voutsaki et al 2010 c14 analysis asine

8/8/2019 Voutsaki et al 2010 C14 analysis Asine

1/21

Sofia Voutsaki, Sren Dietz and Albert J. Nijboer 1

RADIOCARBON ANALYSIS AND THE HISTORYOF THE EAST CEMETERY, ASINE

BY

SOFIA VOUTSAKI, SREN DIETZ and

ALBERT J. NIJBOER

Abstract

This paper presents the results of the radiocarbon analysis of humanbones from the East Cemetery (IQ tumulus), Middle Helladic Asine.The analyses have been carried out at the Centre for IsotopeResearch, University of Groningen, using the AMS (AcceleratorMass Spectroscopy) method. The main aim of the analysis is toelucidate the history of use of the tumulus and the surroundingextramural cemetery by comparing the absolute dates with the

relative dates based on the ceramic offerings and the internalstratigraphy of the tumulus. The establishment of a formal disposalarea and the adoption of the tumulus are significant developments inthe MH period, and it is therefore important to date their appearancewith more precision. In addition, a more accurate reconstruction ofthe history of this important funerary monument gives us a betterunderstanding of mortuary practices and social change in Asine, andin the MH mainland in general.*

INTRODUCTION

This paper presents the results of radiocarbon analysis from

human skeletal material from Middle Helladic (abbreviatedMH) Asine recovered from the IQ tumulus, East Cemetery.

1

The radiocarbon analysis is part of a wider interdisciplinary

project, theMiddle Helladic Argolid Project

,

2

whose aim is

to reconstruct the social organization of MH communities

and to interpret the important social, political and cultural

changes that took place on the southern Greek mainland dur-

ing the MH period. The task is pursued by means of an inte-

grated analysis of funerary, skeletal and settlement data from

the MH Argolid.

3

The history of the excavations

The ancient site of Asine is located on the rocky promontory

called Kastraki, which protrudes out into the sea east of the

small village of Tolonoriginally a place for fishermen and

their families, today a busy tourist inferno during the hot

months of the Greek summer. Geological investigations

4

have shown that in antiquity, Kastraki was separated from the

mainland by a channel which connected a lake in the inland

with the sea. Today the channel does not exist and the ancient

lake has been transformed into flat, fertile, agricultural fields.

The site of Kastraki was excavated by a Swedish team un-

der the direction of Axel W. Persson and Otto Frdin

5

during

four campaigns (1922, 1924, 1926 and 1930). The field work

revealed the existence of considerable habitations during the

Aegean Bronze Age from the Early, Middle and Late Hellad-

ic periods. In addition remains from the Iron Age and consid-

erable remains of the Hellenistic settlement were found. In

fact the most remarkable ancient remains to be seen today arethe impressive Hellenistic fortification walls with a most

spectacular tower constructed on the east side of the rocky

promontory. Besides excavation on Kastraki, the 1920s ex-

pedition investigated also the Barbouna hill on the mainland

side of the channel, where rich Mycenaean chamber tombs,

a Geometric necropolis and a temple of Apollo were located.

In 1970 a camping site was to be erected on the level area

east of Kastraki and the then Ephor of the Argolid/Corinthia,

the late E. Deilaki, made a proposition to the Swedish Institute

at Athens to carry out the necessary emergency investigations.

* We are grateful to the former and current Ephors at the 4

th

Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, Mrs ZoiAslamatzidhou and Mrs A. Banaka, and the Department of Conser-vation, Ministry of Culture, for granting us permission to examineand take samples from the Middle Helladic human skeletons ofAsine. We thank the Swedish Institute at Athens and Prof. Dr C.-G.Styrenius for granting us the permission to sample the skeletonsfrom the East Cemetery. We would also like to acknowledge theassistance of the staff at the 4

th

Ephorate, particularly Mrs E. Pappi.The guards of the Nauplion Museum were particularly helpful dur-ing our study; we thank them all. The samples have been taken byDr Anne Ingvarsson-Sundstrm, with assistance by Dr S. Trianta-phyllou. Erwin Bolhuis prepared the distribution maps. SV isindebted to Dr K. Sarri for many discussions on MH pottery, to MsIro Mathioudaki for helpful suggestions on the pottery from theEast Cemetery, and to Jan Lanting for clarifying various questions

regarding14

C analysis. Finally, we thank the two anonymousreviewers for their comments.

1

For MH Asine, seeAsine

I; Hgg & Hgg 1973; Dietz 1980; idem

1982; Nordquist 1987; eadem

1996; Styrenius 1998.

2

The five-year multidisciplinary project on the Middle HelladicArgolid is financed by the Netherlands Organization for ScientificResearch (NWO) and the University of Groningen, the Nether-lands. For the aims and methods of the project, see Voutsaki 2005,or visit the website of the project: http://www.MHArgolid.nl.

3

See the annual reports: Voutsaki et al.

2004; eadem

2006; eadem

2007; Voutsaki, Triantaphyllou & Milka 2005; Voutsaki, Ingvars-son-Sundstrm & Richards 2009.

4

Zangger 1994.

5

Asine

I.


2/21

2

Radiocarbon analysis and the history of the East Cemetery, Asine

The excavations were conducted by Carl-Gustaf Styrenius and

Sren Dietz from 1970 to 1974. The ancient remains on the

plain proved to be of considerable importance, as more than

2 m of deposits were revealed covering a long period. The

area was in almost continuous use from the Middle Bronze

Age with the East Cemetery

6

(to be reconsidered in thepresent contribution, Fig. 1

) in the bottom, partly covered by

ground water, to Hellenistic levels near the surface with im-

portant Protogeometric and Geometric habitation in be-

tween.

7

In the same decade the lower slopes of the Barbouna hill

were investigated by Inga and Robin Hgg.

8

The area was oc-

cupied in different periods, but here we will single out the

Middle Bronze Age houses and graves belonging to the end

of the period (MH III).

9

The MH period is thus attested in all

three areas investigated in the site of Asine. On Kastraki and

on the lower slopes of the Barbouna hill, both settlement

remains and graves were attested, while in the area east of

Kastraki, only the East Cemetery was found with no traces

of habitation nearby.

Aims of the radiocarbon analysis

The radiocarbon analysis is part of the analysis of funerary

data, as the samples have been taken from human skeletons.

Therefore, the first aim of the analysis is to enhance the

chronological resolution of the analysis of mortuary data. In

6

Dietz 1980.

7

Dietz 1982.

8

Hgg & Hgg 1973.

9

Nordquist 1987.

Fig. 1. The East Cemetery and the Tumulus IQ (Dietz 1982, Plan VI).


3/21

Sofia Voutsaki, Sren Dietz and Albert J. Nijboer

3

the case of Asine in particular, this acquires a particular im-

portance. The site offers a unique possibility to study the de-velopment of different burial places: the tombs in the Lower

Town, the tumulus cemetery established to the east of Kast-

raki (the East Cemetery, including the IQ tumulus), and the

graves opened amidst the earlier ruined houses in the Barbou-

na hill to the west. The adoption of extramural cemeteries and

the construction of the IQ tumulus mark a significant depar-

ture in MH mortuary practices, and therefore it is important

to establish their dates as securely as possible.

Asine offers many advantages that facilitate radiocarbon

analysis: the site has been extensively and repeatedly exca-

vated,

10

the quality of the excavations (including the old ex-

cavations) was good and the site has been published in exem-

plary fashion, in particular its MH phase.

11

Finally, the skel-etal assemblage of MH Asine is very well studied. The human

remains recovered in the old excavations were first published

by Frst,

12

and later by Angel.

13

The skeletons recovered in

the East Cemetery as well as those found in the Barbouna

graves have been intensively studied with the most advanced

methods.

14

Therefore, the wealth of skeletal and contextual

data enhances the significance of radiocarbon analysis from

MH Asine.

In the case of the IQ tumulus, 14

C analysis is particularly

significant because there are many unfurnished graves (13

out of 20) which cannot be dated closely except on the basis

of stratigraphic observations. Dietz

15

suggested dates based

on the relations of the graves to the two stone covers, theperi-bolos

of the tumulus, or with other graves.

Fig. 2

depicts the tumulus cemetery as reconstructed by

Dietz.

16

The tumulus consisted of two covers of which the

lower one was in very poor condition. The upper cover, on

the other hand, was better preserved. It was constructed by

larger rounded stones placed neatly in a kind of polygonal

pattern. The centre was found empty without any traces of a

structure. The tumulus was almost totally excavated, and it

was suggested that it was originally circular with a diameter

of 8 m. In addition, some stones placed in rows in the northern

and southern part of the excavation were interpreted as parts

of aperibolos

with a diameter of 15 m (not fully concentric

with the tumulus), which originally may have indicated the

10

For a recent synthesis on the Asine excavations, see Styrenius1998.

11

Dietz 1980; Nordquist 1987; eadem

n.d. a; eadem

n.d. b.

12

Frst 1930.

13

Angel 1982. Unfortunately the skeletons from the old excava-tions in Kastraki are now lost.

14

Ingvarsson-Sundstrm 2008; Ingvarsson-Sundstrm in Voutsaki

et al.

2007, 7076; Ingvarsson-Sundstrm in print; Nordquist &Ingvarsson-Sundstrm 2005.

15

Dietz 1980.

16

Dietz 1980, 70.

Fig. 2. Reconstructed plan of the cemetery (Dietz 1970, 70).


4/21

4

Radiocarbon analysis and the history of the East Cemetery, Asine

border of the cemetery. The burial ground was overlaid by a

pebble-filled horizon of varying thickness. This layer, called

stratum 12,

17

was virtually void of cultural remains and ap-

parently represented an artificially applied stratum whose

function was to protect the burial ground. Interestingly, the

area of the pebble horizon follows that of the reconstructed

peribolos

.

18

This reconstruction needs to be taken into ac-

count because it was used as part of the argument for the

chronological development in the cemetery.The history of the tumulus cemetery was reconstructed as

follows:

19

the tumulus may have been erected in the early MH

II period, to which most likely the lower stone cover should

be dated. The reconstructedperibolos

probably belongs to the

same periodthe early part of the MH. The upper stone cover

was added later, probably during late MH II; some of the cist

graves opened onto the upper stone cover belong to this pe-

riod. Cist graves found at the edges of the cemetery were con-

sidered late MH IIMH III, because they were stratigraphi-

cally later than the reconstructed peribolos

. Some other

graves outside the tumulus contained datable offerings and

could be dated to MH IIILH I. Finally, two LH II vases werefound in the northern periphery of the tumulus, and were in-

terpreted as representing a last visit to the burial ground.

It becomes immediately evident that some of the graves and

features of the cemetery were dated in relation to each other.

While an internal stratigraphy of the tumulus can be recon-

structed, assigning absolute dates to its various phases of use

was fraught with difficulties. Therefore in the case of the East

Cemetery radiocarbon analysis is particularly useful.

20

The main purpose of our analysis is to refine the sequence

at MH Asine and MH chronology in general. However, a fur-

ther aim is to contribute to the wider chronological debate in

Aegean archaeology, and especially the highly contested is-

sue of High versus Low Chronology (see Table 1

).

21

In par-ticular, it is important to use well-documented data from the

mainland, which so far has been largely absent from the

chronological debate in Aegean prehistory.

22

The method

The radiocarbon analysis of human skeletons from Asine

(and other sites of the MH Argolid) has been carried out at

the Centre for Isotope Research, University of Groningen.

23

We have decided to use AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectro-

metry) rather than the conventional dating method. While the

latter can be more accurate, it requires a much larger sample

(200250 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 because of the need

to preserve the skeletal material for future research.

By sampling skeletons from all large and well documented

cemeteries of the MH Argolid and all ceramic sub-phases, we

hope to build up a compendium of dates for the MH period.It is the first time that such an extensive and systematic pro-

gramme of analysis has been undertaken in the southern

mainland: We sample six skeletons per ceramic sub-phase

(i.e., 6 from MH I, 6 from MH II, etc.), and we try to include

tombs from the early or late phases of each ceramic phase.

24

We have sampled 12 skeletons from Asine, East Cemetery,

and 5 from Barbouna.

25

Further, we have analysed 18 skele-

tons from Lerna,

26

a cemetery used during the entire MH pe-

riod, and 7 skeletons from the Aspis,

27

an intramural ceme-

tery used in MH IIMH III.

17

Dietz 1982, 6970, 83, plan VIII (sections).

18

Dietz 1982, 6970.

19

Dietz 1980, 7188.

20

This is an important difference from graves in the settlementarea, which can often be dated in relation to earlier or later houses.The primary example is Lerna: see Blackburn 1970; Milka in print.

21

It is impossible to summarize this complex and rather heateddebate in a footnote. For the Low Chronology, see Warren &Hankey 1989, and more recently Bietak 2003; Wiener 2003. For theHigh Chronology, see recently Manning et al

. 2006; for impor-tant new evidence Friedrich et al.

2006. Important contributions tothe debate can also be found in the most recent SCIEM Conference(Bietak & Czerny 2007); see especially Bietak & Hflmayer 2007;

Manning 2007; Wiener 2007.

22

Manning 2005, 113. For a more extensive discussion on the stateof the question and the need to obtain more data from the mainland,see Voutsaki, Nijboer & Zerner 2009, 151152.

23

The Laboratory at the Groningen Centre for Isotope Researchparticipates in inter-comparison exercises (Scott et al

. 2004) andmaintains strict quality assurance criteria (see section 3.1; Bruins &van der Plicht 2001; van der Plicht & Bruins 2001).

24

The sampling method is destructive, but only a small quantity ofbone (5 g) is necessary; we sample rib fragments or other undiag-nostic bones or bone fragments.

25

The results from Barbouna will be presented in a separate article.

26

Voutsaki, Nijboer & Zerner 2009; Voutsaki, Nijboer & Zerner inprint.

27

Voutsaki et al.

2009a.

Table 1.Approximate dates for the MH period: the debate.

Low Chronology High Chronology

MH I 21001900 BC 2200 /21001900 BCMH II 19001700 BC 19001800 BCMH III 17001600 BC 18001700 BC


5/21

Sofia Voutsaki, Sren Dietz and Albert J. Nijboer

5

Unfortunately, it was not possible to take additional sam-

ples for control measurements because of permit restric-

tions, but also due to the poor preservation of the skeletons

and the need to preserve the assemblage for futureresearchers.

RADIOCARBON ANALYSIS AND MHCHRONOLOGY

In order to provide a general framework within which the ra-

diocarbon analysis of the Asine burials can be interpreted, we

first need to present briefly the results from the other sites in-

cluded in the project, notably Lerna and Aspis.

Lerna

The intramural cemetery at Lerna was in use throughout the

MH period and consisted of over 200 graves.

28

Lerna therefore

offers us a unique opportunity to select the most accurately dat-

ed graves and

to build up a sequence for the entire period. Lerna

has two important advantages when compared to other ceme-

teries: first, the graves can be dated with more precision, as they

contain more offerings, and even some Minoan and Cycladic

imports. Second, Lerna has a complex history of use with sev-

eral areas being used interchangeably for burial and habita-

tion.

29

As a result, some graves had a precise relative dating, as

they were opened into the ruins of a house after it was aban-doned, while another house was built subsequently on top of

the grave.

The radiocarbon analysis of the Lerna skeletons has pro-

duced a very tight sequence with very good correspondence

between relative and absolute dates. The analysis has reached

the following conclusions about the duration of the MH pe-

riod and its sub-divisions:

30

MH I period: the accepted date for the beginning of the

MBA has been placed in 2100/2000 BC, i.e., around or

just before the beginning of the second millennium.

31

We

have taken three measurements from tombs which had a

MH I relative date: according to them, the transition fromthe EH III to the MH I period should be placed around

2100 BC. All three measurements fall before 1900 BC (at

2

probability level [95.4%]), therefore we can conclude

that the period lasts approximately until 1900 BC.

However, it should be emphasized that these inferences

are based on only a few measurements, therefore some

caution is necessary.

MH II period: as we suggested above, the MH II period

should start around 1900 BC. The end of the MH II period

has been placed around 1750/1720 BC by Manning,

32

and

around 1800 BC by Dietz.

33

Unfortunately, the radiocarbon

analysis does not allow us to distinguish between the MH II

and MH III phases. The 14

C results fall very close together,

and they all have a relatively wide range because of the

shape of the calibration curve in this period. In addition, we

are dealing here with fairly short phases that cannot be

distinguished easily in radiocarbon analysis. Therefore,

graves with a fairly secure relative date in MH II produce

14

C dates which fall 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 thetransition to the LH I period are heavily debated (

Table 1

,

above). According to the Low Chronology

34

the transi-

tion takes place around 1600 BC, while the High

Chronology

35

places it around 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 had anyway a relative date in the Shaft Grave

period, i.e., the MH IIILH Ibeginning of LH IIA period.

This implies that the MH III period lasts until 1700 BC (or

perhaps even earlier). If this is accepted, it makes sense to

place the beginning of the MH III period around 1800 BC.

Once more, some caution is necessary: this last conclusionis based more on common sense than on actual results.

The chronological scheme which can be reconstructed on the

basis of the Lerna radiocarbon results is presented in Table 2

.

Aspis

The settlement on the Aspis is the only well documented

part of the large and important MH site of Argos.

36

The ex-

cavations have revealed that the site was occupied since the

MH III period, although architectural remains belong pri-

marily to the MH III period. Thirteen intramural graves have

28

Blackburn 1970; Zerner 1978.

29

Blackburn 1970; Zerner 1978; Milka in print.

30

For more detailed discussion see Voutsaki, Nijboer & Zerner2009; Voutsaki, Nijboer & Zerner in print.

31

Cadogan 1978, 213; Warren & Hankey 1989, 124; Manning1995

.

32

Manning 1995.

33

Dietz 1980, 317; 1800/1775 in Dietz 1991, 321.

34

For the Low Chronology see Warren & Hankey 1989, andmore recently Bietak

2003; Wiener 2003.

35

See Manning et al.

2006.

36

Pirart & Touchais 1996, 1317.

Table 2. Tentative sub-divisions of the MH period on the basis of theLerna 14C results.

MH I 2100?1900 BC

MH II 19001800?? BCMH III 1800??1700 BC


6/21

6 Radiocarbon analysis and the history of the East Cemetery, Asine

been found between or underneath houses.37 We have sam-

pled seven skeletons, but only four produced reliable

results.38

No MH I graves have been found in the Aspis, and

therefore the site cannot give us any information on thebeginning of the MH period.

The graves, most of them unfurnished, belong mostly to

the MH III period, but three graves may on stratigraphicgrounds belong to the MH III period. Therefore, the

problems we encountered in Lerna in our attempt to

distinguish between the MH II and MH III periods cannot

be solved in Aspis, where, in addition, the date of these

earlier graves is uncertain.

The Aspis results confirm an important conclusion we

reached on the basis of the Lerna analysis: that the MH III/

LH I boundary should be placed around 1700 BC.

In general, therefore, the Aspis dates, despite their restrictednumber, compare well with the Lerna results.

To conclude: the radiocarbon analysis of the Lerna and

Aspis data allows us to assign tentative dates for the begin-

ning of the MH I period and the MH II period. However, it

does not allow us to date the beginning of the MH III period

accurately, because of the short duration of these sub-phas-

es, the fairly broad range of the radiocarbon dates and the

shape of the calibration curve in this period, but also the un-

certainties surrounding the relative dates of some graves.

The analysis, however, places the end of the MH period

firmly around 1700 BC.

THE RADIOCARBON ANALYSIS OF THEEAST CEMETERY, ASINE

The quality of the results

Samples from 12 human skeletons from the East Cemetery

have been submitted to radiocarbon analysis. The measure-ments need to fulfil certain quality parameters if they are to

be included in the analysis: the organic content (Cv)of the

bone sample needs to be higher than 35%, the 13C values

need to be around 20 and the error measured must be low

(at the most 50 years).39 Ten samples have produced relia-

ble results (Table 3).Despite a rather low 13C () value (for which we do not

have an explanation at this stage), GrA-31073 from tomb

1972-7 has been considered reliable, because the result makes

sense in stratigraphic terms, and because the carbon content

of the collagen conforms to the quality parameters.

Two results have not been taken into account in the ana-

lysis (Table 4): GrA-30983 has poor quality characteristicsand GrA-31071 is far too young (2415 +/ 35 BP).

Finally, in order to exclude the possibility of a reservoir

effect,40 we have carried out a stable isotope analysis of hu-

man bones from Asine.41 This has allowed us to conclude that

37 Touchais 2007; Philippa-Touchais in print.38 Voutsaki et al. 2009a.39 Mook & Waterbolk 1985; Lanting 2004; Nijboer & van derPlicht, 2008.40 Lanting & van der Plicht 1998.41 Ingvarsson-Sundstrm, Richards & Voutsaki in print.

Table 3. Radiocarbon results from Asine East Cemetery and their quality parameters.

Tomb SkeletonGroningen number number number Radiocarbon result 13C %C

GrA-31050 1971-15 49 As 3560 +/ 35 BP 20.30 35.8GrA-31075 1971-12 62 As 3550 +/ 35 BP 18.42 42.8GrA-31070 1971-3 54 As 3510 +/ 35 BP 18.83 40.4GrA-31069 1971-5 53 As 3465 +/ 40 BP 18.46 42.8GrA-31061 1970-12 44 As 3435 +/ 35 BP 19.48 43.1GrA-31068 1971-2 51 As 3415 +/ 35 BP 18.90 42.8GrA-31074 1971-11 61 As 3395 +/ 35 BP 19.34 42.5GrA-31078 1972-5 66 As 3385 +/ 35 BP 19.57 39.3GrA-31060 1970-11 43 As 3330 +/ 35 BP 19.22 39.2GrA-31073 1972-7 58 As 3220 +/ 35 BP 17.67 39.2

Table 4. Unreliable results from Asine East Cemetery with poor quality parameters.

Groningen number Tomb number Skeleton number Radiocarbon result 13C %C

GrA-30983 1971-1 52 As 3710 +/ 100 BP 19.90 19.5GrA-31071 1971-7 55 As 2415 +/ 35 BP 19.24 36.9


7/21


the Asine population did not rely on marine resources for their

diet, and therefore to increase the reliability of our results.

The resultsTwelve skeletons have been sampled. Table 5 summarizesthe archaeological context of the skeletons included in the

analysis, while Fig. 3 shows the location of the graves sam-pled in the cemetery. The burials to be sampled were selected

on the basis of different criteria: in certain cases (e.g., 1971-

3, 1971-2) they contained diagnostic pottery. Others (e.g.,

1970-12) were accompanied by valuables, but not by pottery;

therefore an absolute date may help us date them more close-

ly. Certain tombs were selected because of stratigraphic re-

lations to other graves (1971-5), or to features of the tumulus

(e.g., 1971-11, 1971-12, 1971-7).

Each grave sampled is described individually below.42 The

following aspects are taken into account in the discussion:

the location of the grave inside or outside the tumulus,

the spatial relation to features such as theperibolos and

other graves, the stratigraphic associations with the stone covers, or with

other graves,

the offerings (if any),

the relative date assigned in the original publication,

the radiocarbon result.

In each case, the relative date assigned by Dietz43 and the

42 We firmly believe that this kind of detailed contextual analysis isabsolutely necessary when interpreting radiocarbon dates.43 Dietz 1980.

Fig. 3. The East Cemetery: the graves sampled.


8/21


absolute dates are compared, and an attempt is made to inte-

grate the two. It cannot be emphasized enough that when in-tegrating absolute and relative dates, we compare two rangesof possible dates: just as 14C dates come with a certain range,

the relative date of a grave may also sometimes span more

than one ceramic sub-phases (for example, a grave may be

MH I or MH II early; it may be earlier than, or contemporary

with a neighbouring grave). Interpreting radiocarbon dates in

an archaeological context involves trying to reconcile two

ranges of possible dates. Therefore, modifications of the rel-

ative date in the light of radiocarbon results can be made as

long as we stay within the range dictated by both the stratig-

raphy of the site and the 14C measurements. As we will see

below, in some cases the original dating has been confirmed,

but in others it was revised. In the final discussion, an attemptwill be made to reconstruct the sequence of use of the entire

cemetery on the basis of these new results.

(i) Grave 1971-1544

(Fragmentary) burial pithos, placed outside the tumulus, to

the northwest.

Pottery: Bowl45 placed as cover of the pithos. Two one-hand-led cups46 (one with potters marks) and a jar47 were found

underneath the bowl, i.e., outside the pithos proper.

Other offerings: No other offerings were found.

Relative date: MH III or MH II late. This late date was sug-gested, because the grave was located outside the tumulusnear LH I grave 1971-3, and because it cut the reconstructed

peribolos.48 However, it was already noted at the time thatthe two cups could equally well be MH IMH II.49 Indeed

MH III parallels for the bowl and for the one-handled cups

(and for the knobs on the one cup)50 can be given. Unfortu-

nately, the two cups and the jar were not located in the apo-theke of the Nauplion Museum and could not be studied fur-ther. The potters marks on the cup have no close parallels in

Lindbloms typology.51

Radiocarbon date: The 14C result (20201770 BC at 2 prob-ability level [95.4%]; Fig. 4) supports a date in MH III, or

44 Dietz 1980, 6263.45 Dietz 1980, 63, no. 62, fig. 76.46 Dietz 1980, 63, no. 63, figs. 77, 79; Dietz 1980, 63, figs. 77, 79,no. 65 (with potters marks).47 Dietz 1980, 63, no. 64, fig. 79.48 Dietz 1980, 86.49 Dietz 1980, 86.50 The bowl shares some features with the early MH storage jar inZerner 1978, fig. 15, no. 3, for example. For the two one-handledcups: Zerner 1990, figs. 1315, see especially knobbed cups, figs .1921. SV would like to thank Iro Mathioudaki for pointing outthese parallels.51 Lindblom 2001, 5051.

Table 5. Tombs from the East Cemetery sampled for radiocarbon analysis.

