Talk:Pesse canoe
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pesse canoe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | A fact from Pesse canoe appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 December 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Where was it found?
editThe article mentions where it is, the nationality of the expert who questioned it, but it says nothing about where was the object found. I think it's a crucial piece of information in an article like this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.236.87.136 (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Inconsistent dates on Commons photo
editAs found, the text of this article gives dates between 8040 BCE and 7510 BCE for the Pesse canoe, and the date field for it over at Commons has the same data. However, the notes field over at Commons has "6315 +/- 275 v.Chr", which works out to 6590 to 6040 BCE. I'm not sure which one is correct.
The Drentse Museum page is no longer directly linkable, but if you go to https://drentsemusea.nl/collectie/ and put "boomstamkano" in the "Zoek..." box, this object comes up. The description there cites "8040 en 7510 jaar voor Chr.", and says this was determined by radiocarbon dating and pollen analysis. I checked an archive.org copy of the Drentse Museum page from 2016 and it had the same 8040-7510 date range and radiocarbon + pollen statement.
There was apparently a reference to the dating of this object (GRO 486), along with several others, in a 1958 article in Science, but it's paywalled. (The complete cite is probably "de Vries, H., Barendsen, G. W., & Waterbolk, H. T. (1958). Groningen Radiocarbon Dates II. Science, 127(3290), 129–137. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1754459 ".)
I'm leaning towards the 8040-7510 range, just because that's what the museum that has the canoe says. It could be that the initial carbon dating in the 1950s came up with the 6590-6040 range, and then the pollen analysis was done later and pushed the date back another 1460 years. Can someone with JSTOR access see what date ranges the article above supports?
Thanks! 73.185.239.90 (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)