Proof against carbon dating
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1719420115 This document is subject to copyright.Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission.“There has been much debate for several decades among scholars arguing for different chronologies sometimes only decades to a century apart, each with major historical implications.And yet these studies […] may all be inaccurate since they are using the wrong radiocarbon information,” Manning said.Manning noted that "scholars working on the early Iron Age and Biblical chronology in Jordan and Israel are doing sophisticated projects with radiocarbon age analysis, which argue for very precise findings. But our work indicates that it's arguable their fundamental basis is faulty—they are using a calibration curve that is not accurate for this region." Applying their results to previously published chronologies, the researchers show how even the relatively small offsets they observe can shift calendar dates by enough to alter ongoing archaeological, historical and paleoclimate debates.
But new research conducted by Cornell University could be about to throw the field of archaeology on its head with the claim that there could be a number of inaccuracies in commonly accepted carbon dating standards.The content is provided for information purposes only. As you may know, trees outside of the tropics grow in visible rings.Archaeologist Sturt Manning and colleagues have revealed variations in the radiocarbon cycle at certain periods of time, affecting frequently cited standards used in archaeological and historical research relevant to the southern Levant region, which includes Israel, southern Jordan and Egypt.These variations, or offsets, of up to 20 years in the calibration of precise radiocarbon dating could be related to climatic conditions.
Search for proof against carbon dating:
"There has been much debate for several decades among scholars arguing for different chronologies sometimes only decades to a century apart -- each with major historical implications. may all be inaccurate since they are using the wrong radiocarbon information," Manning said.