> You can walk up to the sphinx today and pinch a
> layer off the surface with two fingers. I've seen
> this happen.
On any windy day, you can watch large
> flakes of limestone blow off the walls of the
> Sphinx quarry.
> This is typical of Haloclasty.
> Arguments against this usually include that other
> monuments don't exhibit the degree of weathering
> we see at the sphinx. They usually state these
> monuments were created from stone "quarried from
> the same limestone beds" as the Sphinx.
> This is not true, however.
> The sphinx is composed of three overall layers of
> bedrock that vary greatly in hardness and
> durability. They are referred to as Member 1 (the
> base, reasonably durable, and used for
> construction), Member 2 (majority of the body and
> crumbly, not at all suitable for construction or
> monumental artwork) and Member 3 (the head, the
> most durable layer, also used for construction.)
> The head of the sphinx, and several other layers,
> is harder that the rest. The majority of the
> limestone the sphinx was carved from lies in a bed
> that was not used by the AE's for construction or
> monuments because it is a very poor choice for
> such usages, being too soft. The parts of the
> sphinx that show very little erosion (like the
> head and the base) come from the limestone layers
> that were used for construction.
If the builders were aware of the difference in quality of different layers of bedrock such that they avoided the low quality layers and opted for the robust layer, then why did they include such low quality layers into such a signature construction project without covering it with blocks made of the better quality layer? ...Or did they? ; )
[i]How can any of us ever [u]know[/u], when all we can do is [b]think[/b]?[/i]