Beyond the Santorini eruption:

some notes on dating the Late Minoan IB period on Crete, and

implications for Cretan-Egyptian relations in the 15th century BC
(and especially LM II)

Sturt W Manning

Introduction internal phasing of, the LM IB period on Crete is

While much attention over the last couple of dec- now becoming clear, and here I particularly adopt
ades has been directed towards the impacts of, and employ the wonderfully thorough and incisive
and absolute date for, the great Minoan eruption analysis of Jeremy B. Rutter (forth.) based on his
of Santorini/Thera, and associated debates, very exhaustive work at Kommos, and the wider linkag-
interesting things have been happening in the ar- es he proposes across a number of sites on Crete (of
chaeological study of the subsequent Late Minoan course not everything is universally agreed, some
(LM) IB period. When these archaeological de- sites remain to be studied and included - notably
velopments are combined with an assessment of Khania fiom where one set of radiocarbon data
the recent direct absolute (radiocarbon) dating evi- come - but his assessm.ent is set to becom.e more or
dence from LMIB contexts (available from three less standard). No longer can the LM IB period be
sites on Crete), an important new perspective for considered just a (very) short cultural episode (rela-
mid-second millennium BC Aegean-east Mediter- tively homogenous and perhaps the work of one or
ranean chronology starts to become available. This two generations) based on just a very select group
finding in turn has implications for other debates of finewares from a few destructions, 3 as was stand-
and syntheses, and especially for the synchroniza- ard up until the end of the 1980s. Pop ham was the
tion of Aegean-Egyptian linkages in the 15'11 cen- nwst severe final proponent of the short phase: "I
tury BC. Importantly, the LM IB radiocarbon case would allot only one generation to this stage - 25
is free from the potential ambiguities that (are ar- years". 4 Instead, the case for a long LM IB period
gued to) attend the absolute dating of the previous that began to be voiced by several scholars over the
LM lA period and especially the volcanic destruc- last two decades has become clear, and thus replaces
tion level at Akrotiri on Thera (by itselj). Whether the old orthodoxy of one to two generations, or
these are due to the mid-16' 11 century BC wiggle in standard temporal allowances in many scholarly
the radiocarbon calibration curve - and hence the chronologies in the second half of the 20'" century
5
need for a seriated sequence analysis of multiple AD of c. 50 years down to Popham's 25 years.
radiocarbon sets through the period for satisfac-
tory calendar dating resolution; 1 or, as repeatedly 1
Manning 1992, 249; Bronk Ramsey et al. 2004; Manning
suggested (though not substantiated in any case), et al. 2006a, 2009.
2
from unusual contam.inant issues/ effects because of See e.g. Wiener 2007, 29-39; 2009.
3
volcanic C0 2 or other proposed causes that some Popham 1967; Page 1970, 1-8; Betancourt 1985, 140-8.
4
Popham 1990, 27.
suggest may have affected samples from Thera; 2 5
E.g. Furumark 1941; Hankey & Warren 197 4; Cadogan
and so on. 1978; Warren 1984; 1985; Warren & Hankey 1989; Eriksson
The key advance is that the overall scope of, and 1992.

BEYOND THE SANTORINI ERUPTION 207

 14C Archaeological
Site Context Sample Species Lab ID/No. Age BP SD Date

Khania 15/TR10,Rm E charred seed Pisum sativum OxA-2517 3380 80 LMIB Early to
Late?
Khania 13/TR17,1984,Rm C charred seed Viciafaba OxA-2518 3340 80 LMIB Early to
Late?
Khania 14/TR17,1984,Rm C charred seed Hordeum sp. OxA-2646 3315 70 LMIB Late?
Khania 16/TR24, 1989,L6,BA1 charred seed OxA-2647 3315 70 LMIB Late?
Khania 13/TR17,1984,Rm C charred seed Viciafaba OxA-10320 3208 26 LMIB Early to
Late?
Khania 14/TR17,1984,Rm C charred seed Hordeum sp. OxA-10321 3268 27 LMIB Late?
Khania 15/TR10,Rm E charred seed Pisum sativum OxA-10322 3338 26 LMIB Early to
Late?
Khania 16/TR24, 1989,L6,BA1 charred seed OxA-10323 3253 25 LMIB Late?

Myrtos-Pyrgos 17 /K5,2, 1 charred seed Hordeum sp. OxA-3187 3230 70 LMIB Late
Myrtos-Pyrgos 18/K5,2,4 charred seed Hordeum sp. OxA-3188 3200 70 LMIB Late
Myrtos-Pyrgos 19/K5/K6,2,1 charred seed Vicia ervilia OxA-3189 3270 70 LMIB Late
Myrtos-Pyrgos 20/K5/L6,2,2 charred seed Vicia ervilia OxA-3225 3160 80 LMIB Late
Myrtos-Pyrgos 17 /K5,2, 1 charred seed Hordeum sp. OxA-10324 3270 26 LMIB Late
Myrtos-Pyrgos 19/K5/K6,2,1 charred seed Vicia ervilia OxA-10325 3228 26 LMIB Late
Myrtos-Pyrgos 20/K5/L6,2,2 charred seed Vicia ervilia OxA-10326 3227 25 LMIB Late
Myrtos-Pyrgos 18/K5,2,4 charred seed Hordeum sp. OxA-10411 3150 40 LMIB Late

Mochlos B.kiln.2910 olive stone 85991 3240 50 LMIB Final

Mochlos A.2.212 olive stone 85992 3180 40 LMIB Final
Mochlos B.kiln.2801 olive stones 115890 3170 60 LMIB Final
Mochlos B.9.1705 olive stone 129765 3220 40 LMIB Final
Mochlos A.pit.2315N olive stone 151768 3270 40 LMIB Final

Knossos MUM charred seed Hordeum sp. OxA-2096 3070 70 LMII Advanced
Knossos MUM charred seed Hordeum sp. OxA-2097 3190 65 LMII Advanced
Knossos MUM charred seed Hordeum sp. OxA-2098 3220 65 LMII Advanced
Knossos MUM charred seed Hordeum sp. OxA-11882 3156 33 LMII Advanced
Knossos MUM charred seed Hordeum sp. OxA-11943 3148 23 LMII Advanced

Table 1. Radiocarbon Dates on (i) short-lived samples fi·om Late Minoan IB contexts at Khania, Mochlos and
Myrtos-Pyrgos (after Housley et al. 1999; Bronk Ramsey et al. 2004; Manning et al. 2006a; Soles 2004b); and (ii)
radiocarbon dates on short-lived samples from the Advanced LM II destruction at the Minoan Unexplored Mansion
at Knossos (after Housley et al. 1990, 21 4-215; Hedges et al. 1990, 227; Bronk Ramsey et al. 2004; Manning et al.
2006a, b). All are AMS dates except sample 115890 from Mochlos listed as radiometric (i.e. routine 14 C dating);
Mochlos samples 85991 and 85992 were run at Oxford after pretreatment at Beta Analytic (Soles 2004b, table 40),
the others at Beta Analytic itself or at other unnamed laboratories following pretreatment at Beta Analytic (Soles
2004b, 145). All the other (OxA) samples were pretreated and run at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit.
The Oxford samples come from a lab with published pretreatment regime and with published known age test results
indicating good accuracy and precision (information relevant to the Khania and Knossos and Myrtos-Pyrgos samples
can be found in the Manning et al. (2006a) paper- see Supporting Online Material, Manning et al. 2006b). We do
not have the same level of information for the pretreatment procedures for the Beta dates, nor for the un-named other
laboratories/ accelerators. We do not have published information on the performance quality of the Beta radiometric
dates (re sample 115890).

208 STURT w MANNING

 This change has been a long tim_e coming. Start- (which I here do without further discussion of vari-
ing with the report on the excavations at Kastri on ous details and subtleties which undoubtedly will
Kythera, 6 numerous excavators and specialists have engage ceramic specialists over the next few years),
noted the multiple phases ofLM IB activity and ma- then this "new" LM IB period, and especially its
terial at sites on Crete or the southern islands with- phases, become very important when we assess the
in what seem to be substantial or long overall LM radiocarbon evidence.
IB periods. This could be noted ah·eady by the late
1980s/ and again and more widely in the late 1990s, 8
and for over a decade early and late phases ofLM IB LM IB and radiocarbon chro-
have been recognized at Kommos, 9 but many chose
nonetheless to downplay the significance in terms of
nology
the temporal duration of the period - LM IB was Three sites on Crete, each from a very distinct area
still inherently thought of as a relatively "short" pe- of Crete (west, northeast and southeast) offer sets
riod.10 Thus even when confronted by this increas- of modern radiocarbon (AMS) dates on short-lived
ing stratigraphic and ceramic evidence from excava- sample matter fi_·om LM IB find contexts: Khania,
tions on Crete pointing to what was most plausibly Mochlos and Myrtos-Pyrgos (see Table 1). Short-
a longer LM IB period (and recognition of earlier lived samples found in secure use or storage con-
and later stylistic phases within just the later LM IB texts should offer ages contemporary with their use
groupings), 11 and even with the beginnings of evi- give or take a year or so at most, and thus they
dence and arguments for additional temporal com- should offer dates for the specific archaeological
ponents of LM IB entirely beyond, and temporally context in which they are found . Hence I focus on
extending, the original conception of the period by these data.
Popham and others working through to the 1980s, 12 Two of these sets of data may be tentatively
LM IB nonetheless somehow remained a "short" phased within LM IB following the Rutter scheme:
period for many scholars - with even very recent the Myrtos-Pyrgos destruction context likely be-
reassessments by several prominent scholars only of- longs to (the end of) Late Minoan IB Late; and the
fering it at most 70 or 80 years duration (of course Mochlos data from the destruction of the Artisan's
this is already a substantial change fi:om the previous Quarter belongs to the (end of) Late Minoan IB
25 and/or 50 years)Y Final. 14 In other words: there is a sequence, with
It is time now to break with the "short" time- the Myrtos-Pyrgos data stratigraphicallyI cerami-
frame assumption/ orthodoxy in light of the clear
evidence for a long LM IB period fi_·om a number 6
Coldstream & Huxley 1972.
of sites, and especially Kommos and Mochlos (but 7
So Warren & Hankey 1989, 79- 80
also H agia Triada, Khania, Malia and Pseira, and " So Housley et al. 1999, 169.
9
with more to come). Van de Moortel 1997; Rutter 2006.
111
E.g. Driessen & Macdonald 1997, 23 following Warren &
Furthermore, the overall (long) LM IB period
H ankey 1989; but note critique of Warren 2001 re vigorous
can now be plausibly divided into at least three, and LM IB period.
perhaps four, distinct phases: 11
Rutter fo rth. exploiting the work of Muller 1997.
12
"Late Minoan IB Early" See especially Barnard & Brogan 2003.
13
E.g. Warren 2006 ; 2007; Wiener 2006a.
"Late Minoan IB Developed" (this tentative
There were of course exceptions: those w ho espoused the
phase is unclear at present) Aegean "High" chronology starting with Kemp and Merril-
"Late Minoan IB Late" lees 1980 and especially Betanco urt 1987 and Manning 1988;
"Late Minoan IB Final" and some others who were looking either at radiocarbon evi-
following the analysis ofRutter (forth.), which de- dence and/ or their own site's long LM IB phases, such as Mar-
ketou et al. 2001, 25; or Soles 2004b, 148.
velops the Kommos sequence into a co-ordinated 14
Soles 2004b, 147 conunents that the "charred olive stones
scheme across central-east Crete incorporating (so [.. .] belonged to olives that were probably harvested shortly
far) 16 sites. If we accept the general Rutter scheme before the Artisans' Quarter destruction".

BEYOND THE SANTORINI ERUPTION 209

 <' .
l=lO?.O~ t<- 6( ~.00/o)

J},
"' 'Y Stt frt 1111111111~
~ ~I'v~ ruu:;-Pyr ~u:; and vfochlos pnly

Phase1· f'!yav:,-P. l!5U'> (U illBlate

R ~nm , znP.lvfyr fos-Pyrg( IS (LMI]j Late) 1 1J.m-:,J LL\

..!::::
F-----

~·
n ,-J,"Y ~MIBu ~e •Lk TB Fiml_

Phase Tl Yrnr.h lm: (PvnBFi lal)

R_Com )ine Hn IT"T' (LA fJB Fiool, JOI99Y. /

~
"f IT,MTRIT. 'vrrr """!.) uur, 1..6 -
J}, ,,-J"ry Er. ~
...-.-~
I
21000C20000C 19000C 18000C 17000C 16000C 15000C 14000C 13000C
Calendar Date

Fig. 1. Myrtos-Pyrgos and Mochlos, LM IB Late and LM IB Final, sequence analysis in isolation. OxCal (Bronk
Ramsey 1995; 2001; 2008a) with IntCal04 (Reimer et al. 2004). The hollow distributions for each individual date
show the calibrated calendar age probabilities in isolation (no model), and the solid distributions show the reduced
p robability distributions after applying the sequence analysis model shown. T he upp er and lower lines under each
distribution show the respective la (68 .2 % confidence) and 2a (95.4% confidence) calibrated age ranges (for the
modeled results): see text for details. The agreement index compares the final (posterior) distribution calculated (the
solid histogram) against the original distribution (the calibrated age probability for the individual sample in isolation:
the hollow histogram). If the former is unaltered the index value is 100. T he value rises above 100 where the final
distribution overlaps only with the very highest part of the prior distribution . In contrast, an agreement index below
60 indicates disagreement with the model (and insufficient overlap of the distributions) at abo ut the 5% level of a chi-
squared test. The overall agreement index for each sequence is also stated - again a score greater than the stated test
statistic indicates that the m odel surpasses an approxim ate 95% confidence leveL See p ostscript.

cally prior to the Mochlos data. T his archaeological gos and Mochlos each seem to represent the same
sequence information can thus be employed in a time horizon at their respective sites at 95% confi-
Bayesian radiocarbon analysis to gain greater reso- dence (thus same year or year two of growth for the
lution and precision for the dating of the LM IB seeds in question) : yielding weighted averages of (i)
p eriod. This paper employs the OxCal software 15
and the IntCal04 16 and lntCal98 17 radiocarbon 15
Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001; 2008a. Plots and data from version
calibration datasets (with curve resolution set at 5 3.10, current when this paper was first written. See Postscript.
and rounding - to nearest 5 years - " on"). Fur- 16
Reimer et al. 2004.
ther, the sets of short-lived data from Myrtos-Pyr- 17
Stuiver et al. 1998 .

210 STURT w MANNING

 Fig. 2. As Fig. 1
s,, \ Jf>tl('.P. {, \=96.5o/< (N.· . ffi (Jl/o)}
but employing
IntCal 98 (Stuiver
et al. 1998). D.
J. ')IS. :art 111111111111~ -
r-

. LMIBrv ~HU>-PyJ ~U> and ~hlos< nly

Phase lv'lyuu:;-P Y1 16U> (U t1lBLate1

R rnn 'nine lvfy i1os-fw~ [os (!M '1Iate) '8~6%, lf..\

.!::::= ~

puundc1r LMIBL 1te •LA '1IBFinm

~~ -

Phase ~hlos [LMIBFi JaD

R_Cor foinP m
J~
· 1 HU nu.:> (L vliBFinc. 1
/) 965~!:Q_ r~ --=.,

/UMUOOW
-/, TMTRIT l;fJJ ,, w •ouv, l..al.. I
I
D.
~
"o'~';~E 7d ~-JI
I I
2100BC 2CXXlBC 1900BC 1800BC 1700BC lro:JBC 1500BC 1400BC 1300BC
Calendar Date

Myrtos-Pyrgos (n=8) of3229±13 BP with a x2 test LMIB Late destruction is placed 1525-1490 BC (1a)
statistic of7.6 < 14.1 the 95% confidence value for and the Mochlos destruction (that is a Late Minoan
7 degrees of fi·eedom, and (ii) Mochlos (n=5) of IB Final destruction) is placed 1480-1440 BC (1 a)
3220±20 BP with a x2 test statistic of 3.4 < 9.5 the (2a, 95.4% confidence: 1530-1455 BC and 1505-
95% confidence value for 4 degrees of freedom. 18 1430 BC respectively).
This is nicely consistent with the idea that these The whole/nujority of Late Minoan IB Late
short-lived samples come from (i.e. were harvested is therefore bifore c.1525-1490 BC (or at 2a before
and stored/used shortly before) the respective de- 1530-1460/55 BC). And all of Late Minoan IB
struction contexts. The weighted average of each Early lies bifore this . How long is the LM IB Final
set of data thus offers the best estimate for the rel- phase? How long is the LM IB Late phase? How
evant year(s) of growth for the samples from each long is LM IB Early? We do not know (and, note to
destruction level. excavators: we urgently need Late Minoan IB Early
Let us begin by considering just these two phased radiocarbon data). But it seems highly unlikely that
data sets: Figs 1 and 2. We find that the Myrtos- these phases are to be measured in terms ofless than
Pyrgos destruction set (that is a Late Minoan IB a few decades each, and one or more could well
Late destruction) is placed (i) fi·om IntCa104: 1525- represent several decades to a half-century of time.
1490 BC (1a, 68.2% confidence) and the Mochlos Rutter (forth.) suggests at least a couple of decades
destruction (that is a Late Minoan IB Final destruc- but probably no longer than 50 years for either of
tion) is placed 1485-1445 BC (1a) (2a, 95.4% con- each LM IB Late and LM IB Final, so maybe 50-
fidence: 1530-1460 BC and 1500-1430 BC respec-
tively); or (ii) from IntCal98: the Myrtos-Pyrgos IH Ward & Wilson 1978.

BEYOND THE SANTORINI ERUPTION 211

100 years here. And then there is LM IB "Devel- do not form a consistent set- some data are older/
oped", if we include this phase, and LMIB Early younger than others. This may reflect some dif-
- so maybe another half century of time to insert. fering real ages of the contexts of the samples. All
This all makes "Low" Chronology positions 19 for eight data can be treated as a Phase in OxCal and
the start of Late Minoan IB unlikely, and in con- an Event summarizing the entire group in isola-
flict with the radiocarbon evidence and archaeol- tion (no other evidence considered as constraining
ogy (and there are no major wiggles in the radio- before or after) offers an overall calibrated calendar
carbon calibration curve, or volcanic CO 2 issues at range of1610-1470 BC (1cr) and 1710-1390 BC (2cr)
play for LM IB) . Indeed, the radiocarbon evidence (data from lntCal04) : Fig. 3. In general terms, dif-
we have would suggest c. 40 years for the inter- ferent elements of the Khania set cover the whole
val between the destruction of Late Minoan IB at 16'h century BC. Being arbitrary, we might argue
Myrtos-Pyrgos to the destruction of Late Minoan that four Khania dates on two samples (OxA-2646
1B Final at Mochlos . So, if we (arbitrarily) allowed & 10321, OxA-2647 & 10323) offer a coherent
40 years for each of the three earlier phases, then "later" grouping (weighted average 3257±17 BP)
this would imply a start for LM IB c.1645-1610 BC. and these data lie more towards (but still somewhat
If we allow only 25 years each, or leave out the earlier than) the LMIB Late range of the Myrtos-
(less than clear) Late Minoan IB Developed phase, Pyrgos set (above), with a calibrated range in isola-
then this might be 1605/ 00-1570/65 BC, etc. The tion of (1cr) 1610-1590 BC (7.8%) and 1540-1490
numbers are flexible - but any reasonable estimate BC (60.4%), and (2cr) 1610-1490 BC (92.2%) and
will necessarily yield a minimum date well bifore 1480-1460 BC (3.2%) (lntCal04). This might sug-
the (most recent, and rising seemingly every year!) gest a placement for some of the set as during Late
Low Chronology start dates of e.g. 1480 Bd0 or Minoan IB Late (i .e. from contemporary with to a
1500 BC21 or 1520/1510 BC. 22 In other words: the bit older than the Myrtos-Pyrgos destruction as-
data point more or less to a version of the "High" sem.blage within this overall phase); whereas the
Aegean chronology, with a long overall LM IB pe- older dates perhaps hint at some earlier part of
riod. the LM IB Late phase or before this in the LM
But we have two additional pieces of evidence to IB Developed or LM IB Early phases. (Especially
further test and refine our analysis. First the Khania OxA-2517 & 10322 on the same sample; where-
LM IB destruction data, and second some short- as OxA-2518 is more questionable as it was not
lived samples from the LM 11 destruction at Knos- exactly replicated by the repeat on the same sam-
sos which can act as a nice terminus ante quem, or ple: OxA-10320. The large error on OxA-2518
lower limit, for the date of the overall LM IB pe- nonetheless allows the two dates to be satisfactorily
riod. combined, weighted average 3221±25 BP, T=2.5
The Khania data cannot yet be placed in terms of <3.8 for df1.) Alternatively, if it is maintained that
the Rutter phasings for LM IB, and the individual the samples and their different contexts really are
contexts at Khania are not necessarily all equiva- all equivalent and all from the same final LMIB de-
lent. The samples come from several contexts at the struction at the site (as the excavators believed on
large overall site and the assemblages have not yet submission), then one or more of the radiocarbon
been published and fully analysed. They were sub- data might be considered as a possible outlier for
mitted as from the final LM IB destruction horizon some (unknown) reason. In which case, if we apply
at the site, and the associated material for some of
the samples appears to indicate a LM IB destruc- 19
E.g. 1480 BC: Warren & Hankey 1989, 169; Bietak &
tion with typical mature LM IB finds (including Hofimayer 2007, 17; or 1500 BC: Warren 2006, 901; or
elements of "Special Palatial Tradition" ceramics in 1520/ 1510 BC: Warren 2007, 498.
20
Warren & Hankey 1989.
the Marine and Alternating Styles) typical of LM 21
Warren 2006, 901.
IB Late contexts elsewhere as defined by Rutter. 23 22
Warren 2007, 498.
But we can also note, however, that the Khania data 23
Housley et al. 1999, 160.

212 STURT w MANNING

 Sequen pe {A= 92.9D!i kA'c= 60.0%)

Bound. '7Y _Bound ....

Seqt enceKhania
·-+-

Prase
f-+- -+-

-+- -+-
G~-2517 90.1 %
~
c'KA-2518 107. ~% ~l
·-+- I

f-+- -t-
&A-2646 110. , %
~~
G'rA.-2647 87. ( % ~
-+-
c'KA-10320 90. 7% J~
-=--

G'KA-10321 102 SJO/o ~~

-+- -t-
G'rA-10322 87. 5% ~
·-+- -t-

c -A-10323 10 1% JJL
-+- T
E ent Khania --- .4~
Bound. ,7Y _Bound __j~
.=_____..
.

I
30000C 25000C 20000C 15000C lOOOOC
Calendar Date
Fig. 3. A Phase (a gro up of data for which we have no information about their respective relative ages vis a vis each
other, but which we can define as a grouping vis avis other information - in this case the data all come from LM IB
destruction contexts at Khania and are assumed to form a time horizon - LM IB - at Khania) analysis of the eight
radiocarbon data from LM IB contexts at Khania (employing IntCal04 and OxCal) . An Event (see OxCal manual:
http :/ / c14.arch.ox.ac. uk/ oxcalhelp/ hlp_contents.html) describing the Phase comprising the eight radiocarbon dates
fi:om Khania LM IB destruction contexts is shown - this attempts to define the data within the phase (inside the
boundaries). The date ranges calculated for the Event are cited in the text. The spread reflects the range of older
through later ages within the Khania set evident in the eight individual calibrated age ranges shown above. For general
description of how to read the plot, see caption to Fig. 1.

a minimum exclusion criterion to yield a set with a I consider Sequence analyses below with three
weighted average which satisfi es a C hi-squared test options: (i) Khania treated as one overall set and
at the 95% confidence level, 24 then excluding just thus as one OxCal Phase (n= S) = Model 1, (ii)
OxA- 10320 allows the other seven dates to yield Khania treated as the minimum coh erent set of
a weighted average of 3293±14 BP (T=8.2 < 12.6 seven data with a weighted average of3293 ±14 BP
for df6). This would place the Khania set as rather = Model 2, and (iii) Khania treated as two groups,
older than the M yrtos-Pyrgos LM IB Late destruc-
tion or M ochlos LM IB Final destruction sets. 24
Ward & Wilson 1978.

BEYOND THE SANTORINI ERUPTION 213

 Fig. 4. Modell
~ce {A=9~.7o/{A'c=60.CP~}
with IntCal04. The
Modell LM IB
to LM II sequence
treats the Khania
Pl:Ja& lM~ Early to late Qete
dates simply as a
Pl:Ja& IPmrua (IMB Eflfly? to late) Phase. For general

~·'··
CM-2517 101.7% description ofhow
to read the plot, see
CM-2 18 lll.IY/o
caption to Fig. 1.
CM-26,46 112.1%
CM-2647 761%
CM-JCIJ20 94.2%
CM-JCIJ21 102.3%
CM-1q322 965%
CM-10323 105.5%
Event Nhama IMB
1. Pl:Ja&~os-PyrwsO~late)
R_Conlpinelvfrtos-Pyt~os (IMBLate) 103.3%-~~-
Boundaiy IJJp3 Late to IM1 Finnl ~

R_Combiri(!Mx:hlos (IM~Final) 95]} 1':1

1. Pl:Ja& lat Mnoan II

R_Comhirr !Vzossos IMI 'pstrudion sho -lived 104.9% ".i

35000C 30000C 25000C 20000C 15000C IOOOOC

Caknchr Date

an "Older" group (O:x:A-2517 , 10322) , and a "Lat- Khania destruction data (or Khania "Older" >
er" group (O:x:A-2646, 10321 , O:x:A-2647 , 10323) Khania "Later") ~ Myrtos-Pyrgos destruction data
(n=6 and excluding the somewhat divergent ages > Mochlos destruction data > Late Minoan 11 de-
on th e sample determined by O :x:A- 2518 and struction data.
10320) = Model3. This sequence comprises samples from four dif-
Finally, as an important constraint on the latest ferent sites from all over Crete. No special circum-
possible placement of the LM IB data, we have a set stances apply (like claims of possible volcanic C0 2
of data on barley samples from the Advanced LM effects, etc., unusual wiggles/plateau in the radio-
11 destruction of the Minoan Unexplored Mansion carbon calibration curve, etc.).
(MUM) at Knossos (Pop ham 1984): see Table 1. We may use this archaeological sequence to in-
This context is (by an unknown amount) later than form a Bayesian analysis of the likely calendar cali-
all the LM IB contexts. brated age ranges for the data. Figs 4-9 show the
We therefore have a Late Minoan IB to Late Mi- calibrated age range analyses for this overall LM
noan 11 sequence of: IB-11 sequence (given the three options for treating

214 STURT w MANNING

 '~

~
I I I I I
Fig. 5. As Fig. S:x}..ence
r 1
{A=100.3o/<(~c=60. I ~}
I

4 but using
IntCal98. Boundmy Stm1 .........:. I
S:x}..ence 11\ ~II
P~IJ\ ~Early to l.at 0-ete
Phm:e <hania (IMBI farly? to late)
1- 1-

CM-2 17103.3% ~
1- 1--
CM-2~I8 I12.00/o ~
+-- 1-
- I
-~
CM-2(546 111.2% ~

\- -
CM-2 ~7 83.6% i~
~
t - 1-

1-

_,_ -
CM-1 tmo 99.1%
CM-1 'D321 102.5%
CM-I 0322 96.4%
CM-I 0323 101.5%
.. ...._
li-\
JtJ....._______

~~
I

1-
~
Event ~1aniaiMB
\-
P~ M'!-tos-Pyrws \IMBI.ate) I
~-[
_].
-

J R eo,bbine1vpl1os-Pj,gos(IMBlitt. P 100.~ I
BmmdcnyL (;m Inte to IM SFJnal I
[ P~M~hlos(IMBFi lal) I
1-
' -I R_Combine Mxhlos (IJv, rJJFJnap 91.00/o l!i I
I

Bo~mdmy IJ vfBIIMI trcmsiz on ~

[ P~la eMnoan II
--
j
R Combipe Knossos !MJ. IRstruction sha 1-lived 1fl? m I
a;;:
BmmdmyEnd
t
3500IC 3000IC 2500IC 2000IC 1500IC lOOOIC
Chlencbr Date

Khania described above, and considering both the Akrotiri on Thera - but, since we know archaeo-
IntCal04 and IntCal98 calibration datasets). The logically that they must be later, this implies that
date ranges calculated are shown in Table 2. the mid-16'" century BC "w iggle" that creates a de-
We see fi:om Figs 4-9 and Table 2 that the ra- gree of am.biguity in the dating of the Santorini/
diocarbon data form a good analysis with the clear Thera evidence is perhaps the cause of these LM IB
archaeological Myrtos-Pyrgos > Mochlos > Knos- dates which seem rather similar in radiocarbon age
sos sequence consistent w ith the radiocarbon evi- to those from late in the LM IA period. If so, we
dence (good agreement index values). The Khania might speculate that the Khania "Older" dates lie
data are less constrained, but are also compatible, on the wiggle in the radiocarbon calibration curve
and provide further evidence for some parts of the c. 1575-1535 BC. 25 These data from Khania LMIB
LM IB period likely lying through much if not all destruction contexts, although labeled "Older"
the 16'" century BC. (The Khania LM IB "Older" here -- versus the other Khania dates - do not seem_
dates offer radiocarbon ages contemporary with
those fi·om the LM IA volcanic destruction level at 25
See previously Manning 1992; Housley et al. 1999.

BEYOND THE SANTORINI ERUPTION 215

 Fig. 6. Model 2
S:xJtEnCE {A=lOl .8o/<(A'c= r 6o.o~j with IntCal04. The
'
Model2 LM IB
D, _J,
Stan ~._ to LM II sequence
treats the Khania
S:x:!tl' hcelMJ 3-ll dates as a weighted
'
average from the 7
PI ~IM 3Earlytc' lateQ ~e of the 8 Khania dates
which can combine
Pharel< hania v1fR ,),, ~~+ 8et) satisfactorily (see
text). For general
j R_Com. )ineKhm rinUJm 104 ?O/..J ~ description ofhow
to read the plot, see
.n.
Pharel\ -')'lLVi:r_l_ ~ 1'3-'" - J'v lrRTme) caption to Fig. 1.

I R_Com. )ineAfyr !0-Pyrgu. :([MR 6fe) 9fi_ ~% -4 LL\ =------..

Buw. lfw. T.M R Tntp to IMBF'i ~al ~~~~~...

'----" =-

PI~Mx; 1los(LM IBHnal)

R "'0mhm• ~Mxhlo: (IMBJ ~naD 7n 17 1% /. ~ ~

Buur: daryTM RIJMJ,, ~~"~

A -
PI ~T ,A;,

R •t'nmhin, ~Knossos !MID; .~hJr-- 1;, ~ 7n5R?- _£

.....
'!"~"'~'
----=
T>.
I End
I
22000C 21000C 20000C 19000C 18000C 17000C 16000C 15000C 14000C 13000C 12000C
Calendrr Date

to come from the LM IB Early phase defined by LM 11 older. This implies, even if the LM 11 period
Rutter - they were submitted as final LM IB de- is considered relatively short, an earlier to mid-15th
struction. We might assume that at least the LM IB century BC start date for LM 11 (and the end ofLM
.• Early Phase, and maybe even LM IB Developed, lie IB).
bifore the Khania "Older" set -likely in the first half T he dates of the Mochlos LM IB Final destruc-
of the 16th century BC.) tion, and the Myrtos-Pyrgos LM IB Late destruc-
The terminus ante quem for the LM IB period tion, contexts are very consistent across all the sce-
from the Advanced LM 11 destruction at the MUM narios in Figs 1-2 and 4-9. Taking the 1a ranges
at Knossos is clear and specific taking the most like- (or main range therein) as the most likely indica-
ly 1a ranges from Table 2: between c. 1440/1435 to tive reality: the very end of LM IB Final (Mach-
1411 / 05 BC. Moreover, we must also allow for the los) lies between c.1500/ 1485/81/80/75/70 to
fact that much (or most) of the LMII period lies be- 1455/ 49 / 45/44/40/35 BC. The whole LM IB pe-
fore the (Advanced LM 11) destruction event dated riod (that is each of the Early, "Developed", Late,
by these samples -making the effective likely termi- and Final phases) lies before this. The destruction
nus ante quem for the end of LM IB or the start of context ofLM IB Late at Myrtos-Pyrgos is various-

216 STURT w MANNING

 Fig. 7. As Fig.
6 but using
IntCal98 .

