Forbidden History: Prehistoric Technologies, Extraterrestrial Intervention, and the Suppressed Origins of Civilization (13 page)

12
New Studies Confirm Very Old Sphinx

Orthodox Protests Notwithstanding, Evidence for the Schoch/West Thesis Is Growing

Robert M. Schoch, Ph.D.

F
or the past ten years, I have been working closely with John Anthony West on the redating of the Great Sphinx of Giza. The traditional date for the statue is circa 2500
B.C.E.
, but based on my geological analysis, I am convinced that the oldest portions of the Sphinx date back to at least circa 5000
B.C.E.
(and John West believes that it may be considerably older still). Such a chronology, however, goes against not just Classical Egyptology, but also many long-held assumptions concerning the dating and origin of early civilizations. I cannot recall how many times I have been told by erstwhile university colleagues that such an early date for the Sphinx is simply impossible because humans were technologically and socially incapable of such feats that long ago. Yet, I must follow where the evidence leads.

My research into the age of the Great Sphinx led me to ultimately question many aspects of the “traditional” scientific worldview that, to this day, permeates most of academe. I got to a point where there were so many new ideas buzzing around in my head that I felt I had to organize them on paper, and this led me to coauthor the book
Voices of the Rocks: A Scientist Looks at Catastrophes and Ancient Civilizations
with Robert Aquinas McNally, in 1999.

The manuscript for
Voices of the Rocks
was completed in August 1998. Since that time I have learned of two independent geological studies of the Great Sphinx and its age. These studies go a long way toward both supporting my analysis and conclusions and rebutting the inadequate counterarguments of the critics.

In both cases they corroborate the primary conclusions of my original studies of the Great Sphinx, namely that the Sphinx and the Sphinx enclosure show evidence of significant precipitation-induced weathering and erosion (degradation), and the core body of the Sphinx and the oldest portions of the Sphinx temple predate the pharaohs Khafre (ca. 2500
B.C.E.
) and Khufu (Khufu, or Cheops, a predecessor of Khafre, reigned about 2551–2528
B.C.E.
).

The first study was undertaken by the geologist David Coxill and published in an article entitled “The Riddle of the Sphinx” in
Inscription: Journal of Ancient Egypt
. After confirming my observations on the weathering and erosion of the Sphinx, and pointing out that other explanations do not work, Coxill clearly states: “This [the data and analysis he covers in the preceding portions of his paper] implies that the Sphinx is at least 5,000 years old and pre-dates dynastic times.”

Coxill then discusses very briefly the seismic work that Thomas Dobecki and I pursued and my estimate of an initial date of 5000 to 7000
B.C.E.
for the earliest parts of the Sphinx based on the seismic data. He neither supports nor refutes this portion of my work, but simply writes: “Absolute dates for the sculpturing of the Sphinx should be taken with extreme caution and therefore dates should be as conservative as possible—until more conclusive evidence comes to light.”

I can understand that he could take this stance, although perhaps I feel more comfortable with, and confident in, the seismic analysis we did. Coxill, in the next paragraph of his paper, continues: “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.E.
”

Bottom line: Coxill agrees with the heart of my analysis and likewise concludes that the oldest portions of the Sphinx date to before dynastic times—that is, prior to circa 3000
B.C.E.

Another geologist, Colin Reader (who holds a degree in geological engineering from London University), has also pursued a meticulous study of weathering and erosion (degradation) features on the body of the Sphinx and in the Sphinx enclosure. This he has combined with a detailed analysis of the ancient hydrology of the Giza plateau, which has been published as a article entitled “A Geomorphological Study of the Giza Necropolis, with Implications for the Development of the Site” in
Archaeometr
y. Like Coxill, Reader points out the problems and weaknesses in the arguments of my opponents.

Reader notes that there is “a marked increase in the intensity of the degradation [that is, weathering and erosion] towards the west [western end] of the Sphinx enclosure.” Reader continues, “In my opinion, the only mechanism that can fully explain this increase in intensity is the action of rainfall run-off discharging into the Sphinx enclosure from the higher plateau in the north and west. . . . However, large quarries worked during the reign of Khufu [as noted above, a predecessor of Khafre, the “traditional” builder of the Sphinx] and located immediately up-slope, will have prevented any significant run-off reaching the Sphinx.”

Thus Reader concludes that “when considered in terms of the hydrology of the site, the distribution of degradation within the Sphinx enclosure indicates that the excavation of the Sphinx pre-dates Khufu’s early fourth dynasty development at Giza.”

Interestingly, Reader also concludes that the so-called Khafre’s causeway (running from the area of the Sphinx, Sphinx temple, and Khafre Valley temple up to the mortuary temple on the eastern side of the Khafre pyramid), part of Khafre’s mortuary temple (which Reader refers to as the “Proto-mortuary temple”), and the Sphinx temple predate the reign of Khufu.

I have come out strongly in favor of not only an older Sphinx, but also a contemporaneous (thus older) Sphinx temple (at least the limestone core being older than the fourth dynasty). Independently of Reader, John Anthony West and I have also concluded that part of Khafre’s mortuary temple predates Khafre, but I had not published this conclusion or spoken of it at length in public, as I wanted to collect more corroborative evidence first. Reader has now come to the same conclusion concerning Khafre’s mortuary temple. I am pleased to see his confirmation. I believe that there was much more human activity at Giza in pre–Old Kingdom times than has previously been recognized. I even suspect that the second, or Khafre pyramid, may actually sit on top of an older site or structure.

