Holy Grail has cracks in it

[kbs2244]

From yesterdays news page

Finally, an admission the Holy Grail has cracks in it.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases ... 060518.php

Although the time frame is small, the principle covers a lot of time.

[Minimalist]

Um... this

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.

is hardly news. In fact, C14 dates are generally given with a +/- that exceeds 20 years.

For example:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

RTT#
Type
Sample ID
14
C age
±1 yr BP
Calibrated range ±1

(BCE)
Calibrated range ±2

(BCE)
6139
Olive pit
TS9511
3070 ± 45
1410–1300 (68.2%)
1435–1210 (95.4%)
6140
Charcoal
TS9513
2940 ± 45
1255–1235 (7.5%)
1215–1110 (48.1%)
1100–1075 (9.7%)
1065–1055 (3.0%)
1295–1010 (95.4%)
6141
Olive pit
TS9521-1
2970 ± 45
1290–1280 (2.4%)
1270–1125 (65.8%)
1375–1340 (3.9%)
1320–1050 (91.5%)
6142
Charcoal
TS9521-2
3010 ± 45
1375–1340 (12.1%)
1320–1210 (52.8%)
1200–1195 (1.8%)
1140–1135 (1.5%)
1400–1125 (95.4%)
6143
Olive pit
TS9522
3045 ± 45
1385–1265 (68.2%)
1420–1190 (92.9%)
1175–1165 (1.2%)
1145–1130 (1.3%)
6144
Olive pit
TS9524
2960 ± 55
1290–1280 (2.0%)
1270–1110 (60.2%)
1100–1085 (4.3%)
1065–1055 (1.7%)
1375–1340 (4.3%)
1320–1010 (91.1%)
6145
Charcoal
TS9525
2940 ± 45
1255–1235 (7.5%)
1215–1110 (48.1%)
1100–1075 (9.7%)
1065–1055 (3.0%)
1295–1010 (95.4%)
6146
Charcoal
TS9528
2935 ± 45
1250–1245 (1.5%)
1215–1055 (66.7%)
1295–1005 (95.4%)

These sample from Tel es-Safi (Gath) indicate a general +/- of 45 years. Close enough.

[circumspice]

From yesterdays news page

Finally, an admission the Holy Grail has cracks in it.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases ... 060518.php

Although the time frame is small, the principle covers a lot of time.

*rolls eyes*

And this is news to whom?

You make the article seem like it's some kind of paradigm shift... Really?

The technology is evolving & advancing, improving over time like most technologies. I wouldn't start writing the obituaries yet if I were you.

[Simon21]

Nonsense. I saw the Holy Grail in Valencia Canthedral two weeks ago. It was perfectly fine. Made of agate from Alexandria originally.
Asked friend to swipe it so we could rule the world, but he declined pointing to the guards, wuss.

[Simon21]

From yesterdays news page

Finally, an admission the Holy Grail has cracks in it.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases ... 060518.php

Although the time frame is small, the principle covers a lot of time.

Just to be clear the Holy Grail does not exist, Jesus probably did not exist (I think there could have been 2 whose stories have been conflated), the miracles did not happen, virgins do not give birth, dead men do not hop up and down after execution. Americans (Texans) and Iranians must know this better than almost anyone else.

[Minimalist]

Now you've done it. KB doesn't like to hear that his fairy tales are fairy tales.

[Simon21]

Now you've done it. KB doesn't like to hear that his fairy tales are fairy tales.

If only my friend had boldly snatched the HG from Valencia Cathederal and given it to me I could laugh at his views - I know my Stephen Spielberg

[kbs2244]

The Holy Grail reference was wholly symbolic

The reason for the post was to show that the cornerstone of the dating procedure, the idea that cosmic radiation is a constant, is not true.

The exposure is not a constant,
It is a variable.
A huge one.

This opens up all the “proven by RC” dates to re-examination.

We simply cannot accept an RC lab’s results as the end of all discussion anymore.

[Cognito]

The Holy Grail reference was wholly symbolic

The reason for the post was to show that the cornerstone of the dating procedure, the idea that cosmic radiation is a constant, is not true.

The exposure is not a constant,
It is a variable.
A huge one.

This opens up all the “proven by RC” dates to re-examination.

We simply cannot accept an RC lab’s results as the end of all discussion anymore.

The amount of radiocarbon in the atmosphere varies, as mentioned; however, RC dating is simply a close proximate for anything during the samples' first half-life (which is given as 5,700 +/- 40 years), or back to about 3,700bce

Then there is another half-life milestone at about 9,400bce, and then we get to 1/8th of the orginal carbon in any sample dated to circa 15,000bce. For me, anything dated about 20,000bce or earlier is suspect, due to the opporunity for contamination upon collection.

To paraphrase Captain Hector Barbossa on the issue of radiocarbon dating, "It's more like a guideline than a rule."

[kbs2244]

"It's more like a guideline than a rule."

You know that.
I know that.

But the headline writers, and therefore the general population, do not.

And many of the paper writers seem to not know it either.
They treat the "returned lab reports" as gospel.
Even to the point hold holding up publishing until they get their "proof" back from a lab.

" For me, anything dated about 20,000bce or earlier is suspect, due to the opporunity for contamination upon collection."

I agree with this completely.
But it is a minority view.

I can only hope the "guide line" concept gets more exposure.

[Minimalist]

And the archaeologists who utilize it know it, too.

That's really all that matters.


Hell. 37% of the rest of the morons out there think that Trump didn't collude with the Russians!

[kbs2244]

Again, the purpose of the post was to show that RCs weakness is getting some exposure.
Eureka Alert is admittedly aimed at a science-oriented audience.
But the audience goes far beyond archaeology.
So, in my view, the further exposure, to a critical thinking audience, that the Emperor Has no Clothes the better.

I have no personal problem with RC dating.
Used correctly, it is great.
But what I have a problem with is it’s use as an "unquestionable" result.
There is no such thing.
It is just another tool in the toolbox.

Didn’t someone say “Question Everything”
[size=150][/size]