D'Arcy wrote:No, because the final WO report warns that the carbon-dating results, based on the samples they tested, are "highly speculative" and "cannot be trusted". In addition, I have never seen any historical evidence showing the use of coir as ship's dunnage prior to the late 15th century.
Does this refer to the report you mention?
Concerning the Woods Hole report, Richard E. Joltes
"More problematic is the reported age of the material. It seems quite possible the 1100 CE date is correct, but it may also be the case that exposure to weather, salt water, or some other environmental influence has caused the date to be misreported by the carborn dating process. It should also be remembered that this date simply shows when the material began to decay--not the date it was deposited at the site."
Several things stand out here, at least to me. First is the part of the statement that says "it seems quite possible the 1100 CE date is correct", secondly, if it is skewed, it certainly does not seem like it could be off by 400 years. Also I had thought a company called "Beta Analytic" did the actual C-14 testing. I doubt if much historical evidence exists for any transatlantic shipping prior to the late 15th century, as supposedly transatlantic shipping did not exist prior to that time. I think these are all good questions.---Bill
