THE SPHINX

[Bianca]

 Regarding the western wall of the Sphinx enclosure and the drainage channel along the north side of the Khafre causeway, Hawass and Lehner have no proof as to the origin of the channel; it is a mere assertion that it originated during the time of Khafre. Second, the western end of the Sphinx enclosure actually has two "walls," one higher (carved in the Setepet Member [Member II]) and farther west than the other (the lower wall is carved in the Rosetau Member [Member I]). The higher "back wall" farthest to the west does indeed show rain weathering and dates back to pre-Old Kingdom times. Seismic studies indicate that the lower "back wall," set directly behind the rump of the Sphinx, was excavated much later, probably in Khafre's time.




            In sum, Hawass and Lehner have failed to discredit the data that support the hypothesis of an

older Sphinx. I remain convinced that the core body of the Sphinx dates back to approximately 5000

 B.C. or earlier.


http://www.robertschoch.net/Response%20in%20Archaeology%20Schoch%20Hawass%20Lehner.htm


http://www.robertschoch.homestead.com/main.html

[Bianca]

[Bianca]

                               Archaeological Cover-ups:  A Plot to Control History?





by Will Hart

The scientific establishment tends to reject, suppress or ignore evidence that conflicts with accepted theories, while denigrating or persecuting the messenger.




THE BRAIN POLICE" AND "THE BIG LIE

Any time you allege a conspiracy is afoot, especially in the field of science, you are treading on thin ice. We tend to be very sceptical about conspiracies--unless the Mafia or some Muslim radicals are behind the alleged plot. But the evidence is overwhelming and the irony is that much of it is in plain view.

The good news is that the players are obvious. Their game plan and even their play-by-play tactics are transparent, once you learn to spot them. However, it is not so easy to penetrate through the smokescreen of propaganda and disinformation to get to their underlying motives and goals. It would be convenient if we could point to a plumber's unit and a boldface liar like Richard Nixon, but this is a more subtle operation.

The bad news: the conspiracy is global and there are many vested interest groups. A cursory investigation yields the usual suspects: scientists with a theoretical axe to grind, careers to further and the status quo to maintain. Their modus operandi is "The Big Lie"--and the bigger and more widely publicised, the better. They rely on invoking their academic credentials to support their arguments, and the presumption is that no one has the right to question their authoritarian pronouncements that:



1. there is no mystery about who built the Great Pyramid or what the methods of construction were, and the Sphinx shows no signs of water damage;

2. there were no humans in the Americas before 20,000 BC;

3. the first civilisation dates back no further than 6000 BC;

4. there are no documented anomalous, unexplained or enigmatic data to take into account;

5. there are no lost or unaccounted-for civilisations.
Let the evidence to the contrary be damned!

[Bianca]

                     Personal Attacks: Dispute over Age of the Sphinx and Great Pyramid





In 1993, NBC in the USA aired The Mysteries of the Sphinx, which presented geological evidence showing that the Sphinx was at least twice as old (9,000 years) as Egyptologists claimed. It has become well known as the "water erosion controversy". An examination of the politicking that Egyptologists deployed to combat this undermining of their turf is instructive.

Self-taught Egyptologist John Anthony West brought the water erosion issue to the attention of geologist Dr Robert Schoch. They went to Egypt and launched an intensive on-site investigation. After thoroughly studying the Sphinx first hand, the geologist came to share West's preliminary conclusion and they announced their findings.

Dr Zahi Hawass, the Giza Monuments chief, wasted no time in firing a barrage of public criticism at the pair. Renowned Egyptologist Dr Mark Lehner, who is regarded as the world's foremost expert on the Sphinx, joined his attack. He charged West and Schoch with being "ignorant and insensitive". That was a curious accusation which took the matter off the professional level and put the whole affair on a personal plane. It did not address the facts or issues at all and it was highly unscientific.

But we must note the standard tactic of discrediting anyone who dares to call the accepted theories into question. Shifting the focus away from the issues and "personalising" the debate is a highly effective strategy--one which is often used by politicians who feel insecure about their positions. Hawass and Lehner invoked their untouchable status and presumed authority. (One would think that a geologist's assessment would hold more weight on this particular point.)

A short time later, Schoch, Hawass and Lehner were invited to debate the issue at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. West was not allowed to participate because he lacked the required credentials.

This points to a questionable assumption that is part of the establishment's arsenal: only degreed scientists can practise science. Two filters keep the uncredentialled, independent researcher out of the loop: (1) credentials, and (2) peer review. You do not get to number two unless you have number one.

Science is a method that anyone can learn and apply. It does not require a degree to observe and record facts and think critically about them, especially in the non-technical social sciences. In a free and open society, science has to be a democratic process.

Be that as it may, West was barred. The elements of the debate have been batted back and forth since then without resolution. It is similar to the controversy over who built the Giza pyramids and how.

This brings up the issue of The Big Lie and how it has been promoted for generations in front of God and everyone. The controversy over how the Great Pyramid was constructed is one example. It could be easily settled if Egyptologists wanted to resolve the dispute. A simple test could be designed and arranged by impartial engineers that would either prove or disprove their longstanding disputed theory--that it was built using the primitive tools and methods of the day, circa 2500 BC.

Why hasn't this been done? The answer is so obvious, it seems impossible: they know that the theory is bogus. Could a trained, highly educated scientist really believe that 2.3 million tons of stone, some blocks weighing 70 tons, could have been transported and lifted by primitive methods? That seems improbable, though they have no compunction against lying to the public, writing textbooks and defending this theory against alternative theories. However, we must note that they will not subject themselves to the bottom-line test.

We think it is incumbent upon any scientist to bear the burden of proof of his/her thesis; however, the social scientists who make these claims have never stood up to that kind of scrutiny. That is why we must suspect a conspiracy. No other scientific discipline would get away with bending the rules of science. All that Egyptologists have ever done is bat down alternative theories using underhanded tactics. It is time to insist that they prove their own proposals.

Why would scientists try to hide the truth and avoid any test of their hypothesis? Their motivations are equally transparent. If it can be proved that the Egyptians did not build the Great Pyramid in 2500 BC using primitive methods, or if the Sphinx can be dated to 9000 BC, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Orthodox views of cultural evolution are based upon a chronology of civilisation having started in Sumeria no earlier than 4000 BC. The theory does not permit an advanced civilisation to have existed prior to that time. End of discussion. Archaeology and history lose their meaning without a fixed timeline as a point of reference.

