| May 6, 2024, 11:45 pm UTC |
 |
| In: The Hall of Maat > Ancient History - Ancient History and Archaeology > Topic |
| Goto: Forum List • Create A New Profile • Log In |
|
Ancient History •
Ancient Egypt •
Laboratory •
Humanities •
Apocalypse •
Paper Lens •
Coffee Shop Exhibitions, Conferences, Lectures, Journals • Alternative Geometry and Numerology |
| August 12, 2001 01:34PM |
<HTML>Dave Moore wrote:
>
> But it is independent of said premise.
You can't separate the two issues (geology and archaeology) like this. If you really want to know what happened, what the truth is, you use them both together. It is the totality of the case that matters, and that includes history, archaeology and geology. You don't agree, it seems.
>
> With all due respect Garrett, egyptologists just cannot stick
> their head in the sand (as some have done) and say "This
> cannot be the case, we do not know of any archaeological
> basis for an older sphinx" and dismiss it on that.
They aren't sticking their heads in the sand. They, quite rightly, point out that one of the major problems with the Schoch/West idea is the complete, 100% absence of any cultural context for a Sphinx-carving society in the era proposed by Schoch/West. This is an important consideration. Context is key in all archaeology. Monuments don't appear out of thin air. People make them. And people leave evidence of their presence, esp. a sophisticated and organized society of the sort necessary to build the Sphinx. If this weren't the case, there'd be no archaeology at all ("wouldn't be great," says you
).
And let's not forget that Schoch's proposition about water-dating is <i>not airtight</i> and is highly disputed by other geologists. It's not cut-and-dried.
>
> IMHO, Solid geologic evidence of an older sphinx will trump
> any archaeological objections, whatever they are.
And I would agree, if Schoch's case were 'solid.' It's not It's full of unjustified leaps of faith and flawed reasoning and closure to alternative explanations for the features he's focusing on (see Alex Bourdeau in the articles page).
All things being equal, Schoch's case being weak, there being no demonstrable cultural context for an earlier Sphinx -- put it all together, and I think Schoch is wrong.
Best, as always,
Garrett</HTML>
>
> But it is independent of said premise.
You can't separate the two issues (geology and archaeology) like this. If you really want to know what happened, what the truth is, you use them both together. It is the totality of the case that matters, and that includes history, archaeology and geology. You don't agree, it seems.
>
> With all due respect Garrett, egyptologists just cannot stick
> their head in the sand (as some have done) and say "This
> cannot be the case, we do not know of any archaeological
> basis for an older sphinx" and dismiss it on that.
They aren't sticking their heads in the sand. They, quite rightly, point out that one of the major problems with the Schoch/West idea is the complete, 100% absence of any cultural context for a Sphinx-carving society in the era proposed by Schoch/West. This is an important consideration. Context is key in all archaeology. Monuments don't appear out of thin air. People make them. And people leave evidence of their presence, esp. a sophisticated and organized society of the sort necessary to build the Sphinx. If this weren't the case, there'd be no archaeology at all ("wouldn't be great," says you
). And let's not forget that Schoch's proposition about water-dating is <i>not airtight</i> and is highly disputed by other geologists. It's not cut-and-dried.
>
> IMHO, Solid geologic evidence of an older sphinx will trump
> any archaeological objections, whatever they are.
And I would agree, if Schoch's case were 'solid.' It's not It's full of unjustified leaps of faith and flawed reasoning and closure to alternative explanations for the features he's focusing on (see Alex Bourdeau in the articles page).
All things being equal, Schoch's case being weak, there being no demonstrable cultural context for an earlier Sphinx -- put it all together, and I think Schoch is wrong.
Best, as always,
Garrett</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.