If the C14 dating of the early quranic fragments IS wrong, it's not obvious how - the protocols are excellent. It's all very puzzling...
@holland_tom Ah, I see. Well w/ two frags+retest, sounds v interesting! Just thought I'd ask, as know single samples can b v odd on own! :)
-
-
@caitlinrgreen@holland_tom everything I've seen published re Sanaa is 650-670 -
@DorothyKing@caitlinrgreen 2 fragments have been C14 dated: one to 543-643, the other to 433-599. -
@holland_tom@caitlinrgreen whilst the third test - there were 3 not 2 - said 578-671 -
@DorothyKing@caitlinrgreen Yes, but that was in Arizona. The previous two were in the same Lyon lab. -
@holland_tom maybe@caitlinrgreen would prefer to read it herself http://www.scribd.com/doc/130854520/The-codex-of-a-companion-of-the-Prophet-SAW-Benham-Sadeghi-Bergmann#scribd … -
@DorothyKing@caitlinrgreen The French scholar who commissioned the Lyon tests is Christian Robin, should you wish to cross-check. -
@holland_tom@caitlinrgreen you have your agenda, I am quite happy to accept a post Mohammed date. -
@DorothyKing@caitlinrgreen I don't have an agenda. I think the C14 dating is most likely wrong, & accepted it as such when I wrote ITSOTS.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@caitlinrgreen@holland_tom one should check labs too, though as there are a couple which always seem to have controversial resultsThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.