So we can now expect endless debates on how he died - and on the chronology?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/09/britains-equivalent-to-tutankhamun-found-in-southend-on-sea
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-48203883
https://prittlewellprincelyburial.org/ is the website for the burial itself.
I was amazed how precise C14 dating has got. A 30 year period for what is presumably the 95% confidence level is pretty impressive. Presumably from multiple samples and statistical wizardry.
Not sure they have thought this all the way through.
QuoteIt had been suggested the remains were those of Saebert, Saxon king of Essex from AD604 to AD616
But carbon dating and other tests have indicated the tomb was constructed between AD575 and AD605 - at least 11 years before his death.
After 15 years of research, archaeologists said their "best guess" was that the tomb belonged to Seaxa, Saebert's brother.
Is it known for certain that Saxon royalty of this period never built their own tombs in advance? And have the archaeologists understood that carbon dating gives the date the wood was cut for seasoning and storage, not the date at which it was used? I do not think they have really closed the door on Saebert.
And, as Anthony comments, this seems unusually precise for carbon dating - presumably the 'other tests' were significant contributors in this regard?
QuoteAnd have the archaeologists understood that carbon dating gives the date the wood was cut for seasoning and storage, not the date at which it was used?
A good point but we are dealing with a wood lined tomb by the reconstruction pictures. I'd expect that would have been recently cut, if they had samples of it.
According to this lecture (http://www.richmondarchaeology.org.uk/lecture_past/2017a/prittlewell.html):
Using Bayesian dating, the burial items taken together can be dated within 565-595 – 580-610AD, with AMS radio carbon dating on pieces of material, the 580s/590s.
AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) dating is more precise, see eg this article (https://www.radiocarbon.com/accelerator-mass-spectrometry.htm)
Thanks, Richard.
I would have thought it would make more sense to take the various items separately, particularly the 'wooden walls' of the tomb, which would logically be the closest dating material to the tomb's actual construction. It is slightly annoying that the pieces of material which were AMS-dated are not specified, because things like ornate wooden boxes might be in the family for quite some time.
Quote from: Erpingham on May 09, 2019, 09:14:02 AM
A good point but we are dealing with a wood lined tomb by the reconstruction pictures. I'd expect that would have been recently cut, if they had samples of it.
True, the difficulty being they do not appear to specify the dates the lining samples gave. Not saying their conclusion ('best guess') has to be wrong, just that they seem to be emphasising precision at the possible expense of accuracy.
Can't comment on the dating but I went over to the site when they first uncovered it as it was only a couple of miles from where I was living at the time. Knew it was very exciting, never realised it was THIS exciting.