> While I agree that Sculpting the Sphinx didn't require
> drawing on overly sophisticated technology, there are
> aspects of civilisation to be considered.
> Obviously the people involved in the project had to be fed
> housed and compensated. This in itself is indication of a
> society that has, at the very least, achieved some degree of
> organisation and resource sharing.
Not to mention the progress of art itsself. A society would have to be advanced beyond a hunter-gatherer village to allow for the "arts" to progress to attempting a sculpture of this size and duration.
> But where I really beg to differ is..."It is a very simple
> thing to do, i.e. chip away at stone"
> Please! if you think that achieving balance in three
> dimensional work(ie you can't put any stone back) is easy you
> have another thing coming.
> As a Proffessional Totem Pole Carver, trained in the
> techniques of the Haida, Kwakuitl, and Tlingit of the North
> West Coast of NA, I can opine that you believe that it is
> Would it be unproffessional for me to ask that, to some
> degree, you take my word for it that maintaining balance and
> proportion in a sculpture of the scale of the Sphinx is
> indicative of a tradition of art that could only be the
> result of some degree of sophistication in the society that
> produced the artists.
Are you trying to say it is a bit harder to carve a mound of rock into a sphinx then to carve a twig into a toothpick? ;-)
> Let's not forget the tools required.
> Can we agree that the Sphinx was made using copper tools?
> Where did the copper come from?
> How was it smelted?
> Please note that I have in no way made any statement
> regarding when I think the Sphinx was carved, only that, IMHO
> it was a lot closer to 2500 BC than 10,500 BC. . . based on
> my opinion as a Sculptor.
WEll, in a way you have put somewhat of a time limit on it in relation to the use of copper tools and the smelting process. This isn't bad though as it would help limit the timeframe posssible for the construction.