Abstract
Radiocarbon dating is a well-established chronometric technique that has been widely employed in Chinese archeology since the first radiocarbon laboratory started operating in the Institute of Archaeology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in 1965. In the three decades of studies that followed, achievements were made in radiocarbon dating, especially in measurement techniques, sample preparation, and the establishment of regional chronological frameworks. There is no doubt that Chinese archeology entered a golden age with the assistance of radiocarbon dating techniques at the beginning of the 2000s. It is, however, also true that compared to Western countries, China has reported far fewer radiocarbon dates than expected. This paper presents an overview of the history of the radiocarbon dating technique and its significant applications in Chinese archeology, focusing on the transition from β-decay counting to accelerator mass spectrometry. Some of the breakthroughs in studies of the Upper Paleolithic, early Homo sapiens, neolithization, and the Xia and Shang dynasties are highlighted. We conclude the paper with a brief discussion of future work and research directions that need to be explored.
1 Introduction
In 1949, the first set of radiocarbon dates was published by Willard Frank Libby and colleagues (). Shortly afterward, radiocarbon dating laboratories were established in many Western countries (). Radiocarbon dating was considered to be a great revolution in prehistoric archeology in the 20th century (), and it “came as a godsend to archeology” (: 53–75). This new technique allowed archeologists to examine archeological remains and associated events with well-delineated chronological frameworks. It contributed significantly to addressing critical concerns in archeological studies such as the chronologies of specific events and the formation of new hypotheses and research paradigms ().
Radiocarbon (14C) is a radioactive isotope of carbon with a half-life of 5730 years. It is continuously generated in the upper atmosphere by the interaction of 14N with cosmic ray-induced neutrons. Rapidly oxidized in the air, 14C atoms enter the global carbon cycle in the form of 14CO2, which plants absorb during photosynthesis. Animals ingest the carbon by eating plants and release a portion through respiration and excretion. When animals die, their exchange of carbon with the biosphere (and eventually the atmosphere) ceases, and the decay of radiocarbon causes the level to decrease with time. When the remaining radiocarbon in a plant or animal sample is determined, the age of the sample can be calculated. Radiocarbon ratios of the analyzed samples indicate the elapsed time since the last exchange of carbon between the sample and the environment (). Radiocarbon dates are usually reported in uncalibrated years BP (before the present), where BP refers to 1950 AD. Calendar years can be calculated from the uncalibrated year BP using the calibration curve.
China was among the first Asian countries to adopt radiocarbon dating for archeological research. Xia Nai, Director of the Institute of Archaeology of the Chinese Academy of Science (IA-CAS, which in 1977 became the Institute of Archaeology of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, or IA-CASS), introduced the radiocarbon dating technique to Chinese archeologists in 1955 (). In 1965, the first radiocarbon dating laboratory was set up in the IA-CAS, a groundbreaking event in Chinese radiocarbon chronology (). More than half a century has passed since the first group of radiocarbon dates was reported in China, and significant progress has been made in the construction of testing facilities and in radiocarbon dating methods, which continued to improve the precision and accuracy of measurements. Tens of thousands of radiocarbon readings have been published in the Old and the New World. The present paper reviews the development of radiocarbon dating methods and their applications in Chinese archeology, especially studies on the Upper Paleolithic and early modern human origins, Neolithization, Neolithic chronology, and the Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology Project.
2 Developments in radiocarbon dating methods in China
2.1 β-decay counting and advances in radiocarbon dating
After World War II, the application of radioisotopes became widespread in natural sciences, and 14C was used for archeological dating in this context. Prior to the 1960s, Chinese archeology, especially of prehistoric periods, relied strongly on the stratigraphy of archeological sites and the typology of artifacts in inferring the dates. However, the low precision and unreliability of this method often led to controversial conclusions. Realizing the great potential of radiocarbon dating for establishment of more solid and finer chronological frameworks, the IA-CAS hired two nuclear physicists, Qiu Shihua and Cai Lianzhen, and supported them in setting up a radiocarbon dating laboratory at the CAS. The construction began in 1959 and was completed in 1965. Qiu and Cai first ran tests on samples of known ages dating to the Neolithic and Bronze Age in China, and the 14C dates were compatible with the dating results inferred from archeological stratigraphy and pottery typology. The first radiocarbon dating laboratory in China started to produce radiocarbon dates soon afterward (; ). For the first time, “Chinese prehistory can be placed on an absolute-chronological basis” (). Other radiocarbon dating laboratories were set up in China in the 1970s (; ). In 1981, about fifty 14C labs were registered for the first National Conference on 14C; however, most of them were built for geoscience studies ().
The first radiocarbon dating laboratory at the IA-CAS adopted the gas counting technology, which could generate dates up to 40,000 years BP. Over the years, Qiu and others made significant efforts to improve the quality of measurements and achieved this goal by enhancing the facilities, especially the gas-proportional counters, the electronic detectors, high-voltage power supplies, shielding devices, and vacuum systems for sample preparation (). In the 1960s, the application of liquid scintillation counting (LSC) technology for measuring 14C was proven successful in radiocarbon dating laboratories of the West (). Compared to the gas method, LSC simplified the sample preparation procedures, required a smaller sample size, and ran tests with shorter times and lower background. In 1975, Yuan Sixun and others set up the first LSC radiocarbon dating laboratory at Peking University (). Subsequently, more radiocarbon dating laboratories in China began using the LSC method, including both new laboratories and ones that had previously used gas-proportional counting facilities (; ).
Sample preparation was significantly improved in the 1970s, along with the associated devices. In 1965, when acetylene gas was prepared, calcium was used to absorb carbon dioxide extracted from the samples; calcium was replaced by magnesium in the 1970s and by lithium in the early 1980s (). At about the same time, automated testing techniques were used to measure 14C and computers were used for processing the data, which significantly improved the efficiency, the data quality, storage, and retrieval (). In the 1990s, small sample sizes (100–250 mg) could be run for radiocarbon dating on LSC devices, which was a great advantage for dating archeological samples where only a small amount of material was available (Zhou et al., 1994).
Beginning in the 1950s, the A.D.1890 tree rings and other early 20th-century wood samples were used as ‘modern’ reference materials for calibrating radiocarbon dating results around the world. Oxalic acid was adopted internationally as the carbon standard at the 4th International Radiocarbon Conference (), and at the 8th International Radiocarbon Conference, sucrose ANU was recognized as the international sub-standard (). As the number of radiocarbon laboratories increased in China, so did the desire for reference materials that could be used to cross-check and validate the radiocarbon dates between different laboratories. A consensus was reached at the National Isotopic Geology Conference held in Guiyang that a modern carbon standard for radiocarbon studies should be used in China. Qiu, the principal investigator, and specialists from Peking University and the Chinese Academy of Sciences, were engaged in the project. In 1977, sucrose refined from beets harvested in Inner Mongolia was announced as the raw material for producing charred sucrose as the modern carbon standard. The δ13C of charred sucrose is ˗19.32% ± 0.56 relative to PDB, which is very close to the ˗19% value of oxalic acid II. The averaged FM (fraction of the modern standard) was 1.362% ± 0.003, suggesting that sucrose and oxalic acid II were very similar (1.3407 ± 0.001) (; ; ). Charred sucrose was thus approved as the modern carbon reference and national standard, known as the Chinese sugar carbon standard (CSC). Employing the new standard, radiocarbon dating was significantly improved, with simple chemical preparation, no more than 1% residue after burning, and no significant isotopic fractionation (). Recently, researchers started a project that aimed to make CSC a secondary material for accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating. To achieve this goal, CSC particles were ground into a finer powder that ensured data homogeneity for AMS dating ().
On September 15–18, 1981, the First National Conference on 14C dating was held in Beijing. Over 70 participants attended the conference, and more than 40 reports were submitted (Figure 1). The presentations not only focused on archeology and geosciences but also on the most recent advances in radiocarbon dating techniques of China and abroad, especially in sample pretreatment, LSC facilities, error analysis of radiocarbon data, δ13C measurement, and the application of AMS in radiocarbon dating (). In 1982, the 2nd National Conference on 14C dating was held in Nanjing University. The Radiocarbon Chronology Group supervised by the Chinese Association for Quaternary Research was approved and an official announcement was made that the national radiocarbon dating conference would be organized on a regular basis (every 3 years) together with summer schools on radiocarbon dating methodologies. Radiocarbon dating results from different laboratories were also reported at this conference (). The workshops and national conferences significantly improved the theoretical and methodological background of specialists and technicians from different Chinese dating laboratories, which made a significant contribution to China’s radiocarbon chronology in the decade that followed.
FIGURE 1
2.2 Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating
AMS is a method for measuring radioactive nuclides with long half-lives and to measure 14C as early as in 1977 (; ; ; ). AMS can directly measure the relative abundance of 14C in a sample, a feature that distinguishes it from conventional methods based on β-decay counting. It not only reduces the test time from several hours to a few minutes but also enables measurements of specimens in small volumes and even at the molecular level, namely, ∼1 mg carbon (1/1000 of the β-decay counting method). The successful application of the AMS radiocarbon dating technique was enthusiastically welcomed by researchers in archeology, earth sciences, and biological pharmacy. In 1979, Chen Tiemei introduced this newly developed dating technique to China (). At the First National Radiocarbon Conference, Cai Lianzhen () and Shen Chengde () presented an overview of AMS radiocarbon dating and its global applications. At the Fourth National Conference on Radiocarbon, on November 5–9, 1988, five of the 29 papers reported on the AMS radiocarbon dating technique, target preparation, and its applications in archeology ().
The first set of AMS radiocarbon data for Chinese archeological samples was reported in 1989 to support a discussion on the chronology of Shandingdong (Upper Cave) of the Zhoukoudian locality in Beijing (). Several institutions began to set up AMS facilities at about the same time (Zhou and Chen, 2009). Peking University completed a dedicated tandem-based AMS facility in 1992, the Peking University accelerator mass spectroscopy (PKUAMS) laboratory with the financial support of the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The PKUAMS laboratory’s spectrometer consisted of an ion source with 20-position sample trays, a fast-switching injection line, a 6-MV EN-tandem accelerator, and a post-acceleration analysis and detection system. The first batch of AMS data, reported in 1993, showed a sensitivity of 10−14 with a precision better than 1.7% for a modern sample (). A precision of about 1% and a blank sample background lower than 0.006 MC or 43 Ka were achieved for the graphitization technique with the updated power supply, data acquisition and control system, and the highly intensified Cs sputtering ion source ().
From 1996 to 2000, radiocarbon dating was incorporated into the Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology project. To achieve a high precision, several key facilities were upgraded to the AMS system of Peking University, including replacing the ion source with a 40-sample NEC MC-SNICS device, a pneumatic sample change system, updated vacuum, injector, computer control and data acquisition systems. The new PKUAMS obtained 14C measurements with a precision of ∼0.5% and provided over 200 dates for the Xia-Shang-Zhou archeological chronology project (; ). While thousands of samples have been dated using the PKUAMS system, there are many more radiocarbon dates needed in the fields of archeology and earth sciences. To meet this need, a new compact AMS system based on the model 1.5SDH-1 Pelletron accelerator with a maximum terminal voltage of 0.6 MV was purchased from the National Electrostatics Corporation (NEC), installed in Peking University, and used exclusively for radiocarbon dating. The new system obtained 14C measurements at a precision <0.4% and a background <0.03 pMC, or 65 Ka (). Shortly afterward in 2006 , another 3 MV Tandetron-based AMS system, manufactured by High-Voltage Engineering Europe (HVEE), was installed at the Xi’an Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Center (XAAMS), the joint AMS laboratory of the Institute of Earth Environment, and Xi’an Jiaotong University. The XAAMS is a multi-element system for radiocarbon measurement with a precision of ∼0.2% (Zhou et al., 2006). Recently, dozens of AMS facilities were purchased overseas to serve the needs of radiocarbon dating (), including another 0.6 MV 14C AMS facility manufactured by NEC and installed at the Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry (CAS) in 2014 (Zhu et al., 2015), and a MICADAS type AMS by ETH Zurich at Lanzhou University.
In China, AMS radiocarbon dating has been applied directly not only on carbonized grains such as rice and soybean but also on plant microfossils such as pollen (Zhang et al., 2021) and phytoliths (; ; Zuo et al., 2017; Zuo and Wu, 2019). In addition, soil sediments and monomer compounds in pottery residues were also collected for dating (Yuan et al., 1997). The widespread application of AMS radiocarbon dating has significantly revolutionized our understanding of archeological events.
3 Radiocarbon dating applications in Chinese archaeology
3.1 Chronology of the upper Paleolithic and the origin of early Homo sapiens
More than 2000 Paleolithic sites have been reported in China, and human fossils have been unearthed from about 80 of them (). Most human fossils from Paleolithic sites were from the late-Middle to the Late Pleistocene, which makes China a core region for studying the evolution of early modern humans (EMHs) and their adaptions to diverse environments (; ). Archaeology is a science of time, so dating is one of the most important fulcrums in archeological research. Chronology is the key to understanding human origins and evolution as well as shifting cultural materials. Radiocarbon dating is a well-accepted, scientifically based chronometric method for determining specimen ages up to ∼55,000 years old (), and it was thus essential for studying the evolution of EMHs and anatomically modern humans (AMH) and related archeological materials during the Upper Paleolithic.
Prior to the introduction of radiocarbon dating techniques, the ages of Paleolithic sites and hominin fossils were largely inferred from the stratigraphy and associated faunal assemblages, which often resulted in disagreements over the chronologies. The situation started to change in 1972, when the radiocarbon laboratory of the IA-CAS () published the first set of 14C data. It included a sample of wood associated with Ziyang No. 1, an EMH skull dated to 7500 ± 130 years BP, using the gas proportional counting method. In 1976, bone collagen was extracted from animal fossil samples at late Pleistocene sites, including Zhiyu in Shanxi, dated to 28,135 ± 1,330 14C BP, and the Upper Cave of Zhoukoudian in Beijing, dated to 18,340 ± 410 14C BP, to shed light on the chronology of the Upper Paleolithic sites and EMH fossils ().
In the early 1980s, radiocarbon data from more than ten Paleolithic sites were published (). Although most were consistent with the dates inferred from fossilized faunal assemblages, some remained controversial and were very likely questionable. An Zhimin argued that the problematic dates may have resulted from obscure archeological contexts and taphonomy, although the large error in the β-decay counting method could also be the cause. He suggested that, whenever possible, a single radiocarbon date should not be used because “one date is no date” (). This called for greater attention to the sampling strategy and a full understanding of the depositional process. In 1988, a preliminary chronological framework was constructed for the Upper Paleolithic period based on paleoanthropological data including radiocarbon dating, K-Ar dating, uranium series, thermoluminescence (TL), and paleomagnetism ().
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the AMS technique was adopted to date Upper Paleolithic samples, which refined the chronological frameworks for archeological and paleoanthropological studies (). The calculated ages of the Zhoukoudian Upper Cave in Beijing can be used as an example to show how the advances in radiocarbon dating over the decades contributed to a better understanding of the Upper Paleolithic. The Zhoukoudian Upper Cave is well-known for EMH fossils, first unearthed in 1933 and 1934. Three human skulls and fragmented human fossils were discovered in layer 4 in the lower room (; ; ). Some articulated human fossils colored with red ochre were found , leading to the assumption that the cave was a burial site. No chronometric methods were available at the time the human fossils were discovered, but the excavator suggested an age of Late Pleistocene based on faunal assemblages (). In the late 1970s, two animal bones from the Upper Cave were dated using LSC, generating radiocarbon dates of 18,340 ± 410 14C BP (ZK-136-0) and 10,180 ± 360 14C BP (ZK-136-01)). As sodium hydroxide was not used in collagen extraction, humic acid and other organic carbon compounds may have contributed to the apparently younger ages (). In 1989 and 1992, Chen and others prepared 12 bone samples using the acid–alkali–acid (AAA) procedure suggested by the Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit at the University of Oxford and published two groups of AMS 14C data on the Zhoukoudian Upper Cave. Most of the sampled bones from the Lower Room were dated between 29,100 ± 520 14C BP and 23,700 ± 350 14C BP, much older than the two LSC 14C dates, (; ).
Recently, Li and others reanalyzed the taphonomy and stratigraphic contexts () and selected 11 bones from the Upper Cave for AMS 14C dating at the Oxford Accelerator Unit, where ultrafiltration was added to the AAA procedure to collect large molecular weight proteins (). Eight of the 11 bone samples yielded dates from 50 ka BP to 34 ka BP. Two samples with clear archeological contexts produced dates of 30,010 ± 360 14C BP (34,744 cal BP–33,551 cal BP) and 32,800 ± 500 14C BP (38,376 cal BP–35,825 cal BP). Since the artifacts and ornaments found at the Upper Cave showed similarities to those at Denisova in Siberia, the chronology led some archeologists to argue that the Upper Cave EMHs had made contact with other hominin populations further to the north some 35.0 ka BP (). The hypothesis is consistent with the Tianyuan EMH fossils at the Zhoukoudian Tianyuan Cave, which were dated to 34,430 ± 510 14C BP (40,328 ± 816 cal BP) using AMS 14C measurements (; ; ).
To date, the progress in radiocarbon dating has refreshed our understanding of lithic technology and human behavior during the Upper Paleolithic as well as the interaction among hominin groups at Shuidonggou () and Jinsitai (), for example, and the Paleolithic sites around the Songshan Mountain (). A large number of radiocarbon dates have been reported from more than 300 sites, which supports new discussions of EMH evolution and migrations (; Zhang et al., 2018; ), the diversity of lithic industry (), the introduction and routes of spreading Levallois (), microblade technologies (), and the broad spectrum revolution ().
3.2 Radiocarbon dating and neolithization
The Neolithic is characterized by some fundamental changes including the use of pottery, food production, and settled village life. These changes are now regarded as long-term processes, to which the term “Neolithization” is often applied. In the Near East, food production preceded the use of pottery. However, the opposite was true in China, where Neolithization occurred in the vast, geographically diverse landscapes (). The extensive radiocarbon dating of prehistoric materials has allowed archeologists to construct a chronological framework for significant changes (e.g., the use of pottery and the shift from hunting–gathering–fishing to subsistence farming) that initiated Neolithization in several regions of mainland China.
Since the 1970s, radiocarbon dating has also been used to investigate the origin of pottery making in China. Sherds of very early pottery vessels have been unearthed from the sites of Xianrendong and Diaotonghuan in Jiangxi Province, Zengpiyan and Miaoyan in Guangxi province (Zhang and Hung, 2012), Yujiagou () and Nanzhuangtou () in Hebei Province, Donghulin () in Beijing City, Houtaomuga () and Shuangta () in Jilin Province, and Xiaonanshan () in Heilongjiang Province. It was judged from archeological stratigraphy and pottery typology that many of these sherds arguably dated to the early Neolithic Age (; ; ). In the 1970s and 1980s, LSC radiocarbon dating applied to freshwater shells and animal bones associated with sherds reported dates of 8000 14C BP or earlier. However, contradictory results do sometimes exist between stratigraphy and radiocarbon data. In Xianrendong, for example, freshwater shells (ZK-39) sampled from the upper layer were dated to 10,870 ± 240 14C BP (), which was older than the animal bone (ZK-92-0) from the lower layer with an age of 8575 ± 235 14C BP (). This may be due to the effect of dead carbon in the limestone region. Modern archeological samples including wood, charcoal, grain seeds, shells, and bones have been collected for radiocarbon dating and 14C ages of 1000-2000 years were suggested to offset the freshwater reservoir effect ().
Beginning in the 1990s, the AMS 14C facility made radiocarbon tests with small sample sizes possible. In 1997, Yuan and colleagues successfully extracted absorbed humic acids and intrinsic carbon of pottery clay from sampled sherds from the Miaoyan and Yuchanyan sites in southern China for AMS radiocarbon dating and published the results. Combined with the radiocarbon dates obtained from charcoal and animal bones, it was confirmed that pottery was used in southern China as early as 16.0 cal ka BP (Yuan et al., 1997). Further radiocarbon dating studies refined the earliest use of pottery at Yuchanyan to ca. 18,300 cal BP to 15,430 cal BP () and up to ca. 20,000 to 19,000 cal BP for Xianrendong (). These dates indicate the widespread use of pottery in southern, northern, and northeastern China from 15,000 to 10,000 BP.
China was also one of the centers for agriculture and animal husbandry. While the middle and lower Yangtze River valley of southern China is home to rice cultivation, northern China is well-known for the domestication of foxtail and common millets (Zhao, 2011). Radiocarbon dating results have suggested that plant cultivation occurred thousands of years after the introduction of pottery. Only a very few early Neolithic sites used pottery as well as cultivated plants and practiced animal husbandry: Donghulin (Zhao et al., 2020), Nanzhuangtou (), and Shangshan (Zhao, 2010). Pre-domesticated rice remains were found at sites such as Xianrendong during the late phase, around 10,000 BP or earlier (Zhang, 2000). Radiocarbon dates and micro- and macro-plant fossils have suggested that rice and millets were cultivated separately in southern and northern China some 10,000 years ago. Rice domestication could have begun. 9400 to 9000 BP at the Shangshan and Hehuashan sites in the lower Yangtze River valley (Zuo et al., 2017), while millet cultivation was securely dated to around 10,000 BP at the Donghulin (Zhao et al., 2020) and Cishan () sites.
In summary, radiocarbon dating has provided important clues to the Neolithic transition in China. Pottery making began around 20,000 BP in China, preceding agriculture by thousands of years. This sharply distinguishes China from the Near East (; ), and future investigations including radiocarbon dating studies are necessary to confirm this distinction.
3.3 Chinese Neolithic chronology
The construction of Neolithic chronological frameworks is fundamental to understanding the archeology of cultural systems and their interactions. This has remained a key topic in Chinese archeology since the 1970s. In 1977, Xia Nai proposed a tentative chronological framework for Neolithic China using 129 published radiocarbon data sets (). By the early 1990s, over two thousand radiocarbon dates had been published, about half of which dealt with the Neolithic Age or before 4,000 BP (). This substantial amount of radiocarbon data made possible the construction of several regional chronological frameworks (; ), which continue to be refined using new radiocarbon dates.
The published radiocarbon data have allowed archeologists to divide Neolithic China into the following proposed categories: early Neolithic (ca. 15,000 BP - 8500 BP or earlier); middle Neolithic, characterized by the pre-Yangshao cultures (ca. 8500 BP - 6900 BP); late Neolithic, represented by the Yangshao cultures (ca. 6900 BP - 4500 BP); and final Neolithic, represented by the Longshan cultures (ca. 4500 BP-3800 BP) (; ). The refinement of chronological frameworks has been carried out for the Yangshao (Zhang et al., 2013) and Longshan cultures in the Central Plains (Zhang, 2021), the Lower Haidai region and the lower Yangtze River valley (; ), as well as the Bronze Age Hexi Corridor (). Chronological studies have also been conducted at the Xichengyi (Zhang et al., 2015) and Xiaozhushan (Zhang et al., 2016) sites.
Radiocarbon dating has substantially contributed to the long-term transdisciplinary project, the Origins of Chinese Civilization. Joint efforts of archeologists and radiocarbon experts over 20 years have revised the Neolithic to early Bronze Age chronology in the Yellow River and Yangtze River valleys. Large settlements and urban centers dating from 5500 BP to 3500 BP, such as Liangzhu, Shijiahe, Taosi, Shimao, and Erlitou, have received close attention in radiocarbon dating projects because they are crucial for the understanding of emergent social complexity as well as the formation of Chinese Civilization (). It is widely agreed that early Chinese civilization can be traced back to 6000 BP to 5500 BP in the Yellow, Yangtze, and West Liao River valleys (). Liangzhu, the earliest capital-level settlement in the lower Yangtze River valley and the earliest state in prehistoric southern China (), had developed a unique hydraulic system around 5100 years ago ().
The Chinese Civilization Exploration Project entered its fifth phase beginning in November 2020. From 2020 to 2024, radiocarbon dating projects will focus on 13 centralized centers in the Western Liao River, Yellow River, and Yangtze River valleys in the hope of offering a refined chronological foundation for research on the origin of Chinese civilization.
3.4 The Xia-Shang-Zhou chronology project
The Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology project was commissioned in 1996 and completed in 2000 (). The project aimed to provide a reliable chronology of the Xia, Shang, and Western Zhou dynasties of ancient China, through the collaboration of specialists in archeology, history, astronomy, and radiocarbon dating, which played a decisive role in this project. To achieve high-precision radiocarbon data, the dating team optimized the preparation method for charcoal and bone samples and also improved the analytical precision of LSC to 2-3% and of AMS to 5% by upgrading the associated facilities (; ; Yuan et al., 2007). These achievements, combined with sequential sampling and ‘wiggle-matching’ of tree ring dates, allowed researchers to obtain several reliable chronologies.
Combining radiocarbon dates with the records of key events in literature, the project proposed that the reigning years of Western Zhou kings could be placed before the first year of the Gonghe Era (共和元年) or 841 BC and the late Shang kings from Wuding (武丁) to Zhou (纣). A relatively detailed chronology of the early Shang period was proposed along with a chronological framework of the legendary Xia Dynasty (). The project leaders combined radiocarbon dating with research in archeology, history, epigraphy, and astronomy. Data on related dates of historical records, bronze vessel inscriptions, and astronomical phenomena were collected and cross-checked for authenticity before use. Sequential samples from several critical sites, especially burials of the Xia, Shang, and Western Zhou, were obtained for radiocarbon dating by LSC and AMS before adopting Bayesian models (). Taking the Western Zhou period as an example, sequential samples were collected for radiocarbon dating from the cemeteries of Marquis Yan at Lulihe and the Jin State at Qucun of Tianma (天马曲村), which laid the foundation for constructing the chronology of the Western Zhou. While the boundaries were delineated in the Bayesian model, information from bronze inscriptions, historical documents, and astronomical calendars was also considered (). A detailed chronology of the Western Zhou kings before 841 BC in this context was given.
In this way, the project obtained sequential dates and established a final chronological framework of the Xia, Shang, and Western Zhou dynasties. The Xia dynasty was dated from ca. 2070 BC to1600 BC and the Shang from ca. 1600 BC to 1046 BC, aligned with the same reigns of nine kings and the reign years of ten Western Zhou kings from Wu (武) to Li (厉) (). Despite some debate and criticism, the project significantly promoted the development of China’s radiocarbon dating technology, especially the AMS facility of Peking University, and profoundly changed the research paradigm of Chinese archeology. Soon after the completion of the Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology project, another national project, “The Origins of Chinese Civilization”, was put on the agenda, which has adopted the two fundamental principles of “government support and specialist responsibility” and “multidisciplinary research” since its inception in 2001.
4 Concluding remarks
Over half a century has passed since the first radiocarbon dating laboratory was set up and implemented in the winter of 1965, and significant achievements have been made as described previously. In the 1970s and 1980s, radiocarbon dating became the primary method for dating Chinese archeological discoveries to coordinate them with the infrastructure constructions across mainland China. The advent of radiocarbon dating laboratories occurred at just the right time when Chinese archeology was at the stage of constructing chronologies related to cultural development. Published radiocarbon data helped archeologists establish reliable chronicles of archeological cultures, especially the Neolithic and Bronze Age archeology, in different regions of mainland China. In this case, it would seem that the impact of radiocarbon dating on Chinese archeology was somewhat different from that of the West, where significant changes—the so-called radiocarbon revolution—were triggered by advances in the knowledge of antiquity and study of prehistory ().
Since the late 20th century, radiocarbon dating has continuously developed and undergone many revolutions. Advances in the precision of radiocarbon dating measurements and refinements in processing methods for separating and preparing carbon with regard to the specific deposit of interest have made it possible to date a variety of materials in samples weighing as little as tens of micrograms (; ; ; ). Recent achievements in extracting specific biomarkers from absorbed food residues in pottery vessels have proven to be very helpful in providing clues to the absolute ages of the consumption of specific foodstuffs, pottery utilization, and typochronologies (). In this case, improvements in sampling calibration methods and programs, as well as new calibration curves, confirm the increased potential for high-resolution chronological studies of archeological events (; ; ). When comparing advances in radiocarbon dating between China and the West in the past decades, however, we have to recognize that there is a long way to go not only in the methodology of radiocarbon dating but also the breadth and depth of its applications in archeology. In the following section, some potentially fruitful research directions are recommended for future studies.
First, more radiocarbon dating laboratories are needed for archeological research. In recent years, over ten laboratories have been established by universities and institutions for radiocarbon dating, some of which have also purchased AMSs (). However, most of these laboratories are targeted to the geosciences for measurement services. In contrast, only two laboratories are directly related to archeology, namely, the laboratories of the Institute of Archaeology of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and Peking University. This limited number of laboratories and specialists needs to be increased to meet the demands of archeological research for radiocarbon dating in China. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the number of laboratories for archeology, especially graphitization labs, the associated facilities, and trained technicians.
Second, there is still a big gap between China and the West in methodology. Radiocarbon dating in China has gradually developed by learning from the West since the 1960s. It is considered a tool for dating antiquities, and there needs to be more exploration in sample preparation and radiocarbon measurement. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out research on isolating and purifying carbon from traditional archeological materials such as bones, mollusks, charred seeds, wood, and charcoal but also from specific compounds and biomarkers. To constantly improve the quality of graphitization and efficiency and precision of testing, it will be necessary to maintain frequent exchanges with the international radiocarbon dating communities.
