Accuracy of carbon dating
This does not mean that recalibration is bad, indeed it is necessary, but it should make one more soberly assess any reported dates as being tentative.
The problem is that most people reporting on these issues fail to report the initial number along with the calibrated date. The Jericho controversy is soundly rooted in C-14 calibration.
I understand calibration might have something to do with this, but then in the article it says in italicized words that the uncalibrated date “Must Always Be Mentioned”. CMI’s Dr Rob Carter responds: Anthony, As a fan of biblical archaeology, I was asked to address your question.
But when I read articles about the results, they never mention the uncalibrated data, which could actually be correct. I am not an expert in every subject that impinges on the discussion, but I will do my best.
You probably have seen or read news stories about fascinating ancient artifacts.
At an archaeological dig, a piece of wooden tool is unearthed and the archaeologist finds it to be 5,000 years old.
I read the scientific article on the carbon dating done on the Jericho site written by Bruins and Van Der Plicht.
When I did the math from their results section of the YBP, they all turned out to be right around the year 1400 .
Among these were samples from other sites around the Dead Sea, which contained date indications within the text to supply a control for the carbon dating results.The following table shows all the Qumran-related samples that were tested by Zurich (Z), Tucson (T) and Libby (L).The column headed "14C Age" provides a raw age before 1950 for each sample tested. Furthermore, the ratio is known to fluctuate significantly over relatively short periods of time (e.g. Unfortunately the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 has yet to reach a state of equilibrium in our atmosphere; there is more carbon-14 in the air today than there was thousands of years ago.
Examples: For all of these, and more, reasons, calibration is needed in C-14 dating.