These dates have caused much confusion in the literature. Borden sent samples to K.J. McCallum at the University of Saskatchewan lab in 1954. McCallum ran two tests on the same piece of charcoal using the solid carbon counter method (S-17a[1] and S-17a[2] – with results of 1880+/-180 and 2015 +/- 166 BP respectively) these were averaged to 1950+/-125 BP, the result commonly associated with S-17a. McCallum also generated a third date using the same method (S-17bis – possible a transcription error of “b is”, i.e. S-17b). This generated an age of 2900+/-170 BP. Borden rejected this date as erroneous. Correspondence from McCallum on this subject indicates that he found no reason to reject this age. Borden requested an additional assay using the gas counting method. This sample (S-17c) produced a result of 2350+/- 60. Note that all four dates are from the same piece of charcoal.

These dates have caused much confusion in the literature. Borden sent samples to K.J. McCallum at the University of Saskatchewan lab in 1954. McCallum ran two tests on the same piece of charcoal using the solid carbon counter method (S-17a[1] and S-17a[2] – with results of 1880+-180 and 2015 +/- 166 BP respectively) these were averaged to 1950+/-125 BP, the result commonly associated with S-17a. McCallum also generated a third date using the same method (S-17bis – possible a transcription error of “b is”, i.e. S-17b). This generated an age of 2900+/-170 BP. Borden rejected this date as erroneous. Correspondence from McCallum on this subject indicates that he found no reason to reject this age. Borden requested an additional assay using the gas counting method. This sample (S-17c) produced a result of 2350+- 60. Note that all four dates are from the same piece of charcoal.

Samples that cite this reference