Techniques for identifying organic residues in pottery have been refined over the years by Professor Evershed and his colleagues. Here they address the problem of radiocarbon dating these residues by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) which in turn dates the use of the pot. Fatty acids from carcass and dairy products cooked in the pot were isolated from early Neolithic carinated bowls found at the Sweet Track, Somerset Levels, England, and then dated by AMS. The results were very consistent and gave an excellent match to the dendrochronological date of the trackway. The method has wide potential for the precise dating of pottery use on sites.

By extracting residues from pottery sherds the authors show that it is possible to say whether they had contained dairy or carcass fat residues. Correlation with faunal assemblages showed a good match between the incidence of dairy fat in pottery which implied a strong dairy fraction in the diet and a milking herd implied by the animal bones. They also show that dairy fat was more likely to be found in the smaller pots while carcass fats occurred in the larger ones. The method has demonstrated dairying in England from the fifth millennium BC, and offers a novel way of studying economies with pottery but few animal bones.

We have developed and demonstrated a practical methodology for dating specific compounds (and octade-canoic or stearic acid—C18:0—in particular) from the lipid material surviving in archaeological cooking pots. Such compounds may be extracted from about 10 g of cooking potsherd, and, after derivatization, can be purified by gas chromatography. To obtain sufficient material for precise dating repetitive, accumulating, GC separation is necessary. Throughout the 6000-year period studied, and over a variety of site environments within England, dates on C18:0 show no apparent systematic error, but do have a greater variability than can be explained by the errors due to the separation chemistry and measurement process alone. This variability is as yet unexplained. Dates on C16:0 show greater variability and a systematic error of approximately 100-150 years too young, and it is possible that this is due to contamination from the burial environment. Further work should clarify this.