CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
New, compelling, circumstantial (not physical) evidence that the Great Pyramid was built using water, per my theory.
WATER EROSION OF THE SPHINX’S ENCLOSURE WALLS
I am not a geologist; I am a mining engineer. However, during my time at Mining University, I received intensive training in geology. This ignited my fascination with rocks and their formation. My interest in geology grew during those years, and I developed a deep appreciation for the subject. My intrigue with geology and fascination with the Giza Plateau has driven me to examine the water erosion of the Sphinx’s enclosure walls.
Deep vertical grooves carved into the limestone walls surrounding the Great Sphinx are well documented, and the cause, like many things surrounding the pyramids, remains unproven. Some Egyptologists claim that wind and sand or haloclasty damaged the Sphinx’s walls. This, among other declarations about the Giza Plateau, is unconfirmed, and I theorize it is incorrect.
Upon observing the erosion in person, I immediately understood this damage could only be done by running water, not by wind and sand or haloclasty. After spending time in the enclosure of the Sphinx and examining the grooves, I am convinced that my theory how the pyramids were built using water explains the grooves surrounding the Great Sphinx.
The following points address why wind erosion and haloclasty do not account for the damage visible on the Sphinx’s walls.
1) The effects of wind and sand erosion are clearly visible on the Sphinx’s body. This type of erosion results in distinctive horizontal bands, not vertical ones.
2) Haloclasty is a type of weathering or erosion caused by the growth of salt crystals. The process begins when saline water seeps into the cracks of a rock and evaporates, depositing salt crystals. When a rock, like limestone, contains salt crystals and is exposed to the sun, it heats up, and the salt crystals can expand up to three times in volume. The expansion puts pressure on the surrounding rock and, over time, splinters the top surface of the stone into fragments.
3) Haloclasty erosion appears as evenly distributed erosion and would not present as the vertical grooves we see on the walls of the Sphinx enclosure today. Haloclasty is, however, why the Sphinx body is constantly eroding. The only way to halt that erosion is to cut off the moisture seepage from underneath the structure.
The Sphinx and the enclosure walls were carved from limestone rock. Limestone is extremely durable; however, as carbonate rock, it absorbs water and is highly reactive, especially when exposed to even mildly acidic water for a long duration.
Deep crevices, as we see today on the Sphinx’s enclosure walls, could only be caused by running water.
I am an advocate of Dr. Rainer Stadelmann’s (former director of the German Archaeological Institute in Cairo) theory that Khufu, not Khafre, created the Sphinx. I believe that Khufu carved the Sphinx before the Great Pyramid was built and that the Khafre Causeway and Khafre HARBOR Temple* were built to conform to the preexisting structure of the Sphinx.
Other structures on the Giza Plateau are made from the same band of limestone as the Sphinx, but only the Sphinx enclosure shows vertical crevices of erosion. “New geoarchaeological evidence” suggests that the occurrence of heavy rainfall stopped by the end of the Old Kingdom. This raises an interesting question - The Giza Plateau is a small place with many structures other than the Sphinx; all were completed before the Old Kingdom ended, and none show erosion like the walls around the Sphinx. How could rain erode only one structure on the Giza Plateau?
According to certain people (geologists like Robert Schoch and others), the Sphinx was carved as early as 12,000 BC. During this time, there were no other structures except the Sphinx on the Giza Plateau, and it was a period of frequent and heavy rainfall.
The Giza Plateau has had the same limestone formations for millions of years, and no similar erosion is visible on any cliffs or vertical rock surfaces. Again, the implication is that rainfall is the culprit responsible for the erosion of the Sphinx enclosure walls.
No, a stubborn rain cloud didn’t take residence over only the Sphinx to pour buckets of water in one strategic spot for many years during the Old Kingdom or 12,000 years earlier. Rain would have poured on the entire Giza Plateau, and erosion would be visible in other locations.
In fact, there is no proof of heavy rainfall in the area of the Giza Plateau. Another example that we can look at is the early dynastic soft mudbrick mastabas at Saqqara. If rainfall were responsible for the erosion we see on the Sphinx, there would be no mudbrick mastabas at Saqqara anymore, and that is not the case.
The walls of the Sphinx enclosure are eroded because a water source must have been close to the Sphinx.
My theory suggests that the water used to construct the Great Pyramid caused the erosion of the Sphinx’s walls.
As I stated earlier, the Sphinx was erected by Khufu before the construction of the Great Pyramid began. A water canal running next to the Sphinx was used to deliver stones to the pyramid’s base, and from the base of the Great Pyramid to the Great Sphinx, there is a natural 3-6 degree downward slope. The period of pyramid construction was prolonged, and the Egyptians used a tremendous amount of water (taken from the Nile) to operate sluices, which lifted stones to the top of the pyramid. During the construction of the Great Pyramid, there was continual water release (intended and unintended). The prolonged and constant release of water resulted in water rushing over the enclosure walls of the Sphinx, causing the deep vertical crevices of erosion that we see today.
I believe that the construction of the Khafre Pyramid (Khufu’s son), which was built using water in the same manner that the Great Pyramid was constructed, could have also contributed to the erosion of the Sphinx enclosure walls.
*secretofthepyramids.com - Project 3 and Video
“Makes total sense to me.” - Ryan Fleming
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CHAT WITH AI
Sphinx Erosion Theories Evaluated
John Polywka is presenting circumstantial evidence to support his theory of Floating Stones in Canals and Sluices. He suggests that during the construction of the Great Pyramid, water escaping from canals and sluices rushed over the enclosure walls of the Sphinx, causing the deep vertical crevices of erosion that we see today. He also claims that the Sphinx was carved by Khufu, not Khafre, before the construction of the Great Pyramid. Additionally, he believes that the Khafre Causeway and Khafre Harbor Temple were built to conform to the pre-existing structure of the Sphinx. What are your thoughts on John Polywka's circumstantial evidence for his theory?
ChatGPT
John Polywka's circumstantial evidence presents an interesting alternative perspective on the construction of the Great Pyramid and the erosion patterns seen on the Sphinx. Here are some thoughts on his propositions:
Water Erosion on the Sphinx: The idea that water escaping from canals and sluices during pyramid construction caused the deep vertical crevices of erosion on the Sphinx is intriguing. However, this theory competes with the more widely accepted view that the erosion is due to prolonged exposure to rainwater in a much earlier, wetter climate. Geologists like Robert Schoch have supported the rainwater erosion theory, which implies that the Sphinx is much older than the Fourth Dynasty. To evaluate Polywka's theory thoroughly, more direct evidence linking the construction activities to the erosion patterns would be needed.
Sphinx Carved by Khufu: Polywka's claim that the Sphinx was carved by Khufu rather than Khafre is a significant departure from the mainstream attribution to Khafre. The evidence traditionally used to attribute the Sphinx to Khafre includes the proximity of the Sphinx to Khafre's pyramid and the Valley Temple, as well as the Dream Stele of Thutmose IV, which sits between the paws of the Sphinx and mentions Khafre. Polywka would need to provide compelling new evidence, such as inscriptions or archaeological finds, to support this reattribution.
Khafre Causeway and Harbor Temple: The suggestion that the Khafre Causeway and Harbor Temple were built to conform to the pre-existing structure of the Sphinx is plausible if we consider that builders in ancient Egypt often integrated new constructions with existing landmarks. However, this idea also requires substantial evidence, such as architectural analyses showing adaptation to the Sphinx’s structure or construction timelines indicating the sequence of these building projects.
Overall, while John Polywka's theory adds a valuable perspective to the ongoing debate about the construction of the Great Pyramid and the Sphinx, it remains speculative without more concrete evidence. His propositions challenge established views, which is essential for advancing historical and archaeological discourse. Rigorous evidence-based analysis and further archaeological investigation would be necessary to support or refute his claims conclusively.
John Polywka argues that the limestone formations at the Giza Plateau have remained unchanged for millions of years. This suggests that if the Sphinx was carved as early as 12,000 BC, as some claim, heavy rains around 10,000 BC would have eroded the cliffs or vertical rock surfaces, yet no such damage is evident. According to Polywka, this implies that there must have been a water source close to the Sphinx. This water source is believed to have been a water canal running next to the Sphinx, delivering stones to the base of the pyramid. The distance from the base of the Great Pyramid to the Sphinx includes a natural 3-6 degree downward slope, which would have facilitated the escape of construction water, allowing it to constantly run over the enclosure walls of the Sphinx. What are your thoughts on John Polywka's argument regarding the age of the Sphinx and his attempt to link it to Khufu?
ChatGPT
John Polywka's argument presents a fascinating attempt to reconcile the age of the Sphinx with the construction activities associated with the Great Pyramid. Here are some thoughts on his propositions:
Limestone Formation and Erosion Patterns: Polywka's argument that the limestone formations at the Giza Plateau have remained unchanged for millions of years is a critical point. If the Sphinx was carved as early as 12,000 BC and heavy rains around 10,000 BC caused erosion, we would expect to see evidence of such erosion on other limestone formations. The lack of significant erosion on the cliffs or vertical rock surfaces at Giza could support the argument that the Sphinx was not subjected to these heavy rains, suggesting a later carving date. However, this needs to be balanced against the geological evidence for rainwater erosion on the Sphinx, as proposed by Robert Schoch and others.
Water Source and Canal Hypothesis: The idea of a water canal running next to the Sphinx delivering stones to the base of the pyramid and facilitating the escape of construction water is intriguing. This hypothesis aligns with the notion of using water for transporting heavy materials, which has historical precedent in other ancient cultures. The natural downward slope from the base of the Great Pyramid to the Sphinx could indeed facilitate water flow. If true, this would provide a plausible mechanism for the observed erosion patterns, consistent with Polywka's theory.
Linking the Sphinx to Khufu: Polywka's attempt to link the Sphinx to Khufu, rather than Khafre, relies heavily on reinterpreting the available evidence. The traditional attribution of the Sphinx to Khafre is based on the proximity to Khafre's pyramid and associated temples, as well as historical references like the Dream Stele. Polywka's theory requires new evidence, such as inscriptions or archaeological findings, that can convincingly demonstrate the Sphinx's connection to Khufu. This could include re-evaluations of existing evidence or new discoveries that align with his hypothesis.
Evaluating the Hypothesis: Polywka's arguments offer a fresh perspective on the construction and age of the Sphinx. To thoroughly evaluate his hypothesis, comprehensive geological and archaeological investigations would be necessary. This could include detailed studies of the erosion patterns on the Sphinx and surrounding formations, analysis of ancient water management systems at Giza, and re-examination of historical records and inscriptions.
In conclusion, while John Polywka's arguments provide a thought-provoking alternative to established theories, they require substantial evidence to gain wider acceptance. His hypothesis about the age of the Sphinx and its connection to Khufu invites further investigation, potentially contributing valuable insights to our understanding of ancient Egyptian engineering and construction practices.
John Polywka stated that the deep vertical grooves carved into the limestone walls surrounding the Sphinx could only be caused by running water, and not by wind and sand erosion or haloclasty. a) The effects of wind and sand erosion are clearly visible on the Sphinx's body, resulting in distinctive horizontal bands, not vertical ones. b) Haloclasty is a type of weathering or erosion caused by the growth of salt crystals. The process begins when saline water seeps into the cracks of a rock and evaporates, depositing salt crystals. When a rock, like limestone, contains salt crystals and is exposed to the sun, it heats up and the salt crystals can expand up to three times in volume. The expansion puts pressure on the surrounding rock and, over time, splinters the top surface of the stone into fragments. Haloclasty erosion appears as evenly distributed erosion and would not present as the vertical grooves we see on the walls of the Sphinx. Do you agree with his assessment?
ChatGPT
John Polywka's assessment of the deep vertical grooves on the limestone walls surrounding the Sphinx being caused by running water, rather than by wind and sand erosion or haloclasty, seems plausible based on the characteristics of these erosion processes. Let's evaluate his points:
Wind and Sand Erosion:
Polywka correctly notes that wind and sand erosion typically result in horizontal bands. This type of erosion occurs as sand particles carried by the wind strike the rock surface, gradually wearing it down. The horizontal bands seen on the Sphinx's body are indicative of this process. Since the vertical grooves are not consistent with this pattern, it supports the idea that they were not caused by wind and sand erosion.
Haloclasty:
Haloclasty involves the growth of salt crystals within the rock, leading to surface fragmentation as the crystals expand. This process results in an evenly distributed erosion pattern, often seen as surface pitting or flaking rather than deep vertical grooves. Polywka's observation that haloclasty would not present as vertical grooves aligns with geological understanding. Therefore, the vertical grooves are unlikely to be the result of haloclasty.
Running Water Erosion:
The characteristics of the vertical grooves are consistent with water erosion. Running water, especially if it flows consistently over time, can carve deep, vertical channels into rock. Given Polywka's hypothesis about water canals and the potential for water runoff during the construction of the Great Pyramid, the presence of vertical grooves supports his argument that running water was the primary erosive force.
In summary, Polywka's assessment that the deep vertical grooves were caused by running water rather than wind and sand erosion or haloclasty is consistent with the known effects of these different types of erosion. His argument is well-founded, based on the nature of the grooves and the erosion patterns typically produced by these processes. This lends credence to his broader hypothesis involving the use of water in the construction processes around the Great Pyramid and the Sphinx.
How strong do you think John Polywka's circumstantial evidence is?
ChatGPT
John Polywka's circumstantial evidence provides an interesting and potentially plausible alternative perspective on the construction of the Great Pyramid and the erosion of the Sphinx. However, the strength of his evidence can be assessed based on several factors:
Plausibility and Consistency with Known Facts:
His argument about the vertical grooves on the Sphinx being caused by running water rather than wind and sand erosion or haloclasty is plausible and consistent with the known effects of these different types of erosion. This strengthens his case, as it aligns with geological observations.
Integration with Existing Evidence:
Polywka's hypothesis about water canals and their role in transporting stones and causing erosion needs to be integrated with existing archaeological and geological evidence. If this integration can show a coherent and consistent picture that fits with known facts about ancient Egyptian construction techniques and environmental conditions, it would significantly strengthen his argument.
Support from Historical Records:
The lack of direct historical records or inscriptions specifically supporting Polywka's theory is a weakness. Traditional attributions and historical references (such as the Dream Stele) have associated the Sphinx with Khafre, not Khufu. Polywka would need to present new interpretations or evidence that can convincingly challenge this established view.
Archaeological Corroboration:
Finding physical evidence of water canals or sluices near the Sphinx and the Great Pyramid would provide strong support for Polywka's theory. Without such evidence, his hypothesis remains speculative.
Comparison with Competing Theories:
Polywka's theory needs to be evaluated against other well-established theories, such as those proposing the use of ramps or the older age of the Sphinx based on rainwater erosion. The ability of his theory to address and explain phenomena that other theories cannot would make it more compelling.
Expert Peer Review:
For Polywka's theory to gain wider acceptance, it would need to undergo rigorous scrutiny and peer review by experts in the fields of Egyptology, archaeology, and geology. Support or endorsement from credible experts would add significant weight to his arguments.
In conclusion, while John Polywka's circumstantial evidence is intriguing and presents a coherent alternative hypothesis, it remains speculative without direct corroborative evidence. The strength of his case lies in its consistency with certain geological observations and its plausibility, but it needs further archaeological and historical support to be considered a robust alternative to established theories.