Radiocarbon Dating with Temporal Order Constraints

Nicholls, Geoff K.; Jones, Martin

doi:10.1111/1467-9876.00250

Cited by 51 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the case that there is a lower limit llim a for t a and an upper limit ulim m for t m the number of possible combinations of solutions is proportional to: .30) and so the reciprocal of this can be added as a prior factor (these latter two factors were suggested in Nicholls and Jones (2001) and Jones and Nicholls (2002) and are incorporated in OxCal prior to version 4 as described in Bronk Ramsey (2001)). If there is also an upper limit ulim a for t a and a lower limit llim m for t m the number of possible combinations becomes:…”

Section: A34 Multiple Segmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deposition models for chronological records

Ramsey

2008

Quaternary Science Reviews

1,421

443

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long term sedimentary sequences provide a wealth of useful information for research into the palaeo-environment, especially in relation to past climate change. Shorter records provide similar information in many archaeological contexts. However if such records are to be used to provide precise timing of events, and more critically the relative timing between different records, methods are needed to provide accurate and precise age-depth models for these sequences. Given the imprecision of individual calibrated radiocarbon determinations it is necessary to use the information we have about the deposition process to refine our chronologies and also to provide interpolation between dated levels in any sequence. Even with layer counted chronologies, the uncertainties are sometimes hard to quantify. This paper outlines a range of Bayesian models for deposition which have been implemented in the computer programme OxCal. These models can be used to combine information from the sediments themselves with radiocarbon or other direct dating information. Such models have the potential to integrate information between different records and provide a coherent chronology on which to base environmental or archaeological research.

show abstract

Section: A34 Multiple Segmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deposition models for chronological records

Ramsey

2008

Quaternary Science Reviews

1,421

443

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In cases where there is a lot of dating information, the results depend only weakly on the assumptions embedded in the model of stratigraphy, but in cases where there are few dates or the intervals between events are comparable to the uncertainties in the dates, the effects of these assumptions need to be assessed (Steier and Rom, 2000;Nicholls and Jones, 2001). In addition, although the models capture the important information from stratigraphy of ordering events in time, this is done at the cost of introducing explicit statistical assumptions.…”

Section: Statistical Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, although the models capture the important information from stratigraphy of ordering events in time, this is done at the cost of introducing explicit statistical assumptions. The uniform prior is a repeated and statistically simple assumption, but Nicholls and Jones (2001) showed that it implies a priori that long durations between events are much more probable than short ones. Usually, this has little effect on the results, as the chronometric data constrain the duration between events much more strongly than the prior stratigraphic model, but in situations with complex stratigraphic models and few chronometric data, it can affect the results.…”

Section: Statistical Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critique of the chronometric evidence for hominid fossils: I. Africa and the Near East 500–50ka

Millard¹

2008

Journal of Human Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractThe chronometric dating evidence for all hominid fossils from Africa and the Near East that have previously been dated to 500-50 ka is critically assessed using the concept of chronometric hygiene, and these dates are revised using Bayesian statistical analyses where possible. Sixteen relevant hominid sites lacking chronometric evidence are briefly discussed.Chronometric evidence from 37 sites is assessed in detail. The dates for many hominid fossils are poorly constrained, with a number dated by comparisons of faunal assemblages a method that does not have good chronological resolution for much of the last million years. For sites with stratigraphic sequences of dates, it is generally possible to refine the dating, but in some cases, the revised chronology is less precise than previous chronologies. Fossils over 200 ka in age tend to be poorly dated, but for the last 200 ka, dating is better due to the availability of electron-spinresonance and thermoluminescence dating. Consideration of the chronologies favored by the proponents of the out-of-Africa and multiregional hypotheses of human evolution shows their selectivity. The chronological assessment of the fossils here is compatible with either hypothesis.If evolutionary schemes that do not rely on the morphology of the hominid fossils to decide the sequence of fossils are to be built, then further dating is required, alongside full publication of existing dates.3

show abstract

“…Nicholls and Jones (2001) provide a prior suitable for calibration using temporal order constraints with archaeological data, and we will use that prior here. (See Nicholls and Jones [2001] for a detailed discussion of model specifics.) Under their calibration scheme, all analyzed dates are treated as coming from one of a number of phases that occur as a single series, and temporal constraints on the timing of each phase are set on the basis of the analyzed data.…”

Section: ∆R = P Ma -Q Atmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Marine ΔR for Nenumbo (Solomon Islands): A Case Study in Calculating Reservoir Offsets from Paired Sample Data

Jones¹,

Petchey

Green

et al. 2007

Radiocarbon

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. It is necessary to calculate location-specific marine ∆R values in order to calibrate marine samples using calibration curves such as those provided through the IntCal98 (Stuiver et al. 1998) data. Where known-age samples are available, this calculation is straightforward (i.e. Stuiver et al. 1986). In the case that a paired marine/terrestrial sample calculation is performed, however, the standard calculation (i.e. Stuiver and Braziunas 1993) requires that the samples are treated as relating to isochronous events. This may not be an appropriate assumption for many archaeological paired samples. In this paper, we present an approach to calculating marine ∆R values that does not require the dated events to be treated as isochronous. When archaeological evidence allows the dated events to be tightly temporally constrained, the approach presented here and that described by Stuiver and Braziunas (1993) give very similar results. However, where tight temporal constraints are less certain, the 2 approaches can give rise to differing results. The example analysis considered here shows that a ∆R of -81 ± 64 14 C yr is appropriate for samples in the vicinity of Nenumbo (Reef Islands, southeast Solomon Islands) around the period 2000-3000 BP.

show abstract

Radiocarbon Dating with Temporal Order Constraints

Cited by 51 publications

References 17 publications

Deposition models for chronological records

Deposition models for chronological records

A critique of the chronometric evidence for hominid fossils: I. Africa and the Near East 500–50ka

The Marine ΔR for Nenumbo (Solomon Islands): A Case Study in Calculating Reservoir Offsets from Paired Sample Data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About