> Radiocarbon determinations
> The above suggests they have handled contradictory
> return data
> Can mark intrusive event which changes timeline.
> Still....the language guide of the conversation
> hints that the testing is to confirm prior marked
> Historic timeline as per dynasty in Egypt.
> So....they cherry pick data and use what conforms.
> Set aside data which contradicts. ..
> Possibly even remove entire returns from say...a
> pyramid....as it gives +/- 100s of years
> signature from numerous
Am trying to understand this process of sampling and testing, and I think you're right about " the language guide of the conversation hints that the testing is to confirm prior marked Historic timeline as per dynasty in Egypt."
The wording in your links and the wording in the RADIOCARBON DATES OF OLD AND MIDDLE KINGDOM MONUMENTS IN EGYPT report speak of shooting for a target of predetermined time periods.
From your link
Three of our samples showed evidence of contamination; a further three, as well as two published results, were plainly intrusive as they presented dates more than 1000 years after our period of study (see the electronic supplementary material, table S1). All eight of these samples (10 dates) were excluded from the Bayesian models.
However, wood, charcoal and shell (long-lived) samples were all treated as if they were likely to predate their contexts.
........the Naqada models were restricted to solutions between 5000 and 2000 BCE (more than a millennium on either side of archaeological estimates). Similarly, the Badarian models also all ran without restriction but were constrained to 6500–2500 BCE, more than 1500 years earlier and later than current expectation.
The results sourced from previous analyses comprised all the dates available for our nominated sites with the exception of organics extracted from mud-based bricks and seals, which have previously been shown to be unreliable
RADIOCARBON DATES OF OLD AND MIDDLE KINGDOM MONUMENTS IN EGYPT
Temples and pyramids built from mud bricks yielded grass, straw, and reed fragments,
which were mixed into the clay and soil before shaping the bricks.
Some monuments include sample dates which are much older or younger than the established mean. Screening was used in an attempt to remove dates from samples which are probably from another context.
I wonder why the 2013 study rejected materials from mud bricks but the C14 study included them.
I was surprised to learn that the inventor of C14 testing, Willard Libby, used 3 ancient Egyptian samples with "known" dates for his first tests. The test was considered a success because the dates matched. This seems to still be the undercurrent and I get the impression that if any test did not produce dates in line with the established by 'other means' dates, that the test would be considered inaccurate while the established dates remained unquestioned.
I wonder why the tests aren't a blind test. Why do they need to have the target pinned on the wall, seems testing could only be truly objective if it were a blind test.
I had assumed the labs would be neutral, not concerned with verifying or falsifying a predetermined date but only intent on dating the sample. Does anyone know if this is standard practice, to be influenced by the status quo? Wouldn't that taint the entire procedure and consequently the results?
This sounds to me like very biased testing