Johann Georg Fessmaier. “Grundriss der historischen Hilfswissenschaften” (1802). https://www.google.com/books/edition/Grundriss_der_historischen_hilfswissensc/qdw9AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0. Accessed 3 May 2021.
Full German Title: “Grundriss der historischen Hilfswissenschaften vorzüglich nach Gatterers Schriften zum akademischen Gebrauche bearbeitet”
Full English Title: “Outline of the historical Auxiliary sciences, especially adapted from Gatterers’ writings for academic use”
Author: Johann Georg Fessmaier (1775-1828)
Table of Contents
Vorrede (Preface). pp.iii-vi
Einleitung (Introduction). pp.1-4
Chronologie oder Zeitkunde (Chronology or the Study of Time). pp.5-41
Genealogie oder Geschlechtskunde (Genealogy or the Study of Lineages). pp.42-64
Diplomatik oder Urkundenlehre (Diplomatics or Study of Documents). pp.65-193
Heraldik oder Wappenkunde (Heraldry or the Study of Coats of Arms). pp.194-246
Nummismatik oder Münzenkunde (Numismatics or the Study of Coins). pp.247-281
Historische Kritik (Historical Criticism). pp.282-310
Verzeichniss merkwürdiger Historiker (Directory of strange Historians). pp.311-338
This article contains information about Uhlich (1780), one of the first books that is specifically about the historical auxiliary sciences. To my knowledge, this work has never been translated into English or any other languages.
Gottfried Uhlich. “Die historischen Hilfswissenschaften” (1780). https://www.google.com/books/edition/Die_historischen_Hilfswissenschaften_Als/T2AiK1kd9B8C?hl=en&gbpv=0. Accessed 4 May 2021.
Full title: “Die Historischen Hilfswissenschaften. Als ein Anhang zu der Universalgeschichte, die zum Gebrauche seiner Vorlesungen in dem adelicher Lövenburg. Kollegium der frommen Schulen verfaffet bat”
English title: “The Historical Auxiliary sciences. As an appendix to the Universal history, those for the use of his lectures in the noble Lövenburg. College of the pious schools”
Table of Contents
Vorrede (Preface). pp.1-2
1 – Geographie (Geography). pp.3-10
2 – Chronologie (Chronology). pp.11-18
3 – Genealogie (Genealogy). pp.19-22
4 – Heraldik oder Wappenkunſt (Heraldry). pp.23-31
5 – Numismatik (Numismatics). pp.32-52
6 – Menschenkunde (Anthropology). pp.53-62
7 – Diplomatik (Diplomatics). pp.63-79
8 – Sphragistik (Sphragistics). pp.80-85
Inhalt (Contents). p.86
When I first began searching for information about John Black, I ran into some confusion. There was a John Black (1768-1849) who seemed to be a good fit but upon further investigation,  I think John Black (c.1778-1825) is a better fit. Additionally, based on my studies into this person so far, John Black seems to me to be quite a common name for 18th and 19th century Scotland and Ireland.
Both John Blacks graduated from the University of Glasgow in Scotland. The older John left for America in 1798 but the younger John does not appear to me to have ever left Western Europe. Further confusion was cast by the fact the the older was a professor of Latin and Greek, while the younger fell into my view because of his work “Palaeoromaica”, a work discussing the role that the Latin and Greek languages played in the formation of the New Testament scriptures.
The older graduated from Glasgow in 1790 and the younger in 1812., 
Upon a cursory glance at his writings, he does not seem to write much of anything, if anything at all, about his personal life, reserving his speech only for the topics at hand.
Confusion aside, the University of Glasgow has a section devoted to John Black (d.1825).
At one point he tutored the historian Patrick Fraser Tytler (1791-1849).[6, p.xxi]
“…Mr. Black and papa were continually talking upon learned subjects…”
Patrick Fraser Tytler (1810)[6, p.xxiii]
c.1778: He was born as the first son of Adam Black, a farmer in Douglas, Lanarkshire, Scotland.[3, p.21] He attended parish school in Douglas.[4, p.654]
1802, Apr. 28: He was licensed by the Presbytery of Edinburgh, Scotland.[3, p.21]
1810, Sep. 20: He was ordained by the Presbytery of Edinburgh.[3, p.21]
1810-1825: He was Minister of Coylton, in Southern Scotland.[2, p.124], [4, p.654], 
1812, May 1: He graduated from the University of Glasgow with the title Doctor of Laws (LL.D).[3, p.21], 
1825, Aug. 26: He died in Paris at the age of 47[3, p.21] or 48.
The Falls of Clyde, or, the Fairies (Edinburgh, 1806).[3, p.21]
Life of Tasso, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1810).[3, p.21] Also known as, The Life and Translation of Tasso.[2, p.124]
The full title of this work is: “Life of Torquato Tasso: With an Historical and Critical Account of His Writings“.
Palaeoromaica (London, 1822).[3, p.21]
Supplement thereto (London, 1824).[3, p.21]
“In this singular volume, the author endeavors to revive something like the wild and exploded hypothesis of the Jesuit Hardouin, who maintained that our Lord and his Apostles spoke Latin, and that the Latin Vulgate was the original of the New Testament. The anonymous author of the Paltcoromaica contends, that the Greek New Testament is a translation of a Latin original, the text of which is not preserved in the Vulgate, or any Latin version in being.”
Criticus (1872)[2, p.124]
This work, mentioned in Chapter 3 of Edwin Johnson’s Pauline Epistles, was brought to my attention by Nick Weech. He asked me if I could throw more light on this and so I’ve authored this article to do just that.
I think it was originally published anonymously in 1822 but has since had John Black identified as its author. It also appears to have been notably controversial, at least enough to some merit attention from English universities.[2, pp.124-125]
“The work was regarded, on its first appearance, as dangerous, and immediately occasioned a considerable controversy.”
Criticus (1872)[2, p.127]
A summary of the contents of the work can be found on pages 125 through 126 of Criticus (1872). On page 127, some rebuttals to the work are named. In 1824, John Black reportedly made a response to these rebuttals under the title “Supplement to Palmeoromaica, with Remarks on the Strictures made on that Work by the Bishop of St. David’s, the Rev. J. T. Conybeare, the British Critic; also by the Rev. W. G. Broughton, and Dr. Falconer“, to which subsequent rebuttals of that publication were made in the following year.[2, p.127]
It is sometimes known as the “Palmoromaica”. Here’s a complete list of the variations of this word that I’ve found so far:
0 – Palæoromaica
1 – Palaeoromaica[2, p.127]
2 – Palaoromaica[2, p.127]
3 – Palceoromaica[2, p.x]
4 – Paleoronaica[2, p.125]
5 – Palmeoromaica[2, p.127]
6 – Palmoromaica[2, p.127]
7 – Palseoromaica[2, p.127]
8 – Palsoromaica[2, p.124]
9 – Paltcoromaica[2, p.125]
The complete title is: “Palaeoromaica: or Historical and Philological Disquisitions: inquiring whether the Hellenistic style is not Latin-Greek? whether the many new words in the Elzevir Greek Testament are not formed from the Latin? and whether the hypothesis, that the Greek Text of many MSS. of the New Testament is a translation or re-translation from the Latin, seems not to elucidate numerous passages: to account for the different Recensions: and to explain many Phenomena hitherto inexplicable to Biblical Critics?”.
1822: John Black’s Palæoromaica was first published in London.
1823: This year gave way to a number of responses to John Black’s work. Here is a list of the ones of which I’m aware:
“Bishop Burgess, in the Postscript to his Vindication of 1 John v. 7”[2, p.127]
“Rev. J. T. Conybeare, in his “Examination of certain Arguments in Palæoromaica”[2, p.127]
“Dr. Falconer, in the “Second Part of the Case of Eusebius””[2, p.127]
“Rev. W. G. Broughton, in his “Examination of the Hypothesis advanced in a recent Publication, entitled Palmoromaica.””[2, p.127] William Orme noted that this response is the most comprehensive of the bunch.
1824: John Black’s Supplement to Palmeoromaica, with Remarks on the Strictures made on that Work by the Bishop of St. David’s, the Rev. J. T. Conybeare, the British Critic; also by the Rev. W. G. Broughton, and Dr. Falconer was published in London.[2, p.127], [3, p.21]
1825: W. G. Broughton published “A reply to the second postscript in the supplement to Palæoromaica [by J. Black]”. Also, Dr. Maltby commented on it in “The Original Greek of the New Testament asserted and vindicated.”[2, p.127]
 – Anonymous. “John Black (1768-1849): Biographical Sketch”. https://www.covenanter.org/reformed/2015/6/29/john-black-1768-1849. Accessed 27 Apr. 2021.
 – William Orme. “MEMOIR OF THE CONTROVERSY RESPECTING THE I JOHN V. 7. INCLUDING CRITICAL NOTICES OF THE PRINCIPAL WRITERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DISCUSSION.” (1872). https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/AJF5099.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext. Accessed 27 Apr. 2021.
 – Scott Hew. “Fasti ecclesiae scoticanae; the succession of ministers in the Church of Scotland from the reformation” (1920). https://archive.org/details/fastiecclesiaesc03scot. Accessed 27 Apr. 2021.
 – Ayr Bute. “The New Statistical Account of Scotland” (1845). https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_New_Statistical_Account_of_Scotland/rgQVKouvsJkC?hl=en&gbpv=0. Accessed 27 Apr. 2021.
 – University of Glasgow: International Story: People. (13 Dec. 2017). https://internationalstory.gla.ac.uk/person/?id=WH27552&type=P. Accessed 27 Apr. 2021.
 – Patrick Fraser Tytler. “The History of Scotland from the Accession of Alexander III. to the Union” (1866). https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_History_of_Scotland_from_the_Accessi/3lMRAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0. Accessed 27 Apr. 2021.
 – John Black. ” Palæoromaica” (1822). https://www.google.com/books/edition/Palaeoromaica/kYFAAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0. Accessed 27 Apr. 2021.
 – University of Oxford: Search Oxford Libraries Online (SOLO). http://solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?tabs=detailsTab&ct=display&fn=search&doc=oxfaleph013969095&indx=1&recIds=oxfaleph013969095. Accessed 27 Apr. 2021.
Access exclusive Ctruth content:
Donate to Ctruth directly:
Buy Ctruth merch:
I was having trouble finding the employment requirements for carbon dating labs so I decided to email every carbon dating lab I could find an email for to ask them what their requirements were. This article contains when I sent the emails and it contains the few responses I received.
I sent the first round of emails on 21 Mar. 2021. I only sent emails to the labs in Argentina and Austria because I realized it was a Sunday and I didn’t want to have them get pushed down and missed because of Monday’s emails. Between those two countries, there were 8 emails.
I resumed sending emails on Monday, 5 Apr. 2021. I sent them to the labs in Belarus through Canada and to the labs in Monaco through Uruguay. There were 8 email between Belarus through Canada and 70 between Monaco through Uruguay.
The final round was sent on Tuesday, 13 Apr. 2021. I sent them to the labs in China through Mexico for a total of 78 emails.
Here is the email I sent:
I’m interested in your research and am looking for ways to get started in your field.
Can you let me know the requirements for employment in your lab?”
The the link I used to find the emails gets updated and so it will expire shortly. However, the updated link can be found at the bottom of this page: http://radiocarbon.webhost.uits.arizona.edu/node/11
Here I provide the responses I got that include information about employment reqs. I received more failed to send responses than any other type. Some labs responded saying that they’ve had to stop (temporarily or indefinitely) their services due to financial issues.
From the responses I got, a degree in chemistry is the most common requirement, although some labs did mention employing archeologists. Other relevant degrees can be in biology or geology. Check below for the more detailed information.
I have not yet emailed any of them again, although multiple people said I can ask for more information if I wanted.
I have the responses ordered by alphabetically by country. The labs are italicized and are followed by what institution the lab is run by (when applicable) and the responses I got from them.
Overall, the people who emailed me back with employment information were helpful in giving me an idea on what it takes to get employed in an entry level position at a lab that does carbon dating. For their help, I’m thankful.
I think it’d be good for them to post the different positions in their lab online. Same for the requirements it takes to be eligible for each position. I don’t think this would have any negative impact and I figure it would allow people like me to more easily plan out what they want to do for their careers.
The total number of relevant responses I’ve received so far is: 5/164
Radiocarbon Dating and Cosmogenic Isotopes Laboratory
@ Weizmann Institute of Science
Elisabetta Boaretto told me on 14 Apr. 2021 they only hire students and post-docs but that they did not have any open positions in their research lab. I was also told that a background in science and archeology is needed for employment.
Oxford Radiocarbon AcceleratorUnit Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art
@ Oxford University, Dyson Perrins Building
Emma Henderson responded to me on 6 Apr. 2021. I was informed that the requirements vary depending on which part of the process I’m interested in. The technicians usually have chemistry degrees while the researchers mainly have archeology degrees. Emma was highly professional and said she’d be happy to give more information if I could provide more information on my areas of interest.
Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry
@ Geosciences Department, University of Arizona
Christopher Eastoe informed me on 5 Apr. 2021 that he had retired but he was kind enough to provide me with an email to someone who was not retired, namely David Dettman. David replied on 5 Apr. 2021, was professional, thanked me for my email, and let me know that there were no open positions in their lab. I was told that they would “(most likely)” be looking for people with lab experience because their lab has wet and physical chemistry systems “(mostly gas handling and combustion)”.
@ Energy and Environmental Sustainability Laboratories The Pennsylvania State University
Mina Odette informed me on 5 Apr. 2021 that they had an open position for an Organics Laboratory Research Technologist 1. Mina was very professional and helpful.
Here’s the basic requirements:
“The successful candidate must have a minimum of an undergraduate degree in a relevant field, preferably in Chemistry, and a minimum of one year of hands-on experience in an academic and/or commercial laboratory working with LC/MS and/or GC/MS instrumentation. The successful candidate must be detail oriented, and possess excellent analytical, communication, and writing skills.”
Diane Vento with Beta Analytic responded to me on 6 Apr. 2021 and was very professional and courteous. Here are the requirements they gave me for being employed as a Laboratory Technician 1:
QUALIFICATIONS & SKILLS:
ADDITIONAL KEY REQUIREMENTS:
Candidate must be eligible to work in the United States.
This article contains a list of university departments with “Auxiliary Science of History” or “Auxiliary Historical Sciences” in its name.
Department of Ancient History and Auxiliary Historical Sciences,
Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church in Hungary,
Department of Archival Science and Auxiliary Sciences of History,
Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem,
Department of Archiving and Auxiliary Sciences in History,
Comenius University in Bratislava (Univerzita Komenského),
Department of Auxiliary Historical Sciences and Archive Studies,
Charles University (Univerzita Karlova),
Department of Auxiliary Historical Sciences and Archive Studies,
Department of Auxiliary Sciences and Methodology of History,
University of Warsaw (Uniwersytet Warszawski),
Department of Auxiliary Sciences in Historical Research and Archives,
University of Zielona Góra (Uniwersytet Zielonogórski),
Department of Auxiliary Sciences of History and Archival Studies,
University of Hradec Králové (Univerzita Hradec Králové),
Department of Historical Auxiliary Sciences,
Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg,
Department of Historical Auxiliary Sciences,
The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin
Institute of Archival Studies and Auxiliary Sciences of History,
University of South Bohemia České Budějovice (Jihočeská univerzita v Českých Budějovicích),
Radiocarbon dating is a method of determining the age of samples that contain carbon-14 (C-14). Radiocarbon dating is also known as C-14 dating and carbon dating.
This article, like many others on the website, is a work in progress. For now it is mainly a collection of my brief notes.
1939: Willard Libby (1908-1980) first had the idea to use C-14 for dating purposes.[8, p.536]
1940: Martin Kamen (1913-2002) and Samuel Ruben (1913-1943) discovered C-14 after they artificially created it.
1945: Willard Libby (1908-1980) began his research that led to the invention of radiocarbon dating.
1946: Libby published his idea about obtaining dates by observing the decay of C-14 in the journal Physical Review.
“To test the technique, Libby’s group applied the anti-coincidence counter to samples whose ages were already known. Among the first objects tested were samples of redwood and fir trees, the age of which were known by counting their annual growth rings.”
1949: Libby published in the journal Science the results of his studies which proved radiocarbon dating to be useful.
1961: Mann, et al. established the C-14 half-life as 5760 ± 50 years.[6, p.57]
1966: There were about 50 labs world-wide conducting around 2000 determinations per year.
1977: Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) was first used for measuring C-14.[8, p.536]
“The half-life of carbon 14 has been the subject of many determinations, the values of which have ranged from a high of 7,200 to a low of 4,700 years.”
– Manov & Curtiss (1951)[5, p.328]
“The half-life of carbon 14 has been determined by gas counting of C*O2 + CS2 mixtures (where C*O2 is used to designate inert carbon dioxide containing some C14O2) by using pairs of counters that are identical in construction except for the length of the cathodes.”
– Manov & Curtiss (1951)[5, p.328]
The above figures are repeated by Mann, et al. (1961).[6, p.58]
How exactly is the half-life determined by gas counting?
5370 ± 200 years,[5, p.328] 5568,[6, p.58] 5760 ± 50 years[6, p.57]
Accelerator Mass Spectrometer (AMS)
Anti-Coincidence Counter (ACC), Anticoincidence system (A/C)[8, p.536]
Geiger Counter: an instrument that detects radiation.
Liquid Scintillation Counter (LSC)
Beta Analytic Testing Laboratory: https://www.radiocarbon.com/
Waikato Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory: https://radiocarbondating.com/
Last time I checked, the journal Radiocarbon listed 45 labs: http://radiocarbon.webhost.uits.arizona.edu/node/11. They also had a link to what looked like hundreds of labs: http://radiocarbon.webhost.uits.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/Labs-2021_Jan-19.pdf.
Radiocarbon, An International Journal of Cosmogenic Isotope Research: http://radiocarbon.webhost.uits.arizona.edu/
“Scientists have used carbon-14 dating to identify bottles of counterfeit Scotch Whisky, which, contrary to what their label says, were produced after the nuclear tests were conducted.”
“The carbon-14 dating methods too frequently gives results in conflict with archeologically established chronologies. Not only is the spread of radiocarbon ages great, but there is a systematic deviation of 200-400 years, usually on the young side. Examples of the conflict are given. Sources of error are examined, with emphasis on subjectivism in the radiocarbon method (even in its very mechanism), and contamination of the atmosphere. The radiocarbon method is certainly very promising and deserving of development, but it should concentrate on studying distorting effects rather than accumulating dates for immediate application to archeology…”
– Dorothy B. Vitaliano (1966)[3, p.1042]
Has the focus on distortions improved/developed over the past 50 some years? If so, where is the literature on that?
“Indeed, in some cultural periods where checks are possible, using material which can be closely dated on other evidence, as for example in Egypt in the third millennium B.C., some of the discrepancies between archeological and radiocarbon dates are so large as to cast doubt on the validity of the method. Inevitably, therefore, there has arisen some loss of confidence in the method, and a tendency has been noted on the part of some archeologists to accept as valid only those dates which happen to confirm their own opinions.”
– Harold Barker (1972)[4, p.178]
Sources of errors and the range of those errors were discussed by Barker:[4, p.179]
1 – Archeological (“Indeterminate. From a few years to many hundreds”)
2 – Environmental contamination (typically small errors). How small?
3 – Human (“Indeterminate — can be disastrously large at time) How large?
4 – Laboratory measurements (Usually plus or minus 50 years upwards)
5 – Inherent
5a – Value of C-14 half-life (results based on the old half-life are likely about 3 percent too low)
5b – Isotopic fractionation In nature (typically minor, sometimes plus or minus 80 years, rarely plus or minus 200)
5c – Variations in level of radiocarbon in the exchange reservoir (Variable, as high as 600 years)
“Human Errors … can in fact arise when samples submitted to the laboratory have been badly or wrongly labelled.”
– Harold Barker (1972)[4, p.180]
How does improper labelling affect the dating of the sample? Isn’t the sample the same regardless of how it’s labelled? Human errors are the type which allegedly cause the most confusion and so it’s weird to me that Barker only allotted a single, short paragraph of only 3 sentences to this type of error, as opposed to the 4th and 5th types which each get over a page of commentary.
“Fundamental to calculations of radiocarbon dates is the assumption that the level of radiocarbon in the world-wide carbon exchange reservoir is uniformly distributed and has remained constant throughout the period covered by the method (the past 50,000 years or so).”
– Harold Barker (1972)[4, p.183]
Barker discusses C-14 fluctuations on [4, p.184] and brings up how dendrochronology was needed to help edit the results of tests. How independent of a dating method can this be if it’s dependent on dendrochronology?
The end of Barker’s article claims that the article “deals in detail with the various factors which affect the accuracy of radiocarbon dates.”[4, p.187] I can’t accept this as he glossed over the most important and largest issue with C-14 dating, namely human error. There was only one example given of human error and no discussion at all about how large the errors are or any other things people can do to distort the date. Is mislabeling the only thing humans do to cause errors in the dates? I can’t imagine this is so.
“…it is now known that the most serious limitation on the accuracy obtainable by the radiocarbon method is set by the fact that the level of radiocarbon in the carbon exchange reservoir has not been constant in the past.”
– Harold Barker (1972)[4, p.187]
“Other experts have noted that ancient cloths often date later in radiocarbon analysis than their actual origins, due to bacterial contamination. (It’s a common problem, for instance, in dating ancient manuscripts.)”
John L. Allen Jr. (2013)
Hessel de Vries. “Variation in Concentration of Radiocarbon with Time and Location on Earth” (1958). https://www.google.com/books/edition/Variation_in_Concentration_of_Radiocarbo/kfbgSAAACAAJ?hl=en
Ralph & Stuckenrath. “Carbon-14 Measurements of Known Age Samples” (1960). https://www.nature.com/articles/188185a0
Willis, E., Tauber, H., & Münnich, K. (1960). Variations in the Atmospheric Radiocarbon Concentration over the Past 1300 Years. Radiocarbon,2, 1-4. doi:10.1017/S1061592X00020548 – https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/variations-in-the-atmospheric-radiocarbon-concentration-over-the-past-1300-years/7B648E6BDD8BE10233D2F23CBFBB09AC
Hans E. Suess. “Secular variations of the cosmic‐ray‐produced carbon 14 in the atmosphere and their interpretations” (1965). https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JZ070i023p05937
Damon, et al. “Fluctuation of atmospheric C14 during the last six millennia” (1966). https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JZ071i004p01055
Stuiver, M., & Suess, H. (1966). On the Relationship Between Radiocarbon Dates and True Sample Ages. Radiocarbon, 8, 534-540. doi:10.1017/S0033822200000345 – https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/on-the-relationship-between-radiocarbon-dates-and-true-sample-ages/10FA2F25F6C28F3D3EB9B7F63AA4AB2A
Ralph & Michael. “Problems of the Radiocarbon Calendar” (1967). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1967.tb00607.x
Suess H.E. (1968) Climatic Changes, Solar Activity, and the Cosmic-Ray Production Rate of Natural Radiocarbon. In: Mitchell J.M. (eds) Causes of Climatic Change. Meteorological Monographs, vol 8. American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-935704-38-6_17 – https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-935704-38-6_17#citeas
Damon, et al. “Temporal Fluctuations of Atmospheric 14C: Causal Factors and Implications” (1978). http://adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1978AREPS…6..457D
“…the very results of dating – the appearance of the chronological scheme obtained – are influenced by the subjective views of the researchers. So, for example, in Groningen, where the archaeologist Becker has long adhered to a short chronology, and radiocarbon dates “; for some reason”; are low, while in Schleswig and Heidelberg, where Schwabe-Dissen and others have long tended to a long chronology, and radioactive dates for similar materials are much higher. Is this a coincidence? The same difference between Swiss laboratories. Where is the vaunted objectivity of physics here?”
L. S. Kleyn (1966)
“Meanwhile, of course, if we compare individual measurements of ancient objects with individual measurements of modern objects or even modern averages, we get those witty paradoxes with which Miloichich amused readers, but if we compare the averages obtained on large series of ancient samples of the same type with modern averages, then many small individual deviations of radioactivity in both directions, due to the randomness of the spread, should be mutually destroyed, leveled, and as a result, the difference between both averages (modern and obtained at ancient objects) will give the true age of the find. “; One date is not a date”; – this is how the physicist Waterbolk formulated this rule.
Citing the divergent dates of one piece of wood, then one monument, etc., Milojcic asserts: “; The historian cannot recognize all these dates as correct, he must choose one. And the physicist calmly recognizes all these dates as correct, calculating the average”; … But, for Miloicic, if this average is obtained from many unrealistic dates, then it itself is not real. “; This example,” deduces the morality Miloichich, “shows how different languages the physicist and the historian speak!”
L. S. Kleyn (1966)
“But here’s what is curious: the simultaneous annual rings of American and European trees received different radiocarbon dates…”
L. S. Kleyn (1966)
Are there any lists that summarize a wide range of carbon dates? Possibly age results listed by study from youngest to oldest.
What are the variables that have to be accounted for when dating?
What are things that are known to distort the dates?
What are the requirements to work in a C-14 lab? Do the requirements vary from lab to lab?
Do the dates get averaged as Kleyn reported? If so, why is this? Why not report each of the dates separately?
How is the confidence level determined?
Have any professionals responded to C-14 Crash? If so, where is the response?
How many objects of known date have been dated compared to objects of unknown date?
Large list of his works: https://academictree.org/chemistry/publications.php?pid=50509
“Atmospheric Helium Three and Radiocarbon from Cosmic Radiation” (Phys. Rev. 69, 671 – Published 1 June 1946). https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.69.671.2
Five groups of 1000 samples consisting of multiple types of dead plants and animals, all of known age. Each group is assigned to one of the 5 climates, those being tropical, dry, temperate, continental, and polar. Conduct testing every 5 years to examine decay.
Similar to test one but with manuscripts.
Make a list of:
1 – All the laboratories and their foundation dates. Organize by earliest to latest.
2 – Available carbon dating results organized by the date of result
3 – Available carbon dating results organized by the date of publication
4 – Available carbon dating results organized by topic + date of result or date of publication
 – American Chemical Society. “Willard Libby and Radiocarbon Dating” (2016). https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/radiocarbon-dating.html. Accessed 2 Mar. 2021.
 – Jennifer Leman. “Murder! Espionage! Cosmic Rays! The History of Carbon-14 Is Way More Thrilling Than You Think” (25 Feb. 2020). https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/archaeology/a31043027/carbon-14-history/. Accessed 27 Feb. 2021.
 – “Geophysical Abstracts: Issues 234-239” (July, 1966). https://www.google.com/books/edition/Geophysical_Abstracts/YzrUpje-u7sC?hl=en&gbpv=0. Accessed 6 Mar. 2021.
 – Barker, Harold. “The Accuracy of Radiocarbon Dates.” The Journal of African History, vol. 13, no. 2, 1972, pp. 177–187. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/180850. Accessed 6 Mar. 2021.
 – George G. Manov and Leon F. Curtiss. “The Half-Life of Carbon 14” (Apr. 1951). https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/46/jresv46n4p328_A1b.pdf. Accessed 6 Mar. 2021.
 – Mann, W B, Marlow, W F, and Hughes, E E. THE HALF-LIFE OF CARBON-14. Country unknown/Code not available: N. p., 1961. Web. doi:10.1016/0020-708X(61)90132-6. Accessed 6 Mar. 2021.
 – Kleyn, L. S, Arkheologiya sporit s fizikoy – Spor o dostovernosti i tochnosti radiouglerodnoy khronologii [Archeology argues with physics – The controversy over the reliability and accuracy of radiocarbon chronology]: Priroda. no. 2. p.51-62, and no. 3. p.94-107, illus., 1966. https://textarchive.ru/c-2179111-pall.html. Accessed 6 Mar. 2021.
 – Jull, A., Pearson, C., Taylor, R., Southon, J., Santos, G., Kohl, C., . . . Major, I. (25 Apr. 2018). Radiocarbon Dating and Intercomparison of Some Early Historical Radiocarbon Samples. Radiocarbon, 60(2), 535-548. doi:10.1017/RDC.2018.18 – https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christopher-Baisan/publication/324749521_Radiocarbon_Dating_and_Intercomparison_of_Some_Early_Historical_Radiocarbon_Samples/links/5af8cef70f7e9b026bf02830/Radiocarbon-Dating-and-Intercomparison-of-Some-Early-Historical-Radiocarbon-Samples.pdf. Accessed 6 Mar. 2021.
 – Rainer Berger. “Suess’ “”Wiggles and Deviations”” Proven by Historical and Archaeological Means” (30 Jun. 1985). http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1985Metic..20..395B. Accessed 19 Mar. 2021.
 – John L. Allen Jr. “Pope Francis and the Shroud of Turin” (1 Apr. 2013). https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/pope-francis-and-shroud-turin. Accessed 29 Mar. 2021.
 – “How Does Carbon Dating Work” https://www.radiocarbon.com/about-carbon-dating.htm. Accessed 5 Apr. 2021.
Access exclusive Ctruth content:
Buy Ctruth merch:
Donate to Ctruth directly:
News was released on April 8th, 2021 that an entire lost ancient city in Egypt had been discovered last fall. The city, although its name is “The Rise of Atun”, is being called the “ancient Egyptian Pompeii” because after the initial excavations it became clear that almost all of the buildings and artefacts were in excellent condition. This site will be a rich source of archeological and historical information for decades, if not centuries, to come.
The city dates back to the time of Amenhotep III in the 14th century BCE, some 3,400 years ago. Ancient Egyptian tools, rings, colored pottery, scarabs and more were found all with the seal of Amenhotep III’s cartouche on them. Additionally, the debris from thousands of statues, a significant number of glass and faience ovens and kilns, and some odd human and animal burials were found.
Zahi Hawass, head of the excavations, said the city was built under the direction of one of Egypt’s strongest pharaohs ever. It was last September that he and his team were about 300 miles south of Egypt’s capital, Cairo, when they were looking for the mortuary temple of King Tut. Little did they know that they were about to stumble upon one of the greatest discoveries of the past century.
“The archaeological layers have laid untouched for thousands of years, left by the ancient residents as if it were yesterday.”
– Zahi Hawass
This is amazing and important because this city was created during the zenith of the Empire’s economic activity. It will allow a lot to be learned about daily life in the empire.
The Lost City is located in Luxor on the western shore of the Nile river. Excavations are still underway, but the southern half of the city is mostly unearthed already. The northern half is still mostly buried. Houses, a large-scale bakery, and zigzag walls up to 10 meters high have all been found in the city. Just to north, a cemetery was discovered.
 – Dr. Zahi Hawass. Facebook post (8 Apr. 2021, 3:31am). https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=294251502062591&id=100044332304573&cft=AZUBQ3u5exu9xdDG_lJQUKrBLRLL2Mbnnrm2eXWqofFMX6R5gGLBmcTWpuuLM1-3TP_-lWI9gYBCVqZUMXKuOU8g86nBqqw_St9z8xSGZZULLfwVkHWmrowfCKSK0JtcBbLNm3MkewlUwbMQVdfR329u&tn=%2CO%2CP-R. Accessed 11 Apr. 2021.
 – Reuters with The New York Times. Archaeologists Unearth ‘Ancient Egyptian Pompeii’ (8 Apr. 2021). https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/08/world/middleeast/egypt-ancient-city.html. Accessed 11 Apr. 2021.
 – Amanda Woods with the New York Post. 3,000-year-old lost Egyptian city discovered by archaeologists (9 Apr. 2021, 10:23am). https://nypost.com/2021/04/09/3000-year-old-lost-egyptian-city-discovered-by-archaeologists/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2021.
I think the most concise introduction to the history of bibliography is Roberson (2001). It’s a short 4 pages that contains brief reviews of the basic major works which benefit students of bibliography.
The four standard textbooks on bibliography are:
1 – Ronald McKerrow’s An Introduction to Bibliography for Literary Students (1928)
2 – Ronald McKerrow’s Esdaile’s Manual of Bibliography (1931)
3 – Fredson Bowers’ Principles of Bibliographical Description (1949)
4 – Philip Gaskell’s A New Introduction to Bibliography (1974)
Conrad Gesner (1516-1565) is often considered the Father of Bibliography. Check The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America (1915) page 53 for more on him: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Papers_of_the_Bibliographical_Societ/v5Y_AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0
Cave, Roderick. “Historical Bibliographical Work: Its Role in Library Education.” Journal of Education for Librarianship, vol. 21, no. 2, 1980, pp. 109–121. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40368582. Accessed 13 Apr. 2021.
Tanselle, G. Thomas. “Bibliographical History as a Field of Study.” Studies in Bibliography, vol. 41, 1988, pp. 33–63. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40371876. Accessed 13 Apr. 2021.
Tanselle, G. Thomas. “The Arrangement of Descriptive Bibliographies.” Studies in Bibliography, vol. 37, 1984, pp. 1–38. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40371791. Accessed 13 Apr. 2021.
Tanselle, G. Thomas. “Bibliography and Science.” Studies in Bibliography, vol. 27, 1974, pp. 55–89. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40371588. Accessed 13 Apr. 2021.
Tanselle, G. Thomas. “A Description of Descriptive Bibliography.” Studies in Bibliography, vol. 45, 1992, pp. 1–30. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40371955. Accessed 13 Apr. 2021.
Skinner, Marilyn B. “Scholarly Publication: An Annotated Bibliography.” The Classical World, vol. 79, no. 3, 1986, pp. 182–184. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4349842. Accessed 13 Apr. 2021.
Winship, Michael. Libraries & Culture, vol. 32, no. 1, 1997, pp. 155–157. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25548510. Accessed 13 Apr. 2021.
Newton, A. Edward. Bibliography and Pseudo-Bibliography. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1936. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv4w3x4r. Accessed 13 Apr. 2021.
 – Roberson, M. (2001). A brief history of bibliographies. Social Epistemology, 15(1), 5–8. doi:10.1080/02691720110049189
 – GASKELL, P., 1995, A New Introduction to Bibliography. https://archive.org/details/newintroductiont0000gask/mode/1up. Accessed 10 Apr. 2021.
The article by Georg G. Iggers (1926-2017) is heavily saturated with relevant information on the topic of historicism. I recommend it for anyone interested in the development of historical studies. It was well-written and included topics for future research at the end.
He was a renowned historian of historiography.[3, p.335]
Here are some of the books he authored:
The Cult of Authority (1970)
Historiography in the Twentieth Century (2012)
The German Conception of History (2012)
A Global History of Historiography (2017)
Iggers began by giving an overview of the three schools of historicism which exist simultaneously with but independently from each other. In my own designations, they are relativism, 19th & early 20th century historiography, and neo-historicism. His present article only deals with the first two schools.
He gives a footnote on what to read pertaining to the history of the term historicism. Among the plethora of sources provided, he first named Lee & Beck (1954), which I have taken notes on and published here.
The most important representative for historicism in 20th century Italy was Benedetto Croce. Croce, Gasset, Collingwood, and Meinecke all believed that naturalism was insufficient “… to understand human reality because of the uniqueness and individuality of the historical world.”[1, p.135-136]
Muhlack and Meinecke saw historicism as the zenith of historical understanding.[1, p.145]
There’s a bit in this article about history becoming a science or a profession. It repeatedly says that this occurred around 1800.[1, p.149]
Key figures: Friedrich Schlegel, Novalis, Ludwig Feuerbach, Christoph J. Braniss, I. H. Fichte, Carl Prantl, Karl Werner, Giambattista Vico, Benedetto Croce, R. G. Collingwood, Hegel, Leopold Ranke, Hegel, Droysen, Wilhelm Dilthey, Wilhelm Windelband, Heinrich Rickert, Eugen Duhring, Carl Menger, Adolf Wagner, Wilhelm Roscher, Karl Knies, Gustav Schmoller, Friedrich Meinecke, Ernst Troeltsch, Max Weber, Friedrich Nietzsche, Albrecht Ritschl, Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann, Friedrich Gogarten, Reinhold Niebuhr, Martin Heidegger, Otto Hintze, Karl Heussi, Jose Ortega y Gasset, Giovanni Gentile, Antonio Gramsci, Giuseppe Galasso, Fulvio Tessitore, Pietro Rossi, Giuseppe Cacciatore, Wilhelm von Humboldt, Ernst Cassirer, Karl Popper, Otto Gerhard Oexle, Annette Wittkau, Charles, R. Bambach, Wolfgang Hardtwig, Jorn Rusen, Horst-Walter Blanke Schweers, Friedrich Jaeger, Dirk Fleischer, Hans-Jurgen Pandel, Ulrich Muhlack, Jeremy Telman, Thomas Kuhn, Charles R. Bambach, Georg von Below, Eckart Kehr, Hans-Ulrich Wehler, Wolfgang Mommsen, Jurgen Kocka, Georg Iggers, Thomas Nipperday
1797: Friedrich Schlegel wrote down the term Historismus, which is now the earliest known use of the word.[1, p.130]
I think the usage of it was to note the differences between the times between when he was writing and what he considered antiquity.
1798: Novalis mentioned Historismus but didn’t offer anything to let us know the definition.[1, p.130]
c.1800-1866: Ludwig Feuerbach, Christoph J. Braniss, I. H. Fichte, Carl Prantl, etc. used Historismus in similar ways to Schlegel.[1, p.130]
1922: “The Problem of Historicism” was put forth by Ernst Troeltsch.[1, p.133]
1932: Karl Heussi, Die Krisis des Historismus[1, p.135]
1936: Friedrich Meinecke, Die Entstehung des Historismus[1, p.135]
1940s: In the English speaking world, the word historicism began to be used in place of historism.[1, p.137]
1975: Ernst Cassirer, The German Enlightenment and the Rise of Historicism[1, p.150]
1989: Veeser, The New Historicism[1, p.137]
“Karl Werner, in his 1879 book on Giambattista Vico, saw the core of the historicist outlook in Vico’s notion that the human mind knows no other reality than history: history is made by human beings and therefore reflects human intentions, that is, meaning. Nature, because it is not made by humans, reflects no meanings which can be understood in this way.”
Igger (1995)[1, p.130]
“One might have hoped that critical study would unmask myths which had instrumentalized history in the service of political and social ideologies, but the opposite was generally the case. Historical study reinforced historical myths.”
Igger (1995)[1, p.139]
 – Iggers, Georg G. “Historicism: The History and Meaning of the Term.” Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 56, no. 1, 1995, pp. 129–152. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2710011. Accessed 26 Mar. 2021.
 – Daum, A. W. (2018). Georg G. Iggers (1926–2017). Central European History, 51(03), 335–353. doi:10.1017/s0008938918000626. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/abs/georg-g-iggers-19262017/12522F32F1F6D1EE9A8E2C1B3015E9EC. Accessed 4 Apr. 2021.
 – https://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/search?q=Iggers+G.+G.&qt=owc_search. Accessed 4 Apr. 2021.
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 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+.
Fomenko’s overall grade is shown on the overview article: Examining Fomenko’s New Chronology.
#  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.
“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”(). 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.
“The topic of the article is a dating that had amazed the authors of the article and put them in a quandary ().”
Claim 2 is supported.
“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]
“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.
“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?
“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.
“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]
“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.
“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 (, 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.
“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”(, page 137).”
Claim 10 is supported.
“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.
 – 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.
 – https://achs.edu/grading-scale/. Accessed 30 Mar. 2021.
Access exclusive Ctruth content:
Buy Ctruth merch:
Donate to Ctruth directly: