Like Lamont VI , this list contains only results on samples of known age (most of which formed during the past ten years). The measurements were made largely in order to gain an understanding of the distribution of radiocarbon within the dynamic carbon reservoir. Again, the data are not reported primarily with the idea of drawing new conclusions but rather to bring together in one place information which is presently scattered throughout the literature or which otherwise might remain unpublished.Although the system of data presentation is essentially the same as that adopted in our previous paper, a change has been made in the normalization formula:previous relationship (Lamont VI) Fonselius and Ostlund,1959. t the relatively high C' concentration probably reflects the presence of bomb-produced C-14. values (approximating-i00 per mil), b) the Gulf Stream is a significant contributor to North Atlantic waters, and c) Atlantic circulation may be cyclic (Broecker and others, 1960).3) The most difficult problem is the evaluation of results on samples from lagoons, estuaries and other restricted parts of the ocean. In these cases the contribution of limestone-derived carbon from terrestrial drainage may cause a significant depression in the initial z. Whether this is the explanation for the low value of the Pearl Harbor sample (L-576'D, this date list) is not certain; more probably, the result implies a finite age of the sample at the time of colhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

During the ten years that have passed s i n c e W. F. Libby proposed t h e radiocarbon method of age determination several thousand d a t e s have been reported. Although the large majority of these measurements s e e m to provide accurate estimates of absolute a g e of events that have occurred $uring the past 40,000 years, a few of t h e s e measurements are clearly anomalous. One of three explanations may account for the apparent errors: (1) sample radiocarbon concentration h a s been wrongly measured;(2) the sample dated d o e s not represent the event it is supposed to date; or (3) the basic assumptions of the radiocarbon a g e method do not apply to the particular sample.Since the adoption of gas-counting techniques by most radiocarbon laboratories, the first source of errornamely, faulty activity measurementhas almost disappeared. Enough cross-checks between laboratories have been carried out to substantiate this conclusion; in addition, internal electronic checks and duplicate measurements of each sample keep a laboratory in day-to-day contact with the performance of i t s equipment.

Radiocarbon-age measurements reported here were made at Lamont Geological Observatory between July 1958 and November 1960. Sample descriptions are classified as follows: I.Samples associated with glacial depositsII.Samples associated with marine coastal depositsIII.Samples associated with marine coastal deposits uplifted by glacial reboundIV.Samples associated with pluvial-lake depositsV.Samples from deep-sea coresVI.Samples from cave depositsVII.Miscellaneous samples of geologic interestVIII.Samples of archaeologic interest

This article reports the radiocarbon age measurements made at the Lamont Geological Observatory between February 1957 and July 1958. For convenience the sample ages have been classified into the following categories: Table IGeologic Samples—North American glacial geologyTable IIGeologic Samples—Pluvial lake levelsTable IIIGeologic Samples-Relative sealevel changesTable IVGeologic Samples-OceanographyTable VGeologic Samples-MiscellaneousTable VIArchaeologic SamplesTable VIICheck Samples Within each table are subdivisions according to geographic origin.

In contrast to previous radiocarbon measurement lists, this list contains only known-age samples, most of which formed during the past ten years. The measurements were made largely in order to gain an understanding of the distribution of radiocarbon within the dynamic carbon reservoir both today and at times in the past. Since all materials forming in this reservoir today do not have the same C14/C12 ratio, such an understanding is necessary in order to arrive at the most accurate possible estimate of the age of samples submitted for dating. This is particularly important when high accuracy (i.e., <100 years error) is required on subaerially grown samples and also when attempting to extend the method to samples which formed in reservoirs other than the atmosphere (for example, the ocean and freshwater systems).