Sphinx and GP dates from 10 500 BC?

[abhijit_b]

Rest assured, no expert in the field, and especially no expert who specializes in Old Kingdom Egypt, posits that repair work was performed on the Sphinx in Dynasty 4. I've seen this information on websites espousing alternative and revisionist history, but never in the relevant professional literature. That repair work was performed on the Sphinx in antiquity is certainly possible, but I know of no real evidence that would support such work in Dynasty 4.

Sphinx restored during the old kingdom is prominent in earlier research publish by most orthodox historians. But when alternative theorists raised questions over them, these vanished from orthodox quotes. But still you can find here http://www.drhawass.com/blog/story-sphinx where Zahi Hawass mentions:

"The Egyptians of the Old Kingdom knew that the stone from which the lion’s body was carved was very poor. For this reason, they added large blocks of better-quality stones to the outside of the lower parts of the Sphinx, and modeled the details of the body in this better quality material."

But this is actually a diversion of his research earlier, mentioned in his book "The secretes of the sphinx", page 26 -

"...On the upper part of the body, we found old Kingdom blocks, of the same quality used to face Khafre's causeway, reset against a badly weathered old kingdom core...."

Also wikipedia states this:

"Mark Lehner, an Egyptologist, originally asserted that there had been a far earlier renovation during the Old Kingdom (c. 2686–2184 BC), although he has subsequently recanted this "heretical" viewpoint."

I believe Egyptology is about imagination and assumption along with science. As none can be sure of what exactly happened on that very period in history because of lacking written evidences, the imagination and individual theories have been accepted. While orthodoxs' imaginations those fit to the existing theory have been accepted and any diversion from the same has been rejected. And that is happening in the recent times, where the two sides have clear ego clash and no side accpeting a defeat.

I am no expert in Egyptology, but I gathered interest in it in past few years and found that Sphinx is really a mystery to the historians. Although very few facts about the Sphinx's history are clear to present day, yet the historian never agree to the fact. They will keep on putting names like Khafre or Khufu becuase that fits their timeline. In case of the GP, the orthodox history has answered almost all of the questions raised. But for Sphinx it's not true.

I definitely agree with many in this forum, that orthodox Egyptologists have closed the doors for new thoughts. Whatever orthodox historian says, reaches the text book easily even though that may be just an imagination of the historian. While the reverse is not trure for the alternative historian.

I think Dr Robert Schoch and John Anthony West are very much scientific in their approach of Sphinx erosion. Unfortunately, their thoughts are mostly rejected, instead of welcoming the new ideas and trying to evaluate it. The orthodox historian would just think of counter answers to disapprove this theory day and night with a closed mind. And when you just think negative about something, you may find a few points also.

The rain water erosion problem on Sphinx is still a big question mark, though there have been lots of counter attack to disprove it. And the biggest and simplest question about Sphinx that still not answered is whose face is it? I guess it should be the first question to be answered before trying to find archeological evidences whether Khafre's causeway decides Sphinx wall or not. The face is defnitely not Khufu or Khafre comparing the statues of both the kings.

[cormac mac airt]

Sphinx restored during the old kingdom is prominent in earlier research publish by most orthodox historians. But when alternative theorists raised questions over them, these vanished from orthodox quotes. But still you can find here http://www.drhawass....og/story-sphinx where Zahi Hawass mentions:

"The Egyptians of the Old Kingdom knew that the stone from which the lion’s body was carved was very poor. For this reason, they added large blocks of better-quality stones to the outside of the lower parts of the Sphinx, and modeled the details of the body in this better quality material."

But this is actually a diversion of his research earlier, mentioned in his book "The secretes of the sphinx", page 26 -

"...On the upper part of the body, we found old Kingdom blocks, of the same quality used to face Khafre's causeway, reset against a badly weathered old kingdom core...."

~SNIP~

The Old Kingdom of Ancient Egypt doesn't end with the 4th Dynasty, it ends with the 6th Dynasty at the earliest, which is more than 250 years later.

cormac

[Quaentum]

SC: Less misinformation from you and more actual fact would be good. Like I keep telling you - you need to do much more research. And FTR - I have never stated anywhere that Khufu never existed nor have I ever claimed anywhere that he was not a king of ancient Egypt. Furthermore, if you look back through my posts you will clearly find that I am consistent in my view having always accepted that Khufu was responsible for having had the Great Pyramid built (although I dispute the consensus Egyptology mantra that it was built on his orders to function as his eternal tomb).

SC

Your original reply to me concerning the kings list came across, as if you were indicating he wasn't a king, and that's how I based my reply to you.

As far as the king's list I have posted links that show he is on the king's list. You keep saying I need to do the the research but my research shows he is on the list. Can you show anything that indicates he is not on the list? Or is the requirement of facts only for others?

[Quaentum]

SC: You digress. Any theory that is not supported by the extant evidence or which contradicts the extant evidence should be considered a "fringe" theory. The pyramid tomb theory, much beloved and promoted by consensus Egyptology and its apologists, falls squarely into this category and, as such, should be regarded as fringe as any other "out there" theory. Of course, if compelling empirical evidence can be presented in support of a particular theory then, naturally, this will bring the theory nearer to acceptance and further away from fringedom. Without such empirical evidence the theory is destined to languish in fringedom. When Joe Public comes to realise the extremely weak case presented by consensus Egyptology in support of its tomb paradigm with regard to the early, giant pyramids I have little doubt that they will themselves banish consensus Egyptology to the realm of fringedom where any unevidenced theory belongs.

SC

Attempting to present the tomb theory as a fringe theory is only possible if you ignore the existence evidence of the sarcophagus and the nearby mortuary temple, both of which deal with death and burial.

[questionmark]

Attempting to present the tomb theory as a fringe theory is only possible if you ignore the existence evidence of the sarcophagus and the nearby mortuary temple, both of which deal with death and burial.

and the fact that the three grand pyramids are located in a Necropolis dating from the stone age.

Edited December 24, 2012 by questionmark

[Scott Creighton]

Your original reply to me concerning the kings list came across, as if you were indicating he wasn't a king, and that's how I based my reply to you.

As far as the king's list I have posted links that show he is on the king's list. You keep saying I need to do the the research but my research shows he is on the list. Can you show anything that indicates he is not on the list? Or is the requirement of facts only for others?

SC: Like I said - you need to do more research.

SC

[Scott Creighton]

Attempting to present the tomb theory as a fringe theory is only possible if you ignore the existence evidence of the sarcophagus and the nearby mortuary temple, both of which deal with death and burial.

SC: First of all, of the early giant pyramids, only THREE were found to contain a stone box. Of those three, one has gone missing so it is impossible to otherwise prove its provenance. The second was found to contain earth along with the bones of a bull. The third is empty and lidless (although there are ancient claims of various items having been found therein).

That these stone boxes have been labelled as 'sarcophagi' by consensus Egyptology in no way MAKES them sarcophagi. As far as I am concerned these stone boxes represent an element of a chthonic religion with the stone boxes being the archetype or fore-runner to the later form of 'Osiris Bed' - these are stone (sometimes wooden) boxes the AEs made to bury earth and seeds under a mound of earth. There was never any intention to place a physical body in these stone/wooden boxes. The seed placed in the earth in these boxes represented the Ka - the hidden life-force - that resurrected the earth. Consensus Egyptology has made a HUGE ASSUMPTION in declaring these stone boxes sarcophagi. They were never found with a body and later AE festivals show us exactly why these stone boxes were found empty and what these stone boxes actually were - 'Osiris Bricks' or 'Osiris Beds'. The early, giant pyramids came to represent the allegorical 'Body of Osiris'. The stone box containing seed and earth would symbolise the Ka of Osiris. The stone box containing earth and bull bones represents the Ba of Osiris. These stone boxes contained the 'soul of Osiris' (his ka and Ba) within the allegorical, dismembered Body of Osiris i.e. the early, giant pyramids.

Mortuary Temple? Again this is but a LABEL consensus Egyptology attaches to these temples. SAYING they were Mortuary Temples does not and will not MAKE them Mortuary Temples. What consensus Egyptology, with regard to the early, giant pyramids, must do is PROVE these temples were mortuary in nature. As far as I am concerned these were Chthonic Temples built to recite spells, prayers and incantations to ensure the rebirth of the KINGDOM. The AEs built temples to recite such spells etc to ensure that the Sun would be reborn each and every day - their sun temples. The temples attached to the pyramids were NOT mortuary temples for the king but Chthonic Temples ensuring the rebirth of the earth (kingdom). Why do you think the fragments from the causeways from these temples were found to have been inscribed with stars, plants, animals etc? Because this is symbolising the rebirth that would come from within the pyramid - just as it did at the First Time (Sp Tpy) of Creation. Mortuary Temples, no. Chthonic Rebirth Temples, yes.

SC

Edited December 24, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[Alcibiades9]

Speak for yourself. I've assumed exactly the opposite about him and thus only read his posts when you or others quote them.

Harte

Being on Harte’s famous “Ignore List” is a bit like being on Richard Nixon’s “Enemies List”… if you find you’re on it, you know you must be doing something right. And you’re probably in good company.

Poor guy. I completely forget that he exists until he pops up yet again to tell me he's ignoring me.

It is, as Dennis Healy once said, “a bit like being savaged by a dead sheep”.

[Alcibiades9]

As you have attacked me and held me in arrogant contempt, then I will join and say that though I care nothing for whoever else you attack, it is clear it is you who are a bully and a hypocrite. That we all now tremble in fear at the thought of the great Alcibiades descending on us to enforce "correct thinking"? You complain that others, on both sides of debate, expect perfection in any answers, yet you ask the same from all. You make some childish threat against other posters that you will now beat them, yet you cannot beat me, and I am here alone. I said before that I only act the fool at times because it is my conceit to do so, yet you seem to be a real fool. Your posts are inconsistent and have contradictions. You seem to have real knowledge yet you behave like any other boring troll. Perhaps you should explain yourself, or be seen as a troll.

edit to say I begin to think you are visitor from the fantasy forum, perhaps you are even one of the arch pyramidiots here to cause some disruption. You say you do not believe in the alien theories, yet people tell lies, and your overbearing manner suggests telling lies is nothing to you.

Well, I’m sorry for your hurt feelings… but think about it.

You call me a bully and a troll. In the past you’ve called me a sockpuppet, an imposter, an empty helmet. Yet your own identity is rather suspect. You’ve given the impression in the past that you crudely translate from Russian to English using Google Translate… yet at other times – when it suits you - your command of the English language is not only very good, but very subtle and nuanced. Suspicious? I don’t know and I don’t care. I’m prepared to take you at face value and in good faith.

