Redating the sphinx dating advice for cougars
Only when he reaches the limits of his approach ‑‑ working with ancient texts or archaeological material ‑‑ and would like to 'prove' a particular theory by citing 'objective' scientific data does the Egyptologist turn to the natural sciences. West, 1991, Redating the Great Sphinx of Giza, Egypt. 127‑135); this debate also formed the basis of an article by Paul William Roberts entitled "Riddle of the Sphinx" which appeared in the March 1993 issue of the Canadian magazine SATURDAY NIGHT (pp. See also related discussion of this subject in John Anthony West, 1993, Serpent in the Sky: The High Wisdom of Ancient Egypt (revised edition), Quest Books (The Theosophical Publishing House), Wheaton, IL, pp. I wrote a popular article for OMNI magazine on my redating of the Great Sphinx (R. Schoch, 1992, "A Modern Riddle of the Sphinx," OMNI [August 1992], 46‑48, 68‑69). For instance, a group of scientists from Waseda University, Tokyo, using different criteria and totally independently from our work, came to similar conclusions regarding the age of the Great Sphinx‑‑namely, that the Sphinx predates the time of Khafre (see Yoshimura, S., T. Tonouchi, 1988, Non‑Destructive Pyramid Investigation (2), Studies in Egyptian Culture No. For a taste of the publicity surrounding my Sphinx research, see GSA Today (vol. For related articles, see THE NEW YORK TIMES 27 June 1992 and 18 July 1992, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT NEWS 15 June 1992, THE TIMES (London) 3 July 1992, SKY MAGAZINE (Delta Airlines) August 1992, FORTEAN TIMES (Number 64) August/September 1992, INSIGHT ON THE NEWS 10 August 1992, pp.
If there are different scientific results obtained from the same material, the Egyptologist is often not in a position to determine which is most probable. Geological Society of America abstracts with programs [for the Annual Meeting held in San Diego, October 1991], v. The editors of OMNI realized how controversial the topic was, so they invited my critics, in the form of Lehner and Gauri, to write a rebuttal to my work. 15‑16; an article in MUNDO 21 (issue for September 1992, pp.
Lehner is an Egyptologist and approaches problems and data from that bias. " produced by the American Institute of Physics, May 1992 (length approximately 2 minutes, plus 5 minutes of extra comments). Gray, 1991, Thinking Critically About New Age Ideas.
Perhaps it is time to inject a little more science into Egyptology and see what happens. This video was aired over various television stations in May and June, 1992.
At the American Association for the Advancement of Science debate on the age of the Sphinx, for instance, I became quite aware that my adversary, Dr. C." when of course he reigned during the late twenty‑sixth century, or middle third millennium, B. I and/or West were interviewed for a number of radio and television programs. Silberman, 1989, Between Past and Present: Archaeology, Ideology, and Nationalism in the Modern Middle East. Hedges, "The Muslims' Wrath Doesn't Spare the Mummies," THE NEW YORK TIMES 23 July 1993.
Lehner, may be a very bright and competent Egyptologist, but he does not "think like a scientist." In hindsight I realize that I am perhaps to blame for any lack of communication between Lehner and myself at the February 1992 AAAS meeting for I was incorrectly addressing him as a fellow scientist, which he is not. Schoch, 1992, "Redating the Great Sphinx of Giza," KMT, A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt 3:2 (Summer 1992), 52‑59, 66‑70 (editorial comments and figure captions, not seen by Schoch prior to publication, are by Dennis C. 54 the rear of the Sphinx is on the left side of the photograph, not on the right side as incorrectly stated in the caption); T. I was featured in "Science Report, A Video Presentation: Scientists Tackle Latest Riddle of the Sphinx‑ ‑How Old is It?
Maybe the whole notion of cultural progress will have to be reconsidered. Thousands of scholars working for hundreds of years" [a bit of an overstatement as to how many persons have seriously studied the Sphinx] have studied this topic . It's just not relevant" (SCIENCE, 14 February 1992, vol. The reason this evidence is "not relevant" to my critics is that they cannot accept the implications of the evidence.
The main tactic used to counter my heresy was to try to dismiss me as a quack and non‑ person. Kathryn Bard (Archaeology Department, Boston University) strongly implied (in BOSTON UNIVERSITY TODAY, 11‑17 November 1991, p. To top it all off, an article was published in the Arabic newspaper "Al‑ Ahram" (Cairo, 24 November 1991) in which it was allegedly stated [I do not read Arabic, thus I have only read a translation of the article; see also P. I am not, however, a member of the Archaeology Department in the College of Liberal Arts, Boston University, but rather a member of the Division of Science and Mathematics in the College of General Studies (formerly the College of Basic Studies) Boston University. I, on the other hand, having never had such connections in the first place, worry little about where the inspiration for scientific hypotheses and analyses come from.Often it is a matter of choosing those 'scientific' data that best suit a particular theory, without really knowing whether they are reliable or not." Here I do not mean to posit a blanket criticism against all Egyptologists. At first they eagerly agreed to write such a piece, but after months of delay, they refused. 130‑137); and the Home Life section of THE PROVIDENCE SUNDAY JOURNAL 28 February 1993.Rather, I believe it is important to note that the traditional methodologies used by many Egyptologists often differ in a fundamental manner from the approaches and methodologies used by practitioners in the natural sciences. Schoch, 1992, "Seismic Investigations in the Vicinity of the Great Sphinx of Giza, Egypt," Geoarchaeology: An International Journal7:6 (December 1992), 527‑544 (unfortunately an inadvertent error occurs on the first page of this article: incorrectly it is stated in passing that Khufu "reigned during the late twenty‑sixth millennium B. OMNI then published a short afterward that I had written reasserting my redating schema for the Great Sphinx, and the OMNI editors commented that Lehner and Gauri "declined" their invitation to comment on my work (see R. This is only a partial listing; reputedly the story was covered or reprinted in hundreds of papers around the world, and also mentioned on a number of radio and television shows.To begin with, one must realize (as I did not at first) that the dating of the Great Sphinx seems to be a very touchy subject for most modern Egyptologists. Still, most living Egyptologists maintain that the Sphinx was built by, or at least around the time of, Khafre.Despite the fact that some of the early founders of modern Egyptology (such as Sir Flinders Petrie, Sir E. Questioning the age of the Sphinx seems to shake the very foundations of conventional Egyptology.
On the whole, the Egyptologists insist that the peoples of Egypt did not have the technology or social organization to cut out the core body of the Sphinx in predynastic times. There are no big surprises in store for us." The Egyptological community did little to address my arguments and data.