
Click on the logo to visit the shop |
Egyptian Dreams Ancient Egypt Discussion Board
|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Lutz Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007 Posts: 4202 Location: Berlin, Germany
|
Posted: Mon May 13, 2019 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dzama923 wrote: | Well, I think it is probable that they could have used the Sphinx for target practice. ... |
I am very sorry for you ... But that does not change the fact, that it was not the case.
dzama923 wrote: | ... how was it that so many of the temples became destroyed, if they had not been destroyed by human action? This brings to mind the statues at Bubastis, that have tremendous fissures going across them, while statues elsewhere seem to be untouched. ... |
The Temple in Bubastis was first destroyed by an earthquake (as the Temple of Amenhotep III in Luxor, Westbank). Secondarily, they were then used by later generations as a source of raw materials.
The latter also applies to many buildings that were still known and described in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times. Here should be mentioned for example, the Temple of Min in Achmin, and of course those of Ra-Atum in Iunu (Heliopolis). _________________ Ägyptologie Forum (German) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Hesy Ka Ra Citizen


Joined: 20 Aug 2020 Posts: 30 Location: Birmingham UK
|
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good afternoon,
Rain erosion and the Sphinx!
Firstly I am not an advocate of Robert M. Schoch, I am an Egyptologist and not an Egyptgibbersist (I know this is not a word as such however, I believe it sums them up quite well)
So I have a theory that has been floating around my brain for a while now. So we look at the erosion on the walls of the enclosure ditch, they indeed do appear at first glance to be evidence of water ingress into the ditch. This I will not try to argue as I am not a geologist. However, what I will argue is the context.
As rainfall of any significance to create such weathering happened C10,500 BCE this idea I can quite accept, this does not mean that the erosion happened when the Sphinx was actually there.
As is well known to Egyptology the Sphinx has been buried up to it's neck for most of it's history. The Giza plateau levels must have changed many times thought out such a long period of time. Therefore let us discuss the following.
I hypothesise that this pattern of weathering was already there however, hidden under thousands of years of debris, sand etc, the enclosure trench may have started as a small natural depression on the Plateau around the outcrop that eventually became the Sphinx and had existed for Millenia and acted as a natural run off.
When work began the AE cleared the site and began carving the Sphinx it was only then it came to light if exposed at all.
I have believed for a long time that the AE would not have left the enclosure walls in their natural state and would have lined them with either mud brick or dressed stone, this is of course impossible to prove as later periods saw massive plundering of dressed masonry and any mud brick would have disintegrated. I have also concluded that such an important monument would have had the enclosure floor paved possibly up to the existing ground level at the time therefore totally obscuring the weathering.
I welcome thoughts on this please feel free to pick holes in my theory (Providing they do not include ray guns etc) Whilst I do not think I have the complete answer I believe as a theory it is far more plausible than outrageous times frames.
Ragards
Hesy Ka Ra _________________ Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|