Is Göbekli Tepe the proof of Older Sphinx?

[Jarocal]

41 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

To be followed next season 'naked aliens building pyramids and drinking beer...and cage fighting leading fringe proponents'

After naked aliens building pyramids I was thinking perhaps one on GreenLantis or how a tsunami or the biblical flood scoured the mountaintops of Mauritania. Which if GreenLantis does not pan out, there is always the tsunami caused by the destruction of Atlantis that did the damage on the mountaintops in Mauritania.

[ShadowSot]

I tried to see where the connection comes from, but from reading, it just looks like the extent of it is

"Well we dated the Sphinx back to 10000 years ago, and Gobekli is 11000 years ago, so clearly they're linked because reasons we don't need to explained to you"

 

I forget, aren't there stones from the same outcrop the Sphinx was carved from used in the construction of Kafre's pyramid?

 

[docyabut2]

Göbekli Tepe  I believe is dated surrounding by the other structures in the area , not like the pyramids much later.   

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, docyabut2 said:

Göbekli Tepe  I believe is dated surrounding by the other structures in the area , not like the pyramids much later.   

What do you mean Docy? That it is surrounded by other old sites or what? This is a map showing the various sites near GT

 

[Tatetopa]

On 10/16/2017 at 9:39 PM, jaylemurph said:

What's wrong with preachy?!

Really! I love preaches.  Especially preach cobbler.   That's when you take a whole lot of unrelated ideas and cook them in the oven long enough to merge together.  Just be careful not to pull them out half-baked. 

[jaylemurph]

Just now, Tatetopa said:

Really! I love preaches.  Especially preach cobbler.   That's when you take a whole lot of unrelated ideas and cook them in the oven long enough to merge together.  Just be careful not to pull them out half-baked. 

A mere "like" cannot sufficiently express my delight and enjoyment of this post.

--Jaylemurph

[Tatetopa]

1 minute ago, jaylemurph said:

A mere "like" cannot sufficiently express my delight and enjoyment of this post.

You do me too much honor sir. Just trying to hold up my end.

[abhijit_b]

On 10/18/2017 at 4:45 AM, Harte said:

But even if there weren't, what, exactly is the connection with Gobekli Tepe? That is, no one has asserted that the sphinx couldn't have been carved by people that ancient.

None is trying to say that the people from Gobekli Tepe built the Sphinx.

When the Schoch's theory was originally contested by Lehner et al, one of main question was 'Where is the proof that humans were advanced enough to build something like Sphinx during Pleistocene age? Humans were hunter gatherer at that time and not capable of taking up such big project as group.' I think Goebkli tepe is the proof of that specific question, while other questions are yet to be answered. 

From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_water_erosion_hypothesis):

 

Quote

Zahi Hawass, former Egyptian minister of state for antiquities affairs and secretary-general of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, was asked in an interview on the PBS series NOVA if it was possible that a more ancient civilization might have sculpted the Sphinx. Hawass replied: "Of course it is not possible for one reason …. No single artifact, no single inscription, or pottery, or anything has been found until now, in any place to predate the Egyptian civilization more than 5,000 years ago."

 

Edited October 19, 2017 by abhijit_b

[Harte]

Hawass' statement, taken in context, concerns North Africa.

It is still true today.

That is, you'd have to be in Northern Africa (today's Egypt) to carve the sphinx, and there's no evidence of any earlier culture in the region, other than the Egyptian one.

Stones excavated by the Egyptians when they were carving out the sphinx enclosure were used in the temple in front of it.

That is proven, there can be no disputing it.

The layout of that temple is purely Egyptian.

Harte

[abhijit_b]

On 10/17/2017 at 3:03 AM, kmt_sesh said:

The most important investigative agency at Giza is the Giza Plateau Mapping project. Headed by Mark Lehner, they've conducted critical research and analyses that have given us a more complete picture of the Plateau. Their website is packed with information (link). The GPMP has already established that the Sphinx is an integral part of Khafre's pyramid complex (G2)—it was commissioned by Khafre, was carved by that king's workforce, and was one of the last features of that pyramid complex to be prepared.

There are issues with the sequencing explained by Lehner and definitely not conclusive. the paper itself states:

Quote

There is no current evidence (that stands up to the scrutiny of science) pointing to any other date for the Khafre monuments. The best statement science can make is that with a high degree of probability the Sphinx and the Sphinx Temple were constructed late in the sequence of the Khafre building program during the reign of that king.

 

The main logic of this sequencing is :

1. The Valley Temple (Khafre's) enclosure wall respects the Valley Temple casing stones.
2. The Valley Temple therefore predates its now-missing northern enclosure wall.
3. Part of the Valley Temple enclosure wall was later incorporated into the Sphinx Temple southern wall.
4. The Sphinx Temple was therefore built later than the Valley Temple.

 

But these points are analyzed by various archeologists/geologists including Robert Schoch, Collin Read. Some points from this this research :

Quote

 

The remains identified as a low enclosure wall on the south side of the Valley Temple (photographed here) are not complete. A section of wall parallel (and equal in length) to the south side of the temple stands. As the southwest corner turns north, there is a gap between the wall and the temple. As the southeast corner turns north, it falls short of the stone terrace in front of the temple. Taking account of missing links, however, the surviving remains on the south side seem sufficient to indicate that the Egyptians intended to build a low-lying wall on the south side and did so.

The remains of a northern enclosure wall are far less clear. Foundation stone exists at what could have been its northeast corner that resembles the stonework of the southeast corner. But a stone tentatively identified with a northwest corner (in the passageway between the Sphinx Temple and the Khafra Valley Temple) is too far to the east to be at a position symmetrical to the southwest corner. The present south wall of the Sphinx Temple may rest on the foundation track of a northern enclosure wall, but this track is not now visible

 

Another major issue is also Khafre's causeway:

Quote

Reader also pointed out that to be available for Khafra to use, the foundation of the causeway had to have survived the quarrying activity of Khufu on either side of it. Reader observed that the survival of the causeway ridge is unlikely to have been the accident that the conventional chronology requires it to have been. If Khufu had assembled his pyramid with a ramp extending from its south face, the ramp would have covered the western half of this foundation. Khufu also excavated a quarry north of the eastern half of the causeway (see Fig. 6.4) but it may have been Khafra who worked the quarry as far as the causeway itself. As a result, an irregular shelf of the plateau sufficient to carry the causeway in a straight line might have survived these operations by accident and might have been trimmed to its present shape by Khafra. But the survival of this shelf would still have been a remarkable coincidence and its survival by accident may certainly be questioned. Since Khufu's oldest son, Djedefra, did not build his pyramid at Giza, the existence of a Giza master plan is unclear.

 

 

[abhijit_b]

55 minutes ago, Harte said:

Hawass' statement, taken in context, concerns North Africa.

It is still true today.

That is, you'd have to be in Northern Africa (today's Egypt) to carve the sphinx, and there's no evidence of any earlier culture in the region, other than the Egyptian one.

Again reiterating that it's not a proof of who built Sphinx, but Gobekli Tepe is very close to Sphinx. The statement of "only North Africa" doesn't hold good. Gobekli Tepe is ss close or even closer than any place in North Africa. Just to put thing in perspective, Google map shows 1,700  KM from Sphinx to Gobekli tepe via this weird path:

https://goo.gl/maps/MTodnhfL9zw

While the distance from Sphinx to the Temple of Ramses II at Abu Simbel is 1,300 KM!

 

[abhijit_b]

On 10/16/2017 at 10:15 PM, Hanslune said:

As to the quote above, I presume you are not a native English speaker, I'm sorry but I don't quite understand what you are stating above?

You are spot on! Also too many typos that day, sorry for that!

[Harte]

10 hours ago, abhijit_b said:

Again reiterating that it's not a proof of who built Sphinx, but Gobekli Tepe is very close to Sphinx. The statement of "only North Africa" doesn't hold good. Gobekli Tepe is ss close or even closer than any place in North Africa. Just to put thing in perspective, Google map shows 1,700  KM from Sphinx to Gobekli tepe via this weird path:

https://goo.gl/maps/MTodnhfL9zw

While the distance from Sphinx to the Temple of Ramses II at Abu Simbel is 1,300 KM!

 

Nonetheless, Hawass was talking about Egypt, not Turkey. Likely because that's where the sphinx is, wouldn't you think?

What he said is true.

Are you suggesting that, because someone constructed Gobekli Tepe (and left artifacts scattered everywhere,) it means someone carved the sphinx in the same era (and left no artifacts at all anywhere?)

Harte

[Jarocal]

2 hours ago, Harte said:

Nonetheless, Hawass was talking about Egypt, not Turkey. Likely because that's where the sphinx is, wouldn't you think?

What he said is true.

Are you suggesting that, because someone constructed Gobekli Tepe (and left artifacts scattered everywhere,) it means someone carved the sphinx in the same era (and left no artifacts at all anywhere?)

Harte

Yes because they carried all the artefacts back to Turkey...

[abhijit_b]

5 hours ago, Harte said:

Nonetheless, Hawass was talking about Egypt, not Turkey. Likely because that's where the sphinx is, wouldn't you think?

What he said is true.

Was there an international boundary or no man's land so that it has to be in Egypt? As I mentioned above if you consider Abu Simbel as proximity of Giza because it's within Egypt, then Gobekli Tepe should be considered too. Yes, I agree that artifacts at Sphinx are missing to support it. But Gobekli Tepe was near enough to influence any society in Egypt, if existed at that time or vice versa.

[Harte]

Again, as Hawass stated, there is no evidence for any society in or around Giza in that time period.

The dating of the sphinx is not dependent on the absence of evidence of any earlier culture, however.

That is, it doesn't hinge on the idea that it must have been carved in the Old Kingdom because there wasn't any culture there in 10,000 B.C.

I think I already stated that no one is saying it couldn't have been carved by people that early, just that the evidence available indicates otherwise.

Harte

[Hanslune]

11 hours ago, abhijit_b said:

Was there an international boundary or no man's land so that it has to be in Egypt? As I mentioned above if you consider Abu Simbel as proximity of Giza because it's within Egypt, then Gobekli Tepe should be considered too. Yes, I agree that artifacts at Sphinx are missing to support it. But Gobekli Tepe was near enough to influence any society in Egypt, if existed at that time or vice versa.

Abu Simbel was built in the 1300 BC, the Sphinx may have been built around circa 2500 BC and GT was built circa 10,000 BCE, why would you believe there would be 'influence'. That would be around 375 generations between GT and the Sphinx (unless it is older)

[abhijit_b]

2 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Abu Simbel was built in the 1300 BC, the Sphinx may have been built around circa 2500 BC and GT was built circa 10,000 BCE, why would you believe there would be 'influence'. That would be around 375 generations between GT and the Sphinx (unless it is older)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabta_Playa - 100 km west of Abu Simbel. Human occupation there at least 8,000 - 10,000 BC. They did some remarkable astronomical works with the "calendar circle".  But it is nothing in front of Gobekli Tepe in terms of scale and size.

[Hanslune]

2 hours ago, abhijit_b said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabta_Playa - 100 km west of Abu Simbel. Human occupation there at least 8,000 - 10,000 BC. They did some remarkable astronomical works with the "calendar circle".  But it is nothing in front of Gobekli Tepe in terms of scale and size.

Okay and that means what?

[Kenemet]

On 10/19/2017 at 10:54 PM, abhijit_b said:

Was there an international boundary or no man's land so that it has to be in Egypt? As I mentioned above if you consider Abu Simbel as proximity of Giza because it's within Egypt, then Gobekli Tepe should be considered too. Yes, I agree that artifacts at Sphinx are missing to support it. But Gobekli Tepe was near enough to influence any society in Egypt, if existed at that time or vice versa.

Abu Simbel is along the Nile River, the transportation route for Egypt.  Gobekli Tepe is ... far away, across a lot of landscape.

There's pottery from around 4,000 BC showing that the Egyptians could make boats of reed (which won't travel across seas and large bodies of water.)

HOWEVER... the people of Nubia (Abu Simbel) are a different culture than Ancient Egypt.  It's part of Egypt by conquest (every time the pharaohs felt feisty, they went upriver and captured Nubia.  But whenever there's a weak pharaoh on the throne, Nubia leaves Egypt.)  So they traded along the Nile but they didn't go to Turkey (there's no trade goods from Turkey in Egypt at that time period and no Egyptian pottery, etc, in Turkey from that time period.)

[abhijit_b]

2 hours ago, Kenemet said:

HOWEVER... the people of Nubia (Abu Simbel) are a different culture than Ancient Egypt.  It's part of Egypt by conquest (every time the pharaohs felt feisty, they went upriver and captured Nubia.  But whenever there's a weak pharaoh on the throne, Nubia leaves Egypt.)  So they traded along the Nile but they didn't go to Turkey (there's no trade goods from Turkey in Egypt at that time period and no Egyptian pottery, etc, in Turkey from that time period.)

If Sphinx was built earlier than believed, then probably it was not built by the Ancient Egyptians we know of. Must be a different culture.

Giza was densely populated and was center of mind boggling constructions during Old kingdom. It must have mostly wiped out evidences of earlier society. We need to be really lucky to find any evidences of earlier society there.

It is as simple as this. Do you think that four thousand years from now anyone will be able to find any evidences of 100 BC society in the current day Cairo? Yes, you may find major construction sites like Babylon Fortress. But potteries etc will be almost wiped out from the city. This is specially true when the population starts increasing and covers almost the whole area. You can expect to find current day evidences four thousands years from now,  if only the city crumbles today or the current day artifacts are preserved properly. Additionally, in the case of Giza plateau, the climate changed drastically as compared to 10,000 years, converting it into a desert and making it even harder for anybody to find earlier evidences.

[abhijit_b]

10 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Okay and that means what?

Just a response to your comment that Abu Simbel is 1,300 BC old. Please note that I am trying to put perspectives of distances, not literally meaning Abu Simbel and when it was built.

[Kenemet]

1 minute ago, abhijit_b said:

If Sphinx was built earlier than believed, then probably it was not built by the Ancient Egyptians we know of. Must be a different culture.

Giza was densely populated and was center of mind boggling constructions during Old kingdom. It must have mostly wiped out evidences of earlier society. We need to be really lucky to find any evidences of earlier society there.

It is as simple as this. Do you think that four thousand years from now anyone will be able to find any evidences of 100 BC society in the current day Cairo? Yes, you may find major construction sites like Babylon Fortress. But potteries etc will be almost wiped out from the city. This is specially true when the population starts increasing and covers almost the whole area. You can expect to find current day evidences four thousands years from now,  if only the city crumbles today or the current day artifacts are preserved properly. Additionally, in the case of Giza plateau, the climate changed drastically as compared to 10,000 years, converting it into a desert and making it even harder for anybody to find earlier evidences.

Well, yes. Archaeologists of the future would be able to find traces of Year 100 BC in Cairo.  The only way they would NOT find them would be if aliens scooped up everyone and laser-zapped the city into the ground sometime after 100 BC and went around the world giving everyone complete amnesia about Egypt and Cairo.

Now, I say this as someone who works in a paleontology lab and who has had archaeology courses and has gone on digs. 

Websites by non-archaeologists and people who've never worked digs and tv shows by non-archaeologists (who need a sensational topic like "how fast our technology vanishes" would disagree with me - but the others here who have also gone on digs will tell you that yes, there would be traces (and a lot of them) after four thousand years.   They could reconstruct daily life in Cairo and even tell you about the trading partners and other connections.

By the way, Giza itself was not densely populated during the Old Kingdom.  Memphis was.   Cairo was.  Giza was a graveyard, and people don't live in graveyards.  They had a lot of people there during the rainy season, but for the rest of the year, the population was only a few thousand.  It was less important to the Egyptians than Saqqara and Abydos and fell into neglect and disrepair.

 

[Harte]

So, Cairo, therefore the sphinx is 10,000 years old?

Your argument that we can't find ancient artifacts in Cairo 4 thousand years from now seems pretty spurious to me.

That is, we can find artifacts outside of Cairo right now that are older than the agreed upon timeline for the sphinx.

Are you aware of the artifacts that have been found in Cairo?

Do they date no earlier than 4 thousand years ago?

Harte

[abhijit_b]

2 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Websites by non-archaeologists and people who've never worked digs and tv shows by non-archaeologists (who need a sensational topic like "how fast our technology vanishes" would disagree with me - but the others here who have also gone on digs will tell you that yes, there would be traces (and a lot of them) after four thousand years.   They could reconstruct daily life in Cairo and even tell you about the trading partners and other connections.

Totally agree to it. I am just putting some common-sensical things than scientific. My main point is that existing human activities make it harder to find evidences, not impossible. 

2 hours ago, Kenemet said:

By the way, Giza itself was not densely populated during the Old Kingdom.  Memphis was.   Cairo was.  Giza was a graveyard, and people don't live in graveyards.  They had a lot of people there during the rainy season, but for the rest of the year, the population was only a few thousand.  It was less important to the Egyptians than Saqqara and Abydos and fell into neglect and disrepair.

 

But Giza poses other problems too. The major quarrying activities in the fourth dynasty has potentially wiped out many pre-fourth dynastic evidence in the plateau. Just quoting something from a paper by Dr Colin reader:

Quote

The survival of pre-Fourth Dynasty artefacts within the Giza necropolis has to be considered in the context of the Fourth Dynasty development. Figure 7 shows, in general terms, the Fourth Dynasty land-use of the site, illustrating that most of the available area within the necropolis was either quarried or built upon. These are both rather destructive activities which may have necessitated the removal of earlier structures and the disposal of the resulting ‘site clearance’ debris. This debris may have been deposited in the base of worked-out quarries or in other known areas of dumping, outside the area of construction.

In the mid 1970’s an Austrian Egyptologist, Karl Kromer, investigated one such area of debris, some 1km south of the Great Pyramid (Figure 7). Within the fill, Kromer reported finds from the Late Predynastic, the First, Second and Fourth Dynasties.

Later Dr Reader also found a Tomb with Sunken Palace that proofs pre-dynastic activities in the area. I couldn't find a paper related to it, but can be found in this National Geographic documentary.