Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-sd5qd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T08:56:56.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Caveat emptor!—wiggle-matching European wood samples (AD 46–AD 286)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2024

Alex Bayliss Open the ORCID record for Alex Bayliss [Opens in a new window] ,
David Brown ,
Michael Dee Open the ORCID record for Michael Dee [Opens in a new window] ,
Peter Marshall Open the ORCID record for Peter Marshall [Opens in a new window]  and
Lukas Wacker Open the ORCID record for Lukas Wacker [Opens in a new window]
Alex Bayliss*
Affiliation:
Historic England, Cannon Bridge House, 25 Dowgate Hill, London, EC4R 2YA, UK
David Brown
Affiliation:
School of Natural and Built Environment, The Queen’s University, Belfast, BT7 1NN, UK
Michael Dee
Affiliation:
Centre for Isotope Research, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 6, 9747 AG Groningen, Netherlands
Peter Marshall
Affiliation:
Historic England, Cannon Bridge House, 25 Dowgate Hill, London, EC4R 2YA, UK
Lukas Wacker
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Ion Beam Physics, ETH Zürich, Otto-Stern-Weg 5, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland
*
Corresponding author: Alex Bayliss; Email: Alex.Bayliss@HistoricEngland.org.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study suggests that there may be considerable difficulties in providing accurate calendar age estimates in the Roman period in Europe, between ca. AD 60 and ca. AD 230, using the radiocarbon calibration datasets that are currently available. Incorporating the potential for systematic offsets between the measured data and the calibration curve using the ΔR approach suggested by Hogg et al. (2019), only marginally mitigates the biases in calendar date estimates observed. At present, it clearly behoves researchers in this period to “caveat emptor” and validate the accuracy of their calibrated radiocarbon dates and chronological models against other sources of dating information.

Keywords

accuracycalibrationdendrochronology

Information

Type
Technical Note
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 66 , Issue 3 , June 2024 , pp. 580 - 596
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of University of Arizona

Introduction

The current radiocarbon calibration curve for the Northern Hemisphere, IntCal20 (Reimer et al. Reference Reimer, Austin, Bard, Bayliss, Blackwell, Bronk Ramsey, Butzin, Cheng, Edwards and Friedrich2020), represents a major update of previous calibration curves (Reimer et al. Reference Reimer, Baillie, Bard, Bayliss, Beck, Bertrand, Blackwell, Buck, Burr and Cutler2004; Reimer et al. Reference Reimer, Bard, Bayliss, Beck, Blackwell, Bronk Ramsey, Buck, Cheng, Edwards and Friedrich2013). Over the first half of the first millennium AD, IntCal20 is based on over 550 calibration datapoints, in comparison to IntCal13, which was based on just over 100 (Figure 1 [upper]). The data included in IntCal13 were measured on decadal and bi-decadal blocks of wood, whereas IntCal20 also includes measurements on 5-year blocks for the entire half millennium, and measurements on single-year tree-rings between AD 290 and AD 486. A new statistical approach for the construction of the curve has also been adopted (Heaton et al. Reference Heaton, Blaauw, Blackwell, Bronk Ramsey, Reimer and Scott2020).

Figure 1.

IntCal20 (magenta-pink) and IntCal13 (grey) with the calibration datasets on which they are based; those from Seattle (QL; Stuiver and Braziunas Reference Stuiver and Braziunas1993; Stuiver et al. Reference Stuiver, Reimer and Braziunas1998), Belfast (UB; McCormac et al. Reference McCormac, Bayliss, Baillie and Brown2004; Pearson et al. Reference Pearson, Pilcher, Baillie, Corbett and Qua1986) and Waikato (Wk; Hogg et al. Reference Hogg, Palmer, Boswijk, Reimer and Brown2009) are included in both curves, those from Groningen (GrA; Sakamoto et al. Reference Sakamoto, Imamura, Van der Plicht, Mitsutani and Sahara2003), Mannheim (MAMS-; Friedrich et al. Reference Friedrich, Kromer, Sirocko, Esper, Lindauer, Nievergelt, Heussner and Westphal2019) and Palaeo Labo Co. Ltd (Sakamoto et al. Reference Sakamoto, Imamura, Van der Plicht, Mitsutani and Sahara2003; Okuno et al. Reference Okuno, Hakozaki, Miyake, Kimura, Masuda, Sakamoto, Hong, Yatsuzuka and Nakamura2018) only in IntCal20. Measurements on Irish oak undertaken for this study are shown in blue (ETH- and GrM-). The first half of the first millennium AD (upper), the period of this study (lower).

In general, the calibration data and, thus, the two curves follow each other closely. There is, however, a more appreciable divergence between ca. AD 60 and ca. AD 230. As previously observed (Haneca et al. Reference Haneca, Ervynck, Boudin, de Winter, Martens and Vanderhoeven2021; Staff and Liu Reference Staff and Liu2021), this can lead to archaeologically meaningful differences in calibrated radiocarbon dates in this period. Modeling can exacerbate this issue, as demonstrated recently for a small cemetery (Group A) at Stanwick, Northamptonshire, which falls in the decades around AD 130 if modeled using IntCal13 or in the decades around AD 200 if modeled using IntCal20 (Fleming et al. Reference Fleming, Crosby, Bayliss, Mays, Bronk Ramey, Dunbar, Cool and Wardlesubmitted, fig. 5; Figure 2). The results from the two models are clearly incompatible, and both cannot be correct.

Figure 2.

Probability distributions of dates from burials in Group A at Stanwick, Northamptonshire, UK, derived from the model defined in Fleming et al. (Reference Fleming, Crosby, Bayliss, Mays, Bronk Ramey, Dunbar, Cool and Wardlesubmitted, fig 5). Each distribution represents the relative probability that an event occurs at a particular time. Distributions in magenta-pink derive from the model calculated using IntCal13 (Reimer et al. Reference Reimer, Bard, Bayliss, Beck, Blackwell, Bronk Ramsey, Buck, Cheng, Edwards and Friedrich2013), and those in black from the model calculated using IntCal20 (Reimer et al. Reference Reimer, Austin, Bard, Bayliss, Blackwell, Bronk Ramsey, Butzin, Cheng, Edwards and Friedrich2020). Crosses indicate the medians of the posterior distributions.

The Dataset

In order to compare the effectiveness of IntCal13 and IntCal20 for producing accurate calibration in the Roman period in Europe, a series of wiggle-match models were constructed using 14C measurements on known-age tree-rings from the Irish oak chronology (Baillie Reference Baillie1982; Brown and Baillie Reference Brown and Baillie2012; Pilcher et al. Reference Pilcher, Baillie, Schmidt and Becker1984).

The samples were of latewood from single tree-rings that have been dated by dendrochronology as forming between AD 46 and AD 286. Every fifth ring was dated, except in two cases where the gap was seven and three rings respectively (Appendix 1). The samples came from four bog oaks (Q815, Q821, Q837, and Q1081) recovered from a demolished cottage at Balloo, Co Down (52.47°N, 5.71°W), four bog oaks (Q9881, Q9985–6, and Q9888) from the lake edge at Ballinderry, Co Antrim (54.55°N, 6.28°W), and a single waterlogged oak (Q451) from those recovered from Allistragh, Co Armagh (54.23°N, 6.40°W). Details of the dendrochronological dating and sub-sampling for radiocarbon dating of the timbers from Balloo and Ballinderry can be found in Supplementary Material; details for the timber from Allistragh are published elsewhere (Wacker et al. Reference Wacker, Scott, Bayliss, Brown, Bard, Bollhalder, Friedrich, Capano, Cherkinsky and Chivall2020, Supplementary Material).

Radiocarbon dating of the samples of Irish oak was undertaken by the Centre for Isotope Research, University of Groningen (GrM-), the Netherlands, and at the Laboratory of Ion Beam Physics, ETH Zürich (ETH-), Switzerland in 2022. In Groningen, each ring was converted to α-cellulose using an intensified acid-base-acid-oxidation pretreatment (Dee et al. Reference Dee, Palstra, Aerts-Bijma, Bleeker, de Bruijn, Ghebru, Jansen, Kuitems, Paul and Richie2020) and combusted in an elemental analyser (IsotopeCube NCS), coupled to an Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometer (Isoprime 100). The resultant CO2 was graphitised by hydrogen reduction in the presence of an iron catalyst (Hut et al. Reference Hut, Göte Östland and van der Borgh1986; Aerts-Bijma et al. Reference Aerts-Bijma, Meijer and van der Plicht1997). The graphite was then pressed into aluminium cathodes and dated by Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) (Synal et al. Reference Synal, Stocker and Suter2007; Salehpour et al. Reference Salehpour, Håkansson, Possnert, Wacker and Synal2016). In Zürich, cellulose was extracted from each ring using the base-acid-base-acid-bleaching (BABAB) method described by Němec et al. (Reference Němec, Wacker, Hajdas and Gäggeler2010), combusted and graphitised as outlined in Wacker et al. (Reference Wacker, Němec and Bourquin2010c) and dated by accelerator mass spectrometry (Synal et al. Reference Synal, Stocker and Suter2007; Wacker et al. Reference Wacker, Bonani, Friedrich, Hajdas, Kromer, Němec, Ruff, Suter, Synal and Vockenhuber2010a). At both laboratories data reduction was undertaken as described by Wacker et al. (Reference Wacker, Christl and Synal2010b), and both facilities maintain continual programmes of quality assurance procedures (Aerts-Bijma et al. Reference Aerts-Bijma, Paul, Dee, Palstra and Meijer2021, Sookdeo et al. Reference Sookdeo, Kromer, Büntgen, Friedrich, Friedrich, Helle, Pauly, Nievergelt, Reinig and Treydte2020), in addition to participation in international inter-comparison exercises (Wacker et al. Reference Wacker, Scott, Bayliss, Brown, Bard, Bollhalder, Friedrich, Capano, Cherkinsky and Chivall2020).

The results are conventional 14C ages, corrected for fractionation using δ13C values measured by accelerator mass spectrometry (Stuiver and Polach Reference Stuiver and Polach1977; Appendix 1). Fifteen tree-rings were measured by both laboratories, all pairs being consistent at the 5% significance level (Ward and Wilson Reference Ward and Wilson1978). The weighted mean difference between these replicates is −7.97±6.36 BP (ETH younger), and χ2 red is 0.75 (Bevington and Robertson Reference Bevington and Robinson1992, equation 4.19; Bevington Reference Bevington and Bevington1969, 69).

Wiggle-Matching

Wiggle-matching has been undertaken using the Bayesian approach first described by Christen and Litton (Reference Christen and Litton1995), implemented using OxCal v4.4 (Bronk Ramsey et al. Reference Bronk Ramsey, van der Plicht and Weninger2001; Bronk Ramsey Reference Bronk Ramsey2009). This method assumes that we have independent pointwise estimates of the calibration curve: covariance information from the calibration curve is not used (Millard Reference Millard2008; Muzikar and Heaton Reference Muzikar and Heaton2022).

The models all contain measurements on seven tree-rings, spaced five years apart and spanning 31 calendar years (except those between AD 166–198 and AD 176–206 and those between AD 198–226 and AD 208–236 which span 33 calendar years and 29 calendar years respectively and contain some measurements spaced three years apart and seven years apart). This short span of calendar dating has been chosen to replicate archaeological reality, for example when wiggle-matching tree-ring sequences that are usually undatable by ring-width or oxygen isotope dendrochronology (Bayliss et al. Reference Bayliss, Marshall, Tyers, Bronk Ramsey, Cook, Freeman and Griffiths2017), or when wiggle-matching different elements of a human skeleton (Millard et al. Reference Millard, Annis, Caffell, Dodd, Fischer, Gerrard, Graves, Hendy, Mackenzie, Montgomery, Nowell, Radini, Beaumont, Koon and Speller2020). All models calculate the date when the ring for AD 286 formed. Replicate measurements have been combined by taking a weighted mean before inclusion in the model. The 43 wiggle-matches run from AD 46−AD 76, AD 51−AD 81 etc. to AD 256−AD 286. Each model has been calculated three times: once using IntCal13, once using IntCal20, and once using IntCal20 allowing for a potential systematic offset between the new data and the calibration curve (applying the “Delta_R” function of OxCal with a uniform prior of −20 to +20 BP; Hogg et al. Reference Hogg, Heaton, Ramsey, Boswijk, Palmer, Turney, Southon and Gumbley2019). All models have been run at a resolution of 1 and for 20M iterations.

Figure 3 shows the wiggle-match model that includes measurements on samples dating to between AD 76 and AD 106, and so there are 180 rings until the formation of the ring for AD 286. In this case, the model calculated using IntCal13 (lower), the model calculated using IntCal20 (middle), and the model calculated using IntCal20 allowing for a potential systematic offset (upper), all clearly provide dating that is incompatible with the dendrochronological age for the formation of the ring for AD 286. The date estimate provided using IntCal13 is too early, and those provided using IntCal20 are too late.

Figure 3.

Probability distributions of dates from AD 76–106. Each distribution represents the relative probability that an event occurs at a particular time. For each of the dates two distributions have been plotted: one in outline, which is the result of simple radiocarbon calibration, and a solid one, based on the wiggle-match sequence. Distributions other than those relating to particular samples, correspond to aspects of the model. For example, the distribution “AD 286” is the estimated date when the ring for AD 286 formed. The model has been calculated using IntCal13 (lower), IntCal20 (middle), and IntCal20 with an allowance for a potential systematic offset (upper).

The highest posterior density intervals for the ring for AD 286 from all 43 models, calculated using the three calibration approaches are provided in Appendix 2. The true value lies outside these intervals more often than expected (Table 1). The posterior distributions for the ring for AD 286 are illustrated in Figure 4. Those where the true date lies outside the Highest Posterior Density intervals at 95% probability are shown in magenta-pink. Again, it is clear that the wiggle-match results produced using IntCal13 are biased towards older ages, and that those produced using IntCal20 are biased towards younger ages. The use of the ΔR approach to allow for a potential systematic offset between the new data and the calibration curve marginally mitigates, but does not resolve, the younger bias in the dating produced using IntCal20.

Table 1.

Number of models where the known-age of AD 286 is not included in the Highest Posterior Density intervals (rounded outwards to the nearest year)

Figure 4.

Posterior density estimates for the ring formed in AD 286, from wiggle-matching measurements from seven rings spanning successive 31-year blocks between AD 46–76 and AD 256–286 (Acomb > An: 26.7, n: 7 for all), calculated using IntCal13 (lower), IntCal20 (middle), and IntCal20 with an allowance for a potential systematic offset (upper). Five of the models calculated using IntCal20 allowing a potential systematic offset (ΔR) have poor overall agreement (see Appendix 2). Distribution where the true date lies within the Highest Posterior Density intervals at 95% probability are shown in black, those where it is outside these intervals in magenta-pink.

Discussion

The greater quantity of data in IntCal20 means that it is usually more robust than IntCal13, although this case study demonstrates that producing accurate dating in the period between ca. AD 60 and ca. AD 230 is challenging using either calibration curve. Replication shows that the new data produced in Groningen and Zürich are consistent within the quoted uncertainties, which are of a similar scale to those reported for the calibration datasets (averages GrM: ±19 BP, ETH: ±19 BP; Table 2).

Table 2.

Summary of calibration data included in IntCal13 and IntCal20 AD 46–286 (* average uncertainty includes reported error multiplier)

The reason that IntCal20 diverges from IntCal13 in this period is that it includes additional data from two Japanese trees (HKN-1, Japanese cedar, and NNMSM-TR1, Japanese cypress), which produce older ages than the data we have from North American trees (RC and SR, Giant Redwood) and European trees (Q451, Q455, Q218, and Q9887, oak), which were included in both IntCal13 and IntCal20, only during the late first and second centuries AD. The datasets are more compatible at later times, including with the single-year data on European trees measured in Mannheim (MAMS-; Figure 1 [upper]).

Systematic offsets can arise from laboratory biases, but also from geographic offsets. In this case, significant systematic laboratory bias is perhaps less likely since the data have been measured in more than one laboratory, and the data from the same trees measured in those same laboratories are in good agreement in the third and fourth centuries AD (Figure 1 [upper]). The Global Circulation Model of Braziunas et al. (Reference Braziunas, Fung and Stuiver1995) predicted a decline in atmospheric 14C of ca. 8 BP per 10° of latitude, but such a meridional trend has proved difficult to demonstrate in practice (but see Büntgen et al. Reference Büntgen, Wacker, Galván, Arnold, Arseneault, Baillie, Beer, Bernabei, Bleicher and Boswijk2018, fig 3; Pearson et al. Reference Pearson, Wacker, Bayliss, Brown, Salzer, Brewer, Bollhalder, Boswijk and Hodgins2020, table 1). In this case a simple latitudinal trend seems unlikely, because IntCal13 in this period is dominated by measurements on Giant Redwoods (from 36°N) and IntCal20 is dominated by measurements on Japanese trees (from 35°N). These datasets differ as much from each other as they do from the data on the Irish oak (from 52°N−54°N) (Figure 1 [lower]).

The offsets between the datasets included in IntCal20 anyway appear to vary through time. This is also apparent in the new dataset on Irish oak (Figure 5), which is significantly older than IntCal13 in the late first and second century AD, and significantly younger than IntCal20 in the second and earlier third century AD. Nakamura et al. (Reference Nakamura, Masuda, Miyake, Nagaya and Yoshimitsu2013) have previously suggested that there may be a time-variable offset in Japanese trees, perhaps arising from variations in the East Asian monsoon, and Miyake et al. (Reference Miyake, Masuda, Hakozaki, Nakamura, Tokanai, Kato, Kimura and Mitsutani2014, 1192) similarly observe that data on Japanese trees were older than IntCal13, but this would not explain the differences observed between IntCal13 and our new dataset.

Figure 5.

Offsets between the data presented in Appendix 1 and IntCal13 (magenta-pink) and IntCal20 (black) (ETH = triangles, GrM = circles). Weighted mean offsets shown in bold are statistically significant at the 5% significance level.

It is also possible that there is annual variation in 14C which is currently not captured by the calibration curves as they are not visible in the blocked data that are currently available (Table 2). This may be the reason why some of the models calculated using IntCal20 and allowing for a systematic offset between the new dataset and the calibration curve have poor overall agreement (Table 2). If so, this may suggest that more year-to-year variation in atmospheric 14C content may be expected in the decades around AD 100. Generally, detailed understanding of the short-term variations in the shape of the calibration curve is critical for providing precise and accurate chronologies in situations where an archaeological site, or the available archaeological sequence, spans only a few decades.

Conclusions

This study suggests that there may be considerable difficulties in providing accurate calendar age estimates in the period between ca. AD 60 and ca. AD 230 using the radiocarbon calibration datasets that are currently available. It is possible that there may be locational differences in atmospheric radiocarbon that are important for archaeological interpretation at this time, although further work is clearly required to understand the observed variation. Incorporating the potential for systematic offsets between the measured data and the calibration curve using the ΔR approach suggested by Hogg et al. (Reference Hogg, Heaton, Ramsey, Boswijk, Palmer, Turney, Southon and Gumbley2019), only marginally mitigates the biases in calendar date estimates observed (and it should be noted that this approach was not actually adopted in the statistical methodology used for constructing IntCal20 [Heaton et al. Reference Heaton, Blaauw, Blackwell, Bronk Ramsey, Reimer and Scott2020]).

At present, it clearly behoves researchers in this period to “caveat emptor” and validate the accuracy of their calibrated radiocarbon dates and chronological models against other sources of dating information, such as the termini post quos provided by coins issued by known historical figures and documentary evidence where this is available.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2024.54.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Historic England for funding this research (402951-2017), and to members of the radiocarbon groups at ETH Zürich and the University of Groningen for processing and dating the samples.

Appendix 1.

Radiocarbon ages and stable isotopic measurements from Irish oak (AD 46–286), quoted δ13C values were measured by IRMS (GrM-) or AMS (ETH-), nm = not measured.

Appendix 2.

Highest Posterior Density intervals for the ring formed in AD 286 from wiggle-matching measurements from seven rings spanning 43 successive 29-, 31-, or 33-year blocks between AD 46–76 and AD 256–286 (Acomb > An: 26.7, n: 7 for all); intervals which do not include the true date of AD 286 are given in bold; * indicates that the IntCal20 ΔR model has poor overall agreement (Amodel: < 60); all ranges have been rounded outwards to the nearest year

References

Aerts-Bijma, AT, Meijer, HAJ and van der Plicht, J (1997) AMS sample handling in Groningen. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 123:221–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-583X(96)00672-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aerts-Bijma, AT, Paul, D, Dee, MW, Palstra, SWL and Meijer, HAJ (2021) An independent assessment of uncertainty for radiocarbon analysis with the new generation high-yield accelerator mass spectrometers. Radiocarbon 63(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baillie, MGL (1982) Tree-Ring Dating and Archaeology. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Bayliss, A, Marshall, P, Tyers, C, Bronk Ramsey, C, Cook, G, Freeman, SPHT and Griffiths, S (2017) Informing conservation: towards 14C wiggle-matching of short tree-ring sequences from medieval buildings in England. Radiocarbon 59(3), 985–1007. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevington, PR (1969) Propagation of errors. In Bevington, PR (ed), Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 56–65.Google Scholar
Bevington, PR and Robinson, DK (1992) Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences. Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Braziunas, TF, Fung, IY and Stuiver, M (1995) The preindustrial atmospheric 14CO2 latitudinal gradient as related to exchanges among atmospheric, oceanic, and terrestrial reservoirs. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 9(4), 565–584. https://doi.org/10.1029/95GB01725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C (2009) Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1), 337–360. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200033865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C, van der Plicht, J and Weninger, B (2001) “Wiggle matching” radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 43(2), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200038248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, DM and Baillie, MGL (2012) Confirming the existence of gaps and depletions in the Irish oak tree-ring record. Dendrochronologia 30(2), 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dendro.2010.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Büntgen, U, Wacker, L, Galván, JD, Arnold, S, Arseneault, D, Baillie, M, Beer, J, Bernabei, M, Bleicher, N and Boswijk, G et al (2018) Tree rings reveal globally coherent signature of cosmogenic radiocarbon events in 774 and 993 CE. Nature Communications 9(1), 3605. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06036-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christen, JA and Litton, CD (1995) A Bayesian approach to wiggle-matching. Journal of Archaeological Science 22(6), 719–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(95)90002-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dee, MW, Palstra, SWL, Aerts-Bijma, AT, Bleeker, MO, de Bruijn, S, Ghebru, F, Jansen, HG, Kuitems, M, Paul, D and Richie, RR et al (2020) Radiocarbon dating at Groningen: New and updated chemical pretreatment procedures. Radiocarbon 62(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2019.101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, R, Crosby, V, Bayliss, A, Mays, S, Bronk Ramey, C, Dunbar, E, Cool, HEM and Wardle, A (submitted) Establishing a chronology for roman and post-Roman Stanwick, Northamptonshire. Britannia.Google Scholar
Friedrich, R, Kromer, B, Sirocko, F, Esper, J, Lindauer, S, Nievergelt, D, Heussner, KU and Westphal, T (2019) Annual 14C tree-ring data around 400 AD: Mid- and high-latitude records. Radiocarbon 61(5), 1305–1316. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2019.34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haneca, K, Ervynck, A, Boudin, M, de Winter, N, Martens, M and Vanderhoeven, A (2021) The impact of the new Intcal20 calibration curve upon the interpretation of radiocarbon dates from the roman period. Signa 10, 101–121.Google Scholar
Heaton, TJ, Blaauw, M, Blackwell, PG, Bronk Ramsey, C, Reimer, PJ and Scott, EM (2020) The intcal20 approach to radiocarbon calibration curve construction: A new methodology using Bayesian splines and errors-in-variables. Radiocarbon 62(4), 821–863. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, A, Palmer, J, Boswijk, G, Reimer, P and Brown, D (2009) Investigating the interhemispheric 14C offset in the 1st millennium AD and assessment of laboratory bias and calibration errors. Radiocarbon 51(4), 1177–1186. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200034238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, AG, Heaton, TJ, Ramsey, CB, Boswijk, G, Palmer, JG, Turney, CSM, Southon, J and Gumbley, W (2019) The influence of calibration curve construction and composition on the accuracy and precision of radiocarbon wiggle-matching of tree rings, illustrated by Southern Hemisphere atmospheric data sets from AD 1500–1950. Radiocarbon 61(5), 1265–1291. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2019.42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hut, G, Göte Östland, H and van der Borgh, K (1986) Fast and complete CO2-to-graphite conversion for 14C accelerator mass spectrometry. Radiocarbon 28(2A), 186–190. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200007256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCormac, FG, Bayliss, A, Baillie, MGL and Brown, DM (2004) Radiocarbon calibration in the Anglo-Saxon period: AD 495–725. Radiocarbon 46(3), 1123–1125. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200033051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millard, AR, Annis, RG, Caffell, AC, Dodd, LL, Fischer, R, Gerrard, CM, Graves, CP, Hendy, J, Mackenzie, L, Montgomery, J, Nowell, GM, Radini, A, Beaumont, J, Koon, HEC and Speller, CF (2020) Scottish Soldiers from the Battle of Dunbar 1650: a prosopographical approach to a skeletal assemblage. PlosOne. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millard, AR (2008) Comment on article by Blackwell and Buck. Bayesian Analysis 3(2), 255–262. https://doi.org/10.1214/08-BA309B.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyake, F, Masuda, K, Hakozaki, M, Nakamura, T, Tokanai, F, Kato, K, Kimura, K, Mitsutani, T (2014) Verification of the Cosmic-Ray Event in AD 993–994 by Using a Japanese Hinoki Tree. Radiocarbon 56(3), 1189–1194. https://doi.org/10.2458/56.17769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muzikar, P and Heaton, TJ (2022) Wiggle matching with correlations. Radiocarbon 64(1), 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2021.106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakamura, T, Masuda, K, Miyake, F, Nagaya, K and Yoshimitsu, T (2013) Radiocarbon ages of annual rings from Japanese wood: Evident age offset based on intcal09. Radiocarbon 55(2), 763–770. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200057921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Němec, M, Wacker, L, Hajdas, I and Gäggeler, H (2010) Alternative methods for cellulose preparation for ams measurement. Radiocarbon 52, 1358–1370. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200046440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okuno, M, Hakozaki, M, Miyake, F, Kimura, K, Masuda, K, Sakamoto, M, Hong, W, Yatsuzuka, S and Nakamura, T (2018) Chronological significance of 14C spike and precise age determination of the b-tm tephra, China/North Korea. Abstracts of the 23rd International Radiocarbon Conference. Trondheim, 52.Google Scholar
Pearson, C, Wacker, L, Bayliss, A, Brown, D, Salzer, M, Brewer, P, Bollhalder, S, Boswijk, G and Hodgins, G (2020) Annual variation in atmospheric 14C between 1700 BC and 1480 BC. Radiocarbon 62(4), 939–952. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, GW, Pilcher, JR, Baillie, MGL, Corbett, DM and Qua, F (1986) High-precision 14C measurements of Irish oaks to show the natural 14C variations from AD 1840 to 5210 BC. Radiocarbon 28, 911–934. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200060197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilcher, JR, Baillie, MGL, Schmidt, B and Becker, B (1984) A 7,272-year tree-ring chronology for western Europe. Nature 312(5990), 150–152. https://doi.org/10.1038/312150a0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimer, P, Baillie, MGL, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Beck, JW, Bertrand, CJH, Blackwell, PG, Buck, CE, Burr, GS and Cutler, KB et al (2004) Radiocarbon calibration from 0–26 cal kyr BP—IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0–26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46(3), 1029–1059. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200032999.Google Scholar
Reimer, PJ, Austin, WEN, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Blackwell, PG, Bronk Ramsey, C, Butzin, M, Cheng, H, Edwards, RL and Friedrich, M et al (2020) The Intcal20 northern hemipshere radiocarbon age calibration curve (0–55 cal kBP) Radiocarbon 64(2), 725–757. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimer, PJ, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Beck, JW, Blackwell, PG, Bronk Ramsey, C, Buck, CE, Cheng, H, Edwards, RL and Friedrich, M et al (2013) Intcal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4), 1869–1887. https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakamoto, M, Imamura, M, Van der Plicht, J, Mitsutani, T and Sahara, M (2003) Radiocarbon calibration for Japanese wood samples. Radiocarbon 45(1), 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200032410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salehpour, M, Håkansson, K, Possnert, G, Wacker, L and Synal, H-A (2016) Performance report for the low energy compact Accelerator Mass Spectrometer at Uppsala University. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 371, 360–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2015.10.034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sookdeo, A, Kromer, B, Büntgen, U, Friedrich, M, Friedrich, R, Helle, G, Pauly, M, Nievergelt, D, Reinig, F and Treydte, K et al (2020) Quality dating: A well-defined protocol implemented at ETH for high-precision 14C dates tested on late glacial wood. Radiocarbon 62(4) 891–899. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2019.132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staff, RA and Liu, R (2021) Radiocarbon calibration: The next generation. Science China Earth Sciences 64(3), 507–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-020-9722-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M and Braziunas, TF (1993) Sun, ocean, climate and atmospheric 14CO2: An evaluation of causal and spectral relationships. The Holocene 3(4), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/095968369300300401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M and Polach, HA (1977) Discussion reporting of 14C data. Radiocarbon 19(3), 355–363. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200003672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M, Reimer, PJ and Braziunas, TF (1998) High-precision radiocarbon age calibration for terrestrial and marine samples. Radiocarbon 40(3), 1127–1151. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200019172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Synal, H-A, Stocker, M and Suter, M (2007) MICADAS: A new compact radiocarbon AMS system. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 259, 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2007.01.138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wacker, L, Bonani, G, Friedrich, M, Hajdas, I, Kromer, B, Němec, M, Ruff, M, Suter, M, Synal, HA and Vockenhuber, C (2010a) MICADAS: Routine and high-precision radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon 52(2), 252–262. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200045288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wacker, L, Christl, M and Synal, HA (2010b) Bats: A new tool for AMS data reduction. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 268(7–8), 976–979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2009.10.078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wacker, L and Němec, M, Bourquin, J (2010c) A revolutionary graphitisation system: Fully automated, compact and simple. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 268(7–8), 931–934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2009.10.067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wacker, L, Scott, EM, Bayliss, A, Brown, D, Bard, E, Bollhalder, S, Friedrich, M, Capano, M, Cherkinsky, A, Chivall, D et al (2020) Findings from an in-depth annual tree ring radiocarbon intercomparison. Radiocarbon 62(4), 873–882. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, GK and Wilson, SR (1978) Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon age determinations: A critique. Archaeometry 20(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1978.tb00208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. IntCal20 (magenta-pink) and IntCal13 (grey) with the calibration datasets on which they are based; those from Seattle (QL; Stuiver and Braziunas 1993; Stuiver et al. 1998), Belfast (UB; McCormac et al. 2004; Pearson et al. 1986) and Waikato (Wk; Hogg et al. 2009) are included in both curves, those from Groningen (GrA; Sakamoto et al. 2003), Mannheim (MAMS-; Friedrich et al. 2019) and Palaeo Labo Co. Ltd (Sakamoto et al. 2003; Okuno et al. 2018) only in IntCal20. Measurements on Irish oak undertaken for this study are shown in blue (ETH- and GrM-). The first half of the first millennium AD (upper), the period of this study (lower).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Probability distributions of dates from burials in Group A at Stanwick, Northamptonshire, UK, derived from the model defined in Fleming et al. (submitted, fig 5). Each distribution represents the relative probability that an event occurs at a particular time. Distributions in magenta-pink derive from the model calculated using IntCal13 (Reimer et al. 2013), and those in black from the model calculated using IntCal20 (Reimer et al. 2020). Crosses indicate the medians of the posterior distributions.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Probability distributions of dates from AD 76–106. Each distribution represents the relative probability that an event occurs at a particular time. For each of the dates two distributions have been plotted: one in outline, which is the result of simple radiocarbon calibration, and a solid one, based on the wiggle-match sequence. Distributions other than those relating to particular samples, correspond to aspects of the model. For example, the distribution “AD 286” is the estimated date when the ring for AD 286 formed. The model has been calculated using IntCal13 (lower), IntCal20 (middle), and IntCal20 with an allowance for a potential systematic offset (upper).

Figure 3

Table 1. Number of models where the known-age of AD 286 is not included in the Highest Posterior Density intervals (rounded outwards to the nearest year)

Figure 4

Figure 4. Posterior density estimates for the ring formed in AD 286, from wiggle-matching measurements from seven rings spanning successive 31-year blocks between AD 46–76 and AD 256–286 (Acomb > An: 26.7, n: 7 for all), calculated using IntCal13 (lower), IntCal20 (middle), and IntCal20 with an allowance for a potential systematic offset (upper). Five of the models calculated using IntCal20 allowing a potential systematic offset (ΔR) have poor overall agreement (see Appendix 2). Distribution where the true date lies within the Highest Posterior Density intervals at 95% probability are shown in black, those where it is outside these intervals in magenta-pink.

Figure 5

Table 2. Summary of calibration data included in IntCal13 and IntCal20 AD 46–286 (* average uncertainty includes reported error multiplier)

Figure 6

Figure 5. Offsets between the data presented in Appendix 1 and IntCal13 (magenta-pink) and IntCal20 (black) (ETH = triangles, GrM = circles). Weighted mean offsets shown in bold are statistically significant at the 5% significance level.

Figure 7

Appendix 1. Radiocarbon ages and stable isotopic measurements from Irish oak (AD 46–286), quoted δ13C values were measured by IRMS (GrM-) or AMS (ETH-), nm = not measured.

Figure 8

Appendix 2. Highest Posterior Density intervals for the ring formed in AD 286 from wiggle-matching measurements from seven rings spanning 43 successive 29-, 31-, or 33-year blocks between AD 46–76 and AD 256–286 (Acomb > An: 26.7, n: 7 for all); intervals which do not include the true date of AD 286 are given in bold; * indicates that the IntCal20 ΔR model has poor overall agreement (Amodel: < 60); all ranges have been rounded outwards to the nearest year

Supplementary material: File

Bayliss et al. supplementary material

Bayliss et al. supplementary material
Download Bayliss et al. supplementary material(File)
File 105.2 KB