Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 10
122
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 23 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Sphinx is about 12,000 yrs old according to water damage specialist geologists...hawas starts stroking out when this is mentioned




posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Dear SLAYER69,

In response to your OP, I always listen to geologists and work with a couple. What we know about the history of the sphinx is almost nothing. There are no writings or inscriptions regarding it in the Old Kingdom period. The lower parts of the sphinx shows water erosion going from top to bottom rather than sideways as would occur with shifting sand. The head of the sphinx is not proportional and would have exposed to more sandblasting from the environment which indicates the head was a reshaping done at a later point. Geologists claim it is from 4 to 5 thousand years b.c. (about 7,000 years old) old and Egyptologists say it is from 2,500 b.c. (4,500 years old), I side with the geologists. At least that is my two cents in response to your question. Great picks by the way.
edit on 24-7-2011 by AQuestion because: explain dating better



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   
That had was clearly re carved, by the looks of it the work was done much much later by people with better stone polishing techniques as well.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg
Sphinx is about 12,000 yrs old according to water damage specialist geologists...hawas starts stroking out when this is mentioned


If you knew at all what you were talking about, you'd know that practically every single geologist on Earth disagrees with your above statement.


Originally posted by AQuestion
Dear SLAYER69,

In response to your OP, I always listen to geologists and work with a couple. What we know about the history of the sphinx is almost nothing. There are no writings or inscriptions regarding it in the Old Kingdom period. The lower parts of the sphinx shows water erosion going from top to bottom rather than sideways as would occur with shifting sand.

This is fantasy.

The "water erosion" hypothesis has nothing to do with erosion on the Sphinx body, it is based on erosion of the walls of the Sphinx enclosure.

However, the actual date Schoch arrived at is not based on water erosion at all. It's based on subsurface degradation of the limestone making up the floor of the Sphinx enclosure and Schoch attributes this to exposure to the air.

Harte



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
You are probably referring to Schoch who states on his website




To make a long story short, I came to the conclusion that the oldest portions of the Great Sphinx, what I refer to as the core-body, must date back to an earlier period (at least 5000 B.C., and maybe as early as 7000 or 9000 B.C.), a time when the climate was very different and included more rain.


Schoch's comments on the Sphinx



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 



I think the Egyptians didn't build anything. They just repaired what they found.


I think this could be a reason why Egypt has put the lock down and given the boot to any researcher who begins to ask questions in this direction.
edit on 8/27/2011 by Tsurugi because: Moderated my statement XD



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Ok, lots of debate here on wind or water erosion. I'm not a geologist by any means, but I live on the Texas Edwards Plateau(as mentioned by Byrd) and I see lots of erosion in limestone all the time. Which doesn't mean I know what I'm talking about, of course, so here's a couple questions I have...

Wind Erosion






Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't wind erosion tend to go sideways? As in, parallel to the ground, as in these pics? Whereas.....

Water Erosion






...tends to be perpendicular to the ground. (second image from the wall of the Sphinx enclosure) Of course, erosion by rolling sand dunes could be different than normal wind erosion. I dunno.

Interestingly, the erosion on the Sphinx itself:



...look like wind erosion, or maybe a combination of both? So to my admittedly untrained eye, the enclosure looks like water erosion, the statue looks like wind. WTF mate?

Comments?

 


As for a possibility of the head being changed, and the weird disproportion...I like the idea that it used to be a Lion:





Of course there is absolutely no proof of this. But it does look a lot cooler, yeah?



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tsurugi
reply to post by buster2010
 



I think the Egyptians didn't build anything. They just repaired what they found.


I think this could be a reason why Egypt has put the lock down and given the boot to any researcher who begins to ask questions in this direction.
edit on 8/27/2011 by Tsurugi because: Moderated my statement XD


Not really the people investigating the neolithic and earlier periods of Egyptian history haven't been interfered with at all.

Erosion? Looks to be a combination of wind, water, salt and thermal effects to me
edit on 27/8/11 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by holyTerror
...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.


I think the body of the Sphinx is mega-old and had a proportionate head originally. It looks too much like someone, 1000s of years later maybe, had the head chiseled down to look more like him.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TreadUpon

Originally posted by holyTerror
...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.


I think the body of the Sphinx is mega-old and had a proportionate head originally. It looks too much like someone, 1000s of years later maybe, had the head chiseled down to look more like him.


I'd say that a lump of limestone was sticking up there and was a shrine or even modified by the neolithic Egyptians then when the area around it was quarried away somebody came up with a great idea and made the sphinx. Later a different face was whittled from the previous head.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 



Not really the people investigating the neolithic and earlier periods of Egyptian history haven't been interfered with at all.


Are we even talking about the some thing here?
If we are, and these people haven't been interfered with, does that mean you agree that others have been interfered with? Did you respond with a confusing one-liner just to make me ask a bunch of stupid questions? Because it worked.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tsurugi
reply to post by Hanslune
 



Not really the people investigating the neolithic and earlier periods of Egyptian history haven't been interfered with at all.


Are we even talking about the some thing here?
If we are, and these people haven't been interfered with, does that mean you agree that others have been interfered with? Did you respond with a confusing one-liner just to make me ask a bunch of stupid questions? Because it worked.


I was responding to the comment below



I think the Egyptians didn't build anything. They just repaired what they found.


I think this could be a reason why Egypt has put the lock down and given the boot to any researcher who begins to ask questions in this direction.


This question points to the neolithic era before the AE are thought to have organized. The substance of this comment is that everything was built by someone else before the AE showed up. Those who study the neolithic & pre-dynastic era have not found any such group of people. All evidence points to the AE doing the deed



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Great thread! I was just reading about the water wear on the sphinx last night. There is a great book that delves deeply into this subject and many other anomalies about egypt called architects of the underworld. There is some very good info in there, MUST READ.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 



This question points to the neolithic era before the AE are thought to have organized. The substance of this comment is that everything was built by someone else before the AE showed up.

Yeah, the original statement was a bit over the top. I'm sure the AE built stuff.


Those who study the neolithic & pre-dynastic era have not found any such group of people. All evidence points to the AE doing the deed



'In the course of his questioning he (Herodotus) encountered one Manetho, an Egyptian High Priest, scholar and Historian, with whom he conversed at length thru the agency of an interpreter. Manetho informed his distinguished guest that the architect of the huge mass of stone was one "Philition", or "Suphis", of a people known as the "Hyksos", that is "Shepherd Kings". According to Manetho, the Shepherd Kings were "a people of ignoble race" who came from some unknown land in the East; they were a nomadic band who numbered not less than 280,000 souls; they brought with them their families and all mobile possessions, including vast flocks of sheep and herds of cattle; and they "had the confidence to invade Egypt, and subdued it without a battle". this same people, said Manetho, overthrew the then-reigning Dynasty, stamped out idolatry and endeavoured to firmly establish in the place thereof the worship of the One true God having completed the Great pyramid, migrated eastward into the land afterwards known as Judea and founded there the city of Salem, which later became Jerusalem, the Holy city.' (12) (It is noted that although Manetho is a proud Egyptian, he still stated that the pyramids were built by foreigners).



The following extract is from Seiss (15) - 'Wilford, in his Asiatic researches, vol. iii, p.225, give an extract from the Hindoo records which seem to support certain factors of Manetho's idea that they were of 'Arabian' origin. The extract says that one Tamo-vasta, a child of prayer, wise and devout, prayed for certain successes, and that God granted his requests, and that he came to Egypt with a chosen company, entered it "without any declaration of war, and began to administer justice among the people, to give them a specimen of a good king". This Tamo-vasta is represented in the account as a good king of the powerful people called the Pali. Shepherds, who in ancient times governed the whole country from the Indus to the mouth of the Ganges, and spread themselves, mainly by colonization and commerce, very far through Asia, Africa and Europe. They colonised the coasts of the Persian Gulf and the Sea-Coasts of Arabia, Palestine, and Africa, and ere the long-haired people called the Berbers in North Africa. They are likewise called Palestinae, which name has close affinity with the Philition of Herodotus. These Pali of the Hindoo records are plainly identical with some of the Joktanic peoples.'

Source

Not all the evidence. But bits of information like this is exactly what I was talking about when I said that Egypt's Dpt. of Antiquities had a close hold on any "research".

I am not saying that the commonly accepted ideas of AE are all totally wrong. Nor do I think that the history there is "set in stone" and everything is known.
edit on 8/28/2011 by Tsurugi because: General editing.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tsurugi
Not all the evidence. But bits of information like this is exactly what I was talking about when I said that Egypt's Dpt. of Antiquities had a close hold on any "research".

You mean, like pictures of the writings on the walls of the temples (which are never shown) and pictures of the ostrika that have been found around Egypt... and the scrolls and the writing on the mummy cases and in the graves?


I am not saying that the commonly accepted ideas of AE are all totally wrong. Nor do I think that the history there is "set in stone" and everything is known.
edit on 8/28/2011 by Tsurugi because: General editing.

Well, most of it is NOT taken from Herodotus or Manetho. It's taken from what the Egyptians of the time wrote about and painted. They were there 2,000 years before Herodotus, so it's taken for granted that their writings are more accurate than Herodotus.

Herodotus is one of the sources studied by Egyptologists. If you check link at the top of the forum, you can see some of the books and writers they study.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   
As a side note, the erosion of the facial area of the sphinx has been as hotly debated as its age and construction. According to most sources, the sphinx's face is actually the result of vandalism. Here's a good starting point:

Sphinx Face
edit on 29-8-2011 by ateuprto because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
I am just curious if anyone knows which way the wind tends to come from as it blows upon the sphinx... It looks to me if the winds tend to come from the back, the head dress would be a very good natural buffer to deflect much of the damage caused by erosion on the front of the head of the sphinx...

Too many factors to this debate, Ill just say the Sphinx and Pyramids are not built by those who claimed them as the work of slaves... If I could just suck up all that sand to get to the real city, and all the riches and lost secrets....



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Link to source of all ancient writings that mention the pyramids

this can be handy




Not all the evidence.


I stand corrected for not clarifying, I meant all Archaeologial evidence
edit on 29/8/11 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 



You mean, like pictures of the writings on the walls of the temples (which are never shown) and pictures of the ostrika that have been found around Egypt... and the scrolls and the writing on the mummy cases and in the graves?

Umm....you lost me. Not sure if you are agreeing that there is a "close hold" on research, or if you are being sarcastic. Either way, none of the things you listed rang a bell, so....totally lost.
Interestingly, my complete clueless-ness tells me the answer to your question: No, that's not what I meant.





I am not saying that the commonly accepted ideas of AE are all totally wrong. Nor do I think that the history there is "set in stone" and everything is known.

Well, most of it is NOT taken from Herodotus or Manetho. It's taken from what the Egyptians of the time wrote about and painted. They were there 2,000 years before Herodotus, so it's taken for granted that their writings are more accurate than Herodotus.

I was aware, generally, that Herodotus isn't considered a good source by Egyptologists. I vaguely recall seeing the phrase "father of lies" a few times in reference to him, I believe.
The recent evidence indicating that the Great Labyrinth might be buried under the sand at Hawara may boost his credibility a bit if it pans out. Hadn't they pretty much decided that such a a place, a storehouse of knowlege and art, as it were, was probably some fiction engineered by Herodotus?

As for Manetho, I was under the impression that the surviving writings and paintings gave a poor and/or confused index and timeline of societal events(like the omissions and contradictions between different "lists" of Pharaohs that have been found in temples and tombs), and so Manetho's compliled info on that subject(the Dynasties) is considered to be a primary source for progression of the Dynasties.
If I was wrong there, I'd not be surprised. I am no Archaeologist, unfortunately. Whatever "info" I have is just random chunks of text and images that I have accumulated through years of reading about stuff that I wished I was over there digging up, and may not, in fact, qualify as actual "information."



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Careful. You are failing to heed the advice in your own signature, my friend.





new topics

top topics



 
122
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join