4 ms·

From your first link, the only mention of radiocarbon dating is: In 2010, a series of corroborated radiocarbon dates were published for dynastic Egypt which su

From your first link, the only mention of radiocarbon dating is: In 2010, a series of corroborated radiocarbon dates were published for dynastic Egypt which suggest some minor revisions to the conventional chronology, but do not support Rohl's proposed revisions.[42]

zozbot234 5y ago
But if you posit that the generally-assumed Hallstatt Plateau is simply an artifact of incorrect relative dating, you recover Rohl's cronology pretty much exactly. This is significant because Rohl arrived at his chronology from unrelated observations about entirely different things, so the apparent plateau is strong additional evidence. One or the other alone would not be decisive in itself, but the overlap between them can be.
- bigbillheck 5y ago
  > But if you posit that the generally-assumed Hallstatt Plateau is simply an artifact of incorrect relative dating I don't think that you can. By my reading of https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Geochronology/Radiocarbon_dating#%22Hallstatt_disaster%22 https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Geochronology/Radiocarbon_da... (and with help of straightedge lined up against the graph) the Halstatt plateau refers to a particular range of years that standard radiocarbon dating has trouble with. Before and after this range, however, radiocarbon works as expected. The only connection I can see between Hallstatt and Rohl is the former is 340-ish years of uncertainty, and the maximal revision in the latter is 350-ish. (I should also point out that this kind of approximate matching is Fomenko's bread and butter). If you try to combine them by saying Hallstatt is a single instant and then moving everything up 350 years, I see several problems with that. First, Rohl's divergence with standard chronology is at the agreed-upon point of 664BCE, which is right in the middle of the Hallstatt plateau (760-440BCE). Second, Hallstatt was an actual culture with its own internal timeline, and whatever the radiocarbon numbers say there was substantial evolution during that time.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    "A single instant" when accounting for the ordinary noise of radiocarbon dating can be plenty enough for significant social evolution to take place. Other than that, the rest is simply a disagreement about how best to smooth over the "plateau" The assignment of 760-440 BCE to the plateau is somewhat conventional, the earlier dates in that range are the most "plateau-like" by far which is what we would actually expect if Rohl is correct and consensus chronology has a phantom time interval matching those dates.

zozbot234 5y ago

But if you posit that the generally-assumed Hallstatt Plateau is simply an artifact of incorrect relative dating, you recover Rohl's cronology pretty much exactly. This is significant because Rohl arrived at his chronology from unrelated observations about entirely different things, so the apparent plateau is strong additional evidence. One or the other alone would not be decisive in itself, but the overlap between them can be.

bigbillheck 5y ago
> But if you posit that the generally-assumed Hallstatt Plateau is simply an artifact of incorrect relative dating I don't think that you can. By my reading of https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Geochronology/Radiocarbon_dating#%22Hallstatt_disaster%22 https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Geochronology/Radiocarbon_da... (and with help of straightedge lined up against the graph) the Halstatt plateau refers to a particular range of years that standard radiocarbon dating has trouble with. Before and after this range, however, radiocarbon works as expected. The only connection I can see between Hallstatt and Rohl is the former is 340-ish years of uncertainty, and the maximal revision in the latter is 350-ish. (I should also point out that this kind of approximate matching is Fomenko's bread and butter). If you try to combine them by saying Hallstatt is a single instant and then moving everything up 350 years, I see several problems with that. First, Rohl's divergence with standard chronology is at the agreed-upon point of 664BCE, which is right in the middle of the Hallstatt plateau (760-440BCE). Second, Hallstatt was an actual culture with its own internal timeline, and whatever the radiocarbon numbers say there was substantial evolution during that time.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  "A single instant" when accounting for the ordinary noise of radiocarbon dating can be plenty enough for significant social evolution to take place. Other than that, the rest is simply a disagreement about how best to smooth over the "plateau" The assignment of 760-440 BCE to the plateau is somewhat conventional, the earlier dates in that range are the most "plateau-like" by far which is what we would actually expect if Rohl is correct and consensus chronology has a phantom time interval matching those dates.