Carbon Dating the Great Pyramid - Do you think radiation from the stones is messing with it?

The Great Pyramid has been carbon dated by dating some of the mortar in the layer below the outer stones. A guy named Mike Lehrner crawled over the outside of the pyramid finding stones that had been slightly mis-cut and had parts filled in with mortar, and scraped some usable charcoal and other materials out of it. Then had it carbon dated.


www.pbs.org...


However, the dates ended up being 374 years too early.

www.aeraweb.org...



So this naturally has peaked my curiosity. These results deny both the very old construction theory AND ALSO the Khufu construction theory.

Then I remembered an article I had read once about granite being radioactive. So I did a search and found something, but it basically said all rocks are mildly radioactive.

www.snopes.com...

But would that affect Carbon 14? I didn't know, so I dug further.

Besides Cosmic rays (which are the source of most Carbon 14 in the air), there is one other, somewhat uncommon mechanism called "radiogenic cluster decay" which occurs with isotopes of Radium (223, 224, and 226).

en.wikipedia.org...-14_sources

And then I happened to stumble on to this weird paper out there in the void of the internet that discussed the radio active properties of limestone from Upper Egypt. It is highly technical, but if you skip to the end where they give their conclusions they mention that, although it falls within acceptable levels (not dangerous to human inhabitants of the buildings), the three isotope emission risks are:

Thorium 232, Potassium 40, and Radium 226.

nopr.niscair.res.in...


In most cases, Radium 226 is the result of the decay of Uranium 238, which is found in trace amounts in most rocks. 10-20 ppm in granite, and usually only happens in limestone if some mechanism has caused it to get deposited there.

So this is kind of a stretch, but the alternative explanations are just as bad. One explanation that's been given is that all or most of the organic material used in the construction was, in fact, 374 years old already when it was used. The other I've read is that Carbon 14 dating is just unreliable (and that this finding is the reason it has been called into question.)

Let me put you on another track.

What if you aged the Statue of liberty, to find out how old she was.

Considering she was recently re-built you will get different answers depending on if the part you are measuring was new or old.

So ...

Khufu is out with his army one day and they happen to come across the Pyramids in a state of neglect and decay.

So he has it repaired. The ill fitting stone was a replacement for one that was missing.

Unless you can take off a few layers of stone .. you will not find out how old the structure is because ... you can't carbon date the stone.

The Pyramids could be hundreds of thousands years old having been repaired now and again.

P

and carbon dating is hit and miss, who knows

So also I read that last article a little bit more carefully this time. It's saying the average emission of Radium 226 for most building materials is: 50 bq.kg-1 (And I am not going to try and pretend that I know what that unit designation means....)



The limestone in Egypt was between 79 and 99. The acceptable level is 370.

So I guess it's not really that strongly radioactive. Radium 226 is the isotope that can, rarely, affect C14 levels.

Granite has more of it, but I think the samples were taken from a part of the pyramid that was far enough away from the granite parts that it wouldn't have affected it.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

You might find this interesting:
Link

It explains the half-life of isotopes, the radioactive decay and what can affect such things.

In essence everything is radioactive, humans, potatoes, the pyramids... All matter decays over time.

It's just that carbon-14 is the most widely accepted and accurate isotope for measuring age. There's others to be used but then even carbon dating has been challenged in the past, I've noticed people debate against it on ATS in the past.

I also somewhat agree with pheonix358, the pyramids or Khufu's at least was covered with white limestone and tipped with metal. Supposedly anyways.

Stone cannot be carbon dated and trying to do this with Mortar is notoriously unreliable and is about as useful as Stephen Hawking's Etch-A-Sketch.
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

I also found this interesting article in Forbes.

www.forbes.com...

These researchers found a correlation between small changes in decay rates and the revolution of the Sun, because it happened in 33 day cycles, which I guess is how fast the sun spins. So they're leaning toward thinking it might be affected by the Sun's emission of neutrinos? (And neutrinos are among the most mysterious of subatomic particles, so it's naturally the go to theory for these kinds of wierdnesses.)

If the dating is off by only 374 years, I figure something like that must be the blame. Or maybe the trace amounts of charcoal found in the mortar just aren't good samples to go off of?

originally posted by: RAY1990


I also somewhat agree with pheonix358, the pyramids or Khufu's at least was covered with white limestone and tipped with metal. Supposedly anyways.

Yeah. The recently found Merer diary from a guy in charge of moving the stones is the strongest evidence so far tying the pyramid to Khufu, but it only describes the moving of casing stones from the Tura quarry 8 miles away.

Furthermore, his journal claims he had 40 boats making 2 to 3 trips every 10 days. If we assume each boat carried one stone (since they were approximately 2.5 tones), that is an average of 100 stones per ten days, or 10 stones per day.

3650 stones per year. I can't find a good number for the estimated number of casing stones that were used, but some sites put it at 144,000. That gives the project 39.45 years. For just the casing stones.

It means that part of the project alone can explain the entire work camp. Or 39.45 years of it anyway (I think maybe the camp was there longer?)

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

These researchers found a correlation between small changes in decay rates and the revolution of the Sun, because it happened in 33 day cycles, which I guess is how fast the sun spins.

Attempts to verify the notion with more rigorous techniques have not been very successful.

In this work, it is argued that the GSI radon measurements are unsuited for studying the variability of decay constants, because the data are strongly influenced by environmental conditions, such as solar irradiance and rainfall. At the JRC and PTB, decay rate measurements of the radon decay chain were performed with ionisation chambers, gamma-ray spectrometers and an alpha spectrometer. No deviation from the exponential-decay law was observed. The existence of cyclic variations in the decay constants is refuted, as well as the concept of measuring solar rotation through radioactive decay.

www.sciencedirect.com...

For carbon dating within 350 years is a direct hit in tearms of age .
But really why all the fuss ? Its not like the Egyptians did not leave lots of writings around to show when and how they built it .
I never have understood why people have such a hard time excepting the Egyptians built the stuff .

Now explane the ancient-code.com...
with some carved rocks ten times the pyramid size moved then you get my attation

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

I've never heard of that dairy so kudos for bringing it to light.

Capable humans never see a problem but a challenge, I can fathom that the Egyptians were very capable people. We'll work it out some day.

40 years though, that would mean Khufu was a man born into greatness and capable enough to "cement" his place amongst his people.

If only we had a time machine..

originally posted by: midnightstar
For carbon dating within 350 years is a direct hit in tearms of age .
But really why all the fuss ? Its not like the Egyptians did not leave lots of writings around to show when and how they built it .
I never have understood why people have such a hard time excepting the Egyptians built the stuff .

Now explane the ancient-code.com...
with some carved rocks ten times the pyramid size moved then you get my attation

There's a good thread on Baalbek here at ATS. It's Roman.

The accepted explanation for the dating variance is the use of "old wood." Decent wood was scarce if not absent in Egypt.There's a lot you can get out of a piece of wood before you burn it to make lime or whatever.

Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous


Yeah. The recently found Merer diary from a guy in charge of moving the stones is the strongest evidence so far tying the pyramid to Khufu, but it only describes the moving of casing stones from the Tura quarry 8 miles away.

These stones are the same ones that are described as almost miraculously well-fitted by the fringe, and had been a large part of their argument that Egyptians couldn't have built the GP.

Probably someone out there now claiming the aliens made the Egyptians do the hard work and levitated the stones into place at Giza.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte


The accepted explanation for the dating variance is the use of "old wood." Decent wood was scarce if not absent in Egypt.There's a lot you can get out of a piece of wood before you burn it to make lime or whatever.

Harte

I've read that. But it's pretty thin. That's an awful lot of 374 year old wood.

If all of the samples had been taken from one part of the pyramid, or even near each other, then I'd buy it. Then maybe his samples would all trace back to just one bonfire. But if they're spread out, then that means all or most of the mortar has to be from the same year.

Maybe it could have been retasked from a single big construction project that happened around the same year, 374 years prior? Maybe from tearing down a really big palace or a whole city and retasking the support beams? Something pretty big, though.

If they were just gathering old scraps from all over, then the dates would vary wildly.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous


Yeah. The recently found Merer diary from a guy in charge of moving the stones is the strongest evidence so far tying the pyramid to Khufu, but it only describes the moving of casing stones from the Tura quarry 8 miles away.

These stones are the same ones that are described as almost miraculously well-fitted by the fringe, and had been a large part of their argument that Egyptians couldn't have built the GP.

Probably someone out there now claiming the aliens made the Egyptians do the hard work and levitated the stones into place at Giza.

Harte

The irony is that the workmanship underneath the casing stones was actually pretty shoddy. That's why there is mortar available to get a sample from in the first place.

Also I'd to look for the link, but apparently the inner walls of the queen's chamber, and the passageway to it are Tura limestone.

That could be taken two ways.

1- Suggesting Khufu's time was indeed when that passage was built

2 - It would explain why the shafts leading out from the Queen's chamber were covered when they were discovered. If the Tura limestone was added long after it had been built, and the renovators didn't want the shafts there.

To be honest, my only contention with the official story of the Great Pyramids has always been the claim it was built during one person's lifetime.

I could totally understand a structure that large being built over a few centuries, but not 50 or 60 years.

So the idea that the most precise workmanship was done by Khufu and his people doesn't surprise me. It's a small enough volume of work it could be finished before he died.

