21st February 2012, 05:52 PM
(This post was last modified: 21st February 2012, 05:54 PM by tom wilson.)
I once got C14 dates ranging variously C6th -10th (iirc) from ~ half a dozen skeletons that (definitely) cut through a big industrial feature containing about 250 not-particularly-abraded C11th -12th pot sherds (and more in the grave fills).
This illustrates (at least) one of two things:
a) when the impossible has been discounted the remaining possibility, however improbable, must be the case (i.e. all of the C14 dates are wrong...or the regional typology is).
b) sometimes you just can't win
Also:
The above quote is a fair point. C14 dates in publications are useless if you don't cite them and their standard deviations in full and, unless they're something indisputably a primary deposition (e.g. a skeleton), discuss the reliability of the date's attribution to a deposit. A great example is the World Heritage Site of Ban Chiang in Thailand, for a long time argued (by some) to be the oldest site in the world where bronze was in use, on the basis of some charcoal in a grave fill (there was a mesolithic phase on site, iirc). However, @PP, wouldn't you agree, this sort of thing is a failure to apply scientific method (i.e. taphonomy), not a failure of the method itself.
This illustrates (at least) one of two things:
a) when the impossible has been discounted the remaining possibility, however improbable, must be the case (i.e. all of the C14 dates are wrong...or the regional typology is).
b) sometimes you just can't win
Also:
P Prentice Wrote:the god of radiocarbon dating has a lot riding these days. half the reports i read dont even state what the dates were obtained from, what the processes were and what the error factor are etc. its being used badly and most 20th century dates are cobblers anyway. people are still getting dates from odd bits of charcoal and saying they dated a context and other such nonsense. often a useful tool but never the answer
The above quote is a fair point. C14 dates in publications are useless if you don't cite them and their standard deviations in full and, unless they're something indisputably a primary deposition (e.g. a skeleton), discuss the reliability of the date's attribution to a deposit. A great example is the World Heritage Site of Ban Chiang in Thailand, for a long time argued (by some) to be the oldest site in the world where bronze was in use, on the basis of some charcoal in a grave fill (there was a mesolithic phase on site, iirc). However, @PP, wouldn't you agree, this sort of thing is a failure to apply scientific method (i.e. taphonomy), not a failure of the method itself.