Oh thats a shame..........

[P Prentice]

....wouldn't you agree, this sort of thing is a failure to apply scientific method (i.e. taphonomy), not a failure of the method itself.

yep - i use them all the time - over a hundred now over the years though half of them are useless

[Ken Denham]

Interesting theory. But considering that the 1950s bomb testing show up as a spike in background radiation, such an event would also be detectable. Easy test, measure the radioactivity of deposits/rocks/ bones etc on either side of the supposed event.

Pretty sure the data already exists, and the answer is no.

I seem to remember he had some kind of semi-plausible answer to that problem, unfrotunately time and the fog and haze of alcohol have erased it from my memory. I did have a digital copy of his "best-seller" he was writing but lent it to a colleague, I think I'll hunt her down and ask for it back.

[Jack]

i dunno - you've been banging on about being a scientist and how the archaeology god is in the detail for long enough i just thought your proposition was a bit sloppy an ill thought out (for a scientist)

Grin - thats more like it.

Not 'ill-thought out'......................just trying to tease out a discussion.

name me a chronology that is fit for purpose without the aid of typology (whatever that means)

The recent re-dating of the graves from Duggleby Howe, see:

Gibson, A. and Bayliss, A. (2009) ?Recent Research at Duggleby Howe, North Yorkshire.? The Archaeological Journal 166, 50-59


Where by choosing what to date carefully and understanding the errors involved in radiocarbon dating they could phase the burials and even showed curation of objects as one grave had an object (a mace or something I think) placed in it that was much older than the burial.

[P Prentice]

Grin - thats more like it.

Not 'ill-thought out'......................just trying to tease out a discussion.



The recent re-dating of the graves from Duggleby Howe, see:

Gibson, A. and Bayliss, A. (2009) ‘Recent Research at Duggleby Howe, North Yorkshire.’ The Archaeological Journal 166, 50-59


Where by choosing what to date carefully and understanding the errors involved in radiocarbon dating they could phase the burials and even showed curation of objects as one grave had an object (a mace or something I think) placed in it that was much older than the burial.

how was the mace dated?

[Jack]

the god of radiocarbon dating has a lot riding these days. half the reports i read dont even state what the dates were obtained from, what the processes were and what the error factor are etc. its being used badly and most 20th century dates are cobblers anyway. people are still getting dates from odd bits of charcoal and saying they dated a context and other such nonsense. often a useful tool but never the answer

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.

[Jack]

how was the mace dated?

Don't have the article and lost my library card. Have to confess I can't remember what the object was.....a bone mace head, or a skull.........but it was radiocarbon dated.

[P Prentice]

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?

[Jack]

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?

:face-approve: Now we're getting to the crux.
Of course not..............as any archaeologist worth their salt would instantly ask...

'Just one hazelnut shell, that could be residual/intrusive? Was it abraded? Where were the artefacts/ecofacts, in the same context? How was that context formed? etc etc etc.'

Before jumping to such a conclusion.

Not to mention checking the measured chronologies for your bit of pot and arrowhead. Gather all the info together and critically assess the most likely suite of interpretations.

But far better to look for carbonised residue on the pot and/or TL date the pot directly.

Such an arrangement of objects presents a fascinating set of questions to pursue.............never assume anything, question everything.

With the given information, there is no reason why any of those objects are contemporary. Even if they are from the same 'context'.

[P Prentice]

but in the end we need to tell an interesting story - not a list of caveats

[tom wilson]

but in the end we need to tell an interesting story - not a list of caveats

I misread that as 'history of cravats', which I would definitely read.