Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-18T23:50:37.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Wiggle Matching’ Radiocarbon Dates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

C Bronk Ramsey ,
J van der Plicht  and
B Weninger
C Bronk Ramsey
Affiliation:
Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, 6 Keble Road, Oxford OX2 6JB, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected].
J van der Plicht
Affiliation:
Centrum voor Isotopen Onzerzoek, Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen, Netherlands
B Weninger
Affiliation:
Radiocarbon Laboratory, Universitát zu Köln, D-50923 Köln, Weyertal 125, Germany
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.

This paper covers three different methods of matching radiocarbon dates to the ‘wiggles’ of the calibration curve in those situations where the age difference between the 14C dates is known. These methods are most often applied to tree-ring sequences. The simplest approach is to use a classical Chi-squared fit of the 14C data to the 14C curve. This gives the calendar date where the data fit best and allows tests of how good the fit is. The only drawback of this method is that it is difficult to ascertain the uncertainty in the date found in this way. An extension of this technique uses a Monte-Carlo simulation to sample possible 14C concentrations consistent with the measurement made and for each of these possibilities performs a Chi-squared fit. This method yields a distribution of values in the calendrical time-scale, from which the overall dating uncertainty can be derived. A third, rather different approach, based on Bayesian statistics, calculates the relative likelihood of each possible calendar year fit. This can then be used to calculate a range of most likely dates in a similar way to the probability method of 14C calibration. The theories underlying all three methods are discussed in this paper and a comparison made for the fitting of specific model sequences. All three methods are found to give consistent results and the application of any one of them depends on the nature of the scientific question being addressed.

Type
II. Getting More from the Data
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 43 , Issue 2A: Proceedings of the 17th International Radiocarbon Conference (Part 1 of 3) , 2001 , pp. 381 - 389
Copyright
Copyright © The Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

References

Bronk Ramsey, C. 1994. Analysis of chronological information and radiocarbon calibration: the program OxCal. Archaeological Computing Newsletter 41:11–16.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and the analysis of stratigraphy. Radiocarbon 37(2):425–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1998. Probability and dating. Radiocarbon 40(1):461–74.Google Scholar
Buck, CE, Kenworthy, JB, Litton, CD, Smith, AFM. 1991. Combining archaeological and radiocarbon information: a Bayesian approach to calibration. Antiquity 65: 808–21.Google Scholar
Buck, CE, Litton, CD, Smith, AFM. 1992. Calibration of radiocarbon dates pertaining to related archaeological events. Journal of Archaeological Science 19:497–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, CE, Litton, CD, Scott, EM. 1994. Making the most of radiocarbon dating: some statistical considerations. Antiquity 68:252–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christen, JA, Litton, CD. 1995. A Bayesian approach to wiggle-matching. Journal of Archaeological Science 22:719–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goslar, T, Madry, W. 1998. Using the Bayesian method to study the precision of dating by wiggle-matching. Radiocarbon 40(1):551–60.Google Scholar
Jöris, O, Weninger, B. 2000. Radiocarbon calibration and the absolute chronology of the late glacial. In: L'Europe Centrale et Septentrionale au Tardiglacaire-Memoires du Musee de Prehistoire d'Ile de France 7: 19–54.Google Scholar
Kilian, MR, van der Plicht, J, van Geel, B. 1995. Dating raised bogs: new aspects of AMS C-14 wiggle matching, a reservoir effect and climatic change. Quaternary Science Review 14(10):959–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilian, MR, van Geel, B, van der Plicht, J. 2000. 14C AMS wiggle matching of raised bog deposits and models of peat accumulation. Quaternary Science Review 19: 1011–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, M. 1998. Wadi Shaw 82/52: 14C dates from a peri-dynastic site in northwest Sudan, supporting the Egyptian historical chronology. Radiocarbon 40(2):687–69.Google Scholar
Manning, SW, Weninger, B. 1992. A light in the dark: archaeological wiggle matching and the absolute chronology of the close of the Aegean Late Bronze Age. Antiquity 66:636–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, G. 1986. Precise calendrical dating of known growth-period samples using a “curve fitting” technique. Radiocarbon 28(2A):292–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M, Kraeds, RS. 1986. Calibration issue. Radiocarbon 28(2B):805–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Plicht, J, Jansma, E, Kars, H. 1995. The “Amsterdam Castle”: a case study of wiggle matching and the proper calibration curve. Radiocarbon 37(3):965–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Plicht, J, McCormac, FG. 1995. A note on calibration curves. Radiocarbon 37(3):963–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weninger, B. 1997. Monte Carlo wiggle matching. Zur statistischen auswertung der mittelneolithischen 14C-daten von Hasselsweiler 2, Inden 3, and Inden 1. In: Biermann, E, editor. Großgartach und Oberlauterbach. Interregionale Beziehungen im süddeutschen Mittelneolithikum. Archäologische Berichte 8:91–113.Google Scholar
Zaitseva, GI, Vasiliev, SS, Marsadolov, LS, van der Plicht, J, Sementsov, AA, Dergachev, VA, Lebedeva, LM. 1998. A tree-ring and 14C chronology of the key Sayan-Altai monuments. Radiocarbon 40(1):571–80.Google Scholar