Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 23:58:12 -0400
To: Athena Discuss 
Subject: Re: Age of the Sphinx

Thomas Anderson wrote:
(( cuts ))
>       Now it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that the depth of the
> neolithic revolution will be pushed back a few hundred years by new
> discoveries; it is even probable that the geographic range of
> settlements considered to be centers of early agriculture will be
> extended by future discoveries.  But it is not very likely at all that
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> archaeologists are going to have to rethink their general understanding
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> of what happened and when and where it happened.  

That's what complacent investigators (scientists both hard and soft, detectives,
historians) say just before there comes a major paradigm shift blowing
their cherished theories out of the water.  Certainly there are some
minds sufficiently closed that they will rethink nothing.

> It is especially
> unlikely that we will have to do so in the vicinity of the sphinx.

Famous last words... 

> Egypt has been a favorite haunt of archaeologists for more than a
> century and the development of Egyptian civilization from its Nilotic
> and Saharan roots is fairly well understood today.  Momentarily, let's
> assume that the Schoch/West dating scheme for the age of the sphinx is
> right.  One is left with two improbable choices as the most likely
> ones: either the construction of the sphinx did not require a complex
> social and political structure like that of old kingdom Egypt, or the
> builders came from very far away, too far away for archaeologists
> working in Egypt to have found the evidence of their civilization.

Or you haven't yet found the evidence that would convince you.
How deep have the archaeologists gone in their digging around 
the sphinx?  And how deep would they have to go?  For example,
have they dug as deep as Mt. Rushmore is high?  How "complex"
are the communities around Mt. Rushmore, as compared with those,
say, around New York City or Washington, DC?  I'm sorry, but
I continue to be disdainful of a defense of the old theory based
on how compelling the absence of data supposedly is.  I can
think of one scenario where the absence of data becomes a 
positive data point that should be factored in to reasonable
inference.  I think of the Sherlock Holmes story where the
dogs did not bark, allowing the astute detective to make 
reliable inference ruling out a class of suspects.  But
the inference is only reliable because it is known that the
dogs were there, and it is known that the dogs would have barked
had it been a stranger making the supposed intrusion.  In this 
case, there are no metaphorical dogs to permit inference based
on their not-barking.  There is just absence of evidence.

>      (Incidentally, at the end of that television documentary about the
> Schoch/West dating scheme, the narrator, Charleton Heston, suggested
> that _possibly_ the sphinx was built by inhabitants from lost Atlantis.
>  Yeah, right.  Now that strikes me as an argument with racist
> overtones: "yes, the sphinx is thousands of years older than we
> thought, but, no, Africans didn't build it.")

I see no reason to reject such a hypothesis a priori, however
racist it might appear.  (What race were the Atlanteans, assuming
them to have existed?   Why not black African?  In which case,
why is it racist?   In any event, I leave that aside.)  I would
merely ask, what evidence is there to support such a hypothesis?
If there is none, I do not necessarily reject it, I just call it
speculative.  If I find an alternative theory that explains the
known evidence without assuming something even more begging of
proof than that which is sought to be explained, that is where
I would concentrate the effort of attempted falsification to 
see how well the alternative stands up.  Such effort is obviously
wasted with the speculative theories, however interesting and
captivating they might be.

>       The ability of archaeologists to trace the development of settled
> sites from early neolithic villages to complex towns is far better
> supported by a preponderance of data than, say, the theory
> that humanity originated in Africa.  If the "absence of evidence is not
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> evidence of absence" argument is applied to the theory of human origins
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> too, than one can argue for an origin on any other continent other than
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Africa.  I'm sure some do.  But most of us accept the African origin
  ^^^^^^
> theory because it fits the facts as we have them--we can see in the
> fossil record evidence of human evolution and change.  In other words,
> however imperfectly, we can trace a process occurring in Africa.  To
> reiterate, we can also trace a similar process, with much more
> supporting evidence,  in the early growth of civilizations generally
> and Egyptian civilization specifically.

This is a specious argument.  One argues for an African origin
presumably because there are data that lead to that inference.
There is *presence* of evidence for that hypothesis.  Likewise, 
there is presence of evidence for the Schoch/West hypothesis,
and it is not defeated by saying that the Schoch/West hypothesis
would entail certain expectations for the kind of society that
built the sphinx, expectations not yet apparent in any archaeological
finds--absence of evidence--therefore Schoch/West cannot be true.
That would be a fallacious argument in any science, purely
as a matter of logic.
 
>      Given this context for the development of early civilizations, I
> would think that it is incumbent on the supporters of the Schoch/West
> theory to demonstrate other evidence.  There is this one putative fact
> (the Schoch/West theory) opposed to a whole array of archaeological
> sites that demonstrate development over time.  On the face of it I
> would say that the geological understanding is flawed, or they are
> missing something.

You have reason to *suspect* a flaw in the Schoch/West theory.
But that suspicion does not constitute logical refutation.  And 
I disagree that Schoch the geologist must now turn archaeologist to find
the evidence the archaeologists have so far failed to uncover.
Schoch/West must be disputed on their own ground I'm afraid.

>      Presuming that we can accept the data regarding rainfall patterns,
> several other possible explanations can be offered: Bernard Ortiz de
> Montellano mentioned the Hawass & Lehner critique.  Let me go way out
> on a limb and suggest still others.  

All very interesting, and encroaching into an area where I am
quite incompetent to comment.  OTOH, there is a simplicity to
the Schoch/West hypothesis of rainfall-weathering that the 
ones you have suggested lack.  Frankly, I think you have to
come better than that.

>      I have no idea if floodwater ever reached the sphinx, or what
> effects shifting sand would have on a buried sphinx.  The point here is
> that when a new hypothesis contradicts all other known evidence, it
> supporters must be able to explain why only their solution will work
> and others fail.  The Schoch/West theory doesn't do that.  It does not
> even address the other Egyptian archaeological evidence.

It doesn't have to, for reasons already explained.

> Tom
> 
> Dr. Thomas Anderson Jr.
> Department of History
> Wayne State University
> Detroit, Michigan  48202
> tmandrsn@ix.netcom.com       and also    tanders@cms.cc.wayne.edu

Regards,

Contents | Previous | Next