How old is the Sphinx ?

[jaylemurph]

6 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Nope.

Well, some of us (read: you) are wrong.

But you're already on the list of the excommunicate depraved for felinophilia, so why not enjoy the rest of your time on Earth before The Return with interesting heresies!

--Jaylemurph

 

[ShadowSot]

19 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Nope.

Nominated for shortest Kmt post ever

[Unusual Tournament]

2 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

Well, some of us (read: you) are wrong.

But you're already on the list of the excommunicate depraved for felinophilia, so why not enjoy the rest of your time on Earth before The Return with interesting heresies!

--Jaylemurph

 

i believe sesh is wrong, too. but, he is consistent with the Khafre/Khufu Giza plateau builders narrative. 

 

[strunk64]

18 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

22 hours ago, strunk64 said:

Actually, I thought the sphinx was covered with a bad cement job. I'm sure the Sphinx looked very different whenever it was made. It was probably painted too. BTW, I'm still wondering about that underground room. It's just, why was it there. With the dead end tunnel and the pit or well. I suppose we will never know unless documentation of some kind is found. Thanks for answering me.

Did you read through the link? Gives a rundown if the basic theories and how they relate to what we know of Egyptian culture. 

18 hours ago, Harte said:

Not really. The upper parts were and are still exposed bedrock. It was the lower parts that were clad.

Harte

My understanding was that that cladding wasn't original, but from repair work through the ages? 

ShadowSot, Yes, I read the link, but it was unsatisfying. It didn't really enlighten me.

Harte, The bottom of the sphinx, the feet, lets, and especially the sides and rear legs look look like a thick coating of cement over brickwork. I know they covered over an opening in one of the sides, the hole in the head. I really wish people would stop doing cosmetic work to antiques. Looks awful. I'd really like to see the original work.

Edited April 18, 2018 by strunk64
To clean things up.

[strunk64]

On 4/16/2018 at 10:28 AM, ShadowSot said:

Don't think there was a lot of sand in the plateau at the time. 

 Though the Sphinx was covered up to its neck later on and was restored by Thutmos IV. It'd be interesting, but I don't know anything about how they may have done it besides having a large team of workers. It also depends on how the sand was deposited. 

 

What was the plateau like when they were built? I just took it for granted that it was desert. I should know better. I just thought it was because of that theory that they used water on the sand to slide the giant blocks to the building site. I don't think that would have worked. I liked the canal theory better.

[jaylemurph]

41 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

i believe sesh is wrong, too. but, he is consistent with the Khafre/Khufu Giza plateau builders narrative. 

 

"All truth that comes not from the Hounds is no truth."

The Cantos of Stinkiness, Carmen V

--Jaylemurph

 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

5 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

Well, some of us (read: you) are wrong.

But you're already on the list of the excommunicate depraved for felinophilia, so why not enjoy the rest of your time on Earth before The Return with interesting heresies!

--Jaylemurph

 

Ohh meow

[Harte]

5 hours ago, strunk64 said:

ShadowSot, Yes, I read the link, but it was unsatisfying. It didn't really enlighten me.

Harte, The bottom of the sphinx, the feet, lets, and especially the sides and rear legs look look like a thick coating of cement over brickwork. I know they covered over an opening in one of the sides, the hole in the head. I really wish people would stop doing cosmetic work to antiques. Looks awful. I'd really like to see the original work.

Lots of the original work was eroding away a few hundred years after the thing was carved. The AE's themselves repaired it with stones.

Modern repairs mostly focused on damage created in modern times. The hole in the head you mention was greatly enlarged by treasure hunters, for example, and the hole in the side was entirely created by the same profiteers.

Below are examples of the restoration carried out by the (modern) Egyptian government.

Here you can plainly see why this was done, as they left the top of the paw unrestored:

Here's a fairly close-up pic of restoration done to the other side.

It is clear that carved stones were used (exactly as was done in ancient times) and no cement is covering anything.

Harte

Edited April 18, 2018 by Harte

[Harte]

5 hours ago, strunk64 said:

What was the plateau like when they were built? I just took it for granted that it was desert. I should know better. I just thought it was because of that theory that they used water on the sand to slide the giant blocks to the building site. I don't think that would have worked. I liked the canal theory better.

I don't know about using water on the sand. I doubt it. But the stones that were brought via canals came from the Nile - upstream are the granite quarry (at Aswan) used and the limestone quarry (at Tura) for the fine white limestone used to cover the exterior.

The rest of the stone came from quarries right there in front and to the side of the pyramid. Remains of ramps leading out of one of the quarries have been found leading to the pyramid.

Harte

[Unusual Tournament]

@Harte do you think that the head on the sphinx is the original or has it been re-worked? 

[stereologist]

14 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

well, all in all, we can agree that at some point the head was remodelled and current head carving is not the original. 

No.  Are you confused about Harte's photos?

[Nnicolette]

I think that people should learn how to listen when researching. Personally I have heard tale for a very long time that the sphinx is actually 7000 years old but I know very little about it. Perhaps we would have made quicker progress discovering this had they listened to the locals and the people who already knew that.... 

[cormac mac airt]

42 minutes ago, NicoletteS said:

I think that people should learn how to listen when researching. Personally I have heard tale for a very long time that the sphinx is actually 7000 years old but I know very little about it. Perhaps we would have made quicker progress discovering this had they listened to the locals and the people who already knew that.... 

Stories don’t mean much without verifiable evidence to support them, and the evidence doesn’t. 

cormac

[Nnicolette]

26 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Stories don’t mean much without verifiable evidence to support them, and the evidence doesn’t. 

cormac

You mean they don't prove much. But what the generations before us believed is always a good place to start when uncovering history. Not all stories were told for no reason... much more often to explain or remember something you know.

[cormac mac airt]

35 minutes ago, NicoletteS said:

You mean they don't prove much. But what the generations before us believed is always a good place to start when uncovering history. Not all stories were told for no reason... much more often to explain or remember something you know.

In the context of "evidence" I meant what I said, they don't mean much. And trying to determine what these stories may or may not have meant or attempted to explain is grossly subjective to begin with and therefore open to a wide latitude of interpretation, thus not necessarily correct. Example:  The beliefs of more modern Egyptians concerning the ancient history of their country, reinterpreted by numerous immigrating foreign peoples over the last 2000+ years, quite often bears little resemblance to actual AE history. Actual evidence shows the 7000 BP date is grossly incorrect, so why claim it's relevant? 

cormac

[Harte]

5 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

@Harte do you think that the head on the sphinx is the original or has it been re-worked? 

I think it's the original, because I go with the evidence we have and we have no evidence of anything else.

The claim that it doesn't look like Khufu doesn't hold water with me, since the only likeness of Khufu we have is a tiny ivory statue of him.

Harte

[jaylemurph]

2 hours ago, NicoletteS said:

You mean they don't prove much. But what the generations before us believed is always a good place to start when uncovering history. Not all stories were told for no reason... much more often to explain or remember something you know.

As an historian, I can tell you this is not at all true. If no other example, consider all the nationalistic morons who come here, trying to promote the idea that all civilizations "really" began in Serbia or India or Russia or wherever they happen to live. People forget real local history all the time and there are always profit-driven stories made to replace it.

--Jaylemurph 

[Harte]

7 hours ago, NicoletteS said:

I think that people should learn how to listen when researching. Personally I have heard tale for a very long time that the sphinx is actually 7000 years old but I know very little about it. Perhaps we would have made quicker progress discovering this had they listened to the locals and the people who already knew that.... 

How would the locals know? Why would you assume they had any valid notions on the matter?

Harte

[Harte]

6 hours ago, NicoletteS said:

You mean they don't prove much. But what the generations before us believed is always a good place to start when uncovering history. Not all stories were told for no reason... much more often to explain or remember something you know.

The "generations before us" believed quite a few things that are not only untrue, but even border on the idiotic.

Harte

[Harte]

5 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

In the context of "evidence" I meant what I said, they don't mean much. And trying to determine what these stories may or may not have meant or attempted to explain is grossly subjective to begin with and therefore open to a wide latitude of interpretation, thus not necessarily correct. Example:  The beliefs of more modern Egyptians concerning the ancient history of their country, reinterpreted by numerous immigrating foreign peoples over the last 2000+ years, quite often bears little resemblance to actual AE history. Actual evidence shows the 7000 BP date is grossly incorrect, so why claim it's relevant? 

cormac

Not to mention that they have the imperative to insert Mohammed into the story in some way or the other or it's the death penalty.

Harte

[Harte]

4 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

As an historian, I can tell you this is not at all true. If no other example, consider all the nationalistic morons who come here, trying to promote the idea that all civilizations "really" began in Serbia or India or Russia or wherever they happen to live. People forget real local history all the time and there are always profit-driven stories made to replace it.

--Jaylemurph 

What used to pass for "science" averred that flies spontaneously generate from rotting meat.

For surgery, you used to go to your barber.

As recently as a century or two ago, it was well-known in scientific circles that stones do NOT fall from the sky.

Harte

[kmt_sesh]

9 hours ago, NicoletteS said:

I think that people should learn how to listen when researching. Personally I have heard tale for a very long time that the sphinx is actually 7000 years old but I know very little about it. Perhaps we would have made quicker progress discovering this had they listened to the locals and the people who already knew that.... 

That really can't be a reliable or useful way to approach historical study. It's hard to imagine how many dozens upon dozens of generations passed between the carving of the Sphinx and the lives of the modern population of Cairo (a city that didn't even exist wheb the Sphinx was taking form). The people were different. The ethnicity was different. The language was different. The religion was different. The form of government was different. The very culture was different. As an example, it would be about like asking a modern Northwest Coast Amerindian to explain the history and culture of Southern Plains Indians from thousand of years ago, using only oral history. The Northwest Coast fellow might be a good story teller, but whatever he comes up with is apt to be totally incorrect.

[ShadowSot]

13 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

That really can't be a reliable or useful way to approach historical study. It's hard to imagine how many dozens upon dozens of generations passed between the carving of the Sphinx and the lives of the modern population of Cairo (a city that didn't even exist wheb the Sphinx was taking form). The people were different. The ethnicity was different. The language was different. The religion was different. The form of government was different. The very culture was different. As an example, it would be about like asking a modern Northwest Coast Amerindian to explain the history and culture of Southern Plains Indians from thousand of years ago, using only oral history. The Northwest Coast fellow might be a good story teller, but whatever he comes up with is apt to be totally incorrect.

There's also how the same people in the area much later made up entirely new stories about the pyramids and the Sphinx mixing together Egyptian, Greek, and Abrahamic traditions. Which probably weren't meant as history but taken literally by later writers. 

[ShadowSot]

19 hours ago, strunk64 said:

ShadowSot, Yes, I read the link, but it was unsatisfying. It didn't really enlighten me.

. 

I think one of the things to keep in mind is to keep in mind other Egyptian tombs and make a comparison. 

 One thing is that tombs used to be pit burials, the body underground and the structure above. Other tombs also have a false room or chamber meant for m the spirit. 

 It could be one of these things, or a combination. It seems unfinished, so it may be simply the Pharoah started one plan then changed his mind. They started to make the room over then simply abandoned it. The later pyramids adopted this final design. 

19 hours ago, strunk64 said:

Harte, The bottom of the sphinx, the feet, lets, and especially the sides and rear legs look look like a thick coating of cement over brickwork. I know they covered over an opening in one of the sides, the hole in the head. I really wish people would stop doing cosmetic work to antiques. Looks awful. I'd really like to see the original work.

The wholes are from treasure seekers, as Harte mentioned. But restoration work on the Sphinx is an ancient tradition, the Egyptians did it, the Romans did it, and modern Egyptians do it. It's ancient, and it's eroding. Filling in those holes helps prevent it from crumbling. 

18 hours ago, strunk64 said:

What was the plateau like when they were built? I just took it for granted that it was desert. I should know better. I just thought it was because of that theory that they used water on the sand to slide the giant blocks to the building site. I don't think that would have worked. I liked the canal theory better.

As Harte mentioned the canal was used for the granite and outer casing. The rough core stones came from a quarry on site. 

 The idea that water or grease was used has to do with lubrication to reduce the friction while dragging the stones from the quarry. 

 I don't know off hand how much less it would have been covered, but there are rock outcrops today, and some features like the outcrop that would become the Sphinx were exposed. 

 The hard part really would have been leveling the foundation. 

[abhijit_b]

This is one of my favorite topic in this forum. I generally don't agree with extra ordinary claims of fringe theorists, but I have seen some merits in the hypothesis of an older Sphinx. Or, at least, the hypothesis of Khafre as builder (curve) has questionable merit.

On 4/16/2018 at 6:45 AM, 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).

Who doesn't support Schoch?

There is nothing actually to be contested by geologists that the Southern and Western enclosure of the Sphinx show water/rain erosion. If I do a google search on images for rain water weathering I get this as the first image:

 

It has a striking similarity with Sphinx enclosure erosion. Sphinx's erosion is pretty much text book example.

Someone already posted the wiki link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_water_erosion_hypothesis) (Good for quick summary). Interestingly the "Response from other Geologists" section starts with this : "Some geologists have proposed alternative explanations for the evidence of weathering in the Sphinx enclosure."

So, interestingly, the main stream Geologists who are refuting Schoch are actually taking the alternative route here. So, we need to keep in mind that Dr Harrell or Dr Lal Gauri is an alternative theorist here.

It is also important to keep in mind that Dr Harrell's research came after Dr Schoch's. Was Dr Harell doing some independent research on Sphinx and came up with this theory? No, his paper came 2 years after Schoch's in 1994 ( KMT Vol. 5, No. 2, Summer 1994, pp 70-4). The sole purpose of his paper was to criticize Scoch. 

Dr Gauri's paper got published in 1995 , "Geologic Weathering and Its Implications on the Age of the Sphinx," Geoarchaeology, Vol. 10, No. 2 (April 1995), pp. 119-133.

The intention of this paper is also to refute and throw an alternative theory. Please note that Dr Gauri works with Lehner closely and cited by Dr Lehner in his Sphinx research: http://www.aeraweb.org/sphinx-project/geology-of-the-sphinx/

Basically, there was no proper geological research was done on Sphinx prior to Schoch and his findings shook the main stream. And then main stream geo-archeologist tried to provide alternative explanation for the Sphinx's erosion pattern.

I am not aware any other paper that claims Schoch to be wrong. @kmt_sesh, please let me know if you have any other reference.

Please note that Dr Schoch has proper reply to each of these papers, supporting his theory and questioning the alternative one. (E.g. Letter to the Editor, KMT: A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt, Vol. 5, No. 3)

Is there any Geologist who supports Schoch?

Yes, to certain extent, if not fully.

Dr Collin Reader: Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum (JACF) 9 (2002), pp. 5-21

Dr Reader, a Geologist, publisher his paper in 2002 which suggest a rain water run off hypothesis. Even though his dates were not as drastic as Dr Schoch, his research showed an at least 500 year older Sphinx.

David Coxill ("The Riddle of the Sphinx" published in the Spring 1998 issue [Issue 2, pp. 13-19] of the journal INSCRIPTION: JOURNAL OF ANCIENT EGYPT). Coxill confirms Schoch's findings but keeps himself conservative in terms of dating.