7,000 year old foot prints found in Wales.

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

(First off: this website could really do with a forum dedicated to historical stuff. Just saying.)

Footprints 'date back 7,000 years and could show hunting party'

From the article, "Ancient human footprints discovered on the Welsh coastline are 7,000 years old and could show a snapshot of a Mesolithic hunting party, researchers have said.
Discovered in 2014, the pre-historic footprints of both children and adults at Port Eynon on the Gower peninsula, South Wales, were initially thought to date to the Bronze Age but analysis carried out at Cardiff University has revealed they are actually 3,000 years older than that.

Archaeology PhD student Rhiannon Philp carried out radiocarbon dating on the fragile footprints, which now places them in the Mesolithic period, a time when humans were predominantly hunting and gathering."

Now I have to say that's pretty cool.

 

[Skreeper]

What an incredible discovery! But I suspect the words "radiocarbon dating" will (unjustifiably) raise a red flag with some creationsts here.

 

[SeventyOne]

Exactly how does one carbon date a footprint?

 

[Dave-W]

(First off: this website could really do with a forum dedicated to historical stuff. Just saying.)

There is a "History and Geneology" forum under "Society." And if that is not really what you are looking for, make the request under "Suggest New Forums" in the Support Center.

 

[Dave-W]

Exactly how does one carbon date a footprint?

Ya gotta put your Sole into it.

 

[SeventyOne]

Ya gotta put your Sole into it.

Well played.

 

[miamited]

Exactly how does one carbon date a footprint?

Hi 71,

That was my question also. However, I'm not particularly well versed in the process but I'm thinking maybe they found a box of footprint cards nearby that had dates and times of who the footprints belonged to and when that person lived.

It has always been my understanding that the actual thing that is dated in carbon dating of prints and fossils is the material in which the form is impressed. However, I'm sure that I'm wrong.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[SeventyOne]

Hi 71,

That was my question also. However, I'm not particularly well versed in the process but I'm thinking maybe they found a box of footprint cards nearby that had dates and times of who the footprints belonged to and when that person lived.

Maybe, or a nearby inscription. "Here was Ogg. Mighty hunter of the Great Sloth. April 3, 5004 BC"

It has always been my understanding that the actual thing that is dated in carbon dating of prints and fossils is the material in which the form is impressed. However, I'm sure that I'm wrong.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

That is the most likely method they used to date the prints, but that date would have to assume the medium appeared around the same time the prints were made, which is impossible to prove.

 

[Tallguy88]

(First off: this website could really do with a forum dedicated to historical stuff. Just saying.)

Footprints 'date back 7,000 years and could show hunting party'

From the article, "Ancient human footprints discovered on the Welsh coastline are 7,000 years old and could show a snapshot of a Mesolithic hunting party, researchers have said.
Discovered in 2014, the pre-historic footprints of both children and adults at Port Eynon on the Gower peninsula, South Wales, were initially thought to date to the Bronze Age but analysis carried out at Cardiff University has revealed they are actually 3,000 years older than that.

Archaeology PhD student Rhiannon Philp carried out radiocarbon dating on the fragile footprints, which now places them in the Mesolithic period, a time when humans were predominantly hunting and gathering."

Now I have to say that's pretty cool.

History & Genealogy

 

[lesliedellow]

Now now, you know Bishop Usher says he Earth is only 6,000 years old, so they can't be 7,000 years old, can they now?

 

[Strathos]

Haven't we found footprints much older than this already?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There is a "History and Geneology" forum under "Society." And if that is not really what you are looking for, make the request under "Suggest New Forums" in the Support Center.

I did look and it's a little... hit and miss for my liking. But since this topic concerns the age and will very likely spiral in to a debate about the carbon dating of the footprints, then it's best to keep it here.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Haven't we found footprints much older than this already?

There are a track of footprints that are 800,000 years old that were found in Norfolk in 2014. But I think these are the oldest tracks found in Wales.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Maybe, or a nearby inscription. "Here was Ogg. Mighty hunter of the Great Sloth. April 3, 5004 BC"

That is the most likely method they used to date the prints, but that date would have to assume the medium appeared around the same time the prints were made, which is impossible to prove.

Not really since coastal rock starts off as mud before turning in to actual stone. Now it's only when it's still in the state where it's closer to mud than rock that tracks are preserved, so the findings are accurate to around 99%.

 

[SeventyOne]

Not really since coastal rock starts off as mud before turning in to actual stone. Now it's only when it's still in the state where it's closer to mud than rock that tracks are preserved, so the findings are accurate to around 99%.

That "99%" sounds like an unverifiable and made-up number.

And yet the medium was there prior to the footprints, and there's no way to prove how long it was there in a pre-hardened and muddy state. All this tells us is by the time it was hardening, someone walked in it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That "99%" sounds like an unverifiable and made-up number.

You are correct, 99% is wrong. The actual percentage for accuracy is between 95 and 98% (from this link) which is still pretty good.

And yet the medium was there prior to the footprints, and there's no way to prove how long it was there in a pre-hardened and muddy state. All this tells us is by the time it was hardening, someone walked in it.

And what scientific basis do you have to say that the radiocarbon dating for the age isn't right? Because all I'm getting from your words is an argument from incredulity.

 

[SeventyOne]

You are correct, 99% is wrong. The actual percentage for accuracy is between 95 and 98% (from this link) which is still pretty good.



And what scientific basis do you have to say that the radiocarbon dating for the age isn't right? Because all I'm getting from your words is an argument from incredulity.

Did I say anything about the dating method? No.

I'm challenging the assumptions used. Things have to be assumed to arrive at that date which cannot be proven. In other words, it's a guess put forward as a fact.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Did I say anything about the dating method? No.

I'm challenging the assumptions used. Things have to be assumed to arrive at that date which cannot be proven. In other words, it's a guess put forward as a fact.

They aren't assumptions. The scientists measured the uranium isotopes and got the date. That's not an assumption, that's a fact.
Again, your argument is "I don't get this, so it can't be right".

 

[SkyWriting]

Exactly how does one carbon date a footprint?

Does one test the sand or the hole in the sand?
Are holes organic material?
Is there still a foot in one of them then?

 

[SkyWriting]

There are a track of footprints that are 800,000 years old that were found in Norfolk in 2014. But I think these are the oldest tracks found in Wales.

I suppose you can carbon date a whale.