Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Captain Risky

How old is the Sphinx ?

647 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Captain Risky
27 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

and

There's actually the matter of people ignoring the fact that sub-surface weathering DOES happen in Egypt, especially through time and with the continuously moving water table and in such close proximity to the Nile as the Sphinx had been in the 3rd millenium BC. The Nile River itself came up to the plateau as late as the mid to late 3rd millenium BC and added to that Egypt experienced much more rain during the mid-third millenium BC, significantly more than it does now. There is also the fact that the enclosure that directly surrounds the Sphinx and from which it was cut was created during the time of Khafre by removing the requisite amount of limestone to make the Valley Temple/s. Before then there would have only existed a knob of limestone at best where the Sphinx' head now exists.

There is no written mention AFAIK of the Sphinx during or before the 3rd milleniium BC.

cormac

Red: is there any sub-surface weathering on the pyramids or any other the other buildings? i know about that boat buried deep next to the great pyramid... it didn't suffer any sub-surface damage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
12 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

There's exceedingly little, as far as that goes, on the building of the pyramids. That changed with the discovery of Merer's journal and records, but I don't think his records make any mention of the Sphinx. That monument didn't exist at the time of Khufuf, but even if it did, it was not part of Merer's activities as a foreman at Khufu's pyramid.

Keithisco is correct, we've had exactly the same discussion numerous times in old threads. Still, I'm not inclined to close this one, as long as it generates useful discussion.

The significant backdating of the Sphinx is the work of Schock and West. Harte explained this well earlier in the thread. The gist of it is, it was a poorly presented theory to begin with and is not accepted in professional academic circles—not even among professional geologists. It's actually an old theory on the part of Schock, and it's been discarded.

The Sphinx as Anubis is the pet theory of "Professor" Robert Temple, another writer of fringe books. The Anubis idea is popular with quite a number of laypeople but is exceedingly unrealistic on the face of it. The Sphinx was never Anubis. Those tall, pointy ears and long, skinny snout all would've snapped off before the carvers were even done. Remember that the Sphinx contains several layers of very poor-quality limestone.

On a final note, people often remark that the head is undersized. This is not so mysterious. The carvers were working with what they had, and the more realistic scenario is that the protuberance of limestone that was there on the Plateau originally, just wasn't large enough to be proportional. Remember that this was the first colossus the Egyptians ever carved, and the only colossal sphinx they ever carved. I think they did a damn fine job. 

thanks for your lengthily reply. a couple of questions... is there any writing or carvings on the sphinx that would substantiate the view that the sphinx was built by the same people that built the pyramids? you say that the sphinx didn't exist before the construction of the pyramids, how can you be so sure?

Red: well of course there would be significant non acceptance by academic circles. Schock is a professional geologist, well published. you say that other geologists didn't agree with him. so who are they? please to be posting their rebuttals. 

the undersized head of the sphinx shouldn't be so easily written off as a mathematical or artistic fumble. remember you're saying that it was built by the same people that built the pyramids. were the pyramids also mistakes? to be fair to your views... the undersized head could have been a second attempt. but i like the theory of Professor Robert Temple and the state of Anubis. it makes sense on every level. if the pyramids were tombs and the giza plateau a burial ground it would make more sense Anubis would be the guardian than a pharaoh suffering from the zika virus.  

as for keithisco and yourself permitting me the privilege of discussing a subject that i didn't get prior permission, i thank you both. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
33 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Red: is there any sub-surface weathering on the pyramids or any other the other buildings? i know about that boat buried deep next to the great pyramid... it didn't suffer any sub-surface damage. 

Why would there be, the pyramids and temples weren't underground nor were they nearly covered up by the Egyptian sands. Until the Arabs tore the cladding apart for building material the pyramids still had their original cladding so the sub-structure would have been protected by same. As to the temples, they've taken damage by the sands even though they were above ground. The boats were made of wood, obviously they wouldn't have suffered sub-surface damage like the limestone the Sphinx encountered, especially as they were covered by limestone slabs weighing around 14 tons.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
4 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

thanks for your lengthily reply. a couple of questions... is there any writing or carvings on the sphinx that would substantiate the view that the sphinx was built by the same people that built the pyramids? you say that the sphinx didn't exist before the construction of the pyramids, how can you be so sure?

There are no inscriptions on the Sphinx until much later in dynastic history. So, in other words, nothing from Dynasty 4 in the time of Khafre. We don't even know what they called the Sphinx when it was made. Speaking for myself, I'm confident of the date for that monument mostly due to the work of the Giza Plateau Mapping Project, headed by Mark Lehner. Architecturaley and archaeologically, they've established that the Sphinx is an integral to the Khafre pyramid complex. In fact, they've been able to show that the Sphinx was probably one of the last components prepared for that complex. The GPMP has a website with a lot of useful information.

Quote

Red: well of course there would be significant non acceptance by academic circles. Schock is a professional geologist, well published. you say that other geologists didn't agree with him. so who are they? please to be posting their rebuttals. 

With the exception of maybe one or two, I've never read a geologist's paper that agrees with Schock. You can easily find this stuff online. But my favorite refutation is from James Harrel, a geoarchaeologist who specializes in Egypt. Here's one of his papers:

http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=29

I don't have time to dig up more, but if you go searching, you'll find more. I believe there's also a good article where Schock tries to rebut Harrel. Yes, Schock is a geologist, but he's also gone far to the woo side with some pretty crazy ideas about uther things. This indeed slashes his credibility.

Quote

the undersized head of the sphinx shouldn't be so easily written off as a mathematical or artistic fumble. remember you're saying that it was built by the same people that built the pyramids. were the pyramids also mistakes? to be fair to your views... the undersized head could have been a second attempt. but i like the theory of Professor Robert Temple and the state of Anubis. it makes sense on every level. if the pyramids were tombs and the giza plateau a burial ground it would make more sense Anubis would be the guardian than a pharaoh suffering from the zika virus.  

Was the Zika virus around back then? Awful stuff, that. Seriously, the proportions of the Anubis statue—like the one you showed in Tut's tomb—simply could never have worked on the Sphinx. It is not an accepted idea but a pet project by a writer of woo. And Horus makes every bit as much sense, given his well-known protective role for kings. And Giza is primarily about kings, even though there are thousands of private tombs there.

I'm not at all saying the head is a fumble, I'm just saying the carvers were limited by the constraints of the original knob of stone sticking up from the Plateau floor. Still, Anubis is all over Giza, primarily in wall paintings inside the tombs at Giza.

Quote

as for keithisco and yourself permitting me the privilege of discussing a subject that i didn't get prior permission, i thank you both. 

I'm not sure what you're sayin here, but are perhaps being a little snarky. All I was saying was that we've already had this exact discussion quite a few times, which is why we advise posters to use the search function before starting a thread. But like I also said, I don't mind keeping this one in play.

And with that, I'm tired and off to bed. Everyone have a god night. :)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
Just now, cormac mac airt said:

Why would there be, the pyramids and temples weren't underground nor were they nearly covered up by the Egyptian sands. Until the Arabs tore the cladding apart for building material the pyramids still had their original cladding so the sub-structure would have been protected by same. As to the temples, they've taken damage by the sands even though they were above ground. The boats were made of wood, obviously they wouldn't have suffered sub-surface damage like the limestone the Sphinx encountered, especially as they were covered by limestone slabs weighing around 14 tons.

cormac

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.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky

1909197610_9b2caaa58d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
58 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Red: is there any sub-surface weathering on the pyramids or any other the other buildings? i know about that boat buried deep next to the great pyramid... it didn't suffer any sub-surface damage. 

It would appear that you don't know what is meant by sub-surface weathering of the limestone bedrock.

It's not erosion. It's a change in the properties of the limestone due to contact with the atmosphere. What Schoch was measuring was sound waves reflected off the bedrock. Where weathering has occurred, you get two return signals, the second from a harder layer below the weathered layer. You can measure the depth of the weathering on the bedrock surface this way, and get an idea of relative difference which might indicate some areas were more recently exposed to air than others (assuming a uniform makeup for the bedrock.)

However, the weathering itself is non linear (as Schoch himself admits) and the limestone bed at Giza is anything but uniform. The layers under the sphinx contain fossilized coral as well as deposited sandy limestone.

Harte

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
3 minutes ago, Harte said:

It would appear that you don't know what is meant by sub-surface weathering of the limestone bedrock.

It's not erosion. It's a change in the properties of the limestone due to contact with the atmosphere. What Schoch was measuring was sound waves reflected off the bedrock. Where weathering has occurred, you get two return signals, the second from a harder layer below the weathered layer. You can measure the depth of the weathering on the bedrock surface this way, and get an idea of relative difference which might indicate some areas were more recently exposed to air than others (assuming a uniform makeup for the bedrock.)

However, the weathering itself is non linear (as Schoch himself admits) and the limestone bed at Giza is anything but uniform. The layers under the sphinx contain fossilized coral as well as deposited sandy limestone.

Harte

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.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
3 minutes 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.     

I'm not talking about the interior of the pyramids, only the exterior which is relevant to the comparison with the Sphinx. As to the foundation the Pyramids were build directly on the natural limestone of the Giza Plateau and the paving that surrounds it is made of BASALT and not limestone so isn't affected in the same way. As to the internal chambers yes the lower ones suffer from the water table and they ALL suffer from the carbon dioxide exhaled by the millions of visitors a year. As to the boat/s:

Quote

 

Then, in September of 1987, Japanese researchers reconfirmed the presence of the second boat, resting below large limestone slabs. One month later, a group of archaeologists sponsored by the National Geographic Society drilled a hole in the limestone slabs around the boat to insert a small camera, revealing the wooden planks. They also took air samples and resealed the pit. However, the seal of the entombed boat was breached and water from the museum as well as insects and fungi began to degrade the ancient, vulnerable wood. Extensive analyses were conducted of the wood in 1992 and 1993 by Japan’s Waseda University. A technique known as X-ray diffraction analysis allowed the researchers to conclude that there was severe damage to some parts of the wood, and the preservation and eventual removal of the boat became a priority. 

and

Since that opening day, the team, wearing white, protective suits, has been racing against a series of environmental adversaries. They are not just tackling the time-induced decay of the organic material, but also the deterioration aided by insects and water damage.

 

https://popular-archaeology.com/article/resurrecting-the-pharaohs-solar-boat1/

It should be pointed out that the water table at the location of the Sphinx would never make it to the Boat Pits ON the Giza Plateau as there is a significant difference in height above sea level and the water table. 

As to Schoch, claiming he's right doesn't make him right. AFAIK no other reputable geologist supports his conclusions. 

cormac

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
24 minutes 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.    

So you didn't actually know what sub-surface weathering was and now you're changing the parameters. It figures. Shoch can go on about torrential rain falling on the Sphinx all he wants and claiming that that makes it thousands of years older but as I've already posted before the Giza Plateau experienced significantly more rainfall in the mid to late 3rd millenia BC than both currently or that he ever knew about and he has never AFAIK addressed his lack of knowing that or taking it into account. 

cormac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

I'm not talking about the interior of the pyramids, only the exterior which is relevant to the comparison with the Sphinx. As to the foundation the Pyramids were build directly on the natural limestone of the Giza Plateau and the paving that surrounds it is made of BASALT and not limestone so isn't affected in the same way. As to the internal chambers yes the lower ones suffer from the water table and they ALL suffer from the carbon dioxide exhaled by the millions of visitors a year. As to the boat/s:

https://popular-archaeology.com/article/resurrecting-the-pharaohs-solar-boat1/

It should be pointed out that the water table at the location of the Sphinx would never make it to the Boat Pits ON the Giza Plateau as there is a significant difference in height above sea level and the water table. 

As to Schoch, claiming he's right doesn't make him right. AFAIK no other reputable geologist supports his conclusions. 

cormac

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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
Just now, cormac mac airt said:

So you didn't actually know what sub-surface weathering was and now you're changing the parameters. It figures. Shoch can go on about torrential rain falling on the Sphinx all he wants and claiming that that makes it thousands of years older but as I've already posted before the Giza Plateau experienced significantly more rainfall in the mid to late 3rd millenia BC than both currently or that he ever knew about and he has never AFAIK addressed his lack of knowing that or taking it into account. 

cormac

read my reply above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
14 minutes 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. 

With the possible exception of Kmt_sesh, and my apologies if I'm wrong, Harte and I have read ALL of what Schoch has claimed since he came out with his theory. It fails ON ALL LEVELS. You might do yourself a great service by researching what he's actually said over the years and how he's been forced to back down, especially as he originally claimed the GP was some 10,000 years old originally. 

As to the Sphinx, since the Enclosure which encompassed much of the Sphinx's main body can not predate the Valley Temple/s as that's where the material went and was used the date of the Sphinx is fairly well set. Neither the Tura limestone, which is higher density than the limestone bedrock of the Giza Plateau, nor the Basalt paving that surrounds it is as succeptible to weather as the limestone on the Giza Plateau so they can NOT be seen as comparable as Schoch and you would like to think. The rain wouldn't have messed with the boats because it's already been shown that the Boat Pit for Khufu's Solar Barge was indeed air-tight and only one experienced problems with water once Egyptologists broke the seal and inadequately repaired it. 

cormac

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
14 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

read my reply above.

I read it. You didn't know what your were talking about. I get it. 

cormac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

There are quite a few “dodgy pyramids” out there, just because the three at Giza are well designed doesn’t stop thr Sphinx from being less than successful.

think about it, the complex was complete before they added the Sphinx and it went wrong is more believable than “well, we have this dodgy old statue that isn’t even built right, let’s make our foremost funerary right near it!”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

The obvious question IMO is this:  If the alleged rain erosion is evidence that the Sphinx dates to circa 10,000 BC or even 7000 BC as later claimed then WHY are we still seeing evidence of this alleged type of erosion as 9000+ years of wind erosion alone should have eliminated all traces of its existance. 

cormac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
54 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

There are quite a few “dodgy pyramids” out there, just because the three at Giza are well designed doesn’t stop thr Sphinx from being less than successful.

think about it, the complex was complete before they added the Sphinx and it went wrong is more believable than “well, we have this dodgy old statue that isn’t even built right, let’s make our foremost funerary right near it!”

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.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
2 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

I thought that... the wind blows sand, which moves, acting as a liquid to a degree. This in turn forms rivulets "flowing" down stone faces, causing (over thousands of years) erosion that appears just like might happen due to water.

The middle lower picture (right side) is if the wind is picking up the sand and throwing it against the rock face, scouring out the softer stone. The left side of that picture would be if the wind is blowing over the edge, and dragging abrasive sand over the edge and down the rock face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
48 minutes 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.

That would have to be a metric tonne of rain. Does the local geography support the argument? Not the Sphinx pit but the nearby hills etc.

 

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.   

It might be a cockup, yes. It might be designed that way. If it was a cockup then it is IMO definitive evidence it was built at the same time/after the pyramids, because who wants a fugly Sphinx?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

If I remember the date was supposed to be back to 10,000 years... because that is the estimate when the climate would have been rainy enough to have allowed for such erosion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

Naturally instead of responding to the statements you go back to copying and linking to Schochs work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss

So I recently watched a documentary where they proved that the sphinx and the temple complex were created at the same time. They compared the distinctive limestone layers with the blocks used in the temple complex and were actually able to determine where each one was carved from around the sphinx down to the exact depth and precise area. Then they used a computer to "put them back" so to speak. Interesting and informative. I used to lean towards the theory of the sphinx being older until I saw that documentary.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
2 hours ago, skliss said:

So I recently watched a documentary where they proved that the sphinx and the temple complex were created at the same time. They compared the distinctive limestone layers with the blocks used in the temple complex and were actually able to determine where each one was carved from around the sphinx down to the exact depth and precise area. Then they used a computer to "put them back" so to speak. Interesting and informative. I used to lean towards the theory of the sphinx being older until I saw that documentary.

True skliss. Yet sadly some can't understand that there is no Sphinx without the Sphinx Enclosure as the removal of material for the temple complex is exactly WHY there is a Sphinx body to begin with. Apparently common sense isn't as common as it should be. 

cormac

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
On 4/14/2018 at 6:55 AM, seanjo said:

I saw a docu on this, very interesting and very believable, the present head doesn't fit the size. I would speculate though that a reworking might have been needed because the nose of the Dog fell off.

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.