Archaeologica.org

I'm watching "Ancient Aliens" right now just to piss ya'll off. HEE HEE!

Do you like the guy with the hair, Frank?

Yeah! Giorgio (sp) is my favorite! Man, they really reach for some of these theories. It's actually pretty funny sometimes. Most of the time I fall asleep before it's over.

The theory that the Sphinx was originally carved in the shape of Anubis is interesting, though there is absolutely nothing to support it. Schocke is still adamant that it's possibly as old as 10k yrs. Makes as much sense as any of the other weird shit that people have theorized about it. Also, there could be two of them. I like this kind of stuff because it opens my mind. I know 99% of it is bullshit, but it's fun, entertaining, and thought provoking. The exact reasons I watch TV.

"Let us not be defined by our hatreds." Frank Nolan

I thought it was a lion's head originally?


I just find it interesting that the geologists (Schock and Reader) while quibbling over the date (and neither satisfying the Egyptologists in the process) use hard scientific principles to dispute the 4th Dynasty claims of the Egyptologists who, last I heard, were still hung up on Khafre building it because it is near the second pyramid which they think he built....for reasons which are as soft as the sphinx attribution.

Now I live in a desert and every summer we get a first hand look at what happens when there is a sudden cloudburst on a sun-baked desert landscape. There are amazing flash floods but they are exceedingly localized and last a very short time. Schock's case for sustained rainfall seems more credible.

New theory is that it was a jackal to begin with and the nose broke off so they made it into a man's head. It's possible, but there's no evidence to support this assertion. It's all guessing. I've heard so many wild theories about the sphinx and almost any of them could be true. We'll probably never know.

Minimalist wrote:I thought it was a lion's head originally?

I just find it interesting that the geologists (Schock and Reader) while quibbling over the date (and neither satisfying the Egyptologists in the process) use hard scientific principles to dispute the 4th Dynasty claims of the Egyptologists who, last I heard, were still hung up on Khafre building it because it is near the second pyramid which they think he built....for reasons which are as soft as the sphinx attribution.

Then you're either purposefuilly mischaracterizing the situation using a straw man argument or you're not listening very well.
Two different types of Khufu's name appear in worker markings in sealed chambers in the GP, there have been two different C14 assays of the site put5ing it squarely in the 4th Dynasty, and a record of shipments of stone found at an ancient port in Egypt recently explicitly mentions stones meant for Khufu's pyramid.

Minimalist wrote:Now I live in a desert and every summer we get a first hand look at what happens when there is a sudden cloudburst on a sun-baked desert landscape. There are amazing flash floods but they are exceedingly localized and last a very short time. Schock's case for sustained rainfall seems more credible.

This is an example of what I stated. Perhaps you should understand that, while Schoch uses rainfall to corroborate what he claims, his date is in no way based on such a thin line of evidence.

He bases his date for the sphinx entirely on subsurface weathering of bedrock in the Sphinx enclosure which is due to exposure to the air, and not affected by covering sands or any amount of rain. His use of rainfall (which BTW turns out to be more than was thought at the time of Schoch's paper) is purely serendipitous.

Harte

Schoch notes that the erosion pattern on the enclosure wall shows signs of rainfall erosion. Are you suggesting that the enclosure was built before it had anything to enclose?

Also, what does Khufu have to do with Khafre?