Correspondence in Tree-Ring and Thermoluminescence Dating: A Protohistoric Navajo Pilot Study

Abstract

Dating of early Navajo residence and special use sites, ca. A.D. 1500-1775, has been hampered by a lack of datable materials and poor precision in radiocarbon results. Methods described in this paper use materials ubiquitous at early Navajo sites in northwestern New Mexico and employ a dual strategy involving tree-ring dating of nonarchitectural wood and thermoluminescence assay of ceramics and burned rock. Comparison of samples obtained from a number of sites near the Morris Site 1 pueblito indicates remarkable correspondence between tree-ring and thermoluminescence results. These techniques are argued to have considerable reliability for relatively recent cultural manifestations such as these early Navajo sites. Thermoluminescence in particular may be useful in protohistoric contexts where tree-ring dating is unavailable. The thermoluminescence technique has the added benefit of directly dating pottery sherds, which can be useful for developing ceramic cross-dating sequences.

Understanding Dating Applications: Reply to Espenshade

“…This in fact was the case as shown in Figure 4 of Dykeman et al (2002). The correspondence was even better when the TL data were divided between the two types represented ( Figures 5 and 6 of Dykeman et al, 2002). These data are presented in a somewhat different form in Figure 1 here.…”

“…In a critique of luminescence dating Espenshade (2004) argues that our recent study comparing thermoluminescence (TL) dates with tree ring dates on Navajo sites in northwestern New Mexico (Dykeman et al, 2002) overstates the benefits of luminescence. He maintains that extensive controlled testing of luminescence dating should be undertaken before widespread use in archaeology.…”

Scouting for Apache Archaeology in the Sub–mogollon Rim Region

“…Apache sites can be distinguished from those of earlier mobile groups with similarly faint signatures based on their early historic period dates, although independent dating methods, including radiocarbon, thermoluminescence, and archaeomagnetic dating lose their precision at central Arizona sites dating after approximately A.D. 1500 (Dykeman et al 2002;Fetterman 1996;Sternberg and McGuire 1990:131;Whittlesey, Deaver, and Reid 1997:Figure 6.8). Cross-dating of artifacts can resolve some of the chronological issues in Apache archaeology.…”

Applauding Mediocrity: Tl Dating and the Navajo Tree Ring Dates Revisited

“…The advocates, as exemplified by Feathers (Feathers, 1997(Feathers, , 2000Herbert et al, 2002;Dykeman et al, 2002) see TL dating as the best answer for dating protohistoric sites, and APPLAUDING MEDIOCRITY / 59 essentially ask us to view all results as somehow explainable. On the other side are a number of archaeologists, this author included, who have spent project funds and time on TL dating only to get anomalous results.…”

“…In their 2002 article, Dykeman et al (2002) utilize tree-ring dates from Early Navajo period sites as a test of thermoluminescence (TL) results from associated sherds and fire-altered rock. Dykeman et al (2002:149) report that "the primary goal of the tree-ring and TL comparison is to evaluate the accuracy and precision of TL dating results in terms of the resolution possible for protohistoric sites."…”