Science Memes

10271 readers

3894 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

814

Archaeology Problems (mander.xyz)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

58 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

And 10,000BC would be an impossibly ancient thing.

Yet, Gobekle Tepe?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

A very different, impressive structure, build on a different way in a different environment.

That's like saying the Chinese had paper in 100BC, so Europeans must have as well - we just haven't found any evidence of it yet. Despite all the evidence to the contrary.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

well, should the dating of 12,000 BC hold up (I don't have the actual date, apologies) but it's roughly before the oldest time suggested by the erosion theory of the Sphinx, and one of the arguments against it was that there was NO civilization at that time.

Well, now we know there was. So - that particular argument against the theory has to be thrown out, right?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sure, if one of the arguments against it was that there was no civilisation in the world (or fertile crescent and adjacent areas) then yes, that's not a valid counterpoint.

I was thinking of using the evidence of megastructure building culture in Egypt that there is that matches the, according to the other person, water rising up (if I recall correctly).

It'd be fun and interesting if you're theory is right. But there's a lot of burden of proof it needs to overcome. Still, who knows?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Indeed!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Looks nothing like the much more complex stone work that was done on The Sphinx.

In fact it is reasonable that those improvements could take around 5500 years of development since they had to invent copper, tin, and bronze smelting in that interval.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You mean the head or the body of the Sphinx? Head, I’ll agree, body - mmmm - doesn’t seem to be that complex but maybe I’m missing something.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The stones above the base. The head and body primarily. The base was carved out of stone in situ, but as I understand it, they had to build up the rear of the body and head. To be fair, I'm remembering this from a paper I read in college in 98 or 99.