For those further interested, below is a link to an abstract of a
technical paper I wrote, entitled "EROSION PROCESSES ON THE GREAT SPHINX
AND ITS DATING."  I presented the information at a 1999 conference
organized by the University of Bergamo.

http://www.unibg.it/convegni /NEW_SCENARIOS/ Abstracts/Schoch.htm

For those still further interested, here are links to more information on
the seismic data and the geological data.

Click below to download a PDF of an article I wrote for the Australian
magazine New Dawn. It's titled, "Searching for the Dawn and Demise of
Ancient Civilisation"

Many people know me best for my work on the Great Sphinx of Giza, Egypt.
The Great Sphinx sits near the Great Pyramid on the western bank of the
Nile, outside of modern Cairo. According to standard Egyptological
thinking, the Great Sphinx was carved from the limestone bedrock on the
orders of the Old Kingdom Pharaoh Khafre around 2500 B.C.

In 1990 I first traveled to Egypt, with the sole purpose of examining the
Great Sphinx from a geological perspective. I assumed that the
Egyptologists were correct in their dating, but soon I discovered that the
geological evidence was not compatible with what the Egyptologists were
saying. On the body of the Sphinx, and on the walls of the Sphinx
Enclosure (the pit or hollow remaining after the Sphinx’s body was
carved from the bedrock), I found heavy erosional features (seen in the
accompanying photographs) that I concluded could only have been caused by
rainfall and water runoff. The thing is, the Sphinx sits on the edge of
the Sahara Desert and the region has been quite arid for the last 5000
years. Furthermore, various structures securely dated to the Old Kingdom
show only erosion that was caused by wind and sand (very distinct from the
water erosion). To make a long story short, I came to the conclusion that
the oldest portions of the Great Sphinx, what I refer to as the core-body,
must date back to an earlier period (at least 5000 B.C., and maybe as
early as 7000 or 9000 B.C.), a time when the climate was very different
and included more rain.

Many people have said to me that the Great Sphinx cannot be so old, in
part because the head is clearly a dynastic Egyptian head and the dynastic
period did not start until about 3000 B.C. In fact, if you look at the
current Great Sphinx you may notice that the head is actually too small
for the body. It is clear to me that the current head is not the original
head. The original head would have become severely weathered and eroded.
It was later re-carved, during dynastic times, and in the re-carving it
naturally became smaller. Thus, the head of the Great Sphinx is not the
original head. In fact, the Sphinx may not have originally been a sphinx
at all. Perhaps it was a male lion.

To further test the theory of an older Sphinx, we carried out seismic
studies around the base of the statue to measure the depth of subsurface
weathering.  Basically, we used a sledgehammer on a steel plate to
generate sound waves that penetrated the rock, reflected, and returned to
the surface. This gave us information about the subsurface qualities of
the limestone bedrock. When I analyzed the data, I found that the
extraordinary depth of subsurface weathering supported my conclusion that
the core-body of the Sphinx must date back to 5000 B.C. or earlier.

During the seismic studies we also discovered clear evidence of a cavity
or chamber under the left paw of the Sphinx. For what it is worth, some
have suggested to me that this may be a "Hall of Records" (at the time I
was not aware of Edgar Cayce's predictions along these lines).
Additionally, we found some lesser (and previously known) cavities under
and around the Sphinx, and the data also indicates that there may be a
tunnel-like feature running the length of the body. A published article on
our seismic work around the Sphinx is available via the link below.

Back in the early 1990s, when I first suggested that the Great Sphinx was
much older than generally believed at the time, I was challenged by
Egyptologists who asked, "Where is the evidence of that earlier
civilization?" that could have built the Sphinx. They were sure that
sophisticated culture, what we call civilization, did not exist prior to
about 3000 or 4000 B.C. Now, however, there is clear evidence of high
culture dating back over 10,000 years ago, at a site in Turkey known as
Göbekli Tepe.

Was the Great Sphinx Surrounded By a Moat?

According to Robert Temple, a moat theory explains the water weathering of
the Sphinx without hypothesizing that it dates back to an earlier period
of more rainfall than the present. I will not address his other
hypotheses, which I do not find persuasive, that the Sphinx was the jackal
[wild dog] Anubis and the face seen on the Sphinx is that of the Middle
Kingdom pharaoh Amenemhet II, though I note the original Sphinx has been
reworked and the head re-carved.

While in Egypt recently (March 2009) I looked at the Great Sphinx with
fresh eyes. I will summarize half a dozen points.

1) The Sphinx Temple (built out of blocks removed from the Sphinx
Enclosure when the body of the Sphinx was initially carved) and the Valley
Temple to the south show heavy precipitation-induced weathering on their
core blocks. These limestone temples were subsequently refurbished with
Aswan granite facings during the Old Kingdom. The moat theory cannot
explain the nature of the very ancient weathering seen under the Old
Kingdom granite veneer.

2) Much heavier surface erosion occurs on the western end of the Sphinx
Enclosure, tapering off dramatically toward the eastern end. This is due
to ancient rains and the paleohydrology of the area. This erosion is not
compatible with pooled water in the enclosure.

3) The highest levels of the middle member strata, seen in the Sphinx
Enclosure on the western end, are most severely eroded, as expected from
rain. If the moat theory were true, then the lower strata on the eastern
end of the Sphinx Enclosure would be most heavily eroded (caused by water
being brought in via canals from the Nile), but the opposite is seen.

4) Seismic data demonstrating the depth of weathering below the floor of
the Sphinx Enclosure, based on my analyses (calibrated very
conservatively), gives a minimum age of at least 7,000 years ago for the
core body of the Sphinx.  Standing water in the Sphinx Enclosure would not
accelerate the depth of weathering below the floor of the enclosure.

5) The vertical fissures observed in the walls of the Sphinx Enclosure
show diagnostic signs of having been formed by precipitation and water
runoff. They do not show any characteristics that are diagnostic or even
suggestive of having been formed by artificial dredging of the Sphinx
Enclosure, as Robert Temple suggests.

6) Assuming the argument that the Sphinx sat in a pool, either the water
level around the Sphinx was the same as that of the surrounding water
table, or the walls and floor of the pool were sealed up and watertight
(and any artificial walls, such as on the eastern end, were strong enough
to withstand the water pressure). (Note that the current western end of
the Sphinx Enclosure is at a much higher elevation than the eastern end
[see the figure on page 534 of The Sphinx Mystery by Robert Temple with
Olivia Temple, Inner Traditions, 2009], yet clear water erosion is shown
at the higher elevations at the western end. Since water seeks its own
level, if the water in a supposed moat reached to the height of the
western end of the Sphinx Enclosure, then the eastern end as well as the
walls along the northern and southern sides must have been built up to a
comparable height as the western end. This is independent of whether or
not the eastern wall of the enclosure [= western wall of the Sphinx
Temple] has a base of natural bedrock or was entirely composed of cut and
placed stone.) We know that the ancient water table was well below the
level of the floor of the Sphinx Enclosure (or else the Sphinx Temple
would have been flooded). The Sphinx Enclosure, if simply carved from the
bedrock (as all the evidence suggests)  would not have held a deep pool of
standing water. The bedrock in the enclosure is highly faulted, and
characterized by a karst morphology that would leak like a sieve. The
enclosure would need to be fully sealed up (with mortar or cement,
perhaps), and there is no evidence of such sealing. If the enclosure had
been sealed in such a manner, this would not be compatible with the
dredging theory for the vertical fissures. Furthermore, chambers and
tunnels under the Sphinx would have been flooded from above if the Sphinx
had been sitting in a pool of water, unless the Sphinx Enclosure had been
watertight.

Back to Top