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!
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.
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.
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.
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)?
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?
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.
(Italics added, because - what? I’ve never seen that)
Here’s another example of this type of argument from the larger article:
(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?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230220211_Soils_and_soil_sediments_at_Gobekli_Tepe_southeastern_Turkey_A_preliminary_report
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332606862_Gobekli_Tepe_A_Brief_Description_of_the_Environmental_Development_in_the_Surroundings_of_the_UNESCO_World_Heritage_Site
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? A theory is a pretty well supported thing
There’s heavy rain at Giza a couple days a year. Over 4500 years of that.
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.
https://www.robertschoch.com/sphinx.html
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.
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?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263201697_Surface_luminescence_dating_of_some_Egyptian_monuments lol
lol. Yeah ok. That’s fine. Numbers and technology can’t lie.
https://annas-archive.gs/