Off-cut of coral section used for record dated July 2022. Date sample taken from top of off-cut section and assumed to match youngest year of the record. See GBRCD Appendices.
Off-cut of coral section used for record dated July 2022. Date sample taken from top of off-cut section and assumed to match youngest year of the record. See GBRCD publication appendices.
Off-cut of coral section used for record dated July 2022. Date sample taken from top of off-cut section and assumed to match youngest year of the record. See GBRCD publication appendices.
Off-cut of coral section used for record dated July 2022. Date sample taken from top of off-cut section and assumed to match youngest year of the record. See GBRCD publication appendices.
Off-cut of coral section used for record dated July 2022. Date sample taken from top of off-cut section and assumed to match youngest year of the record. See GBRCD publication appendices.
Off-cut of coral section used for record dated July 2022. Date sample taken from top of off-cut section and assumed to match youngest year of the record. See GBRCD publication appendices.
Off-cut of coral section used for record dated July 2022. Date sample taken from top of off-cut section and assumed to match youngest year of the record. See GBRCD publication appendices.
Off-cut of coral section used for record dated July 2022. Date sample taken from top of off-cut section and assumed to match youngest year of the record. See GBRCD publication appendices.
Off-cut of coral section used for record dated July 2022. Date sample taken from top of off-cut section and assumed to match youngest year of the record. See GBRCD publication appendices.
Alternate slice of coral dated July 2022. Date sample taken from near basal section of coral slice. Assumed to match oldest year of the record. See GBRCD Appendices.
Alternate slice of coral dated July 2022. Date sample taken from near basal section of coral slice. Assumed to match oldest year of the record. See GBRCD publication appendices.
Alternate slice of coral dated July 2022. Date sample taken from near basal section of coral slice. Assumed to match oldest year of the record. See GBRCD publication appendices.
Alternate slice of coral dated July 2022. Date sample taken from near basal section of coral slice. Assumed to match oldest year of the record. See GBRCD publication appendices.
Alternate slice of coral dated July 2022. Date sample taken from near basal section of coral slice. Assumed to match oldest year of the record. See GBRCD publication appendices.
Alternate slice of coral dated July 2022. Date sample taken from near basal section of coral slice. Assumed to match oldest year of the record. See GBRCD publication appendices.
Alternate slice of coral dated July 2022. Date sample taken from near basal section of coral slice. Assumed to match oldest year of the record. See GBRCD publication appendices.
Alternate slice of coral dated July 2022. Date sample taken from near basal section of coral slice. Assumed to match oldest year of the record. See GBRCD publication appendices.
Alternate slice of coral dated July 2022. Date sample taken from near basal section of coral slice. Assumed to match oldest year of the record. See GBRCD publication appendices.
5.790 ± 0.031 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL01D and 6.089 ± 0.040 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL01D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with published Lough et al. (2014) 14C dating becomes within error using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL01D youngest year (year 130) matches LO14NEL04 youngest year (Lough et al. (2014) year 0).
5.790 ± 0.031 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL01D and 6.089 ± 0.040 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL01D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with published Lough et al. (2014) 14C dating becomes within error using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL01D youngest year (year 130) matches LO14NEL04 youngest year (Lough et al. (2014) year 0).
5.790 ± 0.031 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL01D and 6.089 ± 0.040 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL01D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with published Lough et al. (2014) 14C dating becomes within error using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL01D youngest year (year 130) matches LO14NEL04 youngest year (Lough et al. (2014) year 0).
5.790 ± 0.031 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL01D and 6.089 ± 0.040 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL01D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with published Lough et al. (2014) 14C dating becomes within error using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL01D youngest year (year 130) matches LO14NEL04 youngest year (Lough et al. (2014) year 0).
5.790 ± 0.031 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL01D and 6.089 ± 0.040 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL01D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with published Lough et al. (2014) 14C dating becomes within error using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL01D youngest year (year 130) matches LO14NEL04 youngest year (Lough et al. (2014) year 0).
