It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Egyptological dating of the Sphinx disproved

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Egyptological dating of the Sphinx disproved

In the 1990s a large body of evidence, including the evidence of water erosion determined the Sphinx to have been built in 10,500 BC, as opposed to the previously held 2500 BC dating for the Sphinx. Only rain water, and nothing else, can cause the deep, smooth, grooved channels, the so called vertical fissures which are basically small waterfalls, on it according to Geology. It couldn't have rained on the Sphinx enough to cause the rain weathering it has on it, unless it was built 12,000 years ago when the Giza plateau was not a dry desert like it is now, but when it was greener and wetter.

It was covered by the Emmy award winning documentary "The Mystery of the Sphinx", which was watched by 30 million people when it first aired on television on NBC

The data is very straightforward, but generally geologists never had bothered to study the Sphinx much. In 1990 a team led by Dr. Robert Schoch of Boston University analyzed the Sphinx and the finding were clear, the Sphinx bears rain weathering. This means it was before the end of the last ice age even.

Dr. Schoch's findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Geological Congress of America in 1990, where his finding were thought to be very interesting and over 280 geologists personally offered to help in any further study on the Sphinx. 1400 geologists agreed the data was correct and the Sphinx must be thousands of years older than archaeologists had thought.

From there it became huge news and appeared in headlines in newspapers around the world. It became a hugely contested issue. A major debate was scheduled to take place under the direction of the AAAS which is the publisher of the scientific journal Nature, one of the most prestigous in the world. Zahi Hawass the Director of Antiquities on of Egypt, and Mark Lehner the world's foremost expert on the Sphinx attended to argue against the Geological data and represent archaeology. In the end the rain erosion findings could not be disproven as it is a simple fact. Archaeologists cannot accept the implications of the data, but they have to accept the Sphinx bears rain erosion.

Geology beats Archaeology here as the harder science.

Here is the Emmy award winning documentary "The Mystery of the Sphinx", which was watched by 10s of millions of people when it first aired on television-
video.google.com...

Some clips of note from the program
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Video on an Archaeology cover-up-
video.google.com...

Redating the sphinx-
members.aol.com...

A research team has discovered physical evidence that the Great Sphinx of Giza, Egypt, may date from 5000 and 7000 BCE and possibly earlier. In response, archaeologists have thrown mud at geologists, historians have been caught in the middle, and the Sphinx, having revealed one secret, challenges us to unravel even greater ones.




posted on May, 16 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I noticed this site because of the first part, talking about the Re-dating of the Sphinx, but there's a lot of other suff on there too it looks like
www.violations.org.uk...



The American Association for the Advancement of Science scheduled a session to debate the issue at its annual general meeting in Chicago on 7th February 1992. Lehner attended along with geologist K. Lal Gauri of the University of Louisville, who had also studied the Sphinx for many years. West also attended and presented his arguments. (17)





Once again, the water erosion findings were endorsed even though Egyptologists themselves could not bring themselves to accept the implications of this endorsement.

The AAAS meeting broke up in words that, according to the New York Times "skated on the icy edge of scientific politeness

A writer for the AAAS magazine Science wrote that Schoch "hadn't convinced many archaeologists or geologists" of his findings.[26] In fact, Schoch had received offers of support from geologists after the October and February meetings. Even some archaeologists accepted his geological findings without conceding the conclusion to which they pointed"


also-
www.robertschoch.net...
www.jawest.net...



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Howdy Hollywood

Your title is incorrect. It hasn't been proven anymore than the consensus dating of the Sphinx has been. There is a theory that water erosion shows that a part of the enclosure that surrounds the sphinx may be between 7,000-5,000 years old.

The question is how old is the Sphinx? Unknown, but we do know its been fixed and modified extensively.

Unfortunately no one knows what the rain fall was like then nor what the erosion rate for x type of limestone times y rain fall.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
What it comes down to is that the Egyptological position of 2,500 BC is geologically impossible whereas 10,500 BC is completely possible and actually in line with and consistent with the rain weathering patterns

See here
www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Schoch revised his finding to 7,000-5,000.

Until some other form of data is found to confirm either way, the question remains unresolved.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Call me clueless but I don't quite understand what significance the Sphinx's date truly has? Surely it doesn't move back the dates of the Great Pyramids, does it? Otherwise they'd show similar weathering patterns, right?

Is the whole point of this Sphinx age debate to try to prove know-it-all eyptologists wrong or is there something more significant to this that I'm totally missing? Just curious. Thanks

[edit on 18-5-2008 by zephyrs]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by zephyrs
Call me clueless but I don't quite understand what significance the Sphinx's date truly has? Surely it doesn't move back the dates of the Great Pyramids, does it? Otherwise they'd show similar weathering patterns, right?

Is the whole point of this Sphinx age debate to try to prove know-it-all eyptologists wrong or is there something more significant to this that I'm totally missing? Just curious. Thanks

[edit on 18-5-2008 by zephyrs]


This is just the gist of it as I understand it, someone else on the board would probably give you better specifics.
The age of the great pyramids and the age of the sphinx are said to be realted as in built around the same time. Each pyramid was said to be built under a certain pharoh, the Great pyramid of giza was supposed to be built under Khufus rule. THe problem with redating the sphinx is that the timeline shifts and egyptologys grasp on who built the pyramids are thrown into chaos.

like I said not exactly the right answer but just the gist of how I understand it.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   
The Sphinx we see now is a modified natural rock that may have been earlier worked by man. It is Schoch's contention that the enclosure wall around it may show erosion consistent with that wall being dated to 7,000-5,000 BP. Others disagree.

Redating of the Sphinx would have no effect on the consensus that the pyramids were built by x pharoah in y year.

The place where the pyramids and sphinx were built may have been a neolithic scarced site. However there is no evidence of such except a statement on the "dream stelae" which might infer that.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Hey i'm new here and this is my first post, maybe some interesting info.. I may be mad ?

If i am right in recalling then the pyramids and the sphinx have the exact geometry of Orions belt.

Now if you reverse the star systems, planets, everything back 10,500 years exactly.

It lines up exactly with Orions belt in the sky.

The pyramids and sphinx are directly below. Pin pointing the location.

Now what is this geometry about that we see used in a lot of ancient wonders?

I think it was purposely built there. The water erosion does point to 10,500bc and now many experts say that the sphinx has been slightly submerged beneath water, the erosion up to a certain height is only created like that of those on river banks, and coastal lines.



Now a little something that is strange is how many ancient cultures and civilizations have this exact geometry for their own wonders.
So whats the secret?

Why?

MEN IN BLACK 'The secret is in Orions belt'
(something like that)

Lol



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by zephyrs
 


Well it depends on who and what you believe. There is evidence that suggests the Sphinx is contemporaneous with at least G2 ( Khafre's pyramid), by way of the causeway and temples that are all part of an inter related layout. Actually there's much belief that all of Giza is part of one layout scheme. (Orion's belt)

So if the Sphinx was built before the reign of Pharaoh Khafre ( and Khufu) then there's a chance many of the other structures in Giza were too. Also remember that the outer layers of the pyramids have long been stripped away, so no one can say for sure if they sustained the same type of water erosion as the Sphinx.

There is evidence to suggest that Khafre's pyramid may have actually been built first. There is a very good piece written by Colin Reader about this and the Sphinx. I recommend everyone to read this. Although he doesn't date the Sphinx to 10000 bc or even 7000 bc, he does push it back to before the 4th dynasty based on some very interesting and very convincing geological and archaeological evidence( taking into account Schoch and West). So of course this begs the question, who built them if the 4th dynasty kings didn't?

Read it here.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 



This is why the Archaeologists are scared to accept findings that date them so far back from what was considered correct before the Geological findings, Hawass went ahead with some restoration work on the sphinx, trying to raise enough money to restore the whole thing, thereby covering up any geological evidence that could be seen , he got stuck when he couldn't raise enough money, the current world tours of Tutankhamen is raising huge amounts of money for what Hawass calls the restoration of the whole Giza plateau, he is like a mad man on a mission, cant blame him for wanting to preserve the heritage of Egypt, you cant help thinking wht is he trying to hide however?

Almost every discovery or theory that has come about over the last 20 yrs has been red tape into submission by Hawass, he gave into pressure when Dr Joann Fletcher got permission to open a known tomb containing three mummies, Dr Fletcher researched the mummies and came to the conclusion that one of the mummies held a royal artifact only carried by Pharaoh's in their right hand help upwards towards the left shoulder, this led her to believe the mummy was Nefertiti herself, reputed to be one of the greatest rulers of Egypt,The story about Dr Fletchers discovery

The arm was found in the tomb and had been snapped and discarded by tomb robbers, Dr Fletcher proved on TV inside the tomb the arm belonged to the mummy in question,




The tomb was reopened and Scans done using an MRI with top professionals present including Dr Fletcher, Hawass, several Scientists from different fields and a TV crew to film the event, from the very first moment Hawass started to complain, quite a few tests where carried out but Hawass was worried about damaging the mummy and pulled the plug before they had a chance to do the final scans, Dr Fletcher proved the arm was from the mummy,but there was a problem, Hawass refused to believe the mummy was female which would have proven beyond doubt it was Nefertiti, but Hawass wont even confirm its gender which asks the question why wont he let them prove its Male or Female?, so stopping in its tracks Dr Fletchers theory, he has made it clear he does not want non Egyptians working on digs in Egypt without his personal permission.



Dr Joann Fletcher

Reports of the discovery of a further two tombs which are intact and confirmed by some archaeologists to be untouched after burial, have been confirmed by Hawass, but he refuses to open them until he has chosen the people to do it, meaning all westerners who have put so much into these digs are now out.

IMO if the Geological data is right, it will blow apart almost everything known about who constructed what and when, which means everything taught in schools , collages, and Universities all over the world could be wrong, so where would that leave everything? it would mean that a lot of and i mean a lot work done deciphering, studying, digging, and understanding would have to redone and rethought, and all of a sudden every Egyptologist does not have the credentials to teach what has already been taught, a lot of work would have to be completely redone, which to me is not such a bad thing, because we will have the whole rediscovery of ancient Egypt to look forward too, and with what wonders to discover or rediscover, would it open up a whole bigger picture on the Sumarians? and their relationship with Egypt and technologies used? after all even now there is a lot of dispute over how the pyramids and other building endevours where carried out, so what would the theories be if what they are scratching their heads about all of a sudden became 7000 yrs older? makes one mystery a whole new kettle of fish, they cant agree what technologies where used as the history books stand now.

Grab your hats its gonna be a bumpy ride.

The giza Plateau is now his and he is letting everyone know it.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by azzllin
 


Spot on Azzllin

Hawass also closed down the filming by National Geographric when they sent a camera robot up one of the passages in the Kings chamber
The robot encountered a wooden door. The crew requested permission to 'break through this door to see what was on the other side. It was then that Hawass called a halt.

That induvidual, whilst serving under the 'pretence' of guardian of Egyptian antiqueties, is holding archeology back from discovering a greater understanding of the platau.

One must wonder as to 'why' that is??

H



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by azzllin
 


Your whole last paragraph I couldn't agree with more. There seems to be more than a desire to keep things as status quo regarding Giza so as to not have to rewrite history, and I mean a whole lot of it. Too many scholarly egos would be hurt if shown that they were dead wrong. But the lid won't be kept on for too much longer I feel...

There are definitely things that Hawass is keeping from the public.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
This probibly sounds really stupid - but why does this individual have so much power over the pyramids. sphinx etc... in the first place. I kinda dont really understand that.
But yea... personaly I think it would be really significant if the sphinx was dated back 7000+ years as that would put it in the time of the Nephilim. hrm... thats just what I believe any how.

-fm



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


great link.. theres a lot of debate over this, and a lot of debateable evidence,, though i hope they find conclusively that it was before the 4th dynasty... way before.. just to turn the archeological community on its ear..we need a little shake up now and then



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   
A brief response


and understanding would have to redone and rethought, and all of a sudden every Egyptologist does not have the credentials to teach what has already been taught


That is done every day, re thinking - but one question, what the heck are you talking about in regards to "credentials to teach", an addition of new facts would have no such effect.

I'll response to the rest of the comments in a few days.

Hanslune



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hollywood11
Egyptological dating of the Sphinx disproved

In the 1990s a large body of evidence, including the evidence of water erosion determined the Sphinx to have been built in 10,500 BC, as opposed to the previously held 2500 BC dating for the Sphinx. Only rain water, and nothing else, can cause the deep, smooth, grooved channels, the so called vertical fissures which are basically small waterfalls, on it according to Geology. It couldn't have rained on the Sphinx enough to cause the rain weathering it has on it, unless it was built 12,000 years ago when the Giza plateau was not a dry desert like it is now, but when it was greener and wetter.


Wrong again.

Hollywood,

The fact that you believe that "Only rain water, and nothing else, can cause the deep, smooth, grooved channels, the so called vertical fissures which are basically small waterfalls, on it according to Geology" doesn't make it so.

No geologist has made this claim, not even Schoch, the geophysicist you have misrepresented with your claim here.

Fortunately for you, an explanation of what Schoch is actually saying can be found at the ATS wiki page (tinwiki.) The article there links to Schoch's work on the sphinx, written by Schoch, and will show you that his estimated date range for the sphinx (5,000 BC to 7,000 BC) is in no way based on rainfall of any kind.

Of course, you'll have to go there and read it.

I'm sure you'll find a way to disavow what Schoch says, even though it was his work you're basing your claim on in this thread.

Tinwiki article on the Sphinx


Originally posted by Hollywood11
1400 geologists agreed the data was correct and the Sphinx must be thousands of years older than archaeologists had thought.

From there it became huge news and appeared in headlines in newspapers around the world. It became a hugely contested issue. A major debate was scheduled to take place under the direction of the AAAS which is the publisher of the scientific journal Nature, one of the most prestigous in the world. Zahi Hawass the Director of Antiquities on of Egypt, and Mark Lehner the world's foremost expert on the Sphinx attended to argue against the Geological data and represent archaeology. In the end the rain erosion findings could not be disproven as it is a simple fact. Archaeologists cannot accept the implications of the data, but they have to accept the Sphinx bears rain erosion.

Geology beats Archaeology here as the harder science.


That would be extremely odd, since Schoch's date doesn't involve water erosion in any way whatsoever and even if it did (and it doesn't,) Schoch's date, as I said, does not put the carving of the Sphinx back to 10,500 BC.

Lastly, it should be said that Egyptology itselfnever has agreed on a date for the carving of the Sphinx.

There has never been enough evidence found to indicate who carved it or when. To my (limited) knowledge, there are at least three different theories on who had it carved.

Not being an archaeologist, I'd guess that there are far more than three theories on this. I'm only "up" on three of them though.

Harte

[edit on 5/19/2008 by Harte]



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
The geological evidence is primarily based on rain erosion dating


More here-
members.aol.com...

[edit on 22-5-2008 by Hollywood11]



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hollywood11
The geological evidence is primarily based on rain erosion dating


More here-
members.aol.com...

[edit on 22-5-2008 by Hollywood11]


Your own link provides no information for what you are calling "erosional dating."
No doubt that is because there is simply no such thing as "erosional dating."

The Badlands of the Dakotas were eroded out in a matter of months.

Erosion can occur remarkably quickly under the right circumstances.
Schoch knows and acknowledges this. He merely points out that, if what is assumed about the Giza Plateau's climate turns out to be correct, then it meshes well with the date range he gives for the Sphinx which is based entirely on subsurface weathering of limestone - which is due to exposure to the atmosphere and is in no way affected by any climate.

Just as he states in your link:


Concerning the use of the seismic data to date the initial excavation of the Sphinx: It has taken about 4,500 years for the subsurface weathering at the younger, western-most floor of the Sphinx enclosure to reach a depth of about four feet (assuming that the western end was fully excavated to approximately its present state during Old Kingdom activity at the site - - see further discussion below). Since the weathering on the other three sides is between 50 and 100 percent deeper, it is reasonable to assume that this excavation is 50 to 100 percent older than the western end. If we accept Khafre's reign as the date for the western enclosure, then this calculation pushes the date for the Great Sphinx's original construction back to approximately the 5000 to 7000 B.C. range.

I believe this estimate nicely ties in with the climatic history of the Giza Plateau and correlates with the nature and degree of the surface weathering and erosion features. This estimate can be considered a minimum if we assume that weathering rates proceed non-linearly (the deeper the weathering is, the slower it may progress due to the fact that it is "protected" by the overlying material), and there is the possibility that the very earliest portion of the Sphinx dates back to before 7000 B.C. However, given the known moister conditions on the Giza Plateau prior to the middle third millennium B.C. versus the prevailing aridity since then, some might argue that initial subsurface weathering may possibly (but not necessarily) have been faster than later weathering, and this could counter balance the potential "non-linear" effect mentioned in the last sentence. In other words, the early moist conditions might, crudely, give deeper weathering which could appear to give it an "older" date but this is countered by the non-linear nature of the weathering which could appear to give it a "younger" date. In the end, based on many hours of analysis and rumination, I am satisfied that the two opposing factors roughly cancel each other out and a crude linear interpretation of the data is justifiable. In this manner, I return to my estimate of circa 5000 to 7000 B.C. for the oldest portion of the Sphinx, a date that is corroborated by the correlation between the nature of the weathering in the Sphinx enclosure and the paleoclimatic history of the region.


Were you to read what Schoch actually says, you'd know that he bases his date entirely on the supposition that Khafre carved out the western end of the sphinx (the "rump" and the enclosure at that end) and he proceeds from that point to estimate the age of the more advanced subsurface weathering as one measures it further and further towards the East end (front) of the sphinx enclosure.

It should be noted that the sort of weathering Schoch is measuring can be highly nonlinear in a hugely variable limestone bed such as the Giza Plateau, and can be very misleading as well, since it depends only on exposure to the atmosphere and limestone is notorious for voids, caves and cracks that would have allowed air in over the millennia without the slightest interference by human hands. Not to mention things like gullies that could have formed toward the western end of the limestone formation that was later carved to be a sphinx.

All this was said in the tinwiki link I gave you.

When you use someone as a reference, perhaps you would be better served if you were to actually read and try to understand exactly what it is your reference is saying.

Harte

Harte

[edit on 5/23/2008 by Harte]



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I don't know where you are getting this incorrect information from, but the re-dating of the Sphinx we're talking about here has nothing to do with subsurface weathering, we're talking about the rain erosion used by Dr. Schoch and others to date the Sphinx. If the tinwiki denies these simple facts, that Schoch's dating is based on rain erosion and NOT subsurface weathering, then it is not useful because it's wrong. In fact, I'd say Tin wiki is not a credible source for anything if they claim that.

Geologists generally know how much it rained and where, it's not exact, but it's pretty good. It's a prety weak argument to try to disbelieve in Dr. Schoch's data by claiming geology only "assumes" how things were in the past but doesn't actually "know". They know, it's a science, there's no "Assuming".

From Dr. Schoch, talking about subsurface weathering and why it cannot acount for the rain erosion on the Sphinx

It has also been suggested that the Sphinx has been heavily weathered by the action of subsurface ground water being sucked up into the pores of the rock by capillary action (Lawton and Ogilvie-Herald, page 316). There are a couple of problems with this hypothesis. First, I have yet to see any evidence that this is actually occurring to any significant extent today, much less in the past. If it is a significant factor in producing the weathering profile seen on the Sphinx and in the Sphinx enclosure, then it should also produce the same features (and to the same degree) on rock-cut structures carved from the same limestones and at the same elevation or lower found immediately to the south of the Sphinx enclosure. Yet such "capillary weathering" is not evident there. Second, such "capillary weathering," if it does indeed occur to any significant degree in the present day, may well be the result of rising water tables due to sewerage from the adjacent village that has been progressively encroaching on the Giza Plateau.


Dr. Schoch's Re-dating is based on Rain weathering, not subsurface weathering


[edit on 23-5-2008 by Hollywood11]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join