Dating Archeology Finds

There IS now reliable dating method anywhere!

dating of relatively young stuff is done by overlapping several methods and seeing how closely they agree.
C14, C14/C13, Cl36, alpha trcking, tree rings cross plots, thermo (flouresence and luminescence), K/Ar dating of surrounding ash deposits (if any). Pollen counting, lake deposits, speciation of snails nd insect prts.Human caused emvironmental effects like pottery dating or erosion of artifacts
.Ive only given a small number of the total list of methods. While its true that several methods are only relative and even quantitative methods have an error bar for all these methods. The errors aren't very big, maybe 0.01 to 0.1% that's why they always report a (plus or minus date)

Those bove re only physical and chemical methods in use. The real archeological work that's usually leading the investigation rely havily upon techniques that relate context of things uncovered with the apparent civilizational extent that the site describes. In other words, what's the context of , say, pottery shards with food stuff found. What are the biological evidences of types of foods and grains were the inhabitants enjoying. Were there evidences of some unique stratigraphy around and through the site that correlates with evidence of irrigation, farming etc.
Was there evidence ofmetallurgy and what kind? Are there any signs of weapons and what kind/

Weve lft all kinds of tracks in our populating the various geographical areas that wed chosen.

Many of these anthropological and historical techniques are relative wrt to advances that we sorta undertand to have occurred at certain times.

We haven't even considered looking at any human remains that are deposited in the site area. There are a wealth of evidence that these remains yield. We used to have 2 practicing archeologists who were researching near east civilizations . I think the various trolls that crap all over these sites just turned the archeologists off and they decided to leave A2K.

The most reliable dating method now is to tell the young lady you are not Quehoniaomath. It should help alleviate many fears she may have about dating you. Well there is no guarantee that this dating method always works. It works much better than being Quehoniaomath ever did.

Just the same old Ad Hominem again.

Why not given a 'reliable' dating method? Of course! You can't!

There IS NONE!

Don't BELIEVE what the people here write! Including mine!
(why don't the others write this?)

Think it out for yourself!

I don't believe what you write Q.

Did you believe what I wrote about a reliable dating method? Clearly you must have if you thought it an ad hominem.

I don't care if you believe it or not,

The only thing to do is to research it.

Those methods are FULL with WRONG assumptions, it is unbelievable!

Elucidate ONE.

Don't worry about the one we call Quahog. He is an ignorant fool who makes believe he lives in the 16th century. He also tries to sound like he knows of what he speaks and he is a total moron about anything involving study and understanding. The methods of age dating I listed are all valid ND USED DAILY BY ARCHEOLOGISTS AND MANY OTHER SCIENTISTS THAT DO FIELD WORK.

If your religion doesn't teach understanding of science and doesnt accept such dating techniques, please read a series of papers entitled "RADIOMETRIC DATING a Christian Perspective "(2002). Its a really good and readable piece of work for the layman

FM doesn't understand one yota of what I write, so he uses Ad Hominems indiscrminately.
As you can seem he DIRECTS your attention to authors he TRUST and agree with!

That is NOT what I am doing. Research ALL and I think you will come to the conclusion it is all extremely unreliable.
But don't take my word for it.

I also wrote not to trust me, but do your research,

Farmerkid, is trying to direct you so you will enjoy his religion!

I don't care how much you research it, because the truth doesn't have to be defended and will reveal itself to you after your research.

I am sorry FM doesn't understand this.

Quahog cn still not present ONE piece of data that refutes all the points I mentioned

so he likes to shoot at the messenger instead
I love how Quahog tells veryone to study up. I presented jut a pssle of things to study and he, ignorantly, dismisses them without any understanding.

Its easy to deny nd lie. BUT, like Quahog, you alays get caught after you cant present any evidence of your beliefs.


He s a silly little budgie.

I would never date an archaeology find. I have enough trouble getting women my age to go out with me.

On one hand you tell me to not believe what you write and on the other hand you get upset when I don't believe what you write.

I'm guessing you don't have a reliable dating method for either hand.

I am not upset, mate! And if I was it will never be because I am not believed.
It will be because of other reasons, like dishonesty etc.

Most people here are extremely dishonest and don't dare to look at all the evidence.


And no, there is NO reliable dating method to be find.

You really have no clue, no clue whatsoever.

Not sure if you're interested in watching a lecture about it, but there's a Youtube series on it. Here's the first:

So not only don't you reliably date but you can't get a reliable date from either hand?

She's from Brown. I couldn't expect better than if she were from Penn.
Im looking for the entire series , seems like a good learning tool.

At the end of that part, the link to part 2 appears in the upper left corner. Or you can click on "Youtube" at the bottom right go straight to the Youtube page that leads to all the links.

I saw. Its rather a good handling of the entire topic from an archeological utilitarian POV.
I downloaded it and stashed it in a "topics" file.
Thank for bringing it to our attention.