>I was hoping Art would comment on the second half.
>Art did comment on the first part, saying (in part):
>> But suffice to say the chronology before 4000bp is entirely
>> dependent on C14 dates of the wood, and is thus tautologous.
>I'm going back to dig up the old references, but it will take a
Sorry, Chris, I TRY to confine my comments to stuff I know something about.
I used Brown because I didn't want to try to argue the C14 stuff myself.
Obviously you and Aardsma don't agree with Brown (but see his later stuff