Dave Reed

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++

Okay, I have no problem discussing things like this, but my goal would not
be to "win" as in a debate. It would be so both of us could reflect after-
wards, and be glad we had the encounter in the first place. I'm very glad
I was/am a part of this thread, and in getting into the above subjects, I
would want the same thing. This is obviously not the place. Sorry if you
think I'm copping out.

Paul2

It's my opinion that people are reading into this too much. It reads like an allegory for a spiritual cleansing of the world, not a historical account of an event.

RED DAVE

praxeus, you have some unfinished business on this thread.

RED DAVE

GilgameshEnkidu

Another interesting piece of information might be how many cultures do NOT have flood stories

"The dog did nothing in the night-time." "That was the curious incident"
-Sherlocke Holmes

RED DAVE

True.

And in the spirit of GilgameshEnkidu's name, and while we're waiting for praxeus to respond to the questions put to him, here's a link to the text of the "Epic of Gilgamesh," the earliest Middle Eastern version of the Flood story. The Flood appears on tablet XI.

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/...ian/gilgamesh/

RED DAVE

Hex

"Hardened mud removal chores" are what archaeologists are all about, Dave. And they don't just chip it off to see what's underneath, they do so to see what kind of mud it is.

Let's take Egypt's case for the moment. Look at the environment. On either side of the relatively lush Nile Valley we have sand. Sand blows in and leaves layers of, well, sand. When the Nile floods (as it does -every- year), it leaves a wonderfully rich silt that fertilizes the fields. Silt is of a different size than sand, and thus forms denser layers.

Put this against the sedimentation that one finds in seas. The residual from this, once it dries is clay, with smaller particle size than silt.

And, just to lay the rest to rest, as it were, when we have organics decomposing, we see a layer of humus (archaeologists call this a 'horizon' on a site). This soil is loamy, often a mix of sands, silts and clays.

In an affluvial plain, an archaeologist or geomorphologist can tell you all about what's happened in the history of the area by looking at the layers left by the erosional activities.

Now, let's assume your

idea. What would it look like to an archaeologist?

Normal layers of deposits before and after. Assume sands and flooding silt. And for that year of flood? Well, if it's forceful and it cones near the flooding? It's likely to wash away the silt. We'll get a thin layer of clay. Or, since we're talking a worldwide flood, maybe even clays with different mineral contents than anywhere nearby. Maybe even some fun volcanic ash that should form a thin but uniform level all over the world to mark the flood waters kicking up ash from here and there and depositing them all about.

And, of course note that the normal Nile silt in Egypt comes from farther south in Africa, so we might be able to figure out such a deposit from a -lack- of trace minerals in the clay as well.

Now, to the buildings. Yep, they're stone. Limestone, more exactly. Limestone disolves in water. When it's mined, this is handy, since damp limestone is soft, but when one is building with it, it has to be left out to dry/cure, or it will crumble or be easily scored or dented. When such things get soaked, however, they deteriorate - the mixed salt/fresh water of a worldwide flood would nicely etch the limestone. Everything limestone that had been carved from before that point would show uniform etching dependant on exposure to the water (thus buried limestone, or limestone that water couldn't get to) would be unaffected helping to 'prove' the soak).

And don't forget that the water would likely float may things on the floors of houses, perhaps away, or until they became waterlogged. But heavier items would be left in place. So we'd see at least the heavier items (like grinding stones, for example) covered by a thin layer of clay, while some potentially 'floating items' (say a waterproofed clay bottle with a stopper?) on top of the layer. If a clay plate is under the layer and the clay bottle is above the layer, and they're made of the same stuff, possibly with the same decoration.

An archaeologist would look at this and go 'Wow, interesting. Let's write this up!'. And, other archaeologists around Egypt (and, in this case, the world?) would read the report and check for such a layer in their excavations. If everyone else found it the, well, archaeological proof of a flood. (Gotta love scholarship and independant confirmation ... )

And if the civilization -had- been wiped out, there would then be layers of that naturally occuring sediment deposits until the new people moved in.


Hex

Dave Reed

Okay, thanks for taking the time to explain that. The only
thing I'd question right off hand is the salinity of the
water. I think it would be slight, because the amount of
water depicted is MUCH greater than the oceans. The
Sphynx body, (perhaps not the head), is thought to have
been carved out of limestone about 10,000 BC. It does
show water erosion, but the type associated with rain,
not the etching your talking about. I would think if it can
survive that long without dissolving, the limestone there
is tougher than you're making it out to be.

spin

Pssst, don't tell anyone but the sphynx was was constructed from a local outcrop at the time of Chephren and not unstrangely it had the face of Chephren. Much of the finer detail has been eroded and it has been restored a few times, most famously by Tuthmoses IV.


spin

neilgodfrey

By the way -- there's about a half hour radio interview with renowned Egyptologist John Romer on his latest book about the Great Pyramid with all the latest discoveries and understandings, etc ... but it's only in podcast and avail for less than 4 weeks now (no transcript will be coming). It's found here.

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

RED DAVE

praxeus, you still have some unfinished business on this thread.

Larsguy47, I'm going to ask you the same two questions:

RED DAVE