主播大秀

Ancient and Archaeology聽 permalink

Dating archaeological evidence, how鈥檚 it done?

• Message 1.聽

  Posted by bandick (U14360315) on Monday, 5th April 2010

  
  
  I鈥檝e been reading a variety of books and articles recently and sadly even those that barely scrape the surface of the topic I had in mind learn about was invariably way over my balding but well polished bonce.
  So there are several questions I鈥檇 like to ask.
  
  Is there a directory or index to this Google thingy?
  
  How do you search for a specific thing?
  I note that almost as soon as a topic is raised, there鈥檚 a flood of helpful information and points of views pouring in from across the globe, with many offering useful Webb sites for further reading.
  
  Where do you contributors get your information鈥�?
  
  How do archaeologists date artefacts, i.e. stone or flint tools? Is it from it鈥檚 style, or say a skilfully polished finish etc.
  
  And the same with pottery鈥� differing shapes, glazes, patterns and decorations pertaining to certain cultures and areas and even continents. Thou they invariably serve the same propose.
  I mention the above artefacts as they are inorganic鈥� the raw materials being as old as the hills so to speak, but what about the organic finds.
  
  I believe that radio carbon dating was the all singing all dancing answer to the archaeologist鈥檚 dreams many years ago. But with time, and the advancement of new technology, it鈥檚 all down to DNA. Does radio carbon dating still play a part in archaeology?
  Powerful electro thingy microscopes enable specialist to even identify an array of differing plant pollens, and so can identify the season of someone鈥檚 passing by the content of their stomach. As in the peat bog bodies for example. Or by samples taken from teeth, where they can ascertain from whence the individual grew up鈥� it鈥檚 all pretty amazing stuff, and must be akin to pathology鈥� is it?
  
  We must have all counted the rings on a tree trunk鈥� and some examples are on display in various heritage centres, with pins indicating specific dates making history come to life鈥� i.e. the execution of Charles 1鈥� the Battle of Waterloo, Queen Victoria crowned or the relief of Mafeking etc, and they鈥檙e all fascinating. But these specimens are from fallen trees; or where the tree had to be cut down to enable it to be dated.
  
  Now I hear about 鈥楧enso鈥� dating where a core of wood is bored out of a timber beam in an old building or a shipwreck, or the remaining stump found in a riverbed, part of the original structure of an ancient pier, bridge or lake dwelling鈥� and compared with information on a data bank. What a brilliant and simple idea. But can it be done on the live tree, and just how far back does the data go鈥� what鈥檚 the earliest these 鈥榙enso, ologists鈥� can go. I鈥檓 sure I鈥檝e read about some trees high up in the Californian mountains鈥� the Methuselah trees I believe, that are suggested to be 8,000 years old, at the time it was stated they鈥檇 have to cut one down to prove it. Any truth in any of that鈥�?
  
  I鈥檇 be very grateful for any info on any of these questions, especially on where to look myself on Google, as I wouldn鈥檛 then have to be asking so many dumb fool questions, wasting other peoples time, and who knows, may even help this feeble brain to get down to the nuts and bolts of this fascinating subject.
  
  Regards鈥� bandick.
  

  Link to this forum: Dating archaeological evidence, how鈥檚 it done?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Monday, 5th April 2010

  Hi Bandick,
  My, you've asked for what amounts to a substantial proportion of a degree course!
  This is an excellent website that should answer a lot of your questions re dating and archaeology in general.
  
  
  
  As to searching online, yes, you do get deluged by a flood of information, much of it unreliable and just plain rubbish. This next website gives good advice for separating the wheat from the chaff so it might help. As a very quick rule of thumb, websites with .org in them or .ac.uk tend to be more trustworthy although not always.you can always go to the 'more' heading on the bar above the search box and drop down to 'scholar' which can give good, rigorous material.
  
  
  
  If you find a site that you like, if it's any good it will usually have refences you can follow up. Unfortunately, most of the journals need a subscription or institutional log in but but at least the abstracts can usually be accessed free.
  
  When searching try to include all the important terms to narrow down the number of sites it brings up. If you google 'Neolithic' for example, you'd get millions of sites but if you were to add, say a county or a place name and a type of monument or artefact or the archaeologist involved etc, it would be much more focussed. That being said, the most interesting stuff often arrives serendipitously. It's not called surfing lightly, going where it takes you can be a lot of fun and anyway, what you read anywhere is someone's opinion and you are free to draw your own conclusions on the basis of their argument and evidence. But then you'll have noticed from these boards that the day everyone agrees is the day everyone will give it all up!
  
  regards
  
  ferval

  Link to this forum: Dating archaeological evidence, how鈥檚 it done?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by bandick (U14360315) on Monday, 5th April 2010

  Thanks for all that ferval, I appreciate it, and for being taken seriously. The sites you gave me are certainly interesting, and give good advice; I shall have to be more selective in my reading material and less inclined to let my mind wander along some other interesting avenues. Words always found at the bottom of my school textbooks, and written in an almost undecipherable hand by the various schoolmasters that had the displeasure of knowing me鈥� 鈥淐ould try harder, needs to pay more attention.鈥� or 鈥淗is mind wanders鈥濃�� to quote but a few. My reply was always the same鈥� 鈥淐ould try harder making the lessons a bit more interesting.鈥�
  
  
  With thanks bandick.
  

  Link to this forum: Dating archaeological evidence, how鈥檚 it done?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 5th April 2010

  Hi bandick
  
  A few points. Remember that sometimes archaeologists can derive an absolutely date for an object or structure (that is a calendar date); on other occasions the best they can have is a relative date - eg A is older than B but younger than C.
  
  Stones and flint tools are actually rather difficult to date. If they are surface finds then dating them stylistically may be the best you can do. If they are found in context, in a soil layer where they were originally deposited, then they may be associated with something easier to scientifically date such as bone or a parched cereal grain.
  
  Many dating methods involve measuring something that is regularly lost from a object with time (like radiocarbon), or regularly gained by an object with time (like thermoluminescence) or some quality 'frozen' at a particular time (like archaeo-magnetism). The ingredients of ceramics may be 'as old as the hills' as you say, but the clock is effectively reset to zero on firing the pottery so you can calculate the age since that event.
  
  Radiocarbon dating is extremely helpful and has got more precise and more reliable over the last 50 years. But it is only applicable to organic material. Some periods are not very suitable for radiocarbon dating in any case; in Roman Britain the style of Samian ware pottery or the emperor's titles on a coin may still give you a more accurate date.
  
  DNA analysis is not really a dating method, valuable though it is, although some workers try to date the age between two samples from the same organism by the number of additional mutations that the younger sample has accumulated.
  
  In temperate (but not tropical) zones tree ring morphology changes seasonally and a sequence of tree ring morphology will give the date of felling (if you have enough rings and some bark). With long lived trees like oak you can start with living trees and then move backwards with felled wood, and then structural wood. I think we are back a thousand years in Britain.
  
  The importance of the Californian Bristle Cone pine is not that its wood is used in structures, but that pieces of very old wood, of known age, can be used to calibrate radiocarbon dating. I'm fairly sure you wouldn't be allowed to cut down one of these very ancient organisms! You take out a wooden core with an auger.
  
  Best wishes,
  
  TP

  Link to this forum: Dating archaeological evidence, how鈥檚 it done?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by yellowcat (U218155) on Tuesday, 6th April 2010

  Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:39 GMT, in reply to bandick in message 1
  
  Google is good but it is not the only search tool, if you are looking for specialist scientific topics then you are better off using specialist tools that will find information deeper in the web that you may never find using "surface web" search engines.
  
