Re-Evaluation of British Museum Radiocarbon Dates Issued between 1980 and 1984
Open accessAbstract
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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
BM-1790 from Jericho was revised to 3300 +/-110 BP because of an equipment calibration problem affecting many samples for the years 1980-1984.
“BM-1790 from Jericho was revised to 3300 +/-110 BP (Bowman et al. 1990, p. 74).”
From The Bronze Age Destruction of Jericho, Archaeology, and the Book of Joshua (2023) · cites this paper as Bowman et al. 1990, p. 74
Table 2a lists Jericho BM-1790 among dates for which revised results were issued, and the Identification of the Error section describes a counting-system problem. But the available text of Table 2a shows 3080 ± 40 as the original result and does not preserve a revised age of 3300 BP; the claimed revised value cannot be verified from our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe 19 earlier dates from the British Museum laboratory are among those measured during a period for which a systematic uncertainty has been identified, which affects their reliability.
“Unfortunately, these 19 dates are among those measured in the British Museum laboratory during a period for which a systematic uncertainty has been identified, which affects their reliability (Tite et a1.1987;Bowman, Ambers and Leese 1990).”
From Tell Es-Sultan (Jericho): Radiocarbon Results of Short-Lived Cereal and Multiyear Charcoal Samples from the End of the Middle Bronze Age (1995) · cites this paper as Bowman, Ambers and Leese 1990
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: 19
- Ambers, J, Burleigh, R and Matthews, K 1987 British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements XIX. Radiocar- bon 29 (1): 61-77.
- Ambers, J, Matthews, K and Bowman, S 1987 British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements XX. Radiocarbon 29 (2):177-196.
- Ambers, J, Matthews, K and Burleigh, R 1985 British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements XVIII. Radiocarbon 27 (3): 508-524.
- Barrett, J, Bradley, R and Green, M, in press, Landscape, monuments and society -The prehistory of Cranborne Chase. Cambridge, Cambridge Univ Press.
- 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.
- Burleigh, R, Ambers, J and Matthews, K 1982 British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements XV. Radiocarbon 24 (3): 262-290. 1983 British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements XVI. Radiocarbon 25 (1): 39-58. 1984 British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements XVII. Radiocarbon 26 (1): 59-74.
- Burleigh, R and Matthews, K 1982 British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements XIII. Radiocarbon 24 (2): 151-170.
- Burleigh, R, Matthews, K and Ambers, J 1982 British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements XIV. Radiocar- bon 24 (3): 229-261.
- Burleigh, R, Matthews, K, Ambers, J and Kinnes, 1 1981 British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements XII. Radiocarbon 23 (1):14-23. International Study Group 1982 An inter-laboratory comparison of radiocarbon measurements in tree rings. Nature 298: 619-623.
- Otlet, RL and Slade, BS 1974 Harwell radiocarbon measurements I. Radiocarbon 16 (2):178-191. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200039953 Published online by Cambridge University Press
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Stuiver, M and Pearson, GW 1986 High-precision calibration of the radiocarbon time scale, AD 1950-500 BC.
- Stuiver, M and Kra, RS, eds, Internatl 14C conf,12th, Proc. Radiocarbon 28 (2B): 805-838.
- 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. 1988 Preliminary statement on an error in British Museum radiocarbon dates (BM-1700 to BM-2315). Radiocarbon 30 (1):132.
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200039953 Published online by Cambridge University Press TABLE 2a (Continued)
- Papua New G z inea Padad Kao 2093 modern 2093R 30 ± 150 XVII-p 69 2094 modern 2094R modern " 2138 modern 2138R modern " https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200039953 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bruins, H. J., & Van Der Plight, J. (1995) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200030666 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
The Bronze Age Destruction of Jericho, Archaeology, and the Book of Joshua
Kennedy, T. (2023) · Religions · doi:10.3390/rel14060796 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bowman, S. G. E., Ambers, J. C., & Leese, M. N.
- Affiliations
- British Museum (GB)
- Venue
- Radiocarbon
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1990
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 59-79
- ISSN
- 0033-8222 (ISSN-L)
- 1945-5755
- OpenAlex
- W2503166493
- Cited by
- 65
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 4.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Radiocarbon (publishedVersion)
- UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Geology and Paleoclimatology Research
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient and Medieval Archaeology Studies
- Keywords
- radiocarbon dating, dating errors, radiocarbon calibration
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
