Chlorine 36 dating

09-May-2018 12:49

Thus a Chlorine-36 date may reflect either recent exposure of a surface due to processes such as frost shattering, or an original exposure date. Professor Bowen and colleagues have obtained a date of c. This difficulty of interpretation is why Chlorine-36 dating is normally done on boulders or lava surfaces whose erosional history is known (e.g. 14,000 years exposure time for the fragment from Stonehenge. God only knows where they came from on the site, and what their history might be.That would be quite enough to put most people off, but not Prof DB. The smaller one is obviously a piece of spotted dolerite -- but what is the other one? Anyway, we don't hear anything more about the big lump on the TV programme -- but the smaller one ended up being crushed to a powder in the USA (at Purdue University) and subjected to Chlorine 36 dating. Now and then I will muse on related Stonehenge topics which have an Ice Age dimension...

Additionally, large amounts of Cl has seen use in other areas of the geological sciences, including dating ice and sediments (Nishiizumi et al., 1983; Phillips et al.,1983).

And to say anything sensible, you need at least two different dating techniques, based on the characteristics of the rock.

This was pointed out by Olwen Williams-Thorpe and others some years ago.

One of the interesting sequences in the film (produced in 1998) is the bit featuring Prof David Bowen, who wanders about in the monument patting sarsens and apparently thinking that they are bluestones, and then produces two lumps of stone which he wants to date, using the chlorine 36 technique.

He says that the stones have come from the 1958 dig -- so presumably they have come from the collections made in the Richard Atkinson excavations of that year.

Additionally, large amounts of Cl has seen use in other areas of the geological sciences, including dating ice and sediments (Nishiizumi et al., 1983; Phillips et al.,1983).And to say anything sensible, you need at least two different dating techniques, based on the characteristics of the rock. This was pointed out by Olwen Williams-Thorpe and others some years ago. One of the interesting sequences in the film (produced in 1998) is the bit featuring Prof David Bowen, who wanders about in the monument patting sarsens and apparently thinking that they are bluestones, and then produces two lumps of stone which he wants to date, using the chlorine 36 technique.He says that the stones have come from the 1958 dig -- so presumably they have come from the collections made in the Richard Atkinson excavations of that year.The rock type of this fragment is unknown, and the sample now completely destroyed (Professor D. Bowen, in discussion at the meeting of the Lithic Studies Group, Cardiff, 28 January 1995), so it may be nothing to do with the bluestone monoliths.