Since the theory of "cultural evolution" has been tied to Darwin's general theory of evolution, even more is at stake. Does this explain why facts, anomalies and enigmas are denied, suppressed and/or ignored? Yes, it does. The biological sciences today are based on Darwinism.


http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_wh4.htm#Archaeological

[Bianca]

                                     Egyptologists: It is Time to Prove Your Claims





by Will Hart

Egyptologists are displaying irrational and unscientific fixations by stubbornly clinging to ideas that have already been discredited. Mr. Lerhner and Mr. Hawass use every public forum to repeat their unproven speculations about how the ancient (Egyptian) builders quarried, transported, lifted, dressed and precisely positioned blocks of stone weighing from 50 to 200 tons.

The problem is that they have not proven that the primitive tools and methods that they assert the builders used are equal to the task. In fact, several well-documented attempts over the past 30 years have actually failed to replicate what the builders achieved. In the 1970s a Japanese team funded by Nissan tried to build a one-third, scale model of the Great Pyramid using the methods Egyptologists claim the ancient engineers employed. They could not duplicate a single step of the process.

They gave up and called on modern technology. Even with the aid of trucks and helicopters they could not position the stones accurately and the finished pyramid turned out to be a haphazard mess. Then in the 1990s NOVA filmed another effort aimed at proving that Egyptologists were right. It was nowhere near as ambitious as the Japanese project. This time a team of experts tried set about the task of quarrying a 35-ton obelisk -- rather small by Egyptian standards -- using dolorite hammers, then transporting it on wooden skids and lifting it into place via a dirt ramp.

The NOVA team gave up rather quickly so slow was the quarrying process. They soon realized that the ancient method of transport was also hopeless and they called in a bulldozer to quarry the stone and a truck to carry it to the site. The first difficult steps having been performed with the aid of modern machinery they tried to lift the obelisk into place using their primitive scheme. That also failed.

Now consider that the blocks of granite forming the ceiling of the King's Chamber weigh 50-tons and they had to be lifted to that height and precisely manoeuvred into a difficult position. Furthermore, the largest obelisk in Egypt weighs ten times as much as the one the NOVA team struggled with unsuccessfully. We have to keep in mind that the only tools and sources of power that Egyptologists are willing to allow were primitive. They had no steel hammers or chisels, no pulleys and no horse drawn wheeled vehicles. The builders had to quarry the blocks with stone hammers and haul them using ropes, wooden sleds and manpower.

Many modern day engineers, physicists and other scientists have scratched their heads in wonder when they have come face-to-face with the problem. Some have been willing to publicly voice their doubts as to whether the ancients could have built the pyramid and raised the obelisks using primitive methods. Independent researchers have raised a number of serious questions and several have posed alternate theories.

The debate has raged on for decades without resolution. But there is a simple, definitive way to end the controversy once and for all.
I propose that an independent panel of scientists and civil engineers devise a straightforward test to see if blocks of stone weighing 50 to 200 tons can be manipulated, moved and lifted into place using the primitive methods that Egyptologists claim the ancients employed.
Using smaller stones proves nothing, you have to successfully manipulate the largest blocks not the smallest.

This challenge is proposed in the true spirit of scientific inquiry and public disclosure. There is no reason to accord a free lunch to any group of social scientists and no reason to accept unsubstantiated (historical) theories that are based on little more than idle speculation and wishful thinking. There is also no good reason to allow a protracted controversy to reign when the means of disposing of it are readily available.

Human history is a universal reality that belongs to all people and the pursuit of its underlying truth is more important than catering to the interests of any individual(s) or group(s).


http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_wh2.htm#Egyptologists

[mdsungate]

   Nice work "B", Some really great posts on the back and forth between the West camp on an older Sphinx and the Hawass built by Khafre camp.

Here's what I don't get about Hawass:  If you look at the picture of the Sphinx in your post #13 in this thread you can see the Sphinx burried up to it's chest in 1867. 

The dream Stele that prince "T" put up tells us that he found the Sphinx burried up to it's head in the sand. 

Here's a quote from an eariler post in this thread:

The dream Stele he erected between the two paws of the Sphinx in ca. 1400 BC. According to the story he inscribed in the Stella, prince Thutmosis went hunting in the Valley of Gazelles southeast of the Sphinx. The Sphinx spoke to him in a dream and asked the prince to free him from the sand.

So obviously if we are to give any belief in the truth of the dream Stelle, then the Sphinx must be MUCH older than the time that Hawass attributes to it.  How could it have been burried in the sand, in terrible disrepair, and in need of prince "T" to dig it out and restore it?

Putting all the geological evidence aside for the moment, How can Hawass claim that the Sphinx dates to the time that the dream Stele was erected and totally ignore the story that is written on the stone?  To me this is the very hight of ignorance!

[Bianca]

Hi, Mike!

Are you sorely missed, buddy!!! 

And Horus is temporarily gone too.....

Anyhoo, you're not the only one asking these questions:



See my posts in the CONSPIRACY  thread and the two above:

Egyptologists: It is Time to Prove Your Claims
and
Personal Attacks: Dispute over Age of the Sphinx and Great Pyramid


We are getting nowhere and now, to boot, they've built a big fence around Giza.

But the world is silent......

b

[Bianca]

                        Personal Attacks: Dispute over Age of the Sphinx and Great Pyramid





In 1993, NBC in the USA aired The Mysteries of the Sphinx, which presented geological evidence showing that the Sphinx was at least twice as old (9,000 years) as Egyptologists claimed. It has become well known as the "water erosion controversy". An examination of the politicking that Egyptologists deployed to combat this undermining of their turf is instructive.

Self-taught Egyptologist John Anthony West brought the water erosion issue to the attention of geologist Dr Robert Schoch. They went to Egypt and launched an intensive on-site investigation. After thoroughly studying the Sphinx first hand, the geologist came to share West's preliminary conclusion and they announced their findings.

Dr Zahi Hawass, the Giza Monuments chief, wasted no time in firing a barrage of public criticism at the pair. Renowned Egyptologist Dr Mark Lehner, who is regarded as the world's foremost expert on the Sphinx, joined his attack. He charged West and Schoch with being "ignorant and insensitive". That was a curious accusation which took the matter off the professional level and put the whole affair on a personal plane. It did not address the facts or issues at all and it was highly unscientific.

But we must note the standard tactic of discrediting anyone who dares to call the accepted theories into question. Shifting the focus away from the issues and "personalising" the debate is a highly effective strategy--one which is often used by politicians who feel insecure about their positions. Hawass and Lehner invoked their untouchable status and presumed authority. (One would think that a geologist's assessment would hold more weight on this particular point.)

A short time later, Schoch, Hawass and Lehner were invited to debate the issue at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. West was not allowed to participate because he lacked the required credentials.

This points to a questionable assumption that is part of the establishment's arsenal: only degreed scientists can practise science. Two filters keep the uncredentialled, independent researcher out of the loop: (1) credentials, and (2) peer review. You do not get to number two unless you have number one.

Science is a method that anyone can learn and apply. It does not require a degree to observe and record facts and think critically about them, especially in the non-technical social sciences. In a free and open society, science has to be a democratic process.

Be that as it may, West was barred. The elements of the debate have been batted back and forth since then without resolution. It is similar to the controversy over who built the Giza pyramids and how.

This brings up the issue of The Big Lie and how it has been promoted for generations in front of God and everyone. The controversy over how the Great Pyramid was constructed is one example. It could be easily settled if Egyptologists wanted to resolve the dispute. A simple test could be designed and arranged by impartial engineers that would either prove or disprove their longstanding disputed theory--that it was built using the primitive tools and methods of the day, circa 2500 BC.

Why hasn't this been done? The answer is so obvious, it seems impossible: they know that the theory is bogus. Could a trained, highly educated scientist really believe that 2.3 million tons of stone, some blocks weighing 70 tons, could have been transported and lifted by primitive methods? That seems improbable, though they have no compunction against lying to the public, writing textbooks and defending this theory against alternative theories. However, we must note that they will not subject themselves to the bottom-line test.

We think it is incumbent upon any scientist to bear the burden of proof of his/her thesis; however, the social scientists who make these claims have never stood up to that kind of scrutiny. That is why we must suspect a conspiracy. No other scientific discipline would get away with bending the rules of science. All that Egyptologists have ever done is bat down alternative theories using underhanded tactics. It is time to insist that they prove their own proposals.

Why would scientists try to hide the truth and avoid any test of their hypothesis? Their motivations are equally transparent. If it can be proved that the Egyptians did not build the Great Pyramid in 2500 BC using primitive methods, or if the Sphinx can be dated to 9000 BC, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Orthodox views of cultural evolution are based upon a chronology of civilisation having started in Sumeria no earlier than 4000 BC. The theory does not permit an advanced civilisation to have existed prior to that time. End of discussion. Archaeology and history lose their meaning without a fixed timeline as a point of reference.


Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 9, Number 3 (April-May 2002)
PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. editor@nexusmagazine.com
Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com

[cleasterwood]

"But the world is silent......"
I don't agree!  The world is shouting about it, but it's falling on deaf ears.  Face it, no one wants to revise history.  Every religion in the world would fall to its knees, science would be flipped on its head, & every school book in the world would be outdated in 5 seconds.  Maybe, just maybe, they think they are protecting us from something they don't think we're ready to hear yet.  Who the heck knows for sure?  All we can do is speculate.   I do agree though that the Mainstreamers should PUT UP OR SHUT UP!  If they can't prove their accepted "theories" then they need to make way for new ones.

Case in point:  At one time, scientists believed that the Baghdad Battery probably wouldn't work.  BUT, thanks college students & the great guys over at Mythbusters!  They proved, conclusively, that it does work!  They used it to electroplate gold to a base metal!  And I'm betting they could recreate the Egyptian battery on the temple walls.   Although it's uses are speculative, it proves that we aren't any smarter than they were.  They simply had more limited resources available.

So, here's my proposal on how to help solve the debate over how the Great Pyramid was built.  Everyone who wants this MYTH proved or disproved should write an email to Mythbusters or we can start a chain letter style email (everyone adds a signature at the bottom) & when it has a ton of signatures send it to me (the originator) & I can send it in to them.  In effect it would be asking them if they could build a mini version of the GP using tools available ONLY in Bronze Age Egypt.  It doesn't have to be very big, even 1/4 the size would be sufficient. With a little help writing the letter from others here who are more versed in the subject, I think we have a good shot of getting Mythbusters to give it a go.  Of course, we'd have to get lots of volunteers who aren't afraid of a little hard work to help out, but I think it could be done.  I know I'd volunteer.   

Any takers?

Blessed be,
Lynn

[Bianca]

Hi, Lynn!

Count me in!!

Please put your post in Cover-ups too, right here:

http://atlantisonline.smfforfree2.com/index.php/topic,1772.msg41544.html#top


Lots of people read that who may not be reading this thread.

Thanks,

b

[Bianca]

THE EGYPTIAN SPHINX




By Cedric Leonard,


Author of :

The Quest For Atlantis - 1979
The Quest For Atlantis II - 2005

I have two old history books in my personal library which have photographs of the Egyptian Sphinx covered with sand: one written by West (1904) in which the Sphinx is covered up to the neck in sand and another by Myers (1904) which shows the Sphinx with the "chest" only partly excavated. People used to speculate as to what the body of the Sphinx might look like. Of course we now know that the body of the Sphinx is a lion. But why a lion?

 

According to some renegade scholars, such as John Anthony West and Graham Hancock, there is good reason for this, and it doesn't have anything to do with the historical Egyptians. These two scholars have upset the world of Egyptology by claiming that the Sphinx was sculpted by non-Egyptians more than 9,000 years ago (possibly 10,500 B.C.). They have claimed that the Sphinx has been covered in sand for most of its long history, and why not? If it wasn't continually being cleared by modern workers, it would have been re-buried up to its neck in sand since its excavation in the early 1900s. The shifting sand has to be fought back on almost a day-to-day basis. So, if it has been under the sand for most of its existence, why is it so weathered?


John Anthony West called upon Dr. Robert Schoch, a professor of geology at Boston University to evaluate the nature of the erosion of the Sphinx. After careful investigation, Schoch concluded that the "weathering" of the Sphinx was done by water, rather than by wind and sand as commonly believed; that it was first created back during the alluvial period toward the end of the Ice Age when Egypt was experiencing copious amounts of rainfall; and that the Sphinx must be at least 7,000 years old (a conservative estimate by his own admission; Schoch, 1992). He presented his findings to a large forum of geologists, and his conclusions that the weathering patterns evident on the sphinx were the result of water erosion, rather than wind, were generally accepted. Egyptologists, however, were outraged; but Egyptologists have never welcomed geologists into their play pen. But what has all this to do with lions?


It seems that West, following the work of an earlier researcher, Robert Bauval, determined that in the year 10,500 B.C., on the day of the Spring equinox, the Sphinx would be looking at his own counterpart in the morning sky, Leo the lion (West, 1979). In fact, they speculate, and rightfully so, that the original Sphinx also had the head of a lion. Colin Reader, another geologist noticed that the Egyptian "pharaoh-like" head we see today is much too small in proportion to the body of the Sphinx, and that, even though it has suffered damage from vandals, the face is not eroded like the body (if the head has always been exposed to the weather, it should be more eroded than the body). Reader believes the head of the original sphinx has been re-sculpted from an original lion's head into an Egyptian pharaoh-style head (interesting!). Take away the pharaoh-style head and all "Egyptian" traits disappear. All in all, the evidence seems to point to a Sphinx originally sculpted by an unknown culture in the far distant past, before the Egyptian culture was even in existence.

                     

So why a Lion? We know that the mean ("central") date of the age of Leo is 9,880 B.C. We also know that the geological epoch known as the Pleistocene came to a close near that date; that a mass extinction of animals accompanied that end; that all Upper Paleolithic cultures ended on or near that date; that human population was decimated at that time; and that this Great Event was accompanied by worldwide volcanism (Hibben, 1946).

                   

In addition, Manetho, the Egyptian priest-historian, records an abrupt interruption in his king-list at that time. In other words, worldwide changes of unimaginable magnitude happened during the age of Leo, events which were centered close to the date of 10,000 B.C. This is reflected in the famous Dendera Zodiac which begins with the sign of Leo. Did it harold a new beginning? The appearance of the famous Lion-sphinx in Egypt was no mere astrological coincidence. I suspect that the ancients knew when the geological cycles were due to occur, and that the Sphinx was a reminder of an event large and significant enough to affect all mankind.


http://www.atlantisquest.com/Archeology.html#sphinx

[Bianca]

                                           THE GREAT SPHINX CONTROVERSY

 




by Dr. Robert M. Schoch © 1995

[A modified version of this manuscript was published in the "Fortean Times" (P.O. Box 2409, London NW5 4NP) No. 79, February‑March, 1995, pp. 34‑39.] 

       

          The Great Sphinx of Giza, Egypt, has long been thought to have been carved de novo by the Fourth Dynasty pharaoh Khafre (Chephren) about 2500 B.C.  Recently I have determined that, in fact, the Great Sphinx was built in stages and I have estimated that the earliest portions of the statue (the core body of the Sphinx) date back to the period of 7000 to 5000 B.C.  My redating of the Sphinx is now well ‑ established.  The evidence for an earlier Sphinx has been duly published in appropriate journals [1], discussed at major scientific meetings without being falsified [2] and thus far the hypothesis of an older Sphinx has not been convincingly refuted. [3] My work on the Great Sphinx has also received quite a bit of attention in the popular press. [4] Here it is not my purpose to restate the scientific evidence for an older Sphinx (interested readers are referred to the articles already cited in the footnotes, or may write to me directly at Boston University); rather, in this note I will briefly describe a few of the interesting tactics used by some of my critics in attempting to discredit my work on the Sphinx.     

         To begin with, one must realize (as I did not at first) that the dating of the Great Sphinx seems to be a very touchy subject for most modern Egyptologists.  Despite the fact that some of the early founders of modern Egyptology (such as Sir Flinders Petrie, Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, and Sir G. C. Maspero) were open to the notion that the Sphinx may be older than the Fourth Dynasty pyramids that it seems to guard, and ancients from New Kingdom Egyptians to Romans (circa 1400 B.C. to 400 A.D.) generally thought that the Sphinx was older than the pyramids, modern Egyptologists have galvanized around the dogma that the Great Sphinx was built by Khafre, circa 2500 B.C.  The basis for this attribution is purely circumstantial, the strongest piece of evidence being the reputed similarity between the face of the Sphinx and the face of Khafre as seen on other statues.  Yet forensic expert Frank Domingo of the New York Police Department has definitively proven that the face of the Sphinx and the face seen on signed statues of Khafre are not of the same person (4); indeed, the face of the Sphinx apparently does not pertain to the same race as the face seen on statues of Khafre (the Sphinx has a distinctive "African," "Nubian," or "Negroid" aspect which is lacking in the face of Khafre).     

          Still, most living Egyptologists maintain that the Sphinx was built by, or at least around the time of, Khafre.  Questioning the age of the Sphinx seems to shake the very foundations of conventional Egyptology.  A much older Sphinx calls into question the conventional wisdom concerning when and how civilization developed in the Nile Valley.  Maybe mainstream Egyptologists will be forced to rethink their traditional story as to exactly who the dynastic Egyptians were and where they came from (both geographically and culturally).  On the whole, the Egyptologists insist that the peoples of Egypt did not have the technology or social organization to cut out the core body of the Sphinx in predynastic times.  An older Sphinx implies that a highly sophisticated culture existed along the banks of the Nile at an earlier time than hitherto imagined.  Maybe the whole notion of cultural progress will have to be reconsidered.       

          When told of my work on redating the Sphinx, Egyptologist Carol Redmount of the University of California, Berkeley, was quoted and paraphrased as saying (LOS ANGELES TIMES, 23 October 1991, p. A18):  " 'There's just no way that could be true [that the oldest portion of the Sphinx dates back to 5000 B.C. or earlier].'  The people of that region would not have had the technology, the governing institutions or even the will to build such a structure thousands of years before Khafre's reign, she said."  And Redmount continued, stating "that conclusion [that the Sphinx is considerably older than Khafre] flies in the face of 'everything we know about ancient Egypt.' "  Likewise, Peter Lacovara, assistant curator of the Egyptian department of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, attempted to dismiss my work by stating (quoted from THE BOSTON GLOBE, 23 October 1991, p. :  "That's ridiculous. . . Thousands of scholars working for hundreds of years" [a bit of an overstatement as to how many persons have seriously studied the Sphinx] have studied this topic . . . "the chronology is pretty well worked out.  There are no big surprises in store for us."       

          The Egyptological community did little to address my arguments and data.  One of the most cogent statements made against my data was Dr. K. Lal Gauri's:  "Neither the subsurface evidence nor the weathering evidence indicates anything as far as the age is concerned.  It's just not relevant" (SCIENCE, 14 February 1992, vol. 255, p. 793).  But of course such a statement lacks any objective basis.  The reason this evidence is "not relevant" to my critics is that they cannot accept the implications of the evidence.  They "know" when the Sphinx was built, and no evidence can overthrow their long‑cherished beliefs.  Since they cannot refute the evidence, it is dismissed as not relevant.     

          The main tactic used to counter my heresy was to try to dismiss me as a quack and non‑ person.  Dr. Kathryn Bard (Archaeology Department, Boston University) strongly implied (in BOSTON UNIVERSITY TODAY, 11‑17 November 1991, p. 6), by association, that my work on the Sphinx falls into the same category as that of "charlatans and sensation seekers." (as a side note, thus far Dr. Bard has refused to debate me in person on the topic despite an invitation from a neutral branch of Boston University to arrange such a meeting) Dr. Mark Lehner of the University of Chicago accused me of practicing "pseudoscience" (NEW YORK TIMES, 9 February 1992, p. 16).  Dr. Zahi Hawass, then Director of Antiquities of the Giza Plateau and Sakkara, referred to the research as "American hallucinations" (see J. A. West, 1993, Serpent (revised edition), p. 229).  To top it all off, an article was published in the Arabic newspaper "Al‑ Ahram" (Cairo, 24 November 1991) in which it was allegedly stated [I do not read Arabic, thus I have only read a translation of the article; see also P. W. Roberts, 1993, River in the Desert, p. 129] that Dr. James Wiseman (Chairman of the Archaeology Department, Boston University) asserted that I am not a member of the Boston University community.  Of course, this is in error ‑‑ I am a full‑time, permanent (tenured) faculty member at Boston University.  I am not, however, a member of the Archaeology Department in the College of Liberal Arts, Boston University, but rather a member of the Division of Science and Mathematics in the College of General Studies (formerly the College of Basic Studies) Boston University.  Boston University consists of some fifteen Schools and Colleges, and over 2,400 faculty members; perhaps the confusion concerning my affiliation with Boston University is due to the size of the university and the number of different academic units it contains.     

          Clearly the Egyptological community was up in arms, and the easiest way to get rid of me (or so they thought) was with ad hominem attacks on my person.  A large part of the problem seemed to be that I was an "outsider" (my Ph.D. is in geology and geophysics from Yale), and off the record I was even told by an Egyptologist that there were plenty of rocks for me to study other than those on the Giza Plateau where the Sphinx stands.     

          Admittedly some of my early problems with the Egyptological community seem to have stemmed from the fact that I was introduced, by way of a colleague (Dr. Robert Eddy, at the time a fellow faculty member at my college), to the problem of the Sphinx by the notorious John Anthony West.  West has a reputation as an unorthodox and self‑trained Egyptologist who has little regard for the Egyptological establishment; indeed, he argues that much of the standard interpretation of Egyptian civilization is fundamentally flawed.  West is also seen by some people as a "New Ager" [5] and, dare I say it, a general crackpot and quack (I have come to know West well since I first met him in 1989, and he is neither).  Unfortunately West has used the term "Atlantis" a little too often in propounding some of his ideas and, in my opinion, he has over‑ estimated the age of the Great Sphinx (he has suggested that it may go back to ten or fifteen thousand years B.C.).  I begrudgingly got involved in the whole controversy as a favor to a couple of fellow faculty members.  I heard West out, but did not think there was much chance he was correct in suggesting that the Sphinx was older than its standard attribution‑‑until I got to Egypt.  Then, much to my surprise, I discovered that West might actually be on to something, even if he got a few details wrong (but then West has no formal training as a geologist).   

          So what if West has authored a book on astrology [6] and propounds other unorthodox views?  This has no more bearing on the hard data relevant to the age of the Great Sphinx than does the color of my eyes, or the politics of Islam‑‑or does it?  In the tight, virtually closed world of Egyptology I soon learned otherwise.  It seemed that everything was politically and psychologically charged.  Egyptologists strike me as overly sensitive about New Agers, psychics, religious fanatics, believers in "pyramid power," and so forth, perhaps with good reason when you have all sorts of "bizarre" claims as to the meaning and purpose of the pyramids, et cetera [7], including the contention that the two larger Giza pyramids were landing beacons for a spaceport that was built on the Sinai peninsula in ca. 10,500 B.C. [8], and that the Sphinx has some special relationship to the reputed "face on Mars" [9].

          Indeed, even some scholars well entrenched within the Egyptological establishment have New Age connections.  It is common knowledge [10] that Dr. Mark Lehner's interest in ancient Egypt and the Sphinx originated due to his connection with the Association for Research and Enlightenment (A.R.E., the Edgar Cayce Foundation).  Reportedly part of Lehner's college education was subsidized by the A.R.E. and A.R.E. members; Lehner was to be the A.R.E.'s "man in Cairo."  Lehner wrote a book [11] many years ago entitled The Egyptian Heritage in which he] discusses the Edgar Cayce psychic readings describing a very ancient society that existed in Egypt, consisting of the survivors of the lost civilization of Atlantis.  I have been told that Lehner's book is a "classic" in its field among devotees.  According to Edgar Cayce, as reviewed by Lehner, the Sphinx and pyramids were built ca. 10,500 B.C. and under or near the Sphinx was buried a Hall of Records that contained the records from Atlantis.  Interestingly, not only Lehner has former A.R.E. connections.  Dr. Zahi Hawass was also in part supported and patronized by members of the A.R.E.  I personally do not put any stock in psychic readings, stories of Atlantis, or the like, but Lehner's (and Hawass's, for that matter) past associations with the A.R.E. do not bother me as long as they do not impinge adversely upon his (their) current scholarship.  Indeed, the A.R.E. funds and publishes much solid research on ancient Egypt [12], despite the fact that much of the research they fund or publish contradicts the Cayce readings.     

          Given Lehner's and Hawass's A.R.E. / "New Age" connections in particular, I find it ironic that they and other Egyptologists have accused me of being a pseudoscientist who aids and abets supposed New Age quacks like West, ( The Mystery of the Sphinx.)  Maybe it is because of their former connections that they are so sensitive about such issues.  I, on the other hand, having never had such connections in the first place, worry little about where the inspiration for scientific hypotheses and analyses come from.  In the case of the age of the Sphinx, just because West might hold some unconventional views, that does not mean that his suggestion (based on the work of Schwaller de Lubicz [13] )‑‑ that the Sphinx is older than its traditional attribution‑‑cannot be used heuristically [14].  West's preliminary analysis into the age of the Sphinx got me started on some very serious, no‑nonsense scientific research.     

          Here I might also note that ideology, theology, and nationalism often influence the manner in which archaeological data is interpreted [15].   have to consider the possibility that my redating of the Sphinx may be repugnant to some persons primarily on the basis of political ideology and religious dogma.  Modern Muslim Arabs can sometimes be openly hostile toward ancient Egyptian culture‑‑especially if it is seen as being relatively early and sophisticated.  When I first became interested in the dating of the Sphinx a friend who had lived in Egypt for several years warned me that I might run into such hostility if I dared to suggest that the Sphinx could be even older than already believed.  Initially I did not believe him, but now I tend to think he may have been correct.  Many of the Islamic militants and fundamentalists who are currently attempting to take over the government of Egypt want to destroy all the statues and monuments of ancient Egypt.  Fundamental Islam bans representational art, and all civilization that predates the prophet Mohammed is considered idolatrous.  To suggest that portions of the Sphinx are even older than traditionally thought, implying a sophisticated society that existed even earlier in time, only rubs salt in the open sores of fundamentalists who must face (at least until they can destroy them) the magnificent remains of pharaonic culture.     

          Over all, I have found that Egyptology is a fascinating, but emotionally charged, discipline. My training as a scientist did not fully prepare me for the strong personalities that I would confront among the ranks of Egyptophiles.  Since becoming involved in research concerning the age of the Sphinx I have discovered that I am not the only scientist to have had a less than positive initial experience when dealing with Egyptologists.  Germer [16] has astutely noted that "In the past, cooperation between the natural sciences and Egyptology has not necessarily been successful in every case.  The Egyptologist is initially suspicious; he often rejects results out of hand, and is unwilling to work with scientific data.  He believes that he can do better with his own methodology.  Only when he reaches the limits of his approach ‑‑ working with ancient texts or archaeological material ‑‑ and would like to 'prove' a particular theory by citing 'objective' scientific data does the Egyptologist turn to the natural sciences.  If there are different scientific results obtained from the same material, the Egyptologist is often not in a position to determine which is most probable.  Often it is a matter of choosing those 'scientific' data that best suit a particular theory, without really knowing whether they are reliable or not."     

          Here I do not mean to posit a blanket criticism against all Egyptologists.  Rather, I believe it is important to note that the traditional methodologies used by many Egyptologists often differ in a fundamental manner from the approaches and methodologies used by practitioners in the natural sciences.  At the American Association for the Advancement of Science debate on the age of the Sphinx, for instance, I became quite aware that my adversary, Dr. Lehner, may be a very bright and competent Egyptologist, but he does not "think like a scientist."  In hindsight I realize that I am perhaps to blame for any lack of communication between Lehner and myself at the February 1992 AAAS meeting for I was incorrectly addressing him as a fellow scientist, which he is not.  Lehner is an Egyptologist and approaches problems and data from that bias.   Perhaps it is time to inject a little more science into Egyptology and see what happens. We might witness some interesting developments.   

NOTES:

1.  R. M. Schoch, 1992, "Redating the Great Sphinx of Giza,"  KMT, A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt 3:2 (Summer 1992), 52‑59, 66‑70 (editorial comments and figure captions, not seen by Schoch prior to publication, are by Dennis C. Forbes, Editorial Director, KMT‑‑note that on p. 54 the rear of the Sphinx is on the left side of the photograph, not on the right side as incorrectly stated in the caption); T. L. Dobecki and R. M. Schoch, 1992, "Seismic Investigations in the Vicinity of the Great Sphinx of Giza, Egypt,"  Geoarchaeology:  An International Journal7:6 (December 1992), 527‑544 (unfortunately an inadvertent error occurs on the first page of this article:  incorrectly it is stated in passing that Khufu "reigned during the late twenty‑sixth millennium B.C." when of course he reigned during the late twenty‑sixth century, or middle third millennium, B.C.). 

 2.  R. M. Schoch and J. A. West, 1991, Redating the Great Sphinx of Giza, Egypt.  Geological Society of America abstracts with programs [for the Annual Meeting held in San Diego, October 1991], v. 23, no. 5, p. A253; R. M. Schoch, 1992,  How old is the Sphinx?, Abstracts for the 1992 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Chicago [February 1992], p. 202.  The latter paper was an invited contribution to a symposium convened especially by the AAAS to discuss my redating of the Great Sphinx.   

3.  During the 1992 AAAS debate on the age of the Great Sphinx my staunchest opponents, Drs. Mark Lehner and K. Lal Gauri, were unable to successfully refute my older date for the Great Sphinx.  The AAAS Sphinx debate is well‑described by Paul William Roberts in his book River in the Desert:  Modern Travels in Ancient Egypt (1993, Random House, New York, pp. 127‑135); this debate also formed the basis of an article by Paul William Roberts entitled "Riddle of the Sphinx" which appeared in the March 1993 issue of the Canadian magazine SATURDAY NIGHT  (pp. 22‑24, 26, 28, 73).  See also related discussion of this subject in John Anthony West, 1993, Serpent in the Sky:  The High Wisdom of Ancient Egypt (revised edition), Quest Books (The Theosophical Publishing House), Wheaton, IL, pp. 225‑232.      I wrote a popular article for OMNI magazine on my redating of the Great Sphinx (R. M. Schoch, 1992, "A Modern Riddle of the Sphinx," OMNI 14:11 [August 1992], 46‑48, 68‑69). The editors of OMNI realized how controversial the topic was, so they invited my critics, in the form of Lehner and Gauri, to write a rebuttal to my work.  At first they eagerly agreed to write such a piece, but after months of delay, they refused.  OMNI then published a short afterward that I had written reasserting my redating schema for the Great Sphinx, and the OMNI editors commented that Lehner and Gauri "declined" their invitation to comment on my work (see R. M. Schoch, 1993, Reconsidering the Sphinx. OMNI, v. 15, no. 6 [April 1993], p.31).     While most Egyptologists have violently disagreed, at least initially, with my conclusions regarding the antiquity of the Great Sphinx, there have been exceptions.  For instance, a group of scientists from Waseda University, Tokyo, using different criteria and totally independently from our work, came to similar conclusions regarding the age of the Great Sphinx‑‑namely, that the Sphinx predates the time of Khafre (see Yoshimura, S., T. Nakagawa, and S. Tonouchi, 1988, Non‑Destructive Pyramid Investigation (2), Studies in Egyptian Culture No. 8, Waseda University, Tokyo; Yoshimura, S., S. Tonouchi, and T. Nakagawa, 1987, The First International Symposium on the Application of Modern Technology to Archaeological Explorations at the Giza Necropolis:  The Substance of Speech, Waseda University, Tokyo; Yoshimura, S., S. Tonouchi, T. Nakagawa, and K. Seki, 1987, Non‑Destructive Pyramid Investigation (1) ‑‑ By Electromagnetic Wave Method, Studies in Egyptian Culture No. 6,  Waseda University, Tokyo).   

4.  See especially J. A. West, "Civilization Rethought," Cond Nast Traveler 28:2 (February 1993), 100‑105, 168‑171, 175‑177.  West is the person who first got me involved in redating the Great Sphinx; in this article he succinctly tells the human story behind the Sphinx research.  This article also includes a sidebar and two photographs that I contributed (p. 103), forensic expert Frank Domingo's analysis and reconstruction of the face of the Sphinx (p. 104), and various comments made by critics of the Sphinx redating hypothesis.      For a taste of the publicity surrounding my Sphinx research, see GSA Today (vol. 2, no. 1., p. 1‑2, January 1992) and articles printed in THE NEW YORK TIMES 24 October 1991, THE WASHINGTON POST 11 November 1991, NEWSDAY [New York] 25 October 1991, THE INDEPENDENT [London] 14 October 1991, USA TODAY 10 October 1991, THE BOSTON GLOBE 23 October 1991, THE SAN DIEGO UNION 23 October 1991, LOS ANGELES TIMES 23 October 1991, THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION 13 November 1991, 11 December 1991, and 15 January 1992, THE EGYPTIAN GAZETTE 28 October 1991, VANCOUVER SUN 28 October 1991, INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE 12 November 1991, and THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE 23 October 1991, THE NEW YORK TIMES 9 February 1992, THE WASHINGTON POST 17 February 1992, THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE 8 February 1992, THE DAILY TELEGRAPH (London) 10 February 1992, SCIENCE 14 February 1992, NEW SCIENTIST 15 February 1992, THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE 12 February 1992, and THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE 24 February 1992.  For related articles, see THE NEW YORK TIMES 27 June 1992 and 18 July 1992, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT NEWS 15 June 1992, THE TIMES (London) 3 July 1992, SKY MAGAZINE (Delta Airlines) August 1992, FORTEAN TIMES (Number 64) August/September 1992, INSIGHT ON THE NEWS 10 August 1992, pp. 15‑16; an article in MUNDO 21 (issue for September 1992, pp. 130‑137); and the Home Life section of THE PROVIDENCE SUNDAY JOURNAL 28 February 1993.  This is only a partial listing; reputedly the story was covered or reprinted in hundreds of papers around the world, and also mentioned on a number of radio and television shows.

   I and/or West were interviewed for a number of radio and television programs.  I was featured in "Science Report, A Video Presentation:  Scientists Tackle Latest Riddle of the Sphinx‑ ‑How Old is It?" produced by the American Institute of Physics, May 1992 (length approximately 2 minutes, plus 5 minutes of extra comments).  This video was aired over various television stations in May and June, 1992.  West and I participated in a live television interview, with Scott Simon, concerning the age of the Great Sphinx on NBC's Saturday Today Show broadcast from New York City, 22 August 1992.  I also agreed to be interviewed by the Association for Research and Enlightenment/The Edgar Cayce Foundation on the age of the Sphinx; for the published version of this interview see "The Sphinx:  Older by Half?",  Venture Inward, January/February 1992, pp. 14‑17, 48‑49.

5.  C. Hedges, "Egypt Holds No Terror for Those in Sphinx's Spell," THE NEW YORK TIMES 13 April 1993. 

6.  J. A. West, 1991, The Case for Astrology.  Viking Arkana, London and New York.   

7.  P. Tompkins, 1978, Secrets of the Great Pyramid.  Harper and  Row, New York.   

8.  Z. Sitchin, 1986, "Forgery" in the Great Pyramid.  Venture  Inward [magazine of the Association for Research and Enlightenment and The Edgar Cayce Foundation], November/December 1986, pp. 33‑37.   

9.  R. C. Hoagland, 1992 The Monuments of Mars:  A City on the Edge of Forever, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley.   

10.  A. R. Smith, 1988, Hugh Lynn Cayce:  About My Father's Business.  The Donning Company, Publishers, Norfolk/Virginia Beach.   

11.  M. Lehner, 1974 [14th printing, 1991], The Egyptian Heritage, based on the Edgar Cayce Readings.  Association for Research and Enlightenment Press, Virginia Beach, VA.   

12.  E. E. Cayce, G. Cayce Schwartzer, and D. G. Richards, 1988, Mysteries of Atlantis Revisited.  Harper and Row, San Francisco.   

13.  R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz, 1982 [translated by A. and G.  VandenBroeck], Sacred Science: The King of Pharaonic    Theocracy.  Inner Traditions International, New York.   

14.  D. G. Richards, 1988, Archaeological anomalies in the Bahamas.  J. Sci. Exploration, 2:181‑ 201; W. D. Gray, 1991, Thinking Critically About New Age Ideas.  Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California.   

15.  N. A. Silberman, 1989, Between Past and Present:  Archaeology, Ideology, and Nationalism in the Modern Middle East.  Henry Holt and Company, New York; C. Hedges, "The Muslims' Wrath Doesn't Spare the Mummies," THE NEW YORK TIMES 23 July 1993.   

16.  R. Germer, 1986, Problems of Science in Egyptology, In Science in Egyptology (R. A. David, ed.), Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp. 521‑525 (quotation from p. 521).

 HOMEPAGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS




An International Networking Educational Institute

Intellectual, Scientific and Philosophical Studies

Copyright © 1995, 2005, 2006, 2007

Dr. Colette M. Dowell, N.D.

Angela Praxter - Professional Assistant

 

Website Design for the previous Official Website of Dr. Robert M. Schoch and Circular Times

 and all contents including but not limited to text layout, graphics, any and all images, including videos are Copyright © of Dr. Colette M. Dowell, 1995-2007


http://www.robertschoch.net/Great%20Sphinx%20Controversy.htm

[Bianca]

                                                               Keep an eye on the Sphinx







Al-Ahram Weekly
Sept. 9, 2008

While the SCA secretary-general was being interviewed for "Guardian's Spotlight" in July 2008, pigeons were seen pecking away at the eyes and ear cavities of the Sphinx and their droppings were splattered on the stone. Jill Kamil discusses this new danger



The secretary-general of the Supreme Council of Antiquities had much to tell his interviewer on "Spotlight". Zahi Hawass waxed lyrical about "exciting things" that have been happening in the field of archaeology -- the discovery of a new tomb of a queen at Saqqara that has yet to be formally announced; the entrance to two tombs in the Valley of the Kings on which excavation will begin in October; and "big happenings" in Aswan, Edfu and Kom Ombo. He was enthusiastic about the "improvements" at Dendera and the Step Pyramid at Saqqara, and gave details of the new museums at Rashid, Arish, Minya and Amarna, as well as site management at Beni Hassan and Tuna Al-Gabel.

Zahi Hawass raved about the progress on the Civilisation Museum at Fustat and the Grand Egyptian Museum at Giza. Indeed, he also had much to say about the plan to upgrade the Pyramid Plateau and turn it into "a tourist-friendly and hawker-free zone". He mentioned that the project's security component included installing cameras, alarms and motion detectors, as well as building up a 20-kilometre fence.

I wonder if the new electronic security devices, however, while monitoring the movements of tourists and hawkers, cameleers and horse riders, will be able to pick up the unwelcome winged creatures that are finding a comfortable and shady roost in the eye and ear cavities of the Sphinx, and causing damage to the stone with their droppings. Apparently the pigeons are pecking away at this most grand and famous of monuments, finding in it an appetising calcium meal. Back in 1991, after a Save the Sphinx programme of restoration, Hawass declared that the monument was not in any danger. "Its head and neck can live for another thousand years," he declared at the time. He could not possibly have foreseen this newest threat -- the high level of acidity in the droppings of birds and its destructive effect on the stone. Just how serious is the problem?

[Bianca]

I am reminded of the press coverage in the United Kingdom back in November 2002, about the health hazard and the "mess" created by some 4,000 pigeons in Trafalgar Square, when campaigners called for the right to continue to feed the birds. The British press made a great hue and cry about that. "Court threat over Trafalgar pigeons", "In defence of pigeons" and "Pigeon protest ruffles feathers", the headlines screamed.

Well, we in Egypt are not that concerned about birds, and we certainly don't cast birdseed around to feed them. Yet pigeons here in Egypt have become thoroughly urbanised. They habitually build nests and raise families in garages, on balconies, and in and around satellite dishes. So once they pass the word around that the Giza Sphinx offers singularly superior accommodation for Rest and Recreation than Greater Cairo's concrete jungle, perhaps they will fly to Giza in ever larger numbers.

The Sphinx was carved from a single block of limestone left over in the quarry used to build the Pyramids, and scholars believe it was sculpted about 4,600 years ago by King Khafre, whose Pyramid rises directly behind it. Half human, half lion, it has the head of the king with his nemes head covering, and its body is 57 metres long and 20 metres high. It certainly exudes an aura of mystery: the Arabs called the Sphinx Abul Hol, Father of Terror; and 18th- and 19th-century visitors claimed that it was the work of an extremely ancient civilisation that had completely disappeared.

If more pigeons are attracted to the area, their droppings will cause more and more damage. The monument has undergone numerous restorations over the millennia, beginning with one conducted in about 1400 BC by the prince who later became Pharaoh Tuthmose IV, who dreamt that the Sphinx asked him to clear the sand around it in return for the crown of Upper and Lower Egypt. It was cleared, and he was crowned Pharaoh, but wind- blown sand soon buried the monument to its neck -- its nose, incidentally, had been missing for at least 400 years by the time Napoleon arrived in Egypt in 1798 with the band of French savants who took measurements of the head.

[Bianca]

The first attempt to clear away the sand in modern times was made in 1816/17 by a Genoese merchant, Caviglia, who did not get very far. The next attempt was made in 1853 by Auguste Mariette, founder of the Egyptian Antiquities Service. He managed to clear the sand right down to the rock floor of the surrounding ditch, and the task was taken up by his successor, Gaston Maspero. The French engineer Emile Baraize, working for the Antiquities Service, did a more thorough job. He not only dug along the Sphinx's body, but found ancient restoration blocks scattered about which he replaced, adding some small brick-sized blocks of his own.

More recently restoration was carried out in the 1950s and 1970s, when some of the damaged masonry was patched up around the lower parts of the Sphinx's body. In 1979 the Sphinx Project of the American Research Centre in Egypt (ARCE), in collaboration with the German Archaeological Institute in Cairo, produced the first scale elevations and detailed plans of the monument. It was discovered that the stone used in the modern restoration of the monument flaked and powdered more rapidly than the earlier restoration so various steps were taken to consolidate the stone.

In the 1980s, the famous Sphinx was subjected to intensive care. Chemicals were injected into the stone for strengthening, but the project had to be abandoned because the chemicals unexpectedly caused the treated parts to flake off, taking with them some of the original rock surface.

A Sphinx Committee was formed, comprising scholars of the EAO, Egyptian universities, and foreign experts, and they all agreed that the "new" and "harmful" cement and gypsum mortar of previous restorations should be removed immediately and replaced with stones that matched the 1979 restoration, using the plan and elevations of the ARCE Sphinx Project.