Jump to content


* * * * - 2 votes

Sphinx and GP dates from 10 500 BC?


  • Please log in to reply
1650 replies to this topic

#646    Swede

Swede

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,076 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 June 2012 - 12:07 AM

View Postlliqerty, on 24 June 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

Just in general, why is it possible to date Gobekli Tepe with hardly any uncertainty (or is it not?), while the age of the Sphinx has been studied so extensively and yet there are still wide discrepancies in various estimates?

If the Sphinx was built before they had mapped constellations, the orientation sync'ed with Leo would seem too much of a coincidence, unless maybe it happened the other way around: and the constellation was named according to the monument.

(Btw, the 6000 BCE came from this site)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster

From an archaeological perspective, Gobekli Tepe is still a "new" site and, over the forthcoming years of research and evaluation, there will be quite an amount of effort invested into the interpretations of this site. Nonetheless, some credible radiocarbon dates have been produced. In the following you will note the extensive detail being incorporated into attempting to refine occupational sequences/activities:

http://www.exoriente...d_site.php?s=25

You may also find the corroborating lithic analysis to be of interest:

http://www.persee.fr...0_num_26_1_4697

.

#647    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • 6,597 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 25 June 2012 - 12:51 AM

View Postdocyabut2, on 24 June 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

I guess one has to asked where did Djedefre get the idea for the frist made Sphinx of Egypt?

That's the question, isn't it? I myself don't have an answer for it. I don't think it's well understood. The merging of animal form with human form was already well established by Dynasty 4, particularly with deities, but perhaps it's nothing more than it looks to be on the surface: the lion is a regal animal and typically associated with royalty in many different cultures, so plopping the head of a royal atop a Sphinx might have been logical to the early Egyptians. That's speculation on my part but it's the best I have to offer.

It's entirely possible the archaeological record in this regard is incomplete. Who's to say other sphinxes weren't carved before Djedefre's time? We have the two from his pyramid complex at Abu Rawash that stand right now as the oldest-known sphinxes in Egypt, but perhaps future archaeological excavations will unearth even older sphinx statues.

Quote

Some believe that the sphinx of his wife, Hetepheres II, was the first sphinx created. It was part of Djedefre's pyramid complex at Abu Rawa. In 2004, evidence that Djedefre may have been responsible for the building of the Sphinx at Giza

The uncertainty with the Hetepheres sphinx lies in the fact that she was originally married to Kawab, a son of Khufu who stood above Djedefre in the hierarchy of succession. Kawab died before his time, leaving Djedefre as the next in line to the throne. So it remains possible that the Hetepheres sphinx may have been carved for her when she was married to Kawab. In this scenario the fragmented sphinx of Djedefre was carved later.

The theory about Djedefre's carving of the Great Sphinx of Giza comes from a French Egyptologist named Vassil Dobrev. I remember seeing a TV special about his theory on the History Channel or Discovery Channel. While the theory has merit and introduced something else for scholarship to consider, in the end Dobrev was not able to win support. His argument was not complete or convincing enough to sway the body of scholarship on the Sphinx. As for the canted angle of the Khafre causeway noted by Egyptologists like Dobrev and Rainer Stadelmann, were I able to, I would ask them if the Khufu quarry has some involvement in this. To my thinking both the terrain and the geology of the space between Khufu's Eastern Cemetery and the present location of the Sphinx might have been too broken and irregular by the time Khafre was establishing his pyramid complex. He put the Sphinx there because it was simply the best spot to do it. Moreover, the limestone knob that became the Sphinx's head was probably the only feature of the massif that would become the Sphinx which was visible above the surface of the Plateau, so that alone determined where the Sphinx would be.

I would recommend reading the relevant pages of the Giza Plateau Mapping Project. No archaeological team has studied and examined the Sphinx so closely as they. As far as I'm concerned the GPMP has settled the issue definitively and proven the Sphinx was part of Khafre's pyramid complex and was commissioned by that king.
Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#648    lliqerty

lliqerty

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 470 posts
  • Joined:17 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:32 AM

View PostSwede, on 25 June 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

From an archaeological perspective, Gobekli Tepe is still a "new" site and, over the forthcoming years of research and evaluation, there will be quite an amount of effort invested into the interpretations of this site. Nonetheless, some credible radiocarbon dates have been produced. In the following you will note the extensive detail being incorporated into attempting to refine occupational sequences/activities:
Yes, you are reaffirming my point, in a "new" site the carbon dating is conclusive, yet in a well researched one it is uncertain. Why?

#649    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    Knight of Sarcasm

  • Member
  • 6,759 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 25 June 2012 - 02:26 AM

View Postlliqerty, on 25 June 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

Yes, you are reaffirming my point, in a "new" site the carbon dating is conclusive, yet in a well researched one it is uncertain. Why?
I'd hazard a guess at there being less contamination on a "new" site to an "old" one.

#650    Harte

Harte

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,840 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 25 June 2012 - 03:29 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 25 June 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

The theory about Djedefre's carving of the Great Sphinx of Giza comes from a French Egyptologist named Vassil Dobrev. I remember seeing a TV special about his theory on the History Channel or Discovery Channel. While the theory has merit and introduced something else for scholarship to consider, in the end Dobrev was not able to win support. His argument was not complete or convincing enough to sway the body of scholarship on the Sphinx. As for the canted angle of the Khafre causeway noted by Egyptologists like Dobrev and Rainer Stadelmann, were I able to, I would ask them if the Khufu quarry has some involvement in this. To my thinking both the terrain and the geology of the space between Khufu's Eastern Cemetery and the present location of the Sphinx might have been too broken and irregular by the time Khafre was establishing his pyramid complex.
On that subject, this is what Docyabut2's wiki link states:

Quote

Dobrev also notes, like Stadelmann and others, that the causeway connecting Khafre's pyramid to the temples was built around the Sphinx suggesting it was already in existence at the time.

At this link, there is an aerial photo of the causeway, with the sphinx at the bottom of the pic (it's zoomable.)

If you look, it is plain as day that the sphinx enclosure traces the northern edge of the causeway precisely. The sphinx enclosure widens only on that one side (the rest of the enclosure is clearly rectangular) in order to follow the causeway.

I've seen pics of that side of the enclosure. It looks like the other sides, meaning it wasn't constructed - rather it was excavated to be that way.

Why should this be, if not because the causeway was there before the sphinx?
Would they create the causeway, then go in and excavate the sphinx enclosure a little wider on that side, for some unthinkable reason?

Harte
I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them.
- The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson

#651    DingoLingo

DingoLingo

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 835 posts
  • Joined:05 Jul 2011

Posted 25 June 2012 - 05:00 AM

Ok I started reading this thread.. then skipped a bit.. read a bit more..

Is this another ancient aliens kinda thread?

I know kmt is putting up very plausable theories etc..

Why must the answer be. its to big for ancient man to move.. it must be aliens all the time...

#652    Harte

Harte

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,840 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 25 June 2012 - 05:10 AM

View PostDingoLingo, on 25 June 2012 - 05:00 AM, said:

Why must the answer be. its to big for ancient man to move.. it must be aliens all the time...
Especially when we know aliens are very small.

Harte
I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them.
- The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson

#653    lliqerty

lliqerty

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 470 posts
  • Joined:17 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 June 2012 - 10:08 AM

View PostDingoLingo, on 25 June 2012 - 05:00 AM, said:

Ok I started reading this thread.. then skipped a bit.. read a bit more..

Is this another ancient aliens kinda thread?

I know kmt is putting up very plausable theories etc..

Why must the answer be. its to big for ancient man to move.. it must be aliens all the time...
It must not be aliens. But it must be a civilization that not only had the ability to do such a thing but also have the desire to do it.

Neither question can be answered for Gobekli Tepe because we hardly know anything about the people who built it. Various features of other structures around the world are also beyond explanation. When you propose a theory, ALL features must be explained by it, otherwise the theory is wrong.

Plausible? What does that give you, Peace of mind?

Kinda, whatever your agenda, it is not Knowledge that you are seeking.

#654    lliqerty

lliqerty

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 470 posts
  • Joined:17 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 June 2012 - 10:17 AM

View PostWearer of Hats, on 25 June 2012 - 02:26 AM, said:

I'd hazard a guess at there being less contamination on a "new" site to an "old" one.
To balance your guess with mine, contamination may help, by measuring its extent (like that of erosion). Or they could take a sample from inside, or a place where there is no exposure, or the part that was buried until excavation. Any experts?

#655    DingoLingo

DingoLingo

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 835 posts
  • Joined:05 Jul 2011

Posted 25 June 2012 - 11:41 AM

Actually lliqerty for me I honestly believe that mankind in itself is far older then most people believe.. civilizations rise and fall.. technology is lost and rediscovered.. lands sink into the sea.. and new rise from the ocean floor.. deserts cover large areas of once was fertile ground..

Is the sphinx older the believed.. honestly.. I dont know.. but I'll put my money on the kmt theories then to some ancient alien coming down and making all these big stone blocks..

Is the arch boys wrong.. hell they could be.. Theories change over time.. new ways of looking at things or new discoveries change all fields of science.. and if someone prooves that it is older.. theories will change again.. but so far.. no one has..

as for knowledge Iliqerty.. knowledge.. all knowledge is valuable.. but so far.. all the theories that seem to be bandied by you.. and others of the same ilk.. seem to be pure speculation with no real proof to back up..

#656    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,779 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 25 June 2012 - 12:40 PM

I believe if archeologists dig around the complex of  Gobekli Tepe , they will also find talayotic houses dated to 3000 bc to 2000bc.  There had to be a civllization that lived there to build the site, just like in the buliding of the great pyramids, not 11,000 years hunters and gathers that just came out of  the woods :)

#657    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 29,848 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 25 June 2012 - 12:59 PM

View Postdocyabut2, on 25 June 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

I believe if archeologists dig around the complex of  Gobekli Tepe , they will also find talayotic houses dated to 3000 bc to 2000bc.  There had to be a civllization that lived there to build the site, just like in the buliding of the great pyramids, not 11,000 years hunters and gathers that just came out of  the woods :)

The explanation could be easier: hunter gatherers who came from the north did not find an adequate cave for their worship so they built one. The signs are of a hunter gatherer culture, not an agricultural one.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#658    lliqerty

lliqerty

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 470 posts
  • Joined:17 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 June 2012 - 02:21 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 25 June 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

The explanation could be easier: hunter gatherers who came from the north did not find an adequate cave for their worship so they built one. The signs are of a hunter gatherer culture, not an agricultural one.
Why did I not think of that!  10,000 BCE Hunter gatherers stopped hunting for a few days, and decided 'We'll cut 80 of those 50 ton rocks to precisely the same shape, we'll set them up in precise circles with walls around and everything'.

Oh, they were "hunter gatherers" so they did not live in houses or even wooden huts. But they were smart. "I have no doubt" they were able to figure out how to build them. Tools? "I have no doubt" they had some plastic ones. Of course.

So why do some people come up with ideas about ancient civilizations?

#659    thewatchman7

thewatchman7

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 740 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

  • like joseph stalin, and ghandi,
    im the cult of personality!

Posted 25 June 2012 - 02:36 PM

View Postlliqerty, on 25 June 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

Why did I not think of that!  10,000 BCE Hunter gatherers stopped hunting for a few days, and decided 'We'll cut 80 of those 50 ton rocks to precisely the same shape, we'll set them up in precise circles with walls around and everything'.

Oh, they were "hunter gatherers" so they did not live in houses or even wooden huts. But they were smart. "I have no doubt" they were able to figure out how to build them. Tools? "I have no doubt" they had some plastic ones. Of course.

So why do some people come up with ideas about ancient civilizations?

i think you may have misunderstood him

#660    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 29,848 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 25 June 2012 - 02:41 PM

View Postthewatchman7, on 25 June 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

i think you may have misunderstood him
I don't think it was accidental, that guy is on a mission to convert us to some alien-super-civilization that explains it all, so I tend to ignore the 14 year old with an attitude until he tables something substantial.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users