- #1
force majeure
- 6
- 0
There were not only ceramic pieces but also stone pieces.
In the 1940s and 1950s the Iguanodon was completely unknown. No hoaxer could have known of the Iguanodon existence much less made a model, for it wasn't until 1978 of 1979 that skeletons of adult Iguanodons were found with nests and babies.
It follows from this that any material which is composed of carbon may be dated.Herein lies the true advantage of the radiocarbon method, it is able to be uniformly applied throughout the world. Included below is an impressive list of some of the types of carbonaceous samples that have been commonly radiocarbon dated in the years since the inception of the method:
Charcoal, wood, twigs and seeds.
Bone.
Marine, estuarine and riverine shell.
Leather.
Peat
Coprolites.
Lake muds (gyttja) and sediments.
Soil.
Ice cores.
Pollen.
Hair.
Pottery.
Metal casting ores.
Wall paintings and rock art works.
Iron and meteorites.
Avian eggshell.
Corals and foraminifera.
Speleothems.
Tufa.
Blood residues.
Textiles and fabrics.
Paper and parchment.
Fish remains.
Insect remains.
Resins and glues.
Antler and horn.
Water.
A large amount of pottery from the 1st millennium BC in Britain is difficult to date since it is generally unremarkable. For example, in the East Midlands, the same styles and fabrics remained in use through many centuries. It is therefore difficult for archaeologists to construct sequences of the development of the pottery, with which new finds can be compared and dated. Even where such sequences have been constructed, the seuqences may be 'floating' with no fixed chronological markers.
Direct scientific dating of the pottery can provide these markers, giving information on the rates of changes of styles and testing the validity of the pottery typologies..Unfortunately, there are difficulties in applying radiocarbon dating to this problem. Firstly it is rare to be able to date the pottery directly, for example by dating organic matter taken from the fabric of the pot or charcoal scraped from the surface of the pot. Ssecondly, radiocarbon ages need to be calibrated and the calibration curve has a flat spot in the 1st millennium BC; for example, calibrating a radiocarbon date of 2500 ± 80 BP gives a very wide range: 800-400 BC.
Carbon dating is a variety of radioactive dating which is applicable only to matter which was once living and presumed to be in equilibrium with the atmosphere, taking in carbon dioxide from the air for photosynthesis.
:rofl:force majeure said:also check this out:
In the 1940s and 1950s the Iguanodon was completely unknown. No hoaxer could have known of the Iguanodon existence much less made a model, for it wasn't until 1978 of 1979 that skeletons of adult Iguanodons were found with nests and babies.
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Iguanodon.shtml said:Iguanodon was named by Gideon A. Mantell in 1825; its teeth and a few bones were found in 1822 (perhaps by Gideon Mantell's wife, Mrs Mary Mantell) in Sussex, (southern) England. Mantell recognized the similarity between Iguanodon's tooth and that of the modern iguana, except the Iguanodon's was much larger. Iguanodon was the second dinosaur fossil named, and Mantell named it Iguanodon, meaning "iguana tooth." Hundreds of Iguanodon fossils have been found around the world, especially in Belgium, England, Germany, North Africa, and the USA. The type species, I. bernissartensis , was named by Boulenger and van Beneden in 1881.
Ceramic dinosaurs are small figurines made out of clay or similar materials that resemble dinosaurs. These particular ceramic dinosaurs were discovered in Acambaro, a town in Mexico.
The ceramic dinosaurs were discovered in Acambaro in the 1940s by a German named Waldemar Julsrud. He claimed to have found them in a burial site while exploring the area for artifacts.
Over 33,000 ceramic dinosaurs were reportedly discovered in Acambaro by Julsrud. However, many of these have been proven to be fraudulent or not directly linked to the original discovery.
There is a lot of controversy surrounding the authenticity of the ceramic dinosaurs. Some believe that they are evidence of an ancient civilization that coexisted with dinosaurs, while others argue that they are modern forgeries. The majority of evidence and research points to them being fake.
Most scientists view the ceramic dinosaurs as hoaxes or forgeries. There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that they are from an ancient civilization, and many have been shown to be modern creations or altered versions of existing dinosaur figurines. The majority of the scientific community does not consider the ceramic dinosaurs to be a legitimate discovery.