Comments on Graf, Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 2009 “ “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”: evaluating the radiocarbon chronology of the middle and late Upper Paleolithic in the Enisei River valley, south-central Siberia”

Abstract

Here I present a critical evaluation of the analysis conducted by Graf [Graf, K.E., 2009. “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”: Evaluating the radiocarbon chronology of the middle and late Upper Paleolithic in the Enisei River valley, south-central Siberia. Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 694–707] of the Paleolithic radiocarbon ( 14C) dataset for the Upper Paleolithic sites in the Yenisei River basin of Central Siberia. Graf applied a rating system to the corpus of existing 14C data for the region, and announced some new 14C dates. The results obtained, however, are highly biased due to several factors, including prejudice concerning the higher accuracy of the AMS technique in 14C dating and that 14C dates from the same cultural component should overlap with plus–minus two sigmas; ambiguities with the subdivision of the Lateglacial period; artificially high sample selection criteria; incomplete factual material; and unjustifiable and misleading statements on the 14C dating of fossil bones and the issue of Last Glacial Maximum human presence in Siberia. As a result, the conclusions made by Graf [Graf, K.E., 2009. “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”: Evaluating the radiocarbon chronology of the middle and late Upper Paleolithic in the Enisei River valley, south-central Siberia. Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 694–707] are unconvincing. New analysis is necessary in order to improve the quality of treatment of the original data for the Upper Paleolithic 14C chronology in the Yenisei River basin.