|
|||||||||||
Harrell has not explained why he believes the Sphinx enclosure would have been filled with wet sand from Old Kingdom times to New Kingdom times, especially given that Nile flood levels in the area were lower then than they are today. Nor has he explained how his "wet-sand" theory can account for the weathering/erosional profiles seen in the Sphinx enclosure and on the body of the Sphinx. Harrell's hypothesis is further complicated by the fact that some of the oldest repairs to the Sphinx, covering the weathering/erosion features under discussion, may date to Old Kingdom times (see my original summer 1992 KMT article, note 14).
Harrell is wrong when he states that are no Old Kingdom rock-cut structures immediately south of the Sphinx, cut from the same strata and at the same elevation as the core body of the Sphinx. They do exist and they do not exhibit the same weathering/erosional features as observed in the Sphinx enclosure. Furthermore these structures are not carved of the more durable strata that compose the neck and head of the Sphinx.
Harrell's vague, off-hand and undocumented comments about abrupt versus gradational changes in lithologies, and differences in exposures and durabilities, are simply another exercise in ad hoc inventive geology to reach his pre-determined conclusions.
Harrell does raise an important point with the Khent-Kawes (Khentkaus) monument. Khent-Kawes is an extremely interesting structure that I have long paid particular attention to, and it deserves to be considered further. It preserves very ancient undulating weathering profiles that have been partly removed, perhaps during Old Kingdom times. I believe that a strong case can be made that the original core structure of Khent-Kawes pertains to a pre-Old Kingdom era, but this complicated issue cannot be resolved in only a few paragraphs here. The evidence of Khent-Kawes does not invalidate the hypothesis of an older Sphinx; rather, I believe it will ultimately fit into a cogent picture of pre-Fourth Dynasty structures and artifacts in the vicinity of Giza.
According to Harrell's theory of sand wetted by Nile floods, the weathering/erosional profiles observed in the Sphinx enclosure should be relatively uniform from west to east (or, if anything, the rock should be a bit more weathered to the east, where it is very slightly closer to the Nile). Such is not the case, however. As Harrell points out, the southeast corner of the Sphinx enclosure wall is much less weathered than the southwest corner and the western wall. This is to be expected, based on my mechanism of rainfall and runoff flowing predominately down the bulk of the Giza Plateau from the west and into the Sphinx enclosure at its western end (such that much less runoff would be experienced at the southeast corner).
Harrell suggests that such factors as foot traffic, sand removal, lime-stone quarrying, moving casing blocks and so on might account for the more pronounced erosion to the upper layers on the walls of the Sphinx enclosure. The scalloped or cove-shaped indentations, associated with deep vertical fissures, on the south wall could not have been produced by foot traffic, etc. None of Harrell's suggested mechanism would leave the characteristic undulating weathering/erosional profiles I have documented.
Of course the fissures cutting through the limestone in the Sphinx enclosure follow tectonic joints, and such joints are found abundantly on the Giza Plateau. However, they are found in an opened, enlarged state in only a few areas of the Plateau, such as in the Sphinx enclosure and to a lesser extent on Khent-Kawes. In the enclosure they were enlarged by precipitation and runoff after the core body of the Sphinx was carved. The open joints do bear on the age of the Sphinx.
Contra Harrell, even slackwater conditions could cause undercutting if Nile floods were the main agent of erosion in the Sphinx enclosure. Harrell also seems to imply that a sand cover, even if wet, would help protect the rock surfaces to a certain degree - yet such a suggestion is contrary to the wet-sand theory that he has proposed as an explanation for the observed weathering/erosional profiles.
Harrell's most recent criticism of the seismic profiles states nothing new; I stand by our original interpretations and refer the interested reader to the Geoarchaeology article that Thomas Dobecki and I published on the subject in 1992 (vol.7, no.6, pp. 527-544).
Finally, Harrell states that the "Sphinx limestone has a propensity to weather rapidly given the right conditions" and that the majority of the weathering to the Sphinx may have taken place between Old and New Kingdom times. These are not statements of fact, but simply Harrell's assertions. If they are true, then they should be equally true for other structures carved from the same limestones on the Giza Plateau. Yet we find major discrepancies in the weathering profiles; these discrepancies need to be addressed, not simply dismissed in an off-hand manner.
One valid point Harrell makes is that more field-work is needed on the Giza Plateau. I heartily agree. However, it has proved difficult to obtain permission [from the Egyptians] to pursue further research. I am anxious to carry on, using the latest geological, geophysical and geochemical techniques, once permission can be arranged. I stand ready to have my hypothesis of an older Sphinx examined by competent impartial investigators on site, and I will be happy to collaborate with any interested scientists.