Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-g96k6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T18:53:55.554Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Radiocarbon Distance Between Calendar Dates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2016

Adam Walanus  and
Dorota Nalepka
Adam Walanus*
Affiliation:
AGH University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Geology, Geophysics and Environmental Protection, al. A. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Kraków, Poland
Dorota Nalepka
Affiliation:
W. Szafer Institute of Botany PAS, Lubicz 46, 31–512 Kraków, Poland
*
Corresponding author. Email: walanus@geol.agh.edu.pl
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.

The calibration procedure, and especially the nonlinear shape of the calibration curve, makes analyzing a possible dating result a far from straightforward process. This is especially so if the goal is to distinguish between two relatively close events. Proposed herein is a calculator, or alternatively a graph, which enables reading of the difference between two radiocarbon ages corresponding to their expected calendar ages. The result may surprise the less experienced 14C users. Such a calculation also indicates the time periods with high or low potential for application of the wiggle-matching method.

Information

Type
Statistics and Modeling
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , 2014 , pp. 877 - 881
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

References

Galimberti, M, Bronk Ramsey, C, Manning, SW. 2004. Wiggle-match dating of tree-ring sequences. Radiocarbon 46(2):917–24.Google Scholar
Gingerich, O. 2009. The Copernicus grave mystery. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 103(30): 12,215–6.Google Scholar
Johnson, VE. 2013. Revised standards for statistical evidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1313476110.Google Scholar
Reimer, PJ, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Beck, JW, Blackwell, PG, Bronk Ramsey, C, Buck, CE, Cheng, H, Edwards, RL, Friedrich, M, Grootes, PM, Guilderson, TP, Haflidason, H, Hajdas, I, Hatté, C, Heaton, TJ, Hoffmann, DL, Hogg, AG, Hughen, KA, Kaiser, KF, Kromer, B, Manning, SW, Niu, M, Reimer, RW, Richards, DA, Scott, EM, Southon, JR, Staff, RA, Turney, CSM, van der Plicht, J. 2013. IntCal13 and Marine 13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1869–87.Google Scholar
Walanus, A. 2009. Systematic bias of radiocarbon method. Radiocarbon 51(2):433–6.Google Scholar