Posted by Tom Cole on June 27, 1999 at 10:18:09:
In Reply to: Re: Comments on discussion posted by Steve Price on June 27, 1999 at 04:52:36:
: Dear Randy,
: I think the reason so much attention is being paid to C-14 dating is that it is "breaking news". The Basel conference on the subject is recent, and many believe that our thinking about the ages and aesthetics of Turkmen rugs is undergoing a revolution based on the C-14 results. That revolution, of course, is based on the belief that C-14 dating of Turkmen rugs is reliable. There are enough sources of error to make this, at the least, an unsettled question, even if 95% confidence limits of more than 300 years bother you less than they do me.
: I'd love to see some discussion of dating things besides Turkmen, and have tried to outline the conventional ways of doing this in hopes of drawing some out.
Regarding dating other rugs thru C-14. In my Baluch article in HALI 97, there is pictured a fragment of a main rug, a blue ground Taimuri piece exhibiting a design more often associated with 18th century garden carpets from NW Persia.
This fragment was dated thru C-14 to the 13-14th century. Do I believe that date? Of course not. Does anyone else believe that date? I doubt it. It just highlights the fallacy of "believing" C-14 without taking into account the multi-factorial process which leads to substantive rather than wishful dating.
Post a Followup