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.

 

Does the Great Egyptian Sphinx Date back to the Pleistocene

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   

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



Exactly, no one can demonstrate a known rate of erosion for the various types of limestone (that is what causes the layers on the Sphinx) times unknown weather conditions times in what percentage of exposure/cover.

Lots of eduguessing going on - for both sides with some unwarrented speculation thrown in.

[edit on 16/1/09 by Hanslune]




posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
In a sci-fi novel I wrote over 20 years ago, I posted the hypothesis that tha Great Sphinx and Great Pyramid had been around since 10,800 BCE. One reason that I'd mentioned is that the Sphinx could well be a time-marker showing the dividing point between the constellations Virgo and Leo, which occurred at about that date. I had one character saying, Shouldn't the proper arrangement be with Leo in front and Virgo behind?" Another character replied, "Well, wouldn't that be a funny sight?"



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

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


Sure. You're bound to find another source...

Say... one of Skyfloating's old posts filled with unsubstantiated claims, for instance.

Harte



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

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.


Two different means of dating the sphinx are laid out on this page of ATS' wikipedia site, Tinwiki:
Dating the Sphinx

If you read that, you'll see that neither method involves wind or water erosion.

The Egyptologists date it based on the dream Stela.

Schoch dates it based on an assumption that rear floor of the enclosure was carved out by Kaphre and that the front floor seems to have been exposed to air for far longer than the rear.

In the case of Schoch's method, water and sand covering the enclosure's floor wouldn't make any difference in the rate of subsurface weathering incurred by the limestone from which it is carved.

The Dream Stela useage dates the entire Sphinx to Kaphre's time.


Originally posted by mmiichaelThere 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.

I'm unaware of any date proposed for the sphinx that could be called both "conservative" and involve the year 3,000 BC.

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



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Within this article coming out that brought to mind some other issues about the Sphinx that have been banging around forawhile

Excuse me Coredrill for making a slight digression from the thread.

I had wondered about....

How blocks that were quarried from the enclosure around the Sphinx were used in other structures.

In particular I asked over at the Hall of Ma'at about "200" ton blocks that were claimed by Bauval and Hancock and about which structure had stones from the Sphinx enclosure

Archae Solenhofen comments


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.


Stones quarred from the Sphinx enclosure are found


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.


References frin Archae

It's was the geological investigations of Aigner (1982).

Aigner, T. (1982) Zur Geologie und Geoarchäologie des Pyramidenplateaus von Giza, Ägypten Natur und Museum, 112: p.377-388.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
I believe that the head of the sphinx has probably been re-carved multiple times. This is why it looks so disproportionately small compared to the rest of the lion's body.

It's also totally probable that the body was built around the head later on too. Perhaps the Sphinx it's self was nothing more than a wind eroded rock hill, with a very ancient head carved on the top, then the body carved into the shape of a lion later.

All these things make it impossible for us to date the Sphinx by erosion.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by GodForbid
 


Welcome GF

I hold to a similar scenario. I think there was a rock there that stuck out of the sand which reminded the AE's of one of their basic religious beliefs of the mound arising out of the water. It may have been a mystic site going back into late neolithic days. As the Giza pyramids were being built and stone quarried somebody got the bright idea direct the quarry activities in such a way to develop the body of the sphinx and perhaps at ths time to crave the head as we see now or perhaps a preliminary version. The positioning of the ramp to the mortuary temples shows that something was there and it may have been the sphinx head and temple.

Can we prove that? Nope



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
IMO, there's absolutely no doubt that the head once rose above the surrounding landscape, given the fact that it still does!

It's a limestone outcropping, one of literally hundreds (if not thousands) scattered all over North Aftica.

The others are sometimes referred to a "natural sphinxes" for this reason.

Harte



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
the sphinx was build 10,000 years ago, when its was a great ocean in egypt, due to my exploration of the ancient worlds,like the sumerians, and other great civilizations in both asia and africa, i have come to beleve that the sphinx was built by a people that was atleast as advanced as the egyptians or even greater advanced, i you see the ``scars`` on the side of the sphinx you see that the markings are from heavily rain, for many years, i do not want you to see my screen name thats why i write anonymously.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by coredrill
 


Dude, I think it may be a left over from a previous earth. Meaning, there have been other civilizations that have come and gone on our planet.

Destroyed by such things as a great flood, meteor, etc..



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SailorinAZ
 


Howdy Sailor

That might be true but to verify that you'd need to actually find some evidence of these civilizations. A rock in an Ancient Egyptian quarry, surrounded by AE structures, trash and no sign of any other civilization is hard to place into the hands of another unknown civilization.

Any unknown pottery? Nope
Any unknown stone tools? Nope
Any unknown burials of people not thought to be Egyptian? Nope
Any habitations not thought to be Egyptian? Nope

One's list of evidence grows rather thin I think

Remember it's easy for a fringe writer to claim the Sphinx was made by another civilization - they just ignore all existing evidence to the contrary - if you do that - then yes it's easy to claim another civilization did it.

AATS guy or gal



i do not want you to see my screen name thats why i write anonymously.


Okay then we'll just ignore you then!

[edit on 20/1/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   

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

Unfortunately if that room is man made and contains artifacts they will all be underwater now.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


www.s8int.com...

www.strangemag.com...

There is some evidence that indicates that there could have been other civilizations/earths prior to the one we know. There is no proof, and the evidence is sketchy, but it is a possibility.

If there were others, they would not have, had to been just like us. For example. Look at the Aztecs. They were pretty advanced yet did not even have the wheel or used beasts for labor.

Any common artifacts that could have been left on the surface and on the surface around ancient Egypt probably would have been picked up by those early people inhabiting those areas.

I included a couple links.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by QuantumBud
 


There was also an H.P. Lovecraft story, ghost written for Harry Houdini called Imprisoned with the Pharaohs which suggested the Sphinx predated Egyptian culture by a great many years.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

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.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join