Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T16:31:23.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

High-Precision Bayesian Modeling of Samples Susceptible to Inbuilt Age

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2016

M W Dee  and
C Bronk Ramsey
M W Dee*
Affiliation:
RLAHA, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY, United Kingdom
C Bronk Ramsey
Affiliation:
RLAHA, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY, United Kingdom
*
1. Corresponding author. Email: michael.dee@rlaha.ox.ac.uk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Radiocarbon dates on samples susceptible to inbuilt age are common in the chronological record of many archaeological and environmental sites. Indeed, fragments of charcoal and wood are sometimes the only materials sufficiently well preserved for dating. However, where high-precision estimates arc required the extra uncertainty associated with such measurements often renders them unusable. This article tests three Bayesian modeling approaches that are designed to tackle this problem. The findings of our study suggest that successful corrections can be made for the inherent age offsets. The most effective and versatile approach was based on a version of outlier analysis. It is hoped that this method will become more widely employed and enable samples susceptible to inbuilt age to be included in high-precision chronologies.

Type
Articles
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , 2014 , pp. 83 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agrawal, DP, Kusumgar, S. 1975. Tata Institute radiocarbon date list XI. Radiocarbon 17(2):219–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, H, Burleigh, R, Meeks, N. 1971. British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements VII. Radiocarbon 13(2):157–88.Google Scholar
Bayliss, A, van der Plicht, J, Bronk Ramsey, C, McCormac, G, Healy, F, Whittle, A. 2012. Towards generational time-scales: the qualitative interpretation of archaeological chronologies. In: Whittle, A, Healy, F, Bayliss, A, editors. Gathering Time. Oxford: Oxbow. p 17–59.Google Scholar
Bonani, G, Hass, H, Hawass, Z, Lehner, M, Nakhla, S, Nolan, J, Wenke, R, Wölfli, W. 2001. Radiocarbon dates of Old and Middle Kingdom monuments in Egypt. Radiocarbon 43(3):1297–320.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal program. Radiocarbon 37(2):425–30.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Dealing with outliers and offsets in radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon 51(3):1023–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C, Dee, M, Rowland, J, Higham, T, Harris, S, Brock, F, Quiles, A, Wild, E, Marcus, E, Shortland, A. 2010. Radiocarbon-based chronology for dynastic Egypt. Science 328():1554–7.Google Scholar
Bruins, HJ, van der Plicht, J. 1995. Tell es-Sultan (Jericho): radiocarbon results of short-lived cereal and multiyear charcoal samples from the end of the Middle Bronze Age. Radiocarbon 37(2):213–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, CE, Litton, CD, Smith, AFM. 1991. Calibration of radiocarbon results pertaining to related archaeological events. Journal of Archaeological Science 19(5):497–512.Google Scholar
Buck, CE, Kenworthy, JB, Litton, CD, Smith, AFM. 1992. Combining archaeological and radiocarbon information: a Bayesian approach to calibration. Antiquity 65(249):808–21.Google Scholar
Buck, CE, Christen, JA, James, GN. 1999. BCal: an on-line Bayesian radiocarbon calibration tool. Internet Archaeology 7. http://dx.doi.Org/10.11141/ia.7.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dee, MW, Bronk Ramsey, C, Shortland, AJ, Higham, TFG, Rowland, JM. 2009. Reanalysis of the chronological discrepancies obtained by the Old and Middle Kingdom Monuments Project. Radiocarbon 51(3):1061–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, M, Nicholls, G. 2002. New radiocarbon calibration software. Radiocarbon 44(3):663–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitchen, KA. 1991. The chronology of ancient Egypt. World Archaeology 23(2):201–8.Google Scholar
Kitchen, KA. 2000. Regnal and genealogical data of ancient Egypt (Absolute Chronology I) the historical chronology of ancient Egypt, a current assessment. In: Bietak, M, editor. The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC I. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences, p 39–52.Google Scholar
Libby, WF. 1955. Radiocarbon Dating. 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Long, RD. 1976. Ancient Egyptian chronology, radiocarbon dating and calibration. Zeitschrift fur Agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 103:30–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholls, G, Jones, M. 2001. Radiocarbon dating with temporal order constraints. Applied Statistics 50(4):503–21.Google Scholar
McFadgen, BG. 1982. Dating New Zealand archaeology by radiocarbon. New Zealand Journal of Science 25:379–92.Google Scholar
Ralph, EK. 1959. University of Pennsylvania radiocarbon dates III. Radiocarbon 1:45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuckenrath, JR, Ralph, EK. 1965. University of Pennsylvania radiocarbon dates VIII. Radiocarbon 7:187–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, GK, Wilson, SR. 1978. Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon age determinations: a critique. Archaeometry 20(1):19–39.Google Scholar
Waterbolk, HT. 1971. Working with radiocarbon dates. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 37:15–33.Google Scholar