========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:56:33 -0700 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: David Sewell Subject: Call for radiocarbon updates MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The next issue of RADIOCARBON is about to go to press. If you have any news items you would like included in the "Radiocarbon Updates" section (things like lab openings or closings, hirings/retirements, job announcements, calls for papers, notices of publications), could you please forward them to me as soon as possible? Thanks, David Sewell -- David Sewell, Acting Managing 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: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 10:22:38 -0800 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: "Patricia J. Knobloch - 3577939" Subject: CALIB 3.0 and 5730 half-life MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I just started using CALIB 3.0. It requires that all BP dates be input with the 5568/70 half-life. Since most dates are still recorded that way, that is no problem. My question is: are the RESULTS from CALIB 3.0 in the 5568/70 half-life and then we have to change them (x 1.03) to 5730 OR are the RESULTS already calculated and calibrated to the 5730 half-life. Thank you for your help. Pat Knobloch, Research Associate Institute of Andean Studies ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:05:53 +1200 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: "SPARKS, RODGER" Subject: CALIB 3.0 and 5730 half-life - Reply >... My question is: are RESULTS from CALIB 3.0 in the 5568/70 half-life and then we > have to change them (x 1.03) to 5730 OR are the RESULTS already calculated and > calibrated to the 5730 half-life. NO, no, no. CALIB, and all other calibration programs, relate your measured 14C age to the tree-ring (or marine) calibration curves. These have been calculated using the conventional Libby half-life, 5568, and so relate the "absolute" age to the conventional radiocarbon age (CRA). This means that you do not have to worry about the real 14C half-life when using the curves PROVIDED THAT the 14C age you put into the program is the properly defined CRA, ie calculated according to Stuiver & Polach, Radiocarbon 19:355-363 (1977). In fact, having the calibration curves available means that the 14C half-life is effectively an arbitrary constant which could have been assigned any value at all. The important thing is that everyone should agree on the value used. The actual half-life (5730 +/-) becomes important when you are explicitly doing calculations involving the decay of the 14C, eg calculating absolute per-cent modern, when you need to correct for the decay of the radiocarbon standard since the agreed reference year 1950. Sorry to bark like that, there is a lot of misunderstanding around concerning this point. Rodger Sparks ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 12:20:42 -0800 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: Paula Reimer Subject: Re: CALIB 3.0 and 5730 half-life In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Dear Dr. Knobloch, The calibration data used by the program CALIB is calculated as conventional radiocarbon age (5568 yr half-life) vs. dendoyear for the tree-ring data which makes up the curve from 9440 BC to AD 1954 and vs. U/Th age for the coral data used for the older part of the calbiration curve. The program expects samples to be input as conventional radiocarbon ages, so the calibration process produces calibrated ages that need no adjustment for half-life. Best wishes, Paula Reimer P.S. The current version of CALIB, rev. 3.0.3c, is available on the Quaternary Isotope home page on the World Wide Web (http://weber.u.washington.edu/~qil/) or by anonymous ftp from ftp.u.washington.edu (new IP address 140.142.13.81). On Tue, 3 Dec 1996, Patricia J. Knobloch - 3577939 wrote: > I just started using CALIB 3.0. It requires that all BP dates be input > with the 5568/70 half-life. Since most dates are still recorded that way, > that is no problem. My question is: are the RESULTS from CALIB 3.0 in the > 5568/70 half-life and then we have to change them (x 1.03) to 5730 OR are > the RESULTS already calculated and calibrated to the 5730 half-life. > Thank you for your help. > Pat Knobloch, Research Associate > Institute of Andean Studies > ****************************************************************** * \ | / * * /\ - ( ) - * * //\\ / | \ Paula J. Reimer * * ///\\\ Quaternary Research Ctr Box 351360 * * ////\\\\ University of Washington * * ____||____ Seattle, WA 98195-1360 * * \~~~~~~~~/ Phone: (206) 543-6327 * * \======/ FAX: (206) 543-3191 * * \====/ e-mail: pjreimer@u.washington.edu * ****************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 23:56:25 -0500 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: Paul LaViolette Subject: C14 dates of North American Indian mounds Does anyone know if any C-14 dating has been done on wood found in the Indian mounds that are scattered around the U.S.? Some believe that they date back to the end of the ice age. Paul LaViolette ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 08:44:32 -0600 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: "W. Green" Subject: C14 dates of North American Indian mounds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII To make a very long story short, nearly all of the many hundreds of radiocarbon dates from mounds in the eastern U.S. are from the period of ca. 600 - 2500 BP (ca. 500 B.C. - A.D. 1400). But a few mounds, notably in Louisiana and elsewhere in the Southeast, date as early as ca. 6000 - 7000 BP (4000 - 5000 BC). In the Canadian Maritimes, mounds also date as early as 7000 BP. But no radiocarbon dates from the Pleistocene (Ice Age) are associated with mound construction. For a capsule summary, read: Lynda Norene Shaffer, 1992, "Native Americans Before 1492: The Moundbuilding Centers of the Eastern Woodlands," M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY and for details, read: Brian Fagan, 1991, "Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent," Thames and Hudson, New York Bill Green, State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City IA 52242 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 18:30:07 -0800 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: Dick Meehan Subject: Re: C14 dates of North American Indian mounds In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII The summary of mound C14 dating was interesting and helpful. Sea level, and presumably lower valley alluviation, must have been 20 ft or more lower in the 6000 BP time. Are the lower valley mounds of that age buried or offshore? Is there any literature on the reltion of mounds to alluvial or coastal geology and paleoclimate? Dick Meehan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:46:01 -0500 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: Paul LaViolette Subject: Re: C14 dates of North American Indian mounds Thank you for the book reference suggestions. I will check them out. I had read one opinion that many of the mounds in Illinois and Ohio were of ice age origin because the bases of these mounds start from three to 15 feet below the present soil surface. Since glacial till varies in thickness from a foot to 15 feet in this area, the authors concluded that the till must have been deposited after the mounds were built. I am particularly interested in mounds found in Ohio in the Hopewell District, the Athens County area, Grave Creek area, and on the Scioto River; also in Illinois near Moline; in Wisconsin in Crawford, Grant, and Sheboygan Counties, and in Henderson County of North Carolina. Paul LaViolette ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 08:38:08 -0600 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: "W. Green" Subject: Re: C14 dates of North American Indian mounds Comments: cc: Dick Meehan In-Reply-To: <199612050230.TAA14814@dns.ccit.arizona.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, Dick Meehan wrote: > The summary of mound C14 dating was interesting and helpful. Sea level, > and presumably lower valley alluviation, must have been 20 ft or more > lower in the 6000 BP time. Are the lower valley mounds of that age buried > or offshore? Is there any literature on the reltion of mounds to alluvial > or coastal geology and paleoclimate? > Good question. A good place to begin looking for specific information on this subject is the special issue of _Southeastern Archaeology_ on Archaic mounds in the Southeast (vol. 13, no. 2, 1994). Roger Saucier, geologist with the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, co-authored one of the papers and may be the right person to consult on this subject. Bill Green, Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:13:18 -0600 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: "W. Green" Subject: Re: C14 dates of North American Indian mounds Comments: cc: Paul LaViolette In-Reply-To: <199612051446.HAA27068@dns.ccit.arizona.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Paul LaViolette wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I had read one opinion that many of the mounds in Illinois and Ohio were of ice age origin because the bases of these mounds start from three to 15 feet below the present soil surface. Since glacial till varies in thickness from a foot to 15 feet in this area, the authors concluded that the till must have been deposited after the mounds were built. >>>>>>>>>>> The bases of many mounds may appear to start in glacial till but that is because those mounds were built by removing the topsoil and up to a meter of subsoil to create a crypt-like feature, over which the mound was then built. Early, self-taught excavators often missed this relationship of superpositioning. (No U.S. mound I know of starts 15 feet below the present surface.) Now that this subject has moved into non-C14 territory, perhaps it should shift to Arch-L. Bill Green, Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 13:52:40 -0800 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: Mark Hall Subject: 2 questions Two quick questions that hopefully someone can answer: 1. Does anyone have a valid e-mail or fax for G. Zaitseva? The fax number and e-mail listed in RADIOCARBON doesn't work. 2. Does anyone know where the Leningrad/St. Petersburg radiocarbon lab has been publishing date lists over the past ten years? I've looked in SOVETSKAIA ARKHEOLOGIIA and some of their quartenary journals but have had no success in locating them. [I did find the SOAN lab] Thanks, Mark Hall hall@qal.berkeley.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 15:12:45 -0700 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: David Sewell Subject: Re: 2 questions In-Reply-To: <199612062156.OAA19402@listserv.ccit.arizona.edu> from "Mark Hall" at Dec 6, 96 01:52:40 pm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mark Hall writes: > >Two quick questions that hopefully someone can >answer: > >1. Does anyone have a valid e-mail or fax for >G. Zaitseva? The fax number and e-mail listed >in RADIOCARBON doesn't work. Were you using the lab list in Volume 37, #3? That's the most current we have. We received a fax from the number below in January of this year, but it could have changed recently. (Or possibly city codes in Russia have changed?) This is the latest we have: LE Dr. Ganna Zaitseva Institute of the History of Material Culture Russian Academy of Sciences Dvortsovaya Naberezhnaya, 18 191186 St. Petersburg, Russia Tel: 7-812-311-8156; Fax: 7-812-311-6271 E-mail: c/o dergach@crl.ioffe.rssi.ru Best, David Sewell -- David Sewell, Acting Managing 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: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 10:33:49 -0800 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: Mark Hall Subject: Re: 2 questions David, Thanks for the update. I wasn't using V. 37, #3, but the address given in the PROCEEDINGS volume for the 15th Radiocarbon conference. Later, Mark Hall hall@qal.berkeley.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 10:05:16 -0800 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: "Patricia J. Knobloch - 3577939" Subject: why 1949 for bc dates MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I have been struggling with the logic of creating BP (or death age) by using 1950 minus AD date and then switching to 1949 + BC age. I read that the switch is due to the lack of a 0 in the AD/BC chronology. I keep thinking: if the BP current year is 3 A.D. and the object has been dead for 6 years, then 0 to 3 A.D. = 3 years and O to 3 B.C. = 3 years for a total of 6 years so that the death occurred at 3 B.C. In otherwords, 3 (or 1950) plus 3 B.C. = 6 BP. Adding to 2 A.D. (or 1949) would mean 2 + 3 bc or 5 years of BP - before 3 A.D.- or 2 B.C. So I must be starting out on the wrong foot here in trying to discover the logic of this formula. Does anyone know of an explanation that a lay person can understand? Perhaps this question has been already discussed and archived the listserv's FAQs? Thank you for your help. Pat Knobloch ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:27:56 -0600 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: Ken Brown Subject: Re: why 1949? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Pat asks: "I have been struggling with the logic of creating BP (or death age) by using 1950 minus AD date and then switching to 1949 + BC age." => I've never heard of this before. It seems like a non-problem to me. If you're talking about radiocarbon dating here, a typical standard deviation, even using accelerator dating, is usually around plus or minus 80 years, or in other words a 160-year window of uncertainty. If you're dealing with 160 years of uncertainty in the true age, what difference does it make whether you measure from 1949 or 1950 as your refererence point? The difference is trivial and not worth worrying about. ___________________________________________________ Ken Brown Music is too important Texas Archeological Research Lab to be left to musicians. J.J. Pickle Research Campus 5 -- Linda Ellerbee Austin, Texas 78712-1100 phone (voice mail):(512)471-3990 fax (512)471-5973 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 15:01:47 -0800 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: "Patricia J. Knobloch - 3577939" Subject: Re: why 1949? In-Reply-To: <199612102227.QAA12138@mail.utexas.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Dear Ken, Thank you for your reply My question has to do with the instructions for the CALIB 3.0 program. It requires that all dates be input as BP and suggests the subtraction and addition of AD and BC dates. Otherwise I agree with what you are saying, Pat Knobloch On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Ken Brown wrote: > Pat asks: "I have been struggling with the logic of creating BP (or death > age) by using 1950 minus AD date and then switching to 1949 + BC age." > > => I've never heard of this before. It seems like a non-problem to me. If > you're talking about radiocarbon dating here, a typical standard deviation, > even using accelerator dating, is usually around plus or minus 80 years, or > in other words a 160-year window of uncertainty. If you're dealing with 160 > years of uncertainty in the true age, what difference does it make whether > you measure from 1949 or 1950 as your refererence point? The difference is > trivial and not worth worrying about. > > ___________________________________________________ > Ken Brown Music is too important > Texas Archeological Research Lab to be left to musicians. > J.J. Pickle Research Campus 5 -- Linda Ellerbee > Austin, Texas 78712-1100 > phone (voice mail):(512)471-3990 > fax (512)471-5973 > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 11:19:17 +0000 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: Ian Campbell Subject: looking for an AMS lab... MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi everyone. I'm looking for an AMS lab with decent turn-around times (4-8 weeks), decent prices, and able to handle very small amounts of shell. Thanks. | Dr. 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: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 14:31:00 SAT Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: Museo de Arte Precolombino Subject: Calib 3.0 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I want to know if it's possible use Calib 3.0 in the South. I work in Chile. Tanks in advance Luis E. Cornejo B. Museo Chileno de Arte Precolombino lcbmchap@reuna.cl ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 10:03:38 -0800 Reply-To: "Patricia J. Knobloch - 3577939" Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: "Patricia J. Knobloch - 3577939" Subject: Re: Calib 3.0 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I am also using CALIB 3.0.3c (latest version from website http://weber.u.washington.edu/~qil) for Andean archaeology dates. The suggestion from Vogel, et.al. (Radiocarbon v.35, pt.1) is to subtract 40 years from the BP date before using CALIB. Then, Paula Reimer informed me that this procedure has been questioned by Dr. Roger Sparks (r.sparks@gns.cri.nz) in article in Radiocarbon v.37. When I contacted Dr. Sparks he was quite willing to send me a copy, so you may want to ask him, also. (I have to get the article as quickly as I can so I am going through interlibrary loan or will drive to the next closest university library this weekend to get it). Hope this helps, Dr. Pat Knobloch, Research Associate Institute of Andean Studies On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Museo de Arte Precolombino wrote: > I want to know if it's possible use Calib 3.0 in the South. I work in Chile. > > Tanks in advance > > Luis E. Cornejo B. > Museo Chileno de Arte Precolombino > lcbmchap@reuna.cl > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 09:05:48 +1200 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: "SPARKS, RODGER" Subject: Environmental Isotope Conference Comments: cc: hambletonp@wpo.gns.cri.nz This is to announce the 6th New Zealand/Australian Conference on Environmental Isotope Science The conference will be hosted by the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences, and held in Lower Hutt, New Zealand Dates: 2 - 4 April 1997 Conference themes: Global Change, Hydrosphere, Atmosphere, Biosphere, Technical Advances Further information can be found on the World Wide Web at http://www.gns.cri.nz/env-iso-conf.htm or by an email to nuclear@gns.cri.nz Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences PO Box 31-312 Lower Hutt New Zealand Phone +64 4 570 4637 Fax +64 4 570 4657 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:11:58 -0800 Reply-To: Paula Reimer Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: Paula Reimer Subject: Re: why 1949? Comments: cc: pknobloc@NUNIC.NU.EDU In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Dear Pat, In response to your question of why one adds 1949 to a BC date to get a BP date, let me first make it clear to anyone who may have been confused by our discourse that we are not discussing radiocarbon ages at this point. Radiocarbon ages are always given as 14C yr BP (0 = 1950 BP). CALIB 3.0.3 can only calibrate radiocarbon ages but the output in calibrated years (cal yr) is on the calendrical time scale and can be given in either AD/BC or BP notation. When converting from AD/BC to BP notation, the formula for AD is 1950- AD date and for BC is 1949+BC date because there is no zero AD/BC. In your example below you used the year zero in your count, so are off by one year. (from AD 3, Year 1 = AD 2, Year 2 = AD 1, Year 3 = 1 BC, Year 4= 2 BC, Year 5 = 3 BC, and Year 6 = 4 BC). Of course, as Ken Brown pointed out, when