Archaeologica.org

Min wrote:

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

Damn the Sphinx (sorry Arch) ... what's the name of the woman and where does she live?

Sometimes renting is cheaper than owning!

Beagle wrote: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.

Beagle,

I was not aware that I was arguing some position other than Schoch's. I started out to merely comment on the absence of any discussion about the facts on which Schoch's date for Sphinx construction is based (the subsurface weathering of limestone, and not the aboveground erosion.)

I already said that I had no problem with him regarding the Sphinx, I just prefer the more recent date of his (5,000 BC) if I have to accept his theory. I haven't even cited any of the opposing arguments that have been made, and they are many. As I said, some agree with him, some do not. I'm not a geologist. I am aware of Schoch's answers to his critics, as I am aware of the positions those critics have taken. That's all.

There is, I suppose, the matter of Khafre's Causeway and the fact that the southern wall of the Sphinx Enclosure lies parallel to it (and not parallel to the northern Enclosure wall.) But that's not exactly a position, it's just a statement of fact. The picture confirming this fact was already posted in this thread by another member.

The Causeway is a problem for Schoch's theory, unless you posit that the Causeway itself also predates the other monuments at Giza by 3 to 5 thousand years, or at least, predates Khafre's Pyramid by 3-5 K years. Or, I guess, you could posit that Kaphre's Pyramid is also thousands of years older than the early dynastic period.

However, that's a common point brought up by many that argue against such an early date for the Sphinx. I have no idea who first brought it up.

The geological information concerning Giza and the erosion/subsurface weathering I got from Schoch himself, and some of it is posted in the quote I put in one of my previous posts. Schoch is aware, and admits to, the several assumptions he makes. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, just pointing it out.

I'll repost the picture of the Causeway and Sphinx enclosure (yep, I saved it to my drive) if I can figure out how to do it. I am new here after all.

Well, I don't have a url for the image, I just saved it to my computer and I don't see how to upload it. If you don't know what I'm talking about (for all I can remember, it might have been you that originally posted the pic!) then you'll just have to look for it. I think it's here in this thread, several pages back.

Harte

In Serpent in the Sky (1993) John Anthony West discusses Schoch's initial reaction to his idea.

Schoch found it difficult to believe that in two hundred years of studying, excavating and restoring the Giza Plateau, no one prior to Schwaller had noticed the weathering on the sphinx was water weathering, and no one prior to me had noticed that this was peculiar to the sphinx (and its immediately associated structures). His initial conviction was that, as an amateur, I must have overlooked some crucial piece of evidence that would allow the accepted dating and attribution to stand.

In June, 1990 Schoch and West made an informal inspection trip to Egypt.

There was no doubt in his (Schoch's) mind that the sphinx had been weathered by water. The pattern of weathering was such that it could not have been water leaching up from underground as Lehnrer/Gauri were claiming. But it also wasn't the floodwater that I had been postulating. According to Schoch, the weathering was typically precipitation-based; in other words, rainwater was responsible for weathering the sphinx, not floods.

Nearly a year later, in April 1991, West reports that they had put together the requisite team, obtained financing and gotten approval from the Prince of Giza (Hawass) (my words...not West's). It is not clear at this point if team member, Thomas Dobecki, had even begun the seismic survey.

The deeply weathered sphinx and its ditch wall and the relatively unweathered or clearly wind-weathered Old Kingdom tombs to the south (dating from around Chephren's period) were cut from the same member of rock. In Schoch's view it was therefore geologically impossible to ascribe these structures to the same time period. Our scientists were agreed. Only water, specifically precipitation, could produce the weathering we were observing. Upon examination, the wall of the sphinx ditch was even more crucial to our case than the much repaired, and now partially covered-over sphinx. Only running water, coursing down the plateau and cascading over the walls of the ditch at low or weak spots could have created those deep vertical fissures and scooped out those shallow scalloped coves.

Now, finally he mentions Dobecki's seismic survey and the subsurface erosion but the distinct impression is that they were already convinced by this time. He also mentions the cavities picked up by Dobecki far more prominently in the text.

West continues:

We extended our inquiry into some of the pieces of corroboratory evidence I'd pieced together earlier but which needed geological expertise to back them up. In Saqqara, seven miles south of the sphinx, there are mudbrick royal tombs dating from First Dynasty Egypt (ca. 3000 BC or five hundred years before Cephren's time.) The soft mudbricks are still in stable and recognizable condition. Was it possible that the limestone sphinx could sustain over three feet of weathering to its body, while a few miles away the mud bricks in tombs supposedly older could still be used in construction today? Schoch thought not, and he was now willing to go on record that the sphinx was older than dynastic Egypt.

At this point, West notes:

Months later, Dobecki's processed geophysical data turned up important new surprises. The limestone bedrock floor immediately behind the sphinx showed only half the depth of weathering of the sides. (approximately four feet in back and eight feet along the sides). Since the stone of the floor is the same all around, and sides and back have been subjected to identical weather conditions since dynastic times, Schoch and Dobecki took this to mean but one thing: the back area of the sphinx must have been cut out at a later date. Nothing else could account for the difference in weathering depths.

Apparently this allowed Schoch to offer the possibility that the sphinx's ass had been carved out by Chephren...probably a sop to Hawass! (Again, my words, not West's).

West then goes on to describe his disagreement with what he thinks was Schoch's 'conservative' estimate of a date of 5,000-7,000 BC but it seems that is all he has to say about the seismic survey.

He also gives a pretty amusing account of Zahi Hawass going ballistic but that's for another thread.

I'll repost the picture of the Causeway and Sphinx enclosure (yep, I saved it to my drive) if I can figure out how to do it. I am new here after all.

You need to open an account to host pictures (photobucket.com is free and very easy to use) but it is not the only one out there. Once you get the url from the host site, just use the Img tag in the reply box.

Hello Harte.
It has come to me finally (I'm not that young anymore ). Your thoughts seem most like Colin Reader. He is a geological engineer that has written some great papers on the Sphinx.

He has actually gone a bit farther than Schoch by saying that the mortuary temple and the Khafre causeway also predate the 4th dynasty.

Unlike yesterday, I should be able to get here later today and post on this subject. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

I don't know what part of the world you hail from, but we should have a good exchange.

Beagle wrote: Hello Harte.
It has come to me finally (I'm not that young anymore ). Your thoughts seem most like Colin Reader. He is a geological engineer that has written some great papers on the Sphinx.

Beagle,
Not having been to see the Sphinx, and not being a geologist (or archaeologist) even if I went to see the Sphinx, what I have posted in this thread (and elswhere) is of necessity my opinion which I have formed by reading many other people's (experts, hopefully) discussions of the matter.

It may well be, in other words, that much of what I say and think today stems from reading Colin Reader's ideas (among others, I'm sure.)

I've been extremely interested in this Sphinx debate since the original airing of the theory in that documentary "Mystery of the Sphinx" I believe was the title, with Charleton Heston - though, since then, I've become far more skeptical of these television documentaries and the way they present materials. I suppose that's a result of becoming more educated on the subject. The truth is, I've become educated enough on most of these "alternate history" theories to point out the errors and lies of omission in practically every such documentary I've seen in the last couple of years. The worst was the latest one from the History Channel about Atlantis. What a waste of time and videotape that one was!

Anyway, I always liked Schoch, and still do, but I'm getting suspicious of him because of his pseudoarchaeological books. I just wish the man had stuck to geology! But so say many others here.

I'd like to reiterate that my postings here were meant to direct attention to the means Schoch used for actually dating the Sphinx, and not just the guesswork of when and for how long the stone was exposed to rainfall, which is really just a guessing game, at least much more so than the analyses of seismic surveys.

BTW, I was under the impression that Schoch had conducted just this kind of survey himself, Minimalist, and did not rely on other, earlier work.

Beagle wrote:I don't know what part of the world you hail from, but we should have a good exchange.

Sorry, I was unaware that I had failed to complete some of the profile information when I registered. You should be able to see now that I hail from your own backyard!

Harte

Archaeologist, the Sphinx is definitely limestone, if you'd read up on the Sphinx at all you'd be aware of this. Still, http://www.dailygrail.com/taxonomy/term/12
"GT: In closing - is the possibility of more recent heavy rainfall an alternative option in explaining the erosion on the Sphinx? What about the quality of the limestone?

Schoch: The paleo-hydrology of the Giza Plateau has been elucidated by the work of geologist Colin Reader. We now know that the majority of water run-off, affecting the western and southern walls of the Sphinx enclosure, ended with the quarrying work that took place during the construction of the Great Pyramid, circa 2550 B.C. This means that the earliest portions of the Great Sphinx must predate the Great Pyramid. Therefore the traditional dating for the Sphinx, which places it after the Great Pyramid, is wrong. The question is not whether the Great Sphinx is older than the traditional dating, but how much older.

Yes, I am aware that it can still rain on the Giza Plateau, even with occasional flash floods (although quite rarely). However, in my assessment the extent and nature of the substantial surface weathering and erosion seen on the walls of the Sphinx enclosure and the body of the Sphinx is only compatible with an initial date for the quarrying of the core body of the Sphinx that is significantly older than the Fourth Dynasty.

This is the case even when we take into account the quality of the limestone here, which is not the finest for building purposes, but is not of as poor quality as some writers have suggested. I believe that the oldest portions of the Sphinx must date back to pre-dynastic times, although the Sphinx was repaired and reworked (including a re-carving of the head) in dynastic times. Corroborating the pre-dynastic dating, I stand by my analysis of the subsurface weathering under the floor of the Sphinx enclosure, which by my most conservative calibrations (that is, those that would give the youngest date for the initial carving) indicate a date well prior to dynastic times. "

See also
http://members.aol.com/davidpb4/sphinx2.html

Doug

Thanks for clarifying Doug.

And, as I usually say, thanks for "Doug's Archaeology Site," a most excellent online reference.

I suggest that everybody at this board (and anyone else that reads this) should immediately get themselves to that informative and eye-opening website (if they haven't already.) By hook or by crook, single file or stampede, go there and be enlightened. You'll find the link in Doug's signature above.

Harte

Archaeologist, the Sphinx is definitely limestone

take it up with schoch, i just quoted from what he said in the book.

I suggest that everybody at this board (and anyone else that reads this) should immediately get themselves to that informative and eye-opening website

another hall of maat user who thinks highly of the site. been there, done that, not interested. now we at least know what your position is and fromwhich angle you come from and you probably have answered all of beagle's questions with that post.

archaeologist wrote:

Archaeologist, the Sphinx is definitely limestone

take it up with schoch, i just quoted from what he said in the book.

I suggest that everybody at this board (and anyone else that reads this) should immediately get themselves to that informative and eye-opening website

another hall of maat user who thinks highly of the site. been there, done that, not interested. now we at least know what your position is and fromwhich angle you come from and you probably have answered all of beagle's questions with that post.

There is nothing to take up with Schoch, nowhere does he say that the Sphinx isn't made up of limestone. It's weird that you think differently.
But, since you persist:

http://www.robertschoch.net/Redating%20 ... 20Giza.htm

"REDATING THE GREAT SPHINX OF GIZA
by Dr. Robert M. Schoch © 1992
Mainstream Egyptologists reacted with total disbelief when it was proposed that the famous Sphinx was much older than the 4th Dynasty.
The Great Sphinx, carved out of limestones of the Eocene Mokattam Formation,[1] standing sixty-six feet (twenty meters) high and 240 feet (seventy-three meters) long, sits on the edge of the Giza Plateau (just west of Cairo, Egypt), east of the three great pyramids. "

A few sentences down:
"The blocks of limestone removed from the Sphinx enclosure (in order to create the form of the body) "

Further down:
"This wind-induced weathering is distinctly different in nature from the precipitation-induced weathering; it is well exemplified on various Old Kingdom tombs and structures south and west of the sphinx, which have been carved from the same sequence of limestones as the body of the great sculpture itself."

Is it this desire for evidence that bothers you about Ma'at?

Doug

It's weird that you think differently

it has nothing to do with me, i just quoted schoch from his own book. his words not mine, his conclusions not mine. so don't try to prove something to me when it is not warranted.

i do not care what it is made of as it is a moot point, what is the point of discussion are the erosion marks and how valid those conclusions are.

Is it this desire for evidence that bothers you about Ma'at?

i won't discuss publically my thoughts on that website. suffice it to say , i am not impressed with it. (not that that carries weight, it is just a personal opinion)

which reminds me, i believe Beagle or someone posted an exchange you had with an angry person concerning posting rules yet i never saw your side of the argument posted. why is that? we only got one side of the perspective.

why is that? we only got one side of the perspective.

because you clearly didn't bother to read my reply to that post
so you're once again cherry picking your evidence to suit your personal beliefs about something you know very little about

archaeologist wrote:

It's weird that you think differently

which reminds me, i believe Beagle or someone posted an exchange you had with an angry person concerning posting rules yet i never saw your side of the argument posted. why is that? we only got one side of the perspective.

I've no idea what this was. I guess I didn't see it. A quick search turns up a post by you that says "one problem in which i found in that letter concerning doug weller's position on posting, was the comment that all source material must come from'accepted journals' (thatis a direct quote) I'm sorry but accepted journals do not cover all aspects of a site or evidence and the list of 'accepted' books can be manipulated to allow one certain viewpoint to see the light of day. "

What letter is that?

Doug

I've no idea what this was. I guess I didn't see it

now i have to go find it and i don't remember which topic it was posted in.

here it is-- http://listserv.tamu.edu/cgi/wa?A2=ind9 ... =0&P=23846