ARCHAEOLOGY DATABASE: GUIDELINES FOR USE
William Davies
I would be grateful if users could inform Prof. Tjeerd van Andel
(vanandel@esc.cam.ac.uk) both of any mistakes they find and of any suggestions
for improvement of these guidelines.
General notes
The database contains almost 1900 determinations from about 400 sites, so I am fully
prepared to admit the possibility for error. It has been constructed with specific
criteria and intentions in mind, which were designed to fit in with the output of the
Stage Three Project. The two most important attributes for this purpose were the
temporal and spatial distributions of human activity and skeletal remains in Europe.
I have included determinations in the database which are clearly not OIS-3 in
age, and this is to enable users to assess the general levels of dating accuracy and
precision for any given context. As absolute dates are based in part on statistical
methods, it would be surprising if there were no outliers. Such dates may not
necessarily be “wrong”, but may instead reflect disturbance at the site: a piece of bone
dated to 14,000 BP in a context otherwise attributable to 30,000 BP may really be that
young and have arrived in that position post-depositionally.
All known
determinations from the assemblages listed in the database have been included, as I
believe the analysis of the distributions of dates from each context to be essential to
our understanding of the Palaeolithic record. It should be borne in mind that our
spread of dates for any given context may not be complete, for it is conceivable that
we may be missing some “outliers” owing to suppression.
The Notes/Bibliography column contains references specific to the age
determination itself, together with any pertinent background literature on the nature of
the site itself which could be added under the time-constraints involved in the
construction of the database. The most frequently-referenced laboratory datelists have
been reduced to an indication of the number of the datelist in the database, together
with the relevant page numbers. The Groningen (abbreviated to “GrN”), Lyon, Gif
and other datelists were published in the journal Radiocarbon, while all those
associated with the Oxford Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of
Art (abbreviated to “OxA”) were published in Archaeometry. Full references for each
of these abbreviated datelists can be found in Appendix 2 to these Guidelines, and it
is recommended that users print out all the text in this document for ease of use.
In accordance with convention, editorial additions/interpolations and
emendations are given within brackets, i.e. “[…]”. Parentheses, i.e. “(…)”, are not
indicative of any editorial action.
Site positions
The GIS program MapInfo 5.0 was used to plot the positions of sites on a
Bartholomew’s map of Europe. The latitudes and longitudes were measured with no
map projection being imposed. MapInfo can convert these data into specified
projections, e.g. Lambert conformal projections, if required. This “neutrality” in the
co-ordinates will allow users of the database to convert them to their own
specifications, and permit their use with other maps and map projections. Early on in
the Project, it was decided that all latitudes and longitudes should be consistent,
especially as it was quickly discovered that co-ordinates attributed to sites in the
published literature (e.g. in Radiocarbon) were often wildly inaccurate, and
sometimes the same site was even accorded different positions by different dating
laboratories! Digital degrees have been used, with longitude preceding latitude (cf.
the traditional order), and users should remember that longitudes in the western
hemisphere are prefixed by a minus-sign, while those in the eastern one are rendered
as positive.
Co-ordinates are given at three levels of precision. The most precise
positioning is seen in the degrees given to four decimal places, while those given at
three places reflect a lower level of confidence. Triangulations given in brackets have
an element of uncertainty attached to them, either owing to the level of description in
the sources or to disagreement within the latter. Their position is not hugely
inaccurate (not by more than a few kilometres), and reflects the precision of the
information given in the sources. In many cases, the co-ordinates in brackets refer to
the position of the [nearest] settlement, with the number of decimal places reflecting
levels of confidence. Bracketed co-ordinates given to four decimal places can
probably be taken to be accurate, although some disagreement in the sources renders
the brackets necessary. Users are advised to remove the brackets if they wish to plot
the positions of these sites, but should always bear in mind that their precision is not
[usually] comparable to those given without brackets. All possible attempts have
been made, within the timescales available, to reduce the numbers of bracketed coordinates, but a residuum remains, especially the former USSR, where the available
maps are on such a scale that precise plotting becomes well-nigh impossible.
