Carbon dating margin of error
Carbon dating margin of error
However these things may be, following the tests, the group controlling the process was governed by the belief that the C14 results -- which were on the whole inconclusive or to use the words of BARs reportage skewed -- in some manner confirmed the accuracy of the results arrived at by those basing their chronological determinations on paleography.This was clear not only from the two articles drafted after both runs, but also in press releases and interviews accompanying the announcements of the results in which the personal bitterness that has characterized the debate from the beginning was so evident.
Thus, while John Strugnell, then chief editor of the Scrolls Project, and Israeli scholars Magen Broshi, then Head of the Shrine of the Book, and ultimately Emmanuel Tov, who succeeded Strugnell, were among those named to oversee or be included in the process, no opposition scholar was included or mentioned -- not even in an advisory capacity, though they were the ones who had originally called for the tests and presumably felt the most need for them.
Drori, to gain access to the Qumran parallels to the famous Damascus Document (CD) and the general situation denying access to unpublished Qumran materials to scholars not part of the "International Team or those favored for some reason by it.
In their letter describing and protesting this situation, Eisenman and Davies suggested that if Mr.
Drori could not force the International Team to open access to the unpublished Scrolls, he could at least employ the recently developed methods of AMS carbon testing to the Scrolls, which had early on been dated by older carbon testing techniques that consumed too much Scroll material to be applied in any general fashion.
The new AMS C14 techniques did not consume so much material and therefore, could be used test the claims of paleographic analysis that were at the time being cited regarding the chronology of the Scrolls by members of the International Team as gospel.
Introduction The first request for the application of up-to-date AMS carbon dating on Qumran documents was made by Professors Robert Eisenman of California State University Long Beach and Philip Davies of the University of Sheffield, England in a letter to Amir Drori, then Head of the Israeli Antiquities Authority, on May 2, 1989.
The letter stemmed from their frustration at the denial of an earlier request in March 16, 1989 , addressed to John Strugnell and copied to Mr.
In their letter, however, aside from sending an attachment detailing these new methods, they cited two caveats.
One was that the new methods of dating materials should be applied to determine relative not absolute chronology, that is, earlier versus later in the same test run -- absolute chronology in their view being virtually impossible to determine because of the multiple imprecisions to which C14 testing was subject.
I have extracted a portion of the data used to construct the terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration curve for the years 1400 – 1500 A. This estimate would indicate whether an error multiplier factor should be applied to the 1SD error of 21. I have not been able to find any information indicating what the offset might be in C BP age to calendar age is dependent on the use of the atmospheric decadal tree calibration curve with its own set of limitations with respect to accuracy and precision.
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.
It appears that an additional error multiplier factor should be applied to the stated error for the Vinland map.