New Configurations in Old World Archaeology

New Configurations in Old World ArchaeologyAuthor(s): Colin RenfrewSource: World Archaeology, Vol. 2, No. 2, Urban Archaeology (Oct., 1970), pp. 199-211Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/124132Accessed: 28/03/2010 10:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to WorldArchaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/124132?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

New configurations in Old World archaeology

Colin Renfrew

Recent developments in radiocarbon dating now show that our conventional dates for the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age periods of Europe are wildly wrong. In some cases indeed the new dates significantly alter the chronological relationship between one area and another. The Wessex culture of south Britain, for example, formerly dated to the

period of the Mycenaean civilization of Greece, had ended before the latter began. Similar changes are seen in other regions.

The present paper tries first to outline how these changes arise, and what their effect is likely to be on European chronology.

Their very magnitude highlights, however, several inadequacies in the way we, as

prehistorians, have been working; in the last section an attempt is made to draw a moral.

Tree rings and Old World chronology

For some years it has been clear that there is a serious discrepancy between radiocarbon and historical dates, in those regions where the latter are available. Even the adoption of a longer half-life for radiocarbon, argued on archaeological as well as physical grounds (Kohler and Ralph I96I), did not solve the problem. In I963, Willard Libby wrote on this topic: '. . plots of the data suggest that the Egyptian historic dates beyond 4,000 years ago may be somewhat too old, perhaps five centuries too old at 5,000 years ago, with a decrease in error to o at 4,000 years ago' (I963: 279). The discrepancy prompted some heart-searching among Egyptologists (see Smith I964), wondering whether the conventional historical chronology for Egypt might not be too long (Hayes, Rowton and

Stubbings I962). This is what Libby himself first tended to assume. We now realize that it is the radiocarbon dates which are too short.

In I960 the problem was ingeniously investigated by workers in several laboratories

(Willis, Tauber and Miinnich I960). Samples were drilled from different tree rings along the radius of a sectioned trunk of Sequoia gigantea. The tree-ring age (assuming the

growth rings were annual) could then be compared with the radiocarbon age as determined from the same rings. The time range investigated was from A.D. 659 to A.D. 1859, and the C14 and tree-ring dates were in good agreement to within about I -5 %. Systematic small fluctuations were, however, observed, and clearly, even on this limited time scale, the atmospheric radiocarbon concentration had undergone some variation.

200 Colin Renfrew

Further advances have become possible through the work of American dendro-

chronologists, principally at the Laboratory for Tree-Ring Research at Tucson, Arizona. Schulman and Ferguson (Ferguson 1968) realized the unique potential of the Californian bristlecone pine (Pinus aristata), a fantastically long-lived tree. Growing at elevations of 3,ooo to 3,500 m, in a relatively arid environment, the bristlecone pine has transformed

dendrochronological studies. A tree 4,900 years old has been reported, and the con- tinuous tree-ring chronology goes back 7,o00 years. Although bristlecone pines only very rarely have more than one growth ring per year, in some years there is no growth ring at all, and up to 5 % of the rings may be 'missing'. A sound chronology involves a prodigious labour in cross-dating the sequences between one tree and another, and upon its validity rests all further work - including the archaeological conclusions. The assessment of the bristlecone dendrochronology is a matter for botanists, but to the archaeologist the work

certainly seems eminently methodical and systematic. The next stage is the radiocarbon dating of samples from the actual dated tree-

rings. This work has been undertaken by three laboratories, at Tucson (Damon, Long

Q)

a)

0

u,

a)

.

0 "II

a, a)

C -, c a)

0) c ia <z

2000 BC

C) 0

OUUU D ' _ . _ _

-1 t -- --

- /0 ~- ~ZZZ_IIZ.ZZ-

" --. ... >

ICoo 0 0

0 3000 BC 2000 BC Conventional Radiocarbon years (5568 h alflife)

/ , - ' ' - - --.-___

g_.. ______

3000 BC 2000 BC Conventional Radiocarbon years (5568 half-life)

Figure 21 Calibration chart, following Suess, for the conversion of radiocarbon dates into calendar dates on the basis of bristlecone pine dendrochronology. Note that several different calendar dates may be obtained from a single radiocarbon date, all equally valid. (At present supposedly 'calibrated' dates should not be quoted, but the radiocarbon date, on the 5,568 half- life; this may, of course, be followed by a suggested date in calendar years)

Q(n( Pr

New configurations in Old World archaeology 201

and Grey 1966), at La Jolla in California (Stuiver and Suess I966) and at Philadelphia (Ralph and Michael 1967, 1969). The authors cited are unanimous that over a period going back from about 1500 B.C. the C14 dates are systematically younger than the tree- ring ones, by a considerable margin.

A preliminary approximation, based on work by Suess (I967) is shown in fig. 21. Sub-

sequent work by Suess, involving the radiocarbon analysis of 300 dendrochronologically dated specimens, has allowed the calibration of the period from 500 B.C. to o B.C. There are also modifications to the published curve, which remains sound in outline (Suess, personal communication). The calibration has also been extended back to 5100 B.C.

The world-wide validity of the results is suggested by the rapidity with which the radioactive concentrations in the atmosphere in different parts of the world have equal- ized after A-bomb tests, and is supported by Japanese C14 determinations for a tree-ring sequence from Cryptomeria japonica over a range of nearly 2,ooo years (Kigoshi and

Hasegawa I966) which compares with that cited for Sequoia. Another question is the possibility of diffusion across the tree during its growth, such

that the older rings in the heart might become contaminated with new material from the

sap, producing misleadingly younger C14 dates after analysis. The harmony between the C14 dates for the same year-ring of living bristlecone pines and of trees long dead (and therefore subjected to less potential contamination from this source) is, however, a counter argument.

The reasons for the fluctuations in the atmospheric radiocarbon have yet to be established. One possibility is that they are produced by fluctuations in the isotopic equili- brium of the earth's carbon exchange reservoir (the seas, the polar ice, the atmosphere and the biomass): attempts have been made to correlate the fluctuations with climatic changes. Alternatively the atmospheric radiocarbon concentration could be affected by variations in the cosmic ray flux (which produces C14 in the atmosphere), perhaps related to changes in the earth's magnetic field as well as that of the sun. This theory has been investigated by Bucha (I967) and evaluated archaeologically by Neustupny (I968).

At present we seem justified in following through the implications of the new chronology, while admitting that - like any other chronology - it is no stronger than the assump- tions which sustain it.

It is important to note the various kinks on the calibration curve, which imply that the same given C14 date (e.g. 2800 B.C.) may arise from samples of two or more different calendar dates. This places a limit on the accuracy which we can expect for C14 dates taken in isolation. And yet, at the same time, it makes possible a far greater accuracy when there is sufficient well-preserved wood of the period in question to permit the compilation of a 'floating' tree-ring chronology. In this way the duration of a lake village of the Michelsberg culture at Burgaschisee in Switzerland has been set at 4000 B.C. to 3700 B.C. with a standard error of less than forty years (Ferguson, Huber and Suess I965), and similar work has now been undertaken at Auvernier.

At present, however, it is too early to give radiocarbon dates a final calibration in calendar years. Calibration curves, such as fig. 21, can profitably be used to suggest approximate calendrical dates, as suggested in Table 2. But dates should still be quoted, in radiocarbon years, on the 5,568 half-life. No dates (except that for Burgaschisee-Suid) can be regarded as accurately calibrated.

202 Colin Renfrew

i The ancient civilizations: Egypt, Sumer and the Indus Valley

A crucial test for the C14 method, as Libby early realized, and now for the calibration, arises from the comparison of C14 dates with those established by the calendars of Egypt and the Near East. Independent astronomical evidence shows that the Egyptian calendar is accurate back to the time of the Twelfth Dynasty in the nineteenth century B.C. With less certainty it goes back to the First Dynasty at the beginning of the third millennium. There are no historical dates before this time, and if earlier C14 dates are to be checked, independent scientific methods, such as varve dating or thermoluminescence, will have to be employed.

For the third millennium, however, the calibrated dates seem a great improvement on the old ones, bringing the C14 and historical chronologies into much closer agreement.

This point is demonstrated in Table I. Since many of the extant C14 dates for Egypt were determined in the early developmental stages of the method, their accuracy is not

high. On the other hand, to select some and reject others smacks of subjectivity. Instead, by way of example, a run of twenty-three dates recently obtained by the British Museum and the UCLA laboratory are listed. The samples were of material from secure strati-

graphic contexts, specially collected by Mr Geoffrey Martin (Berger and Libby 1967; Barker, Burleigh and Meeks I969). The date is first given in radiocarbon years (on the

5,568 half-life). The historical calendar dates for the appropriate dynasty, as determined

by Hayes (Hayes, Rowton and Stubbings I962) are given next, and finally the approximate mean calibrated date using the revised Suess calibration from bristlecone pine. It will be seen that the historical calendar dates, and the tree-ring calibrated C14 dates are in closer agreement (Table i).

No such sequence is available for Mesopotamia. But we may take the three available C14 dates for the Royal Graves at Ur, again expressed in terms of the 5,568 half-life.

BM-64 1970 ?150 B.C.

BM-70 2080 ? X 5 B.C.

BM-76 2040 ? 150 B.C.

Average: 2030 ? I00 B.C.

Using the calibration chart (fig. 2I) this gives a mean date in calendar years of c. 2500 B.C., although the possible range extends from 2850 B.C. to 2250 B.C. because of the kinks

in the curve. On the basis of the historical calendar, the Early Dynastic III period of Sumer (in which the Royal Graves at Ur are generally set) traditionally ends at 2370 B.C.

Despite the wide time range which the calibration allows, we see that the result is in better accord with the historical date.

Broadly speaking the tree-ring calibration of radiocarbon dates harmonizes well with the historical evidence for the third millennium B.C., and the discrepancy indicated by Libby and others is no longer apparent. This does not yet prove that the calibration is

correct, but it encourages us to apply it to other areas. The dates for the Indus civilization have been given (on the 5,730 half-life) by Dales

(I965). The range in radiocarbon years on the 5,568 half-life is as follows:


Post-Harappan Late Harappan (Kalibangan and Lothal) Middle Harappan (Kalibangan and Lothal) Kot Diji levels 4 and 5

1755-I700 ? 130 B.C.

I980-I790 ? I100 B.C.

1945-I825 ? I 00 B.C.

22II-I975S 150 B.C.

Calibration suggests a range, in calendar years, of c. 2450 to c. 2100 B.C. for the Middle and Late phases of the Indus civilization. The Indus civilization here appears the contemporary, not the successor, of the Sumerian, and was clearly much more than a mere offshoot brought about by Mesopotamian expansion or influence.

In general, too, these new dates do not conflict with the historical cross-datings which

TABLE I

Recent C14 dates for the early dynasties of Egypt, compared with the historical calendar date (after Hayes) and the tree-ring calibrated date. The tree-ring and historical dates are in good agreement. (Note that the standard deviation of the C14 dates has not been taken into account. It is in some cases much larger for the calibrated dates.) The samples are from the sites of Sakkara and El Lahun

Historical calendar Approx. mean

C14 date B.C. date B.C. calibrated date B.C. Context Lab. No. (5,568 half-life) (Hayes) (using Suess curve)

Dyn. XII UCLA 1212 I550 ?60 1992-I786 c. 2050-1800 ,, BM 280 I600 ?65 ,, . 2050

?,, BM 238 I630 ?65 , . 20oo Dyn. XI-XII UCLA i2zi 1550=60 2040-1786 c. 2050-1800

Dyn. IV BM 237 1770 II10 2612-2492 C. 2150

,, BM 236 1890o 65 ,, c 2450-2200 ,, UCLA I208 2060 ?60 , c. 2550

Dyn. III/IV BM 235 2120 ?65 2686-2492 c. 2950-2550 Dyn. III BM 234 1840 ?65 2686-2612 c. 2350-2150

,, UCLA 1206 2015 60 ,, c. 2500 ,, UCLA 1207 2100 60 ,, c. 2950-2550

,, UCLA 1205 2105 60 ,, c. 2950-2550 , (early) BM 233 2o5o65 ,, c. 2550

Dyn. II UCLA 1204 2240 ?60 2850-2686 c. 2950 ,, BM 232 2280 ?65 ,, . 2950

Dyn. I (end) UCLA I203 2190o 60 3100-2850 c. 2950-2600 , (end) BM 23I 2320 65 ,, c. 2950 ,, (mid) UCLA 1202 2285 ?60 ,, . 2950

, (mid) BM 230 2430 ?65 , c. 3350-3050 ,, (mid) BM 229 2570 ?65 , c. 3400 ,, (early) UCLA 1201 2340?60 ,, c. 2950 ,, (early) BM 228 2350 ?65 c. 2950 ,, (early) UCLA I200 2530?60 ,, c. 3400

. _~~~~~~~~ m

204 Colin Renfrew

are available - Indus imports in Sumer at the time of Sargon of Agade, around 2350 B.C,

They harmonize adequately, at a first impression, with those for Egypt, Sumer and the

Aegean (cf. Wheeler i969).

2 Prehistoric Europe

So many radiocarbon dates are now available for prehistoric Europe that a comprehen- sive tabulation and assessment would be a massive undertaking (see Thomas 1967 for a brave attempt). Here the intention is rather to give an indication of the changes in relative

chronology which a dendrochronological calibration will produce. Until we have well dated 'floating' tree-ring sequences for many regions and periods, precision will be

impossible, and I much doubt whether we shall begin to have an accurate chronology of

prehistoric Europe before I980. The table given below is therefore merely a suggestion. For simplicity, only a few site names are included.

The crucial point which this table makes is that Egypt (with Sumer) and the Aegean are changed only marginally. The chronological 'fault line' comes at the edge of these

historically dated regions - in a curve running from the west Mediterranean and Italy through south Jugoslavia and Bulgaria to the Black Sea. Outside the historically dated areas, which this line encloses, the entire chronology before about 1300 B.C. is transformed

(see Table 2). The fourth millennium B.C. (4000-3000 B.C.) sees the late predynastic cultures of

Egypt, contemporary with which must now be set the later Neolithic of Greece (e.g. the Dhimini culture), the end of the Vinca and Gumelnitsa cultures of south-east Europe, with their already flourishing copper metallurgy, the Michelsberg culture in central

Europe and the TRB 'A' and 'B' phases in Denmark (cf. Neustupny i969). In Britain

long barrows were built throughout the period, and megalithic tombs also: New Grange was constructed before 3000 B.C., about the same time as Tustrup and Ferslev in Den- mark. Indeed, if the dates from French laboratories are accepted, the Breton passage graves were already being built before 4000 B.C.

In the third millennium B.C. are set Old Kingdom Egypt, Early Dynastic Sumer, and the Aegean Early Bronze Age - just as before. Their contemporaries to the west are now the Los Millares culture of Spain and the Remedello-Rinaldone cultures of Italy, while further north the Beaker/Early Bronze Age transition is taking place in Germany and the Low Countries. The Early Bronze Age of east-central Europe (Periam and Nagyrev cultures, and proably early Aunjetitz) are well under way. Silbury Hill can now be set around 2500 B.C., the contemporary not of Mycenae but of the pyramids of Egypt.

The early second millennium sees, as well as the Middle Kingdom of Egypt and the

Aegean Middle Bronze Age, the end of the Wessex culture in England, the Breton Early Bronze Age, the Polada culture in Italy and the later Aunjetitz and the early Tumulus cultures in Germany - all prior to the beginning of Mycenaean civilization on the Greek mainland (Renfrew I968; Bakker, Vogel and Wislanski I969).

The dates for Malta are particularly interesting, and are further considered below.

(The table includes all but two of the dates listed by Trump (I966: 48): he himself

rejects BM-IoI and BM-I42 as failing to conform with the emerging pattern, being possibly from fossil wood, and I have followed him in attributing BM-Ioo to the Ggantija

TABLE 2

Experimental chronological chart of selected cultures and sites, given in approximate calendar years using dendrochronologically calibrated radiocarbon dates (together with the historical calendar in the case of Egypt and Sumer after 3000 B.C.).

Capital letters refer to cultures and periods (the plus signs indicating contemporaneity). Names in lower case indicate sites from which radiocarbon dates have been considered.

L.B. signifies long barrow; P.G., passage grave. In the column for Malta, abbreviations in parenthesis indicate the phase to which the sample is attributed. The provisional nature of the table implies that changes in absolute date of several centuries remain possible for specific cultures or sites.

SUMER AEGEAN

HAMMURABI OF BABYLON

SARGON OF AGADE

E.D.TI Ur Royal Cem E.D.i

E.D.I

PROTO- LITERATE

LATE URUK

EARLY URUK

LATE UBAID

'Warka 17/18

EARLY UBAID

MYCENAE HAF I G(KAVES

M.B.A.

Phaistos(pi is58 Palaikastro

(St.1265)

M.MI. -

Lerna 32 (P299)

E.H.m

Lerna Ei (P 318-321)

E.H.IU CJOS (P-273)

Sitagroi YSb

TROY I Karatas

E.H.I Eutresls (P 306-7) Sltagroi l (BLN 773)

KUM TEPE i

Kephala (P 1280)

FINAL NEOLITHIC

S;tanroi I(l(BLN 774)

LATE NEOLITHIC

Dhimini

SOUTH- EAST

EUROPE

FUZESABONY

CENTRAL NORTH EUROPE EUROPE

IUMULUb

L.AUNJETITZ

Helmsdorf

BRONZE HORIZON mIT (HACHMANN)

HORIZON n[

BRITAIN

MBA

Swa rkeston(NPL-b, Codicote(NPL-is) City Farm(GrN,is WESSEX i:

ITALY

Barche di Solferinc POLADA

St) WarickI- Stonehenq&IIl,j

PERIAM

NAGYRE NAGYRE

VUCEDOL

CLASSICAL BADEN

Pon:v^4

CERNAVODA - EZERO

Cernavoda(sln 6ia

EARLY BADEN EZEROVO

TRIPOLYE C

Tell Azmak

Varaiti

L.GUMELNITSA

EARLY AUNJETITZ VELUWE Vlaardingen Brabant

Anlo A C

EARLY BEAKER

Anio 51

HORIZON I

CIST GRAVES

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC

+ RG.

Tustrup CORDED FerisLC WARE TeIsvB

Dblauer Heicle , 'C

Odoorn

Mulbjerq

MICHELSBERG

Thayngen Weier

m, ,ej..:.;l:-A

Elsloo ROSSEN

Dummer

TR B eA'

Heidmoor

Konens H0J Christiansholms

ERTEB0LLE

WESSEX I"' Antofts Windypits Fifty Farm(BM133) Stonehenqe Ic602 Aubrey H6le)32

BEAKER Silburv Hill

Stonehenge I (ditch) (C602)

Tara PG. (0 43)

(CASTEL- -LUCCIO)

RINALDONE Asciano

+ Grotta Piccloni4

REMEDELLO

N (SM 129) New Grange P G

tGrN 462) Windmill Hill (enclosure)(sM74)

NEOLITHIC

Ebbsfleet(BM713) Grotta Della sounth b. L.B.5%-7

Waylands Smithy Nutbane L.B

(BM 49)

Willerby Wold LB Ehenslde Tarn ene-.ekl, , I'l

wlnamlll tHi L.tB.

EARLY(BM61O NEOLITHIC Newferry (D 36)

Dalkey Island (D 38)

Madonna IJ Lagozza

Grotta Piccioni I LAGOZZA

Arene Candide lll

Arene Candide '

CHIOZZA

MALTA

TARXIEN CEMETERY

TARXIEN

CEMETERY Tarxien (TxC)

(BM 141)

TARXIEN

SAFLIENI

Skorba (Tx) (8M 143)

GGANTIJA

IBERIA

EL ARGAR

Anta dos Tassos Penha Verde

Cabezo Redondc

Zambulal

Mallorca Beaker

BEAKER

Almizaraque

FRANCE

BRETON Kervingar

E.B.A.

LCS Mournouarc

Lebous

BEAKER Grotte Muree

Kermene S.O.M.

LOS MILLARES Roucadour C Los Millares

Mgarr7?Gg) (BM. too) MGARR

Skorba (Zb) (BM 147) ZEBBUG

Skorbah (7h

Skorba (R Sk) (BM148) (BM148)

RED SKORBA

EARLY ALMERIAN

Fort Harrouard

Les Matlgnons CHASSEY

+ -LATE G.- Kerleven R G.

Roucadour B

Sept lies PG. lie Cam P.G.

EARLY CHASSEY

EGYPT

DYN. XVIII

2 INTERMED.

X III

1INTERMED.

PYRA-

TV PYRA- MIDS

CALIBRATED DATE BC (approx.)

1500-

2000

2500-

3000

3500

4000-

4500

Ii

CALIBRATED DATE B.C.

(approx)

1500

2000

2500

3000

-3500

ArnOrt

DYN. I

GERZEAN

AMRATIAN 4500

-.~ uuu z n

--~ G~ral RleSh(P468- -?-) -'AL'--- t3ur-ga5cnisee KnocK ne veaW (D 37) - " s

- ALL ONUI LL)UCI ,LLJI rohPre% iLnno-r-

206 Colin Renfrew

phase.) The temple cultures of Malta are over well before 2000 B.C., and the first temples, at the beginning of the Ggantija phase, may be as early as 3500 B.C.

It should be noted that the Tartaria tablets, if they really belong to the time of the Vinca culture, long antedate the development of writing in the Near East (see Renfrew

I969b). The signs which they bear must therefore be seen as a local development. No doubt various elements in this overall picture will change over the next few years, as

more fixed points become available from the calibration of 'floating' tree-ring sequences. At present the only really sound fixed point (apart from the historical dates) is that of

3700 B.C. for the Michelsberg culture at Burgischisee-Siid and Thayngen-Weier. At least, however, on the assumption that the whole bristlecone pine calibration will

not be overthrown completely in some unforeseen way, the rough outline is clear. It is

interesting to contrast it with the chronological table given in the various editions of Gordon Childe's Dawn of European Civilisation. Two changes are apparent. First, obviously, all the Neolithic dates are earlier, and the durations of periods increased.

Second, there is considerable faulting along the 'fault-lines' already mentioned. On each side of the fault, the internal relative chronology is very little changed. But across it- and

specifically for Aegean relations with Iberia (Renfrew I967) and with the Balkans (Mellaart I960, Neustupny i968, Renfrew i969b) - there are dramatic changes.

Among the points of relative chronology which at once emerge are:

i Metallurgy develops earlier in the Balkans than in the Aegean, and the Tartaria tablets

together with the Vinca culture predate not only Troy but protoliterate Sumer as well. 2 The earliest dated megalithic graves, and the earliest passage graves, are (on present

data) in France, and precede the pyramids by a millennium.

3 The first temples in Malta likewise predate the pyramids by many centuries.

4 The earliest rock-cut tombs of the Mediterranean are at Xemxija and Hal Saflieni in Malta.

5 Beakers are seen in south-east Europe by the time of the pyramids and Troy II. It is not yet clear whether or not they are as early in south-west Europe.

6 The metal dagger is seen throughout southern Europe in the first half of the third millennium B.C. and in northern Europe by the end of the third millennium.

7 The later neolithic of Britain (and other regions) is greatly lengthened, and some henge monuments (and Silbury Hill) are contemporary with the pyramids.

8 Wessex precedes Mycenae. 9 The Middle Bronze Age of Europe is contemporary with Mycenae and the period is

considerably lengthened. Io There are no significant changes in the relative chronologies of the Aegean, Egypt or

Mesopotamia.

It is not sufficient, however, simply to accept the new chronology and carry on as before. The jolt which it gives us should promote some basic reflections on the inade-

quacies of much of our current thinking - inadequacies not restricted to problems of

chronology alone.


Beyond chronology: new configurations

It is a paradox that each new dating method makes chronology less important and less

interesting. How pleasant it will be - perhaps in ten years' time - when we shall have a number of well-calibrated fixed points on the chart, and can use the artefacts, the basic material of archaeology, for purposes other than dating! How satisfactory if radiocarbon, and thermoluminescence and fission-track dating would render obsolete the seriations, the typologies and the cross-datings.

In the words of Sir Mortimer Wheeler: 'We have been preparing timetables: let us now have some trains.' Indeed it is not enough simply to accept the new chronology and continue to look at the past in the same old way. New ways of approaching the data are needed, and are indeed being applied in some areas of the world.

High among the priorities is a need to consider just how innovations are communi- cated between cultures: 'diffusion' and 'influence' are no longer meaningful words. There is a need to think in positive, order-of-magnitude quantitative terms (Renfrew i969a). And above all it is worth while to think, where possible, in terms of social relation-

ships rather than artefacts. The new chronology sets the prehistory of Malta back in the melting pot (although the

culture sequence established by Evans (I959) and modified by Trump (I966) remains

basic). For this reason Malta is taken as an example of the way the new chronology should stimulate us to find new forms of explanation, new configurations among the data.

It is indeed of note that the first temples of Malta may have been built a millennium

before the pyramids, during the Uruk period of Sumer, two millennia before Mycenae and three millennia before the Olmecs of Mexico (plates xo, Ix).

I Culture contact. Diffusionism has been the curse of prehistoric archaeology for twenty years. Admirable in the'twenties, when given new and systematic expression by Childe, it has subsequently hardened into sterile dogma. But to say this is not, of course, to deny that

migrations sometimes did take place, or that one culture frequently did influence another. It is now beginning to be clear, however, that simply to state the existence of an

'influence' is insufficient: a suggested migration of itself explains nothing (Binford I968: 268). The mechanism of this influence has to be stated, and its effects analysed in detail. If new people arrived we shall seek to understand why they came, and just what effect their arrival had - such factors cannot be assumed.

When discussing the end of the 'temple' cultures of Malta, we can now see that the bossed bone plaque of the Tarxien Cemetery phase ('The Destroyers'), like that from Castelluccio in Sicily, not only resembles that from Lerna IV in Greece, but is effectively contemporary with it. This Early Helladic III culture of Greece (rather than the Middle

Helladic) is reflected in the painted wares and two-handled tankards of the Castelluccio culture. Yet some of the Maltese finds, especially the daggers, resemble those of Early Helladic II Greece, and some of the pottery is like that of Early Helladic I or Troy I. A close analysis of these 'parallels' is now necessary - since the chronology of Early Helladic Greece and the west Mediterranean has become clearer - not just in order to establish

dates, but to investigate mechanisms. Professor Evans's concept of 'culture creep' is in this case hardly applicable, since the features in Malta may be as early as those in Greece.

GA

208 Colin Renfrew

(And of course the famous Zebbug menhir (Evans 1959: pl. 48) is now a millennium earlier than the stele of Troy I; and the Maltese spirals developed long before those of Minoan Crete.) This means that many of the old parallels are dismissed: the new ones merit closer analysis, not merely to establish 'influence' but to establish its nature.

For Malta a persistent if minor contact with Sicily during the time of the 'temple' cultures, as well as travel to Pantelleria, is indicated by obsidian analyses. The subsequent transition to the Tarxien Cemetery culture has always seemed an abrupt one (although this may have been partly the result of accepting a short time scale). Are we sure that

continuity was not greater than has been suggested? It now looks as if the Tarxien Cemetery may have lasted a full millennium, since the succeeding period is dated by a

Mycenaean import to the thirteenth century B.c. And are we confident that all the reliefs at Tarxien, for instance, were carved before the Tarxien Cemetery period? Indeed, are we sure that a new people wiped out the old and started afresh, bringing with them

metallurgy and a different form of burial? May not the latter, at least, have developed locally? The excavation of a settlement of this period is an urgent necessity here- at present most of the argument rests on finds from burials and monumental buildings (plate I2).

It is the lamentable truth that there has been virtually no consideration for European prehistory as to how the mysterious process of diffusion actually works. 'Adventurers', 'destroyers', 'metal prospectors', vessels blown off course- any imaginative hypothesis is taken on its face value, although again all of these are worth while as suggestions. Could the Tarxien Cemetery culture have grown up in Malta on the basis provided by its Neolithic predecessor, perhaps under the 'influence' of 'contacts' with Sicily, and without effective immigration? We just don't know.

2 Quantitative reasoning and demography. The time has now come when it should be useful to speak in quantitative terms, however approximate. How many readers can make a fair guess at the population density of a purely agricultural community in the Mediterranean today? Or at the area of Malta with Gozo? Yet from these figures (i5o/ sq. mile for the Cycladic island of Naxos for instance; 122/sq. mile for Malta and Gozo) we can make an order-of-magnitude estimate for the prehistoric population of Malta, assuming a farming economy as efficient as that of Naxos today. Malta could, in these terms, have supported a population of about i8,ooo people (some 300,000 live there

today). A large population seems very unlikely and it might well be that Io,ooo or less would be a more realistic estimate, since modern cereal varieties would not have been available, and probably neither olives nor vines were domesticated.

Accepting the view of Evans and Trump that the 'temples' were essentially an indige- nous creation, a total population of perhaps 0o,ooo was responsible for their construction (over all the relevant phases) during perhaps 1,500 years.

Hawkins very appositely compared the investment of means which Stonehenge represented for its builders with that which the United States now pours into the space race. Such order-of-magnitude thinking, which is all we can hope to achieve, highlights the significance of these monuments. Should we regard the temples of Malta - or indeed for that matter the megaliths of France and beyond - as fantastic material achievements, some sort of prehistoric NASA, absorbing much of the time of the population and perhaps seriously hampering development in other directions (just as intensive military


production today is felt to restrict social progress)? Or did they represent a relatively small annual effort, like some Well-Dressing in the Peak District of Britain today, a small tax upon the population, although important in aggregate over the centuries? A little cost-analysis, based on simple constructional techniques, just as Atkinson has undertaken for Stonehenge (I956) should suggest an answer.

Absolute numbers (to an order-of-magnitude level) are informative in many ways. Did the human remains taken from the Hal Saflieni hypogeum, for instance, account for the total population in that region of Malta -- or indeed of the entire island - over the period of its use? Can we then deduce whether its use was restricted to a single limited segment of the population? The same thinking is relevant to the megalithic tombs of western

Europe; in most regions they are probably so few as to have been the burial place solely of a chiefly family. This is of course mere guesswork. But there are in this field, hypo- theses waiting to be formulated which it is within our power to test.

3 Social structure. It has been well said that an artefact is a fossilized idea. And of course a single artefact can be seen as something more complex, the outcome of several con-

temporary situations - a technological one (in its production), an economic one perhaps (in the purpose of its production and the use to which it is in fact put), a social one (who does and does not use it) and so forth. A 'temple' is a bigger and more complex artefact, the nexus of very many situations over a long period of time. For one thing, it is undeni-

ably a fossilized social idea, and almost certainly a fossilized religious one also. So impressive a series of monuments as those of Malta could have been produced

only through a restricted range of social and religious circumstances - buildings like these are not found among many neolithic societies. Just as the pyramids of Egypt reflect a strongly hierarchical social organization, and a religious belief in the paramount significance of the pharaoh, so the 'temples' of Malta (and their existence in so large a

number) must result from, and embody, a distinctive social configuration. I do not know what that configuration was - but am optimistic that controlled speculation, with loca- tional studies, a constant reference back to the available data, and the search for new kinds of data (for instance settlement sites), will make progress towards some plausible reconstruction of it.

Malta has been singled out for discussion here, in a manner applicable equally to other

areas, simply because some of the problems are very clear-cut - as is often the case with islands. Stringent limitations of space here prevent a more adequate examination. They prevent also a consideration of our objectives as archaeologists. We are surely trying to do more than reconstruct a sequence of events: we are seeking to explain them.

The moral which we should not fail to draw, however, is that the new dates should not

simply change our chronologies. They render meaningless so much that has been written in recent years that there must have been serious inadequacies in our whole approach to the past, not simply in our chronology. Perhaps the sharp jolt which the chronology imparts to our thinking will help us work out more carefully our aims and our basic

procedures.

9.vi.1969, revised 5.iv. I970 University of Sheffield

210 Colin Renfrew

Acknowledgements

In writing this article I have received encouragement or helpful comment, for which I am very grateful, from Mr Andrew Fleming, Dr Ian Longworth, Dr Derek Roe, Dr. David Trump and especially from Mr Arthur Ap Simon.

References

Atkinson, R. J. C. 1956. Stonehetnge.

Bakker, J. A., Vogel, J. C. and Wislanski, T. I969. TRB and other C14 dates from Poland. Helinium. 9:3.

Barker, H., Burleigh, R. and Meeks, M. I969. British Museum Natural Radiocarbon Measure- ments VI. Radiocarbon. II, 2:278.

Berger, R. and Libby, W. F. I967. UCLA Radiocarbon dates 6. Radiocarbon. 9:490.

Binford, L. R. I968. Some comments on historical versus processual archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology. 24:267-75.

Bucha, V. I967. Intensity of the Earth's magnetic field during archaeological times in Czecho- slovakia. Archaeometry. 10:12-22.

Dales, G. F. I965. A suggested chronology for Afghanistan, Baluchistan and the Indus valley. In Ehrich, R. W. (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. 257-84.

Damon, P. E., Long, A. and Grey, D. C. I966. Fluctuation of atmospheric C-14 during the last six millennia. Journal of Geophysical Research. 71:105 5-63.

Evans, J. D. 1959. Malta.

Ferguson, C. W. I968. Bristlecone pine: science and esthetics. Science. 159:839-46.

Ferguson, C. W., Huber, B. and Suess, H. E. i966. Determination of the age of Swiss lake- dwellings as an example of dendrochronologically-calibrated radiocarbon dating. Zeitschrift fiiur Naturforschung. 2 A:I 173-7.

Hayes, W. C., Rowton, M. B. and Stubbings, F. H. I962. Chronology. Cambridge Ancient History. I, ch. VI.

Kigoshi, K. and Hasegawa, H. I966. Secular variation of atmospheric radiocarbon concentration and its dependence on geomagnetism. Journal of Geophysical Research. 7 1:1065-71.

Kohler, E. L. and Ralph, E. K., I96I. C-X4 dates for sites in the Mediterranean area. American Journal of Archaeology. 65:357-67.

Libby, W. F. I963. The accuracy of radiocarbon dates. Science. 140:278-80.

Mellaart, J. I960. Anatolia and the Balkans. Antiquity. 24:270.

Neustupny, E. 1968. Absolute chronology of the Neolithic and Aeneolithic periods of central and south-eastern Europe. Slovenska Archeologia. i6:19-56.

Neustupny, E. i969. Absolute chronology of the Neolithic and Aeneolithic periods in central and south-east Europe. Archeologicke Rozhledy. 21 :783.


Ralph, E. K. and Michael, H. N. 1967. Problems of the radiocarbon calendar. Archaeometry. I0:3-II.

Ralph, E. R. and Michael, H. N. 1969. University of Pennsylvania Radiocarbon Dates XII. Radiocarbon. I1:469.

Renfrew, C. 1967. Colonialism and Megalithismus. Antiquity. 41:276.

Renfrew, C. 1968. Wessex without Mycenae. Annual of the British School of Archaeology at Athens. 63:277-85.

Renfrew, C. I969a. Trade and culture process in European prehistory. Current Anthropology. IO:I5I-69.

Renfrew, C. I969b. The autonomy of the south-east European Copper Age. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. 35:12.

Smith, H. S. I964. Egypt and C-I4 dating. Antiquity. 38:32--7.

Stuiver, M. and Suess, H. E. I966. On the relationship between radiocarbon dates and true

sample ages. Radiocarbon. 8:534-40.

Suess, H. E. 1967. Bristlecone pine calibration of the radiocarbon time scale from 4100 B.C. to

I500 B.C. In Radioactive Dating and Methods of Low Level Counting (International Atomic

Energy Agency, Vienna).

Thomas, H. L. I967. Near Eastern, Mediterranean and European Chronology. (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology. I7.)

Trump, D. H. 1966. Skorba (Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London. 22).

Wheeler, R. E. M. I969. Review in Antiquity. 43:72.

Willis, E. H., Tauber, H. and Miinnich, K. 0. I960. Variations in the atmospheric radiocarbon concentration over the past I300 years. Radiocarbon. 2:1-4.

Abstract

Renfrew, Colin

New configurations in Old World archaeology

The tree-ring calibration of radiocarbon dates from the fifth to the first millennium B.C. is revolutionizing the absolute chronology of prehistoric Europe. After a survey of the scientific

background, the implications and effects of these changes are considered. A new chronology is

tentatively presented in tabular form. The very magnitude of the changes emphasizes how erroneous much recent diffusionist

thinking has been, and how sterile much chronological discussion. The moral is drawn that we should be seeking configurations among the data of a different kind: the point is illustrated by reference to the prehistory of Malta.

Documents

New Configurations in Old World Archaeology