So they tested some of the ring sequences by C14 to put the sequences in the 'right' order.Once they did that they developed the overall sequence.
The lecturer talked at length about how inaccurate C14 Dating is (as 'corrected' by dendrochronology).The methodology is quite accurate, but dendrochronology supposedly shows that the C14 dates go off because of changes in the equilibrium over time, and that the older the dates the larger the error.If you have any more questions about it don't hesitate to write.(2.) I just listened to a series of lectures on archaeology put out by John Hopkins Univ.(They conveniently forget to mention that the tree ring chronology was arranged by C14 dating.
The scientists who were trying to build the chronology found the tree rings so ambiguous that they could not decide which rings matched which (using the bristlecone pine).We believe all the dates over 5,000 years are really compressible into the next 2,000 years back to creation.So when you hear of a date of 30,000 years for a carbon date we believe it to be early after creation and only about 7,000 years old.Despite this she continually uses the c14 dates to create 'absolute' chronologies.She says this is ok so long as you take into account the correction factors from dendrochronology.And this big sequence is then used to 'correct' C14 dates. (3.) Even if the rate of decay is constant, without a knowledge of the exact ratio of C12 to C14 in the initial sample, the dating technique is still subject to question.