Great Sphinx of Giza

From en-Rightpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Something resembling The Great Sphinx of Giza found on Mars.

Scientists: Geological evidence shows the Great Sphinx is 800,000 years old

Scientists

One of the most mysterious and enigmatic monuments on the surface of the planet is without a doubt the Great Sphinx at the Giza plateau in Egypt. It is an ancient construction that has baffled researchers ever since its discovery and until today, no one has been able to accurately date the Sphinx, since there are no written records or mentions in the past about it. In 2016, two Ukrainian researchers have proposed a new provocative theory. The scientists are Manichev Vjacheslav I. (Institute of Environmental Geochemistry of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine) and Alexander G. Parkhomenko (Institute of Geography of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine).

They have found proof that the Great Sphinx of Egypt is around 800,000 years old. They presented their evidence at The International Conference of Geoarchaeology and Archaeomineralogy held in Sofia titled: Geological aspect of the problem of dating the great Egyptian sphinx construction.

New model

These two scientists created a new model, based on previous work by scientists Robert M. Schoch and John Anthony West. Schoch and West discovered that the Great Sphinx had water erosion and studied this further.

The two Ukrainian scientists, Vjacheslav and Parkhomenko, continued along this path. They have transcended the dogma of Egyptology and instead studied the possible remote origins of the Egyptian civilization an the physical evidence of water erosion present at the monuments of the Giza Plateau.

According to Vjacheslav and Parkhomenko:

"The problem of dating the Great Egyptian Sphinx construction is still valid, despite of the long-term history of its research. Geological approach in connection to other scientific-natural methods permits to answer the question about the relative age of the Sphinx. The conducted visual investigation of the Sphinx allowed the conclusion about the important role of water from large water bodies which partially flooded the monument with formation of wave-cut hollows on its vertical walls.
"The morphology of these formations has an analogy with similar such hollows formed by the sea in the coastal zones. Genetic resemblance of the compared erosion forms and the geological structure and petrographic composition of sedimentary rock complexes lead to a conclusion that the decisive factor of destruction of the historic monument is the wave energy rather than sand abrasion in Eolian process. Voluminous geological literature confirms the fact of existence of long-living fresh-water lakes in various periods of the Quaternary from the Lower Pleistocene to the Holocene. These lakes were distributed in the territories adjacent to the Nile. The absolute mark of the upper large erosion hollow of the Sphinx corresponds to the level of water surface which took place in the Early Pleistocene. The Great Egyptian Sphinx had already stood on the Giza Plateau by that geological (historical) time."

Wavy terrain, mysterious pattern

A side-view of the sphinx, showing the erosion.

These two scientists argued that in regards of the Sphinx, geological studies support Schoch's views on water erosion and the Sphinx's age. Vjacheslav and Parkhomenko went further. The two focused on the deteriorated aspect of the body of the Sphinx, leaving aside the erosive features where the Sphinx is located, which had Schoch previously investigated. The two focused on the wavy terrain of the Sphinx which displays a mysterious pattern.

Mainstream argument

Mainstream scientists offer explanations for the Sphinx's sharp features. They state that it is based on the abrasive effect of the wind and sand. They state that wavy surface formed because the harder layers of rock were better at withstanding the erosion while the softer layers would have be more affected, forming voids.

Countering the mainstream argument

Vjacheslav and Parkhomenko have noted that the mainstream argument does not explain why the front of the head of the Sphinx lacks the features of erosion that the Sphinx's body does.

Water erosion?

Waves splashing on rocks, slowly eroding it.

In regards to Schoch's argument that heavy rain around 13,000 BC produced water erosion, the Ukrainian scientists that recognized Schoch's hypothesis suggests the Sphinx is older than 13,000 BC. The Ukrainian scientists hypothesize that the mountainous and coastal areas of the Caucasus and Crimea, which they know well, have a type of wind erosion that differs from the erosion seen on the Sphinx. Such wind erosion has a very soft effect, regardless of the geological composition of the rocks. The two explain:

"In our geological field expeditions in different mountains and littoral zones of the Crimea and Caucasus we could often observe the forms of Eolian weathering which morphology differs considerably from the weathering taking place on the GES. Most natural forms of weathering are of smoothed character, independent of lithological composition of the rocks."

They also state:

"Our personal experience in scientific investigation of geology of the sea coasts gives reasons to draw an analogy with the GES and to suggest another mechanism of its destruction. Specialists-geologists, who work in the field of sea-coast geomorphology, know such forms of relief as wave-cut hollows (Morskaya Geomorfologiya, 1980). They can be one- and multi-storey. They are arranged horizontally to the sea water surface, if the coast makes a vertical wall (cliff). Especially deep wave-cut hollows are formed in precipitous cliffs built by the strata of carbonaceous rocks. Such forms of the coast relief are well-known and studied in detail on the Black-Sea coast of the Caucasus and Crimea (Popov, 1953; Zenkovich, 1960). General model of formation of the wave-cut hollows in the rocks of the Caucasian flysch is given by Popov (1953, 162; Fig. 3). In dynamics of the process of wave-cut hollows formation one can notice such a characteristic feature that the wave energy is directed to the rock stratum at the level of water surface. Besides, both saline and fresh water can dissolve the rocks."

Not water erosion from rain, but from waves!

The two Ukrainian scientists instead have proposed a new natural mechanism for the mysterious wavy and other features of the Sphinx. This mechanism is the impact of waves on the rocks of the coast!

Shore of the Black Sea
Shore of the Black Sea

Erosion by waves splashing on rocks over thousands of years could produce the formation of one or more layers of ripples, seen on the Sphinx. This effect is clearly visible on the shores of the Black Sea. This process, which acts horizontally (that is, when the waves hit the rock up to the surface), will produce a wear or dissolution of the rock.

The two Ukrainian scientists have found evidence that waves caused the erosion on The Great Sphinx. This erosion happened not when it was on a beach, but instead when it was under water! So not the regular flooding of the Nile, but rather long before that when the Saharas in part were under water!

The two scientists have discovered that the geological composition of the body of the Sphinx is a sequence of layers composed of limestone with small interlayers of clays. It is clays plurals because there are different clays in each layer. They found that these rocks possess different degree of resistance to the water effect. The erosion on the Sphinx created a hollow area, or hollows. The two found that if sand abrasion alone caused the hollows, then it had to correspond to the strata of a certain lithological composition. They suggest that the Great Sphinx hollows are formed in fact within several strata, or occupy some part of the stratum of homogeneous composition.

How long was The Sphinx underwater?

Daedalus Reef, Red Sea, Egypt

The two Ukrainian scientists, Vjacheslav and Parkhomenko, then had to figure out how long The Great Sphinx of Giza was underwater.

After years of study, they have determined that the Sphinx had to be submerged for hundreds of thousands of years under water. To support this hypothesis, they point towards existing literature of geological studies of the Giza Plateau. These studies found that at the end of the Pliocene geologic period (between 5.2 and 1.6 million years ago), sea water entered the Nile valley and gradually creating flooding in the area. This led to formation of lacustrine deposits which are at the mark of 180 m above the present level of the Mediterranean Sea.

According to the two scientists, it is the sea level during the Calabrian phase which is the closest to the present mark with the highest GES hollow at its level. High level of sea water also caused the Nile overflowing and created long-living water-bodies. The time this took place was 800,000 years ago!

Why 800,000 years is correct

What the two Ukrainian geologists, Vjacheslav and Parkhomenko, have found is evidence that contradicts the conventional theory that sand, wind, and rain along caused the erosion on The Sphinx.

West and Schoch, who first came up with the water erosion theory, criticized the mainstream scientific erosion wind and sand claim because during many centuries, the body of the Sphinx was buried by the sands of the desert, so wind and sand erosion could not have done any damage to the enigmatic Sphinx during this time.

However, where Schoch clearly saw the action of streams of water caused by continuous rains, the two Ukrainian geologists tested and found something else in the erosion. The two geologists found that the direct contact of the waters of the lakes formed in the Pleistocene on the body of The Sphinx is behind the erosion on The Sphinx.

This means that the Great Sphinx of Egypt is one of the oldest monuments on the surface of the Earth, pushing back drastically the origin of mankind and civilization. There are a lot more strange things in the history of the earth, see There are no forests on Earth Wake Up.

What does it mean if this is true?

Vjacheslav and Parkhomenko's theory pushes the date of the Great Sphinx far back to era where there were allegedly no advanced humans, according to currently accepted evolutionary patterns.

