2918 RADIOCARBON DATING/Sources of Error
Kutschera, W. (2005). Progress in isotope analysis at ultra-trace
level by AMS. International Journal of Mass Spectrometry.
242, 145–160.
McGeehin, J., Burr, G. S., Jull, A. J. T., Reines, D., Gosse, J.,
Davis, P. T., and Muhs, D. (2001). Comparison of sediment
dating techniques. Radiocarbon 43, 687–690.
McNichol, A. P., Jull, A. J. T., and Burr, G. S. (2001). Converting
AMS data to radiocarbon values: considerations and conven-
tions. Radiocarbon 43, 313–320.
Purser, K. H., Liebert, R. B., and Russo, C. J. (1980). MACS – an
accelerator radioisotope measuring system. Radiocarbon 22,
794–806.
Schroeder, J. B., Hauser, T. M., Klody, G. M., and Norton, G. A.
(2004). Initial results with low energy single stage AMS.
Radiocarbon 46, 1–4.
Southon, J., Santos, G., Druffel-Rodriguez, K., Druffel, K.,
Trumbore, S., Xu, X., Griffin, S., Ali, S., and Mazon, M.
(2004). The Keck Carbon Cycle AMS Laboratory, University
of California, Irvine: initial operation and a background sur-
prise. Radiocarbon 46, 41–49.
Suter, M., Jacob, St, and Synal, H.-A. (1997). AMS of 14C at
low energies. Nuclear Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 123,
148–152.
Suter, M., Jacob, S. W. A., and Synal, H. A. (2000). Tandem AMS
at sub-MeV energies. Nuclear Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B
172, 144–151.
Synal H-A, Stocker M, and Suter M (2005) MICADAS: A new
compact radiocarbon AMS system. Abstracts, 10th
International Conference on Accelerator Mass Spectrometry,
Berkeley, CA.
Tuniz, C., Bird, J. R., Fink, D., and Herzog, G. F. (1998).
Accelerator Mass Spectrometry: Ultrasensitive Analysis for
Global Science. CRC Press, Bocan Raton.
Sources of Error
E M Scott, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
ª 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Errors and Uncertainties in Radiocarbon
Dating
Since an estimated carbon-14 (14C) age, X, can be
considered as a realization of a random process (due
to the nature of radioactive decay), we can consider a
conceptual model which states that there is a true but
unknown14C age (often in statistical terminology called
a parameter, written as m), and that our estimated 14C
age can be modeled as a realization of a random vari-
able with expected value equal to the true age and
variance (or uncertainty) represented by a further
unknown parameter, 2. The commonly used probabil-
ity model for the 14C-dating process is the Gaussian or
normal model, defined by the mean which equals the
true but unknown 14C age and the standard deviation
or measure of uncertainty. This is frequently written as:
X,Nðm; 2 Þ
This uncertainty, or , is estimated in the error (stan-
dard deviation or ) that is reported with a measured
(estimated) 14C age. It is typically based on counting
statistics, but may also include components due to
other laboratory corrections (e.g., error on fractiona-
tion correction). In recent years, there have been
several publications where the use of a laboratory
error multiplier has been introduced. Such an error
multiplier captures sources of variation in the esti-
mated 14C age that are not accounted for in the
quoted error.
The interpretation of a single measured 14C age
and its associated error, is as follows: we assume
that the measured 14C age (an age estimate) is a
realization of a random Gaussian process with a
‘true but unknown 14C age’ and  equal to the quoted
error. The best estimate of the true 14C age is the
measured 14C age, but the true value is highly (95%)
likely to lie in the range:
estimated radiocarbon age  2  quoted error:
Traceability
It is often important to be able to compare results
from different laboratories or from the same labora-
tory at different times. This is, in many cases,
achieved by establishing a chain of calibrations to
primary, national, or international standards.
Traceability may be demonstrated through compar-
ison of measurement results on a certified reference
material, or through using an accepted procedure.
Frequently, numerous measurements are needed to
define reference materials. This can be achieved as
one result of proficiency trials for laboratories or
laboratory round-robin/intercomparisons. For 14C
dating, the primary standard is 1890 wood, but the
reference material most closely associated (and often
called the primary standard) is oxalic acid (NBS OxI
and NIST OxII). Additional secondary standards
have also been developed, including IAEA C1–C6.
Such secondary standards (and further in-house
reference materials) are measured on a routine
basis, providing in-house quality assurance.
We can now investigate the basis for this concep-
tual model more carefully and also some of common
measurement terms and descriptors that are used.
The Nature of Measurement
and Uncertainty
All measurement is subject to uncertainty, which can
be considered to have two components, one resulting
from the analytical procedure and the other arising
from the sample selection process. Every time an
 RADIOCARBON DATING/Sources of Error 2919