I would not be surprised if it were like many other ancient landmarks, and parts of it had been built centuries apart by people who came along and decided to add to it. In its original form, maybe it was only half as tall as we see it today. Or maybe the lower passage was all there was, and the granite was done later.

Or maybe the sloped stones above the King's Chamber had at one time been the roof?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The problem is that such filling material used on the outside of the pyramid even several courses down could actually date from very much later than the real date of the structures build and of course what does the sphinx stelae actually say
www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk...

So this stelae show's that it was actually seen as a duty or at least a propitious activity of the pharoah - at least from this time onward and indeed perhaps prior to this time to restore, clean and rebuilt this ancient treasure and given the one up man ship of many pharoah's and pharonic dynasty's it is likely there was even attempt to upstage Thutmosis act at the site which of course mean's the entire plateau may have been renovated not once but several time's, even the pyramid's may have been at least partially rebuilt and even perhaps expanded with outer layers added to them or at least replaced during these renovation's.

So bare this in mind.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Harte


The accepted explanation for the dating variance is the use of "old wood." Decent wood was scarce if not absent in Egypt.There's a lot you can get out of a piece of wood before you burn it to make lime or whatever.

Harte

I've read that. But it's pretty thin. That's an awful lot of 374 year old wood.

Not really.
The age difference you're talking about is not indicated by every sample tested, just SOME of the samples tested.


Harte

Very interesting read, thank you all.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Harte


The accepted explanation for the dating variance is the use of "old wood." Decent wood was scarce if not absent in Egypt.There's a lot you can get out of a piece of wood before you burn it to make lime or whatever.

Harte

I've read that. But it's pretty thin. That's an awful lot of 374 year old wood.

Not really.
The age difference you're talking about is not indicated by every sample tested, just SOME of the samples tested.


Harte

I don't know where you are getting that from. The articles I'm reading say 374 was the average for the 1984 study.

Then they did another wider study in 1995 using stuff from other monuments and from the work camps near the Giza pyramid, because they wanted to see if their overall dates for the period were off, and that moved the date a bit closer.

archive.archaeology.org...


It's kind of a neat trick. One study takes all of its datable material from the pyramid itself. The other gathers stuff from the nearby work camps. And then we just pretend to ourselves that we are seeing a "disagreement" between the two studies.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Harte


The accepted explanation for the dating variance is the use of "old wood." Decent wood was scarce if not absent in Egypt.There's a lot you can get out of a piece of wood before you burn it to make lime or whatever.

Harte

I've read that. But it's pretty thin. That's an awful lot of 374 year old wood.

Not really.
The age difference you're talking about is not indicated by every sample tested, just SOME of the samples tested.


Harte

I don't know where you are getting that from. The articles I'm reading say 374 was the average for the 1984 study.

Then they did another wider study in 1995 using stuff from other monuments and from the work camps near the Giza pyramid, because they wanted to see if their overall dates for the period were off, and that moved the date a bit closer.

archive.archaeology.org...


It's kind of a neat trick. One study takes all of its datable material from the pyramid itself. The other gathers stuff from the nearby work camps. And then we just pretend to ourselves that we are seeing a "disagreement" between the two studies.

You realize than an error range comes with any C14 date, right?
We cannot pretend that there is no such error in this data.
A reasonable analysis of the date is here: link

CONCLUSIONS
The work of Bonani et al. (2001) remains a seminal contribution to our understanding of the chronology
of Egypt, and the problems associated with 14C dating this context. Although the raw measurements
have previously been considered incompatible with historical records, particularly
Figure 4 Comparison of the 95% calibrated age ranges for the Pyramid
of Khufu. The calibrated date for the weighted average of the data (4a).
The end boundary estimate from the same data set (4b). The end boundary
when King List order is imposed on the model (4c). The historical
reign of Khufu (2589–2566 BC) is indicated by the vertical bar.
1070 M W Dee et al.
throughout the 4th Dynasty, the reanalysis offered here has challenged this interpretation. By not
eliminating any results based on the 14C measurement obtained, a level of objectivity was maintained
throughout the modeling program. The issue of variability in the data sets is indisputable and
is almost certainly caused by archaeological and taphonomic variables rather than inherent problems
with the 14C method itself. However, by focusing on the lower end of these age ranges, robust calibrations
were achieved for the completion dates of all the monuments that could be assigned to an
individual king. The most tightly constrained and data-rich sites produced the most refined calibrations,
but the entire sequence exhibited excellent agreement with the Egyptian historical chronology.

The "older" construction dates come from higher up in the GP. Will you claim they built that part first?

It makes perfect sense that, when the end of that particular project was near, there might be a shortage of wood for the mortar-making process. Perhaps they underestimated how much they would need and in the end had to make do with