Some quick comments, not having enough coffee to wake up and fully grasp all the issues:
1. There does seem to be a bit of theatrics about this whole affair. In my mind the proper course would be to thrash the arguments out in the peer-reviewed literature and let science do its thing. Trying to get the police involved for fraud seems quite silly.
2. This is not the first time there has been a debate about the way OxCal does its calibrations. While I don't have my references handy as I sit at home and drink my coffee, but there was a series of papers in RADIOCARBON between Ramsey and a German scholar (Weninger perhaps?), which resulted in changes to later versions of OxCal.
3. The combining radiocarbon dates issue is not limited to Ramsey. Dig deep enough and you'll find other examples. I think the question is, did he acknowledge what he did beforehand or not? A lot of folks deal with radiocarbon dates in less than stellar fashion.
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 4:51 AM, Tony Marsh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I think the OxCal answer of 1/3 may well be right but the definition of the set problem, even by the chief plaintive (Keenan), contains jargon and poorly expressed didactism that I confess to being somewhat confused.
----- Original Message -----
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 11:50 AM
Subject: [BRITARCH] Controversy over radio carbon dates
On a blog I read on climate a serious archaeological controversy over
carbon dating is being aired. Unfortunately, much of it is
undecipherable even though I have a science degree, but it seems C14
dating is so key that it is important enough that archaeologists should
be aware. So I will outline what I can decipher as best I am able.
As far as I can see the core of the issue is how probabilities derived
from carbon dates are combined to derive an estimate of the actual date.
And to avoid alarm, it appears to amount to whether the method used is
the mathematically best way to do this, not whether the dates are
To give a flavour of the issue an example is used with three calendar
dates (9AD,10AD,11AD) which because of variation in C14 levels, two show
with the same C14 date 9AD->110, 10&11AD->100). Then it suggests that
when the probability of each of the two C14 dates (110 & 100) are the
same then there is a 50% chance of the date being 9AD. Instead it seems
to be suggested that OxCal gives a 33% probability.
I'm not sure how it got to this, but Doug Keenan has accused Christopher
Ramsey of fraud and has issued a formal complaint to the University of
Oxford. However, during the discussions on the original blog post at
Bishop HIll discussing the issue (which I missed), serious doubts were
raised with part of what Keenan was saying:
Nic Lewis: "In my view Ramsey's method doesn't represent best
scientific inference either. However, the issues are complex and,
predicated on his assumed uniform prior in true calendar year,
Ramsey seems to have followed a perfectly defensible approach. So I
don't see it can be a matter of misconduct – rather it is an issue
of poor program documentation, including key assumptions only being
set out in referenced papers (and not necessarily being justified).
The statistical issues involved certainly merit further debate. " (
But this still leaves a concern over carbon dates. Now from the latest
it appears Keenan is intending to take this further:
*Keenan*: "I asked the police to investigate Ramsey for misconduct
in public office. The police declined to investigate. I decided to
obtain legal advice on that question. Additionally, I decided that
if the advice was positive, I would not report the matter to the
police; instead, I would undertake a private prosecution."
But this has not been the end of the affair. Doug has rewritten the
complaint, bringing in a new allegation that he had held back
previously and has put the whole thing to the University.
*Summary of original issues:**
Ramsey is the author of a computer program that implements the
calibration procedure. The program, OxCal
<https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=oxcal.html>, is very widely
used by radiocarbon scientists, and has been for decades. Keenans
accusation appear to be:
1. An error in the calibration procedure for translating from C14 to
calendar date as per example above (but see Nic Lewis comment above)
2. The use of a method that is appropriate for different samples for
repeated measurements on a single sample