[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
[Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
> I can summarize those results by saying that, grosso modo, the
> C14 bore out the dates reached on basis of paleographic typology.
Paleographers have claimed to know, at times within just a few decades,
when a MS was written. If you mean merely that carbon dating doesn't
give us, say, 3rd century BCE dates for 1st century CE paleographic
datings, then, yes, the carbon dates did bear out the paleographic
typologies. That's probably what you meant by grosso modo.
My question regarding C14 dating - which has been pointed out as an
absurdity for this ostracon - was whether the method has been refined
substantially in very recent years.
I have no hidden agenda here. This is just a straight request for
information, if anyone would be kind enough to provide it.
-Richard L. Goerwitz *** *** firstname.lastname@example.org