Egyptian sphinx water erosion dating
(( This interview with Robert Schoch originally appeared in Issue 1 of our free online magazine SUB ROSA June 2005))” As far as I am aware Schoch has never interacted with Readers’s responses to his criticisms ( which are listed below), nor has he explained why he thinks the limestone rocks would need more time or more water than what there was during Reader’s earlier date.He does however make points regarding the context of the site, and his own subsurface findings which are discussed at length below.
I will quote from Reader’s article published in the journal Archaeometry called “A Geomorphological Study of the Giza Necropolis, with Implications for the Development of the Site:” “The rainy conditions of c.As daytime temperatures rise, the solution begins to evaporate, precipitating salt crystals within the confined neck of the pores.The pressure which the crystals exert as they grow, leads to flaking of thin rock layers from the surface of the limestone.” Schoch has another line of evidence which centers on what Schoch believes to be subsurface weathering of the floor of the Sphinx enclosure.Unlike similar debates with ancient alien implications this one has played out in scholarly circles, most of the articles being published in the late 90’s and early 2000’s.For a very thorough, unbiased cataloging of this scholarly debate I would recommend this series of posts from David P. One of the first things I think it is important for anyone that believes Schoch’s model to understand is that this debate is not really about the sphinx itself, but rather it is mostly about the western side of the enclosure wall in which the Sphinx sits.In many ways this debate comes down to rainfall, when was it happening at Giza, and how much of it was there?
As I have already stated Schoch’s model emphasized that rainfall, not rain run-off was responsible for the deep erosion on the western enclosure wall, and therefore Schoch needs a lot of rainfall, and a lot of time to make his theory workable.
If Reader was right, it would mean that the the Sphinx was about 400 years older than they thought, and even though Reader’s date was 3000 to 5000 years after Schoch’s it was still not something they were excited about agreeing to, though at present they have settled on a type of stalemate, calling Readers theory “possible” but not “proven.” ((A. This is because the natural path that the water would have taken on the way to the western enclosure wall would have been forever interrupted when the large quarries were made.
In addition Reader proposes that the Sphinx was carved by an early solar cult on the plateau, which is why the Sphinx is facing toward the rising sun.
He attained this data from non invasive seismic geophysical surveys.
This part is a bit technical for me but it was explained to me this way by someone involved in this debate who wished to remain anonymous: “What Schoch tried to do was date the exposure of the enclosure floor to dry-air weathering.
To be sure there are other types of erosion, besides water run-off going on at the Sphinx enclosure and on the Sphinx itself, but almost all parties agree more or less on the basics of the others these days, even the mainstream guys.