The Ups and Downs of Radiocarbon Dates

Carbon-14 dates are
sometimes interesting,
but must be interpreted
in light of assumptions

Historic Dates

Radiocarbon Dates of Selected Dead Sea Scrolls

Dead Sea Scrolls analysis may force rethink of ancient Jewish history (New Scientist, 4 June 2025). Carbon-14 dating of some Dead Sea Scrolls puts them a century earlier than thought: i.e., third century BC instead of second century (around 160 BC). For some Old Testament books, the results may cause a shift to more conservative views on the authorship and date:

This new assessment, based on AI analysis of handwriting and modern radiocarbon dating techniques, even suggests that a few scrolls – like those containing the biblical books Daniel and Ecclesiastes – may be copies made during the lifetimes of the books’ original authors, says Mladen Popović at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands.

The new radiocarbon dates do not put these scrolls into the times of Daniel (c. 600 BC) or Solomon (c. 900 BC), obviously, because they are copies that were made by scribes at Qumran; but as copies, they do not disprove the original autographs had been written by those Biblical characters either. Still, the new dates are “earlier than thought” and may represent copies made during the Maccabean period.

Unlocking the timecode of the Dead Sea Scrolls (University of Groningen, 4 June 2025). This press release by some team members on the project explains that a combination of radiocarbon and AI was used to arrive at the new dates.

Since their discovery, the historically and biblically hugely important Dead Sea Scrolls have transformed our understanding of Jewish and Christian origins. However, while the general date of the scrolls is from the third century BCE until the second century CE, individual manuscripts thus far could not be securely dated. Now, by combining radiocarbon dating, palaeography, and artificial intelligence, an international team of researchers led by the University of Groningen has developed a date-prediction model, called Enoch, that provides much more accurate date estimates for individual manuscripts on empirical grounds. Using this model, the researchers demonstrate that many Dead Sea Scrolls are older than previously thought. And for the first time, they establish that two biblical scroll fragments come from the time of their presumed biblical authors. They presented their results in the journal PLOS One on 4 June.

Daniel in the Lions’ Den (Grok/AI)

By “presumed original authors” (emphasis on presumed), they are not referring to Daniel and Solomon, but to anonymous writers that liberal scholars (i.e., those who do not believe the Old Testament books are historically accurate) assert used the famous names as nom de plumes for political purposes. One reason for doubting the historicity of Daniel, for instance, involves the detailed predictive prophecies about empires and kings that unbelievers cannot accept as having been written before the events described. Still, the new dates correct assumptions about language evolution in the 3rd-2nd centuries BC:

First results from Enoch’s date predictions, presented in the PLOS One paper, demonstrate that many Dead Sea Scrolls are older than previously thought. This also changes how researchers should interpret the development of two ancient Jewish script styles which are called ‘Hasmonaean’ and ‘Herodian’. Specifically, manuscripts in Hasmonaean-type script can be older than the current estimate of ca. 150–50 BCE. And the Herodian-type script emerged earlier than previously thought, suggesting that these scripts existed next to each other since the late second century BCE instead of the mid-first century BCE which is the prevailing view.

AI analysis suggests Dead Sea Scrolls are older than scientists thought, but not all experts are convinced (Live Science, 6 June 2025). This article summarizes information on how many scrolls were dated and what techniques were used. Then reporter Ben Turner gives reasons to doubt some of the claims, based on possible flaws in the techniques, such as the cleaning methods of the scrolls prior to radiocarbon dating, the spreads of some dates, and the lack of surprise by some scholars that some of the scrolls date to the 3rd century BC.

Of related interest in this article is a link to the report of a miniature “curse tablet” found on Mt. Ebal that its discoverers from Associates for Biblical Research claim dates from the time of Joshua, centuries before Solomon. The tablet was found among debris next to an altar that ABR says dates from the time of the Conquest (Joshua 8:30-35). It is the oldest artifact outside the Bible mentioning the name of the Israelite God “YWH” (often pronounced Yahweh). Live Science agrees it could represent the earliest fragment of proto-Hebrew writing known, but casts some doubt on its authenticity because the find had not been published in a peer-reviewed journal to that date (6 Dec 2023). But must “the prevailing view” of liberals come to bear on a conservative claim for it to be considered credible? See these ABR videos about the Ebal curse tablet and its significance.

Dating ancient manuscripts using radiocarbon and AI-based writing style analysis (Popović et al., PLoS One, 4 June 2025). This is the research paper. It is open access for those interested in the details. See links to a dozen appendices of Supporting Information.

Rugged Judean wilderness where some of the original Dead Sea Scrolls were found at Qumran (DFC).

Radiocarbon Dates on Standing Stones in France

New light on the stone alignments in the Carnac region (University of Gothenburg, 25 June 2025). By testing radiocarbon from ashes in hearths underneath standing stones near Brittany, France, and by applying Bayesian modeling, these researchers concluded that the stones were erected “between 4600 and 4300 cal BC.” This shows that radiocarbon dates alone are not sufficient to confirm a date. Usually other inferences and models play a role in the published answer.

Watch our hero Pennsylvania Johns and his companion illustrate this article with epic flair! Click to see the Short/Reel.

Prehistoric Dates

Radiocarbon Dates of New Mexico Footprints

Evidence is building that people were in the Americas 23,000 years ago (Live Science, 18 June 2025). Most scholars could not believe early reports in 2021 that 60 footprints found in the White Sands desert of New Mexico were as old as claimed— 23,000 years before present (BP). Such dates almost double the previous estimates of experts that Asians crossed the Bering Strait into North America 13,000 years ago, leaving their evidence in artifacts called the “Clovis culture.” Critics wrote their doubts up in a rebuttal paper in 2022.

Now, however, new radiocarbon dates appear to “confirm” those “hotly debated” older dates. Two years ago, the article says, optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating methods agreed with the date range of 23,000 to 21,000 years BP. The new radiocarbon dates now add to the argument. Yet doubts remain about the radiocarbon method used. The researchers could not date the actual footprints, but dated bits of mud, seeds and plants from the footprint layer. An additional criticism comes from the fact that no other artifacts with such old radiocarbon ages have been found. How did these people get from the Bering Strait to New Mexico without leaving other traces of their migration?

Paleolake geochronology supports Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) age for human tracks at White Sands, New Mexico (Holliday et al., Science Advances, 18 June 2025). This is the open-access paper about the dating methods used to arrive at the old dates for the trackways. It contains responses to some of the criticisms of the old dates measured by the team.

Radiocarbon Date Boomerangs Back on the Researchers

Ancient mammoth-tusk boomerang is twice as old as we thought (New Scientist, 25 June 2025). Wrong by over 200%? “A boomerang discovered in a Polish cave was originally dated as 18,000 years old, but it may have been contaminated by preservation materials,” reporter Christa Lesté-Lasserre writes. “A new estimate suggests the mammoth-ivory artefact is 40,000 years old.” Why such a dramatic correction? Contamination is their answer.

Sahra Talamo at the University of Bologna in Italy suspected contamination. “Even a trace amount of modern carbon – from glue or conservation products – can throw off the radiocarbon date by tens of thousands of years,” she says. Analyses of the thumb’s carbon-nitrogen ratios showed signs that the collagen might have been contaminated, so the researchers treated the radiocarbon date as a minimum age.

Notice the interpretation required to arrive at their new date. Radiocarbon does not stamp an objective date on an object. In fact, Talamo did not want to risk damaging the boomerang itself by taking a sample, so the team engaged in more interpretive magic. They “dated 13 nearby animal bones, re-dated the human thumb bone and used statistical modelling to reconstruct the timeline.” With new dates between 38,000 and 42,000 radiocarbon years, they were able to weave an evolutionary story:

The finding offers a glimpse into early humans’ cognitive abilities and craftsmanship during a burst of artistic expression that occurred during the Early Aurignacian period, starting around 40,000 years ago. During this time, symbolic artefacts such as mammoth ivory figurines, rock art and aesthetically crafted tools first appeared in Europe, says Talamo.

In this tale, intelligent design evolved. Craftsmanship evolved. Art evolved. Everything evolved. The radiocarbon dates of these objects became props to fit the boomerang into an evolutionary narrative. This implies, of course, that Talamo’s own brain and cognitive abilities emerged by mistake. She threw a conceptual boomerang, but it came back and hit her in the back of the head (so to speak), knocking her explanation into a coma.

See our previous articles about radiocarbon dating:

• Radiocarbon Can Interact With Biblical History (20 May 2024).
• Carbon Dating Is Becoming Useless (28 July 2022).
• Guesswork in Carbon Dating Exposed (25 May 2020).
• Radiocarbon Assumptions Questioned (21 March 2020).
• Radiocarbon Dating Is Not Globally Uniform (31 May 2018).
• Lightning Can Produce Carbon-14 (29 Nov 2017).
• Radiocarbon Dating Becoming Unreliable (6 Aug 2015).
• Carbon-14 found in dinosaur bone (18 June 2015).
• Radiocarbon Found in Ancient Coal (25 Sept 2003).

Click on the radiocarbon tag and the Dating Methods category for additional articles.

Note: At CEH, we use the long-accepted designation BC (Before Christ) instead of the dodgy acronym BCE (Before the Common Era) used by liberal scholars. BCE makes no sense. When did the Common Era start? At the birth of Christ! 

Biblical creationists do not discount radiocarbon dating entirely, but advise caution. First of all, the dates require interpretation, and must follow an agreed-on “calibration curve” that makes adjustments for known factors (such as above-ground nuclear bomb tests in the 1950s that altered the C¹⁴/C¹² ratios in the atmosphere). But there are other unknown factors that could also have altered the ratios. The further back in time, the more the unknowns.

Creationists point to the Genesis Flood as a major factor that disrupted the ratios. Any dates older than the Flood, therefore, cannot be trusted. Finally, radiocarbon is useless for the millions of years loved by the moyboys, since no radiocarbon would survive longer than 100,000 years or less. For what they’re worth, thereby, these two recent stories about radiocarbon may be of interest to Biblical archaeologists and historians if read with these caveats in mind.

Is it not obnoxious that the liberal, unbelieving scientists and historians that dominate the secular media use terms like “the prevailing view” to describe their beliefs that, over and over, turn out to be wrong? One must understand that their views prevail because of censorship of conservative positions, not because they are correct. This goes on in political media as well, and of course in the censorship of creation by Big Science. Truth, remember, does not travel on bandwagons. Conservatives can gain some satisfaction in noting how often “the prevailing view” leaves liberals sinking deeper into the quicksand of unbelief, where the view gets smaller over time. Suggestion: get a higher overview on The Solid Rock (Matthew 7:24-27).