Aegean Catchment (E Greece, S Balkans and W Turkey)
chronological chart: 9th - 6th millennia cal BC


 Data compiled by Laurens THISSEN
Last updated: 21/02/2006

                                  A4 format      A3 format


This chart is based on the CANeW Aegean Catchment 14C databases


Overview Upper Mesopotamia chronological chart                        Full size Upper Mesopotamia chronological chart
Overview                                                        Full size

Comments to the Aegean Catchment 14C chart

All calibrated data quoted at 1sigma. Calibration curve used is IntCal04 (Reimer et al. 2004). Calibration program used OxCal v3.10 (Bronk Ramsey 1995, 2001, 2005).


Theopetra: The five groups A–E merely represent mutually exclusive age clusters and do not reflect a proper stratigraphic sequence, which is not available yet. Cluster A dates DEM–142 and DEM–207 are left out because of too large an error. The acquired 'radiocarbon sequence' splits into summed clusters A: 8750–8290; B: 7650–7520; C: 7080–6690; D: 6370–6240; and E: 5980–5550 cal BC. Within larger cluster A–C a few dates bridging the individual clusters might possibly reflect continued use of the cave, e.g., dates DEM–589 and DEM–125 for transition A–B, and RTA–3524 for transition B–C. Radiocarbon discontinuity of c. 300 and c. 250 calendar years exists between C–D and D–E resp., and there is no overflow of data in between. Not indicated on the chart the Middle and Late Upper Palaeolithic use of the cave as reflected in the radiocarbon dates, nor the Late Neolithic and later occupation.

Cyclops Cave-Youra: Four groups A–D representing mutually exclusive age clusters, do not necessarily represent the stratigraphy, although compatibility is fairly good (see below). Likewise, final site assessment will modify the picture set out here. The 'radiocarbon sequence' splits into the following summed clusters:
•  Cluster A: C-West layers 14–12 + C-East layers 23, 14: 8570–8350 cal BC (where only DEM–523 would not fit stratigraphically);
•  cluster B: C-West layers 11, 9 + C-East layers 20, 14 (not summed due to reservoir effect): 8080–7700 cal BC, the whole cluster nicely overlying cluster A;
•  cluster C: C-West layers 11–9 + C-East layers 20–14 (not summed due to reservoir effect): 7600–6990 cal BC. Note that here is a stratigraphical overlap with cluster B, while there exists a consistent co-occurrence in the same layer of cluster B and cluster C dates, where in three cases the difference resides in the sample material being either Helix (cluster B dates) or Patella (cluster C dates);
•  cluster D range: C-West layers 8–6 (not in C-East): 6590–5840 cal BC.
Not indicated on the chart the Late Neolithic and later radiocarbon evidence.

Franchthi Cave: Data assigned to lithics phases P.VI–VII (n=3), P.VII (n=7), and P.VII–VIII (n=1) overlap fully and sum at 8640–8290 cal BC (not used is combined date P–1518+P-1518A which seems rather too young and better fitting a lithic phase P.VIII context). Date P–1665 (P.VIII) is too old for the general tendency of the P.VIII dates. The remaining P.VIII dates (n=6) sum at 8200–7500 cal BC, the gap of 90 calendar years between the earlier cluster and P.VIII being one of statistical nature only. For the ensuing period, date P–1398 (P.VIII–IX) is too old, and rather fits the P.VII dates. A major 14C-gap exists between lithic phases P.VIII and P.IX that is bridged by a single date P–1536 only. The later P.IX date (P–1526), the P.IX–X date (P–2095), the three Int 0/1 dates (P–2094, P–1527, P–1392), as well as the earlier FCP 1 date (P–1525) form a rather homogeneous date cluster summing at 7050–6640 cal BC. Another major radiocarbon gap delineates itself between this cluster and the remaining dates from FCP1–3 (n=8), where only FCP 1 date P–1667 and FCP 2.2 date P–1399 seem to bridge this gap. Given the anomalous nature of both samples' dates in view of context and general tendency, a major stage of disuse of the cave in the interval 6600–5800 cal BC must be reckoned with, simultaneously not totally excluding human presence during that timespan.
Not indicated on the chart the data reflecting use of the cave during the Palaeolithic and the late Neolithic periods.

Maroulas: The two Mesolithic dates possibly on molluscs (DEM–?? and DEM–?) are not summed due to the reservoir effect, but if their younger ranges are accepted (see database) then they fall within the range suggested by the two other, roughly contemporary dates from Heidelberg. The two dates on organic fractions, assigned to a 'Neolithic' phase, exclude each other. No pottery was associated with this deposit.

Knossos: The four dates from Phases X–IX include one combined date BM–124+BM–278. The large standard deviations make the Knossos sum range quite extensive. No pottery was associated with these deposits. Not indicated on the chart is the later occupation of Knossos, dating after 5500 cal BC.

Argissa: Sum is exclusive of the dates on bones (see database comments), and of the MN date. Given the full overlap of H–889–3080 (EN I or II) with EN I date H–896–3082, it most likely belongs to EN I as well. Also the two younger EN I dates are fully overlapping (H–694–3081 and GrN–4145). Forming two clusters, the sets are neatly exclusive of each other, but still summed together.

Franchthi Koilada Bay: Beta–15612 not used due to its large error. The two other Beta-dates are summed.

Sesklo: The “PPN” or “Preceramic” label has been subsumed under EN I. Periods EN I–III and MN have been summed separately.

Achilleion: Both subphases Ia and Ib (exclusive of the two dates from the test pit since a stratigraphic link to the main excavation area is not assessable), and IIa and IIb have been combined on the basis of a reinterpretation of the stratigraphy (cf. Thissen 2000, 144). Sum of Ia+Ib (six dates) would result in a range of 6390–6110 cal BC, but it is argued that three dates assigned to IIa are more likely to belong to Ia+Ib as well (LJ–3328, LJ–3186, LJ–3325). Summing these nine dates yields a range of 6360–6090 cal BC, an option adopted also on our chart. The sum of IIa+IIb (10 dates, exclusive of outlier LJ–3180) would give a result of 6230–6070 cal BC. However, if excluding the three data transferred to Ia+Ib, the new sum (seven dates) is 6230–6060 cal BC, which range is followed here. While there are grounds to combine subphases IIIa and IIIb to form one stratigraphic unit as well, no radiocarbon dates are available for IIIa. A total of 11 subphase IIIb dates sums at 6210–6140 cal BC (5.5%) and 6110–5880 cal BC (62.7%), where the later range is the more likely one. The 11 dates from subphase IVa sum at 5980–5770 cal BC.

Nea Nikomedeia: Not included in the sum is date Q–655 being too old, nor date GX-679 having too large an error. A total of 10 dates remains, several of which consist of combined dates (compare database).

Elateia: The triple-combined sample (see database) is not used in the sum since failing in a X2-test. GrN–2933 contradicts the sequence and has not been used either. The three remaining dates were summed.

Otzaki: Otzaki's cardium level is equivalent to what Milojcic has called the site's 'upper' EN level and is overlying 3m of earlier deposit, from which no radiocarbon dates are available. Also Otzaki's MN levels are devoid of 14C data, and the extension upwards in time on the chart is an educated guess only.  

Ulucak Höyük: Beta–188372 seems too old in relation to its two companion dates from Phase V, and is not used in assessing that phase's sum (6040–5920 cal BC), where the three Phase IVb2 dates sum at 5900–5730 cal BC. Several meters of deposit are below Phase V, and this has been indicated on the chart.

Hoca Çeşme: Summing the dataset ignores the dates with >200 error (GrN–19357 and GrN–19310). GrN–19356 is too young and may rather date the Karanovo III level also present on the site (Hoca Çesme Phase I), as indicated on the chart. Summing the remaining dates per phase yields the following result: Phase IV (four dates): 6510–6110; Phase III (three dates): 6100–6050 (12.1%), 5990–5840 cal BC (56.1%); Phase II (four dates): 5890–5720 cal BC. Phase's IV spread over four centuries is due to the fact that the three dates with acceptable errors are mutually exclusive of each other, making it difficult to pinpoint the timespan for that phase. Phase III's younger range is convincing since date Hd–16724–17186 seems too old when considered against the remaining two Phase III dates. If we sum the totality of dates (except the ones omitted already) we get a more balanced result for Phases IV–II. 6500–6400 (4.6%), 6250–6050 (11.5%), and 6000–5700 cal BC (52.0%). Ignoring the earliest range as possibly too old, we have put 6250–5700 cal BC as the most likely time span within which the site must have been occupied during Phases IV–II.

Galabnik: From Level I.1 to I.7 the dates get older instead of becoming younger. Four dates on charred grain from II.8 stem from the same context House 238 (Bln–4093, Bln–4091, Bln–4092, Bln–3576) but trying to combine them a X2-test fails at 5% due to the early date provided by Bln–4093. Despite this, the three later dates are consistent enough to provide a terminus post quem for the fire destruction of Level II.8, yielding a combined result of 5665–5615 (64.1%), and 5585–5570 cal BC (4.1%). Summing the totality of the dates (exclusive of GrN–19786) gives the unsatisfactory result of 6050–5840 (46.0%), 5720–5610 (21.1%) and 5590–5570 (1.2%), proving the discontinuous nature of the sample set.

Halai: Not taking into account dates with errors equal or larger than 200 and barring the three combined dates failing in a X2-test (see database), the remaining eight dates result in a wide range 6100–5500 cal BC, with both the EN and the MN period vaguely defined data-wise.

Anzabegovo: In interpreting the Anza dates, the following considerations have been taken into account. The dates from Anza Level II all derive from stratigraphically unsound deposits (the relevant trench VII overlying the burnt Level I deposit being described by Milojcic as an “Aufschüttungszone” [Milojcic 1978, 549]), where two dates (LJ–2337 and LJ–2351 overlap fully with Level I dates, and another date (LJ–2345) overlaps fully with level III dates (the latter assigned by one source to Level III, cf. database). Given this uncertainty, combined with the tight cultural correspondences in Anza Level II–III material culture, we have chosen to link Anza II rather to III in time as well, and use the Level III sum to represent Level II as well on our chart. Sum of Levels Ia+Ib (nine dates) is 6210–5900 cal BC, but most of the distribution (66.3%) is taken up by the 6110–5900 cal BC range, adopted on the chart. The sum of Level III (four dates) is 5660–5380 cal BC, but most of the distribution (59.6%) is covered by 5660–5460 cal BC, adopted here. Later occupation at Anza, covered by Level IVb radiocarbon dates, is not represented on the chart.

Vršnik: No dates are available from Vršnik Phase I, but on the basis of material culture it is parallel to Anza I. From Phase IV radiocarbon dates are lacking also.

Kovacevo: The two Ia and Ia–Ib dates are mutually exclusive, where the latter rather to belong to Ib; the three Ib dates and the two Id–II each cluster nicely.

Platia Magoula Zarkou: The extension of the age range towards 6000 cal BC is an interpretation of statements by Giorgios Toufexis (cf. database comments).

Cavdar: The total sum of 18 dates (several of which consist of combined dates) yields a range of 6070–5660 cal BC, but there are several difficulties. The Level VI dates group into four mutually exclusive clusters, where five dates (Bln–1663, Bln–1582, Bln–1579, Bln–1581 and Bln–1578) are the most consistent ones and sum at 5990–5840 cal BC, and the three earlier ones seem to suggest 'old wood' (summing at 6210–6000 cal BC), and the two later ones to be intrusive from later levels. Also the two Level V dates are mutually exclusive, the earlier one seemingly too early, the younger too young, and would better fit if swapped with the one valid Level IV date (Bln–1241+Bln–1241A). Also Level III has two sets of dates exclusive of one another. Instead of using the sum span on the chart, we therefore prefer to take 5990-5530 cal BC as an alternative age range (the latter limit suggested by the cal BC range of the Level II date (i.e. 5720–5550).

Servia-Varytimides: No comments.  

Elešnica: The two early (Bln–3238 and Bln–3239) and the one late date (Bln–3237) from House 2 are mutually exclusive. A nearly similar pattern exists for the House 1 dates, albeit with a 30 year overlap between the older and younger dates, making the ending of the site in either the 59th, 58th or 57th C cal BC equally feasible.

Slatina: All samples stem from a single, burnt house in Level IV. Combining the five samples on charred seeds, assuming them to stem from a single event, yields a range of 5780–5725 cal BC, although with poor agreement of 47.1% due to Bln–3442. It should be noted that the remaining samples, from the same general context but on charcoal from building material (wall posts and floor elements), combine into a slightly later age range 5750–5715 cal BC, where one would expect both clusters to be reversed in time.

Okražna Bolnica: Apart from Bln–1587 which seems too old, all dates correlate well, with a strong presence in the 57th C.

Karanovo: Summing the totality of the Karanovo I–II dates (n=16, one of which is a triple-combined date) gives a two-sectioned range of 6050–5910 cal BC (15.0%), and 5790–5560 cal BC (53.2%). Bln–4177 and Bln–4179 (Level I.2 and I.3 resp.) are responsible for the early section in the sum range, but contradict the general tendency of the dates and sequence; equally responsible are dates Bln–4339 and Bln–4336 from Level I.1 which are possibly too old as well. We have used only the younger range. The later occupation (Karanovo III–VII) has not been indicated on the chart.

Tell Azmak: The sum range is exclusive of the two oldest dates Bln–293 and Bln–291, which seem too old and are mutually exclusive with the remaining dates. Not indicated on the chart the later occupation of Azmak as reflected in the radiocarbon dates.

Chaironeia: No summing could be done since we lack the BP dates. The Level III date contradicts the sequence.

Agios Petros: No comments.

Aşağı Pınar: Given the same provenance of the three dates from Level 6, House APA, these can be combined, but a X2-test fails at 5%, due to Bln–4992 being mutually exclusive with the other two dates. The later occupation (Levels 5–3) is not indicated on the chart.

Servia: Dates have been summed except of BM–1885R having an error >200. Dates are consistent, where the LN date is partially overlapping with MN, suggesting continuity between the two stages.

Kremenik: No radiocarbon dates are available for Kremenik Level I.

Dobrinišce: No comments.

References