14th October 2011, 01:51 PM
I'm pushing for multiple determination dating (where you suitable stuff to date - big dumps of grain, carbonised residues, good bones etc) and bayesian statistics............it is after all recommended in the north-eastern research framework, Understanding the British Iron Age and even in the resource assessment for Yorkshire.
Even if you get two measurements from the same event (e.g. leg bone and arm bone from the same skelly) you end up with a massive increase in confidence (statistically and in the world of peer review) in the date ranges. Do some statistics (pooled mean I think - although my maths is shoddy) and it should refine the date range without compromising the error statement.
Do more than two and you start to get really useful dates.
But even getting dates for several things that are thought to be contemporary can cause surprises and make your remains much more significant (for those of use doing post-excavation assessments begging for more money!). Not allowed to go into details.......but on a recent project had something that was thought to be early medieval, (definitely Anglo-Saxon apparently by its form) but pushed for a RC date anyway to see if it was in the transition or later. The date came back as early 1st century to 3rd century AD making it very very interesting (possibly unique!).
This is a warning to every archaeologists who doesn't realise.....
The dating of many things (pottery, burial traditions, structural forms etc etc) is base solely on old typologies of artifacts that are often wrong.
A great modern example of radiocarbon dating is the work by Alex Gibson and Alex Bayliss at Duggleby Howe, North Yorkshire. in The Archaeological Journal vol 166, 38-78
It also shows just how much evidence (for making up your stories) you can actually get by using multiple scientific techniques. Not read it myself yet though.....just skimmed through it.
Even if you get two measurements from the same event (e.g. leg bone and arm bone from the same skelly) you end up with a massive increase in confidence (statistically and in the world of peer review) in the date ranges. Do some statistics (pooled mean I think - although my maths is shoddy) and it should refine the date range without compromising the error statement.
Do more than two and you start to get really useful dates.
But even getting dates for several things that are thought to be contemporary can cause surprises and make your remains much more significant (for those of use doing post-excavation assessments begging for more money!). Not allowed to go into details.......but on a recent project had something that was thought to be early medieval, (definitely Anglo-Saxon apparently by its form) but pushed for a RC date anyway to see if it was in the transition or later. The date came back as early 1st century to 3rd century AD making it very very interesting (possibly unique!).
This is a warning to every archaeologists who doesn't realise.....
The dating of many things (pottery, burial traditions, structural forms etc etc) is base solely on old typologies of artifacts that are often wrong.
A great modern example of radiocarbon dating is the work by Alex Gibson and Alex Bayliss at Duggleby Howe, North Yorkshire. in The Archaeological Journal vol 166, 38-78
It also shows just how much evidence (for making up your stories) you can actually get by using multiple scientific techniques. Not read it myself yet though.....just skimmed through it.