Looks nothing like the much more complex stone work that was done on The Sphinx.
Comment on Archaeology Problems
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 months agoAnd 10,000BC would be an impossibly ancient thing.
Yet, Gobekle Tepe?
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 months ago
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.
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 months ago
The stones above the base. The head and body primarily. The base was carved out of stone in situ, but as I understand it, they had to build up the body and head.
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?
Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com 3 months ago
Sure, if one of the arguments against it was that there was no civilisation in the world (or fertile crescent and adjacent areas) then yes, that’s not a valid counterpoint.
I was thinking of using the evidence of megastructure building culture in Egypt that there is that matches the, according to the other person, water rising up (if I recall correctly).
It’d be fun and interesting if you’re theory is right. But there’s a lot of burden of proof it needs to overcome. Still, who knows?
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Indeed!