dr. schoch and his contribution to archaeology

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:29 am

Have you seen pictures of the Giza Plateau? Looks like a moonscape.

Harte · Post by **Harte** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:30 am

Genesis Veracity wrote:Oas, the rainfall erosion jibes perfectly with the heavy rain in the middle latitudes (and heavy snowfall in the more extreme latitudes) during the Ice Age.

Actually, it's my understanding that ice ages correlate well with droughts in areas near the equator, and certainly don't result in any increase in precipitation in those areas.

Maybe they were wrong, but I do recall seeing such correlations made.

So, did they build the Sphinx before circa 10000 B.C (when mainstreamers say the Ice Age ended), or did they build it around the conventional time of 2500 B.C.?

There is more reason to belive the latter date than the former. The latter date has some slight evidence for it. There exists no evidence at all for the former date, not even in Schoch's conjectures.

Harte

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:31 am

Genesis Veracity wrote:Have you seen pictures of the Giza Plateau? Looks like a moonscape.

Kinda my point. The fertile strip of land along the Nile was the land of the living. The desert beyond was the land of the dead. Not a lot of rain out there.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:31 am

Genesis Veracity wrote:Are Etna, Thera, and the Caucasus, going off like they did circa 1500 to 2000 B.C.?

Etna erupts constantly but not explosively. Thera is the exact opposite.
The Caucasus are a long way from Egypt and downwind anyway.

I checked this out once before and there are some old volcanos in the Rift Valley but they haven't erupted in recent times.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:38 am

Those Pyramid and Sphinx builders were sure eating alot of sand with your scenario, oas, so where'd they go on vacation to get away from the sand-blown moonscape of their workplace?

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:39 am

Next......

DougWeller · Post by **DougWeller** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:38 am

I presume people have read Schoch's articles on the Sphinx, has everyone read Colin Reader's, and the others from geologists who disagree with both? Do people need links?

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:41 am

If you wouldn't mind I would like to see Reader's again. Read it quite some time ago.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:43 am

Minimalist wrote:If you wouldn't mind I would like to see Reader's again. Read it quite some time ago.

And Schock too if you have it please. All I remember of that was an interview/documentary done quite a while ago. I'm not up on recent developments. Thanks.

DougWeller · Post by **DougWeller** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:42 pm

Quite a few articles here, scroll to bottom
http://www.antiquityofman.com/pseudoscience.html

Colin Reader updated his 2002 article for Ma'at:

http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?n ... cle&sid=93

David Billington's page is useful:
http://members.aol.com/davidpb4/sphinx2.html

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:53 pm

Thanks - I'll check those out later tonight.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:23 pm

Thanks, Doug.

This is the line I remembered from Reader:

There are two main arguments used to support the conventional Old Kingdom dating of the Sphinx. The first is the strong 4th Dynasty context provided by the Giza necropolis in general and, more specifically, by the adjacent mortuary complex of Khafre. In addition, there is alleged to be a reference to the pharaoh Khafre on the so-called Dream Stela, erected between the paws of the Sphinx to commemorate the restoration undertaken by Thutmose IV.

Having since gone back and checked the translations of the Dream Stela by Breasted it is clear that even if there was a reference to Khafre the surviving text does not claim that he was the builder. As far as the "4th Dynasty" context is concerned? That's a really weak argument, too. Would it be the only time that later buildings were constructed near an existing structure?

DougWeller · Post by **DougWeller** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:50 pm

Minimalist wrote:Thanks, Doug.

This is the line I remembered from Reader:

There are two main arguments used to support the conventional Old Kingdom dating of the Sphinx. The first is the strong 4th Dynasty context provided by the Giza necropolis in general and, more specifically, by the adjacent mortuary complex of Khafre. In addition, there is alleged to be a reference to the pharaoh Khafre on the so-called Dream Stela, erected between the paws of the Sphinx to commemorate the restoration undertaken by Thutmose IV.

Having since gone back and checked the translations of the Dream Stela by Breasted it is clear that even if there was a reference to Khafre the surviving text does not claim that he was the builder. As far as the "4th Dynasty" context is concerned? That's a really weak argument, too. Would it be the only time that later buildings were constructed near an existing structure?

But it would be better to actually go to a source, ie to see what the advocates of the conventional dating say themselves. Right? Although I agree about the Dream Stela. But what are the actual archaeological arguments?

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:06 pm

I'm taking Reader at his word about what those archaeological arguments are.

BTW, he includes a good site map which shows the quarries that some were wondering about and it also looks to me as if the 2d pyramid and its causeway were built after the sphinx was already there.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:26 pm

DougWeller wrote:Quite a few articles here, scroll to bottom
http://www.antiquityofman.com/pseudoscience.html

Colin Reader updated his 2002 article for Ma'at:

http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?n ... cle&sid=93

David Billington's page is useful:
http://members.aol.com/davidpb4/sphinx2.html

Hmm ..Cool. Thanks Doug.