(P.4) Fomenko’s Carbon Dating, Ch. 1.15.3, Vol. 1, History: Fiction or Science?

This article contains my analysis of Fomenko’s History: Fiction or Science?, Volume 1, Chapter 1, Part 15.3. Chapter 1.15 is titled “ARE RADIOCARBON DATINGS TO BE TRUSTED?”, and part 1.15.3 is titled “Modern radiocarbon analysis of Egyptian artefacts demonstrates serious contradictions”.

Total: 11
Supported: 8
Contradicted: 1
Undetermined: 2

Total Determined: 9/11 (81.81%)
Supported: 8/9 (88.88%)
Contradicted: 1/9 (11.11%)

As of right now, Fomenko’s grade on this part is 88.88% (8/9), which is a B+.[4]

Fomenko’s overall grade is shown on the overview article: Examining Fomenko’s New Chronology.

Advertisements
Advertisements

Fomenko’s Citation

# [1196] Hodge KC and Newton GWA “Radiocarbon Dating. Manchester Museum Mummy Project. Multidisciplinary Research on Ancient Egyptian Mummified Remains”. – Edited by A. Rosalie David. Published by Manchester Museum. Distributed by Manchester University Press, Manchester, England, 1979, pp. 137-147.

The Examination

Claim 1:

“We shall once again consider the alleged reliability of the radiocarbon method as used for supporting the traditional version of the “ancient” history, particularly Egyptian, as reflected in a fundamental and detailed article published by the Manchester Museum in England in 1979 as part of the project named “The Mummies of the Manchester Museum”([1196]). This most remarkable material was recommended to us by
Professor A. Kravtsevich from the Alberta University Department of Mathematics, Edmonton, Canada.”

Claim 1 is supported. Throughout this section, they focus on information provided in their citation. Also, they got the citation correct.

Claim 2:

“The topic of the article is a dating that had amazed the authors of the article and put them in a quandary ([1196]).”

Claim 2 is supported.

Claim 3:

“The radiocarbon dating of the mummy # 1770 from the Manchester Museum collection had ascribed the mummy’s bones to 1000 b.c., whereas the cloth that the mummy has been wrapped in received the dating of 380 a.d.”

Claim 3 is supported.[3, p.137]

Claim 4:

“The discrepancy between the datings of the mummy and the cloth equals to roughly 1400 years, although the dates should be equal.”

Claim 4 is supported.

Claim 5:

“The cloth may have been somewhat older than the mummy if an old cloth had been used by the embalmers, but it couldn’t possibly have belonged to a later age.”

Claim 5 is undetermined. Why could it not have?

Advertisements
Advertisements

Claim 6:

“According to the authors of the article, this gap of nearly a millennium and a half cannot be explained by the possible errors of the radiocarbon dating, the way it is usually done today.”

Claim 6 is supported.

Claim 7:

“That is why they had to come up with the rather amusing “explanation” that the old mummy had been exhumed after fifteen hundred years, and re-wrapped in a new cloth, and then restored to its rightful place as though it had remained unperturbed all the while.”

Claim 7 is contradicted.[3, p.146] Fomenko only shared half of their conclusion. Here’s what the final conclusion was:

“The remaining conclusion is that the body was wrapped or rewrapped in bandages some considerable time after death.”
Hodge & Newton (1979)[3, p.146]

Claim 8:

“We think this to be perfectly preposterous. Our take is that we encounter yet another imprecision of the actual method of radiocarbon dating which is apparently affected by effects of an undefined nature leading to great discrepancies in datings of 1,500 years, for instance (see the examples of the greatly misdated modern specimens cited above, with the fluctuation amplitude reaching up to two millennia).”

Claim 8 is supported. It is just them sharing their thoughts but they do mention things which are accurate.

Claim 9:

“The authors of the article also confess to the fact that at the very dawn of the radiocarbon method “ancient” Egyptian specimens had been used for its calibration, with their dates taken from history textbooks ([1196], page 137).”

Claim 9 is supported. Hodge & Newton mentioned it on page 137 and expanded upon it in more detail on pages 139 and 140.

Claim 10:

“Here’s a verbatim quote: “the use of the method commenced in 1948 in Chicago University and was initiated by Professor W. F. Libby… the Egyptian chronology played a great role in the naissance of the method, since Egyptian specimens, such as wood or charcoal, among others, have been used as standards for the known historical dates”([1196], page 137).”

Claim 10 is supported.

Claim 11:

“Thus, the radiocarbon scale used nowadays had initially been made largely dependent on the Scaligerian chronology of the “ancient” Egypt, and therefore needs to be revised.”

Claim 11 is undetermined.

Advertisements
Advertisements

References:

[1] – http://chronologia.org/en/seven/1N01-EN-071-092.pdf

[2] – http://chronologia.org/lit_nx.html

[3] – Hodge, K.C. and Newton, G.W.A. “Radiocarbon Dating. Manchester Museum Mummy Project. Multidisciplinary Research on Ancient Egyptian Mummified Remains”. – Edited by A. Rosalie David. Published by Manchester Museum. Distributed by Manchester University Press, Manchester, England, 1979 http://assets.mhs.manchester.ac.uk/Mummy1770/Articles/Multidisciplinary-Research-on-Ancient-Egyptian-Mummified-Remains.pdf. Accessed 30 Mar. 2021.

[4] – https://achs.edu/grading-scale/. Accessed 30 Mar. 2021.

Access exclusive Ctruth content:

Buy Ctruth merch:

Donate to Ctruth directly:

Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: