Smartstream schrieb:Aber warum lassen die Laginas einen doofen "Runenstein" ohne Runen untersuchen, das Holz und den ganzen Kram in Smith's Cove aber (noch) nicht datieren? Auch Dramaturgie von HC? Could it be...? :)
.....oder weil sie das Ergebnis schon kennen:
Die U-förmige Struktur wurde ja bereits einige Male freigelegt. Fast komplett von Blankenship vor über 40 Jahren. Aber es wurden auch in jüngerer Zeit Proben entnommen, und zwar von Wonnacott zusammen mit Les Mcphie (er hatte seinerzeit die genaue Lage aufgezeichnet) und Hennigar.
Im Jahr 2000 gruben Sie ein schmale Rinne in smith´s cove und schnitten ein paar kleine Stück aus dem Nordarm der Struktur heraus um sie mit der C14-Methode analysieren zu lassen. Dieses Ergebnis war allerdings sehr wahrscheinlich komplett unbrauchbar, da die Probe vermutlich jünger als 500 Jahre alt ist. Dennoch lieferte sie ein Ergebnis: 1890 +/- 30 Jahre. Aber wie gesagt, diese Zahl mag durchaus vollkommen falsch sein.
Sie schickten dann auch Proben zur dendrochronologischen Untersuchung. Ergebnis aber auch negativ. Es waren zu wenig Jahresringe enthalten und es konnte kein match gefunden werden.
Im Jahr 2015 versuchten sie es dann aber erneut mit der Dendrochronologie da die Datenbanken nun um einiges besser sind und auch nicht mehr so viele Jahresringe gebraucht werden wie noch vor 20 Jahren. Diesmal gab es jedoch ein belastbares Ergebnis. Besser gesagt gleich drei:
1695, 1747 und 1858
Diese Fälljahre sind möglich mit einer leicht höheren Wahrscheinlichkeit für 1858. Und Wonnacott schreibt auch, dass sie die Ergebnisse an die Lagina´s gaben. Selbst wenn nicht, da Doug Crowell mittlerweile ja ebenfalls involviert ist, wissen die Lagina´s ganz genau, dass - zumindest die U-förmige Struktur - definitiv weder von Templern, noch von Wikingern oder Römern stammt.
Ok, das gilt nur für die u-förmige Struktur, aber sind wir mal ehrlich. Der restlichen Strukturen in smith´s cove werden doch aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach von den selben Erbauern stammen.
Naja, wier auch immer. Der HC und das ganze Lagina-Team kennen diese Testresultate ganz genau.
Hier der genaue Wortlaut des Berichts, verfasst von Wonnacott im Jahr 2016:
"Last February we published “The U-shaped Structure at Smith’s Cove, Oak Island”, and in the article I said that we (meaning me, Les MacPhie and Danny Hennigar) had sent a sample to a Dendrochronology research lab to attempt to learn the date when the tree was cut, from which our sample was taken. That date would almost certainly have been close to the date when the U-shaped structure was built. However we ran into two problems. Our sample had only 34 tree growth rings, while a proper dendrochronological investigation needs at least 50 rings to have the best chance of finding a unique age match.
So for this reason, the lab took a lot of extra time trying to find clues in the data which would help determine the age of the sample. Secondly, the Dendrochronology lab we used is located at the University of Saskatchewan, and the pace of lab work was determined by other events going on within the university. So it has taken a long time for the lab to reach a conclusion, and even now we only have a draft report of the findings. I have been waiting until now to write this follow-up article, preferring to have a final report that I can share with you. But the professor who directed our work has said it is fine with him for us to publicize the results presented in the rough draft.
Our sample was determined to be Red Spruce (Picea rubens), and that species identification helped us in a curious way. Red Spruce trees are prone to infestations of spruce budworms, which cause characteristic damage to the tree, and such damage is observable in the growth rings for the years of infestation. For hundreds of years, budworm infestations occurred about every 40 years in Nova Scotia, and if our sample had included growth rings from infestation years, these would have acted as markers that would have helped the lab obtain a match. However we were not so lucky and the 34 years of growth exhibited by our sample was between budworm infestations. However this turned out to be quite a help just the same. The lab did find 3 possible matches for our sample, when they compared our growth ring sequence to their master chronology. Our growth ring sequence could be for one of the following three periods: 1659 to 1695 (meaning the tree sprouted in 1659 and was cut down in 1695), or 1711 to 1747, or 1822 to 1858. The interesting and valuable thing is this: for each of these three possible periods, there were no spruce budworm infestations! So the lab is quite sure that one of these three periods is correct and that means our sample probably dates to either 1695, 1747 or 1858.
The data base that the lab uses for their work is called a master chronology and it consists of individual tree growth ring sequences from many samples with over-lapping years of growth. The database has less than 5 Nova Scotia samples for the 1659 to 1695 and 1711 to 1747 growth periods, while they have quite a lot more data for the 1822 to 1858 period. Because of this variance in data density for the earlier possibilities, the lab has concluded that the date our sample tree was cut was more likely 1858. That’s not good news for those of us who are hoping the U-shaped structure could have been built before 1795, however, like so many findings at Oak Island, the answer is not definitive. Maybe our sample is older.
We have shared a copy of the dendrochronological testing report with Rick and Marty Lagina, and I have asked them if they could possibly get a permit to re-excavate at Smith’s Cove, in the area of the U-shaped structure. In my correspondence with the Lagina brothers I explained how we triangulated from old photographs to find the U-shaped structure about 15 years ago, and I suggested if they get a chance to dig in the area, to focus on the south arm of the structure, so that a new sample of the structure could be obtained (that would be from a different log than the one our recent sample was taken from, and hopefully they would find a log with more than 50 growth rings).
The lab at the University of Saskatchewan has told me that they would be very willing to investigate a new sample if we can obtain one. So I am crossing my fingers that Rick and Marty Lagina can come up with a new specimen, and that we will be allowed to take a thin slice of wood from it, so we can continue the Dendrochronology work. I think it would be great if we can learn the date for sure, when the U-shaped Structure was built!"
