Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:35:03.430Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dating of Holocene Stratigraphy with Soluble and Insoluble Organic Fractions at the Lubbock Lake Archaeological Site, Texas: An Ideal Case Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Herbert Haas ,
Vance Holliday  and
Robert Stuckenrath
Herbert Haas
Affiliation:
Radiocarbon Laboratory, Institute for the Study of Earth and Man, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275
Vance Holliday
Affiliation:
Departments of Geography and Anthropology, Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas 77843
Robert Stuckenrath
Affiliation:
Radiocarbon Laboratory, Smithsonian Institution, Rockville, Maryland 20852
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The Lubbock Lake site, on the Southern High Plains of Texas, contains one of the most complete and best-dated late Quaternary records in North America. A total of 117 14C dates arc available from the site, determined by the Smithsonian and SMU Laboratories. Of these dates, 84 have been derived from residues (humin) and humates (humic acids) of organic-rich marsh sediments and A horizons of buried soils. Most of the ages are consistent with dates determined on charcoal and wood, and with the archaeologic and stratigraphic record. The dates on the marsh sediments are approximate points in time. Dates from the top of buried A-horizons are a maximum for burial and in many cases are close to the actual age of burial. Dates from the base of the A-horizons are a minimum for the beginning of soil formation, in some cases as much as several thousand years younger than the initiation of pedogenesis. A few pairs of dates were obtained from humin and humic acid derived from split samples; there are no consistencies in similarities or differences in these age pairs. It also became apparent that dates determined on samples from scraped trench walls or excavations that were left open for several years are younger than dates from samples taken from exactly the same locations when the sampling surfaces were freshly excavated.

Type
IV. Methods and Applications
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 28 , Issue 2A , 1986 , pp. 473 - 485
Copyright
Copyright © The American Journal of Science 

References

Alexander, S and Price, W, 1980, Radiocarbon dating of the rate of movement of two solifluction lobes in the Ruby Ranges, Yukon territory: Quaternary Research, v 13, no. 3, p 365–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, L E, 1965, Organic carbon, in Black, C A, ed, Methods of soil analysis: Am Soc Agronomy, Mono ser no. 9, p 1367–1378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burleigh, R, 1974, Radiocarbon dating: some practical considerations for the archaeologist: Jour Archaeol Sci, v 1, p 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cambell, C A, Paul, E A, Rennie, D A and McCallum, K J, 1967, Factors affecting the accuracy of the carbon-dating method in soil humus studies: Soil Sci, v 104, no. 2, p 81–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geyh, M A, Benzler, J H and Roeschmann, G, 1971, Problems of dating Pleistocene and Holocene soils by radiometric methods, in Yaalon, D H, ed, Paleopedology: Origin, nature, and dating of paleosols: Jerusalem, Israel Univ Press, p 63–75.Google Scholar
Goh, K M and Malloy, B P J, 1978, Radiocarbon dating of paleosols using soil organic matter components: Jour Soil Sci, v 29, p 567–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, H and Banewicz, J J, 1980, Radiocarbon dating of bone apatite using thermal-release of CO2 in Stuiver, M and Kra, RS, eds, Internatl 14C conf, 10th, Proc: Radiocarbon, v 22, no. 2, p 537–544.Google Scholar
Holden, W C, 1974, Historical background of the Lubbock Lake site, in Black, C C, ed, History and prehistory of the Lubbock Lake site: The Mus Jour, v 15, p 11–14.Google Scholar
Holliday, V T (ms), 1982, Morphological and chemical trends in Holocene soils at the Lubbock Lake archeological site, Texas: PhD dissert, Univ Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Holliday, V T, 1983, Stratigraphy and soils of the Lubbock Lake Landmark area, in Holliday, VT, ed, Guidebook to the Central Llano Estacado: Friends of the Pleistocene, South-Central Cell Field Trip, ICASALS and The Museum, Texas Tech Univ, p 25–80.Google Scholar
Holliday, V T, 1985a, Early and Middle Holocene soils at the Lubbock Lake archaeological site, Texas: Catena, v 12, p 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holliday, V T, 1985b, Morphology of late Holocene soils at the Lubbock Lake archaeological site, Lubbock County, Texas: Soil Sci Soc America Jour, v 50, no. 4, p 938–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holliday, V T, 1985c, Archaeological geology of the Lubbock Lake site, Southern High Plains of Texas: Bull Geol Soc America, v 96, no. 12, p 1483–1492.Google Scholar
Holliday, V T, Johnson, E, Haas, H and Stuckenrath, R, 1983, Radiocarbon ages from the Lubbock Lake site, 1950–1980: framework for cultural and ecological change on the Southern High Plains: Plains Anthropologist, v 28, no. 101, p 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holliday, V T, 1985, Radiocarbon ages from the Lubbock Lake site, 1981–1984: Plains Anthropologist, v 30, no. 110, p 277–291.Google Scholar
Johnson, E (ms), 1976, Investigations into the zooarchaeology of the Lubbock Lake site: PhD dissert, Texas Tech Univ, Lubbock.Google Scholar
Holliday, V T, 1983, The Lubbock Lake Paleoindian record, in Holliday, VT, ed, Guidebook to the Central Llano Estacado: Friends of the Pleistocene, South-Central Cell Field Trip, ICASALS and The Museum, Texas Tech Univ, p 81–105.Google Scholar
Matthews, J A, 1980, Some problems and implications of 14C dates from a Podzol buried beneath an end moraine at Haugabreen, southern Norway: Geog Annaler, v 62A, no. 3–4, p 185–208.Google Scholar
van der Merwe, N J, 1982, Carbon isotopes, photosynthesis, and archaeology: Am Scientist, v 70, no. 6, p 596–606.Google Scholar
Michels, J W, 1973, Dating methods in archaeology: New York, Seminar Press, 230 p.Google Scholar
Scharpenseel, H W, 1971, Radiocarbon dating of soils: Soviet Soil Sci, v 3, p 76–83.Google Scholar
Scharpenseel, H W, 1979, Soil fraction dating, in Berger, R and Suess, H E, eds, Radiocarbon dating, Internatl 14C conf, 9th, Proc: Berkeley/Los Angeles, Univ California Press, p 277–283.Google Scholar
Sheppard, J C, Ali, S Y and Mehringer, P J Jr, 1979, Radiocarbon dating of organic components of sediments and peats, in Berger, R and Suess, H E, eds, Radiocarbon dating, Internatl 14C conf, 9th, Proc: Berkeley/Los Angeles, Univ California Press, p 284–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stafford, T W, 1981, Alluvial geology and archaeological potential of the Texas Southern High Plains: Am Antiquity, v 46, p 548–565.Google Scholar
Taylor, R E and Slota, P J Jr, 1979, Fraction studies on marine shell and bone samples for radiocarbon analysis, in Berger, R and Suess, H E, eds, Radiocarbon dating, Internatl 14C conf, 9th, Proc: Berkeley/Los Angeles, Univ California Press, p 422–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar