tivity on the carmel faul

Sample name 230/238 err 234/238 err 232/238 err 230/232 err Det. Age (y) + - type
DN-36 pre II 0.80192 0.00441 1.04813 0.00213 0.012018 0.000040 47.62 0.27 154473 1861 1824 A
DN-34a-pre I 0.79544 0.00479 1.02974 0.00248 0.044464 0.000120 18.11 0.10 y 158935 2155 2108 A
DN-22-POST-II 0.83893 0.00556 1.06510 0.00245 0.009551 0.000025 89.14 0.56 n 163707 2507 2446 A
DN-46 post 0.75474 0.00471 0.95424 0.00121 0.108059 0.000344 7.07 0.05 y 174544 2862 2784 A
DN-37a post 0.74915 0.00359 0.94086 0.00138 0.185180 0.000610 7.90 0.04 y 178984 2362 1790 D
230 Th/U Age = 160 ±45 ka
data-point error ellipses are 2σ
Initial 234 U/ 238 U = 1.079 ±0.095
MSWD = 408, probability = 0.000
1.10
1.06
234 U/
238 U
1.02
0.98
0.94
0.90
0.72 0.76 0.80 0.84 0.88
230 Th/ 238 U
Figure 36: 160ka sample age cluster; 1. Sample isotopic ratio data table (red-pre samples, black-post
samples). 2. Isochron plot and age calculation (red crosses-uncorrected ages, green crossesprojected
data points). 3. Distribution of cluster samples in Denya Cave (red dots).
A cluster of ages at ca. 160ka is shown in Figure 36. This age is based on five
flowstone samples, four of which are type A speleo-seismites (Fig. 37). The calculated
age has a large error, yet these samples originate from the same area of the cave, which
A-4
Seismic contact
pre I
158.94ka
DN-34a
A-5
DN-37a
post
178.98ka
Seismic contact
D-2
may indicate that they
recorded the same
event, which is well
constrained since they
are both pre- and postseismite
samples.
post II
163.7ka
A-5 DN-36
A-3
post
174.54ka
Seismic contact
Seismic contact
pre II
154.47ka
Seismic contact
DN-46
Figure 37: Age cluster
~160ka samples.4.2.1
Seismic events in
64