Rethinking Ancient Egypt - On Cataclysms, Ancient Technology and Identity Theft

Cro Magnon was that original civilization imo, their elites I would contend,have formed a secret breakaway civilization currently running parallel to our own, never having gone extinct. Their are also descendants of these amongst the public.the even more Giant Nephilim accompanied the Cro Magnons from atlantis, lastly in 1600bc.

a reply to: spirit_horse

a reply to: Harte

Howdy ...My contention for the worked and re-worked dates is surmised in reading not just the official history but other opinions as well as new scientific findings especially the C14 dating .At the end I put a quote with the link to this new data .

"""

ABSTRACT. Between 1984 and 1995 over 450 organic samples were collected from monuments built during the Old and Middle Kingdoms. The most suitable samples were selected for dating. The purpose was to establish a radiocarbon chronology with samples from secure context and collected with the careful techniques required for 14C samples. This chronology is compared to the historical chronology established by reconstructing written documentation. Radiocarbon dating of dynastic monuments in Egypt goes back to the very beginning of this dating method. W F Libby included three Old and Middle Kingdom samples in his initial set of known-age samples as a test of the method (Arnold and Libby 1949). In the following twenty years, numerous laboratories have followed Libby’s lead and analyzed similar samples. From the published results it became apparent that close agreement with the historical chronology was often lacking. A closer study of this disagreement was needed.

The American Research Center in Egypt (ARCE) undertook in 1984 the first of the two projects reported here with financial support from the Edgar Cayce Foundation. The Foundation’s interest in the project rested on a hypothesis offered by Cayce that the Giza pyramids dated to 10,500 BC [14C and historic dates was only approximate and left open the possibility of a difference between the two chronologies. These results were reported in Haas et al. 1987. More data was needed, thus, a second project was begun in 1995.] The earliest experiments in radiocarbon dating were done on ancient material from Egypt. Willard F. Libby’s team obtained acacia wood from the 3rd Dynasty Step Pyramid of Djoser to test a hypothesis they had developed. Libby reasoned that since the half-life of C14 was 5568 years, the Djoser sample’s C14 concentration should be about 50% of the concentration found in living wood (for further details, see Arnold and Libby, 1949).

The results proved their hypothesis correct. Subsequent work with radiocarbon testing raised questions about the fluctuation of atmospheric C14 over time. Scientists have developed calibration techniques to adjust for these fluctuations. In 1984 we conducted radiocarbon dating on material from Egyptian Old Kingdom monuments [] The average radiocarbon dates were 374 years earlier than expected[]. In 1994-1995 the David H. Koch Foundation supported us for another round of radiocarbon dating.[] The 1995 set of radiocarbon dates tended to be 100 to 200 years older than the Cambridge Ancient History dates[] There are two striking results. First, there are significant discrepancies between the 1984 and 1995 dates for Khufu and Khafre, but not for Djoser and Menkaure. Second, the 1995 dates vary widely even for a single monument. For Khufu’s Great Pyramid, they scatter over a range of about 400 years.[] Ancient Egypt’s population was restricted to the narrow confines of the Nile Valley with, we assume, a sparse cover of trees. It is likely that, by the pyramid age, the Egyptians had been intensively exploiting wood for fuel for a long time.[]

Alternatively, if our radiocarbon estimations were in error for some reason, we had to assume that many other dates obtained from Egyptian materials were also suspect. This prompted the second, larger, 1995 study. At this point I would suggest that it was time to torture the data more ...it must confess ... If the Middle Kingdom radiocarbon dates are good, why are the Old Kingdom radiocarbon dates from pyramids so problematic? The pyramid builders often reused old cultural material, possibly out of expedience[] The giant stone pyramids in the early Old Kingdom may mark a major depletion of Egypt’s exploitable wood. This may be the reason for the wide scatter and history-unfriendly radiocarbon dating results from the Old Kingdom www.aeraweb.org... journals.uair.arizona.edu... www.ancient-wisdom.com... en.wikipedia.org... en.wikipedia.org...

Once again I have to bring up this new scientific discovery and ask the simple question ,does this effect all previous C14 dating which Egyptology will have to re address .If what they say is true of using old wood or even wood available at the time this big fluctuations in C14 will have a effect on the dating .

Large 14C excursion in 5480 BC indicates an abnormal sun in the mid-Holocene www.pnas.org... "" "We measured the 14C levels in the pine sample at three different laboratories in Japan, the US, and Switzerland, to ensure the reliability of our results," A. J. Timothy Jull of the University of Arizona says. "We found a change in 14C that was more abrupt than any found previously, except for cosmic ray events in AD 775 and AD 994, and our use of annual data rather than data for each decade allowed us to pinpoint exactly when this occurred." The team attempted to develop an explanation for the anomalous solar activity data by comparing the features of the 14C change with those of other solar events known to have occurred over the last couple of millennia. "Although this newly discovered event is more dramatic than others found to date, comparisons of the 14C data among them can help us to work out what happened to the sun at this time," Fusa Miyake of Nagoya University says. She adds, "

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Marduk

I am not convinced one way or the other about the tools used .My big issue is with dates and dating . If there was a civilization prior to Egypt then who were they and where did they go .

History tells us exactly what happens to them.

They go where all vanished civilizations like the Olmecs and the people who made the Nazca Lines went -- and the answer is "nowhere." A larger group came in and conquered/enslaved/took territory/intermarried and became the dominant culture. The ancient Roman tribes vanished when Rome united everyone. The Mycenaeans vanished when the Greek culture reorganized. The Picts were overrun and intermarried by other tribes there in Briton - etc.

If they are small enough groups, invaders can completely wipe them out. Otherwise, they become part of an incoming group.

And then has to rush off to secure funding ...

(cue hysterical laughing...) "secure funding? Oh my stars, no! I'm retired. We have a financial planner. I'm shuffling money from Certificates of Deposit to the bank so I can pay for this semester. I also wanted to go over my IRA investments with the adviser to see if they think rebalancing my portfolio to include more stocks is a sane idea or not (we decided to go with the lower risk and fewer stocks.)

....secure funding? How delightfully hilarious! Nobody funds senior citizens and nobody funds any one in their junior year of college. That only happens with a Master's Thesis if your work aligns with an existing and ongoing project that one of your professors has or with your PhD dissertation if it is a part of one of your department's major projects.

Ooops... forgot to answer the rest...

originally posted by: the2ofusr1

The pyramid builders often reused old cultural material, possibly out of expedience[] The giant stone pyramids in the early Old Kingdom may mark a major depletion of Egypt’s exploitable wood. This may be the reason for the wide scatter and history-unfriendly radiocarbon dating results from the Old Kingdom.

Once again I have to bring up this new scientific discovery and ask the simple question ,does this effect all previous C14 dating which Egyptology will have to re address .If what they say is true of using old wood or even wood available at the time this big fluctuations in C14 will have a effect on the dating .

First, this isn't NEW... we've all known about this for ages.

Second, nobody measures these things to the year and month and day... We don't say "the Great Pyramid was built starting July 15, 2608". We say "between 2600 and 2400 BCE". There's a range of error and everyone knows it.

Third, you might want to leave off thinking that we establish dates by C14. We don't.

C14 dates only give an approximation that can be up to 200 years off and can't measure time differences as close as 2 years.

We establish dates by written material from the kings and from information mentioning the kings or individuals who lived during the reign of a certain king. Proclamations and monuments (and wine jars and temple accounting scrolls, etc) will always say the king's name and what year of his or her reign it was created. We get an estimate of the length of the reign. In cases where we have a statement about when the king died and their age, we have a solid length of reign. Others, like Akhenaten, where we don't have his death date or Tut's accession date, we estimate using wine jar labels and proclamations and monuments. This also tells us when monuments were erected, when cities were founded, and so forth.

Styles also tell us when certain items were made. Coffin shapes, for instance, change over the centuries. A rectangular coffin that is painted yellow and has two painted eyes on the left side is for the royal family and was made before the 2nd Intermediate period. Royal workshop standards changed over time, which is how we can easily date statues. Some types (the seated statue) have styles that are only shown during one period and we can date those very accurately to the reign of a certain pharaoh.

We also use letters to other rulers and from other rulers to help firm up the dates because they will connect a date in Egypt with a ruler and a known time period somewhere else in the world.

Large 14C excursion in 5480 BC indicates an abnormal sun in the mid-Holocene www.pnas.org... "" "We measured the 14C levels in the pine sample at three different laboratories in Japan, the US, and Switzerland, to ensure the reliability of our results," A. J. Timothy Jull of the University of Arizona says. "We found a change in 14C that was more abrupt than any found previously, except for cosmic ray events in AD 775 and AD 994, and our use of annual data rather than data for each decade allowed us to pinpoint exactly when this occurred."

We don't use C14. We use Pharaohs. Far more accurate, less destructive.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Marduk

Not even close, your big issue is that you have unilaterally chosen to ignore scientific evidence like this,

So much so that I thanked you for the link and brought you a link about the same subject matter and asked you if it may actually matter with dating . I will take your lack of response to that simple question as you unilaterally choosing to ignore scientific evidence to maintain your sacrosanct position on the dates . David Rohl was strike two for you and is a part of the discussion that gives you strike three ,for telling me he doesn't belong when it comes to looking at dates for Egypt's history which is what this threads main point is . That is strike 4 and now we have moved into girley ball or T-ball .

Wow you think you're playing ball here, I know you can't be convinced, you are credulous, I already said that, but thanks for telling everyone you don't know the difference between the fifth and twenty fifth dynasties, I think I've done enough to completely discredit your claims here for anyone with any common sense reading this thread to realise the following.

1. you haven't even studied Egyptian culture
2. you are oblivious to how science really works
3. you have been reduced to clutching at straws and are now referencing ball games as you have a complete lack of anything evidential to support your unproven hypothesis

You're doing a better job of debunking your own nonsense than anyone else could

a reply to: Byrd

I would tend to reject it - BUT - having said that, I do it on the basis that my instructors reject it and they know more about it than I do. It looks like someone is trying to shoehorn the Bible onto a culture where there isn't any evidence. However, having said that, we've got an appointment with a financial adviser in an hour and so I'm going to trot off for that. I'll look at it later and give you some better thoughts on it, however.

so I can pay for this semester.

Excuse me for thinking the money part had to do with your educational studies . Oh wait how ridiculous of me.As far as asking you your opinion goes I see you only repeat what your instructor is paid to tell you to think. Reading the link Marduk provided it has a lot of maybes, could be's and assumptions . Not what I would call conclusive but what Harte mentions as wiggle room with the dates . So with a little wiggle room hear and a little there and a bit more torturing of the data mission accomplished ..... Address the main point I made concerning the C14 data in the new scientific finding and how that applies to the old now paper for the dating of Egypt .The link is in my previous post .

a reply to: Marduk

1. you haven't even studied Egyptian culture 2. you are oblivious to how science really works

You provided me with a document that used C14 dating . That document was created before the new scientific findings about C14 found in 5000 year old tree rings . How does that finding effect the dating used in your linked paper ? Because they don't address it and how could they because its just been published . You document acknowledges that they may have used used trees at the time ."used lumber" Did that lumber's C14 have the C14 signals that the new study found ? Was the calculations adjusted for that C14 ? Probably not but if you can provide me with data that shows it did or that the new finding has no barring on C14 I will be much appreciated .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Marduk

1. you haven't even studied Egyptian culture 2. you are oblivious to how science really works

You provided me with a document that used C14 dating . That document was created before the new scientific findings about C14 found in 5000 year old tree rings . How does that finding effect the dating used in your linked paper ? Because they don't address it and how could they because its just been published . You document acknowledges that they may have used used trees at the time ."used lumber" Did that lumber's C14 have the C14 signals that the new study found ? Was the calculations adjusted for that C14 ? Probably not but if you can provide me with data that shows it did or that the new finding has no barring on C14 I will be much appreciated .

youre asking me ?

Don't you know,
The recent tree dating makes carbon dating more accurate, but that because the published carbon dates are +/- 100 yers it makes no difference at all

Did that lumber's C14 have the C14 signals that the new study found ?

LOL ERR YES, ALL THE SIGNALS WERE PRESENT

hilarious

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Byrd
Reading the link Marduk provided it has a lot of maybes, could be's and assumptions . Not what I would call conclusive but what Harte mentions as wiggle room with the dates . So with a little wiggle room hear and a little there and a bit more torturing of the data mission accomplished ..... Address the main point I made concerning the C14 data in the new scientific finding and how that applies to the old now paper for the dating of Egypt .The link is in my previous post .

C-14 is not used to date things except in a very general way and where there is no other method of dating them and IF the material is date-able.

The Mid-Holocene material (per your most recent reference) is dated by sedimentation (since it's mostly pottery) and style. Very few pieces have been C14 dated. Even if they ran out and dated every single body and piece of cloth they found, the date range wouldn't change that much (because there's about a 300 year "window" for dates in the Holocene. You can get a closer date with soil horizons and other artifacts. The C14 dating would simply confirm (broadly) what the more narrow date (done by styles of pottery and burial styles and archaeological material) came up with.

The mortar dates (as Lehner says) for the GP are due to older (scrap wood) being burnt. The date range they found was not that out of line with the original estimates of Khufu's reign... pushed it to the lower end of the range.

But the C14 dates on the pyramid's mortar really aren't what's used to date material on Giza or the pyramid itself.

There is wiggle room, of course, because we often don't have the exact date of death for a king or the exact ascension date. Some of the pharaohs' reign lengths could be off by as much as 10 years.... this is well known. Getting the exact number depends on finding artifacts. No one will use C14 data to correct these dates for this because the margin of error for C14 dates is too large.

You can see how kings' reigns are determined by this example in Wikipedia

Co-regencies and proposed co-regencies are also taken into account

Again, note that nobody's using C14. They are using text, including Josephus and Manetho and the various kings' lists.

I will enlighten you on the truth of the pyramids, there origin is from the constellation Leo by a race of beings that live among us now. We were not the first sentient beings on this planet when they arrived, they battled with the first intelligence of this world and won. Though that first sentient native beings of Earth were not completely annihilated and continue to live among us as guardians against the oppressive alien invasion that still rules as gods to this day.

They originally came from the East which is the direction the Sphinx now face in recognition on their arrival. They came in giant rectangular box like ships holding great amounts of their home world waste in soil and sands. Some people mistake that they came here to find gold, but the truth is, they arrived looking for a place to dump all the soil and sand on board and obtain new untouched earth like our own.

There was a fierce battle that played out before man was adept enough to even stand a chance. The original sentient beings took on these invaders and a great distain between the two races can still be seen today from the calamity between these two species. In ancient mythology the fights and rebellions of these two species is seen in the great battles fought by them - interpreted to primitive man as the gods themselves.

After the defeat of the first sentient beings the Leonians made primitive man their slaves, seeing as man had the capacity with hands to work many intricate tools it suited the Leonians well for their greater ambitions in the development of their infrastructure here on earth. As the sentient beings and great enemies of the Leonians that were defeated, they are remembered in history and mythology in their leader - Anubis. Whom after the war the Anubites that remained hid in the shadows and consequently in mythology - the underworld.

The pyramids were built as landing pads and scratching posts for the Leonian invaders until the great rebellion of man that forced their ships to leave, but many still remain. This war still rages in your house holds even today you can still hear the great war continuing from a distance with the Anubites great bark and the Leonians small but deadly meow. The war between cats and dogs started millennias ago and to this day, they battle it out. Now as man has forgotten its past, know not of the dangers of when the Leonians next great mothership litter box will arrive once again to reclaim what it lost long ago, we still live in pearl.

