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

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.

13th and 14th Century Medical Training and Texts (linking to Sofya la Rus, Mka Lisa Kies)

13th and 14th Century Medical Training and Texts
A Work In Progress
by Sofya la Rus, Mka Lisa Kies
http://www.sofyalarus.info/Medicine/trainingtexts.html

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.