I ,n1:Jermt.hPrmt--1l>n5.J..!.,J%~b,M""~J--/·-
R_Can1 'li1E Kfvn 'a IMRVl&p

~, l\ : Py'P"" (I.Mlp U:e)

fun· [ku:.v !M !Late to ~ME Fil~ 11

Pl~eMx±~rn (I.Ml~ Final)

fun" 1aly T.M. ¥!.M[ u

1
~ outut - 1-

Pliffielate ~II

/.fuwdar End
l
2200BC 2100BC 2<mBC l<xXJBC 1800BC 1700BC 16XJBC 1500BC 1400BC 1300BC 1200BC
Ollrndar Date

ly placed c. 1525/21/20/19/15 to 1498/95/90/85 One could therefore be more conservative and cite
BC. Again, most of LM IB Late (before this close of just the 2a ranges- the most likely 95.4% of the to-
phase destruction), LM IB "Developed", and LM tal probability. These numbers are given in Table 2
IB Early lies beforehand. or in the text above. Thus the Mochlos LM IB Final
I note that the above are date ranges encompassing destruction dates c. 1515/10/08/05/04/1500/1490
the most likely 68.2% of a 100% probability. It is not to 1440/38/35/30/25 BC and the Myrtos-Pyrgos
legitimate to glance at them and then to choose to LM IB Late destruction dates c. 1530/29/27/25 to
pretend that the last year of the range is a reasonable 1466/65/61/60/55 BC. In each case, these 2a rang-
number to use. Indeed, years more within the range es widen the overall range both up and down. They
are more likely (depending on the exact shape of the do not change the clear indication to be drawn from
probability distribution: see these - the solid histo- these data. Seeking to cite the very end of the 2a
grams- in Figs 1-2, and 4-9). One must consider the range and ignoring the rest of the range - and espe-
range. In the previous two paragraphs I cited the 1a cially the most likely 68.2% part- is misleading Qust
ranges. These are the most likely 68.2% of the dating as if one cited just the very top end of any of these
probability. But of course there is the other 31.8%. ranges).

BEYOND THE SANTORINI ERUPTION 217

 Fig. 8. Model 3
Suer11ce
~
=122. ro/(A'c=60. [1>/o)}

'I/11 ·bi}Start

~ IPnceTMP ~TT
...... .....
with IntCal04. The
Model3 LM IB-II
sequence treats the
Khania data as two
separate groups,
Khania "Older" and
IPhare Khani ilMB'Ear ~y' Khania "Later" (see
text for discussion) .
R_ Combine r<hania 'Fan "' 07 )0/n
·!~ For general

fu JJ1dary Khat tzaiMB'Fa "/y'. I!IR_ 'T nlP'

'
...... description of how
to read the plot, see
caption to Fig. 1.
IPhare Khani 1 TMR 'l_at, •'

R_ Combine r<hania 'latt. 127.2% ~

.A
~-

Phare~ l>ylty~(IJ viiBLate)

R Combine ~os-Pyg IJS(IMBl£1 'e) lli~ ~-=....

fu JndaryiMl lfltetolM B - ......

-=....

PhareM>.ch os .MRFI oal)

R Combine !lixhlus (!1. £13.

fu ·rndaryiMl Vllv11uurm :turt

P~Late~ Ainmnii
1 Q8. )0/n

••
R_Combine Z.
1IM 7 IRstructio1 rshort-!iiP;{ 7())7~
·--=

Buurlf. rwFnd
-4;~
24000C 22000C 20000C 18000C 16000C 14000C 12000C
Chlenchr Date

All the data in Table 2 indicate a very similar IB-11 case, all the evidence points to IntCal04 be-
message, and there is only a little difference between ing the best most appropriate radiocarbon calibra-
using IntCal04 or IntCal98. IntCal04 includes ad- tion dataset presently available (there will of course
ditional data and was constructed with a rigorous be further revisions to the international radiocar-
statistical procedure compared to the ad hoc ap- bon calibration curve in the future). From the ar-
proach employed for lntCal98. 26 The approach in chaeological perspective, there are Model 1, Model
lntCal04 slightly smoothes some of the "ragged" 2 and Model 3 in Table 2. Models 2 or 3 provide
nature of lntCal98 - as a result occasionally it may narrower dating estimates for the Khania contexts.
lose a little sensitivity for tree-ring radiocarbon
wiggle-matching exercises . But for general pur- 26
See Reimer et al. 2004; Buck & Blackwell 2004; Blackwell
poses, and for archaeological situations like our LM et al. 2006.

218 STURT w MANNING

 Fig. 9. As Fig.
8 but using
IntCal98.

Sxpnce TlMrR-rr

P~ l lmalM B'Early'

R ,, Jir!R Khani.~ 'Early' 9 7 ~

'i /n _ _:-~-~"""'!!!!!!!'~-:--
0

'[c,ntlUf'"~-----:::::~~~-j--
Boundmy r<hania I.lvJVJ 'Early' tc IMBLL

P~} 11illlialM B'Late'

R _Cam ~ine Khani. 'late' }2L 4%

R Com'Jtne J4;!1a :_pygos (LVIB

fuundmy rMB late. v IMB Fil~al

p~ l\Yhchlos(UVIDFmal.)

Boundary [MB/lliJu._,, ~·..~·

P~ I late Mnoar II

26000C 24000C 22000C 20000C 18000C 16000C 14000C 12000C

Chlencbr Date

Of these, Model 2 offers the wider and somewhat destruction evidence. This date range, and as in-
earlier overall range, but its peak probability in the dicated by at least the later group of radiocarbon
nwdeled analysis (Fig. 6) lies c. 1531/1530 BC, not dates, and the ceramics from the LM IB destruc-
really that far from the 1525-1500 BC range for the tion at Khania, is assun'led to be relevant roughly to
"Late" Khania subset employed in Model3 . On the some part of the LM IB Late phase in terms of the
basis that choosing as late a date as possible for the Rutter scheme.
Khania context is appropriate given this involves Thus, for a best (current, working) rounded
then no favouritism towards a "High" chronology approximation of the dates of our contexts, we
(and instead deliberately favours a minimum chro- might cite an amalgamation of the Model 2 and 3
nology), we might estimate a date of c. 1530-1500 IntCal04 1o results, thus:
BC for at least the later part of the Khania LM IB

BEYOND THE SANTORINI ERUPTION 219

Modell- Khania as One overall Phase (Figs 4-5)
Site-context la IntCa104 BC 2a IntCal04 BC la IntCal98 BC 2a IntCal98 BC

Khania LM IB 1630-1470 1740-1450 1640-1470 1750-1450

destruction
Myrtos-Pyrgos 1520-1485 1525-1460 1520-1490 (60.1%) 1525-1455
LM IB Late 1480-1465 (8.1%)
destruction
Mochlos LM IB 1475-1440 1490-1430 1470-1435 1490-1425
Final destruction
Knossos LM 11 1435-1405 1450-1390 1435-1405 1450-1390 (88.7%)
destruction 1340-1320 (6.7%)

Model 2- Khania as weighted average (7 of 8 dates- see text) (Figs 6-7)

Site-context la IntCa104 BC 2a IntCa104 BC la IntCal98 BC 2a IntCal98 BC

Khania LM IB 1593-1588 (3.8%) 1609-1510 1597-1561 (31.8%) 1611-1516

destruction 1583-1575 (6.3%) 1542-1518 (36.4%)
1561-1518 (58.1%)
M yrtos-Pyrgos 1519-1495 1529-1466 1521-1498 1577-1569 (1.7%)
LM IB Late 1527-1461 (93.7%)
destruction
Mochlos LM IB 1485-1449 1504-1438 1481-1444 1508-1435
IFinal destruction
Knossos LM 11 1437-1411 1452-1399 1434-1406 1449-1390 (92.3%)
destruction 1332-1322 (3.1%)

Model 3 - Khania treated as Khania "Early" and Khania "Late" (see text) (Figs 8-9)
Site-context la IntCal04 BC 2a IntCal04 BC la IntCal98 BC 2a IntCal98 BC

Khania 1680-1600 (59.3%) 1690-1530 1690-1600 (49.8%) 1690-1520

LM IB "Early" 1570-1530 (8.9%) 1570-1530 (18.4%)
Khania
LM IB "Late" 1525- 1500 1600- 1580 (1.5%) 1530- 1495 1600- 1550 (8.6%)
1560-1490 (93.9%) 1540-1490 (79.5%)
1480-1460 (7.3%)
Myrtos-Pyrgos 1515-1490 1525-1465 1520-1490 1525-1455
LM IB Late
destruction
Mochlos LM IB 1500-1455 1510-1440 1505-1485 (16.9%) 1515-1435
Final destruction 1480-1445 (51.3%)
Knossos LM 11 1440-1410 1460-1395 1435-1405 1490-1480 (1.6%)
destruction 1460-1390 (92.6%)
1330-1320 (1.2%)

220 STURT w MANNING

 Table 2 (opposite). Calibrated calendar age ranges from Figs 4-9 for the LM IB-II contexts according to the different
models (see text) and different use of IntCal04 (Reimer et al. 2004) and lntCal98 (Stuiver et al. 1998). Radiocarbon
calibration employs OxCal (Bronk R amsey 1995; 2001; 2008a with curve resolution set at 5 and cubic interpolation
"on"). Where there are much more likely sub-ranges within the overall quoted ranges, these are underlined. Note:
each run of such analyses produces very slightly different outcomes (typically within 0 to a few years). As elsewhere in
this paper, OxCal3 .10 is employed, as current when this paper was initially written; some small variations may occur
if O xCal 4 is employed instead. See postscript.

Khania LMIB recent research indicates this was a home-grown

"Late" destruction 1530-1500 BC Knossian elite, and not a new mainland Mycenae-
Myrtos-Pyrgos LMIB an stratum), 29 and, as clearly seen in the mortuary
Late destruction 1520115-1495190 BC record, this Knossian elite engaged in conspicuous
Mochlos LMIB status display including use of overseas symbols and
Final destruction 1500/ 1485-1455/50 BC items .30 Driessen and Langohr note that the palace
Knossos LMII at Knossos at this time "was . . . embellished on a
Advanced destruction 1440-1410 BC. scale surpassing earlier investments". 31 They note
the extensive use of gypsum at this time, including
Thutmose Ill comes to the throne as king of Egypt for the "Throne Room", and the decoration of the
conventionally- in scholarship of the last decade or palace fa<;:ades with fine limestone rosette fi·iezes. 32
so -in (or very close to) 1479 BeY Or, in a very And then there is of course the extant major wall-
recent proposed revision, his accession date might paintings that seem to date to this period (LM 11 or
even be reduced to 1468 BC. 28 Using the indica- LM II-IIIA) 33 and not earlier (though some were
tive central 1a (or main) intervals cited above (in repeating earlier compositions), notably the Grif-
all cases but one - and there only by ignoring the fin fi.·esco, the Procession Fresco, and bull-leaping
main 60.1% subset), Thutmose Ill only becomes scenes 34 including the famous Taureador Fresco 35
king after the LM IB Late destruction at Myrtos- and probably the (later LM IB to) LM 11 scene from
Pyrgos! Taking even the very ends of the ranges West Magazine XIII. 36 The period must have lasted
this is by 19+, 16+, 11 +or 6+ years- and taking a few decades at least. In turn, a start date for LM
something like the mid areas of the ranges as more 11 after c. 1450 BC seems unlikely, and the period
indicative, his accession could be 20-odd years later could easily have begun a decade or two earlier. We
than the Myrtos-Pyrgos destruction (and another nlight suggest somewhere in the 2"d quarter of the
11 years more distant again, so c. 30-odd years - if 15'" century BC as an approximation. This is not too
the 1468 BC accession date is accepted). Only the revolutionary: Warren gives 1440/ 1430 BC for the
LM IB Final phase really potentially overlaps with end of LM IB, and we are thus only raising these
the beginning of the reign of Thutmose Ill (i.e. in dates by one to a few decades.37 The real "change"
reality Hatshepsut) - and even this Final LM IB
phase may well end more or less as Thutmose Ill 27
Krauss 2007, 181-2; Kitchen 2007, 169; 1996; Beckerath
came to the throne (though equally it may offer 1997.
28
Krauss & W1rburton this volume.
one to a few decades of overlap). 29
Nafplioti 2008.
Advanced LM II ends (MUM destruction) c. 30
Preston 1999; 2004a; 2004b.
1440-1410 BC, and much or all of the LM 11 period 31
Driessen & Langohr 2007, 181.
thus occurred bifore this date range. LM 11 is clearly 32
Driessen & Langohr 2007, 181.
33
a major period with much development at Knossos H ood 2000; 2005.
34
Also Driessen & Langohr 2007, 183-4.
-if not already by later LM IB, with LM 11 (follow- 35
Also M acdonald 2005, 223.
ing the LM IB destructions at other major sites), the 36
M acdo nald 2005, 211.
Knossos elite was entirely dominant in Crete (and 37
Warren 2007, 495 .

BEYOND THE SANTORINI ERUPTION 221

is that LM IB is now a very much longer overall pe- link, now we must see some of these as either: (i)
riod (and this really is potentially key to overcom- contexts which do in fact relate to material from
ing/resolving the long-running debates between the earlier part of the possible Egyptian date range
the "High" and "Low" Aegean Chronologies for (so early Dyn. XVIII before Thutmose III - and a
the mid second millennium BC). In sum, this all scenario more as proposed by Kemp & Merrillees
means that the reign of Thutmose III (or the ma- 1980, and various scholars since), or (ii) some of
jority thereof) likely corresponds with LM II (and the (relatively few) items must be considered heir-
not LM IB). looms of a generation or so. On the other hand,
some other finds, like the late LH IIA ring-handled
cup from Saqqara, 46 from a context Warren suggests
Late Minoan IB dates and Egypt as Thutmose I to Hatshepsut47 (and others have
suggested could be a little earlier also), are perhaps
The conclusion that the reign of Thutmose III at nearer contemporary when deposited.
most overlaps only with the last part of the very The LM IB radiocarbon dates also have consid-
end (last phase of three/four) of Late Minoan IB, erable relevance for the attempts to link the finds
and in fact is most likely contemporary primarily and especially the Aegean-style wall paintings at
with LM II, 38 works well with the archaeological Tell el-Dabca with the Aegean, most recently the
evidence securely tied directly to his reign. The LH beautifully produced book of Bietak et al. 48 The
IIB (= LM II time period) squat jar from the Tomb wall-paintings derive likely from the early part of
of Maket at Kahun39 from the reign of Thutmose the reign of Thutmose III (or perhaps some decade
III and not the end of his reign, indicates the prior earlier - Thutmose I - but Thutmose III makes the
existence of this Aegean ceramic phase around or best sense as Bietak suggests). 49 The dates found for
before c. 1440 BC. 40 This works nicely with the ra- LM IB (above) indicate that the Egyptian context
diocarbon date for the LM II phase. In addition, can overlap at most with the very end of LM IB
one can immediately observe that the kilts of the and in fact is more likely coeval with LM II . Such a
Keftiu (Cretans) from the Menkheperraseneb and very late LM IB and likely Monopalatial (Knossian)
Rekhmire tombs from later in the reign of Thut- LM II association for the Aegean iconography -
mose III with their LM II- IIIA decorative motifs and not attempts to link directly with the prior LM
fit perfectly with this Thutmose III-LM II correla- IA and LM IB tradition (and thus contra the line of
tion.41 These Egyptian representations also compare argument taken by Bietak) 50 - in fact makes much
to the likely LM II wall paintings of the Procession better sense in several ways.
Corridor at Knossos. 42 Dynamic and royal Knossos This is a point recognized by Bietak - where
of LM II (-IIIA early) was a state-level entity of
38
inter-regional significance. LM II- IIIA2 early was And perhaps even overlaps with the start ofLM IIIA1: some-
the time of Knossos' greatest dominance on both thing Warren 1996, 288; 1998, 326, 328 accepted as possible
a decade ago; see Betancourt 1998, 293; Rehak 1996, 36-7.
Crete and in the Aegean, and the time of clear sig- 39
Warren 2006, 316.
nificant international links to Egypt43 - with ex- 40
As Warren suggests towards the end ofWarren 2006, 316.
traordinary contexts like the Isopata "royal tomb" 41
Manning 1999,209-17.
42
standing out. 44 E.g. Hood 2000; 2005.
43
Phillips 2003; Driessen and Langohr 2007, 185-6; Manning
This linkage of Thutmose III with LM II means
1999, 219-20.
that some of early Dyn. XVIII to Thutmose III 44
Evans 1906, 136-172.
contexts with LM IB vessels or LH IIA vessels must 45
Warren & Hankey 1989, 138- 44; Warren 2006, 310-7; Bi-
now be reconsidered (if they are not regarded as etak & Hoflmayer 2007, 17.
46
LM IB Late and especially LM IB Final and from Warren 2006, 311-3.
47
Warren 2006, 311 .
the early part of Thutmose III's reign). Whereas 48
Bietak et al. 2007.
Warren and Hankey 45 choose to interpret these 49
Bietak et al. 2007, 39-40.
as primarily evidence of a LM IB - Thutmose III 50
Bietak in Bietak et al. 2007, 67-8 .

222 STURT w MANNING

 he comrnents that the best Knossian parallels are LM I style vessels carried by the Keftiu in the ear-
"late"- i. e. LM IIB [sic] to LM IIIA. 51 But, whereas lier paintings, especially the Senm.ut scenes? The
Bietak wonders if the paintings were perhaps done radiocarbon evidence suggests this context could
earlier - e.g. LM IA - and still on the walls in LM at the earliest be very late LM IB, and it is likely
IliA, the more plausible and satisfactory reading is LM II .61 There are several potential explanations. 62
to reverse the logic, and to wonder if the short- First, even if seen as LM IA, the prestige vessels may
lived horizon of the Tell el-Dabca paintings instead well have been heirlooms used into late LM IB 63
correlates to when the best Knossian parallels oc- and indeed the types usually could date through
cur and the historical context appears most appro- LMIB and usually even into LM II (noting the
priate: in/ fi:om LM II. For example, the putative overall range observed); 64 second, few of the types
throne room reconstruction of Tell el-Dabca Palace illustrated are so specific and could well be LM I-II;
F52 - looks like the likely LM 11 Knossos Throne third, the source of the illustrations in the early
Room, 53 the inter-locking designs at Tell el-Dab- tom.bs might well stem from a LM IB visit/ con-
ca and in the (contemporary) Senmut tomb 54 link tacts before new "royal" linkages with Thutmose
best to those on the kilts in the Knossos Procession III (post eo-regency) in LM II.
fresco ofLM II(-IIIA) , and of course the wonder- The evidence for a long LM IB period fi·om
ful Taureador wall painting at Tell el-Dabca, links both the stratigraphic record on Crete 65 and fi·om
best with the famous likely LM II Taureador Fresco the radiocarbon evidence (above) is of course in
from IZnossos (the spread of the bull-leaping ico- contradiction to the Low Chronology interpreta-
nography fi·om Knossos is at earliest late LMIB and tion for the later 16'h century BC. 66
the comparison seems best with the likely LM II A variety of arguments based on archaeologi-
Taureador Fresco), etc. 55 All these sorts of indicators cal linkages and/ or artefact and stylistic similarities
provide a case for earlier Thutmose III (onwards)
linking with LM II Knossos. 51
E.g. Bietak in Bietak et al. 2007, 82.
52
The further arguments adduced by Bietak and Bietak et al. 2007, fig. 36.
53
colleagues for the linkages in royal imagery be- E.g. Hood 2000, 204; M acdonald 2005, 116; Driessen &
Langohr 2007, 183-4.
tween Tell el-Dabca and Knossos 56 again link best 54
Bietak et al. 2007, figs 38 and un-num bered figure bottom
to LM II for the specific m aterialization. Although ofp. 43.
there were earlier uses of the rosette motif, its im- 55
For a detailed review of the Bietak et al. 2007 volume w hich
plementation in palatial contexts and especially in a also finds that this material is better associated with LMIII
IliA, and at earliest later LMIB- or later Neopalatial- Crete,
"throne room'' 57 setting at Knossos (and then main-
see Shaw & Younger 2009.
land palaces) is LM II(-IIIA). 58 Critically, we need 5
r' E .g., the shared use of the rosette - see Bietak et al. 2007,
to note that LM II Monopalatial IZnossos was the 50-2, 145- 6.
57
new super-site, and state, of Crete and perhaps the Or sacred situation, see Marinatos in Bietak et al. 2007,
whole southern Aegean. This was a special time. 145-150.
5
" See sununary in Driessen & Langohr 2007, 181 .
As noted above, there is much increased evidence 59
Warren & Hankey 1989, 137.
for elite level contacts with Egypt in LM II to LM 611
Marinatos in Bietak et al. 2007, 149-50.
IIIA - with a vessel with the cartouche of Thut- 61
Indeed - this question somewhat affects even the latest
mose Ill even found at Katsambas Tom.b b on Crete "Low" C hronology position: since "Warren 2007 starts LM IB
1520/1510 BC and ends it 1440/ 1430 BC, there is only an
near Knossos .59 It makes sense that this is the time
overlap of the last half ofLM IB with Thutmose Ill.
Knossos was a player on the international stage, and 62
See also Manning 1999, 209- 20.
that this is when a royal alliance, maybe a marriage 63
See Driessen & Macdonald 1997, 62-70.
64
occurred (and the associated sharing of royal ideol- E.g. Matthaus 1995, 182, 184 and and see this also in light
ogy as Marinatos argues). 60 This in turn might best of the discussion ofManning 1999, 216-7.
65
Rutter forth. and the large body of work he sununarizes.
explain the rash of Aegeanizing elements seen in 66
E.g. Warren & Hankey 1989; Warren 2006; 2007; Wiener
the reign ofThutmose Ill. 2003a; 2006a; 2007; 2009; Bietak 2003b; Bietak & Hoflmayer
An obvious question is: what about the more 2007; etc.

BEYOND THE SANTORINI ERUPTION 223

have been vigorously proposed over the last decades later. If the Egyptian types can really only be
claiming to support or require the Low position. dated from Dyn. XVIII then I admit this would
Few of these are really solid cases, and I suggest that be a problem or contradiction between differ-
the radiocarbon evidence (above) should take pri- ent types of evidence.73 However, although not
ority for LM IB: it is direct evidence on short-lived a student of Egyptian stone vases like Warren,
samples, it is independent evidence free from the I find it difficult to regard the case for an ex-
assumptions and the other step-wise logic transfers clusively Dyn. XVIII dating as demonstrated. A
inherent in archaeological-artefact-style-exchange central problem is circularity; because we have
syntheses, and there is no obvious reason that the a good number of Dyn. XVIII assemblages, and
LM IB radiocarbon data cannot be taken at face- especially ones linked to Thutmose Ill, these
value (i.e. no ambiguities in the calibration curve, provide the available parallels, whereas we know
no issues of possible effects from volcanic CO 2 , etc., much less for earlier Dyn. XVIII and very espe-
etc. as sometimes argued - but not demonstrated - cially for the SIP No demonstration against an
as relevant to the radiocarbon evidence from San- SIP date is really possible. If the radiocarbon evi-
torini/Thera). It is beyond the scope of this present dence prevails, then one should be considering
paper to devote an exhaustive critique (and there is manufacture also perhaps in the Delta region
a sense of deja vu) ,67 and, more fundamentally, it is through southern Levant in the SIP.
unnecessary, as the good, strong, clear LM IB dat- m Bietak and Hoflmayee 4 state that the Canaanite
ing case (above), and the good LM 11-Thutmose jars found at Akrotiri on Thera are LB I (and
Ill archaeological association, means that one must hence LM lA does not end until after LB I be-
now instead question the contradictory hypotheses gins), but they could very well be (and others
built on assumptions and prior convictions. To ad- would say are more likely to be) late MB, as oth-
dress just a few examples: ers have suggested. 75
The finds of Santorini/ Theran Minoan erup- 1v Bietak and Hoflmayer76 state that Manning sug-
tion pumice in contexts dated specifically to the gests a northern Cypriot origin for the Theran
Thutmoside period in Egypt and the time of White Slip I bowl "without a detailed typologi-
Thutmose Ill at Tell el-Dabca68 occurs in LM cal treatment and material analysis"- but there
IB Late and LM IB Final and LM 11 in Aegean are published discussions of parallels. 77
terms (long, long after the eruption - even for And so on.
recent assessments of the Low Aegean Chro- If scholars choose simply to reject, or to try to
nology69 these finds are many decades after the undermine to worthlessness, the radiocarbon evi-
eruption). They are thus utterly irrelevant to the dence, then the counter-case has immediate merit.
discussion of the date of the Minoan eruption
of Santorini. (The finds could relate either to
67
use of pumice recovered from the shores of the Most recently Manning 2007 , with literature.
68
Bietak & Hoflmayer 2007 , 17 and refs., fig.2.
east Mediterranean in later decades and centu- 69
Such as Warren 2007.
ries, or to a possible trade in LM IB-III times of 70
Warren 2006, 305-10; 2007, 498; also Bietak & Hoflmayer
Santorini pumice from the Aegean to the east 2007, 17.
71
Mediterranean for craft purposes.) Warren 2006, 308.
72
Warren 2006, 310.
n Warren70 argues that a stone vase from Mycenae 73
Warren 2006, 205-310 argues that the vessels are Egyp-
Shaft Grave IV is Egyptian and specifically of tian, but others might differ or wonder at Nile Delta - that is
Dyn. XVIII date (and the main comparison is to H yksos/ Second Intermediate Period (SIP) manufacture - or
the time of Thutmose Ill). 71 Warren also notes southern Levant manufacture in the SIP
74
a vessel from Akrotiri. 72 Hence the argument is Bietak & Hoflmayer 2007 , 17.
75
E.g., Manning 1999, 113-4 n. 510 and literature cited.
that LH 1/LM lA must overlap into Dyn. XVIII 76
Bietak & Hoflmayer 2007 , 17.
(and so continue after c. 1540 BC), and, given 77
See e.g., Manning et al. 2006c, 482-5 (also Manning 2007,
the specified Thutmose Ill parallel, perhaps even 118- 9) which details such a case.

224 STURT w MANNING

 But, if the archaeological case for a long multi- Thutmose III to LM II (to LM IliA). The Late
phase LM IB period is accepted, and/ or if the ra- Minoan IB radiocarbon data are entirely compat-
diocarbon evidence - notably coherent - for LM ible with, and in support of, the large body of Late
IB is accepted, then one must re-think past con- Minoan IA radiocarbon evidence which places the
vention/ orthodoxy. In support, there is a good case late LM IA period in the later 17'11 century BC to
for a compatible Thutmose Ill linkage primarily around 1600 BC. 79 Together, the Aegean radiocar-
with LM II, and for upgrading the importance/ bon evidence from good contexts and high-quality
perception of (especially Knossian) LM II into the samples (either short-lived samples, or tree-ring
appropriate tin"le-period for the most obvious royal samples which can be wiggle-matched) offers a co-
and aristocratic Egyptian-Cretan linkages we know herent absolute chronology for the period c. 1700-
about (those of the reign of Thutmose III). And, 1400 BC. 80
as I have deliberately avoided mentioning to this We might think along the approximate (round-
point, there is of course a large body of LM IA ra- ed) lines of
diocarbon evidence from several sites in the Aegean LMIA C. 1700 to 1600 BC

which offers an entirely compatible and coherent LMIB C. 1600 to 1470/60 BC

analysis also requiring a re-thinking of the Low LM II C. 1470/60 to 1420 BC

Chronology. 78

Conclusion Acknowledgements
The evidence for a long multi-phase LM IB period I thank Jeremy Rutter for information and
on Crete (Rutter forth.), and the evidence of the comments, the editor David Warburton, and Erik
LM IB radiocarbon dates (above), clearly under- Hallager.
mine the Low Aegean Chronology. A start for the
period no later than the early to mid 16'h century
BC seems necessary (ignoring any other evidence).
A start at the end of the 17'11 century/start 16'h cen- 78
Manning et al. 2006a; 2009; Friedrich et al. 2006; 2009; and
papers in this volume with W Friedrich as an author.
tury BC would seem entirely reasonable £i·om the 79
Manning et al. 2006a; 2009; Friedrich et al. 2006; 2009; and
evidence summarized in Table 2 (remembering the papers in this volume with W Friedrich as an author.
dates there are for LM IB Late and LM IB Final de- 80
Manning et al. 2006a; and with LM IB-II as further elu-
structions and therefore that much or all of the over- cidated in the present paper. Note: there is some definition-
all LM IB period lies bifore these date ranges). The al variation over whether what was termed LM IA early at
Kommos should instead be referred to as MM IIIB (Girella
need to re-think the LM II period appears entirely
2007). If so, this "new" MM IIIB might run down to around
in accord with - and indeed more compatible with 1685-1680 BC give or take (see Manning & Bronk Ramsey
- the archaeological evidence linking the reign of this volume).

Postscript
Each run of an OxCal Sequence analysis produces especially, can vary, and also when compared
slightly different outcomes. Data in the paper to the outputs £i·om the subsequent OxCal 4,
represent average or typical values £i·om several where some minor differences in the revised
runs £i·om OxCal 3.10. The main likely ranges software also affect exact outcomes. For example,
remain fairly stable across different runs, but the considering and comparing Fig. 1 above, if OxCal
break-points where there are possible sub-ranges, 4 .11 is employed (with IntCal04) now as proofs

BEYOND THE SANTORINI ERUPTION 225

returned (AD 2009), the Myrtos-Pyrgos date range at 2a (versus Table 2 above: 1592-1588 BC, 3.8%,
(rounded to 5 years) is more typically 1520-1490 1583-1575 BC, 6.3%, and 1561-1518 BC, 58.1% at
BC (56.3%) and 1480-1465 BC (11.9%) at la and la and 1609-1510 BC at 2a); Myrtos-Pyrgos 1518-
1520/1525-1460 BC at 2a (whereas the text above 1494 BC at 1a and 1527-146 7 BC at 2a (versus Table
reports respectively 1525-1490 BC and 1530-1460 2 above: 1519-1495 BC at la and 1529-1466 at 2a);
BC); and the Mochlos date range is more typically Mochlos 1498-1491 BC, 11% and 1481-1453 BC,
1500-1450 BC at la (but sometimes 1500-1490 at 57.2% at la and 1506-1441 BC at 2a (versus Table
18.4% and 1485-1450 at 49.8%) and 1510-1440 BC 2 above: 1485-1449 at la and 1504-1438 BC at 2a);
at 2a (whereas the text above reports respectively and Knossos 1445-1415 BC at la and 1494-1476
1485-1445 BC and 1500-1430 BC). The overall 2a BC, 8.1% and 1461-1404 BC, 87.3% at 2a (versus
ranges are very similar; and the most likely part of Table 2 above: 1437-1411 BC at la and 1452-1399
the la ranges are very similar, give or take about BC at 2a). Again there are some slight variations,
5 years, but there is some difference in how the but the overall2a ranges, and the la or most likely
fmding (or not) of sub-ranges and (related) occurs la sub-ranges, are very similar, typically within
in OxCal 4, linked to the better delineation of the about 0-10 years. The approximate age ranges and
surrounding boundaries. To also give one example estimates offered in the text above can therefore be
from Table 2, if we consider and compare Model regarded as sound, but with allowance for the sort
2 employing OxCal 4.11 with lntCal04: Khania of small possible variations just illustrated.
coherent set 1559-1512 BC at la and 1601-1502

226