Viking Bones Contradict Carbon-14 Assumptions | The Institute for Creation Research

Viking Bones Contradict Carbon-14 Assumptions

Radiocarbon dating is considered one of science’s tried-and-true methodologies. But could there be a forensic flaw in measuring carbon-14 dates using conventional methodology? Could dates assigned by that method be vulnerable to faulty assumptions that render them invalid?

Indeed they can. The age assignment for certain Viking bones caused a decades-long controversy until the carbon-14 methodology used to date them was recently exposed for its flawed assumptions.1 This case demonstrates that one-size-fits-all radiocarbon dating doesn’t work.

This case demonstrates that one-size-fits-all radiocarbon dating doesn’t work. Tweet: This case demonstrates that one-size-fits-all radiocarbon dating doesn’t work.

Viking Bones Contradict Carbon-14 Assumptions: http://www.icr.org/article/viking-bones-contradict-c14-assumptions

@icrscience

A mass burial of 250 to 300 skeletons was discovered in the Derbyshire village of Repton, England, in the 1980s. It seemed likely they were the remains of the Scandinavian Vikings of the Great Heathen Army who wintered in Repton over a millennium ago during 873–874. Eyewitness accounts indisputably reported the army’s historical presence during the latter 800s, so many modern historians concluded that these mass-grave skeletons were those very Vikings.2 However, a team of empirical science investigators, using routine carbon-14 radiometric dating methodology, rejected that historical timeframe, arguing instead for dating the skeletons a century or so older based upon residual carbon-14 found inside the bones.1

Why would radiocarbon calculations indicate the buried warriors died during the 600s or 700s, a century or more before Derbyshire was overwhelmed by hordes of Vikings? Likewise, if radiocarbon determinations are so reliable, why is no Viking army reported as occupying Derbyshire during the 600s or 700s? This loud silence is what forensic experts call the “evidence of nothing” problem.3

Carbon-14 dating methods use assumptions.1,4 Could it be that one of the usual assumptions is invalid for measuring the time-of-death data for the Repton skeletons?

The normal radiometric dating scenario presumes that human skeletons contain organic material with steadily decaying radiocarbon that is traceable to plant photosynthesis, which incorporates atmospheric CO2 into plant carbohydrates. As herbivores eat plants, radiocarbon within photosynthesis-fixed carbohydrates metabolically incorporates into the animal’s flesh.4 By eating plants, humans acquire carbon-14 directly. By consuming plant-eating animals (cattle, sheep, goats, swine, etc.), humans ingest carbon-14 indirectly. A major assumption affecting the mathematics of radiocarbon dating is that human skeletons contain residual carbon-14 acquired predominantly from terrestrial (i.e., land-food-based) diets.1,4,5

However, a diet incorporating lots of finfish (cod, salmon, trout, herring, etc.) and/or shellfish (shrimp or crab) would nix that vital assumption.1,5 The Vikings were known for a seafood diet—specifically fish. And fish contain much less carbon-14 than land-based foods like grains, vegetables, fruits, dairy products, or livestock meats.1,2,5

Therefore, unless dietary differences are adjusted for, carbon-dated skeletons of fish-eating Vikings appear to be about a hundred years or more older than they really are. They seem to be “missing” so much of the expected carbon-14 that they are interpreted as having died centuries earlier than they actually did.1,4,5

Unique historical events such as battles, deaths, traffic accidents, or the Genesis Flood require reliable eyewitness reporting, not just empirical observations in the present. Tweet: Unique historical events such as battles, deaths, traffic accidents, or the Genesis Flood require reliable eyewitness reporting, not just empirical observations in the present.

Read more: http://www.icr.org/article/viking-bones-contradict-c14-assumptions

@icrscience

The take-away lesson is that unique historical events such as battles, deaths, traffic accidents, or the Genesis Flood require reliable eyewitness reporting, not just empirical observations in the present such as fingerprints, rubber skid marks, or blood spatters.3,6 That’s why we need God’s eyewitness Genesis report to understand our origins.

References

  1. Jarman, C. L. et al. 2018. The Viking Great Army in England: New dates from the Repton charnel. Antiquity. 92 (361): 183-199.
  2. Haywood, J. 1995. The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Vikings. London: Penguin Books, 12-13, 62-63.
  3. Job 38:4. Johnson, J. J. S. 2008. The Evidence of Nothing. Acts & Facts. 37 (4): 4-5. See also Johnson, J. J. S. 2012. Genesis Critics Flunk Forensic Science 101. Acts & Facts. 41 (3): 8-9.
  4. Morris, J. D. 2007. The Geology Book. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 50.
  5. Arneborg, J. et al. 1999. Change of Diet of the Greenland Vikings Determined from Stable Carbon Isotope Analysis and 14C Dating of Their Bones. Radiocarbon. 41 (2): 157-168.
  6. Johnson, J. J. S. and J. Tomkins. Blood Crying from the Ground, a Forensic Science Perspective, Illustrated by the Gruesome Killing of America’s Most Hated Woman. Presented at the Creation Research Society Conference, Dallas, Texas, July 31, 2015. See also Johnson, J. J. S. 2016. There’s Nothing Like an Eyewitness. Acts & Facts. 45 (12): 20.

* Dr. Johnson is Associate Professor of Apologetics and Chief Academic Officer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Cite this article: James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Th.D. 2018. Viking Bones Contradict Carbon-14 Assumptions. Acts & Facts. 47 (5).

The Latest
NEWS
Is an Ancient Extinct Tree-Dweller Our Relative?
Human evolution has always been hazy with seemingly as many attempted explanations for how we evolved from animals as there are paleoanthropologists. Evolutionists...

NEWS
The Return of the Dire Wolf?
There’s been much recent excitement about the birth of three dire wolf (Aenocyon dirus) puppies by a Dallas-based biotech company: Colossal Bioscience....

CREATION PODCAST
Cracks in the Layers: Lake Suigetsu and the Old Earth Illusion...
Welcome to the third episode in a series called “The Failures of Old Earth Creationism.” Many Christians attempt to fit old earth...

NEWS
Fish Fossil Vomit
A rather unsavory news story recently appeared regarding fossilized vomit. Although it’s hardly dinner table conversation, it nonetheless supports...

NEWS
Dino Footprints Down Under
Dinosaur trackways1 are once again making the news. Australia is the setting of a remarkable series of dinosaur tracks attributed to ornithischian...

NEWS
April 2025 ICR Wallpaper
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things...

NEWS
Human Evolution and the Inner Ear
The vain attempt by evolutionists to make an evolutionary connection between people and ape-like ancestors continues. This time, it is in regard to...

CREATION PODCAST
Defending the Faith with a Rocket Scientist | Creation.Live Podcast:...
How do engineering principles, biological complexity, and a solid understanding of apologetics work together to further the cause of Christ? Why...

NEWS
Aerobic and Anaerobic Hot Spring Bacteria
God designed a domain of prokaryotes called Archaea that thrive in harsh and extreme environments. In 1969, two microbiologists, Thomas Brock and Hudson...

CREATION PODCAST
The Soulless Hominid Theory: A Fatal Flaw in Old Earth Creationism...
Welcome to the second episode in a series called “The Failures of Old Earth Creationism.” Many Christians attempt to fit...