Sunteți pe pagina 1din 21

Sofia Voutsaki, Søren Dietz and Albert J.

Nijboer 1

RADIOCARBON ANALYSIS AND THE HISTORY


OF THE EAST CEMETERY, ASINE
BY

SOFIA VOUTSAKI, SØREN DIETZ and ALBERT J. NIJBOER

Abstract der the direction of Axel W. Persson and Otto Frödin5 during
This paper presents the results of the radiocarbon analysis of human four campaigns (1922, 1924, 1926 and 1930). The field work
bones from the East Cemetery (IQ tumulus), Middle Helladic Asine.
The analyses have been carried out at the Centre for Isotope
revealed the existence of considerable habitations during the
Research, University of Groningen, using the AMS (Accelerator Aegean Bronze Age from the Early, Middle and Late Hellad-
Mass Spectroscopy) method. The main aim of the analysis is to ic periods. In addition remains from the Iron Age and consid-
elucidate the history of use of the tumulus and the surrounding erable remains of the Hellenistic settlement were found. In
extramural cemetery by comparing the absolute dates with the fact the most remarkable ancient remains to be seen today are
relative dates based on the ceramic offerings and the internal
stratigraphy of the tumulus. The establishment of a formal disposal the impressive Hellenistic fortification walls with a most
area and the adoption of the tumulus are significant developments in spectacular tower constructed on the east side of the rocky
the MH period, and it is therefore important to date their appearance promontory. Besides excavation on Kastraki, the 1920s ex-
with more precision. In addition, a more accurate reconstruction of pedition investigated also the Barbouna hill on the mainland
the history of this important funerary monument gives us a better
understanding of mortuary practices and social change in Asine, and
side of the channel, where rich Mycenaean chamber tombs,
in the MH mainland in general.* 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
INTRODUCTION at Athens to carry out the necessary emergency investigations.

This paper presents the results of radiocarbon analysis from


* We are grateful to the former and current Ephors at the 4th
human skeletal material from Middle Helladic (abbreviated Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, Mrs Zoi
MH) Asine recovered from the IQ tumulus, East Cemetery.1 Aslamatzidhou and Mrs A. Banaka, and the Department of Conser-
The radiocarbon analysis is part of a wider interdisciplinary vation, Ministry of Culture, for granting us permission to examine
project, the Middle Helladic Argolid Project,2 whose aim is and take samples from the Middle Helladic human skeletons of
Asine. We thank the Swedish Institute at Athens and Prof. Dr C.-G.
to reconstruct the social organization of MH communities
Styrenius for granting us the permission to sample the skeletons
and to interpret the important social, political and cultural from the East Cemetery. We would also like to acknowledge the
changes that took place on the southern Greek mainland dur- assistance of the staff at the 4th Ephorate, particularly Mrs E. Pappi.
ing the MH period. The task is pursued by means of an inte- The guards of the Nauplion Museum were particularly helpful dur-
grated analysis of funerary, skeletal and settlement data from ing our study; we thank them all. The samples have been taken by
Dr Anne Ingvarsson-Sundström, with assistance by Dr S. Trianta-
the MH Argolid.3 phyllou. Erwin Bolhuis prepared the distribution maps. SV is
indebted to Dr K. Sarri for many discussions on MH pottery, to Ms
Iro Mathioudaki for helpful suggestions on the pottery from the
East Cemetery, and to Jan Lanting for clarifying various questions
The history of the excavations regarding 14C analysis. Finally, we thank the two anonymous
reviewers for their comments.
1 For MH Asine, see Asine I; Hägg & Hägg 1973; Dietz 1980; idem
The ancient site of Asine is located on the rocky promontory
called Kastraki, which protrudes out into the sea east of the 1982; Nordquist 1987; eadem 1996; Styrenius 1998.
2 The five-year multidisciplinary project on the Middle Helladic
small village of Tolon—originally a place for fishermen and
Argolid is financed by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific
their families, today a busy tourist inferno during the hot Research (NWO) and the University of Groningen, the Nether-
months of the Greek summer. Geological investigations4 lands. For the aims and methods of the project, see Voutsaki 2005,
have shown that in antiquity, Kastraki was separated from the or visit the website of the project: http://www.MHArgolid.nl.
3 See the annual reports: Voutsaki et al. 2004; eadem 2006; eadem
mainland by a channel which connected a lake in the inland
2007; Voutsaki, Triantaphyllou & Milka 2005; Voutsaki, Ingvars-
with the sea. Today the channel does not exist and the ancient son-Sundström & Richards 2009.
lake has been transformed into flat, fertile, agricultural fields. 4 Zangger 1994.
5 Asine I.
The site of Kastraki was excavated by a Swedish team un-
2 Radiocarbon analysis and the history of the East Cemetery, Asine

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

The excavations were conducted by Carl-Gustaf Styrenius and remains and graves were attested, while in the area east of
Søren Dietz from 1970 to 1974. The ancient remains on the Kastraki, only the East Cemetery was found with no traces
plain proved to be of considerable importance, as more than of habitation nearby.
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 Cemetery6 (to be reconsidered in the
present contribution, Fig. 1) in the bottom, partly covered by Aims of the radiocarbon analysis
ground water, to Hellenistic levels near the surface with im- The radiocarbon analysis is part of the analysis of funerary
portant Protogeometric and Geometric habitation in be- data, as the samples have been taken from human skeletons.
tween.7 Therefore, the first aim of the analysis is to enhance the
In the same decade the lower slopes of the Barbouna hill chronological resolution of the analysis of mortuary data. In
were investigated by Inga and Robin Hägg.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 6 Dietz 1980.
of the period (MH III).9 The MH period is thus attested in all 7 Dietz 1982.
three areas investigated in the site of Asine. On Kastraki and 8 Hägg & Hägg 1973.
9
on the lower slopes of the Barbouna hill, both settlement Nordquist 1987.
Sofia Voutsaki, Søren Dietz and Albert J. Nijboer 3

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

the case of Asine in particular, this acquires a particular im- of stratigraphic observations. Dietz15 suggested dates based
portance. The site offers a unique possibility to study the de- on the relations of the graves to the two stone covers, the peri-
velopment of different burial places: the tombs in the Lower bolos of the tumulus, or with other graves.
Town, the tumulus cemetery established to the east of Kast- Fig. 2 depicts the tumulus cemetery as reconstructed by
raki (the East Cemetery, including the IQ tumulus), and the Dietz.16 The tumulus consisted of two covers of which the
graves opened amidst the earlier ruined houses in the Barbou- lower one was in very poor condition. The upper cover, on
na hill to the west. The adoption of extramural cemeteries and the other hand, was better preserved. It was constructed by
the construction of the IQ tumulus mark a significant depar- larger rounded stones placed neatly in a kind of polygonal
ture in MH mortuary practices, and therefore it is important pattern. The centre was found empty without any traces of a
to establish their dates as securely as possible. structure. The tumulus was almost totally excavated, and it
Asine offers many advantages that facilitate radiocarbon was suggested that it was originally circular with a diameter
analysis: the site has been extensively and repeatedly exca- of 8 m. In addition, some stones placed in rows in the northern
vated,10 the quality of the excavations (including the old ex- and southern part of the excavation were interpreted as parts
cavations) was good and the site has been published in exem- of a peribolos with a diameter of 15 m (not fully concentric
plary fashion, in particular its MH phase.11 Finally, the skel- with the tumulus), which originally may have indicated the
etal assemblage of MH Asine is very well studied. The human
remains recovered in the old excavations were first published
10 For a recent synthesis on the Asine excavations, see Styrenius
by Fürst,12 and later by Angel.13 The skeletons recovered in
1998.
the East Cemetery as well as those found in the Barbouna 11 Dietz 1980; Nordquist 1987; eadem n.d. a; eadem n.d. b.
graves have been intensively studied with the most advanced 12 Fürst 1930.
methods.14 Therefore, the wealth of skeletal and contextual 13 Angel 1982. Unfortunately the skeletons from the old excava-

data enhances the significance of radiocarbon analysis from tions in Kastraki are now lost.
14 Ingvarsson-Sundström 2008; Ingvarsson-Sundström in Voutsaki
MH Asine.
et al. 2007, 70–76; Ingvarsson-Sundström in print; Nordquist &
In the case of the IQ tumulus, 14C analysis is particularly Ingvarsson-Sundström 2005.
significant because there are many unfurnished graves (13 15 Dietz 1980.
16 Dietz 1980, 70.
out of 20) which cannot be dated closely except on the basis
4 Radiocarbon analysis and the history of the East Cemetery, Asine

Table 1. 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

border of the cemetery. The burial ground was overlaid by a metry) rather than the conventional dating method. While the
pebble-filled horizon of varying thickness. This layer, called latter can be more accurate, it requires a much larger sample
stratum 12,17 was virtually void of cultural remains and ap- (200–250 g) than the AMS method, for which a sample of 2–
parently represented an artificially applied stratum whose 5 g, taken from ribs, undiagnostic bone or bone fragments, is
function was to protect the burial ground. Interestingly, the sufficient. This decision has been taken because of the need
area of the pebble horizon follows that of the reconstructed to preserve the skeletal material for future research.
peribolos.18 This reconstruction needs to be taken into ac- By sampling skeletons from all large and well documented
count because it was used as part of the argument for the cemeteries of the MH Argolid and all ceramic sub-phases, we
chronological development in the cemetery. hope to build up a compendium of dates for the MH period.
The history of the tumulus cemetery was reconstructed as It is the first time that such an extensive and systematic pro-
follows:19 the tumulus may have been erected in the early MH gramme of analysis has been undertaken in the southern
II period, to which most likely the lower stone cover should mainland: We sample six skeletons per ceramic sub-phase
be dated. The reconstructed peribolos probably belongs to the (i.e., 6 from MH I, 6 from MH II, etc.), and we try to include
same period—the early part of the MH. The upper stone cover tombs from the early or late phases of each ceramic phase.24
was added later, probably during late MH II; some of the cist We have sampled 12 skeletons from Asine, East Cemetery,
graves opened onto the upper stone cover belong to this pe- and 5 from Barbouna.25 Further, we have analysed 18 skele-
riod. Cist graves found at the edges of the cemetery were con- tons from Lerna,26 a cemetery used during the entire MH pe-
sidered late MH II–MH III, because they were stratigraphi- riod, and 7 skeletons from the Aspis,27 an intramural ceme-
cally later than the reconstructed peribolos. Some other tery used in MH II–MH III.
graves outside the tumulus contained datable offerings and
could be dated to MH III–LH I. Finally, two LH II vases were
found in the northern periphery of the tumulus, and were in-
terpreted as representing a last visit to the burial ground. 17 Dietz 1982, 69–70, 83, plan VIII (sections).
18 Dietz 1982, 69–70.
It becomes immediately evident that some of the graves and
19 Dietz 1980, 71–88.
features of the cemetery were dated in relation to each other. 20 This is an important difference from graves in the settlement
While an internal stratigraphy of the tumulus can be recon- area, which can often be dated in relation to earlier or later houses.
structed, assigning absolute dates to its various phases of use The primary example is Lerna: see Blackburn 1970; Milka in print.
21 It is impossible to summarize this complex and rather heated
was fraught with difficulties. Therefore in the case of the East
Cemetery radiocarbon analysis is particularly useful.20 debate in a footnote. For the “Low Chronology”, see Warren &
Hankey 1989, and more recently Bietak 2003; Wiener 2003. For the
The main purpose of our analysis is to refine the sequence
“High Chronology”, see recently Manning et al. 2006; for impor-
at MH Asine and MH chronology in general. However, a fur- tant new evidence Friedrich et al. 2006. Important contributions to
ther aim is to contribute to the wider chronological debate in the debate can also be found in the most recent SCIEM Conference
Aegean archaeology, and especially the highly contested is- (Bietak & Czerny 2007); see especially Bietak & Höflmayer 2007;
sue of “High versus Low Chronology” (see Table 1).21 In par- Manning 2007; Wiener 2007.
22 Manning 2005, 113. For a more extensive discussion on the state
ticular, it is important to use well-documented data from the of the question and the need to obtain more data from the mainland,
mainland, which so far has been largely absent from the see Voutsaki, Nijboer & Zerner 2009, 151–152.
chronological debate in Aegean prehistory.22 23 The Laboratory at the Groningen Centre for Isotope Research

participates in inter-comparison exercises (Scott et al. 2004) and


maintains 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 of
The method bone (5 g) is necessary; we sample rib fragments or other undiag-
nostic bones or bone fragments.
The radiocarbon analysis of human skeletons from Asine 25 The results from Barbouna will be presented in a separate article.
(and other sites of the MH Argolid) has been carried out at 26 Voutsaki, Nijboer & Zerner 2009; Voutsaki, Nijboer & Zerner in
the Centre for Isotope Research, University of Groningen.23 print.
27 Voutsaki et al. 2009a.
We have decided to use AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectro-
Sofia Voutsaki, Søren Dietz and Albert J. Nijboer 5

Unfortunately, it was not possible to take additional sam- Table 2. Tentative sub-divisions of the MH period on the basis of the
ples for control measurements because of permit restric- Lerna 14C results.
tions, but also due to the poor preservation of the skeletons MH I 2100?–1900 BC
and the need to preserve the assemblage for future MH II 1900–1800?? BC
researchers. MH III 1800??–1700 BC

analysis does not allow us to distinguish between the MH II


RADIOCARBON ANALYSIS AND MH and MH III phases. The 14C results fall very close together,
and they all have a relatively wide range because of the
CHRONOLOGY
shape of the calibration curve in this period. In addition, we
In order to provide a general framework within which the ra- are dealing here with fairly short phases that cannot be
diocarbon analysis of the Asine burials can be interpreted, we distinguished easily in radiocarbon analysis. Therefore,
first need to present briefly the results from the other sites in- graves with a fairly secure relative date in MH II produce
cluded in the project, notably Lerna and Aspis. 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 the
Lerna transition to the LH I period are heavily debated (Table 1,
The intramural cemetery at Lerna was in use throughout the above). According to the “Low Chronology”34 the transi-
MH period and consisted of over 200 graves.28 Lerna therefore tion takes place around 1600 BC, while the “High
offers us a unique opportunity to select the most accurately dat- Chronology”35 places it around 1700 BC. All MH III
ed graves and to build up a sequence for the entire period. Lerna measurements from Lerna (5 measurements) fall before
has two important advantages when compared to other ceme- 1700 BC. In fact, the only grave to span the 1700 BC
teries: first, the graves can be dated with more precision, as they boundary had anyway a relative date in the “Shaft Grave
contain more offerings, and even some Minoan and Cycladic period”, i.e., the MH III–LH I–beginning of LH IIA period.
imports. Second, Lerna has a complex history of use with sev- This implies that the MH III period lasts until 1700 BC (or
eral areas being used interchangeably for burial and habita- perhaps even earlier). If this is accepted, it makes sense to
tion.29 As a result, some graves had a precise relative dating, as place the beginning of the MH III period around 1800 BC.
they were opened into the ruins of a house after it was aban- Once more, some caution is necessary: this last conclusion
doned, while another house was built subsequently on top of is based more on common sense than on actual results.
the grave.
The radiocarbon analysis of the Lerna skeletons has pro- The chronological scheme which can be reconstructed on the
duced a very tight sequence with very good correspondence basis of the Lerna radiocarbon results is presented in Table 2.
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 Aspis
The settlement on the Aspis is the only well documented
– MH I period: the accepted date for the beginning of the part of the large and important MH site of Argos.36 The ex-
MBA has been placed in 2100/2000 BC, i.e., around or cavations have revealed that the site was occupied since the
just before the beginning of the second millennium.31 We MH I–II period, although architectural remains belong pri-
have taken three measurements from tombs which had a marily to the MH III period. Thirteen intramural graves have
MH I relative date: according to them, the transition from
the EH III to the MH I period should be placed around
2100 BC. All three measurements fall before 1900 BC (at 28 Blackburn 1970; Zerner 1978.
2σ probability level [95.4%]), therefore we can conclude 29 Blackburn 1970; Zerner 1978; Milka in print.
30 For more detailed discussion see Voutsaki, Nijboer & Zerner
that the period lasts approximately until 1900 BC.
2009; Voutsaki, Nijboer & Zerner in print.
However, it should be emphasized that these inferences 31 Cadogan 1978, 213; Warren & Hankey 1989, 124; Manning
are based on only a few measurements, therefore some 1995.
32 Manning 1995.
caution is necessary.
33 Dietz 1980, 317; 1800/1775 in Dietz 1991, 321.
– MH II period: as we suggested above, the MH II period 34 For the “Low Chronology” see Warren & Hankey 1989, and
should start around 1900 BC. The end of the MH II period more recently Bietak 2003; Wiener 2003.
has been placed around 1750/1720 BC by Manning,32 and 35 See Manning et al. 2006.

around 1800 BC by Dietz.33 Unfortunately, the radiocarbon 36 Piérart & Touchais 1996, 13–17.
6 Radiocarbon analysis and the history of the East Cemetery, Asine

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

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

GrA-31050 1971-15 49 As 3560 +/– 35 BP –20.30 35.8


GrA-31075 1971-12 62 As 3550 +/– 35 BP –18.42 42.8
GrA-31070 1971-3 54 As 3510 +/– 35 BP –18.83 40.4
GrA-31069 1971-5 53 As 3465 +/– 40 BP –18.46 42.8
GrA-31061 1970-12 44 As 3435 +/– 35 BP –19.48 43.1
GrA-31068 1971-2 51 As 3415 +/– 35 BP –18.90 42.8
GrA-31074 1971-11 61 As 3395 +/– 35 BP –19.34 42.5
GrA-31078 1972-5 66 As 3385 +/– 35 BP –19.57 39.3
GrA-31060 1970-11 43 As 3330 +/– 35 BP –19.22 39.2
GrA-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 13


δC‰ %C

GrA-30983 1971-1 52 As 3710 +/– 100 BP –19.90 19.5


GrA-31071 1971-7 55 As 2415 +/– 35 BP –19.24 36.9

been found between or underneath houses.37 We have sam- THE RADIOCARBON ANALYSIS OF THE
pled seven skeletons, but only four produced reliable
results.38
EAST CEMETERY, ASINE
The quality of the results
– No MH I graves have been found in the Aspis, and
Samples from 12 human skeletons from the East Cemetery
therefore the site cannot give us any information on the
have been submitted to radiocarbon analysis. The measure-
beginning of the MH period.
ments need to fulfil certain quality parameters if they are to
– The graves, most of them unfurnished, belong mostly to
be included in the analysis: the organic content (Cv) of the
the MH III period, but three graves may on stratigraphic
bone sample needs to be higher than 35%, the δ13C values
grounds belong to the MH I–II period. Therefore, the
need to be around 20‰ and the error measured must be low
problems we encountered in Lerna in our attempt to
(at the most ± 50 years).39 Ten samples have produced relia-
distinguish between the MH II and MH III periods cannot
ble results (Table 3).
be solved in Aspis, where, in addition, the date of these
Despite a rather low 13δC (‰) value (for which we do not
earlier graves is uncertain.
have an explanation at this stage), GrA-31073 from tomb
– The Aspis results confirm an important conclusion we
1972-7 has been considered reliable, because the result makes
reached on the basis of the Lerna analysis: that the MH III/
sense in stratigraphic terms, and because the carbon content
LH I boundary should be placed around 1700 BC.
of the collagen conforms to the quality parameters.
Two results have not been taken into account in the ana-
In general, therefore, the Aspis dates, despite their restricted
lysis (Table 4): GrA-30983 has poor quality characteristics
number, compare well with the Lerna results.
and GrA-31071 is far too young (2415 +/– 35 BP).
To conclude: the radiocarbon analysis of the Lerna and
Finally, in order to exclude the possibility of a “reservoir
Aspis data allows us to assign tentative dates for the begin-
effect”,40 we have carried out a stable isotope analysis of hu-
ning of the MH I period and the MH II period. However, it
man bones from Asine.41 This has allowed us to conclude that
does not allow us to date the beginning of the MH III period
accurately, because of the short duration of these sub-phas-
37 Touchais 2007; Philippa-Touchais in print.
es, the fairly broad range of the radiocarbon dates and the
38 Voutsaki et al. 2009a.
shape of the calibration curve in this period, but also the un- 39 Mook & Waterbolk 1985; Lanting 2004; Nijboer & van der
certainties surrounding the relative dates of some graves. Plicht, 2008.
The analysis, however, places the end of the MH period 40 Lanting & van der Plicht 1998.
41 Ingvarsson-Sundström, Richards & Voutsaki in print.
firmly around 1700 BC.
Sofia Voutsaki, Søren Dietz and Albert J. Nijboer 7

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

the Asine population did not rely on marine resources for their Each grave sampled is described individually below.42 The
diet, and therefore to increase the reliability of our results. 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 the peribolos and
The results other graves,
Twelve skeletons have been sampled. Table 5 summarizes – the stratigraphic associations with the stone covers, or with
the archaeological context of the skeletons included in the other graves,
analysis, while Fig. 3 shows the location of the graves sam- – the offerings (if any),
pled in the cemetery. The burials to be sampled were selected – the relative date assigned in the original publication,
on the basis of different criteria: in certain cases (e.g., 1971- – the radiocarbon result.
3, 1971-2) they contained diagnostic pottery. Others (e.g.,
1970-12) were accompanied by valuables, but not by pottery; In each case, the relative date assigned by Dietz43 and the
therefore an absolute date may help us date them more close-
ly. Certain tombs were selected because of stratigraphic re- 42 We firmly believe that this kind of detailed contextual analysis is
lations to other graves (1971-5), or to features of the tumulus absolutely necessary when interpreting radiocarbon dates.
(e.g., 1971-11, 1971-12, 1971-7). 43 Dietz 1980.
8 Radiocarbon analysis and the history of the East Cemetery, Asine

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

Tomb Skeleton
number 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 cover


position unknown 2 cups, jar
(Also M, 27)
1971-12 Stone-built cist 62 As Single, contracted ? 11–13 —
1971-3 Large cist 54 As Single, extended? M 33 Beaked jug,
3 jugs, bridge-spouted
hole-mouthed jar,
egg cup, Vapheio cup,
5 goblets, 2 kantharoi
Bronze 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, jug
1971-11 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 ? 12–18 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-Sundström (as part of the Middle
Helladic Argolid Project, but funded by the Institute of Aegean Prehistory), and therefore deviate sometimes from Angel’s (1982) identifications.
See Ingvarsson-Sundström in Voutsaki et al. 2007, 70–76; Ingvarsson-Sundström in print.
** Unreliable results.

absolute dates are compared, and an attempt is made to inte- Other offerings: No other offerings were found.
grate the two. It cannot be emphasized enough that when in- Relative date: MH III or MH II late. This late date was sug-
tegrating absolute and relative dates, we compare two ranges gested, because the grave was located outside the tumulus
of possible dates: just as 14C dates come with a certain range, near LH I grave 1971-3, and because it cut the reconstructed
the relative date of a grave may also sometimes span more peribolos.48 However, it was already noted at the time that
than one ceramic sub-phases (for example, a grave may be the two cups could equally well be MH I–MH II.49 Indeed
MH I or MH II early; it may be earlier than, or contemporary MH I–II parallels for the bowl and for the one-handled cups
with a neighbouring grave). Interpreting radiocarbon dates in (and for the knobs on the one cup)50 can be given. Unfortu-
an archaeological context involves trying to reconcile two nately, the two cups and the jar were not located in the apo-
ranges of possible dates. Therefore, modifications of the rel- theke of the Nauplion Museum and could not be studied fur-
ative date in the light of radiocarbon results can be made as ther. The potters’ marks on the cup have no close parallels in
long as we stay within the range dictated by both the stratig- Lindblom’s typology.51
raphy of the site and the 14C measurements. As we will see Radiocarbon date: The 14C result (2020–1770 BC at 2σ prob-
below, in some cases the original dating has been confirmed, ability level [95.4%]; Fig. 4) supports a date in MH I–II, or
but in others it was revised. In the final discussion, an attempt
will be made to reconstruct the sequence of use of the entire 44 Dietz 1980, 62–63.
cemetery on the basis of these new results. 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.
(i) Grave 1971-1544 49 Dietz 1980, 86.
50 The bowl shares some features with the early MH storage jar in
(Fragmentary) burial pithos, placed outside the tumulus, to
the northwest. Zerner 1978, fig. 15, no. 3, for example. For the two one-handled
cups: Zerner 1990, figs. 13–15, see especially knobbed cups, figs.
Pottery: Bowl45 placed as cover of the pithos. Two one-hand- 19–21. SV would like to thank Iro Mathioudaki for pointing out
led cups46 (one with potters’ marks) and a jar47 were found these parallels.
underneath the bowl, i.e., outside the pithos proper. 51 Lindblom 2001, 50–51.
Sofia Voutsaki, Søren Dietz and Albert J. Nijboer 9

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

at the latest in early MH III, and excludes a date later in MH large size and elaborate construction, the extended position
III. As we have seen above, a MH I–II date is supported by of the skeleton, the presence of metal weapons and of animal
the pottery connected with the pithos. bones above the grave—confirm this late date.
Radiocarbon date: The 14C result of this grave (Fig. 6) is
problematic. An absolute date of 1930–1740 BC at 2σ prob-
ability level for a grave firmly assigned to LH I gives us a
(ii) Grave 1971-1252 lowest possible date of c. 1750 BC for the LH I period, which
Cist, in the southeast part of the tumulus. The grave interrupts at the present time is not acceptable. Therefore, on the basis
the periphery of the tumulus. of the other radiocarbon results obtained in the Middle Hel-
Pottery: No pottery found. ladic Argolid Project we consider the radiocarbon result of
Other offerings: No other offerings found. 1971-3 an outlier. It is difficult to establish at this time why
Relative date: MH II late. As no offerings were found, the grave this outlier has occurred. The grave was water-logged, but
was dated on the basis of its stratigraphic associations.53 It was this does not normally affect radiocarbon results.74
considered to have been later than the upper stone cover, as it
52 Dietz 1980, 24–25.
was opened through it and interrupted its periphery. 53
Radiocarbon date: The 14C result (2000–1770 BC at 2σ prob- Dietz 1980, 88.
54 Dietz 1980, 34–55.
ability level; Fig. 5) supports an early date (MH I–II), although 55 Dietz 1980, 38, no. 25, figs. 34, 44.
a date in early MH III cannot be fully excluded. This implies 56 Dietz 1980, 38, no. 26, figs. 35, 44.
57 Dietz 1980, 38, no. 27, figs. 36, 44.
that the upper stone cover was in place already in this period.
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.
(iii) Grave 1971-354 62 Dietz 1980, 43, no. 32, figs. 41, 45.
63 Dietz 1980, 43, no. 33, figs. 42, 45.
Large, elaborate cist, placed outside the tumulus. 64 Dietz 1980, 43, no. 34, figs. 43, 44.
Pottery: Beaked jug,55 egg cup,56 jug with cut-away spout,57 65 Dietz 1980, 43, no. 35, figs. 46, 47.

goblet with four handles,58 goblet with two handles,59 goblet 66 Dietz 1980, 43, no. 36, figs. 48, 57.
67 Dietz 1980, 43, no. 37, figs. 49, 57.
with disc foot,60 goblet with two handles,61 goblet with two 68 Dietz 1980, 43, no. 38, figs. 50, 57.
handles,62 goblet with two handles,63 kantharos,64 bridge- 69 Dietz 1980, 43, no. 41, figs. 56, 57.
spouted hole-mouthed jar,65 Vapheio cup,66 cut-away jug,67 70 Dietz 1980, 48, no. 30, figs. 39, 45.
kantharos with high-swung handles,68 semi-globular cup 71 Dietz 1980, 43, no. 39, figs. 51, 52.
72 Dietz 1980, 48, no. 42, figs. 53, 54.
with high-swung handle,69 jug.70
73 In the original publication (Dietz 1980, 80–88), 1971-3 was
Other offerings: Bronze dagger,71 limestone pommel.72
dated to the “end of the MH III period–beginning of LH I”. In his
Relative date: LH IA. There can be no doubt about the relative detailed study of the MH III–LH I sequence in the Argolid, the ter-
dating of this grave, as the rich ceramic assemblage places it minology was changed to LH IA (Dietz 1991, passim).
securely in LH IA.73 Many other aspects of the grave—its 74 Jan Lanting, personal communication.
10 Radiocarbon analysis and the history of the East Cemetery, Asine

Fig. 6. 14C result from grave 1971-3. Fig. 8. 14C result from grave 1970-12.

Relative date: The grave was dated to MH II late on the basis


of 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
IIB–MM 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 1880–1640 BC at 2σ prob-
Fig. 7. 14C result from grave 1971-5.
ability level (Fig. 8) favours a MH III date, but does not ex-
clude a late MH II date.

(iv) Grave 1971-575


Stone built cist, placed outside the tumulus.
Pottery: No pottery found. (vi) Grave 1971-282
Other offerings: No other offerings found. Probably a cist, but only partially preserved. Located outside
Relative date: Earlier than MH IIIB, possibly MH II or MH the tumulus, placed above 1971-5.
IIIA. The date is assigned in relation to MH IIIB grave 1971- Pottery: Double jug decorated with birds,83 fluted jug.84
2,76 which was placed above 1971-5. Other offerings: No other offerings found.
Radiocarbon date: The 14C result (1900–1680 BC at 2σ prob-
75 Dietz 1980, 55–56.
ability level; Fig. 7) confirms a date in MH II or MH III.
76 Grave 1971-2 is dated to MH IIIB, on the basis of the ceramic
offerings, in particular the double jug with birds (Dietz 1980, 33–
34, figs. 26, 28). The radiocarbon analysis (see below) largely con-
(v) Grave 1970-1277 firms this date.
77 Dietz 1980, 30.
Cist. One of the smallest graves of the cemetery, located out- 78 Dietz 1980, 30, no. 20, figs. 20, 21.
79 Dietz 1980, 30, no. 21, fig. 59.
side the tumulus, between graves 1970-11, 1971-1 and 1970-
80 Caskey 1972, 386; Dietz 1980, 83–84.
7/8. 81 We will return to the stratigraphic relations below.
Pottery: No pottery found. 82 Dietz 1980, 33–34.
Other offerings: Gold diadem.78 Iron nail,79 found in the 83 Dietz 1980, 33, no. 23, figs. 26, 28.

grave fill—may be intrusive. 84 Dietz 1980, 34, no. 24, figs. 27, 29.
Sofia Voutsaki, Søren Dietz and Albert J. Nijboer 11

Fig. 9. 14C result from grave 1971-2. Fig. 11. 14C result from grave 1972-5.

that the grave and the upper tumulus cover were constructed
simultaneously.
Radiocarbon date: The radiocarbon result of 1870–1600 BC
at 2σ probability level (Fig. 10) supports a date in MH III–
LH 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.
Fig. 10. 14C result from grave 1971-11. Relative date: MH II early. The grave reached more than 40
cm lower87 than grave 1971-11,88 and was therefore consid-
ered contemporary with the lower stone cover rather than
Relative date: MH IIIB, on the basis of the decoration and with the upper one.
the shape of the double jug. Radiocarbon date: The radiocarbon result (1770–1530 BC at
Radiocarbon date: The radiocarbon result of 1880–1620 BC at 2σ probability level; Fig. 11) refutes an early date, and places
2α probability level (Fig. 9) confirms the relative date of MH the grave in MH III–LH I. The grave may therefore have been
IIIB, though a date at the very beginning of LH I is also possible. cut very deep into the tumulus, but this was some time after
the tumulus was erected.

(vii) Grave 1971-1185


Orthostat cist grave, located in the northeastern part of the tu- (ix) Grave 1970-1189
mulus, near its periphery. Cist of orthostat type. Located outside the tumulus, between
Pottery: No pottery found. 1971-14 to the NNW and above 1970-12 to the SSE.
Other offerings: No other offerings found.
Relative date: MH II late. The grave was dated on the basis
85 Dietz 1980, 23–24.
of its stratigraphic relation with the upper stone cover. Stones
86 Dietz 1980, 25–26.
of this cover were found on top of the eastern end of the cist, 87 See Dietz 1982, Plan VIII, section 26W.
but the cover slab covering the west end of the cist extended 88 1971-11 was dated originally to MH II late, but the radiocarbon
over stones of the upper cover (the other slab was missing). result suggests a later date in MH III–LH I; see above.
89 Dietz 1980, 30.
As the grave seemed to fit into the tumulus, it was suggested
12 Radiocarbon analysis and the history of the East Cemetery, Asine

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

Dietz 1980 Dietz 1991*

— MH IIIA
MH IIIA MH IIIB
MH IIIB / LH I LH IA
LH IB

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


idem 1998.

Pottery: No pottery found.


Other offerings: No. Animal bones found near the feet of the
skeleton inside the cist.92
Fig. 12. 14C result from grave 1970-11. Relative date: Neither the cist burial, nor the second burial
on the capstone can be accurately dated.
Radiocarbon date: The radiocarbon result (1610–1410 BC at
2σ probability level; Fig. 13) falls very late in the sequence.
It extends across the 1500 BC boundary—and 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 13δC (‰) 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.

Fig. 13. 14C result from grave 1972-7.


DISCUSSION: THE RADIOCARBON
RESULTS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS
Before we try to use the new 14C data94 in order to reconstruct
Pottery: No pottery found. the sequence of use of the cemetery, we need to make some
Other offerings: No other offerings found. introductory remarks on the relative dating.
Relative date: MH II late (?)90 Assigning a date to 1970-11 First, the tumulus cemetery was published by S. Dietz in
is difficult (as it was in the case of 1970-12), because this 1980, while a more detailed terminology for the transitional
grave is also surrounded by unfurnished graves (or graves phases (MH/LH), which we use here, was proposed by Dietz
containing undiagnostic artefacts), whose relation with each in 1991.95 As this terminology deviates somewhat from the
other cannot easily be established. An earlier grave found un- one used in 1980, it is perhaps necessary to explain the dif-
derneath 1970-11 was destroyed during its construction. ferences between the two (Table 6).
Radiocarbon date: The radiocarbon result (1730–1510 BC at Second, we should point out that the “few sherds of Yellow
2σ probability level; Fig. 12) falls very late and supports a Minyan” found between the two covers in the tumulus96
date in LH I–II.

90 Dietz 1980, 88.


91 Dietz 1980, 63–64.
(x) Grave 1972-7 91 92 Dietz 1980, 64.
93 See above, Table 3.
Cist, located outside the tumulus, on its own, further away 94 No radiocarbon analysis was carried out during the excavation in
from other graves. The sample taken, however, was not from the 1970s.
the burial inside the tomb, but from a child burial, placed on 95 Dietz 1991.
96 Dietz 1980, 87.
the capstone of the grave.
Sofia Voutsaki, Søren Dietz and Albert J. Nijboer 13

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

Tomb Date originally Proposed


number assigned new date 1 σ calibration 2 σ calibration

1971-15 MH II late–MH III Probably MH I–II 1960–1870 BC (60.3%) 2020–1860 BC (74.9%)


1840–1820 BC (5.1%) 1850–1770 BC (20.5%)
1800–1780 BC (2.8%)
1971-12 MH II late Probably MH I–II, although 1950–1870 BC (51.4%) 2020–1990 BC (1.9%)
a date in early MH III cannot 1850–1820 BC (9.9%) 1980–1770 BC (93.5%)
be fully excluded 1800–1780 BC (6.9%)
1971-3 LH IA (outlier!) 1890–1770 BC (68.2%) 1930–1740 (95.4%)
1971-5 Earlier than MH IIIB: MH II–MH III 1880–1840 BC (22.9%) 1900–1680 BC (95.4%)
MH II or MH IIIA? 1830–1730 BC (45.3%)
1970-12 MH II late MH II late or MH III 1870–1840 BC (8.2%) 1880–1640 BC (95.4%)
1780–1680 BC (60.0%)
1971-2 MH IIIB MH IIIB–early LH I 1760–1660 BC (67.2%) 1880–1840 BC (6.6%)
1650–1640 BC (1.0%) 1820–1790 BC (2.4%)
1780–1620 BC (86.4%)
1971-11 MH II late MH III–LH I 1740–1630 BC (68.2%) 1870–1840 BC (2.0%)
1780–1600 BC (93.4%)
1972-5 MH II early MH III–LH I 1740–1710 BC (19.6%) 1770–1600 BC (92.3%
1700–1630 BC (48.6%) 1580–1530 BC (3.1%)
1970-11 MH II late LH I–II 1670–1600 BC (37.1%) 1730–1710 BC (1.1%)
1590–1530 BC (31.1%) 1690–1510 BC (94.3%)
1972-7 “MH” LH II for the child burial 1520–1445 BC (68.2%) 1610–1570 BC (5.8%)
on the capstone 1540–1410 BC (89.6%)
(MH II–MH III–LH I for the cist burial)
1971-1 MH II late–MH III (unreliable result) — —
1971-7 MH III?? (unreliable result)** — —

* Only the graves sampled are included in Table 7.


** A date in MH I–II is suggested below, because of similarities with early pithos burial 1971-15.

should no longer be taken into consideration as dating evi- placed outside the pithos rim.100 The practice of using pithoi
dence. The ware is more accurately defined with the broader in extramural burial ground in MH I–II can be observed in
term “Argive Light Ware” which was not introduced until the Argos “tumuli” cemeteries’ (in “tumuli” A and Γ101).
1991. “Yellow Minyan” is not found before MH III.97 In this respect, it is interesting to compare 1971-15 with
Let us return to the radiocarbon results: Table 7 presents the nearby grave 1971-7: this pithos, also containing a double
the original and revised dating of the tombs analysed. In order interment,102 was placed against the peribolos.103 The
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.
97 Dietz 1991, 29–30: FT1 (“Fine tempered burnished”) and MT1
In the discussion that follows we shall try to discuss the
implications of the new 14C data, by examining the individual (“Medium tempered burnished”).
98 The graves in bold are the ones included in the analysis.
graves and their stratigraphic or spatial connections with oth- 99 We should keep in mind grave 71B, a shallow clay-lined pit con-
er graves and features of the tumulus. taining mixed bones of more than one skeleton (Dietz 1980, 65).
Grave 1971-15,98 the pithos containing the double burial These bones were not analyzed by Angel, and have not been located
to the northeast of the tumulus, seems to belong to MH I–II, in the apotheke. Dietz (1980, 86) had suggested a very early date
(EH/MH) for this tomb, as secondary treatment is not common in
and is therefore one of the earliest graves of the cemetery.
MH times.
This implies either that graves were opened both inside and 100 It is worth noting that burial in jars, or in pithoi, is attested in
outside the tumulus from an early stage, or that the tumulus the settlement throughout the MH period, but exclusively for sub-
was erected in an area where graves already existed.99 For adult burials (Milka n.d.).
101 Protonotariou-Deilaki 1980; Voutsaki et al. 2009b.
stratigraphical reasons (see above on stratum 12), it is neces- 102 A sample was taken from one of the two skeletons, but unfortu-
sary to suggest that the peribolos is older. nately it produced an erroneous result, see Table 4.
It is worth noting the special features of this grave: this is 103 It is not easy to establish the relation between the pithos burial

a pithos burial, containing a double interment, with offerings and the peribolos, because the pithos was only partly preserved.
14 Radiocarbon analysis and the history of the East Cemetery, Asine

similarities between 1971-15 and 1971-7 allow us to suggest crease in the number of graves in existing cemeteries (Argos
that the two were contemporary, and were among the earliest “tumuli” cemeteries, Prehistoric Cemetery at Mycenae),116 or
graves of the cemetery.104 the establishment of new cemeteries (Prosymna, Myloi)117 is
Grave 1971-12 was dated originally to MH II late. The 14C a general phenomenon in MH III–LH I Argolid, and indeed
result supports an early date in MH I–II, although a date in in the entire southern mainland.
early MH III cannot be fully excluded.105 This implies that In the case of graves 1971-2 and 1971-5 the radiocarbon
the upper stone cover was in place, and hence the tumulus results largely confirm their relative date. 1971-2, which is
stood already in this period, probably in MH I–II. placed on top of 1971-5, should indeed be dated to MH IIIB,
It is worth looking at the other graves opened into the tumu- and 1971-5 to MH II–MH IIIA.
lus. 1971-11 was considered MH II late on the basis of its re- Grave 1970-12 was originally dated to MH II late mostly
lation with the upper stone cover. As the grave seemed to fit on the basis of the decoration of the golden diadem. The ra-
into the tumulus, it was suggested that the grave and the upper diocarbon date does not exclude a date in late MH II, but fa-
tumulus cover were constructed simultaneously. However, the vours a date in MH III. We need to re-examine the stylistic
14C date places the grave in MH III–LH I (though a date in MH
connections of the diadem as well as the stratigraphic
II cannot be fully excluded). It is therefore more likely that associations of the tomb.
1971-11 was cut later through the upper stone cover. Starting with the diadem, the golden band found in the Ae-
The third grave, 1972-5, was at first considered to be con- gina tomb provides a convincing parallel belonging to the
nected with the earlier stone cover, because the grave reached MH II period.118 It should, however, be emphasized that the
more than 40 cm lower than grave 1971-11. However, the golden diadem in 1970-12 was broken and repaired already
absolute date supports a date in MH III–LH I. in MH times, and was therefore clearly older than the grave.
The grave 1971-10 is a single contracted burial placed on a The grave is located outside the tumulus, tightly packed be-
layer of pebbles 25–30 cm above the upper stone cover of the tween graves 1970-11, 1971-1 and the double cist 1970-7/8.
tumulus.106 A kantharos107 found more than 30 cm above the If we start with 1970-11, the situation is rather clear: the grave
legs of the skeleton may have belonged to the tomb, but was
found in a layer also containing Mycenaean sherds. The tumu- 104 Dietz (1980, 85) could not find parallels for the pithos. A frag-

lus was covered with a pebble-filled earthen mound.108 The ment of a flat-rimmed bowl securely dated to MH II was found near
tomb contained a bronze knife109 and a gold earring.110 The the grave (Dietz 1980, 58, fig. 65), but its value for dating the grave
one-edged knife with three nail holes in a triangular position is dubious.
105 The radiocarbon result is very similar to the one obtained from
and straight back is found already in MH II in Aegina,111 but 1971-15. However, in the case of 1971-15 the early date is con-
remains in use in MH III.112 In the original publication the firmed by the pottery, while 1971-12 contains no ceramic offerings.
“Red-Slipped Aegina” sherds found between grave 1971-10 We therefore cannot fully exclude a later date, though we consider
and the upper stone cover were thought to provide a terminus the MH I–II date more probable.
106 This skeleton was not analyzed.
ante quem for the cover, as this particular ware was thought to 107 Dietz 1980, 60, no. 61, figs. 70, 79. Dietz mentions MH IIIA–
represent a late MH development. 113 However, the recent in- MH IIIB parallels for the kantharos in the original publication
vestigations in Kolonna have demonstrated that “bowls solidly (Dietz 1980, 86), but assigns it a LH IA date in Dietz 1991, 151.
108 Stratum 12 (Dietz 1982, 69–70, 83), discussed above.
painted and burnished in red color”, are found for the first time 109 Dietz 1980, 59, no. 59, figs. 67, 68.
in the early MH ceramic phase H in Kolonna, Aegina.114 It 110 Dietz 1980, 59, no. 60, fig. 69.
must be concluded that the “Red-slipped Aegina” ware group 111 Kilian-Dirlmeier 1997, 50–53.
(burnished and/or matt?) seems to appear already from the be- 112 Dietz mentions MH III parallels for the knife in grave Δ, Grave

ginning of the MH period. The early examples are evidently Circle B (a grave dated to MH IIIB, though possibly LH I in
bowls, but it is difficult to say at the moment how the shapes chronological terms: Dietz 1980, 86).
113 Dietz 1980, 18 and 87. On this ware, see Dietz 1991, 225
within the group develop through time. Unless and until we (“Aegina Red Slipped and Burnished”); Lindblom 2001, 32; 2007,
know more about the development of shapes, the use of the figs. 7 and 8 (“Aiginetan Painted and Burnished”). On the Aegina
“Red-slipped Aegina” group will remain of limited value for sequence: Gauss & Smetana 2007.
114 Gauss and Smetana 2007, 62.
the dating of the upper cover of the tumulus. 115 Kilian-Dirlmeier (1997, 98) had already reached this conclusion,
To conclude, the earliest tomb in the tumulus seems to be
and considered 1972-5 and 1971-11 as “sekundäre Bestattungen”.
1971-12, as all the others were built later.115 Needless to say, 116 For the “tumuli” cemeteries in Argos, see Protonotariou-Deilaki
we do not know what happened in the centre of the tumulus, 1980 and Voutsaki et al. 2009b; for the Prehistoric Cemetery at
nor in its western part. If we combine the observations on Mycenae, see Alden 2000 and Voutsaki, Ingvarsson-Sundström &
1971-15 and 1971-12, we can conclude that burials were Richards 2009, 140–142.
117 For Myloi, see Dietz & Divari-Valakou 1992; for Prosymna,
opened both in and outside the tumulus from an early stage, Blegen 1937 and Voutsaki, Ingvarsson-Sundström & Richards
at some point in MH I–II. The majority of graves in the tu- 2009, 144–146.
mulus, however, belong to the MH III–LH I period. This in- 118 Kilian-Dirlmeier 1997, 54–57.
Sofia Voutsaki, Søren Dietz and Albert J. Nijboer 15

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

MH I–II Pithos burial 1971-15, outside the tumulus


Pithos burial 1971-7, outside the tumulus (?)
Cist grave 1971-12, in the tumulus
Tumulus and upper stone cover
MH II–MH III Cist 1971-5, outside the tumulus
Cist 1970-12, outside the tumulus (golden diadem)
MH III–LH I Cist 1971-11, cut into tumulus
Pit 1971-10, placed in pit in mound over tumulus
Cist 1972-5, cut deep into tumulus
Cist 1971-2, placed on top of 1971-5, outside the tumulus
Double 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 tumulus
LH I–II Cist 1970-11, outside the tumulus
LH 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.

was unfurnished, but it was later than 1970-12, as the southern little further away from the row of tombs. As it was on its own
wall of 1970-11 is partly built across the northern wall of and contained no offerings, it could be dated only generally
1970-12.119 In the conclusions, however, 1970-11 and 1970- to the MH period. The absolute date suggests that the child
12 were considered contemporary, MH II late.120 Either way, burial deposited on top of the capstones has a very late date,
the radiocarbon result for 1970-11 falls very late and supports LH II to LH IIIA. It should be kept in mind that two LH IIA
a date in LH I or even LH II.121 Therefore, 1970-11 cannot vases were found in the northern periphery of the tumulus.
help us decide whether 1970-12 is MH II late or MH III. Since the tumulus cemetery was evidently re-visited in LH
The double cist 1970-7/8,122 located immediately to the II, it is possible that 1972-7 was also used again in LH II. In-
east of 1970-12 but at a higher level (also embedded in the deed the evidence from other extramural cemeteries (Argos,
pebble layer), cannot be dated closely either, as the only of- Prosymna, the Prehistoric Cemetery at Mycenae) suggests
ferings found in the two graves were two bronze earrings.123 that a few graves in these traditional cemeteries were built,
However, its very regular and careful construction points to or re-opened as late as LH II–LH IIIA, during a period when
a late date (MH III? or LH I?). burial in family (chamber or tholos) tombs was becoming the
1971-1, located immediately to the south of 1970-12, con- norm. The burial in the cist itself cannot be closely dated.
tained no offerings either. It was also embedded in the pebble Finally, three tombs have no spatial or stratigraphic con-
stratum.124 In 1980, Dietz dated the graves 1970-7/8 and nection with any other graves: 71B, a shallow mud-brick cist
1971-1 to late MH II or MH III because they cut the recon- containing mixed bones belonging to more than one skele-
structed peribolos.125 The second row of stones begins indeed ton,126 was considered to be the earliest burial, perhaps mark-
to the west of 1971-1. ing the foundation of the cemetery. 1971-6, 1970-16 and
Finally, graves 1971-14 and 1971-13, two cists to the north 1972-7 (the burial in the cist)127 are all unfurnished cists,
of 1970-11, were also unfurnished. They shared a wall, and dated to the MH period.
may therefore be contemporary. 1971-14 shared (part of) a
wall with 1970-11, but again it is not possible to establish the
chronological relation of the two graves.
To summarize the discussion on 1970-12: We have seen that
119 Dietz 1980, 30.
the stylistic connections of the diadem give us a terminus post
120 Dietz 1980, 88.
quem rather than a precise date of the grave itself: the grave is 121 Interestingly, an earlier grave was destroyed when 1970-11 was
contemporary with or later than MH II. Equally, the strati- built.
graphic connections give us only a terminus ante quem, LH I– 122 No sample was taken from this grave.
123 Dietz 1980, 27, no. 18, fig. 16.
II (the radiocarbon date of 1970-11). It is very likely that 1970-
124 A sample was taken from the skeleton, but the result was not
12 is earlier than all the tombs surrounding it, but it is unfortu-
included in the analysis as it was of poor quality (Table 4).
nately very difficult to say just how much earlier. It is therefore 125 Dietz 1980, 88.
safer to accept the grave to be either MH II late or MH III. 126 See above; Dietz 1980, 65.

Grave 1972-7 is located to the southeast of the tumulus, a 127 Dietz 1980, 56–58 and 30–32, respectively.
16 Radiocarbon analysis and the history of the East Cemetery, Asine

Fig. 14. The East Cemetery: MH I–II graves.

CONCLUSIONS: THE HISTORY OF THE though the main period of use was MH III–LH I, as in other
EAST CEMETERY, ASINE extramural cemeteries of the Argolid. The last burial (and last
visit to the tomb) seems to have taken place in LH II. The
Table 8 summarizes the history of the East Cemetery, as re- cemetery was abandoned afterwards, and was finally
constructed on the basis of both the relative and the radiocar- destroyed in the LH IIIC/Submycenaean era.
bon dates (see also Figs. 14–17). The tumulus and the sur- To conclude, the careful integration of radiocarbon data,
rounding cemetery were founded at some point in MH I–II, stylistic and stratigraphic observations has given us a much

Table 9. Graves and features that cannot be dated.

71B Mud-brick cist with secondary burials. May be the earliest grave of the cemetery
1971-6 Cist grave, unfurnished, outside the tumulus
1970-16 Cist grave, unfurnished, outside the tumulus
1972-7 Cist grave, unfurnished, outside the tumulus
Lower stone cover Poorly preserved. Not known if contemporary or earlier than upper stone cover
Peribolos 2 curved rows of stones, uncertain whether they formed a circular enclosure
Sofia Voutsaki, Søren Dietz and Albert J. Nijboer 17

Fig. 15. The East Cemetery: MH II–MH III graves.

better understanding of this very important funerary monu- Søren Dietz


ment. The adoption of extramural cemeteries and conspic- Danish Institute at Athens
uous monuments, tumuli in particular, marks an important Herefondos 14
GR-105 58 Athens
innovation in the early MH burial practices. Dating their E-mail: dietz@kalydon.net
adoption and reconstructing their subsequent history can
contribute not only to a better understanding of MH chro- Albert J. Nijboer
nology, but also of social and cultural change in the southern Groningen Institute of Archaeology
mainland. PO Box 72
NL-9700 AB Groningen
E-mail: a.j.nijboer@rug.nl
Sofia Voutsaki
Groningen Institute of Archaeology
PO Box 72
NL-9700 AB Groningen
E-mail: s.voutsaki@rug.nl
18 Radiocarbon analysis and the history of the East Cemetery, Asine

Fig. 16. The East Cemetery: MH III–LH I graves.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ranean in the second millennium B.C. II, ed.


M. Bietak, Wien 2003, 23–33.
Alden 2000 M. Alden, Well-Built Mycenae 7. The Bietak & Czerny 2007 The synchronisation of civilisations in the
Prehistoric Cemetery: Pre-Mycenaean and eastern Mediterranean in the second mil-
Early Mycenaean Graves, Oxford 2000. lennium B.C. III, eds. M. Bietak & E.
Angel 1982 J.L. Angel, ‘Ancient skeletons from Asine’, Czerny, Wien 2007.
in Asine II. Results of the excavations east Bietak & Höflmayer M. Bietak & F. Höflmayer, ‘Introduction,
of the Acropolis 1970–1974, Fasc. 1. 2007 High and Low Chronology’, in Bietak &
General stratigraphical analysis and ar- Czerny 2007, 13–23.
chitectural remains (ActaAth-4°, 24:1), ed. Blackburn 1970 E.T. Blackburn, Middle Helladic graves
S. Dietz, Stockholm 1982, 105–138. and burial customs with special reference
Asine I O. Frödin & A.W. Persson, Asine. Results to Lerna in the Argolid, Diss. University of
of the Swedish excavations, 1922–1930, Cincinnati, 1970.
Stockholm 1938. Blegen 1937 C.W. Blegen, Prosymna. The Helladic
Bietak 2003 M. Bietak, ‘Science versus archaeology: settlement preceding the Argive Heraeum,
Problems and consequences of High Cambridge, Mass. 1937.
Aegean chronology’, in The synchronisa- Bruins & H.J. Bruins & J. van der Plicht, ‘Radiocarbon
tion of civilisations in the eastern Mediter- van der Plicht 2001 challenges archaeo-historical time frame-
works in the Near East: the Early Bronze
Sofia Voutsaki, Søren Dietz and Albert J. Nijboer 19

Fig. 17. The East Cemetery: LH I–LH II graves.

Age of Jericho in relation to Egypt’, the Mycenaean Age, København 1991.


Radiocarbon 43, 2001, 1321–1332. Dietz 1998 S. Dietz, ‘The Cyclades and the mainland
Cadogan 1978 G. Cadogan, ‘Dating the Aegean Bronze in the Shaft Grave period – a summary’,
Age without radiocarbon’, Archaeometry Proceedings of the Danish Institute at
20/2, 1978, 209–214. Athens 2, 1998, 9–35.
Caskey 1972 J.L. Caskey, ‘Investigations in Keos. Part Dietz & S. Dietz & N. Divari-Valakou, ‘A Middle
II: A conspectus of the pottery‘, Hesperia Divari-Valakou 1990 Helladic III / Late Helladic I grave group
41, 1972, 357–401. from Myloi in the Argolid (oikopedon
Dietz 1980 S. Dietz, Asine II. Results of the excavations Manti)’, OpAth 18, 1990, 45–62.
east of the Acropolis 1970–1974, Fasc. 2. Friedrich et al. 2006 W.L. Friedrich, B. Kromer, M. Friedrich, J.
The Middle Helladic cemetery, the Middle Heinemeier, T. Pfeiffer & S. Talamo,
Helladic and Early Mycenaean deposits ‘Santorini Eruption Radiocarbon dated to
(ActaAth-4°, 24:2), Stockholm 1980. 1627–1600 B.C.’, Science 312:5773, 2006,
Dietz 1982 S. Dietz, Asine II. Results of the excavations 548.
east of the Acropolis 1970–1974, Fasc. 1. Fürst 1930 C.M. Fürst, Zur Anthropologie der Prähis-
General stratigraphical analysis and ar- torischen Griechen in Argolis, Lund 1930.
chitectural remains (ActaAth-4°, 24:1), Gauss & Smetana 2007 W. Gauss & R. Smetana, ‘Aegina Kolonna,
Stockholm 1982. the ceramic sequence of the SCIEM 2000
Dietz 1991 S. Dietz, The Argolid at the Transition to Project’, in Middle Helladic pottery and
20 Radiocarbon analysis and the history of the East Cemetery, Asine

synchronisms, eds. F. Felten, W. Gauss & abandoned houses in the MH Argolid’, in


R. Smetana, Salzburg 2007, 57–80. MESOHELLADIKA: The Greek mainland
Hägg & Hägg 1973 I. Hägg & R. Hägg, Excavations in the in the Middle Bronze Age. Proceedings of
Barbouna Area at Asine 1 (Boreas. Uppsala a conference held in Athens, eds. A.
Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Philippa-Touchais, G. Touchais, S. Vout-
Eastern Civilization, 4:1), Uppsala 1973. saki & J. Wright, BCH Suppl., in print.
Ingvarsson-Sundström A. Ingvarsson-Sundström, Asine III. Supple- Milka n.d. E. Milka, Mortuary practices in MH Asine,
2008 mentary studies on the Swedish excavations Unpublished manuscript n.d.
1922–1930, Fasc. 2. Children lost and Mook & Waterbolk W.G. Mook & H.T. Waterbolk, Handbook
found. A bioarchaeological study of Middle 1985 for Archaeologists 3. Radiocarbon Dating,
Helladic children in Asine with a compari- Strasbourg 1985.
son to Lerna (with an appendix by H. Nijboer & A.J. Nijboer & H. van der Plicht, ‘The Iron
Soomer) (ActaAth-4°, 45:2), Stockholm van der Plicht 2008 Age of the Mediterranean: Recent radiocar-
2008. bon research at the University of Gronin-
Ingvarsson-Sundström A. Ingvarsson-Sundström, ‘Tooth counts gen’, in A New Dawn for the Dark Age?
in print and individuals: health status in the East Shifting Paradigms in Mediterranean Iron
Cemetery and Barbouna at Asine as inter- Age Chronology, eds. D. Brandhern & M.
preted from teeth’, in MESOHELLADIKA: Trachsel, Oxford 2008, 103–118.
The Greek mainland in the Middle Bronze Nordquist 1987 G.C. Nordquist, A Middle Helladic village:
Age. Proceedings of a conference held in Asine in the Argolid (Boreas. Uppsala
Athens, eds. A. Philippa-Touchais, G. Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near
Touchais, S. Voutsaki & J. Wright, BCH Eastern Civilization, 16), Uppsala 1987.
Suppl. in print. Nordquist 1996 G.C. Nordquist, ‘New information on old
Ingvarsson-Sundström, A. Ingvarsson-Sundström, M.P. Richards graves’, in Asine III:1: Supplementary
Richards & Voutsaki & S. Voutsaki, ‘Stable isotope analysis of the Studies on the Swedish Excavations 1922–
in print Middle Helladic population from two 1930 (ActAth-4°, 45:1), eds. R. Hägg, G.C.
cemeteries at Asine: Barbouna and the East Nordquist, & B. Wells, Stockholm 1996,
Cemetery’, Journal of Mediterranean 19–38.
Archaeology and Archaeometry, in print. Nordquist n.d. a G.C. Nordquist, The Middle Helladic finds
Kilian-Dirlmeier 1997 I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Das Mittelbronzezeitli- from the Barbouna slope at Asine. The
che Schachtgrab von Ägina, Mainz 1997. excavations 1973–74 and 1989, Unpub-
Lanting 2004 J.N. Lanting, ‘Ross Island: Radiocarbon lished manuscript, n.d.
dates and absolute chronology, in Ross Nordquist n.d. b G.C. Nordquist, Excavations in Area II
Island (Bronze Age Studies, 6), ed. W. 1973–1974 (Barbouna). Unpublished manu-
O’Brien, Galway 2004, 305–316. script, n.d.
Lanting & J.N. Lanting & J. van der Plicht, ‘Reservoir Nordquist & Ingvarsson- G.C. Nordquist & A. Ingvarsson-Sundström,
van der Plicht 1998 effect and apparent 14C ages’, The Journal Sundström 2005 ‘Live hard, die young: Mortuary remains of
of Irish Archaeology 9, 1998, 151–165. Middle and Early Helladic children from
Lindblom 2001 M. Lindblom, Marks and makers: appear- the Argolid in social context’, in AUTO-
ance, distribution and function of Middle CHTHON: Papers presented to O.T.P.K.
and Late Helladic manufacturers’ marks on Dickinson on the occasion of his retire-
Aeginetan pottery (SIMA, 128), Jonsered ment, eds. A. Dakouri-Hild & S. Sherratt,
2001. Oxford 2005, 156–174.
Manning 1995 S.W. Manning, The absolute chronology of Piérart & Touchais M. Piérart & G. Touchais, Argos: une ville
the Aegean Early Bronze Age: Archaeology, 1996 grecque de 6000 ans, Paris 1996.
radiocarbon, and history, Sheffield 1995. Philippa-Touchais A. Philippa-Touchais, ‘Les tombes intra-
Manning 2005 S.W. Manning, ‘Simulation and the date of in print muros de l’Helladique Moyen à la lumière
the Theran eruption: outlining what we do des fouilles de l’Aspis d’Argos’, in Sur les
and do not know from radiocarbon’, in pas de Wilhelm Vollgraff. Cent ans d’activ-
AUTOCHTHON: Papers presented to ités archéologiques à Argos, eds. A. Bana-
O.T.P.K. Dickinson on the occasion of his ka & S. Huber (Recherches Franco-Hellé-
retirement, eds. A. Dakouri-Hild & S. niques, 4), in print.
Sherratt, Oxford 2005, 97–114. Protonotariou-Deilaki E. Protonotariou-Deilaki, Oi tymvoi tou
Manning 2007 S.W. Manning, ‘Clarifying the “High” v. 1980 Argous, Diss. University of Athens 1980.
“Low” Aegean/Cypriot chronology for the Scott et al. 2004 E.M. Scott, C. Bryant, I. Carmi, G. Cook,
mid second millennium BC: Assessing the S. Gulliksen, D. Harkness, J. Heinemeier,
evidence, interpretive frameworks, and E. McGee, P. Naysmith, G. Possnert, H. van
current state of the debate’, in Bietak & der Plicht & M. van Strijdonck, ‘Precision
Czerny 2007, 101–137. and accuracy in applied 14C dating: some
Manning et al. 2006 S.W. Manning, C. Bronk Ramsey, W. findings from the 4th International Radio-
Kutschera, T. Higham, B. Kromer, P. Steier carbon Comparison’, JAS 31, 2004, 1209–
& E.M. Wild, ‘Chronology for the Aegean 1213.
Late Bronze Age 1700–1400 BC’, Science Styrenius 1998 C.-G. Styrenius, Asine. A Swedish excava-
312:5773, 2006, 565–569. tion in Greece, København 1998.
Milka in print E. Milka, ‘Burials upon the ruins of Touchais 2007 G. Touchais, ‘Coarse ware from the MH
Sofia Voutsaki, Søren Dietz and Albert J. Nijboer 21

settlement of Aspis, Argos: Local produc- in Tree-Rings, Kings, and Old World
tion and imports’, in Middle Helladic Archaeology and Environment: Papers
pottery and synchronisms, eds. F. Felten, Presented in Honor of Peter Ian Kuniholm,
W. Gauss & R. Smetana, Salzburg 2007, eds. S. Manning & M.J. Bruce, Oxford
81–96. 2009, 151–161.
van der Plicht & J. van der Plicht & H.J. Bruins, ‘Radiocarbon Voutsaki, Nijboer & S. Voutsaki, A.J. Nijboer & C. Zerner, ‘Ra-
Bruins 2001 dating in Near-Eastern Mediterranean con- Zerner in print a diocarbon analysis and the chronology of
texts: confusion and quality control’, MH Lerna’, in MESOHELLADIKA: The
Radiocarbon 43, 2001, 1155–1166. Greek mainland in the Middle Bronze Age.
Voutsaki 2005 S. Voutsaki, ‘Social and cultural change in Proceedings of a conference held in Athens,
the Middle Helladic period: presentation of eds. A. Philippa-Touchais, G. Touchais, S.
a new project’, in AUTOCHTHON: Papers Voutsaki & J. Wright, BCH Suppl., in print.
presented to O.T.P.K. Dickinson on the Voutsaki, S. Voutsaki, S. Triantaphyllou & E. Milka,
occasion of his retirement, eds. A. Dakouri- Triantaphyllou ‘Project on the Middle Helladic Argolid: a
Hild & S. Sherratt, Oxford 2005, 134–143. & Milka 2005 report on the 2004 season’, Pharos XII,
Voutsaki et al. 2004 S. Voutsaki, S. Triantaphyllou, S. Kouidou- 2004 (pr. 2005), 31–40.
Andreou, L. Kovatsi & E. Milka, ‘Lerna, Voutsaki, Zerner & S. Voutsaki, C. Zerner & A.J. Nijboer, Radio-
2000 – 1500 BC: A pilot analysis of Nijboer in print carbon analysis and MH Lerna’, Hesperia,
funerary, skeletal and bio-molecular data’, in print.
Pharos XI, 2003 (pr. 2004), 75–80. Warren & Hankey P. Warren & V. Hankey, The absolute chro-
Voutsaki et al. 2006 S. Voutsaki, S. Triantaphyllou, A. Ingvars- 1989 nology of the Aegean Bronze Age, Bristol
son-Sundström, S. Kouidou-Andreou, L. 1989.
Kovatsi, A.J. Nijboer, D. Nikou & E. Milka, Wiener 2003 M.H. Wiener, ‘Time out: The current
‘Project on the Middle Helladic Argolid: a impasse in Bronze Age archaeological
report on the 2005 season’, Pharos XIII, dating’, in METRON. Measuring the
2005 (pr. 2006), 93–117. Aegean Bronze Age, 9e Rencontre égéenne
Voutsaki et al. 2007 S. Voutsaki, S. Triantaphyllou, A. Ingvars- internationale, eds. K. Polinger Foster & R.
son-Sundström, K. Sarri, M. Richards, A.J. Laffineur, Liège 2003.
Nijboer, S. Kouidou-Andreou, L. Kovatsi, Wiener 2007 M.H. Wiener, ‘Times change: The current
D. Nikou & E. Milka. ‘Project on the state of the debate in Old World chronolo-
Middle Helladic Argolid: a report on the gy’, in Bietak & Czerny 2007, 25–47.
2006 season’, Pharos XIII, 2006 (pr. 2007), Zangger 1994 E. Zangger, ‘The island of Asine: A palaeo-
59–99. geographic reconstruction, OpAth 20,
Voutsaki et al. 2009a S. Voutsaki, A.J. Nijboer, A. Philippa- 1994, 221–239.
Touchais & G. Touchais. ‘Radiocarbon Zerner 1978 C.W. Zerner, The Beginning of the Middle
analysis from MH burials from Aspis, Helladic Period at Lerna, Diss. University
Argos’, BCH 130:2, 2007 (pr. 2009), 613– of Cincinnati, 1978.
625. Zerner 1990 C. Zerner, ‘Ceramics and ceremony: Pot-
Voutsaki et al. 2009b S. Voutsaki, K. Sarri, O. Dickinson, S. tery and burials from Lerna in the Middle
Triantaphyllou & E. Milka. ‘The Argos and Early Bronze Ages’, in Celebrations of
“Tumuli” Project: a report on the 2006 and death and divinity in the Bronze Age
2007 seasons’, Pharos XV, 2007 (pr. Argolid. Proceedings of the Sixth Interna-
2009), 153–192. tional Symposium at the Swedish Institute
Voutsaki, Ingvarsson- S. Voutsaki, A. Ingvarsson-Sundström & at Athens (ActaAth-4°, 40), eds. R. Hägg &
Sundström & Richards M. Richards, ‘Project on the Middle Hel- G.C. Nordquist, Stockholm, 1990, 23–34.
2009 ladic Argolid: a report on the 2007 season’,
Pharos XV, 2007 (pr. 2009), 137–152.
Voutsaki, Nijboer & S. Voutsaki, A.J. Nijboer & C. Zerner, ‘MH
Zerner 2009 Lerna: Relative and absolute chronologies’,

S-ar putea să vă placă și