Tomb Skeletonnumber Type of grave number Type of burial Sex* Age Offerings

1971-15 Pithos burial 49 As Scanty remains of 2 skeletons, M 32 Bowl as coverposition unknown 2 cups, jar(Also M, 27)

1971-12 Stone-built cist 62 As Single, contracted ? 1113 1971-3 Large cist 54 As Single, extended? M 33 Beaked jug,

3 jugs, bridge-spoutedhole-mouthed jar,egg cup, Vapheio cup,5 goblets, 2 kantharoiBronze dagger, pommel

1971-5 Stone-built cist 53 As Single, heavily contracted F 37 1970-12 Cist 44 As Single, position unknown M 25 Gold diadem, iron nail??1971-2 Cist 51 As Single, contracted F 18 Double jug with birds, jug1971-11 Orthostat cist 61 As Single, contracted F 26 1972-5 Stone-built cist 66 As Double burial, position unknown F 30

(Also Also neonate, 6 months)1970-11 Orthostat cist 43 As Single, heavily contracted M 27 1972-7 Cist 58 As Remains of child found on top of capstone ? 1218 months

(Contracted burial, M, 36, in grave)1971-1** Stone-built cist 52 As Single, contracted M 44 1971-7** Pithos burial 55 As Double burial, position unknown F 17

(Also F, 40)

*The age and sex identifications are based on the recent re-examination carried out by Anne Ingvarsson-Sundstrm (as part of the MiddleHelladic Argolid Project, but funded by the Institute of Aegean Prehistory), and therefore deviate sometimes from Angels (1982) identifications.See Ingvarsson-Sundstrm in Voutsaki et al. 2007, 7076; Ingvarsson-Sundstrm in print.** Unreliable results.


9/21


at the latest in early MH III, and excludes a date later in MH

III. As we have seen above, a MH III date is supported by

the pottery connected with the pithos.

(ii) Grave 1971-1252

Cist, in the southeast part of the tumulus. The grave interrupts

the periphery of the tumulus.

Pottery: No pottery found.Other offerings: No other offerings found.

Relative date: MH II late. As no offerings were found, the gravewas dated on the basis of its stratigraphic associations.53 It was

considered to have been later than the upper stone cover, as it

was opened through it and interrupted its periphery.

Radiocarbon date: The 14C result (20001770 BC at 2 prob-ability level; Fig. 5) supports an early date (MH III), althougha date in early MH III cannot be fully excluded. This implies

that the upper stone cover was in place already in this period.

(iii) Grave 1971-354

Large, elaborate cist, placed outside the tumulus.

Pottery: Beaked jug,55 egg cup,56 jug with cut-away spout,57

goblet with four handles,58 goblet with two handles,59 goblet

with disc foot,60 goblet with two handles,61 goblet with two

handles,62 goblet with two handles,63 kantharos,64 bridge-

spouted hole-mouthed jar,65 Vapheio cup,66 cut-away jug,67

kantharos with high-swung handles,68 semi-globular cup

with high-swung handle,69 jug.70

Other offerings: Bronze dagger,71 limestone pommel.72

Relative date: LH IA. There can be no doubt about the relativedating of this grave, as the rich ceramic assemblage places it

securely in LH IA.73 Many other aspects of the graveits

large size and elaborate construction, the extended position

of the skeleton, the presence of metal weapons and of animal

bones above the graveconfirm this late date.

Radiocarbon date: The 14C result of this grave (Fig. 6) isproblematic. An absolute date of 19301740 BC at 2 prob-

ability level for a grave firmly assigned to LH I gives us a

lowest possible date ofc. 1750 BC for the LH I period, whichat the present time is not acceptable. Therefore, on the basis

of the other radiocarbon results obtained in theMiddle Hel-ladic Argolid Projectwe consider the radiocarbon result of1971-3 an outlier. It is difficult to establish at this time why

this outlier has occurred. The grave was water-logged, butthis does not normally affect radiocarbon results.74

52 Dietz 1980, 2425.53 Dietz 1980, 88.54 Dietz 1980, 3455.55 Dietz 1980, 38, no. 25, figs. 34, 44.56 Dietz 1980, 38, no. 26, figs. 35, 44.57 Dietz 1980, 38, no. 27, figs. 36, 44.58 Dietz 1980, 38, no. 28, figs. 37, 44.59 Dietz 1980, 43, no. 29, figs. 38, 45.60 Dietz 1980, 43, no. 30, figs. 39, 45.61 Dietz 1980, 43, no. 31, figs. 40, 45.62 Dietz 1980, 43, no. 32, figs. 41, 45.63 Dietz 1980, 43, no. 33, figs. 42, 45.

64 Dietz 1980, 43, no. 34, figs. 43, 44.65 Dietz 1980, 43, no. 35, figs. 46, 47.66 Dietz 1980, 43, no. 36, figs. 48, 57.67 Dietz 1980, 43, no. 37, figs. 49, 57.68 Dietz 1980, 43, no. 38, figs. 50, 57.69 Dietz 1980, 43, no. 41, figs. 56, 57.70 Dietz 1980, 48, no. 30, figs. 39, 45.71 Dietz 1980, 43, no. 39, figs. 51, 52.72 Dietz 1980, 48, no. 42, figs. 53, 54.73 In the original publication (Dietz 1980, 8088), 1971-3 wasdated to the end of the MH III periodbeginning of LH I. In hisdetailed study of the MH IIILH I sequence in the Argolid, the ter-minology was changed to LH IA (Dietz 1991,passim).74 Jan Lanting, personal communication.

Fig. 4. 14C result from grave 1971-15. Fig. 5. 14C result from grave 1971-12.


10/21


(iv) Grave 1971-575

Stone built cist, placed outside the tumulus.

Pottery: No pottery found.Other offerings: No other offerings found.Relative date: Earlier than MH IIIB, possibly MH II or MHIIIA. The date is assigned in relation to MH IIIB grave 1971-

2,76 which was placed above 1971-5.

Radiocarbon date: The 14C result (19001680 BC at 2prob-ability level; Fig. 7) confirms a date in MH II or MH III.

(v) Grave 1970-1277

Cist. One of the smallest graves of the cemetery, located out-

side the tumulus, between graves 1970-11, 1971-1 and 1970-

7/8.

Pottery: No pottery found.Other offerings: Gold diadem.78 Iron nail,79 found in thegrave fillmay be intrusive.

Relative date: The grave was dated to MH II late on the basisof the diadem decoration and stratigraphic observations. The

decoration of the golden diadem was considered earlier than

the Aghia Irini diadem80 (which probably belongs to MM

IIBMM IIIA), because it consisted only of punched dots,

and had neither bosses nor raised bulbs. As the gold diadem

has been repaired, it is evident that it is older than the grave.

Grave 1970-12 is evidently earlier than grave 1970-11,

as the south wall of the latter was partly built across the north-

ern end of 1970-12 (Dietz 1980, 30). The stratigraphic rela-

tion with the other graves surrounding 1970-12 is not easy to

establish, as these graves are either unfurnished or contain un-diagnostic offerings.81

Radiocarbon date: The result of 18801640 BC at 2 prob-ability level (Fig. 8) favours a MH III date, but does not ex-clude a late MH II date.

(vi) Grave 1971-282

Probably a cist, but only partially preserved. Located outside

the tumulus, placed above 1971-5.

Pottery: Double jug decorated with birds,83 fluted jug.84

Other offerings: No other offerings found.

75 Dietz 1980, 5556.76 Grave 1971-2 is dated to MH IIIB, on the basis of the ceramicofferings, in particular the double jug with birds (Dietz 1980, 3334, figs. 26, 28). The radiocarbon analysis (see below) largely con-firms this date.77 Dietz 1980, 30.78 Dietz 1980, 30, no. 20, figs. 20, 21.79 Dietz 1980, 30, no. 21, fig. 59.80 Caskey 1972, 386; Dietz 1980, 8384.81 We will return to the stratigraphic relations below.82 Dietz 1980, 3334.83 Dietz 1980, 33, no. 23, figs. 26, 28.84 Dietz 1980, 34, no. 24, figs. 27, 29.

Fig. 6. 14C result from grave 1971-3.




11/21


Relative date: MH IIIB, on the basis of the decoration andthe shape of the double jug.

Radiocarbon date: The radiocarbon result of 18801620 BC at2 probability level (Fig. 9) confirms the relative date of MHIIIB, though a date at the very beginning of LH I is also possible.

(vii) Grave 1971-1185

Orthostat cist grave, located in the northeastern part of the tu-

mulus, near its periphery.

Pottery: No pottery found.Other offerings: No other offerings found.Relative date: MH II late. The grave was dated on the basisof its stratigraphic relation with the upper stone cover. Stones

of this cover were found on top of the eastern end of the cist,

but the cover slab covering the west end of the cist extended

over stones of the upper cover (the other slab was missing).

As the grave seemed to fit into the tumulus, it was suggested

that the grave and the upper tumulus cover were constructed

simultaneously.

Radiocarbon date: The radiocarbon result of 18701600 BCat 2 probability level (Fig. 10) supports a date in MH IIILH I, and not a date in MH II. This suggests that the grave

was cut into the upper stone cover some time after the tumulus

was erected.

(viii) Grave 1972-586

Stone built cist, located in the northwestern part of the tumulus.Pottery: No pottery found.Other offerings: No other offerings found.Relative date: MH II early. The grave reached more than 40cm lower87 than grave 1971-11,88 and was therefore consid-

ered contemporary with the lower stone cover rather than

with the upper one.

Radiocarbon date: The radiocarbon result (17701530 BC at2 probability level; Fig. 11) refutes an early date, and placesthe grave in MH IIILH I. The grave may therefore have been

cut very deep into the tumulus, but this was some time after

the tumulus was erected.

(ix) Grave 1970-1189

Cist of orthostat type. Located outside the tumulus, between

1971-14 to the NNW and above 1970-12 to the SSE.

85 Dietz 1980, 2324.86 Dietz 1980, 2526.87 See Dietz 1982, Plan VIII, section 26W.88 1971-11 was dated originally to MH II late, but the radiocarbonresult suggests a later date in MH IIILH I; see above.89 Dietz 1980, 30.





12/21


Pottery: No pottery found.Other offerings: No other offerings found.Relative date: MH II late (?)90 Assigning a date to 1970-11is difficult (as it was in the case of 1970-12), because this

grave is also surrounded by unfurnished graves (or graves

containing undiagnostic artefacts), whose relation with each

other cannot easily be established. An earlier grave found un-

derneath 1970-11 was destroyed during its construction.Radiocarbon date: The radiocarbon result (17301510 BC at2 probability level; Fig. 12) falls very late and supports adate in LH III.

(x) Grave 1972-791

Cist, located outside the tumulus, on its own, further away

from other graves. The sample taken, however, was not from

the burial inside the tomb, but from a child burial, placed on

the capstone of the grave.

Pottery: No pottery found.Other offerings: No. Animal bones found near the feet of theskeleton inside the cist.92

Relative date: Neither the cist burial, nor the second burialon the capstone can be accurately dated.

Radiocarbon date: The radiocarbon result (16101410 BC at2 probability level; Fig. 13) falls very late in the sequence.It extends across the 1500 BC boundaryand therefore could

be LH II, or even LH IIIA. As the tumulus was certainly re-

visited in LH IIA (two vases were deposited in its periphery),

a LH II date for the burial of the child on the capstone is more

likely. Despite the rather low 13C () value,93 the radiocar-

bon result is confirmed by the stratigraphic connections of the

burial. The earlier cist burial cannot be dated accurately, but

was safely embedded in the pebble horizon with no traces of

later intrusions.

DISCUSSION: THE RADIOCARBONRESULTS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS

Before we try to use the new 14C data94 in order to reconstruct

the sequence of use of the cemetery, we need to make some

introductory remarks on the relative dating.

First, the tumulus cemetery was published by S. Dietz in

1980, while a more detailed terminology for the transitional

phases (MH/LH), which we use here, was proposed by Dietz

in 1991.95 As this terminology deviates somewhat from the

one used in 1980, it is perhaps necessary to explain the dif-

ferences between the two (Table 6).Second, we should point out that the few sherds of Yellow

Minyan found between the two covers in the tumulus96

90 Dietz 1980, 88.91 Dietz 1980, 6364.92 Dietz 1980, 64.93 See above, Table 3.94 No radiocarbon analysis was carried out during the excavation inthe 1970s.95 Dietz 1991.96 Dietz 1980, 87.

Table 6. Terminologies used for the MH/LH transition.

Dietz 1980 Dietz 1991*

MH IIIAMH IIIA MH IIIB

MH IIIB / LH I LH IALH IB

* References to the 1991 terminology can be found in Dietz 1991;idem 1998.




13/21


should no longer be taken into consideration as dating evi-dence. The ware is more accurately defined with the broader

term Argive Light Ware which was not introduced until

1991. Yellow Minyan is not found before MH III.97

Let us return to the radiocarbon results: Table 7presentsthe original and revised dating of the tombs analysed. In order

to reconstruct the sequence of use of the tumulus and the sur-

rounding cemetery, we first need to discuss the implications

of these new results by examining the connections between

the burials analysed and other graves, or other features of the

tumulus.

In the discussion that follows we shall try to discuss the

implications of the new 14C data, by examining the individual

graves and their stratigraphic or spatial connections with oth-er graves and features of the tumulus.

Grave 1971-15,98 the pithos containing the double burial

to the northeast of the tumulus, seems to belong to MH III,

and is therefore one of the earliest graves of the cemetery.

This implies either that graves were opened both inside and

outside the tumulus from an early stage, or that the tumulus

was erected in an area where graves already existed.99 For

stratigraphical reasons (see above on stratum 12), it is neces-

sary to suggest that theperibolos is older.It is worth noting the special features of this grave: this is

a pithos burial, containing a double interment, with offerings

placed outside the pithos rim.

100

The practice of using pithoiin extramural burial ground in MH III can be observed in

the Argos tumuli cemeteries (in tumuli A and 101).

In this respect, it is interesting to compare 1971-15 with

the nearby grave 1971-7: this pithos, also containing a double

interment,102 was placed against the peribolos.103 The

97 Dietz 1991, 2930: FT1 (Fine tempered burnished) and MT1(Medium tempered burnished).98 The graves in bold are the ones included in the analysis.99 We should keep in mind grave 71B, a shallow clay-lined pit con-taining mixed bones of more than one skeleton (Dietz 1980, 65).These bones were not analyzed by Angel, and have not been locatedin the apotheke. Dietz (1980, 86) had suggested a very early date(EH/MH) for this tomb, as secondary treatment is not common inMH times.100 It is worth noting that burial in jars, or in pithoi, is attested inthe settlement throughout the MH period, but exclusively for sub-adult burials (Milka n.d.).101 Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980; Voutsaki et al. 2009b.102 A sample was taken from one of the two skeletons, but unfortu-nately it produced an erroneous result, see Table 4.103 It is not easy to establish the relation between the pithos burialand theperibolos, because the pithos was only partly preserved.

Table 7. Original and revised dates of the East Cemetery graves.*

Tomb Date originally Proposednumber assigned new date 1 calibration 2 calibration

1971-15 MH II lateMH III Probably MH III 19601870 BC (60.3%) 20201860 BC (74.9%)18401820 BC (5.1%) 18501770 BC (20.5%)18001780 BC (2.8%)

1971-12 MH II late Probably MH III, although 19501870 BC (51.4%) 20201990 BC (1.9%)a date in early MH III cannot 18501820 BC (9.9%) 19801770 BC (93.5%)be fully excluded 18001780 BC (6.9%)

1971-3 LH IA (outlier!) 18901770 BC (68.2%) 19301740 (95.4%)1971-5 Earlier than MH IIIB: MH IIMH III 18801840 BC (22.9%) 19001680 BC (95.4%)

MH II or MH IIIA? 18301730 BC (45.3%)1970-12 MH II late MH II late or MH III 18701840 BC (8.2%) 18801640 BC (95.4%)

17801680 BC (60.0%)1971-2 MH IIIB MH IIIBearly LH I 17601660 BC (67.2%) 18801840 BC (6.6%)

16501640 BC (1.0%) 18201790 BC (2.4%)17801620 BC (86.4%)

1971-11 MH II late MH IIILH I 17401630 BC (68.2%) 18701840 BC (2.0%)

17801600 BC (93.4%)1972-5 MH II early MH IIILH I 17401710 BC (19.6%) 17701600 BC (92.3%

17001630 BC (48.6%) 15801530 BC (3.1%)1970-11 MH II late LH III 16701600 BC (37.1%) 17301710 BC (1.1%)

15901530 BC (31.1%) 16901510 BC (94.3%)1972-7 MH LH II for the child burial 15201445 BC (68.2%) 16101570 BC (5.8%)

on the capstone 15401410 BC (89.6%)(MH IIMH IIILH I for the cist burial)

1971-1 MH II lateMH III (unreliable result) 1971-7 MH III?? (unreliable result)**

* Only the graves sampled are included in Table7.** A date in MH III is suggested below, because of similarities with early pithos burial 1971-15.


14/21


similarities between 1971-15 and 1971-7 allow us to suggest

that the two were contemporary, and were among the earliest

graves of the cemetery.104

Grave 1971-12was dated originally to MH II late. The 14Cresult supports an early date in MH III, although a date in

early MH III cannot be fully excluded.105 This implies that

the upper stone cover was in place, and hence the tumulus

stood already in this period, probably in MH III.

It is worth looking at the other graves opened into the tumu-

lus. 1971-11 was considered MH II late on the basis of its re-

lation with the upper stone cover. As the grave seemed to fit

into the tumulus, it was suggested that the grave and the upper

tumulus cover were constructed simultaneously. However, the14C date places the grave in MH IIILH I (though a date in MH

II cannot be fully excluded). It is therefore more likely that

1971-11 was cut later through the upper stone cover.

The third grave, 1972-5,was at first considered to be con-nected with the earlier stone cover, because the grave reached

more than 40 cm lower than grave 1971-11. However, the

absolute date supports a date in MH IIILH I.

The grave 1971-10 is a single contracted burial placed on a

layer of pebbles 2530 cm above the upper stone cover of the

tumulus.106 A kantharos107 found more than 30 cm above the

legs of the skeleton may have belonged to the tomb, but was

found in a layer also containing Mycenaean sherds. The tumu-

lus was covered with a pebble-filled earthen mound.108 The

tomb contained a bronze knife109 and a gold earring.110 The

one-edged knife with three nail holes in a triangular position

and straight back is found already in MH II in Aegina,

111

butremains in use in MH III.112 In the original publication the

Red-Slipped Aegina sherds found between grave 1971-10

and the upper stone cover were thought to provide a terminusante quem for the cover, as this particular ware was thought torepresent a late MH development. 113 However, the recent in-

vestigations in Kolonna have demonstrated that bowls solidly

painted and burnished in red color, are found for the first time

in the early MH ceramic phase H in Kolonna, Aegina.114 It

must be concluded that the Red-slipped Aegina ware group

(burnished and/or matt?) seems to appear already from the be-

ginning of the MH period. The early examples are evidently

bowls, but it is difficult to say at the moment how the shapes

within the group develop through time. Unless and until weknow more about the development of shapes, the use of the

Red-slipped Aegina group will remain of limited value for

the dating of the upper cover of the tumulus.

To conclude, the earliest tomb in the tumulus seems to be1971-12, as all the others were built later.115 Needless to say,

we do not know what happened in the centre of the tumulus,

nor in its western part. If we combine the observations on

1971-15 and 1971-12, we can conclude that burials were

opened both in and outside the tumulus from an early stage,

at some point in MH III. The majority of graves in the tu-

mulus, however, belong to the MH IIILH I period. This in-

crease in the number of graves in existing cemeteries (Argos

tumuli cemeteries, Prehistoric Cemetery at Mycenae),116 or

the establishment of new cemeteries (Prosymna, Myloi)117 is

a general phenomenon in MH IIILH I Argolid, and indeedin the entire southern mainland.

In the case of graves 1971-2 and 1971-5 the radiocarbon

results largely confirm their relative date. 1971-2, which is

placed on top of 1971-5, should indeed be dated to MH IIIB,

and 1971-5 to MH IIMH IIIA.

Grave 1970-12 was originally dated to MH II late mostly

on the basis of the decoration of the golden diadem. The ra-

diocarbon date does not exclude a date in late MH II, but fa-

vours a date in MH III. We need to re-examine the stylistic

connections of the diadem as well as the stratigraphic

associations of the tomb.

Starting with the diadem, the golden band found in the Ae-

gina tomb provides a convincing parallel belonging to theMH II period.118 It should, however, be emphasized that the

golden diadem in 1970-12 was broken and repaired already

in MH times, and was therefore clearly older than the grave.

The grave is located outside the tumulus, tightly packed be-

tween graves 1970-11, 1971-1 and the double cist 1970-7/8.

If we start with 1970-11,the situation is rather clear: the grave

104 Dietz (1980, 85) could not find parallels for the pithos. A frag-ment of a flat-rimmed bowl securely dated to MH II was found nearthe grave (Dietz 1980, 58, fig. 65), but its value for dating the graveis dubious.105 The radiocarbon result is very similar to the one obtained from

1971-15. However, in the case of 1971-15 the early date is con-firmed by the pottery, while 1971-12 contains no ceramic offerings.We therefore cannot fully exclude a later date, though we considerthe MH III date more probable.106 This skeleton was not analyzed.107 Dietz 1980, 60, no. 61, figs. 70, 79. Dietz mentions MH IIIAMH IIIB parallels for the kantharos in the original publication(Dietz 1980, 86), but assigns it a LH IA date in Dietz 1991, 151.108 Stratum 12 (Dietz 1982, 6970, 83), discussed above.109 Dietz 1980, 59, no. 59, figs. 67, 68.110 Dietz 1980, 59, no. 60, fig. 69.111 Kilian-Dirlmeier 1997, 5053.112 Dietz mentions MH III parallels for the knife in grave , GraveCircle B (a grave dated to MH IIIB, though possibly LH I inchronological terms: Dietz 1980, 86).113 Dietz 1980, 18 and 87. On this ware, see Dietz 1991, 225(Aegina Red Slipped and Burnished); Lindblom 2001, 32; 2007,figs. 7 and 8 (Aiginetan Painted and Burnished). On the Aeginasequence: Gauss & Smetana 2007.114 Gauss and Smetana 2007, 62.115 Kilian-Dirlmeier (1997, 98) had already reached this conclusion,and considered 1972-5 and 1971-11as sekundre Bestattungen.116 For the tumuli cemeteries in Argos, see Protonotariou-Deilaki1980 and Voutsaki et al. 2009b; for the Prehistoric Cemetery atMycenae, see Alden 2000 and Voutsaki, Ingvarsson-Sundstrm &Richards 2009, 140142.117 For Myloi, see Dietz & Divari-Valakou 1992; for Prosymna,Blegen 1937 and Voutsaki, Ingvarsson-Sundstrm & Richards2009, 144146.118 Kilian-Dirlmeier 1997, 5457.


15/21


was unfurnished, but it was later than 1970-12, as the southern

wall of 1970-11 is partly built across the northern wall of

1970-12.119 In the conclusions, however, 1970-11 and 1970-

12 were considered contemporary, MH II late.120 Either way,

the radiocarbon result for 1970-11 falls very late and supports

a date in LH I or even LH II.121 Therefore, 1970-11 cannot

help us decide whether 1970-12 is MH II late or MH III.

The double cist 1970-7/8,122 located immediately to the

east of 1970-12 but at a higher level (also embedded in the

pebble layer), cannot be dated closely either, as the only of-ferings found in the two graves were two bronze earrings.123

However, its very regular and careful construction points to

a late date (MH III? or LH I?).

1971-1, located immediately to the south of 1970-12, con-

tained no offerings either. It was also embedded in the pebble

stratum.124 In 1980, Dietz dated the graves 1970-7/8 and

1971-1 to late MH II or MH III because they cut the recon-

structedperibolos.125 The second row of stones begins indeedto the west of 1971-1.

Finally, graves 1971-14and 1971-13,two cists to the north

of 1970-11, were also unfurnished. They shared a wall, and

may therefore be contemporary. 1971-14 shared (part of) a

wall with 1970-11, but again it is not possible to establish thechronological relation of the two graves.

To summarize the discussion on 1970-12: We have seen that

the stylistic connections of the diadem give us a terminus postquem rather than a precise date of the grave itself: the grave iscontemporary with or later than MH II. Equally, the strati-

graphic connections give us only a terminus ante quem, LH III (the radiocarbon date of 1970-11). It is very likely that 1970-

12 is earlier than all the tombs surrounding it, but it is unfortu-

nately very difficult to say just how much earlier. It is thereforesafer to accept the grave to be either MH II late or MH III.

Grave 1972-7 is located to the southeast of the tumulus, a

little further away from the row of tombs. As it was on its own

and contained no offerings, it could be dated only generally

to the MH period. The absolute date suggests that the child

burial deposited on top of the capstones has a very late date,

LH II to LH IIIA.It should be kept in mind that two LH IIA

vases were found in the northern periphery of the tumulus.

Since the tumulus cemetery was evidently re-visited in LH

II, it is possible that 1972-7 was also used again in LH II. In-

deed the evidence from other extramural cemeteries (Argos,

Prosymna, the Prehistoric Cemetery at Mycenae) suggeststhat a few graves in these traditional cemeteries were built,

or re-opened as late as LH IILH IIIA, during a period when

burial in family (chamber or tholos) tombs was becoming the

norm. The burial in the cist itself cannot be closely dated.

Finally, three tombs have no spatial or stratigraphic con-

nection with any other graves: 71B, a shallow mud-brick cist

containing mixed bones belonging to more than one skele-

ton,126 was considered to be the earliest burial, perhaps mark-

ing the foundation of the cemetery. 1971-6, 1970-16and1972-7 (the burial in the cist)127 are all unfurnished cists,dated to the MH period.

119 Dietz 1980, 30.120 Dietz 1980, 88.121 Interestingly, an earlier grave was destroyed when 1970-11 wasbuilt.122 No sample was taken from this grave.123 Dietz 1980, 27, no. 18, fig. 16.124 A sample was taken from the skeleton, but the result was notincluded in the analysis as it was of poor quality (Table 4).125 Dietz 1980, 88.126 See above; Dietz 1980, 65.127 Dietz 1980, 5658 and 3032, respectively.

Table 8. The development of the East Cemetery, Asine.*

MH III Pithos burial 1971-15, outside the tumulusPithos burial 1971-7, outside the tumulus (?)

Cist grave 1971-12, in the tumulusTumulus and upper stone coverMH IIMH III Cist 1971-5, outside the tumulus

Cist 1970-12, outside the tumulus (golden diadem)MH IIILH I Cist 1971-11, cut into tumulus

Pit 1971-10, placed in pit in mound over tumulusCist 1972-5, cut deep into tumulusCist 1971-2, placed on top of 1971-5, outside the tumulusDouble cist grave 1970-7/8, outside the tumulus (? dated to later period because of its very regular construction)Cist 1971-1, outside the tumulus (? dated to later period because of regular construction and proximity to 1970-7/8)Cist 1971-14, unfurnished, Outside the tumulus (? dated to later period because of stratigraphic relation,proximity with 1970-11)Cist 1971-13, unfurnished, Outside the tumulus (? dated to later period because of stratigraphic relation,proximity with 1971-14)

LH I Large, rich cist grave 1971-3, outside the tumulusLH III Cist 1970-11, outside the tumulusLH II Child burial deposited above cist 1972-7, outside the tumulus

2 vases deposited in northern periphery of tumulus

* All East Cemetery graves are listed in Table 8, both the ones analyzed and those whose dating is indirectly inferred.


