Go to the Egyptian Dreams shop
Egyptian Dreams
Ancient Egypt Discussion Board
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Nefertiti
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
khazarkhum
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
khazarkhum wrote:
OK, Lutz. Find me one other non-Amarna, non-Borchardt example of vertically cut shoulders supporting only a head and neck. Painted. With no paint erosion from the sand. And plaster over limestone.

Go find one.

Why should I? Believers and conspiracy theorists are not to convince by an argument ... You prove to me that here too well.

You're obviously not even accept that this bust was not made for the offical state cult (even this has been said several times from different members here). It was a sculptor model, nothing more. And so it was reduced to the limits it was made for.

Lutz


The old 'conspiracy theories' non-argument.

You can't produce such a thing because it does not exist.

There is NO other 'sculptor's model' from AE that is even remotely like this, is there? Was it a state cult statue, or a sculptor's model? Neither.

There is absolutely nothing else provenanced like it. The Salt Head is unprovenanced and undateable. It is unique. There aren't even any other Amarna pieces like it.

We want it to be real because it is so unique and lovely that we want it to be a link to the past. Unfortunately, it isn't.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4176
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

khazarkhum wrote:
... Was it a state cult statue, or a sculptor's model? Neither.

There is absolutely nothing else provenanced like it. ...

As repeatedly noted and bravely ignored by you : that's just wrong, there are such model busts of Akhenaton. One was unfortunately very damaged found on the same day in the same room at Amarna.

khazarkhum wrote:
... We want it to be real because it is so unique and lovely that we want it to be a link to the past. Unfortunately, it isn't.

You want to see it as a fake and so you ignore the very well documented history of the excavations in Amarna and also the modern investigations of the bust, because they do not fit to your nice little theory based on nothing than your personal fantasy.

Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
khazarkhum
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
khazarkhum wrote:
... Was it a state cult statue, or a sculptor's model? Neither.

There is absolutely nothing else provenanced like it. ...

As repeatedly noted and bravely ignored by you : that's just wrong, there are such model busts of Akhenaton. One was unfortunately very damaged found on the same day in the same room at Amarna.

khazarkhum wrote:
... We want it to be real because it is so unique and lovely that we want it to be a link to the past. Unfortunately, it isn't.

You want to see it as a fake and so you ignore the very well documented history of the excavations in Amarna and also the modern investigations of the bust, because they do not fit to your nice little theory based on nothing than your personal fantasy.

Lutz


The only fantasy is that it's authentic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khazarkhum
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khazarkhum wrote:
Lutz wrote:
khazarkhum wrote:
... Was it a state cult statue, or a sculptor's model? Neither.

There is absolutely nothing else provenanced like it. ...

As repeatedly noted and bravely ignored by you : that's just wrong, there are such model busts of Akhenaton. One was unfortunately very damaged found on the same day in the same room at Amarna.

khazarkhum wrote:
... We want it to be real because it is so unique and lovely that we want it to be a link to the past. Unfortunately, it isn't.

You want to see it as a fake and so you ignore the very well documented history of the excavations in Amarna and also the modern investigations of the bust, because they do not fit to your nice little theory based on nothing than your personal fantasy.

Lutz


The only fantasy is that it's authentic.


Let me expand on this.

The nearly pristine paint should have garnered attention. Even items supposedly from the very same find do not have paint anywhere near this brilliant; at most it is faded, clinging in deep recesses. Some of the heavy black paint used for making cutting marks has survived. But the delicate palette used for the face and collar have long since eroded away.
Not so much because they sat out in the weather, but because of long-time contact with sand. Sand is abrasive. 3300 years will remove paint from almost anything.

And then there's the shoulders. The heads that have survived have a rounded base that terminates at the collarbone. If only one were found, it would be possible to argue that it was the way it was broken. However, several exist, enough to suggest a pattern. That pattern is a head that terminates at the broad collar.

Not one of these other heads has anything to even remotely indicate the structure of supporting shoulders, let alone vertically-cut ones.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4176
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Absurd and far from the real circumstances of the find. If sand should have an abrasive effect it must exist a holding force for constant motion. In the dry climate of Middle and Upper Egypt he acts when he encloses an object totally logically as protecting and preserving addition.

The objects were found in a workshop. Logically that there standing around only not finished pieces in different stages of completion or templates (the plaster masks). When the pieces were finished then they migrate to the place for which they were made​​. Just not the sculptor model busts of Nefertiti and Akhenaten ...

Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
khazarkhum
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Absurd and far from the real circumstances of the find. If sand should have an abrasive effect it must exist a holding force for constant motion. In the dry climate of Middle and Upper Egypt he acts when he encloses an object totally logically as protecting and preserving addition.

The objects were found in a workshop. Logically that there standing around only not finished pieces in different stages of completion or templates (the plaster masks). When the pieces were finished then they migrate to the place for which they were made​​. Just not the sculptor model busts of Nefertiti and Akhenaten ...

Lutz


If it was thus protected, why were other pieces in the same place not equally protected?

Why don't we find vivid paint on everything in Egypt? We know it was painted. Traces of paint are found all the time. But paint that is essentially intact? No.

Egypt gets annual sand and wind storms. We get them here in the California desert, too. They can and do strip paint off of cars, buildings, everything in their path. Sandblasting is used to strip things for a reason.

Once a workshop is abandoned, the doors & windows taken off for reuse, there's nothing protecting the contents of the interior. For a few years, maybe even a century or two, the change will be gradual. But sooner or later the roof caves in, leaving everything at the mercy of the wind. And the rain. It does rain in Egypt. In fact Amarna is a humid place.

If it's buried on sand, time & wind will slowly erode the paint away. After 3300 years, there won't be much left.

The Amarna frescoes are a different because they are frescoes. The paint is applied to wet plaster, so that it binds completely while the plaster dries.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4176
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As I suspected, and said, believers and conspiracy theorists is not really going to help ... It gets boring.

And it is ridiculous if you elsewhere on the WWW look for help and protect ... By the way, the statements in this other nice little forum on the possibility of C14 dating of the stucco are simply wrong. The stuff contains sufficient organic components, just like the processed colors. This has been expressed to you here on several occasions and not only by me, but as usual unsuccessful.

You by your self do not use a real name here, do not specify the place of residence or gender in your profile and accuse others anonymity and impute evil? More than just bad form...

Lutz

PS:. "Lutz" is a German first name. It is derived from "Ludwig", over the French form "Louis". Just that you and your "friends" and Wildung-haters, etc. in your little scribe forum unnecessarily no further puzzle and have to speculate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ankhetmaatre
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 212
Location: District of Columbia, USA

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What I'm seeing here is a profoundly inadequate understanding of both the details surrounding the discovery of the bust and the mechanics of the ancient Egyptian artists' process. Arguing against the bust's authenticity because the paint is intact is like arguing against the authenticity of of this head of Tutankhamun which was found buried in the rubble of the passageway to his tomb, which when it was found was quite bright (it has suffered a bit from less than talented conservators); http://www.touregypt.net/museum/tutheadpage.htm.

I'm sorry Khazarkhum but your understanding of the find is pretty incomplete. You ask why didn't the paint on the other heads didn't survive? It's because they were not fully painted, many were not painted at all. The workshop's doors and windows where deliberately blocked up and that blocking was found in situ. Though it did fall to ruins, it did so by slow degrees. The bust of Akhenaton was broken up because it was clearly deliberately vandalized in antiquity. There was no "sandblasting" within the building. When Borchadt found the object he remarked, in writing, at the time of the discovery, on the bust's state of preservation.

What is wonderful is that if you study the other heads of Nefertiti discovered there as well you will notice, as clearly as if they were made yesterday, the sculpture's correcting marks that the finished head evidences. In other words, you can see the corrections he felt were needed and see how he worked them out on the finished polychrome bust - stylistically proving that this is, indeed, the work of this master.

I strongly recommend a thorough study of both the discovery and ancient art methodology and not relying on second hand sources. When one becomes married to an opinion it become difficult to see where the flaws may lay.
_________________
Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured
~Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khazarkhum
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ankhetmaatre wrote:
What I'm seeing here is a profoundly inadequate understanding of both the details surrounding the discovery of the bust and the mechanics of the ancient Egyptian artists' process. Arguing against the bust's authenticity because the paint is intact is like arguing against the authenticity of of this head of Tutankhamun which was found buried in the rubble of the passageway to his tomb, which when it was found was quite bright (it has suffered a bit from less than talented conservators); http://www.touregypt.net/museum/tutheadpage.htm.



The argument about paint is supporting evidence. The main argument is the vertically-cut shoulders, which are unknown in AE.

That little head was found inside a sealed tomb, where the conditions stayed stable for 3300 years. If it had been outside it probably wouldn't have survived at all. And yes, the restoration--done at the insistence of a TV show--has done irreparable harm.


[qoute] You ask why didn't the paint on the other heads didn't survive? It's because they were not fully painted, many were not painted at all. [quote] But most had some amount of paint on them, even if only for correcting errors. That heavy black paint is expected to survive fairly well. But the other pieces--the other heads--have paint that has eroded or faded away.

Quote:
The workshop's doors and windows where deliberately blocked up and that blocking was found in situ. Though it did fall to ruins, it did so by slow degrees. The bust of Akhenaton was broken up because it was clearly deliberately vandalized in antiquity. There was no "sandblasting" within the building. When Borchadt found the object he remarked, in writing, at the time of the discovery, on the bust's state of preservation.


Sandblasting was used to illustrate what sand and wind can and will do. Over time, though the greater damage to paint is done through moisture and leeching, both of which should have happened. Otherwise every single AE statue would still have its paint.

Second, are there any photos of Thutmose's workshop as found? I don't know of any. Photography was hardly in its infancy in 1912.

Quote:
What is wonderful is that if you study the other heads of Nefertiti discovered there as well you will notice, as clearly as if they were made yesterday, the sculpture's correcting marks that the finished head evidences. In other words, you can see the corrections he felt were needed and see how he worked them out on the finished polychrome bust - stylistically proving that this is, indeed, the work of this master.


He didn't incorporate them. The finished head is cold and lifeless, wheras the other known, provenanced Nefertitis have a softness that is lacking in the bust. Intact eyes would not mitigate this impression.

Quote:
I strongly recommend a thorough study of both the discovery and ancient art methodology and not relying on second hand sources. When one becomes married to an opinion it become difficult to see where the flaws may lay.


Great! Which of Borchardt's different versions should we start with?

There is a heavily-cropped photo of Borchardt 'examining' the bust, dated by others as 1913. There are the photos he claimed Lefabvre examined, but Lefabvre himself couldn't recall if he actually did see the bust either in photos or live. Borchardt later claimed he 'covered it in mud' to keep it, which certainly doesn't reflect well on him.

There are extremely cropped photos of the head that were published in 1913-14. It next makes a big appearance when it is unveiled in Berlin, looking as it does today. There's a long gap in between, during which, apparently, copies were made.

But--there are no in-situ pictures, just a sketch. If you have or know of any in-situ photos, I'd love to see them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ankhetmaatre
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 212
Location: District of Columbia, USA

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
That little head was found inside a sealed tomb, where the conditions stayed stable for 3300 years.


Sorry, wrong. It was found in the buried in the rubble of the passageway* leading to the tomb, which is what I said above. It's this sort of lack of attention to details that robs your assertions of validity. That passageway could be compared to the conditions in which the Nefertiti bust was found.

Quote:
where the conditions stayed stable for 3300 years


Also incorrect; because the tomb was sealed while the plaster and mortar were still wet humidity built up inside and allowed for the growth of fungus on the walls and a number of painted objects, not to mention textiles.**

Quote:
But most had some amount of paint on them, even if only for correcting errors.


Also incorrect, most of them (22, in fact) were left largely unpainted because they were simple plaster casts. And paint over stone has different adhesion quality to paint over plaster or gesso. The Nefertiti bust was indeed painted in much the same manner as a fresco -

The bust of Nefertiti
H. G. Wiedemann , G. Bayer
***. Chem., 1982, 54 (4), pp 619A–628A
DOI: 10.1021/ac00241a001
Publication Date: April 1982

Quote:
Second, are there any photos of Thutmose's workshop as found? I don't know of any. Photography was hardly in its infancy in 1912.


I found references to the condition of his studio in written notes from publications off the website The Amarna Project, but I am not digging around there now to look for it.


Quote:
He didn't incorporate them. The finished head is cold and lifeless, wheras the other known, provenanced Nefertitis have a softness that is lacking in the bust. Intact eyes would not mitigate this impression.


If you have ever studied sculpture it's pretty obvious that he did indeed incorporate the visual notes he made on the head one and two down from the famous finished bust; click the photos to enlarge http://www.smb.museum/smb/kalender/details.php?lang=en&objID=29934&p=24

As to whether or not the finished one is "cold and lifeless" I suppose that is subjective but I would think one should actually see it before making that determination.

Lastly, I have never mentioned photography once so I'm not sure where that comes from...

Ultimately, Henri Sterlin, noted art historian, made a case (on the face of it pretty circumstantial) for the bust being a fake; Le buste de Néfertiti : Une imposture de l'égyptologie?, Infolio, Gollion, 2009 - but after the carbon dating and the CT scan, which even he admitted were compelling, he too began to flail about trying to say that it was still possible to put fake ancient paint over fake ancient plaster evidencing that he too knows very little about the modern scanning and radiocarbon process. The only real way this could be a fake is if all parties involved in the testing agreed to lie about it - and that's one whopping lie. It's hard to image that not one person would have come forward about it after all this time (including the scientists analyzing the scans) All in all, the arguments you have put forward are Sterlin's and a bit overly familiar at this point.

If one is going to make allegations that an object that has been certified genuine by experts with multiple degrees in their field then one should attempt to be as competent as the experts one wishes to refute if one wishes to be taken seriously. And I am not saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE that the bust was "highly conserved" at some point (though I doubt it) but just because it is unusual it does not automatically follow that it is fake.





*Tyldesley; Tutankhamen: The Search For An Egyptian King, pgs 256-7

**ibid, pgs 106-7
_________________
Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured
~Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khazarkhum
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ankhetmaatre wrote:
Quote:
That little head was found inside a sealed tomb, where the conditions stayed stable for 3300 years.


Sorry, wrong. It was found in the buried in the rubble of the passageway* leading to the tomb, which is what I said above. It's this sort of lack of attention to details that robs your assertions of validity. That passageway could be compared to the conditions in which the Nefertiti bust was found.


So, the little head, in a long corridor filled with rubble, sealed from the outside world, is exactly the same conditions as a ruined building filled with sand that's been more or less exposed for 3300 year? Really? You want to make that claim?

Quote:


Also incorrect; because the tomb was sealed while the plaster and mortar were still wet humidity built up inside and allowed for the growth of fungus on the walls and a number of painted objects, not to mention textiles.**


The textiles were in a decayed state when found. Careless repacking did them no favors. Treatments designed to preserve them made them worse.

A great deal of the issues stemmed from things in the tomb itself decomposing over time, rather than exposure to the outside world.

Quote:

Also incorrect, most of them (22, in fact) were left largely unpainted because they were simple plaster casts. And paint over stone has different adhesion quality to paint over plaster or gesso. The Nefertiti bust was indeed painted in much the same manner as a fresco -

The bust of Nefertiti
H. G. Wiedemann , G. Bayer
***. Chem., 1982, 54 (4), pp 619A–628A
DOI: 10.1021/ac00241a001
Publication Date: April 1982



For the sake of clarity, let's leave the plaster casts of faces aside. They were never meant to be painted.

Paint's adhesion to stone is less than plaster. Yes. However, the paint on the plaster would have to be done while the plaster was fresh to get the same effect as a fresco. Simply wetting the plaster does not allow for the same degree of absorption.


Quote:

I found references to the condition of his studio in written notes from publications off the website The Amarna Project, but I am not digging around there now to look for it.


But no photos. I've seen those notes, too, and there's nothing preventing them from having been written long after the fact.


Quote:

If you have ever studied sculpture it's pretty obvious that he did indeed incorporate the visual notes he made on the head one and two down from the famous finished bust; click the photos to enlarge http://www.smb.museum/smb/kalender/details.php?lang=en&objID=29934&p=24


How would you know on the bust? There's no way of seeing any original marks.

Quote:

Lastly, I have never mentioned photography once so I'm not sure where that comes from...


Me. I like in situ photos from sites, especially when an unusual artifact has emerged.

Quote:

Ultimately, Henri Sterlin, noted art historian, made a case (on the face of it pretty circumstantial) for the bust being a fake; Le buste de Néfertiti : Une imposture de l'égyptologie?, Infolio, Gollion, 2009 - but after the carbon dating and the CT scan, which even he admitted were compelling, he too began to flail about trying to say that it was still possible to put fake ancient paint over fake ancient plaster evidencing that he too knows very little about the modern scanning and radiocarbon process. The only real way this could be a fake is if all parties involved in the testing agreed to lie about it - and that's one whopping lie. It's hard to image that not one person would have come forward about it after all this time (including the scientists analyzing the scans) All in all, the arguments you have put forward are Sterlin's and a bit overly familiar at this point.


To which I say: You are concentrating on the superficial elements. My main concern isn't the paint job or elements thereof, only with how they suggest a larger problem.

First, you seem to think that Borchardt used modern ingredients. I don't believe he did; I believe he was experimenting with ancient things on hand. He seems to have said as much himself.

Second, I would find any test claiming it could accurately date a non-organic like gypsum plaster with any degree of accuracy dubious.

Finally, and most critically, my primary concern is the shoulders. I have asked people to find another 'bust' with vertically-cut shoulders from this time period, a piece that is neither broken nor part of a composite, nor heavily restored.

Quote:

If one is going to make allegations that an object that has been certified genuine by experts with multiple degrees in their field then one should attempt to be as competent as the experts one wishes to refute if one wishes to be taken seriously.


The 'argument from authority' is a logical fallacy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ankhetmaatre
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 212
Location: District of Columbia, USA

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sigh, argument from authority is not a logical fallacy in the case of empirical evidence - that of the science of radiology - which also evidences a basic lack of understanding of logical fallacy - but nevermind, all this basic info has clearly soared right over.

wot
_________________
Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured
~Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khazarkhum
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ankhetmaatre wrote:
Sigh, argument from authority is not a logical fallacy in the case of empirical evidence - that of the science of radiology - which also evidences a basic lack of understanding of logical fallacy - but nevermind, all this basic info has clearly soared right over.

wot


Soared right over what, exactly?

Arguing from empirical evidence is one thing. Arguing that someone cannot be be correct because they are not trailing a variety of letters behind their name is an argument from authority and auctorite, and therefore fallacious.

They used a CT scan that shows a solid, probably limestone, core.

If you have test results, show them, and the argument ends. But be sure to show where & what was tested. Ideally you'll get the entire set of tests, but that's unlikely.

If you're saying they dated the limestone core, they are incorrect. There is no way to date a carved stone. There is also no way to date an inorganic compound like gypsum plaster, so if they did that's a major breakthrough in science & some Nobels should have gone out. If it's the paint, that too is a major breakthrough. The piece was also heavily contaminated by Borchardt himself, who says he put local mud on it. IOW, there is no C14 test that can be done with any reasonable degree of certainty.

You seem to think I'm suggesting it was made in Germany. No, it was made in Egypt, and then plastered into what we see today.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4176
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

khazarkhum wrote:
... There is also no way to date an inorganic compound like gypsum plaster, ...

Even though it obviously is not really brings something, here in this discussion several times was told you by different members (with literature references to the evil conspiracy scientists): To mix the plaster and the colors they used organic binder. This can be attributed by C14 to + - 300 years exactly (without crossdating with other finds). This is exactly enough in our case here. In order to use such organic substances from around 1300 BC Borchardt would need to have the technology of time travel...

Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
khazarkhum
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
khazarkhum wrote:
... There is also no way to date an inorganic compound like gypsum plaster, ...

Even though it obviously is not really brings something, here in this discussion several times was told you by different members (with literature references to the evil conspiracy scientists): To mix the plaster and the colors they used organic binder. This can be attributed by C14 to + - 300 years exactly (without crossdating with other finds). This is exactly enough in our case here. In order to use such organic substances from around 1300 BC Borchardt would need to have the technology of time travel...

Lutz


Plaster: Plaster is a building material used for coating walls and ceilings. Plaster starts as a dry powder similar to mortar or cement and like those materials it is mixed with water to form a paste which liberates heat and then hardens. Unlike mortar and cement, plaster remains quite soft after setting, and can be easily manipulated with metal tools or even sandpaper.

No organic materials. Therefore, no C14 dating is possible.

Pigments:

There's a reason that archeologists use materials found with art to date art. And that reason is, there's no clear way to accurately date paint. If there were, there would be no questions about cave art: they'd take a sample & be done with it.

Spectrometry can tell what the pigment is composed of, but not when it was made. C14 needs a bit more information than what is going to be available from a small sample of casein paint. C14 is normally used to get a date for the wood, textile or other organic the paint was applied to and not the paint itself.

If someone is claiming they used C14 to date the pigment, then they obviously misunderstood what they were told.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 4 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group