14C wiggle-matching of short tree-ring sequences from post-medieval buildings in England

Abstract

This study tests whether accurate dating by AMS radiocarbon wigglematching short tree-ring series (c. 30 annual rings) in the period after AD 1510 can be achieved routinely. Such an approach has proved problematic for some intervals in the period AD 1160-1541 (Bayliss et al. 2017), which are before single-year calibration data are available (Stuiver 1993). We suggest that such calibration data are essential if this approach is to be employed for the informed conservation of standing buildings.

Resolving Indigenous village occupations and social history across the long century of European permanent settlement in Northeastern North America: The Mohawk River Valley ~1450-1635 CE

“…We note that cases of reported inaccuracies for short-sequence wiggle-matches at high-precision [106,107] are in fact relatively minor in scale in most cases and typically occur when the time-intervals of the samples dated (i.e., the specific number of tree-rings dated, and so calendar window comprising the dated samples) are much shorter than the integrated (smoothed) IntCal 14 C Calibration curve resolution available. Inaccuracies may also occur at certain periods when the total length of the time series is sufficiently short that it may not be able to permit discrimination between multiple periods with similar atmospheric 14 C levels and trajectories (i.e.…”

Tree-Ring-Radiocarbon Dating at a Late Contact Period Kitkahahki Pawnee Site on the Central Great Plains, Usa

“…Recent studies show how the inclusion of only a few wiggle-matched dates in Bayesian sequences from Dating at Kitkahahki Pawnee Earthlodges 485 short-duration contexts can significantly improve the resolution of date models in calibration plateaus and reversals (Manning et al 2020). Wiggle-match dating has been used with increasing frequency to obtain independent calendar dates for ancient and historical structures (Nishimoto et al 2010;Hogg et al 2017;Marshall et al 2019), shipwrecks (Lorentzen et al 2014), artifacts (Park et al 2010;Kim et al 2013;Manning et al 2014;Fukuyo et al 2019), and to anchor floating tree-ring chronologies (Hogg et al 2002;Manning et al 2010;Pearson et al 2014;Kim et al 2015;Panyushkina et al 2017;Turkon et al 2018).…”

IntCal20 Tree Rings: An Archaeological Swot Analysis

“…Over the past 25 years scientific dating has become central to the process of informed conservation of historic buildings (Clark 2001), although previous attempts to provide accurate dating for timbers from buildings by radiocarbon wiggle-matching have met with mixed success (Galimberti et al 2004;Tyers et al 2009;Bayliss et al 2017;Marshall et al 2019). The extension of the single-year calibration data to AD 969 (981 cal BP; Brehm et al submitted; Kudsk et al 2019 in this issue;Fogtmann-Schultz et al 2017 presents an opportunity to examine the effects of the refined structure of the IntCal20 calibration curve in this period (Figure 3) on the precision and accuracy of tree-ring wigglematching.…”

“…We now consider the single-year case studies that have been undertaken previously (Tyers et al 2009;Bayliss et al 2017;Marshall et al 2019) 7 , each of which has been recalculated using IntCal20 ( Table 5). The results are very similar to those produced by IntCal13 (Bayliss et al 2017: table 5;Marshall et al 2019: figs 3-4), with the wiggle-match sequences from timbers BAG-B18, BCB-10, and KLV-A06 producing Highest Posterior Density intervals that do not include the date for the final ring known from dendrochronology at even 99% probability.…”