Why I think radiocarbon dating beats dendrochronology every time

I had two sites near Rome, Italy where I needed to date wooden artifacts. One team used tree ring dating, the other sent samples for radiocarbon. The dendro guys hit a wall after 300 years because the wood didn't match any known patterns. Radiocarbon gave me dates back to 800 BC with a 40 year margin. Has anyone else had better luck with one method over the other on tricky sites?

4 comments

4 Comments

taylor9571d ago

Pretty sure the Bayesian analysis would just tell me what I already know - I need more money and fewer bad samples." That hits too close to home. It's like how every time I try to fix a computer issue, the solution is always "buy a new one" even when you know the old one just has a loose cable. Sometimes the fanciest tools just end up confirming what you already figured out the hard way.

fiona_hunt711d ago

Try radiocarbon again with Bayesian stats to tighten that error range.

thea6021d ago

Ugh, right because running expensive radiocarbon dates multiple times is totally in everyone's budget! Bayesian stats are great and all if you have a spare grand and a month of free time to learn the software. Meanwhile my last charcoal sample came back with a 500-year error bar and I'm over here trying to figure out if it's from the Roman period or when my ancestors were still using flint. Pretty sure the Bayesian analysis would just tell me what I already know - I need more money and fewer bad samples.

-1

emma_garcia1d ago

Wait, hold on. A 500-year error bar on a charcoal sample? That's wild. I mean, I knew radiocarbon could be a nightmare but 500 years? That's like saying "this might be from the time of Jesus or maybe it's from the Viking age." I can't believe they even gave you a date with that kind of spread. Honestly, I'd be questioning if the lab did their job right or if your sample got mixed up with something else. Makes you wonder if the whole "science" is just a guessing game sometimes, right?