Abstract
Arising from: P. Mellars Nature 439, 931–935 (2006); Mellars replies
The review by Mellars1 provides an archaeological perspective on some of the latest developments in radiocarbon dating of bone. However, his presentation, calibration and interpretation of radiocarbon ages are misleading in some cases, and important technical advances in the pretreatment of other sample types that have increased dating accuracy have been overlooked. These considerations may undermine the conclusions drawn about past human dispersals.
The review by Mellars1 provides an archaeological perspective on some of the latest developments in radiocarbon dating of bone. However, his presentation, calibration and interpretation of radiocarbon ages are misleading in some cases, and important technical advances in the pretreatment of other sample types that have increased dating accuracy have been overlooked. These considerations may undermine the conclusions drawn about past human dispersals.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | E3 |
| Number of pages | 1 |
| Journal | Nature |
| Volume | 443 |
| Issue number | 7108 |
| DOIs |
|
| Publication status | Published - 14 Sept 2006 |
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- General
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Archaeology: Progress and pitfalls in radiocarbon dating'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver