Structured Transparency in Archaeological Dispute Resolution: An Analysis of Competing Hypotheses Applied to Neolithic and Fourth Dynasty Monumental Construction

This paper applies Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH), a structured analytic technique from intelligence analysis, to two independent case studies of ancient monumental construction along the Fertile Crescent corridor: the Fourth Dynasty Egyptian pyramid programme (c. 2613-2494 BCE) and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Taş Tepeler complex in south-eastern Turkey (c. 10,500-8,000 BCE). ACH is employed as a structured transparency framework rather than a cognitive debiasing tool, with evidence items generated through a Constraint-Based Evaluation Framework (CBEF) using exclusively orthodox published sources. The Fourth Dynasty matrix evaluates five hypotheses against twelve evidence items; the Taş Tepeler matrix evaluates four hypotheses against twenty-two evidence items. In both case studies, the orthodox or minimal hypothesis accumulates the highest inconsistency count, a finding robust across eight sensitivity tests. The cross-case pattern is characterised as convergent inconsistency accumulation. The paper identifies specific empirical tests, including cosmogenic nuclide dating of carved stone surfaces, that could resolve remaining analytical ambiguities. Full scoring rationales and sensitivity analysis tables are available as supplementary material.