There is also a full treatment of outlier analysis for samples that are all of the same age, which takes account of the uncertainty in the calibration curve.All of these Bayesian approaches can be used either for outlier detection and rejection or in a model averaging approach where dates most likely to be outliers are downweighted.
This unstable isotope of Carbon then enters the food chain, and in doing so, forms part of all organic matter (Bayliss et al. Broadly speaking, anything that was once alive can therefore theoretically have measured the levels of radiocarbon it now contains.
It is also possible to obtain radiocarbon determinations from inorganic materials if the process of producing the finished state includes the incorporation of carbon; examples of where this might be possible is the application of lime mortar as carbon dioxide is absorbed by the surface when the mortar hardens (Bowman 19).
However, although the locations of the samples sent to the three laboratories involved are known, the locations of the 12 subsamples within these samples are not.
We consider all 387,072 plausible spatial allocations and analyse the resulting distributions of statistics.
Currently, there are no dates for the start of the IUP; thus, placing boundaries cannot be substantiated by any chronological data.
Nonetheless, incorporating these boundaries in our model provides an age estimate for Ethelruda of 49.9–44.1 ka cal B.
Our calibrated radiocarbon ages fit well with existing Levantine chronologies, but are up to 4,000 y older than Douka et al.’s (2). for the start of the dated Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP; Layer XXII).
Our paper explores several possibilities for this difference, whereas Douka et al. They accept our radiocarbon ages as correct but question our sample selection and Bayesian modeling. (3) question both the inclusion of samples from the 1940s excavations and our combined outlier analysis. Thus, Egbert’s age estimation is slightly younger than in our paper (1), but the age estimations for the IUP do not change, and they support our original conclusions.
In order to evaluate the technique itself, an idealised situation will be considered, whereby it is assumed that an archaeologist would have equal and otherwise unbiased access to a range of dating techniques, and it remains only to choose the one most appropriate to the situation at hand.