analytical measurement is made we get a different Accuracy and Precision

result. Typically we cannot analyze the entire sample,
Measurements are routinely described as being accu-
it must be selected from the environment it is found
rate and/or precise.
in, it may not be fully representative (there may be
Accuracy is the closeness of agreement between a
some heterogeneity, i.e., slightly different 14C com-
measurement and the true or reference value. If we
position), so these sources of variation represent the
imagine a series of measurements, each with the same
uncertainty due to sampling. Often the emphasis in
true value, then if the average of the measurements
the laboratory is on the analytical uncertainty, since
does not equal (within error) the true value, then the
that is more readily quantified and modeled, but the
measurement is said to be biased, where the bias is
uncertainty due to sampling is equally important
the difference between the expected value or average
although more difficult to quantify.
of a large series of measurements and the true value.
An estimate of analytical uncertainty is frequently
Bias is usually considered to be systematic.
attached to a measurement (age estimate) and reflects
Precision is the closeness of agreement between a
the range of values within which the true value is
series of independent measurements obtained under
expected to lie. The uncertainty of a measurement
identical conditions. Precision depends on the distri-
describes the spread of values which might have been
bution of random errors, and is commonly computed
observed were the measurement repeated under
as the standard deviation of the results. As the stan-
IDENTICAL conditions. In such a case, the repeat
dard deviation increases, the precision decreases.
or replicate measurements will be different, and the
The archery targets in Figure 1 represent accurate
spread of values is often characterized by a standard
and precise, inaccurate and precise, accurate and
deviation, characterizing the precision of measure-
imprecise, inaccurate and imprecise measurement
ment but also the natural heterogeneity of the sample
from left to right, respectively. These and many
material in the field. To estimate the overall uncer-
other definitions can be found in the Royal Society
tainty, it may be necessary to estimate the individual
of Chemistry, Analytical Methods Committee (AMC)
components separately and then combine them using
Technical Brief No. 13, September 2003.
classical error propagation rules.

Uncertainty from Sampling

Measurement Uncertainty and Error
In the radiocarbon context, we can imagine that the
It is important to distinguish between uncertainty 14
C measurement is made on a small component of
and error: error is a single value defined below,
the whole sample (e.g., a few grains from a silo), or
uncertainty takes the form of a range.
that the archeological sampling from a midden
The error of a measurement, e, is the result of a
(which includes the materials to be dated), the secur-
measurement minus the true value and may include a
ity of the sampled materials in connection with the
random component and a systematic component. The
event being dated represent examples of uncertainty
error should always be reported with the measurement,
due to sampling. These examples also illustrate how
and the overall uncertainty is then often expressed as
difficult it is to quantify such uncertainty.
the interval ‘measurement  e’ or ‘measurement  2e’.
The actual meaning of such ranges in terms of confi-
dence or ‘plausibility’ depends on the stochastic model
Stochastic Models
(or probability distribution) chosen to model the ran-
dom error components. For a Gaussian model, the 1 There are many stochastic models, but the most
and 2 intervals represent approximately 67% and widely used (in 14C dating) is the Gaussian or normal
95% confidence, respectively. probability model.

Figure 1 Accuracy and precision.

2920 RADIOCARBON DATING/Sources of Error
The Gaussian probability model for a 14C
measurement X, is written as X , N(m, 2), where
m is the expected value of X and  is the standard
deviation.
Figure 2 shows 1,000 estimated ages (true age
5000 years before present (BP)), the Normal density
function, with  ¼ 30 years.
Estimating m and s
The usual method of estimating m and  is based on a
series of 14C measurements on the same material
made under identical conditions. Denoting these
measurements by x1,. . . ,xn, then the estimate of m is
the sample arithmetic average, and of , is s, the
sample standard deviation. For the example above,
the average of all 1,000 results is 5,001 years (so we
could claim the measurement is unbiased) and the
sample standard deviation is 31 years.
It is worth noting that the standard error of the
mean (s.e.m.) is a measure of precision associated
with the estimate of m and is defined as
pffiffiffi
s= n;
thus distinguishing it from the standard deviation.
Estimating Uncertainty
The conventional radiocarbon age is reported as t  t
years BP where t represents the analytical uncertainty
on the measurement, as estimated by the laboratory
and typically quantified as a standard deviation.
Histogram of age
140
120
100
Frequency
80
60
40
20
0
4,890 4,920 4,950
Figure 2 A Gaussian 14C model.
The analytical estimate of t is provided by the
laboratory and will typically take into account the
analytical uncertainties on the individual compo-
nents which make up the conventional radiocarbon
age.
The most basic form of the radiometric 14C age
equation is:
 
l A0
t ¼ ln
 At
Where t ¼ sample age, which is the time that has
elapsed since removal of the carbonaceous material
from the carbon cycle (e.g., death of an organism);
 ¼ decay constant (ln2/t1=2) where t1=2 ¼ 5,568 years
(Libby half-life); At ¼ the activity of the carbonac-
eous material t years after death as measured in the
radiocarbon laboratory; and A0 ¼ ‘modern equili-
brium living activity’ of the sample, again as mea-
sured in the radiocarbon laboratory (Cook, 2005,
this encyclopedia).
A0 and At are measured in the laboratory and both
are corrected for fractionation effects. A0 is measured
using standard materials (ideally NIST oxalic acid),
while At is the activity of the unknown sample. Both
will also be adjusted/corrected for background using
samples of ‘infinite age’.
The analytical uncertainty for t will, therefore,
include uncertainty associated with modern stan-
dards, background samples and fractionation. The
actual analytical uncertainty on t (as a function of
A0 and At) is again derived through a fairly simple error
propagation formula. However, it is also increasingly
common that laboratories will take a long series of
Normal
Mean 5,001
StDev 30.69
N 1,000
4,980 5,010 5,040 5,070
Age (years)

replicate measurements on a reference material and
assess the standard deviation of the set. If the stan-
dard deviation is greater than the quoted errors on
the individual estimated ages, then this would suggest
an unaccounted source of variation and scientists
may chose to quote the larger of the standard devia-
tion of the set and the individual quoted error, or
they may use an error multiplier approach.
How do we know Whether the Uncertainty
Estimate is Realistic?
Imagine a situation (known as repeatability condi-
tions) in which independent measurements are made
on identical samples in the same laboratory, using the
same equipment. Such a situation might commonly
arise using reference materials (typically available in
bulk), such as a large quantity of known-age wood. A
laboratory will routinely prepare a large number of
such samples, each with a measured age and uncer-
tainty. If the uncertainty estimate is realistic, then the
between-sample variation should be explained fully
by the uncertainties on the individual measurements.
If this is not the case, it points to the fact that there
are sources of error, contributing to the dispersion of
results, which have not been taken into account.
Another measure of whether the uncertainty esti-
mate is realistic can be obtained in a situation (know
as reproducibility conditions), where independent
measurements are obtained by the same method on
identical samples in different laboratories. Such a set
of conditions is commonly encountered in a colla-
borative or proficiency trial.
Interlaboratory Collaborative Trials
Proficiency testing is often used as a method for
assessing the accuracy of laboratories in conducting
particular measurements. It usually involves distri-
buting ‘identical’ portions of the test material to
each laboratory and analysis of the reported results,
which helps each laboratory assess the accuracy of
their measurement.
The radiocarbon community has devoted consider-
able care and effort to establishing and maintaining
primary standards and reference materials and in the
routine organization of laboratory intercomparisons
or collaborative trials to verify comparability of mea-
surements. From such a series of collaborative trials,
secondary standards or reference materials have been
developed, including internationally recognized
materials such as ANU-sucrose (now also known as
IAEA-C6), Chinese-sucrose, and the IAEA C1–C6
series (Rozanski et al., 1992), augmented by
RADIOCARBON DATING/Sources of Error 2921
additional oxalic acid samples (now IAEA C7 and
C8) (Le Clerq and van der Plicht, 1998). The activity
of these materials has been estimated from large
numbers of measurements made by many labora-
tories. Recently, further natural materials from the
Third and Fourth International Radiocarbon
Intercomparisons (TIRI; Gulliksen and Scott, 1995)
and FIRI (Bryant et al., 2000)) have been added to
this list. The activities of these standards and refer-
ence materials span both the applied 14C age range
and the chemical composition range of typical sam-
ples. A summary of the intercomparisons organized
within the 14C-dating community can be found in
Scott et al. (2003). The results from the most recent
intercomparisons have indicated that laboratories are
generally providing accurate results, but pointed to
variation in the results beyond that described by the
quoted uncertainties. This provides some evidence
that the quoted errors are underestimates of the
laboratory precision for some laboratories. Figure 3
shows the results from FIRI (Scott, 2003) for one
such reference material; each horizontal line repre-
sents the age 2 quoted by a laboratory. Such a plot
clearly shows the scatter in the results, but in addition
further analysis can reveal evidence of laboratory
bias (if present) and also assess the reliability of
commonly quoted errors.
Figure 4 shows the difference (offset) between a
laboratory’s result and the ‘true’ age (or consensus
value) evaluated from the FIRI intercomparison
exercise (Scott, 2003). A small number of labora-
tories showed evidence of small but significant
biases.
Calibration
Conventional 14C ages are frequently converted to a
calibrated age (on the historical timescale). In radio-
carbon terms, this means that we have a series of
independently known-age samples (such as tree-
rings), and in each sample, the 14C age is estimated.
The relationship between the estimated age and the
true age is modeled and on the basis of the modeled
relationship, a 14C age can be calibrated to AD/BC
timescale. This relationship has been shown to be of
a complex, often nonlinear form which has signifi-
cant implications for the transformation of the mea-
sured 14C age to a calibrated age (IntCal04). The
error in years BP on the estimated 14C age must also
undergo a transformation to give the corresponding
error on the calendar year scale. However, complex-
ities arise due to the complex pattern of 14C varia-
tions. The simplest complication is that although we
often model the estimated 14C age using a Gaussian
model, once transformed or calibrated, the resulting
2922 RADIOCARBON DATING/Sources of Error

Distribution plot of Age +/- 2σ for dentro wood, D, (all laboratories)

78 69
70 67
56
16

100
39
68
22
13
47
20
29
72
43
48
20
60
58
32
81
64
52
51
25
25
23
80

59
9
1
61
72
28
37
51
27
15
37
1
82
63
55
Index of results

50
17
79
36
46
60

84
24
88
41
49
19
4
2
88
36
36
18
73
50
15
12
2
41
70 54
40

89
77
51
49
35
15
8
6
38
66
76
31
2
74
40
77
83
74
44
86
20

65
88
38
91
90
75
85
34
31
30
87
33
90
11
7
Age Values (+/–2σ).
71
42
5
5
57 +
10
0

4,000 4,200 4,400 4,600 4,800 5,000

Only Age results >4,000 shown
Age (BP)
Laboratory numbers given for each result
Figure 3 Distribution plot of ages from a collaborative trial. BP, before present.

500
400
300
200
Offset (years BP)

100
0
–100
–200
–300
–400
–500
–600

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Laboratory identifier
Figure 4 Estimation of bias from a collaborative trial. BP, before present.

stochastic model for the calibrated age is no longer confidence intervals which can result in small, dis-
Gaussian, it is often multimodal and no longer sym- joint age ranges. The three most widely used calibra-
metric. The net effect is that often, the calibrated tion programs are Calib, BCal, and OxCal and an
result has a greater uncertainty. The most commonly example using OxCal is shown in Figure 5. The main
used calibration programs adopt a probabilistic use of the calibration program is for terrestrial sam-
approach, resulting in a calibrated-age probability ples, although special calibration data sets are avail-
distribution. Figure 5 shows a typical calibration of able for marine samples. All three programs are
a single 14C age. Commonly, probabilities are ranked based on the same internationally accepted calibra-
and summed to find the 68.3% (1) and 95.4% (2) tion data sets (IntCal04).
 14
RADIOCARBON DATING/Variations in Atmospheric C 2923

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.9 Bronk Ramsey (2003); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

3,900 BP
SUERC–4487 : 3,615±35BP

3,800 BP 68.2% probability

2030 BC (68.2%) 1910 BC
95.4% probability
3,700 BP
2130 BC ( 5.3%) 2080 BC
2040 BC (90.1%) 1880 BC
Radiocarbon determination

3,600 BP

3,500 BP

3,400 BP

2400 Cal BC 2200 Cal BC 2000 Cal BC 1800 Cal BC 1600 Cal BC

Calibrated date
Figure 5 Calibration of a 14C age. BP, before present.

Abbreviations Scott, E. M. (2003). The Third International Radiocarbon

Intercomparison (TIRI) and the Fourth International
BP before present Radiocarbon Intercomparison (FIRI), 1990–2002. Results,
14
C carbon-14 analyses, and conclusions. Radiocarbon 45, 135–408.
s.e.m. standard error of the mean

14
See also: Introduction: History of Dating Methods. Variations in Atmospheric C
Dating Techniques. Radiocarbon Dating: Conventional J van der Plicht, University of Groningen, Groningen,
Method; AMS Method. The Netherlands
ª 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

References
High-energy cosmic rays, mainly galactic and solar
Analytical Methods Committee (2003) Technical Brief No. 13,
September 2003. Part 1: Accuracy, Precision and Uncertainty.
protons, impinge on the Earth’s atmosphere. They
London: Royal Society of Chemistry. Available online at: http:// produce nuclear reactions, with spallation products
www.olinet.com/pdfs/R26_STATISTICS-TERMINOLOGY.pdf. and neutrons as the main constituents. The high-
Bryant, C., Carmi, I., Cook, G., et al. (2000). Sample requirements energy neutrons slow down by scattering and finally
and design of an inter-laboratory trial for radiocarbon labora- reach thermal energies. These thermal neutrons have
tories. NIMB 172, 355–359.
Gulliksen, S., and Scott, E. M. (1995). TIRI report. Radiocarbon
a large cross section for a nuclear reaction with nitro-
37, 820–821. gen, the main constituent of the atmosphere (78%):
14
IntCal04, 2004. Calibration issue. Radiocarbon 46. N(n,p)14C. Other reactions, such as 16O(p,3p) 14C
Le Clercq, M., van der Plicht, J., and Groening, M. (1998). New
14
and 16O(n,2pn)14C, are much less abundant. The 14C
C reference materials with activities of 15 and 50 pMC. nuclei produced are oxidized with atmospheric oxy-
Radiocarbon 40, 295–297.
Rozanski, K., Stichler, W., Gonfiantini, R., et al. (1992). The
gen to 14CO2 and hence become part of the ‘global
IAEA 14C inter-comparison exercise 1990. Radiocarbon 34, carbon cycle.’ Via photosynthesis in plants, 14C
506–519. enters the biosphere, which is in equilibrium with