Quaternary International 299 (2013) 64e71

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Quaternary International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

Radiocarbon dating, reservoir effects, and calibration

A.J. Timothy Jull*, George S. Burr, Gregory W.L. Hodgins
NSF Arizona AMS Laboratory, University of Arizona, 1118 East Fourth St, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: We summarize how radiocarbon measurements are made using accelerator mass spectrometry. We also
Available online 9 October 2012 discuss some complications inherent in the radiocarbon-dating method when calibrating radiocarbon
dates to calendar dates. For example, measurements of radiocarbon (14C) in some types of materials are
complicated by a “reservoir effect”, caused by an apparent age of the source reservoir that differs from
the contemporary atmospheric surface 14C value. In other cases, mobile carbon sources in nature can
produce mixed sources of carbon. We explore these effects and discuss their possible implications for 14C
measurements and how we can deal with them.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
One of the most important aspects of the study of early humans
in America is geochronology. The dating of early humans in the
New World has long been a subject of great debate. North American
anthropologists and archaeologists, until recently, favored the
“Clovis First” model (Haynes, 1992, 2002; Holliday, 2000, 2009),
where the oldest ages are approximately 12.8e13.1 ka (calibrated
age). This interpretation has recently been challenged by
apparently earlier dates at sites in Virginia (Lowery et al., 2010),
Oregon (Gilbert et al., 2008), and most recently in Texas obtained by
optically-stimulated luminescence (OSL), from 13.2 to 15.5 ka
(Waters et al., 2011). These results still need confirmation by other
dating methods. Although some South American authors have
proposed even earlier dates, the consensus from well-established
results fall within the time period from 13 to 15 ka, based on
radiocarbon dating, as the likely earliest arrival in South America
(Rothhammer and Dillehay, 2009).
The purpose of this paper to examine the potential caveats of
radiocarbon dating in an archaeological context, and identify
possible effects on the measurements that might lead to distortions
in age determinations. We review the basis for Accelerator Mass
Spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon measurements and discuss how
we calibrate results to convert radiocarbon ages into calendar ages.
We give examples of how reservoir effects can arise, particularly in
marine samples, and how these can affect radiocarbon dates. These
instances include dating shell material, or dating animals or
humans who subsisted on a marine diet. This can result in
* Corresponding author. NSF Arizona AMS Laboratory, Department of Geo-
sciences, University of Arizona, 1118 East Fourth St, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
E-mail address: jull@email.arizona.edu (A.J.T. Jull).
radiocarbon ages that are apparently older than coeval terrestrial
plant- or animal-derived material.
2. Accelerator mass spectrometry
AMS has become the dominant method for measurements of 14C
(radiocarbon, half-life 5730 yr), as well as other cosmogenic
radionuclides, such as 10Be, 36Cl and 26Al (Jull and Burr, 2006). The
technique is effective because it requires only a very small sample
for radiocarbon dating. This is an important difference between this
method and earlier decay counting methods (Cook and van der
Plicht, 2006). The number of atoms of the radionuclide in the
sample is measured directly, instead of waiting for individual
radioactive decay events. If we consider the radioactive decay
equation, It is clear that it is more effective to measure atoms than
decays:
dN=dt ¼ lN (1)
14
Here, the number of atoms of C, N, is related directly to the rate
of radioactive decay (dN/dt) through the decay constant, l. The 14C
decay rate is rate is 13.59 decays per minute per gram of C. In AMS,
we typically measure a sample of 0.5 mg C, and we can count over
120,000 atoms from a modern sample. If we take a counting rate of
120,000 atoms in 1080 s, or 111 counts/second e from 0.5 mg of
carbon, then this translates to 111  60/0.0005 ¼ 1.33  107 counts
per minute per gram, a difference of 6 orders of magnitude in
sensitivity.
High sensitivity is achieved by accelerating sample atoms as
ions to high energies using a particle accelerator, and using nuclear
particle detection techniques to quantify the number of 14C atoms
(Tuniz et al., 1998). Original designs of such equipment began in the

1040-6182/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.10.028
 A.J.T. Jull et al. / Quaternary International 299 (2013) 64e71
1980’s (Purser et al., 1980). Until the past 5 years or so, several
million volts were typical for accelerator voltages. Today, AMS
machines are increasingly compact, and measurements can be
made with as little as a few hundred kilovolts (e.g. Synal and
Wacker, 2010). There are 2 main suppliers of these machines:
National Electrostatics Corporation (Middleton, Wisconsin, USA)
and High Voltage Engineering Europa (Amersfoort, the
Netherlands). A summary of AMS methods is given by Jull and Burr
(2006) and Burr and Jull (2009).
A picture of the 3 MV AMS at the University of Arizona is shown
in Fig. 1 and a diagram of the design of the 3 MV AMS machine
(based on an NEC accelerator) is shown in Fig. 2. In nearly all AMS
designs, the sample is converted to a solid (graphite), or introduced
as a gas, into an ion source (Jull, 2006). The carbon is ionized by
bombardment with Csþ and the C ions produced are extracted
from the ion source, separated, and accelerated to high energies.
The C ions pass through a stripper canal in the terminal of the
accelerator (see Fig. 2) and lose electrons to become positively
charged. The charge state of carbon at the particle detector is
usually C3þ for 1e3 MV machines, and singly-charged Cþ for
compact designs operating below 1 MV (e.g. Synal and Wacker,
2010).
2.1. Sample preparation
In order to measure a sample on the AMS, we first need to clean
the sample and convert it to a form usable in the machine. Some
basic procedures for AMS radiocarbon samples at Arizona were
summarized by Jull et al. (2004):
1. The most basic of all pretreatments is the acid-base-acid
cleaning method for treating a wide range of organic mate-
rial, including: charcoal, wood, cellulose, plant material and
Fig. 1. Picture of the 3 million volt accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) at the University of Arizona. Photo credit: Lori Stiles, University of Arizona.
65
animal remains. After physical inspection, samples are cleaned
with addition of a small amount of 1 N HCl acid, 0.1% NaOH and
the sample is reacidified HCl (acid-base-acid, ABA pretreat-
ment), then washed with distilled water and dried. The dried
sample is then combusted at 900e1100  C with CuO. There are
many nuances to the ABA method which require special
consideration on a case-by-case basis. For example, Hatté et al.
(2001) identified potential contamination pathways in the ABA
pretreatment which can affect wood and paleosol dates and
suggested improvements to avoid them. Although charcoals
are widely regarded as an ideal material for dating, it has been
shown that in some cases it is advisable to augment ABA
pretreatment using chromic acid (Bird et al., 1999). Rebollo
et al. (2008) examined chemical and structural changes in
charcoals pretreated with the ABA method, and by extension,
natural charcoal degradation. They suggested several modifi-
cations to the ABA method based on their findings, including
the use of weaker acids, eliminating the initial acid step,
treatment with distilled water, and agitation in the alkali step.
In another study, Ascough et al. (2011) found that for some
charcoals the alkali-soluble fraction normally removed from
the charcoals may not be exogenous, but instead are degrada-
tion products of the charcoal itself.
2. Carbonate samples are etched using 100% H3PO4 to remove
50e85% of the carbonate, dried and hydrolyzed with H3PO4 as
discussed by Burr et al. (1992).
3. For sediments, we often use selective combustion. After
cleaning and drying the sample, it is combusted at 400  C in
w0.3 atm oxygen gas. This approach has been shown to limit
contamination from relatively old carbon, common in sedi-
ments (McGeehin et al., 2001).
4. Textiles, parchment, canvas, art works and artifacts are given
the ABA pretreatment and after washing and drying, they are
66 A.J.T. Jull et al. / Quaternary International 299 (2013) 64e71
Fig. 2. Diagram of the layout of the AMS system at the University of Arizona.
Soxhlet-extracted with hexane, followed by ethanol and finally
methanol. After washing in distilled water, and drying, they are
combusted at up to 1100  C with CuO.
5. Iron artifacts are dated either by fusing the sample and
extracting CO2, or by using wet-chemical techniques (Park
et al., 2010).
Other types of samples have specialized pretreatments.
After cleaning and combustion, samples are converted to
graphite by means of a catalytic decomposition reaction, using Fe as
the catalyst and Zn as the reducing agent for the reaction 2CO /
CO2 þ C. This step produces graphite powder that can be pressed
into a target holder of Arizona design, now widely used in all NEC
ion sources. The target material is pressed from both sides making
a 1 mm diameter column of graphite inside a 6 mm aluminum
cylinder that fits into a target carousel that holds 32 or 40 targets.
2.2. AMS measurement and calculations
Measurements are made by comparing the count-rate of 14C
from a sample and rapidly switching to the stable isotope. We can
then compare the isotopic ratio of the sample to a known standard.
In the case of 14C, we use a primary (SRM-4990B, OXI) and
secondary (SRM-4990C, OXII) National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) standard to determine radiocarbon dates. The
secondary standard is normalized to the consensus value of OXI.
This material is no longer available, hence the use of OXII. The ratio
of OX-II/OX-I is well-defined (Mann, 1983). Many other well-
established secondary standards are also available, which can be
referred back to the primary OXI value (see for example Scott et al.,
2007).
A basic assumption of radiocarbon dating is that we know the
14
C age of the starting material when the sample was formed. This
forms the basis of the radioactive decay equation, which can be
expressed as a ratio of the number of atoms, the isotopic ratio
relative to a stable isotope, or the activity (decay rate) ratio. In our
laboratory (Donahue et al., 1990; Burr and Jull, 2009), we define the
“fraction of modern carbon”, F:
14
C=13 C
S½25
Fð25Þ ¼ 14
(2)
C=13 C
1950½25
Where the subscript S [25] refers to the sample renormalized to
a d13C value of 25&, and 1950 refers to the standards discussed
above, renormalized to 1950 AD, and d13C ¼ 19& for OXI
and 25& for OXII, or other secondary standards (Stuiver and
Polach, 1977). An equivalent expression could be written using
atomic ratios (N/N0), or activity ratios (decay rate, A/A0) for the
sample and standard instead of the isotope ratio 14C/13C; in which
case N0 is the number of atoms at time zero, N is the number of
atoms remaining, t is time in years and l is the decay constant. We
could also substitute the isotopic ratio 14C/12C, or activity (A),
referenced to a zero-age value, 14C/12C0, or A0. All these values
would be normalized to d13C at 25&. It is important to point out
that the decay constant l used here assumes a half-life of 5568
years, giving a mean age (1/l) of 8033 years. To calculate an age the
decay of 14C is written in terms of F as follows:
Fð25Þ ¼ elt (3)
and rearranging this equation gives an expression for calculating
the uncalibrated radiocarbon age of a sample:
Age ¼ 8033 ln Fð25Þ (4)
2.3. Accuracy and precision
Burr et al. (2007) have summarized how the uncertainties in
radiocarbon dates are determined at the Arizona laboratory. These
include all sources of error, including counting statistics, error in
 A.J.T. Jull et al. / Quaternary International 299 (2013) 64e71
the procedural blank and random machine error from the AMS
instrument. There are several potential pitfalls when considering
radiocarbon dating uncertainties. For example, radiocarbon dates
are quoted with one standard deviation uncertainties (by conven-
tion), whereas calibrated radiocarbon dates are quoted at two
standard deviations. Often radiocarbon age uncertainties are pub-
lished with no mention of how they were determined, and uncer-
tainties in reservoir corrections are often neglected. It is essential to
consider all sources of error and use appropriate statistical tech-
niques to quantify them.
2.4. Reservoir ages and D14C
For some samples, the initial value for modern (1950 AD) may
not be the same as the atmosphere. An excellent example is the
case of the surface ocean. We know that there are offsets in marine
samples (e.g. Dumond and Griffin, 2002; Braziunas et al. 1995) and
there can also be offsets in other samples which are derived from
reservoirs (such as lakes) where the radiocarbon content of the
carbon in the lake may not be “modern” (i.e. at the level of A0). Age
offsets of this type can be quantified in terms of the difference
between the radiocarbon content of the reservoir and contempo-
rary atmosphere. This is the age-corrected D14C value. For sample
prior to 1950 AD, D14C is defined as:


D14 C ¼ 1000 F elðaÞ  1 & (5)
Where a is the absolute age of the material in years before 1950 AD
(often stated as years BP in radiocarbon literature), determined
independently.
A somewhat different situation arises is the sample contains
bomb 14C. In this case, the true D14C should be corrected for the
decay of the standard, as the standard has some age relative to the
material being studied. In this case, the value of F should be
increased to get the absolute value by correcting for the time
between the manufacture of the standard (astd) and the time of
collection of the sample (a). For OX-I, astd is 1957 AD and for OX-II,
astd is 1977 AD.


D14 C ¼ 1000 F elðaastd Þ  1 & (6)
Marine effects. The marine reservoir age was defined by Stuiver
et al. (1986) as the difference between the measured radiocarbon
age and the atmospheric age determined independently at a known
time (t):
RðtÞ ¼ 14
C age of marine sample
 14 C age of atmospheric sample (7)
This correction factor can be determined directly from coexist-
ing marine and terrestrially-derived plant material at a given site.
The value of R can be related to D14C by the equation (Burr et al.,
2009):
0 1
D14 Catm
B 1000 þ 1C
R ¼ 8033 lnB
@ 14
C
A (8)
D Cmar
þ1
1000
2.5. DR and R
Finally, Stuiver et al. (1986) also introduced the concept of DR. It
is important to understand the definition of DR, as they defined it as
67
a graphical model for this calculation, “The difference DR in reservoir
age of the regional part of the ocean from which the users sample is
derived, and the reservoir age of our model ocean, is determined
through the use of figure 10A.”
Fig. 10A from Stuiver et al.’s paper shows a model of the oceanic
reservoir age and:
DR ¼ Rmeasured  Rexp (9)
Where Rmeasured is the R actually measured in the ocean water, and
Rexp is the expected value derived from the model of Stuiver and
Braziunas (1993). Because this is not always easily established,
some authors report Rexp as the average oceanic value of R which is
400 yrs (e.g. Cordero et al., 2003). So, the definition of DR (as
opposed to R), depends on the oceanographic model used. By
default, this has come to be the marine model incorporated into the
calibration software, such as MARINE09. To avoid ambiguity, it is
therefore important that one reports the original values of R and
D14C, which are not model-dependent.
3. Radiocarbon reservoir effects
The concept that there are different 14C values for different
reservoirs has been recognized for a long time (Stuiver and Ostlund,
1980). Stuiver et al. (1986) proposed the first marine radiocarbon
age calibration curve. Many studies have been conducted to
understand the differences in 14C composition among marine
samples (e.g. Broecker, 1963) and subsequent work related climate
change to changes in the radiocarbon budget of the ocean (Broecker
et al., 1984, 1988; Thornalley et al., 2011). For a typical marine
sample, there are 2 possible situations: 1) We know the actual time
of formation of a sample, either by association with a sample which
measures the atmospheric age (e.g. plant material), or 2) we do not
know the exact age of the sample. In other cases (e.g. Jones et al.,
2010) it is possible to know the actual time t, however, it is more
usual that the true atmospheric age Atm(t) is not known. In this
case, it has become common to use a model-dependent value for
Atm(t). This model is taken from the marine-reservoir model of
Stuiver and Braziunas (1993) and is also incorporated into the
current Marine09 calibration curve.
3.1. Speleothem dead carbon fraction
There have been a number of attempts to use the 14C content of
speleothems and compare them to other dating methods, such as
UeTh, in order to derive information for a calibration curve. One
drawback of this approach is that speleothem carbonate also
incorporates old carbon from the soil, through which the waters
from which the carbonate precipitated have passed. Since the dis-
solved inorganic carbon (DIC) in these waters also incorporates soil
carbon sources, the value of “modern” is not F ¼ 1.0.
Genty and Massault (1999) developed a model to explain the
incorporation of “old” carbon into speleothem carbonate.
Fohlmeister et al. (2011) define a more complex model with three
source components of carbon e the atmosphere, a “fast” reservoir
and a “slow” reservoir, which showed that the resulting “dead
carbon fraction” (DCF) should be relatively constant and in agree-
ment with empirical corrections observed of about 12e15% (Genty
and Massault, 1997; Beck et al., 2001).
Vogel and Kronfeld (1997) and Beck et al. (2001) used this
information to establish a speleothem “calibration curve”, which
required a “dead carbon fraction” (DCF) correction. This correction
is usually applied as a constant offset of the fraction of modern
carbon for the site. This assumption appears to be somewhat
68 A.J.T. Jull et al. / Quaternary International 299 (2013) 64e71

arbitrary, but apparently works well in many cases (e.g. Southon
et al., 2011). In this case, the fraction of modern is adjusted as
follows:
Fcorrected ¼ Fspeleothem þ DCF
ecosystem and attributed as much as 15e40% of the carbon in the
wood to uptake from a natural CO2 spring. Other small effects
have been observed. Damon (1995) and McCormac et al. (1995)
also discuss suggest small possible differences in 14C at different
(10) locations between 4 and 7& (33e58 yr).

3.5. Examples of marine reservoir effects

where Fspeleothem is the measured value on the speleothem and DCF
is determined empirically or with a model.
3.2. Suess effect
A final type of deviation from the expected value of “modern”
can arise from collection of 14C samples in areas affected by
industrial or urban CO2. Although not relevant to archaeological
sampling in general (except in the industrial era, where there are
other problems with 14C), this results in a depression of D14C due to
the input of fossil-fuel derived carbon into the atmosphere. For
example, a sample of plants collected on the University of Arizona
campus will be depressed in 14C by about D14C of 10 per mil
relative to a sample collected in a pristine area.
3.3. Soil carbon
Another type of reservoir effect arises in soils. Certain fractions
of soils can store carbon for long periods of time, and this carbon
may be isolated from the biological processes occurring in the soil A
horizon. Hence, samples of soil clay fractions in particular can have
substantial radiocarbon ages of thousands of radiocarbon years.
Trumbore (2000) and Becker-Hiedemann and Scharpenseel (1992)
discuss this extensively. It is important to emphasize here that the
concept of a “reservoir effect” differs from the apparent mean
residence time (AMRT) of carbon in soils.
3.4. Atmospheric reservoir effects
It is well-known that there is an offset of radiocarbon ages
determined in the Southern Hemisphere, from about 8 to 80 years,
as compared with the Northern Hemisphere. An intensive
measurement program has been conducted to produce a calibra-
tion curve for the Southern Hemisphere (McCormac et al., 2004).
Measured offsets between the two hemispheres are incorporated
into the latest version of INTCAL09 (Reimer et al., 2009). It is
important for Southern Hemisphere studies to be aware of this
resource.
On a regional scale, atmospheric radiocarbon offsets, or local
reservoir effects, may result from CO2 sources. For example, Saurer
et al. (2003) observed offsets in d13C in trees in a Mediterranean
The reservoir effect can arise in marine samples for a number of
reasons. The 14C content of the mixed layer of the ocean is an
indication of the degree of exchange between the atmosphere and
the surface ocean, and also of upwelling from deeper layers
(Toggweiler et al., 1993). In some regions, such as the west coast of
South America, we can observe large fluctuations due to upwelling
of old carbon from the deeper ocean (e.g. Jones et al., 2009, 2010).
Reimer and McCormac (2002) studied pre-bomb shells from the
Mediterranean Sea, which showed values of R ranging from about
380 to 650 14C years. An example of a region with 14C close to the
mean sea-water value is a coral from South Vietnam, Con Dao
island, that shows pre-bomb 14C values of 401e458 14C years (Dang
et al., 2004).
As noted by Cordero et al. (2003), remains of sea organisms in
coastal sites can be abundant. It is important to know that the local
reservoir effect, R, may not be well-defined. Cordero et al. (2003)
compared terrestrial plant material to mollusks. In this case, the
authors assumed the oceanic average R value when calculating DR
in their paper. Their observations are important because they
emphasize the ambiguity of DR and the need for local calibration
(e.g. Dye, 1994; Ingram and Southon, 1996; Southon et al., 1999). In
addition, material from sites close to the southern ocean may have
increasingly depleted values of 14C, and hence, large values of R.
Angulo et al. (2007) note that the R value measured at archaeo-
logical sites in southeastern Brazil showed evidence for large
variations from 281  44 to 1083  51 14C BP, due to effects of
seasonal upwelling from the South Atlantic.
Polar sites typically have higher values of R, with a larger 14C
offset. Dumond and Griffin (2002) discussed some examples of
reservoir effects between co-existing plant and Walrus ivory from
the Bering Sea, which gave R values of 514  57e720  53 14C
years, and whale bone and wood, which gave R values ranging
from 308 to 828  126 14C years. Berkman and Forman (1996)
discuss radiocarbon reservoir effects observed in pre-bomb
shells which ranged from 1300  84 before 1950 AD to about 500
years less after 1950 AD. Recently, Negrete et al. (2011) observed
an apparent reservoir age of w1300 years from a recently-
deceased seal. To give an example of these effects, we have
summarized available reservoir offsets, R, for a number of South
American sites in Table 1.

Table 1
Some marine reservoir ages observed in South America.

Location R (yr) Material Reference

Quebrada de los Burros Peru 520  135e1290  144 yr Coexisting charcoal and shells Fontugne et al., 2004
Quebrada Jaguay Peru 200  110e730  170 yr Coexisting charcoal and shells Jones et al., 2010
Callao Bay; Sechura Bay; Salaverry Peru 504  80e819  56 Pre-bomb shells Jones et al., 2009
Northern Chile/Southern Peru coast 511  278e226  98 Coexisting charcoal and shells Ortlieb et al., 2011
Northern Chilean coast Chile 540  80 Coexisting marine and terrestrial Southon et al., 1995
material
Jabuticabeira, Santa Catarina Brazil 220  20 yre510  10 yr Eastoe et al., 2002
Ponta das Canas & Ilha do Francês, Brazil 320  44e621  46 Pre-bomb shells Angulo et al., 2005
Santa Catarina
Ilha do Mel, Parana Brazil 345  42e430  42 Pre-bomb shells Angulo et al., 2005
Tunel, Beagle channel Argentina 620  140e556  61 Coexisting materials Albero et al., 1986
Coastal sites from Punta Norte to Argentina 480  35e1520  180 Coexisting plants and mollusks Cordero et al., 2003
Beagle Channel1
Northeastern coast Argentina 269  41e2802  41 Live mollusk shells Gomez et al., 2008
 A.J.T. Jull et al. / Quaternary International 299 (2013) 64e71
4. Calibration of the radiocarbon time scale
Libby (1955), the originator of radiocarbon dating, was the first
to note that radiocarbon ages diverged from the “true” calendar
age with his famous “Curve of Knowns”. Since about 1980, a vast
amount of time and energy has been devoted by scientists in the
field of radiocarbon dating to calibration of the radiocarbon time-
scale (Damon et al., 1980). This eliminated a growing discord of
different methodologies for calibration of radiocarbon dates. This
work has resulted in a series of publications, which have estab-
lished a common radiocarbon time scale by the cross-reference of
the measured “radiocarbon age” against material of known age.
The known-age material was originally restricted to tree rings,
but has been extended to include UeTh dated corals (Stuiver,
1993) and varved marine sediment records from the Cariaco
Basin (Stuiver and van der Plicht, 1998). The International Cali-
bration team (known as IntCal) has established strict protocols for
what kind of data is acceptable for inclusion in the calibration
database. In The IntCal09 calibration dataset is incorporated into
a number of computer programs, such as Calib 5.1 (www.calib.
org) (Table 2).
Table 2
Publications of the International Radiocarbon Calibration.
First Special Calibration Issue Stuiver and Kra, 1986.
Calibration 1993 Stuiver, 1993.
INTCAL98: Calibration Issue Stuiver and van der Plicht, 1998.
INTCAL04: Calibration Issue Reimer et al., 2004.
INTCAL09: Calibration Issue Reimer et al., 2009.
The records eventually included in the most recent INTCAL09
volume (Radiocarbon, 52, no. 4) include tree ring data, coral data
(e.g. Bard et al., 1990, 1993, 1998; Burr et al., 1998; Fairbanks
et al., 2005) and perhaps more controversially, varved sedi-
ments from the Cariaco Basin (Hughen et al., 1998). The decision
to include the Cariaco sediment record was explained by Stuiver
and van der Plicht (1998) as follows: “In addition, as an exception
to the rule, it was decided to include Late Glacial marine varves
because this newly developed dataset strengthened the coral/
tree ring link considerably”. Recently, some authors have sug-
gested that the varve chronology may deviate from the coral
chronology at some points in the late Pleistocene (e.g. Southon
et al., 2011).
Coral records appear to have wide acceptance as proxy records
of atmospheric 14C at a given time, but even this might be
a problem. Since corals sample bicarbonate in the surface ocean,
not the atmosphere directly, one needs to make a reservoir
correction, often assumed to be around 400 yrs (e.g. Fairbanks,
1989). Recent studies such as Fairbanks et al. (2005) and the
compilation of Hughen et al. (2004) make site-specific reservoir
corrections. This is an improvement, however these values are
taken as constants and Pleistocene marine reservoir ages from
a given site are known to vary by hundreds of years in some cases
(Burr et al., 2009), so that more work needs to be done to quantify
marine reservoir age corrections in space and time.
Many other geologic proxy records have been studied with the
intent of extending the radiocarbon calibration curve. These
include studies of marine sediments (e.g. Voelker et al., 2000), lake
sediment records (Kitagawa and van der Plicht, 1998), speleothems
(Beck et al., 2001), Lake Lisan sediments (Schramm et al., 2000) and
records of Atlantic foraminifera (Bard et al., 2004). These records
are not currently included in the INTCAL datasets, although this
may be reassessed in the near future.
69
5. Conclusions
The diversity of radiocarbon dating samples and the types of
measurements that can be undertaken in a given situation must be
considered in light of the numerous effects that can influence their
radiocarbon content. In the optimal case, radiocarbon dates give
robust age estimates, but under certain circumstances they can be
misleading if secondary effects are not thoroughly understood. It is
therefore necessary to study and understand potential effects in
detail in order to correct for them, and to quantify uncertainties
associated with them.
Acknowledgments
We thank our colleagues at the University of Arizona for helpful
discussions. Dr. Jull thanks the organizers of the La Plata sympo-
sium for their hospitality and partial support of travel to the
conference.
References
Albero, M.C., Angiolini, F.E., Piana, E.L., 1986. Discordant ages related to reservoir
effect of associated archaeologic remains from the Tunnel site, Beagle Channel,
Argentine Republic. Radiocarbon 28, 748e753.
Angulo, R.J., de Souza, M.C., Reimer, P.J., Sasaoka, S.K., 2005. Reservoir effect of the
southern and southeastern Brazilian coast. Radiocarbon 47 (1), 67e73.
Angulo, R.J., Reimer, P.J., de Souza, M.C., Scheel-Ybert, R., Tenório, M.C., Disaró, S.T.,
Gaspar, M.D., 2007. A tentative determination of upwelling influence on the
paleosurficial marine water reservoir effect in southeastern Brazil. Radiocarbon
49 (3), 1255e1259.
Ascough, P.L., Bird, M.I., Francis, S.M., Lebl, T., 2011. Alkali extraction of archaeo-
logical and geological charcoal: evidence for diagenetic degradation and
formation of humic acids. Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 69e78.
Bard, E., Hamelin, B., Fairbanks, R.G., Zindler, A., 1990. Calibration of the 14C time-
scale over the past 30,000 years using mass spectrometric UeTh ages from
Barbados corals. Nature 345, 405e410.
Bard, E., Arnold, M., Fairbanks, R.G., Hamelin, B., 1993. 230The234U and 14C ages
obtained by mass-spectrometry on corals. Radiocarbon 35 (1), 191e199.
Bard, E., Arnold, M., Hamelin, B., Tisnerat-Laborde, N., Cabioch, G., 1998. Radio-
carbon calibration by means of mass spectrometric 230Th/234U and 14C ages of
corals: an updated database including samples from Barbados, Mururoa and
Tahiti. Radiocarbon 40 (3), 1085e1092.
Bard, E., Rostek, F., Menot-Combes, G., 2004. Radiocarbon calibration beyond 20,000
C-14 yr BP by means of planktonic foraminifera of the Iberian Margin.
Quaternary Research 61 (2), 204e214.
Beck, J.W., Richards, D.A., Edwards, R.L., Silverman, B.W., Smart, P.L., Donahue, D.J.,
Herrera Osterheld, S., Burr, G.S., Calsoyas, L., Jull, A.J.T., Biddulph, D., 2001.
Extremely large variations of atmospheric 14C concentration during the last
glacial period. Science 292, 2453e2458.
Becker-Hiedemann, P., Scharpenseel, H.W., 1992. Studies of soil organic-matter
dynamics using natural carbon isotopes. Science of the Total Environment
118, 305e312.
Berkman, P.A., Forman, S.L., 1996. Pre-bomb radiocarbon and the reservoir correc-
tion for calcareous marine species in the Southern Ocean. Geophysical Research
Letters 23 (4), 363e366.
Bird, M.I., Ayliffe, L.K., Fifield, L.K., Turney, C.S.M., Cresswell, R.G., Barrows, T.T.,
David, B., 1999. Radiocarbon dating of “old” charcoal using a wet oxidation,
stepped-combustion procedure. Radiocarbon 41 (2), 127e140.
Braziunas, T.F., Fung, I.Y., Stuiver, M., 1995. The preindustrial atmospheric 14CO2
latitudinal gradient as related to exchanges among atmospheric, oceanic and
terrestrial reservoirs. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 9 (4), 565e584.
Broecker, W.S., Mix, A., Andrée, M., Oeschger, H., 1984. Radiocarbon measurements
on coexisting benthic and planktic foraminifera shells: potential for recon-
struction ocean ventilation times over the past 20,000 years. Nuclear Instru-
ments and Methods in Physics Research B 5, 331e339.
Broecker, W., Klas, M., Raganobeavan, N., Mathieu, G., Mix, A., Andree, M.,
Oeschger, H., Wolfli, W., Suter, M., Bonani, G., Hofmann, H.J., Nessi, M.,
Morenzoni, E., 1988. Accelerator mass-spectrometry radiocarbon measure-
ments on marine carbonate samples from deep-sea cores and sediment traps.
Radiocarbon 30 (3), 261e295.
Broecker, W.S., 1963. 14C/12C raios in surface ocean water. In: Nuclear Geophysics.
National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council Publication, p. 1075.
Burr, G.S., Jull, A.J.T., 2009. Accelerator mass spectrometry for radiocarbon research.
In: Gross, M.L., Caprioli, R. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Mass Spectrometry, vol. 5.
Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 656e669.
Burr, G.S., Edwards, R.L., Donahue, D.J., Druffel, E.R.M., Taylor, F.W., 1992. Mass
spectrometric 14C and UeTh measurements in coral. Radiocarbon 34 (3),
611e618.
70 A.J.T. Jull et al. / Quaternary International 299 (2013) 64e71
Burr, G.S., Beck, J.W., Taylor, F.W., Récy, J., Edwards, R.L., Cabioch, G., Corrège, T.,
Donahue, D.J., O’Malley, J.M., 1998. A coral-based radiocarbon calibration
between 11,700 and 12,400 calendar years BP derived from 230Th ages of corals
from Espiritu Santo Island, Vanuatu. Radiocarbon 40 (3), 1093e1105.
Burr, G.S., Donahue, D.J., Tang, Y., Beck, J.W., McHargue, L., Biddulph, D., Cruz, R.,
Jull, A.J.T., 2007. Error analysis at the NSF-Arizona AMS Facility. Nuclear
Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259, 149e153.
Burr, G.S., Beck, J.W., Corrège, Cabioch, G., Taylor, F.W., Donahue, D.J., 2009. Modern
and Pleistocene reservoir ages inferred from the south Pacific. Radiocarbon 51
(1), 319e335.
Cook, G.T., van der Plicht, J., 2006. Radiocarbon dating: conventional method. In:
Elias, S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
pp. 2899e2911.
Cordero, R.R., Panarello, H., Lanzelotti, S., Favier Dubois, C.M., 2003. Radiocarbon age
offsets between living organisms from the marine and continental reservoir in
coastal localities of Patagonia(Argentina). Radiocarbon 45, 9e15.
Damon, P.E., Lerman, J.C., Long, A., Bannister, B., Klein, J., Linick, T., 1980. Report of
the workshop on the calibration of the radiocarbon dating time scale. Radio-
carbon 22 (5), 947e949.
Damon, P.E., 1995. Note concerning “Intercomparison of high-precision 14C
measurements at the University of Arizona and the Queen’s University of Bel-
fast radiocarbon laboratories” by Kalin et al. (1995) and the regional effect.
Radiocarbon 37 (3), 955e959.
Dang, P.X., Mitsuguchi, T., Kitagawa, H., Shibata, Y., Kobayashi, T., 2004. Marine
reservoir correction in the south of Vietnam estimated from an annually-
banded coral. Radiocarbon 46 (2), 657e660.
Donahue, D.J., Linick, T.W., Jull, A.J.T., 1990. Isotope-ratio and background correc-
tions for accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon measurements. Radio-
carbon 32 (2), 135e142.
Dumond, D.E., Griffin, D.G., 2002. Measurements of the marine reservoir effect on
radiocarbon ages in the eastern Bering Sea. Arctic 55, 77e86.
Dye, T., 1994. Apparent ages of marine shells e implications for archaeological
dating in Hawaii. Radiocarbon 36 (1), 51e57.
Eastoe, C.J., Fish, S., Fish, P., Gaspar, M.D., Long, A., 2002. Reservoir corrections for
marine samples from the south Atlantic coast, Santa Catarina State, Brazil.
Radiocarbon 44 (1), 145e148.
Fairbanks, R.G., Mortlock, R.A., Chiu, T.C., Cao, L., Kaplan, A., Guilderson, T.P.,
Fairbanks, T.W., Bloom, A.L., Grootes, P.M., Nadeau, M.J., 2005. Radiocarbon
calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired
230
Th-/234U/238U and 14C dates on pristine corals. Quaternary Science Reviews
24 (16e17), 1781e1796.
Fairbanks, R.G., 1989. A 17,000-year glacio-eustatic sea-level record e influence of
glacial melting rates on the Younger Dryas event and deep-ocean circulation.
Nature 342 (6250), 637e642.
Fohlmeister, J., Kromer, B., Mangini, A., 2011. The influence of soil organic matter age
spectrum on the reconstruction of atmospheric 14C levels via stalagmites.
Radiocarbon 53 (1), 99e115.
Fontugne, M., Carré, M., Bentaleb, I., Julien, M., Lavallée, D., 2004. Radiocarbon
reservoir age variations in the south Peruvian upwelling during the Holocene.
Radiocarbon 46 (2), 531e537.
Genty, D., Massault, M., 1997. Bomb 14C recorded in laminated speleothems:
calculation of dead carbon proportion. Radiocarbon 39 (1), 33e48.
Genty, D., Massault, M., 1999. Carbon transfer dynamics from bomb-14C and d13C
time series of a laminated stalagmite from SW France e modelling and
comparison with other stalagmite records. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta
63 (10), 1537e1548.
Gilbert, M.T.P., Jenkins, D.L., Gotherstrom, A., Naveran, N., Sanchez, J.J., Hofreiter, M.,
Thomsen, P.F., Binladen, J., Higham, T.F.G., Yohe, R.M., Parr, R., Cummings, L.S.,
Willerslev, E., 2008. DNA from pre-Clovis human coprolites in Oregon, North
America. Science 320 (5877), 786e789.
Gomez, E.A., Brel, C.M., Aguirre, M.L., Martinez, D.E., 2008. Radiocarbon reservoir
ages and hardwater effect for the northeastern coastal waters of Argentina.
Radiocarbon 50 (1), 119e129.
Hatté, C., Morvan, J., Noury, C., Paterne, M., 2001. Is classical acid-alkali-acid
treatment responsible for contamination? An alternative proposition. Radio-
carbon 43 (2A), 177e182.
Haynes, C.V., 1992. Contributions of radiocarbon dating to the geochronology of the
peopling of the New World. In: Taylor, R.E., Long, A., Kra, R.S. (Eds.), Radiocarbon
Dating after Four Decades: an Interdisciplinary Perspective. Springer-Verlag,
New York, pp. 355e374.
Haynes, C.V., 2002. The Early Settlement of North America: the Clovis Era. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge.
Holliday, V.T., 2000. The evolution of paleoindian geochronology and typology on
the Great Plains. Geoarchaeology 15, 227e290.
Holliday, V.T., 2009. Geoarchaeology and the search for the first Americans. Catena
78, 310e322.
Hughen, K.A., Overpeck, J.T., Lehman, S.J., Kashgarian, M., Southon, J.R., 1998. A new
14
C calibration data set for the last deglaciation based on marine varves.
Radiocarbon 40 (1), 483e494.
Hughen, K.A., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Beck, J.W., Bertrand, C.J.H., Blackwell, P.G.,
Buck, C.E., Burr, G.S., Cutler, K.B., Damon, P.E., Edwards, R.L., Fairbanks, R.G.,
Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T.P., Kromer, B., McCormac, G., Manning, S., Ramsey, C.B.,
Reimer, P.J., Reimer, R.W., Remmele, S., Southon, J.R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S.,
Taylor, F.W., van der Plicht, J., Weyhenmeyer, C.E., 2004. Marine04 marine radio-
carbon age calibration, 0e26 cal ka BP. Radiocarbon 46 (3), 1059e1086.
Ingram, B.L., Southon, J.R., 1996. Reservoir ages in eastern Pacific coastal and
estuarine waters. Radiocarbon 38 (3), 573e582.
Jones, K.B., Hodgins, G.W.L., Etayo-Cadavid, M.F., Andrus, C.F.T., 2009. Upwelling
signals in radiocarbon from early 20th-century Peruvian bay scallop (Argo-
pecten purpuratus) shells. Quaternary Research 72, 452e456.
Jones, K.B., Hodgins, G.W.L., Etayo-Cadavid, M.F., Andrus, C.F.T., Sandweiss, D.H., 2010.
Centuries of marine radiocarbon reservoir age variation within archaeological
Mesodesma danacium shells from southern Peru. Radiocarbon 52 (2), 1207e1214.
Jull, A.J.T., Burr, G.S., 2006. Accelerator mass spectrometry: is the future bigger or
smaller? Earth and Planetary Science Letters 243, 305e325.
Jull, A.J.T., Burr, G.S., McHargue, L.R., Lange, T.E., Lifton, N.A., Beck, J.W., Donahue, D.J.,
2004. New frontiers in dating of geological, paleoclimatic and anthropological
applications using accelerator mass spectrometric measurements of 14C and 10Be
in diverse samples. Global and Planetary Change 41, 309e323.
Jull, A.J.T., 2006. Radiocarbon dating: AMS method. In: Elias, S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Quaternary Science. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 2911e2918.
Kitagawa, H., van der Plicht, J., 1998. Atmospheric radiocarbon calibration to 45,000
yr BP: late glacial fluctuations and cosmogenic isotope production. Science 279
(5354), 1187e1190.
Libby, W.F., 1955. Radiocarbon Dating, second ed. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Lowery, D., O’Neal, M.A., Wah, J.S., Wagner, D.P., Stanford, D.J., 2010. Late Pleistocene
upland stratigraphy of the western Delmarva Peninsula, USA. Quaternary
Science Reviews 29 (11e12), 1472e1480.
Mann, W.B., 1983. An international reference material for radiocarbon dating.
Radiocarbon 25 (2), 519e527.
McCormac, F.G., Baillie, M.G.L., Pilcher, J.R., Kalin, R.M., 1995. Location-dependent
differences in the 14C content of wood. Radiocarbon 37 (2), 395e407.
McCormac, F.G., Hogg, A.G., Blackwell, P.G., Buck, C.E., Higham, T.F.G., Reimer, P.J.,
2004. SHCAL04 Southern hemisphere calibration, 0e11.0 cal ka BP. Radiocarbon
46 (3), 1087e1092.
McGeehin, J., Burr, G.S., Jull, A.J.T., Reines, D., Gosse, J., Davis, P.T., Muhs, D.,
Southon, J., 2001. Stepped-combustion 14C dating of sediment. Radiocarbon 43
(2A), 255e262.
Negrete, J., Soilbelzon, E., Tonni, E.P., Carlini, A., Soibelzon, L.H., Poljak, S.,
Huarte, R.A., Carbonari, J.E., 2011. Antarctic radiocarbon reservoir: the case of
the mummified crabeater seals (Lobodon carcinophaga) in Bodman Cape, Sey-
mour Island, Antarctica. Radiocarbon 53 (1), 161e166.
Ortlieb, L., Vargas, G., Saliège, J.F., 2011. Marine radiocarbon reservoir effect along
the northern Chileesouthern Peru coast (14e24 S) throughout the Holocene.
Quaternary Research 75, 91e103.
Park, J.S., Burr, G.S., Jull, A.J.T., 2010. A thermal and acid treatment for carbon
extraction from cast iron and its application to AMS dating of cast iron objects
from ancient Korea. Radiocarbon 52 (3), 1312e1321.
Purser, K.H., Liebert, R.B., Russo, C.J., 1980. MACS e an accelerator-based radioiso-
tope measuring system. Radiocarbon 22 (3), 794e806.
Rebollo, N.T., Cohen-Ofri, I., Popovitz-Biro, R., Bar-Yosef, O., Meignen, L., Goldberg, P.,
Weiner, S., Boaretto, E., 2008. Structural characterization of charcoal exposed to
high and low pH: implications for 14C sample preparation and charcoal pres-
ervation. Radiocarbon 50 (2), 289e307.
Reimer, P.J., McCormac, F.G., 2002. Marine radiocarbon reservoir corrections for the
Mediterranean and Aegean seas. Radiocarbon 44 (1), 159e166.
Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Bertrand, C.J.H.,
Blackwell, P.G., Buck, C.E., Burr, G.S., Cutler, K.B., Damon, P.E., Edwards, R.L.,
Fairbanks, R.G., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T.P., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A.,
Kromer, B., McCormac, G., Manning, S., Ramsey, C.B., Reimer, R.W., Remmele, S.,
Southon, J.R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S., Taylor, F.W., van der Plicht, J.,
Weyhenmeyer, C.E., 2004. IntCal04 Terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0e
26 ka cal BP. Radiocarbon 46 (3), 1029e1058.
Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk
Ramsey, C., Buck, C.E., Burr, G.S., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M.,
Guilderson, T.P., Hajdas, I., Heaton, T.J., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F.,
Kromer, B., McCormac, F.G., Manning, S.W., Reimer, R.W., Richards, D.A.,
Southon, J.R., Talamo, S., Turney, C.S.M., van der Plicht, J., Weyhenmeyer, C.E.,
2009. INTCAL09 and MARINE09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0e50,000
cal BP. Radiocarbon 51 (4), 1111e1150.
Rothhammer, F., Dillehay, T.D., 2009. The late Pleistocene colonization of South
America: an interdisciplinary perspective. Annals of Human Genetics 73, 540e549.
Saurer, M., Cherubini, P., Bonani, G., Siegwolf, R., 2003. Tracing carbon uptake from
a natural CO2 spring into tree rings: an isotope approach. Tree Physiology 23,
997e1004.
Schramm, A., Stein, M., Goldstein, S.L., 2000. Calibration of the 14C time scale to >40
ka by 234Ue230Th dating of Lake Lisan sediments (last glacial Dead Sea). Earth
and Planetary Science Letters 175 (1e2), 27e40.
Scott, E.M., Cook, G.T., Naysmith, P., Bryant, C., O’Donnell, D., 2007. A report on phase
I of the 5th International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (VIRI). Radiocarbon 49
(2), 409e426.
Southon, J.R., Rodman, A.O., True, D., 1995. A comparison of marine and terrestrial
radiocarbon ages from northern Chile. Radiocarbon 37 (2), 389e393.
Southon, J.R., Nelson, D.E., Vogel, J.S., 1999. A record of past ocean-atmosphere
radiocarbon differences from the northeastern Pacific. Paleoceanography 5
(2), 197e206.
Southon, J.R., Magana, A., Cheng, H., Edwards, L., Wang, Y., 2011. A Record of
Deglacial Atmospheric 14C from Hulu Cave Speleothem H82. Paper CAL#6
Presented at the AMS-12 Conference, Wellington, New Zealand, March 2011.
 A.J.T. Jull et al. / Quaternary International 299 (2013) 64e71
Stuiver, M., Braziunas, T.F., 1993. Modeling atmospheric 14C influences and 14C ages
of marine samples to 10,000 BC. Radiocarbon 35 (1), 137e189.
Stuiver, M., Kra, R., 1986. Calibration issue. Radiocarbon 28 (2B), 805e1030.
Stuiver, M., Ostlund, H.G., 1980. GEOSECS Atlantic radiocarbon. Radiocarbon 22 (1),
1e24.
Stuiver, M., Polach, H.A., 1977. Reporting of 14C data. Radiocarbon 19 (3), 355e363.
Stuiver, M., van der Plicht, J., 1998. INTCAL98: calibration issue. Radiocarbon 40 (3),
1041e1159.
Stuiver, M., Pearson, G.W., Braziunas, T., 1986. Radiocarbon age calibration of marine
samples back to 9000 cal yr BP. Radiocarbon 28 (2B), 980e1021.
Stuiver, M., 1993. Calibration 1993. Radiocarbon 35 (1), 1e244.
Synal, H.A., Wacker, L., 2010. AMS measurement technique after 30 years: possi-
bilities and limitations of low-energy systems. Nuclear Instruments and
Methods in Physics Research B 268, 701e707.
Thornalley, D.J.R., Barker, S., Broecker, W.S., Elderfield, H., McCave, I.M., 2011. The
deglacial evolution of North Atlantic deep convection. Science 331, 202e205.
71
Toggweiler, J.R., Dixon, K., Broecker, W.S., 1993. The Peru upwelling and the venti-
lation of the South-Pacific thermocline. Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans
96 (C11), 20467e20497.
Trumbore, S., 2000. Age of soil organic matter and soil respiration: radiocarbon
constraints on belowground C dynamics. Ecological Applications 10 (2), 399e411.
Tuniz, C., Bird, J.R., Fink, D., Herzog, G.F., 1998. Accelerator Mass Spectrometry:
Ultrasensitive Analysis for Global Science. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Voelker, A.H.L., Grootes, P.M., Nadeau, M.J., Sarnthein, M., 2000. Radiocarbon levels
in the Iceland Sea from 25e53 ka and their link to the Earth’s magnetic field
intensity. Radiocarbon 42 (3), 437e452.
Vogel, J.C., Kronfeld, J., 1997. Calibration of radiocarbon dates for the late Pleistocene
using U/Th dates on stalagmites. Radiocarbon 39 (1), 27e32.
Waters, M.R., Forman, S.L., Jennings, T.A., Nordt, L.C., Driese, S.G., Feinberg, J.M.,
Keene, J.L., Halligan, J., Lindquist, A., Pierson, J., Hallmark, C.T., Collins, M.B.,
Wiederhold, J.E., 2011. The buttermilk creek complex and the origins of Clovis at
the Debra L. Friedkin site, Texas. Science 331, 1599e1603.