Real age of the Sphinx ?

[Guest]

Hi all,

So what does everyone think as to the age of the sphinx. Seems to me that there is a case to be made for the sphinx been a lot older than the Old Kingdom.

Also what do you think are the chances of finding secret chambers underneath the Sphinx ?

Br Cornelius

[Harte]

Hi all,

So what does everyone think as to the age of the sphinx. Seems to me that there is a case to be made for the sphinx been a lot older than the Old Kingdom.

I'd put it, as current research stands today, and in the form it has today, at possibly a couple hundred years older than orthodoxy claims. At the most.

Also what do you think are the chances of finding secret chambers underneath the Sphinx ?

Br Cornelius

Depends on what you mean by "secret chambers."

If you mean the hall of records, only Heisenberg prevents me from saying the chances are exactly zero.

If you mean caves and crevices, then your odds shoot up quite high.

It is carved in situ from the native limestone, after all, and limestone is notoriously spongey.

Harte

[Guest]

What about Dr Thomas L Dobecki's seismographic tests which showed a large "rectangular" chamber infront of the sphinx.

Also there seems to be some unusual granite structures below the sphinx as well. Unusual because the nile valley doesn't have natural granite in it.

How about Schoch's reports of water erosion on the sphinx.

Br Cornelius

[cladking]

It could be as old as perhaps 2800 BC.

I'm not in the least impressed with most of Dr Shoch's work but it's entirely

possible that he could be closer to being correct about the extent of water e-

rosion than he is usually credited for. I have no special knowledge of the geo-

logy but there is obviously a lot of damage to this wall.

I don't believe that drawing conclusions on this basis alone is safe. My own

guess is that a lot of this erosion might have been episodic and caused by

dam failures at the pyramids above or the simple release of excessive quan-

tities of water. Even rain when everything is already saturated could cause

a lot of wear and tear if this wall was draining more than half a square mile.

I believe there was water normally being fed through "campell's tomb" and

going around the Sphinx and under the temple below. They probably wouldn't

mind if the land were sloped in this direction since it would add to the effect

in rains and during water discharges. Perhaps 300 years of this could ac-

count for a discrepancy if there really is one.

Edited September 15, 2008 by cladking

[Unknown Rebel]

What about Dr Thomas L Dobecki's seismographic tests which showed a large "rectangular" chamber infront of the sphinx.

Also there seems to be some unusual granite structures below the sphinx as well. Unusual because the nile valley doesn't have natural granite in it.

How about Schoch's reports of water erosion on the sphinx.

Br Cornelius

I remember reading that Schoch's tests were flawed, Lambert Dolphin addressed the report about water erosion and offered a very good rebuttal. Schochs Water Erosion claim is controversial as local atmospheric conditions as a result of local industrial pollution have been observed and is well known by Egyptologists as causing damage to several of the Giza monuments, as for the age of the Sphinx i beleive from what i have read that my own understanding puts its age at about the time of Khafre.

[isis-999]

Schoch's test seem to closer to the real age IMO, But no matter what Hawass is not going to let anyone prove something he doesn't agree with...

[dervish]

I'd put it, as current research stands today, and in the form it has today, at possibly a couple hundred years older than orthodoxy claims. At the most.

Depends on what you mean by "secret chambers."

If you mean the hall of records, only Heisenberg prevents me from saying the chances are exactly zero.

If you mean caves and crevices, then your odds shoot up quite high.

It is carved in situ from the native limestone, after all, and limestone is notoriously spongey.

Harte

I have been lurking onthis forum for months withut posting bu tfinally I a doing it.

Harte - you really sicken me everyt time I read your posts. Why do you come to his forum ??

Al you do is attack and dismiss all this wonderful ideas? You relaly depress me with you know-it-all attitude.

Go to a sceptics site please.

[funnyvalentine]

So what does everyone think as to the age of the sphinx. Seems to me that there is a case to be made for the sphinx been a lot older than the Old Kingdom.

Also what do you think are the chances of finding secret chambers underneath the Sphinx ?

Do you believe in past lives, Br? I don't have any experience with them, but I do have a friend on another forum who does and he has told me he has a past-life memory of the sphinx with a larger cat's head instead of a man's. Most archeologists, from what I've read, believed it to be around 4,500 years old. But about ten years ago I remember reading about something called "precipitation-induced weathering" that had caused some researchers to think it could be as old as 9,000 years. Others disagree because it doesn't jive with their knowledge of Egypt as we know it today. It would mean there was a pre-Egyptian civilization there.

When I've looked at pictures of it, one thing I always thought was puzzling (from an artist's viewpoint) is that the head is not in proportion to the rest of the structure. It's seems too small. And that made me wonder if there might have been something else there at one time--like my friend suggested. That's not scientific, but I am intrigued by the thought of it anyway.

[EnelyaCalaelen]

When I've looked at pictures of it, one thing I always thought was puzzling (from an artist's viewpoint) is that the head is not in proportion to the rest of the structure. It's seems too small. And that made me wonder if there might have been something else there at one time--like my friend suggested. That's not scientific, but I am intrigued by the thought of it anyway.

One theory is, that it was originally a sculpture of a lion, and that they changed the head from that of a lion to it's current human form. This would explain the differences in proportion.

[Qoais]

It's been said many times, many ways - that some Pharoah in the past recarved it to suit himself. That's why it's smaller. Also it's been damaged a number of times and in the restoration process, things got changed. I always thought the head looked like a woman.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Qoais

[cladking]

I think this thread deserved more attention than it got.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...8&hl=sphinx

This isn't extremely well substantiated but does seem to fit.

Since the thread was at the top, I've also seen some old drawings and topographical maps of Giza which appear to show another very well defined base a couple hundred yards north of the Sphinx which might have been the the base for a second Sphinx.

In a nutshell, the Sphinx is perfectly proportioned for a linx. The face of a linx look just like this sculpture except for the human eyes, nose, and mouth.

Edited September 16, 2008 by cladking

[cladking]

I have been lurking onthis forum for months withut posting bu tfinally I a doing it.

Harte - you really sicken me everyt time I read your posts. Why do you come to his forum ??

Al you do is attack and dismiss all this wonderful ideas? You relaly depress me with you know-it-all attitude.

Go to a sceptics site please.

I don't think it's fair to jump on Harte this way. There's nothing wrong

with being skeptical and he has made an awful lot of good points and

great posts.

If this really is your only post then he's way ahead of you.

[Harte]

I have been lurking onthis forum for months withut posting bu tfinally I a doing it.

Harte - you really sicken me everyt time I read your posts. Why do you come to his forum ??

Al you do is attack and dismiss all this wonderful ideas? You relaly depress me with you know-it-all attitude.

Go to a sceptics site please.

Dervish,

Whether you wish to believe it or not, the fact is I'm very knowledgeable about (coincidentally) this one area of pseudohistory - the so-called "antiquity" of the sphinx. I probably know more about this one, single aspect of pseudohistory than I do any other topic in that ever-expanding field. In fact, it was the supposed archaic sphinx that first got me interested in researching these sorts of topics.

The idea was first professionally proposed by Dr. Robert Schoch. Schoch is a professor of Geophysics at Boston University. I've read, several times, everything that Schoch has written on the subject. Prior to reading what Schoch said, I was sort of like you.

I've read also all the rebuttals of Schoch's hypothesis.

Schoch himself never dated the sphinx to the extreme age that most pseudohistorians attribute to it, despite the fact that most of these "alternate historians" reference Schoch as their source for the more outlandish claims for the age of the sphinx. Not only that, and this might surprise you and many others that read this, but Schoch's estimated date for the early carving of the sphinx is in no way based on rainfall, nor does it depend in any way on water erosion.

What I'm saying is, I didn't come by my opinion regarding the sphinx (and most other things I comment on) by "lurking" at one or the other "mystery forums." I came by it after carefully examining both sides of the argument and weighing the evidence presented.

I must agree with you that these ideas are "wonderful." However, most of "these ideas" are also simply erroneous, which, I've found, is (sadly) the case with most "wonderful ideas."

It is, for example, a "wonderful idea" that Man is basically good. But when one realizes that this philosophy of the basic goodness of Man is the basis for Communism as envisioned by Karl Marx, and then one thinks of how Communism actually played out in practice, one must inevitably come to one of two conclusions: either Man is not basically good, or the philosophy of the basic goodness of Man is not something one may successfully build the foundation of a system of government on. Yet the idea itself is, similar to what you say, a "wonderful" one.

I wish I could be like you, believing in the "wonderful ideas" - and I speak from experience, having at one point in my life felt the way you apparently do about these "out-there" theories. However, unfortunately, I took the time to look into most of them and found out that the vast majority of pseudohistory is written based on a skein of lies and mischaracterizations. I have concluded from this sorry fact that most of the "wonderful ideas" (as you refer to them) are actually falsehoods perpetuated by people out there trying to sell books to individuals such as yourself that simply don't know any better.

Let me say lastly that sites like unexplained mysteries, without skeptics, may as well change their names to something like "unexplained bobble heads" because without both sides of an argument, the posters simply spend the rest of their time nodding at each other in vigorous and ignorant agreement.

Might I suggest you go to one of those kind of sites? See, I'm not leaving here and it pains me to think of you sitting there getting sick. Why would you do that to yourself?

If my suggestion is too much, then I suggest you use the "ignore" function here. If you put me on "ignore," you'll never have to read one of my posts again. Think of the money you'll save on antacids!

I don't think it's fair to jump on Harte this way. There's nothing wrong

with being skeptical and he has made an awful lot of good points and

great posts.

If this really is your only post then he's way ahead of you.

Thank you for your support there, Cladking,. You are a gentleman and .... well, a gentleman anyway!

Harte

[Guest]

Take heart harte !

I certainly value your input and respect your wealth of research even though we don't always come to the same conclusions.

Br Cornelius

[Harte]

Take heart harte !

I certainly value your input and respect your wealth of research even though we don't always come to the same conclusions.

Br Cornelius

Thank you very much, Brother, for saying so.

I do appreciate it.

But don't worry. Some dude with one post certainly won't affect me or my attitude/style, though I admit that I come across in a manner that can be quite irritating.

Fact is, I relish it. I wallow in my "know-it-allness."

I do it because I think it's amusing. Actually, I've cracked myself up (probably) far more times that I've caused anyone else to grin at this forum!

Harte

Edited September 17, 2008 by Harte

[Iron Sheik]

I have been lurking onthis forum for months withut posting bu tfinally I a doing it.

Harte - you really sicken me everyt time I read your posts. Why do you come to his forum ??

Al you do is attack and dismiss all this wonderful ideas? You relaly depress me with you know-it-all attitude.

Go to a sceptics site please.

Damn you, Harte! You and your common sense, rationality and facts! Damn you to hell!

...

[StGeorge]

I watched a History Channel programme stating that a young Phoaroh (Khafre) 'discovered' the Sphinx while out hunting quail or something.. he eventually excaveted it. and made it his own ... He never actually 'built' the Sphinx.. I cannot find the link for that show but found this other link on the same idea..

http://jcolavito.tripod.com/lostcivilizations/id17.html

[Harte]

I watched a History Channel programme stating that a young Phoaroh (Khafre) 'discovered' the Sphinx while out hunting quail or something.. he eventually excaveted it. and made it his own ... He never actually 'built' the Sphinx.. I cannot find the link for that show but found this other link on the same idea..

http://jcolavito.tripod.com/lostcivilizations/id17.html

St. George,

Google the "Dream Stela" to find out his story, which is about the Pharoah Thutmose IV and his renovation of the Sphinx thought to have been accomplished around 1400 BC.

It wasn't Khafre or Khufu. It was a long time after those guys, a thousand years or so.

Or you could just read about it HERE and HERE.

Harte

Edited September 18, 2008 by Harte

[StGeorge]

Thank you...

STG

[kmt_sesh]

Hi all,

So what does everyone think as to the age of the sphinx. Seems to me that there is a case to be made for the sphinx been a lot older than the Old Kingdom.

Also what do you think are the chances of finding secret chambers underneath the Sphinx ?

Br Cornelius

For my own two cents' worth, there's really no evidence to support a significantly older date for the Sphinx. Everything from geology to archaeology supports the orthodox date to within a couple of hundred years--some scholars have convincingly argued the possibility, for example, that the original carvings of the limestone massif that became the Sphinx took place in the Early Dynastic Period.

However, the brunt of evidence still establishes Dynasty 4 for the creation of the Sphinx more or less as we know it today. As an example, the mineralogical and chemical composition of the limestone matrix from the trench surrounding the Sphinx, are identical to at least some of the blocks in the Sphinx temple. That temple is classically and definitively Dynasty 4 in origin. In other words, at least some of the stones that went into the creation of the Sphinx temple were cut from the bedrock that went on to become the Sphinx trench.

I would put no stock whatsoever in Robert Schoch, as others have already cautioned. He is a university trained geologist, but he has no support from his colleagues. Of the numerous reports I've read from other geologists who've studied the Sphinx and its environs, not one agrees with Schoch and his alternative dating.

As for caverns below the Sphinx, I will concede that some small voids are likely down there. That is simply the nature of limestone. However, the large chambers of lore? No. The SCA has been concerned about the amount of ground water that has been seeping to the surface around the Sphinx lately, so not very long ago they drilled a number of very deep holes all around the Sphinx to obtain core samples. I'm not sure what they learned about the ground water situation, but they did learn that there are no large chambers below the Sphinx.

[kmt_sesh]

St. George,

Google the "Dream Stela" to find out his story, which is about the Pharoah Thutmose IV and his renovation of the Sphinx thought to have been accomplished around 1400 BC.

It wasn't Khafre or Khufu. It was a long time after those guys, a thousand years or so.

Or you could just read about it HERE and HERE.

Harte

I'd also add that in the New Kingdom the Giza Plateau was a popular place to visit, for kings and commoners alike. Prince Khaemwaset (son of Ramesses II, Dynasty 19) had a great fondness for the entire necropolis (including Saqqara) and took it upon himself to renovate and restore many tombs and monuments in the region. Amunhotep II (Dynasty 18) built a temple nearby the Sphinx. The Plateau would always be a place of pilgrimage and religious devotion. In the Late Period, for example, a small temple to Isis was built in the old mortuary chapel of the southernmost of Khufu's queens' pyramids.

The Egyptians of later times looked back with pride on the accomplishments of their royal ancestors. Nowadays people are obsessed with Khufu and his Great Pyramid, for obvious reasons, but in later dynastic history it was Sneferu who received particular veneration. He built three large pyramids, after all. When a king in later times commissioned some impressive monument, inscriptions boasting of it would say something to the effect of: "Not since Sneferu's time has the likes of this been seen!"

[The_Spartan]

I am not "bumping" this thread.

I want to add something thats contrevorsial on the subject, a piece of information thats come a few hours back on the net.

Geological aspect of the problem of dating the Great Egyptian Sphinx construction(pdf file)

The following paper was submiited for The International Conference on Geoarchaeology and Archaeomineralogy. The abstract of the paper states

ABSTRACT. The problem of dating the Great Egyptian Sphinx construction is still valid, despite of the long-term history of its research. Geological

approach in connection to other scientific-natural methods permits to answer the question about the relative age of the Sphinx. The conducted

visual investigation of the Sphinx allowed the conclusion about the important role of water from large water bodies which partially flooded the

monument with formation of wave-cut hollows on its vertical walls. The morphology of these formations has an analogy with similar such hollows

formed by the sea in the coastal zones. Genetic resemblance of the compared erosion forms and the geological structure and petrographic

composition of sedimentary rock complexes lead to a conclusion that the decisive factor of destruction of the historic monument is the wave energy

rather than sand abrasion in Eolian process. Voluminous geological literature confirms the fact of existence of long-living fresh-water lakes in

various periods of the Quaternary from the Lower Pleistocene to the Holocene. These lakes were distributed in the territories adjacent to the Nile.

The absolute mark of the upper large erosion hollow of the Sphinx corresponds to the level of water surface which took place in the Early

Pleistocene. The Great Egyptian Sphinx had already stood on the Giza Plateau by that geological (historical) time.

Pleistocene?????

Thats close to 10,000 years ago!!!

[edit] Water Erosion Debate

R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz, a French polymath and amateur Egyptologist, first noticed evidence of water erosion on the walls of the Sphinx Enclosure in the 1950s. Author John Anthony West investigated further and in 1989 sought the opinion of a geologist, Robert M. Schoch, associate professor of natural science at the College of General Studies, Boston University.[15]

From his investigation of the Enclosure's geology, Schoch concluded that the main type of weathering evident on the Sphinx Enclosure walls could only have been caused by prolonged and extensive rain.[16] According to Schoch, the area has experienced a mean annual rainfall of approximately one inch (2.5 cm) since the Old Kingdom (c. 2686–2134 BCE), and since Egypt’s last period of significant rainfall ended between the late fourth and early third millennia BCE,[17] he dates the Sphinx's construction to the sixth or fifth millennia BCE.[18][19][20]

Water Erosion Debate

This is contrevorsial. What do you say?

[cormac mac airt]

I am not "bumping" this thread.

I want to add something thats contrevorsial on the subject, a piece of information thats come a few hours back on the net.

Geological aspect of the problem of dating the Great Egyptian Sphinx construction(pdf file)

The following paper was submiited for The International Conference on Geoarchaeology and Archaeomineralogy. The abstract of the paper states

ABSTRACT. The problem of dating the Great Egyptian Sphinx construction is still valid, despite of the long-term history of its research. Geological

approach in connection to other scientific-natural methods permits to answer the question about the relative age of the Sphinx. The conducted

visual investigation of the Sphinx allowed the conclusion about the important role of water from large water bodies which partially flooded the

monument with formation of wave-cut hollows on its vertical walls. The morphology of these formations has an analogy with similar such hollows

formed by the sea in the coastal zones. Genetic resemblance of the compared erosion forms and the geological structure and petrographic

composition of sedimentary rock complexes lead to a conclusion that the decisive factor of destruction of the historic monument is the wave energy

rather than sand abrasion in Eolian process. Voluminous geological literature confirms the fact of existence of long-living fresh-water lakes in

various periods of the Quaternary from the Lower Pleistocene to the Holocene. These lakes were distributed in the territories adjacent to the Nile.

The absolute mark of the upper large erosion hollow of the Sphinx corresponds to the level of water surface which took place in the Early

Pleistocene. The Great Egyptian Sphinx had already stood on the Giza Plateau by that geological (historical) time.

Pleistocene?????

Thats close to 10,000 years ago!!!

Water Erosion Debate

This is contrevorsial. What do you say?

Spartan, I don't think you are catching all of the time period. Your quote says EARLY Pleistocene, which was from the period of 1.8 million to 780,000 years ago.

This is in reference to the material to which the Sphinx was carved from.

cormac

Edited January 15, 2009 by cormac mac airt

[Harte]

Yeah, right.

From the linked pdf:

We have taken the GES age

such as it was indicated by theosophist Yelena Blavatskaya [/i]in

one of her basic works (1937). She wrote: “Notice the

indestructible witness of evolution of Human races, from

Divine, and especially Androgynous race, the Egyptian Sphinx,

that mystery of centuries”. According to Blavatskaya the time of

GES erection should exceed 750000 years. Are there some

geological indications which are evidence for such an old age

of the Sphinx? Consider the brief prehistory of the problem.

Sure, that's what we need, a theosophical dating for the sphinx.

Blavatska was exposed as a fraud multiple times through her "career."

She was even booted out of the Theosophical Society, a collection of kooks that she was herself instrumental in creating.

Harte

[The_Spartan]

my bad. i am at error. no theosophy stuff and blavatsky-ish ascended master ****..

sorry, shouldn't have posted that here.