Calibration Commentary

Abstract

Radiocarbon is by far and away the most widely used dating tool in the Late Quaternary. Hundreds of key papers rely on the method to provide absolute and relative chronological information on important topics, including the late evolution of our own species (e.g. Higham et al. 2006a) and the timing and nature of abrupt climatic changes during the last glaciation (Lowe et al. 2001). Calibration of 14C determinations is an essential part of the dating process, and the implications of calibration can lead to significant differences in the interpretation of important processes (Blockley et al. 2006). Any development that enhances the accuracy, precision, or time coverage of the calibration curves is therefore to be welcomed. Since the early 1980s, there has been periodic publication of carefully vetted data in the form of internationally recognized consensus calibration curves that have allowed 14C users to convert their raw 14C determinations into calendar ages (Klein et al. 1982; Stuiver and Reimer 1986, 1993; Stuiver et al. 1998; Reimer et al. 2004). In the beginning, the basis on which this was done was easy to understand, 14C measurements were made on tree rings and the absolute calendar age came from counting annual growth rings. Although not without its complexities, the terrestrial tree-ring approach remains the most certain method and is at the heart of calibration process in the period 0-12.4 cal kyr. However, for periods beyond the limit of the tree-ring sequences the situation was significantly more problematic, and at times, even controversial.