PDA

View Full Version : Golden age of man?



TimH
10-06-2004, 12:30 AM
Due to relatively recent discoveries the Sphinx has become the object of some considerable fascination for those who accept the new evidence.

According to Egyptologists the Pharaoh Chepheron built the Sphinx 4,500 years ago. There seems to be some violent opposition to the implications of the new evidence by Egyptologists. Particularly by Egyptian Egyptologists who seem to consider it almost sacrilege to contemplate the possibility of a different origin. In their view the accomplishment is a tribute to Egyptian culture, a testament to the greatness of ancient Egyptians, and that's the name of that tune.

Recently a man named John A. West came upon an observation in text made by a French author and mathematician by the name of Schwaller De Lubice. He remarked that the erosion on the body of the Sphinx seemed to have been caused by water. This is of some considerable importance since there has been no rain at Giza for at least 9,000 years. West examined the weathering and concluded it was vertical not horizontal as sand blown winds would cause.

On the same note I feel it important to point out that there is no recorded history in Egypt of anyone building the Sphinx, and the Egyptians were funny about doing just that.

West had no credentials before his name, and could have been ignored, but for Dr. Robert Schoch, Geologist, and professor at Boston University. It's a big step to make an earth shaking proclamation. Careers can be ruined for swimming against the mainstream of accepted truth. Dr. Schoch reviewed the evidence for a few months, and then went public with his findings - that it was indeed weathering caused by rainfall.

As evidence of the friction between the factions let me site an instance. In 1993 Dr. Zahi Hawass the Egyptian Governments chief inspector of antiquities for the Pyramids had West and his team physically removed from the site. Since the Egyptian government controls who can dig around the Sphinx some questions can only be touched upon by other means.

It's strange how alliances are formed by parties who have common interests. At this point I should bring you up to speed on another group. Some members of the Edgar Cayce foundation have been backing seismic research to determine if there are any underground pockets (possible vaults) around the Sphinx. The reason is that Edgar Cayce in one of his sessions had indicated that the Sphinx was a time marker built by peoples from Atlantis. Cayce - referred to as the sleeping prophet had the ability to go into a trance like state. During his sessions he found ancient cures for incurable diseases through access to what he referred to an astral library with a separate book on each person, and their past lives. According to Cayce, a vault was placed underground between the paws of the Sphinx containing knowledge that would herald a golden age of man. Several pockets have been discovered, but permission to dig has been withheld. Meanwhile water filled tunnels under the Sphinx have been discovered. The contents however seem to date to the Egyptian period.

Dr. Robert Schoch through research done by the team he belonged to has stated that the age of the Sphinx might indeed date back 12,000+ years. Back to the date of the last ice age. The weathering has been preserved so well due to the fact that for an untold portion of the Sphinx's existence the body has been covered with sand.

Jack Heinlen
10-06-2004, 12:53 AM
It's fascinating confusion at this point. I've said this before, but modern anthropology puts human, Homo Sapien, origin at 100,000 years. We've clearly been doing more than gnawing bones for most of that.

Proof! How? The excavations around the Sphinx' may bring something into the light, if we get to see them.

Reading some histories lately: WWII, American through 1870, it strikes me how both contained and uncertain they are. How much more uncertain matters that are thousands of years old?

The studies conducted by the Boston geologist have me convinced that the Sphinx is much older than received wisdom has it.

Kev Smyth
10-06-2004, 03:35 AM
Another side- interesting stuff! :cool:

I've located some more information on this. August Matthuson, a geologist interested in archaeology, comments:

The argument hinges on weathering of the in situ rock. Erosion is the process which removes material; weathering is the process which degrades the rock in place. Schoch has indicated that the rounded profile of some of the Sphinx was due to "precipitation- induced weathering" rather than "wind-induced weathering" which supposedly produced a straight profile on other sculpted rock structures. Supposedly there was only sufficient water to produce this "precipitation-induced weathering" during a wet period some 7000 years ago. Thus Schoch makes his argument for increased antiquity. West has pushed this age back further (I'm not sure on what basis; I'm not really interested in reading West) and has tried to relate it to Atlanteans.
Schoch's ideas ignore several things. "Precipitation-induced weathering" versus "wind-induced weathering" producing different lithologic morphologies is not an accepted idea, rather variations in the rock usually account for the different weathering morphologies. If the "precipitation-induced weathering" occurred 7000 years ago and the "wind- induced weathering" occurred on structures 4500 years old, why didn't the "wind-induced weathering" obliterate the older "precipitation-induced weathering"? Gauri et al. (1995; Geoarchaeology, V10, #2, pp119-133) have been working on the Sphinx for years studying its rapid weathering and have found that the rapid weathering (which predates high atmospheric acid content) is due to formation of salt crystals in the rock pores which causes exfoliation due to hydrostatic pressure. This exfoliation results in a rounded profile similar to that which Schoch indicates could only be due to "precipitation-induced weathering." All in all, Schoch seems to have focused on one explanation and ignored several other working hypotheses.

Oyvind Snibsoer
10-06-2004, 03:58 AM
This is of some considerable importance since there has been no rain at Giza for at least 9,000 years. I find that very hard to believe. I've lived in North Africa and the Middle East for several years, and it DOES rain there, sometimes torrentially so. Giza isn't that far from the Mediterranean coastline, which sees most of the rain. There's also reason to believe that the North African coastline has seen more precipitation in historical times. Libya was once known as the "granary of the Roman Empire", which would indicate a substantially wetter climate a few thousand years ago than what we see today.

Anyways, the part about Cayce as "the sleeping prophet", and his trance like revelations, reveals this source as more than suspect to me. As for the mythical city of Atlantis, most scholars seem to believe that this refers to a once prosperous society on the island of Santorini, which was totally devastated by a huge volcanic explosion about 3,600 years ago.

I'd think the Egyptians see quite a few nuthead "scientists" around their ancient historical sites. Can't really blame them for loosing their patience with them every now and then ;)

Now, please don't get the impression that I believe we have all the answers. I most certainly don't; our present knowledge is more akin to narrow paths of enlightenment along the vast abyss of the unknown. I do have some problems with taking this article seriously, however.

[ 10-06-2004, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: Oyvind Snibsoer ]

imported_Dutch
10-06-2004, 08:16 AM
It seems like I watched a program on tv a few years back on just this idea. ie sphinx and water wear, and its age at least double what it had been assumed to be. I dont see any way that it could have been eroded except by water

Bruce Hooke
10-06-2004, 08:47 AM
This sounds to me like another case of someone trying hard to make the evidence fit his pet theory, which generally leads to very bad science. The comments from August Matthuson, posted by Kev, seem to offer a very good explanation of how the observed weathering could have occurred more recently and it also pokes some really big holes in Schoch's hypothosis.

As for Edgar Cayce, the "sleeping prophet" -- that's not science and it is patently absurd to mix it in with an ostensibly scientific discussion. If you want to talk about science then stick to science. If you don't care for science, or don't believe in science, that's fine, but don't then try to use science only when it's convenient for proving your point.

brad9798
10-06-2004, 08:48 AM
Good to see and intelligent post from you, Dutch. Lo and behold, we also agree! smile.gif

Not rain, Oyvnd, flowing water is the key.

Ancient civilizations, namely Egypt, has always fascinated me ...

I still think extra-terrestrials helped with some advancements. ;)

TimH
10-06-2004, 10:47 AM
One interesting point that was made is how thorough the ancient Egyptians were at recording all the things they built in documentation. They recorded everything they did. If it was the case that the Egyptians built the Sphynx, why then is there no documentation to back this? Also the Sphynx was buried in sand for thousands of years, this would have prevented the erosion by wind.

huisjen
10-06-2004, 11:02 AM
Do you all know of the petroglyphs in dry areas of the Sahara, which show a relatively moist savanah type environment, full of giraffes and such? Figure out how old those are, and you may have a better idea of how long ago the sphinx got regular rain. Estimates I've heard say c. 3000-4000 years ago.

Look also at the Taklamakan Desert to the north of the Tibetan Plateau. It's rainfall patterns have changed significantly in the last 3000 years.

Asstral library, my hairy Dutch butt!

Dan

imported_Dutch
10-06-2004, 11:06 AM
Asstral library, my hairy Dutch butt!

a man lesser than myself, might take offense at that statement

Bruce Hooke
10-06-2004, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by brad9798:
Not rain, Oyvnd, flowing water is the key.Ummm, flowing water would definitely not produce the vertical erosion patterns that are apparently the basis of the claim that the erosion is from water rather than wind. Personally, exfoliation sounds like a much more likely explanation to me.

NormMessinger
10-06-2004, 11:13 AM
How long ago was The Flood? I say the Sphynix eroded out of solid rock during the flood. And act of God not of man.

Oyvind Snibsoer
10-06-2004, 04:49 PM
About 5,500 BC. At least that was the time of the Black Sea flood, which is believed to have formed the historical basis for the Babylonian myth of the Flood, which again formed the basis of the Biblical Flood...