> According to Onvlee
Umm, I'm being a little snippy here (?), but can we really invest in Biblical-based timelines? On the other hand, it is good to have them to compare when understanding chronology. Hokayyy, moving on ... :)
> I find it quite interesting Weigall's chronology
> is exactly in line with the RCD studies done
> almost 100yrs later.
Given the number of people who put out their own versions, someone had to be close, eh?
> Regardless, however one wants to spin the RCD
> studies, of which over 400 samples were used of
> not just charcoal but short lived materials as
> well, one thing is for certain no matter how they
> are looked at, no matter how many were "tainted"
> or "thrown out" or whatever- there is no way to
> magically turn an average of +/- 200yrs older into
> thousands of years let alone tens of thousands.
> the same token, as a whole this is not explained
> by "old wood" either. Egyptology is at fault for
> not accepting these dates and revising accordingly
> which at least they can take solace knowing they
> got even as close as they did.
I am more interested in Userkaf's Temple from the RCD study. Tsk, tsk, Egyptology!