> I've actually agreed with that to some extent
> because samples taken from short-lived objects
> like plants and animals might very well be from
> the dynastic period. While such samples (e.g.,
> from objects originating in the 4th or 3rd
> minnennium) might not necessarily contain enough
> contaminants to throw off their RCD dates that
> much. As I've said, I'm mainly concerned about
> the exposed masonry that might have been around
> far longer than the short-lived objects which are
> more likely to have originated by the dynastic
> culture that may have adapted that masonry which
> was ancient even in their day (ergo the need for
> restoration projects).
I really don't understand the needless doubt-mongering of these 2 RCD studies because if anyone wanted actual scientific proof the accepted timeline, and chronology, of these monuments are in error-this is it. Exhibit A. It's too bad those of this mind set don't spend as much time looking at the data and trying to make sense of it instead of just crapping on it because it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. If you listen it just might.
Abu Roash and the Temple of Userkaf are significantly older. Why? Was Abu Roash ever even a pyramid? There is already evidence of the 2nd Dynasty and older there. Or Zawyet el'Aryan? I don't think there is a chance in hell either of these were ever pyramids so the question is if not then what were they?
By my reckoning of the '95 study, the time between average date of Saqqara and the average date of G3 leaves a span of only 58yrs-if these were all built by successive pharaohs as tombs how is this possible? If correct, it can't be.
If we look at the 1984 study the sample dates for G1 are as follows:
Sample number | Age BC | Location
10B (charcoal) 3809 +-160 198th course top platform, SW corner
10B (wood) 3101 +-414 198th course top platform, SW corner
06 3090 +-153 25-26 course West side, NW corner
08 3062 +-157 108-109 course West side, NW corner
10A 3020 +-131 198th course top platform, SW corner
14 2998 +-319 5th course South side, SE corner
13 2975 +-168 5th course, SE corner
04 2971 +-120 2nd course core block North side
11 2950 +-164 Top platform, SW corner
05 2929 +-100 2nd course North side, near NW corner
07 2909 +- 97 65th course West side, NW corner
02 2909 +-104 2nd course North side East face 2nd tier
01 2869 +- 94 2nd course North side East end
13 2864 +-362 5th course SE corner
03 2853 +-104 2nd course North face 2nd tier
Averaging these out from the 1984 study gives us a date of 3,021BC +/- (avg) 176yrs i.e 3197-2845BC. WTF?
As an aside, it is universally agreed the descending passages of the Giza pyramids are polar passages, which stands to reason as are those of Meidum and Dashur, meaning they were meant to align with the pole star when they were built which accepting mainstream dating would not be Polaris so what was it? Among others, antiquarian astronomer Richard Proctor calculated Thuban, the pole star before Polaris, would have been seen through the descending passage of G1 at either 3,350BC or 2,170BC with a +/- error rate of 50-200yrs. If true, we can be reasonably confident to rule out the later date for numerous reasons leaving a time between 3,550BC-3,150BC (avg 3,350BC) the descending passage was constructed to align with Thuban. Which just so happen to line up exactly with the averages of the '84 G1 RCD.
No, I think the RCD's are quite compelling and instead of dumping on them for no good reason they should be held high.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 20-Jun-16 04:12 by Thanos5150.