My Tables End In Real Year 1032 (1028) BC, Dated As 940

Creation vs. Evolution : Article and Details, Please? · Baumgardner Gave the Title, I Found the Link · My Tables End In Real Year 1032 (1028) BC, Dated As 940 · And What About the Lowering of Carbon 14 Level? · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Interaction with John Baumgardner

1028 BC

1.010887 pmC/100, so dated as 938 BC

New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

Now, what do we get from that Cambridge site?

We have two alternatives, depending on whether radiocarbon years were given in Libby or Cambridge halflife. Let's start with assuming Cambridge halflife, and see where that leads:

760

dated as 550, so 102.573

450

dated as 550, so 98.798

330

dated as 230, so 101.217

But if the radiocarbon years were expressed in Libby dates, here is the same rearranged into Cambridge dates and what that implies

760

dated as 625, so 102.14

450

dated as 625, so 98.38

330

dated as 295, so 100.424

1032 - 760 = 272 years to go from 101.089 pmC to 102.573 pmC or 102.14 pmC? No problem.

The problem in knowledge is of course to know how well the calibration of archaeologists into real dates of provenance of samples is based on good historic dating. I would already here consider dendrochronology rather iffy. But as far as it goes, this is of course at least a slight cofirmation of my tables - with the proviso, the calibration by Cambridge further back than 760 BC is not confirmed by or confirming my own tables.

760 is, providentially, very close to 753 BC - the founding of Rome by Romulus. As I cited Raymond Bloch Les Origines de Rome (probably the 1959 work, not the 1946 one, since citing arcaheology done in 1948), the city carbon dated then to 6th C. BC could be from way earlier ....

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Francis Borgia, SJ
10.X.2020