The CANEW Project

Central Anatolia and Cilicia 14C databases: 9th - 5th millennia cal BC

Data compiled by Laurens THISSEN, with the collaboration of Craig Cessford & Maryanne Newton
Last updated: 16/03/2007

Preliminary note
The order of sites is alphabetic, while dates are presented, wherever possible, according to the stratigraphic sequence, with earliest levels first. Dates within stratigraphic units ('phases', 'levels' or 'layers') are presented with earliest dates first, based on the calibrated age at 1sigma. The abbreviation 'nd' stands for 'no data available'. 14C data are calibrated with OxCal v3.10 (Bronk Ramsey 1995, 2001, 2005), using the most recent calibration curve IntCal04 (Reimer et al. 2004). Many people have helped in providing us, the CANeW team, with 14C dates, often fresh from the lab and still unpublished. It is a pleasure to thank Maryanne Newton and Peter Ian Kuniholm (dendrodates from Canhasan I, Çatalhöyük East and Köşk Höyük), Craig Cessford (Çatalhöyük East dates), Sevil Gülçür (Güvercinkayası dates), Mihriban Özbaşaran (Musular dates), and Isabella Caneva (Mersin dates). Any responsibility for the data presentation and interpretation remains, of course, with the author.

Within the Central Anatolia area, the present file tabulates absolute dates from two geographical units, plus Cilicia: I. Konya Plain and Beysehir-Sugla region; II. Cappadocia; III. Cilicia.
These 14C data are interpreted and presented in the CANeW Central Anatolia and Cilicia chart.

I. Konya Plain and Beyşehir-Suğla region

Comment CANHASAN I
Radiocarbon dates from the earlier Canhasan I levels 7-3 are not known. Also the Middle Chalcolithic occupation (Canhasan Layer 1) has no dates, although P-793 may fit that stage and may be an intrusion in Layer 2B. The dendro dates from tree 2 link up to at least P-794 with similar provenance, the charcoal of which, in the optimal scenario, might stem from the same tree. BM-153 might certainly be considered as 'old wood' too.

Comment CANHASAN III
The BM-R nos. represent a re-evaluation of the original analyses carried out by the BM Lab published in Radiocarbon (Burleigh et al. 1982, 286). According to the note of David French, 'the samples are listed in stratigraphic order as excavated' (l.c.). This order is reversed here, so that the lowest samples are put first in the list. Details on the Hacettepe University (HU) samples are not available.

Comment ÇATALHÖYÜK EAST
The charcoal specifications for the Mellaart dates are taken from Newton 1996, 60. Sample P-1363, although collected from Level VIA, involves reused wood allegedly from Level VII (Breunig 1987, 60), and should therefore probably date Level VII. Sample P-781 is attributed to Level VIB by Stuckenrath and Ralph 1965, 192, in contrast to Level VIA preferred by Mellaart (1975, 285). We follow the Radiocarbon indication. Sample P-778, though collected from Level VII, is suggested by Mellaart to belong to Level VIA instead (Mellaart 1975, 285). Level VII not having burnt, Mellaart's proposal is followed here.
The samples from the Hodder excavation in the North Area 'relate to the earliest phases of Building 1' (Cessford 1998). Building 1 is put roughly contemporary to Mellaart Levels V or VI on the basis of the artifacts. The 14C data, however, are comparable to Mellaart Levels VII or VIII, which might imply that the kind of pottery characteristic for Levels VI/V was in use already earlier.
The determinations from the North Area with reference (8) and an analysis of them will be published in a forthcoming Catalhoyuk Project monograph (Cessford forthcoming). The most reliable dating is provided by those from an in situ storage context of lentils (contexts 1332/1344) and the human skeletons. These determinations correspond most closely to Levels VIII or VII in the South Area, but statistically there is a possible overlap with other levels. The pottery etc. suggests that Building 1 corresponds to Level VI. Given that levels are no longer considered to represent single absolutely contemporary site-wide events, the discrepancy of one or two levels is probably not significant (Craig Cessford, pers. comm., August 8, 2003).
The series of ten samples taken by Maryanne Newton and Peter Ian Kuniholm from Cornell University, stems from the longest-lived Çatal sample, CTL-1, from which charred wood was earlier submitted for analysis by James Mellaart (Sample P-775) (cf. Newton 1996, 80; Newton and Kuniholm 1999).

No comment.

Comment PINARBAŞI SITE A
Pınarbaşı A is an open air site. ABU is the lowest level reached so far, underlying stratum ABR. Fine soil stratum ABJ overlies ABR (Watkins 1996, 52).

Comment PINARBAŞI SITE B
Pınarbaşı B is a rock shelter. Both deposits BBA and BAT represent 'deliberate fill within the area enclosed by the curving wall; BBA is stratigraphically below BAT' (Watkins 1996, 52). BAI is immediately below surface; its date OxA-5502 has not been included in the 14C chart.

Comment SUBERDE
The Level III (basal) deposit is close to virgin soil; Level III ('middle') is a featureless light-brown layer; Level III (top) is stratified above this and contains mud-brick architecture. This latter deposit was partly preserved by a fire (Bordaz 1969, 46). Large error of P-1387 is 'due to low-pressure counting of small sample' (Stuckenrath and Lawn 1969, 154). In the same reference, the 'Level II' indication should read 'Level III'. It is from the upper part of Level III, in area 8, that five sherds of 'extremely coarse ceramic' were found, comparable to twelve other fragments from mixed deposits. No ceramics were found in overlaying Level II (Bordaz 1969, 51f.), the efforts at pottery making apparently being abandoned.

II. Cappadocia

Comment AŞIKLI HÖYÜK
The Todd dates (P-nos.) date the (as yet unexcavated) burnt phase, and are presently the earliest absolute dates known for Aşıklı. The Kuniholm date confirms this set of data. Since this burnt phase is 'well above the stratum of flood deposit' (Esin and Harmankaya 1999, 118), attested on the banks of the Melendiz River covering an earlier settlement, the ancestry of Aşıklı must extend well beyond this date cluster.
The stratigraphic indices may differ from those cited in Esin 1995 and 1998. Those for the deepsounding in grid squares 4G-H are based on the recent stratigraphic overview in Esin and Harmankaya 1999, 120-123, Figs. 9-11. All remaining dates are assigned to the general phase cluster 2C-A. They originate from the wide area exposure on the summit of the mound, which is limited to 2C-A (cf. Esin and Harmankaya 1999, 123). Due to work in progress on Aşıklı, individual phase attributions might well change from those presented here.

Comment GÜVERCINKAYASI
Dates are simply ordered from old to young, as information concerning to the stratigraphic order of the samples is unavailable.

No comment.

Comment MUSULAR
GrN–25461 and GrN–25611 are from a deeper level than GrN–24918 from the same trench (pers. comm. Mihriban Özbaşaran). The deposit from which sample GrN–27155 was taken is associated with a stone building that is related to Musular's public building A. GrN–27157 is underlying GrN–27156 (M. Özbaşaran, p.c., 9 February 2004). The Pottery Phase date KIA–30923 is based upon a very small sample size, and maybe to be used as a terminus ante quem only (Utz Böhner, pers. comm., March 2, 2007). CANeW would like to thank Mihriban Özbaşaran and Utz Böhner for permission to publish the new Kiel dates.

III. Cilicia

Comment MERSIN
Apart from the W–617 date, all dates are coming from the new excavations carried out by Veli Sevin and Isabella Caneva. Note that Rubin and Alexander (1960, 183) give as provenance the mound's 'E face', where in fact it should be the west face. We are greatly indebted to Isabella Caneva for allowing us to publish here the most recently available Mersin dates. The level assignments are provisional, following as they do the old Garstang labelling. The period labels in brackets are Caneva's.

References