Cited by 14Archaeology and ancient environmental studiesTree-ring climate responsesGeology and Paleoclimatology Research

Extended radiocarbon calibration in the Anglo-Saxon period, AD 395–485 and AD 735–805

Open access
McCormac, F G, Bayliss, A, Brown, D M, Reimer, P J, Thompson, M M·2008·Radiocarbon

Abstract

Radiocarbon dating has been used infrequently as a chronological tool for research in Anglo-Saxon archaeology. Primarily, this is because the uncertainty of calibrated dates provides little advantage over traditional archaeological dating in this period. Recent advances in Bayesian methodology in conjunction with high-precision 14 C dating have, however, created the possibility of both testing and refining the established Anglo-Saxon chronologies based on typology of artifacts. The calibration process within such a confined age range, however, relies heavily on the structural accuracy of the calibration curve. We have previously reported decadal measurements on a section of the Irish oak chronology for the period AD 495–725 (McCormac et al. 2004). In this paper, we present decadal measurements for the periods AD 395–485 and AD 735–805, which extends the original calibration set.

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/s0033822200043344

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Data judged too scattered were excluded from the curve, including Irish oak data published by McCormac et al. (2008; dataset 2/6), which had been included in IntCal09 and IntCal13.

    “Data which were judged to be too scattered were excluded from the curve including Irish oak data published by McCormac et al. (2008; dataset 2/6), which had been included in IntCal09 and IntCal13.”

    From The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve (0–55 cal kBP) (2020) · cites this paper as McCormac et al. (2008)

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [6]6. Greenacre MJ. 1992. Correspondence Analysis in Prac tice. London: Academic Press. 256 p.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McCormac, F. G., Bayliss, A., Brown, D. M., Reimer, P. J., & Thompson, M. M.
Affiliations
  • Queen's University Belfast (GB)
  • English Heritage (GB)
Corresponding author
McCormac, F G
Venue
Radiocarbon
Published
2008
Volume
50
Issue
1
Pages
11-17
ISSN
  • 0033-8222 (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-5755
OpenAlex
W2162580064
Cited by
14
References
20
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Radiocarbon (publishedVersion)
  • UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Tree-ring climate responses
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Geology and Paleoclimatology Research
Keywords
radiocarbon calibration, Anglo-Saxon England, Anglo-Saxon chronology, calibration curve, artifact typology

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