An archaeologist finds a Roman coin (known to circulate between 50 BCE and 100 CE) in stratum 3 of an excavation and concludes stratum 3 dates to that period. What assumption makes this conclusion potentially wrong?
AShe assumes the coin was minted locally rather than imported from elsewhere
BShe assumes the coin was deposited when it was still in active use; the error would be if it was an heirloom deposited centuries later, or if the stratum was disturbed
CShe assumes radiocarbon dating would confirm the stratigraphic date, ignoring that coins contain no organic material
DShe assumes typology is less reliable than stratigraphy and should have used stratigraphy alone
Typological dating assumes the object was deposited when it was contemporary — still in active use. But coins were often kept as antiques or curiosities for centuries after they stopped circulating; a Roman coin in a 5th-century context does not prove a 1st-century deposit. Stratified disturbance is the other major risk: pits dug later can redeposit older material into younger layers. This is why combining multiple independent lines of evidence matters more than relying on a single dating anchor.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
Radiocarbon dating gives a date of 1200 BCE ± 200 years for a wooden beam. Dendrochronology on the same beam gives an exact felling date of 980 BCE. These results conflict. What is the most appropriate response?
AAccept the radiocarbon date because it is grounded in physics and is more reliable than tree rings
BAccept the dendrochronological date because it is more precise, and dismiss the radiocarbon result as error
CTreat the conflict as evidence to investigate: check for old-wood effect, reused timber, or contamination, and report both dates with their assumptions
DAverage the two dates to produce a best estimate of approximately 1090 BCE
When methods conflict, that conflict is itself important evidence — not a problem to paper over by choosing the 'better' method. The radiocarbon date could reflect old-wood effect (the beam came from inner rings of a long-lived tree that died long before the tree was felled) or reused timber from an older structure. Dendrochronology measures the felling year precisely but requires a matching ring sequence. The correct response is to investigate the source of the discrepancy and report both results honestly, which is itself an informative finding.
Question 3 True / False
Radiocarbon dating directly measures the calendar year when an artifact was made or used, giving a precise absolute date with no margin of error.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Radiocarbon dating measures the amount of carbon-14 remaining in organic material and uses the known decay rate to estimate when the organism died — not necessarily when an artifact was made or used. The method has several layers of uncertainty: atmospheric C-14 concentrations have varied over time (requiring calibration curves), the decay process produces inherent statistical uncertainty (results are expressed as a range, e.g., ± 150 years), and the date reflects biological death, not human crafting or use. It is a powerful absolute method, but never an exact one.
Question 4 True / False
Stratigraphic analysis can establish the relative sequence of archaeological deposits but cannot by itself assign calendar dates to those deposits.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
Stratigraphy is a relative dating method: the law of superposition tells you that lower layers were deposited before upper ones, establishing temporal sequence. But sequence alone does not tell you when something happened in calendar years — only that it happened before something else. To get calendar dates, you need an absolute method (radiocarbon, dendrochronology, historical records) to anchor one or more layers to a specific year, from which the sequence can be resolved into a calendar chronology.
Question 5 Short Answer
Why do careful historians and archaeologists use multiple dating methods rather than relying on a single technique, even when one method seems highly reliable for their material?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: Every dating method rests on assumptions that can be violated in specific contexts. Radiocarbon assumes relatively constant atmospheric C-14 (not always true; calibration corrects for this) and uncontaminated organic material. Stratigraphy assumes undisturbed deposits (but sites are excavated, pits are dug, material is reused). Typology assumes styles spread and went out of fashion uniformly (peripheral regions may preserve old styles long after they're obsolete elsewhere). When independent methods agree, confidence is higher because their different assumptions would have to fail simultaneously in the same direction. When methods conflict, the conflict often reveals something genuinely unexpected — contamination, disturbance, or unusual preservation — that a single-method approach would have silently misrepresented as a settled date.
Triangulation — agreement among independent lines of evidence — is stronger than any single line. It also converts dating from a black-box answer into an honest account of what the evidence shows, how reliable it is, and what would change the conclusion. This is the core intellectual practice the topic is trying to teach.