  Here are some sites that will help you in a 'deep search':
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  As you expressed an interest in Archaeological Dating I went to the Directory of Open Access Journals to see what there was on Archaeology.
  Under History and Archaeology they have 23 journals
  OK not all are in English, but looking down the list I see Geochronometria - a Polish journal written in English on 'earth science, archaeology, dating methods':
  
  You can then look through to see if there is anything that looks interesting.
  
  I have a look at 'INFRARED STIMULATED LUMINESCENCE AND THERMOLUMINESCENCE DATING OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SAMPLES FROM TURKEY'
  
  Now say that I am a bit rusty on 'Thermoluminescence Dating', then I could use Google or other search engines to find more on the subject.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  It can be worth noting the other papers referred to if you want to find out more on a particular aspect.
  
  I hope this is of help, you can read more on 'Deep Web' searching here:
  
  

  Link to this forum: Dating archaeological evidence, how鈥檚 it done?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by lisa graham (U14418491) on Monday, 12th April 2010

  Hi there,
  
  Ferval is absolutely right, therefore (if you don't mind spending a few quid) I'd highly recommend the textbook Renfrew and Bahn Archaeological Theories, Methods and Practice. This is one of the standard textbooks for an archaeology degree and sets out everything you've mentioned and more.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Dating archaeological evidence, how鈥檚 it done?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by bandick (U14360315) on Wednesday, 14th April 2010

  Bandick would like to thank all those of you that have kindly replied to my postings鈥� but I鈥檓 now living in an area where a reliable internet connection seems almost impossible.
  
  I鈥檝e a feeling this new cottage may have been a disused converted nuclear fallout bunker鈥� not the barn conversion they advertised鈥� or the walls maybe lined with lead, as I can鈥檛 get my telly to work out here鈥� I can鈥檛 get a signal on my mobile phone either鈥� and my watch has stopped working for reasons known only to itself.
  
  In despair for news from the outside, I鈥檝e just bought a new digital radios and that doesn鈥檛 work out here either.
  However, I have just discovered since now the wind has changed direction, I can get the internet鈥� but only when there鈥檚 an 鈥楻鈥� in the month and only if I stand on one leg balancing on the back of the armchair while I鈥檝e got my big toe stuck up the cold water tap鈥�, not easy when you walk with crutches.
  But with my tongue wrapped around the light socket鈥� and somehow managing to stretch my tonsils and vocal chords around the tune of 鈥楳a, He鈥檚 Makin鈥� Eyes at Me鈥欌�� then there鈥檚 about a one in zero chance of me getting an internet connection鈥�
  
  methinks I may start to keep pigeons鈥� they鈥檇 be a more reliable method of communicating with the outside world and that thing they call civilisation.
  
  Other than that, things are fine鈥� apart from me going into hospital again where the future is not orange鈥� but bleak.
  Ah, the hospital car cometh to take me away鈥�
  
  I also apologise for any
  

  Link to this forum: Dating archaeological evidence, how鈥檚 it done?

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Wednesday, 14th April 2010

  Hi Bandick,
  I hope your temperamental internet is working - what a stupid thing to say, if it's not you won't be reading this! Anyway, apm's suggestion of Renfrew and Bahn is certainly an excellent book but there's a lot in it, great for dipping into a chapter at a time. If you want something you can read in a sitting and is a real page turner and gives an insight into some of big debates in archaeology, Paul Bahn's 'A Very Short Introduction to Archaeology' is a delight, witty and very informative. I got mine for under 拢1 from 'the big river'. If there is a library within reach then his 'further reading' list has good recommendations to order up. I'm sure you'll soon find the areas that appeal to you the most and then you're off.
  
  I'm sure I speak for everyone on these boards when I say we're wishing you all the best and look forward to seeing you posting here for a long time. We'll see if Andrew can arrange for a pigeon loft on broadcasting House to facilitate this.
  
  Best Regards
  
  ferval

  Link to this forum: Dating archaeological evidence, how鈥檚 it done?

  Report message8

Back to top