Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Djedi

Surface Luminescence Dating

6 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Djedi

I don't think the following is common knowledge yet, despite the fact that the research is already some years old.

The Surface Luminescence Dating method has been used in 2013 to date some Egyptian Monuments; an article about the results can be found here

Giza:

The Old Kingdom date for the Sphinx Temple, Khafre's Valley Temple and Menkaure's pyramid was confirmed.

Two sarcophagi found in the underground complex of the "Osiris Shaft" under Kafre's Causeway turned out to be of Old Kingdom origin which means that complex was started in this period rather than in the Late Period (in which it was enlarged and / or modified)

Abydos:

Tomb of Khasekhemui, Temple of Seti I, no surprises.

Osireion: some samples indicate an early Middle Kingdom date, which means Seti I restored / usurped this structure but didn't built it as was assumed.

Qasr el Saga:

At the site of this uninscribed temple pottery from the Old Kingdom untill the Ptolomaic Period was found. A limestone sample of the temple however indicates an even older date than the OK and places it in Predynastic times!


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Swede
2 hours ago, Djedi said:

I don't think the following is common knowledge yet, despite the fact that the research is already some years old.

The Surface Luminescence Dating method has been used in 2013 to date some Egyptian Monuments; an article about the results can be found here

Giza:

The Old Kingdom date for the Sphinx Temple, Khafre's Valley Temple and Menkaure's pyramid was confirmed.

Two sarcophagi found in the underground complex of the "Osiris Shaft" under Kafre's Causeway turned out to be of Old Kingdom origin which means that complex was started in this period rather than in the Late Period (in which it was enlarged and / or modified)

Abydos:

Tomb of Khasekhemui, Temple of Seti I, no surprises.

Osireion: some samples indicate an early Middle Kingdom date, which means Seti I restored / usurped this structure but didn't built it as was assumed.

Qasr el Saga:

At the site of this uninscribed temple pottery from the Old Kingdom untill the Ptolomaic Period was found. A limestone sample of the temple however indicates an even older date than the OK and places it in Predynastic times!


 

Yes, another interesting set of dates. For those not familiar with the research, the paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263201697_Surface_luminescence_dating_of_some_Egyptian_monuments

It is rather amusing that despite ceramic sequencing, preserved papyri, radiocarbon dating, luminescence dating, and a number of other data sets, there are still those who would contest the conventionally understood datings.

.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
6 hours ago, Swede said:

Yes, another interesting set of dates. For those not familiar with the research, the paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263201697_Surface_luminescence_dating_of_some_Egyptian_monuments

It is rather amusing that despite ceramic sequencing, preserved papyri, radiocarbon dating, luminescence dating, and a number of other data sets, there are still those who would contest the conventionally understood datings.

.

Why, Swede, that's just because it's all wrong. Science is always being proved wrong. :P

In all seriousness, I appreciate the information in this thread. Very interesting.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
abhijit_b

I think fringes and pseudo-archeologists have been really giving hard times to Egyptologists. So much money has been spent to convince the so-called fringe group!

See the a quote below from the research (In the Discussion section):

Quote

Today,the traditional theory prevails,that is Giza was built as a funerary complex for the 4th Dynasty pharaohs. However, the lack of contemporary human funerary remains from any Egyptian pyramid 
and the obvious astronomical and geometric nature of the site,that prove their orientation was not by chance but inhere knowledge and star configuration patterns at the period of construction[47]) imply that the “pyramids as tombs” theory is no longer sufficient and a broader determination of age, function and reuse of both Pyramids and Giza is required.The Old Kingdom monuments are a mystery and conventional dates has been questioned and critically discussed.

......

However,the discoveries of cartouches and funerary evidence from earlier dynasties, clearly suggests that parts of the site may  have been reused, and it is a reasonable assumption that some structures were already present at Giza when the large-scale works of the fourth dynasty began.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
abhijit_b

A few interesting points from the Research, not sure if anyone has observed already.

  • Referring to Table 1, the following dates can be confirmed for these structures:

          Valley Temple (Chephren) - 3060 ± 470 BC

          Sphinx Temple - 3100 ± 540 BC

          Menkaure Pyramid - 3450 ± 950

         The current chronology defined by Egyptologists is: Valley Temple (~ 2570 BC Ref: wiki) -> Sphinx Temple (~2570 BC, Ref : wiki) -> Menkaure Pyramid (~ 2530 BC, Ref: wiki)

         We will have to consider the worst case for all of the three to fit the accepted chronology, and then also it will hardly fall into the bracket. Looks like, pretty much for all monuments we will have to rely upon the worst deviation from the Luminescence dating. Thankfully, there are big deviation bands to support the archeological dates.

  • Why didn't they date the Great pyramid, Sphinx or Khafre's (Chephren) Pyramid. I don't see a reason why did they not consider them! That's a mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Djedi
Quote

Today,the traditional theory prevails,that is Giza was built as a funerary complex for the 4th Dynasty pharaohs. However, the lack of contemporary human funerary remains from any Egyptian pyramid 
and the obvious astronomical and geometric nature of the site,that prove their orientation was not by chance but inhere knowledge and star configuration patterns at the period of construction[47]) imply that the “pyramids as tombs” theory is no longer sufficient and a broader determination of age, function and reuse of both Pyramids and Giza is required.The Old Kingdom monuments are a mystery and conventional dates has been questioned and critically discussed.[48]

[47] refers to the work of G. Magli; his views are by no means generally accepted. A lot of archaeoastronomical research has been done concerning the pyramids  and each researcher has his own theories; there is no consensus amongst them.

[48] refers to the work of Robert Temple, which is even worse since this is a wel known fringe author.

It's strange to see that the author of the article, who has done decent research with the Surface Luminescence Dating method, makes references to these two as if their research is proven fact.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.