349
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
349 points (98.3% liked)
science
14595 readers
72 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.
2024-11-11
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Or C this thing was dated incorrectly (which still would be my guess tbh).
Dating wood can get really specific, sometimes narrowing down the year structures were built.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology
Unfortunately this structure is too old for this method
While radiocarbon dating is limited to about 50k years, there are other methods that work quite well. Potassium–argon dating can be used to date clay layers, but in more accurate for lava flows...
Other than that, you look for soil layers and look for global (or known local) events, then figure a date for those.
There can still be error, but less than you'd think. Tens of thousands of years at this scale, not hundreds.
There is always an error. The important thing (apart from eliminating bias) is to know the magnitude. Radio chronological analysis is well understood and laboratories can reliably report the magnitude of the error (or more specifically the uncertainty) accompanying any determination of age. But news articles rarely publish it.
In this case the age is quoted as "at least 476,000 years" so we can infer a precision estimate of plus or minus 1,000 years.
Certainly an option, and that crossed my mind as well. But in the context of this part of thread, it kind of seemed like we were taking it for granted that the structure was as old as they claim for the sake of argument.