Some problems of the radiocarbon dating of the Central Andean Cultures

Mariusz S. Ziółkowski
University of Warsaw

It is obvious that the basis of all archaeological research is to establish the chronology
(relative and absolute) of the analyzed phenomena. In Andean archaeology, absolute dating is
mainly accomplished by the C-14 dating method, and the dates from the Andean sites
appeared in the very first radiocarbon laboratory lists, in the early fifties, i.e. more than 40
years ago. The thermoluminescent, paleomagnetic and obsydian methods are considerably
less frequently used. Unfortunately, in spite of very prominent advancement of the
exploration of Prehispanic cultures, and the above mentioned fact of the very early application
of the C-14 method in the Andean archaeology, the absolute chronology for this region is still
the object of many controversies.

This situation issues, among others, from the fact that until now a complete catalogue of
radiocarbon dates for this region did not exist. The data were dispersed in many publications,
in various countries, some dates have never been published and were available only in
laboratory archives or remained in the possession of individual researchers. This situation and
the complications arising from it may be best illustrated by the fact that the fundamental work
„Chronology in New World Archaeology” (Taylor, Meighan, ed.1978) does not contain a
chapter on chronology of the Central-Andean cultures.

But the idea of a general catalogue of radiocarbon dates for the Andean cultures is not new. In
1951 Junius Bird published the first list, with about 20 dates. In the following years some
efforts have been made to establish catalogues for particular cultures and/or regions (Engel
1966; Bischof 1972; Ponce Sangines 1972; Burger 1981; Watson 1986) or for the entire
considered area. Later R. Ravines' catalogues were especially interesting (Ravines and
Alvarez Sauri, 1967; Ravines 1982). The largest one (Ravines 1982) contains 752 C-14 dates.
This one, according to our estimation represents about 25% of all the dates available at that
moment, i.e. in 1994.

Of course the problem does not end in simply listing and publishing full information for
example from Radiocarbon, among other reasons because his review publishes only a low
percentage of all the datas produced by numerous laboratories now. Until the early sixties, it
was still possible to publish an almost complete list of currently produced new datings in
Radiocarbon (or earlier in Science). Rapidly though, it appeared that the growing number of
dates produced every year (several tens of thousands, obviously not only for archaeology)
could not be presented in one review any more. In the eighties appeared the idea of creating a
general worldwide data base of all the radiocarbon datings, the so-called IRDB (International
Radiocarbon Database). This project has been so far reported, principally for need of financial
support. In this situation the alternative solution was to start establishing such a database
limited to one country only or a well delimited cultural area, keeping in mind though the
possibility of a future unification of such regional databases in more general system. As far as
Andean region, as concerned a lot of new problems arise, with which our predecessors have
been already confronted. The most obvious of those problems is the data selection and clear
presentation (related to the datings) for archaeological purposes. And so 3 main problems
connected with data selection criteria arise:

1. What kind of information should a catalogue card contain?

 2. How to determine precise territorial and/or cultural and temporal limits for the
enquiry?
3. How to estimate reliability of dates, depending on the kind of sample material, the
method of dating employed, the general reliability of the laboratory, etc.?

Before coming to the resumed presentation of the contents of our Catalogue, it is necessary to
offer some information about our methods for collecting data.

As we already mentioned, we made good use of previous catalogues such as Engel 1966a,
Ravines and Alvarez Sauri 1967 and others, as well as the lists of datings from Radiocarbon,
Science and Archaeometry, but not uncritically, as we will explain further below. We also
went to some 80 radiocarbon laboratories in the World, requesting them to send us their
records related to the radiocarbon datings for Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru. We received positive
answers from about 45 of them; in which most of the datings had already been published in
the mentioned reviews. But in some cases, as for example in that of the radiocarbon
laboratory of the U.S. Geological Survey (code W), the major part of the datings send to us
were still unpublished. We received especially important assistance from the Centre des
Faibles Radioactivite Laboratoire Mixte CNRS-CEA in Gif sur Yvette, France (codes Gif and
Gif A), which offered us the access to all the records, information and publications collected
in their archive.

We soon realized that it would be suitable and fruitful to confront two sources of
informations: the archaeological reports concerning the context of the samples with the
detailed laboratory reports about the method of datation employed and its final results. For
that reason, when we finished collecting the data of our Catalogue, we addressed ourselves
once more to the radiocarbon laboratories, which had produced the datings we collected,
requesting from them a confirmation of the results we reported. It was especially important
for datings which had not been previously published in Radiocarbon and were known only
from the archaeological publications. The datings which have been confirmed by the
laboratories in such a way carry in our Catalogue, in the field „References”, the code of the
laboratory accompanied by the symbol „&” (for example W&, see W-310 in the Peru section
of the Catalogue). This verification led us to a series of corrections; in the Index 4 we list all
the datings in which appeared significant differences (> 10 yrs in the conventional age BP or
the standard error) according to the sources they were collected from. Some especially
striking differences are discussed below. We are well aware of the fact that, in spite of a keen
cross-control we made, probably the present Catalogue is not exempt of such mistakes as
well. Therefore we would be most thankful to the Readers to inform us about any error they
might come upon. We plan to publish regularly eventual corrections and supplements to the
Catalogue in a special Bulletin.

