Sunday, February 19, 2017

Le premier or, chronologie des pages 42-43 récalibré


J'ignore pour l'instant la calibration offerte par le livre* en parenthèses. Je ne vais que sur les dates carboniques non calibrés. J'assume par défaut qu'il s'agit déjà des dates de la demi-vie de Cambridge** tant que je n'ai pas vérifié qu'il s'agit de celle de Libby.

Et je donne deux alternatives de récalibration pour chaque tranche de temps.

  • I 2000 - 2500 av. J.-Chr. Chalcolithique ou Chalcolithique récent.

    Thessalien ancien, Vučedol en Yougoslavie et Roumanie occidentale, Kostolac aussi en Yougoslavie, comme au bassin des Carpates pour les deux, Karanovo VII, Bulgarie orientale a son Ezero B, Roumanie sud-orientale Glina et Cernavoda II, en Allemagne et Bassin parisien le Campaniforme, ainsi qu'en Midi de la France, en Allemagne aussi Céramique Cordée et en Bassin parisien aussi Gord.

    Nouvelle table:***
    1704 av. J.-C.
    90,86 %, + 790 ans, 2494 av. J.-C.
    1614 av. J.-C.
    93,634 %, + 540 ans, 2154 av. J.-C.
    1525 av. J.-C.
    94,553 %, + 460 ans, 1985 av. J.-C.

    Table de Fibonacci:***
    1972 av. J.-Chr.
    94,05509 % + 510 ans, 2482 av. J.-Chr.
    1883 av. J.-Chr.
    94,86521 % + 440 ans, 2323 av. J.-Chr.
    1704 av. J.-Chr.
    96,89571 % + 260 ans, 1964 av. J.-Chr.


  • II 2500 - 3000 av. J.-Chr. Néolithique récent ou Chalcolithique moyen.

    En Thessalie Rakhmani B, en Yougoslavie Baden, En Roumanie occidentale Cotofeni, Karanovo VII, en Bulgarie orientale Ezero A, en Roumanie sud-orientale Cernavoda III et I, le Bassin des Carpates se partage entre Baden et Boleraz. Allemagne Wartberg, Bassin parisien Seine-Oise-Marne, Midi de la France Fontbouisse et Ferrières.

    Nouvelle table:
    1883 av. J.-C.
    84,882 %, + 1350 ans, 3233 av. J.-C.
    1794 av. J.-C.
    89,378 %, + 930 ans, 2724 av. J.-C.
    1704 av. J.-C.
    90,86 %, + 790 ans, 2494 av. J.-C.

    Table de Fibonacci:
    2152 av. J.-Chr.
    90,54925 % + 820 ans, 2972 av. J.-Chr.
    2062 av. J.-Chr.
    91,58056 % + 730 ans, 2792 av. J.-Chr.
    1972 av. J.-Chr.
    94,05509 % + 510 ans, 2482 av. J.-Chr.


  • III 3000 - 3500 av. J.-Chr. Néolithique moyen ou Chalcolithique ancien.

    En Thessalie, Rakhmani A, en Yougoslavie, Vinča D, en Roumanie occidentale Salcuta, Karanovo VI, en Bulgarie orientale Gumelnitsa, comme en Roumanie sud-orientale où il prend la relève de Boian tardif, au Bassin des Carpates Bodrogkeresztúr et Tiszapolgár, en Allemagne et au Bassin parisien Michelsberg succède, respectivement, Poströssen et Menneville, le Midi de France a le Chasséen.

    Vers 3400 carboniques ou 1928 réelles, Abraham se trouve à En Guédi. Ceci est la base de la récalculation entre la table de Fibonacci et la nouvelle table. C'est réjouissant que le temps d'Abraham soit celui d'une culture appelée Michelberg, non? Car Michelsberg veut dire la même chose que Mont St Michel, même si c'est une autre localité.

    Nouvelle table:
    2017 av. J.-C.
    82,4281 %, + 1600 ans, 3617 av. J.-C.
    1972 av. J.-C.
    83,4211 %, + 1500 ans, 3472 av. J.-C.
    1928 av. J.-C.
    83,689 % + 1472 ans, 3400 av. J.-C.
    1883 av. J.-C.
    84,882 %, + 1350 ans, 3233 av. J.-C.
    1794 av. J.-C.
    89,378 %, + 930 ans, 2724 av. J.-C.

    Table de Fibonacci:
    2330 av. J.-Chr.
    83,68212 % (?) + 1450 ans (?), 3780 av. J.-Chr.
    2241 av. J.-Chr.
    86,26541 % + 1200 ans, 3441 av. J.-Chr.
    2152 av. J.-Chr.
    90,54925 % + 820 ans, 2972 av. J.-Chr.


  • IV 3500 - 4000 av. J.-Chr. Néolithique ancien (selon les Français) ou récent (selon les Européens).

    En Thessalie Dimini classique et Dimini-Otzaki, en Yougoslavie Vinča C et Vinča B2, en Roumanie occidentale, Vădastra II, Karanovo V, en Bulgarie Maritsa, en Roumanie sud-orientale Boian tardif vers la fin, et Boian-Vidra au début, au Bassin des Carpates Tisza, en Allemagne Rössen avec Grossgartach et Hinkelstein, en Bassin parisien Rössen tardif, Cergy et Villen.-St-Germ. Et au Midi, le Protochasséen.

    Nouvelle table:
    2196 av. J.-C.
    79,037 %, + 1950 ans, 4146 av. J.-C.
    2152 av. J.-C.
    80,7643 %, + 1750 ans, 3902 av. J.-C.
    2107 av. J.-C.
    81,1032 %, + 1750 ans, 3857 av. J.-C.
    2062 av. J.-C.
    81,4472 %, + 1700 ans, 3762 av. J.-C.
    2017 av. J.-C.
    82,4281 %, + 1600 ans, 3617 av. J.-C.
    1972 av. J.-C.
    83,4211 %, + 1500 ans, 3472 av. J.-C.
    1928 av. J.-C.
    83,689 % + 1472 ans, 3400 av. J.-C.

    Table de Fibonacci:
    2330 av. J.-Chr.
    83,68212 % (?) + 1450 ans (?), 3780 av. J.-Chr.
    2241 av. J.-Chr.
    86,26541 % + 1200 ans, 3441 av. J.-Chr.


  • V 4000 - 5000 av. J.-Chr. Néolithique ancien selon les Français, mais moyen selon les Européens.

    En Thessalie Dimini-Arapi et Dimini-Tsangli, en Yougoslavie Vinča B1 et A, en Roumanie occidentale, Vădastra I, Karanovo IV et III, en Bulgarie orientale Kalajnovec et Veselinovo, en Roumanie sud-orientale Boian-Vidra, Boian-Bolintenanu et Cernica, au bassin des Carpates Tiszadob et Alföld, en Allemagne Céramique linéaire et vers la fin au Bassin parisien Rubané récent, tandis que le Midi connut l'Epicardial.

    Nouvelle table:
    2375 av. J.-C.
    72,6148 %, + 2650 ans, 5025 av. J.-C.
    2330 av. J.-C.
    75,4116 %, + 2350 ans, 4680 av. J.-C.
    2286 av. J.-C.
    76,3648 %, + 2250 ans, 4536 av. J.-C.
    2241 av. J.-C.
    77,3305 %, + 2150 ans, 4391 av. J.-C.
    2196 av. J.-C.
    79,037 %, + 1950 ans, 4146 av. J.-C.
    2152 av. J.-C.
    80,7643 %, + 1750 ans, 3902 av. J.-C.

    Table de Fibonacci:
    2510 av. J.-Chr.
    73,24848 % + 2550 ans, 5060 av. J.-Chr.
    2420 av. J.-Chr.
    76,66562 % + 2200 ans, 4620 av. J.-Chr.
    2330 av. J.-Chr.
    83,68212 % (?) + 1450 ans (?), 3780 av. J.-Chr.


  • VI 5000 - 6000 av. J.-Chr. Néolithique ancien, les Français étant d'accord avec les Européens.

    En Thessalie Sesklo et avant le Protosesklo, en Yougoslavie Starčevo et Anzabegovo, en Roumanie orientale Circea, Karanovo II et I, en Bulgarie orientale également Karanovo, en Roumanie sud-orientale Dudesti et Cris, au Bassin des Carpates Proto-linéaire et Körös, en Allemagne peut-être déjà Céramique linéaire, au Bassin parisien, si j'ai bien lu la table, encore rien, et au Midi le Cardial.

    Nouvelle table:
    2554 av. J.-C.
    63,2865 %, + 3800 ans, 6354 av. J.-C.
    2510 av. J.-C.
    67,3894 %, + 3250 ans, 5760 av. J.-C.
    2465 av. J.-C.
    68,6124 %, + 3100 ans, 5565 av. J.-C.
    2420 av. J.-C.
    69,8518 %, + 2950 ans, 5370 av. J.-C.
    2375 av. J.-C.
    72,6148 %, + 2650 ans, 5025 av. J.-C.

    Table de Fibonacci:
    2599 av. J.-Chr.
    62,75068 % + 3850 ans, 6449 av. J.-Chr.
    2510 av. J.-Chr.
    73,24848 % + 2550 ans, 5060 av. J.-Chr.


Il y a pourtant, avec les dates calibrées, un autre problème qui se pose.

2000 (-2500 calibré)
2500 (-3250 calibré)
3000 (-3750 calibré)

Quand j'ai répéré que le chalcolithique à En Guédi devrait être 3400 ou 3200 av. J.-Chr. - était-ce la date carbonique ou la date calibrée?

J'ai appliqué comme si c'était la date carbonique pure, et si c'était la date calibrée, peut-être que ma table de Fibonacci serait encore préférable?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris IV
Dimanche de Sexagésima
19.II.2017

* LE PREMIER OR
DE L'HUMANITÉ EN
BULGARIE
5e MILLÉNAIRE
17 janvier/30 avril 1989, Musée des antiquités nationales, Saint-Germain-en-Laye.
Ministère de la Culture, de la Communication, des Grands Travaux et du Bicentenaire.
Éditions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, Paris 1989. Et, comme dit dans la titre, les pages où se trouve la chronologie sont 42 et 43, en haut.

** Libby en avait suggéré une autre plus courte, légèrement.

*** La table de Fibonacci selon deux messages :

1) New blog on the kid : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html

[aussi sur http://ppt.li/377 comme lien abrégé de celui en haut]

2) New blog on the kid : Raffiner et finir ma table de Fibonacci?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/02/raffiner-et-finir-ma-table-de-fibonacci.html


Et la nouvelle table selon:

New blog on the kid : Table modifiée, analysée par convergence avec l'a priori
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/02/table-modifiee-analysee-par-convergence.html

Friday, February 10, 2017

Historians, Christians, Non-Christians


How different is history according to Christianity than history according to historians?
https://www.quora.com/How-different-is-history-according-to-Christianity-than-history-according-to-historians/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Own answer
Hans-Georg Lundahl,
History buff since childhood. CSL & Eco added to Medieval lore. + Classics.
Written just now
You have to clarify two points:

  • 1 a) Do you mean pre-Roman history and pre-History or do you mean Medieval History?
  • 1 b) Or, between them, Greco-Roman Antique History, including but not limited to life and times of Jesus?
  • 2) What exact Historians do you mean? Do only modern historians count, or do Christian historians of pre-modern centuries count? Are you aware that many modern historians are Christians?


Meanwhile, assuming you mean only modern Historians count, I’ll give it a try for each of the periods.

  • 1) In pre-Roman and pre-historic history, the difference is very marked, due to the fact that modern historians (including Christians) accept C14 dating and do not accept Genesis as a historic source.
  • 2) In Greco-Roman antiquities, modern historians range from fully Christian to very anti-Christian, from those accepting Jesus Christ as God and Lord, over those who think the Gospels gave a human only rabbi a makeoever, to those who deny the Jesus of the Gospels even had a human model at all in the first place (the latter not being most typical). Not surprisingly, the topic on which they differ most is the life and times of Jesus and closely related topics.
  • 3) And in Middle Ages, it is among the non-Christians (and Evangelical Christians) mostly non-professionals, non-historians who differ from the Catholic version of what happened.


Here is some more detail on the example of the Middle Ages.

For instance, all agree the Crusades happened, so pro- and anti-Catholic historians only disagree on whether they were justified or not. Same with Inquisition. Professional historians (outside East Block Communism and 19th C. Protestantism) tend to either think they were somehow justified or if not at least somewhat mitigated. BUT where versions of what happened differ, it is non-historians who disagree with Catholic Historians.

For instance, a Catholic Historian will say that Middle Ages had a Latin Liturgy and Bible because Latin was a vernacular in Late Antiquity and remained largely understandable to men starting to speak somewhat different even after Latin as now taught in school had gone out of use, partly also by adapting to popular pronunciation : in Church Slavonic, “of the lions” or the City which in German is Lemberg will be lvoov according to spelling (in Latin alphabet transcription), but in Russian it will be pronounced Lvoff and in Ukrainean it will be pronounced Lviv. So also with Latin a few centuries in into the Middle Ages.

This changed in 800, in the Empire of Charlemagne, because that is where Latin had been pronounced with greatest divergence. An Englishman who had learned Latin only as a “foreign language” in his country - but one which had been there for centuries as such - gave the Empire a much older pronunciation. Result, quickly noticed, people no longer understood if they were not clerks. Very quickly this in turn resulted in Sermons becoming mandatory, so nobody should miss what the Gospels was about. This happened in 813.

A professional historian of the Middle Ages (pro- or anti-Catholic) will not disagree with this.

The one who will claim that Latin was introduced or kept because or despite its being incomprehensible, is the Anti-Catholics who is NOT a professional historian.

Same as with claims the Catholic Church was against scientific research. Or that Columbus discovered the Earth was Round.

Curiously, when a fairly good historian who is an Atheist, like Tim O’Neill, corrects any of the urban legends about Medieval History, he is accused by non-historians of being a biassed Christian only posing as an Atheist. He is not.

After the Middle Ages, historians usually disagree more along lines of factions (including within Christianity) than about anything which is specifically pro- or anti-Christian.

One could say that Soviet historiography about Orthodox Church in Czar Russia was anti-Christian, and I think it ultimately is, so I will call it anti-Christian in that sense, but there are Christians, including Russian Orthodox, who actually agree with it, while there are atheist anticommunists who disagree with it.

Friday, February 3, 2017

Are constructed languages (Na'vi, etc) really languages? Why or why not? (quora)


1) HGL's F.B. writings : On Constructed Languages · 2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Con-Langs · 3) HGL's F.B. writings : Noster Franzeis - üne Lange konstreute per mei! · 4) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Are constructed languages (Na'vi, etc) really languages? Why or why not? (quora)

Q
Are constructed languages (Na'vi, etc) really languages? Why or why not?

Comment on Q
Are made up languages considered languages at all? What are examples of some fairly developed ones?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I speak two langs, Latin and Germanic. In a few dialects.
Written just now
By whom?

Some would not consider Sindarin or Dothraki as languages because they have no native speakers.

Neither has Latin, but it certainly is a language.*

“Are made up languages considered languages at all?”

Depends a bit on what you mean by “made up”.

Supposing, as is probable, Book of Mormon was a human rather than a diabolic fraud, Nephitic would be a made up language in so far as Joseph Smith only pretended to have been translating it from Nephitic, but never had any such original.

OR, he could have prepared a few neat phrases in Nephitic, just in case.

OR, a devil could have really constructed a text in conlang Nephitic and really helped Joseph Smith to make an accurate translation.

(I don’t think Joseph Smith would have had the time to write a full original in Nephitic himself or even a full translation to it : he seems not to have been a talented linguist).

In the first case Nephitic is a fictitious language, in the latter two, to various degrees, a constructed one.

Fictitious languages are NOT languages, constructed ones are.

* I am here sharpening the criteria for native language : some - one I know - learned Latin as first language, but in those cases parents or one parent had learned it as second language. Native language would be more like learning a first language from parents who also learned it as a first language. By now probably someone has Quenya with Neo-Quenya as a bilingual "first language" too. Less probably, as an exclusive one.

Other answers:

Ranjodh Singh Arora
student, fond of languages
Written Sep 4
I must say, according to some linguists, conlangs are not considered languages unless they have multiple native speakers. Klingon or Dothraki are therefore not considered languages. But Esperanto and Ido are.

Alexandre Coutu
B.A. in Linguistics
Written Oct 4, 2013
Upvoted by André Müller
Yes.

The most famous example of a constructed language is Esperanto, which has a fairly large community of speakers.

The basic definition of language is, in my own words, a system of meaningful units (ie. words carry meaning) that are organized according to a series of rules (ie. grammar); the manipulation of these units within the framework of these rules allows the user to modulate that meaning. This definition is certainly large enough to encompass all man-made languages, oral or signed, and even computer languages.

I suppose, from a layman’s point of view, you could say that if you are looking at a list of words that were given meaning, and a list of minimal rules that imposes limits of how these words are organized, you are looking at a system that can be learned and that two people could use to communicate meaning to each other. That, fundamentally, is what a language is.

George Corley
PhD student in Linguistics, University of Wisconsin at Madison
Written Oct 18, 2013
Upvoted by André Müller and Logan R. Kearsley
Constructed languages, or conlangs, are generally full languages with developed grammar and a lexicon. To what degree a conlang is "complete" varies, but for myself and many in the community there is a certain point where you do consider it a conlang. Now, most conlangs are never spoken, never alive, so to speak, but even many of those are well-crafted and fully usable languages.

Some well known examples of well-developed conlangs include:

Quenya and Sindarin (by J.R.R Tolkien) those familiar "Elvish" languages in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien worked on his Elven languages for his entire life, resulting in many different versions of fully functioning languages, and a large lexicon (I have heard that approximately 3,000 Quenya words have been found).

Esperanto (by L.L. Zamenhof), mentioned above. The original pamphlet was more of a sketch of a language, but the community that grew around it developed it further into a fully usable language that even has a number of native speakers.

Klingon (by Marc Okrand), contracted for the Star Trek franchise. Klingon has some odd vocabulary holes, but it has proven complete enough to produce translations of the Bible and Hamlet.

Dothraki, Valyrian, Irathient, Castithan (by David J. Peterson) all of these were contracted for television (the first two for Game of Thrones, the others for Defiance), and David takes his craft very seriously. He also has developed some sketches (what he calls "language pallettes") for a couple other Defiance languages, and has a number of languages he has developed on his own.

And, of course, there are many, many more that are less well-known. I usually don't self-pimp, but if you want to take a listen to the Conlangery Podcast, we have featured many constructed languages on the show -- and even that only scratches the surface.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Osgood and the Dating of Abraham? And I am Wrong on Fibonacci Table


1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Osgood and the Dating of Abraham? And I am Wrong on Fibonacci Table · 2) Creation vs. Evolution : Recalibrating the Fibonacci Table, acc. to Abraham in Chalcolithic En Gedi · 3) If Göbekli Tepe is Tower of Babel ...

Osgood argues that Abraham was contemporaneous with Ghassulian (specifically Ghassulian IV) and with Jemdet Nasr.

CMI : The Times of Abraham
By Dr A.J.M. Osgood
http://creation.com/the-times-of-abraham


c. 3800–c. 3350 BC Ghassulian refers to a culture and an archaeological stage dating to the Middle Chalcolithic Period in the Southern Levant (c. 3800–c. 3350 BC)
The dates for Ghassulian are dependent upon 14C (radiocarbon) determinations, which suggest that the typical later Ghassulian began sometime around the mid-5th millennium and ended ca. 3800 BC. The transition from Late Ghassulian to EB I seems to have been ca. 3800-3500 BC.


Osgood's argument for Ghassulian is related to En-Geddi.

3100–2900 BC - Jemdet Nasr
Although in older literature 3200–3000 BC can be found as the beginning and end dates of the Jemdet Nasr period, it is nowadays dated to 3100–2900 BC based on radiocarbon dating.


Osgood's argument for Jemdet Nasr is related to Chedorlaomer.

Ein Gedi
Neolithic

At Mikveh Cave archaeologists found Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) flint tools and an arrowhead.[citation needed] Chalcolithic

A Chalcolithic temple (ca. mid-fourth millennium BCE) belonging to the Ghassulian culture was excavated on the slope between two springs, Ein Shulamit and Ein Gedi. More Chalcolithic finds were made at the Moringa and Mikveh Caves.


This leaves either PPNA or c. 3500 BC as the periods relevant for Ein Gedi. If Osgood is wrong, it is PPNA.

Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) denotes the first stage in early Levantine and Anatolian Neolithic culture, dating around 11,500 to 10,000 BP.


If Abraham was in Ein Gedi during PPNA, he was contemporary with Göbekli Tepe. Any recalibration I or any other creationist makes, since in raw data, as interpreted by conventional (and erroneous) carbon date calibration.

2957 BC
3,90625 % + 26 800 years, 29 757 BC (or less carbon and earlier? 20 000 – 50 000)
2778 BC
40,23593 % + 7550 years, 10 328 BC
2599 BC
62,75068 % + 3850 years, 6449 BC
2420 BC
76,66562 % + 2200 years, 4620 BC
2241 BC
86,26541 % + 1200 years, 3441 BC
2062 BC
91,58056 % + 730 years, 2792 BC
1883 BC
94,86521 % + 440 years, 2323 BC
1704 BC
96,89571 % + 260 years, 1964 BC
1525 BC
98,14985 % + 150 years, 1675 BC
1346 BC
98,92632 % + 90 years, 1436 BC
1167 BC
99,40408 % + 50 years, 1217 BC
988 BC
99,70269 % + 30 years, 1018 BC
809 BC
99,88185 % + 10 years, 819 BC
630 BC
100,00129 % 0 years ±, 630 BC


2241 86,26541 %
2420 76,66562 %
4661 9,59979 : 1.618 =
2330 05.9331211372064277 %
2017 76,66562 %
4347 82,5987411372064277 % * 59.105 %
= 48.819985949145859092085 % = 5950
5950-2017=3933

2062 91,58056 %
2241 86,26541 %
4303 05,31515 : 1.618 =
2151 03.2850123609394314 %
2017 86,26541 %
4168 89.5504223609394314 % * 60.399 %
= 54.087559601783807171286 % = 5100
5100-2017=3083

1883 94,86521 %
2062 91,58056 %
3945 03.28465 : 1.618 =
1972 02.0300679851668727 %
2017 91,58056 %
3989 93.6106279851668727 % * 61.721 %
= 57.777415698724845499167 % = 4550
4550-2017=2533

2420 BC
76.66562 % + 2200 years, 4620 BC
2330
82.5987411372064277 % + 1600 years, 3933 BC
2241 BC
86,26541 % + 1200 years, 3441 BC
2151
89.5504223609394314 % + 910 years, 3083 BC
2062 BC
91,58056 % + 730 years, 2792 BC
1972 BC
93.6106279851668727 % + 550 years, 2533 BC
1883 BC
94.86521 % + 440 years, 2323 BC


What was, again, Osgoods argument for Jemdet Nasr?

Elam.

Knowledge of Elamite history remains largely fragmentary, reconstruction being based on mainly Mesopotamian (Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian and Babylonian) sources. The history of Elam is conventionally divided into three periods, spanning more than two millennia. The period before the first Elamite period is known as the proto-Elamite period:

Proto-Elamite: c. 3200 – c. 2700 BC (Proto-Elamite script in Susa)
Old Elamite period: c. 2700 – c. 1600 BC (earliest documents until the Eparti dynasty)
Middle Elamite period: c. 1500 – c. 1100 BC (Anzanite dynasty until the Babylonian invasion of Susa)
Neo-Elamite period: c. 1100 – 540 BC (characterized Assyrian and Median influence. 539 BC marks the beginning of the Achaemenid period.)


Ein Gedi "3500 BC" = proto-Elamite "3200 BC"?

If any part of Abraham's life* is to be dated "3500 BC" conventional, then my table is off by (c. 2241-1972*=) c. 269 real years for 3441 BC conventional dating.

If any part of Abraham's life is to be dated "3200 BC" conventional, then my table is off by c. 179 real years for 3083 BC conventional dating. The unit of time spans for my table.

If Osgood is right about Ein Gedi, it is probably the former, and he is probably wrong about Jemdet Nasr, it was an earlier part of Proto-Elamite.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St John Bosco
31.I.2017

* Abraham was 43 in 1972 BC.

Friday, January 27, 2017

Where my dating of music differs from Habermehl's


Here is a table from Habermehl's essay or paper :

Instrument(s)
Standard Date
(presumed as C14)
 Biblical Date
(according to A. Habermehl)
 
Divje Babe bone flute (Turk & Dimkaroski 2011)
50,000 BP 2500 BC
 
Hohle Fels bone flute (Conard et al. 2009)
35,000 BP ≈2400 BC
 
Chinese flute set (Zhang et al. 1999)
7,000–5,000 BC 2300–2100 BC
 
Antaras of Peru (Bishop 2014)
≈4200 BC ≈2100 BC
 
Harp rock etching from Megiddo (Braun 2002)
≈3300–3000 BC 2000 BC
 
Lithophone of Vietnam (Lithophone 2008)
3000 BC 1900 BC
 
Sumerian musicians bas relief (Wilson 2012)
3000 BC 1900 BC
 
Boat lyre of Ur (de Schauensee 2002)
2500 BC 1600 BC
 
Megiddo ivory plaque lyre (Bromiley 1986)
1150 BC 650 BC
 
Harps bas relief from Nimrud (British Museum)
870 BC 625 BC
 
Hittite musicians sculpture (Ceram 1973)
750 BC 600 BC
 
Table: A. Habermehl 2015, transscr. HGL 2017
source:
Dating Prehistoric Musical Instruments: The Two Timelines
Anne Habermehl
http://www.creationsixdays.net/dating_prehistoric_musical_instr.htm


So, I know from the paper also that she goes about using all of evolutionist dating - C14 or otherwise - as one timeline, to be compressed according to the Biblical one, so she places Flood at "beginning of Huronian Ice Age" because all the ice ages were only one (doesn't mean their timeline has to be compressed into one) and "it" = "all of them" = "the first of them" began at the Flood.

