Sources of error in radiocarbon dating who is morris chestnut dating 2016
As a rule, carbon dates are younger than calendar dates: a bone carbon-dated to 10,000 years is around 11,000 years old, and 20,000 carbon years roughly equates to 24,000 calendar years.The problem, says Bronk Ramsey, is that tree rings provide a direct record that only goes as far back as about 14,000 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.
Marine records, such as corals, have been used to push farther back in time, but these are less robust because levels of carbon-14 in the atmosphere and the ocean are not identical and tend shift with changes in ocean circulation.
Bronk Ramsey’s team aimed to fill this gap by using sediment from bed of Lake Suigetsu, west of Tokyo.
Error is a normal part of science, no method is immune, results should be subjected to a critical examination and control experiments performed to determine the accuracy of the measurements.
Finally it never hurts to review the literature, this should always be the initial step in any endeavor.
) There is no doubt that a more reliable estimate of the ‘true’ age of the Vinland map would be obtained if additional independent measurements were available. Table 2 shows that in all cases a chi square of 5% or less was obtained, making it unlikely that the counting errors represent the total error in the radiocarbon dating of the above five samples.