8 ms·

The Great Sphinx of Giza may have have started out as a natural formation

114 points by Archelaos 3y ago

alberth 3y ago
Actual title: “Physics reveals secret of how nature helped sculpt the Great Sphinx of Giza”
ProjectArcturis 3y ago
Similar shapes have definitely formed naturally. https://images.app.goo.gl/EYbNLdVM6JdbxLnj9 https://images.app.goo.gl/EYbNLdVM6JdbxLnj9
presidentender 3y ago
When I was a kid we had a pseudoscience documentary about the Sphinx, narrated by Charlton Heston. They took the appealing argument that the surface looks like it's been eroded by water and extended that to conclude that it must have been carved by humans before undergoing water erosion, and that therefore it must be older than mainstream archaeology concludes. This, of course, means that every egyptologist is part of a massive conspiracy to hide the truth, and that therefore wink and nudge something something aliens. I like this article better. Natural formation, carve a face on an existing head. No prehistoric levitation of massive stones.
- dilippkumar 3y ago
  > and that therefore wink and nudge something something aliens. You had me till this. The conspiracy theorists actually make very good points. They’ve been vindicated by discoveries at Gobekli Tepi and others that basically demolish the strongest argument the Egyptologists had against a significantly older Sphinx - that no other megalithic structure had been found till then. This is one of those situations where the conspiracy theorists make a far more convincing argument than mainstream, and entertainingly, all the recent discoveries in archeology have only strengthened the positions of the conspiracy theorists. I would look at them again with fresh eyes. The younger dryas impact hypothesis looks especially convincing.
  - GolfPopper 3y ago
    The conspiracy theorists look more convincing on an initial read because they cherry pick evidence and often misrepresent it, too. The one I ran into in college is the TIGHAR group, who have some unique theories about where Amelia Earhart's plane was lost. They sound very convincing... until you realize every piece of evidence is only examined from the perspective of how it proves their theory, and any other views are ignored or dismissed. The folks who actually care about the truth, on the other hand, tend to qualify their evidence and admit to uncertainties.
    - mcv 3y ago
      There's plenty of room for speculation, and it can be a lot of fun to do so, but it's important to remember that it's speculation. The moment you insist that it absolutely must be true and all evidence to the contrary is proof of a conspiracy to cover it up, is the moment you're abandoning reality.
  - cedilla 3y ago
    Conspiracy theorists make dozens of points, most of them contradictory. They are bound to be right by accident sometimes. They are usually hilariously wrong though. Especially when it comes to Egyptology.
    - tazjin 3y ago
      > They are usually hilariously wrong though Of course you put in the qualifier "usually" here to be able to reject any arguments against you, but just in case: What's your theory on how the extremely precisely manufactured granite vases found in Egypt were made?
      - RandomLensman 3y ago
        Why do you think it is a problem to make very precise things with effectively basic mechanical tools? Also, keep in mind, the ones that didn't pan out might have been discarded etc., so you are seeing the good ones.
- mbivert 3y ago
  > No prehistoric levitation of massive stones. Throughout history, there's always been wrong-yet-standard "scientific" statements that have been later corrected, from Aristotle's laws of motion, to discussions about the shape of the Earth, going through the so-called impossibility of heavier-than-air flight, the (im)possibility of perpetual machines, etc. Of course, I'm not suggesting levitation of massive stones either, but I think history encourages prudence. I would dearly enjoy to read a list of undisputed facts, agreed on by all parties, clearly separated from a list of all interpretations, and an evaluation of their consistency, instead of sensationalized/ridiculed "fringe" theories.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    > from Aristotle's laws of motion, to discussions about the shape of the Earth, going through the so-called impossibility of heavier-than-air flight, the (im)possibility of perpetual machines One of these is not like the others.
    - dr_dshiv 3y ago
      In the late 1500s, Cornelius Drebbel built and patented a perpetual motion machine that used the daily changes in barometric pressure to power a sort of clock. It was a very impressive achievement. We can be pedantic and say it isn’t actually a perpetual motion machine based on our definitions (which necessitate impossibility) — but for him, he made the impossible possible.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        That isn't pedantic. The whole point of a perpetual motion machine is that it has a certain definition which is violated by putting in external energy. For him, had he been aware of all of the facts, he would have reached the conclusion that he didn't make the impossible impossible. There are even more subtly wrong not-quite-PMs that are impressive feats of engineering but nevertheless are not PMs.
        mbivert 3y ago
- hnthrowaway0315 3y ago
  There is another claim that the Sphinx was built by earlier people because the water corrosion was caused by rains, not river. That is, it put the date to the end of the last glacier age.
- firebot 3y ago
  Thanks. I'm more stupid for having read that pile of shit.
abj 3y ago
This is interesting when viewed in light of the recent claim that the enclosing walls of the sphinx demonstrate water erosion before the start of the dynastic Egyptians. It is clear that parts of the sphinx were sculpted by the dynastic Egyptians. What is not clear is exactly how long ago human construction started to modify its appearance from a natural formation. It would be nice to see some more evidence for the timeline of the human shaping of the structure, from the structure itself.
- lostlogin 3y ago
  > It would be nice to see some more evidence for the timeline of the human shaping of the structure, from the structure itself. Doing this without damaging the structure wouldn’t seem easy. Pulling the whole thing apart would surely tell us a lot, but at a steep price.
DoreenMichele 3y ago
I had always assumed it was part natural formation, part carving. I mean, Mount Rushmore has heads carved into it. It wasn't "built" for that purpose.
- kaashif 3y ago
  Mount Rushmore could not have been constructed with methods known at the time. American civilization may be millions of years old and could have had psychic rock forming technology.
  - DoreenMichele 3y ago
    Your comment is at least a few hundred years early. Wait until it's an archaeological dig, then start speculating that the mountains were formed with psychic rock forming tech. Unless you want to suggest The Black Hills, which are sacred to the Lakota people who see the four faces carved there as defacement of sacred property, had psychic rock forming tech and created The Black Hills. If so, you need to make a stronger argument than a two line comment without citations. (Edit: And I will note that even if you manage to make the case that Natives "built" The Black Hills psychically, they are offended at the carvings, so it still was not built for that purpose, certainly. /pedant)
crazygringo 3y ago
Just to be clear, this is not a new hypothesis or anything. The Wikipedia page [1] states clearly, from a 2003 reference (emphasis mine): > "The Sphinx is a monolith carved from the bedrock of the plateau, which also served as the quarry for the pyramids and other monuments in the area. Egyptian geologist Farouk El-Baz has suggested that the head of the Sphinx may have been carved first, out of a natural yardang, i.e. a ridge of bedrock that had been sculpted by the wind. These can sometimes achieve shapes that resemble animals. El-Baz suggests that the "moat" or "ditch" around the Sphinx may have been quarried out later to allow for the creation of the full body of the sculpture." This article is about new simulations that simply suggest how common yardangs might be. And at the end of the day, I'm not sure how terribly important it is to what extent the block the Sphinx's head was carved out of was made by the wind, vs. intentionally left by quarrying around. I mean, I suppose it's a curious little detail, but does it have any broader significance? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza
firebot 3y ago
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
- siduck 3y ago
  same

114 points by Archelaos 3y ago

Actual title: “Physics reveals secret of how nature helped sculpt the Great Sphinx of Giza”

Similar shapes have definitely formed naturally. https://images.app.goo.gl/EYbNLdVM6JdbxLnj9 https://images.app.goo.gl/EYbNLdVM6JdbxLnj9

presidentender 3y ago

When I was a kid we had a pseudoscience documentary about the Sphinx, narrated by Charlton Heston. They took the appealing argument that the surface looks like it's been eroded by water and extended that to conclude that it must have been carved by humans before undergoing water erosion, and that therefore it must be older than mainstream archaeology concludes. This, of course, means that every egyptologist is part of a massive conspiracy to hide the truth, and that therefore wink and nudge something something aliens. I like this article better. Natural formation, carve a face on an existing head. No prehistoric levitation of massive stones.

dilippkumar 3y ago
> and that therefore wink and nudge something something aliens. You had me till this. The conspiracy theorists actually make very good points. They’ve been vindicated by discoveries at Gobekli Tepi and others that basically demolish the strongest argument the Egyptologists had against a significantly older Sphinx - that no other megalithic structure had been found till then. This is one of those situations where the conspiracy theorists make a far more convincing argument than mainstream, and entertainingly, all the recent discoveries in archeology have only strengthened the positions of the conspiracy theorists. I would look at them again with fresh eyes. The younger dryas impact hypothesis looks especially convincing.
- GolfPopper 3y ago
  The conspiracy theorists look more convincing on an initial read because they cherry pick evidence and often misrepresent it, too. The one I ran into in college is the TIGHAR group, who have some unique theories about where Amelia Earhart's plane was lost. They sound very convincing... until you realize every piece of evidence is only examined from the perspective of how it proves their theory, and any other views are ignored or dismissed. The folks who actually care about the truth, on the other hand, tend to qualify their evidence and admit to uncertainties.
  - mcv 3y ago
    There's plenty of room for speculation, and it can be a lot of fun to do so, but it's important to remember that it's speculation. The moment you insist that it absolutely must be true and all evidence to the contrary is proof of a conspiracy to cover it up, is the moment you're abandoning reality.
- cedilla 3y ago
  Conspiracy theorists make dozens of points, most of them contradictory. They are bound to be right by accident sometimes. They are usually hilariously wrong though. Especially when it comes to Egyptology.
  - tazjin 3y ago
    > They are usually hilariously wrong though Of course you put in the qualifier "usually" here to be able to reject any arguments against you, but just in case: What's your theory on how the extremely precisely manufactured granite vases found in Egypt were made?
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      Why do you think it is a problem to make very precise things with effectively basic mechanical tools? Also, keep in mind, the ones that didn't pan out might have been discarded etc., so you are seeing the good ones.
mbivert 3y ago
> No prehistoric levitation of massive stones. Throughout history, there's always been wrong-yet-standard "scientific" statements that have been later corrected, from Aristotle's laws of motion, to discussions about the shape of the Earth, going through the so-called impossibility of heavier-than-air flight, the (im)possibility of perpetual machines, etc. Of course, I'm not suggesting levitation of massive stones either, but I think history encourages prudence. I would dearly enjoy to read a list of undisputed facts, agreed on by all parties, clearly separated from a list of all interpretations, and an evaluation of their consistency, instead of sensationalized/ridiculed "fringe" theories.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  > from Aristotle's laws of motion, to discussions about the shape of the Earth, going through the so-called impossibility of heavier-than-air flight, the (im)possibility of perpetual machines One of these is not like the others.
  - dr_dshiv 3y ago
    In the late 1500s, Cornelius Drebbel built and patented a perpetual motion machine that used the daily changes in barometric pressure to power a sort of clock. It was a very impressive achievement. We can be pedantic and say it isn’t actually a perpetual motion machine based on our definitions (which necessitate impossibility) — but for him, he made the impossible possible.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      That isn't pedantic. The whole point of a perpetual motion machine is that it has a certain definition which is violated by putting in external energy. For him, had he been aware of all of the facts, he would have reached the conclusion that he didn't make the impossible impossible. There are even more subtly wrong not-quite-PMs that are impressive feats of engineering but nevertheless are not PMs.
      - mbivert 3y ago
hnthrowaway0315 3y ago
There is another claim that the Sphinx was built by earlier people because the water corrosion was caused by rains, not river. That is, it put the date to the end of the last glacier age.
firebot 3y ago
Thanks. I'm more stupid for having read that pile of shit.

abj 3y ago

This is interesting when viewed in light of the recent claim that the enclosing walls of the sphinx demonstrate water erosion before the start of the dynastic Egyptians. It is clear that parts of the sphinx were sculpted by the dynastic Egyptians. What is not clear is exactly how long ago human construction started to modify its appearance from a natural formation. It would be nice to see some more evidence for the timeline of the human shaping of the structure, from the structure itself.

lostlogin 3y ago
> It would be nice to see some more evidence for the timeline of the human shaping of the structure, from the structure itself. Doing this without damaging the structure wouldn’t seem easy. Pulling the whole thing apart would surely tell us a lot, but at a steep price.

DoreenMichele 3y ago

I had always assumed it was part natural formation, part carving. I mean, Mount Rushmore has heads carved into it. It wasn't "built" for that purpose.

kaashif 3y ago
Mount Rushmore could not have been constructed with methods known at the time. American civilization may be millions of years old and could have had psychic rock forming technology.
- DoreenMichele 3y ago
  Your comment is at least a few hundred years early. Wait until it's an archaeological dig, then start speculating that the mountains were formed with psychic rock forming tech. Unless you want to suggest The Black Hills, which are sacred to the Lakota people who see the four faces carved there as defacement of sacred property, had psychic rock forming tech and created The Black Hills. If so, you need to make a stronger argument than a two line comment without citations. (Edit: And I will note that even if you manage to make the case that Natives "built" The Black Hills psychically, they are offended at the carvings, so it still was not built for that purpose, certainly. /pedant)

crazygringo 3y ago

Just to be clear, this is not a new hypothesis or anything. The Wikipedia page [1] states clearly, from a 2003 reference (emphasis mine): > "The Sphinx is a monolith carved from the bedrock of the plateau, which also served as the quarry for the pyramids and other monuments in the area. Egyptian geologist Farouk El-Baz has suggested that the head of the Sphinx may have been carved first, out of a natural yardang, i.e. a ridge of bedrock that had been sculpted by the wind. These can sometimes achieve shapes that resemble animals. El-Baz suggests that the "moat" or "ditch" around the Sphinx may have been quarried out later to allow for the creation of the full body of the sculpture." This article is about new simulations that simply suggest how common yardangs might be. And at the end of the day, I'm not sure how terribly important it is to what extent the block the Sphinx's head was carved out of was made by the wind, vs. intentionally left by quarrying around. I mean, I suppose it's a curious little detail, but does it have any broader significance? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza

firebot 3y ago

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

siduck 3y ago
same