First arrivals in NZ
Seppo Renfors
islands without the assistance of man because it is an extremely poor
swimmer. Therefor R.exulans is associated with the movement of people.
R.exulans originated from Asia and spread from there over many
centuries through much of Pacific and Polynesia. Conventional accepted
theory is that people first arrived some 700 to 1000 years BP
(Anderson, Allingham, Highman 1996). Other theories also exist.
In -95 and -96 a suite of 19 samples of subfossil R.exulans from 6
natural sites in the North and South Islands of NZ were c14 dated
using AMS. The samples were found to be significantly older than the
accepted theory of prehistory of NZ would suggest. The ages of the
bones were ranging from 1204 BP to 2155 BP (Holdaway 1996). NR Bevan
and RJ Sparks understood a further study on the dietary effect on the
R.exulans age. This is via a C13 and N15 analysis. This allows an
examination of the variation from atmospheric equilibrium of c14. This
deviation indicates a dietary influence. The C13 and N15 analysis
provides the % or marine diet component needing to be allowed for in
arriving at a corrected date. Still it leaves the c14 age as is and
has not altered this finding. The finding suggests that the variation
in the diet of the omnivorous R.exulans cannot cause the large
variance in the c14 age found from the accepted theory. In any event a
marine reservoir makes a corrected date even older, up to some 400
years older than atmosphere reservoir correction.
Apparently there has been some teeth gnashing among some people about
these new dates indicating a much earlier presence of people in NZ
than is conventionally accepted. The conventional view is based on
sharp changes in pollen finds indicating large scale burning by early
agriculture. But what if the earliest people didn't practise
agriculture? Still a few people have questioned the possibility of the
R.exulans ages being correct.
So this needed further testing to verify the ages. All dated fossil
remains were collected from known stratigraphic positions. Additional
chronological controls is provided by two known volcanic tephras at
the Hukanui sites on North Island. Another site for testing was on
South Island. The bone preservation had been uniformly good at both
sites. The amino acid profiles are consistent with those of collagen
from modern Pacific Rat and the laboratory collagen standard, meaning
they are good samples.
At the Hukanui site, c14 ages for both bird bones and eggshells agree
with the optical ages of the enclosing sediment. Both chronologies are
consistent with the overlying Taupo Ignimbrite (c. 1850 yr BP) and the
underlying Waimihia Tephra (c. 3300 yr BP). Two c14 ages for duck
bones excavated from within the Taupo Ignimbrite agrees with the
accepted age of of the ignimbrite. So there are some very good
controls there.
A R.exulans bone in good condition (similar amino acid profile to
modern collagen), excavated from beneath the Taupo Ignimbrite. The
good preservation, with the added controls provides very good
confidence in the c14 age for the sample, giving 1775 +/- 93 yr BP.
This accords with the position beneath the ignimbrite. At the South
Island site, 3 rat bone samples and 2 bird bone samples were also
consistent with the optical and stratigraphic evidence. (Holdaway,
Roberts, Bevan-Athfield, Olley, Worthy - 2002)
The c14 ages have been confirmed with TL and OSL, stratigraphic
methods and by various other markers. This puts R.exulans presence in
both North and South Island at least 800 years before the
conventionally accepted first arrivals. One thing is certain, they
didn't swim to get there.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I E Johansson
"Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.com.au> skrev i meddelandet
news:414BF24E...@not.com.au...
Two questions Seppo:
1) where are those first arrivaler thought to origin from?
2) if we are talking about 2000 BP +/1 this or that amount of centuries or
millinia, at least some group of people did 'write' their history down by
that time. Has you seen anything in that respect indicating that NZ 'waters'
were known elsewhere? Rock Carvings etc?
Inger E
R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
<Ren...@not.com.au> wrote:
>Apparently there has been some teeth gnashing among some people about
>these new dates indicating a much earlier presence of people in NZ
>than is conventionally accepted. The conventional view is based on
>sharp changes in pollen finds indicating large scale burning by early
>agriculture. But what if the earliest people didn't practise
>agriculture? Still a few people have questioned the possibility of the
>R.exulans ages being correct.
It sounds pretty solid to me.
Is there any reason the rats couldn't have hitched a ride with a
transitory crew or failed colony at the earlier time, leaving full
human colonisation for the later date? Finding rats only means people
got here with rats in their canoe; it doesn't mean they lived here for
any length of time.
Tasman found it and left, possibly leaving behind some seasick rats,
despite not landing. It wasn't visited by Europeans again for over
100 years at a time when Europeans were actively exploring the globe.
It's not such a stretch that Polynesians might have found it 2000
years ago, stayed for the summer, then gone home or died out, leaving
behind some rats, and not visited again for 1000 years. It might even
explain the Maui myth.
--
R.G. "Stumpy" Marsh.
George
Those Rattus exulans claims are made on only 16 samples..
In the 800-1000 year gap one would expect that Rattus exulans would be
represented by a greater population
Notes
The Age of Rat Introduction into New Zealand.
Further Evidence from Earthquake 1 North Otago
A Anderson & T Higham
6 Test sites were examined.
Being
1 Test Pit
2 South Excavation
3 Baulk
4 Enlarged Test Pit
5 North Excavation
6 Against Cliff.
Questioned are the XX section and the existance of disturbed layering
(burrow)
undescribed by Holloway (2002)
Fig 5 demonstrates no recording of layering..
Sheep (*and other introduced species) bone was found in the layer
claimed to contain the 'old rat bone'
The claims for AMS bone samples OxA - 10879, OxA - 10882,
NZA 9619, NZA 9620, NZA 9621 & NZA 5921 are evidence of poorly
recorded sample collection..
There have been no 'ancient rat bone' found since 1997 which is
strange as the recovery methods have improved , site excavation
techniques improved with far more recpording of the sites...
Refs:
Anderson A J
1996 Was Rattus exulans in New Zealand 2000 years ago.
Archaeology in Oceania : 31: 178-183Differential reliability of C14
ages of rat bone gelatine in South Pacific history
Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand : 30: 243-261Newsletter of
the New Zealand Archaeological Society Association
3 : 28The Holdaway R N & Bevan N R articles are already referenced
here.http://www.rsnz.govt.nz/publish/jrsnz/2002/024.phpYaldwyn J C
The matchbox the rat bone the Hukanui #76 excavations 1959
Archaeology in New Zealand 45: 118-129
June 2002 Archaeology in New Zealand Vol 45 No.2 page 118
September 2002 Archaeology in New Zealand Vol 45 No.3 page 216 A
Anderson..
Pollution possibilities (C14)
Formaldhyde (NZA 6086) Carbonates. Canopy Effect. Food chain
reservoirs (2500 year old carbon). Mineral oil (glycerin.)
bodger
Wouldn't it be a lot easier if they just tested human remains?
grimly bubble
"bodger" <junk...@fishnchips.com> wrote in message
news:1095541115.345911@ftpsrv1...
The theory is that rats must have been transported here by humans, the
puzzle is that the rat remains tested as older by far than any human
remains. This could mean several things, among them the testing was not up
top scratch, all the humans left, the rats survived some kind of maritime
tragedy where a vessel floated ashore with live rats and dead humans whose
bones awashed into the sea somewhere.
Seppo Renfors
This is not known. However having said that, there is work being done
on the R.exulans mtDNA to see where it is likely to have originated
from. The initial origin of R.exulans is SE Asia - further work has
suggested the Malay islands as a source where it spread from to
Polynesia. Only this isn't good evidence of the origin of the people
visiting/settling in NZ.
> 2) if we are talking about 2000 BP +/1 this or that amount of centuries or
> millinia, at least some group of people did 'write' their history down by
> that time. Has you seen anything in that respect indicating that NZ 'waters'
> were known elsewhere? Rock Carvings etc?
The evidence of these people is of a secondary variety - eg the rat.
They have not left any other signs to my knowledge. Still
interestingly enough, deep sea voyaging must be assumed to have
occurred already back them from the R.exulans evidence alone. The
people who brought R.exulans need not have stayed on the island
permanently or it could have been a mob that elected to move on some
time later.
Seppo Renfors
If they were found, then possibly. However they haven't been found.
Note that the current accepted settlement age is based on pollen
samples - not human remains.
Seppo Renfors
George gives the impression only that many samples exists. At a single
site at one single location of that site produced 14 samples of
R.exulans bones (Pleasant River, Area 2, Layer 4). The sites I
referred to are not the same site in any event that Anderson has
questioned. What's more it is quite normal to NOT use destructive
testing on every single artefact found. Significant theories exists
that are based on a sample size of only 2 - but these are not
questioned by George!
> In the 800-1000 year gap one would expect that Rattus exulans would be
> represented by a greater population
> Notes
> The Age of Rat Introduction into New Zealand.
>
> Further Evidence from Earthquake 1 North Otago
> A Anderson & T Higham
*SIGH* Same old garbage from George again. This relates to c14 tests
done at a different site totally (Pleasant River) and "expanded" to
cover all c14 ages done before 1996. The reason the c14 ages were
questioned is that known human habitation remains (charcoal and marine
shell) has been dated to 12->13th and 15->16th century AD. R.exulans
from that site dates to 1039 +/- 69 BP and 515 +/- 55 BP (Smith &
Anderson 1998), the first predating previously known human habitation
in that place. George is referring to something that is outdated by
later studies.
[..]
> Pollution possibilities (C14)
Did not happen, as evidence of similar and expected results from other
methods used to determine the age. How does he expect c14, c13, 15N
(radiocarbon/isotope) and TL and OSL (optical) testing all to be
"polluted" in a manner to produce corresponding results?
Potential contamination effects have been tested for, and it is
possible to remove such contaminants from samples and are in the
"gelatinisation" process. Bevan-Athfield and Sparks ran tests on
R.exulans bones found at the Pleasant River, Otago site (the most
controversial site). They tested for in situ contamination from humic
and fulvic acids transferred in soil pore waters, on the off chance it
may have been a previous unidentified contaminant in R.exulans
samples. No such contamination was found, and they further found that
such should not be used for "explaining" radiocarbon "anomalies" in
bone (as George is doing) without having tested for the presence of
such. Further more, any such contaminants would tend to produce a
younger age, not a much older than actual age (Gurfinkle 1987;
Stafford et al. 1988)
George has ignored numerous later studies than discredits all his
"what if" claims.
> Formaldhyde (NZA 6086) Carbonates. Canopy Effect.
Both of those are a figment of his imagination.
> Food chain reservoirs (2500 year old carbon).
I have already deal with this, and to make that claim is to openly
admit total ignorance of how c14/c12 accumulates!
> Mineral oil (glycerin.)
This is plain laughable - glycerine is commonly separated in the soap
making industry - before that it was from candle making, and candles
are made from ANIMAL FATS. However vegetable fats also contain some 7%
- 13% glycerine as does animal fats - and nothing to do with "mineral
oil", as was the bogus claim by George!
George
For the latest information on the 'old rat' claims see below
NZ Journal of Archaeology - Latest edition - Vol 23:
Ian Smith NZ Marine fishing
Deborah Vale Arrawarrra Beach NSW.
Lucille Lewis Johnson Aleutian fishing
Min-yung Chiu Bellows Beach Hawaii
Richard Ono Prehistoric Borneo fishing
Jill Hamel Queenstown sanitation
Atholl Anderson and Tom Higham Rat introduction - Earthquakes site.
Atholl Anderson Rat age discontinuity.
There has, as yet, been no explanation as to how there have been no
Old Rat bone recovered since 1997....
Now, as to Seppos parroting information that is wholly incorrect about
the use of Glycerin in Radiocarbon dating :
Glycerin used to preserve and clear otoliths could conceivably change
the net radio-carbon content of the otolith, depending upon the amount
and radiocarbon content ofthe glycerin incorporated into the otolith,
and the magnitude of any radiocarbon dis-crepancy between otolith and
glycerin.
Seppo Renfors
George wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au> wrote in message news:<414E6827...@not.com.au>...
>
> For the latest information on the 'old rat' claims see below
>
> NZ Journal of Archaeology - Latest edition - Vol 23:
>
> Ian Smith NZ Marine fishing
> Deborah Vale Arrawarrra Beach NSW.
> Lucille Lewis Johnson Aleutian fishing
> Min-yung Chiu Bellows Beach Hawaii
> Richard Ono Prehistoric Borneo fishing
UHU.... I prefer Reg Hunt's fishing stories..... and don't forget to
kiss that fish before releasing it...
> Jill Hamel Queenstown sanitation
...and this is where the George's fishing yarns belongs.
>
> Atholl Anderson and Tom Higham Rat introduction - Earthquakes site.
> Atholl Anderson Rat age discontinuity.
Dealt with already - noted for the second time now it has been dealt
with.
> There has, as yet, been no explanation as to how there have been no
> Old Rat bone recovered since 1997....
....and there is only ONE Rosetta stone found..... since when
exactly..... early 1920'ies? Therefor it must be suspect, right?
> Now, as to Seppos parroting information that is wholly incorrect about
> the use of Glycerin in Radiocarbon dating :
More of George's usual misrepresentation (hence George's NEED to
delete all of my text). I have NOT mentioned the use of "Glycerine in
Radiocarbon dating" - nor is it used for that purpose! That is another
misrepresentation.
I stated George's claim Glycerine was a MINER OIL was laughable, and
it is! That it comes from animal and vegetable fats - nor has he
suggested Glycerine contains carbon, but it does as its chemical
formula shows C3H5(OH)3!! The EFFECT of it, if a sample was
contaminated with it (and they weren't), would be to provide a very
modern date. The complete opposite from what he is attempting to use
to discredit with.
Glycerine is SOMETIMES used to preserve specimens -but not bones.
>
> Glycerin used to preserve and clear otoliths could conceivably change
> the net radio-carbon content of the otolith,
Oh dear, how embarrassing that is. See:
http://www.tchain.com/otoneurology/disorders/bppv/otoliths.html
Yeah, I wonder how this can be of relevance to a LEG BONE, or even a
JAW BONE!!
Of course there is a much, much simpler method of removing "otoliths"
- all it takes is a knife:
http://www.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/mfd/otolith/english/remove.htm
No doubt he has learned this from the fishing magazines above.
> depending upon the amount
> and radiocarbon content ofthe glycerin incorporated into the otolith,
> and the magnitude of any radiocarbon dis-crepancy between otolith and
> glycerin.
Perhaps George is talking about "otoconia" (CaCo3) and not otoliths?
Still the whole issue of otoliths is a red herring in any event.
BTMO
"Seppo Renfors" <> wrote
> UHU.... I prefer Reg Hunt's fishing stories..... and don't forget to
> kiss that fish before releasing it...
Rex....
Yibbada yibbada...
Barry Phease
> It sounds pretty solid to me.
I wouldn't describe it as "solid". However it is reasonably convincing.
>
> Is there any reason the rats couldn't have hitched a ride with a
> transitory crew or failed colony at the earlier time, leaving full
> human colonisation for the later date? Finding rats only means people
> got here with rats in their canoe; it doesn't mean they lived here for
> any length of time.
The great migration that colonised NZ was certainly not the first arrival
of humans. The story is that the fleet knew where they were going, which
means that at least one previous voyage took place to NZ and back. Given
the number of people that would have been on a trip of exploration (as
against one of colonisation) it is unlikely that they would have
deliberately left anyone behind.
The exploration voyage would probably have occurred at most a generation
or 2 prior to the colonization voyage. It is hard to explain an 800 year
gap between discovery and settlement.
--
Barry Phease
NancyB
> transitory crew or failed colony at the earlier time, leaving full
> human colonisation for the later date? Finding rats only means
people
> got here with rats in their canoe; it doesn't mean they lived here
for
> any length of time.
Yes, that's exactly the inference.
> Those Rattus exulans claims are made on only 16 samples..
>
> George gives the impression only that many samples exists. At a
single
> site at one single location of that site produced 14 samples of
> R.exulans bones (Pleasant River, Area 2, Layer 4). The sites I
> referred to are not the same site in any event that Anderson has
> questioned.
Very good Seppo: anyone who does the reading sees the false
arguement.
> In the 800-1000 year gap one would expect that Rattus exulans would
be
> represented by a greater population
> Notes
> The Age of Rat Introduction into New Zealand.
>
> Further Evidence from Earthquake 1 North Otago
> A Anderson & T Higham
>
> *SIGH* Same old garbage from George again. This relates to c14
tests
> done at a different site totally (Pleasant River) and "expanded" to
> cover all c14 ages done before 1996. The reason the c14 ages were
> questioned is that known human habitation remains (charcoal and
marine
> shell) has been dated to 12->13th and 15->16th century AD.
R.exulans
> from that site dates to 1039 +/- 69 BP and 515 +/- 55 BP (Smith
&
> Anderson 1998), the first predating previously known human
habitation
> in that place. George is referring to something that is outdated by
> later studies.
Yes, Seppo, you are right. The Anderson / Higham article is basically
trying to argue over the fact that when Higham did his rat bone tests,
he was using ultra filters with a glycerine contaminant -- and bugger
m' days, they did not test the background on these filters before
they used them.
Standard proceedure - as I use - is to test all materials for
background before you use them in a method. Saves time and
headscratching. And I never ever used these ultrafilters.
>
> Pollution possibilities (C14)
>
Did not happen, as evidence of similar and expected results from
other
methods used to determine the age. How does he expect c14, c13, 15N
(radiocarbon/isotope) and TL and OSL (optical) testing all to be
"polluted" in a manner to produce corresponding results?
Potential contamination effects have been tested for, and it is
possible to remove such contaminants from samples and are in the
"gelatinisation" process. Bevan-Athfield and Sparks ran tests on
R.exulans bones found at the Pleasant River, Otago site (the most
controversial site). They tested for in situ contamination from humic
and fulvic acids transferred in soil pore waters, on the off chance
it
may have been a previous unidentified contaminant in R.exulans
samples. No such contamination was found, and they further found that
such should not be used for "explaining" radiocarbon "anomalies" in
bone (as George is doing) without having tested for the presence of
such. Further more, any such contaminants would tend to produce a
younger age, not a much older than actual age (Gurfinkle 1987;
Stafford et al. 1988)
George has ignored numerous later studies than discredits all his
"what if" claims.[/quote:ceddadcd3e]
Right again, Seppo. As a matter of fact, the more silly of the
mis-attributions/facts George uses are actually clearly stated in my
own publications to test all effects.
So, when Geroge writes the following:
> Formaldhyde (NZA 6086) Carbonates. Canopy Effect.
> Food chain reservoirs (2500 year old carbon).
>
.. he either can't get his attributions straight, or he's the pain
that Waikato archaeologists have told me he is...
Formaldyde: My own tests on a known - age of death, late 19th century
rat
Mineral oil (glycerin): Higham's error in not testing background on
materials. I never used ultrafilters, and would never have done, for
that reason.
Food chain reserviors: I've written three papers on this, including
how to identify when its an issue. PS: food chain effect was seen in
birds, too.
Canopy effect: Silly. The "canopy effect" affects 13C values, NOT
14C values. 14C values are what they are throughout the canopy.
Contemporary atmospheric 14C values are linked to the biosphere via
photosynthesis. The contemporary 14C value does not change given
where you are in elevation in a canopy.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
NancyB
to
sanitation
...and this is where the George's fishing yarns belongs.
>
>
>
> There has, as yet, been no explanation as to how there have been no
Old Rat bone recovered since 1997....
>
> exactly..... early 1920'ies? Therefor it must be suspect, right?
Old rat bone was excavated from the oldest layers in the predator
sites studied. Anderson and Higham have now dated bone from some
archaeological sites that necessarily are within human settlement
era, and aside from the ultrafilter booboo, have done some nice
work...
The real point is that no *new* predator sites have been excavated
since then. There but for the funding, m'boys, there but for the
funding....
And *this* was particularly amusing:
>
> Glycerin used to preserve and clear otoliths could conceivably
change
> the net radio-carbon content of the otolith,
>
So, gly is used to preserve fish otoliths. Well, if one was dating
fish otoliths, one would have reason to give pause here. But what it
has to do with dating legs and skulls of rats, just beats the heck out
of this girl scientist....
Peter Ashby
Not if early canoes made it to NZ, but not back home. The failure of
early voyages of discovery may have inhibited more, especially if other
events, like other new lands, warfare, cyclones etc distracted people.
That is assuming we can trust dates on very poorly attested samples,
further examples of which have not been forthcoming.
So we have plausible scenarios which could explain arrival without
colonization and reasons for scepticism about the data. The latter mean
we may not need to use those scenarios, but they are there if necessary.
Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
<bar...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>The great migration that colonised NZ was certainly not the first arrival
>of humans. The story is that the fleet knew where they were going, which
>means that at least one previous voyage took place to NZ and back. Given
>the number of people that would have been on a trip of exploration (as
>against one of colonisation) it is unlikely that they would have
>deliberately left anyone behind.
>
>The exploration voyage would probably have occurred at most a generation
>or 2 prior to the colonization voyage. It is hard to explain an 800 year
>gap between discovery and settlement.
That would be true of the exploration that led to the migration, but
that doesn't mean there couldn't have been earlier explorations that
didn't lead to migrations. The exploration that led to the migration
may have set out in search of the legend of the earlier exploration -
te ika a Maui perhaps?
--
R.G. "Stumpy" Marsh.
Seppo Renfors
Yeah, that's the one.....
Seppo Renfors
NancyB wrote:
>
[..]
>
> Canopy effect: Silly. The "canopy effect" affects 13C values, NOT
> 14C values. 14C values are what they are throughout the canopy.
> Contemporary atmospheric 14C values are linked to the biosphere via
> photosynthesis. The contemporary 14C value does not change given
> where you are in elevation in a canopy.
I missed that one. I have a feeling George may have a poor
understanding of the production/uptake of 14C. I admit it can become
rather complicated when marine and atmospheric reservoir material is
the food source of animals etc. Still, I didn't think the canopy had
any relevance.
Yuri Kuchinsky
That'll teach George to stick with the things he actually
knows. Although I wonder what it would be? :)
Also, one can read the replies by Dr. Nancy Beavan that she
posted today in sci.arch. She's the one who actually did
some of this work, and published the results in peer
reviewed journals.
Regards,
Yuri.
Barry Phease
> Barry Phease <bar...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>> The exploration voyage would probably have occurred at most a generation
>> or 2 prior to the colonization voyage. It is hard to explain an 800 year
>> gap between discovery and settlement.
>
> Not if early canoes made it to NZ, but not back home. The failure of
> early voyages of discovery may have inhibited more,
There must have been many failed voyages. You can only have admiration
for these polynesian seafarers, but it must have been extremely perilous,
and a large proportion of long distance explorations must have
ended in disaster.
OTOH Paikea seems to have arrived here from the Cooks in a single person
canoe. It is hard to imagine that it was deliberate, or that he could
have made it back. If it had happened generations earlier when there were
no humans here then he would have died a castaway. Rats might have
persisted, however. There could never be any solid evidence for it
though without finding his bones.
>especially if other
> events, like other new lands, warfare, cyclones etc distracted people.
> That is assuming we can trust dates on very poorly attested samples,
> further examples of which have not been forthcoming.
Right! The evidence is indicative, rather than conclusive. From the time
scale of settlement of islands further north there is no reason to rule
out arrivals much earlier.
Peter Ashby
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:41:41 +0000, Peter Ashby wrote:
>
> > Barry Phease <bar...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >> The exploration voyage would probably have occurred at most a generation
> >> or 2 prior to the colonization voyage. It is hard to explain an 800 year
> >> gap between discovery and settlement.
> >
> > Not if early canoes made it to NZ, but not back home. The failure of
> > early voyages of discovery may have inhibited more,
>
> There must have been many failed voyages. You can only have admiration
> for these polynesian seafarers, but it must have been extremely perilous,
> and a large proportion of long distance explorations must have
> ended in disaster.
Indeed, but don't forget that they had the world's most advanced ocean
going technology many centuries before Europeans got there. They found
every scrap of habitable land spread over an ocean that occupies a full
third of this planet's surface and the kumara is good circumstantial
evidence that they made it to the other shore, which being already
occupied, they took what was useful and headed home.
I imagine it makes it a might less scary if you are in possession of a
proven technology and the confidence to use it. You could argue that you
would have been safer on Kupe's voyage than Cook's.
NancyB
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:41:41 +0000, Peter Ashby wrote:
>
> Barry Phease <bar...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> The exploration voyage would probably have occurred at most a
generation
> or 2 prior to the colonization voyage. It is hard to explain an 800
year
> gap between discovery and settlement.
>
> Not if early canoes made it to NZ, but not back home. The failure
of
> early voyages of discovery may have inhibited more,
>
> There must have been many failed voyages. You can only have
admiration
> for these polynesian seafarers, but it must have been extremely
perilous,
> and a large proportion of long distance explorations must have
> ended in disaster.
>
person
> canoe. It is hard to imagine that it was deliberate, or that he
could
> have made it back. If it had happened generations earlier when
there were
> no humans here then he would have died a castaway. Rats might have
> persisted, however. There could never be any solid evidence for it
> though without finding his bones.
> especially if other
> events, like other new lands, warfare, cyclones etc distracted
people.
> That is assuming we can trust dates on very poorly attested
samples,
> further examples of which have not been forthcoming.
>
> Right! The evidence is indicative, rather than conclusive. From
the time
> scale of settlement of islands further north there is no reason to
rule
As I deal only with the scientific analysis side of things, it remains
a fascination for me how the hard data is then used in various
scenarios. So, I cannot ever say much about "who" or "how" the rats
might have made an early appearance. But what should be mentioned is
that this work by Holdaway from which these rat bones came was not to
study human arrival, but rather, to study the timing of extirpations
and extinctions of vulnerable avian fauna. This is why these samples
come from avian predator sites, not archaeological ( human cultural)
sites.
And, there are a fair few papers by Holdaway et al which apply the
early introduction of a new predator vis those extirpation and
extinction rates. Others have also looked at how the rat (kiore)
affects plant succession as well ( and this effect on birds and
plants was one reason that modern kiore have been exterminated on
offshore island conservation estates).
If any of you have the ability to access the following (sorry, I
can't tell if others might be able to access this online), try
reading:
A spatio-temporal model for the invasion of the New Zealand
archipelago by the Pacific rat Rattus exulans
Richard N. Holdaway*
http://www.rsnz.govt.nz/publish/jrsnz/1999/7.php
Effects of kiore (Rattus exulans Peale) on recruitment of indigenous
coastal trees on northern offshore islands of New Zealand
D. J. Campbell, I. A. E. Atkinson*
http://www.rsnz.govt.nz/publish/jrsnz/1999/18.php
Also see this very good synopsis of **all** that had been written up
to 2001:
Advances in New Zealand mammalogy 1990-2000: Pacific rat
I. A. E. Atkinson*, D. R. Towns **
[url]http://www.rsnz.govt.nz/publish/jrsnz/2001/8.php[/url]
George
> Good work, Seppo!
>
> That'll teach George to stick with the things he actually
> knows. Although I wonder what it would be? :)
>
> Also, one can read the replies by Dr. Nancy Beavan that she
> posted today in sci.arch. She's the one who actually did
> some of this work, and published the results in peer
> reviewed journals.
In a word Yuri no.
Waikato Radiocarbon Lab ( http://www.radiocarbondating.com/) has never
had an 'old rat' sample
The latest publication on the subject is
The Age of Rat Introduction into New Zealand.
Further Evidence from Earthquake 1 North Otago
A Anderson & T Higham
There are no Old Rat dates reported since 1997.
The dates are exclusively reported by one Lab.
Refs:
Anderson A J
1996 Was Rattus exulans in New Zealand 2000 years ago.
Archaeology in Oceania : 31: 178-183Differential reliability of C14
ages of rat bone gelatine in South Pacific history
Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand : 30: 243-261Newsletter of
the New Zealand Archaeological Society Association
3 : 28The Holdaway R N & Bevan N R articles are already referenced
here.http://www.rsnz.govt.nz/publish/jrsnz/2002/024.phpYaldwyn J C
The matchbox the rat bone the Hukanui #76 excavations 1959
Archaeology in New Zealand 45: 118-129
June 2002 Archaeology in New Zealand Vol 45 No.2 page 118
September 2002 Archaeology in New Zealand Vol 45 No.3 page 216 A
Anderson..
Pollution possibilities
Formaldhyde (NZA 6086) Carbonates. Canopy Effect. Food chain
reservoirs (2500 year old carbon). Mineral oil (glycerin.)
George
>
> That'll teach George to stick with the things he actually
> knows. Although I wonder what it would be? :)
>
> Also, one can read the replies by Dr. Nancy Beavan that she
> posted today in sci.arch. She's the one who actually did
> some of this work, and published the results in peer
> reviewed journals.
And there have been no other Rattus exulans (old rat) bones recovered since 1997..
Why ?
.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:41:41 +0000, Peter Ashby wrote:
>
>> Barry Phease <bar...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>> The exploration voyage would probably have occurred at most a generation
>>> or 2 prior to the colonization voyage. It is hard to explain an 800 year
>>> gap between discovery and settlement.
>>
>> Not if early canoes made it to NZ, but not back home. The failure of
>> early voyages of discovery may have inhibited more,
>
>There must have been many failed voyages. You can only have admiration
>for these polynesian seafarers, but it must have been extremely perilous,
>and a large proportion of long distance explorations must have
>ended in disaster.
>
>OTOH Paikea seems to have arrived here from the Cooks in a single person
>canoe. It is hard to imagine that it was deliberate,...
The computer simulations of Levisonn Ward and Webb show that it is
even more difficult to imagine that it was accidental.
> ... or that he could
>have made it back. If it had happened generations earlier when there were
>no humans here then he would have died a castaway. Rats might have
>persisted, however. There could never be any solid evidence for it
>though without finding his bones.
>
>>especially if other
>> events, like other new lands, warfare, cyclones etc distracted people.
>> That is assuming we can trust dates on very poorly attested samples,
>> further examples of which have not been forthcoming.
>
>Right! The evidence is indicative, rather than conclusive. From the time
>scale of settlement of islands further north there is no reason to rule
>out arrivals much earlier.
Eric Stevens
Barry Phease
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:26:59 +1200, Barry Phease <bar...@es.co.nz>
> wrote:
>>OTOH Paikea seems to have arrived here from the Cooks in a single person
>>canoe. It is hard to imagine that it was deliberate,...
>
> The computer simulations of Levisonn Ward and Webb show that it is
> even more difficult to imagine that it was accidental.
That is by-the by. Because the journey was supposed to have been made in
a single person fishing canoe (he was swept away while fishing) it was
certainly not deliberate. OTOH another story is that he actually made it
to Rarotonga where he came to NZ on the Takitimu canoe. Perhaps this
would fit your computer simulation better. :)
In any case the fact that his name lived on in Mauke legend is remarkable,
given that any number of fishermen must have got lost at sea over the
years.
George
islands of New Zealand hinge upon some dubious radiocarbon dates of
Rattus exulans from Rafter (http://www.rafterradiocarbon.co.nz/) .
The sample collecting (at various sites i.e Earthquake 1 North Otago)
has been followed up by further work and no more dated (old rat)
samples have been found since 1997..
I have contacted our other Radio Carbon Dating Lab at Waikato
University (http://www.radiocarbondating.com/) who have the earliest
Rattus exulans bone dates of around 1200 AD.
It is my opinion that the 'old rat' is a non event and we should get
on to real archaeology especially tracing the trade routes within the
Pacific basin as defined by the quarried stone tool movements.
NancyB
[quote="Yuri Kuchinsky"]Good work, Seppo!
>
> That'll teach George to stick with the things he actually
> knows. Although I wonder what it would be? :)
>
> Also, one can read the replies by Dr. Nancy Beavan that she
> posted today in sci.arch. She's the one who actually did
> some of this work, and published the results in peer
> reviewed journals.
>
>
> Yuri.
>
> George has ignored numerous later studies that discredits all his
> "what if" claims.
Yes, Yuri/Seppo:
All the dates come from one lab ( Rafter) because that was the lab
contracted to do the work on the natural sites.
Pre 1997, *old* rat dates were certainly produced - but more than a
dozen dates within agreed time of settlement were also produced. So
no, it was not the case that only old dates were produced first, but
were among the overall work. This is what started me thinking that
we had to go in and test all possibilities for variation. Later,
Robert Hedges from the Oxford lab actually did his own review of
every aspect of the Rafter process - chemical, analytical, and
couldn't identify any specific reason that the ages were "wrong" from
a processing point of view.
At the same time, I was looking at the diet issue -- that's when the
Pleasant River work was done, and then, I looked at modern
populations in a food chain at Lake Taupo, and man oh man, can you
get some incredible dietary anomolies from a geothermal - influenced
area!!! That was fun!!! (Seppo, you have that Taupo paper from
Radiocarbon)
As far as I know, Waikato has tested rat bone from archaeological
sites / settlement sites - therefore, bone from those sites will be
within agreed settlement date. Fiona Petchy (Waikato) has looked at
survival of bone protein in archaeological sites, too.
The latest work (Anderson) is not on retesting bone from the predator
sites, such as Earthquakes - it is a review of the stratigraphy of
the site.
There are certainly rat bone ages that we have shown to be wrong, with
respect to their stratigraphic position and association with other
dated materials such as charcoal and terrestrial herbivore bird bone.
At Pleasant River, I had shown how dietary anomolies "aged" not only
the rat bone, but also certain waterfowl.
And at Pleasant River, even Oxford got a rat bone age of 950 yr BP
(OxA 6743, Cal date 985- 1218 AD). BUT *that*, my friends, was
indeed diet!
So the variable effects of diet are real, and can be identified *if*
you pay attention to the stratigraphy and agreement with the ages of
associated materials.
So aside from those places where we know diet is an issue, this is
why the old ages on rat bone haven't been dismissed, but *have* been
argued about continuously ( to put it mildly.)
They are in agreement with stratigraphic position ( ie, an older age
does not appear over a younger age); agreement with associated
materials ( herbivore bird bone/not reservior effect) and charcoal;
they are in agreement with OSL ages (Earthquakes, Hukanui). Are they
problematic vis the paradigm of arrival/settlement? Damn skippy they
are - which is why we have all continued to work on the issue.
Its an important issue that cannot be tossed off -- and as a reviewer
wrote recently, the sum of the research that has been generated by
this one issue is remarkable, offering insight on natural processes ;
it has involved three of the best radiocarbon labs in the world (
Rafter, Waikato, and Oxford) and at least a dozen of the most apt
(and argumentative) minds at various stages of the debate.
And I've been really fortunate to be a part of something like that, to
be working with people such as Petchy and Anderson and Higham; it
makes a career worthwhile.
So guys, let's not be bothered too much by George; he's a retired guy
who has a lot of time on his hands to troll...
Seppo Renfors
Yes thank you, and more. I still have a bit of reading to do.....
> As far as I know, Waikato has tested rat bone from archaeological
> sites / settlement sites - therefore, bone from those sites will be
> within agreed settlement date. Fiona Petchy (Waikato) has looked at
> survival of bone protein in archaeological sites, too.
Wasn't the Pleasant River bones from an archaeological site? Their
ages were compared to charcoal remains that were later than some bone
dates. Where sample NZA 6532 (r. femur) showed a calibrated age of
882-1161 AD and the charcoal showed a calibrated pooled mean age of
1287-1402 AD. But the R.exulans mandible (OxA 6744) was within the
date range of 1309-1465 AD, consistent with settlement.
> The latest work (Anderson) is not on retesting bone from the predator
> sites, such as Earthquakes - it is a review of the stratigraphy of
> the site.
>
> There are certainly rat bone ages that we have shown to be wrong, with
> respect to their stratigraphic position and association with other
> dated materials such as charcoal and terrestrial herbivore bird bone.
> At Pleasant River, I had shown how dietary anomolies "aged" not only
> the rat bone, but also certain waterfowl.
>
> And at Pleasant River, even Oxford got a rat bone age of 950 yr BP
> (OxA 6743, Cal date 985- 1218 AD). BUT *that*, my friends, was
> indeed diet!
Hmmm..... that particular sample had received the ion exchange
purification treatment (since discontinued). As that process does
affect the 15N values that I understand are required for 13C ->15N
differentiation, then wouldn't that differentiation be in error and
unreliable for a diet correction?
[..]
>
> So guys, let's not be bothered too much by George; he's a retired guy
> who has a lot of time on his hands to troll...
....and equally as much time to actually learn instead of trolling.
NancyB
> ages were compared to charcoal remains that were later than some
bone
> dates. Where sample NZA 6532 (r. femur) showed a calibrated age of
> 882-1161 AD and the charcoal showed a calibrated pooled mean age of
> 1287-1402 AD. But the R.exulans mandible (OxA 6744) was within the
> date range of 1309-1465 AD, consistent with settlement.
Yes -- Ian Smith ( the chap who excavated the site) and I got together
because of the variation that was seen in the rat bone. He gave me
the additional samples of soils from the pits, bird bone of various
spp, etc.
Look at the Table 1 again in the "Calibrated AD" column. Note that
there are actually two cal date ranges listed for many of the
samples.
What we did was say, right, first use the regular terrestrial
calibration that the rat bone and charcoal were done by ( plain type
for cal ranges). The ducks and quail and etc were also all originally
calibrated using terrestrial cal.
Look also at the known marine organisms ( shag, penguin). Those were
calibrated using the Delta R for local marine offset ( italic type).
If the rats ( and obviously, the ducks etc that were giving ages in
disagreement with the charcoal) had a maine influence (from nicking
either marine food or animals that had eaten marine sourced foods)
then we could play with taking the original terr cal and this time
using marine cal.
Now, this was a very "ballpark" thing to do, as amounts of marine food
in a diet would contribute variable amounts of offset.
Look now at Fig 1. The solid lines are the original Terr. cal range;
R exulans NZA6536, NZA6532, Grey duck NZA11994, Teal NZA11995,
R.exulans OxA6743, and shoveller duck NZA11996 all originally fell
below the 1300 cal AD, agreed age for the site. But when we use a
marine cal on them, all of these, except for rat NZA6536, come into
Cal range for agreed age of site.
So it is after giving it a marine cal that R.exulans OxA6743 comes
into agreed age for the site. R exulans NZA6536 is still too old, and
you'd have to find another, significantly depleted reservior to
explain him -- a geologist friend pointed out that there were
Cretaceous age coal seams that bounded the Pleasant River, and we
talk in the paper about dissolved carbon from this source, but again,
its theory and one would have to go back and do a pretty extensive
project to check out the ideas we present on that possibility ( Pg
806).
Again, that was a very general use of adjustment for marine offset,
but suggests that the ages are off in these creatures because they
had diet links to a similar reservior.
> And at Pleasant River, even Oxford got a rat bone age of 950 yr BP
> (OxA 6743, Cal date 985- 1218 AD). BUT *that*, my friends, was
> indeed diet!
> Hmmm..... that particular sample had received the ion exchange
> purification treatment (since discontinued). As that process does
> affect the 15N values that I understand are required for 13C
->15N
> differentiation, then wouldn't that differentiation be in error and
> unreliable for a diet correction?
Yes! The 15N points to the trophic level of feeding ( associated with
protein in the diet) and the Oxford fellows (Chris Bronk Ramsey and
Robert Hedges) have indeed worked on that particular situation.
But also I have to say again, just generally applying the marine
correction was a ballpark thing to do - it made a point, but I would
go back and do it differently if there were time, samples and money.
What is the BEST thing to do is to use that ISOSOURCE I was telling
you about elswhere, have really good C and N stable iso analysis done
on the samples, and also, hopefully have local baseline data for the
types of foods which may affect an individuals diet.
Seppo Renfors
NancyB wrote:
>
> > Wasn't the Pleasant River bones from an archaeological site? Their
> > ages were compared to charcoal remains that were later than some
> bone
> > dates. Where sample NZA 6532 (r. femur) showed a calibrated age of
> > 882-1161 AD and the charcoal showed a calibrated pooled mean age of
> > 1287-1402 AD. But the R.exulans mandible (OxA 6744) was within the
> > date range of 1309-1465 AD, consistent with settlement.
>
> Yes -- Ian Smith ( the chap who excavated the site) and I got together
> because of the variation that was seen in the rat bone. He gave me
> the additional samples of soils from the pits, bird bone of various
> spp, etc.
>
> Look at the Table 1 again in the "Calibrated AD" column. Note that
> there are actually two cal date ranges listed for many of the
> samples.
I'm having trouble locating this. I was relying on an article by you
and Roger Sparks, in Journal of the Royal Society of NZ, Vol: 31, No 4
Dec 2001, pp 795->800. The article doesn't have that information in
its "Table 1".
>
> What we did was say, right, first use the regular terrestrial
> calibration that the rat bone and charcoal were done by ( plain type
> for cal ranges). The ducks and quail and etc were also all originally
> calibrated using terrestrial cal.
>
> Look also at the known marine organisms ( shag, penguin). Those were
> calibrated using the Delta R for local marine offset ( italic type).
>
> If the rats ( and obviously, the ducks etc that were giving ages in
> disagreement with the charcoal) had a maine influence (from nicking
> either marine food or animals that had eaten marine sourced foods)
> then we could play with taking the original terr cal and this time
> using marine cal.
>
> Now, this was a very "ballpark" thing to do, as amounts of marine food
> in a diet would contribute variable amounts of offset.
Yep, I can see that being so.
> Look now at Fig 1. The solid lines are the original Terr. cal range;
> R exulans NZA6536, NZA6532, Grey duck NZA11994, Teal NZA11995,
> R.exulans OxA6743, and shoveller duck NZA11996 all originally fell
> below the 1300 cal AD, agreed age for the site. But when we use a
> marine cal on them, all of these, except for rat NZA6536, come into
> Cal range for agreed age of site.
>
> So it is after giving it a marine cal that R.exulans OxA6743 comes
> into agreed age for the site. R exulans NZA6536 is still too old, and
> you'd have to find another, significantly depleted reservior to
> explain him -- a geologist friend pointed out that there were
> Cretaceous age coal seams that bounded the Pleasant River, and we
> talk in the paper about dissolved carbon from this source, but again,
> its theory and one would have to go back and do a pretty extensive
> project to check out the ideas we present on that possibility ( Pg
> 806).
My pages end at 800. Still I understand what you are driving at.
Naturally whenever you get severely different ages from the same level
and locale, some have to be wrong. Then the "odd one out" is the most
likely suspect.
In the article I referred to earlier, you (and Sparks) have tested
soils and eliminated some aspects at least. The conclusion states; "We
have been unable to find chemical fraction from the soil that could be
expected to accompany bone gelatine through all stages of sample
processing and also result in a significant shift in the 14C age of
the bone." and go on to the really interesting part; "...if this
component had been carried through to final processing it would
require the sample that was measured to consist almost entirely of the
contaminant..." This tends to indicate a very significant amount of
contaminant will be required to affect the 14C age - an amount not
expected to go unnoticed.
> Again, that was a very general use of adjustment for marine offset,
> but suggests that the ages are off in these creatures because they
> had diet links to a similar reservior.
It is unlikely all of the age should be allocated a marine source, but
a combination of atmospheric and marine - still I would guess it would
fall within the expected age range just the same.
> > And at Pleasant River, even Oxford got a rat bone age of 950 yr BP
> > (OxA 6743, Cal date 985- 1218 AD). BUT *that*, my friends, was
> > indeed diet!
> > Hmmm..... that particular sample had received the ion exchange
> > purification treatment (since discontinued). As that process does
> > affect the 15N values that I understand are required for 13C
> ->15N
> > differentiation, then wouldn't that differentiation be in error and
> > unreliable for a diet correction?
