Thread: Sphinx Water Erosion Theory

Sphinx water erosion hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This second link is a site run by the geologist who first championed the water erosion theory: Robert Schoch.

Robert M. Schoch: The Great Sphinx

There's also a documentary about it narrated by Charleton Hestin called "Mystery of the Sphinx", available on Netflix. It's pretty entertaining for a documentary, with some good evidence at the beginning, but degenerates into wild alien theories toward the end.

Basically, there appears to be good agreement among many geologists that the erosion pattern on the walls surrounding the Sphinx would only make sense if they were the result of sustained, heavy rainfall, which would have been unlikely to have occurred during the time since Egyptologists believe the Sphinx to have been constructed, but quite possible at a much earlier time, but that would place its original construction in pre-history.

Basically, instead of being yet another grand construction project during the high point of Egypt's Old Kingdom, it would be an anomaly similar to Stone Henge, possibly created by a more primitive culture, or at least one that didn't last.

It is an interesting speculaiton, but I am not yet convinced that we have a firm enough grasp of the rainfall pattern for all the time since the Sphinx was apparently constructed

One of the better arguments made by Schoch is that he points out there are 3 mud brick pyramids nearby, which have unquestioned build dates around the time the Sphinx was supposed to have been built, and which should have been badly eroded by the same forces that damaged the Sphinx. That is, if their build date were truly contemporary to the Sphinx's build date.

Here's the last part of the wiki article:

However, Schoch points out that fragile mudbrick structures nearby, indisputably dated to Dynasties I and II, have survived relatively undamaged, indicating that no heavy rainfall has occurred in the region since the Early Dynastic Period, and nor was any heavy rain anticipated by those Early Dynastic Period communities who built those structures

The intention of starting this thread, is actually to try and give Paleoichneum an answer to his post on the other Pre-Columbia thread. Egyptologists seem to be fighting this water erosion hypothesis tooth and nail, but unfortunately hard science isn't on their side.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum (in the thread: Pre-Columbian American - European contacts.

To be honest, as the second article is a tourism website, I would like to see a reaserch paper that verifies the "requires some type of loom" claim.

Archaeologists are always looking for these neat narratives. But..... real life doesn't follow narratives.

The thing is, if this statement were true then the peer-reviewed papers a researcher put out trying to force evidence to support something it doesnt would get shreaded in other papers or not even published. Its not a true statement though, unless you can show otherwise.

The Sphinx was carved from limestone in situ. It's attached to the bedrock. That's inconsistent with the usual quarrying and transport of blocks. A different building method suggests different builders.

On the other hand, this limestone might erode quickly.

The head is of the same limestone, yet appears far less eroded. Plainly it's been reworked. The present head is laughably undersized for the body, just like it's been whittled away by a string of revisionist carvers. Whoever owns that present face, we gods of her afterlife should judge a liar unworthy of immortalizing.