Robert Schoch

[Digit]

Strange how the porus bits seem to run in vertical lines isn't it? Anyway, I haven't seen anyone suggesting that the gentleman is incompetant as a geologist yet. I hope not at least as he's paid to lecture on the subject I believe.
Nobody seems to have seriously argued about rain fall that I've heard.

[Beagle]

Quote: his claim for instance that the sphinx is older by far than the pyramids because it shows signs of water damage doesn't take into account many factors that could easily have caused the same damage in a much shorter timeframe.
Such as?

Digit, Schoch made his observations on the Sphinx a long time ago. He was the first to say that the archaeologists had it wrong.

Things have moved well past that now.
http://www.thehallofmaat.com/modules.ph ... cle&sid=93

Here is an article by Colin Reader, a geologist. Here you will see that not only the Sphinx is older than once presumed, so is the Temple and the Causeway.

Schoch has little to do with this debate any more - although there is hardly any debate going on. This is being accepted. This article is from Hall of Maat, and was posted here by the owner. They feature this geologist on their home page.

[Digit]

Thanks Beag. So as usual 'you pays your money and you takes your choice.'
For every expert who says one thing there's another saying the opposite.

[Forum Monk]

Beagle - your previous link on Schoch also has a link to the Colin Reader article. The link to Reader was an attempt by the author of the Schoch article to present a balanced point of view. It seems however, Reader agrees with the basic concept of water erosion but believes the time frame was much shorter, they're not disagreeing with one another. Other than sand and wind, I have seen no other proposals.

no double or triples - must be something on your side of the atlantic.

[marduk]

He was the first to say that the archaeologists had it wrong.

no that was Wallis Budge
and before Schoch even got involved Hancock was claiming it dated from 10,500bce
this was the reason that Scoch got involved in the first place at Hancocks insistence

Here is an article by Colin Reader, a geologist. Here you will see that not only the Sphinx is older than once presumed

Schoch says 7000bce Reader doesn't

Since reaching the conclusion that the Sphinx is an Early Dynastic monument, continued research has uncovered so many additional factors which appear to confirm my initial view

This is being accepted

clearly from my previous two quotes you haven't got a clue as to what is accepted at all
and you fail to mention who it has been accepted by
pseudohistorians claim it dates between 10,500 and 7000bce
this is complete crap
as the link you posted clearly proves

was posted here by the owner.

Katherine Reece is the owner
she didn't post it because it agrees with anything that Scoch said because it doesnt
she posted it because it doesn't agree with what Schoch said

They feature this geologist on their home page.

actually they link to this article which makes Scoch look like an ass on their homepage
this is very different from claiming he is featured
and Beagle how you have changed
seems you're a bit of a pseudohistorian yourself
when i first posted here in teh hello section you accused me of being and orthodox spy for the hall of maat
and now you're quoting them badly (out of context) yourself
so this link is for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

enjoy

[Beagle]

Beagle - your previous link on Schoch also has a link to the Colin Reader article. The link to Reader was an attempt by the author of the Schoch article to present a balanced point of view. It seems however, Reader agrees with the basic concept of water erosion but believes the time frame was much shorter, they're not disagreeing with one another. Other than sand and wind, I have seen no other proposals.

no double or triples - must be something on your side of the atlantic.

Thanks Monk, I had forgotten the link on Schochs' website. And, yes, most of the discussion is about how much older is the Sphinx.

Well, this seems like a good place for me to quit introducing Dr. Schoch again. When interesting news comes up I'll post it here.

[Digit]

Marduk, a personal plea. It is not necessary or desirable to be rude to people.

[Beagle]

Marduk, a personal plea. It is not necessary or desirable to be rude to people.

Digit, if you're talking about something he said to me don't worry. I am blissfully unaware of anything that he says, except when someone quotes him.

It's inconvenient to navigate around his posts to avoid reading them, but so very worth the trouble.

[Minimalist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabta_Playa


The question is, when did it begin to dry out. The so-called Neolithic Subpluvial seems to be the prime cause/culprit cited by Schoch and he places it between 7,500 and 5,000 BC.

For that matter,

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:UbJ ... =clnk&cd=8

In his book Egypt Before the Pharaohs, Michael A. Hoffman Sheds more light on this discussion. Using evidence amassed from archeological findings such as pottery, stonetools, rock paintings, etc. he illuminates the following:9


...anthropologists have come to believe that man indeed did originate in Africa in the late Pliocene or early Pleistocene [i.e. ca. 5 - 1 million years ago] and slowly spread out from there, so that by 750,000 years ago he had settled northwest Africa, southern Europe, and much of tropical and subtropical Asia [i.e. the habitable world]. ... the valley of the Nile would have been an ideal route of migration. Although that river was still not connected to its Ethiopian sources, it did drain all of Egypt and reached well into the Sudan. Beyond this, to the south, others streams would have flowed into closed drainage basins, forming a chain of rich lakes and river systems that led into Eastern Africa. This period was characterized by abundant and prolong rainfall in Egypt and Nubia, so that we can easily envision northeast Africa as rich in tropical and subtropical plants and animals. The shores of the Protonile, and the bordering grasslands, must have acted like a giant corridor providing entry to the north for the tropical plants and animals.


Hoffman also discusses how the Sahara went through periods of drought and bloom; and how populations migrated and shifted according to this geological ebb and flow; and how hunting, fishing, the domestication of animals and plants, and farming evolved in this geological area while accommodating these climate shifts. Hoffman asserts that a recent find “demonstrates conclusively the importance of the desert peoples in the later prehistory of northeastern Africa, between about 7,000 and 4,000 B.C.” The site is called Nabta Playa. It lies approximately 200 kilometers west-southwest of Aswan, and is dated between about 7,300 and 4,000 B.C. He writes:10


Today, fossil dunes, heavy clays, and solidified root casts bear witness to the effects of the Neolithic Subpluvial as its rains reopened the Sahara to extensive human occupation for the first time in 30,000 years. ..., it seems that terminal Paleolithic hunting and gathering way of life of Nabta soon gave way to a Neolithic farming and herding economy based on the cultivation of barley and the domestication of sheep, goat, and cattle. This change took place around 6,000 B.C. despite variations in rainfall during the Neolithic, settlement persisted at isolated spots like Nabta for at least 2,000 years.

A couple of millenia is a long enough time to do all sorts of things.

[Digit]

Thanks Min, most interesting.

[marduk]

Marduk, a personal plea. It is not necessary or desirable to be rude to people.

Digit
the very first time i posted here Beagle accused me of deception because I posted at the Hall of Maat
http://archaeologica.boardbot.com/viewt ... ght=#10003
now hes quoting from the hall of maat because of his own hypocrisy and he is deliberately misquoting to support his untenable psuedohistory position
so you want to look up rude in the Archaeologica dictionary you'll see a picture of Beagle

[Minimalist]

Thanks Min, most interesting.

We've gone around the block a few times about the rationale for people leaving Africa in the first place, Digit.

Lots of the reasons put forward ( curiosity...population pressure ...warfare) have obvious problems but significant climate change seems to be a winner. Evidence of that change in the correct place seems to be being uncovered.

[Digit]

I didn't mention Beagle Marduk. It was simply a plea for curtesy.

[marduk]

oh so in your imagination who do you figure I was being rude to
besides which Beagle stoof up and accepted you apology
if the shoe fits

[Digit]

Actually Marduk I was thinking of Monk and myself so I'm afraid the shoe doesn't fit. But never mind, I tried.