Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-j7khd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T05:27:30.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evidence Suggesting That Methods of Rock-Varnish Cation-Ratio Dating Are neither Comparable nor Consistently Reliable

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Paul R. Bierman  and
Alan R. Gillespie
Paul R. Bierman
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195
Alan R. Gillespie
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using samples from a prehistoric quarry site in the Mojave Desert, we tested and compared the two principal methods of rock-varnish cation-ratio dating, analysis of rock-varnish scrapings (R. I. Dorn, 1983, Quaternary Research 20, 49-73 and 1989, Physical Geography 13, 559-596) and analysis of rock varnish in situ (C. D. Harrington and J. W. Whitney, 1987, Geology 15, 967-970). Because we found no consistent relationship between the varnish cation ratio (K + Ca)/Ti, and the relative age of the varnish, neither method could be used to "cation-ratio date" the underlying chert artifacts. Moreover, in situ analyses yielded systematically higher cation ratios and lower Ti abundances than bulk analyses of scraped varnish or microprobe analyses of varnish in cross section. Our results, when considered along with other recently published evidence, indicate that these two methods of varnish chemical analysis and cation-ratio dating may not be comparable, nor consistently reliable, chronometers.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Quaternary Research , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , January 1994 , pp. 82 - 90
Copyright
University of Washington

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bierman, R R., and Gillespie, A. R. (1991a). Accuracy of rock varnish chemical analyses: Implications for cation ratio dating. Geology 19t 196–199.Google Scholar
Bierman, P. R., and Gillespie, A. R. (1991b). Range fires: A significant factor in exposure-age determination and geomorphic surface evolution. Geology 19, 641–644.Google Scholar
Bierman, P. R. ( and Gillespie, A. R. (1992a). Replies to comments on Accuracy of rock varnish chemical analyses: Implications for cation ratio dating. Geology 20, 469–472.Google Scholar
Bierman, P. R., and Gillespie, A. R. (1992b). Reply to comment on Range fires: A significant factor in exposure-age determination and geomorphic surface evolution. Geology 20, 283–285.Google Scholar
Bierman, P. R., and Harry, K. (1992). Rock varnish cation-ratios may not be a reliable method for dating lithic artifacts. In “Materials Is-sues in Art and Archeology III” (Vandiver, P. Drusik, J. Wheeler, G., and Freestone, I., Eds.), pp. 165–178. Materials Research Society Proceedings, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Bierman, P. R. Kuehner, S., and Gillespie, A. R. (1991). Precision of rock varnish chemical analyses and cation-ratio ages. Geology 19, 135–138.Google Scholar
Bierman, P. R., and Kuehner, S. (1992). Accurate and precise measurement of rock varnish chemistry using SEM/EDS. Chemical Geology 95, 283–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorn, R. I. (1983). Cation-ratio dating: A new rock varnish agedetermination technique. Quaternary Research 20, 49–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dom, R. I. (1988). A rock varnish interpretation of alluvial-fan development in Death Valley, California. National Geographic Research, 4, 56–73.Google Scholar
Dom, R. I. (1989). Cation-ratio dating of rock varnish. A geographic assessment. Physical Geography 13, 559–596.Google Scholar
Dom, R. L Bamforth, D. Cahill, T. Dohrenwend, J. C. Turrin, B. D. Donahue, D. J. Jull, A. J. T. Long, A. Macko, M. E., and Weil, E. B. (1986). Cation-ratio and accelerator radiocarbon dating of rock varnish on Mojave artifacts and landform surfaces. Science 231, 830–833.Google Scholar
Dom, R. I. Tknner, D. Turrin, B. D., and Dohrenwend, J. C. (1987a). Cation ratio dating of Quaternary materials in the east-central Mojave desert, CA. Physical Geography 8 , 72–81.Google Scholar
Dom, R. I. Turrin, B. D. Jull, A. J. Linick, T. W., and Donahue, D. J. (1987b). Radiocarbon and cation-ratio ages for rock varnish on Tioga and Tahoe morainal boulders of Pine Creek, eastern Sierra Nevada, California, and their paleoclimatic implications. Quaternary Research 28, 38–49.Google Scholar
Dom, R. I. Cahill, T. A. Eldred, R. A. Gill, T. E. Kushko, B. H. Bach, A. J., and EJJiot-Fiske, D. L. (1990). Dating rock varnish by the cation ratio method with PIXE, ICP, and the electron microprobe. International Journal of PIXE 1, 157–195.Google Scholar
Dom, R. I., and Krinsley, D. H. (1991). Cation leaching sites in rock varnish. Geology 19, 1077–1080.Google Scholar
Harrington, C. D., and Whitney, J. W. (1987). Scanning electron microscope method for rock vamish dating. Geology 15, 967–970.Google Scholar
Harrington, C. D. Reneau, S. L. Raymond, R. Jr., and Krier, D. J.. Incorporation of volcanic ash into rock vamish and implications for geochronologic and paleoenvironmental research. EOS 71, 1341.Google Scholar
Harrington, C. D. Krier, D. J. Raymond, R., and Reneau, S. L. (1991). Barium concentrations in rock vamish: Implications for calibrated rock-varnish dating curves. Scanning Microscopy 5, 55–62.Google Scholar
Harry, K. (1992). “Lithic Procurement and Rock Vamish Dating; Investigations at CA-KER-140, a Small Quarry in the Western Mojave Desert.” Statistical Research Technical Series, 36.Google Scholar
Lanteigne, M. (1989). Comment on “Age determinations for rock varnish formation within petroglyphs.” Rock Art Research 6, 145–149.Google Scholar
Lanteigne, M. (1991). Comment on “Age determinations for rock varnish formation within petroglyphs.” Rock Art Research 8, 127–130.Google Scholar
McFadden, L, D. Wells, S. G., and Jercinovich, M. J. (1987). Influences of eolian and pedogenic processes on the origin and evolution of desert pavements. Geology 15, 504–508.Google Scholar
Potter, R. M., and Rossman, G. R. (1979). The manganese and iron oxide mineralogy of desert vamish. Chemical Geology 25, 79–94.Google Scholar
Reneau, R., and Harrington, C. D. (1988). Comment on “Age determinations for rock varnish formation within petroglyphs.” Rock Art Research 5, 141–142.Google Scholar
Raymond, R. J. Reneau, S. L., and Harrington, C. D. (1991). Elemental relationships in rock varnish as seen with scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive x-ray elemental line profiling. Scanning Microscopy 5, 37–46.Google Scholar
Reneau, S. L., and Raymond, R. (1991). Cation-ratio dating of rock vamish: Why does it work? Geology 19, 937–940.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reneau, S. L. Hagan, R. C. Harrington, C. P., and Raymond, R. (1991). Scanning electron microscope analysis of rock varnish chemistry for cation ratio dating: An examination of electron beam penetration depths. Scanning Microscopy 5, 47–54.Google Scholar
Reneau, S. L. Raymond, R. Jr., and Harrington, C. D. 1992. Elemental relationships in rock vamish stratigraphic layers, Cima Volcano Field, California: Implications for vamish development and the interpretation of vamish chemistry. American Journal of Science 292, 684–723.Google Scholar
Wells, S. G. McFadden, L. D., and Olinger, C. T. (1991). Use of cosmogenic 3He and 21Ne to understand desert pavement formation. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 23, A207.Google Scholar