Sources of error in radiocarbon dating

The probability that random error alone is responsible for the scatter between the results reported by three labs is less the 5%.This indicates the possibility of the presence of systematic errors in the radiocarbon measurements for the Shroud of Turin, perhaps due to different sample preparation methods. The Supplemental Data on which this curve is based may be found at Cal04 C BP year values for the four pages of the Voynich Manuscript are available, it is possible from the variance in their ages to calculate an estimate of the standard error of the mean. The raw data was converted to the atmospheric decadal tree ring data set using a random walk model (Buck and Blackwell, Table 5 shows that the Seattle raw data age estimates tend to be younger (positive offset) than the other data sets (Reimer This indicates the presence of a systematic error between data from Seattle and data from Belfast and Waikato.Two distinct sediment layers have formed in the lake every summer and winter over tens of thousands of years.

I am concerned by the large variation between the decadal C data from the three labs for the years from 1419 to 1459 in Table 5, years critical to the dating of the Voynich Manuscript.An error multiplier, k = 1.3, was assigned to the Seattle data, additional variability in measurements was assigned to the data sets from Belfast and from Waikato, New Zealand (see Table 1). sample 4 cope from St Louis d'Anjou dated at ~ AD 1290 – 1310.The offset was determined by inter-laboratory comparisons. A chi square was calculated for the five data sets in order to determine whether the errors from the individual measurements adequately represented the total error.It appears that an additional error multiplier factor should be applied to the stated error for the Vinland map.The k calculated according to the procedure of Reimer The chi square (2 degrees of freedom) calculated for this data is 6.4 with a level of significance of 5%.

Leave a Reply