Re: A question about archaeolgical sterility of sites with a religiousconnection.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:15:09 +0000, Whiskers
<catwheezel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2007-11-27, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:08:33 +0000, Whiskers
<catwheezel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2007-11-27, Jean <jean.lenior@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

sprocket a écrit dans le message ...
Jean wrote:


Don't know the nature of the Towers mortar but here is a tidbit to look
at.

For the dating of lime mortar to have any meaning at all the lime
binding
material must be completely brunt
(unlikely in homemade or crude mortars) and completely free of limestone
or
carbonate aggregates (highly unlikely)

But the ancient carbon from the limestone would make it appear older,
not younger. Taking the unburnt limestone into account, the Newport
Tower could have been built no earlier than 1976. Or maybe somebody got
resurrected in there (that causes a big burst of radiation that changes
carbon dating).

JS



You are correct. That is why I question the reported carbon 14 dating. If
done as stated it would likely have returned a much older date than given if
the sample was from the original mortar. I however have not seen any
analysis of the sample taken
or any actual results of the carbon 14 test or any indication of the
procedure used.
To have much validity it would have to have been conducted in a fashion
similar to the one given
in

http://www.carbon14.pl/geo/pdf/geo_24/Geo24_15.pdf.

JL

The mortar used for the tower seems to have been made from sea-shells
rather than limestone - apparently heaps of them were plentiful thanks to
generations of natives and immigrants feasting on them. So the earliest
date you'd expect to get using C14 would be the date the shell-fish got
eaten.

Nope. Even earlier than that. The date that the C in the shells
entered the marine system in which the shells were formed. This
'reservoir' effect typically adds ~400 years to the actual age of the
shells.

So passing through the animal's body doesn't re-set the C14 clock the way
it does with eg teeth or bone?

It's basically dependent on the rate of radioactive decomposition.
This is independent of chemistry. I don't see how/why the c14 clock
should be reset with eg teeth or bone. Could you expand on this?



Eric Stevens
.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast