2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.quageo.2012.08.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Constraining the age of rock art by dating a rockfall event using sediment and rock-surface luminescence dating techniques

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
59
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 69 publications
(62 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
3
59
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Habermann et al (2000), Polikreti et al (2002), Liritzis et al (2010) and Sohbati et al (2011Sohbati et al ( , 2012a have all measured luminescence signal with depth into rock surfaces that were exposed to light immediately before measurement. However, by measuring such luminescence profiles into a buried rock surface, one can determine the degree to which the surface had been bleached prior to burial (Sohbati et al, 2011(Sohbati et al, , 2012aChapot et al, 2012) and even estimate, by using an appropriate calibration, how long the surface had been exposed before burial (Sohbati et al, 2012a;Freiesleben et al, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Habermann et al (2000), Polikreti et al (2002), Liritzis et al (2010) and Sohbati et al (2011Sohbati et al ( , 2012a have all measured luminescence signal with depth into rock surfaces that were exposed to light immediately before measurement. However, by measuring such luminescence profiles into a buried rock surface, one can determine the degree to which the surface had been bleached prior to burial (Sohbati et al, 2011(Sohbati et al, , 2012aChapot et al, 2012) and even estimate, by using an appropriate calibration, how long the surface had been exposed before burial (Sohbati et al, 2012a;Freiesleben et al, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Serendipitously, a third, independent age determination for the rockfall event comes from a leaf trapped between the talus boulder and underlying sediment, dated by AMS radiocarbon methods to ∼900 y old, again within error of both OSL results. These three convergent dates provide a very solid minimum age constraint of A.D. 1100, the height of the Fremont culture, ruling out the post-Fremont hypothesis at this site (15) (Fig. 2B).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…Thus, the bleached grains in the depth profile had been shielded, dosed, and reaccumulated a small luminescence signal. Indeed, it is that small reaccumulated signal that we measured in the outermost grains for one of the dates on the rockfall (15). Once recent dosing is accounted for, the profile analysis provides an exposure duration estimate of ∼700 y for the fallen block (Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This study was the first to report credible exposure ages obtained using OSL surface exposure dating. In a related study, Chapot et al (2012) derived a burial age for the same sample by dating the outer 1-mm surface of the buried boulder. This age was supported by the OSL age of single grains of sediment buried under the boulder and by the 14 C age of a leaf buried between the boulder and the underlying sediment.…”
Section: Development Of the Luminescence Dating Of Rock Surfacesmentioning
confidence: 99%