Dealing with outliers and offsets in radiocarbon dating 100 free teen webcam

2009) as well as the less smoothed Int Cal98 dataset (Stuiver et al. Various permutations excluding samples identified as outliers using the Outlier_Model ("SSimple", N(0,2),0,"s" ) with (Bronk Ramsey 2009) were also run. Calculated fit ranges for Relative Year (RY) 1 of the 213-year chronology according to a variety of models using Ox Cal and either Int Cal09 or Int Cal98.

Models 1–5 start with the 16-date-set; Models 6–10 start with the larger 22-date-set. The best fit for the Constantinople dendrochronology computed by Ox Cal using the 16-date set (excluding dates from sample YMK-359) based on Model 3 (Figure 5) minus the three outlying dates (indicated with the orange arrows) — data positioned according to the mean (µ) of the marginal posterior probability distribution (see Inset).

The sampling was carried out five years ago, and although there is a likely placement of the seven contiguous decades dissected (one was not dated), the laboratory records leave an ambiguity of 10 or 15 years; hence we initially rejected the dataset in favour of the secure 16-date set above.

The new data allows us to test both options for placement of the YMK-359 sub-set by considering the fit of the YMK-359 C dates as shown in Figure 4.

These dates are compatible with the historical evidence within the stated errors, as is the tentative dendrochronological placement (SOF-14 end date AD 534).

The combined evidence from the various modelled scenarios has provided a best near-absolute placement for the chronology at c.

You can also find them listed alphabetically by author on the Website Library page.

Each listing includes a brief description of its content.

We use Model 3 as the preferred C-based dating since it avoids the question-mark over the exact placement of the YMK-359 data.

Every model in Figure 5 provides a wiggle-match consistent within its 95.4% probability range with the tentative dendro-dating of the 213-year dendrochronology.

We thank Peter Brewer at Cornell for producing Figure 1.

Finally we thank Sabine Kühr and Eva Gier at Heidelberg and Susanne Lindauer at the Klaus-Tschira Scientific Dating Laboratory.

Two ΔR tests with a neutral offset test (of 0±20) indicate no substantive offset is relevant. The datum at RY93.5 is the one very clear outlying value, and it is probably relevant that this sample was also noted as having fungal contamination (not observed on the other samples).

Tags: , ,