Re: Problems with the radio carbon dating of the Newport Tower

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:8lpuk3dku0627ujpmp3vvgr5vri4ff43tu@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:37:16 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
<jacklinthicum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 29, 5:07 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:02:51 GMT, "Digger" <p.du...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>I've not really been following this debate but I can't help >commenting on
>this. What on earth makes them think they can carbon date a >building?? This
>is possibly one of the most inappropriate applications of carbon >dating I
>have ever read about.

It's possible to use radiocarbon methods to determine the date ate
which the mortar used in the building set. The theory is explained in
the article. A problem is that the date at which the mortar set can be
some considerable time after the mortar was mixed, depending on how
deep inside the building the mortar is placed.

Eric Stevens

More correctly you are dating the piece of mortar that you have
selected. Is there an examination of the material to determine if it
is part of the original construction, later mortar applied to a "dry"
built tower or even an attempt from the 19th or 20th centuries to
"repair" the mortar, by pointing.

This is another problem with the H&J dating of the Newport Tower. They
did not seem to be aware that Godfrey had identified three different
batches of mortar in the construction of the tower.


The archaeological excavations aroud the NT
revealed nothing older than the 17th century.
Why is that a problem for you?

--
p.a.

.