Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza/Archive 5

Dr. Zahi Hawass and the underground 3? story structure + obelisks
Angrysky 03:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC) I saw a live show on Fox I guess in 1998 or there abouts that showed Dr.Zahi Hawass exploring a large underground multi-storied structure directly under the sphinx with a large sarcophogus in a pool of water surrounded by 4 obelisks displaying a unknown but very advanced form of hiroglyphics- I believe the conjecture was a possible tomb of Osiris.

Information and pictures on this seem essential to me as it is definitely part of the Sphinx.

It was a strange show as the main point was to open a small door in the great pyramid with a robot because the passage to get to this door was not designed for humans- Yet This event never occured on the show if I remember correctly.

Does anyone remember the show or know why this info isnt on the page? Here is a link to an article by Dr. Hawass - But there is nothing like what was on that program The obelisks were not decayed at all- He even pointed out a hiroglyph that he said "looks like an Apache helicopter" and it very much did.

http://www.zahihawass.com/recent_osiris_shaft.htm


 * Fox is a pretty horrible source for anything; they're highly prone to sensationalism, aren't professional, and tend not to give very good information in general. I'm dubious about anything weird they show. We all remember the "chupacabra" incident... Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This acutally happened although the broadcast documentary was terribly sensationalist. This whole topic is explained in great detail in Bauval's book 'Secret Chamber'. As far as I can make out, Dr Hawass never discovered any of the chambers, as the Minister for Antiquities he was able to steal the research of others and prevent further research from being conducted. He then presented the findings of others' as his own research and created the documetary. From what I recall Hawass was kicked out of the government for corruption shortly afterwards. I imagine that none of this is on wiki because the information was supressed by the Egyption government and as a result there are very few credible sources of information. Spuzzdawg (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.80.10 (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't know where you came up with the notion that hawass was kicked out of the government for corruption or any such thing as that. He is the director of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, has been since 2002. He may be flamboyant and a bit of a showman, but he's good for archeology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godlessone (talk • contribs) 15:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Racial characteristics
It seems Ancient Egyptian race controversy is spreading it wings. A Racial characteristics section has been inserted in this article. I’m fundamental against a racial characteristics section, having watched the Ancient Egyptian race controversy for over a year, never ever editing it. It’s not pretty over there, though the article has recently been completely redone, so let’s see what happens It so happens that this section now inserted, is the very section that brought me to the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article in the first place. Now, like then, I find the section extreme one-sided, - listing only those that comment on Negro features and displays a total disregard for anybody else. It is unimportant to me what race the Sphinx is; I’m merely concerned with the absolute one sided view that is presented in this section. I do not in any way dispute that some people sees a black character, I’m asking you to put that into perspective of the masses who does not. If I was unfamiliar with the Sphinx and came to wiki and read this section, I would leave with the opinion that there are centuries of consent that the Sphinx’s face is clearly Negro and that thinking otherwise are an abnormality. That is not the fact. The fact is that the vast masses have nothing to say on the issue, and a minority is indeed to describe the face as “obvious” Negro. Twthmoses (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Er... Why don't we just settle this with a mention that 'the features of the Sphinx have been subject in the ongoing Ancient Egyptian race controversy', linking to that very page? I agree that there's no need to take the discussion going on over there to this page. -- Bakabaka (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The thing is: it was included in the old version of that article (Ancient Egyptian race controversy). And I'd really suggest that you don't do any editing there, because the editors in that discussion are acting like idiots apparently have difficulties discussing a controversial topic. On the other hand, I think, that moving this stuff here was a good idea. After some time another editor came along and set the view that the sphinx was black in its proper context. However, as a result the section is probably to large. I would see if we can rearrange the material to make it appear shorter, but I would like to keep all of it. A complete deletion certainly is not justified.Zara1709 (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But it is ridiculously large, this is why we have WP:UNDUE. So far as I can see it isn't even mentioned in Jordan's Riddles of the Sphinx, for instance. It unbalances the article, and when you add it to the other alternative stuff... Doug Weller (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, that section is too long. We can shorten it a little by moving the actual quotes to the references. But I really think that ALL the information in that section should be kept. Just imagine a group of tourists visiting the Sphinx discussing the question whether it looks like an African. In a group of Afro-American tourists this is quite plausible, you just need someone who remembers reading W. E. B. Du Bois. I think you should see how incredible useful the information in this section can be in some circumstances. Zara1709 (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Now we have a very new editor who apparently disagrees but has so far not specified his objections on the talk pages. So, let me point out three things.

1) Wikipedia is not paper. In short, I would say that articles are supposed to grow over time, not shrink. Information that you personally might not consider useful might be considered important by other readers. As long as the article is within the margins of our policies and guidelines (or common editorial judgement, if you prefer that) there is no reason to shorten it, unless in cases where an articles is getting to long; but here we don't have such a case. 2) Neutral point of view: Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, and that's not negotiable. That given, the view that the Sphinx portrays an African person (i.e. someone with a skin tone that would led him/her to be classified as 'black' in our contemporary society) is notable. I personally hold the view that ALL classifications of humans by skin colour or other physical features are nonsense, but my personal views should not affect how I weight the viewpoints in an article, if possible. Given that we need to include the view that the Sphinx portrays someone 'black', we need to say enough about it so that the reader understands the context. Seriously, I don't see how we can that section any shorter.

3) Couldn't this be dealt with in another article? Well, possibly it could. It was part of the old Race of ancient Egyptians article; currently it is not part of the Ancient Egyptian race controversy. The whole topic is a mess on Wikipedia anyway, and to me it seems that I am the only one who is actually currently working on it. If I can continue to work on the topic, I would bring it under the title Radical Afrocentric historiography, since consensus on the old discussion seems to be building in the direction of having an article just about the Afrocentric views. However, that would mean that we could include there at best only the Afrocentric view of the Sphinx; we could not have a balanced account of all the views concerning the Sphinx racial characteristics, since the view that she 'is' not 'black' is technically not part of the topic, then. I mean, I tried it. I could give a few names of white racists who considered the ancient Egyptians to be 'white'. 'White' as, say the current Norwegians. After there was some strong bashing into my direction on the talk page I withdraw from the debate temporarily. I think that debating the particular views concerning the Sphinx in the Sphinx' own article is the better solution.Zara1709 (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The Sphinx is the best statue ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.48.250 (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe this entire section should be deleted. It is unneccessary and seems biased. Most of the statements have no backup attribition. The section also ignores information already presented as fact in an earlier section, "revisionist approaches" and leaves out the part of those findings that address anatomical/racial characteristics of the sphinx.

New York City forensics artist Frank Domingo's findings outlined two characteristics: 1. that the sphinx does not seem to be modeled after Khafra and 2. the Sphinx's features were characteristically those of Negroes found further south. [Mystery of the Sphinx, part 3, NBC November 10, 1993; http://www.davidpbillington.net/sphinx3.html] That's dramatically different from the claim in this section that "A handful of writers have offered the opinion that the face of the Sphinx APPEARS to them to be Ethiopian, Nubian, African or Negro." Domingo's findings are basiced on scientific, anatomical calculations, not a casual opinion that the sphinx looks like a Negro to him.

Domino's tactics were further validatied by orthodontist Sheldon Peck who in a New York Times letter wrote: The analytical techniques Detective Frank Domingo used on facial photographs are not unlike methods orthodontists and surgeons use to study facial disfigurements. From the right lateral tracing of the statue's worn profile a pattern of bimaxilliary prognathism is clearly detectable. This is an anatomical condition of forward development in both jaws, more frequently found in people of African ancestry than in those from Asian or Indo-European stock. [New York Times, 1992 http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/18/opinion/l-sphinx-may-really-be-a-black-african-408692.html; Science Frontiers http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf083/sf083a02.htm]

Dicussions about whether or not Eyptians and their artifacts "look Black" are ridiculous -- not to mention are a waste of time. What does a Black person look like? Black people come in all colors, shapes and sizes, and some of them look white to the average eye. Skin tone is not a determiner of race, or whether or not someone is "Black." Anaylzing anatomical facial or bone structure on the other hand, is very different from relying on someone's color to determine their race.

That "Ancient Egyptians specifically distinguished themselves from the other peoples around them" is also irrelevant. That's just their opinion, not based on factual evidence. Most ethnic groups see themselves as different from the other peoples around them. The Irish think they are different from the Scottish who see themselves as different from the English. They are still European. Same could be said for most ethnic tribes in Africa. Ibos think they are different from the Dinko who think they are different from the Chokwe, who are different and so, et al. What does it prove? It's all incidental, and has little to do with the facts surrounding their origins. The Egyptians could see themselves as Martians; it doesn't make it true and would still be irrelevant.

Finally quoting how adamatly egyptologists hold to the idea "that the model for the face of the Sphinx was the 4th Dynasty Pharaoh Khafra" begs explaining how and why Egyptology and Science seem to conflict. They don't necessarily always add up.

Rather than focusing on race, I think the entire section racial characteristics should be deleted. It's seems biased and serves no purpose. Instead the section revisionist approaches should be ammended as follows:

Frank Domingo, a forensic scientist in the New York City Police Department and an expert forensic anthropologist,[13] compared the face on the Sphinx with the face on the statue of Khafra in the Cairo Museum. Domingo used detailed measurements of the Sphinx, forensic drawings and computer imaging to conclude that Khafra was not the model for the Sphinx's face.[14] Domingo further determined the Sphinx had a prognathic jaw more typical of an African from farther south.[15]  These findings aired in the program "The "Mystery of the Sphinx" which received an Emmy Award for Research. [16}[15. Mystery of the Sphinx, NBC November 10, 1995 YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPsAskGCluw&feature=player_embedded; 16. http://www.davidpbillington.net/sphinx3.html].

Domino's findings were further expanded on by orthodontist Sheldon Peck who in a New York Times letter wrote: The analytical techniques Detective Frank Domingo used on facial photographs are not unlike methods orthodontists and surgeons use to study facial disfigurements. From the right lateral tracing of the statue's worn profile a pattern of bimaxilliary prognathism is clearly detectable. This is an anatomical condition of forward development in both jaws, more frequently found in people of African ancestry than in those from Asian or Indo-European stock.[17] [New York Times, 1992 http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/18/opinion/l-sphinx-may-really-be-a-black-african-408692.html; Science Frontiers http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf083/sf083a02.htm]. However these points of view remain controversial.

BMWmedia (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)BMW


 * Comment on “A handful of writers have offered the opinion that the face of the Sphinx APPEARS to them to be Ethiopian, Nubian, African or Negro”. I’m the one who original included the text, though in a different sounding version. From the beginning I was against a racial characteristic here, seeing how the Ancient Egyptian race controversy‎ runs, but since it could not be any different I expanded the text. Do to the idea, it seems, that wiki should be “easy reading“ and only present short intros to complicated subjects, there is an ever chopping up going on, in order to shorten sentences and articles as a whole.  This of course will give problems to understanding and context. Personally I don’t understand why articles should not be expanded to its fullest, rather than chopped for easy reading and short intros (and yes I do understand the idea of sending large subject to its own article). Anyway in this case, two sections was merged (which was nearly unrelated), plus a lot of text was shortened quite aggressively. Here is how it original sounded (there was even more text);


 * I understand the difficulty in sourcing the first paragraph, since it is a case of negative proof. And though it is of no concern to wiki, from my humble knowledge, the paragraph is fully correct. My alternative was to add 200 travel accounts as negative proof, as source, which of course is not feasible. My reason to expand the text in the first place, was of course the Volney syndrome (1785), a recurring fellow when it comes to the Ancient Egyptian race controversy, and only list writers in general that do comment on a Negro sphinx, regardless that they are minority. Somehow there is the beliefs that Volney is the first (to see the sphinx as black), and from there on all sees a black person in the sphinx face.  Nothing could be further from the truth. The difficult comes in writing into an article that for every Volney, there is 50 “Joe doe” who does not say a word on the subject, despite they looked at the same thing. And even worse how do you actually source that? Doing negative sourcing I very difficult (and I all fairness should be avoided), despite that the accounts are actually there for everyone to read at will. But it can’t be expected that every person has read 1000 travel accounts before coming here to wiki, and when you only list those in an article that actually left comments on the black sphinx – because that is the only thing you can source – an unaware reader will believe that seeing a black sphinx, is the common view, and that since 1785. Many writers on wiki are concerned with “undue weight” and this is exactly a case of undue weight, but you can’t simply not source it the other way around. You are trying to source something that is not there.  A typical response to this is, list only those that make none-Negro comments on the sphinx – it is that simple! Unfortunately it is not that simple! Take George Washington, convince me that he is Caucasian by sourcing works! Every work ever written on GW, that does not specified mention GW as Caucasian, is hereby excluded. That is millions of works – but does that mean that those millions of writers do not see him as Caucasian? And here comes into play how people write. Things that are obvious to them are not written or only written brief about, while the unusual, to the writer, gets a good share. An unusually thing would be to see GW as, say, an Asian! – And thus the writer would write it, if he thought that was the case to him. But what just happened now? You cannot use a million works on GW, because they say nothing of “race”, but you can source 3 people who think he is Asian.  You have now introduced undue weight to GW’s wiki article, and for the unaware reader at least sparked his brain with the idea that there is a larger theory that GW was Asian. Is that actually correct? And the short answer is, no! Twthmoses (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am opposed to having the section here at all. I would be very happy to reduce this to a small paragraph that mentions Domingo's work as part of the "alternative" section, as it is relevant there in the context of disputing Khafra as the model. Perhaps we could then also have another small heading that says some people have this perception about race and refer them to the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article. At the time this section was created the AErc article was dead in the water, but it has now been expanded sufficiently to carry the debate on its own. We also had some edit warring by an Afrocentrist editor, who has seemingly since moved on. Any objections to making the further reduction?Wdford (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. dougweller (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

BMWmedia (talk)Seems to me that PERCEPTIONS of someone's race are still only opinion. I could send any number of people to knock at your door and you would never have the perception that they were Black unless you asked them personally. If you stick to Dominic's forensic science observations you bring in the race discussion in a scientific form, and can also easily mention that most Egptyologists dispute this, saying limestone erosion makes it difficult if not impossible to make any accurate scientific analysis of the ethniticity of the Sphinx. [I have to find attribution for that, but it's around in abundance]. Then leave it at that. With just that one entry we have both sides of the race argument without inserting people's perception of black versus white. I think when you bring in how someone or something looks to determine their race, that's when you get into trouble. Are Australian Aborigine's Black? Yes, in skin color, but they are not Africans. But can the casual observer outside of Australia tell the difference? Probably not. If we must mention the race controversy further, maybe it could surfice to say:

An ongoing debate exists with speculation about the possible race of the Sphinx, the ancient Egyptians (and other North Africans). See more at [Ancient Egyptian race controversy].‎ —Preceding unsigned comment added by BMWmedia (talk • contribs) 16:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Could we close the 'Race' issue here, then?
I don't think that much further discussion about the edit war would be useful now, but we still need to come clear on the underlying balancing issue. I can only understand Wdford's accusation of a lack of professionalism as, well, an indicator of the limits of expertise; I personally couldn't judge his contributions to the remainder of the article, and my reverts were not meant to imply that they weren't good - I only reverted because of the removals to racial characteristics section. A problem with Expert editors that apparently if often overlooked is that nobody is an expert on everything. So, I don't claim that I am an expert on the Sphinx at all, but I've done some reading by now on Radical Afrocentric Historiography. And we need to include the issue somewhere, and after I had evaluated the material I came to the conclusion that we better include it here than in an article on Afrocentric historiography. And anyway, the question of whether the ancient Egyptians were 'black' is unsolvable. The whole concept of race is to flawed to answer that question. Here is a quote from the book that is mentioned in the refs:

From the Afrocentric point of view, denying the existence of a uniform black race with shared traits is an expression of white racism. It dismisses as 'racist' such notions as the existence of a brown Mediterranean race(and hence pan-Mediterreanism), which were fostered by Giuseppe Sergi in his Mediterranean Race (1901) and modified by Grafton Elliot Smith. According to the Afrocentric view, even when the skin of black people became lighter (brown in different regions), they remain black nonetheless. The fact that the peoples of Africa (and African-Americans) posses different physical features was not considered an obstacle, because the important fact was that all these diverse people differ from the Caucasian ('white') people. If there is no black race, argue the Afrocentrist, how can one explain the generalized image attached to blacks? Is not everyone who is dark-skinned an has African features considered to be black? Spout your theory to the white racists, they will tell you with understandable sarcasm. Got tell whites in the southern United States or in South Africa that this particular black who suffers from discrimination and persecution belongs to a different branch of blacks from his black neighbor. Slavery and discrimination have not yet recognized scientific stratification. There is, of course, a sad truth ins such statements. (Jacoov Shavit, History in Black, p. 26)

Shavit also mentions somewhere in his book that the ancient Egyptions were, like most nations, made up of several populations, with some influence of Nubian 'blood'. Since we can assume some intermixture, from a racial point of view the ancient Egyptions could equeally likely be described as 'black' or as 'white', which only illustrates that the concept of race isn't useful anyway. That's why I prefer to put skin colour in apostrophes. And furthermore, the academic literature that I've read emphasises that the attempts to determine the 'race' of a person from ancient history based on statues and that like are ideology or pseudoscience, if not always, than in most cases. That's why I removed part of the material about Khafra. From my knowledge on Afrocentric historiography I don't really see a reason to have the material on Khafra in that section at all, but if Wdford thinks that this is important, we might as well keep it.

Is this issue settled, then, at least for now? Because there is a similar debate concerning Tutankhamun that I'd like to work on. Zara1709 (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that its not possible to "solve" the issue of the race of the Sphinx model. I therefore would be quite happy to leave out this entire section, as I don't think it adds to the "factual" debate about the Great Sphinx. I disagree however that the issue best belongs in the Sphinx article, and I would much prefer that you instead create a separate article on Afrocentric historiography, where you can go into as much detail as you think appropriate. I would be happy to insert a reference to that article, but I strongly disagree that a long discussion on the (unsupportable) personal views of a few individuals is appropriate here. As you point out, a similar debate is running about the "blackness" of King Tut, as well as also Cleopatra, Beethoven, Jesus Christ and many other persons of "repute" - all of it non-factual and totally unsupportable. The very fact that these parallel disputes exist for multiple individuals suggests to me that a central article would be valuable, and references could then be inserted in the articles on each of the individuals concerned - with an appropriate caveat that no factual evidence exists to support the assertion.


 * In addition, I also strongly disagree with the suggestion that "black" should be defined as "non-white", as this is offensive to the vast numbers of Oriental, Asian, Arab etc peoples who do not consider themselves to be "white" but also do not consider themselves to be "black". It is also not appropriate to consider the many mixed-race individuals as "black", as many of them - as well as many "pure black" people - consider this to be offensive as well, although for different reasons. See also the article on the One Drop Rule.


 * Finally, the racial identities that we know today are not the same as those of 5000 years ago - for example Carthage was situated in Africa, and while its people were certainly "African" they originated in Palestine and were not "negro". Similarly, Egypt has been invaded many times over the millennia, and the Egyptians of today are not necessarily of the same race as those of the 4th Dynasty, while the Nubians of today are not all of the same racial group as were the Nubians of Meroe. Presenting the argument in modern terms is thus invalidated purely on these grounds.


 * In conclusion, as there is no "factual" basis to the debate, I would rather put the debate in its own article instead of it diluting an otherwise-factual article. However, if Zara insists on continuing with its presence in the Great Sphinx article, then I strongly feel that either the wording needs to be much more balanced, or else the entire issue must be presented in a separate heading clearly labelled as "minority wishful thinking which is pure supposition and is totally unsupported by any facts whatsoever".

Wdford (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Re the Race of the Sphinx debate - in order to preserve the difference between factual articles and unsupported opinions, I propose that this section should be moved from the Sphinx article to the existing Ancient Egyptian race controversy article, which already has some relevant discussion. Wdford (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand why you are suggesting this, but actually I moved the material here because I considered it the second best option to have it in a separate article. If you take a look at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy, you will see that there are substantial disagreements not only about factual question, but even about the question what kind of article we actually want. I think the current version is an attempt to move the article into the direction that it only covers the Afrocentric views. User:Moreschi and probably some other editors would prefer an article more about the Race of ancient Egyptians and the debate surrounding it: There is an alternate draft at: User:Moreschi/OOET. Now, I personally, after I read Shavit's book partly and some more literature, would agree that we need an article only about the RADICAL Afrocentric views. And within this context, the various views concerning the Sphinx are only remotely interesting. Especially the views that she was not 'black' wouldn't be relevant there. I think that having a balanced account of these views here is much more in accordance with the spirit of wp:NPOV, then having those views in a separate article. The principle can be used to argue for both sides, though, and this is a really difficult question. We don't have to find a consensus on this now. All I am asking is that we close this issue for now, so that I have some time to work out a version of the Ancient Egyptian race controversy that is sustainable among editors. I do expect that to take some months (more) at least, though. Zara1709 (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No. deeceevoice (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * While we wait for the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article to catch up, I have added some extra balance to correct the undue weighting on this section. I did not delete your quotes and references, merely corrected the WP:UNDUE of the existing wording. Hopefully this will all be resolved permanently once the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article has been finalised. Wdford (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

work of Schoch and Reader
Significant extra material added. References to the work of the original authors included in full.Wdford (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the extra material is important but is not in keeping with an encyclopedia article to quote long paragraphs in full. A one sentence precis with a reference per point made is surely sufficient. I do not think overloading the page with extracts of Schoch and Reader's work is helpful. gergis (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is also disingenuous to summarise the independent findings of Schoch and Reader together. Schoch is far more radical in his interpretation that Reader. By summarising them together, the article contains original research - namely, a conflation of two geologists' findings. A brief summary of their individual points, balanced by the opposing 'mainstream' arguments would be better. gergis (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We also have, I think, a WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE, problem. "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all."  I think that the article gives the water erosion debate disproportionate coverage, and as the mainstream view is still, I believe, not that of Schoch or even Coxill or Reader, we should not be giving their views more coverage than that of those who support the mainstream view.  If anyone disagrees could they please say why? Thanks. dougweller (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In agreement with dougweller, the entire quotations by Reader and Schoch should be removed and summarised into single sentences to lend equal weight to the 'mainstream' Egyptological and geological points of view. The structure of the article is also broken by the alphabetised summary paragraphs, which are superfluous. A general gist of the Water Erosion Theory (as already present in the first paragraphs of the section) is more than sufficient. gergis (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree this material can be greatly summarised - the quotations were included for a reason, but I am happy for them to be summarised. However, there is an important difference between a "view" and "scientific evidence", and the reader will be poorly served if hard evidence is simply left out because the 'mainstream' are not happy with the implications - surely the hard evidence should be given (summarised but not excluded) so the reader can make up their own mind?Wdford (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have greatly reduced the size of the section, to comply with UNDUE. I am happy with the current version, if that suits everyone else?Wdford (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's getting much better. I have to say, sorry, that phrases like 'In particular' are editorial comment, ie OR (unless of course they are a quote). One of the problems here is that 'hard evidence' is, in geology, perhaps not a good phrase -- you get observations of physical phenomena which need interpretation, and in this case there is more than one way of interpreting the physical evidence ('evidence' is a bit of a slippery word, 'hard evidence' seems to mean 'evidence for', 'physical evidence' seems, to me, to mean just a description or scientific analysis that may still need an interpretation if you are looking for cause or effect). dougweller (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed - I removed 'in particular' and made some other small improvements.
 * One of the reasons why I included so much material in the first place is because the Schoch-Reader team appear to have refuted the mainstream theories, while the mainstream team (although they have the sheer weight of numbers) have not been able to propose theories which address all the "observed evidence". To my mind this quite possibly overturns the mainstream position, and should thus be given more weight than an "equal but different interpretation." Wdford (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Reader's 'architectural point' needs to be moved from the Khafra subsection. That subsection is meant to set out the traditional, majority position on the Sphinx, and it is misleading to undermine the position here. If that approach is taken, every single point made by every faction will read like a ping-pong match of arguments for and against, with no way of balancing the article or even discerning separate points.

I agree that it is a strong point. Rainer Stadelmann makes a similar conclusion to support his argument that Khufu was the model. However, Reader uses the point to support his wider argument that a Dynasty IV dating is unsupported by the geological (and architectural) evidence. Therefore, I propose moving the point to Reader's subsection in the Water Erosion Debate, where, as he intended, the 'architectural point' can add weight to his overall argument that the Sphinx was constructed pre-Dynasty IV.


 * In general I concur. However I think we should keep the Water Erosion debate separate, as it is already difficult to explain it properly in a reasonable amount of space. On this point I appeal that in our striving for brevity we should avoid pruning the material to the extent that the actual points are obscured.Wdford (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Reader's point on the chisel-markings in meaningless as a refutation and undermines his argument. Reader's earliest construction date is 3150 BCE . That means the 'prolonged water erosion' took place between 3150 and Khufu's reign (2589) - when he says the Sphinx must already have been built. Therefore, according to Reader, the metre-deep erosion in the Enclosure was caused in only approximately 560 years! An alternative process, running until the chisel-markings were made in c. 600 BCE, would have affected the surface for 2550 years (3150 - 600). This is far more scientifically plausible as a cause for metre-deep erosion, and is unimpeded by the construction of Khufu's quarries (stemming water erosion in 2589).


 * Far more supportive of the Water Erosion Theory is the observation made independently by both Schoch and Reader that other similar surfaces in the Giza pyramid complex are not similarly weathered.


 * By expanding Reader's chisel-marking point as a refutation to the alternative causes (which it actually supports more strongly than Reader's own theory) makes the point meaningless. gergis (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reworded the Khafra subsection as a "Mainstream" section, and combined all the contra arguments (other than the Water Erosion debate) into a single following section - in chronological order as best I can. It is however increasingly obvious that the mainstream hypothesis is based on very thin evidence, and that the contra arguments are many and fairly persuasive.Wdford (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The racial characteristics section contains a lot of detail which is unsupported opinion rather than "evidence". Should we perhaps thin this out a little as well?Wdford (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Not so, Gergis! Reader does indeed propose that the metre-deep erosion in the Enclosure was caused in only approximately 560 years, and he does this on the assumption that very heavy rainfall persisted throughout most if not all of that period. The major (and almost only) divergence between Schoch and Reader is the issue of how much heavy rain was needed to cause the erosion, with Schoch assuming that at least a thousand years of rain was needed after construction. Reader's point is that the tombs in question are known to be about 2600 years old, which is roughly 58% of the traditional age of the Sphinx. Therefore, the tomb entrances should evidence about 58% as much weathering as the Enclosure walls. This is however blatantly not the case, as the adjacent walls are eroded in places by more than a metre while the weathering on the tomb entrances has not even been enough to erase the original chisel marks. As the Enclosure walls are eroded about a hundred times more severely than the tomb entrances, then either the walls are a hundred times older than the tombs, or the walls were eroded by a mechanism which has not operated since the tombs were carved. Although we don't know exactly what the weather was like in the early dynastic period, we do pretty much know that, apart from modern industrial acid rain, whatever weathering has taken place at Giza since the Old Kingdom has been consistent since that time. Therefore, either the walls are a hundred times older than the tombs, or the walls were eroded by a mechanism which has not operated since the Old Kingdom. Not even West proposes that the Sphinx is 260,000 years old, so Reader concludes that the erosion was indeed caused by some other agent, namely rainwater run-off, which has not operated since the Old Kingdom (and has not affected the Enclosure since the construction of the Khufu quarries.) The chisel marks therefore definitely knock out all the proposed alternative theories, while being consistent with the known evidence and the water erosion theory, and the point therefore needs to be included in the article (and properly explained as well.)

You are correct in saying that “An alternative process, running (for 2550 years) until the chisel-markings were made in 600 BCE” would be more plausible, except that there is no scientific reason why this alternative process would have run from 2400 BCE until 600 BCE and then abruptly stopped, leaving pristine rock surfaces in the tomb entrances. There is evidence that things changed significantly way back around early dynastic (or pre-dynastic) times, but no evidence that there was a dramatic change just before 600 BCE, when history is much better documented. Your proposed 2550 years of pre-chisel-mark weathering should also have gouged erosion features a metre deep into a lot of other rock surfaces at Giza as well, and again this has not been the case. Wdford (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Name
The article says that "it is not known by what name the ancient Egyptians called the statue" and "the Great Sphinx does not appear in any known inscription of the period." Yet the Dream Stela tells an entire story involving the Sphinx. That makes the second statement untrue, and I would expect it to make the first statement untrue also, unless the Dream Stela managed to completely avoid mentioning the Sphinx by name. Can anyone clear this up? A. Parrot (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there. The Dream Stele was carved about a thousand years after the Sphinx (if you accept that the Sphinx is from the 4th Dynasty). The article should read "it is not known by what name the original creators called the statue, as the Great Sphinx does not appear in any known inscription of the Old Kingdom."41.245.41.28 (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

controversial
this is one of the best looking articles i have seen on Wp that deals with a debated topic. The balance is neutral as is the language and the pov. the organization is really great and I complement you guys for doing great work. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of an unpublished letter in a more or less self-published article & fringe book
I've raised the issue at the RS noticeboard. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Letter is reproduced by Ed Krupp himself who makes no reservation about it being. Krupp's website is considered an acceptable source, therefore I have cited both sites. In no way does Krupp dispute, as you do, that Roy's open letter, I.E. a letter meant for publication, is genuine; therefore if the opposing party has accepted it as reliable then it should stand.Thanos5150 (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since we have a second source from someone who clearly is reputable, that's fine. I haven't disputed that it is genuine, I said it was unverifiable, but as you've found another source, that's dealt with that issue. Dougweller (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case, the whole thing is much too long if it should be there at all (it's a pretty minor debate). The first paragraph is enough, maybe too much, as this is not a significant view. Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To say such a thing needs verification in the context is saying you do not believe it is genuine. Regardless, it is naive, if not dishonest, to suggest that the Orion Correlation Theory is such an insignificant viewpoint as to warrant little or no mention at all, but given the fact Krupp has been successfully rebutted within the rules of Wiki it does not surprise me you would now take this turn. Really what you are saying is that if the idea cannot be thoroughly discredited with no opposing view, as there is now, then you don't want it in there at all. You were more than happy to have it before-so what changed? That's the thing-you don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. I promise you the world will not end if people think differently than you do. None of this changes the fact however the significant impact the Orion Correlation Theory has made on the subject.Thanos5150 (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dougweller. The whole Orion theory is given far more weight than it deserves here.  JN 466  10:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words into my mouth. What is insignificant, I believe, is its relationship to the Sphinx, that's what this article is about, remember? Why do you think it is significant in discussions about the Sphinx (as opposed to the Giza pyramids). And if you want to use Roy and Seymour, maybe we should mention what they are also noted for, psychic research (Roy very much noted for that) and Pearson well known for his book on scientific astrology, etc. Dougweller (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am confident, if an additional paragraph were added that further supported Krupp's position we would not be having this conversation even if the source was as equally "dubious" as open letter posted on Hanckock's website. To be fair, if you honestly thought this debate was insignificant then you should have edited out Krupp's view long ago, but you didn't because you liked the fact it stood alone to discredit an alternative idea. I think this is a fair assessment of the situation here. You know, Doug; yes it is obvious I have alternative views, but as you can see by many of my past edits that I defend and maintain the integrity of edits on both sides of the debate equally. I am not here to promote or censor anything-all I'm after is the truth wherever that leads, which often seems taboo when it contradicts mainstream opinion.
 * Regardless, one the main points of the Orion Correlation Theory is the Sphinx as is seen in the Wiki article you yourself have now linked to, so I'm not sure what your point it. I think that the edit as it now stands is very responsible.
 * As far as Roy and Seymour are concerned, if credible scientists like these two aren't the ones to study such "fringe" phenomena then who then? Regardless, both have conducted their research responsibly within the scientific method, but regardless, this does nothing to take away from their credentials and accomplishments in their respective fields.Thanos5150 (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've shortened the section to just give a broad overview, which I think is appropriate here in this article. It is sourced to two scholarly sources and Bauval/Hancock's own book cited in one of the scholarly sources. Coverage of detailed points of contention is more appropriate in the article on the theory itself.  JN 466  16:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for this. I think it's fine and doesn't need anything more about Krupp or anyone (in other words, it doesn't need a rebuttal), and is certainly long enough. Yes, I should have thought of this some time ago, but the last time I paid any attention to this section it didn't include Krupp, and I removed the words 'which thoroughly refutes this hypothesis' which had been added to "The full hypothesis is described in detail in the article on the Orion Correlation Theory, together with the scientific counter-argument", with a comment that it was pov. Wikipedia, by the way, is not about the 'pursuit of truth', it's an encyclopedia reporting what reliable sources have to say and reporting significant points of view according to their significance (our NPOV policy). Which is where WP:Undue comes in. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure.  JN 466  23:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree. Nice job. This Krupp thing has been there for as long as I can remember, but thankfully it is now a moot point. Encyclopedia:Reference work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or that treats a particular branch of knowledge comprehensively. The reader of an encyclopedia seeks "truth", i.e. "facts", which especially in archeology and anthropology, this "truth" is often arrived at by an interpretation of only the accepted "facts" or by a historical consensus of institutional speculation. Often times equally credible "facts" or ideas are ignored or dismissed simply because they do not submit to the presently dominant paradigm or are offered by a source outside the establishment. "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents"?. I would think that the global attention, pro and con, given to their work that the popular theories of the likes of Bauval, Hanckock, Schoch, and West would qualify in this regard. Is the O.C.T. significant to the Sphinx-probably not. To Giza as a whole, I would say definitely yes. It would not bother me if the O.C.T. was removed from this article, but the exception I took, and will always take on any topic, is when the opposing view is given in such a way as to mislead and demean the subject. Doesn't this apply on both sides of the fence:"This article may be inaccurate in or unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints"?Thanos5150 (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Related Article in Serious Need of Work
Hall of Records needs some people who are a bit more knowledgeable about Egyptology sources to go in and give it a once over. Probably meets notability criteria but poorly referenced; tempted to propose a merge but, as this is outside my area of expertise a little I thought I'd get a second opinion first.Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Tomb Alexander the Great
The sphinx probably is Alexanders tomb. He identified himself with the lion. See ear, mouth and eyes: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/BattleofIssus333BC-mosaic-detail1.jpg. F.N.H., November 28th, 2009. 82.172.98.197 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.98.197 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

New file File:The Great Sphinx, Pyramids of Gizeh-1839) by David Roberts, RA.jpg
Recently the file File:The Great Sphinx, Pyramids of Gizeh-1839) by David Roberts, RA.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 11:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This image is currently illustrating the Water erosion debate section. It seems out of place here: I propose transferring it the Gallery. gergis (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

New image?
Does anyone out there know where/how I could come across a (presumably CGI or similarly hyper-accurate) depiction of how the Sphinx looked at its "peak"? That is to say, when it's builders were "done" with it? We see things like this all the time on History Channel or Discovery Channel, so perhaps there's at least one such free image out there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.166.251 (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Smithsonian Magazine has an article with just such a depiction [|here]. 99.61.192.239 (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Temple's Orion theory
Temple's Orion theory has zero credibility in academic circles from what I know. Is anyone averse to me simply removing it? It's pseudoarcheology, at best a "hey, isn't that neat" rather than serious study. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The sub-heading Fringe hypotheses is redundant: (a) it is plural, although there is only one such "fringe hypothesis" (to wit, the Orion theory); and (b) the meaning of "fringe theory" or "fringe hypothesis" is one that "departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream veiw in its particular field of study". Under that definition, all the Dissenting hypotheses are also fringe. I am not a supporter of the Orion theory, but I consider that isolating it as "fringe" while classifying, for example, the water erosion theory as merely "dissenting" is POV. I propose removing the sub-heading Fringe hypotheses and incorporating the Orion theory under Dissenting hypotheses. gergis (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Gergis, if I recall correctly, the differentiation was between "dissenting" - a group of topics that are scientifically valid alternatives but which are not in agreement with the current mainstream assumptions, and "fringe" - which are not supported by scientific evidence. I accept that the choice of headings might not be strictly correct re WP:policy, but I think the separation is valid. BTW - there are actually several "fringe" topics - one of the heading levels was incorrectly spec'd by somebody. I have corrected this. Wdford (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed (following edit to heading levels). However, does Recent research on climate change really belong here? It is not an hypothesis (fringe or otherwise) for the Origin and identity of the Sphinx, but a conclusion on historical weather patterns drawn from the Sphinx as evidence. It may have relevance in supporting the water erosion theory, in particular in connection with palaeometerological assumptions as to Egypt's last period of significant rainfall (paragraphs 2 and 3 of Water erosion debate). I propose relocating the section Recent research on climate change as a sub-section to Water erosion debate, perhaps with a view to amalgamation at a later date (and following further discussion). gergis (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree re the proposed amalgamation. This material clearly should not have been a separate section to begin with. I have made a preliminary amalgamation attempt - do you concur? Wdford (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Moved amalgamated paragraph higher (to refer directly to Schoch's palaeometeorological argument). Made other minor "wikifying" edits. gergis (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Perfect, many thanks. Wdford (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hidden Chamber Under Sphinx Paws
It's been about 2 years since anyone has asked about this. So did anyone go in there yet? I think someone needs to add this controversy or legend to the article because the chamber is real, but I can't remember if it was opened yet and I can't find any information about it online either. Wickland (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Info about this was shown in the History Channel show Digging for the Truth, episode "Who built the Egyptian Pyramids?", if I remember correctly.

Nose & Entry
I read somewhere that someone had removed the nose because they thought it looked like the face of an African. Not sure if this actually means anything, but it seems interesting to note.

Also, is it possible to enter the Sphinx? I heard that it was a tomb of some sort. I'd love some clarification on that.

142.68.201.105 (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The face was defaced long ago, by religious Muslims, because the Sphinx represented a god and the Muslim faith contains a prohibition on idols. The accusation that it was done to hide an "African" facial feature is a part of the on-going conspiracy theory of one Manu Ampim, who has made many such claims that have been disproved by actual experts. There actually is a tomb inside the body of the Sphinx, although it is considered to have been a much later addition. The entrance was in the "split" across the back of the statue, and is now blocked (since 1926) by the modern cement "restoration" of Émile Baraize. The tomb was reported by Selim Hassan, among others, and the mass of reports from various explorers over the centuries is documented inter alia in Robert Temple's book "The Sphinx Mystery". Wdford (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

British soldiers using the sphinx as target practice
Is there any evidence for this? Reaper7 (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Sphinx partially excavated2.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sphinx partially excavated2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 19, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-07-19. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 08:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any basis for the theory about the Sphinx statue originally being carved by an earlier Egyptian culture as a lion statue and then later the head was re-carved into the current head? It was a theory attempting to explain why the head is so small compared to the body, but I don't recall what show it was on or if there's any verifiable basis for it.

Edit: I see it was discussed in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.144.231 (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no firm evidence demonstrating when the Sphinx was originally carved. But that does not make Graham Hancock and Robert Schoch right about their theories, simply because they cannot produce any solid evidence for the existence of an earlier civilization dating from 10,000 BC. And yes, established mainstream Egyptologists have likewise been caught out as giving information that is not based on solid evidence. The Sphinx was covered in sand up to its neck for thousands of years - who knows, perhaps it was the sand that caused the erosion on the body of the sphinx. Its head does not look too eroded. Lung salad (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for New Article
The sub-section of the water erosion hypothesis, and the implications for the construction date, is growing quite big. However it is still far from covering all relevant aspects of this debate. This topic is complex and detailed, it is supported (and rebutted) by a range of highly qualified people on each side, and I submit that it is notable and of public interest. Should we perhaps consider creating a spin-off article, called the Great Sphinx Water Erosion Hypothesis (or similar), and then reduce this subsection to a five line summary and a wiki-link to the "main article" on the topic? Wdford (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Inclined to agree. Preferable (of course) to keep the current sub-section on the water erosion debate short and sweet and (therefore) included in the main article.  But the extent of the evidence on both sides seems to require a lengthy treatment.  Perhaps this secton of the Talk page is a good place to draft the wording that should be used to summarise the position, if the sub-section is, indeed, relocated to its own page. gergis (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That would be a bad title IMHO, as it chooses one hypothesis over others. I'm not convinced we need to or should go into the technical detail that is presumably being suggested. If we do, I don't know about a 5 line summary, that seems short compared to similar situations. Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This issue is notable, and it’s too complicated to discuss properly in the main article. It is more deserving of its’ own article than many other articles out there. The other erosion mechanisms are not contested by anybody, nor do they indicate a drastic revision is necessary to the accepted chronology of Giza. I propose this particular title because the article will be about this particular hypothesis, with evidence for and against (of which there is quite a bit of each). Obviously we will include all the (many) counter-proposals as well. This sub-section of the main article would then be reduced to:
 * Some geologists have proposed that the erosion patterns on the Sphinx enclosure walls indicate erosion by running water, and conclude therefrom that the Sphinx must be much older than the conventional date of 2400BC. This hypothesis is generally rejected by Egyptologists, on the grounds that nobody has conclusively proved that a society capable of the feat existed in the time period proposed. Other erosion methods have therefore been suggested to account for the geological evidence.
 * All other detail moves to the new article, and is developed further there. What do we think? Wdford (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a biased summary. Is it really the case that the main or only reason for rejection is that "nobody has conclusively proved that a society capable of the feat existed in the time period proposed", and that other erosion method suggestions are because of that basis for rejection?  Seems unlikely, but I haven't read up on it, so I can't really say.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned about that also, and if that is going to be the basis of any new article, very concerned. It's Ken Feder who says that, and he is an archaeologist but not an Egyptologist. One of the Egyptologists used in the article says " The Sphinx is actually carved from the rock that remained from the stones quarried away after building the pyramids." And the 'much older' bit - who are these 'some geologists' who say 'much older' and are countered by 'no such culture thenj'. Schoch and Coxilll, fine, but that's not enough for 'some geologists'. Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not going to be the "basis" of the article - the "basis" of the article is the water erosion hypothesis, and its implications. This is part of the rebuttal of the hypothesis, not the basis of the article.

Here are the statements I had in mind when I suggested the first draft: From a NOVA interview with Hawass:

NOVA: "There have been claims that a great civilization predates ancient dynastic Egypt—one that existed some 10,500 years B.C.—and that this civilization was responsible for building the pyramids and sculpting the Sphinx. Is this possible?"

HAWASS: "Of course it is not possible for one reason. Until now there is no evidence at all that has been found in any place, not only at Giza, but also in Egypt. People have been excavating in Egypt for the last 200 years. No single artifact, no single inscription, or pottery, or anything has been found until now, in any place to predate the Egyptian civilization more than 5,000 years ago."

From a NOVA interview with Lehner:

NOVA: "Is there any evidence at all that an ancient civilization predating the civilization of Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure was there?"

LEHNER: (at the end of a long response): "Well, as I say to New Age critics, show me one pot shard of that earlier civilization. Because the only way they could have existed is if they actually got out with whisk brooms, scoop shovels and little spoons and cleared out every single trace of their daily lives, their utensils, their pottery, their wood, their tools and so on, and that's just totally improbable. Well, it's not impossible, but it has a very, very low level of probability, that there was an older civilization there."

I am quite happy to say in the summary: "geologists Schoch, Reader and Coxill hypothesise that ...", and then build from there. Wdford (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good sources Wdford. This is the most prominent oft used argument against an older Sphinx and most of the scientific rebuttals against rain induced water weathering are only made to further support this. It is ironic to me that one of the rebuttals is that the rainy period lasted much later than currently accepted which only further supports the geologists who support rain induced weathering. Regardless, I would agree a separate article is a good idea so that it can be fleshed out in greater detail and balance.Thanos5150 (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding the statement "generally rejected by Egyptologists" - who are the Egyptologists who accept the water erosion theory - can a list be made of them? Lung salad (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)