4 ms·

I’m hoping archaeologists will finally find something that has undoubtedly been inside the Great Pyramid since it was built that they can carbon-date. There’s a

by qubex 9y ago

I’m hoping archaeologists will finally find something that has undoubtedly been inside the Great Pyramid since it was built that they can carbon-date. There’s a surprisingly large amount of fairly circular thinking involved in dating some of the more impressive monuments in at the Giza Plateau, and though for sure the conspiracy theory/aliens built ‘em theories are bunk, I am really looking forward to breaking out of the loops with objective external validation.

oh_sigh 9y ago
Agreed upon chronologies only differ by ~300 years over a period of ~5000 years - is carbon dating precise enough to even narrow that down for us?
- Jackalopiate 9y ago
  What are you claiming is the agreed upon date?
- DrScump 9y ago
  Carbon dating can only be used on carbon-based life and its residues, not on the building materials.
  - sandworm101 9y ago
    lots of building materials contain bits of organic material. Glues, dyes, wood, perhaps bits of people. A big enough chunk of wood can also sometimes be linked to a specific year via tree rings. Such a combination of carbon and non-carbon dating techniques is about as reliable as we can every hope.
- qubex 9y ago
  It's precisely the “agreed-upon” part of “agreed-upon chronologies” that causes me such anxious exertion. These buildings were pretty much the apparent apex of their purported builders’ architectural capability, and yet somehow sit right at the beginning of that civilisation's timeline. They're supposedly funerary but no bodies were ever found inside. Ancient Egyptians are renown for using decorating internal surfaces with hieroglyphs and yet the inside of the pyramids is almost devoid of them (save for, as far as I know, two counter-examples: one at the apex of the relieving chamber, with a possibility that it was a later addition, and one on the far side of the Queen's Chamber's shaft's door, which is definitely original to the time of construction). Meanwhile nearby the Sphinx has its oddly disproportionate human head (that might be a successive re-carving of a properly-proportioned lion head) and there's signs that at least some geologists reckon is water erosion, pushing the dates back significantly. Of course, this is very much the domain of conspiracy theories and alternative histories, but I'd very much appreciate a definitive, non-self-referential answer to the question, something along the lines of “this piece of wood that has been trapped in here since the time this monument was built is N thousand years old” without any chance for debating the facts. The theories that do not accomodate for that demonstrable fact will finally be required to be revised or will fall by the wayside. I’m always excited when something, particularly a prevalent opinion, can be put to a definitive test. I'm always excited by which new explanations might be required if the prevalent opinion is found wanting.

by qubex 9y ago

oh_sigh 9y ago

Agreed upon chronologies only differ by ~300 years over a period of ~5000 years - is carbon dating precise enough to even narrow that down for us?

Jackalopiate 9y ago
What are you claiming is the agreed upon date?
DrScump 9y ago
Carbon dating can only be used on carbon-based life and its residues, not on the building materials.
- sandworm101 9y ago
  lots of building materials contain bits of organic material. Glues, dyes, wood, perhaps bits of people. A big enough chunk of wood can also sometimes be linked to a specific year via tree rings. Such a combination of carbon and non-carbon dating techniques is about as reliable as we can every hope.
qubex 9y ago
It's precisely the “agreed-upon” part of “agreed-upon chronologies” that causes me such anxious exertion. These buildings were pretty much the apparent apex of their purported builders’ architectural capability, and yet somehow sit right at the beginning of that civilisation's timeline. They're supposedly funerary but no bodies were ever found inside. Ancient Egyptians are renown for using decorating internal surfaces with hieroglyphs and yet the inside of the pyramids is almost devoid of them (save for, as far as I know, two counter-examples: one at the apex of the relieving chamber, with a possibility that it was a later addition, and one on the far side of the Queen's Chamber's shaft's door, which is definitely original to the time of construction). Meanwhile nearby the Sphinx has its oddly disproportionate human head (that might be a successive re-carving of a properly-proportioned lion head) and there's signs that at least some geologists reckon is water erosion, pushing the dates back significantly. Of course, this is very much the domain of conspiracy theories and alternative histories, but I'd very much appreciate a definitive, non-self-referential answer to the question, something along the lines of “this piece of wood that has been trapped in here since the time this monument was built is N thousand years old” without any chance for debating the facts. The theories that do not accomodate for that demonstrable fact will finally be required to be revised or will fall by the wayside. I’m always excited when something, particularly a prevalent opinion, can be put to a definitive test. I'm always excited by which new explanations might be required if the prevalent opinion is found wanting.