Article on using Geomagnetism in Archeological dating

[Jayhawker Soule]

Much more here.

 

[Jose Fly]

One purpose of this thread is to get input from a wide spectrum. It isn't to just get the input from the experts on it.

If you're wondering if the methodology is valid, why are you not interested in the views of the experts who actually use it, but are interested in the views of people who know very little about it?

So, yes, you seem hostile to getting perspectives from non-experts about it. Why I don't know. But at this point I am not sure I care why you are so hostile. Have a nice day.

I just don't understand why you would be eager to hear what non-experts say, while being dismissive of the experts.

As far as "hostility", I attempted to help you answer your question by going out of my way to provide you the contact info of the people who did the research, and the paper where they describe how they did it.

Doesn't seem very hostile to me.....it actually strikes me as being helpful.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

One purpose of this thread is to get input from a wide spectrum. It isn't to just get the input from the experts on it. You seem to miss that. So, yes, you seem hostile to getting perspectives from non-experts about it. Why I don't know. But at this point I am not sure I care why you are so hostile. Have a nice day.

In short the basic idea works, but the problem is that it requires more than just the basic idea for the messy world of archaeology. If you read the article, they are honest about that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But why ask the question in a religious forum? If you want informed answers from qualified people, why not ask the question at a science site?

Oh that is too much work and too reasonable. It is much better to ask a group of random people that cannot be sure. One might get the answers one wants that way.

 

[RestlessSoul]

But why ask the question in a religious forum? If you want informed answers from qualified people, why not ask the question at a science site?

Because the article focuses on archaeological sites associated with Biblical references, presumably.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because the article focuses on archaeological sites associated with Biblical references, presumably.

And it appears that the OP does not like this new technology because it, like so many others, tends to refute the Bible. It shows that the Bible is not a history book.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And it appears that the OP does not like this new technology because it, like so many others, tends to refute the Bible. It shows that the Bible is not a history book.

Well, the author of the OP is a follower of Judaism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, the author of the OP is a follower of Judaism.

I know. And some of them like to believe that the Old Testament is history. That is where the vast majority, but not all, of the Bible's historical errors can be found. In the "Jewish part" of the Bible.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I know. And some of them like to believe that the Old Testament is history. That is where the vast majority, but not all, of the Bible's historical errors can be found. In the "Jewish part" of the Bible.

It is not the Bible to a Jew. You cultural imperialist. Check out your own culture and learn to be objective.

 

[sayak83]

Seems to me that earthquakes after an event could give an inaccurate assessment.

No it won't. Mechanical stresses cannot reorient the grains in solid substance. Only a combination of high pressure and thermal annealing can do that and earthquakes cannot produce thermal annealing on bricks on the surface of the earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it won't. Mechanical stresses cannot reorient the grains in solid substance. Only a combination of high pressure and thermal annealing can do that and earthquakes cannot produce thermal annealing on bricks on the surface of the earth.

If the earthquake could physically move the bricks, such as when a wall crumbles to the ground that would make this process not work, but I have a funny feeling that they may have noticed such an occurrence.

 

[Jose Fly]

Because the article focuses on archaeological sites associated with Biblical references, presumably.

But that wasn't the focus of the inquiry. The primary question asked was about the methodology used to generate the dates.

 

[Alien826]

It's not my opinion. I'm an archeology student. Several big name archeologists here in Israel are accepting the method as a game-changer in dating methodology. The method, by the way, was not invented by Vaknin. It's a geological method related to dating things on earth. He just started the big project of using the method to date destruction layers all over Israel. It's possible he refined it somehow along the way.

The method is essentially based on two things: Magnetic fields of destruction layers whose wavelength 'froze' during fires and other destruction layers whose dates are known because of other factors, such as ancient texts. Once the magnetic wavelength of the dated destruction layers are pinpointed, other sites can be checked to see if their magnetic fields 'froze' at the same range.

I can't tell you if it's fully developed, but as various excavation managers all over Israel (to my knowledge, at least from the Upper Galilee to Jerusalem) are bringing in palaeomagnetism experts to measure destruction layers, I would say it's far past simply a concept.

A quick question if I may?

I think I understand most of this (at a layman's level at least) The molecules within the brick point in a certain direction, and are locked there. So they are actually pointing a certain way relative to the brick itself, no? If I pick up the brick and turn it through 360 degrees, the molecules orientation will also move 360 degrees. So, how do they know which way the brick was oriented at the time of the fire?

Edit: Oops, already discussed.