Dating Techniques

Published January 26, 2011

Dating Techniques have improved in leaps and bounds since the 19^thcentury 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

^(c)https://web.archive.org/web/20130515195722/https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2992

^(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

^(h) https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/aug/17/traces-of-sun-storms-locked-in-tree-rings-could-confirm-ancient-historical-dates-astrochronology

⁽ⁱ⁾ https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquaries-journal/article/john-leland-and-the-briton-brykes/E0988BD51311BCFF4BBFDF7B1B0F4EDD

^(j)https://web.archive.org/web/20200302223241/https://homepage.smc.edu/grippo_alessandro/gss1.html

^(k) C14 crash: The end of the illusion of being able to date with radiocarbon method and dendrochronology – Atlantisforschung.de (atlantis-forschung.de) *

^(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 *

Tagged astrochronology, Benjamin Pope, Charles Lyell, Christian Blöss, dendrochronology, Ewen Callaway, Heather Craven, Horned helmets, Jim Allen, John Leland, Jürgen Spanuth, Medibet Habu, Michael Dee, Nicolas Steno, pottery, radiocarbon dating, Sea Peoples, Stone Age, stratigraphy, thermoluminescence, typology, Vikings, Willard Libby

Radiocarbon Dating *

Published March 4, 2010

Radiocarbon Dating was developed by a team led by Willard F. Libby (1908-1980) just after World War II and won him a Nobel Prize for the work. However, in his acceptance speech, Libby generously acknowledged the contribution made by the earlier work of Serge Korff (1906-1989).

Radiocarbon Dating is based on the fact that when organisms die the amount of Carbon-14 in the remains decays at a fixed rate. Although initially hailed as a definitive dating method for organic remains, it soon became obvious that it was not quite as reliable a tool as initially thought, although still widely used.

Originally a Carbon-14 half-life of 5568±30 years was used and is known as the Libby half-life. Later this was revised to 5730±40 years and is known as the Cambridge half-life. The initial theory was based on the assumption that Carbon-14 was being produced at a constant rate. However, this constancy has been questioned, as it can vary as a result of changes in the earth’s magnetic field. The intervention of man in the form of atomic bomb tests briefly doubled the amount of Carbon-14 produced^(I). Local events can also have a dramatic effect on measurements; for example, the Tunguska explosion left the soil there so enriched with Carbon-14 that it gives a date in the future (1)! Emilio Spedicato has also pointed out that Carbon-14 can be created in the atmosphere by any cometary or asteroidal impact and so alter the assumed constant ratio of C12 to C14.

Immanuel Velikovsky offered the following valuable observation^(j) “as the method was refined, it started to show rather regular anomalies. First, it was noticed that, when radiocarbon dated, wood grown in the 20th century appears more ancient than wood grown in the 19th century. Suess explained the phenomenon by the fact that the increased industrial use of fossil carbon in coal and in oil changed the ratio between the dead carbon C12 and the C14 (radiocarbon) in the atmosphere and therefore also in the biosphere. In centuries to come a body of a man or animal who lived and died in the 20th century would appear paradoxically of greater age since death than the body of a man or animal of the 19th century, and if the process of industrial use of fossil, therefore dead, carbon continues to increase, as it is expected will be the case, the paradox will continue into the forthcoming centuries.”

Graham Phillips mentions^[0034^] that ‘recent evidence suggests that that the level of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere may have decreased permanently around 3,500 years ago due to changes in the earth’s magnetic field.’ This has resulted in dates around that period being up to 500 years out. Calibration figures are now available to take account of some of these deviations based on data from dendrochronology, ice and sediment cores and coral samples. Further refinements are not to be ruled out.

These weaknesses in radiocarbon dating have been seized upon by some fundamentalist Christian groups determined to justify their ‘young earth’ beliefs^(d). However, attacks on the basic concepts underlying radiocarbon dating have been refuted by its supporters^(e).

In 774/5 AD an increase of 1.2% of Carbon¹⁴ was detected through tree ring studies^(c). This is thought to be the result of an external event such as a supernova or solar flare. Since many other episodes of a lesser or greater intensity have probably occurred, a growing shadow is being cast over the reliability of radiocarbon dating that may only be dissipated by further studies. Further complex recalibration is not to be ruled out, as it is highly unlikely that this eighth-century event was the only such occurrence.

A recent report^(h) has drawn attention to the danger of using fossil fuels, as it pumps a type of carbon into the atmosphere that confuses the dating technique. Scientists say that by 2050, new clothes could have the same radiocarbon date as items 1,000 years old!

Radiocarbon dating is only useful up to a maximum of around 50,000 years. In February 2010, researchers at Queens University Belfast announced a new calibration curve that extends back over 50 millennia. The production of this calibration curve is the result of 30 years of research into the variations in atmospheric Carbon 14 caused by solar activity, the earth’s magnetic field and the oceans. Other radiometric dating methods are now available to deal with dates beyond this limit.

2010 also saw another important refinement of radiocarbon dating with the development of a ‘non-destructive carbon dating’ method which will enable the dating of very delicate, rare or highly valuable artefacts, without having to destroy any samples from them, as is required at present⁽^a⁾.

One strong dissenting voice was that of the archaeologist, Zahi Hawass, former Secretary-General of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities who said “Carbon-14 dating has a margin of error of 100 years. In order to date Egyptian dynasties, we need to have specific dates; you cannot use carbon dating,” Hawass explained further to Al-Masry Al-Youm^(s), that “this technique shouldn’t be used at all in making changes to the chronology of the ancient Egypt, not even as a helpful addition.” Incidentally, in April 2015, a temperamental Hawass walked out of a debate with Graham Hancock over the inclusion of an image of Robert Bauval in Hancock’s presentation^(g).

Hancock is highly critical of the use of Carbon-14 as a dating method, particularly for megalithic sites and specifically Tiwanaku. The late Garrett Fagan took issue with Hancock regarding the dating of Tiwanaku in a 2000 post on Hancock’s site^(aa). Hancock responded with a challenge to Fagan that led to a further article from him^(z). The temperature rose with a further article from Hancock^(ab).

Emmet Sweeney tells a disturbing story of how some establishments have treated inconvenient C¹⁴results, recounting^[700.221] “the fate of samples from the tomb of Tutankhamun subjected by the British Museum to radiocarbon testing. The samples, consisting of fibers of a reed mat and a palm kernel, produced dates of 844BC and 899BC respectively. These were broadly in line with the date for Tutankhamun predicted by Velikovsky, but roughly 500 years too recent for textbook chronology. Despite assurances given to Velikovsky that the results would be published, they never saw the light of day.” ^[758.xvi]

One can be forgiven for cynically interpreting Sweeney’s abandonment of radiocarbon dating as an absolute necessity, otherwise, all of Sweeney’s radical ancient chronology revisions collapse. Undoubtedly, all dating methods have their problems and radiocarbon dating is no exception. However, it makes better sense to address the problems, rather than discard the method entirely. I think it foolish to ignore entirely the body of work developed in connection with radiocarbon dating over the past three-quarters of a century.

Nevertheless, Sweeney makes the valid point that radiocarbon dating is based on the questionable assumption that the proportion of carbon14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, but does not offer any details regarding the extent of any such variations. While Sweeney may have his reasons for wanting to undermine the value of radiocarbon dating, as also do creationists. So in defence of radiocarbon dating a 2022 paper by David H. Bailey noted that “radiocarbon dates, determined by well-established procedures and calculations, are compared directly with dates determined by the other methods, thus permitting the radiocarbon dates to be accurately calibrated with distinct and independent dating techniques.”^(x)

In Forgotten Civilization^[867] and his earlier Pyramid Quest^[456], Robert Schoch has drawn attention to some difficulties that have arisen with radiocarbon dating and the implications for Egyptology. A warning about future difficulties with the reliability of radiocarbon dating has been issued by Heather Graven, a climate-physics researcher at Imperial College London. She has found that the rate of fossil-fuel emissions is skewing the carbon ratios used to determine an object’s age. She estimates that by 2050 atmospheric carbon dioxide will make new organic material appear to be 1,000 years old⁽²⁾. Graham Hancock has also expressed reservations regarding the use of radiocarbon dating, urging both caution and open-mindedness^(m).

Hancock’s son, Sean, has written a couple of papers on the subject of radiocarbon dating, one concerning the subject generally^(u), the other, regarding its application at Tiwanaku^(v). He concluded the former with the comment that “radiocarbon dating is useful as a complement to other data; this is when it is strong. Until the day comes that every variable can be controlled and every error eliminated radiocarbon dates will never have the final word on archaeological sites.” Concerning Tiwanaku, he is equally critical noting that “The question we have to ask is whether or not these radiocarbon dates are archaeologically representative? I believe the answer to that question is no. What is called for is a more thorough excavation programme at Tiahuanaco that would once and for all close this case.”

An even more jaundiced view of current dating difficulties is expressed^(l) by Jonathan Gray.

One of these, namely, the potassium/argon method has been claimed by writers such as Richard Milton^[⁵²¹^] to have its inherent problems and must be treated with caution. It appears that although dating methods have advanced greatly further improvements can be expected.

The latest refinement of radiocarbon dating techniques has shortened the time taken from six days to two and additionally, now allows on-site testing^(f).

The Malagabay website⁽ⁿ⁾posted a series of blogs through April 2017 under the heading of ‘Deranged Dating’ highlighting weaknesses in radiocarbon dating!

There is now a valuable list of papers^(o), with links, devoted to the many problems that have gradually emerged concerning radiocarbon dating. This is just part of the ‘A New Chronology’ website^(p).

June 2018 saw a report issued from Cornell University that highlighted some inaccuracies that have been found in dates relating to the southern Levant region, which includes parts of Jordan, Israel and Egypt. Archaeologist Sturt Manning and his colleagues “have revealed variations in the radiocarbon cycle at certain periods, affecting frequently cited standards used in archaeological and historical research.” ^(q)(t)

Currently, standard calibration curves assume that at any given time radiocarbon levels are similar and stable everywhere across each hemisphere. It seems therefore that the calibration of radiocarbon dates will have to take account of regional factors in the future. In March 2020 a further study^(r) from Cornell confirmed the value of regional calibration, which can now be applied to contentious issues such as the date of Tutankhamun’s death and the eruption of Thera (Santorini).

In September 2021 a paper in the Journal of Archaeological Science claimed to have solved the problem of current radiocarbon analysis typically used to reconstruct past human demographic changes relies on a method “easily skewed by radiocarbon calibration curves and measurement uncertainty.” Lead author Michael Holton Price claims that he has developed a new statistical method for summarising sets of radiocarbon dates. Price developed an approach to estimating prehistoric populations that use Bayesian reasoning and a flexible probability model that allows researchers to overcome the problem of ‘equifinality’, where a single carbon14 value can correspond to a different date. “This paper is just the first step. Next, through ‘data fusion’, the team will add ancient DNA and other data to radiocarbon dates for even more reliable demographic reconstructions.” ^(w)

⁽¹⁾ New Scientist (7/9/02, p.14)

⁽²⁾ Fortean Times (FT340) May 2016, p.16

^(a) https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/acs-nmc031210.php

^(c) https://www.nature.com/news/ancient-text-gives-clue-to-mysterious-radiation-spike-1.10898

^(d) https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF12-93Yang.html

^(e) Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating | National Center for Science Education (archive.org)

^(f) https://news.liv.ac.uk/2015/04/02/new-radio-carbon-dating-technique-will-revolutionise-field-archaeology/

^(g) https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/zahi-hawass-walks-out-of-graham-hancock-debate-nick-redfern-defends-ant-people-article

^(h) https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33594658

⁽ⁱ⁾How the bomb made archaeology harder | NCPR News (archive.org) *

^(j) https://www.varchive.org/ce/c14.htm

^(k) See: https://web.archive.org/web/20130515195722/https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2992