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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
(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
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.
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.