🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr8.193655.27457@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr08.173630.1785@watson.ibm.com> platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt) writes:
|> >In article <1992Apr8.161532.24698@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
|> >The concentrations have not been ~ constant over time.
|> >
|> >See some of Colin Renfrew's work...  You'd find it interesting...
|> It was my impression that they had been constant to within say 50%,
|> which was all I meant to suggest.

50%?  Wow!  That's essentially 1 half-life... or around 8,000 years...

In any case, people really needed to be able to tell whether technology
developed in parallel and independently, or whether it had occured by
diffusion.  Even a few hundred years makes a difference with respect to
that question.  Given such wide fluctuations, it is common for some
older artifacts to date younger than young artifacts on the simple
assumption of radiocarbon content...

Dan