Basic HTML Version
that blew Pre-hisfory
SKY HIGH!
Humble Oil
ond
Refining
Compony Photo
A human bone, a mammoth carcass, a fossilized stratum
How old are they? This question has puzzled laymen and
scientists for decades . No
one,
it seemed, had the answer. Then
come
carbon-14 dating . This new method was hailed as the
too/ to unscramble history. But has it?
by
Paul W. Kroll
W
HO
hasn't read such newspaper
headlines as - "Evidence of
35,000-year-old human re–
mains found," "Archaeologists uncover
ancient 20,000-year-old artifact," "Mam–
moth hunts in Siberia 39,000 years
ago"?
We are assured by these newspaper and
magazine columns that man really has
been on this earth for a long, long time.
Yet, shockingly enough, in many
cases giant conclusions were based on
very meager facts.
Quest l oto Antiquity
For decades archaeologists struggled to
put together a chronological framework
of prehistory- but with little success.
There seemed to be as many theories as
there were archaeologists and geologists.
Controversies raged back and forth.
Then, a startling new approach to the
problem was developed. It all began in
the mid-1940's. The place was the Uni–
versity of Chicago.
Here, a relatively unknown chemist,
Willard F. Libby, was working with a
revolutionary new idea.
The result of his work catapulted
him into international prominence. For
his work, Dr. Libby received the Nobel
Prize in chemistry for the year 1960.
This new method was called radio–
carbon (carbon-14) dating. Dr. Libby,
according to noted scientist Frederick
Johnson, "Dropped the equivalent of
an atomic bomb on archaeology." More
than twenty-five years later, impact from
this scientific explosion has not yet
subsided.
The Archaeological Method
Before carbon-14- jokingly referred
to as B.C. - little was really understood
about recent earth history.
Achaeologists, said Frederick John-
son, were guilty of "steering by the seat
of their pants !" The reason was simple.
Archaeological answers were really
guesses compiled from very fragmentary
data. Radiocarbon dating made havoc
with these archaeological estimates of
time. Frederick Johnson explained how:
"With few exceptions, this ( archae–
ological] extraction was by inference and
guessiog .. . Libby's provision of a means
of counting time- one that promised a
definable degree of accuracy and world–
wide consistency - caused all sorts of
consternation because many of the new
findings threw doubt on the validity of
sorne established archaeological opin–
ions" (Frederick Johnson, "Radiocarbon
Dating and Archaeology in North
America,"
Science,
Vol. 155, January
11,1967, p. 165) .
Johnson then cited on the same page
a typical comment of one very reputable
archaeologist, "We stand before the
threat of the atom in the form of radio–
carbon dat ing. This may be the last
chance for old-fashioned,
UNCON–
TlWLLED GUESSING."
Archaeology Versus Chemistry
Even after radiocarbon dating became
established, disagreements were wide–
spread. Consider one example - that