[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: orion@mscc.huji.ac.il*Subject*: Re: orion-list Radiocarbon*From*: Sigrid Peterson <petersig@ccat.sas.upenn.edu>*Date*: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 05:37:00 GMT*Reply-To*: orion@mscc.huji.ac.il

According to Greg Doudna: > > Yesterday I cited, in the strongest form I could, the case from > radiocarbon against a 63 BCE terminus hypothesis. At first blush > it sounds immediately decisive, indeed virtually airtight: five > separate radiocarbon dates, of 19 total Qumran texts dated, > give two-sigma ranges entirely later than 63 BCE, at 95% > confidence reported by the lab for each one of these datings. > > The reason I do not consider these 5 dates a falsification of a 63 BCE > terminus hypothesis is simply this: in four of those five cases, the > edge of the two-sigma range is so close to 63 BCE that it appears > hairsplitting to claim certainty, in the absence of further data and > context. E.g. 1QH (47 BCE...), 4Q266 (44 BCE...), 4Q258 #2 > (50 BCE...), 4Q521 (49 BCE...). In only one case is the start of the > 2s range unambiguously and clearly removed from 63 BCE in terms > of calendar years: 4QpPsA (3 CE...). > Greg, Scientifically speaking, you are using a 75% confidence level, in that you are specifying (not randomizing) 25% of your data points as erroneous. Confidence intervals refer to *random* errors of measurement on both an individual and a group basis. While you can discuss the data in any way you wish, and you will be accurate as far as the measurement of an individual piece using C14 techniques are concerned. it is not an adequate treatment according to scientific method of investigation. Note that I'm not talking about the scientific validity and reliability of radiocarbon dating itself. It is possible to design a scientifically valid discrimination function that quantifies a distinction based on time between two groups of texts using C14 data. It is not possible, however, to discriminate between a *full* set of dated texts and an hypothesized *empty* set of dated texts, as you are trying to do. > Readers of orion might consider: (a) if you had no radiocarbon data, > would you know a 63 BCE terminus hypothesis was excluded on > some other grounds? Using radio carbon data, one hypothesizes, according to scientific method, that there is no difference between quantified evidence that falls before 63 BCE, and quantified evidence that falls (independently determined) after 63 BCE. It is an hypothesis of no difference (null hypothesis), that requires two groups. One then disconfirms the null hypothesis, or not, with a confidence level set a priori at 90%, 95%, or 99%. Using something other than radiocarbon data, it is fairly easy to test an hypothesis of distribution on categorical grounds. One uses information that is present or absent in the texts themselves, and uses a chi-square test of distribution. The null hypothesis is that on a random basis, an equal *number* of texts will fall in the two categories of pre-63 BCE and post-63 BCE. The criterion for dividing the groups can be anything --probably several different criteria *should be used, yielding similar results, or discussable results. Using the C14 data you've mentioned, the categories would be defined as follows: Observed Expected 2 sigma interval entirely before 63 BCE 14 10 2 sigma interval extends past 63 BCE 5 10 A statistician will be able to calculate the chi-square value for you, given the above table. My guesstimate is that the chi-square value will be at approximately the 85% confidence level, rather than a more respectible 95% confidence interval. So you can, if you like, legitimately talk about a trend in favor of a 63 BCE cut-off, and not have to be embarassed by the anomalies in the data. This second method conforms to the way you are stating your hypothesis, and doesn't require a dependent measure (measurement like C14 data) that is interval based. In fact, it is possible to use interval data only as category definitions, as above. Other ways of dividing the groups of texts might include particular paleographical signs, for example. You could extend the number of groups as well as the number of cases considered overall, in this way. [. . .] > > Greg Doudna > Copenhagen Sigrid Peterson UPenn petersig@ccat.sas.upenn.edu For private reply, e-mail to petersig@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (Sigrid Peterson) ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to majordomo@panda.mscc.huji.ac.il with the message: "unsubscribe Orion." For more information on the Orion Center or for Orion archives, visit our web site http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.

- Prev by Date:
**Re: reply to orion-list Radiocarbon discussion** - Next by Date:
**orion-list Prague conference** - Prev by thread:
**Re: orion-list Radiocarbon** - Next by thread:
**Re: orion-list Radiocarbon** - Index(es):