As has been demonstrated by mainstream scientists many times in the past, the two megalithic temples, located adjacent to the Great Sphinx were built by the same stone. If the theory on the age of the Sphinx is true then it means these monuments also date back at least 800,000 years. In other words, this means that ancient civilizations inhabited our planet much longer than mainstream scientists are willing to accept.

Source

Miscellaneous information

Eden in Egypt

The location of the Garden of Eden and the whereabouts of the Tower of Babel have been a mystery through the ages for historians, theologians, and ancient astronaut theorists. Very little information exists that most people believe The Book of Genesis was only metaphor and myth, rather than actual reality. But ancient people, they simply recorded what they say. They didn't have modern words for it. Like if they say an aircraft with a trail of fire and smoke from a jet engine, they would use a word they have, dragon. If they saw a large alien mothership, they would describe it as a floating city. Both concepts exist in mythology.

One methodology to try to make sense of The Book of Genesis is to start fresh, as if The Torah has just been unearthed and we know nothing about it. If so, then what insights can be found about the Garden of Eden and the Tower of Babel?

Many authors have attempted to identify and locate the legendary Tower of Babel in Sumer, modern Iraq. However, Mesopotamia is not the only place it could have been. Genesis 2:10 provides a clue, "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four branches."

A map of the ancient world, according to ancient Greek, Herodotus. Prior to 450 BC.

In the whole Middle East, only one river exists that passes through a garden and then divides into four branches. That river is Nile. You can deny it all you want--denial isn't just a river in Egypt, you know. The Nile runs through the valley oasis of Egypt before branching out at the Delta.

Although the Nile may only have two branches today, this is because of global warming. In biblical times, The Nile had four branches.

Now some may claim that the Torah specifically names the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. But this isn't true. Just like with Noah's Ark, they use a name not used elsewhere, gopherwood and there's only guesses at what it means. The Torah mentions not the Tigris and Euphrates, but instead gives the names Chiddeqel and Parath. It has never been proven that the Chiddeqel and Parath rivers are the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Some biblical references point instead toward Egypt.

Besides, if we turn to Josephus Flavius's (37AD-100AD, Citizen of Rome) record of this Genesis account, we see that the actual names and locations of the rivers of Eden had been lost to us by this time. Josephus says of Eden:

Now the garden was watered by one river, which ran round about the whole earth, and was parted into four branches. (Antiquities 1:1:3)

Josephus mentioned the four branches from the Torah as the: Ganges, Euphrates, Tigris and the Nile. Now that is some garden! Clearly, by the time Josephus was writing his version of the Old Testament, the name and location of these rivers had been corrupted or lost. And yet Josephus was copying from a much older version of the Torah/Tanakh than the classical Old Testament in use today. Josephus was using the Torah that had been taken from the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 AD, which dated from the time of the Babylonian exile. And yet even this early version of the Torah appears to have been confused as to where the four branches of the Eden river lay.

But if the names of the branches had been garbled by the 6th century BC, then perhaps the description of the layout of this river may be a little more reliable. In brief, it was a long river running through a garden that eventually parted into four branches. So let us run with that idea and see where it takes us to. The possibility exists, therefore, that the Book of Genesis was referring to Egypt and to the Nile, and not to Mesopotamia at all.

This is a suggestion that gives us some further interesting possibilities.

First, up until about 10,000 BC the Sahara was not a desert but a tropical forest. Even further back, there was a large lake within it. Scientists have found whale skeletons within. As the earth's axis wobbles around, The Sahara switches back and forth from being moist to being dry. The Garden of Eden could have been back when the Sahara was lush and green.

The prospect of finding a better explanation and a location for Eden and the Adam and Eve story (and Lilith!) seemed impossible, as the narrative and genealogies from this early part of the Bible initially seem too fragmented and confusing to provide a verifiable history. However, if Eden was in Egypt, and if Eden contained a famous garden and a famous first lady and first man then there may well be a good explanation for this story, and a comparable description of it in the historical record.

Furthermore, many people say that the original sin was a big mistake and Adam and Eve never should have eaten the apple. But this may not be so. Here is what would have happened if they had obeyed God: If Man Obeyed God

Source

Eden in Egypt – Part 1

See also

External links