Comment on Archaeology Problems
fossilesque@mander.xyz 4 months ago…wikipedia.org/…/Sphinx_water_erosion_hypothesis
You can test the water idea with a simple core. It doesn’t fit the data.
Comment on Archaeology Problems
fossilesque@mander.xyz 4 months ago…wikipedia.org/…/Sphinx_water_erosion_hypothesis
You can test the water idea with a simple core. It doesn’t fit the data.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 4 months ago
(Italics added, because - what? I’ve never seen that)
Here’s another example of this type of argument from the larger article:
(Italics added) Whether it is or is not; the countervailing argument is “no, because we have no proof it is”. Well no proof is just that - no proof either way. Isn’t it? This theory of astronomical alignment is based on solid empirical facts, though it is just a theory. Saying, “no it can’t be because we haven’t found a book from the time period” is a weird argument to say it disproves it. At best it says it can’t prove it.
That’s not to say a core sample test isn’t a good indicator, or some of the other causes-for-erosion aren’t as-or-more likely in the case of dating the Sphinx structure. It’s just that the particular argument that “we haven’t dug up definitive proof” is - not a great argument to base an unchallengeable assertion on. At best one has to allow alternate theories which have not been empirically disproven are possible.
fossilesque@mander.xyz 4 months ago
A borehole is pretty empirical, my dude. This is how I hunt rivers and other watercourses in other parts of the world.
Image
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 4 months ago
What’s the borehole analysis of Gobekle Tepe?
Speaking of, since that site was recently uncovered, how does OSL work for it? Are there any qualifications to dating it with OSL or is it the same whether it was covered for thousands of years or not?
fossilesque@mander.xyz 4 months ago
researchgate.net/…/230220211_Soils_and_soil_sedim…
psud@aussie.zone 3 months ago
Just a theory? A theory is a pretty well supported thing
Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com 3 months ago
I think the counterveiling argument is that there is a lot of evidence of large stone construction and similar cultural activities at much later dates.
And 10,000BC would be an impossibly ancient thing. You’d need a smidgen of proof to get anyone to think that was likely compared to all the circumstantial evidence we have for conventional estimations.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Yet, Gobekle Tepe?
Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com 3 months ago
A very different, impressive structure, build on a different way in a different environment.
That’s like saying the Chinese had paper in 100BC, so Europeans must have as well - we just haven’t found any evidence of it yet. Despite all the evidence to the contrary.
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Looks nothing like the much more complex stone work that was done on The Sphinx.