Tibia? Or not tibia? That is the question.
Barry Fell was a scientist who had an outside interest in ancient languages and inscriptions, and he was right much more often than he was wrong.
Radiocarbon dating has pitfalls; the Ulu Burun wreck RC dating fiasco is an example.
The message though is, Blam and I hate to see perfectly good topics on history and archaeology wrecked by crevo bloodbaths.
You responded: Barry Fell was a scientist who had an outside interest in ancient languages and inscriptions, and he was right much more often than he was wrong.
Radiocarbon dating has pitfalls; the Ulu Burun wreck RC dating fiasco is an example.
The message though is, Blam and I hate to see perfectly good topics on history and archaeology wrecked by crevo bloodbaths.
I have a low regard for Barry Fell based on an examination of some of his books. This opinion is generally mirrored by the archaeological profession. You should be able to google reviews in American Antiquity and other journals.
Radiocarbon dating: This is a subject I know well, and I question the nature of your post concerning it. You cited an article several years old dealing with one small area of the literature. I believe that one article by itself leaves an erroneous impression of the overall accuracy of the method. It should be balanced with, perhaps, the nice calibration curve based on bristlecone pines extending some 12,600 years BP.
I made no mention of the crevo issue at all. I am aware of your feelings (you and Blam) on the issue and have refrained from bringing the subject into these threads.
As far as the Hassan post, that was interesting. I knew him in grad school (he was a young professor at the time) and it is nice to see that he is carrying some parts of the western method of archaeology back to Egypt.