JonnyMcA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The article is an interesting read, and highlights
> the need for future iterations of the radiocarbon
> calibration curves to incorporate more single year
> measurements. Indeed, one is almost getting the
> sense that IntCal13 (and prior curves) may
> systematically be giving older calibrated
> radiocarbon dates for a lot of the curve, whilst
> IntCal20 seems to be giving more accurate
> calibrations particularly around any portion with
> a good deal of single year measurements (see for
> example the 17th century BC and this AD 770s
> section of the curves where lots of single year
> radiocarbon measurements have been performed and
> show that previous calibration curves give older
> calibrated dates). It will be interesting to see
> why the lower resolution iterations of the
> previous curves are giving older calibrated dates
> though.
>
> With regard my old post (was that really 11 years
> ago!?!?!?),

It's time passing! In a Newtonian and Einsteinian sort of a way, I'm sure ...

the last decade of research suggests
> that there was no volcanic eruption around 774/5
> (and certainly no comet impact as suggested by
> some authors to explain the 774/5 Miyake event),
> and so the slight 2 year growth reduction in the
> Irish oaks is just due to random growth. Indeed,
> looking at the data again with a bit more
> knowledge and expertise (and perhaps, arguably
> less naivety) than I had back then, I would not
> even put any significance on the growth reduction
> today, it looking just like noise, and I dont
> think anyone would find the growth rings
> interesting if not directed to them by 774/5
> event!

Oh ... So ... it seems that it would be incorrect to draw any particular connection between the dating of the Latvian fortress and the AD 774/5 Miyake event. (which perhaps might not have taken place ... ?) after all ...

Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at

Rules and Guidelines

hallofmaatforum@proton.me