5.790 ± 0.031 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL01D and 6.089 ± 0.040 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL01D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with published Lough et al. (2014) 14C dating becomes within error using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL01D youngest year (year 130) matches LO14NEL04 youngest year (Lough et al. (2014) year 0).
5.790 ± 0.031 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL01D and 6.089 ± 0.040 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL01D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with published Lough et al. (2014) 14C dating becomes within error using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL01D youngest year (year 130) matches LO14NEL04 youngest year (Lough et al. (2014) year 0).
5.790 ± 0.031 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL01D and 6.089 ± 0.040 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL01D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with published Lough et al. (2014) 14C dating becomes within error using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL01D youngest year (year 130) matches LO14NEL04 youngest year (Lough et al. (2014) year 0).
6.062 ± 0.089 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL03D and 6.179 ± 0.036 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL03D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with published Lough et al. (2014) 14C dating becomes smaller using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL03D youngest year (year 70) matches youngest year of LO14NEL04 (Lough et al. (2014) NEL03D year 234).
6.062 ± 0.089 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL03D and 6.179 ± 0.036 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL03D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with published Lough et al. (2014) 14C dating becomes smaller using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL03D youngest year (year 70) matches youngest year of LO14NEL04 (Lough et al. (2014) NEL03D year 234).
6.062 ± 0.089 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL03D and 6.179 ± 0.036 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL03D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with published Lough et al. (2014) 14C dating becomes smaller using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL03D youngest year (year 70) matches youngest year of LO14NEL04 (Lough et al. (2014) NEL03D year 234).
6.062 ± 0.089 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL03D and 6.179 ± 0.036 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL03D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with published Lough et al. (2014) 14C dating becomes smaller using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL03D youngest year (year 70) matches youngest year of LO14NEL04 (Lough et al. (2014) NEL03D year 234).
6.062 ± 0.089 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL03D and 6.179 ± 0.036 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL03D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with published Lough et al. (2014) 14C dating becomes smaller using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL03D youngest year (year 70) matches youngest year of LO14NEL04 (Lough et al. (2014) NEL03D year 234).
6.062 ± 0.089 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL03D and 6.179 ± 0.036 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL03D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with published Lough et al. (2014) 14C dating becomes smaller using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL03D youngest year (year 70) matches youngest year of LO14NEL04 (Lough et al. (2014) NEL03D year 234).
6.062 ± 0.089 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL03D and 6.179 ± 0.036 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL03D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with published Lough et al. (2014) 14C dating becomes smaller using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL03D youngest year (year 70) matches youngest year of LO14NEL04 (Lough et al. (2014) NEL03D year 234).
6.062 ± 0.089 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL03D and 6.179 ± 0.036 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL03D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with published Lough et al. (2014) 14C dating becomes smaller using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL03D youngest year (year 70) matches youngest year of LO14NEL04 (Lough et al. (2014) NEL03D year 234).
5.790 ± 0.031 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL01D and 6.089 ± 0.040 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL01D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with Lewis (2005) U-Th dating becomes within error using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL01D youngest year (year 130) matches LO14NEL04 youngest year (Lough et al. (2014) year 0).
5.790 ± 0.031 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL01D and 6.089 ± 0.040 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL01D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with Lewis (2005) U-Th dating becomes within error using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL01D youngest year (year 130) matches LO14NEL04 youngest year (Lough et al. (2014) year 0).
5.790 ± 0.031 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL01D and 6.089 ± 0.040 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL01D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with Lewis (2005) U-Th dating becomes within error using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL01D youngest year (year 130) matches LO14NEL04 youngest year (Lough et al. (2014) year 0).
5.790 ± 0.031 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL01D and 6.089 ± 0.040 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL01D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with Lewis (2005) U-Th dating becomes within error using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL01D youngest year (year 130) matches LO14NEL04 youngest year (Lough et al. (2014) year 0).
5.790 ± 0.031 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL01D and 6.089 ± 0.040 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL01D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with Lewis (2005) U-Th dating becomes within error using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL01D youngest year (year 130) matches LO14NEL04 youngest year (Lough et al. (2014) year 0).
5.790 ± 0.031 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL01D and 6.089 ± 0.040 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL01D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with Lewis (2005) U-Th dating becomes within error using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL01D youngest year (year 130) matches LO14NEL04 youngest year (Lough et al. (2014) year 0).
5.790 ± 0.031 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL01D and 6.089 ± 0.040 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL01D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with Lewis (2005) U-Th dating becomes within error using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL01D youngest year (year 130) matches LO14NEL04 youngest year (Lough et al. (2014) year 0).
5.790 ± 0.031 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL01D and 6.089 ± 0.040 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL01D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with Lewis (2005) U-Th dating becomes within error using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL01D youngest year (year 130) matches LO14NEL04 youngest year (Lough et al. (2014) year 0).
5.790 ± 0.031 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL01D and 6.089 ± 0.040 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL01D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with Lewis (2005) U-Th dating becomes within error using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL01D youngest year (year 130) matches LO14NEL04 youngest year (Lough et al. (2014) year 0).
5.790 ± 0.031 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL01D and 6.089 ± 0.040 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL01D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with Lewis (2005) U-Th dating becomes within error using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL01D youngest year (year 130) matches LO14NEL04 youngest year (Lough et al. (2014) year 0).
5.790 ± 0.031 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL01D and 6.089 ± 0.040 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL01D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with Lewis (2005) U-Th dating becomes within error using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL01D youngest year (year 130) matches LO14NEL04 youngest year (Lough et al. (2014) year 0).
5.790 ± 0.031 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL01D and 6.089 ± 0.040 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL01D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with Lewis (2005) U-Th dating becomes within error using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL01D youngest year (year 130) matches LO14NEL04 youngest year (Lough et al. (2014) year 0).
5.790 ± 0.031 ka reported 2003-09 for top of NEL01D and 6.089 ± 0.040 ka reported 2003-09 for bottom of NEL01D. Additional dating information provided in Lewis (2005). Original age discrepancy compared with Lewis (2005) U-Th dating becomes within error using re-calibration of 14C ages. Assumed this NEL01D youngest year (year 130) matches LO14NEL04 youngest year (Lough et al. (2014) year 0).
U-Th dating by MC-ICP-MS; date from sample measured in 2012 given as oldest section of the supplied coral age model. Additional dating information in publication.
U-Th dating by MC-ICP-MS; date from sample measured in 2012 given as oldest section of the supplied coral age model. Additional dating information in publication.
U-Th dating by MC-ICP-MS; given as oldest section of the coral age model. Additional dating information in publication.
U-Th dating by MC-ICP-MS; given as oldest section of the coral age model. Additional dating information in publication.
U-Th dating by MC-ICP-MS; date from sample measured in 2012 given as middle section of the supplied coral age model. Additional dating information in publication.
U-Th dating by MC-ICP-MS; date from sample measured in 2012 given as middle section of the supplied coral age model. Additional dating information in publication.
Chronology internally cross checked between samples and age of coral determined according to assigned year difference from NEL01D top/youngest year (year 232-298 NEL03A to year 0 NEL01D).
Chronology internally cross checked between samples and age of coral determined according to assigned year difference from NEL01D top/youngest year (year 232-298 NEL03A to year 0 NEL01D).
Multiple 14C dates for sample. See Lough et al. (2014) NOAA/WDS data for complete list. Originally calibrated using Oxcal Marine13 DeltaR = 11 ± 13. Chronology internally cross checked between samples and age of coral determined according to assigned year difference from NEL01D top/youngest year (year 234-313 NEL03D to year 0 NEL01D). Published dates have age discrepancy compared with Lewis (2005) U-Th dating but becomes smaller with 14C recalibration using Calib 8.2 and MARINE20 (DeltaR = 11 ± 13); median probability -3925 (-4091 to -3754 (2 sigma)).
Multiple 14C dates for sample. See Lough et al. (2014) NOAA/WDS data for complete list. Originally calibrated using Oxcal Marine13 DeltaR = 11 ± 13. Chronology internally cross checked between samples and age of coral determined according to assigned year difference from NEL01D top/youngest year (year 234-313 NEL03D to year 0 NEL01D). Published dates have age discrepancy compared with Lewis (2005) U-Th dating but becomes smaller with 14C recalibration using Calib 8.2 and MARINE20 (DeltaR = 11 ± 13); median probability -3925 (-4091 to -3754 (2 sigma)).
Multiple 14C dates for sample. See Lough et al. (2014) NOAA/WDS data for complete list. Originally calibrated using Oxcal Marine13 DeltaR = 11 ± 13. Chronology internally cross checked between samples and age of coral determined according to assigned year difference from NEL01D top/youngest year (year 188-294 NEL07B to year 0 NEL01D).
Multiple 14C dates for sample. See Lough et al. (2014) NOAA/WDS data for complete list. Originally calibrated using Oxcal Marine13 DeltaR = 11 ± 13. Chronology internally cross checked between samples and age of coral determined according to assigned year difference from NEL01D top/youngest year (year 188-294 NEL07B to year 0 NEL01D).
Chronology internally cross checked between samples and age of coral determined according to assigned year difference (year 199-294 NEL07C to year 0 NEL01D).
Chronology internally cross checked between samples and age of coral determined according to assigned year difference (year 199-294 NEL07C to year 0 NEL01D).
Multiple 14C dates for sample. See Lough et al. (2014) NOAA/WDS data for complete list. Originally calibrated using Oxcal Marine13 DeltaR = 11 ± 13. Chronology internally cross checked between samples and age of coral determined according to assigned year (0-128 NEL01D). Published dates have age discrepancy compared with Lewis (2005) U-Th dating but becomes within error with 14C recalibration using Calib 8.2 and MARINE20 (DeltaR = 11 ± 13) dates are within error of each other; median probability -3800 CE (-3948 to -3643 (2 sigma)).
Multiple 14C dates for sample. See Lough et al. (2014) NOAA/WDS data for complete list. Originally calibrated using Oxcal Marine13 DeltaR = 11 ± 13. Chronology internally cross checked between samples and age of coral determined according to assigned year (0-128 NEL01D). Published dates have age discrepancy compared with Lewis (2005) U-Th dating but becomes within error with 14C recalibration using Calib 8.2 and MARINE20 (DeltaR = 11 ± 13) dates are within error of each other; median probability -3800 CE (-3948 to -3643 (2 sigma)).
Multiple U-Th dates from Marshall 2000; top of core age was 7968 ± 100 years and basal core age was 7646 ± 60 years. Minimal information about U-series dating; dates not converted to standard reference time. New U-Th date on alternate slice measured July 2022 and assumed to match youngest year of the record. See GBRCD Appendices.
Multiple U-Th dates from Marshall 2000; top of core age was 7968 ± 100 years and basal core age was 7646 ± 60 years. Minimal information about U-series dating; dates not converted to standard reference time. New U-Th date on alternate slice measured July 2022 and assumed to match youngest year of the record. See GBRCD publication appendices.
Multiple U-Th dates from Marshall 2000; top of core age was 7968 ± 100 years and basal core age was 7646 ± 60 years. Minimal information about U-series dating; dates not converted to standard reference time. New U-Th date on alternate slice measured July 2022 and assumed to match youngest year of the record. See GBRCD publication appendices.
Multiple U-Th dates from Marshall 2000; top of core age was 7968 ± 100 years and basal core age was 7646 ± 60 years. Minimal information about U-series dating; dates not converted to standard reference time. New U-Th date on alternate slice measured July 2022 and assumed to match youngest year of the record. See GBRCD publication appendices.
7880 ± 60 years. Minimal information about U-series dating; dates not converted to standard reference time. Assumed dated in year of thesis submission (2000) for youngest possible age. Additional 14C age (7300 ± 60 yBP); no contextual information but likely calibrated age.
7880 ± 60 years. Minimal information about U-series dating; dates not converted to standard reference time. Assumed dated in year of thesis submission (2000) for youngest possible age. Additional 14C age (7300 ± 60 yBP); no contextual information but likely calibrated age.
7880 ± 60 years. Minimal information about U-series dating; dates not converted to standard reference time. Assumed dated in year of thesis submission (2000) for youngest possible age. Additional 14C age (7300 ± 60 yBP); no contextual information but likely calibrated age.
7880 ± 60 years. Minimal information about U-series dating; dates not converted to standard reference time. Assumed dated in year of thesis submission (2000) for youngest possible age. Additional 14C age (7300 ± 60 yBP); no contextual information but likely calibrated age.
7880 ± 60 years. Minimal information about U-series dating; dates not converted to standard reference time. Assumed dated in year of thesis submission (2000) for youngest possible age. Additional 14C age (7300 ± 60 yBP); no contextual information but likely calibrated age.
7880 ± 60 years. Minimal information about U-series dating; dates not converted to standard reference time. Assumed dated in year of thesis submission (2000) for youngest possible age. Additional 14C age (7300 ± 60 yBP); no contextual information but likely calibrated age.
7880 ± 60 years. Minimal information about U-series dating; dates not converted to standard reference time. Assumed dated in year of thesis submission (2000) for youngest possible age. Additional 14C age (7300 ± 60 yBP); no contextual information but likely calibrated age.
2002.1 ± 1.3 CE at 22-23cm from tip. Additional dating information in publication.
2002.1 ± 1.3 CE at 22-23cm from tip. Additional dating information in publication.
2002.1 ± 1.3 CE at 22-23cm from tip. Additional dating information in publication.
2002.1 ± 1.3 CE at 22-23cm from tip. Additional dating information in publication.
2002.1 ± 1.3 CE at 22-23cm from tip. Additional dating information in publication.
2002.1 ± 1.3 CE at 22-23cm from tip. Additional dating information in publication.
2001.0 ± 2.0 CE from 21-22cm from tip. Additional dating information in publication.
2001.0 ± 2.0 CE from 21-22cm from tip. Additional dating information in publication.
2001.0 ± 2.0 CE from 21-22cm from tip. Additional dating information in publication.
2001.0 ± 2.0 CE from 21-22cm from tip. Additional dating information in publication.
2001.0 ± 2.0 CE from 21-22cm from tip. Additional dating information in publication.
2001.0 ± 2.0 CE from 21-22cm from tip. Additional dating information in publication.
Outer edge dated by 14C. Median age 4665 yBP. No additonal dating information supplied. Re-calibrated raw C14 for archiving using Calib 8.2 and Marine20 with DeltaR = 11 ± 13.
Outer edge dated by 14C. Median age 4665 yBP. No additional dating information supplied. Re-calibrated raw C14 for archiving using Calib 8.2 and Marine20 with DeltaR = 11 ± 13.
Outer edge dated by 14C. Median age 4665 yBP. No additional dating information supplied. Re-calibrated raw C14 for archiving using Calib 8.2 and Marine20 with DeltaR = 11 ± 13.
Outer edge dated by 14C. Median age 4665 yBP. No additional dating information supplied. Re-calibrated raw C14 for archiving using Calib 8.2 and Marine20 with DeltaR = 11 ± 13.
5216 ± 41 ka; date of separate core section centimetres below selected R9C sample was used as publication reference date. Assumed 2-3 years between dated section and oldest section of record. Date of U-Th dating not supplied and no conversion to standard reference period. Year analysed determined from Radiogenic Isotope Facility records. Additonal information in GBRCD Appendices.
5216 ± 41 ka; date of separate core section centimetres below selected R9C sample was used as publication reference date. Assumed 2-3 years between dated section and oldest section of record. Date of U-Th dating not supplied and no conversion to standard reference period. Year analysed determined from Radiogenic Isotope Facility records. Additional information in GBRCD publication appendices.
6962 ± 44 ka; neither location or date of U-Th dating supplied, and no conversion to standard reference time. Assumed youngest section dated and year analysed determined from Radiogenic Isotope Facility records. Additonal dating information in publication supplement.
6962 ± 44 ka; neither location or date of U-Th dating supplied, and no conversion to standard reference time. Assumed youngest section dated and year analysed determined from Radiogenic Isotope Facility records. Additional dating information in publication supplement.