Examining Late Holocene marine reservoir effect in archaeological fauna at Hope Inlet, Beagle Gulf, north Australia

Abstract

This study examines the marine reservoir effect during the Late Holocene evolution of a small estuary in the Beagle Gulf (12°S, 131°E). The paper aims at refining the local marine reservoir ages (R) and correction values (ΔR), by 14 C analysis of stratigraphically associated archaeological fauna (marine shell, charcoal an d fish otoliths) from five proximate middens of different chronologies. The results suggest that a marine reservoir age of 340 ± 70 yrs is applicable to the Beagle Gulf for the Late Holocene, which is not significan tly different from that determined for nearby Van Dieman Gulf and the north Australian coast.

Re‐evaluating the timing of the Indonesian trepang industry in north‐west Arnhem Land: chronological investigations at Malara (Anuru Bay A)

“…Mitchell () discusses the technical problem of radiocarbon analysis of burnt mangrove wood, and suggests a number of reasons for an unreliable date, including a “marine reservoir effect”. In contrast, Bourke and Hua (: 184) believe that the “old wood” effect in wood charcoal from shell midden sites at Hope Inlet, Northern Territory is unlikely, as the wet–dry tropics of north Australia are not known for old trees. Hua (: 385) used mangrove wood in his dendrochronological studies into post‐bomb radiocarbon effects, and found no evidence of the “marine reservoir” or “old wood” effects in the mangrove species he examined.…”

Pre-Bomb Marine Reservoir Variability in the Kimberley Region, Western Australia

“…As few known-age shell samples have been dated for the Australian coast (Gillespie 1977;Rhodes et al 1980;Bowman and Harvey 1983;Bowman 1985a,b) archaeologists often rely on dating paired marine/terrestrial samples in order to calculate regional R (e.g. Gillespie and Temple 1977;Head et al 1983;Ascough et al 2009;Bourke and Hua 2009). However, there are a number of inherent assumptions in this method that are untestable, and which may result in unreliable estimates, including the assumption of contemporaneity for the shell and charcoal.…”