MadSci Network: Evolution
Query:

Re: Non-C14 radiometric dating of historical artifacts

Date: Wed Oct 8 18:25:29 2003
Posted By: Andrew Karam, Radiation Safety Officer
Area of science: Evolution
ID: 1064776950.Ev
Message:

Carbon-14 dating is a well-established way of determining the ages of archeological artifacts and organic materials that are up to several tens of thousands of years old. One place to start would be the work for which Willard Libby was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1960.

There are two textbooks that give a very good explanation of C-14 dating, and both are well-referenced.

One is Gunter Faure's "Principles of Isotope Geology", published by Wiley. Faure's book is somewhat dated (1986) but is still considered a very good textbook on the subject and, in fact, I still refer to my copy quite frequently.

The second book, "Radiogenic Isotope Geology" was written by Alan Dickin and is published by Cambridge University Press (1995). Dickin's book is more recent, and it nicely complements Faure's.

Another book is devoted to carbon dating and goes into much greater detail of specific studies. This is "The Principles and Applicatoins of Radiocarbon Dating" by W. G. Mook and published in 1980 by Elsevier. A number of papers on radiocarbon dating have been published in Nature, Science, Physical Review Letters, and a number of archeological journals, and the journal Radiocarbon is devoted to this topic.

One paper in particular may be of interest: "On the relationship between radiocarbon dats and true sample ages", written by M. Stuiver and H.E. Suess in 1966 and published in Radiocarbon, volume 8 (pages 534-540). Another classic work was written by Libby and published in 1952 (Radiocarbon Dating, W.F. Libby, University of Chicago Press) and it includes a figure showing calculated radiocarbon ages versus tree ring ages.

On a popular level, the book "The Age of the Earth" by Brent Dalrymple (Stanford University Press, 1994) is an outstanding summary of why Dalrymple (himself a highly respected isotope geologist) feels that the Earth MUST be ancient. Dalrymple has been called upon to testify in some "evolution vs. creationism" debates, and this book is one the results of his experience in this arena.

Regarding verification of specific dates, C-14 ages have been compared (favorably) with tree-ring ages (dendrochronology) with very good agreement. Rather than list all of these studies here, I would refer you, instead, to chapter 22 of Faure's book, in which the appropriate reference information is provided.

In short, there is a LOT of information that details every aspect of radiocarbon dating. The physics of the technique are well-known, from the formation of C-14 through the absorption of C-14 by living organisms, to the rate at which it decays to stable nitrogen-14. In my opinion, the only way to deny the results of this dating method is to deny the applicability of physical laws, because if we accept physical laws as being valid, then we must recognize that the accuracy of isotopic dating methods and the antiquity of the Earth flow inevitably from them.


Current Queue | Current Queue for Evolution | Evolution archives

Try the links in the MadSci Library for more information on Evolution.



MadSci Home | Information | Search | Random Knowledge Generator | MadSci Archives | Mad Library | MAD Labs | MAD FAQs | Ask a ? | Join Us! | Help Support MadSci


MadSci Network, webadmin@www.madsci.org
© 1995-2003. All rights reserved.