Iron Age Chronology Research Articles

The origin of the Protogeometric style in northern Greece and its relevance for the absolute chronology of the Early Iron Age

Classical archaeological chronologies are steeped in relative dating, but the application of absolute methods does not always support such clear-cut seriation. Here, the authors consider the significance of a Macedonian vase in reconciling the conventional and absolute chronologies of Early Iron Age Greece. Decorated with compass-drawn concentric circles and found in a Late Bronze Age context at ancient Eleon, Boeotia, the authors argue that this vessel establishes a chronological anchor and supports a twelfth-century BC emergence of the Protogeometric style in central Macedonia. A model for the indigenous development and dispersal of the Macedonian Protogeometric style is presented for future elaboration.

Mediterranean Early Iron Age chronology: assessing radiocarbon dates from a stratified Geometric period deposit at Zagora (Andros), Greece

In this article, the authors present an analysis of radiocarbon dates from a stratified deposit at the Greek Geometric period settlement of Zagora on the island of Andros, which are among the few absolute dates measured from the period in Greece. The dates assigned to Greek Geometric ceramics are based on historical and literary evidence and are found to contradict absolute dates from the central Mediterranean which suggest that the traditional dates are too young. The results indicate the final period at Zagora, the Late Geometric, should be seen as starting at least a century earlier than the traditional date of 760 BC.

An interdisciplinary approach to Iron Age Mediterranean chronology through combined archaeological and 14C-radiometric evidence from Sidon, Lebanon.

The construction of the Iron Age Mediterranean chronology began in the Levant based on historical evidence and has been additionally supported in recent decades by means of radiocarbon analysis, although with variable precision and ratification. It is only in recent years that new evidence in the Aegean and the western Mediterranean has opened discussion towards its further acceptance as an authoritative i.e. highly reliable, and widely applicable historiographic network. Altogether, the Mediterranean Iron Age chronology has only undergone minor changes during the last hundred years. The Phoenician metropolis of Sidon in southern Lebanon now provides a new, large and robust dataset obtained through a combination of archaeological and 14C-radiometric analysis of materials from stratified contexts that allow their statistical assessment. The appearance of substantial amounts of pottery of Greek, Cypriot and Egyptian origin together with Phoenician local wares in a long stratigraphy is a benefit for the synchronisation of regional pottery styles and allows wider geographic correlation of relative chronological systems. The close association of the archaeological data with a long series of AMS-14C-dates on short-lived samples provides new evidence for the absolute dating of many of the regional pottery styles that are represented in the stratigraphy of Sidon, and contributes towards a considerable improvement of the Mediterranean chronology.

Dun Fhinn, Islay

Duns are a problematic class of monuments for Argyll. They encompass an ill-defined and diverse range of structures, with limited evidence for their chronology and functions within late prehistoric and early historic society, settlement and economy. The Isle of Islay has a notably high concentration of duns, especially in its south-east region. We describe a small-scale excavation at one of these, Dun Fhinn, designed to establish the date of its construction and that of a circular internal structure, the latter proposed by the RCAHMS as a later addition. These are shown to have functioned at the same time in the later half of the 1st millennium bc, the roundhouse likely being an integral part of the original construction. Finds were limited to a few utilised stones, fragments of burnt clay and the rim of a wooden bowl, while the charcoal assemblage provides insights into the surrounding landscape and its exploitation for fuel. We consider the significance of Dun Fhinn for development of an Iron Age chronology for Argyll.
 Canmore ID 38091

Back to the Iron Age Chronology in Southern Central Asia

Abstract The article reconsiders two major sites of the 1st millennium BC in southern Uzbekistan, Kyzyltepa and Kurganzol. It contests their recent dating – exclusively the Achaemenid and transitional Hellenistic period for the first one, and the end of the 4th c. BC for the second one – mainly based upon dendrochronological analyses relating the samples to the time of Alexander the Great’s conquest or slightly before, and ruling out the other dates given to these sites in previous publications. Our argumentation is based upon (1) various archaeological arguments and (2) scientific criteria that question the dendrochronological data and the supposed aging of the 14C results due to “old waters” from glaciers.

Bramka Rockshelter: An Early Mesolithic cave site in Polish Jura

Although multiple Mesolithic cave sites have been recognised in Europe, the use of such sites by Early Holocene hunter gatherers was extremely scarce north of the Carpathians. Single Mesolithic artefacts have been found thus far only in six cave sites in Poland. The rich Early Mesolithic assemblage found in Bramka Rockshelter in southern Poland seems to be quite extraordinary in such a context. The site was excavated over 50 years ago, but the results have never been published or analysed beyond a short mention of child burial found in the Mesolithic context. The paper presents new radiocarbon dates obtained for the Mesolithic occupation and the child burial, showing the Early Holocene chronology of the Komornician assemblage and the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age chronology of the burial. The assemblage's techno-typological analysis allowed us to identify six human occupation phases at the site, with the most intensive phase connected to the Mesolithic. Comparative analyses of other Mesolithic assemblages from the region, together with an extremely high percentage of debitage found in the Bramka Rockshelter assemblage, allow us to discuss the possibility of identifying the site as a knapping workshop located in the vicinity of Jurassic flint outcrops.

A new understanding of the chronology, circulation and function of Iron Age (8th–1st c. BC) ferrous semi-products in north-eastern France

In Europe, several thousand ferrous semi-products attributed to the Iron Age (8th–1st c. BC) have been found. Recent advances in the field of archaeometry concerning the dating of iron objects, characterisation of materials and provenance studies have made it possible to address some important and hitherto unresolved questions. The results obtained from the study of an exceptional set of over 70 currency-bars found in north-eastern France shed new light on their chrono-cultural context, which is much older than previously thought. This interdisciplinary approach also made it possible to propose a new interpretation of the production, circulation and deposition conditions of these semi-products.

THE BEGINNING OF THE IRON AGE AT ARSLANTEPE: A14C PERSPECTIVE

ABSTRACTThe Iron Age chronology at Arslantepe is the result of the interpretation of Luwian hieroglyphic inscriptions and archaeological data coming from the site and its surrounding region. A new round of investigations of the Iron Age levels has been conducted at the site over the last 10 years. Preliminary results allowed the combination of the archaeological sequence with the historical events that extended from the collapse of the Late Bronze Age empires to the formation and development of the new Iron Age kingdoms. The integration into this picture of a new set of radiocarbon (14C) dates is aimed at establishing a more solid local chronology. High precision14C dating by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) and its correlation with archaeobotanical analysis and stratigraphic data are presented here with the purpose of improving our knowledge of the site’s history and to build a reliable absolute chronology of the Iron Age. The results show that the earliest level of the sequence dates to ca. the mid-13th century BC, implying that the site started developing a new set of relationships with the Levant already before the breakdown of the Hittite empire, entailing important historical implications for the Syro-Anatolian region at the end of the 2nd millennium BC.

On the chronology of the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age in eastern Germania in the light of selected types of brooches

On the basis of selected types of supra-regional brooches (A.65, Nauheim, Schüsselfibeln, A.18), an attempt was made to check whether they appeared in the eastern part of Germania in the same chronological rhythm as in their home zones. The service life of A.65 brooch and post-oppidial forms A.18 north of the Carpathians corresponds to the chronology in the primary distribution zone, no significant differences can be seen. Another picture – obtained, however, from a small number of finds – is drawn for Nauheim type brooches, which seem to remain in use a little longer in the zone between the Carpathian Mountains and the Baltic coast, until the younger stage of the LT D2 phase. Similarly, bowl-shaped brooches (Schüsselfibeln), probably made mostly in local workshops, were worn in the north for several decades longer than in the zone south of the Carpathian Mountains. In Pomerania they came into use probably slightly earlier than in the area of Przeworsk culture and probably went out of fashion a little faster. This indicates a slightly different rhythm of stylistic and fashion changes between southern and central Poland (Przeworsk culture) and the north – the region of the lower Vistula and the Gulf of Gdańsk. Late La Tène period – Late Pre-Roman Iron Age – chronology – brooches – Przeworsk culture – imports

Radiocarbon dating the Greek Protogeometric and Geometric periods: The evidence of Sindos.

