dr. schoch and his contribution to archaeology

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:33 am

That's a great point Roberto, there was much more volcanism in the world when it was much rainier in Egypt during the Old Kingdom, so that resulted in more acidic rain then when it rained much more, for all that rain erosion, and all that rain allowed a much lusher environment there when the ancient Egyptian civilization was at its peak, then it all began to dry-up circa 1500 B.C.

Harte · Post by **Harte** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:36 am

We are falling into the fallacious belief here that water is the only mechanism that could have eroded the sphinx enclosure in the manner observed today.

As I said earlier, I am not a geologist. But other people, who are geologists, have put foward other explanations for the erosion we see today on the enclosure walls.

I realize that the morphology of the eroded stones we today observe in the enclosure walls appears to be the result of water erosion. But it turns out that the morphology of erosion depends to the largest degree on the stone itself, the variations in the stone, that is. The method by which the stone is eroded is actually secondary to the internal "structure" (if you will) of the stone itself.

This point was brought out by Schoch's critics, and Schoch even agreed. We ignore this point in this discussion and that is folly.

The critics posit a chemical salt deposition and crystallization theory for "flaking" of the limestone surface over several thousand years, and this sort of erosion is seen even today in other similar settings.

But I will say again that Schoch makes a damn fine argument, and an exciting one.

Harte

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:46 am

oldarchystudent wrote:Sorry if this was covered already – I haven’t scanned the entire thread.

I tend to believe there is something to the theories put forward by Schock and West, but has anyone addressed the possibility of erosion through sandblasting? There’s plenty of sand around – a few hundred years of wind could do a fair bit of damage.

For most of its historical existence, the Sphinx has been covered in sand up to its neck. Even if wind blown sand could that kind of erosion the wind could not have gotten at the rocks to do the damage. There is no question that there is some flaking at the bottom caused by ground water but the enclosure wall remains Schoch's best argument about the rain fall.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:49 am

I think that enclosure was cleared and filled in again many times. Sand is doubtless responsible for some of the erosion at least, but maybe not all. Again, Schock's hypothesis is pretty exciting, and the spin-off "what if" scenarios are compelling. It scares me what the nutbar contingent would do with it though.....

Roberto · Post by **Roberto** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:56 am

I just never have totally excepted the fact that the erosion was "totally" the cause due to water. It seems like erosion due to water would have left some form of evidence, like a hiatus in the stratigraphy. We know that the area went through an extreme environmental change since the structure was built.
Acid rain keeps coming to my thoughts, and I wonder if this could be related to high volcanic activity over a given time. If so, this volcanic activity could be found in the stratigraphic record close by. And if that be the case, would surely help put a date, a frame line to when the structure was built. Volcanic fall out has it's own characteristics, mineral sequences. We can now trace the source of obsidian, which was traded through out the the southeastern U.S. by it's mineralogical characteristics.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:59 am

Interesting idea. Is there any evidence of unusually high volcanic activity in that period?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:02 am

Oas, the rainfall erosion jibes perfectly with the heavy rain in the middle latitudes (and heavy snowfall in the more extreme latitudes) during the Ice Age.

So, did they build the Sphinx before circa 10000 B.C (when mainstreamers say the Ice Age ended), or did they build it around the conventional time of 2500 B.C.?

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:04 am

Holocene began roughly 10,000 BP. Period. I was asking about volcanic activity.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:04 am

oops - double post - sorry. I thought that wasn't possible.....

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:06 am

How 'bout Thera and Etna, and the ancient legends about the volcanically active Caucasus Mountains?

And, not surprisingly, there is high ash content in the ice deposits of the Arctic and Antarctic, volcanics going off during the Ice Age.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:12 am

There has always been volcanic activity, and yes it can be traced through ice core samples.

My question was, is there any indication that there was an unusual amount that would have produced enough acid rain *in Egypt* to account for acidic damage to the stone of the Sphynx?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:14 am

Are Etna, Thera, and the Caucasus, going off like they did circa 1500 to 2000 B.C.?

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:18 am

Given the low precipitation level of Egypt I'd have to doubt it.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:23 am

Oas, do you really believe that the rainfall of Egypt during the Old Kingdom was not several times what it is today?

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:25 am

Considering that the only fertile land was that bordering the Nile and it's tributaries, I'd say yes.