Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:44:58.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Accelerator Mass Spectrometry 14C Dating and the Antiquity of Shell-Tempered Ceramics from the Chesapeake Bay and Middle Atlantic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Torben C. Rick  and
Darrin L. Lowery
Torben C. Rick
Affiliation:
Program in Human Ecology and Archaeobiology, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013-7012 (rickt@si.edu)
Darrin L. Lowery
Affiliation:
Chesapeake Watershed Archaeological Research Foundation, 8949 High Banks Dr., Easton, MD 21601 (darrinlowery@yahoo.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ceramics typologies have long been used to build artifact, site, and regional chronologies. Direct accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) 14C dating of shell-tempered ceramics offers a promising tool for updating and improving these chronologies. Few studies have 14C dated shell fragments from shell-tempered pottery, however, and questions remain about potential biases from “old shell,” the reservoir effect, and other variables. Forty-five direct AMS 14C assays on shell-tempered pottery and associated shell, charcoal, and bone from nine archaeological sites in Virginia and Maryland provide a framework to test this method. AMS 14C assays from one site may have problems with old shell, but most of the calibrated direct and associated age estimates overlap. One of our samples is the oldest securely dated shell-tempered pottery in North America at ~1000 cal B.C. Our study demonstrates the promise of AMS 14C dating shell-tempered pottery for refining ceramic and regional chronologies in coastal and other areas around the world.

Resumen

Resumen

Las tipologías de la cerámica han sido utilizadas para establecer cronologías sobre artefactos, sitios y regiones. El uso de la espectrometría de acelerador directo 14C(AMS) para la datación de cerámica con desgrasante de concha puede ser una herramienta que promete avances en la actualización y mejoramiento de dichas cronologías. Sin embargo, ha habido pocos estudios en los cuáles se establece la datación de fragmentos de cerámica con desgrasante de concha por medio del 14C porque permanecen las dudas sobre la alteración de datos a causa del efecto de “conchas antiguas,” el efecto de reserva, y otros problemas relacionados con la datación exacta del carbono 14. Aquí se presentan los resultados de cuarenta y cinco fechas obtenietas por medio de la aplicación del AMS 14C en cerámica de desgrasante de concha y otras conchas similares así como de carbón y hueso procedentes de nueve zonas arqueológicas en Virginia y Maryland para poner a prueba el método en cuestión. Las fechas AMS 14C nos indica que, mientras que un sitio puede exhibir problemas del efecto de “concha vieja,” la mayoría de las fechas calibradas directamente y las fechas asociadas coinciden. Una de nuestras muestras representa la muestra más antigua de cerámica de desgrasante de concha con fechas seguras en Norte América, cuya fecha data de ~1000 cal a.C. Nuestro estudio demuestra el potencial en la aplicación del método AMS 14C para datar cerámica de desgrasante de concha para refinar las cronologías de la cerámica al nivel regional en las zonas costeras como en otras partes del mundo.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 78 , Issue 3 , July 2013 , pp. 570 - 579
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 by the Society for American Archaeology.

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

Berstan, R., Stott, A. W., Minnitt, S., Bronk Ramsey, C., Hedges, R. E. M., and Evershed, R. P. 2008 Direct Dating of Pottery from Its Organic Residues: New Precision Using Compound-Specific Carbon Isotopes. Antiquity 82:702–713.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, Christopher 2009 Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon 51:337–360.Google Scholar
Christopher, Bronk Ramsey 2011 OxCal 4.1. Eleclronic document, http://cl4.arch.ox.ac.uk/.Google Scholar
Cochrane, Ethan 2002 Explaining the Prehistory of Ceramic Technology on Waya Island, Fiji. Archaeology of Oceania 37:37–50.Google Scholar
Culleton, Brendan J., Kennett, Douglas J., Lynne Ingram, B., Erlandson, Jon M., and Southon, John 2006 Intra-Shell Radiocarbon Variability in Marine Mollusks. Radiocarbon 48:387–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Custer, Jay F. 1989 Prehistoric Cultures of the Delmarva Peninsula. University of Delaware Press, Newark.Google Scholar
Dent, Richard J. Jr. 1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Egloff, Keith T., and Potter, Stephen R. 1982 Indian Ceramics from Coastal Plain Virginia. Archaeology of Eastern North America 10:95–117.Google Scholar
Feathers, James K. 2006 Explaining Shell-Tempered Pottery in Eastern North America. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13:89–133.Google Scholar
Feathers, James K. 2009 Problems of Ceramic Chronology in the Southeast: Does Shell Tempered Pottery Appear Earlier than We Think? American Antiquity 74:113–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feathers, James K., and Peacock, Evan 2008 Origins and Spread of Shell-Tempered Ceramics in the Eastern Woodlands: Conceptual and Methodological Frameworks for Analysis. Southeastern Archaeology 27:286–293.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, Scott M. 2006 A Critical Approach to l4C Dating in the Caribbean: Using Chronometric Hygiene to Evaluate Chronological Control and Prehistoric Settlement. Latin American Antiquity 17:389–414.Google Scholar
Gallivan, Martin 2011 The Archaeology of Native Societies in the Chesapeake: New Investigations and Interpretations. Journal of Archaeological Research 19:281–325.Google Scholar
Gibb, James G., and Hines, Anson H. 1997 Selby Bay Subsistence Strategies at the Smithsonian Pier Site, Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Maryland Archeology 33:59–76.Google Scholar
Griffith, Daniel R. 1982 Prehistoric Ceramics in Delaware: An Overview. Archaeology of Eastern North America 10:46–68.Google Scholar
Herbert, Joseph M. 2008 The History and Practice of Shell Tempering in the Middle Atlantic: A Useful Balance. Southeastern Archaeology 27:265–285.Google Scholar
Lowery, Darrin L. 2003 Archaeological Survey of the Atlantic Coast Shorelines Associated with Accomack County and Northampton County, Virginia. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.Google Scholar
Maritan, L., Mazzoli, C., Michielen, V., Morandi Bonacossi, D., Luciani, M., and Molin, G. 2005 Provenance and Production Technology of Bronze Age and Iron Age Pottery from Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna (Syria). Archaeometry 43:723–744.Google Scholar
Painter, Floyd 1977 The Beaker Makers of Currituck Sound. Archaeology of Eastern North America 5:43–61.Google Scholar
Painter, Floyd 1978 The Beaker Makers of Currituck Carbon 14 Dates. The Chesopiean 16(4–6):67.Google Scholar
Peacock, Evan, and Feathers, James K. 2009 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Radiocarbon Dating of Temper in Shell-Tempered Ceramics: Test Cases from Mississippi, Southeastern United States. American Antiquity 74:351–369.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., Hajdas, I., Heaton, T. J., Hogg, A. G., Hughen, K. A., Kaiser, K. F., Kromer, B., McCormac, G., Manning, S., 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 BR. Radiocarbon 51:1111–1150.Google Scholar
Rick, Torben C., Henkes, Gregory A., Lowery, Darrin L., Colman, Steven M., and Culleton, Brendan J. 2012 Marine Radiocarbon Reservoir Corrections (ΔR) for Chesapeake Bay and the Middle Atlantic Coast of North America. Quaternary Research 77:205–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rick, Torben C., Lowery, Darrin L., Henkes, Gregory A., and Wah, John S. 2011 A Late Holocene Radiocarbon Chronology for the Shell Middens of Fishing Bay, Maryland. Archaeology of Eastern North America 39:153–167.Google Scholar
Rick, Torben C., Vellanoweth, René L., and Erlandson, Jon M. 2005 Radiocarbon Dating and the “Old Shell” Problem: Direct Dating of Artifacts and Cultural Chronologies in Coastal and Other Aquatic Regions. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1641–1648.Google Scholar
Robinson, Johnna, and Bulhack, Lynne 2006 An Analysis of Fabric Impressions on the Surfaces of Early Mockley Sherds from Point Lookout State Park, Maryland (18ST728 and 18ST729). Maryland Archeology 42(1): 1–8.Google Scholar
Sassaman, Kenneth E. 1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
Painter, Floyd 2010 The Eastern Archaic, Historicized. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.Google Scholar
Stewart, R. Michael 1998 Thoughts on the Origins of Ceramic Use and Variation. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 14:1–12.Google Scholar
Walker, Jesse O. 2003 Archaeological Investigations of the Holland Point Site (18DO220), Dorchester County, Maryland. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Temple University, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Waselkov, Gregory A. 1982 Shellfish Gathering and Shell Midden Archaeology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar