Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-04T17:43:45.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Tree-Ring Calibration of Radiocarbon: An Archaeological Evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 September 2016

Colin Renfrew
Colin Renfrew
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is now nearly twenty years since the first radiocarbon dates for the neolithic cultures of Europe astonished and perplexed prehistoric archaeologists by falling a millennium earlier than the existing chronologies had suggested. Since that time most (but not all) archaeologists have become reconciled to radiocarbon dating, and to a chronology for Europe based, at least for the neolithic period, on the radiocarbon dates which have become so widely accepted as now to be conventional.

But a second radiocarbon revolution is now taking place. The calibration of radiocarbon by tree-ring dating indicates that the now conventional radiocarbon dates are not early enough. Dates for the neolithic, and this time for the early bronze age also, will have to be set earlier by several centuries. The consequences of this second revolution for the picture we have of prehistoric Europe are in many ways more radical than those of the first. For this reason, perhaps, there has been a marked reluctance among some archaeologists to face the consequences of the new calibration, although an emerging concensus of opinion among botanists and physicists seems to favour it. The present article sets out to identify the three principal points of difference between the conventional chronology and that suggested by the tree-ring calibration of radiocarbon. It is argued that on independent archaeological evidence the new, calibrated, chronology can be seen to yield a plausible and coherent general picture. While many problems have yet to be clarified, there seems no reason why the new dating should not be welcomed as offering a stimulatingly fresh view of the prehistory of Europe.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 36 , December 1970 , pp. 280 - 311
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bakker, J. A., Vogel, J. C. and Wislanski, T., 1969. ‘TRB and other C14 dates from Poland’, Helinium IX, 3.Google Scholar
Bucha, V., 1967. ‘Intensity of the Earth's magnetic field during archaeological times in Czechoslovakia’, Archaeometry, 10, 12–22.Google Scholar
Burkitt, M. and Childe, V. G., 1932. ‘A chronological table of Prehistory’, Antiquity, VI, 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caskey, J. L. and Caskey, E. G., 1960. ‘The earliest settlements at Eutresis’, Hesperia, XXIX, 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childe, V. G., 1932. ‘Chronology of prehistoric Europe: a review’, Antiquity, VI, 206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childe, V. G., 1936. Man Makes Himself.Google Scholar
Childe, V. G., 1939. ‘The Orient and Europe’, American Journal of Archaeology, XLIII, 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childe, V. G., 1956. Piecing Together the Past.Google Scholar
Childe, V. G., 1958. ‘Retrospect’, Antiquity, XXXII, 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J. G. D., 1965. ‘Radiocarbon dating and the expansion of farming culture from the Near East over Europe’, PPS, XXXI, 58.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. W., 1968. ‘Bristlecone pine: science and esthetics’ Science, 159, 839–46.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. W., Huber, B. and Suess, H. E., 1966. ‘Determination of the age of Swiss lake-dwellings as an example of dendrochronologically calibrated radiocarbon dating’, Zeitschrift für Naturforschung, 21 A, 1173–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, D. H., 1964. ‘Prehistoric pottery from Macedonia and Thrace’, Prähistorische Zeitschrift, XLII, 30.Google Scholar
Georgiev, G. I. and Angelov, N., 1957. ‘Ausgrabungen an der Siedlungshiigel bei Ruse’, Izvestiya Archeologicheskaya Institut, XXI, 41.Google Scholar
Gimbutas, M., 1965. Bronze Age Cultures of Central and Eastern Europe.Google Scholar
