Sphinx Rain Marks From 12,000 Years Ago?

Funny how the AE were so thoroughly competent at sculpting anatomy, both human and animal form, including the other smaller Sphinxes they carved (including granite ) and yet this is the only one where the head looks totally out of scale with the rest of the body.
You’d think they would have carved the body smaller to adjust for anatomical scale discrepancy, as they ‘carved down’ into the bedrock , and not made such an error.
What an artistic/sculpting puzzle they have left behind , eh?
It obviously wasn’t the best or most experienced sculptors who did the Sphinx , was it?
a reply to: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
a reply to: JamesChessman

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

Hmmmmm but… you don’t actually respond, to any of the follow-up responses, to your posts.

So you’re not really even engaging the conversation, nor do you seem to mean anything in your posts, seeing that you just say things and ignore the responses to your posts.

Here you’re not even saying WHY you’re suggesting I learn more, well sure, what should I learn? You were just pretending that you thought the Sphinx head was… chopped off and replaced? Right?

You pretended to not understand that there are salt deposits, after saltwater evaporates? Right?

How about engage your own outlandish comments, a tiny bit, and then maybe you can suggest others learn more, when you’re not pretending that the Sphinx head has more erosion than the body, you’re disproven by just looking at a photo of the Sphinx.

Let’s be honest, you’re not saying anything at all. Who are we kidding.

originally posted by: bluesfreak
Funny how the AE were so thoroughly competent at sculpting anatomy, both human and animal form, including the other smaller Sphinxes they carved (including granite ) and yet this is the only one where the head looks totally out of scale with the rest of the body.
You’d think they would have carved the body smaller to adjust for anatomical scale discrepancy, as they ‘carved down’ into the bedrock , and not made such an error.
What an artistic/sculpting puzzle they have left behind , eh?
It obviously wasn’t the best or most experienced sculptors who did the Sphinx , was it?
a reply to: AndyMayhew

I usually always thought that the Sphinx body was underwater, in a pool or canal, some kind of waterway.

That might explain why the body is so much bigger than it should be: maybe it’s because the body is underwater, so it was too big on purpose, to be visible from above the water? Like to be seen by people in boats?

It’s a theory I’ve heard… not that it explains all the different mysteries of the Sphinx, but it might help explain the erosion of the body, and the disproportionate size. Maybe…

originally posted by: JamesChessman
That might explain why the body is so much bigger than it should be: maybe it’s because the body is underwater, so it was too big on purpose, to be visible from above the water? Like to be seen by people in boats?

Why should it have to be bigger to be seen?

If the water is clear the only difference is that because of the difference in refraction index between the water and the air it would look slightly shifted from its real location.

Or am I missing something?

The AE extracted HUGE multi tonne blocks from the Sphinx enclosure and made a temple with them next to the Sphinx. These blocks show the same huge erosion as the Sphinx body , and were later ‘lined ‘ with granite blocks to preserve their integrity.
To me it signals that the Sphinx body and this temple are the same age , and that a much later Dynasty repaired the temple by shoring it up with a nicer external cladding , and probably recarving a previous heavily eroded head into a human form.
It is supposedly Khafre.
The head recarving makes sense to me , regarding my previous post about scale and anatomy .
If Khafre’s sculptors worked on the whole Sphinx, they would have carved it into correct scale AS it was completed.
The scale is very wrong and highly inconsistent with so many other AE Sphinxes, huge statues and human form statues and also the pyramids and other structures around it which were made to very exacting standards.
Khafres sculptors were not that good at scale, it seems.
a reply to: JamesChessman

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
That might explain why the body is so much bigger than it should be: maybe it’s because the body is underwater, so it was too big on purpose, to be visible from above the water? Like to be seen by people in boats?

Why should it have to be bigger to be seen?

If the water is clear the only difference is that because of the difference in refraction index between the water and the air it would look slightly shifted from its real location.

Or am I missing something?

No you’re not missing anything, it’s just an old theory I had heard years ago. And I just mentioned it because I thought of it, and I had not mentioned it in the thread yet.

I agree with you, it’s not a very compelling idea that the body is overly huge, just to be visible by the boats going by.

a reply to: bluesfreak

Is it possible that they recarved the head while thinking about keeping the body buried?

Is it possible that they recarved the head while thinking about keeping the body buried?

Anything’s possible , I think.
One thing is for sure, Egyptologists seem to get very prickly when it comes to this subject , whether it be rainfall history since the end of the last ice age , the Sphinx odd head size , and the corresponding erosion characteristics found on it and around its enclosure .
The body has also been buried for several millennia both recently and during dynastic times , therefore protected from erosion, and yet it displays erosion that many geologists (yes, more than just Schoch concur with this) say shows erosion that can only be WAAAAY older than dynastic history .
It’s a great debate , and personally , I don’t think it’s settled at all despite the often strange answers from ‘experts’.
For instance , the argument stated by Andy Mayhew that the head is less eroded because it’s smaller is quite funny when you think about it .
It has a very angular shape to it , which would encourage a faster rate of run off other than ‘drips’ . It can’t be that it’s smaller than the body , and therefore less rain fell on it ! Hilarious!!

I personally don’t believe for a minute that the expert stone masons and sculptors of AE would get the scale so wrong AS they were carving it out , or wouldn’t have corrected the scale once the main body shape was roughed out .
It’s a great debate though !

a reply to: ArMaP

originally posted by: bluesfreak
The body has also been buried for several millennia both recently and during dynastic times , therefore protected from erosion, and yet it displays erosion that many geologists (yes, more than just Schoch concur with this) say shows erosion that can only be WAAAAY older than dynastic history .

It was protected from direct rain and wind but it wasn't protected against chemical erosion, as the water seeping through the ground can erode limestone easily, that's how sinkholes are formed.

It was protected from direct rain and wind but it wasn't protected against chemical erosion, as the water seeping through the ground can erode limestone easily, that's how sinkholes are formed.

Well, I certainly don’t have all the answers, and I’m not claiming to either , but it does seem that Egypt only became the dry arid place it is now just before Dynastic Egypt began. Which is why the water erosion hypothesis is a great annoyance for the ‘experts ‘ of Egyptology.
I personally put my faith in a geologist over an Egyptologist on this question .
Read Schoch’s work on this subject. He went to Egypt ready to debunk John Antony West, believing that the Egyptology ‘experts’ must have got their dating and science right .
He says that once he got into the Sphinx enclosure it took him about 100 seconds of looking to realise they hadn’t .
“ Man fears time, but time fears the Sphinx” is an interesting thought .


a reply to: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman

You pretended to not understand that there are salt deposits, after saltwater evaporates? Right?

In theory, a marine incursion which was then disconnected from the ocean, and evapourated, would leave salt deposits. But no such incursion has occurred in Egypt in recent geological times.

Most salt deposits in the Sahara - as in N America, and elsewhere in the world - are actually from freshwater lakes drying up.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is all totally irrelevant to the age of the Sphinx.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: bluesfreak
The body has also been buried for several millennia both recently and during dynastic times , therefore protected from erosion, and yet it displays erosion that many geologists (yes, more than just Schoch concur with this) say shows erosion that can only be WAAAAY older than dynastic history .

It was protected from direct rain and wind but it wasn't protected against chemical erosion, as the water seeping through the ground can erode limestone easily, that's how sinkholes are formed.

Shsssh - that's geology!

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: JamesChessman

You pretended to not understand that there are salt deposits, after saltwater evaporates? Right?

In theory, a marine incursion which was then disconnected from the ocean, and evapourated, would leave salt deposits. But no such incursion has occurred in Egypt in recent geological times.

Most salt deposits in the Sahara - as in N America, and elsewhere in the world - are actually from freshwater lakes drying up.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is all totally irrelevant to the age of the Sphinx.

Actually I think you’re irrelevant to the thread because every post is saying crazy things that you never follow up.

Here you are misrepresenting the entire conversation.

We are discussing ancient times and your argument is that saltwater hasn’t been there in RECENT times. Well good thing we were discussing ANCIENT times.

I think you couldn’t be more blatantly obvious that you’re just fabricating nonsense and fabricating confusion for readers that aren’t quite keeping up with the substance of the thread.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: bluesfreak
The body has also been buried for several millennia both recently and during dynastic times , therefore protected from erosion, and yet it displays erosion that many geologists (yes, more than just Schoch concur with this) say shows erosion that can only be WAAAAY older than dynastic history .

It was protected from direct rain and wind but it wasn't protected against chemical erosion, as the water seeping through the ground can erode limestone easily, that's how sinkholes are formed.

Shsssh - that's geology!

The thread is waiting for you to prove that you’re doing something more than trolling and fabricating false arguments, and vapid, obnoxious remarks like your post here.

Are you going to explain why you seemed to suggest that the Sphinx head was chopped off? There’s no chop line visible on the statue.

You thought the head had more erosion than the body? You’re disproven by every photo of the Sphinx, showing more much erosion on the body.

You’re quite a confused person aren’t you lol.

originally posted by: bluesfreak
The AE extracted HUGE multi tonne blocks from the Sphinx enclosure and made a temple with them next to the Sphinx. These blocks show the same huge erosion as the Sphinx body , and were later ‘lined ‘ with granite blocks to preserve their integrity.
To me it signals that the Sphinx body and this temple are the same age , and that a much later Dynasty repaired the temple by shoring it up with a nicer external cladding , and probably recarving a previous heavily eroded head into a human form.
It is supposedly Khafre.
The head recarving makes sense to me , regarding my previous post about scale and anatomy .
If Khafre’s sculptors worked on the whole Sphinx, they would have carved it into correct scale AS it was completed.
The scale is very wrong and highly inconsistent with so many other AE Sphinxes, huge statues and human form statues and also the pyramids and other structures around it which were made to very exacting standards.
Khafres sculptors were not that good at scale, it seems.
a reply to: JamesChessman

Now that’s a new idea that I hadn’t considered before, that the casing blocks are newer than the actual build of the pyramids.

There does seem more erosion on the inner blocks, sure, but I never really considered it that way, that the pyramids were built with the inner stones only, and then got later covered with casing stones.

I always thought the casing stones were original and they just did not deteriorate as fast as the inner stones… because the casing stones must be much longer-lasting, from their intrinsic qualities of the actual casing stone.

Plus the artistic aspect would seem clear that way (that the polished, harder casing stones were part of the original build), artistically plus also pragmatically, I always thought the casing stones were obviously protecting the inner structures.

But your idea is certainly POSSIBLE and worth thinking about.

I was talking about the Sphinx enclosure and the associated temple next to it that was made from the quarried stone from the enclosure .
It’s the temple next to it that was re-clad in dynastic times with granite . The inner limestone blocks quarried from around the Sphinx show the same erosional features as the enclosure and Sphinx body.

Here’s a paper that shows just how confusing and mixed up the data is regarding culture, population spread,DNA , sediment data, super arid climate, along the Nile up to the end of the last ice age .
Both the abstract and conclusion state that conflicting data needs more of a multi disciplinary approach to reach a better conclusion.
This is just an example of how conflicting data is rife in this area of study , and that by no means is any science ‘settled’ despite what trainee gatekeeper Andy Mayhew would try to make you believe .

But ssshhh, that’s geology ….
The Main Nile Valley at the End of the Pleistocene (28–15 ka): Dispersal Corridor or Environmental Refugium


a reply to: JamesChessman

originally posted by: JamesChessman

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: JamesChessman

You pretended to not understand that there are salt deposits, after saltwater evaporates? Right?

In theory, a marine incursion which was then disconnected from the ocean, and evapourated, would leave salt deposits. But no such incursion has occurred in Egypt in recent geological times.

Most salt deposits in the Sahara - as in N America, and elsewhere in the world - are actually from freshwater lakes drying up.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is all totally irrelevant to the age of the Sphinx.

Actually I think you’re irrelevant to the thread because every post is saying crazy things that you never follow up.

Here you are misrepresenting the entire conversation.

We are discussing ancient times and your argument is that saltwater hasn’t been there in RECENT times. Well good thing we were discussing ANCIENT times.

I think you couldn’t be more blatantly obvious that you’re just fabricating nonsense and fabricating confusion for readers that aren’t quite keeping up with the substance of the thread.

I said recent geological times. ie the last few hundred thousand years or so.

But if you think that's not the case, please do present your geological evidence to the contrary. Rather than just making unfounded assertions.

originally posted by: JamesChessman

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: bluesfreak
The body has also been buried for several millennia both recently and during dynastic times , therefore protected from erosion, and yet it displays erosion that many geologists (yes, more than just Schoch concur with this) say shows erosion that can only be WAAAAY older than dynastic history .

It was protected from direct rain and wind but it wasn't protected against chemical erosion, as the water seeping through the ground can erode limestone easily, that's how sinkholes are formed.

Shsssh - that's geology!

The thread is waiting for you to prove that you’re doing something more than trolling and fabricating false arguments, and vapid, obnoxious remarks like your post here.

Are you going to explain why you seemed to suggest that the Sphinx head was chopped off? There’s no chop line visible on the statue.

You thought the head had more erosion than the body? You’re disproven by every photo of the Sphinx, showing more much erosion on the body.

You’re quite a confused person aren’t you lol.

I have never suggested the Sphinx head was chopped off! And I also suggested the head was less prone to erosion from rainwater runoff (smaller surface area and harder rock)

I'm certainly not as confused (or as confusing) as you are

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: JamesChessman

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: JamesChessman

You pretended to not understand that there are salt deposits, after saltwater evaporates? Right?

In theory, a marine incursion which was then disconnected from the ocean, and evapourated, would leave salt deposits. But no such incursion has occurred in Egypt in recent geological times.

Most salt deposits in the Sahara - as in N America, and elsewhere in the world - are actually from freshwater lakes drying up.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is all totally irrelevant to the age of the Sphinx.

Actually I think you’re irrelevant to the thread because every post is saying crazy things that you never follow up.

Here you are misrepresenting the entire conversation.

We are discussing ancient times and your argument is that saltwater hasn’t been there in RECENT times. Well good thing we were discussing ANCIENT times.

I think you couldn’t be more blatantly obvious that you’re just fabricating nonsense and fabricating confusion for readers that aren’t quite keeping up with the substance of the thread.

I said recent geological times. ie the last few hundred thousand years or so.

But if you think that's not the case, please do present your geological evidence to the contrary. Rather than just making unfounded assertions.

Right, I had been referring to the ocean theoretically existing over the Sahara millions of years ago.

And you knew that.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: JamesChessman

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: bluesfreak
The body has also been buried for several millennia both recently and during dynastic times , therefore protected from erosion, and yet it displays erosion that many geologists (yes, more than just Schoch concur with this) say shows erosion that can only be WAAAAY older than dynastic history .

It was protected from direct rain and wind but it wasn't protected against chemical erosion, as the water seeping through the ground can erode limestone easily, that's how sinkholes are formed.

Shsssh - that's geology!

The thread is waiting for you to prove that you’re doing something more than trolling and fabricating false arguments, and vapid, obnoxious remarks like your post here.

Are you going to explain why you seemed to suggest that the Sphinx head was chopped off? There’s no chop line visible on the statue.

You thought the head had more erosion than the body? You’re disproven by every photo of the Sphinx, showing more much erosion on the body.

You’re quite a confused person aren’t you lol.

I have never suggested the Sphinx head was chopped off! And I also suggested the head was less prone to erosion from rainwater runoff (smaller surface area and harder rock)

I'm certainly not as confused (or as confusing) as you are

Well you certainly have been creating confusion on purpose, so yes, you’ve been accomplished in that, and the confusion is about YOU pretending to believe outlandish things, in YOUR confusion.

Ok you got me, you fooled me into thinking… that you thought the head was chopped off. Good one!

It’s very impressive but on the other hand, it’s EASY to create confusion when your goal is to create confusion, isn’t it?

And I’m pretty sure you did say that the head had caught more erosion than the body. Which is absurd. But no wonder now you’re pretending that you didn’t say that.

Really though it’s probably best to consider that you really haven’t said anything at all.