Latest News
NEWS October 2024
OCTOBER 2024 The recent cyber attack on the Internet Archive is deplorable and can be reasonably compared with the repeated burning of the Great Library of Alexandria. I have used the Wayback Machine extensively, but, until the full extent of the permanent damage is clear, I am unable to assess its effect on Atlantipedia. At […]Read More »
Joining The Dots
I have now published my new book, Joining The Dots, which offers a fresh look at the Atlantis mystery. I have addressed the critical questions of when, where and who, using Plato’s own words, tempered with some critical thinking and a modicum of common sense.Read More »
Heather Craven
Dating Techniques
Dating Techniques have improved in leaps and bounds since the 19thcentury when Charles Lyell first gave stratigraphy widespread publicity as a means of dating archaeological finds, if only relatively. Nicolas Steno had laid the foundations of this discipline two centuries earlier(j).
In very simple terms, generally, it means that as you dig, older objects will be found under younger ones. For over a century this was one of the few dating methods available to archaeologists, but unfortunately, it could not offer specific dates.
Another early dating method was ‘typology’(d), defined as the classification of artefacts according to their physical characteristics.
This approach can be traced back to the 16th century when John Leland (1503-1552) began classifying bricks according to size and shape(I).
Arguably the best known uses of the method relate to Stone Age implements and later to pottery. Relating to Atlantis studies, we find that Jürgen Spanuth applied typology to the weaponry and dress of the Sea Peoples as portrayed at Medinet Habu to support his theory that they came from Northern Europe.
However, I would tread warily when accepting the conclusions of such comparisons. Although Spanuth enthusiastically linked the Sea Peoples images at Medinet Habu with warriors from ancient Scandinavia, Jim Allen has produced a series of images that appear to link the Medinet Habu helmets with modern native headgear worn in South America(m). The Vikings, perhaps apart from ceremonial occasions, did not wear horned helmets in battle. With regard to the South American headresses, I find it odd that they have retained the same style for over three thousand years!
The Cogniarchae website maintains that with the assistance of the Atlantic sea currents some of the Sea Peoples were the first to reach Mesoamerica(n). The author offers a number of images to support this idea.
Absolute dating began with the introduction of radiometric dating methods beginning with radiocarbon dating developed by Willard Libby in 1949. Around the same time, dendrochronology was being refined as a dating method with a margin of error less than that of radiometry, which requires expensive equipment and potentially has a greater risk of contamination. This was followed by thermoluminescence (1957) for dating pottery and more recently optical thermoluminescence (1994) has been developed, enabling the dating of building stone.
Dating objects between 50,000 and 100,000 years old has been difficult as most methods have questionable reliability for this period. However, in 2004 a new method, known as quartz hydration dating was developed at UC Irvine(f).
All the above methods have varying margins of error that are continually being reduced and no doubt will improve further. These enhancements together with new exciting dating methods that can be expected to emerge, will undoubtedly have a profound influence on our understanding of prehistory. Consider how improvements in DNA analysis have enabled the solving of crimes years after cases had gone ‘cold’.
More cautionary offerings(a)(c) came from the catastrophist website, thunderbolts.info., in which events involving influences outside our planet might affect the assumptions upon which some of our radiometrics are based. Since these events are not frequent occurrences we do not, as yet, have enough data to develop more reliable calibration charts.
In May 2012, in the journal Nature, Ewen Callaway has an article(b) that further highlights potential weaknesses that may be encountered with radiocarbon dating.
The fascinating CAIS website offers a good overview(e) of the range of sophisticated dating techniques available today. We can reasonably expect it to expand.
A July 2015 article(g) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. has highlighted a new threat that the burning of fossil fuels has introduced into the reliability of radiocarbon dating.
“As carbon-14 decays over time the fraction will decrease so that’s how we use it for dating,” the paper’s author Dr Heather Graven told BBC News.
“But we can also change this ratio of radioactive carbon to total carbon, if we are adding non-radioactive carbon and that’s what’s happening with fossil fuels, we get this dilution effect.”
“At current rates of emissions increase”, according to the research, “a new piece of clothing in 2050 would have the same carbon date as a robe worn by William the Conqueror 1,000 years earlier.”
The latest dating method, proposed by Michael Dee and Benjamin Pope(h) combines dendrochronology with radiocarbon dating and is designed to identify specific years based on spikes in the carbon14 found in specific growth rings, caused by energy discharges during solar storms. Dee and Pope have called this new science ‘astrochronology’ and anticipate that its application will tie down the so-called ‘floating chronologies’ of ancient Egypt and elsewhere.
I must also note that radiocarbon dating is not universally accepted. Atlantisforschung published the following
“In 1997, the long-prepared book “C14-Crash” by the mathematician and science critic Christian Blöss (Berlin) and the professor of history of technology Hans-Ulrich Niemitz (Leipzig) was published.
In lectures at the Berlin History Salon and on various occasions outside Berlin, the two have presented their theses for several years and caused a corresponding uproar.
But it was only with the finished book that the crash happened: C14 has had its day as a chronological aid. The evidence is stunning. When reading, one often has the feeling that no scientist can be so stupid that he would not have previously come up with the blatant errors in the C14 determination method. After all, it has been used (almost) unchallenged for sixty years.”(k)
Obviously this view has fallen neatly into the hands of chronology revisionists and should not be cast aside without good reason. A paper on the Researchgate website offers an insight into possible problems with dendrochronology(l).
(a) https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041129antarctic-fossil.htm
(b) https://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-date-with-history-1.10573
(d) https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/aa.1933.35.1.02a00070
(e) https://atlantipedia.ie/samples/archive-2408/
(f) https://www.spacedaily.com/news/human-04i.html
(g) https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33594658
(j) https://web.archive.org/web/20200302223241/https://homepage.smc.edu/grippo_alessandro/gss1.html
(l) ResearchGate *
(m) https://web.archive.org/web/20200629021253/http://www.atlantisbolivia.org/artefacts.htm *
(n) Earth is my witness… Sea peoples reached Mesoamerica – COGNIARCHAE *