First off, there was always a dispute between West and Schoch because West wanted Schoch to go further back than he was willing to go. Schoch's date of 5000 BC is based on geology, climatic conditions and weathering. He also noted that first century mud brick mastabas do not show the same weathering that the limestone at the allegedly 4th dynasty Sphinx and the Sphinx enclosure wall show. A number of geologists have supported Schoch and one, Colin Reader, has tried to strike a compromise which only served to piss off the Egyptology Club. Schoch would have been better served by maintaining his earliest position which was, essentially: "I don't care who built it. I'm just telling you when it was built." His later suggestions about Jericho do nothing to change the geology but give Egyptologists something to shoot at but, that's his problem. Hancock has not claimed to be an archaeologist, Egyptologist or geologist but he is an educated man who can read the work of others and draw his own conclusions. I see nothing wrong with that.
There is an interesting little book out called "The First Americans" by Chris Hardaker. While it deals with the growing body of evidence that North America was settled prior to the so called "Clovis" people it also has a number of episodes which deal with the professional suicide of scholars who challenged the prevailing "Clovis First" paradigm. If you think that politics does not play a role in academia you are kidding yourself. What has changed, and this is thanks to the internet, is that it is no longer possible for a cadre of scholars to dictate what the truth is by making sure who gets grants and whose articles are published in the handful of professional journals. Someone once observed that "science advances one funeral at a time" a comment on the need to get the opinionated old war horses out of the way so new ideas can flourish. There does seem to be some of that in current Egyptology.
More than archaeology, my problem with Giza revolves around engineering. In a recent special, Bob Brier was touting the idea that the Great Pyramid was built by using a system of "internal ramps." (Zahi Hawass blasted that idea...predictably.) Brier though made a great case for dismissing the other possible methods. One big ramp would have been a project of even greater scale than the pyramid itself and there is no room to build such a ramp. Ramps sprawling around the edges would obscure the corners making it impossible for the architects to check their work. Machines to lift the stones one course at a time would take forever and there is no place to anchor them. So Brier trashed the 3 main ways and then Hawass trashed Brier's alternative. We are still left with no consensus on HOW these things were built. Yet, built they were.
The Egyptologists have a virtual equation for their tombs and tombs only view.
4th Dynasty Egyptians + primitive technology + manpower + 20 years = pyramid.
Any term in that equation can be attacked. Erich Von Daniken attacked them all! (Aliens with lasers did it very quickly!)
I would simply like to see them quarry a 70 ton granite block using dolomite hammers (as they propose) float it up the Nile on a primitive boat and then finish it to the tolerances shown in the Kings Chamber with what they claim is Old Kingdom technology and then raise it up some sort of ramp, by manpower, to a height of... let's be reasonable...70 feet. And let's see how long that takes.
They are big on assertions but not on experimentation.
There is an interesting little book out called "The First Americans" by Chris Hardaker. While it deals with the growing body of evidence that North America was settled prior to the so called "Clovis" people it also has a number of episodes which deal with the professional suicide of scholars who challenged the prevailing "Clovis First" paradigm. If you think that politics does not play a role in academia you are kidding yourself. What has changed, and this is thanks to the internet, is that it is no longer possible for a cadre of scholars to dictate what the truth is by making sure who gets grants and whose articles are published in the handful of professional journals. Someone once observed that "science advances one funeral at a time" a comment on the need to get the opinionated old war horses out of the way so new ideas can flourish. There does seem to be some of that in current Egyptology.
More than archaeology, my problem with Giza revolves around engineering. In a recent special, Bob Brier was touting the idea that the Great Pyramid was built by using a system of "internal ramps." (Zahi Hawass blasted that idea...predictably.) Brier though made a great case for dismissing the other possible methods. One big ramp would have been a project of even greater scale than the pyramid itself and there is no room to build such a ramp. Ramps sprawling around the edges would obscure the corners making it impossible for the architects to check their work. Machines to lift the stones one course at a time would take forever and there is no place to anchor them. So Brier trashed the 3 main ways and then Hawass trashed Brier's alternative. We are still left with no consensus on HOW these things were built. Yet, built they were.
The Egyptologists have a virtual equation for their tombs and tombs only view.
4th Dynasty Egyptians + primitive technology + manpower + 20 years = pyramid.
Any term in that equation can be attacked. Erich Von Daniken attacked them all! (Aliens with lasers did it very quickly!)
I would simply like to see them quarry a 70 ton granite block using dolomite hammers (as they propose) float it up the Nile on a primitive boat and then finish it to the tolerances shown in the Kings Chamber with what they claim is Old Kingdom technology and then raise it up some sort of ramp, by manpower, to a height of... let's be reasonable...70 feet. And let's see how long that takes.
They are big on assertions but not on experimentation.
