Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T18:55:57.367Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strategies for Sampling Difficult Archaeological Contexts and Improving the Quality of Radiocarbon Data: The Case of Erimi Laonin Tou Porakou, Cyprus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2017

C Scirè Calabrisotto ,
M Amadio ,
M E Fedi ,
L Liccioli  and
L Bombardieri
C Scirè Calabrisotto*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Università Ca’Foscari di Venezia, Dorsoduro 3484/D, 30123 Venezia, Italy
M Amadio
Affiliation:
School of Archaeology, Geography and Environmental Science, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom
M E Fedi
Affiliation:
INFN Sezione di Firenze, via Sansone 1, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino (FI), Italy
L Liccioli
Affiliation:
INFN Sezione di Firenze, via Sansone 1, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino (FI), Italy
L Bombardieri
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Università di Torino, Via S. Ottavio 20, 10141 Torino, Italy
*
*Corresponding author. Email: caterinascire@gmail.com.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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 14C-based chronology. In this paper, we discuss the sampling criteria required to obtain good quality 14C 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 14C determinations was encountered, probably due to old wood issues. The 14C dates were analyzed using a Bayesian model that incorporates the archaeological information, and a preliminary 14C-based chronology was defined for this site.

Keywords

boneBronze AgecharcoalCyprusmicromorphology
Type
Method Development
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 59 , Special Issue 6: 8th International Symposium, Edinburgh, 27 June – 1 July, 2016 Part 2 of 2 , December 2017 , pp. 1919 - 1930
Copyright
© 2017 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.)

Footnotes

Selected Papers from the 8th Radiocarbon & Archaeology Symposium, Edinburgh, UK, 27 June–1 July 2016

References

REFERENCES

Albertini, E, Monaco, M. 2017. Human remains. In: Bombardieri L, editor. Erimi Laonin tou Porakou. A Middle Bronze Age Community in Cyprus. Excavations 2008–2014. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology CXLV. Uppsala: Åström’s Förlag. p 305–320.Google Scholar
Arnan, X, López, BC, Martínez-Vilalta, J, Estorach, M, Poyatosc, R. 2012. The age of monumental olive trees (Olea europaea) in northeastern Spain. Dendrochronologia 30:11–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayliss, A. 2009. Rolling out revolution: using radiocarbon dating in archaeology. Radiocarbon 51(1):123–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayliss, A. 2015. Quality in Bayesian chronological models in archaeology. World Archaeology 47(4):677–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, CE, Cavanagh, WG, Litton, CD. 1996. Bayesian Approach to Interpreting Archaeological Data. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Boaretto, E. 2009. Dating materials in good archaeological contexts: the next challenge for radiocarbon analysis. Radiocarbon 51(1):275–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bombardieri, L. 2013. The development and organization of labor strategies in prehistoric Cyprus: the evidence from Erimi Laonin tou Porakou . In: Knapp AB, Webb JM, McCarthy A, editors. J.R.B. Stewart: An Archaeological Legacy, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology CXXXIX. Uppsala: Åström’s Förlag. p 91–102.Google Scholar
Bombardieri, L. 2014. The second face of identity: processes and symbols of community affiliation in Middle Bronze Age Cyprus. In: Webb JM, editor. Structure, Measurement and Meaning. Studies on Prehistoric Cyprus in Honour of David Frankel, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology CXLIII. Åström’s Förlag, Uppsala: 43–55.Google Scholar
Bombardieri, L. 2017. Erimi Laonin tou Porakou. A Middle Bronze Age Community in Cyprus. Excavations 2008–2014. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology CXLV. Uppsala: Åström’s Förlag.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1):337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, P, Fedoroff, N, Jongerius, A, Stoops, A, Tursina, T. 1985. Handbook for Thin Section Description. Wolverhampton: Waine Research.Google Scholar
Cartocci, A, Fedi, M, Taccetti, F, Benvenuti, M, Chiarantini, L, Guideri, S. 2007. Study of a metallurgical site in Tuscany (Italy) by radiocarbon dating. Nuclear Instruments & Methods in Physics Research B 259(1):384–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christofi, P, Stefani, E, Bombardieri, L. 2015. Bridging the gap: long-term use and re-use of Bronze Age funerary areas at Ypsonas Vounaros and Erimi Laonin tou Porakou . In: Matthäus H, Morstadt B, Vonhoff C, editors. Proceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of Postgraduate Cypriote Archaeology (PoCA XII), Erlangen, 23–25 November 2012. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing: 130–169.Google Scholar
Courty, MA, Goldberg, P, Macphail, R. 1989. Soils and Micromorphology in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeNiro, MJ. 1985. Postmortem preservation and alteration of in vivo bone collagen isotope ratios in relation to paleaeodietary reconstruction. Nature 317:806–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedi, ME, Cartocci, A, Manetti, M, Taccetti, F, Mandò, PA. 2007. The 14C AMS Facility at LABEC, Florence. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259(1):18–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griggs, C, Pearson, C, Manning, SW, Lorentzen, B. 2014. A 250-year annual precipitation reconstruction and drought assessment for Cyprus from Pinus brutia tree-rings. International Journal of Climatology 34(8):2702–2714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, AB. 2013. The Archaeology of Cyprus. From Earliest Prehistory through the Bronze Age. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Longin, R. 1971. New method of collagen extraction for radiocarbon dating. Nature 230(5291):241–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macphail, R, Goldberg, P. 2010. Archaeological materials. In: Stoops G, Marcelino V, Mees F, editors. Interpretation of Micromorphological Features of Soils and Regoliths. Amsterdam: Elsevier. p 589–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, SW. 2014. A radiocarbon-based chronology for the Chalcolithic through Middle Bronze Age of Cyprus (as of AD 2012). In: Höflmayer F, Eichmann R, editors. Egypt and the Southern Levant During the Early Bronze Age: 14 C, Chronology, Connections. Proceedings of a Workshop Held in Berlin, 14th–16th September 2011 (Orient-Archäologie) . Berlin: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. p 207–240.Google Scholar
Matthews, W. 1995. Micromorphological characteristics of occupation deposits and microstratigraphic sequences at Abu Salabikh, Southern Iraq. In: Barnham AJ, Macphail R, editors. Archaeological Sediments and Soil: Analysis, Interpretation and Management. London: Institute of Archaeology, University College. p 41–76.Google Scholar
Matthews, W. 2005. Micromorphological and microstratigraphic traces and uses and concepts of space. In: Hodder I, editor. Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons . Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. p 355–398.Google Scholar
Reimer, PJ, et al. 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1869–1887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scirè Calabrisotto, C. 2017. Stable Isotope Analysis of Human and Faunal Remains. A Palaeodietary Investigation into Chalcolithic and Bronze Age Cyprus [unpublished PhD thesis]. Ca’Foscari Università di Venezia.Google Scholar
Scirè Calabrisotto, C, Fedi, M, Caforio, L, Bombardieri, L. 2012. Erimi-Laonin tou Porakou (Limassol, Cyprus): radiocarbon analyses in the Bronze Age cemetery and workshop complex. Radiocarbon 54(3–4):475–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scirè Calabrisotto, C, Fedi, M, Caforio, L, Bombardieri, L, Mandò, PA. 2013. Collagen quality indicators for radiocarbon dating of bones: new data on Bronze Age Cyprus. Radiocarbon 55(2):472–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shahack-Gross, R, Albert, RM, Gilboa, A, Nagar-Hillman, O, Sharon, I, Weiner, S. 2005. Geoarchaeology in an urban context: the uses of space in Phoenician monumental building at Tel Dor (Israel). Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1417–1431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoops, G. 2003. Guidelines for Analysis and Description of Soil Thin Section. Madison: Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Stoops, G, Marcelino, V, Mees, F. 2010. Interpretation of Micromorphological Features of Soils and Regoliths. Amsterdam: Elsevier. p 589–622.Google Scholar
Taylor, RE, Bar-Yosef, O. 2014. Radiocarbon Dating: An Archaeological Perspective. Second edition. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, H. 2003. Do green plants age, and if so, how? In: Nyström T, Osiewacz HD, editors. Model Systems in Aging. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. p 145–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, J. 2017. The pottery. In: Bombardieri L, editor. Erimi Laonin tou Porakou. A Middle Bronze Age Community in Cyprus. Excavations 2008–2014. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology CXLV. Uppsala: Åström’s Förlag. p 129–206.Google Scholar
Weiner, S. 2010. Microarchaeology – Beyond The Visible Archaeological Record. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar