| Notes: |
Introduction: These comments are an attempt to evaluate the radiocarbon dates from the Pacific, and their significance in constructing a chronological framework for the migrations into this wide expanse of ocean. This is a slightly revised version of the paper read at the Tenth Pacific Science Congress in Honolulu, August 1961. A disadvantage in assessing the value of the radiocarbon dates is the lack of published reports for the more recent work in Polynesia which would give the detailed information of the archreological context. My remarks are based upon the information I have been able to obtain. I would liked to have applied a more rigorous set of criteria in evaluating the radiocarbon dates, both as to the provenance of the samples dated, and their archreological significance
but in most instances lack of detailed information has prevented this. Whether or not there are single or multiple dates from a site is very important. Multiple dates make possible the checking of internal consistency. Internal consistency is an important consideration in evaluating radiocarbon dates, as this factor may give hints as to whether or not a sample, or series of samples is contaminated or not. This is one important reason it is desirable to have multiple dates from a site, and preferably from the same profile. In discussing these factors, I am approaching the problems from the point of view of what should be done in the way of collecting samples, number of samples, and so forth, fully aware that this 'ideal' situation is never realized. The criteria I mentioned are based upon the kind of material dated, provenance (i.e. archreological context), and the event or period of time the sample is supposed to date.
|
