Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Riaan

Dating of missing Dixon wood fragment

33 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Riaan

 

Dear all,

I have been out of circulation for quite a while and had unfortunately not kept up with some of the recent developments. In 2001 Robert Bauval reported here that the missing Dixon relic, a 5-inches piece of cedar wood, had been found in the Marischal Museum in Scotland. Does anyone know whether the piece of wood has ever been carbon dated?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
3 minutes ago, Riaan said:

Robert Bauval

Now there's a real credible source. :rolleyes:

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane

The Marischal are unable to locate the item (and reply to any enquiries with a standard email).

Possibly the piece of wood, in an environment different from Egypt, and not having been curated in the sophisticated manner that it would be now, simply disintegrated.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riaan
1 hour ago, Windowpane said:

The Marischal are unable to locate the item (and reply to any enquiries with a standard email).

Possibly the piece of wood, in an environment different from Egypt, and not having been curated in the sophisticated manner that it would be now, simply disintegrated.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
16 hours ago, Riaan said:

 

Dear all,

I have been out of circulation for quite a while and had unfortunately not kept up with some of the recent developments. In 2001 Robert Bauval reported here that the missing Dixon relic, a 5-inches piece of cedar wood, had been found in the Marischal Museum in Scotland. Does anyone know whether the piece of wood has ever been carbon dated?

He's also quite wrong about the wood and carbon dating.  They've dated wood found in the mortar between blocks of the Great Pyramid and that gives us a date.  But "cedar-like wood" means that it came from someplace other than Egypt and that the actual tree was cut down before the GP was finished... and given that they reused cedar wood (because it was so hard to come by) this particular piece may have come from a tree in Lebanon that was cut down 100 or 200 years before the GP.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
24 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

He's also quite wrong about the wood and carbon dating.  They've dated wood found in the mortar between blocks of the Great Pyramid and that gives us a date.  But "cedar-like wood" means that it came from someplace other than Egypt and that the actual tree was cut down before the GP was finished... and given that they reused cedar wood (because it was so hard to come by) this particular piece may have come from a tree in Lebanon that was cut down 100 or 200 years before the GP.

If the object was made of cedar of Lebanon, it could well have been very durable: in which case, perhaps it wasn't so likely to have disintegrated in recent decades after all ...

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
5 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

If the object was made of cedar of Lebanon, it could well have been very durable: in which case, perhaps it wasn't so likely to have disintegrated in recent decades after all ...

That's what I was assuming since the cedar wood was reused until it was too badly damaged for anything... and then it was burned for fuel.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Just to be clear, this is the rumored object found in one of those air shafts? 

~

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wistman
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Just to be clear, this is the rumored object found in one of those air shafts? ~

Just for clarity's sake here's how Bauval identifies it in his 2014 book The Secret Chamber Revisited:

Quote

It is extremely likely that the five-inch piece found by Grant and Dixon in the northern shaft of the Queen's Chamber is, in fact, a fragment from a longer piece as was suggested by Chisholm in the 1872 Nature article.  We shall recall that when this shaft was re-explored by Rudolf Gantenbrink in 1993 (who then was working under Rainer Stadelman of the DAI in Cairo) he was able to see a wooden rod, measuring about seventy centimeters long and having the same rectangular cross-sectional shape and general appearance as the smaller fragment found in 1872 by Grant  and Dixon lying deep in the shaft.  A photograph of this wooden rod was pushed against the corner wall of the shaft.  This may explain the "little small stones" encrusted in the smaller piece found by Grant and Dixon , as described by Piazzi Smyth in his diary entry of November 26, 1872.

But if this hypothesis is correct, then how did the smaller piece break off and fall down the shaft to rest where it was found by Dixon and Grant in 1872.

[...]

I'm not endorsing the book or author or his theories, but here's the Google book link for this if anybody, perchance, wants to check it out:  https://books.google.com/books?id=NFkoDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT466&lpg=PT466&dq=Dixon+wood+fragment&source=bl&ots=3UX2mltXnk&sig=ACfU3U08euN5o7N0TzhkZCX4aLNfrCjCOw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjQ557vuO3oAhXXlnIEHdKNB54Q6AEwBXoECAwQMw#v=onepage&q=Dixon wood fragment&f=false

edit: spelling error

Edited by The Wistman
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Riaan said:

 

Dear all,

I have been out of circulation for quite a while and had unfortunately not kept up with some of the recent developments. In 2001 Robert Bauval reported here that the missing Dixon relic, a 5-inches piece of cedar wood, had been found in the Marischal Museum in Scotland. Does anyone know whether the piece of wood has ever been carbon dated?

Hi Riaan,

Some interesting sundry information is given here by Bauval regarding this artefact - in case it's of interest to you.

I should add that the artefact is presently catalogued here at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. 

SC 

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8

Due to present circumstances I would think that there is quite a bit of wood that isn't getting dated. :whistle:

jmccr8

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
Posted (edited)

Rupert noted that this was probably part of of a Giant's tooth pick discarded after the BBQ held at the pyramid in 30,000 BCE in the third reopening of the Pyramid. Nothing worse that getting stringy over cooked mastodon stuck in-between your teeth..

----------------------------

"This rule fell to fragments on being exposed to the air"

One wonders how much of it still exists? I would think the other piece still in the shaft might be of interest from an RC point of view.

 

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
12 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Hi Riaan,

Some interesting sundry information is given here by Bauval regarding this artefact - in case it's of interest to you.

I should add that the artefact is presently catalogued here at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. 

SC 

Stonemason's rule, eh?  So there may be markings or hieroglyphs on it?  Wish there was a photo.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
14 hours ago, Windowpane said:

If the object was made of cedar of Lebanon, it could well have been very durable: in which case, perhaps it wasn't so likely to have disintegrated in recent decades after all ...

An explanation from another board.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Stonemason's rule, eh?  So there may be markings or hieroglyphs on it?  Wish there was a photo.

A helpful 1872 article mentioned here. (I don't think that what appears is a photograph as such, though).

And also see here (PDF 6, pg. 56 et seq.: mainly German, so you might need browser translator).

Edited by Windowpane
Add link
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune

Some one it would seem needs to examine it then as it actual current condition is not clear.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Hanslune said:

Some one it would seem needs to examine it then as it actual current condition is not clear.

Well: they probably would, if it hadn't disintegrated (which seems to be the latest state of play ... )

Edited by Windowpane
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Kenemet said:

He's also quite wrong about the wood and carbon dating.  They've dated wood found in the mortar between blocks of the Great Pyramid and that gives us a date.  But "cedar-like wood" means that it came from someplace other than Egypt and that the actual tree was cut down before the GP was finished... and given that they reused cedar wood (because it was so hard to come by) this particular piece may have come from a tree in Lebanon that was cut down 100 or 200 years before the GP.

All Bauval says is that the artifact, being of made of wood, could be dated, not that it was. 

As with Dynasties prior, the 4th Dynasty kings had a robust cedar trade with Byblos. For example, the Palermo Stone among other things relates how Sneferu brought back 40 ships loaded with cedar. Khufu's barques are made of cedar. Hetepheres furniture is made of cedar. Burnt cedar and remains were also recently discovered in the barracks of the "pyramid town". Etc, etc. Given the active cedar wood trade at the time there is no reason to think this artifact was made from wood cut down 100-200 years earlier and was more than likely contemporary with the construction period of the pyramid.  

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MDagger
1 hour ago, Windowpane said:

Well: they probably would, if it hadn't disintegrated (which seems to be the latest state of play ... )

Could they not carbon date the wood residue?  Or would the presence of more recent fungal residue skew the results?

MDagger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
44 minutes ago, MDagger said:

Could they not carbon date the wood residue?  Or would the presence of more recent fungal residue skew the results?

MDagger

The spalt will skew the results. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
4 hours ago, Windowpane said:

And also see here (PDF 6, pg. 56 et seq.: mainly German, so you might need browser translator).

I'd say it was some form of oak or sycamore. Blue Atlas/Lebanon doesn't spalt because the oils crystalize. Oak and sycamore do. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane

Wood in Egypt - a helpful resource.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
2 hours ago, Piney said:

I'd say it was some form of oak or sycamore. Blue Atlas/Lebanon doesn't spalt because the oils crystalize. Oak and sycamore do. 

It was most likely Nile acacia.   

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
5 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

It was most likely Nile acacia.   

Then it would be most likely exceptionally rot resistant based on what I know of the North American and Southeast Asian varieties. 

I've never seen it spalt. Ever. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wistman
Posted (edited)

@Piney   Well Egypt famously had its Sycamores, but they were Ficus sycamorus (fig sycamore) unlike, say, the N. American Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis).

 

Edited by The Wistman

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.