> Origyptian Wrote:
> 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.
The point I was trying to make is that the RCD data from G1 and the other OK monolithic structures might not represent the original construction date. Rather, the RCD data might merely represent the date of the mortar which might have been added millennia after the original construction when all the other organic objects appeared, such as loose vegetation, wood objects, etc. All of those objects from the same era might very well test within a small margin of error in the precision of the RCD data, but the accuracy of that data might still be way off due to the widespread contamination of any organic objects sitting in the open environment during all that time.
Meanwhile, all of the logical flaws that have been pointed out in the '95 C14 study simply open up other possibilities that cannot be ignored since those flaws weren't properly addressed in those studies.
As the RCD studies stand now, the data and conclusions are all over the map due to the various uncertainties in the sampling method, assumptions made, analyses applied, and conclusions drawn. The fact that it seems possible that the original pyramids did not have mortar applied to the core masonry raises a very real doubt in the validity of any conclusions about the original construction date of those monuments that were drawn from the RCD data of charcoal clumps in mortar.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?