Re-evaluation of Ancient Man in Britain

This author was inspired by Stuart Piggott's "Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles" and Donald A. Mackenzie's "Ancient Man in Britain", two excellent books focused on Britain's supposed past, from prehistoric to Roman times.

Below is a summary of British history from my Main Industries chart which can be found in the section "Chronology of Neolithic Man - part two". As a prefatory note, I have decided to confine this study to showing how the exact chronology of Ussher compares to conventional historic dates starting from 3900-4000 BC (2295 BC Ussher). As you can see on the JPG Graph, linear correspondence does not extend beyond 2295 BC Ussher (3900-4000 BC Conventional). Regarding earlier Carbon-14 dates attributed to the biblical Flood and ancient ice ages that lie outside the JPG Graph coordinates, I have been advised that Young Earth Creationists have invalidated these dates for historical purposes.

It should therefore be born in mind in this connection that a total of only 6000 conventional years is acknowledged by this author.

This Author is a follower of Stuart Piggot's  "Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles; and Mr Donald A Macenzie's  "Ancient Man in Britain" which are two very exelent books focussed on Britain's supposed Pre-historic past to the Romans.

This is a Sumary of British history from my main industries chart at my website http://www.johnhextfremlin.com. For the Main Industries chart please go to "Chronology of "Neolithic Man"" part two. As a Preforatory note the auther has decided to confine himself to conventional dates showing the Ussher exact chronology match up startimg from 3900-4000 BC (2295 BC) as per linear JPG Graph which will not allow me to go any further than this as the top date 2295 BC lies on the straight line of co-ordinates of 3900-4000 BC.

Please bear in mind in this connection that Flood Related Radio Carbon /14 dates such as 10,000 and 48,000 BC for supposed ancient ice ages for the Flood do not match up on the JPG Graph co-ordinates and I have been advised that YEC's have invalied these dates for historical purposes. Thus 48,000 BC=2349/2348 BC Flood Date.

It should therefore be borne in mind in this connection that only a total of 6000 conventional years wnly is here allowed by this author

Evaluation as per linear JPG Graph (below):-

Events...........................Exact Ussher Date......................Conventional Great Flood.........................2348 BC

End of Flood Pre-dynastic Neolithic/Bronze/ Iron and Steel Industries............................2347 to 2189/2188 BC

First world Surveys Neolithic/Bronze/Iron and steel industries also Neolithic explorers and farmers to Britain..........................2265 BC-2295 BC...............3900-4000 BC

Peleg Devision Madai finds his land covered in ice and explores Britain (Genesis appocraphon) and Cromagnon Palaeolithic Huntergatherers Sidon mines for copper and tin in what is now Cornwall.................................2247 BC.........................3400 BC

Ootzy the iceman explores Germany in the Alps (Neolithic/ Copper)and start of Babel..........................................2235/2234 BC................3300 BC

Cichol Gricenchos bourne 2250 BC and  becomes mature leader of Formorei Huntergatherers at 25 and lands in Northwest Scotland plus hunting grounds maybe in Ireland..................................2225 BC (compromise would suggest)

Despersion from Babel and possible Ice Planet flyby and start of Ice age witnessed by Job...................................2191 BC

Misraem founds Egypt Dynasty one (eb1) and Neolithic groups under Cichol Gricenchos found and colonise the village of Skara Brae.........................2189/2188 BC...............3215 BC

Samothes (Meschec) Neolithic groups and huntergatherers in Britain..........................2135 to 2082 BC

Albion Son of Sidon invade and rule Britain and maybe has some Neanderthals in his team................................................2082 to 2038 BC

Albion is slain and defeated by Nimrod's general in France "Herculese" and 310 years after the flood Samothes Neolithic groups colonise Britain with first possible construction of Stone Henge......................................,2038 BC........................3000 BC

Parthelonian Neolithic groups colonize Ireland...................................2035 BC........................3000 BC

Partholan engages Cichol and the formorei (Picts) at Battle of Magithe and Skara Brae abandoned......................................2025 BC.......................about 2655  BC

 The Amesbury archer Late Neolithic/ Early Bronze called by archaeologists "The Bell Beaker Culture" found buriedwith two copper daggers some gold and 15 flint arrowheads came from

Switzerland after the defeat of Albion in the city building era from France via the Rhone valley and the second construction of stone henge probably started at this time......................................1960 BC..............2300 BC

Exodus and Ice age meltdown.....................................................1491 BC

(From 2191 to 1491

=700 years for the Ice age as per Mike Oard)

Re-introduction of the Bronze Industry (eb1) when Hu Gadarn came to the "Honey islands" (Britain) and found there living water monsters when he first penetrated it’s uninhabited forests and silent planes..............................1421/1365 BC

Brutus colonizes Britain and fights rement of cananite giants while Goamagot is reserved to wrestle with Corenius who throws him off a cliff.....................................................1152 BC   ALTERATION: This date is now revised to 1118 BC as the date of the Trojan war is 1184 BC

Late Bronze......................................722-585 BC

Line of British Kings ends and re-introduction of Iron Industry.................................585-549 BC

Morindus King of Britain (Iron A)..............................549-546 BC

Iron B:- The Latene Celts in Britain...........................................330-300 BC

 The Two invasions of Julius Caesar..............................55 and 54 BC Conquest of Britain under Claudius................................AD 43 

 Queen Boadicea and the Iceni Revolt against Roman rule under Nero and burn and sack Colchester...................................AD 61

Angles, Saxons and Jutes attack Britain as the Picts were always a problem for the Romans throughout the period of Roman Rule and the Legions are called back to Rome to defend it against attacks from the Goths Vandels and huns.....................................AD 410

End of Historical Summary.

Please note everyone that this work is only a summary of the historical events covered by the main industries chart at my website;

http://www.johnhextfremlin.com

For those interested in reviewing my table also please click the icon Chronology of "Neolithic Man" Part two for the main chart.

Thus it should be bourne in mind in this connection that the terms "Palaeolithic Man" "Neolithic Man" "Bronze age Man" Iron age Man &c mean little or nothing to this Author but the term "Neolithic Man" is an invention of my brother who is loathed to get rid of some of these evolutionary "Rubber Goal Post Terms" who very kindly helped me set up my website.

Thus for my money the term if you like Neolithic/Bronze/Iron and Steel industries is most definitely my invention but I think it is a good one which is against the usual labels of evolutionists

Thus the main reason for putting this table together is the fact that I thought that it is about time an honest re-evaluation of British ancient history was and is overdue and it must be achieved this author insists. The main reason thus in summary is to match up historical

conventional chronology from archaeological sites with the exact Ussher dates starting from 4000 BC (2295)

Of particular interest in this connection is the fact that some sites in Palastine date from 4000 BC according to conventional schollars which they call the Archaeological "Chalcolithic" a term which this author rejects and in itsplace Neolithic /Bronze/Iron and Steel.

Thus in Summary then the terms Palaeolithic "Neolithic" "Bronze/Iron and Steel are confined by this author to industries ownly and not ages and are usefull labels when dealing with historical sites and cultures.

Thus these labels are the only labels here allowed by this author.

JXF to BILL COOPER
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 6:56 PM, John hext-fremlin wrote:
Dear Bill I am delighted to say that my Re-evaluation Document and jpg linear correspondence is up and running and has been published on my website. To view document please click the icon "Re-evaluation of Ancient Man in Britain".

I have printed and copied Donovan Courville's chart pertaining to the "Exodus Problem" which is on my website at http://www.johnhextfremlin.com/ and would like to point out that he Courville uses the "Thiel chronology" for his conventional 10,000 BC=2300 BC as far as the Pre-dynastic period in Egypt is concerned and thus as a result he is way off by 47 Years which added to 2300=2347 BC on the Ussher chronology.

The book of Genesis insists as do I that from 2347 to 2189/2188 BC as far as Egypt is concerned is what archaeologists call Pre-dynastic thus the matching conventional date needs to be 10,000 BC=2347 BC by adding 47 Years to the Thiel chronology thus 2300+47=2347 BC in Ussher's correct chronology which would cover the whole period (as well as the first world survey teams 2295 BC] up to and including 2189/2188 BC (Founding of Egypt by Misraem which is the first dynasty) so I need to stress that Iam very thourough with my Ussher chronology and leave no stone "unturned.

However as far as the chronology document and jpg linear correspondence goes very kindly sent to me by Mike Fischer I cannot go beyond 2295 BC as the linear correspondence will not let me exeed that date, accept to mention the conventional 10,000 BC dating in the text ownly but most definitely not in the chart to match2347 BC.

Darrell White has also pointed out that as far as RC/14 dates are concerned the nearer the flood date 2348 BC the steeper the callibreation curve. Thus I would make an urgent request as far as the historic Genesis narrative is concerned to change Courville's conventional dating to 10,000 BC=2347 BC. Do you think Bill that this could be achieved by the Creation Science Movement? John


BILL COOPER to JXF
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:40 PM, W COOPER wrote:
The chap who did have expertise in this field is now no longer with us. But he did use to refer to Barry Setterfield's work on the speed of light. Setterfield found that if you extrapolated backwards the decay of the speed of light, then at about 4000 BC the exponential curve goes off the scale. In other words, the speed of light was infinite at the Creation. The speed of light profoundly affects the decay rate of C14. I have no references for you right now (I'm in the middle of researching Joshua), but Google Barry Setterfield (Australian) and you will find references to follow up. Hope this helps.

Bill.

Bill Cooper PhD ThD
Vice President Creation Science Movement
Adjunct Professor Master Faculty ICR School of Biblical Apologetics

JXF to BILL COOPER
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:12 AM, John hext-fremlin  wrote:
Dear Bill most interesting and many thanks for this. Thus this must be part of the reason why the linear correspondence will not let me exeed the the conventional date of 4000 BC which in our terms is 2295 BC for the earliest world survey teams. By the way Bill I wish you very good hunting into your research on Joshua. John

THE  MYSTERY OF THE PICTS

(JXF AND MF)

Dear John,
Keith Hunt presents a most fascinating analysis of the question: who were the Picts? The many linguistic connections are creative and surprising, as is the symbol of intertwined serpents on a cross. He concludes that
"They were presumably a branch of the primitive small-statured, narrow-browed and long-headed dark race of matriarchist Serpent-worshipping cave-dwellers... who, in early prehistoric times in the Old Stone Age, sent off from this central hive swarm after swarm of "hunger-marchers" under matriarchs, westwards across Asia Minor to Europe, as far as Iberia and the Biscay region, after the retreating ice. The hordes, which ultimately reached Albion overland, formed there the "aborigines" of Albion. They appear to have entered Southern Albion by the old land-bridge at Kent, after the latter end of the last glacial period, when the reindeer, mammoth and woolly rhinoceros still roamed over what is now called England. And then, long ages afterwards, in the late Stone Age, presumably before 2000 B.C., they gave off a branch to Erin under a Van, Ban or Fian matriarch, forming the aborigines of Ireland.
I wonder two things. First, are there today, perhaps in northern Britain, people who display dark skin, short stature, long heads, and narrow brows? Second, if there was a Phoenician heritage, would not they have tended to travel by sea rather than march overland to Europe and cross a land-bridge to Britain? There does not appear to have been a nautical tradition among the Picts.
The complete disappearance of the Picts around 850 A.D. is not even in the deep mist of the past, yet it is a mystery in itself. How much greater are the difficulties of your search into 1000 B.C., 2000 B.C, and beyond. For that I wish you good hunting.
Mike
Subject: Re: A very interesting article on the Picts by Keith Hunt SOS
Dear Mike I have found a very interesting article on the Picts (Formorei) by Keith Hunt. According to Keith Hunt there were Ancient Phoenicians whom by his dating arrived in Britain about 2800 BC (Would this be about 2082 BC for the arrival of Albion?) I suspect so.
It seems that the Phoenicians were in possession of the tin mines in Cornwall even at this early date. It's interesting that if so the Phoenicians used Bronze sparingly and made flint tools for the purpose of mining for metals and keeping the technology a closely guarded secret from the natives of this country.


Please let me know what you think of this article Mike; Meanwhile good hunting John
On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 11:34 PM, John hext-fremlin <johnhextfremlin@googlemail.com> wrote:
Note Keith Hunt suggests they were enslaved by the Phoenicians on his chronology about 2800 BC (Would this be about 2082 BC time of Albion and Bergeon?) apparently Bergeon ruled Ireland and the Orkneys. John

Dear John,

The popular definition of the Fomorians on Wikipedia is "In Irish mythology, the Fomoire (or Fomorians) are a semi-divine race said to have inhabited Ireland in ancient times. They may have once been believed to be the beings who preceded the gods, similar to the Greek Titans. They seem to represent the gods of chaos and wild nature, as opposed to the Tuatha Dé Danann who represent the gods of human civilization." The Encyclopedia Mythica entry at http://www.pantheon.org/articles/f/fomorians.html says "In Irish-Celtic mythology, the Fomorians are a race of demonic giants, ancient occupants of Ireland (or sometimes mentioned as a mythical, prehistoric people who raided and pillaged Ireland from the sea). The first to invade Ireland were the Partholons, but after many battles the Fomorians afflicted them all with plague. After them came the Nemeds, who in their very first battle were defeated and enslaved. The third wave of invaders, the Firbolgs, were more successful and they subdued the Fomorians and managed to live peacefully with them. After a period of peace, the Tuatha Dé Danann, the Irish race of gods, arrived. They conquered the Firbolgs, but dealt more subtly with the Fomorians, although they destroyed their hegemony over Ireland for good in the second battle of Mag Tuireadh. The Fomorians were given the province of Connacht, and were even allowed to marry some of the Tuatha Dé. The king of the Fomorians is the one-eyed Balor."

From your investigations, how do these representations square with the truth?

As you predicted several years back, the "official" view of Neanderthals has changed, and continues to change, in the direction of increased humanity. Their cultural level, technological ability, integration with "modern" humans, position in pre-history, and even their appearance are being upgraded. I agree that the history you developed shows Neanderthals to be extremely enterprising. Mainstream opinion is still a long way from seeing Neanderthals as Canaanites, but the door is more open now than before to evidence related to Neanderthals. Admittedly, it will take some work to show them as mariners. Regarding their height, 5' 4" does not seem to be particularly short for ancient people.

It is clear Keith Hunt uses the conventional chronology. The value of his contribution would rest in the associations he finds among language and peoples rather than dates.

In the end, evidence always beats convention.

Mike
Subject: Re: A very interesting article on the Picts by Keith Hunt SOS

Dear Mike I have taken a brief look at chapter ten and Keith Hunt confirms that the picts or abouriginees of Britain and Ireland (though more specially Northern Scotland and Skara Brae 2189/2188 BC) were in fact the formors so if you click on to the previous chapter you will find I am correct.

Thus it would have been impossible for Sessair to have arrived in Ireland shortly before the flood as everything was destroyed. More likely I suggest at the time of division in Peleg's day probably about 2247 BC to claim her fishing grounds I suggest in Ireland until when Cichol (the Footless which is to do with the serpent) arrived In Ireland in 2225 BC to commence hunting and gathering and fowling and fishing 200 years before battle of Magithe with Partholan in 2025 BC. Please note Mike Keith hunt is wrong about Partholan arriving in 400 BC because he arrived in Ireland in 2035 BC. These are the dates given me by Darrell .

Of further particular interest in this connection is the fact that the Neanderthals were short and stocky (and called giants in strength Neanderthal/Nephilim) and measured about 5 feet and four inches tall and used red ochre paint (found at Skara Brae) and match up with the same stature and hight of the Picts or Formors

Bell Beaker Culture: Chronological and Archaeological Research

I find that almost all Archaeological headlines and research has been build on Evolutionary assumptions and takes the few more factual information we have and tries to fit them into Evolutionary assumptions by sweeping generalizations, Inferences, and pure speculation.  Inferences and Speculation are good and we must used these tools also, but we must always differentiate between them and more factual information – and it is good to be aware of all Inferences and speculation (it helps us) but we certainly should not to take them too seriously.  Even the most factual information we find in these Archaeological papers is based on an array of evolutionary assumptions.

1) Bell Beaker Culture  (BBC)

http://www.nature.com/news/ancient-genome-study-finds-bronze-age-beaker-culture-invaded-britain-1.21996

  Around 4,500 years ago, a mysterious craze for bell-shaped pottery swept across prehistoric Europe. … for more than a century.   …. After a few hundred years, the pots vanish from the record. …. By 2000 bc, signals of Neolithic ancestry disappear   …. Roberts says he doesn’t see evidence for such a huge shift in the archaeological record. The rise of cremation in Bronze Age Britain could have biased the finding, he cautions, because it might have eliminated bones that could have been sampled for DNA [dkw – during the time Albion ruled – Phoenician trade would be easy, when defeated, trade would have broken off and french and Netherlands groups colonized southern England.  OR Trade broken off by Ice Age Melt down.]

1A)   Around 4,500 years ago, a mysterious craze for bell-shaped pottery swept across prehistoric Europe. [dkw – about 1960 BC and lasting a very short time]

2A)   After a few hundred years, the pots vanish from the record. [dkw – could suggest that something happen which disrupted Trade]  [dkw – during the time Albion ruled – Phoenician trade would be easy, when defeated, trade would probably have been broken off and French and Netherlands groups colonized southern England.  OR Trade broken off by Ice Age Melt down.]

     A study:   skeletons found near Bell Beaker artifacts share few genetic ties — suggesting that they were not one migrating population. [dkw – thus more likely a vast group traded with the Phoenicians who sold these near all coast lands] …. The variety of Beaker artifacts makes it hard to define them as emerging from one distinctive culture: many researchers prefer to call their spread the ‘Bell Beaker phenomenon’, says Marc Vander Linden [dkw – world wide trade]

…. Even Beaker-associated people in the same region came from different genetic stock. [TRADE not people group culture]  .. says Skoglund. Bell Beaker “is the best example of something that is pots and not people” that are spreading, 

3A)  A study:   skeletons found near Bell Beaker artifacts share few genetic ties — suggesting that they were not one migrating population. [dkw – thus it is more likely a vast group of peoples traded with the Phoenicians who sold these near all coastal lands]

3B) The variety of Beaker artifacts makes it hard to define them as emerging from one distinctive culture: many researchers prefer to call their spread the ‘Bell Beaker phenomenon’, says Marc Vander Linden [dkw – world wide trade]

3C)  Even Beaker-associated people in the same region came from different genetic stock. [TRADE not people group culture]  .. says Skoglund. Bell Beaker “is the best example of something that is pots and not people” that are spreading,      

     But in Britain, individuals connected to Beaker pots seem to be a distinct, genetically related group  [dkw: appears similar to Netherlands BBC]  that almost wholly replaced the island’s earlier inhabitants   [dkw an inference from lack of data – a hypothesis, but weak.]  surprising,” says Pontus Skoglund, … “The people who built Stonehenge probably didn’t contribute any ancestry to later people, or if they did, it was very little.”  [dkw – It is likely that the Phoenicians/Global Survey Teams originally built the megaliths – which latter where kept up and improved by later colonists]

 3D) But in Britain, individuals connected to Beaker pots seem to be a distinct, genetically related group  [dkw: appears similar to Netherlands BBC – note: 2 distinct people groups traveled up the Rhone River – one formed the colonies around the Paris Basin and the other Germanic group formed the colony of Trier on the Rhine River region (near the Netherlands).  The maps and genetics I have seen suggests that many from that group migrated to England.]

4A)  analysed the genomes of 19 Beaker individuals across Britain and found that they shared little similarity with those of 35 Neolithic farmers there. The pot-makers were more closely related to 14 individuals from the Netherlands, and had lighter-coloured skin and eyes than the people they replaced. [dkw – lighter coloured skin and eyes -  suggest that the beaker group was likely not of Phoenician background.  Based on John's research, the Phoenician would have darker skin.] [dkw – if the time is right 1935 BC our time, then England's peoples may have been replace the peoples from colonies in France or Netherlands – fair skinned and lighter eyes].

5)  surprising,” says Pontus Skoglund, … “The people who built Stonehenge probably didn’t contribute any ancestry to later people, or if they did, it was very little.”  [dkw – It is likely that the Phoenicians/Global Survey Teams originally built the megaliths – which latter where kept up and improved by later colonists]

Inference:  that almost wholly replaced the island’s earlier inhabitants   [dkw an inference from lack of data – a hypothesis, but weak.]  Roberts says he doesn’t see evidence for such a huge shift in the archaeological record. The rise of cremation in Bronze Age Britain could have biased the finding, he cautions, because it might have eliminated bones that could have been sampled for DNA.  Note: Inferences are not facts, but desire consideration.

6)   The distinctive pots, possibly used as drinking vessels, are nearly ubiquitous; flint arrowheads, copper daggers and stone wrist guards are common, too. But there are regional differences in ceramics and burial style [dkw – suggests Trade with different people groups]. 

Mixing Data:  A 2004 analysis of strontium isotopes, which vary according to regional geochemistry, suggested that some Beaker-associated individuals did migrate in their lifetimes …  from Russia and Ukraine area. …  1 million DNA variants across the genomes of individuals who lived in Europe between 4700 and 1200 bc  [dkw yes but not specific enough to focus on hundred years of BBC, this vast amount of time corresponds to Hu from Ukraine region migrating to Britain area – as likely many other groups in region migrated eastward also]

Above Headline is an Inference based on many assumptions based on Evolution.  [dkw – why displaced Neolithic Farmers?  What basis was the association made?  What basis was the connection with Megaliths made with Neolithic Farmers?  Farmers is an Evolutionary assumption I suspect – which is now repeated by everyone.]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2313677/Why-did-Europeans-suddenly-disappear-4-000-years-ago-Experts-reveal-evolutionary-mystery--say-makers-Stonehenge-hold-key.html

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_H_mtDNA.shtml
see distribution on above link. Picture doesn't load here.

Speculation: They say the rapid expansion of the Bell Beaker culture, which is believed to have been instrumental in building the monoliths at Stonehedge, could hold the key.  [dkw this contradicts previous article – now BBC built monoliths not Neolithic.] ….  to eastern England, where it may have been responsible for erecting some of the megaliths at Stonehenge.

Inference=Fact: What is intriguing is that the genetic markers of this first pan-European culture [dkw: another contradiction - now it is a single culture], which was clearly very successful, were then suddenly replaced around 4,500 years ago, and we don't know why,'  [dkw – if the time is right 1935 BC our time, then England's peoples would have been replace the peoples from France and Netherlands – fair skinned and lighter eyes]

Beaker folk lived about 4,500 years ago in the temperate zones of Europe   … A warlike race, they were primarily bowmen and their extensive search for copper and gold greatly accelerated the spread of bronze      [dkw –  those in the temperate zone where hunters of animal along the ice glaciers of Europe and Russia.  Bows would have been key to attacking animals from safe distances.  Copper useful in finishing them off.   silly inferences = mixing users with seekers of gold, hunters want tools – Phoenicians wanted resources for production for trade.] 

Mixed Data:  Corded Ware Peoples: and likely mixed Time Periods also.

'The record of this maternally inherited genetic group, called Haplogroup H, shows that the first farmers in Central Europe resulted from a wholesale cultural and genetic input via migration, beginning in Turkey and the Near East where farming originated  

7)  The map of H1 and H3 Haplogroups corresponds well with maps of the Monolithic and Beaker Bell Cutures.  Also particularly well with the Phoenicians.

Inference now = Fact:  'We have established that the genetic foundations for modern Europe were only established in the Mid-Neolithic, after this major genetic transition around 4000 years ago,' says Dr Haak. 

'This genetic diversity was then modified further by a series of incoming and expanding cultures from Iberia and Eastern Europe through the Late Neolithic.

8) Appearance:   'The expansion of the Bell Beaker culture (named after their pots) appears to have been a key event, emerging in Iberia   [dkw – could be that the Phoenician Traders (key ports in Spain and Portugal) found a type of pot they thought would sell well and traded for them?  It appears elsewhere these pots where manufactured in Northern Spain.]

https://www.nature.com/news/steppe-migration-rekindles-debate-on-language-origin-1.16935

Two fresh studies — one of ancient human DNA, the other a newly constructed genealogical ‘tree’ of languages — point to the steppes of Ukraine and Russia as the origin of this major language family, rekindling a long-standing debate.

[dkw supports migration from Ukraine region likely after Ice age melt down]

This ‘Anatolian hypothesis’ is supported by well-documented migrations into Europe, where agriculturalists replaced or interbred with the existing hunter-gatherers.   

Speculation:  domestication of horses and invention of wheeled transport would have allowed herders there to rapidly expand their range. Proponents of the ‘steppe hypothesis … Most linguists have signed up to the steppe hypothesis [dkw – actually we believe boats where used in earliest and secondary migrations – Troy and Athens where built in 1450 BC, 1 year after Jericho fell – about the time of the flood of the black sea and the rising of the Mediterranean sea after channel formed)

One knock against the theory was a lack of compelling evidence for a large-scale migration from the Eurasian steppe at this time.

A study of ancient human DNA posted to the bioRxiv.org preprint server on 10 February now plugs that gap

But they also revealed evidence for a second migration that began several thousand years later.    [[ HU ect.]

DNA recovered from steppe herders called the Yamnaya, who lived in what are now Russia and Ukraine around 5,000 years ago, closely matched that of 4,500-year-old individuals from present-day Germany, who were part of a group known as the Corded Ware culture that encompassed most of northern Europe. 

 Yamnaya ancestry survives in the genomes of modern Europeans, with northerners such as Norwegians, Scots and Lithuanians maintaining the strongest link.

 https://hms.harvard.edu/news/steppe-forward

http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/04/2017/understanding-how-the-corded-ware-culture-was-formed-in-europe

Corded ware vessel, an axe and two discs made of amber from an early male grave. Image: Danish National Museum

8)  showed that the large demographic changes during the first part of the Bronze Age happened as a result of massive migrations of Yamnaya people from the Pontic-Caspian steppes into Neolithic Europe. They were also able to show that plague was widespread in both Europe and Central Asia at this time.  [[A plague might correspond to the Exodus] but a famine happened in Abraham's time.]

In our grand synthesis we argue that Yamnaya migrants were predominantly males, who married women who came from neighbouring Stone Age farming societies” These Stone Age Neolithic societies were based on large farming communities reflected in their collective burial ritual often in big stone chambers, so called megaliths. Very different from the traditions of the incoming migrants.

 The Yamnaya people originated on the Caspian steppes where they lived as pastoralists and herders, using wagons as mobile homes. From burial pits archaeologists have found extensive use of thick plant mats and felt covers.  

The continent encountered by the Yamnaya people around 3000 BC had seen a decline in the agrarian Stone Age societies, thereby allowing space for incoming migrants. This decline was probably the result of a widespread plague from Siberia to the Baltic.

“Existing archaeological evidence of a strong 90% male dominance in the early phase of the Corded Ware/Single Grave Culture settlement in Jutland, Denmark, and elsewhere can now be explained by the old Indo-European tradition of war bands of young males who did not have any inheritance to look forward to. Therefore they were probably more willing to make a career as migrating war bands.”

“In our big Bronze Age study, published in 2015 we were astonished to see how strong and fast the genetic changeover was from the Neolithic to the Corded Ware. There was a heavy reduction of Neolithic DNA in temperate Europe, and a dramatic increase of the new Yamnaya genomic component that was only marginally present in Europe prior to 3000 BC. Moreover, the apparent abruptness with which this change occurred indicates that it was a large-scale migration event, rather than a slow periodic inflow of people“.

[dkw:  maybe the plague helped with the change – or other catastrophic happenings]

9)  Therefore it was possible to conclude that the Neolithic people were not speaking an Indo-European language, as did the Yamnaya migrants.

https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/corded_ware_culture.shtml nice summary of corded ware culture

 Quick Facts

•                     Also known as the Battle Axe culture or Single Grave culture.

•                     Associated with the diffusion of Proto-Germanic and Proto-Balto-Slavic speakers.

•                     Blend of cultural elements of the earlier Funnelbeaker culture in the North European Plain with the PIE steppe culture (Yamna).

•                     Mobile pastoral economy relying mostly on cattle and occasional cereal cultivation.

•                     Regular use of horses and oxe-drawn wagons. Presence of copper and bronze artefacts as well as stone battle-axes.

•                     Coarse pottery typically decorated with twisted cord impressions, and sometimes with other types of impressions or incisions. Use of beakers and cups for drinking.

•                     The dead were inhumed in flat graves inside a small mound. Bodies were laid on their side with bent knees. Wagons/carts and sacrificed animals were present in graves.

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/benelux_france_dna_project.shtml#History

The Proto-Celto-Germanic branch of R1b (L11) settled around Bohemia and eastern Germany circa 2800 BCE and established the Unetice culture, the Bronze Age culture which would expand across all Western Europe and Scandinavia over the next millennium, and replace the Neolithic/Chalcolithic Bell Beaker culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indo-European_migrations.gif#/media/File:Indo-European_migrations.gif

Wonderful Chronological Sequence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture

9A)  Radiocarbon dating seems to support that the earliest "Maritime" Bell Beaker design style is encountered in Iberia, specifically in the vibrant copper-using communities of the Tagus estuary in Portugal around 2800–2700 BC and spread from there to many parts of western Europe.[3][14] An overview of all available sources from southern Germany concluded that Bell Beaker was a new and independent culture in that area, contemporary with the Corded Ware culture.   [[dkw – again confirms contemporary with corded ware culture to the east AND likely Maritime = Trading Phoenicians.]]

for animation above see the wikipedia reference above and look for it.

9B)  Bell Beaker people took advantage of transport by sea and rivers, creating a cultural spread extending from Ireland to the Carpathian Basin and south along the Atlantic coast and along the Rhône valley to Portugal, North Africa and Sicily, even penetrating northern and central Italy.[34] Its remains have been found in what is now Portugal, Spain, France (excluding the central massif), Ireland and Great Britain, the Low Countries and Germany between the Elbe and Rhine,  [dkw – assumes Bell Beaker people are a people group transporting rather than users of goods traded by Phoenicians who transported them.]

….

1B, 2B)  Beakers arrived in Britain around 2500 BC, declined in use around 2200–2100 BC with the emergence of food vessels and cinerary urns and finally fell out of use around 1700 BC (Needham 1996).

4B)  The earliest British beakers were similar to those from the Rhine (Needham 2005), but later styles are most similar to those from Ireland (Case 1993). In Britain, domestic assemblages from this period are very rare, making it hard to draw conclusions about many aspects of society. Most British beakers come from funerary contexts. [dkw – Netherlands connection].

10A) Britain’s only unique export in this period is thought to be tin. It was probably gathered in streams in Cornwall and Devon as cassiterite pebbles and traded in this raw, unrefined state.[75] It was used to turn copper into bronze from around 2200 BC and widely traded throughout Britain and into Ireland. Other possible European sources of tin are located in Brittany and Iberia, but it is not thought they were exploited so early as these areas did not have Bronze until after it was well established in Britain and Ireland.[76]

The most famous site in Britain from this period is Stonehenge, which had its Neolithic form elaborated extensively. Many barrows surround it and an unusual number of 'rich' burials can be found nearby, such as the Amesbury Archer. Another site of particular interest is Ferriby on the Humber estuary, where western Europe’s oldest plank built boat was recovered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amesbury_Archer  

11) Archer lived during Bell Beaker time period:  The Archer's grave yielded the greatest number of artefacts ever found in a Bronze Age burial in Britain. Among those discovered were: five funerary pots of the type associated with the Beaker culture; three tiny copper knives; sixteen barbed flint arrowheads; a kit of flint-knapping and metalworking tools, including cushion stones that functioned as a kind of portable anvil and that suggest he was a coppersmith; and some boar's tusks. On his forearm was a black stone wrist-guard. A similar red wrist-guard was by his knees. With the second wrist-guard was a shale belt ring and a pair of gold hair ornaments, the earliest gold objects ever found in England.[5]

Research using oxygen isotope analysis in the Archer's tooth enamel has suggested that he may have originated from an alpine region of central Europe. An eroded hole in his jaw showed that in life he had suffered from an abscess, and his missing left kneecap suggests that he had an injury that left him with a painful lingering bone infection.

Tim Darvill regards the skeleton as possibly that of a pilgrim to Stonehenge to draw on the 'healing properties' of the bluestones.[13]

https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/britain_ireland_dna.shtml#origins

12)  The Bell Beaker cultural phenomenon did not in fact replace the Megalithic culture in western Europe, but coincided with it. The Beaker people continued to use common Megalithic burials (e.g. passage graves) like their Neolithic ancestors. In central Europe, where no Megalithic culture existed, bell beaker artefacts nevertheless appear due to the presence of “3E)” western European merchants. … It is perhaps the wealth of Megalithic people that attracted, through the Beaker network,

….

The southern R1b branch had advanced from the Hungarian plain to Bohemia and Germany by 2500 BCE (presence of R1b confirmed by Lee at al. 2012), and continued its migration until the Atlantic coast, reaching Britain and western France by 2,200 BCE and Ireland by 2,000 BCE.

It is likely that these Proto-Celts who invaded the British Isles belonged to a great majority to the L21 subclade of R1b, as this haplogroup now makes up over two thirds of paternal lineages in Wales, Ireland and Highland Scotland. In fact, Cassidy et al. (2015) tested the genomes of three Bronze Age individuals from Rathlin Island in Ireland dating from between 1550 and 2000 BCE, and found out that they all belonged to R1b-L21 and were almost genetically indistinguishable from the genomes from the Unetice culture in Central Europe at the same period, confirming that a migration from central Europe to Ireland had brought R1b-L21 by 2,000 BCE.

13) In contrast, Cassidy's team found that the genomes of the Neolithic inhabitants of Ireland were almost identical to those of other Neolithic farmers in Europe and did not carry Steppe ancestry.

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#L21

14)  It is doubtful that the Bell Beaker culture (2800-1900 BCE) in Western Europe was already Indo-European because its attributes are in perfect continuity with the native Megalithic cultures. The Beaker phenomenon started during the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic in Portugal and propagated to the north-east towards Germany. During the same period Bronze Age Steppe cultures spread from Germany in the opposite direction towards Iberia, France and Britain, progressively bringing R1b lineages into the Bell Beaker territory.

3F) It is more likely that the beakers and horses found across Western Europe during that period were the result of trade with neighbouring Indo-European cultures, including the first wave of R1b into Central Europe.

Speculation:  It is equally possible that the Beaker people were R1b merchants or explorers who traveled across Western Europe and brought back tales of riches poorly defended by Stone Age people waiting to be to be conquered. This would have prompted a full-scale Indo-European (R1b) invasion from about 2500 BCE in Germany, reaching the Atlantic (north of the Pyrenees at least) around 2200 BCE.

https://www.livescience.com/58555-corded-ware-culture-arose-from-intermarriages.html

Using isotope tests that look for molecular variations in teeth that are due to an individual's diet, researchers have found that between 28 percent and 42 percent of the women in the graves spent their childhoods following a grain-rich agricultural diet — "bread and muesli," Kristiansen said.

"That was not the diet of the Corded Ware people," he said. "They were into yogurt and meat and cheese and things like that."  Inference:  This dietary evidence suggests that Corded Ware men married women from established agricultural areas in Europe, perhaps by force.  [dkw- could easily suggest women farmed and men hunted]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/british_prehistory/bronzeageman_01.shtml

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/middx/vol1/pp36-41

Rathlin Island and Bronze Age notes. JXF and DW

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Darrell White wrote:
John,

An Update on Link sent about ICR and RC14

In 1994 John Morris of ICR wrote a book on the Age of the Earth called "The Young Earth".
In it he explains (pages 64-67) how the amount of C14 built up from near zero (basic creationist theory).
This is where the concept of expotential rather than linear conversion comes from. It Must be somewhere on the Icr sites. If you search you will probably find it.

As stated in prev. letter - most dates you work with from 2200 BC to 1760 BC should translate adequately in linear form - so use your Chart-tables.

Darrell

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 11:53 AM, John hext-fremlinwrote:
Ok Darrell thanks for that info; however I'll do what you sugest but there is a sticking point that I'm having problems with and that is the Rathlin Island "Bronze age " date which I need to look up one more time before I complete myreply to you. Problem I sometimes have with sending emails is they completely vanish from pc screen so I'll do this right away then get back to you

From: John hext-fremlin
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 12:59 PM
To: Darrell White
Subject: Re: ICR

I can't find the "Bronze age " date for Rathlin Island right now but I think it was of the order of 1534-2028 cal BC. There is something obviously wrong with this conventional date that complecates things. I have to say again that the Battle of Magithe was in 2025 BCand that Partholan wasthe first person to colonise Ireland in 2035 BC (Ussher timeline) the 2028 date calibrated is nearly the same as 2025 BC with 3 yrs diffrence. I have tosay that this idea is nonsense as Partholan was the first to colonise. Seems like the 2200 conventional date covers Nemed and Britain Mael. There is ownly 440 years diffrence between 2200 and 1760 BC;Thus Nemed was 1725 BC and Britain Mail 1755 BC 5 years less than 1760 BC to be exact. Perhaps the 1760 carbon date is a bit offfor Nemed and Britain Mail I don't know.

Am I correct in assuming that 2500 BC in conventional terms is about 1900 BC in Ussher chronology given that the village of Skara Brae was abandoned in 2025 BC which is 2655 BC in conventional terms. What I basicly need to know Darrell (Yes or No) is 2500 conventional dating =1900 BC as a crude guess? John

I went to the attic and found my old file folder on Egyptian chronology. The RC dates noted and adjusted to Ussherian suggest it would take a lot of time to resolve.
But
I found an attempt I made at a conversion RC14 to Ussherian that I attempted - don't even know if it is accurate.
It had Ussher 2200 BC as about 3000 BC RC14, Ussher 2100 BC as 2700 BC RC14, Ussher 2000 BC as 2440 BC, and Ussher 1900 BC as RC14 2200 BC.

Then a note: Great Pyramid - Ussher 1925 to 1905 BC construction. No RC14 date (it is stone) but Egyptian Chronology suggests Great Pyramid in 2600 BC. But most old kingdom RC14 dates are thrown out since they don't fit Secular chronology, so 2600 BC is not a RC14 date.

This is all I can do for now, hope it helps.
My next email will explain why I am to over loaded to help with your project at this time.
Darrell

From: John hext-fremlin
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 5:55 PM

To: Darrell White
Subject: Re: ICR

Hi Darrell yes that's absolutely fine for now although thed ate you gave me for the founding and colonisation of Skara Brae Ussher 2189 BC and conventional RC/14=3215 BC (I remember you actually advised me of that date) and its abandonment in 2665 BC conventional =Battle of Magithe Cichol and Partholan =2025 BC so these two dates if you like are written in "stone" I'm ok with 2000 BC Ussher = about 2440 BC Conventional at a crude guess plus the rest looks ok but as you say will need to check them withmy graph. John


On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Darrell White wrote:
John,
Been think and think the chart I found was a crude first attempt. should have use 3200 BC rather than 3000 BC to match 2200 BC - but some Egyptian Chronologist use 3000 BC as founding of Egypt other 3200 BC and some even 3300 BC. But these estimates by Seculars are seldom based on RC14 but linear chronology via Manetho.
Darrell

From: John hext-fremlin
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 7:54 PM

To: Darrell White
Subject: Re: ICR

That's absolutely fine Darrell, By the way 3300 BC is for the building of Babel 2234/2235BC. Interestingly Ootzy the iceman also overlaps and is contemporary with this date. Interesting you should say linear chronology via manetho, Perhaps that is what mine is although maybe I don't know it.

