TcBA-AR VII 2004
A DENDROCHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
FOR THE ASSYRIAN COLONY
PERIOD IN ASIA MINOR
.. ..
RobertJ. Braidwood and Linda
S.Braidwood in memoriam
‘Maryanne W. NEWTON
**PeterIan KUNMOLM
Keywords: Dendrochronology, radiocarbon, Middle Bronze Age, Assyrian Colony Period, wiggle-matching
Anahtar sbzcukler: Agas halka tarihlemesi, radyokarbon, Orta Tuns Gaol, Asur Koloni Gaol, fark eorilerinin ortu5mesi
Anadolu icin M.0. 2657-649 W101 yillari boyunca uzanan iki parca halinde 2009 yillik bir Eski
Tune-Demir Cagi agac-halka kronolojisi sunuyoruz. Bu kronoloji hem Kultepe’nin Karum 11 ve
Karum Ib tabakalarini icermekte, hem de bu tabakalari Acemhoyijk ve Karahoyiik-Konya’daki
cagda? tabakalara baglamaktadir. Ilk defa her uc kazi alaninin Karum II tabakasina ait yapilarina
kesin tarih verebiliyoruz. Ornegin, Karum Ib’de, Kultepe’nin WarSama Sarayi (M.0. 1832) ve
Acemhoyii@n Sarikaya Sarayi ve Hatipler Tepesi (ikisi de M.0 1774’te yapilmigtir) gibi me8hur
yapilarini tarihlendirebiliyoruz. Ayrica, agac halkalari Wargama Sarayi’ninM,0.1771’dekiyikmindan
once en az 61 sene, ve Sarikaya Sarayi’ninM.0. 1766daki yikimindan once en az 8 sene var olduklarini
gosteriyor.
The Assyrian Colony Perid
Toward the end of the third millennium BC
Assyrian merchants began a remarkable, multigeneration-long
commercial relationship, principally
a trade in metals, with the kings of central
Anatolia. Their ‘typical’archaeological imprint,
seen best at Kultepe, ancient Kane:, is a settlement
or karum of merchants’ houses (T. Ozguq
1986) clustered around a large mound where
the indigenous Anatolian ruler lived, usually in
a substantial palace (T.Ozguc; 1999;2003), and
documented by the archives of thousands of
cuneiform tablets that recorded the merchants’
daily business and personal transactions. In
addition, seals and sealings record the names of
a number of rulers or magistrates both from
Anatolia and the Near East.
This so-called Assyrian Colony Period ip
Anatolia is conventionally divided into four
phases, named after the karum levels at Kultepe.
Thus from bottom (early) to top (late) the phasing
is: Karum IV, Karum 111, Karum 11, and
Karum Ib and Ia. Not much is known about the
lower two levels because of the minimal exca*
- **Malcolmand Carolyn Wiener Laboratory for Aegean and Near Eastern Dendrochronology, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y
14853, U.S.A.
vation carried out to these depths, and the latter
half of level I (Ia) encompasses everything from
the Middle Bronze Age to the present.
Therefore, this paper deals only with the
chronology of Karum levels I1 (=Mound level 8)
and Ib (=Mound level 7) (T. Ozguc 1999,77).
Assigning a length to the period of Karum Level
I1 has been aided in the past several years by the
identification of four cuneiform texts excavated
from the karum at Kultepe, the so-called limu",
or eponym, lists. These are lists of the administrative
officials who served annually as the limu"
or magistrate at the Assyrian capital Azur, and
after each one of whom the year of his administration
was named. The most recent Kultepe
eponym list, as modified by the publication of a
long list of these names on a single tablet
(Veenhof 20031, now includes 129 names of
officials who held the post of limu"during the
period of Karum Level 11, more than half a century
longer than had been posited on the basis
of the number of previously-knownlimu"names
(Balkan 1955). ProfessorVeenhof has proposed
an additional 9 eponyms to fill out the Karum
Level I1 phase, for a total of 138 years.
One of the difficulties of assigning absolute
dates to these years has lain in the absence of
any correlation between the names of the officials
and the material remains of the karum.
Instead, archaeologists and Assyriologists have
been struggling to date the years of the limGs'
reigns by correlating them with the dates of the
reigns of Assyrian kings, Babylonian kings, and
local kings of the sites in Anatolia in which the
principal Assyrian merchant colonies were located,
including Kultepe, Aligar, and Bogazkoy.
One presumes that karums were also located at
Acemhoyiik and possibly Karahoyiik-Konya,
though none have been found in 30 years of
excavation. The vast majority of the effort
expended at the latter two sites has been on the
mounds themselves. Professor Veenhof now
dates the Karum I1 period between ca. 1974 and
1836 BC (absolute dates based on the
MesopotamianMiddle Chronology). The end of
Karum Level I1 has been attributed to Assyrian
king Naram-Sin based on the latest attested bullae
found in the karum at Kultepe (Ozkan 1993).
What is clear is a distinct shift in the archaeological
imprint on the karum after a realignment
from the Level I1 plan. After a maximum interval
of perhaps a generation, Karum Level Ib is
established ca. 1800 and runs to 1730 BC (T.
Ozgug 2003, 28). However, not enough limG
names from Level Ib are known to give any
chronological dimension to the period from this
type of evidence alone.
An alternative set of dates continues to emerge
from another, independent, source. This is the
dendrochronological dating of a variety of monumental
buildings from the Assyrian Colony
Period in central Anatolia. Although these dates
are not yet absolute (these are floating chronologies,
and they will remain floating until the
Aegean Dendrochronology Project [henceforth
ADPI can connect them with the long tree-ring
sequences from later periods), they are securely
connected with one another. Lacking a dendrochronological
bridge to the present, our dating
the tree-ring sequences in absolute time has
required the use of a proxy method, namely
radiocarbon wiggle-matching. In the late 1980s
the ADP began a collaboration with Dr. B.
Kromer at the Institut fur Umweltphysik at the
University of Heidelberg to wiggle-match our
long dendrochronological sequences in an effort
to come up with precise radiocarbon "dateswithin
the limits of the method- "for all wood
that could be connected to two of our longest
tree-ring sequences.
The Karum I1 Period at Kiikepe,
Acemhoytk,and Karahoyiik-Konya
Kultepe Karum Level I1 is represented by a 521year
tree-ring chronology, spanning the years
2544-2024 BC2, built from the juniper doorthreshold
timbers of rooms in the Eski Saray (T.
Ozguc 1999,106-110and Plates 45-49; T. Ozguc
2003, 133-137) next to a corduroy road of oak
logs from which we have built a 251-year
A DENDROCHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK IN ASIA MIANOR 167
chronology (not yet dated). Acemhoyiik Early
is represented by a 508-year chronology built
from burned, re-used timbers (Figure 1 and
Figure 2) in the foundations of unburned walls
of kitchen structures in the Northwest Trench.
Although the kitchen area’s period of use was
the 18th century BC on the basis of seals, sealings,
small finds, and pottery (A. Oztan, pers.
c o r n . ; 1992 and her figures 1-3;1993 and her
figures 1-2), the 508-year ring-sequence dates
from 2657 to 2150 BC. Finally, Karahoyiik is
represented by a 198-yeartimber taken from the
scarp of a deep sondage in Trench C, Levels 6/7
made a generation ago by Professor Sedat Alp.
There was no indication from the excavator
whether or not this sample was part of a wall of
a larger building that can be attributed to the
Early Bronze Age. But the crossdating against
both the Acemhoyiik Early junipers and Kultepe
Eski Saray junipers is excellent. The rings span
the years 2359-2162 BC.
Since these sites are widely separated, there is
nothing to suggest a common cause of the burning.
The end-dates of the rings span almost a
century and a half, and an accidental conflagration
once every 50 years somewhere in Anatolia
is easily conceivable. If a military campaign by
some aggressor is a serious possibility, we need
to look at the Assyriological record for candidates.
Since only the Kultepe samples are in a
primary construction context, the latter site
deserves the most comment. The threshold timbers
of the Eski Saray were cut around 2024 BC,
probably some while later, and then after an
unknown lifespan the Eski Saray was destroyed
in a conflagration. Professor Tahsin Ozgu~,the
excavator of Kultepe, thinks that the Eski Saray
is contemporary with Karum Level 11. Whether
the burning up on the mound and down in the
karum is the same burning is anybody’s guess.
Recently Professor OzguC commented that the
incineration of palace and karum was due to the
same fire, possibly the attack of Uhna, king of
Zalpa (T. Ozguc 2003, 131). At any rate, to
tree at Acemhoyiik. The wiggle-match (illustrated
in Figures 4-6) testing the proposed dendrochronological
date with the EBA tree-ring
chronology starting in year 2657 is based on 13
sets of decadal tree-ring samples from
Acemhoyiik and Karahoyiik, each dated at
Heidelberg by Dr. B. Kromer with subsequent
analysis by Dr. S. W. Manning.
The end-dates, all terminipost quos, of the lastpreserved
rings are therefore as follows:
Karahoytik-Konya Early: 2162 BC (no bark,
unknown number of rings missing at end, no
burning visible in the scarp today); Acemhoyiik
Early: 2150 BC (no bark, unknown number of
rings missing,all partially burned); Kultepe Early:
2024 BC (no bark, trimmed, unknown number
of rings missing at end, all badly burned).
fully) was almost total, and the combustion left
us little but ash. After years of trying we have
yet to derive a single tree-ring date for any
building in the karum at Kaneg.
The Karum Ib Period at Kultepe,
Acemhowk, and Karahoyuk-Konya
This period is much better represented dendrochronologically
than Karum Level 11. All
three sites have one or more major burned monuments
with long tree-ring sequences, all
pinned to our Bronze Age/Iron Age tree-ring
chronology which is accurate to within a few
years (k4/7 years in Manning et al. 2001 at 20;
and less than *16/7 years at 30 range in Manning
et al. 2003). Moreover, repair timbers exist
in two monuments that allow us to make an
168 M. W. ,YEWTON- P. I. KCA7HOLM
estimate on dendrochronological grounds alone
about the life-span of each building before it
was destroyed.
At Kultepe a large number of timbers in the
Warzama Sarayi (T. Ozguq 2003, 120-1251, all
preserving the bark, were cut in 1832 BC. A second
building program took place in the northwest
corner of the building in 1810/1808 (bark
preserved). Additional timbers which m7e interpret
as late repairs were cut as late as 1779 or
possibly later (no bark preserved), indicating a
minimum of 61 years for the lifetime of the
building before its violent destruction some time
after 1779. At Acemhoyiik,two major buildings,
the Sarikaya Palace and the Hatipler Tepesi
building, both violently burned (T. Ozguq 2003,
126-128,and our Figure 31, were constructed in
the same year: 1774 BC (bark preserved in both
buildings).
Two repair timbers in the Sarikaya Palace were
cut in 1767 and 1766 or later (no bark preserved),
indicating that it had a lifespan of at
least 8years. The bulk of the reported 1600bullae
in the Sarikaya Palace should have been
deposited there after 1774 and before its
destruction some time after 1766. Foreign royalty
whose bullae are found in the Sarikaya
Palace include King gamgi-Adad of AEur, the
Princess Dugedu, daughter of King Iakhdun-Lim
of Mari, and King Aplakhanda of Carchemish (T.
Ozguq 2003). When the sealings from this building
are fully published (Nimet Ozguq, in preparation)
we should know more about their distribution,
and possibly how many should be
assigned to which years of the building’s lifetime,
and the Anatolian tree-ring work will have
a new set of foreign connotations. At Karahoyiik
- Konya,the last-preservedrings (no bark) of yet
another burned building (majority of timbers
from Room 4) in Trench X (Alp 1992;1993)date
from after 1768 BC.
Again we need to look at the Assyriological
record. Was there a military campaign in the
1760s to blame for all this, or are we dealing
with three unrelated destructions of these major
mounds? Professor Tahsin Ozguq has recently
suggested attacks by competing regional kings
(T. Ozguc 2003, 132). As a cautionary point, we
note that the wooden city of Novgorod in Russia
was destroyed by fire on average once every 24
years over a six-century period (Kolchin 1963,
89, yet there is no evidence whatever in the
Russian chronicles for any foreign attack, civil
unrest, or the like as a causal factor.
Nonetheless, given the historical information
concerning military activities in the period, there
is more of a case to be made here in the Karum
Ib period than there was for the Karum I1 period
for an event such as a single military campaign
that might have caused all these destructions
at nearly the same time.
Comment on our published
dendrochronological dates for the MBA
New articles and commentary by other scholars
on the Assyrian Colony Period are appearing
practically bi-monthly, most recently Professor
Klaas Veenhofs The Old Assyrian List of Year
Eponyms from Karum Kanish and its
Chronological Implications (Ankara, 2003), and
Professor Tahsin Ozguq’s Kiilrepe Kani,%/Nek
(Tokyo, 20031, and still others are in advanced
stages of preparation, such as Professor Cahit
Gunbatti’s limu” text referred to above and
Professor Nimet Ozguq’s final reports on both
the seals and sealings from Acemhoyiik as well
as the architecture volume. We therefore feel it
necessary to set the dendrochronological record
straight so that our colleagues will not inadvertently
cite one of our earlier reports with the
possibly confusing dating systems noted below.
We now think that our tree-ring dates, especially
for the Middle Bronze Age, are accurate to
within a very few years. Confirmation of all
these dates, of course, will come when the
absolute dendrochronological sequence for the
Aegean and eastern Mediterranean is extended
from the present to the second millennium BC.
But if it turns out that we have to move a date
up one year, then everything moves up one
A DENDROCHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK IN ASIA MLil‘OR 169
Publication m .
Fublilicxtion Date (1989)
year; if we have to move a date down one or
two Years, then everything rnOveS down one Or
it is the column on the right in bold characters
that should be cited from now on. Columns 1-5
Syria1 N W Nahug Skimce’ Amtipi-#-’
(1992) (1993) (1396) (2001) (2003)
years, and so forth*We change One
date without changing all the others. The intervals
between the dates listed below remain conare
provided for readers who have seen some
but not all of our earlier publications. SuperLast
preserved ring nla nla 1785+37RC 1746 BC 17&+4/--TRC 17@1771BC
Hittite city wall, 1439 1439 16212378C
inner postern (MBARD) (MBARD)
construction
Hittite city wall, nla 1470 1590+37€3C
outer postem (MBARD)
construction
1562 BC 1604+4/--Tf3C 1&)41&yf3C
2551 RC 1573+4/-mC l5751576BC
Table 1
1.Our first announcement was in 1989in “A677
Year Tree-Ring Chronology for the Middle
Bronze Age,” in Anatolia and the Ancient Near
East: Studies in Honor ofTahsin Ozgiic(Ankara:
Turk Tarih Kurumu). Here all dates were
expressed in terms of a Middle Bronze Age
Relative Dating system, which we built upon a
date assigned for the first measured sample from
Kultepe. The ADP relative dating procedures
were adopted from the Laboratory for Tree-Ring
Research, University of Arizona. The system
arbitrarily assigns the first measured ring of the
first sample to a year 1001.This allows flexibility
for crossdating any tree-ring sample against
the first one either to any year up to 1000 years
before, or 1000years after,the year 1001.These
years have always been relative, and are in part
the legacy of the days of punch-cards and an
170 M. W. NEWTON - P.I. KUNIHOLM
old computer system when the machines could
not handle negative (BC) numbers. This no
longer applies, but we still maintain a relative
dating system for all BC dates that is linked to
the first measured sample from Gordion
(Kuniholm 1977).
Since the Middle Bronze Age chronologies had
not (in 1989) been linked with the Gordion
chronologies, the tree-ring chronologies from
the Warxama Sarayi at Kultepe, the Sarikaya
Palace and Hatipler Tepesi Building at Acemhoyiik,
and the postern gate at Porsuk were
linked to the same MBA relative dating system.
Though an absolute date could not then be
assigned, the relative dates reported in 1989
remain the same as those reported today, with
the Warxama Sarayi at Kultepe’sbeing built 58
years3 before the two palatial buildings at
Acemhoyiik. In addition we reported, in preliminary
fashion, a 321-year tree-ring chronology
under development for the postern gate at
Porsuk (Kuniholm, et.al. 1992). This sequence
extended the Middle Bronze Age tree-ring
chronology from Kultepe and Acemhoyiik by
113 years on the recent/lower end, providing a
total of 677 years for what we called the Middle
Bronze Age chronology, spanning MBA-RD 763-
1439.
2. A major tree-ring anomaly at Porsuk -an
upward spike- the most singular anomaly in the
last 9000 years and an apparent reaction to a
series of cool, wet summers (of which more
below), was noted in a “PreliminaryReport on
Dendrochronological Investigations at Porsuk /
Ulukigla, Turkey 1987-1989,” in Syria LXIX
(1992), 379-389, but at the time of that publication
the event was described only in terms of
significance based on the number of trees
recording it. Thirty-one trees (then; the total is
now 61) recorded the growth as deviating from
normal as a positive anomaly of between 167%
and 207% of normal in the years, according to
the Middle Bronze Age Relative Chronology,
occurring in MBA-RD 1356-1357.
When this chronology was connected to the one
from Gordion via the discovery of exceptionally
long-lived juniper boards used in the construction
of the Phrygian tumulus at Kizlarkaya in
1991, the relative years for the spike became
Gordion MMT-RD 854-855 (see #3 below). This
is the positive growth anomaly we would later
publish in Nature in 1996 (see #4 below) as
occurring in these years, and in that publication
we correlated these years with the then growing
consensus for a major tree-ring growth anomaly
in the northern hemisphere in 1628-1627 BC
(also suggested in work published 1984-1995to
be perhaps correlated with the Thera eruption).
This was not the best match for the AD 1996
wiggle-match (which was c.1641 BC +/-), but
was chosen for the simple reason that it seemed
likely that the Porsuk extraordinary growth
anomaly correlated with the other recorded treering
growth anomalies around the northern
hemisphere and because we thought that what
we had come to refer to as “the Porsuk
Anomaly” was exactly the kind of response
expected from trees growing in the eastern
Mediterranean after the eruption of Thera. The
fact that Porsuk is situated within the arc of the
recorded ash fallout only increased our confidence
in this connection. In AD 1996 this
hypothesis was possible within the then established
dating error on the radiocarbon wigglematch.
But this situation has subsequently
changed: see #5 below.
3. In 1993 we reported, in a third paper, “A
Date-List for Bronze Age and Iron Age
Monuments Based on Combined Dendrochronological
and Radiocarbon Evidence”.
Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and Its
Neighbors-Studies in Honor of Nimet Ozguc
(Ankara, Turk Tarih Kurumu, 1993), the connection
of the Middle Bronze Age dendrochronology
(Middle Bronze Age Relative Dating
Years 763-1439) with the Late Bronze Age-Iron
Age dendrochronology developed from wood
from Gordion, including the Kalarkaya Tumulus
(spanning Gordion Relative Dating Years 739-
A DEI“DROCHROA\lOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK IiY ASlA MINOR 171
1647). We converted all of our dendrochronological
dates for MBA wood to the Gordion
Relative Dating system based on the so-called
Midas Mound Tumulus dendrochronology
(MMTRD).
The 677-year Middle Bronze Age tree-ring series
(mostly juniper) now spanned the years
MMTRD 257-933. It had an overlap with wood
of the same species from the Kizlarkaya
Tumulus of 216 years based on the then-current
1986 radiocarbon calibration curve which gave
us cutting dates of 1849 BC +/-37 years for the
Warzama Sarayi and 1785BC +/-37years for the
Acemhoyiik buildings. The Porsuk growth
anomaly was now back in the 1660s (+/-37), a
fact immediately noted by Professor F. H.
Schweingruber who commented that it was a
pity that the center of the anomaly did not line
up with one of the proposed eruption dates
(1628/1627) for Therahantorini.
4. By 1996 not only was the 1993 radiocarbon
calibration curve available, but we had enough
radiocarbon dates in hand to report in
“Anatoliantree rings and the absolute chronology
of the eastern Mediterranean 2220-718 BC,”
Nature 381 that we thought the Porsuk anomaly
should be placed at 1641 BC *76/22. Since this
window included 1628,we opted for the latter,
even though it was 13-oddyears lower than the
center of the chi-squared fit function (in retrospect
an ill-advised move, although it seemed
thoroughly reasonable at the time). The effect
on the dating of the big MBA buildings was a
construction date for the WaGama Palace of
1810 BC, construction dates for AcemhoyLik of
1752 BC, and a date for the Porsuk outer
postern at 1551.
5. By 2001 we had not only the 1998 radiocarbon
calibrationcurve but also nearly three times
the number of radiocarbon determinations that
had been available for the Nature article. The
morphology of the fit with the radiocarbon
curve showed that the earlier downward placement
of the Gordion tree-ring chronology was
incorrect. In two articles in Science (Kromer et
al., and Manning et al., December 2001, and a
supplementary comment by Reimer in the same
volume), we reported a modification of our previous
position, thereby moving the construction
dates of the Warxama Sarayi up 22 years to circa
1832 BC and the Acemhoyiik buildings to circa
1774 BC. This time the error margins were relatively
negligible, plus 4 or minus 7 years at
2 o (95.4%)confidence, and the Porsuk anomaly
moved up to around 1650,no longer having any
connection to any 1628BC northern hemisphere
tree-ring growth anomaly.
6. Most recently in a paper in the March, 2003
Antiquiy, “Confirmationof near-absolute dating
of east Mediterranean Bronze-Iron Dendrochronology”,
(available online at http://antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/manning/Manning.html)we
reported
that the likely best-fit margins varied by perhaps
0-3 years within a 30 (99.7%) confidence
range of less than *16/7 calendar years, probably
even narrower (see Manning et al. 2001,
2535 n.17). While noting that an error range
applies (given above and below at 30 confidence
- see also n.1 above), we cite in Table 1
the specific best-fit (0-3 years variation therein)
as the approximate dates that should be used at
present for the ADP Bronze Age-Iron Age
chronology (as of AD 2003). These dates are the
column of figures in bold type on the right. As
noted, these dates are shown without the error
margins (see next paragraph) that should be
used and remembered in any discussion. These
current best-fit dates are robust, but could move
very slightly if new samples have the rings we
currently lack, or if minor modifications are
made to the radiocarbon calibration curve itself.
7. On the basis of the published exercises in
wiggle-matching in Science (2001) and Antiquity
(2003) we believe a fit for the last preserved
rings, across various scenarios and options, lies
within the four year span shown in the last column
and that an overall 30 error range of less
than ?16/7 calendar years, and likely *9/5 calendar
years, exists around this 4 year fit ‘zone’.
172 M. W. NEWTON - P. I. KUNIHOLM
This seems to agree well with new, as yet
unpublished data and analysis for the late end
which has been reported to us by our collaboraters
Drs. Kromer and Manning in recent
months fromthe work on the East Mediterranean
Radiocarbon Intercomparison Project.
Connecting the Two Chronologies
ter if we could find missing rings, thereby pushing
the Eski Saray earlier by a few years.
Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the quality of the fit for
the wiggle-matches according to two scenarios.
The first is with all existing 13radiocarbon data
(Figure 5), and clearly shows two competing
dates for the whole. The second is with the most
significantoutlier removed (Figure 6), and clearly
shows a preference for an earlier date for the
The ADP now reports a significant addition on
the early end to the long Bronze Age-Iron Age
tree-ring chronology that began with the collection
of timbers in the Midas Mound Tumulus at
Gordion. The 1599-year Bronze-Iron tree-ring
chronology as published in Science 2001
spanned the years 2247-649 +4/7 BC. We have
been aware of the long overlap (now 223 years)
with the Early Bronze Age master tree-ring
chronology for some time, but had been unable
to connect the two convincingly because almost
all of the overlap depended largely on a 440year-old,
highly erratic juniper timber (KUL-23)
from the Wargama Sarayi. We think we have
finally worked out the problems, and the ADP
Bronze Age-Iron Age tree-ring chronology now
spans the years 2657-649 BC (with the caveat
that there could be surprises in the form of missing
rings in the area of the overlap). The dendrochronological
linkages are shown in Figure
7, with the associated t-scores as a measure of
the quality of fit. Clearly, the retrieval of additional
timbers from the 21st century BC (available
in the Eski Saray at Kultepe) would help
confirm this placement.Indeed, the discovery of
additional missing rings in the earliest 150years
of KUL-23 or the latest 100years of KUL-85 and
KUL-88 (Eski Saray juniper door thresholds)
would improve the quality of both the visual
and statistical match by helping align a number
of the tree-ring signatures.
However, we do not want to ‘invent’rings we
cannot actually see in the material currently
available. We note that the radiocarbon wigglematch
in Figure 4, while supporting the proposed
dendrochronological date, would fit betEBA
chronologies. The effect on the dates
reported here for the EBA sequences would
then require our shifting them up by perhaps as
much as a decade, increasing the span of time
for the Kultepe Karum Level I1 dendrochronological
sequence to 202 years. Work on resolving
this discrepancy (both by radiocarbon dating
of more samples that are linked dendrochronologically
in the Early Bronze Age master, and by
a sampling strategy to retrieve additional dendrochronological
samples from the Eski Saray
door thresholds and additional fragments of
KUL-23) is ongoing. However, the dendrochronological
fit between the EBA sequence and the
MBA sequence reported here, supported by the
two sets of wiggle-matches, is the best we can
achieve as of December 2003. It should be
thought of as tentative, subject to verification or
modification as samples become available in the
future.
Conclusions
These observations still do not tell us whether
the karum buildings or the palaces came first.
Was the prosperity obvious in the palatial structures
on the mound above a by-product of the
commercial activities in the karum below? Or
did the merchants come to an already prosperous
center?Clearly, if we had datable buildings
in the karum, that would be a big help. A building
date of 1832 BC for the Wargama Sarayi is
later than the last-preserved ring (2024 BC) of
the Eski Saray by 192 years. If, say, a half-century
of rings is missing from the latter, does the
resulting difference of 142 years have anything
to do with the long limu’lists of circa 138years
being published for the Karum I1 period? We
A DEATDROCHRO~"\'OLOGICALFRAMEWORK IAYASIA MIXOR 173
have the impression, simply from the dendrochronological
results, that the Assyrian
Colony Period, at least the last two phases of it,
was a longer, more stretched-out affair than
some scholars have been prepared to admit.
Acknowledgments:
The Malcolm and Carolyn Wiener Laboratoryfor
Aegean and Near Eastern Dendrochronology at
Cornell University is supported by the National
Science Foundation, the Malcolm H. Wiener
Foundation, and individual Patrons of the
NOTES
1For convenience and clarity we cite absolute dates according to
the exercise published by Manning et.al. in Science in 2001. For a
more conservative calculation of the error see Manning et.al.
(2003). The error margins stated in the main text apply to all the
absolute dates reporied in this paper. especially those in Column
ALP,s., 1992
"Konya-Karahoyek1991 Kazisi",XIV. Kazi Sonuflari Toplantisi.
Ankara. T. C. Kultur Bakanligi. 301-306.
"Konya-Karaho)ak 1992 Kazisi". m.Kazi Sonu g h Toplantisi,
Ankara. T. C. Kultur Bakanligi. 267-270.
Obsemations on the Chronological Problems of the Karum
Kanic Ankara. Turk Tarih Kurumu..
"Radiocarboncalibration and analysis of stratigraphy the OxCal
program", Radiocarbon 37. 425-430.
in preparation. Second long limu"text from Karum Level 11
Novi Metodi v Archeologii 111: Trudi ,Vorgorodskoi
Archeologicheskoi Ekspeditsii. Moscow, Akademii Xauk.
ALP,S.,1993
BALKAN, K. 1955
BRONK RAMSEY, C. 1995
GUNBATIT, c.
KOLCHIN, B. A., 1%3
KROMER, B., S. W. MANNING, P. I. KUNIHOLM,M. W. NEWTON,
M. SPURK, I. LEVIN,2001
"Regional 14CO2 Offsets in the Troposphere: Magnitude,
Mechanisms. and Consequences". Science 294. 2529-2532.
Dendrochronologyat Gordion and on the Anatolian Plateau.
Philadelphia unpublished Ph.D. dissertation).
"A 677 Year Tree-Ring Chronology for the Middle Bronze Age."
Anatolia and the .\ear East: Studies in Honor of Tahsin Ozgiic,
Ankara. Turk Tarih Kurumu. 371-373.
KUNIHOLM, P. I., S. L. TARTER,M. W. NEWTON,
C. B. GRIGGS, 1992
KUNIHOLM, P. I., 1977
KUNIHOLM, P. I., M. W. NEWTON, 1989
"Preliminary Report on Dendrochronological Investigations at
PorsukiUlukigla,Turkey 1987-1989",Syria LXIX. 379-389.
"A Date-List for Bronze Age and Iron Age Monuments Based on
Combined Dendrochronological and Radiocarbon Evidence".
Aspecrs of An and Iconography: Studies in Honor of Xmet
Ozguc, Ankara, Turk Tarih Kurumu. 279-293.
KUNIHOLM, P. I., 1993
KUNMOLM, P. I., B. KROMR, S. W. MANNING, M. W. NEWTON,
C. E. LATIM, M. J. BRUCE, 1996
"Anatolian tree rings and the absolute chronology of the
eastern Mediterranean. 2220-'18 BC". .\ature 381. 730-783.
Aegean Dendrochronology Project. For fundamental
research permissions we thank the
appropriate governmental and religious authorities
in all the countries in which we work, as
well as the many excavators, especially those
cited in this report, who not only take time out
to explain the intricacies of their sites but who
make us welcome at their excavation houses
year after year. We owe special thanks to Dr.
Bernd Kromer and Dr. Sahra Talamo for radiocarbon
dating and Dr. Sturt Manning for statistical
commentary and graphical help.
6 in the table below, that are linked dendrochronologically
2 See figure 3 and following text for an explanation for these and the
following dates)
3 [Sid We reported the difference as both 58 (p.279) and 68 (page
293) years We thank Professor Klaas Veenhof for noting the discrepancy
and communicating it to us.
MANNING, S. W., B. KROMER, P. I. KUNMOLM,
M. W. NEWTON, 2001
"hatolian Tree Rings and a New Chronology for the East
Mediterranean Bronze-Iron Ages". Science 294. 2532-2535.
MANNING, S. W., B. KROMER, P. I. KUNIHOLM,
M.W. NEWTON, 2003
"Confirmation of near-absolute dating of east Mediterranean
Bronze-Iron Dendrochronology", Antiquity 77. No 295 ;hlarch.
http:i/antiqui~,ac.uMProjGalL'Mannin~manning,html
"The Seal Impressions of Two Old Assyrian Kings",Aspects of
An and Iconography: Studies in Honor of Ximet Ozguc,
Ankara, Turk Tarih Kurumu, 501-502.
dZKAN,S., 1993
&TAN, A.
1992 "1991 Yili Acemhoyiik Kazilari". XIV. Kazi Sonuglan Toplantisi.
1993 "1992 Yili Acemho)iik KazilarC. XI'. Kazi Sonu& Toplantisi.
bZGUC, N.
Ankara, T. C. Kultur Bakanligi. 281-300.
Ankara. T. C. Kultur Bakanligi, 245-254.
in preparation. Final reports on the bullae and architecture of
Acemhoyiik.
Kultepe-Kanis"II:Kew Researches at rhe Trading Center ofthe
Ancient .Year East, Ankara. Turk Tarih Kurumu.
The Palaces and Temples ofKiiltepe-KaniF'&e&, Ankara. Turk
Tarih Kururnu.
Kiilrepe KaniTLVe&: The earliest international trade center and
the oldest capital city ofthe Hittites.Tokyo, MECCJ.
"A Nevi Twist in the Radiocarbon Tale",Science 294, 2494-249j,
OZGUC, T., 19%
OZGUC, T., 19%
OZGUC, T., 2003
REUIER, P. J., 2001
STUIVER, M., PJ. FEIMER, E. BARD, J.W. BECK, G.S. BURR,
K.A. HUGHEN, B. KROMER, G. MCCORMAC,J. van der PLICHT,
M. SPURK, 1998
"INTCAL98 radiocarbon age calibration. 24,000-0 cal BP.".
Radiocarbon, 40, 1041-1083,
The OldAssyrian List of Year Eponyms from Karum Kanish and
its ChronologicalImplications, Ankara, Turk Tarih Kurumu.
VEENHOF, K., 2003
174 M. W. NEWTON - P. I. KUNIHOLM
Fig. 1: Partially burned EBA juniper timber at Acemhoyiik.
Photograph courtesyA. Oztan.
Fig. 2: Partially burned EBA juniper timbers at
Acemhoyiik. Photograph courtesyA. Oztan
--- INTCAL98
KBKl7M
ACM 90
Relative Years
Cal BCYears
I I
Fig. 3: Wiggle-matchfor Acemhoyiik Early and Karahoyiik Early.
A DENDROCHRONOLOGICM FRAMEWORK IN ASLA MINOR
Fig. 4: Burned juniper foundation timbers in one room of the Hatipler Tepesi building
at Acemhoyiik. All were cut in the same year, 1774 BC.
1.o
0.8
0.6
First First
68.2%probability
2669.7BC(36.3%)2661.7E3C
2657.T;rBC(31.9%)2651BC
2705.2BC( 1.9%)2701.3BC
2477.7BC (93.5%)2448.6BC
95.4% probability
9.7% probability '
2708.8BC (4.6%) 2688.8BC
2685BC (95.1%)2646.7BC
0.4
0.2
0.0
-
u
u
'U
2750BC 2650BC
Calendar date
26UUBC
175
Fig. 5: The statistical fit for the EBA Wiggle-Matchusing all 13 data.
176
t=7.6 t=5.4
M. W. NEWTON - P. I. KUNIHOLM
t=6.8
0.8
0.6
0.4
9.2
9.0
L +Kulteoe Wargamabaray (without KUL-23)
First -First
68.2%probability
99.7%probability
2705.4BC (99.7%) 2646.9BC
U
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l
2750BC 2700BC 2659BC 26QOBC
Calendar date
Fig. 6: The statistical fit for the EBA WiggleMatch using only 12 data, with the biggest outlier removed.
t=4.1
KulteDe Eski Sarav
Karahtivuk-FonvaV Earlv$t=6.8
Acemhtiyuk Early (NW TrencI~))=~’~ t=3.4
t=2.6
c EBA Juniper Chronology
-2700 -2500 -2300 -2100
Calendar Years BC
-1900 -1700
Fig. 7:Aegean DendrochronologyProject EBA and MBA sample spread and depth, for Anatolianjuniper only, 27th-17th
centuries BC