[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: orion-list Radiocarbon

Greg Doudna wrote:

> Dear orioners: for those following the issues with 63 BCE
> and the radiocarbon dates I suggest in terms of method that
> the 63 BCE terminus hypothesis be evaluated separately
> in terms of (a) all non-radiocarbon grounds, and (b)
> radiocarbon data alone.  Secondly, as a provisional term the
> five radiocarbon dates whose 2-sigma ranges are entirely
> post-63 BCE might be termed "apparent evidence against a
> 63 BCE terminus".  The lab-reported dates are actual, not
> apparent, but the conversion of these lab reported dates to
> an historical judgment is what is at issue.
> Third, for the 5 clearly post-63 BCE AMS dates, there are
> basically three possibilities:  (a) the 63 BCE terminus is wrong;
> (b) there is some anomaly in the calibration curve, i.e. a
> regional effect; or (c) contaminated dates.

Is there not the possibility that the majority of the texts may
have been deposited prior to the 63 BCE terminus but
a few may have been deposited post-63BCE?

I am not the best of palaeographers but I have a very difficult
time in assigning a "watershed" within 50 years between
"Hasmonean" and "Herodian" hands and can never be sure
a "hasmonean hand" is not typical of a scribal school well
into the Herodian period or that the subtle "Herodian"
qualities did not first appear long before 63 BCE.



For private reply, e-mail to Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@historian.net>
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to majordomo@panda.mscc.huji.ac.il with
the message: "unsubscribe Orion." For more information on the Orion Center
or for Orion archives, visit our web site http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.