Home of the The Hall of Ma'at on the Internet
Home
Discussion Forums
Papers
Authors
Web Links

May 7, 2024, 1:22 am UTC    
 In:  The Hall of Maat > Ancient History - Ancient History and Archaeology > Topic
 Goto:  Forum List  •  Create A New Profile  •  Log In
  Ancient History •  Ancient Egypt •  Laboratory •  Humanities •  Apocalypse •  Paper Lens •  Coffee Shop
  Exhibitions, Conferences, Lectures, Journals •  Alternative Geometry and Numerology
Alex Bourdeau
August 10, 2001 04:38PM
<HTML>Hi again Claire,

I know you addressed this question to Garrett, but I've been debating this issue for awhile now and have a couple of sources to suggest.

First you should look at the two principle alternative hypotheses that were written shortly after Schoch's suggestion hit the popular press.

Harrell, J.A., "The Sphinx Controversy - Another Look at the Geological Evidence," KMT Vol 5 No. 2 (1994) p70-74.

Gauri, K.L., J.J. Sinai and J.K. Bandyopadhyay, "Geological Weathering and its Implications on the Age of the Sphinx," Geoarchaeology Vol. 10, No. 2 (1995) p119-133.

These folks are all geologists and very convincingly dismantle Schoch's "only running water can do this" assumption (I won't glorify it with the name hypothesis). Gauri et al. is particularly telling as it presents the case for salt crystal stress induced exfoliation (SCrySIE) accounting for the condition of the Sphinx enclosure. This suggestion is intellectually satisfying in its simplicity (nothing for Occam to slice off). They do a great job of establishing the weathering conditions at Giza and then apply them to the exposures in question. (By the way, the effects of SCrySIE were in the news again recently - the same process is "dissolving" the monuments at Luxor.)

If these don't convince you then you can even resort to looking at my article on this website.

However, I would guess that any geologist worth their salt, after reviewing Schoch's original paper and the two I've suggested, would come down on the side of Gauri and Harrell. Robert just hasn't made his case to either the geologists or the archaeologists.</HTML>
Reply Quote
Subject Author Posted

Mr. Fagan? A Reply?

ISHMAEL August 09, 2001 10:09AM

Re: Mr. Fagan? A Reply?

Martin Stower August 09, 2001 11:54AM

Re: Mr. Fagan? A Reply?

ISHMAEL August 09, 2001 02:56PM

Re: Mr. Fagan? A Reply?

Greg Reeder August 09, 2001 03:27PM

Re: Mr. Fagan? A Reply?

ISHMAEL August 09, 2001 03:52PM

Re: Mr. Fagan? A Reply?

Greg Reeder August 09, 2001 04:41PM

Re: Mr. Fagan? A Reply?

Martin Stower August 09, 2001 08:59PM

Re: Mr. Fagan? A Reply?

John August 09, 2001 02:17PM

Re: Mr. Fagan? A Reply?

Martin Stower August 09, 2001 09:06PM

Re: Mr. Fagan? A Reply?

Garrett Fagan August 09, 2001 02:27PM

Re: Mr. Fagan? A Reply?

ISHMAEL August 09, 2001 03:49PM

Re: Mr. Fagan? A Reply?

Mikey Brass August 09, 2001 04:31PM

Re: Mr. Fagan? A Reply?

Dave Moore August 09, 2001 05:36PM

Re: Mr. Fagan? A Reply?

Garrett Fagan August 09, 2001 04:33PM

Re: Stupid questions

Claire August 09, 2001 05:28PM

Re: Stupid questions

Garrett Fagan August 10, 2001 10:14AM

Re: Stupid questions

Martin Stower August 10, 2001 10:57AM

Re: Mr. Fagan? A Reply?

ISHMAEL August 10, 2001 09:33AM

Re: Mr. Fagan? A Reply?

Garrett Fagan August 10, 2001 10:33AM

Re: Mr. Fagan? A Reply?

Claire August 10, 2001 01:22PM

Re: Mr. Fagan? A Reply?

Alex Bourdeau August 10, 2001 04:38PM

Re: Thank you - methodology?

Claire August 11, 2001 08:32AM

Re: Thank you - methodology?

Garrett August 11, 2001 05:21PM

Re: Mr. Fagan? A Reply?

William T. August 09, 2001 04:07PM

Re: Mr. Fagan? A Reply?

Katherine Reece August 09, 2001 04:47PM

Re: Mr. Fagan? A Reply?

John Wall August 10, 2001 05:29AM

Re: Mr. Fagan? A Reply?

Derek Barnett August 09, 2001 04:53PM

Re: Mr. Fagan? A Reply?

Greg Reeder August 09, 2001 04:54PM

Re: Mr. Fagan? A Reply?

Dave Moore August 09, 2001 05:38PM

Re: Somebody Get A Rope smiling smiley

William T. August 09, 2001 07:05PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login