Science in Christian Perspective
A Revolution in Ancient Radiocarbon Chronology
RONALD D. LONG
325 East "B" Street
Colon, California 92324
From: JASA 27 (March 1975): 24-31 Response by Edwin Yamauchi
Disregard for the divine inspiration of the Bible and its historical accuracy
has resulted in error. Dangers in the indiscriminate use of radiocarbon
determinations have been overlooked, and this has led to serious' and premature
alterations in the prehistoric chronology of Southeast Asia and Europe. Without
proper consideration of the geophysical evidence, and lingering problems in the
carbon-14 dating technique, theories are being formulated which completely
change and distort the prehistory of these two areas. Within the historical
framework of Genesis, however, we can view the early beginnings of world
civilization in a valid context.
Introduction
Two areas on opposite ends of the Eurasian continental landmass, Southeast Asia
and 'Western Europe, are presently the scenes of revolutions in the
interpretations of their prehistory and chronology. Carbon 14 dating was the
catalyst which precipitated the revolutions. Those who adhere to the radiocarbon
data recently published for the two regions claim that the prehistoric
chronology must be transported hack to earlier periods. The implications of this
theory are that:
1. Pottery, agriculture, and bronze were developed in South east Asia (in
particular, Thailand) centuries before their appearance in other parts of Asia.
2. Metallurgy, and architectural and artistic innovations were utilized in
Europe (especially Western Europe, and the Balkans) centuries poor to their
development in the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean empires.
The vital question remains, however, as to whether the carbon-14 method of
dating is reliable to a sufficient degree at this time to cause major
modifications in history. More importantly, the origins and early progress of
man's sojourn on this planet are already summarized in Scripture. Carbon-14
theories do not agree with the Bible.
New Ideas
Needless to say, both of these theories clash with the traditional and
previously accepted explanations for the prehistoric picture in Asia and Europe. Indus civilization centering its
Mohenjo-daro and Harappa and the Chinese Neolithic of the Lung-shan, and Yang-shao
cultures have been, until recently challenged, the most ancient, undisputed
purveyors of agriculture and pottery in Asia. The majority of scholars date the
initial utilization of bronze in India about 2300 BC, and in China about 1500
B.C. A few in the field of Southeast Asian archaeology question these widely
accepted opinions.
Southeast Asia
We shall examine the theory, behind the Oriental revolution first. In 1969, Dr.
Chester Gorman announced that domestication of plants occurred in northeastern
Thailand approximately 9000 years ago.1 This figure is derived from radiocarhon
determinations of samples from an ancient limestone shelter in Thailand known as
Spirit Cave, Seeds of beans, cucumbers,
Chinese water-chestnuts, and peas have been found in Spirit Cave in a context which proves that they were used in agriculture. On
the basis of this evidence the claim is being made that the Thais were the first
farmers in Asia and perhaps in the world.
Domestication of plants, and also the use of pottery in the Hoahnlhian
Mesolithic has been reassigned a elate as early as 9000 BC. The ramifications of
this theory, according to Dr. Wilhelm Solheim, Department of Anthropology at the
University of Hawaii, is that the southeast Asian Hoahinhian Mesolithic was the source of the Chinese
Neolithic cultures of the Lungshan and Yang-shao.2 From Thailand the Hoahinhian
culture advances were transmitted to the south of China where the Lung-shan
developed further and spread north.
Soiheim now believes that bronze was being molded in northeastern Thailand
approximately two centuries before it was used in the Indus river-valley
cultures of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro, and almost a thousand years before bronze
appeared in Shang Dynasty China.
In 1963 exploration in Thailand was initiated by the University of Hawaii.
Excavations began at Non Nok Tha, Thailand towards the end of 1965. Twenty
layers of Early Bronze Age material were uncovered. Layer 19, in which bronze
implements were discovered, was dated by radiocarbon analysis. Two dates were
chosen as the most representative of the site: 4275±200 B.P. (TF 651), and
4120±90 B.P. (GaK 956). Both samples related an age in the late third
millennium B.C.
On the basis of these two dates, the Dongson culture (originating in North Viet
Nam) can no longer he considered the earliest Bronze Age assemblage in this
sector of the Orient. Dongsonian Bronze Age has been described as the early
bronze age which began circa 500 B.C. Soiheim's discoveries, however,
demonstrate the utilization of bronze in Thailand around 2500 n.c.-if the C-14
data is valid. This predates the bronze age in China beginning with the Shang
Dynasty (1500 B.c.) and the bronze age in India during the period of the
Harappian cultures commencing circa 2300 B.C.
Dr. Solheim's theory certainly disagrees with the accepted explanation for the
prehistory of Southeast Asia. Grahame Clark expressed the traditional view in
the following statements:
Claims that it [Southeast Asia] was in itself the
cradle of an early civilization based on the cultivation of rice are not
substantiated by the archeological evidence . . . .3
The vital question remains whether the carbon 14 method of dating is reliable to a sufficient degree at this time to cause major modifications in history. These theories do not agree with the Bible.
So far from south-east Asia being an early focus of settled life, the
indications are that Neolithic culture arrived there somewhat belatedly.4
Does C-14 dating now nullify Clark's interpretation? Should the origins of Asian
civilization he revised? Perhaps' investigation of the evidence will answer
these questions.
Radiocarbon Evidence
Of the ten C-14 dates from Non Nok Tha, Soiheim reported that three were ".
. . obviously not the correct dates for the layers from which their samples were
collected."5 This again brings us to a quite painful realization.
Archaeologists and anthropologists possess the prerogative, however dishonest,
to declare an already preconceived chronology for an area as established. Then,
when specimens dated by C-14 do not fall in the range of the presumed limits,
those determinations are discarded as irrelevant-when perhaps these may be the
correct figures for the true age.
There are additional criticisms of the data which were arbitrarily chosen. One
of the samples (GaK 1030) was from Layer 18. Laboratory investigation related a
radiocarbon age that was modern. This happens occasionally, and is not a cause
for undue alarm. In this situation, however, where we are working with so few
specimens a modern date should make us cautious concerning the other data.
Serious evaluation should precede radical departures from a prehistory already
established through archaeology.
There are unanswered questions regarding dendrochronology itself. This is quite important because without dendrochronology there is no calibration.
Two of three specimens from Layer 9 were over 2000 years old: 2200±110 we. (GaK
958), and 2480±80 n.e. (GaK 1027). These figures had to he discarded because
the sample was a timber which must have come from another house. Solheim feels
that the Layer 21 result of 1860±140 n.e. (GaK 959) is unlikely. Obviously,
Layer 21 should be older than Layers 19, and 20. Yet, the radiocarbon date for
Layer 21 is the first century AD.! Solhcim commented, "Finally, it does not
fit with the other dates.6 It most assuredly does not fit. In other words,
this situation is similar to that described by the eminent Egyptologist, Save
Soderbergh, at the Twelfth Nobel Symposium on radiocarbon variations and
absolute chronology: "If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in
the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a
foot-note. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it."7
Two results for Layer 9 were discarded in favor of a single date 710±90 n.e. or
1220±90 AD. (GaK 908). This latter date coordinates with the theory, and that
is why it is used. Is there any valid reason for dismissing the other two dates?
Without many samples, sealed to specific strata, free from contamination, and
dated by several laboratories, it is impossible to determine. Layer 20 revealed
a date of 1315±200 n.e. (GaK 17/18). Yet, two other laboratories reached
different results for the later and, therefore, younger in age Layer 19:
2290±90 n.e. (Y 1851), and 2325±200 n.e. (TF 651). In fact, not only can this
not be reconciled, but how are the other two dates (for Layer 19 & 20) to be
explained: 4120±90 n.e. (GaK 956), and 1860±140 n.e. (GaK 959)? By the Law of
Supposition older
layers should be older in age, i.e. Layer 21, 20, and 19 -oldest to youngest.
This is not the case; therefore, certain data are used only for publication if
it confirms the author's hypothesis. There is no support for even suggesting
that Southeast Asians had agriculture, potters', and bronze before the great
civilizations of China and India. The Biblical, and historical records prove
that agriculture and other aspects of civilzation originated in the Near East,
not Far East. In fact, the bibliography for the origin of civilization in the
Near East is so great that we will pass on to a few Bible proofs and historical
proofs from the history of Indochina itelf.
The Biblical Framework
Our Bibles do not reveal detailed information about the pre-Flood world or the
immediate post-Flood beginnings of ancient civilization. Rather God has provided
an outline of major occurrences: Creation of man, an antediluvian society which
was in general a depraved era, the Noachian deluge, post-Flood
political-social-economic
development, the Tower of Babel, and dispersion of mankind over the surface of
the earth. In Genesis, Moses defined the area of the Garden of Eden in 15th
century B.C. terminology. Exact geographical coordinates for the Garden are not
given; however, it was certainly in the Near East. Later, Noah's Ark rested on
the mountainous plateau of Armenia. Thus, human activity began in this centrally
oriented location, and man spread out in all directions from Ararat. It should
not surprise us, therefore, that peoples in as diverse places as Polynesia,
Africa, Mesoameriea, and Southeast Asia have oral and written traditions
regarding Creation, the Flood, and Babel. In fact, the historical reality of the
Flood was known to the ancient inhabitants of Indo-china.8
Eight human beings stepped out of the Ark on to a planet devoid of others of
their kind. They multiplied, and migrated from the region of Armenia to the
Mesopotamian plain.!9 Apart from Noah and a few other righteous men, their
designs were again contrary to the plan of God. In rebellion they constructed a tower as a symbol of human
unity against the Creator. Under the guise of protection against another
catastrophe by water, Nimrod organized his blind followers into a religio-political
community of diabolical conception. God knew that these creatures speaking one
language and determined to follow a lifestyle in opposition to peace and
happiness, had to he separated before miscegenation and their inventions of
destruction resulted in the same pattern of the pre-Flood period. Therefore, the
Eternal performed a miracle which resulted in an ethno-linguistic division of
mankind. As groups of the same color, and language gathered together, they
gradually migrated out of the land between the rivers. Post-Deluge civilization
began in Babylonia-not in Thailand. The roots of all mankind reach back to the
ancient Near East.
Southeast Asians, including the Thais, can tell the story of Babel because their
ancestors were part of Nimrnd's system. One interesting "legend" comes
from the Chin of the Tibeto-Burmese tribes in Indo-china.10 They tell of a time
when humanity lived in one large village and spoke one language. One day the
Chin noticed how the phases of the Moon changed. This natural phenomenon caused
so much consternation that it was decided the people would build a tower which
would reach into the heavens. Their purpose was to capture the Moon.
In time the tower reached such a height that the masons and carpenters were
unable to descend for food on a daily basis. To solve this problem the Chin
permanently settled workers at various stages in the tower so that others could
bring food to those doing the actual building. In time the group of laborers
stationed its a particular level adopted their own language and customs.
Meanwhile, the spirit of the Moon was so filled with anger that it unleased a
series of
violent storms which caused the tower to fall back to the earth. As the tower
fell, peoples were distributed in many localities depending on the height of the
level they were constructing. Mankind was dispersed, and
hence the origin of civilization over the earth.
A variation of the Chin story is narrated by Tawvats, also of Southeast Asia. In
this case the natives tried to capture the sun, but their ladder collapsed, and
as they fell so man was scattered. Indo-chinese tribes, therefore, have the
story of Babel because this was part of their history. They are an offshoot of
civilization in the West-not the originators, but recipients of agriculture.
Claims that these traditions are the outcome of recent missionary efforts are
lame excuses of disbelief in a proof of the Bible. The burden of proving such
allegations rests with the accuser. Scripture clearly denotes the first
agriculture and the domestication of animals-the wherewithal of civilization-in
the Near East. Agriculture is as antique as Cain, and domestication as old as
Abel. A few questionable carbon 14 dates do not overthrow the Word of God.
Indeed, history and Scripture are in agreement against this hypothesis.
Historical Facts
Southeast Asians did not evolve in the Orient and create agriculture
independently. We will cite a few examples where the origin of peoples are
known, History shows that the Arakan of Burma lived in Mes-opotamia until a few years
after the confusion of tongues." Arakanese records tell of a movement into
the Ganges Valley before they were driven by Aryan invaders out of India into
coastal Burma. "Sand-ra" an Indian suffix was attached to the names of
the rulers of the Arakan until . they left India. According to Phayre:
At first sight it appears improbable that any of the
royal Kshatrsya tribes of northern India should, at the early period indicated,
have left their homes and penetrated through the wild country of Eastern Bengal
to the Upper Irasvadi. This, however, is what the Burmese chronicles, repeating
an ancient tradition, assert... 12
Today living in Laos and Thailand are a scattered ,group of people known as the
Mian-Yaou, Their origins
Theories proposing views contrary to the Word of God can always he examined and found to be false and without support in fact.
can be traced back to the banks of the Yangtze river in China. In early times
they were in the provinces of Hopeh and Hunan. According to the Shoo King,
Meneius, Chnang-tzu, and Han-feitzu, the Miao revolted during the reign of Yaou
(the name of one of the first emperiors, and not to he confused with the name of
the broad category of Miao-Yaou)13 The revolt can he dated to a few years before
the Hsia Dynasty which began in 2205 B.C. or within a few decades after the
Towel of Babel. Thus, the Miao, another Indo-chinese people, lived in the shadow
of Chinese civilization.
Tai-Kadai is the major ethno-lingoistie division of Southeast Asians living in
Thailand and some adjacent provinces. Within the Tai-Kadai group is the Lao or
Ai-Lao who, within ancient times, lived between the Hwang-ho and Yangtze rivers.
Military campaigns initiated by the Chinese drove the Lao south during the Han
Dynasty (parallels the period of the Roman Empire). Emperor Chin Shih Huang-ti
(circa 215 ac.) was in large part responsible for forcing the Lao south. Here
again is proof that Southeast Asians are late-comers just as Grahame Clark
described.
0. Janse, a noted expert in the field, has outlined
the cultural diffusion which took place from west to
east-rather than the reverse. 14 Prince Dhaninivat traced the Thais from Lake
Tab in Yunoan province China in their trek southward.15 The Thais were the
recipients of culture, and not the originators as Solheim and company would like
to believe. In short, the radiocarbon evidence offered as support for the theory
is quite weak. The Biblical and historical records negate all attempts to make
Indo-chinese history appear too early or more advanced than it actually was.
Prehistoric Europe
Since the time of V. Gordon Childe, European prehistorian, it has been known that artistic, and technological advances in
European antiquity were due to cultural diffusion from the more
"civilized" peoples of Egypt, Greece, Asia Minor, and Bahylonia.
Current interpretations have primitive and rather sluggish Europeans receiving
inventions and other products of civilization only through the transmission of
these from the Mediterranean empires of the ancient Near East. An alternative
interpretation has been offered based on carbon 14 dating. According to this
view, Europe progressed technologically before the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, and
Greeks.
Dr. Cohn Renfrew, a noted archaeologist, would now have us believe that Europe
was the source of metallurgical technology, and many artistic and architectural
developments previously explained as originating in the ancient Near East.
Renfrew's challenge to traditional explanations is based upon
"corrected" C-14 dates, i.e. "corrected" by use of the Suess
calibration curve. The calibration curve is derived from radiocarbon dating
dendroehronologieally dated treerings of bristlecone pine (Pinus ari.stata).
Plotting carbon 14 data on the curve throws the dates back centuries so that
they appear much older, For example, 2350 B.C. is a determination for a specimen
from Los Millares in Spain. After calibration this date would be 2900 B.C.
All European C-14 dates from antiquity, Reofrew asserts, can he calibrated with
this curve based on a pine tree which grows in the White Mountains of
California. "This revelation has destroyed the intricate system of
interlocking chronologies that provided the foundation for a major edifice of
archaeological scholarship: the theory of cultural diffusion." We will see,
however, that Renfrew's hypothesis, his attack on European prehistory, and
disbelief in cultural diffusion are all based on a fallacious understanding of
radiocarbon dating, and premature conclusions regarding the Suess calibration
curve. The curve cannot be used for European material.
One ramification of Renfrew's theory is that copper metallurgy in Europe began
an entire millennium before Aegean prototypes. Neolithic Vinca culture found in the Balkans, when
calibrated relates a date of 4000 B.C. Of course, the radiocarbon figures for
the Vinca culture without calibration substantiate the accepted explanation for
cultural diffusion from the ancient eastern Mediterranean civilizations to
Europe. With the bristlecone pine calibration applied to European antiquity,
however, the Neolithic metallurgy of the \7inca culture is older than the metal
technology of the ancient eastern kingdoms.
Scholars have described the influence of Mycenaean or Aegean design and artistic
motifs on the construetion of Stonehenge. With calibration, however, the
construction of Stonehenge is pushed hack to make it appear to he older than
1500 B.C. This would mean that Stonehenge is no longer contemporary with the
Mycenaean period, but earlier than Aegean prototypes. Thus, cultural diffusion
from Mycenae, Argos, Pylos, et al., to the Salisbury Plain in England is,
according to Renfrew, no longer tenable. Similarly, cultural diffusion which
brought corbelled tombs to Brittany from Spain and France is denied. For many
years it has been believed that the corbelled tomb reached Brittany from Spain
and France after 2500 B.C. By using the artificially inflated Suess calibration
curve for chronology, tombs in Brittany date earlier than 3000
B.C.
Calibration
Renfrew's theory and conclusions are built upon the assumption, or
"revelation" as he calls it, that the Suess calibration curve for C-14
dates applies to European prehistoric radiocarbon data. To understand this
theory based on sand, we must rehearse the development of the techniques during
recent years. One of the foundational points of radiocarbon dating, as developed
by Libby, was that the concentration of available radioactive carbon 14 in the
atmosphere is constant in time for all locations on the earth. Then, in 1958, de
Vries found that there were variations in the concentration of C-14 with
relation to time.17 This fact was discovered when do Vries radiocarbon
dated tree-rings of established age from some eighteentls century AD. forest
timbers. Treerings were counted, and assigned their calendar age. When analyzed
for C-14 content, however, the C-14 age was different from the true age or
calendar age of the tree-rings. Investigation continued underVillis, Tauber,
and Muonieh on California Sequoia gigantca with similar results. In 1966,
Stuiver, and Suess stated that the large variations in the production of C-14 by
cosmic rays was due to modulation of the galactic cosmic ray flux.18 This
established that the intensity of cosmic radiation in time changed-another blow
to a basic premise of the technique.
During the 1960's radiocarbon chronologists could not understand the reason for
the 500 and 600 year discrepancies between their C-14 dates, and the so-called
"astronomically established" chronology of the ancient Egyptian Old
Kingdom. In 1970, Prof. Libby stated: "The long experience with radiocarbon
dating has taught me . . . on absolute dates it can be incorrect by as much as
600 or 700 years at the peak of the deviation some 7000 years ago."19
Geophysicists came to recognize the situation. There were variations in the
amount of C-14 in the atmosphere in time. Cosmic radiation changed in time and
therefore modified the production of C-14 in the atmosphere. Ancient Egyptian
samples dated by C-14 disagreed with Egyptian history because of these new
factors or so it was postulated.
Magnetic Field
Why did the quantity of radioactive carbon 14 oscillate in time? Prof. Libby
answers: "The speculation at the moment is that the main deviation is due
to a weakening of the Earth's magnetic field...20 As the earth's
magnetic dipole moment shifts, so does the amount of cosmic rays allowed to
enter the atmosphere to produce C-14. Thus, the static composition of the
atmosphere, the constant intensity of cosmic rays, and the stability of the
earth's magnetic field all initial assumptions of carbon 14 dating-are all now known to be wrong.
Prof. Bueha of Czechoslovakia, one of the foremost experts on magnetism, has
commented that: ". . . The earth's magnetic field has shown significant
changes not only during the last centuries . , . but also in the prehistorical
and geological past including reversals of geomagnetic polarity.21 Fluctuations
in C-14 production rate correlate inversely with changes in the earth's magnetic
moment. Decrease in the magnetic moment means an increase of cosmic ray flux and
therefore an increase in production of C-14. Bueha made the following important
observation:
Archaeomagnetic investigations based on the measurement of permanent magnetization in baked archaeological objects and rocks show
considerable changes in the Earth's magnetic field in the historical past. The
curve characterizing the Earth's intensity during the past 8500 years has its
maximum around 400 to 100 ac. when the field reaches 1.6 times its present
intensity.22
Knowing these facts meant major adjustments in understanding the value of the
carbon 14 method of dating.
Bristlecone Pine
A means had to be found by which the geophysicist could know the relative amount
of C-14 in the atmosphere for any given year in historical time. That is, they
had to find the relationships between true or calendar age, and C-14 age for the
past. Dated tree rings had led to the first discovery of variation in carbon 14
in the atmosphere. A tree growing in antiquity with an age several thousand
years old would enable researchers to ascertain the needed relationships. Thus,
tree-rings provided the answer again. The radiocarbon dating of
dendrochronologically dated tree rings of bristlecone pine (Pinus aristata), from
the White Mountains of California, produced a curve which demonstrated the
relationships between true/calendar age, and C-14 age. C. "V. Ferguson, of the Arizona Tree-Ring
Research Laboratory, selected and counted the rings. Hans Suess, radiocarbon
chronologist at the University of California, La Jolla, dated the rings. The
work at La Jolla resulted in a Suess calibration curve for radiocarbon data.
Thus, Renfrew felt that, "Remote as it may seem from European archaeology,
it was the venerable pine trees in the White Mountains of California that
brought about the revolution of Old World prehistory. "23 The vital
question remains as to whether a calibration based on a pine from high in the
Sierras oh the New World has any hearing on dates for the Old World with the
vast differences in altitude, topography, and climate.
Problems
First, there are unanswered questions regarding dendrchronology itself. This
is quite important because without dendrochronology there is no calibration.
Living and dead tree-rings were dated to create the calibration curve. When more
than 100 rings exist per inch in Picas aristata, it is difficult to perceive how
very much accuracy is obtainable piecing old and young rings together for a
consecutive chronology of great duration. By some magical process, known only to
a few, dendrochronologists claim to he able to join tree rings from different
trees for a stage by stage chronology of growth in time. It is this author's
opinion that this science has not been sufficiently tested to be absolutely
certain that this is possible. Other species should be analyzed, but the problem
is that no trees have been found of the order needed.
Secondly, Lal and Suess have suggested the possibility that at high altitudes
bristlecone pine has in situ production of radiocarbon .24 Yet, this factor is
not present in all parts of Europe in the exact same proportions as that found
in Pious aristata. Dr. Berger, member of the Departments of History,
Anthropology and the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at UCLA, has noted the
danger of internal sapwood contamination which would affect dating. Therefore,
what proof is there that bristlecone pine calibration can he applied to Europe?
The answer is, none whatsoever.
A real problem indeed arose when tree-rings from the southern hemisphere were
C-14 dated, and compared with bristlccone pine results. The same calendar year
tree-rings gave different C14 ages. A local geographical factor entered the
equation. It seemed from the facts that there were differences in the amount of
C-14 in the atmosphere depending on location on the earth. Not only did the
calendar and C-14 ages differ for a particular year, but the C-14 dates from the
two types of trees from the two hemispheres did not agree for the same calendar
year. 'Unfortunately", according to Shawcross, 'the New Zealand run
reported by Jansen shows serious divergence not only from the calendar scale but
also from the results obtained by the northern hemisphere laboratories."25
Finns aristata and Agathis australis (kauri of New Zealand) did not agree as to
the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere for a specific year. An ancient European
tree will have to he found, if that is even possible, to have a calibration
curve valid for European samples. No tree has been found, and consequently there
is no calibration curve for Europe.
There are factors affecting C-14 dating and calibration which have not been
adequately researched. Problems still exist which defy premature calibration of
dates. Jansen, for example, was of the opinion that changes in the movement of
the vertical oceanic currents could lead to C-14/C-12 changes which could affect
the amount of C-14 in local areas.26 In another case, A. C. Smith has pointed
out that more study must he made on low-altitude trees before the effects
of altitude on C-14 concentration can be known.27 Quite recently, Baxter and
Walton, have shown the variability in atmospheric mixing-this ton would affect
dating geographically. During a period of solar maximum it was demonstrated that
the rate of injection of stratospheric carbon 14 into the troposphere increased.28
Another calibration curve with its own values, could he drawn for a tree other
than the bristlecone pine. Renfrew has chosen Pintis aristata because it is the
only tree known to have been growing in ancient times. Renfrew's mistake was
assuming that this curve applied to conditions all over Europe. Or, as Prof.
Mackie stated: "Until we have a final and unequivocal explanation of
exactly what is going on in the atmosphere and the biosphere between say 6000
and 1000 B.C., a complete and comprehensive alteration of the whole prehistoric
chronological framework seems premature."29 Geophysics has not progressed
sufficiently with radiocarbon dating to arbitrarily change history. The basic
facts remain unchanged-civilization began in the ancient Near East, not in
Europe or Thailand. Cultural diffusion proceeded from the ancients to other
parts of the world.
The Bible and History
Much knowledge has been buried, and forgotten by "enlightened", and
super-critical, modern scholarship. In the Middle Ages and early centuries of
the modem era, however, learned men did recognize the history of antiquity in
the context of the Bible. Biblical figures such as Noah, Sham, and Nimrod were
personalities found in historical accounts. Johaitnes Turmair, in his Bayerischc
Chrouik (written in 1526), tells of Tuitsch who led many peoples into primeval
Europe a few decades after the Flood. Tuitsch identified as Shem, the son of
Noah, settled Grossgermaoia from the Rhine to the Don. The history of post-Flood
Europe under
Tuitsch and his successors is in foil accordance with the Bible and cultural
diffusion.
Conclusions
Theories proposing views contrary to the Word of God can always he examined and
found to be false and without support in fact. Mesopotamia, according to
Scripture and history, was where agriculture, domestication, and pottery-making
began. All mankind, Europeans and Southeast Asians, migrated from this central
location, and took with them the gifts of civilization. The origins of humanity
are firmly rooted in the ancient Near East. Cultural diffusion began when eight
members of a single family left the Ark. Radiocarbon dates altered by
calibration may be valid for the data gathered from a specific locale; however,
one calibration does not apply to the whole earth. Misinterpretation of C-IA
information does not nullify Bible truths. Rather the history and traditions of
the peoples of the earth confirm the Bible. The Bible and history stand in
agreement.
REFERENCES
1Chester F. Corman, ''Hoabinhian a pebble-tool complex with early plant
associations in Southeast Asia'', Science. (Feb. 14, 1969), v. 163, No. 3868,
pp. 671-673.
2Wilhelm Solbeirn, ''Early bronze in northeastern Thailand', Current
Anthropology, (Feb., 1968), v. 9, No. 1, pp. 59-62.
3Grahame Clark, World Prehistory, Cambridge at the University Press, 1965, p.
201.
4Ibid., p. 202.
5Solheim, 0b. cit., p. 60.
6Ibid., p. 61.
7T. Save.S–derhergh and I. U. Olsson, "C 14 dating and Egyptian
chronology'', Nobel Symposium 12 Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology,
edited by I. U. Olsson, Stockholm, Alniqnist and Wiksell, 1970, p. 35.
8Sir James C. Scott, Judo-Chinese, vol. 12 of Mythology of All
Races, N. Y.,
1964, p. 267.
9For the most outstanding world prehistory outline of the post-Flood beginnings
of man's government see Dr.
Herman L. Hoeh's Compendium of World History, vols.
1 & 2, Pasadena, Calif., Ambassador College Press, 1970.
10Scott, op. cit., p. 266.
11Hoch, op. cit., v. 2, p. 217ff.
12Sir Arthur P. Phayre, History of Burma, London, Susil
Gupta, 1883, p. 3.
13Puey Yih-Fu, "A Study of the Miao People", Symposium on
Historical, Archaeological and Linguistic Studies on Southern China, Southeast Asia and the Hong Kong
Region, Hong Kong, at the University
Press, 1961, p. 51ff.
140. Janse, ''Notes on some complex problems raised by excavations in Southeast
Asia", Symposium on Hist, Arch. and Lin,. etc., p. 26.
15Prince Dhaninvat, ''Thai migrations'', Symposium on Hist. Arch. and
Lin,
etc., p. 45.
16Colen Renfrew, ''Carbon 14 and the prehistory of Europe", Scientific
American, (Oct., 1971), v. 225, No. 4, p. 63.
17de Vries, "Variation in concentration of radiocarbon with time and
location on Earth'', Koninkl. Ned, Akrel. Weteuschap, Proc. B. 13., 1958, v. 61,
pp. 94-102.
18Stuiver, and H. Suess, ''On the relationship between radiocarbon dates and
true sample ages'', American Journal of Science, Radiocarbon Supplement,
1966, v. 8, p. 535.
19Willard Libby, "Radiocarbon dating'', Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London Series A., (Dec. 17, 1970), v. 269, No. 1193, 1). 7.
20Ibid.
21V Bucha, "Evidence for changes in the Earth's magnetic held
intensity", Plil. Trans. Royal Soc. Loud. A., 1970, p. 54.
22Ibid., p. 47.
23Renfew, op. cit., p. 67.
24Rainer Berger, "Ancient Egyptian radiocarbon chronology",
Philo.
Trans. Royal Soc. Series, A., 1970, p. 35.
25W, Shawcross, "Archaeology with a short, isolated timescale: New
Zealand", World Archaeology, 1969, v. 1, No, 2, p. 191.
26H, Jansen, Comparison between ring-dates and 14 C dates
in a New Zealand kaori tree", New Zealand Journal of
Science, 1962, v. 5, No. 1, p. 78.
27A. Smith, et a!., "Some thoughts on radiocarbon dating", Antiquity,
(Sept., 1971 ), v. XLV, No. 179, p. 202.
28M Baxter, and A. Walton, ''Fluctuations of atmospheric carbon-14
concentrations during the past century'', Proceedings of the Royal Society,
Series A., (1971), v. 321, p. 105-127.
29MacKie ct. of., "Some Thoughts ...", Antiquity., (1971), p. 198.