> Hi Thanos
> Thankyou it was a clever (twisty) attempt at
> counter argument.
Apparently "slippery fish" are like that.
> It seems to have provided great
> 'fuel' for further petty squabble. Good work. ;-)
This wasn't my intention. I just don't think it is fair to dismiss these RCD as "worthless". If so then RCD itself is worthless and should be abandoned altogether which I do not agree with.
> I think Egyptology IS sufficiently aware of the
> shortcomings of RCD, so as to completely avoid
> taking such results as better guide than their
> existing guess based on kings lists, potshards and
> random scribbles.
Indeed. But in this case they did it twice, extensively, and neither time got the answers they were looking for. They may wish to ignore it but I think it is quite profound and instead of some trying to doubt monger it to death because it does not give dates tens of thousands of years old it should be celebrated as an important step towards redefining the time line through science.
> At best, all it can indicate that there was very
> significant human involvement in the roughly
> assigned periods.
> You are very aware that almost all tombs,
> monuments etc were raided far back in antiquity.
> (even G7000x!) ;-)
> High on G2 we see strange vertical blocks
> supporting upper layer seemingly repairs! When?
> How many robbers would have crawled all over the
> pyramids especially in intermediate periods or
> time of conflict? Therefore in addition to nature
> itself, this provides considerable scope for
> contamination especially if talking... charcoal
> and reeds!
What makes these two RCD tests compelling is that the samples were taken from dozens of monuments over several locations spanning many dynasties and they all tell the same basic story that on average from the 11th Dynasty and earlier all are at least 200yrs older on average. If what you are saying were really that applicable there would be a mix of time periods throughout AE history represented which they did not find and specifically choose locations to take samples from to avoid it.
To say it again, I really find it eerie Sir Arthur Weigall's dates are so spot on for the RCD as well as Onvlee's reckoning of the Royal Annals. To consider all 3 I think is pretty compelling.
> Heck, recently we saw pictures of mud brick
> retaining walls high on G1.
> We KNOW with absolute certainty most pyramids were
> extended, renovated, and repurposed. The RCD is
> likely to roughly equivocate to the last major
> renovation project.
This is possible, but it may also speak to the fact these projects may have taken hundreds of years to complete over the reign of several pharaohs.
> This makes Djoser, Meidum, Bent Red G1 G2 G3 and
> associated structures highly unlikely to be
> entirely the original work completed in any one
> kings reign.
I completely agree.
> Were the original constructions made with lots of
> mortar? I think not. Petrie was astonished by the
> magic stuff which seemed to stick casing blocks
> together... not traditional mortar.
Don't know. Never really thought about it. There are many blocks of G1 that have gobs of mortar slathered all about so its not just the casing stones. What I have always found interesting though are the mortar repairs to the KC that are said to have happened after completion due to damage to the KC. This needs explaining and makes little sense if really a tomb.
> Thanks for trying to set me straight, much
> appreciated friend!
The RCD is open enough anyone can draw their own conclusions as to what they mean, but I do not think dismissing them because they are inconvenient is the right thing to do. Seems kind of strange to complain Egyptologists ignore them because they are too old while other do the same because they are too young. They are what they are so we need to deal with it.