Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:40:49.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Re-Evaluation of British Museum Radiocarbon Dates Issued Between 1980 and 1984

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

S G E Bowman ,
J C Ambers  and
M N Leese
S G E Bowman
Affiliation:
British Museum Research Laboratory, London WC1B 3DG, England
J C Ambers
Affiliation:
British Museum Research Laboratory, London WC1B 3DG, England
M N Leese
Affiliation:
British Museum Research Laboratory, London WC1B 3DG, England
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Dates issued by the British Museum radiocarbon laboratory between 1980 and 1984 are known to have been in error. This paper outlines the cause of the problem and the procedures adopted to revise the results affected. Where revision has been possible, on average this has given dates older by 200 to 300 radiocarbon years. The individual revised results are tabulated.

Type
Articles
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , 1990 , pp. 59 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 The American Journal of Science 

References

Ambers, J 1987 Stable carbon isotope ratios and their relevance to the determination of accurate radiocarbon dates for lime mortars. Jour Archaeol Sci 14: 569–576.Google Scholar
Ambers, J, Burleigh, R and Matthews, K 1987 British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements XIX. Radiocarbon 29 (1): 61–77.Google Scholar
Ambers, J, Matthews, K and Bowman, S 1987 British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements XX. Radiocarbon 29 (2): 177–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambers, J, Matthews, K and Burleigh, R 1985 British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements XVIII. Radiocarbon 27 (3): 508–524.Google Scholar
Barrett, J, Bradley, R and Green, M, in press, Landscape, monuments and society - The prehistory of Cranborne Chase. Cambridge, Cambridge Univ Press.Google Scholar
Bowman, SGE and Ambers, JC, in press, Past and present: the identification of an error in, and the present status of, radiocarbon dating at the British Museum. In Mook, WG and Waterbolk, HT, eds, Internatl symposium, Archaeology and 14C, 2nd, Proc. PACT. Google Scholar
Burleigh, R, Ambers, J and Matthews, K 1982 British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements XV. Radiocarbon 24 (3): 262–290.Google Scholar
Burleigh, R, Ambers, J and Matthews, K 1983 British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements XVI. Radiocarbon 25 (1): 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burleigh, R, Ambers, J and Matthews, K 1984 British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements XVII. Radiocarbon 26 (1): 59–74.Google Scholar
Burleigh, R and Matthews, K 1982 British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements XIII. Radiocarbon 24 (2): 151–170.Google Scholar
Burleigh, R, Matthews, K and Ambers, J 1982 British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements XIV. Radiocarbon 24 (3): 229–261.Google Scholar
Burleigh, R, Matthews, K, Ambers, J and Kinnes, I 1981 British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements XII. Radiocarbon 23 (1): 14–23.Google Scholar
International Study Group 1982 An inter-laboratory comparison of radiocarbon measurements in tree rings. Nature 298: 619–623.Google Scholar
Leese, MN 1987 Method for finding calendar date bands from multiple-valued radiocarbon calibration curves, in Ruggles, CLN and Rahtz, SPQ, eds, Computer and quantitative methods in archaeology. Br Archaeol Repts, Internatl ser 393: 147–151.Google Scholar
Otlet, RL and Slade, BS 1974 Harwell radiocarbon measurements I. Radiocarbon 16 (2): 178–191.Google Scholar
Otlet, RL, Walker, AJ, Hewson, AD and Burleigh, R 1980 14C interlaboratory comparison in the UK: experiment design, preparation and preliminary results. In Stuiver, M and Kra, RS, Internatl 14C conf, 10th, Proc. Radiocarbon 22 (3): 936–946.Google Scholar
Pearson, GW, Pilcher, JR, Baillie, MGL, Corbett, DM and Qua, F 1986 High-precision 14C measurements of Irish oaks to show the natural 14C variations from AD 1840–5210 BC. In Stuiver, M and Kra, RS, eds, Internatl 14C conf, 12th, Proc. Radiocarbon 28 (2B): 911–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Aitchison, TC, Harkness, DD, Baxter, MS and Cook, GT 1989 An interim progress report on stages 1 and 2 of the international collaborative program. In Long, A and Kra, RS, eds, Internatl 14C conf, 13th, Proc. Radiocarbon 31 (3):414–421.Google Scholar
Scott, EM, Baxter, MS, Harkness, DD, Aitchison, TC and Cook, GT, in press, Recent progress in the international comparison of radiocarbon laboratories. In Mook, WG and Waterbolk, HT, eds, Internatl symposium, Archaeology and 14C, 2nd, Proc. PACT. Google Scholar
Stuiver, M and Pearson, GW 1986 High-precision calibration of the radiocarbon time scale, AD 1950–500 BC. In Stuiver, M and Kra, RS, eds, Internatl 14C conf, 12th, Proc. Radiocarbon 28 (2B): 805–838.Google Scholar
Tite, MS, Bowman, SGE, Ambers, JC and Matthews, KJ 1987 Preliminary statement on an error in British Museum radiocarbon dates (BM-1700 to BM-2315). Antiquity 61 (232): 168.Google Scholar
Tite, MS, Bowman, SGE, Ambers, JC and Matthews, KJ 1988 Preliminary statement on an error in British Museum radiocarbon dates (BM-1700 to BM-2315). Radiocarbon 30(1): 132.Google Scholar
Waterbolk, HT and Lanting, JN, in press, Empirical evidence for quality differences between radiocarbon laboratories. In Mook, WG and Waterbolk, HT, eds, Internatl symposium, Archaeology and 14C, 2nd, Proc. PACT. Google Scholar