QUOTE (MolonLabe @ May 14 2008, 05:58 PM)

The head as it is carved does not share the characteristic weathering patterns on the rest of the body and considering that it is more greatly exposed, it should have more wear. The fact that it doesn't indicates that it was carved much later on after the sphinx was first carved in earlier antiquity.
Actually, that isn't the case. Or, to put it more accurately, you can't judge the age of the head vs. the body based on erosion.
The limestone in the area is extremely variable. The stone making up the head is much more durable than many of the lower layers.
If this were not so, the head wouldn't be an outcrop. By that I mean that the part of the stone that makes up the head rises above the rest of the ground. Such outcroppings dot certain areas of Egypt (and it's surroundings.) They are usually called "sphinxes" because they are reminiscent of the sphinx, who's head is just another one of the outcroppings.
A better explanation is that there is a large crack running through the sphinx and through the entire enclosure (including the floor) from approximately north to south.
The crack goes through the sphinx carving very near where the rump of the sphinx would be if the sphinx body was carved in proportion to the head.
It's proposed that the Egyptians carved the head and then the body. When they got to the body, they had to change the dimensions or the crack would have been too near the rump - and the rump could have possibly simply fallen off.
Lengthening the body put the crack well into the body of the sphinx, ensuring no such deformation would occur.
At least, that's the hypothesis. No one really knows.
QUOTE (Clovis @ May 15 2008, 04:29 AM)

All of the world's megaliths and why some of them are aligned to the way the constellations looked in 10,500 BCE. What happened on that date?
They are not aligned in that way, so what we have here is an answer looking for a question.
Harte