lundi 10 juillet 2017

Carbon Dated Egyptology? Coffin Club didn't want to tell How Much!


1 Carbon Dated Egyptology? Coffin Club didn't want to tell How Much! 2 Coffin Club as Mute as a Grave on my Question 3 Third time over?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
July 1 at 11:26am
I am thankful for being let in.

I am here to ask a question, intending to republish interesting answers on blog, namely, what Pharaos or other Egyptians or materials connected to such have been carbon dated and what were the raw (not adjusted) carbon dates?

I know Narmer and Djoser were dated by Libby, and the dates were (at least for Narmer) somewhat adjusted. Anything else is news to me, and perhaps some aspects of these too.

[I seem to have been wrong about Narmer, see below.]

I might as well reveal my agenda : I am a YEC and am making tables for what carbon years correspond to what real and Biblical years. I am for instance considering Narmer as contemporary to Abraham and Djoser as being Joseph's Pharao.

Youri Volokhine
1 juillet, 11:38
I think that your agenda has nothing to do with egyptology, or with serious science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
1 juillet, 12:19
My question is directly related to Egyptology, irrespective of what my agenda may be.

Youri Volokhine
1 juillet, 13:16
i think that your question depends directly of your agenda.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
1 juillet, 20:43
Which does not change that is it relevant to this group.

Note on update
The above exchange with Youri Volokhine was recovered in an update to the blog on 12.VII.2017. When I was writing the original post, I could not find him or the comments on the thread. I supposed hastily they had been deleted, he had left FB or sth. It was easier than that - he had blocked my account and I could not find him on all of that one.

He did not count on group being open and me having another account (with French settings, as you can see from "juillet" instead of "July")./HGL

Jim Liddell
Sorry. I'm Christian, definately NOT a YEC, and can confirm that C14 dating broadly confirms the accepted chronology of Egypt. Not only that, thermoluminesence dating of pottery confirms the pre-existing cultures which eventually made up a united Egypt had inhabited the Nile valley for several thousand years. We therefore have an uninterupted timeline going back further than 5000 BC into the realms pof the Palaeolithic period. As this is the Coffin Club, we have a clear pattern of burial customs evolving from the Naqqada and Badarian times into the 'coffined' period which dates from predynastic times onward - uninterrupted. Incidentally, in part we have (Christian) Flinders Petrie to thank for this excellent timeline.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"and can confirm that C14 dating broadly confirms the accepted chronology of Egypt."

Have you looked into buld up of carbon levels in atmosphere?

+ this was not he question.

I was asking : what Pharaos have been carbon dated (mummies, sarcophagi, items beside these, manuscripts on papyrus probably dating from their or later times). That is all. You did not give one to add to the Narmer and Djoser couple I already was aware of.

Jim Liddell
Yes. Atmospheric c14 dioes not affect the carbon locked in, for example, organic material found in Netjerikhet (Djoser)'s step pyramid, This material was independemntly examined and dated by two independent sources in both the UK and Australia - and confirms the accepted chronoloogy, give or take a very few years. If you have a problem with this, take it up with the universities of Cambridge and Sydney.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am for one thing not so stupid as to take up problems with ONLY the universities who did original datings, since they would hardly have a super great interest in publishing my problems, and for another, the problems I am supposed to have with the carbon dates are not the question I posed.

I was only asking for MORE carbon dates from Egypt than Narmer and Djoser, if there is such - and then I am applying my so called problems from there on.

I mean atmospheric carbon 14 at the time when the organic material is FROM.

Jim Liddell
Since much of the material scanned by the latest techniques was not exposed to the atmosphere, then your point is lost on me. By the way, can you please relate to 'The Coffin club' group. I know evolution's a nasty word in some quarters, but you might ponder the unbroken evolution of funerary practice over five millennia in the Nile Valley.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
What do you mean "was not exposed to the atmosphere"?

There is no organic material whatsoever which is not either directly or indirectly exposed to the atmosphere while alive!

The point is, if the atmosphere in which the trees grew from which Narmer's and Djoser's coffins or sarcophagi were made were significantly lower in C14, this means they had a significant "carbon age" for free.

THIS in turn means that they are carbon dated older than they really are.

I am not disputing these coffins exist, I am not saying that the carbon datings were not made, I am saying that the carbon 14 content back in the then atmospheres was LOWER, meaning that when you calculate how much has decayed and part from a supposed near 100 pmc carbon 14 level, you are giving original values, therefore also decay, and therefore also age a HIGHER value than correct.

Now, this is where my question comes in.

I have been able no problem to loo, up what Narmer's and what Djoser's coffins were dated to, I have been able to convert from Libby halflife to Cambridge halflife, now I want to know how many other coffins are carbon dated, so I can perhaps get a little more food for my tables of rising carbon levels.

I really and truly do not see how the rest of your palaver relates either to the question or to the general topic.

Jim Liddell
Narmer's coffin?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Was it his mummy?

I have now seen a shift in available material on carbon dating over internet.

"The date commonly given for the beginning of Narmer’s reign is ca. 3,100 BC.[2][3] Other mainstream estimatings, using both the historical method and Radiocarbon dating, are in the range ca. 3273–2987 BC. Establishing absolute dating for Ancient Egypt relies on two different methods, each of which is problematic. As a starting point, the Historical Method, makes use of astronomical events that are recorded in Ancient Egyptian texts, which establishes a starting point in which an event in Egyptian history is given an unambiguous absolute date. “Dead reckoning” – adding or subtracting the length of each king’s reign (based primarily on Manetho, the Turin King List, and the Palermo Stone) is then used until one gets to the reign of the king in question. Of course, there is uncertainty about the length of reigns, especially in the Archaic Period and the Intermediate Periods. Two astrological events are available to anchor these estimates, one in the Middle Kingdom and one in the New Kingdom[4]. Two estimates based on this method are: Hayes 1970, p. 174, who gives the beginning of the reign of Narmer/Menes as 3114 BC, which he rounds to 3100 BC; and, Krauss & Warburton 2006, p. 487 who places the ascent of Narmer to the throne of Egypt as c. 2950 BC."

Unclear on whether there was a carbon date for Narmer.

"Radiocarbon Dating has unfortunately its own problems: According to Hendrickx 2006, p. 90, “the calibration curves for the (second half) of the 4th millennium BC show important fluctuations with long possible data ranges as a consequence. It is generally considered a ‘bad period’ for Radiocarbon dating.” Using a statistical approach, including all available carbon 14 dates for the Archaic Period, reduces, but does not eliminate, these inherent problems. Dee & et al., uses this approach, and derive a 65% confidence interval estimate for the beginning of the First Dynasty of c. 3211 – 3045 BC. However, they define the beginning of the First Dynasty as the beginning of the reign of Hor-Aha. There are no radiocarbon dates for Narmer, so to translate this to the beginning of Narmer’s reign one must again adjust for the length of Narmer’s reign of 62 years, which gives a range of c. 3273-3107 BC for the beginning of Narmer’s reign. This is reassuringly close to the range of mainstream Egyptologists using the Historical Method of c. 3114 - 2987 BC. Thus, combining the results of two different methodologies allows to place the accession of Narmer to c. 3273 - 2987 BC."

Seems like a direct denial of Narmer having been carbon dated.

But could mean simply that a carbon date was made and later rejected - due to this being now considered a bad period for carbon dating.

My point is, I'd like to know more about which pharaos, queens, papyri, other artefacts etc are carbon dated.

I had earlier seen a notice that Narmer's coffin (unless it was mummy) was one of the first things carbon dating was tested on.

Wait, I found a little list ...

Jim Liddell
There is no certain identification of Narmer's mummy. No serious Egyptologist would claim with certainty, given the upheavals at the necropolis, that human remains in sny dyn I or II can be atributted with certainty.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I may have seen a bad news, or Libby may have been wrong about certain things.

I cannot exclude totally having mixed up things myself.

There is however a recent dating which does a bit of identification, namely with Hor Aha.

Luca Miatello
Here you will find a recent freely available article on Radiocarbon dating in Egyptology, mentioning also a large number of samples, with large bibliography:

Radiocarbon Dating and Egyptian Chronology—From the “Curve of Knowns” to Bayesian Modeling
Felix Höflmayer
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935413.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935413-e-64


I would say, however, that if you wanted to know on Radiocarbon dating, you could have asked without revealing your "agenda", which is not of interest in this group.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Wonderful.

Thank you!

Yes, I could have, but perhaps people knowing what you do but having an attitude like Youri Volokhine would have been disappointed after I had revealed what I had done with the info later.

Luca Miatello
I posted the link to that article because the subject of radiocarbon dating can be of interest to anyone. Maybe reading the literature you will change your mind, but in any case this is a free world (or at least it should be), and anyone can formulate any hypotheses, even the most absurd ones.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I actually found another article with a list.

As to absurd, here's a little on the maths involved in my idea:

Creation vs Evolution : Feynman approach to YEC concepts?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/07/feynman-approach-to-yec-concepts.html


Luca Miatello
You are using this group for aims that have nothing to do with the aim of this group. Please read the rules: off-topic posts should be removed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The post as such is NOT off topic.

I was given off topic responses and responded to them.

So, I make an ON topic post, you are among the guys who give OFF topic (both to group and to my post) responses, and if I don't keep just shut up in face of that, you suggest that my post should be removed!

I am using YOUR remarks as a provocation for the remarks I am adressing in reply to YOUR remarks.

ALSO, I just now noted this:

"I would say, however, that if you wanted to know on Radiocarbon dating, you could have asked without revealing your "agenda", which is not of interest in this group."

My question was not "about carbon dating" or "wanting to know about carbon dating".

