The New Chronology of Iron Age Gordion 9781934536551

Table of contents :
Contents
Illustrations
Tables
Acknowledgments
Introduction
1. The Creation of the Old Chronology
2. Emerging Problems and Doubts
3. Textual Evidence and the Destruction Level
4. Artifacts
5. Dendrochronology at Gordion
6. Radiocarbon Dating Iron Age Gordion, and the Early Phrygian Destruction in Particular
7. In Conclusion
Turkish Summary/Özet
Contributors
Index

Citation preview

The New Chronology of Iron Age Gordion

Keith DeVries at Gordion. (Mary M. Voigt, Courtesy of the Gordion Project)

gordion special studies I: The Nonverbal Graffiti, Dipinti, and Stamps by Lynn E. Roller, 1987 II: The Terracotta Figurines and Related Vessels by Irene Bald Romano, 1995 III: Gordion Seals and Sealings: Individuals and Society by Elspeth R. M. Dusinberre, 2005 IV: The Incised Drawings from Early Phrygian Gordion by Lynn E. Roller, 2009 V: Botanical Aspects of Environment and Economy at Gordion, Turkey by Naomi F. Miller, 2010

gordion excavations final reports I: Three Great Early Tumuli by Rodney S. Young, 1982 II: The Lesser Phrygian Tumuli. Part 1: The Inhumations by Ellen L. Kohler, 1995 III: The Bronze Age by Ann Gunter, 1991 IV: The Early Phrygian Pottery by G. Kenneth Sams, 1994

museum monograph 133

GORDION SPECIAL STUDIES VI

The New Chronology of Iron Age Gordion Edited by C. Brian Rose and Gareth Darbyshire

Keith DeVries Bernd Kromer Peter Ian Kuniholm Richard F. Liebhart

Sturt W. Manning Maryanne W. Newton G. Kenneth Sams Mary M. Voigt

university of pennsylvania museum of archaeology and anthropology philadelphia

Endpapers: Map of Anatolia, the Near East, and the Aegean, featuring sites mentioned in this volume. (Gordion Archive)



library of congress cataloging-in-publication data The new chronology of Iron Age Gordion / edited by C. Brian Rose and Gareth Darbyshire ; [contributions by] Keith DeVries ... [et al.]. p. cm. –  (Gordion special studies ; 6) (Museum monograph ; 133) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-1-934536-44-5 (hardcover : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 1-934536-44-X (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Gordion (Extinct city)–History. 2. Gordion (Extinct city)–Antiquities. 3. Gordion (Extinct city)–History–Chronology. 4. Iron age–Turkey–Gordion (Extinct city) 5. Excavations (Archaeology)–Turkey–Gordion (Extinct city) 6. Turkey–Antiquities. I. Rose, Charles Brian. II. Darbyshire, G. (Gareth) III. DeVries, Keith. DS156.G6N49 2012 939’.26–dc23 2011026650

© 2011 by the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology Philadelphia, PA All rights reserved. Published 2011 Published for the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology by the University of Pennsylvania Press.

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper.

Contents List of Illustrations

vii

List of Tables

xi

Acknowledgments xiii Introduction 1 1.

The Creation of the Old Chronology, Keith DeVries 13

2.

Emerging Problems and Doubts, Mary M. Voigt and Keith DeVries 23

3.

Textual Evidence and the Destruction Level, Keith DeVries 49

4. Artifacts, G. Kenneth Sams 59 5.

Dendrochronology at Gordion, Peter Ian Kuniholm and Maryanne W. Newton, with Richard F. Liebhart 79

6.

Radiocarbon Dating Iron Age Gordion and the Early Phrygian Destruction in Particular, Sturt W. Manning and Bernd Kromer 123

7.

In Conclusion, G. Kenneth Sams and Mary M. Voigt 155

Turkish Summary/Özet

169

Contributors 173 Index

175

BLACK SEA

IONIA

Athens

Lefkandi Eretria AE

Ankara Gordion Pessinous

PHRYGIA

Salt Lake

Sardis Tatarlı LYDIA Ephesos h Sarayköy Priene

Imirler

R. lys

Masat Höyük Bogazköy Alisar Höyük

hrates R. Eup

Mu

Kültepe Acem Höyük TABAL Porsuk

rat R.

Malatya-Arslantepe

Ayanis

Lake Van r bu

R.

Lake Urmia

A

Zincirli

sR

SE

TAU NS RUS MOUNTAI

URARTU

gri Ti

AN GE

Samos

garios R.

Mihalıççık Midas City Hermos R.

Ha

Ha

S

an

.

Hasanlu

ASSYRIA Khorsabad

Carchemish

Nimrud Fort Shalmaneser

Knossos Eu p es at hr R.

MEDITERRANEAN SEA

Baghdad

N

ANATOLIA & THE NEAR EAST in the EARLY & MIDDLE PHRYGIAN PERIODS

W

E S

Archaeological Site Modern Day City

0

50 100 150 200 mi

0

100 200

300 km

Illustrations Keith DeVries at Gordion Frontispiece 0.1 Map of Gordion showing the main topographic components of the site xiv The Körte brothers’ 1900 map of Gordion, showing key features 3 0.2 0.3 Excavation of the Middle Phrygian Gate Complex on the Citadel Mound, in 1953 4 Balloon photograph showing the Citadel Mound and Küçük Höyük in 1989 5 0.4 0.5 Balloon photograph showing the Main Excavation Area on the Citadel Mound, taken in 1989 6 0.6 Photograph from 1965 on the Citadel Mound, showing the Early Phrygian Building (YHSS 6B) 7 and Megaron 10 0.7 Plan of the Early Phrygian Level (YHSS 6A) on the eastern part of the Citadel Mound 8 0.8 Excavation in 1961 of the main room of Terrace Building 2, part of the Early Phrygian Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL) 9 0.9 Plan of the Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) Level on the eastern part of the Citadel Mound 10 0.10 View of the excavations on the Citadel Mound in 1956 11 0.11 View of Tumulus MM 11 0.12 Inside Tumulus MM: composite photograph of the south side of the outer casing of juniper logs 12 1.1 View of the anteroom of Megaron 1 in 1956 15 1.2 Lion-headed situla from Tumulus MM 16 1.3 The Lower Town, mud brick platform of the Küçük Höyük 17 1.4 The interior of the Küçük Höyük complex 18 2.1 Plan showing late Early Phrygian (YHSS 6B) architecture in the southeastern quarter of the Early 26 Phrygian Citadel 2.2 (a) Fragment of an Early Phrygian (YHSS 6B) carved orthostate showing a lion; 27 (b) Fragment of an Early Phrygian (YHSS 6B) carved orthostate showing a human and lion 2.3 First day of excavation of the Early Phrygian (YHSS 6B) PAP Structure in 1993 28 2.4 Stratigraphic section, northwest balk in the Lower Trench Sounding 29 30 2.5a Photograph of an Early Phrygian (YHSS 6B) stone fragment carved in the form of a creature’s wing 2.5b Line drawing of stone fragment with wing 30 2.6 Fragment of an Early Phrygian (YHSS 6B) carved orthostate showing a creature’s wing 31 2.7a Plan of the Early Phrygian (YHSS 6B) PAP Structure 32 2.7b View of the PAP Structure, looking northwest 33 2.8a Plan of the Early Iron Age (YHSS 7B and 7A) buildings in the Lower Trench Sounding on the 34 Citadel Mound 2.8b Early Iron Age (YHSS 7A) wheel-made pottery in situ on the floor of the Burnt Reed House 34 2.9a Early Iron Age (YHSS 7A) buff pottery from the Burnt Reed House 35 2.9b Comparison of an Early Iron Age (YHSS 7A) round-mouth jug with one from the Early Phrygian 35 (YHSS 6A) Destruction Level 2.10 View southwest across the Main Excavation Area, showing the 1988–89 stratigraphic soundings 36 in progress

illustrations

2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15a 2.15b 2.16a 2.16b 2.17a 2.17b 4.1 4.2 4.3

4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21

Upper Trench Sounding showing deposits above the floor of Terrace Building 2’s anteroom (TB-2A) Upper Trench Sounding: view northwest across the anteroom of Terrace Building 2 (TB-2A) Map showing where settlement evidence has been recovered at Gordion since 1993 Middle Phrygian wall (YHSS 5) bordering the street between the Eastern and Western Mounds Plan of massive Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) architectural remains in Lower Town Area A View, looking northwest, of the area shown in Fig. 2.15a Plan of Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) architectural remains in Lower Town Area B View looking northwest across Lower Town Area B Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) cellar in the Upper Trench Sounding View of the cellar shown in Fig. 2.17a, looking south Ivory horse frontlet from the main room of Terrace Building 2, Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL) Vitreous-glaze juglet from Terrace Building 4, Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL) (A) Bronze omphalos bowl from Tumulus W, Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A) period. (B) Profile of bowl. (C) Profile of bronze omphalos bowl from Terrace Building 6, Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL) (A) Bronze omphalos bowl from Tumulus P, Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) period. (B) Profile of bowl (A) Bronze omphalos bowl from Tumulus MM, Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) period. (B) Profile of bowl Type XII, 7A electrum fibula from Terrace Building 2, Early Phrygian Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL) Type XII, 7 bronze fibula from Tumulus MM, Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) period Type XII, 13 bronze fibula from Tumulus W, Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A) period Type XII, 5 miniature gold fibula from Terrace Building 2, Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL) (A) Type XII, 14 bronze fibula from Terrace Building 8, Early Phrygian Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL). (B) Reconstruction drawing of fibula Type XII, 14 bronze fibula from Tumulus MM, Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) period Type XII, 9 bronze fibula from Megaron 4 Type XII, 9 bronze fibula from Tumulus MM, Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) period Bronze handle attachment in the form of a flying griffin from Megaron 3, Early Phrygian Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL) Bronze leech fibulae: (A) Four from Terrace Building 3, Early Phrygian Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL). (B) One from Tumulus G, Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A) period (A) Phrygian inscription on bowl from Megaron 10. (B) Photograph of inscription Bronze socketed trilobate arrowheads from Middle Phrygian construction fill: (A) From Building M construction fill. (B) From Building O Side-spouted sieve jug in Brown-on-Buff Ware from Clay Cut Building 2 (CC-2), Early Phrygian Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL) Round-mouthed jug in Brown-on-Buff Ware from Tumulus P, Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) period Body fragment of a closed vessel in Brown-on-Buff ware, with small-panel format, from Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) context Composite drawing incorporating several fragments of enormous painted vessels in the style of Brown-on-Buff Ware from Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) contexts

viii

37 38 39 40 40 41 42 43 44 45 60 61

61 62 62 63 63 63 64 64 64 65 65 65 66 67 67 68 68 69 70



illustrations

4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22 5.23 6.1a 6.1b 6.2a 6.2b 6.2c 6.3a 6.3b 6.4

Black-polished jugs with diamond faceting, from the South Cellar, Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) period 71 Black-polished plastic features from the South Cellar, Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) period. (A) Animal-headed spout. (B) Bird-head attachment 71 Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) bichrome painted vessel 72 Painted krater, from Terrace Building 8, Early Phrygian Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL) 73 Jeff Dean’s GOR skeleton plot (lower) and measurement plot (upper) 80 Photograph of ring-growth on GOR-3 Juniperus excelsa, for MMTRD 1560–1660 83 Photograph of ring-growth on GOR-2 Juniperus foetidissima, for MMTRD 1561–1645 83 Three-quarter cutaway drawing of the tomb-chamber in Tumulus MM 83 Photograph of GOR-76 from Tumulus MM 84 Two of the Kızlarkayası Tumulus A boards 85 A typical notch-plus-hole at the butt end of a Tumulus MM (MMT) log 86 A single-axle oxcart used by woodcutters today in Bolu 86 The relatively straight bed of today’s Sakarya River 87 Hairpin turns in the Kızılırmak (Halys) River 88 Matched wiggles for Gordion 89 Kromer’s ± error margins (in years) depending on weight of sample and length of counting 91 Bar-graph of Tumulus MM (MMT) samples 99 Photograph of the bark on the exterior of Tumulus MM (MMT) sample GOR-3 on top of Ring 1764 100 Photograph of Megaron 6 (center), with Megaron 5 behind it 104 GOR-31 from Megaron 5 with detail (at left) of the last 25 exterior rings 105 The wide error margins for a radiocarbon date for GOR-72 from Megaron 3 106 Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A) Gate Complex, South Court 107 Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A) Gate Complex, South Court; chainsawing juniper samples 108 Anteroom of Terrace Building 2 (TB-2A) showing the remains of some of the collapsed 109 constructional timbers burned in the Early Phrygian destruction (YHSS 6A-DL) Bar-graph of the TB-2A samples 110 Bar-graph of Early Phrygian CC-3 Building samples (YHSS 6A-DL) 111 GOR-30 from Early Phrygian Megaron 4 (YHSS 6A-DL) 112 Calibrated calendar age probability distributions and ranges for the University of Pennsylvania 125 radiocarbon determinations from Gordion The group of three data on short-lived sample material from the Early Phrygian Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL) (P-898, P-899, P-901) 126 126 The Gordion wiggle-match 14C data shown against the IntCal98 radiocarbon calibration curve The same as Fig. 6.2a but shown against the IntCal04 radiocarbon calibration curve 127 All 113 Gordion wiggle-match data shown at the proposed best fit 128 Graphical representation of the calibrated calendar age ranges for the Heidelberg radiocarbon determinations from Iron Age contexts at Gordion 129 14 131 As Fig. 6.3a, but with an extra 3‰ (24 C years) error factor added to all the short-lived samples A preliminary presentation of ongoing work investigating the solar minimum episode in the later 9th to mid-8th centuries BC using samples from the Gordion dendrochronology 134

ix

illustrations

6.5

6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10

Calibrated calendar age probability distribution and age ranges for the weighted average of the radiocarbon data on short-lived seed samples from the Early Phrygian period destruction at Gordion (YHSS 6A-DL) As Fig. 6.5, but adding a 3‰ (24 14C years) extra error term to each of the 15 dates As Fig. 6.5, but employing a -20 14C years adjustment to all the Gordion data As Fig. 6.5, but employing a -35 14C years adjustment to all the Gordion data As Fig. 6.5, but employing an (outlying) extreme (and unjustifiable) -85 14C years adjustment to all the Gordion data Iron Age sequence for Gordion from the analysis of the radiocarbon data in Fig. 6.3, and adding the Terrace Building 2A and Tumulus MM dendro terminus post quem dates As Fig. 6.10, but with a -35 years 14C years adjustment made to the Gordion YHSS 6A-DL short-lived samples Gordion Early Iron Age (YHSS 7A) short-lived sample set. Modeled age ranges Gordion YHSS 6A-DL period roof reed sample set. Modeled age ranges Gordion YHSS 6A-DL period short-lived sample set. Modeled age ranges Gordion YHSS 6A-DL period short-lived sample set. Modeled age ranges, with -35 14C years adjustment applied Calibration analyses of the 15 short-lived data from the YHSS 6A-DL period against IntCal09. (A) Raw (unadjusted). (B) With a ΔR adjustment of 15.4 ± 11.3 years View of Megaron 2 (YHSS 6A and 6A-DL periods) in 1956, looking southwest View of Megaron 3 (YHSS 6A and 6A-DL periods) in 1961, looking southwest View of the Terrace Building (YHSS 6A and 6A-DL periods), looking northwest Plan of the Burnt Reed House (YHSS 7A period) Plan of excavated architecture in the Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A) Citadel, before installation of the Terrace View of the exterior of the Early Phrygian Gate Complex (YHSS 6A and 6A-DL periods), looking northwest View of the interior of the Early Phrygian Gate Complex (YHSS 6A and 6A-DL periods), looking east in 1955 Plan of the Early Phrygian Unfinished Project, in progress at the time of the fire (YHSS 6A-DL) The sequence of key Gordion tumuli according to the old chronology The sequence of key Gordion tumuli according to the new chronology

x

136 137 138 139 139 141 143 147 147 148 148 149 154 156 157 157 158 160 160 162 165 166

Tables 0.1 The Gordion Yassıhöyük Stratigraphic Sequence (YHSS), with period names and approximate dates 5.1 Measured Juniperus excelsa samples from the timbers in the outer casing around the Tumulus MM burial chamber, and from Kızlarkayası Tumulus A 5.2 Juniperus foetidissima samples from the timbers in the outer casing around the Tumulus MM burial chamber, and from Kızlarkayası Tumulus A 5.3 Juniperus spp. samples from the Early Phrygian Gate Building and the Citadel Mound area 5.4 Measured Pinus spp. samples of timbers from Tumulus MM, CC-3, Citadel Mound provenances, and the Büyük Tumulus (Ankara) 5.5 Pinus spp. samples from Terrace Building 2’s anteroom (TB-2A) 5.6 Summary of Iron Age chronologies for each species and their constituents 6.1 Radiocarbon determinations on Iron Age samples run at the Heidelberg Radiocarbon Laboratory 6.2 Results of twenty simulations for the radiocarbon age of 700 BC 6.3 Listing of the radiocarbon determinations for the Gordion samples run in the 1950s to 1960s by the University of Pennsylvania Radiocarbon Laboratory

2 97 98 98 101 102 105 133 140 144

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgments

E

xcavat ion and survey at Gordion since 1988 have been supported by grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the National Geographic Society, the Royal Ontario Museum, the 1984 Foundation, the Samuel H. Kress Foundation, the IBM Foundation, the Tanberg Trust, the Loreena McKennitt Trust, and by gifts from generous private donors. All modern archaeological research at Gordion (1950–2006) has been sponsored and supported by the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. The College of William and Mary has been a cosponsor since 1991, and the Royal Ontario Museum co-sponsored work carried out between 1994 and 2002. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has been a cooperating institution since 1988. The work of the Aegean Dendrochronology Project has been supported by the National Science Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Institute for Aegean Prehistory, the Malcolm H. Wiener Foundation, and a large number of private donors. For support towards the radiocarbon work reported here, we thank the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences, the Institute for Aegean Prehistory, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). We would also like to thank all members and affiliates of the Gordion team since 1950, and especially the following individuals for their help in providing information and advice for this volume: Susanne Berndt-Ersöz, Toni Cross, Robert H. Dyson Jr., Grant Frame, Seymour Gitin, Crawford H. Greenewalt Jr., Robert C. Henrickson, Larry G. Herr, Ellen L. Kohler, John H. Kroll, Erle Leichty,

Amihai Mazar, Ben Marsh, Gabriel H. Pizzorno, Bruce Routledge, Leonhard Sassmannshausen, Maya Vassileva, Jennifer Wegner, Charles K. Williams II, and T. Cuyler Young Jr. We thank Laura Foos for photographs taken in 1988–1990, and Maria Daniels for photographs taken in 1993. Plans for the Voigt excavations were made by Denise Hoffman, Sondra Jarvis, and Carrie Alblinger, and prepared for this volume by Kimberly E. Leaman, who also formatted the illustrations for this volume. Carol Griggs prepared the figures and tables for Chapter 5. Gabriel H. Pizzorno provided continuous assistance with mapping and digital resources, and Elvan Cobb and Ayşe Gürsan Salzmann provided the Turkish translation of the summary. Jennifer Quick shepherded the manuscript through the publication process with her customary speed and expertise, while Jim Mathieu provided overall guidance for the University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications Department. We also acknowledge the contributions of Oscar White Muscarella, whose vigorous challenges forced us to review carefully our arguments and the evidence upon which they were based. Since the beginning of the Gordion Project, we have relied heavily on the General Directorate of Monuments and Museums of the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism, the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara, and the people of the Gordion region. None of this work would have been possible without their support. This volume was conceived, organized, and nurtured by Keith DeVries, who devoted the last part of his life to researching and writing several of the chapters. Clarifying the chronology of Iron Age Gordion was one of his highest priorities, and we respectfully dedicate this volume to him in recognition of his support, guidance, and wisdom.

Figure 0.1. Map of Gordion showing the main topographic components of the site, including the location of the tumuli. (Gabriel H. Pizzorno and Gareth Darbyshire, Courtesy of the Gordion Project)

Introduction

G

ordion has long been considered one of the most important sites in the Near East because of its chronology. With a well-preserved destruction level that seemed safely linked to a key moment in history, Gordion appeared to provide a stable stratigraphic framework that could be tied to other sites whose chronologies were less secure. The site has yielded an extensive body of archaeological evidence that spans at least five millennia, from the Early Bronze Age (ca. 3000 BC) to modern times, and well-preserved stratified deposits mark a long series of construction, demolition, and destruction events over the millennia (Table 0.1). But it is Gordion’s Iron Age phases, dating to the first half of the 1st millennium BC, that have attracted the most attention. During this period the site was the center of a large and powerful polity— the kingdom of Phrygia—and its excavated material culture constitutes a prime reference point for those who study the history of the Anatolian Iron Age (Fig. 0.1). In recent years, however, the chronology of Gordion’s Iron Age sequence has been the subject of radical re-evaluation, modification, and dispute. The purpose of the present volume is to explain in detail the genesis, nature, and rationale of these chronological adjustments, and to summarize their impact on Gordion’s Iron Age sequence. Their implications for the Anatolian Iron Age in general are considerable, though it will be the task of others to evaluate them. The remains of Gordion were first recognized in the late 19th century, when the German classical philologist Alfred Körte learned that railroad engineers building the Berlin–Baghdad railway had come across an interesting ancient site at the village of Pebi

(Bebi),1 near the junction of the Sakarya and Porsuk rivers in Central Anatolia. He investigated the site himself in 1893, amplifying his fieldwork with a detailed examination of pertinent ancient Greek and Latin documentary sources. From this research Körte concluded that the site must have been Gordion, capital of Iron Age Phrygia, home of kings Gordios and Midas, and the place where Alexander the Great had cut the legendary Gordian Knot (Körte 1897). The site was located on the ancient Sangarios River (the modern Sakarya), at a point roughly halfway between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, and at a particular distance by horse from the ancient site of Pessinous (modern Ballıhisar). The mounded remains, visible in the river plain and on the sides of the valley, indicated a large settlement surrounded by an unusually high number of elite burial mounds (tumuli)—an archaeological topography befitting the capital of a once mighty kingdom. In 1900 Alfred Körte returned to the site to excavate, this time accompanied by his archaeologist brother, Gustav (Fig. 0.2). Their one season of digging effectively confirmed that the large mound in the plain—the Yassıhöyük, or “flat-topped settlement mound” now referred to as the Citadel Mound—was indeed a settlement occupied in the 1st millennium BC, and that the surrounding smaller mounds included Iron Age tumuli with wooden tomb chambers and elaborate grave goods (Körte and Körte 1904). The Körte brothers’ excavations had demonstrated the archaeological potential of this site, and their identification of Bebi/Yassıhöyük with Gordion was widely accepted. Consequently, though many years later, the University of Pennsylvania Museum decid-

2 the new chronology of iron age gordion Table 0.1. The Gordion Yassıhöyük Stratigraphic Sequence (YHSS), with period names and approximate dates. (Picture Credit: Penn Museum Gordion Archive). YHSS Phase

Period Name

Approximate Dates

0

Modern

1920s

1

Medieval

10th–15th centuries AD

3

Roman

1st–4th centuries AD

3A

Later Hellenistic

260?–100 BC

3B

Early Hellenistic

333–?260 BC

4

Late Phrygian

540s–333 BC

5

Middle Phrygian

after 800–540s BC

6A–B

Early Phrygian

900–800 BC

7A–B

Early Iron Age

?1100–900 BC

9–8

Late Bronze Age

1600–?1100 BC

ed to initiate a major program of research there, leading to a series of large-scale excavations conducted between 1950 and 1973 under the direction of Rodney Stuart Young (Figs. 0.3 and 0.4).2 These exposed a great quantity of archaeological remains whose extent, monumentality, and richness amply supported the identification with Gordion, even though no inscribed material from the site actually indicates the name of the city. Young’s investigations on the Citadel Mound and in the tumuli allowed him and his colleagues to define a complex stratigraphic and chronological sequence for the site’s occupation and its elite burials. This sequence, in places tied tightly to historical events, became a cornerstone for Central Anatolian archaeology of the 1st millennium BC. It also constituted an important reference point for scholars focusing on more distant regions. Young’s excavations ended in 1973, but postexcavation research continued under the direction of Keith DeVries, and detailed analysis of the artifacts, structures, and stratigraphy elicited further chronological insights and questions. In 1988, after G.

Kenneth Sams became director of the Gordion Project, excavations resumed under Mary M. Voigt, one purpose of which was to check and amplify Young’s stratigraphic observations. Although much smaller in extent than Young’s work, the new excavations benefited from more sophisticated techniques and therefore generated more comprehensive documentation and recovery of material (Fig. 0.5). From them, a supplementary chronological scheme was quickly developed: the Yassıhöyük Stratigraphic Sequence, or YHSS (Table 0.1). Voigt’s initial alterations to the Gordion chronology were not radical. Recently, however, profound adjustments to key dates have demanded a major revision of Gordion’s Iron Age chronology. These adjustments were prompted by new radiocarbon determinations made in 2000, but their genesis lay further back in time. A recent review of these various strands of evidence has now caused the dates of four key benchmarks to be shifted: 1. The initial fortification and first major buildings of the Iron Age Citadel (i.e., of the early monumental Early Phrygian/YHSS 6B period) were previously assumed to date to the late 9th or early 8th century BC. They have now been dated to around 900 BC (Fig. 0.6). 2. A fire that ravaged much of the subsequent, larger Citadel (i.e., of the Early Phrygian/YHSS 6A period)—a complex assumed to be the home of the celebrated King Midas—had long been dated to the beginning of the 7th century BC (Figs. 0.7 and 0.8). The revised date for the Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL) is the late 9th century BC, no later than ca. 800, and thus much earlier than Midas. 3. Following the destruction, the ruins of the Early Phrygian Citadel were thought to have been untouched for a century or more, with rebuilding beginning only in the 6th century BC. The reconstruction, which resulted in an even more impressive Citadel (of the Middle Phrygian/YHSS 5 period), is now known to have been inaugurated a relatively short time after the fire,3 around the early 8th century BC (Figs. 0.9 and 0.10). 4. Tumulus MM, by far the largest of the burial mounds at Gordion (Figs. 0.11, 0.12), had been accepted as the tomb of Midas ever since its detailed

INTRODUCTION 3

Figure 0.2 (top). The Körte brothers’ 1900 map of Gordion, showing key topographic features and the location of their trenches on the Citadel Mound (A, B), the Küçük Höyük (C), and in five of the tumuli (I–V). (Körte and Körte 1904: Taf. 1)

publication in 1981. It was thus considered to be roughly contemporary with the Early Phrygian Destruction Level (see no. 2 above), i.e., around the early 7th century BC. The tomb is now dated to ca. 740 BC (in the Middle Phrygian/YHSS 5 period). This is much too early for Midas, and considerably later than the revised date for the Destruction Level. These chronological changes have radically altered our understanding of Early Phrygian culture within the overall context of the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East. With the Early Phrygian Destruction Level pushed back into the late 9th century BC, and the preceding monumental phases of the Early Phrygian Citadel shifted to the early 9th or late 10th century BC, it is clear that Phrygian Central Anatolia kept pace with and occasionally surpassed the Syro-Hittite states to the southeast. Equally striking is the sharp contrast with the more prolonged recovery of the Greek

world to the west from the catastrophes of the late 2nd millen­nium BC. The history of Gordion’s Destruction Level is almost like a detective novel, with multiple subplots, conflicting evidence, and, occasionally, sound and fury as the material culture was interpreted and reinterpreted. Unraveling all of the associated archaeological threads has required several decades, as well as the talents of a group of scholars with wide-ranging expertise. The fruits of their research are presented in the seven chapters that constitute this volume. The first two chapters systematically outline how the chronology of the Destruction Level was created and why the evidence required a reassessment and revision. The textual sources for Midas and the Kimmerian attack are then examined, followed by a reappraisal of the Destruction Level artifacts and an examination of how dendrochronology and radiocarbon have contributed to the revised chronology.

4 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Figure 0.3. Excavation of the Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) Gate on the Citadel Mound in 1953 (cf. Fig. 0.9). Most of the digging was done by a large team of local Turkish men, as seen here. (Gordion Archive, G-799)

The conclusion reviews the significance of the new chronology for the history and archaeology of both Gordion and Iron Age Anatolia. This volume is very much a collaborative one in that each of the authors has commented extensively on all the chapters, thereby bringing a multifaceted perspective to each of the categories of evidence that have been considered. Nevertheless, each chapter had one or more primary authors, who are recorded here. The Introduction was written by Keith DeVries, with additions by Mary Voigt, Brian Rose, and Gareth Darbyshire; Chapter 1, on the old chronology, by Keith DeVries; Chapter 2, on the formulation of a new chronology, by Mary Voigt and Keith DeVries; Chapter 3, on the textual evidence, by Keith DeVries; Chapter 4, on artifacts, by G. Kenneth Sams; Chapter 5, on dendrochronology, by Peter Kuniholm and Maryanne Newton, with further comments on Phrygian tomb construction by Richard Liebhart; Chapter 6, on radiocarbon, by Sturt Manning and Bernd Kromer; and Chapter 7,

conclusions, by G. Kenneth Sams, with additions by Mary Voigt, Peter Kuniholm, Brian Rose, and Gareth Darbyshire, who compiled the appendix. Notes 1. The modern village of Yassıhöyük, sited next to the tumuli on the ridge of the Sakarya River’s right bank, did not exist at the time of the Körte brothers, although there was then a different settlement (its ruins still visible today) with the same name a short distance away to the northeast, as indicated by the roadside arrow on the Körte brothers’ map (Fig. 0.2; Körte and Körte

Figure 0.4 (opposite). Balloon photograph, with north at the top, showing the Citadel Mound (center) and Küçük Höyük (bottom right), taken in 1989 by J. Wilson Myers and Eleanor E. Myers. Young’s 1950–1973 trenches are clearly visible, as are the immense tips of excavated spoil on the edges of the Citadel Mound. (Gordion Archive, G-6365)

5

6 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Figure 0.5. Balloon photograph, with northwest at the top, showing the main excavation area on the Citadel Mound, taken in 1989 by J. Wilson Myers and Eleanor E. Myers. Visible are the Early Phrygian Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL) buildings excavated by Rodney Young, and excavation in progress in Mary Voigt’s Upper Trenches (left) and Lower Trenches (right). (Gordion Archive, G-1-2)

INTRODUCTION 7 1904: Taf. 1). The Ottoman village that the Körtes knew—Bebi (rendered as “Pebi” in their publication)—lay on the left bank and was apparently ruined during the Battle of the Sakarya in 1921, although its remains can still be seen. It was succeeded by the modern Yassıhöyük in the early years of the Republic of Turkey. 2. The director was to have been John Franklin Daniel, Head of the Mediterranean Section at the University of Pennsylvania Museum, but he died suddenly on a site-reconnaissance in southern Turkey in 1948. Young, his able subordinate, took over. He himself died in an accident in 1974. 3. It is also now apparent that a major reconstruction program (the “Unfinished Project”) was initiated even before the fire occurred, and that this closely prefigures the post-Destruction

Level rebuilding. Nevertheless, stratigraphically, chronologically, and perhaps also conceptually, this project remains distinct from the Middle Phrygian rebuilding that followed it.

References Körte, A. 1897. Kleinasiatische Studien II. Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 22:1–51. Körte, G., and A. Körte. 1904. Gordion. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabung im Jahre 1900. Jahrbuch des kaiserlich deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Suppl. 5. Berlin: G. Reimer.

Figure 0.6. Photograph from 1965 on the Citadel Mound, looking west, showing the YHSS 6B Early Phrygian Building (foreground), and excavation inside Megaron 10 (top right) (cf. Fig. 2.1). (Gordion Archive, G-5005)

8 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Figure 0.7. Plan of the Early Phrygian Citadel (YHSS 6A) on the eastern part of the Citadel Mound before the beginning of the construction project underway at the time of the fire (the Unfinished Project, Fig. 7.8). The main excavated structures at this time include: the Gate Complex and stretches of fortification walls; the megarons in the Outer Court (M1, M2, M 9, M10) and Inner Court (M3, M4, M11, M12); and the Terrace Building (TB) and Clay Cut Building (CC) complexes, facing each other across a broad street. The conflagration burned the TB and CC units as well as M1–M4. (Gordion Archive)

Figure 0.8 (opposite). Excavation in 1961 of the main room of Terrace Building 2 (TB-2), part of the Early Phrygian Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL). The burned debris included pottery, iron bridle bits and vehicle fittings, and ivory horse trappings. (Gordion Archive, G-3969)

9

10 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Figure 0.9. Plan of the Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) Citadel on the eastern part of the modern Citadel Mound, showing the main excavated structures and hypothetical reconstructions: the Gate Building complex and stretches of fortification walls; the megarons and other buildings of the Outer Court (Buildings C–G) and the Inner Court (Buildings H, M, O, and Q); parts of two rows of buildings extending to the northeast (Buildings NCT, X, V, Z, Y; and Building P); the successors to the Early Phrygian Terrace Building (Buildings L, K, J, I:2, I:1, N, T, W) and CC Building (Buildings S, R, and U), and the Building A complex to the south of them; the South Cellar and I:2 Cellar. (Gordion Archive)

Figure 0.11 (opposite, bottom). Tumulus MM, viewed from the northwest. This imposing burial mound, constructed during the Middle Phrygian period (YHSS 5), still stands 53 m. high. (Gareth Darbyshire, Courtesy of the Gordion Project)

11

Figure 0.10 (above). View of excavation on the Citadel Mound in 1956, looking northwest. The lower level visible in the foreground is that of the Early Phrygian Destruction (YHSS 6A-DL). The men are working inside Megaron 1 (cf. Figs. 0.7 and 1.1); to the right of them is the stone paving of the Outer Court. The vertical section in the center-right middle-ground of the photograph shows clearly the thick deposit of fill that was laid down for the Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) rebuilding of the Citadel. Directly above the fill is the well-built stone socle of the Middle Phrygian partition wall that ran between Buildings G and H, and the Outer and Inner Courts of the new citadel (cf. Fig. 0.9). (Gordion Archive, G-2191)

12 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Figure 0.12. Inside Tumulus MM: composite photograph of the south side of the outer casing of juniper logs surrounding the pinewood tomb chamber. (Richard Liebhart, Courtesy of the Gordion Project)

1

The Creation of the Old Chronology Keith DeVries The Early Phrygian Destruction Level Until recently, few issues in Mediterranean and Near Eastern archaeology have seemed more certain than the occasion and date of a massive destruction by fire that swept through much of the Early Phrygian Citadel at Gordion, the long-time Phrygian capital. The destruction was thought to have been caused by invading Kimmerians, and to have occurred in the opening years of the 7th century BC; after this destruction, Midas, the Phrygian king, committed suicide. The artifacts found in great abundance in the floor deposits of the Citadel’s burned structures, all necessarily of the same date, became a linchpin of Central Anatolian Iron Age chronology. In this chapter we document the elements initially used in constructing Gordion’s chronology, showing how the analysis of these elements developed over time, beginning with the first excavations at Gordion. Subsequent chapters feature a more detailed consideration of key bodies of evidence—textual, artifactual, dendrochronological, and radiocarbon—all of which are woven together in the conclusions.

Early Excavation on the Citadel Mound, Midas, and the Kimmerian Hypothesis The very first excavations at Gordion were those of Gustav and Alfred Körte, who worked on and around the Citadel during a single season in 1900 (Fig. 0.2). In their limited work on the Citadel Mound, they did not reach the Phrygian

Destruction Level, but one of the burial mounds they excavated, Tumulus III (now termed K-III), was to play a key role in determining the chronology of that level. Gustav Körte dated the tumulus to ca. 700 BC on the basis of its fibulae and several of its bronze vessels, but his views on the life and chronology of the Phrygian king Midas also played a decisive role in the dating. The ancient sources for Midas’ career are far from straightforward and are treated in more detail in Chapter 3. Here, however, we provide a summary of the principal historical sources on which the Körte brothers would have drawn, since the influence of those sources on the formulation of the site’s chronology was so fundamental. Of central importance was a text of the Augustan-era geographer Strabo (1.3.21), which was taken by all scholars to provide secure historical information for a link between a Kimmerian invasion of Gordion and Midas’ death: οἵ τε Κιμμέριοι, οὓς καὶ Τρῆρας ὀνομάζουσιν, ἢ ἐκείνων τι ἔθνος, πολλάκις ἐπέδραμον τὰ δεξιὰ μέρη τοῦ Πόντου καὶ τὰ συνεχῆ (25) αὐτοῖς, τοτὲ μὲν ἐπὶ Παφλαγόνας τοτὲ δὲ καὶ Φρύγας ἐμβαλόντες, ἡνίκα Μίδαν αἷμα ταύρου πιόντα φασὶν ἀπελθεῖν εἰς τὸ χρεών.

The Kimmerians, also known as Trerans, or a particular ethnic group within their body, often overran the lands to the right of the Black Sea and the neighboring regions, invading at one time the territory of the Paphlagonians and at another that of the Phrygians, at which time Midas drank bull’s blood, so they say, and went to his fate [i.e., death].

14 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Another source provided a date (or, rather, two nearly identical alternatives) for the death of Midas: the Chronicle of Eusebius, a bishop of the early 4th century AD. The original Greek text does not survive, but an Armenian translation is still extant, as is one in Latin translated by St. Jerome. In the Latin version, the date of Midas’ death is synchronized with the first year of the twenty-first Olympiad (696 BC), and in the Armenian it is put in the second year (695). The phrase dealing with Midas reads, in Jerome’s Latin: Mida cum apud Frygas regnaret sanguine tauri potato extinctus. Midas, when he was ruling among the Phrygians, died by drinking bull’s blood (Helm 1913:92).1.1 New research on Assyrian historical documents also formed part of the body of evidence that the Körtes considered. The 19th century witnessed the discovery of Assyrian texts mentioning a Mita, king of the land of Mushku, and in 1901 Hugo Winckler equated Mita with the person the Classical world knew as Midas of Phrygia, an identification that subsequently received widespread acceptance.1.2 The texts, stemming from the reign of Sargon II, cover a period from 718 to 709 BC, and they were used by the Körtes to justify the Eusebian date of 696 or 695 for the death of Midas (Körte and Körte 1904:20–4, 98). If we now return to Tumulus K-III, the criteria underlying the Körtes’ proposed date of ca. 700 BC become clearer. They surmised that the tumulus would have to slightly predate the Kimmerian invasion and Midas’ suicide, for “during the period of Kimmerian domination” such a rich tomb would be “scarcely conceivable.”1.3 Moreover, Alfred Körte imposed another layer of interpretation on Strabo’s bare account of Midas’s suicide when the Kimmerians invaded Phrygia. Körte tied this story to his belief in the utter ruin of Midas’ kingdom at the hands of the Kimmerians: “brachen die Kimmerier in Phrygien ein und rannten das Reich von Midas über den Haufen. Als alles verloren war, gab Midas sich selbst den Tod, der Sage nach durch Trinken von Stierblut” (Körte and Körte 1904:23). In other words, he believed that the Kimmerians’ comprehensive destruction of Gordion and the surrounding region shortly after 700 BC prompted Midas’ suicide. This was the scholarly view that had gradually crystallized by the time of Young’s early campaigns at the site, the first since the Körte brothers’ work.1.4

The Young Excavations In his very first season, in 1950, Young encountered a small sample of the Destruction Level in a deep sounding and tentatively suggested that the signs of burning there might be connected with the Kimmerians, which he dated to the early 7th century. In doing so he followed the (by then) established assessment of the Kimmerians as the destroyers of the Phrygian realm, as well as the commonly accepted Eusebian-based dating.1.5 In his report on the 1953 season, Young tacitly dropped a claim of having pinpointed a Kimmerian destruction, but wondered if he might not come upon it in his continuing work, expecting that even if there were none, there would at least be signs of a post-Kimmerian cultural and economic recession: “We must probably assume a decline—there are no traces as yet of an actual sack—of the city early in the seventh century after the coming of the Cimmerians…It will be interesting to see whether any evidence appears of a sack or destruction by the Cimmerians…” (1955:16, 18). Ekrem Akurgal, however, was certain that a Kimmerian destruction was waiting to be found at Gordion and expressed hopes that Young would reach it quickly; furthermore, he expected that there would be Greek pottery in the floor deposits that would yield a decisive date.1.6 In 1955, the very year in which Akurgal published his hopes, Young hit the Destruction Level in the form of burned debris fallen in front of Megarons 1 and 2, and (in a test trench) he found a burned building (Building CC-2) full of pottery and other artifacts (Figs. 0.7, 1.1, 7.1). Picking up on Akurgal’s prediction, Young reported negatively: “Among all this mass of pottery not one Greek sherd was found to serve as a guide to the chronology,” but he stressed, rightly, a link between a jug with animal panels and jugs from the K-III Tumulus, and noted that the tumulus “has usually been put at about 700 BC,” thinking no doubt of both Akurgal’s and Gustav Körte’s dates (Young 1956:263). Young then declared, “It is tempting to see in the conflagration which destroyed the Phrygian buildings at Gordion the effects of the destructive raid of the Kimmerians at the beginning of the seventh century.” As Young encountered the Destruction Level in an increasingly larger area during subsequent seasons,



The Creation of the Old Chronology 15

Figure 1.1. View of Megaron 1’s anteroom in 1956, looking south. Most of the main room had yet to be excavated, and is buried under fill visible at the rear right of the picture. On the left is part of the paved surface of the Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A) Outer Court. (Gordion Archive, G-2089)

this tempting hypothesis evolved into a probability and then became a certainty; thus, after the 1959 season he wrote, “We may perhaps say definitely instead of only tentatively, ‘this was the Kimmerian destruction’” (1960:243), and after the 1961 season, he simply wrote, the “Kimmerian fire” and the “Kimmerian destruction” (1962a:159). With the destruction fixed soon after 700 BC by Tumulus K-III, he felt that the Eusebian chronology was preferable to any other, even if Eusebius’ precise date might be open to question (he came to put the destruction at ca. 690 for reasons left unexplained, at least in print).1.7

Tumulus MM: Midas and Sargon II In 1957, Young excavated the tumulus that in his first year at the site he had suspected (from its overwhelming size) to be the tomb of Midas, and

on which he had bestowed the lasting label of MM for “Midas Mound” (Fig. 0.11). The tomb chamber proved to be intact, and among its abundant grave goods, the most closely datable artifact was a lionheaded situla (Fig. 1.2) matching those depicted on reliefs of Sargon II (721–705 BC). Young decided that MM “should be dated in the time of Sargon’s reign…or slightly before,” and thought that a good theoretical date range derived from it and backed up by the fibulae was ca. 725–700. He had, however, become convinced that such a rich burial with such an imposing tumulus would not have been possible at the time of or in the wake of the Kimmerian catastrophe, and thus could not be Midas’ after all. Since he furthermore assumed that it must be royal, and since Assyrian records (as then dated) showed that Midas was on the throne by 717 BC, Young decided the burial must have been that of a predecessor, with its date “some time between 725 and

16 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Figure 1.2. Lion-headed situla (Gordion inventory B-810) from Tumulus MM, with textile remains. (Gordion Archive, G-2501)

717,” or better put, 725–718, since he more precisely posited that the burial had been made “before 717.”1.8 Two firm chronological benchmarks had therefore emerged at Gordion: Tumulus MM at ca. 725–718, and the great destruction in the first years of the 7th century BC.

The Rebuilding of the Citadel: Persians or Lydians? A less stable benchmark, reached with more difficulty, was the date for the reconstruction of the Citadel. In Young’s first season of work in 1950, he discovered two structures (Building A and the NCT Building, Fig. 0.9) that were founded on a massive layer of fill laid above the Destruction Level. He dated them to the 6th century BC based on the architectural terracottas found “in conjunction with” them (Young 1951:7–8), which he thought were “probably made in the 6th century”––an estimate which remains sound, albeit broad.1.9 He also “tentatively” suggested that the buildings belonged to the “period of the Persian Empire.” This suggestion, if correct, would tighten the chronology of the rebuilding within the 6th century, since the level would then date after the Persian conquest of the Lydian empire (which had come to encompass nearly all of Phrygia) in the 540s (Young 1950:198).1.10 Evidence from the 1953 season persuaded

Young that the date of the rebuilding did indeed fall after the Persian take-over. A small, newly discovered structure of that level, Building E, had in its various stages a series of hearths, the last of which was monumental, with a large, fine stone coping. Young thought that the building might have housed an Achaemenid fire-cult (1955:3–6). Another telling factor that year was the discovery of a piece of diagnostic Lydian pottery, which was more startling than one might initially expect. During earlier excavation campaigns, there had been a frustrating lack of informative material from contexts assignable to the rebuilding. By this time it was clear that a great layer of fill (1.50 to 4.50 m. thick) had been put down over most of the Destruction Level (Fig. 0.10), in tandem with the laying of new foundations within that fill. The fill yielded only scanty amounts of pottery, most of which was Bronze Age in date (Young 1953b:25; 1955:12). The lack of Iron Age material associated with the fill continued to be a problem in future seasons (e.g., Young 1962a:156). In 1953, however, Young encountered another type of fill: stone rubble that had been thrown into the Destruction Level Gate Building as support for the gate of the rebuilt phase. The rubble yielded only sparse finds, but among them was a fragment of a lydion that Young dated “probably to the middle of the sixth century,” noting that it “gives us a bit more evidence that the [new gate] belonged to the time of the Persian Empire and not earlier.”1.11 In the report for



The Creation of the Old Chronology 17

Figure 1.3. The Lower Town circuit wall was well preserved in the Küçük Höyük sector because it was buried by a Persian assault ramp. Shown here is the upper part of the southwest corner of the mud brick platform (12 m. high), excavated in 1956, on top of which the Küçük Höyük building complex was constructed. The adjoining fortification walls were a similar height. (Gordion Archive, G-2216)

that year, Young adopted the term “Persian level” for what he had previously and more cautiously called the “archaic” or “sixth century” level.1.12 The term became standard in his later reports, although the designation “archaic” continued to resurface on occasion (Young 1964:281; and cf. Young 1966:268). The supposedly diagnostic architectural element that was the basis for the Persian designation soon had to be disregarded. As excavation proceeded, sizable hearths were found not only in the rebuilt level but also in the underlying Destruction Level, where they are commonplace (Figs. 1.1, 7.1). They could thus no longer serve as a criterion for Achaemenid influence.1.13

Furthermore, as the plans of the two levels emerged in detail, it became apparent that the layout of the rebuilt or upper level was a close adaptation, building by building, of the plan of the lower (Figs. 0.7, 0.9); and on that basis, Young declared: “The sixth century city is thus Persian only in date; essentially it is a reincarnation of the earlier Phrygian town” (1962b:10).1.14 There was dissent within the early Gordion team, however, as to whether the construction of the rebuilt level should be dated to the Persian period. In publications of 1959 and 1960, Machteld J. Mellink continued to use the broad designation of the 6th century for the rebuilding, and she raised the possibility that the reconstruction occurred after Phrygia had become part of the Lydian empire, in roughly the first half of that century, presumably following the Lydians’ expulsion of the Kimmerians from Asia Minor (an action reported by Herodotus and credited by him to king Alyattes, who ruled ca. 610–560).1.15 Eventually, even Young changed his mind. As late as the 1971 season, the excavation architect produced plans labeled “Persian Level,” presumably with Young’s approval, but in the next season, 1973, Young instructed him to use instead “Archaic Level.” Then, in a 1976 posthumous publication, he simply stated that Gordion “was rebuilt in the 6th c., probably by Alyattes the Lydian king” (1976:360). The reasons for Young’s late shift of opinion, which aligned his views with those of Mellink, are unknown.1.16 In any case, even with the updating for the rebuilding, the gap that remained between that phase and the destruction—a century or more—was formidable.

The Lower Town and Its Circuit Wall: A Phrygian Refuge or Lydian Foundation? An unresolved chronological matter for Young and his colleagues was the dating of the construction of the outer circuit wall that protected the Lower Town (Fig. 1.3), and hence the time in which that quarter of Gordion had come into being. What was clear was the terminal date of the fortifications, which were stormed in an all-out military attack. Large numbers of arrowheads, many embedded right within the mud brick of the outer face of the defenses, indicate massive rains of archery fire directed against the

18 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Figure 1.4. The interior of the Küçük Höyük complex situated at the southeast corner of the Lower Town enceinte. The building was over 10 m. wide and over 50 m. long, and was at least four stories high. The rooms shown here were excavated in 1957. (Gordion Archive, G-3061)

enceinte. A siege ramp was thrown up against the fortress of the Küçük Höyük, and skeletal remains show that at least two people died when that structure was taken and then set on fire. Burning occurred as well in areas immediately inside the one known major gate to the Citadel. In 1952, after the first year of the fortifications’ excavation, Young dated the assault in the middle of the 6th century BC on the basis of Lydian pottery (1953a; 1953b:29). This chronology was confirmed when Mellink found much more closely datable Attic pottery in relevant contexts in 1958 and 1959.1.17 With a mid-6th century date in place, the circumstances of the military action became obvious: it could only have occurred during the Persian conquest of the Lydian empire by Cyrus in the 540s.1.18 The circuit wall was truly imposing: it was about 14 m. high, and the Küçük Höyük fortress rose at least four stories higher from its platform at the level of the chemin de ronde at the top of the enceinte (Fig. 1.4). Returning to the problem of the date of construction, Young assumed that the building of such a massive system probably occurred well before the Persian attack. He declared after the 1956 season, “At present the building operation is assumed to have tak-

en place around 600 BC” (1957:324). He presumably drew upon the opinions of Mellink, who was the sole excavator of the fortifications, and they both probably settled upon the date for historical reasons, with the late 7th to early 6th century BC being the likely time for the beginning of Lydian rule at Gordion. After the next campaign, Young seems to allude to artifactual evidence establishing that date, and taking note of buildings that had begun to be found inside the circuit, he referred to the area as a “Lydian settlement,” in a temporal and, more cautiously, an ethnic sense.1.19 The area would therefore, in theory, have been developed as a residential zone during a time when the Citadel had not yet been rebuilt. Beginning in 1958, Mellink discovered that the fortification system had a long history indeed when she found an earlier wall underneath and extending a little to the outside of the circuit wall that had stood in the mid-6th century.1.20 She discovered that the early wall itself had several phases, of which one was represented by a stretch of that circuit in which the mud brick consisted “of burnt earth and particles of burnt wood and pottery.” Mellink suggested that the segment might be a remnant of a first wall



The Creation of the Old Chronology 19

phase coming in the wake of the great Early Phrygian–period destruction at Gordion, and in her publications she unequivocally declared an immediately post-destruction, early 7th century date for the initial phase of the Lower Town circuit (1959:105–6; 1988:228; 1991:629).1.21 G. Roger Edwards, who was in overall charge of the excavations in 1958, backed up her suggestion, and taking into consideration the Lower Town, he hypothesized that occupation there began at the same time as the fortification wall, after the Early Phrygian destruction in the early 7th century and long before the time of Lydian control. He suggested that the Lower Town was an interim area of occupation for the inhabitants during the many generations when the Citadel lay in ruins (Edwards 1959:264).1.22 As for the Citadel, Edwards pointed out the remarkable similarities in plan between the Destruction Level and the rebuilding. To acknowledge this architectural continuity he suggested that the rebuilding be renamed the “Middle Phrygian” period. Embedded in this terminology was an attribution of the rebuilding to Phrygians rather than invading Persians. Young, however, maintained his earlier opinion, and in his last relevant published statement, in 1968, he still put the fortification and the settlement area in “the time of the Lydian occupation” (1968b:31–32). The basis for his unmodified position is not known. In summary, a set of firm chronological convictions emerged during the course of Young’s excavations from 1950–1973: (1) the great destruction within the Early Phrygian Citadel was the work of the Kimmerians in the early 7th century BC; (2) the enormous Tumulus MM dated a little earlier, ca. 725–718 BC; (3) the Citadel was not rebuilt for many generations, not until (as the Gordion team eventually agreed) the time of Lydian ascendancy, from around 600 to the 540s BC; (4) the Lower Town and the fortification system protecting it came into being after the destruction of the Early Phrygian Citadel. The Gordion team reached no resolution as to whether the Lower Town structures were created soon after the destruction, or whether they too were a product of the era of Lydian domination. The most important component of these chronological conclusions was the dating of the Early Phrygian destruction to ca. 700 BC. From the apparently powerful convergence of textual and arti-

factual evidence, it seemed absolutely certain. That certainty, combined with the abundance of artifacts and architecture that the level provided, made the date, as noted above, the key fixed point for Central Anatolian Iron Age archaeology. Notes 1.1. Karst (1911:184) translates the Armenian phrase as “Mindas [sic] der Phrygerkönig trank das Blut eines Stieres und starb.” 1.2. Winckler 1898–1900:136. While the identification of Mita with Midas has been overwhelmingly accepted, the equation of Mushku (in Urartian Mushkini and in Hebrew Meshech) with Phrygia, though receiving majority support, is less universally agreed on. In an influential article, M.J. Mellink saw Phrygia as a western component of Midas’ kingdom and Mushku as an eastern component, with ethnic differences between the populations (1965:320–23). Among recent supporters of her view is W. Röllig (1993:494–95). The differing names need not in themselves, however, cause problems, for ancient countries and their peoples could bear very different names in different languages. Thus the Egyptians called their land Kemet or Tameri, while the Assyrians termed it Musur, and the Greeks, Aiguptos. The Greeks called their land Hellas, while the Hebrew name was Yawan (cf. Yauna in Old Persian for a Greek), and Romans referred to it as Graecia. Compare Deutschland, Allemagne, and Germany today. Moreover, the apparent location of Mushku fits Phrygia well. In the Neo-Assyrian texts it is evidently located close to Tabal, but unlike the latter is outside easy reach of the Assyrians (i.e., it lies deeper within Anatolia). The Hebrew texts associate Meshech with Tubal (Tabal) as well as with Yawan (Genesis 10.2; Ezekiel 27.13). Two texts of the 7th century BC Urartian king Rusa II show that Mushkini was close enough to Urartu for the former to have been a source of forced laborers, and the accompanying mention of workers brought into Urartu from Neo-Hittite territory and Tabal (Hate and Tablani) provides a sharpened geographical focus (König 1955–1957:24–25, text 128; Salvini 2001:258, 261, Ay-susi, section VI, line 11; Çilingiroğlu and Salvini 2001:19–20). Very helpful for determining the western part of Mushku is a text from Achaemenid Mesopotamia describing a hadru or immigrant settlement near Nippur that was made up of Lydians and Mushkians. Back in Anatolia, Phrygian lands began just east of Lydia, and the existence of another hatru there that grouped Urartians and Meliteneans (inhabitants of Melitene/Malatya) suggests that people who had been neighbors in their homelands were combined in the new settlements (Zadok 1976:61; 1979:167). 1.3. Körte and Körte 1904:91–98, 214: “etwas des Ende des VIII. Jahrhunderts” and “um die Wende des VIII. und VII. Jahrhun-

20 the new chronology of iron age gordion derts”; “während der Dauer der Kimmerierherrschaft ist eine so reiche Grabausstellung kaum denkbar.” In 1955 Ekrem Akurgal came up with the same absolute date (“the end of the eighth century” and “ca. 700”) for the tumulus on different artifactual grounds: the resemblance he saw between its painted pottery and Greek fine ware which he judged to be of that date (1955:47,130). 1.4. Akurgal cited Körte and echoed his assessment (Akurgal 1955:124), while Kroll (1932:1534) wrote of the “ruin of his (Midas’) kingdom”: “ [Midas]…den Untergang seines Reiches voraussehend und durch Traumbilder beunruhigt sich selbst durch Trinken von Stierblut den Tod gegeben hat.” Kroll’s account combined Strabo and the passage from Plutarch, On Superstition (see Chapter 3, this volume). 1.5. Young 1951:12: “The débris…contained also ash and cinders, perhaps suggesting a destruction by fire which could conceivably be brought into connection with the invasion of Asia Minor by the Cimmerians at the beginning of the seventh century, bringing to an end the hegemony of the Phrygian kingdom.” For a more detailed account of Young’s chronology and the development of his thinking, see Voigt 2009. 1.6. Akurgal (1955:124): “Wir hoffen, dass es den systematischen Grabungen der Amerikaner gelinge möchte, die Brandschichte dieses…Ereignisses [the Kimmerian invasion] sobald wie möglich zu erreichen, die mit Hilfe der in Gordion nie fehlenden griechischen Importstücke wohl genau datierbar sein wird.” 1.7. Preferability of Eusebius: Young 1956:263n24. For the ca. 690 date: Young 1968b:8; 1969:260; 1976:360. Note also the “ca. 690” in Anatolian Studies 11 (1959:13) drawing on information from G. Roger Edwards, presumably in accord with what had become Young’s views. In his posthumous publication, Young (1981:242) let the date drop still further, “ca. 690/685 BC,” perhaps to mediate between the dates of Eusebius and Julius Africanus (see Chapter 3, this volume). There is a possible reason for Young’s eventual placement of the date rather lower than the Eusebian date: he believed that there was a sequence of three tumuli postdating Tumulus MM but preceding the fire of the Destruction Level, and he was also convinced that Tumulus MM dated between 725 and 718. He may have felt that 696 made too tight a lower limit into which that sequence could fit. His lowest estimate, “690/685,” came in the context of his presentation of the sequence. Young’s belief that Africanus’ date was too low became standard, provoking just a few dissents (Akurgal 1961:117–9; Snodgrass 1964:27; 1971:350; Bossert 1993). Ivanchik (1993:69–74) came to conclusions similar to Bossert’s about the date of the Kimmerian incursion into Phrygia related by Strabo, but did not discuss the archaeological evidence at Gordion and Young’s deductions from it. 1.8. Young 1958:154; 1969:259–60. In his judgment that the rich

burial must have preceded the Kimmerians, he was presumably influenced by G. Körte’s similar interpretation of Tumulus K-III. 1.9. The particular terracottas that Young used to obtain his date were those with depictions of Theseus and the Minotaur, a theme that derived from Greek art probably through its presence on Lydian architectural terracottas. Winter (1993:234, 236) dates the earliest architectural terracottas in Asia Minor to ca. 580– 560 BC, and she specifically dates the Lydian type with Theseus and the Minotaur to the “first quarter of the sixth century,” and thus presumably to 580–575. Glendinning (1996:143) suggests “a tentative date in the late seventh or early sixth century” for the Gordion Theseus and Minotaur terracottas. 1.10. The suggestion grew stronger by the end of the 1952 season: “the sixth-century or archaic level [is] probably to be assigned to the early years of the Persian Empire” (Young 1953b:6). 1.11. Young 1955:12. Gordion excavation notebook 42:151– 52. It should be noted, however, that the fragment was found high in the rubble, in an area subject to intrusion. The stone slab flooring that sealed the rubble in the inner court of the new gate, where he then was working, had been ripped out in antiquity. 1.12. Young 1955:3; contrast Young 1951:8–9 (captions) and Young 1953b:6. 1.13. The obliteration of most of the floors of the buildings of the rebuilt or Middle Phrygian level makes it impossible to know how many of those structures had hearths, but examples have been found in Buildings C and F, as well as in Building E. Hearths have been found in nearly all of the buildings of the Early Phrygian Destruction Level. 1.14. G. Roger Edwards had earlier made a similar assessment (1959:264). 1.15. Mellink 1959:105–6 (an ambiguously worded statement), and 1960:243 (clearer). Note also her later confidently expressed views of a Lydian date, contrasting with her first, more tentatively worded accounts (1988:228; 1991:629–30). Herodotus 1.16; see also Herodotus 1.72 and 1.74 for his report that the eastern boundary of the Lydian empire was formally established at the Halys River, well to the east of Gordion, in the wake of a solar eclipse, which can be dated to 585 BC. 1.16. One of the most compelling bits of evidence for a pre-Persian date that had emerged was the discovery in 1963 of a hoard of 45 Lydian electrum coins found in association with Building R of the rebuilt Citadel. It had apparently been hidden in the mud brick wall of that building (Young 1964:283; Bellinger 1968). As electrum coins, they must predate the end of the reign of Croesus (ca. 560–540s), during which time Lydian coins began to be issued in gold and silver. This was well known to Young and has, after some recent challenges, now been definitely established by finds at Sardis (Cahill and Kroll 2005). Furthermore, the style of



The Creation of the Old Chronology 21

the lion heads is distinctly earlier than the lions on the Croesid coins. Bellinger dated the hoard surprisingly high, earlier than the celebrated Central Basis coin deposit at the Artemision at Ephesos. The absolute date he assigned to the Gordion hoard was 625–610 (Bellinger 1968:12–13). Spier (1998:333–34) demonstrates that “the date of burial of the Gordion hoard must be slightly later than that of the Artemision hoard.” As currently understood, a “slightly later” date would fall in the late 7th century or, at most, the early 6th (Weissl 2002; Cahill and Kroll 2005). 1.17. Gordion excavation notebook 75:22, 92, 145, Inventory numbers P-2304, P-2339, P-5881 and P-5882. See also DeVries 2005. 1.18. The siege of Gordion probably did not occur during the course of Cyrus’ lightning-fast advance on Sardis, which caught the Lydian king Croesus off guard (pace Young 1953a:166 and 1953b:29; Herodotus 1.79), but instead after the capture of Sardis which was followed by widespread, extensive mopping-up operations (Herodotus 1:141–177 passim; see also Briant 1996:46–48; Briant 2002:36–38). For the chronology of the conquest, see Briant 1996:44–45, 48, 910 = Briant 2002:34, 38, 882. 1.19. Young 1958:140–41. For a more explicit reference to the presumed Lydian character of that quarter, see Young 1968b:32. 1.20. Gordion excavation notebook 65:169 (section), 176–78. 1.21. Gordion excavation notebook 75:64, 66. 1.22. Edwards’ reference to tile in the mud brick component in question (1959:264), which would indicate a fairly late date, is not supported by Mellink’s excavation notebook account.

References Akurgal, E. 1955. Phrygische Kunst. Ankara: Arkeoloji Enstitüsü, Ankara University. –— 1961. Die Kunst Anatoliens von Homer bis Alexandros. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Bellinger, A.R. 1968. Electrum Coins from Gordion. In Essays in Greek Coinage Presented to Stanley Robinson, ed. C.M. Kraay and G.K. Jenkins, pp. 10–15. Oxford: Oxford University. Berndt-Ersöz, S. 2008. The Chronology and Historical Context of Midas. Historia 57:1–37. Bossert, E.-M. 1993. Zum Datum der Zerstörung des phrygischen Gordion. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 43:287–92. Briant, P. 1996. Histoire de l’empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre. Paris: Fayard. –— 2002. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Cahill, N., and J.H. Kroll. 2005. New Archaic Coin Finds at Sardis. American Journal of Archaeology 109:589–617. Çilingiroğlu, A., and M. Salvini. 2001. Historical Background of Ayanis. In Ayanis I, ed. A. Çilingiroğlu and M. Salvini, pp. 15–24. Rome: CNR, Istituto per gli Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici. DeVries, K. 2005. Greek Pottery and Gordion Chronology. In The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians: Recent Work at Gordion, ed. L. Kealhofer, pp. 36–55. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. Edwards, G.R. 1959. The Gordion Campaign of 1958: Preliminary Report. American Journal of Archaeology 63:263–68. Friedrich, J. 1941. Phrygia. Pauly-Wissowa, RealEncyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 20(1): 781–891. Glendinning, M.R. 1996. Phrygian Architectural Terracottas at Gordion. PhD diss., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Helm, R. 1913. Eusebius Werke, Vol. 7.1, Die Chronik des Hieronymus. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs. Ivanchik [rendered “Ivantchik”], A.I. 1993. Les Cimmériens au Proche-Orient. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Karst, J. 1911. Eusebius Werke, Vol. 5, Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs. König, F.W. 1955–1957. Handbuch der chaldischen Inschriften. Graz: self-published. Körte, G., and A. Körte. 1904. Gordion. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabung im Jahre 1900. Jahrbuch des kaiserlich deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Suppl. 5. Berlin: G. Reimer. Kroll, W. 1932. Midas. Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 15(2): 1526–40. Lehmann-Haupt, K. 1921. Kimmerier. Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 11(1): 397–434. Mellink, M.J. 1959. The City of Midas. Scientific American 201(2): 100–109. –— 1960. Ancient Gordion. In 1960 Encyclopedia Year Book, pp. 242–44. Danbury, CT: Grolier. –— 1965. Mita, Mushki and the Phrygians. Anadolu Araştırmaları 2(1–2) (Helmuth Theodor Bossert’in Hatırasına Armağan): 317–25.

22 the new chronology of iron age gordion

–— 1988. Anatolia. In The Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd ed., Vol. 4, Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean c. 525 to 479 BC, ed. J. Boardman, N.G.L. Hammond, D.M. Lewis, and M. Ostwald, pp. 211–33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. –— 1991. The Native Kingdoms of Anatolia. In The Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd ed., Vol. 3, Pt. 2, The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries BC, ed. J. Boardman, I.E.S. Edwards, N.G.L. Hammond, and E. Sollberger, pp. 619–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Röllig, W. 1993. Muski, Muski. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8:493–95. Salvini, M. 2001. The Inscriptions of Ayanis. Monumental Stone Inscriptions. In Ayanis I. Ten Years’ Excavations at Rusahinili Eiduru-kai 1989–1998, ed. A. Çilingiroğlu and M. Salvini, pp. 251–70. Rome: CNR, Istituto per gli Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici. Snodgrass, A.M. 1964. Early Greek Armour and Weapons. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. –— 1971. The Dark Age of Greece. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Spier, J. 1998. Notes on Early Electrum Coinage and a Die-Linked Issue from Lydia. In Studies in Greek Numismatics in Memory of Martin Jessop Price, ed. R. Ashton and S. Hurter, pp. 327–34. London: Spink. Voigt, M.M. 2009. The Chronology of Phrygian Gordion. In Tree-Rings, Kings and Old World Archaeology and Environment: Papers Presented in Honor of Peter Ian Kuniholm, ed. S.W. Manning and M.J. Bruce, pp. 219–237. Oxford: Oxbow. Weissl, M. 2002. Grundzüge der Bau- und Schichtenfolge im Artemision von Ephesos. Jahreshefte des Österreichen archäologischen Instituts in Wien 71:313–46. Winckler, H. 1898–1900 [published 1901]. Die Reiche von Cilicien und Phrygien im Lichte der altorientalischen Inschriften. Altorientalische Forschungen 2:103–37. Leipzig: Pfeiffer. Winter, N.A. 1993. The Greek Architectural Terracottas from the Prehistoric to the End of the Archaic

Period. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Young, R.S. 1950. The Excavations at YassıhüyükGordion, 1950. Archaeology 3:197–201. –— 1951. Gordion–1950. University Museum Bulletin 16(1): 3–19. –— 1953a. Making History at Gordion. Archaeology 6:159–66. –— 1953b. Progress at Gordion, 1951–1952. University Museum Bulletin 17(4): 3–39. –— 1955. Gordion: Preliminary Report, 1953. American Journal of Archaeology 59:1–18. –— 1956. The Campaign of 1955 at Gordion: Preliminary Report. American Journal of Archaeology 60:249–66. –— 1957. Gordion 1956: Preliminary Report. American Journal of Archaeology 61:319–31. –— 1958. The Gordion Campaign of 1957: Preliminary Report. American Journal of Archaeology 62:139–54. –— 1960. The Gordion Campaign of 1959: Preliminary Report. American Journal of Archaeology 64:227–43. –— 1962a. The 1961 Campaign at Gordion. American Journal of Archaeology 66:153–68. –— 1962b. Gordion: Phrygian Construction and Architecture: II. Expedition 4(4): 2–12. –— 1964. The 1963 Campaign at Gordion. American Journal of Archaeology 64:279–95. –— 1968b. Gordion: A Guide to the Excavations and Museum. Ankara Turizmi, Eski Eserleri ve Müzeleri Sevenler Derneği Yayınları Vol. 4. Ankara: Ankara Turizmi, Eski Eserleri ve Müzeleri Sevenler Derneği. –— 1969. Old Phrygian Inscriptions from Gordion: Toward a History of the Phrygian Alphabet. Hesperia 38:252–96. –— 1976. Gordion. In The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites, ed. R. Stillwell, p. 360. Princeton: Princeton University Press. –— 1981. Three Great Early Tumuli. The Gordion Excavations Final Reports Vol. 1. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Zadok, R. 1976. On the Connections Between Iran and Babylonia in the Sixth Century BC. Iran 14:61–78. –— 1979. On Some Foreign Population Groups in First-Millennium Babylon. Tel Aviv 6:161–81.

2

Emerging Problems and Doubts Mary M. Voigt and Keith DeVries Early Radiocarbon Dates for the Destruction Level: A Mixed Message and Then an Early Warning Signal While the excavators attempted to align the Gordion stratigraphic sequence with the extant historical fragments, other evidence bearing upon the Destruction Level was quietly being gathered offstage. Radiocarbon dating of Gordion material had been undertaken relatively early, and the University of Pennsylvania was a pioneer in promoting such work.2.1 The University Museum director, Froelich Rainey, had established a carbon-14 laboratory in 1951, run jointly by the University’s Physics Department and the Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology (MASCA). In 1961 Ellen Kohler, the Gordion registrar and archivist, and Elizabeth Ralph of MASCA published radiocarbon dates from the University of Pennsylvania laboratory for material from Greek and Anatolian sites, including 14 samples from Gordion. Three of them were from the Destruction Level. Like all of the dates in the publication, they were calculated according to two different half-life values: the original but by then problematic Libby half-life of 5568 +/- 30, and what Ralph put forward as a more satisfactory, albeit still provisional half-life of 5800 (Kohler and Ralph 1961:357–58). Calculated by the latter value, the dates for the Destruction Level were high, but they nonetheless reached or came close to the expected chronology in their lower range.2.2 P-135. Megaron 3. Charred wood from outer edge of roof-beam. 770 +/- 124 BC

P-136. Building CC-2. Charcoal. 840 +/- 125 BC P-137. Building CC-2. Charcoal. 820 +/- 119 BC Furthermore, as Kohler and Ralph pointed out in their general comments in the article, the dates from timber are deceptively high unless they are from the outermost rings, since the inner ones have stopped taking in carbon-14 prior to felling (1961:357). In fact, as would be known only a few years later, it is only the final growth ring that absorbs carbon-14 in the last year of a tree’s life. The beam from Megaron 3 (P-135) is a log and not a squared timber, but nonetheless shows no evidence of having the terminal ring preserved (Kuniholm 1977:21; sample GOR-72). The charcoal from Building CC-2 is obviously problematic, since the relation of such fragments to the final growth phases of their sources is indeterminable. Finally, the Megaron 3 beam, as a structural element, is likely to have significantly predated the fire. There was consequently no good reason for that particular set of Destruction Level dates to raise suspicions about the established chronology. The case was potentially different for a subsequent set of determinations. Kohler and Ralph had stressed in their article that for a more reliable dating of a context, “samples of grains, cloth, hide, etc., are ideal because they were used at the time that they ceased to incorporate C-14” (1961:357). In the autumn of 1961, shortly before the publication of their paper, Kohler submitted three short-lived samples from the Destruction Level for analysis in the University of Pennsylvania laboratory. The results

24 the new chronology of iron age gordion

came back in early 1965.2.3 When calculated by the 5730 half-life (which had by then come into use and which the laboratory favored), the dates were unambiguously early, and two of them were irreconcilably higher than the established chronology: P-898. Megaron 3. Charred seeds [apparently flax] found in a pot. 839 +/- 54 BC P-899. Megaron 3. Charred textile fragments. 749 +/- 52 BC P-901. TB-4A (anteroom of Terrace Building 4). Charred reeds from roof. 824 +/- 56 BC The report also cited the dates calculated with the obsolescent Libby half-life, which were compatible with the standard chronology in at least the lowest end of their ranges. P-898. 757 +/- 52 BC P-899. 670 +/- 50 BC P-901. 743 +/- 54 BC The determinations were published in Radiocarbon, and in accordance with the journal’s policy at that time, only the dates calculated from the Libby value were printed (Stuckenrath et al. 1966:352). The higher dates preferred by the Penn lab remained not easily accessible. In 1973 MASCA scientists published a corrective calibration curve for radiocarbon dates, to adjust for temporal variations of 14CO2 in the atmosphere (Ralph et al. 1973). Ralph furnished the Gordion Archives with the revised midpoint dates for the short-lived samples from the Destruction Level. They had risen even higher than those obtained through the 5730 half-life:2.4 P-898. 910 BC P-899. 820–840 BC P-901. 900 BC In his 1977 dissertation, Peter Kuniholm touched briefly upon these samples and the MASCA date for them (1977:19, 21, pl. 150). In one passage, he remarked, “Since the traditional date for the destruction is 696 B.C, the calibrated radiocarbon dates for the short-lived samples, charred reed, seed, and textile samples appear to be too high. This is a

problem for future resolution.” Otherwise the samples and the three different sets of dates for them—two of them high—remained unnoticed or were forgotten. Dendrochronological dates provided by Kuniholm (1977; and Chapter 5, this volume) were similarly ignored (Muhly 2009).

Tumulus MM and New Warning Signals Shortly after Rodney Young’s death in 1974, another major problem concerning Gordion’s chronology arose: the date of Tumulus MM. Young, as discussed above (Chapter 1, this volume), thought that the tumulus predated the fire that destroyed the Citadel, a catastrophe he associated with the Kimmerians and dated to the first years of the 7th century. As a consequence, he decided that MM must be the burial place of an immediate predecessor to Midas, and suggested a date of ca. 725–718 BC for the interment.2.5 Young also placed MM early in his proposed sequence of burial and habitation deposits at Gordion (Young 1981:241–42, 269): Tumulus W (earliest) Tumulus MM Tumulus K-III (Tumulus III of the Körte excavations) Tumulus P Tumulus K-IV (Tumulus IV of the Körte excavations) Destruction Level A Gordion publications committee consisting of Machteld Mellink, Ellen Kohler, G. Roger Edwards, and Keith DeVries was formed in 1975, and they took as their first priority the completion and publication of the manuscript on Tumuli W, MM, and P, large portions of which had been finished by Young. Joining in that work were several other contributors, with G. Kenneth Sams taking on the critically important job of writing the sections on pottery. In the course of their work, it soon became apparent that the place of MM within Young’s tumulus sequence would have to be shifted. On the basis of the morphological changes in the bronze fibulae and omphalos bowls discovered in these burial mounds,



Emerging Problems and Doubts 25

DeVries suggested that most of Young’s sequence was correct, but that MM was the very latest of the tumuli Young had listed, rather than one of the earliest.2.6 The sequence of the burial mounds would therefore become: Tumulus W Tumulus K-III Tumulus P Tumulus K-IV Tumulus MM The other members of the committee agreed, as did Sams, who found supporting evidence in the development of the pottery.2.7 A more difficult matter to resolve, however, was the relation of Tumulus MM to the last element in Young’s sequence: the Destruction Level. DeVries believed that the bronzes of Tumulus MM were typologically later than those associated with the destruction, and Sams noted the same for the pottery in the two contexts.2.8 For the tumulus to be chronologically later than the destruction, however, one or more of the following long-standing assumptions had to be abandoned: (1) Young’s conclusions about the early 7th-century date of the destruction and the Kimmerian responsibility for that fire; (2) the supposition originating with the Körte brothers and reiterated by Young that a rich burial in a sizable tumulus would have to date well after the havoc of the Kimmerian invasion; and (3) the assessment that the lion-headed situla from the tumulus (Fig. 1.2), which is so similar to those on reliefs of Sargon II (reigned 721–705), must date the burial in Tumulus MM to a time close to the reign of that ruler. Sams cautiously stated that “MM is…close to the… time of the early city’s end,” that is, to the destruction (Young 1981:176). The assessment of ‘close to destruction’ was accepted by the other members of the publications team, and it naturally followed that they and Sams revived the old identification of this gigantic tumulus with Midas, since the chronology now fit so well with the dates for that ruler in the Assyrian texts and in Eusebius. This identification was also in accord with Strabo’s temporal linkage of the Kimmerian invasion with Midas’ death.

Opinions differed as to whether ‘close to destruction’ meant closely before or closely after. DeVries, preserving the three assumptions listed above, hypothesized that the death and burial might have come a little before the burning of Gordion, while the Kimmerians were still in the outer parts of the kingdom. In this scenario, the burial in Tumulus MM would have included only the most up-to-date and fashionable artifacts, thereby explaining the typological lateness of the bronzes, while older ones would have remained in use in the buildings of the Citadel. Mellink, more radically, argued that the tomb was later than the destruction (a position that fit more easily with the probable speed of a Kimmerian advance), and thus broke with the old view that such a burial in such a tumulus was impossible in the wake of the Kimmerians: “The effect of the Kimmerian raids was not such as to [irreparably] destroy the city of Gordion or its dynasty…Midas had a vast realm and his citadels were not all looted at the time when Gordion suffered destruction. The objects put in his tomb could have been assembled from his other strongholds” (Young 1981:272). The authors’ preoccupation with the relationship of Tumulus MM to the Destruction Level, along with their belief that Young’s date for the destruction was unshakable, masked a potentially deeper problem: the relationship of the Destruction Level to tumuli that they agreed were earlier than Tumulus MM. In his study of the pottery for the volume, Sams found several cross-links between vessels found in the Citadel’s burned buildings and those of Tumulus K-III and Tumulus P; he considered K-III and P relatively close in date, with Tumulus K-III slightly earlier (Young 1981:49–51).2.9 The Destruction Level yielded a checkerboard-patterned vessel that had two extremely close counterparts in Tumulus P, as well as a few vessels painted in the Chevron-Triangle style that also appeared on one vessel in Tumulus P and two in Tumulus K-III. Also found in the Destruction Level was a jug with animal panels that Sams declared to be “allied most closely with the vessels of K-III” (Young 1981:49).2.10 Sams also acknowledged the plausibility of Young’s idea that Tumulus K-III’s painted vessels with animals in small panels preceded the vessels with animals in larger panels that had been found on jugs from Tumulus P (Young 1981:49–51). All

26 the new chronology of iron age gordion Figure 2.1. Plan showing late YHSS 6B architecture in the southeastern quarter of the Early Phrygian Citadel. The earliest known gate in the Citadel’s fortification wall was the Early Phrygian Building, which was modified when it was succeeded by the Polychrome Gate House. Excavated buildings inside the fortifications include the PAP structure, Megaron 10, and the Northwest Enclosure building. (Gordion Archive)

Northwest Enclosure Early Phrygian Building

Meg. 10

of these observations suggested that the Destruction Level was not just typologically earlier than Tumulus MM, but that it belonged closer to the top of Young’s list, with tumuli arranged in the following sequence: Tumulus W Tumulus K-III Destruction Level Tumulus P Tumulus K-IV Tumulus MM Despite the likelihood of such an arrangement, it was not seriously explored by the publications committee. In fact, Mellink tentatively referred to a fibula from the Destruction Level as “perhaps developed just a little beyond the specimens from MM,” an opinion which she herself further qualified by noting that it was an exceptional piece on the mound.2.11 Admittedly, the drawing on which Mellink’s judgment was based offers a reconstruction of the fibula’s decoration rather than its extant condition, since the artifact itself was not well preserved. A careful examination of this fibula, however, indicates that the reconstruction is perfectly acceptable.2.12 In the ensuing publication of the tumuli, which appeared in 1981, the authors both downdated Tumulus MM from Young’s estimate, and argued that it was the tomb of Midas himself (Young 1981:271–72). Their conclusions were widely but not universally accepted.2.13

PAP Structure

Polychrome House

YASSIHÖYÜK/ GORDION 1993 YHSS Phase 6B

20

0

40 M

K.E.Leaman, after D. Hoffman

Structures Reconstruction Pebbles Hard-Packed Surface Extent of Excavation Presumed path of wall

Greek Pottery: An Alarm Registers Young had recognized parts of two vessels at Gordion as imported Greek vases dating from the late 8th century into the very early 7th. In the years immediately after his excavations, fragments of more

early Greek vessels were found among material from the old excavations and from a cleaning-up operation on the Citadel itself. By 1978 six of these had emerged: two Corinthian Late Geometric kotylai of ca. 730–720 BC, which were the earliest; two Early

27 Emerging Problems and Doubts 27 Figure 2.2a. Fragment of a carved orthostate (Gordion inventory S-58) showing a lion. It was found in the lower part of the Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) construction fill in Trench MN2, re-deposited from an earlier context. (Gordion Archive)

Protocorinthian kotylai of ca. 720–690; a Euboean Late Geometric II vessel of ca. 725–690; and an East Greek Late Geometric jug of ca. 720–680 (see chapter 4, this volume). The dates for these imports thus came close to or preceded the accepted date for the destruction. The following year Sams called attention to the problematic nature of this pottery: “none comes from a context of the early city itself [i.e., from the Destruction Level or earlier]. Instead, the pieces have been found scattered and dislocated both within the city [in post-destruction contexts] and in an area to the northeast” (Sams 1979:47). Sams did reassert his belief in a destruction date “early in the seventh century,” but the problematic low date had been recognized for the first time in print. The unthinkable had been thought.

Figure 2.2b. Fragment of a carved orthostate (Gordion inventory S-46) from the foundations of Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) Building G (cf. Fig. 0.9), re-deposited from an earlier context. It shows a human figure wearing a kilt and shoes with upturned toes, holding a lion upside down. (Gordion Archive)

28 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Figure 2.3. First day of excavation of the YHSS 6B PAP Structure in 1993. In the foreground is the Lower Trench Sounding, excavated in 1988–89 within the Outer Court of the Early Phrygian Citadel (YHSS 6A-DL) (cf. Figs. 0.4 and 0.5). (Gordion Archive)

The Early Monumental Citadel: Sculpted Orthostates and a Chronological Gap In an attempt to understand the origins of Phrygian Gordion, Young made several soundings inside the Citadel fortifications that were standing at the time of the destruction.2.14 Beneath the Destruction Level he found a massive wall with two gates: the socalled Early Phrygian Building (EPB) and the Polychrome Gate House (in its initial phase) (Figs. 0.6, 2.1; see also Young 1964:291, fig. 32). A stratigraphic sequence for what Young called “the earlier Phrygian city” was constructed by Sams, who also studied carved orthostates (Fig. 2.2a, b) that had been found in later contexts, but that could be attributed to the “earlier Phrygian city” (now YHSS 6B period), and specifically to the early phase of the Polychrome Gate House (Sams 1994a:7–16; 1989:448, 450–53).2.15

Sams found close stylistic parallels for the Gordion orthostates in North Syria, in sculptural programs of the Suhis dynasty at Carchemish, and in the Outer Citadel Gate at Zincirli (Sam’al). As for the date of the North Syrian examples, it is widely agreed that the Suhis dynasty should be dated to the late 10th and early 9th centuries BC, and a similar date can be assigned to the Zincirli gate based on stylistic affinities with Carchemish (Hawkins 1982:383–84, 386). The dating of the orthostates presented a seemingly intractable chronological problem: stylistic parallels for sculptures associated with construction earlier than the Destruction Level suggested a date in the decades around 900 BC, but the accepted date of 700 BC for the Destruction Level militated against such an early date. As a consequence, Sams proposed a date of “no later than ca. 800 BC” (1989:452–53), although he subsequently suggested a less guarded date in the 9th century (1994b:213–14).



Emerging Problems and Doubts 29

Figure 2.4. Stratigraphic section, northwest balk of Operations 3 and 5 (Lower Trench Sounding). The sequence of deposits shown here extends from the Late Bronze Age (YHSS 8) to the Early Phrygian Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL). The predestruction YHSS 6A deposit represents fill around a drain that was set beneath the Outer Court surface. Earlier, during YHSS 6B, the area had also served as a court (Fig. 2.1), with deposits of construction fill separated by hard surfaces and/or layers of white chips from stone working. Before the Early Phrygian period the area was filled with houses (Fig. 2.8a). (Gordion Archive)

In 1988 excavation resumed on the Citadel Mound after a hiatus of 15 years. Two of the primary goals set for this research were: (1) to construct a stratigraphic sequence that would provide a tighter chronological framework for materials excavated by Young on the Citadel Mound (Voigt 2005:22–28; 1994); and (2) to investigate historical problems posed by the Young data. The 1988–89 Lower Trench Sounding was placed within the Outer Court of the Early Phrygian Citadel (YHSS 6A period) in an area where the YHSS 6A paving had been removed (Fig. 2.3). Beneath the earth surface of the Destruction Level were a series of construction fills composed of clean clay that rested above Early Iron Age (YHSS 7 period) houses (Fig. 2.4). The fills, designated as period YHSS 6B, were separated by hard surfaces and/or layers of white stone chips from stone

working.2.16 These strata, some of which are almost certainly related to the EPB Building excavated by Young, represent a change in the use of space within the settlement, and provide the earliest evidence for non-domestic “monumental” construction at Gordion (Voigt and Henrickson 2000:46–51). The Lower Trench Sounding produced evidence that resolved one of the chronological problems posed by the orthostates: from the uppermost layer of white stone trimming-debris came a fragment incised with part of a wing identical in style to one of the better preserved painted panels on pottery described by Sams (Figs. 2.5a, b; 2.6). Further exploration of this late YHSS 6B context in 1993 revealed that the wing fragment was associated with a megaron built of the same soft white stone (the PAP Structure, for “Post and Poros”), which in turn

30 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Figure 2.5a. Stone fragment carved in the form of a creature’s wing (YHSF 89-296); from the highest layer of stonetrimming debris (YHSS 6B) excavated in the Lower Trench Sounding. This debris is associated with the construction of the PAP Structure. (Gordion Archive) Figure 2.5b (right). Line drawing by Denise Hoffman of stone fragment YHSF 89-296. (Gordion Archive)

was built at the same time as the Polychrome Gate House (Fig. 2.7a, b). The PAP Structure seems to have been in use for a very short time based on the degree of wear seen on its floor blocks: chisel marks remain visible on the soft stone surface in some areas. With the stratigraphic context of the orthostates secured, the one or two century gap between late YHSS 6B and a YHSS 6A Destruction Level dated ca. 700 BC became even less plausible. A related puzzle was posed by pottery recovered from the Early Iron Age/YHSS 7 contexts lying beneath the Early Phrygian/YHSS 6B construction fills (Fig. 2.8a). A burned building (Burnt Reed House, or BRH Structure) from the latter part of YHSS 7 produced wheel-made pottery that contrasted with the bulk of the YHSS 7 ceramics that are handmade (Fig. 2.8b). Included in the assemblage from the Burnt Reed House were a ledge-rim jar and a cup with a pedestal base (Fig. 2.9a, b), both of which were closely paralleled in the Destruction Level. The date for the Burnt Reed House was estimated as ca. 950 BC, thereby creating a gap of 250 years between this pottery and the Destruction Level vessels, which again seemed far too long. But while new architectural and ceramic evidence challenged the 700 BC date for the destruction, it still did not prompt a rejection of Young’s date.2.17

5cm Stratigraphic Observations: The Relationship of the Destruction Level to the Rebuilt Citadel As part of the 1988–89 stratigraphic investigation, a series of trenches (the Upper Trench Sounding) were placed along the western edge of Rodney Young’s Main Excavation Area, one of which reached the Early Phrygian/YHSS 6A Destruction Level. Excavation in Terrace Building 2A (TB-2A, the anteroom of Terrace Building 2) provided information on both the fire and the events that followed it (Fig. 2.10). Resting on the floor were the remains of ceramic vessels, some of which contained seeds, as well as loom-weights, whorls, and other items that can be linked to textile production (see Burke 2005; 2010). Above this floor deposit was another layer that was heavily burned, debris that represents the collapse of wall elements and roof. This primary collapse layer, which included bricks and a few flat wall stones capped by a layer of reeds, was thick against the eastern and western walls of the room, but very



Emerging Problems and Doubts 31

Figure 2.6. Fragment of a carved orthostate showing a creature’s wing (Gordion inventory S-67), found in 1961 in trench NCT-W 1/3 H.H.B. on the Citadel Mound. Although it was found in Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) clay construction fill, it had clearly been re-deposited from an earlier context. (Gordion Archive)

thin near the room’s center, where charred beams rested above sherds and reeds, or sometimes lay directly on the floor. Above the reed layer was a stratum of clay, the two components used in roof construction throughout the Middle East from Neolithic into modern times. The reeds were best preserved to the west where the fire seems to have been less intense; to the east the reeds were reduced to ash.2.18 Stratified above the reed and clay roofing were deposits that seemed to represent a period of cleanup after the fire (Fig. 2.11).2.19 At the top of the Terrace Building 2A deposits was another layer of burned brick and large stones, the latter usually lying flat and relatively evenly distributed over the destruction debris. This stratum clearly represented a cleaning up after the fire, in which the stone walls were demolished down to a uniform height. Once the remnants

of Terrace Building 2A had been reduced to a level platform, the area was abandoned for some time as indicated by a hard erosion surface that capped both walls and the room itself (see Chapter 7, this volume). Eventually construction began and a deep layer of fill (both clean clay and deposits derived from a Bronze Age occupation level) was deposited above the erosion surface as part of the Middle Phrygian/ YHSS 5 rebuilding of the Citadel (Fig. 2.12). The stratigraphic sequence indicated that there was no chronological gap between the fire and an initial clearing and cleaning in preparation for reconstruction. Yet the established chronology for Gordion made the relatively rapid rebuilding inexplicable, coming at a time when the Phrygian kingdom was supposed to have been destroyed and Anatolia was thought to be in turmoil as a result of Kimmerian

32 the new chronology of iron age gordion

OP 11

Orthostats

OP 10

OP 19

OP 15

OP 18

YASSIHÖYÜK/GORDION 1993 YHSS Phase 6B PAP Structure 0

10 M

5

K.E.Leaman, after D.Hoffman and S. Jarvis

Wall

Cobble Paving

Block Shadows

Recontructed Cobble Paving

Paving Stones

Hard- Packed Surface

Postholes

Contemporary Pit

Beam Bed

Intrusive Pit RSY Limits of Excavation MMV Limits of Excavation

Figure 2.7a. Plan of the PAP Structure, the best-preserved of a series of YHSS 6B buildings arranged around a small court (Fig. 2.1). (Gordion Archive)

aggression. On the contrary, a rapid rebuilding of Gordion suggested strong continuity in its population—an idea already suggested by Mellink and Edwards—and the sequence in Terrace Building 2A indicated that this population was actively working on the Citadel, and perhaps in the Lower Town as well.

In her attempts to work through this problem, Voigt reconsidered another type of evidence for Early to Middle Phrygian continuity: the architectural complex that DeVries had called the “Unfinished Project.” After studying the field notebooks from Young’s excavation, DeVries had realized



Emerging Problems and Doubts 33

Figure 2.7b. View of the PAP Structure, looking northwest. The building had been dismantled at the end of YHSS 6B. On the left, a single block of the southwest wall is still in situ on the stone foundation/floor of the building. Slots cut into the floor slabs are presumably for timber wall-supports. Drip-lines and setting lines found on the floor’s surface mark the location of missing wall blocks, including those of an interior cross-wall (Fig. 2.7a). To the right are the outlines of robbed floor slabs, delineated by powdered stone and small trimming flakes. (Gordion Archive)

that a drainage system that Young had assigned to an “interim period”—after the destruction but before the rebuilding—was in fact in place at the time of the fire (DeVries 1990:387–88). Moreover, the drainage system was part of a larger rebuilding project that included high terraces to either side of the gateway, one of which had burned debris on its surface (“the Burned Terrace”). Voigt was intrigued by the “Unfinished Project” but never really articulated its relationship to the Middle Phrygian/ YHSS 5 rebuilding until the mid-1990s, when she was giving a site tour to new Gordion staff members. Standing on the Burned Terrace, and looking at its relationship to remnants of the Middle Phrygian Gate, Matthew Glendinning remarked that the reconstruction with buildings set on top of a thick layer of fill could be seen as simply a resumption or

continuation of the terracing that was part of the “Unfinished Project.”