Third, close cooperation is desirable between specialists in radiocarbon dating and field archeology to address archeological questions. The success of radiocarbon dating studies depends on the optimization of material sampling. Sampling strategies should be designed to answer specific questions, which calls for cooperation of researchers in laboratories and archeologists in the field to discuss the expected results and possible limitations of the methodology of the dating project. To obtain a refined dataset, Bayesian modeling is often applied with the help of independently available information as the preconditions for the chronology model. As a result, instead of waiting in the laboratories, radiocarbon specialists must be engaged in field work for a deeper understanding of the taphonomy of sampled archeological materials to establish a proper chronological model.
Last, radiocarbon dating research projects of Chinese archeology mainly focus on prehistory and Bronze Age, while only a few publications (e.g., ) pay attention to the chronological studies of historical archeological issues. Therefore, well-designed and planned investigations are needed for more detailed specific issues of historic archeology besides prehistoric chronicles.
Statements
Author contributions
CX conceived the project, collected and analyzed the literature, and wrote the manuscript.
Funding
This study was financially supported by the National Philosophy and Social Sciences Foundation (Grant No.22BKG047).
Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to Li Tao of Wuhan University for suggestions and improvements on language.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors, and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AnZ. (1983). Carbon-14 dating and its problems of th Late Paleolithic in China. Acta Anthropol. Sin.2 (4), 342–351. (in Chinese).
2
AnZ. (1991). Radiocarbon dating and the prehistoric archaeology of China. World Archaeol.23 (2), 193–200. 10.1080/00438243.1991.9980171
3
Baoding Institute of Cultural Relic ManagementXushui Institute of Cultural Relic ManagementDepartment of Archaeology of Peking UniversityDepartment of Archaeology of Hebei University (2010). Excavation to Nanzhuangtou site in xushui county, Hebei in 1997. Acta Archaeol. Sin. (3), 361–392. (in Chinese).
4
BennettC. L.BeukensR. P.CloverM. R.GoveH. E.LiebertR. B.LitherlandA. E.et al (1977). Radiocarbon dating using electrostatic accelerators: Negative ions provide the key. Science198(4316), 508–510. 10.1126/science.198.4316.508
5
BergerR. (1979). Radiocarbon dating with accelerators. J. Archaeol. Sci.6 (1), 101–104. 10.1016/0305-4403(79)90037-2
6
BoarettoE.WuX.YuanJ.Bar-YosefO.ChuV.PanY.et al (2009). Radiocarbon dating of charcoal and bone collagen associated with early pottery at Yuchanyan Cave, Hunan Province, China. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.106 (24), 9595–9600. 10.1073/pnas.0900539106
7
BrockF.HighamT.DitchfieldP.RamseyC. B. (2010). Current pretreatment methods for AMS radiocarbon dating at the Oxford radiocarbon accelerator unit (orau). Radiocarbon52 (1), 103–112. 10.1017/s0033822200045069
8
Bronk RamseyC.HighamT.BowlesA.HedgesR. (2004). Improvements to the pretreatment of bone at Oxford. Radiocarbon46 (01), 155–163. 10.1017/s0033822200039473
9
Bronk RamseyC.SchultingR. J.BazaliiskiiV. I.GoriunovaO. I.WeberA. W. (2021). Spatio-temporal patterns of cemetery use among middle holocene hunter-gatherers of cis-baikal, eastern Siberia. Archaeol. Res. Asia25, 100253. 10.1016/j.ara.2020.100253
10
Bronk RamseyC. (2008). Radiocarbon dating: Revolutions in understanding. Archaeometry50 (2), 249–275. 10.1111/j.1475-4754.2008.00394.x
11
CaiL. (1984). “Reviiew of 14C dating with the accelerators" (in Chinese),” in The First National Conference on 14C(Beijing: Science Press), 144–151. Editorial Group of the First National Conference on 14C.
12
CasanovaE.KnowlesT. D. J.BaylissA.DunneJ.BaranskiM. Z.DenaireA.et al (2020). Accurate compound-specific 14C dating of archaeological pottery vessels. Nature580 (7804), 506–510. 10.1038/s41586-020-2178-z
13
ChangK.-C. (1973). Radiocarbon dates from China: Some initial interpretations. Curr. Anthropol.14 (5), 525–528. 10.1086/201377
14
ChangK.-C. (1987). The archaeology of ancient China. Fourth Edition. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
15
ChenT.HedgesR. E. M.YuanZ. (1989). Accelerator radiocarbon dating for upper cave of zhoukoudian. Acta Anthropol. Sin.8 (3), 216–221. (in Chinese). 10.16359/j.cnki.cn11-1963/q.1989.03.004
16
ChenT.HedgesR. E. M.YuanZ. (1992). The second batch of accelerator radiocarbon dates for Upper Cave site of Zhoukoudian. Acta Anthropol. Sin.11 (2), 112–116. (in Chinese). 10.16359/j.cnki.cn11-1963/q.1992.02.002
17
ChenC.-E.GuoZ.YanS.LiR.XiaoM.LiK.et al (1993). Beam characteristics and preliminary applications of the tandem based AMS at Peking University. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B-Beam Interact. Mater. At.79 (1-4), 624–626. 10.1016/0168-583x(93)95428-8
18
ChenT. (1979). Push the toplimit of radiocarbon dating forward to 100000 years. Geology-Geochimestry (6), 53–55. (in Chinese).
19
ChenT. (1988). A preview and prospect of chronological studies for Paleolithic archaeology in China. Acta Archaeol. Sin. (3), 357–368. (in Chinese).
20
DanielG. (1959). Editorial. Antiquity33, 79–80. 10.1017/S0003598X00029070
21
DeeveyE. S.FlintR. F.IrvingR.BerneyC. (1965). Laboratories. Radiocarbon7, 408–414. 10.1017/s0033822200037346
22
Editorial Group of the First National Conference on 14C (1984). in Proceedings of the First National 14C Conference (Beijing: Science Press). in Chinese.
23
FuQ.MeyerM.GaoX.StenzelU.BurbanoH. A.KelsoJ.et al (2013). DNA analysis of an early modern human from Tianyuan Cave, China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.110 (6), 2223–2227. 10.1073/pnas.1221359110
24
GaiP.WeiQ. (1977). Discovery of the hutouliang upper paleolithic site. Vertebr. Palasiat.15 (4), 287–300. (in Chinese). 10.19615/j.cnki.1000-3118.1977.04.007
25
GaoX.LiF.GuanY.ZhangX.OlsenJ. W. (2019). An archaeological perspective on the origins and evelition of modern humans in China. Acta Anthropol. Sin.38 (3), 317–334. (in Chinese). 10.16359/j.cnki.cn11-1963/q.2019.0039
26
GeJ.DengC.ShaoQ.PeiS.TangR.TuH.et al (2021). Progess and issues of chronological studies of human fossil sites in China. Acta Anthropol. Sin.40 (3), 393–410. (in Chinese). 10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2021.0061
27
GodwinH. (1959). Carbon-dating conference at groningen: September 14–19, 1959. Nature184 (4696), 1365–1366. 10.1038/1841365a0
28
Guangxi Team of Cultural RelicsGuilin Management Committee of Cultural Relics (1976). Trial excavation of the zengpiyan cave site in Guilin, Guangxi. Kaogu (3), 175–179. (in Chinese).
29
GuoZ.LiuK.LiK.WangJ.LiB.LuX.et al (1995). Improvements and applications of AMS radiocarbon measurement at peking university. Radiocarbon37 (2), 705–710. 10.1017/s0033822200031234
30
GuoZ.LiuK.LuX.MaH.LiK.YuanS.et al (2000). The use of AMS radiocarbon dating for Xia–Shang–Zhou chronology. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B-Beam Interact. Mater. At.172 (1), 724–731. 10.1016/s0168-583x(00)00368-2
31
GuoQ.TakabayashiH.NakamuraT.ChenG.OkadaK.SuB.et al (2016). Radiocarbon chronology for early caves of the mogao grottoes at dunhuang, China. Radiocarbon52 (2), 500–510. 10.1017/s0033822200045537
32
GuoZ.LiuK.LuX.MaH.LiK.YuanJ.et al (2016). AMS radiocarbon dating of tianma-qucun site in Shanxi, China. Radiocarbon43 (2B), 1109–1114. 10.1017/s0033822200041758
33
HajdasI.AscoughP.GarnettM. H.FallonS. J.PearsonC. L.QuartaG.et al (2021). Radiocarbon dating. Nat. Rev. Methods Prim.1 (1), 62. 10.1038/s43586-021-00058-7
34
Heilongjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and ArchaeologyRaohe County Office of Cultural Relics (2019). Brief report on the 2015 excavation of zone III of xiaonanshan site at Raohe county, heilongjia. Kaogu (8), 3–20. (in Chinese).
35
HouL.LiJ.DengH.GuoY. (2021). Stable isotope analysis of faunal remains at the Nanzhuangtou site in Xushui, Hebei Province. Kaogu (5), 107–114. (in Chinese).
36
HuY.MarwickB.ZhangJ.-F.RuiX.HouY.-M.YueJ.-P.et al (2019). Late middle Pleistocene Levallois stone-tool technology in southwest China. Nature565 (7737), 82–85. 10.1038/s41586-018-0710-1
37
HuangQ.CaiB.YuJ.ChangH.PuH. (1981). The determiantion of the age of the salt lakes in China 1: Liquid scintillation counting for radiocabron dating. Oceanol. Limnol. Sin.12 (1), 41–48. (in Chinese).
38
IA-CASS (1983). Radiocarbon dating in Chinese archaeology. Beijing: Cultural Relics Publishing House. In Chinese.
39
IA-CASS (1992). Radiocarbon dates in Chinese archaeology (1965-1991). Beijing: Cultural Relics Publishing House. in Chinese.
40
IA-CASS (2012). Chinese archaeology: Neolithic. Beijing: China Social Science Press. in Chinese.
41
JanzL. (2016). Fragmented landscapes and economies of abundance: The broad-spectrum revolution in arid East asia. Curr. Anthropol.57 (5), 537–564. 10.1086/688436
42
Jiangxi Provincial Committee of Cultural Relics (1963). Trial excavation of Xianrendong cave at dayuan of wannian, Jiangxi. Acta Archaeol. Sin. (1), 1–16. (in Chinese).
43
Jiangxi Provincial Museum (1976). Report on the second excavation of Xianrendong cave atDayuan of Wanian county, Jiangxi. Cult. Relics (12), 23–35. (in Chinese).
44
JinH.PanY.YangY.QinL.SunG.ZhengY.et al (2014). A primary study on AMS 14C dating of phytolith at Tianluoshan site, Zhejing province. Quat. Sci.34 (1), 1–7. (in Chinese). 10.3969/j.isn.1001/7410.2014.01.01
45
KuzminY. V.Timothy JullJ. A.BurrG. S. (2009). Major patterns in the neolithic chronology of East asia: Issues of the origin of pottery, agriculture, and civilization. Radiocarbon51 (3), 891–903. 10.1017/s0033822200033968
46
KuzminY. V. (2009). Radiocarbon and the old World archaeology: Shaping a chronological framework. Radiocarbon51 (1), 149–172. 10.1017/s0033822200033762
47
KuzminY. V. (2016). Two trajectories in the neolithization of eurasia: Pottery versus agriculture (spatiotemporal patterns). Radiocarbon55 (3), 1304–1313. 10.1017/s0033822200048219
48
Lab of IA-CAS (1972). Radiocarbon dating report (1). Kaogu (1), 52–56. (in Chinese).
49
Lab of IA-CAS (1974). Radiocarbon dating report (3). Kaogu (5), 333–338. (in Chinese).
50
Lab of IA-CAS (1977). Radiocarbon dating report (4). Kaogu (3), 200–204. (in Chinese).
51
Lab of IA-CASSLab of Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology of CAS (1976). A method for carbon dating of bone specimens. Kaogu (1), 28–30. (in Chinese).
52
Lab of IA-CASS (1978). Rdiocarbon dating report (5). Kaogu (4), 280–278. (in Chinese).
53
Lab of IA-CASS (1980). Radiocarbon dating report (7). Kaogu (4), 372–377. (in Chinese).
54
Lab of IA-CASS (1983). Radiocarbon dating report (10). Kaogu (7), 646–652. (in Chinese).
55
LiF.BaeC. J.RamseyC. B.ChenF.GaoX. (2018a). Re-dating Zhoukoudian Upper Cave, northern China and its regional significance. J. Hum. Evol.121, 170–177. 10.1016/j.jhevol.2018.02.011
56
LiF.KuhnS. L.ChenF.WangY.SouthonJ.PengF.et al (2018b). The easternmost middle paleolithic (mousterian) from Jinsitai cave, north China. J. Hum. Evol.114, 76–84. 10.1016/j.jhevol.2017.10.004
57
LiF.KuhnS. L.Bar-YosefO.ChenF.-y.PengF.GaoX. (2019). History, chronology and techno-typology of the upper paleolithic sequence in the Shuidonggou area, northern China. J. World Prehist.32 (2), 111–141. 10.1007/s10963-019-09129-w
58
LiX. (2002). The xia-shang-zhou chronology project: Methodology and results. J. East Asian Archaeol.4 (1-4), 321–333. 10.1163/156852302322454585
59
LiX. (2009). “Liu dongsheng and Chinese radiocarbon revolution,” in Chinese Association for Quaternary ResearchMemory of academician Liu dongsheng. (Beijing: The Commercial Press), 259–262. (in Chinese).
60
LibbyW. F.AndersonE. C.ArnoldJ. R. (1949). Age determination by radiocarbon content: World-wide assay of natural radiocarbon. Science109 (2827), 227–228. 10.1126/science.109.2827.227
61
LibbyW. F. (1955). Radiocarbon dating. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
62
LiuL.ChenX. (2012). The archaeology of China: from the late paleolithic to the early bronze age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
63
LiuK.GuoZ.LuX.MaH.LiB.WangJ.et al (2000). Improvements of PKUAMS for precision 14C analysis of the project of xia–shang–zhou chronology. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B-Beam Interact. Mater. At.172 (1), 70–74. 10.1016/s0168-583x(00)00223-8
64
LiuK.DingX.FuD.PanY.WuX.GuoZ.et al (2007). A new compact AMS system at Peking University. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B-Beam Interact. Mater. At.259 (1), 23–26. 10.1016/j.nimb.2007.01.314
65
LiuW.XingS.WuX. (2016). Morphological diversities of the late-Middle and Late Pleistocene human fossils in China. Sci. Sin. Terrae46 (7), 906–917. (in Chinese). 10.16359/j.cnki.cn11-1963/q.2019.0048
66
LiuB.WangN.ChenM.WuX.MoD.LiuJ.et al (2017). Earliest hydraulic enterprise in China, 5,100 years ago. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.114 (52), 13637–13642. 10.1073/pnas.1710516114
67
LongT.TaylorD. (2015). A revised chronology for the archaeology of the lower Yangtze, China, based on Bayesian statistical modelling. J. Archaeol. Sci.63, 115–121. 10.1016/j.jas.2015.08.019
68
LongT.WagnerM.TarasovP. E. (2017). A Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates from prehistoric sites in the Haidai Region, East China, for evaluation of the archaeological chronology. J. Archaeol. Sci.-Rep.12, 81–90. 10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.01.024
69
LuH.ZhangJ.LiuK.-b.WuN.LiY.ZhouK.et al (2009). Earliest domestication of common millet (Panicum miliaceum) in East Asia extended to 10,000 years ago. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.106 (18), 7367–7372. 10.1073/pnas.0900158106
70
MakibayashiK. (2014). The transformation of farming cultural landscapes in the neolithic Yangtze area, China. J. World Prehist.27 (3-4), 295–307. 10.1007/s10963-014-9082-0
71
MannW. B. (1983). An international reference material for radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon25 (2), 519–527. 10.1017/s0033822200005816
72
MullerR. A. (1977). Radioisotope dating with a cyclotron. Science196(4289), 489–494. 10.1126/science.196.4289.489
73
NelsonD. E.KortelingR. G.StottW. R. (1977). Carbon-14: Direct detection at natural concentrations. Science198 (4316), 507–508. 10.1126/science.198.4316.507
74
NortonC. J.GaoX. (2008). Zhoukoudian upper cave revisited. Curr. Anthropol.49 (4), 732–745. 10.1086/588637
75
PeiW. C. (1933). A preliminary report on the late-palaeolithic cave of Choukoutien1. Bull. Geol. Soc. China13, 327–358. 10.1111/j.1755-6724.1934.mp13001020.x
76
PeiW. C. (1939). On the upper cave industry. Palaeontol. Sin.9, 1–59.
77
PeiW. C. (1940). The upper cave fauna of choukoutien. Chungking: Geological Survey of China.
78
PolachH. A.KruegerH. W. (1972). “Isotopic fractionation of NBS oxalic acid and ANU-sucrose radiocarbon dating standards,” in 8th Inernaional Conference on Radiocabon dating, H121.
79
PolachH. A. (1989). 14Care. Radiocarbon31 (03), 422–429. 10.1017/s0033822200012005
80
QiuS.CaiL. (1997). Recent advancement in radiocarbon dating. Quat. Sci.17 (3), 222–229. (in Chinese).
81
QiuS.CaiL.ChenT.YuanS. (1983). The establishment of Chinese Charred Sucrose Standard for radiocarbon dating. Chin. Sci. Bul.28 (3), 170–174. (in Chinese). 10.1360/csb1983-28-3-170
82
Radiocarbon Dating Lab of Archaeology of Peking University (1976). A preliminary report on radiocarbon dating by liquid scintillation counting method. Cult. Relics (12), 80–84. (in Chinese).
83
Radiocarbon Dating Lab of Institute of Science and Technology for Cultural Relics Preservation (1978). Radiocarbon dating by liquid scintillation counting method. Cult. Relics (5), 70–74. (in Chinese).
84
Radiocarbon Dating Society of Chinese Quaternary Research Association (1990). Contribution to the quaternary glaciology and Geology 6: Special issue on 14C dating. Beijing: Geological Publishing House. (in Chinese).
85
Radiocarbon Lab of Institute of Geochemistry of CAS (1973). Radiocarbon determination of several archaeological samples. Geochimica2 (2), 135–137. (in Chinese). 10.19700/j.0379-1726.1973.02.008
86
Radiocarbon Lab of Institute of Geology of CAS (1974). Radiocarbon dating of natural samples, (Chinese Academy of Sciences). Sci. Geol. Sin.9 (4), 383–384. (in Chinese).
87
Radiocarbon Lab of Peking UniversityRadiocarbon Lab of Institute of Archaeology of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (IA-CASS) (1982). Reliability of radiocarbon dates on samples collected from limistone regions and the age of the Zengpiyan and Xianrendong prehistoric sites. Acta Archaeol. Sin. (4), 243–250. (in Chinese).
88
ReimerP. J.AustinW. E. N.BardE.BaylissA.BlackwellP. G.Bronk RamseyC.et al (2020). The IntCal20 northern hemisphere radiocarbon age calibration curve (0–55 cal kBP). Radiocarbon62 (4), 725–757. 10.1017/rdc.2020.41
89
ReimerP. J. (2021). Evolution of radiocarbon calibration. Radiocarbon64 (3), 523–539. 10.1017/rdc.2021.62
90
RenfrewC.LiuB. (2018). The emergence of complex society in China: the case of Liangzhu. Antiquity92 (364), 975–990. 10.15184/aqy.2018.60
91
RenfrewC. (1976). Before civilization: The radiocarbon revolution and prehistoric Europe. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
92
RudolphR. C. (1973). The first carbon-14 dating in China. Isis64 (1), 101–102. 10.1086/351047
93
School of Archaeology and Museology of Peking UniversityArchaeological Research Center of Peking UniversityBeijing Institute of Cultural Relics (2006). Prehistoric Donghulin site at mentougou district, beijing. Kaogu (7), 3–8. (in Chinese).
94
ShangH.TongH.ZhangS.ChenF.TrinkausE. (2007). An early modern human from Tianyuan Cave, Zhoukoudian, China. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.104 (16), 6573–6578. 10.1073/pnas.0702169104
95
ShenC. (1984). “Possibility of using atomic counting method: ultrasensitive spectrometer technique in 14C dating" (in Chinese),” in The first national conference on 14C (Beijing: Science Press). Editorial Group of the First National Conference on 14C.
96
SynalH.-A. (2013). Developments in accelerator mass spectrometry. Int. J. Mass Spectrom.349-350, 192–202. 10.1016/j.ijms.2013.05.008
97
TamersM. A. (1960). Carbon-14 dating with the liquid scintillation counter: Total synthesis of the benzene solvent. Science132 (3428), 668–669. 10.1126/science.132.3428.668
98
WalkerB. D.XuX. (2018). An improved method for the sealed-tube zinc graphitization of microgram carbon samples and 14C AMS measurement. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B-Beam Interact. Mater. At.438, 58–65. 10.1016/j.nimb.2018.08.004
99
WangL.DuanT. (2013). Pottery of ten thousand years found in Northeast China: preliminary study of remains of phase 1 unearthed from Shuangta site in baicheng Jilin. Jilin Univ. J. Soc. Sci. Ed.53 (2), 65–71. (in Chinese). 10.15939/j.jujsse.2013.02.009
100
WangY.LuH. (1997). AMS 14C dating and isotopic analysis of phytolith. Mar. Sci. Bull.16 (3), 49–56. (in Chinese).
101
WangY.WangS. (2014). New achievements and prespectives on Paleolithic archaeology during the MIS 3 along the eastern foot of Songshan Mountain, Henan province. Acta Anthropol. Sin.33 (3), 304–314. (in Chinese). 10.16359/j.cnki.cn11-1963/q.2014.03.011
102
WangW.ZhaoH. (2022). Chinese Civilization's Origin Project and its main achievements. J. Chin. Hist. Stud. (4), 5–32. (in Chinese).
103
WangL. (2018). Studies on the remains of the Neolithic age in Houtaomuga site and relevant issues. Acta Archaeol. Sin. (2), 141–164. (in Chinese).
104
WangY. (2019). Stone tools technology and migration and diffusion of early humans. Archaeol. Stud.11, 1–12. (in Chinese).
105
WuX.ZhangC.GoldbergP.CohenD.PanY.ArpinT.et al (2012). Early pottery at 20,000 years ago in Xianrendong cave, China. Science336 (6089), 1696–1700. 10.1126/science.1218643
106
WuX. (2018). Recent research progress and popular issues on Chinese human evolution. Chin. Sci. Bul.63, 2148–2155. 10.1360/N972018-00346
107
WuX. (2021). “The development of carbon-14 dating technology by accelerator mass spectrometry,” in One hundred years' history of Chinese archaeology (1921-2021). Editors WangW.WangW. (Beijing: China Social Science Press), 1109–1114. (in Chinese).
108
XiaN. (1955). The application of radioisotopes in archaeology: radioccarbon dating method. Kaogu (4), 73–78. (in Chinese).
109
XiaN. (1977). Carbon-14 dating and prehistoric archaeology in China. Kaogu (4), 217–232. (in Chinese).
110
Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project Expert Group (2022). Xia-shang-zhou chronology project report. Beijing: Science Press. (in Chinese).
111
XuX.ShenC.StillsA. K.SouthonJ. R. (2013). Homogeneity evaluation of Chinese sugar carbon (CSC) standard for AMS 14C measurement. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B294, 430–434. 10.1016/j.nimb.2012.09.031
112
YangM. A.GaoX.TheunertC.TongH.Aximu-PetriA.NickelB.et al (2017). 40,000-Year-Old individual from asia provides insight into early population structure in eurasia. Curr. Biol.27 (20), 3202–3208.e9. 10.1016/j.cub.2017.09.030
113
YangY.ZhangS.OldknowC.QiuM.ChenT.LiH.et al (2019). Refined chronology of prehistoric cultures and its implication for re-evaluating human-environment relations in the Hexi Corridor, northwest China. Sci. China Earth Sci.62 (10), 1578–1590. 10.1007/s11430-018-9375-4
114
YiM.GaoX.LiF.ChenF. (2016). Rethinking the origin of microblade technology: A chronological and ecological perspective. Quatern. Int.400, 130–139. 10.1016/j.quaint.2015.07.009
115
YuanS.ZhouG.GuoZ.ZhangZ.GaoS.LiK.et al (1995). 14C AMS dating the transition from the paleolithic to the neolithic in South China. Radiocarbon37 (2), 245–249. 10.1017/s0033822200030708
116
YuanS.LiK.YuJ.ZhangZ.WangJ.LiuK-X.et al (1997). Applications of AMS radiocarbon dating in Chinese archaeological studies. AIP Conf. Proc.392 (1), 803–806. 10.1063/1.52566
117
YuanS.WuX.LiuK.GuoZ.ChengX.PanY.et al (2007). Removal of contaminants from oracle bones during sample pretreatment. Radiocarbon49 (2), 211–216. 10.1017/s0033822200042132
118
ZhangC.HungH. -C. (2012). Later hunter-gathers in southern China, 18000-3000 BC. Antiquity86 (1), 11–29. 10.1017/S0003598X00062438
119
ZhangX.QiuS.ZhongJ.LuX.ZhaoX.FanW.et al (2013). On the chronology of Yangshao culture. Kaogu (11), 84–104. (in Chinese).
120
ZhangX.ZhangL.WangH.LuX.ChenG. (2015). Radiocarbon dating and preliminary study of the Xichengyi site at Zhangye. Huaxia Archaeol. (4), 38–45. (in Chinese).
121
ZhangX.JinY.JiaX. (2016). Chronology of the Xi site at changhai, liaoning. Kaogu (5), 590–600. (in Chinese).
122
ZhangX. L.HaB. B.WangS. J.ChenZ. J.GeJ. Y.LongH.et al (2018). The earliest human occupation of the high-altitude Tibetan Plateau 40 thousand to 30 thousand years ago. Science362, 1049–1051. 10.1126/science.aat8824
123
ZhangY.CuiQ.ZhouA. (2021). Applicaiton and prospect of pollen concentrates in AMS 14C dating. Quat. Sci.41 (1), 136–145. (in Chinese). 10.11928/j.issn.1001-7410.2021.01.12
124
ZhangW. (2000). “Rice bi-peaked tubercles, the characteristics of ancient rice, and the origin of rice cultivation,” in The origins of rice agriculture, pottery, and cities. Editors YanW.YasudaY. (Beijing: Cultural Relics Publishing House), 122. (in Chinese).
125
ZhangH. (2021). The origin of civilization in the central Plains core area. Shanghai: Shanghai Classics Publishing House. (in Chinese).
126
ZhaoZ.ZhaoC.YuJ.WangT.CuiT.GuoJ. (2020). Flotation results and analysis of plant remains at Donghulin site in Beijing. Kaogu (7), 99–106. (in Chinese).
127
ZhaoZ. (2010). New data and new issues for the study of origin of rice agriculture in China. Archaeol Anthropol Sci2 (2), 99–105. 10.1007/s12520-010-0028-x
128
ZhaoZ. (2011). New archaeobotanic data for the study of the origins of agriculture in China. Curr. Anthropol.52 (S4), S295–S306. 10.1086/659308
129
ZhouW.ChenM. (2009). Development of radiocarbon dating in China over the past 50 years. Radiocarbon51 (1), 91–107. 10.1017/s0033822200033725
130
ZhouW.HeadM. J.KaiholaL. (1994). Small sample dating in China. Radiocarbon36 (1), 47–49. 10.1017/s0033822200014314
131
ZhouW.ZhaoX.XuefengL.LinL.ZhengkunW.PengC.et al (2006). The 3MV multi-element AMS in xi'an, China: Unique features and preliminary tests. Radiocarbon48 (2), 285–293. 10.1017/s0033822200066492
132
ZhuS.DingP.WangN.ShenC.JiaG.ZhangG. (2015). The compact AMS facility at Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of sciences. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B-Beam Interact. Mater. At.361, 72–75. 10.1016/j.nimb.2015.06.040
133
ZuoX.WuN. (2019). Phytolith radiocarbon dating: past, present and future. Quat. Sci.39 (1), 59–66. (in Chinese). 10.11928/j.issn.1001-7410.2019.01.06
134
ZuoX.LuH.JiangL.ZhangJ.YangX.HuanX.et al (2017). Dating rice remains through phytolith carbon-14 study reveals domestication at the beginning of the Holocene. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.114 (25), 6486–6491. 10.1073/pnas.1704304114
Summary
Keywords
radiocarbon dating, archeology, China, chronology, methodology, applications
Citation
Chen X (2023) Radiocarbon dating and its applications in Chinese archeology: An overview. Front. Earth Sci. 11:1064717. doi: 10.3389/feart.2023.1064717
Received
08 October 2022
Accepted
06 January 2023
Published
07 February 2023
Volume
11 - 2023
Edited by
Yaowu Hu, Fudan University, China
Updates
Copyright
© 2023 Chen.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Xianglong Chen, chenxianglong09@hotmail.com
This article was submitted to Quaternary Science, Geomorphology and Paleoenvironment, a section of the journal Frontiers in Earth Science
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.