16/21


CONCLUSIONS: THE HISTORY OF THEEAST CEMETERY, ASINE

Table 8 summarizes the history of the East Cemetery, as re-constructed on the basis of both the relative and the radiocar-

bon dates (see also Figs. 1417). The tumulus and the sur-rounding cemetery were founded at some point in MH III,

though the main period of use was MH IIILH I, as in other

extramural cemeteries of the Argolid. The last burial (and last

visit to the tomb) seems to have taken place in LH II. The

cemetery was abandoned afterwards, and was finallydestroyed in the LH IIIC/Submycenaean era.

To conclude, the careful integration of radiocarbon data,

stylistic and stratigraphic observations has given us a much

Fig. 14. The East Cemetery: MH III graves.

Table 9. Graves and features that cannot be dated.

71B Mud-brick cist with secondary burials. May be the earliest grave of the cemetery1971-6 Cist grave, unfurnished, outside the tumulus1970-16 Cist grave, unfurnished, outside the tumulus1972-7 Cist grave, unfurnished, outside the tumulusLower stone cover Poorly preserved. Not known if contemporary or earlier than upper stone coverPeribolos 2 curved rows of stones, uncertain whether they formed a circular enclosure


17/21


better understanding of this very important funerary monu-

ment. The adoption of extramural cemeteries and conspic-

uous monuments, tumuli in particular, marks an important

innovation in the early MH burial practices. Dating theiradoption and reconstructing their subsequent history can

contribute not only to a better understanding of MH chro-

nology, but also of social and cultural change in the southern

mainland.

Sofia VoutsakiGroningen Institute of ArchaeologyPO Box 72NL-9700 AB GroningenE-mail: [email protected]

Sren DietzDanish Institute at AthensHerefondos 14GR-105 58 AthensE-mail: [email protected]

Albert J. NijboerGroningen Institute of ArchaeologyPO Box 72NL-9700 AB GroningenE-mail: [email protected]

Fig. 15. The East Cemetery: MH IIMH III graves.


18/21


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alden 2000 M. Alden, Well-Built Mycenae 7. ThePrehistoric Cemetery: Pre-Mycenaean and

Early Mycenaean Graves,Oxford 2000.Angel 1982 J.L. Angel, Ancient skeletons from Asine,

inAsine II. Results of the excavations eastof the Acropolis 19701974, Fasc. 1.General stratigraphical analysis and ar-chitectural remains (ActaAth-4, 24:1),ed.S. Dietz, Stockholm 1982, 105138.

Asine I O. Frdin & A.W. Persson,Asine. Resultsof the Swedish excavations, 19221930,Stockholm 1938.

Bietak 2003 M. Bietak, Science versus archaeology:Problems and consequences of HighAegean chronology, in The synchronisa-tion of civilisations in the eastern Mediter-

ranean in the second millennium B.C. II,ed.M. Bietak, Wien 2003, 2333.

Bietak & Czerny 2007 The synchronisation of civilisations in theeastern Mediterranean in the second mil-

lennium B.C. III, eds. M. Bietak & E.Czerny, Wien 2007.Bietak & Hflmayer M. Bietak & F. Hflmayer, Introduction,2007 High and Low Chronology, in Bietak &

Czerny 2007, 1323.Blackburn 1970 E.T. Blackburn, Middle Helladic graves

and burial customs with special referenceto Lerna in the Argolid, Diss. University ofCincinnati, 1970.

Blegen 1937 C.W. Blegen, Prosymna. The Helladicsettlement preceding the Argive Heraeum,Cambridge, Mass. 1937.

Bruins & H.J. Bruins & J. van der Plicht, Radiocarbonvan der Plicht 2001 challenges archaeo-historical time frame-

works in the Near East: the Early Bronze

Fig. 16. The East Cemetery: MH IIILH I graves.


19/21


Age of Jericho in relation to Egypt,Radiocarbon 43, 2001, 13211332.

Cadogan 1978 G. Cadogan, Dating the Aegean BronzeAge without radiocarbon, Archaeometry

20/2, 1978, 209214.Caskey 1972 J.L. Caskey, Investigations in Keos. Part

II: A conspectus of the pottery, Hesperia41, 1972, 357401.

Dietz 1980 S. Dietz,Asine II.Results of the excavationseast of the Acropolis 19701974, Fasc. 2.The Middle Helladic cemetery, the Middle Helladic and Early Mycenaean deposits(ActaAth-4, 24:2), Stockholm 1980.

Dietz 1982 S. Dietz,Asine II.Results of the excavationseast of the Acropolis 19701974, Fasc. 1.General stratigraphical analysis and ar-chitectural remains (ActaAth-4, 24:1),Stockholm 1982.

Dietz 1991 S. Dietz, The Argolid at the Transition to

the Mycenaean Age, Kbenhavn 1991.Dietz 1998 S. Dietz, The Cyclades and the mainland

in the Shaft Grave period a summary,Proceedings of the Danish Institute at

Athens 2, 1998, 935.Dietz & S. Dietz & N. Divari-Valakou, A MiddleDivari-Valakou 1990 Helladic III / Late Helladic I grave group

from Myloi in the Argolid (oikopedonManti), OpAth 18,1990, 4562.

Friedrich et al. 2006 W.L. Friedrich, B. Kromer, M. Friedrich, J.Heinemeier, T. Pfeiffer & S. Talamo,Santorini Eruption Radiocarbon dated to16271600 B.C., Science 312:5773, 2006,548.

Frst 1930 C.M. Frst,Zur Anthropologie der Prhis-torischen Griechen in Argolis, Lund 1930.

Gauss & Smetana 2007 W. Gauss & R. Smetana, Aegina Kolonna,the ceramic sequence of the SCIEM 2000Project, in Middle Helladic pottery and

Fig. 17. The East Cemetery: LH ILH II graves.


20/21


synchronisms, eds. F. Felten, W. Gauss &R. Smetana, Salzburg 2007, 5780.

Hgg & Hgg 1973 I. Hgg & R. Hgg, Excavations in theBarbouna Area at Asine 1(Boreas. Uppsala

Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and NearEastern Civilization, 4:1), Uppsala 1973.

Ingvarsson-Sundstrm A. Ingvarsson-Sundstrm,Asine III. Supple-2008 mentary studies on the Swedish excavations

19221930, Fasc. 2. Children lost andfound. A bioarchaeological study of MiddleHelladic children in Asine with a compari-son to Lerna (with an appendix by H.Soomer) (ActaAth-4, 45:2), Stockholm2008.

Ingvarsson-Sundstrm A. Ingvarsson-Sundstrm, Tooth countsin print and individuals: health status in the East

Cemetery and Barbouna at Asine as inter-preted from teeth, inMESOHELLADIKA:The Greek mainland in the Middle Bronze

Age. Proceedings of a conference held inAthens, eds. A. Philippa-Touchais, G.Touchais, S. Voutsaki & J. Wright, BCHSuppl. in print.

Ingvarsson-Sundstrm, A. Ingvarsson-Sundstrm,M.P. RichardsRichards & Voutsaki & S. Voutsaki, Stable isotope analysis of thein print Middle Helladic population from two

cemeteries at Asine: Barbouna and the EastCemetery, Journal of MediterraneanArchaeology and Archaeometry , in print.

Kilian-Dirlmeier 1997 I. Kilian-Dirlmeier,Das Mittelbronzezeitli-che Schachtgrab von gina, Mainz 1997.

Lanting 2004 J.N. Lanting, Ross Island: Radiocarbondates and absolute chronology, in RossIsland (Bronze Age Studies, 6), ed. W.OBrien, Galway 2004, 305316.

Lanting & J.N. Lanting & J. van der Plicht, Reservoirvan der Plicht 1998 effect and apparent 14C ages, The Journal

of Irish Archaeology 9, 1998, 151165.Lindblom 2001 M. Lindblom,Marks and makers: appear-

ance, distribution and function of Middleand Late Helladic manufacturers marks onAeginetan pottery (SIMA, 128), Jonsered2001.

Manning 1995 S.W. Manning, The absolute chronology ofthe Aegean Early Bronze Age: Archaeology,radiocarbon, and history, Sheffield 1995.

Manning 2005 S.W. Manning, Simulation and the date of the Theran eruption: outlining what we doand do not know from radiocarbon, in AUTOCHTHON: Papers presented to

O.T.P.K. Dickinson on the occasion of hisretirement, eds. A. Dakouri-Hild & S.Sherratt, Oxford 2005, 97114.

Manning 2007 S.W. Manning, Clarifying the High v.Low Aegean/Cypriot chronology for themid second millennium BC: Assessing theevidence, interpretive frameworks, andcurrent state of the debate, in Bietak &Czerny 2007, 101137.

Manning et al. 2006 S.W. Manning, C. Bronk Ramsey, W.Kutschera, T. Higham, B. Kromer, P. Steier& E.M. Wild, Chronology for the AegeanLate Bronze Age 17001400 BC, Science312:5773, 2006, 565569.

Milka in print E. Milka, Burials upon the ruins o f

abandoned houses in the MH Argolid, inMESOHELLADIKA: The Greek mainlandin the Middle Bronze Age. Proceedings ofa conference held in Athens, eds. A.

Philippa-Touchais, G. Touchais, S. Vout-saki & J. Wright,BCHSuppl., in print.

Milka n.d. E. Milka,Mortuary practices in MH Asine ,Unpublished manuscript n.d.

Mook & Waterbolk W.G. Mook & H.T. Waterbolk,Handbook1985 for Archaeologists 3. Radiocarbon Dating,

Strasbourg 1985.Nijboer & A.J. Nijboer & H. van der Plicht, The Ironvan der Plicht 2008 Age of the Mediterranean: Recent radiocar-

bon research at the University of Gronin-gen, in A New Dawn for the Dark Age?Shifting Paradigms in Mediterranean IronAge Chronology, eds. D. Brandhern & M.Trachsel, Oxford 2008, 103118.

Nordquist 1987 G.C. Nordquist,A Middle Helladic village:

Asine in the Argolid(Boreas. UppsalaStudies in Ancient Mediterranean and NearEastern Civilization, 16), Uppsala 1987.

Nordquist 1996 G.C. Nordquist, New information on oldgraves, in Asine III:1: SupplementaryStudies on the Swedish Excavations 19221930 (ActAth-4, 45:1), eds. R. Hgg, G.C.Nordquist, & B. Wells, Stockholm 1996,1938.

Nordquist n.d. a G.C. Nordquist, The Middle Helladic finds from the Barbouna slope at Asine. Theexcavations 197374 and 1989, Unpub-lished manuscript, n.d.

Nordquist n.d. b G.C. Nordquist, Excavations in Area II19731974 (Barbouna). Unpublished manu-script, n.d.

Nordquist&Ingvarsson- G.C. Nordquist & A. Ingvarsson-Sundstrm,Sundstrm 2005 Live hard, die young: Mortuary remains of

Middle and Early Helladic children fromthe Argolid in social context, in AUTO-CHTHON: Papers presented to O.T.P.K. Dickinson on the occasion of his retire-ment, eds. A. Dakouri-Hild & S. Sherratt,Oxford 2005, 156174.

Pirart & Touchais M. Pirart & G. Touchais,Argos: une ville1996 grecque de 6000 ans,Paris 1996.Philippa-Touchais A. Philippa-Touchais, Les tombes intra-in print muros de lHelladique Moyen la lumire

des fouilles de lAspis dArgos, in Sur lespas de Wilhelm Vollgraff. Cent ans dactiv-its archologiques Argos,eds.A. Bana-

ka & S. Huber(Recherches Franco-Hell-niques,4), in print.Protonotariou-Deilaki E. Protonotariou-Deilaki, Oi tymvoi tou1980 Argous,Diss. University of Athens 1980.Scott et al. 2004 E.M. Scott, C. Bryant, I. Carmi, G. Cook,

S. Gulliksen, D. Harkness, J. Heinemeier,E. McGee, P. Naysmith, G. Possnert, H. vander Plicht & M. van Strijdonck, Precisionand accuracy in applied 14C dating: somefindings from the 4th International Radio-carbon Comparison,JAS31, 2004, 12091213.

Styrenius 1998 C.-G. Styrenius,Asine. A Swedish excava-tion in Greece, Kbenhavn 1998.

Touchais 2007 G. Touchais, Coarse ware from the MH


21/21


settlement of Aspis, Argos: Local produc-tion and imports, in Middle Helladicpottery and synchronisms, eds. F. Felten,W. Gauss & R. Smetana, Salzburg 2007,

8196.van der Plicht & J. van der Plicht & H.J. Bruins, RadiocarbonBruins 2001 dating in Near-Eastern Mediterranean con-

texts: confusion and quality control,Radiocarbon 43, 2001, 11551166.

Voutsaki 2005 S. Voutsaki, Social and cultural change inthe Middle Helladic period: presentation ofa new project, inAUTOCHTHON: Papers presented to O.T.P.K. Dickinson on theoccasion of his retirement, eds. A. Dakouri-Hild & S. Sherratt, Oxford 2005, 134143.

Voutsaki et al. 2004 S. Voutsaki, S. Triantaphyllou, S. Kouidou-Andreou, L. Kovatsi & E. Milka, Lerna,2000 1500 BC: A pilot analysis offunerary, skeletal and bio-molecular data,

Pharos XI, 2003 (pr. 2004), 7580.Voutsaki et al. 2006 S. Voutsaki, S. Triantaphyllou, A. Ingvars-son-Sundstrm, S. Kouidou-Andreou, L.Kovatsi, A.J. Nijboer, D. Nikou & E. Milka,Project on the Middle Helladic Argolid: areport on the 2005 season, Pharos XIII,2005 (pr. 2006), 93117.

Voutsaki et al. 2007 S. Voutsaki, S. Triantaphyllou, A. Ingvars-son-Sundstrm, K. Sarri, M. Richards, A.J.Nijboer, S. Kouidou-Andreou, L. Kovatsi,D. Nikou & E. Milka. Project on theMiddle Helladic Argolid: a report on the2006 season, Pharos XIII, 2006 (pr. 2007),5999.

Voutsaki et al. 2009a S. Voutsaki, A.J. Nijboer, A. Philippa-Touchais & G. Touchais. Radiocarbon

analysis from MH burials from Aspis,Argos,BCH130:2, 2007 (pr. 2009), 613625.

Voutsaki et al. 2009b S. Voutsaki, K. Sarri, O. Dickinson, S.Triantaphyllou & E. Milka. The ArgosTumuli Project: a report on the 2006 and2007 seasons, Pharos XV, 2007 (pr.2009), 153192.

Voutsaki, Ingvarsson- S. Voutsaki, A. Ingvarsson-Sundstrm &Sundstrm & Richards M. Richards, Project on the Middle Hel-2009 ladic Argolid: a report on the 2007 season,

Pharos XV, 2007 (pr. 2009), 137152.Voutsaki, Nijboer & S. Voutsaki, A.J. Nijboer & C. Zerner, MHZerner 2009 Lerna: Relative and absolute chronologies,

in Tree-Rings, Kings, and Old World Archaeology and Environment: PapersPresented in Honor of Peter Ian Kuniholm,eds. S. Manning & M.J. Bruce, Oxford

2009, 151161.Voutsaki, Nijboer & S. Voutsaki, A.J. Nijboer & C. Zerner, Ra-Zerner in print a diocarbon analysis and the chronology of

MH Lerna, in MESOHELLADIKA: TheGreek mainland in the Middle Bronze Age.Proceedings of a conference held in Athens,eds. A. Philippa-Touchais, G. Touchais, S.Voutsaki & J. Wright,BCHSuppl., in print.

Voutsaki, S. Voutsaki, S. Triantaphyllou & E. Milka,Triantaphyllou Project on the Middle Helladic Argolid: a& Milka 2005 report on the 2004 season, Pharos XII,

2004 (pr. 2005), 3140.Voutsaki, Zerner & S. Voutsaki, C. Zerner & A.J. Nijboer, Radio-Nijboer in print carbon analysis and MH Lerna,Hesperia,

in print.

Warren & Hankey P. Warren & V. Hankey, The absolute chro-1989 nology of the Aegean Bronze Age, Bristol1989.

Wiener 2003 M.H. Wiener, Time out: The currentimpasse in Bronze Age archaeologicaldating, in METRON. Measuring theAegean Bronze Age, 9e Rencontre genneinternationale,eds. K. Polinger Foster & R.Laffineur, Lige 2003.

Wiener 2007 M.H. Wiener, Times change: The currentstate of the debate in Old World chronolo-gy, in Bietak & Czerny 2007, 2547.

Zangger 1994 E. Zangger, The island of Asine: A palaeo-geographic reconstruction, OpAth 20,1994, 221239.

Zerner 1978 C.W. Zerner, The Beginning of the Middle

Helladic Period at Lerna, Diss. Universityof Cincinnati, 1978.

Zerner 1990 C. Zerner, Ceramics and ceremony: Pot-tery and burials from Lerna in the Middleand Early Bronze Ages, in Celebrations ofdeath and divinity in the Bronze AgeArgolid. Proceedings of the Sixth Interna-tional Symposium at the Swedish Instituteat Athens (ActaAth-4, 40), eds. R. Hgg &G.C. Nordquist, Stockholm, 1990, 2334.

voutsaki et al 2010 c14 analysis asine

Documents