Re: Archaeological dating methods, was: ARCHAEOLOGY VERSUS TACITUS' AGRICOLA was to Paul Burke Re: Grænlendinga þáttur

From: Philip Deitiker (Donevenask_at_worlnet.att.net)
Date: 03/18/05 

Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:04:49 GMT

Doug Weller <dweller@ramtops.removethisdemon.co.uk> says in
news:73rk31toe4mn4j2dbpal4pajmvh9nko3h3@4ax.com:

> Without calibration it's useless. I'm referring to with
> calibration. Most dating methods have problems, the best thing
> to do is to use several and not rely on one particular one --
> although dendro is very good and can be very reliable in the
> right circumstances.

dendrochronology w/C-14 is the best. The japanese are now getting
relatively proficient at dating particles of carbon in pottery, this
is why the early Yayoi transition has been moved back to 3000 years,
therefore concordance between dendrochronology and c-14, pottery and
c-14 can compositely be used to narrow a date down considerably. I
was told the paper on these new techniques out of the national nuseum
at Sakura, but I haven't had a chance to get it yet. The larger
problem with dating pottery is getting enough anthropomorphic carbon
in the pottery of the same type to date.
  [This I think was of interest to me particularly because in Gomen
it was clear that the pottery clay was intentionally multicolored, I
thought this was due to use of different soils, but what was
indicated to me is the potential of the inclusion of pigmented wood
saps (i.e. laquers) into the clay itself before firing]

  The issues expressed to me problematic of dating the Yayoi/Jomon
transition were as follows, mindful of the fact I confronted the
curator on this specific issue, playing the devils advocate.

1. Better dating machines
2. Ability to extract more anthropogenic carbon in the pottery.
3. Recognition of the elements added to the clay before firing that
   can be used to date an object.

It is claimed that the difficulties in dating lead to earlier dates
at 2300 years, and have been resolved, but who knows.

> So your claim that looking at films led you to the conclusion
> that you wouldn't rely on 'Roman period specialist
> archaeologists' isn't in fact the case.. It was what we call a
> red herring. And you haven't read any detailed publications from
> British Romano-British specialists dealing with the matter. Ok.

Once again this is a rather unneccesary presumption, _nothing_ she
says can be held with any credibility. I am sure there are far better
archaeologist looking at the Roman finds in England relative to those
digging around Sweden and unsuccessfully training voyueristic
temporary grade school marms, ;^). 

-- 
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
____Groups_____
Mol Anthro   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Pal Anthro   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Arch. Aux    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
Gliadin Sci  http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/GliadinScience/
____Sites_____
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom.    http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm

Relevant Pages
Quantcast