The Great Sphinx

[Zaia]

A couple of years ago I saw a show on the Travel channel (a Discovery channel) entitled "The Mystery of the Sphinx," originally filmed in 1993. At the time, it was all brand new to me, and so I bring up the topic now in hopes that some of you know about it and others will be fascinated by it as I was.

The basics: Egyptologist John Anthony West questioned the age of the Great Sphinx when he noticed the weathering of the rock wall surrounding the Sphinx is smooth and consistent with water flowing in large amounts, not wind. Knowing a geologist would have better answers for him about how the rock had been worn away, he took some photographs of the wall and Sphinx, covered the part of the photos that showed the Sphinx, and took them to Robert Schoch, a geologist at Boston University. With the Sphinx still covered, West asked Schoch what kind of weather the walls had endured, and the geologist replied that it was a textbook case of water weathering. West then uncovered the Sphinx, the discrepency being apparent to them both: going back in time to when the Sahara was green and fertile (and had enough regular rainfall to produce water-weathered rock) meant that the Sphinx, currently thought to have been carved in 2500BC, was possibly 8,000-12,000 years older than anyone previously thought. Meaning, if their hunch was on the right track, we were missing a very large chunk of human history.

West thinks the Sphinx may have been built as early as 15,000BC and that no corroborating evidence has been found to support the claim of a civilization from that long ago because no one has ever looked deep enough to find anything. The only other piece of architecture that is allegedly as old as the Sphinx is the Sphinx Temple, which is a very simple structure that was constructed from the giant stones removed from around the Sphinx's body (only the head protrudes above ground). It is possible that the head was carved first, and the body added later, which is why the Sphinx Temple is only allegedly from the same time. However, if I remember the program correctly (I have it taped and watch it from time to time), both the base of the Sphinx and the base of the Temple are level with one another, suggesting that perhaps they were both built on ground level at the same time and sand and dust later covered them both to the point where only the head was visible.

The dissenters: A few mainstream Egyptologists were named and interviewed during this program, their main argument being that people such as themselves have been devoting their lives to studying the Sphinx and that surely after so much time it is improbable that all of them could be wrong. They believe that acid rain could have made the walls around the Sphinx look like the were weathered by large amounts of heavy waters. They believe that John Anthony West and Robert Schoch were looking to garner attention and praise, and were not legitmately questioning the conclusions previously drawn (which most Egyptologists would say is not definitive anyway).

I have just purchased a book entitled The Message of the Sphinx by Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval, written in 1996 with thanks offered to John Anthony West by Hancock for his friendship and twenty years of courageous work in his quest for answers. John Anthony West's website can be found here, an article from 2000 at U.S.News can be found here, and some diagrams and a short article about West and Schoch can be found here.

Obviously I find these ideas fascinating and would love to discuss them at length with anyone else who is interested.

[Ghost Rider]

It's an interesting thought, but the basic problem I have is where they start.

If say there was a former civilization or hidden or unknown that built the Sphinx, the lack of anything else is both confounding and a tad damning. They use the thought that it was groundwork for later generations...and that smacks a little odd.

Take say the civilization in the Orient and South America. While some have th distinction of being practically wiped out(a few Chinese and a couple SA Empires) renemants still exist within both historical and architectural. A bit of tangent but that history just doesn't stop. Literally if a civilization has the ability there are small things that show us they were there.

The problem with a couple of the articles I've read is they essentially hold "It's older, because of certain astronomical studies that cooberate with us". Robert Bauval(who is helping West) is big contention that this will show it. The biggest problem is he becomes very vague at that point in saying there is a freezing of the first time as well as he goes into a tangent that the 10,500BC is big point because of Leo...and then asks Why?

I'd like to look into more...but it's vague way they come to the conclusion that becomes a tad irksome.

[Zaia]

But no one has ever done a dig as far down as they would need to go to find evidence of a civilization from that far back in time. So there's no way to know yet for a fact that there were or were not people alive back then who could have built it. Right now it's just theory to go along with the water erosion of the walls around the Sphinx. Until they get a dig going and look down that deeply, I shall enjoy toying with the idea that we've been wrong this whole time.

[Futoque]

I may be thinking of a different program, but it sounds like one that I saw a few years ago. IIRC the idea was that the head of the sphinx was carved first from a rock that jutted up from the ground. Then many years later a different group of people came along, saw the head, thought it was neat and started adding to it by digging and eventually created the body part of the sphinx along with the temples that are built up around the front end. (It has been a long time since I saw the show so this part is a little fuzzy) The idea also goes that the face that is on the Sphinx now was not the original face, but that later peoples have changed the features, possibly multiple times.

[Superman]

Zaia, the problem here is that they are starting with a conclusion, and then trying to go out and find evidence for it. A real scientist would make an observation, test it, and THEN come to a conclusion. This guy you’re talking about started with his conclusion. That’s what creationists do. This is called psuedoscience.

[Sokartawi]

It's the Nile. The Nile came into existance in 10500 BC, according to a documentary about that river's origins on Discovery. Before that it wasn't there, according to these geologists, IIRC.

[Zaia]

Zaia, the problem here is that they are starting with a conclusion, and then trying to go out and find evidence for it. A real scientist would make an observation, test it, and THEN come to a conclusion. This guy you’re talking about started with his conclusion. That’s what creationists do. This is called psuedoscience.

They haven't come to any conclusions yet. They can still only speculate until they have the finances to go on a massive dig to look for evidence to stupport their theories. West made his observation--the weathering of the walls--took it to a scientist whose field it is to determine just that sort of thing, and then they immediately realized what would be true if they were right and those walls had been weathered by years and years of rainfall. In order for them to test it, then need to dig deeper than anyone has so far, which takes lots of money and permission from the government (which they don't want to give). How can they be faulted for thinking outside the box? They haven't claimed that it's truth; they're just throwing an idea out there while they wait for the chance to prove of disprove their theory.

[Zaia]

I may be thinking of a different program, but it sounds like one that I saw a few years ago. IIRC the idea was that the head of the sphinx was carved first from a rock that jutted up from the ground. Then many years later a different group of people came along, saw the head, thought it was neat and started adding to it by digging and eventually created the body part of the sphinx along with the temples that are built up around the front end. (It has been a long time since I saw the show so this part is a little fuzzy) The idea also goes that the face that is on the Sphinx now was not the original face, but that later peoples have changed the features, possibly multiple times.

Yes, that may have been part of the same program. It certainly makes sense that the face has been recarved numerous times, considering how much smaller the head is than the rest of the body.

Also, the head and body face due East, whereas the characteristics on the face are off-center and point somewhat Northeast. That too would suggest that the original face is not the one we have now.

[Superman]

First of all, they haven't formed a theory. They have an hypothesis perhaps, but it's not a theory.

Secondly, they ARE forming a conclusion before they have tested any of their hypotheses. They are saying that another civilization built it (that there is absolutely NO evidence for), and then to support that they point to things like the erosion of the walls and whatnot. That's a bit of a stretch. They're not thinking "outside of the box," what they are doing is not thinking critically.

It's like creationists. They start off with the notion that the story in Genesis was true, and then they go out and try to find the evidence for it. It's not real science because it's done backwards. This man you're talking about is doing just that: He's formed an idea that there was another civilization responsible for the Sphinx's construction and is now trying to find the evidence for it. It's psuedoscience.

[Zaia]

Sorry I used the word 'theory' instead of 'hypothesis.' My mistake.

And they are saying that another civilization might have built it. I don't consider that a conclusion if it only claims that it's possible, not definite. Creationists (in my experience) don't start out by saying, "We think that maybe this whole God-creates-the-universe-in-seven-days thing might be true, so let's just roll with that idea and see where it takes us."

[Utsanomiko]

I remember seeing this program a while back. Some interesting notions, but not a whole lot of supposting evidence to make a major conclusion.

The water erosion is on the body of the Sphinx as well. In fact IIRC the photo that was shown to geologists was the Sphinx with its head and legs covered up, not the walls with the Sphinx covered. I don't recall them estimating the timeframe of its older date of construction being more than 10,000-12,000 BC, but I may be wrong on that.

[Zaia]

Oh, you're correct, Uts, it was the body of the Sphinx he showed to the geologist, not the walls. He had taken photos of the walls too, but you're right, it was the body that he showed Schoch.

I think I'll watch my tape of the program again today or tomorrow, since it's been almost a year since I've watched it.

[Superman]

Creationists (in my experience) don't start out by saying, "We think that maybe this whole God-creates-the-universe-in-seven-days thing might be true, so let's just roll with that idea and see where it takes us."

Oh but they do... But it's more like this: "We KNOW this whole God created the universe thing is true, according to Genesis, so let's go find those foot prints that prove humans and dinosaurs coexited." They are doing a sort of backward science; they start with a conclusion and go find "supportive" evidence.

[Zaia]

But Supes, the defining thing here should be that the creationists say they know, while West says he speculates. As long as he hasn't claimed his ideas are fact (and to my knowledge he has never done so), I don't see how you can fault him for what he hasn't done.

[Superman]

That's a valid point, I think. It's not like the whack jobs over at the ICR or Kent Hovind's circus. But, a scientist will remain skeptical until the verdict is in. I think this guy is still making a bit of a stretch and that is where he and mainstream science would disagree, I think.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I think I saw this a few days ago. One archaeologist and one geologist said a main point of his was that the region where the Sphinx is has not had a lot of rain for a loooooooooooong time, and the only way the smooth, rouindes surfances could have existed in the quarry for the sphix would have been trhough water flow from heavy, continued rainfall.

The only period of rainfall like that he said dates back before the standard timeframe for the age of the Sphinx. I don't know how true this is.

[RedImperator]

The problem is that other than the Sphinx itself, there's absolutely NO evidence of any kind--linguistic, historical, archaeological--of a civilization more than twice as old as the oldest currently known. A single giant artifact in good condition, and absolutely nothing else? Nothing ever dug up by accident at a construction site, or discovered by a geologist or paleontologist? No unusual geometric patterns showing up in satellite photos? No inexplicable distributions of plants, animals, words, artistic styles?

Sorry, intriguing as this is, without some other evidence, I say there has to be another reason the Sphinx has eroded the way it has.

[Kitsune]

One item I read was from the archaolgist Kent Weeks about KV Tomb 5 and he describes the stone of other tombs. In some cases, you may be making a tomb in nice firm stone and the next layer is crumbly. That is a problem with the sphinx as well. The stones are different.

One show I saw on discovery tried to show that the sphinx support the great bible flood. I wa spretty disgusted with that.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

I remember reading/hearing somewhere the the Sphynx wasn't actually "built" persay as much as it was carved out of a outcropping of existing rock. As a result, it would have been within the abilities of even a hunter/gatherer soceity to "chisel" in an image even enough spare time.

[Zaia]

That's a valid point, I think. It's not like the whack jobs over at the ICR or Kent Hovind's circus. But, a scientist will remain skeptical until the verdict is in. I think this guy is still making a bit of a stretch and that is where he and mainstream science would disagree, I think.

Just so you know, since I just came across this in the book I'm reading now, West received rebuttals like this when he voiced his idea with the full support of Schoch, a highly respected geologist, stratigrapher and paleontologist:

"That's ridiculous. Thousands of scholars working for hundreds of years have studied this problem and the chronology is pretty much worked out. There are no big surprises in store for us..." --Peter Lecovara, pg. 20, The Message of the Sphinx, Graham Hancock & Robert Bauval

"American hallucinations! West is an amateur. There is absolutely no scientific base for any of this. We have older monuments in the same area. They definitely weren't built by men from space or Atlantis. It's nonsense and we won't allow our monuments to be exploited for personal enrichment. The Sphinx is the soul of Egypt." --Dr. Zahi Hawass, pg. 20, same (This same guy kicked West's team off the Sphinx site when he learned his supervisor had given them permission to study the area)



As for the erosion, this is how the writers of the same book explain Schoch's geological conclusions:

"Schoch's case, in brief--which has the full support of palaeo-climatologists--rests on the fact that heavy rainfall of the kind required to cause the characteristic erosion patterns on the Sphinx had stopped falling on Egypt thousands of years before the epoch of 2500BC in which Egyptologists say that the Sphinx was built. The geological evidence therefore suggests that a very conservative estimate of the true construction date of the Sphinx would be somewhere between '7000 to 5000BC minimum.'" pgs. 19, 20, same


I'm not saying anything regarding this subject is conclusive. I'm just saying it's interesting. Really interesting.

[muse]

I saw the program a little while back, the water erosion part is interesting and makes sense but then they lost me with all the talk of secret tunnels and underground rooms and temples. That was stretching it a little too far for me. I'm undecided on it, personally I think there's some screwy politics and stuff going on behind the scenes and it'll be quite some time before we even start making inroads on the truth.

[Zaia]

I saw the program a little while back, the water erosion part is interesting and makes sense but then they lost me with all the talk of secret tunnels and underground rooms and temples. That was stretching it a little too far for me. I'm undecided on it, personally I think there's some screwy politics and stuff going on behind the scenes and it'll be quite some time before we even start making inroads on the truth.

Here's some info about the rooms:

"...The first interesting result came from [Dr. Thomas L.] Dobecki [a geophysicist], who had conducted seismographic test around the Sphinx. The sophisticated equipment that he had brought with him picked up numerous indications of 'anomalies and cavities in the bedrock between the paws and along the sides of the Sphinx.'

One of these cavities he described as 'a fairly large feature; it's about nine metres by twelve metres in dimension, and buried less than five metres in depth. Now the regular shape of this--rectangular--is inconsistent with naturally occuring cavities...so there's some suggestion the this could be man-made.'" pg. 18, The Message of the Sphinx, Hancock & Bauval

[Gil Hamilton]

I wish I had some links, since this is kind of hard to believe and I guess hearsay, since I heard it from a retired archeologist, but the idea of some organized civilizations in that area of the world at 10,000 BC. Specifically centered around Bahrain, where they are digging up remains of a civilization that seems to be so old that not even it's name survived, but appearantly there were found what they think are invoices for various trade goods. There is still alot of archeology and gaps in our history to fill. I have no doubt that there could have been a civilization in Egypt 10,000 years ago that could have originally made the Sphinx, which the Egyptians then altered.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The oldest cities in the area--and I can say this with absolute authority--are Jericho and Çatalhöyük. The PPNA site in Jericho was around 7,200 B.C.E. and very impressive: It had a stone wall three meters thick and four high, and a tower with an internal staircase (22 step) also made of stone, ten meters in diameter and 8.5 high, even if the whole "city" was at best a glorified village.

Now, Schoch--the poor bastard geologist that he is--is a bit more accurate here. He's acknowledged that even by his own work (which was then blown far off into loony-land by J.A. West (who is a self-proclaimed Egyptologist with no such actual degree, and of course Hancock is a sociologist) the Great Sphinx could be from 7,000 - 5,000 B.C.E. as opposed to the older date. Now it is not unreasonable to say that anyone who built walls and a tower like that could make a go at carving the Sphinx.

The problem is that we don't have evidence of a culture as advanced as PPNA in Jericho, at that time, in the Nile valley. So for the moment we have no reason to believe that one existed--there's absolutely no evidence. The Sphinx could not have come out of a vacuum, it must have a supporting culture. There is another interesting hypothesis, however.

A geological engineer, Carl Reader, has proposed that in the transition period between a wetter Egypt and a more arid dynastic Egypt, short and intense rainfall would be experienced. This would cause the appropriate erosion profile if the head of the Sphinx had been carved first, from a natural out-thrust. Pre-Dynastic Egypt does in fact meet those climate and historical conditions, and it would also mesh with the only historical sources for the claims that J.A. West and Hancock have made.

There has already been a tendency in Egyptology for a while to date the Pyramids somewhat older than previously, over the years, so the general consensus on their age has been pushed back a while. If Reader is correct a pre-dynastic Great Sphinx would only be a couple hundred years older as well and would not require a massive revamping of civilization's history or of the local developmental conditions in the Nile valley. However, it would require us to re-evaluate the organization and capabilities of pre-dynastic Egypt to a certain extent.

I think we can safely say that J.A. West and Hancock are talking absolute out-of-ass bunk, that Schoch's conservatives date are theoretically possible but have no supporting evidence, but Reader's dates are possible, though the preponderence of evidence does remain for the Sphinx to have been built when Egyptologists say it does. There are several defending scientific theories based on the rock which do not require even Reader's compromise explanation, so I suppose it would really depend on which the engineering types think is more likely, and how that can be efficiently reconciled into the historical and existing archaeological record.

But even in the worst-case scenario for a screwup by the Egyptologists, we're talking just a few centuries, and a move from one existing culture (Dynastic Egypt) to another one (Pre-Dynastic Egypt), with no radical changes in our understanding of history.

[Solauren]

As much fun as some of the theories I've read on the Sphinx are (I'll include the all in one below), most have little supporting evidence.

Now, I will admit, if the Sphinx was 12000 years old, looking for other 12000 year old artifacts would be difficult. You'd have to dig pretty deep in Eygpt to find that. No one's dug that deep.

However, a lack of evidence doesn't mean that evidence does not exist. We just haven't found it.
(Please remember, Archelogy is not an extact science.)

However, until I see proof (dig me up another structure like that in the same area, and date it to 12000 years back, and you'll have more support from me), I'll keep my 'Cool if it's true, but until proven..." skeptisim

It sounds like the purpose of the books and shows concerning the theory in question is an attempt to either
a)- raise funds to get a dig going (and bribe the needed Eygptian officals)
or
b)- Let's play with the new agers (i.e the ones that believe we are descended from martians)


Now then, for the wildest theory I have heard (and I am just repeating it here for a laugh. It would make for a good novel or movie, but for real life science.....)

The Sphinx and the Pyramids are supposed to line up with Leo and Orions's belt. Also, they are supposed to line up at times of the year with the 'Face' on Mars and the 'Pyramid' there.

Beyond that, it gets into insanely hardcore sci-fi, like the Sphinx was built on earth, moved to mars, weathered there, brough back, etc.