If there was BBc in Ireland sugest using 1960 BC if the Samothes groups overlapped with Partholan after 2035 BC then at least we can speculate about it so what do you reckon Darrell? / John
 

NOTE FROM DW

John,

Appreciate your work and find it interesting. Trying to fit arch. digs and sites with the Ussherian and Historical Records is indeed an interesting concept and a challenge.

This Fall I added to much to my research project (which does involve the study of how time functions).

......

I do not know when my schedule will be back to normal, but it will be many months at least. I know I must cut things out now.

During that time You should not expect any replies from me. If I get duplicate emails sent to me, I will just stop reading all.

Not that I am not interested, I just that I can't handle it right now.


Best Wishes,

Darrell

Ok Darrell I accept what you say to me so for now if it.s ok with you I will have to leave the Irish history exactly as I have written it at my website and will have toinsist as I still do that Partholan was the first co colonizer and then Nemed 1725BC (Sugest late Neolithic/Early Bronze and the same with Britain Mail Scotland 1755 BC) Sugest Nemed and Britain Mail may have been "BBC" as the BBC time frame seems to fit these two dates quite nicely would'nt you aggree?)

The rest of the Bronze industry in Ireland as a whole is made up of the Firbolgue Tuatha de danaan eb1 and the Milesians (Middle to Late Bronze) I will make this email the last one for now however as part of this last email I will send you the Irish timeline (The one you sent to me) and leave it at that for a few months. Don't forget most of the archaeological Irish Bronze age is post-post flood rapid ice age rapid meltdown post 1491 BC exactly as I have it on the main industries chart (Chronology of Neolithic Man part 2) Best wishes John

Darrell White
12/28/17 (10 days ago)

to me
John,


An Update on Link sent about ICR and RC14


In 1994 John Morris of ICR wrote a book on the Age of the Earth called "The Young Earth".

In it he explains (pages 64-67) how the amount of C14 built up from near zero (basic creationist theory).

This is where the concept of expotential rather than linear conversion comes from. It Must be somewhere on the Icr sites. If you search you will probably find it.


As stated in prev. letter - most dates you work with from 2200 BC to 1760 BC should translate adequately in linear form - so use your Chart-tables.



Darrell


John hext-fremlin
12/29/17 (9 days ago)

to Darrell
Ok Darrell thanks for that info; however I'll do what you sugest but there is a sticking point that I'm having problems with and that is the Rathlin Island "Bronze age " date which I need to look up one more time before I complete myreply to you. Problem I sometimes have with sending emails is they completely vanish from pc screen so I'll do this right away then get back to you


On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Darrell White <white_darrell@hotmail.com> wrote:
John,


An Update on Link sent about ICR and RC14


In 1994 John Morris of ICR wrote a book on the Age of the Earth called "The Young Earth".

In it he explains (pages 64-67) how the amount of C14 built up from near zero (basic creationist theory).

This is where the concept of expotential rather than linear conversion comes from. It Must be somewhere on the Icr sites. If you search you will probably find it.


As stated in prev. letter - most dates you work with from 2200 BC to 1760 BC should translate adequately in linear form - so use your Chart-tables.


Darrell



John hext-fremlin <johnhextfremlin@googlemail.com>
12/29/17 (9 days ago)

to Darrell
I can't find the "Bronze age " date for Rathlin Island right now but I think it was of the order of 1534-2028 cal BC. There is something obviously wrong with this conventional date that complecates things. I have to say again that the Battle of Magithe was in 2025 BCand that Partholan wasthe first person to colonise Ireland in 2035 BC (Ussher timeline) the 2028 date calibrated is nearly the same as 2025 BC with 3 yrs diffrence. I have tosay that this idea is nonsense as Partholan was the first to colonise. Seems like the 2200 conventional date covers Nemed and Britain Mael. There is ownly 440 years diffrence between 2200 and 1760 BC;Thus Nemed was 1725 BC and Britain Mail 1755 BC 5 years less than 1760 BC to be exact. Perhaps the 1760 carbon date is a bit offfor Nemed and Britain Mail I don't know.

Am I correct in assuming that 2500 BC in conventional terms is about 1900 BC in Ussher chronology given that the village of Skara Brae was abandoned in 2025 BC which is 2655 BC in conventional terms. What I basicly need to know Darrell (Yes or No) is 2500 conventional dating =1900 BC as a crude guess? John


On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 11:53 AM, John hext-fremlin <johnhextfremlin@googlemail.com> wrote:
Ok Darrell thanks for that info; however I'll do what you sugest but there is a sticking point that I'm having problems with and that is the Rathlin Island "Bronze age " date which I need to look up one more time before I complete myreply to you. Problem I sometimes have with sending emails is they completely vanish from pc screen so I'll do this right away then get back to you

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Darrell White <white_darrell@hotmail.com> wrote:
John,


An Update on Link sent about ICR and RC14


In 1994 John Morris of ICR wrote a book on the Age of the Earth called "The Young Earth".

In it he explains (pages 64-67) how the amount of C14 built up from near zero (basic creationist theory).

This is where the concept of expotential rather than linear conversion comes from. It Must be somewhere on the Icr sites. If you search you will probably find it.


As stated in prev. letter - most dates you work with from 2200 BC to 1760 BC should translate adequately in linear form - so use your Chart-tables.


Darrell




Darrell White
12/29/17 (9 days ago)

to me
John,


I went to the attic and found my old file folder on Egyptian chronology. The RC dates noted and adjusted to Ussherian suggest it would take a lot of time to resolve.

But

I found an attempt I made at a conversion RC14 to Ussherian that I attempted - don't even know if it is accurate.
It had Ussher 2200 BC as about 3000 BC RC14, Ussher 2100 BC as 2700 BC RC14, Ussher 2000 BC as 2440 BC, and Ussher 1900 BC as RC14 2200 BC.


Then a note: Great Pyramid - Ussher 1925 to 1905 BC construction. No RC14 date (it is stone) but Egyptian Chronology suggests Great Pyramid in 2600 BC. But most old kingdom RC14 dates are thrown out since they don't fit Secular chronology, so 2600 BC is not a RC14 date.


This is all I can do for now, hope it helps.

My next email will explain why I am to over loaded to help with your project at this time.

Darrell



Darrell White
12/29/17 (9 days ago)

to me
John,

By linear here I might rather than overlapping dynasties as in my chronology chart.

Speculation is always a good first step to finding fits. If an early BBC existed in Ireland, which I don't concede, the it could have been some of the victors who move into S. England and via land bridge at time, possible south eastern Ireland as a remote possibility, but not as real colonizers.

So I reckon yes.


Darrell

From: John hext-fremlin
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 7:54 PM



Darrell White
That's absolutely a brilliant idea so yes I'll go with that idea Darrell as a good first step to finding fits and at least that way we have got something positive to work with and yes crossing the landbridge at the time is indeed a remote possibility so this gives us a very good and interesting thread. Dont know why I did'nt think of it before. John

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Darrell White wrote:
John,

By linear here I might rather than overlapping dynasties as in my chronology chart.

Speculation is always a good first step to finding fits. If an early BBC existed in Ireland, which I don't concede, the it could have been some of the victors who move into S. England and via land bridge at time, possible south eastern Ireland as a remote possibility, but not as real colonizers.

So I reckon yes.


Darrell

From: John hext-fremlin
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 7:54 PM

To: Darrell White
Subject: Re: ICR

That's absolutely fine Darrell, By the way 3300 BC is for the building of Babel 2234/2235BC. Interestingly Ootzy the iceman also overlaps and is contemporary with this date. Interesting you should say linear chronology via manetho, Perhaps that is what mine is although maybe I don't know it.

If there was BBc in Ireland sugest using 1960 BC if the Samothes groups overlapped with Partholan after 2035 BC then at least we can speculate about it so what do you reckon Darrell? / John

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Darrell White wrote:
John,

Been think and think the chart I found was a crude first attempt. should have use 3200 BC rather than 3000 BC to match 2200 BC - but some Egyptian Chronologist use 3000 BC as founding of Egypt other 3200 BC and some even 3300 BC. But these estimates by Seculars are seldom based on RC14 but linear chronology via Manetho.

Darrell



From: John hext-fremlin
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 5:55 PM

To: Darrell White
Subject: Re: ICR

Hi Darrell yes that's absolutely fine for now although the date you gave me for the founding and colonisation of Skara Brae Ussher 2189 BC and conventional RC/14=3215 BC (I remember you actually advised me of that date) and its abandonment in 2665 BC conventional =Battle of Magithe Cichol and Partholan =2025 BC so these two dates if you like are written in "stone" I'm ok with 2000 BC Ussher = about 2440 BC Conventional at a crude guess plus the rest looks ok but as you say will need to check them withmy graph. John

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Darrell White wrote:
John,


I went to the attic and found my old file folder on Egyptian chronology. The RC dates noted and adjusted to Ussherian suggest it would take a lot of time to resolve.

But

I found an attempt I made at a conversion RC14 to Ussherian that I attempted - don't even know if it is accurate.
It had Ussher 2200 BC as about 3000 BC RC14, Ussher 2100 BC as 2700 BC RC14, Ussher 2000 BC as 2440 BC, and Ussher 1900 BC as RC14 2200 BC.


Then a note: Great Pyramid - Ussher 1925 to 1905 BC construction. No RC14 date (it is stone) but Egyptian Chronology suggests Great Pyramid in 2600 BC. But most old kingdom RC14 dates are thrown out since they don't fit Secular chronology, so 2600 BC is not a RC14 date.


This is all I can do for now, hope it helps.



Darrell



From: John hext-fremlin
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 12:59 PM
To: Darrell White
Subject: Re: ICR

I can't find the "Bronze age " date for Rathlin Island right now but I think it was of the order of 1534-2028 cal BC. There is something obviously wrong with this conventional date that complecates things. I have to say again that the Battle of Magithe was in 2025 BCand that Partholan wasthe first person to colonise Ireland in 2035 BC (Ussher timeline) the 2028 date calibrated is nearly the same as 2025 BC with 3 yrs diffrence. I have tosay that this idea is nonsense as Partholan was the first to colonise. Seems like the 2200 conventional date covers Nemed and Britain Mael. There is ownly 440 years diffrence between 2200 and 1760 BC;Thus Nemed was 1725 BC and Britain Mail 1755 BC 5 years less than 1760 BC to be exact. Perhaps the 1760 carbon date is a bit offfor Nemed and Britain Mail I don't know.

Am I correct in assuming that 2500 BC in conventional terms is about 1900 BC in Ussher chronology given that the village of Skara Brae was abandoned in 2025 BC which is 2655 BC in conventional terms. What I basicly need to know Darrell (Yes or No) is 2500 conventional dating =1900 BC as a crude guess? John

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 11:53 AM, John hext-fremlin wrote:
Ok Darrell thanks for that info; however I'll do what you sugest but there is a sticking point that I'm having problems with and that is the Rathlin Island "Bronze age " date which I need to look up one more time before I complete myreply to you. Problem I sometimes have with sending emails is they completely vanish from pc screen so I'll do this right away then get back to you

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Darrell White
John,


An Update on Link sent about ICR and RC14


In 1994 John Morris of ICR wrote a book on the Age of the Earth called "The Young Earth".

In it he explains (pages 64-67) how the amount of C14 built up from near zero (basic creationist theory).

This is where the concept of expotential rather than linear conversion comes from. It Must be somewhere on the Icr sites. If you search you will probably find it.


As stated in prev. letter - most dates you work with from 2200 BC to 1760 BC should translate adequately in linear form - so use your Chart-tables.


Darrell

Rathlin Island ("Bronze age ")

From Mike Fisher

 

My estimates based on the linear JPG graph are (Conventional/Ussher): 2000 BC/1934 BC    2400 BC/1972 BC     2500 BC/1983 BC

Mike

Subject: The carbon date of 2000 and 2500 BC
From: John hext-fremlin

Dear Mike I have descovered what the conventional date of 2800 BC is in Ussher chronology. The BBC or Bell Beaker culture was in Germany (Trier 2000 years before Julius Caesar and Caesar bourne in 79 BC Thus the founding of Trier= 2079BC= 2800 BC in conventional terms. I have also descovered that the Bell Beaker phenomenon was a craze about pots and not people groups although I think the Phoenicians started seeling people groups bell shaped pottery so it was pots that spread and not people so much so likely tobe of diffrent ethnic groups so after the defeat of Albion in 2038 BC Darrell thinks that German  Groups abd Netherlanders colonised Britain in 196o (2300 BC)

What are the carbon dates of 2000; 2400 and 2500 BC in Ussuer chronology/ John

Dear Mike it's great to hear from you for such a long time. However I had'nt given the Rathlin Island data much thought than of late as for being outside of the  information for forming a linear graph; but Darrell has pointed out that some of the linear chronology could be based on Manetho, and thus your extrapolation of the Rathlin Island date1536-2024 cal BC is a most interesting case inpoint which deals with the Nemed and Firbolgue situation. Thus I would think that in conclusion as Darrell rightly says the "Bell Beaker" phenomenon was more about the movement of pots than people Groups. Thus I have a take from Darrell on the early "Bronnze age " of Britain and Europe from my web article "Re-evaluation of Ancient Man in Britain that I would like to share with you as I think the whole of that site makes very interesting reading so would enclose the attatched item with this email. John