High Chronology or Low Chronology: The Archaeological Evidence

If such a date is accepted, it runs against the opinion that places the beginning of the Late Bronze Age at c. 1550 or 1600 BC, with the eruption in the second half of the 16th century BC. This paper discusses the archaeological evidence for the beginning of the Late Bronze Age in the Aegean. It concludes that neither a high chronology nor a low chronology can be definitively demonstrated based on the archaeological evidence alone. Although some of the evidence leans in favour of an earlier chronology than was once thought, any formulation of an Aegean chronological framework should be based on all the available evidence, including information drawn from scientific analysis as well as from archaeological excavation.

INTRODUCTION

Because the author's view are already published, a detailed repetition of them is unnecessary, but a summary of the evidence and the conclusions drawn from that evidence may serve as a background for further discussion.

Three independent methodologies - radiocarbon, an analysis of frost -damaged tree rings, and a determination of acidity layers in polar ice -have argued with varying degrees of conviction for a Theran eruption in the second half of the 17th century BC. If such a date is accepted, it runs against the opinion that places the beginning of the Late Bronze Age at c. 1550 or 1600 BC, with the eruption in the second half of the 16th century BC (for recent summaries of the problem see Aitken 1988; Manning 1988). The 'late chronology' for the Theran eruption has been based on archaeological synchronisms established from imports, exports and local copies of foreign objects that link the Aegean with the eastern Mediterranean, especially Egypt.

In a series of articles in Archaeometry, this writer and Peter Warren set out the arguments for two alternative views of the archaeological synchronisms, a 'high chronology' (Betancourt 1987; Betancourt and Michael 1987; Michael and Betancourt 1988) and a 'low chronology' (Warren 1987; 1988). The 'high chronology' allows an eruption of Thera in the second half of the 17th century, as suggested by the scientific investigations; the 'low chronology' rejects this possibility. Leaving aside absolute dates (for a review of the alternative Egyptian absolute chronologies, see Kitchen 1987), the two Aegean chronologies imply the following general correlations between Crete and Egypt:

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

Over the years, most of the evidence once used to establish the chronology of MM III and LM Ihas been challenged and subsequently abandoned by Aegean archaeologists. Artistic influences in wall-paintings, weapons, and other artistic objects, once actively discussed, are no longer considered reliable enough for chronological purposes; most recent discussions have centred on actual artefacts, with the Minoan objects in Egypt (and the Egyptian objects in Crete) playing the most important roles (for discussions see Popham 1970; Betancourt and Weinstein 1976, 336 - 337; Manning 1988, especially 28 - 29). The following objects are the most important pieces of archaeological evidence for the chronology of the Aegean.

• Jug from el-Lisht:

A jug decorated with birds and dolphins in the Yahudiyeh Ware technique was found at el-Lisht, in Egypt (Kemp and Merrillees 1980, 220-225). The dolphins have often been regarded as a sign of Aegean influence. Because Yahudiyeh Ware dates to MB II (Kaplan 1980, 121-123), the acceptance of the 'late chronology' requires that the Aegean influence come from MM III at the latest, while the 'early chronology' could accept either MM III or LM IA influence. Warren has argued (1988, 176) that the best parallel for the dolphins is a Minoan jar he dates to MM III (Seager 1916, 23-24, Pl. 14), while this author (Michael and Betancourt I 1988, 170) has proposed an LM I parallel for the dolphins (Seager 1916, Pl. 8-9). The issue is complicated by the fact that dolphins and fish also occur on other Yahudiyeh Ware vases (Arnold and Stadelmann 1977, Pl. 4B and 4D), obscuring the question of local or Aegean influence.

• Lid from Knossos

Lid from Knossos inscribed with the name of Khyan: An alabaster lid inscribed with the name of the Hyksos king Khyan was found at Knossos. Evans stated it was found in an MM III stratum (Evans 1900-1901, 63-67, Fig. 20). Although Evans's statement has been defended by Hood (1964, 342-343) and by Warren (1988, 176), the context has been challenged by Palmer (1964,323-325; 1969a, 53-58; 1969b, 63-64) because an examination of the pottery surviving from the level shows that the lot contains LM III sherds. Warren accepts the lid as evidence for chronology (1988, 176) while this writer rejects it (Michael and Betancourt 1988, 169-170). An acceptance of the lid as valid evidence would support the 'late chronology.'

• Sherd from Abydos Tomb 328:

An LM IB sherd decorated with an adder mark was found in Tomb 328 at Abydos, Egypt (Warren 1984, Fig. on p. 492). Most of the objects in the tomb date to the Hyksos period, but one bowl has parallels in the time of Tuthmosis III. A correlation of the Hyksos period with LM IB would support the 'high chronology' while either chronology is possible if the sherd goes with the time of Tuthmosis III (because the sherd could either be new or an heirloom).

• Alabaster vessels from Akrotiri:

Stone vessels of gypsum, possibly Syro-Palestinian products from Middle Bronze II, have been found in the LM IA level at Akrotiri, Thera (Warren 1979, 88-90; 1984, 492). With an 'early chronology' they would be contemporary imports; with a 'late chronology' they would be heirlooms.

• Alabastron from Gurob, Egypt:

An alabastron in the LM IB or LH IIA style was found in Tomb 245 at Gurob, Egypt (Kemp and Merrillees 1980,242). The tomb has been dated to Dynasty 18A or B which can support either' Aegean chronology (for discussion see Betancourt and Weinstein 1976, 337; Manning 1988, 33).

• Alabastron and cup from Saqqara:

Teti Pyramid Tomb NE 1 at Saqqara, dated to Dynasty 18A or B, contained two Aegean vessels from LH IIA (discussion and bibliography in Betancourt and Weinstein 1976, 337; Manning 1988, 33). The finds can support either chronology. Pithoid jar from Thebes: Tomb 20 at Thebes contained a Mycenaean pithoid jar dated to LH IIA (Betancourt and Weinstein 1976, 337-338; Manning 1988, 33). The date, in the reign of Hatshepsut or Tuthmosis III, can support either chronology (depending on whether the piece was new or an heirloom).

• LM IB sherd from Taanach: 

Minoan sherd from Taanach, in Palestine, pre-dates the destruction of Tuthmosis III (Betancourt and Weinstein 1976, 338; Manning 1988, 33). Because the pottery only provides a terminus ante quem, it can support either chronology.

• Jar from the tomb of Maket at Kahun:

A squat jar from LH IIB (equivalent to LM II in Crete) comes from Coffin 9 at Maket, Egypt (Hankey and Tufnell 1973). The tomb has been dated to the time of Tuthmosis III (for additional discussion see Betancourt and Weinstein 1976; Manning 1988, 35). Because both chronologies suggest LH IIB/LM II overlapped with the long reign of Tuthmosis III, the point of contention is whether LH IIB/LM II comes at the beginning or end of the reign. If, as Wachsmann suggests (1987, 127 and note 5), the coffin with the Aegean vase is from early in the reign, the fmd supports the 'early chronology.'

• Alabastron from Aniba:

A squat alabastron imitating Aegean style comes from a tomb at Aniba, in Nubia (Weinstein 1983). Two independent studies date the tomb firmly to the reign of Tuthmosis III (Kemp and Merrillees 1980, 242-244 and 253-254; Weinstein 1983), so the issue of contention is the date of the vessel's manufacture. Both sides find the best parallels in Crete, but Warren places the vase in LM IB (1987, 207-208) while Betancourt places it no earlier than LM II and more likely in LM IIIA :1 (Weinstein 1983, 84; Betancourt 1987, 46-47). Although Warren cites distant parallels for the shape from LM I, this version of the squat alabastron does not appear in Crete until LM II (compare Alexiou 1967, Pl. 13, no. 3, left). The decoration is a highly stylized development from the 'spirals and arcading' group (Betancourt 1975), a decorative tradition that began in LM I and persisted until LM IIIA, using mostly opposed spirals, sponge print, arcading, and the drop motif. On this alabastron the sponge print is rendered as very abstract reserved rosettes, the spirals are constricted, and the drop motif has been replaced by a crescent band around a large rosette painted on the bottom of the vase. Warren's arguments in favour of LM I are based on parallels for several individual parts of the design (1987, 207-208); this author maintains (1987, 46-47) that these parallels are with earlier versions of the tradition, and that a later date is indicated by the compositional arrangement (for example, the expansion in size of the rosette to form a large motif encircled by a crescent band); Warren counters that the composition should not be regarded as such an important issue for a vase which is an imitation (1988, 177). If the vase is from LM IIIA :1, it supports the 'early chronology' very strongly; if it is from LM I, it can support either chronology, because it could be new or an heirloom.

• Scarab from Scllopoulo Tomb 4:

A scarab from the time of Amenophis III was found in a tomb at Sellopoulo, near Knossos, with an imported LH IIIA:1 vase (Popham 1970, 228; Popham et al. 1974, 205-206, 209 and 216-217). It seems to suggest the reign of this ruler had already begun when LM IIIA: 1 pottery was in use in Crete. Although Manning has pointed out external reasons to suggest the LH IIIA :1 import may not have been new when it was buried in the tomb (1988, 36-37, citing arguments that LH IIIA :1 pre-dated LM IIIA :1), the undecorated kylikes in the tomb are canonical for LM IIIA: 1.

CONCLUSIONS

As the review of the evidence shows, there is very little evidence to support any firm chronological conclusion for the beginning phase of the Aegean Late Bronze Age. Except for contended points like the Hyksos lid, most of the evidence from MM III and LH I/LM I could support either a 'high chronology' or a 'low chronology'. Inferences from later periods must be used to build backward, in the face of the very poor documentation for the earlier periods themselves. This, in itself, is a problematical situation because of the difficulty of deciding on the length on any single period.

From the previous evidence, this author reaches the following conclusions:

1. Neither a 'high chronology' nor a 'low chronology' can be definitively demonstrated at this time based on the archaeological evidence alone. Synchronisms between the reign of Tuthmosis III and LM IB in Crete, once considered the backbone of the archaeological evidence, have not stood up to modern research techniques; by today's standards of research, not a single one of them can definitively decide between the two alternative chronologies.
2. Some of the pieces of archaeological evidence lean in favour of a higher chronology than has previously been suggested for the Aegean. The jar from Kahun and the alabastron from Aniba argue in favour of a synchronism between LM II and LM IIIA:1 with the reign of Tuthmosis III (as opposed to the LM IB synchronism suggested by the 'late chronology') pushing the earlier Aegean phases back into previous periods of Egyptian history.
3. Because the archaeological evidence is not definitive, the question of dating should rely on the entire body of evidence, including the information from scientific analyses.

One important implication of the 'high chronology' is that at least some of the early ceramic phases in the Minoan Late Bronze Age (LM IA, LM IB, LM II, and LM IIIA:1) must represent substantial periods of time. New evidence at Ayia Triada suggests a major building period in LM IIIA:1 (La Rosa 1985, 52), and a long LM IB is being suggested for some of the island sites.

Although at our present level of knowledge the question of absolute dates cannot be decided from the archaeological evidence alone, the issue is one of the most important ones facing the reconstruction of Aegean history.

------------------------------