The Sphinx (Great Sphinx Of Giza)

[Tunn11]

You say this.
But then follow with this


It might seem like that when you don't know much of it, but like with the Pre-Clovis example: the bulk of it is just simply there's no good evidence for a claim versus the amount of evidence that goes into "mainstream" idea.
This also tends to paint the mainstream as a monolith of single opinions when there's a large diversity of opinions. They just fit themselves in with the accumulated facts.
For example, just sticking to the archaeological evidence. The pyramids definitely date to the Old Kingdom. There's some debate about the exact century, and what the state of it was when Khufu started building his pyramid. But carbon dating of coal from the mortar and thermoluminesce dating put the pyramids in the Old Kingdom.
The quarry the stones used to make the pyramids is where the sphinx sits. Without a pyramid's worth of stone being pulled out, you don't have a quarry, and you don't have a sphinx.
Multiple lines of evidence point to the pyramids and the sphinx dating to the Old Kingdom, so why take claims about them being 12000 years old and built by Atlantis s seriously?


Sure. And then genuine artifacts were excavated by practicing archaeoligsts. This doesn't always happen of course, Schmidt didn't get any dismissal when he announced the age for Göbekli

By the bronze age trade reached from Egypt to the balkans. There's various bits of evidence of trade among the old world. But none between the old and new world.
Most of the well known ancient religions derived from the Paelo Indo European pantheon, or were influenced by them. Egypt and Sumer mostly excluded. Chinese traders were buried in ancient Greece.


Not really, Hancock popularizing it again doesn't change the number of pieces of research that's already been done on the site, again people making fantastic claims in liue of good evidence doesn't get traction anywhere except people trying to sell "The truth the won't accept."

Thanks @Shadowsot, lot of stuff there I didn't know.

I'm not trying to defend any woo theories, Atlanteans, teleporting rocks, aliens, etc. I was just speculating on possible political pressures on academics as a reason for some areas not being pursued.

I think many misperceptions about ancient cultures amount to how they are first revealed to the general public. Gobekli, I first heard of via a fairly "respectable" source there were arguments about what it was and whether it had been intentionally buried etc. The drivel arrived later.

Nan Madol passed me by completely until, as you say Hancock and the ancient aliens crowd picked up on it. Of course it suits their arguments not to mention the body of research done on the sites. From what I can see it represents some impressive building and engineering skills by a culture or cultures little known in the west. (By which I mean that there are a lot of popular books and articles on Greece and Rome but not many on the cultures of the Pacific)

Another factor is one that I think Carl Sagan mentioned when "the face on Mars" was making headlines. Serious researchers don't have time or perhaps the patience to refute these arguments and if they did they probably wouldn't get the popular coverage that the sensational stories get.* Although I think Sagan also said that although he was sure it was a natural formation, it wouldn't hurt to have another look just in case.

I do think however, that there are some people in any profession or discipline who become very set in their views and try and ignore potential discoveries that would prove them wrong and will use their influence to this end. Unfortunately this has become a bit of a cliche in film and fiction and so gets played on by the sensationalists who portray a united, inflexible opposition to any new idea.

*There was an example in the "Sunday Sport" a National Enquirer type paper who printed a headline and (doctored) photo "WW2 Bomber found on moon." An astronomer did take the time to write in with a photo of the crater (undoctored) pointing out that there was no bomber there. The Sport did publish his letter but their next edition featured the headline "WW2 bomber vanishes from moon." Garbage sells papers.

 

[Tunn11]

because everyone knows that presenting idiots with actual evidence produces a change in their idiocy?

I think Spike Milligan said: " You can never make anything idiot proof because someone will always build a better idiot."

 

[Frideswide]

There was an example in the "Sunday Sport" a National Enquirer type paper who printed a headline and (doctored) photo "WW2 Bomber found on moon." An astronomer did take the time to write in with a photo of the crater (undoctored) pointing out that there was no bomber there. The Sport did publish his letter but their next edition featured the headline "WW2 bomber vanishes from moon." Garbage sells papers.

One of my tutor group actually believed this. Or was it the bus...

 

[Shadowsot]

@Shadowsot, lot of stuff there I didn't know.

I want to be clear I'm just a keenidiot on this stuff, just taking what I've learned from reading and listening and occasionally email exchanges.
I get particularly annoyed with Clovis stuff because it was pretty clear before we had definite evidence that there were people here before Clovis. But there wasn't good evidence. It was an active debate, which isn't how it's presented now.

I was just speculating on possible political pressures on academics as a reason for some areas not being pursued.

Sure but the speculation flowed from some basic misunderstandings of what is known or stated about the ancient world in the mainstream.
I was just making the point that they don't make sense in light of what we do actually know and understand about the world at the time.

Gobekli, I first heard of via a fairly "respectable" source there were arguments about what it was and whether it had been intentionally buried etc. The drivel arrived later.

There's two reasons for that. The first is trying to get attention for your work. So you make it as amazing and shocking as possible when publishing it to get more funding your way. The publishers own personality will have a role there too. How Schmidt described the site is something the team excavating it still has to grapple with.
The second is just standard the more you learn about something the more mundane it becomes.
Göbekli Tepe is an amazing site, and one of my favorites.
But while they still haven't found any evidence of agriculture around the site more work has shown people did live there, the site wasn't intentionally buried, and other things.
Meanwhile the popular press has run with the older claims because they make for a more mysterious story.
And well, frankly what made Gobekli Tepe really famous wasn't the scientific press but people like Graham Hancock featuring it in their works, similar to Nan Madol and other sites that are now catching the popular attention.

played on by the sensationalists who portray a united, inflexible opposition to any new idea.

The irony is of course that the sensarionalists like Hancock actually have very few new ideas to offer.
It's the same super diffusion claims that are over a century old.
It's just tweaks to old ideas repackaged for a modern audience and told by a talented writer.

 

[Tunn11]

I want to be clear I'm just a keenidiot on this stuff, just taking what I've learned from reading and listening and occasionally email exchanges.
I get particularly annoyed with Clovis stuff because it was pretty clear before we had definite evidence that there were people here before Clovis. But there wasn't good evidence. It was an active debate, which isn't how it's presented now.

Sure but the speculation flowed from some basic misunderstandings of what is known or stated about the ancient world in the mainstream.
I was just making the point that they don't make sense in light of what we do actually know and understand about the world at the time.


There's two reasons for that. The first is trying to get attention for your work. So you make it as amazing and shocking as possible when publishing it to get more funding your way. The publishers own personality will have a role there too. How Schmidt described the site is something the team excavating it still has to grapple with.
The second is just standard the more you learn about something the more mundane it becomes.
Göbekli Tepe is an amazing site, and one of my favorites.
But while they still haven't found any evidence of agriculture around the site more work has shown people did live there, the site wasn't intentionally buried, and other things.
Meanwhile the popular press has run with the older claims because they make for a more mysterious story.
And well, frankly what made Gobekli Tepe really famous wasn't the scientific press but people like Graham Hancock featuring it in their works, similar to Nan Madol and other sites that are now catching the popular attention.


The irony is of course that the sensarionalists like Hancock actually have very few new ideas to offer.
It's the same super diffusion claims that are over a century old.
It's just tweaks to old ideas repackaged for a modern audience and told by a talented writer.

Keen obviously, idiot no.

You've inspired me to read up in more detail on Early Egypt, Göbekli Tepe, Nan Madol and the settlement of the Americas. All interesting subjects but I fear I've rather led the thread off topic.

Back to the sphinx, but I think @Shadowsot 's explanation upthread pretty much nails it.

 

[Frideswide]

Göbekli Tepe is an amazing site, and one of my favorites.

Field trip!!!!!!!!

 

[kesavaross]

Keen obviously, idiot no.

You've inspired me to read up in more detail on Early Egypt, Göbekli Tepe, Nan Madol and the settlement of the Americas. All interesting subjects but I fear I've rather led the thread off topic.

Back to the sphinx, but I think @Shadowsot 's explanation upthread pretty much nails it.

Same here. I've just watched two videos about Gobekli Tepe. Very interesting. Prior to that, I knew the name but nothing about the place.

 

[Shadowsot]

There's a great interview with Lee Clare on the Prehistory Guys Podcast. Dr Lee Clare is the coordinator for the excavation, and goes over the current state of the site.