Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology
Research Article

Reassessing the chronology of the archaeological site of Anzick

Lorena Becerra-Valdivia, Michael R. Waters, Thomas W. Stafford Jr., Sarah L. Anzick, Daniel Comeskey, View ORCID ProfileThibaut Devièse, and Thomas Higham
PNAS July 3, 2018 115 (27) 7000-7003; first published June 18, 2018; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1803624115
Lorena Becerra-Valdivia
aOxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Lab for Archaeology and the History of Art, School of Archaeology, University of Oxford, OX1 3TG Oxford, United Kingdom;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: lorena.becerravaldivia@arch.ox.ac.uk
Michael R. Waters
bCenter for the Study of the First Americans, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4352;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas W. Stafford Jr.
cStafford Research LLC, Lafayette, CO 80026-1845;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah L. Anzick
dPrivate address, Livingston, MT 59047
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel Comeskey
aOxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Lab for Archaeology and the History of Art, School of Archaeology, University of Oxford, OX1 3TG Oxford, United Kingdom;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thibaut Devièse
aOxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Lab for Archaeology and the History of Art, School of Archaeology, University of Oxford, OX1 3TG Oxford, United Kingdom;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Thibaut Devièse
Thomas Higham
aOxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Lab for Archaeology and the History of Art, School of Archaeology, University of Oxford, OX1 3TG Oxford, United Kingdom;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  1. Edited by Donald K. Grayson, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, and approved May 14, 2018 (received for review March 2, 2018)

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Significance

The site of Anzick contains the only known Clovis burial. As such, it presents a significant opportunity to explore biocultural processes attributed to a key prehistoric complex within First Americans research. Considering the site’s uniqueness and the existing 14C age discrepancy between the human remains (Anzick-1) and the associated Clovis assemblage, obtaining robust chronometric data for this site is crucial. Through the use of different pretreatment methods, this investigation has yielded a comprehensive chronometric dataset that shows, most relevantly, that Anzick-1 is temporally coeval with the Clovis artifacts found at the site.

Abstract

Found in 1968, the archaeological site of Anzick, Montana, contains the only known Clovis burial. Here, the partial remains of a male infant, Anzick-1, were found in association with a Clovis assemblage of over 100 lithic and osseous artifacts—all red-stained with ochre. The incomplete, unstained cranium of an unassociated, geologically younger individual, Anzick-2, was also recovered. Previous chronometric work has shown an age difference between Anzick-1 and the Clovis assemblage (represented by dates from two antler rod samples). This discrepancy has led to much speculation, with some discounting Anzick-1 as Clovis. To resolve this issue, we present the results of a comprehensive radiocarbon dating program that utilized different pretreatment methods on osseous material from the site. Through this comparative approach, we obtained a robust chronometric dataset that suggests that Anzick-1 is temporally coeval with the dated antler rods. This implies that the individual is indeed temporally associated with the Clovis assemblage.

  • AMS radiocarbon dating
  • First Americans
  • Clovis
  • Anzick
  • hydroxyproline

The timing and process of the initial peopling of the Americas have been, and continue to be, highly debated (1). Archaeological evidence suggests that humans first reached the American continent during the late Pleistocene through, or bordering, ancient Beringia (2, 3). In North America, evidence of early, widespread human settlement is found with the Clovis archaeological complex, recognized by eponymous and distinctive fluted bifacial points (4) and dated to 11,050–10,800 radiocarbon years B.P. [ref. 5; see Waters et al. (6) on the exclusion of earlier dates from the sites of El Fin del Mundo and Aubrey]. Although Clovis artifacts are widespread in the North American record (7), human remains associated with the Clovis complex are rare. The only known Clovis burial was found in the archaeological site of Anzick.

Anzick (24PA506) was accidentally discovered in 1968 near Wilsall, Montana, by construction workers. The partial remains of a male infant, Anzick-1, were found in association with an assemblage of over 100 Clovis lithic and osseous artifacts—all red-stained with ochre (8⇓⇓–11). The incomplete, unstained cranium of an unassociated, geologically younger individual (12, 13), Anzick-2, was also recovered. Paleogenomic data obtained for Anzick-1 suggest that this individual is (i) genetically closer to modern Native Americans than any other group, (ii) shares genetic information with the Upper Paleolithic Siberian Mal’ta population, and (iii) shows a closer affinity to Central and South American indigenous groups than northern counterparts—likely indicating a divergence in Native American populations that predates Anzick-1 (11). Considering the geographic location and antiquity of the burial, these findings hold important spatiotemporal implications that further add to the complexity of the peopling process and render Anzick one of the most important archaeological sites in First Americans research. However, the chronology of the site has a 14C age discrepancy that puts its status as the only Clovis burial into question.

