Sculpture in river

Lil

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
867
Reaction score
155
Location
New York
Would ancient limestone sculptures (those massive Assyrian figures) that went into the Tigris in 1850s still survive or would they be eroded into pebbles by now? How long might they have survived? Would the alabaster pieces last longer than the limestone ones?
 

GeorgeK

ever seeking
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
6,577
Reaction score
740
It would depend on the local environment, temperature fluxes, pH, types of animal and plant life. If you want it to be believable intact, maybe have it get quickly buried in the sand
 

King Neptune

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
4,253
Reaction score
372
Location
The Oceans
As for alabaster, it would depend on the type. Apparently, the alabaster of the ancient Mideast is calcite, and that would be more durable than limestone.

Is the Tigris silty, or is that the Euphrates? Muddy, silty rivers tend to bury things, while rocky ones grind things.
 
Last edited:

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,660
Reaction score
6,546
Location
west coast, canada
If the sculptures have particular features you want to be recognizable, I'd have them fall into the river with the pertinent parts face-down, so that after the initial thump, that side would be protected from the scouring and grinding of sand and rocks.
 

Friendly Frog

Snarkenfaugister
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
4,164
Reaction score
5,105
Location
Belgium
I remember limestone as being particularly sensitive to erosion due to water working. Many of the caves and sinkholes form in limestone, if I recall correctly.

That said, Egyptian statues are still being pulled (relatively intact) from the Nile every year and they've been in there sometimes quite a bit longer then the 1850s. Often buried under silt, mind you. But I don't recall whether any of the statues that I've seen being lifted in documentaries were limestone. The ancient Egyptians also used other rocks for statues.
 

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,926
Reaction score
5,297
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
I remember limestone as being particularly sensitive to erosion due to water working. Many of the caves and sinkholes form in limestone, if I recall correctly.

That said, Egyptian statues are still being pulled (relatively intact) from the Nile every year and they've been in there sometimes quite a bit longer then the 1850s. Often buried under silt, mind you. But I don't recall whether any of the statues that I've seen being lifted in documentaries were limestone. The ancient Egyptians also used other rocks for statues.

Basalt and granite, both very hard rocks, were popular for Egyptian statues.

EDiT: The Assyrians too. Are you sure those statues were limestone?
 
Last edited:

Lil

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
867
Reaction score
155
Location
New York
Basalt and granite, both very hard rocks, were popular for Egyptian statues.

EDiT: The Assyrians too. Are you sure those statues were limestone?

I'm not at all sure, though I know some of the statues and carvings were limestone and gypsum. Others may have been from harder rocks. I came across a reference to this event and signs began flashing "Potential story here." So I thought I'd ask.