After all, this what the archeologist guessed in their published books.
Some believe trees are known to be as old as 9,000 years. A lot of people doubt this claim for various good reasons I wont go into here.
These two measures of time will only be the same if all of the assumptions which go into the conventional radiocarbon dating technique are valid.
Comparison of ancient, historically dated artifacts (from Egypt, for example) with their radiocarbon dates has revealed that radiocarbon years and calendar years are not the same even for the last 5,000 calendar years.
This standard content of C14 can then be used for wood not associated with a historically documented date.
One group has been made up of fundamentalist evangelicals, who accepted the global effect of Noah's flood and a young earth and rejected radioactive dates.
The other, non-literalist group of evangelicals accepted some kinds of evolutionary uniformitarian hypotheses and radioactive dating.
The field of radiocarbon dating has become a technical one far removed from the naive simplicity which characterized its initial introduction by Libby in the late 1940's.
It is, therefore, not surprising that many misconceptions about what radiocarbon can or cannot do and what it has or has not shown are prevalent among creationists and evolutionists - lay people as well as scientists not directly involved in this field.