Talk:Dalarö wreck

My edits
My edits were for tighter construction and improved clarity. I also inserted several invisible ("commented-out") queries in the html. Most notably, I know that dendrochronology can only generally localize the place of growth, though it's accurate at dating the year timber was felled, if the final growth rings are present. That's why I dropped the assertion "The dendrochronological analysis also revealed that the ship was taken from an estate that neighbored the Ogle estate".--Wetman (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * First off, thanks for the copyediting. It obviously needed a run-through.
 * I don't know the details of the dendrochronological findings, since these were just matter-of-factly presented in the SVT documentary about the wreck. According to that program, the origin of the timber(s) was narrowed down to a specific estate, but I have no idea how they were so sure about it. The problem is that nothing academic has been published about the wreck so far. I've been in contact with some of the SNMM archaeologists concerning sources, but they don't expect an archaeological report to be finished until at the end of this year. I'm sure some of the claims of the documentary and news articles might prove to be exaggerated or maybe even false, but right now they're the only published sources available.
 * Peter Isotalo 21:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad if my edits were useful. When the sentence goes back into the text, how the growth site was so narrowly determined is at least as interesting as the conclusion.--Wetman (talk) 04:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess it'll have to wait until the report comes out then, because I know of no sources where that is specified. At least not one I could actually cite as a published source.
 * Peter Isotalo 17:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)