© 2001 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona Near East Chronology: Archaeology and Environment. RADIOCARBON, Vol 43, Nr 3, 2001, p 1155–1166 Proceedings of the 17th International 14 C Conference, edited by H J Bruins, I Carmi, and E Boaretto 1155 RADIOCARBON DATING IN NEAR-EASTERN CONTEXTS: CONFUSION AND QUALITY CONTROL Johannes van der Plicht 1 • Hendrik J Bruins 2 ABSTRACT. Near-Eastern archaeology has long remained oblivious to radiocarbon dating as unique historical calendars brought about a perception that 14 C dating is superfluous. Circular chronological reasoning may occur as a result. There is now strong 14 C evidence that the early part of Egyptian history seems older than age assessments currently in vogue among scholars. It is vital to apply systematic and high-quality 14 C dating to each and every excavation in the Near East to measure time with the same yardstick. Such a strategy will enable chronological comparison of different areas at an excavation site and also between sites and regions, independent of cultural deliberations. This is essential for proper interpretation of archaeolog- ical layers and association with data from other fields. Radiocarbon ( 14 C) is the most common radiometric dating tool applied in archaeology, geosciences, and environmental research. Stringent quality control is required to build up a reliable 14 C chro- nology for the historical periods in Near-Eastern contexts. Important aspects of quality control involve regular laboratory intercomparisons, transparent duplicate and triplicate analysis of selected samples, conventional versus accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) (i.e. sample size), sample selection and association. Finally, bones may provide short-lived dates in important stratigraphic archaeological contexts. INTRODUCTION Does radiocarbon dating make sense for those periods of the ancient Near East in which archaeolog- ical strata and finds are linked with the unique historical calendars of Egypt and Mesopotamia, or later historical periods? Initially, many archaeologists working in the region answered this question negatively, considering the method too crude as compared to archaeological age assessment. Even today considerable confusion is encountered about the merits and applicability of 14 C dating in Near-Eastern contexts. It must be stated clearly that both historical calendars and 14 C dating have their own unique assets and limitations. “A scholarly attitude towards 14 C dating as a mere indication of probability not to be taken seriously, is as unhelpful in the search of past reality as scientific derision of archaeo-historical dating is merely subjective interpretation of layers and antiquities with no semblance of probability” (Bruins and Mook 1989). Each year many thousands of dates are produced worldwide by more than a hundred 14 C laborato- ries. Large samples, on the order of grams of carbon, can be measured by conventional techniques: proportional gas counting and liquid scintillation spectrometry. Small samples, on the order of mil- ligrams of carbon, can be dated by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS). Misconceptions or misunderstandings with regard to 14 C dating can be technical in nature—such as isotopic fractionation correction, calibration and the question of absolute dates, geochemical com- plications such as reservoir ages, single year versus multiyear samples, and wiggle-match dating. However, the worst confusion is related to perceived or real quality problems of the dating results. Both 14 C laboratories and archaeologists can make mistakes. The former in relation to methodology and accuracy, and the latter in relation to stratigraphic or cultural association. 1 University of Groningen, Centre for Isotope Research, Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands. Email: plicht@phys.rug.nl. 2 Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Jacob Blaustein Institute for Desert Research, Sede Boker Campus 84990, Israel. Email: hjbruins@bgumail.bgu.ac.il.