Talk:Before Present

Glottochronology and similar

I've been looking at some papers on the phylogeny, age, and spread of major language families, and I've noticed that most of them use dates given in B.P. More specifically, of: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0005 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1817972116 https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.0695 and Geoff Nicholls, Robin Ryder. Phylogenetic Models for Semitic Vocabulary. 2011. ffhal-00641450 ​https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00641450 (Apparently preprints don't have DOIs.), only in the 3rd could I not find "BP" used to refer both to dates of known texts and archaelogical evidence, and to dates the models predicted based on the amount of change languages apparently underwent. Also, and least in the first paper, it was clear from the page called 226 (35/53 on the pdf, in §7.1) that "BP" meant approximate years before 2000 CE or perhaps the time of writing (2015 CE), not time before 1 January 1950 CE.DubleH (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC) This would go along with the first sentence under "Usage": "The BP scale is sometimes used for dates established by means other than radiocarbon dating, such as stratigraphy.[4][5]" DubleH (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. Most of these parochial scientists think its clear by itself that the computations start with the attestation of their test vocabulary, thus mostly shortly after AD 2000. Moreover, regarding the huge scatters involved, 50 years do not make significant differences.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:7127:2BCA:7529:7DB7 (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Resuming the discussion about BP, Radiocarbon years, and BCE

I'm not a scientist, just someone who is interested in pre-history in the Americas. There's a lot of confusion and contradictions in Wikipedia articles dating pre-historic human activities in the Americas. For example, in the scholarly and popular literature and in Wikipedia articles, I found three different -- and often contradictory -- dating systems used for the Folsom tradition and related articles: first, radiocarbon years (or uncalibrated radiocarbon years) which date the Folsom tradition between 11,000 and 10,000 years ago; second, more recent and presumably more accurate calibrated radiocarbon years which date Folsom from 13,000 to 12,000 years ago; and third, Before Present (BP) which cites either of the two ranges of dates. BP will also become more inaccurate with time if one doesn't know (and most don't) that BP doesn't mean "before present" but before 1950.

One example of why trying to get dating right is important is the transition of the Clovis culture (mammoth hunting) to the Folsom tradition (bison hunting) and the ongoing controversy about the role of humans in the extinction of many species of megafauna in the Americas. Was the extinction due to human hunting or climate change or something else? Did mammoths become extinct at the same time as the end of mammoth hunting by the Clovis people or a thousand years earlier or later? Did the Clovis people hunt the mammoth to extinction? Accurate dating is crucial to answering that question.

Moreover, for the average reader the different dates in Wikipedia articles for prehistoric events are confusing. All three dating systems -- radiocarbon years, calibrated radiocarbon years, and BP -- are cited and "reliable sources" exist for all.

If my understanding of the issue of three dating systems is correct, I would advocate that BCE (or BC) based on calibrated radiocarbon dates be the preferred usage in Wikipedia articles rather than BP or uncalibrated radiocarbon dating. BCE is more familiar to the reader and avoids the now mostly minor but increasing inaccuracy of BP. Smallchief (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the right place to discuss this, though I agree it's worth discussing. FWIW I've previously tried to summarise the current rough consensus at User:Joe Roe/Archaeology conventions#Dating and chronology with a view to eventually turning it into a guideline.

That's a very useful summary of issues and practices which I will keep on my watchlist. Thanks. Smallchief (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it's just because I work with this on a day to day basis, but I don't find (calibrated) BP to be particularly technical or confusing. It's essentially just a scientific way of saying "years ago", which I think is the way most people intuitively think about the distant past. And given that prehistory is usually narrated in steps of a 1000 years (at best), it'll be a long time before the discrepancy between BP's Present and the actual present makes a significant difference. – Joe (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Joe Roe I think any guideline should start with a discussion of calibrated and uncalibrated dates. Editors need to understand that before they can decide how to use them.

And maybe mention other dating methods and how to handle them? Should we ever convert dendro dates to BP? I don't think we should. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

CETERUM CENSEO

ceterum censeo ... that - the "present" ever meant and still means "today" and not 1950, - which latter, in case of radiocarbon dating, might be named "BL" in honour of Libby, otherwise "BFN" (Before Nineteen-Fifty), similar to "b2k" in icecore datigs, - consequently, those "intelligent" "scientists" would live today in the year 60 AP (after present)! In addition, and usually in the same papers, the time scales - if only for better comparability - must run chronologically from left to right, i.e. from the older to the more recent data (unfortunately, too many people seem to be completely incapable of using their plotting programs correctly). Further: Please note that neither ky nor kya are allowed SI-units of time. The only correct ones are "a" for year, or "ka" for thousand years. Please refer to "Unified code for Units of Measure at http://unitsofmeasure.org.HJJHolm (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect ("Radiocarbon dating") date

As of the current revision of the article ("Before_Present"), the first sentence in the section "Before Present#Radiocarbon dating" says:

Radiocarbon dating was first used in 1940.

That does not seem to be correct. For one reason, the article about "Radiocarbon dating" -- (which that sentence itself contains a link to, and seems to rely upon) -- says (in the first sentence of its second paragraph)

The method was developed in the late 1940s at the University of Chicago by Willard Libby.

For another reason, the article about "Willard Libby" says, in its FIRST sentence, that

Willard Frank Libby (December 17, 1908 – September 8, 1980) was an American physical chemist noted for his role in the 1949 development of radiocarbon dating, a process which revolutionized archaeology and palaeontology.

It seems obvious to me that something (radiocarbon dating) which did not exist until its "1949 development", did not get used in 1940.

Perhaps it was a TYPO? Maybe it should have said "1950" -- ? --

Any advice or other comments? Thanks, from Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

1940 is clearly wrong. But what is the correct answer? 1949? 1950? 1950s? No citation for first use is given. So you just volunteered to find the citation! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

It was 1949. I've corrected the date and added citations, taken from the radiocarbon dating article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you ... e.g. for this prompt [and helpful] response:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Before_Present&diff=1164473263&oldid=1164183773

Resolved

 – case closed

--Mike Schwartz (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Link to egocentrism

This article should link to the page egocentrism as the likely cause for the appearance of this time scale. Should we create a dedicated section on the causes, or put it near the beginning of the article? 2A01:CB08:5F:8700:329C:23FF:FEA2:DF4F (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source to do this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)