On The Significance of Additional Radiocarbon Dates from Bonfire Shelter, Texas

2000

Geoarchaeology

The Great Plains contain many of the best-known Paleoindian sites in North America, and a number of these localities were key to determining the chronology of Paleoindian occupations in the years before, during, and since the development of radiocarbon and other chronometric dating methods. Initial attempts at dating were based on correlation with extinct fauna, the "geologic-climatic" dating method, and stratigraphic relationships of artifacts within sites. By the time radiocarbon dating was developed (1950), the basic Paleoindian sequence (oldest to youngest) was: Clovis-Folsom-unfluted lanceolates (such as Plainview, Eden, and Scottsbluff).

Section: S -1960s: Dating Unfluted Pointsmentioning

confidence: 64%

The evolution of Paleoindian geochronology and typology on the Great Plains

2000

Geoarchaeology

“…Subsequent attempts at dating the Plainview bone bed, including recent application of AMS technology (discussed below) yielded a frustratingly wide range of ages. The first reliable ages for Plainview were determined on charcoal from a bone bed at Bonfire Shelter, Texas (Figure 1) (Tables I, VIA, VIB) (Dibble, 1970;Dibble and Lorrain, 1968) and show that Plainview artifacts are slightly younger than Folsom or perhaps overlap late Folsom time. This interpretation was confirmed by the stratigraphic relationship of Plainview to Folsom at Bonfire Shelter (Dibble and Lorrain, 1968) and as subsequently determined at Lubbock Lake (Johnson and Holliday, 1980).…”

Section: S -1960s: Dating Unfluted Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of Paleoindian geochronology and typology on the Great Plains

2000

Geoarchaeology

129

The Great Plains contain many of the best‐known Paleoindian sites in North America, and a number of these localities were key to determining the chronology of Paleoindian occupations in the years before, during, and since the development of radiocarbon and other chronometric dating methods. Initial attempts at dating were based on correlation with extinct fauna, the “geologic‐climatic” dating method, and stratigraphic relationships of artifacts within sites. By the time radiocarbon dating was developed (1950), the basic Paleoindian sequence (oldest to youngest) was: Clovis‐Folsom‐unfluted lanceolates (such as Plainview, Eden, and Scottsbluff). Initial applications of radiocarbon dating in the 1950s did little to further resolve age relationships. In the 1960s, however, largely through the efforts of C. V. Haynes, a numerical geochronology of Paleoindian occupations on the Great Plains began to emerge On the Southern Great Plains the radiocarbon‐dated artifact chronology is: Clovis (11,600–11,000 yr B.P.); Folsom and Midland (10,900–10,100 yr B.P.); Plainview, Milnesand, and Lubbock (10,200–9800 yr B.P.); Firstview (9400–8200 yr B.P.); St. Mary's Hall, Golondrina, and Texas Angostura (9200–8000 yr B.P.). The chronology for the Northern Great Plains is: Clovis (11,200–10,900 yr B.P.); Goshen (ca. 11,000 yr B.P.); Folsom (10,900–10,200 yr B.P.); Agate Basin (10,500–10,000 yr B.P.); Hell Gap (10,500–9500 yr B.P.); Alberta, Alberta‐Cody (10,200–9400 yr B.P.); Cody (Eden‐Scottsbluff) (9400–8800 yr B.P.); Angostura, Jimmy Allen, Frederick, and other parallel‐oblique types (9400–7800 yr B.P.). Fifty years after the development of radiocarbon dating, the basic typological sequence has not changed significantly except for the realization that there probably was significant temporal overlap of some point types, and that the old unilinear sequence does not account for all the known typological variation. The chronology has been continually refined with the determination of hundreds of radiocarbon ages in recent decades. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

“…The Plainview levels at several sites in the region contain organic-rich sediments and soils which generally provide reliable radiocarbon results in arid and semiarid settings such as at the Great Plains (Haas et al 1986;Martin and Johnson 1995). Large collections of Plainview artifacts (e.g., Ted Williamson site; Johnson et al 1986) and related styles such as Milnesand (Sellards 1955) are poorly dated, but sediment samples associated with the Plainview assemblages at Lubbock Lake (Holliday and Johnson 1981;Johnson and Holliday 1980) and the Lake Theo site (Harrison and Killen 1978;Johnson et al 1982), and charcoal from the Plainview level at Bonfire Shelter (Dibble and Loraine 1968;Dibble 1970) suggest a radiocarbon age range of roughly 10,000 ± 500 B.P. for Plainview (Table 1; Figure 1) (Holliday 1997).…”

Section: Plainview Y Firstview Son Dos De Los Principales Ensamblagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

AMS Radiocarbon Dating of the Type Plainview and Firstview (Paleoindian) Assemblages: The Agony and the Ecstasy

Johnson

Stafford³

1999

Am. antiq.

Plainview and Firstview are two of the principal post-Folsom Paleoindian artifact assemblages on the Great Plains, but good radiometric age control for these artifact styles is relatively poor, due in part to lack of reliable age control on the type collections. This study reports the results of AMS-radiocarbon dating of specific amino acids from Bison antiquus bone associated with the type Plainview and Firstview assemblages from the Plainview and Olsen-Chubbuck sites, respectively. Seven samples of bone and teeth from Plainview produced a surprisingly wide array of ages. As a result, the age of the bone bed and the type Plainview collection remain uncertain, but it is most likely ≥ 10,000 B.P. (but late or post-Folsom) given the dating and stratigraphic relationships at Plainview and other sites. Seven samples of bone from Olsen-Chubbuck yielded a tight cluster of ages averaging ca 9400 B.P., fitting well with other dated Firstview features on the Southern Plains. These results show that much better age control from more sites is needed in order to understand the Paleoindian record. AMS-radiocarbon dating of specific amino acids from bone has revolutionized such issues of chronology in archaeology, but like any other method, it can provide confusing results and must be used in conjunction with other chronometric data.