6533b823fe1ef96bd127e23e
RESEARCH PRODUCT
Reply to Holliday and Boslough et al.: Synchroneity of widespread Bayesian-modeled ages supports Younger Dryas impact hypothesis
Jon M. ErlandsonWilliam C. MahaneyJ. Emili Aura TortosaJames H. WittkeJames P. KennettAllen WestBrendan J. CulletonJohn R. JohnsonJesús Francisco Jordá PardoDouglas J. KennettKenneth B. TankersleyMalcome A. LecompteTed E. BunchWendy S. Wolbachsubject
PaleontologyLetterMultidisciplinaryGeographyMeteoriteYounger Dryas impact hypothesisBayesian probabilityYounger DryasArchaeologyOptical datingdescription
Holliday (1) rejects age-depth models for the Younger Dryas boundary layer (YDB) in Kennett et al. (2), claiming that they are incorrect for several reasons, including age reversals, high age uncertainties, and use of optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating. These same claims previously were presented in Meltzer et al. (3) and were discussed and refuted in Kennett et al. (2). These criticisms apply to nearly all dated archaeological and geological sequences, including the Odessa meteorite impact crater, where paradoxically, Holliday et al. (4) modeled an impact age using OSL dating (>70% of dates used) with large uncertainties (to >6,000 y) and age reversals (>40% of dates are reversals). Thus, Holliday (1) argues against a practice that he and many other researchers have used and continue to use today. In an ideal world, all dates would be in perfect chronological order with high accuracy and certainty, but such scenarios are rarely …
year | journal | country | edition | language |
---|---|---|---|---|
2015-11-24 | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |