Thread by @jens2go

@PlutoPittbull Site chronology at Göbekli Tepe is not based on, but backed by 14C dates.

There are many other dating methods to set up a chronological frame in archaeology.

@PlutoPittbull Archaeological dating by stone tool typology compared to other known sites: Late PPN A-PPN B.

Cf. e.g. Kozlowski & Gebel (eds.) 1996:

exoriente.org/docs/00061.pdf

@PlutoPittbull Comparing other material culture (stone vessels, more stone objects like e.g. shaft straighteners and plaquettes etc.) and typical iconography in the region: PPN.

Dietrich et al. 2012 (with further literature): cambridge.org/core/services/…

@PlutoPittbull Comparing similar building traditions, constructions, and architecture at related sites in the wider region: PPN A - PPN B.

See e.g. Balbo et al. 2012 (with further literature): journals.plos.org/plosone/articl…

@PlutoPittbull Radiocarbon dates from organic material like charcoal (wall mortar, plaster) and animal bones / teeth (butchering remains in backfilling, less reliable though due to conservation conditions): mid-10th - mid-9th mill. BC.

Cf. dainst.blog/the-tepe-teleg… (with further literature).

@PlutoPittbull Dating pedogenic carbonate coatings on limestone architecture developing in course of soil formation after backfilling: late 9th - mid-8th and late 7th millennium BC.

See e.g. Pustovoytov, Neolithics 2(2), 2002; and Pustovoytov, Schmidt, Parzinger 2007: journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.117…

@PlutoPittbull Dating fossil humus-rich sediments by analysing extracted humic acid: PPN.

See Pustovoytov 2006: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.100…

@PlutoPittbull TL;DR: Archaeological site chronologies are not relying on a single method, but a variety of approaches independent from each others. We‘re well aware of the shortcomings of some of those - hence the cross-referencing.