Archaeological Investigations at Yourhaney Plantation (38GE18)

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT YOURHANEY PLANTATION125RESULTSThe sole provider of OCR dating (Archaeology Consulting Team of Essex, VT) has processed over6,000 samples as of March 2003. Killick et al. (1999) printed a critique of the method citingthree concerns about the method:• No description of the method had appeared in a peer-review journal.• Neither Frink’s published papers nor the OCR website provide a scientifically acceptabledemonstration of the accuracy and precision of OCR dating.• They questioned the equation that was proposed for deriving calendar dates from themeasured OCR ratio and a number of other site-specific environmental parameters.Generally, they questioned the scientific basis of OCR dating.They concluded that, given the accuracy and precision of OCR dating is unproven and theequation does not appear to be correct, the use of OCR should not be recommended. They alsoexpressed concern over the willingness of archaeologists to use the technique.In response, Frink (1999) stated that the OCR formula continues to be tested using archaeologicaland pedological samples from throughout the world. The OCR procedure does not directlymeasure an intrinsic characteristic of the soil organic carbon. Rather, it models the dynamic andnonlinear soil system and the relative reactivity of the soil’s organic carbon within that system.According to Frink (1999), the contention that the OCR procedure “departs in significant aspectsfrom long established empirical laws governing all chemical reaction” (Killick et al. 1999) is basedon a narrow, biased concept of science that is founded exclusively on systems at or nearequilibrium and governed only by entropic processes. The variables used in the OCR procedureequation, claimed to be incorrect by Killick et al. (1999), directly translate into measurable aspectsof the five factors of soil formation (climate, biota, parent material, time, and relief), the dominantmodel in pedogenics. Frink responded, why those variables "cannot be correct" has not beendemonstrated: it is simply a stated and unsubstantiated belief.Frink states that Killick et al’s (1999) critique leads the reader to conclude that the OCR procedureis false. However, the article they reference (Frink 1994) discusses the limitations of both theCarbon 14 dating and OCR procedures and concludes that the combined use of both proceduresto obtain corroborative data from independent analytic processes may be scientifically prudent.Frink believes that the formula and hypotheses surrounding OCR dating will be modified over timeand that more data should be gathered. He also encouraged independent researchers to becomeinvolved in testing his ideas and believes that scientific trials demonstrating whether the OCRprocedure can, or cannot, be duplicated would be productive.OCR dates from 38GE18 are provided in Table 12. As for providing information on the year afeature was constructed, the results were not clear. For instance, Feature 35 provided an MCD of1769, yet the OCR date is 1820. There were no 19 th century historic ceramics in the feature and itis possible that early artifacts were introduced when the feature was created. Interestingly, thearea of Feature 35 is where most of the whitewares were identified in Bill Weeks shovel test grid(Adams and Botwick 2002: Figure 19) but as will be discussed later, it is believed that this areacontained an 18 th century feature (#24) and two later buildings.