Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T00:37:12.391Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating the Old Wood Problem in a Temperate Climate: A Fort Ancient Case Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert A. Cook  and
Aaron R. Comstock
Robert A. Cook
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210 (cook.426@osu.edu; comstock.43@osu.edu)
Aaron R. Comstock
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210 (cook.426@osu.edu; comstock.43@osu.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Schiffer (1986) first identified the old wood problem for wood charcoal-based dates from archaeological contexts in the American Southwest. The potential for dates to be skewed toward excessively old calendar ages in this region has recently generated reticence in part of the archaeological community towards including wood charcoal dates in general. Some scholars have even begun to cleanse the radiocarbon databases of regions throughout North America, partly with this presumed limitation in mind. However, the issues that contribute to the old wood problem have not been closely examined outside the arid climate of the American Southwest, resulting in some studies excluding hundreds of radiocarbon dates. The present study fills that void by examining the radiocarbon record from four well-dated Fort Ancient sites in southwestern Ohio and southeastern Indiana. Specifically, we test whether or not there are significant differences between wood charcoal and non-wood charcoal assays. Our findings suggest that wood charcoal dates should not be excluded. We explore reasons for this difference in the Eastern Woodlands and propose an ideal dating regime.

Resumen

Resumen

Schiffer (1986) fue el primer investigador que notó el problema de madera vieja de las fechas de radiocarbono en los contextos arqueológicos del suroeste de Estados Unidos. Recientemente, la posibilidad de que existe un sesgo en las fechas en esta región ha generado reticencia por parte de la comunidad arqueológica de confiar en las fechas de radiocarbono con base en madera de cualquier tipo. Por esta razón, entre otras, algunos investigadores, que trabajan en varias regiones, comenzaron a depurar las bases de datos de radiocarbono a lo largo de América del Norte. Sin embargo, fuera de la zona árida del suroeste de Estados Unidos, los factores que contribuyen a fechas problemáticas por la madera vieja no han recibido mucha atención; y así algunos estudios han excluido cienes de fechas de radiocarbono potencialmente sin base. La presente investigación llena ese vacío a través de un estudio del registro de radiocarbono de cuatro sitios bien fechados de la “cultura” de Fort Ancient, ubicados en el suroeste de Ohio y el sureste de Indiana. Específicamente probamos si existen diferencias estadísticas entre los ensayos de carbón hechos con madera contra los de otros materiales orgánicos. Los resultados sugieren que las fechas basadas en madera no deben ser excluidas; por ende, exploramos las razones que sostienen esta diferencia en los bosques del este y proponemos la estrategia ideal para obtener fechas confiables.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 79 , Issue 4 , October 2014 , pp. 763 - 775
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Asch, David L., and Brown, James A. 1990 Stratigraphy and Site Chronology. In At the Edge of Prehistory: Huber Phase Archaeology in the Chicago Area, edited by James Brown and Patricia J. O’Brien, pp. 174–185. Center for American Archeology, Kampsville, Illinois.Google Scholar
Blockley, S. P. E., Bronk Ramsey, C., and Higham, T. F. G. 2008 The Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition: Dating, Stratigraphy, and Isochronous Markers. Journal of Human Evolution 55:764–771.Google Scholar
Blockley, S. P. E., and Pinhasi, R. 2011 A Revised Chronology for the Adoption of Agriculture in the Southern Levant and the Role of Lateglacial Climatic Change. Quaternary Science Reviews 30:98–108.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2008 Radiocarbon Dating: Revolutions in Understanding. Archaeometry 50:249–275.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2012 OxCal v4.2.2. https://cl4.arch.ox.ac.uk/ Google Scholar
Brown, S. L. and Schroeder, P. E. 1999 Spatial Patterns of Aboveground Production and Mortality of Woody Biomass for Eastern U.S. Forests. Ecological Applications 9:968–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Catherine M. 1991 Structure Abandonment in Villages. Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 155–191.Google Scholar
Collett, David, and Robertshaw, Peter 1983 Problems in the Interpretation of Radiocarbon Dates: The Pastoral Neolithic of East Africa. The African Archaeological Review 1:57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Robert A. 2007 Single Component Sites with Long Sequences of Radiocarbon Dates: The SunWatch Site and Middle Fort Ancient Village Growth. American Antiquity 72: 439–460.Google Scholar
Cook, Robert A. 2008 Sun Watch: Fort Ancient Development in the Missis-sippian World. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
Cowan, C. Wesley, Dunavan, Sandra, Nass, John P., and Scott, Susan 1990 The Schomaker Site, A Middle Period Fort Ancient Town on the Great Miami River, Hamilton County, Ohio. West Virginia Archaeologist 42: 11–35.Google Scholar
Drooker, Penelope 1997 The View from Madisonville: Protohistoric Western Fort Ancient Interaction Patterns. Memoirs No.31, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Ginrich, Samuel F. 1967 Measuring and Evaluating Stocking and Stand Density in Upland Hardwood Forests in the Central States. Forest Science 13:38–53.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Rebecca A. 1998 Coming Full Circle: Plowzone Assemblages and the Interpretation of Fort Ancient Settlement Structure. In Surface Archaeology, edited by Alan P. Sullivan, pp. 91–109. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Henderson, A. Gwynn, Jobe, Cynthia E., and Turnbow, Christopher 1986 Indian Occupation and Use in Northern and Eastern Kentucky During the Contact Period (1540–1795): An Initial Investigation. University of Kentucky, Lexington.Google Scholar
Hudson, Charles 1976 Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Hunt, Terry L., and Lipo, Carl P. 2006 Late Colonization of Easter Island. Science 311:1603–1606.Google Scholar
International Study Group 1982 An Inter-Laboratory Comparison of Radiocarbon Measurements in Tree Rings. Nature 298:619–623.Google Scholar
Knapp, Timothy D. 2009 An Unbounded Future? Ceramic Types, “Cultures,” and Scale in Late Prehistoric Research. In Iroquoian Archaeology & Analytic Scale, edited by Laurie E. Miroff and Timothy D. Knapp, pp. 101–130. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Long, Austin, and Rippeteau, Bruce 1974 Testing Contemporaneity and Averaging Radiocarbon Dates. American Antiquity 39:205–215.Google Scholar
Maslowski, Robert F., Niquette, Charles M., and Wingfield, Derek M. 1995 The Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia Radiocarbon Database. West Virginia Archeologist 47:1–2.Google Scholar
Nolan, Kevin C. 2012 Temporal Hygiene: Problems in Cultural Chronology of the Late Prehistoric Period of the Middle Ohio River Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 31: 185–206.Google Scholar
Pastor, John, and Post, W. M. 1986 Influence of Climate, Soil Moisture, and Succession on Forest Carbon and Nitrogen Cycles. Biogeochemistry 2:3–27.Google Scholar
Pettitt, P. B., Davies, W., Gamble, C. S., and Richards, M. B. 2003 Palaeolithic Radiocarbon Chronology: Quantifying Our Confidence Beyond Two Half-Lives. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:1685–1693.Google Scholar
Reimer, P. J., Baillie, M. G. L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. W., Blackwell, P. G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C. E., Burr, G. S., Edwards, R. L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P. M., Guilderson, T. P., Hajadas, I., Heaton, T. J., Hogg, A. G., Hughen, K. A., Kaiser, K. F., Kromer, B., McCormac, F. G., Manning, S. W., Reimer, R. W., Richards, D. A., Southon, J. R., Talamo, S., Turney, C. S. M., van der Plicht, J., and Weyhenmeyer, C. E. 2009 IntCal09 and Marine09 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves, 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51:1111–1150.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Michael B. 1986 Radiocarbon Dates and the “Old Wood” Problem: The Case of the Hohokam Chronology. Journal of Archaeological Science 13:13–30.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Michael B. 1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Sedler, Mike 1990 Plan for Archaeological Investigation of the Guard Site, 12D29, Dearborn County. Manuscript on file, Department of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Indianapolis, Indiana.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1992 Radiocarbon Dating as a Probabilistic Technique: The Childers Site and Late Woodland Occupation in the Ohio Valley. American Antiquity 57:202–230.Google Scholar
Spaulding, Albert C. 1958 The Significant Differences between Radiocarbon Dates. American Antiquity 23:309–311.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M., and Reimer, P. J. 2011 Calib Radiocarbon Calibration Program, Rev. 6.1.0. http://calib.qub.ac.uk/calib/ Google Scholar
Taché, Karine, and Hart, John P. 2013 Chronometric Hygiene of Radiocarbon Databases for Early Durable Cooking Vessel Technologies in Northeastern North America. American Antiquity 78: 359–372.Google Scholar
Telford, R. J., Heegaard, E., and Birks, H. J. B. 2004 The Intercept is a Poor Estimate of a Calibrated Radiocarbon Age. The Holocene 14:296–298.Google Scholar
Trigger, Bruce G. 2006 A History of Archaeological Thought. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Vickery, Kent D., Sunderhaus, Theodore S., and Genheimer, Robert A. 2000 Preliminary Report on Excavations at the Fort Ancient State Line Site, 33Ha58, in the Central Ohio Valley. In Cultures Before Contact: The Late Prehistory of Ohio and Surrounding Regions, edited by Robert A. Genheimer, pp. 272–329. The Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.Google Scholar
Wagner, Gail 1988 Paleoethnobotanical Research at the Incinerator Site. In A History of 17 Years of Excavation and Reconstruction, Vol. 1, edited by James M. Heilman, Malinda C. Lileas, and Christopher A. Turnbow, pp. 72–111. Dayton Society of Natural History, Dayton, Ohio.Google Scholar
Ward, G. K., and Wilson, S. R. 1978 Procedures for Comparing and Combining Radiocarbon Age Determinations: A Critique. Archaeometry 20:19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warrick, Gary A. 1988 Estimating Ontario Iroquoian Village Duration. Man in the Northeast 36:21–60.Google Scholar
Wilmhurst, Janet M., Hunt, Terry L., Lipo, Carl P., and Anderson, Atholl J. 2011 High-Precision Radiocarbon Dating Shows Recent and Rapid Initial Human Colonization of East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 108:1815–1820.Google Scholar
Willey, Gordon R., and Sabloff, Jeremy A. 1980 A History of American Archaeology. 2nd ed. Thames and Hudson, London.Google Scholar