Archaeologica.org

Thanks for that Harte.

I'll go double check my copy of Serpents in the Sky.

good idea, next time i want an unbiased view of God i'll go ask the pope

I sure as hell won't ask "the Club."

I sure as hell won't ask "the Club."

people with qualifications must terrify you eh

Especially their inflated opinions of themselves.

Minimalist wrote:I have to go back and look at Schoch's evidence a little more.

I thought it rested on two main points:

One: The erosion to the Sphinx enclosure wall which was caused by rainwater running over the wall which gives a characteristic pattern of vertical fissures

Two: The fact that datable dynastic mud brick structures at Saqqara show no evidence of erosion from rain....

This evidence might suggest the Sphinx predates the Saqqara structures. It gives us no info on the actual age of the Sphinx. That's what I mean.

Schoch's theory rests on many individual observations, most of which have been disagreed with (or agreed with) by this or that geologist. But his dating of the Sphinx relies solely on the subsurface weathering he measured in the floor of the enclosure, for if he were to include the water erosion patterns in this dating method, he would have to approach the subsurface weathering from a biased standpoint, meaning that he would have to be trying, through the use of the seismic data he used to measure the weathered rock, to establish that the Sphinx dated to the wet period in Egypt.

Now, to me and you that might sound reasonable, but it's actually a no no in science. The erosion patterns on the enclosure walls can be used to support the dates he determined through his seismic measurements. But the above-surface erosion cannot be used to interpret the data returned from the seismic measurements. See, if he's horribly wrong about the rate at which the subsurface weathering progressed, then the Sphinx could date to a hundred thousand years before the most recent wet period there, or to even more recent than the Egyptologists say. In either case, the (supposed) water erosion doesn't enter into any calculation for a date.

If Schoch measured subsurface weathering with the idea of the wet period in mind, and if he was trying to date the Sphinx to the latest wet period through the seismic measurements, then he was cheating - not following the scientific method. If such were the case (I don't think it was,) then it's hardly surprising to find that the subsurface weathering measurements "happen" to coincide with the time frame he was aiming for (the most recent wet period.)
Here's a quote of Schoch talking about the sunsurface weathering:

Concerning the use of the seismic data to date the initial excavation of the Sphinx: It has taken about 4,500 years for the subsurface weathering at the younger, western-most floor of the Sphinx enclosure to reach a depth of about four feet (assuming that the western end was fully excavated to approximately its present state during Old Kingdom activity at the site - - see further discussion below). Since the weathering on the other three sides is between 50 and 100 percent deeper, it is reasonable to assume that this excavation is 50 to 100 percent older than the western end. If we accept Khafre’s reign as the date for the western enclosure, then this calculation pushes the date for the Great Sphinx’s original construction back to approximately the 5000 to 7000 B.C. range. I believe this estimate nicely ties in with the climatic history of the Giza Plateau and correlates with the nature and degree of the surface weathering and erosion features.

This estimate can be considered a minimum if we assume that weathering rates proceed non-linearly (the deeper the weathering is, the slower it may progress due to the fact that it is “protected” by the overlying material), and there is the possibility that the very earliest portion of the Sphinx dates back to before 7000 B.C. However, given the known moister conditions on the Giza Plateau prior to the middle third millennium B.C. versus the prevailing aridity since then, some might argue that initial subsurface weathering may possibly (but not necessarily) have been faster than later weathering, and this could counter balance the potential “non-linear” effect mentioned in the last sentence. In other words, the early moist conditions might, crudely, give deeper weathering which could appear to give it an “older” date but this is countered by the non-linear nature of the weathering which could appear to give it a “younger” date.

In the end, based on many hours of analysis and rumination, I am satisfied that the two opposing factors roughly cancel each other out and a crude linear interpretation of the data is justifiable. In this manner, I return to my estimate of circa 5000 to 7000 B.C. for the oldest portion of the Sphinx, a date that is corroborated by the correlation between the nature of the weathering in the Sphinx enclosure and the paleoclimatic history of the region.”

Source: http://www.morien-institute.org/sphinx6.html

It is interesting to note that Schoch only claims this antiquity for the front portion of the Sphinx, and that only based on exposure to the atmosphere. Is it possible that there could have been a cave in that area of the limestone which exposed this portion to the air at a much earlier date, and naturally?

Perhaps that portion of the limestone bed had collapsed through some kind of precipitation event during the wet period (like so often happens today in Florida - sinkholes in other words) which exposed the entire front to the atmosphere at that point.

There are many ways to interpret the seismic data.

Harte

I'll go check the book later.

Right now I've got the Yankees-Red Sox on and that takes priority!

Hello Harte - and welcome to the forum. Very nice post. Can I ask you where you came about this information?

If I know that, I can retrieve one of Schochs letters to his critics. Your position rings a bell with me but I don't know who wrote it originally.

Also, can you let us know then what your position is regarding the original dating of the Sphinx.

Thanks

Hmmm - I guess Harte left. Bummer! Maybe he'll see my post later. I'll check back this evening.

Beagle wrote:Hello Harte - and welcome to the forum. Very nice post. Can I ask you where you came about this information?

If I know that, I can retrieve one of Schochs letters to his critics. Your position rings a bell with me but I don't know who wrote it originally.

Also, can you let us know then what your position is regarding the original dating of the Sphinx.

Thanks

Beagle,

I posted a link to Schoch's statements on subsurface weathering above.

Regarding my position, I believe that nobody has actually without a doubt established the age of the Sphinx. I'm open to an earlier Sphinx, but I doubt as early as the upper end of Schoch's date range. Not that it matters, I'm nobody, so what difference does it make what I think?

The 5,000 BC date range is feasible if you ask me. The limestone of the Sphinx is relatively soft. The entire front of the thing could have been carved out with slightly harder stone implements, completely without the use of metals. This would be even easier if the original outcropping, which today makes up the Sphinx's head, had been already naturally shaped by weathering into something resembling a face. In other words, no "advanced civilization" required, no out of place technology, just good old elbow grease. The carvers would have been the people that eventually became known as the Egyptians. The way I see it, this doesn't differ much from what most Egyptologists think.

I don't put much faith in the "water erosion" idea because I've not seen anybody anywhere convincingly show that they can accurately measure the amount of erosion caused by a determined amount of water over a given time period in any stone as diverse as a limestone bed. If you notice, just about everyone that trots out Schoch's date not only doesn't mention the subsurface weathering which is what actually provides the date, they also just skim right on over the water erosion with a statement like "...and they showed that the only way this much erosion could have happened is during a wet period in Egypt back in 10,000 BC...," or some such, when the truth is nobody to my knowledge has ever even attempted to show such a thing.

In short, I don't pretend to know how old the Sphinx is. I'd like it to be reeeeaaaalll old. But I suspect it's just kindof old.

I saw an interesting documentary on the History Channel that attributed the Sphinx's construction to the son of Kufu. I forget his name but he was some Pharoah that was what the History Channel called "...accidentally written out of history." The reason nobody heard of this guy is because of some misplaced perception that he had murdered his brother and run off or something like that.

Anyway, the point is there's lots of theories on the Sphinx. When the "true believers" out there try to say that Schoch disrupts the orthodox view, or mentions the "accepted age" of the Sphinx, the truth is that no such "generally agreed upon" age actually exists. Though the various theories of Egyptology are, to be sure, much much closer to each other than they are to Schoch!

Harte

i have couple challenges to harte's assertionsw. first harte keeps mentioning limestonebut schoch in his book, Pyramid Quest, on pg.2 spcefically states:

"Still, there was a key fact all this evidence ignored: the sphynx is made of stone. Like any stone, it offers evidence of the weather it has endured. Weather, in turn, can tell us a great deal about history."

so where harte gets this limestone idea from is not from schoch's words unless he has changed his mind somewhere.

now i haven't read the whole book yet and he may go into more detail but so far, schoch has not said he dated based upon the floor either. onpg. 3 he says:

"Even as a tourist who could look at the sphynx only from a distance, I saw that the monument exhibited obvious signsof heavy rainfall and water runoff, possibly the legacy of the wetter pre-old kingdom climate. I also noticed that buildings dated unquestionably to Kharfe and the fourth dynasty showed weathering and erosion primarily from windblown sand-- the pattern to be expected from the dry, desert conditions that settles on Egypt after 3000 b.c.. Superficially, the evidence suggested that the sphynx dated to an earlier wetter time period than did the 4th dynasty structures. Still i needed a much closer, much more scientific look to be sure."

on pg. 4 he describes in general that more detailed look and says that 'the older portions were originally carved not in the reign of karfe...'

archaeologist wrote: so where harte gets this limestone idea from is not from schoch's words unless he has changed his mind somewhere.

Archaeologist,
Is it your opinion, then, that the Sphinx is carved from some other type of stone? The Giza Plateau is composed of limestone. Is the Sphinx a chunk of some other kind of stone that happened to get stuck in a limestone bed?

archaeologist wrote:now i haven't read the whole book yet and he may go into more detail but so far, schoch has not said he dated based upon the floor either.

He said so in the quote I provided above. This was prior to the publication of the particular book you're talking about, which I have not (and probably won't) read.

I don't have a problem with Schoch, but I don't believe in any ancient world-traveling, pyramid-building uberculture. I also feel that if such a thing were true, Schoch is not a person that is qualified to persuade me of it.

Schoch's latest book might include a lot of info on his Sphinx date. I don't know. But the info I've obtained comes from Schoch talking about it, such as appears on the website I linked in a previous post.

Harte

This argument reminds me of this old joke.

A guy says to an attractive woman: "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"

She replies: "Of course."


He says: "Would you sleep with me for $20 dollars?"


She replies: "Certainly not...what kind of a girl do you think I am!"


He answers: "We've already established what kind of girl you are....we are just haggling about the price."


The first step in this process is to break the dogmatic belief of Egyptologists that the sphinx was carved by Khafre. Once that is broken we can work out the date.


(I have a weird sense of humor in case no one guessed.)

Is it your opinion, then, that the Sphinx is carved from some other type of stone?

i am just repeating what he said inhis book and if it were limesstone, like all theother monuments, i do not think he would have made such an emphasis concerning the building material. i have to read more to see if he makes any differential between monuments.

but I don't believe in any ancient world-traveling, pyramid-building uberculture.

i can see the point he is making but i have problems with his theory as well. i think he reads too much into the evidence he is looking at especially when he is referring to the different sizes of each pyramid (pg. 9). there are too many practical reasons why there are a variety of sizes and we shouldn't use that as an indicator for a lost civilization.

But the info I've obtained comes from Schoch talking about it

maybe he changed his mind?

Hello Harte,

Thanks again for your post. However, let me ask you again from what source you are citing?

There are only two possibilities:
1) You are promoting the argument of someone, or
2) You are a geologist who has gone to Egypt and examined the Sphinx for himself.

Dr. Schoch has answered many arguments against his theory quite convincingly, and if I knew where yours came from I could probably retrieve his answer - for balance.

Thanks.