Ancient History, Ancient Mystery

[Dotini]

.

Computer model of findings at Avebury. Credit: University of Southampton

Archaeologists from the universities of Leicester and Southampton have found a striking and apparently unique square monument beneath the world-famous Avebury stone circle in Wiltshire.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-06-secret-square-beneath-world-famous-avebury.html#jCp

The UNESCO World Heritage Site, cared for by the National Trust, was built over several hundred years in the third millennium BC and contains three stone circles – including the largest stone circle in Europe which is 330m across and originally comprised around 100 huge standing stones.

A research team used a combination of soil resistance survey and Ground-Penetrating Radar to investigate the stone circle. Their work was funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and supported by the National Trust, as well as archaeologists from the University of Cambridge and Allen Environmental Archaeology.

Dr Mark Gillings, Academic Director and Reader in Archaeology at the University of Leicester, said: "Our research has revealed previously unknown megaliths inside the world-famous Avebury stone circle. We have detected and mapped a series of prehistoric standing stones that were subsequently hidden and buried, along with the positions of others likely destroyed during the 17th and 18th centuries. Together, these reveal a striking and apparently unique square megalithic monument within the Avebury circles that has the potential to be one of the very earliest structures on this remarkable site."

Avebury has been the subject of considerable archaeological interest since the 17th century. The discovery of new megaliths inside the monument was therefore a great surprise, pointing to the need for further archaeological investigations of this kind at the site.

Soil resistance survey conducted at Avebury. Credit: University of Southampton
The survey took place inside the Southern Inner Circle, contained within the bank and ditch, and colossal Outer Stone Circle of the Avebury henge. Excavations here by the archaeologist and marmalade magnate Alexander Keiller in 1939 demonstrated the existence of a curious angular setting of small standing stones set close to a single huge upright known since the 18th century as the Obelisk. Unfortunately, the outbreak of war left this feature only partially investigated.

Dr Joshua Pollard, from the University of Southampton, said: "Our careful programme of geophysical survey has finally completed the work begun by Keiller. It has shown the line of stones he identified was one side of a square of megaliths about 30m across and enclosing the Obelisk. Also visible are short lines of former standing stones radiating from this square and connecting with the Southern Inner Circle. Megalithic circles are well known from the time when Avebury was built during the late Neolithic (3rd millennium BC), but square megalithic settings of this kind are highly unusual."

Dr Nick Snashall, National Trust archaeologist at Avebury, said: "This discovery has been almost 80 years in the making but it's been well worth waiting for. The completion of the work first started by Keiller in the 1930s has revealed an entirely new type of monument at the heart of the world's largest prehistoric stone circle, using techniques he never dreamt of. And goes to show how much more is still to be revealed at Avebury if we ask the right questions."

The archaeologists who undertook the work think the construction of the square megalithic setting might have commemorated and monumentalised the location of an early Neolithic house – perhaps part of a founding settlement – subsequently used as the centre point of the Southern Inner Circle. At the time of excavation in 1939 the house was erroneously considered by Keiller to be a medieval cart shed.

If proved correct, it may help understand the beginnings of the remarkable Avebury monument complex, and help explain why it was built where it was.

 

[Dotini]

History of art and human evolution is revolutionized?

Cave wall paintings from La Pasiega in northern Spain. The ladder shape, composed of red horizontal and vertical lines, dates to older than 64,000 years and must have been made by Neanderthals. P. Saura, Breuil et al.



A red hand stencil. A series of lines that look like a ladder. A collection of red dots.

These images, painted in ocher on the walls of three separate caves in Spain, are the oldest-known examples of cave art ever found. And new research suggests that all three were created not by humans, but by our ancient cousins the Neanderthals.

In a paper published Thursday in Science, an international team of archaeologists shows that each of the three paintings was executed at least 64,000 years ago — more than 20,000 years before the first modern humans arrived in Europe.

“This work confirms that Neanderthals were indeed using cave walls for depicting drawings that had meaning for them,” said Marie Soressi, an archaeologist at Leiden University in the Netherlands who was not involved in the study. “It also means that our own group, the one we call anatomically modern humans, is maybe not so special.”
http://www.latimes.com/science/scie...derthals-were-artists-20180222-htmlstory.html

 

[Dotini]

At far Gornaya Shoria, southern Siberia, there appear to be super-megaliths, granite, with flat surfaces, right angles, and sharp corners, dwarfing all others on Earth. The biggest is supposed to be perhaps triple the weight of the current-record holding Stone of the Pregnant Woman at Baalbek, Lebanon (1,260 tons). These Siberian blocks are either the product of geological processes, or the work of an unknown civilization. Very ancient Finns? So far, research seems only to be by Russians. What do you think?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g8yspm1NaE

https://www.google.com/search?q=gor...hVKzWMKHZIuCTgQ9QEIQzAF#imgrc=UHzrbp20PnEZ1M:

 

[TenEightyOne]

At far Gornaya Shoria, southern Siberia, there appear to be super-megaliths, granite, with flat surfaces, right angles, and sharp corners, dwarfing all others on Earth. The biggest is supposed to be perhaps triple the weight of the current-record holding Stone of the Pregnant Woman at Baalbek, Lebanon (1,260 tons). These Siberian blocks are either the product of geological processes, or the work of an unknown civilization. Very ancient Finns? So far, research seems only to be by Russians. What do you think?

Looks like natural formation to me. Gritstone possibly? Is there any archaeo for toolmarks or site use?

 

[Dotini]

Looks like natural formation to me. Gritstone possibly? Is there any archaeo for toolmarks or site use?

None that I know of. There is zero cultural context, except as a legendary birthplace of proto-Finnics. Totally lost in the mists of pre-history and millennia of erosion. Gritstone is sandstone. A Russian archeological research expedition identified the rock as granite, I believe. All research is in Russian. The site is supposedly over 100 miles from any road, I think. Access is said to be both difficult and dangerous. If a person wanted adventure, this would be the place to go. There are carved "doorways", openings, holes, "bathtubs" and smooth, right-angle inside notches. Possibly some tool marks could be found, but the weathering is horrific. The place could be unbelievably old.

 

[Dotini]

Did modern humans emerge more than 300,000 years ago? Yes.

Dr. Helena Malmström conducting on-site sampling of bone matrial in a mobil sampling lab. Credit: Uppsala University

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-09-modern-humans-emerged-years.html#jCp

Hand axes dated to 320,000 years ago.

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2018/...ve-human-civilization-is-older-than-we-think/

 

[Dotini]

A number of years ago, I was fortunate enough to attend a touring exhibition of Egyptian Old Kingdom artwork and artifacts in Seattle. The most impressive things that I saw were small jars, bowls and vases turned from very hard stone such as granite, diorite and schist.


Lathe Turned Stone Housewares

In the Cairo museum and in other museums around the world there are examples of stone ware that were found in and around the step pyramid at Saqqarra. Petrie also found pieces of similar stoneware at Giza. There are several special things about these bowls, vases and plates.
They show the unmistakable tool marks of a lathe manufactured item. This can easily be seen in the center of the open bowls or plates where the angle of the cut changes rapidly - leaving a clean, narrow and perfectly circular line made by the tip of the cutting tool.

Photo taken at Cairo museum, 1996.


These bowls and stone dishes/platters are some of the finest ever found, and they are from the earliest period of ancient Egyptian civilization. They are made from a variety of materials - from soft, such as alabaster, all the way up the hardness scale to very hard, such as granite.

Working with soft stone such as alabaster is relatively simple, compared to granite. Alabaster can be worked with primitive tools and abrasives. The elegant workings in granite are a different matter and indicate not only a consummate level of skill, but a different and perhaps more advanced technology.

Here is a quote from Petrie:

"...the lathe appears to have been as familiar an instrument in the fourth dynasty, as it is in the modern workshops."


Stoneware such as this has not been found from any later era in Egyptian history - it seems that the skills necessary were lost.
Some delicate vases are made of very brittle stone such as schist (like a flint) and yet are finished, turned and polished, to a flawless paper thin edge - an extraordinary feat of craftsmanship.

At least one piece is so flawlessly turned that the entire bowl (about 9" in diameter, fully hollowed out including an undercut of the 3in opening in the top) balances perfectly (the top rests horizontally when the bowl is placed on a glass shelf) on a round tipped bottom no bigger than the size and shape of the tip of a hen's egg !

This requires that the entire bowl have a symmetrical wall thickness without any substantial error! (With a base area so tiny - less than .15 " sq - any asymmetry in a material as dense as granite would produce a lean in the balance of the finished piece.) This kind of skill will raise the eyebrows of any machinist. To produce such a piece in clay would be very impressive. In granite it is incredible.

Other pieces turned out of granite, porphory or basalt are fully hollowed with narrow undercut flared openings, and some even have long necks. Since we have yet to reproduce such pieces it is safe to say that the techniques or machinery they employed to produce these bowls has yet to be replicated.

http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/egypt/articles/hrdfact3.php

 

[Dotini]

Mysterious Siberian Humanoid Statue is Older Than the Pyramids

Brett TingleyApril 27, 2018

Recent archaeological discoveries suggest that Siberia was once the home of a possibly highly developed Ice Age civilization. Relics ranging from massive unexplained megaliths to mysterious walled structures have been found, suggesting that these people were capable of significant architectural feats. While it has been known that there were tribes of people living in this area during the Ice and Stone ages, these new discoveries suggest that these civilizations were more advanced than previously thought. Now, a new analysis of a creepy humanoid statue found in the Ural mountains has been dated to even before the pyramids. Is there a lost chapter of human history waiting to be unearthed in Eurasia and Siberia?

Possibly, if a recent analysis published in Antiquity is confirmed. The study examines the Shigir Idol, believed to be the most ancient wooden sculpture in the world. The statue was discovered in fragments beginning in the 19th century in an open-air gold mine which contained other ancient artifacts. Several studies have dated the statue to be around 9,000 years old, but this latest study claims that age is more likely 11,600 years old – twice as old as the pyramids.

The purpose and meaning of the idol remain shrouded in mystery, but it does bear resemblance to other Ice Age art found near Turkey’s Göbekli Tepe, believed to be the oldest known temple in the world. The authors of this recent study write that the statue “may reflect encoded mythologies” and could provide a glimpse into the folklore and beliefs of early civilizations indigenous to this part of the world:

The vertical placement of the faces could indicate the presence of an internal hierarchy among the images, or a sequence of events. Above all, however, the Shigir sculpture is unique within the early art of Eurasia and offers the potential for a better understanding of the spiritual world of early hunter-gatherer-fishers of the forest zone of Eurasia.

Pre-industrial human civilizations had only natural materials at their disposal, meaning the ravages of time have likely rendered into dust all evidence of these early civilization. Will we ever truly understand our own species’ early history?

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2018/...n-humanoid-statue-is-older-than-the-pyramids/

 

[Dotini]

ARCHAEOLOGISTS DISCOVER THAT HUMANS AND NEANDERTALS SAILED THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA AT LEAST 130,000 YEARS AGO
GREGTHURSDAY, APRIL 26TH

When did humans first build watercraft and intentionally navigate seas and oceans? For many years, archaeologists thought it was just 5000 to 10,000 years ago, and rejected suggestions by ‘heretical’ researchers that water crossings may have happened much earlier. But all that may now change, based on new research being done in the Mediterranean.

In an article in Science (“Searching for a Stone Age Odysseus“), Andrew Lawler reveals that over the past decade, archaeological excavations on a number of islands in the Mediterranean appear to be pointing at an extraordinary conclusion. After dating the artifacts found, “researchers have quietly built up a convincing case for early seafaring in the Mediterranean,” Lawler writes, “and, even more surprisingly, that at least some of these adventurers were Neandertal.”

How early? According to the results of one dig, at least 130,000 years ago – which would push back the date on intentional water voyages by some 120,000 years over previous assumptions!

Scholars long thought that the capability to construct and victual a watercraft and then navigate it to a distant coast arrived only with advent of agriculture and animal domestication. The earliest known boat, found in the Netherlands, dates back only 10,000 years or so, and convincing evidence of sails only show up in Egypt’s Old Kingdom around 2500 B.C.E. Not until 2000 B.C.E. is there physical evidence that sailors crossed the open ocean, from India to Arabia.

But a growing inventory of stone tools and the occasional bone scattered across Eurasia tells a radically different story. (Wooden boats and paddles don’t typically survive the ages.) Early members of the human family such as Homo erectus are now known to have crossed several kilometers of deep water more than a million years ago in Indonesia, to islands such as Flores and Sulawesi. Modern humans braved treacherous waters to reach Australia by 65,000 years ago. But in both cases, some archaeologists say early seafarers might have embarked by accident, perhaps swept out to sea by tsunamis.

But the new evidence from the Mediterranean suggests purposeful navigation, at a time that is paradigm-shattering for archaeology. A decade ago, an excavation uncovered hundreds of stone tools near the southern coastal village of Plakias – so many, in fact, that it made an accidental stranding seem unlikely. Additionally, the artifacts resembled Acheulean tools, which were developed more than a million years ago by H. erectus and used until about 130,000 years ago by Neandertals as well.

But, with only a single example of apparent sea-faring at a highly anomalous date (at least 130,000 years old), other archaeologists were skeptical. It is only now, after archaeologists scoured other islands for similar evidence, that the orthodoxy is coming around to the idea that they had it wrong.

Possible Neandertal artifacts have turned up on a number of islands, including at Stelida on the island of Naxos. Naxos sits 250 kilometers north of Crete in the Aegean Sea; even during glacial times, when sea levels were lower, it was likely accessible only by watercraft. A Greek-Canadian team co-led by Tristan Carter of McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada, uncovered hundreds of tools embedded in the soil of a chert quarry. The hand axes and blades resemble the so-called Mousterian toolkit, which Neandertals and modern humans made from about 200,000 years ago until 50,000 years ago.

Dating work on artifacts continues, but more scholars are now becoming convinced that humans and Neandertals were taking to the sea much earlier than was previously thought – or as one archaeologist put it: “We severely miscalculated.”

Link: Stone Age People May Have Voyaged the Mediterranean http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/04/neandertals-stone-age-people-may-have-voyaged-mediterranean

https://www.dailygrail.com/2018/04/...-mediterranean-sea-at-least-130000-years-ago/

 

[Dotini]

Debate on the true age of the Sphinx.

 

[88GTA]

He had Dr. Schoch on recently to go even further in depth on the Sphinx.

 

[Rallywagon]

Listened to that podcast over the weekend. Even linked it in the apocalypse, cataclysm and other mega disasters thread. That was a really interesting podcast.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Debate on the true age of the Sphinx.

The problem with that theory is that the "haloclastic" distribution is not even and doesn't appear most strongly in the areas where rain would most obviously fall. It's possible that (as with many temples or monumentals) that this is a site that was in use far earlier and that groundworks and/or materials were recycled. However, not only is there no other local archao to support this crazy dating but there's a stack that suggests a far later date for the construction of the Sphinx itself (2500 BCE or later).

 

[88GTA]

Check out the recent podcast with Dr. Schoch. He goes into detail on why he thinks the Sphinx (and the entire pyramid complex) is far older than 2500 BCE and how he came to this conclusion within 120 seconds of seeing the structure. The water erosion was only the tip of the iceberg.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Check out the recent podcast with Dr. Schoch. He goes into detail on why he thinks the Sphinx (and the entire pyramid complex) is far older than 2500 BCE and how he came to this conclusion within 120 seconds of seeing the structure. The water erosion was only the tip of the iceberg.

With the greatest of respect you'll need to present some bullet points on that 3-hour video source.

Standing against Schoch is the solid geological research that shows something very different from the 'history' that Schoch has constructed* to support his theory. Just because Schoch seems convinced by his arguments doesn't make him right - to reach the conclusions he has (and to make a lot of money from his books on the subject) he's had to discount a lot of evidence or at least marginalise it.

* I say 'constructed' because it's based on zero evidence but lots of strawman arguments. In fact the geo and archaeo evidence that does exist strongly contradicts his narrative.

 

[88GTA]

Sorry, I forgot how long it was. As a disclaimer, I don't agree with everything he says but I always keep an open mind to the ancient theories and the Sphinx/pyramids in general. I don't think anyone is 100% correct in any of their explanations. I watched it last week so off the top of my head:

- The rain water erosion on the Sphinx enclosure is consistent with thousands of years worth of rainfall or the equivalent amount of water in a shorter amount of time caused by a cataclysmic event. The weathering on the enclosure is incompatible with the last 5,000 years worth of climatic history in the eastern Sahara.

- The Sphinx head was too small for its body. He and a co-author (Dr. Bauval I think?) wrote a book last year about how they believe it was originally a female lion. He supported this theory with an ancient goddess who protected the sacred archives of a lost culture. Through seismic study in the early '90s, they found an entire subterranean chamber under the left paw which they believe to be the archive. They were stopped from ever entering or continuing seismic tests upon the discovery.

- Unlike Hancock and Carlsson, Schoch believes a coronal mass ejection(s) from the sun, and not an impact(s), caused the end of the last ice age and the destruction of an ancient intelligent culture responsible for building the Sphinx.

- Egyptian records, even early dynastic records, do not include details on building the pyramids/Sphinx but they do document the restoration of them. Egyptologists agree that many of the mismatched granite blocks on the Sphinx were placed by the Egyptians. The Sphinx itself (minus the head) was carved out of limestone bedrock so the Egyptian blocks look much newer and stand out to the naked eye.

- Dr. Schoch shows photos of much older structures underneath the work that Egyptologists attribute to the Egyptians. He also mentions that earthen mounds have been found under the pyramids which could date to the time of the Sphinx. He does not give an age to the pyramids and believes they could have been built much later than the Sphinx over the mounds as a memorial.

- In his estimation, the Sphinx is from before 9,700 BC which puts the Egyptians closer to the Iphone than they would have been to the creators of the Sphinx. He sees the Egyptians as inhabitants and caretakers of the Sphinx and not the creators.

Here is a smaller, 20 minute clip. It is more of a background on Dr. Schoch first but eventually it gets into his general theory. He does not, however, go into the details:

 

[Dotini]

With the greatest of respect you'll need to present some bullet points on that 3-hour video source.

Standing against Schoch is the solid geological research that shows something very different from the 'history' that Schoch has constructed* to support his theory. Just because Schoch seems convinced by his arguments doesn't make him right - to reach the conclusions he has (and to make a lot of money from his books on the subject) he's had to discount a lot of evidence or at least marginalise it.

* I say 'constructed' because it's based on zero evidence but lots of strawman arguments. In fact the geo and archaeo evidence that does exist strongly contradicts his narrative.

Colin Reader's research (c2000) is way, way, way out of date. Obsolete and irrelevant, really. But even he, in his more slightly more recent (2001) research, agrees with Schoch that the Sphinx predates the 4th Dynasty and the head was re-carved, and that the Sphinx may date to predynastic times. Reader too frequently cites Egyptologists Lehner and others who have have no competency in geology and geophysics. His papers are not published in peer reviewed geology journals. Schoch's are.

Numerous times, without any disagreement or refutation that I'm aware of, Dr Schoch has stated that every professional geologist who has visited the site or looked at the massive array of physical evidence now agrees that the Sphinx enclosure exhibits rain weathering which proves it is older than Dynastic Egypt.

I think the time has come to widely accept Schoch's conclusion that the Sphinx predates Dynastic Egypt. Even Colin Reader can agree with that. This opens up a wonderful vista on the past that has been clogged up by hidebound Egyptologists.

Gobekli Tepe, largely unknown in 2000, now proves a cultural context for monumental construction prior to the end of the last ice age. You must know this is revolutionary.

This is a truly exciting opportunity to learn more about the past. A journey of wonder and discovery. Just go with the latest science, and let go the old prejudices of the Egyptologists. @TenEightyOne, you will be in the best of company.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Sorry, I forgot how long it was. As a disclaimer, I don't agree with everything he says but I always keep an open mind to the ancient theories and the Sphinx/pyramids in general. I don't think anyone is 100% correct in any of their explanations.

I'd set some store in the accuracy of the geology, that shows that some of Schoch's dating is simply impossible. That's the first red flag and a major one at that.

- The rain water erosion on the Sphinx enclosure is consistent with thousands of years worth of rainfall or the equivalent amount of water in a shorter amount of time caused by a cataclysmic event. The weathering on the enclosure is incompatible with the last 5,000 years worth of climatic history in the eastern Sahara.

Schoch introduces his own unqualified weather model for this and it isn't one that's stood the test of peer review. Another red flag - he has to construct an implausible scenario to support his implausible interpretation of the extant evidence.

That "rain erosion" is happening today as you read this and it's leaving exactly the same traces in exactly the same form as those historic traces. But how, with no rain? Schoch ignores this obvious fact and (unlike the geologists) seems unaware that haloclasty can occur even in aird climates (Reece's "Memoirs of a True Believer", ed. Fagan, p101, p102).

- The Sphinx head was too small for its body. He and a co-author (Dr. Bauval I think?) wrote a book last year about how they believe it was originally a female lion. He supported this theory with an ancient goddess who protected the sacred archives of a lost culture.

He supported his theory with something he made up and for which there is absolutely zero evidence. His claim that the head is too small is purely subjective and he has no evidence that that's the case.

Through seismic study in the early '90s, they found an entire subterranean chamber under the left paw which they believe to be the archive.

His paper is quite interesting and available here. You'll note that his conclusion is that there is a collapsed depression in that place which may have been deliberately emptied or may have collapsed due to the region's notable seismic activity. In that peer-reviewed paper he stops short (surprise surprise) of any evidence for pre-Egyptian Archive Goddesses or any of the other mad theories that sell his books/documentaries.

Note that in funerary architecture of many civilisations it isn't at all unusual to find chambers used for sacrifice, votive offering or burial. Ask yourself if there's any evidence of the Egyptians using burial chambers associated with grand structures? The answer (of course) is that there is lots and lots and lots. And then some.

The dating and investigation of other tunnels suggest that they were in fact created far later, probably by grave robbers (an age-old Egyptian industry). So in all Schoch has found some infilled chambers and later filled in a literally fantastic idea about what they were and ignored extant investigations into the tunnel structures.

They were stopped from ever entering or continuing seismic tests upon the discovery.

Not true. Firstly he couldn't enter a chamber which he concluded is collapsed or infilled. Secondly he offers no evidence to support a refusal for him to conduct further tests. Other bodies haven't been stopped from conducting such tests, after all.

Egyptian records, even early dynastic records, do not include details on building the pyramids/Sphinx.

No, but the fossil composition of the limestone does. The blocks at Khafra's temple come from the same piece of rock that the Spinx's body was carved from, and we can date that building very accurately.

Egyptologists agree that many of the mismatched granite blocks on the Sphinx were placed by the Egyptians. The Sphinx itself (minus the head) was carved out of limestone bedrock so the Egyptian blocks look much newer and stand out to the naked eye.

There's little disagreement about the earliest restorations by the Egyptians and Romans. Remember that if the Sphinx is around 2500BCE (as the evidence all points to) then it was 1000 years old at the time of the first documented restoration.

Dr. Schoch shows photos of much older structures underneath the work that Egyptologists attribute to the Egyptians. He also mentions that earthen mounds have been found under the pyramids which could date to the time of the Sphinx. He does not give an age to the pyramids and believes they could have been built much later than the Sphinx over the mounds as a memorial.

Why wouldn't there be older structures in the area? "Could" date to the time of the Sphinx... it's not happening, the limestone analysis shows when it was carved (under Khafra) from the main body. I just spoke to a professor of Egyptology who's done a lot of work on this (I know... unsourced, possible 'appeal to authority') and she's entirely confident in that dating. Attempts to put the Sphinx earlier than Khafra's works are not grounded in fact and contradict known fact.

In his estimation, the Sphinx is from before 9,700 BC which puts the Egyptians closer to the Iphone than they would have been to the creators of the Sphinx. He sees the Egyptians as inhabitants and caretakers of the Sphinx and not the creators.

He sells books, documentaries, and probably snake oil. His later flights of fantasy are sometimes at odds with the actual scientific research he's published and at odds with the actual scientific research published by others.

It would be great if it was true but we have his word for it and his word alone. Hopefully I've gone some way towards demonstrating just how lonely and ultimately-disproved that voice is.

Colin Reader's research (c2000) is way, way, way out of date. Obsolete and irrelevant, really. But even he, in his more slightly more recent (2001) research, agrees with Schoch that the Sphinx predates the 4th Dynasty and the head was re-carved, and that the Sphinx may date to predynastic times. Reader too frequently cites Egyptologists Lehner and others who have have no competency in geology and geophysics. His papers are not published in peer reviewed geology journals. Schoch's are.

See above for a debunking of pre-dynasty, and see Google Scholar for any number of peer-reviewed articles by Lehner. "Reconstructing the Sphinx" is a thrill-a-minute classic

Numerous times, without any disagreement or refutation that I'm aware of, Dr Schoch has stated that every professional geologist who has visited the site or looked at the massive array of physical evidence now agrees that the Sphinx enclosure exhibits rain weathering which proves it is older than Dynastic Egypt.

Dr. Schoch could state that the moon is made of green cheese, he'd still be making it up. It's astonishing that "every professional geologist" seems to be publishing theories that are fundamentally opposed to Schoch's.

I think the time has come to widely accept Schoch's conclusion that the Sphinx predates Dynastic Egypt. Even Colin Reader can agree with that. This opens up a wonderful vista on the past that has been clogged up by hidebound Egyptologists.

Gobekli Tepe, largely unknown in 2000, now proves a cultural context for monumental construction prior to the end of the last ice age. You must know this is revolutionary.

Logical fallacy. There's lots of evidence for monumental construction before the Sphinx, so what? The geo dates the time that the Sphinx body was carved.

This is a truly exciting opportunity to learn more about the past. A journey of wonder and discovery. Just go with the latest science, and let go the old prejudices of the Egyptologists. @TenEightyOne, you will be in the best of company.

Pre-modernism, amiright?

 

[88GTA]

It would be great if it was true but we have his word for it and his word alone. Hopefully I've gone some way towards demonstrating just how lonely and ultimately-disproved that voice is.

I'm grateful for your replies on his thoughts/theories. Again, I keep myself open to all ideas on how these amazing structures were made, kept up and continue to impress us. I am saddened by the realization that I/we will never know with 100% certainty their true story.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm grateful for your replies on his thoughts/theories. Again, I keep myself open to all ideas on how these amazing structures were made, kept up and continue to impress us. I am saddened by the realization that I/we will never know with 100% certainty their true story.

That's absolutely correct and an open mind is essential to further exploration. However, there is a point when a weight of scientific evidence makes it clear that certain parts of a hypothesis are very likely correct. Imo if Schoch worked within those parameters or at least provided evidence for his more outlandish claims then he'd seem a lot more credible.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Here's fun for Spergernauts and Normies alike: "How Do We Explain ‛Autistic Traits’ in European Upper Palaeolithic Art?", ResearchGate. It's not what I'm meant to be reading today but it's fascinating nonetheless.

 

[Dotini]

He supported his theory with something he made up and for which there is absolutely zero evidence. His claim that the head is too small is purely subjective and he has no evidence that that's the case.

Colin Reader, whom you earlier seemed to set such store in, disagrees with you.

Reader...concludes that the Sphinx must predate the reign of Khufu (2589 – 2566 BC), and certainly Khafra, by several hundred years. Reader disagrees with Schoch's palaeometeorological estimates, and instead concludes that the Sphinx dates to the Early Dynastic Period (c. 3150 – 2686 BC).[12][13] To explain the disproportionate size of the head compared to the body, Reader, as does Schoch, also suggests the head of the Sphinx was originally that of a lion and recarved sometime later in the likeness of a pharaoh.[14][15]

Similarly, David Coxill, a geologist working independently of both Schoch and Reader, has concluded from the evidence of weathering in the enclosure that "[t]he Sphinx is at least 5,000 years old and pre-dates dynastic times [before 3100 BC]."[16]

Remember that if the Sphinx is around 2500BCE (as the evidence all points to)

Again, Colin Reader disagrees, as noted above. David Coxhill, a geologist with yet another conclusion, prefers a pre-dynastic construction date, before 3100 BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_water_erosion_hypothesis

My own opinion is that hard science research on the Giza plateau is (justifiably) hampered by the economics of tourism, the political and religious concerns of the state of Egypt, and (understandably) by the preferences of the dominant soft social science of "Egyptology", a clubby group totally invested in a particular narrative antagonistic to anyone with ideas that even slightly differ with theirs.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Colin Reader, whom you earlier seemed to set such store in, disagrees with you.

He disagreed by between 100 and 300 years and placed it in an earlier dynasty. It's worth noting that he didn't have access to the haloclastic observations as they weren't carried out at that time. I've mailed him to ask if he revisited that dating work. In any case he dated it to Early Dynasty and not to a "pre-Dynasty" civilisation of unknown origin, completely at odds with Schoch.

David Coxhill, a geologist with yet another conclusion, prefers a pre-dynastic construction date, before 3100 BC.

Indeed, and his theory is based on his belief that the visible erosion at the complex is caused by water runoff. Again, observations of dry erosion (the area is prone to highly caustic sandstorms) and haloclasty lead the vast majority of geologists to dismiss the water runoff theory. Aside from him being in the small minority (not necessarily a bad thing) there's zero other archaeo evidence for the construction being undertaken at that time.

As an aside I definitely wouldn't put Coxhill in an "agrees with Schoch" group

My own opinion is that hard science research on the Giza plateau is (justifiably) hampered by the economics of tourism, the political and religious concerns of the state of Egypt, and (understandably) by the preferences of the dominant soft social science of "Egyptology", a clubby group totally invested in a particular narrative antagonistic to anyone with ideas that even slightly differ with theirs.

There is certainly an "authorised discourse" at play and that's felt by Egyptologists who aren't in the core "club" (specifically the Egyptian antiquities authorities). That certainly doesn't mean that all research is undertaken to please said authorities, in fact I detect that there's some pleasure in contradicting them with good, solid evidence.

To finish with here's a completely non-associated overview of Schoch's work, a fun read.

 

[allsupratt]

I just want to thank everyone for the posts. I dont have anything to add, ever, but i love studying ancient history. Ive learned a lot from all yalls links posted. I swear my opinion changes post by post as yall argue back and forth. Lol.

I want to believe civilized history dates back a lot further than than we teach. I hope one day they find irrefutable evidence on the timeline of civilization around the world.

 

[Rallywagon]

I just want to thank everyone for the posts. I dont have anything to add, ever, but i love studying ancient history. Ive learned a lot from all yalls links posted. I swear my opinion changes post by post as yall argue back and forth. Lol.

I want to believe civilized history dates back a lot further than than we teach. I hope one day they find irrefutable evidence on the timeline of civilization around the world.

Sites like Gobekli Tepe would certainly make a strong case that there could have been. But it's a hard one. Take our civilization as an example, if we all died right now within a few thousand years nearly all traces of our civilzation would have composed back into the elements. If an alien race came to the planet 10k years later, the only obvious evidence would radiation hot spots and large swaths of glass where our major cities stand now. None of the structures we build today are built in a manner that would stand the test of time like the pyramids.

 

[Dotini]

I want to believe civilized history dates back a lot further than than we teach. I hope one day they find irrefutable evidence on the timeline of civilization around the world.

Ancient history and ancient mystery is indeed a fun subject to consider, as there are many possibilities. There actually is irrefutable evidence in the timeline of the global cataclysm that certainly would have played the major role in our story. It is called the Younger Dryas.

Here is a short, fun, informational and speculative video for you.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Ancient history and ancient mystery is indeed a fun subject to consider, as there are many possibilities. There actually is irrefutable evidence in the timeline of the global cataclysm that certainly would have played the major role in our story. It is called the Younger Dryas.

Here is a short, fun, informational and speculative video for you.

Lost me at "Robert Schoch". Could we re-route these to the "conspiracies" thread and keep this for interesting actual scientific research into far history?

 

[Dotini]

Lost me at "Robert Schoch". Could we re-route these to the "conspiracies" thread and keep this for interesting actual scientific research into far history?

No; the Younger Dryas and its effects upon human civilization and history is a mystery, not a conspiracy. But feel free to post anything you consider relevant which addresses the onset or ending or effects of the Younger Dryas. Schoch talks solar outburst. Hancock mentions cometary impact. I don't know. What do you or your geologist friend say? Anything positive and constructive you may have to offer would be appreciated.

 

[Dotini]

Petzinger, Collins, Schmidt, there are many academics who have done exactly that. I see some of their work is cited in the paper, that would be a good starting point.

I have scoured Petzinger, Collins and Schmidt. They do not appear to have addressed the "handbags" at any point.

Here's fun for Spergernauts and Normies alike: "How Do We Explain ‛Autistic Traits’ in European Upper Palaeolithic Art?", ResearchGate. It's not what I'm meant to be reading today but it's fascinating nonetheless.

I'm working my way through rising Ice Age scholar Genevieve Von Petzinger's The First Signs. She considers man to have become cognitively modern 70,000 to 100,000 years ago. In addressing the animal imagery and abstract geometry, she considers motivation, belief systems, afterlife, spirituality, sexuality, possible meanings, symbolism, entoptics, cognitive capacities, complex symbolic thought, music, shamanistic visions, supernatural beliefs, theory of mind, hallucinogens, trances, altered states of consciousness, and neuropsychological modeling. And of course all kinds of other stuff. Nowhere do I find reference to autism.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I have scoured Petzinger, Collins and Schmidt. They do not appear to have addressed the "handbags" at any point.

They cover the site and it's possible meaning as a place in much detail - I'll look for some direct references for you. Be warned that they may not say "handbags"

I'm working my way through rising Ice Age scholar Genevieve Von Petzinger's The First Signs. She considers man to have become cognitively modern 70,000 to 100,000 years ago. In addressing the animal imagery and abstract geometry, she considers motivation, belief systems, afterlife, spirituality, sexuality, possible meanings, symbolism, entoptics, cognitive capacities, complex symbolic thought, music, shamanistic visions, supernatural beliefs, theory of mind, hallucinogens, trances, altered states of consciousness, and neuropsychological modeling. And of course all kinds of other stuff. Nowhere do I find reference to autism.

All those assessments are worthy of consideration in terms of art of any age, ancient art is certainly no exception. However, Von Petzinger's lack of research into commonalities between autistic art and the cave art doesn't preclude the possibility that other researchers may do so. Read the paper I linked and see what you think. That author has done a lot of interesting (and well-supported) work in the field