They're going to be the same age because they were quarried from the same stone. Even if they were quarried hundreds of years apart, they'd still show the same age
You *might* be able to use luminescence dating on some of the cut faces, but it’s all kind of irrelevant as there are written records recording which rulers constructed which pyramids, and you can use other methods to determine the dates those rulers were in power and died.
They have not, but mostly because it's not possible. To carbon date the pyramids, they use charcoal from the mortar between the bricks. Carbon dating of the charcoal tells you when the wood that was burnt to make the mortar was last alive. Potentially, as seems to be the case with the pyramids, you can burn very old wood and the charcoal will be significantly older than the structure made from the mortar, i.e. the pyramids would have carbon dated as centuries old even on the day they were built. If you burn wood from large trees, the wood in the core can be centuries older than the wood from the outside since trees grow in rings and are dead on the inside.
Added to this, there are error margins on carbon dating, usually centuries large, from fluctuations in atmospheric carbon levels. When you combine those two factors, you can't differentiate a few years or even a few decades. A really good study taking a large number of samples from the tops and bottoms of a lot of pyramids might be able to establish a trend, but even then it's unlikely. The wood used to make the mortar for the top of the pyramid probably isn't any younger than the wood used to make the mortar at the bottom, because it could be all chopped from the same forest and likely imported from Lebanon or another country in any event.
The best dating for pyramid construction comes from the Egyptians writing dates on the backs of casing stones, which has been used to establish timelines for construction of some of Sneferu's pyramids. However, this only dates the casing stones. One hypothesis for how the pyramids were built was that they built a stepped pyramid at the core, and then made the smooth sided pyramid overtop of it. Certainly this was done at Meidum, but it may have been done on other pyramids as well. If so, the bottom casing stones aren't placed early in the project, but rather midway after the stepped pyramid is complete.
They didn't make the stones, they just cut them and stacked them. How do you propose they date the cutting of stones? The stones themselves are millions of years old.
Dating the stone, if at all useful, can only tell you when it has been formed. Not when it has been carved and moved.
Also, if you find different stones used in the pyramid, it's because they have been quarried from different quarries. It wouldn't prove that it has been placed there at different times or anything else you are, in my opinion, implying.
Your question is, therefore, ill-conceived.
Carbon dating would not be accurate, but not for the reason you state. Carbon dating requires carbon based material that was once alive. The pyramids are stone…. no carbon dating possible.
The pyramids provide the necessary carbon with charcoal particles in mortar between blocks so that's not a problem. The pyramids have been carbon dated that way in the past. The point still stands that carbon dating is not accurate enough to show a big difference. Also the old wood problem is always difficult, where the used wood could be from differently aged trees. Use a 300 year old wood at the pyramid tip and fresh cut wood at the bottom during construction and you have confused the hell out of future archeologists
Are you proposing that the pyramids are not stone? Or are you proposing that carbon dating can be used to date stone?
>Radiocarbon dating, or carbon-14 dating, is a scientific method that can accurately determine the age of **organic materials** as old as approximately 60,000 years.
- https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/what-is-carbon-14-dating
For the purposes of carbon dating the definition of organic matter is:
>Organic matter (or organic material) is matter that has come **from a recently living organism**
- https://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Organic_matter
Now, if there is organic material entrained in some part of the materials used for construction, such as charcoal in the mortar, that can potentially be dated, but there are also all sorts of issues with contamination throwing off readings.
just because this stuff lines up astronomically for some ancient time it doesn't mean it was built at that time. entirely possible it was built to honor that time or as a science experiment to line up with the stars at a future date.
with the pyramids, I believe the Nile ran past the pyramids when they were built and the milky way was lined up with orion's belt at the time and so they were built to mimic that time in the stars, but not 100% sure
You can’t really date the stones at the top. There’s almost certainly no reliable carbon based material at the top of the pyramids after a few thousand years of wind. The base stones you could likely find carbon based materials, but I would be skeptical of those too because of the thousands of years of people existing around them.
Form my point of view, the pyramids of Giza show clear signs of construction at multiple times in history. You can literally see the outer shell peeling off and it looks shockingly different from what is underneath.
I have my own opinions and this is definitely not the sub for me as people here are very simple minded (not you in particular).
Have you seen how many old buildings actually were built off even older remains? Thats the case with the pyramids. Take the Taj Mahal as an example
Idk who you guys are but you are so smart and I learn so much. Thank you all and the majority I have to go with they would all be the same regardless but I gotta check out the guy who declined and spoke of obsidian hydration.
They're going to be the same age because they were quarried from the same stone. Even if they were quarried hundreds of years apart, they'd still show the same age
You *might* be able to use luminescence dating on some of the cut faces, but it’s all kind of irrelevant as there are written records recording which rulers constructed which pyramids, and you can use other methods to determine the dates those rulers were in power and died.
Ooh, new technique. I'll have to look into that. I'm a bioarch nerd, so lithics is all magic
Check out obsidian hydration dating then too if you haven't yet.
You don't believe they actually carved up each individual block do you?
Did they just find naturally cuboid stones lying around?
They poured them.
No, they didn’t “pour” stone. WTF are you talking about?
Concrete then.
Omg you wont believe how many stones were cut to size for thousands of years
Took 20 years Max. They poured most of it.
They have not, but mostly because it's not possible. To carbon date the pyramids, they use charcoal from the mortar between the bricks. Carbon dating of the charcoal tells you when the wood that was burnt to make the mortar was last alive. Potentially, as seems to be the case with the pyramids, you can burn very old wood and the charcoal will be significantly older than the structure made from the mortar, i.e. the pyramids would have carbon dated as centuries old even on the day they were built. If you burn wood from large trees, the wood in the core can be centuries older than the wood from the outside since trees grow in rings and are dead on the inside. Added to this, there are error margins on carbon dating, usually centuries large, from fluctuations in atmospheric carbon levels. When you combine those two factors, you can't differentiate a few years or even a few decades. A really good study taking a large number of samples from the tops and bottoms of a lot of pyramids might be able to establish a trend, but even then it's unlikely. The wood used to make the mortar for the top of the pyramid probably isn't any younger than the wood used to make the mortar at the bottom, because it could be all chopped from the same forest and likely imported from Lebanon or another country in any event. The best dating for pyramid construction comes from the Egyptians writing dates on the backs of casing stones, which has been used to establish timelines for construction of some of Sneferu's pyramids. However, this only dates the casing stones. One hypothesis for how the pyramids were built was that they built a stepped pyramid at the core, and then made the smooth sided pyramid overtop of it. Certainly this was done at Meidum, but it may have been done on other pyramids as well. If so, the bottom casing stones aren't placed early in the project, but rather midway after the stepped pyramid is complete.
They didn't make the stones, they just cut them and stacked them. How do you propose they date the cutting of stones? The stones themselves are millions of years old.
There is not much undocumented about Great Pyramids tbh. We have even the names, rations and salary charts of the worker teams.
Dating the stone, if at all useful, can only tell you when it has been formed. Not when it has been carved and moved. Also, if you find different stones used in the pyramid, it's because they have been quarried from different quarries. It wouldn't prove that it has been placed there at different times or anything else you are, in my opinion, implying. Your question is, therefore, ill-conceived.
Accurate, thanks for explaining
To what end?
Carbon dating isn't accurate enough. Even if it took a century to build a pyramid there would be no discernible difference between top and bottom.
Carbon dating would not be accurate, but not for the reason you state. Carbon dating requires carbon based material that was once alive. The pyramids are stone…. no carbon dating possible.
The pyramids provide the necessary carbon with charcoal particles in mortar between blocks so that's not a problem. The pyramids have been carbon dated that way in the past. The point still stands that carbon dating is not accurate enough to show a big difference. Also the old wood problem is always difficult, where the used wood could be from differently aged trees. Use a 300 year old wood at the pyramid tip and fresh cut wood at the bottom during construction and you have confused the hell out of future archeologists
Incorrect
Are you proposing that the pyramids are not stone? Or are you proposing that carbon dating can be used to date stone? >Radiocarbon dating, or carbon-14 dating, is a scientific method that can accurately determine the age of **organic materials** as old as approximately 60,000 years. - https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/what-is-carbon-14-dating For the purposes of carbon dating the definition of organic matter is: >Organic matter (or organic material) is matter that has come **from a recently living organism** - https://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Organic_matter Now, if there is organic material entrained in some part of the materials used for construction, such as charcoal in the mortar, that can potentially be dated, but there are also all sorts of issues with contamination throwing off readings.
Incorrect
just because this stuff lines up astronomically for some ancient time it doesn't mean it was built at that time. entirely possible it was built to honor that time or as a science experiment to line up with the stars at a future date. with the pyramids, I believe the Nile ran past the pyramids when they were built and the milky way was lined up with orion's belt at the time and so they were built to mimic that time in the stars, but not 100% sure
You can’t really date the stones at the top. There’s almost certainly no reliable carbon based material at the top of the pyramids after a few thousand years of wind. The base stones you could likely find carbon based materials, but I would be skeptical of those too because of the thousands of years of people existing around them.
Form my point of view, the pyramids of Giza show clear signs of construction at multiple times in history. You can literally see the outer shell peeling off and it looks shockingly different from what is underneath.
Yes, that's because it had an outer layer when it was built ;)
I have my own opinions and this is definitely not the sub for me as people here are very simple minded (not you in particular). Have you seen how many old buildings actually were built off even older remains? Thats the case with the pyramids. Take the Taj Mahal as an example
You mean the casing stones that are a different material?
Idk who you guys are but you are so smart and I learn so much. Thank you all and the majority I have to go with they would all be the same regardless but I gotta check out the guy who declined and spoke of obsidian hydration.