Page 29 of 35
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:54 am
by Harte
Minimalist wrote:
Anyway, not too long ago I saw a special on the Valley of the Kings where it showed the effects of a rainstorm sending a cascade of water down the valley. Truly impressive and the archaeologist in question (it may have been Kent Weeks) was showing the evidence for earlier flood conditions.
So, in a desert environment any amount of rain cause flooding.....
Pretty much the point I was trying to make concerning runoff erosion and the sphinx enclosure.
The enclosure, being literally dug out of the plateau, is a low point into which a large amount of runoff will flow with
every storm the plateau experiences. Doesn't necessarily have to be a "wet period" for this to occur. This is no doubt why Schoch only points to this "water erosion" as
support for his theory which (I keep saying) he based on
subsurface weathering of the limestone floor caused by exposure to the
atmosphere, and not on any water erosion scenario.
Still a good argument, though.
Harte
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:07 pm
by Minimalist
Yes, I get that. Still, West (and Schwaller before him) make the point that
the weathering erosion on the Sphinx enclosure wall is such had it occurred in solely dynastic times, the other limestone structures which were clearly built by Old Kingdom architects would show similar weathering and the mud brick tombs should have been heavily damaged.
So it is a good argument.
I still fall back on my earlier observation that I don't think the Ancient Egyptians were stupid. Blowing sand must have been a fact of life for them and it would be the height of silliness to dig a pit in the desert to carve the sphinx without understanding that the sand would blow in and fill up the hole. It would have been blowing in on them while they were working. Someone should have said "Hey, boss....this may not be such a good idea."
However.....if it were built at a time when non-desert conditions prevailed one can forgive them for their lack of foresight. Especially since when it comes to climate we don't seem to have any more foresight than they did.
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:25 pm
by DougWeller
The Valley of the Kings has been badly threatened by rainfall in the last few decades, I recall seeing John Rohmer on TV talking about it.
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:42 pm
by Guest
What's interesting is that here in Arizona we have just finished with the wettest 'monsoon' season since 1999...we got about 3 inches
that doesn't make sense..i lived in arizona and know that 3" can come in one rainstorm. did you type that figure in correctly?
flash flooding has always been a part of desert life and i don't think it is indicative of a change in climate.
I still fall back on my earlier observation that I don't think the Ancient Egyptians were stupid. Blowing sand must have been a fact of life for them and it would be the height of silliness to dig a pit in the desert to carve the sphinx without understanding that the sand would blow in and fill up the hole. It would have been blowing in on them while they were working.
yet that is just a common sense practice. maybe Khafre was the kind of dictator that it didn't matter what the conditions were the monument was going to be built regardless.
right now i am for a pre-egyptian dating of the sphynx as the circumstantial evidence for Khafre being the builder is not compelling but seems more contrived.
schoch's weathering basis is intuitive but weak and needs more to substantiate it. what textual remains do we have (other than the broken monument) that can shed more light on this construction? if there is none, why would ancient egyptian records be silent on such an important build?
it wuld stand to reason that someone at sometime would have taken the liberty or been assigned to record such an event since it had so great an impact on egyptian life and history.
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:19 pm
by DougWeller
It may well have been recorded, but we have only a small fraction of what was originally recorded.
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:54 pm
by Minimalist
archaeologist wrote:What's interesting is that here in Arizona we have just finished with the wettest 'monsoon' season since 1999...we got about 3 inches
that doesn't make sense..i lived in arizona and know that 3" can come in one rainstorm. did you type that figure in correctly?
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... n0919.html
Officially, 3.33 inches of rain fell between the beginning of July and the official end of the season Thursday.
Of course, the "official reading" is taken at the airport and, as you say, the Valley covers an enormous area and different spots can get widely different amounts. I've noted that the areas to the S-SE of Phoenix (Mesa, Gilbert, Chandler) seem to get hit a lot harder than we do.
I still fall back on my earlier observation that I don't think the Ancient Egyptians were stupid. Blowing sand must have been a fact of life for them and it would be the height of silliness to dig a pit in the desert to carve the sphinx without understanding that the sand would blow in and fill up the hole. It would have been blowing in on them while they were working.
yet that is just a common sense practice. maybe Khafre was the kind of dictator that it didn't matter what the conditions were the monument was going to be built regardless.
Or maybe it was already there and he did what he could to restore it...as Thutmosis and others have done in their turn?
right now i am for a pre-egyptian dating of the sphynx as the circumstantial evidence for Khafre being the builder is not compelling but seems more contrived.
schoch's weathering basis is intuitive but weak and needs more to substantiate it. what textual remains do we have (other than the broken monument) that can shed more light on this construction? if there is none, why would ancient egyptian records be silent on such an important build?
That is one of your better questions.
it wuld stand to reason that someone at sometime would have taken the liberty or been assigned to record such an event since it had so great an impact on egyptian life and history.
One would think!
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:58 pm
by Minimalist
DougWeller wrote:The Valley of the Kings has been badly threatened by rainfall in the last few decades, I recall seeing John Rohmer on TV talking about it.
There was a special on "The Sahara" last night on the History Channel and they made the point that it does rain in the Sahara......but the water evaporates before it hits the ground. Obviously, Egypt is not quite that arid.
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:31 pm
by Guest
but the water evaporates before it hits the ground. Obviously, Egypt is not quite that arid.
but would it be enough to cause the erosion that schoch studied? i for one doubt it and since there is more erosion on the sphynx than the pyramids, i am betting that the sphynx was built prior to kahfre's time.
i do not agree that flash floods were the culprit for then the monuments between the paws would reflect that encounter as well and i do not remember those being included in damage reports.
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:30 am
by Minimalist
but would it be enough to cause the erosion that schoch studied?
Not likely...and even if it were, there still remains the problem that other, inscribed monuments which can be easily dated to the Old Kingdom do not show the same erosion even though many of them are made of limestone as well.
The pyramids are a special case as we know that the casing stones fell off in an earthquake during the middle ages. Thus, it can reliably be stated that the interior stones of the pyramid were not exposed to rainfall during historic times, or at least not very much. Still, the upper levels of Khafre's pyramid retain their casing stones and I've never heard anyone suggest that they have been eroded by rain fall. Could the quality of the stone used for the casing or the pyramid shape itself have mitigated the effect of rain fall? Possibly...maybe even probably, but could it have shrugged it off as if it never rained? I wouldn't go that far.
The Thutmosis Dream Stele has been eroded but I think you have to allow for Lehner's ground water leeching idea on that one. Thutmosis was New Kingdom and the stele is damaged from the bottom up which is consistent with Lehner's observation about flaking.
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 8:59 am
by DougWeller
The casing stones were generally better limestone, Turah limestone, with the bottom course of Khafre's in granite. They were robbed at various times, you may be thinking of a big earthquake in Cairo in the 14th century when most of the stone robbing probably took place.
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:43 am
by Minimalist
Yes, exactly that, Doug.
I suppose the point is this; The casing stone was polished white limestone, chosen for its visual effect. However, how much harder could it have been and still remain limestone?
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:32 am
by oldarchystudent
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.
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:22 am
by Roberto
What about erosion due to acidity? Like acid rain that we know of today.
Acid rain is eroding the linestone structures around the world at present time.
Present day acid rain I believe is related to the burning of coal. What were these early people burning? I wonder how much acidity, or acid rain volcanic activity produces?
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:28 am
by Frank Harrist
Roberto wrote:What about erosion due to acidity? Like acid rain that we know of today.
Acid rain is eroding the linestone structures around the world at present time.
Present day acid rain I believe is related to the burning of coal. What were these early people burning? I wonder how much acidity, or acid rain volcanic activity produces?
Good point. Anyone know anything about this? Also I might add that a slick smooth surface wouldn't erode at the same pace as the squared off corners/edges of the sphinx enclosure. It isn't the raindrops themselves that do most of the erosion, but the run-off.
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:31 am
by oldarchystudent
Frank Harrist wrote:Roberto wrote:What about erosion due to acidity? Like acid rain that we know of today.
Acid rain is eroding the linestone structures around the world at present time.
Present day acid rain I believe is related to the burning of coal. What were these early people burning? I wonder how much acidity, or acid rain volcanic activity produces?
Good point. Anyone know anything about this? Also I might add that a slick smooth surface wouldn't erode at the same pace as the squared off corners/edges of the sphinx enclosure. It isn't the raindrops themselves that do most of the erosion, but the run-off.
I think acidity became a problem in the Greek and Roman periods with the increased activity in smelting. I don't think it is as big a factor in dynastic Egypt, and the Sphynx was in need of repair thousands of years ago (Thutmoses III if I remember correctly?). Can anybody confirm/disprove this?