Carbon dating Final Pleistocene/

Earlier Holocene in SW Asia.

Why we can’t have nice things 2019 Edition

Piotr Jacobsson
Denaire et al. 2017: Figure 2
Plug et al. 2014: Figure 5
Milton Morenish, Loch Tay
http://www.wosas.net/news/mar_hall.html
artl and Rokitta-Krumnov 2017
Today

 Reading radiocarbon dates and models

 Why would we want nice things?
 How can’t we have nice things?
 Why can’t we have nice things?
o Doom, gloom, taphonomy
o Them bones
o Lack of nice things in action: 7,500 cal BC
 Can we have nice things?
 Why would we want nice things?
 How can’t we have nice things?
 Why can’t we have nice things?
o Doom, gloom, taphonomy
o Them bones
o Lack of nice things in action: 7,500 cal BC
 Can we have nice things?
Akarçay
Halula
Akarçay
Halula
(…) the interpretation of the
emergence of the Neolithic is
progressively shifting from a core
area explanation (…) to a
polycentric explanation, where the
transformation was taking place in
different regions simultaneously.
(…)
To discuss this question, very
precise absolute chronologies of
the cultural innovations are vital.
Ibáñez et al 2018 Quat Intl: p.245
 Why would we want nice things?
 How can’t we have nice things?
 Why can’t we have nice things?
o Doom, gloom, taphonomy
o Them bones
o Lack of nice things in action: 7,500 cal BC
 Can we have nice things?
Borrell et al. 2015:
Figure 3
Cauvin 1977: Figure 2
 Why would we want nice things?
 How can’t we have nice things?
 Why can’t we have nice things?
o Doom, gloom, taphonomy
o Them bones
o Lack of nice things in action: 7,500 cal BC
 Can we have nice things?
Arranz-Otaegui et al. 2016: Figure S1
Jacobsson In Press
Everyone’s sampling is
bad!
Everyone’s sampling is
bad!

Except ours.
Our sampling is excellent.
Everyone’s sampling is
bad!

Except ours.
Our sampling is excellent.

Only there were no good

contexts on our last five sites.
 Why would we want nice things?
 How can’t we have nice things?
 Why can’t we have nice things?
o Doom, gloom, taphonomy
o Them bones
o Lack of nice things in action: 7,500 cal BC
 Can we have nice things?
Vigne et al. 2011
Bayliss et al. 2015: Table 1
Benz et al. 2019: Figure 3; Table 3
 Why would we want nice things?
 How can’t we have nice things?
 Why can’t we have nice things?
o Doom, gloom, taphonomy
o Them bones
o Lack of nice things in action: 7,500 cal BC
 Can we have nice things?
 Abu Hureyra

Ais Yiorkis
Mylouthkia Shillourokambos

Yiftahel

Tell es-Sultan ‘Ain Ghazal

Ayn Abu Nukhalya

 Abu Hureyra

Ais Yiorkis
Mylouthkia Shillourokambos

Yiftahel

Tell es-Sultan ‘Ain Ghazal

Ayn Abu Nukhalya

 Abu Hureyra

Ais Yiorkis
Mylouthkia Shillourokambos

Yiftahel

Tell es-Sultan ‘Ain Ghazal

Ayn Abu Nukhalya

 Abu Hureyra

Ais Yiorkis
Mylouthkia Shillourokambos

Yiftahel

Tell es-Sultan ‘Ain Ghazal

Ayn Abu Nukhalya

Results extended to include
Cyprus
Technical

Conceptual
Results extended to include
Conceptual
Cyprus

Conceptual
Conceptual

Technical

Technical
 Why would we want nice things?
 How can’t we have nice things?
 Why can’t we have nice things?
o Doom, gloom, taphonomy
o Them bones
o Lack of nice things in action: 7,500 cal BC
 Can we have nice things?
 Why would we want nice things?
 How can’t we have nice things?
 Why can’t we have nice things?
o Doom, gloom, taphonomy
o Them bones
o Lack of nice things in action: 7,500 cal BC
 Can How can we have nice things?
 Why would we want nice things?
 How can’t we have nice things?
 Why can’t we have nice things?
o Doom, gloom, taphonomy
o Them bones
o Lack of nice things in action: 7,500 cal BC
 Can How can we have nice things?

Technique
 Why would we want nice things?
 How can’t we have nice things?
 Why can’t we have nice things?
o Doom, gloom, taphonomy
o Them bones
o Lack of nice things in action: 7,500 cal BC
 Can How can we have nice things?

Technique

Conceptual development
Boaretto 2015: Figure 3
Moore et al. 2003: Figure 8.51
Ais Yiorkis, Cyprus, ca. 7500 cal BC Rizwan Halal Butcher, Glasgow, 2018 cal AD
 Goldenberg 2017 Radiocarbon
Grupe 1994. JAS
Conceptual development
Feature-oriented
research design
Benz et al. 2019: Figure 3; Table 3
Conclusions
Conclusions

 We need nice things to meet our theoretical

demands
Conclusions

 We need nice things to meet our theoretical

demands
 We cannot get the required niceness by
treating entire sites as the basic analytical
unit: shift to feature-oriented dating
Conclusions

 We need nice things to meet our theoretical

demands
 We cannot get the required niceness by
treating entire sites as the basic analytical
unit: shift to feature-oriented dating
 This means a drive to better technical
proficiency
Conclusions

 We need nice things to meet our theoretical

demands
 We cannot get the required niceness by
treating entire sites as the basic analytical
unit: shift to feature-oriented dating
 This means a drive to better technical
proficiency
 It also means more grunt archaeological
report/field note trawling
 Thank you

Research presented was supported by: