BAJR Federation Archaeology

Full Version: Prehistory is 'complete bollocks' says radiocarbon expert
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/j...oom-3700bc

Ha!! And they said i was mad. i knew it all along

Bring on the Med
gwyl Wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/j...oom-3700bc

Ha!! And they said i was mad. i knew it all along

Bring on the Med

cheeky little post there young gwyl - considering its one of the most important bits of dating work done to date and one which will have ramifications across the neolithic world!
P Prentice Wrote:cheeky little post there young gwyl - considering its one of the most important bits of dating work done to date and one which will have ramifications across the neolithic world!

Perhaps across the much later British Neolithic world... Wink
"A new scientific dating technique"

baysian bollocks more like which you and me will never understand but eh can manipulate aggregates levee to fund their fake archaeological empire.
Does scarily fit in with that thing on the detailed finds analysis of the stuff from a causewayed enclosure in PPS 2010 though - sorry, haven't got it to hand so can't remember site or authors - 80% excavated CW only produced roughly same amount of pot and flint as a pit site, which didn't suggest that much had ever gone on there, or for very long...

ALF RIP :face-crying:
"They matched notoriously imprecise carbon-14 dates from organic remains – which can have a margin of error of centuries – with all the other evidence from archaeological finds, narrowing the dates for sites from centuries to decades."

Can anyone enlighten me as to what this new dating technique actually is? It looks to me as if loads of data has been studied intensely and the chronologies of these CWs refined - thanks to some super-wizard computer programme. Research, more like, but not a new dating technique.
you've pretty much got it in a nutshell. it's not a dating technique in the sense of a new scientific procedure, its a statistical technique for comparing lots of dates of various kinds. So, instead of just being able to say 'half the pot is 4th to 6th century and half is 6th to 9th, so the depositional event took place in the 6th', you can compare date ranges with stratigraphic associations (e.g. 'the archaeomagnetically dated burning event is older than the depositional event, but took place at the same as or before the erosion, from which colluviation buried the radiocarbon-dated organic remains'). simple really, like all statistics... just lots and lots of simple. It's also not new; I was using it 6 or 8 years ago, albeit very poorly, and it goes back a long way further.

I like it, personally, if only because it can put stratigraphy back at the forefront of interpretation, where it should be. It's also useable for small problems as well as big. There's a university that has an online tool to make it easy; can't remember which one though..Leicester maybe?

Madweasels Wrote:"They matched notoriously imprecise carbon-14 dates from organic remains – which can have a margin of error of centuries – with all the other evidence from archaeological finds, narrowing the dates for sites from centuries to decades."

Can anyone enlighten me as to what this new dating technique actually is? It looks to me as if loads of data has been studied intensely and the chronologies of these CWs refined - thanks to some super-wizard computer programme. Research, more like, but not a new dating technique.
all of which is true

but what it all comes down to is that a lot of prehistory is 'complete bollocks'; all this rubbish about increasing complexity and hierarchies and centralisation of production and sacred landscapes of the eternal naval; frankly it's all dungeons and dragons and arthur and the medievalisation of prehistory. 'complete bollocks'.

it does go some way (that is to say a very long way) to explaining why my pot dates read one thing, my stratigraphy agrees but not entirely and my radiocarbon dates say wahey it's all prehistory, innit and i'm left holding a baby that is a tradition that extends through time and across space

prehistory is 'complete bollocks'

maybe that'll find it's way into the publication report, even at this late hour of the day

best get back to medieval smithing and potting

proper archaeology; not makeyuppyology

one last time 'COMPLETE BOLLOCKS'

OOOOOOOOOOoooooooooohh that feels good
"It took two centuries for agriculture to reach Cheltenham from London ? and then just 50 years to get from Cheltenham to Aberdeen."

Fascinating. That's some trial trench...:face-stir:

And a whole article without the phrase "high status" used.

Never much liked the monkey men anyway...
deadlylampshade Wrote:"It took two centuries for agriculture to reach Cheltenham from London ...

that's the A40 for you

although why you'd want to go to Cheltenham eludes me. even to farm. one must have aspirations in life.
Pages: 1 2 3