This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by McCarroll, D. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Relative-age dating of inorganic deposits: the need for a more critical approach

Department of Geography, University of Southampton, Southampton S09 5NH, UK)

Relative-age dating (RD) techniques rely on indices of post-depositional change; principally degree of rock surface weathering or soil development. In the chronosequence approach, where a measured parameter displays a trend in values that parallels a trend in surface age, the parameter is commonly assumed to be age-dependent. Such an assumption may be invalid. This is demonstrated with particular reference to glacier forelands, where environmental and sedimentological factors, that can influence commonly used RD parameters, may exhibit systematic variations in parallel with, but independent of, surface age. Where some independent dating control is available, regression analysis may be used to define chronofunctions, providing numerical ages based on RD parameters. However, the error limits of such 'ages' are often underestimated. The use of modal rather than mean values is particularly problematic. A more critical approach is suggested, involving deductive experiments to examine the influence of non-temporal controls and to test the assumptions and predictions implicit in a given interpretation. A procedure for standardizing error limits associated with chronofunctions is proposed. It is stressed that the influence of systematic errors can only be assessed by adopting a critical, deductive methodology and that attaching spurious accuracy to dates will only lead to confusion.

Key Words: dating • weathering • chronosequences • chronofunctions • methodology.

The Holocene, Vol. 1, No. 2, 174-180 (1991)
DOI: 10.1177/095968369100100211


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Winkler and S. Winkler A new interpretation of the date of the 'Little Ice Age' glacier maximum at Svartisen and Okstindan, northern Norway The Holocene, January 1, 2003; 13(1): 83 - 95. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Winkler The 'Little Ice Age' maximum in the Southern Alps, New Zealand: preliminary results at Mueller Glacier The Holocene, July 1, 2000; 10(5): 643 - 647. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. McCarroll and D. McCarroll A new approach to lichenometry: dating single-age and diachronous surfaces The Holocene, January 1, 1994; 4(4): 383 - 396. [Abstract] [PDF]