Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T23:15:34.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Marine ΔR for Nenumbo (Solomon Islands): A Case Study in Calculating Reservoir Offsets from Paired Sample Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Martin Jones ,
Fiona Petchey ,
Roger Green ,
Peter Sheppard  and
Matthew Phelan
Martin Jones*
Affiliation:
PO Box 58, Port Chalmers 9050, New Zealand
Fiona Petchey
Affiliation:
Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, University of Waikato, Gate 9, Hillcrest Road, Hamilton, New Zealand
Roger Green
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland, Human Sciences Building, 10 Symonds St., Auckland, New Zealand
Peter Sheppard
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland, Human Sciences Building, 10 Symonds St., Auckland, New Zealand
Matthew Phelan
Affiliation:
Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, GPO Box 2392, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia
*
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.

It is necessary to calculate location-specific marine ΔR values in order to calibrate marine samples using calibration curves such as those provided through the IntCal98 (Stuiver et al. 1998) data. Where known-age samples are available, this calculation is straightforward (i.e. Stuiver et al. 1986). In the case that a paired marine/terrestrial sample calculation is performed, however, the standard calculation (i.e. Stuiver and Braziunas 1993) requires that the samples are treated as relating to isochronous events. This may not be an appropriate assumption for many archaeological paired samples. In this paper, we present an approach to calculating marine ΔR values that does not require the dated events to be treated as isochronous. When archaeological evidence allows the dated events to be tightly temporally constrained, the approach presented here and that described by Stuiver and Braziunas (1993) give very similar results. However, where tight temporal constraints are less certain, the 2 approaches can give rise to differing results. The example analysis considered here shows that a ΔR of −81 ± 64 14C yr is appropriate for samples in the vicinity of Nenumbo (Reef Islands, southeast Solomon Islands) around the period 2000–3000 BP.

Type
Articles
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , 2007 , pp. 95 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

References

Buck, CE, Kenworthy, JB, Litton, CD, Smith, AFM. 1991. Combining archaeological and radiocarbon information: a Bayesian approach to calibration. Antiquity 65(249):808–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, WC, Fein, CD. 1977. Geological report on soil samples from Lapita site SE-RF-2, Solomon Islands cultural history project. Oceanic Prehistory Records 4:1–22 (microfiche).Google Scholar
Christen, JA. 1994. Bayesian interpretation of radiocarbon results [PhD dissertation]. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Green, RC. 1976. Lapita sites in the Santa Cruz Group. In: Green, RC, Cresswell, MM, editors. Southeast Solomon Islands Cultural History: A Preliminary Survey. Wellington: Bulletin of the Royal Society of New Zealand 11. p 245–65.Google Scholar
Green, RC. 1986. Report 8 - Lapita fishing: the evidence of the site SE-RF-2 from the Main Reef Islands, Santa Cruz Group, Solomons. In: Anderson, A, editor. Traditional Fishing in the Pacific. Pacific Anthropological Records 37. Honolulu: Department of Anthropology, B. P. Bishop Museum. p 119–35.Google Scholar
Green, RC. 1994. Changes over time—recent advances in dating human colonisation of the Pacific Basin area. In: Sutton, DG, editor. The Origins of the First New Zealanders. Auckland: Auckland University Press. p 19–51.Google Scholar
Green, RC, Pawley, AK. 1999. Early Oceanic architectural forms and settlement patterns: linguistic, archaeological and ethnological perspectives. In: Blench, RM, Spriggs, M, editors. Archaeology and Language III: Artefacts, Languages and Texts. London: Routledge. p 31–89.Google Scholar
Hughes, GW. 1981a. Section 2 - the Reef Islands. In: Hughes, GW, Craig, PM, Dennis, RA. Geology of the Eastern Outer Islands. Honiara: Geological Survey Division, Ministry of Natural Resources. Bulletin 4. p 17–24.Google Scholar
Hughes, GW. 1981b. Section 3 - Tinakula Volcano. In: Hughes, GW, Craig, PM, Dennis, RA. Geology of the Eastern Outer Islands. Honiara: Geological Survey Division, Ministry of Natural Resources. Bulletin 4. p 25–33.Google Scholar
Irwin, GJ. 1973. Man-land relationships in Melanesia: an investigation of prehistoric settlement in the islands of the Bougainville Strait. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 8:226–52.Google Scholar
Jones, M. 2001. Lies, damn lies and statistics. In: Jones, M, Sheppard, P, editors. Australasian Connections and New Directions: Proceedings of the 7th Australasian Archaeometry Conference. Research in Anthropology and Linguistics 5. p 171–80.Google Scholar
Jones, M, Nicholls, G. 2001. Reservoir offset models for radiocarbon calibration. Radiocarbon 43(1):119–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, M, Nicholls, G. 2002. New radiocarbon calibration software. Radiocarbon 44(3):663–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholls, G, Jones, M. 2001. Radiocarbon dating with temporal order constraints. Applied Statistics 50(4):503–21.Google Scholar
Parker, VNM. 1981. Vessel forms of the Reef Island SE-RF-2 site and their relationships to vessels forms in other Western Lapita sites of the Reef/Santa Cruz and Island Melanesian area [unpublished MA thesis]. Auckland: University of Auckland.Google Scholar
Sheppard, PJ, Green, RC. 1991. Spatial analysis of the Nenumbo (SE-RF-2) Lapita site, Solomon Islands. Archaeology in Oceania 26:89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M, Braziunas, T. 1993. Modeling atmospheric 14C influences and 14C ages of marine samples to 10,000 BC. Radiocarbon 35(1):137–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M, Pearson, GW, Braziunas, TF. 1986. Radiocarbon age calibration of marine samples back to 9000 cal yr BP. Radiocarbon 28(2B):980–1021.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
Swadling, P. 1986. Lapita shellfishing: evidence from sites in the Reef Santa Cruz Group, southeast Solomon Islands. In: Anderson, A, editor. Traditional Fishing in the Pacific. Pacific Anthropological Records 37. Honolulu: Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum. p 137–48.Google Scholar
Ulm, S. 2002. Marine and estuarine reservoir effects in central Queensland, Australia: determination of ΔR values. Geoarchaeology 17(4):319–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, JRD, Hansell, JRF. 1976. Land Resources of the Solomon Islands. Volume 8 - Outer Eastern Islands. Land Resources Study 18. Surrey: Resources Division Ministry of Overseas Developments, England.Google Scholar
Ward, GK, Wilson, SR. 1978. Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon age determinations: a critique. Archaeometry 20(1):19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar