Radiocarbon, Calibration, and the Chronology of the Late Minoan IB Phase

Journal of Archaeological Science (1999) 26, 159–171Article No. jasc.1998.0312, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Radiocarbon, Calibration, and the Chronology of the LateMinoan IB Phase

Rupert A. Housley

Department of Archaeology, The University, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland, U.K.

Sturt W. Manning

Department of Archaeology, University of Reading, Whiteknights, P.O. Box 218, Reading RG6 6AA, U.K.

Gerald Cadogan

Old Rectory, Culworth, Banbury OX17 2AT, U.K.

Richard E. Jones

Department of Archaeology, The University, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland, U.K.

Robert E. M. Hedges

Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Laboratory for Archaeology, 6 Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3QJ, U.K.

(Received 6 August 1997, revised manuscript accepted 6 May 1998)

The absolute chronology of the beginning of the Aegean Late Bronze Age has been a source of controversy, debate, andfrustration for a generation. We present a set of radiocarbon dates on short-lived samples produced by the OxfordRadiocarbon Laboratory from Late Minoan (LM) IB contexts on Crete collected in an attempt to resolve this problem.We argue that they provide important new evidence suggesting the close of the LM IB phase c. 1525–1490 . Thisprovides strong evidence for a revised, ‘‘high’’, chronology for the LM IB phase. ? 1999 Academic Press

Keywords: AEGEAN CHRONOLOGY, RADIOCARBON CALIBRATION, CRETE, CHANIA,MYRTOS-PYRGOS.

Introduction

T here has been considerable recent debate con-cerning the absolute dating of the Late Minoan(LM) I period in the Aegean. Of late, the debate

has hit an impasse on available data. The archaeologi-cal correlation data are scarce, debatable, or ambigu-ous, and the previous radiocarbon evidence has eitherproved unsatisfactory or ambiguous (since the shape ofthe radiocarbon calibration curve permits either a 17thcentury or mid-16th century date for LM IAdata). And, although there are impressively precisedates for various environmental records of past majorvolcanoes or likely volcanoes from ice-cores or tree-rings, none to date can be definitely related to the

1590305–4403/99/020159+13 $30.00/0

eruption of Thera, and so to LM I chronology (see,variously, Manning, 1996; Manning et al., 1994: 222–226; Warren, 1996; Buckland, Dugmore & Edwards,1997).

New approaches and data are required. The problemencountered by previous radiocarbon studies is that thehistory of past radiocarbon levels in the atmospheremeans that the radiocarbon age of the later 17thcentury is effectively identical to the radiocarbon ageof the mid-16th century . Radiocarbon determina-tions from LM IA contexts correlate with this ambi-guity. However, it should be possible to resolve thissingle case difficulty by acquiring suitable samples fromthe archaeological phases surrounding LM IA. Thehypothesis is that the simultaneous solution of multiple

? 1999 Academic Press

160 R. A. Housley et al.

parameters will provide a resolution for any single caseambiguity (Manning, 1992: 249). Furthermore, otherperiods of the radiocarbon calibration curve do nothave the same inherent ambiguities, and, moreover,given multiple parameters; the unique ‘‘wiggly’’ shape(comparable to a fingerprint through time) of the radio-carbon calibration curve in fact offers the prospect ofvery precise dating through ‘‘wiggle-matching’’.

Therefore, instead of trying to date LM IA inisolation, the approach was to bracket its age by seeingwhere the bordering LBA phases had to be. Sampleswere collected and dated from Middle Minoan (MM)III to LM IIIB contexts. Some sets of data are alreadypublished, namely LM IA data from Thera, and LM IIdata from Knossos (Housley et al., 1990). This publi-cation reports the radiocarbon dating of short-livedsamples from LM IB contexts at Chania and Myrtos-Pyrgos on Crete collected in order to try to establishthe chronology of the LM IB phase.

The Archaeological Contexts of the Samples
Chania, Crete
Four seed samples (OxA-2517 of peas, OxA-2518 ofbroad beans [Vicia faba], OxA-2646 of barley, andOxA-2647 of unidentified seed material), submitted in1989 by the excavators, Y. Tzedakis and E. Hallager,come from the Kastelli site in Chania. The seedscome from the LM IB destruction level at the site inexcavations in and near Ayia Aikaterini Square (for ageneral review of the LM I remains, see Driessen &Macdonald, 1997: 121–124). A fierce fire destroyed theexcavated LM I houses ending the LM IB phase at thesite. The peas (OxA-2517) were part of a 3kg deposit ina storage jar in storeroom E of House I (Hallager,1973: 444–445 — identified by the late A. Rode and byA. Sarpaki, although originally reported as grain; forcontext, see p. 447, fig. 7; Hallager & Tzedakis, 1988:31–32, figs 15–16). The barley (OxA-2646) and broadbeans (OxA-2518) come from the south part of room Cin House IV (Hallager & Tzedakis, 1988: 31, fig. 15).The indeterminate seeds (OxA-2647) come from thenorthwest corner of trench 24, which is where OdosKanevaro meets Ayia Aikaterini Square (Hallager,Vlasakis & Hallager, 1990: 25, fig. 1).

2

Myrtos-Pyrgos, CreteFour samples of burnt barley and bitter vetch(OxA-3187, 3188, 3189, and 3225), submitted by theexcavator, G. Cadogan, come from room 9 of thecountry house (‘‘villa’’) at Myrtos-Pyrgos. The build-ing was burnt down in the LM IB phase (Cadogan,1977–78; Driessen & Macdonald, 1997: 217–218). Thehulled six-row barley samples are from a large amountof grain found in (OxA-3187) and near (OxA-3188) apithos standing in the room (Cadogan & Harrison,1978: 238, fig. 2.V). The bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia)

was likewise in (OxA-3189) and around (OxA-3225)another pithos standing in the room (Cadogan &Harrison, 1978: 238, fig. 2.S). It is worth noting thatOxA-3225 was originally taken primarily as a soil,rather than seed, sample, and included soil and carbon-ized matter, and is the likely source of a geologicalsample with a possible Theran tephra shard (Cadogan& Harrison, 1978: 245–247, table 3: ENQ2491), cal-cium carbonate, and traces of quartz, chlorite, calciumsulphate, and fibres.

Thus, each of these sets of samples ought to offerradiocarbon ages approximately contemporary withthe close of the LM IB phase at the respective sites. Theceramic assemblage in the LM IB destruction in HouseI at Chania includes LM IB Alternating Style andMarine Style (Coldstream, 1978: 398; Tzedakis &Hallager, 1978: 42–43; Mountjoy, 1984: 170) and is atypical LM IB destruction assemblage (Hallager &Palsson, 1975: 92–93), while the last occupation of thecountry house at Myrtos-Pyrgos is also marked byLM IB Marine Style and a little Alternating Style(Cadogan, 1977–78; Cadogan, pers. comm.; Mountjoy,1984: 196). The contexts date to within the samecultural horizon or generation visible across Crete (seeBetancourt, 1985: 140–148; Driessen & Macdonald,1997).

The Method of Dating: I. ChemicalPre-treatmentThe samples were treated using the methods outlinedas standard for the Oxford Laboratory (Hedges et al.,1989). The reduced carbon compounds, i.e., thecharred seeds, were all treated the same way, the aimbeing to purify the samples by removing contaminantsrather than a specific extraction (Batten et al., 1986).The rigour with which contaminants could be removeddepended upon the extent to which the sample wastruly elemental carbon. Previous experience in theOxford Laboratory with the seeds from Akrotiri onThera, in particular the non-routine processing andanalysis associated with the series II dates (Housleyet al., 1990), suggested the preserved ‘‘seeds’’ may bechemically more akin to humic acid compounds thanto reduced elemental carbon. This presented a prob-lem, since there was the danger that the seeds woulddissolve if too strong a solution of alkali was used.Therefore, the procedure adopted was an initial washwith 1 HCl acid (to remove any carbonates), 0·1NaOH (to remove humics), and a final HCl wash toprevent incorporation of CO during drying.

The Method of Dating: II. TargetPreparation and Isotope MeasurementAfter pre-treatment, all samples were combusted toCO2. These samples were then measured on the systemintroduced at Oxford in September 1989, when the

Radiocarbon, Calibration, and the Chronology of the Late Minoan IB Phase 161

Oxford Accelerator Unit changed from using agraphite ion-source to a CO2 gas ion-source (Bronk &Hedges, 1989; Hedges et al., 1992). In addition,measurement of the ä13C value, and subsequent correc-tion, was introduced through the use of a stable isotopemass spectrometer linked to the combustion and gascollection system. Precision of the ä13C was of theorder of 0·5–1·0 per mil (at 1ó). Isotope detection andmeasurement routines, operational details, accuracy,date calculation and error handling procedures were asdetailed previously (Hedges et al., 1989). Based bothon internal, and published, comparisons of dates onmaterials of known age run over the relevant timeperiod, and participation in the various internationalinter-laboratory comparison exercises, the OxfordLaboratory considers the data described in this reportas accurate within the stated errors (we thank C. B.Ramsey for further discussion).

Table 1. Radiocarbon determinations from short-lived samples from the LM IB destruction levels at Chania, Crete,and Myrtos-Pyrgos, Crete

Lab no. Site Material ä13C Context 14C age &1ó

OxA-2517 Chania, TR10 peas "25·6 LM IB close 3380&80OxA-2518 Chania, TR17 broad beans "24·9 LM IB close 3340&80OxA-2646 Chania, TR17 barley "23·9 LM IB close 3315&70OxA-2647 Chania, TR24 indeterminate seed remains "25·1 LM IB close 3150&70OxA-3187 Myrtos-Pyrgos barley "22·2 LM IB close 3230&70OxA-3188 Myrtos-Pyrgos barley "26·5 LM IB close 3200&70OxA-3189 Myrtos-Pyrgos bitter vetch ("26)* LM IB close 3270&70OxA-3225 Myrtos-Pyrgos bitter vetch "23·6 LM IB close 3160&80

*Estimated value.

Results and CalibrationThe radiocarbon measurements are shown in Table 1and Figure 1. Calibration of all the short-lived sampleshas used the 1993 high-precision decadal calibra-tion curve (Stuiver & Becker, 1993). Of calibrationdata available to summer 1997 (i.e., until the 16thInternational Radiocarbon Conference, Groningen,and before the revised calibration data now expected inlate 1998), this ‘‘fine-resolution’’ curve is both the mostappropriate currently available calibration curve forthe dating of short-lived samples, and the mostappropriate data currently available for dating samplesfrom the Aegean region (Manning, 1998; Kuniholmet al., 1996; B. Kromer, pers. comm.). The data onsuch short-lived samples should offer ages approxi-mately contemporary with their cultural context (i.e.,find context—close of LM IB). The issue is the rela-tionship of the two sets of radiocarbon ages to thecalibration curve.

The combined calibrated calendar ranges of thesetwo sets of four determinations at 1ó (68·2%) confi-dence are: Chania, 1600–1490 (but with OxA-2647revealed statistically as an outlier with a poor agree-

ment statistic: the other three determinations offer aconsistent combined 1ó range of: 1690–1530 ), andMyrtos-Pyrgos, 1500–1430 (Ramsey, 1995). Animportant question at once apparent is: why are theChania determinations as a group earlier than thosefrom Myrtos-Pyrgos?

The Chania determinations are from a fierce firedestruction assigned to the end of LM IB at the site.The Myrtos-Pyrgos samples are also from a firedestruction in the LM IB phase, and this destructionagain marks the end of the LM IB phase at the site.Are these two events contemporary? Although a waveof approximately contemporary LM IB destructionsacross Crete has often been discussed (Page, 1970: 1–8;Betts, 1967; Warren & Hankey, 1989: 78–81; Driessen& Macdonald, 1997), there is, of course, no reason whythe events at Chania in west Crete and Myrtos-Pyrgosin southeast Crete need be exactly contemporary.Minor differences in assemblage compositions and sitehistories, and further research into the administrativeseals and sealing systems of LM I Crete, across thevarious LM IB destruction deposits (Niemeier, 1985:175–180; Weingarten, 1991; and see especially nowDriessen & Macdonald, 1997), and apparent differ-ences in archaeomagnetic ages between the LM IBdestructions in central and east Crete (Downey &Tarling, 1984; Tarling & Downey, 1990; Evans &Mareschal, 1988), all suggest that the LM IB destruc-tion horizon was a process over at least a few years,even a generation, rather than an instantaneous event.Indeed, the significantly differing radiocarbon evidencefrom Chania and Myrtos-Pyrgos is further positiveevidence.

On the other hand, the two contexts (close of LM IBat both sites, and part of the clear LM IB destructionhorizon across Crete) are very unlikely to be of signifi-cantly dissimilar age, i.e., different by more than a‘‘generation’’ at most. The material culture traits arevery similar. This view is evident from many years ofarchaeological analysis, and the clear correlations viaartefact assemblages for the end of the LM IB phaseacross Crete. To quote the most recent and exhaustiveexamination of the evidence: ‘‘The similarities between


1000 BC

Calibrated date

2500 BC

OxA-3225 3160 ± 80 BP

2000 BC 1500 BC

LMIB Destruction samples

OxA-3189 3270 ± 70 BP

OxA-3188 3200 ± 70 BP

OxA-3187 3230 ± 70 BP

OxA-2647 3150 ± 70 BP

OxA-2646 3315 ± 70 BP

OxA-2518 3340 ± 80 BP

OxA-2517 3380 ± 80 BP

Figure 1. Calibration plots for the radiocarbon determinations in Table 1. Data from the OxCal 2·18 computer program (Ramsey, 1995) andthe 1993 decadal calibration dataset UWTEN93·14C (Stuiver & Reimer, 1993 from Stuiver & Becker, 1993). The horizontal lines show therespective 1ó and 2ó calibrated ranges.

pottery assemblages of different sites with products bya single artist or the same workshops in differentdestruction deposits as well as identical sealings . . .

point to the more or less contemporary destruction ofquite a number of sites, meaning a maximum differenceof a single generation’’ (Driessen & Macdonald, 1997:


–1400

3500

3050–1700

Calendar age BC

Rad

ioca

rbon

age

BP

–1650

3150

3350

3300

3250

3200

3100

–1600 –1550 –1500 –1450

3450

3400

Zone of overlapbetween the Chania

and Pyrgos data

Figure 2. The relationship between the 1993 decadal calibration curve 1600–1400 and the sets of radiocarbon determinations on short-livedsamples from late LM IB at Chania and Myrtos-Pyrgos. The solid arrows are the average ages employing all the data; the hollow arrows showthe average age minus the possible outlier in each set (see text). Note: minus (") ages merely mean dates .

106). The respective contexts should thus not be morethan a few (i.e., one to three) decades apart at theextreme, according to all specialists of the period. Thematerials dated should themselves only contribute to afurther variation of a few years, since seeds and vetchare unlikely to have been stored for more than a fewyears (at most). Therefore, a variation in real calendarage between the respective contexts at Chania andMyrtos-Pyrgos of the order of a minimum of 0 years toa realistic extreme maximum of about 40 years may beproposed.

Thus, two relatively similarly dated contexts offersignificantly different radiocarbon ages. To quantifythis, in each case the four samples are said to comefrom a single fire destruction context at their respectivesites. The samples date the same real calendar horizonat each respective site (certainly within the decadalresolution available), and so may be combined toprovide the best estimate of the real radiocarbon ageof their respective contexts. There are two possibleexceptions, or questionable samples. Three of the fourdeterminations from Chania offer consistent ‘‘earlier’’ages. One determination (OxA-2647) is significantlylater. This itself is not a reason to exclude it from asmall data set, but, on examination, the context for thissample is revealed as less certain than the others, as itdid not derive from a clear, architecturally defined,context. This determination might be excluded. Theother sample which may be questioned is OxA-3225from Myrtos-Pyrgos. It stands out as a little youngerthan its three companions, and again some doubtmight be raised, in this case regarding sample integrity.(‘‘It is worth nothing that OxA-3225 was originallytaken primarily as a soil, rather than seed, sample, and

included soil and carbonized matter and is the likelysource of a geological sample with a possible Therantephra shard, calcium carbonate [emphasis added],and traces of quartz, chlorite, calcium sulphate, andfibres’’: see above.) This sample may therefore beexcluded since its strict relevance to the archaeologicaltarget event is not without question given apparentcontaminants.

The weighted average of the Chania set is 3287&37 (3342&43 with OxA-2647 excluded—clearly asignificant difference). The weighted average of theMyrtos-Pyrgos set is 3218&36 (3233&40 withOxA-3225 excluded—a small change, but potentiallysignificant) (Ward & Wilson, 1978). The respective 1ócalibrated ages are Chania: 1610–1490 (1690–1530 without OxA-2647), and Myrtos-Pyrgos: 1505–1430 (P=0·96), and 1420–1410 (P=0·04) (1525–1430 without OxA-3225) (Ramsey, 1995). If the two setsof determinations are to be brought close together interms of the calendar time scale (as must be assumedfrom the archaeological information), then the windowof opportunity lies within the range c. 1525–1490 —whether the respective sets of samples belong to thesame year, or are up to 1–3 decades apart in realcalendar terms. However, simply providing variousnumbers by themselves misses the point: the relation-ship of these dates to the calibration curve in graphicalterms. The appropriate relationships in the variousdata can then be seen and understood.

The Myrtos-Pyrgos data, either 3218&36 or3233&40 , are quite specific: 3218&36 wishes tocalibrate to c. 1489, 1478, or 1456 (see Figure 2),and 3233&40 is very similar, with intercepts at c.1492, 1470 and 1462 . Before this, the radiocarbon


curve takes off upwards away from 3218/3233 , andafterwards dips fairly decisively (data from Stuiver &Reimer, 1993). In contrast, the Chania age, 3287&37 (or 3342&43 ) is less specific. It clearly does notwant to date after c. 1495 , but could date toanywhere c. 1600–1500 (intercepts at 1595, and 1524). Similarly, 3342&43 is even more clearly apre-1495 age, with intercepts at 1678, 1674, 1609,1567 and 1563 . The 2ó (95·4%) calibrated rangeends at 1494/1490 (data from Stuiver & Reimer,1993). This analysis is repeated if one instead employsthe 1993 bi-decadal calibration curve (Pearson &Stuiver, 1993). Here, Pyrgos wishes to date to c. 1502,1479 or 1459 (overall 1ó calibrated range c. 1511–1445 ), and Chania wishes to date c. 1524 ,or earlier (overall 1ó calibrated range c. 1609–1552,1548–1516 ) (data from Stuiver & Reimer, 1993).

Thus, two sets of radiocarbon determinations whichought to date quite close to each other in calendarterms seem to be decisively separated in radiocarbonterms. Therefore, in order correctly to interpret this setof circumstances, it is necessary to select from thepossible calibrated ages for each of the sets ofdeterminations so as to obtain a plausible archaeo-logical (= calendar) result. In this case, it meanspreferring a date for Chania in the lower part ofits overall likely calibrated range, and a date forPyrgos in the upper part of its likely calibratedrange. This is the only way to combine the unique bodyof archaeological knowledge and radiocarbon datainto the correct solution. Given the Chania daterange, the lowest possible Myrtos-Pyrgos datings areimpossible—unless what appears to be an impossiblylong (e.g., c. 50+ years) gap is allowed between thetwo contexts.

Table 2. Combined calibrated calendar date ranges (1ó) for theChania and Myrtos-Pyrgos date sets (all eight data) with 10, 20, 30and 40 year gaps placed between the Chania and Myrtos-Pyrgos sets(Chania assumed to be older: see text). Data from Ramsey (1995)and the 1993 decadal calibration data set UWTEN93·14C (Stuiver &Reimer, 1993 from Stuiver & Becker, 1993)

Chania Myrtos-Pyrgos

10 year gap 1530–1490 (P=0·88) 1520–1480 (P=0·88)1470–1460 (P=0·12) 1460–1450 (P=0·12)

20 year gap 1532–1492 1512–1472 30 year gap 1534–1492 1504–1462 40 year gap 1539–1494 1499–1454

InterpretationTo consider possible strategies, if one simply takesthe eight determinations and tries to calibrate themtogether (as one set), then, employing the OxCal 2·18program (Ramsey, 1995) and 1993 decadal calibrationcurve (Stuiver & Becker, 1993), the result at 1ó is1525–1490 (P=0·73), or 1475–1455 (P=0·27).Thus, a date in or before 1490 is a 73% likelihood.If one further tries to fit all the dates to a single year,the best fit is 1497 with the 1993 decadal calibrationcurve modelled as a cubic spline through the datapoints (Weninger, 1993), or 1498 with the calibra-tion curve modelled via linear interpolation. This isconclusion (1).

However, OxA-2517 does not have an acceptableagreement statistic within this combined range, but,given that it is consistent with OxA-2518 and OxA-2646, it should not be regarded as aberrant. Moreover,as discussed above, both OxA-2647 and OxA-3225might be excluded from the analysis. The much morecoherent combined 1ó calibration of the data (six

determinations) without these two samples is: 1600–1490 . If a gap is permitted between the Chania andPyrgos contexts (here we ‘‘assume’’ that Chania is theolder, the odds in favour of this are 86·2% versus 13·8%from the Order Events function of Ramsey, 1995; seealso below for analysis of the high probability of thiscircumstance), the probability of an earlier date for theChania samples increases (and the previous smallambiguity is resolved as belonging with the lowerMyrtos-Pyrgos data): see Table 2. From this it is clearthat whatever the choice of gap for the feasible range of10–40 years, the Chania dates wish to date at the verylowest c. 1494–1490 (and would prefer somewherebetween c. 1539–1490 ), whilst the Myrtos-Pyrgosdata could either date around a potentially similarrange of c. 1520–1490 , but could also alternativelydate as late as c. 1470–1450 . Note further that theMyrtos-Pyrgos range c. 1500–1450 does not have aneven internal probability. As is clear in Figure 2, thesharp dip (wiggle downwards) in the calibration curveat 1485 is not a likely calibration location for theMyrtos-Pyrgos radiocarbon ages. They wish either todate before the dip (c. 1495–1490 ), or after it(c. 1475–1460 ).

What does this mean? This means that the end ofLM IB at Chania is before c. 1490 (somewhere inthe range c. 1539–1490 ), and the end of LM IB atMyrtos-Pyrgos is before either c. 1490 (also) orc. 1470–1450 . This is conclusion (2).

More or less the entire respective LM IB phases ateach site are before these dates. A further fact is to bestressed. The lowest data points from both the Chaniaand Myrtos-Pyrgos sets may be reasonably excluded(see above). If this is done, the probability of a slightlyearlier calibrated date would be further increased.Hence, the lowest chronological construction of thedata has been presented.

Alternatively, the two sets of determinations may beconsidered simultaneously, as a pair in graphical terms.On the basis of the discussion above, locations aresought where the two determinations are c. 0–40calendar years apart, and yet still on the calibrationcurve. In other words, the task is to archaeological


–300

4500

0–3000

Calendar date BC

AW

M f

it f

un

ctio

n v

alu

e

–1800

2000

4000

3500

3000

2500

1500

1000

500

–2700 –2400 –2100 –1500 –1200 –900 –600

AWM of seriated set of dates acrosscalibration curve. AWM by 1 year increments,but only 200 year "snapshots" shown here forsake of clarity.

Rad

ioca

rbon

age

BP

Figure 3. Schematic example of Archaeological Wiggle Matching of the Chania and Myrtos-Pyrgos date sets, with Chania assumed to be theolder, and a 35 calendar year interval placed between the two date sets. Note: minus (") ages merely mean dates . —— with 1ó error bars,decadal calibration curve; 0, Pyrgos; ,, Chania; ----, AWM fit function (a least squares fit function).

wiggle match (AWM) the two dates (Chania andMyrtos-Pyrgos) at intervals of 0–40 years to see whichworks best. But, when it comes to fitting the two datesat fixed intervals, it is necessary to know the seriationof the two sites. At present, archaeology does notprovide this, and, although the basic radiocarbonevidence suggests Chania is older (86% probability, seeabove), it is appropriate to explore both options. Toillustrate the process, Figure 3 shows a schematicexample of such explorative AWMs. In this example,the Chania destruction is assumed to be older than thatof Pyrgos, and the two dates have been best fitted witha 35 calendar year interval.

The ranges of the best fit AWMs for spacings of 0, 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50 years for theChania and Myrtos-Pyrgos dates are shown accordingto the two possible seriations in Figures 4 and 5. Thequality of the respective possible best fits for theabove spacings for these two seriations is then shownin Figure 6. From this, it can be seen that seriation(a), where the Chania destruction is assumed to beolder than the Myrtos-Pyrgos destruction, is far moresuccessful than seriation (b), where the Chaniadestruction is assumed to be the more recent, since thesums of the squares of the distances between the bestfits for each date and the calibration curve are sig-nificantly smaller (i.e., better) using the first (a) seri-ation. Therefore, it is probable that the Chaniadestruction occurred before that of Myrtos-Pyrgos (asin Figure 4).

With reference to Figure 4, all the potential seri-ations (assuming the possible calendar intervals

between the Chania and Pyrgos destructions are 0years minimum and 50 years maximum), and their bestfits seek to place the Chania and Myrtos-Pyrgos datesin about the same location (between c. 1530 and 1475). The best solution shown is with a c. 35 yearspacing, with Chania c. 1525 and Myrtos-Pyrgosc. 1490 . (Note: if OxA-2647 is excluded then theChania date becomes higher and would prefer anearlier fit, c. 1535 ; if OxA-3225 were excluded a datefor Myrtos-Pyrgos closer to c. 1500 would bepossible [or in fact one a little later on the slope up inthe calibration curve after 1485 ]). These AWM fitdates could each be moved a little up or down withinthe measurement errors (of the determinations, or thecalibration curve), but the basic possible range is fixed.This is conclusion (3).

An issue exists, however, with the Myrtos-Pyrgosdeterminations. Two previous determinations were runon essentially identical samples (P-2113, 3320&60 and P-2114, 3320&60 : Fishman & Lawn, 1978:213). These ages are earlier than the four Oxforddeterminations from Myrtos-Pyrgos, and very similarto the Oxford Chania determinations. One optionwould be simply to dismiss the Pennsylvania determi-nations; after all, they were run some time ago, theylack some modern pre-treatments (NaOH), ä13Ccorrection, and so on. However, the inclusion ofthese samples in fact helps bring the Chania andMyrtos-Pyrgos sets together (Myrtos-Pyrgos combinedaverage with the Pennsylvania data: 3261&27 ),offering a preferred date clearly in the later 16thcentury for both sites (the statistically acceptable


–1400

3550

3050–1700

Calendar age BC

Rad

ioca

rbon

age

BP

–1650

3150

3350

3250

–1600 –1550 –1500 –1450

3450

Figure 4. Range of the AWM best fits of the weighted averages from the Chania and Myrtos-Pyrgos data (assumption Chania older) to the1993 decadal calibration curve at 0, 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, and 50 year intervals. Many data points overlap and obscure each other.Note: minus (") ages merely mean dates . —— with 1ó error bars, 10 year calibration curve; ., Pyrgos; -, Chania.

–1400

3550

3050–1700

Calendar age BC

Rad

ioca

rbon

age

BP

–1650

3150

3350

3250

–1600 –1550 –1500 –1450

3450

Figure 5. Range of the AWM best fits of the weighted averages from the Chania and Myrtos-Pyrgos data (assumption Myrtos-Pyrgos older)to the 1993 decadal calibration curve at 0, 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, and 50 year intervals. Many data points overlap and obscure eachother. Note: minus (") ages merely mean dates . —— with 1ó error bars, 10 year calibration curve; ., Pyrgos; -, Chania.

variance within the six Myrtos-Pyrgos dates may beexplained as the result of the normal variation evidentwithin sets of radiocarbon dates on short-livedsamples). With the two Pennsylvania determinationsincluded, the combined calibration of all (now 10)Chania and Myrtos-Pyrgos data yields (1ó): 1600–1590 (P=0·11), 1530–1490 (P=0·89), clearly favouringa date for the end of LM IB c. 1530–1490 (Figures7 & 8). This is conclusion (4).

One potential concern which could be raised is therelevance of very short-term variations in atmosphericradiocarbon levels. Measurements on annual samplesdo show significant inter-annual variation—although itmust be stressed that ‘‘the scatter of the single-yeardata around the decade average trend is entirely com-patible with the scatter expected solely from the quotederrors in the single-year measurements’’. The decadalcalibration curve can ‘‘be used for radiocarbon ages of


50

10 000

10

Calendar intervals (0–50)

Su

m o

f sq

uar

es (

log

scal

e) 1000

100

10

10 20 30 40

(b) Chania more recentthan Pyrgos (Figure 5)

(a) Chania olderthan Pyrgos (Figure 4)

Figure 6. Comparison of the success of ‘‘fit’’ for the AWM analyses in Figures 4 and 5. Model (a) is Figure 4, with the assumption that Chaniais the older LM IB destruction. Model (b) is Figure 5, with the assumption that Myrtos-Pyrgos is the older LM IB destruction. The sum ofsquares value is the sum of the squares of the distances between the data and the calibration curve at each fit. The lower the sum of the squaresvalue, the better the quality of the fit. Thus option (a) (Figure 4) is much more likely.

single-year samples. The resulting dendro-ages areequally accurate as those obtained for samples cover-ing an entire decade’’. Use of a single-year calibrationcurve would merely widen, not change, the calibrationrange (quotes from Stuiver, 1982: 13; see also Stuiver,1993). Potential inter-annual variation of about 1–4‰(c. 8–32 radiocarbon years: cf. Levin et al., 1992) mightbe considered for samples from the same geographic/environmental area. Such factors may well lie behindthe variance already evident within the data sets. Whateffect might such potential extra variance have? If thepresent data were considered as potentially too low(and perhaps especially the two ‘‘low’’ measurementsin each set), and were raised, then all that wouldhappen is that a date pre-1490 would become evenmore likely. If the data were considered as potentially alittle too high (and the higher data lowered variouslyby 1–4‰) then a date by c. 1489 still remains a>78% likelihood for the Chania set even in the extremecase of a "32 radiocarbon year adjustment to each ofOxA-2517, 2518 and 2646 (with OxCal 2·18 and the1993 decadal calibration curve). Thus, no reasonablevariance in the data negates the basic case advancedabove. Moreover, the reasonable variance in thequoted data, and the inclusion in each set of whatseems to be a significant ‘‘low’’ outlier, more thanbiases the data towards a low chronological construc-tion. If there is any likely change to be allowed for, it isupwards. Hence, c. 1490 may be argued to representa minimum age for the close of LM IB (certainly atChania).

From conclusion (1) it is evident that two sets of endof LM IB radiocarbon determinations probably (73%likelihood) offer calendar ages within the range

c. 1525–1490 . From conclusion (4), adding thePennsylvania data, this becomes an 89% probabilityfor a calendar range c. 1530–1490 . From con-clusion (2) it is evident that if there is a gap then theChania dates wish to lie before 1490 and thatMyrtos-Pyrgos either lies c. 1520–1490 , or perhapsas late c. 1470–1450 . From conclusion (3) it isevident that two sets of end-of-LM IB determinationsoffer a preferred combined calendar age range c. 1525–1490 , with respective best fits, if no gap is allowedbetween the two sets, of c. 1498/97 , or, if a gap isallowed between the two sets, of Chania c. 1525 andMyrtos-Pyrgos c. 1490 . Only if a long calendar gapbetween the site contexts is considered likely (§30years) is a date for late LM IB at Myrtos-Pyrgosc. 1470–1450 possible given all the circumstances.But ‘‘possible’’ does not mean likely; such a fit mustemploy the latest possible and least probable calibra-tion of the Chania data. The most probable fit with along gap is earlier, c. 1525–1490 (above). The latedating choice for the Myrtos-Pyrgos date set is evenless likely if the Pennsylvania data are considered. And,a long gap of more than about 30 or so years, seemsunlikely given the available archaeological data and itsconventional interpretation (see above).

The picture is thus clear: an end date for the LM IBphase by, or before, c. 1525–1490 is most likely.

It must be stressed that this is a date for late, evenend LM IB. The whole of the LM IB period asrepresented at Chania and Myrtos-Pyrgos predatesc. 1525–1490 . How long is the LM IB ceramicphase? Radiocarbon data are not available on outerrings of construction timbers from the beginning of thephase to set a terminus post quem, nor are there


COMB Chania and Myrtos-Pyrgos

1000 BC

Calibrated date

COMB Chania and Myrtos-Pyrgos

2500 BC 2000 BC 1500 BC

P-2114 3320 ± 60 BP

P-2113 3320 ± 60 BP

OxA-3189 3270 ± 70 BP

OxA-3188 3200 ± 70 BP

OxA-3187 3230 ± 70 BP

OxA-2647 3150 ± 70 BP

OxA-2517 3380 ± 80 BP

COMB Chania and Myrtos-Pyrgos [N = 10 A = 68.6% (An = 22.4%)]

OxA-3225 3160 ± 80 BP

OxA-2646 3315 ± 70 BP

OxA-2518 3340 ± 80 BP

Figure 7. Individual and then (bottom) combined (see Figure 8) calibrated calendar age ranges for the set of eight radiocarbon determinationsfrom Chania and Myrtos-Pyrgos reported here (compare Figure 1) and the previous Pennsylvania determinations on two samples fromMyrtos-Pyrgos on material identical to that dated at Oxford. Data from the OxCal 2·18 computer program (Ramsey, 1995) and the 1993decadal calibration data set UWTEN93·14C (Stuiver & Reimer, 1993 from Stuiver & Becker, 1993). The horizontal lines show the respective1ó and 2ó calibrated ranges.


dendrochronological data. This necessitates resort toarchaeologically-based estimates for the length of thephase. In the past, a short duration has been sup-ported, and some recent scholarship has continued tohold this view. For example, Warren (1984; 1985)suggested a duration of just one or two generations,and Popham (1990) suggested a mere 25 years. How-ever, Furumark (1941) suggested a 50 year duration, asdid Cadogan (1978), and Warren & Hankey (1989:169) suggest about 55 years. Some other recent opinionhas suggested an even longer duration, to about acentury or so (Kemp & Merrillees, 1980: 250–267;Betancourt, 1987; Soles & Davaras, 1992: 438; Cline,1994: 7; Manning, 1995: 217, 221), and some supportfor at least a moderately long phase exists in thediscovery of phases of LM IB at Palaikastro, adding toexisting indications from Ayia Irini on Kea, Kastri onKythera, and Phylakopi on Melos, and elsewhere, of alonger overall phase with subphases (see MacGillivrayet al., 1991: 123–133; French, 1990–91: 74; Schofield,1984, 1985; Cummer & Schofield, 1984; Coldstream& Huxley, 1972; Coldstream, 1978; Renfrew, 1978;Manning, 1995: 221; Warren & Hankey, 1989: 79–80)(for a general review of the LMI period, see Driessen &Macdonald, 1997).

If 50 years is employed as a reasonable minimumlength, then the above radiocarbon determinationssupport a date for the start of the LM IB phase fromc. 1575–1540 . If the LM IB phase is considered to belonger than 50 years, then even higher start dates arerequired.

ConclusionIn a concise statement of the state of scholarship in1984, Warren (1984) wrote that the LM IA phrase is

‘‘conventionally dated 1550–1500 ’’, although headmitted a date for the beginning of the phase by 1600 was possible, and the LM IB phase ended c. 1450 (for details, see the earlier study of Hankey & Warren,1974). In their seminal work of 1989, Warren &Hankey date the LM IB phase to c. 1480–1425 (thissmall change is due to a revision in Egyptian chronol-ogy employed, rather than any re-assessment of ar-chaeological linkages; for standard current Egyptianchronology, see Kitchen, 1996), and the recent study ofDriessen & Macdonald (1997) retains this chronology.The dates in this paper are in direct conflict with thisconventional chronology. However, it may be immedi-ately observed that recent archaeological evidence, andanalysis, now suggests that the LM IB phase probablydid begin rather earlier, during the early 18th Dynastyin Egypt (Bourriau & Eriksson, in press; Rehak, 1997:400; Manning, 1995: 220–226), and that the succeedingLM II and probably even LM IIIA1 phases beganduring the reign of Tuthmosis III c. 1479–1425 (Barber, 1991: 348; 1993; Rehak & Younger, 1998:36–37; Rehak & Younger, 1998: 98–99, table 1;Manning, 1996: 22–24; Betancourt, 1998; Warren,1998). These new studies call for a ‘‘higher’’ LM IBto LM IIIA1 chronology than previously thought.The radiocarbon data and analysis presented herestrongly support the need for such revision. The LM IBphase must occupy the time span §1570/40 to1525/1490 . This conclusion in turn also has rel-evance for the dating of the preceding LM IA period,the controversy over the absolute date of the eruptionof Thera, and the interpretation of the relevantAegean-Egyptian artefact and style linkages.

The present study has demonstrated that modern,high-quality, radiocarbon dating on samples withspecific archaeological associations provide relevantand useful data which may go beyond, challenge,and refine chronological debates based in ceramic, andother material culture studies. The independent anddirect nature of radiocarbon dating offers an importantmeans to cut through the inherent ambiguities andrelatively broad approximations of chronologiesconstructed from ceramic and other stylistic sequences.

–1400

0.025

0.000

–1700Calendar date BC

Pro

babi

lity

per

yea

r

–1450

0.020

0.015

0.010

0.005

–1650 –1600 –1550 –1500

Figure 8. Combined calibrated calendar probability distribution forthe 10 Chania and Myrtos-Pyrgos determinations in Figure 7. Datafrom the OxCal 2·18 computer program (Ramsey, 1995) and the1993 decadal calibration data set UWTEN93·14C (Stuiver &Reimer, 1993 from Stuiver & Becker, 1993) (Round Ranges function‘‘on’’). One determination is inconsistent: OxA-2647. The overallagreement is still 68·6%. With OxA-2647 removed, agreement rises to88·7%, and the combined ranges are: 1ó 1600–1570 (P=0·36),1530–1490 (P=0·64), 2ó 1610–1490 (P=0·99), 1470–1460 (P=0·01), even more clearly supporting a date before 1490 . Note:minus (") ages merely mean dates .

Postscript Added in ProofThe new internationally recommended 1998 radiocar-bon calibration curve is about to be published inRadiocarbon 40 (1998) as the proofs of the above paperwere corrected. These data are available as a computerfile (INTCAL98.14C) from the Seattle RadiocarbonLaboratory. It is appropriate to observe here that thisnew data in fact add to the case advanced above for a‘‘high’’ date for the LM IB period. For example, withthe INTCAL98.14C data set the combined calibration(Ramsey, 1995, round ranges function ‘‘off ’’) of theeight data presented here (Table 1) as one set at 1óis 1598–1590 (P=0.10), 1578–1571 (P=0.08),


1526–1494 (P=0.60), or 1476–1459 (P=0.22).Thus the probability of a date before c.1490 hasrisen to 78% from the 73% in the text above from the1993 calibration data (see with reference to ‘‘conclu-sion (1) above’’). Further, OxA-2647, the aberrantlylow Chania determination, is statistically inconsistent.With this determination removed, the probability of acombined date range before 1490 rises even further.The combined calibration of all eight data presentedhere (Table 1) and the previous pair of Pennsylvaniadates (see Figures 7 & 8) becomes at 1ó 1600–1564 (P=0.72), or 1529–1518 (P=0.28), and at 2ó 1616–1497 . Again, OxA-2647 is inconsistent, and itsexclusion would only further favour the 16th century calibrated range. Finally, if a temporal gap isconsidered between the Chania and Myrtos-Pyrgosdate sets (see Table 2), then the INTCAL98.14C dataset again strongly favours a date range for the close ofthe LM IB phase even at the potentially later site ofMyrtos-Pyrgos by c.1490 , as the following revisionof Table 2 using the 1998 data shows.

OxA-2647 is again inconsistent, and its exclusionwould only favour earlier date ranges. Thus, in sum-mary, the case presented above based on the 1993calibration curves remains appropriate, and is if any-thing even stronger, with the new 1998 calibration datato be published in Radiocarbon 40 (1998).

Chania Myrtos-Pyrgos

10 year gap 1604–1600 (P=0·04) 1594–1590 (P=0·04)1535–1498 (P=0·89) 1525–1488 (P=0·89)1472–1464 (P=0.07) 1462–1454 (P=0.07)

20 year gap 1545–1508 (P=0.98) 1525–1488 (P=0.98)1501–1499 (P=0.02) 1481–1479 (P=0.02)

30 year gap 1551–1519 1521–1489 40 year gap 1560–1521 1520–1481

AcknowledgementsWe thank the Greek Archaeological Service, and theBritish School at Athens, for arranging the necessarypermits. We thank E. Hallager and Y. Tzedakis fortheir samples. The dates were made thanks to the workof A. R. T. Bryan, J. Foreman, M. J. Humm, P. Leach,C. Owen and C. B. Ramsey. The work was financiallysupported by a Research Grant to the Oxford Radio-carbon Accelerator Unit from the Science andEngineering Research Council. We thank BernhardWeninger for use of his computer program, and fordiscussion, and Chris Ramsey for discussion.

ReferencesBarber, E. J. W. (1991). Prehistoric Textiles. The Development of

Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special Reference to theAegean. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Barber, E. J. W. (1993). Late Bronze Age kilts and the reconstructionof Aegean textile connections. American Journal of Archaeology97, 350.

Batten, R. J., Gillespie, R., Gowlett, J. A. J. & Hedges, R. E. M.(1986). The AMS dating of separate fractions in archaeology.Radiocarbon 28, 698–701.

Betancourt, P. P. (1985). The History of Minoan Pottery. Princeton:Princeton University Press.

Betancourt, P. P. (1987). Dating the Aegean Late Bronze Age withradiocarbon. Archaeometry 29, 45–49.

Betancourt, P. P. (1998). The chronology of the Aegean Late BronzeAge: unanswered questions. In (M. S. Balmuth & R. H. Tykot,Eds) Sardinian and Aegean Chronology: Towards the Resolution ofRelative and Absolute Dating in the Mediterranean. Oxford: OxbowBooks, in press.

Betts, J. H. (1967). New light on Minoan bureaucracy: a re-examination of some Cretan sealings. Kadmos 6, 14–40.

Bourriau, J. & Eriksson, K. O. (in press). A Late Minoan sherd froman early 18th Dynasty context at Kom Rabica, Memphis. In (J.Phillips, Ed.) Ancient Egypt, the Aegean and the Near East. Studiesin honor of Martha R. Bell.

Bronk, C. R. & Hedges, R. E. M. (1989). Use of the CO2 source inradiocarbon dating by AMS. Radiocarbon 31, 298–304.

Buckland, P. C., Dugmore, A. J. & Edwards, K. J. (1997).Bronze Age myths? Volcanic activity and human responsein the Mediterranean and North Atlantic regions. Antiquity 71,581–593.

Cadogan, G. (1977–78). Pyrgos, Crete, 1970–77. ArchaeologicalReports 24, 70–84.

Cadogan, G. (1978). Dating the Aegean Bronze Age without radio-carbon. Archaeometry 20, 209–214.

Cadogan, G. & Harrison, R. K. (1978). Evidence of tephra in soilsamples from Pyrgos, Crete. In (C. Doumas, Ed.) Thera and theAegean World I. London: Thera and the Aegean World,pp. 235–255.

Cline, E. H. (1994). Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: International Tradeand the Late Bronze Age Aegean. BAR International Series 591.Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.

Coldstream, J. N. (1978). Kythera and the southern Peloponnese inthe LMI period. In (C. Doumas, Ed.) Thera and the Aegean WorldI. London: Thera and the Aegean World, pp.389–401.

Coldstream, J. N. & Huxley, G. L. (1972). Kythera. Excavations andStudies Conducted by the University of Pennsylvania Museum andthe British School at Athens. London: Faber and Faber.

Cummer, W. W. & Schofield, E. (1984). Keos. III. Ayia Irini: HouseA. Mainz: Phillip von Zabern.

Downey, W. S. & Tarling, D. H. (1984). Archaeomagnetic dating ofSantorini volcanic eruptions and fired destruction levels of LateMinoan civilization. Nature 309, 519–523.

Driessen, J. & Macdonald, C. F. (1997). The Troubled Island. MinoanCrete Before and After the Santorini Eruption. Aegaeum 17. Liege:Universite de Liege, Histoire de l’art et archeologie de la Greceantique.

Evans, M. E. & Mareschal, M. (1988). Secular variation andmagnetic dating of fired structures in Greece. In (R. M. Farquhar,R. G. V. Hancock & L. A. Pavlish, Eds) Proceedings of the 26thInternational Archaeometry Symposium held at University ofToronto, Toronto, Canada, May 16th to May 20th, 1988. Toronto:Archaeometry Laboratory, Department of Physics, University ofToronto, pp.75–79.

Fishman, B. & Lawn, B. (1978). University of Pennsylvania radio-carbon dates XX. Radiocarbon 20, 210–233.

French, E. (1990–91). Archaeology in Greece 1990–91. Archaeologi-cal Reports 37, 3–78.

Furumark, A. (1941). The Chronology of Mycenaean Pottery.Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien(Reprinted in 1972 as Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet iAthen, 4), 20·2).

Hallager, E. (1973). Minoan Kydonia, excavations 1973. AthensAnnals of Archaeology 6, 439–448.


Hallager, E. & Palsson, B. (1975). A further fragment of Linear Afrom the Greek-Swedish excavations at Kastelli, Khania. AthensAnnals of Archaeology 8, 91–93.

Hallager, E. & Tzedakis, Y. (1988). The Greek-Swedish excavationsat Kastelli, Khania. I. The 1989 excavation. II. The 1990 excava-tion. Athens Annals of Archaeology 21, 15–55.

Hallager, E., Vlasakis, M. & Hallager, B. P. (1990). The first LinearB tablet(s) from Khania. Kadmos 29, 24–34.

Hankey, V. & Warren, P. (1974). The absolute chronology of theAegean Late Bronze Age. Bulletin of the Institute of ClassicalStudies 21, 142–152.

Hedges, R. E. M., Law, I. A., Bronk, C. R. & Housley, R. A. (1989).The Oxford accelerator mass spectrometry facility: technicaldevelopments in routine dating. Archaeometry 31, 99–113.

Hedges, R. E. M., Humm, M. J., Foreman, J., van Klinken, G. J. &Bronk, C.R. (1992). Developments in sample combustion tocarbon dioxide, and in the Oxford AMS carbon dioxide ion-sourcesystem. Radiocarbon 34, 306–311.

Housley, R. A., Hedges, R. E. M., Law, I. A. & Bronk, C. R. (1990).Radiocarbon dating by AMS of the destruction of Akrotiri. In(D. A. Hardy & A. C. Renfrew, Eds) Thera and the Aegean WorldIII. Volume Three: Chronology. London: The Thera Foundation,pp. 207–215.

Kemp, B. J. & Merrillees, R. S. (1980). Minoan Pottery in SecondMillennium Egypt. Mainz am Rhein: Phillip von Zabern.

Kitchen, K. A. (1996). The historical chronology of ancient Egypt. Acurrent assessment. Acta Archaeologica 67, 1–13.

Kuniholm, P. I., Kromer, B., Manning, S. W., Newton, M., Latini,C. E. & Bruce, M. J. (1996). Anatolian tree-rings and the absolutechronology of the east Mediterranean 2220–718 . Nature 381,780–783.

Levin, I., Bosinger, R., Bonani, G., Francey, R. J., Kromer, B.,Munnich, K. O., Suter, M., Trivett, N. B. A. & Wolfli, W. (1992)Radiocarbon in atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane: globaldistribution and trends. In (R. E. Taylor, A. Long & R. S. Kra,Eds) Radiocarbon After Four Decades: An InterdisciplinaryPerspective. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp.503–518.

MacGillivray, J. A., Sackett, L. H., Driessen, J. M., Farnoux, A. &Smyth, D. (1991). Excavations at Palaikastro, 1990. Annual of theBritish School at Athens 86, 121–147.

Manning, S. W. (1992). Thera, sulphur, and climatic anomalies.Oxford Journal of Archaeology 11, 245–253.

Manning, S. W. (1995). The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean EarlyBronze Age: Archaeology, History and Radiocarbon. Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press.

Manning, S. W. (1996). Dating the Aegean Bronze Age: without,with, and beyond, radiocarbon. Acta Archaeologica 67, 15–37.

Manning, S. W. (1998). Aegean and Sardinian chronology: radio-carbon, calibration, and Thera. In (M. S. Balmuth & R. H. Tykot,Eds) Sardinian and Aegean chronology: Towards the Resolution ofRelative and Absolute Dating in the Mediterranean. Oxford: OxbowBooks (in press).

Manning, S. W., Monks, S. J., Nakou, G. & De Mita, F. A. Jr.(1994). The fatal shore, the long years and the geographicalunconscious. Considerations of iconography, chronology, andtrade in response to Negbi’s ‘‘The ‘Libyan Landscape’ from Thera:a review of Aegean enterprises overseas in the Late Minoan IAperiod’’ (JMA 7·1). Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 7,219–235.

Mountjoy, P. A. (1984). The Marine style pottery of LMIB/LHIIA:towards a corpus. Annual of the British School at Athens 79,161–219.

Niemeier, W.-D. (1985). Die Palaststilkeramik von Knossos: Stil,Chronologie und Historischer Kontext. Berlin: Mann.

Page, D. L. (1970). The Santorini Volcano and the Desolation ofMinoan Crete. London: Society for the Promotion of HellenicStudies.

Pearson, G. W. & Stuiver, M. (1993). High-precision bidecadalcalibration of the radiocarbon time scale, 500–2500 . Radio-carbon 35, 25–34.

Popham, M. R. (1990). Pottery styles and chronology. In (D. A.Hardy & A. C. Renfrew Eds) Thera and the Aegean World III.Volume Three: Chronology. London: The Thera Foundation,pp.27–28.

Ramsey, C. B. (1995). Radiocarbon calibration and analysis ofstratigraphy: the OxCal program. Radiocarbon 37, 425–430.

Rehak, P. (1996). Aegean breechcloths, kilts, and the Keftiupaintings. American Journal of Archaeology 100, 35–51.

Rehak, P. (1997). Interconnections between the Aegean andthe Orient in the second millennium B.C. American Journal ofArchaeology 101, 399–402.

Rehak, P. & Younger, J. G. (1998). Review of Aegean PrehistoryVII: Neopalatial, Final Palatial, and Postpalatial Crete. AmericanJournal of Archaeology 102, 91–173.

Renfrew, C. (1978). Phylakopi and the Late Bronze I period in theCyclades. In (C. Doumas, Ed.) Thera and the Aegean World I.London: Thera and the Aegean World, pp. 403–421.

Schofield, E. (1984). Destruction deposits of the earlier Late BronzeAge from Ayia Irini, Kea. In (J. A. MacGillivray & R. L. N.Barber, Eds) The Prehistoric Cyclades. Edinburgh: Department ofClassical Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, pp.179–183.

Schofield, E. (1985). Ayia Irini, Keos, in Late Cycladic II. Bulletin ofthe Institute of Classical Studies 32, 155.

Soles, J. S. & Davaras, C. (1992) Excavations at Mochlos, 1989.Hesperia 61, 413–445.

Stuiver, M. (1982). A high-precision calibration of the AD radio-carbon time scale. Radiocarbon 24, 1–26.

Stuiver, M. (1993). A note on single-year calibration of the radio-carbon time scale, AD 1510–1954. Radiocarbon 35, 67–72.

Stuiver, M. & Becker, B. (1993). High-precision decadal calibrationof the radiocarbon time scale, AD 1950–6000 . Radiocarbon 35,35–65.

Stuiver, M. & Reimer, P. J. (1993). Extended 14C data base andrevised Calib 3·0 14C age calibration program. Radiocarbon 35,215–230 (version 3·03 employed).

Tarling, D. H. & Downey, W. S. (1990). Archaeomagnetic resultsfrom Late Minoan destruction levels on Crete and the ‘‘Minoan’’tephra on Thera. In (D. A. Hardy & A. C. Renfrew, Eds) Theraand the Aegean World III. Volume Three: Chronology. London:The Thera Foundation, pp.146–159.

Tzedakis, Y. & Hallager, E. (1978). The Greek-Swedish excavationsat Kastelli Chania 1976 and 1977. Athens Annals of Archaeology11, 31–46.

Ward, G. K. & Wilson, S. R. (1978). Procedures for comparingand combining radiocarbon age determinations: a critique.Archaeometry 20, 19–31.

Warren, P. (1984). Absolute dating of the Bronze Age eruption ofThera (Santorini). Nature 308, 492–493.

Warren, P. (1985). Minoan pottery from Egyptian sites. ClassicalReview 35, 147–151.

Warren, P. (1996). The Aegean and the limits of radiocarbon dating.Acta Archaeologica 67, 283–290.

Warren, P. (1998). Aegean Late Bronze 1–2 absolute chronology —some new contributions. In (M.S. Balmuth & R.H. Tykot, Eds)Sardinian and Aegean Chronology. Towards the Resolution ofRelative and Absolute Dating in the Mediterranean. Oxford: OxbowBooks (in press).

Warren, P. & Hankey, V. (1989). Aegean Bronze Age Chronology.Bristol: Bristol Classical Press.

Weingarten, J. (1991). Late Bronze Age trade within Crete: theevidence of seals and sealings. In (N.H. Gale, Ed.) Bronze AgeTrade in the Mediterranean. Papers Presented at the Conferenceheld at Rewley House, Oxford, in December 1989. Jonsered: PaulAr stroms Forlag, pp.303–324.

Weninger, B. (1993). calKN.EXE. Kalibration bis ca. 18000 calBC.Computer calibration programme (1995 version).

Radiocarbon, Calibration, and the Chronology of the Late Minoan IB Phase

Documents

Transcript of Radiocarbon, Calibration, and the Chronology of the Late Minoan IB Phase