Sun Aug 25 23:15:39 1996
From owner-tc-list Sun Aug 25 23:15:39 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id XAA16751; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 23:14:24 -0400
Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19960826030922.5dc7f23e@pop.washdc.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: scarlson@pop.washdc.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 23:09:22 -0400
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Stephen C. Carlson"
Subject: Re: Carbon dating
Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1389
At 08:10 8/25/96 -0700, Mike Phillips wrote:
> Yes, that is what I was saying. The rate of deposition is not a
>constant, while the rate of decay is. If you have an unanticipated variable,
>you have too many variables (any variable unaccounted for by a formulaic
>expression makes the result variable). Yet, given the great amounts of time
>we're dealing with, some results might actually be worth having around. The
>problem is that we can't be certain which results are worth keeping without
>confirmation from other sources, hence, C-14 dating is not a stand-alone method
>(or at least, shouldn't be, though it has been used as such at times).
I think that is why the C-14 readings are calibrated to the dendro-
chronological (tree rings, very precise) findings. The original point
in this thread that the precision (i.e., the range of possible dates)
of the C-14 dating is no better and perhaps worse than the paleo-
graphical dating is a good one. C-14 dating is not the magic bullet.
However, I believe that the C-14 dating of the DSS have shown that the
old paleographical dating may have been off by a century. Paleography
too has its drawbacks.
Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
scarlson@mindspring.com : and songs chant the words.
http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35
Back