Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-05T02:29:52.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Collecting and Caring for Tree-Ring Samples in the Southwest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2017

Ronald H. Towner
Ronald H. Towner*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, 1215 E Lowell, Tucson, AZ 85721, ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dendrochronology is the most precise and accurate dating technique available to archaeologists, with resolution to the year and sometimes season. As biological specimens from human-produced contexts, dendroarchaeological samples inherently contain three kinds of information: chronological, behavioral, and environmental. The purpose of this short article is to educate archaeologists on how to avoid degrading any of these three types of information through improper sample selection, collection, preparation, or transportation techniques. Dendroarchaeology is not without limitations. First and foremost, it is dependent on the behaviors of people who built structures, made artifacts, and burned wood for fuel. If past people did not use wood, or used undateable tree species, dendrochronology will simply not be useful. In some cases, people used dateable species, but their selection criteria did not meet one of the four basic criteria necessary for successful dating. The second most important factor in successful tree-ring dating of archaeological materials is the behavior of archaeologists. Finally, preservation plays an important role in successful dating and the nature of the derived dates, but the paucity of long-lived old trees and degradation of “legacy” wood on the ground have hamperedthe development of millennia-long chronologies in more mesic areas.

La dendrocronología es la técnica de datación más precisa y exacta disponible a los arqueólogos, con una resolución al año y a veces a la temporada. Tal como las muestras biológicas sacadas de contextos humanos, las muestras dendroarqueológicas contienen inherentemente tres tipos de información: cronológica, conductual y ambiental. El propósito de este breve trabajo es educar y garantizar que los arqueólogos no degradan ninguno de los tres tipos de información a través de una selección inadecuada de la muestra o por sus técnicas de recolección, preparación, o transporte. La dendroarqueología no está sin limitaciones. En primer lugar, ella depende de los comportamientos de las personas que construyeron las estructuras, hicieron los artefactos, y quemaron la madera como combustible. Si la gente del pasado no hizo uso de la madera, o utilizó especies de árboles imposibles de datar, la dendrocronología simplemente no será útil. En algunos casos, la gente utilizó especies fechables, pero sus selecciones no cumplieron con los cuatro criterios básicos necesarios para la datación exitosa. El segundo factor más importante en la datación provechosa por medio de los anillos de los árboles de los materiales arqueológicos es el comportamiento de los arqueólogos. Por último, la preservación juega un papel importante en la datación válida y la naturaleza de las fechas derivadas, pero la escasez de árboles longevos y la degradación de la madera “legada” en el terreno han obstaculizado el desarrollo de cronologías de duración de milenios en las zonas más mésicas.

Type
Research Article
Information
Advances in Archaeological Practice , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , November 2015 , pp. 397 - 406
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2015

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

Ahlstrom, Richard V.N. 1985 The Interpretation of Archaeological Tree-Ring Dates. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Ahlstrom, Richard V.N. 1997 Sources of Variation in the Southwestern Tree-Ring Record. Kiva 62:321–348.Google Scholar
Baillie, M. 1995 A Slice Through Time. B.T. Batsford Ltd., London.Google Scholar
Dean, Jeffrey S. Slaughter, Mark C. and Bowden, Dennie O. 1997 Desert Dendrochronology: Tree-Ring Dating Prehistoric Sites in the Tucson Basin. Kiva 62:7–26.Google Scholar
Douglass, Andrew E. 1929 The Secret of the Southwest Solved by Talkative Tree Rings. National Geographic Magazine 56(6):736–770.Google Scholar
Giddings, J.L. 1954 Tree-Ring Dating in the American Arctic. Tree-Ring Bulletin 20(3/4):23–25.Google Scholar
Grissino-Mayer, Henri 2015 The Ultimate Tree-Ring Webpage. University of Tennessee. Electronic document. http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/links.htm, accessed June 20, 2015.Google Scholar
Grissino-Mayer, Henri Kobziar, Leda Harley, Grant Russell, Kevin LaForest, Lisa and Oppermann, Joseph 2010 The Historical Dendroarchaeology of the Xime’Nez-Fatio House, St. Augustine, Florida, USA. Tree-Ring Reesearch 66(1):61–73.Google Scholar
Holmes, Richard L. 1983 Computer-Assisted Quality Control in Tree-Ring Dating and Measurement. Tree-Ring Bulletin 43:69–78.Google Scholar
Nash, Stephen E. 1995 The “Rediscovery” of Alaskan Archaeological Tree-Ring Dating. Alaska Anthropological Association Newsletter 20(1):4–5.Google Scholar
Nash, Stephen E. and Rogers, Nina 2013 An Embarrassment of Riches: Tree-Ring Dating, the History of Archaeology, and the Interpretation of Pre-Columbian History at Mesa Verde National Park. In Archaeology in the Great Basin and Southwest: Papers in Honor of Don D. Fowler, edited by Parezo, Nancy J. and Janetski, Joel C. pp. 309–321. University of Utah Press Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Speer, James H. 2010 Fundamentals of Tree-Ring Research. University of Arizona Press Tucson.Google Scholar
Stokes, Marvin A. and Smiley, Terah L. 1968 An Introduction to Tree-Ring Dating. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Thomas, David H. 1982 .The Alta Toquima Village Project: A Preliminary Report. Desert Research Institute Social Science Center Technical Report 27. Reno. Google Scholar
Thomas, David H. 2014 Exploring and Explaining Alta Toquima: The Higher You Get, the Higher You Get. The SAA Archaeological Record 14(3): 32–37.Google Scholar
Towne, Ronald H. 2002 Archaeological Dendrochronology in the US Southwest. Evolutionary Anthropology. 11(2):68–84.Google Scholar
Windes, Thomas C. 2010 Dendrochronology and Structural Wood Use at Pueblo del Arroyo, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 35:78–98. Google Scholar