My question WAS what carbon dated pharaos (or otherwise historically dated persons, or objects connected to) there are, and what the carbon dates are.

I only found it courteous to tell you what I intended to do with the info.

Luca Miatello
Dear sir. I have been very kind with you, and now you are even insulting me. In this post you say that you know little or nothing about radiocarbon dating in Egyptology, and I suggested you a link to a free article, inviting you of not talking of "creationism" in this group, which is off topic. You responded that another person of this group had a "bad attitude" and if you had not revealed your "agenda" people with that attitude "would have been disappointed" later, knowing what you "had done with the info". What does it mean? I refused to comment your absurdities about the bible, etc. You are free to formulate your hypotheses on the bible, but NOT HERE, PLEASE.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I have been very kind with you, and now you are even insulting me."

No, you have insulted me, that is not being kind.

" In this post you say that you know little or nothing about radiocarbon dating in Egyptology, "

No, that is not my exact words.

My exact words are to the effect that I do not know much about WHAT or WHO or WHOSE TOMBS or COFFINS have been carbon dated.

Your link was NOT extremely helpful, I found another one myself which is very much more to the point.

"and I suggested you a link to a free article, inviting you of not talking of "creationism" in this group, which is off topic."

The link to your article was off topic to my question.

The info I wanted is on topic to this group. That I wanted it for purposes related to creationism is a side issue to my question. I got more than one comment (including from a Youri Volokhine who seems to have been excluded and his comments deleted so I can no longer document them) related to this side issue, and you are asking me to back down on it?

Your attitude is exactly Volokhine's!

I made one question related to this group + one remark on why I made the question. I got NO replies - including from you - which adress my question, and you are the third group member (unless you are an admin) who "kindly" informs me about the side issue and then you take offense on my not backing down on it!

"What does it mean?"

I meant that if I had gotten a link really to the topic I was asking about from someone like YOU, and had given a hat tip to YOU on my creationist article, someone like YOU could have taken offense like that, as much as Youri Volokhine did, especially since so far your attitude has been worse than his.

So, I spared you the chore of cringing at the hat tip I could have given if YOU had given this or that or sundry article which said Hor Aha has a Libby date so and so BP, Djoser has a Libby date so and so BP, or rather different labs have these different dates.

Instead you will be on my blog for your bad attitude.

Sakkara tomb 16 and Tell el Daba are not exactly a large number of samples, as you proposed, perhaps you could see more of the article than I, but that is what my - unpaid - view of the article gave. A longer discussion about each, thank you, but NOT a great number of examples of carbon dated material.

As to "absurdities about the Bible", it is not I who am insulting your religion, it is you who are insulting mine!

It seems
someone (Luca?) is typing a comment on the thread, if he gets it ready, I'll update!

Note:
Luca Miatello is not an admin, which needs to be said to the honour of those who are!

Luca Miatello
Dear sir, there is no indication in the Bible of when Abraham and Djoser lived, and no religion proposes a date. I ask you for the last time: PLEASE talk of COFFINS or leave this group.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Dear sir, there is no indication in the Bible of when Abraham and Djoser lived,"

1) When Abraham lived? There certainly are, though diverse from text to text (I am using LXX), and from calculator to calculator (on LXX we can't use Ussher, he's in Masoretic, but we can use St Jerome of George Syncellus for LXX).

2) When Djoser lived? There are if he is Joseph's Pharao, which the Hungere Stele clearly suggests.

"and no religion proposes a date."

Roman Martyrology is not religious?

Roman Martyrology for Christmas day includes the specifications that Christ was born :

5199 after Creation
2957 after Flood
2015 after Birth of Abraham

It is based on St Jerome calculating. Byzantine liturgy is closer to Syncellus (differs 8 years from Syncellus).

You are promoting a factoid.

"I ask you for the last time: PLEASE talk of COFFINS or leave this group."

I was talking of coffins. You are also apparently not an admin, so you have no authority to tell me what to do.

One more update
After two more comments, not by me, this thread was turned off.

Jim Liddell
This is not a group which is set out to discuss the relevence of Scripture in the chronology of Egypt. Can I suggest you find another of the many groups which are based on theology and its relation to history (I write as a committed Christian)

Julie Morgan
(unlike Luca, she is an admin)
Hans-Georg Lundahl - whilst I acknowledge a common interest in this particular topic, I don't think it is relevant to the group. Might it be possible for you to find a more suitable forum for this discussion? I also politely ask that you refrain from commenting further and to be more respectful towards other members. Many thanks.

My Answer Here
(not on thread)
I was asking a service of information which being right in theology - i e a dedicated Young Earth Creationist - does not automatically qualify you to know, and which the precise expertise of this group IS qualified to know!

I was not - except in response to others starting to do so - discussing relevance of Bible and chronology of Egypt, I was simply asking how much of chronology of Egypt is carbon dated by ... coffins./HGL

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire