Talk:Sphinx water erosion hypothesis

Missing archaeological evidence for an earlier civilization
The page needs revising. Göbekli Tepe has made that point moot. Thank you. 188.238.156.225 (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Göbekli Tepe has not made that point moot. Göbekli Tepe is in Turkey. There is still a lack of an "earlier civilization" in the Nile River Valley. There is simply no current evidence of a contemporaneous "earlier civilization" in the Nile River Valley that could have built the Sphinx. I significantly doubt that people from Göbekli Tepe came over from Turkey to build the Sphinx. Paul H. (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, you are missing the assertion. Mark Lehner's primary complaint about Schoch:


 * If the Sphinx was built by an earlier culture, where is the evidence of that civilization? Where are the pottery shards? People during that age were hunters and gatherers. They didn’t build cities.


 * Göbekli Tepe certainly makes that assertion false. Also, there is simply zero evidence of a contemporaneous account of the date of the sphinx (nor the great pyramids for that matter). So, if you are going to rely on the principle of contemporaneous for dating purposes, then that principle should be applied equally across the board. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * User Hypnôs reverted my edit on this talk page, claiming it's "not a forum". It's correct that it's not a forum...I agree with that, but my points were made to counter a counter argument on how to make the article better.  Please do not revert my edit as you will be edit warring.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Then please state exactly what want to include or change, and cite the reliable sources you used. Otherwise this is a general discussion that will be removed. Hypnôs (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Here is an RS: https://interestingengineering.com/culture/the-story-of-controversial-archeologist-robert-m-schoch


 * All I suggest is to add that hunters and gatherers were capable of intricate megalithic structures w/o having a city. See above link.  If you think I'm wrong, that's fine. But to remove the entire section as it never happened is not productive. At least, it should be archived.  That's all I'll probably say about this topic ever again.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Bill the Cat 7 No, so far this section is pointless. You have no understanding of reliable sources and are promoting fringe ideas. That source was written by someone who" is a former high school math teacher, technical writer, author, and programmer. In other words, completely unqualified. And the fact that she is praising Robert Schoch suggests the whole website could never be a reliable source.  I'm really surprised at this in an editor with so much experience as you have.  Doug Weller  talk 08:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I never understood why Schoch fixates on Gobleki Tepe. A more obvious prompt would be Jericho. It is very much closer, and there is clear mainstream evidence for constant communication (travel and trade) between Palestine and Giza, as well as between Palestine and Upper Egypt, in the Predynastic era. There is clear mainstream evidence of major structures being built in Jericho as far back as the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A, around 9000BCE. If the Sphinx was carved in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A, this would explain the lack of ancient potsherds, and would also align better with the rain erosion evidence.


 * There is also uncontroversial evidence of construction in Giza itself earlier than the pyramid age, and a huge temple at Innu around the corner dates back to Predynastic times. Lehner and Feder would have been well aware of this, so their argument is strange. Also, there is no need to argue that the Sphinx was built by a "different civilization" - merely a much earlier form of the same civilization. The "workers' village" at Giza was also "lost" for thousands of years until recently. Maybe the evidence of Feder's "social and practical infrastructure" was washed away by repeated Nile floods over ten thousand years, or by the very precipitation which also eroded the bedrock around the Sphinx itself. Strange all round. Wdford (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Wdford Agh. Come on, you know the talk page isn't for discussion of the actual subject of the article. Please don't do this. If you want to change the article bring us reliably published sources. Doug Weller  talk 14:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just thought it was an interesting angle on that point which was being discussed. Feder was clearly being disingenuous, and Lehner knows it, so this hysterical defensiveness always looked strange. I have no idea about the source mentioned - it is clearly not WP:RS at all. Anything that mentions Atlantis is instantly pseudo-something or other. Wdford (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Wdford what temple at Innu. If you are going to make accusations against Feder, you need to be more precise so that I can ask him about this. We've known each other for years. Doug Weller  talk 16:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Doug. I was referring to the temple of Iunu / On / Heliopolis at Heliopolis (ancient Egypt). Sorry for the typo. The Buto Maadi culture was also present in the Cairo area, in Prehistoric Egypt long before the pyramid age, and they already had architecture and agriculture etc. In the Predynastic period, the people of the Giza area traded lapis lazuli from Afghanistan, and traded also with Palestine and Upper Egypt. I look forward to the feedback from Feder please, if possible. Wdford (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Wdford Ken would prefer to discuss this directly with you. He says his email address is easily available. I chat with him mainly on social media now. I'm going to add to the ELs.  Doug Weller  talk 14:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Reference Needed for Studies Referenced by Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kröpelin
Studies are referenced for an end date of 1500 BC for a "wet period" which noted to be "as much as 500 years later than currently thought". As noted below, I'm not aware of a study of Kuper and/or Kröpelin to support this statement. If there some references that I am not aware of, please add a reference to that work. If the studies I note below are the intended references, I think the wording of this section needs to be updated. I'm happy to propose wording, but would like to settle on the intended reference before I propose.

I am not familiar with a Stefan Kröpelin study to support a statement for a wet period ended around 1500 BC. His geological work is very important to the study of the history of the climate of the Sahara as it is somewhat paradigm shifting on how long it took for that change to occur. Therefore, I appreciate him being referenced on this topic. However, the conclusion in the paper that reported what is arguably Kröpelin's most significant work on this topic- "Climate-Driven Ecosystem Succession..." (2008) - does not support this assertion, and in fact, contradicts it. A significant conclusion of this paper is that the Sahara went from a vegetative state to arid desert conditions gradually over the ~3,000 years preceding ~2,700 BC. He also concluded in this same paper that the climate went through an even more gradual change from the arid state of ~2,700BC to the present climate conditions (which are even more arid) over a period of an additional ~2000 yrs.

Since both Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kröpelin are referenced in the sentence in question, I speculate that the missing reference is "Climate-controlled Holocene occupation..." (2006) since it was authored by both of these men. I also speculate that since the date range of 3500-1500 BC is used, the paragraph of this paper with the heading "Late Holocene marginalization (3,500-1,500 B.C.E.)." is the area where this reference is particularly coming from. However, it should be noted that this section of the paper does not support a "wet" period in the Sahara after 3500 BC and in fact starts by saying "After 3,500 B.C.E. rains had ceased even in ecological niches such as the Gilf Kebir, and permanent occupation was restricted to southern areas..."

To clarify, I am not looking for these ideas to be removed if I am correct on the references involved. They are important to reference on this topic as they show the wet climate didn't just stop on a geological dime in the Sahara as was the consensus when Schoch and Reader did their initial work on this topic. Eric8911 (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Eric8911 Here's that paper./ Doug Weller  talk 09:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Doug, thank you for the link. This is the Kuper Kröpelin study I mentioned above.  In addition to adding this reference, I propose the following change based on the text of this reference.
 * Change this: "Recent studies by German climatologists Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kröpelin, of the University of Cologne suggest the change from a wet to a much drier climate may have come to an end around 3500–1500 BC, which is as much as 500 years later than currently thought."
 * To this: "A recent study by Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kröpelin, of the University of Cologne suggest the change from a wet to an arid climate in the Sahara happened gradually with climate changes taking place on a north-to-south basis. According to this study, the onset of arid conditions in the Egyptian Sahara was 5,300 B.C.E. with the humid conditions ending in Northern Sudan at 1,500 B.C.E." Eric8911 (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * There is also the issue that some of the Giza structures, and some even older structures in the vicinity, were built of mudbrick. If there was enough precipitation in early dynastic times to extensively erode bedrock, then these mudbrick structures would have been destroyed. This was noted by a British geologist who studied the issue specifically. The argument that the mudbrick structures were covered in windblown sand and protected from erosion, is also nonsense, because the windblown sand would also have been washed away by water strong enough to erode bedrock. I don't doubt that there was a gradual drying out of the climate, but obviously the ongoing precipitation was not enough to cause erosive floods around Giza in early dynastic times. Wdford (talk) 09:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is already covered in the article. Hypnôs (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2022
Under the subsection titled “Missing archaeological evidence for an earlier civilization”, I think it would be appropriate to add a response to Kenneth Feder’s point.

Add, “While the discovery of Göbekli Tepe (hyperlink to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe) does not provide evidence of a civilization in the Nile River valley capable of building a megalithic structure prior to 2500 BCE, it does provide evidence that human civilization had developed this capability in different parts of the world prior to 2500 BCE.” Frojabotta (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * ❌. This would require a citation to a reliable source. Also, there is a rather large technological gap between the 5–6 meter pillars at Göbekli Tepe and the Great Sphinx. Feder is not saying that humans were incapable of carving things before 2500 BCE. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2022
Please change this: "Recent studies by German climatologists Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kröpelin, of the University of Cologne suggest the change from a wet to a much drier climate may have come to an end around 3500–1500 BC, which is as much as 500 years later than currently thought."

To this: "A recent study by Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kröpelin, of the University of Cologne suggest the change from a wet to an arid climate in the Sahara happened gradually with climate changes taking place on a north-to-south basis. According to this study, arid conditions began in the Egyptian Sahara by 5,300 B.C.E. These desert conditions gradually extended to the south with Northern Sudan experiencing an arid climate circa 1,500 B.C.E."

Also, please add this source to the above statement: https://www.uni-koeln.de/sfb389/sonstiges/kroepelin/242%202006%20Kuper%20Kroepelin%20Science%20313%20%20(11%20August%202006).pdf Eric8911 (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ with a few minor tweaks. --SamX 20:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for implementing this change.

Eric8911 (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2023
Take the word "fringe" out of the initial description of this theory, fringe implies a level of conspiracy or illogical thinking when there is plenty of scientific work proving that this theory is entirely possible. Stop spreading disinformation and subliminal narratives. 2A02:C7C:D667:5D00:54BB:FCDD:5635:B240 (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I don't know about conspiracy but the implication of illogical thinking seems reasonable here when "Egyptologists, geologists and others have rejected the water erosion hypothesis and the idea of an older Sphinx, pointing to archaeological, climatological and geological evidence to the contrary.  " Cannolis (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2023
"... once again aligning it with Plato's lost civilization of Atlantis" and Andalusian mystic ibn al-'Arabi's dating of the construction of the pyramids. [SOURCE: https://ibnarabisociety.org/time-is-not-real-eric-winkel/] 94.26.101.124 (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ The source cited does not mention the sphinx, nor the date 9700 BC. Maproom (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is a summary of what I would like this article to make clear
Mark Lehner's primary complaint about Schoch:


 * If the Sphinx was built by an earlier culture, where is the evidence of that civilization? Where are the pottery shards? People during that age were hunters and gatherers. They didn’t build cities.

Göbekli Tepe certainly makes that assertion false. Here is a quote from a reliable source (bold and italics added for emphasis):


 * Göbekli Tepe and other archaeological sites being studied nearby have forced archaeologists to rethink the way the prehistoric lifestyle of hunting, gathering, and foraging gave way to a more domesticated lifestyle in northern Mesopotamia. Oliver Dietrich, a colleague of Klaus Schmidt at the German Archaeological Institute, poignantly expressed the impact of these discoveries: “These people must have had a highly complicated mythology, including a capacity for abstraction. Following these ideas, we now have more evidence that…social systems changed before, not as a result of, the shift to farming.” It also shows that hunter-gatherers were capable of more than we previously thought, and that the origins of religion may have to be pushed back by millennia.

All I suggest is to add that hunters and gatherers were capable of intricate megalithic structures w/o having a city, pottery shards, etc. Therefore, Göbekli Tepe and other archaeological sites have clearly proven that the Great Sphinx could certainly (but not definitely ) be older than current estimates. ~ Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that was Lehner primary complaint, it was just one of his arguments and it still holds true. Göbekli is not part of a civilization and it is not a city.
 * I do not think his point was that hunter-gatherers were incapable of carving or moving bigger stones per se, nor is such an argument present in the article. On the contrary, the article already mentions that there is "a very, very low level of probability, that there was an older civilization there".
 * Do you have a reliable source that explicitly states what you want to add? Hypnôs (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I provided a reliable source that says hunters and gathers were capable of creating megalithic structures. First, because the megalithic structures have obviously been built by hunters and gatherers, and they exist and have been dated reliably. Second, the RS I provided conclusively shows that scholars have underestimated what hunters/gathers could do (in the context of the entire section of the RS).  What part is unclear?  And yes, Lehner's primary complaint was definitely what I quoted him as saying.  I mean, I quoted him.  That's in the article itself.  Why is this so tendentious?  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * What you quoted from Lehner does not contain the words "megalithic structures".


 * And hunter-gatherers being capable of "more than we previously thought" does not mean they were capable of carving the Sphinx, even if both Sphinx and the pillars of Göbekli fit the broad term "megalithic structure".


 * What you suggest is not explicitly stated by any reliable source, hence it is original research. Hypnôs (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * All I can say is you beat me to it. That’s why Bill the Cat 7’s request can’t be met and IMHO shows a lack of understanding about our policies and guidelines.  Doug Weller  talk 21:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I don't know all of the policies inside and out (who does?), but I am very familiar with "assume good faith". Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Bill the Cat 7 Saying you don't understand our policies and guidelines doesn't suggest a lack of good faith in your edits. Quite the opposite. Now if I'd said "ignoring our policies", it would.  Doug Weller  talk 14:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I was just noticing a bit of hostility.  Perhaps I was wrong.  My apologies.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Hypnos -- First, "megalith" and/or "megalithic" is explicitly mentioned. Go to the RS link and do a search for both words as well as the word structure.  Second, if hunters/gathers could create complex megaliths, then carving the Sphinx is by default within the realm of scientific/archeological possibilities.  Third, I honestly don't understand the resistance to these facts, backed by an RS.  I'm not saying that Hancock's explanations/conclusions are likely or even remotely likely.  I don't know and I don't care, but our personal opinions are irrelevant to a Wikipedia article.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You keep inflating two sources, the quote from Lehner and the skeptic.com article. You cannot combine them to reach a conclusion neither of the two explicitly states. See WP:SYNTH.


 * It being in the realm of scientific/archeological possibilities is not enough to warrant inclusion.


 * I do not want to talk in circles, how about you tell us specifically the sentence(s) you would like to be added, and give us the exact quotes from the RS you base it/them on. Hypnôs (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I've already said what I want included perfectly clear. I've also made it perfectly clear what an RS says.  You chose to ignore it.  That's fine, but this is not going anywhere at this point.  We need more eyes on this article (highly unlikely this will happen).  Other than what I've already stated, I'm not going to comment on this again.  I just really don't want to "fight" anymore. I'm a wiki gnome, after all. :).     Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is what you suggested to be included, which is not in a format that can be added to the article:
 * "All I suggest is to add that hunters and gatherers were capable of intricate megalithic structures w/o having a city, pottery shards, etc. Therefore, Göbekli Tepe and other archaeological sites have clearly proven that the Great Sphinx could certainly (but not definitely) be older than current estimates."
 * Where in the RS is that stated?
 * The "city, pottery shards" is from Lehner, we got that. And the rest? It's not from the section you quoted from the skeptic.com article. Hypnôs (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The Claim in the Very First Sentence is False, Please Fix This
Although the water erosion hypothesis IS a somewhat fringe theory that asserts that the Sphinx is older than originally thought (predating the great flood), very few believers of this hypothesis think that Atlantians, or anything else Plato wrote about, built the Sphinx. Most believers of this hypothesis do not know who exactly did build the Sphinx, they just believe that it is older than the younger dryas. Please update the opening paragraph, as I believe that this false/misleading information would instantly dissuade many readers from continuing further. CentristGuy88 (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)