Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:44:36.913Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

AMS Dates from Two Archaeological Sites of Korea: Blind Tests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2016

Jangsuk Kim ,
David K Wright ,
Youngseon Lee ,
Jaeyong Lee ,
Seonho Choi ,
Junkyu Kim ,
Sung-Mo Ahn ,
Jongtaik Choi ,
Chuntaek Seong  and
Chang Ho Hyun
...Show all authors
Jangsuk Kim*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology and Art History, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, South Korea.
David K Wright
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology and Art History, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, South Korea.
Youngseon Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, South Korea.
Jaeyong Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, South Korea.
Seonho Choi
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, South Korea.
Junkyu Kim
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology and Art History, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, South Korea.
Sung-Mo Ahn
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology and Art History, Wonkwang University, Iksan 570-749, South Korea.
Jongtaik Choi
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology and Art History, Korea University, Sejong 339-700, South Korea.
Chuntaek Seong
Affiliation:
Department of History, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 130-791, South Korea.
Chang Ho Hyun
Affiliation:
Division of Science Education, Daegu University, Kyeongsan 712-714, South Korea.
Jaehoon Hwang
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology and Art History, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, South Korea.
Hyemin Yang
Affiliation:
Department of History, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 130-791, South Korea.
Jiwon Yang
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology and Art History, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, South Korea.
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In interpreting radiocarbon dating results, it is important that archaeologists distinguish uncertainties derived from random errors and those from systematic errors, because the two must be dealt with in different ways. One of the problems that archaeologists face in practice, however, is that when receiving dating results from laboratories, they are rarely able to critically assess whether differences between multiple 14C dates of materials are caused by random or systematic errors. In this study, blind tests were carried out to check four possible sources of errors in dating results: repeatability of results generated under identical field and laboratory conditions, differences in results generated from the same sample given to the same laboratory submitted at different times, interlaboratory differences of results generated from the same sample, and differences in the results generated between inner and outer rings of wood. Five charred wood samples, collected from the Namgye settlement and Hongreyonbong fortress, South Korea, were divided into 80 subsamples and submitted to five internationally recognized 14C laboratories on a blind basis twice within a 2-month interval. The results are generally in good statistical accordance and present acceptable errors at an archaeological scale. However, one laboratory showed a statistically significant variance in ages between batches for all samples and sites. Calculation of the Bayesian partial posterior predictive p value and chi-squared tests rejected the null hypothesis that the errors randomly occurred, although the source of the error is not specifically known. Our experiment suggests that it is necessary for users of 14C dating to establish an organized strategy for dating sites before submitting samples to laboratories in order to avoid possible systematic errors.

