AGAIN GORDION’S EARLY PHRYGIAN DESTRUCTION DATE:
Oscar White Muscarella - Again Gordion’s Early Phrygian Destruction Date: ca. 700 +/- B.C.
ca. 700 +/- B.C.
It is a pleasure for me to write a paper on an important
issue in Anatolian archaeology for my dear friend and
colleague Aykut Cinaroğlu, whom I irst met in 1984 when
he had a Fellowship at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (later
in Ankara I met often his wonderful wife and daughters and
their sweet dog, Tarçin).
INTRODUCTION
This paper continues the discussion presented in
Muscarella 2003 (see also Muscarella 2005/2006: 395, and
note 4) concerning the date of the destruction level (DL) at
Gordion that terminated the Early Phrygian (EP) period there.
I argued that the destruction occurred some time close to
700 B.C. (+/-), not in the late 9th century B C. as maintained
in publications and public lectures by the Gordion Team
excavators since 2001. The aims of the present paper are
to augment some of the issues I raised previously and to
present additional and relevant information, thus to expand
the data available in the published record. One of the
stimuli that generated this review is the growing number of
scholars who have uncritically (to me, without relection)
accepted the 9th century B.C. destruction date, and thereby
simultaneously embraced the consequent profound historical
and archaeological implications for irst millennium B.
1 The Gordion Team consists primarily of a quartet, Mary Voigt, Kenneth
Sams, Keith DeVries, and Peter Kunihlom. was published (Manning et al 2001: 2534; see below). Two
Oscar White Muscarella
C. Aegean and Anatolian archaeology and history. For
example, Prayon (2004: 611) states that the New Chronology
has a “weitreichenden Konsequenz für die historisch-
politischen wie auch künstlerischen Entwicklungenun
Zusammenhänge,” which he then proceeds to document;
Prayon and Wittke (2004: 122-23) note that “das bisherige
Bild der phrygischen Kultur und des Phrygischen Reiches
grundlegend verändern….” See also Kelp (2004: 286,
293); Strobel (2004: 259, 265-68); Genz (2004: 221, 224);
Dusinberre (2005: 4, 10, 220-22); Crielaard (2007: 223); and
Summers (2006: 2).
In January 2001, a laboratory (Heidelberg) informed
the Gordion Team1 that based on C-14 analysis, the EP
citadel of Gordion had been destroyed ca. 830-807/800 B.C.
(for details see Muscarella 2003: 225-6, 250). The report was 
immediately and unhesitatingly accepted: for here, was an
“objective scientiic” fact presented by a scientist working in
a scientiic laboratory, and thus the previously maintained,
for decades, archaeologically argued and thus “subjective”
dating of the destruction, ca. 700 B. C., was rejected. The
New Chronology, as it came to be designated, was declared
a fait accompli, one vigorously upheld by the Gordion Team.
The laboratory report was irst publicly announced at the
Fifth Anatolian Iron Age Conference in Van in August 2001
(where, verbally, I irst challenged it; for a modiied version
of the Van announcement see DeVries et al 2005). In the
same year a brief statement reporting the New Chronology
 Prof. Dr. Aykut Çınaroğlu’na Armağan
years later, a more expanded announcement on the revised
chronology, here provided with brief C-14 speciics (in
Table 1) was published (DeVries et al 2003); this publication
overlapped with Muscarella 2003. To date (2007) my 2003
rejection of the presented C-14 date has been supported
in print by only one individual, Keenan (2004)—based
Oscar White Muscarella - Again Gordion’s Early Phrygian Destruction Date: ca. 700 +/- B.C.
independently on his C-14 interpretation of the analysis (see
also Porter 2005: 66 and note 2). The Gordion Team has to
date never acknowledged the controversial nature of the++
new dating.
In Muscarella 2005/2006: 395, note 4, I reported
briely (here expanded) that I had been informed (in February
2005) that the Gordion Team had been notiied that more
recent work on analysis had caused them to lower the
originally presented C-14 chronological range by 40 to 60
years. Such a change effectively lowers the destruction date,
in this calculation, to a time close to the mid-8th century B.C.
I made two enquiries about this information via e-mail to two
Gordion Team members (August 2005). One did not answer
my question, except to claim that a work was in progress on
Gordion chronological issues. The other never responded.
These unprofessional equivocations and non-responses tell
us that something is wrong within the Gordion Team—and
concomitantly suggest that the information I received in 2005
is correct. And if correct, then the three-years of silence on the
expanded date range is a serious offense to scholarship.
DENDROCHRONOLOGY
 The starting point for this dramatic back dating
of the destruction at Gordion was generated solely from
the C-14 laboratory report. But quite soon thereafter
dendrochronological evidence from structural timbers
recovered in the DL Terrace Building (TB) 2A was soon
introduced as both further and independent evidence
supporting the 9th century date (Manning et al 2001: 2534).
Here four scientists (a Cornell Team) report (in note 28
citing as the source M. Voigt “personal communication”),
that “The last preserved ring from construction timbers in
Terrace Building 2A…is now dated ca. 883 +4/-7 B.C.,”
and which terminal ring-date “approximates construction of
this building, which was destroyed…between 830 and 800
B.C.”(italics are mine; see also Voigt 2005: 30-1; DeVries
2005: 37 declared with ease that the destruction occurred
“not later than 805 BC”!). The crucial message casually
introduced here (by another university laboratory) is that an
unmeasurable number of missing rings from burnt timbers is
irrelevant in chronological and archaeological investigations;
they are not to be questioned by archaeologists seeking to
determine the absolute date a structure was constructed.
This interpretative leitmotif continued over the years.
Earlier, Voigt (1994: 273) had provided an accurate
archaeological analysis of the absence of chronological
value of the very same TB 2A roof beams. She noted that
“Kuniholm states” (personal communication?) that “the
latest ring on these timbers is 908 +/- 37 BC” (on this speciic
date see CC3 below). But she correctly saw it to record
that no bark was preserved on the samples, the number of
missing rings is unknown, the beams were burnt and also
suffered excavation-process damage, and, further, that the
“beams represent re-used or stored timbers, cut long before
this structure was built.” This is a precise and neatly stated
archaeological interpretation: but fully ignored by the
Cornell laboratory (in Manning et al 2001). It should not
go unnoticed that Voigt’s 1994 disinterested interpretation
of the TB 2A timbers was made before the revelation of the
New Chronology—and the later 2001 chronological claim
was made after that revelation (see also Kuniholm on CC
3, below; for others who raise the issue of wood re-use as a
fundamental component in dendro interpretation see James
(1991: 323), Keenan (2006: 11), Mielke (2006: 83), and
(yes) Manning et al (2007: 4). Thus, over the years the date of
the preserved rings went from 908 to 883 +/- B.C.—with no
discussions regarding the reasons for the changes.
DeVries et al (2003: 1), and Voigt (2005: 30-1)
suggested the possibility of wood re-use for DL structural
timbers. Contrary to the two other dates previously reported
for TB 2A—908 and 883 B.C., Voigt now writes that “the
latest ring [is] dated ca. 861 B.C.,” again with no references to
previously published dates or reasons for the modiication.2
The use of Manning et al in 2001 of TB 2A timbers in support of
2
Personal communications can be deceptive and misleading and essentially
undocumented. For example, a recent email message to me (October 3, 2007)
from an interested party claims that Kuniholm (in a personal communication
to him) believes “the last ring of TB2a is 850 B.C.” I think it best not to cite
it in my text.
a speciic chronological determination is therefore puzzling.
For aside from the wood-condition problem along with the
correct archaeological conclusions articulated earlier by
Voigt, the new ring determination ignores, indeed contradicts,
previously published dendrochronological evidence and
interpretation acquired from another EP/DL structure, CC3.
The 740 MM date is more or less close to that suggested by
some scholars based on artifact analysis and ancient records
(Muscarella 1982: 9, idem 2003: 230-1, and note 28; Caner
1983: 9, 201). Missed by me and others, including the
Gordion Team, is that Kuniholm 1988: 6-7 noted in a chart
(but not in the text) that six other structures in various strata

Oscar White Muscarella - Again Gordion’s Early Phrygian Destruction Date: ca. 700 +/- B.C.
Wood recovered here manifestly demonstrated that burnt at Gordion contained wood re-used centuries after the log’s
beams cannot be used to furnish construction dates of cutting date.5
structures at Gordion. I quote Kuniholm (1988: 8), “It is clear
For the record, here are some chronological
[sic] that wood was re-used at Gordion, sometimes many
implications of Kuniholm’s 1988 report on CC3, working from
centuries after it was cut”—a conclusion he determined from
his designated cutting date for tumulus MM, and subtracting
three pieces of wood here that “were cut about four centuries
62 years. One arrives at these possible dates for the last
earlier” in the 12th century B.C., 400 years before eight other
preserved ring (not cutting) of wood beams in the DL, 682,
wood pieces from the same structure.3 Concerning the later-
678, or 671 B.C. But (not employing Gordion Team dendro
cut CC3 timbers, Kuniholm (1988: 8) informs us that “....
analyses), these dates surely only indicate that EP Gordion
the CC3 Master, composed of eight samples,” [8 separate
was destroyed sometime after these years in the early 7th
timbers?] ends in MMTRD 1826—sixty two years after MMT
century B.C. (recognized by James 1991: 323-4—but not by
[tumulus MM: Midas Mound].” That is, they were cut 62
me in 2003).
years after the cutting date of the outer logs surrounding
MM: MMTRD 1764 represents the terminal ring that grew However, the information and conclusions published
just before the tomb’s logs were felled (ibid: 5). All the inal about CC3 in 1988 have now been thrown into the bulging
rings of the tumulus MM logs have not been preserved (even ile of altered and rejected data labeled “Old Chronology.” In
though the bark is extant) but Kuniholm “thinks” he has the an email communication to me (June 29, 2007),6 Kuniholm
accurate date. The cutting date of these logs is presented as rejected and modiied his previously published conclusions,
740 +4/-7 B.C. by Manning et al (2001: 2534); previously it and changed both the published data and his analysis of
had been dated to 718 +1/-1 B.C. (see DeVries 2005: 43). the 400-year tree ring spread along with its chronological
To date the ca. 740 B.C. determination has not been revised implications. He wrote that the samples were “charcoal,”
(although given past prouncements it may very well be.4 (in another email publication, July 12, 2007, they were
“horribly burned”), and further, that in 1988 he was then-
-nota bene— “operating under the old assumptions about
3
See James 1991: 323-4. See also Muscarella 2003: 227: here I mistakenly tumulus MM and the DL, and in retrospect was trying 
thought that the CC3 wood derived from the post- DL, Middle Phrygian
period. In 2003 I was thinking then only about re-use per se, and therefore to force a it where there really wasn’t any” (italics mine;
missed the chronological implications of the later-dated timbers. this sentence speaks volumes about dendrochronological
4
Indeed, one cannot object to modiications of chronology based on more analysis and conclusion-formation within the Gordion
accurate readings of tree rings, but the changes should be explained, and,
each time it should be indicated that the date is indeed tentative. In one recent Team). In addition, Kuniholm writes that he has since “found
example, Kuniholm dated the cutting year of logs at Ayanis to 655-651 B.C., missing rings” that make “the old ‘it’ look nothing more
causing important and unexpected revisions to royal date years. Years later
he announced that the date was somewhere in the 670s: Manning et al 2001: than a random resemblance.” The result is that “The it with
2534, and A. Çilinğiroglu, in press. everything else at Gordion is now good. The end date for
5
And although he mentions timber re-use here, none of the other issues
concerning the wood samples from TB 2A--that they were roof beams, the
CC3 is MTRD 1595 or 909 +4/-7 BC” (italics are mine).7
lack of bark, and missing rings—are discussed. Thus, the previously reported 400-year gap for the CC#
6
I follow here the Gordion Team’s common use in publications of invoking wood has now been oficially narrowed; the latest beams
a “personal communication” to introduce new, hitherto unpublished,
information. were actually cut (“end date”) only a century before the New
7
Is it a coincidence that the 909 B.C. date is the very same (minus one year) Chronology DL date, (and two hundred years before 700 B.
given for TB 2A, above—or did Voigt or Kuniholm confuse TB 2A with
CC3?
C.). And responding to my earlier email question about the
 Prof. Dr. Aykut Çınaroğlu’na Armağan
revised dating of the earlier samples from CC3, Kuniholm
replied (in the same July 12, 2007 communication) that they
“must be re-used Bronze Age logs.” Translation: the older
samples’ date has not changed—they were centuries-old, re-
used timbers from the Bronze Age, unlike the later beams,
now interpreted to be fresh-cut later—all neatly provided by
Oscar White Muscarella - Again Gordion’s Early Phrygian Destruction Date: ca. 700 +/- B.C.
a scientiic laboratory. The concepts of missing rings and
re-use are considered meaningful only when they it into a
preconceived scenario.
I repeat here what I wrote in 2003 (page 227), that re-
use of wood at Gordion over long periods of time absolutely
precludes any chronological use of terminal rings as relecting
“cutting dates” for wood recovered in Gordion structures.
The Gordion Team ignores this fact. One of the signiicant
problems in this matter is that they have unrelectively and
unequivocally accepted, without independent analysis
and veriication, every conclusion issued from the Cornell
University laboratory. Given Kuniholm’s (2007) candid
(and latest) explanation of his ad hoc methodology used in
arriving at his 1988 interpretation, it is appropriate to ask:
are scholars now (again) obligated to believe that this revised
“scientiic” review does not equally operate from more recent
assumptions about the DL, and that it too is not another ad
hoc attempt to “force a it,” this time with the dogma of the
New Chronology?
In the inal analysis archaeologists cannot invoke
the currently proclaimed 909 B.C. date (last preserved tree-
ring) to establish the time of the destruction of CC 3 and
the DL—because of the possibility of wood re-use, and
 because the latest preserved ring says nothing about the
date of constructing a building.8 Indeed, although preached
and widely accepted otherwise, it is a false dichotomy to
claim that dendrochronology is an objective science to
be privileged over “subjective” archaeology. It is therefore
signiicant (and surprising) to ind this correct position
precisely stated recently by the Cornell Laboratory staff--for
the irst time: “Dendrochronology is not an exact science….”
(Manning 2007: 3).
Until the published (and unpublished) reports cited
above are reinvestigated and published in detail, giving all
information related to the condition of the wood involved,
the presence or absence of bark, the evidence and reasons
for both the original and subsequent date changes, and the
methodologies employed, including recognizing re-use of
wood, no archaeologist can use the TB 2A and CC 3 timbers
for any chronological determinations—most certainly not
relating to the DL date (see also below). All the Cornell
laboratory’s claims remain in abeyance--as does also my
tentative 7th century dating (above) based solely on the 1988
report. My reading of Manning et al 2007: 1, 5 is that the
Cornell laboratory “slightly revises past practice” and in the
future will review and critique (“reanalysis”) the reports its
staff has published, and will conduct a re-study of all the
published Gordion wood reports.9
Strobel (2004: 266-7, 271, and 275, note 4) with ease
dismisses my arguments against the Gordion Team’s use of
dendrochronology. As the “Fälldatum [sic] der Hölzer” for
TB 2A he proclaims it to be 861/883 B.C., and for CC3 it
is 912-919 B. C.; missing rings, wood re-use, or revisions
of chronologies over time are to him mere minor, pedantic
issues of no archaeological concern. Genz (2004: 221, 226)
cites the dendrochronological together with the C-14 data as
evidence for the 9th century dating of the DL at Gordion.
In 2004 Kuniholm (page 1) accelerated the use of
dendrochronology to afirm the New Chronology, here again
invoking the last-ring solecism by citing the rings of four
logs (Voigt in Yildirim and Gates 2007: 31 says it is one log)
recovered from the base of the Early Phrygian fortiication
wall as data that reinforces the New Chronology. Because
on these logs “the last existing ring (no bark preserved) is 862
BC,” they are therefore taken to indicate that the EP settlement
and its fortiication wall “appear to be a ninth-century affair”
(italics are mine). Not mentioned is the signiicant different
conclusion he forcibly presented in 1988, or the conclusions
of Voigt in 1994 and 2005, or his ignoring the problem of using
8
Concerning Kuniholm’s continuous modiications of and changes to data and
conclusions over the years regarding C-14/dendrochronological dating—
often without reference to previous claims, see Mielke 2006: 82-3 and note
17, 90, with references to missing rings; Keenan 2006: 5. James (2002)
records the series of dates previously published by Kuniholm for the tumulus
MM burial: 547, 757, 718 B.C.; he also critiques the present date of 740 B.
C. For the practice of wood re-use in Anatolia from earliest times see M. and
A. Özdoğan 1998: 589.
9
I came upon Manning 2007 after I had essentially inished writing this
paper, courtesy of D. Keenan. Aside from informing us (subtly—I had to
read it several times to understand it) of the review to be undertaken, the
report provides a clear discussion about dendro methodology and the many
problems involved in analyses; see also Mielke 2006: 77-84.
bark-less wood for absolute dating (see Manning et al 2007:
5), and also the possibility of re-use of earlier wood. Voigt (in
Yildirim and Gates 2007: 31), ignoring her earlier cautious
stance, also cites the wall’s log as evidence to support the
New Chronology—another example of the Gordion Team
automatically accepting a “scientiic” decree.10 All I discuss
here has now been manifestly conirmed, for recent dendro
examination at Gordion has proved (yet again!) that timbers
cannot be used as chronological markers. In the most recent
Cornell University Weiner Laboratory report (December
2007: 3) is the statement by Sturt Manning that: “The date
for the last preserved ring” of juniper logs from Building A,
from the MP (i.e. post DL!) citadel, is 991 +4/-7 B.C. But
unfortunately his report refrained from confronting the fact
that the MP period is dated by the Gordion Team post DL,
to the late 9th early 8th century B.C. (but to me late 8th at the
earliest, or the early 7th century B.C.), and that either way
we have here evidence of reused beams; and that a beam
with its last ring dating almost a century earlier than those
from the EP period buildings TB 2A and CC3 (above), is not
employed here using the same methodology to date the MP
period to the 10th century B.C.!
Dendrochronological dating of tumuli has suffered
the same blinkered mis-treatment: in several instances we
are commanded to accept as an absolute chronological
determinant the last preserved ring of a tomb’s timber
construction. Thus Strobel (2004: 271, 276 and note 10)
reveals to archaeologists that the plundered and destroyed
Kayran Mevkii tumulus (a Gordion tumulus) was constructed
in the 9th century B.C. (862 +7/-3)—because of a (not fully
published) dendrochronological dating of burnt logs--with
no bark; and no tomb artifacts were preserved. In the same
sentence (p. 276) we are also commanded to know that there
exists other Phrygian tumuli constructed in the 9th century B.
C., tumulus W (see below), and also the, to me, 8th century
B. C. Mamaderesi tumulus (another Gordion tumulus), which
date is known to him “auf die Funde;” in a footnote (10) he
10 It is relevant here to remind scholars of the (if correct!) spectacular discovery
by Kuniholm of a central joist within a modern house on the Black Sea that obvious: I believe along with other archaeologists, that
was cut 6200 years ago (Aegean Dendrochronology Project December 2001
Progress Report: 8). Had this house been burned down 50 years ago and
recently investigated, no doubt some dendrochronologists would have dated size and construction, its locus, and its artifact deposition
the house to the early Neolithic period.
mentions the 80 ibulae recovered. The chronology of the
tumuli as proclaimed by Strobel, is of major importance to his
general Early Chronology project, and he simply announces
that the 80 ibulae were made in the 9th century B.C. (pace
Muscarella 2003: 231). This chronology can be based only
on an a priori determination about the DL (and consequent
Oscar White Muscarella - Again Gordion’s Early Phrygian Destruction Date: ca. 700 +/- B.C.
tumulus construction) chronology: i.e., a circular argument.
The Mamaderesi ibulae include Types XII, 2, 9, 13, 13A,
14, and 14A, only one of which type occurs in tumulus
W (9th century to Strobel), and there are no 7A examples
here, although they are quite common in W. A number of
the Mamaderesi ibula types were recovered in manifestly
8th century B. C. tumuli, such as (even to Strobel) MM, which
contained XII, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 14 examples. The late 8th
century or slightly later tumulus S-1 ((viz. DeVries 2005: 39-
40, notes 4-6, 43; Kohler 1995: 115-140) also has two XII,
14A buckles (ibid. 127-8, pl. 66), a late form (compare Strobel
2004: 276 and note 10). An appropriate question raises itself
based on artifact analysis: why should archaeologists not
assert that tumulus MM must also be dated to the 9th century
B. C., inasmuch as it shares with the DL and Mamaderesi
tumulus XII, 9, 13, and 14 ibulae forms? (see also the
discussion of the clay foundation deposit below).
For the record: that tumulus MM did not contain
the burial of king Midas—because of its construction date
determined by dendro (more or less) and artifact analysis-
-and that it belonged to an earlier ruler, probably Midas’
father, has been argued for a long time: by R. S. Young after
its excavation, and subsequently by a good number of other
scholars, including me, for decades (see Muscarella 1982: 9, 
idem 1995: 99, note 13, idem 2003: 231, note 28). This has
been ignored by the Gordion Team in lectures and writing:
viz. Kohler 1995: 192, 228; Manning et al 2002: 2534;
DeVries 2005: 42; DeVries et al 2003: 2; DeVries et al 2005:
45. Voigt (in Yildirim and Gates 2007: 311) writes as if we
now know for the irst time ever that Midas is not buried in
MMT. And Strobel (2004: 276) indicts me for continuing to
maintain there is a relationship between MM and King Midas
and his family. This specious charge requires no response,
but I will state simply what has often been recognized as
MM is manifestly a royal burial based on its labor intensive
 Prof. Dr. Aykut Çınaroğlu’na Armağan
and chronology coincide with/are quite close to that of the
historical King Midas/Mita. Its chronology strongly suggests
however, that Midas himself is not buried there.
The Gordion Team (DeVries et al 2005: 46)
asserts its position loud and clear, “The radiocarbon and
dendrochronological evidence provides a irm and consistent
Oscar White Muscarella - Again Gordion’s Early Phrygian Destruction Date: ca. 700 +/- B.C.
absolute chronology for ninth [Early Phrygian] and eighth
century [Middle Phrygian] Gordion” (italics are mine).
(What is consistent s their circular-citation of each other’s
publications--but very few of other, relevant publications).
For analytic criticisms and rejections of the “scientiic”
consistent claims blithely made by DeVries et al 2005, see
Keenan 2004, idem 2006, James 1991: 322, idem 2002.
Artifacts are not mentioned as evidence in the above quoted
claim, but are mentioned in the article itself (p. 45), with the
claim that they “independently indicate a late 9th century”
New Chronology date; see also DeVries et al 2003: 2), Voigt
2005: 31, and idem, in Yildirim and Gates 2007: 311. These
artifacts include ibulae, horse trappings, vessel attachments,
ivory horse pieces, attachments, pottery, and orthostates, all
of which are chronologically evaluated in Muscarella 2003:
237-245, although not confronted by the Gordion Team. On
an (attempted) objective basis, i.e. not a priori using the old
date of ca. 700 B.C. for the DL as a guide, I argued that the
DL artifacts are 8th, not 9th century productions. I have not
changed my mind, and those who disagree should confront
each of my evaluations. Strobel (2004: 278), consistent in
asserting, but not demonstrating a 9th century date of each
DL artifact, does not.
 A viable argument in the present framework would be
to state up front that consequent to any scholar’s acceptance
of the late 9th century C 14 chronology for the DL, it therefore
must follow that its artifacts are dated to that time. This has
been accomplished formally by Prayon and Wittke (2004:
123), who date one of the ivories from the DL clearly
“aufgrund ihrer Fundsituation nach der neueren Chronologie
wohl noch in das 9. Jh. zu datieren…;” also Prayon 2004:
614; Genz (2004: 225-6) says we must now date certain types
of central Anatolian pottery and ibulae to the 9th century B.
C. because of the revised Gordion chronology. If one accepts
the C-14 New Chronology, these will be seen as “correct”
and necessary assessments: although the evidence actually
indicates otherwise.
I focus now on a summary of the ibulae recovered
in the DL, and add some scholarly commentary. I also add
an ampliication concerning the loci at Gordion of ibulae
and another artifact, socketed arrowheads. The latter has
not hitherto been discussed, but is a major component of
evidence that must be used to determine the date of the DL
at Gordion.
FIBULAE
The Phrygian ibulae, commonly known as Type XII,
recovered in the DL are dated both by comparison with those
from the tumulus burials and from outside comparanda, and
provide a general chronology covering the second half of the
8th century for the DL examples.11
As I reported in 2003 (229-234), the DL ibulae types
include two Type XII, 5; 22 XII, 7A; one XII, 9; one XII, 13
or 14;and one XII, 14, total of 27 Phrygian ibulae. The DL
also contained 14 imported foreign Aegean and Near Eastern
ibulae, dating to the 8th –7th century B. C. and therefore
relevant to DL chronology investigations (Muscarella 2004:
233-36), pace Voigt (2005: 31), who states that “no Greek
material had ever been found in the….Early Phrygian
Destruction Level. ”The Aegean ibulae parallels are not
“sehr vage” as Strobel asserts (2004: 276; Maya Vassileva
will eventually publish them in detail). Aegean ibulae, along
with socketed arrowheads, were also recovered in the ill
over tumulus B (Kohler 1995: 21-2, pl. 11). The s arrowheads
demonstrate a late 8th or 7th, century date for the construction
of the tumulus, as well as a nomadic people’s presence at
Gordon (at some undetermined speciic time; see below).
The Phrygian ibulae from several of the tumuli parallel
the DL ibulae. The most common type from the burials, Type
XII, 7A, occurs in tumulus W, KIII, KIV, S and G; XII, 5 in KIII;
XII, 9 in KIII, KIV, MM, S-1, and Mamaderesi; and Type XII,
14 in KIV, MM, S-1, and Mamaderesi. In the Ankara tumulus
excavated by Sevim Buluç, Type XII, 7A, 9 and 14 forms also
occur together (Muscarella 2003: 233). All these tumuli are
dated to the second half of the 8th century. For a review of
11
I use standard terminology here and not Caner’s 1983 unnecessary new
terminology, intended to replace Blinkenberg, Muscarella, Boehmer, etc.,
and pace Strobel 2004: 276, note 5.
earlier scholars’ determinations of the relative construction
dates of the tumuli and the conclusions that MM, P, KIII, and
KIV are relatively chronologically close to each other, W is
earlier, and all date to the 8th century B.C. DeVries (2005: 43)
dates tumulus MM before Mamaderesi. Strobel (2004: 267,
276-7) dates tumulus KIII and P close to the time of the DL,
is that all the Phrygian ibulae forms recovered in the DL
are also present in the tumuli: all of which are accepted by
all parties to have been constructed in the 8th century B. C.
Moreover, no Phrygian ibulae recovered in the West (none
are Type XII, 7A) have been dated by pre- 8th century B. C.
(Muscarella 1989: 338-9, and note 21).

Oscar White Muscarella - Again Gordion’s Early Phrygian Destruction Date: ca. 700 +/- B.C.
and for tumulus W makes another throwaway assertion of a
Numerous other artifacts recovered in the DL have
date: “bestimmte Fundstücke belegen ein Datum im späten
yet to be published, and thus remain to be analyzed for
9. Jh. V. Chr.”, but which Fundstücke are not shared with
contributions to the chronological issues (Maya Vassileva is
us. Wittke (2004: 257, note 361; 258, 268) dates tumulus
presently engaged in publishing the metal remains).
W to 850 BC, and KIII to the irst half of the 9th century B.C.
Crielaard (2007: 223) dates W to ca. 850 B. C. “on the basis
of recent radiocarbon dating,” which in fact does not exist CLAY FOUNDATION DEPOSIT
for this tomb (although he may have meant the recent DL
Another locus at Gordion for the ibulae remains to
carbon dating). All these chronologies follow manifestly
be evaluated, one that reinforces the Old Chronology. Only
from the authors’ acceptance of the New Chronology—for
recently did I become aware that there are more ibulae
not one provides detailed artifact analyses. Tumulus W is
available for chronological discussions than I had hitherto
indeed the earliest, in my opinion dated ca. 750 +/- B.C.
realized, that for some inexplicable reason I had missed. I
(Muscarella 1982: 8, idem 1995: 97, and idem 2003: 229;
argue that these ibulae must be brought into the discussion
also Kohler 1995:191-2).
about the date of the DL, and that they reinforce my original
Post 2001 the Gordion Team also supports a 9th century artifact analyses and dating.
B. C. date for tumulus W (verbal communications) primarily
Mary Voigt’s excavations (Voigt and Henrickson 2000:
because of the presence therein of XII, 7A ibulae, which to
52) produced a signiicant fundamental adjustment in our
them are chronologically paralleled by their presence in the
knowledge and understanding of the nature of the cultural and
DL—and therefore 9th century B. C. If this is the case, then
chronological sequence at Gordion following the destruction.
KIII, KIV, and G are also to be dated to the 9th century. But
She determined that the citadel was resettled above the DL,
what of the other later DL ibula forms, Types XII, 7, 9, and
not 150 years later (as posited by Rodney Young), but quite
14, all of which occur in other tumuli, especially MM, which
soon after, “with little or no gap” (Muscarella 2003: 227-8).
tumulus all the involved scholars date more or less to ca. 740
In DeVries et al 2003: 2 (for which Voigt was a co-author)
B.C.? 
the rebuilding time was modiied to “a generation after the
For a discussion of the chronological relationship destruction.” Later, however, Voigt (2005: 32) reinforced her
of the Gordion tumuli based on artifact analyses, the original conclusion (ignoring her 2003 position), claiming
comparisons among them, and conclusions that they were that the reconstruction “began immediately” after the EP
not constructed far apart in time one another within the 2nd destruction.