Site characteristics and “cultural” attributions
It was felt important to note the site-type for each site collected, so that any biases
arising from a preponderance of sheltered (cave or abri [=rockshelter]) sites in relation
to open-air ones could be addressed. If we are not aware of how many dated covered
sites we have and use, we are inadvertently mapping the distribution of limestone in
Europe. If the total number of known Middle and Upper Palaeolithic sites were to be
considered, it would be apparent that open-air sites are actually remarkably wellrepresented. We have relatively few dates from these contexts because their
preservation conditions are normally poor, especially in gravelly or sandy deposits.
The layers and “cultural” ascriptions for each date are given as they appear in
the literature. Discrepancies, rather than obvious transcription errors, are noted in the
“Notes/Bibliography” column, although it often becomes difficult to accommodate
every researcher’s cultural-taxonomic preferences, especially in areas where
“splitting” rather than “lumping” research traditions predominate. This problem is
especially apparent in the study of the early Upper Palaeolithic from eastern Europe
and the former Soviet Union. Most taxonomic disagreements rest with the niceties of
whether something is “Aurignacian” or “Gravettian”, based on the proportions of
certain types of tool. These criteria are often specific to individual researchers or
research traditions, and I have tried to side-step this issue by preferring the majority
view and then noting any alternative variants in the “Notes/Bibliography” column.
Those users who wish to change and re-classify my attempts at classification are of
course free to do so. However, it should be remembered that there is usually little
dispute about what is attributed to the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic groupings (but
cf. Samuilitsa in Bulgaria, which is variously attributed to either the Mousterian or the
Aurignacian). The attribution of dates to layers can be extremely variable when one
attempts to correlate accounts in the literature: in cases with several sources, I have
tried to adopt the majority opinion, and have noted any variants in brackets in the
“Layer” column and also under “Notes/Bibliography”.
The term “FAUNA” in the “Industry” column refers to contexts with no
certain archaeological content on sites known to have been occupied by humans.
Some, like Paviland, were excavated in such a way that their published stratigraphy
seems meaningless, and samples which show no evidence of human modification or
do not derive from anthropogenic features, must be treated with suspicion. I have
therefore elected to mark such samples from known archaeological sites as “FAUNA”
if they are bones. Users of the database can incorporate them into the main body of
more certain archaeological age determinations at their own discretion.
Absolute age determinations and laboratory numbers
As already stated, the absolute determinations in this database have been derived from
the literature, and are thus subject to transcription errors made in our sources.
Versions given in primary sources, such as laboratory datelists and site reports, have
been favoured, unless corrections have been announced later. One difficulty
encountered was the occasional divergence given between 14C determinations given in
Radiocarbon, etc., and the versions posted on the BaNaDoRa (University of Lyon)
internet database (http://www.univ-lyon1.fr/carbon14/banadora.html). As the latter
source is constantly updated, it is sometimes difficult to know whether any variants
represent corrections or transcription errors. Wherever possible, I have tried to favour
the “majority” version if a determination exists in two versions in several sources (all
variants are given in the “Notes/Bibliography” section, so that the user can make an
informed choice). Errors are evident not only in the dates themselves, but also in the
laboratory sample numbers, where transposition of numbers is all too easy (speaking
from personal experience).
Non-radiocarbon determinations frequently do not have laboratory sample
numbers, and often represent averaged results: further details will be found in the
“Notes/Bibliography” column. Many 14C determinations have lower-case single letter
suffixes, e.g. LE-1428a, LE-1428b, LE-1428c and LE-1428d, meaning that they are
multiple estimates performed on the same sample. Some laboratories appear to have a
greater predilection for this practice than others. Techniques such as ESR and TL
often publish multiple age determinations on the same sample, and all efforts have
been made to include all of these in the database (except when the [averaged]
alternative provided proved to be sufficient). At a purely methodological level, giving
all the variant determinations allows us to assess the quality of the material from the
site and the taphonomic conditions to which it was subjected.
Dating methods and materials dated
Various abbreviations have been used in the “Dating method” column:





“C14”
“AMS-C14”
“TL”
“OSL”
“ESR”
=
=
=
=
=
conventional (beta-counting) radiocarbon dating
radiocarbon dating by accelerator mass spectrometry
thermoluminescence
optically-stimulated luminescence
electron spin resonance: “ESR: EU” = early-uptake model
“ESR: LU” = linear-uptake model

“U-series”
=
uranium-series methods, including variants, such as “U/Th”,
etc.
When known, the materials dated have been given in a separate column, in
order to assess the effect which substrate has upon the quality (accuracy and
precision) of the age determination. Thus, care has been taken to distinguish “bone”
from “bone fragments” and “burnt bone”, for example. The species of plant or animal
to which the remains once belonged are also noted, if known.
Correction of 14C dates
Infinite dates could not be corrected, as they are essentially minimal ages, and have
thus been left untouched in the “Corrected date” columns. The calibration program
CALPAL has been used, as it can convert 14C determinations of up to 50,000 bp. The
default calibration curve (U/Th, Foram-GISP2-synchronisation and Lake Suigetsu
varves) has been used for this database in order to give users an idea of what the 14C
determinations might look like in calendrical years. Database users who would like to
obtain a copy of this program for themselves (perhaps in order to try more than one
calibration curve) should contact either Dr. Bernhard Weninger (B.Weninger@unikoeln.de) or Dr. Olaf Jöris (Joeris.Monrepos@rz-online.de), at the University of
Cologne, for details. Non-14C determinations (TL, ESR, OSL, etc.) do not require
correction to calendrical (solar) years, and have been left untouched.
Hominid remains
The presence of hominid remains warranted the creation of a separate column, so that
the skeletal data could be compared independently with the commoner archaeological
material, and assumptions about bio-cultural associations questioned and assessed.
Much material has been gleaned from Oakley et al. 1971 (Catalogue of Fossil
Hominids, Part II: Europe; London, British Museum (Natural History)), but new
material and interpretations have also been incorporated where known. I should be
especially grateful to be informed of any omissions or mistakes by users.
Important notice: Acknowledgements
The acknowledgement of financial support is mandatory for those who utilise the
archaeology database at any time, either now or later. Grant #F/757/A from the
Leverhulme Trust, together with a grant from the McDonald Grants and Awards Fund
and equivalent support from several private donors have funded the compilation and
completion of the archaeology database. Major use of the data base should be
acknowledged also by providing an offprint to the Leverhulme Trust at 1, Pemberton
Row, London, EC4A 3BG. A proportion of the data contained in the database was
compiled during research for my Ph.D. thesis (The Aurignacian as a reflection of
modern human population dispersal in Europe, Cambridge University, 1999), and I
should be grateful if users could also mention my name as the compiler of the data if
they choose to make use of it.
APPENDIX 1: Abbreviations for commonly-used journals/book series
N.B. Please do not confuse the journal Anthropologie (Brno) with L’Anthropologie
(Paris) when checking the references in the “Notes/Bibliography” column.
B.S.P.F.
ERAUL
=
=
P.P.S.
=
Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française
Études et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de
Liège
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
APPENDIX 2: Full references for most useful datelists
In compiling this database, it is necessary to thank the following two people for being
so generous with their own collected data. They should, of course, be mentioned if
any of their data is used, and the identifying tags used in the “Notes/Bibliography”
column are given below.
“Bernaldo de Quiros, pers. comm.” = these dates were kindly supplied by Dr.
Federico Bernaldo de Quiros, University of Léon, Spain.
“Paul Pettitt database” = dates collected by Dr. Paul Pettitt, Research Laboratory
for Archaeology and the History of Art, 6 Keble Road, Oxford, OX1 3QJ.
Gif[-sur-Yvette] (“Gif datelist…”)
“Gif datelist 1”:
Coursaget, J., & le Run, J. 1966. Gif-sur-Yvette Natural Radiocarbon Measurements
I. Radiocarbon 8: 128-41.
“Gif datelist 3”:
Delibrias, G., Guillier, M.T., Labeyrie, J. 1969.
Measurements III. Radiocarbon 11: 327-44.
Gif Natural Radiocarbon
“Gif datelist 4”:
Delibrias, G., Guillier, M.T., Labeyrie, J. 1970.
Measurements IV. Radiocarbon 12: 421-43.
Gif Natural Radiocarbon
“Gif datelist 5”:
Delibrias, G., Guillier, M.T., Labeyrie, J. 1969.
Measurements V. Radiocarbon 11: 327-44.
Gif Natural Radiocarbon
“Gif datelist 6”:
Delibrias, G., Guillier, M.T., Labeyrie, J. 1971.
Measurements VI. Radiocarbon 13: 213-54.
Gif Natural Radiocarbon
“Gif datelist 7”:
Delibrias, G., Guillier, M.T., Labeyrie, J. 1972.
Measurements VII. Radiocarbon 14: 280-320.
Gif Natural Radiocarbon
“Gif datelist 8”:
Delibrias, G., Guillier, M.T., Labeyrie, J. 1974.
Measurements VIII. Radiocarbon 16: 15-94.
Gif Natural Radiocarbon
“Gif datelist 9”:
Delibrias, G., Guillier, M.T., Labeyrie, J. 1982.
Measurements IX. Radiocarbon 24: 291-343.
Gif Natural Radiocarbon
“Gif datelist 10”:
Delibrias, G., Guillier, M.T., Labeyrie, J. 1986.
Measurements X. Radiocarbon 28: 9-68.
Gif Natural Radiocarbon
“Gif datelist 11”:
Delibrias, G., & Guillier, M.T. 1988. Gif Natural Radiocarbon Measurements XI.
Radiocarbon 30: 61-124.
Groningen (“GrN datelist…”)
“GrN datelist 2”:
de Vries, H., Barendsen, G.W., & Waterbolk, H.T. 1958. Groningen Radiocarbon
Dates II. Science 127: 129-37.
“GrN datelist 3”:
de Vries, H., & Waterbolk, H.T. 1958. Groningen Radiocarbon Dates III. Science
128: 1550-6.
“GrN datelist 4”:
Vogel, J.C., & Waterbolk, H.T. 1963.
Radiocarbon 5: 163-202.
Groningen Radiocarbon Dates IV.
“GrN datelist 5”:
Vogel, J.C., & Waterbolk, H.T. 1964.
Radiocarbon 6: 349-69.
Groningen Radiocarbon Dates V.
“GrN datelist 6”:
Vogel, J.C., & Zagwijn, W.H. 1967. Groningen Radiocarbon Dates VI. Radiocarbon
9: 63-106.
“GrN datelist 7”:
Vogel, J.C., & Waterbolk, H.T. 1967.
Radiocarbon 9: 107-55.
Groningen Radiocarbon Dates VII.
“GrN datelist 10”:
Vogel, J.C., & Waterbolk, H.T. 1972.
Radiocarbon 14: 6-110.
Groningen Radiocarbon Dates X.
Lyon (“Lyon datelist…”)
“Lyon www”
=
BaNaDoRa internet site, Université de Lyon:
(http://www.univ-lyon1.fr/carbon14/banadora.html).
“Lyon datelist 2”:
Evin, J., Longin, R., Marien, G., & Pachiaudi, C. 1971. Lyon Natural Radiocarbon
Measurements II. Radiocarbon 13: 52-73.
“Lyon datelist 3”:
Evin, J., Marien, G., & Pachiaudi, C. 1973. Lyon Natural Radiocarbon Measurements
III. Radiocarbon 15: 134-55.
“Lyon datelist 4”:
Evin, J., Marien, G., & Pachiaudi, C. 1973. Lyon Natural Radiocarbon Measurements
IV. Radiocarbon 15: 514-33.
“Lyon datelist 5”:
Evin, J., Marien, G., & Pachiaudi, C. 1975. Lyon Natural Radiocarbon Measurements
V. Radiocarbon 17: 4-34.
“Lyon datelist 6”:
Evin, J., Marien, G., & Pachiaudi, C. 1976. Lyon Natural Radiocarbon Measurements
VI. Radiocarbon 18: 60-88.
“Lyon datelist 7”:
Evin, J., Marien, G., & Pachiaudi, C. 1978. Lyon Natural Radiocarbon Measurements
VII. Radiocarbon 20: 19-57.
“Lyon datelist 8”:
Evin, J., Marien, G., & Pachiaudi, C. 1979. Lyon Natural Radiocarbon Measurements
VIII. Radiocarbon 21: 405-52.
“Lyon datelist 9”:
Evin, J., Marechal, J., & Marien, G. 1983. Lyon Natural Radiocarbon Measurements
IX. Radiocarbon 25: 59-128.
“Lyon datelist 10”:
Evin, J., Marechal, J., & Marien, G. 1985. Lyon Natural Radiocarbon Measurements
X. Radiocarbon 27: 386-454.
Oxford (“OxA datelist…”)
“OxA datelist 3”:
Gowlett, J.A.J., Hall, E.T., Hedges, R.E.M., & Perry, C. 1986. Radiocarbon dates
from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 3. Archaeometry 28: 11625.
“OxA datelist 5”:
Gowlett, J.A.J., Hedges, R.E.M., Law, I.A., & Perry, C. 1987. Radiocarbon dates
from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 5. Archaeometry 29: 12555.
“OxA datelist 6”:
Hedges, R.E.M., Housley, R.A., Law, I.A., Perry, C., & Gowlett, J.A.J. 1987.
Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 6.
Archaeometry 29: 289-306.
“OxA datelist 7”:
Hedges, R.E.M., Housley, R.A., Law, I.A., & Perry, C. 1988. Radiocarbon dates
from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 7. Archaeometry 30: 15564.
“OxA datelist 8”:
Hedges, R.E.M., Housley, R.A., Law, I.A., Perry, C., & Hendy, E. 1988.
Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 8.
Archaeometry 30: 291-305.
“OxA datelist 9”:
Hedges, R.E.M., Housley, R.A., Law, I.A., & Bronk, C.R. 1989. Radiocarbon dates
from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 9. Archaeometry 31: 20734.
“OxA datelist 10”:
Hedges, R.E.M., Housley, R.A., Law, I.A., & Bronk, C.R. 1990. Radiocarbon dates
from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 10. Archaeometry 32:
101-8.
“OxA datelist 11”:
Hedges, R.E.M., Housley, R.A., Bronk, C.R., & van Klinken, G.J. 1990. Radiocarbon
dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 11. Archaeometry
32: 211-37.
“OxA datelist 12”:
Hedges, R.E.M., Housley, R.A., Bronk, C.R., & van Klinken, G.J. 1991. Radiocarbon
dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 12. Archaeometry
33: 121-34.
“OxA datelist 14”:
Hedges, R.E.M., Housley, R.A., Bronk, C.R., & van Klinken, G.J. 1992. Radiocarbon
dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 14. Archaeometry
34: 141-59.
“OxA datelist 15”:
Hedges, R.E.M., Housley, R.A., Bronk, C.R., & van Klinken, G.J. 1992. Radiocarbon
dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 15. Archaeometry
34: 337-57.
“OxA datelist 17”:
Hedges, R.E.M., Housley, R.A., Bronk-Ramsey, C., & van Klinken, G.J. 1993.
Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 17.
Archaeometry 35: 305-26.
“OxA datelist 18”:
Hedges, R.E.M., Housley, R.A., Bronk-Ramsey, C., & van Klinken, G.J. 1994.
Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 18.
Archaeometry 36: 337-74.
“OxA datelist 19”:
Hedges, R.E.M., Housley, R.A., Bronk-Ramsey, C., & van Klinken, G.J. 1995.
Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 19.
Archaeometry 37: 195-214.
“OxA datelist 21”:
Hedges, R.E.M., Housley, R.A., Pettitt, P.B., Bronk-Ramsey, C., & van Klinken, G.J.
1996. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist
21. Archaeometry 38: 181-207.
“OxA datelist 22”:
Hedges, R.E.M., Pettitt, P.B., Bronk-Ramsey, C., & van Klinken, G.J. 1996.
Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 22.
Archaeometry 38: 391-415.
“OxA datelist 23”:
Hedges, R.E.M., Pettitt, P.B., Bronk-Ramsey, C., & van Klinken, G.J. 1997.
Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 23.
Archaeometry 39: 247-62.
“OxA datelist 24”:
Hedges, R.E.M., Pettitt, P.B., Bronk-Ramsey, C., & van Klinken, G.J. 1997.
Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 24.
Archaeometry 39: 445-71.
“OxA datelist 25”:
Hedges, R.E.M., Pettitt, P.B., Bronk-Ramsey, C., & van Klinken, G.J. 1998.
Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 25.
Archaeometry 40: 227-39.
“OxA datelist 26”:
Hedges, R.E.M., Pettitt, P.B., Bronk-Ramsey, C., & van Klinken, G.J. 1998.
Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 26.
Archaeometry 40: 437-55.