Hubbry Logo
Old wood effectOld wood effectMain
Open search
Old wood effect
Community hub
Old wood effect
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Old wood effect
Old wood effect
Old wood effect
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The old wood effect or old wood problem is a pitfall encountered in the archaeological technique of radiocarbon dating. A sample will provide misleading or confusing results if materials of different ages are deposited in the same context.

Stratification is not always clear-cut in practice. In the case of dating megalithic tombs, indirect evidence for the age of the tomb must always be obtained, because stone (or the time of moving a stone) cannot be dated. When a number of objects are recovered from one deposit, the terminus post quem is based on the dating from the 'youngest' find. Even though other items in the same stratum indicate earlier dates, they may have been deposited at the same time. The deposit must be as young, or younger than the youngest object it contains. Thus excavators look to post holes, pits, or find spots under the orthostats for clues to construction dates. The possibility that something (organic) was already in situ must always be considered, especially if the results appear suspiciously early.

The old wood problem can appear in marine archaeology. Researchers need to check if stumps from a Mesolithic or Palaeolithic submerged forest are to be found in the area. (If they do, the possibility of one sticking up through, e. g., a shipwreck and giving misleading dates must be considered.)

Organic samples which are not derived from the same part of an organism, may show dating variations which blur and obscure the interpretation being attempted. If compelling archaeological reasons for supposing that the ages come from exactly contemporary samples do not exist, then results must be regarded as suspect.[1] If there exists no prior reason to believe that two samples are truly of the same age, and even if their ages are statistically indistinguishable, they are as likely to be as far apart in true age as the measured difference between them as they are to be of the same age.[2]

Charcoal was seen historically as an ideal medium for carbon dating. When long-lived tree species, such as oak and juniper, are used, however, there is a particular danger of encountering the "old wood" problem. For example, the date being measured may be from heartwood, which is already many centuries old by the time the tree was felled. Another difficulty is that of a possible time-lag between felling and final deposition. The timber may have had an extensive history of use and re-use. A method of ameliorating this problem is to date young growth, if available, for example hazel twigs. Dating of artefacts using accelerator mass spectrometry is the gold standard dating method of today; charcoal-sourced dates are seen as unreliable.[citation needed] In establishing the chronology of a site, a representative spread of dates is required before interpretation can be attempted.[3]

Notes

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Old wood effect

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The old wood effect, also known as the old wood problem, is a systematic bias in of archaeological wood or samples, where the resulting ages appear older than the actual time of sample deposition or use due to the incorporation of pre-existing, non-contemporary carbon in long-lived tissues. This phenomenon arises primarily because the heartwood of trees stops exchanging carbon with the atmosphere after its formation, preserving the radiocarbon signature from decades or even centuries earlier, while outer sapwood continues to incorporate modern atmospheric carbon until the is felled. Additional factors include the reuse of salvaged or seasoned timber in or as , as well as the loss of outer growth rings through human processing or environmental degradation, which can introduce offsets ranging from tens to hundreds of years—or in extreme cases, millennia. For instance, in temperate climates like the Eastern Woodlands of , studies of sites have shown that while wood dates can align with non-wood materials under certain conditions, the effect remains a potential source of chronological distortion unless regional decay rates and sample contexts are carefully evaluated. To counteract this bias, archaeologists prioritize short-lived plant remains, such as seeds or twigs, or apply statistical adjustments based on known ' growth patterns and site-specific variables, assuming the effect is present until proven otherwise.

Definition and Background

Definition

The old wood effect is a systematic in that causes wood or samples from archaeological contexts to produce dates older than the actual time of the event being dated, such as the construction or use of a structure. This occurs because the carbon fixed in the sample during its formation predates the sample's incorporation into the by a significant interval, often decades to centuries. The effect is particularly pronounced in long-lived tree species, where the dated material reflects the tree's growth history rather than the moment of its harvest or burning. At its core, the mechanism involves the physiology of growth and carbon fixation, where annual rings in the heartwood cease exchanging carbon with the atmosphere long before the tree is felled. Once formed, these inner rings become metabolically inactive and retain the radiocarbon from the time of their development, creating an "inbuilt age" that offsets the measured radiocarbon age. For instance, a tree cut down in the 1st century CE might yield a date from its core rings corresponding to several centuries BCE, misleading interpretations of site . This inbuilt age can vary widely depending on the ' lifespan and growth rate, with hardwoods like potentially introducing offsets of 200–500 years or more. Unlike broader challenges, such as fluctuations in atmospheric ¹⁴C levels or post-depositional contamination, the old wood effect is uniquely tied to the temporal mismatch inherent in woody materials. It does not stem from external alterations to the sample but from the sample's own lifecycle, emphasizing the need for material-specific considerations in dating protocols. relies on measuring the decay of ¹⁴C absorbed during the organism's life, but for wood, this absorption halts unevenly across the tree's structure, isolating older carbon in durable inner tissues.

Historical Context in Radiocarbon Dating

was developed by American chemist at the in the late 1940s, building on his 1946 proposal to measure the content of —a radioactive —in organic materials to determine their age. The method was first published in 1949, with Libby's team reporting initial assays on samples of known age, including wood, which demonstrated its potential for absolute chronology. The technique exploits the decay of , produced in the atmosphere and absorbed by living organisms, at a of 5,730 years. Libby's innovation earned him the in 1960 and marked a pivotal advancement in scientific dating. By the early 1950s, was rapidly adopted in , providing the first reliable absolute dates for prehistoric sites and transforming interpretations of human history. Early applications focused on organic remains from excavations, enabling archaeologists to establish chronologies independent of relative methods like . Wood and samples became the primary choice for dating due to their prevalence in archaeological contexts—such as hearths, structures, and tools—and their durability in preservation compared to more perishable materials like seeds or textiles. These samples were abundant across global sites, from Egyptian tombs to American mound complexes, facilitating widespread use of the technique in the decade following its invention. The old wood effect emerged as a recognized limitation in the 1960s and 1970s, identified through inconsistencies in radiocarbon sequences where wood or charcoal dates appeared systematically older than those from short-lived plants or associated artifacts. Discrepancies arose in studies of settlement patterns and cultural phases, prompting scrutiny of sample types and their interpretive reliability. A seminal contribution to the statistical analysis of radiocarbon dates came from Ward and Wilson (1978), who outlined procedures for comparing and combining multiple radiocarbon ages and emphasized the need for rigorous evaluation of sample contexts. This period also saw an evolution in radiocarbon methodology, shifting from bulk sample processing—which averaged ages across mixed materials and obscured temporal nuances—to more targeted approaches that accounted for site-specific challenges like the old wood effect. By the late 1970s, archaeologists increasingly advocated for contextual analysis of samples, moving beyond initial enthusiasm to refine the technique's accuracy in complex depositional environments.

Causes

Tree Physiology and Carbon Fixation

Trees form annual growth rings through the activity of the , a layer of meristematic cells located between the bark and , which produces new cells during the growing season. These rings consist of earlywood (formed in spring with larger cells for water transport) and latewood (denser cells formed in summer), creating a record of each year's growth influenced by environmental conditions. The inner portion of , known as heartwood, becomes inactive as cells lignify and lose their ability to transport water or exchange gases, while the outer sapwood remains metabolically active, facilitating nutrient and water movement. Carbon fixation in trees occurs primarily through in the leaves, where atmospheric CO₂, including the ¹⁴C, is incorporated into sugars via the . These photosynthates are then translocated via the to the , where they are used to synthesize and other structural components of the new annual ring being formed. Once a ring is completed and transitions to heartwood, it ceases all exchange with the atmosphere, preserving the ¹⁴C signature from the specific year of its formation. Consequently, the ¹⁴C content in any given ring reflects atmospheric levels at that time, not the date when the tree was felled or the wood was used. This physiological process underlies the old wood effect in , as samples from heartwood yield ages older than the tree's by the number of years corresponding to the ring's position from the outer edge. For example, in oaks (Quercus spp.), heartwood can be 100–200 years older than the date, depending on the tree's age at harvest and the sampled ring's depth. Long-lived tree species are particularly susceptible to large offsets due to their extended lifespans and substantial heartwood accumulation. Oaks can live 200–1,000 years, junipers (Juniperus spp.) up to 1,500 years, and bristlecone pines (Pinus longaeva) over 5,000 years, potentially amplifying inbuilt age discrepancies to centuries or more if inner rings are dated. Quantification of this inbuilt age typically ranges from 50–300 years for hardwoods like , based on the average lifespan at felling and the proportion of heartwood sampled, though precise estimates require dendrochronological analysis to count rings from the dated sample to the bark edge.

Archaeological Reuse and Time Lags

In archaeological contexts, the of timber from previously constructed structures or stored logs introduces significant time lags into , as the wood's growth predates its final deposition by potentially decades or centuries. For instance, in medieval , shipbuilders frequently incorporated beams and planking salvaged from dismantled buildings or earlier vessels, extending the wood's effective age beyond its physiological maturity. A notable example comes from 10th-century , , where excavations at Hungate revealed a structure built with reused planking from a clinker-built , felled between AD 953 and 982 but incorporated into the building around AD 965, creating a reuse lag of 12–13 years. This practice was common due to timber scarcity, leading to dates that overestimate the age of the associated archaeological event by the duration of prior use. Time lags also arise from depositional processes, where wood experiences delays between felling and incorporation into a site, or through environmental redeposition of older material. In riverine or coastal settings, can ancient far from its origin, redepositing it in later sediments and introducing unquantifiable offsets; for example, in estuarine environments, driftwood samples may yield dates hundreds of years older than the surrounding context due to prolonged fluvial . Such lags compound with initial growth offsets, as the wood's innermost rings—formed long before felling—retain their original radiocarbon signature. Schiffer (1986) first systematically documented these issues in Southwestern U.S. , noting that reused or redeposited wood in hearths and structures routinely biased chronologies by 100–300 years or more.90026-0) When old wood or heartwood is burned in hearths or pyres, the resulting inherits and transfers the full age offset to ash and residue samples, complicating interpretations of activity dates. from durable heartwood, often selected for due to its and heat value, can preserve offsets from both tree age and prior , as does not alter the fixed carbon's radiocarbon content. In prehistoric and historic sites, this has led to erroneously early dates for domestic or fires, with offsets persisting unless mitigated by contextual . Bowman (1990) highlights how such charcoal-specific lags in European can extend apparent ages by up to 500 years when combining physiological and factors. The cumulative effect of these post-felling factors—, depositional delays, and formation—can amplify the old wood offset to 100–500 years or greater, severely distorting site chronologies without corroborative evidence like tree-ring dating. This interplay underscores the need to distinguish external human and environmental influences from inherent tree biology, as briefly referenced in dendrochronological assessments of ring sequences. In aggregate, these processes have historically misled interpretations in diverse settings, from urban scenarios to fluvial deposits.

Implications

Errors in Chronological Interpretation

The old wood effect in radiocarbon dating results in apparent age inflation, where calibrated ages from wood or charcoal samples appear significantly older than the archaeological event they are intended to date, often by hundreds of years, due to the incorporation of carbon fixed during the tree's earlier growth rings rather than at the time of harvest or use. This discrepancy produces dates that precede the terminus post quem of the associated context, compressing timelines by suggesting prolonged inactivity or inverting sequences of events, such as implying extended continuity where rapid changes occurred. For instance, a sample from a structure built in the late Bronze Age might yield a Neolithic date, thereby misaligning the perceived onset of that phase. Such age inflation profoundly impacts site phasing by distorting the alignment of stratigraphic layers and cultural phases, leading to erroneous attributions of and activities to incorrect periods. When old wood dates are integrated into phasing models without adjustment, they can extend phase durations artificially or create false gaps, complicating the reconstruction of occupational histories and cultural transitions. This misalignment risks assigning early prehistoric dates to later contexts, thereby skewing interpretations of technological adoption or societal shifts. From a statistical perspective, single-sample analyses from are prone to from undetected offsets, amplifying in chronological frameworks, while multi-sample averaging across materials may dilute but not eliminate these issues if offsets vary systematically. Bayesian modeling addresses these challenges by integrating multiple dates with stratigraphic priors to identify and quantify offsets, enabling more robust detection of old wood influences through metrics like agreement indices and sensitivity tests. Without such approaches, datasets exhibit inflated variance, reducing the precision of phase boundaries. The broader implications of these errors extend to undermining correlations between radiocarbon chronologies and independent evidence, such as historical texts or , which can invalidate cross-method validations and lead to flawed narratives about historical processes. Inaccurate chronologies may also propagate through regional syntheses, affecting comparative studies of or environmental impacts. This highlights the need for cautious interpretation to preserve the integrity of archaeological reconstructions.

Challenges in Specific Contexts

In stratigraphic mixing, old wood incorporated into archaeological fills or post holes can significantly skew the dating of entire layers, particularly in complex burial structures like megalithic tombs. For instance, in the La Lora megalithic complex in , , the fragmentation and mixing of materials during tomb construction introduced older charcoal samples, potentially biasing radiocarbon dates and complicating the chronological sequence of collective burials. Similarly, large timber posts in prehistoric sites may retain an "old wood effect" from heartwood that predates the structure's use, leading to dates that underestimate the site's occupation by decades or more. At and sites, the old wood effect arises from carbon exchange between apatite and the pyre's atmosphere, where older wood used as imparts an elevated radiocarbon age to the cremated remains. Experimental and archaeological evidence indicates offsets ranging from 73 ± 26 years to over 200 years, with dates appearing older than the actual cremation event due to the incorporation of carbon from long-lived trees. In cases like early medieval graves in Broechem, , this effect can reach up to 100 years when burning stems from trees over 200 years old, further offsetting dates relative to associated short-lived materials. In marine , submerged prehistoric forests pose a unique challenge by supplying anomalously old wood samples to coastal sites, as preserved stumps from or earlier periods can be reworked into later deposits. of such wood from sites like Lough Arrow, , has yielded dates hundreds of years too old due to the inbuilt age of the timber, misleading interpretations of nearby human activity. This issue is compounded in surf-zone contexts, such as off the Carmel coast, where waterlogged wooden artifacts from ancient forests inflate ages and obscure the timing of maritime or shoreline events. Urban reuse in multi-phase buildings exacerbates the old wood effect through the recycling of timber across construction phases, confounding efforts to date architectural sequences. In Roman London, dendrochronologically dated timbers showed radiocarbon offsets of up to several decades, attributed to the reuse of older heartwood in urban structures, which blurred the distinction between initial building and later modifications. Similarly, in Byzantine-era sites like , recycled timbers from prior phases introduced inbuilt ages that required cross-validation with dendroprovenancing to resolve chronological ambiguities in multi-layered urban development.

Mitigation and Alternatives

Sample Selection Criteria

To minimize the old wood effect in programs, archaeologists and researchers prioritize the selection of materials with minimal inbuilt age, ensuring that the dated event closely aligns with the archaeological context rather than the organism's earlier growth phases. A primary guideline is to favor short-lived taxa, such as twigs, seeds, grains, nutshells (e.g., hazel nuts), herbaceous plants, leaves, or small branches, which typically exhibit inbuilt ages of less than 10 years due to their rapid growth cycles and lack of long-term carbon accumulation. These materials, including single-year growth structures like inflorescences or pinecones, are preferred over long-lived woody samples because they reduce the offset caused by , where inner rings incorporate older atmospheric carbon. Species identification prior to is essential to confirm short-lived characteristics and avoid inadvertently selecting durable hardwoods prone to delayed use. When wood samples are unavoidable, sapwood identification is critical, as it represents the outer, living portion of the tree with recently fixed carbon, typically younger than heartwood by decades or more. Anatomical criteria for distinguishing sapwood include its lighter color, higher moisture content, and greater permeability compared to the darker, denser heartwood; researchers examine cross-sections for these traits under to target the outermost rings. To account for potentially missing sapwood rings in incomplete samples, species-specific data are used to estimate the number of outer rings, such as the heartwood age rule (HAR) for European gymnosperms like Scots pine (averaging 51 ± 15 rings), European larch, and Cembra pine, which models a linear relationship between sapwood ring count and the of heartwood rings. For Scots pine specifically, statistical models predict missing rings based on heartwood ring count, providing 80% prediction intervals of 28–34 rings to refine felling date estimates and mitigate offsets. Employing multiple sampling strategies from the same stratigraphic context enhances reliability by allowing cross-verification and detection; for instance, a suite of diverse materials—such as combining short-lived seeds with sapwood fragments—helps identify and discard dates skewed by old wood. This approach involves submitting more samples than immediately needed, targeting discrete features like hearths or stratigraphic breaks, to build a robust chronological model. Contextual evaluation further guides selection by assessing site-specific risks of material reuse or disturbance; heartwood-dominated samples should be avoided in settings prone to scavenging or recycling, such as urban or long-occupied sites, where old timber may be repurposed, inflating ages. Instead, prioritize samples from sealed, short-term deposits to ensure contemporaneity with the event of interest.

Advanced Dating Methods

Accelerator mass spectrometry () has revolutionized the precision of by enabling the analysis of minute samples, such as individual tree rings or sapwood fragments, which is crucial for isolating the most recent growth layers affected by the old wood effect. Unlike conventional radiocarbon methods that require larger samples, can process as little as 1-5 mg of carbon, allowing archaeologists to target the outer rings of timber without compromising structural integrity. This capability facilitates the identification of sapwood-heartwood boundaries, reducing age offsets by up to several centuries in long-lived species like . For instance, studies on ancient wood samples have demonstrated 's effectiveness in dating single-year rings from trees over 20,000 years old, providing high-resolution data to correct for inbuilt age in archaeological contexts. Wiggle-matching enhances accuracy by aligning a series of closely spaced measurements from a sample sequence—such as consecutive rings—with the characteristic "wiggles" in the international , thereby refining calendar age estimates and mitigating ambiguities from plateaus that exacerbate old wood biases. This statistical technique, often applied to short sequences of 20-100 years, achieves precisions of ±5-20 years, far superior to single-date calibrations, by minimizing offsets from atmospheric variations. In cases involving reused timber, wiggle-matching can quantify and adjust for old wood effects by cross-referencing the sample's radiocarbon profile against known dendrochronological records, as demonstrated in analyses of European prehistoric sites where it resolved discrepancies of 50-100 years. The method requires high-precision measurements and software tools like OxCal for , ensuring robust offsets even in regions with flat calibration segments. Bayesian chronological modeling, implemented in software such as OxCal, integrates radiocarbon dates with stratigraphic, historical, or dendrochronological priors to detect and correct old wood biases through probabilistic frameworks that model potential offsets as distributions. By incorporating parameters like maximum sapwood heartwood differences (e.g., 100-200 years for ), these models estimate the likelihood of old wood contributions and adjust posterior age distributions accordingly, often narrowing uncertainties by 20-50%. For example, in modeling from cremated contexts, Bayesian approaches have successfully quantified wood-age offsets of 50-300 years, improving chronological resolution in prehistoric sequences. This iterative process uses simulations to evaluate millions of scenarios, prioritizing configurations that align with contextual evidence while flagging anomalous dates indicative of reuse. Recent developments include the 2025 (λ) model, which applies Approximate Bayesian with random forests to correct for the old wood effect by modeling temporal lags (mean: 641 years, 95% CI: 48–1866 years) in sites, enhancing population size estimates from radiocarbon date abundances. Complementary integration of dendrochronology with radiocarbon dating provides an orthogonal validation for old wood corrections, particularly when waney edges (the final growth ring) are preserved, allowing precise ring counting to establish the tree's death year and subtract inbuilt age directly. This hybrid approach leverages master chronologies to cross-date samples, followed by targeted AMS on outer rings, achieving calendar precisions better than ±1 year in overlapping regions like northern Europe. In archaeological wood from medieval structures, such combinations have resolved old wood offsets by confirming sapwood estimates through ring-width pattern matching, enhancing the reliability of radiocarbon results where absolute dendrochronology alone is infeasible due to missing rings or regional gaps.

Examples and Case Studies

Prehistoric Sites

In sites across , the old wood effect has significantly impacted radiocarbon chronologies due to the use of from long-lived trees, often yielding dates 200–300 years older than the actual event. These discrepancies can be resolved through Bayesian modeling that prioritizes short-lived materials, such as shells and seeds, highlighting the multi-phase nature of Mesolithic activity. Similar issues arose in Neolithic Britain, where oak heartwood charcoal from post holes in tombs and enclosures inflated construction dates by around 150 years, as the inner rings of mature oaks predate felling by 100–200 years. For example, at the Briar Hill causewayed enclosure in , dates on comminuted oak heartwood from cremation pits and structural contexts were adjusted for this bias, shifting the site's primary use from an apparent early phase to a more secure mid- timeline around 3700–3500 cal BC. Ashmore (1996) notes that such offsets are prevalent in timber monuments, including long barrows and chambered tombs, where reused or heartwood-dominated samples distort interpretations of building sequences. In the American Southwest, the old wood effect is particularly acute at Ancestral Puebloan sites, where —derived from trees that can live 500–700 years—creates offsets of 50–300 years, leading to overestimation of site ages. Excavations at sites like those in the Chaco Canyon system revealed that wood dates from room fills and hearths predated associated artifacts, but cross-dating with short-lived remains, such as cupule fragments and kernels, provided accurate occupation spans, often aligning with tree-ring chronologies for the Pueblo II–III periods (ca. AD 900–1300). Upham et al. (1987) emphasize that dating mitigates these biases, enabling precise phasing of agricultural intensification and architectural development. These case studies underscore a critical lesson for prehistoric : multi-proxy approaches, integrating short-lived organics like , grains, and annual alongside wood , are indispensable for constructing reliable chronologies in early and contexts, where tree longevity amplifies dating errors.

Historic and Marine Archaeology

In medieval shipwrecks, the of old timbers often introduces the old wood effect in , resulting in apparent age offsets that misrepresent the construction or sinking date. This practice, common in due to timber , can lead to offsets of around 100 years or more, as repurposed hull timbers yield dates reflecting the original tree growth rather than the ship's assembly. In Roman forts across Britain, from reused structural beams has similarly skewed radiocarbon interpretations of occupation phases, attributing dates to earlier periods than the actual site use. During the late and Roman periods, old wood incorporated into hearths or construction contributed to the old wood effect, where the radiocarbon age captures the tree's death rather than the 's production or deposition. Such issues, highlighted in analyses of processing sites, underscore the need for contextual evaluation to distinguish between timber felling and reuse events in fort chronologies. Marine archaeology along North American coasts encounters the old wood effect through Palaeolithic-era wood stumps preserved in submerged forests, which can yield erroneously early dates for or later sites if incorporated into deposits. These ancient stumps, often from bald forests buried under sediments during sea-level rise, date beyond 50,000 years old via radiocarbon, creating hurdles for accurate site chronologies in coastal contexts. On the Northwest , long-lived trees exceeding 1,000 years contribute to this problem, where or wood fragments in archaeological layers produce dates offset by centuries, complicating interpretations of prehistoric maritime adaptations. Modern mitigation in marine contexts employs () radiocarbon dating on short-lived materials to bypass the old wood effect and refine timelines. By targeting annual growth elements from recent felling, dates can align closely with historical records, confirming offsets avoided through and providing precise calibration for wooden hull assessments.

References

  1. https://www.radiocarbon.com/old-wood-effect.htm
  2. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276241444_Evaluating_the_Old_Wood_Problem_in_a_Temperate_Climate_A_Fort_Ancient_Case_Study
  3. https://www.academia.edu/7149855/A_proposed_adjustment_for_the_old_wood_effect
  4. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2023.75
  5. https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/radiocarbon-dating-chronological-modelling/the-bayesian-process/
  6. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330154009_The_old_wood_effect_revisited_a_comparison_of_radiocarbon_dates_of_wood_charcoal_and_short-lived_taxa_from_Korea
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3313692/
  8. https://www.acs.org/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/radiocarbon-dating.html
  9. https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/what-is-carbon-14-dating
  10. https://mci.si.edu/dating-artifacts
  11. https://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/radiocarbon/selecting.html
  12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030544030500107X
  13. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/beginning-and-early-years-of-radiocarbon-dating-in-russia-laboratories-and-personalities/8B434781D798E38B17732ED9985C1EDF
  14. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2023.1135480/full
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9997647/
  16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236010958_Interpreting_Radiocarbon_Dates_Using_Evidence_from_Tree_Rings
  17. https://doi.org/10.1163/27723194-bja10015
  18. https://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/radiocarbon/interpreting.html
  19. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/chronological-study-of-collective-burials-in-the-northern-iberian-plateau-analysis-of-radiocarbon-dates-on-human-bones-from-the-megalithic-complex-of-la-lora-burgos-spain/EDB2299689BB2704DC9CCFB2C3DDD43C
  20. https://academic.oup.com/book/8674/chapter/154680087
  21. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/195D18ADF746C7A517B68E98322FE658/S003382222000003Xa.pdf/bayesian_modeling_of_woodage_offsets_in_cremated_bone.pdf
  22. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/anomalous-radiocarbon-dates-from-the-early-medieval-cremation-graves-from-broechem-flanders-belgium-reservoir-or-old-wood-effects/89053EE39DE09C69ADD108579EE0ED8B
  23. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384804901_Radiocarbon_dating_of_submerged_wood_from_Lough_Arrow_County_Sligo
  24. https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/14/12/2373
  25. https://www.academia.edu/39716987/Radiocarbon_dates_of_dendro_dated_timbers_from_Roman_London_show_large_offset
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1125786519300505
  27. https://iee.psu.edu/labs/radiocarbon-laboratory/guide-radiocarbon-sampling
  28. https://chrono.qub.ac.uk/Resources/Radiocarbon/sample_selection.html
  29. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259143962_Estimating_missing_sapwood_rings_in_three_European_gymnosperm_species_by_the_heartwood_age_rule
  30. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1125786522000431
  31. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/14c-age-measurements-of-singleyear-tree-rings-of-old-wood-samples-22000-14c-years-bp/D2697C295BE0388103D6B89D2DB2ECAA
  32. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/wiggle-matching-radiocarbon-dates/4ED8B6F0713770B8427428F22BA91B94
  33. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/bayesian-modeling-of-woodage-offsets-in-cremated-bone/195D18ADF746C7A517B68E98322FE658
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X25004699
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1125786515000715
  36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X23001190
  37. https://historicengland.org.uk/research/results/reports/5263/DatingBriarHill_InterpretingControversialRadiocarbonResultsfromtheNeolithicCausewayedEnclosureatBriarHillNorthamptonshire
  38. https://www.jstor.org/stable/677764
  39. https://ltrr.arizona.edu/sites/ltrr.arizona.edu/files/bibliodocs/Creasman-PhD-Ship_Timber2010.pdf
  40. https://www.hantsfieldclub.org.uk/publications/hampshirestudies/digital/2010s/Vol_72/s3_king.pdf
  41. https://www.livescience.com/37977-underwater-cypress-forest-discovered.html
  42. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/1-Archaeological-sites-on-the-Northwest-Coast-of-North-America-with-components-dated-to_tbl1_282636647
  43. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1986.tb00389.x
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.