New Configurations in Old World Archaeology

Author(s): Colin Renfrew

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

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

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

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

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org
New configurationsin Old Worldarchaeology
Colin Renfrew

Recent developments in radiocarbon dating now show that our conventional dates for the
Neolithic and Early Bronze Age periods of Europe are wildly wrong. In some cases
indeed the new dates significantly alter the chronological relationship between one area
and another. The Wessex culture of south Britain, for example, formerly dated to the
period of the Mycenaean civilization of Greece, had ended before the latter began.
Similar changes are seen in other regions.
The present paper tries first to outline how these changes arise, and what their effect
is likely to be on European chronology.
Their very magnitude highlights, however, several inadequacies in the way we, as
prehistorians, have been working; in the last section an attempt is made to draw a moral.

Tree rings and Old World chronology

For some years it has been clear that there is a serious discrepancy between radiocarbon
and historical dates, in those regions where the latter are available. Even the adoption of
a longer half-life for radiocarbon, argued on archaeological as well as physical grounds
(Kohler and Ralph I96I), did not solve the problem. In I963, Willard Libby wrote on
this topic: '. . plots of the data suggest that the Egyptian historic dates beyond 4,000
years ago may be somewhat too old, perhaps five centuries too old at 5,000 years ago,
with a decrease in error to o at 4,000 years ago' (I963: 279). The discrepancy prompted
some heart-searching among Egyptologists (see Smith I964), wondering whether the
conventional historical chronology for Egypt might not be too long (Hayes, Rowton and
Stubbings I962). This is what Libby himself first tended to assume. We now realize that
it is the radiocarbon dates which are too short.
In I960 the problem was ingeniously investigated by workers in several laboratories
(Willis, Tauber and Miinnich I960). Samples were drilled from different tree rings
along the radius of a sectioned trunk of Sequoiagigantea. The tree-ring age (assuming the
growth rings were annual) could then be compared with the radiocarbon age as deter-
mined from the same rings. The time range investigated was from A.D. 659 to A.D. 1859,
and the C14 and tree-ring dates were in good agreement to within about I -5 %. Systematic
small fluctuations were, however, observed, and clearly, even on this limited time scale,
the atmospheric radiocarbon concentration had undergone some variation.
200 Colin Renfrew

Further advances have become possible through the work of American dendro-
chronologists, principally at the Laboratory for Tree-Ring Research at Tucson, Arizona.
Schulman and Ferguson (Ferguson 1968) realized the unique potential of the Californian
bristlecone pine (Pinus aristata), a fantastically long-lived tree. Growing at elevations of
3,ooo to 3,500 m, in a relatively arid environment, the bristlecone pine has transformed
dendrochronological studies. A tree 4,900 years old has been reported, and the con-
tinuous tree-ring chronology goes back 7,o00 years. Although bristlecone pines only very
rarely have more than one growth ring per year, in some years there is no growth ring at
all, and up to 5 % of the rings may be 'missing'. A sound chronology involves a prodigious
labour in cross-dating the sequences between one tree and another, and upon its validity
rests all further work - including the archaeological conclusions. The assessment of the
bristlecone dendrochronology is a matter for botanists, but to the archaeologist the work
certainly seems eminently methodical and systematic.
The next stage is the radiocarbon dating of samples from the actual dated tree-
rings. This work has been undertaken by three laboratories, at Tucson (Damon, Long

OUUU Pr
Q(n( D' _2000 _.BC

C) 0
-1 t -- --
Q)

- /0 ~- ~ZZZ_IIZ.ZZ-
a)
0
a)
u,
.

0
"II ICoo
0 0

a,
a) " --. ... >
C-,
ca) / , - ' ' - --.-___

0)
ia
<z
c

0 3000 BC 2000 BC
Conventional Radiocarbon yearsh (5568 alflife)
g_.. ______

3000 BC 2000 BC
Conventional Radiocarbonyears (5568 half-life)

Figure 21 Calibrationchart, following Suess, for the conversion of radiocarbondates into

calendardates on the basis of bristlecone pine dendrochronology.Note that several different
calendardates may be obtained from a single radiocarbondate, all equally valid. (At present
supposedly 'calibrated'dates should not be quoted, but the radiocarbondate, on the 5,568 half-
life; this may, of course, be followed by a suggested date in calendaryears)
 New configurationsin Old World archaeology 201

