Originally posted 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.

Mike F

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Theosophy is not the only source saying that the Sphinx is older than 10 000 years. Dig deeper.

Mr. Bauval has admitted that the claims of hundred of blocks regularly exceeding 200 tons in Khafre's Valley temple in Hancock and Bauval (1996) was a "gross exaggeration" [www.grahamhancock.com], and he was not able to give an exact location for any blocks of this weight coming from the area of the Sphinx enclosure. Mr. Hancock insinuated he would like to discuss large blocks when he came back from Japan... that was about 2 years ago and I have heard nothing since from him on this matter. Mr. West apparently does not want to discuss it anymore, at least not with me, since there are a few 200 ton blocks in the bottom course of Menkaure's Valley temple and a large block in the pavement of Khafre's pyramid enclosure. Mr. West years ago on the Maat messageboard stated that there was a couple of close to 200 ton blocks in the Sphinx temple and that the ones in Khafre's Valley temple were a bit smaller. From the rough dimensions he gave of 9m x 2m x 2.5m the weight of his Sphinx temple blocks is not 200 tons, it's about 100 tons. Dr. Schoch did not appear to want to discuss the Sphinx with me when he was Author of the Month at GHMB so I didn't bother asking him. I think we can take it from this that there are no 200 ton blocks in area of Sphinx temple and Khafre's Valley temple.

Some of the blocks in the Sphinx temple have the same bedding as the Member II limestone of the Sphinx's body and enclosure walls.

and there is also the famous hidden room beneath the paw of the Sphinx.

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by mmiichael

BTW, You're still right. Giza is an ancient limestone plateau. The Sphinx is near where the Nile once ran. Such a positioning could well have resulted in the eastern part of the "future" Sphinx being bordered on both sides and in front by gullies carved into the stione by runoff from the plateau, the vast majority of which is uphill from the Sphinx.

These gullies could have exposed deeper portions of limestone, possibly even caves or small cavities, resulting in an earlier apparent date for the excavation of the front of the monument than for the rear.

See, the "subsurface" weathering begins at the surface, when it is exposed to aitr. the weathering extends futrther down into the rock with time.

Schoch assumed the more weathered front was the result of an earlier excavatuion for that part, but the fact is, it just as easily could be due to exposure to the air by other means, such as guillies or caves.

So, when you said that "no one knows exactly in what state it was in originally," you nailed it, pal.
Harte

That's interesting about Robert Schoch. I've found his earlier dating of the Sphinx compelling and reasonable. He doesn't offer sensational theories. Schoch is also willing to answer academic queries by email. I'm not academically versed in archaeology, your comments offer something new to think about. Thanks.

Bauval and Hancock have been meaningless to me since the debacle of the Cydonia tie-in to the Giza Plateau I was caught up in the excitement of the early 90s resurgence in ET civilization and those two played a large part in my disillusionment. It was a good thing. They taught me the value of critical thinking as much as the subsequent four years at University. Once hoaxed, forever critical. My mind is much more open as a result.