Keywords

blind testSouth Koreaerrorsinterbatch differenceBayesian p value
Type
Research Article
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 115 - 130
Copyright
© 2016 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bayarri, MJ, Berger, JD. 2000. P values for composite null models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 95(452):1127–1142.Google Scholar
Berger, RL, Boos, DD. 1994. P values maximized over a confidence set for the nuisance parameter. Journal of the American Statistical Association 89(427):1012–1016.Google Scholar
Bird, MI, Ayliffe, LK, Fifield, LK, Turney, CSM, Cresswell, RG, Barrows, TT, David, B. 1999. Radiocarbon dating of “old” charcoal using a wet oxidization, steeped-combustion procedure. Radiocarbon 41(2):127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, S. 1990. Radiocarbon Dating. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1):337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, CE, Millard, A. 2004. Tools for Constructing Chronologies: Crossing Disciplinary Boundaries. London: Springer.Google Scholar
Buck, CE, Christen, JA, Kenworthy, JB, Litton, CD. 2007. Estimating the duration of archaeological activity using 14C determinations. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 13(2):229–240.Google Scholar
Byun, JG, Lee, WK, Nor, DK, Kim, SH, Choi, JK, Lee, YJ. 2010. The relationship between tree radial growth and topographic and climatic factors in red pine and oak in central regions of Korea. Journal of Korean Forest Society 99(6):908–913.Google Scholar
Choi, J. 2014. Acha Montain Fortresses and the Southward Expansion of Koguryo. Seoul: Seokyeong Press.Google Scholar
Choi, J, Lee, SJ, Oh, EJ, Cho, SY. 2007. Excavation Report of Hongryeonbong Fortress II. Jochiwon: Korea University.Google Scholar
Chough, SK. 2013. Geology and Sedimentology of the Korean Peninsula. Waltham: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Christen, JA. 1994. Summarizing a set of radiocarbon determinations - a robust approach. Applied Statistics-Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C 43(3):489–503.Google Scholar
Christen, JA, Buck, CE. 1998. Sample selection in radiocarbon dating. Applied Statistics-Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C 47(4):543–557.Google Scholar
Faught, MK. 2008. Archaeological roots of human diversity in the New World: a compilation of accurate and precise radiocarbon ages from the earliest sites. American Antiquity 73(4):670–698.Google Scholar
Gillespie, R. 1997. Burnt and unburnt carbon: dating charcoal and burnt bone from the Willandra Lakes, Australia. Radiocarbon 39(3):225–236.Google Scholar
Graf, KE. 2009. The good, the bad, and the ugly”: evaluating the radiocarbon chronology of the middle and late Upper Paleolithic in the Enisei River valley, south-central Siberia. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(3):694–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keith, MS, Anderson, GM. 1963. Radiocarbon dating: fictitious results with mollusk shells. Science 141(3581):634–637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, J, Lee, MB, Kong, WS, Kim, TH, Kang, CS, Park, K, Park, BI, Park, HD, Song, HH, Son, MW, Yang, HG, Lee, SH, Choi, YE. 2012. Physical Geography of Korea. Seoul: Seoul National University Press.Google Scholar
Korea Institute for Archaeology and Environment. 2012. Preliminary Excavation Report of Hongryeonbong Fortresses I and II. Jochiwon: Korea University.Google Scholar
Lee, Y, Lee, J, Kim, J. 2014. Bayesian analyses of uncertainty of radiocarbon dating. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Korean Archaeological Society. p 337–47.Google Scholar
Mellars, P. 2006. A new radiocarbon revolution and the dispersal of modern humans in Eurasia. Nature 439(7079):932–935.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen-Marsh, CM, Hedges, RE. 2000a. Patterns of diagenesis in bone I: the effects of site environments. Journal of Archaeological Science 27(12):1139–1150.Google Scholar
Nielsen-Marsh, CM, Hedges, RE. 2000b. Patterns of diagenesis in bone II: effects of acetic acid treatment and the removal of diagenetic CO3 2− . Journal of Archaeological Science 27(12):1151–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettitt, PB, Davies, W, Gamble, CS, Richards, MB. 2003. Palaeolithic radiocarbon chronology: quantifying our confidence beyond two half-lives. Journal of Archaeological Science 30(12):1685–1693.Google Scholar
Pichler, H, Firedrich, W. 1976. Radiocarbon dates of Santorini volcanics. Nature 262(5567):373–374.Google Scholar
Potter, BA, Reuther, JD. 2012. High resolution radiocarbon dating at the Gerstle River Site, central Alaska. American Antiquity 77(1):71–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, TD, Blitz, J, Burton, J, Ezzo, JA. 1992. Diagenesis in prehistoric bone: problems and solutions. Journal of Archaeological Science 19(5):513–529.Google Scholar
Reimer, PJ, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Beck, JW, Blackwell, PG, Bronk Ramsey, C, Buck, CE, Cheng, H, Edwards, RL, Friedrich, M, Grootes, PM, Guilderson, TP, Haflidason, H, Hajdas, I, Hatté, C, Heaton, TJ, Hoffmann, DL, Hogg, AG, Hughen, KA, Kaiser, KF, Kromer, B, Manning, SW, Niu, M, Reimer, RW, Richards, DA, Scott, EM, Southon, JR, Staff, RA, Turney, CSM, van der Plicht, J. 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1869–1887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozanski, K, Stichler, W, Gofiantini, R, Scott, EM, Beukens, RP, Kromer, B, van der Plicht, J. 1992. The IAEA 14C intercomparison exercise 1990. Radiocarbon 34(3):506–519.Google Scholar
Schiffer, MB. 1986. Radiocarbon dating and the “old wood” problem: the case of the Hohokam chronology. Journal of Archaeological Science 13(1):13–30.Google Scholar
Scott, EM. 2011. Models, data, statistics, and outliers: a statistical revolution in archaeology and 14C dating. Radiocarbon 53(4):559–562.Google Scholar
Scott, EM, Bryant, C, Carmi, I, Cook, GT, Gulliksen, S, Harkness, DD, Heinemeier, J, McGee, E, Naysmith, P, Possnert, G, van der Plicht, J, Van Strydonck, M. 2003. Homogeneity testing. In: The Third International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (TIRI) and the Fourth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (FIRI) 1990–2002. Results, Analyses, and Conclusions [special issue]. Radiocarbon 45(2):144–149.Google Scholar
Scott, EM, Boaretto, E, Bryant, C, Cook, GT, Gulliksen, S, Harkness, DD, Heinemeier, J, McGee, E, Naysmith, P, Posssnert, G, van der Plicht, H, Van Strydonck, M. 2004. Future needs and requirements for AMS 14C standards and reference materials. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 223–224:382–387.Google Scholar
Scott, EM, Cook, GT, Naysmith, P. 2007. Error and uncertainty in radiocarbon measurements. Radiocarbon 49(2):427–440.Google Scholar
Scott, EM, Cook, GT, Naysmith, P. 2010. The Fifth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (VIRI): an assessment of laboratory performance in stage 3. Radiocarbon 53(2–3):859–865.Google Scholar
Seoul National University Museum. 2014. Preliminary Excavation Report of Namgyeri Settlement, Yeonchon. Unpublished report submitted to Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea.Google Scholar
Shotton, FW. 1972. An example of hard-water error in radiocarbon dating of vegetable matter. Nature 240(5382):460–461.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M, Suess, HE. 1966. On the relationship between radiocarbon dates and true sample ages. Radiocarbon 8(1):534–540.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M, Pearson, GW, Branziunas, TF. 1986. Radiocarbon age calibration of marine samples back to 9000 cal yr BP. Radiocarbon 28(2):980–1021.Google Scholar
Tsui, K-W, Weerahandi, S. 1989. Generalized p-values in significance testing of hypothesis in the presence of nuisance parameters. Journal of the American Statistical Association 84(406):602–607.Google Scholar
van der Plicht, J, Bruins, HJ. 2001. Radiocarbon dating in Near-Eastern contexts: confusion and quality control. Radiocarbon 43(3):1155–1166.Google Scholar
Ward, GK, Wilson, SR. 1978. Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon age determinations: a critique. Archaeometry 20(1):19–31.Google Scholar