Abstract
Results from a collaborative study designed by the Glasgow 14C laboratory to assess experimental variability in radiocarbon dating are presented. A series of eight replicate samples from one tree were dated independently by 20 14C laboratories. While the results are in general agreement they reveal the existence of systematic bias and unexplained variability. Thus as a general guideline for users of 14C dates, quoted errors, particularly those derived solely on the basis of the counting procedure, should be multiplied by a factor of between 2 and 3.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Pearson, G. W., Pilcher, J. R., Baillie, M. G. L. & Hillam, J. Nature 270, 25–28 (1977).
Stuiver, M. Nature 273, 271–274 (1978).
De Jong, A. F. & Mook, W. G. Radiocarbon 22, 267–272 (1980).
Radiocarbon Laboratory List, Radiocarbon 22, 1130–1140 (1980).
Campbell, J. A. & Baxter, M. S. Nature 278, 409–413 (1979).
Stuiver, M. & Polach, H. A. Radiocarbon 19, 355–363 (1977).
Stenhouse, M. J. & Baxter, M. S. Proc. l4C and Archaeology, Groningen (1981).
Kalbfleisch, J. G. Probability and Statistical Inference Vol. II (Springer, New York, 1979).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
International Study Group* An inter-laboratory comparison of radiocarbon measurements in tree rings. Nature 298, 619–623 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1038/298619a0
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/298619a0
- Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by
-
Accuracy vs. Precision: Understanding Potential Errors from Radiocarbon Dating on African Landscapes
African Archaeological Review (2017)