Archaeologica.org

Genesis Veracity wrote:No, but if a level is thought to be from, say, 3500 B.C., but what looked like a good sample comes back with a date of 2200 B.C., you bet your boots they'll find a way to explain why "it's really a bad sample."

No, an archaeologist would look for an explanation for the anomaly. Is this a true sealed deposit? Is there rodent intrusion? Tree root intrusion? Are we looking at primary context? Is there evidence for human intrusion - grave robbers - back hoes digging for a parking lot? Seismic disturbance? Water action? There is a whole study of what happens to an artifact upon deposition called taphonomy that you should familiarize yourself with.

I see you posting here on an archaeology forum but it is evident you are not trained in the discipline.

Actually....when Lehner's first set of C14 dates for the Great Pyramid came back vastly older than he thought possible he did decide to 'redo' the test.

And it wasn't scattering at 10,500 B.C. on that first run of some 70 samples from a whole selection of pyramids of the Old Kingdom. But it was significantly older than Egyptologists believed. We were getting dates from the 1984 study that were on the average 374 years too old for the Cambridge Ancient History, (the Cambridge Ancient History is a reference) dates for the kings who built these monuments.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/ex ... wold2.html


But, Egyptologists are like bible-thumpers....they have a story and they are sticking with it.

Oas, you supported my point very well with you statement, good job.

Hey min, when do you think the Sphinx and GP were built?

The sphinx? When the area was still a grassy savannah.

The GP? I have no idea. Later, but I don't pretend to know how much later.

How much rain per year when the Sphinx was built?

Conservatively?

Enough to keep the grass alive and prevent the land from turning to desert.

Like the Pampas of Argentina?

Genesis Veracity wrote:Oas, you supported my point very well with you statement, good job.

Your inference was that an archaeologist would fudge the results to ignore an anomaly. I explained how he would look for a logical explanation. Not sure how I supported your point of view.

Genesis Veracity wrote:How much rain per year when the Sphinx was built?

Having exactly what to do with pre-clovis?????

Please attempt to stay on topic.

His answer could be in line with what the rainfall was in the Desert Southwest at the same timeframe, both are now deserts, and both were definitely not deserts thousands of years ago, so I ask min, how many years ago?

Genesis Veracity wrote:His answer could be in line with what the rainfall was in the Desert Southwest at the same timeframe, both are now deserts, and both were definitely not deserts thousands of years ago, so I ask min, how many years ago?

sssstttrrreeeeettttcccchhhhhhhh!

Genesis Veracity wrote:Like the Pampas of Argentina?

Or the Serengeti plains to stay on the same continent.

I don't think it is that simple....

As I recall, grasslands get at least 10 and less than 50 inches per year which is a fairly wide stretch. Also, many parts of the world have definable wet seasons which clusters the rain into short bursts.

My whole point with the sphinx is that I don't think the Egyptians were stupid enough to dig a pit in a desert to carve out this monument. If they were living in a sandy environment they had to have realized that sand would fill up the pit unless it were constantly tended.

But were it built at a time before it was a desert..............

The Nile was lapping at the paws of the Sphinx during the Old Kingdom, covering the current flood plain, the Nile rive valley is now "underfit," as the river flow reduced perhaps four-fold within a several centuries at the time that the Old Kingdom ended, so what kind of rainfall must have supported that much greater Nile River flow during the Old Kingdom?