>
> Yes! The 15N points to the trophic level of feeding ( associated with
> protein in the diet) and the Oxford fellows (Chris Bronk Ramsey and
> Robert Hedges) have indeed worked on that particular situation.
>
> But also I have to say again, just generally applying the marine
> correction was a ballpark thing to do - it made a point, but I would
> go back and do it differently if there were time, samples and money.
> What is the BEST thing to do is to use that ISOSOURCE I was telling
> you about elswhere, have really good C and N stable iso analysis done
> on the samples, and also, hopefully have local baseline data for the
> types of foods which may affect an individuals diet.
I did read your recommendations and that certainly suggests a more
accurate method. Only one problem, whenever the calibration is applied
- even when a relatively accurate marine component can be factored in,
the resultant calendar age has a very broad probability range -
depending on age, up to some 6 -> 700 years (at around 3000 BCE IIRC),
but most often by around 200 or so years. So despite a more accurate
methods in one area, the ultimate result ends up in a sloppy somewhere
thereabouts age just the same.... frustrating...
Yuri Kuchinsky
Lack of funding. As you've been already told.
But obviously a conspiracy theory of some sort will be a lot
more attractive for the likes of you...
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods
without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population
that dwells under it -=O=- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Yuri Kuchinsky
Thank you for your detailed reply, Nancy. It's obvious that
this research has been checked and rechecked numerous times,
and that it's pretty solid.
> So guys, let's not be bothered too much by George;
Hear, hear! :)
> he's a retired guy
> who has a lot of time on his hands to troll...
That's all he does, apparently...
Just muddying the waters...
NancyB
NancyB wrote:
>
> Look at the Table 1 again in the "Calibrated AD" column. Note that
> there are actually two cal date ranges listed for many of the
> samples.
> I'm having trouble locating this. I was relying on an article by
you
> and Roger Sparks, in Journal of the Royal Society of NZ, Vol: 31, No
4
> Dec 2001, pp 795->800. The article doesn't have that information
in
> its "Table 1".
!!!??? didn't you get the actual reprint? The correct ref is pp. 801
to 809. The Table 1 is on page 805.
> Look now at Fig 1. The solid lines are the original Terr. cal
range;
> R exulans NZA6536, NZA6532, Grey duck NZA11994, Teal NZA11995,
> R.exulans OxA6743, and shoveller duck NZA11996 all originally fell
> below the 1300 cal AD, agreed age for the site. But when we use a
> marine cal on them, all of these, except for rat NZA6536, come into
> Cal range for agreed age of site.
>
> So it is after giving it a marine cal that R.exulans OxA6743 comes
> into agreed age for the site. R exulans NZA6536 is still too old,
and
> you'd have to find another, significantly depleted reservior to
> explain him -- a geologist friend pointed out that there were
> Cretaceous age coal seams that bounded the Pleasant River, and we
> talk in the paper about dissolved carbon from this source, but
again,
> its theory and one would have to go back and do a pretty extensive
> project to check out the ideas we present on that possibility ( Pg
> 806).
>
> My pages end at 800. Still I understand what you are driving at.
> Naturally whenever you get severely different ages from the same
level
> and locale, some have to be wrong. Then the "odd one out" is the
most
> likely suspect.
I think that also, the point here is that if no one had ever gone and
dated the bird bones of diff species, then the story would be "the
rats are all over the place." With the additionial dating, the
picture becomes a bit more enriched, and we are forced to think about
a dietary factor.
> In the article I referred to earlier, you (and Sparks) have tested
> soils and eliminated some aspects at least. The conclusion states;
"We
> have been unable to find chemical fraction from the soil that could
be
> expected to accompany bone gelatine through all stages of sample
> processing and also result in a significant shift in the 14C age of
> the bone." and go on to the really interesting part; "...if this
> component had been carried through to final processing it would
> require the sample that was measured to consist almost entirely of
the
> contaminant..." This tends to indicate a very significant amount of
> contaminant will be required to affect the 14C age - an amount not
> expected to go unnoticed.
Yes, and as humic/fulvic contaminates tend to have 13C's more depleted
than expected for animal ranges, it would tend to stick out -- unless
the animals were also then marine influenced -
I tell you, it can be very complicated, assessing all the possible
factors. That is why the work had to be broken up into two papers;
the assessment of the soils was complex enough.
> Again, that was a very general use of adjustment for marine offset,
> but suggests that the ages are off in these creatures because they
> had diet links to a similar reservior.
>
> It is unlikely all of the age should be allocated a marine source,
but
> a combination of atmospheric and marine - still I would guess it
would
> fall within the expected age range just the same.
Yes, there's always *one* data point that throws a spanner into one's
simple and elegant explanation. But then, that's what natural
systems are about, I reckon: there are more things in heavan and
earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy ( and that's what fuels
future graduate student theses.)
> ( regarding teasing out diet info)....What is the BEST thing to do
is to use that ISOSOURCE I was telling you about elswhere, have
really good C and N stable iso analysis done on the samples, and
also, hopefully have local baseline data for thetypes of foods which
may affect an individuals diet.
>
> I did read your recommendations and that certainly suggests a more
accurate method. Only one problem, whenever the calibration is
applied- even when a relatively accurate marine component can be
factored in,the resultant calendar age has a very broad probability
range -
> depending on age, up to some 6 -> 700 years (at around 3000 BCE
IIRC),
> but most often by around 200 or so years. So despite a more
accurate
> methods in one area, the ultimate result ends up in a sloppy
somewhere
> thereabouts age just the same.... frustrating...
Yeah, I know.... getting down to cal age can certainly be a
disappointment ( as those who want cal ages would like to know down
to the time of day a certain thing happened! Sorry, being silly
here...) Twenty-five years ago I started in this field, and then, I
was working for a brilliant bloke who was looking at ocean
ventilation rates, and the main concern there was what was the
difference between benthic and planktonic coexisting foraminifera -
not an "AD/BC" in sight. Ahh, simplicity.
NancyB
George wrote:
>
>
> And there have been no other Rattus exulans (old rat) bones
recovered since 1997..
> Why ?
>
> Lack of funding. As you've been already told.
Okay, "there but for the funding" was a flip comment, but a true
enough one in some circumstances. The point is, there are places
that haven't been investigated yet, just find the funding and decide
which is a goodone....
Holdaway got on with the faunal extinction study that the original
funding was for (remember, this was not orginally about the bloody
rats.) He also went over the work already done, ( eg OSL ) but it was
worthwhile. New sites would be interesting, especially as there is
only so much you can take out of any given site, eh? Yes, give us
something new...
I think, perhaps, some commentators here might not appreciate how much
work and effort and years can go into new work. The imperitive "
Gimmee new data " requires that one identify a site/sites, do the
work, and get it published.
Doing that is Simple and Fun and Straighforward, and turnaround fast!
As they say in the Tui beer advert, "Yeah, right" :
Spend six months writing, submitting, and waiting for review and
possible acceptance of a proposal to get somebody to give you a
minimum of $60,000 to $150 000 to pay for your fieldwork food,
transport, lodging/tenting, and eventual analytical costs, and your
salary over the entire time ( because you are doing this as your
*job* ). You get funded! Pack your fieldwork odds and ends,
including lots of little plastic baggies! You've been funded because
you convinced a panel that you had a great idea, and you know where
it is most likely to go looking. Go there, and start excavating.
Get lucky, and work carefully in mud/rain/snow ( how few nice field
days there are.) Get unlucky, and you bust. Start again if the
latter. Work on your notes and your samples; start trying to make
sense of the site. Choose which samples to analyse, develope a
protocol to decide which are most important. As a story seems to
emerge, you believe that additional "somethings" would be most
excellent to have ( rule of thumb-you will always do twice as much
work to get what you need, as what you've estimated.) Collect all
the small change hidden in the sofa, tell your spouse that next
weekend "I promise!! I'll be home!!", and go back to do additional
field work. Return two weeks later as work was going really well;
find spouse has left you and taken the dog, which leaves you a quiet
house to start writing up your work. Send samples for analysis, get
data back in eight weeks or so. Submit paper. Two to seven months
later, recieve review. Answer review. Spouse also writes, to say
that they have taken up with an accountant that doesn't travel and
never brings home muddy clothing. But your paper has been accepted!
A year or so later, given publication schedules, your paper appears.
Sense of accomplishment: in just under three years or so you have
*started* one new site! Are still somewhat jealous of that b*strd who
published on eight sites and got it in
Nature. Decide this is a much harder
job than some would imagine. Start writing new funding proposal to do
further work on new site. . . and so on.
One would be mad ( or a scientist) to live this way.
Seppo Renfors
NancyB wrote:
>
> > Seppo Renforswrote:
> NancyB wrote:
> >
> > Look at the Table 1 again in the "Calibrated AD" column. Note that
> > there are actually two cal date ranges listed for many of the
> > samples.
> > I'm having trouble locating this. I was relying on an article by
> you
> > and Roger Sparks, in Journal of the Royal Society of NZ, Vol: 31, No
> 4
> > Dec 2001, pp 795->800. The article doesn't have that information
> in
> > its "Table 1".
>
> !!!??? didn't you get the actual reprint? The correct ref is pp. 801
> to 809. The Table 1 is on page 805.
I received a lot of very good information, thanks you again - but not
that particular one - unless I have managed to misplace it in a very
"safe place"...... Still, I think I can manage :-)
[..]
> > My pages end at 800. Still I understand what you are driving at.
> > Naturally whenever you get severely different ages from the same
> level
> > and locale, some have to be wrong. Then the "odd one out" is the
> most
> > likely suspect.
>
> I think that also, the point here is that if no one had ever gone and
> dated the bird bones of diff species, then the story would be "the
> rats are all over the place."
....which would not have been logical. However the old furphy of
"contamination" would have been blamed and everyone would pick on
their preferred age to fit their own theories as the "correct age".
> With the additionial dating, the
> picture becomes a bit more enriched, and we are forced to think about
> a dietary factor.
Well, it does reduce the potential arguments. More importantly it does
two other things. I gets a tad more accurate date on the bones as well
as further the knowledge on an effect from a marine reservoir diet.
> > In the article I referred to earlier, you (and Sparks) have tested
> > soils and eliminated some aspects at least. The conclusion states;
> "We
> > have been unable to find chemical fraction from the soil that could
> be
> > expected to accompany bone gelatine through all stages of sample
> > processing and also result in a significant shift in the 14C age of
> > the bone." and go on to the really interesting part; "...if this
> > component had been carried through to final processing it would
> > require the sample that was measured to consist almost entirely of
> the
> > contaminant..." This tends to indicate a very significant amount of
> > contaminant will be required to affect the 14C age - an amount not
> > expected to go unnoticed.
>
> Yes, and as humic/fulvic contaminates tend to have 13C's more depleted
> than expected for animal ranges, it would tend to stick out -- unless
> the animals were also then marine influenced -
Yes, I see what you mean.
> I tell you, it can be very complicated, assessing all the possible
> factors. That is why the work had to be broken up into two papers;
> the assessment of the soils was complex enough.
He he he...... that's why you are doing the work, and not me :-)
I'm just happy to be able to read the results and sound "intelligent"
as a result :-)
> > Again, that was a very general use of adjustment for marine offset,
> > but suggests that the ages are off in these creatures because they
> > had diet links to a similar reservior.
> >
> > It is unlikely all of the age should be allocated a marine source,
> but
> > a combination of atmospheric and marine - still I would guess it
> would
> > fall within the expected age range just the same.
>
> Yes, there's always *one* data point that throws a spanner into one's
> simple and elegant explanation. But then, that's what natural
> systems are about, I reckon: there are more things in heavan and
> earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy ( and that's what fuels
> future graduate student theses.)
I have argued against "random" as was applied to nature and evolution
by some, I don't see "random", I see logic and order - provided we
have all the information to judge by. Only too often we don't and
things may appear to be "random". Still that is another story.
[..]
>
> Yeah, I know.... getting down to cal age can certainly be a
> disappointment ( as those who want cal ages would like to know down
> to the time of day a certain thing happened! Sorry, being silly
> here...) Twenty-five years ago I started in this field, and then, I
> was working for a brilliant bloke who was looking at ocean
> ventilation rates, and the main concern there was what was the
> difference between benthic and planktonic coexisting foraminifera -
> not an "AD/BC" in sight. Ahh, simplicity.
I would be happy to get it into the correct century.....
NancyB
801
> to 809. The Table 1 is on page 805.
> I received a lot of very good information, thanks you again - but
not
> that particular one - unless I have managed to misplace it in a
very
> "safe place"...... Still, I think I can manage :-)
Email me again with your address, and I'll send another copy...
>
> Yeah, I know.... getting down to cal age can certainly be a
> disappointment ( as those who want cal ages would like to know down
> to the time of day a certain thing happened! Sorry, being silly
> here...)
>
> I would be happy to get it into the correct century.....
Damn that variation in atmospheric production... There are several
eras where you'll get considerably wide ranges, due to flux of the
solar magnetic field affecting production of 14C, such as
750 BC to 400 BC
3000 BC - 2500BC
4300 BC - 4000 BC
And then theres both atms production variation, plus contribution of
anthropogenic carbon ( after the start of the Industrial Rev.)
1550 - 1950 AD.
George
NZ Journal of Archaeology - - Vol 23:
Atholl Anderson and Tom Higham The age of rat introduction in New
Zealand - further evidence from- Earthquakes #1, North Otago.
Atholl Anderson The age disconformity in AMS Radiocarbon results on
Rattus exulans bone.
Seppo Renfors
NancyB wrote:
>
> > !!!??? didn't you get the actual reprint? The correct ref is pp.
> 801
> > to 809. The Table 1 is on page 805.
> [/quote]
> > I received a lot of very good information, thanks you again - but
> not
> > that particular one - unless I have managed to misplace it in a
> very
> > "safe place"...... Still, I think I can manage :-)
>
> Email me again with your address, and I'll send another copy...
OK I'll do that, but first I'll have another good hunt, just in
case.....
> > Yeah, I know.... getting down to cal age can certainly be a
> > disappointment ( as those who want cal ages would like to know down
> > to the time of day a certain thing happened! Sorry, being silly
> > here...)
> >
> > I would be happy to get it into the correct century.....
>
> Damn that variation in atmospheric production... There are several
> eras where you'll get considerably wide ranges, due to flux of the
> solar magnetic field affecting production of 14C, such as
> 750 BC to 400 BC
> 3000 BC - 2500BC
> 4300 BC - 4000 BC
>
> And then theres both atms production variation, plus contribution of
> anthropogenic carbon ( after the start of the Industrial Rev.)
> 1550 - 1950 AD.
...and the BP refers to 1950, as the reference year - before the "Bomb
blast" effect kicks in.