How old is the Sphinx ?

[kmt_sesh]

49 minutes ago, Maidel said:

I dont know enough about the giza plateau to say 'everything' speaks of uniformity.

I mean the great pyramid and the menkaure pyramid seem to be exceedingly different - the casing stones on the latter being anything but smooth and flat, whereas all evidence to the former appears to be a polished smooth finish. That to me is different enough.

My opinion to the age - I'm not in any position to give an opinion. Thats not me being difficult, but its the same as me having an opinion on string theory - I know enough about it to know what it is, but not enough to have an opinion worth listening to.

I have to agree with uniformity at Giza. It's all classically Old Kingdom, aside from those monuments and burials dating to later dynastic times.where Captain and I depart is on the age of the Sphinx. I see it as definitively Old Kingdom.

You have to examine them on their own, first, and can then address the larger whole.. For one thing, Menkaure's pyramid and complex were never finished. His son, Shepseskaf, finished the complex in mud brick. And each king was going to render a different style to some respect to make his complex distinctive. Menkaure couldn't marshal enough resources (or might not have had long enough to live) to erect a huge pyramid, but he dressed it in a skirt of granite. This idea he got from Djedefre, who started (but never finished) a pyramid to the north at Abu Rawash. Additionally, Manekaure's associated pyramid temples appear a lot larger and more complex than Khufu's. This trend (smaller pyramids, larger temples) would continue till the end of the Old Kingdom, and then again in the Middle Kingdom.

I myself don't have much to say about the age. Yes, there is certainly wiggle room, especially for monuments in the Early Bronze Age, but turn to the research. I've spent a significant amount of time with the research of Egyptologists who've specialized in late prehistoric and early dynastic times (Toby Wilkinson, for one), and am satisfied beyond question that all of this can be ascribed to pharaonic Egypt.

[kmt_sesh]

14 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

Yuengling. My favorite.

I've never tried it. But if it's cold, pass one this way!

[stereologist]

3 hours ago, Maidel said:

No need to be rude, I have been nothing except polite, I would expect the same in return.

Yes, link one DOES mention sediments, however the second line specifically states that it is useful for ceramics. My point was that I found that interesting because I did not know about the ceramics, I did know in general about the dating of the stones.

Im not entirely sure why you are getting worked up about it, my question is primarily to do with the practicality of using it - how do you use this to date when a stone was laid inside a structure?

I think you fundamentally are misreading what I am asking.

 

I will explain.

 

Pyramid casing block placed on pyramid - locks in the date underneath that stone.

Casing block is pried up, re-shaped and placed into the wall of a new building in Cairo. Neither the place where that stone came from, nor the stone itself will show the date of the original installation - they will only show the date of the removal and re-sitement.

So if a temple has been rebuilt, remodelled or repaired and they get a luminescence date from under those stones, it will of course show the date of the new working, not the old one. This is exactly what would happen if you tried to date the sphinx from the later repairs.

 

So, this ties me into my main point that I have been skirting around (And I actually dont have an answer to this, I'm not setting a logical trap for anyone here)

If the stone was removed from the bed of the sphinx and made into a temple, then said temple would be the same age as the sphinx.

If the weathering on the sphinx is entirely normal for that specific limestone (Accepting that different parts of the rock are different depending on which side of the sphinx they came from) - then the temple should have weathered similarly to the sphinx?

Does the temple show the same weathering as the sphinx, has it been substantially repaired and rebuilt like the sphinx has had to be?

 

If the temple is weathered like the sphinx - then the dating is consistent and one dates the other.

If the temple is significantly repaired like the sphinx, then the dating is in question because of the repairs.

If the temple is not weathered similarly to the sphinx then it implies the stones have been removed from their original place, reworked and made into a new structure.

You were clearly dismissive of the links which ALL stated that sediments could dated.

This is not true: "Pyramid casing block placed on pyramid - locks in the date underneath that stone." The reason that is not true is that the technique works with crystals not generally found in the limestone blocks of the pyramid.

Your example has nothing at all to do with the method or what I have posted. Your example has no relevance to the discussion. Again, let me help you out.

A block is placed on the ground. The ground is composed of minerals which do get reset each day by the Sun. With the block on top that reset no longer occurs. Obtaining that sediment under the block will tell us when the block was placed on the ground.

The idea that a building would weather the same as the quarry from which it came is flawed. The reason is that the building does not exist in the same environmental conditions as the quarry. The area around the Sphinx is subject to runoff. That does not happen to the Temple There is groundwater in the rocks around the Sphinx. That is not true of the temple. The temple has a roof. The quarry does not.

The idea that differences in weathering suggests rework or whatever is therefore logically flawed.

[stereologist]

3 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

are you saying that the everyday ancient Egyptians spoke and interacted in point form?

Do you have any idea what you are on about?

Here is what I stated.

The accuracy of the translation has nothing to do with your interpretation and wishful thinking.

I would suggest that the earlier translation might have injected information into the translation that simply is not there. That happens.

[Maidel]

7 minutes ago, stereologist said:

You were clearly dismissive of the links which ALL stated that sediments could dated.

This is not true: "Pyramid casing block placed on pyramid - locks in the date underneath that stone." The reason that is not true is that the technique works with crystals not generally found in the limestone blocks of the pyramid.

Your example has nothing at all to do with the method or what I have posted. Your example has no relevance to the discussion. Again, let me help you out.

A block is placed on the ground. The ground is composed of minerals which do get reset each day by the Sun. With the block on top that reset no longer occurs. Obtaining that sediment under the block will tell us when the block was placed on the ground.

The idea that a building would weather the same as the quarry from which it came is flawed. The reason is that the building does not exist in the same environmental conditions as the quarry. The area around the Sphinx is subject to runoff. That does not happen to the Temple There is groundwater in the rocks around the Sphinx. That is not true of the temple. The temple has a roof. The quarry does not.

The idea that differences in weathering suggests rework or whatever is therefore logically flawed.

Replying from my phone so only a partial response. You really seem to be missing the point I am making and focusing on a point I’m not making.

Whether the limestone block can be dated itself is irrelevant to the point I am making.

if you are dating sediment under a block from the outside of the wall, then you are not dating the internal structure, but the outer face, an outer face that could have been repaired or altered over time.

For me they would need to date sediment from a block inside the pyramid (and not from an internal chamber, I mean within the mass of the structure).

that was why I was asking about the saying techniques, I was hoping someone would tell me they drilled inside or through 3 rows of blocks to get sediment from under an unexposed block.

the point I was making about a reconstructed site was not primarily about the pyramid (although it would hold true) but in regards to the Sphinx temple.

my point was if a block was taken from the casing of the pyramid and placed in Cairo then analysing the sediment under that block would give the date of the new building, not the old.

 

in reference to the temple and the Sphinx weathering - I’m not talking about the enclosure wall, I’m taking about the weathering on the back and head of the Sphinx.

roof or no roof, the exposed outer wall of any temple made from the same material should weather the same as the exposed portions of the Sphinx - if the blocks are near pristine then that’s evidence they have been recarved or repaired.

i don’t know enough about the temple, it’s why I’m asking and I don’t trust google to give me pictures of the right building. Nothing more embarrassing than showing a photo that proves my point, only for someone to point out that it’s not the right building...

[jaylemurph]

3 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

limestone casing was taken by the other ISIS members, namely the muslim caliph to build mosques and palaces.  

It wasn't just the Muslims. No need to stir up racism by suggesting it was.

--Jaylemurph

[Unusual Tournament]

3 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

It wasn't just the Muslims. No need to stir up racism by suggesting it was.

--Jaylemurph

okay... so who else was it? 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

okay... so who else was it? 

Everyone living within spitting distance of Giza.

 

[Unusual Tournament]

Just now, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Everyone living within spitting distance of Giza.

 

how do you know that?

 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

how do you know that?

 

Because it makes sense. If one person does it, than ****ing everyone will do it.

[Unusual Tournament]

Just now, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Because it makes sense. If one person does it, than ****ing everyone will do it.

LOL... oh hats. 

[stereologist]

49 minutes ago, Maidel said:

Replying from my phone so only a partial response. You really seem to be missing the point I am making and focusing on a point I’m not making.

Whether the limestone block can be dated itself is irrelevant to the point I am making.

if you are dating sediment under a block from the outside of the wall, then you are not dating the internal structure, but the outer face, an outer face that could have been repaired or altered over time.

For me they would need to date sediment from a block inside the pyramid (and not from an internal chamber, I mean within the mass of the structure).

that was why I was asking about the saying techniques, I was hoping someone would tell me they drilled inside or through 3 rows of blocks to get sediment from under an unexposed block.

the point I was making about a reconstructed site was not primarily about the pyramid (although it would hold true) but in regards to the Sphinx temple.

my point was if a block was taken from the casing of the pyramid and placed in Cairo then analysing the sediment under that block would give the date of the new building, not the old.

 

in reference to the temple and the Sphinx weathering - I’m not talking about the enclosure wall, I’m taking about the weathering on the back and head of the Sphinx.

roof or no roof, the exposed outer wall of any temple made from the same material should weather the same as the exposed portions of the Sphinx - if the blocks are near pristine then that’s evidence they have been recarved or repaired.

i don’t know enough about the temple, it’s why I’m asking and I don’t trust google to give me pictures of the right building. Nothing more embarrassing than showing a photo that proves my point, only for someone to point out that it’s not the right building...

Actually you are the one not paying attention to the points I am making as I have shown to be the case by posting the contents of the links.

I have never ever stated that the blocks themselves can be dated. Never gone there. So mentioning anything about the dating of the limestone blocks is irrelevant.

You seem to be confused about dating the sediments. This is not about dating the sediments. This is about dating when the sediments are covered. Let me hep you with that.

Quote

What is important is the block being put into place initiates a clock.

Quote

It is a matter of dating when the sediments went into the crack.

Quote

Obtaining that sediment under the block will tell us when the block was placed on the ground.

The sediment dating is when the sediments were covered up. As the links stated and I have posted, the clock starts when the sediments are covered.

 

I have never referred to an outer whatever you are introducing or repair which you are introducing. All of that is irrelevant. It is completely irrelevant. The issue is to get a sample that is relevant.

Let me help you again since you seem intent on pointing out irrelevant and incorrect statements.

Quote

Archaeologists and scientists are smart enough to examine the evidence and determine if a dating method is appropriate.

Let me also suggest that archaeologists and scientists are smart enough to determine the meaning and value of the samples they collect.

Your moved block to Cairo example is irrelevant.

This is a false statement " the exposed outer wall of any temple made from the same material should weather the same as the exposed portions of the Sphinx" In fact, it makes no sense as I already pointed out. Let me remind you of the issues you seem so intent on not understanding.

Quote

The idea that a building would weather the same as the quarry from which it came is flawed. The reason is that the building does not exist in the same environmental conditions as the quarry. The area around the Sphinx is subject to runoff. That does not happen to the Temple There is groundwater in the rocks around the Sphinx. That is not true of the temple. The temple has a roof. The quarry does not.

Weathering will only be the same if the same conditions exist and it is incredibly obvious that they are completely different.

[Unusual Tournament]

4 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Weathering will only be the same if the same conditions exist and it is incredibly obvious that they are completely different.

so a distance of a couple of hundred feet between the pyramids and the sphinx would crete different weather conditions? 

[Maidel]

16 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

so a distance of a couple of hundred feet between the pyramids and the sphinx would crete different weather conditions? 

THANK YOU!

(although I’m referring to the Sphinx and the temple made from the limestone from the enclosure ditch).

 

and I will reply to the rest, but it’s 4am, so not till the morning.

[Maidel]

Actually, I’m not that tired...

 

ok, without quotes because it’s from the phone.

 

im not explaining this well, taking short cuts and hoping you will follow, but you aren’t.

 

Exampl e 1 - reused stone.

block A is placed on the ground. Traps sediment at that time.

 

block A is removed from its place and taken elsewhere, placed onto another sediment.

 

Block a when the sediment is tested will reveal the date of the second building, not the time when it was cut.

 

example 2 - repairs

Block a crumbles away with time

 

block b is cut to replace it

 

the sediment trapped under block b is the date of the repair, not the date of construction.

 

 

the Sphinx has had to be repaired on multiple occasions to the point where the repairs have needed repairs.

 

anything built with the same building material in the same location will experience the same weathering. In fact cut stone will suffer greater weathering than solid bedrock because it has a fault line in it between the stones which will be easier to damage than a single piece.

 

therefore, my question stands:

 

a) does the Sphinx temple external blocks show anything like the weathering on the sphinx head or back?

b ) is there anything intrinsic about the location of the temple that would make it less prone to weathering (eg was it clad in granite? Or was it in the shade of a hill? Or built into a hole?

 

 

Ps - can you respond without the patronisation, we are both grown intelligent adults, so it’s just nicer that way.

thanks very much.

Edited July 15, 2018 by Maidel

[jaylemurph]

55 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

how do you know that?

 

Mark Lehner, in his Nova special, first cites appropriation of the casing stone in the New Kingdom, so about 1200 BCE. There was also an earthquake in the first few years of the 14th Century that knocked many loose. (Are you going to blame Islam for that, too?) Lehner also states that a traveler in the 17th Century reported most of the casing stones were still on Khafre's Pyramid, so they didn't go anywhere.

--Jaylemurph

[Wistman]

6 hours ago, Maidel said:

[...]

So, this ties me into my main point that I have been skirting around (And I actually dont have an answer to this, I'm not setting a logical trap for anyone here)

If the stone was removed from the bed of the sphinx and made into a temple, then said temple would be the same age as the sphinx.

If the weathering on the sphinx is entirely normal for that specific limestone (Accepting that different parts of the rock are different depending on which side of the sphinx they came from) - then the temple should have weathered similarly to the sphinx?

Does the temple show the same weathering as the sphinx, has it been substantially repaired and rebuilt like the sphinx has had to be?

 

If the temple is weathered like the sphinx - then the dating is consistent and one dates the other.

If the temple is significantly repaired like the sphinx, then the dating is in question because of the repairs.

If the temple is not weathered similarly to the sphinx then it implies the stones have been removed from their original place, reworked and made into a new structure.

Here's the Sphinx Temple.  Remaining megaliths are weathered, crumbly in some cases, as you can see.

[kmt_sesh]

I'm not aware that the temple has undergone any significant repairs like the Sphinx has. Wistman's photo demonstrates this.

[cormac mac airt]

It's my understanding that the Sphinx Temple is LOWER than the base of the Sphinx itself. 

cormac

[Unusual Tournament]

33 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

I'm not aware that the temple has undergone any significant repairs like the Sphinx has. Wistman's photo demonstrates this.

the inventory stele clearly say's that the temple was found next to the sphinx and made anew by Khufu. 

Edited July 15, 2018 by Captain Risky

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, jaylemurph said:

Mark Lehner, in his Nova special, first cites appropriation of the casing stone in the New Kingdom, so about 1200 BCE. There was also an earthquake in the first few years of the 14th Century that knocked many loose. (Are you going to blame Islam for that, too?) Lehner also states that a traveler in the 17th Century reported most of the casing stones were still on Khafre's Pyramid, so they didn't go anywhere.

--Jaylemurph

does he now? and how did he come to this conclusion hat casing stones were removed about 1200BC? 

[kmt_sesh]

24 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

It's my understanding that the Sphinx Temple is LOWER than the base of the Sphinx itself. 

cormac

It's slightly lower in elevation, as you can see here (he temple starts just beyond the Sphinx's paws):

You can see how the elevation descends from the enclosure. But a full frontal photo shows how much more exposed the Sphinx is, and thus more prone to certain types of erosion:

[kmt_sesh]

2 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

the inventory stele clearly say's that the temple was found next to the temple of the sphinx and made anew by Khufu. 

The Inventory Stela is not an historical document and does not record anything factual. We've already covered that. And again, the temple found "near" the Sphinx temple is not all that near, after all. Rather, it is G1c, right against the Great Pyramid off to the northeast of the Sphinx.

[Unusual Tournament]

7 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

The Inventory Stela is not an historical document and does not record anything factual. We've already covered that. And again, the temple found "near" the Sphinx temple is not all that near, after all. Rather, it is G1c, right against the Great Pyramid off to the northeast of the Sphinx.

so you say. Isis was the goddess of immortality and what more fitting place than to be buried in a pyramid near her temple. 

[Maidel]

3 hours ago, The Wistman said:

Here's the Sphinx Temple.  Remaining megaliths are weathered, crumbly in some cases, as you can see.

Thanks!

 

so that looks pretty consistent to me, is practically dust.

 

have they got luminescence or radio carbon dating for that structure?

 

it might have been in the first link someone sent, but I’m not sure.