|
|
Re: you bickerers about pyramids, your Bible theories disgusts God
Judith Stroud (euryale@earthlink.net)
Wed, 08 Jan 1997 12:36:16 -0500
fmurray@pobox, frank murray wrote:
>
> On Tue, 07 Jan 1997 15:45:24 -0500, Doug Bailey
> <aessedai@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >You bring up a very good point. The carbon-dating was performed by the
> >Radiocarbon Laboratory of Southern Methodist University and also by
> >laboratories in Zurich. It is my understanding that the samples were
> >carefully selected based the nature of organic material contained in the
> >different mortar samples. The frequency distribution of organic
> >material was skewed towards the more recent ages (that is the 29th
> >millenium BC). This makes sense given that their would be a
> >predominance of organic material from more recent periods in relation to
> >when the mortar was actually mixed and laid in place. However the
> >preponderance of what is dated as 29th mil BC material and the complete
> >absence of any material later than that establishes an extremely
> >reliable line of demarcation in time for when the mortar was used.
> >Given the limitations of carbon-dating and the relative paucity of the
> >samples, the researchers stated that there was a margin of error large
> >enough to reasonably believe the mortar could have been used as late as
> >the 26th millenium BC.
> >
> >If we did use mortar now there is a possibility (though very rare due to
> >organic material decay and sedimentation) that 1000 year old organic
> >material would find its way into our mortar. However, if would be very
> >rare and would be overshadowed by the large amount of fairly young
> >organic material from the surrounding environment.
>
> excellent explanation!!...it leads to the next questions...is it known
> where the materials for the mortar were obtained??...and were they
> obtained from a site or sites where stratification of the organic
> materials by age might be expected??..if so, might not the carbon
> dating be taken more as an indication of the level from which the
> materials were obtained, rather than of the date at which the mortar
> was laid??...
>
> frank
None of the large pyramids at the Giza complex have morter in the lower,
exposed portions. The 'cap' plainly visible on the second pyramid does
have mortar. This is what was tested. These tests appear conclusive,
containing the results mentioned in previous posts; however those
wishing to avoid these conclusions have postulated that the casing, of
which the cap is the last remains, was added later as a repair. This is
possible, but highly unlikely, as is the possibility and high
unlikelihood of a 12,000 year old Giza complex which these naysayers are
struggling to back with evidence.
In their favor, there is no good explanation for the erosion of the
sphinx except to admit it was exposed for 12,000 or more years and
suffered heavy water erosion in part of that period. The sphinx
structure is clearly cut out from the nearby 'cliffs' (really a low
plateau comprising the edge of a rock layer that stretches through the
entire area), which are equally eroded. Natural erosion prior to the
construction of the sphinx is thus not a tenable explanation.
The rest of the casings from the other pyramids comprise many thousands
of tons of fitted stone which have simply disappeared. The areas around
the pyramids certainly contain some of this stone, but a huge quantity
of monolithic blocks has somehow been carted off during the centuries.
I have seen theories that the stone was used in everything from other
Egyptian temples (a likely explanation) to castles of Persians, arabs,
turks, and even medieval Europe (less likely - the transportation of the
blocks from the site would have strained the limits of these cultures
abilities).
|