Mediterranean Early Iron Age chronology was mainly constructed by means of Greek Protogeometric and Geometric ceramic wares, which are widely used for chronological correlations with the Aegean. However, Greek Early Iron Age chronology that is exclusively based on historical evidence in the eastern Mediterranean as well as in the contexts of Greek colonisation in Sicily has not yet been tested by extended series of radiocarbon dates from well-dated stratified contexts in the Aegean. Due to the high chronological resolution that is only achievable by (metric-scale) stratigraphic 14C-age-depth modelling, the analysis of 21 14C-AMS dates on stratified animal bones from Sindos (northern Greece) shows results that immediately challenge the conventional Greek chronology. Based on pottery-style comparisons with other sites, the new dates for Sindos not only indicate a generally higher Aegean Early Iron Age chronology, but also imply the need for a revised understanding of the Greek periodisation system that will foreseeably have a major impact on our understanding of Greek and Mediterranean history.

Iron age chronology and biblical history rejoinders: The late bronze/iron age transition, Tel ʿEton and Lachish

ABSTRACT In this article, I review three recent articles. In the first, Asscher and Boaretto (2018. ‘Absolute time ranges in the plateau of the Late Bronze to Iron Age transition and the appearance of Bichrome pottery in Canaan, Southern Levant’, Radiocarbon 60, 1–25) suggest that the Late Bronze/Iron I transition occurred in neighboring sites a century and more apart. In the second, Faust and Sapir (2018. ‘The “Governor's Residency” at Tel ʿEton, the United Monarchy and the impact of the old-house effect on large-scale archaeological reconstructions’, Radiocarbon 60, 801–820.) date the construction of a solid building at Tel ʿEton to the tenth century bce and interpret this as validation for the historicity of the United Monarchy of ancient Israel. In the third, Garfinkel et al. (2019a. ‘Lachish fortifications and state formation in the Biblical kingdom of Judah in light of radiometric datings’, Radiocarbon 61, 1–18) announce the discovery of a city-wall belonging to Level V at Lachish, and affiliate it with the building operations of King Rehoboam of Judah, described in 2 Chronicles. Scrutiny of the methods and facts dismisses all three theories.

Revisiting the chronology of the Early Iron Age in the north-eastern Iberian Peninsula

The chronology of the Late Bronze Age and the earliest stages of the Iron Age in the Mediterranean is an important topic of debate since the study of both local social dynamics and trade and colonial activity around the Mediterranean requires obviously well-established chronological frameworks. However, the exact chronology of the Early Iron Age in the Mediterranean region is still a problematic issue today since different, and in some cases unbalanced, sources of information (historical texts, material culture sequences, and radiocarbon dating results) are used. The NE Iberian Peninsula is not an exception and different time periods are proposed in the literature for the Early Iron Age. Here, and in order to provide a new and an independent input to feed this debate, we apply the archeomagnetic dating method to four archeological hearths from the Sant Jaume Complex, a set of several Early Iron Age archeological sites located in the north-eastern part of the Iberian Peninsula. The archeomagnetic dating results suggest that the abandonment of the studied structures (that can be linked to the abandonment of the archeological sites) most probably occurred before 650 BC, and therefore invalidate the age commonly ascribed to the Early Iron Age sites in this area. Our study provides, hence, new evidences that the traditional view of human settlement development in the NE Iberian Peninsula should be revisited.

A Brief History of Jerusalem: From the Earliest Settlement to the Destruction of the City in AD 70

Klaus Bieberstein, Professor of Old Testament Studies at the University of Bamberg (about 130 miles east of Frankfurt, Germany), has written a clear and informative summary of the history of Jerusalem from its earliest settlement to its destruction by the Romans in AD 70. Jerusalem is one of the most excavated sites in the world, and yet only a fraction of its history has been uncovered to date. Bieberstein correctly likens the situation to “a puzzle of which only a fraction of the pieces are known” (preface).It is highly challenging to excavate Jerusalem, as the city has been continuously populated since early times and has a dense population today. Further complicating its archaeological history is the fact that several of the most important breakthroughs from the 1960s to 1980s only have had preliminary reports published (e.g., Kathleen Kenyon [1961–67]; Benjamin Mazar [1968–78]; Yigal Shiloh [1978–85]), with later finds often helping to correct earlier misconceptions from various archaeological discoveries. A book such as this, therefore, is decidedly helpful in sorting through all the significant data.After some preliminary comments in chs. 1 and 2, ch. 3 (“History of Archaeological Research”) nicely orients the reader for the more detailed archaeological descriptions that come later. While few of these earlier excavations were carefully recorded or properly written up, a number of these early visitors made important finds: Edward Robinson (1838, 1852; the Siloam Tunnel; Robinson’s Arch); Charles Wilson (1864, 1867–70; Wilson’s Arch); and Charles Warren (1867–70; Warren’s Shaft).The main section of the book, chs. 4 through 7, provides an overview of the archaeological finds from the first settlement in Jerusalem through the Achaemenid, Hellenistic, and Herodian periods. Little is known about Jerusalem’s earliest visitors, but what little evidence there is suggests that hunters and gatherers used it only for temporary stopovers. The first small settlement appeared during the Early Bronze Age above the Gihon Spring (3700–2500 BC). These dates differ slightly from those of Amihai Mazar, who dates this period to 3300–2300 BC (Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000-568 B.C.E., Anchor Bible Reference Library [New York: Doubleday, 1992], 30), but Bieberstein claims to follow Johanna Regev, Pierre de Miroschedji, et al., “Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: New Analysis for a High Chronology,” Radiocarbon 54 (2012): 525–66. However, it should be noted that there have been significant difficulties in matching up archaeological finds with radiocarbon dating. See, for example, Lily Singer-Avitz, “Archaeological Views: Carbon 14—The Solution to Dating David and Solomon?” BAR 35.3 (2009): 28, 71; Amihai Mazar and C. Bronk Ramsey, “14C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response,” Radiocarbon 50 (2008): 159–80; and Manfred Bietak, “Antagonisms in Historical and Radiocarbon Chronology,” in A. J. Shortland and C. Bronk Ramsey, eds., Radiocarbon and the Chronologies of Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Oxbow, 2013), 78–110.Particularly helpful in this section are the notations Bieberstein makes of more recent archaeological evidence that help to correct earlier opinions (e.g., pp. 27, 30, 32, 33). Additional maps or pictures to illustrate his descriptions would have been useful, especially when describing the walls and specific archeological finds, but this is not always within the control of the author. Bieberstein adopts a modern historical-critical approach to the biblical text. This is an interesting contrast to his approach to the works of Josephus and the books of Maccabees, which he appears to take at face value. A more balanced view of the biblical text would have been appreciated.An excellent bibliography provides an up-to-date overview of the archaeological excavations and many of the artifacts that have been found over the last century and a half. The wealth of valuable information it provides can serve as a springboard for further research. Overall, this book is easy to use and provides a solid foundation of the history of Jerusalem on which to build further.

A Rejoinder on the Value of Archaeomagnetic Dating: Integrative Methodology Is the Key to Addressing Levantine Iron Age Chronology

Archaeomagnetic dating is a firmly established dating technique applicable to a wide variety of heat-treated anthropological materials and is advantageous for sites that lack materials suitable for radiocarbon dating. To correct recent misinterpretations of the method, we provide examples of how archaeomagnetic dating curves are calibrated and show how, in some instances, the technique can provide superior results. We emphasize that no single dating technique is capable of resolving the challenging chronology controversies in the Levant, and instead argue that multiple dating methods must be integrated in order to achieve the highest possible temporal resolution.

Primeras determinaciones radiocarbónicas de la necrópolis de Setefilla (Lora del Río) y el inicio del periodo orientalizante en Andalucía occidental

Se presenta una amplia serie de nuevas determinaciones radiocarbónicas sobre hueso cremado, procedentes en su mayoría de las tumbas de los túmulos A y B de Setefilla, pero también de otros yacimientos del sur y oeste de la Península Ibérica. Se discute el potencial que aportan para resolver cuestiones de la cronología interna de la necrópolis y de su relación cronológica con el poblado de la Mesa de Setefilla, así como sus repercusiones generales sobre la cronología del Bronce Final y Hierro Antiguo en el Sudoeste peninsular.

전남동부지역 초기철기∼원삼국시대 유적의 편년

전남동부지역 초기철기∼원삼국시대 유적의 편년

The ‘Keltenblock’ project: discovery and excavation of a rich Hallstatt grave at the Heuneburg, Germany

Abstract

Late Iron Age longhouse chronology. A study aimed at constructing a formal house chronology for the Late Iron Age, based on selected localities in central and eastern Jutland

This paper presents a formalised chronological study of the longhouses of the Late Iron Age. This is based on the correspondence analysis of data relating to house ground plans recorded at a number of Iron Age settlements in central and eastern Jutland, which, as a region, has the most comprehensive relevant data set, including many constructional details. The chronology constitutes a formalisation of the house-chronological considerations undertaken to date in reference to settlements in Jutland and results in a seriable sequence, the chronological significance of which is supported by stratigraphic observations. The study demonstrates that, in general, the investigated settlements follow the same chronological development and can therefore be correlated. Moreover, it shows that the placing of each individual house in the chronology is subject to some uncertainty, due to the relatively small number and long duration of the chronological features.

Archaeomagnetism, Radiocarbon Dating, and the Problem of Circular Reasoning in Chronological Debates: A Reply to Stillinger et al. 2016

In the June 2016 issue of Near Eastern Archaeology, Michele D. Stillinger, James W. Hardin, Joshua M. Feinberg, and Jeffrey A. Blakely published a paper entitled “Archaeomagnetism as a Complementary Dating Technique to Address the Iron Age Chronology Debate in the Levant” (Stillinger et al. 2016) in which the authors argue that archaeomagnetism “can provide a complementary dating tool to build a stronger, more robust chronology for the Iron Age” (90). The authors suggest here that their paper is overly optimistic regarding the potential of archaeomagnetism as a means for refining the Iron Age chronology of the Levant. Further, their approach is in fact based on circular reasoning, seriously constraining the potential use of this dating methodology. Despite the fact that other absolute dating techniques would be highly desirable for providing absolute (calendrical) dates for the Iron Age, the authors argue that radiocarbon dating and Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon determinations will remain the most useful and reliable dating methodology in the foreseeable future.

Preliminary Report on the Cairn Tombs of Kuik & Qaleh Bahadori in the Zahāb Plain, Kermānshāh

In the summer of 2015, a preliminary visit was carried out by the authors with the goal of identifying and documenting archaeological cemeteries as well as giv ing a relative chronology of them at two villages of Kuik and Qaleh Bahadori in the Zahāb Plain, located in Sarpol-e Zahāb County in Kermānshāh province of Iran. Numerous tombs were identified in four cemeteries. Mostly they were located in the hillside of mountains. The pile of stones on the ground can be an indicator to assess them. Structurally all tombs are the same. All around the tomb's wall was elevated with different size of stones in several rows; after putting the dead body, the tomb has been covered with three or four cap stones. Then the pile of stones was put on top of it. Nevertheless these cemeteries were been looted by smugglers, still some intact tombs can be seen among them. Unfortunately, no cultural materials were found in these areas except for few potsherds; so this caused some difficulties to date the tombs. The morphology of their structure and comparative study with peripheral regions suggest probable chronology of Iron Age III for the tombs. It is evident that certain results will be achieved on the basis of archaeological excavations.