kwigibo

i'd like to think the dating that has been done is credible, as it was done by the oceanographic institute there, who should be more neutral, and less likely to jump to conclusions. it would be really cool if authentic, but what defines civilisation in this case, as i was under the impression that there was civilisation well before 2500bce <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Tim Thompson

According to that article, the oldest artifacts are dated approximately 7500 BC. But the ruins at <a href="http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/catal.html" target="_blank">Catalhoyuk</a> in Turkey were known to be of about the same age as long ago as 1998. In February 1999, I received a set of preliminary dates from the project that had been determined in 1998, and were as old as 8000 uncalibrated C14 years BP. But those dates are now calibrated, and published as of December 2001. The oldest calibrated Catalhoyuk dates are now circa 7500 BC, the same as those in the article posted (See <a href="http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/Newsletter8/radiocarbon01.html" target="_blank">Catalhoyuk radiocarbon dating</a>).

The Catalhoyuk site could be older, but these are the oldest calibrated dates from the site, and are the oldest calibrated dates from any site that I am aware of. Maybe the article looks like News, but the Catalhoyuk site has been known, and in the literature already for many years. It also has the advantage of not being under water, and is actively being excavated. I think finding a site of similar age as far away as India is significant, and shows that civilization may have been more widespread even that long ago.

But remember, young-Earth creationists think that radiocarbon dating is a fib anyway, so why would they be bothered?