• northendtrooper@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    When it comes to pre-dating wood, do they do a carbon date on the material or cross relate the building designs matched to other structures in different material?

    • fossilesque@mander.xyzOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Edit: ignore me. I oopsed. They did luminescence dating.

      Wood is decent for C14 dating, especially when you’re looking for range finder metrics. They likely took a direct sample. There’s not really a lot of comparable material this old, mostly just due to the slow grind of time. C14 is calibrated on tree rings, so that’s a likely next step for fine tuning the dating.

      • TauZero@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        How could carbon-14 possibly work for anything half a million years old? That’s 87 half-lives!

          • TauZero@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Aha! The supplemental materials contain all the interesting stuff, like some cool photos of the excavation site:

            And section 2 goes into details about how the soil samples were collected and prepared for luminescence measurement, including keeping them in the dark/under red light lab room conditions while they were washed in acid for 3 days, before shining a laser on them. They even stuck gamma radiation probes into the holes they dug the samples from to measure the current background radiation levels there.

            Interestingly in their calculation, only 5% of radiation comes from cosmic rays, and 95% from decay of nearby radioisotopes of uranium, thorium, and potassium. They were worried whether cyclical sedimentation/erosion activity of the adjacent river would change the thickness of the soil overlying the archeological site, thus affecting amount of cosmic radiation reaching it. Turns out for the final age calculation it didn’t make much of a difference whether the soil was usually 5 meters thick or 10.

            I would still need to read the reference papers to figure out how accumulated radiation is related to luminescence under a laser in the first place.

      • Shdwdrgn@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ohhh is this the technique where they line up the tree rings with known climate events? It’s certainly cool how many different methods they come up with to date things, although judging by the small size of those logs it doesn’t seem like they would have very many years to work with.

        • fossilesque@mander.xyzOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Rangefinding helps narrow the window of the known sequence of signals recorded in rings. Check out the video I linked.

    • wjrii@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The article says they used luminescence dating to measure the amount of radiation the surrounding soil had soaked up over time:

      Grains of rock absorb natural radioactivity from the environment over time - essentially charging up like tiny batteries, as Prof Duller put it.

      And that radioactivity can be released and measured by heating up the grains and analysing the light emitted.