The age of the Sphynx

In article <49b0g6$ap4@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, DQHR18A@prodigy.com (Rodney Small) wrote:

by Peter Tompkins, p. 105. Furthermore, Robert Bauval, John Anthony West, and Robert Schoch have developed evidence that the Sphinx and three major Giza Pyramids were built several thousand years earlier than is conventionally believed. Maybe not by ancient astronauts, but certainly by a technically advanced civilization. The pyramids that collapsed were likely later copies of these advanced earlier structures, and featured a far inferior technology.

I've located some more information on this. August Matthuson, a geologist interested in archaeology, comments:

The argument hinges on weathering of the in situ rock. Erosion is the process which removes material; weathering is the process which degrades the rock in place. Schoch has indicated that the rounded profile of some of the Sphinx was due to "precipitation- induced weathering" rather than "wind-induced weathering" which supposedly produced a straight profile on other sculpted rock structures. Supposedly there was only sufficient water to produce this "precipitation-induced weathering" during a wet period some 7000 years ago. Thus Schoch makes his argument for increased antiquity. West has pushed this age back further (I'm not sure on what basis; I'm not really interested in reading West) and has tried to relate it to Atlanteans.

Schoch's ideas ignore several things. "Precipitation-induced weathering" versus "wind-induced weathering" producing different lithologic morphologies is not an accepted idea, rather variations in the rock usually account for the different weathering morphologies. If the "precipitation-induced weathering" occurred 7000 years ago and the "wind- induced weathering" occurred on structures 4500 years old, why didn't the "wind-induced weathering" obliterate the older "precipitation-induced weathering"? Gauri et al. (1995; Geoarchaeology, V10, #2, pp119-133) have been working on the Sphinx for years studying its rapid weathering and have found that the rapid weathering (which predates high atmospheric acid content) is due to formation of salt crystals in the rock pores which causes exfoliation due to hydrostatic pressure. This exfoliation results in a rounded profile similar to that which Schoch indicates could only be due to "precipitation-induced weathering." All in all, Schoch seems to have focused on one explanation and ignored several other working hypotheses.

Judith Paulson wrote the following list:

BOOKS

BAUVAL, Robert and Gilbert, Adrian. "The Orion Mystery." New York: Crown, 1994. [$24 hardcover LENGTH: 325 pp. (236 text and guest appearance by Rudolph Gatenbrink, 7 appendices, notes, bibliography, index, 16 b&w photographs, numerous drawings]

Hancock, Graham. "Fingerprints of the Gods." New York: Crown, 1995.

SCHWALLER De LUBICZ, RA. "Le Temple de l'Homme, 3 volumes." (The Temple of Man) English version translated by Robert and Deborah Lawlor. Autumn Books. ["This is the cardinal work to which all the others lead or refer. Though not intended for specialists, the sheer complexity and magnitude of the work makes it accessible only to those willing to devote the necessary time and effort to it." He agrees with Lockyear that the Ptolomaic temple is built on the remains of older temples.]

WEST, John Anthony. "Serpent in the Sky: The High Wisdom of Ancient Egypt." NY: Harper and Row, 1979 [paperback book based on the theories of Schwaller De Lubicz, $18]

MAGAZINE ARTICLES on or by SCHOCH, Robert M.

ARCHAEOLOGY, Sep-Oct, 1994 [Article critical of Schoch's theory on age of Sphinx]

ARCHAEOLOGY, Jan-Feb, 1995 [Schoch's reply to previous article]

FORTEAN TIMES, Feb-Mar, 1995 [latest update]

GEOARCHAEOLOGY, Vol 7, No 6 (December, 1992). [Dobecki did the sound wave tests]

KMT, Summer, 1992; Summer-Fall, 1994

OMNI, August, 1992; April, 1993

VIDEOTAPES

WEST, John Anthony. "The Mystery of the Sphinx." Livionia, MI: The Sphinx Project, 1993. (this is the expanded version of the video that aired on NBC that was hosted by Charlton Heston, 95 minutes, $29.95, 800-508-0558]

Chowdhury, A.N., A.R. Punuru, and K.L. Gauri, 1990. Weathering of Limestone Beds at the Great Sphinx; _Environmental Geology and Water Science_, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 217-225.

Gauri, K.L., A.N. Chowdhury, N.P. Kulshreshtha, and A. R. Punuru, 1990. Geologic Features and Durability of Limestones at the Sphinx; _Environmental Geology and Water Science_, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 57-62.

Guari, K. L., J.J. Sinai, and J.K. Bandyopadhyay, 1995. Geologic Weathering and its Implications on the Age of the Sphinx; _Geoarchaeology_, Vol 10, No. 2, pp. 119-133.

Harrell, J. A., 1994. The Sphinx Controversy: Another Look at the Geologic Evidence; _KMT_, vol 5., pp. 70-74.

Punuru, A.R., A.N. Chowdhury, N.P. Kulshreshtha, and K.L. Gauri, 1990. Control of Porosity on Durability of Limestones at the Great Sphinx, Egypt; _Environmental Geology and Water Science_, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 225-232.

Schoch, R. M. and J. A. West, 1991. Redating the Great Sphinx of Giza, Egypt [abs.]; Geological Society of America Annual Meeting Abstracts with Programs, San Diego, Cal.

I'd recommend the article by Gauri et al. (1995). It's a summary and discussion by geologists who have been working on the Giza Plateau for years.

Part of the problem is that many times the new work is not "theories or data." Rather, they are speculation with a bit of science thrown in for support. In this case, the skepticism should be look at the data and evaluate the multiple working hypotheses.

Subject:  Re: The Mystery of the Sphinx TV program 
Date:  6 Feb 1996 02:27:03 +0100 
From:  MATTHUSENA@YMV5.YMP.GOV
Organization:  The land of Utopia, where anarchy rules. 
Newsgroups:  sci.archaeology


rmashcro@ozemail.com.au (Robert M Ashcroft) wrote:

>On Thursday 1/2/96, a local TV station broadcased the followiing
>program "The Mystery of the Sphinx" presented by Charlton Heston and I
>found the program intriguing.

>I find that the learned advocate arguments against the theories put
>forward by the geologists somewhat dissappointing.  If the geologists
>are correct, (the evidence is compelling,) they do not have to also
>explain the "civilisation" gap that occurs as a result.  That is the
>job of the archologists.

>The main argument against a sphinx being older that 4500 BC seems to
>be that the records of civilisation currently found do not allow for
>that possibility.  I would argue that this is not a vaild reason for
>saying the geologists are wrong.  The real problem seems to be with
>the underlying assumption by the archeologists that the development of
>civilisation is a linear, near continuous advancement that ends either
>in extinction or continued survival.

The main argument discussed in the TV show may indicate what you say
above.  However, there is more info which is not discussed or alluded to in
the TV show.

The argument really hinges on weathering of the in situ rock.  Erosion is
the process which removes material; weathering is the process which
degrades the rock in place.  Schoch (see biblio below for citations) has
indicated that the rounded profile of some of the Sphinx was due to
"precipitation-induced weathering" rather than "wind-induced weathering"
which supposedly produced a straight profile on other weathered rock
structures.  Supposedly there was only sufficient water to produce this
"precipitation-induced weathering" during a wet period some 7000 years
ago.  Thus Schoch makes his argument for increased antiquity of the Sphinx
(i.e, it had to exist more than 7000 years ago rather than the approx 4500
years ago that it is normally dated to).  West has pushed this age back
further and has tried to relate it to Atlanteans.

The Sphinx comprises several different strata of limestone. The different
strata have different lithologic properties, among which are different
styles of weathering.

Schoch (and West) want to claim that "precipitation-induced weathering"
differs from "wind-induced weathering."  However, they have not
demonstrated that this is true and indeed they have not even tested this
hypothesis, merely averred that it is true.  In reality, most weathering
morphologies are due to lithologic differences among various strata.
Additionally, Schoch (and West) want to exclude other weathering processes
and lump things into the poorly defined categories of "precipitation-
induced weathering" and "wind-induced weathering" without explaining what
is meant by these terms, without fully defining the processes involved,
and without explaining how or why these categorories result in the
respective morphologies. If the "precipitation-induced weathering"
occurred 7000 years ago and the "wind- induced weathering" occurred on
structures 4500 years old, why didn't the "wind-induced weathering"
obliterate the older "precipitation-induced weathering"?  Gauri et al.
(1995) have been working on the Sphinx for years studying its rapid
weathering and have found that the rapid weathering (which predates high
atmospheric acid content) is due to formation of salt crystals in the rock
pores which causes exfoliation due to hydrostatic pressure.  This
exfoliation results in a rounded profile similar to that which Schoch
indicates could only be due to "precipitation-induced weathering."  All in
all, Schoch seems to have focused on one explanation and ignored several
other working hypotheses which explain the phenomenon much more 
concisely than having to resort to the Sphinx being carved 2500 years
before there is a well recognized civilization in Egypt (not to mention the
Atlanteans).  I'd suggest reviewing the Gauri et al. (1995) paper for a
more detailed explanation of the controversey and the evidence.

Judith Paulson wrote the following bibliographic list:

BOOKS
 
BAUVAL, Robert and Gilbert, Adrian. "The Orion Mystery." New York: Crown,
1994.  [$24 hardcover LENGTH: 325 pp. (236 text and guest appearance by
Rudolph Gatenbrink, 7 appendices, notes, bibliography, index, 16 b&w
photographs, numerous drawings]
 
Hancock, Graham. "Fingerprints of the Gods." New York: Crown, 1995.
 
SCHWALLER De LUBICZ, RA. "Le Temple de l'Homme, 3 volumes." (The 
Temple of Man) English version translated by Robert and Deborah Lawlor. 
Autumn Books. ["This is the cardinal work to which all the others lead or 
refer. Though not intended for specialists, the sheer complexity and 
magnitude of the work makes it accessible only to those willing to devote 
the necessary time and effort to it." He agrees with Lockyear that the 
Ptolomaic temple is built on the remains of older temples.]
 
WEST, John Anthony. "Serpent in the Sky: The High Wisdom of Ancient Egypt." NY: Harper and Row, 1979 [paperback book based on the theories of Schwaller De Lubicz, $18]
 
MAGAZINE ARTICLES on or by SCHOCH, Robert M.
 
ARCHAEOLOGY, Sep-Oct, 1994 [Article critical of Schoch's theory on age of
Sphinx] 
ARCHAEOLOGY, Jan-Feb, 1995 [Schoch's reply to previous article]
FORTEAN TIMES, Feb-Mar, 1995 [latest update]
GEOARCHAEOLOGY, Vol 7, No 6 (December, 1992). [Dobecki did the sound wave tests]
KMT, Summer, 1992; Summer-Fall, 1994
OMNI, August, 1992; April, 1993
 
VIDEOTAPES
 
WEST, John Anthony. "The Mystery of the Sphinx." Livionia, MI: The Sphinx
Project, 1993. (this is the expanded version of the video that aired on NBC
that was hosted by Charlton Heston, 95 minutes, $29.95, 800-508-0558]
 
I replied giving Judith some additional references:

Several references bearing on the Sphinx controversy which are missing
from your list are:

Chowdhury, A.N., A.R. Punuru, and K.L. Gauri, 1990.  Weathering of
    Limestone Beds at the Great Sphinx; _Environmental Geology and Water
    Science_, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 217-225.

Gauri, K.L.,  A.N. Chowdhury, N.P. Kulshreshtha, and A. R. Punuru, 1990.
    Geologic Features and Durability of Limestones at the Sphinx;
    _Environmental Geology and Water Science_, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 57-62.

Guari, K. L., J.J. Sinai, and J.K. Bandyopadhyay, 1995.  Geologic
    Weathering and its Implications on the Age of the Sphinx;
    _Geoarchaeology_, Vol 10, No. 2, pp. 119-133.

Harrell, J. A., 1994.  The Sphinx Controversy:  Another Look at the
    Geologic Evidence; _KMT_, vol 5., pp. 70-74.

Punuru, A.R., A.N. Chowdhury, N.P. Kulshreshtha, and K.L. Gauri, 1990.
    Control of Porosity on Durability of Limestones at the Great Sphinx,
    Egypt; _Environmental Geology and Water Science_, Vol. 15, No. 3,
    pp. 225-232.

Schoch, R. M. and J. A. West, 1991.  Redating the Great Sphinx of Giza,
    Egypt [abs.]; Geological Society of America Annual Meeting Abstracts
    with Programs, San Diego, Cal.

>I hold that the theoritical assumption that humans came out of the
>trees and slowly developed farming, stone age and other ancient
>cultures has a very large hole in it.  It fails to account for any
>possibility of catastrophe.  If a catastrophe occured and the
>civilisation that build the sphinx was nearly scrubbed out.  It would
>take that civilisation a long time to recover.  Just surviving would
>be hard going.

Catastrophes tend to leave evidence of their occurrence.  For example,
in the late 1970s researchers noted the consistent occurrence of iridium
and micro-tektites in the clays which often demarcated the 
Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary.  This lead to an hypothesis that the dinosaur 
extinction was due to a meteorite impact.  A world wide search has identified 
a site in the Yucatan as the probable impact crater.  Whether or not the 
dinosuars died out due to the impact is still debated; the catastrophe of the 
impact is accepted based on the evidence.

[snip]

>I think that those who want to ignore the geological evidence just
>because their theories about civilisation turn to dust if they do
>accept the evidence are forgetting that they are scientists.  Remember
>the claim "if the facts do not fit then the theory is wrong"?  I think
>it is time for them to accept the good possibility that the 18th and
>19th centurary theories about civilisation are but fables.

The TV show was the main one ignoring the geologic evidence by presenting
speculation and untested hypotheses as fact and ignoring alternate hypotheses.

>The archeological evidence is littered with artifacts that have been
>more than hinting for a long time that the classic theory of
>civilisation is based on sand.  I for one find it hard to accept that
>human beings that have supposed to be on earth for 1/2 a million years
>and have built its existing civilisation in about 12000 years have had
>only one go at it.

And these artifacts are....?

>It seems to me that one group of academics are reacting as they tended
>to do in centuraries past.  If an amature destroys your theories with
>real unrefutable evidence burn them!  If it is an fellow academic
>ridicule them.  But we know how history views these zealots.  Just
>another bunch of power hungry dorks that failed to accept the
>evidence.

Yes, this is all part of the International Archaeology Conspiracy(tm) to
withhold crucial information from Those Who Would Really Know Best What To Do.

>I think it is time to start looking for cause of the last ice age, it
>could be that we have  just arrived at the point were we can repeat
>the experience cycle of catastrophe without a helping hand from
>nature.

For an intro to this, see _Ice Ages_ by Imbrie and Imbrie.  It's a bit dated,
but explains the Milankovich cycles.

Regards,
August Matthusen

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page