No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
HBCO Correction: Its Impact on Archaeological Absolute Dating
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 July 2016
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.
When constructing absolute chronologies in archaeology, the aim is to detect archaeological events. In this respect, we draw attention to the relation between the radiocarbon ages of human bone collagen samples and the absolute dating evidence on the age at death. In recent material, Mebus Geyh (2001a,b) described the offset between the former and the latter, and suggested the relevant correction. The corrected 14C ages pertain to the age of the individual at death.
We have developed an application of Geyh's original observation, which we term the human bone collagen offset (HBCO) correction, to apply to archaeological 14C dates. If the death and interment of individuals are identical, the corrected 14C date reliably informs us about the deposition of the body and accompanying grave goods. In archaeology, the concrete correction value is determined by the anthropologically estimated age of the individual, which we model by a normal (Gaussian) distribution. The eventual impact of the HBCO correction on archaeological chronology depends on the portion of the calibration curve through which the HBCO-corrected date is calibrated. At a certain level of 14C measurement precision, the difference between the HBCO-corrected and non-corrected calendar dates can be considerable.
Information
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2007 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona
References
Barta, P. 2006. Studies on absolute chronology of the Bronze Age in east-central Europe: methods and applications [PhD dissertation manuscript]. Nitra: Slovak Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Becker, B, Krause, R, Kromer, B. 1989. Zur absoluten Chronologie der frühen Bronzezeit.
Germania
67(2): 421–42. In German.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal program.
Radiocarbon
37(2):425–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001. Development of the radiocarbon program.
Radiocarbon
43(2A):355–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conover, WJ. 1980.
Practical Nonparametric Statistics.
2nd edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 512 p.Google Scholar
Cook, GT, Bonsall, C, Hedges, REM, McSweeney, K, Boroneant, V, Bartosiewicz, L, Pettitt, PB. 2002. Problems of dating human bones from the Iron Gates.
Antiquity
76(291):77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geyh, MA. 2001a. Bomb radiocarbon dating of animal tissues and hair.
Radiocarbon
43(2B):723–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geyh, MA. 2001b. Symbiosis between geochronologists and Quaternary geoscientists.
Geochronometria
20:1–8.Google Scholar
Hedges, REM, O'Connell, TC, Clement, JG. 2006. Collagen turnover in adult femoral bone using the 1960s nuclear bomb test radiocarbon production as a dietary tracer [abstract #40]. 19th International Radiocarbon Conference, Keble College, Oxford, 3–7 April 2006.Google Scholar
Jones, M, Nicholls, G. 2001. Reservoir offset models for radiocarbon calibration.
Radiocarbon
43(1):119–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, R. 1988. Die endneolithischen und frühbronzezeitlichen Grabfunde auf der Nordstadtterrasse von Singen am Hohentwiel. Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg, Band 32. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss Verlag. In German.Google Scholar
Krause, R. 1996. Zur Chronologie der frühen und mittleren Bronzezeit Süddeutschlands, der Schweiz und Österreichs.
Acta Archaeologica
67 (Supplementum I):73–86. In German.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M, Braziunas, TF. 1993. Modeling atmospheric 14C influences and 14C ages of marine samples to 10,000 BC.
Radiocarbon
35(1):137–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have
Access
- 18
- Cited by