• Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    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!!

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        https://www.robertschoch.com/sphinx.html

        • Uruanna@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

          • Optional@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            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?

            • Uruanna@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              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.

        • fossilesque@mander.xyzOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.