Cosmogenic Radiation Nuclides in Archaeology: A Response to Phillips et Al

By Bednarik, Robert G. | Antiquity, December 1998 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Cosmogenic Radiation Nuclides in Archaeology: A Response to Phillips et Al

Bednarik, Robert G., Antiquity

I am delighted that Phillips et al. (1997) have responded to my call for scientific attempts at refutation of the data so far offered concerning the age of some of the many petroglyphs in the Coa valley of northern Portugal. We have witnessed a great deal of non-scientific debate about this corpus of rock-art, and it is obvious that our understanding of the issue can be improved only through constructive scientific discussion, which may involve presentation of new data or logic. In continuing this productive mode of discourse I will respond to Phillips et al. (hereafter referred to as 'the Paper') and offer a critical examination of the use of their method in archaeology, and especially in rock art analysis.

The quantitative determination of cosmogenic nuclides has been used experimentally for dating geomorphic surfaces (Davis & Schaeffer 1955; Phillips et al. 1986; 1990; Zreda et al. 1991). The most interesting results have come from a meteor impact crater in Arizona, ranging from 36,500 to 50,400 BP, which appear to correspond with a single TL date (Phillips et al. 1991: 2697; Zreda et al. 1990). However, a study of 36Cl contents of boulders in a series of moraines of geologically known ages in California produced only ambiguous

results which disagreed with the moraine sequence (Phillips et al. 1990: 1530).

Cosmogenic radiation (CR) products are said to provide information of the relative age of exposures (rock surfaces), and some of the results offered by the Paper seem to confirm this. However, there are several reasons why the method cannot provide numerical ages for rock exposure, such as those relating to its severe dependence upon erosion rates. The CR products, including 36Cl, accumulate not only in the sampled surface layer, but also deep inside the rock. The amount of 36Cl that was present in a surface at the time it became freshly exposed to the atmosphere (e.g. through exfoliation or slabbing) can never be known, meaning that the relationship between the present concentration of the nuclide and the age of the present rock surface cannot be ascertained or even estimated.

The Paper demonstrates this problem very well: a sample taken from a depth of 16 m below the Coa river provided an 'age' of between 800 and 2800 years, instead of a zero age. Mindful of the exponential accumulation curve of the nuclides (Kurz 1986; Lal 1991; Zreda et al. 1991), we might reasonably expect to obtain an 'age' of perhaps 10,000 years from a sample taken 2 m below present surface, and 20,000 from a surface that was formed a few centuries ago. Similarly, Phillips' sample from Castelo Melhor, a structure erected in the Middle Ages, produced a 'date' of about 30,000. He tries to explain this away by suggesting that the building blocks were collected from the ground level. There are hundreds of schist quarries in the area from which thousands of tons of such building blocks have been quarried over the past couple of millennia, precisely because the stone has such excellent construction properties. Rock from near the surface is inevitably weathered and fractured, and quite unsuitable for masonry work. Thus the more plausible explanation for the high concentration of 38Cl in the Castelo Melhor sample is that it was quarried from a location where a stable geomorphological regime facilitated the accumulation of high contents of cosmogenic nuclides at some depth (from the plateau, i.e. the planation surface, from a depth of several metres).

There are two simple ways of testing this proposition. Firstly, blocks from historical masonry could be analysed, both at the surface exposed to the atmosphere and at a surface concealed in the masonry. If we made the reasonable assumption that the 36Cl concentration was uniform in the block at the time of quarrying, the difference in present concentrations might provide a valid measure of age for the structure. A second way of testing the proposition would be to take samples from recent exposures of known ages, such as the 100-year-old railway quarry sampled by Watchman in 1995, at depths some metres below the land surface.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Cosmogenic Radiation Nuclides in Archaeology: A Response to Phillips et Al


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?