10 thoughts on “Radiocarbon dating verifies ancient Egypt’s history”
The radiocarbon dating system is actually heavily flawed. It makes the assumption that Carbon-14 levels are the same universally, which most likely, they are not.
Ask any scientist, any professor. Actually many current scientific tools are based on assumptions. Radiocarbon dating is OK to make a general educated guess at the age of something, but definitely not something you should base a major theory on.
Really the full idea of radiocarbon dating only really works with objects that have been buried. It is assumed that once an object is buried, its constant re-coating of carbon-14 from the air gets cut off. From there they can calculate about how long it has been buried (again, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the air has always been the same and is the same everywhere.) You also don’t know if the object could have been exposed again. World-wide carbon-14 levels could have changed any time. If all of a sudden there was a sudden release of radiation, etc.
It was never a method meant to be concrete, yet that’s what it has become.
Cole, you’re correct. But, C-14 dating has been around for more than 50 years (or there abouts) and the method has been worked on and improved ever since then (e.g. L. A. Pavlish and E. B. Banning, Revolutionary Developments in Carbon-14 Dating, American Antiquity, 1980;45(2): 290-297) and backed and frequently verified by other dating techniques. Thus, it would seem it’s rather reliable. I can’t believe scientists have been so naive for so long to use a method that, at least, didn’t give a fairly close estimation of age.
Yes, in many instances radiocarbon dating can be very useful. The problem is that its too often radiocarbon dating is used as a standalone test, without using any other means (all of which, by the way, are not completely accurate either). Radiocarbon dating is taken to be correct always, when in reality, it may be right for one test but wrong for another because of contamination. Again, this is an assumption saying that the object was never subjected to a different amount of radiation or it wasn’t unearthed or held some intermittent time. The system is completely fallible.
Ramsey’s results have locked down a SERIES of dates throughout Egyptian history which roughly conform to the average historical chronology. While the results imply a raising of the chronology here and there the difference is actually quite small relative to the longevity of the periods in question. Because samples were taken from periods THROUGHOUT Egyptian history rather than singular snapshots and that these results conform very well with other historical chronologies, it implies a very high likelihood of accuracy.
The raising of the New Kingdom chronology via Ramsey’s results also agrees with the need to raise it as a result of research in respect of the Santorini eruption. This is another indicator of accuracy in that these two projects have converged and provided similar results.
Well done Professor Ramsey. This research was long overdue.
Very enice but I have some thing to say about that the search for that kind of ancient egypt articles on the net is very difficult so if you can advice me about. thanks again
difficult thing about this, is that it is all based on circular logic. The entire system of rc dating is based on a ‘known’ age from the tomb of tut. That a second, later test reconfirms the rc evidence from the original testing only confirms that the original test was accurate, not that the date was accurate. The original results from hay in tut’s tomb created the very first offsets or calibrations to the raw rc data. If, as many are now claiming, the assumed date of tut is off, then the entire calibration scheme is off. These new dates do show that, in general, the regnal history of egypt that’s been pieced together is internally consistent, although not entirely accurate. The portions of the report that have been overlooked are the ones that show several kings’ material to be off by hundreds of years.
What must be accounted for, is the circular logic involved in giving a date to something, then calibrating all your eveidence to that assigned date, then congratulating yourself for showing that the date you’ve assigned to an event is correct. This is especially the case now that dendrohronological data has been shown to produce rc calibrations that do not match the standard egyptian calibrations. This had led to a situation where egypt has one set of calibrations, and the entire rest of the world has a different set. Were the material tested in this study to have been given tree-ring calibrations, then the headline would read that all of egyptian chronology was proven wrong. The great difficulty is that the dates for tut rest on nothing… they are simply assumed dates based on an old system of dating that has been proven incorrect in every other aspect, except where it applies to egypt.
It is clearly time for science to address this discrepancy.
Radiocarbon dating isn’t “perfect truth,” but it’s also not the scientific equivalent of throwing darts in the dark. Think “well‑tested but noisy instrument” rather than “heavily flawed gadget scientists are too naive to notice.” [1]
Do scientists assume C‑14 is the same everywhere?
They used to, in the 1950s. Then they realized that was wrong and spent the next 70 years fixing it. [2]
– C‑14 in the atmosphere changes over time (sun, magnetosphere, human activity) and differs between air, oceans, and deep water. [1]
– To handle this, scientists build calibration curves from things with known ages, especially tree rings: one ring per year, each ring measured for C‑14. [3]
– When they date a seed or linen, they don’t just run a formula; they match it to the curve, which already encodes how C‑14 actually changed. [2]
So “radiocarbon assumes C‑14 is the same everywhere and always” describes the problem the field set out to solve, not the method we use today.
How good is it, really?
Radiocarbon has clear limits, but within those limits it’s very useful. [4]
– Good range: from modern back to roughly 40,000–50,000 years, sometimes a bit more, for organic stuff (wood, seeds, bone, textiles). [5]
– Typical precision with good samples and modeling: often “within a few decades to a century,” not “within a millennium.” [6]
– Every date comes with an error bar and a probability range; responsible archaeologists use multiple dates plus context, not a lone lab number. [3]
It can be wrong if you:
– Use contaminated material (modern glue, soil carbon, conservation chemicals). [7]
– Date long‑lived or reused wood and pretend you’ve dated the building rather than the tree. [8]
– Ignore calibration and just quote raw “radiocarbon years.” [2]
That’s not “radiocarbon is useless.” That’s “you can misuse any tool.”
Egypt and “circular logic”
The claim that “everything is calibrated from Tutankhamun, so it’s circular” sounds juicy but doesn’t match how calibration actually works. [2]
– The main calibration curves (IntCal etc.) are built mostly from tree rings and other non‑Egyptian records with independently known ages. [3]
– Egyptian samples (including Tut’s tomb plants) are then dated against those curves. When they line up, that’s a cross‑check, not the foundation. [2]
– There are debates about small regional offsets (for example, eastern Mediterranean vs central Europe), and those are actively studied and occasionally adjusted. [9]
So there’s feedback between Egyptian history and calibration, but not the simple “we used Tut to build the whole system, so if Tut moves everything collapses” story.
What’s the grown‑up verdict?
– Radiocarbon dating does not assume a constant, universal C‑14 level and then blindly trust it; the entire calibration enterprise is about measuring how that level changed and correcting for it. [1]
– The method is not infallible and absolutely should not be used as a stand‑alone oracle. Multiple samples, good context, other dating methods, and honest error bars are the norm in serious work. [10]
– When used that way, it’s accurate enough to anchor big chunks of archaeology—including most of the Egyptian Old, Middle and New Kingdoms—to within historically meaningful ranges, while still leaving real arguments at the fine‑tuning level. [8]
Summary: radiocarbon is a clever clock with a noisy tick, constantly re‑checked against tree rings and other records. If someone tells you it’s “heavily flawed because scientists assume C‑14 is the same everywhere,” they’re describing Radiocarbon Dating, Version 0.1, not the patched and upgraded version everyone’s been using for decades.
️ 472
The radiocarbon dating system is actually heavily flawed. It makes the assumption that Carbon-14 levels are the same universally, which most likely, they are not.
Interesting:
“It makes the assumption that Carbon-14 levels are the same universally, which most likely, they are not.”
So, explain what you know and how you know it, and why so many scientists are so ignorant.
Ask any scientist, any professor. Actually many current scientific tools are based on assumptions. Radiocarbon dating is OK to make a general educated guess at the age of something, but definitely not something you should base a major theory on.
Really the full idea of radiocarbon dating only really works with objects that have been buried. It is assumed that once an object is buried, its constant re-coating of carbon-14 from the air gets cut off. From there they can calculate about how long it has been buried (again, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the air has always been the same and is the same everywhere.) You also don’t know if the object could have been exposed again. World-wide carbon-14 levels could have changed any time. If all of a sudden there was a sudden release of radiation, etc.
It was never a method meant to be concrete, yet that’s what it has become.
Thanks!
Cole, you’re correct. But, C-14 dating has been around for more than 50 years (or there abouts) and the method has been worked on and improved ever since then (e.g. L. A. Pavlish and E. B. Banning, Revolutionary Developments in Carbon-14 Dating, American Antiquity, 1980;45(2): 290-297) and backed and frequently verified by other dating techniques. Thus, it would seem it’s rather reliable. I can’t believe scientists have been so naive for so long to use a method that, at least, didn’t give a fairly close estimation of age.
Yes, in many instances radiocarbon dating can be very useful. The problem is that its too often radiocarbon dating is used as a standalone test, without using any other means (all of which, by the way, are not completely accurate either). Radiocarbon dating is taken to be correct always, when in reality, it may be right for one test but wrong for another because of contamination. Again, this is an assumption saying that the object was never subjected to a different amount of radiation or it wasn’t unearthed or held some intermittent time. The system is completely fallible.
Ramsey’s results have locked down a SERIES of dates throughout Egyptian history which roughly conform to the average historical chronology. While the results imply a raising of the chronology here and there the difference is actually quite small relative to the longevity of the periods in question. Because samples were taken from periods THROUGHOUT Egyptian history rather than singular snapshots and that these results conform very well with other historical chronologies, it implies a very high likelihood of accuracy.
The raising of the New Kingdom chronology via Ramsey’s results also agrees with the need to raise it as a result of research in respect of the Santorini eruption. This is another indicator of accuracy in that these two projects have converged and provided similar results.
Well done Professor Ramsey. This research was long overdue.
Very enice but I have some thing to say about that the search for that kind of ancient egypt articles on the net is very difficult so if you can advice me about. thanks again
difficult thing about this, is that it is all based on circular logic. The entire system of rc dating is based on a ‘known’ age from the tomb of tut. That a second, later test reconfirms the rc evidence from the original testing only confirms that the original test was accurate, not that the date was accurate. The original results from hay in tut’s tomb created the very first offsets or calibrations to the raw rc data. If, as many are now claiming, the assumed date of tut is off, then the entire calibration scheme is off. These new dates do show that, in general, the regnal history of egypt that’s been pieced together is internally consistent, although not entirely accurate. The portions of the report that have been overlooked are the ones that show several kings’ material to be off by hundreds of years.
What must be accounted for, is the circular logic involved in giving a date to something, then calibrating all your eveidence to that assigned date, then congratulating yourself for showing that the date you’ve assigned to an event is correct. This is especially the case now that dendrohronological data has been shown to produce rc calibrations that do not match the standard egyptian calibrations. This had led to a situation where egypt has one set of calibrations, and the entire rest of the world has a different set. Were the material tested in this study to have been given tree-ring calibrations, then the headline would read that all of egyptian chronology was proven wrong. The great difficulty is that the dates for tut rest on nothing… they are simply assumed dates based on an old system of dating that has been proven incorrect in every other aspect, except where it applies to egypt.
It is clearly time for science to address this discrepancy.
Radiocarbon dating isn’t “perfect truth,” but it’s also not the scientific equivalent of throwing darts in the dark. Think “well‑tested but noisy instrument” rather than “heavily flawed gadget scientists are too naive to notice.” [1]
Do scientists assume C‑14 is the same everywhere?
They used to, in the 1950s. Then they realized that was wrong and spent the next 70 years fixing it. [2]
– C‑14 in the atmosphere changes over time (sun, magnetosphere, human activity) and differs between air, oceans, and deep water. [1]
– To handle this, scientists build calibration curves from things with known ages, especially tree rings: one ring per year, each ring measured for C‑14. [3]
– When they date a seed or linen, they don’t just run a formula; they match it to the curve, which already encodes how C‑14 actually changed. [2]
So “radiocarbon assumes C‑14 is the same everywhere and always” describes the problem the field set out to solve, not the method we use today.
How good is it, really?
Radiocarbon has clear limits, but within those limits it’s very useful. [4]
– Good range: from modern back to roughly 40,000–50,000 years, sometimes a bit more, for organic stuff (wood, seeds, bone, textiles). [5]
– Typical precision with good samples and modeling: often “within a few decades to a century,” not “within a millennium.” [6]
– Every date comes with an error bar and a probability range; responsible archaeologists use multiple dates plus context, not a lone lab number. [3]
It can be wrong if you:
– Use contaminated material (modern glue, soil carbon, conservation chemicals). [7]
– Date long‑lived or reused wood and pretend you’ve dated the building rather than the tree. [8]
– Ignore calibration and just quote raw “radiocarbon years.” [2]
That’s not “radiocarbon is useless.” That’s “you can misuse any tool.”
Egypt and “circular logic”
The claim that “everything is calibrated from Tutankhamun, so it’s circular” sounds juicy but doesn’t match how calibration actually works. [2]
– The main calibration curves (IntCal etc.) are built mostly from tree rings and other non‑Egyptian records with independently known ages. [3]
– Egyptian samples (including Tut’s tomb plants) are then dated against those curves. When they line up, that’s a cross‑check, not the foundation. [2]
– There are debates about small regional offsets (for example, eastern Mediterranean vs central Europe), and those are actively studied and occasionally adjusted. [9]
So there’s feedback between Egyptian history and calibration, but not the simple “we used Tut to build the whole system, so if Tut moves everything collapses” story.
What’s the grown‑up verdict?
– Radiocarbon dating does not assume a constant, universal C‑14 level and then blindly trust it; the entire calibration enterprise is about measuring how that level changed and correcting for it. [1]
– The method is not infallible and absolutely should not be used as a stand‑alone oracle. Multiple samples, good context, other dating methods, and honest error bars are the norm in serious work. [10]
– When used that way, it’s accurate enough to anchor big chunks of archaeology—including most of the Egyptian Old, Middle and New Kingdoms—to within historically meaningful ranges, while still leaving real arguments at the fine‑tuning level. [8]
Summary: radiocarbon is a clever clock with a noisy tick, constantly re‑checked against tree rings and other records. If someone tells you it’s “heavily flawed because scientists assume C‑14 is the same everywhere,” they’re describing Radiocarbon Dating, Version 0.1, not the patched and upgraded version everyone’s been using for decades.
Read More
[1] https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/what-is-carbon-14-dating
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
[3] https://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/radiocarbon/dating101.html
[4] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/radiocarbon-dating-explained
[5] https://www.radiocarbon.com/about-carbon-dating.htm
[6] https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/chemistry/radiocarbon-dating
[7] https://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/radiocarbon-dating
[8] https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/dating
[9] https://armstronginstitute.org/716-an-objective-look-at-radiocarbon-dating
[10] https://research.arizona.edu/stories/radiocarbon-dating-gets-postmodern-makeover