Jump to content

Talk:Sphinx water erosion hypothesis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Creation of article

I created this article as a daughter article of the Great Sphinx of Giza article. I have inserted an appropriate wikilink in the Great Sphinx of Giza article. Wdford (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Can it be altered to Great Sphinx water erosion hypothesis Lung salad (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Buried under sand

In regards to the geological dating of the internal walls on the Sphinx enclosure it is important to note the Sphinx enclosure has laid buried under sand for potentially thousands of years, with only the head and back visible above the sand, the obvious affect of this is that while the walls are buried there will be no erosion either from wind and sand or rain. We know this as the the Egyptians recorded the Sphinx as being buried under sand and more recently it was Buried under sand when Napoleon arrived.

" Lal Gauri et al.[24] also favour the haloclasty process to explain the erosion features, but have theorised that the weathering was driven by moisture deriving from atmospheric precipitation such as dew." - Dew is CONDENSATION, not precipitation. If rudimentary science isn't understood by the source it's not a viable one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattrhoades72 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Latrines?

Could the latrines or other waste water of the workers have drained into the area and caused the erosion seen? CFLeon (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Um, no. The amount of water required to cause this much erosion is equivalent to hundreds of years of persistant heavy rain - a hundred thousand workers could not have generated the amount of waste water needed to cause this much damage to solid rock. Those people did not have pipes to carry water up to run baths and laundromats at their work-place - they would have walked the short distance down to the river to bathe and to wash their clothing. The Sphinx is above the river level, and waste water does not run uphill. Lastly, it was a sacred site, and the officials would not have allowed the workers to use it as a latrine to begin with. Wdford (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits by Thanos5150

I reverted the removal of Feder's comment. He does not, as Thanos states, repeat what others have said. And adding more material from Schoch and removing critical material not helping balance. Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


Thanos shows up and there is Dougweller. Feder's comments are no different than the others as both are saying Schoch is wrong because they believe there is no evidence for an earlier culture. And more importantly, that is not Feder's conclusion as he is citing the opinion of someone else, maybe even this very same Hawass interview. His book is a compendium of other people's opinions that he has put into a single narrative. Feder's comments are redundant and only those of someone else, but if you must why not quote Lehner instead? At least he is a primary source.
I will change it back and when you get consensus Doug here in discussion then you can revert it. You need to play by your own rules.
Schoch's theory, the whole point of the section, gets TWO LINES of text and yet there are 9 PARAGRAPHS devoted to criticizing it and yet somehow it is "not helping balance" to add 5 lines of text to Shoch's theory and remove 2 lines of redundant criticism? Seriously-what is wrong with you Doug? No reasonable and honest person would look at the lines on the page devoted to the topic and the criticism and make the comments you did.Thanos5150 (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Schoch has more then two lines in the article, and no one yet has added Reader's criticism of Schoch's argument based upon the mudbrick mastabas. Feder is a respected archaeologist and now you've removed him entirely. But I'll leave it to WP:FTN. This article is on my watchlist, if anyone had removed Feder I'd react the same way. Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
2 lines were devoted to his actual theory despite being an article mainly devoted to his theory, and yet there are 9 paragraphs and 3 different sections against it. Is this really "balance" to you Doug? There are many things not added including Schoch's among other rebuttals to the idea there is no evidence of a prior civilization. We can pack this article with rebuttal after rebuttal if you'd like.
Feder is a respected archeologist but like I said, Feder's conclusion is not his own citing the opinion of someone else, maybe even this very same Hawass interview. You've used Feder before and it was equally wrong. His book is a compendium of other people's opinions that he has put into a single narrative. Feder's comments are redundant and only those of someone else, but if you must why not quote Lehner instead"? I'm sure you have the book Doug-look it up and tell me I'm wrong and that it is his opinion based on his evaluation of the evidence and not the opinion of someone else and I agree it should stand. If not, find something original you can cite from him or someone more worthwhile like Lehner. You can easily make a much better lead paragraph than that, including Hawass's comment. There is another Nova article where Lehner goes on and on about it.Thanos5150 (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal and tried to restore it, but another editor beat me to it. That's three editors, which argues for there being a consensus on this. If there is a serious challenge to the reliability of this source, I would like to see the case for that made at WP:RSN. Note that there have also been some POV issues brought up at WP:FTN which at first glance look valid, but need more discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I have no doubt others editors would swoop in to restore it without even understanding why because it doesn't matter what is right or wrong just as long as the dissenting opinion is presevered. Feder's book is a compendium of skeptical articles edited and rewritten by Feder into a single narrative. He is not the primary source for his comments though it is passed off as such. I fail to understand how one source quoting another in their own words qualifies it as a primary source. If Feder is citing Hawass, for example, wouldn't we say "according to Feder, Hawass concludes..."? Or better yet, if Feder rewrites Einstein's paper on general relativity can I then use Feder as an original primary source in an article about general relativity? Am I not required to use the original source or at least note that he is paraphrasing Einstein? Regardless, like I said there are numerous and relevant primary sources, like Lehner, more directly associated with the debate it can be replaced with.Thanos5150 (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I am not interested in debating the issue with someone who insults me, as you have done above. I believe that I "understand why" just fine, and it certainly does "matter what is right or wrong". The problem here appears to be that you have either not read or do not understand Wikipedia's criteria for what are and are not good sources. In particular, you appear to be completely unfamiliar with Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Thus you act as if some unnamed person is claiming that the source in question is good because it is a primary source when our actual rule is "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources...". --Guy Macon (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Pffft. Save it. This happens all the time, on purpose, by the pseudoskeptic mafia here on Wiki so please don't insult me by pretending to be insulted. I believe honesty, integrity, and common sense trump Wiki rules, so it does not surprise when faced with the obvious people like yourself and DougWeller ignore what is actually said and hide behind these rules because that is all you have. Its a game, I get it.
But thankfully in this case we do not need to rely on honesty, integrity, and common sense as Wiki Rules will also do. Lets look at the rest of the secondary source rule that you have conveniently omitted: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". This has nothing to do with Feder as he is just repeating others in his own words and is not a personal analysis and interpretation of anything. So, given the standards of secondary sources you say are required, you have just proven my point. None of this applies to the Feder source and being it is a compendium of other sources edited into a narrative by the author it is actually a tertiary source and not a reliable one at that given its stated biased. The Feder source should be removed. And now that Wdford is here, it is now 2 on 2 so there is no more consensus. I'm sure you and/or Doug will just call in some pals to break that, but instead of stupid games, how about just be honest about it? Nothing personal against the man, but Feder's books are not good sources and regardless there are much better and more relevant ones available. Very simple. Thanos5150 (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Feder's books are not good sources? He's an expert on fringe archaeology. His book Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology is in it's 7th edition. Feder is clearly not a primary source. Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
No. He may be an expert of the genre and opinions of others regarding fringe archeology, but he is not an expert of much of the actual subject material, like geology, and is not offering his own professional opinion, but that of others. How many times does that need to be repeated? 100? 200 times? And if you actually read his sources a lot of them are Wikipedia or by way of Wikipedia or other general interest websites. If he were giving his professional opinion no doubt he would not use many of the sources presented in his book. We went through the same exact thing with him on the Sitchin page. Its dishonest Doug. He is not a primary or secondary source, he is a tertiary source and an obviously biased one at that. He's you Hall of Maat pal, I get it, but if you want to quote him isn't there something original you can provide of his? He is an archeologist-has he studied the primary source material and come to original conclusions of his own? Something where he isn't just regurgitating the opinion of someone else? And if we use Feder's book, then that means we can use all of William R. Corliss's books? And apparently we have the 2,500BC error now? He should be removed in favor of Lehner, a much more credible and relevant source.Thanos5150 (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Feder has nothing to do with the Hall of Maat. As for bias, we use Schoch - he isn't biased? He's just an associate professor of natural in a non-degree college of general studies with a lot of ideas so fringe I don't think you even believe in - that's not bias? In fact if you are going to compare anyone with Corliss it should be Schoch. Dougweller (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
So this isn't the same Ken Feder Professor Central Connecticut State University listed as one it's contributing authors [1]
Was Schoch biased when he came to these conclusions in 1992 before he had any involvement in this subject? Was it Schoch's "bias" that when he investigated the so-called Bosnian pyramid excavations and ::concluded that the site held "absolutely no evidence of pyramids per se or of a great ancient civilization in the Visoko region"? Or was he biased when he concluded after diving the site that Yanaguni, ::directly contradicting Hancock and those that brought him there, was natural at not man made? Hmmm, it seems unlike psudoskeptics like you, Feder and the like, that despite his "bias" Schoch still relies ::on his conscience and the scientific method even when it may contradict his own beliefs. His opinions do not exist for the sole purpose of proving something wrong, like some. And does Schoch, like Corliss, Feder, and Fritze create compendiums of knowledge from other peoples work? No.Thanos5150 (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I apologise, I had forgotten he had written something for Maat. As far as I know, that's his only connection. Your 'pseudo-skeptic' accusation is pretty pathetic. It's a term generally used by woowoo supporters. Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Pathetic because it's accurate? But isn't it pathetic, and convenient, that anyone who calls someone out for being a psuedoskeptic is full of "woowoo"?
Skeptic: A person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.
Psuedoskeptic: Those who declare themselves merely "skeptical" of a concept, but in reality would not be convinced by any evidence that might be presented.
Do you "question or doubt all accepted opinions" Doug? It's ok, I don't need an answer.Thanos5150 (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone question or doubt all accepted opinions? And what do you call someone whose skepticism is more focused but who revises their opinion based on new evidence? This is what scientists, historians, archaeologists, etc do all the time if they are any good. 'Skeptic' is a much misused word, esp by those who are more inclined to deny science - eg "Global warming skeptics". Or "Holocaust skeptics". Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanos5150, regarding your claim that those who dare to disagree with you lack honesty, integrity, and are part of an alleged "pseudoskeptic mafia", I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
"Those who dare to disagree with you"? Yes, please don't DARE to disagree with the mighty Thanos. But regardless, you are not "disagreeing" with me, you are dismissing the content of my argument by technicality in lieu of acknowledging it directly. And so you are saying Feder is like Arkell v. Pressdram? I didn't think of it that way, but you may be right.Thanos5150 (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Folks, this is a non-issue. Feder is actually just repeating the line that "if the Sphinx was built by an older culture, where is the [other] evidence of that older culture?" Lehner did say it better, and others have said it as well. I would have preferred to use Lehner rather than Feder, because Lehner is actually a Giza expert and Feder seemingly is an expert of Native American archaeology, but its really not worth fighting about.
Feder is quoted as saying that no organised culture capable of such construction existed before 2500BC. Is that a typo? The original temple of Heliopolis, (to which I vaguely recall Reader links the Sphinx) would certainly have required a highly organized workforce etc, and it certainly predated 2500BC. The well-known Stepped Pyramid substantially predates 2500BC as well, as every Egyptologist knows. This all makes Feder look like a non-expert who is just tossing in his 2 cents for the fun of it. Anybody who knows anything about Ancient Egypt would recognize the gross inaccuracy of that statement, so do we really want to include Feder here?
Reader and Schoch agree on everything except the dating - until how late did the heavy rains continue? Schoch says the 1st Dynasty mud-brick mastabas prove that the heavy rain had stopped before the 1st Dynasty, because no right-minded person would build his eternal tomb out of mud if the rains in his day were heavy enough to erode stone. Reader side-steps that and claims the mastabas were protected from the rain by rubble, which is probably true but evades the issue of the builders taking the risk in the first place - they did not originally rely on later generations dumping rubble on top of their tombs. Reader is open that he uses that date purely to fit the Sphinx into the "existing culture" argument, whereas Schoch sticks to the science and essentially says "I'm just pointing out the geological evidence, I'm not responsible for finding the potsherds as well". This makes Schoch a sitting duck for Feder.
Wdford (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't use Feder in this instance if the 2500 date isn't a typo somewhere. The most reliable sources for history and archaeology sometimes make mistakes, and this may be one. Nevertheless, he is generally a reliable source and we frequently use reliable sources that endorse what others have said on a subject. This is I think a good thing, not a bad thing. In fact, when we have a source that no one comments on we start to wonder if it is significant enough to meet NPOV.
As for Reader vs Schoch, do you have Reader's article where he discusses the mastabas? I thought he said more than just protected by rubble. In any case Reader should be used in the para about the mastabas. Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Doug, I can’t find the Reader paper I was referring to - I seem to have deleted it somehow. However an internet search did find the following paper, wherein Reader repeats much of those details, and adds some updated conclusions. “FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS ON THE AGE OF THE SPHINX, by Colin Reader, 17th March 2000”, at [2] See also Lehner's explanation, at [3], with his trademark honesty and humility, and contrast it with Feder's uninformed bombast. Wdford (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps Thanos could use this to balance Schoch. I'd do it but then... - (sorry, forgot to sign Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC))
It's not the fact it is you doing it Doug, it is why you do it. And if your reasons are so noble then you would have added Schoch's rebuttal yourself in the first place. Don't even go there Doug. But only you would think two negatives and one positive is "balance". So, if I add that then you will also add Schoch's rebuttal to it so that it is balanced once again? Reader makes an interesting point, but Schoch also gives several other examples in extant works to this effect where Reader's conclusions would not apply so for all of our sakes this is probably not a rabbit hole we want to go down.Thanos5150 (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Wdford, as you created this article with the Feder quote in it, maybe you are being a bit over the top about criticising its use. He spends a page on Schoch and the Sphinx. The 2500 is from him, but before that he writes that there is no evidence for a culture capable of building it "much before the traditionally accepted date." Lung salad (talk · contribs) (blocked puppetmater) added it a few days before you moved the article. Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Although I personally don't rate Feder as a reliable source on this topic, I am happy to mention Feder by name here, as he certainly has expressed himself on the topic (even though he clearly is unfamiliar with it). However I recently decided that leaving the full quote was unhelpful, due to the obvious errors. As I said earlier, to me this is really not a big deal. Wdford (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem, it wasn't me that added it! If he had stopped with his "much before the traditionally accepted date" or said "much before 2500" (which seems to be what he meant to say then we hopefully wouldn't be having this argument (although I think Thanos would still object). He may not be around for a while, he comes and goes. Dougweller (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Given how hard it is to make one reasonable edit is it any wonder why I "come and go"? I do object on valid grounds I have made perfectly clear including as well he is obviously an irrelevant and superfluous source to the debate which the only point of him being cited is to add another name on the pile.Thanos5150 (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a very plausible theory, and actually I can't believe that the official age of the Sphinx still is set to only 4500 years. And that's not all: Everyone with functional eyes can see that the head is carved out much later then the body. It's both cleaner and less eroded then the body, and suggests that the Sphinx must have been taller and larger before the erosion began. And the head doesn't fit the proportion either. The main article about the Sphinx should have been changed based on what everybody should be able to see experts or not --81.167.107.252 (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, common sense is not a part of the "mainstream egyptology". 208.85.32.240 (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
As Einstein said,"Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach eighteen." It used to be common sense to blame all matter of ills on evil spirits, the devil, etc. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Sphinx water erosion hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest deleting all of these links; the academic value of these sites is dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.37.79.16 (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Gobekli Tepe

This discovery has (obviously) nullified all the adademics' BS claims of 'no modern human sites exist in the world older than 5000 years' - thats why I added the statement. Please explain why this was removed. 68.146.152.219 (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It's extremely well known that there are major archaeological sites much older than that. Every archaeologist knows that. Eg. Jerico Therefore no academic would make such a claim. There are no earlier sites in Egypt however, which is what the sources are saying. You didn't read them carefully enough. In any case any statement like the one you added would need multiple reliable source, see WP:VERIFY. 07:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC) Doug Weller (talk • contribs)
I forgot to thank you for coming here to discuss it. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Doug, that is inaccurate, sir. You would have you cite a source for "every archaeologist knows this" statement. HAWASS claimed that " 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" - this INCLUDES Jericho, which was inhabited by nomadic tribes. What Gobekli Tepe has done is precisely nullify that statement - because of its ADVANCED construction, sir. GOBEKLI TEPE, has been reliably carbon dated to the dates listed and was referenced internally through WIKI, sir.68.146.152.219 (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC) Lee
No, that's not what he, Lehner or Feder mean. Did you even read the Feder transcript at the link? Doug Weller talk 21:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete them? One no longer works and the other two add very little to the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.37.79.16 (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Fringe

The position of the Sphinx water erosion hypothesis is established by reliable sources. If anyone has suggested additions that would establish otherwise, consider supplying them here rather than simply removing the label from the article. --tronvillain (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Gobekli Tepe 2

I see a reference to Gobekli Tepe has been added a few times, and it's worth pointing out that the Hawass quote is clearly about there not being earlier civilizations anywhere in Egypt (i.e. to build the Sphinx since that's what he was asked about). It's not an assertion that there were no earlier civilizations anywhere. --tronvillain (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That's also how I interpret it, —PaleoNeonate – 09:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Adding: For the recent edit to stand, it would also need to cite a source that supports that Hawass was wrong and why in the context, rather than connecting the dots as an editor (WP:OR, WP:SYNTH). —PaleoNeonate – 09:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree, it's synthesis. The only thing connecting the water erosion hypothesis to Gobekli Tepe (as opposed to any number of similar contemporary and earlier sites) is that they're both favourites of fringe writers. – Joe (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
The editor has been discussing it on my talk page and I've told him what Tronvillain wrote above. He just posted and I suggested he come here. Doug Weller talk 18:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
The full quote is "Of course it is not possible for one reason. Until now there is no evidence at all that has been found in any place, not only at Giza, but also in Egypt. People have been excavating in Egypt for the last 200 years. 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." From the "not only at Giza, but also in Egypt" in the second sentence, it should be clear that the "in any place" in the last sentence refers to Egypt, not the entire world. I'll add a clarification to the article. --tronvillain (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Colin Reader

Why is he listed as source, and actually given more lines that the other claimants? I cant find any relevance at all for this person? If no-one objects I will remove the paragraph from the article? ThanksGiant-DwarfsTalk 14:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Reader isn't given more "lines" in the article. Both Schoch and Reader have promoted the hypothesis but with differing interpretations. I believe both should be mentioned. Schazjmd (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
The article is about the erosion of rocks. Reader is a geologist, who has actually studied the Sphinx and its surroundings to analyze exactly this issue. He is probably the most qualified person to comment on this topic. Wdford (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2021

Citations 41 and 42 are unavailable (one link is broken, and only the abstract is available on the other). Any pertinent information relationg to these citations should be immediately removed. Additionally, the article cites "Missing archaeological evidence for an earlier civilization", but fails to explore how the discovery of Göbekli Tepe invalidated this refute, as it is from exactly the proposed time period. 96.78.22.161 (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We don't remove information simply because a link has gone dead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Atlantis

Curious why atlantis is brought up with sources attached multiple times in this article? If you click the sources, there is no mention of atlantis in the source material. 24.45.174.242 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sphinx_water_erosion_hypothesis/Archive_1&oldid=1062554542"