Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 63 (9159 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: K.Rose
Happy Birthday: CosmicChimp
Post Volume: Total: 914,662 Year: 1,919/9,624 Month: 1,352/567 Week: 298/601 Day: 41/32 Hour: 0/2

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   The Failure of Rohl's New Chronology
Member (Idle past 2072 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 replied

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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024