Direct dating of lithic surface artifacts using luminescence

Abstract

Archaeological surface assemblages composed of lithic scatters comprise a large proportion of the archaeological record. Dating such surface artifacts has remained inherently difficult owing to the dynamic nature of Earth-surface processes affecting these assemblages and because no satisfactory chronometric dating technique exists that can be directly applied to constrain the timing of artifact manufacture, discard, and thus human use of the landscape. Here, we present a dating approach based on optically stimulated luminescence (OSL)—OSL rock-surface burial dating—and apply it to a lithic surface scatter in Tibet. We generate OSL burial ages (age-depth profiles) for each artifact, outline the methodological complexities, and consider the artifact burial ages in the context of local-scale Earth-surface dynamics. The oldest age cluster between 5.2 and 5.5 thousand years is likely related to quarrying activities at the site and thus represents the oldest chronometric age constraints for human presence on the south-central Tibetan plateau.

Illuminating the speed of sand – quantifying sediment transport using optically stimulated luminescence

“…Keywords: Rock surface dating; Infra-red photoluminescence (IRPL); sensitivity change OSL Rock surface dating (RSD) is used increasingly in the geosciences and in archaeology, because it allows for a range of new dating applications (e.g. Jenkins et al, 2008;Gliganic et al, 2021). One RSD variant -rock surface exposure dating (RSeD) -is based on the principle that the light-sensitive OSL signal is bleached within the first few millimetres to centimetres of a light exposed rock surface as a function of (i) exposure time (t), (ii) the material specific optical attenuation of light flux (or rock transparency, µ), and (iii) the wavelength dependent decay rate of the luminescence signal at the rock surface(𝜎𝜎𝜑𝜑 0 �����) .…”

Rapid assessment of beta dose variation inside cobbles, and implications for rock luminescence dating

“…Brill et al, 2021;Lehmann et al, 2018;Liritzis, 2011;Luo et al, 2018;Sohbati et al, 2011Sohbati et al, , 2018 and burial age (e.g. Ageby et al, 2021;al Khasawneh et al, 2019;Bailiff et al, 2021;Chiverrell et al, 2021;Feathers et al, 2019;Freiesleben et al, 2015;Gliganic et al, 2021;Ishii et al, 2022;Jenkins et al, 2018;Rades et al, 2018;Simkins et al, 2016;Sohbati et al, 2015;Souza et al, 2019) of rock surfaces and cobbles. However, previous age determination, curve fitting etc., was based on the assumption that radionuclides are homogenously distributed within each rock, and that variations in luminescence are due only to the history of bleaching and burial.…”

“…Thus far, most published burial ages of cobbles (e.g. Ageby et al, 2021;al Khasawneh et al, 2019;Chiverrell et al, 2021;Feathers et al, 2019;Freiesleben et al, 2015;Gliganic et al, 2021;Ishii et al, 2022;Jenkins et al, 2018;Rades et al, 2018;Simkins et al, 2016;Sohbati et al, 2015;Souza et al, 2019) were also determined based on the assumption of homogeneous radionuclide distribution through the rock studied. With the exception of Feathers et al (2019), who measured 3 rock slices, very little work has measured the beta dose rate for different rock slices.…”