Catastrophic Dendrochronology attempts to salvage some semblance of order from the wreckage that is mainstream dendrochronology and mainstream radiocarbon dating.
Might that be the objective – to get the tree rings and C14 data to fit the preconceived orthodox chronology?
Bristlecone Pines and Time
Catastrophic Dendrochronology assumes that a “cosmic catastrophe” will appear as a low carbon-14 outlier in any chronology that has been radiocarbon dated by the mainstream.
… the general conflagration that accompanied the cosmic catastrophe must have caused contamination of the air by carbon from burning forests, and even more so by burning fossil carbon in oil and coal, besides the contamination of the air by the products of volcanic eruptions, which were simultaneous on all continents.
Such intrusion of non-radioactive carbon into the atmosphere would have disturbed the 12C/14C balance in the sense of making any organic material that grew and lived after the catastrophe appear in the carbon test as older and belonging to an earlier age.
Ages in Chaos: The Testimony of Radiocarbon Dating – Immanuel Velikovsky
Catastrophic Dendrochronology assumes that any perturbation of the atmospheric 12C/14C balance [following a “cosmic catastrophe”] will naturally dissipate within 40 or 50 years.
This assumption is based upon the observed decline in carbon-14 levels in the northern hemisphere during the second half of the 20th century.
Catastrophic Dendrochronology assumes that atmospheric carbon-14 concentrations naturally vary by latitude as observed by the RV Andenes in 1990.
Catastrophic Dendrochronology recognises:
1) Each species has its own carbon-14 profile.
2) Terrestrial and aquatic environments are different.
3) Carbon-14 levels increase with altitude.
These differences [from the mainstream] imply that only the outliers associated with “cosmic catastrophe” can be realistically salvaged from the mainstream chronologies.
However, in a cruel twist of fate for the mainstream, these outliers may be fairly accurately dated by radiocarbon dating because everything [except for the catastrophes] will have been stretched and squashed by the mainstream “to fit the preconceived orthodox chronology”.
Based upon Willard Libby’s original Curve of Knowns it appears that the “preconceived orthodox chronology” is very much focussed upon ancient Egypt.
Therefore, strangely enough, the Bristlecone Pines from the White Mountains in California should provide a tree-ring chronology that aligns fairly well with this focus upon ancient Egypt because the Lebanon Cedar [which grows at a similar latitude] “was prized by Egyptians for shipbuilding” according to Wikipedia.
Although the White Mountains are about three degrees north of the Cedars of God this slight difference will be partially compensated [or over compensated] by the higher altitude at which the Bristlecone Pines grow.
However, based upon the work of A E Douglas, it is very likely that the shallow rooted Bristlecone Pine [which grows high and dry in the cold sub-alpine regions of the White Mountains] will experience a significant number of double tree rings [spring melt and autumn rain] with a few omitted rings when there is no winter snow.
A number of tests were made on the Prescott group.
The first was designed to determine the character of the rainfall in the years producing double rings.
The half-dozen most persistent cases were selected and in each of these the red ring was found double in the following number of cases: 4 out of 10 in 1896; 5 out of 10 in 1891; 7 out of 10 in 1881; 4 out of 10 in 1878, 1872, and 1871.
The trees of the Prescott group offer a few interesting examples of two or three false red rings in one year; they also have exceptionally many cases of omitted rings; both of these peculiarities are explained by the fact that these trees are close to the lowest elevation at which the climate permits them to live; they are therefore greatly affected by rainfall distribution and probably exaggerate its changes.
Climatic cycles and tree-growth – 1919 – A E Douglass
The saw-tooth nature of the 8,000 year Bristlecone Pine chronology from 6,050 BC to 1,950 AD [Calibration of radiocarbon dates – J. Klein et al. – Radiocarbon, 24, 1982] clearly suggests there are roughly twice as many tree-rings as there are radiocarbon years.
Therefore, there is prima facie evidence that supports the possibility that the chronology has been spliced and diced to fit a “preconceived orthodox chronology” especially as the mainstream does not explicitly acknowledge the occurrence of significant numbers of double tree-rings in Bristlecone Pine chronologies.
The father of modern Catastrophism, Immanuel Velikovsky, made two very specific observation in Ages of Chaos regarding the mainstream Egyptian chronology:
1) “The last cataclysm that, according to the evidence cited in Worlds in Collision, took place on March 23, -687”.
2) “The difference between the conventional dates and the timetable of the revised chronology reaches here an almost grotesque figure of 800 years.”
Interestingly, the Bristlecone Pine chronology displays a very clear low carbon-14 outlier tree-ring at 938 BC [that appears to be hundreds of older than its immediate neighbours] which is a candidate “cosmic catastrophe”.
The tree-ring immediately before this outlier candidate was radiocarbon dated as being 205 years younger than its position in the tree-ring chronology.
Therefore, the candidate outlier is probably 205 years younger than its position in the tree-ring chronology.
This would place the candidate outlier at 733 BC which is only 46 years away from Immanuel Velikovsky’s “cataclysm” that occurred in 687 BC.
This is a remarkably result given the vagaries of the sampling and radiocarbon dating.
Furthermore, the subsequent radiocarbon dating of the tree-ring chronology then drifts away so that the tree-rings are eventually 800 radiocarbon years younger than there assigned position in the chronology.
Again, this is a remarkable result that supports Immanuel Velikovsky and reinforces the view that the chronology has been spliced and diced to fit a “preconceived orthodox chronology”.
Interestingly, Willard Libby’s Curve of Knowns provides broad support for the 205 year adjustment applied to the candidate catastrophe because a Redwood traditionally dated as 954 BC was radiocarbon dated to be 218 years younger at 736 BC.
Gunnar Heinsohn currently makes two clear assertions:
1) A worldwide catastrophe occurred in the 230s AD.
2) There are 700 phantom years in the mainstream chronology between the 230s and 930s AD.
There are, within the 1,000 years of the 1st millennium, only some 300 years with building strata in any individual Scandinavian, Slavic or Arab site.
Did European Civilization Collapse Three Times within the 1st Millennium CE?
At the core we have a worldwide catastrophe, and some 700 years of phantom-time between 234 and 934 (Heinsohn prefers a somewhat less specific dating from 230s to 930s).
Toppling Rome’s Obelisks and Aqueducts – Ewald Ernst
Interestingly, the Bristlecone Pine chronology displays a very clear low carbon-14 outlier tree-ring at 188 AD [that appears to be hundreds of older than its immediate neighbours] which is a candidate “worldwide catastrophe”.
The tree-ring immediately before this outlier candidate indicates the candidate is correctly positioned in the tree-ring chronology.
This places the candidate outlier about 42 years away from Gunnar Heinsohn’s “worldwide catastrophe” that occurs in the 230s AD.
Again, this is a remarkably result given the vagaries of the sampling and radiocarbon dating.
However, it is impossible to verify Gunnar Heinsohn’s 700 phantom years in the chronology.
Interestingly, Willard Libby’s Curve of Knowns provides some for support for Gunnar Heinsohn’s phantom years because a tree-ring traditionally dated as 690 AD was radiocarbon dated to be 253 years younger at 943 AD.
Overall, Catastrophic Dendrochronology provides broad support [accurate to within plus or minus 50 years] for two worldwide catastrophes and generally reinforces the view that the tree-ring chronologies have been spliced and diced to fit a “preconceived orthodox chronology”.
Sadly, until such time that the mainstream release full detailed information it is impossible to verify their chronologies or Catastrophic Dendrochronology.