Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site hpfcrs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hpfcdc!hpfcla!lief
From: lief@hpfcla.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Radiocarbon errors
Message-ID: <14600041@hpfcrs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Aug-85 10:03:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: hpfcrs.14600041
Posted: Tue Aug 13 10:03:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 05:04:50 EDT
Organization: 13 Aug 85 08:03:00 MDT
Lines: 35


> [Gordon Davisson]
>                     ...The one I picked was "Radiocarbon Dating," edited
>by Rainer Berger and Hans E. Suess, published by the University of
>California Press, 1979.  The appendix and several of the articles give
>plots of C-14 dates versus dendrochronological (tree-ring) dates
>indicating that earlier than about 0 BC, carbon dates tend to be *too
>young* (as I said earlier).  In fact, a true date of 5,000 BC corresponds
>to a carbon date around 4,000 BC, not 50,000 BC as Kukuk suggested.
>Either Kukuk's facts or his logic are in error.

     How about Stuart Piggott's report (a British archaeologist) in
"The Radio-Carbon Date from Durrington Walls", ANTIQUITY, xxxiii, No. 132,
(Dec. 1959), page 289.  Here he reports that two radiocarbon tests on a sample
of charcoal indicated a date of 2620-2630 BC for an ancient structure at
Durrington Walls in England.  However, absolutely compelling archaeological
evidences called for a date approximately 1000 years later.  Another prominent
archaeologist, Professor V. Milojcic, states that some radio carbon dates
from south-eastern Europe are 1000 years too high -- see H.T. Waterbolk,
"The 1959 Carbon-14 Symposium at Groningen," ANTIQUITY, xxxiv, No. 133,
(Mar 1960), pages 14-18.

     Unless Carbon-14 dating techniques have changes dramatically since 1959
I would be inclined to be skeptical about any carbon-14 dates!  The fact that
it can be 1000 years off for something as recent as 1600 BC suggests to me
that Carbon-14 dating is worthless, and any scientist who uses it cannot
be taken seriously.  If I'm not mistaken, it is rarely used anymore.

     However, the interesting thing is that many people are still clinging
tightly to the data gathered back in the days when Carbon-14 dating was in
vogue -- worthless data!          

Lief Sorensen
HP Fort Collins, CO
Uucp ...!hpfcla!lief