posted on May, 28 2009 @ 01:01 PM
As Kandinski said, it's always good to have another dating method.
Re the other two posts, exactly what "ooparts" (or "controverasial items")are you talking about?
There is no such thing as an "oopart" anyway, but even if there were, how would an artifact be classified as an "oopart" if there was no good date
for it in the first place?
There would be no way to tell if it was "out of place," would there?
Please note that the article states that they "hope" to extend this method's range back to 10,000 years. Radiocarbon dating is good to better than
five times that long.
10,000 years ain't squat, really.
The fact is, this method will be extremely useful in establishing with greater precision the dates of sites which have been previously dated by the
pattern or style of ceramics found there. Pottery types were in the past used to date sites when no other method was available, and the
study of pottery types has a long and distinguished history. Such great care has been taken in this study that it actually allows for dating a site
by it's pottery.
If this method is correct to within a decade or so, it has the potential for making these previously known dates more precise.
Also, for pottery found that is a unique style not seen elsewhere, this method will help.
But the method, even if extended to 10,000 YBP, still cannot even be used to date the oldest pottery we know of. Google the Jomon Culture to see what