Thanos5150 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Origyptian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sorry to butt in (kindly ignore if you prefer),
> > but if I recall correctly, many of the samples
> > were not from ancient masonry but were
> loose-lying
> > objects like dried plants, etc.,
>
> I keep saying this that it was not all charcoal
> but short lived materials.
>
> [snip]
>
> These are more than 400 samples collected between
> two studies 10yrs apart sent to multiple labs.
> Just like the cartouches of the RC, if you are
> going to take issue with one sample you will need
> to do so with them all.

We have essentially zero reason to believe any evidence of short-lived organic material would still be sitting on the surface to sample. The fact that they're sampling something within their line of sight shows the bias in sampling since obviously only more recent dates will result. I've explained previously how an 11k year old clump of surface charcoal can turn into a 5k year old RCD date thanks to exposure to modern carbon for at least 7 centuries. It's not that much of a mystery how the masonry and short-lived samples can all date to the 3rd/4th millennium BC even though the masonry organics might be far older.


Here's my response to your similar post elsewhere:

[grahamhancock.com]




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 18-Jun-16 19:26 by Origyptian.