How Old Is the Sphinx?

[VoodooAce]

In case you are not aware, there has been some debate during the last decade as to the actual age of the Sphinx. The debate rages between Egyptologists and Geologists.

Egyptologists believe, and have believed for a very long time, that the Sphinx is a contemporary of the Pyramids.

Geologists believe that the Sphinx was actually built in 10,000 B.C.

Its my humble opinion that the Geologists are correct. There actually is not a whole lot of physical evidence either way.

The debate began when a geologist (forget the name) was reading a book on Giza when he noticed in pictures that the erosion of the Sphinx is different from that of the Pyramids.

The erosion on the sphinx is, according to the geologists, is vertical in nature and caused by water; erosion on the Pyramids is horizontal and caused by wind.

Thing is, there hasn't been water enough to cause this kind of erosion in Egypt for 10-12,000 years, 6-8,000 years before the Pyramids were built.

Geologists are fairly uniform in their belief now. Egyptologists are as well.

I just think the Egyptologists beliefs are rooted in what they have always believed, and I am far more likely to believe scientists that actually have some physical evidence.

Anyway, thought it would make an interesting poll, so which do you believe?

 

[Ohwell]

Yeah I also agree with you, the Geologists have some fine evidence, I once saw a documentary on the subject and they had some very convincing evidence, too bad I forgot about the more important ones

But if it was the Geologists who are correct, than who built it? Were the Egyptians civilized back then? Was it extraterrestrials?

Hey, never rule out aliens... Seriously...

 

[Knight-Dragon]

I have read about the same thing.

But I don't believe it needed to be built by some extraterrestials or what. Probably by some forgotten lost human civilisation at the very beginning of time of which no records now exist and referred to reverently by the ancients as 'gods'. The beginnings of human civilisation can now be pushed back far longer now.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Oh, and I've also read somewhere that Khufu or Cheops, the builder of the Cheops pyramid, chiselled his face over the existing head of the Sphinx. It was discovered during some high-tech (forgotten exactly what was used) examination that there were far older markings on the Sphinx head. Khufu probably reworked the Sphinx head to represent himself.

So I think the Sphinx originally had an animal and also larger head. Vain.

 

[Kublai-Khan]

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
Oh, and I've also read somewhere that Khufu or Cheops, the builder of the Cheops pyramid, chiselled his face over the existing head of the Sphinx. It was discovered during some high-tech (forgotten exactly what was used) examination that there were far older markings on the Sphinx head. Khufu probably reworked the Sphinx head to represent himself.

So I think the Sphinx originally had an animal and also larger head. Vain.

I doesnt sounds logicall to me, 12 000 years is too too early.

 

[cegman]

Did anyone think the water was from around 6000- 5000BC (or mabye later no one knows when it was) because of the flood that was pretty much proved by all the stories around the world about it. The only thing missing would be the actual arc but that really wouldn't survive this long

 

[joespaniel]

I have seen some of this on the History Channel. There is some good evidence to support the theory, but nothing absolute.

At best, it is quite likely there were human tribes much more sophisticated than previously thought in pre-history.

Just when you think you figure out something, it gets more complicated.

 

[cephyn]

Gonna weigh in here

I think it was a contemp of the pyramids, maybe a little (not 5000 yrs) earlier. Any work done on the type of stone? Is it the same stone as the pyramids? This is important for 2 reasons:
1) are they using the same quarry for 6000 years (unlikely) -- so trace the stone down, you find the quarry, you can figure this out a little bit
2)same type of stone, same rate of erosion...but from different quarries (?) -- narrow down when each quarry was used.

Ignorance is bliss though, since i havent seen the show or had the chance to analyze evidence either way.

Its hard to do this of course with ancient civs. Record keeping is frustratingly sparse. Even working with middle age records is difficult -- anyone know what a 'turtellecto' is? its a 13th Cen Italian food (from Bologna) -- never found a recipe -- NO idea what it is. but anyway...

Just because lots of ancient civs have a flood story, doesn't mean it happened. Lots of ancient civs have stories of dragons and demons...but its important to understand the separation of mythology and history and that they can blend together in horrendously frustrating ways. For example, dragons eating the sun is just a mythological explanation for an eclipse. Given that 99% of ancient civs that grew great were (for obvious reasons) founded upon flood plains, stories of a Great Flood aren't that hard to come up with. "world-wide" to an ancient might be as far as he could travel in a few days -- if he still sees water, he assumes its 'world-wide.' That said, I do beleive the great flood story has ancient ancient factual roots (flooding of mediterranean?) -- just be careful about what is 'obvious'

There HAD to have been advanced ancient tribes, even more ancient than we know about -- but 'advanced' unfortunately gets lost if they get hit by disease or war or what not and have weak written record ability. But the Greeks and Egyptians and Babylonians didn't just 'pop' into existence out of nowhere, they had precursors and influences which were probably quite advanced in manners of thought and arts and such -- its a LONG time gap from cave painters to Egyptians. They were out there, we just don't konw about them. An unavoidable tragedy. Quick example, Some relatively advanced people were able to sea-fare and navigate well enough to settle the Canary Islands, but by the time the Spanish and Portuguese got there in the late 1300s and early 1400s, the inhabitants were of Stone-Age tech and had no seafaring capability.

Well, that should spruce things up around here

 

[Sodak]

cephyn, forget the rock analysis. The Sphynx is carved out of the rock on which it sits. It was not built by moving in stone. And yes, there is no doubt that the head we can see is cut out of the original head.

The erosion of the Sphynx is not just water erosion, but rain erosion. You'd be hard pressed to find a geologist to disagree with this - unless he is on someone's payroll. Climate analysis of the whole region leaves little doubt that the last period of rainy climate in Egypt ended by ~7500bc.

If you believe the essentially unprovable theory that the great pyramid was built with the (at least secondary) function of calling back to the period the Egyptians referred to as the era of the god-kings, an ancient Sphynx theory is even more plausible. The "air shafts" found in the pyramid were not air shafts at all. They were capped at both ends, and the internal cap was inscripted. One points to the exact spot in the sky where Sirius was seen at the spring equinoxes around 10000bc. (I can't remember the exact century ) The other points to where Polaris(?) is at the same time. Why would this matter? It is the exact same time period during which the Sphynx faced directly into the constellation Leo at the spring equinox. The Sphynx was a lion, the same as the constellation. What Egyptian cosmology was like 12000 years ago is anyone's guess, but it strongly follows what is known about general astronomical associations and beliefs of ancient cultures.

It appears that the pyramid complex at Giza was built with the idea of harking back to a mythical time in Egyptian history. The Sphynx was (maybe oral tradition among priests) apparently the monument left by the god-kings in their minds. The pyramids may have been built to tie the (then) present to their godly past. Enough is known about Egyptian religious practices to believe such a motive for the design.

In short, I don't think there is much doubt about the Sphynx being 12000 years old, and the pyramids <6000 years old.

 

[Sodak]

Before anybody questions how ancient peoples could possible know where stars were situated thousands of years before: Archaeoastronomers (yes, it really is a field!) have shown overwhelming evidence that ancient peoples had a very thorough knowledge of procession and planetary movements. It was often the duty/priviledge/secret of priests, but not always. Astronomy was probably the first science - it appears to be almost a universal knowledge before historical records appear.

 

[Sodak]

Originally posted by cephyn
...but its important to understand the separation of mythology and history and that they can blend together in horrendously frustrating ways.

Ah, but that is the source of much misunderstanding! Myth is history! The problem is that the cultural symbols and codes used to record it are lost. That is what is frustrating. Before writing, myth served (at least for some) as history. If you read a myth literally, it just doesn't sound sensible. If you understand what the symbols mean (representations of time or abstract ideas), they make perfect sense.

Many have probably heard of Kronos - in Greek myth he gave man fire. Cute story, huh? Well, if you learn that the Greeks called spirit or intelligence fire, and that Kronos represented the planet saturn, it makes sense. Saturn is the planet that is the base of understanding procession, and thus the base of calendrical systems. When the Greeks' ancenstors first understood that tracking the meetings of Saturn and Jupiter would show the cyclic turning of the heavens, they were (symbolically, anyway) made aware of the cycle of life and death, and any metaphysical offshoot of that concept. Most ancient cultures associated the planet saturn (including the Romans, thus the name ) with the god/being that gave man life/death or intelligence. The myth records that event in a cryptic way.

 

[VoodooAce]

A major difference, I believe, between the Sphinx and the Pyramids is that the stone for the Pyramids was transported from a quary some distance away. The Sphinx was carved right out of the ground it sits on/in....

One interesting theory is that the Sphinx was originally just a head carved from an outcrop of stone. And subsequent civs changed and added to it. As with Khufu or Cheops.

 

[Apollo]

Originally posted by Sodak
Many have probably heard of Kronos - in Greek myth he gave man fire. Cute story, huh? Well, if you learn that the Greeks called spirit or intelligence fire, and that Kronos represented the planet saturn, it makes sense. Saturn is the planet that is the base of understanding procession, and thus the base of calendrical systems. When the Greeks' ancenstors first understood that tracking the meetings of Saturn and Jupiter would show the cyclic turning of the heavens, they were (symbolically, anyway) made aware of the cycle of life and death, and any metaphysical offshoot of that concept. Most ancient cultures associated the planet saturn (including the Romans, thus the name ) with the god/being that gave man life/death or intelligence. The myth records that event in a cryptic way.

The titan Prometheus gave man fire - Chronus was the head titan and father of Zues and co.

As to the thread topic, I saw some stuff on TV about this a while back, and agree that the vertical water erosion from rain dates the Sphinx to times well before the Pyramids. It was originally just a lion (which, by the way, used to live all over the Middle East and well into Europe) and was later altered to have a human head.

 

[cephyn]

Originally posted by Sodak

If you believe the essentially unprovable theory that the great pyramid was built with the (at least secondary) function of calling back to the period the Egyptians referred to as the era of the god-kings, an ancient Sphynx theory is even more plausible. The "air shafts" found in the pyramid were not air shafts at all. They were capped at both ends, and the internal cap was inscripted. One points to the exact spot in the sky where Sirius was seen at the spring equinoxes around 10000bc. (I can't remember the exact century ) The other points to where Polaris(?) is at the same time. Why would this matter? It is the exact same time period during which the Sphynx faced directly into the constellation Leo at the spring equinox. The Sphynx was a lion, the same as the constellation. What Egyptian cosmology was like 12000 years ago is anyone's guess, but it strongly follows what is known about general astronomical associations and beliefs of ancient cultures.

It appears that the pyramid complex at Giza was built with the idea of harking back to a mythical time in Egyptian history. The Sphynx was (maybe oral tradition among priests) apparently the monument left by the god-kings in their minds. The pyramids may have been built to tie the (then) present to their godly past. Enough is known about Egyptian religious practices to believe such a motive for the design.

OK now this i've seen, and frankly, it's complete crap. The translation of Orion's belt onto the ground is the pyramids, Draco is Ankor Wat -- it's total crap. First off, and this has nothing to do with prEcession, these constellations are MODERN -- the stars were in DIFFERENT places when these structures were built (for example the Big Dipper looked much 'flatter' in the Egyptians time) so to believe that the Egyptians knew to both translate the star positions of 2000AD AND to make them point to where the constellation would rise on the spring Equinox in 10000BC is simply put, absurd. The star positions of Orion and Leo were different in 3000BC than they are now, so basically it just doesn't match.

Second, ooh, Leo the Lion is the sphinx? Who's to say the Egyptians even thought that the Leo constellation was a Lion? or even a constellation? They thought Orion wasn't "the hunter" but a representation of Osiris. To assume they thought Leo was a lion also doesn't fit. Lions weren't Egyptian gods. The Big Dipper to them was called The Great Plow. The Milky Way was the Nile of Heaven. To assume the Sphinx is connected to Leo the Lion is speculation at best.

 

[elfstorm]

I don't think it's true to say 'Geologists' think the Spinx is 12,000 years old. From the book and TV programs I've seen it would be more accurate to say 'A geologist'

I've seen quite a number of geologists rubbishing these claims.

Also Graham Hancock is hardly the most reliable person in the world. Here in Britain C4 did a show investigating his claims...
wow, they really made him look a bit daft.

Also at the start of his latest series he apologised, admitting some of his previous stuff was a little... shall we say poorly researched.

 

[VoodooAce]

Graham Hancock?

Isn't he the 'Searching for Atlantis' guy? The 'Lost Civ' guy? I didn't even know he was involved in this particular debate, really.

Regardless, I think to say 'One geologist' is as inaccurate as saying 'All geologists'.

I'm sure its somewhere in between.

 

[Sodak]

Graham Hancock is a sensation journalist who has jumped on legitimate ideas with open ended "why"s and made himself more into a buffoon than a journalist. Sadly, because he is the source of many people's knowledge of such ideas, they get tainted with his bad reputation. Tho it's good to spread the ideas, I think he's the wrong man for the job.

Cephyn, it's okay if you don't believe that stuff, you don't need to get so riled up about it. However, you are quite wrong about constellations being modern. Taurus is painted in Lascaux cave, complete with the pleiades on his shoulder. The zodiac of the western world has identified the constellations as we know them for eons. The Sphynx itself is one reason to think they thought of the constellation Leo as a lion. That's where it pointed, it was a giant lion hewn from stone, and that what we've called that constellation since time immemorial. Were there no lion gods in the Egyptian pantheon? So what? Why would a zodiac sign need to be a god? Is the crab a god, or any of the others? There were likely other reasons for naming a constellation than just to place a god in the heavens. Anyway, it is a plausable explanation, just one that can't be empirically proved - barring some fantastic archaeological find, anyway.

No, Orion wasn't a hunter to them, who cares? It was a constellation of significance - Osiris, as you point out. Sirius is just one star (it happens to be the brightest), I never mentioned the constellation Orion. The Maya called those 3 stars the hearthstones of creation. Whatever the name, they were given significance by almost everybody.

The Milky Way was the Nile of Heaven, you point out. If you accept that, why is it so hard to accept that geographic places in Egypt were represented by stars or constellations? Maybe the 3 pyramids at Giza are Orion's belt, maybe not. I don't know much about Angor Wat, so I won't comment on that. It's already known that certain pyramids and temples were dedicated to gods with a corresponding place along the milky way and nile river. The Book of the Dead goes thru great pains to meticulously describe the jouney of the dead along certain paths in the heavens - revealing numerous geographic analogies on the ground. That doesn't mean they literally thought there was an equivalent place in the sky, just that there was a cosmic representation, or a place where a god resided.

Understanding the motions of the stars over time is not total crap, as you put it. Understanding where the stars would have been several thousand years before is not some unacceptable notion. It just takes the patience to figure out how far things have turned. The conjunctions of planets - which happens in the time scale an individual person can follow - key how the slower shifting of stars goes. Yes, the 'shapes' of constellations change over time. Maybe they knew this, maybe not. I bet they did know - the aspects of astronomy they certainly did know are sufficiently complex to make me believe they would have understood it. If only one star was a target, it would be much easier than figuring out how a whole constellation would appear.

Lastly, spare me the condescending tone. You seem to think the ancients knew less than I give them credit for. That's fine, it's not a reason to get all steamed up.

Apollo, thanks for the titan clarification. It was the first thing that came to mind for an example, and remembered it wrong! Anyway, it was just to illustrate how myth can be used.

 

[cephyn]

Actually, I'm not riled up. I just find this guy's ideas laughable. Silly. He ignores and never addresses (in anything I've ever seen) the criticisms of his work -- that's not good.

I'm not saying that some constellations weren't identified the same then as now. I'm saying that, given the way the Egyptians dealt with constellations (gods or agriculturally) I don't think they would have named a constellation after a lion, having no lion gods and no obvious obsession with lions (unlike say, jackals, hawks, and the like.) I simply don't think the Leo/Sphinx explanation holds. But I dont think its going to be proven either way.

Right, Orion is different, his belt is significant in lots of cultures, its an easy astronomical explanation. Try and follow me here, I know its tough and maybe im not expressing myself perfectly. I'll try and break this down -- I'm referring to this thing about the pyramids being arranged to match the belt stars of Orion. This doesn't work, since theyre arranged in the manner of how the stars appear now, not then and not 10,000 years ago. This pseudo-historian-astronomer guy points that they are arranged in the belt formation but doesnt address teh fact that stars move, etc. I'm saying the Egyptians WOULD have realized stars moved. Now, given that they would, they (under this guy's hypothesis) would not have had any reason to arrange the pyramids in the shape of the belt as they would appear 6000 years later (ie, now) -- at the same time, this guy points out they are aligned with Orion rising over the horizon on the vernal equinox 10,000 years ago. I don't think the Egyptians would do this -- by "this" i mean "create the amazing coincidence of arranging structures to face 10,000 year old astronomical phenomenon AND arrange said structures as the astronomical phenomenon 6000 years later" -- There's no evidence that they would ever have had any sort of ambition to do this. I'm not saying that there wasn't a diaspora civ 10,000 years ago, im not saying the Egyptians weren't concerned with society 6000 years after them -- I'm saying that both are unlikely AND that the Egyptians being concerned with BOTH aspects is just plain astronomically (haha) miniscule chanced. This was never an attack on you Sodak, it was on this pseudo-historian guy jumping to EXTREME conclusions with very very very little evidence.

Sirius was an important star to the Egyptians, I have no problem with the fact they aligned the Pyramid to face it. But that said, it makes some of this guy's other ideas even more far-fetched.

I never said understanding hte motion of stars over time was crap. I think you may have misread or misunderstood, or my writing was convoluted and hard to understand. I hope I might have cleared up any misconceptions.

I'm sorry you thought I was condescending. Again, I did not mean to criticize you, I meant to criticize the pseudo-astronomer guy. I apolgize for any offense. I didn't mean to rile you or anyone else up, as I am not riled. I enjoy discourse.

Originally posted by Sodak
Graham Hancock is a sensation journalist who has jumped on legitimate ideas with open ended "why"s and made himself more into a buffoon than a journalist. Sadly, because he is the source of many people's knowledge of such ideas, they get tainted with his bad reputation. Tho it's good to spread the ideas, I think he's the wrong man for the job.

Cephyn, it's okay if you don't believe that stuff, you don't need to get so riled up about it. However, you are quite wrong about constellations being modern. Taurus is painted in Lascaux cave, complete with the pleiades on his shoulder. The zodiac of the western world has identified the constellations as we know them for eons. The Sphynx itself is one reason to think they thought of the constellation Leo as a lion. That's where it pointed, it was a giant lion hewn from stone, and that what we've called that constellation since time immemorial. Were there no lion gods in the Egyptian pantheon? So what? Why would a zodiac sign need to be a god? Is the crab a god, or any of the others? There were likely other reasons for naming a constellation than just to place a god in the heavens. Anyway, it is a plausable explanation, just one that can't be empirically proved - barring some fantastic archaeological find, anyway.

No, Orion wasn't a hunter to them, who cares? It was a constellation of significance - Osiris, as you point out. Sirius is just one star (it happens to be the brightest), I never mentioned the constellation Orion. The Maya called those 3 stars the hearthstones of creation. Whatever the name, they were given significance by almost everybody.

The Milky Way was the Nile of Heaven, you point out. If you accept that, why is it so hard to accept that geographic places in Egypt were represented by stars or constellations? Maybe the 3 pyramids at Giza are Orion's belt, maybe not. I don't know much about Angor Wat, so I won't comment on that. It's already known that certain pyramids and temples were dedicated to gods with a corresponding place along the milky way and nile river. The Book of the Dead goes thru great pains to meticulously describe the jouney of the dead along certain paths in the heavens - revealing numerous geographic analogies on the ground. That doesn't mean they literally thought there was an equivalent place in the sky, just that there was a cosmic representation, or a place where a god resided.

Understanding the motions of the stars over time is not total crap, as you put it. Understanding where the stars would have been several thousand years before is not some unacceptable notion. It just takes the patience to figure out how far things have turned. The conjunctions of planets - which happens in the time scale an individual person can follow - key how the slower shifting of stars goes. Yes, the 'shapes' of constellations change over time. Maybe they knew this, maybe not. I bet they did know - the aspects of astronomy they certainly did know are sufficiently complex to make me believe they would have understood it. If only one star was a target, it would be much easier than figuring out how a whole constellation would appear.

Lastly, spare me the condescending tone. You seem to think the ancients knew less than I give them credit for. That's fine, it's not a reason to get all steamed up.

Apollo, thanks for the titan clarification. It was the first thing that came to mind for an example, and remembered it wrong! Anyway, it was just to illustrate how myth can be used.

 

[Sodak]

Originally posted by cephyn
Actually, I'm not riled up. I just find this guy's ideas laughable. Silly. He ignores and never addresses (in anything I've ever seen) the criticisms of his work -- that's not good.
...
Try and follow me here, I know its tough and maybe im not expressing myself perfectly.
...
I never said understanding hte motion of stars over time was crap. I think you may have misread or misunderstood, or my writing was convoluted and hard to understand. I hope I might have cleared up any misconceptions.

I'm sorry you thought I was condescending. Again, I did not mean to criticize you, I meant to criticize the pseudo-astronomer guy.

Okay, the crux of the argument is that it's hard to be concise, eloquent, and complete in a post.

I, too, think Hancock is a quack. The idea of the pyramids being aligned as orion's belt is fanciful - personally, I think it's likely that something like that was the intent, but don't think Orion is it. You explain well why I remain sceptical - also, a triad in a particular arrangement could be damn near anything, including engineering reasons that were purely practical and had nothing at all to do with cosmology. My real problem with Hancock is that he taints legitimate ideas (formed by experts in archaeology, astronomy, etc) by adding hoo-ha to them to sell his name.

The alignment with Sirius is something I do believe was intentional. The pyramids were built with such amazing engineering precision that I would bet little was done without intent.

 

[Atum]

The Shpynx is about the same age as the pyramids. The erosion is because of:
1) It sit sits in a hole dug in the Giza Plateau. Which places it below the flood plain.
2) There have been many documented floods in this hole after hard rains. Drainage erosion looks the same as runoff erosion from rain.
3) The increasing number of portable toilets placed around the Sphynx to accomidate tourists has meant an increased load of waste. Which brings me to:
4)The rock that the Sphynx is carved from is very porous. This allows the grey water seep up into the Sphynx.