22nd February 2012, 02:35 PM
Jack Wrote:Yep. It annoys me when dates are quoted incorrectly and when important information like sample material is omitted.
However, I see radiocarbon dating and other 'absolute' techniques as the only way forward for creating accurate chronologies. As long as they are used and quoted correctly and the inherent limitations are understood the age of material can be measured.
This age, (often after calibration though), can be quoted as a calendar date. Why not abandon the idea of a 'stone age', 'bronze age' etc as these titles must, by definition, be meaningless to the people around at the time. Isn't it time we advance into a single, coherent and measurable timescale.
No more talk of 'that site is Iron Age.......no it isn't is Roman...no silly that bit of pot is actually Anglo Saxon'. Its time to date sites/objects/activities etc etc. by calendar dates (or some similar time-frame).
No more choosing only the radiocarbon dates that match the 'accepted date ranges' from your typological sequences of say brooches and saying those that don't match are due to 'experimental error' or are because radiocarbon dating is useless.
Dating thing by changes in technology/material culture is silly and routed in the idea that technology and therefore societies only advance.
wearin perfum de bodger today jack
i dont disagree with the benefits of ams dating and i also agree with your assertion that the 3 age system is floored beyond repair - but
typology has a part to play still - for instance - imagine a scenario where a context contains only a b&t arrowhead, a grotty bit of beaker and a hazel nutshell that returns a date of say 3000. would you say you had the earliest beaker in Britain?
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers