^{Tell Qaramel and the area of excavation. Foto: R. Mazurowski©}.

Tell Qaramel, located on the Qoueiq River in northern Syria, is one of the rare sites which dates within the Younger Dryas and the early Holocene (Mazurowski et al. 2009). The stratigraphy was subdivided into four phases by the excavators (Horizon 0-4), Horizon 0 being the Epipalaeolithic layers and Horizon 4 the transition to the PPNB.

Although some of the dates are not consistent with the stratigraphy, they do roughly reflect the stratigraphic sequence. Phases 1 and 2 overlap for at least 350-500 years, but the dates of Phase 3 are clearly separated from Phase 2 (s. below).

The dates that are too old are probably aberrant because of old wood effects, especially those of Phase 3. The dates Gd 12638, Gd 15477, and Gd 3006 of Phase 2 and Gd 15502, Gd 12637, and Gd 467 of Phase 3 are definitely too young. They were also discarded by the excavator as aberrant.^[1]

The compilation of radiocarbon dates reveals that both the GdA-date (AMS) and the GdS-dates from liquid scintillation spectrometry (LSC) are later than the conventional Gd-dates.

In an international comparison of conventional Gd-dates (Pazdur et al. 2000:12), the Gd-dates proved too old in three of four cases (+10, +148, and +540 years). Only one Gd-date was too young (-985 years). In contrast to the conventional dates, in two of three cases in an international comparison the GdS-dates were younger (-75, -130 years), and only one older (+300 years) (Pazdur et al: 2000:12). ^[2]

In conclusion, the GdS-dates tend to be too young both in intrasite and international comparisons. For the conventional Gd-dates the opposite is true: they tend to be too old in both intralaboratory and international comparisons. A similar trend can be observed at the site of M’lefaat, where the AMS dates of Oxford are much younger than the Gd-dates (Kozlowski 1994:262f.).

In order to interpret the systematically younger dates of the GdS analyses (and of the one GdA-date) of Phase 3 in Tell Qaramel, a more detailed international comparison would be necessary. However, on the basis of these observations, the early dates of Tell Qaramel (cf. Nemrik 9, M’lefaat) have to be considered with care; although a systematic deviation of the Gd-dates cannot be proven, in comparison with the material culture of the site they seem suspiciously old.

The only dates of Phase 3 later than 9400 BC are the five GdS-dates below, plus Gd-date 12 817, which was considered aberrant by the excavators [GdS 362: 9370-9240 BC, GdS 361: 9380-8920 BC, GdS 358: 9230-8850 BC, GdS 363:9130-8780 BC, GdS 360: 9130-8740 BC].                

It is not yet possible to explain this systematic deviation in comparison with other sites because only M’lefaat, Nemrik 9 and Tell Qaramel were dated in Gliwice, Nemrik 9 and Tell Qaramel being exclusively dated by this laboratory.

The sum of the dates has already been compiled by Mazurkowski et al. (2009). Variances in these sums are due to the fact that in our compilation dates with a higher deviation than +/- 150 years have been excluded. The sum of the dates – including the GdS-dates – range between: Phase 1: 10900-9700 BC; Phase 2: 10300-9300 BC, and Phase 3: 9280-8850 BC.^[3]