Voutsaki et al 2008 C14 analysis Aspis

Comité de rédaction : Dominique MULLIEZ, directeur

Catherine AUBERT, adjointe aux publications

Comité de lecture du BCH 130 (2006) :Michèle BRUNET

Jean-Pierre SODINI

Gilles TOUCHAIS

René TREUIL

Révision et mise au point des textes : Béatrice DetournayConception graphique : Velissarios Anagnostopoulos

Réalisation : Velissarios Anagnostopoulos et Break in Coordination de la fabrication : Velissarios Anagnostopoulos

PhotogravureImpression Reliure : Break In s.a.

© École française d’Athènes 2008 6, rue Didotou GR – 10680 Athènes www.efa.gr

Dépositaire : De Boccard Édition-Diffusion 11, rue de Médicis F – 75006 Paris www.deboccard.com

ISBN 978-2-86958-204-0Reproduction et traduction, même partielles, interdites sans l’autorisation de l’éditeur pour tous pays, y compris les États-Unis.

B U L L E T I ND E C O R R E S P O N D A N C E

H E L L É N I Q U E

130.2 2006

É C O L E F R A N Ç A I S E D ’ A T H È N E S

BCH130_2_PD D 2/24/09 12:53 PM Page VI

SOMMAIRE DE LA LIVRAISON

I. Études

Dimitra MALAMIDOU, Zoï TSIRTSONI, Paraskévi YIOUNI, Laurent LESPEZ, Vassilis KILIKOGLOU, Alexandra TSOLAKIDOU,Les poteries néolithiques à décor peint « noir sur rouge » en Grèce du Nord : matières pre-mières et production .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 571-611

Sophia VOUTSAKI, Albert J. NIJBOER, Anna PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, Gilles TOUCHAIS, Sevi TRIANTAPHYLLOU,

Analyses of Middle Helladic Skeletal Material from Aspis, Argos, 1. Radiocarbon Analysis of Human Remains .............................................................................................................................................. 613-625

Sevi TRIANTAPHYLLOU, Michael P. RICHARDS, Gilles TOUCHAIS, Anna PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, Sophia VOUTSAKI,Analyses of Middle Helladic Skeletal Material from Aspis, Argos, 2. Stable Isotope Analysis of Human Remains ........................................................................................................................................................... 627-637

Denis ROUSSET, Georges TIROLOGOS, Lionel FADIN,Le lotissement de terres à Delphes au IIe siècle apr. J.-C. Du texte au terrain ..................................................... 639-663

Tony KOZELJ, Katérina PÉRISTÉRI, Manuela WURCH-KOZELJ,Une carrière antique aux environs de Drama ............................................................................................................................................................ 665-675

II. Rapports

RAPPORT SUR LES TRAVAUX DE L’ÉCOLE FRANÇAISE D’ATHÈNES EN 2003 ET 2004

LES ACTIVITÉS DE L’EFA : ÉTUDES ET FORMATION À LA RECHERCHE

par Dominique MULLIEZ ............................................................................................................................................................................ 679-687

Grèce THASOS par †Marina SGOUROU, Francine BLONDÉ, Arthur MULLER, Nicolas BEAUDRY,

Markus KOHL, Tony KOZELJ, Giorgos SANIDAS, Jean-Yves MARC, Pierre MOUGIN,

Manuela WURCH-KOZELJ, Yves GRANDJEAN et François SALVIAT ........................................................ 688-693

ARGOS par Anne PARIENTE, Christos PITÉROS, Marcel PIÉRART, Laurence HAPIOT, Anna PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS et Gilles TOUCHAIS ...................................................... 694-721

BCH130_2_PD D 2/24/09 12:53 PM Page VII

KOUPHOVOUNO (LACONIE)par William CAVANAGH, Christopher MEE et Josette RENARD ............................................................... 722-727

DÉLOS par Jean-Charles MORETTI, Cécile DURVYE, Roland ÉTIENNE, Claire HASENOHR, Hélène SIARD, Philippe FRAISSE, Brigitte BOURGEOIS et Philippe JOCKEY .................................................................................................................................. 728-751

MALIA par Sylvie MÜLLER CELKA, Robert LAFFINEUR, Isabelle BRADFER-BURDET, Maia POMADÈRE et Martin SCHMID ............................................................................................................................................ 752-763

Chypre

AMATHONTE par Pierre AUPERT, Béatrice BLANDIN, Thierry PETIT, Isabelle TASSIGNON, Jean-Paul PRÊTE, Tony KOZELJ, Manuela WURCH-KOZELJ, Pierre LERICHE, Claire BALANDIER, Floréal DANIEL et Sabine FOURRIER .................................................................................. 764-789

Albanie SOVJAN par Pétrika LERA, Gilles TOUCHAIS ............................................................................................................................................... 790-809

APOLLONIA par Pierre CABANES, Jean-Luc LAMBOLEY, Bashkim VREKAJ

et Shpresa GJONGEÇAJ ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 810-833

BILLYS par Pascale CHEVALIER et alii ................................................................................................................................................................ 834-869

III. Chronique

FOUILLES ET DÉCOUVERTES ARCHÉOLOGIQUES À CHYPRE EN 2003 ET 2004par Pavlos FLOURENTZOS ................................................................................................................................................................. 873-919

Résumés ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 921-922¶ÂÚÈÏ‹„ÂÈ˜ ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 923-924

Abstracts ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 925-926

BCH130_2_PD D 2/24/09 12:53 PM Page VIII

ÉTUDES

BCH130_2_PD D 2/24/09 12:53 PM Page IX

BCH130_2_PD D 2/24/09 12:53 PM Page X

Analyses of Middle Helladic Skeletal Material from Aspis,Argos1. Radiocarbon Analysis of Human Remains*

Sofia VOUTSAKI, Albert J. NIJBOER, Anna PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, Gilles TOUCHAIS, Sevi TRIANTAPHYLLOU

INTRODUCTION

This paper presents the results of radiocarbon analysis from human skeletal material fromMH Aspis1. The radiocarbon analysis is part of a wider interdisciplinary project, the MH

BCH 130 (2006)

* We would like to thank the former and current Ephors at the 4th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiqui-ties, Mrs Zoi Aslamatzidhou and Mrs A. Banaka, and the Department of Conservation, Ministry of Culture forgranting us permission to examine and take samples from the Middle Helladic human skeletons of the Aspis. Wethank the French School at Athens for granting us the permission to sample the Aspis skeletons. We would alsolike to acknowledge the assistance of the staff at the 4th Ephorate, particularly Dr A. Papadimitriou and MrsE. Pappi. The guards of the Argos Museum have always been particularly helpful; we thank them all. Finally,E. Milka has once more assisted with the tabulation of the archaeological data.

1. For the preliminary reports of the excavation at the Aspis, see G. TOUCHAIS, “Rapports sur les travaux de l’Écolefrançaise d’Athènes. Argos, Aspis,” BCH 99 (1975), p. 707-708; 100 (1976), p. 755-758; 102 (1978), p. 798-802; 104 (1980), p. 698-699; 108 (1984), p. 850-852; 114 (1990), p. 872-873; 115 (1991), p. 682-686;G. TOUCHAIS, A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, “Rapports sur les travaux de l’École française d’Athènes. Argos, Aspis,”BCH 121 (1997), p. 752-753; 124 (2000), p. 489; 125 (2001), p. 563-564 ; 126 (2002), p. 494-500; 128-129(2004-2005), p. 836-839; 130 (2006), p. 000-000; BCH 131 (2007), in print.The publication of the Aspis is currently under way. Recent studies on the Aspis material include A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, “Aperçu des céramiques mésohelladiques à décor peint de l’Aspis d’Argos, I. La céramique à peinturemate,” BCH 126 (2002), p. 1-40; ead., “Aperçu des céramiques mésohelladiques à décor peint de l’Aspis d’Argos,II. La céramique à peinture lustrée,” BCH 127 (2003), p. 1-47; G. TOUCHAIS, “Coarse Ware from the Middle

02_VOUTSAKI 24/3/2009 08:21 πμ Page 613

Argolid Project2, whose aim is to reconstruct the social organization of MH communitiesand to interpret the important social, political and cultural changes that took place in thesouthern Greek mainland during the MH period. The task is pursued by means of anintegrated analysis of funerary, skeletal and settlement data from the MH Argolid3.

The radiocarbon analysis is part of the analysis of funerary data, as the samples havebeen taken from human skeletons. Therefore, the immediate aim of the analysis is toenhance the chronological resolution of the analysis of burial and, indirectly, settlementdata, as the graves in Middle Helladic Aspis are intramural. More specifically, radiocarbondating may help with the problem of unfurnished graves (a common occurrence inMiddle Helladic times) whose dating has to rely on stratigraphic observations. At thesame time, the data thus generated can contribute to the wider chronological debate inAegean archaeology.

THE METHOD

The radiocarbon analysis of human skeletons from different sites of the Middle HelladicArgolid has been carried out at the Centre for Isotope Research, University of Groningen.We have decided to use AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry), rather than theconventional dating method. While the latter is more accurate, it requires a much larger

614 S. VOUTSAKI, A. J. NIJBOER, A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, G. TOUCHAIS, S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU

BCH 130 (2006)

Helladic Settlement of Aspis, Argos: Local Production and Imports,” in F. FELTEN, W. GAUSS, R. SMETANA

(eds.), Ägina – Kolonna. Forschungen und Ergebnisse, Bd. 1 : Middle Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms. Proceedingsof the International Workshop held at Salzburg, October 31st to November 2nd, 2004 (2007), p. 81-96; A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, “Aeginetan Matt-painted Pottery at Middle Helladic Aspis, Argos,” ibid., p. 97-114; ead., “Lestombes intra-muros de l’Helladique Moyen à la lumière des fouilles de l’Aspis d’Argos,” in A. BANAKA, S. HUBER

(eds.), Sur les pas de Wilhelm Vollgraff. Cent ans d’activités archéologiques à Argos, Actes du colloque internationalorganisé à l’École française d’Athènes par la IVe Éphorie des antiquités préhistoriques et classiques et l’École françaised’Athènes, 25-28 septembre 2003, RechFH 4 (forthcoming).

2. The 5-year multidisciplinary project on the Middle Helladic Argolid is financed by the Netherlands Organi-zation for Scientific Research (NWO) and the University of Groningen, the Netherlands. For the aims andmethods of the project, see S. VOUTSAKI, “Social and Cultural Change in the Middle Helladic Period: Presen-tation of a New Project”, in A. DAKOURI-HILD, S. SHERRATT (eds.), Autochthon. Papers Presented to O.T.P.K.Dickinson on the Occasion of his Retirement (2005), p. 134-143, or visit the website of the Project:http://www.MHArgolid.nl.

3. See the annual reports: S. VOUTSAKI, S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU, S. KOUIDOU-ANDREOU et al., “Lerna, 2000-1500 BC:A Pilot Analysis,” Pharos XI (2003), p. 75-80; S. VOUTSAKI, S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU, E. MILKA, “Project on theMiddle Helladic Argolid: A Report on the 2004 Season,” Pharos XII (2004), p. 31-40; S. VOUTSAKI, S. TRIANTA-PHYLLOU, A. INGVARSSON-SUNDSTRÖM et al., “Project on the Middle Helladic Argolid: A Report on the 2005Season,” Pharos XIII (2006), p. 93-117; S. VOUTSAKI, S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU, A. INGVARSSON-SUNDSTRÖM et al.,“Project on the Middle Helladic Argolid: A Report on the 2006 Season,” Pharos XIV (in press).

02_VOUTSAKI 24/3/2009 08:21 πμ Page 614

sample (200-250 g) than the AMS method for which a sample of 2-5 g, taken from ribs,undiagnostic bone, or bone fragments, is sufficient. This decision has been taken becauseof the need to preserve the skeletal material for future research.

By sampling skeletons from all large and well documented cemeteries of the MiddleHelladic Argolid and all ceramic sub-phases, we hope to build up a compendium of datesfor the Middle Helladic period. It is the first time that such an extensive and systematicprogramme of analysis has been undertaken in the southern mainland: We sample sixskeletons per ceramic sub-phase (i.e. 6 from MH I, 6 from MH II, etc.), and we try toinclude skeletons from the early or late phases of each ceramic phase4. For instance, wehave sampled 18 skeletons from Lerna, as the cemetery was in use during the entire MHperiod. In the case of Aspis5, an intramural cemetery consisting of 13 graves usedprimarily (though not exclusively) during the later Middle Helladic phases6, no suchcomplete compendium can be set up, and only 7 samples have been taken (Table 1).Nevertheless, we included all reasonably well presented skeletons, and especially thosewhich would allow us to solve stratigraphic problems. This is particularly important in theAspis, as the relation between graves and houses is very well documented in this site. Assome of the tombs we have sampled stand in a stratigraphic relation with other graves orarchitectural features, the sequence of absolute dates will help unraveling the complexstratigraphy of the intramural cemetery in the Aspis.

SKELETAL MATERIAL FROM ASPIS. RADIOCARBON ANALYSIS OF HUMAN REMAINS 615

BCH 130 (2006)

4. The sampling method is destructive, but only a small quantity of bone (5 g) is necessary; we sample rib fragmentsor other undiagnostic bones or bone fragments.

5. M. PIÉRART, G. TOUCHAIS, Argos: une ville grecque de 6000 ans (1996), p. 13-17.6. This Table contains updated information on the age and sex of the skeletons, and should replace the Table given

in A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, G. TOUCHAIS, with the contribution of S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU, “Rapport sur les travauxde l’École française d’Athènes en 2001. Argos, Aspis,” BCH 126 (2002), p. 500.

02_VOUTSAKI 24/3/2009 08:21 πμ Page 615

TABLE 1. LIST OF MIDDLE HELLADIC BURIALS FROM ASPIS

SkeletonNo. Phase Grave type Grave goods Sex Age 14C

TA 1 MH IIIA Cist 1 small fine cup F 40-50 +

TA 2 MH IIIA? Rock-cut pit 1 coarse cup F +30

TA 3 MH IIIA? Pit ? 14-15

TA 4 MH IIIA - Pit Bottom of coarse jar F 30-40 +

MH IIIB?

TA 5 MH IIIA? Pit M 30-40 +

TA 6 MH IIIA? Pit F 20-30

TA 7 MH I-II Simple inhumation F 18-30 +

TA 8 MH I-II Simple inhumation F? 30-40 +

TA 9 MH IIIA Simple inhumation ? 0-6 mos7

TA 10 MH I- MH II Jar Bowl as cover ? 0-6mos

- MH IIIA? of burial jar

TA 11 MH IIIA Simple inhumation ? Adult +

TA 12 MH IIIA Simple inhumation Two cups ? 9-12 mos +

TA 13 MH IIIA Simple inhumation ? ?

The interpretation of the radiocarbon results involves correlating the absolute dateswith the stratigraphic data. The interpretation has to include an assessment of the qualityof the radiocarbon results as well as a careful examination of the archaeological contexts.

Considering first the quality of the radiocarbon results, the measurements need tofulfil certain quality parameters if they are to be included in the analysis: the carboncontent (%C) of the bone sample needs to be higher than 35%, the δ13C values need to bearound 20‰ and the error measured must be low (at the most ± 50 years)8. Out of the7 samples from Aspis, 3 did not fulfil the quality parameters and indeed producederroneous (very high) results (Table 2). This clearly indicates that the samples had sufferedsome kind of contamination. Indeed further examination revealed that these bones (andnot only the associated skulls, as we thought) had been treated with a consolidant(Betacryl).


BCH 130 (2006)

7. “Mos” stands for months in the case of neonates and early infants (0-1 year).8. A. J. NIJBOER, H. VAN DE PLICHT, “The Iron Age of the Mediterranean: Recent Radiocarbon Research at the

University of Groningen”, in D. BRANDHERN, M. TRACHSEL (eds.), A New Dawn for the Dark Age? Shifting Para-digms in Mediterranean Iron Age Chronology (in press ).

02_VOUTSAKI 24/3/2009 08:21 πμ Page 616

TABLE 2. RESULTS WITH DEFICIENT QUALITY PARAMETERS

Sample No. Skeleton No. Locus Age BP 13δδ(‰) %C

GrA - 28214 TA 1 586 4000 ± 50 -20.60 47.2

GrA - 28289 TA 5 591b 4020 ± 35 -19.49 1 35.7

GrA - 28294 TA 12 600 4275 ± 40 -19.81 36.7

Fortunately, the other 4 samples produced meaningful results (Table 3).

TABLE 3. THE QUALITY OF THE RESULTS

Sample No. Skeleton No. Locus Age BP 13δδ(‰) %C

GrA - 28288 TA 4 591 3555 ± 35 -19.33 40.3

GrA - 28290 TA 7 469 3600 ± 35 -19.53 40.7

GrA - 28292 TA 8 529 3595 ± 35 -19.17 40.3

GrA - 28293 TA 11 598 3480 ± 35 -20.20 42.1

In addition, in order to exclude the possibility of a “reservoir effect”9, we have carriedout a stable isotope analysis of human bones from the Aspis10. This has allowed us toconclude that the Aspis population did not rely on marine resources for their diet, andtherefore to increase the reliability of our results.

The quality of the archaeological context is a much more complex problem. Theproblems with relative dating in the Middle Helladic period are well known. To start with,most MH tombs contain no offerings. Indeed, out of the 13 tombs found in the Aspis,only four contained offerings. As a consequence, the dating of the graves relies heavily ontheir stratigraphic association with other graves, floors or houses. However, datingintramural graves is a difficult task; as Carol Zerner has aptly put it: “It is possible toestablish into which layer a grave has been cut into; but it is very difficult to establish fromwhich layer the grave has been cut11.”

Even if the dead are accompanied by grave goods, these are not always diagnostic.In particular, MH pottery cannot always be attributed with certainty to specific sub-phases of the MH period. In fact, there is no generally accepted chronological scheme


BCH 130 (2006)

9. J. N. LANTING, H. VAN DE PLICHT, “Reservoir Effect and Apparent 14C Ages,” The Journal of Irish ArchaeologyIX (1998), p. 151-165.

10. S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU, M. P. RICHARDS, G. TOUCHAIS et al., in this volume, p. 57-67.11. C. Zerner, personal communication.

02_VOUTSAKI 24/3/2009 08:21 πμ Page 617

for the MH mainland12; establishing synchronisms between the various local sequencesis not always straightforward. Even in the Argolid, a very intensively investigated andstudied region, uncertainties exist in the definition of the different ceramic sub-phases13.In addition, many MH sites are unpublished, therefore the ceramic sequences are stillimperfectly understood. In the case of the Aspis, the relative sequence and stratigraphyof the different areas excavated in Aspis are at the moment being re-examined, as thestudy of the finds for publication is under way14.

If relative dating is not always straightforward in the MH period, absolute dating isnot without its problems. Despite the considerable improvements in radiocarbon analysisin the last two decades15, absolute dates come with a certain error of margin. In the periodwe are studying, this margin is relatively wide because of the shape of the calibrationcurve. In addition, there are few comparative data from the MH mainland, as only fewradiocarbon measurements exist and no extensive and systematic programmes of analysishave ever been undertaken. Most measurements are quite old16, and therefore cannotreally be used for comparative purposes.

Therefore, neither relative nor absolute dating are fully accurate. In fact, both can beexpressed in terms of a range of possible dates. Interpreting the results of the radiocarbonanalysis involves precisely that: trying to reconcile the two ranges of dates, while acceptingthe restrictions imposed by the stratigraphy of the site and the standard deviation of theradiocarbon results.


BCH 130 (2006)

12. A. LAMBROPOULOU, The Middle Helladic Period in the Corinthia and the Argolid : An Archaeological Survey(1991), p. 8ff., esp. 27, and 357.

13. In particular, the sub-division of the MH III period into MH IIIA and MH III B suggested by S. DIETZ, TheArgolid at the Transition to the Mycenaean Age: Studies in the Chronology and Cultural Development in the ShaftGrave Period (1991), has not been generally accepted.

14. See A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, loc. cit. (2002, supra n. 1); ead., loc. cit. (2003, supra n. 1); G. TOUCHAIS, loc. cit.(2007, supra n. 1); A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, loc. cit. (2007, supra n. 1).

15. S. W. MANNING, “Aegean and Sardinian Chronology: Radiocarbon, Calibration and Thera,” in M. S. BALMUTH,R. H. TYKOT (eds.), Sardinian and Aegean Chronology. Towards the Resolution of Relative and Absolute Dating inthe Mediterranean (1998), p. 297-307.

16. P. WARREN, V. HANKEY, The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Bronze Age (1989); S. DIETZ, op. cit. (supra, n. 13),p. 316-318.

02_VOUTSAKI 24/3/2009 08:21 πμ Page 618

RADIOCARBON ANALYSIS AND THE MH CHRONOLOGY

In order to provide a general framework within which the radiocarbon analysis of theAspis burials can be interpreted, we first need to present briefly the results from the othersites included in the project, notably Lerna and Asine.

(i) Lerna

The intramural cemetery at Lerna was in use throughout the MH period and consisted ofover 200 graves. Therefore, Lerna gives us the opportunity to select the most accuratelydated graves and to build up a sequence for the entire period. In addition, Lerna has twoimportant advantages when compared to other cemeteries: the graves contain moreofferings, and even some Minoan and Cycladic imports, and therefore they can be datedwith more accuracy. Second, Lerna has a complex history of use17 with several areas beingused interchangeably for burial and for habitation18. As a result, some graves had a veryclear relative dating, as they were opened into the ruins of a house after it was abandoned,while another house was built subsequently on top of the grave.

We have taken 18 samples from Lerna which have produced a very tight sequence,with very good correspondence between relative and absolute dates. The analysis hasreached the following conclusions19 about the duration of the MH period and its sub-divisions:

– MH I period: The accepted date for the beginning of the MBA has been placed in2100/2000 BC, i.e. around or just before the beginning of the 2nd millenium20. Wehave taken 3 measurements from tombs which had a MH I relative date; according tothem, the transition from the EH III to the MH I period should be placed around2100 BC. All 3 measurements fall before 1900 BC, therefore we can conclude that theperiod lasts approximately until 1900 BC. However, it should be emphasized thatthese inferences are based on very few measurements, therefore some caution isnecessary.


BCH 130 (2006)

17. E. T. BLACKBURN, Middle Helladic Graves and Burial Customs with Special Reference to Lerna in the Argolid(1970); C. W. ZERNER, The Beginning of the Middle Helladic Period at Lerna (1978).

18. E. MILKA, “Burials upon the Ruins of Abandoned Houses in the MH Argolid,” in A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS,G. TOUCHAIS, S. VOUTSAKI, J. WRIGHT (eds.), Mesohelladika. The Greek Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age.BCH Suppl. (forthcoming).

19. For more detailed discussion see S. VOUTSAKI, A. J. NIJBOER, C. ZERNER, “Radiocarbon Analysis and MiddleHelladic Lerna,” in A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, G. TOUCHAIS, S. VOUTSAKI, J. WRIGHT (eds.), loc. cit. (supra); S.VOUTSAKI, A. J. NIJBOER, C. ZERNER, “MH Lerna: Relative and Absolute Chronologies,” in S. W. MANNING

(ed.), Conference in Honour of Peter Kuniholm, Cornell University, 2-5 November 2006 (in press).20. G. CADOGAN, “Dating the Aegean Bronze Age without Radiocarbon,” Archaeometry 20/2 (1978), p. 213;

P. WARREN, V. HANKEY, op. cit. (supra, n. 16), p. 124; O. T. K. P. DICKINSON, The Aegean Bronze Age (1994),p. 19; S. W. MANNING, The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age: Archaeology, Radiocarbon, andHistory (1995).

02_VOUTSAKI 24/3/2009 08:21 πμ Page 619

– MH II period: As we suggested above, the MH II period should start around 1900BC. The end of the MH II period has been placed around 1750/1720 BC byManning21, and around 1800 BC by Dietz22. Unfortunately, the radiocarbon analysisdoes not allow us to distinguish between the MH II and MH III phases. The 14Cresults fall very close together, and they all have a relatively wide range because of theshape of the calibration curve in this period. In addition, we are dealing here withfairly short phases which cannot easily be distinguished in radiocarbon analysis.Therefore, graves with a fairly secure relative date in MH II produce 14C dates whichfall within the range of the MH II period, but a date in MH III cannot be excluded(and vice versa).

– MH III period: The duration of the MH III period and the transition to the LH Iperiod are heavily debated (Table 4). According to the ‘Low Chronology’23 thetransition takes place around 1600 BC, while the ‘High Chronology’24 places itaround 1700 BC.

TABLE 4. APPROXIMATE DATES FOR THE MH PERIOD: THE DEBATE

‘Low’ Chronology ‘High’ Chronology

MH I 2100-1900 BC 2200 /2100 – 1900 BC

MH II 1900-1700 BC 1900 – 1800 BC

MH III 1700-1600 BC 1800 – 1700 BC

All MH III measurements from Lerna (5 measurements) fall before 1700 BC. In fact,the only grave to span the 1700 BC boundary anyway had a relative date in the ‘ShaftGrave period’, i.e. the MH III – LH I – LH IIA period. This implies that the MH IIIperiod lasts until 1700 BC. If this is accepted, it makes more sense to place the beginningof the MH III period around 1800 BC. Once more, some caution is necessary: thisconclusion is based more on common sense than on actual results.


BCH 130 (2006)

21. S. W. MANNING, op. cit. (supra).22. S. DIETZ, op. cit. (supra n. 13), p. 317.23. P. WARREN, V. HANKEY, op. cit. (supra, n. 16); M. BIETAK, “Science versus Archaeology: Problems and Conse-

quences of High Aegean Chronology,” in M. BIETAK (ed.), The Synchronization of Civilizations in the EasternMediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. (2003); M. H. WIENER, “Time out: The Current Impasse inBronze Age Archaeological Dating,” in K. POLINGER FOSTER, R. LAFFINEUR (eds.), METRON. Measuring theAegean Bronze Age, 9e Rencontre égéenne internationale, New Haven, Yale University, 18-21 April 2002 (2003).

24. Most recently, S. W MANNING, C. BRONK RAMSEY, W. KUTSCHERA, T. HIGHAM et al., Chronology for the AegeanLate Bronze Age 1700-1400 BC, Science 312: 5573 (2006), p. 565-569.

02_VOUTSAKI 24/3/2009 08:21 πμ Page 620

The chronological scheme which can be reconstructed on the basis of the Lernaradiocarbon results is presented in Table 5.

TABLE 5. TENTATIVE SUB-DIVISIONS OF THE MH PERIOD

MH I 2100? – 1900 BC

MH II 1900 – 1800?? BC

MH III 1800?? – 1700 BC

(ii) Asine

Samples from 17 human skeletons from MH Asine (12 from the East Cemetery –tumulus IQ, and 5 from Barbouna) have been submitted to radiocarbon analysis. Here wewill discuss only the results from the East Cemetery, as the study of the find contexts of theBarbouna graves has not been completed as yet.

The East Cemetery, also referred to as IQ tumulus25, is in use from MH II onwards,but primarily in MH III and LH I. We were therefore hoping that the analysis would helpus defining more accurately the duration of the MH III period. However, in the case of theMH II / MH III chronological boundary we encountered precisely the same problem asin Lerna: the measurements came with a wide range, and therefore once more we couldnot distinguish between MH II and MH III. In the case of the MH III / LH I boundary,the results were problematic: the one grave26 we sampled produced a very early resultwhich is clearly not compatible with the (fairly secure) LH I relative date. This is one of theproblems with radiocarbon analysis: sometimes the results obtained are inconsistent, orclearly erroneous.

To conclude: The Asine analysis produced very interesting results about the early use andthe abandonment of the tumulus27, but cannot help us fix more accurately the duration ofthe MH III period.


BCH 130 (2006)

25. S. DIETZ, Asine II. Results of the Excavations East of the Acropolis 1970-1974, Fasc. 2. The Middle HelladicCemetery - The Middle Helladic and Early Mycenaean Deposits (1980).

26. Grave 1971-3, which contained several diagnostic vases (S. DIETZ, op. cit. [supra n. 13], passim).27. S. VOUTSAKI, S. TRIANTAPHYLLOU, A. INGVARSSON-SUNDSTRÖM et al. (supra n. 3, in press).

02_VOUTSAKI 24/3/2009 08:21 πμ Page 621

THE RADIOCARBON ANALYSIS OF THE ASPIS BURIALS

The settlement on the Aspis is the only well documented part of the large and importantMH site of Argos28. The excavations have revealed that the site is occupied since the MH I– II period, though architectural remains belong primarily to the MH III period. The 13intramural graves (Table 6, Fig. 1), found between or underneath houses, are in manyways typical MH burials: most graves are pits or simple inhumations, though two cistsand one jar burial also exist; the majority of burials are single, contracted inhumations;most graves are unfurnished; when offerings do occur, they consist of one, or at the mosttwo ceramic vases29.

TABLE 6. ASPIS: PHASES OF OCCUPATION

Aspis I Final Neolithic

Aspis II MH I – II

Aspis III MH IIIA

Aspis IV MH IIIB/LH IA

Aspis V Late Classical – Hellenistic

The graves date mostly to Aspis III, while architectural remains date both to Aspis IIIand Aspis IV (see Table 6). However, a few graves may have been earlier than the house inthe proximity of which they are found. (Of course, the possibility that houses werestanding in the area in previous periods cannot be excluded.) The radiocarbon analysismay help us date the graves more accurately (Table 7). We will first present the results forthe four graves, and then discuss them against the measurements obtained from theradiocarbon analyses carried out in other sites, notably Lerna and Asine.

TABLE 7. 14C RESULTS FROM ASPIS

Sample Skel No. Locus Age BP 1σσ calibration 2 σσ calibration Date

GrA- 28288 TA 4 591 3555 ± 35 1960 – 1870 BC (55.8%) 2020 –1090 BC (3.4%) MH IIIA -1850 – 1820 BC (7.5%) 1980 – 1770 BC (92.0%) MH IIIB?1800 – 1780 BC (4.9%)

GrA- 28290 TA 7 469 3600 ± 35 2020 – 1990 BC (15.4%) 2120 – 2090 BC (1.8%) MH I- II1980 – 1900 BC (52.8%) 2040 – 1870 BC (93.6%)

GrA- 28292 TA 8 529 3595 ± 35 2020 – 1990 BC (9.8%) 2120 – 2090 BC (1.1%) MH I- II1980 – 1900 BC (58.4%) 2040 – 1870 BC (94.3%)

GrA- 28293 TA 11 598 3480 ± 35 1880 – 1840 BC (25.3%) 1900 – 1730 BC (90.6%) MH IIIA

1830 – 1740 BC (42.9%) 1720– 1690 BC (4.8%)


BCH 130 (2006)

28. M. PIÉRART, G. TOUCHAIS, op. cit. (supra, n. 5), p. 13-17.29. A. PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, loc. cit. (forthcoming, supra, n. 1).

02_VOUTSAKI 24/3/2009 08:21 πμ Page 622

(i) TA 4 – locus 591 (Fig. 2)

Grave TA 4 was cut in an open space southeast of House MB, just inside the perivolos(graves TA 3 and TA 6 were also located in the same area). TA 4 was located more or less ontop of TA 5 and shared a similar orientation, but it cannot be established whether this wasdone on purpose. The pit contained a woman in her 30s, in contracted position. Thebottom of a coarse jar was found above her left hand.

The dating of the grave (in fact, of all the graves in the lower terrace, i.e. TA 3 to TA 8)is rather problematic. TA 4 was opened in the continuation of, or just outside the southernwall of MH III A House MB. If the wall was destroyed at its southeastern end, the burialcould be later than the house, i.e. later MH IIIA or MH IIIB. If the wall never reached thatfar, the tomb may be contemporary or earlier than the house. TA 5 (more or lessunderneath TA 4) cannot help towards clarifying the dating, as the tomb was not


BCH 130 (2006)

0 1 2 3 4 5m

Y. Rizakis 1996-2007 eFa 39665

TA 9

TA 11

TA 13

TA 2

TA 1

TA 10

TA 7

TA 8

TA 3

TA 6

TA 5

TA 4

Phase II (MH I-II) Phase III (MH IIIA) Phase IV (MH IIIB/ LH I) Phase V (Late classical)

BE

BF

BG

BH

38 39 40 41

TA 12

447481

MC

MB

MA

MC

MC

Fig. 1. — Plan of the MH settlement on the Aspis (SE sector).

02_VOUTSAKI 24/3/2009 08:21 πμ Page 623

furnished –as a consequence, we do not know whether the two tombs are contemporaryor not30.

The results of the radiocarbon analysis complicate this problem further. With a resultranging 2020-1770 BC at 2σ standard deviation, the possibility that the graves dates tothe MH III period exists, but is statistically very small. An earlier date in MH II, or even inMH I is more likely. On stratigraphic grounds, however, this early date is problematic, asthe grave is situated at a high level, not only (directly) above TA 5, but also higher than allneighbouring graves (TA 3, TA 6, TA 7, TA 8). The question has to remain open.

(ii) TA 7 – locus 469 and (iii) TA 8 – locus 529 (Figs. 3-4)

TA 7 and TA 8 will be discussed together, as they share many features and haveproduced virtually identical radiocarbon results. Both are unfurnished, simpleinhumations, containing women in contracted position: TA 7 a woman in her 20s, andTA 8 a woman in her 30s. They were found close together under the floor of MH IIIAhouse MC; in fact, the two skeletons almost touch each other, and therefore werepresumably buried at the same time. The tombs may either be contemporary to houseMC under which they are located, i.e. MH III A, or earlier, i.e. MH I-II. This earlier dateis more likely for two reasons: the eastern part of house MC may date from the MH I-IIperiod, and the tombs were found at a very low level, effectively on bedrock31.

The radiocarbon results (Figs. 3-4) render support to this conclusion: the absolutedates (2120-1870 BC at 2σ standard deviation) are consistent with a date in MH I orMH II.

(iv) TA 11 – locus 598 (Fig. 5)

TA 11 was one of two simple inhumations covered with pithos fragments (the otherone is TA 12). They were found (together with TA 9 and TA 13) in a small open space tothe north of MH IIIA apsidal house MA. These graves must belong to MH IIIA, as theywere opened just below the floor level of the apsidal house and must be contemporarywith it32.

The radiocarbon result (1900-1690 BC, at 2σ standard deviation) is clearlycompatible with a MH III date, though a date in MH II is also possible.

To conclude: In the case of grave TA 11, the absolute date confirms the relative date(though an earlier MH II date cannot be excluded). The results from TA 7 and TA 8support an early rather than a late date. Finally, there is a discrepancy between the relativeand absolute date for TA 4.


BCH 130 (2006)

30. Ibid.31. Ibid.32. Ibid.

02_VOUTSAKI 24/3/2009 08:21 πμ Page 624

CONCLUSION

In general, the Aspis dates, despite their small number, compare well with the Lernaresults. The main conclusions we can reach are the following: The Aspis results confirmthat the MH III / LH I boundary should be placed around 1700 BC. However, theycannot help us date the beginning of the MH III period more accurately. Since somegraves may belong to the MH I-II period, in Aspis we encounter the same problem as inLerna and in Asine: the radiocarbon analysis does not allow us to distinguish between theMH II and MH III periods.


BCH 130 (2006)

Fig. 2. — Radiocarbon result of TA 4.Fig. 3. — Radiocarbon result from TA 7.Fig. 4. — Radiocarbon result from TA 8.Fig. 5. — Radiocarbon result from TA 11.

2

5

3

4

02_VOUTSAKI 24/3/2009 08:21 πμ Page 625

02_VOUTSAKI 24/3/2009 08:21 πμ Page 626

Voutsaki et al 2008 C14 analysis Aspis

Documents

Transcript of Voutsaki et al 2008 C14 analysis Aspis