No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
Our recent paper demonstrated that radiocarbon assays sampled from wood charcoal were not systematically skewed when compared to non-wood samples from the same site. This suggests that the “old wood” problem may not be quite as problematic in the temperate Middle Ohio Valley as many suspect. In their comment, Hart and Nolan missed our broader point and mischaracterized our findings. Specifically, we did not suggest that our findings apply to the entirety of eastern North America, nor did we make analytical errors. A thorough reading of our paper clearly supports the following rebuttal. Our main point is that scholars should think twice before discarding radiocarbon dates from wood charcoal, for in some contexts they are the most useful means of determining important chronological information. Despite the suggestion to the contrary, “old wood” concerns do form elements of several hygiene protocols, including Nolan's (2012).
Nuestro reciente trabajo demostró que lasfechas de radiocarbono realizadas con madera carbonizada no son sistemóticamente sesgadas cuando son comparadas con las muestras sin madera quefueran recolectadas en el mismo sitio. Este resultado indica la posibilidad de que el problema de “madera vieja” noes tan problemdtico en la zona templada del medio del Valle de Ohio como muchos investigadores sospechan. En su comentario, Harty Nolan no captaron bien nuestro argumentoy malinterpretaron nuestras conclusiones. En concreto, no planteamos que nuestros resultados sean aplicables a la totalidad del este de América del Norte y tampoco cometimos errores en el andlisis. Una lectura minuciosa de nuestro articulo apoya claramente la siguiente afirmación: los investigadores deben pensar dos veces antes de desechar lasfechas de radiocarbono de madera carbonizada. Esto es debido a que en algunos contextos representa el medio más útil para determinar informatión cronológica relevante. A pesar de la sugerencia de que la preocupación con la "madera vieja" no forma parte de los protocolos higiénicos para el fechamiento de carbón, nosotros afirmamos que si es parte de algunos, incluyendo el de Nolan (2012).