Their job, their very being, is tied up in pushing the boundary of human knowledge.Very good scientists listen to their inner crackpot but keep it inside until they are very sure that their inner crackpot has revealed something new.They might have found something, then again, they might just be exposing themselves. What I suggest in the case of extraordinary claims: Go to a site such as scholar.and search for the journal article in question.Scholar gives a citation count (oftentimes inflated, but that's a different story).Secondly, these purported variations are very dubious.
Historical documents and calendars can be used to find such absolute dates; however, when working in a site without such documents, it is hard for absolute dates to be determined.
If you dig deeper, you'll see that almost all of those 25 citations are self-citations, subsequent articles by one or more of the original authors who have cited their own work. If you filter out the self-citations, you'll see that the original list of 25 citations dwindles down to two or three, and most of those say "There's nothing to see here. All these effects are taken into account, and even if this discovery is not just a measurement artifact (I tend to believe David Hammen that it is), it wouldn't affect the dating much.
Radio carbon dating determines the age of ancient objects by means of measuring the amount of carbon-14 there is left in an object.
When it comes to dating archaeological samples, several timescale problems arise.
For example, Christian time counts the birth of Christ as the beginning, AD 1 (Anno Domini); everything that occurred before Christ is counted backwards from AD as BC (Before Christ).