It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You might be right .:>) ..Then again ,why would he plunk down a C14 document to make a scientific point if it can be clearly shown using other documentation . Is Egyptology and their claims that weak that they have to squeeze out of the C14 data information to convince people that they are correct . It does not bode well for their confidence now does it .
and Marduk, besides his Assyriology expertise, is the meanest a-hole on the internet.
originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Harte
You might be right .:>) ..Then again ,why would he plunk down a C14 document to make a scientific point if it can be clearly shown using other documentation . Is Egyptology and their claims that weak that they have to squeeze out of the C14 data information to convince people that they are correct . It does not bode well for their confidence now does it .
and Marduk, besides his Assyriology expertise, is the meanest a-hole on the internet.
Are they standing on shaky ground or something .Has Zahi Hawass stopped saying that Egypt is the oldest after being told about Göbekli Tepe ....He didn't receive that news very well ... I used to think that these kinds of people had a open mind ..They may have on some things but the dates are like I said earlier " sacrosanct "
originally posted by: jeep3r
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: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Byrd
... This tells me that C14 dating was used going "" back to the very beginning of this dating method ""
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 .
originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Byrd
""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.
originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Harte
Are they standing on shaky ground or something .Has Zahi Hawass stopped saying that Egypt is the oldest after being told about Göbekli Tepe ....He didn't receive that news very well .
originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Harte
I was under the impression that you ,Byrd and Marduk were like the go to members on all things Egypt Egyptianism Apologetics does not seem to be a strong suit but I think even the stronger side of academics concerning Egypt may be a compartment you each live in . Shame how education has done that to a lot of probably great minds . What can you do eh . Got to feed the kids .
Being a little thinned skin is no help either I suppose ,but like you say what would I know about anything .At least I have a excuse . I don have a instructor to tell me what my opinion is or should be . Oh wait didn't you just start counselling me and trying to instruct me . Or was that just a diversion away from some of the questions I was asking . At least that way you can pretend that you at least tried .
I am kind of enjoying the ad hominem from you and Marduk .I think it means I am over the target . Please correct me if I am wrong .Oh wait no need to do that you have already said I was ,and will probably for ever be .
Maybe the kind of kool-aid Egyptology is a acquired taste only appreciated by a clicky group .I think that Egypt is not far from the center of the world .Actually only 263 miles SW . I think that the dating is also off by about that much in years too ..funny that .
This is a good example of what could be wrong . If you can find where I said such a thing in my post then you get a prize .Your taking liberty to infer that may actually be what you do with other data .I wont blame you for that because the few scholarly or scientific documents I have looked at have a lot of if's ,maybe's ,could be's, and assumptions to arrive at their conclusions . We have to assume ourselves that they are correct about these assumptions ,could be's ,and maybes in order to believe the conclusions .
So you recommend that we all celebrate ignorance. Sorry. Not me.
originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Harte
I was under the impression that you ,Byrd and Marduk were like the go to members on all things Egypt Egyptianism Apologetics does not seem to be a strong suit but I think even the stronger side of academics concerning Egypt may be a compartment you each live in . Shame how education has done that to a lot of probably great minds . What can you do eh . Got to feed the kids .
Maybe the kind of kool-aid Egyptology is a acquired taste only appreciated by a clicky group .I think that Egypt is not far from the center of the world .Actually only 263 miles SW . I think that the dating is also off by about that much in years too ..funny that .
Maybe clicky was too harsh of a word or just a poor choice of words to describe a camp or tribe mentality :>) You do realize that settled science is not the point I was trying to get at . As far as the "scientific data" showing prof goes well the only prof it holds is that people labeled as scientist's produced it. They used methods to arrive at their conclusions .
if you need to go through mental flips to ignore data then you have the problem, not Egyptology. you've got to the point now where I'm not going to post in this thread as you seem unwilling and incapable of learning, so it'll just die like all the others
The shape of the objective Bayesian posterior PDF The key conclusions of my original article were: “The results of the testing are pretty clear. In whatever range the true calendar age of the sample lies, both the objective Bayesian method using a noninformative Jeffreys’ prior and the non-Bayesian SRLR method provide excellent probability matching – almost perfect frequentist coverage. Both variants of the subjective Bayesian method using a uniform prior are unreliable. The HPD regions that OxCal provides give less poor coverage than two-sided credible intervals derived from percentage points of the uniform prior posterior CDF, but at the expense of not giving any information as to how the missing probability is divided between the regions above and below the HPD region. For both variants of the uniform prior subjective Bayesian method, probability matching is nothing like exact except in the unrealistic case where the sample is drawn equally from the entire calibration range” For many scientific and other users of statistical data, I think that would clinch the case in favour of using the objective Bayesian or the SRLR methods, rather than the subjective Bayesian method with a uniform prior. Primary results are generally given by way of an uncertainty range with specified probability percentages, not in the form of a PDF.
Many subjective Bayesians appear unconcerned whether Bayesian credible intervals provided as uncertainty ranges even approximately constitute confidence intervals. Since under their interpretation probability merely represents a degree of belief and is particular to each individual, perhaps that is unsurprising. But, in science, users normally expect such ranges to be at least approximately valid as confidence intervals, so that, upon repeated applications of the method – not necessarily to the same parameter – in the long run the true value of the parameter being estimated would lie within the stated intervals in the claimed percentages of cases. However, there was quite a lot of pushback against the rather peculiar shape of the objective Bayesian posterior PDF resulting from use of Jeffreys’ prior. It put near zero probability on regions where the data, although being compatible with the parameter value, was insensitive to it. That is, regions where the data likelihood was significant but the radiocarbon determination varied little with calendar age, due to the flatness of the calibration curve. The pink, subjective Bayesian posterior PDF was generally thought by such critics to be more realistically-shaped.
Underlying that view, critics typically thought that there was relevant prior information about the age distribution of artefacts that should be incorporated, by reflecting through use of a uniform prior a belief that an artefact was equally likely to come from any (equal-length) calendar age range. Whether or not that is so, the uniform prior had instead been chosen on that basis that it did not introduce anything but the RC dating information, and I argued against it on that basis. I think the view that one should reject an objective Bayesian approach just on the basis that the posterior PDF is gives rise to is odd-looking is mistaken. In most cases, what is of concern when estimating a fixed but uncertain parameter, here calendar age, is how well one can reliably constrain its value within one or more uncertainty ranges. In this connection, it should be noted that although the Jeffreys’ prior will assign low PDF values in a range where likelihood is substantial but the data variable is insensitive to the parameter value, the uncertainty ranges that the resulting PDF gives rise to will normally include that range. climateaudit.org...
A comment by wayne Wayne Posted Mar 5, 2016 at 9:02 PM | Permalink Steve, Thanks for hosting this discussion, by the way! You might find this paper by Andrew Gelman instructive: arxiv.org... reading Section 5 first. It’s a very philosophical paper about “Objective” versus “Subjective” in science in general and statistics in particular, so maybe it’s not helpful. My take on your question would be that there are three Bayesian camps: The first camp believes that you choose your prior distribution based on knowledge/beliefs. Your priors reflect your own knowledge, the results of prior experiments, conventional wisdom in your field, the reasonable expectations of your target audience, etc. They are probabilistic in nature. You can perturb your priors to see how that affects your analysis, and you can even adopt the priors of putative opponents in order to show how well your analysis works in “worst case” scenarios. The second camp believes that you create your prior distribution based on somewhat complex methodologies that result in prior distributions that have minimal impact on posteriors.
These priors should not be thought of as probabilistic — no one believes that the distribution reflects any kind of probability — but rather their role is to “let the data speak for itself”, Frequentist-style. The third camp believes that you use sample statistics to create your priors. The data speaks for itself, as long as you use it twice. Which spooks the other two camps. There’s a fourth group that uses uniform priors and therefore believes it’s in the second camp. That is, when you have enough data this tends to overwhelm the uniform prior and often yields results similar to Frequentist methods. The data (if there’s enough of it) speaks for itself, so surely they are in the second camp. The second camp rejects this claim and says that this group belongs in the first camp. The first camp, which believes that priors are probabilistic, laughs at this notion since a uniform prior is improper and cannot reflect probabilities. So the fourth group wanders from camp to camp without being accepted by any of them.
originally posted by: the2ofusr1They (the different camps) chose different methods with differing results .
originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Marduk
That depends on the priors and how many years it imposes on then .Sometimes "it" does need thousands of years ,like you said .
You need thousands of years, Tell us what is the date variation from the different camps ?
The results of the testing are pretty clear. In whatever range the true calendar age of the sample lies, both the objective Bayesian method using a noninformative Jeffreys’ prior and the non-Bayesian SRLR method provide excellent probability matching – almost perfect frequentist coverage.
I have a fresh cup right here . Byrd mentioned that names are a very big issue and very complicated .Imagine how complicated surrounding the C14 dating is . My link to the above discussion was in part to this study .
are you smelling the coffee yet ?
www.pnas.org...
Conclusions The application of high-precision radiocarbon dating, Bayesian analysis, and spatial modeling at IA sites in the southern Levant is an important tool for researchers interested in the relationship between ancient texts such as the HB and extrabiblical data including Egyptian, Assyrian, and other epigraphic sources with the archaeological record (15, 34). Given the unambiguous 14C AMS dating evidence presented here for industrial-scale metal production at KEN during the 10th and 9th c. BCE in ancient Edom, the question of whether King Solomon's copper mines have been discovered in Faynan returns to scholarly discourse. The collapse of Late Bronze Age civilizations (35) in the eastern Mediterranean and the Cypriot monopoly on copper production left a power vacuum in the Levant that was filled by emerging IA complex societies such as Edom and Israel as early as the 10th c. BCE.
The abrupt reorganization of metal production at the end of the 10th c. BCE and the discovery of Egyptian artifacts in the basal level of the 9th c. BCE building in Area M may be associated with the Pharaoh Sheshonq I's military campaign in the Negev and Arabah valley that occurred shortly after the death of Solomon (18). Most scholars agree that the aim of his campaign was to disrupt the economic success of local Levantine polities such as Philistia, Israel, Judah, and Edom rather than reestablish an Egyptian colony modeled on their previous Late Bronze Age system (18). The 10th c. BCE KEN fortress (15) and associated copper works may have been another target of Sheshonq's campaign (Fig. 2). For the IA archaeology of the southern Levant the new IA data from the Edom lowlands demonstrate the importance of local 10th and 9th c. BCE Levantine polities in the control of industrial-scale metal production. The dominance of local Edom IA ceramics at KEN during these centuries indicates the centrality of local societies in metal production at this time. The earlier model that assumed large-scale 7th c. BCE copper production in Faynan is no longer tenable. Thus, the rise of IA complex or state level societies in Edom was a cycling process of social evolution that began 3 centuries earlier than currently understood (36). These new data indicate the need to revisit the relationship between the early IA history of the southern Levant before the editing of the HB in the 6th c. BCE, the study of the archaeological record using science-based methodologies, and local models of social change such as those embedded in peer polity interaction studies. Finally, the application of high-precision radiocarbon dating, Bayesian analyses, and digital archaeology methods should be an integral part of all 21st c. research dealing with ancient historical archaeology problems around the world. www.pnas.org...
originally posted by: Byrd
They're worked in granite, which is fairly difficult to work (unless you're doing large inscriptions). The Shabaka stone shows that even royal workshops with the finest tools and materials struggled with granite.
originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: jeep3r
These two vid are interesting but probably wont help you out with what tools were used but may convince you that tools were used that we don't know about
1...because you cant cut it with a apple . 2 one that would have been around during or after the Nazi's came to be .
The first mystery is why do you need advanced machines to cut limestone The second mystery is what tool do you think was used to carve the Nazi swastika,