Age of the Sphinx, A glaring issue about it's age!

page: 1
122
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+75 more 
posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Hello and welcome again to my way of thinking


I know there have been a few threads on the topic of the Age of the Sphinx. In this thread I'll try to bring a new angle so as to make it unique. I'll try to hit on something I've never heard discussed and may have been over looked by those who support a much older Sphinx theory.

For the Record: I'm still on the fence about the age of the Sphinx. Truthfully, I could argue and debate both sides of this question all day long.
So having said that, I'll present my biggest issues with the dates given. I wasn't going to get into the whole Sphinx question in a thread of my own but after much coaxing by a few respected members I decided to post one on the topic. I provided some of the following information in another thread of mine that Is presently active but again a few members thought it deserved it's own thread so against my better judgment I have relented


Now supposedly the Great Sphinx was carved at or around approximately 2500 BC by the pharaoh Khafra. Supposedly, if we are to believe the given time line the builder of the second pyramid at Giza.




The sphinx was carved in place and is the single largest statue in the world. Because of that there are many layers of strata. {I'm no expert but using common sense it raises many questions} Some have theorized the excessive weathering is proof of it being much older than the given date. This is an interesting hypothesis. I agree {To a certain extent} with what Academia says about it being simple wind/sand driven weathering. What I question is if what we are told about its age is true and that it was created at the same time as the Second large pyramid of Giza was then why does it's body and enclosure show so much more wear?



We are told that throughout it's long history that it was buried periodically up to and possible over it's head. The sand would have insulated it against wear and erosion such as wind and water damage {from the little amount of rain the Plateau receives} Yet there are tantalizing signs of both wind and water effects.




Before we go further, Take a minutes and look closely at the last image above. Notice the Sphinx body and the enclosure behind it. Now look the blocks of the Temple directly in front. Notice the variations between the two with regards to the amount of wear/weathering also notice the conditions of the Sphinx's face and head.

If it were simply wind/sand gouging out areas of the weaker/softer layers of limestone then the temple structures from the same or nearly the same supposed period should also show similar wear. If it were water damage/erosion then why doesn't the temples also show similar amounts of erosion/weathering?

The temple/temples {there are two in the area} were supposedly built around the same time as the Sphinx {+ or - a few years} was being carved with blocks taken from the Sphinx enclosure {Which means the blocks were of the same strength/weakness as it's body} for the temples construction as the enclosure was being excavated so to be able to carve the body. They are in much better shape and appear to be built against the enclosure wall from a much earlier period. This is the thrust of this thread.

Look closely at the outer wall of the temple. Notice the weathering difference up top?
The ones up top and behind show similar weathering to the Sphinx and its enclosure





In the next couple of aerial top down views you'll notice the Sphinx in its enclosure also notice the wall from this angle on the left extends up to and beyond the temple. Now the outer wall of the enclosure and the wall the temple butts up against show similar weathering as the Sphinxes body and enclosure.



Reverse angle for comparison



Let me reiterate...
It appears {And this is something I hear little about} that the outer wall of the temple which butts up against what appears to be a wall that shows similar weathering as the Sphinx and it's enclosure. But the temple itself appears to be in much better shape. Now how is that if they were created around the same period?





Many will argue that the temple blocks are in better shape because they were buried and protected from weathering. OK, so again why does the body of the "Sphinx, the outer walls of it's enclosure and the outside wall the temple butts up against" all show similar weathering which were also buried? Not to mentioned the Sphinx's face and head {That was exposed more often and longer than the body to wind erosion} and is in much better shape...

Some may argue:

"Water erosion would still have occurred as rain trickled down through the sand. Limestone is very suceptible to erosion from percolating rain."

My response would be, OK Fair enough...

Now answer me this. Then if that's the case why doesn't the limestone "Temple Blocks" supposedly from the same time period and material which were also buried and subjected to the same effect show little or no erosion equal to the extent of the Sphinx, it's enclosure and the outer wall the temples butt up against? Again, It appears to me that the Sphinx and its original enclosure were carved in a much earlier period.

This is a strong argument for the Sphinx being older than the given date and why it's head is in better shape {And proportionally smaller than the body} One could argue that the pharaoh Khafra didn't carve the Sphinx while building the Second Pyramid at Giza in 2500 BC. Instead some suspect he re-carved an already existing statues head while building the temple, Which is why the "Supposedly exposed" head and the temple are in much better shape than the possibly older body or it's enclosure.

Also {Which is why the head of the Sphinx is very Un-Egyptian like in it's head to body proportions} The Egyptian carvings of statues and other engravings were always very proportional when it came to their gods and deities etc.

So to summarize.

Those who wil argue that the head and face are in better condition because it wasn't buried and subjected to the ground moister like the body was. Answer me this? Then why doesn't the Temple at the same level {and made of the same material} as the body also show the same amount of moister damage?

For those who will argue that the body and enclosure were heavily worn from Wind/Sand erosion then why doesn't the temple or the Sphinx's head/face show an equal amount of wear/erosion? They were just as exposed if not longer at times than the body and it's enclosure.


So what are your thoughts on the subject?
It is fun to speculate



As always my friends have
a great day

edit on 11-7-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
First off, as always, your posts never fail to entertain, enlighten and intrigue me.

Second, if I'm understanding what you're getting at, this evidence suggests that the sphinx was constructed around the time of the first pyramid, maybe even earlier? If so, I really have no idea what this would mean.

The one thing that has always bothered me about the sphinx is that with how precisely built the pyramids are, how did the builders of the sphinx get the proportions wrong? The body is way too long and the head is too small. Also, the front paws are too big. Maybe there is a reason for this. Also, why build an enclosure around it? Anyway, star and flag for another great thread.
edit on 11-7-2011 by holyTerror because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Very interesting thread thank you. I have read and 'heard' in the past that the area was underwater for a time, not sure how plausible this is. I read recently there was a lot of water in the bottom chamber underneath the Sphinx, which had to be drained so the exploration could be continued. I believe it gets a mention in this video, which itself is a pretty good watch if you haven't seen it.




posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
The Sphinx IS older than the buildings around it. It was actually built around 10,000BC. Also, its head was that of a female, NOT a male, when it was constructed.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
My thoughts are that no one knows how old it is, nor does anyone know how old the pyramids are. Attempts have been made to carbon date the pyramids using mortar samples (you can't carbon date the stone because all that will tell you is how old the stone is). The mortar samples led them to date the pyramids to around 3200 b.c., but a nearby stele states that the pyramids were renovated around that time which no doubt would have included repointing the mortar joints (this is the practice of filling voids in existing mortar joints with new mortar, or even raking out the old joints and installing new mortar). The sphinx cannot be carbon dated at all since no mortar was used in its construction (as you mentioned, it was carved in place from a rock outcropping). Unless some long-lost documentation is discovered in a hidden tomb in the area, we will probably never know the true age or purpose of the pyramids and sphinx. It's an enduring mystery.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Because the Sphinx was built from the limestone bedrock, which of course is layered. Some layers are more compressed/stronger than others, which accounts for the uneven and strange looking erosion patters you see on the Sphinx.

The Old Sphinx Temple was built from limestone blocks, which were excavated and cut, and gave the builders a choice of quality.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Excellent topic.

Built by the VERY 1st Egyptians..... not the ones we are taught to believe did.

Altered over time.... by different leaders.

Had to have been done by a large society/population base. Therefore, with what you pointed out-I believe- about it being older than believe and the weatherization of it only supports my statement.

I have always contented that the Egyptian we are taught to believe as the ones who built everything-didn't. They came across it -meaning the Gizas and Sphinx were already there and as the "New" egyptians developed, they tried to reproduce the Gizas and couldn't. What we see as evidence of "how they did it (the new egytians) is just their attempts to show how they thought the Giza were done and how they attempted to copy/mimic.

Are there any records indicating who actually built the whole thing? and when? no....

PS: The blinking black line... Perfect touch.!!
edit on 7/11/2011 by anon72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
It honestly looks like the head shows a lot less erosion. My educated guess would be the sphynx's head used to be something else and was re-carved to emulate a leader. I'll be the first to say that I don't know a whole lot about ancient Egypt, but the fact that the head is so small comparatively to the body suggests that it could have been re-carved.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
the sphinx was dug out of the ground, those walls are not actually walls but the ground and the enclosure is a hole dug out to create the body of the sphinx, the layers and grooves from older photos of the sphinx match up to the grooves/layers in those "walls"

I watched this in a documentary, i will try to find it



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
My thoughts are largely in line with those of respected geologist Colin Reader:

www.thehallofmaat.com...

Of course, the rock itself (varying layers of fairly soft limestone) is a lot older! And it does occur to me that some of the observed erosion could have already been in place before it was carved.

In summary - I believe that it may well predate Khafre and that the head may have have been recarved. But it is not as old as some would like to think, nor is it evidence of an early advanced civilisation.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Backslider


Because the Sphinx was built from the limestone bedrock, which of course is layered. Some layers are more compressed/stronger than others, which accounts for the uneven and strange looking erosion patters you see on the Sphinx.

The Old Sphinx Temple was built from limestone blocks, which were excavated and cut, and gave the builders a choice of quality.



Quick and to the point.

I'm sure many will star it. BUT, Now answer the other glaring question on the Face and Head of the Sphinx Which was exposed longer to the elements than the body and it being in much better shape? They couldn't choose that quality to work with for it's purpose because it is one single carving.

Remember, There are two questions to this issue.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyTrick
the sphinx was dug out of the ground, those walls are not actually walls but the ground and the enclosure is a hole dug out to create the body of the sphinx, the layers and grooves from older photos of the sphinx match up to the grooves/layers in those "walls"


Yes, most of us already know that.
This explains the better condition of the temple and head/face of the Sphinx how?



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Excellent topic Slayer. Since this is a conspiracy website, what are your feelings toward Zawi Hawass (Not sure of spelling)? Do you trust him, or do you think he's trying to re-write history to fit his agenda. To me,the biggest enigma of the Giza plateau, is the lack of hieroglyphs anywhere. If the Egyptians built these megaliths, where's the signature? His position on the sphinx, in my opinion serves to promote his agenda as well. How would it look if we find out the Egyptians only polished these monuments, and didn't really build them.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Of course, the rock itself (varying layers of fairly soft limestone) is a lot older! And it does occur to me that some of the observed erosion could have already been in place before it was carved.


How could erosion have already occurred before they excavated the enclosure to remove the temple blocks and or carve the Sphinx body?


In summary - I believe that it may well predate Khafre and that the head may have have been recarved. But it is not as old as some would like to think, nor is it evidence of an early advanced civilisation.


Who said anything about it being carved by an "Advanced civilization"



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
S & F

One of the things that I have always found interesting is that when shown just the rocks geologists will say that they demonstrate textbook water erosion that had to have occurred over thousands of years.

When it is revealed that the rocks are part of the Sphinx, the interview is over.

We know very little of our true history and what we do know is mostly lied about. I cannot decide which is the more interesting mystery...what is the truth, or why must it be covered up.

edit on 11-7-2011 by {davinci} because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
Excellent topic Slayer. Since this is a conspiracy website, what are your feelings toward Zawi Hawass (Not sure of spelling)? Do you trust him, or do you think he's trying to re-write history to fit his agenda. To me,the biggest enigma of the Giza plateau, is the lack of hieroglyphs anywhere. If the Egyptians built these megaliths, where's the signature? His position on the sphinx, in my opinion serves to promote his agenda as well. How would it look if we find out the Egyptians only polished these monuments, and didn't really build them.


Ah yes "Hot Head Hawass" a very colorful fellow. I dunno. I find him interesting and I think his heart is in the right place but I still wouldn't trust him. I don't think there is really a coordinated "Conspiracy" per say. More along the lines of if something doesn't quite fit into the time line I think they play it down or maybe not display "Something whatever that may be" in their museums or not allow access to certain sites etc.

Not because they are hiding something but maybe because they are unsure of how it fits.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SavedOne
 


All very good points.
So we have to go by the accepted time lines and what were are told happened. Yet, there is physical evidence which runs contrary to that.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I have been there. That place is really amazing.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Ramcheck
 


Thank you for the video. I'll watch it a bit later.
I have things to attend to here at the moment.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Farnhold
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I have been there. That place is really amazing.



Awesome!
So from your first hand experience and memory.
Can you collaborate the differences I've outlined here today?





top topics
 
122
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join