Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T10:16:59.559Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Examining the Inherent Variability in ΔR: New Methods of Presenting ΔR Values and Implications for MRE Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

N Russell ,
G T Cook ,
P L Ascough ,
E M Scott  and
A J Dugmore
N Russell
Affiliation:
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, Rankine Avenue, Scottish Enterprise Technology Park, East Kilbride G750QF, Scotland.
G T Cook*
Affiliation:
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, Rankine Avenue, Scottish Enterprise Technology Park, East Kilbride G750QF, Scotland.
P L Ascough
Affiliation:
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, Rankine Avenue, Scottish Enterprise Technology Park, East Kilbride G750QF, Scotland.
E M Scott
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G128QQ, Scotland.
A J Dugmore
Affiliation:
Institute of Geography, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Old High School, Infirmary Street, Edinburgh EH89XP, Scotland
*
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.

Currently, there is significant ongoing research into the temporal and spatial variability of marine radiocarbon reservoir effects (MREs) through quantification of ΔR values. In turn, MRE studies often use large changes in ΔR values as proxies for changes in ocean circulation. ΔR values are published in a variety of formats with variations in how the errors on these values are calculated, making it difficult to identify trends or to compare values, unless the method of calculating the ΔR is explicitly described or all of the data are made available in the publication. This paper demonstrates the large range in ΔR values (+34 to −122) that can be obtained from a single, secure archaeological context when using the multiple paired sample approach, despite the fact that the terrestrial entities were of statistically indistinguishable 14C ages, as were the marine samples. This demonstrates the inherent variability in the ΔR calculations themselves and we propose that, together with calculation of mean ΔR, the distribution of ΔR values should be displayed, e.g. as histograms in order to illustrate the full data range. This spread is only apparent when employing a multiple paired sample approach as the uncertainty derived on a single pair of samples, taking account only of the errors on the individual 14C ages, will never truly represent the overall variability in ΔR that results from the intrinsic variability in the population of 14C ages in samples that might have been used. Consequently, ΔR values and the associated uncertainty calculated from single pairs should be treated with some caution. We propose that, where possible, when using paired archaeological samples, that a multiple paired approach should be employed as it will test the context security of the material used in the ΔR calculations. When summarizing the values by the weighted average, we also propose that the standard error for predicted values should be employed as this will fully encompass the uncertainty of a future ΔR calculation, using different samples for a similar time and location. Finally, we encourage future publishing of ΔR values using the histogram format, making all of the data available. This will help ensure that ΔR values are comparable across the literature and should provide a framework for standardization of publication methods.

Type
Methods and Developments
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , 2011 , pp. 277 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © The American Journal of Science 

References

Ascough, PL, Cook, GT, Dugmore, AJ, Barber, J, Higney, E, Scott, EM. 2004. Holocene variations in the Scottish marine radiocarbon reservoir effect. Radiocarbon 46(2):611–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ascough, P, Cook, GT, Dugmore, AJ. 2005a. Methodological approaches to determining the marine radiocarbon reservoir effect. Progress in Physical Geography 29:532–47.Google Scholar
Ascough, PL, Cook, GT, Dugmore, AJ, Scott, EM, Freeman, SPHT. 2005b. Influence of mollusc species on marine ΔR determinations. Radiocarbon 47(3):433–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ascough, P, Cook, G, Church, MJ Dugmore, AJ, Arge, SV, McGovern, TH. 2006. Variability in North Atlantic marine radiocarbon reservoir effects at c.1000 AD. The Holocene 16(1):131–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ascough, PL, Cook, GT, Dugmore, AJ, Scott, EM. 2007a. The North Atlantic marine reservoir effect in the Early Holocene: implications for defining and understanding MRE values. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics B 259(1):438–47.Google Scholar
Ascough, PL, Cook, GT, Church, MJ, Dugmore, AJ, McGovern, TG, Dunbar, E, Einarsson, Á, Fri∂riksson, A, Gestsdóttir, H. 2007b. Reservoirs and radiocarbon: 14C dating problems in Mývatnssveit, northern Iceland. Radiocarbon 49(2):947–61.Google Scholar
Ascough, P, Cook, GT, Dugmore, AJ. 2009. North Atlantic marine 14C reservoir effects: implications for late-Holocene chronological studies. Quaternary Geochronology 4(3):171–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, PG, Scourse, JD, Richardson, CA, Wanamaker, AD, Bryant, CL, Bennell, JD. 2009. Continuous marine radiocarbon reservoir calibration and the 13C Suess effect in the Irish Sea: results from the first multi-centennial shell-based marine master chronology. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 279(3–4):230–41.Google Scholar
Cage, AG, Heinemeier, J, Austin, WEN. 2006. Marine radiocarbon reservoir ages in Scottish coastal and fjordic waters. Radiocarbon 48(1):31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughen, KA, Baillie, MGL, Bard, E, Beck, JW, Bertrand, CJH, Blackwell, PG, Buck, CE, Burr, GS, Cutler, KB, Damon, PE, Edwards, RL, Fairbanks, RG, Friedrich, M, Guilderson, TP, Kromer, B, McCormac, G, Manning, S, Bronk Ramsey, C, Reimer, PJ, Reimer, RW, Remmele, S, Southon, JR, Stuiver, M, Talamo, S, Taylor, FW, van der Plicht, J, Weyhenmeyer, CE. 2004b. Marine04 marine radiocarbon age calibration, 0–26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46(3):1059–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennett, DJ, Ingram, L, Erlandson, JM, Walker, P. 1997. Evidence for temporal fluctuations in marine radiocarbon reservoir ages in the Santa Barbara Channel, southern California. Journal of Archaeological Science 24(11):1051–9.Google Scholar
Kovanen, DJ, Easterbrook, DJ. 2002. Paleodeviations of radiocarbon marine reservoir values for the northeast Pacific. Geology 30(3):243–6.Google Scholar
Mangerud, J, Bondevik, S, Gulliksen, S, Hufthammer, KA, Hoisaeter, T. 2006. Marine 14C reservoir ages for 19th century whales and molluscs from the North Atlantic. Quaternary Science Reviews 25(23–24):3228–45.Google Scholar
Olsen, J, Rasmussen, P, Heinemeier, J. 2009. Holocene temporal and spatial variations in the radiocarbon reservoir age of three Danish fjords. Boreas 38:458–70.Google Scholar
Reimer, PJ, McCormac, FG, Moore, J, McCormick, F, Murray, EV. 2002. Marine radiocarbon reservoir corrections for the mid- to late Holocene in the eastern subpolar North Atlantic. The Holocene 12(2):129–35.Google Scholar
Reimer, PJ, Baillie, MGL, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Beck, JW, Bertrand, CJH, Blackwell, PG, Buck, CE, Burr, GS, Cutler, KB, Damon, PE, Edwards, RL, Fairbanks, RG, Friedrich, M, Guilderson, TP, Hogg, AG, Hughen, KA, Kromer, B, McCormac, G, Manning, S, Bronk Ramsey, C, Reimer, RW, Remmele, S, Southon, JR, Stuiver, M, Talamo, S, Taylor, FW, van der Plicht, J, Weyhenmeyer, CE. 2004. IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0–26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46(3):1029–58.Google Scholar
Russell, N, Coo, GT, Ascough, PL, Dugmore, AJ. 2010. Spatial variation in the marine radiocarbon reservoir effect throughout the Scottish post-Roman to Late Medieval period: North Sea values (500–1350 BP). Radiocarbon 52(2–3):1166–81.Google Scholar
Scott, EM. 2003. The Third International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (TIRI) and The Fourth International Intercomparison (FIRI). Radiocarbon 45(2):135–328.Google Scholar
Soares, AMM, Martins, JMM. 2009. Radiocarbon dating of marine shell samples. The marine radiocarbon reservoir effect of coastal waters off Atlantic Iberia during Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(12):2875–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soares, AMM, Martins, JMM. 2010. Radiocarbon dating of marine samples from Gulf of Cadiz: the reservoir effect. Quaternary International 221(1–2):9–12.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M, Braziunas, TF. 1993. Modeling atmospheric 14C influences and 14C ages of marine samples to 10,000 BC. Radiocarbon 35(1):137–89.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M, Pearson, GW, Braziunas, T. 1986. Radiocarbon age calibration of marine samples back to 9000 cal yr BP. Radiocarbon 28(2):980–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, GK, Wilson, SR. 1978. Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon age determinations: a critique. Archaeometry 20(1):19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisler, M, Hua, Q, Zhao, J-X. 2009. Late Holocene 14C marine reservoir corrections for Hawaii derived from U-series dated archaeological coral. Radiocarbon 51(3):955–68.Google Scholar