Wiggle-Matching Using Known-Age Pine from Jermyn Street, London
Open accessAbstract
A slice of pine from the period covered by single-year calibration data (Stuiver 1993) was selected to serve as part of the quality assurance procedures of the English Heritage radiocarbon dating program, following successful wiggle-matching of 14C measurements from structural 15th century English oak timbers (Hamilton et al. 2007). The timber selected was a roofing element from a house on Jermyn Street, central London, demonstrated by dendrochronology to have been felled in AD 1670. Eighteen single-ring samples were dated by the 14C laboratories at Groningen, Oxford, and SUERC: each laboratory was sent a random selection of 6 samples. This approach was intended to mimic the mix of samples and relative ages incorporated into Bayesian chronological models during routine project research. This paper presents the results of this study.
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?
A comparison of AMS 14C measurements versus Hd measurements on similar Swedish pine samples indicates no substantial difference for the 15th to 17th centuries CE.
“A comparison of AMS 14C measurements (47) versus Hd measurements (table S1) on similar Swedish pine samples also indicates no substantial difference for the 15th to 17th centuries CE (fig. S5).”
From Mediterranean radiocarbon offsets and calendar dates for prehistory (2020) · cites this paper as [47]
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
‘Wiggle Matching’ Radiocarbon Dates
Bronk Ramsey, C., van der Plicht, J., & Weninger, B. (2001) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200038248 · Cited by 432 · see citing works
Kromer, B., Manning, S. W., Kuniholm, P. I., Newton, M. W., Spurk, M., & Levin, I. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1066114 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 28
- Aerts-Bijma AT, Meijer HAJ, van der Plicht J. 1997. AMS sample handling in Groningen. Nuclear Instru- ments and Methods in Physics Research B 123(1-4): 221-5.
- Bayliss A, Bronk Ramsey C. 2004. Pragmatic Bayesians: a decade integrating radiocarbon dates into chronolog- ical models. In: Buck CE, Millard AR, editors. Tools for Constructing Chronologies: Tools for Crossing Disciplinary Boundaries. London: Springer. p 25-41.
- Bayliss A, Bronk Ramsey C, van der Plicht J, Whittle A. 2007b. Bradshaw and Bayes: towards a timetable for the Neolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(Supplement S1):1-28.
- Bronk Ramsey C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal program. Radio- carbon 37(2):425-30.
- Bronk Ramsey C. 1998. Probability and dating. Radio- carbon 40(1):461-74.
- Bronk Ramsey C. 2008. Radiocarbon dating: revolutions in understanding. Archaeometry 50(2):249-75.
- Bronk Ramsey C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocar- bon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1):337-60.
- Bronk Ramsey C, Higham T, Leach P. 2004. Towards high-precision AMS: progress and limitations. Radio- carbon 46(1):17-24.
- Bronk Ramsey C, Buck CE, Manning SW, Reimer P, van der Plicht H. 2006. Developments in radiocarbon cal- ibration for archaeology. Antiquity 80(310):783-98.
- Buck CE, Blackwell PG. 2004. Formal statistical models for estimated radiocarbon calibration curves. Radio- carbon 46(3):1093-102.
- Christen JA, Litton CD. 1995. A Bayesian approach to wiggle-matching. Journal of Archaeological Science 22(6):719-25.
- Galimberti M, Bronk Ramsey C, Manning SW. 2004. Wiggle-match dating of tree-ring sequences. Radio- carbon 46(2):917-24.
- Hoper ST, McCormac FG, Hogg AG, Higham TFG, Head MJ. 1998. Evaluation of wood pre-treatment on oak and cedar. Radiocarbon 40(1):45-50.
- Kromer B, Manning SW, Kuniholm PI, Newton MW, Spurk M, Levin I. 2001. Regional 14 CO 2 offsets in the troposphere: magnitude, mechanism, and magnitude. Science 294(5551):2529-32.
- Levin I, Hesshaimer V. 2000. Radiocarbon-a unique tracer of global carbon cycle dynamics. Radiocarbon 21(1):69-80.
- Mook WG. 1986. Business Meeting: recommendations/ resolutions adopted by the Twelfth International Ra- diocarbon Conference. Radiocarbon 28(2A):799.
- Reimer PJ, Baillie MGL, Bard E, Bayliss A, Beck JW, Bertrand CJH, Blackwell PG, Buck CE, Burr GS, Cut- ler KB, Damon PE, Edwards RL, Fairbanks RG, Friedrich M, Guilderson TP, Hogg AG, Hughen KA, Kromer B, McCormac G, Manning S, Bronk Ramsey C, Reimer RW, Remmele S, Southon JR, Stuiver M, Talamo S, Taylor FW, van der Plicht J, Weyhenmeyer CE. 2004. IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibra- tion, 0-26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46(3):1029-58.
- Scott EM, editor. 2003. The 3rd International Radiocar- bon Intercomparison (TIRI) and the 4th International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (FIRI). Radiocarbon 45(2):135-408.
- Slota Jr PJ, Jull AJT, Linick TW, Toolin LJ. 1987. Prep- aration of small samples for 14 C accelerator targets by catalytic reduction of CO. Radiocarbon 29(3):303-6.
- Stuiver M. 1993. A note on single-year calibration of the radiocarbon timescale AD 1510-1954. Radiocarbon 35(1):67-72.
- Stuiver M, Polach HA. 1977. Discussion: reporting of 14 C data. Radiocarbon 19(3):355-63.
- Stuiver M, Quay PD. 1981. Atmospheric 14 C changes re- sulting from fossil fuel CO 2 release and cosmic ray flux variability. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 53(3):349-62.
- Stuiver M, Reimer PJ. 1993. Extended 14 C data base and revised CALIB 3.0 14 C age calibration program. Ra- diocarbon 35(1):215-30.
- Stuiver M, Reimer PJ, Bard E, Beck JW, Burr GS, Hughen KA, Kromer B, McCormac G, van der Plicht J, Spurk M. 1998. INTCAL98 radiocarbon age cali- bration, 24,000-0 cal BP. Radiocarbon 40(3):1041- 83.
- Vandeputte K, Moens L, Dams R. 1996. Improved sealed-tube combustion of organic samples to CO 2 for stable isotopic analysis, radiocarbon dating and per- cent carbon determinations. Analytical Letters 29: 2761-74.
- 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(1-4):58-65.
- Ward GK, Wilson SR. 1978. Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon age determinations: a cri- tique. Archaeometry 20(1):19-31.
- Xu S, Anderson R, Bryant C, Cook GT, Dougans A, Free- man S, Naysmith P, Schnabel C, Scott EM. 2004. Ca- pabilities of the new SUERC 5MV AMS facility for 14 C dating. Radiocarbon 46(1):59-64.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Radiocarbon re-dating of contact-era Iroquoian history in northeastern North America
Manning, S. W., Birch, J., Conger, M. A., Dee, M. W., Griggs, C., Hadden, C. S., Hogg, A. G., Ramsey, C. B., Sanft, S., Steier, P., et al. (2018) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aav0280 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Self-citationManning, S. W., Griggs, C., Lorentzen, B., Bronk Ramsey, C., Chivall, D., Jull, A. J. T., & Lange, T. E. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1719420115 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
IntCal20 Tree Rings: An Archaeological Swot Analysis
Bayliss, A., Marshall, P., Dee, M. W., Friedrich, M., Heaton, T. J., & Wacker, L. (2020) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/rdc.2020.77 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Self-citationMediterranean radiocarbon offsets and calendar dates for prehistory
Manning, S. W., Kromer, B., Cremaschi, M., Dee, M. W., Friedrich, R., Griggs, C., & Hadden, C. S. (2020) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaz1096 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
- Authors
- Tyers, C., Sidell, J., Van der Plicht, J., Marshall, P., Cook, G., Bronk Ramsey, C., & Bayliss, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Sheffield (GB)
- English Heritage (GB)
- Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Sidell, Jane
- Venue
- Radiocarbon
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2009
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 385-396
- ISSN
- 0033-8222 (ISSN-L)
- 1945-5755
- OpenAlex
- W2145380872
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 0.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Radiocarbon (publishedVersion)
- UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (acceptedVersion)
- Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- University of Leicester
- Queen's University
- 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
- wiggle matching, radiocarbon dating, quality assurance, 17th century, English Heritage, dendrochronology, interlaboratory comparison
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
