Discrepancies between archaeological and 14C-based chronologies: problems and possible solutions

Abstract

-

Seeking the Holy Grail

“…This comparability of results is also observed with the radiocarbon measurements on bone samples from the studies considered by Strien (2017), all of which were processed using ultrafiltration. Figure 1 illustrates the differences between pairs of measurements on the same sample from these sites.…”

“…The replicate analysis summarised in Table 1 does not suggest that samples of bone and antler are particularly problematic but given the concerns raised about the accurate dating of this material type by Strien (2017), it is worth delving into the evidence in a little more depth.…”

“…Recently in this journal, Hans-Christoph Strien (2017) suggested that there are discrepancies between archaeological and 14 C-based chronologies, particularly in relation to a series of new studies considering the early and middle Neolithic sequences across a swathe of Europe from Serbia in the south-east to the lower Rhineland in the north-west (Jakucs et al 2016;Oross et al 2016a-c;Tasi≤ et al 2016a;Denaire et al 2017). He ended his paper by stating that "radiocarbon dating is not the Holy Grail of prehistoric archaeology, especially as long as environmental influences on its results are neither fully recognised nor understood" (Strien 2017.…”

“…The risks of dating bone samples are reviewed, along with a brief history of the development of approaches to the radiocarbon dating of bone. In reply to Strien (2017), selected topics concerned with the emergence and aftermath of the LBK are discussed, as well as the early Vin≠a, Ra∫i∏te and Hinkelstein sequences. The need for rigour in an approach which combines archaeology and radiocarbon dating is underlined.IZVLE∞EK -Utrjujemo mo≠ formalnega Bayesovega kronolo∏kega modeliranja z zdru∫evanjem vedenja iz arheologije z radiokarbonskim datiranjem skrbno izbranih vzorcev znane tafonomije in dia-gnosti≠ne materialne kulture.…”

“…material. Although it is not fully explicit in the article (Strien 2017), it is also relevant to note some of the key assumptions and approaches underlying Strien's vision of the earliest Neolithic, specifically the earliest LBK, in central Europe, which he has set out at greater length elsewhere (Strien 2018; reviewed critically at length in Cladders 2018). We will deal with selected aspects of this perspective below, but note by way of introduction an apparently sceptical if not hostile attitude to radiocarbon dating in general, and the accuracy of measurements on bone samples in particular (Strien 2018.17-18, 27-28, 65-66).…”