You're viewing a single thread.
Shoch: The Sphinx is much older than originally estimated because the water erosion around the figure must have come from the time when Egypt was very temperate and rainy, sometime before 3500-3200BCE, which is much earlier than we originally thought.
Egyptologists: But we have no artifacts from that era! No pottery, no barns! There's no way to prove that!
Shoch: I mean, that's just what the rocks
Egyptologists: LIES!!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_water_erosion_hypothesis
You can test the water idea with a simple borehole/palaeo core. It doesn't fit the data.
The Sphinx water erosion hypothesis is a fringe claim, contending that the Great Sphinx of Giza and its enclosing walls eroded primarily due to ancient floods or rainfalls, attributing their creation to Plato's lost civilization of Atlantis
(Italics added, because - what? I’ve never seen that)
Here’s another example of this type of argument from the larger article:
The Orion correlation theory posits that it was instead aligned to face the constellation of Leo during the vernal equinox around 10,500 BC. The idea is considered pseudoarchaeology by academia, because no textual or archaeological evidence supports this to be the reason for the orientation of the Sphinx
(Italics added) Whether it is or is not; the countervailing argument is “no, because we have no proof it is”. Well no proof is just that - no proof either way. Isn’t it? This theory of astronomical alignment is based on solid empirical facts, though it is just a theory. Saying, “no it can’t be because we haven’t found a book from the time period” is a weird argument to say it disproves it. At best it says it can’t prove it.
That’s not to say a core sample test isn’t a good indicator, or some of the other causes-for-erosion aren’t as-or-more likely in the case of dating the Sphinx structure. It’s just that the particular argument that “we haven’t dug up definitive proof” is - not a great argument to base an unchallengeable assertion on. At best one has to allow alternate theories which have not been empirically disproven are possible.
A borehole survey is pretty empirical, my dude. It's basic geoarchaeology and used heavily in geoscience and engineering. Most responsibile construction projects use them and you know they're not spending money on things that aren't tried and true. It is how I hunt extinct rivers and other watercourses in other parts of the world. They don't just go poof. Plus the palaeo record would show what lived in and around it.
Archaeology works backwards from the known to the unknown. We bring our own biases to science, so that's why we have to build our case for theories brick by brick, to avoid those and check ourselves. He's welcome to provide proof, but so far he hasn't had any that fits the data. We welcome these ideas when there's proof. Rivers with the ability to carve rock like that leave large footprints. Multiple people's careers would be made if there was such evidence, but there isn't. Large discoveries are good for archaeology and bring funding. Science with a capital S isn't perfect, but the data disproves it, if anything.
What’s the borehole analysis of Gobekle Tepe?
Speaking of, since that site was recently uncovered, how does OSL work for it? Are there any qualifications to dating it with OSL or is it the same whether it was covered for thousands of years or not?
There is 25 years of research at that site. You have a selection of geoarchaeological surveys to choose from... These are just a few. That site is a hot bed for extensive palaeo work.
Same. Looks interesting tho.
just a theory
Just a theory? A theory is a pretty well supported thing
I think the counterveiling argument is that there is a lot of evidence of large stone construction and similar cultural activities at much later dates.
And 10,000BC would be an impossibly ancient thing. You'd need a smidgen of proof to get anyone to think that was likely compared to all the circumstantial evidence we have for conventional estimations.
And 10,000BC would be an impossibly ancient thing.
Yet, Gobekle Tepe?
A very different, impressive structure, build on a different way in a different environment.
That's like saying the Chinese had paper in 100BC, so Europeans must have as well - we just haven't found any evidence of it yet. Despite all the evidence to the contrary.
well, should the dating of 12,000 BC hold up (I don't have the actual date, apologies) but it's roughly before the oldest time suggested by the erosion theory of the Sphinx, and one of the arguments against it was that there was NO civilization at that time.
Well, now we know there was. So - that particular argument against the theory has to be thrown out, right?
Sure, if one of the arguments against it was that there was no civilisation in the world (or fertile crescent and adjacent areas) then yes, that's not a valid counterpoint.
I was thinking of using the evidence of megastructure building culture in Egypt that there is that matches the, according to the other person, water rising up (if I recall correctly).
It'd be fun and interesting if you're theory is right. But there's a lot of burden of proof it needs to overcome. Still, who knows?
Indeed!
Looks nothing like the much more complex stone work that was done on The Sphinx.
In fact it is reasonable that those improvements could take around 5500 years of development since they had to invent copper, tin, and bronze smelting in that interval.
You mean the head or the body of the Sphinx? Head, I’ll agree, body - mmmm - doesn’t seem to be that complex but maybe I’m missing something.
The stones above the base. The head and body primarily. The base was carved out of stone in situ, but as I understand it, they had to build up the rear of the body and head. To be fair, I'm remembering this from a paper I read in college in 98 or 99.
There's heavy rain at Giza a couple days a year. Over 4500 years of that.
Furthermore, various structures securely dated to the Old Kingdom show only erosion that was caused by wind and sand (very distinct from the water erosion).
So where’s their water erosion then?
Just to save the downvoters some trouble, I’m only suggesting that theories which are not supported by direct anthropological evidence are worth considering. I’m not saying aliens - or Atlanteans or whomever - carved the Sphinx. The erosion theory was just the first thing I thought of as an example.
Back in the early 1990s, when I first suggested that the Great Sphinx was much older than generally believed at the time, I was challenged by Egyptologists who asked, "Where is the evidence of that earlier civilization?" that could have built the Sphinx.
They were sure that sophisticated culture, what we call civilization, did not exist prior to about 3000 or 4000 BCE. Now, however, there is evidence of high culture dating back to approximately 12,000 years ago, at a site in Turkey known as Göbekli Tepe. A major mystery has been why these early glimmerings of civilization and high culture disappeared, only to reemerge thousands of years later.
I’m only suggesting that theories which are not supported by direct anthropological evidence are worth considering
You can consider an idea and build a theory around it, but once your basic idea is disproven, your whole theory disappears. And the idea that the Sphinx erosion doesn't match the agreed upon age has already been proven wrong - as in, it has been explained that the observed erosion is perfectly compatible with what rock types are there and with the data that we know since the actual period it was built in, the mid third millenium BCE. So you don't have your premise that the erosion doesn't match the official age, and that means there is nothing left to consider here until you actually have something new, anything else is fanfiction.
Considering new idea is perfectly fine, no one disagrees with that, but you are not considering new ideas, you are considering old ideas that were proven wrong and not listening when someone tells you why it's wrong. Get new material.
it has been explained that the observed erosion is perfectly compatible with what rock types are there and with the data that we know since the actual period it was built in, the mid third millenium BCE
Is it the case then that we should see similar erosion in contemporary local structures? My understanding was that we didn’t, is that not right?
https://youtu.be/DaJWEjimeDM?si=rwX4eZZQvGV22iiR first half is citing two guys who think the Sphinx is older than we think (including your guy); third guy and after show that the erosion and the faults didn't come from rain from outside, but water infiltration from below, from before the Sphinx was carved into the rock, and that yes, we do see it in other places in the same rock layer. Other buildings above it don't have that erosion from below. So the erosion is indeed old, but it didn't happen from rain falling after the Sphinx was carved out, so you can't use it to determine when the Sphinx was carved out of the ground.
Thanks. YT has started requiring a sign-in, but it appears to be only sometimes, so i’ll check it out the next time they feel like letting me in i guess.
I don't keep up with youtube alternatives but this one doesn't require login https://invidious.fdn.fr/watch?v=DaJWEjimeDM the video isn't loading easily but it seems to work after a bit
Permanently Deleted
You can date rock like that with luminescene dating... My dude, it's great to wonder about the past. It's a beautiful thing but this guy isn't who you should be fixating on.
Artifacts which can be dated using these methods include ceramics, burned lithics, burned bricks and soil from hearths (TL), and unburned stone surfaces that were exposed to light and then buried (OSL).
Is it not the case that the stone around the Sphinx was in situ or not “exposed to light (then re-buried)”? I’m assuming OSL is the technique since afaik the Sphinx structure wasn’t burned (TL)?
https://www.thoughtco.com/luminescence-dating-cosmic-method-171538
I see articles that OSL confirms established dates, just not sure how the exposed-to-light-then-reburied works. We know the Sphinx was buried in the late 18th century, but obviously had been uncovered at some point before that in order to be built - what effect would that have on the OSL dating?
lol. Yeah ok. That’s fine. Numbers and technology can’t lie.