> Your post critique is nearly an Egyptology high
> five with a little scorn for not being
I am acknowledging what the RCD studies really say which I fail to see is some "high five" to Egyptology. In fact, I see it as a kick in the snerds which they are chumps for not revising the accepted timeline accordingly.
> You publish on early Dynastic building Mastabas
> and the influence of Mesopotamia
> And then chuck in with Hawass and give some of us
> pause as to what your agenda is.
"Agenda"? I did not think it possible, but you offend me sir. You should know me better than anyone. My bad apparently.
But to your point: If I am accepting this:
Average Carbon Dates:
1 ± 3750-3450 BC
2 ± 3450-3200 BC
3 ± 3200-3000 BC
4 ± 3000-2700 BC
5 ± 2700-2500 BC
6 ± 2500-2300 BC
How is it exactly I am "chucking in with Hawass"? The only dating I have ever insisted on is that the monuments were built within a period of time when there was sufficient population to do the work which by all accounts was no earlier than c. 4,000BC which the RCD results support this. Do you think the RCD in this table sits well with Hawass and the like?
These RCD are guides, not absolutes, which when all the samples are considered what we are given is a range of "no greater than" and no "less than". Averages are given because this is the most prudent way to make sense of it which is not to mean this is what it is. I thought that would be understood by now.
Regardless, what I "chuck in" with are the facts and unlike most here I am not playing this stupid game of "picking sides" to win arguments for "team alternative" or "team mainstream". Sorry this is confusing to some, but all I really care about is the truth.
> Time to show your cards...
My cards have been laid bare for all to see since I came here. If there is any confusion in your mind, which is disappointing, it is your own.
8/8/14 from an earlier post 4/1/14 "Pyramid Town" Not for Pyramid Workers Afterall.
"Agenda"? "Slippery fish"? It would appear we have come to a fork in the road my friend.