An area where significant "dating inflation" seems to have gotten hold is Early Neolithic Archeology. For example, I hold the theory that Gobekli Tepe is not a Pre Pottery Neolithic A/B site. See for example my paper here (one among a number of papers I have written on the topic of Gobekli Tepe):
(15) (PDF) A Primer on Gobekli Tepe (researchgate.net)
It is common practice in Science, to provide alternative theoretical perspectives when writing on a topic. However, rarely one comes across such practice in the field of Archeology. Instead, a diverse set of groups seems to accept this dating inflation unquestionably, because it apparently suits their (different) ideological perspective(s).
Hello Jens,
Greetings from Florida!
Thank you very much for your carefully phrased reply. If the term "inflation" sounds "a bit negative" then maybe we should eliminate it from the field of Economics as well; perhaps use the expression "very high rates of change in prices" (and for the case at hand, "in dates"). One can sugar-coat a negative responses to the extent one wishes, and possibly make it sound even "politically correct"; this doesn't change the fact that it is a negative response, especially in its substance, which should matter more than the style used to express it.
It would be of interest (at least for me) to discuss this issue (of C-14 dating archeological structures) more in detail. I have a number of comments on this topic, which I would love to bounce off of you. In summary, C-14 doesn't date structures, except in the (extremely rare) case where a sample, large enough for meaningful testing, has been collected from UNDER the structure, since "fills do not date structures, and neither do contaminated and limited samples". These multiple samples must be sent for analysis to at least two (possibly more) Labs, so one can get a statistically significant and reliable response. I know this is not an inexpensive proposition, but "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" to become admissible. This has not been done in the cases with which I am somewhat familiar (including Gobekli Tepe).
I'm considering writing a follow-up paper on this topic, and add it to my (six as of today) papers on the subject (Gobekli Tepe, and surrounding Neolithic sites of the Levant). I fully agree with you, that novel (and as numerous as possible) theories must be debated, evidence should be collected to the maximum extent; and all that (theory and evidence) ought to be thoroughly analyzed and evaluated, before firm conclusions are reached. Unfortunately, this proper scientific discourse and procedures haven't taken place in the case of Gobekli Tepe (in specific). Instead, questionable evidence and strong ideologies have dominated the (limited) debate.
Have a great day!
Yes, the human sciences and geology suffer from dating inflation, for two kinds of reasons. One is canonisation of early sources, eg Manetho, who strung together co-reigns in ignorance; and canonisation of Egypt in early humanities (David Rohl rectified this in the New Chronology of Greece etc). The other reason is the archetypal compulsion to seek grandness in ancestry, as in the Golden Age, and the need to escape the uncomfortable conscious evidence, and subconscious certainty, that there was no Golden Age. This contradiction involves the common or garden assumption of evolution, contradicted by data. Popular science magnifies the triple problem of 'evolution, ancient glory, canonical records', into fantastic dating. Ironically the truth could not enter science, and will never enter popular science, since it contradicts this paradigm. The irony is that maturity requires truth. Your case study could be Stonehenge dating and Gobekli dating. Both are dated by Stone Age soil, which do not date the monuments. Good luck with convincing any Brit that stone circles and megaliths are Bronze Age, and Stonehenge is post Roman. My guess for Gobekli, based on precedents in the region, is BC 6000s. I tried in a section of my book Stoneprint (2014) to bring the perspective of population density and the Dark Age to Stonehenge. Kindly visit www.stoneprintjournal.wordpress.com for an extract on Stonehenge. Also ironic that the solution to our conscious blinkers could come from conscious access to our own subconscious behaviour, which is taboo to the human sciences for the same reasons that sustain dating inflation. Kindly see my evidence that culture does not evolve, in my paper Blueprint, here is a link; https://edmondfurter.wordpress.com/2020/04/01/blueprint-the-subconscious-structure-in-cultural-media/
Thanks for your reply Edmond; I'll take a look at your citations and will write to you my reactions. Again, I appreciate the time you took to write your response to my Q.
Greetings from Florida
Have a nice day!
Dimitrios Dendrinos
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Filing