Dating the Abandonment of a Hill Capital
A candidate is asked to date the abandonment of a dry-zone hill capital. Source A is a chronicle compiled about 200 years later: 'In the year of the great drought, the king abandoned the city and went to the coast.' Source B is a coin hoard from a house floor: the latest coin is dated 1214. Source C is a second hoard from a gateway: the latest coin is 1228. Source D is a radiocarbon date from a burned roof beam: 1210 plus or minus 30 years, with a calibrated range of 1190 to 1240. Source E is a Portuguese fort record of 1540 calling the site 'long ruined'. The candidate must choose a most likely abandonment window and judge the chronicle's drought explanation. No source gives a precise day; the coin dates are issue dates, and coins can circulate for decades.
1. What is the most defensible abandonment window, and how do B, C and D constrain it?
Read the worked answer
B and C are coin hoards: the latest coin gives a terminus post quem for the deposit, not a precise abandonment date, because coins circulate. If C is securely from the gateway floor and its latest coin is 1228, the site was still in use around or after 1228. D, a burned roof beam dated 1210 plus or minus 30 (calibrated 1190 to 1240), shows a destruction episode in that range, but it could belong to an earlier building phase. E shows the site was long ruined by 1540. Judgement: abandonment most likely falls after about 1228 and well before 1540; a date in the 1230s to 1300s is defensible. The evidence does not fix a year.
2. How reliable is the chronicle's drought explanation for the abandonment?
Read the worked answer
It is weak as a causal explanation. The chronicle was compiled about 200 years later, gives no exact year, and uses a familiar literary formula: a great drought explains a royal move. Droughts are common in the dry zone, so the story is plausible, but plausibility is not proof. To test it, one would need independent climate evidence such as lake cores or tree rings, inscriptions about water works, or grain price records. The chronicle is useful for how later people remembered the event, not for establishing the cause on its own.
3. Which source is least useful for precise dating, and why?
Read the worked answer
The Portuguese record of 1540 is least useful for precise dating. It only says the site was 'long ruined', which gives a broad terminus ante quem: abandonment happened before 1540, but not when. Its purpose is a fort report, not local chronology, and 'long' is vague. It is still useful as a check that the site was abandoned by the sixteenth century. The chronicle is also vague, but it at least places the event in a named reign or drought year; the coin hoards and radiocarbon date give tighter constraints.