Is the Sphinx 12,000 years old?

[WorkInProgress]

I have seen several conspiracy theory threads lately and thought about one that was prevalent when I was in college.

Is the Sphinx 12,000 years old?

I read a book at the time that postulated that the Sphinx has rainfall erosion that could only have happened when the Giza area was rainy. It also said that the alignment of the Giza plateau was designed to mimic Orion’s Belt. This alignment only occurred 12,000 years ago.

Graham Hancock

I have also seen articles from geologist(s) to confirm the rainfall erosion pattern; apparently it caused a scuffle between the archaeologists and geologists. I can’t find the news articles, but many web sites are dedicated to this theory.

[toadspittle]

The main wiki entry is surprisingly well-balanced about this:

Great Sphinx of Giza

Basically, you’ve got this:

• most Egyptologists believe that the Sphix was built around the time of the Great pyramid (give or take a generation)

• but there are no records of its origins (unlike many other monuments in Egypt)

• reputable scientists DO believe that apparent water erosion indicates its age is much greater (at least by 2-3000 years); most Egyptologists find counterarguments against this idea, but it’s not totally preposterous

• virtually no one believes Hancock and his ilk, and the correlations to Orion’s belt are in fact incorrect (the alignment wouldn’t work at the time proposed, and the sphinx apparently should be on the other side of the pyramids to properly correspond)

[Bobotheoptimist]

I could certainly get behind the theory that the body of the Sphinx is considerably older than the head, but the idea that the pyramids are 12000 years old is one I have trouble with, partially because they don’t show the rainfall-type erosion that the Sphinx body does, and also carving an existing rock into lion shape isn’t the same as building those three pyramids.
A yardang that’s been resculpted several times doesn’t seem to overturn the history of much of anything IMHO, but I don’t think you’ll ever get an Egyptologist to give an inch on this, having to deal with aliens and stargates and such gets them all twitchy.

That one guy that seemed to be a big proponent of the 12000yo Sphinx has shot down some other Atlantis discoveries (ancient city off the coast of Japan - natural formations says he) but he seems to go off the deep end when around the Sphinx. I only buy about a third of what he says, but that third was enough to make me suspect there is more to the story. Not a highly advanced ancient civilization, however.

Just my 2 cents, based on little more than Discovery Channel shows (so worth slightly less than 2 cents)

[mlees]

virtually no one believes Hancock and his ilk, and the correlations to Orion’s belt are in fact incorrect (the alignment wouldn’t work at the time proposed, and the sphinx apparently should be on the other side of the pyramids to properly correspond)

Damn. And I was fascinated with his premise, too. Sigh. Ah well.

[APB]

@toadspittle

…reputable scientists DO believe that apparent water erosion indicates its age is much greater (at least by 2-3000 years); most Egyptologists find counterarguments against this idea, but it’s not totally preposterous…

That misses an important nuance (which is also missing from the Wikipedia article).

While some reputable geologists do support an older dating on the basis of the water erosion theory and most Egyptologists do disagree with them, the main counterarguments to the water erosion theory have actually been put forward by other reputable geologists, most notably August Matthusen. This is not a case of there being a consensus among geologists that contradicts the consensus among Egyptologists. Rather it is that the geologists disagree among themselves, with many of them agreeing with the Egyptologists. And some of the geologists think that the Egyptogists do have the date wrong, but only by a few hundred years.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

One thing I never hear mentioned in these discussions is the fact that, even 4500 years ago the Sahara was considerably moister than it is today. The desertification process was well under way, but still there was enough moisture to support a savanna-like ecosystem, with large herbivores and other animals dependent on plant life. Isn’t it entirely possible that over the first couple hundred years of the Sphynx’s existence, there could have been some major rainstorms, enough to cause erosion?

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Spectre of Pithecanthropus

One thing I never hear mentioned in these discussions is the fact that, even 4500 years ago the Sahara was considerably moister than it is today. The desertification process was well under way, but still there was enough moisture to support a savanna-like ecosystem, with large herbivores and other animals dependent on plant life. Isn’t it entirely possible that over the first couple hundred years of the Sphynx’s existence, there could have been some major rainstorms, enough to cause erosion?

One factor not considered is that the Sphinx’s body was buried for many centuries. Its body is hydrophilic limestone, and sand can contain and hold moisture well a few feet below the surface.

The book 'Ancient Mysteries ’ did a remarkable disarm of this claim. Noting it was not as well supported as its proponent claimed, and other factors that could contribute to its age.

[WorkInProgress]

Something is still wonky here. The Egyptologists rebuttal on the way that the Sphinx was eroded was shot down by all 3 geologists. From the wiki article toadspittle referenced. Underline is mine.

English geologist and secretary of The Manchester Ancient Egypt Society Colin Reader who has studied the weathering patterns as well, agrees the weathering occurred from heavy water erosion, but concludes that the Sphinx is only several hundred years older than the traditionally accepted date believing the Sphinx to be a product of the Early Dynastic period.[13] Independently, geologist David Coxill has also come forward to confirm in principle Schoch’s findings, but like Reader has taken a more conservative approach to the dating of the Sphinx, yet concludes: “Nevertheless, it (the Sphinx) is clearly older than the traditional date for the origins of the Sphinx-in the reign of Khafre, 2520-2490 B.C.”[14] Both Schoch and Reader base their conclusions not only on the Sphinx and surrounding enclosure, but have also taken into account other congruent weathering features found on the Giza plateau from monuments such as the Sphinx Temple which are known to be consistent with the time period the Sphinx was constructed.

This theory has not been accepted by mainstream Egyptologists. Alternative theories offered by Egytologists for the erosion include wind and sand, acid rain, exfoliation or the poor quality of the limestone used to construct the Sphinx. Schoch, Reader, and Coxill have independently argued, regardless of when the Sphinx was actually built, that none of these explanations can account for what they consider as geologists to be “classic” water erosion patterns.

[Merijeek]

@toadspittle

• virtually no one believes Hancock and his ilk, and the correlations to Orion’s belt are in fact incorrect (the alignment wouldn’t work at the time proposed, and the sphinx apparently should be on the other side of the pyramids to properly correspond)

Arguing totally out of ignorance here (no, really), but if the Sphinx predated the pyramids by thousands of years, or a couple days, really, wouldn’t its location relative to the pyramids be kind of a moot point?

-Joe

[Don_t_fight_the_hypothetical]

@Merijeek

Arguing totally out of ignorance here (no, really), but if the Sphinx predated the pyramids by thousands of years, or a couple days, really, wouldn’t its location relative to the pyramids be kind of a moot point?

-Joe

[Ignorance here, too.]
Not if they were but built there for the same reason - quarry access.

[APB]

@WorkInProgress

Something is still wonky here. The Egyptologists rebuttal on the way that the Sphinx was eroded was shot down by all 3 geologists. From the wiki article toadspittle referenced. Underline is mine.

Which is the very reason why I pointed out that there was a ‘nuance’ that the Wikipedia article missed. Or, if you want me to put it bluntly, that section of the article oversimplifies the controversy to the point of being wrong.

That Schoch, Reader, and Coxill have proved their point has not been accepted by, among others, Matthusen, James Harrell and Alex Bourdeau, all of them also geologists. Those critics have argued just as strongly that there are indeed other explanations that do, after all, ‘account for what they consider as geologists to be “classic” water erosion patterns’. To repeat, the main rebuttals to the water erosion theory were put forward - and are still being argued - by other geologists.

So, given that the geologists cannot agree among themselves, the Egyptologists have quite reasonably taken the view that the geological evidence is clearly so ambiguous that rejecting the archaeological evidence on that basis alone would be silly.

[Enola_Straight]

I have no problem believing that the body of the Sphinx is constructed from the naturally eroded outcrop of rock exposed to water erosion from the end of the Ice Age…back when Egypt was a jungle instead of the desert it is now.

[toadspittle]

@Merijeek

Arguing totally out of ignorance here (no, really), but if the Sphinx predated the pyramids by thousands of years, or a couple days, really, wouldn’t its location relative to the pyramids be kind of a moot point?

-Joe

from the Wiki article:

One well-publicised debate[16] was generated by the works of two writers, Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval, in a series of separate and collaborative publications from the late 1980s onwards. Their claims include that the construction of the Great Sphinx and the monument at Tiwanaku in modern Bolivia was begun in 10,500 BC; that the Sphinx’s lion-shape is a definitive reference to the constellation of Leo; and that **the layout and orientation of the Sphinx, the Giza pyramid complex and the Nile River is an accurate reflection or “map” of the constellations of Leo, Orion (specifically, Orion’s Belt) ** and the Milky Way, respectively.

Their initial claims regarding the alignment of the Giza pyramids with Orion (“…the three pyramids were an unbelievably precise terrestrial map of the three stars of Orion’s belt”— Hancock’s Fingerprints of the Gods, 1995, p.375) are later joined with speculation about the age of the Sphinx (Hancock and Bauval, Keeper of Genesis, published 1997 in the U.S. as The Message of the Sphinx). By 1998’s The Mars Mystery, they contend:

…we have demonstrated with a substantial body of evidence that the pattern of stars that is “frozen” on the ground at Giza in the form of the three pyramids and the Sphinx represents the disposition of the constellations of Orion and Leo as they looked at the moment of sunrise on the spring equinox during the astronomical “Age of Leo” (i.e., the epoch in which the Sun was “housed” by Leo on the spring equinox.) Like all precessional ages this was a 2,160-year period. It is generally calculated to have fallen between the Gregorian calendar dates of 10,970 and 8810 BC. (op. cit., p.189)

A date of 10,500 B.C. is chosen because they maintain this is the only time in the precession of the equinoxes when the astrological age was Leo and when that constellation rose directly east of the Sphinx at the vernal equinox. They also suggest that in this epoch the angles between the three stars of Orion’s Belt and the horizon was an “exact match” to the angles between the three main Giza pyramids. This time period coincidentally also coincides with the American psychic Edgar Cayce’s “dating” of Atlantis. These and other theories are used to support the overall belief in an advanced and ancient, but now vanished, global progenitor civilization.

Their theories, and the astronomical and archaeological data upon which they are based, have received refutations by some mainstream scholars who have examined them, notably the astronomers Ed Krupp and Anthony Fairall.[17] The refuting evidence includes noting that the correspondence of the angles between the pyramids and the angles in Orion’s Belt at that epoch is not in fact precise or even very close, that the “Age of Leo” (period when the Sun’s path appears in this constellation at the equinoxes) in fact starts 1500 years later than this, that the Zodiac of western astrology is known to have originated in Mesopotamia and not pre-ancient Egypt, and that if the Sphinx is meant to represent Leo, then it should be on the other side of the Nile (the “Milky Way”) from the pyramids (“Orion”). Hancock, Bauval, and others have offered counter-arguments to Krupp’s points[18][19][20] and maintain their positions, continuing to publish books based on their theories. The majority of the scientific community regards these ideas as pseudoscience.[21]