Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T03:37:29.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Year One: Radiocarbon Dating and American Archaeology, 1947-1948

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Greg Marlowe
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper both expands and reconceptualizes our knowledge about the early (January 1947 to January 1948) and formative responses of American archaeologists and anthropologists to word and rumor about W. F Libby's 14C dating system. Drawing principally from primary sources for the first time, integrated with literature from the history and sociology of science, new and interpretative information is offered relative to several topics. They include: (1) the profession's inefficient communication networks and their influence on the year-long course of truncated dialogue about purported radioactive dating investigations afoot; (2) the divergent ways in which competing factions of elite specialists labored to formulate strategies to address the perceived implications of Libby's novel technique; (3) the particularly important roles in this period assumed by Chicago's Robert Redfield and Fred Eggan, the R. S. Peabody Foundation's Frederick Johnson, and the Viking Fund's Paul Fejos, among others; (4) the degree and manner in which the effort to grapple with the 14C dating proposal was integrally connected to an ongoing campaign to enhance the professional standing of American archaeology; and (5) clear indications that some archaeologists exhibited ambivalence, if not resistance, to the prospect of "physics" intruding into their domain.

Résumé

Résumé

Este ensayo extiende y reformula nuestro conocimiento sohre las prímeras reacciones (Enero 1947-Enero 1948) de arqueólogos v antropólogos de los Estados Unidos al sistema de fechado por radiocarbóno-14 creado por W. F. Libby. Su contenido, extraido principalmente de fuentes primarias, y de literatura sobre la historia y la sociología de la ciencia, ofrece información nueva e interpretative en relación a varios tópicos. Ellos incluyen: (1) la ineficiencia de las redes de comunicación de la profesión y su influencia a lo largo de un año de diálogos entrecortados acerca de las investigaciones sobre el uso de radioactividad en el silema de fechado; (2) los diferentes caminos por los cuales los altos especialistas trabajaban competitivamente para formular una estrategia enfocada en las aparentes implicaciones de la nueva téchnica del Dr. Libby; (3) los roles particularmente importantes que asumieron en este período Robert Redfield y Fred Eggan de Chicago, Frederick Johnson de la R. S. Peabody Foundation, y Paul Fejos del Viking Fund, entre otros; (4) el grado y forma del esfuerzo utilizando para tratar esta propuesta de fechado por radiocarbón-14 que fue la esencia de una campaña llevada para elevar el nivel de la arqueología de los Estados Unidos, y (5) claras indicaciones de que algunos arqueólogos mostraron dudas, si es que no fue oposición, a la idea de que la "física" infiltre su campo.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , January 1999 , pp. 9 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Allison, S. K. 1947 Institute for Nuclear Studies, the University of Chicago. Scientific Monthly 64: 482–488.Google Scholar
Amick, D. J. 1974 An Index of Scientific Elitism and the Scientist's Mission. Social Studies of Science 4: 1–16.Google Scholar
Anderson, E. C. 1949 Natural Radiocarbon. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Chemistry, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Anderson, E. C, and Libby, W. F. 1951 World-Wide Distribution of Natural Radiocarbon. Physical Review 81: 64–69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, E. C; Libby, W. F.; Weinhouse, S.; Reid, A., and Grosse, A. 1947a Radiocarbon from Cosmic Radiation. Science 105: 576–577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, E. C; Libby, W. F.; Weinhouse, S.; Reid, A., 1947b Natural Radiocarbon from Cosmic Radiation. Physical Review 72: 931–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, J. R., and Libby, W. F. 1949 Age Determination by Radiocarbon Content: Checks with Samples of Known Age. Science 110: 678–680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ashton, S., and Oppenheim, C. 1978 A Method of Predicting Nobel Prize Winners in Chemistry. Social Studies in Science 8: 341–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyer, P. 1985 Social Scientists and the Bomb. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 41: 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braidwood, R. 1965 Biography of a Research Project. Chicago Today 3: 2: 1–14.Google Scholar
Brannigan, A. 1981 The Social Basis of Scientific Discoveries. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Chemical and Engineering News 1945 Atomic Bomb Research 23: 1444 Google Scholar
Brannigan, A. 1946a Radioisotopes from the Manhattan Project 24: 1915–1916 Google Scholar
Brannigan, A. 1946b University of Chicago 24: 2039–2040 Google Scholar
Clark, C. E. 1980 Communicating in the Oral History Interview: Investigating Problems of Interpreting Oral Data. International Journal of Oral History 1 (February) 28-0. 1947 Annual Report, pp. 14, 16, 24.Google Scholar
Cole, S., and Cole, J. R. 1968 Visibility and the Structural Bases of Awareness of Scientific Research. American Sociological Review 33: 397–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dodds, J. W. 1973 The Several Lives of Paul Fejos. Wenner-Gren Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
Dwork, D. 1991 Children with a Star. Yale University Press, New Haven.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagette, P. 1996 Digging for Dollars: American Archaeology and the New Deal. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Faris, D. 1980 Narrative Form and Oral History: Some Problems and Possibilities. International Journal of Oral History 1 (November): 159–180.Google Scholar
Fermi, L. 1954 Atoms in the Family. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Friedkin, N. E. 1978 University Social Structure and Social Networks among Scientists. American Journal of Sociology 83: 1445–1465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garvey, W. D., Lin, N., and Nelson, C. E. 1970 Communication in the Physical and Social Sciences. Science 170: 1165–1173.Google Scholar
Gilbert, N., and Mulkay, M. 1984 Experiments are the Key: Participants’ Histories and Historians’ Histories of Science. Social Studies of Science 15: 105–125.Google Scholar
Goffer, Z. 1980 Archaeological Chemistry: Sourcebook on the Applications of Chemistry to Archaeology. John Wiley and Sons, London.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, L. 1971 A Special Interest: The Atomic Energy Commission, Argonne National Laboratory and the Midwestern Universities. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Griffith, B. C, Jahn, M. J., and Miller, A. J. 1971 Informal Contacts in Science: A Probabilistic Model for Communication Processes. Science 173: 164–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guthe, C. 1939 The Basic Needs of American Archaeology. Science 90: 528–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagstrom, W. 1974 Competition in Science. American Sociological Review 39: 1–18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henige, D. 1982 Oral Historiography. Longmans, New York.Google Scholar
Hewlett, R. G., and Anderson, O. E. 1962 The New World, 1939-1946. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Hewlett, R. G., and Duncan, F. 1969 Atomic Shield, 1947-1952. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Holdren, J. 1987 Harrison Brown 1917-1986. Bulletin of the Atomic- Scientists. 43: 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inhaber, H., and Przednowek, K. 1976 Quality of Research and the Nobel Prizes. Social Studies of Science 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, F. 1942 The Boylston Street Fishweir. R. S. Peabody Foundation, Andover, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Johnson, F. 1967 Radiocarbon Dating and Archaeology in North America. Science 155: 165–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, R, and Raup, H. 1964 Investigations in Southwest Yukon. Vol.6. R. S. Peabody Foundation, Andover, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Kidder, A. V. 1927 Southwestern Archaeological Conference. Science 66: 489–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, R.E. 1977 Rudolph Schoenheimer, Isotopic Tracers, and Biochemistry in the 1930s. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 8: 257–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, R. E 1982 From Medical Chemistry to Bio-Chemistry: The Making of a Biomedical Discipline. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Libby, W. F. 1946 Atmospheric Helium Three and Radiocarbon from Cosmic Radiation. Physical Review 69: 671–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Libby, W. F. 1955 Radiocarbon Dating. 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Libby, W. F. 1967 History of Radiocarbon Dating. In Radiocarbon Dating and Methods of Low Level Counting, pp. 3–25. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.Google Scholar
Libby, W. F. 1975 Radiocarbon Dating. In Frontiers of Knowledge: The Frank Nelson Doubleday Lectures, p. 339. Doubleday. New York.Google Scholar
MacNeish, R. 1978 The Science of Archaeology? Duxbury Press, Boston.Google Scholar
MacNeish, R. 1980 W. F. Libby and the Archaeologists, 1946-1948. Radiocarbon 22: 1005–1014.Google Scholar
MacNeish, R. 1983 The Committee for the Recovery of Archaeological Remains (CRAR): A Case Study in the Professionalization and Preservation Movements in American Archaeology after the New Deal, 1939-1946. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Coast Branch of the American Historical Association, San Diego.Google Scholar
Meadows, A. J. 1974 Communication in Science. Butterworth, London.Google Scholar
Meadows, A. J. 1976 Diffusion of Information Across Sciences. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 1: 259–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meltzer, D. J. 1985 North American Archaeology and Archaeologists, 1879-1934. .American Antiquity 50: 249–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menzel, H. 1958 The Flow of Information among Scientists. 2 vols. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Menzel, H. 1967 Planning the Consequences of Unplanned Action in Scientific Communication. In Communication in Science; Documentation and Automation, edited by De Reuck, A. and Knight, J., pp. 57–71. Little, Brown, New York.Google Scholar
Merrill, R. 1948 An Outline Program for the Study of Archaeological Materials for Dating by the Carbon 14 Method. American Antiquity 13: 281–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulkay, M. J. 1972 The Social Process of Innovation. Macmillan. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, S. E. 1997 A History of Archaeological Tree-Ring Dating: 1914-1945. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Nelson, C. E., and Pollock, D. K. (editors) 1970 Communication among Scientists and Engineers. D. C. Heath, Lexington, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Nelson, C. E., and Pollock, D. K. (editors) 1951 Papers of the Peahody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology. Vol. 55. Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Segre, E. 1993 A Mind Always in Motion; The Autobiography of Emilio Segre. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Seidel, R. W. 1986 A Home for Big Science: Atomic Energy Commission Laboratory System. Historical Studies of the Physical Sciences 16: 135–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapin, S. 1984 Talking History: Reflections on Discourse Analysis. Social Studies of Science\5: \25—130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K R., Fesharaki, F., and Holdren, J. P. (editors) 1986 Earth and the Human Future: Essays in Honor of Harrison Brown. Westview Press, Boulder.Google Scholar
Society for American Archaeology 1947 Society for American Archaeology Membership, 1946-1947. American Antiquity 12: 293–298.Google Scholar
Stocking, G. W. Jr. 1976 Ideas and Institutions in American Anthropology: Thoughts toward a History of the Interwar Years. In Selected Papers from the American Anthropologist, 1921-1945, edited by G. W. Stocking Jr. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Strong, W. D., Johnson, F., and Webb, W. 1945 Resolution Concerning the Conservation of National Archaeological Resources in the River Valleys of the United States.” Science 102: 44.Google Scholar
Taylor, R. E. 1978 Radiocarbon Dating: An Archaeological Perspective. In Archaeological Chemistry 11, Series 171, edited by Carter, G. F., pp. 33–69. American Chemical Society, Washington. D.C. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, R. E. 1987 Radiocarbon Dating in Archaeological Perspective. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Taylor, R. E., Long, A., and Kra, R. 1992 Radiocarbon Dating after Four Decades: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Springer Verlag, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tibbetts, P., and Johnson, P. 1985 The Discourse and Praxis Models in Recent Reconstruction of Scientific Knowledge Generation. Social Studies of Science 15: 739–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tite, M. S. 1972 Methods of Physical Examination in Archaeology. Seminar Press, New York.Google Scholar
Viking Fund 1952 The First Ten Years, 1941-1951. The Viking Fund, New York.Google Scholar
von Hevesy, G., and Pahl, M. 1932 Radioactivity of Samarium. Nature 130: 846–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westgren, A. 1964 Nobel Lectures in Chemistry 1942-1962, pp. 588–611. Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
Whitely, R. 1976 Umbrella and Polytheistic Scientific Disciplines. Social Studies of Science 6: 471–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolgar, S. W. 1976 Writing an Intellectual History of Scientific Development: The Use of Discovery Accounts. Social Studies of Science 6: 395–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, H. 1977 Scientific Elites: Nobel Laureates in the United States. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar