Posted on 06/19/2018 9:26:32 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
The analysis was made by comparing Jordanian juniper trees that grew between roughly 1600 and 1910 A.D., according to the researchers... The researchers results indicated that, like in many other parts of the globe, the growing season fluctuates enough to tilt the results. Thus, the traditional Carbon-14 calibration curve for the Northern Hemisphere is not entirely accurate for southern Jordan, Israel and Egypt. The offset averages about 19 years, the researchers said...
The paper contends that massive timeline restructuring could be in the offing, for events both major and minor.
“Although, overall, the Carbon-14 offset identified here produces what may seem to be relatively small dating changes, these are revealed to be of a scale that is important for high-resolution chronological work,” the scientists said. “They are especially important for the contested and detailed chronology debates in archaeological scholarship on the southern Levant region, particularly for those focused on differences of only a few decades, to ~50 years to 100 years in recent high (or conventional) versus low chronology debates.”
(Excerpt) Read more at laboratoryequipment.com ...
Whoops, the source tag should be "Laboratory Equipment", apparently a specialist magazine. And this is one of *those* topics.
Go back to “Tapatalk,” and stay there.
You sure it’s not about Jim Wolfe and Ali Watkins? He was only off by a few years, too...
One of *those* topics.
|
This is about how RC dating is calibrated using tree rings.
If it really, really matters, use dendrochronology.
Never been there, oh, and sod off.
Interesting information. Interesting topic
Original article http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/05/23/1719420115
Easy fix. Add a +/- % before any radiocarbon dating. OTOH if you really need a date try match.com ;-)
Thanks for posting!
Thanks for the posting, SunkenCiv!
It is about dendrochronology. Before RC dating, dendrochronology involved looking at tree rings, and measuring them as a way of matching old wood structures with old surviving trees of the same type, etc, as a method of dating structures. I believe its first use was actually in the SW US, in the Four Corners area.
When RC dating came along, using it to calibrate dendrochronology led to the discovery that the variable output of the Sun led to variation in the initial level of C14 in each tree ring. The outcome was, dendrochronology survived as a way to calibrate RC dating, rather than the other way around.
What Manning's done here is a sort of return to one of the past critiques of pre-RC dendrochronology, that is, that in very dry conditions trees don't add a visible ring; same kind of critique applies to trees that grow closer to a steady water supply such as a stream.
Manning's reference in the article to high and low chronologies is actually tied into the supposed mid-2nd m BC eruption of Thera, but the one thing I like about him is, he's been jamming RC dating down Egyptology's throat. As you may know, Zahi Hawass has claimed that RC dating "doesn't work" in Egypt -- the reason is, the conventional pseudochronology (which Manning is actually a part of) is largely wrong -- in the New Kingdom, only the Nubian (25th) dynasty is basically dated correctly.
My pleasure!
Radiocarbon dating continues to be accurate, and calibratable, and you're the only thing that needs to be fixed.
You don't know what you're talking about.
I don’t know why Match.com even got started — 7000 years ago the ratio was 1 man to 17 women.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3664754/posts
Thanks!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
