Development and Application of the Trapezoidal Model for Archaeological Chronologies
Open accessAbstract
Single- and multiphase models have been used extensively in construction of chronologies. We model more gradual transition between phases with a trapezoid model since it better reflects the nature of the information that goes into the model prior. We find that a simple trapezoid model has a bias that docs not reflect prior knowledge, and thus propose an addition of a noninformative clement to the prior. We also present an alternative parameterization, which transforms the current abrupt transition model into a model that allows for gradual changes. The addition of a noninformative prior ensures model flexibility. We evaluate these Bayesian models using 2 case studies.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Bayesian statistical approaches can enhance the precision of chronometric estimates and can make outputs more robust and reliable.
“This technique can enhance the precision of chronometric estimates (Bronk Ramsey 2009) and can make outputs more robust and reliable (Dee and Bronk Ramsey 2014;Lee and Bronk Ramsey 2012).”
From The Egyptian Predynastic and State Formation (2016) · cites this paper as Lee and Bronk Ramsey 2012
The Summary says the trapezoidal model can test the robustness of earlier models that assumed rapid phase transitions without good justification. The Abstract also describes a change to the prior that addresses bias. These passages support a narrower claim about assessing and improving particular models, but do not establish that Bayesian approaches generally make outputs more robust and reliable. The precision clause is cited to Bronk Ramsey (2009), not to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP
Reimer, P. J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. W., Blackwell, P. G., Ramsey, C. B., Buck, C. E., Cheng, H., Edwards, R. L., Friedrich, M., et al. (2013) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947 · Cited by 14,591 · see citing works
Self-citationCalibration of radiocarbon results pertaining to related archaeological events
Buck, C. E., Litton, C. D., & Smith, A. F. M. (1992) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/0305-4403(92)90025-x · Cited by 244 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- Bayliss A, O'Sullivan M. Forthcoming. Interpreting chronologies for the Mound of the Hostages, Tara and its contemporary Irish contexts. Tara Symposium, University College Dublin, 23-26 October 2009.
- Blackwell PG, Buck CE. 2003. The Late Glacial human reoccupation of north-western Europe: new ap- proaches to space-time modelling. Antiquity 77(296): 232-40.
- Blockley SPE, Lowe JJ, Walker MJC, Asioli A, Trincardi F, Coope GR, Donahue RE, Pollard AM. 2004. Baye- sian analysis of radiocarbon chronologies: examples from the European Late-glacial. Journal of Quater- nary Science 19(2):159-75.
- Brainerd GW. 1951. The place of chronological ordering in archaeological analysis. American Antiquity 16(4): 301-13.
- Bronk Ramsey C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal program. Radio- carbon 37(2):425-30.
- Bronk Ramsey C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocar- bon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1):337-60.
- Buck CE, Bard E. 2007. A calendar chronology for Pleis- tocene mammoth and horse extinction in North Amer- ica based on Bayesian radiocarbon calibration. Qua- ternary Science Reviews 26(17-18):2031-5.
- Housley RA, Gamble CS, Street M, Pettitt P. 1997. Ra- diocarbon evidence for the Lateglacial human recolo- nisation of Northern Europe. Proceedings of the Pre- history Society 63:25-54.
- Karlsberg AJ. 2006. Flexible Bayesian methods for ar- chaeological dating [PhD thesis]. Sheffield: Univer- sity of Sheffield.
- Needham S, Bronk Ramsey C, Coombs D, Cartright C, Pettitt PB. 1997. An independent chronology for Brit- ish Bronze Age metalwork: the results of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Programme. Archaeological Journal 154:55-107.
- Nicholls G, Jones M. 2001. Radiocarbon dating with tem- poral order constraints. Applied Statistics 50(4):503- 21.
- O'Connor B. 1980. Cross-channel Relations in the Later Bronze Age. Volumes 91 of International Series 91. British Archaeological Reports. Oxford: Archaeo- press.
- Van Strydonck M, De Moor A, Bénazeth D. 2004. 14 C dating compared to art historical dating of Roman and Coptic textiles from Egypt. Radiocarbon 46(1):231- 44.
- Zeidler JA, Buck CE, Litton CD. 1998. Integrating of ar- chaeological phase information and radiocarbon re- sults from the Jama River Valley, Ecuador: a Bayesian approach. Latin American Antiquity 9(2):160-79.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Methods for Summarizing Radiocarbon Datasets
Ramsey, C. B. (2017) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/rdc.2017.108 · Cited by 1,179 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Egyptian Predynastic and State Formation
Stevenson, A. (2016) · Journal of Archaeological Research · doi:10.1007/s10814-016-9094-7 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Radiocarbon re-dating of contact-era Iroquoian history in northeastern North America
Manning, S. W., Birch, J., Conger, M. A., Dee, M. W., Griggs, C., Hadden, C. S., Hogg, A. G., Ramsey, C. B., Sanft, S., Steier, P., et al. (2018) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aav0280 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Self-citationCzerniak, L., Bayliss, A., Goslar, T., Badura, M., Budilová, K., Lisá, L., Marciniak, A., Matuszewska, A., Pędziszewska, A., & Święty-Musznicka, J. (2024) · Journal of Field Archaeology · doi:10.1080/00934690.2024.2306433 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lee, S., & Ramsey, C. B.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Lee, Sharen
- Venue
- Radiocarbon
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2012
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 01
- Pages
- 107-122
- ISSN
- 0033-8222 (ISSN-L)
- 1945-5755
- OpenAlex
- W1964682002
- Cited by
- 97
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5
- FWCI
- 4.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Radiocarbon (publishedVersion)
- UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Natural Environment Research Council (NRCF010002, NE/E015670/1)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient and Medieval Archaeology Studies
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Keywords
- archaeological chronology, Bayesian model, non-informative priors, model bias, parameterization, radiocarbon dating
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
