Sphinx Rain Marks From 12,000 Years Ago?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
The 600 years of torrential rains / floods are established, mainstream science, as far as I know. The end of the Ice Age. 12,000 years ago.

It would be good if you could find a real reference.

I didn't think I NEEDED to look for a real reference for that. Isn't it already the NORMAL, standard timeline, that the last Ice Age ended ~12,000 yrs ago.

With about 600 years of rains and flooding.

I thought that was just the established, normal timeline, already. Isn't it?





My previously linked Wiki of the Sphinx-water hypothesis... seems to refer to it that way, as the established climate timeline:

The Sphinx water erosion hypothesis is a fringe claim, contending that the Great Sphinx of Giza and its enclosing walls eroded primarily due to ancient floods or rainfalls, attributing their creation to Plato's lost civilization of Atlantis over 11,500 years ago.[1][2]

I think that's referring to the Ice Age ENDING 12,000 yrs ago, and then raining & flooding for over 500 yrs...

originally posted by: bluesfreak
Even a cursory look at the timing of wet periods in this area throws up answers I’m sure you don’t want to hear either.
Here’s just one easily found sample from hundreds of articles and papers on monsoon level rains in Egypt/Sahara post ice age .
Scroll down the article for the dating that you dont like:
LiveScience article Monsoon Rains Nile Valley/Sahara


a reply to: AndyMayhew

^Nice article, yes that basically confirms the general timeline of the Ice Age ending with a prolonged rainy, flooded period.

It's not exact dates but it is the general timeline I've been referring to.

Quotes from the linked article:

Some 12,000 years ago, the only place to live along the eastern Sahara Desert was the Nile Valley. Being so crowded, prime real estate in the Nile Valley was difficult to come by. Disputes over land were often settled with the fist, as evidenced by the cemetery of Jebel Sahaba where many of the buried individuals had died a violent death.

But around 10,500 years ago, a sudden burst of monsoon rains over the vast desert transformed the region into habitable land.

This opened the door for humans to move into the area, as evidenced by the researcher's 500 new radiocarbon dates of human and animal remains from more than 150 excavation sites.

"The climate change at [10,500 years ago] which turned most of the [3.8 million square mile] large Sahara into a savannah-type environment happened within a few hundred years only, certainly within less than 500 years," said study team member Stefan Kroepelin of the University of Cologne in Germany.

Frolicking in pools

In the Egyptian Sahara, semi-arid conditions allowed for grasses and shrubs to grow, with some trees sprouting in valleys and near groundwater sources. The vegetation and small, episodic rain pools enticed animals well adapted to dry conditions, such as giraffes, to enter the area as well.

Humans also frolicked in the rain pools, as depicted in rock art from Southwest Egypt.

In the more southern Sudanese Sahara, lush vegetation, hearty trees, and permanent freshwater lakes persisted over millennia. There were even large rivers, such as the Wadi Howar, once the largest tributary to the Nile from the Sahara.

"Wildlife included very demanding species such as elephants, rhinos, hippos, crocodiles, and more than 30 species of fish up to 2 meters (6 feet) big," Kroepelin told LiveScience.

A timeline of Sahara occupation [See Map]:

22,000 to 10,500 years ago: The Sahara was devoid of any human occupation outside the Nile Valley and extended 250 miles further south than it does today.
10,500 to 9,000 years ago: Monsoon rains begin sweeping into the Sahara, transforming the region into a habitable area swiftly settled by Nile Valley dwellers.
9,000 to 7,300 years ago: Continued rains, vegetation growth, and animal migrations lead to well established human settlements, including the introduction of domesticated livestock such as sheep and goats.
7,300 to 5,500 years ago: Retreating monsoonal rains initiate desiccation in the Egyptian Sahara, prompting humans to move to remaining habitable niches in Sudanese Sahara. The end of the rains and return of desert conditions throughout the Sahara after 5,500 coincides with population return to the Nile Valley and the beginning of pharaonic society.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I didn't think I NEEDED to look for a real reference for that.

I didn't say you needed to look for a real reference, I said it would be good.
Read what I write, not what you think I write.

Isn't it already the NORMAL, standard timeline, that the last Ice Age ended ~12,000 yrs ago.

It is.

With about 600 years of rains and flooding.

I don't know, I never read anything like that, as far as I remember.

My previously linked Wiki of the Sphinx-water hypothesis... seems to refer to it that way, as the established climate timeline:

No, that quote is saying what the theory says, not what the science says.

a reply to: ArMaP

My previously linked Wiki of the Sphinx-water hypothesis... seems to refer to it that way, as the established climate timeline:

No, that quote is saying what the theory says, not what the science says.

No, there's the theories about the Sphinx, and separately, there's some established normal timeline of the Ice Age ending around 12,000yrs ago, which involved a long deluge of rain and flooding...



Also, I already quoted the LiveScience article about climate timeline, but I should quote smaller parts of it.

around 10,500 years ago, a sudden burst of monsoon rains over the vast desert transformed the region into habitable land.

This opened the door for humans to move into the area

"The climate change at [10,500 years ago] which turned most of the [3.8 million square mile] large Sahara into a savannah-type environment happened within a few hundred years only, certainly within less than 500 years," said study team member Stefan Kroepelin of the University of Cologne in Germany.

Frolicking in pools

In the Egyptian Sahara, semi-arid conditions allowed for grasses and shrubs to grow, with some trees sprouting in valleys and near groundwater sources. The vegetation and small, episodic rain pools enticed animals well adapted to dry conditions, such as giraffes, to enter the area as well.

Humans also frolicked in the rain pools, as depicted in rock art from Southwest Egypt.

In the more southern Sudanese Sahara, lush vegetation, hearty trees, and permanent freshwater lakes persisted over millennia. There were even large rivers, such as the Wadi Howar, once the largest tributary to the Nile from the Sahara.

22,000 to 10,500 years ago: The Sahara was devoid of any human occupation outside the Nile Valley and extended 250 miles further south than it does today.

9,000 to 7,300 years ago: Continued rains, vegetation growth, and animal migrations lead to well established human settlements, including the introduction of domesticated livestock such as sheep and goats.

7,300 to 5,500 years ago: Retreating monsoonal rains initiate desiccation in the Egyptian Sahara, prompting humans to move to remaining habitable niches in Sudanese Sahara. The end of the rains and return of desert conditions throughout the Sahara after 5,500 coincides with population return to the Nile Valley and the beginning of pharaonic society.

Ok so apparently the timeline is that it rained & flooded for about 5,000 years. Starting with the end of the Ice Age, or soon AFTER the end of the Ice Age, the article is saying 10,500 yrs ago, as the START of the WET era.

Ending with the modern dryness in the Sahara, from about 5,500 years ago.




(I was thinking of 600 years but apparently I was thinking of the 500 years or so, that the dry area became a wet area, in less than 500 years, quoted above.)

^
So really... if the Sphinx DOES have real water-marks...

Then that would really only date the statue, to sometime between: 5,500 yrs ago -- 10,500 yrs ago.

(I think the other estimate of the rain starting 12,000 years ago, I think it's basically the same timeline as estimating 10,500 yrs ago. There are not exact dates with this timeline.)

(Or maybe 12,000 yrs ago was the end of the Ice Age, and maybe there's actually supposed to be 150 yrs gap, before the rains started, IDK.)





..........


Anyway, my point is that: If there was 5,000 years of rain, from around 10,500yrs ago until 5,500 yrs ago:

Then IF the Sphinx has rain erosion, then it really only dates her, as sometime in that range of 5,000 rainy years. (Ended 5,500 years before now.)

(If I'm understanding everything. I'm basically learning about this topic as we're discussing it. But it's a timeless topic that I've heard about for years, and I wanted to see if we could find some clarity about it.)








...Anyway, given that timeline, then I don't see why / how exactly, anyone could say the Sphinx was 12,000 yrs old (which is what I think the other estimate was, that we were discussing, wasn't it?).

I supposed 12,000 yrs would basically be the end of the Ice Age, and maybe the start of the rain.

But given a timeline of 5,000 years of rain, then I do doubt that anyone could really place the Sphinx's rain erosion, at any specific time, within that 5,000 years of wetness...





...Plus there seems no clear answer if she really does have water erosion or not. And even if she does, then maybe she was submerged in water somehow, or maybe a giant water fountain lol (as the earlier link suggests).

So in such cases, the Sphinx could still be much younger, but also with water erosion (if the statue was part of an elaborate system of pools or something).








TL;DR I don't think that water erosion, could date the Sphinx accurately, even if such erosion does exist, and that still seems an open question.

originally posted by: JamesChessman

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: AndyMayhew

Exactly.
And another thing we must remember about limestone is that it can be extremely easy to erode, and besides wind and water it's very easy to erode chemically, something as simple as vinegar could be strong enough to start some chemical erosion.

Alright? Well the central question is whether the Sphinx is showing water marks or not (and if so, if it's a marker of the end of the Ice Age)?

No, it's not a marker for the end of the ice age.

Whilst the African Humid Period meant rain was more frequent across northern Africa during the mid Holocene (not immediately after the end of the ice age though) torrential rains continue to affect Cairo to this day. They may be less frequent, but over thousands of years they can still cause extensive erosion of soft limestones.

originally posted by: JamesChessman

...the shells could be washed-in from the rains at the end of the Ice Age, 12000 years ago.

No. The shells are the Limestone. Which formed under the ocean over millions of years. Apart from anything else, we know this because they are ancient species.

And where would shells wash in from anyway?

originally posted by: bluesfreak
Even a cursory look at the timing of wet periods in this area throws up answers I’m sure you don’t want to hear either.
Here’s just one easily found sample from hundreds of articles and papers on monsoon level rains in Egypt/Sahara post ice age .
Scroll down the article for the dating that you dont like:
LiveScience article Monsoon Rains Nile Valley/Sahara

a reply to: AndyMayhew

Yes, the African Humid Period. No-one is refuting that. But the fact northern African used to see much more annual rainfall does not mean it does not still see torrential rains today.

This IMO is the fundamental mistake those who argue erosion of the Sphinx must have occurred before the end of the AHP make - they assume it hasn't rained since. But it does. Not so often, but when it does rain it's often torrential - and it's torrential rain which is most erosive (especially in terms of creating deep channels in exposed bedrock).

Also worth noting that the monsoon does not necessarily mean the sort of torrential rains we associate with the word. It's simply means a rainy season.

Actually, though, thinking about it, if the sphinx did date back to early in the AHP I would have expected much more erosion than we see ....

IMO there is nothing to suggest that the Sphinx could not date to early Dynastic times.

originally posted by: JamesChessman

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I've heard about seashells being inside the limestone blocks of the pyramids.

I don't have to walk much to see something like that, as that kind of limestone was used on the apartment building where I live.

I just had to open the door and take two steps to take this photo.

It doesn't mean the building I live in was built thousands or millions of years ago. In fact, it was built in 1976.

...No one suggested anything about modern buildings with seashells limestone, being built millions of years ago. That's actually YOU suggesting that.

Nor did anyone suggest that seashells themselves were the same age as any buildings containing them, except you.








I had only suggested that the shells could have been washed into the desert, during the rains and floods, at the end of the Ice Age, 12000 years ago.






And alternately, I think there's a convincing case that the entire Sahara desert used to be the bottom of an ocean, probably millions of years ago, mainly for the giant piles of sand everywhere, which look just like the sand at the bottom of an ocean.

so where is all the salt?
the sand is there.

so how long would it take to make watermarks like that? in a heavy rain environment.

if it was due to water?

a few years, a few thousand? a 100k years?

and no one restored it or just didn't bother. someone seems to have recarved the head at one time do al the water marks match each other?
it still won't answer how old it really is. it might have been built sometime during the ice age?

a reply to: AndyMayhew

You seem unclear about the larger climate timeline that I just described pretty clearly, before your post.

Regardless that “SometiMeZ it still RAinZ,” the larger timeline is that the wettest epoch was from 10,500yrs ago through 5,500yrs ago.

So if the Sphinx shows heavy water erosion… it actually might indicate that period of 5,000 years of rain.

And since that time-period represents MOST rainfall & flooding, more than the recent DRY 5,500 years, then yes, water erosion would PROBABLY be evidence of that MOST-WET time period, more likely than the DRY time period.

Ffs… lol



No. The shells are the Limestone. Which formed under the ocean over millions of years. Apart from anything else, we know this because they are ancient species. And where would shells wash in from anyway?

^ I looked it up, limestone is made of water sediment IN GENERAL, INCLUDING shells.

And separate from that: In relatively dry modern times: You asked where shells would wash in from.

What a question.

The Nile connects to the Mediterranean and that connects to the ocean. So I don’t see why or how, you would be unable to imagine stuff washed in from the connected water sources.






Anyway if the Sphinx really does have water erosion, and it’s still an open question in my book, then it would still not pinpoint what part of the rainy 5,000 years… or the alternative ideas of the statue maybe not being so old but showing water erosion from an elaborate pool system, or it might be a giant water fountain maybe.

So it’s not really pinpointing any dates even if it does have water erosion..

originally posted by: sarahvital

originally posted by: JamesChessman

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I've heard about seashells being inside the limestone blocks of the pyramids.

I don't have to walk much to see something like that, as that kind of limestone was used on the apartment building where I live.

I just had to open the door and take two steps to take this photo.

It doesn't mean the building I live in was built thousands or millions of years ago. In fact, it was built in 1976.

...No one suggested anything about modern buildings with seashells limestone, being built millions of years ago. That's actually YOU suggesting that.

Nor did anyone suggest that seashells themselves were the same age as any buildings containing them, except you.








I had only suggested that the shells could have been washed into the desert, during the rains and floods, at the end of the Ice Age, 12000 years ago.






And alternately, I think there's a convincing case that the entire Sahara desert used to be the bottom of an ocean, probably millions of years ago, mainly for the giant piles of sand everywhere, which look just like the sand at the bottom of an ocean.

so where is all the salt?
the sand is there.

so how long would it take to make watermarks like that? in a heavy rain environment.

if it was due to water?

a few years, a few thousand? a 100k years?

and no one restored it or just didn't bother. someone seems to have recarved the head at one time do al the water marks match each other?
it still won't answer how old it really is. it might have been built sometime during the ice age?

Great questions and good points. I find the entire timeline as seemingly impossible to find any real clarity.

I can say that I know that some areas around the Sahara DO have massive fields of SALT. So maybe it’s right there, alongside the sand. Maybe there were natural processes that made the salt gather in certain areas like that.

And yes the Sphinx could have been carved during the ice age, then it would catch the full 5,000 years of heavy rains and flooding, after the ice age.

And maybe that’s exactly what it is, and maybe that’s what the body erosion is really showing. Maybe.

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: JamesChessman

Something also came to Ancient Egypt, that is a certain.

So the Sphinx can be a time-marker of that event... if the stature really does have water marks... which is not obvious to my eyes, either way.

I do believe around Sphinx there were more structure, road system. Unfortunately those structures were likely destroyed in the cataclysm event.

Yep. I'd give anything to see what their technology REALLY looked like back then. We call it ancient, but I bet it was 1,000 times better and more reliable than ours today.

originally posted by: sarahvital

originally posted by: JamesChessman

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I've heard about seashells being inside the limestone blocks of the pyramids.

I don't have to walk much to see something like that, as that kind of limestone was used on the apartment building where I live.

I just had to open the door and take two steps to take this photo.

It doesn't mean the building I live in was built thousands or millions of years ago. In fact, it was built in 1976.

...No one suggested anything about modern buildings with seashells limestone, being built millions of years ago. That's actually YOU suggesting that.

Nor did anyone suggest that seashells themselves were the same age as any buildings containing them, except you.








I had only suggested that the shells could have been washed into the desert, during the rains and floods, at the end of the Ice Age, 12000 years ago.






And alternately, I think there's a convincing case that the entire Sahara desert used to be the bottom of an ocean, probably millions of years ago, mainly for the giant piles of sand everywhere, which look just like the sand at the bottom of an ocean.

so where is all the salt?
the sand is there.

What salt? Sand is made from eroding rocks. Why would it contain salt?

so how long would it take to make watermarks like that? in a heavy rain environment.

if it was due to water?

a few years, a few thousand? a 100k years?

I would say several thousand years.

and no one restored it or just didn't bother. someone seems to have recarved the head at one time do al the water marks match each other?

Indeed - which rather suggests the worst of the erosion occurred after the head was re-carved (if it was). ie after dynastic times ....

it still won't answer how old it really is. it might have been built sometime during the ice age?

No it won't. But if it dates back much more than 5,000 years I'd expect to see a lot more erosion ....

a reply to: LSU2018


Indeed - which rather suggests the worst of the erosion occurred after the head was re-carved (if it was). ie after dynastic times ....

^No, the head does NOT share the same heavy erosion found on the body. (If that’s really what you meant to say.)

Rather, the body is much more heavy erosion.

So the head was very clearly carved AFTER the body’s heavy erosion happened.

Obviously the body’s erosion is from an earlier time period, before the modern head was carved.

It fits with the hypothesis of the Sphinx catching the 5,000 years of torrential rains and flooding, following the end of last ice age.

I tried uploading a few photos of the body’s erosion but I’m not having any luck with uploads.

a reply to: JamesChessman

The thing is the sphinx is in a pit.. and use to be in the shape of a jackel. .. Its head has been recarved thats why the head is the wrong proportion. (Use to be painted red way back when) the star of the dead was red too.l
.. The jackal would have been a representation of the funeral and afterlife good Anubis / Apnu. (It was called Jackel Island by the Kemets.. The pit around was full of water. To enter the afterlife you need to cross the water.

No coincidence that you have Jakel Island in the USA. Under which there is a temple. It being the place the banking elite met to install there banking system..

a reply to: AndyMayhew

This was meant to reply to ^him, not the other guy, that it said:



Indeed - which rather suggests the worst of the erosion occurred after the head was re-carved (if it was). ie after dynastic times ....




^No, the head does NOT share the same heavy erosion found on the body. (If that’s really what you meant to say.)

Rather, the body is much more heavy erosion.

So the head was very clearly carved AFTER the body’s heavy erosion happened.

Obviously the body’s erosion is from an earlier time period, before the modern head was carved.

It fits with the hypothesis of the Sphinx catching the 5,000 years of torrential rains and flooding, following the end of last ice age.

I tried uploading a few photos of the body’s erosion but I’m not having any luck with uploads.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: JamesChessman

The thing is the sphinx is in a pit.. and use to be in the shape of a jackel. .. Its head has been recarved thats why the head is the wrong proportion. (Use to be painted red way back when) the star of the dead was red too.l
.. The jackal would have been a representation of the funeral and afterlife good Anubis / Apnu. (It was called Jackel Island by the Kemets.. The pit around was full of water. To enter the afterlife you need to cross the water.

No coincidence that you have Jakel Island in the USA. Under which there is a temple. It being the place the banking elite met to install there banking system..

Thank you for the info and honestly I love to imagine it.

The blazing sun would have probably had the water constantly sparkling like magic, around the Sphinx.

Do you think the statue was a giant elaborate water fountain, too?

Can you imagine that, water shooting out of the Sphinx head, like a giant water park, and beautiful black women, with gold and jewelry sparkling, splashing and swimming around the Sphinx…

What a scene!!

I kinda love imagining it that way lol.

a reply to: JamesChessman

It was and still is a temple..with a layers underneath. You dont put your biggest statue in a pit for no reason.. The water These where funeral rights of passage. So very important to the Kemets. If you look closely at the different gods you can find the same expression repeated again and again.. The crossing of the river.. The cross.. Gods of the crossing are gate keepes and found across all old religions.. Anubis in many ways performed the same role as Jesus.. the way to the kingdom of heaven.. The same can be seen in hathor (of the crossroads) Nibiru (the crossroad) Heqet etc..

The marriage expressed in the sphinx and pyramids is the story of ISIS (Ast) and Osiris) The three pyramids being the belt of orion (Osiris) and the sphinx ISIS (Sirius) Thats why the three crosses of the crucifixion and Jesus of Nezarath (Sirius) Same story repeated again and again..

originally posted by: JamesChessman
a reply to: AndyMayhew

This was meant to reply to ^him, not the other guy, that it said:



Indeed - which rather suggests the worst of the erosion occurred after the head was re-carved (if it was). ie after dynastic times ....




^No, the head does NOT share the same heavy erosion found on the body. (If that’s really what you meant to say.)

Rather, the body is much more heavy erosion.

So the head was very clearly carved AFTER the body’s heavy erosion happened.

Obviously the body’s erosion is from an earlier time period, before the modern head was carved.

It fits with the hypothesis of the Sphinx catching the 5,000 years of torrential rains and flooding, following the end of last ice age.

I tried uploading a few photos of the body’s erosion but I’m not having any luck with uploads.

The head is carved from different limestone to the body. Erosion patterns would therefore be different. But, moreover, it has a very small surface area so would be much less affected by run-off after heavy thunderstorms.

Also, don't assume that just because annual rainfall across northern Africa was higher during the AHP it meant there was 5,000 years of torrential rains and flood in Cairo

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: JamesChessman
a reply to: AndyMayhew

This was meant to reply to ^him, not the other guy, that it said:



Indeed - which rather suggests the worst of the erosion occurred after the head was re-carved (if it was). ie after dynastic times ....




^No, the head does NOT share the same heavy erosion found on the body. (If that’s really what you meant to say.)

Rather, the body is much more heavy erosion.

So the head was very clearly carved AFTER the body’s heavy erosion happened.

Obviously the body’s erosion is from an earlier time period, before the modern head was carved.

It fits with the hypothesis of the Sphinx catching the 5,000 years of torrential rains and flooding, following the end of last ice age.

I tried uploading a few photos of the body’s erosion but I’m not having any luck with uploads.

The head is carved from different limestone to the body. Erosion patterns would therefore be different. But, moreover, it has a very small surface area so would be much less affected by run-off after heavy thunderstorms.

Also, don't assume that just because annual rainfall across northern Africa was higher during the AHP it meant there was 5,000 years of torrential rains and flood in Cairo

To be honest, I just think you're arguing wrong things, on purpose. I've NEVER heard of the head being carved from different limestone as the body, what would that even mean? You think they broke off the first head, and then somehow... placed a different head on top of the broken neck?

I've ONLY ever heard of the head being re-carved... AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL STATUE. That's the whole idea about the head being too small, it's too small because it was carved SMALLER from the ORIGINAL head, which was originally bigger.

Do you have ANY kind of source that suggests your head replacement theory? I don't think so.

Also, don't assume that just because annual rainfall across northern Africa was higher during the AHP it meant there was 5,000 years of torrential rains and flood in Cairo

^That seems like fabricating an argument that's not there.

Cairo IS THE TOPIC that we're discussing, the timeline of 5,000 years of rain and flooding after the Ice Age ended.





Hey let's go back to your earlier posts and see if you're just arguing nonsense on purpose, to create confusion and ignorance on purpose.

We were discussing the idea of the ocean covering the Sahara, millions of years ago. You said:

What salt? Sand is made from eroding rocks. Why would it contain salt?

Well... that's obviously pretending that you don't understand the conversation. Discussing saltwater remains, would naturally include mentioning left-over salt deposits. From the saltwater. From the salt, in the saltwater. Evaporated millions of years ago. Which could leave behind... the salt.

For god sake there isn't even anything to misunderstand there. Plus, there ARE massive salt deposits in certain spots of the Sahara, so it's physically present, in real life, regardless that you pretended to be confused about why SALT would be part of discussing SALTwater.

Indeed - which rather suggests the worst of the erosion occurred after the head was re-carved (if it was). ie after dynastic times ....

^Nope, anyone who has looked at the Sphinx, can see that the body has a million times more erosion than the head.

So there you're pretending to not be able to look at a photo of the statue, apparently, and/or you were pretending to misunderstand the photography.

No it won't. But if it dates back much more than 5,000 years I'd expect to see a lot more erosion ....

Oh, you have a hunch? Well it's based on false ideas, so your hunch is wrong, inasmuch as it's based on false ideas.




The whole point of the thread is to boil down some CLARITY about the Sphinx, and its erosion, and its construction dates etc.

^That actually relates to something else that has crossed my mind several times, when looking at photos of the Sphinx.

If the entire statue is carved from the natural BEDROCK... which it is... then that means the ORIGINAL GROUND LEVEL was apparently, the height of the top of the Sphinx head...!!

It's obvious that the Shinx's pit, is clearly carved out, but apparently, the ENTIRE BEDROCK has been removed from the ENTIRE LANDSCAPE, too.

Because the original bedrock had to be at the height of the top of the Sphinx, or taller.

It's really insane to think about that!!



... I guess the alternative is that the Sphinx was possibly carved from some natural plateau, that was already standing there, above the rest of the bedrock, maybe.

Either way, I don't think I've ever heard / seen anyone discussing how the statue is SO MUCH TALLER than everything, as part of the original BEDROCK, then the entire landscape has been carved down...?!

a reply to: JamesChessman

I think you should learn a little basic geology and how sedimentary rocks form

But yes, it's possible the head, being a harder layer of limestone, was originally an outcrop - or yardang - protruding above the general ground surface.