Carbon dating not reliable
She says this is ok so long as you take into account the correction factors from dendrochronology.(They conveniently forget to mention that the tree ring chronology was arranged by C14 dating.The methodology is quite accurate, but dendrochronology supposedly shows that the C14 dates go off because of changes in the equilibrium over time, and that the older the dates the larger the error.Despite this she continually uses the c14 dates to create 'absolute' chronologies.So we wondered whether the radiocarbon levels relevant to dating organic material might also vary for different areas and whether this might affect archaeological dating." The authors measured a series of carbon-14 ages in southern Jordan tree rings, with established calendar dates between 16 A. They found that contemporary plant material growing in the southern Levant shows an average offset in radiocarbon age of about 19 years compared the current Northern Hemisphere standard calibration curve.Manning noted that "scholars working on the early Iron Age and Biblical chronology in Jordan and Israel are doing sophisticated projects with radiocarbon age analysis, which argue for very precise findings. But our work indicates that it's arguable their fundamental basis is faulty -- they are using a calibration curve that is not accurate for this region." Applying their results to previously published chronologies, the researchers show how even the relatively small offsets they observe can shift calendar dates by enough to alter ongoing archaeological, historical and paleoclimate debates.
Pre-modern radiocarbon chronologies rely on standardized Northern and Southern Hemisphere calibration curves to obtain calendar dates from organic material.
(2.) I just listened to a series of lectures on archaeology put out by John Hopkins Univ.
The lecturer talked at length about how inaccurate C14 Dating is (as 'corrected' by dendrochronology).
Radiocarbon dating is a key tool archaeologists use to determine the age of plants and objects made with organic material.
But new research shows that commonly accepted radiocarbon dating standards can miss the mark -- calling into question historical timelines.
"There has been much debate for several decades among scholars arguing for different chronologies sometimes only decades to a century apart -- each with major historical implications. may all be inaccurate since they are using the wrong radiocarbon information," Manning said.