Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T23:29:49.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Radiocarbon accelerator (AMS) dating of Lindow Man

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

J. A. J. Gowlett
Affiliation:
Institute of Prehistoric Sciences and Archaeology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX
R. E. M. Hedges
Affiliation:
Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, 6 Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3QJ
I. A. Law
Affiliation:
Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, 6 Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3QJ

Extract

‘Pete Marsh’, the bog body from Lindow Moss in Cheshire that is properly called ‘Lindow 2’, has given remarkable research opportunities. One of these-perhaps less expected-has been the study of the considerable discrepancies in the suites of dates for the body obtained by two radiocarbon laboratories. The laboratories think this is a specific anomaly which has no implications for any other dates, but one may wonder how many other anomalies would declare themselves if more sites had so many determinations that should relate to the same event.

Type
Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ambers, J.C., Matthews, K.J. & Bowman, S.G.E.. 1986. Radiocarbon dates for two peat samples, in Stead et al. (ed.): 256.Google Scholar
Barber, K. 1986. Peat macrofossil analyses as indicators of the bog palaeoenvironment and climatic change, in Stead et al. (ed.): 869.Google Scholar
Burleigh, R., Léese, M. & Tite, M.. 1986. An intercomparison of some AMS and small gas counter laboratories, Radiocarbon 28(2A): 5717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glob, P.V. 1969. The bog people: Iron Age man preserved. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Gowlett, J.A.J., Gillespie, R., Hall, E.T. & Hedges, R.E.M.. 1986. Accelerator radiocarbon dating of ancient human remains from Lindow Moss, in Stead et al. (ed.) 224.Google Scholar
Hillman, G. 1986. Plant foods in ancient diet: the archaeological role of palaeofaeces in general and Lindow Man’s gut contents in particular, in Stead et al. (ed.): 99115.Google Scholar
Holden, T.G. 1986. Preliminary report on the detailed analyses of the macroscopic remains from the gut of Lindow Man, in Stead et al. (ed.): 11625.Google Scholar
Jones, M. 1978. The plant remains, in The excavation of an Iron Age hill settlement, Bronze Age ring ditches and Roman features at Ashville Trading Estate, Abingdon (Oxon): 93110. London: Council for British Archaeology. Research report 25.Google Scholar
Oakley, K.P. 1966. Frameworks for dating fossil man. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.Google Scholar
Otlet, R.L., Walker, A.J. & Dadson, S.M.. 1986. Report on radiocarbon dating of the Lindow Man by AERE, Harwell, in Stead et al. (ed.): 2730.Google Scholar
Ross, A. 1986. Lindow Man and the Celtic tradition, in Stead et al. (ed.): 1629.Google Scholar
Stead, I.M. & Turner, R.C.. 1985. Lindow Man, Antiquity 59: 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stead, I.M., Bourke, J.B. & Brothwell, D.. 1986. Lindow Man: the body in the bog. London: British Museum Publications.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M. & Pearson, G.W.. 1986. High-precision calibration of the radiocarbon time scale, Ad 1950–500 BC, Radiocarbon 28(2B): 80538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauber, H. 1979. Kulstoff-14 datering af moselig, Kuml (1979): 738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, R.C. 1986. Boggarts, bogles and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight: Lindow Man and the oral tradition, in Stead et al. (ed.): 1706.Google Scholar
Ward, O.K. & Wilson, S.R.. 1978. Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon age determinations: a critique, Archaeometry 20(1): 1931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar