|
|
Topic started on 15-1-2009 @ 01:35 AM by coredrill
|
Does the Great Egyptian Sphinx Date back to the Pleistocene
mgu.bg
 A Paper was submitted at theInternational Conference on Geoarchaeology and Archaeomineralogy titled
"GEOLOGICAL ASPECT OF THE PROBLEM OF DATING THE GREAT EGYPTIAN SPHINX CONSTRUCTION"
which states in its Abstract that The Great Egyptian Sphinx dates back to the Pleistocene Era.
(visit the link for the full news article)
|
copyright & usage
|
Click here for more Ancient & Lost Civilizations topics
Hot Topics
|
Top Topics
|
This Week
|
Subscribe
|
Home
|
reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 01:35 AM by coredrill
|
Mindboggling information. Hard to Digest. Go through the paper and decide for yourself.
The current dating of the Sphinx is given as in the reign of Pharaoh Khafra (2520-2494 BCE).
If the Sphinx was buit in the Pleistocene era, then it would be close to 10,000 years BP.
"The Pleistocene (IPA: /'plaɪstəsi:n/) is the epoch from 1.8 million to 10,000 years BP covering the world's recent period of repeated
glaciations."
The information provided in the paper reflects what R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz had theorized.
Decide for yourself.
mgu.bg
(visit the link for the full news article)
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 02:14 AM by RiotComing
|
Wow! Fascinating! According to the PDF, they are basically saying the Sphinx has been around for 800000 years, due to the erosion which indicates
being submerged in a large volume of water during that period of time! That's mindblowing. And most probably true in my opinion.
Just curious though, what was it that R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz had theorized about the Sphinx? Was it about the Nile overflowing, about Egyptian
tribes living in that area around that time, or something else? Thanks.
And thanks for this fascinating thread! Starred and flagged!
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 02:32 AM by Exuberant1
|
The last ice age ended 12 500 years ago.
This sudden influx of warm water into the oceans and atmosphere is a probable culprit for any rise in sea levels - or even the 'deluge' that is
often referred to.
I'd image that the Ice age ending would has a drastic effect, especially considered that most of THAT ice was landlocked- and so when it melted, the
water levels did rise and the atmosphere did become much more humid.
This increase in water vapour helped to warm the earth which in turn sped up the melting of the existing ice.
This is likely the source of our historical 'deluge'. Many coastal areas would have been flooded during this time of deglaciation.
*also, 12 900 years ago a comet struck the earth, which may have increased the speed of the melting process, but then went on to slow it:
"Heat from the event would have set off wildfires across the continent, the scientists suggest. The heat and shock from the explosion probably broke
up portions of the ice sheet smothering smothering eastern Canada at the time, they add. The flood of fresh water into the North Atlantic that
resulted would have interrupted ocean currents that bring warmth to the region, and thick clouds of smoke and soot in the air would have intensified
cooling across the Northern Hemisphere. "
[edit on 15-1-2009 by Exuberant1]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 02:37 AM by coredrill
|
Originally posted by RiotComing
Just curious though, what was it that R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz had theorized about the Sphinx? Was it about the Nile overflowing, about Egyptian
tribes living in that area around that time, or something else?
Sorry! My Bad.
It was R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz who noticed the erosion on the sphinx, but it was John Anthony West who brought it to the attention of Robert M.
Schoch, who hypothese-ised that it was by water erosion from rain.
But, the current paper states that it was from waves.
Water Erosion Debate
R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz, a French polymath and amateur Egyptologist, first noticed evidence of water erosion on the walls of the Sphinx Enclosure in
the 1950s. Author John Anthony West investigated further and in 1989 sought the opinion of a geologist, Robert M. Schoch, associate professor of
natural science at the College of General Studies, Boston University.[15]
From his investigation of the Enclosure's geology, Schoch concluded that the main type of weathering evident on the Sphinx Enclosure walls could only
have been caused by prolonged and extensive rain.[16] According to Schoch, the area has experienced a mean annual rainfall of approximately one inch
(2.5 cm) since the Old Kingdom (c. 2686–2134 BCE), and since Egypt’s last period of significant rainfall ended between the late fourth and early
third millennia BCE,[17] he dates the Sphinx's construction to the sixth or fifth millennia BCE.[18][19][20]
Water Erosion Debate
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 08:00 AM by FatherLukeDuke
|
Hmmm...
The authors of this paper are theosophists - a religious sect who believe mankind is many millions
of years old.
Theosophists further hold that human civilization, like all other parts of the universe, develops through cycles of seven stages. Blavatsky argued
that humanity, and indeed every reincarnating human soul, evolves through a series of seven "Root Races". Thus in the first age, humans were pure
spirit; in the second age, they were sexless beings inhabiting the now lost continent of Hyperborea; in the third age the giant Lemurians were
informed by spiritual impulses endowing them with human consciousness and sexual reproduction. Modern humans finally developed on the continent of
Atlantis. Since Atlantis was the nadir of the cycle, the present fifth age is a time of reawakening humanity's psychic gifts. The term psychic here
really means the realization of the permeability of consciousness as it had not been known earlier in evolution, although sensed by some more
sensitive individuals of our species.
They have some pretty dodgy views on race, especially about the Jews, and I believe some Nazis were quite keen on their occult philosophy.
They start with the assumption that the Sphinx is over 750,000 years old and then try to support it:
The authors of the report have another point of
view in considering the problem. We have taken the GES age
such as it was indicated by theosophist Yelena Blavatskaya in
one of her basic works (1937). She wrote: “Notice the
indestructible witness of evolution of Human races, from
Divine, and especially Androgynous race, the Egyptian Sphinx,
that mystery of centuries”. According to Blavatskaya the time of
GES erection should exceed 750000 years. Are there some
geological indications which are evidence for such an old age
of the Sphinx? Consider the brief prehistory of the problem.
Essentially the paper says that the Sphinx looks a bit like it was erroded by waves, and the last time sea levels were high enough to do this was
nearly a million years ago, therefore the Sphinx is nearly a million years old. Some crude geology, much hand waving and there you have it.
You would have thought that if the Sphinx was that old it would be dust by now wouldn't you?
Although they share little with Young Earth Creationists philosophy (completely the opposite in some ways), they do use exactly the same methadology -
in that they do away with swathes of scientific data and models but are happy to cherry pick the ones that suit them (such as ancient sea levels).
To be fair, they do call it a "suggested hypothesis", though I would tend to call it junk science.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 08:04 AM by Exuberant1
|
reply to post by FatherLukeDuke
"To be fair, they do call it a "suggested hypothesis", though I would tend to call it junk science. "
Well...
You are the only one to mention this theory so far.
The oldest estimate I would except would be 12 000 years or so ago for the Pyramids - maybe and only because of stellar alignments.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 08:37 AM by FatherLukeDuke
|
Originally posted by Exuberant1
You are the only one to mention this theory so far.
Not sure what you mean?
The OP is all about a paper that says the Sphinx is at least 800,000 years old - that's the paper I was commenting on. Which one are you discussing?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 09:13 AM by Mozzy
|
if the erosion was cause by waves then it would have to be older than the last time there was an ocean there. unless they were fish people. and if
they were fish people they probably would have built a statue of a shark or something. so maybe it's uhh.. 2 million years old. or whenever that
ocean wasn't there.
where did the name sphinx come from anyway? isn't it suggested that it's supposed to be a complete lion? that's not a hybrid creature.
[edit on 15-1-2009 by Mozzy]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 09:14 AM by autowrench
|
The main thing is, the Egyptian government is hiding something. That much is crystal clear to me. I saw a History Channel program on the Sphinx, and
the scientist who examined it stated it was eroded by water. The proof was astounding to hear, and there is also the famous hidden room beneath the
paw of the Sphinx. I would love to see this opened on live TV. Some day we will know all the secrets, but for now we are treated like mushrooms, kept
in the dark and fed on sh*t.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 09:22 AM by Mozzy
|
well of course they're hiding something. it's a cash cow, they're never gonna spill the beans. ever. would you? it doesn't mean anything sinister
is going on.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 09:23 AM by Exuberant1
|
reply to post by FatherLukeDuke
I apologize. My bad.
I got my pyramid builder conspiracies all mixed up.
800 000 years is crazy.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 11:13 AM by Hanslune
|
reply to post by Exuberant1
A comment from Dave L at the Hall of Ma'at
They have mixed up a legitimate comparison of stratigraphic layers in different places that can be used to date the formation of the rock itself,
with a ridiculous suggestion that the Sphinx must have been underwater to generate the erosion profile that we see today.
If the rock has a varying density and consistency, a similar erosion profile will emerge whether it due to water movement or wind blown sand, and
regardless of the time period during which the erosion took place.
Just another in a long line of nonsense presentations and papers and articles with a pseudo scientific veneer, but major flaws in logic and argument
lurking just under the surface.
From the thread on this same document I post yesterday at the Hall of Ma'at
Hall of Ma'at
Hwody Father
One of the references in this study
Blavatskaya, Ye. L. 1937. Tainaya Doktriona. Vol. 2. Uguns,
Riga, 1008 p. (in Russian)
The part they referenced was:
The authors of the report have another point of
view in considering the problem. We have taken the GES age
such as it was indicated by theosophist Yelena Blavatskaya in
one of her basic works (1937). She wrote: “Notice the
indestructible witness of evolution of Human races, from
Divine, and especially Androgynous race, the Egyptian Sphinx,
that mystery of centuries”. According to Blavatskaya the time of
GES erection should exceed 750000 years. Are there some
geological indications which are evidence for such an old age
of the Sphinx? Consider the brief prehistory of the problem.
She was mystic....
A lot of people seem to have forgotten that the Sphinx sits inside an enclosure that was cut out - the stones being used to build the pyramids and the
mortuary temples.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 11:13 AM by coredrill
|
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 07:01 PM by Hanslune
|
Another comment from the thread at the Hall of Ma'at on this document
Gee.... this one beats even El Aref & Refai (1987) on the laughtographer, which got just about everything wrong (even going so far as to
misidentify the quarry trenches in Khafre's enclosure as naturally formed karst structures (natural landforms caused by dissolution of calcite in
surface water).... and just like the aforementioned there is no citation for Aigner (1983), which actually does show real evidence for wave erosion on
the Giza Plateau during the Pliocene. There is also no direct mention of any of Gauri's et. al. numerous geological papers on the limestone of the
Sphinx. Completely ridiculous and absurd....
I wonder if they realized the neck of the Sphinx is the most eroded part, without the modern cement in the way that is (just above the white arrow in
Fig. 5.). Probably not, since it's not mentioned. They don't seem to be aware that salt weathering, and not wind abrasion, is the dominated
weathering mechanism on the plateau and that the exposed core masonry on the pyramids (Emery 1960; Fitzner et. al. 2002) also shows salt weathering
induce niching and tafoni (apparently what they think is due to waves). How this stuff gets past peer review is a question that really needs to be
addressed.....
By Archae Solenhofen
The thread is at www.hallofmaat.com...,500712
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 16-1-2009 @ 12:20 PM by Hanslune
|
reply to post by Hanslune
How did this unscientific paper get "published"? Dave L from the Hall of Ma'at explains
Researcher submits abstract to conference, conference accepts abstract along with a bunch of others on basis of short abstract, presenter presents
full paper to people with superficial knowledge of subject, presenter expects to have paper published along with other presenters, peer reviewers have
no real knowledge of subject.
The average conference/paper set up or even peer reviewed journal is not intended to be court-case standard review process.
The ultimate overseeing mechanism is the wider peer review process, i.e. experts read paper and spot errors.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 16-1-2009 @ 12:46 PM by Skyfloating
|
Originally posted by coredrill
I am to blame. I forgot about the Theosophy angle..(in the beginning when they took Blavatsky's age of the pyramid as the reference)
I should never have touch ed the Blavatsky Pyramid stuff and Ascended master thingy...
Sorry!
Theosophy is not the only source saying that the Sphinx is older than 10 000 years. Dig deeper.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 16-1-2009 @ 01:01 PM by Hanslune
|
reply to post by Skyfloating
Pray tell, those arguing for a greater age (not always as much as 10,000) were Maspero, Budge, Carpenter, Bauval, Hancock, Coxill, de Lubricz,
Domingo, Dobrev, Reader and Stadelmann..oh and Schoch but he's definitely not in the over 10,000 camp.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 16-1-2009 @ 01:12 PM by SLAYER69
|
reply to post by Hanslune
Armadas of ancient ice
sheets may have crumbled like dominoes
But the two major events both coincided with enormous so-called Heinrich events approximately 16,000 and 47,000 years ago, when huge numbers of
icebergs broke off of the Laurentide Ice Sheet, which covered most of Canada and much of the northern United States, into the north Atlantic.
Hendy proposes that the Heinrich events triggered sea-level rise, which caused the margins of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet to float up and destabilize.
I dont have a dog in this fight yet but I think it may be safe to say the 10.000 to 20.000 year range is not too far fetched.
[edit on 16-1-2009 by SLAYER69]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 16-1-2009 @ 01:28 PM by mmiichael
|
Dating the Sphinx has been based on calculating the amount of time the level of erosion has taken. As no one knows exactly in what state it was in
originally, possibly with a covering of some sort, this is wide open to divergent opinions.
We don't know exactly what the conditions were over the thoudsands of years, like the humidity, wind movement, water levels etc. A lot of it comes
down to intelligent guessing.
There are convincing arguments it was build well beyond the conservative estimates of 3000 BC. But there have been many trying to demonstrate it was
built beyond 12000 years ago with little support from anything else.
As it is such an impressive work the Sphinx attracts a lot of so-called experts giving their opinions.
Mike F
|
copyright & usage
|
|
