How old is the Sphinx ?

[abhijit_b]

22 hours ago, Harte said:

As I said before, it's right there in his paper. All you have to do is read it.

I would strongly suggest you to read all the developments and research around this topic and not restrict yourself to his 1993 papers. I did mention about his replies to other geologists in 90s in one of my previous post. Please go through those.

Additionally, you should also Collin Reader or Dr David Coxill to get the larger picture. You will do injustice if you simply read one paper and only criticisms around it!

[Harte]

27 minutes ago, abhijit_b said:

Could you please point me to the source here? I am interested to know what other weathering are you talking about here.

If you are referring Dr Harrell or Dr Gauri, then there is a main drawback of their theories.

It is important to note that Schoch's focus has been mostly on the enclosure walls. The rounded fissures get more prominent as you move from east to west on the Southern wall. Similarly, it is the most prominent on the western wall. This behavior is difficult to explain with Dr Harrell's subsurface weathering theory or Dr Gauri's Salt exfoliation which is a chemical process. More interestingly, the fissures get deeper and deeper as you go up the strata. But, morphologically, the upper layers are harder(Please refer to the diagram posted by yourself on #205) than the lower ones.  

I linked and quoted a description of the erosion. It's called haloclasty.

If you've actually read the materials you've recommended - the ones you assume I haven't read - then you already know this.

24 minutes ago, abhijit_b said:

It doesn't explain the rounded fissure you see on the enclosure walls.

It does when you consider the haloclastic weathering the exposed stone is subject to. With haloclasty, the stone is left utterly vulnerable to the slightest amount of runoff.

20 minutes ago, abhijit_b said:

I would strongly suggest you to read all the developments and research around this topic and not restrict yourself to his 1993 papers. I did mention about his replies to other geologists in 90s in one of my previous post. Please go through those.

Additionally, you should also Collin Reader or Dr David Coxill to get the larger picture. You will do injustice if you simply read one paper and only criticisms around it!

You assume too much.

Perhaps you should read through the large amounts of material concerning Giza that are available from the Giza Mapping Project. I gave you the link.

Harte

Edited April 22, 2018 by Harte

[abhijit_b]

2 minutes ago, Harte said:

I linked and quoted a description of the erosion. It's called haloclasty.

It's Dr Harrell's theory (I myself mentioned it one of my previous post) and it simply doesn't explain why the rounded fissures are observed only on the Western part of Southern wall and Western wall!

[stereologist]

26 minutes ago, abhijit_b said:

Could you please point me to the source here? I am interested to know what other weathering are you talking about here.

If you are referring Dr Harrell or Dr Gauri, then there is a main drawback of their theories.

It is important to note that Schoch's focus has been mostly on the enclosure walls. The rounded fissures get more prominent as you move from east to west on the Southern wall. Similarly, it is the most prominent on the western wall. This behavior is difficult to explain with Dr Harrell's subsurface weathering theory or Dr Gauri's Salt exfoliation which is a chemical process. More interestingly, the fissures get deeper and deeper as you go up the strata. But, morphologically, the upper layers are harder(Please refer to the diagram posted by yourself on #205) than the lower ones.  

I's like to point out a few things to consider here. Haloclasty is a physical process, not a chemical process. Also, harder materials are more brittle. Harder materials break while softer or more ductile materials change shape.

[abhijit_b]

Dr. Harrell attributes the fissures to earthquakes and subsurface groundwater movements going back millions of years.  Dr Schoch clarified this in his reply. He pointed out how faulted lines differ from fissures and what Harrell mentioned is nothing but fault lines.

[abhijit_b]

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

I's like to point out a few things to consider here. Haloclasty is a physical process, not a chemical process. Also, harder materials are more brittle. Harder materials break while softer or more ductile materials change shape.

Yes, totally agree. The Chemical process I mentioned was for Dr Gauri's theory, not for Dr. Harrell

[Harte]

The thread is about the sphinx, not about weathering.

It's a fact that Schoch's date is based entirely on subsurface weathering and his (unsupported) assumption that the rear of the sphinx was completed in the 4th dynasty.

Haloclasty plus the current estimates of rainfall patterns in the area over the last 5 thousand years. along with wind, explains all the surface weathering on the monument and its enclosure.

The subsurface dating method has been shown to be spurious.

There is no argument to be made for any dating of the sphinx concerning the weathering being entirely due to rainfall in some wet period in deep antiquity, because we know the observed erosion is explained by the same weathering we can watch happening today.

Given the archeological evidence, the strongest case BY FAR is that the sphinx cannot predate Khafre.

It's all at GMP.

Harte

[stereologist]

5 minutes ago, abhijit_b said:

Yes, totally agree. The Chemical process I mentioned was for Dr Gauri's theory, not for Dr. Harrell

I am unclear where salt exfoliation by Gauri is a chemical process. Everything I saw suggests a physical process.

[abhijit_b]

12 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I am unclear where salt exfoliation by Gauri is a chemical process. Everything I saw suggests a physical process.

Dr Gauri is a Geochemist and he argued that when exposed to the air, the monument deteriorated as a result of chemical effects associated with morning condensation on the rock.

[stereologist]

Just now, abhijit_b said:

Dr Gauri is a Geochemist and he argued that when exposed to the air, the monument deteriorated as a result of chemical effects associated with morning condensation on the rock.

He stated that it was possible for dew as well as ground water. He stated it was a physical process, not a chemical process.

[abhijit_b]

37 minutes ago, Harte said:

Haloclasty plus the current estimates of rainfall patterns in the area over the last 5 thousand years. along with wind, explains all the surface weathering on the monument and its enclosure.

 

You didn't answer how Haloclasty explains the weathering seen only on the Southern and western wall. Also deeper fissure as you go up the strata even though the layer is harder.

It can't !

 

[abhijit_b]

23 hours ago, Harte said:

 On top of that, at the time Schoch was investigating, less was known about the climate in the 4th Dynasty than is now known.

Turns out it was wetter.

There has been an attempt to show that the erosion observed on the wall due to rain water run off occurred post old kingdom. Lehner specially mention this climate change condition. A qutoe from wikipedia:

Quote

Recent studies by German climatologists Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kröpelin, of the University of Cologne suggest the change from a wet to a much drier climate may have come to an end around 3500–1500 BC, which is as much as 500 years later than currently thought. Egyptologist Mark Lehner believes this climate change may have been responsible for the severe weathering found on the Sphinx and other sites of the 4th Dynasty.

But the problem is below:

" The plateau west of the Sphinx was originally bedrock with a cover of sandy soil. Rainwater would have saturated the ground quickly and flowed downslope as runoff. To build the Khufu and Khafra Pyramids, the Egyptians quarried the plateau to the west of the Sphinx (Fig. 6.4 below). It is not clear when the quarries came to be filled with sand afterwards. But even if the sandfill reached the elevation of the Sphinx enclosure walls, it would have been much more permeable to rainwater. The rainfall necessary to saturate the more permeable quarry infill would have occurred infrequently, if it all. " - Ref

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, abhijit_b said:

You didn't answer how Haloclasty explains the weathering seen only on the Southern and western wall. Also deeper fissure as you go up the strata even though the layer is harder.

It can't !

 

You seem to be unclear about even the basics. You misunderstood that Gauri was talking the same salt exfoliation process as others. Now you made a "it can't" statement. You may not realize it but others do see that you are confused on many issues. Let me help you out on some issues.

1. Preferential weathering is common and is due to the physical environment that is being weathered. At best you can only suggest that the weathering surfaces on the exposures are different.

2. Haloclasty works better on areas of smaller pore size.

Your 'it can't" argument is wrong.

 

[abhijit_b]

45 minutes ago, Harte said:

The thread is about the sphinx, not about weathering.

Lets sort out the weathering problems before coming to the numerous issues of "Khafre's monument as unit" or in context.

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, abhijit_b said:

Lets sort out the weathering problems before coming to the numerous issues of "Khafre's monument as unit" or in context.

Have you learned that Gauri's weathering is not a chemical process?

[abhijit_b]

 

9 minutes ago, stereologist said:

You seem to be unclear about even the basics. You misunderstood that Gauri was talking the same salt exfoliation process as others. Now you made a "it can't" statement. You may not realize it but others do see that you are confused on many issues.

Please do read "Archaeology, (January-February 1995), pp. 10-12. by Dr Robert Schoch"

Gauri's explanation of salt exfoliation did not account for the lateral distribution of weathering in the enclosure, in which the western wall and the western portion of the southern wall were more heavily eroded than the eastern portion of the southern wall. Runoff from the plateau to the west was a better explanation of this erosion.

[stereologist]

6 minutes ago, abhijit_b said:

 

Please do read "Archaeology, (January-February 1995), pp. 10-12. by Dr Robert Schoch"

Gauri's explanation of salt exfoliation did not account for the lateral distribution of weathering in the enclosure, in which the western wall and the western portion of the southern wall were more heavily eroded than the eastern portion of the southern wall. Runoff from the plateau to the west was a better explanation of this erosion.

Please learn that Gauri is talking about a physical process. You seem to continue to be unclear about even the basics.

Edited April 22, 2018 by stereologist
misspelled basics

[stereologist]

14 minutes ago, abhijit_b said:

Lets sort out the weathering problems before coming to the numerous issues of "Khafre's monument as unit" or in context.

Have you learned that Gauri's weathering is not a chemical process?

[abhijit_b]

12 minutes ago, stereologist said:

1. Preferential weathering is common and is due to the physical environment that is being weathered. At best you can only suggest that the weathering surfaces on the exposures are different.

You are totally contradicting, preferential weathering is one of the reason to believe why rainfall created the weathering pattern in the upper strata.

18 minutes ago, stereologist said:

2. Haloclasty works better on areas of smaller pore size.

You are contradicting. With that logic norther wall should have more fissures than southern.

[abhijit_b]

5 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Have you learned that Gauri's weathering is not a chemical process?

Just stick to one word I used and avoid everything else. I clearly posted above why I used the word chemical.

[stereologist]

6 minutes ago, abhijit_b said:

Just stick to one word I used and avoid everything else. I clearly posted above why I used the word chemical.

I accept that you do not understand what Gauri was talking about. I am pointing out that you do not understand the basics.

[stereologist]

10 minutes ago, abhijit_b said:

You are totally contradicting, preferential weathering is one of the reason to believe why rainfall created the weathering pattern in the upper strata.

You are contradicting. With that logic norther wall should have more fissures than southern.

You seem unable to understand the basics. Your claims of contradiction continue to illustrate your lack of understanding of the basics and your attempts at logical constructions are poor to bad.

Nothing you stated follows from statements I made. That is called a non sequitur.

You don't understand the processes being discussed and you can't follow statements in a rational or logical fashion.

My next point is that you keep falling back on an older paper, you cherry pick results, and are inappropriately mixing material. This problem appears to be a fall out from the first two issues.

[Harte]

2 hours ago, abhijit_b said:

You didn't answer how Haloclasty explains the weathering seen only on the Southern and western wall. Also deeper fissure as you go up the strata even though the layer is harder.

It can't !

 

You didn't explain how you think that surface erosion is even relevant.

I did.

Harte

[abhijit_b]

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

You seem unable to understand the basics. Your claims of contradiction continue to illustrate your lack of understanding of the basics and your attempts at logical constructions are poor to bad.

Nothing you stated follows from statements I made. That is called a non sequitur.

You don't understand the processes being discussed and you can't follow statements in a rational or logical fashion.

My next point is that you keep falling back on an older paper, you cherry pick results, and are inappropriately mixing material. This problem appears to be a fall out from the first two issues.

I do exactly have the same feeling about you.

This is what happens when you don't have the complete knowledge and arrogant towards a single idea.

None of your points prove the peculiar pattern of erosion of the enclosure wall. Please don't mention repeatedly about "understanding of the basics", I can also state the same! Instead of explaining things in a proper and logical way, you are simply getting personal!

No point debating here! I do exactly understand the frustration of lateral thinkers.

 

[Harte]

19 minutes ago, abhijit_b said:

No point debating here! I do exactly understand the frustration of lateral thinkers.

Because, obviously, when it turns out you're wrong, it's not a fair debate.

Harte