Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:02:59.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Brief Discussion of the Relation of Some Radiocarbon Dates to the Pollen Chronology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2018

Edward S. Deevey Jr.*
Affiliation:
Osborn Zoological Laboratory, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut

Extract

In the 31 dates of specific interest to palynology contained in Table I there are some surprises for the student of pollen chronology, although there are only three (349, 433, and 450) that must be regarded as unacceptable. For two of these, the list itself contains evidence that the stratigraphic position of the samples was incorrectly determined; we are left with only one sample (433) suggesting that the radiocarbon assay is subject to errors of an unknown nature. It follows that the new method of dating has been placed on a firm footing, and that it will amply justify the high hopes originally held for it.

To say this, however, is not to say that the entire list of dates will or should meet with unqualified acceptance. All degrees of palatability are represented, some apparent contradictions are evident, and in nearly every case a certain amount of special pleading is required to harmonize the results with what was previously known or believed. While the difficulties are not considered at present to be serious, it would be most unwise to minimize them, and the fact is that confirmation is required at every point if the newly acquired dates are not to make postglacial stratigraphy more controversial than it was before.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1951

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

* A full discussion of data of geologic significance available to February 1, 1951 has been published since this note was written, see R. F. Flint and E. S. Deevey, Jr., 1951. See also Godwin, Harry, 1951.