[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion AMS dating
Sorry for the typo, I started to write the same letter in another program
that had a spell checker and I messed up the cut and paste. Funny thing
too was that the spell checker was in German. Anyhow ...
Another point is that palaeography is a much harder science than C14
tests in that it establishes a relative chronology which is proven far
more reliable by experts.A relative chronology is always prefered over the
C14 tests or similar tests, such as TL tests. C14 is NOT an absolute
science, just because they use chemistry does not mean that it can be or
must be accurate. Palaeography is a far more reliable indicator.
On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Greg Doudna wrote:
> On the date of deposit of the scrolls and 14C, some comments.
> 1) S. Goranson is correct to take the 14C seriously. I am concerned
> that 14C, which is hard science, is being relegated to less
> importance in contrast to what is believed to be a "better"
> system of dating, the palaeographic datings which claim greater
> precision but should be considered in the genre of educated
> guesses, not hard science, since they were created in the absence of
> a single internally-dated text in all of Palestine for the 200-year
> period 150 BCE-50 CE as control or comparison. There are
> some features of 14C, particularly the calibration curve wiggles,
> which are very hard to understand, but the information there, if
FYI I was almost got laughed out of Geomorphology for taking those C14
tests seriously on the DSS.