The Age of the Sphinx | Battle of the Geologists

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":

►SUBSCRIBE to the World of Antiquity YouTube Channel for great travel videos about ancient ruins and ancient history museums.

► SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL

Robert Schoch articles:

Lal Gauri articles:

James Harrell article:

Colin Reader articles:

Exchange between Alex Bourdeau and Colin Reader:

Overview by David P. Billington (up to 2008):

Jorn Christiansen article:

Robert Schneiker article:

Additional material:

Professor Miano's handy guide for learning, "How to Know Stuff," is available here:

Follow Professor Miano on social media:

[robertschneiker]

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

[banjoist]

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 Youtube!

[StefanMilo]

Wow I'd never heard the last guy before. Brilliant, makes a lot of sense.

[griffinbeaumont]

Man, I was just rewatching your videos on the eye of the sahara relating to atlantis, very happy to see you upload!

[AncientArchitects]

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!

[datra]

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.

[tarekmohamed]

My favorite history/archeology channel, well done Dr.Miano.

[Tony]

Another great video. This channel and it's host are very scientifically reliable.

[lalaLAX]

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.

[faulknersealock]

I have zero idea on this topic but it's one of those I'll listen to people to talk about all day though

[robertschneiker]

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.

My question is, given that rivers are far more erosive than precipitation, how did the Sphinx survive?

Thanks,
Robert Adam Schneiker

[JMMRanMA]

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.

[mcolisekim]

love all your videos, just subscribed. this is the first time i have ever subscribed to any channel.

[ratheonhudson]

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.

[robmorgan]

Finally! A great scientific discussion about the topic!

[crackiechan]

Just found your channel today and have been stuck here for hours. Thanks for the videos

[mathiasjonsson]

Very interesting. I shall now binge watch this channel.

[Jammin]

Great video, thanks! (I'm here from Ancient Architects' link.)

[mickdipiano]

How'd I miss this one? Good thing you posted a poll that reminded me to check what videos you have out

[courtneyturner]

Very informative video! The overall design with the bricks covering the roughed out lion body makes perfect sense.