Society for American Archaeology

The Meadowcroft Rockshelter Radiocarbon Chronology 1975-1990

Author(s): J. M. Adovasio, J. Donahue and R. Stuckenrath
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 55, No. 2 (Apr., 1990), pp. 348-354
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/281652 .
Accessed: 08/05/2014 22:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:34:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE MEADOWCROFT ROCKSHELTER RADIOCARBON
CHRONOLOGY 1975-1990

J. M. Adovasio, J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath

Eversince thepublicationofthefirst of morethan 50 internallyconsistentradiocarbondatesfromMeadowcroft

Rockshelter(36 WH297),controversyhas been generatedbyfrequentassertionsthat the dates olderthan 11,000
B.C. havesufferedparticulateor nonparticulatecontamination.Data bearingon theseassertionsare assessedin
the light of acceleratormass spectroscopy(AMS)dates providedby Oxford University.The weight of all data
takentogethersuggeststhat this site still representsthe best-datedevidencefor thepresenceof humanbeingssouth
of the glacialfront in the Americas.That evidenceindicatesthat NativeAmericanswerepresentin southwestern
Pennsylvaniaby 14,000-14,500 years ago.
Desde la publicaci6nde la primerade mds de 50 fechas, todas consistentesentreellas, provenientesdel abrigo
rocosode Meadowcroft(36WH297), ha habidocontroversiadebidoal frecuentereclamode que las fechas mds
antiguasde 11.000A.C. hansufridocontaminaci6ntantoparticularcomo no-particular.Informaci6nconcerniente
con estos reclamoses examinadaa la luz de lasfechas generadaspor el aceleradorespectroscopiode masa (AMS)
de la Universidadde Oxford,Inglaterra.El peso de todos los datos tomadosen conjuntosugierenque este sitio
aun representala evidenciamejorfechada para la presenciade seres humanos al sur del frente glacial en las
Americas.Estas evidenciasindicanqueel hombreya estabapresenteen el sur oestede Pennsylvaniaentre 14.000
y 14.500 A.C.

Since the publication of the initial Meadowcroft Rockshelter (36WH297) radiocarbon chronology
in 1975 (Adovasio et al. 1975), nearly four generations of graduate students have passed through
anthropology departments in American academic institutions. These same legions of students have
been consistently exposed to one or another view of the validity of the seemingly ever-growing
Meadowcroft radiocarbon chronology, which, not surprisingly, reflected the outlook (positive, neu-
tral, or negative) of their teachers. Some students accepted the dates as soon as they were published;
others rejected some of them as too old; still others asked a series of questions which in one form
or another have been reiterated to this day. The reservations about the Meadowcroft radiometric
dating have been rebutted systematically in various publications; however, the most recent additions
to the radiocarbon column are included in this article for the first time together with some summary
comments on the dating of the site as a whole and the authors' interpretation of that problem.

HISTORY OF THE PROBLEM

Initial criticisms of the Meadowcroft dates centered around quite understandable issues. Following
the appearance of the 1975 date list, which included only 17 radiometric determinations, it was
pointed out correctly that a large gap then existed between the Late Archaic dates and the earlier
Paleoindian dates. It was suggested further that many more dates needed to be run, and this was
done. It also was suggested that additional dates be obtained from different laboratories, and this
also has been done.
By the later 1970s, almost 40 dates were available from two laboratories, but a new set of loosely
interrelated issues were raised. These questions, eloquently articulated by Haynes (1980), Mead
(1980), and others, concerned the possibility of some sort of contamination, on the one hand, and
the appropriateness of the associated flora and fauna, on the other. Interestingly, not a single one
of the literally hundreds of American and foreign archaeologists who visited the site between 1973
J. M. Adovasioand J. Donahue,DepartmentofAnthropology,Departmentof Geologyand PlanetarySciences,
and CulturalResourceManagementProgram,Universityof Pittsburgh,Pittsburgh,PA 15260
R. Stuckenrath,Departmentof Anthropologyand RadiocarbonLaboratory,Universityof PittsburghApplied
ResearchCenter,365 WilliamPitt Way,Pittsburgh,PA 15238

AmericanAntiquity,55(2), 1990, pp. 348-354.

Copyright? 1990 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology

348

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:34:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REPORTS 349

and 1978 or who wrote about it from afar questioned the rigor and precision of the excavation or
data-recovery methods or the validity of the stratigraphy, context, or associations of the dates,
artifacts, or ecofacts.
By the late 1970s and early 1980s, a long series of publications on Meadowcroft had appeared,
one culmination of which was an edited volume (Carlisle and Adovasio 1982) that went through
four printings and that presented the results of a well-attended, day-long symposium at the annual
meeting of the Society for American Archaeology in Minneapolis, Minnesota. A second culmination
was the lengthy treatment of paleoenvironmental reconstruction at the site that appeared in two
other works (Adovasio et al. 1977b, 1984).
These three works and several smaller ones (Adovasio et al. 1977a, 1981, 1985) addressed ques-
tions about the associated flora and fauna to the satisfaction of even some of the most strident
critics (e.g., Dincauze 1981), but these efforts did not still the contamination issue. Indeed, as a
result of these papers and publications, it was suggested that yet more assays be run, that other labs
be used and, especially, that AMS be applied to small carbon samples to resolve the issue of this
critically important site once and for all. As will be shown below, this and more has been done.
Finally, and most recently, the issue of contamination has been reiterated by Haynes (1987) and

injected by another scholar (Kelly 1987). All have suggested yet more measures to clarify the dating
issue, and these also were done-in some cases long before the critical suggestions appeared in print.
To straighten out the cord, one may
thime,
recnoord, mayofferwe for
thathope or penultimate com-
mentary on the Meadowcroft radiocarbon column.

THE MEADOWCROFT RADIOCARBON DATES

One hundred four charcoal samples from Meadowcroft have been submitted for radiometric
dating to four laboratories. The Meadowcroft charcoal came from fire pits, fire floors, or charcoal
features with the exception of two carbonized basketry fragments. To date, 52 of these samples have
produced dates (Figure 1). All but four dates are internally consistent and in absolute stratigraphic
order. The four reversals are low-magnitude "flip-flops" in the Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, and
Late Woodland periods, respectively (see Figure 1). It is interesting that not even the most staunch
critic of the site has questioned the validity of the 39 dates that are younger (more recent) than
about 12,800 years ago, that is, the majority of dates that includes the "later" Paleoindian component
as well as the entire Archaic, Woodland, Late Prehistoric, and early Historic periods in the deposits
of the site. Any questions that have been posed, recently, or in the past, have been directed solely
at the 13 remaining dates (only six of which have clear, undeniable, and extensive artifact associ-
ations) older than ca. 12,800 ? 870 B.P., 10,850 B.C. Criticisms about the validity of the site as a
whole, therefore, have been clearly selective and directed only at the strata that date well beyond
the semimystical 11,500-year mark.
As hinted at above, most criticisms about the pre-12,800 B.P. dates concern the possibilities for
either particulate or nonparticulate contamination of these carbon samples, and, in a more recent
article (Kelly 1987), stratigraphic mixing via bioturbation and/or human activity. This last issue is
treated in a separate response (Adovasio et al. 1990), but it suffices to note that the integrity of the
deepest occupation surfaces at Meadowcroft is supported not only by the definitive and clear-cut
separation of superimposed living floors on both qualitative and quantitative geological, geochem-
ical, and sedimentological grounds, but also by lithic-refitting and raw-material studies that show
no significant cross-horizon artifact movement whatsoever. Indeed, the floors in lower and middle
Stratum IIa were mapped exhaustively so that any rock fragments that occurred on them were
plotted three dimensionally with dip-and-strike data. Independent corroboration of the floors was
provided by the analysis of constant volume sample columns that showed spalling spikes at depths
congruent with the living surfaces defined during the site excavation.
With regard to particulate contamination, we repeat that there is no coal seam in or near the
rockshelter. The nearest actual coal outcrop is over .80 km north of the site. There are small, isolated,
discontinuous fragments of vitrinized Pennsylvanian-age wood west of the back (north) wall of the