You lump me in with the “alternative” camp, yet I have not proposed any theory of my own. I only question the evidence, I only say that some things aren’t proven – and in the resulting gap here is room for some alternative exploration and interpretation. I am just about the only one on this board who will happily echo Socrates and say that – for Giza – “the only thing we know for sure is that we do not know”. And I’ll personalise that: I do not know. But I’m fascinated, and I’m keen to find out more. I’ve restarted this thread more than once recently just to hear the discussion – from all sides – progress further.

To you, everyone on the “other side” (including me) is lumped together, conflated with aliens and other bogus nonsense, and treated as enemies. People debate with good faith, and you call them liars. You call them fraudsters. You call them pyramidiots and a dozen other things. You go away and you put together little Photoshopped pictures to upload here in order to ridicule and demean them. Is that debate?

If someone fakes evidence, then yes, they are indeed a fraudster. If someone interprets the genuine evidence in a different way from you, well, that’s another matter. That’s their perogative – and until one of you is proved right beyond a reasonable doubt, you have fairly equal standing in my eyes.

I can be abrasive, I know, and I’m sorry I feel that sometimes I have to be – its usually in commensurate terms to how certain posters routinely operate on here. I won’t swallow a lie simply because it is expedient. If you push me, I’ll push back. If you start a fight, I’ll finish it. That’s just the way it is. But at least I’ll do it on a case by case basis and not through some silly blanket “them and us” mentality.

For instance: I know I have been rude to kmt_sesh on here in the past, and now I actually very much regret that. He and I don’t not share the same narrative when we look at the evidence, and many of the conclusions he comes to - or adopts – are ones which I cannot (at this stage) accept as “fact”. But, by God, I can accept that the guy knows his stuff, that at every opportunity he will go away and do some sterling research, and come back with some of the best sourced and reasoned arguments I have ever read on any internet forum. And he is also not above conceding a point when he knows it to be true. Again, I don’t necessarily agree with him when it comes to comes to the final analysis, but I never question his accuracy when it comes to pointing to existing evidence and sources. I don’t doubt for a minute his absolute integrity, nor the fact that he is arguing in good faith and trying sincerely – as he sees it – to both educate and inform. I think it’s a shame he is so unreservedly “orthodox” all the time but I have actually developed the utmost admiration for his knowledge, his undoubted love for the subject, his mastery of the detail, and the patience and sheer hard work he puts into it all day after day here. You see, you don’t have to agree completely with someone to respect them. It’s not always about being on one side or another. Truth doesn’t have a side, it just is.

Now on that note, it being Christmas Eve, I’ll take my helmet off and shove it under the tree for the time being, kick back with some mulled wine, and wish every single one of you a peaceful and happy festive season.

Understandably, my thoughts turn a baby born 2000 years ago… a baby who grew up to be worshipped as a god and who died a violent death.

I’m talking, of course, about good old Gaius Caligula. And for the next week or so – not that anyone will be looking for me - I’ll be happily buried in my beloved Tacitus.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

You have my reply, so for this thread it is >>конец<<

Edited December 24, 2012 by kmt_sesh
Noting inappropriate here but please use only English in the body of your posts.

[kmt_sesh]

Alcibiades9's preceding post is very well stated and fair. It serves as a good reminder to me as a Moderator. There is no cause for ridicule and personal attacks in this or any discussion. Ridicule serves no useful purpose in any debate or discussion.

Going forward, I will not hesitate to edit or censor posts—or delete them altogether—if I feel they are inappropriate. I will also not hesitate to issue warnings. Posters who are warned but ignore the warning and continue in the same vein will face suspension.

So, that said, just avoid the ridicule and personal jabs. If necessary, ignore a poster who irritates you. It's better than facing censure on our forum.

I also second Alcibiades9's seaon's greetings to all of you.

[kmt_sesh]

Sphinx restored during the old kingdom is prominent in earlier research publish by most orthodox historians. But when alternative theorists raised questions over them, these vanished from orthodox quotes. But still you can find here http://www.drhawass....og/story-sphinx where Zahi Hawass mentions:

"The Egyptians of the Old Kingdom knew that the stone from which the lion’s body was carved was very poor. For this reason, they added large blocks of better-quality stones to the outside of the lower parts of the Sphinx, and modeled the details of the body in this better quality material."

But this is actually a diversion of his research earlier, mentioned in his book "The secretes of the sphinx", page 26 -

"...On the upper part of the body, we found old Kingdom blocks, of the same quality used to face Khafre's causeway, reset against a badly weathered old kingdom core...."

Also wikipediastates this:

"Mark Lehner, an Egyptologist, originally asserted that there had been a far earlier renovation during the Old Kingdom (c. 2686–2184 BC), although he has subsequently recanted this "heretical" viewpoint."

I believe Egyptology is about imagination and assumption along with science. As none can be sure of what exactly happened on that very period in history because of lacking written evidences, the imagination and individual theories have been accepted. While orthodoxs' imaginations those fit to the existing theory have been accepted and any diversion from the same has been rejected. And that is happening in the recent times, where the two sides have clear ego clash and no side accpeting a defeat.

I am no expert in Egyptology, but I gathered interest in it in past few years and found that Sphinx is really a mystery to the historians. Although very few facts about the Sphinx's history are clear to present day, yet the historian never agree to the fact. They will keep on putting names like Khafre or Khufu becuase that fits their timeline. In case of the GP, the orthodox history has answered almost all of the questions raised. But for Sphinx it's not true.

I definitely agree with many in this forum, that orthodox Egyptologists have closed the doors for new thoughts. Whatever orthodox historian says, reaches the text book easily even though that may be just an imagination of the historian. While the reverse is not trure for the alternative historian.

I think Dr Robert Schoch and John Anthony West are very much scientific in their approach of Sphinx erosion. Unfortunately, their thoughts are mostly rejected, instead of welcoming the new ideas and trying to evaluate it. The orthodox historian would just think of counter answers to disapprove this theory day and night with a closed mind. And when you just think negative about something, you may find a few points also.

The rain water erosion problem on Sphinx is still a big question mark, though there have been lots of counter attack to disprove it. And the biggest and simplest question about Sphinx that still not answered is whose face is it? I guess it should be the first question to be answered before trying to find archeological evidences whether Khafre's causeway decides Sphinx wall or not. The face is defnitely not Khufu or Khafre comparing the statues of both the kings.

What you're quoting about the blocks applied to the Sphinx in the Old Kingdom is not on the basis of renovations but reflects the original architecture from 2500 BCE. The Egyptians were expert stone masons and knew where faults and weaknesses lay in the stones they were using. They would've known large portions of the massif from which the Sphinx was carved, was composed of poor-quality limestone. This would've needed reinforcing from the very start.

I would definitely disregard the Wiki quote about Mark Lehner. Unless this is quoting something he might have said many years ago when he was part of the A.R.E. organization, and prior to his legitimate education and training to become an Egyptologist, the Wiki comment is plainly misleading. Lehner has authored a considerable body of literature, from lay books to many peer-reviewed papers and articles, and I've never once come across this comment he was supposed to have made.

J.A. West mostly parrots what Schoch has said and wrote. West is far from the worst alternative figure out there, but he's neither an historian nor researcher. As for Schoch, he is certainly a professionally trained geologist, but when one reviews his written material in whole, one cannot help but notice he's kind of gone off the deep end and has strayed from reason.

In point of fact Schoch's conclusions about the Sphinx have been addressed and reviewed by numerous colleagues in the archaeogeology and geological community, and have been dismissed as untenable. I would especially recommend the material written by James Harrell on this matter. I am certainly no geologist, but in my own review of Schoch's position, it's vividly apparent that he's posited one remote possibility about the Sphinx but has wholly ignored a wide array of other evidence that must be considered as a unit. There's a good reason Schoch is known to be wrong.

Orthodox scholars have never closed the doors to new ideas. That is not, and can never be, how research is conducted. The only thing that matters is the totality of extant evidence. Anything beyond that brings one either into the realm of unhelpful speculation or, in the extreme, nonsensical science fiction.

Geologists like James Harrell and seasoned Egyptologists like Mark Lehner, as well as critical research organizations like the Giza Plateau Mapping Project, have and continue to address many questions about the Giza Plateau and its monuments. They have contributed vital conclusions to our understanding, such as the age of the Sphinx and how it can be understood as an integral part of the Khafre pyramid complex. We cannot place the blame on them when alternative and fringe writers spin fanciful fictions on the one hand and ignore the extant evidence and scientific conclusions on the other.

The research is out there, available to everyone to read and absorb. No one is stopping the questioners from taking advantage of it.

Postscript: Curious about the statement in Wiki, I looked into it and followed the cited link to Collin Reader's paper about the Sphinx. Reader believes in a slightly older date for the Sphinx (Early Dynastic), albeit not the vastly older, untenable date argued by Schoch. In any case Reader does a good job of citing some of Lehner's own research on the Sphinx, from papers I have read, myself. In reviewing Reader's paper and his citations of Lehner's, one can see that Lehner himself originally believed some of the stone cladding on the Sphinx dated to the original Dynasty 4 project, in the manner I described above, but on closer inspection he eventually altered his conclusions to posit that the cladding actually dates to much later—to Dynasty 18.

So it would seem the Wiki article is indeed misleading. This is why one must be very careful when using Wikipedia, as handy as it is. It must never be used as primary research material.

[abhijit_b]

What you're quoting about the blocks applied to the Sphinx in the Old Kingdom is not on the basis of renovations but reflects the original architecture from 2500 BCE. The Egyptians were expert stone masons and knew where faults and weaknesses lay in the stones they were using. They would've known large portions of the massif from which the Sphinx was carved, was composed of poor-quality limestone. This would've needed reinforcing from the very start.

This is definitely what Lehner mentioned in his ARCEsphinx project.

"Judging by the way in which the surfaces of successive limestone beds were laid bare and followed by the Old Kingdom quarries in the area, the ancient Egyptians must have had an idea of the strength and quality of the various beds..........As they worked the stone down to form the body and sanctuary of the Sphinx they must have encountered the large fault that runs N-S and cuts the intended back of the Sphinx towards the rear, where it opens to a space a meter or more wide. This fault is clearly shown in Arch. Lacau photos. nos. CI 52 and 55, members of a series showing the condition of the Sphinx when excavated in 1925-6. This fault was recognized as a natural feature by Mariette, [5] who was the first to clear it; after it was blocked up along the sides with cement and limestone blocks, however, others have taken it to be an intrusive tomb shaft. .....How did the 4th Dynasty builders deal with this gaping fault in their plan for a finished statue? This and other questions led us to consider that the earliest level of masonry abutting the core-body, a layer of some of the largest blocks added to the Sphinx, may he in fact of Old Kingdom date, so that the body of the statue was finished at that period with the addition of large blocks and limestone-mortar packing."

But he also mentions:

"It seems necessary to conclude, therefore, that the core-body, of the Sphinx was already in a severe state of erosion when the earliest level of masonry was added, either completing sculpture left unfinished in the Old Kingdom, or restoring the original contours of a statue finished from the parent rock alone."

Now from both the statements above it is apparent that when the first masonary was added during the fourth dynasty, the Sphinx was very badly eroded! So is it possible that during construction timeframe of few years itself sphinx eroded to level of 25 cm? If that so, by this time Sphix should have been vanished and meet the sand.

I would definitely disregard the Wiki quote about Mark Lehner. Unless this is quoting something he might have said many years ago when he was part of the A.R.E. organization, and prior to his legitimate education and training to become an Egyptologist, the Wiki comment is plainly misleading. Lehner has authored a considerable body of literature, from lay books to many peer-reviewed papers and articles, and I've never once come across this comment he was supposed to have made.

I totally agree with you. Wiki can't be source of truth. But it is immensely helpful to people who wants quick reference to knowledge. It is slowly becoming encyclopedia that is trusted due to it's strict moderation of knowledgeable content. It is probably the same as papyrus to the ancient people.

Coming to the point, I have never dis-regarded Lehner. He is definitely the most knowledgeable Egyptologists in the present day. But that doesn't mean that he can't go wrong with his instict at times.

J.A. West mostly parrots what Schoch has said and wrote. West is far from the worst alternative figure out there, but he's neither an historian nor researcher. As for Schoch, he is certainly a professionally trained geologist, but when one reviews his written material in whole, one cannot help but notice he's kind of gone off the deep end and has strayed from reason.

I beg to defer you here. We need to remember that History is not exactly science. I can't proceed to know quantum physics until and unless I clear my classical physics concept. But the same is not true for history. I don't need to go back to primary school and study history there to reach a level to understand Egypt's history. History is knowing exactly about our past (I am sorry, I don't to teach you what history is, as you are one genuine historian in the forum with all respect, but just putting my point). You can't alter what was done in the past, so you don't need an innovative mind like scientist to become a historian. But in case pre-historic events that don't have any written evidence, we require an innovative mind to find a clue of the mystery, so we need more than a historian here. Also, to become a historian is it so necessary to have a two year university degree? How a person who invested so much time studying monuments be less knowledgeable than a person taking a degree from university? I am sure West can sit in the examination hall to get a degree easily. Will that make him historian? I think we should at least respect someone's effort and passion of doing something positive towards one stream of human intelligence.

I agree that West's logic of ET, mars etc are ridiculous. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't know anything about Egypt. It is in fact good that he didn't come from conventional history. Because all the conventional historian's mind is set with some existing knowledge and when they come to research they do have a pre-concived notion with a close mind.

We need to respect the fact, West is the person who brought in Schoch into the Egypt and it opened a new horizon on the study of Sphinx. Also West was the person to take forensic help to find whether Sphinx's face if that of Khafre's. A totally scientific approach and that exposed the truth, till then it was claimed and accepted to be Khafre's face by orthodox historians. And so on....

In point of fact Schoch's conclusions about the Sphinx have been addressed and reviewed by numerous colleagues in the archaeogeology and geological community, and have been dismissed as untenable. I would especially recommend the material written by James Harrell on this matter. I am certainly no geologist, but in my own review of Schoch's position, it's vividly apparent that he's posited one remote possibility about the Sphinx but has wholly ignored a wide array of other evidence that must be considered as a unit. There's a good reason Schoch is known to be wrong.

This is a very important point needs to be observed closely. As you mentioned, various studies have been done by geologists to validate Schoch. James Hurrell, Lal Gauri, David Billington, Colin Reader are the foremost names here. The first two geologists have criticized Schoch while the later two supported his interpretation to some extent.

Now we need to see who is Lal Gauri and Jame Hurrell and what was their theories, rahter hypothesis. Dr gauri was the person who has been a fellow researchers of Lehner since his ARCE project in 1980s. Gauri was the person who sat along with Lehner in the 1992 conference against Schoch. Similarly Hurrell is also a co-worker of Lehner and Gauri since 80s. They have been supporting Lehner in his findings about Sphinx as a unit of Khafre's complex. Now. it is obvioud to doubt their independce of thought on this. They already have a notion that the Sphinx is built by Khafre for decades and it will be difficult to name their research un-influential. They first came up with the haloclastly model of erosion where the limestone will dissolve salts, which are then carried by percolating moisture into the spaces inside the porous limestone. It was very well depicted the ARCE project paper and before Schoch's research. This defintely explains current day erosion of the Sphinx but defies to expalain the vertical erosion pattern. It was uninamously accepted. Later, post Schoch research, Hurrell came up with his "wet-sand" hypothesis. This hypothesis says that the vertical erosion pattern is due to the wet sand accumulating on the Sphinx's surfaces. The sand was wetted by two processes, Nile inaundation and rainfall. According to Hurell, the rain water arrived at the SPhinx complex by either overland or by subsurface flow". This hypothesis was well criticized by Colin Reader later in his paper. He states:

"Unfortunately for Harrell’s argument there is a major contradiction inherent in these objections. His statement that run-off can be observed today does not sit particularly well with his second point that, as rainfall would infiltrate the exposed limestones, run-off would not be generated at Giza. This contradiction is maintained when later in his March 2000 paper, Harrell returns to run-off as one of the primary methods by which sand within the Sphinx enclosure will have become wet.

..........

..........

Notwithstanding this, it is my opinion that the degradation of the Sphinx enclosure is not consistent with what would be expected from the mechanism described by Harrell. If sub-surface flow emerged as spring lines in the western face of the Sphinx enclosure, a series of open, solution cavities (Karstic features seen elsewhere at Giza) would be evident emerging from deep into the limestone. These features, if present at all, do not dominate the western Sphinx enclosure walls. In fact the most significant degradation consists of the deep sub-vertical features and rounded or coved appearance to the rocks, features that are so typical of surface erosion by flowing water."

Colin mentions that

" Having ‘disposed’ of my argument, Harrell then goes on to describe the work of Gauri et al14, fellow advocates of the conventional Fourth Dynasty age of the Sphinx. Gauri attributes the degradation of the Sphinx to chemical weathering and exfoliation, a process that Harrell views as complimentary to his own ‘wet-sand’ hypothesis. Whilst I accept that Gauri’s chemical weathering has affected the exposed limestones within the Sphinx enclosure, in my July 1999 paper2, I discussed at length the limitations of this process, indicating that it fails to explain the more intense degradation of the western Sphinx enclosure walls.

Both chemical weathering and wet sand are considered by their respective authors to have been particularly active up to the present day and are the cause, they believe, of the more intense degradation in the western Sphinx enclosure. On this basis they argue that it is not necessary for the Sphinx to have been built before the Fourth Dynasty. The evidence from the site, however, is that the processes that led to the more intense degradation of the Sphinx enclosure, are not currently active and have not been experienced for at least the past 2500 years."

So do you think that actually Gauri and Hurrell actually disproved Schoch?

Now let's look into Colin Reader and David Billington. Both of them expert geologists and investigated the erosion independent of Schoch and Lehner. Both are not egyptologists but researched the Sphinx without a pre-concieved notion. Both supported the rain water erosion pattern proposed by Schoch. Livington while supported Schoch completely, while Colin reader went ahead with his hypothesis of rain water run-off in addition to the simple rain water erosion. So, he wouldn't agree to Schoch in the dates of the Sphinx but definitely identifies it to be older than Khafre.

Orthodox scholars have never closed the doors to new ideas. That is not, and can never be, how research is conducted. The only thing that matters is the totality of extant evidence. Anything beyond that brings one either into the realm of unhelpful speculation or, in the extreme, nonsensical science fiction.

I would be very wrong if I say that the orthodox scholars are closed eyes. They have completely built the timeline, history, culture of a five thousand year old civilization. But I feel a recent trend of extreme ego clash between both the parties.

When Lehner published his ARCE research, he was not a scholar at that time as you mentioned rightly. But what we see that over later period he never ever tried reset his mind and tried to investigate Sphinx from ground zero. His endeavours were mainly to add more supportive material to his exisitng theory of Khafre. The questions raised in this theory were dismissed all the time. And I always believe his initial notion was first triggered by dream stele and Salim Hassan and he just worked on support that.

Geologists like James Harrell and seasoned Egyptologists like Mark Lehner, as well as critical research organizations like the Giza Plateau Mapping Project, have and continue to address many questions about the Giza Plateau and its monuments. They have contributed vital conclusions to our understanding, such as the age of the Sphinx and how it can be understood as an integral part of the Khafre pyramid complex. We cannot place the blame on them when alternative and fringe writers spin fanciful fictions on the one hand and ignore the extant evidence and scientific conclusions on the other.

I really feel pity on Geologists like James Hurrell at times. They have more confidence on Archeology than their own geology. They assume archeology defined by Lehner is absolute and then try to fit their geology into it. But I believe history work the other way round. When any excavation is done, the time line is determined first by carbon dating and then style, culture, design is defined. But for sphinx it's happening the other way round. I belive the geology should be the closest thing to carbon dating to determine the age of the sphinx. Once the date is confirmed we should try to fit to a king.

The research is out there, available to everyone to read and absorb. No one is stopping the questioners from taking advantage of it.

Yes and the questions are simple:

1. Lehner believes it is built by Khafre and the face is also of Khafre. So is there any scientific evidence that the face is of Khafre? Now please don't blame the egyptians for creating so imperfect face of the king. On one hand we credit them for extraordinary on the other hand we forgive them also making such a blunder that even the racial attributes of the king couldn't be maintained by the sculptors.

2. Is there any written evidence? If no then why are we so much sure of Khafre? Is it because of the astronomical alignment of Sun on equinox with Sphinx's shoulder with Khafre's pyramid?

3. As carbon-dating etc can't be done directly on the original structure, can we take account of the geology which can be of more scientific approach than other assumptions?

4. Regarding the Khafre's complex as unit, it is the strongest point suggested by Lehner. It is the most abstract point any one can support. When it comes Egyptological archeology and style, it's difficult to confront Lehner. But it is questioned very easily. There is this interesting discussion from Hurrell and reader debate:

Hurrell:

"Another argument Reader makes for his earlier date has to do with the location of the causeway connecting Khafre's pyramid and valley temple. He says because there are Fourth Dynasty limestone quarries on both the causeway's northern and southern sides it must predate them, and as part of an important religious monument of the Early Dynastic period later quarrying would not have cut through it. This sounds reasonable but Reader overlooks two other, and I would say even more likely, explanations. Khafre was Khufu's son and so it is entirely possible that the future location for Khafre's causeway was known and so excluded from quarrying while Khufu's pyramid was being built. Alternatively, if Khafre's causeway was not already planned in Khufu's time then the quarry on the north side may not cut the causeway simply because there was no need to quarry that far to the south. There was ample limestone available for quarrying to the west and closer to Khufu's pyramid." The argument defintely feels very lame, it predicts future!

Reader replies to that:

"Finally, Harrell also objects to my pre-Fourth Dynasty attribution for the alignment of ‘Khafre’s’ causeway. I based this conclusion on the fact that this linear body of rock had survived Khufu’s quarrying of the site, which suggests that it was a feature of some importance (consistent with my view that it was part of an early site of solar-worship). Harrell considers that when Khufu was developing the site, his son’s mortuary complex (i.e. Khafre) may well have already been in the planning stage and the alignment of the causeway may have already been established. This argument, however, neglects any consideration of the reign of Djedefre, Khufu’s direct successor, who began the construction of his mortuary complex at Abu Rawash. I consider that the shift in location to Abu Rawash severely weakens any consideration of a ‘masterplan’ for the Giza site."

It means that Sphinx as a part Khafre's unit is not full proof too.

So why is this adamancy about Khafre?

Why can't the Egyptologists simply admit that there is lot to be investigated for SPhinx? Nothing is conclusive. Why they try to impose Khafre?

Schoch's 10000 years old Sphinx may be over estimated. But there is enough evidence NATURE has written on the Sphinx's body that it is built much before Khafre. Do you beleive in nature's law or Lehner's words?

Hope everyone had a merry Xmas.

Edited December 26, 2012 by abhijit_b

[Swede]

SC: They were never found with a body and later AE festivals show us exactly why these stone boxes were found empty and what these stone boxes actually were - 'Osiris Bricks' or 'Osiris Beds'. The early, giant pyramids came to represent the allegorical 'Body of Osiris'. The stone box containing seed and earth would symbolise the Ka of Osiris. The stone box containing earth and bull bones represents the Ba of Osiris. These stone boxes contained the 'soul of Osiris' (his ka and Ba) within the allegorical, dismembered Body of Osiris i.e. the early, giant pyramids.

SC

There would appear to be inconsistencies in your rationale. To my knowledge, there are only three known "Osiris Beds" (KV36, KV46, KV62). These are constructed of wood and linen and date from the 18th Dynasty, some 1000+ years post the Giza constructs. Thirteen pottery "Osiris Bricks" are known to exist (Tooley 1996:172). These have been dated from the Third Intermediate (~ 1070 BC) to the Late Period (Greco-Roman) (Tooley 1996:178).

Thus, neither of the above forms can be associated with stone sarcophagi nor the period under consideration.

Edit: Spacing.

Edited December 26, 2012 by Swede

[Scott Creighton]

There would appear to be inconsistencies in your rationale. To my knowledge, there are only three known "Osiris Beds" (KV36, KV46, KV62). These are constructed of wood and linen and date from the 18th Dynasty, some 1000+ years post the Giza constructs. Thirteen pottery "Osiris Bricks" are known to exist (Tooley 1996:172). These have been dated from the Third Intermediate (~ 1070 BC) to the Late Period (Greco-Roman) (Tooley 1996:178).

Thus, neither of the above forms can be associated with stone sarcophagi nor the period under consideration.

Edit: Spacing.

SC: There is much, much more evidence out there. Suggest you do more research.

SC

[Swede]

SC: There is much, much more evidence out there. Suggest you do more research.

SC

Au contraire. In relatively recent history you have made quite a number of absolutist statements in regards to your position. Kindly provide the documentation to which you would appear to be referring.

.

[Scott Creighton]

Au contraire. In relatively recent history you have made quite a number of absolutist statements in regards to your position. Kindly provide the documentation to which you would appear to be referring.

.

SC: In relatively recent history I have made many claims and have also provided the evidence/citations to back up my claims as a number of Egypt-apologists on this Forum (and elsewhere) have already found to their cost. Only a fool would make claims they cannot substantiate. But do not think that I am about to spoon-feed you. Far from it. On this one you’ll just have to do your own research. Trust me – the evidence is there. Not that such evidence is what actually matters to you in any case since you have already decided that it is not going to change your mind one iota. It’s tombs or bust for you. Your desire for me to present the evidence supporting my claims to you on a plate (instead of you doing your own legwork) is all about you trying to find some means of discrediting the evidence that backs up my claim. For you this is not about the evidence supporting what I am saying – for you it’s simply about trying to find a means of debunking it. You have already decided that my re-interpretation of the evidence is wrong and that it is not going to change your mind a single dot. One has to wonder then - why bother with what I am claiming? If you want to learn more about my re-interpretation of the evidence then you are just going to have to get up off your bahookie and do your own legwork. Think of this as ‘keeping one’s powder dry’.

SC

Edited December 27, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[kmt_sesh]

SC: In relatively recent history I have made many claims and have also provided the evidence/citations to back up my claims as a number of Egypt-apologists on this Forum (and elsewhere) have already found to their cost. Only a fool would make claims they cannot substantiate. But do not think that I am not about to spoon-feed you. Far from it. On this one you’ll just have to do your own research. Trust me – the evidence is there. Not that such evidence is what actually matters to you in any case since you have already decided that it is not going to change your mind one iota. It’s tombs or bust for you. Your desire for me to present the evidence supporting my claims to you on a plate (instead of you doing your own legwork) is all about you trying to find some means of discrediting the evidence that backs up my claim. For you this is not about the evidence supporting what I am saying – for you it’s simply about trying to find a means of debunking it. You have already decided that my re-interpretation of the evidence is wrong and that it is not going to change your mind a single dot. One has to wonder then - why bother with what I am claiming? If you want to learn more about my re-interpretation of the evidence then you are just going to have to get up off your bahookie and do your own legwork. Think of this as ‘keeping one’s powder dry’.

SC

This is not how it works, Scott. You've upset no apple carts so it behooves you to support your statements. Swede is right: recently you have indeed been making absolutist statements and telling others to "do their research."

You made a statement. Swede has requested the source you used to make that statement. It is only reasonable that you do so. It is not reasonable to ask Swede to pour through mountains of research when you are already privy to the exact source in question.

If you are not prepared to cite your source or point a poster in a helpful direction, do not make the statement in the first place.

Thank you.

[Scott Creighton]

This is not how it works, Scott. You've upset no apple carts so it behooves you to support your statements. Swede is right: recently you have indeed been making absolutist statements and telling others to "do their research."

You made a statement. Swede has requested the source you used to make that statement. It is only reasonable that you do so. It is not reasonable to ask Swede to pour through mountains of research when you are already privy to the exact source in question.

If you are not prepared to cite your source or point a poster in a helpful direction, do not make the statement in the first place.

Thank you.

SC: I have given enough already over the past year on this Forum for any reader/poster to analyse my claims further by doing their own research. THAT'S how it works. I am presently writing my next book - I will divulge my sources in my time when I am good and ready to do so. Sorry if that upsets you. Think of it as playing hardball.

SC

[kmt_sesh]

SC: I have given enough already over the past year on this Forum for any reader/poster to analyse my claims further by doing their own research. THAT'S how it works. I am presently writing my next book - I will divulge my sources in my time when I am good and ready to do so. Sorry if that upsets you. Think of it as playing hardball.

SC

I am not upset, but I expect more of posters who want to take part in discussions. I am aware of some of your information from debating you in recent months, but that does not mean Swede is aware of it. He asked you for a source, therefore it is only reasonable for you to provide one. You could at least point him to a specific post or two that you wrote, which would explain your position in more detail.

If you're writing a book and are too busy to do this, then take a break and step back from this discussion. Do not expect others to do the work for you. That's not "hardball" but it comes across as evasion. You've been asked, you should answer. It's only fair.

Thank you.

[Scott Creighton]

I am not upset, but I expect more of posters who want to take part in discussions. I am aware of some of your information from debating you in recent months, but that does not mean Swede is aware of it. He asked you for a source, therefore it is only reasonable for you to provide one. You could at least point him to a specific post or two that you wrote, which would explain your position in more detail.

If you're writing a book and are too busy to do this, then take a break and step back from this discussion. Do not expect others to do the work for you. That's not "hardball" but it comes across as evasion. You've been asked, you should answer. It's only fair.

Thank you.

SC: No. Swede made a statement that is factually incorrect. If s/he does a bit more research for him/herself then s/he will discover for him/herself why the statement is wrong. This site has a search facility, doesn’t it? It’s not too difficult to use.

“Take a break?” Yes, I am sure that would appeal to you.

SC

[kmt_sesh]

Scott, in case you don't understand, I wrote the preceding two posts as a Moderator. I am trying to be helpful and at the same time cautioning you.

I advise you leave it alone at this point. Either take part in the discussion or leave it alone altogether.

Thank you.

[Scott Creighton]

Scott, in case you don't understand, I wrote the preceding two posts as a Moderator. I am trying to be helpful and at the same time cautioning you.

I advise you leave it alone at this point. Either take part in the discussion or leave it alone altogether.

Thank you.

SC: Caution? For what exactly? For advising another poster to do more research on his own (the best way actually of doing research)? Why exactly should such friendly advice warrant a caution? Do explain yourself. Let me see - by my very questioning of this silly caution, you will now feel justified to revoke posting rights? Is that the plan? Muzzle and shut down the poster when you do not like the theories they present, especially when they challenge your own cherished views. Is this the new censor regime you spoke of recently? Censor posts, remove posts etc.

Listen up folks and smell the coffee...

SC

[jmccr8]

Hello Scott,

I know that what I am about to say may offend you but that is not my intent.The questions that you face here are only voiced by a few,many of us are thinking the same thing and would like to see your supporting evidence,look you have over 1600 posts in this thread and over 50,000 views.Sure you have probably invested 1000nds of hours looking at things and to you your theory is all good.You know after I build a car I take it to a garage to have someone else look at it just to make sure that I have tightened all the bolts and have another view on it.It re-inforces the end product and I exercise this in all areas of interest and life.

The barriers that your proposal faces here should be an avenue for you to enhance and refine your theory.If you do not then you limit your ability to effectively project your ideas.

[Lilly]

I think this is a real good time for me to post a couple of reminders:

6a. Compliance: You agree to co-operate with the requests of our site staff should you be asked to stop doing something that they deem to be disruptive, inappropriate or in violation of the terms of service.

6c. Appeal: Do not post content designed to complain about, rally support against or to criticise moderator action. If you disagree with action taken by a member of staff you have the option to appeal the decision by PMing a moderator or administrator.

At this point it would be a very good idea to review the UM rules.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Lilly
format