Dating the sphinx construction david deangelo is the author of double your dating

The pyramid builders were likely recycling their own settlement debris.It may have been premature to dismiss the old wood problem in our 1984 study.

By contrast, we have fair agreement between our historical dates, previous radiocarbon dates, and our radiocarbon dates on reed for the Dynasty 1 tombs at North Saqqara.

We also have fair agreement between our radiocarbon dates and historical dates for the Middle Kingdom. If the Middle Kingdom radiocarbon dates are okay, why are the Old Kingdom ones from pyramids so problematic?

Three of the eight dates from samples taken here are almost direct hits on Menkaure's historical dates, 2532- 2504 B. The other five, however, range from 350 to 100 years older.

Our radiocarbon dates from the site suggest that, like those from the pyramids, the dates on charcoal from the settlement scatter widely in time with many dates older than the historical estimate.

Koch Pyramids Radiocarbon Project now has us thinking about forest ecologies, site formation processes, and ancient industry and its environmental impact--in sum, the society and economy that left the Egyptian pyramids as hallmarks for all later humanity. Koch Pyramids Radiocarbon Project is a collaborative effort of Shawki Nakhla and Zahi Hawass, The Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities; Georges Bonani and Willy Wölfli, Institüt für Mittelenergiephysik, Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule; Herbert Haas, Desert Research Institute; Mark Lehner, The Oriental Institute and the Harvard Semitic Museum; Robert Wenke, University of Washington; John Nolan, University of Chicago; and Wilma Wetterstrom, Harvard Botanical Museum.

The project is administered by Ancient Egypt Research Associates, Inc.

If you're following the logic of Allan Alford here and his idea of the three layers and eras of construction at Giza, witht he Great Pyramid representing the oldest layer, then the second pyramid, the Sphinx, and Valley temples representing the next and slightly younger layer, and then (3) a third layer dating from early dynastic Egypt itself, then any such redating of the Sphinx should make me ecstatically happy, right, for that would push the Great Pyramid back into the remote mists of high antiquity and prehistory, and make all my other hypotheses with the chronological cunundrums a bit more manageable, right? And that's why part of me is skeptical when a piece of information appears out of nowhere that seems to corroborate some of the more difficult aspects of my ideas, not the least of which is precisely an extreme antiquity for those firts two layers of Giza construction. According to these studies at the end of the Pliocene geologic period (between 5.2 and 1.6 million years ago), sea water entered the Nile valley and gradually creating flooding in the area.

And perhaps I should explain those misgivings, for if you've followed by various books over the years on the subjects of "ancient stuff" and "Gizalology", you'll know that the implications of my wild and crazy ideas about the place is that some of the structures there are incomparably old, and by old, I mean old even in terms of the reigning views in the research community and its "heretical historiographical orthodoxies." IN other words, I've been way beyond even those, which like to date the Sphinx to the Egyptian subpluvial period (and hence, to an age of about 8-10,000 BC). Manichev and Parkhomenko firmly believe that the Sphinx had to be submerged for a long time under water and, to support this hypothesis, they point towards existing literature of geological studies of the Giza Plateau.

Manichev and Parkhomenko explain that these rocks possess different degree of resistance to the water effect and say that if the hollows formation were due to sand abrasion only, the hollows had to correspond to the strata of a certain lithological composition.

Tags: , ,