Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-h8lrw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-21T18:42:55.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Simulations and Outputs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2016

Seren Griffiths
Seren Griffiths*
Affiliation:
7 School Place, Oxford, United Kingdom. Email: griffithssg@cf.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Bayesian analysis is now routinely applied for the construction of site-specific stratigraphic chronological models. Other approaches have analyzed the chronology of phases of archaeological activity across regions. The available radiocarbon results—the nature of the samples and their associations—provide the basis for what chronological questions it is possible to address for any site or region. In dealing with regional analyses, due consideration must be made of data selection. While data selection might be a relatively self-evident consideration in the analysis of a site chronology, working with data from a larger region poses a number of specific data selection issues. Robust association between dated samples and a particular type of diagnostic material culture or site may provide one means of producing regional chronologies. However, if the activity under investigation includes a number of different cultural traits, which are related but with each having a slightly different chronological currency, defining the temporal end of data selection becomes more problematic. This article presents one approach, using a case study from the British Mesolithic-Neolithic transition, with 880 simulation OxCal models used to investigate the effect of variously defining the end of a regional archaeological phase. The results emphasize that for a regional case study, sensitivity analysis may provide a useful tool to ensure representative models; the study also highlights the importance of comparing multiple model posteriors.

Information

Type
Statistics and Modeling
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , 2014 , pp. 871 - 876
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bayliss, A. 2009. Rolling out the revolution: using radiocarbon dating in archaeology. Radiocarbon 51(1):123–47.Google Scholar
Bayliss, A, Bronk Ramsey, C, van der Plicht, J, Whittle, A. 2007. Bradshaw and Bayes: towards a timetable for the Neolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(S1):1–28.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal program. Radiocarbon 37(2):425–30.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2000. Comment on ‘The use of Bayesian statistics for 14C dates of chronologically ordered samples: a critical analysis.’ Radiocarbon 42(2): 199–202.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001. Development of the radiocarbon calibration program. Radiocarbon 43(2A):355–63.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2008. Radiocarbon dating: revolutions in understanding. Archaeometry 50(2):249–75.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1):337–60.Google Scholar
Buck, C, Cavanagh, W, Litton, C. 1996. Bayesian Approach to Interpreting Archaeological Data. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Buck, C, Litton, CD, Smith, AFM. 1992. Calibration of radiocarbon results pertaining to related archaeological events. Journal of Archaeological Science 19(5):487–512.Google Scholar
Garrow, D, Gosden, C, Hill, J, Bronk Ramsey, C. 2010. Dating Celtic art: a major radiocarbon dating programme of Iron Age and Early Roman metalwork in Britain. Archaeological Journal 166:79–123.Google Scholar
Griffiths, S. 2011. Chronological modelling of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the North and Midlands of England and Wales [PhD thesis]. Cardiff University.Google Scholar
Karlsberg, A. 2006. Flexible Bayesian methods for archaeological dating [PhD thesis]. University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Needham, S, Bronk Ramsey, C, Coombs, D, Cartwright, C, Pettitt, P. 1998. An independent chronology for British Bronze Age metalwork: the results of the Oxford radiocarbon accelerator programme. Archaeological Journal 154:55–107.Google Scholar
Steier, P, Rom, W. 2000. The use of Bayesian statistics for 14C dates of chronological ordered samples: a critical analysis. Radiocarbon 42(2): 183–98.Google Scholar
Waterbolk, H. 1971. Working with radiocarbon dates. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 37:15–33.Google Scholar