CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 23Archaeology and ancient environmental studiesAncient and Medieval Archaeology StudiesTree-ring climate responses

Confessions of a Serial Polygamist: The Reality of Radiocarbon Reproducibility in Archaeological Samples

Open access
Bayliss, Alex, Marshall, Peter·2019·Radiocarbon
DOI 10.1017/rdc.2019.55
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Since 1993 Historic England (and its predecessor English Heritage) has commissioned 9074 radiocarbon (14 C) measurements on archaeological samples. Over 80% of these have been interpreted within formal Bayesian statistical models. The multiple strands of reinforcing evidence incorporated in these models provide precise chronologies that make stringent demands on the accuracy of the 14 C results included in the analysis. Inter-laboratory replication is consequently a routine part of model construction and validation. We report an analysis of replicate measurements on 1089 archaeological samples. It is clear that laboratory reproducibility accounts for only part of the observed variation. The type of material dated is also critical to the reproducibility of measurements, with some sample types proving particularly problematic.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/rdc.2019.55

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Groningen AMS 14C dates on single-year known-age U.K. wood differ from Seattle QL LLGPC by −22.5 ± 13.6 14C years (n = 6).

    “a difference for Groningen to QL of −22.5 ± 13.6 (n = 6) (48)”

    From Mediterranean radiocarbon offsets and calendar dates for prehistory (2020) · cites this paper as [48]

    The Additional information section reports a GrA–QL mean offset of −22.5 radiocarbon years for six measurements, matching the direction, magnitude, and sample count. It gives the associated standard error as ±13.8, however, not the cited ±13.6. Page information is unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.92)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Much of the current observed variation in AMS 14C-to-LLGPC comparisons is as likely to relate to interlaboratory variations in methods and instruments as to a typical offset.

    “Much of the current observed variation is as likely to relate to interlaboratory variations in methods and instruments [an ever-present issue (8, 11, 48)], something only more evident as AMS 14C approaches the precision of LLGPC and LSC datasets.”

    From Mediterranean radiocarbon offsets and calendar dates for prehistory (2020) · cites this paper as [48]

  • SUERC AMS 14C dates on single-year known-age U.K. wood differ from Seattle QL LLGPC by 12.1 ± 8.0 14C years (n = 26).

    “a difference of Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory AMS 14C data to QL of 12.1 ± 8.0 14C years (n = 26)”

    From Mediterranean radiocarbon offsets and calendar dates for prehistory (2020) · cites this paper as [48]

  • OxA AMS 14C dates on single-year known-age U.K. wood differ from Seattle QL LLGPC by 1.4 ± 7.9 14C years (n = 25).

    “differences of OxA AMS 14C to QL of only 1.4 ± 7.9 14C years (n = 25)”

    From Mediterranean radiocarbon offsets and calendar dates for prehistory (2020) · cites this paper as [48]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Ashmore PJ. 1999. Radiocarbon dating: avoiding errors by avoiding mixed samples. Antiquity 73(279):124-130.
  2. Bayliss A. 2009. Rolling out revolution: using radiocarbon dating in archaeology. Radiocarbon 51(1):123-147.
  3. Bayliss A, Bronk Ramsey C. 2004. Pragmatic Bayesians: a decade of integrating radiocarbon dates into chronological models. In: Buck CE, Millard A, editors. Tools for constructing chronologies: tools for crossing interdisciplinary boundaries. London: Springer-Verlag. p. 25-41.
  4. Bayliss A, van der Plicht J, Bronk Ramsey C, McCormac FG, Healy F, Whittle A. 2011. Towards generational time-scales: the quantitative interpretation of archaeological chronologies. In: Whittle A, Healy F, Bayliss A, editors. Gathering time: dating the early Neolithic enclosures of southern Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow. p. 17-59.
  5. Blaauw M, Christen JA. 2011. Flexible paleoclimate age-depth models using autoregressive gamma process. Bayesian Analysis 6(3):457-74.
  6. Brock F, Ramsey CB, Higham TFG. 2007. Quality assurance of ultrafiltered bone dating. Radiocarbon 49(2):187-92.
  7. Brock F, Higham T, Ditchfield P, Bronk Ramsey C. 2010. Current pretreatment methods for AMS radiocarbon dating at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU). Radiocarbon 52(1): 103-112.
  8. Bronk Ramsey C. 2009a. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1):337-360.
  9. Bronk Ramsey C. 2009b. Dealing with outliers and offsets in radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon 51(3): 1023-1045.
  10. Bronk Ramsey C, Higham TFG, Owen DC, Pike AWG, Hedges REM. 2002. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMZ System: Archaeometry Datelist 31. Archaeometry 44(s1):1-150.
  11. Brown TA, Nelson DE, Vogel JS, Southon JR. 1988. Improved collagen extraction by modified Longin method. Radiocarbon 30(2):171-177.
  12. Brunning R. 2013. Somerset's peatland archaeology. Managing and investigating a fragile resource. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
  13. Dunbar E, Cook GT, Naysmith P, Tipney BG, Xu S. 2016. AMS 14 C dating at the Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre (SUERC) Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory Radiocarbon 58(1):9-23.
  14. Haslett J, Parnell A. 2008. A simple monotone process with application to radiocarbon-dated depth chronologies. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) 57(4):399-418.
  15. Hedges REM, Tiemei C, Housley RA. 1992. Results and methods in the radiocarbon dating of pottery. Radiocarbon 34(3):906-915.
  16. Mann WB. 1983. An international reference material for radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon 25(2): 519-527.
  17. Milner N, Conneller C, Taylor B. 2018a. Star Carr. Vol. 1. A persistent place in a changing world. York: White Rose University Press.
  18. Milner N, Conneller C, Taylor B. 2018b. Star Carr. Vol. 2. Studies in technology, subsistence and environment. York: White Rose University Press.
  19. Mook WG, Streurman HJ. 1983. Physical and chemical aspects of radiocarbon dating. In: Mook WG, Waterbolk HT, editors. Proceedings of the First International Symposium 14 C and Archaeology: PACT 8. p. 31-55.
  20. Naysmith P, Scott EM, Cook GT, Heinemeier J, van der Plicht J, van Strydonck M, Bronk Ramsey C, Grootes PM, Freeman SPHT. 2007. A cremated bone intercomparison study. Radiocarbon 49(2): 403-408.
  21. Scott EM. 2003. The third international radiocarbon intercomparison (TIRI) and the fourth international radiocarbon intercomparison (FIRI) 1990-2002: results, analyses, and conclusions. Radiocarbon 45(2):135-408.
  22. Scott EM, Naysmith P, Cook GT. 2017. Should archaeologists care about 14 C intercomparisons? Why? A summary report on SIRI. Radiocarbon 59(5):1589-1596.
  23. Staff RA, Reynard L, Brock F, Ramsey CB. 2014. Wood pretreatment protocols and measurement of tree-ring standards at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU). Radiocarbon 56(2): 709-715.
  24. Stuiver M, Reimer PJ, Braziunas TF. 1998. High- precision radiocarbon age calibration for terrestrial and marine samples. Radiocarbon 40(3): 1127-1151.
  25. Tyers C, Sidell J, van der Plicht J, Marshall P, Cook G, Bronk Ramsey C, Bayliss A. 2009. Wiggle-matching using known-age pine from Jermyn Street, London. Radiocarbon 51(2): 385-396.
  26. van der Plicht J, Wijma S, Aerts AT, Pertuisot MH, Meijer HAJ. 2000. Status report: The Groningen AMS facility. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 172(1):58-65.
  27. van Klinken GJ. 1999. Bone collagen quality indicators for palaeodietary and radiocarbon measurements. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:687-695.
  28. Wacker L, Bonani G, Friedrich M, Hajdas I, Kromer B, Němec M, Ruff M, Suter M, Synal HA, Vockenhuber C. 2010. MICADAS: routine and high-precision radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon 52(2):252-262.
  29. Ward GK, Wilson SR. 1978. Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon age determinations: a critique. Archaeometry 20(1):19-32.
  30. Whittle A, Healy F, Bayliss A. 2011. Gathering time: dating the early Neolithic enclosures of southern Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow.
  31. Wright EV, Hedges REM, Bayliss A, Van de Noort R. 2001. New AMS radiocarbon dates for the North Ferriby boats-a contribution to dating prehistoric seafaring in northwestern Europe. Antiquity 75(290):726-734.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bayliss, A., & Marshall, P.
Affiliations
Historic England (GB)
Corresponding author
Marshall, Peter
ORCID
Venue
Radiocarbon
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2019-07-24
Volume
61
Issue
5
Pages
1143-1158
ISSN
  • 0033-8222 (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-5755
DOI
10.1017/rdc.2019.55
OpenAlex
W2963029270
Cited by
23
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Radiocarbon (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient and Medieval Archaeology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Tree-ring climate responses
Keywords
archaeological samples, Bayesian model, measurement precision

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review