Radiocarbon Dating of Rock Paintings

Chaffee, Scott D.; Hyman, M.; Rowe, M. W.

doi:10.2307/j.ctvvh84r8.6

Cited by 12 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With plasma-chemical extraction, only organic material is removed for AMS radiocarbon measurement. We routinely omit acid washes used by other laboratories, as they are unnecessary with plasma-chemical extraction (Russ et al 1992;Chaffee et al 1994;Pace et al 2000). In contrast to our method, acid treatments used in conjunction with combustion methods may not completely remove carbon-containing minerals associated with rock paintings and their inclusion will influence radiocarbon results (Hedges et al 1998;Armitage et al 2001).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Direct radiocarbon dating of megalithic paints from north-west Iberia

Steelman¹,

Ramírez²,

Valcarce³

et al. 2005

Antiquity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using plasma chemistry, carbon was extracted from charcoal paint samples collected from megalithic monuments in north-west Iberia. Nine accelerator mass spectrometric radiocarbon dates on these paints establish their age to be within 1000 14C years of each other, centred at approximately 5000 BP. These radiocarbon ages for megalithic paintings fall within the proposed time period for north-west Iberian megalithic culture. Multiple layers of paint on some stones show that more than one painting episode occurred.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Direct radiocarbon dating of megalithic paints from north-west Iberia

Steelman¹,

Ramírez²,

Valcarce³

et al. 2005

Antiquity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Oxygen plasma converts organic material in paint samples to carbon dioxide, which is then collected for AMS radiocarbon dating. Oxy gen plasma is electrically excited oxygen gas that is reactive with organic matter, but at low enough temperatures (< 150?C) that carbon-containing min erals do not decompose (Chaffee, Hyman, and Rowe 1994;Russ et al 1992). Operating at low tempera tures alleviates problems caused by the common presence of carbonates and oxalates in rock art samples (and in many other archaeological samples as well).…”

Section: Volmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We (Rowe, Steelman) routinely omit traditional acid washes used by other laboratories, as they are unnecessary with plasma-chemical extraction (Chaffee, Hyman, and Rowe 1994;Pace et al 2000;Russ et al 1992). To remove calcite, approximately 6.7 mg of the pow dered accretion sample was placed in 5% (w/w) phosphoric acid for two days.…”

Section: Volmentioning

confidence: 99%

AMS Dates from Four Late Prehistoric Period Rock Art Sites in West Central Montana

Scott¹,

Davis²,

Steelman³

et al. 2005

Plains Anthropologist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2002, eight pigment samples were collected from three rock art sites in the Big Belt Mountains of west central Montana. Samples from Hellgate Gulch (24BW9), Avalanche Mouth (24BW19), and the Gates of the Mountains (24LC27) were dated using plasma-chemical extraction and accelerator mass spectrometry. The dates were statistically indistinguishable with ages of 1170 ? 45, 1225 ? 50, and 1280 ? 50 B.P. When calibrated, these ages range from 650 to 990 cal A.D. This corresponds to the early Late Prehistoric period on the Northwestern Plains. An oxalate accretion sample overlying a painted area at another site, Big Log Gulch (24LC1707), provided a minimum age of 1440 ? 45 B.P. for the rock art present at this site. The dated images at the four sites fit within the Foothills Abstract and Eastern Columbia Plateau rock art traditions.

show abstract

“…One of the methods used to safeguard against the contamination of radiocarbon-dating samples from paint is the use of a low-temperature, low-pressure oxygen plasma to oxidize the organic matter (Russ et al 1990). However, if organic contaminants are present, this technique will extract them as well as the targeted charcoal or other pigment or binder (Chaffee et al 1994). The process cannot distinguish between different types of organic matter.…”

Section: About O R G a N I C Materials I N Rock Substratamentioning

confidence: 99%

Only Time Will Tell: A Review of the Methodology of Direct Rock Art Dating

Bednarik¹

1996

Archaeometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Epistemology has not kept pace with the progress experienced in the direct dating of rock art. This paper reviews the experimental methods that have been developed in recent years. While many do provide important information about the possible age of rock art, it is of concern that the precipitate archaeological interpretations these data are used for are often not warranted. Some are attributable to not understanding the severe qualifications that apply to most dating results, others perhaps to over‐enthusiasm on the part of some researchers. The introduction of archaeological dynamics into direct dating of rock art threatens the reliability of this young methodology. Some of the pitfalls are considered in this paper, and a general rationale for the direct dating of rock art is developed.

show abstract

Radiocarbon Dating of Rock Paintings

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Direct radiocarbon dating of megalithic paints from north-west Iberia

Direct radiocarbon dating of megalithic paints from north-west Iberia

AMS Dates from Four Late Prehistoric Period Rock Art Sites in West Central Montana

Only Time Will Tell: A Review of the Methodology of Direct Rock Art Dating

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About