Submitted by AutoModerator t3_10qwrk9 in askscience
keyboardstatic t1_j6sennb wrote
With dating the age of old human places like the Egyptian pyramids is it possible that they are older? Or that they can't be easily dated due to a lack of what they need to find to date?
What are your thoughts on the ability of the simple tools found. To produce the stone artefacts and stone work found in Egypt?
What are your thoughts on civilisation being older then we currently think?
By civilisation I mean organised city states.
nivlark t1_j6spdcu wrote
Historians and archaeologists work hard to make sure their dating methods are as accurate as possible.
An_Average_Player t1_j6tgiq5 wrote
A relatively simple way scientists date things is by using carbon dating. Now, this is only accurate a few hundred years either side, due to the nature of carbon dating. However, by any more than ~200 years is not really going to happen. We just have too much evidence.
The stonework has been proven to be actually pretty easy with the simple tools they built, it just took a lot of slaves to build it.
And it's unlikely, just due to the sheer amount of evidence we have, from a fossil record if you mean that much older, to built structures, or lack thereof.
CrustalTrudger t1_j6u7vol wrote
> Now, this is only accurate a few hundred years either side, due to the nature of carbon dating.
This would be a pretty terrible radiocarbon date, most have uncertainty in the range a few decades at most (e.g., Scott et al., 2007).
[deleted] t1_j6u9lkd wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6vf31y wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments