Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-30T13:58:15.994Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development and Application of the Trapezoidal Model for Archaeological Chronologies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Sharen Lee  and
Christopher Bronk Ramsey
Sharen Lee*
Affiliation:
Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU), Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art (RLAHA), University of Oxford, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, United Kingdom
Christopher Bronk Ramsey
Affiliation:
Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU), Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art (RLAHA), University of Oxford, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, United Kingdom
*
Corresponding author. Email: sharen.lee@rlaha.ox.ac.uk.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Single- and multiphase models have been used extensively in construction of chronologies. We model more gradual transition between phases with a trapezoid model since it better reflects the nature of the information that goes into the model prior. We find that a simple trapezoid model has a bias that docs not reflect prior knowledge, and thus propose an addition of a noninformative clement to the prior. We also present an alternative parameterization, which transforms the current abrupt transition model into a model that allows for gradual changes. The addition of a noninformative prior ensures model flexibility. We evaluate these Bayesian models using 2 case studies.

Type
Articles
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , 2012 , pp. 107 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

References

Bayliss, A, O'Sullivan, M. Forthcoming. Interpreting chronologies for the Mound of the Hostages, Tara and its contemporary Irish contexts. Tara Symposium, University College Dublin, 23–26 October 2009.Google Scholar
Blackwell, PG, Buck, CE. 2003. The Late Glacial human reoccupation of north-western Europe: new approaches to space-time modelling. Antiquity 77(296):232–40.Google Scholar
Blockley, SPE, Lowe, JJ, Walker, MJC, Asioli, A, Trincardi, F, Coope, GR, Donahue, RE, Pollard, AM. 2004. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon chronologies: examples from the European Late-glacial. Journal of Quaternary Science 19(2):159–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainerd, GW. 1951. The place of chronological ordering in archaeological analysis. American Antiquity 16(4):301–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brindley, AL. 2007. The dating of food vessels and urns in Ireland. Bronze Age Studies. Volume 7. Galway: Department of Archaeology, National University of Ireland.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal program. Radiocarbon 37(2):425–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001. Development of the radiocarbon calibration program. Radiocarbon 43(2A):355–63.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1):337–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, CE, Bard, E. 2007. A calendar chronology for Pleistocene mammoth and horse extinction in North America based on Bayesian radiocarbon calibration. Quaternary Science Reviews 26(17–18):2031–5.Google Scholar
Buck, CE, Litton, CD, Smith, AFM. 1992. Calibration of radiocarbon results pertaining to related archaeological events. Journal of Archaeological Science 19(5):497–512.Google Scholar
Buck, CE, Christen, JA, James, GN. 1999. BCal: an online Bayesian calibration tool. Internet Archaeology. URL: http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue7/buck/.Google Scholar
Gilks, WR, Richardson, S, Spiegelhalte, DJ. 1996. Introducing Markov chain Monte Carlo. In: Gilks, WR, Richardson, S, Spiegelhalter, DJ, editors. Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice. London: Chapman & Hall. p 1–20.Google Scholar
Housley, RA, Gamble, CS, Street, M, Pettitt, P. 1997. Radiocarbon evidence for the Lateglacial human recolonisation of Northern Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistory Society 63:25–54.Google Scholar
Karlsberg, AJ. 2006. Flexible Bayesian methods for archaeological dating [PhD thesis]. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Needham, S, Bronk Ramsey, C, Coombs, D, Cartright, C, Pettitt, PB. 1997. An independent chronology for British Bronze Age metalwork: the results of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Programme. Archaeological Journal 154:55–107.Google Scholar
Nicholls, G, Jones, M. 2001. Radiocarbon dating with temporal order constraints. Applied Statistics 50(4):503–21.Google Scholar
O'Connor, B. 1980. Cross-channel Relations in the Later Bronze Age. Volumes 91 of International Series 91. British Archaeological Reports. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Reimer, PJ, Baillie, MGL, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Beck, JW, Blackwell, PG, Bronk Ramsey, C, Buck, CE, Burr, GS, Edwards, RL, Friedrich, M, Grootes, PM, Guilderson, TP, Hajdas, I, Heaton, TJ, Hogg, AG, Hughen, KA, Kaiser, KF, Kromer, B, McCormac, FG, Manning, SW, Reimer, RW, Richards, DA, Southon, JR, Talamo, S, Turney, CSM, van der Plicht, J, Weyhenmeyer, CE. 2009. IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51(4):1111–50.Google Scholar
Van Strydonck, M, De Moor, A, Bénazeth, D. 2004. 14C dating compared to art historical dating of Roman and Coptic textiles from Egypt. Radiocarbon 46(1):231–44.Google Scholar
Zeidler, JA, Buck, CE, Litton, CD. 1998. Integrating of archaeological phase information and radiocarbon results from the Jama River Valley, Ecuador: a Bayesian approach. Latin American Antiquity 9(2):160–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar