4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

STRATEGIES FOR SAMPLING DIFFICULT ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXTS AND IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF RADIOCARBON DATA: THE CASE OF ERIMI LAONIN TOU PORAKOU, CYPRUS

Journal

RADIOCARBON
Volume 59, Issue 6, Pages 1919-1930

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/RDC.2017.92

Keywords

bone; Bronze Age; charcoal; Cyprus; micromorphology

Funding

  1. Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC)
  2. Institute of Aegean Prehistory (Philadelphia)
  3. Mediterranean Archaeological Trust (Oxford)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

After decades of collaborative experience between archaeologists and radiocarbon scientists, with the aim at producing radiocarbon dates capable of answering the most various research questions, it is now widely recognized that an accurate sampling strategy is the cornerstone of a solid C-14-based chronology. In this paper, we discuss the sampling criteria required to obtain good quality C-14 data within a challenging archaeological context like the Bronze Age site of Erimi Laonin tou Porakou (Limassol, Cyprus). Following a dedicated sampling strategy, in the productive complex of the settlement, charcoal samples were collected from secure contexts according to stratigraphic examination of excavated strata and analysis of associated features and material culture. Micromorphology was also applied for a more accurate interpretation of individual deposits and reconstruction of depositional and post-depositional processes. In the necropolis, bone samples were selected among the fragmentary and commingled human remains through evaluation of the preservation state and the minimum number of individuals (MNI). A discrepancy between the charcoal and the bone C-14 determinations was encountered, probably due to old wood issues. The C-14 dates were analyzed using a Bayesian model that incorporates the archaeological information, and a preliminary C-14-based chronology was defined for this site.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available