Has Kristian Kristiansen at Gothenburg University Disproven My Calibration?

Has Kristian Kristiansen at Gothenburg University Disproven My Calibration? · A Reminder to Kristian Kristiansen · Dates for Scandinavian Prehistory, Revisited, Most Recent Tables

Here is his research, which I just found on Academia:

Repeated plague infections across six generations of Neolithic Farmers
Kristian Kristiansen | 2024, Nature
https://www.academia.edu/122070422/Repeated_plague_infections_across_six_generations_of_Neolithic_Farmers

Here are the dates framing this overall:

In the period between 5,300 and 4,900 calibrated years before present (cal. bp), populations across large parts of Europe underwent a period of demographic decline. Some argue for an agricultural crisis resulting in the decline, others for the spread of an early form of plague. Here we use population-scale ancient genomics to infer ancestry, social structure and pathogen infection in 108 Scandinavian Neolithic individuals from eight megalithic graves and a stone cist. We find that the Neolithic plague was widespread, detected in at least 17% of the sampled population and across large geographical distances. ...

3300 BC to 2900 BC.

New blog on the kid : Mes plus récentes tables de carbone 14
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2024/05/mes-plus-recentes-tables-de-carbone-14.html

While I cited and belatedly linked to this article of mine, I did not mention it directly in previous. So, what would the dates really reduce to in my Creationist recalibration?

1868 av. J.-Chr.

84,1262 pcm, donc daté à 3318 av. J.-Chr.

1845 av. J.-Chr.

84,5892 pcm, donc daté à 3245 av. J.-Chr.

...

1756 av. J.-Chr.

86,4346 pcm, donc daté à 2956 av. J.-Chr.

1734 av. J.-Chr.

86,8913 pcm, donc daté à 2884 av. J.-Chr.

For each pair, we'll polish* the exact pmC for the excess years, first:

3318 - 1868 = 1450, 0.5^(1450/5730) => 83.912 pmC
3245 - 1845 = 1400, 0.5^(1400/5730) => 84.421 pmC

It turns out that for both of following, getting closer to one extreme works better than getting equidistant, but in diverse directions.** In each case, I will both analyse the pmC value by a carbon 14 calculator and analyse the years it's supposed to correspond to.

(1868 + 1868 + 1845) / 3 = 1860 BC
(83.912 + 83.912 + 84.421) / 3 = 84.082 pmC
1860 + 1450 = 3310 BC
1860 + 1433 = 3293 BC

2956 - 1756 = 1200, 0.5^(1200/5730) => 86.488 pmC
2884 - 1734 = 1150, 0.5^(1150/5730) => 87.013 pmC

(1756 + 1734 + 1734) / 3 = 1741 BC
(86.488 + 87.013 + 87.013) / 3 = 86.838 pmC
1741 + 1150 = 2891 BC
1741 + 1167 = 2908 BC

Wait ... the mean value of three years over 5730 is actually getting us to the exponent, not to the mean value of the pmC itself ...

0.5^(1433/5730) => 84.085 pmC > 84.082 pmC, so, the latter, actual result of the medium, will add more extra years than 1433.

0.5^(1167/5730) => 86.834 pmC < 86.838 pmC, so, the latter, actual result of the medium, will add fewer extra years than 1167.

Anyway, the period 3300 BC to 2900 BC translates to c. 1860 to 1741 BC, 119 years instead of 400.

So, how sure are we that any part of the data show actual six generations of individuals, and is 119 years overall too few for them?

Well, 119 / 6 = 19.8 years.

The Frälsegården pedigree includes 61 individuals in total (38 sampled and 23 inferred individuals) spanning six generations. The pedigree comprises two sublineages/subfamilies (left and right side of Fig. 3, respectively). We found that the subfamily to the left had an unsampled progenitor whereas one male progenitor was found to be the ancestor of all male lineages in the subfamily to the right, through his three sons. ... The chronological span of the six-generation pedigree at Frälsegården can be estimated at approximately 150–180 years if we assume a mean generation length of 25–30 years [27]. Because many of the individuals have been directly dated, we also estimated the chronology by Bayesian modelling. This gave very similar results and supported the overlapping datings of the two branches at both Frälsegården and Landbogården, with a potentially earlier start of the Frälsegården left branch (Extended Data Fig. 5, Supplementary Figs. 7–9, Supplementary Note 3 and Supplementary Tables 11–13).

Now, the supplementary figure 9 shows early datings starting with 5240 BP (3290 BC) and ending in 4843 PB (2893 BC). I e basically all the span of the period we are dealing with and beyond if we take into account margins of error (5240 BP = 5336 to 5118 BP; 4843 BP = 4880 to 4806 BP). This means, we are not even stuck with just 119 years in my recalibration, we are going beyond, and 19 + years per generation is not over the top too quick.

Plus, I was not sure how much the six generations is about six consecutive generations with in each case pedigrees going, patrilineary wise 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 in Sosa Stradonitz, or shorter, and how much this was supplemented by statistics of overall likeness between generations. But I'll give a low value to this copout, it could be me misundertanding the structure of the article, I am not overly used to reading this, though less unused than when I started, and I'm forced to read it online without printing it out first, lack of resources.

When I have went out to archaeologists to see if they had found things disproving my calibration, it was not just rhetoric. If this research had given a pedigree guaranteed of six degrees from "farfars farfars far" to "sonsons sonsons son" as they would call it in Swedish, and my recalibration for the dates had given 10 years per generation, a total of 60 years, rather than 119 or as we see 119 +, this would obviously have proven my recalibration wrong, at least in this part.

Barring misunderstandings on my side, this was fortunately not the case.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris, Georges Pompidou, Bpi
St. Henry I, Emperor***
15.VII.2024

PS, three days later, no answer, I contacted him the same evening I wrote above./HGL

* For purposes of calculation, I'll leave it unrounded, at firts, then,for reading purposes, I'll round it before publication.
** I test equidistant first. This way, (a + b) / 2, I can see whether I need to take (a + a + b) / 3 or (a + b + b) / 3, or whether (a + b) / 2 is adequate.
*** He's sometimes reckoned as Henry II, but when I look up the line from Charlemagne to him, on wiki, "Henry II" is not preceded by any other "Henry I" meaning it would be correct to count him as Henry I.