Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 11:07:34 -0400
To: Athena Discuss 
Subject: Re: Sphinx date

Bernard R Ortiz-de-Montellano wrote:
(( cuts ))
> 
> There is a problem with the Sphinx dating. In order to construct a monument
> of the size and complexity of the Sphinx, a social organization of the
> level of complexity of a state is required. You need population density,
> rulers, stratification, specialists, a food surplus so that people can be
> spared to do construction, the power to conscript labor, etc.
> 
> This level of social organization did not exist anywhere in the world by
> 10,000 B.C. Plants had not even been domesticated so that there weren't
> even any villages. Let's not get into the game of "well anything is
> possible, therefore it was." A civilization capable of making the Sphinx
> would leave an enormous amount of archaeological remains. Egypt has been
> explored archaeologically for a long time-- no trace of this "putative
> civilization" has been found. The oldest domesticated plants in the Near
> East are dated about 8000 B.C., see
 
> This is hard archaeological data not theory about a hypothetical
> civilization. What we see is that the oldest archaeologically evident city
> is ca. 4000 B.C. some 6000 years later than the hypothetical "Sphinx
> builders." The city even by 3200 or so had 10,000 people, which would
> probably not suffice to build the Sphinx. Notice that this city also
> predates the supposed origin of the Sirius sothic calendar in 4200 B.C.

Hard archaeological data dated to 4000 BC do not constrain 
inferences as to what might have been in 10,000 BC.  If there are
no archaelogical finds dating to 10,000 BC, that does not mean
that such finds might not emerge in the future.  Maybe the archaeologists
are digging in the wrong places, or not digging deep enough.
Who knows?  As I have said before: absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence.  It is far more constructive to simply follow
the data where they lead.  If it is the case that the geologist is
correct that the sphinx was weathered by rain, and the required rain
existed only before 10000 BC, then that's where the inference leads.
The sort of argument you adduce, namely that the earliest traces
of settled civilization based on archaeological finds to date is
4000 BC, therefore the sphinx could not have been built in 10000 BC
is quite simply specious.  Ignorance cannot constitute a data point
constraining inferences.  Now, I notice from the web-site that someone was
kind enough to point us to regarding the Schoch/West theory, that
a competing theory is being advanced to explain the weathering
pattern attributed by Schoch/West to rain --- something to do with chemical 
processes in the rock, that would not require the ante-deluvian
hypothesis to explain the observed effect.  That is obviously a 
valid line of inquiry, which may or may not stand up after
the scrutiny that can be expected.  But to cite a million sources 
saying we have nothing (yet) dating further back than 4000 BC would still
not constitute valid refutation (of the ante-deluvian hypothesis).

> Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
> bortiz@cms.cc.wayne.edu

Regards,

Contents | Previous | Next