According to the Egyptologists John Baines and Jaromír Málek and as discussed in their book
Atlas of Ancient Egypt,
the Khafre pyramid in ancient times was referred to as the Great Pyramid while the Khufu pyramid (referred to in modern times as the Great Pyramid) was known in antiquity as “The Pyramid Which Is the Place of Sunrise and Sunset.” Does the ancient designation of the Great Pyramid for the Khafre pyramid indicate that the site, if not the pyramid itself, was of supreme importance and predated many other developments and structures on the Giza plateau?

Reader tentatively dates the “excavation of the Sphinx” and the construction of the Sphinx temple, proto-mortuary temple, and Khafre’s causeway to “sometime in the latter half of the Early Dynastic Period” (that is, circa 2800 to 2600
B.C.E.
) on the basis of “the known use of stone in ancient Egyptian architecture.” I believe that Reader’s estimated date for the excavation of the earliest portions of the Sphinx is later than the evidence indicates. I would make three general points:

1. In my opinion, the nature and degree of weathering and erosion (degradation) on the Sphinx and in the Sphinx enclosure is much different from what would be expected if the Sphinx had not been carved until 2800
B.C.E.
, or even 3000
B.C.E.
Also, mudbrick mastabas on the Saqqara plateau, dated to circa 2800
B.C.E.
, show no evidence of significant rain weathering, indicating just how dry the climate has been for the last five thousand years. I continue to believe that the erosional features on the Sphinx and in the Sphinx enclosure indicate a date much earlier than 3000 or 2800
B.C.E.

In my opinion, it strains credibility to believe that the amount, type, and degree of precipitation-induced erosion seen in the Sphinx enclosure was produced in only a few centuries. Reader points out, as I have previously, that even the Egyptologist Zahi Hawass (one of the most ardent “opponents” when it comes to my redating of the Sphinx) contends that some of the weathering and erosion (interpreted as precipitation-induced by Reader, Coxill and me) on the body of the Sphinx was covered over and repaired during Old Kingdom times—thus we can safely assume that the initial core body of the Sphinx was carved out much earlier.

2. Reader never addresses the seismic work that we pursued around the Sphinx, which is in part the basis I used to calibrate a crude estimate for the age of the earliest excavations in the Sphinx enclosure. In my opinion, the date estimate based on our seismic work is compatible with the type and amount of erosion and weathering seen in the Sphinx enclosure and also nicely correlates with the known paleoclimatic history of the Giza plateau. Some of my critics have suggested that our seismic studies simply recorded subsurface layers of rock rather than weathering per se.

Here I would point out that the differential weathering pattern that we recorded in the subsurface cuts across the dip of the rock layers and parallels the floor of the enclosure (as is to be expected of weathering). Furthermore, the dramatically shallower depth of the low-velocity layer immediately behind the rump of the Sphinx is totally incompatible with the notion that the seismic data simply records original bedding in the limestone.

3. I do not find dating the Sphinx on the basis of “the known use of stone in ancient Egyptian architecture” convincing. I would point out that massive stonework constructions were being carried out millennia earlier than circa 2800
B.C.E.
in other parts of the Mediterranean (for instance, at Jericho, in Palestine). Even in Egypt, it is now acknowledged that megalithic structures were being erected at Nabta (west of Abu Simbel in Upper Egypt by the fifth millennium
B.C.E.
) and the predynastic “Libyan palette” (circa 3100–3000
B.C.E.
), now housed in the Cairo Museum, records fortified cities (which may well have included architectural stonework) along the western edge of the Nile delta at a very early date. I find it quite conceivable that architectural stonework was being pursued at Giza prior to 2800 or 3000
B.C.E.

Bottom line as far as I am concerned: Reader is one more geologist who has corroborated my basic observations and conclusion: The oldest portions of the Sphinx date back to a period well before circa 2500
B.C.E.
.

It is not only concerning the age of the Sphinx that there have been significant developments since the original publication of
Voices of the Rocks.
In June 1999, I participated in an amazing conference organized by Professor Emilio Spedicato of the University of Bergamo entitled “New Scenarios for the Solar System Evolution and Consequences in History of Earth and Man, at which I was invited to speak on the age of the Sphinx.

A number of scientists and researchers attended this conference, representing many “alternative,” “heretical,” and “catastrophic” viewpoints. In particular, the University of Vienna geologist Professor Alexander Tollmann discussed the work pursued by him in conjunction with his late wife, Edith Tollmann. The Tollmanns accumulated a mass of evidence supporting cometary impacts with Earth at the end of the last ice age, between some 13,000 and 9,500 years ago (between circa 11,000 and 7500
B.C.E.
).

Another important researcher attending the “New Scenarios” conference was Dr. Mike Baillie, a dendrochronologist (one who studies tree rings) at the Queen’s University in Belfast. Further supporting themes developed in
Voices of the Rocks,
Baillie has documented a series of “narrowest-ring events” in the Irish oak tree–ring chronology at the following dates: 3195
B.C.E.
, 2345
B.C.E.
, 1628
B.C.E.
, 1159
B.C.E.
, 207
B.C.E.
, and 540
C.E.

As Baillie pointed out, these dates mark major environmental downturns and also the general time periods of major disruptions and changes in the history of human civilizations. Baillie also noted that some or all of these dates may be associated with cometary activity influencing Earth. Indeed, I believe that these dates, along with the date of 1178
C.E.
elucidated by Professor Spedicato, may all represent periods of more or less intense cometary impacts somewhere on our planet. Also note that these dates appear to follow a roughly five-hundred- to one-thousand-year cycle.

Looking at each of these dates in turn, we can make a few casual observations and speculations: