Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T00:29:42.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is it Possible to Find a Good Point Estimate of a Calibrated Radiocarbon Date?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Adam Michczyński
Adam Michczyński*
Affiliation:
Silesian University of Technology, Institute of Physics, Radiocarbon Laboratory, GADAM Centre of Excellence, Boleslawa Krzywoustego 2, 44-100 Gliwice, Poland. Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The result from probabilistic calibration of a radiocarbon date is given in the form of a probability density function. Consequently, reporting a 68% or 95% confidence interval has became a commonly accepted practice. However, many users of 14C dates still try to present the results of calibration as a single point. This manner of presentation is often applied during the construction of age-depth models due to its convenience and simplicity. In this paper, the author tests whether it is possible to find a good point estimate of a calibrated 14C date. The idea of the tests is to compare, using computer simulation, the true value of the calendar age with the age calculated based on the probabilistic calibration of the 14C date and the method of finding the point estimate. The test is carried out for the following point estimates: mode, median, average, the central point of the confidence intervals, and the local mode inside the confidence intervals. The results show that none of these may be considered as a good estimate.

Type
Articles
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , 2007 , pp. 393 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

References

Aitchison, TC, Leese, M, Michczyńska, DJ, Mook, WG, Otlet, RL, Ottaway, BS, Pazdur, MF, van der Plicht, J, Reimer, PJ, Robinson, SW, Scott, EM, Stuiver, M, Weninger, B. 1989. A comparison of methods used for the calibration of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 31(3):846–64.Google Scholar
Michczyńska, DJ, Pazdur, MF, Walanus, A. 1990. Bayesian approach to probabilistic calibration of radiocarbon ages. In: Mook, WG, Waterbolk, HT, editors. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium 14C and Archaeology, Strasburg. PACT 29: 69–79.Google Scholar
Pazdur, MF, Michczyńska, DJ. 1989. Improvement of the procedure for probabilistic calibration of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 31(3):824–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimer, PJ, Baillie, MGL, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Beck, JW, Bertrand, CJH, Blackwell, PG, Buck, CE, Burr, GS, Cutler, KB, Damon, PE, Edwards, RL, Fairbanks, RG, Friedrich, M, Guilderson, TP, Hogg, AG, Hughen, KA, Kromer, B, McCormac, G, Manning, S, Bronk Ramsey, C, Reimer, RW, Remmele, S, Southon, JR, Stuiver, M, Talamo, S, Taylor, FW, van der Plicht, J, Weyhenmeyer, CE. 2004. IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0–26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46(3):1029–58.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M, Reimer, P. 1989. Histograms obtained from computerized radiocarbon age calibration. Radiocarbon 31(3):817–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Telford, RJ, Heegaard, E, Birks, HJB. 2004. The intercept is a poor estimate of a calibrated radiocarbon age. The Holocene 14(2):296–8.Google Scholar