The Myths and Realities of Bayesian Chronological Modeling Revealed

Abstract

We review the history of Bayesian chronological modeling in archaeology and demonstrate that there has been a surge over the past several years in American archaeological applications. Most of these applications have been performed by archaeologists that are self-taught in this method because formal training opportunities in Bayesian chronological modeling are infrequently provided. We define and address misconceptions about Bayesian chronological modeling that we have encountered in conversations with colleagues and in anonymous reviews, some of which has been expressed in the published literature. Objectivity and scientific rigor is inherent in the Bayesian chronological modeling process. Each stage of this process is described in detail and we present examples of this process in practice. Our concluding discussion focuses on the potential Bayesian chronological modeling has for enhancing understandings of important topics. 3 SPANISH ABSTRACTEn este artículo se revisará la historia de la modelización cronológica Bayesiana en arqueología y se mostrará cómo la arqueología americana ha experimentado en los últimos años un auge en su aplicación. La mayor parte de los análisis han sido desarrollados por arqueólogos que han sido autodidactas en el aprendizaje del método, ya que las oportunidades de formación en el análisis Bayesiano son muy limitadas. Se explicarán cuáles son los errores más comunes en la aplicación de la modelización cronológica Bayesiana con los que nos hemos encontrado al conversar con compañeros, así como en revisiones anónimas, algunas de los cuales ya han sido señaladas en otros trabajos. La objetividad y el rigor científico resultan inherentes al proceso de modelización cronológica Bayesiana. Se describirá en detalle cada etapa de este proceso, presentando ejemplos de su puesta en práctica. Nuestra conclusión se centrará en torno al potencial de este método para mejorar nuestra comprensión sobre temas de gran relevancia.

Radiocarbon dating legacy collections: A Bayesian analysis of high-precision AMS 14C dates from the Par-Tee site, Oregon

“…For our analysis, 14 C dates were calibrated using the IntCal13 calibration curve (Reimer et al 2013) and models developed in OxCal 4.3 (Bronk Ramsey 1995). Bayesian analysis in OxCal allows researchers to situate dated events into models defining a sequence, a phase(s), and statistically calculate terminus ante quem and terminus post quem dates and their span when considering the chronology of a site or of specific events (Bayliss et al 2007;Bronk Ramsey 1995;Hamilton and Krus 2018). Two statistics calculated in OxCal aid in the assessment of the reliability of a model: indices of agreement and convergence.…”

New Digs: Networks, Assemblages, and the Dissolution of Binary Categories in Anthropological Archaeology

“…). Finally, they are using Bayesian modeling in free computer platforms to refine absolute chronologies to an unprecedented degree—a second radiocarbon revolution (e.g., Fitzpatrick and Jew ; Hamilton and Krus ; Lulewicz ; Miller ; Otárola‐Castillo et al. ).…”

Contemplating the history and future of radiocarbon dating in the American Southeast

“…Archaeologists in the southeastern United States (and other regions of North America [see Bayliss 2015;Hamilton and Krus 2017]) have been slow to adapt Bayesian chronological modeling methods (although there are some slightly earlier uses [Buck and Bard 2007;Kennett and Culleton 2012;Kennett et al 2011;Kidder 2006;Kidder et al 2009Kidder et al , 2010McNutt et al 2012]). Instead, they have chosen to use legacy culturehistoric chronologies and often statistically ill-informed interpretations of chronological data.…”

“…The marked increase in Bayesian chronological modeling in American archaeology over the past several years has brought about the propagation of myths about the process (Lekson 2015:191) and use of uncritically reviewed plug-and-play pieces by archaeologists who do not understand the fundamentals of the process. This is covered in a much longer forthcoming review about the use of Bayesian chronological modeling in American archaeology (Hamilton and Krus 2017). We hope that readers will understand that attaining high-level proficiency in Bayesian chronological modeling not only requires expert understanding in archaeology, statistics, and radiocarbon dating science, but also specialized mentorship and training (Buck and Meson 2015) well beyond what can be learned in a 2-or 3-day workshop or seminar.…”

“…Our intent here is not to provide a how-to-guide for radiocarbon dating, or a step-by-step guide for Bayesian analysis (see, for example, Aitken [1990]; Bayliss and Bronk Ramsey [2004]; Hamilton and Krus [2017]), but rather to point out some of the larger issues regarding radiocarbon dating for the southeastern United States. Specifically, we approach this review from the perspective that each time a radiocarbon date is run it collectively adds to our knowledge of the region and not just to our knowledge of a particular site.…”