Dates could be assigned based upon scientific evidence rather than on the inconsistent mathematics, historical comparisons and simulated typologies of artifacts that had previously regulated time.

The most well known and oft used form of radiometric dating is radiocarbon dating. It has helped define the ages of man in ways never thought possible and led the way for a vanguard of scientific techniques that have further defined time for humanity and beyond.

However, a number of things can easily go wrong during this stage of the process and the labs that calculate radiocarbon dates are subject to constant scrutiny to ensure that they are up to par; but even so, samples sent to different labs often produce slightly various results. These are established by a variety of elements, including but not limited to: the quality of the sample, the quality of the lab, and the age of the sample.

It is when a sample is measured that the real complications begin: as the process to assign a meaningful date to the scientific chronology is rather erudite. dates (raw dates that are calibrated to the same calendar system are written without capital letters as b.c./ a.d. Younger samples have a larger margin of error than older samples.

But radiocarbon dating tries its best; and can often serve as a base for additional scientific techniques which can clarify results further.

It is a vital part in the investigation and preservation of our past and a lovely bit of analysis to compliment digital records of monuments.

Chances are, right now, you have a Gregorian calendar stuck to your wall.

This calendar, with the months January through December, is a business standard used in many places round the world to define the year: one which hearkens back to Christian and Roman Imperial precedents.

For periods without a historic record, attempts have been made to categorize tool kits, pottery styles, and architectural forms into regional timelines.

Some ill-fated attempts to define time even attempted to count backwards through the genealogies of the Bible, establishing a series of dates which remain a cause of confusion.

At the beginning of the process, it is important to remember that only certain materials can be tested using carbon dating, i.e. Sites like Stonehenge, Chichén Itzá, and Rapa Nui, where the focus is on large stone monuments, cannot be dated unless corroborating evidence can be found to assign a possible date.

Such was the case at these three sites, where wooden and pollen elements could be dated, providing a speculative chronology for the sites as a whole, but even these are subject to error and constant scrutiny by the academic community.

With all the technical terms and mathematical physics equations taken out, carbon dating sounds pretty easy right?