Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:50:27.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interpreting Radiocarbon Dates Using Evidence from Tree Rings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Alex Bayliss  and
Ian Tyers
Alex Bayliss*
Affiliation:
English Heritage, 23 Savile Row, London, W1S 2ET, United Kingdom
Ian Tyers
Affiliation:
English Heritage, 23 Savile Row, London, W1S 2ET, United Kingdom
*
Corresponding author. Email: [email protected].
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Often it is not possible to date a sample of wood from the final growth ring of the tree from which it came. In these cases, an “old-wood offset” is apparent. A number of quantitative approaches for the assessment of this offset are available, dependent on the actual tree rings that have been dated. A range of examples are given, demonstrating how such radiocarbon measurements can be interpreted using additional information from archaeology and dendrochronology.

Type
Part II
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 46 , Issue 2: Proceedings of the 18th International Radiocarbon Conference (Part 2 of 2), Conference Editors: Nancy Beavan Athfield, Rodger J Sparks , 2004 , pp. 957 - 964
Copyright
Copyright © The Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

References

Bayliss, A, Groves, C, McCormac, FG, Bronk Ramsey, C, Baillie, MGL, Brown, D, Cook, GT, Switsur, RV. 2003. Dating. In: Clark, P. The Dover Bronze Age Boat. English Heritage Archaeological Monograph. p 250–5.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy. Radiocarbon 36(3):425–30.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1998. Probability and dating. Radiocarbon 40(1):461–74.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001. Development of the radiocarbon calibration program OxCal. Radiocarbon 43(2A): 355–63.Google Scholar
Masefield, R, Branch, N, Couldrey, P, Goodburn, D, Tyers, I. 2003. A later Bronze Age well complex at Swalecliffe, Kent. The Antiquaries Journal 83:47–121.Google Scholar
Miles, D. 1997. The interpretation, presentation and use of tree-ring dates. Vernacular Architecture 28:40–56.Google Scholar
Millard, A. 2002. A Bayesian approach to sapwood estimates and felling dates in dendrochronology. Archaeometry 44:137–43.Google Scholar
Rodwell, W, Rodwell, K. 1982. St Peter's Church, Barton-upon-Humber: excavation and structural study 1978–81. The Antiquaries Journal 62:283–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M, Reimer, PJ, Bard, E, Beck, JW, Burr, GS, Hughen, KA, Kromer, B, McCormac, G, van der Plicht, J, Spurk, M. 1998. INTCAL98 radiocarbon age calibration, 24,000–0 cal BP. Radiocarbon 40(3):1041–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyers, I. 2001. The tree-ring analysis of coffin timbers excavated at the church of St Peter, Barton upon Humber, North Lincolnshire. Centre for Archaeology Report 48/2001.Google Scholar
Ward, GK, Wilson, SR. 1978. Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon age determinations: a critique. Archaeometry 20:19–31.Google Scholar
Warner, RB. 1990. A proposed adjustment for the “old-wood” effect. In: Mook, WG, Waterbolk, HT, editors. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium 14C and Archaeology. PACT 29:159–72.Google Scholar