<HTML>Hello Claire,
Yes the situation does appear to be that the Phase 1 restoration is IV Dyn in style and, therefore, in date - that would nicely form part of the collective 'evidence' for a IV Dyn Sphinx if it were n't for Lehner's observations of extensive weathering under the Phase 1 masonry!
re the issue of the weathering of the Khafre temples - I posted something on MAAT a few weeks ago - but I've copied it (with a few revisions and additions) below - I think it addresses all the points that you've covered. Note that the temples are generally thought to have granite not limestone casing - at least internally - but I can't find any publication which indicates how much of the granite casing to the Sphinx temple was in-situ when the temple was excavated early in the 20th Century (it's strange saying that – strange that we're now 21st century citizens!). My feeling is that there was n't that much casing left in the ST so comments about weathering and the protective effects of the granite are difficult to make.
You're right when you say that people tend to discuss 'the temples' without being too specific regarding which one they're refering to. This has confused me at times because people always discuss the 2 temples together and I think this is an oversimplification. In the KMT article by Lehner (KMT Vol 5 No 3) "Notes and Photographs...." the issue is not clarified. There is a section titled "Granite Facing and 'two stage' construction on the VT". Despite the title, Lehner discuss both the KVT and ST, but not in equal terms. Every time the orthodox dating is mentioned, it is evidence from the KVT that is proffered. Except for a few mentions in passing the ST does n't get a look in.
There is also an interesting contradiction (perhaps) that is illuminating. When discussing the Menkaure Mortuary Temple Lehner states "the surface of the large limestone core blocks has not appreciably weathered, even in the ninety years since Reisner exposed them." The interesting bit comes later when discussing the KVT, for he says "Note how seriously the limestone core blocks have weathered in just the last eighty-five years since Holscher exposed them!" We're clearly NOT looking at the same stone here and this allows us to remove Menkaure's MT from the debate - which is nice!
Schoch and West have suggested that the Sphinx temple and Khafre’s valley temple are also older than generally thought, having reached this conclusion on the basis of the condition of the masonry of the temples. In support of this idea they cited work by Dr. Mark Lehner. Lehner argued that the masonry used to build the Sphinx and Khafre valley temples was quarried from within the Sphinx enclosure. The concept of the Sphinx as a source of building stone for both temples appears, however, to be the result of some confusion.
On p127 of the Complete Pyramids, Lehner uses the word ‘probably’ when discussing the Sphinx enclosure as the source of the masonry for Khafre’s valley temple. In an article in Archaeology, Lehner is even more circumspect “..Khafre Valley Temple [was built] from huge blocks of limestone…..that were quarried from the upper layers of rock corresponding to those of the Sphinx head and possibly higher”. I also draw your attention to the figure at the top of p207 of the Complete Pyramids. The caption quite clearly states that “Monoliths for Khafre’s temples were channelled out of a quarry southwest of the Sphinx”.
If there is a lack of clarity on this issue, it is possibly because of a working hypothesis Lehner developed during the original ARCE Sphinx Project. Lehner postulated that Khafre’s valley temple had been constructed from the Member I rock quarried to form the platform for the Sphinx temple and then the Sphinx temple had been built from Member II rocks quarried from round the Sphinx.
When Lehner tasked a geologist with confirming this, that geologist - Thomas Aigner - was unable to do so. “A typology of core blocks was established on the basis of lithological and paleontological features. The attempt was then made to trace the individual and/or broad types of blocks to the geological stratification and to the horizontal distribution of the facies within given units. In general the study confirmed an earlier hypothesis that the core blocks of the Sphinx Temple derive from the quarry immediately to the west from which the Sphinx was formed. The earlier suggestion that the blocks of the Khafre Valley Temple were taken from the cut into the Member I which created the lower terrace of the Sphinx complex was definitely nullified by Aigner’s study.”
So, whilst it has been proven that the masonry used for the construction of the Sphinx temple was quarried from within the Sphinx enclosure (indicating that the Sphinx and assocated temple are of the same age) the source of masonry for the valley temple is by no means proven. It can not be stated, therefore, that Khafre’s valley temple is contemporaneous with the Sphinx.
OK these temples both include the use of megalithic masonry. But this can be the result of other factors. For instance the thickness of the limestone beds can control the size of the resulting quarried masonry. The Member II beds are alternating softer and harder bands - when using hammer stones for quarrying, its more straightforward to quarry away the softer beds (which are poorer building stones anyway) and use the harder limestones thus liberated in the construction. Hence the size of the masonry is governed by the natural thickness of the limestone beds. There comes a point when the masons had to decide which involved most work - breaking down these blocks into smaller units using hand-held hammer stones, or hauling these giant blocks into position in the temple walls.
I also looked into the use of sand or other fill ramps in the construction of temples - the principle being that they would lay ther first course of masonry - bury it in a sloping sand or other fill, which served as a ramp for the construction of the subsequent courses - the sand fill ramp increasing in height with each course (I think this is posted on the G:TT website).
The obvious criticism of this technique is that it uses a lot of sand in the ramps, but calculations showed that if blocks above a certain weight/ thickness were used, the dead weight of the masonry would overcome the pressure of the fill inside the temple. The implication of this is that although there is a lot more effort involved in building with huge masonry blocks, there are spin-offs including the fact that you can fill the interior of the temple with sand, as a working platform/ramp for use in construction, and don't need to bury all four walls externally in the sand fill as well (of course you do need one external ramp to haul the masonry along). Use smaller masonry and after 2 or 3 courses walls, which were not externally butressed with sand, would topple.
Anyway I digress....
Apart for the use of large blocks in their construction, architecturally, there are a few significant differences between the KVT and ST - the limestone walls of the ST are slender, by contrast the walls of the KVT are thick - so thick as to even include rooms and passages. The ST is even in a more ruinous state than the KVT, but whether this is a result of the more slender construction or the greater age of the ST is hard to be sure.
The ST was built in 2 stages (Ricke in Lehner) the last of which has been dated to the IV Dyn (Lehner and Hawass). I've presented the evidence why I think the first or original phase of construction was earlier - it's contemporary with the Sphinx and there are abrupt changes in the weathered state of an adjacent Member I limestone exposure - the relatively unweathered cutting is (according to Lehner) associated with the IV dyn construction activity.
I believe that the addition of granite casing is a IV Dyn feature - the Sphinx Temple was originally was built entirely from local limestone. (note that even the slender columns in the central court of the ST were built in limestone unlike the granite columns in the KVT).
So the fact that the limestone masonry under the casing is not weathered is (for the KVT) because the structure was entirely built in l/stone and granite in the IV dyn and (for the ST) the structure had any granite casing added in the IV Dyn, after the extension undertaken in the reign of Khafre. Inevitably to fit the granite casing to the ST required the original limestone to be cut to fit the granite blocks."
As for Debehen - the work has not been done and in KMT, Lehner et al appear to have field walked and satisfied themselves that the facade of Debehen is cut into strata that are higher in the sequence than the Member II.
On balance, I support Robert Schoch's original view that the tomb of Debehen is cut into the Member II strata. As such I believe that the degradation of Debehen CAN, therefore, be compared with that of the Sphinx.
My reasons for believing that Debehen is cut in MII are as follows:
1. The sequence of strata at Debehen resembles the MII sequence in that it consists of a series of closely spaced beds. This is quite unlike the Member I or MIII in which there are a small number of massive beds.
2. Simple stratigraphic interpolation across the plateau also supports the 'attribution' of Debehen to Member II:
a) Measured along an E-W axis, the Sphinx and Debehen are approx 380m apart.
b) the dip of the strata at Giza is between 7 and 10 degrees to the south east - this resolves to an apparent dip along an E-W axis of approximately 3.5 to 5 degrees to the east.
c) by simple trig, each Member II bed will, as a result of the dip of the strata, ascend between 23m (3.5 degree apparent dip) and 33m (5 degree apparent dip) between the Sphinx and Debehen.
d) The west wall of the Sphinx enclosure (Member II strata) is at a level of approximately 28m asl, Debehen is approximately 55m asl - a vertical interval of 27m - exactly at the mid-point of what is predicted from the model of the structural geology of the Member II beds described in a) to c) above.
The stratigraphy of the site suggests, therefore, that the beds exposed at Debehen are Member II.
As for the Timewatch programme - I don't know - I have a copy of the script so I'll take a look and if it has anything to offer, I'll get back to you.
Colin</HTML>
