Robert Schoch has refreshed his article
with some new data that includes the building evidence for the
antiquity of the sphinx and the rising societies about it
geographically. He makes the notation that the body of the sphinx
was produced partially by the excavation of blocks that then made the
initial temple.
I suspect that the Sphinx should be
considered contemporaneous with Gobekli Tepe. That gives us two
cultures working with stone in much the same way and place. These
cultures also emulated Orion on the ground although we can be sure
that the much later Great Pyramids reflect that local understanding.
What Golekli Tepe gives us is a clear
time and space that has been over built at Giza. Quite simply, Nabta
Playa gives us an undeveloped prototype, Golekli Tepe provides a
matured site while Giza is a site continously modified to a high art
but the same underlying strands visible.
Recall
that the original sculpture of the Sphinx is now unknown and could
easily be shaped inside the influences of Gobekli Tepe. An artist
should attempt this.
Searching for the Dawn & Demise of Ancient Civilisation
July
13, 2014
Robert
M. Schoch, Ph.D
When
and where did civilisation begin? How far back in time does high
culture go? Indeed, what do we mean by such terms as civilisation, or
sophisticated and high culture?
When
I was in college, more years ago than I perhaps care to remember, I
learned the standard story which still holds sway in many circles:
Civilisation and high culture date back to, at most, perhaps five or
six thousand years ago. A handy marker for recognising a true
civilisation was written language, and it was generally agreed that
the earliest true writing could be dated to the late fourth
millennium BCE (that is, circa 3500 to 3000 BCE).
The
Sumerians are generally credited with developing writing about 3300
to 3200 BCE, although the earliest Egyptian hieroglyphics may date
back to the same period, or even a century or so earlier, and there
is also evidence of writing possibly from as far back as 3500 BCE
found at Harappa, the Indus Civilisation, in what is now modern
Pakistan.1
But
then there are reports of much earlier possible writing from Henan
Province, China, dated to 6600 to 6200 BCE, inscribed on tortoise
shells.2 I
recollect a book I read while still an undergraduate, The
Roots of Civilization by
Alexander Marshack, which argued that various lines, notches, and
“scratchings” on ancient bone artefacts dating to 10,000 BCE and
earlier, before the end of the last Ice Age, were in fact symbolic
systems, including lunar calendar notations. Maybe our ancestors were
not so primitive and stupid after all.
Maybe
defining civilisation and high culture in terms of a written language
(or more accurately our knowledge of a recorded language; we can
easily miss things in the archaeological record) simply is not a
fruitful approach. This is the conclusion I have come to while
pursuing my own research.
Re-Dating the Great Sphinx of Egypt
I
first came to the problem of the origin of civilisation through my
studies of the Great Sphinx of Giza, Egypt. Combining a Ph.D. in
geology and geophysics from Yale University (1983) with a lifelong
enthusiasm for ancient cultures, on my first trip to Egypt in 1990 I
was primed to take a careful look at the Sphinx.
As
I have recounted elsewhere,3 my
colleague and friend John
Anthony West had
suggested to me various silly notions that the Great Sphinx might be
older than the standard Egyptological attribution of circa 2500 BCE.
I figured that through a careful analysis of the geology, I could
show the error in such thinking. Surely all those professional
Egyptologists could not be wrong. It turns out they were.
Based
on my geological and seismic analyses, utilising the weathering and
erosion patterns correlated with the palaeoclimatology and subsurface
features,4 I
concluded that the oldest portions of the Great Sphinx date back to
at least the period of 7000 BCE to 5000 BCE, and perhaps back to 9000
BCE or earlier. To oversimplify a bit, the core body of the Great
Sphinx shows features that place it well back before the onset of the
current arid regime (the Giza Plateau is on the edge of the Sahara
Desert) some 5,000 years ago.
Such
a conclusion has deep implications, suggesting that high culture and
civilisation dates back much earlier than previously believed. I have
been told on more than one occasion that my conclusions cannot be
true because if they are, then “history must be rewritten.”
Certainly, we cannot have that, can we? Vested interests run high,
and I have been attacked from many sides, both by orthodox
Egyptologists and historians, and by various people not as closely
associated with mainstream academia.
Through
it all over the last two decades, I have looked at the alternative
theories suggested to explain the data, and I continue to maintain
that the evidence clearly points to the origins of the Great Sphinx
being much older than 2500 BCE. Indeed, the attacks and criticisms,
forcing me to carefully scrutinise and enlarge my dataset, have
served only to reaffirm my conclusions.
The Sphinx Under Water, or Under Fire?
Recently
my work on the Great Sphinx has come under fire from a self-described
anti-Establishmentarian. Given the number of people who have been
asking me about this latest “Sphinx theory,” I feel it is
imperative that I briefly address it here.
Robert
Temple5 has
proposed a moat theory (that is, the Sphinx Enclosure was
purposefully filled with water such that the body of the Sphinx was
submerged and sat as a statue in a small artificial lake) to explain
the clear signs of water weathering and erosion on the body of the
Great Sphinx and on the walls of the Sphinx Enclosure.
Temple
contends that the moat theory explains the data adequately without
hypothesising that the Great Sphinx dates back to a much earlier
period during which there was more rainfall than at present. (Here I
will not address his hypotheses, which I do not find persuasive, that
the Sphinx was the jackal [wild dog] Anubis and the face seen on the
Sphinx is that of the Middle Kingdom pharaoh Amenemhet II, though I
would point out that the original Sphinx has been reworked and the
head has been re-carved, perhaps more than once.)
The
body of the Sphinx, carved from the bedrock, sits largely below
ground level, and various moat, pool, or artificial fountain
hypotheses have been suggested for the Sphinx from time to time. I
considered such notions carefully as far back as my early analyses of
the geology of the Sphinx, starting in 1990. In summary, such moat
and related theories do not hold water (to use a bad pun) and are not
compatible with the features of the actual Great Sphinx, the Sphinx
Enclosure, and the general geology and palaeohydrology of the Giza
Plateau.
Scrutinising the Sphinx
While
in Egypt recently (March 2009) I made it a point to look at the Great
Sphinx and Sphinx Enclosure with fresh eyes to see if there could be
anything to the moat class of theories. I will summarise briefly a
half dozen points.6
1)
Based on my observations and analyses, the Sphinx Temple (built out
of blocks removed from the Sphinx Enclosure when the body of the
Sphinx was initially carved) and the so-called Valley Temple to the
south of the Sphinx Temple show clear signs of heavy
precipitation-induced weathering on the limestone core blocks. These
limestone temples were subsequently refurbished with Aswan granite
ashlars during the Old Kingdom (as evidenced by an Old Kingdom
inscription still found on a block located at the Valley Temple). The
moat theory cannot explain the nature of the very ancient weathering
seen under the Old Kingdom granite veneer.
2)
There is much heavier surface erosion on the western end of the
Sphinx Enclosure, and the surface erosion tapers off dramatically
toward the eastern end of the enclosure. This is exactly what is to
be expected based on the palaeohydrology of the Giza Plateau and is
incompatible with a moat theory where it is hypothesised that water
was brought in from the Nile to the east. Furthermore, the nature of
the surface erosion throughout the enclosure and on the body of the
Sphinx is as expected if there were water running over or raining
down on the rock layers. The erosion actually observed is not
compatible with pooled water in the enclosure.
3)
The highest levels of the middle member strata, as seen in the Sphinx
Enclosure on the western end, are most severely eroded, which is
compatible with the agency of precipitation. If the moat theory were
true, then the lower strata on the eastern end of the Sphinx
Enclosure would be most heavily eroded (caused by water being brought
in via canals from the Nile), but the opposite is seen in reality.
4)
The subsurface seismic data demonstrating the depth of weathering
below the floor of the Sphinx Enclosure, based on my analyses (using
areas excavated during the Old Kingdom for comparison), even when
calibrated very conservatively, gives an age of initial carving for
the core body of the Great Sphinx of at least 5000 BCE. More than one
geological colleague has suggested to me that a more realistic
calibration gives a date thousands of years earlier. And no, standing
water in the Sphinx Enclosure would not accelerate the depth of
weathering below the floor of the enclosure.
5)
The vertical fissures observed in the walls of the Sphinx Enclosure
show diagnostic signs of having been formed by precipitation and
water runoff. In my opinion, they do not show any characteristics
that are diagnostic or even suggestive of having been formed by
artificial dredging of the Sphinx Enclosure, as some have suggested.
6)
If the Great Sphinx actually had sat in an artificial pool or lake,
either the water level around the Sphinx would have had to have been
the same as that of the surrounding water table, or the walls and
floor of the pool in which the Sphinx sat would have had to have been
sealed up and watertight (and any artificial walls, such as on the
eastern end, would have had to have been strong enough to withstand
the pressure of the water). Clearly, the ancient water table was well
below the level of the floor of the Sphinx Enclosure (or else the
Sphinx Temple, for instance, would have been flooded). The Sphinx
Enclosure, if simply carved from the bedrock (as all the evidence
suggests) would not have held a deep pool of standing water. The
bedrock in the enclosure is highly faulted, and characterised by a
karst morphology that would leak like a sieve (another bad pun,
perhaps). The enclosure would have had to have been fully sealed up
(with some kind of mortar or cement, perhaps), and there is no
evidence of such sealing. Furthermore, if the enclosure had been
sealed in such a manner, this would not be compatible with the
dredging theory for the vertical fissures mentioned in the previous
point. I would also note that the chambers and tunnels under the
Great Sphinx would have been flooded from above if the Great Sphinx
had been sitting in a pool of water, unless the Sphinx Enclosure had
been watertight; yet the evidence suggests the enclosure was not
watertight.
Could the Sphinx be Hundreds of Thousands of Years Old?
Even
as my re-dating of the Great Sphinx has been attacked as impossible
by some authorities, other serious researchers have suggested that I
have underestimated the true age of the oldest portions of the Great
Sphinx by a factor of ten or more!
For
instance, two members of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,
Vjacheslav I. Manichev and Alexander G. Parkhomenko,7 citing
my work, have reinterpreted the geology and erosional features on the
Great Sphinx to mean that the core body of the statue could date back
as far as 800,000 years ago. And they are not referring to simply a
natural outcropping that may have existed 800,000 years ago that was
later shaped into a statue. (Remember,
too, that to carve the core body of the Sphinx huge multi-ton blocks
were removed from the Sphinx Enclosure and assembled as the Sphinx
Temple, so the original Sphinx Temple is as old as the core body of
the Great Sphinx).
The
dating of Manichev and Parkhomenko could push the age of the Great
Sphinx into a very remote time period, one that has been suggested
for possible, but ambiguous, ancient structures, sculptures, or
simulacra that are found in many parts of the world, such as
Markawasi in Peru,8 the
Romanian Sphinx,9 or
a possible stone circle dubbed Adam’s Calendar by researchers Johan
Heine and Michael Tellinger with a claimed date of 75,000 years
ago.10
Personally,
I am not convinced that the Great Sphinx is anywhere close to the age
postulated by Manichev and Parkhomenko, or that various claimed very
ancient, very eroded statues are anything more than natural
formations, but the prospects are intriguing. Without going off on
such limbs, there is clear evidence for early high culture at a
remote period beyond just that of the Great Sphinx.
Nabta Playa
In
the Sahara Desert of southern Egypt, west of Aswan, is an area known
as Nabta
Playa. Here
an ancient stone calendar circle, as well as many other megalithic
erections and structures, was identified by archaeologist Fred
Wendorf (Southern
Methodist University) and his team and dated
to circa 4000 BCE and earlier.11
Thomas
Brophy12 has
carried out extensive analyses of Nabta. According to Brophy, three
stones inside the Nabta calendar circle represent the belt of Orion
(just as the three pyramids of Giza represent the belt of Orion
according the research of Robert Bauval13).
The stones on the Playa and the corresponding stars in the sky
aligned
on summer solstice nights between about 6400 BCE and 4900 BCE.
Brophy found even more correlations, however. Three other stones in
the Nabta calendar circle correspond to the configuration of Orion’s
head and shoulders as they appeared in circa 16,500 BCE, about half a
precessional cycle earlier than the previously mentioned alignment.
Based on these and other analyses of monoliths in the area, Brophy
concludes that the early inhabitants of Nabta Playa possessed
incredibly sophisticated knowledge, the type of knowledge we
associate with high culture and civilisation. Furthermore, the dates
of the Nabta structures are in line with my dating of the oldest
portions of the Great Sphinx, and at both Giza and Nabta the
constellation of Orion (which represented the god Osiris during
dynastic times) was of prime importance.
Göbekli Tepe
If
the dating of the Great Sphinx remains controversial (after all, old
ideas die hard), and the analyses of Nabta Playa are questionable in
the eyes of some researchers, there is one site that even the most
ensconced conventional archaeologists cannot ignore.
In
modern Turkey, just north of the border with Syria, is a site known
as Göbekli
Tepe that
has yielded dozens of carved limestone megaliths, many of which date
back to the extraordinarily early period of 9000 BCE to 10,000
BCE.14 Klaus
Schmidt, of the German Archaeological Institute, has been heading an
excavation team there since 1994, and there is no doubt as to the
importance, authenticity, and dating (based in part on radiocarbon)
of Göbekli Tepe. This is a discovery made by mainstream academics.
Göbekli
Tepe boggles the imagination on many accounts. The date is incredibly
early, even earlier than my “conservative” estimate for the date
of the Great Sphinx. Göbekli Tepe dates back to the end of the last
Ice Age. The monolithic megaliths are in the range of two to seven
metres high (the latter is the height of an unfinished megalith left
where it was being quarried). Sculpted onto the surfaces of the
monoliths are a variety of animals, including snakes, boars, foxes,
vultures, spiders, scorpions, a centipede, and a three-dimensional
figure that has been interpreted as a lion. The megaliths excavated
thus far had been erected into four distinct stone circles, ranging
from ten to thirty metres in diameter. Based on geophysical surveys,
the entire site may cover three dozen hectares (about 90 acres) and
contains another twenty or so stone circles.
Although
very different from the Great Sphinx and the Sphinx Temple, in my
estimation, taking the entire Göbekli Tepe site as a whole into
account, just as much effort, social organisation, and sophisticated
or high culture must have been required to construct the Göbekli
Tepe complex as the Sphinx complex. When I first presented my
findings on the age of the Great Sphinx, I was told over and over
again by mainstream archaeologists and historians that my dating was
simply impossible because it was well known that nothing so elaborate
and sophisticated, requiring an advanced level of social
organisation, could occur so early. Göbekli Tepe proves these
assertions false and helps place the Great Sphinx in a larger
context.
The
work at Göbekli Tepe has literally just begun. Most of the site has
yet to be excavated and who can predict what surprises might be in
store for us? Who were the people that built the site, and why did
they build it? So far there is no evidence that the site was
inhabited; no living areas have been excavated, though the thousands
of animal bones found (the most common animal represented is the
aurochs, a type of extinct ox) are evidence of feasting at the site.
Was it a holy, sacred site? An area for religious pilgrimages? Or
perhaps an ancient centre of knowledge? My instinct is that the
positions of the monoliths, and the specific carvings on their
surfaces, probably encode information… but what? And what happened
to the people who built and used Göbekli Tepe? Curiously, the site
did not simply fall into disuse and gradually decay. It was
intentionally buried somewhere around 8000 BCE. Why? The mystery only
deepens.
The Origin and Demise of Early High Culture
There
has been space here to mention only a few examples of archaeological
sites that challenge the conventional view of when high culture,
advanced knowledge, and civilisation arose. Admittedly, I have dwelt
on those that most interest me, including the Great Sphinx with which
I have become entwined. Put all the evidence together and there is no
doubt in my mind that what we can term high culture existed at least
11,000 years ago (and possibly much earlier).
Where
did early civilisation originate? And what happened to it? Is there a
lost primordial ancient civilisation, one that was destroyed in some
cataclysmic natural catastrophe? Could the legend of Atlantis have
some truth to it? These are questions I have pondered long and hard
for many years.
Being
a geologist, I view Earth and our environment as unstable, full of
unexpected surprises, at least over the long term. Climates change,
sea levels rise and fall, volcanoes erupt, earthquakes rock the land
and sea, and objects fall from the sky. I have discussed how such
natural cataclysms may have influenced the history of ancient
civilisations,15 and
in particular I have pointed out that Earth has experienced a series
of encounters with comets during historical and prehistoric times.16
Depending
on the severity of the encounter (size of the comet, whether it
actually touched the surface of Earth or perhaps resulted in a
mid-atmosphere explosion, and so forth), dramatic climatic changes
could be affected on Earth, which in turn could affect sea levels,
and weather extremes can wreck havoc on animal and human populations,
causing famines.17
In
2003 I suggested that the end of the last Ice Age may have been
brought about in part by comets bombarding Earth,18 and
this hypothesis has received dramatic support with physical evidence
for an impact around 10,900 BCE.19 There
is also evidence for impacts around 7600 BCE, 4400 BCE, 3150 BCE,
2345 BCE, 1628 BCE, 1159 BCE, 207 BCE, 536 CE, and 1178 CE.20
Bottom
line, based on all the evidence, there is no doubt in my mind that
these incidents, these cosmic catastrophes, had a profound influence
on ancient civilisations. In some cases migrations were sparked, in
other cases entire cultures may have been wiped out.
At
the end of the last Ice Age, from before around 18,000 BCE to perhaps
11,000 BCE or later (dates at such a far remove are approximate),
when sea levels were significantly lower (by seventy-five to a
hundred and twenty metres), a sub-continental expanse of land was
exposed in Southeast Asia where there is now only water in the area
bounded by Indochina, the Malay Archipelago, the islands of
Indonesia, and Borneo. To geologists
this drowned region is known as Sundaland, and there is a variety of
evidence that here an early civilisation was located; they fled as
the waters rose and the comets came down.21 Could
this be the primordial lost civilisation that so many of us suspect
once existed?
And
what about that intentional burial of the structures at Göbekli
Tepe? Did they see their fate in the skies? As the comets rained down
did those ancient builders do their best to cover and preserve that
which they had so carefully created, perhaps hoping to return one day
to uncover their monuments? Or did they leave them for us to recover?
FOOTNOTES:
1.
David Whitehouse, “‘Earliest Writing’ Found”, BBC News
Online, 4 May 1999; John Nobel Wilford, “Who Began Writing? Many
Theories, Few Answers”, The New York Times on the Web, Science, 6
April 1999.
2.
Paul Rincon, “‘Earliest Writing’ found in China”, BBC
Science.
3.
Robert M. Schoch with Robert Aquinas McNally, Voices
of the Rocks: A Scientist Looks at Catastrophes and Ancient
Civilizations,
New York: Harmony Books, 1999.
4.
Robert M. Schoch, “Redating the Great Sphinx of Giza”, KMT,
A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 52-59, 66-70
(Summer 1992); Robert M. Schoch with Robert Aquinas McNally, Voyages
of the Pyramid Builders: The True Origins of the Pyramids from Lost
Egypt to Ancient America, New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin, 2003;
Robert M. Schoch & Robert Aquinas McNally, Pyramid
Quest: Secrets of the Great Pyramid and the Dawn of Civilization, New
York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin, 2005; T.L. Dobecki & R.M.
Schoch, “Seismic Investigations in the Vicinity of the Great Sphinx
of Giza, Egypt”, Geoarchaeology, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 527-544
(1992); Robert M. Schoch, “Life with the Great Sphinx: Some
Personal Reflections”, Darklore, vol. 1, pp. 38-55, 291
(2007).
5.
Robert Temple, “What was the Sphinx?”, New Dawn, no. 112,
pp. 47-52 (January-February 2009); Robert Temple with Olivia
Temple, The Sphinx Mystery: The Forgotten Origins of the
Sanctuary of Anubis, Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions, 2009.
6.
For more details pertaining to some of these points, as well as
various comments on the criticisms of K. Lal Gauri and his colleagues
as cited by Temple with Temple [2009], see Robert M. Schoch,
“Geological Evidence Pertaining to the Age of the Great Sphinx”,
in New Scenarios on the Evolution of the Solar System and
Consequences on History of Earth and Man (Eds. Emilio Spedicato
and Adalberto Notarpietro), 2002. Proceedings of the Conference,
Milano and Bergamo, June 7-9th, 1999, Università degli Studi di
Bergamo, Quaderni del Dipartmento di Matematica, Statistica,
Informatica ed Applicazion, Serie Miscellanea, Anno 2002, N. 3, pp.
171-203.
7.
Vjacheslav I. Manichev & Alexander G. Parkhomenko,
“Geological Aspect of the Problem of Dating the Great Egyptian
Sphinx Construction”, in Geoarchaeology and
Archaeomineralogy (Eds. R. I. Kostov, B. Gaydarska, and M.
Gurova) 2008. Proceedings of the International Conference, 29-30
October 2008, Sofia, Publishing House, “St. Ivan Rilski”, Sofia,
pp.308-311.
8.
Robert M. Schoch, “Introduction”, in Markawasi: Peru’s
Inexplicable Stone Forest (Ed. and Author, Kathy Doore, with a
foreword by Peter E. Schneider), Surprise, Arizona: Kathy Doore,
2006, pp. 14-20.
9.
Anonymous, “THE BUCEGI – Sphinx,” article dated 10 October 2002
and posted at: www.ici.ro/romania/en/turism/c_sfinx.html. Accessed
4 April 2009.
10.
Angelique Serrao, “‘Oldest Man-Made Structure’ Unearthed”,
Article dated 14 July 2008 and posted
at: www.iol.co.za/index.php?from=rss_South%20Africa&set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20080714062546858C113827. Accessed
4 April 2009.
11.
J. McKim Malville, “Oldest Astronomical Megalith Alignment
Discovered in Southern Egypt by Science Team”, Press release dated
31 March 1998 and posted
at: www.colorado.edu/news/releases/1998/101.html. Accessed
5 April 2009.
12.
Thomas G. Brophy, The Origin Map: Discovery of a Prehistoric,
Megalithic, Astrophysical Map and Sculpture of the Universe (Foreword
by Robert M. Schoch and Afterword by John Anthony West), New York:
Writers Club Press (iUniverse), 2002; Mark H. Gaffney, “The
Astronomers of Nabta Playa: New Discoveries Reveal Astonishing
Pre-Historic Knowledge”, Atlantis Rising, no. 56, pp. 42-43,
68-70 (March/April 2006).
13.
Robert Bauval & Adrian Gilbert, The Orion Mystery:
Unlocking the Secrets of the Pyramids, New York: Crown Trade
Paperbacks, 1994.
14.
Graham Chandler (photographs by Ergun Çağatay), “The Beginning of
the End for Hunter-Gatherers”, Saudi ARAMCO World, vol. 60,
no. 2, pp. 2-9 (March/April 2009); Andrew Curry (photographs by
Berthold Steinhilber), “The World’s First Temple? Predating
Stonehenge by 6,000 years, Turkey’s Stunning Gobekli Tepe Upends
the Conventional View of the Rise of Civilization”, Smithsonian,
vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 54-58, 60 (November 2008).
15.
Schoch with McNally, 1999.
16.
Schoch with McNally, 2003.
17.
For a discussion of the effects of a sixth century CE cometary event,
see Ker Than, “Comet smashes triggered ancient famine”, New
Scientist, issue 2689, p.9 (7 January 2009).
18.
Schoch with McNally, 2003.
19.
R.B. Firestone, A. West, J.P. Kennett, L. Becker, T.E. Bunch, Z.S.
Revay, P.H. Schultz, T. Belgya, D.J. Kennett, J.M. Erlandson, O.J.
Dickenson, A.C. Goodyear, R.S. Harris, G.A. Howard, J.B. Kloosterman,
P. Lechler, P.A. Mayewski, J. Montgomery, R. Poreda, T. Darrah, S.S.
Que Hee, A.R. Smith, A. Stich, W. Topping, J.H. Wittke, and W.S.
Wolbach, “Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago
that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions and the Younger Dryas
cooling”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
vol. 104, no. 41, pp. 16016-16021 (9 October 2007).
20.
Schoch with McNally, 2003; Undoubtedly this list is incomplete,
especially for the period between 10,900 BCE and 3150 BCE.
21.
Schoch with McNally, 2003.
About the Author
ROBERT
M. SCHOCH, Ph.D., is
renowned for his work on re-dating the Great Sphinx. Based on his
geological studies, he determined that the Sphinx’s origins date
prior to dynastic times. He has also focused his attention on the
Great Pyramid and various other temples and tombs in Egypt, as well
as studying similar structures around the world. Dr. Schoch is an
author and coauthor of both technical and popular books, including
the trilogy with R. A. McNally: Voices
of the Rocks: A Scientist looks at Catastrophes and Ancient
Civilizations (1999), Voyages
of the Pyramid Builders: The True Origins of the Pyramids from Lost
Egypt to Ancient America (2003),
and Pyramid
Quest: Secrets of the Great Pyramid and the Dawn of
Civilization (2005).
Dr. Schoch’s most recent book is The
Parapsychology Revolution: A Concise Anthology of Paranormal and
Psychical Research (2008,
compilation and commentary by Robert M. Schoch and Logan Yonavjak).
Website: www.robertschoch.com
If
you enjoyed this article be sure to check out the latest Special
Issue Vol 8 No 1 which
includes a report by Dr. Robert Schoch plus all the latest
discoveries in the world of archaeology.
©
New Dawn Magazine and the respective author.
©
Copyright New Dawn Magazine, http://www.newdawnmagazine.com.
Permission granted to freely distribute this article for
non-commercial purposes if unedited and copied in full, including
this notice.
©
Copyright New Dawn Magazine, http://www.newdawnmagazine.com.
Permission to re-send, post and place on web sites for non-commercial
purposes, and if shown only in its entirety with no changes or
additions. Th
No comments:
Post a Comment