The Age of the Sphinx | Battle of the Geologists
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 12. 2020
- The Great Sphinx, which sits in front of the three great pyramids on the Giza Plateau in Egypt, has been the subject of controversy with regard to its age. Geologist Robert Schoch claims that it is thousands of years older than Egyptologists say and that it is the product of a lost civilization. Other experts in geology have weighed in on the subject too. What do they think about the geological evidence and the origins of the Sphinx? Dr. Miano tackles this question in this video.
After viewing, come back to the notes here for further information.
►DOWNLOAD Professor Miano's free e-booklet: "Why Ancient History Matters":
mailchi.mp/a402112ea4db/why-a...
►SUBSCRIBE to the World of Antiquity CZcams Channel for great travel videos about ancient ruins and ancient history museums.
► SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL
Supporters get access to behind-the-scenes videos, early-release videos, course discounts and more! / worldofantiquity
Images taken from Wikimedia Commons and ARCE Sphinx Project (opencontext.org). Clip of Robert Schoch speaking at CPAK 2019 taken from video by Anyextee ( • The Sphinx Explained: ... ).
Robert Schoch articles:
www.robertschoch.net/Redating%...
www.robertschoch.net/Geologica...
www.robertschoch.com/publicat...
Lal Gauri articles:
sci-hub.se/doi.org/10...
www.semanticscholar.org/paper...
James Harrell article:
www.ianlawton.com/as3.html
Colin Reader articles:
www.ianlawton.com/as1.html
www.researchgate.net/publicat...
qmul.academia.edu/ColinReader
Exchange between Alex Bourdeau and Colin Reader:
www.ianlawton.com/as.html
Overview by David P. Billington (up to 2008):
www.davidpbillington.net/sphi...
Jorn Christiansen article:
www.geoexpro.com/articles/201...
Robert Schneiker article:
www.robertschneiker.com/gsa_20...
Additional material:
pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjeg...
Professor Miano's handy guide for learning, "How to Know Stuff," is available here:
www.amazon.com/How-Know-Stuff...
Follow Professor Miano on social media:
►FACEBOOK: / drdavidmiano
►TWITTER: / drdavidmiano
►INSTAGRAM: / drmiano
First, I wish to thank Seyfzadeh for taking the time to comment on my research. I find this improves the quality of my work.
“Schneiker's idea that the Sphinx was made by rough pounding of naturally weak rock, rather than post-creation weathering is based on a fracture seen at the front of the Sphinx, actually not contested by the proponents of rain- and run-off erosion.”
No. My conclusion has absolutely nothing to do with any of the bedrock fractures that cross the Sphinx. I am specifically referring to the surface of the Sphinx body that has been misidentified as erosion by precipitation. The fractures he is referring to were eroded by acidic groundwater long before the Sphinx was carved. This erosion predates the Sphinx and definitely was not produced by precipitation.
There exists a continuing problem of erosion on the side walls of the Sphinx enclosure caused by wicking groundwater. To what extent this has affected the lowest sections of the Sphinx is difficult to say as it has been covered with small repair blocks.
I also suspect Seyfzadeh is speaking for himself, not for proponents of rain- and run-off erosion in general.
“This fissure is mentioned by Lehner in his thesis.”
I suspect Seyfzadeh is referring to the Major Fissure. This fracture, or cave as I call it, was formed as acidic groundwater dissolved the limestone over millions of years. Seyfzadeh is right that Lehner mentions it in his dissertation. Lehner believes the Major Fissure was not discovered until during the construction process. Saying that its discovery is what forced the builders to elongate the Sphinx body, thus making the head appear too small. The Major Fissure is what Anyextee mistakenly describes as a hidden entrance to the Sphinx.
If I understand Seyfzadeh correctly, he believes the erosion of the bedrock fractures occurred following construction of the Sphinx. And that the erosion was caused by precipitation, not acidic groundwater. That is inconsistent with all of the geologic evidence. For instance, Robert Schoch and Thomas Dobeclki identified a weathered limestone beneath the Sphinx as part of a seismic investigation. The presence of a weathered limestone beneath the Sphinx was later confirmed by Lehner in a series of borings constructed as part of a dewatering system installed to protect the Sphinx from wicking groundwater.
“What Schneiker is not showing you is the north and south side of the body where you can still see a whole row of vertical channels, more so on the south side than the north side in keeping with Reader’s model that run-off was more important than rain and that a rain catchment surface is needed to produce the run-off.”
I am not ignoring the fractures. Like Lehner, I am pointing to them, and the evidence contained within them. What Seyfzadeh is not telling you is the “vertical channels” are bedrock fractures. Fractures are produced by tectonic processes, then widened by acidic groundwater. Seyfzadeh needs to look at photographs of the north and south sides of the Sphinx taken prior to the 1920s. He would discover he is wrong about the fractures being more numerous on the south side. Not that this has anything to do with erosion by precipitation or the age of the Sphinx.
“I ask you, is the back of the Sphinx level? Take a look for yourself. Not to me, but I have not been up there to measure if it is.”
Yes, the Sphinx back is nearly level as it follows a geologic bedding plane. There is however, a 5 to 10 degree dip to the south-east at Giza. This dip is obvious to anyone who has ever walked uphill from the Sphinx to the Great Pyramid of Khufu. The dip can easily be seen in any photograph of the Sphinx taken looking towards the west. The geologic beds dip below ground near the Valley Temple, in the south-east corner of the Sphinx enclosure.
“How would Schneiker explain more channels south than north?”
As I already wrote, Seyfzadeh is wrong about there being more fractures on the south side of the Sphinx. I wonder if he is actually referring to the southern wall of the Sphinx enclosure, and not the Sphinx itself. If so he is correct that the southern wall has experienced a greater degree of erosion by salty wicking groundwater. This is because of the bedding that dips to the south-east placing the softer limestone closer to the water table on the south side of the Sphinx enclosure.
If however, the erosion of the Sphinx enclosure was caused by precipitation as Seyfzadeh believes, then the north wall should exhibit a higher degree of erosion than the south wall.
That is unless Seyfzadeh has found a way for water to flow up hill and enter the Sphinx enclosure from the south.
“Regarding Schneiker's idea that the rough-pounded statue was immediately dressed with hewn blocks, where are the oldest ones he proposes except on the lowermost courses?”
Now I am mystified. Seyfzadeh starts his comments by saying he agrees with me. Then questions whether the Sphinx was “immediately dressed with hewn blocks”. This is core to my theory. You cannot have one without the other. Unless he is suggesting the ancient Egyptians left the Sphinx with the rough cut body we see today.
Seyfzadeh is right about the oldest and largest blocks being preserved on the lower sections of the Sphinx. This is not surprising as the Sphinx was buried in sand for most of the past 4,500 years. Protecting the lower blocks from looting. That the blocks have not eroded away is further evidence they were not eroded by precipitation.
“The bulk of the blocks, i.e. the smaller ones, are not from the Old Kingdom. He thinks the blocks were looted. Well then why weren't the smaller ones, the ones easier to carry?”
Seyfzadeh is correct that the bulk of the smaller blocks do not date to the Old Kingdom. It is well documented that they were applied during a series of repairs beginning more than 1,000 years later. This process of repairing the Sphinx with smaller blocks has continued throughout much of the last century. The question is whether the original larger blocks were looted or badly eroded. To answer the question as to why the small blocks were not looted is easy, they have replaced the larger blocks that had been looted.
“Regarding Schneiker's idea that the face of the Great Sphinx is not exact....I encourage you to look at the face of (very young appearing) Khafre on a bust displayed at the Metropolitean Museum of Art.”
I encourage Seyfzadeh to look at the face of the Sphinx again. There is no question that the facial features were adjusted to match the bedding planes.
“I actually differ here from Frank Domingo's facial analysis because he used a model of face of Khafre that must have shown him as an older adult. That's a pretty close match including the still present facial fat pads. Regardless, the face of the Sphinx does not date the whole statue, nor does it falsify the idea of a remodeling job. I think that goes without saying.”
Well put, the face cannot be used to date construction of the Sphinx. Again I suggest Seyfzadeh is speaking for himself and not others such as Schoch and West for whom the face is paramount. Which is why they had Domingo analyze the face in the first place.
As far as a larger head, that is impossible. First because of the limited thickness of the geologic layer from which the head was carved. Second because of the bedrock fractures, “channels” as he calls them, that cross the Sphinx. It was the size of a fracture free natural block of limestone, that became the head. That block determined the overall scale of the Sphinx.
So it does not seem that Seyfzadeh agrees with me after all. For him to truly agree, he needs to agree that there is no erosion by precipitation, on the Sphinx.
I would love to debate Seyfzadeh or anyone who claims the Sphinx is older. I tried with Randall Carlson who agreed to “go toe to toe”, never to be heard from again.
Thanks,
Robert Adam Schneiker, Geologist / Geophysicist, MS, PG
Hello Dr. Schneiker,
Your model, in a nutshell, proposes that vertically orientated defects of Member II rock are defects created by wicking of ground water long before the Sphinx was made and that the horizontal rolls and recesses, as Lehner calls them, are a result of pounding out the statue, does it not?
I will address each part separately, a) your critique of the water erosion model, and b) your model to explain the horizontal shelving.
a) I am not referring to the enclosure, obviously not. I watched your NOV22017 presentation. You do not focus your attention on the most relevant sections of the south mid back and haunch at layers 4 and 5, respectively, from Baraize's photo set. The fact that these small, vertically oriented channel-like defects are on the lower rock shelves is consistent, but does not per se' prove, with the idea that it is water run-off and not rain drops that did the damage. Reader and Schoch agree on this point. Rain mattered, but run-off mattered too. You can confirm with them which weighed heavier in their related models.
On those lower shelves, you can see vertical channels on the Sphinx that you need to explain with your proposal, not the three vertical fissures that cut the statue and to which Mark Lehner referred in his thesis as I indicated. I am well familiar with the Major Fissure. The other two fissures are described as follows by Lehner (see Mark Edward Lehner, 1991, Archaeology of an Image: Volume I, page 204.)
"Two other large fissures, or joints, cut the back and the
core body, although they do not open nearly as wide as that at
the waist. The first cuts across the back about 0.40 m to 0.50 m
from the back of the neck, and the second cuts across the back
another 9.3 m to 9.5 m further to the west (Fig 5.1). The first
of these may be the reason that the tail of the nemes headdress
is missing entirely; it must have split off exactly along the
line of this fissure."
To be clear as I can be, the vertical crack behind the neck you focus on in your presentation is not contested to be a water run-off erosion feature, not anyways by Robert Schoch as far as I know, but please e-mail him to ask yourself. I do not know what the polite term is for a strawman argument, but whatever the polite term is, you were making it...there, that's my jab back at you for what you say at 10 min which I thought was offensive. I know you were trying to make a joke, but you prejudiced your audience in this way at the cost of people like Robert Schoch and Thomas Dobecki who were among the very few who performed a controlled experiment by the Sphinx and procured real data. The emphasis is on "controlled." There nothing pseudo-scientifc, Atlantean, or Alien about it. I hope in the future you will refrain from ridicule like that, or else you won't get a response from me again. There is not such thing as a plausibility standard in science. Any model, no matter how implausible, can be correct if it explains the observations at hand and survives a falsification test and formal vetting exercise that none other, more or less plausible model, survives. The people who use plausibility and context arguments to adjudicate paradoxes are the actual pseudo-scientists. No, Dr. Schneiker, not all alternative historians think that Aliens did it. I sat in a lecture given by Mark Lehner after I sat next to him for over an hour. He was great. He was respectful. He did not ridicule me in his lecture in front of his peers even though I had just given him a challenge to his theory. He even referred to me in front of the audience when it came to a painted lion from the Wadi El-Jarf. This is how scientists debate. Please observe and join the cadre.
Back to a): Did you walk over to the rock-cut mastaba of Kai, or the quarry island left next to Khentkawes to see how those rock defects compare with what you call wicking damage on the Sphinx and Sphinx walls? If not, or if you have no other Old Kingdom standard, then the entire model is useless because it has no negative control, no time standard. What is the proximity to ground water of the mastaba of Kai versus the Great Sphinx? What is the vertical defect profile. How does its catchment base compare to the back of the Sphinx? These observations are more important than your one hour focus on the Sphinx because that is what tells about Giza in the Old Kingdom and onward. That is to which you must then compare what you observe on the Sphinx.
This morning, I checked Lehner's published elevations on the back of the Sphinx and to my eye, and Lehner states so, it is pretty flat. So I cannot make the case for a preferential run-off to the south but, on the other hand, south was also not disfavored by any rain fall pooling on the back and flowing over the sides down the rock tiers.
To clarify my stance: I go with the evidence, not a model, however if the proponent cannot produce a negative control I have nothing to work with.
"If I understand Seyfzadeh correctly, he believes the erosion of the bedrock fractures occurred following construction of the Sphinx. And that the erosion was caused by precipitation, not acidic groundwater. That is inconsistent with all of the geologic evidence. For instance, Robert Schoch and Thomas Dobeclki identified a weathered limestone beneath the Sphinx as part of a seismic investigation. The presence of a weathered limestone beneath the Sphinx was later confirmed by Lehner in a series of borings constructed as part of a dewatering system installed to protect the Sphinx from wicking groundwater."
You did not understand correctly, because you are focused on the fissures that Lehner already mapped in these based on the slides of you presentation, while I am focused on vertical defects, as I point out above, that you can see on the old photos made when the Sphinx was de-sanded by Baraize. Your statement of inconsistency, regardless, is dogmatic. You do not give an Old Kingdom Mokattam Member II time standard as a negative control. This is the single most fatal flaw in your argumentation. When you correct this flaw, we might actually have a basis from which to come to an agreement on something.
Lehner's drill cores were never formally published and so your statement is based on comments he made poking with a pencil into a core he picked up from a table in 2009. This was not a scientific investigation to map the seismic velocity profiles against a visual inspection of depth dependent slices of ditch rock at various points alone S1, S2, S3, and S4. In fact, this was a missed opportunity to do just that. And this is the problem of course, when you try to cram in a science experiment into a rescue mission. Even the attack angle of the drill was too shallow to actually be able to tap into the void signal predicted by seismic tomography, let alone the probe position 3 meters west of the toes. If Lehner really wanted to probe Anomaly A, he should have drilled where he put his signature on his high resolution map of the forecourt in front of the Sphinx. He should have used Dobecki and Schoch's data. This is how scientific experiments are done. You collaborate, especially with the ones who disagree with you.
b) Have you looked at the Member I shelve behind the masonry accessible via the sphinx tunnel in the back? That is where you may find some support for you idea that the statue was already horizontally shelved in the Old Kingdom.
Have you looked at the shelving from stone blocks at Khentkawes? Is that style consistent with your idea this was done at the Sphinx?
Have you seen the chisel marks into the western recesses? Can you explain why this was chiseled and not pounded?
Do you know that Lehner found chisels embedded in emplacements on Member I of the north wall?
Have you seen any chisel marks on the core of the Great Sphinx?
The Face: To Schoch and West it did not matter whose face the Sphinx wears because their model predicts that the head was re-carved in the Old Kingdom, not carved de novo. They questioned the Reisner/Hassan/Ricke/Hawass/Lehner model that Khafre made the Sphinx from the ground up and that is why they consulted with Frank Domingo. In my opinion, that is actually the face of young Khafre compared to the bust I mentioned. No matter the bedding, that is a damn close facial match. In any case, this facial match is in line with other evidence I myself together with Schoch and Bauval, and in Under the Sphinx have published that a lioness statue called Mehit was remodeled into the Sphinx under Khafre. This takes me to one of your assumptions that there was no written reference to the monument. I falsify this notion with hieroglyphic evidence at your disposal. Of course you can debate the evidence, but my model makes a testable prediction and Mark Lehner knows how do perform this test.
Dear Robert Schneiker,
Thank you for watching my video documentary on the Sphinx.
If I am wrong I am happy to admit that I am wrong and I will stand corrected. However, I am not seeing how I made any mistake by calling the Major Fissure that runs through the back of the Sphinx a “hidden entrance”.
I can appreciate your concern for the semantics but according to Merriam Webster’s dictionary:
“hidden” is defined as “being out of sight or not readily apparent”.
“entrance” is defined as “the means or place of entry”.
Correct me if I am wrong but to the best of my knowledge one could enter “inside” the interior of the Sphinx through this major fissure that you call a “cave”. There are accounts from antiquity of people entering the “cave” inside the Sphinx. A ladder extends from this natural entrance inside the Sphinx. If one were to open the trap door on its back, one could climb down through this natural entrance into the “cave”. This action would require an “entrance”.
From ground level within the enclosure the major fissure on the back of the Sphinx is not readily apparent. It is out of sight from ground level from within the enclosure. Furthermore, the “cave” has been concealed by an iron door. Therefore this fissure, that you call a “cave” qualifies as hidden according to standard definition.
Im unclear if your issue with with my use of the word “hidden” or “entrance” but clearly its semantics and I don’t see how using either word or the combination of each constitutes a “mistake”.
If I have something confused, please do let me know. Until then, I am confident in referring to the now concealed and out of sight “cave” as a “hidden entrance”.
I have a sense of humor too, but what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.
If we are going to wear our word-police hats, then the words in the transcript of your presentation need to be called into question. I am unaware of any Geologist that claims an older date for the Sphinx because “refugees from Atlantis immigrated from Mars”. To conflate the work of those who you oppose with the likes of ancient astronaut theorists is a mistake. I suspect that you were either attempting to add humor to your presentation or bias your audience or a combination of the two, but in the interest of fairness, to be clear that is not what “they’re pretty much saying” as you have mistakenly stated in your presentation.
Giving credit where credit is due, It was West and not “they” as you have mistakenly identified in your comment above who had Frank Domingo analyze the face. The face of the Sphinx was merely an aspect of West’s work, not paramount.
Thank you.
Anyextee
@@Anyextee Anyextee,
Thanks for the comments.
From what I have seen of your work you do a much better job than most in presenting an unbiased description of the evidence. So it is not so much that you are wrong. I guess I expected more. To talk about the Major Fissure without mentioning its significance on the proportions of the Sphinx body and head as described by Lehner seems an obvious omission. Especially, given the significance alternative historians place on those proportions.
Describing the Major Fissure as a “hidden entrance” seems a bit deceptive. For it is neither hidden, nor is it an entrance. The word “hidden” implies it is being kept secret. Given that the cave formed over millions of years by acidic groundwater the blocks must have been part of the original sculpture no matter when it was made. It seems wrong to me to call what was part of the Sphinx from the start hidden. While the word “Entrance” implies it goes some where, which it does not.
Terminology matters. I spent a lot of time on exactly how to describe the Major Fissure to people who are not familiar with it. I finally settled on “cave” as it indicates a natural opening in bedrock large enough for a person to enter. Which is exactly what it is. You can read my newsletter on the Major Fissure and its implications on the proportions of the Sphinx at this link. Please let me know what you think of it.
www.robertschneiker.com/thunderbird.htm
By the way Hawass is not the only person to have entered the Major Fisher. Lehner once had himself lowered head first, dangling on a rope, to see what he could find.
“I have a sense of humor too, but what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.
If we are going to wear our word-police hats, then the words in the transcript of your presentation need to be called into question. I am unaware of any Geologist that claims an older date for the Sphinx because “refugees from Atlantis immigrated from Mars”. To conflate the work of those who you oppose with the likes of ancient astronaut theorists is a mistake. I suspect that you were either attempting to add humor to your presentation or bias your audience or a combination of the two, but in the interest of fairness, to be clear that is not what “they’re pretty much saying” as you have mistakenly stated in your presentation.”
It is no mistake. There are plenty of people who actually believe that immigrants from Mars have traveled to Earth. I have met them. Personally I do not find that any more farfetched than believing a lost civilization built the Sphinx. There are people who disagree with your view, they would consider it an omission on my part had I not mentioned Mars.
If however, you provide evidence of where the lost civilization came from and proved they did not come from Mars, I would stop mentioning Mars and even apologize for bringing it up.
“Giving credit where credit is due, It was West and not “they” as you have mistakenly identified in your comment above who had Frank Domingo analyze the face. The face of the Sphinx was merely an aspect of West’s work, not paramount.”
I could not agree more. Raising as many mysteries as possible no matter how irrelevant instead of sticking to the pertinent evidence is wrong.
Thank you.
Robert Adam Schneiker
Seyfzadeh and Anyextee, I have a question for both of you. We know precipitation fell on Northern Africa during the African Humid Period producing dramatically higher Nile River flows from 14,500-5,500 years ago. Even today, if not for the Aswan Dam, sitting at just 20 m above sea level, the Sphinx enclosure would occasionally be inundated during the annual floods. This means that had the Sphinx been constructed thousands of years earlier, then it is not precipitation that would have eroded the Sphinx, it would have been the Nile River. This is a huge problem as rivers produce far more erosion than precipitation. I wonder by what means you believe it possible for the Sphinx to have survived while sitting in a river for 9,000 years? Your answer would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Robert Adam Schneiker
@@ManuSeyfzadeh Seyfzadeh, thanks for the comments. I appreciate the time it takes to write. On top of that it seems no matter how clear the text seems, a totally different interpretation is read. Still we need to try communicating.
I am breaking my comments up as I’m getting an error message when posting.
“Your model, in a nutshell, proposes that vertically orientated defects of Member II rock are defects created by wicking of ground water long before the Sphinx was made and that the horizontal rolls and recesses, as Lehner calls them, are a result of pounding out the statue, does it not?”
No, you do not seem to understand what I am saying about when and how the erosion occurred. Yes, you are correct that I believe “the horizontal rolls and recesses” of the Member II limestone were part of the construction process.
Erosion by acidic groundwater and wicking groundwater are two completely different and totally unrelated processes. Erosion by acidic groundwater occurs beneath the water table in what is called the saturated zone. The acid forms as CO2 dissolves in groundwater in a O2 depleted environment. Acidic groundwater has ben eroding the limestone over millions of years. It has nothing to do with the Sphinx. Even if the Sphinx had never been built the limestone would have been eroded by acidic groundwater.
Erosion by wicking groundwater, on the other hand, occurs above the water table in what is called the unsaturated zone. Erosion by wicking groundwater was first turned on following construction of the Sphinx 4,500 years ago. If the Sphinx had never been built then there would be no erosion by wicking groundwater. The wicking was turned on when the floor of the Sphinx enclosure encountered the capillary rise zone above the water table. Exposed to the hot desert sun the water began to evaporate. Groundwater replenished the capillary zone as fast as the water evaporated. Salt dissolved in the water accumulated in soil pores near the surface as water evaporates. Pressure builds as crystals grow, eventually the rock flakes off producing erosion. Wicking was turned off whenever the Sphinx enclosure filled with sand. Which was the case for most of the past 4,500 years. Today the enclosure is kept sand free for tourism, so the wicking is turned on.
Neither mode of erosion has anything to do with precipitation.
“I am not referring to the enclosure, obviously not. I watched your NOV22017 presentation. You do not focus your attention on the most relevant sections of the south mid back and haunch at layers 4 and 5, respectively, from Baraize's photo set. The fact that these small, vertically oriented channel-like defects are on the lower rock shelves is consistent, but does not per se' prove, with the idea that it is water run-off and not rain drops that did the damage. Reader and Schoch agree on this point. Rain mattered, but run-off mattered too. You can confirm with them which weighed heavier in their related models.
On those lower shelves, you can see vertical channels on the Sphinx that you need to explain with your proposal, not the three vertical fissures that cut the statue and to which Mark Lehner referred in his thesis as I indicated. I am well familiar with the Major Fissure. The other two fissures are described as follows by Lehner (see Mark Edward Lehner, 1991, Archaeology of an Image: Volume I, page 204.)”
I am so pleased you bring up the shelves. I agree with Lehner’s speculation that the shelves were deliberately carved such that the Phase I blocks could be stacked to cover the weathered Member II limestone that had been pounded back. It seems Lehner and I disagree as to whether the Member II limestone was pounded or had been eroded back. For my part I cannot conceive of a natural process that could create such a flat surface, with an angular contact. Keep in mind that the shelf cuts a meter back in the horizontal direction, but nothing in the vertical direction.
"Two other large fissures, or joints, cut the back and the core body, although they do not open nearly as wide as that at the waist. The first cuts across the back about 0.40 m to 0.50 m from the back of the neck, and the second cuts across the back another 9.3 m to 9.5 m further to the west (Fig 5.1). The first of these may be the reason that the tail of the nemes headdress is missing entirely; it must have split off exactly along the line of this fissure."
Exactly, just as the tail of the nemes is missing, so would the back of a larger head.
“To be clear as I can be, the vertical crack behind the neck you focus on in your presentation is not contested to be a water run-off erosion feature, not anyways by Robert Schoch as far as I know, but please e-mail him to ask yourself.”
I totally disagree. The fracture behind the neck is a textbook example of erosion by acidic groundwater.
There is no hint of erosion by precipitation. If you insist on precipitation, then at a minimum you need to provide a plausible explanation as to why it is not as wide as the Major Fissure since you claim both were eroded by the same precipitation.
“I do not know what the polite term is for a strawman argument, but whatever the polite term is, you were making it...there, that's my jab back at you for what you say at 10 min which I thought was offensive. I know you were trying to make a joke, but you prejudiced your audience in this way at the cost of people like Robert Schoch and Thomas Dobecki who were among the very few who performed a controlled experiment by the Sphinx and procured real data.
Oh man, great topic.
Is it insane to hope for CZcams history content creators to assemble a superteam in order to fight obscurantism?
Can I be Batman?
You start wearing your undies over your trousers your Batman. 😎
@@WorldofAntiquity If Stefan is Robin
@@andypowell4538 Isn't that Superman?
Geologist here. I've taught University geo-archaeology and researched on many geo-arch projects. I have followed your channel, and well appreciate your studied approach which avoids adding yet another layer of bs to a field frought with that. Thanks for the great review.
Very good video, David. You’ve summed up the geological arguments really well and showed how it’s a complicated set of factors contributing to the erosion patterns. Good work!
Thanks, Matt!
Matt, you are one of the last archaeological CZcamsrs that I continue to watch (thanks to this World of Antiquity channel).. This comment perfectly exemplifies why! RESPECT TO YOU!
There is no argument over how old the Sphinx is between 'genuine' Geologists who aren't being threated with funding cuts or career destruction by peer pressure!
Anyone with an open mind can see the significant degree of 'Water Erosion' on the sides of the Sphinx enclosure, an enclosure that was 'Buried In Sand' for thousands of years. We all understand, no one, including the Old Kingdom of Egypt would 'Restore' something that had 'Just Been Built', IE. Band New. The Sphinx was therefore already ancient during the time frame main stream academia says it was constructed. Our school children are taught the current historical time frame from narratives and pictures in text books as if it were a proven 'fact'. Yet the 'Material Evidence' etched into the very ground the Sphinx sits in is clear, the Sphinx is factually 'at least' 10,000 years old and possibly thousands of years older than that. The only people 'disagreeing' with the irrefutable 'Material Evidence' are people who say things such as 'I don't believe in Radar', a quote courtesy of Zahi Hawass, former head of Egyptian Antiquities, and people who run CZcams channels dedicated to upholding the academic 'Status Quo', such as 'World of Antiquity'. Academically trained and intelligent people who aren't influenced by 'Funding' or 'Peer pressure', such as Brien Forester, Ben from Uncharted X and Praveen Mohan are slowly but surely forcing the rest of academia to revisit past 'Dating of Antiquities', reassessing the current 'Paradigms' in light of new and compelling 'Material Evidence'. Evidence such as hundreds, if not thousands of years of 'Water Erosion' in a place where there has been no water for at least 9,000 years. Gobekli Tepe, including the new and even older finds coming out of Turkey have 'Forced' a very reluctant 'Historical Academia' to reassess the current time lines of Human civilization and development in that area. So, why is it so 'Difficult' for 'Historical Academia' to embrace Geologists, Engineers, Professional Stone masons etc. to 'reassess' the time frame and the constructions of ancient Egypt based on their new and compelling evidence a lot of the new evidence, such as the 'Water Erosion', has years of sound scientific research supporting it.
@@polygonalmasonary Which "genuine" geologists are you referring to? Robert Shoch, right? Who else?
@@polygonalmasonary Putting your faith into the opinions of the "It LOOKS like this..."-the crowd is not a more reliable way of sorting out the truth. That kind of "research actually doesn't require any research at all, no peer review which actually tells you which parts of your hypothesis are flawed or inconsistent with the body of evidence If you aren't interested in knowing if you're wrong about things, that's called a religion. Claiming that "academics are just trying to save their jobs" or something like that is just a pure fabrication that you only keep repeating because these non-scientific cult leaders have told you not to trust them. It's funny that they should want to destroy your trust with the very people who could quickly point out all the counter-evidence that these alternative history charlatans decided to not mention to you.. If your advanced ancient civilization before the younger dryas EXISTED it would be in the archaeological record just before the Younger Dryas, but all we find are the hunter-gather sites. How do you explain that....
Wow I'd never heard the last guy before. Brilliant, makes a lot of sense.
The erosion was already at the body, never intended to be seen. This would make a lot of sense as its similar to the pyramids. The outer stones are done nicely, while a lot of inner stones are just a filler with morter and done to fill a void.
Great channel mate.
I really enjoy your videos Stefan... Keep up the great work !
Well done! So many “debunking” videos are full of snarky and pretentious commentary, so I appreciate that you just stick to presenting the facts in a friendly, interesting, and informative way. Great work.
Thank you!
Im perfectly happy with snark if its funny and aimed at bullshit promoters.
Like 30 years now we can watch that erosion. Because an enlighted archéologist claim to discover that 10 years ago, its now the number one subject for ignorants who want make the buz, the food for putaclic !
There is no argument over how old the Sphinx is between 'genuine' Geologists who aren't being threated with funding cuts or career destruction by peer pressure!
Anyone with an open mind can see the significant degree of 'Water Erosion' on the sides of the Sphinx enclosure, an enclosure that was 'Buried In Sand' for thousands of years. We all understand, no one, including the Old Kingdom of Egypt would 'Restore' something that had 'Just Been Built', IE. Band New. The Sphinx was therefore already ancient during the time frame main stream academia says it was constructed. Our school children are taught the current historical time frame from narratives and pictures in text books as if it were a proven 'fact'. Yet the 'Material Evidence' etched into the very ground the Sphinx sits in is clear, the Sphinx is factually 'at least' 10,000 years old and possibly thousands of years older than that. The only people 'disagreeing' with the irrefutable 'Material Evidence' are people who say things such as 'I don't believe in Radar', a quote courtesy of Zahi Hawass, former head of Egyptian Antiquities, and people who run CZcams channels dedicated to upholding the academic 'Status Quo', such as 'World of Antiquity'. Academically trained and intelligent people who aren't influenced by 'Funding' or 'Peer pressure', such as Brien Forester, Ben from Uncharted X and Praveen Mohan are slowly but surely forcing the rest of academia to revisit past 'Dating of Antiquities', reassessing the current 'Paradigms' in light of new and compelling 'Material Evidence'. Evidence such as hundreds, if not thousands of years of 'Water Erosion' in a place where there has been no water for at least 9,000 years. Gobekli Tepe, including the new and even older finds coming out of Turkey have 'Forced' a very reluctant 'Historical Academia' to reassess the current time lines of Human civilization and development in that area. So, why is it so 'Difficult' for 'Historical Academia' to embrace Geologists, Engineers, Professional Stone masons etc. to 'reassess' the time frame and the constructions of ancient Egypt based on their new and compelling evidence a lot of the new evidence, such as the 'Water Erosion', has years of sound scientific research supporting it.
@@polygonalmasonary Have you even watched this video that THOROUGHLY debunks the assertions of the Uncharted X channel? You think he's "forcing the rest of academia to revisit past datings"? He's doing no such thing. Watch this. I dare you. then tell me why this debunking can just be dismissed away. czcams.com/video/n_NguZUDku4/video.html
This gentlemen deserves way more subscribers.
The worst joke I heard about the sphinx and people arguing about how old she was is.
"So she's legal then?"
My favorite history/archeology channel, well done Dr.Miano.
The pinned comment thread below is incredible, a master class in Egyptian geology, by far the most thorough discussion of any Egyptology/geology topic on CZcams!
Man, I was just rewatching your videos on the eye of the sahara relating to atlantis, very happy to see you upload!
Another great video. This channel and it's host are very scientifically reliable.
How'd I miss this one? Good thing you posted a poll that reminded me to check what videos you have out
Finally! A great scientific discussion about the topic!
The brick veneer always being a part of the sphinx is such an amazing observation. It makes sense considering the pyramids also had white limestone veneers. This information is so exciting. It’s way better than any speculation on aliens or prehistoric civilization, because instead of blurring the picture and dismissing all the available evidence, each piece of evidence combines to form a nearly complete picture.
Once mentioned it seems silly to assume its finish was not covered in nice casing, but im still not sure how thats congruent with the face carving....certainly this channel make think too much oog make brain work
Actually makes perfect sense. People who designed and built it were a lot more practical, than many believe. Bricks were abundantly available and it would make sense to use them, as there weren't any tools that would make a smooth surface possible for such a large structure.
@@VargVikernes1488- Certainly not a smooth surface in a reasonable amount of time.
@@VargVikernes1488 That is how they’ve always done it and how they still do it today. If you see a castle or a cathedral it isn’t solid perfect blocks all the way through, that is just the outside layer, behind that is rubble. Makes no sense to spend all that time and money on something nobody is ever going to see.
Besides if it was aliens or ancient advanced civilization, wouldn't they have more refined construction methods than quarried irregular stone?
Excellent video! I thoroughly enjoyed it!
I always enjoy the pacing of your videos. Just the right speed for the curious but not too slow to lose interest. Also your audio quality is good because you've got a lot of tongue twisters and words that normally have harsh S and P sounds but I never have issues with yours here.
Over the years Schoch has somewhat gone off the deep end, maybe to sell more books, but his initial findings were solid and many other geologists agreed with him. His main point back then was pretty simple: erosion on the Sphinx is from rain, not desert conditions. Therefore three main possibilities exist. Either climatologists are wrong about how long Egypt has been a desert, geologists are wrong about erosion on limestone, or historians are wrong about how old Egyptian civilization truly is. Historians claiming they know more about erosion than geologists is like an electrician thinking he knows more than any plumber about fixing toilets.
The Sahara goes green roughly every 11,000 years with the Milankovich cycles. And so the land forms in Egypt have been exposed to millions of years of rain erosion over the previous wet cycles. What is so hard to understand about this?
Did you know that Nile Crocodiles still cling to life in the middle of the Sahara? They've been isolated there for 6,000+ years, eating nothing but insects. If humans don't kill them all, they'll still be there when the Sahara goes green again.
Time is enough to confuse most people. Even supposedly smart ones.
A wide range of people in various fields, including geology, have disagreed with schoch or at least produced research that is at odds with his study of the Sphinx. Presenting things as historians vs. Geology is a false dichotomy.
He forgot there is always another option of "we seem to be missing some piece" in this case the body possibly always having been rough cut
Hahaha yeah, I know a few "electricians" like that
The Egyptian Civilization may be much older than surmised. It is possible that another civilization that predated the Egyptians built something there and they just built over it or modified it. Lots of civilizations build over older monuments. Another point..... There would have to have been water there to move such large blocks across to build this.
love all your videos, just subscribed. this is the first time i have ever subscribed to any channel.
Thank you!
Just found your channel today and have been stuck here for hours. Thanks for the videos
You're welcome!
Hey, fairly new to your channel (found you through Stefan) and the debunk videos are great. I was wondering if you ever considered (or pardon me if I've missed them) making videos about what we really do know about Gobekli Tepi et al. I think these sites show that there is massive interest in history like this, it would be a shame for all of the buzz to be about "ancient high technology or not."
Good suggestion. I may do that.
Graham Hancock claims the Great Sphinx is a symbol of the Leo constellation, which it was facing when he believes it was built in 10,000 BC. Trouble is, Hellenic astrology didn't arrive in Egypt until Alexander's time around 330 BC.
Haha. When I heard him say that I was like, wait, you mean they would have had the same zodiac? Does he think that's somehow universal?
Plus, like Von daniken says, a sphinx is always two different animals so not once a lion like Hancock reckons.
@@jdjdl8660 Von Daniken is a proto Hancock, both exploiting pseudo archeology fans.
I love this, updated theories and immediate responses from each side 👍
Extremely well done, really is food for thought.
Thx once again, great job👍
Great video, thanks! (I'm here from Ancient Architects' link.)
Thanks for coming by!
@World of Antiquity I am only 18 minutes into your video, but I have to say, the theory that the outer brick layer is part of the original design sounds very plausible to me given the fact that both the Khufu and Chafre pyramids make use of the underlying bedrock as part of the bottom layers of their structures. It appears to me that a similar method was employed with the Sphinx. The main difference being that in the case of the Sphinx most of it is bedrock, while the pyramids have a far smaller percentage of bedrock in their design. Very similar idea, though. Would you agree?
Wonderful video. The amount of detail and scholarly expertise loaded into a 20 minute video essay is impressive. Humbling.
Thank you so much for this. Very well done. Great Channel.
Imho Harrell's theory completely ignores the surrounding walls. As we know the sphinx has been carved out of the bedrock. Huge pieces of bedrock has been quarried and been used to build the sphinx temple and the valley temple. Taking a look at the walls that surround the sphinx you realize the same weathering on the surface disregarding its geographical direction.
Schneiker has a real good point instead, bricks might got lost or looted. Due to the fact that the sphinx has been burried to the neck most of the time the looting must have occured close to its creation (which would also fit other theories on looting the pyramids).
On the other hand his theory would increase the sphinx' body size and make the head look even smaller. The current proportions already led to discussions about the origin of the face/head.
Not one of these guys dumped a water bottle on it or tried to stick a piece of paper between the blocks. How is this science? ;)
Top comment of the day so far. Haha.
🤣
That made me laugh Josh. "you can't fit a human hair between the blocks" is another scientific statement.....peace to ya.
They also didn't put a set square on it and told you it was perfect when we could clearly see the angle wasn't even close to 90 degrees. One of the funniest Brien Foerster lies of all time. :)
Clearly the Sphinx’s age can easily be determined by adding the number of times sunrises exactly between its paws during leap years adding the number of the colours in your Chakra minus the Summer Solstice occurring when there is a full Moon plus the number of shooting stars when Uranus is bending over the horizon plus the number you first thought of and divided by the number of eyelashes around the eye of Horus.😉
Very interesting. I shall now binge watch this channel.
Wonderful summary! Thank you!
I would like to see more investigation into the possibility that the ancient Egyptians deliberately rerouted runoff from other building sites and purposely flooded the enclosure for use as a water reservoir. Not only would a pool surrounding the sphinx in antiquity look cool, it would have had practical use. This might contribute to some of the "extreme" weathering we see.
I would also be interested to hear your thoughts on Schoch's seismic work that suggests a chamber may be present underneath on of the Sphinx paws?
I think the evidence that the subterranean chamber is a ram pump is convincing, so there was almost certainly a reservoir there around the Sphinx.
But isn't the erosion evident of water run-off and not flooding
Interesting, I hadn't heard the one about it having a brick façade which was looted away, but that makes a lot of sense that it would have shared the same fate as the monuments around it. Not a huge leap in assumption, and it makes the whole structure make a lot more sense to me.
Very informative video! The overall design with the bricks covering the roughed out lion body makes perfect sense.
Thank you for this summary.
This is the first Debunk video of yours I've caught at launch since being caught up on all your back catalog! These are terrific! Debunk video's are what grew Thunderf00t to over a million subscriptions. I wish similar success to yourself you clearly deserve it! I found out about your channel by word of mouth after I was complaining about misinformation on Uncharted X channel while also praising his channel for amazing footage of Ancient Sites. Another viewer told me to check your channel out 2 months ago and I went all the way down the rabbit hole of TRUTH!
Thank you for your hard work!
Thanks for watching!
what misinfo was on Uncharted X? Be careful throwing that word around these days. I'd say that Ben is an extremely reliable and trust worthy source of info and if he get's it wrong. it's not intentional
@@kklh7918 Ben is bad at pushing misinformation and then when challenged he deleted comments.
@@swirvinbirds1971 an argument without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
@@kklh7918 and what did you do in your post I was responding to exactly?
One thing I like to add, not sure and I havent seen it being discounted as yet.
Since the Nile used to flood every year for a few month, and we know there was water ways all the way to the pyramids.
Why wouldnt the nile flood the sphinx?
The flood water might settle at a lower level that doesnt cover it but if the water was coming in, it surely would have reached higher parts then recede. Hence water run off erosion.
Also, it would explain why the body has water erosion but not the head or the pyramids, simply higher areas.
How wonderful it is, that this video brought out so much time consuming replies!! This reflects on you and how the people mentioned in the video respect you!! As always David, another GREAT video!!!
Thanks for this video.
New to your channel, loving it so far. This Sphinx rainwater erosion hypothesis was what hooked me on alternative history when I was much younger, seemed reasonably hard to argue with at the time to my young mind. But then I found a book that suggested it was caused by damp sand leeching salts out of the limestone and causing flaking, and that pretty much killed the idea for me and alternative history in general. I began to appreciate the importance of assessing the totality of evidence, not just one side, and to be wary of people with agendas. They are very good at selectively editing things to give their ideas weight in the minds of the uninformed. The idea that the Sphinx body itself was never smooth cut is new to me and it's definitely another plausible explanation for the undulating pattern.
New to me too and good information. Also makes much more sense. To it does appear the Sphinx and pyramids were built between 3000 BCE and 2500 BCE as originally dated. And those claiming 800,000 years ago are nuts, lol
That book is wrong. Schoch is an actual geologist, you need to get back into "alternative" a.k.a. ACTUAL history
@@alanlloyd9986 The rainwater erosion hypothesis leaves out a crucial detail - the head. Where is the evidence of rainwater erosion on the head? Personally, I see none. Feel to show me a photo of what you believe to be evidence of rainwater erosion if you can supply one. I would expect the alleged kind of rainfall that made such an impact on the enclosure and body to have made a similar impact on the head. After all, it is the same piece of stone. Even if one were to argue the head was recarved, I would argue in turn that should the furrows on the body and enclosure be repeated on the head, then there would not be much of a head left to recarve.
All one can see is striations entirely consistent with windblown sand. The Sphinx was up to it's neck in sand for a big chunk of it's life, giving the sand plenty of time to cut into the head, and the damp sand to flake off the stone around the enclosure and on the body. Or alternatively as David suggests in his video, the enclosure and body were never smooth in the first place, and were made smooth with casing stones that have since been stolen away. This has the added bonus of being consistent with the historical evidence built up over the years.
So what's more likely - that the assessment of the historical evidence is correct about when the Sphinx was carved, and either the leeching or "never smooth" hypothesis backs this up and explains the undulating erosion pattern. Or that Schoch is correct, it was carved thousands of years ago by a civilisation that has somehow left essentially no hard evidence of it's existence and the head somehow mysteriously avoided the same rainwater erosion that so badly affected the same piece of rock mere meters away? Call me boring if you must, but I am going to stick with the whole "totality of evidence" thing I mentioned in my original post.
@@JMurdochNZ would you be prepared to discuss this verbally? Because you don't really seem to provide evidence for your claims.
@@JMurdochNZ im not necessarily disagree with your statements, but i dont know what is the technology left by the egyptians that explains how they built their temples, sphynx, and pyramids either. Can you tell me? Im really curious
I might just have to pick up that book. I've long since given up trying to explain to people why my passion in ancient history has any value, even my history teachers, who scoff at the fact that almost all of the periods of history that capture my interest either predate writing, or only have writing systems we have not yet been able to decipher, and in some cases ones we have little to no hope of ever deciphering. .
Excellent.
When I find footage of Giza I always look for footage of the surrounding area. Assuming the massive rainfall of previous ages fell over the larger area,not just the Giza Plateau,then wouldn’t the erosion patterns of the Sphinx enclosure be the similar elsewhere? Rather than focus on Sphinx for 12500 Year old date wouldn’t a similar topography and strata in the region be a simple control?
If the enclosure is shaped by 12500 years of weathering then the entire region would be shaped by the same forces.
Oops, meant to leave a comment not a reply.
Excellent! This raises more questions to be answered. Very interesting indeed.
Awesome compilation and analysis of facts which seem to lead to completely different conclusions until examined in context together. This is a must-watch for anyone who thinks they have a right conclusion about our ol Sphinx!
What was that ---- the creation of the Sphinx is linked in some way to Gobekli Tepe? I'm unpersuaded. Isn't the Sphinx wearing a pharonic head covering? That's dynastic Egyptian, not stone age.
It certainly resembles the virgo 'bear' symbol from Gobekli Tepe. And what are the odds of it being accidentally built so close to the Nile, which resembles the scorpius symbol? I bet at least 20 million to 1.
I suggest that the proto-Egyptians built the sphinx, then travelled to Gobekli Tepe, built the site there, then travelled back to Egypt.
It really is a pity that so much erosion took place in the intervening years. The older, more sophisticated, writings at the sphinx site would, no doubt, explain much about the younger dryas impact event.
;-)
@@Deipnosophist_the_Gastronomer Well-done parody! You nailed how Graham Hancock talks.
Once again our Mythbuster Professor has made my brain hurt. Oedipusial geologic riddle busting, is there a archeological or historical follow up? Super superb and so Sphinxy! Thanks Dr David for your work, Merry Christmas and have a awesome 2021.
Yes, there will be a followup!
I adore your videos. They should be made essential viewing in all schools worldwide
Aw, thanks!
wow....this was enlightening. thank you!
Great video! Do you know if anyone in modern times has cut into the bedrock just outside the Sphinx Enclosure as a test? It seems this would provide some needed clarity on all of these theories. If a test pit were cut into the bedrock as close as permissibly possible, the condition of the newly exposed stone could be compared to that which has long been exposed.
Good question! I have not heard of any attempt to do this.
Not even a core sample?
@@tricks4trades795 I have heard of some taken on the floor of the enclosure, but not just outside of it.
@@WorldofAntiquity Do you have any information on this experiment? Maybe a link to an article/video?
I know Mark Lehner conducted them (they were shown being taken in a documentary), but when the samples were shipped to go be analyzed, they were lost. No one seems to know what happened to them.
Excellent video. Thanks.
My two cents worth is why the exclusive focus on the Sphinx enclosure? Wouldn’t finding a similar topography where the strata are at similar levels.
Assuming the rainfall 12500 years ago was the same over the wider region as the area of the Sphinx and associated temple. Then as a control look for closest analogous areas.
In the past I would imagine sites such as Giza, Thebes etc were more manicured.
At the temple of Seti traces of the brightly painted walls remain.
Living sites rather than ruins.
A big assumption not outlandish might the use of water wheels or Archimedes screw to bring water to the site for gardens or pools. There’s evidence for Archimedes screw in Babylon prior to Archimedes.
Either way ancient sites where once living sites and human activity would effect water erosion and weathering.
In short if Sphinx enclosure shaped by natural weathering then it would seen elsewhere in the region.
The rain on the plain would be pretty much the same and not only only the few square kilometres at Giza. Or few hundred square metres of Sphinx enclosure.
SGD I’m super curious as to what your guess would be for the age of the Sphinx?
@@jagger9261 The same as the real archaeologists who have dated its construction to approximately 4,500 years ago.
I was wondering the exact same thing. No response, tough 😶
@@jagger9261 No idea at all. I can only go what others better versed in the subject have to say. Even amongst them there is disagreement.
But if i had to bet I'd put my money on it not being older. Since all the footage of nearby and surrounding regions doesn't show that type of erosion.
@@luciferfernandez7094 ahh, i never got the notifications from this thread until yours. I did answer now.
I don't think it's old but my opinion isn't one that anybody should be citing.
Excellent analysis.
Brilliant work
Nicely presented. One thing that occurred to me is that the site was no doubt a quarry before it was a monument. Could it not have been quarried at an earlier time, then returned to when somebody saw potential for the sculpture?
Possibly
Great video, well done. Although Geology didn't provide a certain date, its always good to include actual science to assist in answering these questions. I guess the best thing to try and do (no matter what side of the argument you lean to) is keep in mind any of these theories could be correct, so be open minded, do our research but be respectful of opposing points of view. Egyptologist and archaeologists have the same trouble finding an agreement in the date also, dating back to Budge (at least).
I feel Mirsolav Verner phrased it well when he said "The Great Sphinx of Giza is more than simply a symbol of ancient and modern Egypt. It is the very embodiment of antiquity and mystery itself"
No. Sorry. The idea the Sphinx was made more than 5,000 years ago is NOT a theory, or even a hypothesis. Nothing appears in the archeological record without a supporting system of infrastructure and culture.
A theory would need to find a myriad of evidence to support the claim, and to date, no one has produced anything to challenge the existing theory except some weathering. All extra-ordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them.
There is literally no way a scientific approach can justify any age other than that proposed by science so far: 4,520 years.
And by definition, anything else is pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo - which is the speciality of all the LAHT promoters.
@@Chris.Davies you ask for a myriad of scientific evidence to support the claim it could be older, then rest your case on science dating the Spinx to being 4500 and go as far as using an exact number, 4520 years old. You are referencing what as science for dating the Sphinx, the dating of the Sphinx temple? As dating from the Sphinx itself is very problematic. There is no record or mention of the Sphinx being built by Khafre in Egyptian texts. Even Selim Hassan said we attribute the Sphinx to Kahfre but do it with reservation, as there is not one single contemporary inscription that links the Sphinx to Khafre (referencing Khaf found on the stela as proving nothing). It's all speculation based on interpretation of evidence on both sides, that's the point.
No hypothesis? Schoch and Reader both have an hypothesis based on their interpretation of the geological evidence.
Sorry, but many of these so-called "theories" are nothing of the sort.
A theory is the gold standard in science. A theory makes predictions about future discoveries and explains ALL the facts.
What you are calling "theories" are in fact best described as "garbage ideas" and nothing more.
@@Chris.Davies Again with semantics instead of content. You are correct they are not theories, they are ideas. Why say sorry? As if you saying they are garbage is the final ruling on the matter. You describing them as garbage just proves what type of person you are, have you actually read any of the books, papers or watched any of the videos going through these ideas you dismiss as garbage? If you haven't how can you actually have a valid view on this? They are ideas based on actual scientists interpretation of evidence, not Egyptologists or historians interpretation of existing text, because none exisits regarding the Sphinx. The dream Stele doesn't prove anything.
The Sphinx is clearly and rightfully disputed in age, if you cannot accept it, that is just a reflection of your stubborn 'beliefs' and nothing more. Go read the multiple papers at Academia.edu around this subject before dismissing the idea.
Excellent work in summarizing the debate between respectable geologist on the age of the Sphynx and how it may have been produced. I agree with you and the last geologist that the body of the monument may have been carved out of already eroded limestone. The problem we face is the obvious when it was done (?). I am leaning toward Mr. reader's assessment. Thank you for another excellent video. I have always been a skeptic due to what I perceive as a lack of evidence for the technology that I believe is missing for much of the worlds ancient structures. At least here you are winning this skeptic over.
Seyfzadeh and Anyextee, I will try asking my question again as it seems to have been misunderstood. As a background to my question I first present a few facts about the Sphinx. Next I indicate that I agree with Randall Carlson’s assessment about a major Nile River flow regime change and what that meant to anything in the Nile River Valley.
• The floor of the Sphinx enclosure is at an elevation of 65.6 feet above sea level.
• The top of the Sphinx head is at an elevation of 131.2 feet above sea level.
• The Nile River side gradient to the Sphinx is at an elevation of about 50 feet above sea level.
On the Joe Rogan podcast, Randall Carlson presented evidence of a major shift in the hydraulic regime of the Nile River between 20,000 - 12,000 years ago. He states that “those floods have been documented to have been 120 feet above the modern flood plain of the Nile.” This means that the Nile River floods reached an elevation of about 170 feet above sea level at the Sphinx. Submerging the entire Sphinx beneath 40 feet of flood water. Far more than enough to destroy the Sphinx.
Carlson is right about the regime change. But, it is no longer attributed to the over topping of Lake Victoria and higher precipitation in Ethiopia as Carlson indicated. The increased flow is now attributed to increased precipitation that fell across all of Northern Africa during the African Humid Period from between 14,500 - 5,500 years ago. This is the very precipitation that according to Schoch eroded the Sphinx. Depending upon which of the various Sphinx construction dates you prefer, this means that the Sphinx has spent as much as 9,000 years at least partially submerged in the Nile River.
You can hear Carlson’s description of the Nile River regime change on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast that also includes Graham Hancock and Michael Shermer.
czcams.com/video/tFlAFo78xoQ/video.html
My question is, given that rivers are far more erosive than precipitation, how did the Sphinx survive?
Thanks,
Robert Adam Schneiker
Is it possible the Sphinx enclosure was simply flooded on purpose or even had a fountain? Water trickling down the side could have been part of a larger design.
Interesting idea!
@@WorldofAntiquity very likely because the shape of the subterranean chamber has been repeatedly independently shown to act as a ram pump optimizer, increases flow by up to 50%. That's not coincidence especially not when the long shaft at the back with a stopper also optimizes sound resonance and the drain is in the correct place for a toroidal vortex, and the rough carved tunnel upwards is exactly what you would see from such a vortex driving pure water upwards into the chambers above, which probably were open for a long time, feeding spillways or fountains...the Grand Gallery also had as astronomical function while left open, which ceased before the time of Khufu as precession moved certain stars out of its view.
Re using such a vast structure as a tomb or memorial would be sensible if shifts in the Nile and lake reservoir behind it - as described by Greeks who consulted Egyptians of their own time - had dried up. Thus making the ram pump useless as it had no water to fill the enclosure wall around the pyramid.
Given Egypt has huge water supply & purity problems, it makes perfect sense to devote a civilizations whole genius to such a project.
That said don't think it was doing any "power plant" job beyond pumping drinking water up and keeping Delta water levels optimal for growing. Piezoelectric and static/ionic features of Karnak and Giza suggest awareness of ion flow in water purity and maybe general health, and static bursts and capture of lightning to charge the plateau perhaps ...obelisks with electrum caps and corners, etc. But not DC power lines running around.
@@crhu319 *very likely because the shape of the subterranean chamber has been repeatedly independently shown to act as a ram pump optimizer, increases flow by up to 50%.*
Surely you must be aware that the subterranean chamber is unfinished. Anyone can see by looking at it. And why are you using the passive voice? Shown by whom? In what scientific paper?
I always thought that when the Sphinx was made, it was entirely covered with the brick veneer and that most of it had been stripped by locals after it was buried. The Egyptians loved beauty, and so it seemed natural to me they'd have covered the rough landform with the brick veneer at the time of construction.
There was no way the landform could have been carved into a perfect sphinx shape and still look nice after it was done, due to multiple large fracture lines in the body form. There was always going to be a lot of filling-in to complete, and so a brick-veneer covered body would be the only way to give a consistent and attractive look to the final product. The head could be whittled down easily to bedrock, but as you showed, even that was dictated by the fracture lines.
It's all pretty obvious to me: the sphinx was made by ancient Egyptians and stripped by less ancient ones.
As a (half)Greek and passionate of history and archeology, from the moment I discovered your videos I fell in love with them.
They are a light in the darkness of CZcams and Net in general, to me you are a modern, digital Prometheus (Προμηθέας) ❤
As someone open to alternative histories your work is respectful and invaluable. Keep doing what your doing I'm completely open to evidence, I'm just not so sure it's as concrete as many like to claim. That's why I love your videos, you collect it, discuss it and draw your own conclusions leaning on what the experts provide as I think everyone who wants to voice an opinion should.
I think wanting more evidence before conclusively stating facts is healthy, as is a little speculation of the possibilities. You'll never have a theory to test without speculating after all. I think that's the biggest problem with these subjects, a lot of media present stuff as irrefutable fact and then when you dig into things, like the sphinx you find that it's actually quite hard to get even the experts to agree on everything. It's no wonder people lose trust.
This is the first time I've seen a plan view of the sphinx. I'm amazed at how asymmetrical it is when so much of Egyptian art sacrifices realism for symmetry
Maybe it's too big for their tools to accurately make it symmetrical.
@@Thelaretus Too big? Do you not see the pyramids it resides next to?
Schock has always believed in an older date, giving the more recent conservative one publicly because of all the grief he got from Egyptologists and more mainstream adhering members of his science. Gobeki gave him the support he needed to come out w the 10,000 years old one. He may still be working this way according to those who know him and believe in a still older date that he mentions only to friends.
I don't know how you can use a site in Turkey to date an artifact in Egypt, but OK, he's a geologist, not an archaeologist...lets just trust him
@@jellyrollthunder3625 historical context is how
@@Ps3luvr260 so just because Gobekli Tepe exists in Turkey, that means that the Sphinx is also from the same time period? Oh Ok then, lol. See you at Harvard then, lol
@@jellyrollthunder3625 schock didn’t want to say the dates were as old as he believed because there was no evidence for human megalithic construction as far back as 10,000y ago, so he went with a more conservative estimate. The discover of the Tepes in turkey (which is relatively close to Egypt) definitively pushes human megalithic construction to at least 10,000y ago, thus given Schock the historical context needed to be confident in making his original, older estimate.
See you in community college lol
@@Ps3luvr260 How did you know I go to community college? Crazy. What do you think about the other perspectives shared in this video or have you decided you prefer the one that confirms what you already wanted to be true? Be honest. This is a safe place right here. Normally I'd refer you to the Age Of Antiquity channel, but you're already here so .... have a look around, let me know if I can help you with anything, 🙂
This is an excellent exercise in logical thought and proper research.👍👍
Well balanced review!
I love the idea of the sphinx bring carved with the intention of having an outer layer or layers made of other materials. I'm now wondering what the original finish might have been. Was it mud brick? Sandstone blocks? Limestone to match the pyramids? Did it have different materials in different areas to create color pattern? Was it left bare or painted? The more possibilities I consider the more the sphinx fits as a marvel of antiquity and I love it.
I think they've found paint traces on the face. We now know that many ancient statues and reliefs were painted, and I don't see why the Sphinx should be any different.
Was there not a photo shown in this vid of some original bricks/blocks partly obscured by modern restoration.
Hey, do you have anything to say about the proportions of the Sphinx? The head obviously looks replaced, like it originally was a lion or Anubis or something and then later heavily altered. And another thing about your defense of mainstream experts, do you have an opinion on Zahi Hawass denying the existence of "Chambers" inside and underneath the Sphinx when it's just about confirmed they do exist.
The aliens are coming, run for the hills. 🤣
I don't know if I said this to you before on this video. BUt I have come back several times to watch it (after watching what I call "Goober-Historians", and the specials that they have made. And every time, this video is the only one that makes sense to me. THANK YOU!!!!
Good stuff!
A balanced approach that looks at all of the ancient evidence!
Eh?
World of Antiquity specifically states the video considers geological evidence only.
One thing I wish people would keep in mind is that the Sphinx is limestone and 4,000 years is a LONG time. I've seen erosion on my property in just 30 years. It doesn't take long for water, wind, heat, cold, blowing sand, etc. to have an affect.
that is a good point
But are you a professional geologist?
@@manbearpig710 -- No, but I'm not stupid. Also I'm old and have many years to see the changes on my own land. Water, wind, heat, and cold are powerful forces and can change a landscape quicker than you think. Floods can be the worst. I personally witnessed a canyon being formed in one major flood event back in 1996. One week flat land, next week a deep canyon. By the way, I almost died in that flood when a hill that I was standing on started to give way. I ran and jumped off the hill just in time. The hill along with several old growth trees were swept away seconds later. I knew something was wrong when the trees were buzzing and shaking. This was not a small hill either. I learned something on that day !!
@@ironcladranchandforge7292 that is for proving the younger dryas impact hypothesis good day sir
@@manbearpig710 -- Well, I'm not against the Younger Dryas hypothesis necessarily. I'm just disputing the Sphinx age. I don't believe the Sphinx is 10k or 13k old. 4k to 5k is probably about right.
Great episodes. A rough inner core with brick finish all over makes so much sense and is consistent with how pyramids were built. Occam's razor at work 😊
Great video!
Thanks!
"The erosion took place before the excavation of the sphinx enclosure."
Let's just say I think you're wrong to discount the surface dendritic drainage patterns.
Please elaborate.
@@WorldofAntiquity If you were to expand the enclosure by a meter, would you expect to see the rounded features seen on the surfaces today?
@@Greg042869 The rounding was probably caused by water runoff, so if we cut a meter into the enclosure, the rounding would not be there. But if it were exposed to the elements for the same length of time, then yes, I would expect to see rounded features. Keep in mind that the rounding would not take that long to happen. It's the fissures that took a long time to form.
@@WorldofAntiquity So you are saying don't believe your lying eyes, that isn't dendritic drainage patterns. That is something new unto the earth. Something not found anywhere else. This is an example of internal weathering that mimics water weathering when exposed to air. Nope.
Talk it over with the geologists. It's not my field. Better yet, read the references below the video. Jorn Christiansen's article is about the internal erosion.
I like your approach on the subject, I do.
And some theories are sounding objective and some far stretched.
I always wondered about the severe erosion, especially knowing the Sphinx was buried (body)under the sand for 4500 years. (so little erosion could take place)
But still the head looks the almost not eroded, but must of had the most erosion, due to it sticking out and was always exposed to all weather conditions, and that's proof for me the head was reshaped during old Kingdom or other timestamp.
If you look at the old pictures (before restoration of modern times) on the back of the neck, you see a harder ridge sticking out (a lot), so the neck was very eroded by a long time, cause it was sticking out. The ridge was of more harder layer (more dense) so it didn't erode on the same level.
So the theory that they constructed that way, sound false to me, even if the original rock was not that nicely densed in that area, they would have pounded that ridge away and made it more smooth in the original design.
I'm still convinced the Sphinx is older, been recarved during Old Kingdom or later period.
If you hear all these theories, they go and touch every far streched possibilities to come up with an answer to put the construction to the Old Kingdom.
But none of them are really thight and waterproof, so it's still a mystery.
Something to keep in mind is that the head is made out of harder limestone than the body. So it is to be expected that it would not erode as fast. Also, as the last geologist pointed out, the body may have been eroded long before the Sphinx was even carved.
Thanks so much and Happy 2021 All Good People of Planet Earth.
I agree that the last attempt to make sense of the findings seems the most complete and internally consistent.
It also invokes a very intriguing image of a brick covered Sphinx, which seems a lot more in harmony with the other temples / Pyramids than just a smoothed carving that then harshly eroded. Is there even anything else in the Giza region that is carved like the Sphinx and already ended up half destroyed in a similar pattern?
Great presentation. Just found your channel. This channel really helps to balance the, shall I say, diverse views about ancient history. I've always disliked the use of the term ancient high technology that is used on so many channels.. What does that even mean and after viewing a number of videos from this channel, I am sadly left with the fact there really is no such thing... We all love mysteries and you kinda debunked a bunch of them.. In the end I prefer the truth. I suspect the subscriber numbers are low on this channel because people don't want the truth...
Glad you found the channel! Make yourself at home.
Doesn't matter what the fringe theory is, the proponents all seem to rely on and repeat same bits of information (or mis-information) as evidenced of their theory being correct.
It's good to see you ticking them of the list and setting some facts straight in this series.
Each of these experts contributes to understanding the nature and history of the Sphinx. Each one contributes valuable knowledge, but each one has an ego that prevents them from getting together and formulating The Unified Sphynx Theory. This reminds me of:
I.
IT was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
II.
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me!-but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"
III.
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried: "Ho!-what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 't is mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"
IV.
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"
V.
The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
"'T is clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"
VI.
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"
VII.
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"
VIII.
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
MORAL.
So, oft in theologic wars
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
In other words, I agree with Doctor Miano and others.
If the answer does not include aliens I will unsubscribe. Ha.
You know me better than that. 🙂
Just finished the video. Great work. I love hearing different points of view.
I believe that people are capable of doing anything if they have the time, food and motivation.
Everyone knows it was Atlanteans. And they were psychic.
I used to be so into this sort of long gone advanced ancient civilization new-agey pseudoscience stuff you cover in this playlist when I was a teenager. Ironically it was the Ancient Aliens show that snapped me out of it. Was just too ridiculous even for me.
It is only a pseudoscience because all facts are extrapolation and hypothesis.
None of which can be verified until we can travel to that time frame and see.
What are the chances of that.
But not too ridiculous for many credulous and ignorant fools.
Very enjoyable.
I have zero idea on this topic but it's one of those I'll listen to people to talk about all day though
Excellent video as always; this sort of balanced, evidence based analysis needs to be the norm and not the exception. We need to take archeology back from the people peddling fantasies about aliens and/or ancient world wide civilisations.
There is no argument over how old the Sphinx is between 'genuine' Geologists who aren't being threated with funding cuts or career destruction by peer pressure!
Anyone with an open mind can see the significant degree of 'Water Erosion' on the sides of the Sphinx enclosure, an enclosure that was 'Buried In Sand' for thousands of years. We all understand, no one, including the Old Kingdom of Egypt would 'Restore' something that had 'Just Been Built', IE. Band New. The Sphinx was therefore already ancient during the time frame main stream academia says it was constructed. Our school children are taught the current historical time frame from narratives and pictures in text books as if it were a proven 'fact'. Yet the 'Material Evidence' etched into the very ground the Sphinx sits in is clear, the Sphinx is factually 'at least' 10,000 years old and possibly thousands of years older than that. The only people 'disagreeing' with the irrefutable 'Material Evidence' are people who say things such as 'I don't believe in Radar', a quote courtesy of Zahi Hawass, former head of Egyptian Antiquities, and people who run CZcams channels dedicated to upholding the academic 'Status Quo', such as 'World of Antiquity'. Academically trained and intelligent people who aren't influenced by 'Funding' or 'Peer pressure', sucah as Brien Forester, Ben from Uncharted X and Praveen Mohan are slowly but surely forcing the rest of academia to revisit past 'Dating of Antiquities', reassessing the current 'Paradigms' in light of new and compelling 'Material Evidence'. Evidence such as hundreds, if not thousands of years of 'Water Erosion' in a place where there has been no water for at least 9,000 years. Gobekli Tepe, including the new and even older finds coming out of Turkey have 'Forced' a very reluctant 'Historical Academia' to reassess the current time lines of Human civilization and development in that area. So, why is it so 'Difficult' for 'Historical Academia' to embrace Geologists, Engineers, Professional Stone masons etc. to 'reassess' the time frame and the constructions of ancient Egypt based on their new and compelling evidence a lot of the new evidence, such as the 'Water Erosion', has years of sound scientific research supporting it.
*There is no argument over how old the Sphinx is between 'genuine' Geologists who aren't being threated with funding cuts or career destruction by peer pressure!*
Who are these ghostlike genuine geologists you're speaking about? There isn't a single geologist other than Schoch who thinks geology can be used to date the Sphinx. And this talk about "funding cuts" and "career destruction" has no basis in fact. It's just the product of conspiratorial imagination. Robert Schoch hasn't had his career destroyed now, has he?
*Anyone with an open mind can see the significant degree of 'Water Erosion' on the sides of the Sphinx enclosure, an enclosure that was 'Buried In Sand' for thousands of years.*
Any statement that begins with "anyone with an open mind can see" is as unscientific as statements come. It promotes the idea that no study is required, no analysis needed, no data taken, no experiments performed, and no research necessary - all you need is to go and gape at it like a caveman, and you're all set!
*We all understand, no one, including the Old Kingdom of Egypt would 'Restore' something that had 'Just Been Built', IE. Band New.*
When did anyone ever say that they restored something that had just been built?
*The only people 'disagreeing' with the irrefutable 'Material Evidence' are people who say things such as 'I don't believe in Radar', a quote courtesy of Zahi Hawass, former head of Egyptian Antiquities, and people who run CZcams channels dedicated to upholding the academic 'Status Quo', such as 'World of Antiquity'.*
Haha oh really now?
*Academically trained and intelligent people who aren't influenced by 'Funding' or 'Peer pressure', sucah as Brien Forester, Ben from Uncharted X and Praveen Mohan...*
Those people make WAY more money from their tours and books than academics do. If anyone is compromised because of funding, it's them.
*Gobekli Tepe, including the new and even older finds coming out of Turkey have 'Forced' a very reluctant 'Historical Academia' to reassess the current time lines of Human civilization and development in that area.*
Every discovery makes academia reassess. It comes with the job.
*So, why is it so 'Difficult' for 'Historical Academia' to embrace Geologists, Engineers, Professional Stone masons etc. to 'reassess' the time frame and the constructions of ancient Egypt based on their new and compelling evidence a lot of the new evidence, such as the 'Water Erosion', has years of sound scientific research supporting it.*
It is interesting you say that, as you are dismissing what most geologists say. It sounds like your approach to history is:
1. Decide what you want to believe.
2. Find people who confirm this belief and uphold them as the correct ones.
3. When you hear people contradict this belief, dismiss them as corrupt, ignorant, or pressured.
Here is the path I follow, which I believe is superior:
1. Approach a subject with an open mind.
2. Gather all the evidence on the subject there is, from every point of view.
3. Choose the interpretation that best fits the evidence.
lol, great rebuttal. I was also heavily influenced by alternative historians, until I got to see counter arguments for them. It was cool to believe in ancient technology for a while, but Unfortunately the seem to facts fall on the side of real archeologists.
One of the best video on the internet, it change my view it was a red pill to me and I like it.
Excellent... here at 11 in Houston... going to watch a lot this year
Thankyou for undoing my brainwashing.
Great stuff man. Always wondered about the horizontal nature of the erosions marks on the body. The different depths of sand over time would help explain them... 🤔 I wonder if a more acidic rainfall at any time could have contributed?
Had no idea this video existed three years ago. Been dying to hear the argument for the water erosion hypothesis.
I read an article about the sphinx water erosion thing when I was younger and sometimes it enters my mind and I just have to look into it some, thanks for this video
The head of the Sphinx is disproportionately small in comparison to the body. Suggesting it may have been carved within an original larger head. What are your thoughts on this?
Great vid. I had thought about the weathering having existed long before the carving. My only issue is that we would see that in other areas, but we don’t.
Great, informative, factual !
(never heard of pre-excavation errosion)
🙏🏼👍🏼🖖🏻
_"Where are the shards????"_
Moral of the story:
1 - supposed rainfall eroded the Sphinx = except that it has spent most of its recorded history buried in sand for the most part.
2 - it was supposedly a result of some "lost" civilization = for which nary a pottery shard exists to show it was ever real.
3 - climatic changes soooooo thoroughly wiped out all traces of the aforementioned civilization alluded to in #2 = yet ironically enough the Sphinx survived........
4 - erosion on the Sphinx is "inconsistent" to be blunt. The upper head/face - which coincidentally was the most exposed part of it = is eroded the least........
5 - meanwhile the lower areas of the Sphinx - the ones first to be consumed by sand upon the site being abandoned - are the most badly eroded.
Finally = "efflorescence". The Sphinx is carved from the bedrock = and limestone being a sedimentary stone is naturally porous. The bedrock it is created from - Mokattam Formation - is comprised of multiple layers of varying densities and hence hardness levels. As it happens there is groundwater beneath it as the plateau sits atop the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System while the Nile is not far away to the east - and during the 4th Dynasty was much closer having shifted its tract eastwards over the intervening millennia.
There are videos here on YT of Egyptologists/hydrologists drilling beneath the Sphinx to hit groundwater ~4-5 meters below it. Several years back the Egyptian Dept. of Antiquities per a USAID grant contracted with a US water systems company to install underground water pumps around the plateau to lower the water table and divert it away from the necropolis. This was done to = slow efflorescence which is even today slowly dissolving the Sphinx.
Consequently it requires constant maintenance being coated with a neutralizing buffer to mitigate the acidic crystal formation which is caused from evaporation of moisture from below which upwells through its limestone bedrock to denude the surface of the stone. Run your hands along the walls of the pit it sits in and the surface of the stone will flake away to your touch = I'll bet Schoch left that part out of his book............
p.s. - look at the beautiful Wulingyuan Mountains of China. They are *LIMESTONE* karst formations. Why does this matter??? Answer: look at their shapes = tapered towards the tops and wider down below......... Why is this important??? Answer: they represent *PHYSICAL* erosion - aka exposure to rainfall/floods. The Sphinx as noted is not eroded thusly otherwise its top would be etched down and its base less so. Hence the Sphinx suffers from = *CHEMICAL* erosion - aka efflorescence as noted above. Carry on. 🤔
Good video.
It's really amazing these are structures that were built maybe ten thousand years before the Egyptians even came around I mean it's mind boggling it really is.
Fantasy often is........ Conversely it is banal to the extreme when recently created sockpuppet accounts try to push the "alternative" line..... 🥱
As for the head . . . I didn't see anyone comment on this, but I saw a film that proposes the head of the pharaoh is a much later addition and that originally, the head of the sphinx was a lion. It made sense considering the dimensions of the small head relative to the large body. On the other hand, the mythical sphinx had a lion's body/human head. Ultimately, we will never know unless someone invents a time machine.
I cant wait to see it
Thanks
And thank you for your support!