Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-2pp2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T04:38:50.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantitative Refinement of Calibrated 14C Distributions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Glenn P. Biasi  and
Ray Weldon II
Glenn P. Biasi
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 97403-1272
Ray Weldon II
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 97403-1272
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A new method is presented for using known ordering or other relationships between 14C samples to reduce 14C dating uncertainty. The order of sample formation is often known from, for example, stratigraphic superposition, dendrochronology, or crosscutting field relations. Constraints such as a minimum time between dates and limits from historical information are also readily included. Dendrochronologically calibrated calendric date histograms initially represent each date. The method uses Bayes theorem and the relational constraints to upweight date ranges in each date distribution consistent with the other date distributions and the constraints, and downweight unlikely portions. The reweighted date distributions retain all dating possibilities present in the initial calibrated date distributions, but each date in the result now reflects the extra information such as ordering supplied through the constraints. In addition, one may add information incrementally, and thus analyze systematically its effect on all the date distributions. Thus, the method can be used to assess the consistency of the quantitative data at hand. The Bayesian approach also uses the empirical calibrated date distributions directly, so information is not lost prematurely by summarized dates to a mean and variance or "confidence intervals." The approach is illustrated with data from two densely sampled paleoseismic sites on the San Andreas Fault in southern California. An average reduction in 14 C date distribution variance of 59% is achieved using ordering information alone, and 85% is achieved by also applying sedimentation rate constraints and historical information.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Quaternary Research , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , January 1994 , pp. 1 - 18
Copyright
University of Washington

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Atwater, B. Stuiver, M., and Yamaguchi, D. K. (1991). Radiocarbon test of earthquake magnitude at the Cascadia subduction zone. Nature 353, 156–158.Google Scholar
Buck, C. E. Kenworthy, J. B. Litton, C. D., and Smith, A. F. M. (1990). Combining archaeological and radiocarbon information: The betting man’s guide to Skara Brae. “Nottingham Statistics Group, Report 90-17.” Department of Mathematics, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Buck, C. E., and Litton, C. D. (1991). A computational Bayes approach to some common archaeological problems. In “Computer Ap-plications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, 1990” (Lockyearand, K. Rahtz, S., Ed.), pp. 93–99.Google Scholar
Fumal, T. E. Pezzopane, S. K. Weldon, R. J. II, and Schwartz, D. P. (1993). A 100-year average recurrence interval for the San Andreas Fault at Wrightwood, California. Science 259, 199–203.Google Scholar
Jacoby, G. C. Sheppard, P. R., and Sieh, K. E. (1988). Irregular recurrence of large earthquakes along the San Andreas Fault: Evidence from trees. Science 241, 196–199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Litton, C. D., and Leese, M. N. (1991). Some statistical problems arising in radiocarbon calibration. In “Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, 1990” (Lockyear, K. and Rahtz, S., Eds.), pp. 100–109.Google Scholar
Meyer, S. L. (1975). “Data Analysis for Scientists and Engineers.” Wiley, New York, New York.Google Scholar
Naylor, J. C., and Smith, A. F. M. (1988). An archaeological inference problem. Journal of the American Statistical Association 83, 588–595.Google Scholar
Pearson, G. W. (1986). Precise calendrical dating of known growthperiod samples using a “curve fitting” technique. Radiocarbon 28, (2A), 292–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Retallack, G. J. (1990). “Soils of the Past: An Introduction to Paleopedology.” Unwin Hyman, Boston.Google Scholar
Salyards, S. L. Sieh, K. E., and Kirschvink, J. L. (1992). Paleomagnetic measurement of non-brittle coseismic deformation across the San Andreas Fault at Pallett Creek. Journal of Geophysical Research 97, 12457–12470.Google Scholar
Sieh, K. (1978a). Prehistoric large earthquakes produced by slip on the San Andreas Fault at Pallett Creek, California. Journal of Geophysical Research 83, 3707–3939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sieh, K. (1978b). Slip along the San Andreas Fault associated with the great 1857 earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of Amer-ica 68, 1421–1428.Google Scholar
Sieh, K. (1984). Lateral offsets and revised dates of large prehistoric earthquakes at Pallett Creek, Southern California. Journal of Geo-physical Research 89, 7641–7670.Google Scholar
Sieh, K. Stuiver, M., and Brillinger, D. (1989). A more precise chronology of earthquakes produced by the San Andreas Fault in southern California. Journal of Geophysical Research 94, 603–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M., and Pearson, G. W. (1986). High-precision calibration of the radiocarbon time scale, AD 1950-500 BC. Radiocarbon 28(2B), 805–838.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M., and Reimer, P. (1986). A computer program for radiocarbon age calibration. Radiocarbon 28(2B), 1022–1030.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M., and Reimer, P. (1989). Histograms obtained from computerized radiocarbon age calibration. Radiocarbon 31, 817–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M., and Reimer, P. (1993). Extended C14 data base and revised CALIB 3.0 C14 age calibration program. Radiocarbon 35, 215–230.Google Scholar
Vincent, C. H. (1988). Treatment of discrepancies in radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon 30, 157–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, G. K., and Wilson, S. R. (1978). Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon age determinations: A Critique. Archaeometry 20 , 19–31.Google Scholar
Weldon, Ray, J. II (1991). Active tectonic studies in the United States, 1987-1990. Reviews of Geophysics Supplement, 890–906.Google Scholar