How old is the Sphinx ?

[Unusual Tournament]

5 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Let me help my clueless friend. Limestone is subject to two types of water erosion beyond surface runoff: vadose and phreatic.

Let me ask again "What happens to bedrock covered in sediment? "

Address you concerns about bedrock weathering to Schoch. remember he is the expert not you.

[stereologist]

Just now, Captain Risky said:

Address you concerns about bedrock weathering to Schoch. remember he is the expert not you.

Apparently he isn't.

[stereologist]

I think it is time for this thread to be closed since there is nothing here but abject trolling.

[Unusual Tournament]

2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Do you understand what bedrock means? I seriously doubt it.

Besides your statement is irrelevant.

Hold your horses mate... this thread is for everyone not just you. You don’t have to answer every question and post. leave some for the people I’ve specifically asked for. 

Okay

[stereologist]

3 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Hold your horses mate... this thread is for everyone not just you. You don’t have to answer every question and post. leave some for the people I’ve specifically asked for. 

Okay

If asked and you refuse to answer. Instead you spout stupidity.

Better to close the thread than continue your trolling.

Edited April 20, 2018 by stereologist

[Unusual Tournament]

@kmt_sesh 

sesh say’s... “You're not addressing the entirety of the situation, just like Schock didn't.”

i also think that historians and archeologists also could be a lot clearer especially when it comes to purpose and the generally poor workmanship of the Sphinx. It just doesn’t match the artistic grandeur of the pyramids. I mean the Sphinx was supposed to be the guardian of the pharaohs and their tombs. Seriously, if I was a tomb robber and faced with the wrath of gimpy Sphinx I would be encouraged and not discouraged to loot. In fact I wonder at what point did the pharaoh not say this is unexceptable, “fix it or get rid of it and start again.” 

 

 

 

[kmt_sesh]

1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

I don’t disagree with your remark about stone builders, just that I don’t find it relevant to what we are discussing.

the bed rock was underneath sand. The monuments and structures were not. That’s why.

Why dont the pyramids and ajoining structures have the same vertical lines? Why werent the boat pits flooded? Theses are questions I’m still waiting for answers. 

It's more than likely when they first trod around Giza 5000-plus years ago, there wasn't much there but sand and a stone knob protruding above the Plateau. But as the ancient builders often did with colossal monuments, once Khafre commissioned the Sphinx 4500 years ago their first step was to dig out all of the sand in that spot, down to bedrock. The Egyptians liked a level foundation, so they strove to achieve that. Obviously they removed the sand because they had to dig deep to carve out the Sphinx's form.

A lot of the mastabas, shrines, and the main pyramids were not carved out of bedrock but were built out of blocks of masonry. They could choose good-quality limestone that they could trust not to crumble and fail.  They had no choice with the Sphinx: where they chose to carve it, there are several layers of friable, poor-quality limestone.

But of course a lot of people who'd been interred at Giza couldn't afford stone masonry for their tombs and shrines. They used mostly mud brick. And that's gone.

Comparing the Sphinx to the pyramids doesn't work.

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, kmt_sesh said:

It's more than likely when they first trod around Giza 5000-plus years ago, there wasn't much there but sand and a stone knob protruding above the Plateau. But as the ancient builders often did with colossal monuments, once Khafre commissioned the Sphinx 4500 years ago their first step was to dig out all of the sand in that spot, down to bedrock. The Egyptians liked a level foundation, so they strove to achieve that. Obviously they removed the sand because they had to dig deep to carve out the Sphinx's form.

A lot of the mastabas, shrines, and the main pyramids were not carved out of bedrock but were built out of blocks of masonry. They could choose good-quality limestone that they could trust not to crumble and fail.  They had no choice with the Sphinx: where they chose to carve it, there are several layers of friable, poor-quality limestone.

But of course a lot of people who'd been interred at Giza couldn't afford stone masonry for their tombs and shrines. They used mostly mud brick. And that's gone.

Comparing the Sphinx to the pyramids doesn't work.

I beg to differ. they has every option to destroy and build again. they could have rebuilt it outta blocks if they wanted. I think at some point they gave up repairing an ancient monument that even they forgot its true purpose and meaning and decided it looked better covered by the sands with only the head showing. 

[kmt_sesh]

5 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

I beg to differ. they has every option to destroy and build again. they could have rebuilt it outta blocks if they wanted. I think at some point they gave up repairing an ancient monument that even they forgot its true purpose and meaning and decided it looked better covered by the sands with only the head showing. 

What is your evidence for this scenario? Thinking up a possibility is not evidentiary. How does this explain the temple out front, built for the Sphinx with stones quarried and hewn from around the Sphinx's body? It was an active part of the cult of Khafre.

You still have to address and answer what we know about history in the Nile Valley. It was the southern kingdoms that coalesced and formed the Egyptian state in c. 3100 BCE. The northern peoples were not at the same level of cultural and political development before the southern kingdoms took them over within the emerging state. In other words, prior to state formation, there was no northern polity at that time that could've managed the task of carving the Sphinx. But some 500 years later, after the Egyptian state was well established, the kingdom was more than capable of carving the Sphinx and building th pyramids. This is something Shoch is unlikely to have understood, so it's not logical to hang your hat on a theory that's been discarded anyway.

Now, rather than grasping at speculation, I'd suggest you try to answer some of the more complex questions.

[cormac mac airt]

16 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

I beg to differ. they has every option to destroy and build again. they could have rebuilt it outta blocks if they wanted. I think at some point they gave up repairing an ancient monument that even they forgot its true purpose and meaning and decided it looked better covered by the sands with only the head showing. 

Still ignores the fact that there is no Sphinx without the Sphinx Enclosure quarried out, the material of which was used for the Valley Temple Complex. Without the Enclosure the only thing available is the knob used to carve the Sphinx' head out of, with no body. 

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

3 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

@Harte

all other ancient Egyptian representations of sphinxes are anatomical correct. Defined shoulders and haunches curved arch in back. why did the builders of the pyramids get the geometry on the pyramids rights but mess up the Sphinx?

They carved the Sphinx in about 2500 BCE. It's the only colossal Sphinx they ever carved. The other examples I can think of are about life-sized or a lot smaller. Do you think they wrre going to make it perfect the first time out?

Moreover. although they continued to make small, devotional sphinx figures, they really didn't attempt to make notably large ones again until the Middle Kingdom (c. 1900 BCE)—some 600 years after the Great Sphinx. And by "notably large" ones I mean, again, around life-sized. Consider the famous sphinx of the Middle Kingdom king Amenehat III (1814 BCE):

 

The artisans of the Middle Kingdom had followed on centuries of craftsmen from their own history, and were leagues more skilled than Old Kingdom artisans. But they needed that evolution in their history to become so skilled.

In another post I already explained why it doesn't work to compare the building of the pyramids to the carving of the Sphinx, so enough said.

[+DieChecker]

20 hours ago, abhijit_b said:

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

The problem I see is that the scale of those erosion marks is different by a factor of probably 1000 or more. 

Uluru is roughly 350 meters (~1000 feet) high and so is roughly a mile long. Therefore the 250 foot long Sphinx if set on end, probably would just be visible above some of the trees in the picture. The water erosion you are comparing to this pic wouldn't even be visible against these eroded gullys.

[Unusual Tournament]

4 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

What is your evidence for this scenario? Thinking up a possibility is not evidentiary. How does this explain the temple out front, built for the Sphinx with stones quarried and hewn from around the Sphinx's body? It was an active part of the cult of Khafre.

You still have to address and answer what we know about history in the Nile Valley. It was the southern kingdoms that coalesced and formed the Egyptian state in c. 3100 BCE. The northern peoples were not at the same level of cultural and political development before the southern kingdoms took them over within the emerging state. In other words, prior to state formation, there was no northern polity at that time that could've managed the task of carving the Sphinx. But some 500 years later, after the Egyptian state was well established, the kingdom was more than capable of carving the Sphinx and building th pyramids. This is something Shoch is unlikely to have understood, so it's not logical to hang your hat on a theory that's been discarded anyway.

Now, rather than grasping at speculation, I'd suggest you try to answer some of the more complex questions.

let me explain. the pyramid builders used a level surface to build the pyramid. they used the same principles to build their temples and all other structures. other than the sphinx i cannot think of another project that wasn't built on level ground. they employed math and surveying tools and techniques. they cut blocks and faced them with protective and ascetically pleasing stones. so why exactly is the sphinx built or rather craved on a incline? why is it carved of poor quality stone when we all know just how pedantic the AE were in choosing stone. there are plenty of good sites on the plateau away from the flood waters of the nile. plenty of construction stone and close enough to the nile to move materials and labour. this is not a site in the middle of no where. so why did they build it this way?  

based on the differences in construction techniques and style any other structures around the sphinx are clearly add-on's. you just can't and don't build under two different construction measures and then claim that the same builder built both. Schoch, is a geologist and not an archeologist nor historian. he used his knowledge to offer a geological explanation on weathering of the sphinx. thats all. maybe the fault lies with the custodians of ancient Egyptian history and not a science discipline. 

the sphinx was built first by either a primitive Egyptian society or from another people way before Egypt was Egypt. the builders of the pyramids choose the place as special because of the sphinx. more than likely the sphinx was a ruin and steeped in legend much in the same way we view the pyramids today.   

[Unusual Tournament]

5 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Still ignores the fact that there is no Sphinx without the Sphinx Enclosure quarried out, the material of which was used for the Valley Temple Complex. Without the Enclosure the only thing available is the knob used to carve the Sphinx' head out of, with no body. 

cormac

so you say. more than likely the AE found the sphinx already in ruin and used the dug out area's as a ready quarry. big deal. 

[Unusual Tournament]

4 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

They carved the Sphinx in about 2500 BCE. It's the only colossal Sphinx they ever carved. The other examples I can think of are about life-sized or a lot smaller. Do you think they wrre going to make it perfect the first time out?

Moreover. although they continued to make small, devotional sphinx figures, they really didn't attempt to make notably large ones again until the Middle Kingdom (c. 1900 BCE)—some 600 years after the Great Sphinx. And by "notably large" ones I mean, again, around life-sized. Consider the famous sphinx of the Middle Kingdom king Amenehat III (1814 BCE):

 

The artisans of the Middle Kingdom had followed on centuries of craftsmen from their own history, and were leagues more skilled than Old Kingdom artisans. But they needed that evolution in their history to become so skilled.

In another post I already explained why it doesn't work to compare the building of the pyramids to the carving of the Sphinx, so enough said.

I'm yet to be convinced about your theory but i respect your opinions.

 

look at your post above of the sphinx. compare it to the actual sphinx and tell me what is missing? the art is completely different. if they could perfectly carve the details of a pharaoh's head then why couldn't they carve the body accurately and in proportion?  

[Harte]

8 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

@Harte I’m waiting for a reply mate. 

It was already answered. The layer of limestone immediately above the back was unsuitable for carving a statue with any permanence.

I gave you the layout of the properties of each layer, and already told you where (at least) one weak layer was located.

Do not demand a reply from me. Especially concerning questions that have already been answered.

I don't live on this site, and I don't constantly revisit this site to check if you need anything.

Harte

[Harte]

23 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

let me explain. the pyramid builders used a level surface to build the pyramid. they used the same principles to build their temples and all other structures. other than the sphinx i cannot think of another project that wasn't built on level ground. they employed math and surveying tools and techniques. they cut blocks and faced them with protective and ascetically pleasing stones. so why exactly is the sphinx built or rather craved on a incline? why is it carved of poor quality stone when we all know just how pedantic the AE were in choosing stone. there are plenty of good sites on the plateau away from the flood waters of the nile. plenty of construction stone and close enough to the nile to move materials and labour. this is not a site in the middle of no where. so why did they build it this way?  

based on the differences in construction techniques and style any other structures around the sphinx are clearly add-on's. you just can't and don't build under two different construction measures and then claim that the same builder built both. Schoch, is a geologist and not an archeologist nor historian. he used his knowledge to offer a geological explanation on weathering of the sphinx. thats all. maybe the fault lies with the custodians of ancient Egyptian history and not a science discipline. 

the sphinx was built first by either a primitive Egyptian society or from another people way before Egypt was Egypt. the builders of the pyramids choose the place as special because of the sphinx. more than likely the sphinx was a ruin and steeped in legend much in the same way we view the pyramids today.   

The sphinx is not carved on an incline. The sphinx was carved where the protrusion up out of the bedrock existed.

The sphinx and enclose floor is level.

Harte

[abhijit_b]

56 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

The problem I see is that the scale of those erosion marks is different by a factor of probably 1000 or more. 

Uluru is roughly 350 meters (~1000 feet) high and so is roughly a mile long. Therefore the 250 foot long Sphinx if set on end, probably would just be visible above some of the trees in the picture. The water erosion you are comparing to this pic wouldn't even be visible against these eroded gullys.

Sorry, you misunderstood me. I was not comparing Uluru with Sphinx. I just randomly picked the first image I found in the google search.

This image probably distracted all my other points.

I clearly mentioned how Geologists agree or disagree to Schoch! It's not fair to reject him outright. Also we need to understand what kind of influence the Geologists had, who criticized Schoch.

[abhijit_b]

6 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

They carved the Sphinx in about 2500 BCE. It's the only colossal Sphinx they ever carved. The other examples I can think of are about life-sized or a lot smaller. Do you think they wrre going to make it perfect the first time out?

Moreover. although they continued to make small, devotional sphinx figures, they really didn't attempt to make notably large ones again until the Middle Kingdom (c. 1900 BCE)—some 600 years after the Great Sphinx. And by "notably large" ones I mean, again, around life-sized. Consider the famous sphinx of the Middle Kingdom king Amenehat III (1814 BCE):

 

The artisans of the Middle Kingdom had followed on centuries of craftsmen from their own history, and were leagues more skilled than Old Kingdom artisans. But they needed that evolution in their history to become so skilled.

In another post I already explained why it doesn't work to compare the building of the pyramids to the carving of the Sphinx, so enough said.

They made pyramids with perfect dimensions, directions and mathematics; but couldn't curve the Sphinx to proportion which 1:20th of the size of Pyramid or even less! This sounds like a lame argument.

Not sure if anyone has experience in Art and sculpture. The first ingredient of any good artists it the understanding of proportions, perspective and drawing lines straight. If we consider 4th dynasty, they were master artist and sculptors. Just look at the perfections in other statues of Khafre.

Buliding a Pyramid with millions of blocks require complex skills of engineering, mathematics and science while Sphinx require mostly artistic capability.

Even the artists of Chauvet cave could draw in proportion 32,000 years back.

[Essan]

I've often wondered if the sphinx was originally just a bit of "quarryman's art".   And only later - maybe as much as 50 or 60 years later, long after those responsible had died - someone else decided to recarve the head into something more appropriate?  

[Harte]

3 hours ago, abhijit_b said:

They made pyramids with perfect dimensions, directions and mathematics; but couldn't curve the Sphinx to proportion which 1:20th of the size of Pyramid or even less! This sounds like a lame argument.

"Lame argument?"

Your claim of "perfect dimensions, directions and mathematics" is what's lame here, as none of the three are true at all.

Harte

[cormac mac airt]

5 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

so you say. more than likely the AE found the sphinx already in ruin and used the dug out area's as a ready quarry. big deal. 

In other words you have nothing other than what you WANT to be true as the quantity of material taken from the Sphinx Enclosure matches the quantity of material used in the Temple Valley Complex. That's willfull ignorance on your part. 

cormac

[jaylemurph]

15 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

They carved the Sphinx in about 2500 BCE. It's the only colossal Sphinx they ever carved. The other examples I can think of are about life-sized or a lot smaller. Do you think they wrre going to make it perfect the first time out?

Pfft. Not after the Pyramid debacle. 

--Jaylemurph

[jaylemurph]

8 hours ago, abhijit_b said:

Not sure if anyone has experience in Art and sculpture. The first ingredient of any good artists it the understanding of proportions, perspective and drawing lines straight. If we consider 4th dynasty, they were master artist and sculptors. Just look at the perfections in other statues of Khafre.

Actually, I do have experience in art and sculpture. I have a degree in Art History. None of those so-called "first ingredients" you cite are correct. You're basing your ideas solely and ahistorically on modern concepts.

Perspective, as such, didn't even exist as a concept until the 15th Century; it's a by-product of developments in Renaissance mathematics. Batista Alberti, c. 1485, was the first to formulate the idea and use it in his work. There's lots more to say to that and lots more detail, but that's the rough outline.

Proportion is no more than a mathematic relationship. What you mean is a /realistic/ set of proportions relative to humans. In that sense, realistic and realism is an even more anachronistic. The concept if realism, as such, is a purely Modern (witha deliberate capital M) development, from no more than the early 19th Century, driven by the rise of photography in the 1830s and 40s.

Before that, especially in Western Classical art, proportion (more specifically, relative size between human figures) was used to denote social rank -- pharoahs were big; slaves were small. Again, very simple, but truer than what you're suggesting. And this is still true up until the Renaissance.

The first ingredient in producing art is knowledge of society's governing artistic conventions, period. You have to know how to communicate to a specific audience. And these conventions are seldom about realistically representing things. They're about honoring power or establishing ideals.

--Jaylemurph  

 

[Kenemet]

6 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

The first ingredient in producing art is knowledge of society's governing artistic conventions, period. You have to know how to communicate to a specific audience. And these conventions are seldom about realistically representing things. They're about honoring power or establishing ideals.

And I'll add to that, when seen up close (as with the statues of Akhenaten, it does not look distorted.