> Origyptian Wrote:
> > Harte Wrote:
> > > What are these "catastrophic flaws" in the
> > > separate C14 dating projects?
> > The list goes on and on here (scroll to the
> > at the end of this link):
> Recommended for fans of high pseudoscience:
> nitpicking taken to a whole new level.
> One of his “objections” is the usual ad hoc
> fiction in which the pyramid was actually such a
> rubbish construction that it needed massive
> repair work by one or more
> pharaohs—which, given that the samples were
> taken from between core blocks, presupposes that
> the pyramid (it’s always the pyramid, never mind
> that other buildings were sampled) was in an
> advanced state of delapidation and amounts to
> crediting the pharaohs with the entirety of
> the casing and some of the core as well. Yes,
> somehow these incompetents, denied the ability to
> build the pyramids, solved all of the very
> similar problems encountered in repairing
> Another “objection” is that the investigators
> refrained from blasting great holes to get
> deeper samples—precisely the kind of destructive
> exploration for which pre-moderns such as Vyse are
> endlessly condemned.
> He seems to consider it an objection that the
> paper is a paper and not a textbook of standard
> Also tolerably clear is that “Doctor” Femano
> has not read the 1987 paper referenced in the
> introdoction. We may note this statement:
> “Oddly, the authors believe the fault was in the
> C-14 studies and not the historic chronology.”
> Either “Doctor” Femano has misunderstood
> authors’ scrupulously noncommittal comments
> (which says little for his comprehension of the
> remainder of the paper), or this is a flat-out
Yes, it seems lost on the good doctor the dates were derived from multiple samples taken from numerous monuments though several Dynasties
Quoting myself from a discussion regarding the Old Wood Theory RE: the 1994 RCD study:
Taking these dates at "face value", I find several interesting things.
1) There is virtually no difference between the highest and lowest ranges of both 3rd and 4th Dynasty Pyramids, i.e. the pyramid age, from Sakkara to G3 with the upper dates offered on average around 2850BC.
2) The overwhelming majority of Giza Pyramid ranges (high) are in the (rounded down 4 years and up 5 years respectively) 2700-2900BC range. Of the 11 ranges for G1 only 3 are less than 2700BC. Of the 6 for G2 only one is less than 2700BC and four are 2800BC and above. G3, 5 out of 12 are below 2700BC and is the only Giza pyramid to have at least one range less than 2600BC though it is still as old or older than G1 is conventionally dated. Of the 29 ranges offered, 19 (66%) are in the 2700-2900 BC range.
3) If we take the average of the highest and lowest range dates to get an overall average this is what we are left with (decimal rounded):
Sakkara: 2792-2743 BC (historical range 2688-2649 BC)
Bent Pyramid: 2743-2696 BC (historical range 2688-2649 BC)
Pyramid at Meydum: 2722-2688 BC (historical range 2613-2589 BC)
G1: 2755-2722 BC (historical range 2589-2566 BC)
Abu Roash Pyramid: 2824-2783 BC (historical range 2588-2558 BC)
Abu Roash Pyramid Temple: 2806-2719 BC (historical range 2588-2558 BC) NOTE: This RC date is skewed lower by one anomalous range. Removed range is 2856-2749 BC
G2: 2793-2738 BC (historical range 2558-2532 BC)
G3: 2725-2695 BC (historical range 2532-2504 BC)
As we can see, all of the ranges, even the youngest, are all much older than the historical range and is uniform from site to site. And if we take out the oldest range and the youngest range they are even older.
So, according to carbon dating the new average dates would be as followed (decimals rounded):
Bent Pyramid-2720 BC
Meydum Pyramid-2705 BC
Abu Roash Pyramid-2804 BC
Abu Roash Temple-2795 BC
G3 2710 BC
Other dates of note are the Pyramid of Unas which with this formula dates to 2676 BC and if the two anomalous considerably younger dates are removed it dates to 2728 BC (historical range 2375-2345 BC). The ranges of the two younger dates combined average to 2495 BC.
When looking at the 5th and 6th Dynasty dates at a glance, a few are younger than the historical range, most are older and in the case of the Temple of Userkaf it dates to a whopping 3102 BC despite a historical date of 2498-2491 BC. Very interesting.
It would appear that except for a few earlier sites, the 12th Dynasty dates are the only ones that are as expected.
I would also note that the much older dates at Abu Roash are not surprising. There is precedent that dates it to the 1st Dynasty as well as it never having been a pyramid. It is interesting to me, however, that the date range for Abu Roash directly parallels the oldest dates found at the rest of the pyramids.
As we can see, the problem of older dates is not unique to G1 and is present almost without exception in all of the monuments dated prior to the 12th Dynasty. If old wood were responsible this same phenomenon would be found throughout Egyptian history arguably even more so in the 12th Dynasty than the 1st-6th, but actually the opposite is true. Also if this were the case given the accepted span of real time between the 1-6th Dynasties, not ALL of the samples would consistently date older. Surely over the span of over 200yrs of real time we would expect an amalgam of older and contemporary wood but it is just not there-its all older.
This is a very clear context for all regardless which side of the debate.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 15-Feb-16 18:24 by Thanos5150.