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:34:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
350 AMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 55, No. 2, 1990]

I "I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
, A / ,
`
A
E
u
MEADOWCROFTROCKSHELTER 14C DATES

W
o-4, ______ XI Historic
oof-foil _i a P s
_ - w -\,II Late Prehistoric
I- i-
5S ,- i a -? VII Late Woodland
AD v
BC 2- '- S Je I
ioi ,
-.o 3 eI.-*-?" Early/Middle
_ P I U IV Woodland
I- 3- - f *- .*** iii
N Terminal Archaic
2- 4-

3- 5- [,- '$i4 ttb

Late Archaic

4- 6-

5- 7-
{iI
6- 8- i
7- 9- Early Archaic

8- 10-
---Major roof-spolling episode
9- I- Paleo- Indian

10- 12- I

II- 13-

12- 14- 1la

13- 15- roof-foil

14-

15-
16-

17- i
I
16- 18-

17- 19-
t0
e* Possible
18- 20- Cultural
Association
19- 21-

20- 22-

21- 23-

22- 24-

23- 25-

24- No Cultural
26- Association

25- 27-

26- 28-

27- 29- '

28- 30-

29- 31-
'U 4

30- 32-

31- 33-

Figure 1. Plot of the 52 Meadowcroft Rockshelter radiocarbon dates showing one standard deviation. Four
reversals (asterisks) are noted: SI-2056 is actually from the lowest one-third of Stratum lib; SI-1681 is from the
upper one-third of Stratum lib; SI-2049 is from the lowest one-third of Stratum IV; SI-2363 is from the upper
one-third of Stratum IX. Both SI-1681 and 2056 were small, heavily diluted samples. Adapted and expanded
from Stuckenrath et al. (1982:Figure 2).

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:34:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REPORTS 351

rockshelter, but'these in situ fragments are circumscribed occurrences and are not represented en
bloc within 7 m of the hearths that produced the earliest Meadowcroft dates. Even before the
publication or prepublication circulation of the manuscript by Tankersley et al. (1987) every ra-
diometric sample from all Pleistocene-age levels was examined for coal particles using both optical
and scanning-electron microscopy. No coal particles were ever identified by the four radiocarbon
laboratories or by the independent researchers despite the fact that in order to contaminate a sample
on the magnitude that has been suggested, nearly 35 percent of the sample would have to have been
coal.
All except one of the Pleistocene-age radiometric samples consisted of small fragments of charcoal
taken directly from the fill of generally small, shallow, circular to ovoid fire pits or larger burned
areas designated as fire floors. None of these samples were flecks, smears, or charcoal stains. The
solitary exception to the foregoing was a specimen of cut bark (possibly birch) that may have been
a basketry fragment. We forcefully reiterate that during these scrutinies, selected lower and middle
Stratum IIa samples underwent not only reflectance analysis but also paleobotanical examination
for Densosporites and other commonly occurring spores in Pennsylvanian-age coal. In all cases, the
results were negative for the presence of coal or coal-associated microflora. Unfortunately, pollen
is not well preserved at Meadowcroft. In Volman's (1981) study, only two of 12 samples yielded
total grain counts of at least 200, the minimum number that is desirable to attain statistical validity.
An earlier pollen study by Bryant (1975) produced similar results (Volman 1981:68-69, Table 9,
89-90).
For criticisms about particulate contamination (or stratigraphic perturbation) to be credible, the
mechanical introduction of vitrinized Pennsylvanian-age wood into the earlier Meadowcroft fire
pits would have required some unknown (and unspecified) mechanism so precise and of such
duration that it nevertheless resulted in a consistent stratigraphic order among the early dates. Then,
about 12,800 years ago, any mechanism that was making the early dates too early would have to
have discontinued abruptly so that all of the successive younger (more recent) dates were valid, as
indeed their abundant artifactual associations amply attest that they are. The absence of any objective
evidence for particulate contamination and the lack of any feasible mechanism for the selective
injection of contaminants solely into the pre-12,800-year-old samples renders the argument for
particulate contamination of the samples unconvincing.
In regard to nonparticulate contamination, the following points are critically important:
1. Vitrinized wood cannot be dissolved in ground water. Nor for that matter, can it be dissolved
in boiling sodium hydroxide or indeed in any other reagent normally kept in a radiocarbon labo-
ratory. Vitrinite can be mechanically ablated (by washing boiling water over it for 200 hours) and
physically transported in particulate form, but it cannot be dissolved and transported even in the
most acid ground water at or near ambient temperatures.
2. If vitrinite is not the source of any dissolved contaminant, there are no other candidates as the
underlying shale (Stratum I) that is the basal unit at the rockshelter is not carbonaceous.
3. Assuming the presence of an as-yet-undiscovered potential source of contamination, there is
no viable mechanism for its transport as the present water table lies nearly 5 m below the deepest
occupation surface in the site, and it apparently never was higher prehistorically. The position of
the prehistoric stream margin was confirmed by a hand-excavated trench dug from within the drip
line of the rockshelter down to the level of modern Cross Creek (244.84 m m.s.l.). At no point in
the exposed profile were stream deposits located more than 7 m above the modern level. This places
stream deposits well beneath the deepest human occupation floors at the site, which occur at ca.
255 m m.s.l. It is especially germane that the ancient drip-line position has been preserved intact
in the deposits. Significantly, this paleo-drip line was tracked down to the sterile Stratum I interface!
The various positions of the drip line, marked by different calcium carbonate percentages, would
have been erased totally if groundwater fluctations had affected the lower and middle Stratum IIa
samples. Not surprisingly, electron microscopy of the individual sand grains from these levels
indicates no postdepositional modification due to water action.
4. Most basic to all questions of nonparticulate contamination is a misreading of the available
data on the lower and middle Stratum IIa dates. In only 2 of the 13 samples from these levels were

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:34:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 352 AMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 55, No. 2, 1990]

humic extractions arrested for fear that too little sample would be left to assay. Both of these
exceptions are from the top of middle Stratum IIa, and the resulting dates are younger than 12,800
years ago. In only 2 of the 11 underlying samples was the dissolved fraction older than the solid
fraction. In all other tested samples, the soluble fraction was younger than the insoluble fraction.
This was confirmed independently by two radiocarbon laboratories.
The last remaining, diminutive sample from the precultural levels at the site was sent for processing
in the Oxford AMS system. The sample already had been scrutinized for particulates and Densospo-
rites spores, but the Oxford lab also examined it and detected no contaminants. The solid fraction
was extracted with no need to arrest the reaction and subsequently was dated, as was the soluble
fraction. The result for the solid fraction was 31,400 ? 1,200 years, 29,450 B.C. (OxA-363). The
soluble fraction was dated at 30,900 + 1,100 years, 28,950 B.C. (OxA-364) (see Gillespie et al.
1985:241). These dates conform very closely to a previously calculated Smithsonian lab date of
30,710 ? 1,140 years, 28,760 B.C. for this level, which, to repeat, is not associated with any artifacts
and apparently dates to well before the initial occupation of the site by humans (Adovasio et al.
1975:16, Table 3). Additional AMS dates on plant remains from these levels currently are being
processed and will be published when they become available.
In order to underscore our point about mechanisms of contamination in what we believe to be
a telling if not dramatic fashion, wood charcoal from two Middle Archaic period pits in close
proximity to vitrinite exposures (and, hence, what one would take to be excellent potential candidates
for particulate and nonparticulate contamination) were recently subjected to radiocarbon assay. The
results of these assays (Pitt- 122 and Pitt-292) were perfectly congruent with previous dates for this
level and also are consistent with the associated lithic artifacts.
Herein we might stress that amino-acid-racemization calculations run by one of the perfectors of
that technique, P. E. Hare, of the Carnegie Institution, Washington, D.C., from Woodland, Archaic,
and Paleoindian levels also are in accord with the associated radiocarbon dates. Specifically, Hare
observed that a shell sample from the modem surface of the site has a 0:0 right-to-left (D:L) ratio
for the amino acid isoleucine. Another shell sample, from Stratum Ib dated at 3255 ? 115 B.P.:
1305 B.C., has a D:L ratio of .023 (corrected for lab hydrolysis). By extrapolation of a line through
these two samples, Hare was able to predict what the theoretical ratio should be in a sample dated
by radiocarbon to 14,000-15,000 years ago. Subsequent analysis ofjust such a sample (from Stratum
IIa, 70-80 cm) yielded the predicted isoleucine ratio (P. E. Hare, personal communication 1988).
The inescapable conclusion, at least to us as well as to many others in the field, is that there is
absolutely no evidence whatsoever for either particulate or nonparticulate contamination of the
Meadowcroft deposits.

OVERVIEW
If the deepest dates within lower Stratum IIa are correct, which they appear to be, and if the dates
that postdate 12,800 years ago are accurate, which all concede, then only the important group of
dates between these ages could be in error. This possibility is intrinsically unlikely.
Applying a conservative interpretation of the data, one can conclude that even if only the youngest
date from upper middle Stratum IIa is valid, the minimum age for the presence of human populations
in this portion of Pennsylvania is on the order of 10,600 to 12,000 years ago. If the six deepest
dates unequivocally associated with cultural material are averaged, then humans were definitely
present at this site (and, by implication, throughout much and perhaps all of the Americas) sometime
between ca. 13,955 and 14,555 years ago. It is important to note that the earliest Meadowcroft dates
that have extensive artifactual associations do not argue for any radical extension of the 11,500
year "baseline." There is certainly no evidence, as has been posited for some sites elsewhere in the
New World, for an initial site occupation at 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 or more years ago. The Mea-
dowcroft dates suggest, rather conservatively, that humans were present at the site perhaps 2,000-
3,000 years earlier than the well-established 11,500-year horizon marker. The frequently cited
eighteenth millennium B.C. dates (SI-2060 and SI-2062) were both very small, diluted samples,
one of which, SI-2060, has a very high standard deviation of 2,400 years. If the younger range of

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:34:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REPORTS 353

both of these dates is averaged, then the earliest possible occupation of the site may have occurred
ca. 16,770 years ago.
In the final analysis, however, it matters very little what the earliest occupation date from Mea-
dowcroft is. This unique site has produced a vast array of geological, archaeological, paleofloral,
and paleofaunal data that collectively help one to understand more about the full temporal range
of aboriginal human life in this part of the Ohio River system then any other locus ever investigated.
Although the incipient occupation of the site has, understandably but perhaps unfortunately, cap-
tured the spotlight, the lisons share of the site's unquestioned deposits are an eloquent testimonial
to thousands of years of subsequent human cultural adaptation. If the site never accomplishes more
than to draw increased attention to this sometimes subtle, sometimes radically shifting relationship
among humans, their technology, and the conditions of their natural environment, it will be enough.
As a postscript of sorts, it is edifying that at a September 1987 symposium on dating the sites of
the first humans in the New World held at the Smithsonian Institution, one of our most persistently
constructive critics, noted accurately to one of us (Adovasio) that he had never said (in print or
otherwise) that the Meadowcroft dates were wrong. Rather, he observed that he had only suggested
we carefully examine the dates from the standpoint of possible contamination. This, he generously
suggested, we evidently had done. To this we can only agree and suggest that perhaps it is now time
to address the issue of other potential Meadowcrofts and the relations of the prototype to its
chronological and perhaps lineal successors.

Acknowledgments. The excavationsand attendantanalysesat MeadowcroftRockshelterand the CrossCreek

drainagewere conductedunder the auspicesof the formerArchaeologicalResearchProgram(now the Cultural
ResourceManagementProgram)of the Departmentof Anthropology,Universityof Pittsburgh.The initial 1973
field projectand the 1977-1978 field seasons were directedby J. M. Adovasio. The 1974-1976 field projects
were codirectedby J. M. Adovasio and J. D. Gunn. Analysis of all materialsrecoveredduringthe 1973-1978
field seasons is under the ultimate direction of Adovasio. Computerstudies of the Meadowcroft/CrossCreek
data base are under the immediate supervisionof J. D. Gunn at the University of TexasattSan Antonio and
R. Drennanat the University of Pittsburgh.Albert Miller, owner of the site, is acknowledgedin particularfor
his long-standingsupportof the project and his warm humanitarianism.
Generous financialand logistic support for the 1973-1978 excavations and analyses was provided by the
University of Pittsburgh,the MeadowcroftFoundation,the National GeographicSociety,the National Science
Foundation,the Alcoa Foundation,the Buhl Foundation,the Leon Falk Family Trust, and John and Edward
Boyle of Oil City, Pennsylvania.Figure 1 was redraftedand expandedby N. L. Yedlowski, CulturalResource
ManagementProgram,University of Pittsburgh.This paper was typed by T. B. Torres at the-University of
Pittsburgh.

REFERENCES CITED
Adovasio, J. M., R. C. Carlisle,K. A. Cushman,J. Donahue, J. E. Guilday, W. C. Johnson, K. Lord, P. W.
Parmalee,R. Stuckenrath,and P. W. Wiegman
1985 PaleoenvironmentalReconstructionat MeadowcroftRockshelter,WashingtonCounty,Pennsylvania.
In Environmentsand Extinctions:Man in Late Glacial North America, edited by J. I. Mead and D. J.
Meltzer,pp. 73-110. Peoplingof the AmericasEdited Volume Series, Centerfor the Study of EarlyMan,
Orono, Maine.
Adovasio, J. M., J. Donahue, R. C. Carlisle,K. Cushman,R. Stuckenrath,and P. Wiegman
1984 MeadowcroftRockshelterand the Pleistocene/HoloceneTransitionin SouthwesternPennsylvania.In
Contributionsin QuaternaryVertebratePaleontology:A Volumein Memorialto John E. Guilday,edited by
H. H. Genowaysand M. R. Dawson, pp. 347-369. SpecialPublicationNo. 8. CarnegieMuseumof Natural
History, Pittsburgh.
Adovasio, J. M., J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath
1990 The Microstratigraphy of StratumII at MeadowcroftRockshelter.QuaternaryResearch,in press.
Adovasio, J. M., J. Donahue, R. Stuckenrath,and J. D. Gunn
1981 The MeadowcroftPapers:A Response to Dincauze. QuarterlyReviewof Archaeology2:14-15.
Adovasio, J. M., J. D. Gunn, J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath
1975 Excavationsat MeadowcroftRockshelter,1973-1974: A ProgressReport.PennsylvaniaArchaeologist
45(3):1-30.
1977a MeadowcroftRockshelter:Retrospect 1976. PennsylvaniaArchaeologist47(2-3).
1977b MeadowcroftRockshelter:A 16,000 Year Chronicle.In Amerindsand TheirPaleoenvironmentsin
NortheasternNorthAmerica,edited by W. S. Newman and B. Salwen, pp. 137-159. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences 288. New York.

