Ervan Garrison wrote a very thoughtful article that brings the field of archaeology to the attention of physicists ( Physics Today 0031-9228 54 10 2001 32 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1420552 October 2001, page 32 ). Certainly both fields could benefit from more interactions. Garrison covered a lot of material in a short article, and so couldn’t be thorough with every subject. I noticed some important omissions, and would like to point out that the field of radioisotopic dating is far more advanced than his article suggests.
Contrary to Garrison’s suggestion, radiocarbon dating is not the only discovery to truly revolutionize archaeology or archaeological dating. Accelerator mass spectrometry, 1 which was covered in the Garrison article (see also the article by Richard A. Muller in Physics Today 0031-9228 32 2 1979 23 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2995406 February 1979, page 23 ), increased the sensitivity of carbon-14 methods by a factor of 1000, enabling their use on much smaller samples. The invention of potassium-40/argon-40 dating (and its modern equivalent, 40Ar/39Ar) was equally important for the field of archaeology and, as Garrison mentioned, has enabled us to date most hominid remains. The 40Ar/39Ar method has also been used to help determine the provenance of building stones, such as those in ancient Rome. 2
Garrison suggests that there is an age “gap” from 0.05 Ma (million years ago) to 0.5 Ma between the effective age ranges covered by radiocarbon and 40K-decay dating methods. This is false. While 0.05 Ma is the approximate range to which radiocarbon dating can be used, the 40Ar/39Ar method is being used all the way down to the historical realm, where it has been used to date the 79 AD (that is, 0.002 Ma) Mount Vesuvius eruption.3 Thus, the lower limit of 0.5 Ma for 40K/40Ar dating mentioned by Garrison is incorrect, and the gap does not exist. Additionally, uranium series decay methods are also ideally suited for dating materials of this gap age, including volcanic rocks, soil carbonate, and animal teeth.
Garrison points out that other dating methods have been used to date materials of the gap age. While it is true that other methods (thermoluminescence, optical-stimulated luminescence, and electron-spin resonance) are being used to date certain types of samples of that age (and, in many cases, samples that cannot be dated by radioisotopic means), the uncertainties associated with those methods (10% suggested by Garrison) are significantly larger than those associated with radioisotopic dating techniques (routinely 1–2% error) when applied to materials of the same age. Thus, if given the choice, no one in the dating business would choose one of those other dating techniques over radioisotopes.
As a final note, Carl Swisher was not at the University of California. The 40Ar/39Ar laboratory where he worked on dating Java Man is the Berkeley Geochronology Center, a nonprofit research institute that is not a part of the University of California. The center and its benefactors deserve much of the credit for the dating of Java Man.
