Troy VIIB2 Revisited. The date of the transition from Bronze to Iron Age in the Northern Aegean K.A....

THE STRUMA/STRYMON RIVER VALLEY

IN PREHISTORY

In The Steps of James Harvey GaulVolume 2

The Struma/Strymon River Valley in PrehistoryProceedings of the International Symposium „Strymon Praehistoricus“,Kjustendil–Blagoevgrad–Serres–Amphipolis, 27.09–01.10.2004Editing: Henrieta Todorova, Mark Stefanovich and Georgi Ivanov1. Prehistoric–Europe; 2. Neolithic period–Europe; 3 Europe–Antiquities. 544 pp., 29 maps, 9 topograchical plans, 779 color photos, 81 b/w photos,815 drawings, 58 tabl., 32 diagrams and simplified graphs, 10 reconstructions drawing of houses.

Museum of History-KyustendilISBN: 978-954-8191-11-1

Sofia (2007) First published

Gerda Henkel Stiftung

GERDA HENKEL STIFTUNGMALKASTENSTRASSE 15, D-40211 DÜSSELDORF, GERMANYTELEFON +49 (0)211 35 98 53, TELEFAX +49 (0)211 35 71 [email protected] WWW.GERDA-HENKEL-STIFTUNG.DE

Copyright © 2007 by GERDA HENKEL STIFTUNG and THE AUTHORS ISBN: 978-954-8191-11-1

No part of this publication may by reproduced by any means, including photocopy, recording or other information storage retrieval system, without permission in writing from GERDA HENKEL STIFTUNG and THE AUTHORS. The copyright to the illustrations are hold by the authors.

Printed in Bulgaria at BULGED. Digital print. The technology of Indigo.

English texts edited by: MARK STEFANOVICHDrawings and Maps by: IVAN VAJSOV, MICHAIL GEORGIEV AND AUTHORS ©Photographs: KRASIMIR GEORGIEV AND AUTORS ©Graphic desing, layout and artistic supervisions: GEORGI IVANOV (pages I–X; 1–41; 121–534) AND IVAN VAJSOV (pages 42–120) ©Cover graphic desing by: GEORGI IVANOV AND IVAN VAJSOV ©Cover photographs by: KRASIMIR GEORGIEV, GEOGRI IVANOV AND CHAIDO KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI ©

Sofi a 2007

Proceedings of the Internat ional Symposium

Strymon Praehistoricus

Kjustendil–Blagoevgrad

(Bulgaria)

Serres–Amphipolis

(Greece)

27.09–01.10.2004

Edited by

Henrieta Todorova, Mark Stefanovich, Georgi Ivanov

THE STRUMA/STRYMON RIVER VALLEY IN PREHISTORY

Gerda Henkel Stiftung

Table of Contents

Vorwort ........................................................................................................................................................... vii

Die paleoklimatische Entwicklung in VII–I Jt. vor Chr.H. Todorova ..................................................................................................................................................... 1

Abrupt Climate Forcing Observed at Early Neolithic Sites in South-East Europe and the Near EastB. Weninger, E. Alram-Stern, E. Bauer, L. Clare, U. Danzeglocke, O. Jöris, C. Kubatzki, G. Rollefson, H. Todorova, T. van Andel .................................................................... 7

Social Network Analysis of Neolithic SocietiesE. Claßen ........................................................................................................................................................ 28

Promachon-Topolnica. A greek-bulgarian archaeological projectCh. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, H. Todorova, I. Aslanis, I. Vajsov, M. Valla ................................................. 43

Promachon-Topolnica. A typology of painted decorations and its use as a chronological markerI. Vajsov .......................................................................................................................................................... 79

Tierdarstellungen und „Stierkult“ im Neolithikum Südosteuropas und AnatoliensF. Falkenstein ................................................................................................................................................121

Where Do Children Belong? Neolithic burials in western BulgariaK. Băčvarov ...................................................................................................................................................139

Нови сведения за ранния неолит в Северозападна БългарияГ. Ганецовски ...............................................................................................................................................147

Die Entstehung und Gliederung der neolithischen Kulturen auf dem Zentralbalkan: Fallbeispiel GălăbnikJ. Pavúk ........................................................................................................................................................ 165

Tell Gălăbnik. Architecture and Site PlanningA. Bakamska ..................................................................................................................................................177

Крайници – раннокерамично селище от басейна на река СтрумаС. Чохаджиев, А. Бакъмска Л. Нинов .....................................................................................................181

The Early Neolithic Site at Piperkov Čiflik, Near Kjustendil (Season 2004)V. Vandova ....................................................................................................................................................191

Proto-Starčevo Culture and Early Neolithic in the Struma ValleyM. Bogdanović ..............................................................................................................................................201

La périodisation des sites préhistoriques dans la vallée de la Strouma moyenneL. Perničeva .................................................................................................................................................. 209

Das Frühchalkolithikum des StrymonbereichsS. Čochadžiev ............................................................................................................................................... 223

Some Observations on Zoomorphic Images from Western BulgariaS. Terzijska–Ignatova ................................................................................................................................... 227

Prehistoric Settlements in the Province of KjustendilV. Genadieva ................................................................................................................................................ 239

Recent Researches at the Neolithic Settlement of Dikili Tash, Eastern Macedonia, Greece: an OverviewP. Darcque, H. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, D. Malamidou, R. Treuil, Z. Tsirtsoni ......................................247

Neolithic Societies: Recent Evidence from Northern GreeceM. Pappa .......................................................................................................................................................257

In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Linguistische Angaben über die Namen der Flüsse Axios, Strymon, NestosI. Duridanov † ............................................................................................................................................. 273

Prehistorical Sites in the Middle Struma River Valley Between the End of the VIIth mill. BC and the Beginning of the Ist mill. BCM. Grębska-Kulowa, I. Kulow ..................................................................................................................... 279

Kryoneri: a Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Settlement in the Lower Strymon ValleyD. Malamidou .............................................................................................................................................. 297

Absolute Chronology of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Cultures in the Valley of StrumaJ. Bojadžiev ................................................................................................................................................... 309

Decline of the Painted Pottery in Eastern Macedonia and North Aegean at the End of the Final Neolithic/Chalcolithic PeriodS. Papadopoulos ............................................................................................................................................317

On the Late Stages of the Krivodol-Sălcuţa CultureP. Georgieva ................................................................................................................................................. 329

The Ethno-Cultural Affiliation of the North Anatolian Early Bronze AgeJ. Yakar ......................................................................................................................................................... 339

Dating the Donja Brnjica Culture Based on Metal FindsK. Luci .......................................................................................................................................................... 347

A Late Bronze Age Cemetery in Faia Petra, East of the Middle Strymon Valley M. Valla ........................................................................................................................................................ 359

The Late Bronze Age Necropolis in the Тown of Sandanski, Southwest BulgariaS. Alexandrov, V. Petkov, G. Ivanov .............................................................................................................373

Krsto Pokrovnik Excavations at a Late Bronze Age Site in the Middle Struma River Valley, Southwest Bulgaria. Preliminary results – 2004 seasonM. Stefanovich, I. Kulov .............................................................................................................................. 389

Tradition and Innovation in the Bronze Age Pottery of the Thessaloniki Toumba.Food and drink consumption and “tableware” ceramicsS. Andreou, K. Psaraki ................................................................................................................................ 397

Bronzezeitliche Goldornate aus Süddeutschland und ihre donauländisch-balkanischen BeziehungenW. David ....................................................................................................................................................... 421

The Beginning of the Iron Age in Macedonia D. Mitrevski .................................................................................................................................................. 443

Assiros Toumba. A brief history of the settlementK.A. Wardle, D. Wardle. ...............................................................................................................................451

Troy VIIB2 Revisited. The date of the transition from Bronze to Iron Age in the Northern AegeanK.A. Wardle, M. Newton, P.I. Kuniholm .....................................................................................................481

Palaeobotanical Data in South-Western Region of BulgariaTz. Popova, E. Marinova .............................................................................................................................. 499

Промахон-Тополница. Компаративно изследване на дивите и домашни животни от сектор ТополницаН. Илиев, Н. Спасов .................................................................................................................................. 509

Agriculture and Use of Space at Promachon/Topolnica. Preliminary observations on the archaeobotanical materialS.M. Valamoti ............................................................................................................................................... 523

Palaeoecological Evidence of the Main Postglacial Vegetation and Climate Changes in Southwestern Bulgaria from the Neolithic to Modern TimesE. Božilova, S. Tonkov ..................................................................................................................................531

The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

Участниците в конференцията пред Археологическия музей на Серес, 1 октомври 2004 г.Οι συμμετέχοντες στο συνέδριο μπροστά από το Αρχαιολογικό μουσείο στις Σέρρες, 1 Οκτωβρίου 2004.The participants of the conference in front of the Archaeological Museum of Serres, 1st of October 2004.

Henrieta Todorova [email protected] Weninger [email protected] Claßen [email protected] Koukouli-Chryssanthaki [email protected] Aslanis [email protected] Vajsov [email protected] Falkanstein [email protected] Bačvarov [email protected] Ganetzovski [email protected] Pavuk [email protected]

Aneta Bakamska [email protected] Čochadžiev [email protected] Vandova [email protected] Liljana Perničeva [email protected] Terzijska–Ignatova [email protected] Genadieva [email protected] Darcque [email protected]é Treuil [email protected]ï Tsirtsoni [email protected] Papa [email protected] Grębska-Kulowa [email protected] Kulow [email protected] Malamidou [email protected] Bojadžiev [email protected]

Stratis Papadopoulos [email protected] Georgieva [email protected] Yakar [email protected] Luci [email protected] Valla [email protected] Alexandrov [email protected] Ivanov [email protected] Stefanovich [email protected] Andreou [email protected] David [email protected] Mitrevski [email protected] Ken Wardle [email protected] Wardle [email protected] Newton [email protected]. Kuniholm [email protected] Popova [email protected] Spasov [email protected] Božilova [email protected] Tonkov [email protected] Maria Valamoti [email protected] Nasteva [email protected] Petar Zidarov [email protected] Gaydarska [email protected] Debochichki [email protected]

vi


Troy VIIb2 Revisited The date of the transition from Bronze

to Iron Age in the Northern Aegean

K.A. Wardle, M. Newton, P.I. Kuniholm

The regions around the northern edge of the Aegean have long been recognised as the interface between cultural influences from Southern Greece and those from SE Europe at the end of the Bronze Age. The nature of these influ-ences and the relative date of that from each direction is only now becoming clear as the results of new excavations and research in each region, from Central Macedonia to the Troad, illuminate the character and sequence of the native cultures. Older views that the Iron Age of Macedonia, for example, was heralded by large-scale migrations from the Balkans, have given way to more moderate analyses of mutual exchange and influence. In this paper we have set out first the evidence for the relative dates of the two culture sequences at this transitional period (part I) and then new evidence for their absolute date (part II).

The relative dates of the Aegean and Balkan sequences at this time have long depended on key stratigraphic cor-relations between pottery of Mycenaean style but „provincial“ manufacture and new pottery styles with Balkan asso-ciations – channelled ware in Macedonia and Buckelkeramik at Troy. This correlation suggested that the Iron Age in Macedonia started before the end of the Mycenaean period and that the Balkan elements, represented by the Buckelk-eramik at Troy, also predated the end of that period. New evidence from Assiros and Toumba Thessalonikis in Central Macedonia and a reassessment of that from Troy VIIb2 indicates that this correlation is mistaken and that these Iron Age characteristics first appear after the end of the Mycenaean period.

The absolute date of the arrival of these new wares has traditionally been related to the date of the Mycenaean LH IIIC pottery thought to be associated with them and placed in the twelfth century BC. The new correlation would, on the basis of the currently accepted absolute chronology for the end of the Greek Bronze Age and the appearance of Protogeometric pottery, place the arrival of these new wares in the second half of the eleventh century BC.

New dendrochronology and wiggle-matched 14C determinations from Assiros, however, show that this accepted absolute chronology, (which is based on inference rather than any precise correlations with historical dates), places the start of the Protogeometric period 50–100 years too late. Building timbers associated with an amphora of advanced Protogeometric style have been dated with remarkable precision to 1080 +4/–7 BC and both are sealed below a new building level dated in the same way to 1070 +4/–7 BC. Since this particular style is derived from Attic Protogeometric, it is evident that the Protogeometric period in Attica started around 1100 BC or earlier1.

Преразглеждане на Троя VIIb2: Датиране на прехода от бронзовата към желязната епоха в Cеверна ЕгеяК.А. Уордъл, М. Нютън, П.И. Кунихолм

Районът на Северна Егея е известен отдавна като представителен за контактите между Южна Гърция и ЮИ Европа в края на бронзовата епоха. Характера на тези влияния и относителните им датировки се изяс-няват едва сега, в резултат от новите проучвания и разкопки в Централна Македония, Северна Гърция и Троада. Те хвърлиха светлина върху характера и развитието на местните къснобронзови култури. По-стари-те схващания, като например това че желязната епоха на Северна Гърция е предизвестена от едно мащабно преселване от района на Балканите, отстъпват място на по-скромните виждания отчитащи взаимният обмен и влиянията. В тази студия представяме на първо място относителните дати на двете културни секвенции от този преходен период (част І), а след това и новите данни за техните абсолютни дати (част ІІ).

Относителните данни за Егейската и Балканската секвенции до този етап на проучване дълго време зави-сеха от стратиграфската връзка между керамиката, местно производство в Микенски стил, и новите керамич-ни стилове, свързвани с Балканите – канелираната керамика в Северна Гърция и букелкерамиката от Троя. Тази корелация предполага, че желязната епоха в Северна Гърция започва преди края на Микенския пери-од, и Балканските елементи, представени от букелкерамиката от Троя, предшествуват края на този период.

Новите данни от Асирос и Тумба Тесалоники в Северна Гърция, както и преоценката на данните от Троя VІІb2 показват, че приемането на тази зависимост е грешка, и че тези характерни особенности на желязната епоха се появяват за първи път едва след края на Микенския период.

Абсолютната дата за появата на новия вид съдове традиционно се асоциира с датирането на микенската къснохеладска ІІІС керамика, и се поставя в XII в. пр. Хр. Новата корелация, базата на досега приетата абсо-лютна хронология за края на бронзовата епоха в Гърция и появата на Протогеометрична керамика, поставя

1 This article does not attempt to explore the Bulgarian se-quence and parallels in detail but rather offers our Bulgar-

ian colleagues some observations which may help with issues of both relative and absolute chronologies in this region.


PART I ARCHAEOLOGICAL CORRELATIONS

Buckelkeramik at Troy. Among Schliemann’s many discoveries at

Troy were a number of clay vessels and frag-ments from late prehistoric levels, decorated with long horn-like protrusions or bosses, which gave rise to the term Buckelkeramik2 or Kno b bed Ware3. These vessels, in contrast to the local north western Anatolian Tan or Grey Wares and the Mycenaean style pottery, were hand-made and often well-burnished and fired at relatively low temperatures.

Their place in the long sequence of strata was better defined by Blegen in the excavations conducted in the 1930s, which made it clear that they belonged to, what was then seen as, the lat-est prehistoric horizon (Troy VIIb2)4. This is a well-defined building horizon with a relatively large number (given the small area excavated) of complete vessels which must represent floor deposits. Schliemann had presumably encoun-tered similar deposits which were the source of the complete vessels which are illustrated in Schmidt’s account of his finds5. According to Blegen the pottery in this horizon was „almost all Knobbed Ware“. There was too much to be imported and that this „indicated a generation or more of influence“6.

Since those discoveries, it has become abun-dantly clear that these vessels belong to a group

which is widely distributed in the southern Bal-kans from Babadag in the Dobrudja to Macedo-nia7. Few other examples, however, have horns which are so exaggerated. In each of these re-gions they belong to a horizon which is generally regarded as the first in the Iron Age (although the use of iron was still so limited as to make this definition purely notional). At Troy shapes are usually small cups or bowls with a distinct neck and high set handles8 and the horns or knobs are frequently surrounded with incised concen-tric circles9. The vessels may also be decorated with incised motifs such as pendent or opposed triangles10, or channelling11.

Recent re-consideration of these deposits and the reports on them, confirms that the stratum labelled by Blegen as VIIb2, (which was well over 1m thick in places) contained two building levels, the upper/later one of which has now been labelled VIIb3

12. Some of the Proto-geometric pottery reported by Blegen, includ-ing vessels of Catling’s northern Aegean Class I of EPG/MPG date13, derived from this upper stratum. Buckelkeramik, however, was not re-corded in the upper deposit VIIb3

14. Old houses were remodelled and new ones built. The char-acter of the masonry in these two levels is rather different from that used earlier at Troy and in-cludes orthostat slabs in the lower courses15. An-other pointer to European connections, though one which could equally well have arrived as a result of casual contact, is a mould for a „Hun-

2 H. SCHMIDT, Heinrich Schliemann’s Sammlung trojani-scher Alterthümer (Berlin 1902), 172–178.

3 C.W. BLEGEN, Troy IV: Settlements VIIa, VIIb and VIII (Princeton 1958), 142–148, 158.

4 Ibid. (N.b. We have used here the notation preferred in Studia Troica to that used by Blegen – VIIb2 not VIIb 2).

5 SCHMIDT, loc. cit.6 BLEGEN, loc. cit., 143.7 E.g. B. HÄNSEL, Beiträge zur regionalen und chronologi-

schen Gliederung der älteren Hallstattzeit an der unteren Donau (Bonn 1976), 229–237.

8 BLEGEN, loc. cit., figs. 259–261.

9 SCHMIDt, loc. cit., 173: 3585.10 BLEGEN, Fig. 259: 32.9211 Ibid. Fig. 261:37.1010.12 As originally noted by J.L. Caskey during excavation in

1933: see D. LENz, F. RUPPENSTEIN, M. BAUMANN and R. CATLING, Protogeometric pottery at Troia. – Studia Troica 8 (Mainz 1998), 192–193 and Fig. 3.

13 R.W.V. CATLING, The typology of the Protogeometric and Subprotogeometric Pottery from Troia and its Aegean context. – Studia Troica 8, (1998), 161.

14 Ibid. 194.15 BLEGEN, loc. cit., 143.

появата на тези нови съдове във втората половина на XI в. пр. Хр. Новите дендродати и wiggle-matched 14C изчисленията от Асирос поставят началото на Протогеометричния

период 50–100 години по-късно от традиционната абсолютна хронология (базираща се по-скоро на съвпаде-ния, отколкото на прецизни корелации с исторически дати). Дървеият строителен материал, открит в бли-зост с амфора от развития Протогеометричен стил, бе датиран с изключителна прецизност в 1080 +4/–7 г. пр. Хр. Дървото бе открито запечатано от следващото строително ниво, датирано по същия начин в 1070 +4/–7 г. пр. Хр. Тъй като откритият там керамичен стил се отнася към атическия Протогеометричен стил, то става ясно, че Протогеометричният период в Атика трябва да е започнал около 1100 г. пр. Хр., или дори по-рано.

K.A. Wardle, M. Newton, P.I. Kuniholm 482


Fig. 1: Buckelkeramik from Troy (Schliemann and Blegen), and Babadag 1.16

1: Asenovec, Bulgaria after D. Gradev, Troja und Thrakien, no. 446, Sofia 1982; 2: Kozlogyi, Bulgaria, ibid. no. 513; 3: Troy, after H. Schmidt, Heinrich Schliemann’s Sammlung Trojanischer Altertümer, 175, no. 3611, Berlin 1902; 4: Troy, ibid. 173, no. 1585; 5: Babadag, Rumania, B. Hänsel, Beiträge zur re-

gionalen und chronologischen Gliederung der Älteren Hallstattzeit an der unteren Donau, Taf. 44:9, Bonn 1976; 6: Troy, Schmidt, loc cit, 175 no. 3609.

garian“ style shaft-hole axe. This was found by Schliemann in a context assigned by Schmidt to VIIb17.

It seems likely that here is one of the rare cas-es where the incursion of a new population ele-ment into the citadel at Troy (or anywhere else) can be demonstrated on the basis of a marked change in material culture. Blegen comments

that „two wholly different cultures“ were repre-sented but that there was „no sign of damage or resistance“18. Whether this incursion supplanted a pre-existing population or took advantage of the desertion of the citadel, cannot be deter-mined. It is equally unclear whether the Tan and Grey Wares typical of this region continued to be made at Troy or were imported from a neigh-

16 We are very grateful to Diana Wardle for preparing Fig-ures 1–4 and 6 and improving the text.

17 Ibid., 144.18 Ibid., 143.

1

2

3

5 64

Troy VIIB2 Revisited 483


Fig. 2. Knobbed vessels from Assiros, Phase 2 destruction.Coarse ware: 1: P173 cooking pot, Room 2. Fine Ware: 2: P176 jug, Rooms 3&4; 3: P174, necked jar,

Room 2; 4: P162 jug, Room 2; 6: P182, jug, Room 2.

1

2

3

4 5



bouring site. It is of interest that the quality of their fabric improves at this point, perhaps as a result of using higher temperature kilns19.

Özdoğan reports numerous small sites in Eastern Thrace with Buckelkeramik suggesting that the incursion affected a larger region, but chiefly on the European side of the Bosporus. In NW Anatolia the effect of this hypothetical incursion was largely limited to Troy itself, since very few examples of Buckelkeramik at other sites have been reported20. In any case, it was only of short duration at Troy, as already noted, since it is absent from VIIb3.

At Troy the only indication of date for the Buckelkeramik is provided by a) its position in the sequence after Troy VIIb1 which has a mod-est quantity of Mycenaean pottery21, b) the few accompanying fragments of Mycenaean pottery in VIIb2 and c) the presence of Protogeomet-ric sherds in the overlying VIIb3. Details of the Mycenaean pottery from the new excavations conducted by Korfmann are not yet available. Blegen’s VIIb1 material has been classed by Mountjoy as late LH IIIB–LH IIIC Middle, while she classes that from VIIb2 as LH IIIC Middle – Late22.

It may be noted, however, that the pottery from Troy VIIb1 includes two ribbed kylix stems in Grey Ware23 which closely resemble those Mycenaean examples which belong to the latest phases of LH IIIC24. In addition it seems unlikely that the small number of fragments of Mycenaean pottery illustrated or reported by Blegen from VIIb2

25 are more than residual and thus should provide only a terminus post quem for this stratum26. There is not a single com-

plete Mycenaean-style vessel. Their occurrence might reasonably be expected if they were still being used at the time of a destruction which left so many complete Buckelkeramik vessels on the floors. In the one substantial group of pot-tery from this phase (Square A7) where Buck-elkeramik was abundant, there were apparently no Mycenaean sherds at all.27 No good case, therefore, can be made for the arrival of Buck-elkeramik (and its makers), until the very end of the Mycenaean period.

The origin of this style of pottery, and per-haps also the origin of those who reached Troy and settled there briefly at the beginning of the Iron Age, is almost certainly to be seen in the region of the Dobrudja and the mouth of the Danube, where examples of equally exagger-ated horns have been found. In the wider Bal-kan region, these vessels and their distinctive decoration can be seen to belong to a relatively narrow chronological horizon.28

The date of this horizon in Bulgaria and Roumania is usually related to the chronology of the Hallstatt culture in Central Europe29, rather than to the Aegean, since there are no imports from the south.

KNOBBED, CHANNELLED AND INCISED WARES IN CENTRAL MACEDONIA.AssirosThat the influence of this distinctive ceram-

ic style reached as far as Central Macedonia, is demonstrated by some of the hand-made Iron Age pottery at Assiros30. Here, for example, a small cut-away-neck jug in fine ware, found in

19 LENZ et al., loc. cit., 197. Blegen reported Tan Ware as uncommon in VIIb, loc cit., 155.

20 M. ÖZDOĞAN, The Prehistory of Northwestern Turkey. – In: D. GRAMMENOS (Ed.), Recent Research in the Prehistory of the Balkans (Thessaloniki 2003), 257–8.

21 Illustrated by BLEGEN, loc. cit., figs. 276–279.22 P.A. MOUNTJOY, The East Aegean-West Anatolian interface

in the Late Bronze Age: Mycenaeans and the Kingdom of Ahhiyawa. – Anatolian Studies 48, 1998, 46, 53; Troia VII reconsidered. – In: Studia Troica 9, (Mainz 2000), 298.

23 Blegen, loc. cit., Fig. 268:13&14.24 In Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery, Vols. I & II.

(Berlin 1999), Mountjoy cites, for example, Mycenaean examples of rib-stemmed kylikes from Tiryns and Hexa-lophos (LH III C Late) 186, 853–855 and Lakkithra and Ithaka (SubMycenaean?), 463, 475–477.

25 In his detailed discussion of the finds from Troy VIIb,

Blegen reports only a dozen or so Mycenaean or Myc-enaean style sherds from contexts which he can assign to VIIb2, of which the largest fragments are those illus-trated in Fig. 279:4a&b, 279:13, and 279:14a–c.

26 Dr. E.B. French also formed this opinion when examin-ing the sherd material from Blegen’s excavations in cor-pore (pers. comm.) and it has also been noted by HÄNSEL, loc. cit., 234.

27 BLEGEN, loc. cit., 240.28 HÄNSEL, loc. cit., 229–236.29 E.g. HÄNSEL, loc. cit., 21–24.30 For more detail of the Iron Age at Assiros and its pottery

see: K.A. WARDLE, Change or Continuity: Assiros Toumba at the transition from Bronze to Iron Age. – To Archae-ologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai Thraki (AEMTH) 10 (1997), 443–460; and Excavations at Assiros Toumba 1975–1980. –Annual of the British School at Athens, 76, (1980), 229–260.



the floor deposit in Phase 2 Room 2, has rings incised around the three small knobs on the shoulder and there are pairs of opposed pen-dent triangles placed between these (Fig. 2:1). A much more exaggerated knob is to be found on a sherd from a Phase 3 level, and this too is surrounded by concentric circles (Fig. 2:2). Knobs without surrounding circles are a regu-lar feature of the repertoire of fine ware shapes, found on both cut-away-neck jugs and two-han-dled jars from Phase 3 (Fig. 2:3&4). They are also often found on one-handled coarse ware cooking pots, with usually a single knob oppo-site the handle (Fig. 2:5). No certain example of a knob of this kind has been identified from the earliest Iron Age level Phase 4, and none are known from the earlier Bronze Age levels.

True channelled ware is also present in very small quantities, perhaps 20 sherds in total (ap-proximately 0,2%). These are usually from the shoulders of small jars or bowls (Fig. 3) which, in contrast to the standard Iron Age fine ware, were made of a well-burnished but coarser fab-ric. The use of channelling on bowl rims (tur-ban rim bowl31) is very rare. A few examples of

decoration derived from this style can be seen on other shapes in the standard fine ware such as the two handled amphora (Fig. 2:4) but it clear that it was never a common ware or decorative technique at Assiros.

The post-Mycenaean date of the knobbed vessels and channelled decoration at Assiros is also clear. The Mycenaean pottery from the Iron Age levels – Phases 4 and upwards – is all residual: that is to say it consists of small frag-ments which have no more significance in the levels in which they were found than pebbles or pieces of mud brick deriving from underlying deposits. These Mycenaean sherds are usually fragments with linear decoration and occasion-al characteristics which indicate manufacture in the LH IIIC period. At Assiros, in these Iron Age levels there is no sign of local manufacture of painted wheel-made pottery. This is in con-trast to sites nearer the coast such as Toumba Thessalonikis32 and Kastanas33 and Axiochori34 in the Axios valley, where manufacture of Myc-enaean-style wheel-made painted pottery con-tinued alongside the innovations of the Proto-geometric period. One very important chrono-

Fig. 3: Channelled ware.Assiros: 1: deep bowl, Phase 3; 2: jar with vertical handle, Phase 3 Room 13; 3: jar, Phase 2. Kastanas Schicht 12: 4: deep bowl after A. Hochstetter, Kastanas: Die handgemachte Keramik, Taf. 82:7, Berlin

1984; 5: deep bowl, ibid., Taf. 82:5; 6 shallow ‘turban rim’ bowl, ibid., Taf. 94:5.

31 W.A. HEURTLEY, Prehistoric Macedonia (Cambridge 1939), Fig. 106:l–r; A. HOCHSTETTER, Kastanas II: Die Handgemachte Keramik. – PAS 3 (Berlin 1984), Taf. 94:5, 102:1, 116:3–5, 116:10–12.

32 S. ANDREOU, Η μυκηναϊκή κεραμική και οι κοινωνίες της κεντρικής Μακεδονίας κατά την Ύστερη εποχή του Χαλκού. – In: Ν. Kyparissi-Apostolika and M. Papakon-

stantinou (Eds.), The Periphery of the Mycenaean World 2 Lamia 1999 (Athens 2003) 194–195.

33 R. Jung, Kastanas: Die drehscheibenkeramik der Schich-ten 19 bis 11. – PAS 18 (Kiel 2002), 226–229, 244–45.

34 HEURTLEY, Report on the excavations at the Toumba and Tables of Vardaroftsa, Macedonia. – BSA 27, (1925–26), 10.

1 2 3

4 5 6



35 CATLING, Studia Troica 8, (1998), 161.36 HEURTLEY, loc cit.37 HEURTLEY, Prehistoric Macedonia, 125–126; V.R. d’A.

DESBOROUGH, The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors (Oxford 1964), 141–142.

38 V. MILOJČIĆ, Die Dorische Wanderungen im Lichte der vorgeschichtlichen Funde. – AA 1948–49, 12–36.

39 N.G.L. HAMMOND, A History of Macedonia I (Oxford 1972), 305–309. When he identified the channelled wares specifically with „Lausitz“ pottery and the migra-

tions of the Briges.40 E.g. HÄNSEl, Bermerkungen zur Bevölkerungskontinu-

ität in Kastanas. – In: JUNG, loc. cit., 21–22.41 N.N. TASIĆ and N. TASIĆ, Serbian Prehistoric Archaeology

in the 1990’s. – In: D. Grammenos (Ed.), Recent Research in the Prehistory of the Balkans, (Thessaloniki 2003), 107.

42 HÄNSEL, Beiträge, Taf. 12, 23, 38, 64, 69.43 HEURTLEY, BSA 27 (1925–26), 10.44 HEURTLEY, Prehistoric Macedonia 38.45 H.W. CATLING, Archaeological Reports 1975–76, 20.

logical marker is an imported Protogeometric amphora with concentric compass-drawn circle decoration of Catling’s Class I35 which was found smashed on the Phase 3 floor. This was manu-factured somewhere in the Northern Aegean and establishes that the beginning of the Iron Age at Assiros is contemporary with an early stage of the Protogeometric period.

Vardaroftsa (Axiochori)In the excavations directed by Heurtley at

Vardaroftsa (Axiochori) in the Axios valley, he reported a destruction level with „Danubian“ style (e.g. channelled) pottery in association with local styles of Mycenaean pottery with simple linear motifs36. This evidence has for a long time been used to support a Mycenaean LH IIIC date for the start of the Iron Age in the region37, as well as more controversial theo-ries about the migration of population groups from SE Europe into Greece. Formerly, these groups were seen as the first Indo-European Greeks, who moved south to cause the destruc-tion of the Mycenaean palatial centres and the collapse of the complex civilization based on these38. Later, with the recognition that Myc-enaean Linear B script was Greek and that a Greek-speaking population must have been present in Greece from a very much earlier date, these groups were related more to the movement of Dorians39. This movement was seen as the result of major population move-ments such as the later migrations of Celts, Vandals or Slavs. Most recently it has been sug-gested that this „Danubian“ pottery reflects the incursion of much smaller groups of SE Euro-pean origin, into the Axios valley towards the end of the Bronze Age40.

It has long since been shown that any di-rect connection with the Lausitz culture of Northern Yugoslavia and the Southern Tirol is untenable. It is certainly true that several el-

ements of the decorative styles in Central Mac-edonia can be closely related to those found in Serbia, the Danube Valley and Southern Bulgaria at such sites as Konopljara, Hisar41, Vîrtop, Kozloduj, and Čatalka42 which are as-signed to the early Hallstatt period. We do not yet, however, understand the processes un-derlying this relationship. The decorative ele-ments include the use of deep grooves or chan-nelling on the shoulders of jars and bowls, and incised or jabbed decoration around the rim or base of the neck or in geometric patterns on the shoulders. The characteristic sharply-twisted handles of the Iron Age levels in all Central Macedonian sites probably derive from the channelled style but are not found outside this region. In any case these handles are long-lived features of the Macedonian rep-ertoire, while the channelled ware is limited to a relatively narrow horizon.

Can the post-Mycenaean date for these fea-tures shown for Assiros be reconciled with the evidence from Vardaroftsa? Reassessment of Heurtley’s preliminary reports shows that he recognised that the destruction horizon con-tained two building levels43 – clearly impossible for a single episode of destruction – but by the time he wrote his final account in Prehistoric Macedonia he must have assumed he was mis-taken, since this vital detail is omitted44. Indeed, in the excavations at Assiros, the rapid succes-sion of destruction levels was misleading and were not immediately separated one from the next45. Heurtley does not separate the pottery from the two building levels – since he did not appreciate their significance. All we can say at this distance of time is that there is no necessity for the „channelled wares“ (in fact mostly twist-ed handles) illustrated by him, to come from the same level as the true Mycenaean pottery. Some of the painted sherds belong to the simple linear style which post-dates the Mycenaean pe-



Fig. 4: Assiros Phases 3 and 2 with location of samples..



riod and denotes continuing use of Mycenaean technologies46.

KastanasAt Kastanas the picture is less straightfor-

ward: four sherds of channelled ware were found in Schicht 13, but more comes from Schicht 12 (Fig. 4)47 which also contains pottery of Middle LH IIIC to Protogeometric date48 and much more comes from later levels. The stratigraphy does not permit us to associate the channelled ware specifically with either Mycenaean or Pro-togeometric pottery and a Mycenaean date for its introduction at this site is hard to support.

In summary, there is little evidence to sug-gest that these new „Iron Age“ characteristics appear in Macedonia before the end of the Southern Greek Bronze Age.

PART IIABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY

Dendrochronology and 14C wiggle-matched determinations on timbers from Assiros49

During the excavation at Assiros, samples of charred building timbers were collected from each of the destruction levels at the site (Phases 9, 6, 5, 3 and 2, from lowest [earliest] to highest [latest]) and set aside for possible 14C and/or den-drochronological determinations. A selection of these were transferred to the Malcolm and Car-olyn Wiener Laboratory for Aegean and Near Eastern Dendrochronology at Cornell Univer-sity at the instigation of its Director, Prof. Peter Ian Kuniholm, where they are under study by Maryanne Newton. In this paper, it is samples from Phases 3 and 2 which are relevant.

The buildings of Phase 3 were destroyed by fire, and rebuilding followed quite rapidly at a

level some 20 cm higher using many of the same wall alignments (Fig. 4). Another fire followed, leaving charred timbers in situ (such as the cen-tral post seen in Plate 1) and lying on the floor. The samples ASR 15 and ASR 16 were both used in the construction of Phase 3, and ASR 6&7 (parts of the same timber) and ASR 5 were both used in the construction of Phase 2. None of these timbers had been dressed to shape, but had been used with little preparation beyond stripping off the bark.

The two timbers from Phase 3 came from the debris on the floor level: one from Room 13 (ASR 16) and the other from an apparently open yard area to the east (ASR 15). Both had, presumably, fallen to the floor as the timbers in the roof or walls burned. The two timbers from Phase 2 come from Room 14: one (ASR 5) lay against the west wall and the other was from the centre of the room where it was in situ as one of the roof supports (ASR 6&7, Plate 1). The floor level of Phase 2 sealed the burnt de-bris of Phase 3.

It is difficult to judge from the archaeologi-cal evidence how long the Phase 3 buildings stood before they were burned, but there is no sign of any associated level of long-term occu-pation debris. In reports already published, the dates assigned to each of these phases of con-struction were: Phase 3, 1000–950 BC; Phase 2, 950–900 BC. These estimates were based, i) on the currently accepted date of 1050/25 BC for the start of the Protogeometric period in Southern Greece, ii) the presence of large parts of an amphora decorated with compass-drawn concentric circles on the Phase 3 floor (Fig. 6) which is assigned to the early/middle stage of this period by Catling50 and iii) a division of the time span between 1050 and 850 BC to accom-modate four phases of construction (4, 3, 2 and

46 J. BUXEDA et al., Technology transfer at the periphery of the Mycenaean world: the cases of Mycenaean pottery found in central Macedonia (Greece) and the Plain of Sybaris, (Italy). – Archaeometry 45:2, (2003), 263–284.

47 HOCHSTETTER, loc.cit., 189, Abb. 50.48 R. JUNG, Kastanas. Die Drehscheibenkeramik der Schich-ten 19 bis 11. – PAS 18 (Kiel 2002), 224–227.49 The first report of these dates was made to the annual

Archaeological Work in Macedonia and Thrace confer-ence in Thessaloniki in February 2004 and published in February 2005 – M. NEWTON, K.A. WARDLE, P.I. KUNI-HOLM, Dendrochronology and Radiocarbon determina-tions from Assiros and the beginning of the Greek Iron

Age. – AEMTH 17 (2003), 173–190. A further report with slightly revised dates (used here, see footnote 63) was made in Oxford in September 2004 in the context of the discussion of 14C dates in the Levant (M. NEWTON, K.A. WARDLE, P.I. KUNIHOLM, 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 and T. Higham (Eds.), Radiocarbon Dating and the Iron Age of the Southern Levant: The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005).

50 CATLING, loc. cit.,153–64, esp. 161. See further discussion below.



Fig. 5. Assiros Phases 3 and 2 dendrochronological 14C wiggle–match showing the ‘best fit’ of the seven determinations against the INTCAL98 calibration curve.

1.551) before the abandonment of the site52.Dendrochronological analysis of the wood

charcoal samples by the Aegean Dendro-chronology Project at Cornell (henceforth ADP) permit the oak tree-ring sequences from Phases 3 and 2 at Assiros to be crossdated with some

confidence against long, replicated, juniper and pine tree-ring sequences from Gordion and its environs. In addition, they have been dated absolutely within narrow margins via dendro-chronological 14C wiggle-matching53, (method-ology and results published in Science 2001)54. It

51 This phase was first observed at a late stage of the ex-cavation after the other phases had been defined and numbered.

52 The rationale of this chronology is discussed at greater length in ΑΕΜTH 10 (1997), 443–460.

53 Not to be confused with „archaeological“ wiggle-match-ing, see AEMTH 17 (2003) 185–186 with reference to its application at Kastanas.

54 S.W. MANNING, B. KROMER, P. IAN KUNIHOLM, M.W. NEW-TON. Anatolian Tree Rings and a New Chronology for the East Mediterranean Bronze-Iron Ages. – Science 294: (21 December 2001): 2532–2535. The dates are quali-fied by +4/–7 years BC. The ADP has since its inception in 1977 been pursuing the goal of providing a continu-ous tree-ring chronology, in many species, for the shared climate region of the eastern Mediterranean. Once this is completed, the current qualifying +4/–7 to all dates linked to the long Bronze Age-Iron Age chronology (pri-marily built from conifer species that grew in Anatolia) will be dispensed with. In the meantime, the ADP continues to pursue dendro-chronological investigations of material that falls within the cross-dating zone in the eastern Mediterranean. This zone is outlined in publications starting with P. IAN KU-NIHOLM and C.L. STRIKER in 1987, Dendrochronological Investigations in the Aegean and Neighboring Regions 1983–1986. – Journal of Field Archaeology 14 (1987): 385–

398), and expanded upon in KUNIHOLM 1996 (Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for the Eastern Mediterranean. – Ar-chaeometry 94: the Proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on Archaeometry, Ş Demirci, A.M. Özer and G.D. Summers, Eds., Tübitak) and KUNIHOLM 2001 (Archaeological Dendrochronology. – Dendrochronologia 20/1: 63–68). A study of the climatic conditions that drive the responses recorded in tree rings throughout this re-gion appeared in HUGHES et al., 2001 (M.K. HUGHES, P. IAN KUNIHOLM, J.K. EISCHEID, G. GARFIN, C.B. GRIGGS and C. LATINI, Aegean Tree-ring Signature Years Explained. – Tree Ring Research 57/1: 67–73). The ADP has established that trees growing in northern Greece (Thrace, Thessaly, and Macedonia) crossdate convincingly not only with trees of the same species, but also with trees of different species, growing both in Tur-key to the east and into the Balkans to the north. While the quality of crossdating over longer distances varies with distance and altitude, there is every reason to expect crossdating between wood growing on the Anatolian Pla-teau and that growing in northern Greece. This has been well illustrated in numerous examples for modern forest wood, as well as for many medieval monuments in both countries: KUNIHOLM and STRIKER 1987, loc. cit., and 1990: Dendrochronology and the Architectural History of the Church of the Holy Apostles in Thessaloniki. – Architec-tura: Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Baukunst 1990: 1–26).

-1300 -1250 -1200 -1150 -1100 -1050 -10002800

2850

2900

2950

3000

3050

3100

2800

2850

2900

2950

3000

3050

3100

INTCAL98

Radio

carb

on

Age

BP

cal Age BC/AD

900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150

X2-Test: df=6 T=6.983(5% 12.592)

First _First (center of decade 991-1000)

68.2% probability

1210BC (13.3%) 1206BC

1202BC ( 7.3%) 1199BC

1181BC (47.6%) 1169BC

95.4% probability

1240BC ( 1.0%) 1230BC

1220BC (94.4%) 1160BC

99.7% probability

1260BC (99.7%) 1140BC

center of first decade set to 1175 BC

ASR67

ASR16



should be noted that where a dendrochronolog-ical cross match can be obtained this provides a real date in calendar years whereas a 14C date, even as part of a wiggle-match, is always subject to a statistical margin of error. The mid-point date given is no more likely to be correct than any other within the 1σ – one standard devia-tion – range normally cited for such dates.

The tree-ring chronology for Phases 3 and 2 at Assiros is built from the measured ring se-ries compiled from four oak timbers55. It is 104 years long with considerable overlaps between the growth sequences of the four timbers. The ‘best fit’ obtained against the Gordion master sequence puts the last existing ring of ASR 6&7 at 1078 BC. If allowance is made for an estimat-ed missing 8 outer rings, the likely cutting date may be put at 1070 BC. In the same way, the last existing ring of ASR 5, can be dated to 1081 BC. If allowance is made for an estimated missing 11 outer rings, the likely cutting date may also be put at 1070 BC. The last existing ring of ASR 15 is 1088 BC and that of ASR 16 is 1095 BC.

The dendrochronological results obtained show that the dates for the last preserved rings of the Phase 3 timbers are earlier than the last preserved rings of the Phase 2 timbers. If a similar loss of the outer rings is estimated for the Phase 3 timbers, the cutting date for them is likely to be c. 1080 BC. The stratigraphic re-lationship of the samples for the two phases en-sures that they provide a terminus ante quem for

artefacts sealed under the Phase 2 floor, which must fall in the interval between c 1080 BC and 1070 BC56.

Given the wider significance of this date and the fact that it is judged a ‘best fit’ rather than a perfect fit57, independent confirmation was sought through a sequence of 14C determi-nations accurately related on an annual scale. A series of samples, each roughly 10 years long (‘decades’) were selected at roughly 10 year in-tervals so that the centre point of each decade was separated from the next by an absolute number of years. Where rings from a single timber can be sampled in this way at standard intervals for 14C determinations, they can be correlated statistically to reduce the margin of error well below the level that applies to a sin-gle sample58. In combination, they allow a far more precise, and quantifiable, match against the wiggles on the standard internationally rec-ommended calibration curve (INTCAL98, now modified slightly in INTCAL04)59.

Altogether seven samples60 from the 104 year Assiros sequence have been submitted to the Radiocarbon Facility at the Institut für Umwelt-physik at the University of Heidelberg. Two of these were run in 1999 in an earlier test of the suitability of the material for dendrochrono-logical wiggle-matching (DWM), and five more were subsequently selected to try to replicate the radiocarbon calibration curve61. Fig. 5 illus-trates how these seven samples are grouped to-

55 See AEMTH 17 (2003) 179, Fig. 4 and 181, Fig. 6 for the dendrochronology diagrams.

56 These dates have, of course, the same small uncertainty of +4/–7 derived from the Gordion sequence, but this does not affect the interrelationship between them.

57 In ideal conditions when around 150 or more rings are present in a sample of wood (burned or unburned), it is often easy to obtain a very good match (both statistically and visually) with the master curve. When, however, there is a lesser number of rings, a match may sought using both dendrochronological techniques, and in cas-es where a straightforward dendrochronological match cannot be obtained, we use high-precision 14C wiggle-matching as a means to test to our proposed fit.

58 The sampling precision possible when 14C determina-tions are made on a sequence of rings contrasts mark-edly with the hypothetical situation described by R. Jung and B. WENIGER in JUNG loc. cit., 292–293 who suggest that samples should be assumed, on average, to come from approximately one third of the way in from the bark and are thus systematically considerably older than the cutting date of the tree in question.

59 STUIVER M., P.J. REIMER, E. BARD, J.W. BECK, G.S. BURR,

K.A. HUGHEN, B. KROMER, G. MCCORMAC, J. VAN DER PLICHT and M. SPURK, 1998 INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Cali-bration, 24000–0 cal BP. – Radiocarbon 40(3)(1998):1041–1083; REIMER, P.J., M.G.L. BAILLIE, E. BARD, A. BAYLISS, J.W. BECK, C.J.H. BERTRAND, et al., IntCal04 terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0–26 cal kyr BP. – Radio-carbon 46(3)(2004): 1029–1058.

60 The seven samples are taken from the charred fragments of two trees, ASR–6&7 and ASR–16. The samples are from the same relative years according to the dendro-chronology. ASR–16 was used because ASR–6&7 could not provide sufficient material for the relevant samples (i.e., conventional gas counting at the Heidelberg Labo-ratory requires at minimum 4g of material, and the ADP laboratory personnel were able to take only 3.11g total for this sample from ASR–6&7, but 4.75g from ASR–16).

61 Placing single 14C dates on the calibration curve is difficult at this period because of its „wiggly“ nature, and especial-ly because of the inability of single 14C dates on short-lived material, even groups of single 14C dates on short-lived material, to permit negotiation of the calibration curve at the desired level of precision (See Fns. 77–79 below). There are no particular problems with the compilation of



PLATE 1: Phase 2 Room 13 with post in situ.

PLATE 2: Protogeometric amphora of Catling’s Group I from Assiros.

PLATE 3: Phase 3, Assiros, sherd with knob and spiral incision round it.



gether on the calibration curve. Since they are linked according to an absolute timescale, if one date is moved within the limits of its error range, then the other six must move with it. No other „fit“ to the calibration curve can be supported by this sequence of dates62. The calendar date

for the last preserved ring of the Assiros Phases 3&2 dendrochronology must therefore, from radiocarbon alone63, be set at 1091 ± 25 BC at 2σ (95.4% probability of the actual date falling between 1116 and 1066 BC)64. This is perfectly consistent with the dendrochronological date at

the curve itself since the data set for the 100 years between 1200 and 1100 BC is replicated from tree rings from dif-ferent regions of the globe, replicated by researchers at different laboratories, and replicated (though sporadical-ly) using wood of different species and of different ages. Work to produce another regional 14C calibration curve is underway, using juniper and pine wood mostly from Gordion and Ayanis, two Iron Age sites in Anatolia. For the archaeologist, however, looking at 14C dates for this period, a single sample can, with equal probability, fit at a number of different points on the curve.

62 The key measurement in the DWM is the fourth in the series which, at 3008±22 BP, closely matches a spike in the INTCAL98 curve at 1135 cal.BC. This spike re-flects the average of measurements of the same decade of German oak, absolutely dated by dendrochronology, which were undertaken at two different radiocarbon facilities, Seattle and Belfast, but gave statistically very different results. Although, for this reason, the validity of this spike has been questioned, the version presented in INTCAL 04 de-emphasizes but does not remove, the 1135 BC spike. Determinations from the same decade from the Gordion timbers currently in progress will enable replication from a region much closer to Assiros than those which currently inform the calibration curve. In any case, it is the over-all „fit“ of the sequence of sev-en samples, rather than the precise position of any one,

which establishes the absolute date given here.63 There is no change in the DWM date at 2σ (two stand-

ard deviations) using different calibration curves; using INTCAL98 or INTCAL04 the date is the same.

64 These estimated calendar ages are based on a DWM mod-el of the final BP dates reported by the Heidelberg labo-ratory, and they differ very slightly from dates presented at the conference in Thessaloniki in February 2004 and now published in AEMTH 17. The differences are ac-counted for partly by slight changes in the final dates due to Heidelberg laboratory procedures for accounting for background radiation, and also by the use of different set-tings in OxCal to calculate the probabilities of the DWM. In February 2004 we used a wiggle-matching model in OxCal 3.9, with Resolution set to 4 (Bronk Ramsey’s de-fault setting), but here we set the Resolution to 1 based on consultations about the best method for high-precision wiggle-matching of near-decadal tree-ring sequences: this provides for a more direct correlation between the decadal samples of both data sets (the calibration curve and the Assiros Phases 3&2 data) without any additional smoothing. A resolution of 1 uses interpolations of the annual measurements of 14C for each point on the cali-bration curve, and for each data point of the DWM. We use rounded annual outcomes in citing results. We thank Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Bernd Kromer, Sturt Man-ning, and Paula Reimer for their comments.

Fig. 6: Protogeometric amphora of Catling’s Group I from Assiros.



65 The number of sapwood rings can, for oak, provide a valuable tool for dating the end of a tree’s life. If any sapwood rings are present, an estimate for the total rings until the bark can be added. Such an estimate for oak from north Greece and western Anatolia was presented in KUNIHOLM and STRIKER 1987 loc. cit. With charcoal, however, we are missing the most useful feature for iden-tifying sapwood, i.e., color change. The only anatomic feature that might be discernible in charcoal to show this is the infilling of vessels with tyloses, but none of this was observed in the Assiros samples.

66 Sample ASR6&7, the central in situ post in Phase 2 Room 14, was partly collected from below floor level and any damage between charring and collection is virtually impossible.

67 No evidence survives to show why the first rather make-shift Iron Age settlement of Phase 4 needed rebuilding. Even if all the timbers were in a condition to be reused from this phase, the start of the Iron Age in Macedonia would still be set before 1070 BC. Reuse of the timbers from earlier phases is even more unlikely: there is no overlap between the ring growth sequence of the timbers or between the 14C wiggle-match for Phases 3&2 and that obtained for timbers from Phase 6. The 14C wiggle-match puts the cutting date of the Phase 6 timbers in the 13th Century BC.

68 The fact that some of the sherds were found above the Phase 2 floor shows only that they were brought up to this level during the building operations to construct Phase 2.

1078 BC+4/–7 and provides independent con-firmation that this is a real calendar date.

The absolute chronology of the end of the Bronze Age in the AegeanThe dating of four samples from closely cor-

related contexts which can be associated with a short-lived and distinctive type artefact (in this case a Protogeometric amphora, Fig. 6, Plate 2) is an unique achievement in archaeology and ar-chaeometry for any period of Greek prehistory. Given the uncertainties of the currently accept-ed relative chronological framework for the end of the Aegean Bronze Age, it would have been a great advance to correlate a single absolutely dated sample from a good archaeological con-text with artefacts representing a readily recog-nisable material culture, but Assiros has provid-ed four samples. Before proceeding to examine the significance of these dates for Macedonia, the Aegean and other areas, it is important to address some of the objections which might be raised since, once accepted, these dates demon-strate that the start of Protogeometric should be set before 1070 BC, by as much as 30–50 years.

a) Can the cutting date of the timbers be es-tablished? – Yes, since, even though the bark is no longer present and the outer rings cannot clearly be demonstrated as being sapwood65, the timbers on which the date is based are round, unshaped posts (see Plate 1). This makes it like-ly that the only trimming of the wood before use was removal of the bark.

Given the growth rate of these trees, it would require the loss of c1 cm all round these posts, whether through shaping or by abrasion after charring, to remove 15 rings, which is barely conceivable. To suggest that as many rings (c.

100) have been lost as would be compatible with the expected conventional date of 975 BC would require the loss of some 6 cm of wood all round66 which is almost impossible, and would certainly exceed the experience from decades of work by the ADP with charcoal from the east-ern Mediterranean. Minor damage to the sam-ples, in terms of millimetres not centimetres, – whether in situ or in the process of collection – would readily account for the 3 ring differ-ence between the Phase 2 samples or the 7 ring difference between the Phase 3 samples. These slight differences in date between each pair of timbers are well within the margin which would be expected if each pair of trees were cut in the same year, presumably for the same purpose, i.e. to build the Phase 2 and Phase 3 structures.

b) Can reuse of the timbers from earlier buildings be ruled out? – Not absolutely, but the buildings of the previous Bronze Age phases (6&5) were destroyed by devastating fires right across the site67. That one or two timbers might survive such fires and be available for reuse is possible but that four samples had survived in this way is very improbable.

c) Can we be sure that these timbers pro-vide an absolute date for the Protogeometric amphora (Fig. 6) rather than a terminus post quem? – Yes. The felling date for the Phase 3 timbers is indeed a terminus post quem, but most fragments of the amphora were sealed below the Phase 2 floor68. The construction timbers of this Phase give an equally firm terminus ante quem. The breakage of the amphora can thus be set during the short period from 1080–1070 BC. It could, of course, have been made before this but there is nothing to show how long it might have been in use.



This amphora, which is decorated with con-centric compass-drawn circles on the shoulder, has been placed by Catling, in a definitive study of PG pottery from the northern Aegean, in his Group I which is distributed from Macedonia to Troy and may well have been manufactured in northern Greece. The stylistic comparison of details of shape and decoration indicate that this group is found with EPG groups of material at Kalapodi, EPG and MPG material at Elateia and with MPG material in the fill over the great Toumba building at Lefkandi, as well as at Troy VIIb3. At the latter site he suggests „according to the prevailing current views ... the date ... is likely to fall around the turn of the 11th or early 10th century“.69

Catling regards the Assiros piece as a later stage in the evolution of the type but does warn that it has some unusual characteristics, nota-bly the handles. „It should indicate that Phase 2 [cited in error for Phase 3]70 of EIA Assiros is no later than the mid-tenth century“. On the basis of the conventional dates for Protogeometric, he placed the Assiros amphora between 1025 and 975BC with a preference for the later end of this span71, i.e. 50 years after the start of the period.

It is normally assumed, and we see no rea-son to doubt this assumption, that, in Greece, the typical Protogeometric style with compass-drawn circle decoration was first used in Attica. (It is impossible on present evidence to deter-mine whether Attic or Cypriot examples have priority). In other regions, including those of central and northern Greece, the decorative styles which use concentric circle decoration, including Catling’s Group I, are assumed to derive from and be later than their Attic pro-totypes.

If the 1070 BC date derived from the tim-bers is accepted, and if the Assiros amphora was broken around 50 years after the start of the Protogeometric period as Catling indicates, the start of Attic Protogeometric must now be set

at around 1120 BC – 50 years earlier than cur-rently thought. To argue that the amphora be-longs to the very beginning of the Protogeomet-ric style would still leave the start date of Pro-togeometric in southern Greece before c 1070 BC. Unless, which we and Catling72 doubt, this style originated in Macedonia or the northern Aegean, northern Greek examples must be lat-er than southern Greek prototypes. To argue, conversely, that the amphora might be later in the Protogeometric sequence than he suggests would have the effect of making the date for the start of Protogeometric even earlier.

If, as argued above, a date of 1070 BC is ac-cepted for the breakage of the Protogeometric amphora at Assiros, the inescapable corollary is that the date of the start of the Protogeomet-ric period must be put back by around 50 years which allows time for the style to develop and be disseminated.

The conventional start date currently ac-cepted has the dubious distinction of a length of discussion in inverse proportion to the avail-able evidence. The basis of this discussion has for years depended on a small number of rel-atively remote parallels and a chain of logical argument since there was – and still is – little concrete information. Desborough, for exam-ple, first proposed (1952) a 1025 BC date on the basis of the estimated length of time that must have passed since the beginning of the LH IIIC period (traditionally set at c. 1200 BC) plus the time span allocated for SubMycenaean, and also on tentative dates for finds of PG pottery in the Levant73. By 1964, in The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors, he preferred a date of 1050 BC on additional evidence from Cyprus – which was itself dependent on dates in the Levant74. Warren and Hankey took this argument a stage further and proposed that there were seven dis-tinct styles of pottery which represented seven generations of potters between the start of LH IIIC and the end of Sub-Mycenaean. Allow-ing 25 years per generation, they calculated a

69 CATLING, loc. cit. p. 155.70 Catling is mistaken in this attribution since, as stated

above, the majority of the fragments came from the ear-lier Phase 3: cf. CATLING loc. cit. p. 161.

71 We are grateful to Richard Catling for helpful comments about these issues. His view is repeated by Lemos in her recent study of the Protogeometric period: I.S. LEMOS,

The Protogeometric Aegean (Oxford 2002), 57.72 Catling, loc. cit. 163.73 V.R. d’A. DESBOROUGH, Protogeometric Pottery (Oxford

1952), 294.74 DESBOROUGH, The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors

(Oxford 1964), 240–1.



75 P. WARREN and V. HANKEY, Aegean Bronze Age Chronol-ogy (Bristol 1989), 168.

76 LEMOS, op. cit. 26.77 N. COLDSTREAM, Some Aegean Reactions to the Chronologi-

cal debate in the Southern Levant. – Tel Aviv, 30:2 (2003): 253–254. Cf. also N. Coldstream and A. Mazar. Greek Pot-tery from Tel Rehov and Iron Age Chronology. – Israel Ex-ploration Journal 53/1: 29–48 (2003).

78 A. FANTALKIN, Low Chronology and Greek Protogeo-metric and Geometric Pottery in the Southern Levant. – Levant 33: 117–125 (2001); G. KOPCKE, 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 in honor of Donald P. Hanson (Indiana 2002), 109–118. We are particularly grateful to Alexan-

der Fantalkin for his comments on, and reactions to, the implications of the new start date for Protogeometric and for information about recent publications. These discus-sions continue, as in Oxford in September 2004 see T.E. LEVY and T. HIGHAM (Eds.), Radiocarbon Dating and the Iron Age of the Southern Levant: The Bible and Archaeology Today (London 2005).

79 Cf. A. GILBOA and I. SHARON, An Archaeological Contri-bution to the Early Iron Age Chronological Debate: Al-ternative Chronologies for Phoenicia and Their Effects on the Levant, Cyprus, and Greece. – BASOR Nov. 2003, Iss. 332: 1–75; H.J. BRUINS, J. VAN DER PLICHT, and A. MA-ZAR, Science 300: 315–318, and the responses thereto by I. FINKELSTEIN and E. PIASETSKY, with reply by Bruins et al., in Science 302:568.

Protogeometric start date of 1025 BC75. Simi-lar evidence has been used by Lemos in her recent study of the Protogeometric period76. Some support for these dates was provided by examples of Protogeometric pottery in contexts in the Levant associated with the campaigns of King David as reported in the Old Testament, which were thought to be of early 10th C. date. In a recent article, Nicolas Coldstream, review-ing Greek imports in the Levant, presents two schemes for understanding these centuries from the perspective of an Aegeanist working with Greek ceramics. He prefers a „low“ chronologi-cal scheme, but the primary reason he offers is that the „high“ chronology would present „an uncomfortable congestion“ [of pottery styles and quantity of material] for the long develop-ment of LH IIIC and SubMycenaean before the appearance of Protogeometric77.

The absolute dates, upon which the chrono-logical schemes presented by Coldstream are based, come from finds of Greek imports at sites in the Levant, but these dates have been the subject of much discussion recently and this not the place for a detailed review of the argu-ments and counter arguments which affect the whole of Levantine chronology78. It may howev-er be noted that for some years those who reject links to a Davidian chronology based on Bib-lical texts have been aware of the discrepancy between the „low“ dates proposed by Aegean specialists for Protogeometric ware with higher ones preferred in Israel, for example. Currently, there has been a move to lower the ‘high’ tenth

century dates by 50–100 years, and it will be of interest to see the results of 14C determinations said to support this79.

ConclusionsThe arguments presented in this paper may

be briefly summarised as follows:

• Troy VIIb2 is post-Mycenaean in date• The Macedonian Iron Age is post-Myce-

naean in date• The Iron Age at Assiros starts before 1070

BC • Early/Mid Protogeometric pottery was

manufactured before 1070 BC• The end of the Mycenaean period and of

the Greek Bronze Age can be set well before 1070 BC.

• The SE European early Hallstatt horizon starts well before 1070 BC.

While, on the one hand, the effect of the reassessment of the relationship between Myc-enaean and SE European Iron Age pottery styles is to make their date later in relation to Mycenaean chronology, on the other, the abso-lute dates obtained for Assiros indicate a much earlier chronology than is currently accepted on the basis of conventional archaeological/his-torical correlations. This revised chronology should also enable colleagues in SE Europe to better compare the absolute dates assigned to the culture groups of the early Hallstatt horizon with those in the Aegean.



New

absolute date and suggested re-alignm

ents

Conventional Chronology

Southern Greece

Start of:-

Assiros

Kastanas

80

Troy

SE Europe81

Start of:-

? 900 Early Geometric

hiatus

Schicht 10Čepina

&

Pšeničevo

Ea

rly H

alls

tat

t

? 925 Late Protogeometric Phase 1.5

1070

975 Middle Protogeometric

Phase

2

………

3

Schicht 11 ?

?1120 1025 Early Protogeometric

Phase 4

Schicht

12

………

13

……….

14a&b

VIIb3

……

VIIb2

Babadag I

&

Čatalka?1140 1050 SubMycenaean

Phase

5

………

6

……….

7

?120082 1200 Late Helladic IIIC

VIIb1

Čerkovna

&

Govora

Fig. 7: Revised chronology based on the new absolute dates from Assiros.

80 A. HANSEL, Kastanas Die Grabung und der Baubefunde (Berlin 1989), 53 and Jung, loc. cit., 228, Abb. 80.

81 A. HÄNSEL, Beiträge: Beilage82 NB the 14C wigglematch for timbers from Phase 6 indi-

cates a cutting date of c 1270 BC.* Following completion of the proof stage of this paper KAW

attended lectures by Carole Aslan and Maureen Basedow in Oxford in March 2006. Their interim reports on the study of Troy VII levels excavated by the late Manfred

Korfman offer important new information about the char-acter of Early Iron Age Troy. Their conclusion that Troy VIIb2 and VIIb3 lasted longer than Blegen had thought does not affect the chronological interpretation offered above. Their suggestions for reinterpreting the date of some of the features and deposits assigned by Blegen to VIIa and VIIb1 do not yet provide any new associations between the Buckelkeramik and, for example, Mycenaean pottery. We await further publications with interest.



Troy VIIB2 Revisited. The date of the transition from Bronze to Iron Age in the Northern Aegean K.A....

Documents

Transcript of Troy VIIB2 Revisited. The date of the transition from Bronze to Iron Age in the Northern Aegean K.A....