Greater Gordion and the Regional Survey: An Unexpected Middle Phrygian Florescence The old model of a broken Phrygian kingdom after the fire was further challenged during the 1990s by data collected through an intensive surface survey of the area surrounding the Citadel Mound, and by limited excavation in areas poorly known (the western half of the Citadel Mound, the Lower Town) and in the newly discovered Outer Town (Fig. 2.13) (Voigt et al. 1997:2–8). The first surprise was the scale of the Middle Phry-

34

OP 4

OP 8

OP 9

OP 3

Burnt Reed House

OP 10

Figure 2.8a. Plan of the Early Iron Age (YHSS 7B and 7A) buildings in the Lower Trench Sounding. The three rooms at the northeast of the excavated area date to YHSS 7B, while the BRH Structure (Burnt Reed House) to the west and the buildings to the southeast date to YHSS 7A. (Gordion Archive)

OP 11

YASSIHÖYÜK/ GORDION 1997 YHSS Phase 7 Early Iron Age

0

5

10 M

K.E.Leaman, after S.A.Jarvis

Figure 2.8b. Wheel-made pottery in situ on the floor of the Early Iron Age Burnt Reed House (YHSS 7A). A typical Early Phrygian (YHSS 6) form—a ledged-rim jar—is visible in the balk to the left. (Gordion Archive)

35

Figure 2.9a. Early Iron Age buff pottery from the Burnt Reed House, YHSS 7A. From left to right, a cup (YHSF 89-474), bowl (YHSF 89-301), cup (YHSF 89-303), and round-mouth jug (YHSF 89-554). (Gordion Archive) Figure 2.9b (below). Comparison of the round-mouth jug from Early Iron Age YHSS 7A (YHSF 89-554, left) with one from the Early Phrygian Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL) (P-4614, right). (Gordion Archive)

36 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Figure 2.10. View southwest across the Main Excavation Area, showing the 1988–89 stratigraphic soundings in progress. In the foreground, the Lower Trench Sounding, and in the distance, the Upper Trench Sounding (cf. Fig. 0.5). (Gordion Archive)

gian (YHSS 5) rebuilding. Young had found that the western edge of the Palace Quarter was bounded by a heavy stone wall in both the Early and Middle Phrygian periods (DeVries 1990:379; Sams 2005b:18, figs. 0.7, 0.9, 2.14). At the base of the Middle Phrygian wall was a paved street used in both periods, and Young assumed that the city (Citadel) continued on the other side of the street, although his trenches there were never sufficiently deep to prove it. A deep sounding by Voigt within one of Young’s 1950 “test trenches,” however, provided the missing evidence. First, there was indeed an Early Phrygian/YHSS 6A occupation at the bottom of the new trench, but its absolute level was well below that of the eastern Citadel.2.20 Above this surface, 5 m. of very clean clay fill had been laid as a foundation for Middle Phrygian buildings that would have stood at approximately the same level as those of the new Citadel. Another deep sounding along the present northern (riverside)

edge of the western part of the Citadel Mound documented an even deeper clay and rubble fill (Voigt 2007:325–27, figs. 2 and 12–14).2.21 Excavation in the Lower Town from 1993 to 1995 exposed two types of Middle Phrygian/YHSS 5 architecture: large structures built of ashlar blocks set on rubble foundations to the east, and domestic structures with mud brick walls to the west (Figs. 2.15a, b; 2.16a, b). Deep soundings in both areas showed that these buildings too stood on deep fills (Voigt and Young 1999:211–15). As for the Outer Town, a brick building and a “cellar” were found near its western edge, the latter filled with pottery that Sams dated to very early in the Middle Phrygian period (Voigt and Young 1999:216–20). Rodney Young had never considered the area around Gordion to be a devastated landscape after the Early Phrygian destruction, mostly because of the existence of 7th century Middle Phrygian tumuli

37

Figure 2.11. Upper Trench Sounding, 1989, showing deposits above the floor of the anteroom of Terrace Building 2 (TB-2A). At the top of the Early Phrygian Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL) stratum is a deposit of brick and stone collected from the ruined walls and thrown into the room over its burned contents. This clean-up layer is visible in the foreground, but has been removed in the area at the top of the photo. (Gordion Archive)

38 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Figure 2.12. Upper Trench Sounding: view northwest across the anteroom of Terrace Building 2 (TB-2A; Fig. 0.7). The section presented by the northwest balk shows the hard erosion surface that caps Terrace Building 2’s demolition debris, overlaid by the thick fill and rubble foundations of the YHSS 5 (Middle Phrygian) period (Fig. 0.9). In the foreground is the wall between Terrace Buildings 1 and 2. (Gordion Archive)

that could be dated by fibulae and occasional Greek imports (Young 1955:16). By the 1990s, both survey and excavation had shown that Gordion actually reached its maximum size during Middle Phrygian rather than Early Phrygian times, and that the amount of labor required for the new Middle Phrygian construction on the Western Citadel and in the Lower Town was as least as great as that required to rebuild the Eastern Palace Quarter. If viewed within the context of Young’s chronological framework, then, the conquered Phrygian capital would have had a far larger population after the destruction than it had had during the time of Midas. Moreover, it was not just the population of the capital that expanded during the Middle Phrygian period: regional surface survey, begun in 1987 and significantly extended during the 1990s, suggested that rural populations also reached

their maximum size in Middle Phrygian times (Kealhofer 2005). By the late 1990s it was clear that there was something fundamentally wrong with either the conventional chronology for Gordion, or the conventional historical reconstruction, or perhaps both.

Greek Pottery Again: A Look at the Textual Evidence and a Briefly Held Theory Although the 1988–89 sounding exposed a relatively small area of post-destruction Gordion, it did reveal one well-preserved context from the Middle Phrygian/YHSS 5 settlement. During the initial phase of Middle Phrygian construction (i.e., when clay and rubble foundations were laid above

39

Figure 2.13. Map showing where settlement evidence has been recovered at Gordion since 1993. (Gordion Archive)

40

Figure 2.14. During Early and Middle Phrygian times (YHSS 6A-5) a street ran between the Eastern Citadel Mound with monumental architecture and the Western Mound with domestic structures. The western side of the Eastern Citadel Mound was bordered by a heavy wall in both periods (cf. Figs. 0.7 and 0.9). In this photo, taken in 1969, the workers are clearing to the street in front of the Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) wall. (Mary M. Voigt, Courtesy of the Gordion Archive)

Figure 2.15a. Plan of massive Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) architectural remains in Lower Town Area A (Fig. 2.13). Early in the Middle Phrygian period, a terrace wall with a masonry face (left) and earth/rubble fill was built on rubble foundations set in construction fill (visible in the lower right corner of the plan and in Fig. 2.15b). The outer edge of the terrace (to the southwest) was bordered by an open area. The top of the terrace (to the northeast) has been disturbed by later pitting, but a small better-preserved area in the northwest corner of Operation 27 shows its height to have been at least a meter. Later in Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) times a building with ashlar walls was constructed on rubble foundations cut into the terrace fill (right). (Gordion Archive)

Ashlar Building

Terrace

Open Area OP 27

OP 21

YASSIHÖYÜK/ GORDION 1995 Lower Town Area A YHSS Phase 5 Middle Phrygian 0

5

K.E.Leaman, after S.A.Jarvis

10 M



Emerging Problems and Doubts 41

the ruins of the Early Phrygian Destruction Level) a semi-subterranean room or “cellar” was constructed, attached to the western corner of Building I:2 (Figs. 0.9; 2.17a, b; Voigt 1994:273–75, figs. 25.3.2–3). The cellar included a cooking area, with an oven set in a niche next to a stone staircase leading up to Building I:2. This staircase was eventually blocked, and the room was filled with artifact-rich trash deposits that appeared to span much of the Middle Phrygian period. Surprisingly, given the supposed Lydian dominance at Gordion during Middle Phrygian times, not one sherd of Lydian or “Lydianizing” pottery was found in the Building I:2 cellar, nor were there any roof tile fragments—another artifact type common in early 6th century deposits

elsewhere on the site, and therefore associated with the Lydian occupation at that time as suggested by documentary sources.2.22 The total absence of Lydian material culture suggested that the deposit dated prior to the Lydians’ arrival at the site. One small sherd from a Greek pot (artifact YH32339.1) was recovered, which we hoped would provide a more secure date. In 1996 DeVries identified this sherd as Corinthian, dating to the late 8th or early 7th century2.23; he was later more precise, stating that it was an early Proto-Corinthian kotyle, “datable to ca. 720–715” (see Chapter 4, this volume).2.24 The context of the newly excavated sherd was secure, and like the other 8th century imported pottery from Young’s excavations, it came not from the

Figure 2.15b. View, looking northwest, of the area shown in Fig. 2.15a. On the right is the corner of the later ashlar building; in the middle of the photo is the terrace wall and fill; and on the far left, the open area. (Gordion Archive)

42 the new chronology of iron age gordion Figure 2.16a. Plan of Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) architectural remains in Lower Town Area B (Fig. 2.13). These domestic structures had mud brick or packed-mud walls that rested on low cobble foundations; the floors were of clay. The buildings were cut by Late Phrygian or Achaemenid (YHSS 4) pit-houses and pits, which are indicated here by dotted lines. (Gordion Archive)

OP 31

?

OP 26 OP 25

?

Destruction Level but from the rebuilt or Middle Phrygian Citadel (YHSS 5). DeVries then decided to re-examine a context excavated by Young that had also produced late 8th to early 7th century pottery: the South Cellar (Fig. 0.9).2.25 This structure had always posed a chronological problem. Set (i.e., cut) into the Middle Phrygian fill and thus contemporary with or later than the rebuilding, the stonewalled South Cellar had several construction phases and was filled with trash upon abandonment (Young 1966:268–69, fig. 2).2.26 Along with fibulae, two ivory figurines, and an ivory seal, the trash contained a large sample of polished black pottery and some Attic imports. Young noted that the earliest artifacts dated to the late 7th or early 6th century, but a single Attic sherd of the mid-5th century was used to date the entire context.2.27 Given the wide range of dates that he assigned to artifacts from the South Cellar (7th to mid-5th centuries), Young suggested that the objects had accumulated over a long period of time, and perhaps represented “votives from some nearby temple or shrine cleaned out perhaps at one time and used to fill the abandoned cellar” (Young 1966:269). On re-reading the excavation notebooks, DeVries found that the 5th century Attic sherd came from the first of two trenches that cut through the South Cellar. In the initial trench the excavator removed everything as a single excavation unit. A second excavator, who dug the remainder of the cellar, saw changes in the deposits and established a stratigraphic sequence for the building. This sequence allowed DeVries to place the Attic sherd in late, disturbed and poorly excavated deposits within the South Cellar, and to place the late 8th–early 7th century Corinthian vessels (represented by several sherds) in the early, undisturbed part of the deposit

OP 24

YASSIHÖYÜK/ GORDION 1997 Lower Town Area B YHSS Phase 5 Middle Phrygian Latest Building Level 0

5

10 M

K.E.Leaman, after S.A.Jarvis

(DeVries 1998a:3–4; see also 2005). In an unpublished paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America in 1998, DeVries described the ceramic evidence and other material from the two cellars and concluded that: “The evidence now available makes it clear that the [Middle Phrygian] rebuilding comes, at the latest, well before the end of the seventh century” (DeVries 1998a:2). He then turned to a brief consideration of written sources concerning the Kimmerian invasion and found them flimsy (see Chapter 3, this volume). Searching for an historical event that might account for the Early Phrygian destruction, DeVries examined Assyrian sources for the late 8th– early 7th centuries BC. These texts served as the basis for his rejection of Kimmerian hordes as the agents of Gordion’s destruction, and led him to suggest that the fire could be associated with an Assyrian incursion into Anatolia ca. 710 BC, during which they sacked and burned Mushkian (i.e., Phrygian) citadels (DeVries 1998a:8; 1998b). This theory, however, was soon abandoned for two reasons: first because Assyriologists doubted that the Assyrians ever pen-



Emerging Problems and Doubts 43

Figure 2.16b. View looking northwest across Lower Town Area B (Fig. 2.16a). Two Late Phrygian (YHSS 4) pit-houses, visible at lower right and upper left, were cut down through the Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) houses that preceded them. Near the center of the photo is a hearth backed with Middle Phrygian tile fragments. The thickened area of the long wall in the leftcenter of the photo marks the remains of a buttress that supported the roof. (Gordion Archive)

etrated into Central Anatolia; and second, because Sams indicated that such a small updating (700 to 710 BC) was not sufficient to account for the total absence of Greek pottery in the Destruction Level.

The Decision To Run Additional Radiocarbon Samples By the late 1990s it was clear that the 700 BC date for the Early Phrygian destruction and a late 7th–early 6th century date for the Middle Phrygian rebuilding were no longer tenable. In addition to the re-examinations of Gordion’s history, stratigraphy, architecture, imported ceramics, and sculptural parallels, there were two other bodies of evidence that were incompatible with the “old” chronology.

First, dendrochronology (which now produced absolute dates as a result of “wiggle-matching” with the radiocarbon calibration curve) yielded dates for Terrace Building 2A that seemed far too early: at the Malcolm and Carolyn Wiener Laboratory, Cornell University, Kuniholm processed 256 samples from the building’s large, presumably structural beams, obtaining a date of 850 BC for the latest preserved ring (see Chapter 5, this volume). These Terrace Building 2A timbers were not the first dendrochronological samples collected from the Destruction Level—Young had collected wood from several of the megarons and the service buildings to the west— but the Terrace Building 2A samples were the first very large group from a single room. Although no samples with bark were recovered, and some of the outermost rings were certainly lost from the beams,

44 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Figure 2.17a. Operation 2 of the Upper Trench Sounding, looking northeast. At the top of the photo are rubble foundations for the western corner of Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) Building I:2 (Fig. 0.9). To the left, stone stairs (partially blocked) set into I:2’s foundations lead down into a Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) “cellar” attached to Building I:2. The cellar has four shallow bays. The bar-scale is positioned in the mouth of a bay containing an oven. On the left (northwest) side of the room is a bay containing a clay bench edged with stone blocks. (Gordion Archive)

a 9th century date for the construction of Terrace Building 2A could be reconciled with a 700 BC Kimmerian destruction only by hypothesizing the reuse of large and valuable timbers. Second, the local painted ceramics studied by Sams yielded a systematic pattern in which some of the Early Phrygian pottery (Brown-on-Buff Ware) had its best parallels in North Syrian sculpture dated long before 700 BC (Sams 1974; 1978; 1994a:165– 73). As with the orthostates from the early monumental buildings of period YHSS 6B, the painted figures from the YHSS 6A Destruction Level and Early Phrygian tumuli show the influence of NeoHittite reliefs, but in a wider spectrum that includes features both of the Suhis period at Carchemish and from later times; the pottery also has parallels with features found in North Syrian minor arts (Sams

1974:181–93). In the fall of 1998, Voigt gave a lecture at Cornell University and discussed Gordion chronological problems with Kuniholm, summarizing the arguments for a Destruction Level dated earlier than 700 BC. Although seeds from the Destruction Level had been carefully collected from Terrace Building 2A in 1989, it seemed pointless to spend money on carbon-14 dating if they indeed dated around 700 BC, because of the “Hallstatt Plateau”—a flat place on the radiocarbon calibration curve extending over some four centuries (see Chapter 6, this volume). Put simply, samples from plant tissue that died in a period from roughly 750–350 BC would all produce the same range of calibrated dates. But now, with a strong suspicion that the Destruction Level might be significantly earlier than 700 BC, radiocarbon dating seemed more likely



Emerging Problems and Doubts 45

Figure 2.17b. View of the Building I:2 cellar shown in Fig. 2.17a, looking south. The excavators are cleaning the oven. Slots in the walls and postholes in the floor once housed timbers that supported the walls and roof of this subterranean chamber. (Gordion Archive)

to be productive. Samples of seeds from Terrace Building 2A that had been identified to the species level by Naomi Miller were sent to Kuniholm. In January 2000, DeVries, Sams, and Voigt met in Philadelphia to discuss ways of resolving the chronological problem based on artifact comparisons. DeVries asked Sams for an estimated date for the destruction based solely on his meticulous study of the Early Phrygian Painted Ware. Sams replied that a date of around 750 BC for the Destruction Level was compatible with the available comparanda for pottery from the deposit. With this new provisional date, Kuniholm offered to obtain funding for radiocarbon dating of charred seeds collected from Terrace Building 2A, and asked Bernd Kromer if he would be willing to run them in his radiocarbondating laboratory at Heidelberg University, the lab that ran the wiggle-matching dates for the Aegean

Dendrochronology Lab. In late 2000 the samples were sent to Kromer, and within a few weeks Kuniholm received an email from him asking why he had been concerned about a possible date within the Hallstatt Plateau—for the samples had produced significantly earlier readings. When the results were calibrated, the dates were consistent, placing the Early Phrygian Destruction Level around 800 BC. To answer questions raised by a statistical analysis of the first results (Keenan 2004), additional seed samples from Terrace Building 2A were run, as was a sample of reeds collected from the excavation-trench baulk by Voigt and Kuniholm in 1999. The seeds confirmed an earlier date for the fire, ca. 800 BC, and the reeds yielded a date of ca. 845–800 BC, thereby supporting the construction date provided by dendrochronology. In order to disseminate this new information on

46 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Gordion’s chronology as quickly as possible to colleagues working in Anatolia, a paragraph was prepared by DeVries, Sams, and Voigt, and read by Lynn Roller at the Anatolian Iron Ages symposium held at Van in August 2001. In the fall of that year, a brief note outlining the radiocarbon and dendrochronological results for the Destruction Level was prepared and sent to the journal Antiquity, which published it in 2003 (DeVries et al. 2003). From this point on, members of the Gordion team focused on more detailed studies of the key classes of historical and artifactual evidence that had also suggested an early date for the Destruction Level (Chapters 3 and 4, this volume). Notes 2.1. Some of the earliest Gordion determinations were made from samples thought to be from contexts that were quite precisely dated, with the intention of lending greater accuracy to carbon-14 dating. The samples included material from Tumulus MM (Ralph and Stuckenrath 1960:186–87). 2.2. Kohler and Ralph 1961:361. Calculated using the Libby half-life, they were P-135: 665 +/- 119 BC; P-136: 732 +/- 120 BC; P-137: 713 +/- 114 BC. For the dates calculated with the current standard calibration see Chapter 6, this volume. 2.3. Letter from R. Stuckenrath, Jr., to E.L. Kohler, February 9, 1965. 2.4. For the dates for these samples arrived at through the current standard calibration (yielding lower overall results), see Chapter 6, this volume. 2.5. Note that this change in Young’s thinking came before the dendrochronological sequence from Tumulus MM had been given an absolute date. See Chapter 5, this volume. 2.6. Young 1981:198–99. For the sequence of these artifacts, extending over a larger group of tumuli than those in Young’s list, see Chapter 4, this volume. 2.7. Young 1981:176 (Sams), 233–36 (Mellink), 269–70 (Mellink). For the sequence of pottery, see Chapter 4, this volume. 2.8. Young 1981:176, 254–55, 257 (Sams). DeVries’s position that the bronze artifacts of Tumulus MM are typologically later than those of the Destruction Level is not directly presented in Young 1981, but is subsumed in the discussion of fibula B-1764 on p. 269 of that volume. 2.9. Sams’ assessment that Tumulus K-III is earlier was partly based on DeVries’s (and Young’s) seriation of the bronzes, and partly on Young’s ideas about the evolution of the Gordion pottery with animal panels, as noted in Chapter 1. 2.10. Upon the jug’s excavation in 1955, it played a key part

in establishing the old date for the Destruction Level. For the Chevron-Triangle style, see Sams 1994a:157–58, and Chapter 4, this volume. 2.11. Young 1981:269, fibula B-1764. In another observation that might have played a part in such a consideration, Mellink noted (op cit. p. 270) “Bichrome pottery of white-ground kind, which begins to appear on the Citadel before the destruction, is absent from Tumuli K-III and P.” 2.12. See Young 1981:269, fig. 132. For a discussion of the fibula, see Chapter 4, this volume. A photo and the original drawing appear in Fig. 4.10. 2.13. Oscar White Muscarella vigorously dissented (Muscarella 1982). Caner (1983:9) agreed with the position of Young and Muscarella that the tumulus would have to predate the Kimmerian invasion, but withheld judgment as to whether it was that of Midas or a predecessor. 2.14. The standing fortification system, constructed and used during the Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A) period, had been partially dismantled at the time of the fire. See Voigt, forthcoming. 2.15. Most of the sculpted slabs, along with other shaped blocks of the distinctive soft “poros” stone, came from the rubble foundations and “clay” layer of the Middle Phrygian/YHSS 5 period (Sams 1989:447). 2.16. For a description of the fills and a correlation of the 1988– 93 YHSS 6B sequence with the pre-destruction phases defined by Sams (1994a), see Voigt 1994:270–72. Note that in Voigt’s initial definition of her sequence, “Phase 6A” was reserved for the Destruction Level, a usage that has since changed. What is referred to as YHSS 6B: Construction Phase 5 in that preliminary report is now YHSS 6A; the Destruction Level is designated as YHSS 6A-DL. 2.17. The implausibility of supposing that ceramic shapes would remain unchanged for 200 or more years was pointed out by Oscar White Muscarella when he first saw the pottery from the Burnt Reed House. For the radiocarbon dates of material excavated in the Burnt Reed House, see Chapter 6, this volume. 2.18. In one area lying above the roof-fall we found a thick layer of burned organic matter that was fibrous and may have been wool. The nature of the roof(s) on the Terrace Buildings has been a subject of discussion for some years. While some have argued for a series of parallel gabled roofs, others have favored a flat or shed roof. If there was indeed material stored on the roof, Terrace Building 2 must have had either a flat roof, or a shed roof with a relatively slight slope. 2.19. Of some interest is a shallow pit that was cut into the roof-fall and initial collapse, perhaps an attempt to determine whether anything of value remained in this room after the fire. 2.20. Changes in the form of the mound and the absolute levels



Emerging Problems and Doubts 47

of key Bronze and Iron Age deposits are under study by Voigt. 2.21. Excavation in 2002 showed that formal buildings with deep rubble foundations were constructed in at least some areas of the western part of the Citadel Mound (Voigt 2007:327, fig. 15). 2.22. We can now see that the fill in the Building I:2 cellar falls relatively early within the YHSS 5 period. Lydian pottery and roof tiles do not appear until late in this phase, as established by longer sequences in the Lower Town and on the Western Citadel Mound (Voigt and Young 1999:223–33). 2.23. The history of this sherd illustrates the way in which one sometimes finds what one expects. The sherd was initially identified as Laconian, and in his first survey of the 1988–89 ceramic imports, DeVries provided a provisional date in the 6th century BC. This information was retrieved from a database containing all of the late Keith DeVries’ handwritten assessments, typed by Voigt with annotations made if there were changes in description or date. The database is currently housed at the College of William and Mary, with a copy deposited in the Gordion Archive at the Penn Museum. 2.24. In his initial publication, DeVries states that the sherd came from a pit cut into the cellar trash (2005:43). This information came from Voigt, who later rechecked the field records and found no evidence of pit-cutting in the area of the cellar where the sherd was recovered. 2.25. DeVries’ progression from the early sherd in Building I:2’s cellar to a restudy of the South Cellar is documented in an unpublished paper (DeVries 1998a; cf. DeVries 1998b). 2.26. DeVries concluded that the South Cellar was cut into clay and was therefore later than the Building I:2 cellar which was part of the original Middle Phrygian construction (2005:37, fig. 4-2). 2.27. Given the large amount of pottery and other artifacts from the South Cellar that were clearly of the 7th or 6th century BC, and the high degree to which post-Destruction Level deposits at Gordion were disturbed by pit digging, the single late sherd from the South Cellar seemed suspect to Voigt the first time she examined Young’s preliminary report (Young 1966:269) in 1987. DeVries presumably had similar doubts when he returned to this context in the late 1990s.

References Burke, R.B. 2005. Textile Production at Gordion and the Phrygian Economy. In The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians: Recent Work at Gordion, ed. L. Kealhofer, pp. 69–81. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.

–— 2010. From Minos to Midas: Ancient Cloth Production in the Aegean and in Anatolia. Oxford: Oxbow. Caner, E. 1983. Fibeln in Anatolien I. Prähistorische Bronzefunde 14:8. Munich: C.H. Beck. DeVries, K. 1990. The Gordion Excavation Seasons of 1969–1973 and Subsequent Research. American Journal of Archaeology 94:371–406. –— 1998a. The Assyrian Destruction of Gordion? (Unpublished paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America in 1998.) –— 1998b. The Assyrian Destruction of Gordion? (Abstract). American Journal of Archaeology 102:397. –— 2005. Greek Pottery and Gordion Chronology. In The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians: Recent Work at Gordion, ed. L. Kealhofer, pp. 36–55. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. DeVries, K., P.I. Kuniholm, G.K. Sams, and M.M. Voigt. 2003. New Dates for Iron Age Gordion. Antiquity 77 (no. 296), Project Gallery: http:// antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/devries/devries.html Hawkins, J.D. 1982. The Neo-Hittite States in Syria and Anatolia. In The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 3, Pt. 1, The Prehistory of the Balkans; and the Middle East and the Aegean World, Tenth to Eighth Centuries BC, 2nd ed., ed. J. Boardman, I.E.S. Edwards, N.G.L. Hammond and E. Sollberger, pp. 372–441. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kealhofer, L. 2005. Settlement and Land Use: The Gordion Regional Survey. In The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians: Recent Work at Gordion, ed. L. Kealhofer, pp. 137–48. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. Keenan, D.J. 2004. Radiocarbon Dates from Gordion Are Confounded. Ancient West & East 3(1): 100–103. Kohler, E.L., and E.K. Ralph. 1961. C-14 Dates for Sites in the Mediterranean Area. American Journal of Archaeology 65:357–67. Kuniholm, P.I. 1977. Dendrochronology at Gordion and on the Anatolian Plateau. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Muhly, J.D. 2009. Perspective: Archaeology, History and Chronology from Penn to the Present

48

the new chronology of iron age gordion

and Beyond. In Tree-Rings, Kings and Old World Archaeology and Environment: Papers Presented in Honor of Peter Ian Kuniholm, ed. S.W. Manning and M.J. Bruce, pp. 3–11. Oxford: Oxbow. Muscarella, O.W. 1982. King Midas’ Tumulus at Gordion. Quarterly Review of Archaeology (December): 7–10. Ralph, E.K., and R. Stuckenrath, Jr. 1960. Carbon-14 Measurements of Known Age Samples. Nature 188:185–87. Ralph, E.K., H.N. Michael, and M.C. Han. 1973. Radiocarbon Dates and Reality. MASCA Newsletter 9(1) (August): 1–20. Sams, G.K. 1974. Phrygian Painted Animals: Anatolian Orientalizing Art. Anatolian Studies 24:169–96. –— 1978. Schools of Geometric Painting in Early Iron Age Anatolia. In The Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, ed. E. Akurgal, pp. 227–36. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. –— 1979. Patterns of Trade in First Millennium Gordion. Archaeological News 8(2/3) (Summer/ Fall): 45–53. –— 1989. Sculpted Orthostates at Gordion. In Anatolia and the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç, ed. K. Emre, B. Hrouda, M. Mellink, and N. Özgüç, pp. 447–54. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. –— 1994a. The Early Phrygian Pottery. 2 vols. The Gordion Excavations, 1950–1973: Final Reports Vol. 4. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. –— 1994b. Aspects of Early Phrygian Architecture at Gordion. In Anatolian Iron Ages 3: The Proceedings of the Third Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium, Held at Van, 6–12 August 1990, ed. A. Çilingiroğlu and D.H. French, pp. 211–20. London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. –— 2005b. Gordion: Exploration Over a Century. In The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians: Recent Work at Gordion, ed. L. Kealhofer, pp. 10–21. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. Stuckenrath, Jr., R., W.R. Coe, and E.K. Ralph. 1966. University of Pennsylvania Radiocarbon

Dates. Radiocarbon 8:348–85. Voigt, M.M. 1994. Excavations at Gordion 1988– 89: The Yassıhöyük Stratigraphic Sequence. In Anatolian Iron Ages 3: The Proceedings of the Third Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium, Held at Van, 6–12 August 1990, ed. A. Çilingiroğlu and D.H. French, pp. 265–93. London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. –— 2005. Old Problems and New Solutions: Recent Excavations at Gordion. In The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians: Recent Work at Gordion, ed. L. Kealhofer, pp. 22–35. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. –— 2007. The Middle Phrygian Occupation at Gordion. In Anatolian Iron Ages 6: The Proceedings of the Sixth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium, Held at Eskişehir, 16–20 August 2004, ed. A. Çilingiroğlu and A. Sagona, pp. 311–33. Leuven: Peeters. –— Forthcoming. The Unfinished Project of the Early Phrygian Destruction Level. In The Archaeology of Phrygian Gordion, Royal City of Midas, ed. C.B. Rose. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. Voigt, M.M., K. DeVries, R.C. Henrickson, M. Lawall, B. Marsh, A. Gürsan-Salzmann, and T.C. Young, Jr. 1997. Fieldwork at Gordion: 1993–1995. Anatolica 23:1–59. Voigt, M.M., and R.C. Henrickson. 2000. Formation of the Phrygian State: The Early Iron Age at Gordion. Anatolian Studies 50:37–54. Voigt, M.M., and T.C. Young, Jr. 1999. From Phrygian Capital to Achaemenid Entrepot: Middle and Late Phrygian Gordion. Iranica Antiqua 34:191–241. Young, R.S. 1955. Gordion: Preliminary Report, 1953. American Journal of Archaeology 59:1–18. –— 1964. The 1963 Campaign at Gordion. American Journal of Archaeology 64:279–95. –— 1966. The Gordion Campaign of 1965. American Journal of Archaeology 70:267–78. –— 1981. Three Great Early Tumuli. The Gordion Excavations Final Reports Vol. 1. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

3

Textual Evidence and the Destruction Level Keith DeVries The Date and Circumstances of the Death of Midas Consistently interwoven with the archaeological evidence from Gordion has been a large and tangled panoply of literary references to the career of Midas, specifically, his interaction with other Near Eastern kings and with the Kimmerians. Allusions to Midas in Classical, Early Christian, and Byzantine literature are much more numerous that one might initially suspect, and they were written by authors as diverse as Aristotle, Plutarch, and Gregory of Nazianzus, among others. In addition, Midas’ reign has been tied to that of kings in a wide variety of areas, including Judaea, Egypt, Lydia, and Assyria, although only the latter region has yielded documents written during the period in which Midas was actually ruling. In the sections that follow, the most important ancient citations involving Midas are analyzed and cross-referenced, with the goal of clarifying the chronology of the king’s reign, the alleged attack of the Kimmerians, and the historiography of the discussion.

The Question of Midas’ Royal Contemporaries The most problematic of the relevant sources is the Chronicle of Eusebius, the early 4th century AD bishop whose work synchronized Egyptian, Near Eastern, Biblical, Greek, and Roman historical benchmarks. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the Chronicle survives only in two translations: one in Latin, which links Midas’ death with the first year of

the twenty-first Olympiad (696 BC), and another in Armenian that places it a year later (695 BC). Eusebius also tied the date of Midas’ death with the regnal years of several monarchs: the sixteenth year of the Pharaoh Tarakos (Taharqa) of Egypt, the seventeenth year of Manasseh of Judah, and the fourth year of Gyges of Lydia. A careful autopsy of this synchronization demonstrates how unreliable the equation actually is. The first two links do not work. The sixteenth year of Taharqa’s reign is 674 BC in K. Kitchen’s chronology (2000:50–51); the seventeenth year of Manasseh of Judah is 676 in M. Cogan’s dating (1992:1010).3.1 The Gyges year is probably also in error in terms of Olympiad dating. While the initial part of his reign cannot be independently checked, the Eusebian dates for its end (664 BC, Latin version; 663 BC, Armenian [Helm 1913:94; Karst 1911:185]) are certainly incorrect, for Assyrian records show that Gyges died no earlier than the mid-650s––quite likely after 650, and perhaps in 644 (Cogan and Tadmor 1977:78–79; Spalinger 1978:405–6; Aro-Valjus 1999a:428). It should be noted that Eusebius’ dating for the accession of Midas is also problematic. The Latin version puts it in the third year of the ninth Olympiad (742 BC), and the Armenian in the third year of the tenth (738 BC); there is a further synchronization in the Latin with the first regnal year of the Judean king Hezekiah (Cogan 1992:727) and the thirty-eighth year of the Pharaoh Bocchoris (Bakenranet). The Armenian synchronizations are a little different but also in conflict with the date of the Olympic year to which they are tied: the third year of Hezekiah (Cogan 1992: 725) and the forty-second

50 the new chronology of iron age gordion

year of Bocchoris (Helm 1913:89; Karst 1911:182; Cogan 1992:1010; Kitchen 2000:50–51). The first and third regnal years of Hezekiah are almost certainly 715 and 713 BC, respectively, neither of which aligns with the ninth or ten Olympiad, while there appears to have been no thirty-eighth or forty-second year of Bocchoris’ reign; indeed, his total time on the throne is likely to have been only five or six years, ca. 720–715 BC (Rosenbaum 1992:189; Kitchen 2000:50–51). The dates for the rulers that Eusebius links to Midas are therefore clearly flawed, and there is no reason to suppose that the chronological information he had for the Phrygian monarch was any more accurate. The regnal dates of the Judaean king Amon have also occasionally played a critical role in discussions of Midas’s chronology. The death of Midas is cited by four Byzantine chronographers (George Cedrenus, George Hamartolus, Theodosius of Melitene, and an anonymous author sometimes identified in 19th-century scholarship as Leo Grammaticus), all of whom place it within Amon’s short reign. The four Byzantine passages differ only slightly in phrasing, aside from an addition in Hamartolus regarding Midas’ founding of Ankara, and they obviously stem from a single source. The text of Cedrenus is as follows: Μετὰ δὲ Μανασσῆν ἐβασίλευσεν Ἀμὼς υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἔτη δύο. κατὰ τούτους τοὺς χρόνους Μίδας ὁ Φρυγίας βασιλεὺς ἐτελεύτη- (5) σεν, ὅντινα ἔλεγον ὦτα ἔχειν ὄνου.

After Manasseh, his son Amon ruled for two years. During that time Midas, the king of Phrygia, whom they said had donkey ears, died.

The four chronographers place the first year of Amon 101 years after the first year of his greatgrandfather, Ahaz, and Theodosius ties the sequence into the Olympiad chronology by assigning the initial year of Ahaz to the first year of the first Olympiad, that is, 776 BC: Ἀχαζ μετὰ τοῦτον ὁ υἱὸς ἐβασίλευσεν ἔτη ιζ… ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ ἔτει τῆς τούτου βασιλείας Ἰφιτος τὰς Ὀλυμπιάδας συνέστησεν.

Ahaz, his son, reigned after him for 16 years…In the first year of his reign, Iphitos established the Olympiads.

At least in the dating scheme of Theodosius, the two years of Amon’s reign are 675–674 BC, and this is consequently the period in which Theodosius places Midas’ death. Gelzer and other philologists posited that the Byzantine authors drew upon the now fragmentary Chronographia of John Malalas (6th century AD), which, in turn, was based on the now lost Chronologies of Sextus Julius Africanus, a Christian writer of the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries AD (Gelzer 1875:252n1). But the only certainty about Julius Africanus in regard to Midas is that he assigned the first year of the reign of Ahaz to the same Olympic year as Theodosius did, although with different information about the festival that year. Two relevant sentences of Julius Africanus survive: From the end of his third book:

ἀναγραφῆναι δὲ πρώτην τὴν τεσσαρεσκαιδεκά ἣν ἑνίκα Κόροιβος στάδιον. τότε ἐβασίλευσεν Ἀχὰζ ἐπὶ Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἔτος πρῶτον.

The first [Olympiad] to be recorded was the 14th, in which Koroibos won the stadion race. Ahaz ruled in Jerusalem then, in his first year. From the beginning of the fourth book:

Ἦν δ’ ἄρα τοῦ Ἀχὰζ βασιλείας ἔτος πρῶτον, ᾧ συντρέχειν ἀπεδείξαμεν τὴν πρώτην Ὀλυμπιάδα.

This was the first year of the reign of Ahaz, which, as argued above, must have coincided with the first Olympiad.3.2

It is reasonable to assume that Julius Africanus placed the reign of Amon 101 years later than that of Ahaz, since it conforms to the relative chronology of the Hebrew Bible as well as that of Byzantine historiographers. Julius would also no doubt have dated the first year of Amon’s reign to 675 BC. But whether his entry on Amon included Midas’ death cannot really be ascertained; moreover, the discrepancy between Africanus’ mention of the first recorded Olympic games, in which he cites the victor, and that of Theodosius, who cites instead the re-founder of the games, does not inspire confidence in the hypothesis that Africanus’ Chronologies necessarily lies behind the citation of Midas in the four Byzantine chronographic works in question. Subsequent historians and archaeologists assumed that the non-Eusebian



Textual Evidence and the Destruction Level 51

date for Midas’ death was stated point-blank by Julius Africanus.3.3 But the date they came to cite, 676 BC, actually derives from an early and subsequently corrected error of Gelzer’s, not from Africanus (Gelzer 1885:179n1; Bossert 1993:287n1). The two-year reign of Amon has now been securely assigned to 641–640 (Cogan 1992:1010), which is too late for Midas by any of the reckonings listed above, thereby demonstrating the folly of linking his reign to that of Amon.3.4

Midas in Assyrian Texts At the beginning of the 20th century, the name of Midas, king of Phrygia, was equated with Mita, king of the land of Mushku, in Assyrian historical documents, thereby providing Phrygian history with a much more reliable foundation (Winckler 1898–1900:136). The texts demonstrate that the reign of Midas overlapped with that of Sargon II, and if one can take seriously Sargon’s claim that Mita had not submitted to any of his predecessors, then Midas would have been in power before 721, the beginning of Sargon’s rule.3.5 Indeed, if we take the plural “predecessors” literally, it indicates that Mita was governing as early as the reign of TiglathPileser III (744–727 BC), even though none of the extant records of that Assyrian king, or those of his brief-ruling successor Shalmaneser V (726–722), attest to this. These texts of Sargon led Alfred and Gustav Körte to prefer the Eusebian date of 696 or 695 for Midas’ death rather than the later date of Julius Africanus, ‘676,’ which, they felt, would give Midas an improbably long reign (Körte and Körte 1904:20– 24, 98). Their choice between the two literary dates attracted support (Kroll 1932:1538; Friedrich 1941:889), though it was not universal. Thus, in 1921 K. Lehmann-Haupt was troubled by the lack of Assyrian references to a Kimmerian presence in Central Anatolia until the early 670s, and consequently preferred the 676 date; he was followed by E. Akurgal in 1955 (Lehmann-Haupt 1921:413–14; Akurgal 1955:124). S. Berndt-Ersöz (2008) has recently sought a compromise while continuing to adhere to the evidence supplied by the Assyrian documents. She argues that there were at least two kings of Gor-

dion who bore the name Midas: one who interacted with Sargon II and died in 696; another who was tied to the Kimmerians in the 670s.

Midas and the Kimmerians A far more serious problem has been the scholarly consensus that the Classical evidence reliably situates Midas’ death at the time of a Kimmerian invasion. Strabo was essentially alone in making that claim. The only other testimony supporting it, that of the bishop Eustathius in the 11th century AD, was far from an independent source in that he drew solely upon Strabo, echoing his very phrasing:3.6 [ὁι Kιμμέριοι...] Τρῆρες δέ φασιν ἐκαλοῦντο ... ἐμβαλεῖν δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ Παφλαγόνας καὶ Φρύγας, ὅτε καὶ Μίδας λέγεται αἷμα ταύρου πιὼν ... εἰς τὸ χρεὼν ἀπελθεῖν.

They say that [the Kimmerians] were also called Treres…They invaded the territory of the Paphlagonians and the Phrygians, at which time Midas is said to have drunk bull’s blood and to have gone to his fate.

There are also a few divergent Classical texts bearing upon Midas’ death. The earliest is a verse epitaph that purports to have been inscribed on a monument set upon Midas’ tomb. It was often quoted, with variants, and was commonly (but erroneously) attributed to Homer. The work is first attested in the early 4th century BC, appearing in Plato’s dialogue Phaidros (264d):3.7 Χαλκῆ παρθένος εἰμί, Μίδα δ’ ἐπὶ σήματι κεῖμαι. ὄφρ’ ἂν ὕδωρ τε νάῃ καὶ δένδρεα μακρὰ τεθήλῃ, αὐτοῦ τῇδε μένουσα πολυκλαύτου ἐπὶ τύμβου, ἀγγελέω παριοῦσι Μίδας ὅτι τῇδε τέθαπται.

I am a bronze maiden. I lie upon the tomb of Midas. As long as water flows and tall trees grow, I, lying on this much wept-over tomb, shall declare to passersby that Midas is buried here.

The belief that a monument in the form of a bronze statue of a young woman crowned the tomb of Midas is perhaps not incompatible with Strabo’s account, but it certainly is at odds with the common

52 the new chronology of iron age gordion

scholarly extrapolation from Strabo that the Kimmerian invasion left Midas’ kingdom in ruins—if the poet and those who quoted him supposed, as they probably did, that the statue and epitaph were created soon after the king’s death. Such a view is explicit in the Contest of Homer and Hesiod (15), a work with a 4th century BC core that was rewritten in the 2nd century AD (West 2003:298), wherein Homer composed the epitaph at the request of the sons of Midas, Xanthos and Gorgos. Blatantly discrepant is Aristotle’s citation in the late 4th century BC of a popular belief about Midas’ death; in it there is no connection at all with the Kimmerians, nor any suicide, for his death was an unwilling one brought about by starvation because of the golden touch (Politics 1.3.16, 1257b):3.8 καίτοι ἄτοπον τοιοῦτον εἶναι πλοῦτον οὗ εὐπορῶν λιμῷ ἀπολεῖται, καθάπερ καὶ τὸν Μίδαν ἐκεῖνον μυθολογοῦσι διὰ τὴν ἀπληστίαν τῆς εὐχῆς πάντων αὐτῷ γιγνομένων τῶν παρατιθεμένων χρυσῶν

It is paradoxical that wealth should be of such a sort that a person abounding in it should die of hunger, as did Midas in the tale in which, because of his greedy prayer, all the food set before him turned to gold.

was provoked by bad dreams (On Superstition 8 = Moralia 168ff.): Πολλὰ τῶν μετρίων κακῶν ὀλέθρια ποιοῦσιν αἱ δεισιδαιμονίαι. Μίδας ὁ παλαιός, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἔκ τινων ἐνυπνίων ἀθυμῶν καὶ ταραττόμενος οὕτω κακῶς ἔσχε τὴν ψυχήν, ὥσθ’ ἑκουσίως ἀποθανεῖν αἷμα ταύρου πιών.

Superstition makes many not very severe ills deadly. Midas of ancient times, being, it seems, disturbed and upset by dreams, was so badly affected in his spirit that he willingly went to his death through drinking bull’s blood.

About the same time (ca. AD 100), Apollonius Sophista tersely alluded to Midas’ suicide by bull’s blood. He is silent about a motive, which would not actually have been relevant in that context—a highly condensed entry in a Homeric dictionary (Bekker, ed. 1833:156): ταύριον αἷμα θανάσιμον, ἀπὸ Μίδα καὶ Ἰάσονος· περὶ γὰρ Θεμιστοκλέους οὐ πᾶσι συμφωνεῖται.

“Bull’s blood”: poisonous—[as known] from [the cases of ] Midas and Jason, for not everyone agrees about Themistokles.

ἔνιοι δὲ [λέγουσιν ὡς Ἀννίβαν] μιμησάμενον Θεμιστοκλέα καὶ Μίδαν αἷμα ταύρειον πιεῖν

It may be more telling that a motive is also missing about two hundred years later in Eusebius, whose historical interests might have been engaged by the Kimmerian connection if he had heard of it. He simply reports the suicide by bull’s blood. The source (Julius Africanus?) from whom the cluster of previously discussed Byzantine chronographers directly or indirectly drew seems not to have mentioned either the Kimmerians or the suicide; it did, however, add the story of the ruler’s donkey ears.3.9 About AD 379, the story of the golden touch as the cause of Midas’ death was again cited, this time by St. Gregory of Nazianzus. In speaking of his and St. Basil’s days as students in Athens, he stated (Funeral Oration on St. Basil the Great [Oration 43] 21):

In the other text he does mention a cause, but it differs completely from that of Strabo: rather than occurring in the course of an invasion, the suicide

ἡμῖν δὲ τὸ μέγα πρᾶγμα καὶ ὄνομα, Χριστιανοὺς καὶ εἶναι καὶ ὀνομάζεσθαι ᾧ πλέον ἐφρονοῦμεν ... ἢ τῷ χρυσῷ ποτε Μίδας, δι’ ὃν ἀπώλετο, ἐπιτυχὼν τῆς εὐχῆς καὶ πάντα χρυσὸν κτησάμενος... οὗτος Φρύγιος μῦθος.

If one continues chronologically, the next relevant text of those surviving is that of Strabo in the late 1st century BC or early 1st century of our era. Appearing there in connection with Midas for the first time are both the Kimmerians and the suicide, allegedly carried out by drinking bull’s blood. The suicide, always described in the same way, persists in later accounts; the Kimmerians do not. Plutarch, writing about a hundred years later, mentions the suicide twice. In the one instance, he cites no cause (Life of Flamininus 20.5):

Some say that Hannibal, imitating Themistokles and Midas, drank bull’s blood.



Textual Evidence and the Destruction Level 53

For us the great thing and great designation was to be and to be called Christians. In that we took more pride than did Midas in his gold, through which he perished, after obtaining his prayer and having all his goods become gold… This is a Phrygian legend. It could hardly be clearer that Strabo was not enunciating a mainstream, widely known and accepted Classical tradition. It may be significant that he declared it in the context of a broader discussion of Kimmerian history. One has to wonder if he may not have been ‘historically’ rationalizing the story of Midas’ suicide, in the manner in which Herodotus (1.1–3) rationalized the stories of Io, Europa, Medea, and Helen, making them all episodes in an age-old struggle between Greece and the East.

Chronology of the Kimmerians in Anatolia A destruction of Gordion by the Kimmerians as early as 696 BC would be dubious in any case. The first appearance of the Kimmerians in Assyrian records comes in the 710s, when they were inhabiting an area perhaps in central Caucasia.3.10 They invaded Urartu, at the easternmost extremity of Anatolia, but only after the Urartians had attacked them. There were no lasting consequences for the Urartian state, which was soon exerting military power again (Lanfranchi and Parpola 1990: xx and Letters 90, 92, 144–5, 173(?), 174). In 705 BC Sargon II was killed in battle almost certainly in Anatolia and probably in Tabal, to the southeast of Phrygia; but while many scholars have long maintained that he was fighting the Kimmerians, that view seems no longer tenable. The man who was the enemy leader is not termed a Kimmerian (gimirraya) but a Kulummean (kulummaya), and his proper name, once read as Eshpai, is now read as Gurdi, for which both J. D. Hawkins and S. Aro-Valjus note links with Luwian nomenclature. Aro-Valjus concludes: “It is probable that Gurdi was one of the local Tabalian rulers.”3.11 In 679 BC Kimmerians were definitely in inner Anatolia and indeed in Tabal, where the Assyrian king Esarhaddon defeated them near modern

Ereğli (in the Turkish province of Konya).3.12 During that king’s reign (680–669 BC), however, they did not play a continuing major role in Tabal or in the broader central and eastern regions of Anatolia.3.13 While Esarhaddon faced chronic Anatolian difficulties, these came above all from the determinedly antiAssyrian Mugallu, king of Melid (modern Malatya), who extended his rule into Tabal by the 660s (Starr 1990:lvii–lviii; Hawkins 2000:286; Fuchs 2001b). Phrygia (Mushku), like Mugallu’s realm, was still militarily significant and still had a functioning ruler, as shown by an inquiry made to the god Shamash during Esarhaddon’s reign sometime between 680 and 676. While the Kimmerians are mentioned in the same inquiry, they appear, despite gaps in the text, to be allied with the ruler of Mushku (Starr 1990:4, text 1; Bossert 1993:290–91).3.14 Starr’s reading and translation are: “[…will either NN, the king of ] Phrygia3.15 or the Cimmerian troops who [are allied ] w[ith him or Mugallu and the troops allied wi]th him or any other enemy [strive and plan to take] or […, a fortress of the ci ] ty Melid?” A time of indisputable out-and-out crisis for at least some Anatolians from the Kimmerians came later, in the 660s and beyond. Assyrian records show that the Kimmerians had become a menace in the west sometime between 668 and 665, when the Lydian king Gyges appealed to the Assyrian ruler Assurbanipal for help.3.16 Renewed trouble in Lydia resulted in Gyges’ death in battle with the Kimmerians no earlier than the mid-650s and possibly as late as 644, followed by an overrunning of his kingdom. Upon taking the throne, his son, whose name we know from Classical sources to have been Ardys, made a new appeal to the Assyrians (Cogan and Tadmor 1977:78–79; Spalinger 1978:405–6; Borger 1996:219 (text); Aro-Valjus 1999a:428). More evidence that the Kimmerians caused acute problems in Anatolia, especially its western portions, in the mid-7th century comes from the career of a Kimmerian leader known to the Greeks as Lygdamis and to the Assyrians as Tugdammî.3.17 A Greek inscription of 283/2 BC dealing with a territorial dispute between Priene and Samos records that Lygdamis had invaded Ionia and for some time held land in the vicinity of Priene, from which the previous occupants, Samian settlers, had fled, pre-

54 the new chronology of iron age gordion

sumably in the face of his advance (Welles 1944:46– 49, text 7). The account has a good chance of being correct, for the two poleis were convinced enough of its historicity for them both to use it as a given in the testimony they presented before their ruler Lysimachus. Other traditions current in the 3rd century are embodied in a narrative by the poet Callimachus, who states that Lygdamis threatened to sack the Temple of Artemis at Ephesos but was prevented by the goddess herself, who destroyed him and his horde (the implication being that she struck them down there).3.18 During the Augustan period, Strabo (1.3.21) wrote that Lygdamis invaded Ionia and Lydia, capturing Sardis, and—diverging from the just-noted Greek tradition—states that he perished in Cilicia. Assyrian records give a date for Lygdamis/Tugdammî along with reliably contemporary information about his activities in eastern Anatolia.3.19 They show that he died about 640 after attempting two invasions of Assyrian territory: first in alliance with the ruler of Tabal (Mugullu’s son …ussi), and then on his own. In the latter attempt he was struck by a fatal illness, which the records describe in gruesome detail. The scribes viewed it variously as a punishment from the god Assur or the god Marduk.3.20 The texts provide 7th century realities and perceptions that may lie behind Callimachus’ tale of Artemis’ wrath and Strabo’s account of a death well to the east of Ionia. The very fact that Tabal was still strong enough for Tugdammî to ally himself with it suggests that states in eastern Anatolia may have remained more stable than those in the west, where Lydia reeled under the Kimmerian incursions. The Assyrian account crediting Tugdammî’s demise to Marduk mentions a son who was his successor (Ivanchik 1993:274, text 50 [hymn to Marduk], line 25; Pruzsinszky and Schmidt 2002). Thereafter, no Assyrian record reports on Kimmerians in Anatolia. As mentioned above, Herodotus thought they maintained a presence there until driven out by the Lydian king Alyattes, whose reign began about 610.3.21 Even if that Classical tradition is correct, signs of prosperity at Gordion during the second half of the 7th century suggest that at least that part of Asia Minor was not under severe Kimmerian pressure. Moreover, the fair amount of Greek pottery reaching the site during that period suggests

that trade routes were open between Western and Central Anatolia (DeVries 2005:43–44, 53). If there was still a presence, it may have become a less disruptive, more integrated one. Notes 3.1. Kitchen’s overall dates for the reign: 690–664 BC. The article by Susanne Berndt-Ersöz (2008) on the life of Midas appeared after the death of Keith DeVries, the author of this chapter, and references to it have been incorporated only sparingly into the text. 3.2. The fragments are cited in Syncellus, Chronikon, 197. The edited texts above are from Routh (1846:285–86). 3.3. An exception is Bossert (1993:287–90), who has performed the great service of making accessible both the 19th century scholarship and the texts upon which it drew. 3.4. Theodosius’ governing synchronization of the first year of Ahaz with the first year of the first Olympiad (776 BC)—a synchronization definitely shared with Julius Africanus—was also off. In Cogan’s chronology it is 743 BC. 3.5. For references to current editions of the texts, and for the dates of the latter, see Hawkins 1994 and Fuchs 2001a. For the pertinent inscription from Tang-i Var, see Frame 1999:36, 40, line 40. 3.6. See Stallbaum 1825:396–97 for Eustathius’ commentary on Odyssey 11.14. 3.7. Some ancient and modern writers have thought that it can be traced back to Cleobulus of Lindos (ca. 600 BC), since a fragmentary poem by Simonides written around the early 5th century BC comments on lines by Cleobulus, which also dealt with an enduring tomb monument and evoked it in similar terms. To judge from Simonides, however, Cleobulus spoke of a stele rather than a statue of a young woman, and nothing in Simonides’ critique of Cleobulus’ piece refers to Midas. Diogenes Laertius 1.89; Simonides frag. 581. 3.8. Lynn Roller (1983:310) has drawn attention to this often over-looked account. 3.9. Prag (1989:161–63) has suggested that beyond the story of the ass’s ears there lies an historical reality: that Midas suffered from the male genetic abnormality of “hairy pinnae” which causes the outer edge of the ears to sprout long hairs. In the earliest Greek representations of Midas (the second half of the 6th century BC to the early 5th), however, his ears are perfectly normal. It is not until the mid-5th century BC that they take on the donkey form (Roller 1983:305–6; Miller 1988:81). It thus appears that there was no continuously transmitted gossip over the centuries about him having bestial ears. 3.10. For discussion of the location, see Ivanchik (1993:26–36,



Textual Evidence and the Destruction Level 55

51–53) who argues that it was in Caucasia, while taking note of rival theories putting it in Mannean territory in northwestern Iran. 3.11. Aro-Valjus 1999b:431. Hawkins (2000:285, 428n50) continues to lean toward an interpretation of the forces facing Sargon as Kimmerian. Parpola (1987:70n76) has interpreted the ethnic as referring to the city of Kuluman in western Iran and supposes that the fighting took place in that region. Ivanchik (1993:15) finds an identification between Kimmerians and Kulummeans “impossible.” 3.12. Leichty, forthcoming, Kalach A, para. 21, lines 18–19: Esarhaddon “smashed Teushpa, the Kimmerian, together with his army, with weapons in the land of Hupushnu.” See also Borger 1956: 9.21.18. The place designated in the Akkadian text as Hupushnu equals the Hittite Habushna/Hubishna and the Greek Kybistra (Kessler and Levine 1972–75). 3.13. In regard to Urartu in easternmost Anatolia, the excavators at Ayanis have argued that standard ideas of the country’s being under severe threat during the reign of Rusa II in the first half of the 7th century should be abandoned. “The current opinion is that the intense program of fortress construction by Rusa II was the result of the pressure from nomadic groups, like the Cimmerians and Scythians…However, when we consider the nature of Rusa II’s towns themselves, we have a completely different impression. Here the particular care which is reflected in the splendid architecture of his fortresses, the flowering of sculpture, the alabaster floor of the temple cella of Ayanis, the splendid bronze artifacts, and the perfection of the cuneiform inscriptions are all elements which indicate a period of peace and prosperity. We do not have the impression of a civilization troubled by the imminent danger of mortal enemies” (Çilingiroğlu and Salvini 2001:24). For the chronology of Rusa II’s reign (from at least the 670s to perhaps no later than 652), see Salvini 1995:110–16, 207; Çilingiroğlu and Salvini 2001:18, 22, 24; Fuchs 2002:1056–57. Dendrochronological determinations now put the felling of the timbers used in the construction of Ayanis at 673 +4/-7 (Manning, Kromer, Kuniholm, and Newton 2001:2534; Salvini 2004:247n9; Newton and Kuniholm 2007). Like the ruler of Mushku (see the following sentences in the main text), Rusa had Kimmerian allies (in the late 670s) (Starr 1990:22, text 18, lines 4–7). 3.14. For the date, see Fuchs 2001b:761. For the question as to whether Phrygia and Mushku can be equated, see Chapter 1, endnote 1.2. 3.15. Muski [genitive form], preceded by the logogram [K]UR, for country. It seems clear that the missing text immediately before the logogram referred to a ruler of the land. 3.16. See Cogan and Tadmor 1977:68–74 (for a discussion of

the earliest texts), 81–83, 84 (for their date). See also Spalinger 1978:401, 409; Borger 1996:219 (earliest texts); and AroValjus 1999a:427–28. An Assyrian astrological text of 657 BC alludes to Kimmerian domination in Amurru, the Westland. Parpola (1993:76, text 100, lines 13–15), Hartman (1962), and Spalinger (1978:403) took the territorial designation to refer to Lydia (in view of the date), but the term is too general for such an interpretation to be secure. The reference could be to another part of Anatolia or to Syria or, theoretically, Palestine (Parpola 1983:308; Ivanchik 1993:99–100). 3.17. Kuhrt (1988) questioned whether Lygdamis and Tugdammî were the same and whether Tugdammî was Kimmerian (for he, unlike Lygdamis, is never specified as such, though he was clearly a “barbarian”). Ivanchik (1993:113–20) argues for the more usual view that Lygdamis and Tugdammî were identical. For a recent reassertion of that view, see Hawkins 2000:428. 3.18. See Callimachus, Hymn 3 (to Artemis), 250–58. Ivanchik (1993:113–14) understands the text to allow an interpretation that Lygdamis did destroy the temple and that his destruction by Artemis came later, an interpretation that would accord both with the Strabo text and the Assyrian records discussed below. 3.19. They are conveniently collected in Ivanchik 1993:266– 75, texts 47–50. 3.20. See Ivanchik 1993:267, 269, text 47 (IT), line 159; 271, text 48 (redaction H), line 32; text 50 (hymn to Marduk), line 24. 3.21. Herodotus 1.16. The 2nd century AD author Polyaenus (7.2.1) also mentions Alyattes in connection with military action against the Kimmerians, drawing upon a source other than Herodotus. He speaks of the tactics (use of dogs) that the Lydian king successfully employed in the battle.

References Aro-Valjus, S. 1999a. Gûgu or Guggu. In The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Vol. 1, Pt. 2, ed. K. Radner, pp. 427–28. Helsinki: NeoAssyrian Text Corpus Project. –— 1999b. Gurdî. In The Prosopography of the NeoAssyrian Empire, Vol. 1, Pt. 2, ed. K. Radner, pp. 431–32. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Bekker, I., ed. 1833. Apolloni Sophistae Lexicon Homericum. Berlin: G. Reimer. Berndt-Ersöz, S. 2008. The Chronology and Histor-

56

the new chronology of iron age gordion

ical Context of Midas. Historia 57:1–37. Borger, R. 1956. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Königs von Assyrien. Graz: self-published. –— 1996. Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals. Die Prismenklasse A,B,C = K, D, E, F, G, H, J and T sowie andere Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Bossert, E.-M. 1993. Zum Datum der Zerstörung des phrygischen Gordion. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 43:287–92. Çilingiroğlu, A., and M. Salvini. 2001. Historical Background of Ayanis. In Ayanis I, ed. A. Çilingiroğlu and M. Salvini, pp. 15–24. Rome: CNR, Istituto per gli Studi Micenei ed EgeoAnatolici. Cogan, M. 1992. Chronology. Hebrew Bible. In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D.N. Freedman, pp. 1002–11. New York: Doubleday. Cogan, M., and H. Tadmor. 1977. Gyges and Ashurbanipal. A Study in Literary Transmission. Orientalia 46:65–85. DeVries, K. 2005. Greek Pottery and Gordion Chronology. In The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians: Recent Work at Gordion, ed. L. Kealhofer, pp. 36–55. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. Frame, G. 1999. The Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var. Orientalia 68:31–57. Fuchs, A. 2001a. Mitâ. In The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Vol. 2, Pt. 2, ed. H.D. Baker, pp. 755–56. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Fuchs, A. 2001b. Mugallu. In The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Vol. 2, Pt. 2, ed. H.D. Baker, pp. 761–62. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. –— 2002. Rusâ. In The Prosopography of the NeoAssyrian Empire, Vol. 3, Pt. 1, ed. H.D. Baker, pp. 1054–57. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Gelzer, H. 1875. Das Zeitalter des Gyges. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 30:230–86. –— 1885. Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographie. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs. Hartman, L.F. 1962. The Date of the Cimmerian Threat against Ashurbanipal According to ABL 1391. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 21:25–37. Hawkins, J.D. 1994. Mita. Reallexikon der Assyri-

ologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8(3/4): 271–73. –— 2000. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Vol. 1, Inscriptions of the Iron Age. Untersuchungen zur indogermanischen Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft 8.1. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Helm, R. 1913. Eusebius Werke. Vol. 7.1, Die Chronik des Hieronymus. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs. Ivanchik [rendered “Ivantchik”], A.I. 1993. Les Cimmériens au Proche-Orient. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Karst, J. 1911. Eusebius Werke. Vol. 5, Die Chronik aus dem armenischen übersetzt. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs. Kessler, K., and L.D. Levine. 1972–75. Hupisna. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 4:500–501. Kitchen, K.A. 2000. Regnal and Genealogical Dates of Ancient Egypt. In The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Second Millennium B.C., ed. M. Bietak, pp. 39–52. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Kuhrt, A. Th. L. 1988. Lygdamis. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 7(3/4): 186–89. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Lanfranchi, G.B., and S. Parpola. 1990. The Correspondence of Sargon II. Pt. 2, Letters from the Northern and Northeastern Provinces. State Archives of Assyria Vol. 5. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Leichty, E.V. Forthcoming. The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Manning, S.W., B. Kromer, P.I. Kuniholm, and M.W. Newton. 2001. Anatolian Tree Rings and a New Chronology for the East Mediterranean Bronze-Iron Ages. Science 294 (no. 5551): 2532–35. Miller, M.C. 1988. Midas the Great King in Attic Fifth-Century Vase Painting. Antike Kunst 31:79–89. Newton, M.W., and P.I. Kuniholm. 2007. A Revised Dendrochronological Date for the Fortress of Rusa II at Ayanis: Rusahinili Eiduru-kai. In Anatolian Iron Ages 6: The Proceedings of the Sixth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium, Held at Eskişehir, 16–20 August 2004, ed. A. Çilingiroğlu and A. Sagona, pp. 195–206. Leuven: Peeters.



Textual Evidence and the Destruction Level 57

Parpola, S. 1983. Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, Pt. 2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. –— 1987. The Correspondence of Sargon II. Pt. 1, Letters from Assyria and the West. State Archives of Assyria Vol. 1. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. –— 1993. Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars. State Archives of Assyria Vol. 10. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Prag, A.J.N.W. 1989. Reconstructing King Midas. A First Report. Anatolian Studies 39:159–65. Pruzsinszky, R., and R. Schmidt. 2002. Sandaksatru or Sandakurru. In The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Vol. 3, Pt. 1 (SADE), ed. H.D. Baker, p. 1087. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Roller, L.E. 1983. The Legend of Midas. Classical Antiquity 2:299–313. Rosenbaum, J. 1992. Hezekiah King of Judah. In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D.N. Freedman, pp. 189–93. New York: Doubleday. Routh, M.J. 1846. Reliquiae Sacrae, Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Salvini, M. 1995. Geschichte und Kultur der Urartäer. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. –— 2004. Reconstruction of the SUSI-temple at Adilcevaz on Lake Van. In A View from the Highlands: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney, ed. A. Sagona, pp. 245–75. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Suppl. 12. Herent, Belgium: Peeters. Spalinger, A.J. 1978. The Death of Gyges and Its Historical Implications. Journal of the American Oriental Society 98:400–409. Stallbaum, G., ed. 1825. Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis commentarii ad Homeri Odysseam. Eustathii commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem et Odysseam, Vol. 1. Leipzig: Haack. Starr, I. 1990. Inquiries to the Sun God: Divination and Politics in Sargonid Assyria. State Archives of Assyria Vol. 4. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Welles, C.B. 1934. Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period. New Haven: Yale University Press. West, M.L. 2003. Homeric Hymns, Homeric Apocrypha, Lives of Homer. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

This page intentionally left blank

4

Artifacts G. Kenneth Sams

T

his chapter examines the compatibility of the new chronology for Iron Age Gordion, as based on scientific determinations, with the material record. Under the old chronology, the destruction of the Early Phrygian Citadel occurred ca. 700 BC, and the wealthy tumuli K-III, P, MM, and W antedated that event.4.1 The reconstruction of the Middle Phrygian Citadel at a much higher level, atop an enormous layer of fill, occurred sometime afterward. Moving the tons of earth and rock used in reconstruction would have been far from an overnight task, and the project was assumed to have extended well into the 7th century.4.2 As noted in Chapter 2, this basic sequence presented a number of difficulties and questions regarding the interpretation of the material evidence. For example, bronze and/or ceramic types from Tumuli K-III, P, and MM occurred in forms that were seemingly more developed than those of their counterparts in the supposedly later Destruction Level. Those same tumuli also yielded types, sometimes in abundance, that were rarely if at all found in the Destruction Level; yet the same types could occur with some frequency in post-clay layer contexts of the rebuilt Citadel. Moreover, of the literally thousands of ceramic vessels retrieved from the Destruction Level, not a single one was an import from Greece. Yet nine Greek vessels ranging in date from ca. 750 into the very early 7th century are known to have come to Gordion, recovered primarily from post-destruction contexts on the Citadel (DeVries 2007:97–98). Phrygian inscriptions do not appear on any of the vessels or artifacts from the Destruction Level or the burned buildings, yet there were literate Phrygians at the interment in Tumulus MM,

then dated to either around the time of the destruction or somewhat earlier.4.3 Even before the new radiocarbon dating, members of the Gordion team had begun to suspect on material grounds alone that the Destruction Level was earlier than previously believed, and also earlier than Tumuli K-III, P, and MM, but not earlier than Tumulus W. In the new chronology, the destruction of the Early Phrygian Citadel occurred around 800 BC, while the occupant of Tumulus MM was laid to rest ca. 740.4.4 Once announced in 2001, the radiocarbon and dendrochronological dates became fixed points in the reassessment of the relative sequence of archaeological materials. A third fixed point came with the realization that the so-called South Cellar, a unit to the immediate northwest of Middle Phrygian Building O (Fig. 0.9), contained an important deposit dated by Greek pottery to the late 8th–early 7th century (DeVries 2005:37–43; Chapter 2, this volume). The stone-lined cellar had been installed at some point subsequent to the initial Middle Phrygian reconstruction of the Citadel, a process that can now be viewed as extending across a good portion of the 8th century. On material grounds, we now suggest that Tumuli K-III and P should be placed posterior to the Destruction Level and earlier than Tumulus MM. Long thought to be close to each other in time (as they are spatially), Tumuli K-III and P have been assigned somewhat arbitrary dates of ca. 780–770, with K-III thought to be the earlier of the two. The position of Tumulus W changes only in absolute time, from a previous date of ca. 750 to a new one perhaps as much as a century earlier. On typological grounds, this burial remains the earliest of the excavated tumuli,

60 the new chronology of iron age gordion

and certainly earlier than the Destruction Level.4.5 Thus, the revised order of tumuli is the same as suggested in 1981 (Chapter 2, this volume), with only the chronological position of the Destruction Level altered: Tumulus W Destruction Level Tumulus K-III Tumulus P Tumulus MM

such an early date.4.6 As a consequence, a suggestion of “no later than ca. 800 BC” was advanced (Sams 1989:452–53).4.7 With the new chronology, the orthostates and their architectural setting can be comfortably placed in the early 9th century, if not earlier, as can the socio-political environment that fostered the transfer of architectural, iconographic, stylistic, and perhaps even religious concepts from the Neo-Hittite sphere to Phrygia.4.8

With this new relative and absolute scheme for major Phrygian contexts at Gordion, we hope to demonstrate that the earlier typological and sequential difficulties laid out in Chapter 2 have been largely resolved. The absence of Greek pottery in the Destruction Level is no longer the mystery it used to be, since that vast context now predates by roughly half a century or more the earliest Greek pottery known at the site. Similarly, the lack of evidence for writing in the burned structures now makes more sense if the Phrygians had not yet or only recently begun to write when the destruction occurred.

Carved Orthostates When it was assumed that the life of the Early Phrygian Citadel had to be largely compacted into the 8th century, questions emerged regarding one important body of material that evinced connections with societies living to the southeast of Gordion. This was a series of fragmentary, carved orthostates (Figs. 2.2, 2.6) that had belonged to at least one building in the early life of the Citadel (Sams 1989). The closest stylistic parallels lie in North Syria, in sculptural programs of the Suhis dynasty at Carchemish and in the Outer Citadel Gate at Zincirli (Sam’al). It is widely agreed that the Suhis dynasty should be dated to the late 10th and early 9th centuries; a similar date, based on stylistic affinities with Carchemish, can be assumed for the gate at Zincirli (Hawkins 1982:383–84, 386). The dating of the orthostates at Gordion thus presented an enigma. The stylistic parallels pointed to a date in the decades around 900 BC, while the former, low chronology for Gordion hardly permitted

Figure 4.1. Ivory horse frontlet (Gordion inventory BI432) from the main room of Terrace Building 2, Early Phrygian Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL). (Gordion Archive, R556-5)



Artifacts 61

Artifacts Other than Pottery The literally thousands of objects retrieved from the Destruction Level clearly give us a view of Phrygian material culture during the late 9th century, not the late 8th century. Similarly, the Iron Age stratigraphic sequence leading up to the period of the destruction now extends back to at least the 11th century.4.9 Included in the inventories of the Destruction Level are a very wide range of pottery types and decorative styles, numerous bronze goods, and an impressive array of iron objects, all of which indicate that a thriving Phrygian economy was already in place by around 800. Also belonging to this vast collection are exotic materials and items, including goods carved from ivory, such as furniture inlays in a local style (Young 1960: pl. 60, fig. 25), and a set of ivory horse-trappings (Fig. 4.1) that are North Syrian in their style of carving (Young 1962a:166–67, pls. 46–47; Sams 1993:551–52, pls. 95–96; DeVries 2007:91–93).4.10 Humbler imported items from the southeast include sets of glass beads and a vitreous-glaze juglet (Fig. 4.2).4.11 Such items were

A

B

C

5 cm

5 cm

Figure 4.3 (above). (A) Bronze omphalos bowl (Gordion inventory B-1236) from Tumulus W, Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A) period. (B) Profile of B-1236. (C) Profile of bronze omphalos bowl (Gordion inventory B-1488) from Terrace Building 6, Early Phrygian Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL). Original drawings by A. Seuffert, modified by Kimberly E. Leaman. (Gordion Archive, R457-5, 98015 and 98029)

Figure 4.2 (left). Vitreous-glaze juglet (Gordion inventory G-224) from Terrace Building 4, Early Phrygian Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL). It was found inside a trefoil-mouthed jug. (Gordion Archive, R370-25)

62 the new chronology of iron age gordion

once used to illustrate Phrygian foreign connections in the late 8th century, both the import of raw material for local work and the receipt of luxury goods from abroad, perhaps as part of a princely gift-exchange. The goods were also viewed as being material reflections of Midas’ activities in the Neo-Hittite world.4.12 It is now apparent that we are dealing with foreign relations in a political environment of the later 9th century, where the names of the players are unknown to us. The connections with the southeast, already established in the early 9th century, continued across the 8th into the period of the rebuilt Citadel. The exotica from Tumuli K-III and P (ca. 780–770 BC) and Tumulus MM (ca. 740) are good witnesses (Sams 1993:550–51, 553, with further references). So too are such items from the rebuilt Middle Phrygian Citadel as a serpentine seal of the late 8th century Lyre-Player group, from the South Cellar deposit, ca. 700,4.13 and a small collection of

A

B

5 cm

Figure 4.5. (A) Bronze omphalos bowl (Gordion inventory B-1071) from Tumulus MM, Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) period. (B) Profile of B-1071; original drawing by A. Seuffert, modified by Kimberly E. Leaman. (Gordion Archive, R766-3 and 102782)

A

B

5cm

Figure 4.4. (A) Bronze omphalos bowl (Gordion inventory B-725) from Tumulus P, Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) period. (B) Profile of B-725; original drawing by A. Seuffert, modified by Kimberly E. Leaman. (Gordion Archive, R57125 and 98003)

ivories in Syrian style that are unlikely to be later than 700 in date of manufacture.4.14 Among these last items, then, may lie the actual material reflections of Midas’ dealings in the southeast.4.15 DeVries (2007) investigated a number of bronze types in which he detected a stylistic evolution that corresponded to the relative sequence of the new chronology, with the Destruction Level falling between Tumulus W on the one hand, and Tumuli K-III, P, and MM on the other. Observations made by our late colleague are summarized here rather than repeated. Among bronze omphalos bowls, DeVries detected a sharpening over time of the ridges surrounding the omphalos: low and broad in Tumulus W (Fig. 4.3a, b), the Destruction Level (Fig. 4.3c),4.16 and Tumulus K-III; more articulated



Artifacts 63

Figure 4.6. Type XII, 7A electrum fibula (Gordion inventory J-131) from Terrace Building 2, Early Phrygian Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL). (Gordion Archive, R575-35A)

and higher in Tumulus P (Fig. 4.4); and more so still in Tumulus MM (Fig. 4.5) (DeVries 2007:83, 85).4.17 Fibulae lend themselves particularly well to the seriation process. The flat-arc Muscarella Type XII, 7A (Fig. 4.6) is the predominant type in Tumulus W and the Destruction Level; it also accounts for over half of the fibulae in Tumulus K-III, but is not present in Tumuli P or MM (DeVries 2007:86–87). To this list may be added single examples from Tumulus G (Kohler 1995:39, pl. 21E, TumG 5) and Tumulus S (Kohler 1995:97, pl. 52E, TumS 2) and 11 from Tumulus K-IV (Caner 1983:55, his Type A I, 2).4.18 The distribution of the type provides a good example of the difficulties encountered under the old chronology and sequence. In that scheme, Type XII, 7A would dominate the fibulae of Tumuli W and K-III, but would be totally absent from Tumuli P and MM, and would then undergo a renewed popularity in the Destruction Level. Similarly, Muscarella Type XII, 7 (Fig. 4.7), typologically related to XII, 7A but with more articulated end moldings (DeVries 2007:86–87), is absent in Tumulus W and the Destruction Level, but abundant in both Tumuli K-III and MM.4.19 A case analogous to that of Type XII, 7A comes with a particular variety of roundarc fibula that has cube moldings either at both ends and in the center (Type XII, 13; Fig. 4.8), or only at the ends (Type XII, 5; Fig. 4.9). The former occurs in Tumulus W (and also Tumuli Q and Y),4.20 the latter in the Destruction Level and Tumulus K-III; neither type is found in Tumuli P and MM (DeVries 2007:86–88).

Figure 4.7. Type XII, 7 bronze fibula (Gordion inventory B-826) from Tumulus MM, Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) period. (Gordion Archive, R363-28/29)

Figure 4.8. Type XII, 13 bronze fibula (Gordion inventory B-1280) from Tumulus W, Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A) period. (Gordion Archive, R456-3)

DeVries (2007:86) interpreted a single example of a Type XII, 14 fibula from the Destruction Level (Fig. 4.10) as an underdeveloped precursor to numerous well-articulated examples from Tumulus MM (Fig. 4.11).4.21 The popular type occurs with even greater articulation of moldings in the later Mamaderesi Tumulus and South Cellar (DeVries 2008:35–

64 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Figure 4.9. Type XII, 5 miniature gold fibula (Gordion inventory J-130) from Terrace Building 2, Early Phrygian Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL). (Gordion Archive, 103232)

38). In the case of either date for the Destruction Level (ca. 800 or ca. 700), the fibula is an admitted oddity. In a ca. 800 setting, it is an isolated exemplar, its type not occurring in Tumuli W, K-III, or P. For the ca. 700 milieu that Muscarella proposes, it is a less refined, contextual singleton in an age when showy fibulae seem to have been popular. A single example of a Type XII, 9 fibula was recovered in the excavation of Destruction Level Megaron 4 (Fig. 4.12). It is of the well-known studded variety that has 50 examples from Tumulus MM (Fig. 4.13), and the type continues to be seen in the Mamaderesi Tumulus and the South Cellar. The example in question is at the stage of development represented in these later contexts (DeVries 2007:86–90). Type XII, 9 does not occur in Tumuli W or P, but it is found in K-III. No one, in other words, can seriously argue that this fibula type was current ca. 800. For Muscarella (2003:233), the fibula was thus a key item in his argument for a ca. 700 destruction date. He acknowledged (Muscarella 2003: n35) but did not accept the admonitions that DeVries had passed on to him regarding issues of contamination for the fibula. DeVries (2007:89– 90) presents a detailed review of the find circumstances of the piece, and in the end suggests that it is intrusive.4.22 We concur with DeVries on the matter. DeVries (2007:93) argued that another bronze artifact discovered in Megaron 3 was particularly relevant to the new dating of the Destruction Level.4.23 This is a griffin handle (Fig. 4.14) that had long been compared to two bronze bird-headed handle attachments from late 9th century Hasanlu in northwestern Iran (Young 1962a:163). The Hasanlu and Gordion items differ widely in style, yet they are of

Fig. 4.10. (A) Type XII, 14 bronze fibula (Gordion inventory B-1764) from Terrace Building 8, Early Phrygian Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL). (B) Reconstruction drawing of B-1764 by Elizabeth Simpson. (Gareth Darbyshire and Gordion Archive, 101539)

Fig. 4.11. Type XII, 14 bronze fibula (Gordion inventory B-975) from Tumulus MM, Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) period. (Gordion Archive, R381-32)



Artifacts 65

Figure 4.12. Type XII, 9 bronze fibula (Gordion inventory B-1454) from Megaron 4. The bronze studs that were once affixed to the arc are gone, but their positions are clearly preserved. (Gareth Darbyshire, Courtesy of the Gordion Project).

Figure 4.14. Bronze handle attachment in the form of a flying griffin (Gordion inventory B-1332) from Megaron 3, Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL). Drawing by A. Seuffert. (Gordion Archive)

Figure 4.13. Type XII, 9 bronze fibula (Gordion inventory B-902) from Tumulus MM, Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) period. (Gordion Archive, R353-12)

similar handle type, and share a general avian iconography, especially in the perspective and in the positioning of the legs. They are very likely products of the same period. Eight examples of Aegean-type leech fibulae are known from the Destruction Level (Fig. 4.15a), all from units of the Terrace and CC Buildings (DeVries 2007:93, 95). Two more came from the chamber of Tumulus G (Fig. 4.15b) (Kohler 1995:39, pl. 21C– D, TumG 3–4), and one from Tumulus Y (Kohler 1995:110, pl. 57A, TumY 1). A close parallel from a

grave at Lefkandi in Euboea dated ca. 850–830 confirms the 9th century currency of the type.4.24 As noted above, the Destruction Level has not yielded a single inscription, Phrygian or otherwise.4.25 In Megaron 10, however, a ceramic bowl bearing a Phrygian inscription was found below the building’s final floor (Fig. 4.16; DeVries 2007:96; Young 1969:257–59, No. 29).4.26 Since Megaron 10 was not a part of the great fire,4.27 the bowl could have been deposited before or after the destruction, but necessarily before the laying of the clay in this area, which could have come at any time during the 8th century.4.28 As a consequence, the date of the bowl cannot be fixed precisely in time. But even a date of ca. 800 or earlier for the bowl would not constitute an argument against the 800 BC date for the destruction. DeVries (2007:96–97) cites recent comparative studies on letter forms indicating that the borrowing of the Northwest Semitic alphabet by Greeks and Phrygians occurred sometime in the second half of the 9th century.4.29 Conceivably, then, the bowl could be the earliest known example of Phrygian writing, although again, the evidence is equivocal.

66 the new chronology of iron age gordion

A

a

c

B

b

d

We are on safer ground with glass. A “first” under the new chronology is the glass mesomphalic phiale from Tumulus P (Young 1981:32 and pl. 15 A-B, TumP 48). When the tomb was previously dated toward the end of the 8th century, the molded bowl was viewed as having broad analogies in generally contemporary glass vessels from Assyria (Saldern 1959:22, 25–34). With Tumulus P now dated to ca. 770, however, the phiale becomes the earliest known example of a molded, colorless glass vessel; a second example dating to the time of the Citadel’s reconstruction has also been discovered, and the two vessels appear to supply evidence for very early molded glass production in Phrygia (Jones 2005:104–8; Jones 2009:21–22). Muscarella (2008a:181–84) focused on a series of artifacts retrieved from the great layer of fill separating the Early and Middle Phrygian citadels, and contended that they were lost during the laying of fill or redeposited from the Destruction Level. He accepted Voigt’s interpretation of the stratigraphic sequence that places the rebuilding soon after the fire, and argued that the artifacts in the fill can be used to date the destruction, supporting a date of ca. 700 for the fire. Included are fibulae of advanced types as found in Tumuli MM, S-1, and Mamaderesi, and in the South Cellar (Muscarella 2008a:182). As

Figure 4.15. Bronze leech fibulae: (A, left) Four (Gordion inventory B-1295a–d) from Terrace Building 3, Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL). (B, above) One (Gordion inventory B-17) from Tumulus G, Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A) period. (Gareth Darbyshire, Courtesy of the Gordion Project; Gordion Archive, R35-24)

discussed above (and in note 4.28), the initial process of reconstruction of the Citadel may well have stretched across much of the 8th century. Recent excavation has also demonstrated that there were several episodes of fill deposition during the Middle Phrygian period, related to remodeling or even reconstruction of the ashlar buildings. It is therefore possible that items dating half a century or more after the destruction could have been dropped or otherwise left in the fill layer as it was being built up. It is also conceivable that items recorded as coming from the fill actually came from undetected pits cut into that fill. We know that the fill was cut into on many occasions, from Middle Phrygian times into the Hellenistic period. It is doubtful that all intrusions were noticed, especially when an intrusion was refilled with the very clay dug out while making it.4.30 Muscarella (2008a:183–84) also uses the Middle Phrygian fill to his supposed advantage in citing two bronze socketed arrowheads of trilobate form (Fig. 4.17) that came from it.4.31 His argument that they can be no earlier than the very end of the 8th century is now subject to scrutiny. Hellmuth (2008:107–10) dates a tomb with socketed arrowheads at İmirler in Amasya province to the late 9th-early 8th century on the basis of radiocarbon dates for a kurgan in southern Siberia that has comparable material.4.32



Artifacts 67

Figure 4.16. (A) Phrygian inscription (Gordion inventory I-336) on bowl (profile shown) from Megaron 10. Drawing by Helen Trik. (B) Photograph of I-336. (Gordion Archive, 98090; Gareth Darbyshire, Courtesy of the Gordion Project)

Figure 4.17. Bronze socketed trilobate arrowheads from Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) construction fill: (A) From “Building M, clay” (Gordion inventory B-1196). (B) From “M5B, below floor in clay, inside angle of Building O” (Gordion inventory B-1503). (Gareth Darbyshire, Courtesy of the Gordion Project)

Pottery As noted above, the former, low chronology for the Destruction Level and the traditional ordering of major tumulus burials, both among themselves and in relation to the destruction, were highly problematic.4.33 In the case of pottery, it was odd that Tumuli K-III and P, thought to antedate the Destruction Level by two decades or so, contained ceramic features that were either rare or not present in that level and in the earlier Early Phrygian stratigraphic sequence. Yet those same types appear in Middle Phrygian contexts

A

B

on the Citadel and sometimes in relative abundance. One such case in point lies in an elegant class of Phrygian painted pottery, Brown-on-Buff Ware, which includes several examples of linear animals executed in a consistent style of drafting (Sams 1974; Sams 1994a:165–73; DeVries 2007:81–84; DeVries 2008:36). As with the orthostates, the painted figures show the influence of Neo-Hittite art but in a wider spectrum that includes features of the Suhis period and of later times, as well as elements found in North Syrian minor arts (Sams 1974:181–93). In the former, low chronology for Phrygian Gordi-

68 the new chronology of iron age gordion Figure 4.18. Side-spouted sieve jug in Brown-on-Buff Ware (Gordion inventory P-1270) from Clay Cut Building 2 (CC-2), Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL). (Gordion Archive, 59251)

on, the painted figures were viewed as a phenomenon that began in the later 8th century. A single example, featuring small panels of animals, occurred in the Destruction Level (Fig. 4.18). Three each came from Tumuli K-III and P, burials that were dated in the former chronology to the late 8th century, anterior to the Destruction Level. The examples from K-III (Körte and Körte 1904:55, Abb. 18, Nr. 3; Taf. 2, Nr. 6; Taf. 3, Nr. 10) also have the small-panel format, whereas those from Tumulus P (Fig. 4.19) (Young 1981: pls. 16–17, TumP 55–57) contain larger panels of more finely detailed animals. The latter seemed a logical development from the smaller panels, yet it was puzzling that only a single example of the linear animals was known from the supposedly later Destruction Level, and that it had small panels.

Figure 4.19. Round-mouthed jug in Brown-on-Buff Ware (Gordion inventory P-1408) from Tumulus P, Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) period. (Gordion Archive, 102852 and 102853)



Artifacts 69

Figure 4.20. Body fragment of a closed vessel in Brown-onBuff ware (Gordion inventory P-3476), with small-panel format, from a Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) context in the rebuilt Citadel (M7A, fill of cellar). (Gordion Archive, R629-14 and 15)

More puzzling still was the fact that the majority of examples of the class in general (i.e., with and without animals) came from contexts that postdated the laying of the great fill for the new Middle Phrygian Citadel (Sams 1994a:302–5, Cat. Nos. 1036– 1064). Included here are vessels that bear either small or large panels of animals (Fig. 4.20).4.34 Also included are enormous, stylistically related vessels (probably kraters) that display large scenes of two or more figures on the shoulder, and panels of single animals on the neck (Fig. 4.21), seemingly a development beyond that of the vessels with large figural panels from Tumulus P (Sams 1994a:305–8, Cat. Nos. 1065–1081). These contextually later examples were difficult to explain in terms of the former chronology, which assumed that construction of the Middle Phrygian Citadel did not begin until the 7th century at the earliest. The possibilities of residual material or heirlooms were considered, and the presence of burning on a few pieces was taken, no doubt erroneously, to suggest that the pieces originally came from the Destruction Level (Sams 1994a:166). As unsatisfactory as these explanations may have been, they were again attempts to accommodate the former, low chronology. Under the new, high chronology, and with the strong material indicators that the end of the Early Phrygian Citadel predated the tumuli in ques-

tion, the puzzling aspects of these vessels are easily resolved. The single example from the now ca. 800 Destruction Level (Fig. 4.18), with small figural panels, becomes the earliest known exemplar of the figural group.4.35 Those from Tumuli K-III and P (Fig. 4.19), which are now posterior to the Destruction Level by probably no more than a few decades, show small and large animal panels, respectively, thereby suggesting that Tumulus P is the later of the two burials, if only by a decade or so.4.36 The chronology of the numerous post-fill examples (Figs. 4.20, 4.21), including the enormous, stylistically related vessels, is aided by the fact that a sherd of the bona fide ware (without figures) and two fragments of the “enormous” class (one with figures, both perhaps from the same vessel) had been discarded in the ca. 700 BC South Cellar deposit (Sams, 1994a:304–5, Cat. Nos. 1058, 1065–1066, with illustration references). At the same time, nothing resembling Brown-on-Buff Ware or its stylistic circle is known from later, 7th and 6th century tumuli at Gordion. The overall category of Brown-on-Buff Ware may thus be viewed as having its origins in the 9th century, when there are few examples of such vessels. The assemblages in Tumuli K-III and P, however, show that the ware had a vogue in elite burials dating to the first half of the 8th century. It is noteworthy that the furnishers of Tumulus MM, now ca. 740, had no interest in any variety of showy pottery, but as the numerous Middle Phrygian examples indicate, the ware and its stylistic circle were to enjoy relative popularity among the living across the remaining 8th century and perhaps for a few decades beyond. A parallel case occurs with dark-polished monochrome pottery. Again, in Tumuli K-III and P the presence of fine black-polished pottery was difficult to reconcile with the former chronology, since the intensity of the polish and the true black color are rare in the Early Phrygian sequence through the Destruction Level (Sams 1994a:35). Equally curious, and for the same reason, were the relief treatments (e.g., crisp fluting, reeding, and modeled surfaces) borne by a number of the vessels from the two tumuli (Sams 1994a:121). As with all but one example of the linear animals, these traits may now be viewed as post-Early Phrygian, i.e., Middle Phrygian developments of the 8th century. Numerous examples of fine black-polished pottery, several with

70

Figure 4.21. Composite drawing incorporating several fragments of enormous painted vessels in the style of Brown-on-Buff Ware, all from Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) contexts in the rebuilt Citadel. (Gordion Archive)



Artifacts 71

analogous kinds of relief decoration, were discovered in the ca. 700 BC South Cellar (Fig. 4.22), which demonstrates that these developments accelerated across the 8th century (Young 1966: pl. 74, figs. 3–4; DeVries 2005:37–42 and fig. 4-4). Finds from later contexts indicate that such elegant black pot-

tery continued to be produced at least until around the middle of the 6th century. The South Cellar deposit also yielded two animalheaded spouts (Fig. 4.23a) and a bird-head attachment (Fig. 4.23b), all in fine, black-polished fabric (Gordion inventory P-3208 and P-3236 [spouts], P-3313 [bird-head attachment]). Numerous such plastic features, mostly black-polished, are known from other Middle Phrygian contexts on the Citadel, yet they are virtually non-existent in Early Phrygian times, as now defined (Sams 1994a:122). Again, Tumuli K-III and P, in their proposed new setting posterior to the destruction, are helping to define an early, innovative and formative stage of Middle Phrygian ceramic production. A side-spouted sieve jug from K-III has a bird of prey perched on the bridge of the spout (Körte and Körte 1904:63, Abb.

A

A

B

B Figure 4.22. Black-polished jugs with diamond faceting, from the South Cellar, Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) period. (A) Gordion inv. P-3274. (B) Gordion inventory P-3427. (Gareth Darbyshire, Courtesy of the Gordion Project)

Figure 4.23. Black-polished plastic features from the South Cellar, Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) period. (A) Animal-headed spout (Gordion inventory P-3208). (B) Bird-head attachment (Gordion inventory P-3313). (Gareth Darbyshire, Courtesy of the Gordion Project)

72 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Figure 4.24. Phrygian bichrome painted vessel (Gordion inventory P-3278), one sherd of which was found below the final floor of the South Cellar; Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) period. (Gareth Darbyshire, Courtesy of the Gordion Project)

32 and Taf. 4, Nr. 20). Tumulus P yielded five zoomorphic vessels with animal-headed spouts, all generally previewing those seen in the later South Cellar deposit and other post-clay contexts of the Middle Phrygian Citadel (Young 1981: pls. 15–18, TumP 49–50, TumP 58, TumP 62–63). An analogous pattern can now be seen in the introduction of a completely new shape: this is a jug with a high, steeply angled spout squarely cut off at the end, two examples of which were found in Tumulus K-III (Körte and Körte 1904:61, Nos. 14–15 and Abb. 27). Three examples of this type also appeared in the South Cellar deposit (Gordion inventory P-3395, P-3424, and P-3429) and it continued to be a hallmark design of later Phrygian pottery (Sams 1994a:65). The South Cellar deposit also enables us to document the changes that had occurred in Phrygian painted pottery by ca. 700 BC. Two fragmentary bichrome vessels decorated in black and red against a creamy white ground coat show an unsparing use of red paint (Fig. 4.24); such had not been the case in earlier Phrygian bichrome painting, where red was very much a color secondary to black (Sams 1994a:38; DeVries 2005:40–42). Absent in Tumuli K-III and P, this “gaudy” variety of bichrome paint-

ing thus appears to have come into vogue during the second half of the 8th century. This general fashion of bichrome painting, with red paint often as prominent as (if not more so than) the black, was to have a long life, extending perhaps into the 4th century BC. The bichrome examples from the South Cellar deposit bear no figures—an indication, perhaps, that in this style of painting humans and other animals were not yet welcome. But by the end of the 7th century the situation had changed: a dinos from Tumulus J shows a lively scene of music and dancing, with red as the primary painted color (Kohler 1995:59, 68–69, TumJ 36, and Frontispiece). The figural style is very different from that of the earlier Brown-onBuff Ware and its stylistic circle. As DeVries has observed (2005:46), the dinos also documents the introduction of the isolated (ground coat) painted panel format by this time. The new, high chronology for the Early Phrygian Destruction Level also has material ramifications that extend beyond Gordion and Phrygia. In terms of pottery, a good number of correspondences exist between Gordion and other Iron Age centers in Anatolia and North Syria (Sams 1978; Sams 1994a:175–78). Aside from shared norms in shapes and the application of decoration, the correspondences in many instances imply at least a general chronological synchronism. In other words, the new temporal scheme proposed for Early and Middle Phrygian Gordion may well prompt adjustments in dating at other sites. A few cases in point are offered here, as a prelude to what will no doubt be a lengthy process of chronological reconsideration. A ceramic marker of Iron Age sites in the Halys region and in Tabal, to the east of Phrygia, is the painting style generally referred to as Alişar IV. Characterized primarily by silhouette animals amidst concentric circles and other geometric designs, the style is relatively abundant at sites such as Alişar Höyük, Kültepe, Maşat Höyük, and the former Hittite capital, Boğazköy. Further afield, it is known from Arslantepe-Malatya and the Yunus cemetery at Carchemish.4.37 At Gordion the style is rare, with a total of about a dozen examples known from the Young excavations, mostly from Middle Phrygian contexts (Sams 1994a:163). Yet three of the vessels represented come from the pre-destruction (YHSS 6B) stratigraphic unit EPB V, dated now to around



Artifacts 73

the middle of the 9th century, while a fourth is from the unit EPB VII, among the latest of contexts that pre-date the Destruction Level (Sams 1994a: Cat. Nos. 169–171 and 186, pls. 113 [top] and 161, color plate III [for one fragment of 186]). From the Destruction Level itself, a krater with silhouette animals (Fig. 4.25) appears to have been influenced by the Alişar IV style (Sams 1994a:162– 63 and pl. 126, Cat. No. 932). Although the lower temporal limit for production of the style and its variants in the east remains unclear, the evidence from Gordion now indicates a beginning at some point in the 9th century. The same may also be said for a small number of non-figural vessels suspected to be imports from the eastern plateau, including flaringrimmed bowls and vessels with relief-petaled bodies. They range in context from EPB V into the Destruction Level, except for two vessels from Tumulus G which, under the chronology presented here, still fall in the Early Phrygian period, i.e., pre-destruction (Sams 1994a:163–64; Kohler 1995: pl. 21, G–I).

