A new calibrated sunspot group series since 1749: statistics of active day fractions

Although the sunspot-number series have existed since the mid-19th century, they are still the subject of intense debate, with the largest uncertainty being related to the "calibration" of the visual acuity of individual observers in the past. Daisy-chain regression methods are applied to inter-calibrate the observers which may lead to significant bias and error accumulation. Here we present a novel method to calibrate the visual acuity of the key observers to the reference data set of Royal Greenwich Observatory sunspot groups for the period 1900-1976, using the statistics of the active-day fraction. For each observer we independently evaluate their observational thresholds [S_S] defined such that the observer is assumed to miss all of the groups with an area smaller than S_S and report all the groups larger than S_S. Next, using a Monte-Carlo method we construct, from the reference data set, a correction matrix for each observer. The correction matrices are significantly non-linear and cannot be approximated by a linear regression or proportionality. We emphasize that corrections based on a linear proportionality between annually averaged data lead to serious biases and distortions of the data. The correction matrices are applied to the original sunspot group records for each day, and finally the composite corrected series is produced for the period since 1748. The corrected series displays secular minima around 1800 (Dalton minimum) and 1900 (Gleissberg minimum), as well as the Modern grand maximum of activity in the second half of the 20th century. The uniqueness of the grand maximum is confirmed for the last 250 years. It is shown that the adoption of a linear relationship between the data of Wolf and Wolfer results in grossly inflated group numbers in the 18th and 19th centuries in some reconstructions.

'The debatable territory where geology and archaeology meet': reassessing the early archaeobotanical work of Clement Reid and Arthur Lyell at Roman Silchester

The first large-scale archaeobotanical study in Britain, conducted from 1899 to 1909 by Clement Reid and Arthur Lyell at Silchester, provided the first evidence for the introduction of Roman plant foods to Britain, yet the findings have thus far remained unverified. This paper presents a reassessment of these archaeobotanical remains, now stored as part of the Silchester Collection in Reading Museum. The documentary evidence for the Silchester study is summarised, before the results are presented for over a 1000 plant remains including an assessment of preservation, identification and modern contamination. The dataset includes both evidence for the presence of nationally rare plant foods, such as medlar, and several archaeophytes. The methodologies and original interpretations of Reid and Lyell’s study are reassessed in light of current archaeobotanical knowledge. Spatial and contextual patterns in the distribution of plant foods and ornamental taxa are also explored. Finally, the legacy of the study for the development of archaeobotany in the 20th century is evaluated.