half of the 8th century B.C., see Muscarella 1982: 8, idem
If this stratigraphical/chronological adjustment holds
1989: 337-342, and idem 2003: 229-30. Whether these
up it seems the labor-intensive and well-planned rebuilding
conclusions are correct or not, the analyses were based on
process began soon after the destruction of the EP citadel,
an analysis of the inds and not on a preconceived date for
although whether within a year, or a few years, or a decade
the DL. Strobel (2004: 276-7) disagrees with this chronology,
(more or less) remains unknown. This well-organized
but without meaningful discussion of the parallels brought
rebuilding was accomplished irst by leveling the DL debris
forth. In the inal analysis, scholars will have to decide
and some walls, then covering most of the DL with a massive
which chronological interpretation in fact “drehen sich
clay deposit two meters thick, within which were set the stone
immer wieder im Kreise.” The vital point that I repeat here
 Prof. Dr. Aykut Çınaroğlu’na Armağan
rubble foundations for the structures forming the settlement
that was built directly on top of the clay (see Voigt 1994:
273, pls. 25.5, 6.2; 2005: 33, ig. 3-7A, B). Closely copying
the plan of the EP citadel—which is another indication that
rebuilding occurred soon after the destruction (Voigt 2005:
igs. 3-3, 3-4)--the post-clay settlement is designated Middle
Oscar White Muscarella - Again Gordion’s Early Phrygian Destruction Date: ca. 700 +/- B.C.
Phrygian.
It is worth considering here, at least parenthetically,
whether this massive clay deposition was solely an
engineering/architectural necessity, to cover the DL with a
thick foundation in order to rebuild securely the settlement
above. But one may legitimately wonder if the clay deposit
may also have been a ritual burial of the destroyed city of
King Midas (who committed suicide when the city was
destroyed!), or a burial in honor of the Phrygian/Gordion
Goddess Matar, a burial directly linked to the rebuilding--
on the same plan as the (sacred?) buried city below. There
is a tradition of the ritual burial of sacred structures in
Anatolia going back to the pre-pottery Neolithic period, as
neatly documented by Özdoğan and Özdoğan (1998: 589-
592; see also Schmidt 2001: 46). As the Özdoğans noted,
the leveling of buried structures and preservation of what
remains of walls are followed by a rebuilding “immediately
over the earlier structure” (for a deliberate covering deposit
at Nuzi see Bjorkman 1999: 106). That is, events precisely
as happened at Gordion. Bjorkman (1999) has cited later,
historical examples of ritual burials of sacred structures at
a number of Mesopotamian sites. A still later example of
such burial is that of Nush-i Jan, a 7th century temple site
 in Iran (Muscarella 1988: 207, 208, note 2). I suggest that
the possibility of ritual burial be considered as a viable
interpretation for Gordion’s transition from EP to MP—even
if it cannot be demonstrated as historical reality at present.
A number of artifacts were recovered from the clay
foundation a number of artifacts were recovered; the clay
was clean but not quite sterile (as claimed by Strobel 2004:
266-7). Some clay-derived artifacts clearly date from a much
earlier period (Dusinberre 2005: 10); I excavated there a
beautifully hand-cut, apparently Neolithic, obsidian blade
(not published). Other inds include Phrygian terracotta and
metal artifacts. Those of us digging at the site believed that
these artifacts had been lost or discarded, then accidentally
picked up in the buckets by Middle Phrygian workmen from
the clay/mud sources (that there were at least two sources
is revealed by deposits of different colors, orange and gray).
The Phrygians involved in the bucket brigade may also have
dropped some contemporary objects (ibulae?) accidentally.
Artifacts from the clay could also have derived from the DL
debris, displaced in the leveling process (on this see M. and
A. Özdoğan 1998: 589). A signiicant example was a broken
stone bearing an inscription recovered from one of the MP
structure foundations built into the clay (Muscarella 2003:
246). This stone most probably derived from the DL itself,
picked up along with many other available EP wall stones
that were obviously in full view and readily available to the
re-builders, or it may have come from an off-site source. In
either event, the stone’s placement in the foundations set in
the clay occurred (according to all scholars concerned) soon
after the destruction. And, as it was set into the foundations,
it predates the construction of the MP structures.
Among the ibulae recovered in the clay deposit were
one Type XII, 7, two XII, 9, three XII, 14 forms (Figure 1, for
one example: B 1304; hitherto unpublished). It is possible
that some of these are earlier than the DL, picked up in the
clay sources (see Caner 1982: 2, note 15 for this source
recognized in tumuli formation ill), but it is worth noting
that all have parallels with those deposited in the late 8th
century B. C. tumuli, MM, S-1, and Mamaderesi being the
outstanding examples. Types XII, 9 and 14 also occur in the
DL. And Types XII, 7 and 9 are also paralleled on reliefs
at Khorsabad and Ivriz, both of which document a late 8th
century B. C. loruit for these forms—the XII, 9 at Ivriz has a
double pin mechanism and lock-plate, exactly as found on
examples from tumulus MM (Muscarella 1982: 7-8; Caner
1983: 9, 173, 201, Taf, 62). Strobel (2004: 277, note 15)
casually (and unsuccessfully) dismisses the chronological
value of the Ivriz relief. Found in the MP South Cellar were
ibulae of Types XII, 13, 9, and 14, the latter two surely
relatively late forms, and paralleling those from tumulus S-1,
later than those from tumulus MM.12
12 DeVries 2005 includes a modern reconstruction of the South Cellar’s
stratigraphy (the section, Figure 4-2, was made in Philadelphia, not Gordion),
and it presents confusing dating and loci of the Greek pottery excavated
there. It is disturbing that DeVries made no mention in this article of his and
K. Sams’ claims made years earlier about the loci and associated problems
relating to the Greek sherds under discussion (as if for the irst time). For in
fact, in earlier publications, DeVries claimed that the pottery derived from
 ARROWHEADS 1963]. We found an Attic black igured sherd on the exposed
surface [which?] as well. Since the arrowhead was tucked
Another group of artifacts recovered in the clay include
between stones, it could be in situ but if it is a critical part
bronze socketed arrowheads (hitherto unpublished). When
of any argument, the possibility of it being dropped cannot
I recorded the corpus of socketed arrow heads excavated
be excluded.” Indeed, I accept this conclusion as objectively
from various geographical areas in the Near East (Derin and
viable. I also add that the arrow could have been dumped—
Muscarella 2001: 195, and Muscarella 2006: 156) I reported

that no such arrows “could be attributed to the destruction
level” at Gordion. Inexplicably, I was not then thinking of
reviewing the evidence from the clay --an extension of the
DL; that thought occurred to me later, hence the present
review.
One example (B1196; Figure 2, left) was recovered
by Rodney Young in “the clay and rubble wall beds of Bldg
M…. dug right down to the top of the burned ill overlying
Megaron 3….From the clay: 5769 B1175. Bronze wing with
fragments of gold foil [;] 5903 B1196: bronze arrow point.”
(R. S. Young Field Book, Vol. 78: 14). B1196 is a socketed
trilobate arrowhead. Another (7876 B1503; Figure 2, right)
was found below a white loor covering the clay: “.…work
continued digging clay. Beneath the white loor…was found
a well-preserved bronze arrowhead, c 4 cm long. 3 langed”
i. e. a trilobate. (R. S. Young Field Book, Vol. 114: 50-51).
There is a third example to be considered (89 SF# 16
Operation 11: a bilobate). This arrowhead was discovered
in 1989 by M. Voigt, who generously gave me the following
information (verbal 1992, and in recent email communication):
“The arrowhead from OP 11 came from a drain that is part
of the construction of YHSS 6B or (early) Phrygian…. The
stub [on which the arrow was recovered] is under a drain
that was built as part of YHSS 6A, the construction phase that
was mostly standing when the ire [DL] took place…. The
problem is that RSY dug down to the level of the PAP/6B and
then below it to the wall stub in 1963 and both lay exposed
till we cleared it in 1989….a lot of people went right across
that area for many years of excavation so you can’t exclude
the possibility that the arrowhead was dropped there [post
Oscar White Muscarella - Again Gordion’s Early Phrygian Destruction Date: ca. 700 +/- B.C.
along with the ibulae and the two arrowheads mentioned
above-- with the clay deposit. This arrowhead is best left in
abeyance—neither included nor excluded in the discussion.
I record it as evidence of a possible third example of a
nomadic arrowhead from the DL.
The interesting and most important fact about the
arrowheads found in the clay is this: not a single excavated
bronze socketed arrowhead is known from excavations
anywhere in the Near East that pre-dates the 7th century
B.C. Some surely may have been present since the very
late 8th century B.C., but up to the present none this early
has been identiied. This chronological situation has been
fully documented by Derin and Muscarella 2001: 197,
passim, and Muscarella 2006: 157-8. Thus, the arrowheads
in the clay deposit manifestly document a post-late 8th
century B. C. date for the DL. Indeed, socketed arrowheads
traditionally have been culturally associated with intrusive
nomadic peoples (irst recorded in the late 8th century B.C.—
the earliest date is 715 B.C., for the Cimmerians) but they
were soon thereafter employed by other cultures (Derin
and Muscarella 2001:197-203; Muscarella 2006: 157-8).
However, their presence at Gordion in a post- late 8th century
B. C. clay deposit context surely suggests a Cimmerian
presence, as I and others have argued for some time, pace 
the Gordion Team’s rejection (Muscarella 2003: 247-249;
Muscarella 2005/2006: 395. For possible Cimmerian
presence at Norşuntepe and Boğazköy, both because of
artifacts recovered including socketed arrowheads, And in
northern geographical locations, see Derin and Muscarella
2001: 199-200; for a probable nomadic burial at Gordion in
tumulus KY, where two horses were buried, but no arrows (or
Phrygian ibulae!) were recovered, see page 195).

pre-destruction contexts “although none is from a stratigraphically instructive Fibulae do not lie (ib); to this (growing) list of truth
context,” and Sams claimed that the fragments had been recovered “scattered speakers we now add bronze socketed arrowheads. Both
and dislocated” within the city and elsewhere! I discussed these issues
in Muscarella 2003:241-3, with references. It is not cited by DeVries. For occur within the clay deposit/platform overlying the
chronological problems at Boğazköy regarding imported Greek pottery, see DL, constructed soon after the destruction and almost
Muscarella 2005/2006: 394. I suggest that we have not heard the last about
the South Cellar stratigraphy or of the loci of the Greek sherds. simultaneously with the erection of the MP settlement. Both
 Prof. Dr. Aykut Çınaroğlu’na Armağan
the ibulae and the arrowheads date the DL to ca. 700 +/-
B.C., a time just preceding the beginning of the MP period.
The New Chronology decreed for the DL must therefore be
rejected because: the C-14 data have been accepted ad hoc
without conirmation from a second laboratory’s analysis
and discussion of statistics, (see also above); the offered
Oscar White Muscarella - Again Gordion’s Early Phrygian Destruction Date: ca. 700 +/- B.C.
dendrochronological conclusions and their interpretations
0
are lawed; and archaeological analysis of the artifacts
preserved in the DL and the clay do not support the New
Chronology, they contravene it. Fibulae may indeed be
cited as an axiomatisches Argument, they most certainly are
one of archaeology’s best chronological indicators, a classic
Leitfossil, as are socketed arrowheads. Such realia cannot
casually be ignored or manipulated.


Oscar White Muscarella - Again Gordion’s Early Phrygian Destruction Date: ca. 700 +/- B.C.
 Prof. Dr. Aykut Çınaroğlu’na Armağan
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
J. Bjorkman 1999: “How to Bury a Temple….,” in Studies in
Oscar White Muscarella - Again Gordion’s Early Phrygian Destruction Date: ca. 700 +/- B.C.
the Civilizations of Nuzi and the
Hurrians, vol. 10, ed. D. I. Owen and G. Wilhelm: 103-
122.
E. Caner 1983: Fibeln in Anatolia, München.
J. P. Crielaard 2007: review of Wittke 2004, in Bibliotheca
Orientalis LXIV, 1/2: 220-226.
Z. Derin and O. White Muscarella 2001: “Iron and Bronze
Arrows,” in A. Çilingiroğlu and M.
Salvini, Ayanis 1, Istituto per gli Studi Micenei ed Egeo-
Anataolici, Rome
K. DeVries 2005: “Greek Pottery and Gordion Chronology,”
in Lisa Kealhofer ed., The
Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians Recent Work at
Gordion, Philadelphia: 37-55.
K. DeVries, P. Kuniholm, G. K. Sams, M. M. Voigt June 2003:
“New dates for Iron Age
Gordion,” Antiquity 77 (Internet: http://antiquity.acuk/
ProjGall/devries.html.
K. DeVries, G. K. Sams, M.M. Voigt 2005: “Gordion re-
dating,” in A. Çilingiroğlu and G.

Darbeyshire, eds., Anatolian Iron Ages 5: 45-6.
E. Dusisnberre 2005: Gordion Seals and Sealings, University
of Pennsylvania Museum.
H. Genz 2004: “Erste Ansätze zu einer Chronologie der
frühen Eisenzeit in Zentralanatolien,” in
Die Aussenwirkung des späthethitischen Kulturraumes, M.
Novák et al, eds. Ugarit-Verlag: 219-228.
P. James 1991: Centuries of Darkness, London.
-----------2002, “The Dendrochronological Debate,” Minerva
XIII, 4: 18.
D. J. Keenan 2004: Radiocarbon Dates from Iron Age
Gordion are Confounded,” Ancient West and East, 31
1: 100-103.
---------------: “Anatolian tree-ring studies are untrustworthy,”
Informath (Internet): 1-20
U. Kelp 2004: “Der Einluss des späthethitischen Kulturraumes
auf Orthostaten in Gordion,” in Die Aussenwirkung
des späthethitischen Kulturraumes, M. Novák et al,
eds. Ugarit-Verlag: 284-295.
E. Kohler 1995: The Lesser Phrygian Tumuli, Part I The
Inhumations, University Museum, The University of
Pennsylvania.
P. Kuniholm 1988: “Dendrochronology and radiocarbon
Dates for Gordion and Other Phrygian
Sites,“ SOURCE, Notes in the History of Art VII, 3/4: 5-8.
--------------- 2004: “Aegean Dendrochronology Project
December 2004 Progress Report,” Cornell University.
S. W. Manning, B. Kromer, P. Kuniholm, M. W. Newton 2001:
“Anatolian Tree Rings and a New Chronology for the
East Mediterranean Bronze-Ages,” Science 294: 2532-
2535.
S. W. Manning, C. Griggs, Maryanne Newton, Tomasz Wazny
2007: “Summary and Discussion of Procedures at the
Malcolm and Carolyn Weiner Laboratory for Aegean
and Near Eastern Dendrochronology, Cornell Tree-
Ring Laboratory,” Internet: www.arts.cornell.edu/
dendro/summary%20of%20procedures.pdf.
Mielke, Dirk Paul 2006: “Dendrochronologie und hethitische
Archäologie—einige kritische Anmerkungen, “
BYZANS 4: 77-94.
O. White Muscarella 1982: “‘King Midas’ Tumulus at
Gordion,” The Quarterly Review of Archaeology,
December: 7-10.
------------------------ 1989: “King Midas of Phrygia and the
Greeks,” in Anatolia and the Ancient Near East,
Studies in Honor of Tashin Öçgüç, K. Emre et al eds.,
Ankara: 333-344.
------------------------ 1995: “The Iron Age Background to
the Formation of the Phrygian State,” Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 229/300: 91-
101.
------------------------ 2003: “The Date of the Destruction of the
early Phrygian Period at Gordion,” Ancient West and
East 2/2: 225-252.
------------------------ 2005/6: review of H. Genz, Boğazköy-
Hattuşa XXI: Büyüykaya I. Die Keramik der Eisenzeit….,
in Archiv für Orientforschung 51: 393-396.
------------------------ 2006: “Bronze Socketed Arrowheads and
Ethnic Attribution,” in The Golden deer of Eurasia, J.
Aruz, et al, eds. Metropolitan Museum of Art: 154-
159.
M. and A. Özdoğan 1998: “Buildings and the Cult of
Buildings,” in Light on Top of the Black Hill, Studies
presented to Halet Çambel, Istanbul: 581-593.
R. Porter 2005, “Carbon Dating, The Situation in 2005, ”
Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum: 63- 66.
F. Prayon 2004: “Zum Problem von Kultsräten und Kultbildern
der Anatolische Muttergöttin in 8.Jh. V. Chr.,” in
Anadolu’da Doğu, H. Işkan and G. Işın eds., Istanbul
2004: 611-618.
F. Prayon and A. M. Wittke 2004: “Die Aussenwirkung
des späthethitischen Kulturraumes auf Zentral- und
Westanatolien und Zpperen,” in Die Aussenwirkung
des späthethitischen
Kulturraumes, M. Novák et al, eds. Ugarit-Verlag: 121-126.
K. Schmidt 2000: “Göbelki Tepe, Southeastern Turkey A
Preliminary Report on the 1995-1999
Excavations,” Paléorient 26: 45-54.
K. Strobel 2004: “Neue Fragen zur Chronologie Gordions
Oscar White Muscarella - Again Gordion’s Early Phrygian Destruction Date: ca. 700 +/- B.C.
und Anatoliens im 1. Jahrtausend v,
Chr.,” in Die Aussenwirkung des späthethitischen
Kulturraumes, M. Novák et al, eds. Ugarit-Verlag,
2004: 259-84.
G. Summers 2006: review of Dusinberre 2005 in Bryn Mawr
Classical Review, 03.27: 1-5 (Internet).
M. M. Voigt 1994: “Excavations at Gordion 1988-89,”
in Anatolian Iron Ages 3, A. Çilingiroğlu and D. H.
French eds., British Institute of Archaeology, Ankara:
265-293.
------------- 2005: “Old Problems and New Solutions, Recent
excavations at Gordion” in Lisa Kealhofer ed., The
Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians Recent Work
at Gordion, Philadelphia: 22-35.
M. Voigt and R. Henrickson 2000: “Formation of the Phrygian
State: the Early Iron Age at Gordion,” Anatolian Studies
50: 37-54.
Anne-Maria Wittke 2004: Mušker und Phryger, Wiesbaden.
B. Yildirim and M. H. Gates 2007: “Archaeology in Turkey:
2004-2005,” American Journal ofArchaeology 111:
+++