For the last two-and-a-half decades, the site of Anzick has been the subject of multiple chronometric investigations. These have produced radiocarbon dates obtained from different chemical fractions, for example, bulk collagen and “compound-specific” single amino acids, from Anzick-1, Anzick-2, and Clovis artifacts (two antler rods) found within the same archaeological context as Anzick-1 (5, 11⇓⇓–14). Although dates for Anzick-2 are consistent (SI Appendix, Table S1), Anzick-1 results show significant variation among different chemical fractions, with ages ranging from 8,690 ± 310 B.P. (10,575–9,005 cal B.P. at 95.4% confidence) on decalcified collagen (AA-313A), to 11,550 ± 60 B.P. (13,490–13,265 cal B.P. at 95.4% confidence) on 0.45-µm–filtered gelatin (CAMS-35912; Fig. 1). With the exception of AA-2979 (glutamic acid; 10,820 ± 100 B.P. or 12,960–12,565 cal B.P. at 95.4% confidence) and AA-2981 (glycine; 10,940 ± 90 B.P. or 13,020–12,700 at 95.4% confidence), most of the measurements for Anzick-1 fall outside the 95.4% confidence range of the antler rods, dated to 13,000–12,795 cal B.P. with good agreement (Fig. 1 and SI Appendix, Table S2). The temporal discrepancy between the younger Anzick-1 ages and the artifacts has caused much speculation, with some archaeologists questioning the confidence ascribed to their association and discounting Anzick-1 as a Clovis individual (15). The compound-specific dates that agree with the antler rods should not be dismissed, however. Produced from a more pure fraction than bulk collagen, these likely point to the presence of a modern-carbon contaminant that might have eluded collagen pretreatment and, in this case, coeluted with other amino acids, for example, aspartic acid and alanine.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Previously published radiocarbon dates (calibrated) for sample SR-8151 (Anzick-1) and two antler rods (SR-7599 and rod #118/11) found within the same burial context. Data were compiled from multiple publications (refs. 5 and 11⇓⇓–14; more detail in SI Appendix, Table S1). The red band illustrates how a majority of the radiocarbon results for Anzick-1, with the exception of AA-2981 and AA-2979, fall outside the 95.4% confidence range of the dates obtained for the Clovis antler rods. This might suggest that Anzick-1 and the material assemblage represented by the antler rod samples are not temporally coeval and, in turn, unassociated.

In radiocarbon dating, contamination can be a major source of error (16). Methodological improvements, however, have seen a significant effect in dating accuracy and reliability (17⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–27). Given this, and the variability shown by the Anzick-1 dataset, we sought to better define the chronology at the site by obtaining new radiocarbon measurements for Anzick-1, Anzick-2, and two Clovis bone artifacts using four different pretreatment procedures. This approach would allow for cross-examination and a more comprehensive assessment of the chronometric data. While three of the protocols center on the decontamination of bulk collagen and are routinely employed in radiocarbon laboratories, the fourth was optimized at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) and entails the extraction of a single amino acid, hydroxyproline (HYP), from bone collagen, using preparative high-performance liquid chromatography (prep-HPLC) (28). This protocol ensures sample purity through the complete removal of exogenous carbon, producing more accurate, robust results than alternative methods, particularly in the case of dating heavily contaminated bones (20, 25, 28⇓⇓⇓–32).

Materials

Four osseous samples from the Anzick site were selected for accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating. These include Anzick-1 (SR-8151), Anzick-2 (SR-8147), and two Clovis artifacts (antler rods; SR-7599 and SR-7602). Three of these (SR-8151, SR-8147, and SR-7599) were previously dated using different pretreatment methods (Fig. 1 and SI Appendix, Table S1).

Results

Anzick-1, Anzick-2, and two antler rods were AMS radiocarbon dated following Ezee-filtered collagen (AG), ultrafiltered collagen (AF), and nonroutine chemistry (NRC) protocols as described in Methods (Fig. 2 and Table 1). Results show that while measurements within the SR-7599, SR-7602, and SR-8147 datasets are generally consistent with each other, the NRC-02 (HYP) date for SR-8151 (Anzick-1), at 10,915 ± 50 B.P. or 12,905–12,695 cal B.P. at 95.4% confidence (OxA-X-2739-54), is considerably older than those produced using the other three methods and falls within the date range of the two antler rods at 95.4% confidence (SI Appendix, Table S2). Moreover, for all collagen samples, collagen yield, C:N, and %C values obtained are within the ORAU’s accepted ranges—greater than 1% (weight), 2.9–3.5, and 30–50% (weight), respectively (33). These data indicate good collagen preservation and low levels of contamination. C:N values measured for all four NRC-02 (HYP) dates are slightly higher than the theoretical C:N value of HYP (5.0). Tests performed in our laboratory after the preparation of the Anzick material revealed that these higher values are likely due to the difference between the weight of the HYP samples—estimated based on the peak area measured during the HPLC separation (28)—and the weight of the internal standards (alanine) used during the elemental analysis, having no significant effect on AMS measurement and the dates obtained (SI Appendix, Table S3).

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Oxford-obtained AMS results (calibrated) for the site of Anzick, arranged according to sample (SR-8151, -7599, -7602, and -8147) and pretreatment protocol used (AG, AF, NRC-01, and NRC-02). This figure illustrates how the dates obtained for the Clovis assemblage (antler rods) and the HYP-derived measurement for Anzick-1 (OxA-2739-54), fall within the 95.4% confidence range of each other (red, dashed square).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Radiocarbon determinations obtained for bones from the Anzick site at the ORAU

Discussion

The chronometric data obtained for samples SR-7599, SR-7602, and SR-8147, within each dataset, are in good agreement with each other and previously published results (SI Appendix, Table S2). This suggests that (i) the pretreatment protocols used in this and other dating efforts were equally efficient in removing contaminants from the material, thus producing comparable results with no discernible trend or pattern, or (ii) the samples were not significantly contaminated with exogenous carbon and therefore produced reliable results regardless of the method used to pretreat them. The Anzick-1 dataset, however, does not show the same consistency (SI Appendix, Table S2). The HYP date (OxA-X-2739-54), 10,915 ± 50 B.P. or 12,905–12,695 cal B.P. at 95.4% confidence, is considerably older than the AG, AF, and NRC-01 dates (Fig. 2 and Table 1), and agrees with previously published glutamic acid (AA-2979; 10,820 ± 100 B.P. or 12,960–12,565 cal B.P. at 95.4% confidence) and glycine (AA-2981; 10,940 ± 90 B.P. or 13,020–12,700 cal B.P. at 95.4% confidence) determinations (SI Appendix, Table S2). This suggests that the sample was likely contaminated with modern carbon that less rigorous collagen-treating protocols did not eliminate or detect—C:N and %C values were acceptable—just as previously published bulk collagen dates hinted (with the exception of CAMS-35912 at 11,550 ± 60 B.P. or 13,490–13,265 cal B.P. at 95.4% confidence, which was likely contaminated with 14C-depleted carbon during pretreatment and considered highly anomalous). Because no more material remains (Statement Regarding Legal and Ethical Issues), identification of the contaminant through further analysis is impossible. As it stands, the HYP date suggests that Anzick-1 is temporally coeval with the antler rods measured. This implies that the individual is indeed associated with the Clovis artifact assemblage and dates within the Clovis period (5).

Conclusion

The site of Anzick contains the only known potential Clovis burial. The 14C age discrepancy between the male infant, Anzick-1, and the Clovis assemblage found within the same archaeological context, has brought the association between the two into question. To solve this, we obtained multiple radiocarbon measurements for Anzick-1; Anzick-2, an unassociated, geologically younger individual; and two antler rods from the Clovis assemblage. Each sample was dated four times, following the use of different pretreatment methods: collagen filtration (AG), collagen ultrafiltration (AF), collagen filtration with a 0.45-μm syringe filter (NRC-01), and HYP extraction using prep-HPLC (NRC-02). This comprehensive approach showed that there is strong agreement between the Anzick-1 HYP date (10,915 ± 50 B.P. or 12,905–12,695 cal B.P. at 95.4% confidence; OxA-X-2739-54) and all those obtained for the antler rods (12,990–12,840 cal B.P. at 95.4% confidence). The results therefore suggest that Anzick-1 is temporally coeval with the antler rods, associated with the Clovis assemblage, and dates within the Clovis period (5).

Methods

All samples were processed at the ORAU, using four different preparative protocols. The first, coded AG, is a routine procedure that entailed the decalcification, alkali wash, reacidification, gelatinization, and filtration of the bone sample using previously cleaned 9-mL Ezee filters (Elkay), per ref. 33. The second, coded AF, is a routine protocol that entailed the ultrafiltration (using Vivaspin 15- to 30-kDa MWCO) of the gelatin following Ezee filtration (33). The third, coded NRC-01, was the first of the nonroutine procedures and involved the use of nonsterile, single-use, disposable Millex syringe filters with a membrane porosity of 0.45 μm, instead of the routinely used Ezee filters (pore size of 45–90 μm) (36). The Millipore 0.45-μm syringe filters were flushed twice with MilliQ deionized water and once with 0.5 M hydrochloric acid before use. These particular filters were the same T.W.S. (CAMS and AA) used on his preparation of the material; keeping a higher degree of consistency between dating efforts. The fourth protocol, coded NRC-02, involved the separation of underivatized amino acids from ultrafiltered, hydrolyzed collagen using prep-HPLC, and the collection of HYP for dating. A full description of this protocol can be found in Deviese et al. (28). Collected collagen and HYP samples were dried, combusted, graphitized, and AMS-dated as per Brock et al. (33).

Statement Regarding Legal and Ethical Issues

Ethical and legal issues surround research of Native American human remains in the United States. The Anzick site was discovered on private land and the human remains recovered have not been under the control of a federally funded museum or federal agency, and thus the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act does not apply. Under Montana state law, unmarked human burials are not considered abandoned. Advice provided to the project by members of the Montana State Burial Board, however, confirmed that because no claimant has made a request for the remains, the human remains from the Anzick site remain under the control of the landowners, the Anzick family. However, to ensure that Native American concerns were addressed, in 2013, Native American groups with reservations in the surrounding area of the Anzick site were informed about our work. Our research included the sampling of the Anzick-1 and Anzick-2 human remains for ancient DNA (aDNA) studies and radiocarbon dating. Samples collected for aDNA analysis went to the Center for GeoGenetics, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen (Copenhagen, Denmark). Samples for radiocarbon analysis were sent to the ORAU, University of Oxford (Oxford, United Kingdom). The aDNA study was published in 2014 (11). The purpose of the radiocarbon dating was to resolve discrepancies between previously reported ages for the human remains and the Clovis artifacts using a technique known as specific–amino-acid dating. These samples were delayed in processing due to technical and personnel issues at Oxford and were processed in 2017, with the results reported here. All samples supplied to the ORAU have been consumed. With the support of the Anzick family and the research team, all human remains of Anzick-1 and Anzick-2 were reburied during a Native American ceremony in June 2014.

Acknowledgments

L.B.-V. thanks the Clarendon Fund and Merton College, University of Oxford, for supporting her research financially. T.W.S. thanks Mr. Earl Hill for funding his examination of the Anzick Site geology. We thank all members of the ORAU, University of Oxford, particularly Eileen Jacob and Christopher Bronk Ramsey. T.D., L.B.-V., D.C., and T.H. received support for this research from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/European Research Council Grant 324139 “PalaeoChron” (awarded to T.H.).

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: lorena.becerravaldivia{at}arch.ox.ac.uk.
  • Author contributions: L.B.-V. and T.H. designed research; L.B.-V. performed research; T.W.S., D.C., T.D., and T.H. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; M.R.W., T.W.S., and S.L.A. provided archaeological samples; L.B.-V., M.R.W., T.W.S., S.L.A., D.C., T.D., and T.H. analyzed data; and L.B.-V., M.R.W., T.W.S., T.D., and T.H. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

  • This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1803624115/-/DCSupplemental.

Published under the PNAS license.

View Abstract

References

  1. ↵
    1. Meltzer DJ
    (2015) The Great Paleolithic War: How Science Forged an Understanding of America’s Ice Age Past (Univ of Chicago Press, Chicago).
  2. ↵
    1. Goebel T,
    2. Waters MR,
    3. O’Rourke DH
    (2008) The late Pleistocene dispersal of modern humans in the Americas. Science 319:1497–1502.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Meltzer DJ
    (2009) First Peoples in a New World: Colonizing Ice Age America (Univ of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles).
  4. ↵
    1. Howard CD
    (1990) The Clovis point: Characteristics and type description. Plains Anthropol 35:255–262.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Waters MR,
    2. Stafford TW Jr
    (2007) Redefining the age of Clovis: Implications for the peopling of the Americas. Science 315:1122–1126.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Waters MR,
    2. Stafford TW Jr,
    3. Kooyman B,
    4. Hills LV
    (2015) Late Pleistocene horse and camel hunting at the southern margin of the ice-free corridor: Reassessing the age of Wally’s beach, Canada. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:4263–4267.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Smallwood AM,
    2. Jennings TA
    (2014) Clovis: On the Edge of a New Understanding (Texas A&M Univ Press, College Station, TX).
  8. ↵
    1. Lahren L,
    2. Bonnichsen R
    (1974) Bone foreshafts from a Clovis burial in southwestern Montana. Science 186:147–150.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Wilke PJ,
    2. Flenniken JJ,
    3. Ozbun TL
    (1991) Clovis technology at the Anzick site, Montana. J Calif Gt Basin Anthropol 13:242–272.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Owsley DW,
    2. Hunt DR,
    3. Macintyre IG,
    4. Logan MA
    (2001) Clovis and early Archaic crania from the Anzick site (24PA506), Park County, Montana. Plains Anthropol 46:115–124.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Rasmussen M, et al.
    (2014) The genome of a late Pleistocene human from a Clovis burial site in western Montana. Nature 506:225–229.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Stafford TW,
    2. Jull AJT,
    3. Brendel K,
    4. Duhamel RC,
    5. Donahue D
    (1987) Study of bone radiocarbon dating accuracy at the University of Arizona NSF accelerator facility for radioisotope analysis. Radiocarbon 29:24–44.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Stafford TW,
    2. Hare PE,
    3. Currie L,
    4. Jull AJT,
    5. Donahue DJ
    (1991) Accelerator radiocarbon dating at the molecular level. J Archaeol Sci 18:35–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. ↵
    1. Morrow JE,
    2. Gnecco C
    1. Morrow JE,
    2. Fiedel S
    (2006) New radiocarbon dates for the Clovis component of the Anzick site, Park County, Montana. Paleoindian Archaeology: A Hemispheric Perspective, eds Morrow JE, Gnecco C (Univ Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL), pp 123–138.
  15. ↵
    1. Stanford DJ,
    2. Bradley BA
    (2013) Across Atlantic Ice: The Origin of America’s Clovis Culture (Univ of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles).
  16. ↵
    1. Bronk Ramsey C
    (2008) Radiocarbon dating: Revolutions in understanding. Archaeometry 50:249–275.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. ↵
    1. Bird MI, et al.
    (1999) Radiocarbon dating of “old” charcoal using a wet oxidation, stepped-combustion procedure. Radiocarbon 41:127–140.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. ↵
    1. Bird MI, et al.
    (2003) Radiocarbon dating from 40 to 60 kaBP at Border Cave, South Africa. Quat Sci Rev 22:943–947.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. ↵
    1. Brock F,
    2. Higham TFG
    (2009) AMS radiocarbon dating of Paleolithic-aged charcoal from Europe and the Mediterranean rim using ABOx-SC. Radiocarbon 51:839–846.
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Devièse T, et al.
    (2017) Direct dating of Neanderthal remains from the site of Vindija Cave and implications for the middle to upper Paleolithic transition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:10606–10611.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Douka K,
    2. Higham T,
    3. Sinitsyn A
    (2010) The influence of pretreatment chemistry on the radiocarbon dating of Campanian Ignimbrite-aged charcoal from Kostenki 14 (Russia). Quat Res 73:583–587.
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Higham T,
    2. Ramsey CB,
    3. Karavanić I,
    4. Smith FH,
    5. Trinkaus E
    (2006) Revised direct radiocarbon dating of the Vindija G1 upper Paleolithic Neandertals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:553–557.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Higham TFG, et al.
    (2009) Radiocarbon dating of charcoal from tropical sequences: Results from the Niah Great Cave, Sarawak, and their broader implications. J Quat Sci 24:189–197.
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Higham T, et al.
    (2009) Problems with radiocarbon dating the middle to upper Palaeolithic transition in Italy. Quat Sci Rev 28:1257–1267.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. ↵
    1. Marom A,
    2. McCullagh JSO,
    3. Higham TFG,
    4. Sinitsyn AA,
    5. Hedges REM
    (2012) Single amino acid radiocarbon dating of upper Paleolithic modern humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:6878–6881.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Turney CSM, et al.
    (2001) Early human occupation at Devil’s Lair, southwestern Australia 50,000 years ago. Quat Res 55:3–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. ↵
    1. Wood RE, et al.
    (2012) Testing the ABOx-SC method: Dating known-age charcoals associated with the Campanian Ignimbrite. Quat Geochronol 9:16–26.
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Deviese T,
    2. Comeskey D,
    3. McCullagh J,
    4. Bronk Ramsey C,
    5. Higham T
    (2018) New protocol for compound-specific radiocarbon analysis of archaeological bones. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 32:373–379.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Bourrillon R,
    2. White R,
    3. Tartar E,
    4. Chiotti L
    (January 24, 2017) A new Aurignacian engraving from Abri Blanchard, France: Implications for understanding Aurignacian graphic expression in Western and Central Europe. Quat Int doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2016.09.063.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. ↵
    1. Nalawade-Chavan S, et al.
    (2014) New single amino acid hydroxyproline radiocarbon dates for two problematic American Mastodon fossils from Alaska. Quat Geochronol 20:23–28.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. ↵
    1. Reynolds N,
    2. Dinnis R,
    3. Bessudnov AA,
    4. Devièse T,
    5. Higham T
    (2017) The Kostënki 18 child burial and the cultural and funerary landscape of mid upper Palaeolithic European Russia. Antiquity 91:1435–1450.
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    1. Sikora M, et al.
    (2017) Ancient genomes show social and reproductive behavior of early upper Paleolithic foragers. Science 358:659–662.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Brock F,
    2. Higham T,
    3. Ditchfield P,
    4. Ramsey CB
    (2010) Current pretreatment methods for AMS radiocarbon dating at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU). Radiocarbon 52:103–112.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Bronk Ramsey C
    (2009) Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51:337–360.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Reimer PJ, et al.
    (2013) IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55:1869–1887.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. ↵
    1. Brock F,
    2. Higham T,
    3. Ramsey CB
    (2013) Comments on the use of Ezee-filters and ultrafilters at Orau. Radiocarbon 55:211–212.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Reassessing the chronology of the archaeological site of Anzick
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Reassessing the chronology of the archaeological site of Anzick
Lorena Becerra-Valdivia, Michael R. Waters, Thomas W. Stafford, Sarah L. Anzick, Daniel Comeskey, Thibaut Devièse, Thomas Higham
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jul 2018, 115 (27) 7000-7003; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1803624115

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Reassessing the chronology of the archaeological site of Anzick
Lorena Becerra-Valdivia, Michael R. Waters, Thomas W. Stafford, Sarah L. Anzick, Daniel Comeskey, Thibaut Devièse, Thomas Higham
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jul 2018, 115 (27) 7000-7003; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1803624115
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 115 (27)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Article Classifications

  • Social Sciences
  • Anthropology

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Methods
    • Statement Regarding Legal and Ethical Issues
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Abstract depiction of a guitar and musical note
Science & Culture: At the nexus of music and medicine, some see disease treatments
Although the evidence is still limited, a growing body of research suggests music may have beneficial effects for diseases such as Parkinson’s.
Image credit: Shutterstock/agsandrew.
Scientist looking at an electronic tablet
Opinion: Standardizing gene product nomenclature—a call to action
Biomedical communities and journals need to standardize nomenclature of gene products to enhance accuracy in scientific and public communication.
Image credit: Shutterstock/greenbutterfly.
One red and one yellow modeled protein structures
Journal Club: Study reveals evolutionary origins of fold-switching protein
Shapeshifting designs could have wide-ranging pharmaceutical and biomedical applications in coming years.
Image credit: Acacia Dishman/Medical College of Wisconsin.
White and blue bird
Hazards of ozone pollution to birds
Amanda Rodewald, Ivan Rudik, and Catherine Kling talk about the hazards of ozone pollution to birds.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Goats standing in a pin
Transplantation of sperm-producing stem cells
CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing can improve the effectiveness of spermatogonial stem cell transplantation in mice and livestock, a study finds.
Image credit: Jon M. Oatley.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Archive

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490