> Taylor ('87) quoted Säve-Söderbergh's 1969
> symposium presentation which included Brew's
> statement, and this was properly cited by Audrey
> as apparently the first time (the '69
> presentation) that Säve-Söderbergh formally
> presented Brew's statement. Brew's statement
> apparently was repeated by Säve-Söderbergh the
> following year in a paper published in the 1970
> proceedings volume. If Holloway claims
> Säve-Söderbergh's 1970 paper is the first
> mention of Brew's statement, Holloway may be
> mistaken since Taylor claims that
> Säve-Söderbergh first presented the quote the
> previous year in a live presentation at a
> different symposium.
> While Brew made the statement before
> Säve-Söderbergh's '69 presentation, such
> practice seemed to have been active at least to
> 1995 (after Taylor's '87 citation), based on the
> details of methodology stated in Bonani, et al.
> where half the data samples were not included in
> the study but rather were put in a "reserve" for
> no stated reason, a descrepancy between the
> retrospective date of the '84 Cayce Foundation
> study and the then-contemporaneous '95 samples was
> not adequately addressed by the authors, the
> discrepancy between the RCD data and historical
> data was not properly explained by the authors, no
> rationale was given for the method used to
> determine "outliers", and no explanation was given
> to assure that modern carbon was removed from the
> surface samples. When the RCD data didn't quite
> fit the historical data, the authors gravitated
> toward blaming the method without offering any
> consideration of whether the historic timeline
> might require adjustment.
> It may have been an old practice, but it wasn't
> extinct by the time Taylor cited it.
The proceedings of this symposium are actually quite interesting. I think you in particular would enjoy reading it for it gives several C14 test results and there is discussion of them. I would very much like to hear your take on them, if you have the time and inclination to read it. It's not very long and is available on archive.org but you have to register (no cost involved) and virtually check out the booklet which is why I can't post a link to it. At archive.org search for "Radiocarbon variations and absolute chronology", Soderbergh's section begins on page 35.
Cut and paste isn't an option so I took the time to type a couple excepts thinking there might be others interested. For clarification I typed the beginning of the first page of the booklet that tells how the symposium was conducted. For those who didn't catch it, this was a NOBEL symposium, as in the NOBEL Peace Prize.
Radiocarbon variations and absolute chronology
The programme of the Twelfth Nobel symposium included, besides the normal lectures, six discussions and one excursion devoted to special problems treated during the symposium. One session was public and the audience was free to raise questions or contribute to the discussion after the three introductory lectures. All the lectures had been distributed in advance to the participants and hence the symposium sessions could, to a large extent, be devoted to discussions.
The lectures and the discussions were recorded. Since the discussions were often long and covered subjects not treated in the papers, they have been condensed and in a few cases they have been only summarized as editorial remarks.
The chronology of the Pharaonic civilization has been regarded as particularly well established and has therefore been used as a chronological basis, both for other cultures connected with Pharaonic Egypt and for the C14 method of dating.
C14 dating and Egyptian chronology by T. Save-Soderbergh and I.U. Olsson
C14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows:
"If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a foot-note. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it"
Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method, and many are still hesitant to accept C14 dates without reservations.
For this and many other reasons, it is of great importance to study the C14 variations and to work out an accurate correction scale by all the available checking methods.
......My task is to speak about the possibilities of using Egyptian chronology as a check on the C14 dates, and I shall therefore restrict myself to Pharaonic times.
C14 dating has been applied to Egyptian material for two reasons--to check the exactitude of the method with the aid of the absolute dates of Egyptian history, and to attempt to solve some uncertain points in Egyptian chronology.
I take this to mean that Egyptology's already established "absolute dates" are used to verify the tests. And that an "accurate correction scale" is needed to bring C14 dates in line with Egyptology's dates. How can they do this?!! How can 'historic', which has absolutely no calendar dates, be used to confirm a science test?!! It's absurd. The ancient Greeks had a calendar, although still not completely understood, and the Romans had one, so they can determine that Nero lived at such and such time. But the AE had no calendar.
Since these documents are all incomplete, we have to reconstruct the list of kings with the aid of other monuments and data, both contemporary and of much later date, such as Manetho's Egyptian history, compiled in the third century B.C. on the basis of old sources but unfortunately known to us only through still later excerpts.
Manetho is the backbone of Egyptian chronology, it always was.
It would have been easy to obtain excellent and reliably dated samples from the funerary ship of King Cheops, whose death can be dated to c. 2556 (maximum) and c. 2530 B.C. (minimum). We know that his ship was deposited near the pyramid by his successor Djedefre. Among other finds there were large quantities of decayed ropes in the shaft, which would have been excellent for C14 dating, thus avoiding the problems of large logs, inner growth rings, etc.
Instead three pieces of three different species of wood were used for one date. This sample should be reliable, the historical date is certain within rather narrow margins, and the find was safely sealed. But the C14 dating differs widely from the general trend of the period in question.
Really? Could the Egyptologists be wrong?