Hayes, W. C., Rowton, M. B. and Stubbings, F. H., 1962. ‘Chronology’, Cambridge Ancient History I, Ch. VI.Google Scholar
Kossinna, G., 1905. Die deutsche Vorgeschichte, eine hervorragend nationale Wissenchaft.Google Scholar
Mellaart, J., 1960. ‘Anatolia and the Balkans’, Antiquity, XXXIV, 270.Google Scholar
Milojčič, V., 1949. Chronologie der jüngeren Steinzeit Mittel- und-Sildosteuropas.Google Scholar
Milojčič, V., 1959. ‘Ergebnisse der deutschen Ausgrabungen in Thessalien, 1953–8’, Jahrbuch des römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, 6, 1.Google Scholar
Milojčič, V., 1967. ‘Die absolute Chronologie der Jungsteinzeit in Südosteuropa und die Ergebnisse der Radiocarbon- (C 14-) Methode’, Jahrbuch. des römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, 14, 9.Google Scholar
Montelius, O., 1903. Die älteren Kulturperioden im Orient und in Europa, I. Die Methode.Google Scholar
Neuninger, H., Pittioni, R., and Siegl, W., 1964. ‘Frükeramikzeitliche Kupfergewinnung in Anatolien’, Archaeologia Austriaca, 35, 98.Google Scholar
Neustupny, E., 1968. ‘Absolute chronology of the neolithic and aeneolithic periods of central and south-eastern Europe’, Slovenska Archaeologia, 16, 19–56.Google Scholar
Neustupny, E., 1969. ‘Absolute chronology of the neolithic and aeneolithic periods of central and south-eastern Europe II’, Arch. Rozhledy, XXI, 783.Google Scholar
Neustupny, E., 1970. ‘A new epoch in radiocarbon dating’, Antiquity, XLIV, 38.Google Scholar
SirNewton, Isaac, 1728. The Chronology of Antient Kingdoms Amended, (Dublin).Google Scholar
Newton, R. G. and Renfrew, C., 1970. ‘British faience beads reconsidered’. Antiquity, XLIV, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrie, W. M. F., 1899. ‘Sequences in prehistoric remains’, Journal of the Anthropological Institute, 29, 295.Google Scholar
Piggott, S., 1938. ‘The early bronze age in Wessex’, PPS, IV, 52.Google Scholar
Piggott, S., 1966. ‘Mycenae and barbarian Europe’, Sbornik Narodniho Muzea v Praza, XX, 117.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1965. The Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Cultures of the Cyclades and their External Relations, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1967. ‘Colonialism and Megalithismus’, Antiquity, XLI, 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1968. ‘Wessex without Mycenae’, Annual of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, 63, 277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1969a. ‘The autonomy of the south-east European copper age’, PPS, XXV, 12.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1969b. ‘Trade and culture process in European prehistory’, Current Anthropology, 10, 151.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1970a. ‘New configurations in Old World archaeology’, World Archaeology, II, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1970b. ‘The Burnt House at Sitagroi’, Antiquity, XLIV, 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandars, N. K., 1957. Bronze Age Cultures in France.Google Scholar
Siret, L., 1913. Questions de Chronologie et d'Ethnographie Ibériques.Google Scholar
Smith, C. S., 1969. ‘Analysis of the copper bead from Ali Kosh’, in Hole, F., Flannery, K. V. and Neely, J. A., Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Deh Luran Plain.Google Scholar
Smith, H. S., 1964. ‘Egypt and C-14 dating’, Antiquity, XXXVIII, 32.Google Scholar
Suess, H. E., 1967. ‘Bristlecone pine calibration of the radiocarbon time scale from 4100 B.C. to 1500 B.C.’, in Radioactive Dating and Methods of Low Level Counting, (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna).Google Scholar
Trump, D. H., 1966. Skorba.Google Scholar
Vajsová, H., 1966. ‘Stand der Jungsteinzeitforschung in Bulgarien’, Slovenska Archaeolgia, XIV, 5.Google Scholar
Willis, E. H., Tauber, H. and Münnich, K. O., 1960. ‘Variations in the atmospheric radiocarbon concentration over the past 1300 years’, Radiocarbon, 2, 1.Google Scholar
Worsaae, J. J. A., 1878. Die Vorgeschichte des Nordens nach gleichzeitigen Denkmälern.Google Scholar