Abstract
In the past 30 years many hundreds of archaeologic samples have been dated by radiocarbon laboratories. Yet, one cannot say that 14C dating is fully integrated into archaeology. For many archaeologists, a 14C date is an outside expertise, for which they are grateful, when it provides the answer to an otherwise insoluble chronologic problem and when it falls within the expected time range. But if a 14C date contradicts other chronologic evidence, they often find the ‘solution’ inexplicable. Some archaeologists are so impressed by the new method, that they neglect the other evidence; others simply reject problematic 14C dates as archaeologically unacceptable. Frequently, excavation reports are provided with an appendix listing the relevant 14C dates with little or no discussion of their implication. It is rare, indeed, to see in archaeologic reports a careful weighing of the various types of chronologic evidence. Yet, this is precisely what the archaeologist is accustomed to do with the evidence from his traditional methods for building up a chronology: typology and stratigraphy. Why should he not be able to include radiocarbon dates in the same way in his considerations?
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
