29 ms·
The quartz shocking was a bit weak as it wasn't clear how they dated it to the same time as the theoretical blast - similarly for the other metal deposits found
by koheripbal 5y ago
The quartz shocking was a bit weak as it wasn't clear how they dated it to the same time as the theoretical blast - similarly for the other metal deposits found.
This made their other arguments a little weaker as we as it reduced the temperature evidenced to just that of the melted bricks - which makes it possible that what they found was evidence of contemporary furnaces and/or other fire events/war/etc.
Still pretty compelling overall.
I understand they theorize an airburst, but I wonder if it would be possible to find a "ground zero" for the explosion, and thus more direct evidence.
- SiempreViernes 5y ago> The quartz shocking was a bit weak as it wasn't clear how they dated it to the same time as the theoretical blast They found it in the rubble layer they are studying? How would it get there if it wasn't produced at the same time as the rest of the stuff in that layer? For things in a sediment layer to not be of equal age, you need some sort of transport mechanism to move the quartz there from some earlier or later period, and there's not much convective motion in dirt.
- gred 5y agoYep: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratigraphy_(archaeology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratigraphy_(archaeology)