 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
wikifying
editI've spent a bit of time 'wikifying' the page - links, formatting. The text needs some formatting in order to be in a more encyclopedic style. I'll try to expand it into sections, using the information you've given. Two things need clarification, in my opinion.
1. Why this is happening with radio carbon dating.
2. "Radiocarbon dates of around 2450 BP (Before Present) always calibrate to ca. 800-400 BC, no matter the measurement precision[1]." This requires further explanation. It's unclear what this actually means. It is clear that is causes inaccurate dating, but not what is actually happening. Nihola (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
This was put onto my talk page, but I thought it more useful to put it here.
My take on your question is this: The article on dating dals with the method and it does mention the problem plateaus pose. If reading that article on its own you think that section needs more explanation, I might try too add some.
The Hallstatt plateau is just one of many, but it is an especially prominent and well known one. While the dating article explains the l9mits of the method, the Hallstatt one deals with the consequences of the lack of dating during those 400 years for archaeology.
Both are separate and both are adequately dealt with as far as I can see. Axel Berger (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
If the 'dating' article you are referring to is Radiocarbon dating, then I did find this, under the calibration section:
"There are also significant plateaus in the curves, such as the one from 11,000 to 10,000 radiocarbon years BP, which is believed to be associated with changing ocean circulation during the Younger Dryas period. Over the historical period from 0 to 10,000 years BP, the average width of the uncertainty of calibrated dates was found to be 335 years, although in well-behaved regions of the calibration curve the width decreased to about 113 years while in ill-behaved regions it increased to a maximum of 801 years. Significantly, in the ill-behaved regions of the calibration curve, increasing the precision of the measurements does not have a significant effect on increasing the accuracy of the dates.[13]"
This doesn't clarify the questions that arise after reading the Halstatt plateau article. Why would changing ocean circulation create this? Why in ill-behaved regions of the calibration curve would increasing precision of the measurements not increase data accuracy? Maybe it's as simple as 'not yet known'.
If we need other pages information to understand the topic, we should make sure it can be easily located.
If something is a 'catastrophe', it should be carefully, simply and clearly explained. If I seem suspicious, it's because the article words this plateau as a catastophe, and yet also states that accurate dates can be attained by wiggle matching. How can it be both a disaster and something that can be solved by another technique? I do think clarification is needed, and I hestitate to work on this page unless it can be shown why this plateau is a 'disaster', or why the people who are being quoted as saying this felt that way. Nihola (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose 'disaster' is a bit of hyperbole, but not by much. It's true that wiggle matching can mitigate the large uncertainty, but wiggle matching needs lots of dates, is a lot of extra work, and to have to do that for every dang sample on your site - even if you can - has disastrous effects on your time and your budget, since you have to collect sufficient samples for the match; at least a dozen for comfortable dating, preferably 30 (the minimum sample size for the central limit theorem to let you get decent normal curve estimates). That's around US$8,000.
- As for the notion that "Maybe it's as simple as 'not yet known'", I've put up a note on the discussion page of Radiocarbon dating which I hope helps you there. The "ill-bahaved regions" warp the normally-distributed counting statistics for a given carbon date so that on the real axis of time before present, the distribution isn't normal. (Calibration Stochastic Distortion). In other words, it's not that people can't explain why it happens, it's just that it's quite technical. --Sdoradus (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- This looks like a subtle debate among experts on carbon dating that has been expanded by a few scholars to challenge Mediterranean chronology. See, for example, David Down, "Searching for Moses," TJ (now Journal of Creation) 15 (2001):53–57.
- There are other points of view that need presentation. A good place to start would be Sturt W. Manning and Bernhard Weninger, "A light in the dark: archaeological wiggle matching and the absolute chronology of the close of the Aegean Late Bronze Age," Antiquity, 66 (1992): 636–663.
- Maybe. I'd prefer to think the supplied reference to a paper by Van der Plicht covers the important stuff. For example on page 55:
" A representative result is 2460 ± 15 BP, exactly on the Hallstatt plateau. Calibration of such a date, whether measured with high precision or not, will always result in a calibrated age range between 760 and 400 calBC, almost 4 centuries long – see Fig.3 " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdoradus (talk • contribs) 13:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)