R Avry Wilson Wrote:
> Umm, I'm being a little snippy here (?), but can
> we really invest in Biblical-based timelines?
To his credit, Onvlee's take on the RCD studies has nothing to do with Biblical timelines. As far as I can tell his unconventional interpretations of Biblical timelines seem to be more an attempt to use those sources as a tool to ferret out a timeline regardless of the religious beliefs.
Of course, we cannot just go about correcting everything without proper reasoning, but we also cannot just take all the nonsense of say three thousand years of writing for granted, Bible or no Bible. So I'll challenge all Bible versions to reveal themselves, hence the title "Biblical Chronology Exposed".
Regarding the RCD, Onvlee is convenient but not required to come to the same conclusions. I'm just a caveman, but using the '95 RCD even I was able to make sense of it:
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.
All things considered, there seems to be no other conclusion given the data than conventional dating is off from the 6th Dynasty and earlier by at least 100-400yrs if not considerably more. Egyptologists offer the OWT as an explanation, but as I have argued it is just not reasonable to expect ALL of the wood to be "old" and for there to be so much of it for so long a period of time, not to mention be a wholly unique phenomenon of the 1st-6th Dynasties. And not all of these dates are derived from charcoal used for mortar but rather shorter lived "sundry" materials from around the bases. I have to wonder what these ranges would look like with charcoal dates only, especially from mid-height and above.
What this data also suggest to me, namely in regards to 3rd and 4th Dynasty pyramid building, is that because of the short time span between pyramid construction from Sakkara to G3 they must have overlapped and were likely built as continuing and roughly congruent national projects not limited to one pharaoh which would also help explain why they were never claimed as expected by one pharaoh or another. It is entirely possible that all of these pyramids at one stage or another were being worked on simultaneously, which to me is even more indicative of a restoration or expansion project than a from the ground-up construction project.
If we take the 2768 BC date of Sakkara, considered to be the first pyramid built, and subtract the 2710 BC date of G3, supposedly the last pyramid in this line, that leaves us a mere 58yrs between them. This is a simplistic view considering we could view these dates as midpoints of construction and tack on another 10yrs to each, but is 78yrs really any more palatable? And this doesn't even include the Red Pyramid, [Bent, and Meidum pyramids]. Or leveling the
entireGiza plateau, the Sphinx and all the temples, the boat pits, paving the plateau, several satellite pyramids and mastabas-on and on. Think of everything that would have been built during this 78yrs, from a house and road, to the pyramids and temples, not to mention all of the logistics of just plain living. Conventional dating gives us barely 150yrs for all this to happen which is still a stupendously small amount of time. I find it hard to believe that even the most militant of dogmatist cannot look at these numbers and not scratch their head at the serious possibility there is something off here. This doesn't mean aliens or Atlantis, but we must consider the implication of the likelihood conventional dating is off by at least 100-400yrs.
> the other hand, it is good to have them to compare
> when understanding chronology. Hokayyy, moving on
> ... :)
I have no interest in "Biblical Chronology", but the Bible can certainly give us clues about chronology in general though this seems to really only be relevant for the 3rd millennium and onward.
> Given the number of people who put out their own
> versions, someone had to be close, eh?
Props to Weigall.
> I am more interested in Userkaf's Temple from the
> RCD study. Tsk, tsk, Egyptology!
Wassup with that, right? Abu Roash is even more titillating.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19-Jun-16 04:00 by Thanos5150.