It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Researchers for the Association for Research and Enlightenment (A.R.E.) have investigated an underwater site with what appears to be the remains of a collapsed multi-room building. The building foundation has manmade mitered limestone corners and other debris inside the outer walls. A sample of beach rock from a long, straight foundation wall was carbon dated to between 21,520 BCE and 20,610 BCE. These dates are astonishing, because prior to this discovery most researchers considered the oldest dates for humans in this area to be 1000 BCE.
Originally posted by mikellmikell
Carbon dating rock???? I guess I don't believe it enough to read it after that.
Line dux
In order to test the role of limestone in producing anomalously old radiocarbon ages in land-snail shells, 14C analyses were performed on shell carbonate of modern land snails from limestone and nonlimestone areas of Jamaica. No anomaly was found in snails from the nonlimestone area, implying that such material is suitable for radiocarbon dating. Snails from limestone areas produced variable anomalies of as much as 3,120 yr due to incorporation of 14C-free limestone into shell carbonate. All rock-scraping snails and most leaf-litter–feeding snails from limestone areas showed anomalous 14C contents. Because of the variability in 14C content even within species, no standard correction factor for limestone anomaly can be applied. However, dating error can be minimized by selecting ecologically appropriate species or by comparison of analyses of several fossil species, within a stratum, to their modern counterparts.
Originally posted by mikellmikell
Carbon dating rock???? I guess I don't believe it enough to read it after that.
Line dux
Can you find the age of rocks by using radiocarbon dating or are they generally too old? If a rock was shot from a volcano and isn't that old, can we use radiocarbon dating?
Samples of rock are not able to be dated using radiocarbon, because rocks contain no organic carbon from living organisms that are of recent enough age. Most rocks formed hundreds of thousands if not millions of years ago. Geologic deposits of coal and lignite formed from the compressed remains of plants contain no remaining radiocarbon so they cannot be dated. Radiocarbon dating is limited to the period 0 - 60 000 years, because the 'half-life' of radiocarbon is about 5700 years, so to date rocks scientists must use other methods. There is a number of different techniques available. We can date volcanic rocks using a method called argon-argon dating for instance. This method uses principles of isotopic decay like radiocarbon, but different isotopes (argon-39 and argon 40) which have a longer halflife (1250 million years). This means scientists can date rock which is many millions of years old. The technique can date materials the size of one grain of volcanic ash, using a laser. There are other methods which can be used as well which operate using different radiochemistries. The only way to date a volcanic ash layer using radiocarbon dating is to find ash within a lake sediment or peat layer and then date the organic carbon from above and below it, and therefore fix an age for the ash event. This is a commonly used approach to date volcanic events over the past 60 000 years around the world.
* Beginning Conditions Known
* Beginning Ratio of Daughter to Parent Isotope Known (zero date problem)
* Constant Decay Rate
* No Leaching or Addition of Parent or Daughter Isotopes
* All Assumptions Valid for Billions of Years
Dalrymple's work early work on 26 historic lava flows showed that many of them had excess argon and were not set to zero at the eruption of the volcano.
The following is the data from these tests:
* Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801) 1.05 to 1.19 million years
* Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (122 BC) 100,000 years
* Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (AD 1972) 150,000 years
* Mt. Lassen plagioclase, California (AD 1915) 130,000 years
* Sunset Crater basalt, Arizona (AD 1064-1065) 210,000 to 220,000 years
* Glass Mountain (BP 130-390) 130,000 years in the future
* Mt. Mihara (AD 1951) 70,000 years in the future
* Sakurajima (AD 1946) 200,000 years in the future
Originally posted by Boomstix
How does knowing how old the rock is help at all to tell when the building was built though? Just because a rock is a million years old and part of a building doesnt mean the building was build 1 million years ago. Maybe its just me but I fail to see the logic in announcing things like this to be X amount of years old when the age of the rocks doesnt mean anything? Cool find though.edit on 17-8-2011 by Boomstix because: (no reason given)
Because beachrock is lithified within the intertidal zone and because it commonly forms in a few years, its potential as an indicator of past sea level is important.
Originally posted by miniatus
What do we know from all tihs? that minimum this building was created at 10,000 BC given the age of the shoreline at the location it was found ..the age of the rock means little except that it's maximum age is 21,500BC or so .. we just know it couldn't have been built earlier than that..
The oldest known structures I'm aware of are in Tepe which date around 10,000 BC as well .. so we know man existed and was already constructing buildings at this time.. so what's the big news? is it that it's the first humans in this area? or what .. I don't see it as earth shattering.. but definitely fascinating
This is info about the structure in Tepe hereedit on 17-8-2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)