Archaeologica.org

You know there is one other thing that strikes me, right off the bat. Unless one thinks that the 4th Dynasty Eqyptians were stupid, why would they gouge out a pit to carve this thing? Everytime the wind blew sand would have piled up in the corner. Blowing sand had to be a fact of life for them and surely someone would have said something along the lines of..."Hey guys, we have a problem here."

However, were it dug when the land was moist and green this would not have been such an obvious engineering problem.

You know there is one other thing that strikes me, right off the bat. Unless one thinks that the 4th Dynasty Eqyptians were stupid, why would they gouge out a pit to carve this thing? Everytime the wind blew sand would have piled up in the corner. Blowing sand had to be a fact of life for them and surely someone would have said something along the lines of..."Hey guys, we have a problem here

satellite discoveries had an article concerniong the sahara and it was gone before i could copy it. it is possible that the sphynx was built when the sahara was not sand.

there are numerous stories to the theory that there was a lake there and so on which would give credence to a pre-flood construction date (or for non-believers-- thousands of years prior to egyptologists dating).

satellite discoveries had an article concerniong the sahara and it was gone before i could copy it. it is possible that the sphynx was built when the sahara was not sand.

I know the one you mean. This is exactly what Schoch has said (really it was ALL that he said initially before he got pissed off at the Egyptology Club). That's why they hate him,

there are numerous stories to the theory that there was a lake there and so on which would give credence to a pre-flood construction date (or for non-believers-- thousands of years prior to egyptologists dating).

Don't push your luck.

I could not agree more. In short (very short), I think we're going to find a lot of answers in the Saharan sands. The Sahara was once crossed by a mighty river, akin to the Nile, running from Lake Chad to the lake that was at the Quattarra depression. And of course, Minimalist makes a very good comment about the Egyptians having enough sense not to build a sacred structure that will only fill with sand within a few years if not months.

Thanks for this interesting post Arch. Minimalist is being more restrained than you are in this thread - so please chill!

On point.

http://ipoaa.com/proto_saharan_religions.htm

Lake Tritonis was situated in the Libyan desert. Here as early as 7000 B.C., there was a slow transition from hunting , to cattle pastoralism. The prehistoric appearance of a great lake in Libya has recently been supported by satellite pictures of the Eastern Desert which indicate that a lake was located in the Qattara depression of northwest Egypt.

Around 10000 years ago pluvial conditions existed in the Sahara which led to the creation of numerous river beds now buried under tons of sand. Due to the abundance of streams, rivers and lakes in Proto-Saharan Africa men who were powerful, were men who could harness the powerful water of the numerous streams and rivers. Such men as these were recognized as demigods or great ancestors. For example in Sumer and Egypt gods and demigods were described as "reed-boat navigators". In Egypt some of these great men that became gods include Thoth, and Osiris.

[/quote]

Stan - if I hadn't gone back and looked at this thread again I think I would have missed your post. Sometimes when two people are posting at the same time it can seem out of order. Anyway I'm glad you liked the article that Mini posted. I'm not one of those fringe flakes but there is a lot of info being suppressed IMO. I'm one of those folks who believe that much of the Giza infrastructure has had "improvements" in dynastic times.

Wow!! the great Oz (or should i say Os) has granted me his tolerance

Consider it being on probation.

Beagle wrote:

Stan - if I hadn't gone back and looked at this thread again I think I would have missed your post. Sometimes when two people are posting at the same time it can seem out of order. Anyway I'm glad you liked the article that Mini posted. I'm not one of those fringe flakes but there is a lot of info being suppressed IMO. I'm one of those folks who believe that much of the Giza infrastructure has had "improvements" in dynastic times

Beagle,
THanks for noticing my post! I am glad you and Der Lange and a few other posters have showed up lately. I am not a historian or scientist, but primarily an artist and lover of art and architecture...also geography. I'm not very interested in the details of the dynastic history of Egypt, but
the big picture of climatic change and architectural adapation is fascinating. THe Sahara is still growing even now!
We have so many new technologies for looking back in time, like
ground penetrating radar and satellite photos, DNA, and so on...it almost makes me think we can find "everything" eventually...but we'd have to build another planet-sized museum to put it in!

it almost makes me think we can find "everything" eventually

i think some items are just too deep to find plus with cities as large as they are, there will always be mysteries.

Consider it being on probation.

snicker, snicker, (sarcastically)

Due to the abundance of streams, rivers and lakes in Proto-Saharan Africa men who were powerful, were men who could harness the powerful water of the numerous streams and rivers

simply amazing...what i could do with that quote.

Thanks for this interesting post Arch. Minimalist is being more restrained than you are in this thread - so please chill!

don't mind me--i am hoping you guys make this fly so i can learn some more

I found this comment on another website, a review of Schoch's theory.

Schoch has continued to search for corroborating evidence for a pre-dynastic advanced civilization elsewhere on the Giza Plateau. For example, he points to the repairs made to the Sphinx in 2300 B.C. which covered three inches of erosion. In a dry environment it is not possible to have that much erosion on the monument if it was constructed only in 2500 B.C. even if they bad a lot of rain!

http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/articles/v15n16a03.html



What is interesting here is the notion of searching for an "advanced civilization" Generally, I accept the idea that even Finkelstein supports, that in order to have monumental building you must have a state apparatus to coordinate the process. As noted elsewhere, we have stone age people alive today in the Amazon and on New Guinea and they are barely able to build huts let alone "temples."

The problem that comes up is Stonehenge. Reliable dating by C-14 assigns construction to around 2,500 BC and there simply was no advanced civilization in Britain at that time. Hauling huge stones from Wales to the Salisbury Plain is not a minor undertaking for a subsistence-level group, even had they settled down to agriculture.

Then there is Nan Madol on Ponape Island in the Pacific which takes the problems inherent in building Stonehenge and multiplies them by about 100 times.

There is some piece of the puzzle that no one is seeing.

Minimalist - you are a HERETIC ! And I could'nt agree with you more.

Then there is Nan Madol on Ponape Island in the Pacific

is that the old society that was built on water? i can't remember as there was a people who built huge buildings out of stone basically on water depicted on discovery, but it has been awhile since i have watched it.

Er....not exactly built on water but on low islands....