Carbon 14 Dating

[uniface]

I tried to find an old thread that discusses 14C dating, but search features (here, google) are useless, and I don't have an hour to scroll through pages of posts looking for one. So, for the sake of perspective, from a lab director :

It may come as a shock to you, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as 'acceptable' by investigators

Citation [Ogden 1977, 173]

Recommended to those with enough intelligent interest in the 14C reliability issue to read through an informed, detailed overview of it :
The Self-Deception of C-14 and Dendrochronology

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[smokeythecat]

Once upon a time ago, I belonged to a local archaeological society. We dug some charcoal and sent it for this test. We also got some charcoal that was clearly from a very, very recent campfire. Like the local hippies's camp (back in the day). It came out the "hippie" charcoal was dated older than the stuff we dug out of context.

 

[uniface]

I'm surprised they didn't price their service so high that nobody except the piled-higher-and-deepers, with their grant money, used them. I saw a lab price quote for an electron microscope exam a few years ago that curled my hair.

 

[smokeythecat]

I can get an SEM test or XRD for about $50 each these days. Haven't had to in years however. That's when I found out gold AND silver were in the creek where I live. Too bad it's microscopic...and a mountain lion drops by occasionally.

 

[joshuaream]

I'll have to read through the article with a bit more time. But selective date acceptance is something that plagues any early or late date.

The Taima-Taima site in Venezuela was instantly rejected by many Clovis First archaeologists because the dates were unreliable, too early, contaminated, etc. Muaco, another site, was also rejected for the same reasons. The lab wasn't recognized, the sample too small, contaminated by ancient brush fires, etc.

It's amazing that the dates, and many others from the US & South America line up with other currently accepted sites now, but the "stain" of having been rejected lives on much longer than the reason behind the rejection.

What matters in my opinion is the consistency of the data. If multiple samples are returned with relatively tight standard deviations, then it's more than coincidence. If the concern is ethical about archaeologists reporting fraudulent data, you have a bigger concern and C14 data won't solve the issue since they could hypothetically plant a couple of relics in a Pleistocene deposit of that age and have rock solid dates.

 

[Charl]

Not really related to the issue per se, but here's a handy dandy conversion chart....

 

[uniface]

The Plot Sickens :

https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2017/04/21/deranged-dating-tamarack-pond-revisited/