Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (9006 total)
59 online now:
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,300 Year: 13,048/23,288 Month: 773/1,527 Week: 74/138 Day: 23/24 Hour: 1/5

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   The Failure of Rohl's New Chronology
Member (Idle past 740 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

Message 6 of 7 (707905)
10-02-2013 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by greentwiga
10-01-2013 11:49 PM

Re: c14 dating
I'd be careful of how close you place those radiocarbon dates.

Radiocarbon dates are not generally expressed as single figures (intercepts) but rather as ranges. Those ranges can either be 1 sigma (67% chance of being within that range) or 2 sigma (95% chance of being within that range). 2 sigma is the standard for reporting.

So, a date might be expressed as cal 2 sigma 1890-1630 BC (3840-3580 BP). The intercepts for this particular date are 1750 BC and 3700 BP, but those are not necessarily accurate. The range is the figure that is statistically accurate. And that's a pretty tight date, with a ±30 range.

But, given a large number of dates on closely related materials that begins to change, and you can get much tighter dating if things work out right. It sounds like that is what may have been done in this case.

By the way, in my work as an archaeologist (not in the Old World though) I have received 632 radiocarbon dates, have six out being processed now, and have one more going out tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by greentwiga, posted 10-01-2013 11:49 PM greentwiga has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by greentwiga, posted 10-02-2013 9:29 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020