We may not worship cats as gods anymore, but we still pay them rent!

a reply to: Byrd

Again, note that nobody's using C14. They are using text, including Josephus and Manetho and the various kings' lists.

ABSTRACT. Between 1984 and 1995 over 450 organic samples were collected from monuments built during the Old and Middle Kingdoms. The most suitable samples were selected for dating. The purpose was to establish a radiocarbon chronology with samples from secure context and collected with the careful techniques required for 14C samples. This chronology is compared to the historical chronology established by reconstructing written documentation. Radiocarbon dating of dynastic monuments in Egypt goes back to the very beginning of this dating method. W F Libby included three Old and Middle Kingdom samples in his initial set of known-age samples as a test of the method (Arnold and Libby 1949). In the following twenty years, numerous laboratories have followed Libby’s lead and analyzed similar samples. From the published results it became apparent that close agreement with the historical chronology was often lacking.

Note ..."" This chronology is compared to the historical chronology established by reconstructing written documentation. Radiocarbon dating of dynastic monuments in Egypt goes back to the very beginning of this dating method. W F Libby included three Old and Middle Kingdom samples in his initial set of known-age samples as a test of the method (Arnold and Libby 1949)""

This tells me that C14 dating was used going "" back to the very beginning of this dating method ""

""The earliest experiments in radiocarbon dating were done on ancient material from Egypt. Willard F. Libby’s team obtained acacia wood from the 3rd Dynasty Step Pyramid of Djoser to test a hypothesis they had developed.
Libby reasoned that since the half-life of C14 was 5568 years, the Djoser sample’s C14 concentration should be about 50% of the concentration found in living wood "" [] The results proved their hypothesis correct.[] False because of what the new finding on C14 shows . You can't have it both ways . Especially when entering into as evidence outdated C14 dating as Marduk did . That whole document is not scientific prof as he claims because what they claimed to be true is not true but false .

a reply to: AnonymousExplorer

Star for you great story ...I wont ask for a source though :>)

originally posted by: Byrd

So these would be the roughs that would later be carved out and filled in [...] Are the boxes "older than the graffiti", well, yes, the boxes were made first. But they are not repuprosed. The one they are looking at was, in fact, unused.

One question that comes to mind when considering these "roughs" is why they wouldn't have used paint instead, it would be less intrusive and probably more detailed. The final inscriptions could then have been applied with the proper tools based on the outlines painted on the surface?

Or are these crudely crafted schemes a fundamental requirement for applying inscriptions? As far as I know none of the boxes at the Serapeum have any of the final artwork on them, which also seems a bit odd.

originally posted by: jeep3r

One question that comes to mind when considering these "roughs" is why they wouldn't have used paint instead,.

Everything present in the tomb was supposed to be used by the king in the afterlife, Not an expert here but I think its common sense to think he'd have the best quality stuff. Less important burials do have painted sarcophagi, like this one found in Essex, yes Essex, that's not a typo lol
www.dailymail.co.uk...

the2ofusr1

ok ok, I'm kidding, if you want to know how the new tree ring evidence affects dates, here's a thread that someone posted 7 months ago, way ahead of the curve at that date I'm sure you'd agree, that's like when the news first broke, mind you be careful, the OP is a bit of an idiot
www.abovetopsecret.com...

you'll probably be a bit disappointed as it actually confirmed what's usually known as "the middle chronology"

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: AnonymousExplorer

Star for you

great story ...I wont ask for a source though :>)

You want sources? I have plenty!

s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...

i.ytimg.com...

seussblog.files.wordpress.com...

I know this is probably a lot to come to terms with, though in time you will see the Claw and the Paw are real!

a reply to: Marduk

From your source in that thread Date:July 19, 2016 The revised tree-ring-sequenced carbon dating for the two cities "is compatible only with the so-called middle chronology"

So its a revised tree-ring-sequenced carbon dating ...It must have been revised because it needed to be, other wise the old would have been fine ...got it :>)

But .my piece is dated December 21, 2016 and has new information .Not only new but never before seen info .""Carbon-14 contents in tree rings tell us information of the past cosmic ray intensities because cosmic rays produce 14C in the atmosphere. We found a signature of a quite large increase of incoming cosmic ray intensity in the mid-Holocene (the 5480 BC event) from the measurement of 14C content in North American tree rings. The cause of this event is supposed to be an extremely weak sun, or a combination of successive strong solar bursts and variation of a solar magnetic activity. In any case, 14C variation of the 5480 BC event is extraordinary in the Holocene, and this event indicates the abnormal solar activity compared with other periods.""

Do you think it might be time to revise the july 19 2016 revised tree-ring-sequenced carbon dating to factor in the December 21, 2016 discovery ?. Or does it matter to any degree when considering revised testing ? Maybe your revised testing will be rocked by the new find that C14 cant be used with any degree of certainty because of the anomaly of spiked C14 in older wood[s] of that time . Your other paper said that the had to assume that some of the sampled woods may have been older dead wood because of the assumption that there were no trees back then .Another assumption without and prof of fact .

www.sciencedaily.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.pnas.org...

So when I see C14 dating attached to a document as some kind of prof I ask myself ...why ...If tomorrow they make a newer discovery about C14 in the past will it effect what they claim about it today and will they then go and revise all the older documents to reflect this new data or will the next revised paper automatically cancel out all previous conclusions

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Do you think it might be time to revise the july 19 2016 revised tree-ring-sequenced carbon dating to factor in the December 21, 2016 discovery ?.

Sure, why don't you try and revise it along with your preconceived beliefs and then let us all know how you get on, I'm sure it will be entertaining. in the meantime, I found a great thread on Biblical giants if you want I'll add the link

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Marduk

1. you haven't even studied Egyptian culture 2. you are oblivious to how science really works

You provided me with a document that used C14 dating . That document was created before the new scientific findings about C14 found in 5000 year old tree rings . How does that finding effect the dating used in your linked paper ? Because they don't address it and how could they because its just been published . You document acknowledges that they may have used used trees at the time ."used lumber" Did that lumber's C14 have the C14 signals that the new study found ? Was the calculations adjusted for that C14 ? Probably not but if you can provide me with data that shows it did or that the new finding has no barring on C14 I will be much appreciated .

It would only be an issue if the wood was 3,000 years old when the Egyptians used it.
This "new finding" your talking about goes along with at least another dozen "new findings" of spikes in C14 from cosmic ray increases in the past. In fact, analyzing tree rings is where they find them. Comparing dendrochronology to C14 chronologies is how they created the calibration curve they use today to adjust C14 dates.

Since this spike is around 5200 BC (if I read that right,) and the C14 dates for the pyramids run from around 3000 BC to around 2400 BC, this particular finding almost certainly has no impact at all on those dates.
Not that it matters, as Byrd indicated, despite your rudeness.

Nobody by a fringe moron would rely solely on C14 dates to set a cultural timeline.

Beyond all that, you seem to have a morbid need to attempt to ridicule anyone that knows more about this than yourself. Byrd is too kind to say it, but I'm not. Neither is Marduk.
You might consider laying off the references to Byrd (or Marduk) parroting "what their professors told them."
You know, at least until you learn to read Egyptian hieroglyphs and Sumerian cuneiform, as these two can (respectively.)

You're already in over your head - and Marduk, besides his Assyriology expertise, is the meanest a-hole on the internet.

I wouldn't tempt him any further.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
You're already in over your head - and Marduk, besides his Assyriology expertise, is the meanest a-hole on the internet.

Someones been reading my Facebook Ancient Aliens posts lol

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Harte
You're already in over your head - and Marduk, besides his Assyriology expertise, is the meanest a-hole on the internet.

Someones been reading my Facebook Ancient Aliens posts lol

And many, many, others on many different forums.

Harte