Kinnes, I. A., Gibson, A. M., Ambers, J., Bowman, S., Leese, M. N. and Boast, R. (1991). Radiocarbon dating and the British beakers: the British Museum programme. Scott Archaeol Rev 8. Vol 8, pp. 35-68.
 Title The title of the publication or report |
Radiocarbon dating and the British beakers: the British Museum programme | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Issue The name of the volume or issue |
Scott Archaeol Rev 8 | ||||||||||
Series The series the publication or report is included in |
Scottish Archaeological Review | ||||||||||
Volume Volume number and part |
8 | ||||||||||
Page Start/End The start and end page numbers. |
35 - 68 | ||||||||||
Biblio Note This is a Bibliographic record only. |
Please note that this is a bibliographic record only, as originally entered into the BIAB database. The ADS have no files for download, and unfortunately cannot advise further on where to access hard copy or digital versions. | ||||||||||
Publication Type The type of publication - report, monograph, journal article or chapter from a book |
Journal | ||||||||||
Abstract The abstract describing the content of the publication or report |
The major studies of Beakers from British sites are summarised. In the recent BM programme, radiocarbon dates were obtained for twenty samples of Beaker-associated human bone. The results, taken together with eighteen other known dates of similar material, are seen to cast doubt on stylistic succession as the determinant of internal chronology for British Beakers: Beaker currency falls in a time band approximately 2600 to 1800 cal bc. The sampling and calibration methods are outlined in Appendix 1a (49), with the dates listed in `Appendix 1b: British Museum beaker dating programme results' (50-2) and `Appendix 2: Other beaker radiocarbon results' (52-65).In `Some comments on radiocarbon dating and British beakers' (69-76), J N </ze> Lanting & J D </ze> van der Waals (69-70) question criticism of the Dutch framework and suggest that the BM dates do not show a succession in accordance with the existing typochronology because each date is expressed as a probability rather than a `real' radiocarbon age. Humphrey </ze> Case (70-1) suggests disregarding certain of the non-BM dates. If considered within a framework of calendar years set in terms of 95% confidence, `Beaker currency' is likely to have been from within the third quarter of the third millennium to within the second quarter of the second millennium, a somewhat later span than proposed by Kinnes et al. Ian A G </ze> Shepherd (72-3) suggests that rather than casting doubt on the stylistic succession of British Beakers, the BM programme raises questions about the nature of 14C dating and its usefulness for extracting meaning from a wide range of individual deaths. The value of looking in detail at regional groups of Beakers is stressed. Points of principle are raised regarding the destruction of skeletal material which could be used to answer different sets of questions. Stephen </ze> Shennan (74) views the dismantling of the Dutch radiocarbon evidence as almost as important as the results, and proposes that alternative explanations, social or cultural, are sought to explain variations in style. D D A </ze> Simpson (74-5) stresses that despite the dates, there is an internal consistency in both the Dutch and British sequences in terms of typology and association. The lack of associated artefacts, other than beakers, with the bone chosen for dating is viewed as unfortunate. It is suggested that the sample size is too small, and that a regional programme of sampling would provide a more cohesive sequence. R J </ze> Harrison (75-6) also criticises the size and make-up of the BM sample. The BM programme is seen to highlight some of the problems in using 14C dates, for example in comparing dates from different laboratories and in re-assessing older 14C work.In `A reply to the comments of Dr R Harrison' Ian Kinnes et al (77-8) stress the care taken in producing the new BM results. The sampling strategy is defended in that samples were taken only from well-contexted material. It is argued that while the methodology for calibration may yet be revised, this would not substantially alter the overall conclusions. AM | ||||||||||
Year of Publication The year the book, article or report was published |
1991 | ||||||||||
Locations Any locations covered by the publication or report. This is not the place the book or report was published. |
|
||||||||||
Source Where the record has come from or which dataset it was orginally included in. |
BIAB
(The British Archaeological Bibliography (BAB))
|
||||||||||
Created Date The date the record of the pubication was first entered |
20 Jan 2002 |
