1. Ceramic Analysis and Radiocarbon Dating
Savana L. Deems
Faculty Mentor: Terry Powis, PhD
Department of Geography and Anthropology
INTRODUCTION
Feature 2
Feature 50
FINDINGS
There are many reasons why an archaeologist may not be able to use radiocarbon dating to date a site. Whether it is lack of funding, no viable carbon samples at a site, or contamination in the lab, there are many instances where the archaeologist may need some other means of dating. Ceramic analysis can be an extremely useful tool in dating a site, as certain types of ceramics only date to certain time periods. The focus of this research is to determine how accurate ceramic analysis is in dating a site. The charcoal samples and ceramic sherds collected for this research come from the Dabbs Site in Bartow County, Georgia. This site has many prehistoric cultural features, and is located two miles northwest of the Etowah Indian Mounds on a terrace near the Etowah River.
Using the guides to identify the decorative motifs on the sherds from Feature 2 and Feature 50, it was determined that the bulk of the sherds from Feature 2 were Woodstock Complicated Stamped and Woodstock Checked Stamped. In regards to Feature 50, the bulk of the decorated sherds from this feature were Etowah Complicated Stamped and a few that were possibly Savannah Complicated Stamped. These types provide the dates of Feature 2 as being Late Woodland Period (AD 600–900) and Feature 50 as being Middle to Late Mississippian Period (AD ) (University of Georgia 2014). The radiocarbon dates for Feature 2 were reported as AD and the radiocarbon dates for Feature 50 were reported as AD
DISCUSSION
According to the dates provided for the time periods on the Georgia Indian Pottery Site, it would seem that the dates determined for the sherds from Feature 2 are not in line with the radiocarbon dating and that the Feature 50 dates are in line with the radiocarbon dates. However, there are many other factors at play when it comes to using such guides in order to assign a time period to a pottery type. The biggest issue is that there is no concrete time frame set for each period. The Late Woodland is considered to be AD by some sources, and AD by others. The exact time of shifting from one cultural period to another is not a hard black line, rather a more fluid grey area. If one were to use the AD time frame for the Late Woodland period, the ceramic dates for Feature 2 would fall nicely in line with the radiocarbon dates. Secondly, the resources for ceramic analysis in the Southeast are very limited, and the researcher is often left with little current and well documented data in order to make a determination on the dates for a particular sherd or set of sherds. Lastly, the acidity of the soil, and heavy farming of some sites in the past, lends to poor preservation of artifacts, making it much harder to analyze any artifacts coming from cultural features. This does not make ceramic analysis a poor technique in dating a site, it just requires the researcher to employ all tools available, including consultation with other archaeologists in the region, in order to make sure the sherds are analyzed thoroughly and properly before publishing the dates. If this is done, and all factors are taken into account, ceramic analysis is just as accurate of a tool for dating as radiocarbon analysis for the archaeologist in the field and in the lab.
Figure 2. Graph of 95% Probability Range Radiocarbon Dates for Feature 2:
East Half. Image Courtesy of Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory.
Figure 3. Graph of 95% Probability Range for Feature 50 NE Quad. Image Courtesy of Beta
Analytic Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory.
Figure 1. Aerial Photo of the Dabbs Site, Bartow County, Georgia (Photo Courtesy of
Andrew Vaughan, Georgia State University).
METHOD
The ceramic sherds from Feature 2 and Feature 50 at the Dabbs Site were selected to be the test subjects for this research. Both features produced the most material to analyze, with 621 sherds coming from Feature 2, and 1197 from Feature 50. These sherds were sorted into plain and decorated ceramics, and from there the decorated sherds were separated into different categories based on the type of design and technique present on the sherds. Once all of the types had been definitively grouped, the sherds were compared to several ancient Georgia artifact guides including A Guide to Georgia Indian Pottery Types by Mark Williams and Victor Thompson, Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology by Robert Wauchope, and The Georgia Indian Pottery Website ran by The University of Georgia. Charcoal samples were also obtained from these two features and sent to the Beta Analytic lab for radiocarbon dating. The results of these tests were not revealed until after the ceramic types were determined and the dates assigned to those types were recorded in order to not influence the outcome of the ceramic typing.
REFERENCES
Beta Analytic Inc.
2016 Figure 2. Graph of 95% Probability Range Radiocarbon Dates Feature 2: East Half and Figure 3. Graph of 95% Probability Range Radiocarbon Dates Feature 50: NE Quad.
University of Georgia
2014 Georgia Indian Pottery Site. University of Georgia https//:archaeology.uga.edu.
Wauchope, Robert
1966 Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology: Archaeological Survey of Northern Georgia. American Antiquity (31):5:2.
Williams, Mark, and Victor Thompson
1999 Guide to Georgia Indian Pottery Types. Early Georgia 27(1):
Figure 4. Woodstock Complicated Stamped and Woodstock Check Stamped from
Feature 2.
Figure 5. Etowah Complicated Stamped and Possible Savannah Complicated Stamped
from Feature 50.