Palaeolithic radiocarbon chronology: quantifying our confidence beyond two half-lives

It is now three decades since Waterbolk introduced evaluation criteria to C-14 chronology. Despite this, and other subsequent attempts to introduce quality control in the use of C-14 data, no systematic procedure has been adopted by the archaeological community. As a result, our databases may be significantly weakened by questionable dates and/or questionable associations between dated samples and the archaeological phenomena they are intended to represent. As the use of chronometric data in general becomes more ambitious, we must pause and assess how reliable these data are. Here, we forward a set of evaluation criteria which take into account archaeological (e.g. associational, stratigraphic) and chronometric (e.g. pre-treatment and measurement) criteria. We intend to use such criteria to evaluate a large C-14 dataset we have assembled to investigate Late Glacial settlement in Europe, the Near East and North Africa, supported by the Leverhulme Trust. We suggest that the procedure presented here may at least form the basis of the development of more rigorous, scientific use of C-14 dates. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.