Re: orion-list Radiocarbon datings
I'm just curious after reading the message below, what would be considered kosher in the preparation of the scrolls and what would not be, and if that would help this discussion. Just a thought, Barb Leger David C. Hindley wrote: Geoff Hudson asks: Is there any possibility that 'old' carbon was in the food chain of animals reared in the Dead Sea area, and whose skins were used for the Scrolls? From, perhaps, the eating pitch or asphalt that had risen to the surface of the Dead Sea? I've never heard of sheep or goats doing this, but it is a distinct possibility. In the past I have been amazed at the kind of things reindeer eat on occasion (amanita muscaria mushrooms and urine tainted snow), so eating pitch, etc., is not impossible. However, I do know that ingestion of even small amounts of distilled petroleum products, including naphthalene, can be deadly, so I wonder if this could have occurred to any great degree. Another possibility might be petroleum products (naphthalene?) that were used in the preparation of parchment. The medieval process using quicklime to remove the hair and soften the hide was known from about the 4th century, I understand, but it is not certain what was done prior to this, especially to soften the skins. The process of hide tanning used by native American Indians included using oil (although it was an oil of animal origin) to soften the skin, along with salt to dehair it. Respectfully, Dave Hindley Cleveland, Ohio, USA For private reply, e-mail to Barbara Leger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILER BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
RE: orion-list Radiocarbon datings
Is there any possibility that 'old' carbon was in the food chain of animals reared in the Dead Sea area, and whose skins were used for the Scrolls? Geoff Hudson For private reply, e-mail to Geoff Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILER BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
RE: orion-list Radiocarbon datings
Geoff Hudson asks: Is there any possibility that 'old' carbon was in the food chain of animals reared in the Dead Sea area, and whose skins were used for the Scrolls? From, perhaps, the eating pitch or asphalt that had risen to the surface of the Dead Sea? I've never heard of sheep or goats doing this, but it is a distinct possibility. In the past I have been amazed at the kind of things reindeer eat on occasion (amanita muscaria mushrooms and urine tainted snow), so eating pitch, etc., is not impossible. However, I do know that ingestion of even small amounts of distilled petroleum products, including naphthalene, can be deadly, so I wonder if this could have occurred to any great degree. Another possibility might be petroleum products (naphthalene?) that were used in the preparation of parchment. The medieval process using quicklime to remove the hair and soften the hide was known from about the 4th century, I understand, but it is not certain what was done prior to this, especially to soften the skins. The process of hide tanning used by native American Indians included using oil (although it was an oil of animal origin) to soften the skin, along with salt to dehair it. Respectfully, Dave Hindley Cleveland, Ohio, USA For private reply, e-mail to David C. Hindley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILER BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
RE: orion-list Radiocarbon datings
Having been involved in raising goats for show, I find it extremely unlikely that such animals would have ingested pitch or asphalt. Goats browse, but on wood products, including tree bark, leaves of shrubs, grass, etc. David Suter Saint Martin's College -Original Message- From: David C. Hindley To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11/10/01 8:31 AM Subject: RE: orion-list Radiocarbon datings Geoff Hudson asks: Is there any possibility that 'old' carbon was in the food chain of animals reared in the Dead Sea area, and whose skins were used for the Scrolls? From, perhaps, the eating pitch or asphalt that had risen to the surface of the Dead Sea? I've never heard of sheep or goats doing this, but it is a distinct possibility. In the past I have been amazed at the kind of things reindeer eat on occasion (amanita muscaria mushrooms and urine tainted snow), so eating pitch, etc., is not impossible. However, I do know that ingestion of even small amounts of distilled petroleum products, including naphthalene, can be deadly, so I wonder if this could have occurred to any great degree. Another possibility might be petroleum products (naphthalene?) that were used in the preparation of parchment. The medieval process using quicklime to remove the hair and soften the hide was known from about the 4th century, I understand, but it is not certain what was done prior to this, especially to soften the skins. The process of hide tanning used by native American Indians included using oil (although it was an oil of animal origin) to soften the skin, along with salt to dehair it. Respectfully, Dave Hindley Cleveland, Ohio, USA For private reply, e-mail to Suter, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILER BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Radiocarbon datings and DNA
Greg Doudna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marco Rotman wrote on Oct. 22, 2001: Having followed the discussion so far, it seems to me that Radiocarbon datings are useless for dating DSS-fragments (esp. when coming from cave 4) due to the fact that it is unknown if (and if so, how much) castor oil is used on the fragment. 1) Is this conclusion correct? 2) Would DNA-research lead to more reliable conclusions regarding the date of a given manuscript? Or are there similar problems here? What exists now falls a little short of the objective of reliable 14C datings for individual Qumran texts. Yet this statement requires qualification and explanation. In all likelihood most of the existing 14C datings on Qumran texts are accurate as reported. The problem is that right now it is what I liken to a Russian roulette situation--there may be a few dates affected by contamination among the 19 Qumran texts dated in the Zurich and Tucson series, and our problem is we don't know for sure which, or how many. 'Useless' is too strong, however. First, it may be that most of the existing datings will be checked and verified at some point as having been done on uncontaminated samples, and thus the existing datings which are accurate can be distinguished from the existing datings for which there may be known problems. (rest of useful discussion snipped for brevity) Greg, since the castor oil was used to enhance the readability of _inscriptions_, it seems unlikely to me that the problem is as severe as postulated in the worst case study. Surely the specimens used for destructive carbon 14 testing were taken from blank margins, not the actual inscriptions. Of course, if the specimen were thoroughly saturated, the oil could have migrated to the margins also--but probably at much lower concentrations. Robert D. Leonard Jr. Winnetka, Illinois U.S.A. For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILER BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Radiocarbon datings of Qumran texts
Dear Greg, I agree improved methods are always desirable. However, you should caution the reader as follows: 1. You set up a straw man that castor oil is a problem, perhaps it is. 2. the tests done in Copenhagen were done on medieval parchments and not any DSS samples, and 3. the castor-oil effect was studied for the maximum contamination (perhaps excessively...?) - a small amount used in the '50s might have little effect. 4. the conclusion that the pretreatment could not have removed all of the oil first of all assumes that the samples were all treated with castor oil, and that this treatment affected the age. There is no proof this is the case, although I agree one cannot exclude it completely. 5. the fact that most of the samples gave the expected age tends to argue against the entire argument - do you propose all of the samples are 300 yr too young and the oldest DSS are really 400-450 BC? I would also note that the paper of Jull et al discusses treatments with acetone. One could easily do addition studies with more complex solvent extractions (as I believe Rasmussen et al recommend). Tim Jull University of Arizona Greg Doudna wrote: Conclusion: 'Our experiments demonstrate that the AAA-treatment used in the Zurich and Arizona 14C series could not have removed all oil, whether fossil or modern, possibly introduced into the DSS fragments. 'Lest the implications for Scroll studies be overlooked, this conclusion implies that the two series of 14C datings of the DSS that have been conducted up to the present (Bonani et al. 1992 and Jull et al. 1995) cannot be guaranteed to have removed all of the modern carbon present in any samples if they had been contaminated with castor oil and hence could have produced some 14C dates that were younger than the texts' true ages. 'It is therefore necessary to devise a revised procedure capable of removing all castor oil in order to enable individual Qumran text 14C datings to be relied upon with confidence. It remains to be seen whether a similar conclusion applies to DSS samples that have been treated with British Museum Leather Dressing.' end conclusion (Comment [not in the published article]: In the body of the article, the data based on testing of medieval parchment samples intentionally contaminated and then cleaned and dated, compared to identical control samples uncontaminated and dated, show the maximum possible effect of castor oil contamination on a Qumran fragment--if totally saturated--would be c. 300 years erroneously young. The actual extent of contamination--in cases where this was a factor--much more likely be only a fraction of total saturation, and after the AAA cleaning done by Zurich and Tucson, would give dates erroneously offset toward modern by much less than 300 years. Since the extent of castor oil contamination in any given case cannot be known, there is no means to calculate a specific offset, apart from the calculated upper limit that will not exceed 300 years error. It must be emphasized that there is at present neither evidence that castor oil was present on any of the Qumran text samples that were dated, nor evidence that castor oil was not present on any of the Qumran text samples that were dated. All we know is that there was use of castor oil on fragments in the Rockefeller Museum in the early days and, in light of the data reported here, we have a problem that needs solving.--GD) Greg Doudna For private reply, e-mail to A. J. T. Jull [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILER BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
