Archaeological Dating Methods. The Bible plainly states that Adam's immediate children knew how to . Then there is the CARBON dating method . Unaware of the many fallacious assumptions used in the dating process, many people believe Carbon dating disproves the biblical timeline. Differing climates complicate the use of radiocarbon dating casts doubt on methods of dating ancient organic materials in Israel, southern the Bible as a blueprint for archaeological chronology, versus others who claim the.
It is authoritative to every detail; it is a chain with no weak links. Third, archaeological dates are uncertain by the admission of archaeologists themselves.
Mesopotamia and the Birth of Civilization, Kindle location Mesopotamia and the Birth of Civilization,Kindle location That is a variation of more than 1, years! The Tartaria Tablet, which was discovered in Bulgaria inhas been dated to 2, BC by conventional methods such as pottery and to as old as 5, BC by radiocarbon methods. This is a variance of 3, years!
To accept such a fallible system as an authority equal to that of the Bible or even greater than that of the Bible would be the height of foolishness, in our estimation. Fourth, archaeological dating methods are based on evolutionary assumptions. When archaeologists investigate the site of an ancient city, they dig a trench and often find layers of civilization built one on top of the other. Men have lived in a wide variety of manners since the days of Adam.
Societies have lost and gained knowledge of technology throughout history. Consider the fact that the Minoans on the island of Crete BC had flushing toilets with wooden seats and an overhead reservoir, but this technology was seemingly lost for a thousand years until re-developed in the 3rd century AD in Rome.
Consider the history of writing. The evolutionary model has writing evolving from crude pictures to complex alphabetic symbols, but consider the following facts from archaeology itself. First, the writing that is considered the oldest in existence does not feature pictures but rather a script.
This is the Tartaria Tablet. Second, one of the oldest known writing systems, Egyptian, used a pictograph script and a non-pictograph script at the same time from the beginning. Egyptian hieroglyphic a pictograph script and hieratic an alphabetic script can be traced to the same general time in the third millennium BC. The hieratic did not arise from the hieroglyphic; rather, they had different purposes.
The hieroglyphic was used, for the most part, for permanent inscriptions on stone and rock, while the hieratic was written by pen and ink on paper for everyday use. Fifth, archaeological dating methods are based on inexact methodology. The method is based on the hypothesis that types of pottery changed with time and that the prevalence of a certain type of pottery in a certain archaeological strata indicate a unique time period. Ceramic typology presupposes that an archaeological investigator can distinguish between types of ancient pottery so infallibly that he can tell when it was made and by whom, though living thousands of years after the fact.
I consider this to be nearly preposterous. I understand that the pottery dating method has some benefit, but it must be recognized that it is very inexact and leaves wide room for subjective interpretation. Archaeologist John Laughlin lists two serious problems: First, a standard pottery type might have had many variants. Second, similar ceramic types might not date to the same era; some types may have survived longer than others, and different manufacturing techniques and styles might have been introduced at different times in different locales.
The reason pottery is used so extensively as a dating method by archaeologists is not because it is precise, but because it is the best method that they have that can be applied to the largest number of archaeological sites.
This is explained as follows: Both of these combine with oxygen to form carbon dioxide CO2which we breathe out and plants take in. When a cow eats grass, its body absorbs the carbon both 12C and 14C in the plant.
When the cow dies, it stops taking in carbon for obvious reasons. As time goes on, the amount of 14C continues to decrease until nothing is left, which is supposedly about 50, years later.
Upstart carbon dating study could force rewrite of Holy Land’s biblical timeline
When a paleontologist finds a bone or a piece of woodshe can measure the amount of 14C and 12C it contains. Chiefly, it assumes that the earth is millions of years old and that the rate of radiocarbon decay has remained relatively steady. Further, it is based on the assumption that there was not a global flood that could have dramatically changed the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and the rate of decay.
Consider the example of a burning candle in an abandoned house. But all of these methods are built upon two basic and unprovable assumptions: Consider a burning candle in an abandoned house. It is now burning at the rate of one inch an hour. How long has it been burning and, thus, how long ago was the house abandoned?
No one can know until it can be shown how high the candle was when it was last lit and how fast it was burning originally!
Archaeological Dating Methods
How old is the earth? No one can know unless it can be shown what it was like when it began and how rapidly it has changed since then! In fact, scientists now know that the amount of C in the atmosphere has not been constant even in modern times. In addition, there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments, and sedimentary rocks. Since this is known to be true, it is obvious that something as catastrophic as a global flood as described in Scripture--with the release of massive amounts of water from the heavens and from underground fountains on a global scale, the spewing of countless volcanoes, and the covering of the entire earth with water--would doubtless have affected the amount of C in the atmosphere in a dramatic way and could also have affected the rate of radiometric decay.
Further, the conditions that existed prior to the flood would be dramatically different than those that have existed since then. Essentially, when radioactive atmospheric rays hit nitrogen in the atmosphere, their love child is radiocarbon. When the flora or the fauna die, the C also begins to decay. The smaller the amount of C, the older the sample. Today, traditional carbon dating is aided by the IntCal13 curve — revised and adopted in The curve is based on securely dated findings taken from trees, usually oaks or conifers, from the northern hemisphere.
Not so in the southern Levant. To test his hypothesis, Manning and his team used the Juniper Juniperus Phoenicea tree-ring record for the years to CE from a site in southern Jordan. The idea was to find a species which would accurately represent the growing period in the region. Whereas the species the IntCal13 calibration is based on grows from late spring to late summer, most native southern Levant fauna do not.
In the study, he extrapolates that in even more ancient periods, it could vary even more significantly. Sturt Manning, Cornell University A ringing ripple affect Just how accurate is high-resolution archaeological dating in general? I claim that the archaeological picture is far from being 'crystal clear', and that the traditional paradigm of 'the archaeology of the United Monarchy' remains a legitimate possibility, though not mandatory for summaries see Dever ; Mazar Their dating to the 9th century BCE a main point in Finklestein's theory; see also Franklin [Chapter 18, this volume] would leave for the entire years between ca.
This is not impossible, but not very feasible, especially when taking into consideration the tight stratigraphy and pottery developments at sites like Hazor and Tel Rehov, and the clear 10th-century BCE date of two Iron IIA levels at Tel Rehov. The strongest point in favor of a 9th-century BCE date of the Megiddo palaces is their building technique and masons marks which resemble those at Samaria Finkelstein Yet this resemblance can be explained if we assume that both kings—Solomon and Ahab—used Phoenician masons.
Shortland Abstract In reconstructing ancient historical chronologies, much use has been made of chronological pins between neighbouring states, linking their chronologies together. Due to the danger of circular arguments, it works entirely from Egyptian records, rather than combining these with biblical or Assyrian dates as is normal.
It assesses the way the Egyptian chronology is put together and its strengths and weaknesses and goes on to examine in detail the Third Intermediate Period, specifically the 22nd and 25th Dynasties.
In doing this it draws extensively on Kitchena standard reference work for this period, but one that may not be totally accessible to those not specializing in Egyptian archaeology. It emphasizes that, while not perfect, the Egyptian chronology is very robust and internally consistent, even without reference to external events. Introduction The reconstruction of ancient chronologies is always a difficult issue, and often a contentious one. This is especially so when, as is usually the case, the chronology is constructed from many different types of evidence: Add to this the interconnect-edness of ancient nations and therefore the necessity to take into account the histories of several neighbouring states when considering one, and the situation is ripe for confusion and dispute.Creation v. Evolution: How Carbon Dating Works
The aim of this chapter is to look again at one incident where two of these ancient nations are apparently interconnected. The textural reference is shown below: He carried off the treasures of the Temple of the Lord and the treasures of the royal palace. He took everything, including all the gold shields Solomon had made'.
The order of the kings is fairly well established, and proceeds mostly in a sensible father-to-son pattern. The gap between the two dynasties can be bridged by reference to the extremely useful Apis 24, 1, which also gives a sensible reign length for the shadowy Osorkon IV. In the simplest form, the date of the accession of Sheshonq I can be taken as the total of the highest regnal dates of all the kings of the 22nd and 25th Dynasties.
This would be years, giving a date of BCE. However, this is not the best fit to all the data, and ignores hard evidence from the Apis and Pasenhor genealogies.
Using these, Osorkon IV's reign must be extended from the nonsensical zero to 15 years and Shabitqo from 3 to about 12 years. This lengthens the chronology by 24 years, and takes it back to BCE. Thus from entirely internal Egyptian evidence, a minimum date of BCE and a probable date in the mids BCE must be postulated as the most likely date for the accession of Sheshonq I.
This is remarkably close to the date derived from the use of external evidence BCEstrengthening the assessment that the chronologies here are coherent and reasonable. The actual date of the campaign of Sheshonq is based on the fact that the reliefs in the Bubastite Portal are unfinished and therefore the campaign and the reliefs are interpreted as falling late in his reign.
Since he reigned for 21 years, year 20 is usually cited as the year of the campaigns, a date of BCE. Speculation has been made that the campaigns represented in the Bubastite Portal may be just one of several campaigns made by Sheshonq I in the Levant, and attacks may have been made earlier in his campaign, leaving destruction layers in the Levantine cities perhaps dating to the s and s BCE.
This is possible, but no evidence exists from Egyptian records for such attacks. While there are inconsistencies with tying the Bubastite Portal campaign in with the damage on the ground seen in archaeological excavation, from an entirely Egyptian point of view, it still remains the best fit. As can be seen, the Egyptian chronology, like that of all other ancient chronologies, requires contradictory evidence to be weighed and assessed before a most likely chronology can be drawn up.
It is not perfect, not free of error and not 'set in stone', but is subject to new findings and new interpretations. It does, however, stand up remarkably well to such findings, and the arguments now usually revolve around one or two years on the end of reigns and the affiliations of individual kings rather than wholesale changes in the length or nature of the chronology. As such we can be very confident of ascribing the accession of Sheshonq I to the middle of the s BCE. Censorinus edn Censorini De die natali liber ad Q.
Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar Zeitschrift fur Aegypt sche Sprache Manetho edn Aegyptiaca trans. Bruins, and Thomas Higham Abstract This study explores the chronological assumptions that underlie the past 40 years of Iron Age archaeological investigations in southern Jordan and offers an alternative framework based on the application of high precision radiocarbon dating.
Strati-graphic excavations, new high precision radiocarbon dating using short-life samples, and small finds such as ceramics, scarabs, and arrowheads from the site show the centrality of the Iron Age landscape in the copper ore-rich lowlands of Edom for the formation of complex societies in this part of the southern Levant. The new data presented here challenge previous assumptions about the Iron Age in Jordan, such as a the formation of the Iron Age kingdom of Edom only took place in the 7th and 6th centuries BCE and b no monumental building activities took place in Transjordan during the 10th century BCE.
Bayesian statistical analyses of the radiocarbon dates from KEN are presented by Higham et al. Chapter 11, this volume. Introduction This study discusses some of the archaeological and historical implications of the latest suite of high precision radiocarbon dates obtained from the Oxford and Groningen radiocarbon laborato-ries from the recent excavations at the Iron Age metal production center at Khirbat en-Nahas in Jordan.
To appreciate the impact of these new radiometric dates on the Iron Age archaeology of southern Jordan, and radiometric dating on historical archaeology in general, some discussion of the role of text and archaeology must be discussed in order to attain some of the goals of a 'New Biblical Archaeology' outlined at the beginning of this volume see Chapter 1.
In the 19th century, systematic archaeological research in the southern Levant—the Holy Land—was born with the aim of exploring the relationship between text the Hebrew Bible and the newly understood field of archaeology. The unique historical relationship between the Hebrew Bible Old Testament and the landscape of Palestine created what might be called the 'tyranny of the text'.
Accordingly, in approaching the archaeological record of the southern Levant, from its 19th-century beginnings until the mids, archaeologists consistently approached the archaeological record of the Holy Land by first examining biblical text and then searching for material culture proof to support the text as historical fact Albright ; Glueck a; Wright Following the discovery of incon-sistencies between text and the archaeological record at key sites such as Jericho, which was supposed to have been destroyed by Joshua and the Israelite tribes at the end of the Late Bronze Age, cracks developed in the paradigm known as 'Biblical Archaeology'.
By the s, a growing number of researchers accepted that there were limitations on the role of archaeology in establish-ing the historicity of the Hebrew Bible along the lines that Albright and others had pro-posed. This was an effort to shed the weight of the tyranny of the biblical text Deveron the archaeological record of the southern Levant. Self-appointing themselves as the new Tost-Processual' paradigm, Hodder, and others Preucel and Hodder [eds.
The most significant Post-Processual critique, and most applicable to Levantine Archaeology, was the fact that Processual archaeology had an anti-historical bias that assumed a kind of 'universal humanism' making it possible to construct 'laws' of human behavior.
Perhaps the notion that the Bible represents a kind of 'tyranny of the text' for archaeologists is simply inappropriate for the archaeology of the southern Levant where so much of the Hebrew Bible takes place.
The leading historical archaeologists working in the southern Levant were primarily secular Ben-Tor [ed. Middle Bronze—Iron Age in the southern Levant did adopt many of the methodologies proposed by the New Archaeology, such as interdisciplinary research and a real interest in the application of new technologies for archaeological research.
However, the question remained—how best to bring together text and archaeology. The emergence of the so-called Biblical Minimal-ist paradigm cf. Davies ; Thompson ; Whitelam argued that the Hebrew Bible lacks any historical data whatsoever so it is a totally unreliable source. As discussed earlier Levy and Higham [Chapter 1, this volume]given the large number of interconnections between biblical and extra-biblical ancient sources cf. Dever, the Biblical Minimalist paradigm is untenable today.
When researchers grasp on to any historical piece of data uncriti-cally, whether it is the Hebrew Bible or extra-biblical textual data from media such as monumental inscriptions, ostraca ink on potteryengraved silver, inscribed stone seals or a seal impression, to interpret the archaeological record they run the risk of simplification and finding what their preconceived views want to find Schniedewind