Methods In Archaeology - Essay Example

 Methods In Archaeology The archeologists struggle very much to develop the chronologies due to various reason. Chronology is very vital in history since it helps very much in the establishment of the order of occurrences of events in the past. History is a very complicated discipline that heavily depends on the recorded chronology of the past activities (Kelly, et al. 2013). Chronology makes it very easy for the historians to evaluate and assess the cause and effects of various activities in the past. When things or rather events are chronologically presented, the one can easily trace what was the real effect of a particular activity. At the same time, when one first gets to the results of a particular event, the chronology will make it very easy to determine what really the cause of that particular activity was. Therefore, chronology makes it very simple for us understand the have the broad view of history as it unfolds in a particular line. It is again important to note that the broad timeline that chronology gives is very crucial in the determination of the connection that exists between events of the past (Göksu,et al.1991). We can easily use chronology to interpret easily what resulted in a particular event. Moreover, the rate at which things change may be quite high but chronology makes it easy for us to evaluate what the past did in the attainment of the present activities. In a broader view, the chronology is the real tool that helps in the storage and preservation of historical events. People who never witnessed certain events can easily use the written chronology to understand what happened and also to accept or criticize these simple facts. Truth be told, chronology remains the main concern of all the archeologists in the world (Jacoby,et al.1995). They intend to make Chronology as simple to understand as possible. The best example of these chronological events is the evolution of man. Darwin gives a very precise Chorology of the evolution. By reading the way he presents his work, one can easily connect the various stages and even come up with the relationship between various these varied steps. The archeologist and the geologists use both absolute and the relative dating methods for them to determine the ages of various historical artifacts. However, both the absolute and the relative dating methods have their negative strengths and weaknesses. Limitations of absolute dating methods One of the materials used in the absolute dating method is Carbon. When carbon is used, there are various shortcomings that are associated with it. For instance, the half of carbon -14 used is roughly 5730 years. The half-life of this carbon makes it only effective to measure or rather date historical events of up to about only 75000 years (Jacoby, 1995). As per this technique, it is very important to note that dating events that occurred past these years is very difficult. Therefore, a person is just limited to investigate events that occurred within this time frame. This is very unfair since it will not give the best chronology of events in life. At becomes very difficult to give a clear chronology of events that occurred a long time ago that the carbon-14 cannot date. Furthermore, it is also very difficult to date wood using this method since most woods is always burnt and may be found in the form of ash. Therefore, it is very difficult to differentiate when the wood burned and the date of the wood. Thermoluminescence is another form of dating used under the same method that also has its own problems. Foremost, its radiation will never remain constant and, therefore, it does not give consistent result all the time it is used. Moreover, using the technique heavily depend on the external factors like exposure to heat. Again, when it is exposed to heat, some heat may dissipate, and the result given will be very wrong (Goksu, et al. 1991). Therefore, other means must be used to complement this method of dating since it is not reliable. Absolute dating has another important weakness in the type of material that can be dated. For any material to be datable, it is important to note that the material must be radioactive material. All the materials dated must always have the radioactive property for the absolute method to be appropriate (Kelly & Thomas, 2013). Moreover, for a better result, one is obliged to have lots of the radioactive materials for them obtain more data. The process of obtaining the data is quite tiresome and demanding for more materials would mean more cost and more wastage of time. Strengths of absolute dating Absolute dating has quite a lot of strengths. Foremost, Carbon dating is a very important method that has shown ages of many artifacts. Carbon dating is a complement to the current digital dating and is quite effective (Layman, 2006). The time that it takes to date a particular event or artifact is quite shorter than what was originally used. Carbon dating has made it very easy to put certain important events and activities in life like agriculture into a datable context. Again, it presents its results in a very simple way that could be easily understood by anyone in the world (International Conference on Isotopes, Stevenson, N. R., & Triumf, 2000). The understanding of information is a very important of any dating technique that is made possible with the absolute dating. Moreover, the scientific timeline used by the Carbon dating is a very important strength of this method of dating. Unlike other timelines, this timeline does not conflict with the normal timelines used by people in the world. In this context, the timeline used does to give a confusion with what people already know or how people already time themselves in the world. People are already familiar with this form of timing, and they have no difficulty in using it. Relative dating Relative dating is quite simple since it puts very little consideration to the absolute dating of artifacts or rather rocks and events. Strengths of relative dating Relative dating is very significant when it comes to the determination of the ages of a particular historical thing in relation to another. It, therefore, is very appropriate to make the comparison among different things (Hranicky, 2013). The system remains very important in the determination of the ages of things that lack the radioactive isotopes in them. Again, it is very simple to determine relative ages of these things that would not be possible with other aspects. It is thus very important as it aids in giving the ages of these geological events. Relative dating is very crucial in the determination of the age differences between various materials. It is appropriate in the determination of which rock is older than the other and which one is younger (Kelly & Thomas, 2013). The whole of this is very possible since the method uses the principle of supposition. It is one of the best methods that are very significant in the determination of the order of events on the earth's surface. Weaknesses of relative dating The most obvious weakness of relative dating is that it does not give the exact age of an event or an object. It is one method that only gives the ages of objects in relation to other objects. This may be challenging since people have to depend on their senses to predict what would be the age of a particular object (Lyman, 2006). The determination of the ages of the fossils remains very difficult when there is a lack of these fossils. One key reason that can impact in this is the availability of the tectonic forces that are likely to make these rocks even to go deeper into the earth's surface (Oakley, 1980). Sometimes, the tectonic forces may just interfere with the actual and be normal arrangement of rocks below the earth's surface and this would otherwise result in confusion. It is also important to note that the relative dating technique is quite time-consuming and one has to open their minds and do some little brainstorming before they come up with the exact age of an object. In a real sense, relative dating is one method that will determine the age of an object after taking lots of time. At the same time, the ages are mere estimates as they depend on the ages of other objects used. In conclusion, Chronology is a very significant aspect that makes it very easy for the determination of the ages of materials. However, it is also worth noting that both relative and the absolute dating play very significant roles in the determination of the chronology of the events. The fact still remains that the Chronology just depend on the information obtained from these methods of dating. The best method that makes it very easy to draw the timeline of the events is the absolute method. The absolute methods make it very easy to determine the exact ages of events or materials. The method is thus very important in determining the cause and effect t of certain historical events. The relative method of dating also serves as a supplementary as it makes it easy to determine the interrelationships among the ages of the events and the materials. References Göksu, H. Y., Oberhofer, M., Regulla, D. F., & North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (1991). Scientific dating methods. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, c. Göksu, H. Y., Oberhofer, M., Regulla, D. F., & North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (1991). Scientific dating methods. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, c. Hranicky, W. J. (2013). Archaeological concepts, techniques, and terminology for American prehistoric lithic technology. International Conference on Isotopes, Stevenson, N. R., & TRIUMF. (2000). Isotope production and applications in the 21st century: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Isotopes, Vancouver, Canada, 6-10 September 1999. Singapore: World Scientific. Jacoby, G., Carver, G. A., Wagner, W., & Geological Survey (U.S.). (1995). Absolute dating of prehistoric earthquakes by tree-ring analysis in California. Palisades, N.Y: Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Kelly, R. L., & Thomas, D. H. (2013). Archaeology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. Lyman, R. L. (2006). Measuring time with artifacts: A history of methods in American archaeology. Lincoln [u.a.: University of Nebraska Press. Oakley, K. P. (1980). Relative dating of the fossil hominids of Europe. London: British Museum (Natural History. Read More