a reply to: Harte
"Your correct, as far as that goes, but it wasn't my point.
Schoch has never stated that his claim of antiquity was based on visible weathering of the Sphinx body.
That was my point"
yeah fair enough. that detail passed me by as i was going on what i can observe and other geologists studies, on investigation i concur, his
methodology isnt good.
i would point out in my defence that reader also came to this conclusion and for this reason in his criticism of schoch he also ignored schochs
"seismic tests" .
coxhill also, and both reach a slightly different (older) conclusion to the traditional timeframe.
and i have to agree here also
"Because that cannot be asserted. We don't have any decent information regarding the rainfall in the area over time, nor can the amount of weathering
be correlated directly to any rainfall, and such a "timeline of weathering" is in fact impossible to assemble practically anywhere, with the exception
of weathering on uniform stone in places where the average rainfall is well known over thousands of years."
and this is always a problem in discussions of megaliths etc. the climatologists have this to say
"Recent studies by German climatologists Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kröpelin, of the University of Cologne suggest the change from a wet to a much
drier climate may have come to an end around 3500 - 1500 BC, which is as much as 500 years later than currently thought. Egyptologist Mark Lehner
believes this climate change may have been responsible for the severe weathering found on the Sphinx and other sites of the 4th Dynasty. After
studying sediment samples in the Nile Valley, Judith Bunbury, a geologist at the University of Cambridge, concluded that climate change in the Giza
region may have begun early in the Old Kingdom, with desert sands arriving in force late in the era."
interestingly lehner here seems to desire some supporting evidence of heavy rain.
so i suppose that covers this
"In fact, since 1992, it has been established that it was wetter in the 1st Dynasty that had been previously thought when Schoch wrote his original
the next bit was never in question was it?, it visually apparent
"Schoch admitted also that the weathering patterns on stone has more to do with the actual makeup of the stone than it does the mode by which the
weathering took place."
there are two types erosion present. the horizontal aeolian and the fluvial vertical. schochs contention was heavy rain. zawass and (maybe lehner,
they dont agree on all points) contend that this occurred before carving, due to the water entering the fissures. well in the absence of heavy
rainfall the mechanism of erosion must be the exfoliation
at this juncture i would like to insert an observation
on the original plateau, presumably there was a outcrop which is now the head (good job it has no elongated skull, eh?
) i have heard yardang
bandied about but some contend that, maybe it causes argument about climate/dating as pertains to the enviromental conditions needed to form said
anyway, either said rock already had some form to inspire its future shape (orientation as a given) or it was fit for purpose as regards intended
was it already semi formed, something that had had an organic root and people had been chipping away at for generations with no coherent plan or
origin, more as a contribution to the general effect?
or was the form of the flanks already partially eroded in from earlier rains by say two gulleys and inspired the body (this scenario would certainly
give zawass's erosion weight, it would create the fluvial marks and in correct sequence)
maybe a natural feature exploited, like the romanian sphinx or this (sorry about the site, just for the picture, obviously its natural.
there are better examples in south america but cant find the pictures right now
just speculation obviously
edit on 19-6-2016 by username74 because: bad link