Radiocarbon Dating in Eastern Arctic Archaeology: A Flexible Approach

Abstract

Radiocarbon dates from marine mammal tissue present Arctic archaeologists with some difficult interpretive problems. These problems are so serious that McGhee and Tuck have even advocated omitting all sea mammal dates from the Eastern Arctic radiocarbon chronology. A flexible approach to interpreting sea mammal dates will allow researchers to use existing dates more effectively and to make future dates more reliable. Solving the problems with sea mammal dates requires: (1) abandoning the assumption that radiocarbon assays are quasi-absolute chronological indicators; (2) recognizing and understanding the sources of variability that affect these dates; (3) correcting for these sources of variability; and (4) developing a more flexible strategy for interpreting the resulting date sequence. A large table of radiocarbon dates from the Eastern Arctic provides the basis for demonstrating how these four steps can be accomplished. Applying this flexible approach also suggests directions and guidelines for future research.

Dating and Digging Stratified Archaeology in Circumpolar North America: A View from Nunalleq, Southwestern Alaska

“…Six criteria known to influence the accuracy of 14 C ages were used to establish a conceptual hierarchy of suitability for the ecofactual remains present at Nunalleq ( Table 2). The marine reservoir effect is by far the most serious problem because it has the potential to skew radiocarbon ages of marine organisms by at least 400 14 C years (e.g., McGhee and Tuck, 1976;Arundale, 1981;Dumond and Griffin, 2002;Walker, 2005). Samples can be of terrestrial origin, but consumption of marine protein (e.g., Betts, 2008), exposure to marine oils (e.g., Morrison, 1989), ingestion of old carbon in the case of insects (e.g., Hoffecker et al, 2012), or consumption of marine plants may result in 14 C ages that do not reflect the assumed isotopic equilibrium with the atmosphere.…”

“…Despite the excellent preservation potential for organic materials in the permafrost soils of circumpolar regions, researchers have often struggled with constructing what they consider to be accurate radiocarbon-based chronologies (e.g., Gerlach and Mason, 1992;Park, 1994;Grønnow and Jensen, 2003;Betts, 2008;McGhee, 2009;Anstey et al, 2016), and the site of Nunalleq, the subject of this paper, is no exception. The difficulties are much discussed, and numerous authors have contributed to the debate (e.g., Arundale, 1981;Morrison, 1989;Gerlach and Mason, 1992;Park, 1994;Dumond and Griffin, 2002;West, 2011;Anderson and Freeburg, 2013;Ramsden and Rankin, 2013). A primary cause of dating issues-although unrelated to radiocarbon dating itself-stems from the cold and dry nature of northern environments, which results in limited biological activity and in many places almost non-existent soil formation (McGhee, 1996).…”

A History of Sea Ice in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago Based on Postglacial Remains of the Bowhead Whale (<i>Balaena Mysticetus</i>)

“…Long practice (e.g., Blake, 1975; see also Arundale, 1981) has been to subtract 400 years to correct for this effect on marine molluscs from this region. In the absence of a better criterion, this may be an appropriate correction to apply to the whale bone dates.…”

The Palaeo-Eskimo Prehistory of the North Devon Lowlands

“…These latter assemblages are believed to date to 3700-3300 B.P. (mean age estimates; see Arundale, 1981;Maxwell, 1985).…”

“…This latter value is consistent with the temporal estimates obtained from two other dated Icebreaker Beach Complex features ( Table 2). The most plausible explanation for the extreme date from QkHn-13 Feature 14 is that the submitted charcoal sample came from a piece of wood flotsam that had been adrift in the Arctic Ocean for an indeterminate number of centuries prior to being collected and burned (see Tuck, 1976, andArundale, 1981, for discussions of some of the problems associated with arctic driftwood dates).…”