A Radiocarbon Date from the Wall Plaster of Enclosure D of Göbekli Tepe.

Full text

Editorial
Special Topic Contributions
Gebel and Fujii
  Introduction
Gebel
  CommodicationofWater
Fujii
DomesticationofRunoffSurfaceWater
Wilkinson
  EarlyHydraulicSystems
Garnkel
  SocialAspectsofWaterTechnology
Edwards
  EarlyAgricultureandDitchIrrigation
Galili and Rosen
SubmergedNeolithicSettlements,WaterMining
Nieuwenhuyse and Nilhamn
  WaterintheVillage
Coşkun, Benz, Erdal, Koruyucu, Deckers, Riehl, Siebert, Alt and Özkaya
  KörtikTepe
Klimscha
  EarlyWaterExploitation
Other Contributions
Dietrich and Schmidt
  ARadiocarbonDateGöbekliTepe
NEO-LITHICS2/10
The Newsletter of Southwest Asian Neolithic Research
Special Topic on The Domestication of Water

2Neo-Lithics 2/10
Content
Editorial2
Special Topic Contributions
Hans Georg K. Gebel and Sumio Fujii
  TheDomesticationofWater.AShortIntroduction      3
Hans Georg K. Gebel
  TheCommodicationofWater        4
Sumio Fujii
DomesticationofRunoffSurfaceWater:CurrentEvidence
  andNewPerspectivesfromtheJafrPastoralNeolithic 14
Tony J. Wilkinson
  TheDomesticationofWater:EarlyHydraulicSystems     33
Yosef Garnkel
  SocialAspectsofWaterTechnologyintheProtohistoricNearEast    39
Phillip C. Edwards
  EarlyAgricultureandDitchIrrigation       43
Ehud Galili and Baruch Rosen
SubmergedNeolithicSettlementsoftheMediterraneanCarmelCoast   
  andWaterMiningintheSouthernLevant       47
Olivier Niewenhuyse and Bonnie Nilham
  WaterintheVillage         53
Marion Benz
  LivingbytheWater–BoonandBaneforthePeopleofKörtikTepe    60
Florian Klimscha
  EarlyWaterExploitationanditsPost-NeolithicAftermath     72
Other Contribution
Oliver Dietrich and Klaus Schmidt
  ARadiocarbonDatefromtheWallPlasterofEnclosureDofGöbekliTepe   82
Masthead 84
Editorial
How rapid Neolithic research proceeds. Two trends can be observed in recent times: A struggle for new interpretative
frameworks generating new topics (or old topics in new perspectives), and booming studies contributed by freshly
applied technologies of science (all sorts of isotope analysis, for instance) or new interpretations from disciplines
previously rarely involved in Neolithic research (e.g. evolutionary biology). In the good old times, all new questions
and research generated by specialist studies and new frameworks were ltered, tested and coordinated with the
project’s archaeological, bio- and geoarchaeological results. Is this still the case these times? Only partially, and
not to the same extent. There seems to be a tendency for some “isolated” if not “separatistic” Neolithic specialist
research, also resulting from a lack of (alerted) competency by prehistoric research to understand, evaluate and
integrate these results properly. In particular, information produced by the new „auxiliary“ disciplines (as we tend
to understand them) and new interpretative frameworks often remain neglected, or their use is delayed, because
we traditional researchers of the Neolithic have little capacity and awareness to understand their new potentials,
restrictions, terminologies, etc., and thus are not real research partners except on a very general level. However,
we feel that much of our understanding has already or will become outdated and should be reconsidered by these
new approaches. Often the new results or new directions of research render our beloved traditions and stereotypical
understanding obsolete, or at least do question them, and a psychological barrier arises that hinders cooperation and
adoption of their utility and explanatory power.
Where will this all lead? Certainly, the “cacophony index” of our research will rise, and there will be pressure to
unite in circles to apply and promote certain interpretations, and the number of different research frameworks will
increase. How good or bad is this diversity for our research?
This special topic issue of Neo-Lithics is much delayed. We apologize to the guest editor of this issue, Sumio Fujii,
for tardy publishing. The domestication-of-water concept received an immense momentum by Sumio’s outstanding
results from his work near Ma‘an, leading us to extend our invitation to him to coordinate a Neo-Lithics special
issue on water domestication. The original concept to have keynotes on water domestication that we discussed with
him failed for various reasons, thus this issue has to be understood as a sampler on the topic. We warmly thank
Sumio Fujii for all his steady, patient and friendly efforts to have Neo-Lithics 2/10 materialize.
Hans Georg K. Gebel & Gary Rollefon

Other contribution
Neo-Lithics 2/10
82 The Domestication of Water
The PPN settlement of Göbekli Tepe in southeastern
Turkey has delivered the oldest examples of religious
monumental architecture known so far. The archaeo-
logical dating of the sites´ two main layers is quite
clear. The oldest Layer III, which contains the well-
known circular enclosures formed by T-shaped pillars
gathered around a pair of bigger central pillars can be
dated to the PPNA through lithic nds comprising pro-
jectile points mainly of the Nemrik and Helwan types.
The superimposing Layer II with its smaller, rectan-
gular rooms often containing only two, considerably
smaller central pillars, or none at all, is characterised
especially by Byblos and a few Nevalı Çori type pro-
jectile points dating to the early and middle PPNB. Late
PPNB nds are absent from Göbekli Tepe. Concerning
the momentary state of the radiocarbon chronology for
the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, one would expect a duration
of 9600–8800 calBC for the PPNA complexes of Layer
III and 8800–8200 calBC for the EPPNB / MPPNB
activities in Layer II, respectively.
But, as a recent review of the data available shows,
a bigger part of them is biased by methodological prob-
lems, although quite different sampling strategies were
applied (Dietrich, in press). A bigger series of data was
obtained from pedogenic carbonates on architectural
structures (Pustovoytov, Schmidt and Parzinger 2007).
Unfortunately they are of no use in dating the sampled
structures themselves, as the carbonate layers started
forming only after the moment of their burial. At least
these samples offer a good terminus ante quem for the
relling of the enclosures. For layer III this terminus
ante quem lies in the second half of the 9th millennium
calBC, while for layer II it is located in the middle of
the 8th millennium calBC.
A recently obtained series of data from bones dis-
covered in the lling and layers is at least partially bi-
ased by methodological problems (Dietrich, in press).
At least within the group of samples chosen, collagen
conservation is poor and isotopic exchange processes
with carbon rich surface and ground waters may have
cause alterations in the carbonate contents of bones that
lead to problems with the dating of apatite fractions.
The best dates available so far for Göbekli Tepe
stem from charcoal samples of short-lived plants. Two
dates for Enclosure A settle in the late 10th and early
9th millennium calBC (Kromer and Schmidt 1998), but
they could also indicate the use of older ll material.
The last intrusions in the big enclosures can be dated by
a charcoal sample found under a fallen pillar fragment
in Enclosure A to the middle of the 9th millennium (Di-
etrich, in press).
As charcoal seems to be the sample material of
choice at Göbekli, an attempt to date the big Enclo-
sures of layer III directly was made by sampling the
wall plaster of Enclosure D (Area L9-68, Loc. 782.3,
29.10.2010). This plaster is formed of loam, which
fortunately contains also small amounts of charcoal. At
the 14C laboratory Kiel a sample big enough for an
A Radiocarbon Date from the Wall Plaster
of Enclosure D of Göbekli Tepe
Oliver Dietrich German Archaeological Institute odi@orient.dainst.de
Klaus Schmidt German Archaeological Institute kls@orient.dainst.de
Fig. 1 Calibrated Radiocarbon
Age using OxCal 4.1 (Datensatz
IntCal09); two Sigma Range:
9675 (93,9%) 9314 calBC

Other contribution
Neo-Lithics 2/10 83
The Domestication of Water
AMS dating could be obtained from the plaster.
The result reads as follows (Fig. 1):
Radiocarbon Age (KIA-44149): 9984
+/- 42 BP, δ13C -26,31+/-0,57.
Calibrated Radiocarbon Age using OxCal
4.1 (Datensatz IntCal09); two Sigma Range:
9675 (93,9%) 9314 calBC
With this date there is for the rst time undisputable
evidence for the absolute construction time of the big
enclosures in the early PPNA. Also the date seems to
be proof to the observation that Enclosure D is older
than Enclosure A. In addition, a succesful sampling
strategy for Göbekli Tepe has been lined out, which
will be pursued further in the future.
References
Dietrich O.
in press Radiocarbon dating the rst temples of mankind.
Com ments on 14C-Dates from Göbekli Tepe.
Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 4.
Kromer B. and Schmidt K.
1998 Two radiocarbon dates f rom Göbekli Tepe, South
Eastern Turkey. Neo-Lithics 3/1998: 8-9.
Pustovoytov K., Schmidt K., and Parzinger H.
2007 Radiocarbon dating of thin pedogenic carbonate
laminae from Holocene archaeological sites. The
Holocene 17, 6: 835-843.