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

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

89681481.jpg

 

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.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan

The elephant in the room remains: it still rains heavily in the Giza area today. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
abhijit_b
5 hours ago, Essan said:

The elephant in the room remains: it still rains heavily in the Giza area today. 

The average rainfall of Giza today is around 1.5 cm! Is that enough for this kind of erosion in a few thousand years? No!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

Uluru has been above ground for millions of years, Id hardly use it as a comparitor for something only a few thousand years old.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Uluru has been above ground for millions of years, Id hardly use it as a comparitor for something only a few thousand years old.

no one is saying that Uluru was underground just that it show's heavy rainfall marks. just like the sphinx. meaning at some time Uluru had more rainfall that it currently has, much more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
8 hours ago, Essan said:

The elephant in the room remains: it still rains heavily in the Giza area today. 

so why don't other monuments and structures show the same amount of torrential rain marks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

so why don't other monuments and structures show the same amount of torrential rain marks?

Because believe it or not, people who had been working with stone for several hundred thousand years actually became somewhat knowledgeable about stone.

Find some other monuments carved out of the same sequence of bedrock that makes up the sphinx.

There aren't any.

Do you wonder why, or is that something to be ignored?

Harte

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
5 hours ago, abhijit_b said:

The average rainfall of Giza today is around 1.5 cm! Is that enough for this kind of erosion in a few thousand years? No!

The average rainfall of Giza today is totally irrelevant to that of Giza circa 2550 BC. Your evidence that the two were the same is what exactly?

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

I'd point out that the sphinx and enclosure are crumbling away today at a rate so high that it far outpaces what would be needed over the past 4 thousand years to reach the degradation people ascribe to this fantastic  antiquity.

Harte

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
1 hour ago, Harte said:

Because believe it or not, people who had been working with stone for several hundred thousand years actually became somewhat knowledgeable about stone.

Find some other monuments carved out of the same sequence of bedrock that makes up the sphinx.

There aren't any.

Do you wonder why, or is that something to be ignored?

Harte

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
3 minutes 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. 

The portion of the bedrock  under the sand is not relevant unless you consider how that increases weathering.

Why should the pyramids have he same vertical lines? They were covered. The covering  is gone.

You ask why well sealed pits were not flooded. hat does that have to do with anything?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
On 18/04/2018 at 11:36 PM, stereologist said:

No.  Are you confused about Harte's photos?

I’m more confused why the back of the Sphinx is perfectly flat. All carved sphinxes have a rounded shape to the back that matches a lion. it would seem to me at least that the original head and neck were destroyed/removed and the back was shaved flat to rebuild a neck so the old neck could be carved into a head. Hence the small shrunken Pygmy head. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

I’m more confused why the back of the Sphinx is perfectly flat. All carved sphinxes have a rounded shape to the back that matches a lion. it would seem to me at least that the original head and neck were destroyed/removed and the back was shaved flat to rebuild a neck so the old neck could be carved into a head. Hence the small shrunken Pygmy head. 

 

You seem to not understand what bedrock means.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
1 minute ago, stereologist said:

The portion of the bedrock  under the sand is not relevant unless you consider how that increases weathering.

Why should the pyramids have he same vertical lines? They were covered. The covering  is gone.

You ask why well sealed pits were not flooded. hat does that have to do with anything?

 

Correct so what exactly is your point about the bedrock?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
Just now, stereologist said:

You seem to not understand what bedrock means.

backpedaling won’t help you understand either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

Correct so what exactly is your point about the bedrock?

 

So you agree that all of your statements are without merit. Thanks.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
Just now, Captain Risky said:

backpedaling won’t help you understand either. 

So you have nothing to state and don't know what bedrock means. Thanks again

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky

LOL... only you stereo, knows what bedrock is the rest of us live in a caves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky

@Harte I’m waiting for a reply mate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
Just now, Captain Risky said:

LOL... only you stereo, knows what bedrock is the rest of us live in a caves.

What happens to bedrock covered in sediment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
1 minute ago, stereologist said:

What happens to bedrock covered in sediment?

try asking Fred Flintstone...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

My recollection of the Sphinx enclosure is that Schoch's suggestion of horizontal erosional features being due to aeolian processes is faulty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
Just now, Captain Risky said:

try asking Fred Flintstone...

As I already suggested you are clueless about bedrock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

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? "

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.