Carbon Dating

Summary

Let us sum up the information that we have just considered. We have learnt that the real activity of ancient specimens may alter from the average value for the following reasons:

1. A temporal change in timber activity: 2% deviation range;
2. Cosmic ray intensity changes (theoretical estimation): 20% deviation range;
3. Short-term changes of solar activity: additional 2%;
4. An increase in the mixing rate of the oceanic water: minus 2%;
5. Variations in radiocarbon concentration depending on the geographical location and the tree species: 8.5% deviation range;
6. Variations in radiocarbon content resulting from decomposition processes: ? (unknown);
7. Variations in radiocarbon content resulting from a specimen’s chemical processing: ? (unknown);
8. The variations in the exchange reservoir radiocarbon content resulting from the washing out of carbonate rock formations: ? (unknown);
9. Variations in radiocarbon content caused by large quantities of carbonates produced by volcanic eruptions: ? (unknown). This reason can provide for significant distortion of radiocarbon datings for the areas close to volcanoes, such as Italy with its Vesuvius and Etna.

One should also bear in mind the dating deviation resulting from the temporal gap between the cutting of a tree, for instance, and the use of the wood for the object or building researched. Finally, one has to consider the imprecision of the currently used C14 half-life value, that has been corrected by almost 10% as of late, and the errors of experimental measurement of a specimen’s radioactivity (background radioactivity consideration etc). We do not cover these errors (whose correction has cost the physicists lots of labour) presently, since having learned of all the factors mentioned, we deem it nonsensical to attempt the precise measurement of a value whose theoretical uncontrolled error rate may equal 10% if we’re to make modest assumptions. The most optimistic calculations give a radiocarbon dating uncontrolled error range of 1200 years of arbitrarily added or subtracted age.

This makes the placidity of the following conclusion made by B. A. Kolchin and Y. A. Sher most peculiar indeed: “Summing up the brief overview of the centurial C14 variation research, one has to point out that apart from its mere failing to undermine the trust that we have in radiocarbon chronology, this research had made its precision even higher (?! – A. F.)” ([414], page 8). Another specialist in radiocarbon datings, S. V. Boutomo, is of a more realistic opinion: “due to the considerable fluctuations of C14’s specific activity rate, the radiocarbon datings of relatively young specimens (under 2000 years of age) cannot be used as fundamental referential data for the absolute chronological scale” ([110], page 29). However, from the point of view of the “Classical age” studies, including those of the “ancient” history of Egypt, these “relatively young specimens” are of the greatest interest. Thus, certain specialists in the field of radiocarbon dating confess openly (albeit in special scientific literature) that the use of the radiocarbon method in its current state for the specimens whose age is 2000 years or less appears a most dubious endeavour.

We could have finished our overview of the radiocarbon dating method here if it hadn’t been for the criticisms of the method coming from archaeologists and certain oddities in the behaviour of the radiocarbon method specialists themselves. We have quoted some of the examples above. The first thing to attract one’s attention is the absolute trust of the authors in the infallibility of historical datings, as one sees from such passages as “the ages of specimens younger than 5000 years concur well (?! – A. F.) with the historical estimations” ([986], page 155). Such statements appear very odd indeed considering what we have just learnt.

Libby wrote that “further research has been undertaken involving specimens of known ages… The results… span a historical period of 5000 years… Thus, the general reliability of the radiocarbon method is well-proven” ([986], page 135). As we have already demonstrated, the popular myth of the “concurrence” between the Scaligerian chronology and the radiocarbon datings is based on flimsy foundations, and proves immaterial at closer study; the myth’s popularity is clearly of an unnatural origin. Let us remind the reader of something that Libby himself has mentioned in this respect: “One of the exceptions was discovered when we have worked on the materials of a large collection collected by James H. Breasted in Egypt together with the specialists of the well-known Chicago Institute for Oriental Studies. The third object suddenly turned out to have proved modern after analyzing. The finding belonged to a collection ascribed to the time of the V dynasty. It had really been a heavy blow” ([478], page 24). As we have already mentioned, this object was claimed a forgery. The fact that Libby mentions this “strange occurrence” makes one wonder how many of those he remained taciturn about.

As we have already demonstrated, the calibration of the radiocarbon method has been largely based on the Scaligerian chronology. It would be expedient to check whether the radiocarbon method can actually be made independent from written sources. Libby cites the table of modern carbon activity for various rock formations claiming that “it has been shown that there are no significant differences between the studied specimens collected at various latitudes from pole to pole” ([480], page 191).

Wait a second, we have just learnt that the deviation range equals 8.5% in one direction or the other, that is, over 700 years. How is it possible to claim five pages further on that “the carbon content that we have estimated concurs well with the expected value, all deviations being nothing but acceptable reference point errors” ([480], page 196). Could it be that Libby had been certain that the readers would not be interested in the details of Anderson’s table? Libby also says that their “conclusions may have proved wrong if the measurement errors of all kinds – those of cosmic ray intensity, mixing rate and ocean depths, had been in correlation. However, since this is not the case, we reckon that large error rates are improbable” ([480], page 193).

We are not quite certain as to what kind of improbability is being talked about here, since the cosmic ray intensiveness, mixing speed, and other physical values affecting the initial radiocarbon content in a specimen for the moment of its departure from the exchange reservoir are far from being random – all of these values had all equalled something at a given point in time. If we do not know these values and have to make a choice from some interval of possible values, the radiocarbon dating error shall equal the sum (!) of all the errors that have been made in the estimation of the source data for the specimen.

Libby writes that “despite the great differences between the cosmic ray intensiveness values at different geographical latitudes (they are a lot higher in the northern and southern latitudes than they are around the equator), one has to expect (? – A. F.) the radioactive carbon propagation rate to be homogeneous for the entire planet” ([478], page 23). The effect mentioned may nevertheless result in “extra age” gathered by specimens in Egypt, for example.

Libby proceeds to tell us the following: “The coincidence of the age of the core and the entire tree shows that the sap from the core of gigantic sequoias is not chemically balanced in comparison to the fibre and other molecules of the tree. In other words, the carbon in the central part of the tree had been stored there about 3000 years ago, although the actual tree had only been cut down several decades ago” ([480], page 195).

However, three years after this, the radioactivity of tree rings was researched by Süss, who has found the discrepancies between the radiocarbon datings and the dendrochronological ones. Did he make the conclusion that Libby’s initial hypothesis was wrong? He did not. Süss made the claim that the radiocarbon content in the ancient times used to be higher than it is today instead. What we see is a vicious circle.

L. S. Klein gives a similar example in [391]. First Libby proves the veracity of the radiocarbon method using the historical chronology of the “ancient” Egypt; however, when control measurements showed deviations, Libby immediately questioned the Egyptian chronology concerning these particular specimens ([391], page 104). Similarly, Libby had used dendrochronology in support of the radiocarbon method, explaining arising deviations by the fact that several tree-rings may be formed in a year. However, Libby is far from being the only one to demonstrate the lack of logic where its presence is undesired.

In the article by Kolchin and Sher ([414]) we read that “the dates calculated in assumption of the constancy of atmospheric C14 content from the ancient times to our age need to be revised. Does this mean they aren’t true? The following analogy appears congruent…” ([414], page 6). The authors proceed to tell us how the distance between the Earth and the Moon had been calculated in several stages, each time with a greater precision. The same allegedly applies to the radiocarbon method where gradual corrections make the calculations more precise as time goes by. This may well be so in theory. However, we read in the very same article that “the half-life period for C14 is 5570 years, with the possible deviation range of 30 years in each direction…” (page 4), and that “the half-life period for C14 is set (!? – A. F.) at 5730 years, give or take 40”. 160 years – that’s some correction!

M. J. Aitken writes that “an important characteristic of all these methods is their output, that is, the carbon content in the original volume that is transformed into gas. It would be expedient to have an output of 100% in order to eliminate all possibility of C14 turning into gas more readily than C12, or the other way round” ([986], page 168). We also learn that “the shortcoming of the synthesis of the latter is that only 10% of the carbon is transformed into benzol; this increases the possibility of error resulting from isotope separation” ([986], page 17). The author appears to have full awareness of the necessity of considering the isotope separation effect in all chemical reactions. However, in 6.3, while discussing the issues of a specimen’s suitability for measurements, M. J. Aitken writes that “charcoal and wood in good condition are considered the best specimens: their taking part in exchange is improbable (? – A. F.), and the only possible kind of decomposition results from the production of carbon oxide or dioxide. However, this process isn’t relevant to us, since it only concerns the carbon lost by an object” ([986], page 149). What about isotope separation? The radiocarbon content in a specimen may change as a result of decomposition!

Such careless attitude of specialists to the effects that may greatly affect the research results remains enigmatic for us. We have listed some of these effects in the general list. Some of them may really be difficult to evaluate currently. However, a number of effects reflected in literature may be quantitatively assessed after a series of experiments. No careful activity reports of either living or dead specimens have been made for any of the below:

1. latitude;
2. longitude;
3. proximity to certain geological and geographical formation on dry land and in the ocean;
4. altitude above the sea level;
5. climate etc.

Without such analysis, the self-righteous claims of the alleged independence of specimen activity from their locations and other characteristics are altogether impossible to understand.

Therefore, we have to concede the following:

1. The radiocarbon method in its current condition has deviation rate of 1000-2000 years for specimens whose age is estimated as under 1000 years. This means there’s not much to be learnt about the events of the last two millennia from this method.
2. The radiocarbon method needs a fresh graduation that would not be based on Scaligerian chronology at the very least.
3. Other physical dating methods are even less precise, ergo, they can tell us nothing about the dating of objects younger than 2000 years.
4. The actual archaeological methods that aren’t based on documented chronology can give no absolute dates; these methods can only aid the estimation of relative chronology of some findings in a limited number of cases.
5. Scaligerian chronology implicitly or explicitly affected the graduations of scales used for archaeological and even physical methods, including the radiocarbon method. This also questions the usability of the method in its current condition for the dating of historical objects.
6. According to a number of archaeologists (see above), the unacceptable practice of familiarizing the physical laboratories that perform radiocarbon datings with the opinions of the archaeologists about the estimated ages of findings still exists.