Thursday, February 25, 2016

Letter A of ex oriente - III - explanation and results


Letter A of ex oriente, on Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : I - preliminary to recalibrating, II - continuing the preliminary, III - explanation and results, on Creation vs. Evolution : IV - Conclusion

Before going on to give the results, which, when writing this sentence I have not yet made, but hope to have made when this post is finished and published, I realise I should perhaps explain a bit what I am up to.

Palaeontologists are middle up in Biblical Creation/Evolution debate, but Archaeologists more seldom come across it. So, might need some explanation. Here I first leave the word to John Woodmorappe, some paragraph or two:

[Summary:] Artificially-inflated 14C dates have been found to occur when trees absorb ‘infinitely old’ carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from local, volcanogenic, subterranean sources. This is not to be confused with wood contamination because the carbon is firmly locked within the wood fibres. A similar effect has long been recognised with the fictitious ‘built-in’ carbon-14 dates that occur in molluscs when they absorb ‘infinitely old’ carbon from carbonate rocks. In addition, creationists recognise that the global atmospheric buildup of 14C after the Creation and Flood would have produced artificially-old carbon-14 dates. However, the widespread emanation of 14C-free volcanogenic carbon dioxide after the Flood would have further inflated the carbon-14 dates of tree rings in a systematic manner in many parts of the world.

["General" paragraph:] Creationist scientists are willing to leave these uniformitarian mental boxes and thus have studied carbon-14 dating from a decidedly non-uniformitarian viewpoint. One creationist model3 envisions the earth created some six thousand years ago, the Flood about 1700 years thereafter and 14C building up either after Creation or after the Flood. Because most living objects buried during the Flood contained very little 14C when they died, they already possessed inherited carbon-14 dates (usually at infinity, but sometimes at a few tens of thousands of years, as discussed earlier1). Post-Flood organisms successively acquired less extreme ‘built-in’ carbon-14 dates at the time of death until they eventually converged upon ‘real-time’ ages a few thousand years ago.

From : CMI : Much-inflated carbon-14 dates from subfossil trees: a new mechanism
by John Woodmorappe
Journal of Creation (formerly TJ) 15(3):43–44 December 2001
http://creation.com/much-inflated-carbon-14-dates-from-subfossil-trees-a-new-mechanism


I would say the convergence was total somewhere 1000 to 500 BC.

After that, at least known Roman History, artefacts can be dated by recorded history and those that can also be dated by Carbon 14 tend to match.

In addition, as per my tables, I say that the buildup was at the beginning faster than one would expect.

Otherwise, we would still be in a buildup phase, and, as per another one of my tables [lowesr on same link], this would mean inconsistency of half life.

So, with a faster buildup after Deluge than just before the convergence, does it take a major nuke disaster such as would wipe out all life on earth except spiders? No, it would take about 8 milliSieverts per year in Cosmic radiation - a bit more than the total background radiation is at Princeton. Right now.

[Other worthwhile paragraph:] All the foregoing examples are infrequent, and localized. But the situation must have been very different for some time after the Flood. A great deal of ‘infinitely-old’ carbon dioxide must have been percolating from the depths, all over the world, and over considerable geographic regions, as a result of residual volcanic activity, upper-mantle activity, etc. As the growing plants and trees absorbed much of this 14C-free CO2 flux, they necessarily acquired quasi-homogenous ‘built-in’ carbon-14 dates—not as an exception, but as a rule.


This I have not taken into account. First, because I was not aware, second, because this concerns mainly trees, not skeletons, third, because I do not know how to deal with it mathematically.

My tables are in French. However, the one I think or thought most accurate about representing carbon buildup, I am now using also for recalibration of dated artefacts and skeletons of arhcaeology.

Here is some already dated material from Near East Neolithic, and here are, with the help of previous recalibrations, also some of my recalibrations. First come a few facts from wiki articles.

Ain Mallaha
version A: built and settled circa 10,000–8,000 BCE.
Version B: The Natufian village was colonized in three phases. The first two phases had massive stone-built structures with smaller ones in the third phase. These phases occurred from 12,000 to 9600 B.C.

Recalibration of version A: 10,000 is after 10,328 B.Chr. which corresponds to 2778 B.Chr. 8,000 B.Chr. is between 8,145 and 7 903, that is between 2677 and 2666. Two thousand years recalibrated to less than 108 years.

Version B starts before the 10,328 B.Chr. that corresponds to 2778 B.Chr., and ends before 9358/2733. 2400 years reduced to a few decades.

Ancient Tell Abu Hureyra
was occupied between 13,000 and 9,500 years ago in radio carbon years.

Recalibration to between before 2778 B. Chr. for first date and 7,578 (lose to second date) recalibrates to 2633. A span of 3500 years recalibrates to one of more than a century and a half, but not more than that.

Abu Madi The culture has been referred to as the Abu Madi Entity as it shows evidence of having retained Natufian characteristics of a temporary settlement, while being at least partly contemporary with the PPNA cultures of the Levant further to the North. It has been dated approximately 10100 to 9700 BP[7] or from between 9660 to 9180 BC[8] with calibrated datings ranging between c. 9750 and 7760 BC.

If I stick to their calibration and given B. Chr. dates, I recalibrate this to starting between 2778 and 2733 and ending between 2666 and 2655 B. Chr. One thousand nine hundred and ninety years recalibrate to ninetyfive.

I here noted the references for the article on Abu Madi

  • [7] Ian Kuijt (2000). Life in Neolithic farming communities: social organization, identity, and differentiation. Springer. pp. 33–. ISBN 978-0-306-46122-4. Retrieved 16 March 2011.
  • [8] Abu Madi 1,


And now I get a few things more substantial to deal with, hence the title, I take the tables from letter A of ex oriente's Neolithic Carbon Dates.

Locality
Code BP Dev. Location Material
Reference
Timespan BPTimespan BC My recalibration
 
 
Abu Madi 1
Pta-2699 10100 100 Layer 8
Pta-4551 9790 100 Layer 11
Pta-4552 9920 80 Layer 11
Pta-4568 9970 120 Layer 10
Pta-4572 9790 100 Layer 10
Pta-4577 9870 100 Layer 12
Pta-4580 9800 80 Layer 12
Garfinkel, Dag 2006 for all items
10 000 - 97908050 - 78402670 - 2660 B. Chr.
 
 
'Abr 3
Ly-2805 9705 60 Niveau I/South G4. US.118, 194. Contexte: M1a (communal building) S
Ly-2806 9690 60 Niveau: I/South, G4. US.118, 190 Context: M1a (communal building) S
Ly-2807 9705 55 Niveau: I/South G4, US. 118, 192 Context: M1a (communal building) S
Ly-2808 9685 55 Niveau: I/South, G5, US. 188, 193 Context: M1a (communal building) S
Ly-5235 9750 50 Niveau: I/North, D3, US 325, 332 Context: M10b (communal building) S
Ly-5236 9700 50 Niveau: I/North, D3, US.315, 332 Context: M10b (communal building) S
Ly-5237 9730 50 Niveau: I/North, D3, US.315, 332 Context: M10b (communal building) S
Yartah 2013:72 for all items
9750 - 96857800 - 77352660 - 2659? B. Chr.
 
 
Abu Gosh (Abou Ghosh)
RT 2453 8895 60 Sq A7, Basket 1343; Layer III, 649.78-649.72 "First phase" (Appendix I in: Khalaily, Marder 2003:143) CH Cratagus
Segal, Carmi 2003; Khalaily, Marder 2003.
88956945 2610 B. Chr.
 
 
Abu Hureyra
BM 1120 8666 66 Trench E, Phase 3,4,6,7 CH
Moore 2000:255
BM 1121 10792 82 E level 2/3 CH
Moore 2000:527
BM 1122 9374 72 Trench B, Phase 3 CH
Moore 2000:253-255
BM 1423 8676 72 Trench C CH
Moore 2000:529
BM 1424 8190 77 Trench B, Phase 7 CH
Moore 2000:253-255
BM 1425 8393 72 Trench C, = ca. Phase 8, Trench B CH
Moore 2000:529
BM 1718R 11140 140 E447 CH
Moore 2000:527
BM 1719 9120 50 ? CH
Radiocarbon 24/3,1982,284
BM 1719R 9100 100 Trench E CH
Moore 2000:253-255
BM 1721R 8490 110 Trench D, Phase3 CH
Moore 2000:253-255
BM 1722R 8640 100 Trench B, Phase 4 CH
Moore 2000:253-255
BM 1723R 10820 510 Trench E CH
Moore 2000:253-255
BM 1724R 8020 100 Trench E, Phase 6 CH
Moore 2000:253-255
OxA 1190 8500 120 Trench B, Phase 2 S (eimmer/eink.)
Moore 2000:253-255
OxA 1227 8320 80 Trench G, Phase 3 (younger than Phase 2) CH
Moore 2000:255
OxA 1228 9680 90 Trench G, bottom phase 1 CH wood
Moore 2000:255
OxA 170 10600 200 E405 S (wild einkorn)
Byrd 1994
OxA 171 10600 200 E457 S (wild einkorn)
Moore 2000:527
OxA 172 10900 200 E470 S (wild einkorn)
Byrd 1994
OxA 1930 8180 100 Trench G, Phase 2 S (wild cereals)
Moore 2000:255
OxA 1931 7890 90 Trench G, phase 2 S (dom.wheat)
Moore 2000:255
OxA 2167 8270 100 Trench E, Phase 4 S
Moore 2000:253-255
OxA 2168 8330 100 Trench E, Phase 5 (above Phase 4) CH
Moore 2000:253-255
OxA 2169 8640 110 Trench B, Phase 2 S (einkorn/brly)
Moore 2000:253-255
OxA 386 10800 160 E420 S (wild einkorn)
Byrd 1994
OxA 387 11070 160 E470 B (bos)
Gowlett, Hedges 1987
OxA 397 10420 140 E430 S (wild einkorn)
Byrd 1994
OxA 406 9300 250 Trench E B
Gowlett, Hedges 1987
OxA 407 10050 180 E419 B
Housley 1994:62
OxA 408 10250 160 E419 H
Gowlett, Hedges 1987
OxA 430 11020 150 E 460 B, gazelle ch
Moore 2000:527
OxA 431 10680 150 E460 H=OxA430
Moore 2000:527
OxA 432 9540 170 Trench E B
Gowlett, Hedges 1987
OxA 433 9840 200 Trench E H
Gowlett, Hedges 1987
OxA 434 10490 150 E430 B (gazelle, ch)
Gowlett, Hedges 1987
OxA 435 10450 180 E430 H=OxA434
Gowlett, Hedges 1987
OxA 4660 8180 200 Trench A, Phase 2 B B Human
Moore 2000:528
OxA 468 11090 150 E470 B =OxA 387; bos
Gowlett, Hedges 1987
OxA 469 10920 140 E470 H
Gowlett, Hedges 1987
OxA 470 10820 160 E470 H
Gowlett, Hedges 1987
OxA 471 10620 150 E419 H
Gowlett, Hedges 1987
OxA 472 10750 170 E425 H
Gowlett, Hedges 1987
OxA 473 10000 170 E425 B (wild sheep ch
Gowlett, Hedges 1987
OxA 474 10930 150 E429 B/H (wild sheep)
Gowlett, Hedges 1987
OxA 475 9060 140 E 252 B (gazelle, ch)
Gowlett, Hedges 1987
OxA 476 9600 200 E430 F(=OxA 434)
Gowlett; Hedges 1987
OxA 5842 8260 75 E449 S (splt/br.wheat
Moore 2000:528
OxA 5843 8275 65 E449 S (dom. rye)
Moore 2000:528
OxA 6336 8140 90 E405 S (dom. einkorn)
Moore 2000:528
OxA 6417 8170 90 E411 S (dom wheat)
Moore 2000:528
OxA 6418 8115 80 E438 S (dom.barl)
Moore 2000:528
OxA 6419 8230 80 E438 S (dom em.)
Moore 2000:528
OxA 6685 10930 120 E455 S (dom. rye)
Moore 2000:527
OxA 6995 8700 240 Trench E, S (dom einkorn)
Moore 2000:253-255
OxA 6996 9860 220 Trench E S (dom. rye)
Moore 2000:253-255
OxA 7122 8290 75 E426 S (dom. einkorn)
Moore 2000:528
OxA 8718 11140 100 E418 S (dom. rye)
Moore 2000:528
OxA 8719 10610 100 E419 S (dom rye)
Moore 2000:528
OxA 876 8500 90 Trench D, Phase 1 B, onagger, wild
Moore 2000:253-255
OxA 877 8300 150 Trench D, Phase 1 B,sheep/goat
Moore 2000:253-255
OxA 879 8570 130 Trench D, Phase4 B,wild onagger
Moore 2000:253-255
OxA 881 8870 100 Trench D, Phase 6 (dislocated from a pit) B (sheep/goat)
Moore 2000:253-255
OxA 883 11450 300 E470 S (wild einkorn)
Housley 1994:62
OxA 878 8490 110 Trench D, Phase4 B, wild onagger
Moore 2000:253-255
11140 - 8020 9190 - 6070 2725 - 2561 B. Chr.
 
 
Abu Salem
I 5498 9970 150 15-20 cm CH
I 5499 10230 150 25-30 cm CH
I 5500 10230 150 45-55 cm CH
Pta 3289 10300 100 L1 155-160 CH
Pta 3290 10340 90 L21 120-130 CH
Pta 3291 10140 80 L22 120-130 CH
Pta 3292 10550 90 L22 180-190 CH
Pta 3293 10420 100 L24 190-200 CH
Byrd 1994:219 for all items
10550 - 9970 8600 - 8020 2697 - 2670 B. Chr.
 
 
Ain Abu Nukhayla
A-11802 8625 locus 2, level 9
A-11803 8465 locus 5, level 12
A-11804 8565 55 locus 20, level 7
A-11805 8370 80 locus 20, level 10/11
A-11806 8610 95 locus 22, level 15
A-11807 8410 80 locus 25, level 13
Henry et al. 2003:13 for all items
8625 - 8370 6675 - 6420 appr. 2610 - 2599 B. Chr.
 
 
Ain el-Kerkh
GrA 22276 9240 50 Square D6, Layer 9 AK 01 D6b-44 CH
GrA 22277 9350 90 Square D6, Layer 9 AK 01 D6b-45 CH
Ly 12086 9205 60 Square D6, Layer 8, AK 02 D6b-31 CH
OxA 2555 9250 40 Square D6, Layer 7, AK 02 D6b-18 CH
OxA 2556 9165 40 Square D6, Layer 7, AK 02 D6b-29 CH
Tsuneki et al. 2006 for all items
9350 - 9165 7400 - 7215 2644 - 2633
 
Yes, I know that across 2633 I put 7578, but it should rather have been 7167. I made a calculation mistake.
 
 
Ain Jammam
8520 190
8030 120
Rollefson 2005:17 for both items
8520 - 8030 6570 - 6080 2604 - approx. 2565 B. Chr.
 
 
Akarçay
Beta 138582 7470 80 Phase II, square 20M; feature 21 CH
canew.org; Balkan-Atlı 2002:289; Özbasaran and Duru 2011:167
Beta 138583 8390 110 Phase IV, Square 20P; feature 24 CH
canew.org; Bakan-Atlı 2002, 289; Özbasaran and Duru 2011:168
Beta 138584 8750 40 Phase V; square 27 U; feature C.2 CH (AMS)
canew.org; Balkan-Atlı 2002, 289; Özbasaran and Duru 2011:168
Beta 138585 7280 50 Phase I, Square 19K; feature 9 CH (AMS)
canew.org; Balkan-Atlı 2002:289; Özbasaran and Duru 2011:167
Beta 138586 7970 120 Phase III, square 20N CH
canew.org; Balkan-Atlı 2002:289
Beta 174035 8560 40 Square 27Y; feature 65 ?
Özbasaran and Duru 2011:168 and for all following same or 2011:167
Beta 174036 8260 40 Square 27X; feature 42 ?
Beta 174037 8310 130 Square 20P; feature 66 ?
Beta 174038 7930 40 Square 28U; feature 18 ?
Beta 174039 7860 40 Square 210; feature 42 ?
Beta 174040 7690 50 Square 19F, feature 32 ?
Beta 174041 8300 40 Square 25U; feature 29 ?
KIA 31913 8283 41 Square 27U; feature 118 ?
KIA 31914 8205 35 Square 27U; Feature 108 ?
KIA 31915 8293 39 Square 27U; feature 90 ?
KIA 31916 8021 33 Square 27U; feature 106 ?
KIA 31917 8132 40 Square 27U; feature 120 ?
KIA 31918 8246 39 Square 27U; feature 113 ?
KIA 31919 8181 45 Square 27U; feature 108 ?
KIA 31920 8121 52 Square 27U; feature 108 ?
KIA 31921 8146 36 Square 27V; feature 40 ?
KIA 31922 8365 40 Square 27X; feature 123 ?
KIA 31923 8309 49 Square 27X; feature 115 ?
KIA 31924 8290 50 Square 27X; feature 116 ?
KIA 31925 7979 42 Square 27T, feature 43 ?
KIA 31926 8199 34 Square 29T, feature 64 ?
8750 - 7470 6800 - 5520 2617 - 2509 B. Chr.
 
 
Aswad
Gif 2369 8540 110 II, 0,25m E ?
Stordeur et al. 2010:58
Gif 2370 9340 120 Ib, 1,75m E (=moyenne)
de Contenson 2000:21
Gif 2371 9270 120 Ib, 2,35m E (=moyenne)
de Contenson 2000:21
Gif 2372 9640 120 Ia, 2,45m E (=ancienne) CH
de Contenson 1973
Gif 2373 8560 110 II, 0,30m W (moyenne/récente)
de Contenson 2000:21; Stordeur et al. 2010:58
Gif 2633 9730 120 Ia, 3,25m E (=ancienne) CH
de Contenson 1973; Stordeur et al. 2010:58
GrA 25913 9020 60 Ib, 1,80m E (ancienne/moyenne) S
Stordeur et al. 2010:58
GrA 25915 9300 60 Ia, 2,90m E (ancienne) S
Stordeur et al. 2010:58
GrA 25916 9070 60 Ib, 2,20m E (ancienne/moyenne) S
Stordeur et al.2010:58
GrA 25917 9280 50 Ia, 3,10m E (ancienne) S
Stordeur et al. 2010:58
GRN 6676 8650 55 II, 0,40m W (moyenne/récente)
de Contenson 2000:21
GRN 6677 8720 75 II, 0,90m W (=moyenne)
de Contenson 2000:21
GRN 6678 8875 55 II, 1,30m W (=moyenne)
de Contenson 2000:21
GRN 6679 8865 60 II, 2,30m W (=moyenne)
de Contenson 2000:21
Ly 11383 9285 51 B5; E Moyenne (2); Niveau Ancien Sector B= Contenson Niveau 1 A (1:46)
1) Stordeur 2003, 2) Stordeur et al. 2010:58
Ly 11384 9220 70 B10 E; Niveau Ancien Sector B= Contenson Niveau 1 A (1:46)
1) Stordeur 2003 2) Stordeur et al. 2010:58
Ly 11385 9805 115 ? E "ancienne/moyenne" (2) Niveau Ancien Sector B= Contenson Niveau 1 A (1:46)
1) Stordeur 2003 2) Stordeur et al. 2010:58
Ly 11386 8600 50 ?W "moyenne" (2) Phase II (=C)
1) Stordeur 2003 2) Stordeur et al. 2010:58
Ly 12107 8835 50 B0?, E; "récente" (1)
Stordeur et al. 2010:58
Ly 12781 8765 80 B 10?; E; "ancienne" US 382- ST 380 (2) CH
www.archeometrie.mom.fr/banadora/index.php, Stordeur et al. 2010:58
Ly 12782 8935 50 B 10?; E; "ancienne" US 350 mur 12 (2) CH
1)www.archeometrie.mom.fr/banadora/index.php 2) Stordeur et al. 2010:58
Ly 13696 8800 45 B2; E; moyenne; C4-US 595 CH
1)www.archeometrie.mom.fr/banadora/index.php 2) Stordeur et al. 2010:58
Ly 13697 9115 45 "moyenne" C11-US622 EA 32; B7 E CH
1)www.archeometrie.mom.fr/banadora/index.php 2) Stordeur et al. 2010:58
Lyon 2756 9235 45 US 344 - ST 339 CH
www.archeometrie.mom.fr/banadora/index.php
Lyon 3465 (Gra) 9220 45 B0; E, "récente"; C 2/3/8 -US 443 S
1)www.archeometrie.mom.fr/banadora/index.php 2) Stordeur et al. 2010:58.
Lyon 3466 (Gra) 9020 45 B0; E "récente" C 12/18-US 518/519 (2) CH
1)www.archeometrie.mom.fr/banadora/index.php 2) Stordeur et al. 2010:58
Lyon 3467 (Gra) 9170 40 B5; E; "Moyenne" C3-US 584 (2) CH
1)www.archeometrie.mom.fr/banadora/index.php 2) Stordeur et al. 2010:58
9805 - 8540 7855 - 6590 2666 - 2604 B. Chr.
 
 
Azraq
OxA-2412 8275 80 C, 19b CH
Hedges et al. 1992
OxA-870 8350 120 Sq1.1; no obvious traces of sturcutres, hearths, crude pavement CH
Gowlett et al. 1987 (online version); Betts 1989
8350 - 8275 6400 - 6325 2593 - 2588 B. Chr.


And part IV will be including some conclusions. And perhaps some caveats too.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Matthias Apostle
25.II.2016

Updated to make table better visible same day.

Update, next day: I sent this to H. G. K. Gebel yesterday and to a few of those having contributed in the references today. I am hoping to get a discussion with one or more of them, to be published on my correspondence blog, before going on to state my own conclusions./HGL

Monday, February 22, 2016

Letter A of ex oriente - II - continuing the preliminary


Letter A of ex oriente, on Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : I - preliminary to recalibrating, II - continuing the preliminary, III - explanation and results, on Creation vs. Evolution : IV - Conclusion

Finetuning a bit more to get the relevant areas finetuned.

I had confused the BP values in ensuing tables with BC ones, and therefore finetuned a bit that was too early to be relevant for most of what I was going to recalibrate.

Here I correct the default, finetuning to later parts of the conventional carbon date chronology.

Note that my finetuning is very rough.

Between the three original values of my table, I now have 15 + 15 intermediate values that do not form a curve, but rather a line or two lines, if you draw the graph. Ideally, it should be curved as the overall graph is a curve.

10 328 2778 finetuned
09 358 2733 09 358 2733
08 388 2688 09 115 2721
07 418 2644 08 873 2710
06 449 2599 08 630 2697
05 991 2554 08 388 2688
05 534 2509 08 145 2677
05 077 2465 07 903 2666
04 620 2420 07 660 2655
  07 418 2644
finetuned 07 578 2633
   06 933 2621
09 358 2733 06 691 2610
09 115 2721 06 449 2599
08 873 2710 06 334 2588
08 630 2697 06 220 2576
08 388 2688 06 105 2565
  05 991 2554
continuing that 05 879 2543
  05 762 2531
08 388 2688 05 696 2520
08 388 2688 05 534 2509
08 388 2688 05 420 2498
07 418 2644 05 305 2487
32 582 X708 05 191 2476
08 145 2677 05 077 2465
  04 965 2454
08 388 2688 04 848 2442
07 418 2644 04 759 2431
15 806 5332 04 620 2420
07 903 2666
  
08 388 2688
07 418 2644
07 418 2644
07 418 2644
30 642 X620
07 660 2655
  
07 418 2644
  
07 418 2644
07 418 2644
07 418 2644
06 449 2599
30 303 X531
07 578 2633
  
07 418 2644
06 449 2599
13 867 5243
06 933 2621
  
07 418 2644
06 449 2599
06 449 2599
06 449 2599
26 765 X441
06 691 2610
  
06 449 2599
  
06 449 2599
06 449 2599
06 449 2599
05 991 2554
25 338 X351
06 334 2588
  
06 449 2599
05 991 2554
12 440 5153
06 220 2576
  
06 449 2599
05 991 2554
05 991 2554
05 991 2554
24 422 X261
06 105 2565
  
05 991 2554
  
05 991 2554
05 991 2554
05 991 2554
05 534 2509
23 507 X171
05 879 2543
  
05 991 2554
05 534 2509
11 525 5063
05 762 2531
  
05 991 2554
05 534 2509
05 534 2509
05 534 2509
22 593 X081
05 696 2520
  
05 534 2509
  
05 534 2509
05 534 2509
05 534 2509
05 077 2465
21 679 9992
05 420 2498
  
05 534 2509
05 077 2465
10 611 4974
05 305 2487
  
05 534 2509
05 077 2465
05 077 2465
05 077 2465
20 765 9904
05 191 2476
  
05 077 2465
  
05 077 2465
05 077 2465
05 077 2465
04 620 2420
19 851 9815
04 965 2454
  
05 077 2465
04 620 2420
09 697 4885
04 848 2442
  
05 077 2465
04 620 2420
04 620 2420
04 620 2420
18 937 9725
04 759 2431
  
04 620 2420


To the left I show how I did my simplified finetuning, to the right I just show the series of values.

I do not consider this table (even before the roughness of my finetuning method) as absolutely veridical, since there are a few faults in the original table.

For one, I was not able to get help from a mathematician about how to make curves that incorporate several known values.

For another, it gives a slightly off value for Exodus.

And, perhaps the starting point with Flood dating at 20 000 - 50 000 BP should be reconsidered. Perhaps dinos with C14 come from the centuries after the Flood, like Mammuths with such. And there was very much less C14 pre-Flood.

In these cases, my starting point is flawed.

The continuation is arbitrary, in not incorporating many known and historically datable points. The over all curve (before this finetuning) was set up so as to allow a swift growth of C14 just after Flood and a slwoing down of it which leaves Exodus related C14 (if any) only a few centuries misdated. But I chose the shape of the curve, Fibonacci decrease of added C14, by convenience, not by realism.

Nevertheless, the values I give will, I hope, inspire more profound research and a better tool for redating. This precariousness of my values should be taken into account, but does not affect that the sites which have C14 dated material from what seem centuries, if athmosphere had same C14 value then as now, are reduced to decades.

On the other hand, my years are pre-Babel. This is contestable, if you consider all and every spreading out of man after Flood to be post-Babel.

The words And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech, do not preclude geographical spread. They do not even preclude diversity of style of artefacts.

The problem is whether next verse And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it, means that all moved and dwelt together without geographical spread, or allows for smaller groups not moving with this great collectivity, either due to already being non-participants in project later (a few verses later) known as Tower of Babel, or due to being expedition forces of smaller size, cut off geographically but not yet politically and culturally from the main body of foolish mankind.

Obviously, it is not through their own estimate that they prove there was no geographical spread: And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands.

Question again is, if verse 8 proves geographic unity pre-Babel: And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city. It could very obviously mean, that there was no geographic spread prior to Babel, but I hope (somewhat less obviously) that a geographical spread which previous to Babel was already touching all lands in small expedition forces politically connected to "the earth", after Babel became also a scattering, that is a disconnect from previous central power (most obviously Nimrod, perhaps) and from each other. If not, my values will be misleading.

Keep this in mind before relying on values I give in part III! God willing and circumstances permitting, that is.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Peter's Chair at Antioch
22.II.2016

Saturday, February 20, 2016

Someone said "l'amour est égoiste", CSL gave some distinctions

But in ordinary life no one calls a child selfish because it turns for comfort to its mother; nor an adult who turns to his fellow "for company." Those, whether children or adults, who do so least are not usually the most selfless.


Amazon : The Four Loves Paperback – September 29, 1971
by C. S. Lewis (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Four-Loves-C-S-Lewis/dp/0156329301/ref=la_B000APXBPG_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1455982313&sr=1-9


Amazon : The Four Loves (Harvest Book) Kindle Edition
by C. S. Lewis (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Four-Loves-Harvest-Book-ebook/dp/B003ZYETP0


Version for the poor:

https://www.calvin.edu/~pribeiro/DCM-Lewis-2009/Lewis/the-four-loves.pdf

Letter A of ex oriente - I - preliminary to recalibrating


Letter A of ex oriente, on Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : I - preliminary to recalibrating, II - continuing the preliminary, III - explanation and results, on Creation vs. Evolution : IV - Conclusion

On the tables from their site, limiting myself to the letter A, I find carbon datings ranging: 11450 - 7280 BP = 9500 B. Chr. - 5330 B. Chr. To recalibrate this, I use my not completely trustworthy, but so far by me best trusted

Fibonacci table for rise of Carbon 14 in athmosphere.

Relevant area in that table:
10 328 av. J.-Chr. - 6449 av. J.-Chr. - 4620 av. J.-Chr. (conventional radiocarbon dating)
= 2778 av. J.-Chr. - 2599 av. J.-Chr. - 2420 av. J.-Chr. (tentative recalibration to real dates, according to table).

However, since 10 328, 6449 and 4620 B. Chr. are a bit far apart, and since carbon dates do give nicer distinctions than those, I insert intermediates to the recalibration:

10 328 2778 09 358 2733
 
10 328 2778 09 358 2733
10 328 2778 09 358 2733
10 328 2778 09 358 2733
06 449 2599 08 388 2688
37 433 X933 36 462 X887
09 358 2733 09 115 2721
 
10 328 2778 09 358 2733
06 449 2599 08 388 2688
16 777 5377 17 746 5421
08 388 2688 08 873 2710
 
10 328 2778 09 358 2733
06 449 2599 08 388 2688
06 449 2599 08 388 2688
06 449 2599 08 388 2688
29 675 X575 34 522 X787
07 418 2644 08 630 2697
 
06 449 2599 08 388 2688
 
06 449 2599 10 328 2778
06 449 2599 finetuned:
06 449 2599 09 358 2733
04 620 2420 09 115 2721
23 967 X217 08 873 2710
05 991 2554 08 630 2697
 
06 449 2599 08 388 2688
04 620 2420 rougher intervals again:
11 069 5019 07 418 2644
05 534 2509 06 449 2599
 
06 449 2599 05 991 2554
04 620 2420 05 534 2509
04 620 2420 05 077 2465
04 620 2420 04 620 2420
20 309 9859
05 077 2465
 
04 620 2420


To the left I do the main insertion between the three dates, inserting three quarter distanced dates in between, and to the right, I fine tune one of these by inserting further quart distanced dates.

This will then be applied to the tables from ex oriente, as said, limiting myself to letter A. Stay tuned, I might be able to finish this next week.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Ember Saturday of Lent
20.II.2016

Site ex oriente: http://www.exoriente.org/

Friday, February 19, 2016

Pourquoi pas des Aqueducs au Moyen Âge?


Je viens de lire le livre (divers chapitres avec intérêt variable) de Georges Tessier sur Le Baptême de Clovis.

On a (après un peu d'arrière-fonds utile pour les lecteurs) le texte de Grégoire de Tours, tel quel, sauf que, plutôt que de nous donner la latinité version dhimotikie* de Grégoire (il maîtrisait probablement aussi la forme catharévouse* utilisée dans les chartes de la diplomatie, par exemple entre Francia et Byzance), mais une traduction à une langue qui en déscend après quelque temps et étapes.*

Ensuite il y a une discussion (trop moderniste à mon avis) sur ce qu'on "peut retenir" ou "ne peut pas retenir" des renseignements de Grégoire**.

Dedans, Tessier nous dit, sur la prise de Vienne*** qu'il considère tout renseignement sur une prise ou siège d'une ville comme relévant du romancé, et donc comme impossible à savoir, mais ceci à propos un renseignement curieux de Grégoire. Un serviteur ou esclave de la ville, chargé comme technicien, décide de se venger sur un affront, et il aide les soldats d'un général à entrer à travers l’aqueduc.

La même méthode avait été utilisée par Bélisaire à Naples.

Et si le non-maintien des aqueducs après ça aurait été une chose de précaution? Genre comme j'ai dit que la bonne précaution contre des nouveaux "onze septembres" n'est pas la dérive sécuritaire avec davantage et davantage de gardiens et contrôles, mais de ne plus bâtir des gratte-ciels? Surtout en présence d'aviation continuée?

Même dans l'autre version de l'histoire de l'Onze Septembre, la version complotiste, il y a un défaut dans la dépendance sur les technocrates et les techniciens : celle-ci n'admet pas non plus que cette technologie moderne soit sans des très hautes risques.

Enfin, peu importe pour notre propos sur l'homme du Moyen Âge si les histoires sur Vienne et Naples sont véridiques ou non. Au moins ils étaient crus, et à défaut considérées comme cohérents et donc possibles. D'où un intérêt de cesser de dépendre des aqueducs.

Mais à mon avis, les deux histoires sont véridiques, et après les prises Naples et Vienne n'ont dépendu des aqueducs que jusqu'à possibilité de se fournir avec d'eau d'une autre source pour les habitants restants - y compris la méthode de déménager en dehors d'une ville qui sans aqueduc ne pouvait plus fournir le même nombre de personnes avec de l'eau.

Ceci aussi à propos une bêtise chez l'idéologue Romanides ou son successeur°, que les Carolingiens auraient supprimé les villes romaines en Neustrie pour faire dominer les Franks ethniques. En réalité, comme le souligne Tessier, les deux peuples avaient cessé d'être très distinctifs l'un de l'autre après les génération Mérovingiens.

Mais, surtout, les aqueducs avaient prouvé qu'ils étaient un risque, en ne pas bloquant les conquérants de Vienne ou de Naples. Loin d'avoir un intérêt de les supprimer, on les débarrassait d'aqueducs pour les préserver d'être saccagées.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Vendredi des Quatre-Temps
de Carême
19.II.2016

* La latinité de Gaule, antérieure à Alcuin de York, avait une diglossie comparable à celle de la langue Grècque, et comme celle-ci, la prononciation était grosso modo la même - jusqu'à ce que Alcuin fasse pour la prononciation catharévouse une révolution comparable à celle que notre Érasme n'a pas réussi de donner à la catharévouse de Grèce, préalable involontaire ou au moins peu intentionnel, probablement, pour la révolution inverse de fournir, occasionnellement (Serments de Strassbourg), ensuite systématiquement la latinité dhimotikie avec une nouvelle orthographe. Dont les langues francoprovençales, d'oïl et d'oc. ** Le doute est surtout en sa place quand à la chronologie. On ne comptait pas encore en anno Domini, et à différence de Byzance pas en anno creationis ou anno mundi non plus - peut-être parce que la liturgie latine donne une valeur très différente de la valeur byzantine : Christ né en 5199 ou en 5508. Les latins n'avaient pas de grands doutes sur le premier, à partir de notre liturgie de Noël, et les chronologistes byzantins utilisaient le second. Donc, on peut douter que St Martin soit mort en 444 et Clovis en 555 - je ne savais pas que Grégoire de Tours avait fait cette mésaventaure très probable quand à la chronologie en large. Mais Clovis meurt à l'âge de 45, je n'en doute pas, il me semble probable que lui et un autre Mérovingien qui meurt tôt moururent en diabète non traité (une fois que les efforts militaires laissés à côté la laissait prendre le dessus). *** La ville où se tint le concile écuménique en 1313, pas celle qu'assaillèrent les Turcs en 1529 et 1683. °Je préfère n'y pas donner un lien ici, c'est aussi en anglais. J'y reviendrai peut-être avec une réfutation plus détaillée, en anglais, et alors je donnerai des liens.

Thursday, February 4, 2016

How did living in Brummagem help Tolkien as a linguist?

The Wikipeejuh : Brummie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brummie


Copying table of pronunciation:

Phoneme in English Phonetic in Brummie Example
/æ/[a]trap
/aʊ/[æʊ~æə]mouth
/eɪ/[ʌɪ]face
/əʊ/[ɑʊ]goat
/ʌ/[ʊ]strut
/ʊ/[ʊ]foot
/ɔr/[ʌʊə]force


Did you get it? English word "mouth" is usually pronounced as [aʊ], hence phoneme /aʊ/, which is what very many European or other Latin alphabet languages would spell as AU.

In Birmingham there are two pronunciations : [æʊ] and [æə]. The former might be spelled as EU, though that might (or instance in Classic Attic) have been more like [eʊ] in other languages using the spelling. But the second of these pronunciations is exactly what manuals of Old English (or Anglo-Saxon) describe the pronunciation of EA as having been.

If I try to learn Anglo-Saxon, I have to laboriously figure out how to pronounce EA. Bot Tolkien could have heard someone tell him "like mouth is pronounced in ..." (add name of village or city district where pronunciation was [æə]" and he certainly had been imitating the accent enough to get it right.

One more thing, this points to the successive pronunciations of MOUTH in Birmingham as having been successively [aʊ] > [æʊ] > [æə]. And that is probably how Common West Germanic AU became Anglo Saxon EA.

"Brummagem ... The word appeared in the Middle Ages as a variant on the older and coexisting form of Birmingham (spelled Bermingeham in the Domesday Book) and was in widespread use by the time of the Civil War. Brummagem (and historically also Bromichan, Bremicham and many similar variants, all essentially "Bromwich-ham") is the local name for the city of Birmingham, England, and the dialect associated with it (see, for example, Carl Chinn).[citation needed] It gave rise to the terms Brum (a shortened version of Brummagem) and Brummie (applied to inhabitants of the city, their accent and dialect, and frequently West Midlanders and their accents in general)."


And West Midlands is of course where Tolkien - about as good as you get on Anglo-Saxon linguistics - thought West Saxon traits were the purest, had best survived Norman invasion. Englishmen call a primary colour "red", historically "read"*, because they spoke Germanic with a Brummie accent.

A "Brummagem ware" might be** a shoddy imitation, but a Brummagem accent has a certain English brilliant originality to it.

How come I came across the word? Jess Phillips is in a Daily Mail article described as a Brummie.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Andrea Corsini***
4.II.2016

* As opposed to German rot from AU > O: before dentals, as opposed to Nordic Ö, probably through a modified Brummie : AU > ÆU > ÖU > Ö: . Update: sorry, not Nordic, but East Nordic. Icelandic has written AU pronounced as ÖU. ** Or might have formerly have been, back in days of Industrial Revolution of England. Before John Ruskin improved industrial products. *** Sancti Andreae Corsini, ex Ordine Carmelitarum, Episcopi Faesulani et Confessoris, cujus dies natalis agitur octavo Idus Januarii.