just a theory
Just a theory? A theory is a pretty well supported thing
Comment on Archaeology Problems
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 months agoThe Sphinx water erosion hypothesis is a fringe claim, contending that the Great Sphinx of Giza and its enclosing walls eroded primarily due to ancient floods or rainfalls, attributing their creation to Plato’s lost civilization of Atlantis
(Italics added, because - what? I’ve never seen that)
Here’s another example of this type of argument from the larger article:
The Orion correlation theory posits that it was instead aligned to face the constellation of Leo during the vernal equinox around 10,500 BC. The idea is considered pseudoarchaeology by academia, because no textual or archaeological evidence supports this to be the reason for the orientation of the Sphinx
(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.
psud@aussie.zone 3 months ago
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
And 10,000BC would be an impossibly ancient thing.
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.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 months ago
well, should the dating of 12,000 BC hold up (I don’t have the actual date, apologies) but it’s roughly before the oldest time suggested by the erosion theory of the Sphinx, and one of the arguments against it was that there was NO civilization at that time.
Well, now we know there was. So - that particular argument against the theory has to be thrown out, right?
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Looks nothing like the much more complex stone work that was done on The Sphinx.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 months ago
You mean the head or the body of the Sphinx? Head, I’ll agree, body - mmmm - doesn’t seem to be that complex but maybe I’m missing something.
fossilesque@mander.xyz 3 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 3 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 3 months ago
researchgate.net/…/230220211_Soils_and_soil_sedim…
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Same. Looks interesting tho.