uniface
Silver Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2009
- Messages
- 3,216
- Reaction score
- 2,905
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- Central Pennsylvania
- Primary Interest:
- Other
Since wranglings over this have broken out in a couple of threads, rather than lengthen the threads they came up in and steer them sideways, I suspect that anyone up for some heavy duty data crunching will find the link below interesting indeed.
The problem with radiocarbon dating that nobody talked about was that some of the Paleo site dates were just all over the place. Atomic testing had nothing to do with this, since the amounts of radioactivity generated could be calculated and allowed-for, and could hardly affect buried material anyhow. Something else was skewing the radiocarbon -- something that could push the RC date of a Paleo site into the Late Archaic time frame.
Even more strangely, this distortion correlated with geography. It was most severe in the upper midwest, tapering off with distance from it.
Rather than spoil it for you, put on your thinking cap, dig in, and enjoy
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/nuclear.html
The problem with radiocarbon dating that nobody talked about was that some of the Paleo site dates were just all over the place. Atomic testing had nothing to do with this, since the amounts of radioactivity generated could be calculated and allowed-for, and could hardly affect buried material anyhow. Something else was skewing the radiocarbon -- something that could push the RC date of a Paleo site into the Late Archaic time frame.
Even more strangely, this distortion correlated with geography. It was most severe in the upper midwest, tapering off with distance from it.
Rather than spoil it for you, put on your thinking cap, dig in, and enjoy
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/nuclear.html
Upvote
0