Abstract
Precise dating of earthworks with limited datable material is a well-known archaeological challenge. Here, based on artefact chronology, coin dates, radiocarbon dating of macroscopic and soil organic-matter fractions, and
Bayesian modelling combining all these, we discuss the relative strengths and limitations of each method for dating an earthwork fortification from the Viking-age town of Ribe, Denmark. In a novel approach, we model the
circulation time and loss rates of coin finds to obtain a detailed distribution curve, which is worked directly into a Bayesian model. It is shown that the earthworks, an early moat and rampart, belong neither to the ninth-century
emporium or to the eleventh-century rise of the Cathedral town. The refined dates point to a construction in the period 889–974 CE and a use-life of at least 50 years, but the moat was filled-in by the mid 11th century CE. In consequence, Ribe's earliest fortification can be compared to the early fortification of two other
Viking-age towns: Hedeby and Aarhus, possibly as a concerted defensive effort. Our integration of five dating methods reveals the strengths and weaknesses of each and provides a means to compare and correlate each component within a characteristically heterogeneous set of archaeological dates
Bayesian modelling combining all these, we discuss the relative strengths and limitations of each method for dating an earthwork fortification from the Viking-age town of Ribe, Denmark. In a novel approach, we model the
circulation time and loss rates of coin finds to obtain a detailed distribution curve, which is worked directly into a Bayesian model. It is shown that the earthworks, an early moat and rampart, belong neither to the ninth-century
emporium or to the eleventh-century rise of the Cathedral town. The refined dates point to a construction in the period 889–974 CE and a use-life of at least 50 years, but the moat was filled-in by the mid 11th century CE. In consequence, Ribe's earliest fortification can be compared to the early fortification of two other
Viking-age towns: Hedeby and Aarhus, possibly as a concerted defensive effort. Our integration of five dating methods reveals the strengths and weaknesses of each and provides a means to compare and correlate each component within a characteristically heterogeneous set of archaeological dates
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 101906 |
| Journal | Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports |
| Volume | 26 |
| Issue number | August |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| ISSN | 2352-409X |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Aug 2019 |
Keywords
- Dating methods
- Earthworks
- Viking-Age Town
- Ribe