While ice age may well have begun at the Flood, the dating of Huronian ice age has nothing to do with carbon dating and should not be involved in compressing the time line of carbon dates. Now, archaeology has mostly only carbon dating and dendrochronology, sometimes comparisons of style with artefacts that elsewhere have been carbon dated. So, all the time line of the musical instruments is very apt for a compression of a purely carbon date related timeline, like the compression I did here:

New blog on the kid : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html


2957 BC
or, year of the Flood
acc. to Roman Martyrology
 
3.90625 % + 26 800 years
29 757 BC (20 000 ?? – 50 000 ?)
 
2778 BC
40.23593 % + 7550 years
10 328 BC
 
2599 BC
62.75068 % + 3850 years
6449 BC
 
2420 BC
76.66562 % + 2200 years
4620 BC
 
2241 BC
86.26541 % + 1200 years
3441 BC
 
2062 BC
91.58056 % + 730 years
2792 BC
 
1883 BC
94.86521 % + 440 years
2323 BC
 
1704 BC
96.89571 % + 260 years
1964 BC
 
1525 BC
98.14985 % + 150 years
1675 BC
 
1346 BC
98.92632 % + 90 years
1436 BC
 
1167 BC
99.40408 % + 50 years
1217 BC
 
988 BC
99.70269 % + 30 years
1018 BC
 
809 BC
99.88185 % + 10 years
819 BC
 
630 BC
100.00129 % 0 years ±.
630 BC


Since a few days ago, I consider that dates from 20,000 BC are clearly post-Flood. 22000 BP = 6.986 % remaining.

6.986 % remaining, divided by the 54.788 % of decay mean the original, if from that year, would have been 12.75 %, which is a high contrast to a mean of 3.9 % and minima reaching below. Even if post-Flood levels soon rose from 3.9 % past these 12.75 %, to 40 % in only 179 years.

Instrument(s)
Standard Date (presumed as C14) Biblical Date (Fibonacci table for C-14 conversion)
 
Divje Babe bone flute
50,000 BP pre-Flood or close to Flood 2957 BC
 
Hohle Fels bone flute
35,000 BP pre-Flood or close to Flood 2957 BC
 
For above, pre-Flood values are possible, and for Divjo Babe bone flute at least rather probable.
 
Chinese flute set
7,000–5,000 BC (C14?)  2778 - 2599 - 2420 BC
 
Antaras of Peru (Bishop 2014)
≈4200 BC 2420 - 2241 BC
 
Harp rock etching from Megiddo
≈3300–3000 BC 2241 - 2062 BC
 
Lithophone of Vietnam
3000 BC 2241 - 2062 BC
 
Sumerian musicians bas relief
3000 BC 2241 - 2062 BC
 
Boat lyre of Ur
2500 BC 2062 - 1883 BC
 
Megiddo ivory plaque lyre
1150 BC 1167 - 988 BC
 
Harps bas relief from Nimrud
870 BC 988 - 809 BC
 
Hittite musicians sculpture
750 BC 809 - 630 BC
 
Table: H. G. Lundahl 2017


I have here not dared to be more precise than giving a Biblical date between two years.

How would I go about 7000 - 5000 BC for a more precise date?

2778 40.23593 %
2599 62.75068 %
5377 C2.98661 %
2688 51.4933 %
51.4933 % * 56.6 % = 29.1452078 %
29.1452078 % = 10200 BP = 8200 BC

2688 051.4933 %
2599 062.75068 %
5287 114.24398 %
2643 057.12199 %
57.12199 % * 56.909 % = 32.5075532891 %
32.5075532891 % = 9300 BP = 7300 BC

2643 057.12199 %
2599 062.75068 %
5242 119.87267 %
2621 059.93633 %
59.93633 % * 57.061 % = 34.2002692613 %
34.2002692613 % = 8850 BP = 6833 BC

2643 057.12199 %
2621 059.93633 %
5264 117.05832 %
2632 058.02916 % * 56.985 %
= 33.067916826 % = 9150 BP = 7133 BC

Close enough to 7000 BC.

And for the other date, 5000 BC?

2599 062.75068 %
2420 076.66562 %
5019 139.4163 %
2509 069.70815 % * 57.839 %
= 40.3184968785 % = 7500 BP = 5500 BC

2509 069.70815 %
2420 076.66562 %
4929 146.37377 %
2464 073.186885 % * 58.155 %
= 42.56183297175 % = 7050 BP = 5013 BC

Close enough too.

A caveat, I skipped the part in which 2017-1950 = 67 years are deduced from the resulting dates to get a conventional BP, and instead deduced the 2017 (or at worst 2000) from the BP date instead of deducing 1950, to get the BC date.

Another caveat. The table I came up with should, on a graph, be a curve. This way of calculating flattens the stretch between the already fixed points.

Apart from that, a carbon date 7000 - 5000 BC = roughly a Biblically revised carbon date of 2632 - 2464 BC. Two millennia reduced to less than two hundred years. And I suppose that the set of flutes has not been dated in the flutes themselves, but that the place they were found in has been dated by similarity to a culture elsewhere carbon dated at 7000 - 5000 BC. Supposing the flutes were dated themselves, that would mean that a double flute either had been 2000 years between the one which is original and the one which is repair or less than 200 years, much more realistic. But I hope Zhang et al. back in 1999 didn't miss such a thing. So, I hope for their sake, the dating of the flute set is not carbon dating on the flutes themselves.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. John Chrysostom*
27.I.2017

* I could also have taken St Angela Merici, but since this is music, and since the patron Saint of Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgang Gottlieb Mozart, better known as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is St John Chrysostom ...

Monday, January 23, 2017

I have cited Carmignac here before. This time, it will be in a better light.


Here is a reference to his uncharitable reference to "fundamentalist", in French:

Pour répondre à l'Abbé Carmignac (post humum)
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/07/pour-repondre-labbe-carmignac-post-humum.html


He was of course totally wrong to presume Catholic and Funamentalist contradict each other as terms go. Or perhaps it has since back in 1982 become lots commoner for inerrantist (which means orthodox) Catholics to be described as Fundamentalists and for the Protestant Fundamentalists or sometimes even Jewish ones to a more relaxed attitude to Catholicism, at least those of us who are inerrantists.

He had a better side, as I learned today.

Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early
https://www.academia.edu/30807628/Fr_Jean_Carmignac_dates_Gospels_early


The copying of following extract involved some edits, since letters showed a grammatically correct way but were exchanged when copied. I have left edits which make overkill. The figure 3 was coded by capital B and I left 3s for original and correct b's too. Same with 8 coded as D and left when replacing original d's which were correct too. I should have clicked "respecter la case" and so only B and not b, only D and not d would have been affected.

Carmignac, a 8ea8 Sea Scrolls translator an8 an expert in the He3rew in use at the time of Christ, reache8 conclusions similar to Ro3inson's, 3ut he came at the pro3lem from a 8ifferent angle.

He translate8 the synoptic Gospels "3ackwar8s," from Greek into He3rew, an8 he was astonishe8 at what he foun8.

"I wante8 to 3egin with the Gospel of Mark. In or8er to facilitate the comparison 3etween our Greek Gospels an8 the He3rew text of Qumran, I trie8, for my own personal use, to see what Mark woul8 yiel8 when translate8 3ack into the He3rew of Qumran.

"I ha8 imagine8 that this translation woul8 3e 8ifficult 3ecause of consi8era3le 8ifferences 3etween Semitic thought an8 Greek thought, 3ut I was a3solutely 8um3foun8e8 to 8iscover that this translation was, on the contrary, extremely easy.

"Aroun8 the mi88le of April 1963, after only one 8ay of work, I was convince8 that the Greek text of Mark coul8 not have 3een re8acte8 8irectly in Greek an8 that it was in reality only the Greek translation of an original He3rew."


Carmignac, who 8ie8 recently, ha8 planne8 for enormous 8ifficulties, 3ut they 8i8n't arise. He 8iscovere8 the Greek translator of Mark ha8 slavishly kept to the He3rew wor8 or8er an8 grammar.

...

Consi8er just one example. (Carmignac gives many, 3ut his short 3ook isn't weighe8 8own with them.) The 3ene8ictus, the song of Zachary, is given in Luke 1:68-79. In Greek, as in English, the 3ene8ictus, as poetry, seems unexceptional. There is no evi8ence of clever composition. But, when it is translate8 into He3rew, a little marvel appears.

In the phrase "to show mercy to our fathers," the expression "to show mercy" is the He3rew ver3 hanan, which is the root of the name Yohanan (John).

In "he remem3ers his holy covenant," "he remem3ers" is the ver3 zakar, which is the root of the name Zakaryah (Zachary).

In "the oath which he swore to our father A3raham" is foun8, for "to take an oath," the ver3 shaba, which is the root of the name Elishaba (Eliza3eth).

"Is it 3y chance," asks Carmignac, "that the secon8 strophe of this poem 3egins 3y a triple allusion to the names of the three protagonists: John, Zachary, Eliza3eth? But this allusion only exists in He3rew; the Greek or English translation 8oes not preserve it."


So far Carmignac. An achievement which I think some Fundamentalists will appreciate./HGL