Durham E-Theses The chronology of the Aegean late bronze age with special reference to the Minoan eruption of Thera Dunn, Stuart E How to cite: Dunn, Stuart E (2002) The chronology of the Aegean late bronze age with special reference to the Minoan eruption of Thera, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4169/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 The chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze Age with special reference to the "Minoan'' eruption of Thera Stuart E. Dunn Thesis for the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy Department of Classics and Ancient History University of Durham 2002 i; if m m Dedicated to the memory of Mr. A. Woolley CONTENTS Abstract iii Preface and acknowledgements iv Part I; Relative and absolute dating methods Chapter 1: General introduction, definition of aims and history of previous research 1.1: The problem 1 1.2 The Minoan eruption through the ages: a history of research 8 1.3 Relative dating 20 1.4 Absolute dating 23 1.5 Dynamics and geology 31 1.6 Ash fallout, tephrochronology, and GIS 32 1.7 Conclusion 35 Chapter 2: Absolute dating methods 2.1 Introduction 37 2.2 Radiocarbon 39 2.3 The Minoan volcanic dust veil and climate alteration: some general comments 75 2.4 Conclusion: The place of absolute dating methods in Aegean Bronze Age chronology 79 Chapter 3: The art historical and archaeological dating of the Aegean Bronze Age 3.1 Introduction 81 3.2 Crete and Akrotiri 82 3.3 Egypt and the Near East 88 3.4 Other comparanda 108 3.5 Analysis of the stratigraphy of Tell el-Dab'^a and an historical model for the early New Kingdom 119 3.6 Conclusion 125 Part II: Effects and Fallout Chapter 4: The geological dynamics of Thera 4.1 Introduction 130 4.2 The four phases 134 4.3 The intensity and volume of the eruption 148 Chapter 5: Wind systems, the Thera tephra fan and spatial analysis 5.1 Introduction 163 5.2 Gazetteer / catalogue of Theran material 165 5.3 Interpretation of the tephrochronology of Thera 231 5.4 The physical properties of ash and pumice: dispersal and preservation issues 240 5.5 GIS based spatial analysis of Minoan tephra beds 254 5.6 Integration of GIS-based volumetric hypothesis with the geomathematical analysis in sections 4.6.2 and 4.6.3. 264 Chapter 6: Conclusions: an interdisciplinary approach for the study of Aegean Bronze Age chronology and the effects of Thera. Overview and general conclusions 269 6.1 The role of scientific dating methods 269 6.2 The effects of Thera, and their implications for Aegean chronology 272 6.3 Archaeological cross dating and chronology of the tephra horizon 274 6.4 Tephrochronology 278 Appendix Modem wind data used in Chapters 3 and 5 284 Bibliography 289 Abstract The chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze Age with special reference to the "Minoan" eruption of Thera Stuart E. Dunn PhD Thesis, Department of Classics and Ancient History. University of Durham The chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze Age is a vigorously contested area of archaeological study, with "high" and "low" schemes emerging over the last three decades. The chronological lynchpin for this period is the catastrophic eruption of Thera (Santorini), at a point in the mature Late Minoan (LM) I A ceramic period. Two possible calendrical ranges for this eruption have emerged: c. 1540 - 1500 BC, and c. 1645 - 1628 BC. The latter first gained currency in the 1970s, and the controversy focuses on which range is more probable. This thesis examines the chronology of the Late Minoan (LM), Late Cycladic (L Cyc), Late Helladic (LH) and Late Cypriot (LC) periods in detail and their various relationships with the eruption. Because archaeological methods of dating these sequences, which traditionally place the eruption within the later range, are fluid and open to re-interpretation (in favour of the earlier range), the calendrical date of the eruption is of crucial importance. The scientific arguments, which tend to favour the earlier range, are analysed alongside the archaeological arguments. Finally, the effects of the eruption, and their implications for chronology, are considered. A comprehensive catalogue detailing of all Thera's volcanic deposits from around the region is presented, as is a Geographical Information Systems (GIS) spatial analysis of these deposits which suggests that the volume of the eruption may have been up to five times previous estimates, and almost double the largest previous estimate. In conjunction with this study, a reappraisal of the eruptive rate and intensity of the Minoan event using mathematical differential analysis is presented, to provide an integrated investigation of its impact. It is concluded a) that the eruption was far larger than previous thought, and that b) a calendrical date for the eruption between c. 1540 - 1500 BC is more probable than a date between 1645 - 1628 BC. HI Preface and acknowledgements /.• Introduction In his recent biography of Sir Arthur Evans, J. A. MacGilhvray states: Archaeology, hke most scholarly pursuits, has its creators and destroyers. The former are those who originate theories and go into the field to find the tangible evidence to support them. The latter are those who nip at the explorers" heels from a cozy study or university library, demanding irrefutable proofs. In between are those who prefer to synthesize the results of their more adventurous colleagues, and who in doing so sustain the critical process necessary to screen doubtful or insufficiently supported conclusions. Not all these 'armchair archaeologists' - as the diggers in the field who dismiss those who stay at home - lose sight of their critical obligations and become full-time detractors, perpetually dissatisfied with the evidence. But a small number become such destroyers, insatiable critics with an overall negative attitude towards archaeologists and an indefatigable insistence on calling all of the evidence into question.' MacGillivray was referring to Evans's detractors, men such as Sir William Ridgeway of Cambridge. Reading this passage (in the comfort of an armchair), I feel the need to comment, as this thesis is not based on fieldwork. I wish to discuss the possibility of my being a "synthesiser" of more "adventurous colleagues," or, at worst, a "full-time detractor." This thesis concerns the chronology and history of the Aegean region, c. 1700 - 1400 BC. To visit, never mind assist in the excavation of, every relevant site would be MacGillivray 2000:211. IV impossible in three years of doctoral study. My main sources are, not material as it comes out of the raw earth, but published and unpublished documentation, supplemented by extensive personal communication and conference with those who are in a position to supply first-hand knowledge. The many scholars who have been kind enough to respond to my approaches are cited and thanked in the text. I do not consider myself a "destroyer" of the critiques of excavators. On the contrary, as a general rule, it is my belief that - in the absence of substantial and cross-checked evidence - the opinion of an excavator about a site should prevail, although it is never free from being subject to legitimate critical scrutiny. It is interesting to compare MacGillivray's sentiments with the following passage, which I fully endorse: ... [international scholarship in the humanities or sciences should be entitled to judge, analyse interpret, and criticise on the basis of published materials. This is how academic scholarship works ... Attention and examination must [therefore] follow. Further I stress that rigorous scholarship means that ideas, arguments, and conclusions must be both capable of scrutiny and capable of falsifiability.^ Admittedly, modem excavations are generally more reliable, being carried out with more rigorous attention to recording and classification, as opposed to older excavations where various issues can become blurred and difficult. A case in point is that of Sir Flinders Petrie's excavations at Gaza. Petrie classified the LB A Cypriot wares he found there into "Anatohan" and "Cypriote" classes; the former was completely erroneous as no pottery of this type has every emerged from Anatolia. It is now established that both types originated on Cyprus, and they have been Manning 1999: 84 (n. 374). scientifically classified by Popham as White Slip I and White Slip n (See Chapter 3). This point having been made, we must guard against the facile assumption that we are "better" than our predecessors. Secondly, this thesis is as much about methodological innovation as it is about archaeology. The chronological debate vis a vis the Aegean Late Bronze Age revolves around the dating of the Minoan eruption of Thera (Santorini). This introduces a host of scientific and geological issues, above and beyond archaeology. A definitive and incontestable resolution of this problem, placing the eruption either in the seventeenth or sixteenth centuries BC, would necessarily settle the chronological debate in favour of one camp or the other.