Re: Dating "Old Swedes"



IEJ wrote:
>
> "Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@xxxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
> news:42E047EC.7B4B383E@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > Tom McDonald wrote:
> > >
> > > Eric Stevens wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 02:23:03 GMT, Philip Deitiker
> > > > <Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[..]

> > > > See
> > > > http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3712/is_200203/ai_n9066397
> > > >
> > > > A carbon reservoir effect exists even in lake water. See
> > > > http://www.the-conference.com/2003/Gold2003/abstracts/A328.pdf
> > >
> > > I think that the problem of 'old shell' is potentially greater
> > > than the 'well known reservoir effect,' for the very reason that
> > > the reservoir effect is well-known. IIRC, when shell is used for
> > > dating, it can only be useful if there is a calibration curve
> > > available for that specific area and environment.
> > >
> > > From the bit Phil posted, it sounds like the authors were able
> > > to make reasonable corrections to, let's say, 'contemporaneous'
> > > shell. It seems to have been the anomalous nature of the 'old
> > > shell' results that caught their attention.
> >
> > One problem I'm aware off is that certain molluscs acquire old shell
> > grit/material to use in their own shells. This can give a seriously
> > erroneous reading. IIRC a test was done on a known age shell (some 20
> > year old) that came up as being 7000 years old. Again from memory,
> > this test was done in relation to the Black Sea and the "Flood"
> > theory.
>
> Seppo,
> wasn't there something noted somewhere the other year dealing with results
> from the Arctic where known date of when a graveyard gave extreme old age
> which were explained due to the 'näringskedjan' where the people had lived
> on walrus meat most of the year and the walrus were said to have lived on
> smaller sea animals who lived on fish who lived on 'krill' who were said to
> have filtred 'old' shells?
> I know I have seen it somewhere and that there was a note that if one dated
> one of these halfbig sea animals when they were 1 year old and then 5 years
> later they would have had readings for more than 50 years....

Yes there was a debate on that here a while ago, but the variance was
not to that huge extent I mentioned - it is the marine reservoir
correction and the balance between that and the atmospheric reservoir
that was in question. The marine reservoir in the Greenland area
throws the c14 date out by some 400 years - while atmospheric
reservoir accounts for around 200 years - therefor the difference is
only some 200 years and what % of that should be allocated to a human
skeleton surviving on mainly seafood is being heavily debated.

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
.