and Grey 1966), at La Jolla in California (Stuiver and Suess I966) and at Philadelphia
(Ralph and Michael 1967, 1969). The authors cited are unanimous that over a period
going back from about 1500 B.C. the C14 dates are systematically younger than the tree-
ring ones, by a considerable margin.
A preliminary approximation, based on work by Suess (I967) is shown in fig. 21. Sub-
sequent work by Suess, involving the radiocarbon analysis of 300 dendrochronologically
dated specimens, has allowed the calibration of the period from 500 B.C. to o B.C.There
are also modifications to the published curve, which remains sound in outline (Suess,
personal communication). The calibration has also been extended back to 5100 B.C.
The world-wide validity of the results is suggested by the rapidity with which the
radioactive concentrations in the atmosphere in different parts of the world have equal-
ized after A-bomb tests, and is supported by Japanese C14 determinations for a tree-ring
sequence from Cryptomeriajaponica over a range of nearly 2,ooo years (Kigoshi and
Hasegawa I966) which compares with that cited for Sequoia.
Another question is the possibility of diffusion across the tree during its growth, such
that the older rings in the heart might become contaminated with new material from the
sap, producing misleadingly younger C14 dates after analysis. The harmony between the
C14 dates for the same year-ring of living bristlecone pines and of trees long dead (and
therefore subjected to less potential contamination from this source) is, however, a
counter argument.
The reasons for the fluctuations in the atmospheric radiocarbon have yet to be estab-
lished. One possibility is that they are produced by fluctuations in the isotopic equili-
brium of the earth's carbon exchange reservoir (the seas, the polar ice, the atmosphere
and the biomass): attempts have been made to correlate the fluctuations with climatic
changes. Alternatively the atmospheric radiocarbon concentration could be affected by
variations in the cosmic ray flux (which produces C14 in the atmosphere), perhaps related
to changes in the earth's magnetic field as well as that of the sun. This theory has been
investigated by Bucha (I967) and evaluated archaeologically by Neustupny (I968).
At present we seem justified in following through the implications of the new chrono-
logy, while admitting that - like any other chronology - it is no stronger than the assump-
tions which sustain it.
It is important to note the various kinks on the calibration curve, which imply that the
same given C14 date (e.g. 2800 B.C.) may arise from samples of two or more different
calendar dates. This places a limit on the accuracy which we can expect for C14 dates
taken in isolation. And yet, at the same time, it makes possible a far greater accuracy
when there is sufficient well-preserved wood of the period in question to permit the
compilation of a 'floating' tree-ring chronology. In this way the duration of a lake village
of the Michelsberg culture at Burgaschisee in Switzerland has been set at 4000 B.C. to
3700 B.C. with a standard error of less than forty years (Ferguson, Huber and Suess
I965), and similar work has now been undertaken at Auvernier.
At present, however, it is too early to give radiocarbon dates a final calibration in
calendar years. Calibration curves, such as fig. 21, can profitably be used to suggest
approximate calendrical dates, as suggested in Table 2. But dates should still be quoted,
in radiocarbon years, on the 5,568 half-life. No dates (except that for Burgaschisee-Suid)
can be regarded as accurately calibrated.
202 Colin Renfrew

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

A crucial test for the C14 method, as Libby early realized, and now for the calibration,
arises from the comparison of C14 dates with those established by the calendars of Egypt
and the Near East. Independent astronomical evidence shows that the Egyptian calendar
is accurate back to the time of the Twelfth Dynasty in the nineteenth century B.C. With
less certainty it goes back to the First Dynasty at the beginning of the third millennium.
There are no historical dates before this time, and if earlier C14 dates are to be checked,
independent scientific methods, such as varve dating or thermoluminescence, will have
to be employed.
For the third millennium, however, the calibrated dates seem a great improvement on
the old ones, bringing the C14 and historical chronologies into much closer agreement.
This point is demonstrated in Table I. Since many of the extant C14 dates for Egypt
were determined in the early developmental stages of the method, their accuracy is not
high. On the other hand, to select some and reject others smacks of subjectivity. Instead,
by way of example, a run of twenty-three dates recently obtained by the British Museum
and the UCLA laboratory are listed. The samples were of material from secure strati-
graphic contexts, specially collected by Mr Geoffrey Martin (Berger and Libby 1967;
Barker, Burleigh and Meeks I969). The date is first given in radiocarbon years (on the
5,568 half-life). The historical calendar dates for the appropriate dynasty, as determined
by Hayes (Hayes, Rowton and Stubbings I962) are given next, and finally the approxi-
mate mean calibrated date using the revised Suess calibration from bristlecone pine. It
will be seen that the historical calendar dates, and the tree-ring calibrated C14 dates are in
closer agreement (Table i).
No such sequence is available for Mesopotamia. But we may take the three available
C14 dates for the Royal Graves at Ur, again expressed in terms of the 5,568 half-life.

BM-64 1970 ?150 B.C.

BM-70 2080 ? X5 B.C.
BM-76 2040 ? 150 B.C.

Average: 2030 ? I00 B.C.

Using the calibration chart (fig. 2I) this gives a mean date in calendar years of c. 2500
B.C., although the possible range extends from 2850 B.C. to 2250 B.C. because of the kinks
in the curve. On the basis of the historical calendar, the Early Dynastic III period of
Sumer (in which the Royal Graves at Ur are generally set) traditionally ends at 2370 B.C.
Despite the wide time range which the calibration allows, we see that the result is in
better accord with the historical date.
Broadly speaking the tree-ring calibration of radiocarbon dates harmonizes well with
the historical evidence for the third millennium B.C., and the discrepancy indicated by
Libby and others is no longer apparent. This does not yet prove that the calibration is
correct, but it encourages us to apply it to other areas.
The dates for the Indus civilization have been given (on the 5,730 half-life) by Dales
(I965). The range in radiocarbon years on the 5,568 half-life is as follows:
 New configurationsin Old World archaeology 203

Post-Harappan 1755-I700 ? 130 B.C.

Late Harappan(Kalibangan
and Lothal) I980-I790 ? I100 B.C.
Middle Harappan(Kalibangan
and Lothal) 1945-I825 ? I 00 B.C.
Kot Diji levels 4 and 5 22II-I975S 150 B.C.

Calibration suggests a range, in calendar years, of c. 2450 to c. 2100 B.C. for the Middle
and Late phases of the Indus civilization. The Indus civilization here appears the con-
temporary, not the successor, of the Sumerian, and was clearly much more than a mere
offshoot brought about by Mesopotamian expansion or influence.
In general, too, these new dates do not conflict with the historical cross-datings which

TABLE I

RecentC14datesfor the early dynastiesof Egypt, comparedwith the historicalcalendardate (after

Hayes) and the tree-ringcalibrateddate. The tree-ringand historicaldates are in good agreement.
(Note that thestandarddeviationof the C14 dateshas not beentakeninto account.It is in somecases
muchlargerfor the calibrateddates.) Thesamplesarefrom the sites of Sakkaraand El Lahun
Historical
calendar Approx. mean
C14 date B.C. date B.C. calibrated date B.C.
Context Lab. No. (5,568 half-life) (Hayes) (using Suess curve)
Dyn. XII UCLA 1212 I550 ?60 1992-I786 c. 2050-1800
,, BM 280 I600 ?65 ,, . 2050
?,, BM 238 I630 ?65 , . 20oo
Dyn. XI-XII UCLA i2zi 1550=60 2040-1786 c. 2050-1800
Dyn. IV BM 237 1770 II10 2612-2492 C. 2150
,, BM 236 1890o 65 ,, c 2450-2200
,, UCLA I208 2060 ?60 , c. 2550
Dyn. III/IV BM 235 2120 ?65 2686-2492 c. 2950-2550
Dyn. III BM 234 1840 ?65 2686-2612 c. 2350-2150
,, UCLA 1206 2015 60 ,, c. 2500
,, UCLA 1207 2100 60 ,, c. 2950-2550
,, UCLA 1205 2105 60 ,, c. 2950-2550
, (early) BM 233 2o5o65 ,, c. 2550
Dyn. II UCLA 1204 2240 ?60 2850-2686 c. 2950
,, BM 232 2280 ?65 ,, . 2950
Dyn. I (end) UCLA I203 2190o 60 3100-2850 c. 2950-2600
, (end) BM 23I 2320 65 ,, c. 2950
,, (mid) UCLA 1202 2285 ?60 ,, . 2950
, (mid) BM 230 2430 ?65 , c. 3350-3050
,, (mid) BM 229 2570 ?65 , c. 3400
,, (early) UCLA 1201 2340?60 ,, c. 2950
,, (early) BM 228 2350 ?65 c. 2950
,, (early) UCLA I200 2530?60 ,, c. 3400
. _~~~~~~~~
m
204 Colin Renfrew

are available - Indus imports in Sumer at the time of Sargon of Agade, around 2350 B.C,
They harmonize adequately, at a first impression, with those for Egypt, Sumer and the
Aegean (cf. Wheeler i969).

2 Prehistoric Europe
So many radiocarbon dates are now available for prehistoric Europe that a comprehen-
sive tabulation and assessment would be a massive undertaking (see Thomas 1967 for a
brave attempt). Here the intention is rather to give an indication of the changes in relative
chronology which a dendrochronological calibration will produce. Until we have well
dated 'floating' tree-ring sequences for many regions and periods, precision will be
impossible, and I much doubt whether we shall begin to have an accurate chronology of
prehistoric Europe before I980. The table given below is therefore merely a suggestion.
For simplicity, only a few site names are included.
The crucial point which this table makes is that Egypt (with Sumer) and the Aegean
are changed only marginally. The chronological 'fault line' comes at the edge of these
historically dated regions - in a curve running from the west Mediterranean and Italy
through south Jugoslavia and Bulgaria to the Black Sea. Outside the historically dated
areas, which this line encloses, the entire chronology before about 1300 B.C.is transformed
(see Table 2).
The fourth millennium B.C. (4000-3000 B.C.) sees the late predynastic cultures of
Egypt, contemporary with which must now be set the later Neolithic of Greece (e.g. the
Dhimini culture), the end of the Vinca and Gumelnitsa cultures of south-east Europe,
with their already flourishing copper metallurgy, the Michelsberg culture in central
Europe and the TRB 'A' and 'B' phases in Denmark (cf. Neustupny i969). In Britain
long barrows were built throughout the period, and megalithic tombs also: New Grange
was constructed before 3000 B.C., about the same time as Tustrup and Ferslev in Den-
mark. Indeed, if the dates from French laboratories are accepted, the Breton passage
graves were already being built before 4000 B.C.
In the third millennium B.C.are set Old Kingdom Egypt, Early Dynastic Sumer, and
the Aegean Early Bronze Age - just as before. Their contemporaries to the west are now
the Los Millares culture of Spain and the Remedello-Rinaldone cultures of Italy, while
further north the Beaker/Early Bronze Age transition is taking place in Germany and the
Low Countries. The Early Bronze Age of east-central Europe (Periam and Nagyrev
cultures, and proably early Aunjetitz) are well under way. Silbury Hill can now be set
around 2500 B.C., the contemporary not of Mycenae but of the pyramids of Egypt.
The early second millennium sees, as well as the Middle Kingdom of Egypt and the
Aegean Middle Bronze Age, the end of the Wessex culture in England, the Breton Early
Bronze Age, the Polada culture in Italy and the later Aunjetitz and the early Tumulus
cultures in Germany - all prior to the beginning of Mycenaean civilization on the Greek
mainland (Renfrew I968; Bakker, Vogel and Wislanski I969).
The dates for Malta are particularly interesting, and are further considered below.
(The table includes all but two of the dates listed by Trump (I966: 48): he himself
rejects BM-IoI and BM-I42 as failing to conform with the emerging pattern, being
possibly from fossil wood, and I have followed him in attributing BM-Ioo to the Ggantija
TABLE 2

Experimentalchronologicalchart of selectedculturesand sites, given in approximatecalendaryears using dendr

(togetherwith the historicalcalendarin the case of Egypt and Sumerafter3000 B.C.).
Capital lettersrefer to culturesand periods(theplus signs indicatingcontemporaneity).
Namesin lowercase ind
beenconsidered.
L.B. signifieslongbarrow;P.G., passagegrave. In the columnfor Malta, abbreviations in parenthesisindicatethe
Theprovisionalnatureof the tableimpliesthat changesin absolutedate of severalcenturiesremainpossiblefor sp
CALIBRATED
DATE BC EGYPT SUMER AEGEAN SOUTH- CENTRAL NORTH BRITAIN ITALY MA
(approx.) EAST EUROPE EUROPE
EUROPE
DYN.XVIII MYCENAE
1500- 2 INTERMED. HAFI G(KAVES MBA IUMULUb
BRONZE
X III M.B.A. HORIZON mIT Barche diSolferinc
Swarkeston(NPL-b, POLADA
(HACHMANN)Codicote(NPL-is)
HAMMURABI FUZESABONY TAR
OF BABYLONPhaistos(pi is58 L.AUNJETITZ City Farm(GrN,is CEME
Palaikastro WESSEX i:
(St.1265)
1INTERMED. Helmsdorf HORIZONn[
2000 - M.MI. Stonehenq&IIl,j
St) WarickI-
HORIZON WESSEX
I Antofts I"' TAR
Lerna 32 EARLY Windypits (CASTEL-
SARGON
(P299) PERIAM AUNJETITZ Fifty Farm(BM133)
OF AGADE E.H.m Stonehenqe Ic602 -LUCCIO) CEME
VELUWE CIST Aubrey H6le)32
PYRA- NAGYREVlaardingen
NAGYRE GRAVES BEAKER
Tarxie
(BM

TV PYRA- E.D.TI Ur Lerna Ei Brabant Silburv Hill

2500- MIDS Royal (P 318-321)
E.D.i Cem E.H.IU Anlo A C MIDDLE Stonehenge I RINALDONE TAR
CJOS (P-273)
VUCEDOL NEOLITHIC (ditch) (C602) Asciano
Sitagroi YSb +
EARLY
Ii E.D.I TROYI BEAKER
RG. Tara PG. +
CLASSICAL (0 43)
Grotta Piccloni4 SAFL
Karatas BADEN REMEDELLO
Anio 51
3000 PROTO- E.H.I
Pon:v^4

Tustrup Skorb
DYN.I LITERATE Eutresls (P306-7) CERNAVODA CORDED NewGrangeP G
N (SM 129) (8M
Sltagroi (BLN - EZERO WARE TeIsvBFerisLC tGrN 462)
l 773) Cernavoda(sln , Windmill Hill
6ia Dblauer Heicle 'C (enclosure)(sM74)
GGA
LATE i TEPE
KUM
EARLYBADEN Odoorn NEOLITHIC
URUK EZEROVO Mulbjerq Ebbsfleet(BM713)Grotta Della
3500 sounth b. L.B.5%-7 Madonna IJ Mgarr7
Kephala (P1280) WaylandsSmithy Lagozza
(BM. t
MICHELSBERG TR B MG
GERZEAN EARLY FINAL
Nutbane L.B
(BM 49) Grotta PiccioniI
URUK C
TRIPOLYE eA'
NEOLITHIC Thayngen Heidmoor LAGOZZA Skorb
Weier Willerby Wold LB (BM14
Ehenslde Tarn ZEBB
I(l(BLN
S;tanroi-'AL'--- 774) m,,ej..:.;l:-A KnocKveaW (D 37) ,I'l Arene
- " - Candide lll
ALL ONUI LL
t3ur-ga5cnisee s Skorbah
ene-.ekl,
G~ralRleSh(P468- -?-) ne
4000- Elsloo Konens H0J wlnamlll tHi L.tB.
Skorba
LATE Christiansholms Arene Candide '
EARLY(BM61O (BM148
UBAID LATE ROSSEN NEOLITHIC RE
'Warka
17/18
NEOLITHICTell Azmak Dummer CHIOZZA SKO
Newferry (D36)
Varaiti Dalkey Island (D 38)
EARLY Dhimini ERTEB0LLE
AMRATIAN UBAID L.GUMELNITSA
4500
206 Colin Renfrew

phase.) The temple cultures of Malta are over well before 2000 B.C., and the first temples,
at the beginning of the Ggantija phase, may be as early as 3500 B.C.
It should be noted that the Tartaria tablets, if they really belong to the time of the
Vinca culture, long antedate the development of writing in the Near East (see Renfrew
I969b). The signs which they bear must therefore be seen as a local development.
No doubt various elements in this overall picture will change over the next few years, as
more fixed points become available from the calibration of 'floating' tree-ring sequences.
At present the only really sound fixed point (apart from the historical dates) is that of
3700 B.C. for the Michelsberg culture at Burgischisee-Siid and Thayngen-Weier.
At least, however, on the assumption that the whole bristlecone pine calibration will
not be overthrown completely in some unforeseen way, the rough outline is clear. It is
interesting to contrast it with the chronological table given in the various editions of
Gordon Childe's Dawn of European Civilisation. Two changes are apparent. First,
obviously, all the Neolithic dates are earlier, and the durations of periods increased.
Second, there is considerable faulting along the 'fault-lines' already mentioned. On each
side of the fault, the internal relative chronology is very little changed. But across it- and
specifically for Aegean relations with Iberia (Renfrew I967) and with the Balkans
(Mellaart I960, Neustupny i968, Renfrew i969b) - there are dramatic changes.
Among the points of relative chronology which at once emerge are:

i Metallurgy develops earlier in the Balkans than in the Aegean, and the Tartaria tablets
together with the Vinca culture predate not only Troy but protoliterate Sumer as well.
2 The earliest dated megalithic graves, and the earliest passage graves, are (on present
data) in France, and precede the pyramids by a millennium.
3 The first temples in Malta likewise predate the pyramids by many centuries.
4 The earliest rock-cut tombs of the Mediterranean are at Xemxija and Hal Saflieni in
Malta.
5 Beakers are seen in south-east Europe by the time of the pyramids and Troy II. It is
not yet clear whether or not they are as early in south-west Europe.
6 The metal dagger is seen throughout southern Europe in the first half of the third
millennium B.C. and in northern Europe by the end of the third millennium.
7 The later neolithic of Britain (and other regions) is greatly lengthened, and some henge
monuments (and Silbury Hill) are contemporary with the pyramids.
8 Wessex precedes Mycenae.
9 The Middle Bronze Age of Europe is contemporary with Mycenae and the period is
considerably lengthened.
Io There are no significant changes in the relative chronologies of the Aegean, Egypt or
Mesopotamia.

It is not sufficient, however, simply to accept the new chronology and carry on as
before. The jolt which it gives us should promote some basic reflections on the inade-
quacies of much of our current thinking - inadequacies not restricted to problems of
chronology alone.
 New configurationsin Old World archaeology 207

Beyond chronology: new configurations

It is a paradox that each new dating method makes chronology less important and less
interesting. How pleasant it will be - perhaps in ten years' time - when we shall have a
number of well-calibrated fixed points on the chart, and can use the artefacts, the basic
material of archaeology, for purposes other than dating! How satisfactory if radiocarbon,
and thermoluminescence and fission-track dating would render obsolete the seriations,
the typologies and the cross-datings.
In the words of Sir Mortimer Wheeler: 'We have been preparing timetables: let us
now have some trains.' Indeed it is not enough simply to accept the new chronology and
continue to look at the past in the same old way. New ways of approaching the data are
needed, and are indeed being applied in some areas of the world.
High among the priorities is a need to consider just how innovations are communi-
cated between cultures: 'diffusion' and 'influence' are no longer meaningful words.
There is a need to think in positive, order-of-magnitude quantitative terms (Renfrew
i969a). And above all it is worth while to think, where possible, in terms of social relation-
ships rather than artefacts.
The new chronology sets the prehistory of Malta back in the melting pot (although the
culture sequence established by Evans (I959) and modified by Trump (I966) remains
basic). For this reason Malta is taken as an example of the way the new chronology
should stimulate us to find new forms of explanation, new configurations among the data.
It is indeed of note that the first temples of Malta may have been built a millennium
beforethepyramids, during the Uruk period of Sumer, two millennia before Mycenae and
three millennia before the Olmecs of Mexico (plates xo, Ix).

I Culture contact. Diffusionism has been the curse of prehistoric archaeology for twenty
years. Admirable in the'twenties, when given new and systematic expression by Childe, it
has subsequently hardened into sterile dogma. But to say this is not, of course, to deny that
migrations sometimes did take place, or that one culture frequently did influence another.
It is now beginning to be clear, however, that simply to state the existence of an
'influence' is insufficient: a suggested migration of itself explains nothing (Binford I968:
268). The mechanism of this influence has to be stated, and its effects analysed in detail.
If new people arrived we shall seek to understand why they came, and just what effect
their arrival had - such factors cannot be assumed.
When discussing the end of the 'temple' cultures of Malta, we can now see that the
bossed bone plaque of the Tarxien Cemetery phase ('The Destroyers'), like that from
Castelluccio in Sicily, not only resembles that from Lerna IV in Greece, but is effectively
contemporary with it. This Early Helladic III culture of Greece (rather than the Middle
Helladic) is reflected in the painted wares and two-handled tankards of the Castelluccio
culture. Yet some of the Maltese finds, especially the daggers, resemble those of Early
Helladic II Greece, and some of the pottery is like that of Early Helladic I or Troy I. A
close analysis of these 'parallels' is now necessary - since the chronology of Early Helladic
Greece and the west Mediterranean has become clearer - not just in order to establish
dates, but to investigate mechanisms. Professor Evans's concept of 'culture creep' is in
this case hardly applicable, since the features in Malta may be as early as those in Greece.
GA
208 Colin Renfrew

(And of course the famous Zebbug menhir (Evans 1959: pl. 48) is now a millennium
earlier than the stele of Troy I; and the Maltese spirals developed long before those of
Minoan Crete.) This means that many of the old parallels are dismissed: the new ones
merit closer analysis, not merely to establish 'influence' but to establish its nature.
For Malta a persistent if minor contact with Sicily during the time of the 'temple'
cultures, as well as travel to Pantelleria, is indicated by obsidian analyses. The subsequent
transition to the Tarxien Cemetery culture has always seemed an abrupt one (although
this may have been partly the result of accepting a short time scale). Are we sure that
continuity was not greater than has been suggested? It now looks as if the Tarxien
Cemetery may have lasted a full millennium, since the succeeding period is dated by a
Mycenaean import to the thirteenth century B.c. And are we confident that all the reliefs
at Tarxien, for instance, were carved before the Tarxien Cemetery period? Indeed, are
we sure that a new people wiped out the old and started afresh, bringing with them
metallurgy and a different form of burial? May not the latter, at least, have developed
locally? The excavation of a settlement of this period is an urgent necessity here- at present
most of the argument rests on finds from burials and monumental buildings (plate I2).
It is the lamentable truth that there has been virtually no consideration for European
prehistory as to how the mysterious process of diffusion actually works. 'Adventurers',
'destroyers', 'metal prospectors', vessels blown off course- any imaginative hypothesis is
taken on its face value, although again all of these are worth while as suggestions. Could
the Tarxien Cemetery culture have grown up in Malta on the basis provided by its
Neolithic predecessor, perhaps under the 'influence' of 'contacts' with Sicily, and without
effective immigration? We just don't know.

2 Quantitative reasoning and demography.The time has now come when it should be
useful to speak in quantitative terms, however approximate. How many readers can
make a fair guess at the population density of a purely agricultural community in the
Mediterranean today? Or at the area of Malta with Gozo? Yet from these figures (i5o/
sq. mile for the Cycladic island of Naxos for instance; 122/sq. mile for Malta and Gozo)
we can make an order-of-magnitude estimate for the prehistoric population of Malta,
assuming a farming economy as efficient as that of Naxos today. Malta could, in these
terms, have supported a population of about i8,ooo people (some 300,000 live there
today). A large population seems very unlikely and it might well be that Io,ooo or less
would be a more realistic estimate, since modern cereal varieties would not have been
available, and probably neither olives nor vines were domesticated.
Accepting the view of Evans and Trump that the 'temples' were essentially an indige-
nous creation, a total population of perhaps 0o,ooo was responsible for their construction
(over all the relevant phases) during perhaps 1,500 years.
Hawkins very appositely compared the investment of means which Stonehenge
represented for its builders with that which the United States now pours into the space
race. Such order-of-magnitude thinking, which is all we can hope to achieve, highlights
the significance of these monuments. Should we regard the temples of Malta - or indeed
for that matter the megaliths of France and beyond - as fantastic material achievements,
some sort of prehistoric NASA, absorbing much of the time of the population and per-
haps seriously hampering development in other directions (just as intensive military
 New configurationsin Old World archaeology 209

production today is felt to restrict social progress)? Or did they represent a relatively
small annual effort, like some Well-Dressing in the Peak District of Britain today, a
small tax upon the population, although important in aggregate over the centuries? A
little cost-analysis, based on simple constructional techniques, just as Atkinson has
undertaken for Stonehenge (I956) should suggest an answer.
Absolute numbers (to an order-of-magnitude level) are informative in many ways. Did
the human remains taken from the Hal Saflieni hypogeum, for instance, account for the
total population in that region of Malta -- or indeed of the entire island - over the period
of its use? Can we then deduce whether its use was restricted to a single limited segment
of the population? The same thinking is relevant to the megalithic tombs of western
Europe; in most regions they are probably so few as to have been the burial place solely
of a chiefly family. This is of course mere guesswork. But there are in this field, hypo-
theses waiting to be formulated which it is within our power to test.

3 Social structure. It has been well said that an artefact is a fossilized idea. And of course
a single artefact can be seen as something more complex, the outcome of several con-
temporary situations - a technological one (in its production), an economic one perhaps
(in the purpose of its production and the use to which it is in fact put), a social one (who
does and does not use it) and so forth. A 'temple' is a bigger and more complex artefact,
the nexus of very many situations over a long period of time. For one thing, it is undeni-
ably a fossilized social idea, and almost certainly a fossilized religious one also.
So impressive a series of monuments as those of Malta could have been produced
only through a restricted range of social and religious circumstances - buildings like
these are not found among many neolithic societies. Just as the pyramids of Egypt reflect
a strongly hierarchical social organization, and a religious belief in the paramount
significance of the pharaoh, so the 'temples' of Malta (and their existence in so large a
number) must result from, and embody, a distinctive social configuration. I do not know
what that configuration was - but am optimistic that controlled speculation, with loca-
tional studies, a constant reference back to the available data, and the search for new kinds
of data (for instance settlement sites), will make progress towards some plausible
reconstruction of it.

Malta has been singled out for discussion here, in a manner applicable equally to other
areas, simply because some of the problems are very clear-cut - as is often the case with
islands. Stringent limitations of space here prevent a more adequate examination. They
prevent also a consideration of our objectives as archaeologists. We are surely trying to
do more than reconstruct a sequence of events: we are seeking to explain them.
The moral which we should not fail to draw, however, is that the new dates should not
simply change our chronologies. They render meaningless so much that has been written
in recent years that there must have been serious inadequacies in our whole approach
to the past, not simply in our chronology. Perhaps the sharp jolt which the chronology
imparts to our thinking will help us work out more carefully our aims and our basic
procedures.

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

210 Colin Renfrew

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

References
Atkinson, R. J. C. 1956. Stonehetnge.
Bakker,J. A., Vogel, J. C. and Wislanski, T. I969. TRB and other C14 dates from Poland.
Helinium.9:3.
Barker,H., Burleigh, R. and Meeks, M. I969. British Museum Natural RadiocarbonMeasure-
ments VI. Radiocarbon.II, 2:278.
Berger, R. and Libby, W. F. I967. UCLA Radiocarbondates 6. Radiocarbon.9:490.
Binford, L. R. I968. Some comments on historicalversus processualarchaeology.Southwestern
Journalof Anthropology.24:267-75.
Bucha, V. I967. Intensity of the Earth'smagnetic field during archaeologicaltimes in Czecho-
slovakia.Archaeometry.10:12-22.
Dales, G. F. I965. A suggested chronologyfor Afghanistan,Baluchistanand the Indus valley.
in Old WorldArchaeology.257-84.
In Ehrich, R. W. (ed.), Chronologies
Damon, P. E., Long, A. and Grey, D. C. I966. Fluctuationof atmosphericC-14 during the last
six millennia.Journalof GeophysicalResearch.71:1055-63.
Evans, J. D. 1959. Malta.
Ferguson, C. W. I968. Bristleconepine: science and esthetics. Science.159:839-46.
Ferguson, C. W., Huber, B. and Suess, H. E. i966. Determinationof the age of Swiss lake-
dwellings as an example of dendrochronologically-calibrated
radiocarbondating. Zeitschriftfiiur
Naturforschung. 2 A:I 173-7.

Hayes, W. C., Rowton, M. B. and Stubbings, F. H. I962. Chronology. CambridgeAncient

History. I, ch. VI.
Kigoshi, K. and Hasegawa,H. I966. Secularvariationof atmosphericradiocarbonconcentration
and its dependenceon geomagnetism.Journalof GeophysicalResearch.7 1:1065-71.
Kohler, E. L. and Ralph, E. K., I96I. C-X4dates for sites in the Mediterraneanarea. American
Journalof Archaeology.65:357-67.
Libby, W. F. I963. The accuracyof radiocarbondates. Science.140:278-80.
Mellaart,J. I960. Anatoliaand the Balkans.Antiquity. 24:270.

Neustupny, E. 1968. Absolute chronology of the Neolithic and Aeneolithic periods of central
and south-easternEurope. SlovenskaArcheologia.i6:19-56.
Neustupny, E. i969. Absolute chronologyof the Neolithic and Aeneolithic periods in central
and south-east Europe. Archeologicke
Rozhledy.21 :783.
 New configurationsin Old World archaeology 21

Ralph, E. K. and Michael, H. N. 1967. Problems of the radiocarboncalendar.Archaeometry.

I0:3-II.
Ralph, E. R. and Michael, H. N. 1969. University of PennsylvaniaRadiocarbonDates XII.
Radiocarbon.I1:469.
Renfrew, C. 1967. Colonialismand Megalithismus.Antiquity.41:276.
Renfrew, C. 1968. Wessex without Mycenae. Annual of the British School of Archaeologyat
Athens. 63:277-85.
Renfrew, C. I969a. Trade and culture process in Europeanprehistory. CurrentAnthropology.
IO:I5I-69.

Renfrew, C. I969b. The autonomy of the south-east EuropeanCopper Age. Proceedingsof the
PrehistoricSociety. 35:12.
Smith, H. S. I964. Egypt and C-I4 dating. Antiquity.38:32--7.
Stuiver, M. and Suess, H. E. I966. On the relationshipbetween radiocarbondates and true
sample ages. Radiocarbon.8:534-40.
Suess, H. E. 1967. Bristleconepine calibrationof the radiocarbontime scale from 4100 B.C.to
I500 B.C. In RadioactiveDating and Methodsof Low Level Counting(InternationalAtomic
Energy Agency, Vienna).
Thomas, H. L. I967. Near Eastern, Mediterraneanand EuropeanChronology.(Studies in
MediterraneanArchaeology. I7.)
Trump, D. H. 1966. Skorba(Reportsof the ResearchCommitteeof the Society of Antiquaries
of London. 22).

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

Willis, E. H., Tauber, H. and Miinnich, K. 0. I960. Variationsin the atmosphericradiocarbon
concentrationover the past I300 years. Radiocarbon.2:1-4.

Abstract
Renfrew,Colin
New configurations in Old World archaeology
The tree-ring calibrationof radiocarbondates from the fifth to the first millennium B.C. is
revolutionizingthe absolute chronology of prehistoricEurope. After a survey of the scientific
background,the implicationsand effects of these changes are considered.A new chronologyis
tentativelypresentedin tabularform.
The very magnitude of the changes emphasizes how erroneous much recent diffusionist
thinking has been, and how sterile much chronologicaldiscussion. The moral is drawnthat we
should be seeking configurationsamong the data of a differentkind: the point is illustratedby
referenceto the prehistoryof Malta.