dr. schoch and his contribution to archaeology

[Minimalist]

"I believe the evidence shows that the mound that underlies the greatpyramid and was incorporated into it as a part of the structure's foundation began serving as a sacred site no later than 5000 b.c and possibly as early as 7000 b.c"

Arch...you're doing it again. You are the only one who has read the book, apparently. So when you post something like that, WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT HE RELIES ON. I realize you can't go through his entire bibliography but give us something to evaluate.

(PS...I am inclined to agree but there has to be more to it. How can we hope to piss off the Egyptology Club if there is no evidence to support his position.)

[Harte]

"I believe the evidence shows that the mound that underlies the greatpyramid and was incorporated into it as a part of the structure's foundation began serving as a sacred site no later than 5000 b.c and possibly as early as 7000 b.c"

Arch...you're doing it again. You are the only one who has read the book, apparently. So when you post something like that, WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT HE RELIES ON. I realize you can't go through his entire bibliography but give us something to evaluate.

(PS...I am inclined to agree but there has to be more to it. How can we hope to piss off the Egyptology Club if there is no evidence to support his position.)

Well, I for one am aware of Schoch's sphinx evidence (unless he's come up with newer stuff, anyway.) It is what it is. Evidence. But we absolutely must consider the question Schoch places squarely into the mouths of the Egyptologists as well, which, by the way, I don't agree with him on. He paints a very diverse set of ideas with a broad brush. Many Egyptologists (yes, even the "respectable" ones) are aware of the very delicate thread by which the currently "accepted" provenance of the sphinx hangs (after all, let's remember that even John Anthony West is an "Egyptologist.") Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, Schoch's statement about the ("orthodox") date of the Sphinx being "ad-hoc ideas invented to protect an established chronology" are to mind mind incorrect, though the currently accepted date could just as easily be incorrect as well. As I remember it, the accepted date for the carving was more or less established based on evidence found at the site, and not "grandfathered in" so to speak in order to make some chronology fit. The fact is, there is very little evidence so far that truly supports any date for the sphinx carving, beyond the obvious fact that it must have happened prior to the time that people started writing about the sphinx.

But the question of the absence of evidence for such an earlier civilization (as the sphinx-carvers) is an extremely valid one. After all, the sphinx wasn't carved in a couple of weeks. And why should we at all believe that the Sphinx was carved far away from a populated area, or that such an organized population even existed in the era Schoch attributes the sphinx to? I mean, without a jot of evidence for them.

Any earlier civilization, if they existed, would certainly have left behind traces. Now, just because these traces have never been found, not one, not at all, this certainly doesn't mean that they don't exist out there somewhere. But the sphinx itself and Schoch's method for arriving at it's age are not, even together, evidence enough to posit the existence of some civilization for which we have absolutely not one trace of evidence.

What we're left with is a tantalizing idea and some iffy dating on one carved monument in Egypt. We cannot stipulate the existence of a pre-Egyptian civilization based on such scant evidence. Once some evidence is found (if ever,) then Schoch might be shown to have been correct. Just like everything else in science. The field of possibilities is wide open, until actual evidence is found. Once such evidence can be documented, the field contracts. Eventually there is little wiggle room for any radically different ideas. But that's how it works, and that's as it should be.

Harte

[Guest]

Arch...you're doing it again. You are the only one who has read the book, apparently. So when you post something like that, WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT HE RELIES ON.

that is a hard one to do as he spends pages and pages analyzing information, critiquing others opinions that it is hard to boil it down fo rhere.

The main evidence that he rests upon is the weathering of the sphynx. pgs. 41-2:

"It seems likely that the western end of the sphynx enclosure was completed at the time of khafre and has therefore been subjected to less weathering than the previously exposed surfaces at the sides and front of the structure. Since this side and front weathering is 50 to 100 per cent deeper, it is reasonable to estimate that the excavation at those points is 50 to 100 per cent older than the now 4,500 year old work at the sphynx's rump."

then he moves on to previous scholars and what they concluded, pgs. 42-3:

"The standard attribution of the sphynx to 2500 b.c. can be traced to the researchof Selim Hassan, who in 1949 (do i hear howls of 50 year old biooks??) published findings from his fieldwork during the 1930s. Interestingly, even Hassan said that his line of reasoning and the evidence he marshaled were only circumstantial. He could not demonstrate definitively that kharfe's workers had carved the sphynx.

Before Hassan, Egyptologists debated the great sphynx's age back and forth. A. E. Budge, well known as the translator of 'The Egyptian Book of the Dead, was of the opinion that the sphynx was older than Kharfe. And Sir Flinders Petrie, oneof the egyptologist's founding patriarchs, considered the structure predynastic, more ancient even than the Old Kingdom."

on the same page he looks at the three main reason modernegyptologists use for dating the sphynx to 2500 b.c. and then demonstrates their weaknesses. on page 44 he concludes that after some inspetion , the headof the sphynx isn't original because of the tool and chisel marks that are recent in origin.

[Guest]

also, he cites Selim Hassan's use of oral tradition on page 45:

" Selim Hassan examined the literary references of the ancients to the great sphynx in the period stretching from the new kingdom to roman times, and found that all of them considered the sphynx older than the pyramids. Interestingly, the oral traditions of some of the villagers who live around Giza agree that the sphynx is at least 5000 years older than Khafre."

[Harte]

The main evidence that he rests upon is the weathering of the sphynx. pgs. 41-2:

"It seems likely that the western end of the sphynx enclosure was completed at the time of khafre and has therefore been subjected to less weathering than the previously exposed surfaces at the sides and front of the structure. Since this side and front weathering is 50 to 100 per cent deeper, it is reasonable to estimate that the excavation at those points is 50 to 100 per cent older than the now 4,500 year old work at the sphynx's rump."

Looks like it's nothing new then.

The weathering Scoch refers to here is in the floor of the sphinx enclosure. The attribution to Khafre of the carving of the rear section of the enclosure is Schoch's. That is, Schoch stipulates this date for the carving of the rear portion of the enclosure. The date itself is only supported by the exact same evidence Schoch tries to dismiss elsewhere in his writings, namely and primarily the very thin thread of the dream pallette.

The weathering in the floor is related to exposure to the air, and not water. Schoch establishes a linear relationship between depth of weathering and elapsed time of exposure. Since the weathering extends deeper toward the front of the enclosure, Schoch deduces that the front of the Sphinx is older than the rear. He then uses the depth of the weathering in the rear to establish a constant factor (something like centimeters of weathering per century) based on his attribution of the carving of the rear to Khafre, and the known dates of Khafre's reign. But what Schoch ignores is the possibility that Khafre carved the front of the sphinx and not the rear.

Also included in his somewhat dubious analysis is the very uncomfortable fact that the type of weathering Schoch measured in the enclosure floor need not even resemble in the least a linear function of time since exposure. Limestone is a very nonhomogeneous sedimentary formation, and it's often filled with crevices and pockets which might be considered "exposed" to the air.

It's all just speculation, in other words. Truth is, nobody really knows for sure when the sphinx was carved. It's just that the only evidence we really have points to a time around the time of Khafre. There are several theories about the sphinx that attribute it to others, some include the idea of the sphinx as a tribute to Khafre constructed by his son, or grandson, or whatnot. Others find reason to believe the sphinx predates Khafre, by a few years or a few generations, in some cases, to a few thousand years (in Schoch's case.)

Harte

[Minimalist]

Okay, arch....thanks for taking the time to do that.

Now. Just as an offhand comment, I don't see what the weathering of the sphinx has to do with whether or not there is an old mound under the Great Pyramid. Seems like apples and oranges.

[Guest]

The weathering Scoch refers to here is in the floor of the sphinx enclosure

no not the 'floor' but the 'sides'

It's just that the only evidence we really have points to a time around the time of Khafre.

he makes a point about all the evidence being circumstantial and suspect. the carving of the head, the monument with the broken wording and so on.

Others find reason to believe the sphinx predates Khafre, by a few years or a few generations, in some cases, to a few thousand years

right now i am leaning to agree with schoch, as his argument makes more sense than the egyptologists. oral traditions are very accurate usually and there would be no reason to make up such a pre-date for the sphynx if it wasn't true.

I don't see what the weathering of the sphinx has to do with whether or not there is an old mound under the Great Pyramid. Seems like apples and oranges

that he links as proof that there was a previous civilization that existed in the area long before the egyptians (which would upset egyptologists). the infamous pyramid building society of pre-history days.

[Minimalist]

It still seems that he should have some evidence that there is, in fact, a "mound" under the GP.

Egyptologists have elaborate theories of water channels and levelling to account for the base which would be blown out of the water if the base of the pyramid is not a flat surface.

His argument for the dating of the sphinx to a time when sufficient rainwater was available to erode the enclosure wall has always made sense to me but I don't see the connection, from what you've said thusfar, between the Sphinx and a possible mound under the GP.

[Guest]

His argument for the dating of the sphinx to a time when sufficient rainwater was available to erode the enclosure wall has always made sense to me but I don't see the connection, from what you've said thusfar, between the Sphinx and a possible mound under the GP.

that is another book and i think he gets that idea because one of the other non-giza pyramids is built over such a structure. i don't recall off hand which one it is. he has a picture which i can't find as they are not grouped together but displayed throughout all the pages.

actually, it may be possible he is right whether heis or not matters only to egyptologists as they will have a lot of work to do revising their positions.

[Minimalist]

I believe that a case has been made for South American pyramids to have been built over existing shrines or such.

But still....if I find a gas furnace in one house's basement can I conclude that there are gas furnaces in all basements using just that fact?

[Guest]

I believe that a case has been made for South American pyramids to have been built over existing shrines or such.

it is quite possible but wasn't that schoch as well? or was that Os saying that?

it would ease the work load and materials needed or they might have wanted to obliterate remnants of kingdoms they defeated so they constructed over those previous sites.

i think the reasoning could go on for awhile.

But still....if I find a gas furnace in one house's basement can I conclude that there are gas furnaces in all basements using just that fact?

i am beginnning to think that researchers do not want to do a case by case analysis and determined, if they find any evidence it all points to the one category.

[Harte]

The weathering Scoch refers to here is in the floor of the sphinx enclosure

no not the 'floor' but the 'sides'

Certainly Schoch uses the assumption concerning estimated rainfall at Giza over the past 10K years or so to support his method of dating the sphinx, but the method of dating itself relies solely on seismic surveys conducted over the floor of the sphinx enclosure:

Seismic geophysical surveys indicate that the subsurface weathering of the Sphinx enclosure is not uniform. This strongly suggests that the entire Sphinx ditch was not excavated at one time. Furthermore, by estimating when the less-weathered portion of this area was excavated-and thus first exposed subaerially-one can tentatively estimate when initial excavation of the Sphinx enclosure may have begun. Dr. Thomas L. Dobecki, a seismologist with McBride-Ratcliff and Associates of Houston, Texas, assisted in carrying out some low-level seismic work in the vicinity of the Great Sphinx; this was done with the permission of the Egyptian Antiquities Organization.[17] We were able to gather a quantity of seismic data, and with this we have been able to establish subsurface geometries of the bedrock and have located several previously unknown sub-surface features. Seismic lines taken in front of and along the body of the sculpture on either side-east (seismic line S4), north (seismic line S1) and south (seismic line S2) of the monument-indicate that below the surface the limestone is weathered up to a depth of six to eight feet (1.8 to 2.5 meters). However, along the back-west side (seismic line S3)-of the Sphinx the identical limestone has been weathered only to a depth of approximately four feet (1.2 meters). These results were completely unexpected. The same limestone surrounds the great sculpture (the floor of the Sphinx enclosure where our seismic lines were taken consists of Gauri's [18] Rosetau Member, or Member 1), and if the entire body of the Sphinx was carved out of living rock at one time, it would be expected that the surrounding limestone would show the same depth of subsurface weathering.

(My emphases)
Source: Redating the Great Sphinx of Giza by Associate-Professor Robert Schoch

Like I said.

It's just that the only evidence we really have points to a time around the time of Khafre.

he makes a point about all the evidence being circumstantial and suspect. the carving of the head, the monument with the broken wording and so on.

Regarding the proportion of the sphinx's head to that of it's body, there is a well understood reason for this, and it's perfectly acceptable, reasonable and still visible. The crack that runs thropugh the enclosure walls and floor that extends through the body of the sphinx is in a place that should be occupied by the hindquarters of the sphinx, had it been carved proportionally. It appears that upon arriving at this crack, it became apparent to the carvers that the rear of the sphinx could simply fall away unless they extended the hindquarters well beyond the crack, which it appears is what they did.

So, the proportionality argument is moot.

Others find reason to believe the sphinx predates Khafre, by a few years or a few generations, in some cases, to a few thousand years

right now i am leaning to agree with schoch, as his argument makes more sense than the egyptologists. oral traditions are very accurate usually and there would be no reason to make up such a pre-date for the sphynx if it wasn't true.

I understand your inclination on this, though I can't completely agree on the dependability of oral tradition, but to me it's a tricky thing to try to date something based solely on subsurface weathering, for the reasons I previously stated. Certainly the walls of the sphinx enclosure display weathering from what appears to be rainwater runoff to me. But other people that have geology degrees differ in their opinions. Since I don't have a degree in geology, I don't see how I can simply say that these other geologists are wrong. Nor can I definitively say Schoch is wrong, by the same token. Another unmentioned problem is the uncertainty that comes into play when discussing precisely when there was a wet period at Giza. Seems like every day we are finding out previously unknown facts about the weather, even in the present.

Proponents of the "ancienter" sphinx argument often use the fact that other monuments at Giza do not exhibit this water erosion pattern. That's a reasonable argument to me as well. However, there are many that use the pyramids to make this point and this is completely bogus, IMO. The pyramids were, after all, completely covered with casing stones at the time, which stones are pretty much now long gone. Other structures in the area that are still there also do not exhibit this sort of weathering, but IMO that is not a definitive indication that they are much younger than the sphinx. The sphinx is located below the plain upon which these monuments are erected. This means that the sphinx and enclosure walls would suffer much greater erosion from rainfall than some standing building nearby, due to the pooling of rainfall and the subsequent channeling of rainwater runoff for that entire section of the Giza plateau into the lowest point (the sphinx enclosure itself.)

Schoch does make a good argument, though.

I don't see what the weathering of the sphinx has to do with whether or not there is an old mound under the Great Pyramid. Seems like apples and oranges

that he links as proof that there was a previous civilization that existed in the area long before the egyptians (which would upset egyptologists). the infamous pyramid building society of pre-history days.

I do not think there is any reason for Egyptologists to get "upset" if this turned out to be true. Also, any "previous civilization" would have to leave traces of their existence behind, I mean more than just the sphinx itself. So while I realize that every cubic centimeter of that section of the Sahara has yet to be sifted through a screen by someone, I also realize that Giza itself is one of the most investigated archaeological sites on the planet. It's not likely at all that any sphinx-carving civilization much older than the early Egyptians took up any long term residence there, because there's just never been anything found that would so indicate. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means that there's no evidence to indicate that it did. Tomorrow, it may be a different story, who knows?

Harte

[Guest]

but the method of dating itself relies solely on seismic surveys conducted over the floor of the sphinx enclosure:

he talks about the seismac dating in the book which added to his thinking.

But other people that have geology degrees differ in their opinions

he spends a few pages discussing some of these views and gives reasons for their being incorrect.

However, there are many that use the pyramids to make this point and this is completely bogus, IMO. The pyramids were, after all, completely covered with casing stones at the time, which stones are pretty much now long gone

that is a good point but were they all covered in those stones or just the great pyramid?

This means that the sphinx and enclosure walls would suffer much greater erosion from rainfall than some standing building nearby, due to the pooling of rainfall and the subsequent channeling of rainwater runoff for that entire section of the Giza plateau into the lowest point

that doesn't take into account the amountof time the sphynx was covered in sand. nor do i think that recession was a great a factor as people would like. for one thing, the pooling would not be even nor consistant and i am sure schoch would not forget to take that into account.

Also, any "previous civilization" would have to leave traces of their existence behind, I mean more than just the sphinx itself.

i can see the possibilityof this but i come from a different perspective than other people.

[Harte]

But other people that have geology degrees differ in their opinions

he spends a few pages discussing some of these views and gives reasons for their being incorrect.

For those interested, some of these arguments can be found Here
and/or also Here

This means that the sphinx and enclosure walls would suffer much greater erosion from rainfall than some standing building nearby, due to the pooling of rainfall and the subsequent channeling of rainwater runoff for that entire section of the Giza plateau into the lowest point

that doesn't take into account the amountof time the sphynx was covered in sand. nor do i think that recession was a great a factor as people would like. for one thing, the pooling would not be even nor consistant and i am sure schoch would not forget to take that into account.

Loose sand in the sphinx enclosure would not make a difference regarding this runoff erosion. Just as it makes no difference in the subsurface weathering Schoch refers to (which is actually due to exposure to the air, and not to rainwater runoff.) Rain runoff would just sink into the sand and come out wherever downstream, eroding the limestone in the same way that it would were the sand not there.

Harte

[Frank Harrist]

I believe that a case has been made for South American pyramids to have been built over existing shrines or such.

it is quite possible but wasn't that schoch as well? or was that Os saying that?

it would ease the work load and materials needed or they might have wanted to obliterate remnants of kingdoms they defeated so they constructed over those previous sites.

i think the reasoning could go on for awhile.

But still....if I find a gas furnace in one house's basement can I conclude that there are gas furnaces in all basements using just that fact?

i am beginnning to think that researchers do not want to do a case by case analysis and determined, if they find any evidence it all points to the one category.

Many of the SA pyramids/temples were built upon earlier temples. There are as many as 6 successive temples built on top of and around some of the earlier structures. Each successive addition was usually accompanied by sacrifices. Each temple is essentially a succession of time capsules, because the earlier structures were not torn down. The later structures were simply built over the older ones, enclosing them. This is great for archaeologists as they can see styles and glyphs from different eras. Some of the first ones were built on top of caves, or in the shadow of mountains as representations of them. Why is not known for certain. (Very short, very simplified lesson on SA pyramids/temples done from memory.)