| May 6, 2024, 11:02 am 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 02:34PM |
<HTML>Garrett wrote:
>
> 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.
Not entirely. There are certain things that by their very nature we have to place greater empthesis on. Facts for one. <B>If</B> it could ever be shown with complete certainty (or as close as we can get it) via geological means that the Sphinx was/was not predynastic, then it wouldn't matter what archaeology says.
>
> >
> > 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.
West has proposed 36000 BC for some mad reason. Schoch's dates of 7000-5000 BC (especially the later parts) <B>could</b> tie up with some of the predynastic cultures...
> 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
).
By and large I agree. Although I think that it is feasible that the predynastic peoples could have originally carved the Sphinx or its predecessor.
>
> 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.
Indeed.
> >
> > 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.'
We are agreed. This is what I am saying.
>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).
Yet he is probably saying the same thing about the rebuttals to his hypothesis.
What I am saying that of course, in the absence of solid proof, all relevant factors should be taken into consideration. But to dismiss the geology on archaeological grounds, instead of on geologic grounds is I deem, somewhat disappointing.
>
> 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
I think that he has a case, but I would not state that he <B>is</B> correct. That would be an unjustified conclusion. We simply don't know for definite.
Best Regards,
Dave</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.
Not entirely. There are certain things that by their very nature we have to place greater empthesis on. Facts for one. <B>If</B> it could ever be shown with complete certainty (or as close as we can get it) via geological means that the Sphinx was/was not predynastic, then it wouldn't matter what archaeology says.
>
> >
> > 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.
West has proposed 36000 BC for some mad reason. Schoch's dates of 7000-5000 BC (especially the later parts) <B>could</b> tie up with some of the predynastic cultures...
> 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
).By and large I agree. Although I think that it is feasible that the predynastic peoples could have originally carved the Sphinx or its predecessor.
>
> 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.
Indeed.
> >
> > 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.'
We are agreed. This is what I am saying.
>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).
Yet he is probably saying the same thing about the rebuttals to his hypothesis.
What I am saying that of course, in the absence of solid proof, all relevant factors should be taken into consideration. But to dismiss the geology on archaeological grounds, instead of on geologic grounds is I deem, somewhat disappointing.
>
> 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
I think that he has a case, but I would not state that he <B>is</B> correct. That would be an unjustified conclusion. We simply don't know for definite.
Best Regards,
Dave</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.