Landing : Athabascau University
  • Blogs
  • Archaeologists have a lot of dates wrong for North American indigenous history – but we’re using...

Archaeologists have a lot of dates wrong for North American indigenous history – but we’re using new techniques to get it right

  • Public
By Meaghan Peuramaki-Brown April 30, 2020 - 10:11am

This is an interesting read (I have yet to read the actual peer-reviewed articles). My first question had to do with issues of using radiocarbon for sites that are so young (within last 500 years). I know it's super unreliable for the Maya area. I believe they are using Bayesian statistics to play with the dates, which I remain clueless about (I keep trying to understand them but I find no one can effectively explain them to me). Also, is it not pushing it a bit to suggest that it "removes the Eurocentric and historical lens, allowing an independent time frame for sites and past narrative"? Is it not more of just a matter of moving from relative to absolute dating? I'm not sure I entirely agree that it removes the Eurocentric gaze... I'm often wary of current work that claims to "decolonize" the archaeological record, as often they are mere platitudes tacked on to a new fancy scientific method or gobble-dy-gook theory that overwhelms the actual data. Looking to engage in conversation if anyone is interested! :)

https://theconversation.com/archaeologists-have-a-lot-of-dates-wrong-for-north-american-indigenous-history-but-were-using-new-techniques-to-get-it-right-129422

Comments

These comments are moderated. Your comment will not be visible unless accepted by the content owner.

Only simple HTML formatting is allowed and any hyperlinks will be stripped away. If you need to include a URL then please simply type it so that users can copy and paste it if needed.

(Required)

(Required)