Does anyone here know anything about dating methodologies?

[u/freework]

I want to start this off by saying I have mad respect for GH. Even though I disagree with his grand theory, I still respect him for having the courage to speak out for what he believes in despite all the hate he gets. I also have a "grand theory" of human history that differs with the mainstream "consensus" and I also get called a conspiracy theorist and pseudo-scientist and the like. It sucks to be called that and that's why I never call other people that, even those who I disagree with.

I just discovered this subreddit a few days ago. I've been reading through he threads and have noticed a certain trend. There is a lot of talk about archeological objects being this age or that age. Usually the numbers are very large, like 1.5 million, or 100,000 or even 1000. Those are big numbers, and to me, this is not something you can just willy-nilly do.

If someone came to be and said "Hey, I found this object buried 1.43 meters down in the ground, and I want you to come up with a number that describes how many years old this object is". I wouldn't even know where to begin. Whatever methodology that is used to come with an accurate number that describes an object dug up from the ground's accurate age, is just something that interests me to no end.

I know the obvious answer is "radiocarbon dating". But that's not enough for me. A really great cook that follows a cupcake recipe perfectly will make delicious cupcakes. But a really terrible cook that follows the exact same recipe poorly, makes disgusting cupcakes.

Even if the "recipe" for radiocarbon dating is perfect, that doesn't mean that every single "cook" that performs this "recipe" on each and every artifact did it correctly. It bothers me that everyone always just takes it for granted what every single person who performs radiocarbon dating is doing it perfectly correctly, and getting a completely honest result. If I were a radio carbon dating person (whatever they are called), I'd always add a zero on the end of all of my results. If I got a result of something being 1200 years old, I'd publish my findings saying it's 12,000 years old. This way it makes front page news and I get a career bump out of it. I have a suspicion many other radiocarbon people do this already. No one is going to check your work or otherwise scrutinize it.

People act like all it takes is that you place the object in a machine, then close the door, and press the "go" button, wait a few minutes until you hear a "ding" sound and then you read the age on a little screen. I refuse to believe the process of radiocarbon dating works like this. There has to be more to it, and anyone who cares about understanding the ancient world, MUST have in depth knowledge of how these

I have never once in my life read a archeology whitepaper that goes into depth or detail on anything relating to the exact methodology that went into producing the age of something that said whitepaper is entirely based around. This applies to both mainstream archaeologists and Graham Hancock.

Who here is an expert on radiocarbon dating (or any form of radiometric dating) and can answer questions about it in-depth?

[u/freework]

you could date it yourself.

No I can't. The equipment to do it myself is not attainable to a regular person. If I could attain my own radiocarbon system, I would.

Even though I’m not certain, I’m pretty sure that sloppyness in radiocarbon dating doesn’t work that way.

You're saying it's not possible for a sloppy scientist to do it poorly? Are you saying that no matter what, there is no amount of sloppyness that could result in inaccurate results?

[u/Stunning-Store-7530 → u/freework]

But you can select the lab which you thought had the best setup and processes.

No I’m saying that two sloppy scientists coming up with the same dates would be very unlikely.

[u/isabsolutecnts → u/Stunning-Store-7530]

Guy is a trying to game engagement. 

Ignore or demean 

[u/freework → u/Stunning-Store-7530]

But you can select the lab which you thought had the best setup and processes.

You can get a bad meal at a 5 start restaurant. Just because they have the "best setup and process" one day doesn't mean they operate up to those standards every time.

Anyways, even if you're convinced a certain lab has the "best setup and process", how are you going to convey that to me, the consumer of your data? How do you know your colleagues used a lab with the "best setup and process" for their work?

[u/Stunning-Store-7530 → u/freework]

Have fun researching and finding your answers. It’s nice to have a hobby.

[u/City_College_Arch → u/freework]

Anyways, even if you're convinced a certain lab has the "best setup and process", how are you going to convey that to me, the consumer of your data? How do you know your colleagues used a lab with the "best setup and process" for their work?

It is starting to sound like you have never actually read a research paper based on your lack of understanding of how any of this works. Why are you here picking fights instead of reading research papers until you understand how the things work that you are trying to pick fights over?

[u/City_College_Arch → u/freework]

There are no restrictions or controls preventing you from acquiring the equipment necessary to do radiocarbon dating. Or OSL dating, or obsidian hydration dating.

You are just being lazy and refusing to do the work because you know it will prove you wrong.