As it was said at the beginning, our aim was not merely to report the radiocarbon datings
available in the literature but rather to offer the possibility of comparing the results from
different laboratories, produced at different times. It is precisely on this point we came upon
with the first problem that may be defined as

1. Corrections, improvements and calibrations (or what was indeed reported as a C-14
dating?)
The detailed description of the present procedures in the field of the radiocarbon dating
methods are discussed in the chapter of Mr and Mrs Pazdur (Andes, 1994:25-62).
Therefore I will limit here myself with some consequences of the historical changes in
these methods immediately perceptible in the data we collected.
a) The problem of the exact values of the half-life of the C-14 isotope
At the turn of the fourties and the fifties series of measurements of the half-life of the
C-14 isotope was made, on the basis of which H. Libby established the mean value at
5568±30 years. This value is commonly known as so-called Libby Half-life. More
exact measurements realized in the early sixties led to a re-evaluation to the improved
estimation of 5730±40 years. But for the sake of keeping a common scale in the
publicated results, it was agreed at the 5th International Conference on Radiocarbon
Dating in 1962 to maintain the Libby Half-life as the conventional basis for the
calculation of datings. It means practically that all the C-14 dates calculated conforming
to this convention are reduced by approx. 3%. But this difference has been considered
as negligeable compared to the degree of exactitude of the counting methods available
at that time, and the especially to the magnitude of the average standard errors.
Anyway, it is possible to correct this difference, by multiplying the conventional age
BP (calculated according to the Libby Half-life in reference to 1950) by the coeficient
1.03 (wihout changing the value of the standard error). Let us underline that all the
modern computer programs for calibration (among which the software elaborated in
Gliwice and used for the calibration of the present Catalogue) automatically carry out
this correction. In the literature on Andean archaeology it is still possible to find datings
reported in both versions, i.e. counted with Libby Half-life together with Half-life=5730
years, or even in the second form only. One ought to remember this last example,
especially when using computer calibration programmes such as those by Stuiver and
Reimers (1993) in to avoided the second correction (by the 1.03 coeficient) of a date
already produced with the Half-life=5730 yrs.
b) The problem of the accuracy of the radioactivity measurement
As we mentioned above, the first radiocarbon datings concerning the Andean region are
almost as old as the radiocarbon method itself. Already at the end of the forties and the
beginning of the fifties datings were made for sites of such importance as Huaca Prieta,
Paracas Necropolis, Huaca Negra, Cahuachi and others. Leaving appart the mentioned
problem of the exact duration of the Half-life of the C-14 isotope, it is necessary to
recall the fact that those first datings were produced with the so called „solid carbon”
method, rather imprecise and completely abandoned nowadays. This method, which
will not be discussed in details here (as it is presented in the chapter by Mr and Mrs
Pazdur, Andes 1994:55 and ss) led to significant imprecisions, leading to standard
errors of 200 yrs or even more. Moreover the results of succesive countings of the same
sample were sometimes very different. Let us take as an example the case of the datings
L-116a, produceed on a single sample of charcoal from Huaca Prieta. The value
reported in our Catalogue is 3780±100 BP according to the Laboratory list . But this
sample was previously dated in the same laboratory (i.m. Lamont Observatory) by the
black carbon method at 3650±400 BP and by the University of Chicago at 4298±230
BP (see the datings L-116a and C-598 in the Peru section).

At that time, as well as now, some authors used to present the mean value obtained
from different countings, although others present only the result of one of the countings,
which they suppose more acceptable. For example the dating C-271 from Paracas
Necropolis which appears as 2257±200 in our Catalogue, conforming to the mean value
given by Arnold and Libby from two different countings (2190±350 and 2336±300) is
reported by Ravines from the first value only at 2190±350 (compare Arnold and Libby,
1951: 119 with Ravines 1982: 170). Even more significant is the case of the datings
made from an ensemble of atlatls found in a grave at Cahuachi (Nasca). The dating C-
 521 is reported in the laboratory list as 2211±200, as an average value between two
very significantly different countings: 1681±250 and 2477±200. Still for example H.
Silverman recently published only the first counting, for the only reason that it fitted
better with the ceramic Nasca 3 found in the same grave, and thus rejected the second
as aberrant (Silverman 1993: 39). In addition to this question of differences in results of
countings we must add the problem of
c) the „Suess effect” and the standard of radioactivity
The datations by the radiocarbon method were initially carried-out on the assumption
that the percentage of the C-14 isotope in the atmosphere had not changed for millenia.
The standard reference was thus established as the contemporary measure of the C-14
in the atmosphere. But it appeared rather quickly that such was not the case. Since the
middle of the 19th century and the industrial age when a quantity of C-14 free CO2 was
ejected into the atmosphere (resulting from the combustion of fossil coal and
petroleum), the proportion of C-14 diminished compared to the global amount of
carbon in the atmosphere. It was established that this diminution amounted to 2.5 % in
1950, compared to pre- industrial times (see Suess, 1955: pass., Pazdur and Pazdur
1982: 26), and for that reason the age of the datings made on the basis the „atmospheric
standard” was underestimated by the same quotient of about 2.5 %. It is for that reason
that in the laboratories lists from the fifties appear datings corrected by the so-called
„Suess effect” (or „industrial effect”) ranging from +80 to +200 and even more years. A
significant example appears in the case of L-122a from Huaca Negra, reported 3150±90
(as a mean value of two countings: 3200±100 and 3050±90) which, according to the
„Suess correction” produces 3400±90 (see L/2: 410). For that reason in archaeological
literature we sometimes find, under the same code, various datings, depending on
whether the „Suess correction” was taken into account or not. A good example of this
situation probably appears in the series of datings L-268a (1710±80), L-268e (900±70),
L-268f (970±70), L-268g (1200±80), L-268h (1430±80), produced from samples
collected by Strong from different sites in the Nasca Valley. Although in the original
list of the Lamont Laboratory those dates appear as quoted above, in the later 6th list of
the radiocarbon laboratory of the University of Pennsylvania in 1963 all those datings
were reported as being 200 years older, i.e. 1910, 1100, 1170, 1400 i 1630 years, with
the unchanged respective standard errors. It seems we are confronted here with the
„Suess effect” taken indeed into account although not mentioned. Unfortunately we
were not able to confirm this supposition for the reason that the archives of the Lamont
Laboratory of those years are not available.

Of course the problems concerning the „Suess effect” vanished with the introduction of
the NBS Oxalic Acid radioactivity standard, but anyhow, a lasting effect of this
situation is perceptible in the datings from the fifties, which are still rather difficult to
compare with those produced later, both because of the inaccuracy of the countings as
well as that of the radioactivity standard. Therefore although we present a
dendrochronological calibration of those first datings from the fifties, together with the
later ones in the Catalogue, we must keep in mind that they are just mere
approximations and should by no means serve as a confident base for absolute
chronology.

The next cause for modifications of the datings leading to other problems with the
comparison of results produced in different periods and which must be taken into
account as well is:
d) the „isotopic fractionation” commonly called the „dC-13 correction”
 This problem is discussed in detail in the chapter by Mr and Mrs Pazdur (loc. cit.)
therefore I shall only content myself with mentioning that this question refers to the
slightly different amounts of C-14 contained in various living organisms. This
difference is estimated by the help of the similar proportional absorbtion by living
organisms of C-12 and C-13 isotopes, presenting the advantage of being more easily
measurable.

The correction base on the „isotopic fractionation”, sometimes unclearly called

„calibration” (a term which may lead to confusion with the „dendrochronological
calibration”) is peculiarly significant when applied to datings made on samples of sea
shells or some kind of grains such as maize. Depending of the sort of shell analyzed this
correction may reach 400 years and for maize around 245 years, etc. (see the exact
values in table 2 of the Pazdur's paper, loc. cit.). As a simple illustration let us consider
the abstact case of a similar dating results of 3150±50 BP, obtained from three different
samples: shell, maize and humus. The corresponding correction to dC-13 would
produce respectively 2700±50 BP, 2865±50 BP and 3130±50 BP. This situation renders
the most difficult use of old datings especially when the material of the sample is not
reported.

The next source of confusion results principally of the so called „human factor”,
concerning
e) the „BP, AD, BC” and the treacherous question of the year „0” (Radiocarbon
Time).
In the very beginning of the radiocarbon datings it was accepted that the conventional
radiocarbon age of the sample is expressed in years , counted backward from the year
when the dating was produced. This habit was necessaryly adding by itself a new
parameter of corrections as results produced in successive years were obviously
refering to different „0” base dates. The importance of this variation factor was
negligeable, considering the broad margins of inexactitude in the datings produced in
those years (see above), especially as soon (n 1962) a general convention agreed with
establishing the „0” point of C-14 datings as the year 1950. For physicists the question
was solved, but some problems remained with reports of the C-14 datings in
archaeological publications. In archaeology the convention was to present
chronological data in terms of years BC/AD. Theoretically, the problem of conversion
from BP to BC/AD scale is very easy, consisiting simply to substract 1950 years from
the BP dates, given by the laboratories. Still, this elementary operation prove to be
sometimes distrustful, because complementary complications emerged from the
traduction of the English terms BC, AD and BP to Spanish, where theoretically the
English „BC” (before Christ) corresponds to „a.C.” (antes de Cristo), whereas „AD”
(Anno Domini) corresponds to „d.C.” (después de Cristo). All this become even more
intricated with the appearance of another, rather enigmatic abreviation „AC”, which in
some publications seems to mean „AD” and in others is interpreted as „BP”. For the
sake of the clarity of the present exposition, I will not discuss the additional differences
in the use of „BC, AD and BP” abreviations in minuscule or capital letters here....

Unfortunatelly the mistakes in interpreting the datings, as the results of

misunderstanding of the different abreviations mentioned above, clearly distort the
Catalogue of Ravines and Alvarez Sauri from 1967 and find their consequences in the
1982 list by Ravines. As an illustration, the dating L-268e, the correct value of which
reported in the laboratory list is 900±70 BP (see L/3: 163) is first erroneously reported
 as 900±70 AD (i.e. 1050 BP - Ravines, Alvarez Sauri 1967: 22) and later appears as
2850 BP (Ravines 1982) as a second confusion by the author, reusing his former
erroneous interpretation with a new intervertion of 900 AD into 900 BC (i.e. exactly
2850 BP). To continue, let us consider the well known date W-310, produced on a
sample closely associated with the giant ground drawings on the Nasca desert. Its
correct value, confirmed to us by the Laboratory, is „< 200 BP” (namely: younger than
200 radiocarbon years Before Present) and not 1757 +\- 200 BP (i.e. AD 193±200), as it
appears in the Ravines catalogue (Ravines, 1982: 174). The probable origins of this
error are presented in the commentary to W-310 (Andes 1994:479-480).

This kind of misinterpretation touches sometimes a whole serie of datings, for example
in the same catalogue by Ravines, all the dates from the Guitarrero cave appear in the
wrong column, i.e. in BC instead of BP, in such a way that all of them agree in being
older by 1950 years (see Ravines, 1982). In this case we prefer to believe in an error at
the printers rather than in a mistake of inattention by the Author.

In our Index 4 we present all the datings in which we observed a significant difference
in the reported values (> 10 years) of the age BP or the standard error according to
various sources.

It is worth mentioning that the conversion of conventional radiocarbon datings BP

(Before Present) into the BC/AD scale was acceptable at a time when it was believed
that the radiocarbon age corresponds approximatively to the calendric age (expressed in
solar years). At least from the early sixties it became evident that this was not the case
since the assumption by Libby that the percentage of C-14 in the atmosphere was stable
over a long period of time proved not to be true. In that situation it appears that the
radiocarbon age of the sample rather reflects its radioactivity, and should serve only as
a base for the calculation of its probable calendrical age. This point leads us to the next
group of questions related to
f) the dendrochronological calibration.
The first reconsideration of the previously accepted idea of the stablity of the C-14
percentage in the atmosphere came with the recognition of the „Suess effect”. With the
improvement of the C-14 measurements it appeared that the datings of some samples of
well known age (e.g. of. from the Early Dynasties of the Ancient Egypt) gave results
too short by at least a few centuries, even when taken into account all the corrections
known then.

In consideration of that point, precise dendrochronological researches (let us mention

here the important contribution of C.W. Ferguson) led to the establishment of the so-
called „curves of calibration” based on the changes of content of C-14 in the
atmosphere during the last millennia. Thanks to this, it is possible now to convert the
conventional radiocarbon age of a sample into the most probable calendrical age. This
question is discussed in detail in the chapter by Mr and Mrs Pazdur as well as that of
Mr Michczynski (Andes 1994), therefore I shall only mention here that before the
general acceptance as a standard, in 1986, of the Stuiver's and Reimers' calibration
curve, other systems of calibration, based on preliminary and rough curves, had been in
use since the early seventies. Some of those systems had been applied in Andean
archaeology, especially the systems of Klein et al, 1974, Damon et al., 1979 and Suess
et al. 1982. In the Catalogue ANDES those earlier calibrations are quoted by us in the
Archaeological comment or Laboratory comment, in order to allow for the comparison
 with the results of more recent methods (see the commentary to the Catalogue). In the
specialized literature we sometimes encounter, fortunately not so frequently, cases in
which the author only reports the calibrated value, without presenting the basic
conventional age BP. This renders the rather difficult use of such datings, especially
when the calibration method used is not mentioned (see the datings SMU-1787 and
SMU-1788 in the Peru section).

Another specific problem related to the dendrochronological calibration is that of the so

called „correction for the Southern Hemisphere”. From the last years publications of the
analysis of samples of well known age from South Africa, it was noticed that the
content of C-14 in the atmosphere of the Southern Hemisphere is slightly different
(higher by ca 3%) of that in the Northern Hemisphere, a situation leading to a constant
difference of about 30 - 40 radiocarbon years. To make things easier let us consider that
for any conventional dating made from a sample from Peru, for example, we should add
30 years (i.e. 2050±30 conv. BP must be converted to 2080±30 conv. BP, etc.) and it is
only this second corrected value which should be taken as a base for the
dendrochronological calibration. So far everything would be fine, but we have to take in
account the fact that atmospheric and climatological limits of the sub-equatorial zone
are far from being as strictly delimited as the geographical equator, moreover this zone
is a region of significant atmospherical exchanges between the Northern and Southern
Hemispheres. Therefore it is possible that the differences in the percentage of C-14 in
the atmosphere when passing from one Hemisphere to the other, occur rather gradually
than abruptly. So, practically, which sort of correction we should apply to a dating
made on a sample coming from an archaeological site located at the Latitude 2ºS.?
Should it be 40 years? or maybe only 15? Or even only 10? And consequently, what
should be the correction for a sample collected at the Latitude 10ºS., etc? Precisely
because of these doubts and in order to avoid a still greater confusion in the data, we
have decided not to introduce this correction, until the uncertitudes of its real value for
the region between Lat. 1 N and 20 S, can be solved. Still, it is necesary to remember
that in some laboratories this correction of 30 or 40 years is introduced systematically.
This may not have a too great importance for datings of the order of 6000±100 conv.
BP, but becomes significant for high-resolution datings (with a standard error of ca 20
yrs) from later periods (i.e. Late Intermediate Period or Late Horizon). In the Catalogue
ANDES there are a few datings with the „Southern Hemisphere correction”, it is the
case of, for example series of five datings from the Yumes site in Ecuador (AA-1760,
AA-1762, AA-1763, AA- 1764, AA-1765).

I should now dedicate a few words to the above mentioned question of

g) the standard error or sigma and its place in the archaeological literature.
It may seem somehow exagerrated to mention such a trivial point here, but I consider it
appropiate to remember that a conventional C-14 dating should be reported in the
following way (an example chosen arbitrarly): 3500±70 BP. This means in practice that
the true value of the dating (still in radiocarbon and not solar years) is situated between
3430 and 3570 conv. BP at the probability level of 68%, whereas with the probability
level of ca 95%, it would range between 3360 and 3640 conv. BP (amounting to value
of 2SD on each side of the mean value, i.e. 3500 BP). It is only the range of values
between those limits (and not the mean value alone!), that should be the object of
dendrochronological calibration. Unfortunately, in some publications issued in the
times when archaeologists (and not only them) were over-confident in the exactness of
the C-14 method, we are given chronologies based only on the mean values (in
 conventional radiocarbon years) with the complete omission of the corresponding
standard errors. It is according to this convention one of the earliest lists of datings was
publilshed, namely that of F. Engel, 1963, in which indeed the author spoke about the
standard error in his Introduction but in the list itself the datings are reported only as
mean values. In the archaeological literature we find a quantity of datings for which
there is simply no mention of the value of the standard error, in our Catalogue such is
the case of the series of datings produced by the now inactive C-14 laboratory of the
Science Museum of Victoria, Australia (see V-275 and ss.). Of course in similar
situations of the complete lack of information about the standard error makes any kind
of serious dendrochronological calibration impossible.

At the end of this paragraph in which we exposed some problems associated mainly
with the archaeological interpretation (sometimes imprecise or even erroneous) of the
data produced by the laboratories, we would like to continue with the delicate matter of
h) corrections, inaccuracies and mistakes in the laboratories themselves.
A fact which is commonly known although rather discretly kept is that among the C-14
laboratories there was (an still is) a significative difference not only in the accuracy of
the measurements (depending on the sophistication of the instruments used) but simply
in the viability of the respective laboratories, depending on other factors. Those factors
precisely constitute the delicate matter I mentioned here above and without wishing
enter into details I simply recall here that with the aim of establishing something like a
general standard of viability, there are periodical intercomparisons between several
laboratories, consisting of dating of the same samples of well known absolute age. The
results of such comparisons are published in Radiocarbon. Of course the participation in
such verificatory programmes is not compulsary and therefore not all the active
laboratories take part in them, but all the same, there is an unformal but well accepted
ranking of C-14 laboratories according to the exactness of their results. In the
calibration program published by Stuiver and Reimers in 1993 we can even find a
special coeficient named „k” (ranging from 1 to 4) which is used to mulptiply the
standard errors (before the calibration), according to the estimated degree of accuracy
of the results produced by respective laboratories, the ceoficient „1” being attributed to
the most reliable ones, of course. It is probably useless to mention that such an idea of
„formal ranking” (and in such a way) was rather coldly received, and we have never
had heard about a laboratory which would use another coeficient than „1” for its own
results...
Anyway it is very important to report, the corresponding code and laboratory number
together with any C-14 dating. This is essential information, even putting aside the
above mentioned question of viability, allowing the user to address directly the
laboratory with any question concerning a particular dating for more details.
Unfortunately there is rather too frequent custom even in the latest literature, to forget
to give the complete laboratory reference or report them too imprecisely. In the present
Catalogue to these datings are atribuited an arbitrary code „ZZZZ”. I should also
remember that some laboratories during the long period of activity changed their
identification codes, and, sometimes, even the numbering of their datings. For example
the first laboratory codes of Gif (Gif-sur-Yvette) were Gsy and Sa. In the case of GrN
(Groningen) it was previously Gro and in that of GaK (Gakushuin) it was G., etc. In the
particular case of the last one, the change of the code concerns also the numbering of
datings, for example the reference Gak-106 corresponds to the ancient G-606, etc.

Another problem is that sometimes preliminary results from laboratories reach the first
archaeologist and are published without waiting for the final results, different in some
cases.

A good example of such situation concerns the dating GX-1127 from Chavin de
Huantar, reported by H. Amat O. as 3150 BP without the corresponding standard error
(Amat, 1976: 544). When we addressed ourselves to Geochron Laboratories with a
request for the missing value of the standard error, we received an answer that the
analyzed sample had been to small to allow a dating at all (letter of Dr G. Wilcox,
Geochron Laboratories, April 27th, 1994). So it seems to us that H. Amat O., when
publishing the dating 3150 BP reliate on a preliminary laboratory estimation, without
waiting or not receiving the final report. Independently and enigmatically, the same
dating GX-1127 appears sometimes as 3077 BP or 1127 BC and this, as we suspect, is
most probably the result of a confusion of the dating itself and its code number, namely
1127 (see the commentary to GX-1127, in Andes 1994:285). In addition I have to
mention also that it sometimes happens that the laboratories are unable to confirm or
submit more details about datings they produced, especially at the turn of the fifties and
sixties, mainly because of some gaps in their archives. In some cases it is not even
possible to identify the laboratory number of the dating, for example, among others, the
whole series of datings from Cerro Sechin produced in the radiocarbon laboratory of the
Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru in Lima (see PUCP - XX1 - XX16, in Andes
1994:388 and ss.), which by the way does not appear, to our knowledge, in any of the
lists issued by this research center.

The procedure of the analysis of the samples from their submittion to the laboratory
until the publication of the results is anyway so complicated, that even the most
reknowned centers are not exempt of some errors. A well known case is that of a series
of ca 400 datings produced by the British Museum C-14 Laboratory between 1980 and
1984, with a systematic error of about 200 yrs due to a technical deficiency.
Immediately as the error was detected, the Laboratory informed about it in the columns
of both Antiquity and Radiocarbon and subsequently published a new list of corrected
datings. Unfortunately, it was too late to establish an exact correction for all of the ca
400 datings, a problem was even more complicated by the fact that some of those
erroneous results had already gone their own way quoted in various archaeological
publications. For the data collected in our Catalogue, this concerns four datings from
Guarumal, Ecuador (BM-1682R, BM-1684, BM-1688, BM- 1689) and one from
Cusichaca, Peru (BM-1633R). Taking into account the possibility of errors ( not
frequent, it is true, but still probable) from the laboratories, it is recommended in the
case of findings of particular importance for the chronology of the investigated site, to
divide the sample in fragments in order to send it to several laboratories for independent
datings.

This is precisely what we have done with the case of an extremely interesting finding of
a preceramic burial in Cahuachi, Nasca, Peru: after five coincidental datings obtained
from the Gliwice Radiocarbon Laboratory, the Laboratory itself sent parts of the
samples to three other laboratories (Gif-sur-Yvette, Gif A - accelerator and Groningen).
The perfect agreement of the results from those laboratories with that from Gliwice
constitute a strong argument to support the preceramic dating of the burial and the
associated wooden structure (compare section Peru, records Gd-2994, Gd-2996, Gd-
3441, Gd-4393, Gd-4394, Gif-8128, GrN-16593 and TAN- 89171). By the way, those
agreeing results constitute, to some extent, a confirmation of the reliability of the
 laboratories that participated in the mentioned cross-dating.
2. The next important group of problems we met in our enterprise turns around the question
of the original location of the samples or, more concretely, the name and geographical
identification of the site, where it was collected. It would seem that such a question is too
trivial to even be mentioned, because most evidently radiocarbon datings are primarily for
the establishment of the chronology of archaeological sites, so that at least the name of the
site should accompany every dating, together with the code and laboratory number. In
practice the situation appears sometimes more complex. It is especially connected with the
data collected from laboratory archives where information is based upon descriptions sent
by archaeologists together with the samples. Those descriptions are sometimes so laconic
and unprecise that it is absolutely impossible to make sure even of the name itself of the
site and its localization, therefore it would be too much asking for more detailed
information about the archaeological context. Therefore datings classificated as
„Unidentified site name” or, in a better case, designated as, for example, „Quito region” or
„Baños quad” or other similar kinds of approximate localizations appear in our catalogue.
It even sometimes happens that datings identified with the same laboratory code and
number (and, of course, the same age BP) are attributed to two absolutely different sites. It
is precisely the case with the dating N-87 which in one of the sources is attributed to
Paracas and in the other to La Florida in the Rimac Valley ( see the commentary to this
dating in Andes 1994:361). Because it happens that the laboratory concerned is actually no
longer active, we are unable to define the correct attribution of this dating. A related
question is the precision of localization of the sites in terms of administrative units such as,
for example, provinces and districts in the case of Peru, as well as their geographical
coordinates. In some cases the differences between the coordinates given by several
authors for the same site varied by some twenty arc minutes, and it happens even that
according to the reported values the concerned pre- hispanic village should have been
situated far out in the Ocean. The above mentioned problems with localization and
identification of sites resulted in some important consequences in the presentation of data
in the Catalogue as well as in their geographical indexation. First of all we have to resign
from the presentation of the geographical distribution of the datings on maps for now. This
is because the MapInfo software use needs exact geographical coordinates of the sites. The
verification of all those data would delay considerably the presentation of the Catalogue to
the readers. For this reason we decided to delay the geographical presentation for later, in
one of the volumes of the projected specialized Bulletin.

But even with a well defined name and approximate localization appear sometimes rather
relevant differences for example in the site number or its description. It is therefore
difficult to establish if, e.g. two sites from Tumbaco valley (Ecuador), reported by different
authors as Cumbaya Z3B3-021 (Santa Lucia) and Santa Lucia ED16, respectively, are
really the same one or two neighbouring ones. A similar situation appears in particular for
the area of great concentration of archaeological sites, in which the datings may be
reported in association with a peculiar monument in the region or with the region or
complex in general. Such is the case, among others, with the archaeological sites of the
Quebrada de Chilca, Paracas, Cahuachi, Ancon, Batan Grande, Caballo Muerto, etc. Even
in the situation when we had good reasons to suppose that some of the sites labelled under
somewhat different, but similar, references by the authors in fact concern the same one
(see e.g. different „Ancon, Tank site” or „Qaluyu”) we chose rather to present them in the
Index as separate than to risk possible confusion. We hope to be able to introduce the
relevant precisions to that part of the Database in the near future.
3. The last of general problems we met in the completion and analysis of data for our
Catalogue was the question of attribution of datings to chronological classificatory periods
of the Andean archaeology, a problem intimately related to the elaboration of a
Chronological Index of datings. Initially we had been planning to attribute each peculiar
dating in the classical chronological frame such as Late Horizon, Late Intermediate Period,
Middle Horizon etc. for Peru, as a reference base for the index. Soon, although, very
essential difficulties appeared: on which criteria should such a classification be
established? On the basis of stratigraphy established by the archaeologist who collected the
sample and submitted it to the laboratory, or on the results of the absolute dating by
radiocarbon? In the first of those cases the period established according to the
stratigraphical level in which the sample was collected might be significantly different
from the radiocarbon dating because of, for example, the contamination of the sample
itself. The result of such a choice would lead to the attribution to different periods of
datings of similar absolute age, because of their different stratigraphical position. In the
second case e.g. of an attribution of a dating to archaeological periods on the only base of
its radiocarbon age, would lead to the rejection of all the stratigraphical and contextual
evidences.

If we had taken into account only datings which results had been fully analyzed and
accepted by archaeologists themselves, it would have considerably reduced the number of
dates in our Catalogue. In that situation we decided to include in the "Archaeological
comment" to the datings, only the stratigraphical attribution, reported in terms of regional
period or phase, nevertheless we built the Index indendependently of this information,
taking into account only the values of the conventional radiocarbon age of the datings, to
dispatch them in the arbitrary radiocarbon time periods BP.

Those limits correspond more or less to the cultural chronology of the Andean region, for
the above mentioned reasons we have not considered suitable to attribute them the names
of the cultural periods. We should also explain the reasons why we have chosen to
construct the Chronological Index using the conventional radiocarbon age BP and not the
calibrated values, although the calibrated age is obviously of greater interest to the users.
There are two main reasons for such a choice: first, most of the datings from the Andean
region have been given until now only in conventional radiocarbon age BP. If we had
produced a calibrated conversion of those dates in the Index, this could have led to
confusion and rendered more difficult the consultation of the Catalogue. The second
reason is essentially technical. As it is exposed in details in the chapters by A.
Michczynski and A. and M. Pazdur, we have chosen a form of presentation of calibated
dates which consists of offering time ranges of given probability level, and renounced from
presenting the calibrated equivalent of the conventional radiocarbon mean value (with
corresponding standard errors, etc). Moreover, in respect to the described
dendrochronological calibration curves a single conventional date would have produced
several time ranges of different probality levels. In this situation the indexing of calibrated
datings would have been difficult to present clearly. The decision of establishing the
Chronological Index on the base of the conventional radiocarbon age BP is a compromise
between the theoretical basis we had impose on ourselves and the practical usefulness of
the Catalogue.

After presenting the main problems we met during the collection and classification of data
introduced in the catalogue, I would like to present a few general remarks concerning the
datings presented here, in the Catalogue. Some general statistics are given in the following
table:
 Categories of sites according to the number of datings per Nº of
site datings
1% 2-4% 5-9% >10% Total % %
Bolivia 17 58.6 10 34.5 0 0 2 6.9 29 4.5 99 3.7
Ecuador 65 43.3 53 35.3 16 10.7 16 10.7 150 23.6 657 24.6
Peru 182 39.7 177 38.6 59 12.8 41 8.9 459 71.9 1917 71.7
Total 264 41.4 240 37.6 75 11.8 59 9.2 638 2673
The Database includes 2672 datings from about 630 sites, among which the major part is
represented by archaeological samples, but we have also considered the results from other
fields of research, such as paleoclimatology or geology. We felt that information
concerning for example the last glaciation in the Andes or the changes in the processes of
fluvial deposits in Amazonia could be interested for paleoecoligical reconstructions in
archaeology. We noticed that the distribution of datings is not equal for the three
concerned countries and the number of dates from Bolivia is very low. It obviously may
depend, in some degree, on the unsufficient consultation of relevant archives, anyway,
when compared to the 657 datings from Ecuador, we can clearly see that the basis for
analysis and discussion of the absolute chronology of, e.g. the archaeological cultures of
the Bolivian Altiplano is rather scarce. Another interesting constatation concerns the
question of the number of sites and the the average number of datings per site. The
Catalogues includes 630 sites, among some may appear under slightly different names (for
the reasons I presented previously). Fortunately, those cases are not numerous, therefore is
it reasonable to consider that the total number of dated sites oscilates around 620. This
produces a mean number of ca 4,3 datings per site, ranging from a record number of 118
datings for the same site (or better to say an archaeological complex) of Cahuachi , Nasca
(Peru) to 273 sites with only one dating per site (see table 1). Evidently the concept of
„site” is rather vage as it may designate archaeological complexes spred on several square
kilometers as well as a small shell midden. Looking further to the statistical table, we
observe that for the 30 Bolivian sites (the various sectors of Tiwanaku appearing as
gathered together) the mean value is still 3,3 datings per site, but we find that 59 datings
come from only 3 sites (mean value: 29,7 datings per site) whereas the remaining 27 sites
had only from 1 to 3 datings each (in total 40, mean value 1.48 datings per site). This not
only reflects the difference of importance of the sites concerned but also the attitude of
many archaeologists, to often over-estimating the diagnostic importance of a single
radiocarbon dating. We are well aware here of the impact of the economical factor, the
radiocarbon datings being rather expensive, nevertheless I would like to insist on the fact
that only a series of radiocarbon datings from a single context may offer a solid basis for
chronological estimations. Even though, sometimes several coinciding datings made from
a single context may prove misleading. Those cases are, fortunately, seldom and occur
only in very specific conditions, but, us an example, let us remember the well known case
of the „Otavalo Man” (see Birm-331a,b,c, Birm-332, Birm-360a,b, Q-1032 and Q-1033 in
the Ecuador section).
Concluding remarks
The problems presented above concern the process of collecting radiocarbon dates and the
various limitations concerning the possibilitiess of their use for forming chronological scales,
might give the impression of denigrating the C14 method itself and the reliability of the
results. Omitting the question of various corrections and associated question of the exactness
of the measurement itself in conventional radiocarbon years, especially discouraging seems to
be some of the results of calibration, where we obtain a range of perhaps 800 years and not
only for the dating of layers from the early Preceramic or Palaeo- Indian phases, but from
about 2500 BP (see e.g., the dating TK-344 in the Peru section). Have we in creating our
database and critically examining the data collected here unwittingly provided arguments for
those archaeologists who question the usefulness of the C14 absolute dating method? It seems
to me that from a certain moment archaeologists began to expect too much of the C14
method, treating it as a „deus ex machina” (nomen omen) completely authoritative in
questions of chronology. In such a situation successive corrections and qualifications in the
interpretation of the results of the radiocarbon dating created disappointment which in turn
created distrust. This was perhaps more an emotional than analytical approach to the problem.
We all are aware for example that such fundamental techniques such as stratigraphy also hold
many surprises, and we often have to alter some earlier interpretations. Nobody however has
questioned the sense of using the stratigraphic method in fieldwork and the interpretation of
the results of excavations. Our approach to C14 dating should be similar, especially now in a
situation where we are acquiring successive improvements in the dendrochronological
calibration and it is now beginning to regain the trust of investigators.

Both in this article and that of Mr and Mrs Pazdur (Andes 1994:25 and ss) we have discussed
different methods of minimalising the possibilities of obtaining dates which are not in
agreement with the stratigraphy, or simply undiagnostic from the point of view of absolute
dating. Apart from careful selection of material for dating, of especial significance is the
extension of the requirement of dating series of samples, and not just single samples from a
particular context. This is especially the question if it possible to divide the samples between
different laboratories. The next extremely important question is the matter of the choice of
laboratory to which the sample is sent. For example in the investigation of sites from EIP or
MH where we wish to conduct an analysis of events in a relatively short timespan we should
aim to obtain dates with standard errors no greater than 40-50 years (some labs can achieve
dates with standard errors of the range of 20-25 years). Only in the case of such a scale of
accuracy we can count on receiving calibrated results which are accurate enough for our
analyses. There remains the question of the different statistical processes for the analysis of
sequences of radiocarbon dates. From the Andean area we should note the extremely
interesting attempt to determine the absolute chronology for the Jama Valley (Ecuador) site
carried-out by Zeidler et al. In any case we may regard as finished the period in which the use
of single radiocarbon dates was acceptable for the dating of sites, and analyses of absolute
chronology are carried-out on dates given in radiocarbon years BP. The C14 method has been
developed for over 40 years and it has allowed us to improve the process of analysis itself as
well as to define more precisely its various limitations. In connection with Andean
archaeology, this method will long remain indispensible. Because of the practical
impossibility of using dendrochronology in the mid- Andean area (lack of suitable trees) and
the rather limited use of other techniques of dating (e.g., palaeomagnetic or
thermoluminescence) the C14 method will remain, despite all its limitations, the most
accurate we have at our disposal.
Selected bibliography
Amat Olazabal H., 1976. Estudios arqueológicos en la cuenca del Mosna y en el Alto
Marañon. [in:] Actas del XLI Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, México, pp. 532-544.
Arnold J.R., Libby W.F., 1951. Radiocarbon Dates, Institute for Nuclear Studies, University
of Chicago. Science, vol. 113, no 29271, pp. 111-120.
Bischof H., 1972. The origins of pottery in South America - Recent radiocarbon dates from
Southwest Ecuador. [in:] Atti del XL Congresso Internazionale degli Americanistici, Roma-
Genova 1972, vol. 1, Genova 1973, pp. 269-281.
Bowman S.G.E., Ambers J.C., Leese M.N., 1990. Re-evaluation of British Museum
radiocarbon dates issued between 1980 and 1984. Radiocarbon, vol. 32, no 1, pp. 59-79.
Burger R., 1981. The Radiocarbon evidence for the temporal priority of Chavín de Huántar.
American Antiquity, vol. 46, no 3.
Damon P.E., Ferguson C.W., Long A., Wallick E.I., 1974. Dendrochronologic Calibration
of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, American Antiquity, t. 39, pp. 350-366.
Engel F., 1963. Datations à l'aide du Radio-Carbone 14 et problèmes de la préhistoire du
Pérou. Journal de la Société des Américanistes, t. LIII, Paris, pp. 101-132.
Engel F., 1966. Geografía humana prehistórica y agricultura precolombina de la Quebrada de
Chilca. Universidad Agraria, Lima.
Ferguson C.W., 1969. A 7014-Year Annual Tree-Ring Chronology for Bristelcone Pine,
Pinus Aristrata, from White Mountain, California. Tree Ring Bulletin, t. 29, pp. 3-29.
Klein J., Lerman J.C., Damon P.E., Ralph E.K., 1982. Calibration of Radiocarbon dates:
tables based on the concensus data of the Workshop on calibrating the radiocarbon timescale.
Radiocarbon, vol. 24, pp. 103-150.
Krzanowski A., Michczynski A., Pazdur M.F., Ziólkowski M.S., 1994. Komputerowa baza
danych datowan radioweglowych rejonu Andów Srodkowych. Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki
Slaskiej, Geochronometria 10, pp. 139-151.
Pazdur A., Pazdur M., 1982. Chronometria radioweglowa jako metoda badawcza w
archeologii, mozliwosci, ograniczenia, perspektywy. Przeglad Archeologiczny, vol. 30, pp. 5-
45.
Ponce Saginés C., 1972. Tiwanaku: espacio, tiempo y cultura. La Paz.
Ravines R., 1982. Panorama de la arqueología andina. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, Lima.
Ravines R., Alvarez Sauri J.J., 1967. Fechas radiocarbónicas para el Perú. Arqueológicas 11,
Museo Nacional de Antropología y Arqueología, Lima.
Rowe J.H., 1965. An interpretation of radiocarbon measurements on archaeological samples
from Peru. [in:] Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Radiocarbon and Tritium
Dating, pp. 187-198.
Silverman H., 1993. Cahuachi in the Ancient Nasca World. Iowa University Press.
Suess H.E., 1955. Radiocarbon Concentration in Modern Wood, Science, vol. 120, pp. 415-
417.
Suess H.E., 1979. A calibration table for conventional radiocarbon dates. [in:] R. Berger, H.E.
Suess (eds.). Radiocarbon Dating. Proceedings of the 9th International Radiocarbon
Conference, University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 777-785.
Watson J., 1986. 14C and Cultural Chronology of the North Coast of Peru. [in:] R. Matos, S.
Turpin, H. Eling (eds.). Andean Archaeology Monograph XXVII, Institute of Archaeology
UCLA.
Taylor R.E., Meigham C.W., 1978. Chronologies in New World Archaeology. Academic
Press.
Zeidler J.A., Buck C.E., Litton C.D., 1993. The integration of archaeological phase
information and radiocarbon results from the Jama River Valley, Ecuador: a Bayesian
approach. (ms).
Ziólkowski M.S., Pazdur M.F., Krzanowski A., Michczynski A., 1994. ANDES.
Radiocarbon database for Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru, Warszawa-Gliwice.