Over 400 samples were taken between the two studies, not just charcoal but short lived materials as well, which all fall within the same range. The '95 study at least, showed that not just the OK was older but all the dates prior to the 12th Dynasty. You focus on the samples of G1 and ignore the rest which at large are consistent with each other straight across the board between both studies.
I find it a bit disingenuous for some to complain Egyptologists throw out RCD when it does not conform to their expectations, yet in the same breath these people throw out the combined totality of one of the largest if not the largest sampling of RCD ever done on the ancient world because it does not conform to theirs. And often it is these same people who cry like little bitches all the time how Egyptology never does any "real science". There are many interpretations that can be made from these RCD results so when we see 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
It is a guide, not an absolute. These are merely the averages. The older dates found on the upper section of G1 mean something. The average dates of Abu Roash make it on average the oldest monument of them all. The Temple of Userkaf had dates upwards of 3,000BC. This all means something. The point I am trying to make here is that by the same token these RCD tests do not mean nothing and are pretty solid evidence as a whole the timeline needs to be revised at the very minimum a few hundred years.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 18-Jun-16 17:22 by Thanos5150.