Reviewed by: Yaroslav V Kuzmin, Leading Research Scientist, Sobolev Institute of Geology and Mineralogy, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk 630090, Russia; and Laboratory of Mesozoic and Cenozoic Continental Ecosystems, Tomsk State University, Tomsk 634050, Russia. Email: kuzmin@fulbrightmail.org; kuzmin_yv@igm.nsc.ru.
This is a long-awaited volume because much has occurred since the publication of its first edition (Taylor Reference Taylor1987). The book is now fully updated, and contains an extensive bibliography (about 2090 entries). This tome is a must for all archaeologists—academics, professionals, and students. One review of this volume is already published (Cherkinsky Reference Cherkinsky2015). According to the Preface, the main part of the book is written by the first author, R E Taylor (chapters 1–5 and 7–9); the second author, O Bar-Yosef, wrote Chapter 6. Below, the page numbers indicated correspond to the book under review.
Chapter 1, “Basic Elements,” contains background information. The main aims of the volume are (1) to provide basic knowledge on the 14C dating method; (2) to solve the issues related to anomalies, which complicate the interpretation of 14C dates; and (3) to demonstrate the application of 14C dating to archaeological objects in the Old World and the New World (p 20).
Chapter 2, “Major Anomalies,” deals with inconsistencies in the main assumptions of 14C dating initially set by W F Libby and his colleagues (Arnold and Libby Reference Arnold and Libby1949; Libby et al. Reference Libby, Anderson and Arnold1949). This chapter is mainly about anomalies in systemic elements, related to the “... physical assumptions underlying the 14C dating model, effects of violations of those assumptions, and appropriate means to calibrate, correct, or normalize experimental data” (p 43).
Chapter 3, “Samples and Sample Pretreatment,” explains which kinds of compounds can be dated by the 14C method, and strategies for chemical preparation (i.e. pretreatment) of samples before the actual measurement of the 14C content. It is correctly stated that “Radiocarbon determinations obtained directly on human skeletal samples rather than assumed ‘associated’ wood or charcoal samples would also circumvent problems of contextual association” (p 66). Bone as a material for 14C dating is given particular attention (p 75–82). Describing attempts to date individual amino acids extracted from bone collagen, including hydroxyproline, it is concluded that no advantages in 14C dating of this compound compared to the “bulk collagen” were found (p 77). As for the dating of organics in ceramics (p 83–5), work on the determination of the 14C age of lipids from pottery matrix (e.g. Berstan et al. Reference Berstan, Stott, Minnitt, Bronk Ramsey, Hedges and Evershed2008) is also noteworthy. The application of 14C dating to rock varnish (p 90–1) ended up in a heated discussion (see Beck et al. Reference Beck, Donahue, Jull, Burr, Broecker, Bonani, Hajdas and Malotki1998 vs. Dorn Reference Dorn1998).
Chapter 4, “Measurements of Natural Radiocarbon,” contains information on different techniques to determine the quantity of the 14C isotope in a variety of compounds, and the calculation of the 14C age. Particular attention is given to the most advanced technology, accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) (p 111–21). Throughout the 60+ years since the inception of the 14C dating method, three main kinds of equipment were used to detect the 14C isotope: (1) solid counters (late 1940s to mid-1950s); (2) gas proportional counters and liquid scintillation counters (since the mid-1950s); and (3) the AMS (since the late 1970s).
Chapter 5, “Critical Evaluation of Radiocarbon Data,” is one of the focal parts of this book. As it is commonly said, “The devil is in the details.” C Renfrew emphasized this in the Foreword: “It is now becoming clear that effectiveness [of the radiocarbon dating method] can be improved when whole series of radiocarbon determinations are considered together in circumstances where the relationship between their contexts is understood by virtue of the stratigraphy” (p 14). This chapter introduces readers with numerous complication factors, such as sample provenience and composition, fractionation, 14C measurement statistics; and systemic factors like calibration, reservoir and dietary effects, and influence of volcanic activity.
The major part of this chapter is devoted to one of the fundamental questions in understanding 14C dating from the archaeological perspective: How is the 14C age determination of organic material from an ancient site relevant to the timing of human occupation? This issue is described in great detail, which is absolutely timely in the light of many discrepancies that occurred in the course of the use of 14C dating in archaeology: “… the most common reason why 14 C dating evidence is considered to be anomalous can be traced to failures to clearly establish and document the physical relationship between a 14 C-dated sample and a specific targeted event or cultural expression” (p 132; italics in original).
A very important and useful observation is the practical precision of 14C dates, which is around ±50 yr for the Holocene (up to ~10,000 BP), and ±100–125 yr for the terminal Late Pleistocene (~10,000–20,000 BP) (p 131; see also p 159). A common misunderstanding (especially among archaeologists) of the AMS technique as the most precise one is mentioned: “… currently there appears to be no significant differences in accuracy or precision among laboratories undertaking their measurement with gas proportional, liquid scintillation, or AMS technologies” (p 148). The users who prefer the AMS dates and put much more trust in them compared to other 14C dating techniques are warned that “…the utilization of milligram-size samples will require an even more rigorous attention to the evaluation of geological, geochemical, and archaeological contexts of samples” (p 171).
The dating of the Shroud of Turin (p 162–9) is perhaps the best and most widely known application of the 14C method. The results of the 14C age determination of this relic, which was carefully planned and performed, were published by the so-called “original twenty-one” group of scholars (Damon et al. Reference Damon, Donahue, Gore, Hatheway, Jull, Linick, Sercel, Toolin, Bronk, Hall, Hedges, Housley, Law, Perry, Bonani, Trumbore, Woelfli, Ambers, Bowman, Leese and Tite1989). The debates about the reliability of its Medieval date, of about AD 1260–1390, are still ongoing (and seem to be endless), but the religious parties who disagree with this age, including creationists like the infamous D A Kouznetsov (see Meacham Reference Meacham2007), are losing ground (e.g. Freer-Waters and Jull Reference Freer-Waters and Jull2010). It is worthwhile to remember that the Roman Catholic Church as a custodian of the Shroud did not question the results produced by Damon et al. (Reference Damon, Donahue, Gore, Hatheway, Jull, Linick, Sercel, Toolin, Bronk, Hall, Hedges, Housley, Law, Perry, Bonani, Trumbore, Woelfli, Ambers, Bowman, Leese and Tite1989) because the church never made any statements that the relic is directly associated with Jesus Christ.
Unlike the Shroud of Turin, the determination of the 14C age of several early biblical texts known as the Dead Sea Scrolls (p 38–42) was widely accepted. Based on paleographic evidence, only 2 out of 21 samples differ by more than 100 yr from the expected date range (p 41). Overall, the calibrated values for the majority of these manuscripts are in the range of 3rd century BC to 2nd century AD (p 40).
Chapter 6, “Radiocarbon Dating in Old World Archaeology,” describes the application of 14C dating to prehistoric sites in Eurasia, North Africa, and Australia. The spatiotemporal relationship between the latest Neanderthals and the earliest modern humans in Europe, northern Africa, and the Near East as presented (p 175–88) shows that modern humans were moving to Europe from the Levant as a “wedge” between the retreating Neanderthals (p 178, 187). The statement that “Interactions [between the Neanderthals and the moderns] occurred within the vast region from western Asia and across Europe between ~45,000 and 38,000/36,000 BP” (p 177) is debatable. It is based on the dubious association between Upper Paleolithic tools and modern humans, on the one hand, and the Middle Paleolithic and transitional assemblages (like the Châtelperronian, see p 184) and the Neanderthals, on the other hand, and this assumption/model leads to confusion because the earliest securely dated modern human in Europe is only ~35,000 BP old (Peştera cu Oase).
The emergence of pottery as presented (p 191–7) is heavily biased toward the older 14C dates from the Xianrendong Cave, despite obvious reversions in the 14C age-depth profile (p 194, Table 6.7). The issue of the age for the earliest pottery complexes in the Old World has been repeatedly discussed (e.g. Kuzmin Reference Kuzmin2013).
The following statement is misleading: “… the early pottery examples from Japan and from eastern Siberia are found in the context of microblade industries, the origin of which is currently attributed to northern China” (p 196), with reference to a volume edited by Kuzmin et al. (Reference Kuzmin, Keates and Shen2007) and individual papers in it (p 317, Note 129). This book (Kuzmin et al. Reference Kuzmin, Keates and Shen2007) does not contain any information about northern China as the place for the origin of microblade complexes, so it is puzzling how the author arrived at such a conclusion.
Chapter 7, “Radiocarbon Dating in New World Archaeology,” contains several excellent examples of the use of 14C dating in tackling archaeological problems in the Americas. In the decades-long discussion of the nature of the first humans in North America (Clovis vs. pre-Clovis), a very important observation about the problematic association between 14C dates and suggested Pleistocene-age sites is given (p 229–30). The danger of using a single 14C value to establish the age of Paleoamerican sites is emphasized (p 222–4). The contribution of the famous North American geoarchaeologist C V Haynes, Jr to these issues is acknowledged (p 232).
Of particular importance is a discussion of direct 14C dates on human bones from putative Paleoindian sites (p 236–9; see also Chapter 3, p 66). Once again, it is illustrated that the dating of presumably directly associated material such as charcoal or animal bones could easily give misleading information about the age of the human remains proper. Even though the human bones are directly 14C dated, the span of the values run at different laboratories and by various techniques can deviate within several hundred years, as is illustrated by the Anzick skeleton (Montana): from ~10,240 BP to ~11,550 BP (p 239). As for another well-known example, Kennewick Man (Washington State), very different degrees of collagen preservation in the bones of presumably the same individual were observed, from 14.3% to 0.3% (p 249). The very low content (0.05%) of collagen in the Arizona-dated specimen, ~5750 BP, which is much younger than almost all other 14C dates, centered at ~8400 BP (p 249), may testify to the existence of another individual, or may be an outlier.
Chapter 8, “Radiocarbon Dating: Origin and Development,” describes in detail the history of the invention and subsequent progress in the 14C dating method throughout the 1930s to 1970s. It is important to note that the chapter’s author R E Taylor was a graduate student of W F Libby in the 1960s and was an eyewitness to many events. He was also well acquainted with the pioneers of 14C dating, including Libby, J R Arnold, and E C Anderson (see also Taylor Reference Taylor2014).
Chapter 9, “Radiocarbon Dating: Guide to Bibliographic Sources,” although short, is very useful because it contains information on summary volumes and periodicals, including the journal Radiocarbon (in existence since 1959), which are primary sources on the use of 14C dating in archaeology, geology, and other kinds of research.
Acknowledgments
The preparation of this review was supported by the grant from Tomsk State University “D.I. Mendeleev Academic Fund” Program (grant No. 8.1.22.2015) in 2015–6.
