Carbon dating accuracy debate
The dates given from the two samples were 1347 BC /- BC /-91, giving an overall range for these two C-14 dates as 1688-1262 BC (Marchetti , Nicolo and Nigro, Lorenzo, eds. The first of these dates fits roughly around the proposed 1400 BC destruction, while the other is closer to the proposed 1550 BC destruction.Yet, again these dates are so broad that they are useless in contributing to solving the problem for the date of destruction.The date of the destruction of the final Bronze Age city of Jericho has been a subject of controversy over the last 100 years, and unfortunately the C-14 samples have not settled that controversy. This carbon-14 sample taken at Jericho had been analyzed by the laboratory at the British Museum for the publications of the excavations under Kathleen Kenyon, and the laboratory initially found a date of 1410 BC /- 40 (Kenyon, K, and Holland, TA. London: British School of Archaeology at Jerusalem, 1983, 763). Another C-14 sample from this same destruction layer at Jericho gave results of 3300 /- 7 BP, which calibrates to approximately 1618-1530 BC (Bruins, HJ and van der Plicht, J.In an article discussing the destruction of Jericho City IV, archaeologist Bryant Wood presented a sample that initially “was dated to 1410 B. E., plus or minus 40 years, lending further support that the destruction of City IV occurred around the end of the Late Bronze I period, about 1400 B. However, it was discovered years later that the result of this sample testing was incorrect, and was later reissued on a list of erroneous dates due to a problem with equipment calibration at the laboratory for the years 1980-1984. “Re-Evaluation of British Museum Radiocarbon Dates Issued Between 19.” Radiocarbon 32, 1990, 74, BM-1790) which calibrates to approximately 1883-1324 BC, rendering the resulting C-14 date useless for settling the debate between a destruction in ca. “Tell es-Sultan (Jericho): Radiocarbon results of short-lived cereal and multiyear charcoal samples from the end of the Middle Bronze Age.” Radiocarbon Vol. This sample gave results surrounding the date of destruction advocated by Kathleen Kenyon (ca.Since limestone contains very little, if any, radiocarbon, clam shells will contain less radiocarbon than would have been the case if they had gotten their carbon atoms from the air.This gives the clam shell an artificially old radiocarbon age.This problem, known as the "," is not of very great practical importance for radiocarbon dating since most of the artifacts which are useful for radiocarbon dating purposes and are of interest to archaeology derive from terrestrial organisms which ultimately obtain their carbon atoms from air, not the water. Samples of coal have been found with radiocarbon ages of only 20,000 radiocarbon years or less, thus proving the recent origin of fossil fuels, probably in the Flood.
It is not correct to state or imply from this evidence that the radiocarbon dating technique is thus shown to be generally invalid.Instead, ceramic typology and various forms of epigraphic evidence should be the primary methods of dating a particular layer of a site from the Bronze or Iron Ages, which is the norm in the archaeology of ancient Israel.