4.2 Article

High-resolution chronology for the Mesoamerican urban center of Teotihuacan derived from Bayesian statistics of radiocarbon and archaeological data

期刊

QUATERNARY RESEARCH
卷 71, 期 2, 页码 99-107

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.yqres.2008.10.003

关键词

Radiocarbon dating; Calibration; Bayesian statistics; Outliers; Chronology; Teotihuacan; Teopancazco

资金

  1. National Autonomous University of Mexico [IN307398, IN406199]
  2. National Council for Science and Technology of Mexico [25563-H, 36050-H]
  3. CONACYT [54957]
  4. UC-MEXUS collaborative grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A high-resolution C-14 chronology for the Teopancazco archaeological site in the Teotihuacan urban center of Mesoamerica was generated by Bayesian analysis of 33 radiocarbon dates and detailed archaeological information related to occupation stratigraphy, pottery and archaeomagnetic dates. The calibrated intervals obtained using the Bayesian model are up to ca. 70% shorter than those obtained with individual calibrations. For some samples, this is a consequence of plateaus in the part of the calibration curve covered by the sample dates (2500 to 1450 C-14 yr P-13). Effects of outliers are explored by comparing the results from a Bayesian model that incorporates radiocarbon data for two outlier samples with the same model excluding them. The effect Of Outliers was more significant than expected. Inclusion of radiocarbon dates from two altered contexts, 500 C-14 yr earlier than those for the first occupational phase, results in ages calculated by the model earlier than the archaeological records. The Bayesian chronology excluding these outliers separates the first two Teopancazco occupational phases and suggests that ending of the Xolalpan phase was around cal AD 550, 100 yr earlier than previously estimated and in accordance with previously reported archaeomagnetic dates from lime plasters for the same site. (c) 2008 University of Washington. All Fights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据