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

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  

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky

the real question here is what came first... the Giza Sphinx or the artistic representations of sphinxes there after.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
22 hours ago, abhijit_b said:

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.

I agree that Schoch's hypothesis shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, but his ideas have been discussed by experts and the consensus has been that he is most likely wrong. His ideas have too many holes in them.

It is not that people here on UM are dismissing the idea, but that they believe the idea has already been discounted by way of science and thoroughly investigated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

Way back when Schoch first published the idea, I was very excited about it myself.

But upon investigating it, I found his claims to lack any real basis.

His use of subsurface weathering to arrive at a date is particularly vacuous. As I already explained, it involved seismic readings of bedrock, collecting two echoes and calculating the depth of weathering based on the difference in the echoes.

The weathering is the result of exposure to the air and has nothing to do with rainfall. Schoch states that very clearly in his paper.

Because such weathering is not a linear process, that's a very sketchy way to date the initial exposure of the stone, but it might work for a ballpark figure, as long as the stone for every reading had the same initial characteristics when it was first exposed.

But, the stone in the floor of the enclosure did not. It varies wildly from one side of the statue to the other, for example, and within each individual bed there are also large variations.

Here's a pic:

SG4.jpg

From: The Giza Mapping Project

Look at the inset. One side is actually a fossil reef (Member I) with the accompanying fossil corals and deposited sandy limestone mixed in. The other side is the plain limestone deposited on top of the reef.

Two completely different beds with completely different characteristics.

I'd add that within each layer of the three member sequence there is also wide variation in the characteristics, as I also already pointed out concerning the body of the sphinx and the several weak layers in Member II.

If anyone can understand what I just said, they can see that Schoch really has no evidence at all for any dating.

I mean, it was worth the effort he put in, I suppose, but his conclusions have no real merit.

Also, to clarify what I said earlier, read this (from the same page):

Quote

Long-term deterioration

Until recent years, the Sphinx was still disintegrating. In the 1980s, two sizeable stones fell from the statue: masonry veneer from the left hind paw in 1981 and a large piece of bedrock from the right shoulder in 1988.

On any windy day, you can watch large flakes of limestone blow off the walls of the Sphinx quarry. The Supreme Council of Antiquities’ decade-long restoration in the 1990s was only the latest of the repairs to the Sphinx that began at least in the New Kingdom (1550-1070 BC).

If the Sphinx erodes so rapidly, there’s no requirement to set an age older than 4,500 years to explain its present state of deterioration. Aside from the geology, we can present other evidence that ties the Sphinx to Pharaoh Khafre’s building program at Giza.

My emphasis.

Schoch's original paper, as found on the internet, does not include his data. But you can find it out there.

IIRC, he took a total of only about ten readings, and only one single reading on the enclosure floor at the rear. His stipulation is that the front of the sphinx was carved out in deep antiquity, and that the rear was done in the 4th Dynasty.

Since his conclusion is that the rear is MUCH younger than the front, it would seem a bit odd that he only went with one reading in the rear, wouldn't it?

Lastly, his own data showed that the sides were older than the front (using his own logic concerning depth of weathering.) He never mentioned this anomaly.

Perhaps that's why he didn't include the data when he put the paper online.

Harte

ETA: There is a live link in the quote I provided. Click it to see the legitimate reasons that the sphinx is dated to the 4th dynasty.  H.

Edited by Harte
  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Way back when Schoch first published the idea, I was very excited about it myself.

But upon investigating it, I found his claims to lack any real basis.

His use of subsurface weathering to arrive at a date is particularly vacuous. As I already explained, it involved seismic readings of bedrock, collecting two echoes and calculating the depth of weathering based on the difference in the echoes.

The weathering is the result of exposure to the air and has nothing to do with rainfall. Schoch states that very clearly in his paper.

Because such weathering is not a linear process, that's a very sketchy way to date the initial exposure of the stone, but it might work for a ballpark figure, as long as the stone for every reading had the same initial characteristics when it was first exposed.

 

You have missed out something very very important in this analysis. I have noticed that other members have also mentioned the same in this discussion earlier. You all are trying to hit Schoch theory on his Subsurface weathering findings.

But it's important to note that Schoch's paper is based in two observation. His main observation is from the presence of surface weathering patterns that he believed to be inconsistent with the arid climate of historic times. It's his primary evidence. To back this up, he evaluated the subsurface weathering. I do agree that there is an uncertainty whether the results he got was due to the bedrock pattern of weathering.

I will come back to you on the surface weathering part. Sorry in a hurry now!

Have a nice weekend! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

The so-called rainfall erosion is explained by other weathering. 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.

Also Schoch agreed (in later responses to criticism) that the patterns of erosion displayed by stone are far more dependent on the morphology of the stone itself than on what form the erosion took.

And, because of this drawback in any certainty of ancient weather, Schoch based his date entirely on the subsurface weathering, along with his own assumption that the rear of the sphinx was completed in the 4th dynasty.

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

What he takes as rainfall erosion was merely serendipitous to his conclusion, since he had no way of knowing with any certainty what the weather was really like in the 4th Dynasty.

Lastly, as was stated in my previous link, the erosion apparent on the sphinx can easily be accounted for within the last 4 thousand years, based on erosion we see happening to this day.

Harte

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
16 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

the real question here is what came first... the Giza Sphinx or the artistic representations of sphinxes there after.

But the Great Sphinx isn't the first Sphinx. Check into Djedefre's pyramid complex.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2
27 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

But the Great Sphinx isn't the first Sphinx. Check into Djedefre's pyramid complex.

You did convinced me that is Khafra  was the builder :) all though Djedefre's may have been the creator.

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
17 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

the real question here is what came first... the Giza Sphinx or the artistic representations of sphinxes there after.

Representation, I believe.  I think there's a 2nd dynasty sphinx of one of the pharaohs, though Kmt_Sesh might know better.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
9 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

You did convinced me that is Khafra  was the builder :) all though Djedefre's may have been the creator.

:tsu:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
27 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Representation, I believe.  I think there's a 2nd dynasty sphinx of one of the pharaohs, though Kmt_Sesh might know better.

Something about that might kinda-sorta ring a bell, but I might be thinking of something else. The earliest sphinx figure I know of is from Djedefre's complex. Have a link? I just looked and couldn't find anything.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

But the Great Sphinx isn't the first Sphinx. Check into Djedefre's pyramid complex.

Sphinx_of_Hetepheres.jpg

article-2626336-1DC6FD8500000578-560_634

 

seems to me that Djedfre's sphinx is an improvement over the Giza sphinx. besides, which supposed Egyptian pharaoh built the Giza sphinx? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
47 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Representation, I believe.  I think there's a 2nd dynasty sphinx of one of the pharaohs, though Kmt_Sesh might know better.

so how do you account for the differences in both sphinxes in such a short span of time? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

so how do you account for the differences in both sphinxes in such a short span of time? 

And what about the noticeable similarities? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

And what about the noticeable similarities? 

i agree there are some similarities. but I'm drawn more to the differences. Djedefre's has a lions mane. full chest, arched back and the haunches more pronounced, more importantly Djedefre's is anatomically correct.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
18 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

i agree there are some similarities. but I'm drawn more to the differences. Djedefre's has a lions mane. full chest, arched back and the haunches more pronounced, more importantly Djedefre's is anatomically correct.  

...an anatomically correct sphinx, eh?

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

...an anatomically correct sphinx, eh?

--Jaylemurph

what's wrong with that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky

absolutely childish... without the sex organs if that makes you feel better.

Share this post


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

absolutely childish... without the sex organs if that makes you feel better.

I hate to break it to you, but sphinges aren't real, so that can't /have/ an anatomy. Any anatomy.

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

so how do you account for the differences in both sphinxes in such a short span of time? 

Different artists?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
35 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

I hate to break it to you, but sphinges aren't real, so that can't /have/ an anatomy. Any anatomy.

--Jaylemurph

they don't have to be real. they just have to be the sum total of the two represented. notice how Djedfre's sphinx has all the attributes of a lion with the face of the human? unlike the Giza sphinx that seems like human head on a indistinguishable body.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
24 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

they don't have to be real. they just have to be the sum total of the two represented. notice how Djedfre's sphinx has all the attributes of a lion with the face of the human? unlike the Giza sphinx that seems like human head on a indistinguishable body.  

Hi Risky

Considering that they weren't subject to the same environmental conditions should be taken into consideration. Most of the present observers such as yourself did not see it when it was in new condition so how you perceive it in it's present condition has no bearing on it's earlier significance given your inability to visualize.

I don't watch family guy but that little kid with the football head doesn't represent what children or a child actually looks like and most people still see it as a child so why do you question artistic representation of the sphynx when there are many similarities of artistic representation present throughout history? You may not know this but the world is diverse and not subject to your approval nor does it need to conform to what you what to see. Loosen up a bit and learn to appreciate that diversity you may find it both enlightening and enjoyable.

jmccr8

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

Really? How big is Hetepheres' sphinx? Now, what are the dimensions of the Great Sphinx?

Enough said about that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
1 hour ago, jaylemurph said:

I hate to break it to you, but sphinges aren't real, so that can't /have/ an anatomy. Any anatomy.

--Jaylemurph

I'd guess he means proportional. There is nothing "anatomically" correct about a sphinx.

I've been to a lot of zoos and I've never seen a lion with a man's head, or a rams head, just a lion's head.

Well, there was that one spring break many years ago I spent on the Island of Dr. Moreau.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

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.