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:34:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
354 AMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 55, No. 2, 1990]

Bryant, V. M., Jr.

1975 Pollen Analysis of Sediments from the Meadowcroft Village Site. Ms. on file, Palynology Laboratory,
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
Carlisle, R. C., and J. M. Adovasio (editors)
1982 Meadowcroft Rockshelter: Collected Papers on the Archaeology of Meadowcroft Rockshelter and the
Cross Creek Drainage. Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
Dincauze, D. F.
1981 The Meadowcroft Papers. Quarterly Review of Archaeology 2:3-4.
Gillespie, R., J. A. J. Gowlett, E. T. Hall, R. E. M. Hedges, and C. Perry
1985 Radiocarbon Dates from the Oxford AMS System: Archeometry Datelist 2. Archeometry 27:237-246.
Haynes, C. V.
1980 Paleoindian Charcoal from Meadowcroft Rockshelter: Is Contamination a Problem? American Antiq-
uity 45:582-587.
1987 Clovis Origin Update. The Kiva 52:83-93.
Kelly, R. L.
1987 A Comment on the Pre-Clovis Deposits at Meadowcroft Rockshelter. Quaternary Research 27:332-
334.
Mead, J. I.
1980 Is It Really That Old? A Comment About the Meadowcroft "Overview." American Antiquity 45:579-
582.
Stuckenrath, R., J. M. Adovasio, J. Donahue, and R. C. Carlisle
1982 The Stratigraphy, Cultural Features and Chronology at Meadowcroft Rockshelter, Washington County,
Southwestern Pennsylvania. In Meadowcroft. Collected Papers on the Archaeology of Meadowcroft Rock-
shelter and the Cross Creek Drainage, edited by R. C. Carlisle and J. M. Adovasio, pp. 69-90. Department
of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
Tankersley, K. B., C. A. Munson, and D. Smith
1987 Recognition of Bituminous Coal Contaminants in Radiocarbon Samples. American Antiquity 52:318-
330.
Volman, K. C.
1981 Paleoenvironmental Implications of Botanical Data from Meadowcroft Rockshelter, Pennsylvania. Un-
published Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.

Received July 21, 1988; accepted January 12, 1989

A 7,290-YEAR-OLD BOTTLE GOURD FROM THE

WINDOVER SITE, FLORIDA
Glen H. Doran, David N. Dickel, and Lee A. Newsom

A bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria) recovered from a burial context at the Windover site (8BR246) in east-
central Florida has been dated directly to 7,290 ? 120 radiocarbon years B.P. This provides the earliest docu-
mentation of bottle gourds north of Mexico and demonstrates approximate contemporaneity with other eastern
United States Cucurbitacae. Investigations of wet sites such as Windover, while requiring substantially greater
consideration of conservation than in typical dry sites, greatly expands the recovery of organic materials enabling
broader insights to prehistoric processes.
Una calabaza vinatera (Lageneria siceraria) descubierta en el contexto de un enterramiento en el sitio de
Windover en la parte este de la Florida central ha sido fechada a 7,290 ? 120 anos radiocarbonos antes del
presente. Esto es la documentacion mds antigua para este tipo de cuctrbita en una localidad norte de Mexico, y
demuestra la contemporanidad con Cucurbitacae de la parte este de los Estados Unidos. Investigaciones de sitios
majodos como Windover, aunque necesitan mds consideraci6n de conservaci6n que sitios secos, aumentan el
descubrimiento de materiales organicos y permiten una mejor comprehensi6n de los procesos prehist6ricos.

Glen H. Doran and David N. Dickel, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
32306
Lee A. Newsom, Department of Natural Sciences, FL Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, FL 32611
American Antiquity, 55(2), 1990, pp. 354-360.
Copyright ? 1990 by the Society for American Archaeology

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:34:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions