Notices
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Luminescence Dating

  1. #1 Luminescence Dating 
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,392
    I can't remember where I read about this but it was just recent. Apparently artifacts can now be more accurately dated than by using carbon dating. As far as I understand it, minerals store energy at a known rate. I'm guessing that when certain artifacts were made they were a product of heat and as such any stored energy contain within was released at that time. Energy is then restored by these minerals at the known rates thus enabling an accurate time reference.

    I probably screwed this up somewhat so if someone could enlighten me as to the real way luminescence dating works and its importance to archaeology it would be appreciated.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    739
    I did an internet search and got hundreds of hits. Even wiki has some info:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_dating


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Same here. Google is your friend.

    http://crustal.usgs.gov/laboratories...technique.html


    For any more specific questions, I suspect Ophiolite, Paleoichneum, or SkinWalker would be good folks to ask.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,392
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Same here. Google is your friend.

    http://crustal.usgs.gov/laboratories...technique.html


    For any more specific questions, I suspect Ophiolite, Paleoichneum, or SkinWalker would be good folks to ask.
    I don't really trust Wiki and Googling kind of takes away from the Forum.... but that's just my opinion. I figure this is the place to get the scoop. Thanks for the links though.

    So I take it that if one of my ancestors started a fire in a cave then we would now be able to examine the remains of that fire and determine just when it occurred. How important is it for an archaeologist to date finds more accurately than say estimating?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    739
    Wiki is an excellent place -- to start your quest for knowledge. Then you can move on to the links supplied there or the links you find yourself. You can probably read 20 or 30 articles on the subject (from all sorts of educational sites too) before someone will give you an answer on this part of the forum -- it's a little slow here.

    I feel that a forum is the place you come to when you can't find the info on your own, you don't understand what you've found, or you want to have a discussion or debate. But the latter sort of expects the participants to already have the underlying knowledge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Luminescence Dating 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    I can't remember where I read about this but it was just recent. Apparently artifacts can now be more accurately dated than by using carbon dating. As far as I understand it, minerals store energy at a known rate. I'm guessing that when certain artifacts were made they were a product of heat and as such any stored energy contain within was released at that time. Energy is then restored by these minerals at the known rates thus enabling an accurate time reference.

    I probably screwed this up somewhat so if someone could enlighten me as to the real way luminescence dating works and its importance to archaeology it would be appreciated.
    I'm scantily familiar with the geological aspect of the technique, and it basically offers a minimum age of deposition. Really handy for a lot of paleoclimatic reconstructions in the terrestrial realm, an environment that can be tricky to work because of spotty deposition and re-working.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    I can't remember where I read about this but it was just recent. Apparently artifacts can now be more accurately dated than by using carbon dating.
    This is not accepted by all archeologists apparently.

    But he [Tom Dillehay] said that the OSL technique was less reliable than radiocarbon dating, which has been applied to other early American sites.
    Dillehay is the archeologist who has for years been promoting the Monte Verde site in Chile as proof of the demise of the Clovis First hypothesis, and now that this Texas site has been discovered that seems to bang another nail in the coffin of Clovis First he is skeptical of it. This may be sour grapes, or he might have a point. My archeologist brother in law says this Texas site is very exciting, but agrees that OSL dating is less precise than C-14 dating.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12851772
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •