It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by trailertrash
reply to post by SLAYER69
The thing was carved out of sedimentary rock in it's natural state. The reason for the difference in what we see now is due to the varying grades of this rock. The upper layers were of greater quality and thus resist erosion better than the lower which were not as strong.
I was under the impression that this was sorted out decades ago by geologists. Seems simple enough to me.edit on 11-7-2011 by trailertrash because: (no reason given)
The Giza Radiocarbon Studies
Radiological findings at Giza in the 1980s and 1990s, although not conclusive for the Sphinx site, have a bearing on the possible age of the monument. Surprisingly, neither side in the Sphinx controversy brought these findings into the debate.
Herbert Haas, James Devine, Robert Wenke, Mark Lehner, Willy Wolfli, and Georg Bonani, "Radiocarbon chronology and the historical calendar in Egypt," in Chronologies du Proche Orient/Chronologies in the Near East, eds. Olivier Aurenche, Jacques Evin, Francis Hours, BAR International Series, 379 (ii) (Oxford, 1987), pp. 585-606.
In 1984, a team of scholars gathered mortar samples from stone structures at Giza for a radiocarbon dating survey. The 1987 report of the survey found a significant discrepancy between the conventional dates of the Giza pyramids and the dates found by radiocarbon testing. On average, the structures at Giza were found to be about four centuries older than their conventional dates. Two samples taken from the mortar of the Sphinx Temple gave radiocarbon dates of 2746 BCE (+/- 171 years) and 2085 BCE (+/- 314 years). These dates were anomalous and received no publicity at the time. They prompted survey members to return in 1995 to gather samples for a second survey.
Robert Wenke, et. al., "Dating the Pyramids," Archaeology, Vol. 52, No. 5 (September-October 1999), pp. 26-33.
Georges Bonani, Herbert Haas, Zahi Hawass, Mark Lehner, Shawki Nakhla, John Nolan, Robert Wenke, and Willy Wolfli, "Radiocarbon Dates of Old and Middle Kingdom Monuments in Egypt," Radiocarbon, Vol. 43, No. 3 (2001), pp. 1297-1320.
Mark Lehner, "How Old are the Pyramids?" Ancient Egypt Research Associates, 2005.
The second survey, reported in 1999 and more fully in 2001, found on average that the Giza structures were only two centuries older than their conventional dates. The authors of the second survey attributed the older dates to the Egyptian use of "old wood" (or recycled wood) in the charcoal used to make the mortar for the structures. The younger sample dates were not explained. The 1995 survey took no new samples from the Sphinx Temple.
The original samples from the Sphinx Temple may have been later intrusions and cannot rule out a pre-Khafra date. But none of the dates for the Sphinx Temple or for Giza as a whole corroborate a prehistoric age.
Originally posted by SLAYER69
Originally posted by LadyTrick
reply to post by SLAYER69
Because the temple and the head are not carved from that ground limestone. So either the temple rock and head are stronger materials quarried from a more resiliant material or they were added much later.
Ok do you mean "re-carved" later? Because it could not have been added later to the body because it's one solid continuously sculptured piece.
I personally believe the head has been added later as the proportions to the body do not match. I have heard several theories that the head was originally Anubis.
The head being "Re-carved" is a possibility but again "Added"???
I like the Anubis touch
Missing nose and beard
Limestone fragments of the Sphinx's beard
The one-metre-wide nose on the face is missing. Examination of the Sphinx's face shows that long rods or chisels were hammered into the nose, one down from the bridge and one beneath the nostril, then used to pry the nose off towards the south.
The Egyptian Arab historian al-Maqrīzī, writing in the 15th century AD, attributes the loss of the nose to iconoclasm by Muhammad Sa'im al-Dahr, a Sufi Muslim from the khanqah of Sa'id al-Su'ada. In AD 1378, upon finding the Egyptian peasants making offerings to the Sphinx in the hope of increasing their harvest, Sa'im al-Dahr was so outraged that he destroyed the nose, and was hanged for vandalism. Al-Maqrīzī describes the Sphinx as the "talisman of the Nile" on which the locals believed the flood cycle depended.
A story claims that the nose was broken off by a cannonball fired by Napoleon's soldiers and that legend still lives on today. Other variants indict British troops, the Mamluks, and others. However, sketches of the Sphinx by the Dane Frederic Louis Norden, made in 1737 and published in 1755, illustrate the Sphinx already without a nose.
In addition to the lost nose, a ceremonial pharaonic beard is thought to have been attached, although this may have been added in later periods after the original construction. Egyptologist Vassil Dobrev has suggested that had the beard been an original part of the Sphinx, it would have damaged the chin of the statue upon falling. The lack of visible damage supports his theory that the beard was a later addition.