te: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 07:51:59 -0700 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: Mark Hall Subject: Dendro dates Does anybody have a good reference on how to deal with tree-rings and C-14 dates? The specific case I'm looking at is a series of burial tumuli from which various pieces of organic matter have been radiocarbon dated and the age of the trees (which may or may not have been radiocarbon dated) are known. Would one just subtract the age of the tree from the uncalibrated radiocarbon date and then calibrate? Thanks, Mark Hall hall@qal.berkeley.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 09:26:29 -0700 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: Mark Hall Subject: Re: Question follow-up Sorry if my previous post was a bit ambigous (sp?). The trees were used to build the burial chamber. The dendro dates are the age of the tree when they were cut down--i.e. 150 years old, etc. For the Russian steppe (the material I'm working on), they do not have a complete sequence for dendro dating like parts of Northern Europe or the Southwest. In terms of how the trees relate to what is dated, sometimes the Russians have radiocarbon dated the trees, in other cases they have radiocarbon dated other organic materials in the burial, and to further complex and confuse, they have sometimes radiocarbon dated the wood in the burial but not the pieces they dendro dated. I'm just trying to get a conservative estimate on the date of some of this material. Right now I'm inclined to subtract the dendro date from the uncalibrated C14 date and then calibrate the result (ie C14 date: 2350 +/-85, dendro date 150 yrs., so I would calibrate 2200 +/- 85). Thanks, Mark Hall hall@qal.berkeley.edu ORIGINAL POST: > Does anybody have a good reference on how to deal with tree-rings and > C-14 dates? The specific case I'm looking at is a series of burial > tumuli from which various pieces of organic matter have been radiocarbon > dated and the age of the trees (which may or may not have been > radiocarbon dated) are known. Would one just subtract the age of the > tree from the uncalibrated radiocarbon date and then calibrate? > > Thanks, Mark Hall > hall@qal.berkeley.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 12:45:02 -0700 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: Paula Reimer Subject: Re: Question follow-up Comments: cc: hall@qal.berkeley.edu In-Reply-To: <199508031626.JAA26999@snowy.QAL.Berkeley.EDU> Mark, If I understand correctly, by dendrodates you mean the age of the trees when cut. When adjusting for age at death for a radiocarbon sample, the calendar dates are shifted after calibration, since the calibration curve is an estimate of the atmospheric C-14 level at the time of sample growth. For the trees that are radiocarbon dated and have dendroages available, you would subtract the tree's average age for the portion sampled from the calibrated age ranges (i.e. for a 150 year old tree, if the first 20 inner rings were sampled for radiocarbon dating the average dendroage of the dated wood would be 140 years, whereas, if the outer 20 rings were dated the average dendroage would be 10 years). A good reference is Atwater et al, 1991, Nature 353:156-158. For pieces of wood that are radiocarbon dated but with unknown dendroage the issue is not as clear cut. If the pieces of wood are of similar size and there is not much scatter in the dendroages, perhaps you could tentatively use an average dendroage. For other organic material there would not normally be an adjustment made unless there was evidence of a delay in usage from the growth date of the material or the material is longlived like the trees. Hopefully some archaeologists will have some ideas for you on these questions Best wishes and good luck! Paula Reimer ******************************* > dendro date 150 yrs., so I would calibrate 2200 +/- 85). > > Thanks, Mark Hall hall@qal.berkeley.edu > > ORIGINAL POST: > > Does anybody have a good reference on how to deal with tree-rings and > > C-14 dates? The specific case I'm looking at is a series of burial > > tumuli from which various pieces of organic matter have been radiocarbon > > dated and the age of the trees (which may or may not have been > > radiocarbon dated) are known. Would one just subtract the age of the > > tree from the uncalibrated radiocarbon date and then calibrate? > > > > Thanks, Mark Hall > > hall@qal.berkeley.edu > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 11:53:23 +1200 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: "Chambers, Dawn" Subject: AMS/Graphitisation Postdoc Position The Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences is a New Zealand Crown Research Institute. It can offer a position for one year (with a possible one year extension) to a qualified post-doctoral scientist, working with our Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) team. Our AMS laboratory is known internationally for quality radiocarbon dating and has pioneered innovative techniques and applications of radiocarbon measurements in the environmental and earth sciences and in archaeology. The laboratory is currently undertaking a programme of expansion of its capabilities in radiocarbon and other cosmogenic isotopes and is also upgrading the AMS instrumentation, including the installation of a new ion source. This will require a re-evaluation and enhancement of our sample graphitisation procedures to enable them to meet the expected increased throughput and also development of appropriate techniques for the application of AMS radiocarbon measurements to problems of biomedical, agricultural and biological research. The appointee will play a leading role in these developments and will have the opportunity to participate in the establishment of the biological-related research programmes. The successful candidate will have a Ph.D. in a physical science. An aptitude for practical laboratory innovation, probably involving applied chemistry methods, and the application of existing knowledge to different science areas is essential. An ability to work within a team and willingness to contribute to our busy commercial operation is also required. We look forward to receiving expressions of interest containing a brief CV and the names and addresses of three referees. The closing date for applications is 25 August 1995. Please contact Ms Pat Cochrane, our Training Officer. ***************************************************************** ** Fax : (64)-4-569-0600 ** ** Email : p.cochrane@gns.cri.nz ** ** Post : Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences ** ** PO Box 30-368 Lower Hutt 6315, New Zealand ** ***************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 19:52:17 -0700 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: David Sewell Subject: Re: AMS/Graphitisation Postdoc Position In-Reply-To: <199508032355.QAA27681@listserv.ccit.arizona.edu> from "Chambers, Dawn" at Aug 4, 95 11:53:23 am >The Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences is a New Zealand >Crown Research Institute. It can offer a position for one year >(with a possible one year extension) to a qualified post-doctoral >scientist, working with our Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) >team. Would it be OK for me to put a copy of this job announcement on the Radiocarbon WWW server? -- David Sewell, Assistant Editor RADIOCARBON: An International Journal of Cosmogenic Isotope Research Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona 4717 E. Ft. Lowell Rd., Tucson, Arizona 85712 USA Telephone: 1-520-881-0857 Fax: 1-520-881-0554 General e-mail address: c14@packrat.aml.arizona.edu, WWW server: http://packrat.aml.arizona.edu/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 15:26:06 +1200 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: "McKee, Joseph" Subject: Re: AMS/Graphitisation Postdoc Position - Reply Dear David, Yes, it would be OK to place the AMS/Graph Position on the WWW. Joseph Dr Joseph W.A. McKee Rafter Radiocarbon Laboratory Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences P.O. Box 31 312 Lower Hutt New Zealand EMail J.MCKEE@GNS.CRI.NZ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 20:45:51 -0700 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: David Sewell Subject: C14-L Reply-to default Dear C14-L list subscribers (from the list administrator): I'd like input on your preferences regarding how replies to C14-L postings are handled. C14-L is currently set up with the default Listserv option that adds a "Reply-To" header directing e-mail replies to the entire list rather than to the individual poster. The theory is that a Listserv list is a vehicle for group communication, so the default action should be to respond to the group. In practice, it's too easy to forget and send a response to 200+ people when you meant to e-mail one person, as I just did concerning the job announcement. (And I've been on Listserv lists for half a dozen years and should certainly know better...) Anyway, I thought I'd take a vote on the matter. If you want to vote, let me know whether you think: "Reply" should go to the whole list "Reply" should go to the individual poster Don't "reply" to this message, but send your vote to dsew@packrat.aml.arizona.edu ! I'll collect votes until 10 August. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 15:50:09 +1200 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: "Chambers, Dawn" Subject: Re: AMS/Graphitisation Postdoc Position - Joe has replied 'Yes' to this request. So now it is on the World Wide Web. Regards Dawn ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 09:23:38 GMT Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: "A.Bayliss" Dear Mark, I'd do exactly what Paula Reimer suggested in your situation. There is even free and easily available software which calculates the numbers for you and (even better) explains exactly what it does. You need the `OFFSET' function in OxCal, which can be downloaded from http://sable.ox.ac.uk/departments/rlaha/ (contact Dr C B Ramsey orau@vax.ox.ac.uk). Alex Bayliss English Heritage ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 15:08:16 -0400 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: "Donald M. Thieme" Subject: Re: C14-L Reply-to default In-Reply-To: "3 Aug 1995 20:45:51 -0700 from" Reply should go to the whole list. Otherwise, we end up with conversations that have "missing links". I also want to commend you on how this list has been managed. There does not seem to be much extraneous traffic as of yet. Perhaps this is just due to the focused interests of those who have subscribed. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Aug 1995 21:01:22 -0400 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: Dov Weinstein Subject: Ultrapure Magnesium Oxide Gentlemen, We are Synergy Superconductive Technologies Ltd. and are growers of and finishers of ultrapure Magnesium Oxide substrates in sizes ranging from 1 cm. X 1 cm. to 2" diameter X 10 (and 20) mils thickness. Our MgO substrates are the wafers of preference for HTSC applications upon which you can deposit YBCO. Our company is also capable of supplying you our MgO coated with YBCO with or without lithography as per your needs. We can be reached at Synergy@netvision.net.il Regards, Jeff Gabbay President ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 07:32:42 -0700 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: Mark Hall Subject: Re: Thanks--dendro Thanks to all who cleared up my confusion on the dendro dating (both on and off list). Mark Hall hall@qal.berkeley.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 10:43:38 -0400 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: H P York Subject: Re: Ultrapure Magnesium Oxide To Whom it May Concern: It is improper and insulting for you to address a generalized mailing to "Gentlemen". This practice will cause you to lose business. Sincerely, (Ms.) H.P. York ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 13:00:14 -0400 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: Joe Burch Subject: Re: Ultrapure Magnesium Oxide Comments: To: HYork@aol.com In-Reply-To: Mail from 'H P York ' dated: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 10:43:38 -0400 >Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 10:43:38 -0400 >Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List >Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List >From: H P York >Subject: Re: Ultrapure Magnesium Oxide >To: Multiple recipients of list C14-L >Status: RO > >To Whom it May Concern: > >It is improper and insulting for you to address a generalized mailing to >"Gentlemen". This practice will cause you to lose business. > >Sincerely, > >(Ms.) H.P. York Please provide list members with acceptable salutation forms. Thank You, Joseph B. Burch e-mail: jbb@virginia.edu UNIX Systems Group phone: (804) 982-4707 Information Technology and Communication fax: (804) 982-4715 University of Virginia ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 21:47:04 -0400 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: Clayton Walker Subject: Re: Ultrapure Magnesium Oxide Comments: cc: HYork@aol.com, jbb@conan.itc.virginia.edu I hardly think it is necessary to carry on a sexism/feminism conversation, since it has nothing to do with C-14 or Radiocarbon dating. Even though I do agree that Gentlemen was an inappropriate term, I'd rather read about C14 than people's petty squabbles. Sincerely, Clayton Walker clayton10@aol.com cwalker@pro-smof.bga.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 01:45:36 -0400 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: Michael Nelson Subject: Re: Ultrapure Magnesium Oxide Although I found the sexist greeting offensive, I do not subscribe to this list to debate what is in good tast or not. Let's recognize the mistake, and get on with discussing C14 & dating!!! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 08:58:33 -0700 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: David Sewell Subject: Result of vote on C14-L reply Nineteen people responded to the invitation to vote on whether the default "reply" line for the C14-L list should send to the whole list or the individual author of a message. The vote was 16 to 3 to keep the default as is, with "reply" going to the entire group. The most frequent comment was that occasional mistakes in addressing a posting to the entire list are a small annoyance compared to the convenience of easily sharing responses with everybody. David Sewell, list administrator -- RADIOCARBON: An International Journal of Cosmogenic Isotope Research Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona 4717 E. Ft. Lowell Rd., Tucson, Arizona 85712 USA Telephone: 1-520-881-0857 Fax: 1-520-881-0554 General e-mail address: c14@packrat.aml.arizona.edu WWW server: http://packrat.aml.arizona.edu/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Aug 1995 18:03:08 +0900 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: Koji Okumura Subject: Calendar Y BP Dear Colleagues: Now I review a paper that deals with several 14C dates. In that paper 14C age is reported in Calendar y BP after dedrochronological calibration. The problem is that the authors take literal present of 1995 as present in BP instead of 1950. I think the present in Calendar y BP should also be Before 1950 as commonly in convnetional or uncalibrated dates. Am I wrong? I should finish the review in two days and your soonest comments is great. Thanks in advance. ---------------------------------------------------------- Koji Okumura, Seismotectonic Research Section Geological Survey of Japan, 1-1-3 Higashi, Tsukuba, 305 Fax: +81-298-523461, Phone: +81-298-543694 ========================================================== ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 09:06:16 +1200 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: "Sparks, Rodger" Subject: Calendar Y BP - Reply You are quite right, and 1950 as the reference point for "Present" is used in the Radiocarbon calibration issues. The confusion that exists is at least partly due to a number of chickens coming home to roost following some ill-chosen terminology that has been a feature of radiocarbon research since its earliest days. It is very important that there should be an agreed reference point for specifying ages, given that the AD/BC scale is not always a convenient or relevant way to present data, and 1950 is as good a reference as any other. But calling 1950 "present" is a bit like someone in a moving train referring to a particular railway station as "here" - it is momentarily true, but becomes less so as time passes. The trouble is that we start to apply different meanings to the same word, and this is bound to lead to confusion. Perhaps we should abandon the word "present" and find another term to indicate the radiocarbon reference point. But nevertheless, for now the burden is on authors to be sure that they use the accepted conventions for specifying ages, and the present (sorry!) convention is for cal BP to refer to 1950. But, speaking personally, I would like to see this situation cleaned up so that I don't have to worry about upper or lower case letters, or whether or not to spell out calendar (or is it calibrated?). Sounds like a good job for a committee. Rodger Sparks R.SPARKS@gns.cri.nz ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 15:55:03 -0600 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: Calendar Y BP - Reply I'm just a user, not really a radiocarbon specialist, but it seems to me that a date cannot be both calendar years and radiocarbon years - the "cal" must refer to calibrated, and the calibration used really ought to be specified. The raw (corrected, uncalibrated) date ought to be given as well. BP should not be before anything other than 1950, since that just multiplies the insanity! For calibrated dates in the 4 KYBP to "present" range, I personally like to use BC/AD notation, perhaps because I sometimes work with archaeologists who are more comfortable with that. | Ian D. Campbell o8o | | Canadian Forest Service 8Oo8oOoO | | 5320-122 St. Edmonton, AB ^ oO8O88o8o8 | | Canada T6H 3S5 ^^^ o8Oo8ooOooO ^ | | Tel: +1-403-435-7300 Fax: +1-403-435-7359 ^^^^^ 88oo8O88 ^^^ | | e-mail: icampbell@nofc.forestry.ca ^^^|^^^ || | | ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 14:06:30 -0400 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: "David L. Knies" Subject: Special session on Trace Element AMS at AMS-7 7th International Conference on Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS-7), Tucson, Arizona, May 20-24, 1996 From: David L. Knies and Kenneth S. Grabowski Subject: Special session on Trace Element AMS at AMS-7 Attn: Prospective AMS-7 attendees Dear Colleague, As many of you already know, the Naval Research Laboratory is entering the AMS field with a new generation of Trace Element Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (TEAMS) facility. We believe that there are enough differences between traditional isotope counting AMS facilities and TEAMS facilities to warrant a separate discussion at AMS-7 of the special problems associated with TEAMS. We wish to organize a special session covering new developments and applications related to TEAMS. The session would certainly address the increasing demand of the Semiconductor industry for greater sensitivities in the analysis of several key contaminates. However, a TEAMS facility should not be limited to solving semiconductor problems alone. TEAMS is will suited to a wide range of applications in areas such as geochronology, cosmochronolgy, isotope geology, and bio-medical labeling studies. If you or anyone you know would be interested in submitting an abstract on this topic, please contact either David Knies or Kenneth Grabowski. With a great deal of luck, our own TEAMS facility should be nearing completion by the start of the AMS-7 conference. Organizers: David L. Knies Code 6671 Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20375 Tel. (202) 767-5653 Secty. (202) 767-4800 Fax.(202) 767-5301 email:knies@nrlfs1.nrl.navy.mil Kenneth S. Grabowski Code 6670 Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20375 Tel. (202) 767-5738 Secty. (202) 767-4800 Fax.(202) 767-5301 email:grabowski@nrl.navy.mil Dr. David Knies Code 6671 Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20375 Phone: (202) 767-5653 Fax: (202) 767-5301 Email: Knies@nrlfs1.nrl.navy.mil ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 10:36:31 -0600 Reply-To: Dockal@UNCWIL.EDU Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: "James A. Dockal" Subject: Same sample different dates? Under what situations can one obtain two different dates on the same sample? In a paper by Wehmiller et al. (In-press) Marine Geology there is note of a sample of the marine clam Mercenaria in which two different dates were obtained one via conventional C-14 methods and the sceond via AMS. The specifics are sample JW93-09-06 Mercenaria, 75 grams, robust, lustrous, and well preserved. Results: Beta 62757 29,900+/-290 and Arizona AMS AA-11807 43,100+/-1200. A reviewer of a paper I am working on claims that such is proof of contmination and therefore ALL C-14 dates in this time range are bogus. What I would like to know are (1) what are the other possibilities for the cause of this age conflict. (2) what are the limits of the AMS method as applied to marine carbonate shells. ********************************************************************** James A. Dockal, Ph.D. dockal@uncwil.edu Tele. 910-395-3494 Department of Earth Sciences FAX 910-350-7077 University of North Carolina at Wilmington Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 12:08:18 -0700 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: David R Sewell Subject: Radiocarbon Internet access down On Wednesday, 23 August, lightning hit one of the buildings where RADIOCARBON is housed and knocked out the router (a microwave relay) connecting us to the rest of the campus network and the Internet. We are told it may be a few more days before service is restored. As a result, any addresses in the aml.arizona.edu subnet are unreachable. If you have sent e-mail to us or tried to access the Radiocarbon WWW server, you have undoubtedly received an error message. In addition, I haven't been able to access any C14-L administrative messages sent to the listowner's mailbox. For the time being, please use telephone or fax to communicate with us (1-520-881-0857 and 1-520-881-0554, respectively) or send e-mail to these alternate addresses: dsewell@gas.uug.arizona.edu (David Sewell) tannerk@ccit.arizona.edu (Kim Tanner) (E-mail to the attention of Renee Kra should go to one of those two addresses, too.) David Sewell, RADIOCARBON Department of Geosciences, The University of Arizona Previous Item Next Item Connected to Microsoft Exchange