17-05-2021, 08:14 PM
(17-05-2021, 05:37 PM)proto57 wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well we can go back and forth on this, but it is part of the record. The idea that the "best guess" was 1460-1470, and therefore the C14 dating was close, came some time after the original impression... which was that the dating was way off the majority opinion, i.e., that the C14 results were counter to the popular expert opinions, not in agreement with them.
This issue is to me very, very, important. It is one of the difference between a manuscript whose contact matches the dating, and one which does not.
It doesn't really matter very much, but I very distinctly remember telling Greg Hodgins, in January 2009, when preparations were made for taking the samples, that the best guess at the time was 1460-1470. He made a presentation about the technique and how the results would be computed, and indicated from his side, that this time frame would be rather unfortunate, because it would not allow a very precise dating, due to the flat calibration curve. Expectations for the results were therefore rather moderate.
Of course, when the result became available, and turned out to be unexpectedly accurate, this was a minor sensation.
The news blurbs were exaggerating this to a point. That's how it works in the media.
"Older than anyone expected" was the term, and it was clearly contradictory to the original Roger Bacon claim.