The Bodleian Library at Oxford University announced last month that carbon dating of an ancient Sanskrit mathematical text contained the “oldest recorded origins of the symbol 'zero'.”
The library’s news release and YouTube video resulted in plenty of press coverage, but this week, an article lead authored by Kim Plofker of the University of Alberta took the Bodleian to task for releasing the information without feedback from other academics.
The article is an interesting glimpse into scientific peer review, allowing readers to see some of the questions that other researchers might have asked the Bodleian. For instance, Plofker and her co-authors -- which included a well-regarded expert on the manuscript in question -- wanted to know more about:
- How the manuscript was prepared before testing.
Why the researchers only tested the birch-bark leaves and not the ink.
Why they ignored apparent consistency in the composition itself in claiming that parts of the manuscript were written centuries apart.
“Without wishing to dampen the laudable ardor shown in this project for scientifically investigating the material characteristics of ancient documents, we urge the investigators to consider the importance of reconciling their findings with historical knowledge and inferences obtained by other means,” the authors conclude. “It should not be hastily assumed that the apparent implications of results from physical tests must be valid even if the conclusions they suggest appear historically absurd.”