dealing with radiocarbon ages one year doesn't make any difference! Best wishes, Paula Reimer ****************************************************************** * \ | / * * /\ - ( ) - * * //\\ / | \ Paula J. Reimer * * ///\\\ Quaternary Research Ctr Box 351360 * * ////\\\\ University of Washington * * ____||____ Seattle, WA 98195-1360 * * \~~~~~~~~/ Phone: (206) 543-6327 * * \======/ FAX: (206) 543-3191 * * \====/ e-mail: pjreimer@u.washington.edu * ****************************************************************** On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Patricia J. Knobloch - 3577939 wrote: > >I have been struggling with the logic of creating BP (or death age) by >using 1950 minus AD date and then switching to 1949 + BC age. I read that >the switch is due to the lack of a 0 in the AD/BC chronology. I keep >thinking: > if the BP current year is 3 A.D. and the object has been dead for >6 years, then 0 to 3 A.D. = 3 years and O to 3 B.C. = 3 years for a total >of 6 years so that the death occurred at 3 B.C. In otherwords, 3 (or >1950) >plus 3 B.C. = 6 BP. Adding to 2 A.D. (or 1949) would mean 2 + 3 bc or 5 >years of BP - before 3 A.D.- or 2 B.C. > >So I must be starting out on the wrong foot here in trying to discover >the >logic of this formula. Does anyone know of an explanation that a lay >person can understand? Perhaps this question has been already discussed >and archived the listserv's FAQs? On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Patricia J. Knobloch - 3577939 wrote: > Dear Ken, > Thank you for your reply > My question has to do with the instructions for the CALIB 3.0 program. It > requires that all dates be input as BP and suggests the subtraction and > addition of AD and BC dates. > Otherwise I agree with what you are saying, > Pat Knobloch > > > On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Ken Brown wrote: > > > Pat asks: "I have been struggling with the logic of creating BP (or death > > age) by using 1950 minus AD date and then switching to 1949 + BC age." > > > > => I've never heard of this before. It seems like a non-problem to me. If > > you're talking about radiocarbon dating here, a typical standard deviation, > > even using accelerator dating, is usually around plus or minus 80 years, or > > in other words a 160-year window of uncertainty. If you're dealing with 160 > > years of uncertainty in the true age, what difference does it make whether > > you measure from 1949 or 1950 as your refererence point? The difference is > > trivial and not worth worrying about. > > > > ___________________________________________________ > > Ken Brown Music is too important > > Texas Archeological Research Lab to be left to musicians. > > J.J. Pickle Research Campus 5 -- Linda Ellerbee > > Austin, Texas 78712-1100 > > phone (voice mail):(512)471-3990 > > fax (512)471-5973 > > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 16:43:12 -0500 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: "Michael S. Arnold" Subject: Removal I'd like to be taken off the Radiocarbon Mailing List. -Michael Arnold ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 06:03:04 +0800 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: Paul Weaver Subject: Double trouble Comments: To: Paula Reimer In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I notice that every message which comes to me from the list lately is sent twice twice. Does anyone else have this trouble trouble? Ho, ho, merry Christmas all, all. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 15:03:29 -0700 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: David Sewell Subject: Re: Double trouble (and C14-L administrative reminders) In-Reply-To: <199612112145.OAA18608@listserv.ccit.arizona.edu> from "Paul Weaver" at Dec 12, 96 06:03:04 am MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Paul Weaver writes: > >I notice that every message which comes to me from the list lately is sent >twice twice. Does anyone else have this trouble trouble? This is usually a sign that one is subscribed twice under two different e-mail addresses (which may in fact deliver to the same machine). Checking the C14-L subscriber list, that's the case here (and I've sent a separate note to Paul Weaver with details). Reminder: any questions or information about your C14-L subscription should be sent to the list administrator (me) at either of these addresses: C14-L-REQUEST@listserv.arizona.edu dsew@packrat.aml.arizona.edu If you've forgotten how to change options, unsubscribe, etc., send a message with the text "help" to LISTSERV@listserv.arizona.edu. -- David Sewell, Acting Managing 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: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 16:08:00 -0500 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: "Barbara Leyden (GLY)" Subject: calibration and hard-water lake error MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Dear List; Should subtraction of a hard-water factor be done before or after calibration of a 14C date, or is it appropriate to calibrate at all? Is the hard-water error sufficiently comparable to the marine reservoir effect? I have dates from a hard-water lake from the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. A nearby lake has an average measured error of 1200-1300 yrs. It seems likely that you would get different age ranges depending on when you did the "correction". When you fudge on the measured date, is it false precision to derive a calibrated age? Barbara W. Leyden Adjunct Assistant Professor Department of Geology University of South Florida Tampa, FL 33620 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 13:23:38 +1200 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: "SPARKS, RODGER" Subject: Environmental Isotope Conference Comments: cc: hambletonp@wpo.gns.cri.nz In case anybody did not notice my deliberate error in the URL below in my previous posting, the CORRECT web address for the conference is http://www.gns.cri.nz/nuclear/env-iso-conf.htm Corrected notice follows: This is to announce the 6th New Zealand/Australian Conference on Environmental Isotope Science The conference will be hosted by the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences, and held in Lower Hutt, New Zealand Dates: 2 - 4 April 1997 Conference themes: Global Change, Hydrosphere, Atmosphere, Biosphere, Technical Advances Further information can be found on the World Wide Web at http://www.gns.cri.nz/nuclear/env-iso-conf.htm or by an email to nuclear@gns.cri.nz Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences PO Box 31-312 Lower Hutt New Zealand Phone +64 4 570 4637 Fax +64 4 570 4657 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 13:46:45 +1200 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: "SPARKS, RODGER" Subject: calibration and hard-water lake error - Reply You can calibrate a 14C age only if you are confident that the age you have (the CRA) represents a system that was in atmospheric equilibrium at some discrete point in time, and has been sequestered from the atmosphere (and other 14C sources) since then. If you know that the age you have measured must be corrected by some amount to allow for some other carbon reservoir, and you know the size of the correction, then you need to make the correction before you calibrate. Marine samples get round the problem by having a separate marine calibration, which in any case is linked to the atmosphere. The point is to isolate and date a component that you know was in 14C equilibrium with the atmosphere and then cut off. If this cannot be done you have to question what the "14C age" actually means in dating terms. Does this make sense? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 09:39:16 -0800 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: "Patricia J. Knobloch - 3577939" Subject: Re: why 1949? Comments: To: Paula Reimer In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Dear Paula, Thank you again for your timely response. I called a friend of mine, a science librarian who knows everything, and she told me that the non-zero debate has been around for quite some time because some people are wondering when will be the correct New Year's Eve to actually celebrate the beginning of the new millennia, etc. etc. I have become so accustomed to chronology tables that draw a line and label it zero that I am obviously stuck in a mind set. I certainly am enjoying this discussion and am learning a lot from everyone. It was interesting to read how carbonized twigs would be better than big chunks of carbonized tree trunks since the accumulation of c-14 from a large tree (as archaeologist, we tend to pick any pieces of burnt wood we can get our hands on) might create more dispersed readings and broader standard deviations from the probability analysis. This selection makes me think twice about the wisdom of sampling things like mummy cloth and human bone that may have been in use or existed for many decades. An old friend of mine used animal dung-- now there's a short life span. Thanks again and Happy Holidays. Pat Knobloch ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 05:26:22 +0800 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: Barry Marshall Subject: removal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" "please take me off the list" -- Barry J. Marshall MD. Professor of Medical Research University of Virginia, President Helicobacter Foundation, Director of Pharmaceutical Operations, Tri-Med Speacialties Inc. 1500 Avon St. Ext., Charlottesville Va. 22902 USA Tel: 804-9778711, Fax: 804-9778760, email: admin@trimed.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 09:15:10 -0900 Reply-To: mara@polarnet.com Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: "Mara C. Bacsujlaky" Organization: Ryan Lode Mines Subject: Radio democracy in Zagreb, Croatia Comments: To: "Michael R. Chelminski" Comments: cc: Gomaa Omar , John miscovich , Kole Kantner , Marcia Belsh , "Michael R. Chelminski" , Rob Marx , Robert Giegengack MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Fw: fw: Radio 101 in Zagreb Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 08:36:03 +0100 From: fogarasi@ludens.elte.hu To: halasova@fns.uniba.sk, michael.wagreich@univie.ac.at, fslangen@dds.nl, erba@imiucca.csi.unimi.it, svab@cgu.cz, pdeboer@earth.ruu.nl, J.Young@nhm.ac.uk, b333tyszka@bzm401.hannover.bgr.de, mara@POLARNET.COM, niichi@daibutsu.nara-u.ac.jp, vanc@amnh.org, vsg@sovam.com Dear Friends: This is a petition to save Radio 101 in Zagreb, Croatia. Please help save Radio 101 from being canceled!!! Just add your name to the list and send the message to everyone you know. This message is brought to you by the letter "H" (for HELP) and the number "1,000,000" (for the number of names we want to sign). THANK YOU. ALL YOU DO IS ADD YOUR NAME TO THE LIST AT THE BOTTOM, then forward it to everyone you know. The only time you send it to the included address is if you are the 50th,100th, etc. Send it on to everyone you know. Croatian "democratic" goverment belives that this radio station is dealing against state, while this is the ONLY station left which is dealing with democratic information in Croatia! Please add your name to this list if you believe in what we stand for. This list will be forwarded to the Goverment of the Republic Croatia! If you happen to be the 50th, 100th, 150th, etc. signer of this petition, please forward to: root@r101.com.hr and www-admin@vlada.hr This way we can keep track of the lists and organize them. Forward this to everyone you know, and help us to keep this radio station ALIVE!. Thank you. ------------------------------------ SIGNATURES 1. Drago Markovic, Zagreb, Croatia 2. Sanda Petris, Zagreb, Croatia 3. Antun Sunjic, Zagreb, Croatia 4. Maja Dawidowsky, Zagreb, Croatia 5. Maja Vickovic, Zagreb, Croatia 6. Vladimir Vuksan, Albuquerque, USA 7. Bruno Scap, Chico, USA 8. Bruno Ancic,Zagreb,Croatia 9. Lovro Seder, Zagreb, Croatia 10. Nikola Fox, Zagreb, Croatia 12. Neven Jacmenovic, Zagreb, Croatia 13. Daniel Kasaj, Zagreb, Croatia 14. Koraljka Haberle, Zagreb, Croatia 15. Darko Bunic, Koprivnica, Croatia 16. Lidija Kesak, Zagreb, Croatia 17. Robert Petracic, Zagreb, Croatia 18. Renata Marusic, Zagreb, Croatia 19. Mirana Koljatic, Zagreb, Croatia 20. Rima Venturin, Skjetten, Norway 21. Dario Filjar, Athlone, Ireland 22. Alan Skarica, Zagreb, Croatia 23. Dario Mavric, Sisak, Croatia 24. Drazen Stolar, Osijek, Croatia 25. Alan Jobst, Zagreb, Croatia 26. Maja Cepak, Zagreb, Croatia 27. Eta Paro Crnosija, Zagreb, Croatia 28. Maja Veldt-Poklepovic, Amsterdam, Nederland 29. Piet Veldt, Amsterdam, Nederland 30. Zvonimir Bakotin, Amsterdam, Nederland 31. Paul Garrin, NYC, USA 32. Johnny Temple, NYC 33. Dolf Hermannstaedter, Augsburg, Germany 34. Berry Evers, Amsterdam, Holland 35. Jerry Goossens, Utrecht, Holland 36. Linda Lindmark, Goteborg, Sweden 37. Jesper Lundqvist, Ume=E5, Sweden 38. Fredrik Norberg, V=E4xj=F6, Sweden 39. Elisabet Wahl, V=E4xj=F6, Sweden. 40. Gabriella Stenberg, Stockholm, Sweden 41. Bibbi Johansson, Stockholm,Sweden 42. Susanne Wixe, Stockholm, Sweden 43. Claes Leo Lindwall, Stockholm, Sweden 44. Anita Sandell, Stockholm, Sweden 45. Alexander Armiento, Stockholm, Sweden 46. Lars Truedson, Sweden 47. Mia Thelander, Uppsala, Sweden 48. Peter Lutz, Uppsala, Sweden 49. Roy Unge, Sweden 50. Gunnel Unge 51. Inger Jernberg 52. Magdalena Ginste, Sweden 53. Lisa Segnestam, Sweden 54. Ola Larsson, Sweden 55. Anders Emanuel, Stockholm, Sweden 56. Bent D. Jorgensen, Gothenburg, Sweden 57. H=E5kan Kellgren, G=F6teborg, Sweden 58. J=F6rgen Johansen, Grebbestad, Sweden 59. Kari Myklebost, Oslo, Norway 60. P=E5l Julius Skogholt, Oslo, Norway 61. Henning Jensen, Oslo, Norway 62. Sigmund Valberg, Oslo, Norway 63. Fidrich Robert, Budapest, Hungary 64. Fogarasi Attila, Budapest, Hungary 65. Mara Bacsujlaky, Fairbanks, Alaska USA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 12:33:11 SAST-2 Reply-To: Radiocarbon Mailing List Sender: Radiocarbon Mailing List From: Mike Meadows Organization: UCT Subject: C14 chronology MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi John Happy New Year. Did you have time yet to peruse our paper submitted to South African Journal of Science yet? I'd be grateful for any comments you have and, as I said in Canberra, any input of substance can easily be rewarded with an additional name on the authorship (or merely acknowledgement if you thought that more appropriate). Cheers Mike ***************************************************************** From: Associate Professor Mike Meadows Department of Environmental and Geographical Science University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7700, South Africa Tel: (27) 21-650 2877 Fax: (27) 21 650 3791 Email: MEADOWS@ENVIRO.UCT.AC.ZA *****************************************************************