Extension of the C record beyond the 0 to 11,900 year long tree ring record is well underway, being measured in many different archives, and undoubtedly an enormous amount of scientific knowledge will stem from these studies.
A 7104 Year Annual Tree Ring Chronology for Bristlecone Pine, Pinus Aristata, from the White Mountains, California – C. Ferguson – Tree-Ring Bulletin, Volume 29 (1969) https://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/259957/1/trb-29-03-04-003-029The discussions between the two disciplines must have had a few interesting moments because Radiocarbon Dating [much to their surprise] conceded that “there is significant evidence of systematic differences between the laboratories”. – Radiocarbon, 24, 1982 https://arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/download/748/753? origin=publication_detail The composite “workshop data set” is plotted against the 6th order polynominal regressed on the logarithmically scaled data.
Much to our surprise and despite previous findings to the contrary (Damon, Lerman, and Long, 1978; Clark, 1975; Damon, 1970), there is significant evidence of systematic differences between the laboratories represented. Calendric age minus conventional radiocarbon age is the ordinate; the calendric age is the abscissa. – Radiocarbon, 24, 1982 https://arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/download/748/753? origin=publication_detail However, an analysis of the “workshop data set” reveals that Radiocarbon Dating of the Bristlecone Pine chronology is far from a perfect fit and that the rounded consensus calibration curve is derived from a very jagged, saw tooth dataset.
For decades, radiocarbon dating has been a way for scientists to get a rough picture of when once-living stuff lived.
The method has been revolutionary and remains one of the most commonly used dating methods to study the past. Pearson, an assistant professor of dendrochronology at the University of Arizona, studies the past lives of trees to better understand the history of civilizations.
This work includes measurements on wood as old as 8000 years. Radiocarbon Dating wanted to “understand more fully the nature and causes of the variability of radiocarbon dates” whilst Dendrochronology needed to ensure their Bristlecone Pine chronology [aka narrative] based upon a “new dendrochronological species, in a new area, and (increasingly) in a new time period” was not derailed by Radiocarbon Dating. – Radiocarbon, 24, 1982 https://arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/download/748/753? origin=publication_detail This study brought out what was very early realized: that in working with a new dendrochronological species, in a new area, and (increasingly) in a new time period, we would be much more secure in chronology building to work with material of a proven, but safe quality.
As one of the principal objectives of this analysis has been to understand more fully the nature and causes of the variability of radiocarbon dates, the data were examined carefully for signs of non-random errors. Much of the data collected in the early stage of investigation was of an extremely difficult quality, with a very low average ring width (many specimens had more than 100 rings per radial inch), a high mean sensitivity, and many locally absent and missing rings.
By matching ring-width patterns in a specimen of known age (starting with living specimens) to ring-width patterns in an older specimen, the proper placement of the older specimen is determined.
Tree-ring chronologies have been extended to 10,000 years before present in this way.
Dendrochronology and radiocarbon dating have intertwined histories, she explains, with roots firmly planted at the UA.