Questioning the Luminescence Dating Result of the Giza Pyramid

#pyramid #luminescence #megalithic #lostcivilization #gizapyramid
Please subscribe and turn on notifications [🔔] so you don't miss any videos.

Luminescence Dating is an exciting technology, which method can date stone and concrete. People interested in the world-wide megalithic phenomenon are often aware of how very challenging it is to date prehistoric stone buildings. The more commonly used radiocarbon dating can not date stone because it’s limited to organic items. Now this new method Luminescence Dating can possibly unravel the age mystery of these megalithic sites.

Luminescence dating techniques are most commonly applied to sand or silt sediments. Methods have been developed in recent decades that also allow us to date rock surfaces of ancient stone sites. One such study was done on the Giza Plateau where the smallest great pyramid and three other structures were tested. The data was published about 8 years ago.

The researchers claimed that the resultant ages have confirmed most conventional Dynastic dates, while in some cases, predating the conventional dates by hundreds of years. “ So, does that mean the mainstream timeline of the Giza complex is actually correct? Were the great pyramids really built by dynastic Egyptians? Maybe not. Let me show you what I have found and why I don’t think these results are conclusive.

Reference:
Photos and films came from online sources.

This is my YouTube Channel “Curious Being.” I have many diverse and interesting topics to share, such as Lost Ancient Human Civilizations, Megalithic Sites, and other related fascinating studies. History vs. Mystery revealed! Thank you for watching.

[terrycureton]

Tina, whether formally trained or not, you have the mindset and methodology of a trained scientist! Included in your methodology is the practice of NOT stating something as proven facts, but instead leaving room for doubts and other possible conclusions which is truly the heart of science - but not always followed by credentialed scientists. Thus, you and your methods are truly exceptional and much appreciated by folks like me who can see the difference.

[yardsaleuw]

I wish they would test the Boxes in the Serapeum of Saquarra. These seem to me to be the most intriguing evidence of ancient high technology. Its quite obvious that these boxes could have only been produced and placed in their alcoves using some sort of advanced mechanical equipment. The test would confirm When the boxes were placed underground but not necessarily when they were produced.

[alphalunamare]

You are doing a good job of explaining this to people. I think the main problem is people's failure to understand this fact and hence interpret results blindly. 15:06 There is a beautiful irony in the fact that using a hammer and chisel to date a structure built with a hammer and chisel proves problematic :-) I have only recently found your channel hence the lateness of my comments but I must admit that this exposure of methodological failings is simply brilliant! It is of importance to the whole Geological Community! :-)

[ioannisliritzis]

Dear Tina Dear All
I saw the video. The speaker did not understand the sampling procedure. The precautions are truly realistic that is why we recommend one to be cautious.
1.The sampling in the pyramids was not done as she received our paper. Instead, the chisel gently helped detach a little piece whose internal (always) surface was in contact to the upper block and in dark. This untightened piece never was detached, instead the external profile facing the sun was covered by black bag and the piece with the internal surface was removed by hand out always this being protected from the sunlight.
2. The removed internal surface wraped in black plastic bag specified as to the inside surface (not being wrongly confused with the lower in the rock cut part) was transferred to the red light conditions of subdue light in the lab.
3. From the cleaned of contamination surface we removed gently surface layers from different surface patches. Tests were made about how many times rubbing, force exerted etc. This was done to avoid a) possible rubbing effects between the two blocks from say earthquake activity and also b) avoid any accedental light getting into the inner surface part detached from sampling or earlier repairs.
4. Hence several aliquots were prepared from the inner surface and the equivalent dose was measured.
5. We get rid of any outlier dose due to reasons above. We accept the rest of the dose aliquots.
6. The dates adhere an error which must be always taken into account when discussing comparative dates. She did not took into her discussion other than it is such an error....
7. The limestone dates and some different dates from same monument is expected as the structure has usually been reused and repairs are unavoidably made.
All these are discussed in the papere which she misses to quote.
The surface OSL dating of monuments has been well studied and progress has been made not on the procedure but the techniques of measuring ED.
8. The tube technique to sample does not apply to the monuments but only to sediment profiles. THe destruction would be highly irreversible and destroy the monument. In our sampling, the little piece taken (the little space can be refill by a similar material) is the most -at present- suitable and accepted by archaeologists.
Prof Ioannis Liritzis

[johnweaver]

Keep up the good work. One day we will all agree the history of the Giza plateau is much older and more mysterious than we thought!

[Ficktao]

You are absolutely right! I think we should take any and all luminescence dating results with a grain of salt until the technique has been improved upon.

[KlausJepps]

I haven't looked into how luminescence dating was done, and further I didn't know the tests done at Giza was comparable inaccurate. Those tests clearly cannot be trusted since the result shows contamination of some sort.

Thanks Tina. I learned something today.

[Aladato]

This is a very interesting technique. It seems historical dates at the very least will be rewritten.
One thing is for sure. While samples can be bleached and dated as more recent, we know that the oldest dates are never wrong.
In other words, samples will never be dated as older than they are by mistake, only as younger.
If anything, as the sampling process improves, the timeline will only get pushed further back in time until we find the most accurate dates.
Once again, very nice video Tina!

[InimitableMrG]

Another knock is that they used surface luminescence dating which merely measures the amount of time since the sample was exposed to sunlight. One problem here, at least for the pyramid, is that the current structure was, at one time, covered with a limestone covering. Depending on when that was done - and which peoples completed the covering, where the sample was taken (I've not read the study), what chemicals have been introduced to the structure over time and etc. will have a significant effect on the dating response. For the pyramid, for example, I would expect they should use an internal sample (which, in the case of the pyramid they chose, they couldn't because, if I remember correctly, there are no chambers within it) for the most accurate measurement.

[randomyank]

I agree with the notion of pre dynastic construction . I also agree, a much more closely monitored new sampling with the most modern techniques is required to accurately date their constructions . Variations in the dates would indicate later additions, restorations, or repurposing of older structures by later civilizations . There are 3 distinct prehistorical building methods widely known today, megalithic, cyclopean, & polygonal stone working . All 3 are found at the Giza plateau & various sites in South America & around the world . This lends credence to at least 3 global civilizations in prehistory . Nice job, Tina . I believe that if such tests were done in a competent fashion, the results would yield far more ancient results than shown so far . Pre Older-Dryas ?

[philippeleban]

Well done research. I just watched, Revelations of the Pyramids and their presentation has given me a renewed interest in this subject.

[worldtraveljournals]

Another excellent video! It is beautiful and reassuring to see how you continually challenge your own reasoning. The Sphinx challenges us from a distant past. And you have once again risen to the challenge very well.

[passerby]

For perhaps the first time, I find myself in complete agreement with the content of one of your videos, if not with your motivation. Great work, and thank for making such a detailed investigation of this dating method.

[robbailey]

Such a great analysis! Makes me think there were probably many other samples taken but only the ones which produced "acceptable" dates were published. Just speculation on my part, but the Egytological authorities have put me in the position to doubt everything they reveal. Thanks and I'm so glad I came across your channel!

[MrJento]

Wow! You grabbed the tiger by the tail and won. Best presentation of all the ancient history channels that I routinely watch. And a very complicated and arcane topic. You logic is impeccable. You put your finger right on the weakness in the reported results. That is sampling technique, processing and interpretation. There is another objection which I’ll share with you in a separate comment. I need to go find a book or two. Fox out.

[bacobill]

I always look forward to your new videos.. so well presented and so well researched.. I do want to compliment your personality also.. quite inspiring and uplifting in a 'curious' way.. Thank you for all the time you put into these videos and for sharing your knowledge with the world.. We need you!!!

[davidosborne]

Another great hypothesis Tina!! Well done!! David🇨🇦

[World-as-i-c-it]

Very thoughtful analysis Tina, always a pleasure to view your presentations and experience your thought process.

[michaelabraham]

As per usual your content is the most well thought out, and least prejudiced out there.

[iang]

Thanks for doing this video Tina as I became interested in this dating technique when I saw a documentary on Stonehenge here in the UK recently. They were dating the standing stones at Waun Mawn in Wales, I believe there is a suggestion that was the original site immediately prior to being moved to Salisbury. Watching it as a dating technique was quite exciting but I gradually realised it was fraught with problems in terms of collection of samples and my initial excitement became scepticism. I then searched online to see if anyone had dated the pyramids using luminescence and came across the dates you gave here. I didn't investigate much further as thought it must be either errors in sample collection or a stitch up to confirm mainstream dating albeit pushing the dates back a few hundred years. Done correctly under strict standards this technique could reveal much at sites around the world, but will mainstream scientist results ever be accepted by the alternative community?!. In the case of those Giza samples, surely as a minimum they could have collected them under heavy black sheeting and worn night vision goggles...