Archaeologica.org

This story first surfaced in July.:
http://www.livescience.com/history/0811 ... aesar.html

I've been trying to establish exactly how the authors did their calculations for their proposed dates.

Those blighters at Sky and Telescope are only giving away the abstract which is no use at all.

If anybody knows anything I'd be grateful. Better yet, if a sneak copy of the relevant passages be leaked....

Grumpage wrote:This story first surfaced in July.:
http://www.livescience.com/history/0811 ... aesar.html

I've been trying to establish exactly how the authors did their calculations for their proposed dates.

Those blighters at Sky and Telescope are only giving away the abstract which is no use at all.

If anybody knows anything I'd be grateful. Better yet, if a sneak copy of the relevant passages be leaked....

Grumpage -

This isn't perfect, but is a little more specific. Definitely listen to the audio.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7483566.stm


hoka hey

john

All of this is based on the assumption that the coast looks basically the same as it did 2100 years ago.

Minimalist wrote:All of this is based on the assumption that the coast looks basically the same as it did 2100 years ago.

Right-which is absolute nonsense.

John: Thanks for the link to audio. I am particularly interested in why historians opted for the traditional date in the first place and whether this new research can challenge it.