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

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:k801l3dgb1lf5677qticqbnglg8of9flr0@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:03:30 +0100, "Peter Alaca"
<p.alaca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

--- snip ----

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?

Why are you changing the subject?


I am not changing the subject
I just ask you a question.



The current discussion is about the problems associated with the
radiocarbon dating of the Newport tower.


But why that discussion?
The NT is without problems dated by the exavations.
so there is no need to discuss the problems with
radiocarbon dating it.

If radiocarbon dating could be achieved merely by looking at other
artifacts nobody would go to all the trouble of building AMS
radiocarbon laboratory facilities. Lets deal with one aspect of the
dating of the Newport Tower at a time.

The findngs of the excavations do not need
RC dating.

Discussion of RCD is fine, and of the dating
of mortar is interesting, but not for dating the NT.
The NT wqs object of the method because the
tower was already dated.

--
p.a.


--
p.a.



.

Relevant Pages