I had a friend whose aunt once said those dinosaur bones were put there by that nasty guy named lucifer *LOL*
In the Book of Job, there is reference to the constellations.
- Thread starter Medicine*Woman
- Start date
I had a friend whose aunt once said those dinosaur bones were put there by that nasty guy named lucifer *LOL*
So, Sarkus, when do you think the Sphinx was built?
Hey nova900, when do you think the Sphinx was built?
The new evidence seems to suggest 10,500 B.C or earlier.
So they sat around for 7,000 years after that, sharpening their crow bars, and then decided to build somemore megalithic constuctions? You've got to be kidding.
Let's call in the orthodox here, Skin, Inverto, John R, Walter, somebody, tell these guys when the Sphinx was built.
A long time before I was born.
I think the 10,500 BC camp now have more weight to their argument.
But I am not sufficiently knowledgable to have any real idea as to when. I certainly wouldn't claim to know - and I do not know the evidence sufficiently well to be able to say one way or the other.
But I am still aware of the ongoing debate.
Previous to doing even a small amount of research on it I would have just gone along with common conception - but only through intellectual idleness.
Does that answer your question?
And where are the nearest "megalithic" constructions to Stonehenge in the UK?
Yet that was built... 3,500 years or so ago?
Huh?
My point is that your argument is one of incredulity - nothing more.
You can not seem to believe that noone built another structure near the Sphinx in 7,000 or so years - and use this as "evidence" that it could not have been built 7,000 years earlier than you think.
An argument from incredulity... "I can't believe it - so it can't be so!"
You can not seem to believe that noone built another structure near the Sphinx in 7,000 or so years - and use this as "evidence" that it could not have been built 7,000 years earlier than you think.
An argument from incredulity... "I can't believe it - so it can't be so!"
I find it hard to believe that a megalithic structure was built by the ancients, and then they took seven thousand years off before they built another one, talk about a nice break.
As I said.... "I can't believe it is true - therefore it can't be!"
Argument from Incredulity.
Also - when was the last megalithic structure OUR SOCIETY built next to the pyramids??
Nice break for us to have taken over the last 3,600 years or so!
Argument from Incredulity.
Also - when was the last megalithic structure OUR SOCIETY built next to the pyramids??
Nice break for us to have taken over the last 3,600 years or so!
Schoch is considered a kook in the scientific community because he has a conclusion to which he fits the data. Moreover, he ignores other data and possibilities because they don't support his conclusions.
The sphinx almost certainly did not exist before the pyramids of Giza and was carved in the likeness of Khafre around 2500 BCE, the pharaoh for whom one of the pyramids was built. The sphinx "stands guard" at the end of his causeway.
We can dismiss the 10,000+ claim since there's no evidence of the sphinx motif in Pre-Dynastic art and murals. Moreover, there is no evidence of settlement in Giza in Pre-Dynastic times (they were more prevalent in the Delta). The greatly exaggerated age of the sphinx fails to take into consideration the data presented by Colin Reader and at least one other geologist who studied the sphinx, both agreeing that, while it may be a few hundred years older than previously thought, the inundation from the Nile, acid rain, condensation and capillary response of the rock, etc. are likely to be at work.
Also ignored by the exaggerated antiquity claim is the even more parsimonious explanation that the builders of the sphinx simply modified an existing limestone hill (this was where they quarried some of the rock for construction in the pyramids & temples) and built around it, covering previously weathered rock. The original facade of the sphinx is long gone.
The sphinx almost certainly did not exist before the pyramids of Giza and was carved in the likeness of Khafre around 2500 BCE, the pharaoh for whom one of the pyramids was built. The sphinx "stands guard" at the end of his causeway.
We can dismiss the 10,000+ claim since there's no evidence of the sphinx motif in Pre-Dynastic art and murals. Moreover, there is no evidence of settlement in Giza in Pre-Dynastic times (they were more prevalent in the Delta). The greatly exaggerated age of the sphinx fails to take into consideration the data presented by Colin Reader and at least one other geologist who studied the sphinx, both agreeing that, while it may be a few hundred years older than previously thought, the inundation from the Nile, acid rain, condensation and capillary response of the rock, etc. are likely to be at work.
Also ignored by the exaggerated antiquity claim is the even more parsimonious explanation that the builders of the sphinx simply modified an existing limestone hill (this was where they quarried some of the rock for construction in the pyramids & temples) and built around it, covering previously weathered rock. The original facade of the sphinx is long gone.
Its a matter of economics versus need. For anthropologists and archaeologists who've studied the phenomenon, it really isn't so difficult to believe. What becomes difficult to believe sometimes is that they were able to sustain their monumental architecture and grandiose lifeways for as long as they did.
Military commitments and later economic collapse eventually did them in and the evidence is present in their architecture as pyramids and temples begin showing shortcuts to achieve grandiose results.
The weathering in the Sphinx quarry is clearly generic limestone erosion by rainfall, it was much rainier there when the Sphinx was built, during the Ice Age actually.
And your citation(s) to this is...?
Mine are:
Gauri, K.L. (1984). Geologic Study of the Sphinx. In Newsletter of the American Research Center In Egypt, vol 127, pp. 24-43.
Lehner, M. (1992). Documentation of the Sphinx. In Proceedings of the First International Symposium on the Great Sphinx, Cairo.
Wilkinson, T. (1999). Early Dynastic Egypt. London, p. 84
Well, as I said to Ice .It was not my data or research. I initially was pointing it out in relation to the theory about the sphinx facing towards the constellation of leo.
How about the the issue of the head being a later edition to what might have been the head of a lion previously?
And, that no symbols of Khafre were found there.Being that the egyptians seemed to be big on placing them in their tombs,monuments,etc.
Well, that's the great thing I love about science.The debate on various theories and what is needed to substantiate them.