World history dating radiocarbon ..love
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.