Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T15:46:14.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Problems in Radiocarbon Dating at Teotihuacan1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anton J. Kovar
Anton J. Kovar*
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Radiocarbon dating is a useful tool in archaeological research, but the precision hoped for by some is not attainable because of the nature of the radiocarbon assay itself, possible contaminations, the Suess effect, and especially the peculiar nature of wood structure and growth. Wood and charcoal, unlike animal remnants, will not necessarily give the age corresponding to the time when the tree died or was cut; they will give only the age of the particular fragment used in the radiocarbon assay. If wood comes from the central portion of a large tree stem, there may even be several hundred years difference between its radiocarbon date and the date of the corresponding archaeological level. Such discrepancies are common in the recent finds at Teotihuacάn. Even the apparently erroneous date of 1474 ± 230 B.C. for Teotihuacάn can thus be explained. Other radiocarbon dates should also be evaluated with this in mind.

Type
Facts and Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 31 , Issue 3Part1 , January 1966 , pp. 427 - 430
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1966

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.)

Footnotes

1

Contribution No. 331 of the Botany Department, Pennsylvania State University.

References

Aitken, M. J. 1961 Physics and Archeology. Interscience Publishers, New York and London.Google Scholar
Arnold, J. R. and Libby, W. F. 1951 Radiocarbon Dates. Science, Vol. 113, No. 2927, pp. 111-20. Washington.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crane, H. R. 1956 University of Michigan Radiocarbon Dates I. Science, Vol. 124, No. 3224, pp. 664-72. Washington.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jimenez Moreno, W. 1959 Síntesis de la Historia Pretolteca de Mesoamérica. In “Esplendor de México Antiguo,” pp. 1019-1108. Centro de Investigaciones Antropológicas de México, México.Google Scholar
Johnson, F. 1955 Reflections upon the Significance of Radiocarbon Dates. In “Radiocarbon Dating,” by W. F. Libby, pp. 141-61. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Keith, M. L. and Anderson, G. M. 1963 Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells. Science, Vol. 141, No. 3581, pp. 634-7. Washington.Google Scholar
Kulp, J. L., Feely, H. W., and Tryon, L. E. 1951 Lamont Natural Radiocarbon Measurements I. Science, Vol. 114, No. 2970, pp. 565-8. Washington.Google Scholar
Libby, W. F. 1955 Radiocarbon Dating. University of Chicago Ptess, Chicago.Google Scholar
Libby, W. F. 1963 Accuracy of Radiocarbon Dating. Science, Vol. 140. No. 3564, pp. 278-80. Washington.Google Scholar
Millon, R. 1960 The Beginnings of Teotihuacán. American Antiquity, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 1-10. Salt Lake City.CrossRefGoogle Scholar