Cited by 182Archaeology and ancient environmental studiesAncient and Medieval Archaeology StudiesArchaeological and Geological Studies

Working with radiocarbon dates

Waterbolk, H. T.·1971·Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society

Abstract

C-14 datings can not only provide us with estimates of the absolute age of objects or occupation layers, but also, when available in sufficient numbers, with initial and terminal datings for cultural phases, thus defining their duration. The value of this is obvious: differential duration in different areas can at last provide definitive answers to long-disputed questions concerning the direction of cultural movement. Working with large numbers of C-14 dates is, however, not entirely free of problems. We are, for example, regularly confronted with larger differences between datings expected to be of similar age than can be accounted for by mere statistical error (Vogel, 1969a) or which can be explained by contamination or other simple causes. One can stop at this point and accept a limited testimonial value for C-14 dates (e.g. Steuer and Tempel, 1968), or one can try to go further by calculating average dates, assuming (for the most part incorrectly) that the chance of a date being too young is equal to its chance of being too old (Neustupný, 1968). The danger in this procedure is that one loses sight of the individual character of each determination: in fact one sample is much more securely associated and more closely contemporary with finds of a particular cultural phase than another, and the chance of contamination or admixture is different for each sample. Another problem is that the number of C-14 dates that one must take into consideration is often so large that they c…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0079497x00012548

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Materials with minimal inbuilt age and excellent certainty of association were prioritised.

    “we prioritised materials that exhibited minimal inbuilt age and excellent certainty of association (see Waterbolk 1971; Dee et al. 2012).”

    From Radiocarbon dating and the Naqada relative chronology (2014) · cites this paper as Waterbolk 1971

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Waterbolk, H. T.
Affiliations
University of Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
Waterbolk, H. T.
Venue
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
Published
1971-12
Volume
37
Issue
2
Pages
15-33
ISSN
  • 0079-497X (ISSN-L)
  • 2050-2729
OpenAlex
W2330671996
Cited by
182
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 11
FWCI
5.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient and Medieval Archaeology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Archaeological and Geological Studies
Keywords
radiocarbon dating, cultural phases, phase duration, cultural chronology, cultural movements, sample contamination, statistical errors

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