View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Beagle
Joined: 20 Apr 2006 Posts: 31 Location: Tennessee
|
Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:40 pm Post subject: Robert Schoch - thoughts? |
|
|
We probably have all heard of Schoch and his theory on the Sphynx. He is a geologist who has examined the Sphinx at Giza and concludes that it has been eroded by rainfall. That conclusion, if true, has some heavy implications. The general Archaeological community has almost unanimously criticized him and believes his conclusions are not worthy of discussion. Well, in the spirit of this forum, what do you think?
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
frank harrist
Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 107 Location: Northeast Texas
|
Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it's an interesting theory, but I don't really believe it. This is one time that I'd like to be wrong, though. I just like flying in the face of conformity.....or whatever. _________________ We have not inherited the earth from our fathers. We are borrowing it from our children. (Amish Farmer) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Beagle
Joined: 20 Apr 2006 Posts: 31 Location: Tennessee
|
Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I dunno Frank. We have two disciplines arguing with one another, and something is lost in the translation. The geologist says that there is erosion by rainfall so his conclusions about the age of the Sphinx must be right. Then - you have archaeologists whose argument is that they have found "nothing", so they must be right. It would really be nice if some other geologists would weigh in though. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Minimalist
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 71 Location: Arizona
|
Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You may find this interesting.
http://members.aol.com/davidpb4/lawton.html
What I like about Schoch is that he is unapologetic. Geology being a hard science as opposed to Egyptology which is a 'soft' science.
All Schoch says is that it was built between 5 and 7,000 BC and he does not give a rat's ass about who built it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Beagle
Joined: 20 Apr 2006 Posts: 31 Location: Tennessee
|
Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the link. The archaeological community has "closed ranks" on this issue for the most part. Geologists, as a discipline, are just not getting on the bandwagon - one way or the other. In my own layman view (in this area) the head of the Sphinx does not look nearly as weathered as the rest of the body. In fact, it still has remnants of paint on it. I have have one more thought that someone might help me with. If the Sphinx was the guardian of a necropolis in the first dynasty, why was it not shaped in the form of a jackel instead of a lion? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Minimalist
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 71 Location: Arizona
|
Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
As I recall, I think it was Robert Bauval who noted that the size of the head is out of proportion to the body in that it is far too small. I think he speculated that the head of a lion would have been more appropriate for an equinoctal marker during the Age of Leo....which happens to be his 10,500 BC time period.
Subsequently, the heavily eroded head was recarved into the head of a pharoah....hence the smaller size. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rokcet Scientist Guest
|
Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Beagle wrote: | The general Archaeological community has almost unanimously criticized him and believes his conclusions are not worthy of discussion. |
That in itself is more than enough encouragement to review this option damn seriously.
Quote: | [...] In my own layman view (in this area) the head of the Sphinx does not look nearly as weathered as the rest of the body. |
But it is a lot smaller than it ought to be. So I agree with those that theorize the head was originally the same scale as the rest of the body, but it was recarved later and so got smaller.
Why would it have been recarved? Maybe the weathering of the original head was so bad that it had to. Or there was a new pharaoh who wanted to make his mark on the cheap so he reshaped (mutilated) the image of his ancestor.
Or both?
Quote: | In fact, it still has remnants of paint on it. I have have one more thought that someone might help me with. If the Sphinx was the guardian of a necropolis in the first dynasty, why was it not shaped in the form of a jackel instead of a lion? |
a) if there was an original head, it stands to reason that was a lion's head (only a lion's head – with impressive manes – would have provided enough volume to carve a pharaoh head complete with royal headdress from);
b) because it wasn't "the guardian of a necropolis in the first dynasty" maybe?
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Minimalist
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 71 Location: Arizona
|
Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
A great shot of the enclosure wall (and Schochs 'vertical fissures') right about the right paw. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Beagle
Joined: 20 Apr 2006 Posts: 31 Location: Tennessee
|
Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I knew you would come back with that Bob! Mainstream archaeology would brand us as heretics but I guess that's what this forum is about. Now since you, RS, and I are saying much the same thing,ie, that the Sphinx may predate current accepted dates for construction, how does one answer the big question posed by the archeaological community? Which is "Where is the archeaology?". |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rokcet Scientist Guest
|
Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It ain't been found yet, Beagle. But it will. Patience. Zahi or his successors will stumble upon this even greater Egyptian past eventually. Within my lifetime, I hope.
It's just one of many things, like the decipherment of Linear A, the release of the dead sea scrolls interpretations, and the proof of the Solutrean walkabout, that we can all look forward too.
Last edited by Rokcet Scientist on Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:00 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Minimalist
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 71 Location: Arizona
|
Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Which is "Where is the archeaology?". |
My vote is underwater, covered by the rising sea levels at the end of the ice age.
You know, what would be left of our civilization in 15,000 years? Stone tends to be one of the more durable building materials but there are good reasons why cultures stop using it as they advance. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rokcet Scientist Guest
|
Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | My vote is underwater, covered by the rising sea levels at the end of the ice age. |
I second that.
Plus let's not underestimate the effects of the desertification since then!
Sand buries as effective as water.
Just look at this Google Earth screen shot. Looks like some pretty cataclysmic geological events happened there. It gets more apparent and graphic as you zoom in. Almost like ginormous waves rushed over it.
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i319/RokcetScientist/WhatHappenedHere.jpg |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Minimalist
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 71 Location: Arizona
|
Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Plus let's not underestimate the effects of the desertification since then!
|
IF you accept Schoch's point of view there was a considerable period of time in which it wasn't dry but wet....which would do its own work on breaking down ruins. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rokcet Scientist Guest
|
Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Minimalist wrote: | Quote: | Plus let's not underestimate the effects of the desertification since then!
|
IF you accept Schoch's point of view there was a considerable period of time in which it wasn't dry but wet....which would do its own work on breaking down ruins. |
Indeed, that was the end of the ice age. The transitional period. Global warming. Lots of (melt)water everywhere in the atmosphere. Vapourising, condensing and raining like mad. Catastrophic floods. The collapse of the pillars of Hercules (the Gibraltar breakthrough) filling the Mediterranean basin. So on, so forth.
It was a crazy time.
The people living in the flood plains – now 400 feet underwater – fled as far as they could and found a green and fertile land far away. They rebuilt their civilisation there. This green and fertile land is supposed to have been in what is now the south-west of Egypt. Yes, the middle of the Sahara. Because after only a few thousand years the aggressive onset of desertification forced these people to leave their now inhospitable and infertile lands. They're supposed to have migrated to the banks of the Nile. Where they joined those already living there richly off the seasonally renewed fertile clay deposits.
And have ever since.
Anyway, that's the theory. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Minimalist
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 71 Location: Arizona
|
Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Zahi Hawass would rather have his fingernails ripped out with pliers than admit the possibility of such a theory. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|