This paper considers how to make the most out of the rather imprecise chronological knowledge that we often have about the past. We focus here on the relative dating of artefacts during archaeological fieldwork, with particular emphasis on new ways to express and analyse chronological uncertainty. A probabilistic method for assigning artefacts to particular chronological periods is advocated and implemented for a large pottery data set from an intensive survey of the Greek island of Antikythera. We also highlight several statistical methods for exploring how uncertainty is shared amongst different periods in this data set and how these observed associations can prompt more sensitive interpretations of landscape‐scale patterns. The concluding discussion re‐emphasizes why these issues are relevant to wider methodological debates in archaeological field practice.

Gem-quality diamonds have been found in several alluvial deposits across central and southern Borneo. Borneo has been a known source of diamonds for centuries, but the location of their primary igneous source remains enigmatic. Many geological models have been proposed to explain their distribution, including: the diamonds were derived from a local diatreme; they were brought to the surface through ophiolite obduction or exhumation of UHP metamorphic rocks; they were transported long distances southward via major Asian river systems; or, they were transported from the Australian continent before Borneo was rifted from its northwestern margin in the Late Jurassic. To assess these models, we conducted a study of the provenance of heavy minerals from Kalimantan's Cempaka alluvial diamond deposit. This involved collecting U-Pb isotopic data, fission track and trace element geochemistry of zircon as well as major element geochemical data of spinels and morphological descriptions of zircon and diamond. The results indicate that the Cempaka diamonds were likely derived from at least two sources, one which was relatively local and/or involved little reworking, and the other more distal which records several periods of reworking. The distal diamond source is interpreted to be diamond-bearing pipes that intruded the basement of a block that: (1) rifted from northwest Australia (East Java or SW Borneo) and the diamonds were recycled into its sedimentary cover, or: (2) were emplaced elsewhere (e.g. NW Australia) and transported to a block (e.g. East Java or SW Borneo). Both of these scenarios require the diamonds to be transported with the block when it rifted from NW Australia in the Late Jurassic. The local source could be diamondiferous diatremes associated with eroded Miocene high-K alkaline intrusions north of the Barito Basin, which would indicate that the lithosphere beneath SW Borneo is thick (~ 150 km or greater). The 'local' diamonds could also be associated with ophiolitic rocks that are exposed in the nearby Meratus Mountains. Gem-quality diamonds have been found in several alluvial deposits across central and 27 southern Borneo. Borneo has been a known source of diamonds for centuries, but the 28 location of their primary igneous source remains enigmatic. Many geological models 29 have been proposed to explain their distribution, including: the diamonds were 30 derived from a local diatreme; they were brought to the surface through ophiolite 31 obduction or exhumation of UHP metamorphic rocks; they were transported long 32 distances southward via major Asian river systems; or, they were transported from the 33 Australian continent before Borneo was rifted from its northwestern margin in the 34 Late Jurassic. To assess these models, we conducted a study of the provenance of 35 heavy minerals from Kalimantan's Cempaka alluvial diamond deposit. This involved 36 collecting U-Pb isotopic data, fission track and trace element geochemistry of zircon 37 as well as major element geochemical data of spinels and m...

An intensive archaeological survey covering the entire extent of the island of Antikythera has recently revealed a sequence of prehistoric activity spanning the later Neolithic to Late Bronze Age, with cultural affiliations that variously link its prehistoric communities with their neighbours to the north, south and east. Here we present and discuss the results of a programme of both macroscopic and petrographic study of the prehistoric ceramics from Antikythera that defines a varied group of fabrics and explores their implications with regard to regional potting traditions, onisland production versus imports, and changing patterns of human activity on the island through time. Greece, and we are especially grateful to Jonathan Tomlinson for his assistance. The petrographic analysis discussed here was undertaken at the Fitch Laboratory, British School of Athens with the help of a British Academy small grant (SG-45163) and we would like to thank both of these institutions for their support. The co-director and synergast for the Antikythera Survey Project was Aris Tsaravopoulos, and we could not have undertaken this research without his generous assistance and guidance. We are also extremely grateful to Cyprian Broodbank, co-director of the Kythera Island Project, who provided a wide range of discussion, advice and support from the burnish on exterior? Fabric: SATa Date: 20% EB2, 40% LPrePal 30% FPal, 10% SPal 2 (petrography sample ASP2; 5028-2-1-15-1) 707931E, 3973433N General: Body fragment with the beginning of a plastic impressed band, or possibly a lug. Medium to large-sized vessel. Fabric: SATa Date: 50% FN-EB1, 20% EB2, 10% LPrePal, 10% FPal, 10% SPal 3 (petrography sample ASP3; 10028-42-1-45-2) 706674E, 3971464N General: Base fragment (diameter 25cm) with finger impressions on the interior. Fabric: SATa Date: 10% EB2, 10% LPrePal, 30% FPal, 30% SPal, 20% TPal 4 (petrography sample ASP6; 9034-29-1-75-1) 709014E, 3969597N General: Rim sherd with plastic decoration on shoulder. Fabric: SATa Date: 10% LPrePal, 20% FPal, 30% SPal, 40% TPal 5 (petrography sample ASP7; 3449-12-1-25-1) 707872E, 3971584N General: Rim sherd (diameter ca. 15cm) and vertical ovoid handle scar, probably from an oval-mouthed amphora. Fabric: SATa Date: 45% FPal, 45% SPal, 10% TPal (scatter is [FPal-]Spal) 6 (petrography sample ASP9; 8425-2105-S-4) 708430E, 3972106N General: Horizontal handle, rounded ovoid in section but rapidly tapering; attachment of conical wedge of clay visible against body. Fabric: SATa Date: 10% EB2, 25% LPrePal, 25% FPal, 25% SPal, 15% TPal (scatter is [FPal]-Spal) 7 (petrography sample ASP11; 6795-2245-S-2) 706798E, 3972248N General: Rim sherd of a large open vessel with a plastic impressed band directly below a plain rim. Fabric: SATa Date: 20% EB2, 20% LPrePal, 20% FPal, 30% SPal, 10% TPal 8 (petrography sample ASP15; 8405-2095-S-3) 708407E, 3972095N General: Rim sherd with plastic impressed band under rim. Fabric: SATa Date: 30% EB2, 30% FPal, 40% SPal (scatter is [FPal-]SPal) 9 (petrography sample ASP23; 8795-...

No abstract

No abstract