Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill
From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Radiocarbon errors
Message-ID: <601@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 24-Aug-85 12:23:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.601
Posted: Sat Aug 24 12:23:44 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Aug-85 01:05:47 EDT
References: <14600041@hpfcrs.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 51

>      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!          

You are out of date by 25 years.  The radiocarbon dates of such artifacts
as Stonehenge (I cannot speak to Durrington Walls) were older than the
archaeological dates by about the amount you quote, but other evidence
has since confirmed the radiocarbon dates.  The "compelling archaeological
evidence" that caused archaeologists to date Stonehenge, for example,
too young, turned out to be preconceived notions about its being too
sophisticated for the inhabitants of Britain of the time to have
built without outside influence.  Assumptions were made about influences
from other cultures that have turned out to be wrong.  In addition, 
Stonhenge was not built at once, but over a period of several centuries.
Thus there can be significant variations in dates of Stonehenge artifacts,
even using reliable techniques.  Similar comments may also apply to
Durrington Walls.

Since 1960, calibration of the radiocarbon dating system by use of
tree ring data has considerably strengthened it.  Other techniques
have also become important, but radiocarbon dating remains an extremely
valuable tool, whose dates can now be corroborated by other means.
The bottom line is that we are in much better shape, and can rely on
physical dating methods with much more confidence, than was possible in 
1960.

-- 
"Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from
	religious conviction."  -- Blaise Pascal

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (USnail)
	{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill	(uucp)
	bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA		(ARPANET)