RE: Cremation outlier

[MILLARD, ANDREW R.]

Hi Chris,

 

From your description it seems that all the chronological information about this cremation deposit is coming from the archaeological phasing, and use of the charcoal outlier model simply allows the calculations to place it within a phase without it fitting poorly by offsetting it from the unmodelled date.  If the association with Roman nails is secure then that must place a terminus post quem on the date of the deposit, independent of whether you place it in the LIA-ER or Roman phase, and you could add this as a constraint in the model.

 

Best wishes 

Andrew 

-- 

Prof. Andrew Millard 

Department of Archaeology,

Durham University, UK 

Email: A.R.M...@durham.ac.uk  

Personal page: https://www.durham.ac.uk/staff/a-r-millard/ 

Dunbar 1650 MOOC: https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/battle-of-dunbar-1650 

 

 

From: 'Chris Chinnock (Chris)' via OxCal <ox...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: 08 October 2025 10:43
To: OxCal <ox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Cremation outlier

 

[EXTERNAL EMAIL]

Hi all, 

 

I am having difficulty figuring out how to deal with a problematic date from some cremated bone. It has returned a calibrated date of 360-50BC which immediately raised concerns, particularly as it was associated with 22 iron hobnails of broadly Roman date. There is also some transitional LIA-ER pottery sherds of an uncertain association to the cremated bone but in all liklihood can be taken as a TPQ. 

 

I have spent some time reading a few articles on the old wood effec/or similar in cremated bone and think I ought to apply a charcoal outlier to this date. I have managed to do this successfully but I get very different dates if I place the sample into my sitewide 'LIA/ER' phase or my 'Roman' phase. I can discuss with the finds specialist to make a decision on which of those phases is more appropriate but my question is whether I am beating a dead horse and actually the date should just be excluded from the model entirely to avoid constructing an artificial date of unknown accuracy.

 

For reference if I place into the LIA/ER model I get 200-50 BC. If placed into the Roman phase then I get AD120-370. The latter being quite some distance from the original unmodelled date, so very old (suspiciously old) wood.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Chris 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OxCal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to oxcal+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/oxcal/2ad9e269-4d70-488c-80e8-a9dd87a9faban%40googlegroups.com.