Archaeological dating perspective radiocarbon

Initially, the possibility of a "pre-Clovis" presence came to mind since while none of the popularly recog- nized "Indian" spear heads and projectile points had appeared, many of the human-modified stones of local and non-local lithology were professionally recognized as in fact being artifactual, with others having a very high proba- bility of being so.But subsequently, similar artifact material has appeared at other sites in direct context with points, blades, etc.(The presence of "portable rock art" or "mobile rock art" has long been recognized in European artifact material, and is starting to be seen for what it is at sites in North America.

archaeological dating perspective radiocarbon-62archaeological dating perspective radiocarbon-61

The Ohio Historic Preservation Office has included the site (#33GU218) in the Ohio Archaeological Inventory, recognizing evidence of prehistoric habitation.

Ohio's state archaeologists have, however, indicated no interest in further inquiry, on the unfounded assumption that early Native Americans would have left nothing significant in this unglaciated and topographically rugged area (a bit too far from Columbus, perhaps? This author has been proceeding largely on his own with occasional assistance and advice from professional archaeologists, anthropologists, and physical scientists including geologists and petrologists with the training and experience required to determine whether or not a given rock could have acquired its current form entirely through natural processes.

From 1974 to 2002, he was the director of the UCR Radiocarbon Laboratory and was affiliated with the UCR Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics.

Ofer Bar-Yosef is the Mac Curdy Research Professor of Prehistoric Archaeology at Harvard University.

In addition to reviewing the basic principles of the method, it examines 14C dating anomalies and means to resolve them, and considers the critical application of 14C data as a dating isotope with special emphasis on issues in Old and New World archaeology and late Quaternary paleoanthropology. Taylor is Emeritus Professor of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside (UCR) and Visiting Professor in the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).

This volume, again a benchmark for 14C dating, critically reflects on the method and data that underpins, in so many cases, the validity of the chronologies used to understand the prehistoric archaeological record. He is also a visiting scientist at the Keck Carbon Cycle Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory, University of California, Irvine.Judging from ceramic material and a long, straight, and symmetrical earthwork oriented to true north-south, it appears that the upper artifact layer at this site may date from the Early and/or Middle Woodland Period.Temporally/culturally diagnostic flint projectile points from the vicinity of the site indicate a human presence dating from the Early Archaic through the Middle Woodland Period, or roughly 10,000 - 1500 years BP. (An overdue attempt at concisely deconstructing it may appear on this sadly disjointed website before too long.temporally diagnostic of time periods as recent as Middle Woodland (roughly 100 BC to 500 AD).Nonetheless, the distinct similarity of the artifact material here to that at the Gault (Clovis) and Topper (pre-Clovis) sites leaves open the at least hypo- thetical possibility that the more deeply buried artifacts (apparently at at least a meter or so beneath the terrain surface) might predate the Clovis time frame.He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA and Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy; he was also awarded the 2013 Cotsen Prize for Life-Time Achievement in World Archaeology.

Comments are closed.