I guess I could be wrong but Schoch does not seem like one that would just dive into flights of fancy.
Yesterday I examined geologist Robert M. Schoch’s attempt to radically revise human history by claiming that the Easter Island writing system, traditionally dated to c. 1200-1500 CE, is in fact 10,000 years older. This claim appeared in part one of a two-part article. Today, let’s take a look at the second part, “The Mystery of Göbekli Tepe and Its Message for Us,” which appeared in New Dawn magazine’s September-October 2010 issue.
In this article, Schoch explores the Turkish site of Göbekli Tepe, a complex of carved stone circles erected around 12,000 years ago. This site is spectacular, and its existence has called into question the accepted narrative of the development of civilization because there is no evidence of agriculture, permanent settlement, or any of the other hallmarks of civilization at the site. In short, it appears to have been built by hunter-gatherers coming together for ceremonial/ritual purposes.
But for Robert Schoch, that’s not good enough. It has to be something more. Schoch begins his article by recounting how “had the temerity” to radically re-date the Great Sphinx at Giza to 7000-5000 BCE based on his claim, unsupported by other geologists, that the monument was eroded by precipitation rather than forces common to the area’s desert environment.
Schoch admits that Egyptologists refused to recognize his revised dating due to the complete lack of any archaeological evidence for a civilization living and working around Giza in 7000 BCE. He quotes Egyptologist Mark Lehner in order to set up a clever straw man argument:
If the Sphinx was built by an earlier culture, where is the evidence of that civilisation? Where are the pottery shards? People during that age were hunters and gatherers. They didn’t build cities.
Do you see where this is going? Göbekli Tepe was constructed by hunter gatherers without cities; therefore, the Sphinx was, too. QED. It’s a cute argument, and it superficially makes sense. However, at Göbekli Tepe we have evidence for the people who built the site, including the temporary settlements they used while building it, a thousand-year-long record of their occupation, the trash left over from the food they ate, examples of the tools they used, and so on. The stone circles do not exist in isolation. There is none of that at the Sphinx. Lehner’s quotation is a straw man; there is still no context for a people who would have built the Sphinx in 7000 BCE.
Schoch argues that the pillars at Göbekli Tepe and the moai at Easter Island are closely related because they both depict stylized human figures with thin hands—you know, just 11,500 years apart with no intervening cultures either in time or space. The moai, one might note, depict large Polynesian heads, while the Turkish pillars are shaped like the letter T and have no heads. Also, the Turkish site features a carving of a bird as does Easter Island does. Could it be due to the fact that there are birds in both places? “In counterargument, I question whether we really know when Easter Island was first colonized,” Schoch says. Well, yes, we do, and as a geologist he should have some sort of connection to reality and understand how archaeologists date sites. There is an argument among scholars whether Easter Island was settled as early as 300 CE or as late as 1200 CE, but no one supports a date of 7000 to 10,000 BCE.
Isn’t it weird that Schoch celebrates radiocarbon dates when they place Göbekli Tepe at 10,000 BCE but when they place Easter Island in the period of 300-1200 CE suddenly we can’t “really know”? That’s what happens when you cross over from science to pseudoscience: Suddenly evidence is transactional, applicable only when it supports your crazy theories.
reply to post by Hanslune
As to Yonaguni, indeed he said it was natural and I agree but you're leaving out the rest of his summery.
However you didn't reply to my main point why do you not look at or consider the other viewpoints on erosion, why only Schochs?
reply to post by Hanslune
As to the other theories in the wiki link, haloclasty is intriguing, and it is a theory along with all the other theories. I have never said any of them are wrong or right, I just posted info relevant to this thread.
We call this the super special catastrophe, it destroys everything but not stone monuments - it somehow took away stone tools, habitations levels, pottery, sediments and everything else, but left stone monuments.
There is really no need to be snide to myself or to the other members. So what if some random person has an idea or interest in something you do not agree with. There is loads of stuff(especially on ATS) that I think is B.S. and completely idiotic but I do not feel the need to go post on their thread that they are wrong and only I am right.
As to the "super special catastrophe" you tacitly stated. How long have we been keeping track of what occurs in this Universe? Is it not possible we have not seen all the types of extinction level events that are out there, lurking about in this crazy place called the cosmos?
In conclusion, the majority of ancient history is still in the theoretical phase. I think it is silly to just shut out all other possibilities. I choose to remain skeptically- open minded, about everything.
reply to post by Hanslune
Hawass replied: "Of course it is not possible for one reason …. No single artefact, 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."
reply to post by Harte
Man, you really dialed that post in Harte, come on lol. I figured you might have a wealth of knowledge about this. Just a ginormous wall of copy and paste lol. (jk)
First off, the two articles from the two authors, written by Schoch and Colavito(blogger). So other readers can get the entire story and make up their own minds. Their names will link them to a bio page, I use each author's personal site to keep it "fair and square". Take note I even list Colavito first. :thumbsup:
Rongorongo A-Go-Go: Robert Schoch's 12,000-Year Easter Island Delusion- www.jasoncolavito.com...
Robert Schoch's Wacky Easter Island-Gobekli Tepe Theory: The Hypocrisy of Alternative Dating- www.jasoncolavito.com...
Dr. Robert Schoch
An Ancient Warning, A Global Message, From the End of the Last Ice Age- www.robertschoch.com... (Easter Island)
The Mystery of Göbekli Tepe and Its Message to Us- www.robertschoch.com...
Look, just like I said to Hanslune. I did not say I think he is correct and everybody needs to believe him. I just created a constructive post with relevant information pertaining to the topic. I have never once stated any of the information I decide to post is correct. I decisively use the word "theory". Sometimes I wonder if people forget/know the true definition the word.
I think the author of that blog you sourced is suffering from a bit of the "snideness". Also, he is really just an author with a bachelors of arts degree in archaeology and journalism. Not a bona fide expert if you ask me. I'm not putting the blogger down, just my opinion.
I think all the theories are possible(academic and fringe), some may be more plausible or probable. I try to stay open minded to all.
edit on 10/15/2013 by mcx1942 because: asthetics
reply to post by Harte
I think he more a competent geologist with fringe beliefs
Also the fact that the Fibonacci series is a template of life and its cycles of growth, expansion and organic change, all knowledge known by these ancient people is amazing to me.
Indeed this is a great series!
John Anthony West has definitely stirred stuff up over the years. I am extremely fascinated with his and Dr. Robert Schoch's proposal about the evidence of water erosion on the Sphinx and especially evident on the walls of the enclosure itself. The walls present more water erosion than the Sphinx because it has not been 'worked' on over the years by many cultures as the good old Sphinx has. The walls in the enclosure, according to Schoch(Ph.D. in geology) display erosion patterns of water and not sand as what is believed in the mainstream. Moving the date back. Some compelling work, for sure.
Why look only at one side of a scientific argument? What is the counter-argument to their claims?
That the Sphinx is carved from a natural feature which has been exposed to water erosion over time?