How old is the Sphinx ?

[Essan]

As far as I am aware, the last time torrential rain fell in Cairo was January 2018

 

That said, I have always been open to the possibility that the head may have been re-carved.    Maybe hundreds of years after it was first done?

[jaylemurph]

1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

The Sphinx was never Anubis.  As Kmt_Sesh points out, the nose would have fallen off even as they were carving it - beyond that, the proportions are wrong.  Anubis has slender legs and a haunch that rises above his back.  Sphinxes have haunches at the level of their back and they're very "chunky" with thick legs.  You can carve something thick down to a thinner shape but you can't carve a thinner shape up to a thicker one.

So you're confirming "the Sphinx was an ancient basset hound" theory so prevalent in academic circles these days then? 

--Jaylemurph 

[Unusual Tournament]

4 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Actually, Schoch's studies were dismissed... by other geologists who worked around the Giza plateau.  They pointed out where other examples of this same kind of weathering are and that it's consistent with the 2600 BC date.

...I’d like a link.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_water_erosion_hypothesis

[Unusual Tournament]

3 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_water_erosion_hypothesis

Thanks for the link but as I see it any counter claim would need to be uniform across the entire Giza Plataeu, which it is not. 

 

[cormac mac airt]

As I see it one would have to show the relevance of Schoch’s claim to the Sphinx Enclosure, and therefore the Sphinx’ actual body as it wouldn’t even exist until the Temple Complex was created. Anything less is putting the cart before the horse. 

cormac

Edited April 16, 2018 by cormac mac airt

[Kenemet]

3 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

So you're confirming "the Sphinx was an ancient basset hound" theory so prevalent in academic circles these days then? 

--Jaylemurph 

The Feline Overlords say it was always about them and not those howlers-come-lately.

[Kenemet]

30 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Thanks for the link but as I see it any counter claim would need to be uniform across the entire Giza Plataeu, which it is not. 

 

No, because the limestone itself is not consistent across the plateau.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

34 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Thanks for the link but as I see it any counter claim would need to be uniform across the entire Giza Plataeu, which it is not. 

 

Does that onus of uniformity also apply to your claim?

[kmt_sesh]

19 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

look I'm getting the impression that Harte, mesh and yourself haven't actually read the link i provided or have disregarded the fact that the premise of Schock's findings are that the sphinx has massive vertical weathering patterns caused by torrential rain that are not displayed anywhere else on the building at the Giza Plateau.   

you see according to the geological studies by Schock... its impossible that monsoon type rain hit only the sphinx and missed everything else at Giza. if this sever weather was around when all other giza plateau structures where there at the same time then other signs would also have been there. internal chambers, tombs, graves, and temples would all have shown a record on the stones. to this date none have, with the exception of the sphinx. so when you say that the water table would not have made it to the sphinx or the boat pits then the torrential rain would have seeped and ruined not just the buried boats but the other tombs and graves. 

the last time the Giza plateau saw such rainfall was at least 5000 years prior to the egyptologists date for the pyramids. 

so this is the reason why they say that the sphinx is significantly older than the pyramids. 

 

Two things. First: Yes, I've read Schoch's theory and his rebuttals to naysayers in his field, like Harrel. Bear in mind that what you seem to have stumbled across for this thread is really quite old, and still not accepted.

Second: You appear to like Schock's theory, and that's your right, but it simply doesn't change the fact that his theory is not accepted. You can't change academic consensus and make the theory correct just because you like it (and just because you like it based on how it flies in the face of academia).

That's really all I need to say to your post. Do not make the gross mistake of thinking we're a bunch of drooling dullards because we don't agree with you. Or Schoch.

[kmt_sesh]

1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

Thanks for the link but as I see it any counter claim would need to be uniform across the entire Giza Plataeu, which it is not. 

 

No, not at all. And here you're making one of the mistakes of Schock's. The Plateau is not one, homogenous feature. There are varying elevations, of which the Sphinx is at one of the lowest. There is varying strata of limestone members, and varying qualities of limestone within the strata. There are a number of different ways erosion can addect any one spot. For instance, it's quite unlikely the Sphinx would weather the sme as the pyramids there, which are at higher elevations.

[Harte]

20 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

actually, its the vertical weathering patterns on the outside of the sphinx that Schock was concerned more with. caused by torrential rain falling on the sphinx. thats all Schock was really interested in. not attacking egyptologists. he's a geologists after all.    

Actually, no.

Maybe you should read his paper on this - http://www.robertschoch.net/Redating the Great Sphinx of Giza.htm.

You'll find that his "redating" is based entirely on subsurface weathering.

Harte

[Harte]

5 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

No, not at all. And here you're making one of the mistakes of Schock's. The Plateau is not one, homogenous feature. There are varying elevations, of which the Sphinx is at one of the lowest. There is varying strata of limestone members, and varying qualities of limestone within the strata. There are a number of different ways erosion can addect any one spot. For instance, it's quite unlikely the Sphinx would weather the sme as the pyramids there, which are at higher elevations.

Limestone used in the pyramids also comes from a different layer in the bedrock, which itself is tilted so that the best layers are at different depths even in the same quarry.

Several of those layers are quite soft and crumbly. One such crumbly layer runs through the base of the neck, which is why a larger head probably never existed - it couldn't be supported by the neck area that was too soft.

Could be why they downsized the head, but there are other reasons that can explain it as well.

Harte

[strunk64]

I have a few questions, not specifically related to the Sphinx. I think you said the pyramids and sphinx were built on the bedrock, sitting directly on it? They had to remove a lot of sand to build, how do you think they kept the sand at bay while they were building the bases?

I read somewhere, I don't remember where, that the enclosure around the Sphinx was a pool. That it had a sluice gate on a side of the enclosure and they could let water in when they wanted too. Any idea if thats true?

Did the sphinx have cladding like the pyramids at one time?

Concerning the underground room in the Great Pyramid, why was there a "well" underneath it and where could the unfinished tunnel going past the room have been going too? I wonder if they were intending to join it to another building.?

Do the other pyramids there have any tunnels or rooms? I've never read anything about them.

Thanks for any answers to my questions.

[stereologist]

22 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

of course there would have been. the pyramid has foundations, foundations and even chambers underneath the level of the Egyptian sands and the Giza plateau that should also be suffering from your rising water table theory. the boat buried at the foot of the pyramid should have also suffered water damage. even a little bit of water would have rotted the structure. as it is, it has no damage whatsoever. 

besides, i have provided a link and Schock clearly says that the damage to the sphinx is water, torrential rain, falling heavily that has caused this damage. such weather damage should have theoretically damaged all structures or at the least left lasting signs, assuming that the pyramids and the sphinx suffered this damage together.     

The Sphinx is far below the level of the pyramids. You seem to  be  implying that they are at the same level. Not true.

[stereologist]

19 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

yeah well part of me is sceptical too. but until someone comes up with a better theory to explain the rain erosion I'm going with Schock's torrential rainfall theory.

do you seriously think that pimple headed sphinx was a mistake? mate the bottom half doesn't match the head not only in size but style too. like i told sesh... maybe a new dynasty king knocked off the old image and put his zika virus features on it, possibly there was a fault running through the rock that broke ruined the original carving but that still doesn't change the fact that the structure has significant rain erosion on it. erosion and damage that is no where else on the giza plateau.   

You seem so certain that this is rain erosion.  You seem so certain that only torrential rainfall is responsible.

1.Limiting the decision to only wind and rain is a mistake

2. Limiting yourself to torrential rains is another mistake

[Unusual Tournament]

2 hours ago, Kenemet said:

No, because the limestone itself is not consistent across the plateau.

I don’t know what you mean by that. Schock makes a case that I find compelling. 

[stereologist]

Just now, Captain Risky said:

I don’t know what you mean by that. Schock makes a case that I find compelling. 

Glad you found it compelling because other geologists did not.

[Unusual Tournament]

2 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Does that onus of uniformity also apply to your claim?

not claiming anything. the Sphinx has water damage not consistent with the other structures on the Giza Plataeu.

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, kmt_sesh said:

Two things. First: Yes, I've read Schoch's theory and his rebuttals to naysayers in his field, like Harrel. Bear in mind that what you seem to have stumbled across for this thread is really quite old, and still not accepted.

Second: You appear to like Schock's theory, and that's your right, but it simply doesn't change the fact that his theory is not accepted. You can't change academic consensus and make the theory correct just because you like it (and just because you like it based on how it flies in the face of academia).

That's really all I need to say to your post. Do not make the gross mistake of thinking we're a bunch of drooling dullards because we don't agree with you. Or Schoch.

LOL...

[stereologist]

Just now, Captain Risky said:

not claiming anything. the Sphinx has water damage not consistent with the other structures on the Giza Plataeu.

Again you assign water as the agent when that is at best a guess.

1. There are other mechanisms

2. The rock  is not homogeneous

 

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, kmt_sesh said:

No, not at all. And here you're making one of the mistakes of Schock's. The Plateau is not one, homogenous feature. There are varying elevations, of which the Sphinx is at one of the lowest. There is varying strata of limestone members, and varying qualities of limestone within the strata. There are a number of different ways erosion can addect any one spot. For instance, it's quite unlikely the Sphinx would weather the sme as the pyramids there, which are at higher elevations.

you keep saying that you’ve read Schock’s report yet you miss the single biggest conclusion. Torrential rain does not care for elevation.

now who’s making the mistake?

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, Harte said:

Actually, no.

Maybe you should read his paper on this - http://www.robertschoch.net/Redating the Great Sphinx of Giza.htm.

You'll find that his "redating" is based entirely on subsurface weathering.

Harte

look I have little appetite to play I’m right, you’re a wrong with you. I have provided the link and I have repeated the position of Schock accurately. If you think it’s about sub-surface weathering then why didn’t the boat pits at the base of the pyramids get ruined?

i look forward to your reply...

[stereologist]

I am now used to the fringie lovers thinking that a published paper can only speak truth. A published paper means someone did some work. They formed a hypothesis and collected data and came to a conclusion. The work has consistency with such things as the conclusion follows from the work and addresses the hypothesis. After that the work is up for discussion.  In this case the work has been dismissed due to problems with the work.

Apparently, not everyone got the message or they refuse to accept that Schoch was in error.

[Unusual Tournament]

25 minutes ago, stereologist said:

The Sphinx is far below the level of the pyramids. You seem to  be  implying that they are at the same level. Not true.

I have implied nothing of the sort.