> Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin [warrl@mail.blarg.net] wrote:
> >That is, aside from the water erosion on carved surfaces. Which
> >indicate that the Sphinx was *not* carved from a rock outcropping in
> >the desert -- the Sphinx was carved, then the local climate changed.
>
> Uh, what's the problem with water erosion on the Sphinx? You think it
> doesn't rain in Cairo or something?
Not a whole lot.
But the Sphinx has quite a lot of rain erosion on
its back -- even considering how old it was formerly believed to be.
Indicating that substantially more rain has fallen on it than has
fallen on any similarly-sized nearby patch of land in that period of
time.
The most plausible explanation is that the Sphinx is older than was
formerly believed. If you just slide the date back to account for
the erosion, you cross a period in which we are pretty sure the
climate in that area changed -- before this period, that area was
*not* desert, and got substantially more rain than it gets today.
The problem is, you also go past the period in which civilization is
believed to have come to Egypt.
US$500 fee for receipt of unsolicited commercial email. USC 47.5.II.227