Cation-Ratio Dating and Archaeological Research Design: Response to Harry

Abstract

Harry's recent paper in this journal critiques the use of cation-ratio dating to assess the age of surface-collected artifacts as part of a rejection of this dating technique in general. However, Harry's negative conclusions are difficult to reconcile both with the seemingly successful application of cation-ratio dating as part of the Intermountain Power Project (IPP) in California, the only other project in which surface artifacts have been cation-ratio dated, as well as with Harry's own data. The present comment details substantial differences in (1) the rigor and sophistication of the research designs applied by Harry and the IPP research and (2) the integrity of the sites on which these two projects worked, and points out important components of Harry's data that are inconsistent with her conclusions. Cation-ratio dating is certainly not yet perfected as a dating technique, but the available data indicate clearly that Harry's critique is seriously flawed.