originally posted by: Snarl
Schock is the best (this is Not my humble opinion). Long story behind the 'why', but I don't have a keyboard ATM.
He does have opinions. I don't happen to agree with all of them. What I like about the guy the Very Most, is that he clearly articulates his
opinion AS opinion (just that his is based on extensive field work).
I like Schoch for this reason too, as well as the fact that he doesn't simply go along with every fringe idea out there like the rest of the fringers
Schoch tells us, for example, that Yonaguni is a natural formation, which is true, and not some ancient construct.
I've looked long and hard at what he has said about the sphinx, however, and I can't find any way to agree with him.
There are a couple of explanations for why the head is smaller that have been posted here before. For one, the layer of limestone that makes up the
neck is extremely soft and crumbly. A right-sized head couldn't be supported by the neck. Also, there is a large crack in the limestone bedrock,
running crossways through the sphinx and the enclosure. If the body was the right length for the head, that crack would be near enough to the
sphinx's rear that the rear of the statue could simply fall away.
These two explanations work for why the sphinx looks like it does.
Schoch's data regarding the enclosure floor, which is what he bases his dating on, is pretty iffy, IMO. He uses subsurface degradation of the
limestone bed due to exposure to air and that data shows that the enclosure floor on both sides of the sphinx is older than the front, going by his
I believe that using such means to test age is pretty meaningless in a limestone bed that is not homogeneous, to say the least. The beds at Giza vary
widely in hardness/toughness. There are entire coral reefs embedded in parts of the bed while other parts are very sandy. Given that the beds are
not horizontal, one should expect different degrees of degradation in different areas along the same horizontal surface, and hence the depth of the
degraded limestone would depend more on the stone itself than on the amount of time of exposure to air.
His data collected for the enclosure floor in the rear of the statue comes from only a meter or two of the floor, BTW. Three readings, IIRC.
It's important to note, I suppose, that Shcoch's claim of antiquity for the sphinx applies only to the front, not the rear.
If you read the results of the Giza Mapping Project concerning the sphinx, you can find evidence that would point to an Old Kingdom date for the