Wingmaker Seeker said:
On the side of the Sphinx, though, there are weathering "lines" (indentations) which is understandable, if they were caused by sand. But, it is becoming evident that this erosion was not caused by sand, but by water (and this thoery is accepted by many geologists).
Yet you cite none. Don't worry, I'll cite them for you. Schoch (1992;1992a) has written some fanciful speculations about this, but it would appear that he cannot back them up. Other geologists have pointed out that Schoch needs the seismic data of the layers below the Sphinx floor to be of weathered limestone, but that he has not the data to support this -only a hope. The data that is available indicates a different type of strata (Aigner 1983).
Wingmaker Seeker said:
The last (known) time that flooding occured, to the extent that it would have needed to in ored to cause those marks, was well before the Egyptian civilization sprung up.
Poppycock. There were major floods of the Nile in both 1873 and 1938 which resulted in water rising over 1 meter above the floor of the Sphinx enclosure. But this is trivial with regard to the erosional forces that the Sphinx has endured since its construction during the time of Khafre. The geologists who actually study the region and the Sphinx itself agree that the major erosional problem that the Sphinx faces at the moment is from condensation and capillary action of dew which pulls salts from the interior of the stone (Chowdhury et al 1990; Gauri et al 1988; Gauri et al 1990). The constant and consistent expansion of salts on the surface of the stone cause exfoliation.
But this isn't the primary cause for the weathering we see on the Sphinx's body today. This was done, quite simply, by rainfall. The Giza plateau is in a desert, but it still receives intense bursts of rainfall every few years. Climate data indicates that it was so in the last few hundred years (Sutton 1949). Indeed, when the Sphinx was excavated, the matrix of sand removed was said to be "soaked" and wet (Gauri et al 1986).
Wingmaker Seeker said:
Wo, what is theorized is that Khafre placed his head on a pre-existing monument, which was done quite a few times in Egypt.
The best, most reasonabled speculation that exists is that the person responsible for designing the Khafre Pyramid complex -which includes the pyramid itself, the adjacent mortuary temple, the valley temple and its adjacent sphinx- noticed a small hill or knoll that he either had to do something with. Perhaps the hill already had the body shape and the designer decided to work with what he had to create the body of the sphinx and add the head itself.
The Sphinx stands as a very clear and obvious guardian at the end of the causeway.
Wingmaker Seeker said:
Ophiolite- perhaps, I should have been more detailed. Monuments in ancient Egypt generally are temples and tombs, for pharaohs and gods.
The monumental architecture you're familiar with, probably. But this overlooks the multitudes of stelae and obelisks as well as staturary. There are far more of these in existence than the pyramids, temples, and mastabas. To ignore that and bitch about not being able to "go inside" the Sphinx is nonsensical. The Sphinx really isn't all that large. It always looks large in photos because most photographers try to give it context with a pyramid in the background or from a low angle with a sky background. Its grandeur is largely an illusion.
Wingmaker Seeker said:
Keep in mind that the stones used to build the Sphinx were larger thant the ones used for the pyramids. It just seems like too big of a projec for one king to undertake, for no specific reason
The stones were larger? How large were the largest stones of Khufu's pyramid and how large were the largest stones of the Sphinx? Please cite a reference as well as the dimensions in cm, inches, feet, whatever. In addition, your comment that "it seems too big of a projec[t] for one king to undertake" is meaningless. You need to clarify this as to why a king can motivate tens of thousands of subjects to move enough stone to build a pyramid that is, perhaps, comprised of about 6 million tons of stone but not a monument of only 66 feet high. One that was probably just a converted hill.
Stop reading garbage by myster-mongers like Hancock, Schoch, and Bauval and start reading the works of actual researchers. Shoch is proof that even Ph.D.'s can be woo-woos.
references:
Aigner, T. (1983)
Facies and origin of nummulitic buildups - an example from the Giza pyramids plateau Neus Jahrbuch Geologie und Palaeontologie Abhandlung 166 347-368.
Chowdhury, A. N., A. R. Punuru and K. L. Gauri (1990)
Weathering of limestone beds at the Great Sphinx.
Environmental Geology and Water Science, 15(3) 217-223.
Gauri, K. L., G. C. Holdren and W. C. Vaughry (1986)
Cleaning efflorescences from masonry, in J. R. Clifton (ed.),
'Cleaning Stone and Masonry': ASTM Special Technical Publication 935, Philadelphia, 3-13.
Gauri, K. L., A. N. Chowdhury, N. P. Kulshreshtha and A. R. Punuru (1988)
Geologic features and the durability of limestones at the Sphinx; in Marinos and Koukis (eds.), "
Engineering Geology of Ancient Works, Monuments and Historical Sites": A. A. Balkema: Rotterdam, pp 723-729.
Gauri, K. L., A. N. Chowdhury, N. P. Kulshreshtah and A. R. Punuru (1990)
Geologic features and durability of limestones at the Sphinx.
Environmental Geology and Water Science 16(1) 57-62.
Sutton, L. J. (1949) "Rainfall in Egypt - statistics, storms, runoff", Ministry of Public Works, Physical Department Paper No. 53, Government Press, Cairo.
Schoch, R. M. (1992)
A modern riddle of the Sphinx.
Omni 14(11) 68-69.
Schoch, R. M. (1992a)
Redating the Great Sphinx of Giza.
KMT 3(2) 52-59.