With respect to the Libby linen date issue, Goranson has gone to considerable effort to convince readers of megillot of a point that would, if correct, materially support the thesis of my paper that the 1st century CE dating of the scroll deposits came about through historically unfounded reasons. Specifically, Goranson is convinced that a 1951 radiocarbon date for Cave 1 linen of 167 BC-233 CE entered into the reasons de Vaux and others in the 1950's dated the scroll deposits to 1st CE as opposed to 1st BCE. Therefore I am keenly interested in any success Goranson might have in proving this point. My request that Goranson furnish documentation on this point rather than assertion was not rhetorical, but motivated from genuine interest. I wrote (June 9): "Goranson claimed de Vaux and other archaeologists believed the Libby linen radiocarbon date of 33 A.D. +/- 200 was an argument supporting moving the deposit date from 1st BCE to 1st CE, or confirming the corrrectness of that shift. I pointed out that because that is an error few if any archaeologists are likely to make, such a claim on Goranson's part calls for documentation rather than assertion. In fact, the 1951 Libby linen radiocarbon date was originally cited as supporting the 1st century BCE deposit date at the time of its publication (Sellers 1951). After the scrolls deposit date was changed to 1st CE for other reasons, the Libby linen date was understood (correctly) as also in good agreement with the 1st CE date, and in support of the 1st CE dating as against a medieval dating." Goranson replied on June 9: "Here then is documentation, Greg, of what you said did not happen with the 33 AD midpoint date of linen with archaeologists. G. Lankester Harding, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 1952 page 105. Harding explains that they found the (really) first century *CE* 'scroll' jar. Then, next paragraph: 'This is interesting confirmation of the accuracy of the date established by submitting some of the linen from the cave to what is known as the Carbon 14 test .... with a central figure of A.D. 33.' It did indeed happen." On June 10 Goranson repeated: "... inaccuracies, omission of evidence, and special pleading, as has been shown ... another example, one that Doudna declared did not happen but did happen. I refer to the documented (PEQ 1952) case in which Harding, not merely any archaeologist, but the co-director of the 1951 dig at Qumran, used the 33 D linen C14 date range midpoint in precisely the manner I claimed and that Doudna denied. A further curiosity about this is that I already provided this information to Doudna on 3 December 2002 on ane list ... I wrote: '... Plus, Harding in PEQ 1952 (uncited [[by Doudna]) ... cited C14 cloth dated to 33AD + or - a lot, giving reason for 1st century dating (unnoticed by GD), 1st c. which Doudna doubts...' ..." I reply: Harding is not saying the Libby radiocarbon date is confirmation of the new 1st CE dating of the scroll deposits. He is saying the reverse. He is saying that the dating of the scroll deposits--which he and de Vaux believed had been established on other grounds (i.e. the locus 2 scroll jar)--is even stronger proof of the accuracy of the new radiocarbon method. Harding is *not* saying--(it would be interesting to me if he were, but he is not, in the quotation cited)--that the radiocarbon date confirms the correctness of the change in the scroll deposit date. Instead, in Harding's view, they now *know* the deposits are 1st CE (for other reasons)--that is not in any question to them. Harding is saying: the now-firmly established [sic] new date for the scroll deposits turns out to be exactly in the middle of the radiocarbon date, even more so than before ... Libby's method is correct. I agree that Harding's point with the Libby linen date is weak in terms of his actual argument. However it is not something I can in good conscience cite as an example of an error in reasoning entering into the formation of the First Revolt deposit date construction, or perceived as corroboration of the correctness of the First Revolt dating by the relevant archaeologists ... because the Harding quote does not exactly say that, and therefore does not provide evidence of that. As an added comment, note that the Libby linen date was not "33 A.D." There was no such radiocarbon date "33 A.D." The radiocarbon date was "33 A.D. +/- 200", which is a BIG difference. Because of the deep persistency of popular misinterpretation of radiocarbon dates reported in terms of calendar year +/-, radiocarbon labs have long since changed over to reporting calibrated radiocarbon dates in terms of ranges rather than single calendar year +/-. It is to avoid exactly this improper focus on the "date in the middle" that this is done. Greg Doudna
_______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
