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

page: 9
122
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd


You're late young lady, I was wondering when you'd pop your head in.



#1) You're assuming that all the limestone came from the same quarry AND was found at the same level (hence is the same limestone.)


I wasn't really assuming, I asked quite a few questions though.

#1) So you know for a fact that the temple blocks were not from the original excavation site of the enclosure during the original carving of the body?
#2) Do you have a reference or a link to some collaboration?


#2) You're not aware of the properties of the different layers of limestone.


Now that IS an assumption.



#3) You're assuming that all the limestone was set in place by orienting it in the same way it was found in the ground and that the older layers were put on the bottom of walls and so forth.


Another assumption on your part. But as you've stated you're a bit cranky. I wasn't aware that I've made ANY references to "orientation"


Apologies if I sound cranky, Slayer. I have spent the whole day explaining this to 8th graders (who are flunking science and are in summer school) and the explanation involved hiking six classes out to show them the geology so I'm very hot and very tired and very very very cranky from noisy and rude kids.


Well this could be why you've made so many assumptions regarding what I think and or know. Pssst I Graduated a few decades ago.
I do appreciate you taking the time to reply. As I stated in the OP all opinions are welcomed both Pro and Con



The quarrymen started quarrying on the top layers of limestone........


I do appreciate the info. It's all very informative.
I'm sure some less knowledgeable on the subject will easily be wowed and impressed but it really does not address the issues of whether or not the Head was re-carved during a much more recent period than some believe.

#1) Do you think there have been changes made over time to the Sphinxes head and face?
#2) Isn't there some evidence in the Cairo Museum that it once possibly had a beard/goatee?
#3) If it did have one at one time and presently shows little or now sign of where it attached wouldn't that indicate that there was work done to reshape at least the chin area?

Also the explanation of the Head being of a stronger limestone from a different layer is logical. But the problem with it is that the head also shows layer variations. So are we to believe that those layers in the head are all stronger?

I hope you get some rest and feel better.
A strong double {scotch} on the rocks usually works for me when I'm a bit uptight and tired.





posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I read over your post briefly and while I like the direction you took you did not mention anything regarding construction methods.

Could it be that the face of the sphinx was covered in a more durable material for cosmetic purposes which inadvertently acted as a protective mask?

I think this is plausible that something could have or even should have been covering the face alone and uniquely.

Maybe the material quality of the different structures were different despite the attempts to keep them the same?

Plausible also. Such quantities of material would require a large acceptance of variance even in a single structure.

Would your proposed theory of the re-carving of the sphinx be a means to improve the ability of the face to resist weathering or increase it's susceptibility to deterioration?

It would seem that when reconstructing something you end up with an inferior product the second time 'round generally speaking. Wouldn't you agree?

Just guessing as a typical guy with little to no knowledge of ancient construction methods and such I would think the above questions need supportable answers before we can make any debate about age.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by carpooler
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Hi Slayer 69,
I know you won't believe this, but that's O.K. F.W.I.W., the Sphinx sits astride of the 30th degree of latitude, facing East. Now the world's a big place today, and when the super volcanic eruption event at Toba, in present day Indonesia, happened about 72,000 years ago, it created an incredible bottleneck in humanity. This great plume is the "angel with a sword of fire" that wiped out the real garden of eden. I didn't get to see either the garden or the plume, but my chain got jerked and I was transported way out yonder across the eternal present, to a point a little to the West of this event, say 70,000 years ago. Then like a child rolling up a snowman, a mighty spirit, guided my steps along the 30th parallel, or "Divine Parallel", all the way West into Egypt, right up to the Great Sphinx. It was one heck of an escape route, from a world changing event. So, you need to factor in that just maybe the Great Sphinx is a pre-Toba structure, made expressly to halt the western trek of any survivors of that destroyed world. Any farther West, and you're lost in the Sahara Desert. My guided tour continued all the way to the Pacific Shores of North America, and ended about at the dawning of the Twentieth Century, around Bakersfield, Calif.. More than half of this vast time line, was spent by my ancestors in N.Central India. During most of this time, Asia was covered with great Ice fields, and we had to stay to the South of them. This 1978 NDE of mine, was witnessed by Nostradamus, who built part of his book around it. The key is to read C.VIII, Q 78, and then read the Epistle To Henri. The quatrain is the threshold to the epistle. You take C.VII and C. VIII, together to get 78, and then subtract C VIII, Q 78 to get a zero or point of origin, and then read this particular quatrain as prologue for the Epistle, which Nosty put in between C. VII, and C. VIII.
I've posted a bunch on this on ATS, but unless you really throw something into the faces of the forum members, they won't pick up on much. And throwing things into people's faces ain't my style. But you're on the right track. Khufu left a stele at Giza that speaks of a Whetstone Box. I'm on the track of this at present, with the assistance of Prof. Fekry Hassan, the head honcho of the Flinders Petrie museum, in London. The high priest Dehdi, told Khufu to keep his cotton picking fingers off of it, during his lifetime, but added a prophecy about a distant descendant, coming from far in the West, and using it in the last great struggle between good and evil. I was raised in the Pacific Northwest, and Fekry was an adjunct Prof. at WSU, for a brief time. I formally denounced him as Pharaoh's butler, as a metaphor to the biblical story of Joseph in Egypt, with me being a Joseph like character. So there's two of us in this generation who are in the running for solving or fulfilling this prophecy, that's been written in stone and set up at Giza, since the time of Khufu's days on Earth. This Flint box is the Ark of Thoth, and is the same size as the much later Ark of the Covenant. But Thoth is pure evil, so it's a no touchy item. I've only been to it astrally, a couple of times when I have been really sick. I Consider it as a blarney stone with amazing recuperative powers. Anyways, it looks like the Egyptian Army is finding this out the hard way, by using one coordinate that I gave Prof. Hassan at WSU, back in the eighties. But Khufu is buried close by so they can't just let it go.



seems i m not allowed to PM you? Possible to give more details?



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by bing0
 


You're most likely still new without your required 20 thread posts. I'd suggest posting a few more topic related thread posts then try U2U again.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
I believe the head is disproportionate because they only had limited rock left over to work with after defacing the original head, which was of a lion, as in the constellation Leo. It was an important marker for the sacred geometry that aligns all of the Giza plateau, and most of the ancient pyramid cultures' buildings of prediluvian origin.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Harte
Slayer<

Below is the fallacy that drives your argument:

Harte


As always Harte your opinions are always appreciated.

There is no argument. Interesting assumption on your part. I presented what I found interesting and have asked some questions which apparently some find annoying. Now does that constitute an argument?

No, but this does:


Originally posted by SLAYER69
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.

SNIP

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.


I tried to give you the answer to your last question above. It lies in your assumption that all the stone quarried from the sphinx enclosure must of necessity be about the same hardness, weather resistance, or whatever.

That is simply not the case.

And you don't annoy me. I appreciate that you tend to remain impartial in your threads. Also, I noted your statement in the OP that you are "on the fence" about the antiquity of the sphinx.

I'm not saying that you're wrong about the sphinx, since you yourself haven't taken a solid position on this. I am saying you're wrong about the properties of stone quarried from the sphinx enclosure and thus have formulated a question

"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? "

for an aswer that already exists.

As an aside, making an argument by proxy, or as devil's advocate, is still making an argument. I didn't mean to imply that you owned the dern argument. Just that it was based on a fallacy.


Originally posted by SLAYER69
So since you've provided some information let me ASK you a question, you're saying that the blocks {Which were used for the temple} that came from those {same layers as the body} are of the same strength/quality as the harder out cropping that the head was carved from? Also, How does this explain the outer wall showing the same level of weathering which the temple is butted up against yet the temple itself doesn't show the similar amount of weathering??

I don't know the specific hardness of the head. I only know it's one of the hardest parts. The bed varies in hardness, density and even composition throughout it's various layers. Parts of the temple and wall that are less weathered likely came from harder layers within the enclosure excavation and the parts that appear more weathered likely come from softer layers. Simple explanation. Simple ones are usually the best, as long as they fit the facts.

Your next step would now be to investigate whether or not the more weathered blocks do in fact come from softer layers of the limestone bed.

I'm too lazy to do this but, given the work ethic you display here, I'm sure you can do this in a reasonable amount of time. I look forward to your results!


Harte



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Byrd


You're late young lady, I was wondering when you'd pop your head in.


I've spent 3 days in a row teaching earth sciences to 600 middle school kids each day. Ah'm daid!




#1) You're assuming that all the limestone came from the same quarry AND was found at the same level (hence is the same limestone.)


I wasn't really assuming, I asked quite a few questions though.

#1) So you know for a fact that the temple blocks were not from the original excavation site of the enclosure during the original carving of the body?
#2) Do you have a reference or a link to some collaboration?


I haven't visited the site. I haven't studied it. I have no clue. I know it's being worked on by folks here at Southern Methodist University (a school that I did consider attending for a PhD in archaology until I found out that I couldn't afford it.) I know that there are teams out there who could tell you, but I'm sure not one of them.



#2) You're not aware of the properties of the different layers of limestone.


Now that IS an assumption.


ACK! Guilty as charged, sir!




#3) You're assuming that all the limestone was set in place by orienting it in the same way it was found in the ground and that the older layers were put on the bottom of walls and so forth.


Another assumption on your part. But as you've stated you're a bit cranky. I wasn't aware that I've made ANY references to "orientation"


True -- I made that conclusion based on a lack of comment on your part about the stone and its orientation. I know that some limestones are easier to smooth and cut if you work with the layers -- but I don't know beans about the multiple limestones found in this quarry. I don't know how they were oriented for cutting or for placing and which sections got the layers from the top (youngest) part of the quarry and which ones got stone from lower (older) portions of the quarry.

The Sphinx itself represents a geologic cross section of the whole quarry and it's probably the one untouched geologic column in the whole place.


I do appreciate the info. It's all very informative.
I'm sure some less knowledgeable on the subject will easily be wowed and impressed but it really does not address the issues of whether or not the Head was re-carved during a much more recent period than some believe.


Quite true. It was the limestone that caught my eye, after a full day (two, now) of talking rocks.


#1) Do you think there have been changes made over time to the Sphinxes head and face?

My honest answer is "I don't know." I know the body was repaired at least once in ancient times.


#2) Isn't there some evidence in the Cairo Museum that it once possibly had a beard/goatee?

The British museum has a small piece of what it says is the beard. I can say that the provenance of the object looks good, so it wouldn't surprise me if it had the traditional pharonic beard and part of the uraeus (crown), too

The TourEgypt site (which usually has accurate information) says current thought shows that things were added to the statue and the beard is one of them. www.touregypt.net... It's a plausible idea, since there doesn't seem to be breaks and gaps that you'd expect if an original beard fell off.


#3) If it did have one at one time and presently shows little or now sign of where it attached wouldn't that indicate that there was work done to reshape at least the chin area?

Possibly. I haven't been up to the monument and examined the work on the stone for myself. I haven't read reports on it, either. I do notice that the area where a beard might have been is the start of the much softer limestone.


Also the explanation of the Head being of a stronger limestone from a different layer is logical. But the problem with it is that the head also shows layer variations. So are we to believe that those layers in the head are all stronger?

Yep. And this happens all the time in geology. It produces mesas and tablelands here in the American Southwest. The Edwards Plateau here in Texas is a huge (hundreds of square miles) slab of very hard limestone which has softer limestone (Austin Chalk) underneath it -- and you could carve at the boundary between the two limestones.

In smaller "quantities" they form rock columns known as "hoodoos." They're one (of ten or fifteen) of my favorite kinds of landscape. Bryce Canyon has a lot of them: usparks.about.com... (I want to go there sometime -- don't you?)


I hope you get some rest and feel better.
A strong double {scotch} on the rocks usually works for me when I'm a bit uptight and tired.


Just your cheerful comments helped immeasurably! But I do think I'll help myself to some scotch!



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by iamhobo
 


I have always thought the Sphinx was older than the "experts" have stated.
My own reasoning is that, as stated elsewhere in these posts, the head is disproportionate to the body which indicates it has been altered.
I believe that in ages past societies worshipped images relating to the precessions of the equinoxes. I.E.: during the time that Taurus was on the equinox, the bull was worshipped. As Taurus was transitioning out and Aries was coming in, the ram shows up in many statues. As Pisces began transitioning in (and Christianity began) the fishes became the emblem of a religion.
Leo the lion would have been on the equinox approximately 10-12,000 B.C. which would coincide with the (alternative) estimates of when the Sphinx was carved. IMHO the Sphinx originally had a lion's head and was recarved later with a human head.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by holyTerror
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)


The reason why the sphinx is out of proportion is because whatever Pharoh recarved the ancient monument from the lion to a persons head and the body looking like a lion laying on the ground. I totally agree with you it is out of proportion, but that will happen when you recarve something to make it look like another thing (take away more rock).



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Can you answer one question, How did they move and where did they dump all the sand to uncover the vast areas we see today as per the 1840's discovery, i say shiped elsewhere but still, that is a lot of sand to move with pick and shovel am talking about the photos from the 1960's clean.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   
you guys are good.


but no one thinks a lion head wouldn't be massive enough to get a proportionate human head out of it?


where are the traces of the mane? if they removed the mane around the body, there would be signs of that.

look at the top of the head, it's flat, a lion's head would be more massive.

the paws do not look feline, unless i missed a "thumb" claw.

anubis head makes more sense, to me. smaller mass to work with.

like i said/asked, the constellations were not named at the beginning of the universe.

personally, i don't see any pictures in the sky unless they are outlined on a map.

i am sure what slayer says is correct, it was carved in situ with the outer walls.

temple etc, added later.

what do i know, i'm just a cook.





posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
i wonder whats in its hollow paw



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
im not sure if its the left or right but its hollow and the other is not



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Having had (and taught) Earth Sciences (and anthropology) there are some things you might want to consider.


Originally posted by SLAYER69
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.


#1) You're assuming that all the limestone came from the same quarry AND was found at the same level (hence is the same limestone.)

#2) You're not aware of the properties of the different layers of limestone.


Sorry for taking so long to respond. I've been busy both in the REAL real world and writing a couple of other threads. {Stay tuned}
Which I'll assume many will make other Assumptions about my intentions in those as well.
Anyhoo. I'm bringing the above quote of yours back to life.


Now below, is another reply by you in which you've provided a link to another very informative site that you evidently believe to be "Usually Accurate"


Originally posted by Byrd
The TourEgypt site (which usually has accurate information) says current thought shows that things were added to the statue and the beard is one of them. www.touregypt.net... It's a plausible idea, since there doesn't seem to be breaks and gaps that you'd expect if an original beard fell off.


Your source

The good, hard limestone that lay around the Sphinx's head was probably all quarried for blocks to build the pyramids. The limestone removed to shape the body of the beast was evidently employed to build the two temples to the east of the Sphinx, on a terrace lower than the floor of the Sphinx enclosure, one almost directly in front of the paws, the other to the south of the first one.

It is generally thought that quarrying around the original knoll revealed rock that was too poor in quality for construction. Therefore, some visionary individual conceived of the plan to turn what was left of the knoll into the Sphinx. However, the Sphinx may equally well have been planned from the start for this location, good rock or bad. The walls of the Sphinx enclosure are of the same characteristics as the strata of the Sphinx body and exhibit similar states of erosion.


As I questioned at the very beginning 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





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?


Now another thing I found rather interesting is the overhead image provided by that site...



Why the distinction between the "Old Sphinx Temple" and the other one "Valley Temple of Khafra"? Didn't he supposedly build both? Why designate the Sphinx temple as "old"? It is said that the Sphinx temple was never completed and the reasoning behind that conclusion {which is often quoted} is that there are no signs of granite outer casings. Which makes me think of the Granite outer casing which once covered the Pyramids. Which according to accepted theory were possibly removed for later unrelated constructions projects in the area.

Wouldn't it have been easier for those who were after "Granite" to have removed it from the much more accessible ground level temples first then later went on to remove it from the much more difficult to access pyramids as the demand continued?

That last part was just an after thought.

As always I do appreciate the feedback and esp the links.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I watched a good documentary from National Geographic called Egypt unwrapped: Secrets of the Sphinx.
channel.nationalgeographic.com...-Overview

Geologist Colin Reader gives evidence that the excavation of the Sphinx and the associated construction of the Sphinx temple pre-dates the Fourth Dynasty.
He has attributed the original construction of this solar-cult complex to the Early Dynasty period.
To date the construction of the Sphinx and associated temples any earlier than this requires the invention of an advanced culture in Egypt for which, at present, there is no archaeological or other evidence whatsoever.

Here is a link to his paper.
www.ianlawton.com...



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Here is another link to a paper by Colin Reader called "Khufu knew the Sphinx".
Khufu knew the Sphinx
He talks about the geology of sphinx and area.


The strata exposed at the Sphinx have been divided into three members. The lowest, Member I, consists of a massive and durable reefal limestone, exposed across much of the base of the Sphinx enclosure. The lowest lying parts of both the body of the Sphinx and the western exposures consist of Member I strata, with the quarried height increasing up-dip, towards the north west. The entire northern exposure consists of Member I limestones. The upper body of the Sphinx and the upper part of the adjacent exposures to the south and west, consist of the overlying Member II strata, a cyclothemic series of seven fine grained limestone units which, generally, become more durable towards the top of the sequence. Of these seven units, units 1 to 6 have been further divided into two sub-units, the lowest of which consists of a less durable, marly rock and is identified by the Roman numeral i. The upper more durable sub-unit is identified by the Roman numeral ii.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Sorry for taking so long to respond. I've been busy both in the REAL real world and writing a couple of other threads. {Stay tuned}
Which I'll assume many will make other Assumptions about my intentions in those as well.
Anyhoo. I'm bringing the above quote of yours back to life.


Oh boy! (rubs her hands with glee)

Your source

The limestone removed to shape the body of the beast was evidently employed to build the two temples to the east of the Sphinx, on a terrace lower than the floor of the Sphinx enclosure, one almost directly in front of the paws, the other to the south of the first one....The walls of the Sphinx enclosure are of the same characteristics as the strata of the Sphinx body and exhibit similar states of erosion.


Noted.


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?


I actually did answer that -- sort of. If they oriented the blocks differently it would change how they eroded (and also, you're looking at the interior, which was protected. You see an outer wall beyond the end of the protected interior wall.

So... limestone forms in layers and we can see from the Sphinx that even the "soft limestone" has strata where the "soft" stone is harder than the rest of the soft stone. So on the Mohs scale, most limestone has a hardness of "3" but a very clayey one could be a "2.8" and a very calcified one could be a "4." I know that the common references say "limestone can be scratched by a bronze coin" but I've got some on my dinosaur that's pretty heavy going even with a sledge hammer and an iron chisel (no, not kidding about using those tools on the limestone around this beast. It's the alternative to using the miniature jack hammer (a real tool, the "mini-jack")) There's a couple of areas where the limestone is so soft it's almost mudstone and you could prep it with a Popsicle stick.

In other words, it's pretty typical limestone. So-- think about Giza and let me give an example. We have three kinds of limestone: "h" is hard, "s" is soft, and "m" is medium hardness. For this example, pretend that on the ocean it gets laid down in sheets about an inch thick.:

h (top layer (youngest layer) of very hard limestone)
m (next layer down a medium hardness)
h (suddenly a layer of very hard stone)
s (now it's almost a mudstone)
m (but before the mudstone came this much older medium hard limestone)
h (the oldest part is a reef of very hard limestone)

When it weathers, you'd see a profile where there was a ledge, then a shallow scoop, then a ledge, then a deep scoop, then a shallow scoop, then a ledge (as the rock stands in the ground.) You can see that all over the body of the Sphinx.

Now, let's say I'm building a temple and I'm aware of this. I turn the block on its side so that the layers now go:
h-m-h-s-m-h -- hard layers are on the outside stone, the soft and medium are on the inside. It would initially erode just as if it was a column of hard limestone.

See what I mean?



Why the distinction between the "Old Sphinx Temple" and the other one "Valley Temple of Khafra"? Didn't he supposedly build both?

A confusing issue, here. Each pyramid has its own unique "valley temple." We know who they're dedicated to, but we don't know if they were built by Menukaure, Khafre, Khufu, Djedefre, Shepsekhaf -- or all of the above. The "Old Sphinx Temple" is a "ka temple", if I'm remembering right. (tour Egypt link)


Why designate the Sphinx temple as "old"? It is said that the Sphinx temple was never completed and the reasoning behind that conclusion {which is often quoted} is that there are no signs of granite outer casings. Which makes me think of the Granite outer casing which once covered the Pyramids. Which according to accepted theory were possibly removed for later unrelated constructions projects in the area.


No clue. I didn't name it-- I'm NOT guilty here!


The casing of the pyramids was limestone, not granite (according to Wikipedia.)


Wouldn't it have been easier for those who were after "Granite" to have removed it from the much more accessible ground level temples first then later went on to remove it from the much more difficult to access pyramids as the demand continued?


We don't know what shape the temples were in when the destruction began. The temples weren't found all nice and neat -- the stones were scattered around and some of the work is reconstruction (where they made pieces to fill in the missing stones.) In order to determine anything about a structure there, you would have to know how much of it is original and how much is reconstructed and where the original stones were found.

The paper above by Colin Reeder indicates the temples were sheathed with granite, which would change the weathering patterns. But the pyramid casing was of hard limestone, not granite.

Also, Amenhotep may have repaired the temples as well as the Sphinx. He did a lot of work on the monuments, so some of the stones may have been recarved in ancient times. I don't know whether this is true or not, but he talks about setting up a temple/chapel.

So, before deciding there's an anomaly, one has to take a look at the other structures, ask how they were preserved, what changes might have been done in antiquity, how well protected they are (by walls or other things), what artifacts are associated with them, and if they've been repaired multiple times as well as "which way is the stone oriented" and "which of the seven or so types of limestone is represented by this particular block."

Looking forward to your next project.
edit on 16-7-2011 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Hiya Slayer, lovely thread again
and I agree the Sphinx is a much much older monument than we are encouraged to believe. The head looks without a doubt to be a re-carving and like many other people I suspect that the original (and no doubt more proportional) head was a lion.

A couple of points (without having read through all the replies yet)


Originally posted by SLAYER69
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.


I think I'm right in saying that the rock that the head of the Sphinx is carved from is of a slightly different composition to the body (although one piece of rock) which being slightly harder weathers at a slower rate than the body.


Originally posted by SLAYER69
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?


For arguments sake is it POSSIBLE that there was an outer casing on the temple that has been since stripped away hence allowing the temple to weather at a slower rate?


Originally posted by SLAYER69
"Water erosion would still have occurred as rain trickled down through the sand. Limestone is very suceptible to erosion from percolating rain."


What percolating rain? There hasn't been enough rain since 2500bc to weather the sphinx 'percolating' or otherwise. If the sphinx was water damaged by rain percolating through the sand then the exposed buildings would show more water damage than the sphinx.

I am leaning fairly firmly towards a much earlier date for the Sphinx and probably a couple of other buildings. I've yet to read anything that utterly convinces me that the water weathering theory is bunkum.



posted on Jul, 23 2011 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Its quite obvious, regardless of what the egypt councill of antiquities have dubbed and dated, that the sphinx is older than what has been "professionally dated".
With the more recent escavations underneath the sphinx, into the claimed tomb of osiris, giving us a little more insight on the subject. If you read into the facts and layout of the sphinx, it was supposed to be a guardian of sort and monument facing and overloooking, protecting the temple of Ptah.
I think there is an ancient connection with the underground ancient water table and the opening of the shaft at the sphinx's right paw or hand. the layout also has a shaft coming out right at the anus of the sphinx as well. The so called tomb isn't a tomb as such but an ancient water well, with the water table flowing into the caverns below. what i also feel is the connection of the arctitecture below the sphinx.
I asked myself now what comes out a Cat's ass? yeah, now what's in it?
well its the same thing as in the lamb or sheep, "the blood of the lamb" and the Blood of Cats, more over their fecal matter both are carriers and harvest the toxoplasmosis gondii paracite.
infect the water supply with a paracite.
once perhaps used to make slaves dosile and obedient and not revolt in the construction of temples surrounding it. by defilement.
ancient india, and ancient egypt holds alot of answers to mysteries that are carried on to this day, the similarities of the mythologies, and magicks, and wisdoms and knowledge are found in the greeks and the christians and of course judaism.(kabbalah)

check out the CDC on the info for the paracites and the symptoms from being infected. you will find it very interesting.

Its the same paracite used by some churches today to infect their congregations, used the ploy that its the blood of christ in the wine and the flesh of christ in the bread, when you take it at communion, at a most noteable time period when they are soliciting for funds.



posted on Jul, 23 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Another thought provoking thread, S&F.

I would say both A and B.

The head was originally small and reworked as well.

I am of the thought that the Sphinx was a natural formation that had features that looked like one of the gods, so they shaped it to look more so. and the part that was used for the head was already a smaller part of the formation.

Just some food for though, weather it is a feasible idea or not, I do not know.






top topics



 
122
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join