashim’s Coffee Shop at Amathus. Problems arise when we start to deal with the absolute dates proposed for this level. The Iron I/II, originally dated at Dor to between 880–850 BC81, has been now positioned between 910–875 BC with the help of evidence from other Palestinian sites82. These dates are evidently later than that from Tel Hadar IV, something that could be considered normal due to the Iron I/II assemblage representing part of a continuous development. What is not so normal is that they coincide with the

Finally, the application of the conventional chronology to me seems to encounter another problem. As the horizon represented by Samaria PP 1 and 2 (and Rehov VI and V) is earlier in relative terms than the so-called ‘Solomonicstrata’, the date of the first and second stages of the Phoenician Early Iron Age pottery sequence and, therefore, the whole Protogeometric as well as CyproGeometric I and II periods should be placed in the 11th and the beginning of the 10th century BC, something hardly feasible, even if the absolute dates from Assiros are considered83. Moreover, according to the notion of an ‘expanded Iron IIa’ and the absolute dates from Rehov VI and V, the materials found in the so-called ‘Solomonic strata’ theoretically should date earlier than those found at Rehov84, something evidently impossible in terms of relative chronology. According to the arguments offered here, Mazar’s notion of an almost static Iron IIa, which would have lasted for 150 years, without any notable changes to the respective pottery assemblage, presents a number of problems85. On the one hand, the time span occupied by the rule of King Solomon seems to correspond to another stage in the pottery sequence (in Phoenician terms, the Early Iron Age), and on the other hand, I consider it conclusively demonstrated that the

70

Kochavi 1998; Coldstream 2000; Coldstream 2003; Kopcke 2003. Bikai 1978a, pl. 31, 15. 72 Desborough 1957; Bikai 1987, 61; Coldstream 1987, 22 f. nos. 46/3. 46/4; Coldstream 2000, 21; Coldstream – Bikai 1988, 39 note 50. 73 Bikai 1987, 9 pl. 5, 64; Tytgat 1989, 202. 74 Bikai 1987, 9 pl. 5, 24. 66; Tytgat 1989, 202. 75 Popham et al. 1980, 149–151. 421 pls. 137–140. 76 Popham et al. 1980, 150 no. 19 pl. 137; Bikai 1978, pl. 32, 7. 77 Gilboa – Sharon 2003, 34 f. figs. 10–12; Sharon et al. 2005, 67. 78 Gilboa – Sharon 2003, fig. 11, 6. 79 Gilboa – Sharon 2003, fig. 11, 18. 80 Gilboa – Sharon 2003, fig. 11, 17. 18. 81 Gilboa – Sharon 2003, 55. 57–60. For the theoretical conception behind this date and the idea of ‘transition dating’, see Sharon 2001. 82 Boaretto et al. 2005, 54. 71

83

Newton et al. 2005. See Mazar 2005, 24 tab. 2.2; in this sense, see Finkelstein 2005, 306. 85 Mazar et al. 2005, 243; see also the commentaries on the subject by Sharon et al. 2005, 66 f. 84

10

F.J. NÚÑEZ CALVO: WESTERN CHALLENGES TO EAST MEDITERRANEAN CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS

pottery assemblage in question experienced a notable development, whose features, not only in terms of frequencies, but also in terms of shapes and decorations, allow for an internal subdivision. To establish the details of such a subdivision, however, under the given circumstances would be quite a different matter.

interesting aspect to emphasize would be a certain coincidence between the central dates from the respective calibration ranges and those obtained from Rehov VI and V, even if in terms of relative chronology Rehov IV is somewhat later. Nevertheless, as will be demonstrated below, the length of these ranges, especially of those with a higher statistical probability, allows for a certain flexibility when it comes to relating them to historical events and archaeological evidence.

At Tyre, the moment that has to be considered contemporary with the foundation of Samaria would be followed by its levels IX to VI, while at al-Bass it may correspond to the rest of its period II, of which tomb 43/44 is a good representative86. A probable funerary assemblage found at Qasmieh, in the neighborhood of Tyre, shows similar physical and decorative features (Fig. 1.6)87. Actually, if these materials were found together, they would embody the character of this period. In the first place we see a neck-ridge jug with a long neck, typical of this new stage in the sequence, showing a concentric bichrome decoration on the belly, which together with the pilgrim-flask establishes a link between this context and the Early Iron Age. The second element to emphasize would be the presence of a trefoil-rimmed jug with a conical neck, a type that will be characteristic of the next period. Finally, the third element is a bowl without thickened rim, and without decoration, another ceramic type characteristic of this transitional moment.

At this point it might be helpful to take a look at a funerary context from Cyprus which in terms of the pottery sequence may also belong to this moment, showing a similar combination of materials: Amathus NW 19493. This tomb provides an interesting reference point for relative chronology. In the first place, the general character of the respective grave assemblage is rather homogeneous, even if the tomb may contain more than one burial. Thus, the Cypriot materials are dated to Cypro-Geometric III and Cypro-Archaic I, the Aegean imports may belong to Middle Geometric I and SubProtogeometric IIIa, and the Phoenician and derived wares in terms of the Tyre sequence are best matched by the pottery from levels IX–VI. Moreover, the features of some of the materials recovered from this Cypriot tomb which tell us something about their place in the pottery sequence can be related to other relevant contexts like Samaria PP 394, Megiddo VA/IVB95, Hazor IX, Dor Iron IIa96, Hurbat Rosh Zayit II97, the Omride enclosure at Tel Jezreel98, or part of tomb II at Carmel99.

Another context that may represent this moment in terms of relative chronology would be Tel Rehov IV88. The general character of the materials published from that stratum seems to be the same as that which can be observed at Tyre, including Aegean Middle Geometric I and Sub-Protogeometric, as well as some Cypriot imports. Also important, this stratum has 14C determinations. It is interesting to note that this is one of the few pieces of evidence on which the advocates of both the conventional and the low chronology would agree: the former would place the destruction of this stratum somewhere between the years 877–833 BC (with a central date of 855 BC), while for the latter it should be placed between the years 880–840 BC (with a central date of 860 BC). In any case, I also consider interesting the central dates employed with the two models. Thus, on the one hand, the conventional approach uses an uncalibrated date of 2758±45 BP89, while the revisionist prefers 2755±25 BP90. If we focus now on the central dates from their respective calibrated ranges, we will see that these are 907 BC at 1σ and 885 BC at 2σ in the first case91, as well as 860 BC at 1σ and 900 BC at 2σ in the latter92. Thus, the first and most

While conventional chronology would place these contexts, depending on the respective historical interpretations, somewhere within the long period of time attributed to the ‘expanded conventional chronology’100, the low chronology, in accordance with what has been said before, would date them to the 9th century. In fact, the end of some of them, like Jezreel or Megiddo VA/IVB, would be related directly to the Aramaean campaigns against Israel in the years 835–830101. It is clear that in this case the connection between the archaeological evidence and a historical event would be supported by the lower end of the chronological ranges obtained from radiocarbon determinations, especially those from the destruction of Rehov IV (see above). Nevertheless, this apparently scientifically-supported historical date should not mark the end of all these contexts. In fact, it is not necessary to assume that they all ended at the same time. However, we could use this proposed date as a reference point, although not only for

86

Aubet 2004a, 456 fig. 304; Núñez 2004a, 354–358. Chapman 1972, 147 fig. 32. 88 Mazar 1999; Coldstream – Mazar 2003; Mazar et al. 2005, 237–242. 89 Mazar et al. 2005, 243 f.; Bruins et al. 2005, 290 f. 90 Finkelstein – Piasetzky 2006, 48 f. 91 1σ: 925–890 BC (41.0 %), 875–845 BC (27.2 %); 2σ: 970–960 BC (3,4 %), 940–830 BC (92.0 %). In Mazar et al. 2005, 243, the ranges for this uncalibrated date are 918–895 BC (28.2 %) and 877–840 BC (40.0 %) at 1σ, as well as 969–960 BC (4.7 %) and 926–833 BC (90.7 %) at 2σ. 92 1σ: 925–885 BC (33.5 %), 880–840 BC (34.7 %); 2σ: 980–820 BC (95.4 %). 87

93

Tytgat 1995; Coldstream 1995. Kenyon 1957, 94 f. 95 Finkelstein et al. 2000, 265–300. 96 Gilboa – Sharon 2003, 35 fig. 13. 97 Gal – Alexandre 2000. 98 Zimhoni 1992; Zimhoni 1997, 39–55. 99 Guy 1924, 51 pl. 2. 100 Mazar et al 2005, 243 101 Na’aman 1997; Finkelstein – Ussishkin 2000, 596 f. 599; Finkelstein 2005, 307. 94

11

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

material culture108, if we were to name this new period, it could be called Phoenician Late Iron Age (Fig. 1.1).

the sequence of metropolitan Phoenicia, but evidently also for the Aegean102 and Cyprus. This would be especially important in the latter case. We have already indicated the presence in some of these strata of pottery that could be placed in the Cypro-Archaic I period, something that, on grounds of the conventional Cypriot chronology, would put these contexts after the year 750 BC103, obviously a possibility that cannot be considered.

The first part of this new stage corresponds to the later part of Bikai’s ‘Salamis’ horizon and is represented by Tyre levels V–IV109 and al-Bass period III. As has been indicated before, even if in its initial moments some types characteristic of the former stage might still be present (like the long-necked trefoil-rimmed jugs or later, debased spouted jugs), this new stage is characterized by certain ceramic types that first appeared during the former period, and now come to dominate the repertoire. This may be the case of the trefoil-necked jugs with globular bodies and conical necks, the hemispherical and flat cups, carinated bowls with everted or pendent triangular rims or bowls with open, curved walls and simple rims. However, the diagnostic ceramic type of this stage would be the neckridge jug with globular body, everted rim and squared-off lip, whose decoration appears on the upper half of the neck and consists of a combination of red bands and black fillets. On the other hand, as it is the norm throughout the development of Phoenician pottery, some other types may show features that will be more characteristic during the next stage of this Late Iron Age. This may be the case with the open bowls with everted rims that are thickened on their inner side.

Following the same line of reasoning, there would be another context that may serve as a further link between relative and absolute chronology: Kuntillet Ajjrud104. Even if the context is located at some distance from metropolitan Phoenicia and in a somewhat different cultural milieu, the ceramic materials there occupy a position in the sequence close to the above cited assemblages, possibly even a bit later105. Interestingly, this site provides a series of 14C dates that can be used as a reference in terms of absolute chronology106. There are sixteen dates (2785±55 BP being the oldest and 2275±40 BP the youngest), on grounds of which the authors of the original article propose a date in the first half of the 8th century BC as the most probable moment for the abandonment of the site. However, looking for a more exact date, I have calibrated them (except the youngest one, which is an outlier) and plotted their 2σ range as well as the maximum probability portion of their 1σ range (Fig. 1.2). The purpose of this procedure is to filter those dates and obtain a coherent group, which is in fact formed by nine dates whose 1σ ranges overlap. While from a statistical point of view this might seem a somwhat unorthodox approach, the result is interesting enough: the central value of this group of overlapping 1σ ranges is 816 BC. Moreover, the uncalibrated average from these dates would be 2644±47, which gives 815 BC as central value for its 1σ range107.

Apart from the somewhat incomplete information provided by the Tyre assemblage, there are three funerary contexts that represent this stage in a paradigmatic manner: al-Bass tombs 45/46 and 55/56, as well as Salamis T. 1110. These two tombs not only show the principal ceramic forms of this stage, but also offer connections to other sequences. Thus, in all these contexts appear materials attributable to Cypro-Archaic I, while in Salamis T. 1 Aegean Middle Geometric II imports appear. Other contexts that can be related to this stage could be a tomb found at Tambourit, near Sidon111, Khalde T. 121112, Hazor VIII–VII, Carmel T. VII113, or Akhziv Z VI and Z XX114; even a tomb found at Maadaba shows similar features115.

If this date can be used as a further chronological anchor for the pottery development stage represented by Samaria PP 3, Megiddo VA/IVB or Dor Iron IIa, it could also be useful for the next stage in the sequence, embodied in metropolitan Phoenicia by the final part of Bikai’s ‘Salamis’ horizon together with her ‘Kition’ and ‘Amathus’ horizons (see above). At Tyre this stage is represented by the assemblage from levels V–I, while at al-Bass it corresponds to periods III–V. We have already referred briefly to this new stage in the pottery sequence, some features of which are to be found already in the former period. On the other hand, considering the Persian period as another age, given the characteristics of its

It seems clear that this stage is later than contexts such as Megiddo VA/IVB and, especially, Kuntillet Ajjrud, which may represent the final moments of the period referred to here as Middle Iron Age. Keeping in mind the absolute date for this latter context (c. 816 BC), we have to look at 108

For the main characteristics of the Persian period, see Lehmann 1996. As it will be seen later on, Tyre IV may represent the very end of this stage. 110 For the al-Bass context, see Aubet 2004a, 456 f. figs. 304. 305; Núñez 2004a, 358–363 figs. 245. 246; as well as Núñez 2004b, 108– 112. 118–123. 180–182. 191–193 figs. 95–97. 106–108. – For the Cypriot context, see Dikaios 1963; Coldstream 1964. – Bikai 1987, 74 indicates the Phoenician objects found in this tomb and not illustrated in its original publication. 111 Saidah, 1977. 112 Saidah 1966, 64–72. 113 Guy 1924, 52–53. 55. 114 Dayagi-Mendels 2002. 115 Thompson 1984. 109

102

Fantalkin 2001. Karageorghis 2004; as an example, see Tygat’s (1995) chronological proposal for Amathus tomb NW 194. 104 Ayalon 1995. 105 I did not have the chance to read Singer-Avitz’s article on Kuntillet Ajjrud (TelAvivJA 33, 2006, 196–228) and her arguments on the local character of the materials recovered on this site. 106 Segal 1995. 107 1σ: 890–880 BC (3.9 %), 850–780 BC (64.3 %); 2σ: 910–769 BC (95.4 %). 103

12

F.J. NÚÑEZ CALVO: WESTERN CHALLENGES TO EAST MEDITERRANEAN CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS

Fig. 1.2. Calibrated 14C dates from Kuntillet Ajjrud. The thick black lines represent the full 2σ range, while the white stripes on them indicate the range with the highest statistical probability

Fig. 1.3. Chronological framework of the Phoenician Iron Age and reference assemblages included in the discussion

13

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 1.4. Proposed periodization for the Phoenician Iron Age showing the characteristic ceramic types of each sequential moment. Not to scale

14

F.J. NÚÑEZ CALVO: WESTERN CHALLENGES TO EAST MEDITERRANEAN CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS

the imports, which connect this moment in the sequence with the Aegean Middle Geometric II and SubProtogeometric IIIb periods, as well as with CyproArchaic I. The conventional date for both the Middle Geometric II and the Sub-Protogeometric periods is the first half of the 8th century BC, which fits well with the central date calculated for Kuntillet Ajjrud. Therefore, a date for the beginning of this new stage somewhere around the end of the 9th or the beginning of the 8th century could be acceptable. On the other hand, the lower limit of this Late Iron A could be marked by another historical event reflected in the archaeological evidence: the Assyrian destructions of the second half of the 8th century BC.

transitional character of Tyre IV can also be observed in a series of typical Late Iron B pottery types such as early flat cups with carinated walls, or some bowls with everted rims124. Also Ayia-Irini tomb 28 provides interesting evidence of its position in the pottery sequence: a Cypriot Black-on-red skyphos with a flat base, short body and a tall, everted rim, and decorated with combinations of concentric circles placed in the handle-zone125. These features, especially those concerning the shape of the vessel, could place the skyphos at the very end of the Aegean Middle Geometric or in the early moments of the Late Geometric period126. At this point, a look at tomb 46 from Ayia-Irini might prove helpful127. The materials found in it clearly belong to Bikai’s ‘Kition’ horizon128, and, therefore, would indicate a later date than that of tomb 28. Among its materials there are two items that deserve special mention: a typical mushroom-lip jug, later in terms of relative chronology than the jugs found in tomb 28, and the imitation of an Aegean Middle Geometric II skyphos according to Coldstream129, whose form, as we will see, may make it Late Geometric. This appears to be confirmed by evidence from Khalde. Even if only partially published, one grave there produced two neckridge jugs and an Aegean skyphos (Fig. 1.5)130. Of the two jugs, one is similar to that found in tomb 46 at Ayia-Irini, while the second one shows features relating it closely to one of the jugs found in Ayia-Irini tomb 28131, although the example from Khalde is somewhat later in the pottery sequence. As for the skyphos, its physical features are close to those of the specimen from tomb 46. As regards the pottery sequence, the Khalde evidence may support the tomb information. Among the materials published by Saidah is another skyphos, this time of the ‘Al-Mina’ type132, whose physical features are almost identical to those shown by the other skyphoi cited from Khalde and Ayia-Irini tomb 46. It is assumed that the ‘Al Mina’ skyphoi should be dated to Late Geometric I133; therefore, such a date for the skyphos from tomb 46 at Ayia-Irini (produced by a Cypriot workshop) would cause no problems, even if on grounds of its decorative pattern it may be related to the Middle Geometric period.

There is a general consensus on the identification of these events with the destruction of Megiddo IVA116, or Hazor V117. In Phoenician terms, the materials recovered at these two sites might belong to Bikai’s ‘Kition’ horizon118, corresponding to Tyre III and II, as well as al-Bass period IV119, contexts that in terms of relative chronology would be identified as the second stage of the Phoenician Late Iron Age. As regards material culture, it is characterized by the further development of the same pottery types that characterized the former stage. Thus, for example, the neck-ridge jugs with squared-off lips transform into the well-known mushroom-lip lugs, the trefoil-rimmed jugs show more marked conical necks, flat cups now have carinated walls, and among the bowls, those with everted rims that are thickened on their inner side now are the most numerous group. As for the links with other sequences, the presence in Tyre III of a fragment most likely belonging to the base of a pedestalled Aegean Middle Geometric II crater, as well as a probable Early Proto-Corinthian sherd from Tyre II may serve as reference points120. Focusing on the initial stages of this Late Iron B, the association observed in Tyre III should be compared to the evidence from the Cypriot cemetery of Ayia Irini, especially tombs 28 and 46121. The first of these tombs, which shows direct connections to level IV at Tyre, is interesting because both contexts would represent the transition between the Late Iron A to B periods, as indicated by a neck-ridge jug with an everted rim and a tapered lip found in the tomb122. As for the items from this tomb which show direct connections with Tyre IV, we could cite, among others, the presence in both contexts of a certain type of neck-ridge jug with an upright rim123. The

The conclusion would be, then, that the transition between the end of Bikai’s ‘Salamis’ and ‘Kition’ horizons (that is, between the Late Iron A and B periods defined here) should be contemporary either with the very end of 124

Bikai 1978a, pl. 15, 1–3 and pl. 16, 14. 17, respectively. Rocchetti 1978, 50 f. no. 3. 126 Coldstream 1968, 48, pl. 9, a–d; Coldstream 1979, 261; Descoeudres – Kearsley 1983, 20–22 fig. 13. 127 Rocchetti 1978, 75–78. 128 Bikai 1987, 54. 56. 129 Rocchetti, 1978, 76 f. nos. 2 and 4 respectively; on the skyphos, see also Coldstream 1979, 259 f. no. 4 fig. 1 b. 130 Saidah 1971, 194. 197 nos. c–f. 131 Rocchetti 1978, 52 f. no. 8. 132 Saidah 1971, 194. 197 no. b. 133 Boardman 1959; Coldstream 1979, 264–266. 125

116

Finkelstein et al. 2000, 300–322. 117 Yadin – Ben-Tor 1992, 601. 606. 118 Bikai 1987, 53–56. 119 Núñez 2004a, 361–363. 120 For the crater, see Bikai 1978a, pl. 11, 27, Coldstream – Bikai 1988, 41; Nitsche 1986/87, 27; for the probable Early Proto-Corinthian sherd, see Bikai 1978a, pl. 11, 24, Coldstream – Bikai 1988, 41 note 87; Nitsche 1986/87, 27 note 97. 121 Rocchetti 1978. 122 Rocchetti 1978, 52 f. no. 8. 123 Compare Bikai 1978a, pl. 14, 6 with Rocchetti 1978, 50 f. no. 2.

15

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 1.5. Funerary assemblage from Khalde. Not to scale

Aegean Middle Geometric II, or with the very beginning of the Late Geometric period. In any case, what seems to be certain is that the initial moments of the Phoenician Late Iron B should be within the Aegean Late Geometric period.

there would be two possibilities: either the transition between the Late Iron A and B periods (and probably also the transition between the Aegean Middle and Late Geometric) should have occurred well before the year 760 BC (if the material belongs to Late Iron B), or this event took place around this year (if they are rather transitional). Whatever the case was, it seems clear that the Late Iron A period had a short duration. Here it is important to include another site: Dor, probably destroyed together with Megiddo IVA138 and Hazor V, among other cities, by Tiglath-Pileser III during his campaign of the year 733 BC. The importance of Dor at this point lies in the association of typical Late Iron B materials with some Aegean Late Geometric sherds, specifically from a skyphos belonging to the so-called ‘Al-Mina ware’139. This would definitively place the initial moments of Late Iron B before that year.

We have already indicated two sites where the Assyrian destructions have been identified in the archaeological record: Hazor and Megiddo. It is assumed that Hazor V betrays evidence of the attacks134. However, its level VI, supposedly destroyed by an earthquake in the year 760 BC, during the reign of King Jeroboam II135, requires special attention, as this level shows materials that may also belong to Bikai’s ‘Kition’ horizon136. In fact, it may also be that Hazor VI corresponds to the transitional period embodied in part by Tyre IV and Ayia-Irini tomb 28. Therefore, if the historical interpretation is correct137, 134

Tyre III, on grounds of the nature of its materials and the associations just cited, should be placed after the year 760 BC (I consider the Middle Geometric fragment found in this level intrusive from an earlier context), and most

An example would be a neck-ridge jug with a vertical rim found in this level (Yadin et al. 1961, pl. 88, 4), which may belong to Bikai’s jug type 1 (Bikai 1978a, 33 pl. 92, 1). 135 Ben-Tor 1992, 601. 606. 136 See, for example, a typical neck-ridge jug with a vertical rim from this level in Yadin et al. 1958, pl. 52, 23. 137 See Bikai’s opinions (1978b, 48 f. 54 f.) concerning the possibility of the contemporaneity of Hazor VI and V.

138 139

16

However, note another possibility in Finkelstein et al. 2000, 322. Stern 1995, 86–89, fig. 5.10; 5.10A; Waldbaum 1996, 58.

F.J. NÚÑEZ CALVO: WESTERN CHALLENGES TO EAST MEDITERRANEAN CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS

Fig. 1.6. Probable funerary assemblage from Qasmieh area. Not to scale

likely around the year 733 BC. However, there is an element that may indicate the date of its end: the presence between levels III and II of a fragment from an Egyptian alabaster vase that should be dated to the beginning of the 7th century BC140. Consequently, if this vase marks the end of level III, it can be placed, at the earliest, in the first half of the 7th century BC. Consequently, Tyre II should be later than that, with the date of its EPC sherd acting only as a terminus post quem for its beginning, because this is marked by the Egyptian alabaster vase.

has been indicated before, we would not include in the Iron Age, given the special characteristics of its material culture. No description of Late Iron C will be provided here, because it lies beyond the chronological scope of this paper. As a conclusion to this part of our paper, we would like to stress that the framework outlined above is still very much under construction. A lot of work remains to be done, especially when it comes to acquiring new data from metropolitan Phoenicia, so the existing gaps in our knowledge can be filled and remaining uncertainties concerning the indiviual stages solved. However, this does not mean that our main conclusions present any serious flaws. I consider that, even if some of its details may seem debatable, the bottom line is clear enough, especially where relative chronology is concerned. Absolute chronology is a different matter, though, and probably more difficult to resolve.

Finally, the Late Iron Age would count with a third stage, which may correspond to Bikai’s ‘Amathus’ horizon141, Tyre I142, and al-Bass period V143. In terms of the pottery sequence, this last stage represents a further development of the physical and decorative features observed during Late Iron B, and lasted until the Persian period, which, as 140 Bikai 1978a, pl. 13; Ward 1978, 83 f. The suggested date of the vase has been confirmed to me by Prof. I. Gamer-Wallert in personal communication. 141 Bikai 1987, 56–58. 142 Bikai 1978, 67. 143 Núñez 2004a, 363–366.

In spite of any remaining uncertainties, the general conclusions offered in this paper concerning the chronological sequence of metropolitan Phoenicia can be summarized as shown in Fig. 1.3.

17

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

to be taken into consideration. The reason for this is simple. Such particular characteristics would be reflected first in the initial stages of the supposed colony, and later on may determine its further development. The second aspect would be the existence, mentioned in the classical sources, of secondary foundations established by other colonies. This would have a direct impact on the repertoires of these secondary colonies. As a consequence, determining the position of these materials in a diachronical sequence might be more difficult.

THE COLONIES From metropolitan Phoenicia, we move to a comparison with the evidence from the Phoenician colonies. At this point I readily acknowledge that I am not fully aware of many of the problems existing in this area, especially those that relate to local issues144. Therefore, I shall not venture too far into these areas, though I shall give my opinion on the relative chronological sequence of their Phoenician materials, metropolitan and colonial.

Some of the colonial contexts referred to above will be discussed in this paper, especially with regard to their assemblages, and the chronological information they yield. Other aspects, such as the origin and character of any historical references or the nature of the local repertoires will not be considered mainly because other scholars have more expertise in these fields. This holds true particularly for colleagues with a background in preand proto-historic archaeology, working in geographical areas like the Iberian or the Italian peninsulas or Central Europe. The contribution of these fields to the debate has made the overall panorama even more complicated.

Some preliminary considerations When it comes to absolute chronology, one of the most interesting aspects is the existence of historical references providing foundation dates for Phoenician colonies in different parts of the Mediterranean145. Even if none of them come from Phoenician written sources, the dates may serve as chronological indicators, not only for the colonial milieu, but also for metropolitan Phoenicia. Only some of the colonies will be considered here. History claims that Lixus, on the Atlantic coast of Morocco, Gadir (modern Cádiz), and Utica, on the Tunisian coast, were the first to be founded. Their dates are calculated often from the fall of Troy, and all are placed in the late 12th century BC. The next historical reference to colonial enterprises in the Western Mediterranean concerns the commercial activities in Tarshish (Tartessos) developed in the 10th century BC by King Solomon of Israel and King Hiram I of Tyre146. A further colony, Auza, was founded by Ithobaal I on the coast of Libya in the second quarter of the 9th century BC. Finally, Carthage is the last colony of which we know the date of its foundation, placed by the main classical sources sometime in the last quarter of the 9th century BC.

Gadir and Tartessos The first case to be dealt with is that of Cádiz and Huelva, the first a Tyrian colony and the other one of the most important urban centers of Tartessos. It can safely be said that, except for some isolated finds, there is no indisputable archaeological evidence of a permanent Phoenician presence in the Far West at the time of the historical foundation dates of Gadir and the other early colonies. In fact, if we look at Levantine pottery assemblages from the 12th century BC, whose ‘Phoenician’ character in any case is debatable, there is no conclusive coincidence with materials found in the West148. Such is also the case with the references to the commercial activities of Solomon and Hiram I in the area, which, considering revisionist positions on the historical relevance of the United Monarchy149, might cast doubt on the role of these kings as ascertained by the historical sources. The situation basically remains the same if the conventional assumptions of Biblical Archaeology are followed. Except for some isolated items, there would be no evidence that may give support to the textual references from the Bible, because in this case we should expect to find materials that could be related to Tyre X– VI, and even if some pieces belonging to this phase have now been found, the general picture remains unaltered.

Nevertheless, we are facing a problem here. The location of some of these colonies remains unknown, while the earliest levels of those which are located remain uncertain. This last fact is especially important since a growing corpus of colonial 14C determinations seem ireconcilable with the historical dates147. Thus, establishing a connection between the relative sequence and absolute dates is difficult, if not impossible in most cases. Two important aspects of the colonies must be considered at this point. The first is the precise origin of the ‘colonists’. Tyre has traditionally been considered as the sponsor of most of these colonial enterprises. However, we also have to consider the participation of other metropolitan centers in these activities. Should this be the case, the existence of local variations of the metropolitan repertoire would have

The earliest assemblage with imports from metropolitan Phoenicia found in the West so far was recovered in the Plaza de las Monjas in Huelva150. In spite of the special

144

For other studies with a more global vision on the subject, see, among others, Niemeyer 1984; Aubet 2001; Botto 2005; Mederos 2005. 145 See, for example, Aubet 2001, 161–165. 195–197, where all the references to these foundations can be found. 146 II Chronicles 8, 18. 147 See, among others, Aubet 2001, 372–381; Torres 1998, 50–52; Torres et al. 2005; Mederos 2005; Nijboer – van der Plicht 2006; Docter et al. 2005.

148

See Pellicer 2007, 34–37 for a different opinion. Among the abundant literature, see Thompson 1994; Finkelstein – Silberman 2001; Garbini 2002. 150 González de Canales et al. 2004; see Torres 2006 for a review of this work. 149

18

F.J. NÚÑEZ CALVO: WESTERN CHALLENGES TO EAST MEDITERRANEAN CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS

character of the find, the uncertain nature of the site and the way these materials were recovered, the first and most important aspect that should be stressed here would be the homogeneous character of the respective assemblage in terms of relative chronology. As a matter of fact, two contexts mentioned above provide a perfect parallel: alBass tomb 45/46 and Salamis T.1. Curiously enough, the coincidence between the Huelva assemblage and the two Levantine contexts includes the respective imports: Aegean Middle Geometric II and Sub-Protogeometric IIIb as well as Cypro-Archaic I wares.

quite close to each other, indicating a range between 870 and 880 BC. On the other hand, the third value does not fit in this homogeneous picture, which logically has consequences for the weighted average of the three dates, although the central value particularly of its 2σ calibration range is not that different (905 BC at 1σ and 880 BC at 2σ)163. However, if these dates are compared to the Levantine radiocarbon evidence, they correspond best to those from Rehov IV and, therefore, the stage in the development of Phoenician pottery which is represented by Tyre IX–VI, Megiddo VA–IVB, Samaria PP III or Dor Iron IIa. The contradiction seems to be evident, although it cannot be ruled out that, in fact, those items from the assemblage which might be older actually are intrusive from earlier stratigraphical contexts.

Nevertheless, there are some items that, considered on their own, could seem somewhat older. This may be the case of some jug fragments decorated with concentric circles, some fragments of spouts and a group of longnecked rims belonging to storage jars151. However, although these items might represent an earlier stage, in terms of relative as well as absolute chronology, they do not necessarily have to be earlier. In fact, apart from the al-Bass and Cypriot contexts, the other assemblages referred to above in connection with the Late Iron A show the same kind of materials. This also holds true for the storage-jar fragments. Thus, long-necked jars had a considerable life-span; for example, at Tyre, jars of type 12 survive until levels IV and III152, while they also appear in other contexts like Hazor VIII153, or Kuntillet Ajjrud154. Finally, other finds from Huelva155, from Cádiz156, or even from context elsewhere such as Sant ‘Imbenia on Sardinia157, or from some of the earliest tombs found at Veio158, occupy the same position in the evolutionary line of Levantine pottery.

Carthage Carthage is the second reference point that will be dealt with here. At least theoretically, in terms of relative as well as absolute chronology, this colony would provide one of the pivotal points of reference for all of the Mediterranean. In the first place, its geographical location is known, in the second place, the date of its foundation is historically ascertained around the year 814 BC164, and thirdly, if the materials related to the foundation phase could be identified, they would become an unequivocal reference for the pottery sequence. The most promising results in this regard come from the recent excavations undertaken by the University of Hamburg below the Decumanus Maximus165, which have reached stratigraphical levels probably related to the foundation of the colony. Thus, stratum I, which represents the first building activities in that area, has produced some interesting local pottery that is associated, firstly, with Aegean imports and, secondly, with several 14C determinations166.

The evidence at hand from the Levant seems to indicate a chronological position of the stage represented by the Huelva assemblage somewhere between the final years of the 9th and the early decades of the 8th century BC (see above). However, the 14C determinations obtained from the assemblage offer a somewhat different picture159. Thus, the central values of the ranges with a bigger statistical probability of the three calibrated dates published are 877 BC at 1σ and 880 at 2σ160, 935 BC at 1σ and 920 BC at 2σ161, 872 BC at 1σ and 875 BC at 2σ respectively162. It is obvious that two of these values are

Regarding the character of the published Phoenician pottery from these contexts in terms of relative chronology, it would have to be attributed to Bikai’s ‘Kition’ horizon, i.e. our Late Iron B. This is indicated by the physical features of the red-slipped plates, classified here as type P1167. It is important to recall that in metropolitan Phoenicia this kind of plates with rims that show a convex thickening on their upper side is unknown. Instead, assemblages from the Levantine centres include plates whose rims show a concave or flat thickening. Overhanging rims are also uncommon there, and are substituted by rather open or horizontal rim-shapes168. I

151 Respectively, González de Canales et al. 2004, 63 pl. 11, 47–49; p. 64 pl. 11, 53–55; and p. 68 pl. 13, 1–11. 152 Bikai 1978a, 44 tab. 10 A. 153 Yadin et al. 1960, pl. 59, 4–8. 154 Ayalon 1995. 155 For example Gómez – Balensi 1999, 51. 65 figs. 5. 7; especially fig. 7, 1. 156 Córdoba – Ruiz 2005; Pellicer 2007, 37 fig. 40. 157 Oggiano 2000. 158 Boitani 2005. 159 Nijboer – van der Plicht 2006. 160 GrN-29511: 2745±25 BP 1σ: 915–840 BC (68.2 %); 2σ: 970–950 BC (2.5 %), 940–820 BC (92.9 %). 161 GrN-29512: 2775±25 BP 1σ: 980–890 BC (64.9 %), 870–850 BC (4.2 %); 2σ: 1000–840 BC (95.4 %). 162 GrN-29513: 2740±25 BP 1σ: 905–840 BC (68.2 %); 2σ: 970–960 BC (1.2 %), 930–820 BC (94.2 %).

163 2755±15 BP 1σ: 920–890 (36.7 %), 875–845 (31.5 %), that would give a central date of 905 BC (see, however, the small statistical difference between the two ranges; 860 BC would be the central date of the second range); 2σ: 970–960 (1.4 %), 930–830 (94.0 %), that gives a central date of 880 BC. 164 On the contrary, Torres 1998, 53, proposes the years 827–822 BC. 165 Niemeyer 2007. 166 Docter et al. 2005; Niemeyer 2007, 66 f. 167 Peserico 2007. 168 See in this respect, Núñez 2004a, 335–340.

19

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

wonder if, in fact, the kind of plates represented by type P1, so common in colonial milieus throughout the Central and Western Mediterranean, is not a colonial development of metropolitan models. As for the rest of the published materials, their features as well would agree with such a date in terms of relative chronology, which is also supported by the presence of fragments from a Late Geometric skyphos. We have already indicated that the Late Iron B in terms of the pottery sequence would coincide with that Aegean period, and here we see more evidence supporting such a conclusion.

presented here in respect to the pottery sequence and its chronological implications. Iberian colonies The publication by Aubet of a series of 14C determinations from Phoenician centres in the Iberian Peninsula, and indigenous sites related to them dramatically changed the perception of the chronological framework for the Phoenician expansion in the West172. One of the most important consequences was that for the first time there was evidence for the foundation of the first colonial establishments during the 9th century BC. This contradicted received wisdom, which placed these early levels around the middle and in the second half of the 8th century BC173.

Nevertheless, the 14C determinations obtained from stratum I give a somewhat different impression: 2650±30 BP, 2710±30 BP, 2640±50 BP and 2660±30 BP, which as a weighted average after calibration provide a range from 835–800 BC169. Evidently, this result not only contradicts the evidence and the line of argument presented in the first part of this paper, but also the conventional dates for the Geometric period in the Aegean. The reactions to this obvious contradiction have been twofold.

There would be many cases that may deserve special attention here. However, among them, I have chosen the earliest level of Morro de Mezquitilla, which corresponds to the so-called Schicht B1-I/II, for a more detailed discussion, because of the nature of its materials and the associated 14C determinations174.

One has been to propose a series of changes for Mediterranean chronology as a whole, among the consequences of which would be to raise the beginning of the Aegean Late Geometric period to the second half of the 9th century and, as a result, a change of the entire chronological framework in the Aegean170. Even if such a proposal could be supported by evidence obtained from pre- and proto-historical context in Central Europe and the Italian peninsula, it should be stressed that it stands in direct conflict to all existing models for relative and absolute chronology in the Mediterranean. In fact, it now would not even coincide with conventional biblical chronology, the only framework that might be compatible with such a proposal, since the postulate of the so-called ‘expanded Iron IIa’ means that the chronological gap between the end of that period and the dates from Carthage would be too short to fit in it the Middle Geometric II and associated wares. On the other hand, we would be left with a Late Geometric period almost twice its original length. Finally, I consider that this approach gives too much importance to the Aegean imports, and neglects the position in the relative sequence of the local Phoenician materials that appear associated with them. Therefore, and especially with the new corpus of data obtained in the Mediterranean and contrasted with Central European evidence, the search for a consensus between all sides involved becomes imperative.

For quite some time, the pottery recovered from Morro B1-I/II has been considered representative of the initial phases of the Phoenician settlement in the West175. Obviously, this place has now been taken by the assemblage from Huelva. Nevertheless, the general character of the Morro B1-I/II assemblage would place it either at the transition between our Late Iron A and B, which in Tyre would correspond to the last part of level IV176, or at the very beginning of Late Iron B, which corresponds to the initial stages of Tyre III (see above). In fact, with Morro B1 we encounter a situation similar to that already observed in the case of Ayia-Irini tombs 2846, and with the materials from Khalde. This can be exemplified by looking at the neck-ridge jugs published from this context. Three groups may be distinguished: the first one includes examples with everted rims ending in tapered lips, a transitional type placed between the neck-ridge jugs with everted rims with squared-off lips and the true mushroom-lip jugs177; the second group would consist of the true neck-ridge jugs, typical of the Late Iron B178; finally, the third group would be represented by a special neck-ridge jug that features a globular body, a marked ridge on the neck, a pendent rim ending in a tapered lip and a double handle, while its

The other reaction has been one of caution in face of these contradictions, explained through the possible existence of residual materials in the contexts involved, and postponing any attempts of finding a satisfactory solution until further evidence becomes available171, a position which I share, especially on grounds of the arguments

172

Aubet 2001, 374–381. Aubet 2001, 307–310; Maaß-Lindemann 1985; Maaß-Lindemann 1990; Maaß-Lindemann 1998; Mederos 2005, 306 f. 174 Schubart 1983, 130 f. 175 Maaß-Lindeman 1990; Maaß-Lindeman 1998. 176 Maaß-Lindemann 1998, 543 f., relates these materials with Tyre V– IV as a whole. 177 Maaß-Lindemann 1998, 542 fig. 1, 3. 12 and, probably, 4. – For a similar jug from Khalde, see Saidah 1971, 197 no. d. 178 Maaß-Lindemann 1998, 543 fig. 1, 5. Compare this piece with Saidah 1971, 197 no. e. 173

169

Docter et al. 2005, 557 f.; Niemeyer 2007, 66 f. Nijboer 2005; Nijboer 2006; Brandherm 2006. 171 Docter et al. 2005, 568–570. 170

20

F.J. NÚÑEZ CALVO: WESTERN CHALLENGES TO EAST MEDITERRANEAN CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS

surface is covered by a red-slip179. In respect to this last jug, it is a strange example that combines advanced features such as the form and disposition of the rim, together with others that are reminiscent of previous stages, like the form of the ridge, the handles and, particularly, the red-slipped surface180.

2750±50 BP (B-4178)190, 2830±100 BP (B-4176)191 and 3160±50 BP (B-4181)192. After calibration, it becomes obvious that our attention should focus on three of them: 2570±50 BP, 2580±35 BP and 2830±100 BP, while the other two must be considered outliers. After this initial selection, what is immediately apparent is the closeness of the two first dates, while the third one is somewhat more distant. This impression is confirmed by the central values of the calibration ranges with the highest statistical probability: 775 BC (1σ) and 680 BC (2σ), 785 BC (1σ) and 780 BC (2σ), as well as 885 BC (1σ) and 905 BC (2σ). Therefore, in my opinion, the first two of these dates are to be considered representative of the actual date of the earliest levels at Morro de Mezquitilla. On the other hand, the third, remaining radiocarbon determination from this level (B-4178), especially the time range proposed by Aubet, 894–835 BC193, would considerably raise the estimated date for the foundation of the Andalusian colony. However, given a discrepancy like this, one wonders if this last date does not suffer from ‘old wood’ effect.

The occurrence of flat cups with carinated walls may indicate an identical position in the pottery sequence181, especially the presence on their bases of blank areas not covered by red slip and concentric grooves182. However, all the plates published could belong to Peserico’s type P1 (see above), seemingly a genuine colonial product whose rims show convex upper sides183. A further connection with the earliest levels from underneath the Decumanus Maximus at Carthage may be established through certain narrow cups with everted, vertical walls, a type that lies somewhere between the flat and the hemispherical cups184. Morro de Mezquitilla B1-I/II has not produced any Aegean or Cypriot imports. However, and on grounds of the evident connections that can be established between this assemblage and the material from the earliest Phoenician levels at Carthage, it might be possible to relate this Iberian context to the Late Geometric period in the Aegean. The obvious parallels with Eastern Mediterranean contexts such as Ayia-Irini tombs 28 and 46, and the materials from Khalde that were published by Saidah, offering associations of the same kind, seem to point in the same direction. Thus we may confidently conclude that Morro de Mezquitilla B1 and the earliest levels from Carthage are contemporaneous in terms of the pottery sequence.

The second aspect to observe would be the difference of the two more homogeneous dates with respect to those from Carthage (see above). In fact, as the former ones are clearly later, the question must be asked why contexts with similar materials have produced such different absolute dates. Maybe the reason lies in the real nature of the radiocarbon determinations from Carthage. Accordingly, if we confront all these 14C determinations with the evidence recovered in the Eastern Mediterranean, it is clear that in the case of Morro de Mezquitilla, conventional dates based on the pottery sequence and 14C dates broadly coincide, with the only exception of B4178. In the first place, using Levantine evidence, both the earliest levels at Carthage and Morro should probably be synchronized with the last moments of Hazor VI, which may coincide with the end of Tyre IV. This might be taken to imply a date around 760 BC on historical grounds, a date not too far from the central values of the Morro de Mezquitilla radiocarbon determinations. On the other hand, the lower chronological end for their pottery assemblages would be represented by the Assyrian destructions of 733 BC, another date that would also agree with those central values. In addition, Levantine 14C dates and the assemblages associated with them may date the levels in question after 816 BC, which is the central date obtained from Kuntillet Ajjrud, a context that could represent the final moments of Middle Iron B, and, we should not forget, is used as a terminus post quem for Late Iron A. Therefore, it would be necessary to allow some of the decades between this year and the end of Hazor VI for

It seemed that the 14C dates from Morro de Mezquitilla also agreed with those from Carthage, particularly a calibrated date given as 810 BC in the first excavation report185, which coincides with the North African radiocarbon dates. However, this date has turned out to result from an error186. Apart from this erroneous date, there is a series of other 14C dates from the site187: 2570±50 BP (B-4181)188, 2580±35 BP (GrN 8109)189, 179

Schubart 1983, 115 fig. 5 g; Maaß-Lindemann 1998, 542 fig. 1, 13. Red-slipped jugs with globular bodies are rather typical of the Middle Iron Age (see Bikai 1987, pl. 10, 177. 178), while during Late Iron B this surface treatment seems to occur almost exclusively on piriformbodied jugs with carinated shoulders (Bikai 1978a, 33–35, ‘jug type 5’). 181 Maaß-Lindemann 1990, 170 fig. 1; Maaß-Lindemann 1998, 542 fig. 1, 2. 182 Bikai 1978a, 26 f. ‘Fine Ware Plate 2’; Bikai 1987, 54. 56. 67. 183 Schubart 1983, 115. 117 figs. 5, a; 6; Maaß-Lindemann 1990, 175 fig. 4, 1–4; Maaß-Lindemann 1998, 542 fig. 1, 6–11. 184 Compare Maaß-Lindemann 1990, fig. 4, 8, from Morro de Mezquitilla B1 with Peserico 2007, 289 fig. 121, 1647. 185 Schubart 1982, 82; Torres 1998, 50. 186 I would like to thank Dirk Brandherm for calling my attention to this; see Pingel 2006, 147. 187 Pingel 2006. 188 1σ: 810–740 BC (39.8 %), 690–660 BC (10.9 %), 650–590 BC (17.5 %); 2σ: 830–530 BC (95.4 %). 189 1σ: 810–760 BC (61.8 %), 690–670 BC (6.4 %); 2σ: 820–740 BC (71.1 %), 690–660 BC (11.1 %), 650–550 BC (13.2 %). 180

1σ: 970–960 BC (4.2 %), 940–830 BC (64.0 %); 2σ: 1010–800 BC (95.4 %). 191 1σ: 1130–890 BC (63.0 %), 880–840 BC (5.2 %); 2σ: 1270–800 BC (95.4 %). 192 1σ: 1495–1400 BC (68.2 %); 2σ: 1530–1310 BC (95.4 %). 193 Aubet 2001, 374 f. 381. 190

21

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Late Iron A, before the transition between this stage and Late Iron B could be detected in the pottery sequence. According to such a scenario, the proposed time span of 894–835 BC for Morro B1 seems to be definitely out of the question, because it coincides with the dates for Rehov V and IV, whose position in terms of absolute chronology, especially that of stratum IV, is generally accepted by all chronological models that have been proposed for the Levant.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dirk Brandhem and Martin Trachsel for the invitation to their colloquium, as well as for their kind and friendly assistance and understanding. My gratitude also goes to M.E. Aubet and Susana Abad. Last but not least, I would also like to thank Colin Burgess for his arduous effort in trying to convert the initial text into something more closely resembling decent English. Credit for the French translation of the abstract text goes to Renate Heckendorf.

As the examples shown in this second part of our paper indicate, meshing the evidence from the Eastern and Western Mediterranean is not easy, and might even be impossible at present.

Illustration credits Figs. 1.1–1.4: by the author. – Fig. 1.4, 1: after Bikai 1987, pl. 5, 60. – Fig. 1.4, 2: after Bikai 1987, pl. 5, 72. – Fig. 1.4, 3: after Saidah 1966, 63 no. 14. – Fig. 1.4, 4: after Bikai 1987, pl. 8, 118. – Fig. 1.4, 5. 6: after Saidah 1966, 63 nos. 15. 16. – Fig. 1.4, 7: after Bikai 1987, pl. 9, 168. – Fig. 1.4, 8: after Bikai 1987, pl. 10, 177. – Fig. 1.4, 9–11: after Chapman 1972, 82, fig. 8, 43–45. – Fig. 1.4, 12: after Bikai 1987, pl. 14, 360. – Fig. 1.4, 13: after Bikai 1987, pl. 8, 119. – Fig. 1.4, 14: after Bikai 1987, pl. 20, 517. – Fig. 1.4, 15: after Bikai 1987, pl. 11, 201. – Fig. 1.4, 16: after Bikai 1987, pl. 15, 402. – Fig. 1.4, 17: after Bikai 1987, pl. 18, 502. – Fig. 1.4, 18: after Bikai 1987, pl. 12, 268. – Fig. 1.4, 19: after Bikai 1987, pl. 13, 285. – Fig. 1.4, 20: after Bikai 1987, pl. 16, 391. – Fig. 1.4, 21: after Bikai 1987, pl. 19, 470. – Fig. 1.4, 22: after Bikai 1987, pl. 20, 555. – Fig. 1.4, 23: after Bikai 1987, pl. 20, 527. – Fig. 1.4, 24: after Mazar 2001, fig. 52, 16. – Fig. 1.4, 25: after Bikai 1987, pl. 12, 273. – Fig. 1.4, 26: after Bikai 1987, pl. 16, 388. – Fig. 1.4, 27: after Bikai 1987, pl. 19, 536. – Fig. 1.5: after Saidah 1971, 197, c–f. – Fig. 1.6: after Chapman 1972, 147 fig. 32.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS The intention of this paper has been to show the problems involved in building a chronological framework for Phoenician material culture. There is no doubt that this is an exceptionally complicated task, made more difficult by the different disciplines and opinions involved, whose representatives are not always on good terms with each other. Thus these are difficulties not only of the evidence (written sources, material culture and science-based dates), but also of the diversity of approaches and the variability in the origin of the available evidence. The most important task at this stage would be to establish a sound relative chronology. Once we have a coherent model for the evolution of Phoenician pottery, it would be possible to combine the three fields mentioned above in a much more coherent manner, avoiding many of the current contradictions. It will be obvious that the development of a well-founded and independent relative chronology for the Phoenician pottery sequence is one of the main concerns of the present article. This is why I have ventured to propose an alternative periodization of the pottery sequence, based on evidence from Phoenicia proper, instead of relying on evidence from other areas, as well as an alternative nomenclature for the different periods of the Phoenician Iron Age. I consider that until such a framework exists, the Phoenician sequence will not be given its due importance.

References AHARONI, Y., R. AMIRAN, 1959, A New Scheme for the Sub-Division of the Iron Age in Palestine, IEJ 8, 1959, 171–184. ALBRIGHT, W.F., 1932, The excavations of Tell Beit Mirsim 1. The Pottery of the First Three Campaigns, AASOR 12 (New Haven 1932). ALBRIGHT, W.F., 1943, The Excavations of Tell Beit Mirsim. The Iron Age, AASOR 21/22 (New Haven 1943).

The issue obviously remains open, as many of the arguments presented here require more research and better definition. A well-founded, integrated framework for Phoenician relative chronology is urgently needed, incorporating the large amount of new evidence from the Central and Western Mediterranean, evidence which frequently challenges certain assumptions maintained in the Levant. Given the diversity of sources of information and of different approaches to the issue, the only way forward would be a general consensus among scholars from all disciplines throughout the lands touched by the Phoenicians, something which at present seems difficult to accomplish.

ALBRIGHT, W.F., 1962, Arqueología de Palestina (Barcelona 1962). ANDERSON, W.P., 1988, Sarepta I. The Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata of Area II, Y, Publications de l’Université Libanaise, Section des Études Archéologiques 2 (Beirut 1988). AMIRAN, R. 1969, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land (Jerusalem 1969). AUBET, M.E., 2001, The Phoenicians and the West. Politics, Colonies, and Trade (Cambridge 2001). 22

F.J. NÚÑEZ CALVO: WESTERN CHALLENGES TO EAST MEDITERRANEAN CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS

CHAPMAN, S., 1972, A Catalogue of Iron Age Pottery from the Cemeteries of Khirbet Silm, Joya, Qraye and Qasmieh of South Lebanon, Berytus 21, 1972, 55– 194.

AUBET, M.E., (ed.), 2004a, The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre – Al Bass. Excavations 1997–1999, Baal, HorsSérie 1 (Beirut 2004). AUBET, M.E., 2004b, Discussion and Conclusions, in: M.E. Aubet (ed.), The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre Al Bass. Excavations 1997–1999, Baal, Hors-Série 1 (Beirut 2004) 449–466.

COLDSTREAM, J.N., 1963, The Chronology of the Attic Geometric Vases, AA 5, 1963, 199–204. COLDSTREAM, J.N., 1968, Greek Geometric Pottery (London 1968).

AVIGAD, N., 1992, Samaria (City), in: Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Jerusalem 1992) 1300–1310.

COLDSTREAM, J.N., 1979, Geometric Skyphoi in Cyprus, RDAC 1979, 255–269.

AYALON, E., 1995, The Iron Age II Pottery Assemblage from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet ‘Ajrud), TelAvivJA 22, 1995, 141–205.

COLDSTREAM, J.N., 1987, The Greek Geometric and Archaic Imports, in: V. Karageorghis, O. Picard, C. Tytgat (eds.), La nécropole d’Amathonte. Tombes 113–367 II: céramiques non chypriotes, Etudes chypriotes 8 (Nicosia 1987) 21–31.

BADRE, L., 1998, Bey 003 Preliminary Report. Excavations of the American University of Beirut Museum 1993–1996, BAAL 2, 1998, 6–94.

COLDSTREAM, J.N., 1995, Amathus Tomb NW 194. The Greek Pottery Imports, RDAC, 1995, 187–198.

BARKAY, G., 1992, The Iron Age II–III, in: A. Ben-Tor (ed.), The Archaeology of Ancient Israel (New Haven 1992) 302–373.

COLDSTREAM, J.N., 2000, Exchanges Between Phoenicians and Early Greeks, National Museum News 11, 2000, 15–32.

BIKAI, P.M., 1978a, The Pottery of Tyre (Warminster 1978).

COLDSTREAM, J.N., 2003, Some Aegean Reactions to the Chronological Debate in the Southern Levant, TelAvivJA 30, 2003, 247–258.

BIKAI, P.M., 1978b, The Late Phoenician Pottery Complex and Chronology, BASOR 229, 1978, 47–56.

COLDSTREAM, J.N., P.M. BIKAI, 1988, Early Greek Pottery in Tyre and Cyprus. Some Preliminary Comparisons, RDAC 1988, 35–43.

BIKAI, P.M., 1987, The Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus (Nicosia 1987). BOARETTO, E., A.J.T. JULL, A. GILBOA, I. SHARON, 2005, Dating the Iron Age I/II Transition in Israel. First Intercomparison Results, Radiocarbon 47, 2005, 39–55.

COLDSTREAM, J.N., A. MAZAR 2003, Greek Pottery from Tel Rehov and Iron Age Chronology, IEJ 53, 2003, 29–48. CÓRDOBA, I., D. RUIZ MATA, 2005, El asentamiento fenicio arcaico de la calle Cánovas del Castillo (Cádiz). Un análisis preliminar, in: S. Celestino, J. Jiménez Ávila (eds.), El Periodo Orientalizante. Actas del III Simposio Internacional de Arqueología de Mérida. Protohistoria del Mediterráneo Occidental, Mérida 2003, Anejos AEspA 35 (Madrid 2005) 1269– 1322.

BOITANI, F., 2005, La ceramica greco-geometrica di Veio, in: G. Bartoloni, F. Delpino (eds.), Oriente e occidente. Metodi e discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana. Atti dell’incontro di studio, Roma 30–31 ottobre 2003 (Pisa 2005) 319–332. BOTTO, M., 2005, Per una riconsiderazione della cronologia degli inizi della colonizzazione fenicia nel Mediterraneo centro-occidentale, in: G. Bartoloni, F. Delpino (eds.), Oriente e occidente. Metodi e discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana. Atti dell’incontro di studio, Roma 30–31 ottobre 2003 (Pisa 2005) 579–630.

CULICAN, W., 1982, The repertoire of Phoenician Pottery, in: H.G. Niemeyer (ed.) Die Phönizer im Westen, MB 8 (Mainz 1982) 45–82. DAYAGI-MENDELS, M., 2002, The Akhziv cemeteries. The Ben-Dor Excavations, 1941–1944, Israel Antiquity Authority Reports 15 (Jerusalem 2002).

BRANDHERM, D., 2006, Zur Datierung de ältesten griechischen und phönizischen Importkeramik auf der Iberischen Halbinsel. Bemerkungen zum Beginn der Eisenzeit in Südwesteuropa, MM 47, 2006, 1–23.

DESBOROUGH, V.R.d’A. 1957, A Group of Vases from Amathus, JHS 77, 1957, 212–219. DESCOEUDRES, J.P., R. KEARSLEY 1983, Greek Pottery at Veii. Another Look, BSA 78, 1983, 9–53.

BRUINS, H.J., J. van der PLICHT, A. MAZAR, C.B. RAMSEY, S.W. MANNING, 2005, The Groningen Radiocarbon Series from Tel Rehov: OxCal Bayesian Computations for the Iron IB-IIA Boundary and Iron IIA Destruction Events, in: T. E. Levy, T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005) 271–293.

DEVER, D.W., 1990, Of Myths and Methods, BASOR 277/278, 1990, 121–130. DIKAIOS, P., 1964, A ‘Royal’ Tomb at Salamis, Cyprus, AA 5, 1964, 125–198. DOCTER, R.F., H.G. NIEMEYER, A.J. NIJBOER, J. van der PLICHT, 2005, Radiocarbon Dates of Animal Bones in the Earliest Levels of Carthage, in: G.

CHAMBON, A., 1984, Tell el-Far’ah, Éditions Recherche sur les Civilizations 31 (Paris 1984).

23

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Bartoloni, F. Delpino (eds.), Oriente e occidente. Metodi e discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana. Atti dell’incontro di studio, Roma 30–31 ottobre 2003 (Pisa 2005) 557– 577.

GAL, Z., Y. ALEXANDRE, 2000, Horbat Rosh Zayit. An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 8 (Jerusalem 2000).

FAUST, A., 2002, Burnished Pottery and Gender Hierarchy in Iron Age Israelite Society, JMedA 15, 2002, 53–73.

GILBOA, A., I. SHARON, 2003, An Archaeological Contribution to the Early Iron Age Chronological Debate. Alternative Chronologies for Phoenicia and Their Effects on the Levant, Cyprus, and Greece, BASOR 332, 2003, 7–80.

GARBINI, G., 2002, Historia e ideología en el Israel antiguo (Barcelona 2002).

FANTALKIN, A., 2001, Low Chronology and Greek Protogeometric and Geometric Pottery in the Southern Levant, Levant 33, 2001, 117–125.

GÓMEZ, F., J. BALENSI, 1999, La colección de vasos egeos de Tell Abu Hawam (Haïfa, Israel) y su relación don la cronología histórica de la expansión fenicia en Occidente, Huelva en su Historia 7, 1999, 43–69.

FANTALKIN, A., I. FINKELSTEIN, 2006, The Sheshonq I Campaign and the 8th Century BCE Earthquake. More on the Archaeology and History of the South in the Iron I–IIA, TelAvivJA 33, 2006, 18–42.

GONZÁLEZ de CANALES, F., L. SERRANO, J. LLOMPART, 2004, El emporio fenicio precolonial de Huelva (ca. 900–770 a. C.) (Madrid 2004).

FINKELSTEIN, I., 1990, On Archaeological Methods and Historical Considerations. Iron Age II Gezer and Samaria, BASOR 239, 1990, 109–119.

GUY, P.L.O., 1924, An Early Iron Age Cemetery near Haifa, Excavated September, 1922, Bulletin of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem 5, 1924, 47–55.

FINKELSTEIN, I., 2002, The Campaign of Shoshenq I to Palestine. A Guide to the 10th Century BCE Polity, ZDPV 118, 2002, 109–135.

HERR, L.G., 1997, The Iron Age II Period. Emerging Nations, BibAr 60, 2, 114–183.

FINKELSTEIN, I., 2005, A Low Chronology Update. Archaeology, History and Bible, in: T.E. Levy, T. Higham (eds), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005) 31–42.

HOLLADAY, J.S. Jr., 1976, Of Sherds and Strata. Contributions Towards an Understanding of the Archaeology of the Divided Monarchy, in: F.M. Cross, W.E. Lemke, P.D. Miller (eds.), Magnalia Dei. The Mighty Acts of God. Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright (New York 1976) 253–293.

FINKELSTEIN, I., E. PIASETZKY, 2003, Recent Radiocarbon Results and King Solomon, Antiquity 77, 2003, 771–779. FINKELSTEIN, I., E. PIASETZKY, 2006, The Iron I– IIA in the Highlands and Beyond. 14C Anchors, Pottery Phases and the Shoshenq I Campaign, Levant 38, 2006, 45–61.

HOLLADAY, J.S. Jr., 1990, Red Slip, Burnish, and the Solomonic Gateway at Gezer, BASOR 277/278, 1990, 23–70.

FINKELSTEIN, I., N.A. SILBERMAN, 2001, The Bible Unearthed (New York 2001).

HOLLADAY, J.S. Jr., 1993, The Use of Pottery and other Diagnostic Criteria, from the Solomonic Era to the Divided Kingdom, in: A. Biran, J. Aviran (eds.), Biblical Archaeology Today. 1990. Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology (Jerusalem 1993) 86–101.

FINKELSTEIN, I., N.A. SILBERMAN, 2002, The Bible Unearthed. A Rejoinder, BASOR 327, 2002, 63–73. FINKELSTEIN, I., D. USSISHKIN, 2000, Archaeological and Historical Conclusions, in: I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, B. Halpern (eds.), Megiddo III. The 1992– 1996 Seasons, Institute of Archaeology Series 18 (Tel Aviv 2000) 576–605.

KARAGEORGHIS, V., 1983, Palaepaphos-Skales. An Iron Age Cemetery in Cyprus, Ausgrabungen in AltPaphos auf Cypern 3 (Konstanz 1983).

FINKELSTEIN, I., O. ZIMHONI, A. KAFRI, 2000, The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages from Areas F, K, and H and their Stratigraphic and Chronological Implication, in: I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, B. Halpern (eds.), Megiddo III. The 1992–1996 Seasons, Institute of Archaeology Series 18 (Tel Aviv 2000) 244–324.

KARAGEORGHIS, V., 2004, Chipre. Encrucijada del Mediterráneo oriental 1600–500 a. C. (Barcelona 2004).

FRANKLIN, N., 2004, Samaria. From the Bedrock to the Omride Palace, Levant 36, 2004, 189–202.

KENYON, K.M., 1964, Megiddo, Hazor, Samaria and Chronology, BALond 4, 1964, 143–156.

FRANKLIN, N., 2005, Correlation and Chronology: Samaria and Megiddo Redux, in: T.E. Levy, T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005) 310– 322.

KOCHAVI, M., 1998, The Eleventh Century BCE Tripartite Pillar Building at Tel Hadar, in: S. Gitin, A. Mazar, E. Stern (eds.), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE (Jerusalem 1998) 468–478.

KENYON, K.M., 1957, Israelite Pottery 1. Stratified Groups, in: J.W. Crowfoot, G.M. Crowfoot, K.M. Kenyon (eds.), Samaria-Sebaste III. The Objects from Samaria (London 1957) 94–134.

24

F.J. NÚÑEZ CALVO: WESTERN CHALLENGES TO EAST MEDITERRANEAN CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS

Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005) 15–30.

KOPCKE, G., 2002, 1000 B.C.E.? 900 B.C.E.? A Greek Vase from Lake Galilee, in: E. Ehrenberg (ed.), Leaving No Stones Unturned. Essays on the Ancient Near East and Egypt in Honor of Donald P. Hansen (Winona Lake 2002) 109–117.

MAZAR, A., H.J. BRUINS, N. PANITZ-COHEN, J. van der PLICHT, 2005, Ladder of Time at Tel Rehov. Stratigraphy, Archaeological Context, Pottery and Radiocarbon Dates, in: T.E. Levy, T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005) 193–255.

KRINGS, V., 1995, La literature phénicienne et punique, in: V. Krings (ed.), La civilization phénicienne et punique. Manuel de recherche (Leiden 1995) 31–38. LEHMANN, G., 1996, Untersuchungen zur späten Eisenzeit in Syrien und Libanon. Stratigraphie und Keramikformen zwischen ca. 720 bis 300 v. Chr., Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients, Archäologische Studien zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients 5 (Münster 1996).

MEDEROS, A., 2005, La cronología fenicia. Entre el Mediterráneo Oriental y el Occidental, in: S. Celestino, J. Jiménez Ávila (eds.), El Periodo Orientalizante. Actas del III Simposio Internacional de Arqueología de Mérida. Protohistoria del Mediterráneo Occidental, Mérida 2003, Anejos AEspA 35 (Madrid 2005) 305–346.

LEMOS, I., 2002, The Protogeometric Aegean. The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries (Oxford 2002).

NA’AMAN, N., 1997, Historical and Literary Notes on the Excavation of Tel Jezreel, TelAvivJA 24, 1997, 122–128.

LEVY, T.E., T. HIGHAM, 2005a, The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005).

NEWTON, M.W., K.A. WARDLE, P.I. KUNIHOLM, 2005, A Dendrochronological 14C Wiggle-Match for the Early Iron Age of North Greece. A Contribution to the Debate about this Period in the Southern Levant, in: T.E. Levy, T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005) 104–113.

LEVY, T.E., T. HIGHAM, 2005b, Introduction. Radiocarbon Dating and the Iron Age of the Southern Levant: Problems and Potentials for the Oxford Conference, in: T.E. Levy, T. Higham (eds), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005) 3–14.

NIEMEYER, H.G., 1984, Die Phönizer und die Mittelmeerwelt im Zeitalter Homers, JbRGZM 31, 1984, 3–94.

MAAß-LINDEMANN, G., 1985, Vasos fenicios de los siglos VIII–VI en España. Su procedencia y posición dentro del mundo fenicio occidental, AulaOr 3, 1985, 227–239.

NIEMEYER, H.G., 2007, Karthago. Die Ergebnisse der Hamburger Grabung unter dem Decumanus Maximus (Mainz 2007).

MAAß-LINDEMANN, G., 1990, Orientalische Importe vom Morro de Mezquitilla, MM 31, 1990, 169–177.

NIJBOER, A.J., 2005, La cronologia assoluta dell’età del ferro nel Mediterraneo. Dibattito sui metodi e sui risultatti, in: G. Bartoloni, F. Delpino (eds.), Oriente e occidente. Metodi e discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana. Atti dell’incontro di studio, Roma 30–31 ottobre 2003 (Pisa 2005) 527–556.

MAAß-LINDEMANN, G., 1998, Die Zeitbestimmung der frühen phönikischen Kolonien des 8. Jhs. v. Chr. in Spanien, Veröffentlichungen der Joachim JungiusGesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Hamburg 87, 1998, 539–544. MAZAR, A., 1985, Excavations at Tell Qasile 2. The Philistine Sanctuary: Various Finds, the Pottery, Conclusions, Appendixes, Qedem 20 (Tel Aviv 1985).

NIJBOER, A.J., 2006, The Iron Age in the Mediterranean. A Chronological Mess or ‘Trade Before the Flag’, Part II, AncWestEast 4, fasc. 2, 2006, 255–277.

MAZAR, A., 1990, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10.000–586 B.C.E. (New York 1990).

NIJBOER, A.J., van der PLICHT, 2006, An Interpretation of the Radiocarbon Determinations of the Oldest Indigenous-Phoenician Stratum Thus Far, Excavated at Huelva, Tartessos (South-West Spain), BABesch 81, 2006, 31–36.

MAZAR, A., 1997, Iron Age Chronology. A Reply to I. Finkelstein, Levant 29, 1997, 157–167. MAZAR, A., 1999, The 1997–1998 Excavations at Tel Rehov. Preliminary Report, IEJ 49, 1999, 1–42. MAZAR, A., 2001, The Phoenicians in Akhziv. The Southern Cemetery. Jerome L. Joss Expedition 1988– 1990, CuadAMediterranea 7 (Barcelona 2001).

NITSCHE, A., 1986/87, Bemerkungen zur Cronologie und Herkunft der protogeometrischen und geometrischen Importkeramik von Tyros, HambBeitrA 13/14, 7–49.

MAZAR, A., 2004, Greek and Levantine Iron Age Chronology. A Rejoinder, IEJ 54, 2004, 24–36.

NÚÑEZ, F., 2001, Aspectos cronológicos relativos al Mediterráneo Oriental durante la Edad del Hierro, in: J.L. Montero, J. Vidal, F. Masó (eds.), De la estepa al Mediterráneo, Monographies Eridu 1 (Barcelona 2001) 289–305.

MAZAR, A., 2005, The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant: its History, the Current Situation, and a Suggested Resolution, in: T.E. Levy, T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and

25

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

SCHREIBER, N., 2003, The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 13 (Leiden 2003).

NÚÑEZ, F., 2004a, Preliminary Report on Ceramics from the Phoenician Necropolis of Tyre – al Bass. 1997 Campaign, in: M.E. Aubet (ed.), The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre – Al Bass. Excavations 1997–1999, Baal, Hors-Série 1 (Beirut 2004) 281–373.

SCHUBART, H., 1982, Asentamientos fenicios en la costa meridional de la Península Ibérica, HuelvaA 6, 1982, 71–99.

NÚÑEZ, F., 2004b, Catalogue of Urns, in: M.E. Aubet (ed.), The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre – Al Bass. Excavations 1997–1999, Baal, Hors-Série 1 (Beirut 2004) 63–203.

SCHUBART, H., 1983, Morro de Mezquitilla. Vorbericht úber die Grabungskampagne 1982 auf dem Siedlungshügel an der Algarrobo-Mündung, MM 24, 1983, 104–131.

NÚÑEZ, F., forthcoming, Phoenicia, in: C. Sagona (ed.), Beyond the Homeland. Markers in Phoenician Chronology, AncNearEastSt, forthcoming.

SEGAL, D., 1995, C14 Dates from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet ‘Ajrud) and their Archaeological Correlation, TelAvivJA 22, 1995, 208–212.

OGGIANO, I., 2000, La ceramica fenicia di Sant’Imbenia (Alghero-SS), in: P. Bartoloni, L. Campanella (eds), La ceramica fenicia di Sardegna (Roma 2000) 235– 258.

SHARON, I., A. GILBOA, E. BOARETTO, A.J.T. JULL, 2005, The Early Iron Age Dating Project. Introduction, Methodology, Progress Report and an Update on the Tel Dor Radiometric Dates, in: T.E. Levy, T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005) 65–92.

PELLICER, M., 2007, La necrópolis Laurita (Almuñecar, Granada) en el contexto de la colonización fenicia, CuadAMediterranea 15 (Barcelona 2007). PIASETZKY, E., I. FINKELSTEIN 2005, 14C Results from Megiddo, Tel Dor, Tel Rehov and Tel Hadar. Where Do They Lead Us?, in: T.E. Levy, T.Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005) 294–301.

SHERRAT, S., 2005, High Precision Dating and Archaeological Chronologies. Revisiting an Old Problem, in: T. E. Levy, T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005) 114–125.

PINGEL, V., 2006, Comentarios a las dataciones por radiocarbono del Morro de Mezquitilla (Málaga), in: H. Schubart, Morro de Mezquitilla. El asentamiento fenicio-púnico en la desembocadura del río Algarrobo, Anejos de la Revista Mainake 1 (Málaga 2006) 147– 151.

STAGER, L., 1990, Shemer’s Estate, BASOR 277/278, 1990, 93–107.

POPHAM, M.R., I.S. LEMOS 1996, Lefkandi III. The Toumba Cemetery: the Excavations of 1981, 1984, 1986, 1992–4, BSA Suppl. 29 (Athens 1996).

STERN, E., 1995, Tel Dor. A Phoenician-Israelite Trading Center, in: S. Gitin (ed.), Recent Excavations in Israel. A View to the West. Reports on Kabri, Nami, Miqne-Ekron, Dor and Ashkelon, Archaeological Institute of America, Colloquia and Conference Papers 1 (Dubuque 1995) 81–93.

POPHAM, M.R., L.H. SACKETT, P.G. THEMELIS, 1980, Lefkandi I. The Iron Age, BSA Suppl. 11 (London 1980).

TAPPY, R.E., 1992, The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria I. Early Iron Age through the Ninth Century B.C.E., HSS 44 (Atlanta 1992).

RIBICHINI, 1995, Les sources greco-latines, in: V. Krings (ed.), La civilization phénicienne et punique. Manuel de recherche (Leiden 1995) 73–84.

TAPPY, R.E., 2001, The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria II. The Eighth Century B.C.E., HSS 50 (Winona Lake 2001).

ROCCHETTI, L., 1978, Le tombe dei periodi geometrico ed arcaico della necropoli a mare di Ayia Irini ‘Paleokastro’, Biblioteca di Antichità Cipriote 4 (Roma 1978).

THOMPSON, H.O., 1984, Madaba. An Iron Age Tomb, in: H.O. Thompson (ed.), The Answers Lie Below. Essays in Honour of Lawrence Edmund Toombs (Lanham 1984).

SAIDAH, R., 1966, Fouilles de Khaldé. Rapport préliminaire sur la première et deuxième campagnes (1961–1962), BuMusBeyrouth 19, 1966, 51–90.

THOMPSON, T.L., 1994, Early History of the Israelite People. From the Written and Archaeological Sources, Studies in the History of Ancient Near East 4 (Leiden 1994).

SAIDAH, R., 1971, Objects grecs d’époque géométrique découverts récemment sur le litoral libanais (à Khaldé près de Beyrouth), AAS 21, 1971, 193–198.

TORRES, M., 1998, La cronología absoluta europea y el inicio de la colonización fenicia en Occidente. Implicaciones cronológicas en Chipre y en el Próximo Oriente, Complutum 9, 1998, 49–60.

SAIDAH, R., 1977, Une tombe de l’âge du Fer à Tambourit (Région de Sidon), Berytus 25, 1977, 135– 146.

TORRES, M., 2005, Tartesios, fenicios y griegos en el sudoeste de la Península Ibérica. Algunas reflexiones sobre los recientes hallazgos de Huelva, Complutum 16, 2005, 273–304.

SCANDONE, G., 1995, Les sources égyptiennes, in: V. Krings (ed.), La civilization phénicienne et punique. Manuel de recherche (Leiden 1995) 57–63.

26

F.J. NÚÑEZ CALVO: WESTERN CHALLENGES TO EAST MEDITERRANEAN CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS

TORRES, M., M. RUIZ-GÁLVEZ, A. RUBINOS, 2005, La cronología de la Cultura Nurágica y los inicios de la Edad del Hierro y las colonizaciones históricas en el Mediterráneo Centro-Occidental. Una aproximación desde la cronología radiocarbónica y el registro arqueológico, in: M. Ruiz-Gálvez (ed.), Territorio nurágico y paisaje antiguo. La meseta de Pranemuru (Cerdeña) en la Edad del Bronce, Anejos de Complutum 10 (Madrid 2005) 169–194.

XELLA, P., 1995a, Les sources cunéiformes, in: V. Krings (ed.), La civilization phénicienne et punique. Manuel de recherche (Leiden 1995) 39–56. XELLA, P., 1995b, La Bible, in: V. Krings (ed.), La civilization phénicienne et punique. Manuel de recherche (Leiden 1995) 64–72. YADIN, Y., 1958, Hazor I (Jerusalem 1958). YADIN, Y., 1960, New Light on Salomon’s Megiddo, BibAr 23, 1960, 62–68.

TYTGAT, C., 1989, Les nécropoles sud-ouest et sud-est d’Amathonte I. Les tombes 110–385, Études Chypriotes 11 (Nicosia 1989).

YADIN, Y., 1970, Megiddo of the Kings of Israel, BibAr 33, 1970, 66–96.

TYTGAT, C., 1995, La tombe NW 194 de la nécropole nord d’Amathonte, RDAC 1995, 137–185.

YADIN, Y., 1972, Hazor. The Head of All Those Kingdoms, Joshua 11: 10 (London 1972).

van der PLICHT, J., H.J. BRUINS, 2005, Quality Control of Groningen 14C Results from Tel Rehov: Repeatability and Intercomparison of Proportional Gas Counting and AMS, in: T. E. Levy, T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005) 256–270.

YADIN Y., A. BEN-TOR, 1992, Hazor, in: E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Jerusalem 1992) 594– 606. YADIN Y., Y. AHARONI, R. AMIRAN, T. DOTHAN, I. DUNAYEVSKY, J. PERROT, 1960, Hazor II (Jerusalem 1960).

WALDBAUM, J.C., 1994, Early Greek Contacts with the Southern Levant, ca. 1000–600 B.C. The Eastern Perspective, BASOR 293, 1994, 53–66.

YADIN, Y., Y. AHARONI, R. AMIRAN, A. BEN-TOR, T. DOTHAN, I. DUNAYEVSKY, S. GEVA, E. STERN, 1961, Hazor III–IV (Jerusalem 1961).

WARD, W., 1978, The Egyptian Objects, in: Bikai, The Pottery of Tyre (Warminster 1978) 83–87.

YON, M., 1971, Salamine de Chypre II. La tombe T.I du XIe s. av. J.-C. (Lyon 1971).

WIGHTMAN, G.J., 1990, The Myth of Solomon, BASOR 277/278, 1990, 5–22.

ZIMHONI, O., 1992, The Iron Age Pottery from Tel Jezreel. An Interim Report, TelAvivJA 19, 1992, 57– 70.

WRIGHT, G.E., 1959a, Israelite Samaria and Iron Age Chronology, BASOR 155, 1959, 13–29. WRIGHT, G.E., 1959b, Samaria, BibAr 22, 1959, 67–78.

ZIMHONI, O., 1997, Clues from the Enclosure-Fills. PreOmride Settlement at Tel Jezreel, TelAvivJA 24, 1997, 83–109.

WRIGHT, G.E. 1965, The Archaeology of Palestine, in: G.E. Wright (ed.), The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Essays in Honour of William Foxwell Albright (New York 1965) 85–139.

27

DARK AGE POTTERY FROM SOUTHERN AEOLIS To my “Doktorvater” Volkmar von Graeve

Kaan İREN

Muğla Üniversitesi, Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi, Arkeoloji Bölümü, TR-48000 Muğla, Turkey, e-mail: [email protected] Abstract: In this paper, the Dark Age pottery from southern Aeolis is examined under various points of view. Aeolis is still an “undiscovered land” for archaeology, due to an insufficient number of excavations and surveys, as well as the recovered materials remaining unpublished. I thus present mostly unpublished Protogeometric and Geometric pottery from various research projects. Diverging points of view on some published material are also presented. Based on a study of the pottery, a new point of view on the distribution of Dark Age settlements in southern Aeolis is also presented here. While not numerous, the pottery dealt with here covers a wide chronological range, from the Protogeometric to the Late Geometric period. It thus provides an adequate tool for discussing some problems of the chronology and of the production centres of Aeolian decorated Dark Age pottery, as well as for discussing the external relationships of the Aeolians and influences from both their neighbours and mainland Greeks. Keywords: Aeolis, Corinthian pottery, Aeolian Grey Ware, Protogeometric and Geometric pottery Résumé: Dans le présent article, la céramique des périodes obscures en Éolide méridionale est considérée sous différents points de vue. En raison du nombre insuffisant de fouilles et de prospections, et du fait que les matériaux récupérés restent non publiés, l’Éolide est toujours une“terra incognita” de l’archéologie. Ainsi, je présente la céramique protogéométrique et géométrique, pour la plupart inédite, de divers projets de recherche. En outre, plusieurs opinions divergentes sur le matériel publié sont énoncées. De plus, un nouveau point de vue sur la distribution de l’habitat des périodes obscures en Éolide méridionale, fondé sur l’étude de la céramique, est proposé. Quoique peu nombreuse, la céramique dont il est question ici couvre une large fourchette chronologique, allant de la période protogéométrique à la période géométrique récente. Or, elle nous met en présence de moyens adéquats pour discuter de quelques problèmes relatifs à la chronologie, ou encore aux centres de production de la céramique décorée des périodes obscures en Éolide méridionale. Ceci nous permet de débattre des relations externes des Éoliens, et des influences exercées à la fois par leurs voisins et par la Grèce continentale. Mots clé: L’Éolide, céramique corinthienne, céramique grise éolienne, céramique protogéométrique, céramique géométrique Abriss: Unter verschiedenen Gesichtspunkten behandelt dieser Beitrag die Keramik des Dunklen Zeitalters aus der südlichen Aeolis. Für die Archäologie stellt die Aeolis aufgrund der geringen Zahl an bisher durchgeführten Grabungen und Feldbegehungen sowie aufgrund des schlechten Publikationsstandes noch immer “unbekanntes Terrain” dar. Neben der Diskussion unterschiedlicher Forschungsmeinungen zu bereits veröffentlichen Materialien wird hier daher vor allem unpublizierte Keramik aus verschiedenen Forschungsprojekten vorgelegt. Auf dieser Grundlage wird für das Dunkle Zeitalter in der Aeolis ein neues Siedlungsbild entworfen. Trotz ihres zahlenmäßig geringen Umfangs deckt die hier behandelte Keramik den gesamten Zeitraum von der protogeometrischen bis zur spätgeometrischen Epoche ab. Somit lassen sich anhand ihrer sowohl Probleme der Keramikchronologie als auch die Problematik der keramischen Produktionszentren des Dunklen Zeitalters in der Aeolis diskutieren, ebenso wie sich Hinweise auf Einflüsse aus benachbarten Regionen und vom griechischen Festland ergeben. Schlüsselwörter: Aeolis, Korinthische Keramik. Aeolische Graue Ware, Protogeometrische und Geometrische Keramik

remained a provincial North Ionian city4. These two cities therefore present a mixed Aeolian and Ionian character, and the blending of the two cultures can, I believe, be observed until the end of the Classical period.

Apart from some excavation reports, the early Iron Age (EIA) pottery from Aeolis has only been treated briefly by few scholars1. Aeolis can be divided into three geographical regions: island Aeolis (Lesbos, Tenedos etc.), northern Aeolis (from the Troas to the Caicus in the South) and southern Aeolis (the area extending between the Hermus and the Caicus)2. In this paper I will use the term “Aeolis” to refer only to the area of southern Aeolis. I should, however, mention that Smyrna and Phokaea, which are located in this region, have not been included in this study. Smyrna was situated on the borders with Ionia and according to tradition was “Ionized” at a very early stage. I think that it should better be considered as part of the North Ionian3 cultural circle. Phokaea, on the other hand, was situated in southern Aeolis, but it always

The Dark Age in West Anatolia is less well known than in other parts of the Greek world. The main reasons for this are firstly the fact that the Geometric levels of many ancient cities have not yet been discovered, and secondly that much of the excavated material has not yet been fully published. Aeolis is not the most generous area when it comes to Geometric material (Fig. 2.1). The lack of any Protogeometric (PG) pottery and the scarcity of Geometric pottery for a long time have been interpreted as evidence for the fact that the locally produced pottery in those periods was mainly Grey Ware5.

1

Coldstream 1968 297 f.; Coldstream 2003, 262–264; İren 2003, 5–8. Hdt. 1, 151. 3 In this paper, the Ionian islands Chios and Samos are understood as part of the Ionian cultural circle, so when North Ionia is referred to, this includes Chios. 2

4

“[…] But Smyrna was on the very borders of Ionia, and Phokaea an Ionian city” Bayne 2000, 184. 5 It has even been suggested that the Greeks in Aeolis have not produced painted Geometric pottery; see: Coldstream 2003, 18.

29

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 2.1. Dark Age pottery from southern Aeolis:

* PG (incl. SubPG) ▲Geometric

Fig. 2.2. Aeolian connections in the Protogeometric period (left) and in the Geometric period (right) judge from the existing finds, Grey Ware indeed remains dominant in Aeolis throughout the Dark Age 6.

PROTOGEOMETRIC POTTERY Grey Ware

The aim of this paper is to illustrate the Dark Age pottery from Aeolis by focussing on some new and unpublished vases. 6

Within the limits of this paper, some issues like the origin of the Aeolian Grey Ware in the Bronze Age, its diffusion and the production centres will not be discussed. The most comprehensive study of the EIA Grey Ware is still

Özgünel 2006, 14.

30

K. IREN: DARK AGE POTTERY FROM SOUTHERN AEOLIS

Bayne’s book7.

tely the burial was not accompanied by any funerary gifts. This simple Anatolian shape is probably an imitation of metal vessels. The shape appeared in the LBA and continued during the EIA in the periphery of the southern Aeolis18.

Grey Ware was produced in large quantities by Anatolian inhabitants of southern Aeolis since the Bronze Age; in other words, this type of pottery was not introduced by the Aeolian colonists in the early Iron Age. The existence of Grey Ware in earlier levels than those of the painted PG pottery in an ancient city on the west coast of Anatolia, such as Smyrna, does not necessarily indicate the presence of Aeolian colonists8. However, the Aeolian Grey Ware continued to be the predominant kind of pottery even after the colonization. Apparently, it was adopted by the Greek newcomers9. The transition from the LBA grey pottery, which was primarily inspired by Mycenaean pottery, to the EIA pottery in southern Aeolis is still obscure. Some general characteristics of LBA pottery, such as the texture, the shapes and elements of the decoration of the pottery, clearly survived into later periods. However, the interaction between the old Anatolian inhabitants and the Greek newcomers seems to have created a hybridization in the repertoire of pottery shapes, which was tenuous in the beginning, but steadily intensified until the late Geometric (LG) period10. The sherd of a krater from Larisa deserves our attention11, because Middle Protogeometric (MPG) kraters from Thessaly12 and Lefkandi13 have a ridge below the lip, sometimes incised as in the case of this krater14. However, a Mycenaean sherd could indicate that the inhabitants of Larisa had an acquaintanceship with Greek pottery already in the Bronze Age15. Bayne’s work provides an extensive catalogue of the LBA and EIA Grey Wares from southern Aeolis. It is noteworthy that in his catalogue the only examples dated earlier than the LG period come from Larisa16. 1 can be added to this list and may serve as a good example to illustrate how older features survived in the Dark Age. This krater was found in the east necropolis of Cyme during a rescue excavation conducted in 2000 by Izmir Archaeological Museum17. It was used as a cinerary urn, but unfortuna-

Greek Painted Pottery Another type of pottery in the PG period on the West Anatolian coast was the Greek painted pottery. In comparison with the Grey Ware, Greek painted pottery has been found in much smaller quantity. A few examples of PG pottery have been reported from Böcelitepe19, Cyme20 and Pitane21, but they have not been properly published yet. The type of the PG skyphos from Larisa (3), the so called pendent semi-circle skyphos, was the independent creation of Euboean potters in MPG times. It became extremely popular in the Subprotogeometric (SubPG) period throughout the Mediterranean and was probably also imitated by local potters22. Schefold suggested that the sherd from Larisa was an imported piece and could be dated to the 8th century23. The same sherd has been dated to the Middle Geometric (MG) period by Coldstream24. However, according to Desborough’s typology, with a 1.8 cm high lip it should date to the late PG period25. Another skyphos (4) from the same excavation at Larisa, which remained unpublished, is the so called monochrome skyphos. It was popular especially in the ThessaloEuboean area and is probably MPG in date26. Fragment 2 belongs to the body of a PG krater. It was found during a survey on Mount Spylus, exactly on the spot called “Pelops’ Throne”, where, it has been argued, an altar for Cybele was located27. The body of the PG Krater was decorated with concentric circles28. This is an imported piece, probably Attic or Euboean in origin, judging from its very fine clay. 5 is the rim of a PG skyphos decorated with concentric circles between the handles. This fragment was found at Böcelitepe in 2001 during the survey of Hacettepe and Muğla universities29. The PG skyphoi demonstrate

7

Bayne and Hertel refer to the EIA as the time between the PG and the th th Classical period (namely from the 11 to the 5 century BC). In this th paper I exclude the Archaic period (the period between the 11 century th and the middle of the 7 century). 8 However, scholars accepted the theory of the excavators of Old Smyrna who related the levels with Grey Ware to the Aeolian immigration and the level with PG pottery to the Ionian occupation, inspired by the local myth, without questioning; see: Akurgal 1983, 19 f.. 9 Bayne 2000, 252. 10 Bayne 2000, 264. 11 Schefold 1942, fig. 35 pl. 46, 5. 12 Desborough 1952, pl. 23, 147. 148. 13 Lemos 2002, 48 f. pls. 72–75 14 A PG Krater from Old Smyrna is also similar to the examples from Thessaly and Lefkandi, see: Lemos 2002, 51; Özgünel 2003, 72 f. pl. 6, 2. 15 Schefold 1942, pl. 57, 1; Hanfmann 1948, 145. 16 Bayne 2000, 199. 17 I would like to thank Mustafa Karahan, the director of the excavation, for his generosity and for his kind encouragement to publish this material.

18 Blegen et al. 1958, 173 C69 fig. 288, 32.20; Bayne 2000, 150. 164 fig. 40; Mountjoy 1999, 339 fig. 19, 68. 19 Erkanal-Öktü et al. 2003, 303. In the publication, Araptepe was erroneously given as the provenance of the fragment. Böcelitepe is very close to Araptepe. The latter was the location of a late Neolithic settlement. 20 Uçankuş 1981, 148. I worked on some of the material from the rescue excavation by Uçankuş who reported that he found PG pottery. Unfortunately, I could not notice any PG vases. I only saw Subgeometric (SubG) vases with concentric circles. 21 Özgünel 2006, 16 no. 45. 22 Lemos 2002, 44–46. 23 Schefold 1942, 170 pl. 57, 4. 24 Coldstream 1968, 297. 25 Lemos 2002, 45. 26 Lemos 2002, 34–36. 27 Öztürk 1997, 112. 28 Lemos 2002, pl. 76, 2. 29 Erkanal-Öktü et al. 2003, 301–314.

31

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

continuity from the Sub-Mycenaean period30. The shape of the rim fragment seems to indicate a date very late in the PG period (if not even SubPG)31. 5 has a band on the lip; below the band there is a stripe. Similar skyphoi with concentric circles and with single or double bands on the lip have been discovered in West Anatolia32. But in these examples, the distance between the band on the lip and the concentric circles on the body is generally smaller than the one observed on 5. More skyphoi similar to the one discussed here have been found at Sambariza Magoula (Argolid)33, Asine34, Dirmil35 and Melie36. On those skyphoi, after the Early Protogeometric (EPG), a zigzag band was painted below the band and the stripe37. This zigzag band is lacking on 5; instead roulette traces have been observed on the surface of the skyphos (5). To my knowledge, nothing similar has been reported for any other PG skyphos. However, the zigzag band was sometimes omitted in provincial production during MPG and LPG38. Lemos has suggested that the omission of the zigzag band on the lip of the skyphoi from Asia Minor is due to influence from the Cycladic or Euboean PG style39. If this were correct, then it could be argued that 5 was an East Greek40 skyphos dating to the LPG period and influenced by the Euboean style.

The clay of the amphora does not seem to be West Anatolian. Neck handle amphorae are very rare in the Sub-Mycenaean period. Their popularity increased in the EPG period43. The shape of 6 deserves closer attention, as it does not match the usual decoration of that particular period. In the PG period, the amphorae generally had an ovoid form, but in 6 there is a sharp transition from the emphasized shoulder to the reverse conical body. As is well known, the shape of the PG amphorae became slender at end of the style44. Amphorae from the SubPG contexts in Lefkandi45 and an early Iron Age gray amphora from Antissa have a similar form46. The shape was originally Thessalian47 and it is likely that it was borrowed by the Euboeans and transferred by them to island Aeolis. The decoration of 6 is typical for the PG period. It is a “dark-ground” amphora with concentric circles on the shoulder; in other words, it belongs to the B.1 group of Desborough which is dated very late in the PG period48. The half concentric circles on the shoulder of the PG amphorae are either on the light style or on the dark-ground amphorae. The closest examples come from Athens49 and Lefkandi50, but without the zigzag band beneath the shoulder. The zigzag decoration around the belly is more commonly seen on SubPG amphorae than on their LPG counterparts51. Concentric circles with hourglasses on the shoulder are generally popular in the PG period, but they are rare on SubPG amphorae52.

“Apart from the kantharos, there is nothing which would suggest any earlier date” wrote Bayne in his dissertation in 196341. Today, new evidence challenges this suggestion. A few, but still significant pieces of Dark Age pottery have been discovered in the necropolis of Pitane, such as the amphora 6. In the PG period, neck handle amphorae were used, especially in Attica, as containers for the ashes of the male dead42. The neck handle amphora from Pitane (6) is undoubtedly an urn, but on that evidence alone we cannot be certain whether a similar tradition to that of Attica existed in Aeolis.

The non-Anatolian texture of the clay indicates that this vase was imported. The fine clay containing only small micas points primarily to Euboea. The long neck, sharp shoulder, tiny body53 and zigzag around the belly, which are features commonly found on Euboean amphorae, confirm this hypothesis. It is possible to find some of these features on amphorae from the Thessalo-Cycladic province, but it should be noted that these were borrowed and used by Euboean potters, too. 6 is a “very” late PG example (for Anatolia), as Akurgal has already pointed out54. It could even be a product of the SubPG period with conservative decoration and, using the finds from Lefkandi as a reference point, could probably be dated to the second half to the 9th century.

30

Lemos 2002, 10. cf. Kerschner 2003, pl. 40, 4; Jolivet – Robert 2003, 103 (SubPG). 111 fig. 31, 1; p. 107 (SubPG). 117 fig. 37, 2. 3. 32 From Klaros, see: Mitchell 1989/90, 99 (fig. 20 is Attic, see: Lemos 2002, 38; Jolivet – Robert 2003, 111. 117 figs. 31, 1; 37, 2. 3). – From Miletus, see: Weikert 1957, pls. 36, 1; 37, 2; Hommel 1960, pl. 55, 5. 6; v. Graeve 1974, pl. 17, 3. 4; Schiering 1979, pl. 23, 4. – The Geometric pottery of Miletus has been prepared for publication by M. Krumme. He told me that in his early group the skyphoi are without zigzag band beneath the lip, but surely we must wait for the final publication to decide on the whole material (personal communication, June 2005). – From Smyrna, see: Özgünel 2003, 71 pl. 2, 1–3. 33 Langdon 1995, fig. 52, 1018. 34 Wells 1983, figs. 133, 145; 144, 243. 248. 35 Boysal 1969, 31 pl. 37, 1. 36 Hommel 1967, 164 f. fig. 104, 1 pl. 7 a. 37 Mazarakis-Ainian 1998, 185 fig. 6, 1. This type of skyphoi is dated to MPG in Attica, see: Lemos 2002, 36. 38 Lemos 2002, 36 f. 39 Lemos 2002, 37. 39. 40 Clazomenae and Smyrna are probably PG pottery production centres and surely there were also other PG pottery centres in North Ionia (like Teos). I see no reason why we cannot think that 3 could have been produced somewhere in North Ionia. 41 Bayne 2000, 198. 42 Desborough 1952, 5 f. 31

43

Desborough 1952, 6 f.; Lemos 2002, 10. Desborough 1980, 11. 45 Desborough 1980, 337 f. fig. 19 D pl. 28, 35. 70/P2 (=Popham – Lemos 1996, pl. 81, 47); pls. 101, 33.4; 191, 4.4. 46 Bayne 2000, fig. 61, 2. 47 Desborough 1980, 338; Verdis 1958, fig. 5 pl. 2 (especially 7 and 8); Arachobiti 1994, 132 fig. 8 β. 48 Desborough 1952, 9–11. 49 Kraiker – Kübler 1939, pl. 42, G78; Kübler 1943, pl. 7, 2024. 50 Popham – Lemos 1996, pl. 41, 1. 51 Desborough 1980, 338. 52 Verdis 1958, fig. 5. 53 Note that the Attic amphorae were ovoid even in the SubPG period; see: Desborough 1980, 338. 54 Akurgal 1963, 544. The amphora he mentioned must have been this specific amphora. 44

32

K. IREN: DARK AGE POTTERY FROM SOUTHERN AEOLIS

carried out by Mommsen, group G represents an unknown production centre, but Kerschner assumes that G could be Aeolian. If group G is really Aeolian, then the Geometric sherds in this group should be welcomed as evidence of exported Aeolian Geometric vases67. Moreover, some of the LG sherds from Larisa are imported vases68. Three fragments of a LG krater from Larisa are very exceptional, because intentional red was used in their painting69. Those fragments are the first examples of the use of intentional red on Aeolian vases. As I have argued elsewhere, the krater, on the evidence of its shape and its decoration, could be dated to the beginning of the second quarter of the 7th century70. Intentional red was part of the Anatolian vase painting tradition since early times, but on the west coast we can only find it in southern Aeolis71. This technique continued to be used in the Archaic period. We can observe the same style of painting on another amphora from Pitane. This amphora, which was a cinerary urn, has been found together with a grey phiale omphalos72. It belongs to the second quarter of the 7th century73. Finally, some Geometric fragments have been reported from Panaztepe74 and Temnus75. None of the published material is earlier than LG.

GEOMETRIC POTTERY Grey Ware The grey EIA pottery from Larisa55, Cyme and Pitane in southern Aeolis has been published, but its exact dating is still obscure56. The shape of the krater from Cyme (7) has the characteristics of the LG painted pedestalled kraters. Pedestalled kraters appeared in East Greece as an imitation of Attic kraters at the end of the MG period and continued in the LG period57. The main difference between the PG grey krater (1) and this krater is that the first one is a continuation of the older shape of the native settlers while the second one is an imitation of the Greek newcomers after the Bronze Age58. Painted Ware The majority of the published Greek Geometric pottery from southern Aeolis comes from Cyme. A krater fragment from the Czechoslovakian excavation in 1925 has been related by Coldstream to the Rhodian BirdKotyle Workshop, which, however, today is considered to have been North Ionian59. In the last years, Italian excavations have yielded more Geometric pottery, unfortunately without context. This pottery was imported from Corinth60, Euboea61 and possibly from North Ionia62. This means that no local EIA painted pottery has been found in Cyme until now63. The clay of the LG krater from Myrina (10) is slightly micaceous, but still East Greek, like some contemporaneous Chian examples64. This krater is probably a North Ionian product, too65. However, when comparing a group G sherd from Ephesus, Kerschner suggested that the krater from Myrina was an Aeolian product66. According to the NAA

It has been argued that the basins were the unique form of Larisa and have been connected with cult activities relating to their find place, mainly in the temple area76. The basin from Pitane (8) disproves those hypothesises. Basin 8 was discovered just beneath the Archaic cremations in trench G in the necropolis of Pitane77. Because the layer of soil separating the Geometric urns from the later cremations was not very thick, the Archaic cremations destroyed the deeper levels and sometimes the finds were mixed78. This was the case for the Pitanean basin, too. The sharp edges of the basin, the plastic attachments and the horizontal ridge are clearly imitations of a metal vase. The careless imitation of the handles can be found on similar basins from Larisa. The basin from Pitane, with the jutting rim and the horizontal ridge on the body, is earlier than the basins from Larisa. The Larisa basins are dated to the 7th and to the 6th century BC79.

55

Some krater fragments from Larisa belong probably to LG kraters, see: Schefold 1942, figs. 35 h. 36 pl. 46, 10. 56 Bayne 2000, 157–200; Frasca 1998, fig. 3; İren 2003, 189 cat. 344. 57 Coldstream 1968, 269 f. 58 “The Greek elements become especially powerful in later years” Bayne 2000, 138. 59 Bouzek 1974, pl. 18 GP1; Walter-Karydi 1982, 9; Coldstream 1968, 298. Coldstream first suggested that the krater was a product of the Rhodian Bird-Kotyle Workshop; he then revised his suggestion and decided that it was produced at Old Smyrna: Bouzek 1974, 77. In any case it is accepted today that the bird-kotylai and bowls are mainly North Ionian products, see: Frasca 1998, 276, Akurgal et al. 2002, 148. For the latest discussion on this subject, see: Kerschner 2002, 86. 60 Frasca 1998, 275 figs. 5. 6. 61 Frasca 1998, 276 f. figs. 9–15. 62 Frasca 1998, 275 f. figs. 7. 8. These are also possibly North Ionian, see: Frasca 1993, 55. 57 figs. 8 q–c. 15 a–d. 13 a–c. 63 For mentioned, but not pictured Geometric vases from Cyme, see: Akurgal 1956, 40–42 (LG and SubG sherds); Schäfer 1974, 211 (LG oinochoe); Uçankuş 1981, 143. 148 (PG, MG, LG sherds). 64 Boardman 1967, 102. 65 Coldstream 1968, 298. 66 Kerschner 2002, 85–86. I do not agree to using the sherd from Ephesus as an analogy to the krater from Myrina. For example, I think that it would be better to compare the incised lines on the neck of the Ephesian Krater with the onesce of the South Ionian kraters instead of the painted lines of the Myrinian krater, see: Walter 1968, pl. 21.

67

Kerschner 2002, 84–86, pls. 1, 18; 4, 57. Schefold 1942, pl. 57, 2. 6. 14 are LG North Ionian kotylai; pl. 57, 8– 10 are probably North Ionian as well. The origin of Schefold 1942, pl. 57, 11 and 13 remains obscure. 69 (11) and İren 2003, 164 cat. 6. 70 İren 2003, 5 71 İren 2003, 6 f. 72 İren 2003, 189 cat. 344. 73 For an example from Hephaista, see: Rocchetti 1975, 270 fig. 141. 74 Bayne 2000, 311. – Personal communication with Prof. A. ErkanalÖtkü for Panaztepe in 2001. 75 Bayne 2000, 184 f. – Prof. E. Doğer kindly informed me in 2006 that he found a LG fragment during his visit to the ruins of Temnus. 76 Bayne 2000, 176. 77 The excavators have noticed that cat. 7 was found under a cremation of archaic date. 78 The excavators have wrongly documented cat. 11 together with an archaic cremation context. 79 Bayne 2000, 176 fig. 50, 9; İren 2003, 76. 68

33

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

shoulder panel92. The shape of a Rhodian oinochoe is very similar to that of 1593. Moreover, there are some Rhodian oinochoae with a long neck and a trefoil mouth similar to that of the Pitane oinochoe, but with a different body94. However the origin of the shape could be related with the LG Attic oinochoae95. There are some East Greek oinochoae with metopes on the neck96, but the decoration on the neck of the LG oinochoae was divided horizontally, not vertically like in the case of the Pitane oinochoe97. The reserved area between the main panel and the neck, decorated with a simple motif (in the case of the Pitanean oinochoe, a zigzag band), has been noticed on oinochoae from the early 7th century BC98. However the hatched lozenges and the zigzag lines on the metopes, which create a carpet effect, indicate obvious influence from South Ionia99. On an East Greek oinochoe of the same period, there is a frieze with solid double axes and vertical bars below the shoulder panel100. It probably should be dated to the last quarter of the 8th century101.

The basin has been covered with the same yellowish slip as some other East Greek vases of the same period80. As I have mentioned elsewhere, the lyre under the handle is one of the most interesting elements of the decoration of the basin81. Another similar example comes from Smyrna. The lyre from Smyrna has seven strings. Akurgal has argued that the seven string lyres were a revolutionary invention of East Greek musicians, who had been influenced by Phrygians and Lydians82. The lyre of the basin from Pitane seems to have only six strings. The six strings lyre was known since the Hittite period. But this could be a coincidence. I do not think that the painters were trying to be precise when painting the strings of the lyres83. A Phrygian lebes from tumulus J and dated after 625 BC has an eight strings lyre painted on its shoulder84. It is noteworthy that there is a temporal gap between the Phrygian example and the Smyrnian one, despite the similarities in their painting. The geometric motifs of the basin point to a date around 700 BC85. But this basin could also demonstrate a conservatism of some potters of this region and therefore it should perhaps be dated some decades later.

As for 12, judging on the traces of the painting, it could be suggested that the kotyle had two zigzag lines in the panel between the handles. Although kotylai with zigzag lines are considered an Attic invention102, and although they could be produced with some diversity in many centres in mainland Greece103, in the Cyclades104 and in East Greece105, two zigzag lines bordered by vertical rays were to be found mainly in Smyrna106. The kotyle from Küçükkale probably was also produced in Smyrna in the LG period107.

It is difficult to find an exact parallel to 7. It is obvious that 7 is an imitation of a metal vessel, because it has sharp edges and unnecessary attachments86. We do not know any similar metal vessel from the same period. But a late antique example can help us form an idea on how the original metal vase might have looked like87. The origin of the shape could be hybrid. The carinated profile of the body seems to be inspired by Anatolian vessels, but these generally have ring bases88. The foot could be inspired by Greek vases89. Maybe this shape is related to the later Ionian lekane with high foot90. The zigzag motifs on the metopes, like 7, are popular on LG vases in East Greece91.

14 is a Corinthian kotyle-pyxis which was found in the necropolis of Cyme in 2000. Its lid is also preserved. Coldstream’s suggestion that the kotyle-pyxides have no handles does not seem to be true in this case108. The kotyle 13, which was found in the necropolis of Cyme, is also Corinthian. The decoration systems of 14 and 13 are almost the same. Both of the vases have no rays at the base. The rays appeared at the end of the Early Protocorinthian (EPC) phase, but did not completely replace the glazed base of the kotylai until the end of

The oinochoe 15 is very similar to LG oinochoae with its globular body, long neck and the geometric bird on the 80

Boardman 1967, 102; Schweitzer 1971, 101. İren 2003, 5 f. 82 Akurgal 1961, 13–15; Boardman 1999, 97 f. 83 Obviously, the painter of the basin did not paint the lyre as meticulously as the Smyrnian painter. 84 Kohler 1999, ii. 59. 68 fig. 27 D. 85 İren 2003, 6. – I am adding here an example of the floral motif on the vertical ridges; see: Walter 1968, fig. 21. – Schweitzer has dated the th vase to the second half of the 8 century; see: Schweitzer 1971, 102. 86 For the attachments, see: Bossert 2000, pl. 88, 1056. 1057 87 Drexel 1915, 1 fig. 1. 88 BA: Koppenhöfer 1997, 318 fig. 10, 3; Günel 1999, pl. 15, 4. – EIA: Boğazköy: Bossert 2000, pls. 72, 835; 83. 994. 997 (8th–7th century). – Dascyleum: Polat 2002, pls. 35 A, 62-5; 37 A, 78; 39 A, 85 (7th century). – Gordion: Sams 1994, 49 figs. 10, 271; 11, 273; 14, 467 (ca. 725–700). – Larisa: Schefold 1942, fig. 40 a (7th century). – Mytilene: Bayne 2000, fig. 62, 4. – Sardis: Gürtekin-Demir 2002, 120 fig. 8 (7th–6th century). – Yazılıkaya: Pehlivaner – Özçatal 1995, 75 fig. 6 (first half of the 7th century). 89 Themelis 1984, 116 fig. 1 is a slightly earlier example. 90 Villing 1999, 189 fig. 1. 91 Eilmann 1933, 115 fig. 59 app. 20, 5; 21, 1. 11; 22, 7; 23, 6; v. Graeve 1974, 22. 44. 81

92

Blinkenberg – Friis Johansen 1929, pl. 72, 1; Walter 1968, 44. Walter 1968, pl. 87, 489. 94 Walter 1968,43, pl. 50, 295. 95 Blinkenberg – Friis Johansen 1929, pl. 73, 1. 96 Walter 1968, pl. 50, 295. 97 Walter 1968, pls. 52, 301. 303. 304; 53, 306–308; 54, 310; 56; 87. 98 Walter 1968, 48, pl. 52, 304. 99 Walter 1968, 34 fig. 18. 100 Walter 1968, pl. 87, 490. 93

101

th

Schweitzer has suggested the second half of the 8 century. Ersoy 2004, 48. 103 Corinth: Coldstream 1968, pls. 16 c. 17 d. – Argos: Coldstream 1968, pl. 24 g. – Boeotia: Coldstream 1968, pl. 42 d. 104 Coldstream 1968, pl. 34 c–d; Desborough 1952, pl. 18, A1469. 105 Miletus: Weickert 1957, 122 pl. 37 a. – Samos: Walter 1968, pl. 17, 100. 101. – Smyrna: Özgünel 2003, 85 pl. 18, 4–7, – Clazomenae: Ersoy 2004, 47 fig. 4 d. 106 Özgünel 2003, 85 pl. 18, 4–7. 107 Özgünel 2003, 85. 108 Coldstream 1968, 101. 102

34

K. IREN: DARK AGE POTTERY FROM SOUTHERN AEOLIS

Middle Protocorinthian (MPC) I. So the two Corinthian vases should be dated earlier than MPC I109. Benton has postulated that in the LG period the kotylai with herons had dots or bars between two horizontal lines on the handles. In the later period we see this kind of kotyle with only one single horizontal line on the handles110. Nevertheless, the transition from dots and bars between two lines to the single horizontal line on the handles appeared, as Coldstream argued, in EPC111. The painting of the birds changed during the transition from LG to EPC. The body became solid instead of hatched, the eyes disappeared, the tail became shorter and the birds were depicted with one leg instead of two112. This description matches well the birds depicted on the Cyme pyxis. They must have been painted soon after this transitional period. On the other hand, the birds of the kotyle, as far as we can tell, seem to be closer to the soldier birds113, which are the next step in the evolution of the geometric birds of the Corinthian kotylai114. Because of this, the kotyle is slightly later, maybe ten years, than the pyxis. These observations lead us to suggest an EPC date for 14, while 13 could be dated a little bit later.

– The first datable pottery after the PG and the SubPG, as far as we can judge from the material discovered up to now, belongs to the LG period. – It seems that there were some connections between the inhabitants of the region and the North Ionians and the Euboeans, as in the previous period, but also with the Corinthians (at least through the pottery trade) and probably with the people of the Anatolian hinterland (Fig. 2.2 right). – In the LG period tree kinds of local pottery can be found in southern Aiolis: 1. Local painted LG A. Imitating the Ionian LG pottery painting style, but sometimes on local shapes. 2. Local painted LG B. Imitating the Ionian LG pottery and decorating the vases with a curious technique originated probably from the Anatolian hinterland which suddenly and surprisingly appeared in the region: intentional red (Fig. 2.2 right). 3. Local LG Grey Ware. Being still the main local pottery, this kind of pottery seems to borrow more shapes from the Greek painted pottery in the LG period than in the previous period, i.e. in the PG.

CONCLUSION It is obvious that the published and unpublished pottery discussed in this paper is far from sufficient to enable us to sketch a general picture of the area during the Dark Age (Fig. 2.1). Nevertheless, we are in a position to formulate some initial hypothesis and to put forward some suggestions. Future research and more detailed publication will help us to confirm their validity.

CATALOGUE115 1. Krater. Izmir Archaeological Museum (IzM) 20724. From the necropolis of Cyme (CN) in 2000. Covered by paraloid in the course of the restoration. Diam: 26.9 cm; H: 20.5 cm. Porous, very micaceous, with small stones, light grey (2.5Y 7/1) clay. Figs. 2.3, 1; 2.5, 1.

– In the PG period, the local and dominant pottery type was the Grey Ware – The Grey Ware in the PG period in southern Aeolis was not only continuing old traditions, but was also influenced by Troadian Grey Ware in the North and Greek painted pottery in the West.

2. Krater. Ege Universitesi, Department of Archaeology. From the so called Pelops’ Throne. Plp. 4x4 cm. Light reddish brown (5YR 6/3) fine clay. Outside: Concentric circles. Inside: Black glazed. Figs. 2.3, 2; 2.5, 2.

– All the painted PG pottery discovered in the area is probably imported.

3. Skyphos. Medelhavsmuseet (MM) Acc 983, 6. Larisa. Diam: 19 cm; pres. H: 6.6 cm. Kearsley 1989, 42 Cat. 107. Fig. 2.3, 3.

– It seems that there were some connections between the inhabitants of the region and Troadians, North Ionians, Euboeans, and Athenians (at least as regards pottery trade; Fig. 2.2 left).

4. Skyphos. Uppsala K5/UAS 1635. Larisa. Diam: 10.8 cm; H: 10.2 cm. Light brown, very fine, very micaceous clay. Dark brown glaze used for the decoration. Outside: glazed up to the beginning of the handles. Left unglazed under the handles. On the bottom of the body two double stripes. Around the foot a band. Inside: glazed116. Fig. 2.3, 4.

– There is no Greek painted pottery discovered in the area earlier than MPG. 109

Weinberg 1941, 37. Benton 1953, 279. 111 Coldstream 1968, 101, 106, pl. 19 k; Schaeffer 1997, 11. 112 Schaeffer 1997, 11. 113 Those birds are stiffer, more abstract, they have one or sometimes two legs and very short tails. 114 Coldstream 1968, 105. 110

115 I generally excluded already published material from the catalogue. I did, however, include some published pieces for which new information could be added. 116 According to the description by Dr. Hertel.

35

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

zigzag stripes. Inside: glazed. Erkanal-Öktü – İren 2004, 251 fig. 11. Figs. 2.4, 12; 2.6, 2.

5. Skyphos. Panaztepe Excavation House. From Böceliktepe in 2001. Lip fragment. Rest. H: 4.3 cm; rest. Diam: 22.5 cm. With some small micas mixed with some stones and calcareous particles, reddish yellow (7.5YR 7/6) clay. Roulette marks below the lip. Outside: Concentric circles. Inside: black glazed. Figs. 2.3, 5; 2.5, 3.

13. Kotyle. IzM 20711. CN 2000. Diam: 16 cm; preserved H: 8 cm. Body and handle sherds. Pale yellow (2.5Y 8/4) fine clay. Outside: On the panel between the handles rays and antithetic birds. The rest of the body covered with the stripes. Inside: black glazed. Fig. 2.4, 13.

6. Amphora. Istanbul Archaeological Museums (IsM) 8899. From the necropolis of Pitane (PN) in 1963. Gr.: K II-I1. Lacking the lip. Rest. H: 33.7 cm; Diam. of foot: 9.2 cm. With some small micas mixed with stones, very pale brown (2.5Y 7/2) clay. Painted with matt black glaze. The whole neck black. On the barred handle cross motif. On the shoulder tree concentric ¾ circles, in the centre hour-glass on both faces. A thick band and a zigzag line between the stripes below the shoulder. The rest of the vase painted black. Figs. 2.3, 6; 2.5, 4. 5.

14. a) Pyxis. IzM 20702. CN 2000. Diam: 16.5 cm; H: 10.3 cm. Double color in the clay. Exterior and the tondo somewhat micaceous very pale brown (10YR 8/4) clay with small stones. Inside: reddish yellow (5YR 7/6) slightly micaceous clay with pottery powder and sand. Outside: the rand of the lip and under the lip striped. Between the handles the rays and the butterfly motives. In the middle between two antithetic birds vertical zigzags. The rest of the body striped. Around the base black. In the inside of the lip over the yellow slip two black stripes. b) The lid of the previous pyxis (20702). IzM 20709. Diam: 17.4 cm; H: 5.2 cm. The same particularity for the clay. Outside: the rim of the lid yellow clay. On the lid thin circles. On the rim vertical zigzags. Fig. 2.4, 14.

7. Krater. IzM 20816. CN 2000. Diam: 28.5 cm; H: 30.9 cm. Very micaceous pale brown (10YR 6/3) clay. Lacking fragments completed by plaster. Figs. 2.3, 7; 2.5, 6. 8. Basin. IsM 8594. PN 1960. Gr.: G V-D. Diam: 31.5 cm; H: 18.5 cm. Under a cremation. The surface is still covered partly by salt117. One half of the vase and the base missing. Micaceous, with small stones very pale brown (2.5Y 8/2) clay. Outside: painted with black-dark red on the pale yellow (2.5Y 8/2) slip. Inside: black glazed. Figs. 2.3, 8; 2.4, 8; 2.6, 1.

15. Trefoil oinochoe. IsM 8421. PN 1960. Gr.: G III-C. Black glaze on very pale brown (10YR 8/4) slip. Outside: around the lip glazed. On the neck three vertical metopes. The metopes on the flanks with zigzag motives. In the middle lozenges. On the shoulder under the zigzag band five metopes on the flanks; first metopes zigzag motives; second metopes birds, in the middle metopes an unknown motive. Under the shoulder panel butterfly motives in the metopes. Under this a band. The rest of the body glazed. Under the base slipped. Diagonal bars on the handle. Inside: lip glazed and neck slipped. Figs. 2.4, 15; 2.6, 5. 6.

9. Bowl. IsM 8420. PN 1960 Gr.: G VIII-H. Diam: 14.5 cm; H: 8.3 cm. Very micaceous reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6) clay. By the mouth tree implicated attachment. Coated with very pale brown colour (10YR 8/4). On the lip groups of rays. In the plate stripes. Around and below the mouth stripes. On the body of the plate metopes. In the metopes zigzag motifs. Below the body stripes. Foot painted black. Figs. 2.4, 9; 2.5, 7. 10. Krater. École française d’Athènes. V. 67. Myrina. H: 37.6 cm; Diam: 34.3 cm. Reddish yellow (7.5 YR 7/6) porous clay with very little mica, small black sand and stone particles, violet and white stone particles, calcareous particles. Self slipped. Painted with red (10R 4/8-10YR 3/1) glaze. Maffre 1972, 38 cat. 86 figs. 25–27. Figs. 2.4, 10; 2.6, 3. 4.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation, Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi, the British School at Athens, and the American School of Classical Studies at Athens for their kind support while writing this paper. I wish to express my thanks also to J.N. Coldstream, M. Haysom, M. Krumme, I. Lemos, and W.-D. Niemeier who offered me invaluable advice and commentary throughout my research on the topic. I thank D. Hertel for his generosity to send me the pictures and drawings of the pottery from Larisa kept in Sweden. My special thanks go to my friends Ö. Berk, M. Milli, and Ç. Pala-Mull who have helped me in editing this paper. Pictures and drawings have been digitalized with the help of M. Gürbüzer. Credit for the French translation of the abstract text goes to Renate Heckendorf.

11. Krater. MM 21a-bLA750. Larisa. Diam: 37 cm; pres. H: 16.7 cm. İren 2003, 164 cat. 5. Fig. 2.4, 11. 12. Kotyle. Panaztepe Excavation House KK7003. Küçükkale 2002. Diam: 21.5 cm; H: 2.7 cm. A few flecks of mica, light red (2.5YR 6/8) clay. Outside: on the left vertical rays, on the right the beginning of the 117

Many graves were found below sea level during the excavations.

36

K. IREN: DARK AGE POTTERY FROM SOUTHERN AEOLIS

Fig. 2.3. Protogeometric (1–6) and Geometric (7. 8) pottery from southern Aeolis

37

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 2.4. Geometric (8–12. 15) and Protocorinthian (13. 14) pottery from southern Aeolis

38

K. IREN: DARK AGE POTTERY FROM SOUTHERN AEOLIS

Fig. 2.5. Protogeometric (1–5) and Geometric (6. 7) pottery from southern Aeolis; 1 = cat. 1; 2 = cat. 2; 3 = cat. 5; 4. 5 = cat. 6; 6 = cat. 7; 7 = cat. 9 39

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 2.6. Geometric pottery from southern Aeolis; 1 = cat. 8; 2 = cat. 12; 3. 4 = cat. 10; 5. 6 = cat. 15

40

K. IREN: DARK AGE POTTERY FROM SOUTHERN AEOLIS

Illustration credits

BOARDMAN, J. 1967, Excavations in Chios 1952–1955. Greek Emporio (London 1967).

Fig. 2.1: adapted from Google Earth satellite photograph by the author. – Figs. 2.2; 2.4, 10: drawings by the author. – Fig. 2.3, 1: drawing by K.D. Üresin. – Figs. 2.3, 2. 7; 2.4, 13. 14: drawings by D. Öztürk. – Figs. 2.3, 3. 4; 2.4, 11: drawings by D. Hertel. – Fig. 2.3, 5: drawing by U. Deniz. – Figs. 2.3, 6. 8; 2.4, 8. 9. 15: drawings by İ. Arı.– Fig. 2.4, 12: drawing by H. Bulut. – Figs. 2.5, 1. 3–7; 2.6: photographs by the author. – Fig. 2.5, 2: photograph by D. Öztürk

BOARDMAN, J., 1999, The Greeks Overseas. Their Early Colonies and Trade 4(London 1999). BOSSERT, E.-M., 2000, Boğazköy. Die Keramik der phrygischen Zeit (Mainz 2000). BOUZEK, J., 1974, Other Pottery, in: J. Bouzek (ed.), Anatolian Collection of Charles University, Kyme 1 (Praha 1974) 77–81. BOYSAL, Y., 1969, Katalog der Vasen im Museum in Bodrum I. Mykenisch – Protogeometrisch, Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Yayımları 190 (Ankara 1969).

References AKURGAL, E., 1960, Kyme Sondajları. Anatolia 1, 1956, 40–42.

COLDSTREAM, J.N., 2003, Geometric Greece 900–700 BC 2(London 2003).

AKURGAL, E., 1960, 5-Ergili ve Çandarlı (Pitane) kazıları, Belleten 24, 1960, 712–713.

DESBOROUGH, V.R.D’A., Pottery (Oxford 1952).

AKURGAL, E., 1961, Die Kunst Anatoliens. Von Homer bis Alexander (Berlin 1961).

DESBOROUGH, V.R.D’A., 1980, The Dark Age Pottery (SM–SPG III) from settlement and cemeteries, in: M.R. Popham, L.H. Sackett, P.G. Themelis (eds.), Lefkandi I. The Iron Age, BSA Suppl. 11 (Oxford 1980) 281–354.

AKURGAL, E., 1962, 7-Çandarlı Kazıları, Belleten 26, 1962, 624–625. AKURGAL, E., 1963, 10-Çandarlı Kazıları, Belleten 27, 1963, 544.

1952,

DREXEL, F., 1915, Über den Gundestrup, JdI 30, 1915, 1–36.

AKURGAL, E., 1965, 1964 Çandarlı Kazılar, Belleten 29, 1965, 560–561.

Protogeometric

Silberkessel

von

EILMANN, R., 1933, Frühe griechische Keramik im samischen Heraion, AM 58, 1933, 47–145.

AKURGAL, E., 1967, Çandarlı kazıları (Özet), in: VI. Türk Tarih Kurumu Kongresi (Ankara 1967) 41–42.

ERKANAL-ÖKTÜ, A., A. AKALIN, K. İREN, C. LICHTER, 2003, 2001 yılı Kuzey İzmir, Menemen Ovasında Yüzey Araştırması, AST 20, fasc. 1, 2003, 301–314

AKURGAL, E., 1983, Eski İzmir I. Yerleşme katları ve Athena tapınağı, Türk Tarih Kurumu yayınları 40 (Ankara 1983).

ERKANAL-ÖKTÜ, A., K. İREN, 2004, 2002 yılı Güney Aiolis Yüzey Araştırması, AST 21, fasc. 2, 2004, 245–252.

AKURGAL, M., M. KERSCHNER, H. MOMMSEN, W.-D. NIEMEIER, 2002, Töpferzentren der Ostägäis. Archäometrische und archäologische Untersuchungen zur mykenischen, geometrischen und archaischen Keramik aus Fundorten in Westkleinasien, ÖJh Ergänzungshefte 3 (Wien 2002).

ERKANAL-ÖKTÜ, A., K. İREN, 2005, 2003 yılı Güney Aiolis Yüzey Araştırması, AST 22, fasc. 1, 2005, 259–270. ERSOY, Y.E., 2004, Klazomenai 900–500 BC. History and Settlement Evidence, in: A. Moustaka, E. Skarlatidou, M.C. Tzannes, Y. Ersoy (eds.), Klazomenai, Teos and Abdera. Metropoleis and Colony. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Archaeological Museum of Abdera, 20–21 October 2001 (Tessaloniki 2004) 43–76.

ARACHOBITI, P., 1994, Θολωτως Προτογεωμετρικος Ταφος στην Περιοχη των Φερων, in: La Thessalie. Actes du colloque international, Lyon 17–22 avril 1990 (Athènes 1994) 125–138. BAYBURTLUOĞLU, C., 1967, Foça, Ergili ve Çandarlı’da meydana çıkan VII. ve VI. Asır keramik eserleri (Özet), in: VI. Türk Tarih Kurumu Kongresi (Ankara 1967) 33–34.

FRASCA, M., 1993, Osservazioni prelimininari sulla ceramica protoarcaica ed arcaica di Kyme, CronA 32, 1993, 51–70.

BAYNE, N., 2000, The Grey Wares of North-West Anatolia. In the Middle and Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age and their Relation to the Early Greek Settlements. With an addendum by D. Hertel and A. Schachner, AMS 27 (Bonn 2000). BENTON, S., 1953, Further Excavations at Aeotos, BSA 48, 1953, 255–358.

FRASCA, M., 1998, Ceramiche greche d’importazione a Kyme eolica, in M. Bats, B. d’Agustino (eds.), Euboica. L’Eubea e la presenza euboica in Calcidica e in Occidente. Atti del convegno internazionale di Napoli 13–16 novembre 1996 (Napoli 1998) 273– 279.

BLINKENBERG, Ch., K. FRIIS JOHANSEN 1929, Copenhague. Musée National – Collection des Antiquités Classique, CVA Danemark 2 (Paris 1929).

von GRAEVE, V., 1974, Milet. Bericht über die Arbeiten im Südschnitt an der hellenistischen Stadtmauer 1963, IstMitt 23/24, 1974, 63–115. 41

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

MAZARAKIS-AINIAN, A., 1998, Oropos in the Early Iron Age, in: M. Bats, B. d’Agustino (eds.), Euboica. L’Eubea e la presenza euboica in Calcidica e in Occidente. Atti del convegno internazionale di Napoli, 13–16 novembre 1996 (Napoli 1998) 179–215.

GÜNEL, S., 1999, Panaztepe II, Türk Tarih Kurumu yayınları, Seri 6, 51 (Ankara 1999). GÜRTEKIN-DEMIR, G., 2002, Lydian Painted Pottery, AnatSt 52, 2002, 111–143 HANFMANN, G.M.A., 1948, Archaeology in Homeric Asia Minor, AJA 52, 1948, 135–155.

MITCHELL, S., 1989/90, Archaeology in Asia Minor 1985–1989, AR 1989/90, 83–131.

HOMMEL, P., 1960, Der Abschnitt östlich des Athenatempels, IstMitt 9/10, 1959/60, 31–62.

MOUNTJOY, P.A., 1999, Troia VII Reconsidered, StTroica 9, 1999, 295–346.

HOMMEL, P., 1967, Die Nekropole, in: G. Kleiner, P. Hommel, W. Müller-Wiener, Panionion und Melie, JdI Ergänzungsheft 23 (Berlin 1967) 161–167.

ÖZGÜNEL, C., 2003, Geometrische Keramik von AltSmyrna aus der Akurgal-Grabung, in: B. Rückert, F. Kolb (eds.), Probleme der Keramikchronologie des südlichen und westlichen Kleinasiens in geometrischer und archaischer Zeit. Internationales Kolloquium, Tübingen 24.3.–26.3.1998 (Bonn 2003) 69– 89.

İREN, K., 2003, Aiolische orientalisierende Keramik (İstanbul 2003).

JOLIVET, V., R. ROBERT, 2003, Le sondage 1K, in: J. de la Geniere, V. Jolivet (eds.), L’aire de sacrifice, Cahiers de Claros 2 (Paris 2003) 99–163.

ÖZGÜNEL, C., 2006, Karia Geometrik Seramiği, Arkeoloji ve eskiçağ tarihi 42 (İstanbul 2006).

KEARSLEY, R., 1989, The Pendent Semi-Circle Skyphos. A Study of its Development and Chronology and an Examination of its Evidence for Euboean Activity at Al Mina, BICS Supplement 44 (London 1989).

ÖZTÜRK, D., 1997, Manisa (Spil) Dağı Yüzey Araştırması (MA thesis Ege Üniversitesi, İzmir 1997). PEHLIVANER, M., M.F. ÖZÇATAL, 1995, Yazılıkaya ve Han’da kazı ve temizlik çalışmaları, Müze Kurtama Kazıları Semineri 5, 1995, 67–91.

KERSCHNER, M., 2002, Die nicht lokalisierten chemischen Gruppen B/C, E, F, G und ihr Aussagewert für die spätgeometrische und archaische Keramik des nördlichen Ioniens und der Äolis, in: M. Akurgal, M. Kerschner, H. Mommsen, W.-D. Niemeier, 2002: Töpferzentren der Ostägäis. Archäometrische und archäologische Untersuchungen zur mykenischen, geometrischen und archaischen Keramik aus Fundorten in Westkleinasien, ÖJh Ergänzungshefte 3 (Wien 2002) 72–92.

POLAT, Y., 2002, Daskyleion’da MÖ. 8.–5. yüzyıllar Arasında Gri Seramik (MA thesis Ege Üniversitesi, İzmir 2002). POPHAM, M.R., I.S. LEMOS, 1996, Lefkandi III. The Toumba Cemetery. The Excavations of 1981, 1984, 1986 and 1992–4, BSA Suppl. 29 (Oxford 1996). ROCCHETTI, L., 1975, La ceramica dell’abitato geometrico di Festos a Occidente del Palazzo Minoico, ASAtene 52/53, 1974/75, 247–300.

KERSCHNER, M., 2003, Zum Kult im früheisenzeitlichen Ephesos, in: B. Schmatz, M. Söldner (eds.), Griechische Keramik im kulturellen Kontext. Akten des Internationalen Vasen-Symposiums in Kiel vom 24.–28.9.2001 (Münster 2003) 246–250.

SAMS, G.K., 1993, The Gordion Excavations 1950– 1973. Final Reports IV. Early Phrygian Pottery (Philadelphia 1993). SCHÄFER, J., 1974, Zur Topographie von Kyme, in: J. Bouzek (ed.), Anatolian Collection of Charles University, Kyme 1 (Praha 1974) 207–214.

KLEINE, J., 1979, Milet. Bericht über die Arbeiten im Südschnitt an der hellenistischer Zeit, IstMitt 29, 1979, 109–159.

KRAIKER, W., K. KÜBLER, 1939, Die Nekropolen des 12. bis 10. Jahrhunderts, Kerameikos 1 (Berlin 1939).

SCHAEFFER, S.S., 1997, The Corinthian Pottery, in: J.S. Schaeffer, N.H. Ramage, C.H. Greenewalt, The Corinthian, Attic, and Lakonian Pottery from Sardis, Archaeological Exploration of Sardis Monograph 10 (London 1997) 1–62.

KÜBLER, K., 1943, Neufunde aus der Nekropole des 11. und 10. Jahrhunderts, Kerameikos 4 (Berlin 1943)

SCHEFOLD, K., 1942, Larisa am Hermos III. Die Kleinfunde (Berlin 1942).

LANGDON, S., 1995, The Pottery of the Early Iron Age and Geometric Periods, in: C. Runnels, D.J. Pullen, S. Langdon (eds.), Artifact and Assemblage (Stanford 1995) 57–73.

SCHIERING, W., 1979, Milet. Eine Weiterung der Grabung östlich des Athenatempels, IstMitt 29, 1979, 77–108.

KOPPENHÖFER, D., 1997, Troia VII, StTroica 7, 1997, 293–353.

SCHWEITZER, B., 1971, Greek Geometric Art (London 1971).

LEMOS, I.S., 2002, The Protogeometric Aegean. The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries BC (Oxford 2002).

SIPSIE-ESCHBACH, M., 1991, Protogeometrische Keramik aus Iolkos in Thessalien, PAS 8 (Berlin 1991).

MAFFRE, J.-J., 1972, Collection de l’école française d’Athènes III. Céramique, BCH 96, 1972, 21–72.

THEMELIS, P., 1984, Two Protogeometric Vases from Malakonda near Eretria, AAA 17, 1984, 115–117.

42

K. IREN: DARK AGE POTTERY FROM SOUTHERN AEOLIS

UÇANKUŞ, H.T., 1981, Kyme Kurtarma Kazısı 1979, KST 2, 1981, 139–149.

WALTER-KARYDI, E., 1982, Ostgriechische Keramik, in: H. Walter (ed.), Alt-Ägina II,1 (Mainz 1982) 9–18.

VERDIS, N.M., 1958, Ο πρωτογεωμετρικός ρυθμός της Θεσσαλίας (Αθήνα 1958).

WEICKERT, C., 1957, Die Ausgrabung am AthenaTempel in Milet 1955, IstMitt 7, 1957, 102–145.

VILLING, A., 1999, Zwei archaische Schüsselformen in Milet, AA 1999, 189–202.

WEINBERG, S.S., 1941, What is Protocorinthian Geometric Ware?, AJA 45, 1941, 30–44.

WALTER, H., 1968, Frühe samische Gefäße. Chronologie und Landschaftsstile ostgriechischer Gefäße, Samos 5 (Bonn 1968).

WELLS, B., 1983, Asine II, fasc. 4. Results of the Excavations East of the Acropolis 1970–1974. The Protogeometric Period 3. Catalogue of Pottery and Other Artifacts (Stockholm1983).

43

THE BEGINNING OF THE IRON AGE IN THRACE: ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE AND QUESTIONS OF CHRONOLOGY Elena BOZHINOVA Sofia University, Bul. Tzar Osvoboditel 15, Sofia 1504, Bulgaria, e-mail: [email protected] Abstract: This paper presents an overview of recently excavated sites and monuments from the first phase of the Early Iron Age in Bulgaria. Research carried out during the last decades indicates that, except for the necropoles of the Western Rhodopes region, a specific category of sites, interpreted as sanctuaries, provides the only stratigraphic sequences that cover the period between the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age. During this period, the spread of channelled ware can be observed in most of Thrace, marking the final stage of the Late Bronze Age, followed by the adoption of stamped pottery displaying a geometric decoration style. The significant number and typological variation of iron artefacts in the period from the 11th–9th century BC point towards communications with Greece and Anatolia. The chronological framework of this period is built on some isolated 14C samples from Late Bronze Age sites and a few Aegean imports of LH III style. Much of this chronological framework then depends on the chronological sequences established at sites such as Troy, Thassos, Assiros and Kastanas. Keywords: Early Iron Age, Thrace, chronology Résumé: L’article présente un aperçu général des monuments et des sites de la première phase de l’âge du Fer ancien récemment, fouillés en Bulgarie. Les recherches effectuées au cours des dernières décennies ont montré que – à l’exception des nécropoles de la région des Rhodopes Occidentales – des sites d’un type particulier, interprétés comme sanctuaires, donnent les seules séquences stratigraphiques qui couvrent la période entre l’âge du Bronze récent et l’âge du Fer ancien. Pendant cette période, on note, dans la majeure partie de la Thrace, la diffusion de la céramique cannelée qui marque l’étape finale de l’âge du Bronze récent, et, par la suite, l’adoption de la céramique décorée par estampage dans un style géométrique. Pendant la période du 11e au 9e siècle av. J.-C., non seulement le nombre important, mais aussi la diversité typologique des artefacts de fer indiquent des contacts avec la Grèce et l’Anatolie. Le cadre chronologique de cette période est fondé sur quelques échantillons isolés de 14C en provenance de sites de l’âge du Bronze récent, ainsi que sur un faible nombre d’importations égéennes de style Helladique Récent III. Ce cadre chronologique dépend alors en grande partie des séquences chronologiques établies dans les sites comme Troie, Thasos, Assos, Kastanas. Mots clé: âge du Fer ancien, Thrace, chronologie Abriss: Dieser Beitrag gibt einen Überblick über neue Ausgrabungsergebnisse zum Beginn der frühen Eisenzeit in Bulgarien. Die Forschungen der letzten Jahrzehnte machen deutlich, daß – mit Ausnahme der Gräberfelder aus den westlichen Rhodopen – Stratigraphien für den Zeitraum zwischen später Bronze- und früher Eisenzeit hier nur von einigen als Heiligtümern gedeuteten Fundstellen vorliegen. In diesem Zeitraum läßt sich in den meisten Teilen Thrakiens die Ausbreitung der kannelierten Keramik beobachten, die als charakteristisch für das Ende der späten Bronzezeit gelten kann und welche in der Folge durch stempelverzierte Keramik mit einem geometrischen Verzierungsstil abgelöst wird. Die beträchtliche Zahl sowie die typologische Bandbreite der Eisengegenstände aus dem Zeitraum vom 11.–9. Jh. v. Chr. deuten auf Kontakte mit Griechenland und Anatolien. Die chronologische Verankerung dieser historischen Prozesse beruht auf einzelnen 14C Daten von spätbronzezeitlichen Fundstellen sowie auf einigen ägäischen SH III Importen. Ein großer Teil des betreffenden chronologischen Rahmens hängt somit an der zeitlichen Abfolge, die an Fundstellen wie Troia, Assiros und Kastanas erarbeitet wurde. Schlüsselwörter: Früheisenzeit, Thrakien, Chronologie

na6 and Semercheto7 in the Rhodope and Sakar Mountains, pit complexes in Polski Gradetz8 and Simeonovgrad9 in the Maritza valley and a settlement with a pit complex in Koprivlen in the Mesta valley10. The interpretation of both types of sites is disputable. In the Bulgarian archaeology of recent decades they are traditionally interpreted as sanctuaries, but from houses excavated at three of the so-called peak sanctuaries over the last years

After the first general publications on the Early Iron Age (EIA) culture in Thrace in 1968, in form of two articles by D.P. Dimitrov1 and M. Chichikova2, comparing the pottery from Thrace with those of Troia and Central Europe respectively, and the fundamental monograph of B. Hänsel on culture development and its chronological definition3, a lot of research has been done in Bulgaria – both excavation work and more general studies. Some of the most important sites excavated recently that present Late Bronze Age (LBA) and EIA materials are the settlements/sanctuaries of Ada tepe4, Kush kaya5, Dragoy1 2 3

6

Excavations from 2004–2006, directed by K. Kisiov and E. Bozhinova. – Published in preliminary reports; see: Кисьов – Божинова 2005; Кисьов – Божинова 2006. 7 Excavations from 1997–2006, directed by K. Leshtakov and B. Borislavov; see: Бориславов 1999, 83–86; Leshtakov 2002, 37 figs. 17– 24; Лещаков 2006, 201–202. 8 Excavations from 1995–2004, directed by K. Nikov. – Published as a preliminary report; see: Ников 2003. 9 Excavations in 2005, directed by Y. Boyadzhiev. – Materials of the EIA are published by A. Andonova in: Бояджиев и кол. forthcoming. 10 Вълчева 2002.

Димитров 1968. Чичикова 1968.

Hänsel 1976. Excavations in 2001, 2002 and 2005, directed by G. Nezhrizov; see: Нехризов 2005а, 169–228 pls. 1–19. 5 Excavations in 2005 and 2006, directed by H. Popov and S. Iliev. – Published in a preliminary report; see: Попов – Илиев 2005a. 4

45

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

arise questions of their actual function, which is obviously more complex, combining both settlement and religious functions. New data about the burial rites of the initial phase of the Iron Age became available after the publication of the Sborianovo necropolis11, the excavations of single tumuli12 and dolmens in South Bulgaria13 and occasional finds from North Bulgaria. Problems concerning the LBA and the EIA were the focus of several PhD theses14, one of which particularly focused on the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age15.

are encountered. Defensive enclosures, central buildings or squares, temples are lacking. After the 9th century BC some of the sites were inhabited for longer periods of time and the settlement area is enlarged. The density of the settlements differs according to region, but research is not conducted with the same degree of intensity all over the country. For the region to the west of the Struma valley, evidence for sites of the Early Iron Age is almost completely lacking, despite long-term investigations17. A contrary situation is encountered further to the East. The mountains of the Western Rhodopes show an increase in population during the EIA, especially after the 9th century BC18. A similar trend can be identified in the regions of the Eastern Rhodopes, Sakar and Strandzha Mountains19 and in Aegean (Turkish) Thrace20. North of the Central Balkan the settlement pattern of that period is still insufficiently investigated.

Despite all this research, the problems of chronology and periodization of the EIA in Thrace remain unsolved, the main reasons being the lack of any stratified materials and the availability of only a few comparable complexes. Based on the presently available evidence, several chronological schemes have been proposed16. The rejection of the Central European chronology for most of Thrace as not appropriate for the materials from Bulgaria, and the adoption of the Aegean chronology as much more reliable can be identified as a general trend. Most significant are the chronological schemes developed by B. Hänsel and D. Gergova, examining in regional detail pottery assemblages and adornments. The date attributed to the beginning of the Iron Age varies depending on the absolute dates proposed for the Central European or Aegean chronology accepted by the respective author. It is widely accepted to place the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age in the 11th century BC, and the end of the first phase of the EIA in the second half of the 9th century BC. This phase is comparable with the period of the Dark Age in the Eastern Mediterranean. At that time iron technology is introduced to Thrace. The revival of the bronze industry after the middle of the 9th century BC marks the end of this transitional phase.

In the general picture of scattered and short-lived settlements, the only stratified sites that present uninterrupted occupation from the LBA to the Late Iron Age (LIA) are those situated on high rocky peaks, all found south of the Central Balkan21. The layers, chronologically defined as LBA and EIA, are thin, and there are almost no structures. Early Aegean imports of LH III date identify some of these sites as at least regional centres during the LBA. Although imported materials are lacking from the following period, they probably continue to function as regional centres and provide evidence for the continuity between these two periods. Evidence for metallurgical activity at some of them could explain their long-term occupation and importance in the IA (Iron Age)22. While settlements do not provide us with a clear enough picture to define regional traits, there are specific regional burial practices23. In northwest Bulgaria the tradition of cremation burials in flat cemeteries, close to river banks, continues from the previous period – a ritual typical for the preceding Incrusted Pottery Culture of the Lower Danube, which is part of the Central European “Urnen-

Most of the investigators identify a gradual transition from the Bronze to the Iron Age. There is no certain data for any distinct migration or change of the population at that time. The settlement pattern keeps the characteristics of the previous period, although stratified sites with LBA and EIA layers are missing in the plain. The settlements are quite short-lived, often situated at naturally protected sites, as well as close to small water reservoirs. Houses are single units, built in wattle-and-daub construction, rectangular in plan, 4 to 8 m long, and equipped with a fire place. Around them, abundant pits and animals bones

17 18

Гергова 2001, 73. Кисьов 1988b 57–60.

19 For the Strandzha and Sakar mountains the settlement system is reconstructed mainly from the distribution of the dolmens, as settlements of the periods under consideration are extremely rare; see: Делев 1982, 42. – Although a general study on the settlement pattern for the Eastern Rhodopes region is still lacking, the number of registered and published sites of EIA date is much larger than the number of sited dated to the LBA. 20 Özdoğan 1998, 33. 21 Ada tepe, Dragoyna, Kush kaya, Semercheto, Tzrancha, Plazishte, Plovdiv-Nebet tepe and Vishegrad-Harmankaya are the only excavated sites that have produced materials of both LBA and EIA date. Most of these sites are published only in preliminary reports, which greatly impedes their study and comparison. – For Dragoyna see: note 6. – For Kush kaya: note 5. – For Semercheto: note 7. – For Tzrancha: Домарадски 1986, 60–64; Домарадски 1999. – For Plazishte: Георгиева 1985. – For Vishegrad-Harmankaya: Ц. ДремсизоваНелчинова 1954. 22 Попов – Илиев 2005b. 23 A general review of the burial practices during the LBA and the early phase of the EIA in Thrace is presented in: Stoyanov 1997, 111–129.

11

Stoyanov 1997. Гоцев – Нехризов 2001. 13 Dolmens in the villages of Glavan (Георгиева 1995), Zabernovo (Агре 2003), Evrenozovo (Агре 2004), Belevren (Агре 2005) and Oriahovo (Нехризов 2005b). 14 For the contacts of southern Thrace with the Aegean world, as demonstrated by the pottery evidence see: Ников 2000. – For a presentation of the cultural development in the Northwestern Black Sea during the period of the first Greek colonization: Дамянов 2004.– For the EIA pottery in the Eastern Rhodopes: Нехризов 2005. For a presentation of the archaeological situation in Aegean Thrace during the 8th–7th centuries BC: Илиева 2005. 15 Бориславов 1999. 16 Čičikova 1971, 79 f.; Hänsel 1976; Гергова 1977, 10–12; Гергова 1986, 12; Tončeva 1980, 122–136. 12

46

E. BOZHINOVA: THE BEGINNING OF THE IRON AGE IN THRACE: ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE AND QUESTIONS OF CHRONOLOGY

felderkultur”24. The number of graves in a cemetery now decreases. This tradition remains dominant throughout the whole of the EIA here, although single cases of inhumation under tumuli can be dated to the period of the 9th–8th century BC25 and mark a novelty in the burial practice, characterizing the beginning of the second phase of the EIA.

With the early adoption of a cremation ritual in the LBA, which then is replaced abruptly by inhumation burials with the beginning of the EIA, the Western Rhodopes show a unique evolution in burial practices. After the 9th century BC, cremation returns in use alongside inhumation30. The cemeteries of the Bronze Age continue to be used throughout the Iron Age and together with the mountain peak sites provide the only stratigraphical evidence for these periods. Imported pottery dated to the LBA and other artefacts found as grave goods in complexes from the second phase of the EIA demonstrate this region to have been in close contact with Macedonia31. Their lack in graves from the early phase of the EIA could be due to a restriction of contacts and/or the scarcity of precious objects during that period.

In all other regions of Bulgaria, covering the burials with tumuli became a common practice, known from the LBA only in the Western Rhodopes. In north-eastern Bulgaria, as well as in the Maritza and Tundja valleys of southern Bulgaria and in Aegean Thrace in Turkey, inhumation continues to be the normal burial practice, as it was in the LBA. Now the crouched position of the body is to left and only the arms remain in a bent position – a trend followed also in the Noua culture of the Moldavian LBA26 and in the Western Rhodopes in the South. The tumulus now became the place of a family cemetery. In the Maritza and Tundja valleys, tumuli of the Early Bronze Age (EBA) had been re-used as family cemeteries since the LBA. Also in the Maritza and Tundja valleys, most other elements characteristic for EIA burial practices can be observed already during the LBA – double burials, the practice of cremation alongside inhumation, the type of the grave goods and their location in the grave27. A concentration of warrior graves under small tumuli from the first phase of the EIA can be observed in the northcentral and north-eastern parts of Bulgaria, mostly equipped with swords of Naue II type – made either of bronze or of iron – and knobbed ware28. Three urn graves from the Maritza valley, found close to the river banks with pottery assemblages of an early date29 point towards influence from the North-west, probably to be interpreted as migration, obviously quite limited in range.

In the region of the Eastern Rhodopes, Sakar and Strandja Mountains, the practice of burying the deceased in dolmens covered with tumuli or in rock-cut tombs became popular for the first time in the Iron Age32. Some data from the Eastern Rhodopes suggest that its origin dated from the Late Bronze Age33. The use of the megalithic grave structures continues throughout the whole EIA, and reuse in later times has been documented on frequent occasions. The developed structures of the dolmens with chamber, often ante-chamber or/and second chamber, dromos and a facade are explained with complicated burial rituals involving multiple use of the grave by one family. The bones from the previous burials are set aside or – in some cases – placed in a second chamber/dolmen, to make place for the last burial. Grave goods are usually placed in front of the facade. Inhumation here is the prevailing ritual; cremation is also observed but remains an exception.

24

The single-find character of most of the iron artefacts excludes their use as primary evidence for the beginning of the Iron Age. However, the increasing number of artefacts during the 10th–9th centuries BC shows Thrace to have entered the circle of the Aegean regions with early adoption of iron at this time. Now the Naue II swords (“Griffzungenschwerter”), made of bronze during the previous period, with suggested local workshops for their

Shalganova 1995. Агре 1983; Агре 1984. 26 Sava 2002. 27 The tumuli at the sites of Goliama Detelina, Malka Detelina (Кънчев 1991) and Nova Zagora (Кънчев – Кънчева 1990) are an example of a family cemetery with burial rituals, of which most components can be seen in the EIA necropolis of Sborianovo in north-eastern Bulgaria, dating to the 10th–9th centuries BC (Stoyanov 1997), and the necropoles of Dolno Sahrane (Гетов 1963) and Yasenovo (Китов – Божинова 1995)in the Thracian valley to the South, dating to the 8th–7th centuries BC. – A comprehensive general overview of the necropoles of LBA and EIA in the Maritza and Tundzha valley with an analysis of the burial rites during these periods is presented in: Бориславов 1999; Nikov 2001, 69 f. 28 Tumuli graves from Hlevene (Валентинова 2006), Troyan-Tourlata (Тотевски 1991, 4 f.), Alexandrovo (Попов 1928/29, 281 fig. 138) and Devetaki (unpublished) in the central part of North Bulgaria (EIA sites and monument from this region have recently been published in: Валентинова 2003) and thumulus 1 from the Sborianovo necropolis (Stoyanov 1997, 13–20), Topchii (Tončeva 1980, 49. 52 f.) and Krivnia (Гоцев – Нехризов 2001). 29 The graves close to the villages of Manole and Gabarevo (Hänsel 1976, 116 pls. 13, 4–5; 69, 5) are explained as a penetration from the Carpatho-Danubian Basin (Gergova 1989, 234). The new finds from Popovo are also dated to the EIA (Гоцев 2006). A channeled jar, found close to the urn from Popovo, with a precise groove technique, which continues below the handle and a cut furrow on the front part of the rim, suggests a date in the Early Bronze Age and puts the proposed EIA date of the grave under question. 25

30

The burial rites of the LBA and of the Iron Age in the Western Rhodopes are object of investigation by K. Kisiov and subject of his Ph.d. dissertation (Кисьов 1993b). Analysis of the general trends in the burial practices from part of the excavated sites are published in: Кисьов 1985; Кисьов 1988a; Кисьов 1990; Кисьов 1991; Кисьов 1994; Kissyov 1998. 31 Imports are the labrys from the tumuli in Yagodina (Кисьов 1988a, 24–26 figs. 5. 6), an arrow-coin from Smilian and a scarab from Liubcha (Кисьов 1988b, 64 fig. 16), found as a part of an amber necklace in a tumulus burial (Кисьов 1988b, 64 fig. 18). 32 For a comprehensive study of the dolmens in Thrace see: Мегалитите в Тракия 1976; Delev 1984. – For recent excavations of dolmens with materials referred to the first phase of the EIA see note 13. 33 Нехризов – Миков 2002, 77. – LBA pottery was found in cist graves under small tumuli whose structure is similar to the dolmens. The lack of excavated graves dated to the LBA in this region supports the suggestion that the dolmens were probably used for burials also during this period.

47

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

production, are being made of iron34. The same trend is seen with other types of artefacts, e.g. the double axes (or labris)35. Trunnion axes appear at that time, exclusively made of iron36. Few finds of iron spearheads can be dated to the early phase of the EIA37. The casual character of most findings puts the early dates under question. One of the iron swords comes from a clear 8th century BC context – a warrior grave38. The distribution of all these artefacts points to the Western Rhodopes and Eastern Thrace as pioneer areas in iron working. This is confirmed by the distribution of iron fibulae types, dated no later than the 9th century BC39. North-western Bulgaria remains under the influence of the Carpathian culture, as the adoption of iron here only occurs at least a century later. One find of 18 iron tools and weapons, including seven trunnion axes, four spearheads, four sickles, one saw, a small chisel, and

a bridle, is a strange exception, and its composition is questionable40. An interesting observation here is the appearance of iron or bi-metal fibulae only with types dated to the 8th century BC41. The second half of the 9th century BC marks the widespread reappearance of bronze artefacts, mainly adornments, showing a pronounced regional diversity. Now the Western Rhodopes show contacts with western Macedonia, while south-eastern Thrace seems to have closer links to Anatolia and the northern Aegean, and north-eastern Thrace shows connections with Moldavia. Northwest Bulgaria shares similar fashions with the Western Balkans and the Carpathian region. At the same time contacts with Greece are renewed, and some of the artefacts even suggest Caucasian influence42. Here, in the 8th century BC, metal vessels for the first time after the Bronze Age appear in hoards – two golden cups and the main part of a bronze cauldron, all showing Aegean and Anatolian influence43. While for the golden vessels a local production is suggested, the cauldron is clearly an import.

34 Thirteen iron swords are known from the territory of Bulgaria. – The respective finds from north-eastern Bulgaria are from Topchii (Tonceva 1980, 49 f. pl. 19, 3) and Popovo (Попов 1928/29, 289 fig. 156); those from north-central Bulgaria are from Troyan-Tourlata – two swords (Тотевски 1991, 4 f.), Alexandrovo (Попов 1928/29, 281 fig. 138), Barkach (Лазарова 1987, 11) and Hlebene (Валентинова 2006, fig. 1); those from southern Bulgaria are from Borino (Кисьов 1991, 1 f. fig. 2), Omarchevo (Чичикова 1974, 20 fig. 1а), Mogilica (Taylor 1989, 78), Haskovo (Петров 2006, 193), Trigrad (Delchev et al. 2005, 2. 31) and Novo selo (Кисьов 2004, 12 pl. 3, 1). A grave find from Devetaki present a small bronze sword with iron rivets (Historical Museum Lovech, unpublished; pers. com. Ms. Maia Valentinova). – The origin and development of the Naue II type swords are discussed in: Hansel 1970; Panayotov 1980; Бочев 1978. 35 Doubleheaded iron axes are known from Obrochishte, Markovo, Pet mogili (Атанасов 1995, 53 обр. 51–52), all in north-eastern Bulgaria, and one find from Aida, in the Eastern Rhodopes (Historical Museum Haskovo, unpublished; I would like to thank Mr. Irko Petrov for the information). 36 Fourteen trunnion axes have been found in Bulgaria – Finds from north-eastern Bulgaria include three pieces from Obrochishte (Атанасов 1995, 50 cat. 43. 44) and two pieces from Markovo (Атанасов 1995, 51 cat. 45. 46); from south-eastern Bulgaria one piece each is known from Omarchevo (Чичикова 1974, 20 fig. 1 а), Ada tepe (Нехризов 2003, 68), Semercheto (see note 7, excavations in 2004) and Svilengrad (Нехризов 2006, 414 f. pl. 40, 17); in north-western Bulgaria, five pieces are known from Krivodol (Николов 1970, 51 f. fig. 1). – The origin of the trunnion axes in Thrace is discussed in: Стоянов 2000; in the context of the early contacts with Anatolia and the Near East. 37 The finds from Sborianovo (Stoyanov 1997), Topchii (Tončeva 1980, 53 pl. 19, 2) and Krivnia (Гоцев – Нехризов 2001) in north-eastern Bulgaria and from Borino (Кисьов 1991, 2 fig. 6) in the Western Rhodopes, all found in graves dated to the 10th century BC. 38 Кисьов 2004, 12 pl. 3, 1. 39 Fifteen finds of iron fibulae with two spirals and a high catch-plate – type BII1α–γ according to the classification of D. Gergova (Gergova 1987) and dated to the 10th–9th centuries BC (Gergova 1987, 36–38; Stoyanov 1997, 74–80) – have been published as found in Bulgaria. – Ten of these are from southern Bulgaria: Hliabovo, Bogdanica, Sliven region, Progled, Gela (Gergova 1987, 38 pl. 8), Yagodina, Chepelare and Borino (Кисьов 1988a, 26 fig. 11; Кисьов 1991, 4. 6 figs. 10. 11. 16); and four from Sborianovo are from north-eastern Bulgaria (Stoyanov 1997, 74–80 pl. 28). – Iron fibulae of a similar type but with rectangular catch-plate – type IIB1α according to D. Gergova’s classification – are dated to the beginning of the 8th century BC (Gergova 1987, 44–47), while an earlier variant is dated to the 10th–9th centuries BC (Stoyanov 1997, 80). – Seven fibulae of this type were published, all found in southern Bulgaria; the individual finds are from: Gela, Lakavitza, Pavelsko and Skobelevo (Gergova 1987, 44 pl. 13). – Ten of all these fibulae show bronze incrustation. – Two other partly preserved iron fibulae belong to one of these two types: one from Lisi vrah, Shoumen district (Historical Museum Shoumen, Inv. no. 13578) and one from Gradina, Plovdiv district (unpublished).

Development of the pottery confirms regional group and period definitions, based on the distribution of metal artefacts and the characteristics of specific burial practices. In general, the EIA repertoire continues the pottery categories known from the LBA. The shapes of the most popular fine vessel types – amphora-like vessels and kantharoi – change under the influence of the pottery spectrum from the Carpathian region. The new style in shapes develops at the very beginning of the IA and then remains conservative for the entire EIA. The decoration system also is new. As an interregional phenomenon, the spread of channelled ware marks the final stage of the Late Bronze Age in most of Thrace, first appearing in the final stages of the Incrusted Pottery Culture on the Lower Danube during Ha A1. During the following Ha A2 period, there it became the only decoration, and for a short period it probably was the only decoration in all regions situated north of the Central Balkan44. At nearly the same time the channelled ware gains popularity in southern Thrace, where it is well documented in the first layers with PG pottery at sites as far south as Kastanas45 and Assiros46. Similarly, in Thassos channelled pottery first appears in the IIB1 period and has no connection 40 The find is published in: Николов 1970. – A more recent view on its chronology and composition is found in: Стоянов 2000, 51 note 15. 41 The fibulae from Darzhanica, Carevec and Nove, all of type BII1γ (Gergova 1987, 45 f. pl. 14). 42 Гергова 1977; Gergova 1980; Gergova 1987. 43 The treasures from Sofia-Kazichane (Станчева 1973) and Belene (Лазарова 1993). – Another golden vessel of a similar type is found as a grave good in a warrior grave in Novo selo, unpreserved (Кисьов 2004, 11 note 1), the author proposes a date for this complex in the 8th–7th century BC. – The treasure from Valchitran should also be considered to belong in this chronological horizon, as recently it has become widely accepted that the treasure consists of two distinct lots, and the date of the later one is closer to the time when it was hidden, in the 9th–7th centuries BC (Sherratt – Taylor 1989, 116; Gergova 1994, 74 f.). 44 Hänsel 1976, 113–117; Šalganova 1994. 45 Hochstetter 1984, fig. 50. 46 Wardle 1997.

48

E. BOZHINOVA: THE BEGINNING OF THE IRON AGE IN THRACE: ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE AND QUESTIONS OF CHRONOLOGY

with Mycenaean pottery47. While channelling only makes up a small percentage of the decoration there, towards the North, in the Eastern Rhodopes, Sakar Mountains and the Maritza and Tundja valleys, it is the prevailing decoration at the beginning of the IA48. As a rule, this kind of decoration is used only for the fine pottery with burnished surface and is quasi obligatory for certain vessel types – turban dishes, cups, kantharoi and amphora-like vessels. The last two types are often equipped with exaggerated buckles (knobs). These buckles could be indicative as a characteristic of the Eastern Balkan complex, where they continued to be used during the entire EIA. Nowhere, except in north-western Bulgaria, is the channelled pottery found in definitive LBA contexts, and the appearance of channelled pottery is traditionally regarded as the beginning of the Iron Age.

western and central parts of the territory north of the Central Balkan. The Ostrov group is dated to the period between the 10th–9th century BC51, followed by Basarabi with an initial date not earlier than the beginning of the 8th century BC52. The beginning of the Pshenichevo style is not exactly defined, but it is obviously contemporary with the Ostrov group. Its initial stage, with pottery only sparingly decorated with stamped motives, should be synchronized with Babadag I, at the very beginning of the IA. Concentric circles are found in the first IA layers at Ada tepe53. Given the position of southern Thrace at the periphery of the Aegean world, the beginning of the geometric style on stamped pottery is likely to be synchronous with the start of the Geometric Period in the Aegean. The shared development of the pottery decoration in Greece, Anatolia and Thrace is well demonstrated for the later stages of that period54.

Channelled pottery is followed by the gradual adoption of a stamped geometric decoration style. In the regions of southern Thrace, the appearance of the two styles could have occurred simultaneously, with channelled pottery prevailing in the early stages. Fluting is still an important part of the decoration system and maintains its predominance with the turban dishes, kantharoi and amphora-like vessels, but is now often combined with incised and stamped decoration.

The Western Rhodopes region again presents an exception from the general picture. Here the LBA tradition in pottery forms and decoration continues in the EIA. Indirect evidence for this can be found in the Tzepina pottery phenomenon with its incised furchenstich decoration, popular here during the entire LIA55. Channelled pottery remains an exception and is probably more typical for the later stages of the period, stamped pottery never gaining popularity.

The origin and the initial dates of the appearance of the stamped decoration remain under discussion. The most popular ornaments are concentric circles connected with tangents and the S-ornament, forming rows of running spirals. The origins of these two ornamental styles are speculatively sought in the Eastern Balkan complex and the lower Danube area respectively. In the Eastern Balkans, the concentric circles were popular in the early phase of the Babadag style. In the lower Danube area, the running spiral is well known from the Incrusted Pottery Culture of the LBA, and after the 10th century BC becomes prevalent in the geometric ornamentation of the EIA in the western Balkans49. Stratigraphical observations at sites in the Eastern Rhodope Mountains would place the appearance of the concentric circles chronologically earlier than that of the running spiral50. Spiral motives, although still limited in number, are known from the rich geometric decoration fashioned in a specific incised technique (“Furchenstich”) in the pottery of the Rhodope Mountains since the LBA. No matter where the inspiration for these two ornaments comes from, together they form – along with incised motives – rich geometric compositions in styles known as Pschenichevo, Ostrov, Bassarabi and Babadag. Pschenichevo can be found in south-eastern Thrace, specifically in the Eastern Rhodopes, Sakar and Strandja Mountains and in Aegean Thrace. Ostrov and Basarabi consecutively occupy the

Thus an overview of the EIA cultures in Thrace distinguishes general trends and regional specifics. Materials from the first centuries of the Early Iron Age are very scarce and reveal a situation similar to that observed in the Aegean – of scarcely populated areas, with stagnation in all aspects of life. The wide distribution of channelled ware points more towards a widespread fashion in pottery decoration than to a migration of entire populations, as the burial practices show a continuity in traditions from the previous period. Furthermore, settlement pattern remain unchanged. The new practice of cremation in the Maritza valley is an exception from the general situation. The evidence from Bulgaria makes it clear that the appearance of channelled ware and ironworking were two distinct phenomena which disseminated in opposite directions at one and the same time. The second half of the 9th century BC marks a revival in all aspects of life and a renewal of communications with neighbouring regions. The developed styles of pottery and metalwork clearly reveal distinctive regional cultures. North-western Thrace appears to be closely connected with the regions of the Lower Danube and the culture 51

Hänsel 1975, 152–165. Guma 1996. 53 Нехризов 2005, 179. 54 The similarity of the decoration motives of the classical stage of the Pshenichevo style in southern Thrace with those of the Greek Geometric pottery is comprehensively analyzed by: Ников 2000. – Separate motives or pottery groups are discussed in: Nikov 2000; Nikov 2002. 55 Georgieva 2003, 173–176. 52

47 Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1982, 255; Κουκουλη – Χρυσανθάκη 1992, 420. 475 f. 48 Гоцев 1994, 138; Георгиева 1991, 94; Nikov 2001, 71; Нехризов 2005, 295 f. 49 Gotzev 1994, 109–113. 50 Нехризов 2005, 179.

49

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

circle of the north-western Balkan complex and the Carpathian region. Here the channelled pottery appears during the Ha A1 period. The stratigraphy of the Magura cave shows that layers with channelled ware are followed by layers with stamped pottery of the Ostrov group. The upper layer represents materials of the Basarabi style56. Unfortunately the lack of investigations here in the last decades puts the duration of the Ostrov group under question. The unchanged burial practices demonstrate continuity in the cultural development from the Late Bronze Age. The observed movement of ideas from West to East obviously continued.

geometric incised pottery decoration between two so remote regions as the Western Rhodopes and northeastern Trace. Relating this cultural process to absolute dates is greatly hampered by the lack of excavated sites with stratigraphical evidence. Radiocarbon dates are limited in number and currently available only from LBA contexts, i.e. from the settlements at Durankulak and Balej, as well as from the fortified site of Kaimenska Chuka. The samples from the settlement at Balej come from the lowest IV horizon, attributed to the classical phase of the Incrusted Pottery Culture of the Lower Danube59, a phase that is considered to mark the initial stage of the LBA. The calibrated date falls in the interval from 1620–1400 cal. BC60. For Kaimenska Chuka – a site in the Struma valley from the very end of the LBA – the archaeomagnetic date of 1230–1160 BC is confirmed by 14C determinations61. The LBA site in Durankulak has produced 14C dates between 1130–1030 BC for the last stage of the settlement’s existence. According to these data, the end of the LBA culture here – Koslodzheni – should be dated to around 1100–1000 BC62.

North-eastern Thrace inherits traditions from the LBA burial practices, including the probable adoption of tumuli burials from southern Thrace. Channelled ware prevails from the beginning of the period, but undoubtedly an early date also has to be accepted for the appearance of stamped decoration with both circle and spiral motives, although this kind of decoration was not very popular then. In the earlier stage of the IA, the north-central part of Bulgaria seems to be part of the Eastern Balkan complex, with an early adoption of iron and complex burial practices under tumuli. The bronze artefacts of the period after the 9th century BC show more affinities with the western regions.

Similar to absolute dates, imported pottery is known only from LBA contexts and from the final stages of the EIA. Shards, undoubtedly identified as imports of Mycenaean style vessels are found at Dragoyna – in LH IIIA1 style – and Koprivlen, where they are dated to LH IIIB (Fig. 3.2)63. The shards from Dragoyna are identified as parts of at least two goblets64 (Fig. 3.1, 1–3. 5) and a rounded alabastron (Fig. 3.1, 4). Their fabric suggests their origin from a workshop situated in the northern Aegean or in northwest Anatolia65. While the shards from Dragoyna come from re-deposited contexts, those from Koprivlen were found in phase II of the LBA settlement, dated to 1340/1330–1185/1180 BC according to the conventional Aegean chronology and also based on a comparison of the hand-made pottery there with the materials from Kastanas66.

South-eastern Thrace shows a gradual development in its material culture, with channelled ware characterizing the chronological horizon at the beginning of the IA, followed by the wide range of stamped pottery that continued in use even for a short period after the appearance of wheel-made grey ware in the 6th century BC. While the pottery style is similar over a large area, including the central part of the Maritza valley, the Tundja valley, the Eastern Rhodopes, Sakar and Strandja Mountains and Aegean Thrace, the burial practices distinguish the plain regions from the mountain regions, suggesting a lack of available building material for megaliths in the former.

59

Shalganova 1995, 297. 303. Boyadziev 1995, 177. 61 Stefanovich – Bankoff 1998, 278 f.; Jordanova – Kovačeva 1998, 341. 62 Boyadziev 1995, 177. 63 Data for other shards in Mycenaean style are known from Kochan, Levunovo and Drama. – A shard from the Kochan necropolis in the Western Rhodope mountain is recognized as an imitation of Mycenaean pottery (Домарадски – Георгиева 1999, 27). – Another shard found in the second layer of a sanctuary in Levunovo has been published as Late Mycenaen (Domaradzki 1986, 100 fig. 9, 13). – The dates proposed for some of the shards of imported vessels found at a settlement site in Drama-Medzhumekya (Лихардус et al. 2001, 163 fig. 56) are problematic; probably these would have to be dated to the Iron Age (discussion with Dr. R. Jung). – Two shards from Yagodina and Borino have been suggested to be of a Sub-Protogeometric style (Archibald 1998, 94 note 3), and together with those from Drama they are probably the only imported material here that can be dated to the first stages of the EIA. 64 The goblets belong to group FS 255 (Mountjoy 1986, 64 f. fig. 75). – The decoration motive for both vessels is probably a running spiral – FM 46 (Mountjoy 1986, 52 fig. 57, 9). 65 I greatly thank Dr. R. Jung for his competence in the identification of the style and probable origin of the imported pottery from Dragoyna. 66 Alehandrov 2002, 73 f. 78 f. fig. 30. 60

The Western Rhodope Mountains stand out as an exception in comparison to the other areas. Conservatism is a typical feature in the pottery development and in burial practices, while at the same time this region shows probably the earliest adoption of iron-working. Contacts with Macedonia can be seen in the metal artefacts after the 9th century BC, and become more pronounced with the appearance of the matt-painted pottery in the Mesta valley, of a style dated to the 8th–6th centuries BC57. These contacts go back to the LBA, as all the Mycenaean pottery found in Thrace comes from sites in the Western Rhodopes or in nearby western regions, and indicates that the region is in contact with the main trade route between Greece and Central Europe during the LBA58. These wideranging contacts explain the similarity of the rich

Шалганова 1993; Shalganova – Gotzev 1995, 331. Bozkova 2002. 58 Gergova 1994. 56 57

50

E. BOZHINOVA: THE BEGINNING OF THE IRON AGE IN THRACE: ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE AND QUESTIONS OF CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 3.1. Dragoyna: imported pottery in LH IIIA style

51

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 3.2. Koprivlen: imported pottery in LH IIIB style (6 not to scale)

52

E. BOZHINOVA: THE BEGINNING OF THE IRON AGE IN THRACE: ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE AND QUESTIONS OF CHRONOLOGY

In accordance with the recently published absolute dates for Assiros, where the knobbed and channelled ware appears for the first time in local Phase 3, together with an amphora from an early stage of the Protogeometric period, for which a terminus ante quem between 1080– 1070 BC is given according to the latest 14C determinations and dendro-dates67. In neighbouring Kastanas, the situation is similar – channelled ware is extremely rare in Schicht 11 and common in Schicht 12, where it is found together with pottery of LH IIIC–Middle/Early Protogeometric date. The absolute date of about 1150– 1105 BC for Schicht 12 was considered to be too high in the original publication68 but is accepted as realistic when compared to the dates from Assiros69. The situation in Troia is much more complicated, due to the long timespan represented by the VII B2 layers and the existence of LBA hand-made ware with northern affinities here together with the knobbed ware. According to P. Mountjoy, the lower level of Troia VIIB2 should date to LH IIIC Middle70. The recent study of the stratigraphy at Troia demonstrated that the knobbed ware continue to be in use together with pottery of PG style, which is in accordance with the data from Kastanas and Assiros71. The dates from Kastanas and Assiross fit nicely with the proposed initial dates of the channelled ware in northwestern Thrace – corresponding to the Ha A1 period – and a gap of a few decades seems logical for this pottery to have travelled to the South.

As was the case with the geometric pottery style, a movement from South to North can also be observed for the spread of wheel-made grey ware, and for the economical and political changes that led to the end of the Early Iron Age. This latter process is characterized by a generalized culture change, occasioned by direct contacts with the Aegean world, and the respective transition seems to have taken place quite suddenly. The wheelmade pottery rapidly replaces the fine burnished hand made ware. Artefacts with Aegean origin become numerous in burial contexts. With the beginning of the 5th century BC, the first settlements of urban type appear in the Maritza valley. Wheel-made grey ware with Aeolian affinities is introduced from north-western Anatolia through the Maritza river valley for the first time at the end of the 7th century BC, but only becomes popular after the middle of the 6th century BC72. This process is accelerated by the Greek colonization in the northern Aegean and the north-western Black Sea. The remoteness of north-western Bulgaria explains its delay in adopting the novelties, probably lasting some decades.

If the early appearance of channelled ware is in accordance with recently proposed absolute dates for the end of the LBA, then problems arise with the resulting long duration of the first stage of the EIA until the general revival at about the middle of the 9th century BC. The small number of sites and materials for this period could not fill a period of more than three centuries. This situation in Thrace is not new for the Eastern Mediterranean, where the discussion on ‘high’ vs. ‘low’ chronology still remains unsolved.

Illustration credits

Acknowledgements Credit for the French translation of the abstract text goes to Renate Heckendorf.

Fig. 3.1: photographs and drawings by the author. – Fig. 3.2: drawings by Stefan Alexandrov. References ALEHANDROV, S., 2002, The Late Bronze Age Settlement at Koprivlen, in: A. Bozkova, P. Delev (eds.), Koprivlen I. Rescue Archaeological Investigation along the Gotse Delchev-Drama Road 1998–1999 (Sofia 2002) 63–82.

The general revival in the Eastern Mediterranean is reflected in Thrace by the reappearance of bronze artefacts with different regional distributions and by the return of rich geometric pottery decoration, first in southern Thrace with the Pshenichevo style, and slightly later north of the Central Balkans with the Basarabi style. This revival marks the second stage of the EAI with an initial date in the 9th century BC. North-eastern Thrace, with its northerly and easterly cultural affinities, is an exception to the general situation. Here the initial date of the second phase of the EIA should be placed later, in the middle of the 7th century BC with cultural specifics that correspond with the Feridjile group north of the Danube.

ARCHIBALD, Z.H., 1998, The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace. Orpheus Unmasked (Oxford 1998). ASLAN, K.C., 2002, Ilion before Alexander. Protogeometric, Geometric, and Archaic pottery from D9, StTroica 12, 2002, 81–160. BOYADZIEV, Y., 1995, Chronology of Prehistoric Cultures in Bulgaria, in: D. Baily, I. Panayotov (eds.), Prehistoric Bulgaria, Monographs in World Archaeology 22 (Madison 1995) 149–193. BOZKOVA, A., 2002, The First Mill. BC Thracian Settlement at Koprivlen. Pottery with Geometric Decoration and Related Ware, in: A. Bozkova, P. Delev (eds.), Koprivlen 1. Rescue Archaeological Investigation along the Gotse Delchev-Drama Road 1998–1999 (Sofia 2002) 133–145.

67

Wardle 1997; Newton et al. 2003, 181. Jung – Weninger 2004, 217. 69 Newton et al. 2003, 185–187. 70 Mountjoy 1999, 333. 71 Aslan 2002, 84. 68

72

53

Nikov 1999.

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

ČIČIKOVA, M., 1971, Sur la chronologie de Hallstatt en

JUNG, R., B. WENINGER, 2004, Kastanas and the Chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze and Early Iron Age, in: J. Higham, C.B. Ramsey, C. Owen (eds.), Radiocarbon and Archaeology. Fourth International Symposium, Oxford 9th–14th April 2002 (Oxford 2004) 209–228.

Thrace, Studia Balcanica 5, 1971, 79–92. DELCHEV, S., D. NENKOVA, A. ALADJOV, 2005, Museum Collection Trigrad. Village (Sofia 2005). DELEV, P., 1984, Megalithic Thracian Tombs in SouthEastern Bulgaria, Anatolica 11, 1984, 1–45.

KISSYOV, K., 1998, The Thracian Culture in the Smolyan Region, Rhodopica 1, 1998, 21–26.

DOMARADZKI, M., 1986, Sanctuaires Thraces du IIe–Ier millenaire av. n. e., ActaACarp 25, 1986, 89–104. GEORGIEVA, R., 2003, The Early Iron Age Pottery from Southwestern Bulgaria and the “Tsepina” Phenomenon, Pyraichmes 2, 2003, 159–185.

KOUKOULI-CHRYSANTHAKI, H., 1982, The Late Bronze Age in Eastern Macedonia, Thracia Praehistorica 3, Supplementum Pulpudeva (Sofia 1982) 231–258.

GERGOVA, D., 1980, Genesis and Development of the Metal Ornaments in the Thracian Lands during the Early Iron Age (11th–6th century B.C.), Studia Praehistorica 3, 1980, 97–112.

ΚΟΥΚΟΎΛΗ-ΧΡΥΣΑΝΘΆΚΗ, Χ., 1992, Πρωτοϊστορική Θάσος. Τα νεκροταφεία του οικισμού Καστρι, Μέρος Α–Γ (Αθήνα 1992). LESHTAKOV, K., 2002, Some Suggestions Regarding the Formation of the “Thracian Religion” (In the Light of New Archaeological Evidence from South Bulgaria), in: L. Nikolova (ed.), Material Evidence and Cultural Pattern in Prehistory, Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects 5 (Sofia 2002) 19– 51.

GERGOVA, D., 1987, Früh- und ältereisenzeitliche Fibeln in Bulgarien, PBF XIV, 7 (München 1987). GERGOVA, D., 1989, Thracian Burial Rites of Late Bronze and Early Iron Age, in: J. Best, N. de Vries (eds.), Thracians and Myceneans (Leiden 1989) 231– 240.

MOUNTJOY, P.A., 1986, Mycenaean Decorated Pottery. A Guide to Identification, SIMA 73 (Göteborg 1986).

GERGOVA, D., 1994, The Treasure form Vulchitrun and the Amber Route in the Balkans, in: H. Ciugudean, N. Boroffka (eds.), The Early Hallstatt Period (1200–700 B.C.) in South-Eastern Europe. International Symposium from Alba Iulia, 10th–12th June 1993 (Alba Iulia 1994) 69–79.

MOUNTJOY, P.A., 1999, Troia VII Reconsidered, StTroica 9, 1999, 297–346. NIKOV, K., 1999, “Aeolian” Bucchero in Thrace?, ABulg 3, fasc. 2, 1999, 31–42.

GOTZEV, A., 1994, Decoration of the Iron Age Pottery from South-East Bulgaria in the Early Halstatt Period (1200–700 B.C.), in: H. Ciugudean, N. Boroffka (eds.), The Early Hallstatt Period (1200–700 B.C.) in South-Eastern Europe. International Symposium from Alba Iulia, 10th–12th June 1993 (Alba Iulia 1994) 97– 127.

NIKOV, K., 2000, Bird-Images on Early Iron Age Pottery from South-Eastern Thrace. – In: L. Nikolovo (ed.), Technology, Style and Society. Contributions to the Innovations between the Alps and the Black Sea in Prehistory, BARIntSer 854 (Oxford 2000) 303– 308. NIKOV, K., 2001, Cultural interrelations during Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Area of Power Complex Maritsa-Iztok, in: B. Borislavov, I. Panayotov (eds.), Maritza-Iztok, Archaeological Research 5 (Sofia 2001) 69–81.

GUMA, M., 1996, The Basarabi Type Discoveries. A Brief Review, in: M. Garašanin, P. Roman (eds.), Der Basarabi-Komplex in Mittel- und Südosteuropa. Kolloquium in Drobeta-Turnu Severin, 7.–9. November 1996 (Bukarest 1996) 23–32. HÄNSEL, B., 1970, Bronzene Griffzungenschwerter aus Bulgarien, PZ 45, 1970, 26–41.

NIKOV, K., 2002, Stamped Decoration Pithoi in Southern Thrace from the Early Iron Age, ABulg 6, fasc. 1, 2002, 19–44.

HÄNSEL, B., 1976, Beiträge zur regionalen und chronologischen Gliederung der älteren Hallstattzeit an der unteren Donau, Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 16/17 (Bonn 1976).

NEWTON, M., K. WARDLE, P.I. KUNIHOLM, 2003, Dendrochronology and Radiocarbon Determinations from Assiros and the Beginning of the Greek Iron Age, AErgoMak 17, 2003, 173–190. PANAYOTOV, I., 1980, Bronze Rapiers, Swords and Double Axes from Bulgaria, Thracia 5, 1980, 173– 198.

HOCHSTETTER, A., 1984, Die handgemachte Keramik, in: Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979, PAS 3 (Berlin 1984).

ÖZDOĞAN, M., 1998, Early Iron Age in Eastern Thrace and the Megalithic Monuments, in: N. Tuna, Z. Aktre, M. Lynch (eds.), Thracians and Phrygians. Problems of Parallelism. Proceedings of an International Symposium on the Archaeology, History and Ancient Languages of Thrace and Phrygia, Ankara 3rd–4th June 1995 (Ankara 1998) 29–40.

IORDANOVA, N., M. KOVACHEVA, 1998, Dating the Fire in Kajmenska Chuka by the Archaeomagnetic Method, in: M. Stefanovich, H. Todorova, H. Hauptmann (eds.), In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul I. James Harvey Gaul in Memoriam (Sofia 1998) 339–347. 54

E. BOZHINOVA: THE BEGINNING OF THE IRON AGE IN THRACE: ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE AND QUESTIONS OF CHRONOLOGY

открития и разкопки през 2003 г. (София 2004) 88–

SAVA, E., 2002, Die Bestattungen der Noua-Kultur. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung spätbronzezeitlicher Bestattungsriten zwischen Dnestr und Westkarparten, PAS 19 (Kiel 2002).

90.

АГРЕ, Д., 2005, Археологически проучвания на долмен и могила от РЖЕ край Белеврен, община Средец през 2004 г., in: ХХІV среща на музеите от Югоизточна България Китен 2005, кн. 1 (София

ŠALGANOVA, T., 1994, Das Auftreten der kannelierten Keramik und der Übergang von der Spätbronzezeit zur Früheisenzeit in Nordwestbulgarien, in: H. Ciugudean, N. Boroffka (eds.), The Early Hallstatt Period (1200– 700 B.C.) in South-Eastern Europe. International Symposium from Alba Iulia, 10th–12th June 1993 (Alba Iulia 1994) 185–196.

2005) 20 f.

АТАНАСОВ, Г., 1995, Тракийско въоръжение от фонда на Исторически музей – Шумен, in: Въоръжение от Древна Тракия. Каталог на изложба (Шумен 1995) 29–31. БОРИСЛАВОВ, Б., 1999, Южна Тракия в края на бронзовата – началото на ранната желязна епоха

SHALGANOVA, T., 1995, The Lower Danube Incrusted Pottery Culture, in: D. Baily, I. Panayotov (eds), Prehistoric Bulgaria, Monographs in World Archaeology 22 (Sofia 1995) 291–306.

(Ph.D. diss. Sofia University, Sofia 1999).

БОЧЕВ, М., 1978, Мечовете през ранножелязната епоха (XII–VI в. пр. н. е.), Thracia Antiqua 4, 1978,

SHERRATT, A., T. TAYLOR, 1989, Metal Vessels in Bronze Age Europe and the Context of Vulchetrun, in: J. Best, N. de Vries (eds.), Thracians and Mycenaeans. Fourth International Congress of Thracology, Rotterdam 24th–26th September 1984 (Leiden 1989) 106–134.

74–86.

БОЯДЖИЕВ, Я., М. ГЮРОВА, К. БОЯДЖИЕВ, Д. ТАКОРОВА, А. АНДОНОВА, forthcoming, Праисторическо селище „Чавдарова чешма“ – Семеоновград (обект № 16), in: В. Николов, Г. Нехризов, Ю. Цветкова (eds.), Спасителни археологически разкопки по трасето на ЖП линията Пловдив-Свиленград през 2004 г.

STEFANOVICH, M., H.A. BANKOFF, 1998, Kamenska Čuka 1993–95. Late Bronze Age Site in Southwest Bulgaria. Preliminary Findings, in: M. Stefanovich, H. Todorova, H. Hauptmann (eds.), In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul I. James Harvey Gaul in Memoriam (Sofia 1998) 255–338.

forthcoming.

ВАЛЕНТИНОВА, М., 2003, Проучвания на ранножелязната епоха в Ловешко, in: Известия на Исторически музей Ловеч 6 (Ловеч 2003) 11–20. ВАЛЕНТИНОВА, М., 2006, Железен меч от ранножелязната епоха от с. Хлевене, Ловешко /съобщение/, in: Известия на Исторически музей Ловеч 7 (Ловеч 2006) 10 f. ВЪЛЧЕВА, Д., 2002, Тракийско селище от І хил. пр. Хр. край с. Копривлен. Ямно светилище, in: А. Божкова, П. Делев (eds.), Копривлен. Спасителни археологически проучвания по пътя Гоце Делчев – Драма 1998–1999 г. І (София 2002) 102–123. ГЕОРГИЕВА, Р., 1985, Селище от късната бронзова епоха до с. Плазище, Кърджалийско, in: Археологически открития и разкопки през 1984 (София

STOYANOV, T., 1997, Early Iron Age Tumular Necropolis, Sboryanovo 1 (Sofia 1997). TAYLOR, T., 1989, Iron and Iron Age in the CarpathoBalkan Region. Aspects of Social and Technological Change 1700–400 B.C., in: M.L. Stig Sørensen, R. Thomas (eds.), The Bronze Age-Iron Age Transition in Europe, BARIntSer 483 (Oxford 1989) 68–92. TONČEVA, G., 1980, Chronologie du Hallstatt ancien dans la Bulgarie de Nord-Est, Studia Thracica 5 (Sofia 1980). WARDLE, K.A., 1997, Change or Continuity. Assiros Toumba at the Transition from Bronze to Iron Age, AergoMak 10, 1997, 443–460.

АГРЕ, Д., 1893, Разкопки на Лесковското градище и некропола при него, Михайловградски окръг, in: Археологически открития и разкопки през 1982 г. (София 1983) 48 f. АГРЕ, Д., 1984, Разкопки на Лесковското градище и некропола при него, Михайловградски окръг, in: Археологически открития и разкопки през 1983 г. (София 1984) 38 f. АГРЕ, Д., 2003, Археологически разкопки на два долмена в землището на с. Заберново, Малкотърновска община, през 2002 г., in: Археологически открития и разкопки през 2002 г. (София 2003) 73–

1985) 66.

ГЕОРГИЕВА, Р., 1991, Проучвания на желязната епоха в района на „Марица-Изток“, in: И. Панайотов, К. Лещаков, Р. Георгиева, С. Александров, Б. Борисов (eds.), „Марица-Изток“. Археологически проучвания I (София 1991) 91–102. ГЕОРГИЕВА, Р., 1995, Разкопки на долмен и надгробна могила в землището на с. Главан, in: И. Панайотов, Р. Георгиева, К. Лещаков, С. Александров, Б. Борисов (eds.), „Марица-Изток“. Археологически проучвания III (Раднево 1995) 125–137.

ГЕРГОВА, Д., 1977, Тракийските накити в българските земи през старожелязната епоха (ХІ–VІ в. пр. н. е.) (Ph.D. diss. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences

75.

АГРЕ, Д., 2004, Археологически проучвания на могили в землището на с. Евренозово, община М. Търново, през 2003 г., in: Археологически

– Archaeological Institute with Museum, Sofia 1977).

55

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

ГЕРГОВА, Д., 1986, Постижения и проблеми в проучването на Ранножелязната епоха в Тракия, Археология 27, fasc. 3, 1986, 11–23. ГЕРГОВА, Д., 2001, Бронзова и ранножелязна епоха, in: М. Домарадски, Материали за археологията на Средна Струма, Разкипки и проучвания 27 (София

КИСЬОВ, К., 1985, Некрополи от старожелязната епоха в Родопите, Векове 2, 1985, 52–56. КИСЬОВ, К., 1988a, Гробни находки от землището на с. Ягодина в Централните Родопи, Археология 29, fasc. 4, 1988, 23–27.

КИСЬОВ, К., 1988b, Към въпроса за селищната характеристика на Средни Родопи, ИМЮБ 14,

2001) 73.

ГЕТОВ, Л., 1963, Могилно погребение от халщатската епоха при с. Д. Сахране, Старозагорско, Археология 5, fasc. 1, 1963, 51–53. ГОЦЕВ, А., Г. НЕХРИЗОВ, 2001, Спасителни археологически разкопки на могилен некрополв м. „Стармос“ при с. Кривня, община Провадия, in: Археологически открития и разкопки през 1999– 2000 г. (София 2001) 40–42. ГОЦЕВ, А., 1994, Проучвания на ранножелязната епоха във водосборния район на р. Сазлийка – резултати и проблеми, in: С. Александров, Б. Борисов (eds.) „Марица – Изток“ Археологически проучвания 2 (София 1994) 137–142. ГОЦЕВ, А., 2006, Сондажни археологически проучвания в м. Гебелика, до с. Поповица, Пловдивско, in: В. Николов, Г. Нехризов, Ю. Цветкова (eds.), Спасителни археологически разкопки по трасето на ЖП линията Пловдив-Свиленград през 2004 г. (София 2006) 7–27. ДЕЛЕВ, П., 1982, Тракийската поселищна система през РЖЕ и мегалитните паметници в Тракия, in: В. Велков, П. Петров, Д. Драганов (eds.), Поселищният живот в Тракия І (Ямбол 1982) 37–

1988, 55–73.

КИСЬОВ, К., 1990, Нови данни относно погребалния обичай през КБЕ в Средните Родопи, ИМЮБ 16, 1990, 41–53.

КИСЬОВ, К., 1991, Към въпроса за погребалния обичай през ранната желязна епоха в Западните Родопи, Археология 33, fasc. 4, 1991, 1–8. КИСЬОВ, К., 1993а, Керамиката от късната бронзова епоха в гробните комплекси от Централните Родопи, Археология 35, fasc. 2, 1993, 1–12. КИСЬОВ, К., 1993b, Погребални практики в Родопите (края на II–I хил. пр.н.е.). (Ph.D. diss. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences – Archaeological Institute with Museum, Sofia 1993).

КИСЬОВ, К., 1994, Обредът в погребалните практики на тракийските племена в Родопите през втората половина на II–I хил. пр. н. е., Годишник на Департамент Археология – НБУ 1, 1994, 174– 177.

КИСЬОВ, К., 2004, Тракийската култура в региона на Пловдив и течението на р. Стряма през втората половина на І хил. пр. Хр. (София 2004). КИСЬОВ, К., Е. БОЖИНОВА, 2005, Сондажни археологически проучвания на обект на връх Драгойна, с. Буково и теренни обхождания в землищата на селата Буково, Драгойново, Брягово и Искра, община Първомай, in: Археологически открития и разкопки през 2004 г. (София 2005)

43.

ДАМЯНОВ, М., 2004, Полис, хора, хинтерланд в Северозападното Черноморие (Ph.D. diss. Sofia University, Sofia 2004).

ДИМИТРОВ, Д.П., 1968, Троя VIIb2 и балканските тракийски и мизийски племена, Археология 10,

117–120.

КИСЬОВ, К., Е. БОЖИНОВА, 2006, Проучвания на обект на връх Драгойна, с. Буково, общ. Първомай, in: Археологически открития и разкопки през 2005 г. (София 2006) 122–126. КИТОВ, Г., Е. БОЖИНОВА, 2005, Манчова могила от ранната желязна епоха в долината на Тракийските царе, in: Г. Китов, Д. Димитрова (eds.), Земите на България. Люлка на тракийската култура ІІ (София

fasc. 4, 1968, 1–15.

ДОМАРАДСКИ, М., 1986, Домарадски, Раннтракийска керамика от култов обект в м. Скалето при с. Црънча, Благоевградски окръг, Археология 28, fasc. 2, 1986, 10–24.

ДОМАРАДСКИ, М., 1999, Тракийска култура по горното течение на река Места. Светилища, in: М. Домарадски, Паметници на тракийската култура по горното течение на река Места, Разкопки и проучвания 26 (София 1999) 60–75. ДОМАРАДСКИ, М., Р. ГЕОРГИЕВА 1999, Тракийска култура по горното течение на река Места. Обща характеристика на керамиката, in: М. Домарадски, Паметници на тракийската култура по горното течение на река Места, Разкопки и проучвания 26 (София 1999) 23–28. ИЛИЕВА, П., 2005, Егейска Тракия между Бистонида и Пропонтида (VІІІ–VІ в. пр. Хр.) (Ph.D. diss. Sofia

2005) 115–121.

КЪНЧЕВ, М., 1991, Некрополи от бронзовата епоха в района на „Марица-Изток“, in: И. Панайотов, К. Лещаков, Р. Георгиева, С. Александров, Б. Борисов (eds.), „Марица-Изток“. Археологически проучвания I (София 1991) 41–70. КЪНЧЕВ, М., Т. КЪНЧЕВА, 1990, Некропол от късната бронзова епоха, източно от Нова Загора, Археология 32, fasc. 4, 1990, 8–13. ЛАЗАРОВА, С., 1987, Тракийско въоръжение от първо хилядолетие пр. н. е. съхранявано в

University, Sofia 2005).

56

E. BOZHINOVA: THE BEGINNING OF THE IRON AGE IN THRACE: ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE AND QUESTIONS OF CHRONOLOGY

Окръжен исторически музей Плевен, Известия на музеите от Северозападна България 13, 1987, 9–20. ЛАЗАРОВА, С., 1993, Златен съд от о. Белене (Персина). Ловешка област, Известия на музеите от Северозападна България 20, 1993, 261–263. ЛЕЩАКОВ, К., 2006, Бронзовата епоха в Горнотракийската низина, Годишник на Софийския Университет, Исторически факултет, Специалност Археология 3, 2006, 141–217. ЛИХАРДУС, Я., А. ФОЛ, Л. ГЕТОВ, Ф. БЕРТЕМЕС, Р. ЕХТ, Р. КАТИНЧАРОВ, И. ИЛИЕВ, 2001, Изследвания в микрорегиона на с. Драма 1983– 1999 (София 2001). Мегалитите в Тракия I,1976, Тракийски паметници 1 (София 1976). НЕХРИЗОВ, Г., 2003, Спасителни археологически проучвания на обект „Ада тепе“ при гр. Крумовград през 2002 г., in: Археологически открития и разкопки през 2002 г. (София 2003) 67 f. НЕХРИЗОВ, Г., 2005a, Керамичният комплекс от ранната желязна епоха в Източните Родопи (Ph.D.

НИКОЛОВ, Б., 1970, Колективна находка от железни предмети от халщатската епоха до гр. Криводол, Врачански окръг, Археология 12, fasc. 1, 1970, 51– 57.

ПЕТРОВ, И.,

2006, Железен меч от Хасковско, Bulletin of the Regional Museum of History Haskovo 3, 2006, 193.

ПОПОВ, Р., 1928/29, Новооткрити паметници от желязната епоха в България, Известия на българския археологически институт 5, 1928/29, 273–290. ПОПОВ, Х., С. ИЛИЕВ, 2005а, Сондажни археологически разкопки в землището на с. Вълче поле, община Любимец, in: Археологически открития и разкопки през 2005 г. (София 2006) 156–159. ПОПОВ, Х., С. ИЛИЕВ, 2005b, Антични рудни разработки, западен склон на Ада тепе, in: Археологически открития и разкопки през 2005 г. (София 2006) 154–156. СТАНЧЕВА, М., 1973, Тракийски златен съд от София, Музеи и паметници на културата 3, 1973, 3–5.

СТОЯНОВ, Т., 2000, Контакти на Североизточна Тракия с Анатолия, Кавказ и Близкия Изток през ранножелязната епоха преди гръцката колонизация, in: Известия на Бургаския музей III (Буграс 2000) 50–61. ТОНЧЕВА, Г., 1975, О фракийцах нынешней Украйны, Молдовы, Добруджи и Северовосточной Болгарии в ХІ–VІ вв. до н. э., Studia Thracica 1,

diss. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences – Archaeological Institute with Museum, Sofia 2005).

НЕХРИЗОВ, Г., 2005b, Спасителни разкопки на долмени при с. Оряхово, община Любимец, in: Х. Ангелова, Ив. Карайотов (eds.), ХХІV Среща на музеите от Югоизточна България I, in memoriam Жана Чимбулева, Красимир Калчев (София 2005) 80–81.

НЕХРИЗОВ, Г., 2006, Ямно светилище от желязната епоха и селище от ранната бронзова епоха при Свиленград, in: В. Николов, Г. Нехризов, Ю. Цветкова (eds.), Спасителни археологически разкопки по трасето на ЖП линията ПловдивСвиленград през 2004 г. (София 2006) 405–507. НЕХРИЗОВ, Г., В. МИКОВ, 2002, Теренни обхождания и спасителни разкопки във водосборния район на Бяла река, Източни Родопи, in: Археологически открития и разкопки през 2001 г. (София 2002) 76 f. НИКОВ, К., 2000, Културни контакти на Южна Тракия с Егейския свят през Ранната желязна епоха по данни на керамиката (Ph.D. diss. Sofia

1975, 28–53.

ТОТЕВСКИ, Т., 1991, Случайни археологически находки от Троянско, in: Културно-историческо наследство на Троянския край 4 (София 1991) 3– 24.

ШАЛГАНОВА, Т., 1993, Развитие на културите през къснобронзовата и началото на старожелязната епоха в Северозападна Тракия (Ph.D. diss. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences – Archaeological Institute with Museum, Sofia 1993).

ДРЕМСИЗОВА-НЕЛЧИНОВА, Ц., 1984, Тракийската крепост край с. Вишеград, Кърджалийско, Thracia 6, 1984, 104–133.

ЧИЧИКОВА, М., 1968, Керамика от старата желязна епоха в Тракия, Археология 10, fasc. 4, 1968, 15–

University, Sofia 2000).

НИКОВ, К., 2005, Спасителни археологически проучвания на некропол от късната желязна епоха и поле с обредни ями от ранната желязна епоха в м. Селището край с. Полски Градец, община Раднево, през 2004 г., in: Aрхеологически открития и разкопки през 2004 г. (София 2005) 92–94.

27.

ЧИЧИКОВА, М., 1974, Проучвания на тракийската култура през старожелязната епоха, Археология 16, fasc. 4, 1974, 19–27.

57

STEPS TOWARDS A REVISED CHRONOLOGY OF GREEK GEOMETRIC POTTERY Martin TRACHSEL Universität Zürich, Abteilung Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Karl-Schmid-Str. 4, CH-8006 Zürich, Switzerland, e-mail: [email protected] Abstract: The sequence of Greek Geometric Pottery (GGP) is the chronological kingpin of the early first millennium BC in the Mediterranean – in spite of the problems and contradictions it causes in Italy, for example, or even in Greece itself. The primary goal of this paper is to show that the synchronisation between the Attic and Corinthian Geometric Pottery sequences – as presented by Coldstream in 1968 – is flawed and that an alternative proposal should and can be worked out. In a second line of argument, the evidence used for fixing historical dates to GGP is being discussed, connected to the revised relative chronology and confronted with recently obtained science-based dates. Keywords: Greek Geometric pottery, chronology, Mediterranean, radiocarbon Résumé: Au début du premier millénaire BC, la séquence de la céramique géométrique grecque (CGG) est la cheville ouvrière de la chronologie méditerranéenne – en dépit des incohérences et des problèmes qu’elle soulève p.e. en Italie, ou même en Grèce. L’objectif principal du présent article consiste à démontrer que la synchronisation des séquences de céramique géométrique attique et corinthienne – comme elle a été avancée par Coldstream en 1968 – est imparfaite, et qu’il est temps d’élaborer une proposition alternative. Dans un deuxième temps, les éléments d’une datation historique de la CGG sont discutés, ils sont mis en rapport avec la chronologie relative révisée, et ils sont comparés aux datations scientifiques obtenues récemment. Mots clé: céramique géométrique grecque, chronologie, Méditerranée, radiocarbone Abriss: Die Entwicklung der Griechisch-Geometrischen Keramik ist der chronologische Dreh- und Angelpunkt des frühen 1. Jt. v. Chr. im Mittelmeerraum – allen Problemen und Widersprüchen zum Trotz, die sie in Italien oder gar in Griechenland selbst verursacht. Das erste Ziel des vorliegenden Artikels ist es zu zeigen, dass die Parallelisierung der attischen und korinthischen geometrischen Keramik, wie sie Coldstream 1968 vorgeschlagen hat, fehlerhaft ist und dass eine alternative Parallelisierung ausgearbeitet werden kann. Im zweiten Teil werden die wichtigsten Daten und Argumente besprochen, mit denen die revidierte relative Chronologie mittels historischer Daten absolut fixiert werden kann und das Ergebnis mit den Anhaltspunkten verglichen, die uns die naturwissenschaftlichen Datierungen im Mittelmeerraum bieten. Den Abschluss bildet ein kritischer Exkurs zum archäologischen Umgang mit 14C-Daten. Schlüsselwörter: Griechisch-Geometrische Keramik, Chronologie, Mittelmeer, Radiokarbon

Janus-faced situation. The same regional chronological sequence in absolute terms is dated according to two different scales, the low ‘conventional’ Greek chronology on the one hand and the high chronology based on the dendrodates of Central Europe on the other3. As far as science-based datings are available, they are more in line with the high chronology4.

ISOLATING THE CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEM Archaeological synchronization across the Alps A major part of my thesis on Hallstatt chronology1, from which much of the present paper represents an extract, is dealing with the archaeological cross-dating between Southern Germany and Italy between 1000 and 400 BC. The synchronisation itself is based on closed contexts and typology, i.e. relative chronology alone (Fig. 4.1). No major contradictions emerge as long as the absolute chronology is ignored. However, at the session in Lisbon it went unnoticed that cross-dating between the Hallstatt territory and Bologna is not as unequivocal as it may seem. There are minor differences between my proposal and those recently put forward by our Italian colleagues, but some vital differences to the synchronization proposed for example by C.F.E. Pare2.

It took me quite some time to isolate the core of the problem. I felt it would not have been very helpful to simply link the dendrodates to the regions further south on the Italian peninsula or even to the Greek pottery itself. By doing so, we would never know why these differences occur, nor if the proposed dates are correct. Digging a little deeper, I found that within the system of crossdating between various regions in Italy, significant chronological problems already arise without the link to Central European dendrochronology.

The real problems start when comparing the absolute chronology of both regions, which in Italy has lead to a

Synchronizing the necropoles of Veio and Pithekoussaï

1

In both Veio and Pithekoussaï, local relative chronologies have been established by analysing hundreds of grave

Trachsel 2004. Pare in this volume, with further references. If you look at the pottery of Ha B you see but two major stages, while pins and bronze knives show three. This has lead to quite different views on the existence and length of the middle phase Ha B2, see Trachsel 2004, 23 f. 40.

2

3 4

59

e.g. Peroni 1994, fig. 80. see Bietti Sestieri et al. in this volume.

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 4.1. Typological synchronization between the Hallstatt region and selected Italian chronologies. The dates BC on the left are based on dendrochronology, those on the right on the conventional chronology of Greek pottery

finds5. These local sequences have only been challenged regarding some minor aspects, but are widely accepted on the whole. It is also widely accepted that in terms of absolute chronology, the sequence Veio II A to II C is about contemporary with Pithekoussaï TG I (‘Tardo Geometrico uno’). It is important to note that the fibulae in Pithekoussaï TG I graves, though probably mostly produced in Pithekoussaï itself, are neither Greek nor especially Pithekoussaïan in shape, but clearly based on Italian models (navicella, sangusiga, serpegante, drago etc.). On closer inspection one finds that they are related to characteristic types not of Veio II but Veio III. Only a few fibulae from very early Pithekoussaïan contexts are compatible with the end of Veio II C (i.e. sanguisuga and navicella type with ‘staffa allungata’).

most likely is connected to the synchronization of these two styles6. The dominance of Corinthian pottery in Pithekoussaï is an odd thing, because according to Livy this colony was an Euboean foundation7. It is especially striking that the classic skyphoi of Euboean LG I type – so widely distributed in EIA Italy from Sicily to Bologna and also typical for Veio II A to II C – are completely lacking. Even a few Euboean MG II-skyphoi have been found just across on the mainland in the so called ‘prehellenic’ tombs at Cumae8 – but not a single shard from a Euboean MG or LG I vessel has been found in Pithekoussaï. The earliest Euboean pieces present both in the settlement and the cemetery of Pithekoussaï are of Euboean LG type, but their decoration already shows the characteristic horror vacui of Euboean LG II (Fig. 4.2, 1–4), while the earliest Corinthian pieces are protokotylai of Corinthian MG II (Fig. 4.2, 5–8).

What we have got here is a significant chronological problem. According to the fibulae development, Veio II ends when Pithekoussaï TG I begins, while according to the absolute dates derived from the Greek pottery in the same graves they should be contemporary. The key to solving the contradiction is not difficult to find: the Greek pottery in Veio is of Euboean origin or type, while the pottery in Pithekoussaï is dominated by Corinthian shapes and decoration – and the problem

It therefore seems worthwhile to take a closer look at the synchronisation between the Greek Geometric styles of Euboea and Corinth, as it was postulated in the groundbreaking work by Coldstream in 1968. 6

already noticed by Tomedi 1996, 173 f. Liv. 8, 22, 5 f. 8 Müller-Karpe 1959, pl. 16. 7

5

Veio: Toms 1986; Guidi 1993. – Pithekoussaï: Buchner – Ridgway 1993.

60

M. TRACHSEL: STEPS TOWARDS A REVISED CHRONOLOGY OF GREEK GEOMETRIC POTTERY

Fig. 4.2. Stylistically earliest Euboean (above) and Corinthian pottery (below) found in Pithekoussaï, Ischia, Italy (not to scale)

tendency to preserve the adopted Geometric shapes and patterns significantly longer than their Attic counterparts. It is also noteworthy – with regard to the discussion on absolute chronology – that if there are links between absolute dates and GGP, these mostly involve Euboean and not Attic ware.

REASSESSING THE RELATIVE SYNCHRONISATION OF EUBOEAN AND CORINTHIAN GEOMETRIC POTTERY Euboean Geometric Pottery The Euboean painted pottery of the Geometric period is characterised by a distinct dichotomy. One of the pottery series is continuing the local Protogeometric tradition and was appropriately but somewhat contradictingly named ‘Subprotogeometric’ or SPG. The second series is closely copying Attic Geometric pottery. Both series are easily synchronised by their common occurrence in graves, especially at Lefkandi. Although Euboean potters and painters show some local preferences concerning shapes and motives, it is not a big problem to link the Geometric series closely to the Attic sequence. There are some hybrids between the two series, but there is no evidence so far that the pottery manufacturers in Euboea had any

Corinthian Geometric Pottery The main difference between the Geometric pottery from Corinth and that from the other regions of Greece is that at one point of time (i.e. Corinthian MG II) the development of the former starts to follow a different route. New shapes are introduced, namely the kotyle and the aryballos. The characteristic of LG decoration in other regions to adopt more and more figurative elements, even starting narratives, is almost completely ignored in Geometric Corinth. It is also very interesting to see that the kotyle is copied in other regions, even in Athens itself,

61

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 4.3. Development of Corinthian kotylai and aryballoi from Middle Geometric II to Middle Protocorinthian

62

M. TRACHSEL: STEPS TOWARDS A REVISED CHRONOLOGY OF GREEK GEOMETRIC POTTERY

Fig. 4.4. Lefkandi-Xeropolis. A typologically latest vessels from ‘deposit A’, the last phase of the settlement. B typologically latest vessels from ‘deposit B’, the level below

foreboding the commercial and stylistic dominance of Corinthian pottery from the Early Protocorinthian (EPC) onwards trough to the early 6th century BC.

firmly established not only by stylistic considerations, but also on stratigraphic evidence and closed finds (Fig. 4.3)11.

Coldstream himself pointed out the difference between the ‘protokotyle’ of Corinthian MG II and the ‘real’ kotyle of Corinthian LG. But oddly enough he does not stick to his own definition. The same vessel from Thera is at first used for the definition of MG II9, but in a later publication attributed to Corinthian LG10. This sleight of hand did not matter in that particular case, but it has considerable consequences for the chronological discussion. Since 1968, the typological sequence from the protokotyle over kotylai of early and developed Corinthian LG into the Protocorinthian period has been

The main trouble with Corinthian Geometric is that up to now we do not know much about its development in Corinthian MG II and almost nothing about the previous periods.

9

11

Correlating the Euboean/Attic and the Corinthian Geometric pottery series There are many stylistic connections and closed finds correlating the different series, but mostly for the later part of the period in question12. In graves, developed Early

Coldstream 1968, pl. 18. Coldstream 1977, fig. 54a.

12

10

63

Williams 1981; Neeft 1982. Coldstream 1968, 109 f.

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 4.5. Corinthian pottery presence in Greek colonies founded in Italy before 700 BC. For a full discussion see Trachsel 2004, 181–191

Protocorinthian (EPC) and Middle Protocorinthian (MPC) are combined on several occasions with Attic Subgeometric and/or Early Protoattic (EPA), two Attic styles that may considerably overlap in time. On the other hand, Attic LG IIb vessels are sometimes combined with early EPC, so it is safe to assume that the Attic LG IIb – EPA transition takes place sometime during EPC.

warning that Attic LG II might have begun earlier than Corinthian LG. In the decades since Coldstream’s study, new finds have added new clues. The latest phase in Lefkandi-Xeropolis (‘deposits A’) contained Euboean LG IIa ware and some protokotylai of Corinthian MG II (Fig. 4.4)15 – a similar combination as in early Pithekoussaï. In the local grave sequence of Capua, Euboean LG IIa is found in earlier contexts than Corinthian LG16. So there are additional arguments hinting at a beginnig of Attic and Euboean LG II during Corinthian MG II, and still no evidence in favour of Coldstream’s synchronisation.

Coldstream synchronized the beginning of EPC with the beginning of Attic LG IIa. For this, in a quite sophistical manner he had to work around some of the evidence, i.e. the Attic copies of Corinthian LG kotylai decorated in Attic LG IIb styles, from the Lion-Painter workshop for example. A close reading of his argument13 raises many questions.

There are some graves linking Attic/Euboean LG I with Corinthian MG II17. A protokotyle from Corinth shows the typical decoration of an Attic LG I skyphos18. In the lowest strata of Aetos on Ithaca, the Attic/Euboean series sets in with LG Ib, while the Corinthian series is represented by MG II19.

The evidence for the synchronisation between the Attic and Corinthian pottery sequences of the periods before Attic LG IIb was very scarce in the 1960s. The only reliable find connecting Attic LG IIa with the Corinthian series was grave E 19.1 in the Agora of Athens14. The skyphos is clearly Attic LG IIa, but the Attic imitation of a Corinthian vessel from the same grave is difficult to place in the sequence; the imitated vessel might have been either a very early kotyle of Corinthian LG, or – more likely because of the decorated inset lip – a protokotyle of Corinthian MG II. Either way, it should have been a 13 14

Sadly, there is almost no evidence for the synchronisation before Corinthian MG II. But I have to stress that the decoration on the skyphoi presented by Coldstream as 15

Popham et al. 1979, pl. 60–62. Trachsel 2004, 198–201. 17 Coldstream 1968, 96; Blegen et al. 1964, grave 18. 18 Dehl 1984, pl. 2 d. 19 Robertson 1959, pl. 43.567; fig. 1a–h. 16

Coldstream 1968, 110 f. Coldstream 1968, pl. 15 f–g.

64

M. TRACHSEL: STEPS TOWARDS A REVISED CHRONOLOGY OF GREEK GEOMETRIC POTTERY

Fig. 4.6. Stratigraphical and typological links between Attic/Euboean and Corinthian Geometric, phases synchronized according to Coldstream 1968

representatives of Corinthian EG20 and MG I21 are closely related to those on skyphoi of Attic MG I and MG I/II respectively.

and LG pottery in Pithekoussaï TG I – as the comparison of the fibulae development already has indicated. One of the many consequences of this is that the development of elite burials in the Italian Iron Age societies – often containing skyphoi from Euboean MG II to LG Ib – began long before the foundation of Pithekoussaï and thus several generations before the establishment of the first Greek colonies in Sicily. How many decades before will be worked out in the following part of this paper.

Revision of the relative synchronisation As Fig. 4.6 with Coldstream’s synchronisation shows, many of the connecting lines between the Attic/Euboean and the Corinthian series are not horizontal. Because the sloping lines are always taking the same direction, it is easy to propose a different synchronisation in which all connections are horizontal again (Fig. 4.7). This has the big advantage of solving our problem concerning Veio and Pithekoussaï. The Euboean (and Euboeanizing) MG II and LG I skyphoi of Veio II A to II C actually are earlier than the Corinthian (and Corinthianizing) MG II 20 21

There are not only chronological contradictions in Italy being solved, but also in Greece. Coldstream had difficulties with the pins and fibulae in the graves of Corinthian MG II because they were of the same types as those in graves of Boeotian LG22. By accepting the revised

Coldstream 1968, pl. 16c. Coldstream 1968, pl. 17d.

22

65

Coldstream 1977, 85.

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 4.7. Stratigraphical and typological links between Attic/Euboean and Corinthian Geometric, phases synchronized by the author

66

M. TRACHSEL: STEPS TOWARDS A REVISED CHRONOLOGY OF GREEK GEOMETRIC POTTERY

synchronisation, the Corinthian group of personal ornaments is not ‘forestalling’ the Boeotian one by fifty years, as Coldstream had to assume to save his synchronisation, but contemporary to it.

filled with food etc. Only a small part of the settlement material corresponds to this kind of functional context. For pottery one can at least take the degree of fragmentation into account. Almost complete vessels are not very likely to be residues from earlier phases, while small fragments might have been displaced many times before their final deposition25.

CONNECTING GREEK POTTERY AND HISTORICAL DATES IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

Sadly, most of the Greek pottery in Near Eastern tells is small fragments, and their functional context is very likely to be different from and probably earlier than their stratigraphic one.

The next step, assigning absolute dates to the relative chronology worked out above, has to address many problems concerning both the available data and the methods used by archaeologists. During the discussion at the end of our meeting in Lisbon, Ayelet Gilboa raised the issue of ‘good context’, generally approved of course, even though we did not reach a precise understanding of what ‘good context’ actually means.

The reason I am looking at this region in particular, is the potential of linking historically known events with the archaeological evidence of a site. It has been done many times before26, but often enough the link is far from convincing and only very few of them survive even superficial scrutiny.

A word on ‘context’ In my opinion, before discussing the quality of context, it is very helpful to be aware of the difference between stratigraphic and functional context. An artefact found in a certain feature or layer stratigraphically belongs to this stratigraphic unit. But when using such artefacts for building chronologies, the important question is: Why did they end up there? In most cases one cannot be sure, if an artefact has been in use during the activity that led to the deposition of the layer, or if it was already lying around as residue from an earlier use of the site. Small items may even have been brought down from later, overlying strata by small mammals or other undetected disturbances.

Historical dates for LH IIIC and the beginning of the Protogeometric period Up to the middle of the twelfth century BC, Egyptian imports with pharaonic names inscribed on them form the backbone of absolute chronology. The evidence in Perati27 and Enkomi28 allows for the conclusion that Late Helladic III C Early began before the reign of Ramses III, most likely during the later part of the reign of Ramses II, i.e. in the last decades before 1200 BC. Pottery of an advanced stage of LH III C Middle (the second to last step of LH III C) is closely linked to the installation of Philistine cities in the Southern Levant, connected to historically known events before and around 1175 BC29. As LH III C Late is thought to be a relatively short subphase of LH IIIC30, it is very likely that LH IIIC ends somewhere around 1150 BC. Depending on the duration one admits for Submycenaean or similar transitional styles, the beginning of Protogeometric pottery might be dated to before or around 1100 BC.

In the Iron Age settlement on the Heuneburg (Herbertingen-Hundersingen, Germany) it was possible to define a long series of stratigraphic phases. The serpentine fibula of S4-type might have been still in production during phase IVc and maybe IVb. With IVa new types set in which in graves are neither found together with S4-fibulae nor the kind of personal ornaments usually associated with them. But fibulae of S4-type are found in all superposing layers of the Heuneburg with the highest density in layers IVa to IIIa23. A similar distribution was found for painted pottery, also typical for period IV, which is still present in all of the superposing layers. In the case of the pottery it could be shown that its degree of fragmentation increases after period IV24. We have to assume that in settlement stratigraphies, a big – if not the biggest – part of artefacts belonging to a particular type actually are found in a later stratigraphic context than the one during which they had been produced.

Soon after I first proposed this somewhat early date for the start of PG31, interesting results have been announced by the Aegaean Dendrochronology Project at Cornell University. In Assiros, construction timbers of two 25

an approach used for example by Finkelstein et al. 2000. e.g. Hannestad 1996. 27 Weinstein 1998, 189. 28 Warren – Hankey 1989, 162. 29 e.g. Niemeier 1998. I am completely aware that many archaeologists like Ussishkin and Finkelstein, whose work I usually appreciate very much, oppose the conventional ‘Philistine’ scenario. But in this case I have difficulties following their reasoning. The key argument is based on negative evidence: the lack of ‘Philistine’ pottery in neighbouring non-Philistine settlements, while possible positive evidence has to be discussed away; my ‘favorite’ among the latter is the elaborate argument why a pit containing bichrome ware and a scarab of Ramses III does not contradict the assumption that the earlier monochrome ware started after the reign of Ramses III (Finkelstein 1995, 222). 30 French 1998, 4. 31 Trachsel 2004, 171 f. 194. 26

The key to identify archaeological material securely belonging to the stratigraphic phase it was found in, is its functional context. For example, whole artefacts as part of an installation or a deliberate deposition, crushed vessels beneath the burnt beams of a roof, complete vessels still 23 24

Sievers 1984, fig. 10. Dämmer 1978, fig. 5.

67

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

subsequent structures could be dated to 1080 and 1070 BC respectively32. In the layers between, a large portion of an Early or Middle Protogeometric amphora has been found. If the dendrodate proves to be right, the vessel must have been manufactured some time before 1070 BC.

The other ‘Bôchoris’-grave, from Tarquinia-Monterozzi, was excavated in 1895 and its documentation is far from perfect. The fayence vase showing most likely the enthronement of pharaoh Bak-en-rinef is nowadays regarded to be an Egyptian original36, and not a Phoenician copy as proposed earlier on. It shows few signs of use and is very likely more or less contemporary with the other grave goods. Sadly, the ‘Greek’ vessels from this grave are local imitations, based on shapes of late EPC origin, but still in use in MPC. The decoration, however, is connected to MPC and Attic LG IIb, or even Attic Subgeometric37. Again we have to conclude that the reign of pharaoh Bak-en-rinef is close to the end of EPC.

There is also a long-lasting discussion about assumed ‘heirlooms’ of the 12th and 11th century BC in Submycenaean and Protogeometric graves33. The reason for this assumption is the difference between the dates given to the imported goods in their area of origin and the dating of the local pottery according to the conventional chronologies. If Submycenaean now has to be dated to the later half of the 12th, and EPG/MPG to around 1100 BC and the earlier part of the 11th century BC, most of these cases are solved without recurring to the ‘heirloom’ hypothesis.

For the earlier periods there is even less evidence. As we have noted above, Attic/Euboean LG IIA begins during Corinthian MG II, and thus at least one, or more likely two generations before EPC. We might therefore infer a date for the LG I – LG II transition in the early 8th century BC, around 800 BC at the earliest. And there is some evidence available to support this estimate.

Absolute Dating of the Late Geometric Period There is more and better evidence for the later part of this period than for the earlier one, so I start my argument at the later end.

One of the colonies with a historically recorded foundation date until very recently has been left out of the discussion, because it is not Greek but Phoenician: Carthage. There are two traditions pointing at a foundation around 825 or 815 BC38, a good 80 years earlier than the foundation of Greek colonies in Sicily. And not very surprisingly, the earliest Euboean pottery found in both the settlement and the cemetery of Carthage is much earlier: skyphoi of Euboean LG Ib shape and decoration39. Vegas attributed some other vessels found in the lowest strata to Euboean SPG40, but very similar pieces are also found in LG strata of Lefkandi-Xeropolis, thus they do not need to be earlier than the skyphoi41. The LG Ib skyphoi are very likely to represent the type current during the early phase of the settlement, as there was also a local production of losely imitated skyphoi42. Using the date of c. 820 BC as terminus circum quem for Euboean LG Ib, we end up about 80 years earlier than Coldstream.

Among the earliest pottery in the Greek colonies in Sicily and Southern Italy with foundation dates deduced from historical sources that fall between c. 740 and 715 BC, the bulk is EPC (Fig. 4.5). Excluding those ‘thought-to-beLG’ vessel types which are still present in EPC graves in Pithekoussaï, there are but a handful of pieces securely belonging to Corinthian LG34. As we can assume that the first colonists brought with them a mix of current and older vessels, we have to conclude that Corinthian LG was almost completely out of fashion by this time. Its production must have stopped and EPC started before 740 BC. The repeatedly discussed ‘Bôchoris’-graves provide some further evidence. Grave 325 from Pithekoussaï35 contained the remains of a child together with a scarab carrying the name of pharaoh Bak-en-rinef (c. 720-715 BC), EPCpottery and some fibulae. As always with graves of children, the goods deposited in it might cover quite some time as they were very likely donated by family members or friends. The faience scarab however does not show signs of use, and might be a contemporary piece specifically acquired to provide magical protection to the child. As at least one of the EPC aryballoi is of later shape and decoration, the start of EPC would have to lie some time before 715 BC. We cannot completely exclude the possibility that the pottery had been produced decades before the child was buried, but there is no positive evidence either. However, the deposition of grave 325 is unlikely to have occurred later than early MPC, because grave 326, stratigraphically overlying grave 325, belongs to this phase.

The historically reported foundation date for Carthage has also found support in radiocarbon. Short-lived organic samples from the earliest levels have been dated to the end of the 9th century BC43. Compared to other radiocarbon studies this one has two strong points in its favour. Firstly, a marked increase of the radiocarbon level around 800 cal. BC results in unusually narrow calibration brackets between 850 and 750 cal. BC. The dated materials cannot be later than 800 BC – no way. And secondly, these are early levels on a site without 36

Hölbl 1979, 81–94; Rathje 1979, 150 f. Coldstream 1968, 317. 38 Cintas 1970, 154–157. 241. 39 Boucher 1953, 33 pl. 19, 137; Vegas 1989, fig. 1, 1–6. 8–9; Vegas 1997, fig. 1, 1; Vegas 1999, fig. 6, 3–4. 40 Vegas 1989, 214 f.; Vegas 1997, 351 note 1. 41 Trachsel 2004, 187. 42 Vegas 1999, fig. 10, 61. 62. 65. 43 Nijboer – van der Plicht, in this volume; Brandherm, in this volume. 37

32

Newton et al. 2005. see e.g. Coldstream 1989, 90 f. 34 Trachsel 2004, 188. 35 Buchner – Ridgway 1993, 378–382. 33

68

M. TRACHSEL: STEPS TOWARDS A REVISED CHRONOLOGY OF GREEK GEOMETRIC POTTERY

known preceeding settlement; therefore it is very unlikely that all of the samples are remains from hidden earlier activities on the site. So Euboean LG Ib must have been flourishing in the last decades of the 9th century BC.

capital, but both the historical sources and the archaeological evidence point at a rural hamlet unlikely to import prestigious items like an Euboean krater. So we can at least assume with some confidence that MG II ends sometime between 880 BC and 820 BC, with a higher probability for the earlier half of this bracket.

Absolute Dating of the Early and Middle Geometric Period

There is earlier Euboean pottery in the Levant, but not many pieces in a context dated without dispute. There are unsolved difficulties regarding the stratification of the sherds, their functional context and/or the correlation between historically reported events and the stratigraphic sequence. Of the ‘historical’ sources for the time before the Omrides, large parts even have proven to be massively distorted by the time they were written down. Often enough there are also heated discussions about the synchronization between the different tell sequences. As long as there is no undisputed typological sequence of the most significant pottery wares of the region, a reliable relative chronology remains lacking. Based on such shaky foundations, any further proposal regarding absolute chronology is likely to be doomed.

Now, what about Attic/Euboean MG? Before Carthage we have to fit in Attic/Euboean LG IA, thus MG might end somewhere around the middle of the 9th century BC. But when might it begin? At this point, we are getting really into trouble, as we have to enter the archaeological ‘minefields’ of tell archaeology in the Near East. The most important point of reference is Samaria. According to the historical tradition it was founded by king Omri around 880/875 BC as the new capital of his kingdom. It lost its status when it was captured by king Jehu around 840 BC. Sadly, the early strata have been heavily disturbed by levelling and building activity during later periods and the bigger part of 9th century material has been scattered into layers of later phases. So the stratigraphic context is not of much use in this case. Interestingly, luxury items brought in over great distances are mostly datable to the first half of the 9th century BC. Fragments of ivory carvings are scattered over many levels up to the Roman period44. They all belong to the same kind of panels and are stylistically and epigraphically dated to the first half of the 9th century BC45. Walls covered with ivory are also mentioned in the historical texts for the palace of the Omride period. Another item is an alabaster fragment carrying the cartouche of pharaoh Osorkon II (c. 874–850 BC)46. In the same trenches, named Qk and Qn, in which the major part of the ivory carvings has been found, shards of an Euboean MG II krater came to light47. Most of them are without stratigraphic context; only one was found in level V – two periods above the Omride structures48. But all that the scattered stratification tells us, is that this is unlikely to be the functional context of this vessel. It is tempting to propose that the Euboean vessel originally reached the site in a phase when Samaria had intense long-distance contacts – and this would be the Omride period between c. 880 and 840 BC. But it has also to be admitted that there is no stratigraphic evidence to either support or contradict this proposition.

But as Dirk Brandherm (in this volume) points out, Geometric pottery earlier than Euboean MG II is usually found in contexts thought to be earlier than the Omride phase in Samaria. So one might assume with some confidence that the transition from MG I to MG II happened within a margin of several decades before or around the foundation of Samaria. Adding some time for EG I and EG II, we have to conclude that the Geometric period began clearly before 900 BC. How many years before only can be guessed, but a date before 1000 BC seems highly unlikely.

COMPARING THE DENDROCHRONOLOGY OF CENTRAL EUROPE AND THE REVISED HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY OF GREEK GEOMETRIC POTTERY As there is no direct link between these chronologies, we have to look for a place where a reliable local chronology can be securely linked to both sequences. For the time being, this leaves us with Italy as the joint for connecting artefacts from the Mediterranean and from Central Europe. As there is not enough room here to repeat the reassessment of the Italian chronologies and their links to the Eastern Mediterranean on the one hand and to the Hallstatt region on the other, the synchronisation table in Fig. 4.8 shall illustrate the results from my thesis49.

On the other hand, with regard to relative chronology, the vessel has to be considerably earlier than the foundation of Carthage (c. 820 BC). At this point, the presence of the krater in Samaria helps insofar as it is very unlikely that it had reached the site before 880/875 BC. There had been a preceding settlement before the foundation of Omri’s new

However, I would like to highlight one particular point: in the best instances we can get from a colony foundation date to Central Europe with just one intermediate stepping stone. Carthage was founded c. 820 BC, at a time when Euboean LG Ib was flourishing. Two Euboean/Euboeanizing LG Ib skyphoi were found in Bologna in graves

44

Crawfoot et al. 1957, 2. Crawfoot – Crawfoot 1938, 4. 46 Crawfoot – Crawfoot 1938, 4. 47 Coldstream 1968, 304. 48 Hannestad 1996, 45–47. 45

49

69

Trachsel 2004, 153–321.

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 4.8. Final synchronization of Early Iron Age chronologies between Central Europe and the Mediterranean

70

M. TRACHSEL: STEPS TOWARDS A REVISED CHRONOLOGY OF GREEK GEOMETRIC POTTERY

of phase Bologna II B50. Thus this phase should at least partially cover the later part of the 9th century BC. On the other hand, the parallel development of pins and swords to the north and south of the Alps allows to link Bologna II B to Ha B3-late and the beginning of Ha C1 in Central Europe51, i.e. according to dendrochronology the decades before and around 800 BC. Between both absolute chronologies there is but a small offset caused by the impossibility of pinpointing phases covering several decades.

One thing to remember when working with radiocarbon is that you always trade in precision against probability – and vice versa. This is not a problem for physicists, as they are used to work with probabilities, margins of error etc. But archaeologists are not, especially when trying to link up history and archaeology. A probability of 65 % for a bracket of 70 years usually does not answer our questions, and a probability of 95 % for a range of 140 years even less52. Short-lived samples and the weighted mean approach

The new ‘historical’ chronology proposed for the Mediterranean minimises the discrepancies which up to now were so common when following the typological cross-links to the dendrodated chronologies of Central Europe. The absolute dates may easily be a decade or two off, either side, but at least the range should now be correct.

Knowing about the methodical limitations but unwilling to accept them, statistical tricks are applied by many archaeologists. In recent years, the use of the ‘weighted average’ has become almost epidemic: a bunch of radiocarbon dates of samples thought to represent the same period are entered into a software, the resulting ‘combined date’ with its very small standard deviation is then calibrated and the final date presented; preferably with a ‘1 sigma span’ unaware of the fact that the sigma designation has no mathematical meaning after calibration anyway53. The resulting ‘date’ sure does look more precise, but nobody seems to care that with every step of the process there was a loss of probability, bordering on ‘meaningless’ in the end.

SOME THOUGHTS ON RADIOCARBON AND ARCHAEOLOGY As the colloquium has shown, all around the Mediterranean radiocarbon is used to build chronologies independent from the conventional system, to finally escape the dangers of circular argument. The sad thing is that many of the chronologies in question are discussed using decades, while radiocarbon only in very few instances allows for a differentiation in the sub-century range. Listening at the conference over and over again to more or less elaborate attempts at mathematically tweaking out more ‘precision’ from radiocarbon measurements left me quite upset, condensing in a rude sentence that even now, several months later, I am still ready to repeat in writing: “Nowadays, radiocarbon is widely used, but poorly understood.”

By calculating the weighted average, one assumes that the variation between the samples is only due to the laboratory error. One silently assumes that the samples have grown in the same year, the carbon in the sample has not been contaminated, the measurements were made to the same standard – to name only a few. But when you have radiocarbon measurements carried out on different samples, you can never know for sure why they vary or why they are identical. Samples from the same stratigraphic unit, even short-lived ones, have not necessarily grown in the same year. Especially in a settlement stratigraphy, the functional context of bones and grains might have been quite different from the one inferred from their stratigraphic position. It is possible to detect an offset between stratigraphic and functional context when dealing with typologically significant artefacts found in greater numbers. There is no comparable method to do that with grains and bones.

Because being rude does not solve any problems, I would like to sketch out my concerns in more detail. Quite a few of them are addressed in the paper by Nijboer and van der Plicht in this volume, and the problematic relationship between stratigraphic and functional context I have already mentioned above. So I can concentrate on the techniques applied to tweak out more ‘precision’ from radiocarbon data. As far as experience with radiocarbon confronting dendrochronology in Germany and Switzerland has shown, the former is of limited use for fine chronology. If everything works out right (sample really having grown during the period it is attributed to archaeologically, no contamination, ‘friendly’ part on the calibration curve, no laboratory bias or mishaps etc.) you have a fair chance of hitting the right century; a fair chance, nothing more. If one little thing goes wrong, you miss it. In certain periods you can easily be off by two centuries without knowing.

Bone samples have problems of their own, as it seems to be difficult to get consistent radiocarbon results with this raw material. The cause is likely to be found in the collagen that is primarily used for dating. It is easily contaminated while lying in the soil and difficult to extract without getting carbon of other origin mixed in. Some samples may be perfect, many are not.

50

52 Both expressions are just ‘plain English’ for a sigma of 35 radiocarbon years. 53 Weninger 1997, 133 f.

Using measurements from different laboratories poses further problems. Theoretically, when comparing between

Benacci Caprara 888: Bianco Peroni 1976, pl. 71 B; BolognaMelenzani 22: Morigi Govi – Tovoli 1979, fig. 1. 51 Trachsel 2004, 257–262. 265 fig. 164.

71

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

laboratories, you should be likely to find an overlap of the 2-sigma ranges. Practically, as the fourth international radiocarbon intercomparison FIRI has shown, you have to consider yourself lucky to get this overlap when the same sample is processed and measured twice in the same lab! Quote: “In conclusion, these tables show clearly that the distribution of the differences between each of the duplicate pairs does not correspond to the claimed uncertainties in the measurements.”54 In other words: dates of the same sample de facto vary to a much bigger degree than the stated ‘sigma’ theoretically allows for. To find out if this is a laboratory problem or – because AMS results using smaller samples seem even more affected than conventional measurement techniques – if there is more natural variation within samples than thought up to now, is one of the future research projects proposed in the FIRI report.

chronology of imported Greek pottery found in the same strata. There is a good overlap with the calibration curve in phases 16 to 12, where the conventional chronology is securely linked to the Egyptian dynasties. The trouble begins with phase 11 and the Protogeometric period, where the radiocarbon dates start to be considerably earlier than the conventional chronology allows for. Because the latter is based on shaky ground, I tried to find a better fit of the grouped dates with the calibration curve. The groups not always look tight, but the variance you see contains important information on sample quality, scatter and possible problems. Eliminating ‘outliers’ and combining the happy survivors in a weighted average does not solve the problems – it just puts them out of sight and out of control. Theoretically, the scatter of dates from one stratigraphical unit should follow a certain pattern:

To sum it up and avoid any misunderstanding about my position: using the weighted mean of radiocarbon measurements from different samples is a ‘Hail Mary’ approach, hoping for many wrongs making one right. Sometimes it may work out right – but you never know when.

– a significant but loosely grouped portion of earlier dates (‘old wood’, intrusions from earlier phases, contamination, laboratory error) – a dense bunch of greatly overlapping dates in the middle to later part representing material contemporary to the stratigraphic context in question

For the time being it may be enough to point out that recent and sometimes preliminary studies involving radiocarbon presented in this volume point to a significantly higher chronology in Italy and Iberia, but to a significantly lower chronology in the Near East. As far as the phases in the different regions are connected by Greek pottery imports, the problems of absolute chronology are further increased. Why this happens I can’t say. But regarding the many traps radiocarbon presents to its users, I am neither surprised nor worried. Dendrochronology will sort it out sometime in the future. But how do we deal with absolute chronology in the meantime, with radiocarbon being the only option?

– no or very few significantly later ones – either caused by laboratory error, contamination or undetected intrusion from upper layers Wiggle matching in this case means identifying the second group in every phase and finding the best fit to the calibration curve in accordance with the stratigraphical sequence. Depending on the data and the form of the calibration curve, you sometimes get narrower and sometimes broader ranges for a phase. A priori we cannot know if a broad range is due to the long duration of the particular phase or to the presence of an undetected hiatus in the stratigraphic sequence.

Wiggle matching

It is reassuring to see that the radiocarbon groups of phase 16 to 12 of Kastanas often show exactly the expected pattern and that they, when positioned according to the (for this period quite reliable) historical date, ‘bite’ the calibration curve mostly in the way described above. Trying to get a similar position for the data from strata 11 to 6 (Fig. 4.10) is difficult, because there are less radiocarbon dates per stratum and many of them are hampered by a large standard deviation. The best fit is not exactly in line with the revised historical chronology proposed above, but it is considerably closer to it than to the conventional chronology. With radiocarbon I do not expect any better precision, at least not in this part of the calibration curve and with data of this quality.

The only way to get radiocarbon results a little bit more precise and more probable at the same time is by using the ‘wiggle matching’ approach55. This would be my preferred method with samples coming from a well stratified sequence. The first advantage of wiggle matching is that the range of possible fits of a date or a group of dates is limited by the dates of neighbouring strata. The second advantage is that you are forced to work directly with the calibration curve, which gives you a much better understanding of the underlying problems. In Fig. 4.9 you see the position of the 2-sigma ranges of the radiocarbon dates of Kastanas plotted above the calibration curve. They are grouped by their stratigraphic context and positioned along the calibration curve according to the date proposed by the conventional 54 55

A plea for ‘old wood’ Of course, radiocarbon dates grouped by stratigraphic evidence are not the perfect base for wiggle matching.

FIRI 2003, 219. Weninger 1997, 165–170.

72

M. TRACHSEL: STEPS TOWARDS A REVISED CHRONOLOGY OF GREEK GEOMETRIC POTTERY

Fig. 4.9. 2-sigma values of radiocarbon dates from Kastanas plotted above the calibration curve. Grouped by phases and positioned according to the conventional chronology. Numbers correspond to the Kastanas phases

Fig. 4.10. Same as fig. 4.9, but this time the radiocarbon groups have been positioned according to the principles of wiggle matching

73

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Dehl 1984, pl. 2 d. – Fig. 4.3, 3. 6–17: after Buchner – Ridgway 1993, pls. 90, 208/2; 100, 258/3. 258/6; 138, 469/2; 139, 470/3; 140, 472/4. 472/5; 143, 483/3. 483/12; 158, 536/7; 180, 651/2. 651/5; 186, 656/8. – Fig. 4.4: after Popham et al. 1979, pls. 60, 1. 2. 10. 14. 17. 18. 25; 62, 35; 62, 52. 61.

The best results are usually achieved with – oddly enough – old wood. With regard to the erratic behaviour of the calibration curve, the often unknown functional context and finally the inconsistent results from the laboratories, I really do not understand the recent hype about ‘shortlived’ samples. In my eyes, the perfect source of samples is a timber still forming part of a construction level. By this you have got a secure link between functional and stratigraphic context. Measuring radiocarbon samples of every tenth or twentieth tree ring of the timber results in a small calibration curve by itself that can be fitted to the main calibration curve with much more accuracy than a single date and also more accuracy compared to a sequence of dates with unknown spacing. The older the tree, the longer the tree-ring sequence, the better the fit. And you have plenty of large samples so that you can have the same part of the tree measured several times and/or by several laboratories (that being the kind of data the weighted mean is designed for). This method is also used in dendrochronology, when a new middle curve either does not fit to the main curve, or more or less equally well to several parts of it.

References BIANCO PERONI, V., 1976, Die Messer in Italien – I coltelli nell’Italia continentale, PBF VII, 2 (München 1976). BLEGEN, C.W., H. PALMER, R.S. YOUNG, 1964, Corinth XIII. The North Cemetery (Princeton 1964). BOUCHER, E., 1953, Céramique archaïque d’importation au Musée Lavigerie de Carthage, CahByrsa 3, 1953, 11–38. BUCHNER, G., D. RIDGWAY, 1993, Pithekoussai I. La necropoli: Tombe 1–723 scavate dal 1952 al 1961 (Roma 1993). CINTAS, P., 1970, Manuel d’Archéologie Punique I. Histoire et archéologie comparées, chronologie des temps archaïques de Carthage et des villes phéniciennes de l’ouest (Paris 1970).

Of course the timbers might have been reused from an earlier building. But if you have got several timbers as part of the same construction, you can apply dendrochronology and are likely to end up with a short middle curve. It might not be fitted to a dated curve (yet), but you see if the timbers have been felled within the same time span or not, thus offering more argument to decide if it is old wood. When you are extremely lucky and you have timbers from more than one construction phase, you are likely to get the exact time span in years between them. And sometime in the future the short, local middle curve might finally be fitted onto a dated one.

COLDSTREAM, J.N., 1968, Greek Geometric Pottery. A Survey of Ten Local Styles and Their Chronology (London 1968). COLDSTREAM, J.N., 1977, Geometric Greece (London 1977). COLDSTREAM, J.N., 1989, Early Greek visitors to Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean, in: V. TottonBrown (ed.), Cyprus and the East Mediterranean in the Iron Age. Proceedings of the 7th British Museum Classical Colloquium, April 1988 (London 1989) 90– 96.

This is my proposal for making the best use of the scientific dating methods: go for old wood, go for timbers and work on local dendrochronology. It might be difficult to find timbers preserved in a particular region, I know that very well, and even more difficult to construct a proper middle curve. But it is definitely worth the effort. Radiocarbon on its own does not have the potential to solve our chronological problems, not with the precision and reliability we are looking for.

COLDSTREAM, J.N., 1994, Pithekoussai, Cyprus and the Cesnola Painter, AIONArch (N.S.) 1, 1994, 77– 86. CROWFOOT, J.W., G.M. CROWFOOT, 1938, SamariaSebaste II. Early Ivories from Samaria (London 1938). CROWFOOT, J.W., G.M. CROWFOOT, K.M. KENYON, 1957, Samaria-Sebaste III. The objects from Samaria (London 1957). DÄMMER, H.W., 1978, Die bemalte Keramik der Heuneburg. Die Funde aus den Grabungen von 1950– 1973. Heuneburgstudien IV – RGF 37 (Mainz 1978).

Acknowledgements Credit for the French translation of the abstract text goes to Renate Heckendorf.

DEHL, C., 1984, Die korinthische Keramik des 8. und frühen 7. Jh. v. Chr. in Italien. Untersuchungen zu ihrer Chronologie und Ausbreitung, AM Beiheft 11 (Berlin 1984).

Illustration credits

FINKELSTEIN, I., 1995, The Date of the Settlement of the Philistines in Canaan, TelAvivJA 22, 1995, 213– 239.

Figs. 4.1. 5–10: by the author. – Fig. 4.2, 1. 3. 4: after Coldstream 1977, fig. 4.7.4 a. d. e. – Fig. 4.2, 2. 5: after Buchner – Ridgway 1993, pls. 245, 9; 248, 22. – Fig. 4.2, 6–8: after Ridgway 1981, nos. 6–8. – Fig. 4.3, 1. 4. 5: after Coldstream 1977, fig. 4.5.4 a–c. – Fig. 4.3, 2: after

FINKELSTEIN, I., D. USSISHKIN, B. HALPERN (eds.), 2000, Megiddo III. The 1992–1996 Seasons. Tel Aviv 74

M. TRACHSEL: STEPS TOWARDS A REVISED CHRONOLOGY OF GREEK GEOMETRIC POTTERY

University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 18 (Tel Aviv 2000).

Implications, in: D. Ridgway, F.R. Ridgway (eds.), Italy before the Romans. The Iron Age, Orientalizing and Etruscan Periods (London 1979) 145–183.

FIRI, 2003, The Fourth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (FIRI), Radiocarbon 45, 2003, 135–291.

RIDGWAY, D., 1981, The Foundation of Pithekoussai, in: Nouvelle contribution à l’étude de la société et de la colonisation eubéennes, Cahiers du Centre Jean Bérard 6 (Napoli 1981) 45–56.

FRENCH, E.B., 1998, The Ups and Downs of Mycenae: 1250-1150 BCE, in: S. Gitin, A. Mazar, E. Stern (eds.), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE (Jerusalem 1998) 2–5.

SIEVERS, S., 1984, Die Kleinfunde der Heuneburg, Die Funde aus den Grabungen von 1950–1979, Heuneburgstudien V – RGF 42. (Mainz 1984).

GUIDI, A., 1993, La necropoli veiente dei Quattro Fontanili nel quadro della fase recente della prima età del Ferro italiana, BiblStEtr 26 (Firenze 1993).

TOMEDI, G., 1996, Zur “Fabel von den Traditionsschwertern”, in: T. Stöllner (ed.), Europa celtica. Untersuchungen zur Hallstatt- und Latènekultur. Veröffentlichungen des Vorgeschichtlichen Seminars Marburg 12 (Espelkamp 1996) 167–188.

HANNESTAD, L., 1996, Absolute Chronology. Greece and the Near East c. 1000–500 BC, ActaArch 67, 1996, 39–49.

TOMS, J., 1986, The Relative Chronology of the Villanovan Cemetery of Quattro Fontanili at Veii, AIONArch 8, 1986, 41–97.

HÖLBL, G., 1979, Beziehungen der ägyptischen Kultur zu Altitalien, EPRO 62 (Leiden 1979). MORIGI GOVI, C., S. TOVOLI, 1979, La tomba Melenzani 22 – Osservazioni sul villanoviano III a Bologna, StEtr 47, 1979, 3–26.

TRACHSEL, M., 2004, Untersuchungen zur relativen und absoluten Chronologie der Hallstattzeit, Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 104 (Bonn 2004).

MÜLLER-KARPE, H., 1959, Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen, RGF 22 (Berlin 1959).

VEGAS, M., 1989, Archaische und mittelpunische Keramik aus Karthago; Grabungen 1987/88, RM 96, 1989, 209–265.

NEEFT, C.W., 1982, Corinthian Hemispherical Kotylai, Thapsos Panel-Cups and the West, in: La céramique grecque ou de tradition grecque au VIIIe siècle en Italie centrale et méridionale, Cahiers du Centre Jean Bérard 3 (Napoli 1982) 39–43.

VEGAS, M., 1997, Der Keramikimport in Karthago während der archaischen Zeit, RM 104, 1997, 351– 358. VEGAS, M., 1999, Eine archaische Keramikfüllung aus einem Haus am Kardo XIII in Karthago, RM 106, 1999, 395–438.

NEWTON, M.W., K.A. WARDLE, P.I. KUNIHOLM, 2005, Dendrochronology and Radiocarbon Determinations from Assiros and the Beginning of the Greek Iron Age, in: AErgoMak 17, 2003, a.k.a. Proceedings of the AETΘ Conference in Thessaloniki 2003 (Thessaloniki 2005) 173–190.

WARREN, P., V. HANKEY, 1989, Aegean Bronze Age Chronology (Bristol 1989). WEINSTEIN, J.M., 1998, Egyptian Relations with the Eastern Mediterranean World at the End of the Second Millennium BCE, in: S. Gitin, A. Mazar, E. Stern (eds.), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE (Jerusalem 1998) 188–196.

NIEMEIER, W.D., 1998, The Mycenaeans in Western Anatolia and the Problem of the Origins of the Sea Peoples, in: S. Gitin, A. Mazar, E. Stern (eds.), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE (Jerusalem 1998) 17–65. PERONI, R., 1994, Introduzione alla protostoria italiana, Manuali Laterza 47 (Roma 1994).

WENINGER, B., 1997, Studien zur dendrochronologischen Kalibration von archäologischen 14C-Daten, Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologe 43 (Bonn 1997).

POPHAM, M.R., L.H. SACKETT, P.G. THEMELIS (eds.), 1979, Lefkandi I. The Iron Age, BSA Suppl. 11 (Athens 1979/1980).

WILLIAMS, C.K., 1981, II, A Survey of Pottery from Corinth from 730 to 600 BC, ASAtene 59, 1981, 139– 153.

RATHJE, A., 1979, Oriental Imports in Etruria in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries BC. Their Origins and

75

ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN Christopher PARE Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Institut für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Schillerstrasse 11, D-55116 Mainz, Germany, e-mail: [email protected] Abstract: The dendrochronological dates from the lake-shore settlements north-west of the Alps provide precise dating evidence for the period from the 11th to the 9th centuries BC. The article uses this evidence to suggest an absolute chronology for the later part of the Italian Final Bronze Age. Cemetery evidence and hoards from north-east Italy are crucial for this purpose. Contacts with the Aegean, Cyprus, the Levant and the Iberian Peninsula are investigated, in order to link the Italian chronological sequence with evidence for long-distance contacts across the Mediterranean. A correlation of the major chronological horizons in the Dark Age Mediterranean is put forward for discussion. Keywords: Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Mediterranean, dendrochronology, cross-dating Résumé: Pour la période comprise entre le 11e et le 9e siècle av. J.-C., les données dendrochronologiques obtenues dans les habitats lacustres au nord-ouest des Alpes fournissent des données de datation précises. Dans le présent article, une chronologie absolue de la partie récente de l’âge du Bronze final en Italie est proposée. Elle est basée sur ces données. À cet effet, le mobilier funéraire et les dépôts du nord-est de l’Italie sont d’une importance cruciale. Afin de relier la séquence chronologique italienne avec les témoins de contacts à longue distance à travers la Méditerranée, les relations avec l’Égée, Chypre, le Levant, et avec la Péninsule Ibérique sont étudiées. Pour ce qui est des périodes obscures en méditerranée, une corrélation des horizons chronologiques majeurs est avancée et soumise à la discussion. Mots clé: âge du Bronze final, âge du Fer ancien, Méditerranée, dendrochronologie, datation par recoupement Abriss: Die Dendrodaten aus den nordwestalpinen Seeufersiedlungen bieten eine zuverlässige Datierungsgrundlage für die Zeit zwischen dem 11. und dem 9 Jahrhundert v. Chr. Auf Basis dieser Daten wird hier ein Vorschlag zur absoluten Chronologie des jüngeren Abschnitts der italischen Spätbronzezeit entwickelt. Grabfunde und Horte aus Nordostitalien spielen dabei eine entscheidende Rolle. Verbindungen zur Ägäis, nach Zypern, in die Levante und zur Iberischen Halbinsel wird nachgegangen, um die italische Chronologie mit Nachweisen mediterraner Fernkontakte zu verknüpfen. Davon ausgehend wird ein Vorschlag zur Korrelation der wesentlichen chronologischen Horizonte des “Dunklen Zeitalters” im Mittelmeerraum zur Diskussion gestellt. Schlüsselwörter: Spätbronzezeit, Früheisenzeit, Mittelmeer, Dendrochronologie, Überkreuzdatierung

Absolute dates are few and far between in the period from the 11th to the 9th century BC in the Mediterranean. However, there is one region, some distance removed from the sea, where a high-quality series of dendrochronological dates has been developed: the lake-shore settlements of Switzerland, eastern France and south-west Germany. In turn, these north-west Alpine regions are connected by traditions of bronze metalworking with northern, central and even southern Italy. Here I explore the question whether the dendro-dates of the lake-shore settlements can provide absolute dating anchors for the Italian peninsula. If so, the Italian sequence can then provide additional evidence for dating contacts between the East, Central and West Mediterranean.

SWITZERLAND AND THE RSFO Since first writing on the question of late Urnfield and early Hallstatt chronology in Central Europe in the 1990s2, considerable and welcome progress has been made, particularly in Switzerland and in the area northwest of the Alps (so-called Rhin-Suisse-France orientale or RSFO Urnfield group). This new work will be summarised very briefly. On the one hand, new publications of cemeteries confirmed the relative chronology devised by L. Sperber3: most important are publications by A. Matter on Regensdorf-Adlikon4, W. Brestrich on Singen5, and P. Moinat and M. David-Elbiali on Lausanne-Vidy6. On the other hand, work continued evaluating the implications of dendrochronological dates from the Swiss lake-shore settlements for the fine chronology of the later Urnfield

Before the discussion of contacts within the Mediterranean, mainly concentrating on fibulae and swords, it is necessary to trace the chronological links from Switzerland across the Alps to the Po valley, and then through central and southern Italy. The aim of this analysis is to identify the main chronological horizons in Italy within Bronzo Finale (BF) and at the start of the Early Iron Age (Primo Ferro, PF) and, as far as possible, link them with the dendrochronological sequence north-west of the Alps1.

(PF) IB corresponds to Villanoviano tipico, PF IC is a transitional stage to Villanoviano evoluto (PF II). In the terminology used here the last stage of Bronzo Finale (BF 3b) is contemporary with the first stage of Primo Ferro (PF IA): in the second half of the 10th century BC some regions of Italy are classified as terminal Bronze Age (Bronzo Finale/BF 3b) while others are classified as initial Early Iron Age (Primo Ferro/PF IA). 2 Pare 1998; Pare 1999a. 3 Sperber 1987. 4 Matter 1992. 5 Brestrich 1998. 6 Moinat – David-Elbiali 2003.

1

The chronological scheme used here for Italy is different in some details from those normally used in current Italian research. Primo Ferro

77

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 5.1. Overview of the main chronological schemes for the later Urnfield period (Ha B) in the area north-west of the Alps

period (Ha B), with important results published in volume 3 of “La Suisse du Paléolithique à l’aube du MoyenAge”7.

it is worth stating clearly the strengths and weaknesses of the information. For the sake of clarity the phases and their dates are summarised: Ha B1a: Ha B1b: Ha B2: Ha B3a: Ha B3b:

The present state of research has been summarised clearly in recent publications by P. Moinat, M. David-Elbiali and C. Dunning8; an overview of the main chronological schemes is shown here on Fig. 5.1. For the area northwest of the Alps it is possible to identify five phases within the younger and late Urnfield period: Ha B1a, Ha B1b, Ha B2, Ha B3a and Ha B3b. Considering the fluid development over the period in question (mid 11th–9th century BC), exemplified in a diagram by V. Rychner9, a schematic absolute chronology in half-centuries – as proposed by Dunning, Moinat and David-Elbiali – has much to commend it. Nevertheless, it is important to stress the point that some of these phases were probably longer than others. “Classic Ha B1”, or Ha B1b in the Swiss terminology, might have been longer than the early Ha B1 phase with elements of Ha A2 metalwork (Ha B1a in the Swiss terminology). Likewise “classic Ha B3”, or Swiss Ha B3a, might have been longer than Ha B2 or Ha B3b. Take for example the phase Ha B1a: is this a long phase occupying the middle and the whole of the second half of the 11th century BC, or a short phase mainly occupying the middle of the century (around 1060–1035 BC)? As for the following phase, the end of the Ha B1b lake-shore settlements seems to correspond with a phase of climatic crisis north-west of the Alps around 963–954 BC10, heralding the start of Ha B2; but the precise end of Ha B2, sometime in the late 10th century BC, is unclear. The tree-ring dates still allow room for differences of opinion on these questions. As the Swiss dates are of fundamental importance for the arguments in this article,

ca. 1060 – 1035/1010 BC 1035/1010 – ca. 960/950 BC ca. 960/950 – ca. 910 BC ca. 910 BC – ca. 850/830 BC ca. 850/830 – 810/780 BC

In view of the recent publications by P. Moinat, M. David-Elbiali and C. Dunning there is no need to discuss the foundations of this chronology in any detail. We may simply mention some of the sites which play a crucial role: Greifensee-Böschen, Hauterive-Champréveyres, Zug-Sumpf, Hagnau-Burg, Zürich-Großer Hafner and Cortaillod-Est for the definition of the phases Ha B1a and B1b, Le Landeron for the start of Ha B2, and Hauterive-Champréveyres, Auvernier-Nord, Mörigen, Chindrieux-Châtillon and Ürschhausen-Horn for distinguishing Ha B3a and B3b. Tumulus 8 from Wehringen “Hexenbergle” (Kr. Augsburg), with a treering date of 778 ± 5 BC is still crucial for dating the start of the Hallstatt period11. The aim of this article is instead to address the question whether the tree-ring dates of the north-west Alpine lakeshore settlements can contribute to the wider debate on chronology in the Mediterranean region around the transition from the Bronze to the Iron Age. As the lakeshore settlements do not contain imports from far-distant lands, which could potentially provide direct dating evidence, it is necessary to look in detail at the relationship with the cultural groups directly to the south of the Alps, which provide some basis for more farreaching conclusions.

7

Bolliger-Schreyer – Seifert 1998; Rychner 1998. Moinat – David-Elbiali 2003; David-Elbiali – Dunning 2005. 9 Rychner 1995, 483 fig. 24. 10 Billamboz 2004/05, 103 fig. 6 a. 8

11

78

Friedrich 2001.

C. PARE: ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN

Fig. 5.2. Synchronisation between chronological phases for the Urnfield period in the area north-west of the Alps and in northern Italy

of research can be summarised in tabular form without further discussion (Fig. 5.2). Instead it is more important to concentrate on finds of Bronzo Finale in the Veneto. Grave finds particularly from Frattesina (Fratta Polesine, Prov. Rovigo), but also from Fontanella Grazioli (Prov. Mantova) and Gazzo Veronese (Prov. Verona), are of considerable importance, as they demonstrate links not only with the area north of the Alps, but also with regions further south in Italy and beyond.

BETWEEN THE ALPS AND THE APENNINES At the Rome conference in 2003 a detailed treatment of late Protogolasecca and early Golasecca chronology in north-west Italy was presented by R. C. De Marinis and F. M. Gambari. Basing their conclusions particularly on grave finds from Morano sul Po (Prov. Alessandria) and Como-Ca’Morta, the authors were able to demonstrate contacts linking Protogolasecca II/Ascona II with Ha B1a, Protogolasecca III/Ca’Morta-Malpensa with Ha B1b, and Golasecca IA1 with Ha B312. At the same conference there was also considerable debate on the chronological relevance of the pins with small vase-shaped heads and engraved shaft, particularly common in graves from Bologna, and typical for Ha B3a north of the Alps. In an earlier publication, I suggested that this type of pin demonstrates the contemporaneity of Ha B3 and Bologna IA–B13. Despite the criticism of over-simplification by R. Peroni and A. Vanzetti14, I am convinced that these pins provide a reliable foundation – based on tree-ring dates – for dating Bologna IA to the first half of the 9th century BC15.

Two finds characteristic for north Italian BF 2, Fontanella grave 7 and Frattesina, Narde grave 227 deserve mention first (Fig. 5.5, A3–8). Both graves contain bronze flangehilted knives of Fontanella type, associated in Fontanella grave 7 with a pin of type Ala, variant A and in Frattesina grave 227 with a pin with three globules. This combination of types is also found north-west of the Alps: the knife blades correspond to A.-M. Rychner-Faraggi’s Form 216, and similar pins are found in GreifenseeBöschen, Zürich-Großer Hafner layer 3, HauteriveChampréveyres zone A–B/layer 3 and Hagnau-Burg17. These parallels provide a reliable date for Fontanella grave 7 and Frattesina, Narde grave 227 corresponding to Ha B1a, or the mid/late 11th century BC18. Owing to the identical pins of type Fontanella, variant A in Fontanella graves 7 and 10, the latter grave with a razor of type Fontanella should be assigned the same date (Fig. 5.5, A1.

As these questions were reviewed in detail by scholars at the recent Rome conference, my view of the present state 12 De Marinis – Gambari 2005. See also David-Elbiali – Dunning 2005, 172 f. 13 Following the work of A. Mäder, today it is clear that the engraved pins actually indicate a link between Ha B3a and Bologna IA; see Mäder 2001, 51 fig. 34 (“Strichstil”). – A local Bolognese variant of this pin type seems to have been developed in Bologna IB; see Pare 1998, 301 fig. 1, 17. 23; p. 311 fig. 7 (types 17 and 23). – For a pin of the Bolognese variant from Como-Ca’Morta grave 289, see De Marinis – Gambari 2005, 218 pl. 5. 14 Peroni – Vanzetti 2005. 15 For the same opinion, see De Marinis 2005, 27. – De Marinis (p. 22 note 34) correctly noted some mistakes in my 1998 article: in particular, types 46 and 47 were mistakenly swopped on the seriation table (Pare 1998, Beilage I).

16 Rychner-Faraggi 1993, 40–43 pl. 31, 7–9; 32; 33, 1. – G. L. Carancini and R. Peroni have recently introduced a new knife type “Tragno/ Narde”; however, the Narde grave 227 knife is clearly different to Tragno and all the other late Matrei knives; see Carancini – Peroni 1999, 58 no. 51. 17 David-Elbiali – Dunning 2005, 179 pl. 1, 2. 5. 6. 7. – For the pin with three globules, see examples in the hoard from Lešany, okr. Prostějov, Moravia: Říhovský 1979, pl. 30, 561. 562. 18 The most important context is from Hauterive-Champréveyres, with tree-ring dates ranging between 1054 and 1037 BC: see David-Elbiali – Dunning 2005, 152–154.

79

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 5.3. Synchronisation between regional chronologies for the BF and PF from different parts of Italy and their relationship to the chronological phases in Central Europe

Fig. 5.4. Synchronisation between chronological schemes for the Late Bronze Age of Central Europe and different parts of the Mediterranean

2). These associations provide a date for knives of Fontanella type, which is important in view of similar knives in contexts such as the hoard from Monte Primo (Prov. Macerata)19 or the grave from Castellace (Prov. Reggio Calabria)20. 19 20

There are further finds from Frattesina which provide additional information on the later part of Bronzo Finale. Most important are Narde grave 39, Zanotto graves 41/1980 and III/1978 and Frattesina hoard I (Fig. 5.6, A. B. E. F). All four contexts have fibulae with triangular outline (“knee-fibulae”), with or without a loop at the knee; in some cases the wire bow is formed by a series of figures-of-eight (Fig. 5.6, A3. B2. F3). Simple semi-

Peroni 1963, I.7. Pacciarelli 2001, 48. 196. 192 fig. 111, 1.

80

C. PARE: ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN

Fig. 5.5. A Graves with pins and knives of BF 2 in northern Italy: 1. 2 Fontanella, grave 10; 3. 4 Frattesina, Narde grave 227; 5–8 Fontanella, grave 7; B Fibulae from the Limone hoard, typical for BF 3a 81

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

circular arched fibulae with twisted bow are also represented. Narde grave 39 also has a fragment of an arched fibula with three swellings (Fig. 5.6, E3; compare Narde grave 52, Fig. 5.2, E7), and a fragment of a serpentine fibula with rectangular outline (Fig. 5.6, E4; compare Bismantova, Fig. 5.6, E8). The concave curve of the Bismantova fibula bow is repeated in a related serpentine fibula from Frattesina, Zanotto grave III/1978 (Fig. 5.6, F1). In Frattesina hoard I the fibulae are associated, among other things, with a pin of Verucchio type and amber beads of Tiryns and Allumiere types (Fig. 5.6, B). A similar pin is associated with a knife of Vadena type in Frattesina hoard IV (Fig. 5.6, C). As an amber bead of Allumiere type has been found in a Ha B1a context at Hauterive-Champréveyres21, and the pins and knife from hoards I and IV are similar to examples already discussed (Fig. 5.5, A), a date corresponding to Ha B1a might be suggested for these contexts. For typological reasons, the Vadena type of flangehilted knife is normally dated later than the Fontanella type (some Vadena knives have a blade of Rychner-Faraggi’s form 3, which starts in Ha B1b)22. However, it is not unlikely that Vadena knives already came into production at the same time as the Fontanella type, in the mid/late 11th century BC (BF 2) – the date also suggested for the hoard of Poggio Berni (Prov. Forlì)23.

E3. 7). These contexts with earliest serpentine fibulae (Fig. 5.6, E1. 8. F1. G; Fig. 5.5, B5–8) are typical for Bronzo Finale 3a. Finally we should mention one further important context from Frattesina: Zanotto grave 31/1980 has a more developed serpentine fibula with curved pin and sheet bronze foot, associated with an urn with complex engraved decoration including the “n-ramificata” motif, a type of decoration dated by N. Negroni Catacchio to the later part of BF 327 (Fig. 5.7, A) – corresponding to BF 3b as described by M. Pacciarelli28. Whereas the two-piece serpentine fibulae in BF 3a typically have a straight pin (Fig. 5.6, G; Fig. 5.5, B6–8), and those in the Early Iron Age (for example Bologna IA) often have a D-shaped pin29, the fibulae in BF 3b have a more gently curving pin and clearly define a separate chronological phase (see for example Fig. 5.7, A3. B2. C. D; the same is true for the one-piece serpentine fibulae: Fig. 5.7, E). It is important to note that a two-piece fibula of this kind is associated in Gazzo Veronese grave 74 with a razor of type Herrenbaumgarten (Fig. 5.7, B1), which indicates a chronological link between BF 3b south of the Alps with Ha B2 in the north30. The development of arched fibulae from female graves is more difficult to pursue; however, the selection from Gazzo Veronese grave 96 can be assigned with some confidence to BF 3b (Fig. 5.7, F).

Among the objects from the Frattesina graves, the serpentine fibulae with concave curved back and kneeloop (Fig. 5.6, E1. E4. E8. F1), together with fragments of heavily ribbed serpentine fibulae with straight pins from Narde grave 80 and Zanotto grave 21/197924 (Fig. 5.6, G) should be assigned a slightly later date than the triangular fibulae with straight shanks (Fig. 5.6, A1. 2. 4; B1. 3. 5), already in BF 3a. Fragments of comparable fibulae have been found at Morano sul Po (grave 5/1994) and Angarano (grave 42) together with pins of type Fiavè and pins with cylindro-conical head which – according to Morano sul Po grave 1/1995 – were used during the first half of the 10th century BC (Ha B1b)25. Furthermore at Celano (Abruzzo), a fibula of this kind has been dated by A. Nijboer to around 1000 BC by 14C and wigglematching26. Comparable serpentine fibulae are known from the hoard of Limone (Prov. Livorno): these examples again have the typical concave curve of the bow (Fig. 5.5, B5; compare Fig. 5.6, E1. F1. G) and are associated with arched fibulae with thickened bow, in one case with three swellings (Fig. 5.5, B3; compare Fig. 5.6,

In the preceding paragraphs I argued for a division of Bronzo Finale into four phases, corresponding to the following phases north of the Alps; typical hoards are given as examples: Ha A1/2

BF 1

Gualdo Tadino

Ha B1a

BF 2

Coste del Marano

Ha B1b

BF 3a

Limone

Ha B2

BF 3b

Piediluco

The distinction between BF 2 and 3a is based partly on typological considerations: in my opinion the triangular fibulae with straight shanks, along with simple arched fibulae with twisted bow (e.g. Fig. 5.6, A. B) start in BF 2, whereas the serpentine fibulae with concave-curved bow (e.g. Fig. 5.6, E. F. G; Fig. 5.5, B5–8) begin in BF 3a. The fibula from Celano, dated by Nijboer to around 1000 BC, provides an absolute date for the latter phase31. A second support for the distinction between these two phases is provided by bronze hoards, for which the difference between BF 2 (palette a cannone and pani a piccone are

21

Rychner-Faraggi 1993, pl. 124, 6. 7. Bianco-Peroni 1976, 19–23. 23 Morico 1984. – For parallels between the swords from Poggio Berni and Castellace, see Pacciarelli 2001, 191. 196. – For the development from Matrei to Vadena knives, see De Marinis 1999, 529 fig. 12, 6; p. 531 fig. 13, 8 (Lavagnone). 24 Associated with the fibula in grave 21/1979 is a bowl with n-shaped “motivi angolari”; see Bietti Sestieri et al. 2001, 127. 25 Angarano grave 42, see Bianchin Citton 1982. – Morano sul Po grave 5/1994 and grave 1/1995 (with “Bombenkopfnadel”), see Gambari 1999. 26 The results are reported by Nijboer in this volume. – On the Celano graves, see D’Ercole 1998; Cosentino 1999. 22

27

See Bietti Sestieri et al. 2001, 129. Pacciarelli 2001, 36–39. – For typical finds of BF 3b see, for example, Volterra, Le Ripaie: Zanini 1997, 181–185. 29 See for example graves in Bologna IA: Pare 1998, 301 fig. 1, 6. – Ponte Nuovo di Gazzo Veronese: De Marinis 1999, 540 fig. 18, 3. 30 Razors of type Herrenbaumgarten differ from type Oblekovice/ Fontanella in having the triangular protrusion close to the handle; see: Jockenhövel 1971, 205–209; Weber 1996, 234–244. 31 See note 26. 28

82

C. PARE: ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN

Fig. 5.6. Objects from graves and hoards of BF 2 (A-D) and BF 3a (E-G) from Frattesina: A Zanotto grave 41/1980; B Hoard I; C Hoard IV; D Hoard II; E1–6 Narde grave 39 (E7 Narde grave 52 and E8 Bismantova are shown as suggested reconstructions for E3. 4); F Zanotto grave III/1978; G Zanotto grave 21/1979

83

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 5.7. Grave finds of BF 3b in north-east Italy: A Frattesina, Zanotto grave 31/80; B Gazzo Veronese, grave 74; C Gazzo Veronese, grave 134; D Angarano; E Gazzo Veronese, grave 111; F Gazzo Veronese, grave 96

84

C. PARE: ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN

particularly characteristic) and BF 3 is widely accepted by scholars32. And finally, the last stage in Bronzo Finale, BF 3b, seems reliably founded on both grave and hoard evidence33.

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN ITALY The latest phase of Bronzo Finale in the Po valley has clear links to BF 3b in Umbria and Etruria, best known from the hoards of Piediluco/“Contigliano” type40. Among the characteristic types are heavily ribbed serpentine fibulae of the developed kind already encountered in Frattesina, Gazzo Veronese and Angarano41 (Fig. 5.7, A– E), knives with wide blades of type Piediluco42, heavy thickened arched fibulae43 and fibulae with flanged torsion44. It is important to note that this horizon has clear parallels in Latial phase IIA1 and particularly in Torre Galli IA45. By contrast, it is uncertain to what extent (and which) Villanovan centres were already intensively settled at this time46. It is important to note that in the second half of the 10th century BC (corresponding to Ha B2 north of the Alps), some parts of Italy are still classified as belonging to the end of Bronzo Finale (north Italy, Etruria: “BF 3b”) whereas in other areas major Iron Age settlements and cemeteries have already come into prominence (Calabria, Latium: “PF IA”).

In this context it is worth drawing attention to the question of the correlation of the start of Bronzo Finale with the Central European sequence. As argued here, BF 2 is assigned a date in the mid/late 11th century BC. The links between BF 2 and Ha B1a seem convincing, not only on account of the graves from Frattesina and Fontanella mentioned above. A number of other bronzes from BF 2 hoards, including flanged axes34, spearheads35, Fontanella and Vadena knives36, and pani a piccone37 are found in Ha B1 contexts (hoard horizon IV) in the Carpathian Basin and north of the Alps. This leaves us with the question of BF 1, for which I suggest a date in the late 12th and first half of the 11th century BC (according to Aegean parallels, the beginning of BF 1 should be set between 1140 and 1100 BC, see below). Should BF 1 be paralleled with Ha A2 or Ha A1 north of the Alps? Dendrochronological research on finds from Elgg-Breiti, Canton Zürich, is relevant for this question. “Early Br D” material from Elgg-Breiti has been dated to the second half of the 13th century BC (1230 BC or later), suggesting that “later Br D” continued for some time into the first half of the 12th century BC38. This would suggest a correspondingly lower start for Ha A1, perhaps the second quarter of the 12th century BC (probably not before 1180/1170 BC). Furthermore, R. Jung39 argues that swords of Allerona/Stätzling type began in the East Mediterranean in advanced LH IIIC, indicating that Ha A1 continued into the second half of the same century. Given the dendrochronological date for the beginning of Ha B1a by ca. 1060 BC, and the end of Br D2 not earlier than ca. 1180/1170 BC, the transition from Ha A1 to A2 must be located in the late 12th century BC (ca. 1125/1100 BC). According to this reasoning, BF 1 mainly ran parallel with Ha A2 north of the Alps, while Ha A1 should mainly be linked to the latest part of Bronzo Recente.

With the start of the Iron Age, earlier in Calabria and Latium (mid 10th century BC), slightly later (ca. 900 BC) in Campania, Etruria and Emilia-Romagna, the large inhumation and cremation cemeteries provide a much sounder basis for chronology. It is not necessary here to discuss the state of research in detail; instead my understanding of the situation is represented in Fig. 5.3, which shows a number of important local sequences between the Po valley and Sicily47. Finally, the Italian BF 3b/PF IA horizon (second half of the 10th century BC) can be traced further to Sicily (Pantalica 2b), where Cassibile fibulae48 clearly represent a contemporary phenomenon. Recently, M. Turco has argued for a division of the Pantalica 2 phase, based mainly on the development of arched fibulae: Pantalica 2a is characterised by lightly thickened arched fibulae and early forms of knee-fibula, 2b in contrast by heavily 40 Piediluco I (Mus. Pigorini): Müller-Karpe 1959, 74 fig. 5 pl. 48–52, A. – Piediluco II/“Contigliano” (Mus. Naz. Perugia): Ponzi Bonomi 1970. – Piediluco III (Mus. Copenhagen): Dietz 1982. – Elba: Kilian 1975. – Goluzzo: Müller-Karpe 1959, pl. 47. – Santa Marinella: Bastianelli 1934. 41 Some of the fibulae have a sheet bronze foot. – See, for example: Ponzi Bonomi 1970, 117 fig. 8, 20–21; Müller-Karpe 1959, pls. 47, 7; 48, 11. – In Piediluco I and II there are apparently fragments of later fibulae: Müller-Karpe 1959, pl. 48, 14; Ponzi Bonomi 1970, 117 fig. 8, 25. 42 Bianco Peroni 1976, 64–66. 43 For example: Müller-Karpe 1959, pls. 47, 2. 5; 48, 17–19; Ponzi Bonomi 1970, 117 fig. 8, 1. 7. 12. 44 For example: Bastianelli 1934, 447 fig. 3, b–d; Müller-Karpe 1959, pl. 48, 1–3; Kilian 1975, pl. 34, 7; Ponzi Bonomi 1970, 117 fig. 8, 5. 45 For Torre Galli, see: Pacciarelli 1999, fig. 10. – For Osteria dell’Osa, for example fibulae from graves 104, 122, 153, 149 etc. (arched fibulae) and 75, 139, 363, 371, 452 (serpentine fibulae), see: Bietti Sestieri 1992. 46 See the discussion in Pacciarelli 1999, 56 f. 47 Many details in this correlation of the Iron Age sequences have been derived from Pacciarelli 1999. 48 A useful introduction to the Cassibile phase is provided in Turco 2000.

32

For a useful summary, see Carancini – Peroni 1999. See Pacciarelli 2001, 36–39. 34 See for example the axes with protruding flanges from Frattesina hoard II (Fig. 5.6, D), Poggio Berni and Casalecchio, and parallels north of the Alps: Teržan 1996, 68 fig. 3 (distribution map); see also Merklingen: Schauer 1971, pl. 145, C. 35 See for example the spearhead of München-Widenmayerstr. type from the Poggio Berni hoard: Morico 1984, 19 fig. 2, 5; cf. Pare 1998, Beilage III, 1; Pare 1999a, Beilage VI, 5; Beilage VII, 3. 36 See particularly the knives of type Pfatten/Vadena, for example discussed in Müller-Karpe 1949/50. 37 For distribution maps, see: Trampuž Orel – Heath 2001, 156 fig. 13; Bachmann et al. 2002/03, 93 fig. 13. 38 Mäder – Sormaz 2000. – In the Nordic Zone, late Period II (contemporary with Br C2 in Central Europe) is dated to the second and third quarter of the 14th century BC; according to the Danish oak coffins, the transition from Period II to III (corresponding with the transition from Br C2 to D in Central Europe) dates between 1340 and 1319 BC. See Randsborg – Christensen 2006. 39 Jung 2006, 208. 33

85

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 5.8. Grave inventories from Madonna del Piano (Catania): A grave 26; B grave 194

86

C. PARE: ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN

thickened arched fibulae and the typical Cassibile fibula type49. Furthermore, Turco notes that the Cassibile fibulae themselves apparently underwent a development from lighter forms with straight shanks50 (e.g. Fig. 5.12, 1) to heavier, thickened forms51 (e.g. Fig. 5.12, 2, and see below).

These swords represent the final stage of development of bowl-pommel swords (Schalenknaufschwerter) and for typological reasons can be understood as typical for the phase Ha B2 in the Carpathian Basin. The same date is indicated by the Celldömölk-Sághegy hoards. As for the iron parallels for the flange-hilted swords from Trilj and Sághegy (Fig. 5.9, B2. 3) from the Aegean, a similar date in the second half of the 10th century BC seems likely: with the earliest well dated examples coming from Late Protogeometric contexts and from Vergina in phase IIIA. After the introduction of the scabbard form in BF 3a, various styles of armament were used together in the Adriatic in BF 3b/PF IA: Italic, Greek and Central European. The new scabbard type was used with all these kinds of sword, suggesting the contemporaneity of BF 3b/PF IA, Late Protogeometric and Ha B2 in the second half of the 10th century BC.

The two recently excavated graves 26 and 194 from Molino della Badia, Madonna del Piano (Prov. Catania), along with the Calabrian grave finds from Castellace, date before the Piediluco/Torre Galli IA/Pantalica 2b horizon (Fig. 5.8). Parallels for the fibulae can be mentioned, for example, from Limone in the case of the arched fibula in grave 194 (compare Fig. 5.8, B2 with Fig. 5.5, B4), or from Frattesina for the fibula in grave 2652 (Fig. 5.8, A4; the bow the fibula is slightly concave, a feature typical of BF 3a, see for example Fig. 5.6, E1. F1; Fig. 5.5, B5). The short-sword from Madonna del Piano grave 26 was provided with a bronze sheet scabbard with scale-like decoration and a characteristic chape with terminal button53 (Fig. 5.8, A1–3). A similar sword and scabbard is known from southern Italy, but without a precise provenance (Fig. 5.9, B1); as in the case of Madonna del Piano grave 26, a BF 3a date is preferable. This type of chape, along with decorated scabbards and elaborate scabbard-mouths, became more common in Primo Ferro IA, as examples from Torre Galli show54, and the type was transmitted up the Adriatic Sea and even into the Carpathian Basin. In Trilj (Fig. 5.9, B2) and in Celldömölk-Sághegy hoard II (Fig. 5.9, B3) the scabbards contained bronze swords corresponding to an Aegean iron type known from Lefkandi and Athens from Late Protogeometric and Early Geometric graves55. Further examples come from Vergina in phase IIIA, which according to I. Kilian-Dirlmeier began around 925 BC56. Finally, similar scabbard components are found with solid-hilted swords, once again from Celldömölk-Sághegy hoard II (Fig. 5.9, B4) and from Kastav (Fig. 5.9, B5).

Two swords from BF 3b contexts in west central Italy, the hoard from “Contigliano” (Fig. 5.9, A1) and the grave from Montagna di Campo on Elba (Fig. 5.9, A2), may be compared with a third sword from Brežec, grave 124/5 which was sheathed in a scabbard of the kind discussed above57 (Fig. 5.9, A3, compare Fig. 5.9, B4). All three swords share the common feature of having a rounded swelling on the lower part of their hilts. If we may consider this as a characteristic feature of BF 3b swords, then we once again find a link with Ha B2 in the area north of the Alps, as exactly this feature is found on the fore-runners of the well-known Ha B3 solid-hilted swords of Auvernier and Weltenburg type58 (Fig. 5.9, A4–6). The swords on Fig. 5.9 provide a strong indication that Italian BF 3b/PF IA can be regarded as contemporary with Central European Ha B2, as was also noted above on the basis of the razor of Herrenbaumgarten type from Gazzo Veronese, grave 74 (Fig. 5.7, B1).

CONTACTS WITH THE EAST AND WEST MEDITERRANEAN

49

Turco 2000, 88–91. For example Modica: Giardino 1995, 24 fig. 11, 14. – Compare the Cassibile fibula from Modica with two-looped examples in graves from Castiglione di Paludi: Bianco Peroni 1979, pl. 92, F; 93, A. – The swords from Modica belong to the Torre Galli type, found in Torre Galli already in the earliest phase of the cemetery. 51 For example Castelluccio: Di Stefano – Giardino 1990/91, 516 fig. 22, 74. 52 For the greaves from grave 26, see Clausing 2002, 164 fig. 8. 53 Another very similar short-sword and chape come from Madonna del Piano, grave 40, see: Albanese Procelli – Lo Schiavo 2004, 405 fig. 1, 2. – A mould for this type of chape has been found at Morgantina, dating to phase IB of the settlement; see: Leighton 1993, pl. 156, 661. – For a sword of type Torre Galli, with a similar chape, from the cemetery of Molino della Badia, see: La Rosa 1989, fig. 18. - For possible Atlantic predecessors for this type of chape, see: Hein 1989, 315 fig. 5. 54 For examples with ivory hilt and scabbard-mouth elements, see for example graves 34 and 65: Pacciarelli 1999, pls. 29, 10. 11; 56, 6. 7. 55 Kilian-Dirlmeier 1993, nos. 274. 275. 278. 280. 321. – For an iron sword of this type from Škocjan/San Canziano, “Mušja jama”, see: Szombathy 1937, 98 fig. 92. – For a discussion of these swords, see: Harding 1995, 55–58. 56 Kilian-Dirlmeier 1993, 124 f. (e.g. nos. 360. 361. 363). – For the start of Vergina IIIA at ca. 950/920 BC, and for a comparison of the Vergina sequence with other regions of the Balkans, see: Pare 1998, 336–339. 50

Bronzo Finale 1 Fibulae provide a useful starting point for a review of the international relations of Italy in Bronzo Finale. Fortunately, we now have available the study by R. Jung on the comparative chronology of southern Greece and southern Italy from LH I–IIIC59. Among other things, he collected information on “transitional” forms between late violin-bow60 and arched fibulae (Fig. 5.10, A), which at 57 Apart from the example from Celldömölk-Sághegy (Fig. 5.9, B4), compare also a scabbard from Škocjan/San Canziano, “Mušja jama”, see: Szombathy 1937, 147 fig. 91. 58 For a discussion of the origins of the Auvernier and Weltenburg swords (v. Quillfeldt types Corcelettes, Riedlingen, Auvernier, Hostomice), see: v. Quillfeldt 1995, 206–213. 216–225. 59 Jung 2006. 60 The later violin-bow fibulae are characterised by a high foot, giving the fibula a triangular outline. Compare the Mühlau variant found in the Alps and around the Caput Adriae: Betzler 1974, 11–13.

87

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 5.9. A Swords of BF 3b/Ha B2: 1 Piediluco II/“Contigliano”; 2 Montagna del Campo; 3 Škocjan-Brežec, grave 124/125; 4 Weinheim; 5 Kirschgartshausen; 6 unprovenanced (Moravia?); B Swords of BF 3a (1) and BF 3b/Ha B2 (2–5): 1 Southern Italy; 2 Trilj; 3. 4 Celldömölk-Sághegy, hoard II; 5 Kastav (B Not to scale)

88

C. PARE: ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN

Fig. 5.10. A. B Latest Mycenean and Submycenean fibulae: A1 Perati, chamber-tomb 74; A2 Elátia, chamber-tomb 12; A3 Pilóna, chamber-tomb 4; B1 Lefkandi, Skoubris grave 22; B2 Athens, Kerameikos grave 33; B3 Athens, Kerameikos grave 108; B4 Athens, Kerameikos grave 44; B5 Athens, Kerameikos grave 42; B6 Athens, Kerameikos grave 108; B7 Lefkandi, Skoubris grave 15B; B8 Lefkandi, Skoubris grave 19; B9 Lefkandi, Skoubris grave 43; C Italian pins of BF 2 (1. 2) compared with Submycenean pins from Athens and Lefkandi (3–7): C1 Fontanella, grave 7; C2 Frattesina, hoard I; C3. 4 Lefkandi, Skoubris grave 62; C5 Athens, Kerameikos SM grave 41; C6. 7 Athens, Kerameikos SM grave 70

89

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Frattesina offer the clearest evidence68; another well known piece is an ivory comb of a type commonly found at Frattesina from Enkomi in a Late Cypriot IIIB1 context69 – perhaps corresponding to a date around the first half of the 11th century BC70. Contact is also demonstrated by the distribution of amber beads of Tiryns and Allumiere type71 (Fig. 5.13). It is surely no coincidence that fibulae related to BF 2 in Italy are often found in the same areas as the amber beads. At Dridu (Wallachia), a two-looped stilted fibula and a symmetrical arched fibula were found in a hoard together with a bead of Allumiere type (Fig. 5.11, A) and on the north-west coast of the Black Sea we can mention the beads of Tiryns type72 from Hordeevka on the Southern Bug in eastern Podolia, and M. Kašuba has recently drawn attention to a series of twolooped knee-fibulae with triangular outline of the type we have already encountered in Frattesina in BF 273 (e.g. Fig. 5.11, B4–7; compare Fig. 5.6, A1. 2. B5). Finally it is worth mentioning a similar fibula with swollen bow and one knob from Hama in Syria74, not far from the Tiryns amber beads from Ugarit and Achziv75.

sites such as Perati, Argos, Elátia, Trípes, Mouliana (Crete) and Pilóna (Rhodes), can be dated to LH IIIC-late, although a possible start in LH IIIC-advanced cannot be excluded. This is most important for Italy, because these kinds of fibula, particularly examples with miniature footdisc and earliest forms with stilted bow, characterise the start of Bronzo Finale (BF 1)61. Related fibulae can be mentioned, for example, from Fucino, Milazzo and Gualdo Tadino. Clearly, this suggests a lower date for the start of BF 1 (1140/1100 BC) than has hitherto been estimated – providing of course that the conventional chronology in the Aegean is correct (ca. 1150/1140– 1100/1090 BC for LH IIIC-advanced, ca. 1100/1090– 1060 BC for LH IIIC-late). Mycenean pottery in Italian settlements (mainly Broglio di Trebisacce and Torre Mordillo in the Sibaritide) also indicates that the transition from Bronzo Recente 2 to Bronzo Finale 1 should be located during LH IIIC-advanced62. Bronzo Finale 2 The arched fibulae with symmetrical twisted bow (e.g. Fig. 5.10, B4), the stilted fibulae (often with two knobs, e.g. Fig. 5.10, B2. 5) and the asymmetrical arched fibulae (e.g. Fig. 5.10, B8) of the Submycenean period are quite distinct from LH IIIC forms, and provide good parallels for BF 2 fibulae in Italy: this is clear not only for the symmetrical arched fibulae with twisted bow, but particularly for the stilted examples with two knobs, for example from Casalmoro (Prov. Mantova)63, Coste del Marano (Prov. Rome)64, Pantalica Nord and Caltagirone (Sicily)65.

A possible route for the contacts shown by the fibulae and amber beads between the northern Adriatic and the Black Sea along the Save and the lower Danube has been suggested by M. Kašuba76, and a similar exchange network along the Save and Danube has also been postulated by N. Trampuž Orel77. Apart from the fibulae and amber beads from Wallachia and the north-west Black Sea coast, mentioned above (Fig. 5.11, A; B4–7), the two-looped fibulae from Korbovo, Drmno, Mala Vrbica and Vajuga-Pesak also deserve mention78 (Fig. 5.11, B1–3). These finds seem to show a route of contact running between the northern Adriatic and the lower Danube and Black Sea and it is probably no coincidence that this region forms the southern extent of the rich bronze production of the eastern Urnfield culture – centred in the Carpathian Basin but with numerous hoards

The contemporaneity of BF 2 and Submycenean is underlined by the use of similar pins in north-east Italy and the Aegean. According to I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, paired bronze pins were first worn in the Aegean during the Submycenean period (“Typengruppe A”), when examples with a swollen neck (sometimes facetted) and thickened head came into use (Fig. 5.10, C3–7)66. These are similar – if not identical – to the pins of types Verucchio and Fontanella described by G. L. Carancini (Fig. 5.10, C1. 2)67, and it is not unlikely that this mode of dress reached Greece from the west – quite likely via the Adriatic coast (Albania) from north-east Italy.

68 See for example Cassola Guida 1999; Bietti Sestieri – De Grossi Mazzorin 1995. – For imported LH IIIC-late and Protogeometric pottery from Frattesina, see: Bietti Sestieri 1982; Jones – Vagnetti 1991, 134. 139. 69 Enkomi, upper layer of grave 6 of the French excavations: Vagnetti 1986, 212 fig. 4, 4. 70 For a discussion of LC IIIB absolute chronology, see for example: Gilboa – Sharon 2003, 65. 71 On Tiryns and Allumiere beads, see: Negroni Catacchio 1999; Eder 2003, 54 fig. 3; Steinhauser – Primas 1987; Harding 2000, 191 fig. 5.12; Bellintani 1997, 117 f. 72 On the date of Tiryns beads in the Aegean (later LH IIIC and Submycenean) see: Metzner-Nebelsick 2005, 308 note 69. 73 Kašuba forthcoming. 74 Pedde 2000, pl. 2, 14. – Note also the similar fibula from the Sliven region in Bulgaria: Gergova 1987, pl. 8, 101. 75 Negroni Catacchio 1999. 76 Kašuba forthcoming. 77 Trampuž-Orel – Heath 2001, 143–171; e.g. 156 fig. 13. – Further evidence for contact is provided by female dress ornaments: compare for example Castions di Strada and Dridu: Castions di Strada, Evade Viere, grave 1: Càssola Guida et al. 2004, 87 fig. 6. – Dridu: Enăchiuc 1995. 78 Vasić 1999 pl. 2, 18-21; Vinski-Gaparini 1973, pl. 89, 7; Pare 1998, 415 fig. 49, 8.

It is, of course, well known that Italy, the Aegean and Cyprus were in contact at this time. The exotic finds from 61

Bietti Sestieri 1973, 402–404. Jung 2006. See also Alberti – M. Bettelli 2005. 63 De Marinis 1999, 524 fig. 8, 4. 5. 7. 64 Peroni 1961, I.1 nos. 11–14. 65 Pantalica Nord: Orsi 1912, pl. 6, 22. – Montagna di Caltagirone: Tanasi 2004, 434 fig. 21. 66 Kilian-Dirlmeier 1984, 66–69. 67 Carancini 1975, 207–211. – Furthermore, note the curious so-called “Stangenbuckel” from Athens, Kerameikos PG grave 24 (transition from Submycenean to early Protogeometric or early Protogeometric) and from Kelheim, grave 213 (transition from SB IIc to IIIa1 in the terminology of L. Sperber); see: Müller-Karpe 1962, 88 fig. 6, 10; p. 115 fig. 35, 4. 62

90

C. PARE: ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN

Fig. 5.11. A Bronze fibulae and amber beads from Dridu, Wallachia; B Bronze two-looped knee-fibulae from Drmno (1), Korbovo (2), Vajuga (3), Lukjanovka (4), Strumok (5), Cazaclia (6) and Lucaşueca (7); C Arched fibulae from Lefkandi, Toumba cemetery, graves 5, 22, 27 and 32

91

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Ferro IA in Italy – from sites such as Knossos87 and Kydonia88 in Crete or Patos grave 6789 in Albania, but they do not provide precise chronological information. The socalled Cassibile fibula and its derivatives (“Huelva fibulae”, “Megiddo fibulae”) is much more important, and has already been discussed by numerous authors90.

from northern Croatia, northern Serbia and Romania. Indeed, this is the time of the apogee of the south-eastern Urnfield culture, with the maximum expansion of the pottery with fluted decoration (“Kannelierte Keramik” or “Buckelkeramik”), found as far as Troy in period VIIb2-3 (late 12th to first half of 10th century BC)79. Perhaps it was the plentiful bronze (amber and gold?) in this region which attracted contacts with north Adriatic exchange partners.

As M. Turco has noted91 the Cassibile fibulae undergo a development from thinner examples with straight shanks (Fig. 5.12, 1) to thickened pieces with concave curved shanks (Fig. 5.12, 2). It is the latter kind, for example from the hoard of Castelluccio, that offers the best parallels for the fibulae from the Huelva hoard (Fig. 5.12, 4). According to the arguments put forward above, this would date the Huelva pieces no earlier than Pantalica 2b (Italian BF 3b/PF IA, ca. 960/950–910 BC)92. A fibula of Huelva type from Cerro de la Miel (Prov. Granada, Fig. 5.12, 5) finds a satisfactory parallel in Palia Perivolia grave 3 at Lefkandi (Fig. 5.12, 9), dating to the Late Protogeometric period, again suggesting a date in the second half of the 10th century BC.

Bronzo Finale 3a Apart from amber and fibulae, swords provide additional information on chronology and contact at this time. Madonna del Piano grave 194 has a sword which presumably represents the direct precursor of the Torre Galli type80 (Fig. 5.8, B1). Interestingly, it not only has parallels in Albania81, but also in Subminoan Knossos82 and at Megiddo in phase VIA83. Similar short-swords are represented among the earliest iron weapons from the Aegean84 and Cyprus85, dating from Early Protogeometric/Cypro-Geometric IA onwards. According to the chronological scheme used in this article, Knossos would appear to be the earliest well dated example of this kind of dagger or short-sword, with the Iron Age IB, Cypro-Geometric and Proto-Geometric examples from Canaan, Cyprus and the Aegean all probably dating to the 10th century BC. As the Early Protogeometric examples represent the earliest iron weapons in use in the Aegean, and they are sometimes fitted with ivory hilt-plates and pommels, it is not unlikely that some were imported from the East Mediterranean. In that case, the pieces in the Central Mediterranean could be understood as copies of a new type of weaponry first developed further east – perhaps on Cyprus86.

Primo Ferro IB The Monachil (Fig. 5.12, 6) and Megiddo fibula types (Fig. 5.12, 11. 12. 14. 15), with a symmetrical triangular outline and central kink, developed in the first half of the 9th century, at least according to the gold fibula of a similar kind from grave 13 of the Toumba cemetery at Lefkandi (Fig. 5.12, 10; dated to Subprotogeometric II) and the probable date of the Levantine examples in Iron Age IIA93. The Cypriot fibulae of Megiddo type (Buchholz types I–III94) are less clearly dated, with Amathus grave 523 (Fig. 5.12, 12) containing both Cypro-

Bronzo Finale 3b/Primo Ferro IA

87 North Cemetery, grave 45: Coldstream – Catling 1996, fig. 158, 45.f4 (on p. 551 Catling states that the tomb was in use by LPG). 88 Sapouna-Sakellarakis 1978, 40 no. 46. 89 Korkuti 1981, 44 pl. 7, V.67. – According to K. Kilian, grave 67 belongs to phase II of the Patos cemetery; see: Kilian 1985, 277 fig. 16. 90 See for example Hencken 1956; Almagro 1966, 182–188; Guzzo 1969; also A. Nijboer in this volume. – For a useful review of the Spanish fibulae (Huelva and Monachil types) see: Carrasco et al. 1999, 128 f. 138 fig. 6; Ruíz Delgado 1989; Giardino 1995, 237–249; Carrasco – Pachón 2006. 91 Turco 2000, 88–91. 92 As the Castelluccio fibula represents a developed form of the Cassibile fibula (for example compared to the Modica examples), a date in the later 10th century BC might be preferred. – A horned Iberian fibula from the Castelluccio hoard has a parallel in Torre Galli phase IB (grave 181); furthermore, Torre Galli grave 136 – again assigned to phase IB – contains a parallel for the fibula from Mola d’Agris, illustrated here on Fig. 5.12, 7. 93 For a comprehensive review of the chronological debate on Iron Age IIA, see Levy – Higham 2005. – See the fibulae from: Megiddo, quadrant L7, 2081 (corresponding to layer VA): Pedde 2000, pl. 9, 96. – Samaria, Fundstelle Qc, room C (corresponding to layer III/pottery phase 3): Pedde 2000, pl. 9, 97. – Achziv, grave N1, phase 1: Mazar 2004, 115 fig. 28, 1; according to Francisco J. Núñez (pers. comm.), the burial was associated with transitional Cypro-Geometric II/III pottery and would date to Iron Age IIA; Ayelet Gilboa (pers. comm.) would prefer a date in Iron Age IIB, as late as the end of the 9th or 8th century BC. I am grateful to Núñez and Gilboa for their kind assistance with the dating of the Achziv fibula. 94 Buchholz 1986.

Returning to the subject of fibulae, there are some examples with convex curved back, knee-loop and straight pin – corresponding to types of BF 3b/Primo 79 Pare 1998, 406–409 fig. 47. – For Troy see: Genz 2006; Becks et al. 2006. 80 A sword similar to Madonna del Piano grave 194 comes from Bisignano (Prov. Cosenza), see: Giardino 1994, 779 f. 81 Kilian-Dirlmeier 1993, 251–254. – The sword from Madonna del Piano grave 26 also has a good parallel in Albania, from Prodani, grave 5: Aliu 1984, 55 pl. 1, 13. 82 North Cemetery, grave 201: Coldstream – Catling 1996, fig. 163, f7. 83 Shalev 2004, 63 f. pl. 23, 180; Watzinger 1929, 45 fig. 45 pl. 23, a. – The dagger comes from the destruction layer of the south gate, corresponding to layer VIA of the Chicago excavations; for a recent discussion of the stratigraphy, see: Finkelstein et al. 2006, 688–702. 84 See for example early Protogeometric examples from Athens, Kerameikos PG graves A and 2N: Müller-Karpe 1962, 89 fig. 7, 3; KilianDirlmeier 1993, no. 273. – Lefkandi, Skoubris grave 46: Popham et al. 1979, pl. 106, 46/7. – The date of the sword from the Amyklaion near Sparta is unclear (Protogeometric or Late Geometric), see KilianDirlmeier 1993, 122. 161 pl. 67, A. 85 See for example Palaepaphos-Skales, graves 64 and 89: Karageorghis 1983, pls. 120, 5; 193, 105. 106. – Amathus, grave 523: Karageorghis 1987, 721 fig. 188. 86 For early iron production in Cyprus, see: Sherratt 1994; Pickles – Peltenburg 1998.

92

C. PARE: ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN

Fig. 5.12. The development of the “Monachil” (6), “Megiddo” (11. 12. 14. 15) and “Cypriot” (13) fibulae from the Cassibile type (1. 2): 1 Modica; 2 Castelluccio; 3 Beaume-les-Créancey; 4 Huelva; 5 Cerro de la Miel; 6 Monachil; 7 Mola d’Agris; 8 Cerro Alcalà; 9 Lefkandi, Palia Perivolia grave 3; 10 Lefkandi, Toumba grave 13; 11 Cyprus; 12 Amathus, grave 523; 13 Ayia Irini, grave 3; 14 Megiddo; 15 Achziv (Not to scale)

of the 10th century BC, and then the development of the symmetrical Monachil (Fig. 5.12, 6) and Megiddo types (Fig. 5.12, 11. 12. 14. 15) in the first half of the 9th century BC is, in my opinion, clearly demonstrated by the available evidence. The examples from Lefkandi from Late Protogeometric (Fig. 5.12, 9) and Subprotogeometric (Fig. 5.12, 10) provide a valuable support for this hypothesis. On the basis of the fibulae, the local chronological schemes of Sicily, Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Phoenicia and Palestine can be correlated at this time.

Geometric I and II pottery95, and other examples coming from disturbed graves96. K. Giesen suggests a three-stage development for the Cypriot fibula: first Buchholz types I–III, then Buchholz types IV, VIII and XIII97 and finally, mainly in Cypro-Archaic, the fibulae with large ribbed knob98 (Buchholz types V, VI, IX–XI). At the present state of research the Cypriot material is not capable of providing a more precise chronological sequence. The development of the Huelva fibula (Fig. 5.12, 4. 5) from the Cassibile type (Fig. 5.12, 1. 2) in the second half

Further evidence comes once again from Lefkandi. H. W. Catling noted that in Subprotogeometric graves cast arched fibulae appear, with symmetrical swollen bow and broad catch-plate99. As Catling argued, these represent external influence, and indeed parallels from Italy and the Adriatic are close. The simple arched fibulae with thickened undecorated bow (Fig. 5.11, C1. 2) is typical for the start of the Italian Iron Age, the examples with three groups of engraved lines (Fig. 5.11, C3. 4) find parallels in Kompolje, grave 394100, and the examples with

95

The grave also contains a rotating spit of Atlantic type; see Karageorghis 1987, 723 fig. 193; Karageorghis – Lo Schiavo 1989; Giesen 2001, 180 no. 5 pl. 44. 96 See Giesen 2001, 179 f. – For the example from Amathus grave 243 and a discussion of this fibula type, see Chavane 1990, 64 no. 507 pl. 16, 507. 97 The fibula from Ayia Irini, grave 3 (Fig. 5.12, 13) is important for Giesen’s argumentation: Giesen 2001, 180 no. 7 pl. 44. 98 For a date in the 9th–8th century BC for the Sardinian fibula from Barumini, nuraghe Su Nuraxi, see Lo Schiavo 1992, 301. – Lo Schiavo also discusses the fibulae from Orani, nuraghe Nurdole (Prov. Nuoro) and Beaume-les-Créancey (Dép. Côte-d’Or), which were possibly developed (in Spain? Sardinia?) from the Huelva type. The fibula from Beaume-les-Créancey is shown here on Fig. 5.12, 3.

99

Catling – Catling 1980, 239 f. Drechsler-Bižić 1976, pl. 2, 1.

100

93

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 5.13. Distribution of amber beads of Tiryns (circles) and Allumiere type (triangles)

three beads (Fig. 5.11, C5. 6) are common in north-east Italy, for example from Lozzo Atestino101. These new types in Subprotogeometric Lefkandi (corresponding to Athenian EG–MG I) provide a link to Primo Ferro IB in Italy, which according to the Swiss dendrodates can be dated to ca. 910–850/830 BC. These fibulae would seem to provide the first evidence for direct Euboean contact with the Central Mediterranean; by contrast, the symmetrical fibulae with central kink discussed above (Fig. 5.12, 9. 10) probably represent contact between Lefkandi and Cyprus, and not with Sicily or Spain.

850/830 BC). I am also convinced by the parallels between Ha B2 and BF 3b/PF IA in the second half of the 10th century BC (ca. 960/950–ca. 910 BC). The earlier chronology of Bronzo Finale is more difficult, mainly because the Italian phases BF 1, BF 2 and BF 3a are still not easy to define. According to my arguments, it is possible to link BF 2 with Ha B1a north of the Alps (ca. 1060–1035/1010 BC) and with Submycenean Greece, again suggesting a date in the mid to late 11th century. The earliest forms of serpentine fibula, with a concave curved bow, along with arched fibulae with lightly thickened bow (e.g. Limone, Fig. 5.5, B), typical for BF 3a, would then belong to the end of the 11th century and first half of the 10th century (1035/1010–960/950 BC according to the north Alpine sequence). The very restricted range of bronzes typical of BF 1 makes it difficult to trace contacts with the area north of the Alps, and for this period (Ha A1–2) absolute dates are completely lacking in Central Europe. The start of Bronzo Finale is at present best dated by advanced LH IIIC pottery from Calabria. At the moment, it is still difficult to correlate the latest Mycenean pottery with the bronze production of continental Italy, but the finds of LH IIIClate and Submycenean pottery from Apulia, apparently

CONCLUSIONS To make use of the dendrodates from the Swiss lakeshore settlements for helping to date the Italian Late Bronze and Early Iron Age, a reliable and fine chronology in Italy is obviously a precondition. For some phases, well defined and dated both north and south of the Alps, crossdating is now quite reliable. This is the case for Ha B3a and PF IB/Bologna IA/Villanoviano tipico (ca. 910– 101

v. Eles Masi 1986, pl. 13, 235.

94

C. PARE: ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN

associated with BF 2 material at Roca Veccia and S. Maria di Leuca, Punta Meliso102, will doubtless provide important information on the transition from BF 1 to 2, when publication of the pottery and bronze hoards is completed.

once again linking sword production north and south of the Alps; starting now, Central European prestige goods such as solid-hilted swords, bronze vessels and helmets, were adopted for local use in central and northern Italy. The hoards of Piediluco/“Contigliano” type offer further examples of regular contacts, in this case particularly via Sardinia106.

The typo-chronological method can only function when networks of contact were in place, which resulted in exchange and acculturation. The examples discussed in this article demonstrate exchange relationships which sometimes operated over surprisingly long distances. Although I cannot offer a systematic review of the question, some conclusions present themselves.

While most evidence in the 11th and 10th century BC points to the importance of the East Mediterranean (Cyprus, Dodecanese, eastern Crete) as active trading partners, early evidence of direct contact between Italy and the Greek mainland dates to the first half of the 9th century in the form of the Italian fibula types from Lefkandi in Euboea (Fig. 5.11, C). During the second half of the 10th and the first half of the 9th centuries BC the network of exchange linking Spain, Sardinia, central and southern Italy, the Aegean, Cyprus and the Levantine coast became increasingly important. The establishment of trading-posts and colonies by Phoenicans and Greeks followed soon after.

The “Dark Age” period in question follows the decline – in the late 12th century BC – of the koinè of “International Bronzes” linking regions from the East Mediterranean, the Aegean, Italy, the north-west Balkans, Central and even northern Europe in a vast World System103. Longdistance exchange clearly did not cease in the 11th century, but the areas involved were much smaller. This is most clear for Central Europe: in Ha A2 and B1 (1125/1100–960/950 BC) bronze production developed independently, without substantive contact with Italy or the wider Mediterranean. Swords provide a good example: distinct traditions of Central European production can be recognised, all sharing a heavy wide sword-blade indicating a different type of warfare than south of the Alps. Important exchange systems continued, based on the Caput Adriae, as shown on the one hand by the pani a piccone (probably made in standard weights based on a unit of ca. 475 g104), and on the other hand by the fibulae and amber beads along the Save-lower Danube route to the Black Sea.

Turning once again to the subject of absolute chronology, the scheme used in this article to discuss the typological parallels between Central Europe and various Mediterranean regions (Fig. 5.4) is based on the one hand on dendrochronology (mainly Switzerland) and on the other hand on the low 14C-chronology worked out in recent years in Israel107. According to the evidence discussed above, dates currently used for the Greek sequence (for example by R. Jung, I. Lemos) are in good accordance with these dendro- and radiocarbon dates. The Aegean sequence of Mycenean, Submycenean, Protogeometric and Geometric pottery still remains of crucial importance, as it provides by far the most reliable relative chronology available. For the Central Mediterranean, Aegean pottery became extremely rare after the 12th century BC, with LH IIIC-late and Submycenean only being supplied to Apulia108. In the East Mediterranean, Late Protogeometric pottery demonstrates the presence of Euboeans in Cyprus (Amathus) in Cypro-Geometric IB–II and in the Levant in Iron Age I/II (Tyre, Dor, Tel Hadar)109. The decline of the ‘palatial’ World System in the later 12th century and the gradual rise of the Iron Age World System based on Mediterranean city-states from the second half of the 10th century BC play a fundamental role for the typological analysis in the present article. In the intervening ‘Dark Age’ (11th and first half of 10th century BC) contacts between the various regions are punctual, involving individual important centres without the formation of a generalised koinè in production.

Fibula production in Greece and Italy remained surprisingly similar until the mid 11th century BC, suggesting that contacts across the Ionian Sea continued to be frequent, for example between Achaea and Apulia, and up the Adriatic coast via Albania. However, intensive long-distance exchange seems not to have been generalised, but restricted to individual important centres, such as Frattesina near the mouth of the Po. Southern Italy (e.g. Castellace) and Sicily were probably more regularly engaged in exchange with the East Mediterranean, as the large quantities of ivory at Torre Mordillo (Calabria) and Madonna del Piano (Catania) surely demonstrate105. The sword from Madonna del Piano (Fig. 5.8, B1) with parallels in Crete, Cyprus and Canaan is a further indication of this exchange network. “Pre-colonial” contact becomes much clearer in the second half of the 10th century BC (BF 3b/PF IA), as the Huelva hoard most clearly demonstrates. Now longdistance exchange becomes more general, for example

106

For the Sardinian connection, see for example the sword of Zürich type from Ploaghe: Gras 1985, 118 fig. 22. 107 Arguments for the low chronology have mainly been put forward by Israel Finkelstein. For a short summary, see Finkelstein 2004. – For more detail, see Gilboa – Sharon 2003, 65; Levy – Higham 2005. 108 ‘Italo-Mycenean’ wares, from Apulia, continued to find their way north as far as the Po valley. 109 Gilboa – Sharon 2003, 68-72.

102

Jung 2005; Eder – Jung 2005. Carancini – Peroni 1997. 104 Pare 1999b, 496 f. 105 Albanese Procelli – Lo Schiavo 2004, 411 f. 103

95

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

fig. 3, 7. 10; p. 87 fig. 5, 19. 21; p. 88 fig. 6, 7. – Fig. 5.10, C1: after Carancini 1975, pl. 48, 1476. – Fig. 5.10, C2: after Bellintani – Peretto 1984, 70 pl. 1, 14. – Fig. 5.10, C3–4: after Popham et al. 1979, pl. 111, 62/2.3. – Fig. 5.10, C5–7: after Müller-Karpe 1962, 86 fig. 4, 1. 10. 11. – Fig. 5.11, A: after Enăchiuc 1995, 302 fig. 7, 7. 8; p. 303 fig. 8, 2. 3. 15. 18. 19; p. 309 fig. 14, 37. 40. – Fig. 5.11, B1–3: after Vasić 1999, pl. 2, 18. 19. 21. – Fig. 5.11, B4–7: after Kašuba forthcoming. – Fig. 5.11, C1–6: after Popham et al. 1979, pls. 171, 5/17; 178, 22/19; 184, 27/9.10; 186, 32/11.12. – Fig. 5.12, 1: after Giardino 1995, fig. 11, 14. – Fig. 5.12, 2: after Di Stefano – Giardino 1990/91, 516 fig. 22, 74. – Fig. 5.12, 3: after Cunisset-Carnot et al. 1971, 604 fig. 2, 1. – Fig. 5.12, 4. 11: after Buchholz 1986, 225 fig. 2, c; p. 227 fig. 8, c. – Fig. 5.12, 6. 8: after Lo Schiavo – D’Oriano 1990, 123 fig. 9, 7. 10. – Fig. 5.12, 7: after Gil Mascarell – Peña Sánchez 1989, 131 fig. 3. – Fig. 5.12, 9–10: after Popham et al. 1979, pl. 125, 3/26; 173, 13/15. – Fig. 5.12, 12. 13: after Giesen 2001, pl. 44. – Fig. 5.12, 15: after Mazar 2004, 115 fig. 28, 1. – Fig. 5.13: after previous maps by Bellintani 1997; Eder 2003; Harding 2000; Negroni Catacchio 1999; Steinhauser – Primas 1987.

Although the broad outlines of chronological development seem fairly evident, fundamental questions could not be addressed in this article, in particular the nature of trade indicated by the examples for contacts, exchange and influence discussed above. While evidence for precious materials is sometimes clear (e.g. gold, amber, ivory), sea-borne trade in other things, such as bulk commodities (e.g. copper, tin, bronze, foodstuffs) or slaves is less convincing for the Dark Ages.

Acknowledgements My thanks are due to the following colleagues who gave their generous help during the preparation of this article: Rosa Maria Albanese (Catania), Anna Maria Bietti Sestieri (Rome), Ayelet Gilboa (Haifa), Albert Nijboer (Groningen), Francisco Núñez (Barcelona) and Wolfgang Zwickel (Mainz). Credit for the French translation of the abstract text goes to Renate Heckendorf. Illustration credits Figs. 5.1–5.4: tables by the author. – Fig. 5.5, A1. 5. 6: after Carancini 1975, pls. 47, 1450; 48, 1476.1478. – Fig. 5.5, A2: after Bianco Peroni 1979, pl. 24, 298. – Fig. 5.5, A3. 4: after Salzani 1989, 38 fig. 16, 10; p. 39 fig. 17, 18. – Fig. 5.5, A7. 8: after Bianco Peroni 1976, pl. 4, 40. 41. – Fig. 5.5, B1–4; 6–8: after Zanini 1997, 209 fig. 139, 22; 215 figs. 143. 144. – Fig. 5.5, B5: after Cateni 1977, 25 fig. 10, 2. – Fig. 5.6, A. F. G: after De Min 1986, 160 pl. 4, 2. 3. 5–7; p. 161 pl. 5, 1–3; p. 166 pl. 10, 3. – Fig. 5.6, B1–4: after v. Eles Masi 1986, pls. 2, 39. 41. 47; 4, 83. – Fig. 5.6, B5. 9: Bellintani – Peretto 1984, 70 pl. 1, 12. 14. – Fig. 5.6, B6–8: Negroni Catacchio 1984, 83 figs. 13. 15; p. 86 fig. 17. – Fig. 5.6, C: after Salzani 1987, 226 fig. 1, 1.12. – Fig. 5.6, D: after Salzani 2000, 39 fig. 1, 1. – Fig. 5.6, E1–6: after Salzani 1990/91, 169 fig. 22, 3; p. 170 fig. 23, 1–4. 7. – Fig. 5.6, E7: after Salzani 1989, 32 fig. 10, 7. – Fig. 5.6, E8: after Catarsi – Dall’Aglio 1978, pl. 13, 3. – Fig. 5.7, A: after De Min 1986, 165 pl. 9, 1. 3. 4. – Fig. 5.7, B. C. E. F: after Salzani 2001, 113 fig. 11, B; p. 118 fig. 16, A; p. 119 fig. 17, A; p. 123 fig. 21, A. – Fig. 5.7, D : after v. Eles Masi 1986, pl. 163, 2133. – Fig. 5.8: after Albanese Procelli 1994, 155 fig. 1; p. 156 fig. 2; 157 figs. 3. 4. – Fig. 5.9, A1. 2: after Bianco Peroni 1970, pls. 26, 186; 28, 200. – Fig. 5.9, A3: after Harding 1995, pl. 25, 204. – Fig. 5.9, A4: after Schauer 1971, pl. 78, 520. – Fig. 5.9, A5: after Kubach 1978/79, 309 fig. 18, 4. – Fig. 5.9, A6: after Krämer 1985, pl. 19, 112. – Fig. 5.9, B1: after Bianco Peroni 1970, pl. 27, 181. – Fig. 5.9, B2. 5: after Harding 1995, pls. 24, 195A; 31, 244; 45, A12. A23. – Fig. 5.9, B3: after Kemenczei 1988, pl. 41, 370. – Fig. 5.9, B4: after Kemenczei 1991, pl. 58, 246. – Fig. 5.10, A1: after Jung 2006, pl. 19, 3. – Fig. 5.10, A2: after Demakopoulou 1988, 245 no. 258. – Fig. 5.10, A3: after Karantzali 2001, fig. 42. – Fig. 5.10, B1. 7–9: after Popham et al. 1979, pls. 95, 15B/5; 98, 19/10; 99, 20/22; 104, 43/5. – Fig. 5.10, B2–6: after Müller-Karpe 1962, 85

References ALBANESE PROCELLI, R.M., 1994, Considerazioni sulla necropoli di Madonna del Piano di Grammichele (Catania), in: La Presenza Etrusca nella Campania Meridionale. Istituto Nazionale di Studi Etruschi e Italici, Atti delle Giornate di Studio, Salerno – Pontecagnano 1990 (Firenze 1994) 153–170. ALBANESE PROCELLI, R.M., F. LO SCHIAVO, 2004, La comunità di Madonna del Piano presso Grammichele (Catania): rapporti con l’area Calabra. In: Preistoria e Protostoria della Calabria. Atti della XXXVII Riunione Scientifica, Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria (Firenze 2004) 403–420. ALBERTI, L., M. BETTELLI, 2005, Contextual problems of Mycenaean pottery in Italy. In: R. Laffineur, E. Greco (eds.), Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens 14th –18th April 2004, Aegaeum 25 (Liège 2005) 547– 560. ALIU, S., 1984, Tuma e Prodanit, Iliria 1, 1984, 27–67. ALMAGRO, M., 1966, Las estelas decoradas del Suroeste peninsular, BiblPraehistHisp 6 (Madrid 1966). BACHMANN, H.G., A. JOCKENHÖVEL, U. SPICHAL, G. WOLF, 2002/03, Zur bronzezeitlichen Metallversorgung im mittleren Westdeutschland. Von der Lagerstätte zum Endprodukt, Bericht der Kommission für Archäologische Landesforschung in Hessen 7, 2002/03, 67–120. BASTIANELLI, S., 1934, Santa Marinella – Ripostiglio di bronzi arcaici, NSc (Series 6) 10, 1934, 443–450.

96

C. PARE: ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN

BECKS, R., P. HNILA, M. PIENIAZEK-SIKORA, 2006, Troia in der frühen Eisenzeit. Troia VIIb1–VIIb3, in: M. Korfmann (ed.), Troia. Archäologie eines Siedlungshügels und seiner Landschaft (Mainz 2006) 181– 188.

BOLLINGER-SCHREYER, S., M. SEIFERT, 1998, L’âge du Bronze final. Suisse centrale et orientale, in: S. Hochuli, U. Niffeler, V. Rychner (eds.), Age du Bronze, La Suisse du Paléolithique à l’aube du Moyen-Age 3 (Basel 1998) 80–92.

BELLINTANI, P., 1997, Frattesina. L’ambra e la produzione vitrea nel contesto delle relazioni transalpine, in: L. Endrizzi, F. Marzatico (eds.), Ori delle Alpi. Exhibition catalogue Castello del Buonconsiglio, QuadSezioneA 6 (Trento 1997) 116–129.

BRESTRICH, W., 1998, Die mittel- und spätbronzezeitlichen Grabfunde auf der Nordstadtterrasse von Singen am Hohentwiel, FBerBadWürt 67 (Stuttgart 1998). BUCHHOLZ, H.-G., 1986, Ein kyprischer Fibeltypus und seine auswärtige Verbreitung, in: V. Karageorghis (ed.), Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium “Cyprus between the Orient and the Occident”, Nicosia 8th–14th September 1985 (Nicosia 1986) 223–245.

BELLINTANI, G.F., R. PERETTO, 1984, Il ripostiglio di Frattesina ed altri manufatti enei raccolti in superficie, Padusa 20, 1984, 55–72. BETZLER, P., 1974, Die Fibeln in Süddeutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz I, PBF XIV, 3 (München 1974).

CARANCINI, G.L., 1975, Gli spilloni nell’Italia continentale, PBF XIII, 2 (München 1975).

BIANCHIN CITTON, E., 1982, I reperti della necropoli di S. Giorgio di Angarano nel Museo Civico di Bassano del Grappa, Collezioni e Musei Archeologici del Veneto 24 (Roma 1982).

CARANCINI, G.L., R. PERONI, 1997, La koinè metallurgica, in: M. Bernabò Brea, A. Cardarelli, M. Cremaschi (eds.), Le Terramare. La più antica civiltà padana (Milano 1997) 595–601.

BIANCO PERONI, V., 1970, Le spade nell’Italia continentale, PBF IV, 1 (München 1970).

CARANCINI, G.L., R. PERONI, 1999, L’età del bronzo in Italia. Per una cronologia della produzione metallurgica, QuadProtostoria 2 (Perugia 1999).

BIANCO-PERONI, V., 1976, I coltelli nell’Italia continentale, PBF VII, 2 (München 1976).

CARRASCO RUS, J., J.A. PACHÓN ROMERO, 2006, La fíbula de codo tipo Huelva. Una aproximación a su tipologia, Complutum 17, 2006, 103–119.

BIANCO-PERONI, V., 1979, I rasoi nell’Italia continentale, PBF VIII, 2 (München 1979). BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M., 1973, The metal industry of continental Italy, 13th to the 11th century BC, and its connections with the Aegean, ProcPrehisSoc 39, 1973, 383–424.

CARRASCO, J., J.A. PACHÓN, J.A. ESQUIVEL, G. ARANDA, 1999, Clasificación secuencial tecnotipológica de las fíbulas de codo de la península Ibérica, Complutum 10, 1999, 123–142.

BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M., 1982, Frattesina, in: L. Vagnetti (ed.), Magna Grecia e Mondo Miceneo. XXII Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto 7–11 ottobre 1982 (Taranto 1982) 201–208.

CASSOLA GUIDA, P., 1999, Indizi di presenze egeoorientali nell’alto Adriatico alla fine dell’età del bronzo, in: V. La Rosa, D. Palermo, L. Vagnetti (eds.), επι ποντον πλαξομενοι. Simposio italiano di Studi Egei dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, Roma 18–20 febbraio 1998 (Roma 1999) 487–497.

BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M., (ed.), 1992, La necropoli Laziale di Osteria dell’Osa (Roma 1992). BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M., J. DE GROSSI MAZZORIN, 1995, Importazione di materie prime organiche di origine esotica nell’abitato protostorico di Frattesina (RO), in: Atti del 1o Convegno Nazionale di Archeozoologia, Rovigo 5–7 marzo 1993, Padusa Quaderni 1 (Rovigo 1995) 367–370.

CASSOLA GUIDA, P., S. CORAZZA, A. FONTANA, G. TASCA, S. VITRI, 2004, I castellieri arginati del Friuli, in: D. Cocchi Genick (ed.), L’età del bronzo recente in Italia. Atti del Congresso Nazionale, Lido di Camaiore 26–29 ottobre 2000 (Lucca 2004) 77–89.

BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M., M.C. DE ANGELIS, N. NEGRONI CATACCHIO, A. ZANINI, 2001, La protostoria della Toscana dall’età del bronzo recente al passaggio alla prima età del ferro, in: Atti della XXXIV Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Firenze, 29 settembre – 2 ottobre 1999 (Firenze 2001) 125–134.

CATARSI, M., P.L. DALL’AGLIO, 1978, La necropoli protovillanoviana di Campo Pianelli di Bismantova (Reggio Emilia 1978). CATENI, G., 1977, Il ripostiglio di Limone (Livorno), StEtr 45, 1977, 3–17.

BILLAMBOZ, A., 2004/05, Die Wasserburg Buchau im Jahrringkalender, Plattform 13/14, 2004/05, 97– 105.

CATLING, H.W., E.A. CATLING, 1980, Objects in Bronze, Iron and Lead, in: M.R. Popham, L.H. Sackett, P.G. Themelis (eds.), Lefkandi I. The Iron Age, BSA Suppl. 11 (Oxford 1980) 231–264.

BLECH, M., M. KOCH, M. KUNST (eds), 2001, Hispania Antiqua. Denkmäler der Frühzeit (Mainz 2001).

CHAVANE, M.-J., 1990, La nécropole d’Amathonte. Tombes 110–385. IV. Les petits objets, Études Chypriotes 12 (Nicosia 1990).

97

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

DEMAKOPOLOU, K. (ed.), 1988, Das mykenische Hellas. Heimat der Helden Homers (Athen 1988).

CLAUSING, C., 2002, Geschnürte Beinschienen der späten Bronze- und älteren Eisenzeit, JbRGZM 49, 2002, 149–187.

DRECHSLER-BIŽIĆ, R., 1976, Porijeklo lučnih jednopetljastih fibula u Japoda, Godišnjak Centar zu Balkanološka Ispitivanja 13, 1976, 143–152.

COLDSTREAM, J.N., H.W. CATLING (eds.), 1996, Knossos North Cemetery. Early Greek Tombs (London 1996).

EDER, B., 2003, Patterns of Contact and Communication between the Regions South and North of the Corinthian Gulf in LH IIIC, in: The Periphery of the Mycenaean World. 2nd International Interdisciplinary Colloquium, Lamia 26th–30th September 1999 (Athens 2003) 37–54.

COSENTINO, S., 1999, Nekropole von Celano, Grab 4, in: G. Colonna (ed.), Die Picener, ein Volk Europas. Exhibition catalogue Frankfurt (Roma 1999) 183–185. CUNISSET-CARNOT, P., J.-P. MOHEN, J.-P. NICOLARDOT, 1971, Une fibule “chypriote” trouvée en Côte-d’Or, BSocPrehistFr 68, 1971, 602–609.

EDER, B., R. JUNG, 2005, On the character of social relations between Greece and Italy in the 12th/11th c. BC., in: R. Laffineur, E. Greco (eds.), Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens 14th –18th April 2004, Aegaeum 25 (Liège 2005) 485–496.

DAVID-ELBIALI, M., C. DUNNING, 2005, Le cadre chronologique relatif et absolu au nord-ouest des Alpes entre 1060 et 600 av. J.-C., in: G. Bartoloni, F. Delpino (eds.), Oriente e occidente. Metodi e discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana. Atti dell’incontro di studio, Roma 30–31 ottobre 2003 (Pisa 2005) 145–195.

ELES MASI, P. von, 1986, Le fibule dell’Italia settentrionale, PBF XIV, 5 (München 1986).

DE MARINIS, R.C., 1999, Il confine occidentale del mondo proto-veneto/paleoveneto dal pronzo finale alle invasioni Galliche del 388 a. C., in: Protostoria e storia del ‘Venetorum angulus’, Atti del XX Convegno di Studi Etruschi e Italici, Portogruaro – Quarto d’Altino – Este – Padova 1996 (Pisa 1999) 511–564.

ENĂCHIUC, V., 1995, Der Bronzefund von Dridu, Kr. Ialomiţa, in: T. Soroceanu (ed.), Bronzefunde aus Rumänien, PAS 10 (Berlin 1995) 279–310. FINKELSTEIN, I., 2004, Tel Rehov and Iron Age Chronology, Levant 36, 2004, 181–188. FINKELSTEIN, I., D. USSISHKIN, B. HALPERN (eds.), 2006, Megiddo IV. The 1998–2002 Seasons, Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology Monograph 24 (Tel Aviv 2006).

DE MARINIS, R.C., 2005, Cronologia relativa, crossdating e datazioni cronometriche tra bronzo finale e primo ferro: qualche spunto di riflessione metodologica, in: G. Bartoloni, F. Delpino (eds.), Oriente e occidente. Metodi e discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana. Atti dell’incontro di studio, Roma 30–31 ottobre 2003 (Pisa 2005) 15–52.

FRIEDRICH, M., 2001, Dendrochronologische Untersuchung der Hölzer des hallstattzeitlichen Wagengrabes 8 aus Wehringen, Lkr. Augsburg, in: H. Hennig, Gräber der Hallstattzeit in Bayerisch-Schwaben, Monographien der Archäologischen Staatssammlung München 2 (Stuttgart 2001) 137–144.

DE MARINIS, R.C., F.M. GAMBARI, 2005, La cultura di Golasecca dal X agli inizi del VII secolo a.C. Cronologia relativa e correlazioni con altre aree culturali, in: G. Bartoloni, F. Delpino (eds.), Oriente e occidente. Metodi e discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana. Atti dell’incontro di studio, Roma 30–31 ottobre 2003 (Pisa 2005) 197–225.

GAMBARI, M.V., 1999, In riva al fiume Eridano. Una necropoli dell’età del bronzo finale a Morano sul Po (Alessandria 1999). GENZ, H., 2006, Ein neues Metall macht Furore. Die frühe Eisenzeit in West- und Zentralanatolien, in: M. Korfmann (ed.), Troia. Archäologie eines Siedlungshügels und seiner Landschaft (Mainz 2006) 71–80.

DE MIN, M., 1986, Frattesina di Fratta Polesine. La necropoli protostorica, in: L’Antico Polesine. Exhibition Catalogue Adria and Rovigo (Padua 1986) 143–169.

GERGOVA, D., 1987, Früh- und ältereisenzeitliche Fibeln in Bulgarien, PBF XIV, 7 (München 1987). GIARDINO, C., 1994, I materiali dell’età del bronzo recente, in: R. Peroni, T. Trucco (eds.), Enotri e Micenei nella Sibaritide (Taranto 1994) 185–264.

D’ERCOLE, V., 1998, La necropoli dell’età del bronzo finale delle “Paludi” di Celano, in: V. D’Ercole, R. Cairoli (eds.), Archeologia in Abruzzo (Montalto di Castro 1998) 157–166.

GIARDINO, C., 1995, Il Mediterraneo Occidentale fra XIV ed VIII secolo a. C. Cerchie minerarie e metallurgiche, BARIntSer 612 (Oxford 1995).

DIETZ, S., 1982, Etruriens forhistorie, in: Ch. Ejlers (ed.), Etruskernes Verden. Livet og doden hos et oldtidsfolk i Italien (København 1982) 42–44.

GIESEN, K., 2001, Zyprische Fibeln. Typologie und Chronologie, SIMA Pocket-Book 161 (Jonsered 2001).

DI STEFANO, G., C. GIARDINO, 1990/91, Ragusa. Il ripostiglio di bronzi in contrada Castelluccio sull’Irminio, NSc (Series 9) 1/2, 1990/91, 489–546.

GILBOA, A., I. SHARON, 2003, An Archaeological Contribution to the Early Iron Age Chronological

98

C. PARE: ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN

Debate. Alternative Chronologies for Phoenicia and Their Effects on the Levant, Cyprus and Greece, BASOR 332, 2003, 7–80.

KILIAN, K., 1975, Eine früheisenzeitliche Fundgruppe von der Insel Elba, AKorrBl 5, 1975, 121–124. KILIAN, K., 1985, Magna Grecia, Epiro e Macedonia nell’età del ferro, in: Magna Grecia, Epiro e Macedonia. Atti del XXIV Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto 5–10 ottobre 1984 (Taranto 1985) 237–288.

GIL MASCARELL, M., J.L. PEÑA SÁNCHEZ, 1989, La fibula “ad occhio” del yacimiento de la Mola d’Agres. Saguntum 22, 1989, 125–145. GRAS, M., 1985, Trafics tyrrhéniens archaiques (Roma 1985).

KILIAN-DIRLMEIER, I., 1984, Nadeln der frühhelladischen bis archaischen Zeit von der Peloponnes, PBF XIII, 8 (München 1984).

GUZZO, P.G., 1969, Considerazioni sulle fibule del ripostiglio dal Ria de Huelva, RScPreist 24, 1969, 299–309. HARDING, A., 1995, Die Schwerter im ehemaligen Jugoslawien, PBF IV, 14 (Stuttgart 1995).

KILIAN-DIRLMEIER, I., 1993, Die Schwerter in Griechenland (außerhalb der Peloponnes), Bulgarien und Albanien, PBF IV, 12 (Stuttgart 1993).

HARDING, A., 2000, European Societies in the Bronze Age (Cambridge 2000).

KORKUTI, M., 1981, Tuma e Patosit, Iliria 11, 1981, 7– 55.

HEIN, M., 1989, Ein Scheidenendbeschlag vom Heiligenberg bei Heidelberg, JbRGZM 36, 1989, 301– 326.

KRÄMER, W., 1985, Die Vollgriffschwerter in Österreich und der Schweiz, PBF IV, 10 (München 1985).

HENCKEN, H., 1956, The Fibulae ProcPrehistSoc 22, 1956, 213–215.

KUBACH, W., 1978/79, Deponierungen in Mooren der südhessischen Oberrheinebene. JberVgFrankf 1978/79, 189–310.

of

Huelva,

JOCKENHÖVEL, A., 1971, Die Rasiermesser in Mitteleuropa, PBF VIII, 1 (München 1971).

LA ROSA, V., 1989, Le populazioni della Sicilia. Sicani, Siculi, Elimi, in: G. Pugliese Carratelli (ed.), Italia omnium terrarum parens (Milano 1989) 1–110.

JONES, R.E., L. VAGNETTI, 1991, Traders and Craftsmen in the Central Mediterranean, in: N.H. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, SIMA 90 (Jonsered 1991) 127–147.

LEIGHTON, R., 1993, The Protohistoric Settlement on the Cittadella, Morgantina Studies 4 (Princeton 1993). LEVY, T.E., T. HIGHAM (eds.), 2005, The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005).

JUNG, R., 2005, Ποτε? Quando? Wann? Quand? When? Translating Italo-Aegean Synchronisms, in: R. Laffineur, E. Greco (eds.), Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens 14th –18th April 2004, Aegaeum 25 (Liège 2005) 473– 484.

LO SCHIAVO, F., 1992, Un’altra fibula ‘Cipriota’ dalla Sardinia, in: R.H. Tykot, T.K. Andrews (eds.), Sardinia in the Mediterranean. A Footprint in the Sea. Studies in Sardinian Archaeology presented to Miriam S. Balmuth, Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 3 (Sheffield 1992) 296–303.

JUNG, R., 2006, Xρονολογία comparata. Vergleichende Chronologie von Südgriechenland und Süditalien von ca. 1700/1600 bis 1000 v. u. Z. Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 26 (Wien 2006).

LO SCHIAVO, F., R. D’ORIANO, 1990, La Sardegna sulle rotte dell’Occidente, in: La Magna Grecia e il Lontano Occidente. Atti del XXIX Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia. Taranto 1989 (Taranto 1990) 99– 162.

KARAGEORGHIS, V., 1983, Palaepaphos-Skales. An Iron Age cemetery in Cyprus, Alt-Paphos 3 (Konstanz 1983).

MÄDER, A., 2001, Zürich-Alpenquai I. Die Metallfunde, Zürcher Archäologie 3 (Zürich 2001).

KARAGEORGHIS, V., 1987, Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 1986, BCH 111, 1987, 663–733.

MÄDER, A., T. SORMAZ, 2000, Die Dendrodaten der beginnenden Spätbronzezeit (Bz D) von Elgg ZHBreiti, JbSchwUrgesch 83, 2000, 65–78.

KARAGEORGHIS, V., F. LO SCHIAVO, 1989, A West Mediterranean Obelos from Amathus, RStFen 17, 1989, 15–29.

MATTER, A., 1992, Die spätbronzezeitlichen Brandgräber von Regensdorf-Adlikon, in: I. Bauer, D. FortLinksfeiler, B. Ruckstuhl, A. Hasenfratz, C. Hauser, A. Natter (eds.), Bronzezeitliche Landsiedlungen und Gräber, Berichte der Zürcher Denkmalplflege, Archäologische Monographien 11 (Egg 1992) 287– 336.

KARANTZALI, E., 2001, The Mycenaean Cemetery at Pylona on Rhodes, BARIntSer 988 (Oxford 2001). KAŠUBA, M., forthcoming, Die ältesten Fibeln im Nordpontikum, EurAnt 12, 2006. KEMENCZEI, T., 1988, Die Schwerter in Ungarn I, PBF IV, 6 (München 1988).

MAZAR, E., 2004, The Phoenician family tomb N.1 at the northern cemetery of Achziv (10th–6th centuries BCE), CuadAMediterranea 10 (Barcelona 2004).

KEMENCZEI, T., 1991, Die Schwerter in Ungarn II, PBF IV, 9 (Stuttgart 1991). 99

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

METZNER-NEBELSICK, C., 2005, Das bronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Hordeevka am Südlichen Bug im Spannungsfeld seiner auswärtigen Bezüge, in: H. Horejs, R. Jung, E. Kaiser, B. Teržan, Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hänsel von seinen Schülern gewidmet, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 121 (Bonn 2005) 293–315.

PERONI, R., 1963, Ripostigli dell’Appennino umbromarchigiano, Inventaria Archaeologica, Italia, fasc. 3 (Roma 1963). PERONI, R., A. VANZETTI, 2005, Intorno alla cronologia della prima età del ferro italiana da H. MüllerKarpe a Chr. Pare, in: G. Bartoloni, F. Delpino (eds.), Oriente e occidente. Metodi e discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana. Atti dell’incontro di studio, Roma 30–31 ottobre 2003 (Pisa 2005) 53–80.

MOINAT, P., M. DAVID ELBIALI, 2003, Défunts, bûchers et céramiques: la nécropole de Lausanne-Vidy (VD) et les pratiques funéraires sur le Plateau suisse du XIe au VIIIe s. av. J.-C, CahARomande 93 (Lausanne 2003).

PICKLES, S., E. PELTENBURG, 1998, Metallurgy, Society and the Bronze/Iron Transition in the East Mediterranean and the Near East, RDAC 1998, 67– 100.

MORICO, G. (ed.), 1984, Il ripostiglio di Poggio Berni (Roma 1984).

PONZI BONOMI, L., 1970, Il ripostiglio di Contigliano, BPI 21, 1970, 95–154.

MÜLLER-KARPE, H., 1949/50, Grünwalder Gräber, PZ 34/35, 1949/50, 313–325.

POPHAM, M.R., L.H. SACKETT, P.G. THEMELIS (eds.), 1979, Lefkandi I. The Iron Age, BSA Suppl. 11 (Oxford 1979).

MÜLLER-KARPE, H., 1959, Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen, RGF 22 (Berlin 1959).

QUILLFELDT, I. von, 1995, Die Vollgriffschwerter in Süddeutschland, PBF IV, 11 (Stuttgart 1995).

MÜLLER-KARPE, H., 1962, Die Metallbeigaben der früheisenzeitlichen Kerameikos-Gräber, JdI 77, 1962, 59–129.

RANDSBORG, K., K. CHRISTENSEN, 2006, Bronze Age Oak-Coffin Graves. Archaeology and DendroDating, ActaArch Suppl. 7 (København 2006).

NEGRONI CATACCHIO, N., 1984, La problematica dell’ambra nella protostoria italiana: le ambre intagliate di Fratta Polesine e le rotte mercantili nell’Alto Adriatico, Padusa 20, 1984, 73–90.

ŘÍHOVSKÝ,

J., 1979, Die Nadeln in Mähren und im Ostalpengebiet, PBF XIII, 5 (München 1979).

NEGRONI CATACCHIO, N., 1999, Produzione e commercio dei vaghi d’ambra tipo Tirinto e tipo Allumiere alla luce delle recenti scoperte, in: Protostoria e storia del ‘Venetorum angulus’. Atti del XX Convegno di Studi Etruschi ed Italici, Portogruaro – Quarto d’Altino – Este – Adria, 16–19 ottobre 1996 (Pisa 1999) 241–265.

RUIZ-DELGADO, M., 1989, Fíbulas protohistóricas en el Sur de la Península Ibérica (Sevilla 1989).

ORSI, P., 1912, La necropoli sicula di Pantalica, MonAnt 21, 1912, 301–346.

RYCHNER, V., 1998, L’âge du Bronze final. Suisse occidentale et Valais, in: S. Hochuli, U. Niffeler, V. Rychner (eds.), Age du Bronze. La Suisse du Paléolithique à l’aube du Moyen-Age 3 (Basel 1998) 70–79.

RYCHNER, V., 1995, Stand und Aufgaben dendrochronologischer Forschung zur Urnenfelderzeit, in: Beiträge zur Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen. RGZM Monographie 35 (Bonn 1995) 455– 487.

PACCIARELLI, M., 1999, Torre Galli. La necropoli della prima età del ferro (Soveria Manelli 1999). PACCIARELLI, M., 2001, Dal villaggio alla città, Grandi contesti e problemi della protostoria italiana 4 (Firenze 2001).

RYCHNER-FARAGGI, A.-M., 1993, Métal et parure au Bronze final, Hauterive-Champréveyres 9 (Neuchâtel 1993).

PARE, C.F.E., 1998, Beiträge zum Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit in Mitteleuropa I, JbRGZM 45, 1998, 293–433.

SALZANI, L., 1987, Un nuovo ripostiglio di bronzi da Frattesina, Padusa 23, 1987, 219–231.

PARE, C.F.E., 1999a, Beiträge zum Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit in Mitteleuropa II, JbRGZM 46, 1999, 175–315.

SALZANI, L., 1989, Necropoli dell’età del bronzo finale alle Narde di Fratte Polesine. Prima nota, Padusa 25, 1989, 5–42.

PARE, C.F.E., 1999b, Weights and weighing in Bronze Age Europe, in: Eliten in der Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen. RGZM Monographie 43 (Mainz 1999) 421–514.

SALZANI, L., 1990/91, Necropoli dell’età del bronzo finale alle Narde di Fratta Polesine. Seconda nota, Padusa 26/27, 1990/91, 125–206. SALZANI, L., 2000, Fratta Polesine. Il ripostiglio di bronzi n. 2 da Frattesina, QuadAVen 16, 2000, 38–46.

PEDDE, F., 2000, Vorderasiatische Fibeln. Vor der Levante bis Iran, ADOG 24 (Saarbrücken 2000).

SALZANI, L., 2001, Tombe protostoriche dalla necropoli della Colombara (Gazzo Veronese), Padusa 37, 2001, 83–132.

PERONI, R., 1961, Ripostigli del Massiccio della Tolfa, Inventaria Archaeologica, Italia, fasc.1 (Firenze 1961).

100

C. PARE: ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN

SAPOUNA-SAKELLARAKIS, E., 1978, Die Fibeln der griechischen Inseln, PBF XIV, 4 (München 1978).

TERŽAN, B., 1996, Hoards and Individual Metal Finds from the Eneolithic and Bronze Ages in Slovenia, Katalogi in monografije 30 (Ljubljana 1996).

SCHAUER, P., 1971, Die Schwerter in Süddeutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz I, PBF IV, 2 (München 1971).

TRAMPUŽ OREL, N., D.J. HEATH, 2001, Depo Kanalski Vrh. Študija o metalurškem znanju in kovinah na začetku 1. tisočletja pr.n.š, AVes 52, 2001, 143–171.

SHALEV, S., 2004, Swords and Daggers in Late Bronze Age Canaan, PBF IV, 13 (Stuttgart 2004).

TURCO, M., 2000, La necropoli di Cassibile. Scavi Paolo Orsi 1897 e 1923, Cahiers du Centre Jean Bérard 21 (Roma 2000).

SHERRATT, S., 1994, Commerce, Iron and Ideology. Metallurgical Innovation in 12th–11th Century Cyprus, in: V. Karageorghis (ed.), Cyprus in the 11th Century BC (Nicosia 1994) 59–107.

VAGNETTI, L., 1986, Cypriot Elements Beyond the Aegean in the Bronze Age, in: V. Karageorghis (ed.), Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium “Cyprus between the Orient and the Occident”, Nicosia 8th–14th September 1985 (Nicosia 1986) 201– 214.

SPERBER, L., 1987, Untersuchungen zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderkultur im nördlichen Alpenvorland von der Schweiz bis Oberösterreich, Antiquitas 3 A/29 (Bonn 1987). STEINHAUSER, R., M. PRIMAS, 1987, Der Bernsteinfund vom Montlingerberg (Kt. St. Gallen, Schweiz), Germania 65, 1987, 203–208.

VASIĆ, R., 1999, Die Fibeln im Zentralbalkan, PBF XIV, 12 (Stuttgart 1999). VINSKI-GASPARINI, K., 1973, Kultura polja sa žarama u sjevernoj Hrvatskoj (Zadar 1973).

SZOMBATHY, J., 1937, Altertumsfunde aus Höhlen bei St. Kanzian im österreichischen Küstenlande, MPrähistKomWien 2, 1937, 127–169.

WATZINGER, C., 1929, Tell El-Mutesellim II. Die Funde (Leipzig 1929).

TANASI, D., 2004, Per una rilettura delle necropoli sulla Montagna di Caltagirone, in: V. La Rosa (ed.), Le presenze micenee nel territorio siracusano. 1o Simposio Siracusano di Preistoria Siciliana, Siracusa 15–16 dicembre 2003 (Padua 2004) 399–447.

WEBER, C., 1996, Die Rasiermesser in Südosteuropa, PBF VIII, 5 (Stuttgart 1996). ZANINI, A. (ed.), 1997, Dal bronzo al ferro. Il II Millennio a.C. nella Toscana centro-occidentale. Exhibition catalogue Livorno (Pisa 1997).

101

THE IRON AGE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN: RECENT RADIOCARBON RESEARCH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN Albert J. NIJBOER Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (RuG), Groningen Institute of Archaeology (GIA), Poststraat 6, NL-9712 ER Groningen, The Netherlands, www.lcm.rug.nl, e-mail: [email protected]

Hans van der PLICHT Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (RuG), Centrum voor Isotopen Onderzoek (CIO), Nijenborgh 4, NL-9714 AG Groningen, The Netherlands, e-mail: [email protected]. Abstract: The paper discusses the methodological requirements for establishing chronologies based on high-precision radiocarbon dates. Inadequate use of available data is identified as one of the main reasons for the current confusion regarding the absolute chronology of the 10th to 8th centuries BC in the Mediterranean. In addition, recent high-quality radiocarbon results from Italy, Carthage and Huelva are presented. As a consequence of the latter, a slight alteration of the absolute chronology of Greek Geometric Fine Wares is suggested, resulting in a longer trading phase in the Mediterranean before the establishment of Greek settlements in southern Italy during the late 8th century BC. Keywords: absolute chronology, Iron Age, Mediterranean, high quality radiocarbon results, Achziv-Huelva fibula Résumé: Dans le présent article, les conditions méthodologiques nécessaires à l’établissement de chronologies basées sur des datations par radiocarbone de haute précision sont discutées. Pour ce qui est de la chronologie absolue concernant la période du 10e au 8e siècle av. J.-C., l’utilisation inadaptée des données disponibles est identifiée comme une des raisons principales de la confusion courante en Méditerranée. En outre, des datations par radiocarbone de haute précision en provenance d’Italie, de Carthage, et d’Huelva sont présentées. En conséquences de ces dernières, une légère modification de la chronologie absolue concernant la céramique fine géométrique grecque est proposée. Il s’ensuit que, en Italie du Sud, l’installation des établissements grecs au cours de la fin du 8e siècle av. J.-C. est précédé par une phase prolongée de contacts commerciaux en Méditerranée. Mots clé: chronologie absolue, âge du fer, Méditerranée, datations par radiocarbone de haute précision, fibule de type AchzivHuelva Abriss: Der Beitrag behandelt die grundlegenden methodischen Voraussetzungen für den Aufbau eines chronologischen Gerüsts auf Grundlage von Präzisions-Radiokarbondaten. Ein großer Teil der gegenwärtig in Bezug auf die absolute Chronologie des 10. bis 8. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. im Mittelmeerraum bestehenden Verwirrung kann demnach auf eine nicht methodenadäquate Verwendung vorhandener Daten zurückgeführt werden. Ferner werden neue Präzisions-Radiokarbondaten aus Italien, Karthago und Huelva vorgestellt, auf deren Grundlage eine Revision der absoluten Chronologie griechisch-geometrischer Feinkeramik vorgeschlagen wird. Im Ergebnis ist von einer längeren Phase mediterraner Handelskontakte auszugehen, welche der Gründung griechischer Niederlassungen in Süditalien während des späten 8. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. vorausging. Schlüsselwörter: Absolute Chronologie, Eisenzeit, Mittelmeer, Präsesions-Radiokarbondatierungen, Achziv-Huelva Fibel

conventional absolute chronology that is based on a partial reading of Greek Geometric/Proto-Corinthian ceramics related to a text by Thucydides mentioning the Greek colonisation of Sicily during the period 735–700 BC.

INTRODUCTION In the past years, the research project on the Iron Age in the Mediterranean, funded by the University of Groningen, The Netherlands, concentrated primarily on sound archaeological contexts from Central Italy, mainly tombs1. High-quality radiocarbon data associated with these contexts have resulted in some chronological reference points for the period around 1000 BC and for the late 9th century BC. It has also resulted in a reliable sequence of archaeological contexts with high-quality radiocarbon determinations covering the period from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age in Latium vetus (ca. 1200–800 BC). The project was considered necessary on account of the continued debate on absolute chronology since the late 1980’s. Some of the results do not match the

In order to test the conventional absolute chronology, the project assembled as well radiocarbon data associated with the earliest evidence of the Phoenicians in the western Mediterranean, mainly from Carthage and Huelva (Tartessos). The radiocarbon results from Huelva are intriguing since they can be linked with an account in the Bible mentioning Tarshish, King Hiram I of Tyre, Solomon and their overseas search for precious metals and other luxuries. The available radiocarbon dates from Huelva fully cover in time the reign of Hiram I of Tyre (ca. 970–930 BC). A 10th century BC date is also confirmed by the distribution of the Achziv-Huelva fibula.

1

Some of the radiocarbon determinations of this project were financed by the Italian government thanks to mediation by Prof. Anna Maria Bietti Sestieri, Dr.ssa Anna De Santis and Dr.ssa Flavia Trucco. We would like to thank Sander Tiebackx (Groningen Institute of Archaeology) for making the illustrations in this article.

From the radiocarbon dates assembled, the following picture emerges:

103

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

− The Phoenicians crossed the whole Mediterranean, from Tyre to Tartessos, from onwards the 10th century BC.

5. A short-lived sample needs to be used such as seeds, animal or human bones, cremated bones (not burned or charred), nuts, twigs etc.4 The radiocarbon analysis of human bones can only be interpreted if reservoir effects, giving rise to apparent ages, are assessed5. Besides, with human bones, one needs to account for the turnover time of collagen in bones that may result in an older absolute date by, at the most, 20 to 30 years6. Charcoal and wood may show “old age effects”7

− Carthage was founded during the late 9th century BC. The characteristics of this foundation still need to be defined. − One can maintain the foundation dates as implied by Thucydides for the Greek settlements in southern Italy. The characteristics of these foundations still need to be defined.

6. The laboratory doing the radiocarbon analysis needs to have a good reputation as indicated by performance of inter-comparison exercises8 and other quality assurance criteria9. Quality parameters employed in this paper are that the Carbon content, Cv(%), of the bone sample needs to be higher than 35%, that the δ13C values need to be around 20‰ and that the error measured should not be larger than ± 50 years10.

− How all this affects the absolute chronology of the Greek Geometric ceramic sequence requires further research. The radiocarbon results and their associated archaeological contexts demonstrate that the conventional absolute chronology of the 9th and early 8th centuries BC needs to be revised by 50 to 75 years in the older direction, otherwise it will result in a further dissociation between the Phoenician and Greek advance to the western Mediterranean. Such dissociation has to be limited in time around 800 BC for various reasons such as the sound archaeological funerary record of Late Iron Age Italy and the establishment of Euboean/Greek trading settlements at Pithekoussai and Al Mina.

7. Preferably more than one 14C dating per context or phase, that is, stratigraphically clearly ordered short lived samples, high precision conventional dates for large samples, multiple AMS dates for smaller samples11. 8. The development of a compendium of phase and possibly per site.

Our project on the absolute chronology of the Iron Age in the Mediterranean tried to combine high quality radiocarbon results with sound archaeological contexts. In this paper we concentrate on the radiocarbon results and therefore it is necessary to explain what we consider to be a high quality radiocarbon result.

10. The radiocarbon analysis needs to be published according to international convention including information on the laboratory code number of the analysis, the radiocarbon date reported in BP with the standard deviation (expressed as ± error), the carbon content of the sample and preferably with the δ13C values obtained (the δ13C value is not useful as a quality parameter in case of cremated bone). Calibrated results should be quoted as date ranges with confidence intervals (1σ or 2σ) using the term cal AD or cal BC12. The recommended calibration curve is INTCAL0413. The program used for calibration needs to be stated as well. The calibration programs most frequently used are OxCal or WINCAL25, which can be downloaded directly from the “Radiocarbon” web site (www.radiocarbon.org). The results of both calibration programs are compatible.

You may employ the 14C method for various purposes but if used for establishing an absolute chronology of a specific cultural phase, the requirements involved need to be strict: 1. The sample has to come from a closed archaeological context or secure stratigraphic layer or deposit. It has to be acknowledged that stratigraphic layers often represent “a period of time rather than a ‘moment in time’”2. 2. The sample must truly represent the event-to-be-dated3. 3. The sample needs to come from a context with artefacts pertaining to a specific cultural phase or pertaining to a transitional period, from one phase to another.

4

.For dating cremated bones see: Lanting et al. 2001. Lanting – van der Plicht 1998. 6 Wild et al. 2000; Lanting 2004. 7 Mook – Waterbolk 1985. 8 Scott et al., 2004. 9 Bruins – van der Plicht 2001; van der Plicht – Bruins 2001. 10 Lanting 2004; Mook – Waterbolk 1985. 11 Bruins et al. 2003. 12 Mook 1986. 13 Reimer et al. 2004. 5

4. The sample should not be contaminated with older or younger carbon from either laboratory or natural origin (ash, grease, lacquer, soil, rootlets, consolidants etc.). 3

C dates per

9. A radiocarbon date can not be viewed separately from the actual archaeological context dated. In most literature this is not the case. It also means that statistics on sets of radiocarbon dates can only be applied to single archaeological contexts. Otherwise one applies simultaneously statistics to the archaeological data involved. In the end no one knows any longer what is actually being dated.

REQUIREMENTS FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH INTO ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY

2

14

Collis forthcoming. van Strijdonck et al. 1999.

104

A.J. NIJBOER AND H. VAN DER PLICHT: THE IRON AGE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN: RECENT RADIOCARBON RESEARCH…

An example of this international convention is the radiocarbon date of the cremated bones found in Tomb 103 of the Villanovan necropolis Villa Bruschi Falgari at Tarquinia (Italy) that was recently excavated by Dr.ssa F. Trucco and her team14. Tomb 103 is assigned to Tarquinia phase 1 and the radiocarbon analysis gives the following result:

gives us a terminus ante or post quem. Even in the rare cases that archaeology did obtain an exact year, as with some Wiggle Matching results or the destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum based on the eyewitness account of the two Plinys (August 24th, 79 AD), final interpretation of the contexts involved still gives us time ranges because the data associated with a specific archaeological find have a biography of construction/ production, use and deposition. Therefore any absolute date used in this article comes with a time range of at least ± 25 years.

GrA-23484: 2885 ± 45 BP15. This result calibrated with OxCal v.3.10 gives the following ranges: 1130– 990 cal BC (64% probability) or 1220–920 cal BC (94% probability)16. 11. All the above needs to be published, meaning the archaeological context together with the details of the radiocarbon determination17.

CHRONOLOGICAL REFERENCE POINTS, CENTRAL ITALY The requirements mentioned above were applied in a recent research project by the Groningen Institute of Archaeology in collaboration with the Centre of Isotope Research of the University of Groningen (The Netherlands) and some Italian colleagues, such as Prof. Anna Maria Bietti Sestieri, Dr.ssa Anna De Santis and Dr. Vincenzo d’Ercole. The project resulted in some chronological reference points. These reference points give clear data regarding sound archaeological contexts and their position in time. The contexts refer to:

Even when each of these requirements is met, the radiocarbon method will not result in a ‘historical date’, that is an exact date to the year. The radiocarbon method provides us with most likely ranges of absolute years. Archaeology as a discipline is anyhow poorly suited for establishing ‘historical, yearly dates’18. At best a date 14

Trucco et al. 2001, 81–93; Trucco 2006. The apatite of the cremated bone was dated; see: Lanting et al. 2001. 16 Dr.ssa Flavia Trucco and we are working momentarily on the publication of the radiocarbon sequence obtained for the Villa Bruschi Falgari necropolis at Tarquinia in combination with full archaeological details on the tombs themselves. 17 During the UISPP session in Lisbon (4th–9th September 2006) that is presented here in print, much debate focussed on the radiocarbon data compiled by the team of Gilboa, Sharon and others for Iron Age Israel. The hundreds of radiocarbon dates assembled in their project are somewhat in contrast to data obtained elsewhere (cf. Nijboer 2005b). Our main problem with the radiocarbon results amassed by the team of Gilboa, Sharon and others is that their samples derive from stratigraphic layers in settlements and that subsequently the radiocarbon results are statistically assessed. From their publications, it has become impossible to establish the quality of the radiocarbon dates employed as well as the quality of the archaeological contexts examined. Moreover stratigraphic layers often represent “a period of time rather than a ‘moment in time’ ” (Collis forthcoming). It is unknown what period of time is covered by each of the stratigraphic layers they have sampled. In addition Gilboa, Sharon, Finkelstein and their followers ignore the stratigraphic analysis of Tel Rehov, which is a main argument supporting the ‘high chronology’ for key Israeli sites (Bruins et al. 2003). 18 Absolute chronology in archaeology is somewhat fluid. In protohistorical periods one might be able to get down to ± 25 years while going even further back in time, these margins become larger, up to hundreds of years for Stone Age phases. Archaeology is like a mesmerizing Panta Rhei; countless details from the past floating in slots of time each vying for relevance and interpretation in a world that is adjusting and redefining itself continuously. This chronological fluidity, characteristic for archaeology, is in sharp contrast to the steady, yearly records, annals, on which history should be based. A problem for protohistory is that it often has to combine archaeological fluidity with a few remaining annals. Using the radiocarbon method instead of a ‘historical’ approach, results in a reversal of the evidence employed for chronological constructs. There is a fundamental difference between both methods to derive at an absolute chronology in archaeology. This difference will have consequences and repercussions for the stories of the past told. The conventional or traditional absolute chronology is essentially based on records and has a top-down scheme; ‘high cultures’ with archives define the absolute chronology of ‘low cultures’ without surviving annals. One can read on this topic in, for example, Renfrew’s book “Before Civilization” (Renfrew 1973). A radiocarbon date has an opposite methodology since it essentially dates a local event independent of concepts of ‘high’ and ‘low’ culture. As such the radiocarbon method applied in archaeology has a bottom-up approach. It will lead to 15

− two Final Bronze Age Tombs at Celano (Abruzzo) with tree-trunk sarcophagi and their Wiggle-Matching (WMD) results and − the Iron Age hut at Fidene (Rome) Wiggle-matching results of the radiocarbon dates pertaining to Celano (Abruzzo) Tumulus 4 and 5 with waterlogged, substantial tree-trunk sarcophagi (up to 170 year-rings), indicate that these tumuli were erected around 1000 BC +/- 25 years while the associated artefacts refer to the final stages of the Late Bronze Age in Italy. Tomb 4 appears to be slightly older than Tomb 5. The sarcophagus of both Celano tombs is made from oak (Quercus sp.) while no traces of bark, nor cambial rings were detected. So far the presence of sapwood is not clear. The outermost rings of the tree trunk from Tomb 4 are of a different lighter colour and tyloses are present in the vessels. The heartwood/sapwood transition zone is implied19. Therefore the absolute dates obtained for both tombs are a Terminus post quem to which one needs to add a number of rings for the sapwood, 20 to 30 rings. Nonetheless, the premise is that little of the heartwood was removed while making the sarcophagus. Moreover the WMD of both tombs coincide well with the radiocarbon sequence obtained for Latium vetus (Table 6.1). regional absolute chronologies that might deviate somewhat from previous constructs of cultural assimilations. 19 We would like to thank Dr.ssa N. Martinelli and O. Pignatelli of Dendrodata in Verona for this information. We intend to publish in the near future the dendrological information of both Celano Tombs in detail.

105

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Table 6.1 Radiocarbon dates available for Latium vetus referring to the period Late Bronze Age-Iron Age / Early Orientalizing period. Collagen is the datable fraction for preserved bone; apatite for cremated bone. The laboratory codes for Groningen are GrN (conventional) and GrA (AMS). Radiocarbon results of lesser quality on account of the discussed radiocarbon quality parameters or on account of the sample are given in italics (see the requirements mentioned above)

106

A.J. NIJBOER AND H. VAN DER PLICHT: THE IRON AGE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN: RECENT RADIOCARBON RESEARCH…

Sample

material

Celano Tomb 4, Final Bronze Age

laboratory nr. WMD

14

C (BP)

δ13C(‰)

Cv(%)

Youngest ring dated to 1040 BC

Celano, Tomb 4, rings

1–10

GrN-30007

2968±24

-27.42

55.7

Celano, Tomb 4, rings

40–50

GrN-30008

2918±25

-27.04

53.4

Celano, Tomb 4, rings

80–90

GrN-30009

2935±25

-26.50

56.1

Celano, Tomb 4, rings

110–120

GrN-30010

2917±25

-26.97

56.1

Celano, Tomb 4, rings

150–168

GrN-30011

2900±24

-26.03

53.3

Celano, Tomb 5 Final Bronze Age

WMD

Youngest ring dated to 1018 BC ± 15 years

Celano, Tomb 5, rings

1–10

GrN-28912

2950±30

-25.71

56.7

Celano, Tomb 5, rings

11–20

GrN-28913

2910±30

-26.01

59.2

Celano, Tomb 5, rings

21–30

GrN-28914

2835±30

-26.89

57.8

Celano, Tomb 5, rings

31–40

GrN-28915

2835±40

-26.92

59.5

Celano, Tomb 5, rings

41–50

GrN-28916

2845±40

-26.69

56.1

Fig. 6.1. Celano, Tumulus 4 and associated artefacts (a. b); Tumulus 5 and associated artefacts (c. d) (b. d not to scale) 107

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

δ13C(‰)

Cv(%)

2820±50

-25.47

68.9

GrN-20125

2800±50

-25.06

65.8

GrN-20126

2790±50

-25.69

65.5

seeds

GrA-5007

2770±50

-23.79

58.6

seeds

GrA-5008

2760±50

-24.80

60.8

Sample

material

laboratory nr.

Fidene hut

charcoal

GrN-20127

Fidene hut

charcoal

Fidene hut

charcoal

Fidene hut Fidene hut

14

C (BP)

gradual decline in 14C years from 3000 BP to 2600 BP. The archaeological contexts involved can not be introduced here individually due to limitations set to the size of this paper. In Table 6.1 references are given in which the archaeological contexts from which the samples derived, are introduced. Fig. 6.2 illustrates one of the tombs listed in Table 6.1 and that is assigned to Latial period I/IIa, which coincides with the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age25. The tombs allocated to this phase form a coherent group as do the other contexts from Latial phases II and III.

Both tombs and their contents are illustrated in Figure 6.1. They are assigned to the last stages of the Final Bronze Age in Italy though comparable fibulae are also found in archaeological contexts allocated to the Early Iron Age20. Related fibulae as the ones found in Tomb 4 and 5 at Celano are recovered all over the Italian Peninsula and even in Croatia and nearby regions21. A date of the last stages of the Final Bronze Age in Italy around 1000 BC immediately raises the question of the beginning of the Early Iron Age. It is most likely that the Early Iron Age in Italy started around 950 BC.

The interpretation of this radiocarbon sequence in terms of absolute chronology is as follows:

The second chronological reference point of this project concerns the Iron Age hut at Fidene (Rome). Five radiocarbon dates, some from seeds, related to this hut, indicate that the conventional absolute chronology should be raised at least by 30 to 80 years (770 BC has to become 850–800 BC).

− The late Bronze Age, the Bronzo Recente and Bronzo Finale periods in the Italian terminology, includes Latial period I. The Bronzo Finale period dates from 1200 to 950 BC. Latial period I probably emerges during the second half of the 11th century BC and closes around 950 BC.

By now the hut and its contents have been well published22. The associated pottery refers to the early stages of Latial period III that is dated in the conventional absolute chronology, based on a partial reading of Greek Geometric pottery in Italy, around 770–750 BC23. This conventional date is not confirmed by the radiocarbon dates. As mentioned above, the beginning of Latial phase III needs to be raised by at least 30 to 80 years and can not be dated younger than 850–800 BC.

− Latial period II dates from 950 to 825 BC. − Latial period III emerges around 825 BC. On account of the Hallstatt plateau in the calibration curve, it is not possible to date the 8th century BC with the radiocarbon method. Nonetheless we assess that the transition of Latial period III to period IVa dates to 750/725 BC, only slightly higher than in the conventional absolute chronology26. As mentioned above the dates given come with a range of about ± 25 years. This is also reflected in the radiocarbon results listed in Table 6.1 since there is an overlap in dates for each phase.

RADIOCARBON SEQUENCE FOR LATIUM VETUS FROM 1200 TO 800 BC24 A sound radiocarbon sequence for Latium vetus was obtained covering the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age, from ca. 1200 to 800 BC (Table 6.1). The table presents a

Another conclusion is that the radiocarbon sequence given in Table 6.1 corresponds more with the chronological tables as published by Pacciarelli than with the conventional absolute chronology based on a partial reading of Thucydides in combination with Greek Late Geometric and Early Proto-Corinthian ceramics found in Italy27.

20 D’Ercole 1998; v. Eles Masi 1986, 210–211; Zanini 1997, some catalogue entries. 21 Glogović 2003; v. Merhart 1969, pls. 4. 5. 7. 22 Bietti Sestieri 2005, 402–406; De Santis et al. 1998; Nijboer et al. 1999/2000. 23 Nijboer 2005b. 24 The compilation of data presented in Tab. 6.1 would not have been possible without the encouraging help by Prof. Anna Maria Bietti Sestieri and Dr.ssa Anna De Santis with whom we have collaborated for many years. Their support has been crucial for this project. The high chronology is an important element of their interpretation of the LBA– EIA of Latium (cf. Bietti Sestieri – De Santis 2003; Bietti Sestieri – De Santis 2006).

25

The tomb contains some miniature weapons among which scudi bilobati. These double shields remained an important status symbol in Rome for more than 1000 years (Colonna 1991). During these centuries the shields may have altered from status symbol into a ritual artefact. 26 Nijboer 2005a; Nijboer 2005b. 27 Pacciarelli 1999, 63; Pacciarelli 2000, 277; Nijboer 2005b. A comparable radiocarbon sequence as in Table 6.I was obtained in the past years for Tarquinia, mainly based on the recent excavations by

108

A.J. NIJBOER AND H. VAN DER PLICHT: THE IRON AGE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN: RECENT RADIOCARBON RESEARCH…

Fig. 6.2. Rome, Quadrato di Torre Spaccata, the artefacts from Tomb 1 with radiocarbon date GrA-16411 2810±50 BP (not to scale; see De Santis 2005 for discussion of the archaeological context)

In most handbooks an 8th century BC date for the Phoenician advance to the far western Mediterranean is still used, but recent research clearly documents that they already crossed the whole Mediterranean from the 10th century BC onwards. During the 10th and 9th centuries BC, the Phoenicians became particularly interested in the metal-rich regions of the western Mediterranean such as Sardinia, Tartessos and Etruria. We first present the data from Huelva after which the earliest levels of Carthage are discussed.

RADIOCARBON DATES AND THE PHOENICIANS IN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN∗ In order to test the conventional absolute chronology, the project assembled as well radiocarbon data associated with the earliest evidence of Phoenicians in the Western Mediterranean, mainly from Carthage and from Huelva, Tartessos (SW-Spain). Carthage was chosen on account of its foundation date 814/813 BC, the Hamburg excavations going down to the lowest levels of Carthage and on account of the specific characteristics of the calibration curve, which makes it possible to arrive at fairly precise calibrated radiocarbon results for the late 9th century BC.

At Huelva there are two archaeological deposits that have been dated with the radiocarbon method and both contain artefacts with parallels in the Levant (Fig. 6.3). For convenience we have marked these deposits the Town and the River Deposit.

Flavia Trucco of the Villanovan Villa Bruschi Falgari necropolis (Trucco 2006). The Tarquinia radiocarbon sequence gives a gradual decline in 14C years from 2900 BP to 2600 BP. We intend to publish in 2007/2008 this sequence in combination with some of the Villanovan Tombs examined.

The contents of the Town Deposit, found in a clear archaeological stratum, were excavated Anno Domini

109

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Sample

Lab nr. GrN

14

C age (BP)

Error (1σ)

δ13 (‰)

Cv (%)

Huelva 1

GrN-29511

2745

25

-19.98

49.8

Huelva 2

GrN-29512

2775

25

-20.94

41.7

Huelva 3

GrN-29513

2740

25

-20.08

50.2

2755

15

Weighted average Radiocarbon determinations Huelva

Calibration 68.2% probability

Calibration 95.4% probability

weighted average: 2755 +/- 15 BP

920 BC (36.7%) 890 BC 875 BC (31.5%) 845 BC

970 BC (1.4%) 960 BC 930 BC (94.0%) 830 BC

GrN-29511: 2745 +/- 25 BP

915 BC (68.2%) 840 BC

970 BC (2.5%) 950 BC 940 BC (92.9%) 820 BC

GrN-29512: 2775 +/- 25 BP

980 BC (64.0%) 890 BC 870 BC (4.2%) 850 BC

1000 BC (95.4%) 840 BC

GrN-29513: 2740 +/- 25 BP

905 BC (68.2%) 840 BC

970 BC (1.2%) 960 BC 930 BC (94.2%) 820 BC

1998 and subsequently published28. The stratum documents a type of emporium, a trading settlement:

logy. The Ría de Huelva deposit is considered to be a homogenous assemblage of artefacts and assigned to the final stages of the Late Bronze Age. The deposit is well published and contains numerous metal goods, especially of copper-alloy, indicating that Huelva was a mayor transshipment site during the 10th and 9th century BC, loading and offloading goods that have a wide distribution from north-west Europe to Phoenicia32.

− Thousands of local and Phoenician ceramics as well as some MG, Nuragic and even two Iron Age shards from mainland Italy. All in all about 85,000 fragments were recovered from this deposit. − The finds record various crafts such as the processing of copper, iron, silver, ivory and ostrich eggs.

Six radiocarbon dates associated with the River Deposit are know33. Samples were taken from the wood in the shafts of the throwing-spears. This wood could have been heartwood but it is unlikely that the old-wood effect accounts for more than a few decades since it is most probable that relatively young trees or branches were used for making the javelin.

− The Phoenician script was introduced at Huelva during the first half of the 9th century BC as well as quantified exchange marked by some shekel units29. The radiocarbon samples, which were taken from this deposit, consist of various cattle bones of substantial size in order to be able to use the ‘gas counting’ method as expressed in the code (GrN). This method can obtain a more precise result but requires large samples, in our case of up to 400 grams.

Ría de Huelva: One deposit with 6 radiocarbon dates: CSIC-202 CSIC-203 CSIC-206 CSIC-207 CSIC-205 CSIC-204

The results indicate that this deposit has a mean-age, based on three separate radiocarbon dates, of 2755 ± 15 BP, which yields a calibrated range of 930–830 BC with a 94% probability30. Thus the Town Deposit has an average date from 930 to 830 BC and contains amongst others numerous artefacts from the Levant31.

2830 ± 70 BP 2820 ± 70 BP 2820 ± 70 BP 2820 ± 70 BP 2810 ± 70 BP 2800 ± 70 BP

The average of these 6 radiocarbon dates is 2815 ± 30 BP and this takes us definitely into the 10th century BC (Fig. 6.3).

The Radiocarbon dates of the Huelva Town Deposit (calibration with OxCal v3.10):

A 10th century BC date for the River Deposit is also signalled by stories in the Scriptures and by a recent excavation in Achziv, northern Israel34.

The Huelva River Deposit is slightly older than the Town Deposit, both in terms of relative and absolute chrono28

González de Canales Cerisola et al. 2004; González de Canales Cerisola et al. 2006. 29 González de Canales Cerisola et al 2004; González de Canales Cerisola et al. 2006. 30 Nijboer – van der Plicht 2006. 31 Brandherm did discuss this topic in a recent publication using evidence from Iron Age imported ceramics found on the Iberian Peninsula and from some radiocarbon results (Brandherm 2006).

A specific type of fibula is found in both the River Deposit at Huelva as well as in the oldest layer, phase 1, 32

cf. Ruiz-Gálvez 1995. – See also the evidence given here. Ruiz-Gálvez 1995; Torres et al. 2005. 34 Nijboer forthcoming. 33

110

A.J. NIJBOER AND H. VAN DER PLICHT: THE IRON AGE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN: RECENT RADIOCARBON RESEARCH…

Fig. 6.3. Huelva, average radiocarbon dates of both the River and Town deposit

111

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 6.4. Achziv-Huelva fibulae, 10th century BC

112

A.J. NIJBOER AND H. VAN DER PLICHT: THE IRON AGE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN: RECENT RADIOCARBON RESEARCH…

of the Phoenician family Tomb no. 1 at Achziv in northern Israel35. We label this fibula the “Achziv-Huelva fibula” marking its most Eastern and Western distribution (Fig. 6.4)36. This type of fibula was used during the 10th century BC on various locations along the shores of the Mediterranean37. One fibula depicted in Fig. 6.4 derives from Amathus Tomb 523 assigned to the Cypro-Geometric I/II period38. This tomb is a suitable context to be discussed here since it contains, besides Phoenician and other goods, also a well-known spit, which finds parallels in England, France, Spain and Sardinia39. Once more wide distribution patterns are implied for the 10th century BC with probably Huelva acting as a key trans-shipment site.

century BC onwards. For us this has become a fact since it is confirmed by three different types of records: − The stories in the Scriptures, − The distribution of goods such as the Achziv-Huelva fibula (Fig. 6.4)43 and − The radiocarbon dates (Fig. 6.3). CARTHAGE In time, the Phoenicians not only traded occasionally with various communities in the Western Mediterranean but also founded permanent settlements, especially along the shores of North Africa and South Spain. Carthage can be considered their main settlement and its foundation is most relevant for the debate on the absolute chronology. In the past years, Hamburg and Gent teams in collaboration with their Tunisian colleagues have been excavating at Carthage, going down to its lowest levels. The partial, chronological reading of the Greek pottery associated with these levels, date them to the second half of the 8th century BC, while the radiocarbon dates are 50 to 75 older and refer to the late 9th century BC. Thus the radiocarbon dates confirm more or less accounts in the ancient literature which state that Carthage was founded in 814/813 BC44.

The 10th century BC date of the Achziv-Huelva fibulae is confirmed independently by the radiocarbon dates available for the River Deposit at Huelva (Fig. 6.3). Therefore, both the River and Town Deposit contain material that can be found in Phoenicia as well. Especially the 10th century BC date and the distribution of the Achziv-Huelva fibula are intriguing because this confirms a much debated account in the Bible40. There are numerous references in the Scriptures to a place called Tarshish, a location where one could acquire precious metals and other luxuries41. We follow here Lipiński since he argues that Tarshish is metal-rich Tartessos in southwest Spain, a region of which Huelva is the primary settlement. The presented Achziv-Huelva fibula favours this view since it signifies links between Tartessos and Phoenicia from the 10th century BC onwards.

Samples for radiocarbon dating were taken at Carthage from the oldest levels excavated by the Hamburg team, just above the virgin soil. The average calibrated result of more than 1 kg animal bones is 850–795 BC with a 90% probability (calibration with Oxcal v3.10).

According to the Scriptures, King Hiram I of Tyre and Solomon built merchant ships called the “Tarshish fleet”, which sailed every three years and returned with precious cargo42. The radiocarbon dates from Huelva, especially those from the River Deposit (Fig. 6.3), fully cover in time the reign of Hiram I of Tyre (ca. 970/960–930 BC).

The archaeological contexts, to which these radiocarbon dates refer, were published in 200545.

We conclude that the Phoenicians travelled the whole Mediterranean, from Tyre to Tartessos, from the 10th 35

Mazar 2004, 115; Ruiz-Gálvez 1995, 241 nos. 21. 22. 23 This means that we are at present not aware of a wider dispersal of the Achziv-Huelva fibula. The distribution of the Huelva fibulae towards Cyprus was already noticed by Almagro Gorbea together with the early distribution of some ivory artefacts (cf. Almagro Gorbea 2000). Comparable LBA ivory artefacts are also found in Italy. For a long time Almagro Gorbea has stressed the importance of these finds for a reconstruction of a pre-colonial Phoenician presence in the western Mediterranean. The recent publication of the Achziv family tomb makes it finally possible to take the distribution of this type of fibula into the Phoenician homeland. 37 On Cyprus this type of fibula is characteristic for a long period of time (Giesen 2001, 179–208). The archetype, in our opinion, originates in the Levant. As with most other archetypes, its provenance is open to debate. The Sicilian fibulae in Fig. 6.4 are possibly a local modification of the Achziv-Huelva fibula. 38 Karageorghis 1987, 719–722; Karageorghis – Lo Schiavo 1989 39 cf. Karageorghis – Lo Schiavo 1989; Giardino 1995, 237 fig. 117. 40 cf. Aubet 2001; Lipiński 2004. 41 Lipiński 2004, 217. 220. 225–265. 42 I Kings 10, 22 and II Chron. 9, 21. – Both Kings lived around the period of 970/960–930 BC. The exact length of the reigns is unknown since royal annals did not exist at that time. 36

113

Recently Docter continued excavating at Carthage on a site slightly to the south of the Hamburg excavations. These excavations have yielded amongst others ten radiocarbon dates from the lowest layers that appear to be slightly younger than the radiocarbon results from the Hamburg excavations. These ten radiocarbon dates move into the so-called Hallstatt plateau of the calibration curve but in our opinion still refer to the period around 800 BC46.

REVISION OF THE CONVENTIONAL ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY AND SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR THE IRON AGE PAST This project on the period 1200 to 800 BC was devised on account of the continued debate on the absolute chrono43 See, for example, Giardino and Matthäus for other goods crossing the Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age (Giardino 1995; Matthäus 2000). 44 cf. Nijboer 2005b. 45 Docter et al. 2005. 46 Docter et al. forthcoming; Maraoui Telmini et al. forthcoming.

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

14

C age (BP)

Error (1σ)

δ (‰)

13

Cv (%)

Sample Ka93-

lab nr. GrN

181

26090

2650

30

-20.40

45.9

183

26091

2710

30

-20.36

47.4

220

26093

2640

50

-21.00

47.7

499

26094

2660

30

-20.22

41.7

Weighted average

2670 +/- 20 BP.

Radiocarbon determinations Carthage-Hamburg excavations

Calibration 68.2% probability

Calibration 95.4% probability

weighted average: 2670 +/- 20 BP

830 BC (68.2%) 805 BC

895 BC (6.4%) 870 BC 850 BC (89.0%) 795 BC

GrN-26090: 2650 +/- 30 BP

830 BC (68.2%) 795 BC

900 BC (95.4%) 780 BC

GrN-26091: 2710 +/- 30 BP

895 BC (68.2%) 820 BC

920 BC (95.4%) 800 BC

GrN-26093: 2640 +/- 50 BP

890 BC (3.5%) 880 BC 850 BC (64.7%) 770 BC

920 BC (93.5%) 750 BC 690 BC (1.9%) 660 BC

GrN-26094: 2660 +/- 30 BP

835 BC (68.2%) 795 BC

900 BC (95.4%) 790 BC

logy of the Iron Age in the Mediterranean since the late 1980’s47. For this debate it was thought necessary to provide good data sets. We are convinced that comparable radiocarbon sequences can be obtained for other regions in the Mediterranean, thus eliminating various so-called ‘Centuries of Darkness’, which are often present-day constructs that can be disassembled with an accurate analysis of the archaeological record. Such radiocarbon sequences from other regions would also assist in examining synchronisms between different regions and cultures.

dendrochronological research, it will result in a further disentanglement in time between the Phoenician and Greek advance towards the Western Mediterranean. In our opinion both processes are related around 800 BC on account of:

One of the most striking conclusions of our project is the correspondence between the radiocarbon dates and some historical events mentioned in ancient literature48. Thus the project substantiates a late 9th century BC date for the foundation of Phoenician Carthage. It also confirms accounts in the Scriptures mentioning King Hiram I of Tyre under whose reign the Phoenicians made longdistance voyages over sea, amongst others to a region called Tarshish that can be identified as the region labelled Tartessos in South West Spain, on the Atlantic.

This research on the Iron Age chronology has considerable ‘historical’ consequences. One of the cultural divides in the Mediterranean during the Iron Age concerns the Phoenicians and the Euboeans. Both cultures require a better understanding, especially with respect to their impact on other overseas communities. The Phoenicians are well-known though the material culture in their homeland, more or less present Lebanon, is less well established51. The Euboean culture overseas seems to be restricted to sparse ceramic imports, some notions regarding the adoption of the Euboean script and possibly the use of a grater during a specific drinking ritual52. In the Eastern Mediterranean, the Phoenician-Euboean puzzle has lead to sterile discussions with respect to predominance and initiative. This debate will continue endlessly as long as the conventional absolute chronology of the Greek Geometric pottery is copied and considered to be the only chronological marker for the Iron Age in the Eastern Mediterranean. With this conventional method of dating, it can not come as a surprise that the Greeks will always be among the first. However, looking at the 10th and 9th century BC settlements in the Western Mediterranean with early evidence for Phoenician exchange such as

− The quantity of LG shards at Pithekoussai and Al Mina, − The few MG shards so far found in Italy and − The difficulty of dissociating the Levantine advance to the West around 800 BC from the Greek Geometric fine wares.

Another outcome is that the radiocarbon data create some problems for the perceived conventional absolute chronology of the Greek Geometric sequence, especially for the 9th and 8th centuries BC49. Nijboer has put forward the hypothesis that the Late Geometric pottery emerges around 800 BC and not around 770 BC, which is only a minor adjustment50. In case this proposal for a revision can not be confirmed by future radiocarbon or preferably 47 cf. Olde Dubbelink – van der Plicht 1989; Olde Dubbelink – van der Plicht 1990; Randsborg 1991; Peroni 1994; Giardino, 1995; Bietti Sestieri, 1996; Nijboer et al. 1999/2000. 48 cf. Nijboer 2005b; Nijboer – van der Plicht 2006. 49 Trachsel did arrive at a comparable conclusion though with different data and arguments; see: Trachsel 2004. 50 Nijboer 2005b.

51 52

114

Aubet 2001; Aubet 2004; Aubet 2006; Mazar 2004; Lipiński 2004. Dickinson 2006; Lemos 2003, 199; Ridgway 1997.

A.J. NIJBOER AND H. VAN DER PLICHT: THE IRON AGE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN: RECENT RADIOCARBON RESEARCH…

Huelva in South-West Spain, Sant’Imbenia on Sardinia and Carthage, it will become clear that at least in this part of the Mediterranean, the Phoenicians took the initiative53. Long-distance Euboean/Greek trade appears to become established from 800 BC onwards, judging from the quantity of Late Geometric ceramics recovered in gateway communities such as Al Mina in northern Syria and Pithekoussai in Campania, Italy54. Prior to 800 BC the Euboeans probably maintained a more regional, Aegean, trading network. An interesting question is to what extend the Phoenicians tapped into such regional trading networks all over the Mediterranean during the 10th and 9th centuries BC. There are some indications that they did, and this would coincide with a process that is better understood for other periods and regions. Mayor merchant nations often tapped into regional trading networks and if possible redirected them.

AUBET, M.E., 2001, The Phoenicians and the West 2 (Cambridge 2001). AUBET, M.E., 2004, The Phoenician Cemetery of TyreAl Bass. Excavations 1997–1999, BAAL Hors-serie 1 (Beyrouth 2004). AUBET, M.E., 2006, Burial, Symbols and Mortuary Practices in a Phoenician Tomb, in: E. Herring, I. Lemos, F. Lo Schiavo, L. Vagnetti, R. Whitehouse, J. Wilkins (eds.), Across Frontiers. Papers in Honour of David Ridgway and Francesca R. Serra Ridgway, Specialist Studies on the Mediterranean 6. (London 2006) 37–47. BAFICO, S., R. D’ORIANO, F. LO SCHIAVO, 1995, Il Villaggio nuragico di S. Imbenia ad Alghero (SS). Nota preliminare, in: Actes du IIIe Congrès International des Études Phéniciennes et Puniques I (Tunis 1995) 87–98.

Acknowledgements

BATOVIC, S., 1976, La relazioni culturali tra le sponde adriatiche nell’età del ferro (Zagreb 1976) 11–93.

