New Methods and Critical Aspects in Bayesian Mathematics for 14C Calibration
- 1 January 2001
- journal article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Radiocarbon
- Vol. 43 (2A) , 373-380
- https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033822200038236
Abstract
The probabilistic radiocarbon calibration approach, which largely has replaced the intercept method in 14C dating, is based on the so-called Bayes' theorem (Bayes 1763). Besides single-sample calibration, Bayesian mathematics also supplies tools for combining 14C results of many samples with independent archaeological information such as typology or stratigraphy (Buck et al. 1996). However, specific assumptions in the “prior probabilities”, used to transform the archaeological information into mathematical probability distributions, may bias the results (Steier and Rom 2000). A general technique for guarding against such a bias is “sensitivity analysis”, in which a range of possible prior probabilities is tested. Only results that prove robust in this analysis should be used. We demonstrate the impact of this method for an assumed, yet realistic case of stratigraphically ordered samples from the Hallstatt period, i.e. the Early Iron Age in Central Europe.Keywords
This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit:
- ‘Wiggle Matching’ Radiocarbon DatesRadiocarbon, 2001
- Development of the Radiocarbon Calibration ProgramRadiocarbon, 2001
- Comment on ‘The Use of Bayesian Statistics for 14C Dates of Chronologically Ordered Samples: A Critical Analysis’Radiocarbon, 2000
- The Use of Bayesian Statistics for 14C Dates of Chronologically Ordered Samples: A Critical AnalysisRadiocarbon, 2000
- Bayes Offers a 'New' Way to Make Sense of NumbersScience, 1999
- INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000–0 cal BPRadiocarbon, 1998
- An overview of robust Bayesian analysisTEST, 1994
- Statistical Decision TheoryPublished by Springer Nature ,1980
- LII. An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. By the late Rev. Mr. Bayes, F. R. S. communicated by Mr. Price, in a letter to John Canton, A. M. F. R. SPhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1763