Notes 4.1. See Chapter 2, this volume. For Tumulus K-III, see Körte and Körte 1904:38–98; for Tumuli P, MM, and W, see Young 1981. 4.2. Voigt (most recently 2007:318–24) had already determined that the reconstruction had begun soon after the destruction. 4.3. Brixhe in Young 1981:273–77; Muscarella 2003:230–31 summarizes the former views on dating. In addition to the inscribed items found inside the tomb, in 2007 four Phrygian proper names were found incised on a wooden roof beam of the structure (Sams 2009:141–43). 4.4. The new chronology has already attracted a number of prominent adherents: Berndt-Ersöz 2008:22; Genz 2004:221, 223–24, 229; Kerschner 2005:114–15; Prayon and Wittke 2004:122–23; Sievertsen 2004:237, 240, 244; Strobel 2004:265–79; Wittke 2007:335–37, 344. Nevertheless, it is not without its critics, chiefly Oscar White Muscarella (2003, 2008a, 2008b). He argues that material issues invalidate the pertinent radiocarbon dates, and that the ca. 700 date for the destruction should be maintained. Muscarella apparently has no difficulty with the new date for Tumulus MM (2003:231 and n28). 4.5. Young 1981:198–99. Muscarella 2008b:174–75 agrees

Figure 4.25. Painted krater (Gordion inventory P-3729), from Terrace Building 8, Early Phrygian Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL). (Gareth Darbyshire, Courtesy of the Gordion Project)

74 the new chronology of iron age gordion with the relative placement of Tumulus W, but not with the new absolute date. 4.6. Furthermore, traditional views had strongly held that postHittite Central Anatolia was virtually a wasteland until around 800 BC or a little thereafter (e.g., Akurgal 1955:120–23). Shalmaneser III’s account of his invasion of Tabal in 837/6 surprisingly did little or nothing to dispel this notion, at least among archaeologists (see Chapter 7, this volume). 4.7. Sams 1994b:213–14 suggested a less guarded date of the “9th century.” On the orthostates, see also Kelp 2004. 4.8. Pace Muscarella (2003:243–44), who argues for a lower dating of the orthostates in support of his argued lower date for the Destruction Level. By the second half of the 8th century, Phrygians living in nearby Ankara made use of carved orthostates (Prayon 1987: Taf. 6–8). The style of carving they chose was that of contemporary Syro-Hittite sculpture, i.e., the Assyrianizing phase. It would seem odd that Phrygians carving orthostates at Gordion, working (in Muscarella’s view) perhaps only a little earlier, chose the older style of the time of the Suhis dynasty. Sams (1989:452) had been puzzled by the disparity in style between the Gordion and Ankara orthostates, despite their alleged closeness in date. 4.9. For the sequence based on the excavations under Rodney S. Young, see Sams 1994a:1–17. For that of the subsequent excavations under Mary M. Voigt, see Voigt 2005:26–31. 4.10. Muscarella 2003:239–41 argues for an 8th century date for the horse trappings, and in doing so he pits old (i.e., pre2001) views against current views of Gordion chronology. In reality, North Syrian style and most other Syro-Levantine ivories are notorious for their imprecise dates, including those from Nimrud, which has supplied the vast majority of all such ivories known. Those from Fort Shalmaneser, for example, generally cannot be dated more closely than the mid-9th to late 8th century (Herrmann 1986:3, 7; 1992:5–7), and it is likely that many were already of some age, if not heirlooms, when they were deposited there. Thus, for Muscarella 2003:241 to compare the Gordion ivories with ivories from Nimrud “of manifest 8th century date” is to ignore the chronological issues. The type of blinker and frontlet seen in the Gordion ivory set finds parallels in bronze examples from the Samian Heraion and Eretria, each bearing an inscription of Hazael of Damascus, 842–ca. 805 (DeVries 2007:91–93). Muscarella 2003:241 and 2008b:176 cites the post-9th-century contexts of the bronze items as mitigating their chronological worth in connection with the Gordion ivories. He appears to miss the basic point that the inscriptions establish the currency of the types in the second half of the 9th century, whatever the subsequent history of the actual pieces may have been. 4.11. The juglet is referred to but not discussed in DeVries

2007:93n49. Of supposed Syro-Levantine origin, it was found inside a larger (local) jug in Terrace Building 4 (Sams 1994a:64, Cat. No. 786). Muscarella 2003:241 had used the item as corroboration for his later dating of the Destruction Level. Citing personal communication with two sources (Larry Herr and Bruce Routledge), he states that the type dates to the late 8th to 6th centuries. Those same two sources also communicated with Keith DeVries: Herr declined a date on the grounds that the juglet was largely alien to the material in the southern Levant with which he was familiar. Routledge supplied as a general date “late 10th to late 8th century.” Thus the juglet seems not to be closely dated in the areas of its supposed origin. 4.12. The set of horse-trappings, for example, was once considered by Sams to be a gift from Pisiri of Carchemish to Midas. 4.13. Dusinberre 2005:43–44, Cat. No. 19. On the date of the South Cellar deposit, see DeVries 2005:37–42. 4.14. Gordion inventory BI-220 (plaque with winged sun disk), BI-260 (floral finial), BI-391 (plaque with a date palm), BI-503 (inlay with goat), BI-511 (man and bull). For the last two, see DeVries 1990:396, figs. 31–32. Probably also belonging to this group is a comb bearing a sphinx and a griffin in relief, BI-238: Young 1956: pl. 86, figs. 23–24. In 2006, a second ivory plaque carved with a date palm in general Syrian style was found associated with a floor of the Middle Phrygian Building A: SF-06-23 (Sams and Burke 2008:331 and fig. 7). A second seal from the South Cellar deposit, while of local, Central Anatolian style, is also made from ivory, necessarily imported, probably from Syria: Dusinberre 2005:44–45, Cat. No. 20. In terms of the three other items in ivory from the deposit, one (BI-463) is a female figurine in local style (Young 1966: pl. 74, fig. 5), and two are “knobs” with no salient stylistic traits (BI-460, BI-466). 4.15. For a survey of Phrygian material culture in the time of Midas, see DeVries 2008. 4.16. The example shown in DeVries 2007:85, fig. 3, no. 2 is from Terrace Building 6, not 3 as stated. 4.17. Muscarella 2008b:174–75 sees the observation as “tendentious” and points out that the example DeVries uses from Tumulus P (DeVries 2007: fig. 3, no. 3 [not 4, as in Muscarella]) may be an import. Mellink in Young 1981:233–36 seems to have been making observations somewhat similar to those of DeVries about the development of omphalos bowls in Tumuli W, P, and MM. For further thoughts on this matter, we shall await the study of Phrygian bronzes from Gordion by Maya Vassileva. 4.18. Kohler 1995:38 placed Tumulus G close in date to Tumuli K-III and P based in part on Sams 1994a:193–94. Yet she was working under the assumption that K-III and P were anterior to the destruction; somehow Tumulus G had to fit in chronologically among those tumuli. The assemblage in G shows none



Artifacts 75

of the advanced ceramic features that mark K-III and P. The remarks of Sams 1994a:193–94 still hold in terms of the tomb’s relative placement anterior to the destruction. 4.19. Contra Muscarella 2008a:181, who states that Type XII, 7 occurs in the Destruction Level. He may have meant Type XII, 7A. 4.20. Kohler 1995:93 and pl. 51E, TumQ 3. Ibid.:110 and pl. 57C, TumY 3. The only grave goods left behind by looters in Tumulus Q were three fibulae, comparable examples of which have been found in tumuli ranging from W to K-III (Kohler 1995:92–93). Tumulus Y and its close neighbor Tumulus X seem close in time. The remarks of Sams 1994a:194 concerning the burials’ relative placement anterior to the destruction, i.e., as Early Phrygian, still hold. 4.21. Muscarella 2003:236 had used the same example from the Destruction Level as evidence for the later dating of that context; see also Muscarella 2008b:175. DeVries 2007:86n23 stated that the original published drawing of the fibula had made it look more articulated than it actually is (Fig. 4.10a), and thus no doubt led Mellink in Young 1981:269 to think that it was more developed than those from Tumulus MM. However, although the fibula is nowhere near as well preserved as the original drawing seems to show, a close examination of the object reveals that the drawing represents a careful attempt to reconstruct the original form of the decoration. 4.22. Muscarella 2008b:175–76 remains unconvinced. Muscarella 2008a does not address the issue. 4.23. DeVries, Kuniholm, Sams, and Voigt had earlier used the piece as material support for the new radiocarbon dates for the Destruction Level (DeVries et al. 2003). Muscarella 2003:244–45 and 250 argues against a synchronism. In an earlier study he had compared the Gordion handle to a griffin vessel attachment of the 8th century or later from Olympia. His comparison is unconvincing, however, in that they are very different types of attachments. 4.24. Muscarella 2003:235 states that the type in general dates to the 8th to 7th centuries and thus supports his argument that the destruction at Gordion occurred ca. 700. He was apparently not aware of the earlier parallel from Lefkandi. Muscarella 2008b makes no further reference to the leech fibulae, and uses iron crescentic bridle-bits from Terrace Building 2 to further his case for a late destruction (2003:237–39). He also cites a representational parallel from a tomb in the Transcaucasus, yet admits that Russian scholars variously date it between the 9th and 7th centuries. Actual examples in bronze come from a Late Geometric burial in the North Cemetery at Knossos dated 745–700. The Knossian examples are of a type similar to those from Terrace Building 2, yet the upper chronological limit for the type is not known. Muscarella 2003:243 cites the presence of bronze bull-

headed cauldron attachments in Tumulus W and the Destruction Level as indicative of the 8th century, yet here he is simply upholding the earlier, widely held view that such attachments in the Near East all date to the 8th century. Since Muscarella does not accept the new chronology, he does not entertain the possibility that in this case, as in others, Gordion is providing new chronological evidence for a Near Eastern type. 4.25. Contra Bossert 2000:142. 4.26. Sams 1994a:11 expressed uncertainties about the exact context of the bowl. 4.27. For the extent of the fire, see Sams 1994a:3. 4.28. The patterning, direction, and duration of the laying of the great fill layer have not been determined, primarily because of largely inadequate recording by trench supervisors who were digging this deposit. Occasional observations of the overlapping of fill dumps and the use of working partition/retaining walls within the fill have been made, but a consistent picture is not available. When a trench went into “clay mode” in order to reach the underlying Early Phrygian level, picks and trowels were set aside in favor of pointed digging shovels (bel in Turkish), insensitive tools that literally sliced through the fill, pass after pass. For days, there would often be only a single-word daily entry in an excavator’s field notebook: “clay.” The fill-laying project could have been straightforward and orderly such that a large force of workers (slaves? corvée labor?) could have concluded the immense job within a few decades, and possibly even sooner. Alternatively, the project could have been beset by slowdowns and interruptions for a variety of reasons. The terminus ante quem for the completion of the project is set (at least in one area) by the South Cellar, which is cut into the Middle Phrygian construction fill; by the late 8th-early 7th century, it had been around long enough to have become a refuse dump (DeVries 2005:37–40). The Western Mound of Gordion was also covered by a thick fill layer separating the Early and Middle Phrygian settlements, and the volume of clay required to raise the height of this area may have exceeded that laid down on the Eastern Mound (Voigt and Young 1999:207–9; Voigt 2007:327). 4.29. Muscarella 2003:245–47 had used the bowl as important evidence for the old chronology, citing positions on the history and chronology of the Greco-Phrygian alphabet that are no longer tenable. A second, stone inscription brought into play by Muscarella 2003:246 was originally published by Young (1969:271, No. 39) as having come from the rubble bedding for the Middle Phrygian Building C. The logical implication was that the piece in question was spolia from the Early Phrygian Citadel. As DeVries 2007:96n54 points out, the inscription actually came from the foundations of a 5th century rebuilding of the Middle Phrygian structure. Muscarella 2008a:182 and

76 the new chronology of iron age gordion 2008b:176 apparently overlooked this correction. He also summarily dismisses the validity of the comparative work on Northwest Semitic and Greco-Phrygian letter forms. 4.30. In the well-controlled excavations under Voigt, the fill layer was encountered on three occasions, once on the Eastern mound and twice on the Western mound. In no case did the excavators find anything more than Bronze Age sherds and a stone pile (pers. comm. from M.M. Voigt, 2008). 4.31. One of these (B-1196) does appear to have a fill context, although one should note the cautions voiced above in note 4.28. The other (B-1503) is not actually “from” the fill but found beneath a floor that overlay the fill. The distinction is not pedantic. The surface of the fill was often altered (i.e., lowered) by later inhabitants in connection with re-floorings. 4.32. I am grateful to M.M. Voigt for this reference. 4.33. For the former sequence, see Young 1981:269–70. 4.34. Muscarella 2008b:174 contends that the size of the vessel determined the size of the animal panels, thus implying that the presence of small or large panels has no chronological significance. He is right in the case of the vessels from the Destruction Level and Tumulus K-III (small vessels) and Tumulus P (larger vessels). Yet small vessels of Brown-on-Buff Ware from Middle Phrygian contexts may have panels that are large relative to their size (Sams 1994a: pl. 92, Cat. No. 1041 [herein Fig. 4.21] and P967b, pl. 160, Cat. No. 1056). Conversely, one medium size vessel preserves panels that are small relative to its size (Sams 1994a: pl. 159, Cat. No. 1053). 4.35. The painted ware itself, though, without figural decoration, extends back to ca. 850, the re-dated time of Sams’s EPB V and Tumulus W: Sams 1994a:166. 4.36. Several close ceramic correspondences between these two burials argue against them being separated by much time. Similarly, close typological links with the Destruction Level suggest that the tumuli are not far in date from the disaster. Sams 1994a:193 argues for the closeness in date of the two tumuli, and for at least P’s chronological proximity to the Destruction Level; yet he was doing so with the preconditioned view that the destruction followed the two tumuli. His observations in regard to comparative rim profiles among large vessels assume the same point of view. It is perhaps now best to view the rims of large vessels from Tumulus P as representing a continuation of Early Phrygian types, as known from the Destruction Level and earlier Phrygian contexts. See also ibid.:157–58, in regard to the Chevron-Triangle style of painting, which is known no earlier than the Destruction Level in the Citadel, yet which has examples from both K-III and P. Similarly, “checkerboard askoi” are known only from the Destruction Level and Tumulus P: ibid.:65–66. See DeVries 2007:86 for bronze fibula types

known from Tumulus W, the Destruction Level, and Tumulus K-III, but not from Tumuli P or MM. 4.37. See Sams 1978:231–32 and 233 for a fuller listing than provided here, with references. See now also Bossert 2000:46–51.

References Akurgal, E. 1955. Phrygische Kunst. Ankara: Arkeoloji Enstitüsü, Ankara University. Aro, S. 1998. Tabal: Zur Geschichte und materiellen Kultur des zentralanatolischen Hochplateaus von 1200 bis 600 v. Chr. PhD diss., University of Helsinki. Berndt-Ersöz, S. 2008. The Chronology and Historical Context of Midas. Historia 57(1): 1–37. Bossert, E.-M. 2000. Die Keramik phrygischer Zeit von Boğazköy. Boğazköy-Hattuša Vol. 18. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Caner, E. 1983. Fibeln in Anatolien I. Prähistorische Bronzefunde 14:8. Munich: C.H. Beck. DeVries, K. 1990. The Gordion Excavation Seasons of 1969–1973 and Subsequent Research. American Journal of Archaeology 94:371–406. –— 2005. Greek Pottery and Gordion Chronology. In The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians: Recent Work at Gordion, ed. L. Kealhofer, pp. 36–55. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. –— 2007. The Date of the Destruction Level at Gordion: Imports and the Local Sequence. In Anatolian Iron Ages 6: The Proceedings of the Sixth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium, Held at Eskişehir, 16–20 August 2004, ed. A. Çilingiroğlu and A. Sagona, pp. 79–102. Leuven: Peeters. –— 2008. The Age of Midas at Gordion and Beyond. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 45:30–64. DeVries, K., P.I. Kuniholm, G.K. Sams, and M.M. Voigt. 2003. New Dates for Iron Age Gordion. Antiquity 77 (no. 296), Project Gallery: http:// antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/devries/devries.html. Dusinberre, E.R.M. 2005. Gordion Seals and Sealings: Individuals and Society. Gordion Special Studies Vol. 3. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. Genz, H. 2004. Erste Ansätze zu einer Chronologie der frühen Eisenzeit in Zentralanatolien. In Die Außenwirkungen des späthethitischen Kultur-



Artifacts 77

raumes: Güteraustausch—Kulturkontakt—Kulturtransfer. Akten der zweiten Forschungstagung des Graduiertenkollegs “Anatolien und seine Nachbarn” der Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen (20. bis 22. November 2003), ed. M. Novák, F. Prayon, and A.-M. Wittke, pp. 219–36. Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 323. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Hawkins, J.D. 1982. The Neo-Hittite States in Syria and Anatolia. In The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 3, Pt. 1, The Prehistory of the Balkans and the Middle East and the Aegean World, Tenth to Eighth Centuries B.C., 2nd ed., ed. J. Boardman, I.E.S. Edwards, N.G.L. Hammond, and E. Sollberger, pp. 372–441. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hellmuth, A. 2008. The Chronological Setting of the So-called Cimmerian and Early Scythian Material from Anatolia. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 45:102–22. Herrmann, G. 1986. Ivories from Nimrud (1949– 1963). Fasc. IV, 1, Ivories from Room SW 37, Fort Shalmaneser, Commentary and Catalogue. London: The British School of Archaeology in Iraq. –— 1992. Ivories from Nimrud (1949–1963). Fasc. V, The Small Collections from Fort Shalmaneser. London: The British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Jones, J.D. 2005. Glass Vessels from Gordion: Trade and Influence along the Royal Road. In The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians: Recent Work at Gordion, ed. L. Kealhofer, pp. 101–16. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. –— 2009. Did the Phrygians Make Glass? Sources of Moulded Glass at Iron Age and Hellenistic Gordion. In Annales du 17e Congrès de l’Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre, Anvers 2006, ed. K. Janssens, P. Degryse, P. Cosyns, J. Caen, and L. Van’t dack, pp. 21–26. Antwerp: University Press. Kelp, U. 2004. Der Einfluss des späthethitischen Kulturraumes auf Orthostaten in Gordion. In Die Außenwirkungen des späthethitischen Kulturraumes: Güteraustausch—Kulturkontakt—Kulturtransfer. Akten der zweiten Forschungstagung des Graduiertenkollegs “Anatolien und seine Nachbarn” der Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen

(20. bis 22. November 2003), ed. M. Novák, F. Prayon, and A.-M. Wittke, pp. 285–98. Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 323. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Kerschner, M. 2005. Die Ionier und ihr Verhältnis zu den Phrygern und Lydern. Beobachtungen zur archäologischen Evidenz. In Neue Forschungen zu Ionien: Fahri Işık zum 60, pp. 113–46. Asia Minor Studien, Band 54. Bonn: Habelt. Kohler, E.L. 1995. The Lesser Phrygian Tumuli. Part 1, The Inhumations. The Gordion Excavations (1950–1973) Final Reports Vol. 2. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Körte, G., and A. Körte. 1904. Gordion. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabung im Jahre 1900. Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Suppl. 5. Berlin: G. Reimer. Muscarella, O.W. 2003. The Date of the Destruction of the Early Phrygian Period at Gordion. Ancient West & East 2(2): 225–52. –— 2008a. Again Gordion’s Early Phrygian Destruction Date: ca. 700 +/- B.C. In Aykut Çınaroğlu’na Armağan—Studies in Honor of Aykut Çınaroğlu, ed. E. Genç and D. Çelik, pp. 175–87. Ankara: Yapı Kredi. –— 2008b. Review of A. Çilingiroğlu and A. Sagona, eds., Anatolian Iron Ages 6: The Proceedings of the Sixth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium, Held at Eskişehir, 16–20 August 2004. Bulletin of the Asia Institute 18:167–79. Prayon, F. 1987. Phrygische Plastik. Tübinger Studien zur Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte Vol. 7. Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth. Prayon, F., and A.-M. Wittke. 2004. Die Außenwirkung des späthethitischen Kulturraumes auf Zentral- und Westanatolien und Zypern. In Die Außenwirkungen des späthethitischen Kulturraumes: Güteraustausch—Kulturkontakt—Kulturtransfer. Akten der zweiten Forschungstagung des Graduiertenkollegs “Anatolien und seine Nachbarn” der Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen (20. bis 22. November 2003), ed. M. Novák, F. Prayon, and A.-M. Wittke, pp. 121–26. Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 323. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Saldern, A. von. 1959. Glass Finds at Gordion. Journal of Glass Studies 1:22–51.

78 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Sams, G.K. 1974. Phrygian Painted Animals: Anatolian Orientalizing Art. Anatolian Studies 24:169–96. –— 1978. Schools of Geometric Painting in Early Iron Age Anatolia. In The Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, ed. E. Akurgal, pp. 227–36. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. –— 1989. Sculpted Orthostates at Gordion. In Anatolia and the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç, ed. K. Emre, B. Hrouda, M. Mellink, and N. Özgüç, pp. 447–54. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. –— 1993. Gordion and the Near East in the Early Phrygian Period. In Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and Its Neighbors: Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç, ed. M.J. Mellink, E. Porada, and T. Özgüç, pp. 549–55. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. –— 1994a. The Early Phrygian Pottery. 2 vols. The Gordion Excavations, 1950–1973: Final Reports Vol. 4. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. –— 1994b. Aspects of Early Phrygian Architecture at Gordion. In Anatolian Iron Ages 3: The Proceedings of the Third Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium, Held at Van, 6–12 August 1990, ed. A. Çilingiroğlu and D.H. French, pp. 211–20. London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. –— 2009. Gordion, 2007. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 30:3, 139–50. Sams, G.K., and R.B. Burke. 2008. Gordion, 2006. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 29(2): 329–42. Sievertsen, U. 2004. Der späthetitische Kulturraum und die eisenzeitliche Keramik Zentralanatoliens. In Die Außenwirkungen des späthethitischen Kulturraumes: Güteraustausch—Kulturkontakt—Kulturtransfer. Akten der zweiten Forschungstagung des Graduiertenkollegs “Anatolien und seine Nachbarn” der Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen (20. bis 22. November 2003), ed. M. Novák, F. Prayon, and A.-M. Wittke, pp. 237–57. Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 323. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Strobel, K. 2004. Neue Fragen zur Chronologie Gordions und Anatoliens im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. In Die Außenwirkungen des späthethitischen

Kulturraumes: Güteraustausch—Kulturkontakt— Kulturtransfer. Akten der zweiten Forschungstagung des Graduiertenkollegs “Anatolien und seine Nachbarn” der Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen (20. bis 22. November 2003), ed. M. Novák, F. Prayon, and A.-M. Wittke, pp. 259–84. Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 323. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Voigt, M.M. 2005. Old Problems and New Solutions: Recent Excavations at Gordion. In The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians: Recent Work at Gordion, ed. L. Kealhofer, pp. 22–35. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. — 2007. The Middle Phrygian Occupation at Gordion. In Anatolian Iron Ages 6: The Proceedings of the Sixth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium, Held at Eskişehir, 16–20 August 2004, ed. A. Çilingiroğlu and A. Sagona, pp. 311–33. Leuven: Peeters. Voigt, M.M., and T.C. Young, Jr. 1999. From Phrygian Capital to Achaemenid Entrepot: Middle and Late Phrygian Gordion. Iranica Antiqua 34:191–241. Wittke, A.-M. 2007. Remarks on the Early History of Phrygia (Twelfth to Eighth Century B.C.). In Anatolian Iron Ages 6: The Proceedings of the Sixth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium, Held at Eskişehir, 16–20 August 2004, ed. A. Çilingiroğlu and A. Sagona, pp. 335–47. Leuven: Peeters. Young, R.S. 1956. The Campaign of 1955 at Gordion: Preliminary Report. American Journal of Archaeology 60:249–66. –— 1960. The Gordion Campaign of 1959: Preliminary Report. American Journal of Archaeology 64:227–43. –— 1962a. The 1961 Campaign at Gordion. American Journal of Archaeology 66:153–68. –— 1966. The Gordion Campaign of 1965. American Journal of Archaeology 70:267–78. –— 1969. Old Phrygian Inscriptions from Gordion: Toward a History of the Phrygian Alphabet. Hesperia 38:252–96. –— 1981. Three Great Early Tumuli. The Gordion Excavations Final Reports Vol. 1. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

5

Dendrochronology at Gordion Peter Ian Kuniholm and Maryanne W. Newton, with contributions by Richard F. Liebhart

T

his chapter provides an account of the dendrochronological determinations that have a bearing on the revised chronology for Iron Age Gordion and the Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A-DL period) Destruction Level. The tree-ring evidence derives from timbers in Phrygian Iron Age tumuli and preand post-Destruction Level structures on the Citadel Mound. The Gordion trees form the backbone for a long dendrochronological sequence constructed for Anatolia. By itself, this sequence provides an order for archaeological timbers, but because it is not yet linked to the present, the sequence does not provide absolute or calendrical dates for the cutting and use of specific trees. Radiocarbon dating has therefore been used to anchor the Anatolian sequence, as explained below. Using this anchored sequence, we know that the last preserved rings of the timbers used to construct Early Phrygian Gordion span three and a half centuries, ranging from the early 11th century BC (Megaron 9 at ca. 1071 BC) to the mid-8th century (Tumulus MM at ca. 740 BC). The nature of the archaeological evidence from the Citadel Mound is very different from that of Tumulus MM. The Early Phrygian settlement was badly burned, and only a few of the beams from any given structure still survive. The evidence is even more limited and problematic for the Middle Phrygian settlement. By contrast, the timbers in Tumulus MM are part of a coherent structure that was never burned, and they consequently constitute the focal point of this chapter (Fig. 0.12). The calendar date for the construction of Tumulus MM’s wooden tomb chamber with its outer tim-

ber casing is a critical fixed point for assessing the date of the associated material culture, and for evaluating broader issues of artifact seriation and chronology at Iron Age Gordion. Of particular importance is the question of the serial and chronological relationship of Tumulus MM’s artifacts to those from the Destruction Level, as discussed in Chapters 2 and 4. Varying dates have been proposed over the years for the construction of Tumulus MM based on archaeological and historical criteria, but most particularly on dendrochronological data. The reasons for these disparate dates are explained below. The absolute date for the felling of the Tumulus MM timbers, and, by extension, the date of the tumulus’ construction and the deposition of its artifacts, is now placed by dendrochronology at ca. 740 BC +4/-7 (i.e., in the Middle Phrygian/YHSS 5 period) (Manning et al. 2001; 2003; Chapter 6, this volume). Such a date for the assemblage in Tumulus MM fits well with a date of ca. 800 BC for the Early Phrygian Destruction Level, but would not be consonant with the formerly accepted date of ca. 700 BC for that level (cf. Chapter 4, this volume). In addition, dendrochronological analyses of timbers from Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A) period contexts on the Gordion Citadel Mound provide a terminus post quem for the construction of buildings in the Destruction Level and earlier. None of these determinations can furnish absolute dates for the felling of the timbers used in the buildings, since no bark is extant and an unknown number of the exterior tree-rings are missing, nor can they be used to date the destruction of those buildings. Neverthe-

80 the new chronology of iron age gordion

less, it is significant that none can be demonstrated to be later than the 9th century BC, and neither they nor the dendrochronological determinations from the Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) period provide any support for the old date of ca. 700 BC for the Destruction Level.

First Steps: The Beginning of Tree-Ring Work at Gordion Immediately upon Rodney S. Young’s discovery in 1957 of the juniper logs encasing the pine tomb chamber of Gordion’s Tumulus MM, he seems to have recognized that dendrochronology (a technique long known to New World archaeologists) could be put to good use on the Anatolian plateau.5.1 In Young’s preliminary report in the American Journal of Archaeology the next year, he said: The possibility of establishing a dendrochronological chart for Anatolia which might RD 950

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

carry us right back to the time of the Hittite Empire depends on the availability of wood or charcoal samples from such sites as Boghaz Kale and Kültepe as well as upon a sufficient uniformity of climate and rainfall over the Anatolian plateau at that remote period. The project is well worth pursuing (Young 1958:148n17). Cross-sections from three of the Tumulus MM juniper logs were sent that year to J.L. Giddings at Brown University, but Giddings died before a report could be published. Then, in the summer of 1961, Bryant Bannister of the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, was invited to Gordion for a week to take cores from the juniper logs encasing the tomb. Bannister returned to Arizona and, aided by Jeffrey Dean, commenced analysis of the specimens. Bannister’s paper at the Seventh International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences in Moscow in 1964 presented his conclusions regarding the 806-year floating dendrochronology of the tomb (Fig. 5.1) (Bannister 1970).5.2 At 1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

200 100 0 200 100 0 200 100 0 200 100 0 200 100 0 200 100 0 200 100 0 200 100 0 200 100 0 200 100 0 200 100 0 200 100 0 200 0

200

TUMULUS MM, GORDION, TURKEY RELATIVE DATING

100 0 200 100 0 200 100 0 200 100 0 200 100 0 200 100 0 200

A-TU-GOR-18

A-TU-GOR-16

A. Standardized Indices B. Skeleton Plots

A-TU-GOR-14&15

A-TU-GOR-17

[ =extra wide rings]

A-TU-GOR-8

A A-TU-GOR-2&19

100 0 200 100 0 200 100 0 200 100 0 200 100 0 200 100 0 200

A-TU-GOR-7

A-TU-GOR-11

A-TU-GOR-12&13

A-TU-GOR-3

A-TU-GOR-10

A-TU-GOR-9

Summary of all Specimens

RD 950

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1600

1650

1700

1750

0

A-TU-GOR-18

B

A-TU-GOR-16

A-TU-GOR-17 A-TU-GOR-2&19

A-TU-GOR-7

A-TU-GOR-12&13

A-TU-GOR-14&15

A-TU-GOR-3

A-TU-GOR-10

A-TU-GOR-9

A-TU-GOR-11

A-TU-GOR-8

RD 950

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

Figure 5.1. Jeff Dean’s GOR skeleton plot (lower) and measurement plot (upper). (Courtesy, Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ)



Dendrochronology at Gordion 81

that time Bannister did not feel that the evidence was secure enough to warrant the printing of the growth indices in tabular form and, as his graph of the indices was inadvertently omitted by the printer in Moscow,5.3 nothing was published during Young’s lifetime that would allow an Anatolian excavator to crossdate tree-ring series from wood or charcoal specimens. Nonetheless, Young and his collaborators at the University of Pennsylvania still had dendrochronology on their minds as a possible alternative solution for some of the complex stratigraphic problems posed by the continuing excavations on the Gordion Citadel Mound. George F. Bass, then at Pennsylvania and excavating a series of shipwrecks with wood elements preserved, queried Bannister about what might be possible and received this reply: I am still convinced that dendrochronology in the eastern Mediterranean area has considerable potential, but I am afraid nothing much will be done until we either give training to a good archaeologist familiar with the area or develop a dendrochronologist who is willing to devote his life to Near Eastern Studies. (Bannister, letter to G. F. Bass, 2nd May 1969)

Building the 1028-Year Backbone: Tumulus MM and Kızlarkayası Tumulus A In the winter of 1972–73, when Rodney Young and Peter Kuniholm first discussed the possibility of the latter’s writing a dissertation on the Gordion dendrochronology, Kuniholm knew as much about dendrochronology as many classical archaeologists— that is to say, very little; he was also unaware of the previous history of dendrochronological work at Gordion.5.4 With Young’s acceptance of Kuniholm’s proposal, Elizabeth Ralph and Froelich Rainey provided a measuring machine and microscope; the American Research Institute in Turkey awarded a fellowship; and the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara provided working space to the project for three years. From 1973 to 1977, when the dissertation was completed, Kuniholm was able to build a long treering chronology for Tumulus MM. In 1974 he took his measurements to Arizona and found that the

Bannister/Dean results and his own were identical. This was reported as an 806-year dendrochronology, ending in the bark of the year in which the trees were felled (Kuniholm 1977). In subsequent years Kuniholm and Maryanne Newton were able to collect and analyze even longer-lived timbers from the tomb (notably sample GOR-76; Fig. 5.5) so that the final tree-ring tally for Tumulus MM alone is now 918 years (Figs. 5.5, 5.13).5.5 Many years later, in 1989, the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations at Ankara conducted salvage excavations at Kızlarkayası Tumulus A (about 5 km to the north of the Gordion Citadel Mound) and recovered planks from the tomb casing (a box-like structure with wooden sides) which were made available for dendrochronological analysis (Fig. 5.6). Five planks were sampled (all of them juniper, Juniperus excelsa), one of which has 863 rings, and four of the trees represented by these planks could be crossdated and combined into a site dendrochronology for Kızlarkayası Tumulus A that is 911 years long. This sequence overlaps the early end of the Tumulus MM sequence by 792 years, adding 110 years to the 918 from Tumulus MM, so that we now have a 1028-year chronology for Gordion—the longest archaeological site dendrochronology anywhere in the Aegean or the Near East. This dendrochronology from the two tumuli is the backbone of the entire 1st and 2nd millennium BC tree-ring dating enterprise (Kuniholm et al. 2005) (see Tables 5.1–5.4), and it is upon this backbone that all tree-ring results from the Gordion Citadel Mound and from contemporaneous sites in Anatolia and Greece are based.5.6

Laboratory Analysis of the Timbers and a Comment on Method J.S. Dean had crossdated the Gordion Tumulus MM samples collected by Bannister as noted above. Dean used the classical visual technique (Fig. 5.1, lower half )—skeleton-plotting—developed by A.E. Douglass at the University of Arizona and still the standard means of analysis in the American Southwest for matching before the wood is actually measured (Glock 1937). As the bottom half of Figure 5.1 shows, Dean looked for unusually small rings, drawing vertical lines for each one on graph paper, with the

82 the new chronology of iron age gordion

length of the line in inverse proportion to the thinness of the ring. The resulting sets of patterns or signatures over eight centuries allowed him to match up the ringsequences so that each sample could be placed in its proper position. Relative Year 1500, say, for one piece is from the same year as Relative Year 1500 for all the others. No computers or statistics were necessary. The individual pieces were later measured, as shown in the top half of Fig. 5.1, as a crosscheck on the validity of the skeleton-plotting. Under optimum conditions, the signatures from one tree to another can be identified visually (cf. Figs. 5.2, 5.3). Here, one can also take into account similar morphological features from sample to sample in a given year, such as unusual thickness and the color of latewood cells (the dark, thick-walled cells that are formed near the end of the growing season in late summer)—information that is not retrievable from simple ring-width measurements. Kuniholm used a somewhat different technique. All rings were measured to the nearest 0.01 mm and the plots were crossdated and combined, following standard European dendrochronological procedures (Schmidt et al. 1990:15–31). The statistical tests most commonly used when the visual fit was not immediately apparent were the Student’s t-test (Baillie and Pilcher 1973), the trend-coefficient (Hollstein 1980). In recent years the combination of these as a highlighting or exploratory guide in the form of Schmidt’s so-called D-test (1987) was also used to identify possible crossdates for visual investigation. For correlation coefficients (r-scores), see Tables 5.1–5.6. All the individual specimens from Gordion have thus been measured, either to achieve crossdating (in Ankara, Turkey, and in Ithaca, NY, USA) or to confirm the skeleton-plot placement (in Tucson, AZ, USA), for eventual incorporation into a series of master chronologies: by species, by site, and by region. In all cases the wood itself has been inspected visually. The fact that the results are identical from laboratory to laboratory suggests that either method works well.

Data Processing by Kuniholm et al. Incremental measurements in Ankara and Ithaca were originally made on a DeRouen Chronograph (now obsolete and serving as a hat-rack) and later re-

measured with a Bannister Incremental Measuring Machine (produced by F.C. Henson, Inc.) equipped with a rotary encoder that allows the worker to measure each ring (under a stationary, binocular, dissecting microscope with the sample mounted on a table attached to a fine-gauge screw) and transfer those measurements directly to a computer. Different workers measure every ring at least twice and the results are reconciled. With the measurements of ring growth as the raw data, the comparative analyses are conducted using the Cornell (Ithaca) in-house program, CORINA (current versions available at http:// dendro.cornell.edu), which has replaced the coding forms, punch-cards, and mainframe computer used in earlier days. For the data provided in Tables 5.1–5.6, some of the programs publicly available in the tree-ring research community have also been used, specifically COFECHA and ARSTAN, both from the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research in Tucson (University of Arizona) and from the Columbia University Tree-Ring Laboratory at the LamontDoherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York (Holmes 1983); http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/ fac/trl/public/publicSoftware.html. Typical ring-growth is strongly affected by the age of a tree, with the rings of younger trees being larger than those of older ones. As a result, comparing and matching the large growth-increments of a young tree with the tiny growth-increments of a very old tree can be difficult, so a means must be found to make it possible. We usually convert the raw data (ring widths) into standardized indices by fitting a negative exponential curve to the data, thereby removing the age trend in the individual trees. A glance at the graphs in the upper half of Fig. 5.1 shows how the age-effect on these Gordion treerings has been removed.5.7

Tumulus MM and Its Timbers Sample numbers: Multiple samples MMTRD5.8 847–1764 n=918 years ends ca. 740 BC Comment: Tumulus MM was described by Young in a preliminary report (1958), and a full publication appeared posthumously (Young 1981). For the



Dendrochronology at Gordion 83

purposes of the present discussion, a three-quarters cutaway sketch of the tomb (Fig. 5.4) will help the reader unfamiliar with the structure of the tumulus.5.9 The tomb chamber—the world’s oldest extant standing timber building—now has the appearance of a wooden cabin with interior dimensions of 6.20 m. north–south and 5.15 m. east–west (Fig. 0.12); the height of the walls is 3.25 m. to the beginning of the double-pitched roof. The floor is made from 13 beams that rest on a bed of juniper logs, of which there are probably about 18 in total (none of these beams or the logs below them have been sampled for dendrochronological analysis). The walls and roof are built from 97 squared pine (Pinus nigra) beams fitted together primarily with open mortise joints. The average beam width is in excess of 0.35 m. and the thicknesses (heights) of the beams range from 0.18 to 0.50 m. The actual lengths of the wall beams are longer than the interior dimensions: the lower side (east and west) wall beams are 7.70 m. long, while the shorter north and south wall beams are 5.40 m. long. The largest pine beam used in the tomb is the lower member of the double ridge beam, which is 11.44 m. long. Only two of these pine timbers were sampled for dendrochronology (as was a squared block from the support for the coffin), but although they crossdate with the juniper logs of the tomb chamber’s outer casing, they do not play an important role in the Gordion tree-ring story. Approximately 0.30 m. outside the walls of the tomb chamber proper, and separated from it by a packing of fist-sized rubble, is an outer casing of 32 partially trimmed juniper logs (Juniperus excelsa and J. foetidissima; cross-sections of these logs are shown in Figs. 5.2 and 5.3). The logs were held in place only by the surrounding rubble packing, and are now supported by a steel frame system. Above this outer casing and extending just outside its vertical line is another series of juniper logs; 17 are preserved (3 on the north, 4 on the west, 4 on the south, and 6 on the east). Above the tomb chamber was originally a secondary roof of juniper logs that is no longer in place and was not properly documented during the excavation or in subsequent clearing operations. There may have been as many as 30 logs in this series. These logs apparently straddled the ridge beam complex (which had two pine beams serving as ridge beam, with juniper logs lying on either side

Figure 5.2. Photograph of ring-growth on GOR-3 Juniperus excelsa, for MMTRD 1560–1660. Decades are marked with pin-holes, half-centuries with double pin-holes, centuries with triple pin-holes. Magnified about 800%. Note the reductions in ring-growth in MMTRD 1568, 1574, 1579, 1584, 1590, 1594, 1596, 1601, 1607, 1609–1610, 1626, and 1641–1642. (Courtesy, Peter Ian Kuniholm)

Figure 5.3. Photograph of ring-growth on GOR-2 Juniperus foetidissima, for MMTRD 1561–1645. Decades are marked with pin-holes, half-centuries with double pin-holes, centuries with triple pin-holes. Magnified about 400%. Note the reductions in ring-growth in MMTRD 1568, 1574, 1579, 1584, 1590, 1594, 1596, 1601, 1607, 1609-1610, 1626, and 1641–1642. (Courtesy, Peter Ian Kuniholm)

Figure 5.4. Cutaway view of Tumulus MM’s chamber (cf. Fig. 0.11). Most of the dendrochronological samples are from the unsquared juniper logs of the outer casing (cf. Fig. 0.12). (Drawing by Martin E. Weaver in S. Piggott, ed., The Dawn of Civilization [London: Thames and Hudson, 1961]: 193, fig. 16.)

for extra support), and the ends of the logs were held by side walls of squared pine beams. There are now some 21 juniper logs lying on the roof of the tomb, plus a number of fragmentary pine beams. Except for those lying at the ridge beam, all of the logs on

84 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Figure 5.5. Photograph of GOR-76 from Tumulus MM, Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) period. This tree was 918 years old when it was cut down around 740 BC. Note that only the heartwood is preserved. The pith is on the left. Eightyeight sapwood rings are missing on the right. (Courtesy, Peter Ian Kuniholm)

the roof were apparently placed there in 1961 during the construction of the concrete shell that now covers the tomb chamber, when most of the logs of the secondary roof were removed completely. The juniper logs of the outer casing and secondary roof carried most of the weight of the rubble mound and tumulus fill above the tomb chamber complex, thus protecting the less dense pine beams of the tomb chamber proper. Log diameters vary between 0.14 m. at the upper ends and 0.68 m. at the butt ends, with an average of approximately 0.45 m.; lengths range between ca. 6.50 m. and 9.00 m. Prior to 2002, when some of the juniper logs below the floor were exposed, there were approximately 70 juniper logs accessible for sampling (out of an original total of perhaps as many as 120 used in the construction of the tomb chamber complex). Datable samples were collected from 24 different logs within this group. All the juniper samples are cores and/or cross-sections from the logs of the outer casing (the junipers now lying on the roof of the tomb chamber were generally judged to be too badly deteriorated for sampling). The typical ring-count of the Tumulus MM junipers is 444, with a low of 222 and a high of 830 measurable rings. Assuming that this last sample came from a tree that was felled at the same time as the logs with secure terminal rings, it would have been 918 years old when it was cut down, but is now

missing 88 years of sapwood rings on the exterior (Fig. 5.5). At no other site in the Aegean or the Near East have timbers with this kind of ring-count been preserved.5.10 Included in Appendix A below are the tables of growth indices and supporting statistics for each species of juniper as well as for the pine from Tumulus MM, together with a guide on how to read the tables (see Tables 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, and 5.6). In this way the reader can observe the growth indices, year by year for 918 years, and how well they fit together. It is worth noting that all (not counting the one highly erratic specimen from above the roof ) of the Tumulus MM juniper samples can be cross-dated, a highly unusual percentage and one that argues for the homogeneity of the group.

Kızlarkayası Tumulus A and Its Timbers Sample numbers: GOR-158–162 MMTRD 737–1647vv n=911 years ca. 857 BC, many sapwood rings are missing after that Comment: Kızlarkayası Tumulus A is a small, plundered burial mound about 5 km north of the Gordion Citadel Mound, rescued in a salvage operation in



Dendrochronology at Gordion 85

Figure 5.6. Two of the Kızlarkayası Tumulus A boards, with Joan Ramage for scale. The board next to her right shoulder (enlargement shown on left) came from a tree that was approximately 1000 years old at the time it was cut down in ca. the 8th century BC. The 863 preserved rings run from MMTRD 737 at the bottom to 1599 at the top, or from ca.1767–905 BC. (Courtesy, Peter Ian Kuniholm)

1989 by members of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara (Saatçi and Kopar 1990, 1991). It contained very little of note other than a dinos (the best parallels for which are from Tumulus P at Gordion, dated to the early 8th century), a couple of jars, and the four extraordinarily long-lived juniper planks that had surrounded the skeleton of the deceased (Fig. 5.6). Note that, in contrast to the Tumulus MM juniper logs with their bark preserved, all the timber from Kızlarkayası A is lacking its entire sapwood component. So to the last preserved heartwood ring (a smooth surface, most probably the heartwoodsapwood boundary) of ca. 857 BC must be added 100–150 missing sapwood rings, which points to a felling date somewhere in the late 9th or early 8th century BC, in accord with the estimated date for the dinos (see Appendix A: Table 5.4).

Non-chronological Observations The trees cut down to build the tomb chambers in Tumulus MM and Kızlarkayası Tumulus A were large and long-lived. GOR-161 in Kızlarkayası A must have been around 1000 years old at the time it was felled. It cannot be said for certain where the trees grew, although years ago both Kuniholm (1977) and Young (1981) suggested that cuttings (notch plus hole) on the butt ends of the Tumulus MM timbers, together with the lack of longitudinal scratches on the surfaces of the trunks, indicated that these trees must have been felled and then dragged a relatively short distance to the site by single-axle oxcarts. This wood-transportation technique is still in use today by foresters at nearby Bolu in what was ancient Bithynia (Figs. 5.7, 5.8). Longer-distance transportation would have

86 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Figure 5.7. A typical notch-plus-hole at the butt end of a Tumulus MM (MMT) log. It serves no architectural purpose. (Courtesy, Peter Ian Kuniholm)

demanded roads, bridges, and political control over the countryside. Wood-transport across the Anatolian Plateau has been demonstrated by the crossdating of dendrochronological samples collected over the past thirty years from archaeological sites as early as the Late Uruk period at Arslantepe (late 4th millennium BC), where the juniper logs were probably floated down the Euphrates River (Kuniholm and Newton 2004). On Anatolian Middle Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Medieval sites, juniper and cedar trees are found many kilometers away from the nearest forest stands. But for Gordion,

Figure 5.8. A single-axle oxcart used by woodcutters today in Bolu. The notched log fits over the axle; it is centered on a metal pin protruding from the upper surface, and is then chained in place. The arrow points to a notch from a board in the barn that was cut from such a log. (Courtesy, Peter Ian Kuniholm)



Dendrochronology at Gordion 87

Figure 5.9. The relatively straight bed of today’s Sakarya River is a creation of the State Waterworks Service (DSİ) and its dredgers. At the time of the commencement of the University of Pennsylvania excavations in 1950, the river was a flat marshland that at times extended to the village in the distance. (Courtesy, Peter Ian Kuniholm)

the principal argument against importation of timbers from the relatively well-watered Taurus Mountains to the south is the tiny ring-size of the Gordion logs, with radial ring-growth sometimes as low as 100 rings per 2 cm (see Appendix A: [6]). Most likely the Gordion trees were from a local stand, with the trees in competition with one another for the meager water resources available.5.11 This notion is supported by the high correlation coefficients (r-scores of up to 0.73; see Appendix A: Tables 5.1–5.4), which are as high as, or higher than, those found in any of the over 120 modern forest stands sampled by us in the entire Aegean and eastern Mediterranean. Once the trees were cut down, they were not replaced. Indeed, there is yet to be found anywhere at Gordion a single significant datable timber later than 740 BC.5.12 Any idea that the Tumulus MM timbers were moved by river seems most unlikely. Although transportation from far-away forests by floating the logs

down the Sangarios/Sakarya is theoretically possible, the hairpin bends typical of Anatolian rivers (Figs. 5.9, 5.10) would seem to present—both now and 2,700 years ago—an almost impossible barrier for timbers that are as long as those from Tumulus MM. But while the origin of the Gordion timbers is a fascinating story in palaeoecology and the prehistoric forestry of Turkey, that is not really part of this account (Miller 1999; Marston, forthcoming).

Attempts to Arrive at an Absolute Date BC Once the robust 1028-year tree-ring chronology had been built, where was it to be placed in time? Since there is as yet no continuous tree-ring sequence connecting the living trees of the Anatolian Plateau with those of Iron Age date, all chronologi-

88 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Figure 5.10. Although the riverbed depicted here is the Kızılırmak (Halys), the Sakarya (Sangarius) in its upper reaches has hairpin turns just like this. Floating an 11-m. log around them either today or in antiquity seems an impossible task. (Courtesy, Peter Ian Kuniholm)

cal placement attempts have had to be made on nondendrochronological bases, the most useful of which was wiggle-matched radiocarbon dating.

Underlying Physical Problems with the Radiocarbon Method The discovery of the radiocarbon dating method, announced at the same time as the commencement of Young’s Gordion excavations in 1950, had prompted him to save a number of charcoal and wood samples through the 1950s and 1960s. For instance, Gordion sample P-30 was only the thirtieth determination ever made at Elizabeth K. Ralph’s University of Pennsylvania laboratory. The number of samples collected was small, usually at the rate of one per building in the early years. Rodney Young was aware (and tried to take advantage) of the potential of radiocarbon right from the beginning of the project (see Chapter 2, this volume). Unfortunately, many of the first raw radiocarbon determinations were simply incomprehensible to Young and his staff because the need for calibration of the radiocarbon curve had not yet

been realized; they were also perceived as unnecessary since a rough chronological framework, derived from archaeological and textual evidence, was considered to have been more or less established for 1st millennium BC Anatolia and the Near East (R.S. Young, pers. comm.). A systematic attempt to make sense of the Gordion radiocarbon chronology by Kohler and Ralph (1961) included a number of anomalous dates that were rejected as impossible by Young. Today it is clearly apparent that the radiocarbon analyses came out the way they did because of the relatively primitive laboratory techniques of half a century ago, in some cases combined with inappropriate sampling methods, and primarily because the need for calibration was then unrecognized.5.13 The need for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale was first announced only eight years after the Gordion excavations began, by Hessel de Vries (thus the “de Vries effect”; de Vries 1958). Several years later Hans Suess reported what he called “secular variations” of the radiocarbon time-scale (thus the socalled Suess effect), though he did not offer a means by which the corrections might be made (Suess 1965, 1967; see also Stuiver and Suess 1966; Olsson 1970);



Dendrochronology at Gordion 89

Relative Ring Number 800

1000

1200

1800

3200 Gordion ‘Young’ set in Manning et al. (2001)

14

INTCAL98 Gordion trees from which dates 10-year samples were taken. GOR-3 J. excelsa and GOR-2 J. foetidissima from the Midas Mound Tumulus; GOR-161 J. exelsa from the nerby Kizlarkaya Tumulus.

2400

2200

3000

New data, picking up 1325BC 14 C wiggle

2800

2600

3400

Gordion ‘Old’ set in Manning et al. (2001)

3000

C Age BP

1600

Best fit of all 58 data, ring 777=1730BC (+2/+3 years compared to best fits preferred in Manning et al. 2001 at 1728/1727BC using just the Gordion ‘Old’ dataset).

3400

3200

1400

1600

2600

2400

GOR-3

1800

2800

GOR-2

1400

GOR-161

1200

1000

800

600

2200

Calendar Date BC Figure 5.11. Matched wiggles for Gordion (Manning et al. 2001). This placement supersedes all previous attempts. (Courtesy, Sturt Manning)

nevertheless, his figures showing secular variations prompted a dating revolution in Old World archaeology (notably Renfrew 1973). But it was only in 1973 that the first practical table by which 14C dates could be recalculated was published, in the MASCA Newsletter of the University of Pennsylvania Museum (Ralph et al. 1973), the result of a three-laboratory inter-comparison (Arizona, San Diego at LaJolla, and Pennsylvania).5.14 This was followed in 1982 by the publication of the first formal international calibration curve (Klein et al. 1982).5.15 The history of radiocarbon calibration through the mid 1990s is summarized and reviewed in Taylor et al. (1996).5.16

How Radiocarbon Dating Was Employed to Pin Down the Gordion Dendrochronology For work on the Gordion Tumulus MM wood, Kuniholm began his collaboration with Bernd Kromer at the Institut für Umweltphysik in Heidelberg in 1986. They used a practice called “wiggle-matching” to place the floating Tumulus MM dendrochronological sequences onto the radiocarbon scale (Fig. 5.11). The method had been employed by Ferguson et al. (1966), and more

90 the new chronology of iron age gordion

sophisticated applications were progressively developed from the 1960s through the 2000s (Ferguson et al. 1966; Clark and Renfrew 1972; Pearson 1986; Bronk Ramsey et al. 2001; Galimberti et al. 2004). The term had been introduced in a paper in Archaeometry by the statistician R.M. Clark and the archaeologist Colin Renfrew, and describes a process for trying to replicate the shape of the radiocarbon curve (Clark and Renfrew 1972).5.17 The calibrated radiocarbon curve was created by measuring the absorption of radiocarbon trapped in the tree-rings of absolutely dated bristlecone pines, a species that can live for thousands of years. The experiment was later replicated with shorter-lived European oaks (to produce the four IntCal curves), for which see Kromer 2009:16 for a brief summary. Since the rate of production of radiocarbon in the Earth’s atmosphere is not uniform (due to geomagnetic and helio-magnetic variations), the record of atmospheric radiocarbon levels derived from the tree-ring is non-monotonic and thus shows “wiggles” back through time (rather than a smooth curve or straight line). In wiggle-matching of floating tree-ring series, one measures the radiocarbon content in ten-year segments of the undated (but carefully measured and crossdated) tree-rings, and matches their now-sequential wiggles with the existing wiggles of the radiocarbon calibration curve. It is this near-perfect marriage of the practices of dendrochronology and radiocarbon that narrows the range of possible BC dates from what one determination alone could provide.

Visual Comparison versus Statistical Comparison In the early years of the Kuniholm-Kromer collaboration, all of the wiggle-matching was done by visual comparison, although cross-checks with a number of newly available calibration programs permitted the calculation of the statistical probability of the proposed “fits.”5.18 By 1996, with the addition of Sturt Manning to the Kuniholm-Kromer team and the announcement of the Bronze Age–Iron Age dendrochronology in Nature (Kuniholm et al. 1996), the team had begun to use two different approaches to calculate dendro wiggle-match placements: (1) an ad hoc least-squares-based analysis (software

of Manning) as shown in Kuniholm et al. (1996: fig. 2), and (2) the comprehensive OxCal software (Bronk Ramsey 1995) which employed a Bayesian analytical framework to estimate the best fit solution (by Gibbs sampling at this time).5.19

Calendrical Placement Attempts for the Floating Gordion Tree-Ring Sequence The first placement of the tree-ring sequence relative to the absolute calendar did not involve the use of radiocarbon at all (Kuniholm 1977). It was instead based on an estimated closure date for Tumulus MM of ca. 725 BC (as suggested by Young at the outset) derived from close parallels between the lion situla found in the tomb (Fig. 1.2) and those depicted in reliefs from Sargon II’s (721–705 BC) palace at Khorsabad, as well as from speculations about the tomb’s historical context in relation to historical data in Sargon’s Annals (see Chapters 1 and 4, this volume). The international group working on calibration of the radiocarbon time scale was formed in 1979, two years after Kuniholm’s thesis was submitted, and the first publication of an international calibration curve appeared in 1982 (Klein et al. 1982). The following list of attempted placements roughly parallels the announcements of a series of four international calibration curves, beginning in 1986 with IntCal86 and following through to the announcement in Spring 2005 of IntCal04. In other words, as the Kuniholm-Kromer-Manning team struggled to find a date for Tumulus MM, the radiocarbon curve itself was undergoing several gestations of its own. With the advent of radiocarbon wiggle-match dating and the publication of the 1986 calibration curve (Stuiver and Becker 1986), the estimated felling date for Tumulus MM (i.e., the year when the trees to build it were cut down) was moved upwards to 757 BC +/- 37 years.5.20 This was reported in three publications (Kuniholm 1988, 1993; Kuniholm et al. 1992), with no comment as to whether the +/-37 years was a one-sigma or a two-sigma determination, and with the +/-37 as simply the mid-point of what was then an apparent 74-year range.5.21 By the time the 1993 radiocarbon calibration curve was published (Stuiver et al. 1993), high-



Dendrochronology at Gordion 91

By the time the IntCal98 curve was published (Stuiver et al. 1998), the morphology of Tumulus MM’s dendrochronological radio380 4.56 22.8 22 18 15 our size now carbon wiggle-matched dates could be traced against the new (IntCal98) calibration curve in 190 2.28 11.4 27 22 18 fine detail, because so many new radiocarbon 100 1.20 6.0 35 27 21 determinations had been accumulated for the wiggle-match—52 instead of 18 (Manning et 50 0.60 3.0 46 35 27 al. 2001, 2003; Reimer 2001). Immediately, it was apparent that the ca. 718 BC date proposed Figure 5.12. Kromer’s ± error margins (in years) depending on in 1996 was no longer tenable, neither visually weight of sample and length of counting. A 5-gram sample, nor statistically.5.23 It was also clear that the new counted for four weeks, can be dated to within a ±15 year windata required the curve to be shifted upward in dow. (Courtesy, Bernd Kromer) time by 22 years, to a point where there was a much better fit (Fig. 5.11, which supersedes the precision, wiggle-matched radiocarbon dates began Kuniholm et al. 1996 placement), close to the midto be available from Heidelberg. About this time, point of the range used when the team started the Kromer converted four of his counters to longwork in 1996. The date for the cutting of the timterm, high-precision counters for substandardbers in Tumulus MM thus became ca. 740 +4/-7 BC sized samples, specifically for the dendrochronology (Manning et al 2001). The big spike at Porsuk was project, thanks to a development grant from the consequently pushed back to ca. 1650 BC, doing M.H. Wiener Foundation. The chart of the probaway with any synchronism with a possible 1628 BC able errors kindly provided by Kromer (Fig. 5.12) event at Thera. shows what the Heidelberg laboratory is able to do The publication of the IntCal04 radiocarbon for samples as small as 4.56 grams of carbon when calibration curve (Reimer et al. 2004) has not modithe decays are counted for four weeks. An error of fied the ca. 740 BC date for Tumulus MM, although ±15 radiocarbon years is about as much precision as the smoothing of the curve obscures some of the one could reasonably expect for a single radiocarbon details of the morphology that the team had noted determination. earlier while looking at the visual match. After Kromer had completed 18 of these determinations, it was decided that there was evidence Conclusions Regarding the Placement for a modified placement of the Tumulus MM chroof the Backbone of the Gordion nology, with its end at 718 BC +78/-22 years. The actual mid-point of the radiocarbon fit would have Tree-Ring Chronology yielded a date of 731 BC for Tumulus MM. HowAs illustrated by the tables of indices in Appenever, it was discovered that the whole graph could be dix A below and the photographs of the actual treemoved down in time by 13 years, and yet still remain rings in Figs. 5.2 and 5.3, the 1028-year Gordion within the 95% range of probability.5.22 As a result, the cutting date for Tumulus MM became 718 BC, juniper chronology was built from 9,025 measured and a huge spike in the growth of 61 trees at Portree-rings from the MM and Kızlarkayası A tumuli. suk (the biggest Aegean tree-ring anomaly in the last The point to be kept in mind when reviewing 9,000 years) could be aligned with 1628 BC, which the history of the shifting absolute date of the outwas then considered as a prime possibility for the er casing inside Tumulus MM is that the original eruption of Santorini/Thera (based on suggestions Tumulus MM–based dendrochronology itself has by e.g., LaMarche and Hirschboeck 1984; Baillie not substantially changed. It has been lengthened at and Munro 1988; Hughes 1988; Manning 1988). the early end from 806 years to 918 years for TumuIn retrospect this was ill-advised, although it seemed lus MM, and the Gordion regional chronology has perfectly reasonable at the time. been extended to 1028 years by the addition of the mMoles

gC

g wood 1 week 2 weeks 4 weeks

92 the new chronology of iron age gordion

rings from Kızlarkayası Tumulus A. What has shifted is the placement of the entire dendrochronological (relative) sequence against the absolute scale of the calendar, so that the cutting date for the timbers in Tumulus MM has moved from ca. 725 BC to ca. 757 BC +/-37 to ca. 718 BC +76/-22 to the current ca. 740 BC +4/-7. The last three sets of absolute dates were offered as new scientific data obtained from the radiocarbon tests became available over the years. All relative dates within the tomb and on the Gordion Citadel Mound remain pretty much as they have been from the beginning of the dendrochronological work.

The Relationship of the Tumulus MM Dendrochronology to the Date of the Tomb’s Construction (Richard F. Liebhart)5.24 A critical issue is whether or not the dendrochronological date for the felling of the Tumulus MM juniper logs, now placed at 740 BC (+4/-7), can provide a close date for the tomb’s construction and thus for the deposition of the artifacts associated with the burial. The most likely possibilities are: (1) the juniper timbers were cut specifically for immediate use in Tumulus MM; (2) the timbers had first been used elsewhere and were then reused in the tomb; (3) the timbers had been stored for some considerable amount of time before being used (whether or not they were cut specifically for the burial associated with Tumulus MM); or (4) some combination of all three scenarios. In the case of (1) above, the felling date of the junipers would closely date the construction of the tomb and the deposition of the artifacts. Cases (2), (3), and (4) would mean that the felling date of the timbers could antedate by many years the time of the tomb’s construction and the artifacts’ deposition. Let us now deal with each possibility in detail. Regarding reuse of the juniper timbers (case 2 above): while such a scenario is not impossible, a reuse of juniper logs is highly unlikely. The discovery of juniper logs in situ during the excavations of Iron Age buildings on the Gordion Citadel Mound (see below) clearly indicates that the Phrygians regularly used such timbers in structural foundations and

within the fabric of monumental buildings, a tradition in Anatolian architecture since the Neolithic.5.25 To reuse those logs would have required considerable effort, namely the partial or complete dismantling of a major building to gain access to the timbers. One would also have to assume that the timbers were in a reusable condition. Only one timber ever collected at Gordion (and that from a Middle Phrygian trench on the Citadel Mound) shows clear signs of a previous use. No cuttings or nail holes from any previous use have been observed in the MMT junipers. The fact that such timbers on the Gordion Citadel Mound are usually found in their original (first-use) positions is itself an indication that they were not commonly recycled (an exception may be the possible reuse of earlier [PAP Structure] timbers in Megaron 9). Furthermore, given the known examples of juniper logs from the Citadel Mound, it is most unlikely that the dimensions of such timbers would match the size requirements of the Tumulus MM outer casing and bedding, for which most of the junipers had to be cut to specific lengths. For instance, the longer east and west walls of the lower sections of the tomb’s outer casing contained 16 logs that were between 8.20 and 9.00 m. long (this length let them cover the ends of the shorter logs of the north and south walls). All of the 16 logs in the shorter walls were about 6.50 m. long, which was also the same basic length needed for the logs used as the bedding course below the beams of the tomb chamber floor. It seems likely, then, that the trees were selected and felled in the forest with these dimensions in mind; in other words, the juniper logs used in Tumulus MM were almost certainly cut for that specific monument.5.26 Regarding long-term storage of the timbers (case 3 above): could the Tumulus MM junipers have come from a stockpile of logs? There are two basic reasons for stockpiling wood for construction: seasoning and instant availability for use. With the Phrygians’ apparently typical use of juniper in contact with the ground and its accompanying moisture, there would have been no good reason for them to have seasoned the logs before use. That logs were stockpiled for both immediate and future availability is again a possibility that cannot at present be fully proven or disproven in the case of Tumulus MM. Other than in rare instances, Anatolian forestry practice in all periods seems to have



Dendrochronology at Gordion 93

been to cut a tree and use it immediately. One clear case of stockpiling is at Urartian Ayanis where timbers were cut and stored over a four-year period (Newton and Kuniholm 2007, 2009). A second instance is at Tatarlı, where there is a four-year gap between the painted cedar timbers of the inner tomb chamber and the unpainted juniper timbers of the outer casing (Kuniholm, Newton, and Griggs 2007, 2010). These are, however, exceptions to the rule. There are several juniper logs in the Gordion tomb chamber that have attributes indicating they were not harvested years ahead of their use, but rather that they were used in the tomb construction immediately after being cut. Each of the juniper logs of the outer casing normally has about half of its surface area available for visual inspection; a study of these accessible areas has revealed that even though the surfaces of many logs have deteriorated for one reason or another, many others are still pristine. One can therefore see, for instance, the tool marks from trimming limbs, or from shaping the logs slightly (but occasionally more significantly) to fit against an adjacent log. For the present discussion, however, the most important surfaces on the juniper logs are those that preserve the burrowing channels made by the Buprestid beetle (Buprestidae). Of the 32 logs used in the lower section of the outer casing, 7 preserve these channels, with at least one such log on each side of the tomb chamber. Buprestids bore their tunnels directly beneath the bark of standing trees that have come under stress (through physical damage or disease), or trees that have been recently cut. Significantly, several tunnels in the Tumulus MM logs still contain the beetles’ frass (excrement), which is delicate and would have fallen out if the bark had been deliberately removed or if the timber had been roughly handled (e.g., dragging or rolling the log). Furthermore, the channels themselves are generally pristine, with sharp edges showing no signs of wear. These attributes would not be present if the logs had first been used for some other purpose, and had then been retrieved, transported to the tumulus site, and reused for the tomb chamber complex. Even stockpiling the timbers would have meant handling them in such a way that the beetle channels could not have survived. In conclusion, the juniper logs with the preserved channels were placed in the tomb with at least some of their bark intact (whether or not the latter is

still extant), with the beetles still actively tunneling (Robert Blanchette, pers. comm., 19 April 2007). To account for such a limited amount of damage to the surfaces of these logs, the following scenario seems the most likely. After the trees had been felled, their limbs were trimmed for ease of handling. In preparation for transportation, a notch was cut near the base end of each timber, after which a hole was chisel-cut in the middle of the notch (Fig. 5.7)(Young 1981:86, fig. 53); as noted earlier, this notch-andhole allowed the log to be set on a vertical pin in the middle of an axle between two wheels, probably with a rope or chain securing it in place (Fig. 5.8). The log thus became part of a cart. Draft animals brought the logs directly from the juniper forest to Gordion. Whether the smaller, lighter end was lifted up and attached to another axle is not known. The modern solution shown in the photograph is a one-axled cart. There are no signs of longitudinal scratches on the Tumulus MM junipers to indicate significant abrasive contact with the ground. Among these juniper logs with extant Buprestid channels, one stands out in significance. On the north wall of the outer casing, the seventh log from the bottom is the source of the coring-sample GOR90. This is one of those that provide a felling date of ca. 740 BC, even though it lacked its bark and the last preserved ring is two years earlier than the samples that had their bark intact. Examining GOR-90 demonstrates that it was taken from the middle of a shallow Buprestid channel: it follows that the beetle that created the channel ate the last rings of the log in this exact spot. Since none of the other samples used to build the Tumulus MM dendrochronology has evidence for beetle tunnels, GOR-90’s log may be the best proof that at least some of the juniper trees were felled specifically for use in Tumulus MM in ca. 740 BC. Finally, there is the question (case 4 above) of whether the Tumulus MM juniper logs were gathered from different sources: reused (highly unlikely), stockpiled (possible but unproven), or newly cut for the tomb construction (certain for at least some of the logs). It must be said that a mixed source for the juniper logs cannot be completely discounted, especially when one considers the range of evidence. The tree-ring coefficients are so high, however, that a single stand is the probable source, dendrochro-

94 the new chronology of iron age gordion

nologically speaking. For example, a few of the logs in the upper levels of the tomb’s outer casing have irregular ends that do not appear to be the direct result of felling, although it is difficult to imagine, let alone to know, the purpose or origin of these features. Then again, since the surfaces of many of the logs have deteriorated, they can provide no fine evidence such as the beetle channels, and others have had their surfaces trimmed away so that only the tool marks are visible. There is no definitive evidence that any of the logs were not cut at the time the tomb was built. On balance, the weight of the evidence suggests that the juniper logs from the tomb chamber complex of Tumulus MM were cut specifically for that tomb’s construction, and therefore the date of ca. 740 BC for the felling of the timber should be the same date as the building of the tomb and the deposition of its artifacts. A detailed description of that construction would be too long for inclusion here, but the overall impression is that the tomb chamber complex was built relatively rapidly (in weeks rather than months or years), together with an earthen burial mound at least large enough to cover the tomb chamber complex and the rubble mound piled above it, as noted by Young over 50 years ago. It is possible that the enormous burial mound visible today (Fig. 0.11) is a later expansion of a smaller original, built at a more leisurely pace. The tomb itself was not constructed during the lifetime of the occupant, but rather after his death, presumably by his successor. If the date for the construction is correct, this successor could have been the famous Midas/Mita. His first act would have been the building of this imposing monument to honor his father or grandfather (or, at any rate, some worthy ancestor) and convey the extent of his own power.5.27 The date of ca. 740 BC for the construction of Tumulus MM provides a new chronological marker for the deposition of the artifacts associated with the burial, and pinpoints their period of use. This is an important contribution to our understanding of particular artifact seriations through time. Specifically, it indicates the relative chronological relationship of the Tumulus MM material to that from the Destruction Level. That is to say, the artifacts from the tomb are considerably (i.e. about 60 years) later than those from the Destruction Level.

Dendrochronology on the Gordion Citadel Mound (PIK and MWN) This chapter concludes with the dendrochronological evidence from Gordion’s Citadel Mound and its relevance to the new, revised Gordion Iron Age chronology.5.28 The dendrochronological data are derived from timbers associated with the construction (and/or repair) of the following buildings (see Appendix B for their details): 1. Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A) pre-Destruction Level, pre-Terrace period: Megarons 3, 5, 6, and 9, and the Early Phrygian Gate Building’s South Court (Fig. 7.5). 2. Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A) pre-Destruction Level, Terrace period: the anterooms of Terrace Buildings 2 (TB-2A) and 7 (TB-7A), Clay Cut Building 3 (CC-3), and Megaron 4 (Fig. 0.7). 3. Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) period (i.e., post-Destruction Level): the Middle Phrygian Gate Building’s North Court, the Middle Phrygian Gate Building’s foundation, Wall WG1, Building A’s foundation; Building J, Building Y, and the Middle Phrygian Clay from Trench D-1 (Fig. 0.9). The situation for tree-ring dating on the Citadel Mound (as elsewhere at Gordion) is altogether different from that for Tumulus MM, in that the dendrochronological information is far less robust and precise, and can have only a limited bearing on the issue of the revised date for the Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A-DL) Destruction Level. Not one of the tree-ring samples from the Citadel Mound preserves the bark, and in all cases an unknown number of tree-rings are missing, so the felling dates of the timbers are unknown (though it is possible that GOR-94 and GOR-112E from Terrace Building 2’s anteroom, TB-2A, may be near the bark, as well as GOR-30 from Megaron 4). It is also possible that some timbers were substantially older than the buildings into which they were incorporated, especially if timbers were reused from demolished older buildings. It follows that these dendrochronological determinations can provide only a terminus post quem for the construction of the buildings (a timber might have been used or reused long after its felling date, but it cannot have been used before the time of the last preserved ring); other chronologi-



Dendrochronology at Gordion 95

cal evidence (radiocarbon, artifactual, stratigraphic), usually imprecise, must be employed to evaluate when a particular building was constructed, while its destruction date can be determined only by the associated contents (artifacts and short-lived carbon samples found in the debris). Not only is the condition of the Citadel Mound timbers inferior to those from Tumulus MM, but also the small sample sizes limit precision in dating. Of the 16 buildings or units on the Citadel Mound for which tree-ring dates are reported below, 10 are represented by a single sample each, which prohibits the kind of detailed dendrochronological reconstruction that was possible for Tumulus MM and Kızlarkayası Tumulus A. Those contexts with a significant number of samples are limited to Terrace Building 2’s anteroom (TB-2A)—256 samples, possibly representing some 40 individual trees—and Clay Cut Building 3 (CC-3)—22 samples possibly representing a total of 9 trees. The Early Phrygian Gate Building’s South Court, with 5 dated samples, is marginally respectable. The rest of the buildings on the Citadel Mound are very poorly represented. The vast majority of the Citadel Mound timbers are pine (as for the inner tomb chamber of Tumulus MM), which is not surprising since pine is more satisfactory for construction purposes than juniper. Because the rings for different tree-species produce slightly different patterns, two chronologies had to be built: a 335-year sequence (ca. 1184–850 BC) based on 119 pine elements from the Citadel Mound, and a 377-year sequence (ca. 1238–862 BC) based on 14 juniper elements from the Citadel Mound.5.29 We then had to try to crossdate them against the two kinds of junipers from Tumulus MM, the pines from Tumulus MM, the pines from the Great Tumulus at Ankara, and against each other.5.30 We believe that the fits are secure, acknowledging that this would have been extraordinarily difficult without having as a reference the backbone provided by Tumulus MM. We also recognize that TB-2A and CC-3 play a disproportionate share in the fit simply because of their large sample population. It is worth repeating that none of the sampled timbers associated with the Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A) buildings is demonstrably later than the 9th century BC, nor do any of the timbers sampled from immediately post-Destruction Level (Middle Phrygian/YHSS 5) contexts date

any later than 819 BC.5.31 What follows is a summary of the dendrochronological evaluations for each building, organized according to the general period of construction. 1. Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A) pre-Destruction Level, pre-Terrace period (Fig. 7.5). A terminus post quem is available for the construction or repair of each of the following buildings based on the last preserved ring of the associated timber sample: ca. 1071 BC (Megaron 9), ca. 944 BC (Megaron 6), ca. 939 BC (Megaron 5), ca. 911 BC (Megaron 3), and ca. 862 BC (Early Phrygian Gate Building, South Court). Megarons 5 and 6 were adjacent to each other, and the similar dates of their last preserved ring(s) suggest that they were built around the same time (Fig. 5.15). But dendrochronology cannot tell us how long after such dates any of the buildings were actually constructed (or repaired), since the felling dates of the timbers are not represented. An imprecise terminus ante quem for the construction, use, and destruction of these buildings is available from stratigraphic/artifactual evidence; in the case of Megarons 3 and 5, in situ artifacts furnish an imprecise chronology for their destruction. Megaron 6 was emptied and demolished by the time the Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A) Terrace was built over it (see no. 2 below). Megaron 9 had been emptied and demolished some time before the Destruction Level fire broke out, before or as part of “The Unfinished Project,” which was itself still in progress at the time of the Destruction Level fire (Fig. 7.8) (Voigt, forthcoming). Megaron 3 burned in the Destruction Level fire and was then demolished (with its ruined artifacts in situ) and covered by the Middle Phrygian Citadel-rebuild fill. Although Megaron 5 was hardly (or perhaps not at all) touched by the Destruction Level fire, part or all of it was still standing at that time, with artifacts in situ, and its demolished remains were buried by material relating to the Middle Phrygian Citadel-rebuild (cf. no. 3 below). The Destruction Level fire did not reach the Early Phrygian Gate Building. At that time the area had already been cordoned off for the reconstruction work of the Unfinished Project (Voigt, forthcoming), and the building was subsequently buried by the fill and superstructure of the Middle Phrygian Gate Building, which was erected as part of the Citadel-rebuild following the Destruction Level.

96 the new chronology of iron age gordion

2. Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A) pre-Destruction Level, Terrace period (Fig. 0.7). A terminus post quem is available for the construction or repair of each of the following buildings based on the last preserved ring of the associated timber sample: ca. 1141 BC (TB-7A), ca. 909 BC (CC-3 and Megaron 4), and ca. 850 BC (TB-2A). But, again, since none of the felling dates for the timbers is known, dendrochronology will not indicate how long after the terminus post quem each building was actually constructed (or repaired), much less when it was destroyed or went out of use. The Terrace Building (represented here by TB-2A and TB-7A) and the Clay Cut Building (represented here by CC-3) were essentially identical structures with similar functions, facing each other across a broad street, and they were probably built together in one program. The date of the construction of the Terrace on which these two complexes were erected cannot be precisely determined given the available stratigraphic/artifactual evidence, and the same is true for the later extension to the Terrace on which Megaron 4 sits. All of the buildings in question burned in the Destruction Level fire and were then demolished and buried beneath the new Middle Phrygian Citadel structures. In situ artifacts provide an imprecise chronology for the buildings’ destruction, which in turn supplies a terminus ante quem for their construction. In the case of TB-2A, a reliable absolute chronology for the building’s destruction is available from the short-lived radiocarbon evidence discussed in Chapter 6, this volume. 3. Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) (i.e., postDestruction Level) (Fig. 0.9). A terminus post quem is available for the construction or repair of each of the following buildings based on the last preserved ring of the associated timber sample: Building J (ca. 1061 BC), Building Y (ca. 1004 BC), Middle Phrygian clay in Trench D1 (ca. 957 BC), Middle Phrygian Gate Building’s North Court (ca. 942 BC), Middle Phrygian Gate Building’s foundations (ca. 924 BC), Wall WG1 associated with Building X (ca. 879 BC), and Building A’s foundations (ca. 819 BC). The most potentially significant of these samples is one from Building A (sample GOR-21). Up to 135 sapwood rings are preserved on this sample, and only one or two other juniper timbers at Gordion have a higher sapwood count. A relatively small number of outer rings may therefore be missing. If this is actu-

ally the case, and if the timber was not reused from an older building, then the building was erected in the early 8th century BC rather than the 7th, as was the thinking in the old chronological scheme.

Appendix A: Tables and Commentary

Tables 5.1–5.3 1. Number of dated series: From Tumulus MM there are dated ring-series from 17 Juniperus excelsa, 4 Juniperus foetidissima, and 3 Pinus nigra stems. This suggests that there is a true group signal rather than an accidental profile based on the idiosyncrasies of one or two trees. Note that when multiple cores were collected or multiple radii were measured from the same log, these were combined into a single dataset. The tree from which the samples GOR-7A–E, GOR-83A–C, and GOR-90C–D were extracted was therefore counted as one tree, not ten. 2. Series length: The average series length of 444 years for Tumulus MM is unique, as indicated earlier. Professor Bannister has dryly noted that if one had other sets of tomb groups like this, spaced at 500-year intervals, the whole business of building an Aegean and Near Eastern dendrochronological profile could be accomplished in six months. 3. Series intercorrelation: The high series intercorrelation of 0.727 for Tumulus MM means that this is a homogeneous set of trees from a single source rather than an assemblage brought in from various parts of the Anatolian plateau. Where this stand might have been located is discussed above (The Relationship of the Tumulus MM Dendrochronology to the Date of the Tomb’s Construction). The highest t-score is 26.9; the lowest is 6.1; and the mean t-score is 10.03. The mean trend-coefficient is 73.0%, and the average D-score is nearly 180.5.32 4. Average mean sensitivity: A mean sensitivity of 0.325 indicates there is considerable variation from ring to ring, enough so that patterns are readily discernible. Two extreme examples follow. If one ring were 51/100 mm. and the next ring were 49/100 mm., the mean sensitivity would be 0.02, or so complacent that year-to-year changes would be almost invisible. On the other hand, if one ring were 1/100 mm and the next ring were



Dendrochronology at Gordion 97

Table 5.1. Measured Juniperus excelsa samples from the timbers in the outer casing around the burial chamber inside Tumulus MM (MMT), and from Kızlarkayası Tumulus A. See Table 5.6 for a summary of the Iron Age J. excelsa chronology built from these samples. (Courtesy, Maryanne W. Newton) Dendro ID

MMTRD Begins

Ends

Total series length

Number of dated radii

Mean radius length

904 1482 999 1184 1715 1263 1511 1396 989 993 1143 1047 1249 1554 847 1317 1424

1764 1764 1763 1762 1759 1738 1736 1661 1658 1645 1639 1438 1411 1725 1676 1635 1632

861 283 765 579 45 476 226 266 670 653 497 392 163 172 830 319 209

9 3 5 12 2 8 3 2 5 2 2 5 2 1 1 1 1

391 252 637 256 43 61 155 253 450 640 473 268 89 172 830 319 209

Number of dated radii

Mean radius length

1 2 3 1

304 553 120 217

Average Mean Average correlation sensitivity growth rate between radii (mm/yr)

MMT GOR-9&77&87 GOR14-92 GOR-3 GOR-7&83&90 GOR-80AB GOR-82A-H GOR-16 GOR-8AB GOR-10&88 GOR-36 GOR-11AB GOR12&13 GOR-79BC GOR-18A GOR-76B GOR-85A GOR-79A

MMTRD

Kızlarkayası Tumulus A GOR-158 GOR-161AB GOR-162AB GOR-159 trun

Begins

Ends

Total series length

1344 737 1398 1335

1647 1599 1591 1592

304 863 194 217

99/100 mm., the mean sensitivity would be 0.98, or so erratic that again nothing useful could be discerned. One piece of pine, said to be from the roof of Tumulus MM’s chamber, is so erratic that it cannot be dated, even though it has 205 rings. The forest stand where these trees grew experienced considerable annual changes in precipitation, although not much in total. Gordion today has an annual precipitation of ca. 380 mm., rather less than what the Gulf Coast of the U.S. receives in one day in a hurricane. Note that the pines from Tumulus MM generally have a lower mean sensitivity than the

0.646 0.680 0.791 0.734 0.679 0.540 0.861 0.871 0.707 0.742 0.854 0.743 0.682 NA NA NA NA

0.409 0.292 0.354 0.361 0.513 0.398 0.316 0.355 0.331 0.429 0.391 0.289 0.368 0.370 0.298 0.283 0.327

0.40 0.55 0.28 0.36 0.32 0.29 0.66 0.33 0.38 0.37 0.48 0.49 0.14 0.24 0.46 0.49 0.22

Average Mean Average correlation sensitivity growth rate between radii (mm/yr)

NA 0.748 0.875 NA

0.415 0.344 0.397 0.305

1.02 0.38 0.74 0.85

junipers, as seen also in the pines from the Gordion Citadel Mound. 5. Mean series length: The mean series length of 452 years for Tumulus MM leads us to the following conclusion: although the complete profile for a particular tree had to be built from multiple cores or radii, the length of each subset was more than long enough to guarantee the correctness of its placement versus the others. Ideally, one looks for a minimum of 100-year overlaps. At no other site have we had the luxury of over four-century-long average overlaps.

98 the new chronology of iron age gordion Table 5.2. Juniperus foetidissima samples from the timbers in the outer casing around the burial chamber inside Tumulus MM (MMT), and from Kızlarkayası Tumulus A. (Courtesy, Maryanne W. Newton) Dendro ID

MMTRD Begins

Ends

Total length in years

Number of dated radii

Mean radius length

Average correlation between radii

Mean sensitivity

Average growth rate (mm/yr)

GOR-81

1514

1745

232

2

140

0.83

0.276

0.88

GOR2&19

1279

1709

431

5

363

0.74

0.269

0.63

GOR-17AB

1478

1703

226

2

199

0.72

0.260

0.71

GOR-84

1415

1636

222

3

144

0.70

0.212

0.85

1541

1674

134

1

134

NA

0.332

0.60

MMT

Kızlarkayası Tumulus A GOR-160A

Table 5.3. Juniperus spp. samples from the Early Phrygian Gate Building and the Citadel Mound area. (Courtesy, Maryanne W. Newton) Dendro ID

MMTRD Begins

Ends

Total series length

Number of dated radii

Mean radius length

Average Mean Average correlation sensitivity growth rate between radii (mm/yr)

GOR-200AB

1541

1641

101

2

83

0.835

0.217

0.76

GOR-197A

1561

1618

58

1

58

NA

0.222

0.74

Phrygian Gate

GOR-202A

1556

1611

56

1

56

NA

0.202

0.74

GOR-199A

1536

1604

69

1

69

NA

0.200

0.89

GOR-21, Middle Phrygian Bldg. A Foundation

1433

1670

238

1

238

NA

0.326

0.051

GOR-33, Middle Phrygian Palace Enclosure? Wall WG1

1523

1623

101

1

101

NA

0.200

0.084

GOR-6, Middle Phrygian Gate

1309

1582

274

1

274

NA

0.284

0.051

GOR-31ABC, Megaron 5

1329

1564

236

3

234

0.700

0.245

0.075

GOR-28, Middle Phrygian Gate, N Court

1412

1562

151

1

151

NA

0.266

0.045

GOR-32, Megaron 6

1422

1560

139

1

139

NA

0.199

0.083

GOR-29, Middle Phrygian Gate, N Court

1332

1501

170

1

170

NA

0.246

0.052

GOR-4&5, Middle Phrygian Gate, N Court

1254

1455

202

1

202

NA

0.262

0.065

GOR-34AB, NE Building

1244

1433

190

2

150

0.690

0.261

0.062

GOR-38AB, Terrace Bldg 7A

1271

1363

93

2

93

0.272

0.272

0.121

Citadel Mound



Dendrochronology at Gordion 99

Figure 5.13. Bar-graph of Tumulus MM (MMT) samples. The double vertical bar on the right indicates the presence of bark (i.e., the felling year) in MMTRD 1764 or ca. 740 BC. (Courtesy, Peter Ian Kuniholm and Carol Griggs)

6. Average growth rate: The small average ringsize for the junipers is less than 38/100 mm or twelve times the thickness of a human hair per year, indicating that these trees grew on the arid steppe of the Anatolian plateau, not on the wetter slopes of the Taurus or the Pontic Mountains. Turkish foresters have informed us that modern-day Anatolian junipers of this size are normally only 135–240 years old, not 400–900 years. 7. Although not shown in the tables, several series from Tumulus MM end in the bark of the Tumulus MM felling year, MMTRD 1764 (or ca. 740 BC) (Figs. 5.13, 5.14), and other series approach this year as a lower limit. When a tree has had a number of rings removed, whether by the wood-cutter’s adze or by rot, this is immediately discernible and explainable. The Tumulus MM pine, lacking bark, the sapwood, and an unknown amount of heartwood, ends in MMTRD 1604 (or ca. 900 BC), i.e., 160 years before the cutting date of the junipers.

Tables 5.4–5.6 Tables 5.4–5.6 should be read the same way as Tables 5.1–5.3. Although Kızlarkayası Tumulus A has longer ring-sequences, it has fewer samples. Although Terrace Building 2’s anteroom (TB-2A) has more samples, the ring-sequences are shorter, etc. Nothing in the Iron Age dendrochronology of Anatolia is quite up to the standard of Tumulus MM.

Appendix B: Samples from Major Buildings on the Gordion Citadel Mound5.33 The following is a list of Citadel Mound buildings to which dendrochronological dates have been assigned based on their crossdates with the timbers from Tumulus MM and Kızlarkayası Tumulus A. The order in which they are presented roughly cor-

100 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Figure 5.14. Photograph of the bark on the exterior of Tumulus MM (MMT) sample GOR-3 on top of Ring 1764. The 1764 ring is complete, so the timber was cut after September in MMTRD 1764 and before May in MMTRD 1765. (Courtesy, Peter Ian Kuniholm)

responds to their place in the Citadel Mound stratigraphic sequence, but it should be emphasized that this sequence is not certain in all places. In the heading for each building, an asterisk (*) before the sample number means that this is the only sample taken from a given building. The range of MMTRD dates shows the span of years covered by the sample from beginning to end. The symbol “n” represents the number of years. Usually, the longer the sample, the greater the security of the dating. The “date BC,” for the reader’s convenience, is that of the last preserved ring based on the placement of MMTRD 1764 at 740 BC (+4/7). The notation “vv” after a date means that there is no way of determining how many rings are missing from the exterior of the wood. The notation “v” means there is some subjective reason for thinking that very few rings are missing—the same last ring appearing around the circumference of the sample, for example, or a full sapwood count. The notation “p” means the pith ring is present; similarly, the lack of a “p” means the pith is absent. The notation “++” means that several of the outermost rings are count-

able but not measurable. One “+” means the last ring was fractional or not measurable. Also included in the documentation for the buildings is the date that samples were collected (where this was recorded), the references to the pertinent Gordion field notebook volumes, where possible, and a commentary.5.34

Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A), Pre-Destruction Level, Pre-Terrace Period Constructions 1. Megaron 9 Sample number: *GOR-34 MMTRD 1292+/-p-1482vv n=191 years Date BC: ca. 1071vv Collection date: 30 June 1969 Gordion field notebook reference: Vol. 147:61ff., with plan on p. 62 Comment: Excavation of Megaron 9 (formerly known as the Northeast Building, or NEB) yielded one juniper (Juniperus sp.) sample (GOR-34) taken



Dendrochronology at Gordion 101

Table 5.4. Measured Pinus spp. samples of timbers from Tumulus MM (MMT), CC-3, Citadel Mound provenances, and the Büyük Tumulus (Ankara). While not possible to identify certain species of the Pinus genus from wood, and especially charcoal, Pinus nigra, the only pine found at this altitude on the Anatolian Plateau in Turkey today, is the most likely. (Courtesy, Maryanne W. Newton) Sample ID

MMTRD Begins

Ends

Total series length

Number of dated radii

Mean radius length

Average Mean Average correlation sensitivity growth rate between radii (mm/yr)

GOR-105AB

1350

1604

255

2

172

0.671

0.238

1.09

GOR-43&44

1334

1579

246

2

179

0.782

0.199

1.06

GOR-1&75

1375

1568

194

2

141

0.498

0.194

1.31

GOR-59ABC

1410

1595

186

4

123

0.842

0.223

0.50

MMT

Clay Cut Building 3 GOR-52A-D

1420

1553

134

4

88

0.628

0.216

0.73

GOR-63ABC

1337

1529

193

3

123

0.770

0.236

1.14

GOR-47A&49A

1414

1512

99

2

97

0.678

0.178

0.83

GOR-60A-F & 62AC

1305

1436

132

8

59

0.786

0.239

0.88

GOR-65AB

1328

1427

100

2

98

0.572

0.261

1.01

GOR-30A, Megaron 4

1453

1595

143

1

143

NA

0.306

1.54

GOR-72A, Megaron 3

1522

1593

72

1

72

NA

0.163

1.29

GOR-31ABC, Megaron 5

1329

1564

236

3

236

0.700

0.242

0.08

Number of dated radii

Mean radius length

178

0.601

0.206

Citadel Mound

Sample ID

MMTRD Begins

Ends

Total series length

Average Mean Average correlation sensitivity growth rate between radii (mm/yr)

1360

1655

296

3

ANK-18AB

1431

1565

135

2

84

0.571

0.246

1.12

ANK-8A

1420

1533

114

1

114

NA

0.287

0.94

ANK-14A

1444

1486

43

1

43

NA

0.303

1.34

ANK-9A

1382

1475

94

1

94

NA

0.253

1.20

ANK-10AB

1371

1437

67

2

56

0.705

0.282

1.48

Büyük Tumulus (Ankara) ANK-3ABD

from a quarter section of a north-south beam from the bedding of the megaron’s east wall. This was one of a series of heavy, horizontal, transverse support beams laid at regular intervals under the stone foundations of Megaron 9’s walls (Young 1964:290). The end-date for the sample is 1071vv BC, and, since this is the only sample from the building, the number of tree-rings missing from the exterior cannot be

0.98

estimated. Although Megaron 9 is fairly early within the Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A) period, a last preserved ring of ca. 1071vv BC seems much too early for its construction. It may be that a good number of rings are missing from the exterior, and/or the timber may have been reused. In connection with the latter point, it is noteworthy that Megaron 9’s foundations also included many finely finished architec-

102 the new chronology of iron age gordion Table 5.5. Pinus spp. samples from Terrace Building 2’s anteroom (TB-2A). (Courtesy, Maryanne W. Newton) Dendro ID

YHSS ID

MMTRD Begins

Ends

Total series length

Number of dated radii

Mean radius length

Correlation Mean Growth between sensitivity rate radii (mm/yr)

GOR-112A-E(AB) & FJ(ABC) GOR-94AEH-K

32137

1398

1654

257

11

71

0.448

0.216

0.62

32180

1337

1611

275

6

76

0.646

0.226

0.64

GOR-136AB

33066

1501

1603

103

2

85

0.749

0.231

0.38

GOR-116A-Z

32953

1329

1600

272

25

75

0.692

0.245

0.49

32113, 32123, 32124 32113, 32180, 32124

1403

1600

198

5

158

0.641

0.291

0.17

1400

1595

196

13

93

0.609

0.209

0.27

GOR-98EGH & 94D & 100S GOR-98IK & 100CF & 102BDEJKOPQT GOR-119AB

33629

1386

1578

193

2

117

0.686

0.241

0.79

GOR-149ABC

33652

1352

1570

219

3

153

0.823

0.205

0.63

GOR-144ADEF

33213

1467

1567

101

4

67

0.659

0.227

1.08

GOR-102FDHR

32124

1451

1559

109

4

61

0.571

0.191

0.62

GOR-113ABDEF

32140

1362

1549

188

5

59

0.603

0.208

0.61

GOR-142AB

33628

1464

1549

86

2

66

0.827

0.231

0.66

GOR-152A-J

33750

1405

1545

141

10

61

0.763

0.252

0.68

GOR-137ABC

33649

1400

1543

144

3

66

0.847

0..231

0.79

GOR-147AB

33598

1421

1539

119

2

100

0.324

0.205

0.71

GOR-150AB

33752

1373

1533

161

2

131

0.573

0.196

0.49

GOR-126ABC

33578

1435

1530

96

3

62

0.713

0.217

0.66

GOR-130BCD

33583

1443

1521

79

3

42

0.871

0.283

1.76

GOR-127ABCD

33091

1412

1500

89

4

74

0.724

0.203

1.28

GOR-145ABD

33599

1373

1490

118

7

36

0.766

0.219

1.33

GOR-153A & IJ

33749

1379

1474

96

7

35

0.802

0.217

1.32

GOR-103ACE

32126

1401

1459

59

3

41

0.661

0.218

1.05

GOR-155ABEFGH

33747

1321

1447

127

8

64

0.739

0.222

0.99

tural blocks of mudstone, a sedimentary rock that is much softer than limestone. The whole structure rested on a bed of broken-up plaster that Young thought had come from an older dismantled building. Later excavations in 1993 revealed a demolished building built of poros and timber immediately to the west of Megaron 9, which Voigt termed the PAP

(for “Post and Poros”) Structure (Fig. 2.7a,b; see Voigt and Henrickson 2000:46–50). It was surely from this earlier (YHSS 6B period) building that the poros blocks and probably the plaster associated with Megaron 9 originally derived. Incorporation of bedding timbers from the PAP Structure into the foundations of Megaron 9 is thus a reasonable hypothesis



Dendrochronology at Gordion 103

Table 5.5 (cont’d.) Dendro ID

YHSS ID

MMTRD Begins

Series length

Number of dated radii

Mean radius length

Ends

GOR-103F

32126

1527

1606

80

1

80

GOR-103B

32126

1545

1594

50

1

50

GOR-100D

32123

1485

1586

102

1

GOR-134B

33582

1461

1572

112

GOR-131A

33711

1421

1553

GOR-154A

33650

1368

GOR-123A

33621

GOR-146A

Average Mean Average correlation sensitivity growth between rate radii (mm/yr) 0.189

0.35

N

0.206

0.38

102

o

0.251

0.28

1

112

t

0.181

0.40

133

1

133

0.207

0.70

1545

178

1

178

A

0.200

0.90

1456

1545

90

1

90

p

0.228

1.71

33751

1461

1530

70

1

70

p

0.180

1.80

GOR-111A

32139

1466

1527

62

1

62

l

0.252

0.44

GOR-151A

33591

1445

1520

76

1

76

i

0.245

2.06

GOR-148A

33572

1457

1520

64

1

64

c

0.253

0.78

GOR-100I

32123

1476

1520

45

1

45

a

0.246

0.52

GOR-103D

32126

1395

1519

125

1

125

b

0.242

0.31

GOR-143A

33753

1409

1514

106

1

106

l

0.243

0.39

GOR-124A

33583

1414

1482

69

1

69

e

0.177

0.99

GOR-144C

33213

1408

1474

67

1

67

0.216

0.86

GOR-138A

33060

1401

1422

122

1

122

0.190

1.02

(even though, again, the construction date for the PAP Structure—estimated to have been shortly after 900 BC—is much later than the last-preserved ring of GOR-34). Megaron 9 was torn down before or as part of the Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A period) Unfinished Project (Voigt, forthcoming), which was still in progress at the time of the Destruction Level fire (though Megaron 9 was not standing at the time of the conflagration). 2. Megaron 6 Sample number: *GOR-32 MMTRD 1421–1567++vv n=139 years (+7) Date BC: ca. 944++vv Collection date: 12, 18 June 1967 Gordion field notebook reference: Vol. 131:60, 80, 111–14, Trench M6

Comment: Megaron 6 appears to have been the second building from the east in a row of southeastfacing megarons. When portions of Megaron 6 first came to light in 1965, the excavator observed that the side wall was built of small rubble strengthened by wooden posts set into both faces, “or rather, the posts must have been set up first and the rubble masonry then built around and between them” (Young 1966:272). From a posthole on the inner face of the west wall (Fig. 5.15), and therefore no later than the time of the building’s construction, a cross-section (GOR-32) of an undressed juniper log (J. foetidissima) was retrieved (Young 1968:240). Megaron 6 was built fairly early in the Early Phrygian/YHSS 6A period and was probably roughly contemporary with Megaron 9. The later date for GOR-32 is 127 years after the last ring for Megaron

104 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Figure 5.15. Photograph of Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A) Megaron 6 (center), with Megaron 5 (barely visible) behind it. GOR-32 was retrieved from the posthole on the left (arrowed) in the far wall of Megaron 6. Middle Phrygian (YHSS 5) Tumulus MM, against which all this is dated, is in the background, left. (Courtesy, Peter Ian Kuniholm)

9, which suggests that the Megaron 6 timber was cut for the building’s construction (or perhaps repair) rather than reused from an earlier building. Megaron 6 went out of use much earlier than the destruction since it was buried under the construction fill of the Early Phrygian/YHSS 6A period Terrace. 3. Megaron 5 Sample number: *GOR-31 MMTRD 1329p–1564+vv n=236 years (+1) Date BC: ca. 939vv Collection date: 12 June 1965 Gordion field notebook reference: Vol. 119:38, with plan on p. 33, Trench M5G Comment: Megaron 5 lay adjacent and parallel to the east side of Megaron 6 (Fig. 5.15) and was built at approximately the same time based on stratigraphic evidence (implied in Young 1966:272). This relative construction date is supported by the dendrochro-

nological results, which produced remarkably similar end-dates for the samples from the two buildings. Megaron 5 lasted longer than Megaron 6, for, unlike the latter, it was not buried when the Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A) period Terrace was built. Rather, its west wall went on to serve as a retaining wall for the adjacent part of the Terrace, and it seems likely that the entire building was still standing at the time of the Destruction Level fire. GOR-31 from Megaron 5 is a long (2.20 m. preserved at the time of excavation), partially squared, radial section of a split log (Pinus nigra or silvestris), with one side charred and one side eroded. One radius with outer ring growth appears to have been cut smooth, perhaps only peeled (Fig. 5.16). GOR-31 was found near the east wall of the building, where it had fallen on several pithoi. Associated with the beam were reeds and chopped straw mixed with clay, so GOR-31 would appear to have been a roof beam of some sort. Although one side of the beam



Dendrochronology at Gordion 105

Figure 5.16. GOR-31 from Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A) Megaron 5 with detail (at left) of the last 25 exterior rings. This radius with outer ring growth appears to have been cut smooth, perhaps only peeled. (Courtesy, Peter Ian Kuniholm) Table 5.6. Summary of Iron Age chronologies for each species and their constituents. (Courtesy, Peter Ian Kuniholm, Maryanne W. Newton, and Carol Griggs) MMTRD Begins

Total length Ends (years)

J. excelsa

737

1764

Midas Mound Tumulus

847

Kızlarkayası Tumulus A

737

J. foetidissima

1279

No. of No. of trees radii

Avg Mean Average Average Average growth sensitivity series t-score trend rate correla– coeff. (mm/yr) tion

1028

21

71

1764

918

17

64

0.38

0.325

0.727

11.00

72.4

1599

863

4

7

0.75

0.367

0.723

10.10

77.3

1745

467

5

13

Midas Mound Tumulus

1279

1745

467

4

12

0.77

0.240

0.509

5.60

65.3

Kızlarkayası Tumulus A

1541

1674

134

1

1

0.61

0.322

n/a

n/a

n/a

Juniperus spp.

1244

1670

427

16

25

Phrygian Gate

1536

1641

106

4

5

0.77

0.211

0.738

8.40

78.2

Citadel Mound

1244

1670

427

12

20

0.57

0.198

0.319

3.79

61.5

Pinus spp.

1305

1655

351

58

195

Midas Mound Tumulus

1334

1604

271

3

6

1.29

0.199

0.399

6.30

61.8

Clay Cut Building 3

1305

1595

291

6

23

0.84

0.209

0.359

3.00

61.3

Citadel Mound

1329

1595

267

3

5

1.19

0.237

*

Terrace Building 2A

1321

1611

291

40

151

0.80

0.211

0.451

2.70

61.2

Büyük Tumulus (Ankara) 1360

1655

296

6

10

0.99

0.188

0.440

4.00

64.2

*

* Internal scores are not significant, but all samples correlate well, visually and statistically, with the other Pinus spp. chronologies.

*

106 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Figure 5.17. The wide error margins for a radiocarbon date for GOR-72 from Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A-DL) Megaron 3 show why radiocarbon has its limitations in certain periods.

is charred, the excavator noted that there was no evidence that the building had been burned at the time of the Destruction Level fire (Young 1966:271–72). 4. Megaron 3 Sample number: *GOR-72 MMTRD 1522–1593vv n=72 years Date BC: ca. 911vv Collection date: 11 August 1957 Gordion field notebook reference: Vol. 160: 148–50 Comment: The largest of the individual megaron halls found during the excavations, Megaron 3 had existed for some time before the Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A) Terrace was constructed, as demonstrated by the fact that the building’s walls served as a revetment for the adjacent part of the Terrace’s fill. Megaron 3 continued in use until it was destroyed in the great fire of

the Destruction Level. GOR-72 is a carbonized log of pine (P. nigra), found at the top of the burned fill of the building and presumably fallen from the roof. Rings from GOR-72 (which ones are not known) were removed for radiocarbon analysis by E.K. Ralph and processed as radiocarbon sample P-135 (see Chapters 2 and 6, this volume). The determination was 2623±119 BP. At one sigma and using OxCal 3.10 and the IntCal04 curve, the radiocarbon date is 916–730 cal BC, or 689–659 cal BC, or 649–543 cal BC. At two sigma, because of the flatness of the radiocarbon curve (the Hallstatt Plateau), the possible range is between 1012 and 405 cal BC, a result that is not helpful at all (Fig. 5.17). The last preserved ring is in MMTRD 1593+vv, which gives a terminus post quem of ca. 911 BC for the construction (or repair) of the building. An unknown number of rings are missing, so it is uncertain when the timber was felled.



Dendrochronology at Gordion 107

5. Early Phrygian Gate Building, South Court Sample numbers: GOR-191, 197, 199, 200, 202 (see Table 5.3) MMTRD 1536–1642+vv n=106 years (+1) Date BC: ca. 862vv Collection date: 5 August 2003 Gordion field notebook reference: Kuniholm Field Book 2003, pp. 30–31 with sketch Comment: The Early Phrygian Gate was constructed some time in the Early Phrygian/YHSS 6A period, later than but incorporating the earlier (YHSS 6B period) Citadel Gate Building (the so-called Polychrome Gate House). It ultimately included both a North Court and a South Court flanking the gate passageway. When the great fire of the Destruction Level occurred, the area of the Early Phrygian Gate Complex was already undergoing reconstruction (“The Unfinished Project”). With the rebuilding of the Citadel following the Destruction Level fire, the

Early Phrygian Gate was buried by the construction fills for the Middle Phrygian Gate that was erected on top of and forward of its predecessor. During conservation work on the South Court of the Early Phrygian Gate, the ends of at least 12 header beams were found projecting from the outer face of the Court’s southeastern wall (Figs. 5.18, 5.19). Fragmented juniper (Juniperus sp.) sections from five beams were collected, all of which were retrieved from the same timber slot, and all of them could be crossdated. The timbers were lying side-by-side, laid transversely though the fabric of the wall, presumably as some kind of leveling course (see Table 5.3).5.35 The last preserved ring is in MMTRD 1642+vv, which gives a terminus post quem of ca. 862 BC for the construction (or repair) of the South Court. No bark is present and an unknown number of rings are missing, so it is uncertain how long after this date the timber was felled.

Figure 5.18. Early Phrygian Gate Complex, South Court (YHSS 6A-DL). The row of sampled timbers from this structure is located level with the step in the fill directly behind the photographer’s shadow. (Courtesy, Peter Ian Kuniholm)

108 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Figure 5.19. Early Phrygian Gateway, South Court (YHSS 6A-DL); chainsawing juniper samples from the Phrygian Gate. (Courtesy, Peter Ian Kuniholm)

Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A), Pre-Destruction Level, Terrace Period Constructions 6. Terrace Building 2, Anteroom (TB-2A) Sample numbers: Multiple samples (see Table 5.5) MMTRD 1321–1654vv n=334 years Date BC: ca. 850vv Collection date: August 1989 Gordion field notebook reference: Voigt 1989 NBK, Op. 1 Comment: Two opposing, long multi-megaron building complexes, the Terrace Building (TB) and the Clay Cut Building (CC), were constructed on a northwest-southeast alignment, facing each other across a broad street. They were built on top of the great Terrace that was constructed over Megarons 6–8 (cf. no. 2 above), and thus date to the latter part of the Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A) period. Since the dimensions, layout, and stratigraphic position of the TB and CCB are essentially the same, they were surely part of the same construction program, and their contents show that they were used for the same purposes: textile production, cooking, and storage.

Both were destroyed in the great fire of the Destruction Level. In the southeastern part of the Terrace Building complex is Terrace Building 2. Its anteroom, TB-2A, is the one major coherent unit from the Destruction Level to have been excavated in the post-Rodney Young era, as part of the Yassıhöyük Stratigraphic Sequence (YHSS; cf. Chapter 2, this volume) directed by Mary Voigt. The Aegean Dendrochronology Project participated in the charcoal collection in 1989, attempting to rescue every potentially useful scrap (Fig. 5.20); these included isolated pieces of bark, but none was still attached to any xylem tissue. A total of 256 pieces of charcoal and partially burned sections of wood (all Pinus nigra or P. silvestris) were bagged and brought to Cornell for analysis.5.36 The last measured ring in TB-2A is in MMTRD 1654, which gives a terminus post quem of ca. 850 BC for the construction (or repair) of the building, but since an unknown number of rings are missing after this ring, the precise date of the construction (or repair) work is unknown.5.37 Most charcoal samples from TB-2A were recognized as parts of specific constructional timbers at the time of collection; they were assigned a YH lot number in the field, and were recorded and



Dendrochronology at Gordion 109

drawn as such. In the laboratory, however, it was found that some YH lots included fragments from different trees. In other instances, widely separated fragments turned out to be from the same original tree. This should not be surprising given the violent nature of the demise of the building, but it is necessary to remind the reader that collection and analysis in TB-2A and CC-3 were not as straightforward as in the tumuli.5.38 The 256 collected samples and their many subsets of burned fragments from TB2A translate into about 40 identifiable trees (Fig. 5.21).5.39 Table 5.5 lists the samples from TB-2A, with their archaeological context determinable from their accompanying YH identification numbers, as well as their dendrochronological identification numbers.5.40 There are oddities in some of the groupings as one can readily see (for example, samples from several YHSS numbers came from a single tree), but this is the best possible concordance that can be provided. These charred remains from TB-2A

have therefore yielded the most thorough record for a proper dendrochronological and architectural understanding of any building on the entire Terrace.5.41 Note in the bar-graph of Fig. 5.21 that one sample (GOR-112 or YH32137) extends out to MMTRD 1654 (or ca. 850 BC), 43 years beyond all the others, and could therefore be interpreted as a repair to a building that was built shortly after MMTRD 1611 (or ca. 893 BC). Note also that the next 30-odd samples cluster in a classic “fallback” pattern described and illustrated by Baillie (1982:57). Our conclusion, therefore, is that TB2A was built after MMTRD 1611 (or ca. 893 BC, thereby making its construction approximately contemporary with CC-3) and repaired after MMTRD 1654 (or ca. 850 BC). This observation is supported by the radiocarbon dates for the roof reeds which are some decades higher than those reported for the seeds on the floor of TB-2A. TB-2A may therefore be the first Iron Age building in Anatolia whose construction (after 893 BC), use and repair (after

Figure 5.20. The anteroom of Terrace Building 2 (TB-2A, YHSS 6A-DL) showing the remains of some of the collapsed constructional timbers (detail on right). Charcoal fragments later identified as coming from the timbers in the center were found spread across the room from wall to wall. (Gordion Archive)

110 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Figure 5.21. Bar-graph of the TB-2A (YHSS 6A-DL) samples. Option 1: The building was constructed some time after MMTRD 1654 or 850 BC. Option 2: The building was constructed some time after MMTRD 1611 or 893 BC, and was repaired 43 or more years later, after 850 BC. Some of the very “old” samples may be the inner portions of some of the later samples. (Courtesy, Peter Ian Kuniholm and Carol Griggs)

850 BC), and destruction (around 800 BC) can be documented in detail. Table 5.5A presents the summary data for the tree-ring sequences from 23 timbers that have been assembled from multiple fragments of charcoal from TB-2A. Table 5.5B presents the summary data for an additional 17 tree-ring sequences. Even though they were allegedly collected as part of another timber, they cannot be considered from the dendrochronological analysis to be from the same tree. The total for TB-2A as shown in Table 5.5 is 40 trees.

7. Terrace Building 7, Anteroom (TB-7A) Sample number: *GOR-38 MMTRD 1271–1363+vv n=93 years (+1) Date BC: ca. 1140vv Collection date: June 1973, probably the timber excavated by Keith DeVries in 19715.42 Gordion field notebook reference: Vol. 156:113 Comment: Terrace Building 7 is in the northwestern part of the Terrace Building complex. From the south cross-wall of its anteroom (TB-7A), one



Dendrochronology at Gordion 111

piece of charred juniper (Juniperus sp.) was collected: a squared quarter section from a post cut at a 45-degree angle to its length and clearly part of the superstructure. The early date of ca. 1140 BC (MMTRD 1363+vv) for the last preserved ring in TB-7A is anomalous and irrelevant for an understanding of the date of the Terrace Building, especially given the evidence from TB-2A and CC-3. It seems highly improbable given the ring-size that 300 rings burned off this piece or were shaved off the exterior by the carpenter. GOR-38 therefore probably represents a reused Late Bronze Age timber. 8. Clay Cut Building 3 (CC-3) Sample numbers: Multiple samples (see Table 5.4) MMTRD 1305–1595vv n=291 years Date BC: ca. 909vv Collection date: 18 July 1973 Gordion field notebook reference: Vol. 160: 108–9, 148–150; Vol. 124:124, 148–49, 196–97; Vol. 147:61–62, plan p. 62; Vol. 167:4, 15–16 Comment: Clay Cut Building 3 (CC-3) is a multimegaron building complex running parallel to its twin, the Terrace Building (cf. nos. 6 and 7 above; Young 1964:285ff.), both of which were burnt in

the fire of the Destruction Level. It was excavated in 1973 by Keith DeVries in Young’s last season and published in preliminary fashion 17 years later (DeVries 1990). Until the excavation of Terrace Building 2’s anteroom (TB-2A) some fifteen years later, the excavation of CC-3 was unique in the number of dendrochronological samples it provided (Fig. 5.22). With the aid of the excavator’s notebooks and plans, an attempt was made to assign structural functions to the carbonized logs from CC-3, but the building’s destruction was so violent that the tangle of fallen beams revealed little that was architecturally informative. Twenty-two dendrochronological samples were collected by DeVries and Kuniholm for analysis, exclusive of duplicates. These probably represent nine trees, all pine (Pinus sp., either nigra or silvestris), with the last preserved ring in MMTRD 1595, giving a terminus post quem of ca. 909 BC for the construction of the building.5.43 No bark is present and an unknown number of rings are missing, so the felling date of the timber is unknown.5.44 9. Megaron 4 Sample number: *GOR-30 MMTRD 1453–1595v n=143 years Date BC: ca. 909v Collection date: 1 June 1963

Figure 5.22. Bar-graph of the Early Phrygian Destruction Level (YHSS 6A-DL) CC-3 Building samples. No bark is present. (Courtesy, Peter Ian Kuniholm and Carol Griggs)

112 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Figure 5.23. GOR-30 from Megaron 4 (Early Phrygian Destruction Level, YHSS 6A-DL). The notch on the lower righthand corner of the sample (dotted line) is where E.K. Ralph cut the last ten rings for radiocarbon dating. (Courtesy, Peter Ian Kuniholm)



Gordion field notebook reference: Vol. 106:61– 62 Comment: Megaron 4 was built on an extension to the Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A) period Terrace, adjacent to Megaron 3, and it too was destroyed in the Destruction Level fire. GOR-30, a half-section of split pine (P. nigra?), charred on one side of its outer circumference (Fig. 5.23), was a construction beam in the back wall of this large building. The outermost ten rings from GOR-30 were removed for radiocarbon analysis by E.K. Ralph (see the notch in the lower righthand corner of Fig. 5.23) and processed as P-788. The determination was 2691±47 BP. At two sigma the date is 930–790 cal BC, somewhat more precise than the radiocarbon results for Megaron 3, but still unhelpful. The reader will have noted that GOR-30 has been given a “v” designation for its exterior. In addition to the probable waney edge (the ring directly underneath the bark) on the unburned surface to the right, the ring-count on the charred left side goes out almost to the same ring. Consequently, very few, if any, exterior rings are missing. The dendrochronological date of the last-preserved ring,

MMTRD 1595, gives a terminus post quem of ca. 909 BC for the construction of the building. This is only two years after the last-preserved ring in Megaron 3 and the same as CC-3 (see no. 8 above). The relative building order here is clear: Megaron 3, CC-3, and Megaron 4. The dendrochronological results suggest that they are extraordinarily close in time.

Middle Phrygian/YHSS 5 Contexts 10. Middle Phrygian Gate Building, Foundation Sample numbers: GOR-4, GOR-5, GOR-6 MMTRD 1254–1580vv n=329 years Date BC: ca. 924vv Collection date: Summer 1973. Given to Kuniholm by R.S. Young Gordion field notebook reference: None Comment: The Middle Phrygian Gate Building was constructed on top of and in front of its Early Phrygian predecessor, as part of the rebuilding of the Citadel following the Destruction Level (cf. no. 5 above). To support the new gate and its approach-



Dendrochronology at Gordion 113

es, an enormous rubble foundation was laid around the walls of the earlier gate, with timbers embedded many meters down in the fill to act as a kind of binder to prevent the rubble from shifting (see right side of Fig. 5.18). Three cross-sections were collected from two of these juniper (J. foetidissima) timbers: GOR-4 and GOR-5 from the same tree, and GOR-6. The last preserved ring was crossdated at MMTRD 1580vv, giving a terminus post quem of ca. 924vv BC, but since an unknown number of rings are missing, the felling date cannot be determined. 11. Middle Phrygian Gate Complex, North Court Sample numbers: GOR-28 and GOR-29 MMTRD 1332–1562vv n=231 years Date BC: ca. 942vv Collection date: 15 and 18 July 1961 Gordion field notebook reference: Vol. 99:13, 19 Comment: The Middle Phrygian Gate Building comprised a passage flanked by a North Court and a South Court. Two timbers were collected from the north outer wall and the area east of it in the North Court, both of them juniper (Juniperus sp.). The last ring is in MMTRD 1562vv, which gives a terminus post quem of ca. 942 BC, but since an unknown number of rings are missing, the actual felling date is unknown. 12. Building A, Foundation Sample numbers: GOR-21, GOR-203, GOR204 MMTRD 1353p–1685++vv n=318 years++ Date BC: ca. 819++vv Collection date: GOR-21 excavated 20 May 1952; GOR-203 and GOR-204 excavated in 2006 Gordion field notebook reference: Vol. 30:129– 30, Trench G.M.McF.; B. Burke, Operation 56 (2006): 25–28, 129–30 Comment: Building A was a long multi-megaron complex in the southeastern part of the Citadel, oriented northeast–southwest. Erected in the Middle Phrygian period, it comprised a series of at least six conjoined rooms. In the Achaemenid period, its southwestern half was demolished to make way for the Mosaic Building, but the two rooms at the northeastern end were retained. GOR-21, a crosssection of juniper (Juniperus sp.), was taken from

a timber that served as a binder in the foundation rubble under the wall between Rooms 5 and 6 at the southwest end of Building A. Since the heartwood/ sapwood boundary varies between MMTRD 1554 and 1580 (=950 and 924 BC), 131–105 sapwood rings are present, depending on the radius selected. Therefore, not too much is missing from the exterior. The last preserved ring is crossdated at MMTRD 1685++vv, which gives a terminus post quem of ca. 819 BC for the construction (much less likely the repair) of the wall. If relatively few outer rings are indeed missing, and if the sample is not from an older timber reused for Building A’s construction, then GOR-21 supports the new Iron Age chronology by indicating that the rebuilding of the Middle Phrygian Citadel occurred in the early 8th century BC. As long as ca. 700 BC was the orthodox date for the Early Phrygian Destruction Level, the singleton sample GOR-21 was thought to be an anomalously early piece. With the Destruction Level now re-dated to ca. 800 BC, and with the Middle Phrygian rebuilding of the Citadel thought to follow directly thereafter, a last-preserved ring from ca. 819 BC makes much more sense than it did previously. With GOR-21’s tiny ring-growth (an average of less than 20/100mm. a year), the loss of half a centimeter of wood from the exterior of the sample would account for almost 30 years’ worth of rings. In 2006, Brendan Burke collected two samples from the back wall of the fourth unit from the north: GOR-203 and GOR-204. These have last-preserved rings from ca. 1063 BC and ca. 988 BC, respectively, which are much too early for the construction date of Building A. One therefore concludes that either many exterior rings have been lost or/and the timbers had been re-used. 13. Building J Sample number: *A-TU-GOR-23 MMTRD 1278–1443vv n=166 years Date BC: ca. 1061vv Collection date: 14 July 1961 Gordion field notebook reference: Vol. 93:118, Trench TBT7a Comment: Building J was constructed as part of the Citadel rebuilding in the Middle Phrygian period, and it continued in use into Achaemenid times. The sample is a section of a partly rotten juniper log (J.

114 the new chronology of iron age gordion

foetidissima; radius, 0.12 m.; length, 1.64 m.) from on top of the rubble bedding for the east wall of the building. The sample crossdates at MMTRD 1278 to MMTRD 1443vv, which gives a terminus post quem of ca. 1061 BC, but an unknown number of exterior rings are missing and the felling date is therefore unknown. 14. Building Y Sample number: *C-TU-GOR-39 MMTRD 1400–1500+vv n=101 years (+1) Date BC: ca. 1004vv Collection date: 3 July 1973 Gordion field notebook reference: Vol. 154:143, Trench PhWN6 Comment: Building Y was erected as part of the Middle Phrygian rebuilding of the Citadel. The sample is a badly eroded section of a fallen cedar log (Cedrus libani Loud, maximum radius, 0.08 m.), found in clay below the building’s wall bed and leaning against it. Its impression in the clay measured 1.70 x 0.22 x 0.25 m. The sample crossdates at MMTRD 1400 to MMTRD 1500+vv, which provides a terminus post quem of ca. 1004 BC with an unknown number of rings missing. 15. Clay, in Trench D1 Sample number: *A-TU-GOR-22 MMTRD 1340–1547vv n=208 years Date BC: ca. 957vv Collection date: 16 July 1961 Gordion field notebook reference: Vol. 86:49, plan Comment: The sample is a quarter-section of juniper (Juniperus sp.; diameter, 0.131 m.) that was a “floater” in the clay near the Middle Phrygian Gate Building. It crossdates at MMTRD 1340 to MMTRD 1547vv, providing a terminus post quem of ca. 957 BC, with an unknown number of rings missing. 16. Building X, Wall WG1 Sample number: *GOR-33 MMTRD 1523–1623vv n=101 years Date BC: ca. 881vv Collection date: 16 July 1969 Gordion field notebook reference: Vol. 141:132, and plan p. 125, Trench WG1 İskele

Comment: GOR-33 is a cross-section of a juniper log (Juniperus sp.) found in a posthole associated with a wall of Middle Phrygian Building X. At the time of collection the excavator noted many nail holes in the timber. The sample crossdates at MMTRD 1623, or ca. 881 BC, but since an unknown number of rings are missing, the felling date cannot be determined. Since little is known of the building from which the log came, we merely note that this timber seems to be many decades out of context. GOR-33 is also the only timber at Gordion, out of over 200 collected, showing clear signs of previous use.

Other Dated Iron Age Contexts 17. Gordion, Tumulus Körte-III Sample number: *GOR-74 MMTRD 1486–1628vv n=143 years Date BC: ca. 876vv Comment: Section from the sarcophagus, a hollowed-out whole log as in Tumulus B. Excavated in 1900 by the brothers Körte (see Figs. 0.1, 0.2), and found by Curator Dr. Ulrich Gehrig in the attic of the Antikensammlung of the Berlin Museum (Charlottenburg), Berlin, Jan. 1975 (Körte and Körte 1904:38–78, and illustration, p. 44, Abb. 6). Juniperus excelsa Bieb. A and B measurements made by Prof. Dieter Eckstein, University of Hamburg, are the same, except that measurement B has an extra ring that was missed the first time. There has always been an excellent fit at MMTRD 1628vv, or 876vv BC (t-score=4.78, trend=61.0%). As long as the old seriation was taken as a given, this was treated as an accidentally good fit. There were no fits where K-III was “supposed” to go, and since GOR74 was a single sample, we gave up trying to date it. At last the dendrochronological result makes sense. 18. Gordion, Sakarya River Post Sample number: *SAK-1 MMTRD 1319p–1593vv n=275 years Date BC: ca. 911vv Collection date: Autumn 1974 Gordion field notebook reference: none Comment: In 1974 a DSİ (State Waterworks) dragline operator was dredging the Sakarya River just upstream from the Beylikköprü-Yassıhöyük



Dendrochronology at Gordion 115

bridge next to the Gordion Citadel Mound, near the “island.” There he pulled out a cross-section of an adze- or axe-hewn juniper (Juniperus sp.) post (Kuniholm 1990).5.45 The maximum radius is 0.16 m. and the ring-count is 275. The adze-marks from the removal of the bark suggest that not much was trimmed off the exterior. SAK-1 crossdates exceptionally well at MMTRD 1593, or ca. 911 BC with the Gordion Tumulus MM junipers, with a t-score of 9.50 and a trend coefficient of 67.5%.5.46 We estimate that no more than 2–10 rings are missing. The pointed lower end suggests a piling for a bridge rather than a vertical post from a building construction. But since the Sakarya River was on the east side of the Citadel Mound in antiquity rather than the west, the post is probably the remnant of a building, As such, it provides important evidence for Early Phrygian structures below and to the west of the Citadel Mound during the Iron Age. 19. Ankara, Great (Büyük) Tumulus Sample numbers: ANK-3, ANK-8-10, ANK14, ANK-18 MMTRD 1360–1655vv n=296 years Date BC: ca. 847vv Comment: Samples ANK-1–3 were collected 2 May 1974 from the Museum at the Middle East Technical University in Ankara (Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi), courtesy of the late Dr. Sevim Buluç. Samples ANK-5–18 were collected 25 July 1996 on an upper shelf in the same museum, courtesy of the late Dr. Nalan Vardar. They are all said to be from the Great Tumulus, excavated in 1967 by Buluç for the late Prof. Ekrem Akurgal (Buluç 1979). Their stratigraphic position is not known except for the eroded centering pole which does not crossdate. All are Pinus nigra. The best-preserved samples are knots which did not disintegrate over the centuries due to their high resin content. The Ankara chronology consists of a total of six crossdated trees, all P. nigra. ANK-3, on which almost everything else at Ankara is based, is from a pine log with a branch running through it, and badly eroded except where the knot was sawn or hewn flat. (Adze marks are preserved on the outer surface.) Length, 0.58 m., width, 0.33 m., thickness, 0.13 m., radius, 0.32 m. The pith and 297 rings are preserved. The sapwood is not discernible, and an unknown number of rings have been

lost at the end. The Ankara pines crossdate with the Gordion pines at MMTRD 1657 or 847vv BC with a t-score of 8.39, a trend coefficient of 63.9%, and an overlap of 245 years. Fits with the Gordion junipers are almost as good: t-score= 7.77, trend coefficient=66.4%, and an overlap of 296 years. One pine piece from the tomb chamber of the Great Tumulus at Ankara, a knot with 76 erratic rings, preserves the bark of the year in which it was cut. The sequence is not long enough to overlap significantly with the Ankara chronology or with the Gordion pines, and it is therefore not included in the ANK master chronology; but there is a significant visual and statistical fit at MMTRD 1719 or 785 BC with the MMT junipers at Gordion (t-score=3.01, trend coefficient=66.7%). A bark date of 785 BC is very close to the date originally proposed by the excavator. Although a number of other Anatolian Iron Age sites have been sampled, so far only Urartian Ayanis crossdates with Gordion with a date of MMTRD 1831B or 673 BC (Newton and Kuniholm 2007). Notes 5.1. Referred to over the years variously as the Great Tumulus, the Midas Mound Tumulus (MMT), and Tumulus MM, among others. 5.2. In the early years Bannister was not sure that the apparent Gordion growth-rings were really annual increments, a concern that has now been laid to rest. 5.3. The graph was recently printed along with Bannister’s reprinted typescript in a special issue of the Tree-Ring Bulletin (Bannister 1997). 5.4. Kuniholm had been reading about dendrochronology in Elizabeth Ralph’s archive of abstracts in her MASCA laboratory, and found the approach intriguing. He mentioned it to Young and the latter excitedly said: ‘Yes! Go to Boğazköy and see what Bittel has. Then go to Kültepe and see what Tahsin has.’ The dissertation topic was decided in about five minutes. 5.5. Newton has prepared all the data presented in Tables 5.1– 5.6, although the measurements of the cores and wood and charcoal fragments have been compiled from the work of many students in Kuniholm’s lab since he arrived at Cornell in 1976. We would like to acknowledge especially the work of Carol B. Griggs, Shana L. Tarter, Hope E. Kuniholm, and Christine E. Latini, Research Support Specialists in the laboratory between 1989 and 1995. 5.6. Printed dendrochronological information for the Anatolian

116 the new chronology of iron age gordion Iron Age and Late Bronze Age, with complete growth-indices for 1300 years, is reported in Kuniholm et al. 2005. Gordion was the foundation for this work. We plan to put the datasets, species by species and unit by unit, on our website (http:// dendro.cornell.edu). 5.7. The INDXA function in the CORINA program (closely comparable to the ARSTAN procedures) permits the summing of series of multiple radii from the same timber to produce raw summed series that are then converted into indices. CORINA, COFECHA, and ARSTAN can average two or more sets of data into a summary index, perform cross-correlation analysis, serialcorrelation analysis, and analysis of variance and other statistical tasks; but those are for subsequent work with the data presented here, which is set forth for the sole purpose of presenting the way in which the dendrochronological dating of the Gordion wood was achieved. COFECHA has been used for the series inter-correlations and mean sensitivity for all samples compiled from the measurements of multiple radii. CORINA is used both for calculations of mean sensitivity and series length of samples from single radii. 5.8. The Midas Mound Tumulus Relative Dating System (or MMTRD) is an arbitrary counting system based on assigning Year 1001 to the innermost ring of GOR-3, and in which the cutting year for Tumulus MM is 1764 (Fig. 5.14). It is employed throughout this document for all statistical calculations. It has seemed pointless to try to convert MMTRD, which has been the basis of Kuniholm’s calculations since 1973, to a BC dating system, given that the counting will probably need to be changed (even if only by as little as a year or two) once the link to the modern forests of the Anatolian Plateau has been established. 5.9. An unpublished dissertation by Richard Liebhart (1988) focused on details of the tomb chamber’s construction, as does Liebhart, forthcoming. In a recent article, Liebhart states that a number of Young’s observations regarding construction details are wrong (Liebhart and Johnson 2005). The present discussion of the construction of the tomb chamber complex has been updated by Liebhart based on observations since 1990. 5.10. On occasion, we have found cedars imported to Egypt with ring-counts up to 400, and at Acemhöyük and Kültepe there are junipers and cedars in the 300–400 year range. 5.11. The most likely places of origin for the Gordion trees would seem to be sites like the one 30–40 km. northwest of Gordion, near Mihalıççık, where Kuniholm sampled Juniperus excelsa from a small grove of about 40 trees in 1974. There are also a few, lone remnant junipers still standing on the rocky slopes on the outskirts of the villages of Çifteler and Sarayköy, near the headwaters of the Sakarya (ancient Sangarios) river. 5.12. Timbers from the 7th century inhumation Tumuli H and

J were not saved for analysis. A timber from the cedar log sarcophagus in Tumulus B is undatable even though 353 rings are preserved. Although samples from the Mamaderesi Tumulus were saved by the staff of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations (Ankara), they are too short for secure dating. 5.13. Early reports from the Pennsylvania radiocarbon laboratory are confusing even to today’s reader because Ralph subtracted the year of the analysis from the BP date, subtracting her laboratory’s BP date from 1960, or 1961, etc. (but without indicating which one), and reporting the date simply as “Christian Calendar Age,” complicating the matter further by offering two halflife possibilities. See now Deevey et al. 1967 where the proper BP dates are given. 5.14. This pamphlet had an extraordinarily wide circulation, and, because it was written for the excavating archaeologist in non-technical terms, it was cited regularly for over 20 years. 5.15. This was the first curve reported from the integrated work of an international group organized to address the potential problems from regional variation and inter-laboratory offsets. 5.16. Subsequent international northern hemisphere radiocarbon calibration curves were published in Radiocarbon in 1998, 2004, and 2009. 5.17. Although the phrase “wiggle-matching” seems to have been adopted from its use in this article, its authors appear to have developed the term from references to the procedure in a number of papers (by an international group of 45 geophysicists and archaeologists) from a 1969 conference at Uppsala University, Stockholm (published in Olsson 1970). The Uppsala authors do not use the phrase “wiggle-matching” but, in a few instances where a calibration curve is discussed, first by Suess, the term “wriggles” (rather than “wiggles”) is employed. Suess’s original term for the phenomenon was “secular variations” (see Suess 1965). 5.18. See Olsson 1970:327–33 for a general discussion of the magnitude of the 14C /12C variations. In this discussion, which involved 11 of the participants in the 1969 Uppsala University conference (E.K. Ralph, P.E. Damon, C.W. Ferguson, J.C. Lerman, E. Neustupný, I.U. Olsson, T. Säve-Söderbergh, E.H. Suess, J.C. Vogel, F. Wendorf, and E. Willis), there was noted the lack of any consensus about how best to present or publish radiocarbon data, particularly for its use by archaeologists, and especially for its use by archaeologists working in the Mediterranean where a number of competing chronologies were in play. From this 1969 meeting emerged an international consensus, and this resulted in the production of the calibration curve published in Klein et al. 1982. In the Kuniholm-Kromer collaboration, the first discussion and presentation of the absolute date of Tumulus MM involved only visual comparison against the first internationally accepted calibration curve (IntCal86). This work



Dendrochronology at Gordion 117

was formally published in Kuniholm 1993, although it was announced in the Aegean Dendrochronology Project December 1990 Progress Report (http://dendro.cornell.edu/reports/ report1990.pdf ) and brief statements appeared in Kuniholm 1988 and the annual Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı reports. 5.19. See Bronk Ramsey 1995 and subsequent on-line releases. 5.20. Cross-checks continue to be performed with CALIB (from M. Stuiver and P.J. Reimer at the University of Washington, Seattle), which uses an intercepts technique without using calculations of statistical probabilities. For CALIB, see: http:// calib.qub.ac.uk/calib/. 5.21. See Bronk Ramsey et al. 2001. The team has also used the Groningen program CAL, but less often than the others. All of these programs give more or less the same calibrated results. 5.22. In the paper published in Nature (Kuniholm et al. 1996), the best fit at both 1σ (68.2%) and 2σ (95.4%) probability ranges was calculated. 5.23. Specifically, minor fluctuations of the IntCal98 radiocarbon curve could be matched by one-after-another determinations from the Gordion wood. The morphology of both was identical at the new fit, i.e., the wiggles matched. 5.24. This section is drawn mainly from the ongoing research of Richard F. Liebhart. His detailed re-analysis of Tumulus MM will, when published, supersede Young 1981 as the new benchmark for evaluating the structural aspects of the tomb chamber. 5.25. Several characteristics of the juniper used at Gordion made it both attractive and limited for its use in construction. First is its very slow rate of growth. This is best illustrated by the eighth log (counting from the bottom) on the east side of the outer casing around the tomb chamber proper (Fig. 5.5; Kuniholm’s GOR-76; Liebhart’s designation for the log EO-8). The preserved radius is 38.5 cm., which included 830 measurable annual rings. Juniper grows far more slowly than pine; as Kuniholm points out, the ring-widths of Tumulus MM’s pine beams are double or triple (or even more) than those of the junipers. The extreme density of the wood makes juniper excellent at resisting compression perpendicular to the grain; that is, when placed horizontally, a juniper log can withstand a great amount of weight bearing down on it. Juniper is also naturally rot-resistant, which makes it a preferable species for use in contact with the ground. On the other hand, juniper grows in such a way that there is a dramatic taper in the shape of the trunk from its base to its top. For this reason, it is unsuitable for trimming into a long beam with a rectilinear section, since the beam section is limited by the small diameter of the upper portion of the relatively short tree trunk. So despite the density and strength of juniper, the Phrygians used pine for their squared structural beams, because pines grow normally with long, straight trunks that have rela-

tively little tapering over their heights. Both pine and juniper were available locally, with modern examples still growing within 40 km. of the site of Gordion. It is the combination of extreme density and rot resistance that made juniper the wood of choice for certain specific types of structural applications among the Phrygians. An early and extensive use of juniper logs was in the Early Phrygian Gate Building’s South Court, where the logs were set horizontally as a leveling course in the face of the outer wall (Figs. 5.18, 5.19). The Phrygians apparently felt the need for a binding or stabilizing element at this stage of the construction. Juniper logs were also used as bedding courses for walls, with relatively short logs laid perpendicular to the line of a wall, as illustrated by the recent discovery of the bedding logs of the back exterior wall of Middle Phrygian Building A. They were also used in the rubble filling below the Middle Phrygian Gate Building. This rubble was carefully set in both horizontal and vertical layers, with the juniper logs set perpendicular to the line of the faces of the vertical layers, and seemingly placed as a binding agent to start a new horizontal layer. Almost all of the identified juniper logs at Gordion were set horizontally, but they were also used vertically, as GOR-32 from Megaron 6 indicates. This is the only definite example of the use of juniper in a vertical position, and the log in question was embedded in the walls. But Kuniholm notes that a number of Bronze Age structures throughout Anatolia supply evidence for the vertical placement of juniper beams or logs, such as the Waršama Sarayı at Kültepe, and both the Sarıkaya Palace and the Hatipler Tepesi Building at Acemhöyük. The range of use of juniper at Gordion was therefore probably more extensive than the evidence at the site might suggest. 5.26. Note that there is other evidence in Tumulus MM for reused wood, but this relates to the pine timbers of the tomb chamber rather than the juniper logs of the outer casing. The pine beams used for the roof of the tomb chamber proper have varying lengths, and many have cuttings on their ends that suggest a previous structural use different from their current positions in the tomb. This is not surprising given the attraction and availability of pine timbers for reuse. The locally available pine would always have been the preferred species of tree for the roof framing on the larger buildings at Gordion, as demonstrated by the evidence from the excavations. Furthermore, and unlike juniper, pine beams would have been readily accessible given that they were regularly used in above ground applications. In addition, the squared shapes of the beams made storage easier and more efficient. These same squared shapes also mean that each beam had already received a tremendous amount of work with axe and adze (there are no ancient saw marks detectable on the timbers of Tumulus MM). Reusing pine beams would not only have saved resources, it would also have saved substan-

118 the new chronology of iron age gordion tial labor costs. It is noteworthy that the Destruction Level fire destroyed many pine roof-beams that could otherwise have been salvaged and reused. 5.27. A newly discovered piece of evidence might one day solve at least part of this puzzle. In 2007 four Phrygian names were found inscribed on one of the roof beams—the first timber placed on the roof on the west side of the tomb chamber after the funeral banquet and burial were completed. More inscriptions (or graffiti) were discovered in 2008 on this same beam and on its mate on the east side of the chamber (Liebhart and Brixhe 2009). It remains a possibility that the names of all of the presumed 100 or so participants at the banquet are inscribed on these beams, perhaps representing a previously undetected ritual in honor of the deceased ruler, and among these names might be found those of the decedent and his successor—information that could help establish the place of the tomb in history. 5.28. Dendrochronological determinations from samples from Phrygian constructions at Gordion and Ankara are given below. 5.29. These BC dates are reported as if the bark date for Tumulus MM were fixed at 740 BC. The actual date is quoted as +4/-7 years, although the error in fact appears to be smaller than that, as noted in Manning et al. 2003. 5.30. The team has successfully crossdated pine with juniper when long ring-series are available (Kuniholm 1996:401, and fig. 3, 407). The pines from the Great Tumulus at Ankara are discussed below. 5.31. An earlier statement by Kuniholm (1988:8 and accompanying ‘Gordion Date List’) noted that the last preserved ring from Clay Cut Building 3 (CC-3) is ‘MMTRD 1826—sixtytwo years after MMT [Tumulus MM],’ which would indeed date the Destruction Level to after ca. 800 BC. This, however, was an error. The correct MMTRD is 1595, which gives a terminus post quem of ca. 909 BC for Building CC-3. It may be salutary to review the rationale for the change. One of the CC-3 pieces was incorrectly crossdated at the outset. Once it was combined with the rest of the CC-3 material, a “false master chronology” resulted. This CC-3 “chronology” had a good-looking fit, both visually and statistically, 62 years after MMT. Thus, this appeared to confirm the then prevailing wisdom about the relative dates of MMT and the DL, and Kuniholm reported it in Source. Later, during error checking, the mistake was discovered and rectified, and the good-looking “fit” immediately disappeared. 5.32. Here we have followed the advice of Sir David Cox who visited our laboratory during his tenure at Cornell as an Andrew Dickson White Professor-at-Large some 20 years ago. Among Cox’s specialties is the statistical analysis of large numbers of small datasets. At that time we were relying heavily on the

t-scores and trend-coefficients. Sir David said that if they seemed to be working well for us we should continue to use them, but that after everything was put together, he would like to see the r-scores. In our tables we have therefore used the final r-scores as something more immediately comprehensible to a statistician. 5.33. Previous published dendrochronological analyses of early sites in Anatolia have generally been of single-phase buildings, e.g., the Waršama Palace at Kültepe, or the Sarıkaya and Hatipler Tepesi palatial buildings at Acemhöyük (Kuniholm and Newton 1989; Newton and Kuniholm, 2004), or the postern gate at Porsuk/Ulukışla (Kuniholm et al. 1992), or Urartian Ayanis (Newton and Kuniholm 2007). Gordion is the first opportunity we have had to use the tool of dendrochronology to serious advantage. The charcoal scraps from Çatalhöyük were not really substantial or plentiful enough to permit a fine-grained analysis (Newton and Kuniholm 1999; Newton, Kuniholm, and Manning, 2006 [Cessford et al. 2005]). 5.34. We thank G.K. Sams, G. Darbyshire, and M.M. Voigt for stratigraphic comments. 5.35. Sams 2005a:266. A photograph of a row of burned timbers from directly in front of this wall had been published by Young (1956: pl. 83, fig. 10), but the timbers themselves were unfortunately not saved for any kind of analysis. These should have been Middle Phrygian constructional timbers, but we will never know. 5.36. With charcoal, if the bark, needles, or cones are lacking, one cannot discriminate between P. nigra and P. silvestris. However, for the unburned pines at Gordion, where one can discriminate, everything is P. nigra: not one scrap of P. brutia or P. silvestris has yet been found on this part of the Anatolian Plateau. See the comments below regarding why Kuniholm and Newton think ca. 850 BC represents a repair rather than the primary construction. 5.37. Earlier publications cited 893 BC for TB-2A plus an additional ten unmeasurable rings. Recently, the exterior covering of crystallized debris on GOR-112E was broken off in an attempt to see if traces of the bark could be found. Instead we found an additional set of measurable rings, which brought the count down to ca. 850 BC. No bark is present. 5.38. As a veteran volunteer firefighter in upstate New York and a graduate of the New York State Fire Behavior and Arson Detection courses, Kuniholm can verify that burning and exploding pine timbers can cause charcoal to be propelled all the way across a burned room. In Kuniholm’s experience, charcoal displacement is not at all surprising. What is encouraging here is that so many timbers from TB-2A fell to the ground, did not disintegrate, and could be excavated in a more or less intelligible fashion.



Dendrochronology at Gordion 119

5.39. We acknowledge that these groupings may be inexact. Different radii of the same severely burned pine tree might not crossdate as well as radii from different trees. The final total of 40 trees represents an educated guess. 5.40. The task of separating these timbers into their various constructional elements (posts, joists, rafters, purlins, etc.) is left to the excavator and architect. 5.41. This analysis is only for the anteroom of Terrace Building 2. We feel keenly the loss of dendrochronological information for the rest of the building and the seven other main rooms of Terrace Buildings 1 through 8, as well as the five other excavated anterooms, from which a grand total of one piece of charcoal was collected in TB-7A, as noted below. 5.42. DeVries left a charcoal piece in his trench at the end of the 1971 season. In 1973 there was a large piece of charcoal lying on the wall of TB-7A, which we sampled. This is almost certainly—but not guaranteed to be—the piece excavated by DeVries in 1971. 5.43. Analysis of the CC-3 charcoal samples was exceedingly difficult, as all were completely carbonized and therefore fragile. Care was taken to collect pieces that seemed to preserve their true outer surfaces undamaged. These were bound with cotton and string to prevent rings from flaking off. After months of laboratory analysis, this care appears to have been justified. One sample has a last preserved ring of MMTRD 1595vv or ca. 909 BC. The MMTRD 1595 ring exists on several radii. A second sample terminates six years earlier, and another seven years earlier. A large number of long-lived non-fits are present in CC-3, and these remain obstinately undatable. For the 1988 error in dating CC-3, see above, note 5.31. 5.44. Young’s one published chronological observation on the Clay Cut Building concerned the discovery of a painted checkerboard askos in Clay Cut Building 2 (CC-2) which reminded him of the three similar askoi found in Tumulus P (1964:286). The upward revision of the Gordion chronology makes this an interesting comment, since the last-preserved tree-rings in CC-3 and Tumulus P are only 19 years apart. The likelihood of a significantly later date for CC-3, given what we know about TB-2A, is low. The quality of the Tumulus P samples, however, leaves something to be desired. They were found in a box after Young’s death with a note in his handwriting stating “pieces too small to be of any use.” A re-excavation and re-sampling of Tumulus P should resolve this problem. Until such re-sampling occurs, this seemingly corroborating correspondence should perhaps be treated as no more than coincidental. If any more exterior rings are discovered from Tumulus P, its date will become closer to CC-3. 5.45. We are indebted to Steve Boehm for recovering this piece for us.

5.46. Maryanne Newton gets full credit for discovering this fit after everybody else in the lab had given up. We had not thought to look for fits before AD 1700.

References Baillie, M.G.L. 1982. Tree-ring Dating and Archaeology. London: Croom Helm. Baillie, M.G.L., and J.R. Pilcher. 1973. A Simple Crossdating Program for Tree-Ring Research. Tree-Ring Bulletin 33:7–13. Baillie, M.G.L., and M.A.R. Munro. 1988. Irish Tree Rings, Santorini and Volcanic Dust Veils. Nature 332:344–46. Bannister, B. 1970. Dendrochronology in the Near East: Current Research and Future Potentialities. In Proceedings of the 7th International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, Moscow, 6 August 1964, Vol. 5, pp. 336–40. Moscow. –— 1997. Dendrochronology in the Near East: Current Research and Future Potentialities. [Reprint of Bannister 1970 with the addition of the missing graph]. In Tree-Ring Bulletin, Special Issue: The Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at Sixty, ed. J.S. Dean, p. 4. Tucson: Tree-Ring Society, University of Arizona. Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis of Stratigraphy: The OxCal Program. Radiocarbon 37(2): 425–30. Bronk Ramsey, C., J. van der Plicht, and B. Weninger. 2001. ‘Wiggle Matching’ Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon 43(2A): 381–89. Buluç, S. 1979. Ankara Frig Nekropolünden üç Tümülüs Buluntuları. PhD diss., Ankara University. Cessford, C., M.W. Newton, P.I. Kuniholm, S.W. Manning, M. Özbakan, A.M. Özer, K.G. Akoğlu, T.F.G. Higham, and P. Blumbach. 2005. Absolute Dating at Çatalhöyük. In Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons, ed. I. Hodder, pp. 65–99. Çatalhöyük Research Project Vol. 5, BIAA Monograph 39. Cambridge and London: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, and the British Institute at Ankara. Clark, R.M., and A.C. Renfrew. 1972. A Statistical

120 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Approach to the Calibration of Floating TreeRing Chronologies Using Radiocarbon Dates. Archaeometry 14:5–19. Deevey, E.S., R.F. Flint, and I. Rouse. 1967. Radiocarbon Measurements: Comprehensive Index, 1950– 1965. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. DeVries, K. 1990. The Gordion Excavation Seasons of 1969–1973 and Subsequent Research. American Journal of Archaeology 94: 371–406. de Vries, H. 1958. Variation in Concentration of Radiocarbon with Time and Location on Earth. Proceedings Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wettenschappen B61:1–9. Ferguson, C.W., B. Huber, and H.E. Suess. 1966. Determination of the Age of Swiss Lake Dwellings and an Example of Dendrochronologically Calibrated Radioactive Dating. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung 21A:1173–77. Galimberti, M., C. Bronk Ramsey, and S.W. Manning. 2004. Wiggle-Match Dating of Tree-ring Sequences. Radiocarbon 46:917–24. Glock, W.S. 1937. Principles and Methods of TreeRing Analysis. Carnegie Institute Publication 486. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institute. Hollstein, E. 1980. Mitteleuropäische Eichenchronologie. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Holmes, R.L. 1983. Computer-assisted Quality Control in Tree-ring Dating and Measurement. Tree-Ring Bulletin 43:69–78. Hrouda, B. 1971. Vorderasien I: Mesopotamien, Babylonien, Iran und Anatolien. Munich: C.H. Beck. Hughes, M.K. 1988. Ice Layer Dating of the Eruption of Santorini. Nature 335:211–12. Klein, J., J.C. Lerman, P.E. Damon, and E.K. Ralph. 1982. Calibration of Radiocarbon Dates— Tables Based on the Consensus Data of the Workshop on Calibrating the Radiocarbon Time Scale. Radiocarbon 24(1): 103–50. Kohler, E.L., and E.K. Ralph. 1961. C-14 Dates for Sites in the Mediterranean Area. American Journal of Archaeology 65:357–67. Körte, G., and A. Körte. 1904. Gordion. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabung im Jahre 1900. Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Suppl. 5. Berlin: G. Reimer. Kromer, B. 2009. Radiocarbon and Dendrochronology. Dendrochronologia 27:15–19. Kuniholm, P.I. 1977. Dendrochronology at Gor-

dion and on the Anatolian Plateau. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. –— 1988. Dendrochronology and Radiocarbon Dates for Gordion and Other Phrygian Sites. Source 7(3-4): 5–8. –— 1990. Sakarya Nehrinden Prehistorik Bir Köprü Ayağı [A Prehistoric Timber from the Sakarya River]. Devlet Su İşleri Bülteni [Bulletin of the General Directorate of State Waterworks] 34.345 (May): 18–20. [English original available from author. Translated into Turkish by the late Işıl Bülbül.] –— 1993. A Date-List for Bronze Age and Iron Age Monuments Based on Combined Dendrochronological and Radiocarbon Evidence. In Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and Its Neighbors: Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç, ed. M.J. Mellink, E. Porada, and T. Özgüç, pp. 371–73. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. –— 1996. Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for the Eastern Mediterranean. In Archaeometry ’94: The Proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on Archaeometry, ed. Ş. Demirci, A.M. Özer, and G.D. Summers, pp. 401–9. Ankara: TÜBİTAK. Kuniholm, P.I., B. Kromer, S.W. Manning, M.W. Newton, C.E. Latini, and M.J. Bruce. 1996. Anatolian Tree Rings and the Absolute Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean, 2220–718 BC. Nature 381:780–83. Kuniholm, P.I., and M.W. Newton. 1989. A 677 Year Long Tree-Ring Chronology for the Middle Bronze Age. In Anatolia and the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç, ed. K. Emre, B. Hrouda, M. Mellink, and N. Özgüç, pp. 279–93. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. –— 2004. Dendrochronological Report on Arslantepe, Level VIA (Late Uruk), Temple B. In Alle Origini del Potere. Arslantepe, la Collina Dei Leoni [At the Origins of Power. Arslantepe, the Hill of Lions], ed. M. Frangipane, p. 62. Rome: University of Rome “La Sapienza.” Kuniholm, P.I., M.W. Newton, and C.B. Griggs. 2007. Dendrochronological Analysis of the Tatarlı Tomb Chamber. Colloquium Anatolicum: The Achaemenid Impact on Local Populations and Cultures in Anatolia, ed. İ. Delemen et al., pp. 131– 56. Istanbul: Turkish Institute of Archaeology.



Dendrochronology at Gordion 121

–— 2010. Dendrochronological Analysis of the Tatarlı Tomb Chamber. In Tatarlı.Renklerin Dönüşü. The Return of Colours. Rückkehr der Farben, ed. L. Summerer and A. von Kienlin, pp. 80–87. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık. Kuniholm, P.I., M.W. Newton, C.B. Griggs, and P.J. Sullivan. 2005. Dendrochronological Dating in Anatolia. The Second Millennium BC: Significance for Early Metallurgy. In Anatolian Metal III, Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 18, ed. Ünsal Yalçın, pp. 41–47. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum. Kuniholm, P.I., S.L. Tarter, M.W. Newton, and C.B. Griggs. 1992. Dendrochronological Investigations at Porsuk/Ulukışla, Turkey 1987–1989. Syria 69(3-4): 379–89. LaMarche, V.C., Jr., and K.K. Hirschboeck. 1984. Frost Rings in Trees as Records of Major Volcanic Eruptions. Nature 307:121–26. Liebhart, R.F. 1988. Timber Roofing Spans in Greek and Near Eastern Monumental Architecture. PhD diss., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. –— Forthcoming. Phrygian Tomb Architecture: Some Observations on the 50th Anniversary of the Excavation of Tumulus MM. In The Archaeology of Phrygian Gordion, Royal City of Midas, ed. C.B. Rose. University Museum Monograph. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. Liebhart, Richard, and Claude Brixhe. 2009. The Recently Discovered Inscriptions from Tumulus MM at Gordion: A Preliminary Report. Kadmos 48:141–56. Liebhart, R.F., and J.S. Johnson. 2005. Conservation and Environmental Monitoring of the Tomb Chamber of Tumulus MM. In The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians: Recent Work at Gordion, ed. L. Kealhofer, pp. 191–203. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. Manning, S.W. 1988. The Bronze Age Eruption of Thera: Absolute Dating, Aegean Chronology and Mediterranean Cultural Interrelations. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 1(1): 17–82. Manning, S.W., B. Kromer, P.I. Kuniholm, and M.W. Newton. 2001. Anatolian Tree Rings and a New Chronology for the East Mediterranean Bronze-Iron Ages. Science 294 (no. 5551): 2532–35.

–— 2003. Confirmation of Near-Absolute Dating of East Mediterranean Bronze-Iron Dendrochronology. Antiquity 77 (no. 295), Project Gallery: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/ Manning/manning.html. Marston, J.M. Forthcoming. Reconstructing the Functional Use of Wood at Phrygian Gordion through Charcoal Analysis. In The Archaeology of Phrygian Gordion, Royal City of Midas, ed. C.B. Rose. University Museum Monograph. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. Miller, N.F. 1999. Seeds, Charcoal and Archaeological Context: Interpreting Ancient Environment and Patterns of Land Use. TÜBA-AR 2:15–27. Newton, M.W., and P.I. Kuniholm. 1999. Wiggles Worth Watching—Making Radiocarbon Work. The Case of Çatal Höyük. In Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year, ed. P.P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur, and W.-D. Niemeier, pp. 527–36. Aegaeum 20, Vol. 2. Liège: University of Liège. –— 2004. A Dendrochronological Framework for the Assyrian Colony Period in Asia Minor. TÜBA-AR (Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi) 7:165–76. –— 2007. A Revised Dendrochronological Date for the Fortress of Rusa II at Ayanis: Rusahinili Eiduru-kai. In VIth International Iron Age Symposium, ed. Antonio Sagona and Altan Çilingiroğlu, pp. 195–206. Leuven: Peeters. Olsson, I.U., ed. 1970. Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology. Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium Held at the Institute of Physics at Uppsala University. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Pearson, G.W. 1986. Precise Calendrical Dating of Known Growth-Period Samples Using a ‘Curve Fitting’ Technique. Radiocarbon 28:292–99. Ralph, E.K., H.N. Michael, and M.C. Han. 1973. Radiocarbon Dates and Reality. MASCA Newsletter 9(1): 1–20. Reimer, P.J. 2001. Archaeology: A New Twist in the Radiocarbon Tale. Science 294 (no. 5551): 2494–95. Reimer, P.J., M.G.L. Baillie, E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J.W. Beck, C.J.H. Bertrand, P.G. Blackwell, C. Bronk Ramsey, C.E. Buck, G.S. Burr, K.B. Cut-

122 the new chronology of iron age gordion

ler, P.E. Damon, R.L. Edwards, R.G. Fairbanks, M. Friedrich, T.P. Guilderson, A.G. Hogg, K.A. Hughen, B. Kromer, G. McCormac, S. Manning, R.W. Reimer, S. Remmele, J.R. Southon, M. Stuiver, S. Talamo, F.W. Taylor, J. van der Plicht, and C.E. Weyhenmeyer. 2004. IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46(3): 1029–58. Renfrew, A.C. 1973. Before Civilization: The Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe. New York: Knopf. Saatçi, T., and A. Kopar. 1990. Gordion Kızlarkayası Tümülüsü Kazısı, 1989. Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi 1989 Yıllığı:68–78. –— 1991. Gordion Kızlarkayası Kazısı 1989. I. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri, 19–20 Nisan 1990:151–62. Sams, G.K. 2005a. Gordion, 2003. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 26(2): 265–70. Schmidt, B. 1987. Dendrochronologie und Ur- und Frühgeschichte. Habilitation thesis, University of Cologne. Schmidt, B., H. Köhren-Jansen, and K. Freckmann. 1990. Kleine Hausgeschichte der Mosellandschaft. Köln: Rheinland. Stuiver, M., and B. Becker. 1986. High-Precision Decadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950–2500 BC. Radiocarbon 28(2B): 863–910. Stuiver, M., A. Long, and R.S. Kra. 1993. Calibration 1993. Radiocarbon 35(1): 1–244. Stuiver, M., P.J. Reimer, E. Bard, J.W. Beck, G.S. Burr, K.A. Hughen, B. Kromer, G. McCormac, J. van der Plicht and M. Spurk. 1998. INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000–0 cal BP. Radiocarbon 40(3): 1041–83. Suess, H.E. 1965. Secular Variations of the CosmicRay-Produced Carbon-14 in the Atmosphere and Their Interpretations. Proc. Highland Park,

Ill., Conf., NAS-NRC Publ. 845, pp. 90–95. Journal of Geophysical Research 70:5937–52. –— 1967. Bristlecone Pine Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale. In Radioactive Dating and Methods of Low-Level Counting, ed. H. Baadsgard, pp. 143–52. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. Taylor, R.E., A. Long and R.S. Kra, eds. 1992. Radiocarbon after Four Decades: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag. Taylor, R.E., M. Stuiver, P.J. Reimer. 1996. Development and Extension of the Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale: Archaeological Applications. Quaternary Science Reviews 15: 655–68. Voigt, M.M. Forthcoming. The Unfinished Project of the Early Phrygian Destruction Level. In The Archaeology of Phrygian Gordion, Royal City of Midas, ed. C.B. Rose. University Museum Monograph. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. Voigt, M.M., and R.C. Henrickson. 2000. Formation of the Phrygian State: The Early Iron Age at Gordion. Anatolian Studies 50:37–54. Young, R.S. 1956. The Campaign of 1955 at Gordion: Preliminary Report. American Journal of Archaeology 60:249–66. –— 1958. The Gordion Campaign of 1957: Preliminary Report. American Journal of Archaeology 62:139–54. –— 1964. The 1963 Campaign at Gordion. American Journal of Archaeology 64:279–95. –— 1966. The Gordion Campaign of 1965. American Journal of Archaeology 70:267–78. –— 1968. The Gordion Campaign of 1967. American Journal of Archaeology 72:231–42. –— 1981. Three Great Early Tumuli. The Gordion Excavations Final Reports Vol. 1. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

6

Radiocarbon Dating Iron Age Gordion, and the Early Phrygian Destruction in Particular Sturt W. Manning and Bernd Kromer

T

he new, significantly revised date of ca. 800 BC for Gordion’s Early Phrygian Destruction Level was initially proposed in DeVries et al. 2003, on the basis of five radiocarbon dates and the reappraisal of archaeological linkages. Some have accepted this new dating but others have vigorously opposed it, seeking to retain the old, lower date of ca. 700 BC for the Destruction Level (most notably Muscarella, 2003, 2008a, and 2008b). Keenan (2004) has also criticized the new radiocarbon evidence and attempted to show that these data failed to rule out the old chronology. These claims do not stand up to scrutiny, however, and continued radiocarbon dating (formally reported in this chapter) has yielded clear support for the new chronology, as has further study of the artifactual evidence and textual sources (as discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, this volume). The present chapter summarizes all the radiocarbon dating work carried out for Gordion up to the end of 2006 (text then subsequently revised in 2009, and a postscript added in 2010), and we address the question of the date of the Early Phrygian Destruction Level on the basis of the available evidence (now much expanded since 2003). We argue that there are clear grounds for the revised, early date for this event.

Gordion and 14C

University of Pennsylvania Radiocarbon Data and Challenges for the Early Radiocarbon Work at Gordion Gordion has a long radiocarbon history; in fact, the first radiocarbon date from the site appeared in

Volume 1 of the journal Radiocarbon. The University of Pennsylvania had the second established radiocarbon laboratory in the USA (in 1951—it is now long closed). This laboratory was active in archaeological dating over four decades, and a sample from Gordion (P-30) was the laboratory’s thirtieth reported specimen. Today, these “old” radiocarbon determinations are of debatable worth. The pretreatment processes for samples fail to meet today’s minimum requirements, and the results lack various necessary corrections that are standard today. The measurement errors reported are also often very large, and even then are probably far too small in reality. Figures 6.1a and 6.1b show the calibrated calendar age ranges for all the University of Pennsylvania 14C data from Gordion. The appendix at the end of this chapter presents the information on these samples as previously published, with a short commentary. Gordion’s first radiocarbon dates were announced by Kohler and Ralph (1961). At this time, theory and method for the use of radiocarbon data in archaeological dating were in their infancy. Implicit throughout their prose is the conceptual struggle experienced by Aegean-Classical archaeologists in the 1960s when recently developed absolute dating systems first began to confront long-established archaeological chronologies. At the time of Kohler and Ralph’s publication, it was appreciated that “raw” radiocarbon dates seemed too recent (especially for older samples). It was uncertain, however, whether this was because the half-life estimated for 14C should be raised—a view favored by Kohler and Ralph (1961:357–58)— or whether there were real variations in atmospher-

124 the new chronology of iron age gordion

ic (secular) radiocarbon levels through time. It was only later, at the end of the 1960s, that the “second radiocarbon revolution” impacted on archaeology, as a result of which the calibration of radiocarbon dates became standard, to reflect the (now known) past history of natural atmospheric variations in radiocarbon levels (Renfrew 1968, 1970, 1973).6.1 Another challenge for early radiocarbon work at Gordion was the “old wood” problem (for which see Schiffer 1986), and Kohler and Ralph were among the first to appreciate the potential scale and complications of this issue for radiocarbon dating in archaeology. Given the extraordinarily long-lived constructional timbers from Gordion (the record is a likely original 918 years), each with hundreds of tree-rings, they realized that the radiocarbon dates obtained from samples of inner rings would be unacceptably high for their associated archaeological context, i.e., much older than the building that incorporated the timbers (Kohler and Ralph 1961:357, 362–63). Kohler and Ralph also indicated the chronological value of shortlived sample material for providing a radiocarbon age contemporary with the sample’s archaeological context (ibid.:357). The field in general, however, had yet to grasp the necessity of strictly differentiating and clarifying the age of the sample being dated (the dated event) and the archaeological context for which a date was being sought (the target event), and thus to develop proper and appropriate strategies in archaeological radiocarbon dating (Dean 1978; Waterbolk 1971). To add to the challenges for early radiocarbon work at Gordion, it later transpired that a number of the Gordion radiocarbon samples fall in the so-called Hallstatt Period, when the (subsequently developed) radiocarbon calibration curve is flat for several centuries and thus generally yields date ranges too wide to be archaeologically useful. Furthermore, the original collection procedure appears to have been to save only one radiocarbon sample per building, which does not allow critical comparison among multiple samples from the same context, and limits comparison among different contexts. Thus, although the early scientific dating program at Gordion was precocious for its time, one can, in retrospect, identify many shortcomings with it. Despite these points, it is notable that many of the old Gordion data in Figure 6.1a are compatible with the new data discussed below, though with

much less measurement precision and, we assume, accuracy. In particular, the group of three data on short-lived sample material from the Early Phrygian Destruction Level (YHSS 6A DL period) (samples P-898, P-899 and P-901; see Fig. 6.1b) provide calibrated calendar dates centering just before or around ca. 800 BC, thus already challenging the ca. 700 BC date assigned by Young to this context.

Radiocarbon Wiggle-matched Tree-Ring Samples from Gordion Large series of high-resolution radiocarbon measurements have been taken on timbers from the Gordion area, with those since 1996 serving as part of the East Mediterranean Radiocarbon Intercomparison Project (EMRCP). Data and analyses have been published on samples up to 1996 (Kuniholm et al. 1996), 2001 (Kromer et al. 2001; Manning et al. 2001), 2003 (Manning et al. 2003) and 2005 (Manning et al. 2005). These samples create a near-absolute placement of the otherwise floating Gordion area dendrochronology covering the period from the Iron Age through Middle Bronze Age (YHSS 6A–YHSS 10 periods) (Fig. 6.2a). Dates +4/-7 calendar years at approximately 95% confidence against the IntCal98 radiocarbon calibration curve (Stuiver et al. 1998) were stated in 2001. The cutting date for the Tumulus MM (“Midas Mound”) juniper logs, the bark of which is still preserved, was placed at ca. 740 BC on this basis. Many more samples have now been run (as of July 2009), along with some replicates (Fig. 6.2c). A final near-approximate date placement and analysis thereof will be offered against the then-current radiocarbon calibration dataset when the overFigure 6.1a (opposite). Calibrated calendar age probability distributions and ranges for the University of Pennsylvania radiocarbon determinations from Gordion (see Appendix). Calibrated ages determined using the IntCal04 calibration dataset (Reimer et al. 2004) and the OxCal (3.10) software (Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001 and versions since, curve resolution set at 5). The horizontal lines under each probability distribution show (upper line) the 1σ (68.2%) and (lower line) the 2σ (95.4%) confidence ranges. (Courtesy, Sturt Manning)

125 Phase Early Iron Age YHSS 7 P-137 YHSS 7 3113±125BP

Phase Early Phrygian YHSS 6A Phase Long or unknown length growth samples P-99 YHSS 6A 2660±118BP P-135 YHSS 6A Destruction Level 2623±119BP P-136 YHSS 6A 2690±120BP P-788 YHSS 6A Destruction Level 2691±47BP

Phase Short-lived growth samples P-898 YHSS 6A Charred Seeds Destruction Level 2707±52BP P-899 YHSS 6A Textiles Destruction Level 2620±50BP P-901 Roof Reeds YHSS 6A Destruction Level 2693±54BP

Phase Middle Phrygian YHSS 5 Phase Long or unknown length growth samples P-127 Tumulus MM YHSS 5 2701±90BP P-133 Tumulus MM YHSS 5 2939±122BP P-275 Tumulus MM YHSS 5 2560±60BP P-218 YHSS 5 2900±51BP P-220 YHSS 5 2750±49BP P-223 YHSS 5 2830±45BP P-353 YHSS 5 2910±53BP P-363 YHSS 5 2720±54BP P-902 YHSS 5 2522±53BP

Phase Short-lived growth samples P-128 Textiles Tumulus MM YHSS 5 2631±90BP P-134 Tumulus MM Food? YHSS 5 2606±117BP

Phase Other Tumuli Phase Long or unknown growth samples P-356 Tumulus S2 2920±54BP P-358 Tumulus N 2890±87BP P-221 Tumulus S1 2660±62BP P-256 Tumulus I 2510±61BP P-222 Tumulus H 2480±48BP P-352 Tumulus H 2390±61BP

Phase Shorter lived growth samples? P-30 Tumulus F Cremation 2420±51BP

Phase Later Hellenistic YHSS 3A P-257 YHSS 3A 2120±59BP

2400CalBC

1600CalBC

800CalBC

CALIBRATED DATE

CalBC/CalAD

126 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Phase YHSS 6A Destruction Level Short-lived growth samples P-898 YHSS 6A Charred Seeds Destruction Level 2707±52BP P-899 YHSS 6A Textiles Destruction Level 2620±50BP P-901 Roof Reeds YHSS 6A Destruction Level 2693±54BP

Phase Weighted Average R_Combine _R_Com (df=2 T=1.7(5% 6.0)) R_Combine _R_Com

1400CalBC

1200CalBC

1000CalBC

800CalBC

600CalBC

CALIBRATED DATE

Figure 6.1b. The group of three data on short-lived sample material from the Early Phrygian (YHSS 6A-DL) period Destruction Level (P-898, P-899, P-901), indicating a centering of calibrated calendar dates just before or around 800 BC for this context. The calibrated age ranges for the weighted average of the three data shown are: 1σ 845–800 BC and 2σ 895–795 BC. Compare with Fig. 6.5 below (using just the new data). (Courtesy, Sturt Manning)

all EMRCP series and analyses are completed. For the present we continue to state ages based on the 2001 placement until a final restatement can be made at the completion of the EMRCP work. Fig-

ure 6.2a shows the data reported as of Manning et al. 2003, and Figure 6.2b considers the best fit of these same data against the IntCal04 radiocarbon calibration curve, which appeared after the 2001

Figure 6.2a. The Gordion wiggle-match 14C data as reported in Manning et al. 2003, shown here against the IntCal98 radiocarbon calibration curve (Stuiver et al. 1998). (Courtesy, Sturt Manning)



Radiocarbon Dating Iron Age Gordion 127

Figure 6.2b. The same as Fig. 6.2a but shown against the IntCal04 radiocarbon calibration curve (Reimer et al. 2004). Represented are 58 data on 10-year segments of samples GOR-2, GOR-3, and GOR-161. Employing IntCal04, the best fit for what was called the “Gordion Old data set” in Manning et al. 2001 is +1.5 years versus the preferred best fit there; employing all 58 data it is +2.5 years; and employing all the data, except those in the 8th century BC, it is +5.5 years. (Courtesy, Sturt Manning)

and 2003 papers and analyses. Figure 6.2c shows the current (July 2009) situation (see Kromer et al. 2010; and see Postscript below). At present, the fit is based on the older data: radiocarbon determinations from Gordion wood samples covering relative rings 761–1099, which comprise 41 radiocarbon measurements. This enables us to avoid the issue of the small regional/growing season offset apparent in the 9th and 8th centuries BC that is associated with the major solar minimum (Kromer et al. 2001). The use of the older data also avoids complications caused by some (interesting) wider variation and/or noise in the later part of the series––in the later 14th to early 13th centuries BC, and again around 1000 BC (see Kromer et al. 2010; Manning et al. 2010).

The dating placement is just +1 year on the Manning et al. 2001 date (with a 2σ error estimation of +4.5/-3.5 years). If the later data are included, and all 113 data employed, then the quality of the overall wiggle-match goes down badly; the best fit, ignoring this problem, is then +7 years on the Manning et al. 2001 date. We regard the fit shown in Figure 6.2c as the best current estimate. The important thing to note is that any variation in date is to very slightly older ages (compared to those stated in Manning et al. 2001, 2003), and not to more recent ages. A formal restatement of the best current near-absolute date placement will only be made once all the EMRCP data are finished and the overall dataset has been re-analyzed. But any pos-

128 the new chronology of iron age gordion

Gordion Juniper - placement based on 14 C data for rings 761-1099 (n=41) ring 777=1728 BC

IntCal04 IntCal98

Figure 6.2c. All 113 Gordion wiggle-match data—as available July 2009—are shown at the proposed best fit (+1 calendar year versus the Manning et al. 2001; 2003 fit as shown in Fig. 6.2a). This fit employs just the first 41 data from Gordion relative rings 761–1099. The fit offers a satisfactory Chi-square test statistic of 37.3 < the 5% value at 40 degrees of freedom of 54.93—in OxCal (version 4.1 of 2009). It also offers an agreement of Acomb 61.7, surpassing the approximate 95% test value of An 11.0 for the overall sequence. In contrast, if all 113 data are employed, the fit becomes +7 calendar years versus the Manning et al. 2001; 2003 placement. Such an analysis, however, does not offer satisfactory agreement due to the offset in values during the 9th to 8th centuries BC (see Kromer et al. 2001). There is other noise as well, or offset issues in the second half of the series (Chi-squares test value of 189.6 > the df112 value at 5% level of 138.2 and with Acomb of 0.3 less than An of 6.7 in OxCal). Therefore, we consider the fit shown here to be the most appropriate based on current evidence. Note added in proof: see now Manning et al. (2010) employing a final 128 elements dataset. (Courtesy, Sturt Manning) Figure 6.3a (opposite). Graphic representation of the calibrated calendar age ranges for the Heidelberg radiocarbon determinations from Iron Age contexts at Gordion (cf. Table 6.1). Calibrated ages were determined using the IntCal04 calibration dataset (Reimer et al. 2004) and the OxCal (3.10) software (Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001 and versions since, curve resolution set at 5). The hollow boxes show the 2σ (95.4%) confidence ranges, and the grey-shaded boxes within the hollow ones show the 1σ (68.2%) confidence ranges (curve resolution set at 5, round ranges “on”). The YHSS 6A-DL period Destruction Level data on short-lived samples all lie in the few decades before and around 800 BC (and nowhere near 700 BC––compare also Fig. 6.1b). If considered as one group of contemporary samples, the 15 data on short-lived samples from the YHSS 6A-DL period Destruction Level contexts can all be satisfactorily combined to yield a weighted average at the 95% confidence level (see Fig. 6.5). If one looks at the individual pot groups (seeds found together in one ceramic container), then all but one group also meet the same criterion of satisfying a hypothesis of the samples belonging to the same radiocarbon age. Thus Pot 33560 T=0.4 < χ2df1 = 3.8; Pot 33554 T =0.7 < χ2df1 = 3.8; Pot 33567 T =0.1 < χ2df1 = 3.8; and Pot 33223 T =1.6 < χ2df2 = 6.0 (following the method of Ward and Wilson 1978). Just one—Pot 33231 with flax seeds—produces data that fails such a hypothesis, with T =7.5 > χ2df2 = 6.0. Two of the samples are a little older and one prefers an age closer to 800 BC (the very small measurement errors on two of the samples largely explain why the set then narrowly fails the chi-squared test). Since the overall set of 15 data form a satisfactory pooled mean, we use this overall set and its weighted average as the best estimate of the radiocarbon age of the YHSS 6A-DL period Destruction Level. (Courtesy, Sturt Manning)

129 Phase GORDION YHSS 7A Phase Long-Lived Samples - Charcoal 21364 YH59050 2742±16BP 21231 YH59025 2808±26BP 21229 YH59024 2872±35BP 21327 YH59023 2789±24BP 21310 YH59026 2823±33BP

Phase Shorted-Lived Samples 21354 YH33379 Wheat 2726±24BP 21191 YH30416 Barley 2699±18BP 21318 YH33335 Bitter Vetch 2728±29BP 21866 YH33394 Wheat 2733±23BP 21867 YH33402 Wheat 2760±22BP

Phase GORDION YHSS 6A Phase Roof Reeds Hd-21361 2693±27BP Hd-21880 2686±21BP Hd-21885 2703±29BP

Phase TB2A YHSS 6A Destruction Level seeds Phase Group YH33575 inside Pot 33560 - Lentils Hd-23645 2694±13BP Hd-23610 2683±12BP

Phase Group YH33555 inside Pot 33231 - Flax seeds Hd-21304 2655±19BP Hd-23639 2714±11BP Hd-23655 2707±11BP

Phase Group YH33554 - Barley Hd-23638 2683±12BP Hd-23609 2669±12BP

Phase Group YH33568 inside Pot YH33567 - Barley Hd-23624 2686±15BP Hd-23612 2680±16BP

Phase Group YH33243 inside Pot 33223 - Lentils Hd-21358 2647±32BP Hd-23644 2673±12BP Hd-23611 2688±14BP

Phase Other data - single dates for context Hd-21352 YH32385 Barley 2674±20BP Hd-21332 YH32525 Barley 2678±18BP Hd-21236 YH33521 Lentils 2641±25BP

Phase GORDION YHSS LATE 5 Hd-21311 YH59029 2462±33BP

1200CalBC 800CalBC CALIBRATED DATE

130 the new chronology of iron age gordion

sible movement in dating would appear to be very small (and if so, toward dates perhaps one to a few years older). The radiocarbon “wiggle-matched” dates for latest-preserved tree-rings or bark (cutting date) available for structures at Gordion on the basis of the 2001 placement (Kromer et al. 2001; Manning et al. 2001) are listed below (see also Chapter 5, this volume). All dates are +4/-7 years against the IntCal98 radiocarbon calibration curve at approximately the 95% confidence level. As noted above, the dates may move very slightly with additional data and against the new IntCal04 radiocarbon calibration curve (at present this would be a +1 year adjustment). Any and all such future variances must be identical for all samples and dates stated; in other words, if one date goes up by X years, then all the others follow suit by exactly the same (X years) amount.

Middle Phrygian/YHSS 5 Period Tumuli (the 1024-year Master Chronology for Gordion)

Tumulus MM (Midas Mound): 740 BC. Bark present Tumulus Kızlarkayası A: 857 BC. Plus estimated 100+ sapwood rings missing

Early Phrygian/YHSS 6A Period, Pre-Terrace Phase

Megaron 5: 940 BC. Only a few rings missing? (1 sample) Megaron 6: 944 BC. Only a few rings missing? (1 sample)

Early Phrygian/YHSS 6A Period, Citadel Fortification

Phrygian Gate Building foundation: 862 BC. Unknown number of rings missing (5 samples)

Early Phrygian/YHSS 6A-DL Period, Destruction Level

Megaron 3: 911 BC. Unknown number of rings missing (1 sample) Megaron 4: 909 BC. Unknown number of rings missing (1 sample) Terrace Building 7A: 1141 BC. Obviously reused timber (1 sample) Clay Cut Building 3: 909 BC. Unknown num-

ber of rings missing (38 samples) Terrace Building 2A: 850 BC. Unknown number of rings missing (256 samples)

Middle Phrygian/YHSS 5 Period

Middle Phrygian–Persian Gate Building, rubble fill: 922 BC. Obviously re-used timber (3 samples) Middle Phrygian–Persian Gate Building, North Court: 942 BC. Obviously re-used timber (3 samples) Building A: 918 BC. Unknown number of rings missing (9 samples)

Heidelberg Iron Age Radiocarbon Dates A suite of 29 radiocarbon determinations has been run on samples from Iron Age contexts obtained from the 1988–1989 stratigraphic sounding at Gordion (the Yassıhöyük Stratigraphic Sequence, or YHSS; see Voigt 1994; Voigt and Henrikson 2000), over the period 2000–2004 at the Heidelberg Radiocarbon Laboratory. The first five data from this program formed the basis of the DeVries et al. 2003 publication. These samples comprised either wood charcoal or groups of seeds. For all samples we used the AAA-procedure (30 minutes at 80° of 4% HCl, 1.5 hours at 80° of 4% NaOH, 30 minutes at 80° of 4% HCl). Noncharcoal coniferous samples were first pretreated in a Soxhlet extraction. The samples were then combusted in a 1.8 liter Parr bomb. We modified the

Figure 6.3b (opposite). As Fig. 6.3a, but with an extra 3‰ (24 14C years) error factor added to all the short-lived samples to allow for possible inter- and intra-annual variability issues versus the radiocarbon calibration curve dataset. The YHSS 6A-DL period Destruction Level short-lived samples still clearly all lie mainly in the decades just before or around 800 BC (and are entirely separate from and incompatible with a date of ca. 700 BC). Even the most recent calendar age range for any of the 15 data (Hd-21358) is 840–790 BC (1σ) and 900–770 BC (2σ)—entirely removed from ca. 700 BC. With the additional error factor, all the pot groups combine satisfactorily at the 95% level (the problematic Pot 33231 in Figure 6.3a now becomes T =2.4 < χ2df2 = 6.0). (Courtesy, Sturt Manning)

131 Phase GORDION YHSS 7A Phase Long-Lived Samples - charcoal 21364 YH59050 2742±16BP 21231 YH59025 2808±26BP 21229 YH59024 2872±35BP 21327 YH59023 2789±24BP 21310 YH59026 2823±33BP

Phase Shorted-Lived Samples 21354 YH33379 Wheat 2726±34BP 21191 YH30416 Barley 2699±30BP 21318 YH33335 Bitter Vetch 2728±38BP 21866 YH33394 Wheat 2733±33BP 21867 YH33402 Wheat 2760±33BP

Phase GORDION YHSS 6A Phase Roof Reeds Hd-21361 2693±27BP Hd-21880 2686±21BP Hd-21885 2703±29BP

Phase TB2A YHSS 6A Destruction Level seeds Phase Group YH33575 inside Pot 33560 - Lentils Hd-23645 2694±27BP Hd-23610 2683±27BP

Phase Group YH33555 inside Pot 33231 - Flax seeds Hd-21304 2655±31BP Hd-23639 2714±26BP Hd-23655 2707±26BP

Phase Group YH33554 - Barley Hd-23638 2683±27BP Hd-23609 2669±27BP

Phase Group YH33568 inside Pot YH33567 - Barley Hd-23624 2686±28BP Hd-23612 2680±29BP

Phase Group YH33243 inside Pot 33223 - Lentils Hd-21358 2647±40BP Hd-23644 2673±27BP Hd-23611 2688±28BP

Phase Other data - single dates for context Hd-21352 YH32385 Barley 2674±35BP Hd-21332 YH32525 Barley 2678±31BP Hd-21236 YH33521 Lentils 2641±30BP

Phase GORDION YHSS LATE 5 Hd-21311 YH59029 2462±33BP

800CalBC 1200CalBC CALIBRATED DATE

132 the new chronology of iron age gordion

original procedure (see Dörr et al. 1989) by adding an additional precipitation step to guarantee the highest possible gas purity for large (10 liter) CO2 gas samples. In the design used, four to six samples can be combusted and precipitated per day. CO2 gas obtained by acidifying the precipitate is purified chromatographically over activated charcoal. The samples were then counted for eight to ten days in proportional counters in the Heidelberg Laboratory sub-basement counting room. Background and standard are corrected for (minor) fluctuations in, respectively, atmospheric pressure and gas purity (Kromer and Münnich 1992). The likely accuracy and precision of these Heidelberg data are indicated when one considers data of known age run by the Heidelberg Laboratory over the same years in which these Gordion Iron Age samples were measured. For example, data on ADperiod Anatolian and German wood run by Heidelberg shows close agreement with the radiocarbon calibration curve and the other “calibration” laboratories. Previously, a comparison of German BCperiod wood also indicated close agreement with the Seattle Laboratory measurements. (For these data and comparisons, see for example Kromer et al. 2001; Manning et al. 2002, 2005, 2006: fig. 1 and Supporting Online Material). The Heidelberg data for Gordion Iron Age samples are listed in Table 6.1 and are shown in Figure 6.3a. The same data with an additional (3‰, or 24 14C years) error allowance are shown in Figure 6.3b. It is evident from a cursory examination of Figures 6.3a and 6.3b that the data on short-lived samples (contemporary with context) from the Early Phrygian/YHSS 6A-DL Destruction Level period all yield fairly similar ages, and that these all lie in the decades before or around 800 BC.

Dating the Early Phrygian Iron Age (YHSS 6A-DL) Destruction Level DeVries et al. 2003 presented five radiocarbon determinations on seeds (lentils, barley, and flax) from the fire destruction of Terrace Building 2A at Gordion (YHSS 6A-DL Period). As short-lived (annual) growth samples, these data ought to date the destruction to within about one calendar year.

DeVries et al. 2003 argued that the data offered an approximately coherent set and so could be combined (weighted average) together to yield the most precise estimate of the likely age of the samples. The calibrated calendar age range for the weighted average employing the IntCal98 dataset was 824–807 BC at the 1σ, or 68.2%, level of confidence, and 827–803 BC at the 2σ, or 95.4 %, level of confidence. This age is just over a century earlier than the previously standard (“old chronology”) date for the destruction. Since the preliminary note of DeVries et al. 2003, additional samples have been run, providing the full dataset shown in Figures 6.3a and 6.3b. This new evidence provides much further support to the DeVries et al. 2003 dating. However, given that the previous date of ca. 700 BC for the destruction had become orthodox over half a century of modern scholarship, and given the controversy over the re-dating of the Gordion Iron Age chronology, such a major change demands full justification. We shall therefore: (1) address published criticisms that have claimed there are problems with the Gordion radiocarbon data as presented in DeVries et al. 2003, in which we consider a range of potential issues that might be relevant to these data, and investigate what effect these might have on the dating; and (2) provide a detailed analysis of all the new radiocarbon evidence in order to offer the best possible date for the YHSS 6A-DL Destruction Level.

Dates, Debates, and Issues to Consider In response to DeVries et al. 2003, Keenan (2004) claimed that “the radiocarbon dates have severe problems due to well-known atmospheric variations, and that these problems imply the claim [the new dating of DeVries et al. 2003] is invalid.” Let us review the supposed severe problems (Keenan addresses just the five data on the seeds), and address the robustness of the dating of the YHSS 6A-DL Destruction Level.

1. Gordion Offset versus the IntCal98 Dataset

Keenan (2004:101) noted that DeVries et al. 2003 employed the then-standard northern hemisphere calibration curve (IntCal98: Stuiver et al. 1998). He argued that this curve “constructed from



Radiocarbon Dating Iron Age Gordion 133

Table 6.1. Radiocarbon determinations on Iron Age samples run at the Heidelberg Radiocarbon Laboratory. Calibrated calendar age ranges for each sample in isolation at 2σ (95.4%) confidence are also shown using the IntCal04 calibration dataset (Reimer et al. 2004) and the OxCal (3.10) software (Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001 and versions since, curve resolution set at 5). These calibrated ranges are highly conservative: total range (inclusive ranges; sub-ranges are not listed here) is rounded outward: to the nearest 50 years if the total range of ages is >500 years, to the nearest 10 years if the total range of ages is 100– 500 years, or the nearest 5 years if the total range of ages is 500 years, to the nearest 10 years if the total range of ages is 100–500 years, or to the nearest 5 years if the total range of ages is