What about Ussher and Kent Hovind? Checking with Troy

This Sunday, St Joseph's Day, I set out to refute the carbonic implications of Kent Hovind's timeline. We'll see how the attempt ended, but first the statement and my first sketching out of implications.

"About 4400 years ago, there was a world wide Flood"

Anyone who has heard Kent Hovind say those words on a video, raise a hand (jk).

2400 BC

2.15 pmc

1400 BC

51.075 pmc

400 BC

100 pmc

This is if the levels form a straight line on a graph.

Otherwise we get instead

2400 BC

2.15 pmc

1400 BC

62.6213 pmc

400 BC

100 pmc

This latter is calculated as a "Fibonacci intermediary", see previous post on how I calculated values II, IV, VI, and so on. Between 2400 BC and 1400 BC, you have 1900 BC.

2400 BC

2.15 pmc

1900 BC

26.6125 pmc

1400 BC

51.075 pmc

400 BC

100 pmc

Or

2400 BC

2.15 pmc

1900 BC

41.9932634 pmc

1400 BC

62.6213 pmc

400 BC

100 pmc

Between 2400 and 1900 BC, there is 2150 BC.

2400 BC

2.15 pmc

2150 BC

14.38125 pmc

1900 BC

26.6125 pmc

1400 BC

51.075 pmc

400 BC

100 pmc

Or

2400 BC

2.15 pmc

2150 BC

26.77313678 pmc

1900 BC

41.9932634 pmc

1400 BC

62.6213 pmc

400 BC

100 pmc

Between 1900 BC and 1400 BC, there is 1650 BC.

2400 BC

2.15 pmc

2150 BC

14.38125 pmc

1900 BC

26.6125 pmc

1650 BC

38.84375 pmc

1400 BC

51.075 pmc

400 BC

100 pmc

Or

2400 BC

2.15 pmc

2150 BC

26.77313678 pmc

1900 BC

41.9932634 pmc

1650 BC

53.92 pmc*

1400 BC

62.6213 pmc

400 BC

100 pmc

And between 1400 BC and 400 BC, there was 900 BC.

2400 BC

2.15 pmc

2150 BC

14.38125 pmc

1900 BC

26.6125 pmc

1650 BC

38.84375 pmc

1400 BC

51.075 pmc

900 BC

75.5375 pmc

400 BC

100 pmc

Or

2400 BC

2.15 pmc

2150 BC

26.77313678 pmc

1900 BC

41.9932634 pmc

1650 BC

53.92 pmc*

1400 BC

62.6213 pmc

900 BC

85.7221 pmc

400 BC

100 pmc

Let's see what these levels would mean as to fake dates to the real dates - and recall, archaeology is usually dated in fake dates, sometimes of this type.

Straight line graph, first:

2400 BC

2.15 pmc, 31700 extra years, 34100 BC

2150 BC

14.38125 pmc, 16050 extra years, 18200 BC

1900 BC

26.6125 pmc, 10950 extra years, 12850 BC

1650 BC

38.84375 pmc, 7800 extra years, 9450 BC

1400 BC

51.075 pmc, 5550 extra years, 6950 BC

900 BC

75.5375 pmc, 2300 extra years, 3200 BC

400 BC

100 pmc, no extra years, 400 BC

According to this model, stone age would still be going on at the approximate time of Exodus, it would just have turned Neolithic some while ago.

I suppose 1650 BC might be an Ussher date for Joseph in Egypt? I check Haydock comment, which gives Year of the World 2369, Year before Christ 1635. This is Genesis 50:25. This would then have been also in Neolithic and clearly before any visible Egyptian unity.

Abraham was according to Ussher called Genesis 12:10: Year of the World 2084, Year before Christ 1920. So Isaac was born five years after 1900 BC, in 1895 BC. And this was Late Palaeolithic?

And King Solomon's Temple coincides roughly with early dynastic Egypt, Solomon is contemporary with Narmer (one pharao who actually has been carbon dated, though the raw date 3400 BC has been revised despite C14 to 3200 BC).

I suppose you can see why this table is useless, other than as illustration of one of its premisses being flawed.

Now, next table, the graph with Fibonacci intermediates:

2400 BC

2.15 pmc, 31700 extra years, 34100 BC

2150 BC

26.77313678 pmc, 10900 extra years, 13050 BC

1900 BC

41.9932634 pmc, 7150 extra years, 9050 BC

1650 BC

53.92 pmc*, 5100 extra years, 6750 BC

1400 BC

62.6213 pmc, 3850 extra years, 5250 BC

900 BC

85.7221 pmc, 1250 extra years, 2150 BC

400 BC

100 pmc

In this version, Exodus from Egypt is before Ur was a real city, but Solomon was at least later than Djoser (another pharao who has been carbon dated, which is rare in Egyptology, I have heard).

With these tables, no wonder that people discard Kent Hovind's and Henry M. Morris' idea of a rising carbon level.

I didn't stay here, I actually thought it might do to give Kent Hovind and Ussher a better chance than this.

That is why I came up with the levels table on the previous message here. I will now insert this timeline in 16 subdivisions into those tables.

I 2400 BC

2.142 pmc, + 31 800 years, 34200 BC

II 2275 BC

25.609 pmc, + 11 250 years, 13525 BC

III 2150 BC

40.195 pmc, + 7550 years, 9700 BC

IV 2025 BC

54.721 pmc, + 5000 years, 7025 BC

V 1900 BC

63.751 pmc, + 3700 years, 5600 BC

VI 1775 BC

72.689 pmc, + 2650 years, 4425 BC

VII 1650 BC

78.256 pmc, + 2050 years, 3700 BC

VIII 1525 BC

83.844 pmc, + 1450 years, 2975 BC

IX 1400 BC

87.316 pmc, + 1100 years, 2500 BC

X 1275 BC

90.665 pmc, + 810 years, 2085 BC

XI 1150 BC

92.752 pmc, + 620 years, 1770 BC

XII 1025 BC

94.992 pmc, + 430 years, 1455 BC

XIII 900 BC

96.376 pmc, + 310 years, 1210 BC

XIV 775 BC

97.486 pmc, + 210 years, 985 BC

XV 650 BC

98.188 pmc, + 150 years, 800 BC

XVI 525 BC

99.298 pmc, + 60 years, 585 BC

XVII 400 BC

100 pmc, no extra years, 400 BC

I think this is still a bit too much squeezing of conventional timelines a bit too late, since last millennium BC was fairly well documented.

Also, just before it, we have Troy sacked. This is too much squeezing for the current identification of sacked Troy with Troy VI. Or is this identification still current? I'll be checking. Here are Troy VII and Troy on wiki. Here is a selective and composite quote:

Troy VII ... was built following the destruction of Troy VIh,[2] probably by an earthquake c. 1300 BC. A number of layers are distinguished:

• Troy VIIa: ca. 13th century BC
• Troy VIIb1: 12th century BC
• Troy VIIb2: 11th century BC
• Troy VIIb3: until c. 950 BC

The city of the archaeological layer known as Troy VIIa, which has been dated on the basis of pottery styles to the mid- to late-13th century BC, lasted for about a century, with a destruction layer at c. 1190 BC. It is the most often-cited candidate for the Troy of Homer and is believed to correspond to Wilusa, known from Hittite sources dating to the period of roughly 1300–1250 BC.

The layers of ruins in the citadel at Hisarlık are numbered Troy I – Troy IX, with various subdivisions:[note 2]

• Troy I 3000–2600 BC (Western Anatolian EB 1)
• Troy II 2600–2250 BC (Western Anatolian EB 2)
• Troy III 2250–2100 BC (Western Anatolian EB 3 [early])
• Troy IV 2100–1950 BC (Western Anatolian EB 3 [middle])
• Troy V: 20th–18th centuries BC (Western Anatolian EB 3 [late])
• Troy VI: 17th–15th centuries BC
• Troy VIh: late Bronze Age, 14th century BC
• Troy VIIa: c. 1300–1190 BC, most likely setting for Homer's story
• Troy VIIb1: 12th century BC
• Troy VIIb2: 11th century BC
• Troy VIIb3: until c. 950 BC
• Troy VIII: c. 700–85 BC
• Troy IX: 85 BC–c. AD 500

Now, if the identification here of destruction layer carbon dated as 1190 BC with Trojan War is correct, there is no squeezing at all towards the beginning of first millennium BC.

If on the other hand the destruction identified as of an earthquake 1300 BC is really that of Trojan War, then the squeezing at beginning of the last millennium** BC was about 110 years. Or 60 years, if the earthquake is rather dated 1250 BC.

This is the position I was looking for when I started the tables : 1189 carbon dated as 1289.

If the above last table for Ussher chronology is right, we would have 1275 BC, a bit before Trojan War, dated as 1770 BC. This would make the city of Priam identic, not indeed to Schliemann's Troy II, but at least to Troy V.

On the other hand, if Schliemann was right, supposing this to be carbon dates, which is probable, "Troy II 2600–2250 BC (Western Anatolian EB 2)" would mean 1040 extra years at destruction of Troy. So, taking Schliemann's Troy for Priam's would mean above last table has a bit too little squeezing towards the end.

So, generally speaking, even with this best table, if my new start is better, Ussher's timeline is too short.

But of course, Kent Hovind might want to defend it by NOT taking the divisions I-XVII above in even chronological sequence, he might want to calibrate how fast and slow the progression goes.

I might want to do it myself in a while. For my own preference, the chronology of St Jerome, which is used in the Roman Martyrology, as usually with me. It might even be needed for Syncellus.

But more thereof, for another time.

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut "supra"***

* Omitting some zeros and further decimals.

** Or towards end of second to last millennium BC, rather.

*** Relative to layout on the blog, it is of course "ut infra".