dr. schoch and his contribution to archaeology

[Guest]

But I do disagree with the chorus of people on various internet forums (perhaps not this one, however) that claim the sphinx has been "proven" to be 7 or 8 thousand years old, or older.

i haven't said that he was correct. i think i have said i could agree with him but at notime has it been said that he is right and egyptologists wrong.

He has just come up with a fairly novel way of interpreting data in order to suggest the possibility that there may be evidence for an older Sphinx, an idea which had been kicked around for a long time among Egyptologists even before Schoch published his ideas

i think if you read some previous posts, that has already been illustrated by some quotes from his book.

I thought I was pretty clear in that I am not qualified to either agree or disagree with what Schoch says

qualifications has little to do with giving an opinion whether you agree or disagree. at tthis point i would agree with schoch over hawass just because schoch allows for modification of the age of the sphynx. and doesn't get caught up in inflexibility that hawass does.

i would love to see mainstream egyptologists shown to be in error, maybe thenwe could get to the truth about egyptian history. r.k. harrison, in his book, Old Testament Times, points out that egyptians were notorious about modifying their history so as to look better than they really were for future generations.

seems ethics was not a part of the historical curriculum in that country at that time.

[Minimalist]

R. K. Harrison
About the Author

Harrison is professor of Old Testament at Wycliffe College, University of Toronto.

Another bible thumper making excuses for the factual inaccuracies of the bible.

The Egyptians have records of disasters to their land. When it suits you, you have no difficulty commenting on them.

[Guest]

your quote is a little out of date, he has been dead for awhile.

The Egyptians have records of disasters to their land. When it suits you, you have no difficulty commenting on them

you are going to have to remind me on this one, as i do not recall commenting on historical disasters befalling egypt except for the exodus.

[Minimalist]

The Ipuwer Papyrus.

As I recall you introduced that one. Also Manetho comments on the Hyksos invasion. There are other examples.

[Guest]

The Ipuwer Papyrus

right thank you. i introduced that as corroborration to the biblical record and it fits in with harrison's comment because it has been swept under the rug by most people. rarely do you hear it used to confirm the previously mentioned account.

Also Manetho

and how much credence did you give it??

[Minimalist]

Ipuwer is from the Old Kingdom, even Jacobovici did not go there.


Manetho, writing in the 3'd century BC or so, is even more distant in time from the events he described than the bible writers were from the events they invented. Manetho exaggerates like many ancient 'historians.'

[Guest]

Manetho, writing in the 3'd century BC or so, is even more distant in time from the events he described than the bible writers were from the events they invented. Manetho exaggerates like many ancient 'historians

so can we say that the point is that schoch's contribution to archaeology has been to help the egyptians be honest about their history?

[marduk]

schoch hasn't made any contribution to archaeology and he hasnt tried to
maybe because hes a geologist
lol

[Minimalist]

Bad example.

Manetho does not survive in manuscript. In fact, he seems to have been the victim of various christian writers who butchered his work for their own purposes.

I think Schoch has done a magnificent service by just questioning the Egyptology club.

[marduk]

Egyptologists are egyptologists
not archaeologists
theres a difference
you may have noticed a hint of that in the way the two different words are spelt

[Harte]

But I do disagree with the chorus of people on various internet forums (perhaps not this one, however) that claim the sphinx has been "proven" to be 7 or 8 thousand years old, or older.

i haven't said that he was correct. i think i have said i could agree with him but at notime has it been said that he is right and egyptologists wrong.

Arch,

Quite correct and I wasn't trying to say that you had said such a thing. In fact, I chimed in on this thread originally because I felt that the only thing this thread lacked was an exposition of exactly how Schoch arrived at his date for the sphinx.

But surely you must be aware that there are multitudes of true believers out there that consider the age of the sphinx to have been settled forever by Schoch's analyses. My feeling is that the other viewpoint is still just as valid, and Schoch's critics are often woefully underquoted on forums such as this one (though not necessarily on this particular forum.)

I thought I was pretty clear in that I am not qualified to either agree or disagree with what Schoch says

qualifications has little to do with giving an opinion whether you agree or disagree. at tthis point i would agree with schoch over hawass just because schoch allows for modification of the age of the sphynx. and doesn't get caught up in inflexibility that hawass does.

Well, if you want my honest opinion then, here it is. Not being schooled in the subject of geology, I have to stick with a much more recent date for sphinx construction based on the lack of evidence for any longish term settlement of any culture at Giza prior to the culture we call the "Egyptians."

Now, like I said before, that could change tomorrow. I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion based on any new evidence at all, but not on something as shakey as assuming a perfectly linear relationship between time elapsed since exposure and depth of weathering in limestone, which is basically Schoch's hypothesis.

i would love to see mainstream egyptologists shown to be in error, maybe then we could get to the truth about egyptian history.

Man, I'm with you here. I find the idea terribly exciting. I suppose we all do or we'd be posting at "Betty's Quilting Bee Website and Forum for Hand Stitchers," right?

Also, while we're on our wish lists, I would love to see an entirely new paradigm for the nature of reality, above and beyond even string theory. I'd even love to have some genius dude come through physics and just straighten out the ridiculously complex equations that govern something as simple as vibrations in a machine, a very simple concept with startlingly complex analytical problems attached to it. Newton, where'd you go, baby?

r.k. harrison, in his book, Old Testament Times, points out that egyptians were notorious about modifying their history so as to look better than they really were for future generations.

seems ethics was not a part of the historical curriculum in that country at that time.

Another bible thumper making excuses for the factual inaccuracies of the bible.

The Egyptians have records of disasters to their land. When it suits you, you have no difficulty commenting on them.

I don't know Harrison, nor do I want to. I'm not really up on any scholarly approach to the Bible, but I do know what I've read in it and on it.

I disagree with Arch regarding the factualness associated with such religious texts, but I certainly have to agree here with Harrison about the Egyptian penchant for revisionist history. I'm sure that you, Minimalist, are also aware of the truth of this statement, though I'm with you that Egyptian revisionism is no way to glean some kind of evidence in favor of Biblical literalism through selectively deciding what the Egyptians did or did not revise.

Harte

[Guest]

Hey Harte, I think you are correct that the mainstream experts are correct about the time that the great structures of ancient Egypt were built, but they don't realize that it was much rainier there in Egypt during the "Old Kingdom," so that is why they're confused.

During the "Old Kingdom," the Nile lapped at the paws of the Sphinx, there were rich pastures and forests nearby, and the Sahara was a patchwork of lakes and connected rivers, but that all ended circa 1500 B.C.

[Harte]

Hey Harte, I think you are correct that the mainstream experts are correct about the time that the great structures of ancient Egypt were built, but they don't realize that it was much rainier there in Egypt during the "Old Kingdom," so that is why they're confused.

During the "Old Kingdom," the Nile lapped at the paws of the Sphinx, there were rich pastures and forests nearby, and the Sahara was a patchwork of lakes and connected rivers, but that all ended circa 1500 B.C.

Very interesting, but do you have something other than just a "feeling" that makes you lean toward this opinion?

Harte

[Minimalist]

Most of what we know about AE comes from Egyptian sources, Harte. Do they prominently write their disasters on the temple walls? Of course not, neither does G. W. Bush. Still, we do have records which indicate when things were not going so well.

The bible-thumpers overlook them when they make the argument that the Egyptians (but never the "Israelites") lie about their history. Of course, when the bible-thumpers think they can make a case for the Exodus narrative in Egyptian records they do not hesitate to trot out those same texts that they earlier swore did not exist.

[Guest]

How 'bout the heavy water erosion of the limestone of the Sphinx quarry, the Valley Temple, and the Osirion?

And do you really think that powerful and majestic "Old Kingdom" Egypt could have flourished in that desert environment which it is today?