The Great Sphinx is more than 12,000 years old.

page: 6
58
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Excellent, thanks for the information about the strata of stones.

So, is it possible the stone used for the temple complex could have been re-used from elsewhere even though it came from the same strata laevels as found in the pit, which are also found elsewhere?

Man, I'd give my left testicle to travel there just to feel it in place.




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Although this is a great Mystery & great Topic everything you say about Dates, Timelines and even the way Ancients carved or built such a thing is pure speculation.... the only way we will know for sure is if the people or 'Aliens' came back and told us....



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Great post! Perhaps the Egyptians modeled themselves after the great sphinx they found in the middle of the desert, hence the similarity between the sphinx and Egyptian art.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Historical-Mozart
 


Star & Flag for this thread!


The first time I read about the Sphinx possibly being much older then the most common theories, was in the early 90S. If I remember correctly it was in an Erich von Däniken book; ‘Die Augen der Sphinx’.

It isn’t that hard to notice that the head is (now) much smaller then the body of the statue and questions being raised if the head is possibly being re-carved aren’t that silly anymore.

It’s true that the original Sphinx's head, could have been anything, theoretically that is. But whatever we can imagine, it’s often something a very simple solution. For the answer is staring us too often right in our face.

Although the Sphinx’s face / head, looks now like a face of an old Egyptian King or Queen, I believe the head was originally that of a Lion’s head. Simple: Lion body with a Lion head!

Why do I think so?

Well if you go back in history there are lots of stories and myths about Lions. All these stories have to come from a particular source in the past. In other words, there must have been ‘something’ that influenced people to keep certain aspects of real happenings in remembering trhougout the ages.

The reason for ALL stories, either historical, myth, religious or otherwise that were worth fully enough to be kept ‘alive’, verbally (father to son, priest to priest etc) or much later on through depicting and writing, is that they must have been IMPORTANT enough to be kept alive.

The truth is often so simple that it’s even so often overlooked.

Here is some possible ‘evidence’ of why I think the Sphinx was originally. nothing more then one huge Lion: body and haed!!

The keyword is LION.


1. Lions are often depicted to GUARD something or someone. They are still built as statues to guard ‘special’ buildings, like Houses of Power (f.e. Justice buildings) or Royalty.


2. Lions symbolize: courage, power, royalty, authority, domination, wisdom and justice.


3. I know that lots of people do not believe in Astrology, however information about Zodiac signs are ancient knowledge. About LEO:


The fact that it is a nocturnal creature means that the lion is a symbol of authority and command over subconscious thought (as night is an ancient symbol of the subconscious - or dream states).


Source: www.whats-your-sign.com/symbolic-meaning-of-lions.html


4. Lions were WAR DEITIES (all female) of Egypt. Humans like to remember their victories:


Ancient Egypt venerated the lioness (the fierce hunter) as their war deities and among those in the Egyptian pantheon are, Bast, Mafdet, Menhit, Pakhet, Sekhmet, Tefnut, and the Sphinx; Among the Egyptian pantheon also are SONS of these goddesses such as, Maahes, and, as attested by Egyptians as a Nubian deity, Dedun.


Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion

5. The Greek Myth of the Nemean Lion. All myths have a Real core in their stories.

Hercules' first task was to slay the Nemean Lion, the offspring of Typhon and Echidna. Twice as large as a normal lion, the animal had skin so tough that no weapons could penetrate it.


The Nemean Lion was one of the many offspring of half-woman and half-serpent Echidna and her husband, the 100-headed Typhon. It lived in Argolis terrifying people. The skin of the lion was impenetrable, so when Hercules tried to shoot it from a distance, he failed to kill it. It wasn't until Hercules used his olive-wood club to stun the beast, that he was then able to strangle it to death. Hercules decided to wear the Nemean Lion skin as protection, but couldn't skin the animal until he took one of the Nemean Lion's own claws to rip up the skin.


Source: ancienthistory.about.com


THE LEON NEMEIOS was a large lion, whose hide was impervious to weapons, which plagued the district of Nemea in the Argolis. King Eurystheus commanded Herakles to destroy the beast as the first of his twelve Labours. The hero cornered the lion in its cave and seizing it by the neck wrestled it to death. He then skinned its hide to make a lion-skin cape, one of his most distinctive attributes. Hera afterwards placed the lion amongst the stars as the CONSTELLATION Leo.


Source: www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/mythology/nemean_lion.html

More on the Nemean Lion: www.sigmabooks.gr/txt_mth_en_en3.html


6. The Lion Man: Narasimha
In ancient India there is a story about the God ‘Vishnu’ (Hiduism), who once reincarnated as Narasimha. This ‘Lion God’, was half lion, half man. His torso and lower body was human his face was that of a Lion and he had lion’s claws.

www.namaste.it/kundalini/dasavatar/narashima.jpg

7. Lion can symbolize also TRANSFORMATION.


Transformation, the act of changing from one form into another, is a common theme in (Greek) mythology. The gods had the power to change themselves into animals, birds, or humans and often used this power to trick goddesses or women.


Source: www.mythencyclopedia.com/Go-Hi/Greek-Mythology.html#ixzz0UHyaAMlv


8. Lion’s ancestors: the Panthrea Leo Spelaea. Pure biological history, that shows that lions lived on Earth zillions of ages ago.


The " cave lion ", Panthera leo spelaea that lived in Europe 600,000 years ago, now is extinct. Fossils have been found in England and near Alazeya River in Siberia. In a British site was found the skull of the most ancient feline (100,000 years ago).


Source: www.paleolithicartmagazine.org/pagina65html.html


9. Lion statues everywhere.
To give an example of how the measurements are of a Lion’s body to a Lion’s head, I uploaded some pics.

Lion statue on Dam Square, Amsterdam (The Netherlands):



Lion statue in China:



Lion statue on Chain Bridge, Budapest:



Lion statue (ancient) in Iraq:



What struck me is that on the Sphinx, when you look at it in it's face, that there is a little ' bump' in the stone, right between the front arms upwards to the face. For me that was the sign that possibly there has been an enourmous head instead of the Sphinx head that we see today.


Although I can imagine that the jumps of my hop-scotching can confuse some people, I hope at least some of you can follow my way of thinking.



[edit on 10/18/2009 by Melyanna Tengwesta]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by radarloveguy


Howdy RLG

the amount of erosion on the sphinx , makes me think

it is definately over 12000 years old



How do you know its 'definately' over 12,000 years old?



He didn't say he knows, he said he thinks it's definately over 12000 years old. Read before you attack, one word can make a difference



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegreatobserver
reply to post by Historical-Mozart
 


If the Sphinx or parts of it, as it appears, is around 12,000 years old, meaning pre-egyptian in terms of civilizations, then who built it?
Also, what about the temples and pyramids itself around the Sphinx?


The Atlanteans built the ORIGINAL Lion in the desert over 9,000 years
ago. The bottom half of the lion was buried in the sand. Over the thousands of years, the lion head was worn down into
an ugly stump. Eventually, an Egyptian pharaoh came along and
said that stump looks ugly. Put my head on top.
That is why we have a Sphinx today.


[edit on 18-10-2009 by Eurisko2012]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
This thread just caught my eye after I'd just finished watching the 3 part series "Quest for the lost civilisation" by Graham Hancock. A good watch and can be found on the net.

Lots of similarities between so many of the ancient monuments / temples across the world, it's really quite staggering and something that continues to fascinate me.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr


Don't worry the theories on human evolution are fine the sphinx cannot be 12000 years old for one reason every one seems to ignore.If it was that old it would have eroded to the point we wouldn't even knew it existed.

And another problem with this whole theory is people believe it doesn't rain in Egypt it does also theres Nile floods as well used to happen every year until the dam was built.So we ruled out weathering as an indication of the age.


Half of you guys are saying it was air erosion and now you come along and say it was rain and Nile river erosion... Which is it?

Also in this post you claim "we ruled out weathering" Who is we? Then if we go a few posts further into this topic you claim it is a hobby of yours. So is we you and your spouse? You and your archeological inspection team? Or you, yourself and Irene?

The Sphinx sits at 63feet above sea level. The old Nile flood plane only went as high as 59feet in total. To reach the neck of the Sphinx and cause this Nile river damage that you speculate upon it would need to rise an additional 40 feet above its highest ever mark as the neck begins 36ft above the base. The Romans only observed a 7-8foot rise and this didn't even reach the 59ft mark. It was a 12foot rise that reached it's highest ever mark that the Egyptians conferred to Julian during the Roman occupation. These flood levels still fall far short of your hoped for river erosion. Not to mention that these levels regularly were around the 55ft above sea level mark and seldom ever made it (if at all) to 59ft mark.

The builders of the Sphinx were well aware of the Nile Flood plain my friend and the possible problems that it could deliver to this monument. Hence they built it well above this annual flooding pattern's potential.

Nice try though.



[edit on 18-10-2009 by 3DPrisoner]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3DPrisoner
The builders of the Sphinx were well aware of the Nile Flood plain my friend and the possible problems that it could deliver to this monument. Hence they built it well above this annual flooding pattern's potential.



Yes, 3DPrisoner, the Great Sphinx was built well above the flood plain, indeed.


Take a look at this map...

maps.google.com...

...that shows how far away from the Nile River the Giza Plaza is and look at how much build-up there is around the Giza Plaza.


And it is my personal opinion that the Atlanteans built the Sphinx in order to preserve some of their records and in order to preserve their existence for posterity.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by 3DPrisoner
 


Its Not the flowing water that causes the erosion of the sphinx it is rising water tables. When the Nile floods it causes the water table to raise limestone acts as a wick allowing moisture to seep into weaker parts of the limestone then it dries and flakes. The current renovation of the Sphinx is currently dealing with this exact problem.

The limestone literally breaks off in what looks like potato chips. The softer limestone will leave cracks and crevices.Currently the Egyptian government is looking into how to protect the monuments from the rising water table.In case you didn't know this either they operate pumps near the Sphinx trying to remove water to prevent it from further damage.However in reality this is a futile gesture.As for the rain every time it rains the limestone dries and they literally have to shovel out the debris it causes.


PS as a side note the only way to protect the Sphinx for future generations is to bury it in sand. This of course defeats the purpose.

[edit on 10/18/09 by dragonridr]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by 3DPrisoner
 


Its Not the flowing water that causes the erosion of the sphinx it is rising water tables. When the Nile floods it causes the water table to raise limestone acts as a wick allowing moisture to seep into weaker parts of the limestone then it dries and flakes. The current renovation of the Sphinx is currently dealing with this exact problem.

The limestone literally breaks off in what looks like potato chips. The softer limestone will leave cracks and crevices.Currently the Egyptian government is looking into how to protect the monuments from the rising water table.In case you didn't know this either they operate pumps near the Sphinx trying to remove water to prevent it from further damage.However in reality this is a futile gesture.As for the rain every time it rains the limestone dries and they literally have to shovel out the debris it causes.


PS as a side note the only way to protect the Sphinx for future generations is to bury it in sand. This of course defeats the purpose.

[edit on 10/18/09 by dragonridr]


I've heard this theory and I don't buy it. The erosion does indeed resemble the work of flowing water. Just not flowing Nile spill over water.

None of the ruins that surround the Sphinx (i.e. the old temple in front of the Sphinx nor the one that is offset which came later) share this erosion and they sit well below the neck. In fact the base of the old temple is 8 feet lower than the base of the Sphinx. Egyptologists maintain that the old temple directly in front of the Sphinx was quarried from the limestone immediately surrounding the Sphinx itself. Therefore these blocks should be eroded to the extent that the Sphinx was if not worse with identical rings that penetrate just as far into those carved limestone walls and pillars as happened to the Sphinx. Unfortunately for your argument they are not and in most cases retained their true 90degree edges. Not only that but they are many times thinner than the body of the Sphinx and should have disintegrated at a far quicker rate should your theory of water table erosion hold true. To add insult to injury the free standing pillars in the inner courtyard of the old temple still have perfectly flat faces with no rings what so ever!

I maintain that this alleged old temple came much later than the Sphinx and was not quarried from the area surrounding the Sphinx. But right or wrong on the true age of the old temple it does at least prove that the water table erosion is not the culprit to the Sphinx otherwise the old temple would mirror the Sphinx in water erosion which it clearly does not.

Here is a link that clearly shows the lack of erosion resemblance of the old temple in front of the Sphinx. Pay particular attention to the free standing stones in the middle of the old temple courtyard.- farm1.static.flickr.com...



[edit on 18-10-2009 by 3DPrisoner]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
I believe the sphinx was a lion many years ago (perhaps even more than the suggested 12,000). I represents our lost connection with the higher intelligences, that many thousands years ago came to instruct us the way to evolve spiritually so we could recover our place were we used to belong before we fell here on earth.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
I must apologise if this question is not terribly related, has been answered, or has already been posed. I am ridiculously tired and have only skimmed the topic.

If the sphynx is of such an age and had its head re-carved into its present form from than an original theorised representation of Anubis' head (or in fact any other different head), surely there would be significantly different erosion patterns on the head compared to the the body?

What I mean is, if it is of this theorised age, the body would most likely have erosion patterns showing periods of rain, and the head would not.

If such a recarving occurred, I would not be surprised if there were extremely obvious patterns indicating such.

If so, then that would be extremely strong evidence towards a much older age for the Sphynx, as well as more evidence towards the theory of the original head being a representation of Anubis.

I haven't seen the Sphinx in person for a good year or so, and when I did I never thought to look for things like this.

Does anybody have any photos that might show different erosion patterns for the body and head?

Does anybody agree that this would be a very easy way to show compelling evidence towards both the theory that it is much older than currently accepted, as well as the theory that it originally was carved with a representation of Anubis' head?

I could be extremely tired and getting my times mixed up though! My sleeping pills have kicked in and I cannot think clearly. I hope this makes sense.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by booblessed]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by 3DPrisoner
 


I originally had the same thought as you but then i realized through looking into the current renovation project whats truly happening. In fact the Egyptians didn't know until things started getting worse. The temple is built above the water table made of free standing stones.It never even comes close to water except for the rain.
The sphinx on the other hand is quarried from the limestone meaning that the limestone extends under ground and does come in contact with the water table.This does allow the water to seep up wards using the wick effect i talked about earlier.This makes the limestone of the sphinx softer and causes the flaking.With the wick effect the weaker parts of the limestone is effected more heavily showing cracks and rounding corners as the limestone flakes off.

Since you apparently like Egypt and appear to have done some research let me ask you a question.They found a tomb for Osiris under the sphinx the Egyptians actually created a tomb for him.Why would they do this for a god since they usually built temples for them? Just interested in your thoughts.



















posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   
I'm surprised no one mentioned Göbekli Tepe in Turkey.

When I first read about this temple (here on ATS) it made it much easier for me to accept an older date for the Sphinx.

Göbekli Tepe is a massive temple complex with sophisticated sculpture that has been recently excavated and found to be approximately 11,500 years old! This is the conclusion of the excavating archeologists not the speculations of alternative theorists.

It has been discussed on ATS: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is also the Wikipedia article.

This is an undisputed find showing that there was a culture capable of monumental stone construction in the general vicinity, but much earlier than the egyptian or mesopotamian civilizations.

And guess what the excavation team came across...little statues with lions' bodies and human heads!

Maybe the original head of the Sphinx was human as well rather than that of a lion as some have guessed, but Khafre or another pharoah may have thought that his head would look better there.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Because of the ongoing interesting discussion, could this maybe interesting for some here.
This is a Documentary on the Sphinx and pyramids featuring Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval and John Anthony West I personally see on video some years ago and I find it then and still very interesting.
The quality is not very good but still worth viewing.

Mystery of the Sphinx - part 1



Mystery of the Sphinx - part 2



Mystery of the Sphinx - part 3



Mystery of the Sphinx - part 4



Mystery of the Sphinx - part 5





[edit on 19/10/09 by spacevisitor]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by 3DPrisoner
 


I originally had the same thought as you but then i realized through looking into the current renovation project whats truly happening. In fact the Egyptians didn't know until things started getting worse. The temple is built above the water table made of free standing stones.It never even comes close to water except for the rain.
The sphinx on the other hand is quarried from the limestone meaning that the limestone extends under ground and does come in contact with the water table.This does allow the water to seep up wards using the wick effect i talked about earlier.This makes the limestone of the sphinx softer and causes the flaking.With the wick effect the weaker parts of the limestone is effected more heavily showing cracks and rounding corners as the limestone flakes off.

Since you apparently like Egypt and appear to have done some research let me ask you a question.They found a tomb for Osiris under the sphinx the Egyptians actually created a tomb for him.Why would they do this for a god since they usually built temples for them? Just interested in your thoughts.


That thought of yours might work if it were not for the fact that the old temple is sitting right on top of a limestone foundation as well. A foundation that penetrates just as far into the ground as the Sphinx does. Remember that this old temple foundation sits a full 8 feet lower than the Sphinx does to begin with which trumps your above the water table claim. I know this because limestone is a water permeable rock that will not produce pressure upwelling on its own and therefore uneven water levels. Granite will cause pressure upwellings due to it's impermeability but not limestone. Therefore the water table must remain level in this area. If this old temple were just sitting on sand alone it would have buckled and fallen (walls and pillars included) thousands of years ago. Therefore your water table must wick up (as you put it) and through this temple as well via it's foundation.

And by the way there is still serious argument as to whether the water table is truly coming up as high as you would like to think that it does. Some are maintaining that due to the slope that both of these structures are carved out of that it is laterally moving water that is doing the harm and that it is gravity not pressure or wicking (as you've termed it) that is driving the water damage further muddying the ground water theory. Mind you I'm not making that argument but others are.

This isn't a huge mound of sand that the Great Pyramid complex sits upon, but a very large upwelling of limestone bedrock. The Sphinx is not carved from a rock that is sitting as a island in sand, but out of the bedrock itself. Just as the walls around it are part of that bedrock.

For this temple to fit your description they would have had to carve out a hole in the limestone (which they indeed had to do) and then back fill it with sand and new stones in order to create a new foundation which wouldn't have made any sense and would have undermined the stableness of that temple, not to mention lengthening the completion process. And at any rate they did not do this. They leveled off the limestone and built upon it using it as a natural foundation. The water table would have come up just as far as a result and gone even higher too, submerging these stones as there are walls on each side of this temple that are part of the limestone bedrock as well. Not to mention that the water table of your theory must penetrate even higher than the temple itself when the Sphinx and it's surrounding walls which sit behind and higher are taken into account.

This leads me up to your free standing stones objection. That might have worked but there's a serious problem with this premise. The reason why it is best to use two different metals when they must contact each other is because water will travel through both of those mediums if they are identical and cause a oxidation effect known as rust. Now what do we have at the old temple? Two exact mediums of stone for water to traverse just as you are claiming that it does. Once the water wicks up through this foundation it will continue wicking up right through those free standing stones of yours as there is no barrier to this process to occur. You might think of countering that they might have used mortar between the free standing stone and the foundation but there is no evidence of this occurring and even if they did that mortar would have been primarily composed of limestone as well bringing you back to square one.

So when you have water that is higher than a structure, and vacuuming up the water into the temple itself as you would have happen here with your wick effect and has a slope that channels this water right into the old temple itself it becomes amazing if not impossible that this temple is even there much less not exhibiting your potato chip erosion term should your theory hold true.

Nice attempt at moving the goal posts though.

Here is another link to show you that this is indeed what they did.
www.davidpbillington.net...

As far as them carving a temple into the bottom of the Sphinx is concerned and why they did it one can reverse your question and ask you why they broke regular protocol and left a completely barren King's chamber in the Great Pyramid. My answer to both would be because those who did this (i.e. the Great Pyramid/Sphinx) were not Egyptian.




[edit on 19-10-2009 by 3DPrisoner]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Historical-Mozart
 



So why on Earth do they so vigorously deny the obvious?


I also thought that knowing the sphinx was much older should boost tourism. A reason why they would want to hide this information occurred to me while reading here about the New York detective's work. He suggested the original face on the sphinx was that of an African woman.

The Egyptians, it seems to me, want all of the ancient glory to be theirs. They do not want a greater glory going to an African culture that may have preceded them. In other words they want all the credit. I believe that there is great animosity between the Arabs in Northern Africa and the blacks further south has there not? It might hurt their pride if it came to be known that many of their marvels were creations of an advanced civilization of people who were black and not Arab.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Interesting thread! It appears that historically the "head" of government is always a direct reflection of the predominant family dynamics of the time.

Up until about 3000 BC


The clans of Egypt were matri-lineal, in that the mother was seen as the primary parent of her family, perhaps due to a lack of knowledge regarding the processes of conception.


www.crystalinks.com...

Maybe they should just grind the head of the Sphinx down to a flat on the neck and use Velcro?

[edit on 19-10-2009 by fromunclexcommunicate]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kantele
I believe the sphinx was a lion many years ago (perhaps even more than the suggested 12,000). I represents our lost connection with the higher intelligences, that many thousands years ago came to instruct us the way to evolve spiritually so we could recover our place were we used to belong before we fell here on earth.


Yes and Adam was picking an apple with Eve only 6,000 years ago.
So what does that mean???





new topics
top topics
 
58
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join