For useful debates and for providing radiocarbon samples with a sound archaeological context, our thanks go especially to Prof. Anna Maria Bietti Sestieri, Dr. Anna De Santis, drs. J. N. Lanting, Dr. V. d’Ercole, Dr. N. Martinelli, Dr. O. Pignatelli, Prof. Hans Georg Niemeyer, Prof. Roald Docter, Dr. Flavia Trucco, Dr. F. González de Canales Cerisola, L. Serrano Pichardo, J. Llompart Gómez, Prof. M. E. Aubet and Prof. A. Mazar. Credit for the French translation of the abstract text goes to Renate Heckendorf.

BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M., 1996, Protostoria. Teoria e pratica (Rome 1996). BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M., 2005, Discussion, in: G. Bartoloni, F. Delpino (eds.), Oriente e occidente. Metodi e discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana. Atti dell’incontro di studio, Roma 30–31 ottobre 2003 (Pisa 2005) 402– 406. BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M., A. DE SANTIS, 2000, Protostoria dei popoli latini (Milano 2000). BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M., A. DE SANTIS 2003, Il processo formativo della cultura laziale, in: Atti della XXXV Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria. La comunità della preistoria italiana. Studi e ricerche sul neolitico e le età dei metalli. In memoria di Luigi Bernarbò Brea II (Firenze 2003) 745–763.

Illustration credits Fig. 6.1: adapted from D’Ercole 1998, figs. 3–6 photo 7. – Fig. 6.2: after Bietti Sestieri – De Santis 2000, fig. 10. – Fig. 6.3: graphs generated with OxCal v3.1. – Fig. 6.4, 1: after Mazar 2004, fig. p. 115. – Fig. 6.4, 2–4: after RuizGálvez 1995, pl. 11, 21. 22. 23. – Fig. 6.4, 5. 6: after Giesen 2001, pls. 43, 4; 44, 5. – Fig. 6.4, 7. 8: after Giardino 1995, fig. 12 A, 5. 6.

BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M., A. DE SANTIS, 2006, Il rituale funerario nel Lazio tra età del bronzo finale e prima età del ferro, in: P. von Eles (ed.), La ritualità funeraria tra età del ferro e orientalizzante in Italia (Pisa 2006) 79–93.

References

BOARDMAN, J., 2005, Al Mina. Notes and Queries, AncWestEast 4, 2005, 278–291.

ALMAGRO GORBEA, M., 2000, La ‘precolonización fenicia’ en la Península Ibérica, in: M.E. Aubet, M. Barthélemy (eds.), Actas del IV Congresso Internacional de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos II (Cádiz 2000) 711–721.

BRANDHERM, D., 2006, Zur Datierung der ältesten griechischen und phönizischen Importkeramik auf der Iberischen Halbinsel. Bemerkungen zum Beginn der Eisenzeit in Südwesteuropa, MM 47, 2006, 1–23.

ATTEMA, P.A.J., T. DE HAAS, A.J. NIJBOER, 2003, The Astura Project. Interim Report of the 2001 and 2002 Campaigns of the Groningen Institute of Archaeology along the Coast between Nettuno and Torre Astura (Lazio, Italy), BABesch 78, 2003, 107–140.

BRUINS, H.J., J. VAN DER PLICHT, 2001, Radiocarbon Challenges Archaeo-Historical Time Frameworks in the Near East. The Early Bronze Age of Jericho in Relation to Egypt, Radiocarbon 43, 2001, 1321–1332. BRUINS, H.J., J. van der PLICHT, 2003, Response to Comment on “14C Dates from Tel Rehov. Iron-Age Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings”, Science 302, 2003, 568c.

53

This context at Sant’Imbenia is introduced by Bafico et al. 1995 and Oggiano 2000. 54 Ridgway 1992; Ridgway 1994; Ridgway 2000; Luke 2003; Niemeyer 2005; Boardman 2005.

115

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

BRUINS, H.J., J. VAN DER PLICHT, A. MAZAR, 2003, 14C Dates from Tel Rehov. Iron-Age Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings, Science 300, 2003, 315–318.

GONZÁLEZ DE CANALES CERISOLA, F., L. SERRANO PICCHARDO, J. LLOMPART GÓMEZ, 2004, El emporio fenicio precolonial de Huelva (ca. 900–770 a.C.) (Madrid 2004).

COLLIS, J., forthcoming, Reflections on the Chronology and Nomenclature of the Iron Age, in A. Lehoerff (ed.), Colloque “Construire le temps”. Histoire et methodes des chronologies et calandriers des derniers millénaires avant notre ère en Europe occidentale, Lille 7–9 decembre 2006, forthcoming.

GONZÁLEZ DE CANALES CERISOLA, F., L. SERRANO PICCHARDO, J. LLOMPART GÓMEZ, 2006, The Pre-colonial Phoenician Emporium of Huelva ca. 900–770 BC, BABesch 81, 2006, 25– 41.

COLONNA, G., 1991, Gli Scudi bilobati dell’Italia centrale e l’ancile dei Salii, ArchCl 43, 1991, 55–122.

KARAGEORGHIS, V., 1987, Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre, BCH 111, 1987, 663–733.

DANTI, A., 2001, L’indagine archeologica nell’area del tempio di Giove Capitolino, BCom 102, 2001, 323– 346.

KARAGEORGHIS, V., F. LO SCHIAVO, 1989, A West Mediterranean Obelos from Amathus, RStFen 17, 1989, 15–29.

D’ERCOLE, V., 1998, La necropoli dell’età del bronzo finale delle “Paludi” di Celano, in: V. D’Ercole, R. Cairoli (eds), Archeologia in Abruzzo (Montalto di Castro 1998) 157–166.

KROMER, B., M. SPURK, 1998, Tree-Ring Based Calibration 9200–11,855 cal BP, Radiocarbon 40, 1998, 1117–1125. LANTING, J.N., 2004, Ross Island. Radiocarbon Dates and Absolute Chronology, in: W. O’Brien (ed.), Ross Island, Bronze Age Studies 6 (Galway 2004) 305– 316.

DE SANTIS, A., 2001, Anagnina. Rinvenimenti di età protostorica, in: F. Filippi (ed.), Archeologia e Giubileo (Napoli 2001) 304–306. DE SANTIS, A., 2005, A Research Project on the Earliest Phases of the Latial Culture, in: P. Attema, A.J. Nijboer, A. Zifferero (eds.), Papers in Italian Archaeology VI. Communities and Settlements from the Neolithic to the Early Medieval Period (Oxford 2005) 156–163.

LANTING, J.N., A.T. AERTS-BIJMA, J. VAN DER PLICHT, 2001, Dating of Cremated Bones, Radiocarbon 43, 2001, 249–254.

DE SANTIS, A., forthcoming, La definizione delle figure sociali riconoscibili in relazione alla nascita e allo sviluppo della cultura laziale, in: Atti del convegno “Le ragioni del Cambiamento”, Roma 15–17 giugno 2006, forthcoming.

LEMOS, I.S., 2003, Craftsmen, Traders and some Wives in Early Iron Age Greece, in: N.C. Stampolidis, V. Karageorghis (eds.), Sea Routes…Interconnections in the Mediterranean 16th–6th c. BC. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Rethymnon, Crete in September 29th – October 2nd 2002 (Athens 2003) 187–195.

LANTING, J.N., J. VAN DER PLICHT, 1998, Reservoir Effects and Apparent 14C-Ages, JIrishA 9, 1998, 151– 165.

DE SANTIS, A., R. MERLO, J. DE GROSSI MAZORIN, 1998, Fidene. Una casa dell’età del ferro (Milano 1998).

LIPIŃSKI, E., 2004, Itineraria Phoenicia, Studia Phoenicia 18 (Leuven 2004).

DICKINSON, O., 2006, The Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron Age (London 2006).

LUKE, J., 2003, Ports of Trade, Al Mina and Geometric Greek Pottery in the Levant (Oxford 2003).

DOCTER, R.F., F. CHELBI, B. MARAOUI TELMINI, A.J. NIJBOER, J. VAN DER PLICHT, W. VAN NEER, K. MANSEL, S. GARSALLAH, forthcoming, New Radiocarbon Dates from Carthage. Bridging the Gap Between History and Archaeology?, in: C. Sagona (ed.), Beyond the Homeland. Markers in Phoenician Chronology, Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series, forthcoming.

MARAOUI TELMINI, B., F. CHELBI, R.F. DOCTER, forthcoming, Les fouilles Tuniso-Belges du Terrain Bir Massouda (2002–2005). Contribution à la connaissance de la topographie de Carthage à l’époque archaïque, in: A.M. Arruda (ed.), Proceedings of the VIth Congress of Phoenician and Punic Studies, Lisbon 25th September – 1st October 2005, forthcoming.

von ELES MASI, P., 1986, Le fibule dell’Italia settentrionale, PBF XIV, 5 (München 1986).

GIESEN, K., 2001, Zyprische Fibeln. Typologie und Chronologie, SIMA Pocket-Book 161 (Jonsered 2001).

MATTHÄUS, H., 2000, Die Rolle Zyperns und Sardiniens im mittelmeerischen Interaktionsprozeß während des späten zweiten und frühen ersten Jahrtausends v. Chr., in: F. Prayon, W. Röllig (eds.), Der Orient und Etrurien. Zum Phänomen des ‘Orientalisierens’ im westlichen Mittelmeergebiet (Pisa 2000) 41–75.

GLOGOVIĆ, G., 2003, Fibeln im kroatischen Küstengebied (Istrien, Dalmatien), PBF XIV, 13 (Stuttgart 2003).

MAZAR, E., 2004, The Phoenician Family Tomb N.1 at the Northern Cemetery of Achziv (10th –6th centuries BC), CuadAMediterranea 10 (Barcelona 2004).

GIARDINO, C., 1995, Il Mediterraneo Occidentale fra XIV ed VIII secolo a. C. Cerchie minerarie e metallurgia, BARIntSer 612 (Oxford 1995).

116

A.J. NIJBOER AND H. VAN DER PLICHT: THE IRON AGE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN: RECENT RADIOCARBON RESEARCH…

von MERHART, G., 1969, Hallstatt und Italien. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur frühen Eisenzeit in Italien und Mitteleuropa (Mainz 1969).

PACCIARELLI, M., 2000, Dal villagio alla città, Grandi contesti e problemi della protostoria italiana 4 (Firenze 2000).

MOOK, W.G., 1986, Buisness Meeting. 12th International Radiocarbon Conference, Radiocarbon 28, 1986, 799.

PERONI, R., 1994, Introduzione alla protostoria italiana (Roma 1994). RANDSBORG, K., 1991, Historical implications. Chronological Studies in European Archaeology c. 2000–500 BC, ActaArch 62, 1991, 89–109.

MOOK, W.G., H.T. WATERBOLK, 1985, Handbook for Archaeologists III. Radiocarbon Dating (Strassbourg 1985).

REIMER, P.J., M.G.L. BAILLIE, E. BARD, A. BAYLISS, J.W. BECK, C.J.H. BERTRAND, P.G. BLACKWELL, C.E. BUCK, G.S. BURR, K.B. CUTLER, P.E. DAMON, R.L. EDWARDS, R.G. FAIRBANKS, M. FRIEDRICH, T.P. GUILDERSON, A.G. HOGG, K.A. HUGHEN, B. KROMER, F.G. MCCORMAC, S. MANNING, C. BRONK RAMSEY, R.W. REIMER, S. REMMELE, J.R. SOUT-HON, M. STUIVER, S. TALAMO, F.W. TAYLOR, J. VAN DER PLICHT, C.E. WEYHENMEYER, 2004, INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0–26 cal kyr BP, Radiocarbon 46, 2004, 1029–1058.

NIEMEYER, H.G., 2005, There is No Way Out of the Al Mina Debate, AncWestEast 4, 2005, 292–295. NIJBOER, A.J., 2005a, La cronologia assoluta dell’età del ferro nel Mediterraneo, dibattito sui metodi e sui risultati, in: G. Bartoloni, F. Delpino (eds.), Oriente e occidente. Metodi e discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana. Atti dell’incontro di studio, Roma 30–31 ottobre 2003 (Pisa 2005) 527–556. NIJBOER, A.J., 2005b, The Iron Age in the Mediterrannean: A Chronological Mess or ‘Trade before the Flag’, Part II, AncWestEast 4, 2005, 255– 277.

RENFREW, C., 1973, Before Civilization. The Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe (New York 1973).

NIJBOER, A.J., forthcoming, A Phoenician Family Tomb, Lefkandi, Huelva and the 10th Century BC in the Mediterranean, in: C. Sagona (ed.), Beyond the Homeland. Markers in Phoenician Chronology. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series, forthcoming.

RIDGWAY, D., 1992, The First Western Greeks (Cambridge 1992). RIDGWAY, D., 1994, Phoenicians and Greeks in the West. A View from Pithekoussai, in: G.R. Tsetskhladze, F. De Angelis (eds.), The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation. Essays Dedicated to Sir John Boardman (Oxford 1994) 35–46.

NIJBOER, A.J., J. VAN DER PLICHT, A. M. BIETTI SESTIERI, A. DE SANTIS, 1999/2000, A High Chronology for the Early Iron Age in Central Italy, Palaeohistoria 41/42, 1999/2000, 163–176.

RIDGWAY, D., 1997, Nestor’s Cup and the Etruscans, OxfJA16, 1997, 325–344.

NIJBOER, A.J., P.A.J. ATTEMA, G.J.M. VAN OORTMERSSEN, 2005/2006, Ceramics from a Late Bronze Age Saltern on the Coast near Nettuno (Rome, Italy), Palaeohistoria 47/48, 2005/2006, 141–205.

RIDGWAY, D., 2000, The First Western Greeks Revisited, in: D. Ridgway (ed.), Ancient Italy and its Mediterranean Setting. Studies in Honour of Ellen Macnamara (London 2000) 179–191.

NIJBOER, A.J., J. VAN DER PLICHT, 2006, An Interpretation of the Radiocarbon Determinations of the Oldest Indigenous-Phoenician Stratum Thus Far, Excavated at Huelva, Tartessos (South-West Spain), BABesch 81, 2006, 41–46.

RUIZ-GÁLVEZ, M., 1995, Cronologia de la Ría de Huelva en el marco del Bronce Final de Europa occidental, in: M. Ruiz-Gálvez Priego (ed.), Ritos de paso y puntos de paso. La Ría de Huelva en el mundo del Bronce Final europeo, Complutum Extra 5 (Madrid 1995) 79–83.

OLDE DUBBELINK, R.A., J. VAN DER PLICHT, 1989, Satricum en de 14C-datering, Tijdschrift voor Mediterrane Archeologie 4, 1989, 4–13.

SCOTT, E.M., C. BRYANT, I. CARMI, G. COOK, S. GULLIKSEN, D. HARKNESS, J. HEINEMEIER, E. MCGEE, P. NAYSMITH, G. POSSNERT, J. VAN DER PLICHT, M. VAN STRIJDONCK, 2004, Precision and accuracy in applied 14C dating. Some findings from the 4th International Radiocarbon Comparison, JASc 31, 2004, 1209–1213.

OLDE DUBBELINK, R.A., J. VAN DER PLICHT, 1990, Le Capanne II e IV a Borgo le Ferriere (Satricum) e le datazione al radiocarbonio, Archeologia Laziale 10, QuadA Etrusco-Italica 19 (Roma 1990) 234–237.

STUIVER, M., P.J. REIMER, E. BARD, J.W. BECK, G.S. BURR, K.A. HUGHEN, B. KROMER, G. MCCORMAC, J. VAN DER PLICHT, M. SPURK, 1998, INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, Radiocarbon 40, 1998, 1041–1083.

OGGIANO, I., 2000, La ceramica fenicia di Sant’Imbenia (Alghero-SS), in: P. Bartoloni, L. Campanella (eds.), La ceramica fenicia di Sardegna (Roma 2000) 235– 258. PACCIARELLI, M., 1999, Torre Galli. La necropoli della prima età del ferro (Scavi P. Orsi 1922–1923) (Soveria Mannelli 1999).

TORRES, M., M. RUIZ-GÁLVEZ PRIEGO, A. RUBINOS, 2005, La cronologia de la cultura nurágica

117

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

VAN DER PLICHT, J., H.J. BRUINS, 2001, Radiocarbon Dating in Near-Eastern Mediterranean Contexts. Confusion and Quality Control, Radiocarbon 43, 2001, 1155–1166.

y los inicios de la Edad del Hierro y de las colonizaciones históricas en el Mediterráneo centrooccidental. Una aproximinación desde la cronología radiocarbónica y el registro arqueológico, in: M. RuizGálvez Priego (ed.), Territorio nurágico y paisaje antiguo. La Meseta de Pranemuru (Cerdena) en la Edad del Bronce (Madrid 2005) 169–194.

VAN STRIJDONCK, M., D.E. NELSON, P. COMBRE, C. BRONK RAMSEY, E.M. SCOTT, J. VAN DER PLICHT, R.E.M. HEDGES, 1999, What’s in a 14C date?, in: J. Evin (ed.), Third Conference on 14C and Archaeology (Lyon 1998) 433–440.

TRACHSEL, M., 2004, Untersuchungen zur relativen und absoluten Chronologie der Hallstattzeit. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 104 (Bonn 2004).

WILD, E.M., K.A. ARLAMOVSKY, R. GOLSER, W. KUTSCHERA, A. PRILLER, S. PUCHEGGER, W. ROM, P. STEIER, W. VYCUDILIK, 2000, 14C Dating with the Bomb Peak: An Application to Forensic Medicine, in: Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics, Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 172, fasc. 1, 2000, 944–950.

TRUCCO, F., D. DE ANGELIS, C. IAIA, 2001, Villa Bruschi Falgari. Il sepolcreto villanoviano, in: A.M. Moretti Sgubini (ed.), Tarquinia etrusca. Una nuova storia (Roma 2001) 81–93. TRUCCO, F., 2006, Considerazioni sul rituale funerario in Etruria meridionale all’inizio dell’età del ferro alla luce delle nuove ricerche a Tarquinia, in: P. von Eles (ed.), La ritualità funeraria tra età del ferro e orientalizzante in Italia (Roma 2006) 95–102.

ZANINI, A. (ed.), 1997, Dal bronzo al ferro. Il II millennio a. C. nella Toscana centro- occidentale. Exhibition catalogue Livorno (Pisa 1997).

118

RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF LATIUM VETUS FROM THE LATE BRONZE AGE TO THE TRANSITION TO THE ORIENTALIZING PERIOD Anna Maria BIETTI SESTIERI Università del Salento, Dipartimento di Beni Culturali, Cattedra di Protostoria Europea, via Birago 64, I-73100 Lecce, Italy, e-mail: [email protected]

Anna De SANTIS Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma, Servizio di Protostoria, Piazza Santa Maria Nova 53, I-00186 Roma, Italy, e-mail: [email protected] Abstract: A substantial number of archaeological assemblages from both settlements and cemeteries provide a sound base for the relative chronology of the Late Bronze Age (LBA) and Early Iron Age (EIA) of Latium vetus. The traditional absolute chronology for these periods is 13th–10th century (LBA) and 9th–8th century BC (EIA). Recent work carried out in collaboration with the Groningen 14 C laboratory provides an important series of cal BC dates for the whole sequence. As a consequence, the LBA/EIA transition is raised to the beginning of the 10th century, and the earliest phase of the EIA probably does not exceed the first half of the 9th century; a likely implication is that the traditional date for the EIA/Orientalizing transition (ca. 730–720 BC), based on the appearance of the Early Protocorinthian pottery style and Thucydides’ dates for the earliest Greek colonies in Sicily and southern Italy, apparently should also be raised. Throughout the period considered, an interesting historical process can be observed in the archaeological record, in which the political centre of Latium vetus repeatedly shifts within the region. Keywords: Latium vetus, Etruria, early Roman History, cultural identity, radiocarbon chronology Résumé: Un nombre considérable d’ensembles archéologiques provenant à la fois de nécropoles et de sites d’habitat assure une base fiable à la chronologie relative de l’âge du Bronze final (ABF) et de l’âge du Fer ancien (AFA) de la région du Latium (Latium vetus). La chronologie absolue traditionnelle situe ces deux périodes du 13e au 10e siècle av. J.-C. (ABF) et du 9e au 8e siècle av. J.C. (AFA) respectivement. Les travaux récents effectués en collaboration avec le laboratoire de Groningen ont fourni une série de dates radiocarbone calibrées qui sont importantes pour toute la séquence. Par conséquent, la transition ABF/AFA recule vers le début du 10e siècle, et la phase précoce de l’AFA ne dépasse probablement pas la première moitié du 9e siècle. Ceci implique probablement que la datation traditionnelle de la transition AFA/Époque orientalisante (environ 730–720 av. J.-C.), fondée sur la présence de la céramique du style protocorinthien précoce ainsi que sur la datation, selon Thucydide, des premières colonies grecques en Sicile et dans le Sud de l’Italie, devrait apparemment être reculé aussi. Tout au long de la période considérée, l’ensemble des découvertes archéologiques indique un processus historique intéressant, au cours duquel le centre politique s’est déplacé à plusieurs reprises à l’intérieur de la région de Latium. Mots clé: Latium vetus, Étrurie, période ancienne de l’histoire romaine, identité culturelle, chronologie radiocarbone Abriss: Eine beträchtliche Zahl von Fundkomplexen sowohl aus Siedlungen als auch aus Gräberfeldern liefert eine verläßliche Grundlage für die relative Chronologie der Spätbronze- (SBZ) und Früheisenzeit (FEZ) in Latium vetus. Die traditionelle absolute Chronologie dieser beiden Epochen liegt im 13.–10. (SBZ) bzw. im 9.–8. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (FEZ). Neue, gemeinsam mit dem Groninger 14C Labor durchgeführte Untersuchungen haben für diesen Zeitraum eine wichtige Serie kalibrierter Radiokarbondaten erbracht. Demzufolge ist der Übergang SBZ/FEZ bereits in das frühe 10. Jahrhundert zu datieren, und die älteste Phase der FEZ dürfte die erste Hälfte des 9. Jahrhundert kaum überdauern. Vermutlich muß damit auch der traditionelle, auf den von Thukydides überlieferten Gründungsdaten griechischer Kolonien und dem ersten Auftreten protokorinthischer Keramik beruhende Zeitansatz des Übergangs FEZ/orientalisierende Epoche (ca. 730–720 v. Chr.) nach oben korrigiert werden. Während des hier behandelten Zeitraums ist dem archäologischen Fundbild zufolge eine mehrfache Verlagerung des politischen Zentrums der Region innerhalb von Latium vetus zu beobachten. Schlüsselwörter: Latium vetus, Etrurien, frührömische Geschichte, kulturelle Identität, Radiokarbonchronologie

phases (FBA-early), the overall material culture and metal industry of Latium vetus show a definite influence from its northern neighbour, Etruria. The final phase of the FBA is marked by the appearance of a specifically local funerary ritual, cremation with miniature outfit, which was exclusive to the members of the local communities who were given the leading social roles, both religious and political. Apparently, this phase marks the emergence of the specific cultural identity of the Latins. The connection with Etruria is relatively weak, as it is also in the subsequent phase, EIA-early; the Latial communities are very close culturally to those of contemporary

Based on a substantial group of archaeological complexes, both settlements and cemeteries, the LBA and EIA relative chronology of Latium vetus – the territory between the Tiber and Monte Circeo which includes Rome and the Alban hills – is well established. Cal BC dates for these periods range from ca. 1200 to the early 10th century (FBA) and from the 10th to the early 8th century (EIA). Far from representing the equivalent of the Greek Dark Age, this period in ancient Lazio is characterized by a process of fast structural transformation, which produced the earliest emergence of the Latin and Roman cultural identity. During the earliest LBA 119

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Campania and Calabria, although their organizing principles, based on centralized political and religious leadership, are similar to those found in Villanovan Etruria. From EIA-late (ca. 850 to the early 8th century BC), ancient Lazio is permanently involved in the interregional exchange system linking Etruria to southern Italy. The higher chronology resulting from the calibration of 14C dates for this time-span highlights the early political and economic development of Villanovan Etruria, and its crucial role in the process which took place in its southern neighbour, Lazio.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the relevance of the higher absolute chronology for the identification of the main cultural and, more specifically, socio-political changes which can be identified in ancient Lazio during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages on an essentially archaeological base.

A FRAMEWORK FOR THIS PROBLEM CAN BE SUMMARIZED IN A FEW POINTS: Ancient Lazio (Latium vetus) is the region considered by the Latins as the formative area of their cultural and ethnic identity.

The recent developments in Mediterranean absolute chronology provide a significant support to the new picture of the centuries between the end of the 2nd and the beginning of the 1st millennium BC1, which was already emerging from archaeological studies of the last few years.

Its boundaries correspond approximately to the lower course of the Tiber (north), mount Circeo (south), the Tyrrhenian coast (west) and the Sacco-Liri valley (east) (Fig. 7.1). Due to the overall NW-SE orientation of the Italian peninsula, the reference to the cardinal points is also approximate, and conventional. In comparison with other regions of ancient Italy, this is relatively small (between 4.000 and 5.000 km2) and is characterized by a marked dishomogeneity among its main morphological components: the relatively wide and easily accessible coastal plain, the volcanic system of the Alban hills, approximately central to the region, and the Tiber valley, a natural boundary with Etruria which can be easily crossed through the ford at Isola Tiberina at the site of Rome. Throughout the period considered, and in correspondence with the varying role played by local and external factors in the processes which involved ancient Latium, each of these morphological elements became in turn the region’s core area.

“Dark Age”, the term which has been in use for some decades to indicate this period, probably is well suited to describe the situation in mainland Greece; however, it clearly does not apply to the whole Mediterranean, let alone the central and western regions. As regards historical reconstructions of this period, Greek and Latin historians, as well as the great majority of modern and contemporary readings of their texts, have been consistently inclined to obscure or minimize the role of two agents in the political and economic picture of the period: the Phoenicians and the Etruscans. The former led the exploration and economic integration of the Mediterranean Far West, while the latter brought Italy and the Mediterranean in close contact with temperate Europe. However, it is worth noting that, although they certainly did not allow them much room in their narratives, ancient authors usually took for granted the high antiquity of these two peoples, and the fact that both had achieved great political and economic power in the central Mediterranean long before the beginnings of Rome and the earliest colonial foundations from Greece. According to the Italian archaeological chronology, the time-span between ca. 1200 and ca. 850 cal BC corresponds to the Final Bronze Age (FBA, ca. 12001000 BC) and to the initial phase of the Early Iron Age (EIA-early, ca. 1000-850 BC). In spite of significant differences, both local and regional, in material culture and in socio-political organization, throughout this period the territory of the Italian peninsula and of Sicily is characterized by a generalized trend of demographic growth, technical and technological progress, and regional processes of definition of ethno-cultural identities. In Etruria, and subsequently in ancient Lazio, the core regions of this overall trend of fast structural change, the process which developed during this period coincided with the formative phase and the earliest emergence of indigenous city-states. 1

Fig. 7.1. The situation of Ancient Lazio relative to the central zone of the Italian peninsula

See Nijboer – van der Plicht this volume.

120

A.-M. BIETTI SESTIERI AND A. DE SANTIS RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF LATIUM VETUS FROM THE BRONZE AGE ...

Lazio is located between Etruria and Campania, two regions which were intensely involved in the so-called precolonial sailings. Etruria was the home of the earliest process of primary city-state formation in Italy; Ischia, a Campanian island in the gulf of Naples, hosted the earliest acknowledged event of the Greek colonization in Italy.

Adriatic to the Tyrrhenian sea, except for the region of the Veneti (Venetorum angulus), in north-eastern Italy6. The time span which in the Italian chronological sequence corresponds to the Greek Dark Age provides the best archaeological evidence to fit this scanty, though quite clear, historical information. However, this has been systematically understated by both Latin and Greek historians; as a consequence, modern scholars tend to lower the date of any piece of historical/archaeological information relative to early connections politically and economically significant between Etruria and Lazio.

Another important point which should be considered is the availability of metals, a crucial resource during the BA and IA, which is totally absent from ancient Lazio, whereas the territory of Etruria possesses the highest concentration of metal ores in central Italy.

The territory of ancient Lazio is a narrow extension of the southern Tyrrhenian regions – Campania and Calabria – whose northern end is directly adjacent to an entirely different territorial entity, Etruria. Both the archaeological and linguistic record indicate the close cultural relationship of Lazio with its southern neighbours, as well as a basic difference from Etruria.

The LBA and EIA of ancient Lazio (ca. 13th–9th century BC) are documented by a highly specific combination of material elements and historical data. The historical reconstruction presented in this paper is based on a number of works published by A. M. Bietti Sestieri and A. De Santis between 1990 and 2007, some of which will be referred below, in the appropriate places.

Throughout the LBA and EIA, the most important factor of change is represented by alternating phases of cultural and economic gravitation of ancient Lazio towards Etruria – which implies a direct involvement in the system of interregional and international connections and exchange originating from this region – and towards the culturally akin fossa-grave communities of Campania and Calabria.

The archaeological record is rather substantial, although only a limited proportion of the contexts and materials is fully published; however, an important feature of this record, which is exclusive to ancient Lazio, is the exceptionally expressive quality of the material correlates of funerary rituals, which apparently were meant as a faithful representation of individual horizontal and vertical roles2.

The overall process which will be shortly outlined can be divided into four phases; for each phase the focus will be on those archaeological elements that may be considered as clearly perceivable indicators of structural changes.

Ancient Lazio is also the subject of the main concentration of local traditions and narratives in ancient Italy. Although the great majority of these documents is legendary and mythological in nature, there is no doubt that they include a substantial core of historical information. However, the documentary quality of the archaeological record is definitely higher than the data that were collected and elaborated by Latin and Greek historians at least four or five centuries later than the events and processes concerned; moreover, they survived up to the present time mainly in decontextualized and fragmentary form.

1 – FBA-EARLY 14

C cal BC dates from two contexts of ancient Lazio, the Nettuno saltern7, a coastal site south of Rome and the settlement of Quadrato di Torre Spaccata8, in the southeastern suburbs of Rome indicate a time span between the 12th and 11th centuries BC:

Nettuno saltern: GrA-22092: 3005±45 BP; 1370–1200 cal BC (1σ); 1390–1125 cal BC (2σ) GrA-22090: 2945±45 BP; 1260–1060 cal BC (1σ); 1295–1015 cal BC (2σ)

Throughout the LBA and EIA, a basic factor which should be taken into account is the relevance of Etruria as the main core of cultural, socio-political and economic/ productive development in mainland Italy, which is apparent in the archaeological record3, and has also been acknowledged by some important ancient authors. Cato writes that the greatest part of Italy had been ruled by the Etruscans4; Livy writes that Etruria was so powerful that its fame reached both land and sea from the Alps to the Sicilian strait5; he also records that, prior to the Roman conquest, the power of the Etruscans extended from the

Quadrato di Torre Spaccata, hearth: GrA-27848: 2985±40 BP; 1295–1130 cal BC (1σ); 1380–1060 cal BC (2σ) The material culture of these two sites, as well as of the whole territory of ancient Lazio, is of Protovillanovan type, and is quite similar to the contemporary archaeo-

2

Bietti Sestieri 1992, 102–140. Bietti Sestieri 2005. 4 Serv. Aen. 11, 567. 5 Liv. 1, 2. 3. 3

6

Liv. 5, 33, 7–8. Attema et al. 2003. 8 De Santis 2001a. 7

121

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

logical aspect of southern Etruria. The connection between the two regions, quite probably the result of southern Etruria’s pervasive influence over ancient Lazio, goes far beyond the formal features of the archaeological aspect, and includes the whole range of cultural, economic and socio-political elements which can be identified from the archaeological record of this phase: the overall technical and formal features of both pottery and metal industry (Fig. 7.5) are quite close to those of southern Etruria; as regards the latter, specific parallels can be seen in the well known bronze hoard of Coste del Marano9. The basic settlement strategy, especially as regards the major sites of this period, Pratica di Mare (ancient Lavinium, ca. 30 ha) and Ardea (ca. 80 ha)10, consists of the selection of large isolated plateaux, sharply separate from the adjacent territory (Fig. 7.15); this type of settlement is specific to southern Etruria throughout the LBA, and constitutes a distinctive feature of the FBA–EIA protourban sites which will develop into the Etruscan city-states: Veii, Cerveteri, Tarquinia, Vulci, and Orvieto. Fig. 7.2. Ancient Lazio, Final Bronze Age-early. The core area is the coastal plain. Both archaeological and historical data indicate a strong connection of the two major sites, Lavinium and Ardea, with Etruria

The most common indicator of prestige and social role which is found during this period in southern Etruria in important burials as well as in the bronze-hoard of Coste del Marano, the stilted arch fibula with two knots on the bow, is also the main type found in ancient Lazio; moreover, Lazio is crossed by and actively involved in the interregional exchange routes linking Etruria to the southern Tyrrhenian coast and to the interior Apennine area (Fig. 7.6)11.

However, throughout this phase, and as it was customary during the RBA, grave goods are either absent, or consisting of a single vessel and/or of some personal ornaments, usually a stilted arch fibula with two knobs. The fact that this new ritual reflects a crucial structural change is indicated by its long duration and widely acknowledged significance: throughout the subsequent phase of the FBA (Latial period I), the EIA, and the orientalizing period, either more articulate versions, or some clearly identifiable elements of it, will appear in Latial and Villanovan contexts as a distinctive burial feature of individuals holding important social roles.

The region’s core area is the coastal plain, that is, the natural route linking Etruria to the southern Tyrrhenian regions (Fig. 7.2). It is interesting to recall that both Livy and Virgil offer some historical information relative to the early Etruscan presence at Ardea, which, as seen before, in the LBA was one of the main coastal sites of ancient Lazio. The funerary ritual which appears for the first time during this phase is a specific variety of cremation, and is exclusive to southern Etruria and ancient Lazio. Two main elements mark a radical change from the cremation ritual which had been in use during the RBA:

As far as ancient Lazio is concerned, the political and organizational significance of the adoption of this ritual can be considered as one of the most important structural changes resulting from the region’s early connection with Etruria; moreover, in spite of the general cultural proximity, this implies a crucial structural difference between Lazio and the contemporary communities of Campania and Calabria, which will be clearly identifiable in the archaeological record during the EIA.

1. formal burial is exclusive to an extremely small number of individuals: usually each cemetery, or, more precisely, each topographically autonomous group of graves, comprises less than 10 units12. 2. the limited access to formal burial is systematically associated with the earliest appearance of a very distinctive feature: the container of the burnt bones is the miniature reproduction of a house13.

2 – FBA-LATE (LATIAL PERIOD I) 14

C cal BC dates of cremation burials from sites from the central area of Rome and the suburbs of the modern city indicate a time span between the 11th and early 10th centuries BC14.

9

Peroni 1961, I.1, 11. Guaitoli 1984. 11 Bietti Sestieri 1998, 24 fig. 2. 12 Bietti Sestieri – De Santis 2003. 13 Bietti Sestieri – De Santis 2004a. 10

14 The tombs from S. Palomba and Frigoria are still unpublished. For Foro di Cesare and Quadrato see: De Santis 2005a.

122

A.-M. BIETTI SESTIERI AND A. DE SANTIS RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF LATIUM VETUS FROM THE BRONZE AGE ...

Fig. 7.4. Early Iron Age, ca. 9th–8th century BC. The core area of ancient Lazio shifts from the Alban Hills to Rome; the situation of the site is strategic for interregional connections with both Etruria and southern Italy

Fig. 7.3. Latial period I, Final Bronze Age-late. The core area of ancient Lazio is around Monte Cavo in the Alban Hills and the adjacent area. The archaeological record shows a concentration of complexes; according to the historical sources, the hills were the home of the federal cult of the Popoli Albenses

Lazio, which can be identified especially in the funerary ritual. The region’s core, with the main concentration of both settlement and funerary sites, is now constituted by the Alban hills and by the immediately adjacent areas (Fig. 7.3). As already noted, this is the morphological centre of the territory of ancient Lazio, as well as being the acknowledged seat of the sanctuary of Jupiter Latiaris and of the federation of the populi albenses15.

Foro di Cesare, tomb 1: GrA-16432: 2920±60 BP; 1250–1025 cal BC (1σ); 1305–935 cal BC (σ) S. Palomba, tomb 1: GrA-27028: 2875±35 BP; 1115–1005 cal BC (1σ); 1190–930 cal BC (2σ)

The most significant archaeological element for this phase is a local elaboration of the cremation ritual, which is still exclusive to a few individuals for each community: the house-urn (either an ovoid-biconical jar with a roofshaped lid, or the miniature reproduction of a whole hut) is accompanied by a set of miniature grave-goods16. It is worth noting that, far from being symbolic, these apparently are meant as faithful reproductions of the whole range of vessels, ornaments, and weapons which had been used by the deceased as an active member of his community: a basic combination of pottery vessels including two or three storage jars, one or two cups and bowls, a large container for liquids. To these may be added some other pottery reproductions of functional objects (the most common ones are lamps, three-legged tables, pierced stands). Bronze objects comprise fibulae, some other small ornaments, knives, and weapons (swords, spears, shields). Among the latter, those which appear less frequently may be identified as the isomorphic indicators of the most important vertical roles within the

S. Palomba, tomb 2: GrA-27847: 2865±40 BP; 1115–980 cal BC (1σ); 1190–920 cal BC (2σ) Trigoria, tomb 3: GrA-27025: 2870±35 BP; 1115–1000 cal BC (1σ); 1185–965 cal BC (2σ) Roma Quadrato, tomb 2: GrA-16423: 2820±50 BP; 1040–910 cal BC (1σ); 1115–840 cal BC (2σ) Roma Quadrato, tomb 1: GrA-16411: 2810±50 BP; 1040–900 cal BC (1σ); 1120–835 cal BC (2σ) Foro di Cesare, tomb 2: GrA-16433: 2770±60 BP; 975–840 cal BC (1σ); 1110–810 cal BC (2σ) During this phase there is some consistent indication of a definite weakening of Etruria’s influence over ancient

15 16

123

Plin. nat. 3, 69. Nijboer this volume, fig. 2.

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 7.5. Final Bronze Age-early. Protovillanovan aspect of ancient Lazio and southern Etruria. Biconical urn from cremation grave at Pratica di Mare – Lavinium; large stilted bow fibulae with two knobs from the Protovillanovan hoard of Coste del Marano (Monti della Tolfa; not to scale)

Fig. 7.6. Final Bronze Age-early and -late. Distribution of stilted bow fibulae: 1. Allumiere (Coste del Marano, Valle del Campaccio, Poggio La Pozza) and Sasso di Furbara; 2. Ficana (Acilia); 3. Pratica di Mare, Ardea, Campo del Fico, Rimessone; 4. Capua; 5. Fucino; 6. L’Aquila; 7. Sulmona; 8. Castelfranco Lamoncelio; 9. Rome, Arch of Augustus; 10. Alban Hilis; 11. Campania

124

A.-M. BIETTI SESTIERI AND A. DE SANTIS RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF LATIUM VETUS FROM THE BRONZE AGE ...

Fig. 7.7. Rome (Arch of Augustus, tomb 2) Final Bronze Age-late – Latial Period I.

Fig. 7.8. Caserta (Carinaro, tomb 12) Final Bronze Age-late – Latial Period I. The close cultural connection between Lazio and Campania is indicated by occurrence in Campania of a cremation ritual quite similar to that of Lazio, with miniature grave-goods and roof-lid to the urn (cf. Fig. 7.7)

Latial communities of this period: the sword, probably indicating the main military/political role, and the knife, double shields, and in some cases a pottery statuette, which seem to indicate a religious role. The anthropological analyses of the cremated bones show that the sword, as well as the other weapons, are exclusive to male individuals, whereas the knife and the statuette may also be included among the grave goods of female burials. However, the indicators of military/political and religious roles are combined together in a relatively high number of male burials. Quite probably, the implication is that throughout this phase, within the Latial communities single male individuals were often appointed both the political and religious leadership17.

Overall, the archaeological record for this phase points to a process of reinforcement of the cultural and ethnic identity of ancient Lazio, possibly as a reaction to the previous influence from Etruria; apparently, this movement was actively led by political-religious chiefs.

17

18

There is also some evidence of a closer relationship of Lazio with the southern Tyrrhenian regions. A small cremation cemetery recently excavated at Carinaro (Caserta, northern Campania) is characterized by a funerary ritual which is rather close, though not identical, to the one seen in ancient Lazio (Figs. 7.7. 7.8). The similarities include urns with roof-shaped lids, and the miniaturization of the accompanying vessels, as well as of some of the bronzes18.

Bietti Sestieri – De Santis 2003.

125

Marzocchella 2004.

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 7.9. Osteria dell’Osa, tomb 158, with a sword, indicating a military-political role (Early Iron Age-early – Latial Period II)

Fig. 7.10. Osteria dell’Osa, tomb 142, with a knife and statuette which indicate the religious role of the deceased (Early Iron Age-early – Latial Period II)

Tomb 40: GrN-23478: 2670±30 BP; 835–805 cal BC (1σ); 895–800 cal BC (2σ)

3 – EIA-EARLY (LATIAL PERIOD II) 14

C cal BC dates from inhumation burials of the EIA cemetery of Castiglione (Rome), indicate a date between the 10th and the early–mid 9th century BC19.

This phase is characterized by a definite weakening of the connection with Etruria, which apparently consists mainly of trade in metals and bronze artifacts. The most significant feature which can be identified from the archaeological record is the intense and systematic cultural relationship now linking ancient Lazio to the southern Tyrrhenian regions, Campania and Calabria. This is indicated by a number of elements: the material culture of Lazio is quite similar to that of the so-called fossa-grave groups of Campania and Calabria (Figs. 7.11. 7.12)20; both are radically different from the Villanovan aspects of Etruria. The cremation ritual with hut urn and miniature grave goods, which is still in use during the earliest phase of the EIA, is soon substituted by

Tomb 86: GrN-25204: 2790±45 BP; 1005–900 cal BC (1σ); 1045–835 cal BC (2σ) Tomb 71: GrN-25200: 2750±40 BP; 920–835 cal BC (1σ); 995–825 cal BC (2σ) Tomb 25: GrN-23475: 2670±30 BP; 835–805 cal BC (1σ); 895–800 cal BC (2σ) 19 Only some tombs from Castiglione’s cemetery are published; see: Bietti Sestieri – De Santis 2000, 76–84)

20

126

Bietti Sestieri – De Santis 2004b, figs. 2–11.

A.-M. BIETTI SESTIERI AND A. DE SANTIS RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF LATIUM VETUS FROM THE BRONZE AGE ...

Fig. 7.11. Early Iron Age-early. Typological-functional similarities in the pottery repertoire of ancient Lazio (Osteria dell’Osa cemetery) and of the fossa-grave communities of Campania-Calabria (Torre Galli cemetery)

Fig. 7.12. A Similarities in shape and decoration of arch fibulae from ancient Lazio and Campania-Calabria; B Bronze ornaments of south-Italian type from the Latial cemetery of Osteria dell’Osa

127

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 7.13. Early Iron Age-early. Different organizational principles between ancient Lazio (left) and fossa-grave communities of Calabria-Campania

main complexes of this type include the cemetery by the temple of Antoninus and Faustina and the cemetery on the Esquiline, Quirinal and Viminal hills in Rome24, Osteria dell’Osa and Castiglione on the via Prenestina, Villa Cavalletti and S.Sebastiano in the Alban hills25, the extraurban cemetery of Lavinium-Pratica di Mare26, Tivoli27, and Caracupa-Valvisciolo in southern Lazio28. These cemeteries reproduce the basic kinship structure of the Latial communities, which were divided into lineages and extended families; in the larger ones, it is also possible to identify a rather efficient distribution of both horizontal and vertical roles. In the earlier groups of graves the traditional ritual of cremation with miniature grave goods is almost exclusive to adult men, apparently the members of the community and of its component kinship units who

inhumation, the specific ritual of the fossa-grave groups of southern Italy. The systematic analysis of the record from the Latial cemetery of Osteria dell’Osa (Rome) shows that groups of southern origin and provenance were systematically integrated into the Latial communities21; moreover, a consistent proportion of the bronze industry of ancient Lazio depends on south-Italian models22, and possibly on raw material also originating from southern Italy. Except for the final part of this phase, the Alban hills are still the core area of the region, although several districts can be identified in the rest of its territory23. An important development in this phase is the generalized appearance of real cemeteries, apparently the specific areas for the formal burial of whole communities. The

24

Gjerstad 1956. Gierow 1964. 26 Sommella 1973/74. 27 Faccenna – Fugazzola Delpino 1976. 28 Bartoloni – Bergonzi 1976. 25

21

Bietti Sestieri – De Santis 1992. De Santis 2006. 23 Bietti Sestieri 1992, fig. 10.1. 22

128

A.-M. BIETTI SESTIERI AND A. DE SANTIS RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF LATIUM VETUS FROM THE BRONZE AGE ...

are invested of the most important vertical roles. A significant difference from the previous phase is the sharp separation of military/political and religious leadership (Figs. 7.9. 7.10). Apparently, this phase is marked by the reassessment and organization of the communities, possibly a process of normalization subsequent to the previous concentration of both political and religious power in the hands of individual leaders. However, a comparison between the contemporary communities of Osteria dell’Osa (ancient Lazio) and Torre Galli (Calabria, southern Tyrrhenian Italy) shows that, throughout the EIA, in the latter the main vertical roles were shared among the component kinship units while the Latial community was ruled by a single military/political chief along with a single religious leader29. This apparently indicates a significant difference in the organizational principles of Lazio as compared to the south Italian communities (Fig. 7.13). In this respect, Lazio is closer to Villanovan Etruria30.

Satricum hut VI, lowest level: GrN-16466: 2620±30 BP; 815–795 cal BC (1σ); 825–790 cal BC (2σ) In the Tyrrhenian regions, this phase is marked by intensive pre- and early-colonial contacts, which were based mainly on maritime and terrestrial routes linking southern Etruria to Campania and the rest of southern Italy, as well as to Sardinia. From the end of Latial period III, and throughout the subsequent Orientalizing and archaic periods, ancient Lazio is invested by and fully involved in the powerful exchange system of Etruria. The closest connection is with Veii, the Villanovan centre separated from Lazio by a distance of a few kilometres. Several coherent indications of this process can be identified in the archaeological record. Radical tranformations appear in the organization of the major settlements, such as Rome and Gabii: at Rome, between the end of period II and period III-early, the main cemeteries are moved from the central area to the surrounding hills, and a unified settlement includes the forum valley, the Capitol hill and part of the Palatine (Fig. 7.16). At Gabii, period III-late marks the beginnings of the settlement concentration on the site of the future Latin city. Sudden changes can be identified also in funerary ritual and ideology, especially in the cemetery of Osteria dell’Osa. Here a burial group more numerous than all the earlier ones is characterized by a close spatial concentration around a central pair of graves (a cremated woman and an inhumed man), functional weapons appear for the first time among the grave goods, and there is a significant number of burials with no funerary outfit. Altogether, these changes point to the emergence of a new type of social structure and organization, from formally egalitarian extended families to the gentes-clientes system32.

4 – EIA-ADVANCED/LATE (END OF LATIAL PERIOD II, AND PERIOD III) Dates for this period are available from two settlement contexts: the Iron Age Hut of Fidene (Rome) and two hut features from the settlement of Satricum in southern Lazio (late 9th – early 8th century BC)31. Latial period III-early Fidene hut: GrN-20127: 2820±50 BP; 1040–910 cal BC (1σ); 1120–840 cal BC (2σ) Fidene hut: GrN-20125: 2800±50 BP; 1015–895 cal BC (1σ); 1115–830 cal BC (2σ)

Another significant change is the overall similarity in the material culture of ancient Lazio and of southern Etruria, especially Veii33, and the large scale adoption of the products of the late Villanovan metal industry, which is clearly exemplified by the bronze hoard of Ardea, south of Rome34; this is the only complex of its kind presently known in Iron Age Lazio, and includes a few hundred fibulae and axes, all belonging to specific Villanovan types (Fig. 7.14): precise parallels can be found in contexts such as the hoard of S. Francesco (Bologna) and the cemetery of Quattro Fontanili at Veii35.

Fidene hut: GrN-20126: 2790±50 BP; 1005–865 cal BC (1σ); 1110–825 cal BC (2σ) Fidene hut: GrA-5007: 2770±50 BP; 975–840 cal BC (1σ); 1040–825 cal BC (2σ) Fidene hut: GrA-5008: 2760±50 BP; 970–835 cal BC (1σ); 1010–820 cal BC (2σ)

The region’s core area shifts from the Alban hills to Rome, which occupies the best position for a direct contact with Etruria (Fig. 7.4).

Latial period III-advanced/late

However, it is worth remarking that as a proto-urban site, Rome is dramatically different from the canonical model of the early Villanovan centres, whose most remarkable feature is a sharp and clearly perceivable separation from

Satricum hut II, fireplace: GrN-11669: 2670±30 BP; 835–805 cal BC (1σ); 895–800 cal BC (2σ)

32

Bietti Sestieri 1992, 239–243. Bietti Sestieri – De Santis in press. 34 Peroni 1963. 35 Bietti Sestieri 1998, 53–56.

29

33

Bietti Sestieri – De Santis 2004b. 30 De Santis 2005b. 31 Nijboer et al. 1999/2000.

129

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 7.14. Early Iron Age-late – Latial Period III. Bronze hoard from Ardea. All the artifacts belong to late Villanovan types

Fig. 7.15. Final Bronze Age-early, coastal zone of ancient Lazio – Sites on large isolated plateaux: Ardea (left) and Pratica di Mare – Lavinium (right)

period II were occupied by an aggregate of different communities with their cemeteries.

their territories; as already noted, this was also a specific characteristic of the two main LBA settlements of ancient Lazio, Lavinium and Ardea. On the contrary, the site of Rome is not physically separate from the adjacent space: it is a large morphologically incoherent entity, consisting of several small hills and valleys, which until Latial

In this specific historical moment, the renewed involvement of Rome, and of the rest of ancient Lazio, in the international network of contacts and trade linking Etruria 130

A.-M. BIETTI SESTIERI AND A. DE SANTIS RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF LATIUM VETUS FROM THE BRONZE AGE ...

Fig. 7.16. Early Iron Age, Latial period IIB–III: the main settlement of Rome is on the central hills (Capitol, Palatine, Velia), and in the Forum valley, the cemeteries shift to the adjacent hills (Esquiline, Quirinal, Viminal)

to southern Italy produced a permanent transformation, as well as providing the conditions for the emergence and consolidation of urban functions.

archaeological features for each phase, provides some important elements for the reconstruction of this crucial period.

From this point of view, it is possible to propose that the foundation of the city of Rome as the work of one man, Romulus, might not be entirely mythical, but rather reflect a substantial structural change, from the division of political power among the leaders of the individual communities which coexisted on the site, to its concentration in the hands of a single ruler36.

An interesting point is ancient Lazio’s early connection with Etruria, which apparently produced some permanent effects on the structure and organization of the Latial communities. On the other hand, the emergence and consolidation of a strong cultural identity of ancient Lazio as early as the end of the Bronze Age, probably played a crucial role in preserving the region’s autonomous personality during the apex of Etruscan power, the orientalizing and archaic periods.

CONCLUDING REMARKS Acknowledgements

To sum up, the higher chronology along with the more precise definition of the specific combination of 36

Credit for the French translation of the abstract text goes to Renate Heckendorf.

Haas 2001.

131

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M., A. DE SANTIS, 2003, Il processo formativo della cultura laziale, in: Le comunità della preistoria italiana. Studi e ricerche sul neolitico e le età dei metalli in memoria di Luigi Bernabò Brea, Atti XXXV Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Lipari 2–7 giugno 2000 (Firenze 2003) 745–763.

Illustration credits Figs. 7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4: adapted from Interactive Mediterranean Project terrain map (iam.classics.unc.edu). – Fig. 7.5: pottery courtesy of M. Fenelli and A. Iaia; fibulae after Bietti Sestieri 1992b, fig. 3.4. – Fig. 7.6: after Bietti Sestieri 1998, fig. 2. – Fig. 7.7: after De Santis 2001b, fig. 2. – Fig. 7.8: after Marzocchella 2004, fig. 1. – . Figs. 7.9. 7.10: photos Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma. – Fig. 7.11: after Bietti Sestieri. – De Santis 2004, figs. 4. 6. – Fig. 7.12, A: after Bietti Sestieri. – De Santis 2004, fig. 9. – Fig. 7.12, B: after Bietti Sestieri 1992a, fig. 2k.2.3. – Fig. 7.13: adapted from Bietti Sestieri. – De Santis 2004, fig. 16. – Fig. 7.14: after Colonna 1988, figs. 362. 363. – Fig. 7.15, left: after Ardea 1983, fig. 2. – Fig. 7.15, right: after Fenelli 1984, fig.1. – Fig. 7.16: adapted from Quilici 1976, pl. 1.

BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M., A. DE SANTIS, 2004, Analisi delle decorazioni dei contenitori delle ceneri dalle sepolture a cremazione dell’età del bronzo finale nell’area centrale tirrenica, in: Preistoria e Protostoria in Etruria. Atti del VI Incontro di Studi, Pitigliano – Valentano, 13-15 settembre 2002 (Milano 2004) 165– 192. BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M., A. DE SANTIS, 2004b, Elementi per una ricostruzione storica dei rapporti fra le regioni tirreniche centro-meridionali nella I età del ferro. Analisi di affinità e differenze di cultura materiale e sviluppo socio-politico fra la ‘cultura delle tombe a fossa’ in Calabria e Campania e la cultura laziale, in: Preistoria e Protostoria della Calabria. Atti della XXXVII Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Scalea – Papasidero – Praia a Mare – Tortora, 29 settembre – 4 ottobre 2002 (Firenze 2004) 587–615.

References ATTEMA, P.A.J., T. DE HAAS, A.J. NIJBOER, 2003, The Astura Project. Interim Report of the 2001 and 2002 Campaigns of the Groningen Institute of Archaeology along the Coast between Nettuno and Torre Astura (Lazio, Italy), BABesch 78, 2003, 107– 140.

BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M., A. DE SANTIS, in press, Il Lazio antico fra tarda età del bronzo e prima età del ferro: gli sviluppi nell’organizzazione politico-territoriale in relazione con il processo di formazione urbana, in: Atti della XL Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Roma – Napoli – Pompei, 30 novembre – 3 dicembre 2005.

ARDEA, 1983, Immagini di una ricerca. Exhibition catalogue Rome (Roma 1983). BARTOLONI, G., G. BERGONZI, 1976, Caracupa, in: Civiltà del Lazio primitivo. Exhibition Catalogue Rome (Roma 1976) 350–366.

COLONNA, G., 1988, Preistoria e protostoria di Roma e del Lazio, in: Popoli e Civilta dell’Italia Antica II (Roma 1988) 275–346.

BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M. (ed.), 1992a, La necropoli laziale di Osteria dell’Osa (Roma 1992). BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M., 1992b, The Iron Age Community of Osteria dell’Osa (Roma). A Study of Socio-Political Development in Central Tyrrhenian Italy (Cambridge 1992).

DE SANTIS, A., 2001a, Anagnina. Rinvenimenti di età protostorica, in: F. Filippi (ed.), Archeologia e Giubileo (Napoli 2001) 304–306. DE SANTIS, A., 2001b, Le sepolture di età protostorica a Roma, BCom, 102, 2001, 269 – 280.

BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M., 1998, L’Italia in Europa nella prima età del ferro. Una proposta di ricostruzione storica, ArchCl 50, 1998, 1–67.

DE SANTIS, A., 2005a, A Research Project on the Earliest Phases of the Latial Culture, in: P. Attema, A. Nijboer, A. Zifferero (eds.), Papers in Italian Archaeology VI. Communities and Settlements from the Neolithic to the Early Medieval Period. Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of Italian Archaeology, Groningen University Institute of Archaeology, 15–17 April 2003 (Oxford 2005) 156–163.

BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M., 2005, A Reconstruction of Historical Processes in Bronze and Early Iron Age Italy Based on Recent Archaeological Research, in: P. Attema, A. Nijboer, A. Zifferero (eds.), Papers in Italian Archaeology VI. Communities and Settlements from the Neolithic to the Early Medieval Period. Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of Italian Archaeology, Groningen University Institute of Archaeology, 15–17 April 2003 (Oxford 2005) 9–24. BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M., A. DE SANTIS, 1992, La distribuzione nei corredi dei materiali di tipo non locale, in: A.M. Bietti Sestieri (ed.), La necropoli laziale di Osteria dell’Osa (Roma 1992) 515–525.

DE SANTIS, A., 2005b, Da capi guerrieri a principi. La strutturazione del potere politico nell’Etruria protourbana, in: Dinamiche di sviluppo delle città nell’Etruria meridionale: Veio, Caere, Tarquinia, e Vulci. Atti del XXIII Convegno di Studi Etruschi e Italici (Pisa 2005) 615–631.

BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M., A. DE SANTIS, 2000, Protostoria dei Popoli Latini. Museo Nazionale Romano, Terme di Diocleziano (Martellago 2000).

DE SANTIS, A., 2006, Evidenza di contatti fra il Lazio protostorico e le regioni limitrofe sulla base della circolazione dei materiali metallici: ipotesi possibili,

132

A.-M. BIETTI SESTIERI AND A. DE SANTIS RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF LATIUM VETUS FROM THE BRONZE AGE ...

in: Materie prime e scambi nella preistoria italiana. Atti della XXXIX Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Firenze 25–27 novembre 2004 (Firenze 2006) 1361–1377.

MARZOCCHELLA, A., 2004, Dal bronzo finale all’inizio dell’età del ferro. Nuove testimonianze dalla Campania, in: Preistoria e Protostoria della Calabria, Atti della XXXVII Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Scalea – Papasidero – Praia a Mare – Tortora, 29 settembre – 4 ottobre 2002 (Firenze 2004) 616–620.

FACCENNA, D., M.A. FUGAZZOLA DELPINO, 1976, Tivoli, in: Civiltà del Lazio primitivo. Exhibition catalogue Rome (Roma 1976) 188–212.

NIJBOER, A., J. VAN DER PLICHT, A.M. BIETTI SESTIERI, A. DE SANTIS, 1999/2000, A High Chronology of the Early Iron Age in Central Italy, Palaeohistoria 41/42, 1999/2000, 163–176.

FENELLI, M., 1984, Lavinium, Archeologia Laziale 6, QuadA Etrusco-Italica 8, 1984, 325–344. GIEROW, P.G., 1964, The Iron Age Culture of Latium. Excavations and Finds II. The Alban Hills (Lund 1964).

PERONI, R., 1961, Ripostigli del Massiccio della Tolfa, Inventaria Archaeologica, Italia, fasc.1 (Firenze 1961).

GJERSTAD, E., 1956, Early Rome II. The Tombs (Lund 1956)

QUILICI, L., 1976, Civiltà del Lazio primitivo. Exhibition catalogue Rome (Roma 1976).

GUAITOLI, M., 1984, Urbanistica, Archeologia Laziale 6, QuadA Etrusco-Italica 8, 1984, 364–381.

SOMMELLA, P., 1973/74, La necropoli protostorica rinvenuta a Pratica di Mare, in: RendPontAc 46, 1973/1974, 33–48.

HAAS, J. (ed.), 2001, From Leaders to Rulers (New York 2001).

133

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE LATE BRONZE AGE IN WESTERN IBERIA AND THE BEGINNING OF THE PHOENICIAN COLONIZATION IN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN Mariano TORRES ORTIZ Departamento de Prehistoria, Facultad de Geografía e Historia, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Avda. Profesor Aranguren s/n, E-28040 Madrid, Spain, e-mail: [email protected]. Abstract: The chronology of the Phoenician colonization in Iberia and the Central Mediterranean has been open to discussion since the early 1990s. Radiocarbon dating of Phoenician and Orientalizing sites (despite problems with the context of some of the radiocarbon dates) and correlations with the Swiss dendrochronological sequence suggest that this process must be dated circa 50 years earlier than conventional chronology would imply. In the present paper, this evidence is compared with new data from Western Iberia (mainly from Huelva and Portugal) that can help to better determine the chronology of the first Cypriot and then Phoenician sailings to Iberia (precolonial contacts) and of the foundation of the first Phoenician (Tyrian) colonies. Thus three successive archaeological and chronological phases are defined from the late 11th century to the late 9th and early 8th centuries BC: Ría de Huelva (1050–950/900 BC), Baiões-Plaza de las Monjas (950/900–825 BC) and Colonial Phase (825 BC onwards). Each of them shows an increasing articulation of western Iberia in the Mediterranean trading networks spreading from the Levant to the Western Mediterranean. Keywords: Western Mediterranean, Phoenician Colonies, Radiocarbon Dating, Dendrochronology Résumé: Depuis le début des années 1990, la chronologie de la colonisation phénicienne de l’Ibérie et de la Méditerranée centrale est devenue sujette à discussion. En comparaison avec la chronologie conventionnelle, les datations au radiocarbone des sites phéniciens et orientalisants (en dépit d’un certain nombre de problèmes relatifs au contexte de quelques-unes des datations au radiocarbone), ainsi que les corrélations avec la séquence dendrochronologique suisse laissent supposer que ce processus s’est déroulé environ 50 ans plus tôt. Dans le présent article, ces datations sont comparées aux données nouvelles recueillies en Ibérie occidentale (principalement de Huelva et du Portugal) qui peuvent contribuer à mieux déterminer la chronologie des premiers départs chypriotes, puis phéniciens pour l’Ibérie (contacts précoloniaux), et de la fondation des premiers comptoirs phéniciens (fondés par Tyr). Trois phases archéologiques et chronologiques sont ainsi définies, allant du 11e siècle à la fin du 9e et au début du 8e siècle av. J.-C.: Ría de Huelva (1050–950/900 av. J.-C.), Baiões-Plaza de las Monjas (950/900–825 av. J.-C.), et la phase coloniale (à partir de 825 av. J.-C.). Chacune de ces trois phases montre une intégration croissante de l’Ibérie occidentale dans les réseaux commerciaux méditerranéens qui s’étendent du Levant jusqu’à la Méditerranée occidentale. Mots clé: Méditerranée occidentale, comptoirs phéniciens, datation par le radiocarbone, dendrochronologie Abriss: Seit Beginn der 1990er Jahre ist die Chronologie der phönizischen Kolonisation auf der zum Diskussionsgegenstand geworden. Radiokarbondaten von phönizischen und orientalisierenden Fundstellen auf der Iberischen Halbinsel und im zentralen Mittelmeer (ungeachtet der Probleme mit den Fundkontexten einiger dieser Radiokarbondaten) ebenso wie Verknüpfungen mit der schweizerischen Dendrodatenserie deuten an, daß dieser Prozeß im Vergleich zur konventionellen Chronologie etwa 50 Jahre früher angesetzt werden muß. Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden diese Daten mit neuen Datierungen aus dem Westen der Iberischen Halbinsel (hauptsächlich aus Huelva und Portugal) verglichen, welche es gestatten, die ersten (vorkolonialen) Kontakte mit Zypern und dem phönizischen Mutterland sowie die Gründung der ältesten phönizischen (tyrischen) Kolonien zeitlich näher einzuordnen. Demnach lassen sich zwischen dem späten 11. und dem ausgehenden 9. bzw. frühen 8. Jh. v. Chr. nach archäologischen Kriterien drei aufeinanderfolgende Phasen unterscheiden: Ría de Huelva (1050–950/900 v. Chr.), Baiões-Plaza de las Monjas (950/900–825 v. Chr.) und koloniale Phase (ab 825 v. Chr.). Jede dieser drei Phasen zeigt eine wachsende Integration des iberischen Westens in die mediterranen Handelsnetzwerke, die sich von der Levante in Richtung des westlichen Mittelmeers ausbreiten. Schlüsselwörter: Westliches Mittelmeer, Phönizische Kolonien, Radiokarbondatierung, Dendrochronologie

framework used until now, although there still are some scholars defending the traditional dates2.

INTRODUCTION The topics of the chronology of the Atlantic Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Phoenician colonization in Iberia have been hotly debated in the last years by several scholars1. Nonetheless all of them have acknowledged the need of a raising of the conventional chronological

This debate must also be included in the wider discussion on the absolute chronology of the early 1st millennium BC in Central Europe, Italy and the Levant, which has resulted in a proposal to raise the absolute dates for the end of the Late Bronze Age and, mainly, the Early Iron Age in Europe3, as well as in a readjustment of the chronological framework in the Levant.

1

Aubet 1994, 317–323 figs. 105. 106; Castro 1994, 144 f.; Ruiz-Gálvez 1995; Ruiz-Gálvez 1998, 291. 360–364 tables A.1–A.3; Ruiz-Gálvez 2005; Vilaça 1995, 372–379; Castro et al. 1996, 185–209. 214–219; Mederos 1996a, 59 f.; Mederos 1997; Mederos 2005; Torres 1998; Torres 2002, 16–19; Torres forthcoming; Torres et al. 2005.

2 3

135

See Botto 2005. For a recent discussion, see Bartoloni et al. 2005.

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 8.1. Iberian sites mentioned in the text: 1 São Julião; 2 Nossa Senhora da Guia; 3 Monte do Frado; 4 Moreirinha; 5 Monte do Trigo; 6 Alcaçova do Santarem; 7 Quinta do Marcelo and Quinta do Almaraz; 8 Roça do Casal do Meio; 9 Ría de Huelva; 10 Huelva (c/ Méndez Núñez - Plaza de las Monjas); 11 Cádiz; 12 Castillo de Doña Blanca; 13 Convento de las Concepcionistas (Vejer de la Frontera); 14 Llanete de los Moros; 15 Cerro de la Mora and Cerro de la Miel; 16 Morro de Mezquitilla; 17 Peña Negra; 18 Lixus

the first Phoenician colonies in the Central and Western Mediterranean.

In this paper I will try to assess a chronological framework for the Atlantic Late Bronze Age and the earliest Phoenician colonies in Iberia based on the evidence of C14 dates from Iberian sites and on the correlation between these sites and other ones from Italy, Cyprus and even the Levant with high quality C14 sequences and dendro-dates.

THE RÍA DE HUELVA PHASE (CA. 1050–950/900 BC) This phase takes its name from the hoard dredged in the Ría de Huelva in 1923 (see Fig. 8.1 for the Iberian sites mentioned in the text), which mainly contains so-called Huelva-type swords, as well as spearheads, spear butt ferrules, daggers, fibulae, fragments of an Atlantic crested helmet, trappings of chariots and an amorphous piece of iron4.

It is hoped that this will allow us to build a coherent chronological framework that can be used in Iberia and that can also be used in a comparative Mediterranean framework in order to explain the consecutive phases of contact between Iberia and the Central and Eastern Mediterranean.

Six samples of the wooden shafts preserved inside the sockets of some of the spearheads were dated by C14 (CSIC-202: 2830±70 BP; CSIC-203: 2820±70 BP; CSIC-

Thus three chronological phases are tentatively proposed from the late 2nd millennium until the late 9th century BC. Each of them shows increasing contacts between the Levant and the Far West, culminating in the foundation of

4

136

Ruiz-Gálvez 1995.

M. TORRES ORTIZ: THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE LATE BRONZE AGE IN WESTERN IBERIA…

Also two C14 determinations retrieved from the grave of Roça do Casal do Meio must be included in this phase, both the carried out on human bone17. The first one (GrN13502: 2820±40 BP) has a 1 σ range of 1015–915 BC, while the higher probablity 2 σ range is 1114–894 cal. BC (93.7%), dating one of the burials to the 11th–10th centuries BC, most likely to the 10th. The second date (GrN-13501: 2760±40 BP) shows a higher probability 1 σ range of 932–840 cal. BC (63.3%), and a 2 σ one of 1001–825 cal. BC, dating this burial to the 10th–9th centuries BC, probably to the transition between them.

206: 2820±70 BP; CSIC-207: 2820±70 BP; CSIC-205: 2810±70 BP; CSIC-204: 2800±70 BP)5. They form a very consistent series with a combined date of 2817±29 BP, with 1 and 2 σ ranges of 1004–926 and 1049–901 cal. BC.6 The type of sword attested in the Ría de Huelva hoard has also been documented in the Italian hoard of Santa Marinella7, deposited at the beginning of the Italian Primo Ferro 18 and dated by the correlations with the Swiss dendrochronological sequence to the second half of the 10th century BC, although the chronology of the majority of the bronze items can be placed in the Bronzo Finale 3 (1020–950/925 BC)9.

The combination of both those dates gives an average of 2790±28, with a 1 σ range of 978–904 cal BC and a higher probability 2 σ range of 1010–890 cal. BC. The use of this grave can thus be dated to the 10th century BC, although some time may have passed between the inhumation of the first and the second burial respectively. Thus, these C14 determinations are the best indication for dating the items which accompanied these two burials as grave goods to the 10th century BC: an ivory comb, bronze tweezers and a fibula of the so called ad occhio type (presumably of Sicilian origin)18, all of these artefacts represented on the Late Bronze Age warrior stelae of South-western Iberia.

On the other hand, a fibula like those attested in the Ría de Huelva hoard has been found in the tomb 523 of the Cypriot necropolis of Amathus10 associated to an Atlantic Late Bronze Age spit11. The context of both pieces seems to be Cypriot Geometric I–II12, although there are some problems because this tomb was reused in the Cypriot Archaic I and has also provided a pendant semicircle skyphos of late Subprotogeometric III date13. Nonetheless, if the fibula belonged to the CG I–II burial (which seems quite possible), it should be dated at the very latest in the middle or early second half of the 10th century BC, assuming a beginning for the CG III around 900 BC and a time span of around fifty years for CG II14.

Other contexts with coetaneous C14 dates on the Atlantic coast of Iberia are stratum 2 at Monte do Trigo, level 3 at Monte do Frade and level 3 at Moreirinha, all of them located in the Portuguese Beira region.

When compared with the Levantine Iron Age sequence, this phase should be correlated to CG I and II in Cyprus, Iron Ib and Iron I/II in the sequence of Dor15 and the “Megiddo VIA” horizon and slightly later contexts, but prior to Megiddo VA, in Northern Israel16.

Stratum 2 at Monte do Trigo has provided seven C14 dates on charcoal whose contexts have not been fully published, the more recent ones from the 10th century BC at the very latest. Besides, it is a multilayered stratum, so there might be a certain time span between the earlier and the later layers, as is suggested by the C14 dates. All the analyses were carried out on charcoal, so an “old wood” effect also is likely.

If we compare the combined C14 date for the destruction of Megiddo VIA (2831±31 BP: 1 σ 1019–926 cal. BC, 2 σ 1111–1102 (1.1%), 1086–1063 (2.8%) and 1056–905 (91.5%) cal. BC), “the Megiddo VIA horizon” – Megiddo VI A + Tel Hadar IV – (2822±27 BP: 1 σ 1006–968 (37.7%) and 962–930 (30.5%) cal. BC, 2 σ 1048–906 cal. BC) and the Ría de Huelva one (2817±29 BP: 1 σ 1004– 926 cal. BC, 2 σ 1049–901 cal. BC), there is a very high degree of coincidence, with a chronology for all the events during the 10th century BC.

The calibration results of the C14 dates are: Sac-1458 (3020±60 BP, 1 σ: 1385–1330 (19.5%), 1325–1207 (46.0%), 1200–1195 (1.4%) and 1139–1134 cal. BC (1.3%); 2 σ: 1419–1111 (93.5%) and 1102–1075 cal. BC (1.9%)), Sac-1456 (2990±50 BP, 1 σ: 1309–1129 cal. BC (68.2%), 2 σ: 1386–1109 (90.7%), 1103–1072 (3.5%) and 1065–1055 cal. BC (1.1%)), Sac-1457 (2960±45 BP, 1 σ: 1266–1114 cal. BC (68.2%), 2 σ: 1369–1357 (1.0%) and 1315–1020 cal. BC (94.4%)), Sac-1507 (2960±45BP, 1 σ: 1266–1114 cal. BC (68.2%), 2 σ: 1369–1357 (1.0%) and 1315–1020 cal. BC (94.4%)), CSIC-1289 (2913±41 BP: 1 σ: 1192–1142 (19.1%) and 1132–1026 cal. BC (49.1%), 2 σ: 1261–996 cal. BC (95.4%)), Sac-1506 (2880±45 BP: 1 σ: 1128–994 (66.2%) and 987–980 (2.0%) cal. BC, 2 σ: 1211–925 cal. BC (95.4%)) and CSIC-1288 (2880±33 BP: 1115–1010 cal. BC (68.2%), 2 σ: 1193–1141 ( 7.2%), 1133–971 (84.8%) and 959–936 cal. BC ( 3.4%).

5

Almagro-Gorbea 1977, 524 f. The calibration of all C14 dates has been carried out with the OxCal 3.10 calibration software using the 2004 calibration curve; see Reimer et al. 2004. 7 Lo Schiavo 1991, 216; Giardino 1995, 198. 8 Giardino 1995, 10. 298 f. 9 Pacciarelli 2005, 83–86 pl. A. 10 Karageorghis 1987, 719. 723 fig. 193. 11 Karageorghis – Lo Schiavo 1989. 12 Karageorghis – Lo Schiavo 1989, 16. 13 Coldstream 1995, 202 f. fig. 2, 7 pl. 17, 3; see also Karageorghis 1987, 719. 723 fig. 197. – I warmly thank Ayelet Gilboa for kindly drawing my attention to this fact. 14 Coldstream 1999, 111. 114 f. 15 Gilboa – Sharon 2003, 33 f. 55 table 21. 16 Finkelstein – Piasetzski 2006, 47 f. – I again thank Ayelet Gilboa for her comments on this matter. 6

17 18

137

Vilaça – Cunha 2005, 52 f. table 1. See Spindler – Ferreira 1973.

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

BC (47.6%) and a 2 σ range of 1001–896 cal. BC. However, the presence of iron is only detected in a later level at this site26.

The weighted average of the seven C14 dates is 2930±17 BP, with 1 σ ranges of 1206–1203 (1.4%), 1194–1140 (40.4%), 1133–1111 (16.9%), 1100–1086 (7.1%) and 1063–1058 cal. BC (2.4%), and 2 σ ones of 1251–1241 (1.8%) and 1212–1051 cal. BC (93.6%).

Finally, another Huelva-type sword has also been attested at the Cerro de la Miel (Moraleda de Zafayona, Granada) in a context providing a C14 date (UGRA-143: 3030±110 BP, wood charcoal)27 with one and two σ ranges of 1411– 1128 and 1505–974 cal. BC respectively. This C14 date has a very high standard deviation, providing a very wide chronological span, also the resulting date being very high. This fact can be explained because the sample was taken from the wood of a posthole and the possibility of an “old wood effect” must be seriously considered. Nonetheless, the later part of the two σ range fits the mid11th or early 10th century chronology provided by the Swiss dendrocronological sequence for this phase. For this reason, this C14 date must be cautiously used in the chronological debate, or even rejected.

We prefer a date in the 11th or early 10th century BC for the last moment of the stratum 2 of Monte do Trigo, although admittedly an earlier chronology is supported by the C14 evidence. Several iron plates, some of them with sewed edge, two weights of Levantine metrology and some items of glass19 were found in several loci of this stratum. These items suggest contacts with the Mediterranean at this early date. From the base of level 3 of square I D1’ at Monte do Frade two samples for C14 dating were retrieved (ICEN969: 2920±50 BP, charcoal; ICEN-970: 2780±100 BP, charcoal)20 associated to an iron knife and Portuguese pattern-burnished pottery21. The result of their combination is 2893±45 BP, with 1 σ ranges of 1188–1180 (2.4%), 1155–1145 (3.4%) and 1129–1005 cal. BC (62.4%) and 2 σ ones of 1256–1234 (2.7%), 1215–971 (89.4%), 960–934 (3.5%) cal. BC. This fact suggests an 11th century chronology for the beginning of this context22.

The pottery of this phase is characterized by the first appearance of pattern-burnished pottery: the decoration is carried out on the outer surface of the pot in Portugal (Alentejo, Estremadura, Beiras) and on the inner surface of the vessel in Lower Andalusia and Extremadura28. As pointed out, the bronze industry is defined by the presence of the Huelva-type swords and the items related to them, several imports such as the Berzocana bronze bowl being documented, whose origin can be traced to Cyprus29, and probably the hemispherical bowls and the ritual wheeled stands from Baiões, although they were located in a site of slightly later chronology, both of them also related to Cyprus, although considered local imitations of Cypriot items30.

Additionally there are two more C14 dates from a context that sealed this level (ICEN-971: 2850±45 BP, wood charcoal; GrN-19660: 2805±15 BP, wood charcoal)23. The result of their combination is 2810±14 BP, with 1 and 2 σ ranges of 980–927 cal. BC (60%) and 1005–915 cal. BC which suggest a 10th century chronology for the end of this context. Thus level 3 can confidently be dated to the 11th century BC. Thus, the C14 dates from Monte do Trigo as well as those ones from Moreirinha seem to suggest an 11th century chronology for the first appearance of iron in Iberia24, although higher resolution C14 dates on short lived samples would be needed here.

The first iron knives can also be included among these importations and their origin sought in Cyprus. As can be seen, the main trading vector in this moment originates in Cyprus, as is also documented in Cyprus with the abovementioned fibula of Huelva type and the Atlantic spit from tomb 523 in the Amathus necropolis31.

A chronology also in the 10th century BC can be suggested for the earlier occupation of Moreirinha. From level 3 of square I A’6 of this site, two C14 analyses have been carried out on the same sample of charcoal (ICEN834: 2940±45 BP; GrN-19659: 2785±15 BP)25, although they have given contradictory results (in fact, they do not pass the chi square test). Nonetheless, we prefer the more recent date for dating this stratum to the 10th century BC, with a 1 σ range of 972–958 (20.6%) and 937–906 cal.

In sum, all the evidence suggests a date in the 11th and at least in the first half of the 10th century BC for this phase, a chronology already proposed by Mederos and Brandherm for the Ría de Huelva horizon – Atlantic Late Bronze Age III A32. The main feature of this phase is the clear evidence of renewed contacts between the eastern and western ends of the Mediterranean after the collapse of the Mycenaean trading network of the late 2nd millennium BC.

19

26

20

27

Vilaça 2006, 88–90 fig. 6, 1–4. Vilaça 1995, 161 f. table 16. 21 Vilaça 1995, pls. 94; 104, 9. 22 Vilaça 1995, 374. 23 Vilaça 1995, 161 f. table 16. 24 See Senna-Martinez 2000, 57; Vilaça 2006. 25 Vilaça 1995, 236 f. table 28.

Vilaça 1995, 226 f. Carrasco et al. 1985, 295 28 Schubart 1975: 61 f. map 38. 29 Mederos 1996b, 104–107; Crielaard 1998, 192 f.; Matthäus 2001, 175. 30 Burgess 1991, 38; Mederos – Harrison 1996, 250. 31 Karageorghis – Lo Schiavo 1989. 32 Mederos 1997, 75. 77 tables 1. 2. 2 bis; Brandherm forthcoming.

138

M. TORRES ORTIZ: THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE LATE BRONZE AGE IN WESTERN IBERIA…

one of 928–838 cal. BC. Although the archaeological artefacts were recovered from a secondary position, the C14 dates agree with those obtained in the Levant from strata with this kind of pottery. Therefore, they can be used as reliable indicators for the chronology of this assemblage.

THE BAIÕES-PLAZA DE LAS MONJAS PHASE (CA. 950/900–825 BC) This stage would be the last phase of the Late Bronze Age in Atlantic Iberia, although it has recently been argued that it could be already included in the Iron Age33.

Also interesting is level 5 of the hillfort of São Julião (Vila Verde), with evidence of iron working (slag), glass beads and a sickle or knife of iron in a Late Bronze Age context and four associated C14 dates, all of them on charcoal (CSIC-1096: 2789±42 BP, charcoal; ICEN1277: 2780±50 BP, charcoal; ICEN-1280: 2760±70 BP, charcoal; ICEN-829: 2660±45 BP, charcoal)42, whose combined result is 2746±25 BP, with 1 and 2 σ ranges of 911–842 cal. BC and 934–826 cal. BC (92.9%).

Until a short time ago, this phase was characterized by the ceramics and metal finds from the hillfort of Nossa Senhora da Guía (Baiões), with pottery very similar to that of the previous phase, while the bronze industry shows a change in the types of swords and spearheads, closely related to those documented in the French Vénat hoard. This fact led to name this stage of the Atlantic Late Bronze Age in Iberia the “Baiões-Vénat phase”34. Two weights of Levantine metrology (6.2 and 9.1 gr) have also been documented at this site35, as well as some earlier items such as the ritual wheeled stands (see above).

Four iron items: a plate, two knives and a little saw43, and a bronze weight of possible Levantine metrology44 have also been found in level 2 of the hillfort of Moreirinha (Monsanto, Idanha Nova, Castelo Branco). Two C14 dates were obtained from charcoals of this level (ICEN-834: 2910±45, charcoal; OxA-4085: 2780±70, charcoal)45 with differing results. We prefer the later date, with 1 and 2 σ ranges of 1004–841 and 1118–806 cal. BC. For coherence with the 10th century date of level 3 from this site, a 9th century chronology is proposed for this context.

There unfortunately is only a single C14 determination for this site on the wood of a spear shaft, with a very wide standard deviation (GrN-7484: 2650±130 BP, wood)36, with 1 σ ranges of 975–743 (50%), 688–663 (4.2%) and 646–549 (14%) cal. BC, and a 2 σ range of 1089–408 cal. BC. Nonetheless, the typological study of the bronzes items excavated at this site led to date it later than the Ría de Huelva hoard37.

Three iron knives, an elbow and a double-spring fibula have likewise been documented in a pit at the Late Bronze Age site of Quinta do Marcelo (Almada), on the Tagus estuary46. From this context four further samples of charcoal were recovered for C14 dating (ICEN-920: 2830±50 BP, ICEN-922: 2790±60 BP, ICEN-924: 2700±70 BP, ICEN-923: 2560±100 BP)47. However, it would have been preferable to obtain C14 dates on short lived samples, because some of the radiocarbon determinations from Quinta do Marcelo could suffer from old wood effect. The lower date of the total range should thus be chosen.

However, the recent finding of a very important assemblage of Phoenician pottery associated to Greek Geometric, Nuragic and Italian pottery, as well as to evidences of iron working and the use of cupellation for obtaining silver in Huelva38 have provided an irrefutable proof of the Phoenician presence in Iberia in the 9th century BC, maybe even in the late 10th century. The typology of the Phoenician pottery fits with the Iron II A phase defined by Gilboa and Sharon39, which can be firmly dated to the 9th century BC (with its beginning maybe in the very late 10th century BC), based on a very numerous series of C14 dates from several Levantine sites40.

ICEN-920 has 1 and 2 σ ranges respectively of 1050–914 and 1129–842 cal. BC. ICEN-922 shows a very similar result, with 1 σ ranges of 1009–892 (57.0%) and 876–845 (11.2%) cal. BC, while 2 σ ranges are 1113–1097 (1.8%) and 1091–816 (93.6%) cal. BC. ICEN-924 has 1 and 2 σ ranges of 914–801 and 1020–766 cal. BC. The last C14 date (ICEN-923) is the most recent one, although it shows a higher standard deviation and suffer from the Hallstatt plateau effect with 1 σ ranges of 812–702 (28.2%) and 695–538 (40.0%) cal. BC and 2 σ ones of 895–867 (2.3%) and 858–406 (93.1%) cal. BC.

Three bone samples were used for carrying out C14 dates (GrN-29512: 2775±25 BP, bone; GrN-29511: 2745±25 BP, bone; GrN-29513: 2740±25 BP, bone)41, whose combination is 2753±14 BP, with 1 σ ranges of 916–893 cal. BC (34.4%) and 875–847 cal. BC (33.8%), and a 2 σ 33

González de Canales et al. 2004, 195. Ruiz-Gálvez 1984, 292 f. 35 Vilaça 2003, 260. 282. 286 figs. 1, 5. 6; 49. – For a contrary position, see Burgess, 1991, 39; Burgess – O’Connor 2004, 192 f. 36 Kalb 1974–77, 141. 37 Ruiz-Gálvez 1984, 280. 297. 38 González et al. 2004. 39 Gilboa – Sharon 2003. 40 Boaretto et al. 2005; Sharon et al. 2005. 41 Nijboer – van der Plicht 2006. 34

42

Bettencourt 2000, 101 f. 124 pl. 61. Vilaça 1995, 226 f. pl. 248, 3. 5. 7. 9. 44 Vilaça 2003, 252 f. 282 fig. 1, 4. 45 Vilaça 1995, 236 f. table 28. 46 Cardoso 1999/2000, 387. 393. 397 fig. 41; Cardoso 2004, 205. 207. 213 figs. 158, 1; 162. 47 Senna-Martínez 2000, 57 table 3; Vilaça 2006, 92. 94 table 2. 43

139

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

The combined result of the four C14 dates is 2765±32 BP, with 1 σ ranges of 971–959 (7.6%), 934–891 (37.2%) and 879–844 cal. BC (23.4%), while the 2 σ range is 996–833 cal. BC, very similar to the combined date of Méndez Núñez 7–13 – Plaza de las Monjas, in Huelva. Nonetheless, the association of an elbow fibula and a doublespring fibula here suggests an advanced moment in this phase, in the 9th century BC.

the Cabezo de San Pedro52. This is also suggested by the virtual inexistence of Phoenician pottery in the hinterland, where only an isolated sherd of a red slip bowl has been attested in Peñalosa53, a few kilometres away from the coast. However, more findings can occur in the future.

THE COLONIAL PHASE: EARLY PHOENICIAN SETTLEMENTS IN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN

Phase I at the site of Peña Negra (Crevillente, Alicante) shows the same association of elbow fibula, double-spring fibula, iron items, ivory armlets and glass beads of very probable Phoenician origin, apart from a bronze workshop producing items of the Baiões-Vénat metallurgy48.

This phase can be defined by the erection of the first Phoenician permanent architectural features and the progressive replacement of imported metropolitan pottery by colonial potters’ products. The best evidence for the chronology of these phenomena is owed to the C14 dates from Carthage, Lixus, the Morro de Mezquitilla and the Convento de las Concepcionistas, which date them to the late 9th century BC.

Four C14 dates are available for this phase, all of them on charcoal (CSIC-360: 2690±50 BP; CSIC-484: 2670±50 BP; CSIC 410: 2580±50 BP; CSIC-413: 2440±50 BP)49. Their combination after removing an outlier (CSIC-413) is 2647±29, with a 1 σ range of 825–798 and 2 σ ranges of 894–872 (4.2%) and 846–786 (91.2%) cal. BC.

The radiocarbon dates from the earliest layers of Carthage, uncovered in the excavations carried out by the University of Hamburg in 1986–1993, currently provide the most important evidence for determining the absolute chronology of the Phoenician colonies in the Western and Central Mediterranean.

These dates also suggest a 9th century BC chronology for phase I of Peña Negra. There are several stratigraphical layers in these phase, so we can assume an early to mid9th century BC date for its beginning (CSIC-260, CSIC484) while its end is overlapping with the first Phoenician colonies (CSIC-410) between the late 9th and the early 8th century BC. As with Quinta do Marcelo, the association of elbow and double-spring fibulae places Peña Negra I in an advanced moment of the Baiões-Plaza de las Monjas phase.

Several cattle bones from various contexts were sampled for C14 dating (GrN-26090, GrN-26091, GrN-26092, GrN-26093; GrN-26094; GrN-26479) from levelling and filling strata of phases I and II at Carthage, whose archaeological material has been summarily described54. The contexts thus are secondary, two of them with problems of contextualization (KA93/183 and KA93/189), while the other three seem homogeneous despite their secondary stratigraphic position. It has been suggested that these filling could come from the highest area of the habitat: Byrsa Hill55.

This phase offers a remarkably Phoenician character, as can be seen in the Levantine pottery from Huelva and in the glass beads from several sites (Huelva, São Julião, Peña Negra), and an increasing and intensification of contacts with the Phoenicians as evidenced by the first working of iron, the increasing number of items of this metal and the silver mining and use of the cupellation technique in Western Iberia. This Phoenician character of the contacts has already been proposed by AlmagroGorbea50, who asserts that the Phoenician presence in Iberia was increasing just before the beginning of the colonization.

The combined result of the four C14 dates (GrN-26090: 2650±30 BP; GrN-26091: 2710±30 BP; GrN-26093: 2640±50 BP; GrN-26094: 2660±30 BP) from the homogeneous contexts is 2670±16 BP, with a 1 σ range of 828–806 cal. BC, and 2 σ ranges of 888–880 (2.1%) and 840–798 (93.3%) cal. BC.

Nonetheless, the Phoenician presence in Western Iberia in this moment is of emporial type, with trading posts at the main coastal sites and a location of their activities mainly in the port areas of these sites, as evidenced by the finding of Phoenician pottery in Huelva close to the ancient coastline51, while only a few Phoenician sherds have been attested in the contemporaneous levels on the acropolis of

This chronology clearly fits the traditional date for the foundation of Carthage provided by classical authors such as Flavius Josephus (seventh year of the reign of Pygmalion, 827/820 BC), Timaeus apud Dionisius of Halicarnassus (814/813 BC), Iustinus-Pompeius Trogus (825 BC), Cicero (815–813 BC) and Velleius Paterculus (818/813 BC)56.

48 González Prats – Ruiz-Gálvez 1989; González Prats 1989, 469 f. 474 f.; González Prats 1990, 90–96 fig. 58 pls. 15. 17–22; González Prats 1992, 245–248. 253 f. fig. 3 pl. 1) 49 González Prats 1983, 290–292. 50 Almagro-Gorbea 2001, 254. 51 González de Canales et al. 2004.

52

Blázquez et al. 1979; Ruiz Mata et al. 1981. García Sanz – Fernández Jurado 2000, 43. 76–78 fig. 6 pl. 20, 2. 54 Docter et al. 2005; Nijboer 2005; Nijboer 2006; Nijboer – van der Plicht 2006, 34. 55 Docter et al. 2005, 570. 56 Cintas 1970, 62 f. 162 f. 53

140

M. TORRES ORTIZ: THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE LATE BRONZE AGE IN WESTERN IBERIA…

with 1 σ ranges of 805–762 (61.8%) and 681–672 (6.4%) cal. BC and 2 σ ones of 815–747 (71.1%), 688–664 (11.1%), 643–588 (10.3%) and 580–555 (2.9%) cal. BC.

Nijboer57, based on these dates, has convincingly argued for a chronology in the late 9th century BC for the foundation of the North African metropolis, a proposition which I agree with and which is coherent with the C14 dates from Huelva-Plaza de las Monjas with earlier Phoenician and Greek Geometric pottery.

The third C14 date for the earliest Phoenician settlement at the Morro de Mezquitilla (upper layer of the metal workshop area, furnaces 3 and 4, phase Morro B1a) is B4180: 2570±50 BP, carried out on charcoal66 and with 1 σ ranges of 807–749 (39.8%), 686–666 (10.9%), 641–592 (17.5%) cal. BC and 2 σ ones of 826–700 (48.6%) and 695–537 (46.8%) cal. BC.

Amphorae of the “Círculo del Estrecho” (probably of type Ramón 10.1.1.158) are attested among the pottery documented in these contexts, associated to Greek Late Geometric pottery59. This chronological horizon is thus related to the most ancient Phoenician contexts known in Iberia and Northern Morocco.

In the context of this metal workshop, Sagona 2 type Levantine storage jars67 have been documented, a possible square rim jug and other jugs evolving into the mushroom-lip type68, several items of Phoenician Fine Ware69 and a remarkable percentage of Levantine imports70.

A new date from Lixus on a short lived sample (wheat grain) has been recently published from the level covering the earliest Phoenician level of the site (Beta-184134: 2590±40 BP)60. It has 1 σ ranges of 810–761 (62.1%) and 681–671 (6.1%) cal. BC, and two 2 σ ranges of 830–746 (71.7%), 689–663 (9.7%) and 645–551 (13.9%) cal. BC. The associated pottery is conventionally dated to the second half of the 8th century BC, but it is obvious that the radiocarbon determination indicates a likely date in the late 9th or in the first half of the 8th century BC, although this C14 determination admittedly suffers from the plateau effect. If possible, more C14 dates from this context would be necessary for a better dating of the beginning of the Phoenician colonization in the West.

The combined date from GrN-8109 and B-4180 (B-4178 has not been included because it does not pass the chi square test), both of them from phase B1 from the Morro de Mezquitilla, is 2577±29, with a 1 σ range of 800–766 cal. BC and 2 σ ones of 810–749 (79.3%), 687–666 (10.1%) and 639–592 (5.9%) cal. BC. It would imply a chronology for the earliest Phoenician layer of Morro de Mezquitilla in the early 8th century BC (or at least in its first half) and even in the late 9th century BC. The conventional chronology for the earliest Phoenician occupation at the Morro de Mezquitilla is the mid-8th century BC or slightly earlier. Both dates also are very similar to the C14 date from Lixus.

The Phoenician settlement on the Morro de Mezquitilla also deserves a detailed discussion. An alleged C14 date from this site (B-?: 2640±30 BP) on an earlier occasion was used by me61 as a key point for proposing a late 9th century BC date for the beginning of the Phoenician colonization in Iberia, given its short chronological range after calibration. However, this date was erroneously published by Schubart62, being a calibration result from the C14 date GrN-8109 (see below), which was referred to by this scholar as an uncalibrated C14 date63.

Another C14 date has been obtained from a context very similar to the earliest strata from the Morro de Mezquitilla, with a red-slip plate with a very narrow rim and incised handmade pottery, in the Convento de las Franciscanas Concepcionistas of Vejer de la Frontera71. It is also from a short lived sample (UBAR-347: 2690±50 BP, bone)72 and has a 1 σ range of 895–866 (21.9%) and 859–805 (46.3%) cal. BC, and 2 σ ones of 970–960 (1.2%) and 933–791 (94.2%) cal. BC. It clearly suggests a chronology in the 9th or very early 8th century for this context, and it would be now the best evidence for a high chronology of the Phoenician colonization in Iberia.

Thus, the earliest C14 date from the Morro de Mezquitilla would be B-4178: 2750±50 BP, on charcoal. It was retrieved from the deepest area of the pit VIII in the earliest building layer of the site64. It has 1 σ ranges of 969–960 (4.2%) and 932–831 (64%) cal. BC, and a 2 σ range of 1004–810 cal. BC. However, the archaeological context of this date is still not well known.

The last site which must be taken into account is the Cerro de la Mora (Moraleda de Zafayona, Granada. It is an oppidum situated approximately 50 km from the Mediterranean coast. The first appearence of Phoenician pottery has been documented here in local phase II73, associated to three C14 dates (UGRA-235: 2740±50 BP, charcoal; UGRA-231: 2670±100 BP, charcoal; UGRA

The second C14 date for the earliest Phoenician context of this site is the above mentioned GrN-8109: 2580±35 BP65, 57 Nijboer 2005, 530 f. 535–537. 539; Nijboer 2006, 259–262 table 1 fig. 1; Nijboer – van der Plicht 2006, 34. 58 Ramón 1995, 229–231. 461 fig. 108. 59 Docter et al. 2005, 563. 565. 567 f. 60 Álvarez – Gómez Bellard 2005, 177. 61 Torres 1998, 51. 62 Schubart 1982a, 82; Schubart 1982b, 219. 63 Pingel 2006, 147 note 1; see also Brandherm forthcoming a. – I thank Dirk Brandherm for kindly drawing my attention to this. 64 Schubart 1983, 130; Schubart 1985, 167. 65 Pingel 2006, 147.

66

Schubart 1983, 130; Schubart 1985, 167. Maaß-Lindemann 1999, 129 f. 148 fig. 10, A 5. 68 Maaß-Lindemann 1999, 136 fig. 8, 2–4. 69 Maaß-Lindemann 1999, 130 fig. 2. 70 Maaß-Lindemann 1999, 129. 71 Giles et al. 1993/94, 48. 52 pl. 1, 3; 9–11. 72 Giles et al. 1993/94, 45 f. 73 Carrasco et al. 1981, 328. 67

141

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

232: 2670±90 BP, charcoal), unfortunately with a very high standard deviation. Besides, the archaeological contexts of these dates has not been fully published, although red slip plates with narrow rim, trefoil-rim jugs and lamps have been attested74.

Cánovas del Castillo is a one-phased settlement with only two layers which have provided Phoenician pottery from the first moment of the colonization, such as Sagona 2 type Levantine jars85, red slip plates with narrow rim86, red-slip mushroom-lip jugs87 and trefoil-mouth jars88, apart from Nuragic and indigenous handmade pottery.

The combined result of these dates is 2695±54, with a 1 σ range of 895–808 cal. BC and 2 σ ones of 974–956 (2.6%) and 941–790 (92.8%) cal. BC. Although the samples may suffer from old wood effect and the chronological ranges are too wide, they seem to suggest a chronology prior to 790 BC for the first Phoenician imports in the hinterland of the Phoenician colonies on the Málaga coast.

THE PHOENICIANS IN THE ATLANTIC The Phoenician expansion in the Atlantic is one of the more interesting topics studied during recent years in the context of the Phoenician colonial expansion89. Thus the chronology of the beginning of this process has been hotly debated, proposing a date in the late 9th or the early 8th century BC for this event90.

Finally, the combination of all these dates, allegedly from the earliest contexts with colonial Phoenician pottery in Iberia and Carthage (colonial and indigenous ones), provides a result of 2661±13 BP, with 1 and 2 σ ranges of 820–804 cal. BC and 831–800 cal. BC. This chronology fits well the date that the classical sources provide for the founding of Carthage and can be extrapolated to the earliest colonial Phoenician contexts in Iberia and Sardinia (Sant’Antioco-Sulcis, necropolis of San Giorgio of Portoescuso)75.

The first of the key sites on the Atlantic coast of Portugal is the Alcaçova de Santarem, which provides the most ancient Phoenician pottery in central Portugal. Two C14 dates have been obtained from charcoal samples (Beta131488: 2650±70 BP; ICEN-532: 2640±50 BP) from the deepest and earliest layer with Phoenician pottery at the site91. The combined date is 2643±41 BP, with 1 and 2 σ ranges of 835–790 cal. B.C. and 896–774 cal. BC. However, the pottery from this context suggests a date in the late 8th century BC, with red-slip plates with narrow rim, bichrome pottery and amphorae of type Ramón 10.1.1.192.

In sum, the evidence for a late 9th century date for the beginning of the Phoenician colonization in the West is growing. Nonetheless, more C14 dates on short lived samples from safe contexts are urgently needed. Ideal candidates would be the earlier layers of the so called “Barrio Fenicio” (Phoenician quarter) at Castillo de Doña Blanca76, and the recently excavated sites of Calle Cánovas del Castillo77 and Calle Ancha, the latter one still unpublished, both of them in the city of Cádiz.

The other site which has provided C14 dates from Phoenician/Orientalizing contexts is Quinta do Almaraz (Almada), with a series of 23 measurements from several contexts in a refuse pit and the ditch which surrounded the site.

Castillo de Doña Blanca is a tell-like site on the former coastline of the Bay of Cádiz, near the mouth of the Guadalete river78, which even has been identified with the city of Gadir79.

The first two dates published were used to propose a beginning of the Phoenician colonization in the Tagus estuary during the late 9th or the early 8th century BC. They were retrieved from the layer in which the pit was dug (Alm 11) and are very consistent between them (ICEN-926: 2660±50 BP, animal bone; ICEN-914: 2640±50 BP, marine shell93)94. Their combined result is 2650±35 BP with 1 and 2 σ ranges of 831–796 cal. BC and 895–786 cal. BC, suggesting a chronology in the early 8th century BC at the very latest. However, the

The site shows an unbroken occupation from the late 9th or early 8th century BC until the very late 3rd century BC, with a destruction level associated to the Second Punic War. The pottery of the earliest layers is identical to the pottery excavated at the Morro de Mezquitilla, with Sagona 2 type Levantine jars80, red-slip plates with narrow rim81, red-slip mushroom-lip jugs82, early oil-bottles83 and single spouted and flat based lamps of Phoenician type84.

83

Ruiz Mata – Pérez 1995, 56 fig. 18, 2 pl. 5 a. Ruiz Mata – Pérez 1995, 56 fig. 18, 5. 85 Córdoba – Ruiz Mata 2005, fig. 13, L 2. 86 Córdoba – Ruiz Mata 2005, figs. 4. 5. 87 Córdoba – Ruiz Mata 2005, fig. 9, I 2a. 88 Córdoba – Ruiz Mata 2005, fig. 9, I 1a. 89 Actas 1993; Aubet 1994, 251 f.; Arruda 2002. 90 Arruda 2002, 218; Arruda 2005a, 28; Arruda 2005b, 283. 285; Barros – Monge Soares 2004, 349–351. 91 Arruda 2002, 217 f.; Arruda 2005a, 27; Arruda 2005b, 283. 92 Arruda 2002, 185 f. 205; Arruda 2005a, 27 f. 93 Date corrected with the Regional Parameter of the Oceanic Reservoir Effect. Conventional date: 3020±45 BP. See Barros – Monge Soares 2004, 341 table 1) 94 Barros – Monge Soares 2004, 341 table 1. 84

74

Carrasco et al. 1981, fig. 7, 31–35. 328 f. Bernardini 2000 with full bibliography. 76 Ruiz Mata – Pérez 1995, 42–45 figs. 11. 12. 77 Córdoba – Ruiz Mata 2005. 78 Ruiz Mata – Pérez 1995, 18 f. figs. 5. 6. 79 Ruiz Mata 1999. 80 Ruiz Mata – Pérez 1995, 58 fig. 19, 4. 81 Ruiz Mata – Pérez 1995, 56 fig. 17, 1. 2 pl. 4 a. 82 Ruiz Mata – Pérez 1995, 56 fig. 18, 2 pl. 4 b–d. 75

142

M. TORRES ORTIZ: THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE LATE BRONZE AGE IN WESTERN IBERIA…

pottery published from this layer is clearly later than this early date: late 7th or first half of the 6th century BC95.

A proper precolonial Phoenician phase can be proposed for the 9th century BC, maybe already for the late 10th century. The findings in Huelva suggest the existence of a Phoenician emporium at this site, as evidenced by the location of the Phoenician pottery recovered close to the ancient coastline103. This is also suggested by the virtual inexistence of Phoenician pottery in the hinterland.

From the earlier filling layer of the pit (Alm 12), three C14 dates have been obtained (ICEN-918: 2750±70 BP, marine shell96; ICEN-916: 2590±50 BP, marine shell97; ICEN-927: 2570±50 BP, charcoal)98, with a combined result of 2622±34 BP and 1 and 2 σ ranges of 818–786 and 841–762 cal. BC.

A date for the beginning of the Phoenician colonization in the late 9th century BC can still be defended on the basis of the high quality C14 dates from Carthage and those from some Northern African and Iberian sites such as Lixus, Morro de Mezquitilla (Vélez-Málaga, Málaga) and Convento de las Franciscanas Concepcionistas (Vejer de la Frontera, Cádiz). Nonetheless, more C14 dates on short lived samples from secure contexts are urgently needed. Ideal candidates would be the earlier layers of the so called “Barrio Fenicio” (Phoenician quarter) at Castillo de Doña Blanca (Puerto de Santa María, Cádiz) and the recently excavated site of Calle Cánovas del Castillo in Cádiz.

The chronology is again earlier than that of the pottery excavated, although in this case there are some sherds that can fit this date, such as amphorae of type Ramón 10.1.1.1 and red-slip plates with narrow rim, although associated to later pottery99. Finally, from the later filling layer of the pit (Alm 6) two more C14 dates have been retrieved (ICEN-912: 2440±50 BP, marine shell100; ICEN-925: 2400±45 BP, bone)101. Their combined result is 2418±33 BP with a 1 σ range of 537–406 cal. BC and 2 σ ranges of 748–686 (15.9%), 665–642 (4.3%), 591–577 (1.4%) and 567–399 (73.7%) cal. BC.

Ideally, a C14 dating research program on short lived samples from safe contexts should be carried out in order to solve the doubts that still remain concerning the absolute chronology of the late 2nd and early 1st millennium BC in Western Iberia.

This chronology of the second half or last third of the 6th and the entire 5th century BC fits very well with the pottery recovered, with late Phoenician amphorae and Attic black glazed pottery of the 5th–4th century BC. However, some early Phoenician plates have also been attested102.

Acknowledgements I wish to express my gratitude to Prof. Martín AlmagroGorbea, Prof. Mª.L. Ruiz-Gálvez and Prof. Alfredo Mederos for their thorough comments, and to the editors of the colloquium proceedings for their patience and for improving the English text. Credit for the French translation of the abstract text goes to Renate Heckendorf.

CONCLUSIONS After this brief review of the archaeological and C14 evidence, the following conclusions can be proposed: The resuming of trading contacts between the Eastern and the Western Mediterranean begins in the 10th century BC, maybe in the late 11th century. An echo of these contacts could be remembered in the quotations in 1 Kings 10,22 and 2 Chronicles 10,21 referring to the maritime enterprises of king Hiram I of Tyre, maybe in partnership with the Israelite king Solomon. These contacts can be detected in the presence of a Late Bronze Age Atlantic spit and a Ría de Huelva fibula in tomb 523 at Amathus in a presumed CG I–II context. On the other hand, the appearance of a Cypriot type bowl at Berzocana confirms the Eastern Mediterranean presence in Western Iberia.

Illustration credits Fig. 8.1: mapping by the author. References Actas do Encontro, 1993, “Os fenícios no território português”, Estudos Orientais 4 (Lisboa 1993). ALMAGRO-GORBEA, M., 2001, Cyprus, Phoenicia and Iberia. From “Precolonization” to Colonization in the “Far West”, in: L. Bonfante, V. Karageorghis (eds.), Italy and Cyprus in Antiquity 1500–450 BC (Nicosia 2001) 239–270.

95

Barros – Monge Soares 2004, 344 f. fig. 5. Date corrected with the Regional Parameter of the Oceanic Reservoir Effect. Conventional date: 3130±60 BP. 97 Date corrected with the Regional Parameter of the Oceanic Reservoir Effect. Conventional date: 2970±45 BP. 98 Barros – Monge Soares 2004, 341 table 1. 99 Barros – Monge Soares 2004, 345. 100 Date corrected with the Regional Parameter of the Oceanic Reservoir Effect. Conventional date: 2820±45 BP. 101 Barros – Monge Soares 2004, 341 table 1 102 Barros – Monge Soares 2004, 345. 96

ÁLVAREZ, N., C. GÓMEZ BELLARD, 2005, La ocupación fenicia. II. Cerámicas, in: M. Habibi, C. Aranegui (eds.), Lixus-2: Ladera sur. Excavaciones arqueológicas marroco-españolas en la colonia fenicia. Campañas 2000–2003 (Valencia 2005) 161–178. 103

143

González de Canales et al. 2004.

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Coffyn (eds.), L’Age du Bronze Atlantique. Ses faciès, de l’Ecosse a l’Andalousie et leurs relations avec le Bronze continental et la méditerranée. Actes du 1er Colloque du Parc Archéologique de Beynac (Beynac 1991) 25–45.

ARRUDA, A.M., 2002, Los fenicios en Portugal. Fenicios e indígenas en el centro y sur de Portugal (siglos VIII–VI a.C.), CuadAMediterranea 5/6 (Barcelona 2002). ARRUDA, A.M., 2005a, O 1.º milenio a.n.e. no Centro e no Sul de Portugal. Leituras possíveis no início de um novo século, APort (Series 4) 23, 2005, 9–156.

BURGESS, C., B. O’CONNOR, 2004, Bronze Age Rotary Spits. Finds Old and New, some False, some True, in: H. Roche, E. Grogan, J. Bradley, J. Coles, B. Raftery (eds.), From Megaliths to Metal. Essays in Honour of George Eogan (Oxford 2004) 184–189.

ARRUDA, A.M., 2005b, Orientalizante e Pós-orientalizante no sudoeste peninsular. Geografias e cronologías, in: S. Celestino, J. Jiménez Ávila (eds.), El Periodo Orientalizante. Actas del III Simposio Internacional de Arqueología de Mérida. Protohistoria del Mediterráneo Occidental, Mérida 2003, Anejos AEspA 35 (Madrid 2005) 277–303.

CARDOSO, J.L., 1999/2000, Aspectos do povoamento da Baixa Extremadura no decurso da Idade do Bronze, Estudos Arqueológicos de Oeiras 7, 1999/2000, 355– 413.

AUBET, Mª.E., 1994, Tiro y las colonias fenicias de occidente 2(Barcelona 1994).

CARDOSO, J.L., 2004, A Baixa Estremadura dos finais do IV milenio A.C. até à chegada dos Romanos. Um ensaio de història regional, Estudos Arqueológicos de Oeiras 12, 2004.

BARROS, L., A.M. MONGE SOARES, 2004, Cronologia absoluta para a ocupação orientalizante da Quinta do Almaraz, no estuario do Tejo (Almada, Portugal), APort (Series 4) 22, 2004, 333–352.

CARRASCO, J., M. PASTOR, J.A. PACHÓN, 1981, Cerro de la Mora, Moraleda de Zafayona. Resultados preliminares de la segunda campaña de excavaciones (1981). El corte 4, CuadGranada 6, 1981, 307–354.

BERNARDINI, P., 2000, I Fenici nel Sulcis. La necropoli di San Giorgio di Portoescuso e l’insediamento del Cronicario di Sant’Antioco, in: P. Bartoloni, L. Campanella (eds.), La cerámica fenicia di Sardegna. Dati, problematiche, confronti (Roma 2000) 29–61.

CARRASCO, J., J.A. PACHÓN, M. PASTOR, 1985, Nuevos hallazgos en el conjunto arqueológico del Cerro de la Mora. La espada de la lengua de carpa y la fíbula de codo del Cerro de la Miel (Moraleda de Zafayona, Granada), CuadGranada 10, 1985, 265–333.

BETTENCOURT, A.Mª., 2000, O Povoado de S. Julião, Vila Verde, Norte de Portugal, nos finais da Idade do Bronze e na transição para a Idade do Ferro (Braga 2000).

CASTRO, P.V., 1994, La sociedad de los campos de urnas en el nordeste de la Península Ibérica. La necrópolis de El Calvari (El Molar, Priorat, Tarragona), BARIntSer 592 (Oxford 1994).

BLÁZQUEZ, J.Mª., D. RUIZ MATA, J. REMESAL, J.L. RAMÍREZ, C. CLAUSS, 1979, Excavaciones en el Cabezo de San Pedro (Huelva). Campaña de 1977, EAE 102 (Madrid 1979).

CASTRO, P.V., V. LULL, R. MICÓ, 1996, Cronología de la prehistoria reciente de la Península Ibérica y Baleares (c. 2800–900 cal ANE), BARIntSer 652 (Oxford 1996).

BOARETTO, E., A.J.T. JULL, A. GILBOA, I. SHARON, 2005, Dating the Iron I/II Transition in Israel. First Intercomparison Results, Radiocarbon 47, 2005, 39–55.

CINTAS, P., 1970, Manuel d’Archéologie Punique I. Histoire et Archéologie comparées. Chronologie des temps archaïques de Carthage et des villes phéniciennes de l’Ouest (Paris 1970).

BOTTO, M., 2005, Per una riconsiderazione della cronologia degli inizi della colonizzazione fenicia nel Mediterraneo centro-occidentale, in: G. Bartoloni, F. Delpino (eds.), Oriente e occidente. Metodi e discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana. Atti dell’incontro di studio, Roma 30–31 ottobre 2003 (Pisa 2005) 579–628.

COLDSTREAM, J.N., 1995, Greek Geometric and Archaic Imports from the Tombs of Amathus II, RDAC 1995, 199–214. COLDSTREAM, J.N., 1999, On Chronology. The CG II Mystery and its Sequel, in: M. Iacovou, D. Michaelides (eds.), Cyprus. The Historicity of the Geometric Horizon (Nicosia 1999) 109–118.

BRANDHERM, D., forthcoming a, Vasos a debate. La cronología del Geométrico griego y las primeras colonizaciones en Occidente, in: S. Celestino, N. Rafel, X.-L. Armada (eds.), Contacto cultural entre el Mediterráneo y el Atlántico (siglos XII–VIII ANE). La precolonización a debate, forthcoming.

CÓRDOBA, I., D. RUIZ MATA, 2005, El asentamiento fenicio arcaico de la calle Cánovas del Castillo (Cádiz). Un análisis preliminar, in: S. Celestino, J. Jiménez Ávila (eds.), El Periodo Orientalizante. Actas del III Simposio Internacional de Arqueología de Mérida. Protohistoria del Mediterráneo Occidental, Mérida 2003, Anejos AEspA 35 (Madrid 2005) 1269– 1322.

BRANDHERM, D., forthcoming b, Las espadas del Bronce Final en la Península Ibérica y Baleares, PBF IV, 16, forthcoming. BURGESS, C., 1991, The East and the West. Mediterranean Influence in the Atlantic World in the Later Bronze Age, c. 1500–700 B.C., in: Ch. Chevillot, A.

CRIELAARD, J.P., 1998, Surfing on the Mediterranean Web. Cypriot Long-distance Communications during

144

M. TORRES ORTIZ: THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE LATE BRONZE AGE IN WESTERN IBERIA…

the Eleventh and Tenth Centuries B.C., in: V. Karageorghis, N. Stampolidis (eds.), Eastern Mediterranean. Cyprus-Dodecanese-Crete 16th–6th cent. B.C. (Athens 2005) 187–206.

KARAGEORGHIS, V., 1987, Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 1986, BCH 101, 1987, 663–733. KARAGEORGHIS, V., F. LO SCHIAVO, 1989, A West Mediterranean Obelos from Amathus, RStFen 17, 1989, 15–29.

DOCTER, R.F., H.G. NIEMEYER, A.J. NIJBOER, J. VAN DER PLICHT, 2005, Radiocarbon Dates of Animal Bones in the Earliest Levels of Carthage, in: G. Bartoloni, F. Delpino (eds.), Oriente e occidente. Metodi e discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana. Atti dell’incontro di studio, Roma 30–31 ottobre 2003 (Pisa 2005) 557– 577.

LO SCHIAVO, F., 1991, La Sardaigne et ses relations avec le Bronze Final Atlantique, in: Ch. Chevillot, A. Coffyn (eds.), L’Age du Bronze Atlantique: ses faciès, de l’Ecosse a l’Andalousie et leurs relations avec le Bronze continental et la méditerranée. Actes du 1er Colloque du Parc Archéologique de Beynac (Beynac et Cazenac 1991) 213–226.

FINKELSTEIN, I., E. PIASETZKY, 2006, The Iron I– IIA in the Highlands and Beyond. 14C Anchors, Pottery Phases and the Shoshenq I Campaign, Levant 38, 2006, 45–61.

MAAß-LINDEMANN, G., 1999, La cerámica de las primeras fases de la colonización fenicia en España, in: A. González Prats (ed.), La cerámica fenicia en Occidente. Centros de producción y áreas de comercio. Actas del I Seminario Internacional sobre Temas Fenicios, Guardamar del Segura, 21–24 de noviembre de 1997 (Alicante 1999) 129–148.

GARCÍA SANZ, C., J. FERNÁNDEZ JURADO, 2000, Peñalosa (Escacena del Campo, Huelva). Un poblado de cabañas del Bronce Final, HuelvaA 16, 2000, 5– 87. GIARDINO, C., 1995, Il Mediterraneo occidentale fra XIV ed VIII sec. a. C. Cerchie minerarie e metallurgiche, BARIntSer 612 (Oxford 1995).

MATTHÄUS, H., 2001, Studies on the Interrelations of Cyprus and Italy during the 11th to 9th Centuries B.C. A Pan-Mediterranean Perspective, in: L. Bonfante, V. Karageorghis (eds.), Italy and Cyprus in Antiquity 1500–450 BC (Nicosia 2001) 153–214.

GILBOA, A., I. SHARON, 2003, An Archaeological Contribution to the Early Iron Age Chronological Debate. Alternatives Chronologies for Phoenicia and Their Effects on the Levant, Cyprus, and Greece, BASOR 332, 2003, 7–80.

MEDEROS, A., 1996a, La cronología absoluta de Andalucía occidental durante la Prehistoria Reciente, Spal 5, 1996, 45–86.

GILES, F., E. MATA, R. BENÍTEZ, B. GONZÁLEZ, Mª.J. MOLINA, 1993/94, Fechas de radiocarbono 14 para la Prehistoria y Protohistoria de la provincia de Cádiz, BMusCadiz 6, 1993/94, 43–52.

MEDEROS, A., 1996b, La conexión levantino-chipriota. Indicios del comercio atlántico con el Mediterráneo oriental durante el Bronce Final (1150–950 AC), TrabPrehist 53, fasc. 2, 1996, 95–115.

GONZÁLEZ DE CANALES, F., L. SERRANO, J. LLOMPART, 2004, El emporio fenicio precolonial de Huelva (ca. 900–770 a. C.) (Madrid 2004).

MEDEROS, A., 1997, Nueva cronología del Bronce Final en el Occidente de Europa, Complutum 8, 1997, 73– 96.

GONZÁLEZ PRATS, A., 1983, Estudio arqueológico del poblamiento antiguo de la Sierra de Crevillente (Alicante), Anejos de Lucentum 1 (Alicante 1983).

MEDEROS, A., 2005, La cronología fenicia. Entre el Mediterráneo Oriental y el Occidental, in: S. Celestino, J. Jiménez Ávila (eds.), El Periodo Orientalizante. Actas del III Simposio Internacional de Arqueología de Mérida. Protohistoria del Mediterráneo Occidental, Mérida 2003, Anejos AEspA 35 (Madrid 2005) 305– 346.

GONZÁLEZ PRATS, A., 1989, Últimas aportaciones de las excavaciones realizadas en la Peña Negra (1983– 1987) al Bronce Final y Hierro Antiguo del Sudeste del País Valenciano, in: Actas del XIX Congreso Nacional de Arqueología I (Zaragoza 1989) 467–475.

MEDEROS, A., R. HARRISON, 1996, “Placer de dioses”. Incensarios en soportes con ruedas del Bronce Final de la Península Ibérica, Complutum Extra 6, fasc. 1 (Madrid 1996) 237–253.

GONZÁLEZ PRATS, A., 1990, Nueva luz sobre la Protohistoria del Sudeste (Alicante 1990). GONZÁLEZ PRATS, A., 1992, Una vivienda metalúrgica en la Peña Negra (Crevillente-Alicante). Aportación al conocimiento del Bronce Atlántico en la Península Ibérica, TrabPrehist 49, 1992, 243–257.

NIJBOER, A.J., 2005, La cronologia assoluta dell’età del Ferro nel Mediterraneo, dibattito sui metodi e sui risultati, in: G. Bartoloni, F. Delpino (eds.), Oriente e occidente. Metodi e discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana. Atti dell’incontro di studio, Roma 30–31 ottobre 2003 (Pisa 2005) 527–556.

GONZÁLEZ PRATS, A., M. RUIZ-GÁLVEZ, 1989, La metalurgia de la Peña Negra en su contexto del Bronce Final del Occidente europeo, in: Actas del XIX Congreso Nacional de Arqueología I (Zaragoza 1989) 367–376.

NIJBOER, A.J., 2006, The Iron Age in the Mediterranean. A Chronological Mess or ‘Trade Before the Flag’, Part II, AncWestEast 4, fasc. 2, 2006, 255–277.

KALB, Ph., 1974-77, Uma data C-14 para o Bronze Atlântico, APort (Series 3) 7–9, 1974–77, 141–144. 145

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

SCHUBART, H., 1982a, Asentamientos fenicios en la costa meridional de la Península Ibérica, HuelvaA 6, 1982, 71–100.

NIJBOER, A.J., J. VAN DER PLICHT, 2006, An Interpretation of the Radiocarbon Determinations of the Oldest Indigenous-Phoenician Stratum Thus Far Excavated at Huelva, Tartessos (South-west Spain), BABesch 81, 2006, 31–36.

SCHUBART, H., 1982b, Phönizische Niederlassungen an der Iberischen Südküste, in: H.G. Niemeyer (ed.), Phönizier im Westen. Die Beiträge des internationalen Symposiums über die phönizische Expansion im westlichen Mittelmeerraum in Köln vom 24. bis 27. April 1979, MB 8 (Mainz 1982) 71–100.

PACCIARELLI, M., 2005, 14C e correlazioni con le dendrodate nordalpine. Elementi per una cronologia assoluta del Bronzo Finale 3 e del Primo Ferro dell’Italia peninsulare, in: G. Bartoloni, F. Delpino (eds.), Oriente e occidente. Metodi e discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana. Atti dell’incontro di studio, Roma 30– 31 ottobre 2003 (Pisa 2005) 81–90.

SCHUBART, H., 1983, Morro de Mezquitilla. Vorbericht über die Grabungskampagne 1982 auf dem Siedlungshügel an der Algarrobo-Mündung, MM 24, 1983, 104–131.

PINGEL, V., 2006, Comentarios a las dataciones por radiocarbono del Morro de Mezquitilla (Málaga), in: H. Schubart, El asentamiento fenicio-púnico en la desembocadura del río Algarrobo, Anejos de Mainake 1 (Málaga 2006), 147–151.

SCHUBART, H., 1985, Informe preliminar sobre la campaña de excavaciones de 1982 realizada en el asentamiento fenicio cerca de la desembocadura del río Algarrobo, NotAHisp 23, 1985, 141–174. SENNA-MARTÍNEZ, J.C., 2000, O problema dos primeiros ferros peninsulares em contextos do Bronze Final da orla Atlántica. Os dados do “Outeiro dos Castelos de Beijos” (Carregal do Sal), TrabArq EAM 6, 2000, 43–60.

REIMER, P.J., M.G.L. BAILLIE, E. BARD, A. BAYLISS, J.W. BECK, C.J.H. BERTRAND, P.G. BLACK-WELL, C.E. BUCK, G.S. BURR, K.B. CUTLER, P.E. DAMON, R. LAWRENCE, E.R.G. FAIR-BANKS, M. FRIEDRICH, T.P. GUILDERSON, A.G. HOGG, K.A. HUGHEN, B. KROMER, G. MCCORMAC, S. MANNING, C. BRONK RAMSEY, R.W. REIMER, S. REMMELE, J.R. SOUTHON, M. STUIVER, S. TALAMO, F.W. TAYLOR, J. VAN DER PLICHT, C.E. WEYHENMEYER, 2004, IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0–26 cal kyr BP, Radiocarbon 46, 2004, 1029–1058.

SHARON, I., A. GILBOA, E. BOARETTO, A.J. TIMOTHY JULL, 2005, The Early Iron Age Dating Project. Introduction, Methodology. Progress Report and an Update of the Tel Dor Radiometric Dates, in: T. Levy, T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005) 65–92. SPINDLER, K., O. DA VEIGA FERREIRA, 1973, Der spätbronzezeitliche Kuppelbau von der Roça do Casal do Meio, MM 14, 1973, 60–120.

RUIZ MATA, D., 1999, La fundación de Gadir y el Castillo de Doña Blanca: contrastación textual y arqueológica, Complutum 10, 1999, 279–317.

TORRES, M., 1998, La cronología absoluta europea y el inicio de la colonización fenicia en occidente. Implicaciones cronológicas en Chipre y el Próximo Oriente, Complutum 9, 1998, 49–60.

RUIZ MATA, D., J.Mª. BLÁZQUEZ, J.C. MARTÍN DE LA CRUZ, 1981, Excavaciones en el Cabezo de San Pedro (Huelva). Campaña de 1978, HuelvaA 5, 1981, 149–316.

TORRES, M., 2002, Tartessos, Bibliotheca Archaeologica Hispana 14 (Madrid 2002).

RUIZ MATA, D., C.J. PÉREZ, 1995, El poblado fenicio del Castillo de Doña Blanca (El Puerto de Santa María, Cádiz) (El Puerto de Santa María 1995).

TORRES, M., forthcoming, Los “tiempos” de la precolonización, in: S. Celestino, N. Rafel, X.L. Armada (eds.), Contacto cultural entre el Mediterráneo y el Atlántico (siglos XII–VIII ANE). La precolonización a debate, forthcoming.

RUIZ-GÁLVEZ, M., 1984, La Península Ibérica y sus relaciones con el círculo cultural atlántico (Madrid 1984).

RUIZ-GÁLVEZ, M., 1998, La Europa atlántica en la edad del bronce. Un viaje a las raíces de la Europa occidental (Barcelona 1998).

TORRES, M., M. RUIZ-GÁLVEZ, A. RUBINOS, 2005, La cronología de la Cultura Nurágica y los inicios de la Edad del Hierro y las colonizaciones históricas en el Mediterráneo Centro-Occidental. Una aproximación desde la cronología radiocarbónica y el registro arqueológico, in: M. RuizGálvez (ed.), Territorio nurágico y paisaje antiguo. La meseta de Pranemuru (Cerdeña) en la Edad del Bronce, Anejos de Complutum 10 (Madrid 2005) 169–194.

SCHUBART, H., 1975, Die Kultur der Bronzezeit im Süd-westen der Iberischen Halbinsel, MF 9 (Berlin 1975).

VILAÇA, R., 1995, Aspectos de povoamento da Beira Interior (Centro e Sul) nos Finais da Idade do Bronze, TrabArq 9 (Lisboa 1995).

RUIZ-GÁLVEZ, M., 1995, Cronología de la Ría de Huelva en el marco del Bronce Final de Europa occidental, in: M. Ruiz-Gálvez (ed.), Ritos de paso y puntos de paso. La ría de Huelva en el mundo del Bronce Final europeo, Complutum Extra 5 (Madrid 1995) 79–83.

146

M. TORRES ORTIZ: THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE LATE BRONZE AGE IN WESTERN IBERIA…

VILAÇA, R., 2003, Acerca da existencia de ponderais em contextos do Bronze Final/Ferro Inicial no territorio portugués, APort 21, 2003, 245–288.

butos e reavaliação dos dados, Complutum 17, 2006, 81–101. VILAÇA, R., E. CUNHA, 2005, A Roça do Casal do Meio (Calhariz, Sesimbra), Al-Madan (Series 2) 1, 2005, 48–57.

VILAÇA, R., 2006, Artefactos de ferro em contextos do Bronze Final do territorio portugués. Novos contri-

147

GREEK AND PHOENICIAN POTSHERDS BETWEEN EAST AND WEST: A CHRONOLOGICAL DILEMMA? Dirk BRANDHERM Queen's University Belfast, School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Belfast, BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland, UK, e-mail: [email protected] Abstract: New radiocarbon evidence and dendro-dates from different parts of the Mediterranean during recent years have raised doubts about the conventional absolute chronology of both the Greek Geometric and the Phoenician pottery sequence. This paper discusses the relevant data and tries to assess the consequences of alternative chronological models that have been proposed by different authors at a supra-regional scale. While most of the data from the western and central parts of the Mediterranean would seem to point to a chronology ca. 70–80 years higher than traditionally assumed, radiocarbon evidence from metropolitan Phoenicia is far less conclusive, and in some instance would even seem to support a claim for a lowering of the traditional chronology by as much as half a century. Keywords: chronology, Early Iron Age, Geometric pottery, Phoenicians, radiocarbon Résumé: Au cours de ces dernières années, les nouvelles datations au radiocarbone, et les données dendrochronologiques en provenance de différentes régions de la Méditerranée, ont fait naître des doutes quant à la chronologie absolue conventionnelle des séquences de céramique géométrique grecque aussi bien que phénicienne. Dans le présent article, les données en question sont discutées, et l’importance des modèles chronologiques alternatifs, proposés par différents auteurs, est évaluée à l’échelle supra régionale. Tandis qu’en Méditerranée occidentale et centrale, la plupart des données semblent indiquer un vieillissement de la chronologie d’environ 70–80 ans par rapport à ce qui était admis traditionnellement, les datations au radiocarbone de la Phénicie métropolitaine sont beaucoup moins concluantes. Il paraît que dans certain cas, les données indiqueraient même un rajeunissement de la chronologie de l’ordre d’un demi-siècle. Mots clé: chronologie, âge du Fer ancien, céramique géométrique, phéniciens, radiocarbone Abriss: Neue Radiokarbon- und Dendrodaten aus verschiedenen Teilen der mediterranen Welt haben in jüngster Vergangenheit Zweifel an der Richtigkeit der konventioneller Vorstellungen zur absoluten Chronologie sowohl der griechisch-geometrischen als auch der phönizischen Keramik geweckt. Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden die betreffenden Daten diskutiert und Interpretationsansätze verschiedener Autoren in einem überregionalen Zusammenhang dargestellt. Während die meisten Daten aus dem westlichen und zentralen Mittelmeerraum für einen gegenüber der konventionellen Chronologie um ca. 70–80 Jahre höheren Zeitansatz zu sprechen scheinen, erweisen sich die Radiokarbondaten aus dem phönizischen Mutterland als weit weniger eindeutig; teilweise scheinen letztere sogar einen gegenüber der traditionellen Chronologie um bis zu ein halbes Jahrhundert jüngeren Zeitansatz zu stützen. Schlüsselwörter: Chronologie, frühe Eisenzeit, Geometrische Keramik, Phönizier, Radiokarbon

on the other. At about the same time, a similar discrepancy was pointed out by a number of scholars for the conventional chronology of the Early Iron Age in Italy, based mainly on historical dates attached to imports of Greek Geometric pottery, and the results of radiocarbon and dendro-dating4.

INTRODUCTION – THE UNDERLYING PROBLEMS AND SOME POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS In the Western and Central Mediterranean, a notable discrepancy between the conventional ‘historical’ chronology for the Early Iron Age and the results from sciencebased dating methods has emerged, arising during the last couple of decades from the increasing availability of radiocarbon and dendro-dates.

The problem of this chronological discrepancy is not easily resolved, as a higher chronology for the Geometric pottery sequence would conflict with the historical foundation dates of Greek colonies in the Central Mediterranean. These are generally held to provide reliable ad quem dates for the earliest styles of imported Geometric pottery found at the respective sites, although this premise has recently been challenged by A. Nijboer, who argues that the earliest imports of Greek pottery at those sites are likely to pre-date the formal establishment of the respecttive apoikiai5. While such a notion might explain part of the observed discrepancies at some of the sites in questi-

The first systematically to collect and to summarize the relevant data from the Iberian Peninsula was M.E. Aubet in her classic study on the Phoenicians and the West1. Other scholars followed in her wake2, and some years later M. Torres considered the respective problems in more detail3. He clearly identified a gap of approximately 70–80 years between the conventional chronology of Phoenician pottery types found in Iberian Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age contexts on the one hand, and the chronology suggested by science-based dating methods

4

Olde Dubbelink – van der Plicht 1990, 234–237; Bettelli 1994, 49–55; Nijboer et al. 1999/2000, 163–174; Ridgway 2004, 19–22; cf. also BiettiSestieri – De Santis, this volume; Nijboer – van der Plicht, this volume. 5 Nijboer 2006, 271 f.

1

Aubet 1994, 317–323. 2 Castro 1994, 144 f.; Castro et al. 1996, 192–195. 3 Torres 1998, 57.

149

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

on, not all of the relevant apoikiai have produced evidence of pre-colonial occupation. So it seems doubtful if such an assumption really could provide the sole explanation for the observed chronological discrepancies.

This development opened up a new chapter in an old debate which will be further expanded upon below. In any case, it seems clear enough now that the conventional model for the absolute chronology of Greek Geometric pottery, resting largely on Desborough’s and Coldstream’s work from the nineteen-fifties and -sixties, presents some serious flaws and needs to be thoroughly revised11. When Coldstream’s classic study on Greek Geometric pottery was published in 1968, the anchor for the lower end of his sequence of pottery styles was provided by the historical foundation dates of Greek colonies in the Central Mediterranean. Only a few isolated fragments of imported Greek pottery from sites in the southern Levant could tenuously be related to Near Eastern chronology. Since then, the quantity of Geometric pottery known from stratigraphic contexts in the Levant has grown considerably, and so has the quality in recording their contexts. Thus, before discussing the results of science-based dating methods and their possible implications for Early Iron Age chronology in the Mediterranean, it may be helpful to outline briefly the basis of conventional absolute chronology, still employed as a framework by many scholars in the field.

Also, it must be kept in mind that even if the foundation dates given by ancient historiographers are accepted to provide reliable chronological anchors for the pottery styles in question, this would only allow direct chronological conclusions for the later stages of the Greek Geometric pottery sequence, as hardly any pre-Late Geometric pottery is known from the relevant sites6. To make matters even worse, the foundation dates for Greek colonies given by Thucydides, Eusebios and other ancient authors only are directly applicable to Corinthian style Geometric pottery, and M. Trachsel in his groundbreaking study on Early Iron Age chronology recently suggested that the relative and absolute chronology of individual stages in the regional pottery sequences of Attica and Euboea, whence the bulk of earlier imports to the Central and Western Mediterranean originated, may deviate significantly from the supposedly corresponding stages of the Corinthian sequence7. As a matter of fact, already Coldstream had considered a possible overlap between Corinthian Early Geometric and Attic Middle Geometric I, as well as between Corinthian Middle Geometric II and Attic Late Geometric I, but saw this as having only a marginal effect on the overall synchronisation between the respective regional sequences8. As it would appear now, however, different life spans of individual regional styles may provide an important key not only for explaining much of the apparent discrepancy between the Thucydidean dates and the results from science-based dating methods, but by extension may also help to resolve similar problems with Phoenician chronology9. Trachsel’s basic argument in this respect is one of relative chronology though, and radiocarbon determinations from Levantine contexts which are crucial for the absolute chronology of both the Greek Geometric as well as the Phoenician pottery sequence are ambiguous.

THE FOUNDATIONS OF CONVENTIONAL CHRONOLOGY It is not entirely without reason that the Early Iron Age in Greece and the Aegean has been termed the ‘Dark Age’ by scholars working primarily in that area. While during the Late Bronze Age, archaeological cross-dating with Egypt and the Near East provides a comparatively sound basis for absolute chronology, and while Greek historiography supplies a fairly consistent chronological framework from the 8th century BC onwards, no written sources shed light on historical developments in the Aegean and on the Greek mainland during the centuries between ca. 1150–800 BC12. As already pointed out above, the conventional chronology of Greek Geometric pottery for these centuries depends entirely on a handful of imported Greek pottery fragments from stratigraphic contexts uncovered at three sites in the southern Levant: Megiddo, Samaria, and Tell Abu Hawam (Fig. 9.1 a)13. The respective contexts themselves, however, are not easy to pin down in terms of absolute chronology. In particular, the debate whether the architecture from phase IVB/VA at Megiddo and similar structures at other sites are to be attributed to

While in recent years a number of radiocarbon determinations from Levantine sites have been published that would seem to support the notion of a high chronology, quite in line with previous results from radiocarbon and dendro-dating in the Central and Western Mediterranean, other recent 14C determinations from the area seem rather to call for a lowering of the conventional absolute chronology of the Levantine Early Iron Age, and thus also of the Greek and Phoenician pottery sequences10.

Piasetzky 2003b; Finkelstein – Piasetzky 2003c; Gilboa – Sharon 2003; Mazar 2004; Boaretto et al. 2005; Bruins et al. 2005; Finkelstein 2004; Finkelstein 2005a; Finkelstein 2005b; Mazar 2005; Piasetzky – Finkelstein 2005; Sharon et al. 2005; Mazar et al. 2006. 11 Desborough 1952; Coldstream 1968. 12 Hannestad 1996. Concerning problems also with the supposedly sound Late Bronze Age chronologies of Egypt and the Near East cf. Müller 2005, 206–209. 13 Coldstream 1968, 302–305.

6

Trachsel 2004, 185–188 fig. 105; Nijboer 2006, 257 f. tab. 1. 7 Trachsel 2004, 161–166; cf. also Trachsel, this volume. – For the chronological implications of regional variation in Greek Geometric pottery also see Papadopoulos 1998, 362 f. 8 Coldstream 1968, 327–330; cf. also Boardman 1998, 23–49 tab. p. 271. 9 Brandherm 2006, 10–15. 10 Gilboa – Sharon 2001; Mazar – Carmi 2001; Bruins et al. 2003a; Bruins et al. 2003b; Finkelstein – Piasetzky 2003a; Finkelstein –

150

D. BRANDHERM: GREEK AND PHOENICIAN POTSHERDS BETWEEN EAST AND WEST: A CHRONOLOGICAL DILEMMA?

Fig. 9.1. a Conventional absolute chronology for the Greek Geometric pottery sequence; b hypothetical ‘high’ chronology according to Coldstream; c hypothetical ‘low’ chronology, taking into account both the Assiros dendro-dates and the radiometric data from Tel Dor; A = Assiros, B = Beth Shean, D = Tel Dor, H = Tel Hadar, M = Megiddo, R = Tel Rehov, S = Samaria

the United Monarchy of the 10th or to the Omrid dynasty of the 9th century BC, not only has plagued Levantine archaeology for several decades, but also has considerably affected the absolute dates for the imports of Greek pottery recovered from some of these contexts14. Coldstream, when using these to establish the absolute chronology of Geometric pottery during the 10th and 9th centuries, based his conclusions on a low chronology for the Levant, arriving at an accordingly low chronology for the Aegean.

be considered disturbed. While only one fragment from this vessel – a large Attic or Atticizing krater – was found in the respective stratum, several other fragments from the same vessel were recovered from Hellenistic and Roman strata16. Basically this means that this particular vessel could have been brought to Samaria at any time after Omri founded the city as a new capital for the Northern Kingdom in 876 BC17. The stratigraphic context of the Megiddo sherds also seems questionable. The relevant discussion has already been summarized by Waldbaum18. In fact, the argument whether to attribute the Middle Geometric I pottery from Megiddo to either stratum IVA or stratum IVB/VA may now be obsolete, as a recent re-examination of old excavation records and new fieldwork at the site suggest that the composite stratum IVB/VA must be considered a product of misinterpreting the relationship between structures uncovered on different occasions and in different sectors of the site19.

The principal reason for Coldstream’s embracing the low chronology at the time was the otherwise unduly extended duration of the Middle Geometric period (Fig. 9.1 b). A fragment of Middle Geometric II pottery from a mid-8th century stratum in Samaria made it unlikely that the Middle Geometric I pottery from Megiddo could be dated to the 10th century BC15. However, the stratigraphical attribution in both cases is ridden with numerous uncertainties, and both should probably better be excluded from any serious discussion of absolute or even relative chronology.

Also the stratigraphic sequence at Tell Abu Hawam, another southern Levantine site that had produced Greek

In the case of Samaria, the 8th century context from which the sherd in question was recovered must quite definitely

16

Waldbaum 1994, 57. Brandherm 2006, 5 f. 18 Waldbaum 1994, 58. 19 Franklin 2005, 314 f.; Franklin 2006, 95–107. 17

14

Kenyon 1964; Finkelstein 1990; Finkelstein 1996; Mazar 1997; Finkelstein 1999; Fantalkin 2001. 15 Coldstream 1968, 309 f.; cf. also Coldstream 2003, 251–253 tab. 1.

151

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 9.2. Sites from the southern Levant with stratified imports of Greek Geometric pottery; numbers correspond to entries in the catalogue at the end of this paper

Geometric pottery in the early nineteen-thirties, has recently been reinterpreted, resulting in a somewhat higher relative – within the Levantine framework – and absolute chronology for the respective pottery imports (Fig. 9.2)20.

of the stratigraphically associated Phoenician pottery types21. In her attempt to determine the absolute chronology of the stratigraphic units she could identify at Tyre, Bikai also drew on Egyptian and Cypriot imports. However, the few Egyptian pieces from her excavation do not offer any conclusive evidence, and the conventional absolute chronology of the Cypriot pottery found at Tyre ultimately also depended on a low Levantine chronology22. In other words, this is a classical case of circular reasoning, and any attempt to provide support for the conventional absolute chronology of Greek Geometric pottery by referring to the conventional absolute chronology of the Phoenician sequence and vice versa must remain utterly futile23.

All things considered then, the foundations on which the conventional chronology for Greek Geometric pottery rests, would seem extremely flimsy, and this judgement also extends to the conventional framework of Phoenician chronology which directly depends on the Greek sequence. Until quite recently, the synchronization of the Greek and the Phoenician sequences rested almost entirely on the stratigraphy uncovered by Bikai in the excavations she conducted at Tyre during the nineteenseventies. Here, a considerable quantity of imported Greek pottery was unearthed, which served as one of the main yardsticks for establishing the absolute chronology

21

Bikai 1978a, 64–66. cf. Birmingham 1963, 22–25; Ward 1978, 83–86. 23 Torres 1998, 54; Brandherm 2006, 7. A recent re-examination of the chronological parameters for Cypriot Black-on-Red and White Painted 22

20 Balensi 1985, 66–69; Kearsley 1986, 85 f.; Gómez – Balensi 1999, 52 f.; Aznar et al. 2005, 23–28.

152

D. BRANDHERM: GREEK AND PHOENICIAN POTSHERDS BETWEEN EAST AND WEST: A CHRONOLOGICAL DILEMMA?

Of course it would be unfair to judge Coldstream’s model or Bikai’s application of it to the Phoenician material with modern hindsight, and indeed this is not what the present critique attempts to do. Their work remains an enormous achievement, and based on the evidence available at the time, they drew entirely plausible conclusions. These conclusions, however, are no longer compatible with evidence accumulated over the last four decades, which shall be discussed in the following sections.

either local stratum V or VI is not entirely clear25. In any case, the pottery from both these strata is closely matched in stratum III at Megiddo as well as in strata II and P-6 at Tel Rehov and Beth Shean respectively, and thus would correspond to the lower end of the chronological range represented in figure 9.2. On the other hand, the pottery from stratum IV at Tel Hadar, where a Middle or Late Protogeometric lebes was unearthed, has close parallels in Megiddo VIA, and thus would predate the earliest strata covered in figure 9.2 (see below)26.

OTHER SITES WITH IMPORTS OF GREEK GEOMETRIC POTTERY IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

Concerning Tel Rehov, Tel Dor, and Beth Shean, there is a general consensus among specialists regarding the synchronization of the respective strata and phases in terms of relative chronology27. However, this consensus does not extend to some of the other sites referred to above, particularly Megiddo, and it certainly does not extend to absolute chronology. The latter issue will be dealt with in one of the following sections, but as regards relative chronology the main controversy between proponents of a ‘high’ and a ‘low’ Levantine chronology basically boils down to whether Stratum V or rather Stratum IV at Tel Rehov must be considered contemporary with Megiddo VA/IVB28.

Apart from the above-mentioned contexts which formed the foundation of the conventional absolute chronology for Greek Geometric pottery as originally devised by Coldstream in 1968, several other sites in the southern Levant have produced imports of Geometric pottery from much better documented stratigraphic sequences since then. Still, most of these finds consist of rather tiny fragments, and the stratigraphy at any tell site will always have to struggle with uncertainties resulting from the inevitable mixing of materials at the boundary between successive strata.

With Franklin’s exposure of Megiddo VA/IVB as an amalgamated construct that is lacking any actual base in the stratigraphic record, this controversy has lost much of its point. The question remains, of course, how the different pottery assemblages from the recently reestablished and quite long-lived stratum V at Megiddo relate to the stratigraphic sequence observed at Tel Rehov and other sites. There can only be an answer to this question once the Megiddo assemblages have been thoroughly re-evaluated in the light of the newly established sequence of architectural remains29. Whether such a re-evaluation would also establish a more precise relative date for the Middle Geometric pottery from Megiddo, however, seems doubtful at least.

Tyre has already been mentioned in the preceding section. It was the first major Levantine site to produce a considerable number of Greek imports after Coldstream had established his chronological framework for Geometric pottery styles. No science-based dating was done on samples from the excavations carried out in the nineteen-seventies, and radiocarbon determinations from closely comparable burial contexts excavated later at the nearby Al-Bass cemetery gave most unhelpful results24. Since then, excavations at five other sites have produced Geometric pottery from stratigraphic context: Beth Shean, Tel Rehov, Tel Dor, Tel Hadar, and Tel Qiri. Except for the latter, all of them have also produced series of radiocarbon determinations, to be discussed further below. The relative chronology of the first three of these sites in relation to each other, and to the other sites with Geometric pottery previously mentioned, has been summarized in figure 9.2. Not included in our table are Tel Hadar, whose stratigraphy has not yet been published in sufficient detail, and Tel Qiri, which has produced fragments of a Subgeometric vessel from a somewhat problematic context (locus 551), whose attribution to

At Tel Rehov, most of the Geometric pottery from stratigraphic contexts unfortunately consists of rather nondescript Sub-Protogeometric and in some cases perhaps also Late Geometric sherds (Fig. 9.3, 11–14). The only exceptions are fragments from an Attic skyphos which can be attributed quite precisely to an early stage of Middle Geometric I (Fig. 9.3, 10). While it is thus not feasible to build a detailed chronological sequence based on the Greek imports from Tel Rehov, the stratigraphic position of the individual fragments does coincide per25

Ben-Tor – Portugali 1987, 110. Kochavi 1998, 471 fig. 4; Piasetzky – Finkelstein 2005, 296. 27 Gilboa – Sharon 2003, 43–57 tab. 21, Aznar et al. 2005, 23 f.; Mazar 2005, tab. 2.2. Regarding Tel Dor, the stratigraphy of the post-Iron IIA remains at this site has not yet been published in sufficient detail to allow synchronization with strata from other sites in any but the most general terms. Thus, the respective part of Fig. 9.2 can only claim provisional status and should accordingly be read with caution. 28 Finkelstein 2005b, 304. 29 Franklin 2006, 95 note 2.

pottery led Schreiber (2003, 205–208) to the conclusion that the conventional Cypriot chronology adopted by Bikai as a reference for determining the absolute chronology of the Tyre sequence, must be raised by several decades. 24 Aubet 2004, 285 f. 465–471. The problems encountered with the radiocarbon determinations from Tyre Al-Bass are probably due to the specific nature of the sample material, cremated bone in this case. Appropriate techniques for dealing with these particular problems only became available after the respective analyses had been carried out (Lanting et al. 2001, 249–252).

26

153

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 9.3. Greek Geometric pottery from Huelva (1–8), Tel Dor (9 = cat. 29) and Tel Rehov (10 = cat. 21; 11 = cat. 24; 12 = cat. 25; 13 = cat. 23; 14 = cat. 22)

154

D. BRANDHERM: GREEK AND PHOENICIAN POTSHERDS BETWEEN EAST AND WEST: A CHRONOLOGICAL DILEMMA?

fectly well with our a priori knowledge about the stylistical development of Geometric pottery30.

and when during the following couple of decades dendrodates became more widely available, their application in Old World archaeology remained mostly restricted to temperate Europe.

From Tel Dor, a couple of Euboean Protogeometric and ‘Al Mina’ ware Late Geometric fragments are currently known, whose stratigraphic position relative to each other also does not present any problems (Fig. 9.3, 9)31. It is quite unfortunate that there are no imports representing the intervening stages of stylistical development in Geometric pottery here, as among the recently excavated sites to have produced Greek pottery in the southern Levant, only Tel Dor can actually be considered Phoenician in terms of its dominant material culture. It is thus much easier to correlate any Greek imports with the relative sequence of Phoenician pottery types here than it would be at the inland sites of Tel Rehov and Beth Shean.

With the improvement in measuring techniques, further refinement of the calibration curve, and increasing availability of dendro-dates from other areas, this situation has since changed considerably. For the late second and early first millennia BC, high-precision radiocarbon determinations on series of short-lived organic samples under favourable conditions now provide absolute dates in the sub-century range. While archaeological cross-dating formerly was employed mainly to ‘export’ historical chronologies to areas for which no written sources are available, now it is more frequently used to ‘export’ dendro-dates to areas for which no comprehensive regional tree-ring sequence has been established yet.

Concerning Tel Hadar, although situated even further inland, on the eastern shore of Lake Galilee, the situation in this respect is quite fortunate. Here, part of a Protogeometric lebes was found in the debris of a storeroom that was destroyed in a massive conflagration32. On stylistic grounds this piece must not only be considered the earliest Geometric pottery import currently known from the southern Levant, but so far also the only piece that was definitely found in a primary context. The presence of bichrome painted Phoenician jugs among the storeroom debris fixes its chronological position relative to the Phoenician pottery sequence, and in accordance with its stylistic features its context would indeed seem to predate other known associations of Greek and Phoenician pottery.

The change of paradigms that in the nineteen-seventies had such a thorough effect on earlier prehistory thus is now also affecting the Early Iron Age in the Mediterranean. This can most clearly be observed in the Levant, were in little more than a decade, chronological paradigms have shifted from almost exclusive reliance on written sources to giving considerably more weight to science-based dating methods35. Obviously, this cannot mean that we should disregard whatever chronological evidence may be gathered from historical sources, but for the vast gaps in our knowledge where chronological information cannot be gained from written sources, dating by science-based methods is certainly preferable to educated guesswork and chronological dead reckoning.

From Beth Shean only part of a single Geometric vessel is known, a Middle Geometric krater with some atypical features. It is difficult to determine the exact position of this vessel in the sequence of stylistic phases for the Middle Geometric period, and it may well be a Levantine copy, possibly an early piece from Al Mina33.

Both methodologies of course are not to be trusted blindly. They both require adequate source-criticism, and perhaps most important of all, when combined in chronological reasoning, arguments based on different methods must not be mixed indiscriminately.

All finds of Greek Geometric pottery from stratigraphic contexts in the southern Levant are listed in more detail at the end of this paper. Finds without a recorded stratigraphic context are not included here.

ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY ACCORDING TO SCIENCE-BASED DATING METHODS

A CHANGE IN PARADIGMS

The following overview of elements from which to build a coherent absolute chronology for the Early Iron Age in the Mediterranean is presented region by region, in the order in which the new paradigm unfolded, and thus proceeds from West to East.

While the so-called ‘radiocarbon revolution’ of the nineteen-sixties and -seventies brought about considerable changes in our perception of the Neolithic and the Earlier Bronze Age, later periods then remained largely unaffected34. Standard deviations in general were far too large for 14 C determinations to make a meaningful contribution to any chronological debates concerning the Early Iron Age,

In the Iberian Peninsula, there are radiocarbon determinations from a number of sites with contexts that can be related to the earliest archaeologically visible Phoenician presence in the Far West. More specifically, these sites currently comprise the Plaza de las Monjas in Huelva, the Morro de Mezquitilla, Ronda la Vieja-Acinipo, and the

30

Coldstream – Mazar 2003, 30–36. Stern et al. 1991, 55; Gilboa – Sharon 2003, 69 f.; Dor 2005. 32 Kochavi 1998, 470 f.; Kopcke 2002, 112–114. 33 Mazar 2006, 378 f. 34 cf. Renfrew 1973, 84–108. 31

35

155

cf. Gilboa – Sharon 2003, 7–9.

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Table 9.1 Radiocarbon determinations from context with early Greek and Phoenician imports in the Iberian Peninsula (Torres 1998, 58; Arruda 1999/2000, 217; Carrilero et al. 2002, tab. 9 A; Pingel 2002, 245 f.; Pingel 2006, 147 f.; Nijboer – van der Plicht 2006, tab. 1). Site

Lab code

BP date

cal BC date (1σ)

cal BC date (2σ)

Sample material

Huelva Plaza de las Monjas lower levels

GrN-29511

2745±25

903–890 (15.0%) 881–835 (53.2%)

968–961 (2.1%) 928–828 (93.3%)

bone

Huelva Plaza de las Monjas lower levels

GrN-29512

2775±25

971–958 (11.3%) 937–896 (42.1%) 876–859 (11.0%) 850–844 (3.8%)

997–987 (2.5%) 975–887 (66.1%) 884–834 (26.8%)

bone

Huelva Plaza de las Monjas lower levels

GrN-29513

2740±25

900–890 (12.6%) 881–835 (55.6%)

967–962 (1.3%) 924–827 (94.1%)

bone

996–992 (0.9%) 974–955 (6.5%) 944–803 (60.8%)

1208–1202 (0.2%) 1190–1178 (0.5%) 1157–1142 (0.5%) 1130–761 (93.8%) 679–670 (0.3%) 607–601 (0.1%)

unknown

charcoal

Cerro de los Infantes phase III

unknown

2730±90

Cerro de la Mora phase Ib–II, level 3

UGRA-231

2670±100

996–989 (1.2%) 975–762 (66.0%) 678–671 (1.0%)

1010–1100 (0.3%) 1077–1061 (0.5%) 1052–515 (93.6%) 463–450 (0.4%) 439–428 (0.4%) 421–414 (0.2%)

Cerro de la Mora phase Ib–II, level 9

UGRA-232

2670±90

970–960 (2.2%) 934–765 (66.0%)

1046–735 (80.1%) 725–538 (15.0%) 530–522 (0.3%)

charcoal

1207–1202 (0.2%) 1190–1179 (0.6%) 1156–1142 (0.6%) 1130–764 (94.0%)

charcoal

Cerro de la Mora phase Ib–II, level 42

UGRA-235

2740±90

996–990 (1.8%) 974–948 (9.0%) 945–808 (57.4%)

Morro de Mezquitilla phase B2b Mo 81/1308

B-4175

2560±50

802–759 (28.9%) 683–664 (8.4%) 637–589 (19.%) 580–549 (11.3%)

826–518 (95.3%) 456–454 (0.1%)

unspecified black substance

Morro de Mezquitilla phase BIIa Mo 82/1484

B-4176

2830±100

1126–896 (62.9%) 876–859 (3.6%) 851–843 (1.7%)

1288–1282 (0.3%) 1262–804 (95.1%)

charcoal

Morro de Mezquitilla phase B1a Mo 82/2195

B-4178

2750±50

968–962 (3.3%) 924–831 (64.9%)

999–813 (95.4%)

unspecified black substance

827–538 (94.6%) 530–522 (0.8%)

unspecified black substance

Morro de Mezquitilla phase B1a Mo 82/2461

B-4180

2570±50

806–759 (34.0%) 682–665 (7.7%) 635–590 (18.0%) 579–556 (8.5%)

Morro de Mezquitilla phase BI Mo 76/379

GrN-8109

2580±35

805–762 (88.4%) 678–671 (7.0%)

825–758 (48.8%) 685–662 (6.0%) 640–588 (8.7%) 582–545 (4.7%)

unknown

2770±90

1010–825 (68.2%)

1209–1200 (0.6%) 1191–1177 (1.1%) 1164–1140 (1.4%) 1131–794 (92.3%)

charcoal

1008–516 (94.4%) 462–451 (0.4%) 439–430 (0.4%) 420–414 (0.2%)

charcoal

1290–1280 (0.3%) 1263–376 (95.0%) 267–264 (0.1%)

charcoal

Ronda la Vieja lower level

I-15464

Ronda la Vieja upper level

I-15463

2650±90

968–961 (1.2%) 926–760 (60.4%) 680–668 (2.3%) 612–593 (3.1%) 572–564 (1.2%)

Ronda la Vieja upper level

I-15790

2640±180

998–519 (68.2%)

156

D. BRANDHERM: GREEK AND PHOENICIAN POTSHERDS BETWEEN EAST AND WEST: A CHRONOLOGICAL DILEMMA?

Site

Lab code

BP date

cal BC date (1σ)

cal BC date (2σ)

Sample material

Toscanos phase I

H-2276 – 1766

2620±140

919–739 (35.7%) 724–538 (31.3%) 530–521 (1.2%)

1111–1099 (0.4%) 1083–1060 (0.9%) 1053–397 (94.1%)

charcoal

Toscanos phases I+II

GrN-5825

2405±35

537–531 (2.1%) 521–401 (66.1%)

759–682 (19.8%) 663–642 (2.3%) 588–582 (0.5%) 544–396 (72.8%)

unknown

2510±50

788–756 (10.6%) 701–539 (56.8%) 527–524 (0.8%)

796–499 (88.2%) 492–483 (1.2%) 465–449 (2.5%) 441–426 (2.0%) 424–413 (1.5%)

charcoal

796–499 (88.2%) 492–483 (1.2%) 465–449 (2.5%) 441–426 (2.0%) 424–413 (1.5%)

unknown

Toscanos phases I+II

KN-673

Toscanos phases I+II

KN-675

2510±50

788–756 (10.7%) 701–539 (56.7%) 527–524 (0.8%)

Toscanos phases I+II

KN-676

2740±60

969–961 (3.8%) 927–826 (64.3%)

1007–800 (95.4%)

unknown

UBAR-347

2690±50

896–875 (18.4%) 861–848 (9.8%) 844–804 (40.0%)

969–961 (1.2%) 928–794 (94.2%)

bone

charcoal

charcoal

Vejer de la Frontera structure 4 Alcáçova de Santarem section 4 lower levels

BETA131.488

2650±70

901–782 (68.2%)

996–989 (0.4%) 974–757 (82.2%) 694–657 (3.4%) 652–542 (9.4%)

Alcáçova de Santarem trench 5, level 15

ICEN-532

2640±50

891–880 (5.7%) 837–787 (62.5%)

918–760 (92.7%) 681–667 (1.4%) 611–594 (1.2%) 567–565 (0.1%)

graphical record (Fig. 9.4)37. The same may hold true for the other sites in question, although the pottery sample from Ronda la Vieja-Acinipo really seems too small to base any firm conclusions on it, and in the case of the Cerro de la Mora, neither the pottery in question nor the respective context have yet been fully published38.

Cerro de la Mora (Tab. 9.1). While Huelva and the Morro de Mezquitilla are probably best identified as Phoenician emporia, the other two sites represent indigenous settlements that have produced Phoenician pottery from stratified contexts. From the same context in Huelva from which the earliest Phoenician remains were recovered, also Greek Sub-Protogeometric and Middle Geometric II pottery is known (Fig. 9.3, 1–8), as well as some pottery imports from Cyprus, Sardinia and peninsular Italy which are more difficult to pin down in chronological terms than the Greek and Phoenician material36.

Regarding the quality of organic samples and radiocarbon determinations, only the samples from Huelva are from short-lived organic remains, and indeed most of the other 14 C determinations involved present rather high standard deviations. The overall sample quality then is quite limited, as is the quantity of individual radiocarbon determinations at our disposal. The calibration results suggest a date between the late 10th and the middle of the 9th century cal BC, except for the Morro de Mezquitilla which is probably post-mid 9th century (Fig. 9.5).

Also the translation of Phoenician pottery styles and types into chronological terms is generally less straightforward than in the case of Greek Geometric pottery. This, of course, is not a problem peculiar to any particular site, but affects the synchronization of the Greek and Phoenician pottery sequences in general.

As for the immediately succeeding phase of Phoenician activity in the West, some of the sites mentioned above have produced 14C determinations from strata overlying the contexts with the earliest Phoenician imports, and these can be combined with radiocarbon determinations from the earliest levels at Lixus, Toscanos and at the

Even with due caution regarding possible regional variation, however, when compared to the metropolitan ‘master-sequence’ it is clear that the Phoenician pottery from the lowest levels at the Plaza de las Monjas in Huelva and from phase B1a at the Morro de Mezquitilla predates the end of stratum IV at Tyre, when mushroomlipped jugs and other later types first enter the strati36

37 Maaß-Lindemann 1990a, 170 f.; Maaß-Lindemann 1995, 241–245; Maaß-Lindemann 1998, 540–543; Maaß-Lindemann 1999, 129–135; González et al. 2004, 179–184; González et al. 2006, 20–22. 38 cf. Torres 1998, 51 f.; Carrilero et al. 2002, 98 fig. 3.

González et al. 2004, 29–106; González et al. 2006, 13–20.

157

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 9.4. Diagnostic pottery types from settlement phase B1 at the Morro de Mezquitilla

Fig. 9.5. Calibrated 14C determinations from contexts with the earliest imports of Phoenician pottery in the Iberian Peninsula

158

D. BRANDHERM: GREEK AND PHOENICIAN POTSHERDS BETWEEN EAST AND WEST: A CHRONOLOGICAL DILEMMA?

Table 9.2 Radiocarbon determinations from the earliest levels at Carthage and Lixus (Docter et al. 2005, tab. B; Álvarez – Gómez 2005, 177) Site

Lab code

BP date

cal BC date (1σ)

cal BC date (2σ)

Sample material

Carthage phase I Ka93-183

GrN-26091

2710±30

896–873 (28.7%) 863–826 (39.5%)

908–805 (95.4%)

cattle bone

Carthage phase II stratum II-b1 Ka93-499

GrN-26094

2660±30

828–802 (68.2%)

896–875 (8.7%) 862–849 (2.6%) 843–795 (84.1%)

cattle bone

Carthage phase II stratum II-a1 Ka93-181

GrN-26090

2650±30

825–802 (68.2%)

895–877 (5.2%) 856–854 (0.1%) 841–791 (90.1%)

cattle bone

Carthage phase II stratum II-5b2 Ka93-220

GrN-26093

2640±50

891–880 (8.3%) 837–787 (91.7%)

918–760 (97.2%) 681–667 (1.5%) 611–594 (1.2%) 567–565 (0.1%)

cattle bone

BETA-18434

2590±40

810–761 (62.1%) 681–671 (6.1%)

830–746 (71.7%) 689–663 (9.7%) 645–551 (13.9%)

seeds

Lixus lower level UE 3049

available from Carthage (Tab. 9.2)42. Whether the respective contexts can be considered primary, however, is still a matter of debate. In principle, nothing would suggest a secondary re-depositioning of the cattle bones from which the radiocarbon samples were taken, but the resulting late 9th century cal BC dates, or rather their association with Late Geometric pottery that according to the conventional chronology should hardly predate the mid-8th century BC, have led the excavators to ponder the possibility of a mixture of material with disparate chronologies. In their scenario, all sampled bones would originate from some unidentified pre-Phoenician settlement, perhaps located further uphill, to be washed down the slope at some later point, while all the typologically identifiable pottery associated with these bones would belong to the 8th century Phoenician occupation43.

Alcaçova de Santarem, where pottery closely resembling that from late stratum IV and strata II–III at Tyre has been found (Tabs. 9.1. 9.2)39. The respective contexts at Toscanos have also produced fragments of Late Geometric kotylai as well as Phoenician imitations of Euboean and Thapsos-class skyphoi, so that here again, it is possible to establish a direct, albeit not very precise link between the Phoenician and the Greek pottery sequences40. As with the radiocarbon determinations from the earlier contexts, the overall sample quality of this second series leaves a lot to be desired, and moreover, the ‘Hallstatt plateau’ in the calibration curve severely limits the usefulness of these data. Thus it is currently not possible to determine the duration of this phase by means of science-based dating methods. In any case, the results from both series of 14C determinations are quite consistent, and the majority of determinations in the second series certainly would point at a beginning of the respective phase before 800 cal BC (Fig. 9.6)41. Thus, even if only applying the lower end of the respective ranges for the beginning of both series, this would indicate absolute dates about 70–80 years earlier than those suggested by the conventional chronology.

On the other hand, if both the bones and the pottery that were found together in these contexts constituted remains from one and the same occupation, the Late Geometric potsherds and the associated Phoenician pottery types from Carthage would have to be dated roughly to the last quarter of the 9th century cal BC, quite in line with the above-mentioned date for similar pottery assemblages from the early phases at Toscanos and from other closely comparable sites in the Far West (Fig. 9.7). So far, only preliminary reports concerning the Carthage evidence are available, and one will have to reserve final judgement until the respective contexts and finds have been fully published.

Still, the chronological evidence from Iberia does present a number of problems, and what is clearly needed here are more 14C determinations from short-lived organic samples, preferably from well-defined primary contexts. Radiocarbon determinations from short-lived organic material and well-defined contexts recently have become

42 One of the radiocarbon determinations (GrN-26092) included in earlier publications on the subject (Nijboer 2002, fig. 4; Brandherm 2006, tab. 2) has been omitted here, as apparently some mistake ocurred when recording its context in the field (Docter et al. 2005, 557. 564). 43 Docter et al. 2005, 568–570.

39

Maaß-Lindemann 1990b, 186–190; Arruda 2005, 282 fig. 8. Niemeyer 1985, 27–36; Rouillard 1990, 181–184; Docter 2001, 64 f. 41 Brandherm forthcoming b. 40

159

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 9.6. Calibrated 14C determinations from a second phase of Phoenician activity in the Far West

In the Aegean, recently published dendro-dates from Assiros currently constitute the only science-based chronological evidence with direct bearing on the absolute chronology of Greek Geometric pottery. At this site, fragments from a Protogeometric amphora were found in a primary context par excellence, an undisturbed destruction layer sandwiched between two building phases. Two timbers from each of these building phases provide terminus-post-quem and terminus-ante-quem dendrodates respectively for the destruction layer containing the amphora. According to these dendro-dates, the destruction of the building occurred between ca. 1080–1070 BC45. This would put the beginning of the Protogeometric period in the Aegean about 70 years earlier than suggested by the conventional model. As the dendro-dates from Assiros are derived from fragmentary evidence reconstructed to produce a floating sequence, future data might

From mainland Italy, Sicily and Sardinia, despite a widespread presence of Greek and Phoenician imports, there are currently no assemblages with Greek Geometric or Phoenician pottery that have provided radiocarbon determinations or dendro-dates. This is particularly unfortunate, as the conventional chronology of the Late Geometric period is based almost entirely on the Thucydidean foundation dates for Greek colonies in that area. The regional chronology of Latium vetus at least permits an indirect comparison between both paradigms. As in the present volume two other contributions are dealing specifically with the respective evidence, suffice it here to say that for the 10th and 9th centuries, a similar discrepancy of ca. 70–80 years can be observed between the conventional absolute chronology and science-based dates44. 44 cf. Bietti Sestieri – De Santis, this volume; Nijboer – van der Plicht, this volume.

45

160

Newton et al. 2003, 174–181; Newton et al. 2005, 106–112.

D. BRANDHERM: GREEK AND PHOENICIAN POTSHERDS BETWEEN EAST AND WEST: A CHRONOLOGICAL DILEMMA?

Fig. 9.7. Calibrated 14C determinations from the earliest Phoenician settlement phase at Carthage

Fig. 9.8. Calibrated 14C determinations from strata V and VI A at Meggido

considerable time span could accommodate both the conventional as well as a revised high chronology. If the Tel Hadar lebes were identified as Middle rather than Late Protogeometric, even a chronology somewhat lower than suggested by Coldstream’s conventional model could be reconciled with the published data. At present, then, the available evidence from this site is hardly helpful when it comes to resolving the questions that concern us here. Perhaps a full publication of the relevant data will eventually allow us to arrive at somewhat more precise conclusions.

call for a revision of these results. At present, however, the chronological evidence from Assiros not only provides the most precise, but also the most secure terminus ante quem for the beginning of the Protogeometric in the Aegean. Concerning the end of the Geometric period, dendro-dates from the so-called Midas’ tomb at Gordion would likewise seem to indicate an earlier chronology than hitherto accepted46. The date of this royal tomb, though, cannot be related directly to either the Greek or Phoenician pottery sequence, so a discussion of its exact chronological implications is beyond the scope of the present contribution.

The 14C determinations from the recent Tel Aviv University excavations at Megiddo commendably have been published in a very timely manner48. Those from strata that are immediately relevant to our problem are reproduced in table 9.3. The radiocarbon determinations from stratum VI A would provide a 12th to early 10th century cal BC terminus post quem for the Middle Geometric I pottery from this site, while the maxima in the probability distribution of the 14C determinations from the following stratum V fall between the late 11th and the end of the 10th century cal BC (Fig. 9.8). With the long life-span of this latter stratum and the unspecified position of the respective potsherds within it, little is gained by this information.

Turning to the radiocarbon evidence from the southern Levant, from at least five sites which have produced imports of Greek Geometric pottery, 14C determinations are also available. However, the respective data from Tel Hadar, like the stratigraphic details from that site, still remain largely unpublished. From some brief remarks available in preliminary reports, it would seem that the radiocarbon evidence from stratum IV, to which the context of the Protogeometric lebes belongs, might indicate a date somewhere between the beginning of the 10th and the first half of the 9th century cal BC47. This 46

Manning et al. 2001, 2534. Finkelstein – Piasetzky 2003b, 774 tab. 1; Piasetzky – Finkelstein 2005, 296 tab. 16.1. 47

48

161

Boaretto et al. 2005, tab. 1.

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Table 9.3 Radiocarbon determinations from strata H5 (V) and K4 (VIA) at Megiddo (Boaretto et al. 2005, tab. 1) Stratum

Lab code

BP date

cal BC date (1σ)

cal BC date (2σ)

Sample material

K4 (VIA)

RTT-3944.3 RTT-3944.4 RTT-3944.5 average

2974±63 2982±47 2904±58 2957±31

1260–1230 (14.7%) 1220–1120 (53.5%)

1300–1040 (95.4%)

seeds

K4 (VIA)

T-18163a

2864±40

1130–970 (61.2%) 960–940 (7.0%)

1190–1170 (2.2%) 1160–1140 (1.9%) 1130–910 (91.3%)

seeds

H5 (V)

RTT-3949.3 RTT-3949.4 average

2821±47 2899±48 2859±34

1110–1100 (3.3%) 1080–970 (55.1%) 960–930 (95.4%)

1190–1180 (1.0%) 1130–910 (94.4%)

seeds

H5 (V)

T-18167a T-18167aa average

2788±38 2807±42 2796±28

1000–985 (7.0%) 975–900 (61.2%)

1010–890 (86.2%) 880–830 (9.2%)

seeds

Table 9.4 Radiocarbon determinations from strata S-1 and P-7 at Beth Shean (Mazar – Carmi 2001, tab. 4. 7) Lab code

BP date

cal BC date (1σ)

cal BC date (2σ)

Sample material

S-1 locus 38416

RT-2734

2955±25

1260–1120 (68.2%)

1270–1040 (95.4%)

olive wood

S-1 locus 38416

RT-2733

2835±40

1050–920 (68.2%)

1130–890 (95.4%)

olive wood

P-7 locus 28616

RT-2788

2525±40

770–520 (68.2%)

770–410 (95.4%)

seeds

P-7 locus 28616

RT-2787

2480±25

800–750 (52.5%) 690–540 (15.7%)

800–510 (95.4%)

seeds

P-7 locus 28616

RT-2320

2380±40

520–390 (68.2%)

760–380 (95.4%)

seeds

Stratum

In the case of Beth Shean on the other hand we can be positive that the 14C determinations carried out on charcoal from construction timbers belonging to stratum S-1 give a secure post quem date for the Middle Geometric pottery from stratum P-8 (Tab. 9.4), most likely situated somewhere in the 10th century cal BC. While such a post quem date in theory would allow to raise the absolute chronology of the Middle Geometric period by as much as a century and a half, it certainly cannot be used to argue for any mandatory changes to the conventional model. In a similar manner, the radiocarbon determinations from stratum P-7 only provide a general terminus ante quem for the Middle Geometric pottery from the underlying stratum P-8. Moreover, due to the ‘Hallstatt plateau’ in the calibration curve, they only allow very imprecise conclusions that do not take us beyond what is already known (Fig. 9.9).

dating of strata VI and V, though, from which there are some quite unspecific Late Protogeometric and SubProtogeometric pottery fragments. No matter if a ‘high’ or ‘low’ wiggle match is chosen, the single somewhat more specific piece from stratum V – a Euboean SubProtogeometric II–IIIa pyxis (Fig. 9.3, 13) – would date several decades earlier than suggested by conventional chronology. For the dating of the early Middle Geometric I pottery from stratum IV, the argument about how to wiggle-match the radiocarbon determinations from the different strata also makes very little difference, but unlike the above-mentioned Middle Geometric I pyxis, it could just about fall in the chronological range to be expected according to the conventional model. It must be stressed that among the sites concerning us here, Tel Rehov currently counts with the best overall sample quality, at least as regards published data. Most stratigraphic units at Tel Rehov for which direct radiocarbon evidence is available have produced multiple 14 C determinations on short-lived organic samples, so that we can afford the unusual luxury to consider only these (Tab. 9.5), excluding data from construction timbers and from nonspecific charcoal that might introduce an oldwood effect, even though part of the latter come from the

Concerning the radiocarbon evidence from Tel Rehov, the question of how to wiggle-match the data from the various strata continues to raise considerable controversy among specialists49. This controversy mostly concerns the 49 Bruins et al. 2003a; Bruins et al. 2003b; Bruins et al. 2005; Finkelstein – Piasetzky 2003a; Finkelstein – Piasetzky 2003c; Finkelstein 2004; Finkelstein 2005b.

162

D. BRANDHERM: GREEK AND PHOENICIAN POTSHERDS BETWEEN EAST AND WEST: A CHRONOLOGICAL DILEMMA?

Fig. 9.9. Calibrated 14C determinations from strata P-7 and S-1 at Beth Shean

Table 9.5 Radiocarbon determinations from strata IV to VI at Tel Rehov; only short-lived samples from contexts that can unambiguously related to the overall stratigraphy of the site are included in this table (Mazar – Carmi 2001, tab. 6; Bruins et al. 2003a. tab. S1; Boaretto et al. 2005, tab. 3; Mazar et al. 2005, tab. 13.3; 13.4). Stratum

Lab code

BP date

cal BC date (1σ)

cal BC date (2σ)

Sample material

VI area C loc. strat. C2 locus 4426

GrA-21417

2840±45

1050–910 (68.2%)

1190–1170 (1.1%) 1130–890 (93.3%) 880–860 (1.1%)

bone

VI area C loc. strat. C2 locus 4426

GrN-27366

2761±14

920–895 (34.5%) 880–840 (33.7%)

970–950 (5.7%) 930–830 (89.7%)

cereal grains

V/VI area D loc. strat. D2 locus 1802

GrN-26112 RTT-3807 RTT-3807 RT-3807 RT-3807 RT-3807 average

2805±15 2765±35 2715±35 2795±40 2760±40 2785±35 2786±11

970–955 (21.5%) 930–900 (46.7%)

1000–890 (92.7%) 880–850 (2.7%)

olive pits

V/VI area D loc. strat. D2 locus 1823

GrN-26113 GrA-19030 average

2760±30 2750±50 2757±26

919–893 (26.9%) 879–837 (41.3%)

971–957 (7.3%) 939–830 (88.1%)

olive pits

V area B loc. strat. B5 locus 4218

GrA-21034 GrA-21047 GrA-21179 average

2760±35 2820±35 2770±50 2786±22

973–956 (19.9%) 942–898 (48.3%)

998–895 (84.0%) 877–842 (11.4%)

olive pits

V area C loc. strat. C1b locus 6449

GrA-24455 GrA-24456 GrA-24497 average

2775±45 2750±45 2745±45 2757±26

919–893 (26.5%) 879–837 (41.7%)

971–957 (7.1%) 938–830 (88.3%)

olive pits

V area C loc. strat. C1b locus 2422

GrN-27361 GrN-27362 GrN-27412 average

2764±11 2777±13 2785±28 2771±8

969–960 (10.7%) 926–896 (57.5%)

970–958 (12.4%) 933–894 (61.9%) 878–840 (21.1%)

cereal grains

V area C loc. strat. C1b locus 2441

GrN-26116 GrN-26117 GrN-27385 GrN-27386 average

2810±20 2775±25 2771±15 2761±15 2776±9

969–960 (14.0%) 925–899 (54.2%)

971–957 (18.1%) 937–895 (64.9%) 877–844 (12.4%)

cereal grains

IV/V area C loc. strat. C1b/1a locus 2444

GrN-27364

2764±11

966–963 (3.5%) 921–896 (42.0%) 876–860 (16.5%) 850–844 (6.3%)

969–960 (7.0%) 930–893 (57.3%) 881–836 (39.1%)

cereal grains

163

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Stratum

Lab code

BP date

cal BC date (1σ)

cal BC date (2σ)

Sample material

IV/V area C loc. strat. C1b/1a locus 2425

GrN-26114 GrN-26115 AA-30431 U3-11 AA-30431 U3-12 AA-30431 U3-13 AA-30431 U3-21 AA-30431 U3-22 AA-30431 U3-23 AA-30431 U3-31 AA-30431 U3-32 AA-30431 U3-33 RT-3122A RT-3122A1 RT-3122A2 RT-3122B RT-3122B1 RT-3122B2 RT-3122BB RT-3122C RT-3122D average

2775±20 2800±20 2830±55 2745±50 2730±45 2815±50 2770±50 2710±45 2685±45 2760±60 2740±50 2700±20 2655±25 2655±25 2720±20 2700±25 2650±30 2725±15 2860±20 2710±20 2735±6

900–890 (4.8%) 880–835 (63.4%)

905–830 (95.4%)

cereal grains

GrA-21152 GrA-21154 GrA-21267 GrA-22301° GrA-22301b GrA-22330° GrA-22330b average

2770±50 2730±50 2760±35 2710±45 2775±40 2760±50 2785±40 2758±16

918–895 (28.2%) 877–840 (40.0%)

969–960 (4.7%) 926–833 (90.7%)

cereal grains

IV area C loc. strat. C1a locus 5498

same loci as some of the short-lived samples50. The results from those selected radiocarbon determinations can be reconciled with both the conventional and with a revised high chronology which would place the beginning of the Middle Geometric period around ca. 900 cal BC, or even slightly before that date, if one accepts the wiggle-match proposed by the excavators. Under no circumstances, however, do the 14C determinations from Tel Rehov allow a further lowering of the date of the early Middle Geometric period, and in any case, they would call for an earlier beginning of Euboean Sub-Protogeometric II (Fig. 9.10).

the overlying stratum D2/8b are from short-lived samples, but most of the remaining results statistically fall within the same range, so that all the data have been included here. According to the calibration results, stratum D2/8c would fall squarely in the early to mid 9th century cal BC, where a small plateau in the calibration curve prohibits a sharp distinction from the 14C determinations attributed to immediately preceding and succeeding strata (Fig. 9.11). Such a date for Middle Protogeometric pottery, of course, is totally incompatible with the conventional chronology for the Protogeometric and Geometric periods in Greece. According to the latter, Middle Protogeometric should end by the mid 10th century BC, i.e. at least half a century before the respective potsherds were deposited in stratum D2/8c at Tel Dor51. If the indications from other sites discussed above that seem to suggest an even higher chronology are to be taken seriously, this discrepancy would grow to about a century and a half.

At Tel Dor, from stratum D2/8c, where the Middle and Middle/Late Protogeometric potsherds were found, there is a total of four radiocarbon determinations, the immediately underlying and overlying strata also having produced several 14C determinations (Tab. 9.6). Only one of the analyses from stratum D2/8c, and another one from 50

van der Plicht – Bruins 2005, 256–269. For a full list of 14C determinations from Tel Rehov see Mazar et al. 2005, tab. 13.2; 13.3; 13.4; for a discussion of the 14C determinations from stratum V and IV construction timbers, indicating a considerable old-wood effect cf. Mazar – Carmi 2001, 1337. In earlier publications on the subject (Brandherm 2006; Brandherm forthcoming a) we had not included 14C determinations from the Weizmann Institute laboratory at Rehovot, as concerns had been raised about a possible bias in the respective data (Mazar 2004, 31–35). These reservations, however, have been rejected by the team of the Iron Age Dating Project (Boaretto et al. 2005, 39–54; Sharon et al. 2005, 78–90), and while the reasons behind the discrepancies in the measurements from Groningen and Rehovot are not yet entirely clear, on present evidence an a priori exclusion of the respective Rehovot radiocarbon determinations seems hardly justified.

In theory, there are several possibilities to resolve this obvious dilemma. The first one would imply that our understanding of the development of Protogeometric and Geometric pottery styles is very seriously flawed. This seems more than unlikely, though, given the fact that their relative sequence is substantiated by conclusive stratigraphic evidence from Greece as well as from the Levant (Fig. 9.2). Also, in such a case we would have to assume that our understanding of the Phoenician pottery 51

164

cf. Coldstream 2003, tab. 1.

D. BRANDHERM: GREEK AND PHOENICIAN POTSHERDS BETWEEN EAST AND WEST: A CHRONOLOGICAL DILEMMA?

Fig. 9.10. Calibrated 14C determinations from strata V and VI at Tel Rehov Table 9.6 Radiocarbon determinations from strata G/7 and D2/8b–9 at Tel Dor (Sharon 2001, fig. 1; Gilboa – Sharon 2003, tab. 22). Stratum

Lab code

BP date

cal BC date (1σ)

cal BC date (2σ)

Sample material

area G stratum 7 locus 9899

RT-3113

2795±40

1000–895 (68.2%)

1050–830 (95.4%)

charcoal

area D2 stratum 9 locus 17379

RT-2930

2745±35

915–830 (68.2%)

980–810 (95.4%)

charcoal

area D2 stratum 9 locus 17383

RT-2926

2705±35

900–870 (25.4%) 865–820 (42.8%)

920–800 (95.4%)

charcoal

area D2 stratum 8c locus 17337

RT-3112

2815±30

1000–920 (68.2%)

1050–890 (93.6%) 880–840 (1.8%)

charcoal

area D2 stratum 8c locus 17313

RT-2931

2745±20

905–890 (11.5%) 880–835 (56.7%)

925–830 (95.4%)

charcoal

area D2 stratum 8c various loci

RT-2960

2710±20

900–875 (32.4%) 865–825 (35.8%)

900–810 (95.4%)

olive pits

area D2 stratum 8c locus 17337

RT-2959

2695±35

900–875 (21.2%) 860–850 (7.0%) 845–805 (40.0%)

910–790 (95.4%)

charcoal

area D2 stratum 8b locus 17230

RT-3110

2720±45

905–820 (68.2%)

980–950 (3.9%) 940–800 (91.5%)

charcoal

area D2 stratum 8b locus 17226

RT-2961

2710±40

900–825 (68.2%)

970–960 (1.3%) 930–800 (94.1%)

olive pits

165

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

Fig. 9.11. Calibrated 14C determinations from strata D2/8b, D2/8c, D2/9 and G/7 at Tel Dor

sequence, for which a similar, albeit less well defined discrepancy can be discerned in the respective strata at Tel Dor, and which is totally independent from stratigraphic evidence in Greece and the Aegean, was equally flawed52.

further above, in the case of Carthage and Huelva, a residual character of the cattle bones that provided the samples for the respective radiocarbon determinations cannot entirely be ruled out, unlikely though it is, but in Assiros we are dealing with an extremely well-defined primary context, and while at Tel Rehov some or even all of the pottery might be residual, which would imply an even earlier date, this is not true for the radiocarbon samples from that site.

As a second possibility, at Tel Dor we might be dealing with a secondary context. This, however, is considered unlikely by the excavators, and moreover, it would not resolve the problem of the discrepancy for the associated Phoenician pottery which was mentioned above53.

This is a dilemma which cannot be readily resolved, and the scholarly world will probably have to live with its consequences for some time to come. Clearly, more radiometric data from well defined archaeological contexts are required. Also, in a first intercomparison exercise carried out specifically to solve this problem, not all the laboratories concerned were equally well represented, and an amendment to this intercomparison, including more data from the Groningen laboratory, would be most desirable54.

So, if the relative sequence does not present any substantial flaws, then something must be seriously wrong with the absolute chronologies suggested either for Tel Dor or for a number of other sites. While there is no a priori reason to doubt the overall quality of the radiometric data from Tel Dor, the same holds true for Tel Rehov, Carthage and Huelva, as well as for the dendrodates from Assiros, which all seem to indicate a chronology more than half a century higher rather than half a century lower than the conventional model according to Coldstream would have it. As discussed

CONCLUSIONS

52 The assemblage from stratum D2/8c at Tel Dor closely resembles that from strata X–XII at Tyre and thus in terms of relative chronology should predate the assemblage from Huelva – Plaza de las Monjas, which at Tyre is best matched in the pottery from strata IV–V, by a significant margin (cf. Gilboa – Sharon 2003, 46–48). Contrary to what the pottery would seem to indicate, the radiocarbon evidence from Huelva points at a similar, or even slightly earlier date than that from stratum D2/8c at Tel Dor; thus, here we can observe just the same kind of discrepancy for both the Greek and Phoenician pottery sequences. 53 Gilboa – Sharon 2003, 69–71 note 29.

A number of conclusions can be drawn from the above, concerning relative as well as absolute chronology. As regards the former, evidence accumulated over the last couple of decades would seem to call for only minor alterations to our understanding of both the Greek and the Phoenician pottery sequences, with the notable exception 54

166

cf. Boaretto et al. 2005, 51 tab. 3.

D. BRANDHERM: GREEK AND PHOENICIAN POTSHERDS BETWEEN EAST AND WEST: A CHRONOLOGICAL DILEMMA?

Fig. 9.12. Revised chronology for the Greek Geometric pottery sequence according to Trachsel, in relation to south Levantine sites with Greek imports; A = Tell Abu Hawam, B = Beth Shean, D = Tel Dor, H = Tel Hadar, M = Megiddo, R = Tel Rehov, S = Samaria, T = Tyre

of a possible adjustment in the relationship between the regional Geometric sequences of Attica and Euboea on the one hand, and that of Corinth on the other (Fig. 9.12)55.

Regarding absolute chronology, the introduction of science-based dating methods into Early Iron Age archaeology, first in the Western Mediterranean and over the last decade also in the Levant, marks an important methodological advance. As noted above, however, the results from these efforts are not always as unambiguous as one might expect. Radiocarbon evidence from Iberia and Carthage clearly indicates a date ca. 70–80 years earlier than assumed by the conventional chronology for the beginning of Attic Middle and Late Geometric, as well as for the associated range of Phoenician pottery types. As regards the former, recent radiocarbon evidence from Latium vetus would also seem to support such a notion, although only in an indirect manner, and a similar discrepancy for the beginning of the Protogeometric period in the Aegean is indicated by the dendro-dates from Assiros.

For Phoenician pottery, at present, regional variation is less well understood. Concerning southern Phoenicia, the excavations at Tel Dor certainly have produced the most comprehensive results so far. To what degree these results may be cast into a coherent relative chronology for the whole of the southern Levant, though, is still a matter of some debate, and many assemblages from Phoenician sites abroad currently remain poorly published, an obstacle with which currently any attempt to build sound regional sequences and to comprehensively compare these with stylistical and typological developments in metropolitan Phoenicia has to struggle.

The Levantine evidence, on the other hand, is much less conclusive. While 14C determinations from most sites with Phoenician and Greek Geometric pottery offer enough leeway to accommodate both the conventional and a revised high chronology which would be more in line with the data from the Central and Western Medi-

55

As a caveat, it should be pointed out that Trachsel’s model, illustrated in Fig. 9.12, does not take into account the radiocarbon evidence from Tel Dor. As a second caveat, as a model it may be overly schematic in its representation of the chronological relationship between the Attic/Euboean and the Corinthian series; on stylistical grounds a more substantial overlap between the Early Geometric phases of both series might reasonably be expected.

167

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

terranean, the data from Tel Dor rather call for a chronology about half a century lower than traditionally held. So, the recent assertions by several scholars that the radiocarbon evidence from the Levant confirms the conventional Greek chronology seem somewhat misleading56. In any case, both the ‘high’ and the ‘low’ alternatives pose very difficult dilemmas, not only for the Levant, but for the entire Mediterranean.

period in the Aegean, or else one would have to assume a prolonged settlement hiatus for the whole area. So, while a low chronology might offer a solution for a number of problems that plague Levantine Early Iron Age chronology60, it also would cause a whole plethora of new problems for other parts of the Mediterranean, and these truly far-reaching consequences should always be kept in mind when discussing the chronological evidence from metropolitan Phoenicia.

This is perhaps most obvious in the Aegean, were a revised high chronology of the Euboean and Attic pottery sequences either requires us to part with the notion of a largely synchronous development of different regional styles, or to abandon the idea that the Thucydidean foundation dates of Greek colonies in the Central Mediterranean provide reliable chronological anchors for the archaeological record. Also, a considerably earlier beginning of the Protogeometric period, as indicated by the dendro-dates from Assiros, causes a number of problems with conventional notions about the chronology and internal development of Late Helladic III C pottery styles. The current discussion on Aegean Late Bronze Age chronology, however, seems to open up new possibilities for resolving most of these57. If one wishes to adhere to the current model of Late Bronze Age chronology, with an earlier start of the Protogeometric period a more substantial overlap between the Submycenaean and Protogeometric pottery styles than hitherto taken into account would have to be considered.

The ‘high’ chronology-‘low’ chronology debate in Levantine Iron Age archaeology cannot be reduced to the mere question of which data seem in better accordance with the scripture, and the same could be said about the relationship between science-based data and other ancient texts. What is really needed here, is a thorough reflexion on how science-based chronologies are used in the interpretation of the archaeological record. So, notwith-standing contrary claims, the debate on Mediterranean Early Iron Age chronology is far from concluded. It most likely will be with us for some time to come, and one of the few things that may confidently be ascertained at this point, is that the conventional absolute chronology for the Greek and Phoenician pottery sequences, based on a limited number of sometimes quite contradictory historical sources and on their tenuous links with the archaeological record, cannot be maintained any longer. Eventually, Mediterranean Iron Age archaeology will have to come to terms with the paradigm of science-based dating methods and its inherent problems.

On the other hand, a low chronology for the Aegean, based on the radiocarbon evidence from Tel Dor, would entail similar problems for the Early and Middle Geometric period – what Coldstream has termed “an uncomfortable congestion”58 – dragging the end of the Protogeometric period deep into the 9th century cal BC. Assuming the dendro-dates from Assiros are correct, this would stretch Early and Middle Protogeometric over a span of no less than 300 years (Fig. 9.1 c).

CATALOGUE Stratified Greek Geometric pottery from sites in the southern Levant61; the numbers of the individual entries correspond to those in Fig. 9.2; abbreviations: EG = Early Geometric, EPC = Early Protocorinthian, LG = Late Geometric, LPG = Late Protogeometric, MG = Middle Geometric, MPG = Middle Protogeometric, SG = Subgeometric, SPG = Sub-Protogeometric

A low chronology for Greek and Phoenician ‘Dark Age’ pottery would also come with a number of consequences for other parts of the Mediterranan world, most notably Italy and Iberia. For lack of space, in this paper the complex subject of the relationship between Alpine dendro-dates and Mediterranean Early Iron Age chronology has not been touched on. It must be stressed, though, that such a low chronology would finally wreak havoc with any attempt to reconcile the chronology of Aegean imports not only with Alpine dendro-dates, but also with radiocarbon determinations from peninsular Italy59. Regarding southern Iberia, with a low chronology either the local Late Bronze Age would have to be stretched out in a manner similar to the Protogeometric

1. Tell Abu Hawam: Cycladic (?) MG II/LG I skyphos, from a pit dug from stratum IIIb3 into stratum IV levels (Balensi 1985, 69 fig. 3; Kearsley 1986, 85 f.; Gómez – Balensi 1999, 55–58 fig. 4, 3; Aznar et al. 2005, 24 f.); the fragment of another MG II/LG I vessel, a Euboean krater, was recorded as a surface find, lacking any stratigraphic context (Gómez – Balensi 1999, 58–61 fig. 4 a; Aznar et al. 2005, 29 f.; Mederos 2005, 312). 2. Tell Abu Hawam: Euboean SPG skyphos and Euboean or Cycladic SPG cup (formerly attributed to EG II/MG I), either from stratum IIIb3 or from the same pit as no. 1, dug from stratum IIIb3 into stratum

56 cf. Botto 2005, 590–593; Finkelstein 2005a, 36–39; Fantalkin 2006, 200 f. 57 Müller 2005, 206–209. 58 Coldstream 2003, 253. 59 For sometimes contradictory views on this subject see Delpino 2003, 11–16; De Marinis 2005, 32–38; Pare, this volume.

60

cf. Finkelstein 2005a, 39. For a full catalogue of Levantine sites with Greek Geometric pottery, also including unstratified finds, see Luke 2003, 31–35 tab. 8. 61

168

D. BRANDHERM: GREEK AND PHOENICIAN POTSHERDS BETWEEN EAST AND WEST: A CHRONOLOGICAL DILEMMA?

16. Tyre: Euboean SPG I/II plate, from stratum X-1 (Bikai 1978a, 66 pl. 24, 5; Nitsche 1986/87, 20 fig. 10, 1).

IV levels (Clairmont 1955, 99; Riis 1970, 144 fig. 47 a. b; Herrera – Balensi 1986, 170 fig. 1 a. b; Kearsley 1986, 85 f.; Gómez – Balensi 1999, 54 f. fig. 4, 1. 2; Fantalkin 2001, 119).

17. Tyre: Euboean LPG/SPG skyphos, from stratum X-1 (Bikai 1978a, 66 pl. 24, 6; Nitsche 1986/87, 18–20 fig. 3, 1).

3. Samaria: several fragments from an Attic or Atticising late MG II krater, at least one of which was found in a Pottery Phase V context, possibly intrusive from earlier strata; in any case, this context appears to have been disturbed, as the remaining fragments from the same vessel were all recovered from Hellenistic and Roman strata; there are fragments from more Attic MG II vessels from this site, none of which, however, comes from a recorded context (Riis 1970, 146–148 fig. 49; Forsberg 1995, 18 f.; Coldstream 2003, 249– 251 fig. 1).

18. Tyre: Euboean LPG/SPG skyphos, from stratum XI (Bikai 1978a, 66; Nitsche 1986/87, 16 f.). 19. Tyre: Euboean LPG skyphos, from stratum XI (Bikai 1978a, 66 pl. 30, 3; Nitsche 1986/87, 14–16 fig. 2, 1). 20. Tyre: Euboean MPG/LPG amphora, from stratum XI; fragment apparently belonging to the same vessel as no. 15 (Bikai 1978a, 66 pl. 30, 1; Nitsche 1986/87, 12–14 fig. 1).

4. Megiddo: two fragments from an Attic early MG I skyphos, attributed by different authors to either stratum IV or V; several more Attic MG I fragments are known from the site, for which no stratigraphic contexts are recorded (Clairmont 1955, 99 f. pl. 20; Riis 1970, 144–146 fig. 47 c–h; Coldstream 2003, 249–251 fig. 2; Mederos 2005, 323–325).

21. Tel Rehov: Attic early MG I skyphos, from stratum IV (Coldstream – Mazar 2003, 35 fig. 7). 22. Tel Rehov: Euboean SPG I–IIIa skyphos, from stratum IV (Coldstream – Mazar 2003, 33 fig. 5).

5. Tyre: Euboean SPG III plate, from stratum II (Bikai 1978a, 66 pl. 11a, 20; Nitsche 1986/87, 27).

23. Tel Rehov: Euboean SPG II–IIIa pyxis, from stratum V (Coldstream – Mazar 2003, 34 f. fig. 6; Mazar 2004, 24 fig. 1).

6. Tyre: EPC kotyle, from stratum II (Bikai 1978a, pl. 11a, 24; Nitsche 1986/87, 27).

24. Tel Rehov: Euboean LPG/SPG krater, from stratum V (Coldstream – Mazar 2003, 32 fig. 2).

7. Tyre: Attic or Euboean MG II krater, from stratum III (Bikai 1978a, 66 pls. 11a, 27; 88, 1; Nitsche 1986/87, 27 fig. 7, 1).

25. Tel Rehov: Euboean LPG/SPG krater, from stratum V or VI (Coldstream – Mazar 2003, 32 fig. 3).

8. Tyre: Attic EG II/MG I skyphos, from stratum VIII (Bikai 1978a, 66 pl. 22a, 3; Nitsche 1986/87, 22).

26. Beth Shean: MG krater with somewhat atypical features, possibly of Levantine manufacture (Al Mina?), from stratum P8 (Mazar 2006, 378 f.).

9. Tyre: Euboean LPG/SPG krater or lebes, from stratum VIII (Bikai 1978a, 66 pl. 22a, 7; Nitsche 1986/87, 24).

27. Tel Dor: LG skyphos, ‘Al Mina Ware’ possibly of Cypriot origin, from stratum D2/6 (Dor 2005). 28. Tel Dor: LG skyphos, ‘Al Mina Ware’ possibly of Cypriot origin, from area B2; no explicit attribution to any particular stratum is given by the excavator, only the indication that it was found on the floor of the four-chambered gate; a similar fragment comes from a less well defined context in area E (Stern et al. 1991, 55; Stern 1993, 27; Waldbaum 1994, 58).

10. Tyre: Attic MG I skyphos, from stratum IX (Bikai 1978a, 66 pl. 22a, 2; Nitsche 1986/87, 23 fig. 5, 1). 11. Tyre: two Euboean SPG plates, from stratum IX (Bikai 1978a, 66 pl. 22a, 5. 6; Nitsche 1986/87, 22 fig. 11, 1). 12. Tyre: Euboean SPG II/III skyphos, from stratum IX (Bikai 1978a, 66 pl. 22a, 4; Nitsche 1986/87, 21 f. fig. 4, 1).

29. Tel Dor: Euboean MPG/LPG cup, from stratum 8c in area D2 (Stern 2000, pl. 9, 4; Gilboa – Sharon 2003, 69 f. fig. 11, 19).

13. Tyre: Euboean LPG/SPG krater or lebes, from stratum IX (Bikai 1978a, 66 pls. 22a, 14; 88, 6; Nitsche 1986/87, 24 fig. 6, 1; Coldstream – Bikai 1988, 40 pl. 12, 72–75).

30. Tel Dor: Euboean MPG krater (?), from stratum 8c in area D2 (Stern 2000, pl. 9, 4; Gilboa – Sharon 2003, 69 f.). 31. Tel Hadar: MPG/LPG lebes, from a phase IV context (Coldstream 1998, 357–359 figs. 1. 2 pl. 1; Fantalkin 2001, 118; Kopcke 2002, 112–114 figs. 1–4; Mazar 2004, 29 f.).

14. Tyre: Euboean LPG skyphos, from stratum IX (Bikai 1978a, 66 pl. 22a, 1; Nitsche 1986/87, 14; Coldstream – Bikai 1988, 39 pl. 11, 45). 15. Tyre: Euboean MPG/LPG amphora, from stratum IX; fragment apparently belonging to the same vessel as no. 20 (Bikai 1978a, 66 pl. 21, 7; Nitsche 1986/87, 12–14 fig. 1).

32. Tel Qiri: Euboean SG dinos, from stratum V/VI in area C (Ben-Tor – Portugali 1987, 110. 148. 203 figs. 23, 10; 44, 8 photo 50; Waldbaum 1994, 59).

169

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

BEN-TOR, A., Y. PORTUGALI, 1987, Tell Qiri. A Village in the Jezreel Valley. Report of the Archaeological Excavations 1975–1977, Qedem 24 (Jerusalem 1987).

Acknowledgements This paper benefited a great deal from contributions by many participants in the discussion at the Lisbon colloquium. Special thanks go to Albert Nijboer, for liberally sharing then unpublished data, to Ayelet Gilboa for clarifying doubts about some aspects of the Tel Dor stratigraphy, and to Colin Burgess, for bibliographical advice and for polishing my English. Any errors of course remain the sole responsibility of the author. Credit for the French translation of the abstract text goes to Renate Heckendorf.

BETTELLI, M., 1994, La cronologia della prima età del ferro laziale attraverso i dati delle sepolture, BSR 62, 1994, 1–66. BIKAI, P.M., 1978a, The Pottery of Tyre (Warminster 1978). BIKAI, P.M., 1978b, The Late Phoenician Pottery Complex and Chronology, BASOR 229, 1978, 47–56. BIKAI, P.M., 1988, Early Greek Pottery in Tyre and Cyprus. Some Preliminary Comparisons, RDAC 1988, fasc. 2, 35–44.

Illustration credits

BIRMINGHAM, J., 1963, The Chronology of some Early and Middle Iron Age Cypriot Sites, AJA 67, 1963, 15–42.

Fig. 9.1 a. b: adapted from Coldstream 2003, tab. 1. – Figs. 9.1 c. 9.2: by the author. – Fig. 9.3, 1–8: after González et al. 2006, figs. 17. 19. 21. 23. – Fig. 9.3, 9: after Gilboa – Sharon 2003, fig. 11, 19. – Fig. 9.3, 10–14: after Coldstream – Mazar 2003, figs. 2. 3. 5. 6 a. 7. – Fig. 9.4, 1–7: after Maaß-Lindemann 1995, fig. 1, 1–5. 7. 10. – Fig. 9.4, 8. 9: after Maaß-Lindemann 1990a, fig. 1. – Figs. 9.5–9.11: graphs generated with OxCal v3.9. – Fig. 9.12: by the author, based on Trachsel 2004, figs. 109. 156.

BOARDMAN, J., 1998, Early Greek Vase Painting. 11th– 6th centuries BC (London 1998). BOARETTO, E., T. JULL, A. GILBOA, I. SHARON, 2005, Dating the Iron Age I/II Transition in Israel. First Intercomparison Results, Radiocarbon 47, 2005, 39–55. BOTTO, M., 2005, Per una riconsiderazione della cronologia degli inizi della colonizzazione fenicia nel Mediterraneo centro-occidentale, in: G. Bartoloni, F. Delpino (eds.), Oriente e occidente. Metodi e discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana. Atti dell’incontro di studio, Roma 30–31 ottobre 2003 (Pisa 2005) 579–628.

References ÁLVAREZ, N., C. GÓMEZ, 2005, La ocupación fenicia. II. Cerámicas, in: M. Habibi, C. Aranegui (eds.), Lixus 2: Ladera sur. Excavaciones arqueológicas marroco-españolas en la colonia fenicia. Campañas 2000–2003, Saguntum Extra 6 (Valencia 2005) 161– 178.

BRANDHERM, D., 2006, Zur Datierung der ältesten griechischen und phönizischen Importkeramik auf der Iberischen Halbinsel. Bemerkungen zum Beginn der Eisenzeit in Südwesteuropa, MM 47, 2006, 1–23.

ARRUDA, A.M., 1999/2000, Los fenicios en Portugal, CuadAMediterranea 5/6, 1999/2000, 7–281.

BRANDHERM, D., forthcoming a, Vasos a debate. La cronología del Geométrico griego y las primeras colonizaciones en Occidente, in: S. Celestino, N. Rafel, X.-L. Armada (eds.), Contacto cultural entre el Mediterráneo y el Atlántico (siglos XII–VIII ANE). La precolonización a debate, forthcoming.

ARRUDA, A.M., 2005, Orientalizante e pós-orientalizante no Sudoeste peninsular. Geografias e cronologias, in: S. Celestino, J. Jiménez Ávila (eds.), El Periodo Orientalizante. Actas del III Simposio Internacional de Arqueología de Mérida. Protohistoria del Mediterráneo Occidental, Mérida 2003, Anejos AEspA 35 (Madrid 2005) 277–303.

BRANDHERM, D., forthcoming b, Erneut zur Datierung der ältesten griechischen und phönizischen Importkeramik auf der Iberischen Halbinsel, MM 49, forthcoming.

AUBET, M.E., 1994, Tiro y las colonias fenicias de Occidente 2(Barcelona 1994).

BRUINS, H.J., J. VAN DER PLICHT, A. MAZAR, 2003a, 14C Dates from Tel Rehov. Iron-Age Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings, Science 300, 2003, 315–318.

AUBET, M.E. (ed.), 2004, The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre-Al Bass. Excavations 1997–1999, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises, HorsSérie 1 (Beyrouth 2004).

BRUINS, H.J., J. VAN DER PLICHT, A. MAZAR, 2003b, Response to Comment on ‘14C Dates from Tel Rehov. Iron-Age Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings’, Science 302, 2003, 568.

AZNAR, C., J. BALENSI, M.D. HERRERA, 2005, Las excavaciones de Tell Abu Hawam en 1985–86 y la cronología de la expansión fenicia hacia Occidente, Gerión 23, 2005, 17–38.

BRUINS, H.J., J. VAN DER PLICHT, A. MAZAR, CH. BRONK RAMSEY, S.W. MANNING, 2005, The Groningen Radiocarbon Series from Tel Rehov.

BALENSI, J., 1985, Revising Tell Abu Hawam, BASOR 257, 1985, 65–74. 170

D. BRANDHERM: GREEK AND PHOENICIAN POTSHERDS BETWEEN EAST AND WEST: A CHRONOLOGICAL DILEMMA?

OxCal Bayesian Computations for the Iron IB-IIA Boundary and Iron IIA Destruction Events, in: T. Levy, T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005) 271–293.

Carthage and Toscanos, in: P. Cabrera Bonet (ed.), Ceràmiques jònies d’època arcaica, centres de producció i comercialització al Mediterrani occidental. Actes de la Taula Rodona celebrada a Empúries, els dies 26 al 28 de maig de 1999. Monografies Emporitanes 11 (Barcelona 2001) 63–88.

CARRILERO, M., P. AGUAYO, O. GARRIDO, B. PADIAL, 2002, Autóctonos y fenicios en la Andalucía mediterránea, in: B. Costa, J.H. Fernández Gómez (eds.), La colonización fenicia de Occidente. Estado de la investigación en los inicios del siglo XXI. XVI Jornadas de Arqueología Fenicio-Púnica, Eivissa 2001, Treballs del Museu Arqueologic d’Eivissa i Formentera 50 (Eivissa 2002) 69–125.

DOCTER, R.F., H.G. NIEMEYER, A.J. NIJBOER, J. VAN DER PLICHT, 2005, Radiocarbon Dates of Animal Bones in the Earliest Levels of Carthage, in: G. Bartoloni, F. Delpino (eds.), Oriente e occidente. Metodi e discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana. Atti dell’incontro di studio, Roma 30–31 ottobre 2003 (Pisa 2005) 557– 575.

CASTRO, P.V., 1994, La sociedad de los Campos de Urnas en el nordeste de la Península Ibérica. La necrópolis de El Calvari (El Molar, Piorat, Tarragona), BARIntSer 592 (Oxford 1994).

DOR 2005, An Account of the 23rd Season of Excavations, last update 06.10.2006, (04.11.2006). FANTALKIN, A., 2001, Low Chronology and Greek Protogeometric and Geometric Pottery in the Southern Levant, Levant 33, 2001, 117–125.

CASTRO, P.V., V. LULL, R. MICÓ, 1996, Cronología de la Prehistoria reciente de la Península Ibérica y Baleares (c. 2800–900 cal ANE), BARIntSer 652 (Oxford 1996).

FANTALKIN, A., 2006, Identity in the Making. Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Iron Age, in: A. Villing, U. Schlotzhauer (eds.), Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt. Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean, British Museum Research Publications 162 (London 2006) 199–208.

CLAIRMONT, C., 1955, Greek Pottery from the Near East, Berytus 11, 1955, 85–141. COLDSTREAM, N.J., 1968, Greek Geometric Pottery. A Survey of Ten Local Styles and Their Chronology (London 1968). COLDSTREAM, N.J., 1998, The First Exchanges Between Euboeans and Phoenicians. Who Took the Initiative?, in: S. Gitin, A. Mazar, E. Stern (eds.), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE (Jerusalem 1998) 353– 360.

FINKELSTEIN, I., 1990, On Archaeological Methods and Historical Considerations. Iron Age II Gezer and Samaria, BASOR 277/278, 1990, 109–119. FINKELSTEIN, I., 1996, The Archaeology of the United Monarchy. An Alternative View, Levant 28, 1996, 177–187.

COLDSTREAM, N.J., 2003, Some Aegean Reactions to the Chronological Debate in the Southern Levant, TelAvivJA 30, 2003, 247–258.

FINKELSTEIN, I., 1999, Hazor and the North in the Iron Age. A Low Chronology Perspective, BASOR 314, 1999, 55–70.

COLDSTREAM, N.J., P.M. BIKAI, 1988, Early Greek Pottery in Tyre and Cyprus. Some Preliminary Comparisons, RDAC 1988, fasc. 2, 35–44.

FINKELSTEIN, I., 2004, Tel Rehov and Iron Age Chronology, Levant 36, 2004, 181–188.

COLDSTREAM, N.J., A. MAZAR, 2003, Greek Pottery from Tel Rehov and Iron Age Chronology, IEJ 53, 2003, 29–48.

FINKELSTEIN, I., 2005a, A Low Chronology Update. Archaeology, History and Bible, in: T. Levy, T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005) 31–42.

DE MARINIS, R.C., 2005, Cronologia relativa, crossdating e datazioni cronometriche tra bronzo finale e primo ferro. Qualche spunto di riflessione metodo-lgica, in: G. Bartoloni, F. Delpino (eds.), Oriente e occidente. Metodi e discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana. Atti dell’incontro di studio, Roma 30–31 ottobre 2003 (Pisa 2005) 15–52.

FINKELSTEIN, I., 2005b, High or Low. Megiddo and Tel Rehov, in: T. Levy, T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005) 301–309. FINKELSTEIN, I., E. PIASETZKY, 2003a, Wrong and Right. High and Low. 14C-Dates from Tel Rehov and Iron Age Chronology, TelAvivJA 30, 2003, 283–295.

DELPINO, F., 2003, Datazioni problematiche. Considerazioni sulla cronologia delle fasi villanoviane, QuadA Etrusco-Italica 29, 2003, 9–35.

FINKELSTEIN, I., E. PIASETZKY, 2003b, Recent Radiocarbon Results and King Solomon, Antiquity 77, 2003, 773–777.

DESBOROUGH, V.R.d’A., 1952, Protogeometric Pottery (Oxford 1952).

FINKELSTEIN, I., E. PIASETZKY, 2003c, Comment on ‘14C Dates from Tel Rehov. Iron-Age Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings’, Science 302, 2003, 568.

DOCTER, R.F., 2001, East Greek Fine Wares and Transport Amphorae of the 8th–5th Century BC from

171

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

LANTING, J.N., A.T. AERTS-BIJMA, J. VAN DER PLICHT, 2001, Dating of Cremated Bones, Radiocarbon 43, 2001, 249–254.

FORSBERG, S., 1995, Near Eastern Destruction Datings as Sources for Greek and Near Eastern Iron Age Chronology. Archaeological and Historical Studies, the Cases of Samaria (722 B.C.) and Tarsus (696 B.C.), BoreasUpps 19 (Uppsala 1995).

LUKE, J., 2003, Ports of Trade. Al Mina and Geometric Greek Pottery in the Levant. BARIntSer 1100 (Oxford 2003).

FRANKLIN, N., 2005, Correlation and Chronology. Samaria and Megiddo Redux, in: T. Levy, T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005) 310– 322.

MAASS-LINDEMANN, G., 1990a, Orientalische Importe vom Morro de Mezquitilla, MM 31, 1990, 169–177. MAASS-LINDEMANN, G., 1990b, Die phönikische Keramik von Lixus im Vergleich mit südandalusischer Keramik, MM 31, 1990, 186–193.

FRANKLIN, N., 2006, Revealing Stratum V at Megiddo, BASOR 342, 2006, 95–111.

MAASS-LINDEMANN, G., 1995, Zur Gründungsphase der phönizischen Niederlassung auf dem Morro de Mezquitilla, MM 36, 1995, 241–245.

GILBOA, A., I. SHARON, 2001, Early Iron Age Radiometric Dates from Tel Dor. Preliminary Implications for Phoenicia and Beyond, Radiocarbon 43, 2001, 1343–1351.

MAASS-LINDEMANN, G., 1998, Die Zeitbestimmung der frühen phönikischen Kolonien des 8. Jhs. v. Chr. in Spanien, in: R. Rolle, K. Schmidt, R. Docter (eds.), Archäologische Studien in Kontaktzonen der antiken Welt. Festschrift Hans Georg Niemeyer (Göttingen 1998) 539–544.

GILBOA, A., I. SHARON, 2003, An Archaeological Contribution to the Early Iron Age Chronological Debate. Alternative Chronologies for Phoenicia and Their Effects on the Levant, Cyprus and Greece, BASOR 332, 2003, 7–80.

MAASS-LINDEMANN, G., 1999, La cerámica de las primeras fases de la colonización fenicia en España, in: A. González Prats (ed.), La cerámica fenicia en Occidente. Centros de producción y áreas de comercio. Actas del I Seminario Internacional sobre Temas Fenicios, Guardamar del Segura, 21–24 de noviembre de 1997 (Alicante 1999) 129–148.

GÓMEZ TOSCANO, F., J. BALENSI, 1999, La colección de vasos egeos de Tell Abu Hawam (Haïfa, Israel) y su relación con la cronología histórica de la expansión fenicia en Occidente, Huelva en su Historia 7, 1999, 43–70. GONZÁLEZ, DE CANALES CERISOLA F., L. SERRANO PICHARDO, J. LLOMPART GÓMEZ, 2004, El emporio fenicio precolonial de Huelva (ca. 900–770 a.C.) (Madrid 2004). GONZÁLEZ, SERRANO 2006, The Huelva ca. 29.

MANNING, S.W., B. KROMER, P.I. KUNIHOLM, M.W. NEWTON, 2001, Anatolian Tree Rings and a New Chronology for the East Mediterranean BronzeIron Ages, Science 294, 2001, 2532–2535.

DE CANALES CERISOLA F., L. PICHARDO, J. LLOMPART GÓMEZ, Pre-colonial Phoenician Emporium of 900–770 BC, BABesch 81, 2006, 13–

MAZAR, A., 1997, Iron Age Chronology. A Reply to I. Finkelstein, Levant 29, 1997, 157–167. MAZAR, A., 2004, Greek and Levantine Iron Age Chronology. A Rejoinder, IEJ 54, 2004, 24–36.

HANNESTAD, L., 1996, Absolute Chronology. Greece and the Near East c. 1000–500 BC, ActaArch 67, 1996, 39–49.

MAZAR, A., 2005, The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant. Its History, the Current Situation, and a Suggested Resolution, in: T. Levy, T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005) 15–30.

HERRERA, M.D., J. BALENSI, 1986, More about the Greek Geometric Pottery at Tell Abu Hawam, Levant 18, 1986, 169–171. KEARSLEY, R.A., 1986, The Redating of Tell Abu Hawam III and the Greek Pendant Semicircle Skyphos, BASOR 263, 1986, 85 f.

MAZAR, A., 2006, Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989– 1996, I. From the Late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period (Jerusalem 2006).

KENYON, K., 1964, Megiddo, Hazor, Samaria and Chronology, BALond 4, 1964, 143–156.

MAZAR, A., I. CARMI, 2001, Radiocarbon Dates from Iron Age Strata at Tel Beth Shean and Tel Rehov, Radiocarbon 43, 2001, 1333–1342.

KOCHAVI, M., 1998, The Eleventh Century BCE Tripartite Pillar Building at Tel Hadar, in: S. Gitin, A. Mazar, E. Stern (eds.), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE (Jerusalem 1998) 468–478.

MAZAR, A., H.J. BRUINS, N. PANITZ-COHEN, J. VAN DER PLICHT, 2005, Ladder of Time at Tel Rehov. Stratigraphy, Archaeological Context, Pottery and Radiocarbon Dates, in: T. Levy, T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005) 193–255.

KOPCKE, G., 2002, 1000 B.C.E.? 900 B.C.E.? A Greek Vase from Lake Galilee, in: E. Ehrenberg (ed.), Leaving No Stones Unturned. Essays on the Ancient Near East and Egypt in Honor of Donald P. Hansen (Winona Lake 2002) 109–117.

MEDEROS MARTÍN, A., 2005, La cronología fenicia. Entre el Mediterráneo Oriental y el Occidental, in: S.

172

D. BRANDHERM: GREEK AND PHOENICIAN POTSHERDS BETWEEN EAST AND WEST: A CHRONOLOGICAL DILEMMA?

Aegean Chronology. Towards the Resolution of Relative and Absolute Dating in the Mediterranean. Proceedings of the International Colloquium ‘Sardinian Stratigraphy and Mediterranean Chronology’, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, March 17– 19, 1995. Studies in Sardinian Archaeology 5 (Oxford 1998) 363–369.

Celestino, J. Jiménez Ávila (eds.), El Periodo Orientalizante. Actas del III Simposio Internacional de Arqueología de Mérida. Protohistoria del Mediterráneo Occidental, Mérida 2003, Anejos AEspA 35 (Madrid 2005) 305–346. MÜLLER, V., 2005, Eine kritische Darstellung der derzeitigen Diskussion zur historischen Chronologie Ägyptens in der 2. Hälfte des 2. Jt. v. Chr., in: Ü. Yalcin, C. Pulak, R. Slotta (eds.), Das Schiff von Uluburun. Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren (Bochum 2005) 193–210.

PIASETZKY, E., I. FINKELSTEIN, 2005, 14C Results from Megiddo, Tel Dor, Tel Rehov and Tel Hadar. Where Do They Lead Us?, in: T. Levy, T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005) 294–301.

NEWTON, M.W., K.A. WARDLE, P.I. KUNIHOLM, 2003, Dendrochronology and Radiocarbon Determinations from Assiros and the Beginning of the Greek Iron Age, AErgoMak 17, 2003, 173–190.

PINGEL, V., 2002, Sobre las muestras radiocarbónicas procedentes de los yacimientos fenicio-púnicos del tramo inferior del río Vélez junto a Torre del Mar (Prov. de Málaga), CuadAMediterranea 8, 2002, 245– 252.

NEWTON, M.W., K.A. WARDLE, P.I. KUNIHOLM, 2005, A Dendrochronological 14C Wiggle-Match for the Early Iron Age of North Greece. A Contribution to the Debate about this Period in the Southern Levant, in: T. Levy, T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005) 104–113.

PINGEL, V., 2006, Comentarios a las dataciones por radiocarbono del Morro de Mezquitilla (Málaga), in: H. Schubart, Morro de Mezquitilla. El asentamiento fenicio-púnico en la desembocadura del río Algarrobo, Anejos de la Revista Mainake 1 (Málaga 2006) 147– 151.

NIEMEYER, H.G., 1985, Cerámica griega en factorías fenicias. Un análisis de los materiales de la campaña de 1967 en Toscanos (Málaga), in: Ceràmiques gregues i helenístiques a la Península Ibèrica. Taula rodona amb motiu de 75è aniversari de les excavacions d’Empúries, Empúries 18–20 març 1983 (Barcelona 1985) 27–36.

RENFREW, C., 1973, Before Civilisation. The Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe (London 1973). RIDGWAY, D., 2004, Euboeans and Others Along the Tyrrhenian Seabord in the 8th Century BC, in: K. Lomas (ed.), Greek Identity in the Western Mediterranean. Papers in Honour of Brian Shefton (Leiden 2004) 15–33.

NIJBOER, A.J., 2002, Een debat over chronologieën, Tijdschrift voor Mediterrane Archeologie 26, 2002, 23–32.

RIIS, P.J., 1970, Sukas I. The North-East Sanctuary and the First Settling of Greeks in Syria and Palestine, Publications of the Carlsberg Expedition to Phoenicia 1 (København 1970).

NIJBOER, A.J., 2006, The Iron Age in the Mediterranean. A Chronological Mess or ‘Trade Before the Flag’, Part II, AncWestEast 4, fasc. 2, 2006, 255–277.

ROUILLARD, P., 1990, Phéniciens et Grecs a Toscanos. Note sur quelques vases d’inspiration gréco-géometrique de Toscanos, MM 31, 1990, 178–185.

NIJBOER, A.J., J. VAN DER PLICHT, 2006, An Interpretation of the Radiocarbon Determinations of the Oldest Indigenous-Phoenician Stratum Thus Far, Excavated at Huelva, Tartessos (South-West Spain), BABesch 81, 2006, 31–36.

SCHREIBER, N., 2003, The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 13 (Leiden 2003).

NIJBOER, A.J., J. VAN DER PLICHT, A.M. BIETTI SESTIERI, A. DE SANTIS, 1999/2000, A High Chronology for the Early Iron Age in Central Italy, Palaeohistoria 41/42, 1999/2000, 163–176.

SHARON, I., 2001, ‘Transition Dating’. A Heuristic Mathematical Approach to the Collation of Radiocarbon Dates from Stratified Sequences, Radiocarbon 43, 2001, 345–354.

NITSCHE, A., 1986/1987, Bemerkungen zu Chronologie und Herkunft der protogeometrischen und geometrischen Importkeramik von Tyros, HambBeitrA 13/14, 1986/1987, 7–49.

SHARON, I., A. GILBOA, E. BOARETTO, T. JULL, 2005, The Early Iron Age Dating Project. Introduction, Methodology, Progress Report and an Update on the Tel Dor Radiometric Dates, in: T. Levy, T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005) 65–92.

OLDE DUBBELINK, R.A., J. VAN DER PLICHT, 1990, Le capanne II e VI a Borgo Le Ferriere (Satricum) e le datazioni al Radiocarbonio, QuadA Etrusco-Italica 19, 1990, 234–237.

STERN, E., 1993, The Many Masters of Dor, Part 2. How Bad Was Ahab?, Biblical Archaeology Review 19, fasc. 2, 1993, 18–36.

PAPADOPOULOS, J.K., 2003, From Macedonia to Sardinia. Problems of Iron Age Aegean Chronology, and Assumptions of Greek Maritime Primacy, in: M.S. Balmuth, R.H. Tykot (eds.), Sardinian and

STERN, E., 2000, Dor Ruler of the Seas. Twelve Years of Excavations at the Israelite-Phoenician Harbor Town on the Carmel Coast (Jerusalem 2000).

173

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

STERN, E., J. BERG, I. SHARON, 1991, Tel Dor 1988– 1989. Preliminary Report, IEJ 41, 1991, 46–61.

VAN DER PLICHT, J., H.J. BRUINS, 2005, Quality Control of Groningen 14C Results from Tel Rehov. Repeatability and Intercomparison of Proportional Gas Counting and AMS, in: T. Levy, T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005) 256–270.

TORRES ORTIZ, M., 1998, La cronología absoluta europea y el inicio de la colonización fenicia en Occidente. Implicaciones cronológicas en Chipre y el Próximo Oriente, Complutum 9, 1998, 49–60.

WALDBAUM, J.C., 1994, Early Greek Contacts with the Southern Levant, ca. 1000–600 B.C. The Eastern Perspective, BASOR 293, 1994, 53–66.

TRACHSEL, M., 2004, Untersuchungen zur relativen und absoluten Chronologie der Hallstattzeit, Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 104 (Bonn 2004).

WARD, W.A., 1978, The Egyptian Objects, in: P.M. Bikai, The Pottery of Tyre (Warminster 1978) 83–87.

174

EDITORS’ POSTSCRIPT AND PROSPECTS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

With the editors taking clear positions in the chronological debate, we feel it would be unwise on our part, and probably quite presumptuous, to try and give a balanced overview of the discussion taking place in Lisbon. With sometimes widely diverging views regarding absolute chronology among participants, of course a general consensus could hardly be expected to emerge, and on a number of issues concerning the interpretation of data, indeed one only could agree to disagree.

millennium in Greece must be viewed as a major problem. While a lot of ink has been spilled on the relative chronology of Greek Geometric pottery, hardly any attempts have been made so far to anchor the resulting sequence to science-based dates from the very sites which have provided the cornerstones of relative chronology. The inherent limitations of radiocarbon dating notwithstanding, it is about time that this deficit be remedied.

A view expressed by various participants in the Lisbon colloquium concerned the problematic nature of the Levantine data which originally served as the foundation for the conventional absolute chronology of Greek Geometric pottery. Perhaps the closest thing to a consensus in this respect then was the conclusion that these data are seriously flawed and unsuitable for providing a sound foundation for absolute chronology, no matter if a lower or higher approach is preferred instead. No attempts from extra-Levantine viewpoints to defend the conventional model would be able to change this basic fact, and as a consequence, any attempt to use the conventional absolute chronology of Greek Geometric pottery to argue for a particular chronological model in the Levant amounts to nothing but a circular argument.

From the southern Levant, on the other hand, there now is a wealth of such data, but the degree of precision that can be attained with these data in terms of absolute chronology generally tends to be overestimated. More data from heartland Phoenicia would be needed that were not subject to the imponderabilities of tell stratigraphies, preferably from closed assemblages such as graves or other well-defined contexts. In any case, the inherent limitations of radiocarbon dating would remain, even though some useful lessons can certainly be learned from the discussion about Levantine radiocarbon evidence, most of all perhaps regarding the importance of comprehensive inter-laboratory comparisons as an integral part of project design. A co-ordinated Early Iron Age dating project for the Western and Central Mediterranean, similar in scope to the recent effort by our Israeli colleagues, would certainly be a good thing, and new data from Phoenician sites in the West would be an important part of any such project, as were the incorporation of a comprehensive inter-laboratory comparison exercise from its very beginning.

Still, some participants in the Lisbon colloquium for the sake of convention rather than anything else, as long as the interpretation of the respective radiocarbon data remains as controversial as it currently is, and as long as no single clear alternative can be agreed upon, for the time being rather would prefer to stick with the established framework.

Ideally, such a project should be based on samples from well-defined contexts only, and from a number of sites in different regions. In particular, acquiring additional radiocarbon data from early Carthage would be most desirable, and the same holds true for Huelva, where an excavation with proper wetland field-methods might still reveal the exact stratigraphic conditions of the lower levels at the Plaza de las Monjas.

Even if no general consensus on the interpretation of present data could be reached nor expected, some conclusions regarding further research did emerge from the discussion, and these shall briefly be summed up in the following. Some of these conclusions first and foremost regard relative chronology. So, concerning Greece and the Aegean, the chronological relationship of different regional pottery styles certainly deserves another close look. Also, with great effort during recent years having gone into a better understanding of the development of Phoenician pottery in the Levant, and at the same time a wealth of new material from sites in the Far West coming forward, now efforts similar to those in the Levant would be needed to better define the earliest horizons of Phoenician pottery in the West.

Even more important, however, would be the acquisition of samples that could be used to build reliable sequences based on the wiggle-matching approach, especially from Iberia, where sample quality with many of the data from earlier excavations remains rather unsatisfactory. Even in a best-case scenario, however, only radiocarbon determinations that fall in a few particularly steep sections of the calibration curve can reasonably be expected to provide a chronological resolution in the sub-century range. Wiggle matching of data from well-stratified samples in particular cases will go some way to resolve

Regarding absolute chronology, the almost complete lack of science-based chronological evidence for the early first

175

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

relationship between science-based chronologies and ancient texts, and no advances in scientific datingmethods will render a discussion of the underlying assumptions irrelevant. For these reasons, one thing recognized by all the participants in the Lisbon colloquium is the importance of continuing a broad discussion.

the respective problems, but other inherent difficulties of radiocarbon dating remain. So, quite apart from any efforts on the radiocarbon front, it would be highly desirable to resurrect the Iberian dendrochronology project of the nineteen-eighties, and to more seriously explore the potential of this method also with regard to peninsular Italy. In any case, it will be a long way until dendrochronological master sequences that provide the same kind of reliability as those from temperate Europe become available for any region in the Mediterranean. Thus, a better understanding of how relative chronologies in the Mediterranean link to dendrodated archaeological sequences in Central Europe is equally important.

The meeting in Lisbon then should be seen as a starting point and a stepping stone in a continuous attempt to bring together specialists from different fields in Mediterranean Iron Age archaeology to discuss chronological issues at a supra-regional scale. Some participants also suggested that for future meetings a workshop format should be adopted, and we readily recognize that such a format indeed might be better suited for the purposes of an ongoing discussion.

Even an ideal dendrochronological sequence, however, can not provide a cure-all for our problems in interpreting the processes leading to the formation of any particular stratigraphy – or of the archaeological record in general for that case. No increase in the quantity and quality of our data can make up for a lack of reflection on how science-based chronologies are used to construe the temporal dimension of material culture, or on the

Meanwhile, perhaps the most important thing to keep in mind for this discussion is that any results from fields outside one’s own particular field of specialist expertise should not be treated as received wisdom, but critically examined, while at the same time any argument should be approached with a maximum degree of open-mindedness. Dirk Brandherm, Martin Trachsel

176