 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Archaeology / February 2007Newport Tower one more time (C14 dating)
NEWPORT TOWER one more time © Johansson Inger E, Gothenburg February 2007 While waiting for the latest excavation report in full, there still are parts of older excavation results which hardly ever been addressed. Starting reading Suzanne Carlsson’s article Tilting at windmills: The Newport Tower, Neara Journal Vol XXX,3&4, which I finally got hold of in full the other day, I can’t help wondering about how Jan Heinemeier and Högne Junger’s report from their tasting examples taken at Newport Tower should be interpreted. Something is more than funny if one take a look at Table 1 (page 6, in their report according to Carlsson, page 91 in her article). In short: The Table is a Summary, result of mortar samples taken using dates BP (1950) as zero. The result is presented with Position, Height above ground, Sample Depth and Date Range (after calibration if I understand it correctly). For Column 7 the result reads as follows: Height above ground 110 cm, Sample Depth 10-20 cm Sample 1 Date Range 1530-1640 Sample 2 " " 1410-1570 Sample 3 " " 1705-1855 Sample 4 " " 1480-1630 I fully understand that the dating of the Fireplace height above ground 420 cm Sample Depth 10-20 cm with Sample 1 Date Range 1770-1910 and Sample 2 1750-1890, correspond and strength the assumption that the Tower was built in the days in 1660’s, BUT the testing of Column 7, how on earth is it possible to arrive to a 1660 ’s conclusion? For what I see and read and knows of using dating it seems more likely that it at least where build latest 1640 probably before 1600. Now THAT correspond with the information provided by the first English Governor in two documents discussed here before, one of them I then ref. To Kalm’s work were it was edited in an Appendix. The information was that the Swedes were living on the NA east coast BEFORE the first Dutch and Englishmen arrived. The other document mentioned by Kalm and many others was the document where the Governor confiscated Swedish farms(!) and decided that the Swedish still living on farms weren’t allowed to have more than an ox, a cow and a horse. The rest and the farms were given(!) to the newly arrived Englishmen! Am I reading the sample 1-4 from column 7 incorrectly? If so why? Inger E > NEWPORT TOWER one more time > © Johansson Inger E, Gothenburg February 2007 > > While waiting for the latest excavation report in full, there still are > parts of older excavation results which hardly ever been addressed. Starting > reading Suzanne Carlsson's article Tilting at windmills: The Newport Tower, > Neara Journal Vol XXX,3&4, which I finally got hold of in full the other > day, I can't help wondering about how Jan Heinemeier and Högne Junger's > report from their tasting examples taken at Newport Tower should be > interpreted. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > correspond with the information provided by the first English Governor in > two documents discussed here before, one of them I then ref. To Kalm's work > were it was edited in an Appendix. The information was that the Swedes were > living on the NA east coast BEFORE the first Dutch and Englishmen arrived. > The other document mentioned by Kalm and many others was the document where > the Governor confiscated Swedish farms(!) and decided that the Swedish still > living on farms weren't allowed to have more than an ox, a cow and a horse. > The rest and the farms were given(!) to the newly arrived Englishmen! > > Am I reading the sample 1-4 from column 7 incorrectly? If so why? Hi Inger, I can't answer your question about the dating, but I would like to ask you a question about another matter in your post above. It concerns the presence of Swedes in North America before the arrival of the Dutch and English. I would like to see the evidence for this. I don't remember if you have quoted exact sources before. If you have, it was a long time ago and it would require troublesome searches of the archives. Could you tell me where the documents can be found so that I can check them? In other words, what are the sources you refer to as "Kalm and many others"? Regards from snowy Skåne Alan > > NEWPORT TOWER one more time > > © Johansson Inger E, Gothenburg February 2007 [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > Alan Both are mentioned and one with quotes as well part of the document shown in one of the Kalm editions. I am in snowy Gothenburg and I have no clue what so ever if it was in the third or forth volume. Somewhere in my discs are same info that's in the archive where I sent more details for this one. It wasn't yesterday I wrote that and in my shortnotes to be used in my manuscript I forgot to write which edition..... I try to look for it.... but can't promise anything at present. Best Inger E > > Hi Inger, I can't answer your question about the dating, but I would > > like to ask you a question about another matter in your post above. It [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > manuscript I forgot to write which edition..... I try to look for it.... but > can't promise anything at present. Good luck with the search. In the meantime I have searched the archives and find only the following vague references: Oct 2002 "it was in one of the links in sci.archaeology.moderated I found the referens to the text where it was mentioned. I wrote to you about it two or maybe three years ago in connection to the Dutch/Swedish settlement in the late 16th/early 17th century northeast of NY. I know we discussed the location back then." and "the Dutch farm that was there in 1540's were built more than 100 year earlier. I know I sent someone full documentation in English or German, wasn't that you that got it?" I hope you find the reference for your own sake, because you obviously can't make such a spectacular claim in your book without firm evidence if you want to convince readers. Alan >NEWPORT TOWER one more time >© Johansson Inger E, Gothenburg February 2007 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >report from their tasting examples taken at Newport Tower should be >interpreted. This will be the article which was recently torn to shreds here is it? Or a version of it? >Something is more than funny if one take a look at Table 1 (page 6, in their >report according to Carlsson, page 91 in her article). [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >BUT the testing of Column 7, how on earth is it possible to arrive to a 1660 >s conclusion? I presume you will need to read the report itself, as I doubt that Carlson gives you enough information. What you've provided doesn't match with the abridged version from the Journal of the Newport Historical Society. If by Column 7 you mean Pillar 7, the article only gives information about sample depths of 7-12 cm and 12-17. There is a sample depth of 10-20 cm for the fireplace however. The dates are given in years BP, not the sort of date range you show above. And the fireplace dates are exclused due to low carbonate content. Calendar years were derived by using a calibration curve. You really need to read the report, not Carlson's version of it. Doug >For what I see and read and knows of using dating it seems more likely that >it at least where build latest 1640 probably before 1600. Now THAT [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Inger E >  SignatureDoug Weller -- A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/ Doug, now you are telling an incorrect story. I read the report. I read many such, edited and non-edited, I typed many. I understand that your lack of Danish knowledge causes you problems. But the way Sue present them in the article is the way we are used to see them here in Scandinavia - AND I arrive to same intervall as she did when reading the Danish text. Apart from which you couldn't answer the question. The Fireplace was dated later. Much later. Inger E Oh, gods - not _another_ Inger email address to kill. Inger, don't you get that _nobody_ actually _wants_ to read your crap? David Signature_______________________________________________________________________ David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan "So many of you come time and time again to watch this final end of everything which I think is really wonderful and then to return home to your own eras and raise families and strive for new and better societies and fight terrible wars for what you know is right, it gives one real hope for the whole future of lifekind... ...Except of course we know it hasn't got one." > now you are telling an incorrect story. The bonehead is at it again. > I read the report. I read many such, > edited and non-edited, I typed many. While on your knees giving the man who dictated or read them to you a blow-job ? > I understand that your lack of Danish knowledge causes you problems. But the > way Sue present them in the article is the way we are used to see them here > in Scandinavia - AND I arrive to same intervall as she did when reading the > Danish text. Inger E. Moronsdottir and her old problem : Reading without comprehension. > Apart from which you couldn't answer the question. > The Fireplace was dated later. Much later. And once again back into the kill-file. >Doug, >now you are telling an incorrect story. I read the report. I read many such, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >in Scandinavia - AND I arrive to same intervall as she did when reading the >Danish text. What does the fact that Carlson presented the figures in a way you approve of have to do with the fact that she didn't represent the figures the way they were in the original report? And if you really did read it, either you misunderstood what you read or you are telling an incorrect story, as Eric has confirmed that I am correct and Carlson is wrong. >Apart from which you couldn't answer the question. >The Fireplace was dated later. Much later. Given that Carlson misrepresented the report, of course I couldn't answer the question. Doug SignatureDoug Weller -- A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/ > Doug, > now you are telling an incorrect story. I read the report. I read [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > see them here in Scandinavia - AND I arrive to same intervall as she > did when reading the Danish text. How would you interpret this bit of danish from Hertz: "Dateringsresultatet er, hedder det videre, justeret efter den foreliggende kalibreringskurve," Maybe Alan could help you. Soren SignatureHistory is not what it used to be. > > Doug, > > now you are telling an incorrect story. I read the report. I read [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Soren Soren, you haven't told the full story - why not tell everyone the truth it's a big difference between making adjustment according to the calibrationcurve, that's usually step one, and telling the intervall which the +/- year from each date given. I really thought you knew that! You seem not to. Inger E >> > Doug, >> > now you are telling an incorrect story. I read the report. I read [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >I really thought you knew that! >You seem not to. Inger, the +/- figure is not an interval and should not be construed as such. It is a measure of the standard deviation and is used to indicate the confidence with which the date (whether radiocarbon or calibrated) should be accepted. For example 1650 +/- 50 can be (incorrectly) interpreted as meaning 1600 to 1700. In fact it means that, for example, there is 25% probability that the correct date is earlier than 1550 or later than 1750. You did mention Chebyshev ..... Eric Stevens Eric, +/- x year means that you can put up an intervall. That's done all the time when the figures are presented in a diagram. I have many such reports at hand. Sometimes it's presented with "- - -" for the years before and after the correlated date. That gives an intervall where it's 90% certain that you will find the correct year. The correlated date is a correlated date. I know that many archaeologists and others tries to make believe that the correlated date is more plausible than anything else. Mathematic statistic doesn't work that way. It had been possible to say that it was likely give or take 5 years instead of for example +/- 50 years hadn't there been so many specific periods where C14 had 'given' out of the ordinary values. The correlated data is the best there is but if you take all factors in it's still not correct to relay on the correlated date but to put up the full intervall for the earliest plausible and the latest plausible value as well. That's what we learnt when I studied Mathematic Statistic and Mathematic. I checked with my friend who teach this on higher levels, earlier on university as well, and he say what I say. Inger E >>NEWPORT TOWER one more time >>© Johansson Inger E, Gothenburg February 2007 [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >Calendar years were derived by using a calibration curve. You really need >to read the report, not Carlson's version of it. Carlson has not accurately reproduced the figues of the original Heinemeier and Junger report in that she has summarised the presentation and converted the original 14C age +/- tolerance (Before the Present) into date ranges. e.g.the 150 +/- 60 of sample 2 from the flue becomes 1740 - 1860. Carlson is in fact criticising an article by Johann Hertz but Hertz appears to have quoted the figures of the original Heinemeier and Junger report exactly. >Doug > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >>Inger E Eric Stevens > >>NEWPORT TOWER one more time > >>© Johansson Inger E, Gothenburg February 2007 > >> > >>While waiting for the latest excavation report in full, there still are > >>parts of older excavation results which hardly ever been addressed. Starting > >>reading Suzanne Carlsson's article Tilting at windmills: The Newport Tower, > >>Neara Journal Vol XXX,3&4, which I finally got hold of in full the other > >>day, I can't help wondering about how Jan Heinemeier and Högne Junger's [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > appears to have quoted the figures of the original Heinemeier and > Junger report exactly. What Sue did is what we who studied statistic is learnt to do where the figures given are given from the possible intervall. You will find the same procedure in some of the Thesis presented here in Sweden. In other word when you say you have a +/- intervall you take the first given data/date and by using the intervall (which I presume is a way of using something like Chebusjevs thesis which gives an intervall where the correct date with 90%, or something, will be within) and by doing so you get a first date which for those who aren't familiar with statistic might seem odd. In fact it's the real way to present it. Inger E > >Doug > > > >>For what I see and read and knows of using dating it seems more likely that > >>it at least where build latest 1640 probably before 1600. Now THAT > >>correspond with the information provided by the first English Governor in > >>two documents discussed here before, one of them I then ref. To Kalm's work > >>were it was edited in an Appendix. The information was that the Swedes were > >>living on the NA east coast BEFORE the first Dutch and Englishmen arrived. > >>The other document mentioned by Kalm and many others was the document where > >>the Governor confiscated Swedish farms(!) and decided that the Swedish still > >>living on farms weren't allowed to have more than an ox, a cow and a horse. > >>The rest and the farms were given(!) to the newly arrived Englishmen! > >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Eric Stevens On Feb 21, 9:52 pm, "IE_J-son" <inger_e.johans...@nospamnotelia.com> wrote: > > >>NEWPORT TOWER one more time > > >>© Johansson Inger E, Gothenburg February 2007 [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > those who aren't familiar with statistic might seem odd. In fact it's the > real way to present it. Whoosh! Would you look at that! So far over her head it didn't even ruffle her hair. But then, perhaps I, having studied statistics in America, have not learnt right. <snip> >> >>NEWPORT TOWER one more time >> >>© Johansson Inger E, Gothenburg February 2007 [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] >those who aren't familiar with statistic might seem odd. In fact it's the >real way to present it. The Heinemeier and Junger results were given as radiocarbon ages BP (before 1950) +/- 1 standard deviation of error arising from the method by which the radio carbon date was arrived at. To turn this into an actual calendar date it is necessary to put radiocarbon date through a calibration procedure. This makes use of a calibration curve which itself also suffers from errors and uncertainties. The end result is a calibrated date which is usually quoted with upper and lower confidence limits of one standard deviation. The problem is that the calibration curve is not the nice smooth curve assumed by Libby etc in the early days of the procedure. It is now known that there have been ongoing disturbances to the C12/C13/C14 balance in the atmosphere which make calibration of the radiocarbon date very difficult. In fact there are a number of periods when several distinctly different calendar dates will give rise to the same radio carbon date. Calibration around these periods can result in distinctly asymmetric upper and lower limits of confidence. As it happens such periods occur around the late 13th, early 15th and the early 17th centuries. For example, a radiocarbon age of 300BP +/- 25 years would translate to upper and lower limits of 1675 and 1625. When calibrated the calendar age might be something like 1650 +300 and -150. i.e. anywhere between 1500 and 1950 with the date of maximum probability corresponding being 1650. The process of converting radiocarbon dates for these periods to calendar dates is not straightforward and it does not appear that Carlson really understood the problems. But then, neither do many of her critics. :-) >> >Doug >> > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> >> Eric Stevens Eric Stevens > >> >>NEWPORT TOWER one more time > >> >>© Johansson Inger E, Gothenburg February 2007 [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > Carlson really understood the problems. But then, neither do many of > her critics. :-) If you try to work out from a *calibrated* age what the originally stated range was, are you likely to arrive at the same figures? > >> >Doug > >> > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >> >> > >> >>Inger E Alan >> >> >On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:12:49 GMT, in sci.archaeology, IE_J-son >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 144 lines] >If you try to work out from a *calibrated* age what the originally >stated range was, are you likely to arrive at the same figures? My first thought was that I would expect that it would be possible if you knew the calibration curve and procedure that was originally used. But then I thought about it. If it was one of these cases where several distinctly different calendar dates can give rise to the same radio carbon date it is likely that that you will not be able to work back to the original radiocarbon date with confidence. >> >> >Doug >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >Alan Eric Stevens > >> >>NEWPORT TOWER one more time > >> >>© Johansson Inger E, Gothenburg February 2007 [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > Carlson really understood the problems. But then, neither do many of > her critics. :-) That might be mostly true, but not entirely. The important thing to realise, and the question I rised place that thing into focus, which apperently neither you nor Doug seem to understand, and that 'thing' detail if you want makes a date of earlier than 1600 more than plausible. You realise probably, but I am not sure for Doug, that there is a definitive difference in age between the test-result of the the fireplace and column 7's results. The rest is logic and from there on one go back to the intervall's +/- as always or almost always done in cases like this but apperantly not happened in Newport Tower's case. We have a dating for the fireplace which Sue correctly place in an interval between 1770 and 1910. Now we do know that the later part wasn't the time when THAT fireplace was made. We also knows from Thomas Webb, secretary of the Newport Historical Society who together with Finn Magnusson in 1834 'found' the rock with the name 'Thorfin' in runes, mentioned by Rafn in this 1837 publication, and Rafn's following work to check for 'alike' octagonal towers that the fireplace wasn't used in those days let alone built close to 1830's. I thought everyone understood what this means: Now this gives us a span for the fireplace being probably built between 1770 and 1830 AD. The dating of the tests were simulary made for all the samples taken, from fireplace as well as from the column 7. Now there is a diviation between the samples from the fireplace and all but one of the samples from column 7. That diviation is approx 200 years. give or take a bit up and a bit down but never the less more alike 150 to 200 years difference. Which leads to the conclusion that it's more than likely that the tower was built before 1600 AD. Now the problems for the Towers has been two distinct ones: * the 'Norse' built has by most of that theory's supporters been assumed to be linked if not to the Vikings but to Henry Sinclairs voyage, which btw took place several years before 1389 which so many of this theory's supporters assumed. As it seems that date can't be put into a picture together with what testresults and written sources give for facts. * The other big mistake was and is still made by the colonial-time theory's supporters. And that's where a hugh mistake or a neglicience of facts been made. Sue understand this and give exact correct information. The mortar that's fallen from the Tower down to the ground has of course not all fallen at same time it was built and thus it's been mixed with artifacts from more than one period. But each piece mixed in layers from the period mortar fell due to erosion, water and wind heat and cold days cause this. This makes the practise to date all things in same layer to same year-period in correct. What we have is not an earliest possible date which been assumed but the latest possible date for the piece of mortar to have fallen down. The mortar in cases like this doesn't fall the same year a building or a monument was built. This is where it's becomming interesting. There was Swedes before 1600 living in NA. (Alan, I plan to look for Kalm today at library). Well we don't need the English documents which are of the caliber that the Governor writing them would have made a good candidate for the TV-programs about stupid criminals had he lived today, to prove that. We don't need more than documents from King Eric XIV:s days.... but for the later you all will have to wait until you read my work. Thus Norse made can mean made by a Scandinavian between 1500 and 1600 which is a plausible answer which also correspond with the Dutch-Swedish farm not so far away in those days. This farm we discussed ten years ago. Inger E > >> >Doug > >> > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Eric Stevens >> >> >>NEWPORT TOWER one more time >> >> >>© Johansson Inger E, Gothenburg February 2007 [quoted text clipped - 142 lines] >We have a dating for the fireplace which Sue correctly place in an interval >between 1770 and 1910. No, neither your nor Carlson seem to have any grasp of the report. Nor have you read what I wrote, or if you did you certainly didn't understand it. THE FIREPLACE DATES WERE EXCLUDED. There, you can't miss that. They didn't have enough carbonate for valid dating. It is dishonest to use the dates to prove anything about the Newport Tower or to pretend or ignore the fact that the report doesn't exclude them. Now we do know that the later part wasn't the time >when THAT fireplace was made. >We also knows from Thomas Webb, secretary of the Newport Historical Society [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I thought everyone understood what this means: Now this gives us a span for >the fireplace being probably built between 1770 and 1830 AD. No, it does not. >The dating of the tests were simulary made for all the samples taken, from >fireplace as well as from the column 7. Now there is a diviation between the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >conclusion that it's more than likely that the tower was built before 1600 >AD. Jesus, you just ignore the report and make up your own stuff as you go along. Neither you nor Carlson have any expertise in C14 dating that allows you to ignore the report. >Now the problems for the Towers has been two distinct ones: >* the 'Norse' built has by most of that theory's supporters been assumed to [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] >> Eric Stevens > SignatureDoug Weller -- A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/ >> Calendar years were derived by using a calibration curve. You >> really need to read the report, not Carlson's version of it. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > appears to have quoted the figures of the original Heinemeier and > Junger report exactly. You bet! " Lic.scient. Jan Heinemeier og dr. Högne Jungner har venligst sagt god for afsnittet om C-14 datering" H and J kindly reviewed the part of Hertz article concerning C-14 dating. Soren SignatureHistory is not what it used to be. >>>NEWPORT TOWER one more time >>>© Johansson Inger E, Gothenburg February 2007 [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >appears to have quoted the figures of the original Heinemeier and >Junger report exactly. Thank you, that is what I thought was the case. Interesting that Inger says she has read the report and that Carlson reports the figures correctly. :-) >>Doug >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Eric Stevens SignatureDoug Weller -- A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/ Doug, neither you nor Eric or Soren seems to be aware of the difference between: a) - a C14 dating raw figure b) - a C14 dating correlated figure c) - a C14 dating correlated figure WITH the intervall +/- added giving the intervall the sample with 90% certainty is likely to be found in! That I thought you knew. Most here does. That was one of the first things I learnt when I had to type reports from excavation with C14-testing added to them! It's strange you don't know the difference and understand the impact of the +/- x years. very strange! That Sue knows about this I understood long ago. Inger E >Doug, >neither you nor Eric or Soren seems to be aware of the difference between: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >+/- x years. >very strange! That Sue knows about this I understood long ago. Neither you nor Sue understand the report and neither of you report it correctly.. Eric Stevens has made that clear. And you talk about the fireplace dates ignoring the fact that the report excludes them because they didn't have enough carbonate. That isn't honest. Doug SignatureDoug Weller -- A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/ >>Doug, >>neither you nor Eric or Soren seems to be aware of the difference between: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > honest. > Doug In the norse and history groups where she mainly preaches she is considered a kook or at best (worst?) a troll, and usually killfiled. I say preaches because she really does think you need "norse did it first/beter/faster faith" as she puts it to deal with the topics she preaches about. she has almost destroyed the sci.archaeology newsgroup. Ignore him. (opps,... her. almost missed that last one) ;-) >>>Doug, >>>neither you nor Eric or Soren seems to be aware of the difference between: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >;-) I get the point, but I want to make sure people realise she isn't telling the truth about the Newport Tower C14 report. Doug SignatureDoug Weller -- A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/ > snip > > I get the point, but I want to make sure people realise she isn't telling > the truth about the Newport Tower C14 report. If you'd look at who is perpetually feeding her, you'd realise, that there is nobody reading, even less believing her, except half a dozen people, that insist on pointing out her mistakes, less someone else should believe her claims. Please, Please don't answer her on sci.arch. or shm. have fun Uwe Mueller Uwe, sorry Uwe I know I heart your feelings more than once. I am not a troll, never been and never will be. If you don't want to read my lines - so be it. Your choice but don't try to call me names! AND don't say that no one reads and corresponds with me. They do. Inger E Sorry Doug, both Sue and I understand the report. At least I am aware of the discrepancies Eric wrote about. I HAD taken them into account. You still don't get it - there is a difference between the test results from the fireplace dating that 150-200 years if +/- is used, which it normally is, and the column 7 results. Inger E >Sorry Doug, >both Sue and I understand the report. >At least I am aware of the discrepancies Eric wrote about. I HAD taken them >into account. No, you didn't. You don't accept that Carlson was in error. >You still don't get it - >there is a difference between the test results from the fireplace dating >that 150-200 years if +/- is used, >which it normally is, >and the column 7 results. Of course there is. They excluded the fireplace results because they weren't reliable, too little carbonate. The fact that you don't mention that says it all. Doug SignatureDoug Weller -- A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.