Why The Great Sphinx CAN'T be Older than 3,500 BC | Ancient Architects
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2022
- The Great Sphinx of Egypt is one of the largest man-made sculptures in the world, measuring 240 feet long and 66 feet high and cut from the natural limestone bedrock. It has the body of a lion and head of a human, wearing the royal dynastic Egyptian headdress.
In the 1950s, alternative Egyptologist and mystic Rene Adolphe Schwaller de Lubicz was the first to speculate that the body of the Sphinx to have been eroded by water.
Inspired by Schwaller’s ideas, in 1979, John Anthony West was the next to attribute the Sphinx erosion to water, claiming the statue was the handiwork of a lost ancient civilisation.
Around 10 years later, West sought the opinion of geologist Robert Schoch, who validated the claims from a scientific perspective, stating the Sphinx enclosure shows clear evidence of rain erosion, and therefore must have been created when Egypt was far wetter - which he believes was some time around 12,000 years ago, according to his website.
But as somebody with a background in Geology, with the more research I did, the more I started to notice holes in the Sphinx rain erosion hypothesis and so in the past few years I started to dig a little deeper. I found the work of Dr James Harrell, the work of geologist Colin Reader, analysis by geologist Jorn Christiansen, papers by K. Lal Gauri and now the recent presentations and website of geologist Robert Schneiker.
If you want to learn more, check out David Miano’s video on the World of Antiquity channel called Age of the Sphinx: Battle of the Geologists: • The Age of the Sphinx ...
Physical observations in the field can have various interpretations, so it is difficult to really get clarity, but with regards to the age of the Sphinx, I think there is one piece of compelling evidence that is really hard to argue with, and that’s what I’m presenting in this video.
Geologist Robert Schneiker is the first person I’ve seen present this, but a new scientific study released August 29, 2022 backs it up. This evidence is the reason why I gave this video a somewhat definitive title: Why the Sphinx Can’t be Older than 3,500 BC because I can't find a way to refute it - and that is the height of the Nile River during the African Humid Period, from 14,500 to 5,500 years ago and the fact the Sphinx is within the Nile floodplain. Watch this video to learn more.
All of images and video footage are taken from the below sources and Google Images for educational purposes only. Please subscribe to Ancient Architects, Like the video and please leave a comment below.
Sources:
Robert Schneiker Lecture: • The Great Sphinx: From...
Randall Carlson on JRE: • Joe Rogan Experience #...
The Sphinx Erosion Debate: www.davidpbillington.net/sphi...
Late Quaternary history of the Nile: www.nature.com/articles/288050a0
Rob Schneiker website: www.robertschneiker.com/water%...
Robert Schoch website: www.robertschoch.com/sphinx.html
Geologist Talks THE SPHINX (feat. Robert Schneiker): • Geologist Talks THE SP...
The Oldest Records of the Nile Floods: www.jstor.org/stable/1796184
Nile waterscapes facilitated the construction of the Giza pyramids during the 3rd millennium BCE: www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas...
Music:
Ross Bugden - Olympus (Copyright and Royalty Free): • ♩♫ Epic and Dramatic T...
#AncientArchitects #GizaPyramid #Sphinx
The destructiveness (is that a word?) of the floods is something I cannot personally give opinion on and that's why I quoted the Nature article and Carlson and presented the opinions of geologist and geophysicist Robert Schneiker. I'm guessing the strengths of floods, and flow rate would be different at different times, depending on various factors. But even if they were slow and gentle, if the water did reach the Sphinx enclosure on many occasions for a prolonged amount of time, each time, in the African Humid Period, then there would be a evidence of river erosion around the base of the Sphinx. A geologist would be able to analyse the limestone around the bottom half or quarter of the Sphinx and know if it stood inside the Nile, even if the Nile at the edge was slow and relatively low energy.
Some people have criticised the video saying I got the data from the new paper wrong, saying it shows the Sphinx would NOT have been inundated in the African Humid Period. But this is not the case. Below I shall go through this in more detail to show what the data says. Of course, its just data about the branch of he Nile River called the Khufu branch and we are looking at the relative depth of the river, which is located just one mile away from the Sphinx. There is no known tectonic event between the Sphinx and this river branch in the past 8,000 years that should drastically alter how we view the data. Unless someone can show me something I've missed.
So... The data:
The new paper is referring to a specific period of study - the past 8,000 years.
In the appendix of the paper, we see the complete cores (G1 and G4) which were taken within the geographic location of the ancient, now-dried up Khufu branch of the river. This is stated specifically in the paper and shown on the diagram. The cores are 8.5 metres deep and 7.7 metres deep respectively (from the modern ground surface), going back 6,600 years. Therefore sedimentation rate at the Khufu branch is lower than the average Nile sedimentation rate as shown on other graphs.
In their study, their Holocene Maximum (peak height of the Khufu branch of the river) is roughly 5,500 years ago - when they say the level of the Khufu branch was the highest in their study, based on pollen.
Using their core data, we know there was only 1 metre of sedimentation in the 1,000 years between this maximum level and the 4th dynasty, e.g, at Core G1, radiocarbon dated sediments dating to the Old Kingdom are 6.2 metres deep, and radiocarbon dated sediments dating to 5,500 years ago are 7.5 metres deep. There is just 1.3 metres of sedimentation here. At Core G4, we see just 60cm of sedimentation in the 1,000 years.
So, across the two cores, we can say roughly 1 metre of sedimentation in the Khufu branch between 5,500 years ago and the 4th dynasty, on average.
So, based on the cores, the floor of the Khufu branch of the Nile, which is under analysis, was only 1 metre higher in the Old Kingdom, but the level of the Nile was also just 40% of what it was during its Holocene Maximum, which was 1,000 years earlier at 5,500 years ago. Crunching the numbers and this does indicate the Sphinx would have been inundated for many decades around 5,500 years ago. The floor of the Khufu branch was not significantly deeper, yet water level WAS significantly higher.
7,000 years ago we get another peak in the water level of the Khufu branch of the river. Sedimentation between the Old Kingdom and this time, if we extend the graph of cores G1 and G4, show between 2 metres and 2.8 metres of sedimentation in 2,500 years.
So the Khufu branch WASN'T much deeper between the Old Kingdom and 7,000 years ago - we have physical evidence in cores - BUT the level of the Nile was substantially higher - we have pollen evidence. Again, the Sphinx enclosure is flooded.
On diagram 2A in their study, sedimentation is the red line and around 5,500 years ago, when the Nile was highest, the "average Nile sedimentation rate" (across the whole of the Nile) is 20 cm per century. That is the average Nile as a whole, not specifically at the Khufu branch. At the Khufu branch, we have specific cores - physical observations - we can measure - and because we see just 1 metre of sediment in 1,000 years, it indicates 10cm per century sedimentation rate on average for the specific Khufu branch between 5,500 and 4,500 years ago.
As stated, the G1 and G4 cores are only 8.5 metres deep and 7.7 metres deep respectively from the modern ground surface, and that covers thousands of years of history.
What is clear is that sedimentation rate at the Khufu branch was certainly slower than the average Nile sedimentation rate. But because the data stops at '8,000 years ago' we don't know how much deeper the floor of the Nile would have been 10,000 or 12,000 years ago. We can take a calculated guess using cores G1 and G4 and all indications show it's not as deep as we may think.
In the study, we have a specific core, detailed, dated and documented. We know in G4, 5,500 year the floor of the river is found at 6.3 metres below the modern ground and in the Old Kingdom the floor is 5.7 metres deep. We know this was radiocarbon dated and we have physical observation. Pollen shows the Khufu branch of the river was much higher 5,500 years ago compared to the Old Kingdom.
IF we believe the study and IF we agree it is a fair assessment, it means the Sphinx WAS flooded year after year, for many years, at various times in the African Humid period when we see the numerous peaks in river height. The Sphinx would have been flooded IF we trust the pollen data and this study, because we know the Khufu branch wasn't massively deeper.
Also, study isn't just showing us the height of the annual floods, it's showing us the height of the river through time, based on cores taken in the modern floodplain, which is where the Khufu branch once flowed.
Now, the bottom half of the Sphinx, the bedrock should show clear signs of flood and river erosion, even if the water has a very low energy. It would show on the soft Member II limestone. We would also see a tide line or erosional line on the south enclosure wall, however faint or deeply eroded. It would leave a clear and obvious band where the sphinx had been submerged in history. If we don't see it, then there is a huge problem - if the bottom half or even bottom quarter of the Sphinx shows no river erosion or even standing water erosion at all, then either the new study is wrong, or the Sphinx is not a truly ancient monument.
If I have this wrong, please correct me, but I'm using the cores in the paper's appendix and the data on their pollen graphs to draw these conclusions.
I made a point similar to Robert Johns 2 days ago about it being on the edge of the river and how the edge of rivers, even fast-moving ones, tend to had a dramatically slower flow than the deeper parts (and given the relatively shallow slope angle of the land near the Sphinx as is pertains to the main channel of the Nile, the current would be dramatically less destructive and eroding, unless I'm missing something). And it would seem that the pattern of erosion would be different with horizontally moving flow than with a downward flow that we get with the wall of the enclosure. I mean, if sand was blown downward instead of horizontally, wind/sand erosion would look different as well, wouldn't it?
I get that the limestone has different structures in different parts of the body, but when I look at the Member II section of the body, I don't see limestone weathering that couldn't have been caused by relatively gentle swirling shoreline water flow and then later additional erosion from wind and sand. I think that the argument of catastrophic destruction of the Sphinx based on the flow rate of what would have been the middle of the river is just not--pardon the pun--holding water well. I'm not saying that it wouldn't have been underwater at all, I'm just saying that there seems to be some apparent holes in the idea that it would have been eroded down to a stump. And if the enclosure existed at this time, would it have gone further in slowing the flow, even causing a bit of an eddy situation, that would have further inhibited massive water erosion/destruction?
I certainly don't know enough on the topic to make definitive claims, but I do think that these are valid points of contention. As always, thanks for bringing this to our attention, Matt!
@@thebrhinocerous I stated similar yesterday Brian. The enclosure walls clearly demonstrate downward precipitation. We need to know rainfall detail for the Holocene
Here's what I'd like to know,how does this explain the evidence of the erosion caused from rain? We have to question everything now when it concerns any new supposed evidence. It's a proven fact that we can't trust our leaders that to tell the truth. We surely can't trust modern academia to tell the truth since anything found to be proven older than the time-line of a certain 2000 yr old, fictious book written to instill fear in the simple minds of those times is removed and kept hidden or if too big to move,they will spoon feed crap filled stories for us to digest as if people aren't intelligent enough still to this day. I do however wonder about those who believe some of the nonsense given in responses to findings or incidents. The same goes for data and people,both are corruptible.
I'm fairly new to the topic but my question is do we have a fresh quarry or cut from one of the walls to see how soft the fresh limestone is compared to that of the body?
This paper must reasonably assume that the topography has basically not changed more than mere inches at the site in 7,000 years. Meanwhile there are roman towns on the coast of Italy that have dropped a hundred feet below the surface and we know they were working ports only 2,000 years ago.
Though Giza is hardly on the coast it's at least plausible that noticable effects of the 400 missing feet of water column across the entire Mediterranean basin could've been caused that far inland. It's unclear how the area around Giza could've been effected by say the crust under the Med trying to rise 80 feet or so on average while 100 metric tons of water column per square meter was away in glaciers but it's tough to rule anything out. Most other places where any polygonal masonry is seen still experience high seismic activity even today. It's likely Egypt saw far more than now maybe even more than the ring of fire sees today during or just after the last glacial period. That's potentially a lot of movement going on.
Even if we use the pyramids base as a defacto level the >1% difference in hight of its base today leaves dozens of feet the ground might've unevenly shifted vertically since it was built assuming it was originally 99.9% level not counting what the low side might've moved as well.
It's a hallmark of Randall Carlson's ideas that ice age mass redistribution could've had any number of impacts like large vertical shifts of points on the planet's oceanic plates near spreading faults but also possibly significant lateral displacements even of continental plates as well. Say the floor of the med tries to rise but puts lateral pressure on north Africa. Maybe those effects were evident far inland.
I may be grasping at straws with this but how do we even know whether the khufu branch wasn't a canal complete with locks enabling it to be a consistent depth at very different elevations as the river? I know there's no prior indication of such an innovation being used anywhere before about 1000AD (in China for anyone interested) but it's not a huge leap to think a country and economy entirely dependent on the Nile that already gets credit for building the world's first dam might've got there first.
My question is if the Egyptians knew about the flooding, why would they build tunnels all over the plateau if they knew it would be flooded rendering the tunnels useless?
or rendering them useful...
@@rogerjohnson2562Either.
Exactly!!!
The data says the sedimentation rate of this branch of the Nile during the Holocene Maximum (HM) was about 30 cm per century, or 15 m of sedimentation over the 5,000 years from the HM to the Old Kingdom era. So 10,000 years ago, the river-bed would have been at least 15 m lower than now - thus any flooding would have started from a much lower point.
So the peak 40% higher flood level during the HM, would only be the same total level as during the dynastic period (higher floods, but lower river-bed).
Note, if flood levels HAD been higher, then there would be fluvial deposits all around the level of the Sphinx. And I don’t believe there are any such silt deposits at that level.
Ralph.
Look up Unchartedx and Randall Carlson. They did a really good video about the erosion. It's been a while since I have seen it, but I want to say that Carlson believes some of the erosion at the site was caused by rain.
that's correct, they find old settlements 3 meters below where the current soil level is. Plus, if you look at topography map you can have a 10km wide river and still not reach the sphinx.
When the rain fell on Giza during the time of the Pharaohs, it would have rolled downhill from the pyramids and right into the Sphinx compound. The Wall of the Crow to the south of the Sphinx was used as a way to hold back some of the flood waters, but part of it looks like it was washed away and it was never completed. If this is true, this shows the power of some of the storms and floods the ancient Egyptians had to contend with.
Hi Ralph,
The new paper is referring to a specific period of study - the past 8,000 years.
In the appendix of the paper, we see the complete cores (G1 and G4) which were within the ancient, now-dried up Khufu branch of the river. The cores are 8.5 metres deep and 7.7 metres deep respectively (from the modern ground surface), going back 6,600 years. Therefore sedimentation rate at the Khufu branch is lower than the average Nile sedimentation rate as shown on other graphs.
In their study, their Holocene Maximum (peak height of the Khufu branch of the river) is roughly 5,500 years ago - when they say the level of the Khufu branch was the highest in their study, based on pollen.
Using their core data, we know there was only 1 metre of sedimentation in the 1,000 years between this maximum level and the 4th dynasty, e.g, at Core G1, radiocarbon dated sediments dating to the Old Kingdom are 6.2 metres deep, and radiocarbon dated sediments dating to 5,500 years ago are 7.5 metres deep. There is just 1.3 metres of sedimentation here. At Core G4, we see just 60cm of sedimentation in the 1,000 years.
So, across the two cores, we can say roughly 1 metre of sedimentation in the Khufu branch between 5,500 years ago and the 4th dynasty, on average.
So, based on the cores, the floor of the Khufu branch of the Nile, which is under analysis, was only 1 metre higher in the Old Kingdom, but the level of the Nile was also just 40% of what it was during its Holocene Maximum, which was 1,000 years earlier at 5,500 years ago. Crunching the numbers and this does indicate the Sphinx would have been inundated for many decades around 5,500 years ago. The floor of the Khufu branch was not significantly deeper, yet water level WAS significantly higher.
7,000 years ago we get another peak in the water level of the Khufu branch of the river. Sedimentation between the Old Kingdom and this time, if we extend the graph of cores G1 and G4, show between 2 metres and 2.8 metres of sedimentation in 2,500 years.
So the Khufu branch WASN'T much deeper between the Old Kingdom and 7,000 years ago - we have physical evidence in cores - BUT the level of the Nile was substantially higher - we have pollen evidence. Again, the Sphinx enclosure is flooded.
On diagram 2A in their study, sedimentation is the red line and around 5,500 years ago, when the Nile was highest, the "average Nile sedimentation rate" (across the whole of the Nile) is 20 cm per century. That is the average Nile as a whole, not specifically at the Khufu branch. At the Khufu branch, we have specific cores - physical observations - we can measure - and because we see just 1 metre of sediment in 1,000 years, it indicates 10cm per century sedimentation rate on average for the specific Khufu branch between 5,500 and 4,500 years ago.
As stated, the G1 and G4 cores are only 8.5 metres deep and 7.7 metres deep respectively from the modern ground surface, and that covers thousands of years of history.
What is clear is that sedimentation rate at the Khufu branch was certainly slower than the average Nile sedimentation rate. But because the data stops at '8,000 years ago' we don't know how much deeper the floor of the Nile would have been 10,000 or 12,000 years ago. We can take a calculated guess using cores G1 and G4 and all indications show it's not as deep as we may think.
In the study, we have a specific core, detailed, dated and documented. We know in G4, 5,500 year the floor of the river is found at 6.3 metres below the modern ground and in the Old Kingdom the floor is 5.7 metres deep. We know this was radiocarbon dating and physical observation. Pollen shows the Khufu branch of the river was much higher 5,500 years ago compared to the Old Kingdom.
IF we believe the study and IF we agree it is a fair assessment, it means the Sphinx WAS flooded year after year, for many years, at various times in the African Humid period when we see the numerous peaks in river height. The Sphinx would have been flooded IF we trust the pollen data and this study, because we know the Khufu branch wasn't massively deeper.
Also, study isn't just showing us the height of the annual floods, it's showing us the height of the river through time, based on cores taken in the modern floodplain, which is where the Khufu branch once flowed.
Now, the bottom half of the Sphinx, the bedrock should show clear signs of flood and river erosion, as should the south enclosure wall. It would leave a clear and obvious erosional band where the sphinx had been submerged in history. If we don't see it, then there is a huge problem - if the bottom half or even bottom quarter of the Sphinx shows no river erosion or even standing water erosion at all, then either the new study is wrong, or the Sphinx is not a truly ancient monument.
If I have this wrong, please correct me, but I'm using the cores in the paper's appendix and the data on their pollen graphs to draw these conclusions.
Thank you!
@@ManuSeyfzadeh Paper: "Bioindicators (pollen grains) were extracted from cores
G1 and G4 situated in what has
been geographically defined as the Khufu branch of the Nile" - not the paleo-floodplain in the Old Kingdom, the actual branch of the river, as the diagram shows.
They are looking at the relative quantities of the different types of pollen deposited in the river, whether terrestrial plant pollen, floodplain plant pollen and so on, to get an idea what was growing in the vicinity through time. Less terrestrial pollen in the river sediments, shows less land and hence higher water levels, and more terrestrial pollen shows more land and hence lower levels.
They specifically say they sample the MODERN floodplain and the core goes through what has "geographically defined as the Khufu branch of the Nile" - not the paleofloodplain of the Khufu branch in the 4th dynasty. The diagram in the paper also specifically shows G1 and G4 inside the branch.
They say: "The highest water
levels are attested by high abundances of Cyperaceae and helophytes,
with a higher input of tropical pollen from the Nile
River" If more terrestrial pollen taxa are deposited in the river it indicates a lower level of the Nile.
The case sounds incomplete because it's build on a wrong premise: It's based on the assumption that the enclosure of the Sphinx was open and unprotected against the floods throughout all the years.
However, if we think through the whole "the Sphinx is old" hypothesis, it's impossible that this was the case. If we assume it was build +10.000 bc, then we are looking at a rain forest-like vegetation around it. If we leave it in this kind of vegetation for only a few thousands of years a lot of sediment will build up in the enclosure. This sediment will preserve what's underneath it. It happens really quick, I mean, the Sphinx was burried when it was rediscovered again after a few thousand years. It could have stayed like that for another thousands of years and the structure would have been fine, because it was completely covered in sand.
In addition to that floods don't work the way they are described in the video. Everyone who was hit by a flood knows it. What's described in the video would only happen, if the Sphinx was located in the middle of a river bed and not in a flood area. When a flood occurs, it usually carries a lot of sediment, as well as the boulders that are described at one point, which are left behind after the flood disappears.
Only the first flood would hit the monument hard. Afterwards, after each following flood, the damage on the core of the structure would become smaller and smaller because it would get burried under more and more sediment each time. It would be similar to what we see in Pompeji, where the whole city was buried below a thick layer of sediment right away, only that it would happen in smaller steps before the whole structure is covered.
We wouldn't see that original sediment now, because the Egyptians reportedly restored the Sphinx at some point which probably included removing all boulders etc. that you hint to in the video.
The thing that would have been exposed to the most damage would have been the head of the Sphinx. Now I'm not 100% sure if this is confirmed, but afaik the head we see today isn't supposed to be its original head anyway which would fit into all other parts of the theory.
Based on this theory, wouldn’t the valley temple have the same or very similar erosion as the sphinx and the sphinx enclosure?
Perhaps not if the builders designed the roof with rainfall in mind.
The sphinx is made of the bedrocks so it have the same erosion than the bedrock, not monuments made of assembled stones.
@@patriciaoudart1508 The temple is made of the same bedrock, taken from around the sphinx when it was constructed.
The valley temple was cased in granite. The stones cut from the bedrock were sandwiched between granite almost like insulation
Yes. This guy is a paid shill.
The sphinx had been repaired so many times it's hard to know what you are looking at
The front legs were being restored when i was there in the early 1980s.
I've seen plenty of floods on the Ohio River and its usually rather calm close to the banks. Also the animation keeps showing the body submerged with the head dry. Exactly how the erosion is. Third point, even though the body is made of soft limestone it was sheathed in a harder casing stone which would have protected the limestone core.
I think this new information actually strengthens the case for it being older.
Yea, I live right right on the Pacific coastline. People construct buildings that are submerged all the time. SMH.
To what purpose would building the Sphinx and its temple below waterline serve?
@@surfk9836 it wasn't below the waterline. It flooded. Guess what, people still build in places where it regularly floods. That's another topic.
@@claudermiller Watch the video AGAIN! No person in their right mind would try to build anything in the ancient Nile river. There is no river today that could compare to its verosity.
An if the Sphinx was completely encased in hard stone, it would never have been eroded the way it is.
nobody wants wreck his boat to that higher rock, it was propaly marked somehow
I agree!
These were my same thoughts as I was watching the video.
When the Sahara was covered with grasses, the Nile may have been far deeper as the erosion from the flowing water would carve a path down like the Colorado did with the Grand Canyon. When it dried up, the winds would push sand into the Nile River making it shallower.
@@nedmilburn the area of the Sahara was a sea when the Earth was warmer. Without all of the glaciers on top of mountains and significantly less water at the poles meant the sea level was higher. This would be long before the Sahara became dry land. The sand would still be there.
@@nedmilburn sand under Saharan sea 100 million year ago. Dry land 10,000 years ago. Sand is still there available for wind dispersion.
@@nedmilburn case in point: "Whale bones in the Sahara desert" unless you claim that Whales have the ability to wander about in the desert.
ua-cam.com/video/xBbP-sgforA/v-deo.html
We know that the Sphinx enclosure quickly fills with sand and stays that way unless it's maintained. We also know that the first inscription associated with the Sphinx claims to have dug it out and repaired it despite being only a few hundred years old at that point.
The sand filling the enclosure seems to have been present the entire time between Dynastic Egypt and the nineteenth century. This sand would protect the stone from wind erosion while allowing seasonal flood runoff to flow through the sand.
Things are complicated by the fact that both the early Sphinx temple as well as the adjacent valley temple were constructed from stone removed to form the body of the Sphinx and it's enclosure.
The early Sphinx temple is much more eroded than the -body- enclosure walls of the Sphinx which makes sense given that the valley temples wouldn't have had any protection from wind erosion and the full force of any precipitation. So far it's easy to argue for a younger Sphinx. Except...
There's still the Valley Temple _which was supposedly encased in granite from the start at roughly the same time the Sphinx enclosure originated._ Of course these granite casing stones show noticable but much less prominent erosion *however* the limestone it encased *does* show erosion of similar degree and style (whatever it's cause) which the granite casing was _carefully carved to match._ This means either the granite must've been added *long* after mainstream Egyptology believes OR the enclosure must've been far older.
That was exactly what I was thinking.
There was no sand there 3500 years ago
@@drunvert yea there was, the last time there was grassland there was 5000 years ago, and 1500 years without rain is way more than what it would take to cause desertification.
INCORRECT. The early Sphinx temple is less eroded thwn the Sphinx body. If you look at pictures from the 19th century, before it was repaired, you can see that the body was almost broken in half from erosion.
@@rustinpeace770 I was mainly talking about the walls of the enclosure but didn't make that clear. There could've been a crack or something that sped up erosion of the body of the Sphinx as well but it being more eroded than the walls is more consistent with rain water draining off the plateau pouring in from three sides and hitting the Sphinx than with overflow from the Nile mostly eroding from the front back and from the upstream side down.
Robert Schoch has gone on record saying archeology, not geology, are the ones who can truly date the Sphinx.
Really?
@@AncientArchitects you showed a World of Antiquity video that mentions that. At least that’s where I heard it from, Battle of the Geologists.
@@AncientArchitects that doesn’t mean Schoch won’t input his opinions, but according to WoA he says archeology is who can truly date the artifacts.
so the thing that had been buried multiple times by sand (and is theorized to have water erosion) couldnt possibly have been underwater at some point? i dont get why this means it couldnt possibly be older.. just that it could have been flooded? Its not like sites dont get flooded and dried out all the time. Just last month the "Spanish stone henge" or whatever was revealed after being under a lake for ages...(dated to 5,000bc)?
His video is more proving Schock than against, obliviously, it seems. Which is wild.
You need to watch the video again. It shares that the flooding was constant for centuries, not an occasional thing only.
Or at least older than the limestone surrounding it. Not to mention it was buried up to the neck still in the early 1800's. That means thousands of yrs of water erosion plus thousands of years of desert sand burying it.
When Robert present his work to the geology community they all agreed there’s a whole paper on it, they also said he went way to young on the dating!
The geology community
Interesting observations. Now if they would open the buried chambers reportedly discovered by remote sensing that appear to exist near the paws of the sphinx. If there is water damage there, then it would raise other interesting issues. Also there may be contents that could be radio carbon dated, etc.
Does this model take into account that the faster flowing, larger volume of water through the Nile at that time would prevent sedimentary buildup in the Nile flood plain, as much of that sediment would be pushed out and deposited into the Mediterranean?
The riverbed therefore would be a lot lower and therefore the surface of the river could still be equivalent to what it is today without inundating the sphinx enclosure, despite its larger volume.
@@fatarsemonkey well if i understand correctly that if the Nile was always much larger and faster flowing in antiquity then the extent of the flood plain and delta in such a narrow valley would not have developed to the extent it is today because such fluvial sedimentary deposits are characteristic of slow meandering rivers and so would not have developed until recently.
@@fatarsemonkey Yes it would be interesting. I'm no geologist but i've read that during the younger dryas (when the mediterranean was bone dry and basically a massive salt depression) the lower Nile valley was once a deep canyon, from i think the Fayoum and on down beneath what is now the delta. That was millennia ago (maybe 10000yrs ago or something) but interesting to know things where very different and that the delta was not only not there but once a huge canyon. So as for finding bedrock i imagine that is buried pretty deep under the flood plain.
@@daefx2802 On watching the video a 2nd time I picked-up the statement that the bedrock beneath the bed of the river is down 1,500 ft with its canyon filled with sediment. That never gets discussed.
@@redwoodcoast As i say i'm no geologist so best to double check this but i think it was during the Messinian Salinity Crisis millions of years ago that the Nile cut through the valley down that deep. That was when the Mediterranean was cut off from the Atlantic and was a hot dry basin. So way too far back to be a factor.
But even after the last ice age, 12,000 yrs or so ago, when things started thawing out and became a lot wetter, the Nile valley was still a lot lower than it is today.
I think @Ancient Architects has addressed analysis of river bed data for the period in question in his pinned comment above.
He has replied to one of the first comments with a similar question. He goes over a lot of info, recommend you check it out if you havent already. Adds up to 1 extra meter or 1 less, already cant remember lol, between 5500 (wet maximum) and 3000, so basically its not different during that period. Therefore the flooding kf the sphinx, unless there is unexplained run off somewhere was roughly whats expected.
The main problem with your explanation is that the sides of the Sphinx are damaged by Rain Water Erosion. That’s different from erosion caused by flood water.
The explanation is that it's impossible cus it was under water though. So that rain water erosion has to have came from thousands of years of rain they say. It couldn't have been from a rime it was under water
it wasnt under water ever...Ever...the sides of the enclosure and the sphinx itself have 2 different patterns of erosion.
The Giza plateau can flood with heavy rain. Its pretty intense and funnels into the Sphinx compound, due to the incline, causing serious erosion over time. This is from an historians eye witness account, David Rohl, who has been visiting Eygpt from age 7. One very sincere and thoroughly researched opinion.
@@paulking54 and people don't take into account that it was buried for who knows how long. That would concentrate water. It wasn't just exposed like it is now. That makes a huge difference. The water would make little channels through the sand and of course be more erosion on the body rather than the head and back. That's why it's more on one side.
@Eleventh Monkey Gaming untrue
There is probably none besides Schoch publicly holding that claim because you'd be stripped of all academic reputation, which tells you a lot about modern academia.
Could the sphinx have once been far larger thousands of years ago? This would allow a lot of weathering before being reworked in 3500 bc.
its body is covered in rocks that have no erosion, but the parts without rocks have the rain erosion, so if you removed the blocks, I guess the remaining core is the original structure, but I bet that is barely has any form.
since the giza plateu is man made, the sphinx could have been of any shape, and much larger originally, since clearly not much is remaining under the later added blocks.
Why not all guessing
This is by far the best channel to subscribe to for the latest news about ancient Egypt. All the other channels are just regurgitating things they said 5-25 years ago to try to sell more tours and books. I love how you cover the latest scientific papers to me that's very definitive work and nobody else seems to want to hear from the experts these days. I listen to a lot of fringe theories, but I wish people who listen to fringe theories would listen to more scientific content like this too. It would really help!
I’m just presenting Schneiker’s work, and adding data from a brand new August 2022 paper… some people think I’m taking shots. 🤷 Im not at all… I’m just showing evidence, showing data and at the end I said I’d love to hear Schoch counter it. I think that we should all hear all sides and keep on top of data so we have a better understanding. Schneiker could be wrong but since his 2017 lecture, in 5 years I haven’t seen a strong rebuttal against his ideas. But I more than many are totally open to it. Thanks for watching and the kind words mate 👍
What is an example of those ‘other channels’
@@AncientArchitects yes I saw some of those comments about taking shots. This video is so dense I'm going to have to watch it twice and I recommend everyone else do the same! Reviewing scientific evidence is not "taking shots" it's just part of the scientific process. If all these guys were in the same room they wouldn't Duke it out with each other they would politely discuss the facts like you have done here. I think some people on UA-cam and social media in general wants you to get into an intellectual boxing match like Jake Paul or something.
Ancient Architects also entertains various arguments and presents them honestly. Which is rare on and off of UA-cam.
You mean latest olds 😜
I’ve been really interested in Hancock and Randall Carlson’s ideas about a lost ancient civilization for a while now, but I love hearing these alternative arguments. Have you ever reached out to Randall Carlson to do a collaboration video? I’d love to hear his response to legitimate alternative views.
He ignores legitimate views. Otherwise, he could not paddle the alternative history which is the only source of his fame and money.
What kind of civilization creates these kind of impossible monuments and structures without a detailed and celebrated in depth description on their walls of hyroglifics to highlight the method meaning date etc when they had no problem keeping records of everything else ?
@@AustinKoleCarlisle elaborate on who these people inherited from? Who did they inherit from???
@@AustinKoleCarlisle you mean steal n take the credit, classic Zahi Hawass style😂
Good video again.
My thought on why reason the Great Sphinx's build date is so elusive is perhaps because it was worked and reworked over and over for many 1,000s of years.
Could have the original rock outcrop be large enough that after a very long period of time those craving fools on the Nile would have re-carved and deepen the body of whatever was there?
Likewise was the Great Pyramid added too and rebuild on an earlier structure?
I really like your videos, they’re very informative.
I will say however, I don’t buy this hypothesis. There’s a few holes I could poke but things that stand out most to me are the fact that if the Nile River were that high at certain times in history, the sphinx would have been at the edge of the water and in a relatively small alcove of the river where the water would’ve been flowing much much slower thus not capable of creating the same kind of erosion that the middle of the river would’ve caused.
Also, the proposed boulders that can be moved by massive flood waters as you present, also wouldn’t have been able to churn about and grind the sphinx to practically nothing with it being in that shallow rivers edge. Examples of my claims can be seen from the smallest stream to the largest river where the middle is always deepest and contains the largest sediments.
The sphinx has clearly seen much water erosion in its time but I’m not convinced of this hypothesis.
Thanks for your videos
Interesting, but if the alcove was ahead of the downstream flow of the river there would be substantial bank erosion due to "water hammering" against the bank. Maybe?
It doesn't need to be boulders. It just needs to be sand or even smaller. A massive nile under flood back then would 100% have eroded the Sphinx away. Not to memtion that just being wet weakens it, increasing the erosion rate.
@@morkusmorkus6040 the head changed twice & the body restored endless times. It eroding away literally means nothing. & that’s ignoring that they could apparently move insanely heavy blocks & build pyramids.. but not protect or rebuild the sphinx if it’s older? C’mon man.
I don't know about 3500 years. I've been there and seen the limestone, and it is not the type that would just turn to dust in your hands. I've been around a lot of limestone, and it's my opinion that the Sphinx is much older. I don't care what some geologists say in order to be on the side of the mainstream narrative.
what about the one's who are just trying to be on the side of the more exciting narrative? That carries more weight for you then?
@@jellyrollthunder3625 I couldn't say. How about you?
I'm on the side of truth. To find the truth, one must entertain different theories, examine the evidence, then get rid of those theories that are scientifically discounted. It could be we will never know the exact age of the Sphinx. I truly believe it began as a natural shape that vaguely looked like a lion that was possibly carved to enhance this similarity. The lion's muzzle fell off at some point or was damaged and/or recarved by the current Pharoah to resemble himself.
@@Amp497 Well I suppose I put a premium on the side that isn't just discarding counter-evidence that doesn't suit their narratives. I'm talking about the MANY MANY MANY UA-cam historians fishing for likes and subscribers. There's very little money in academic research
@@jellyrollthunder3625 I think that's reasonable. I agree.
I think the most fascinating question to ask is what the original sphinx looked like before it was repaired ! I've always wondered
Looking at the many photos makes me conclude that the body is of a different material than the head and the legs. There's not nearly as much erosion on those parts as on the body. In addition, the head has a different shading to it, like it's a different type of stone. The smoothness of the head and of the legs, showing little to no horizontal erosion suggest a different type of stone. It's said the Sphinx is carved of one stone, but it doesn't appear so to me. The legs look attached and yet I suppose if they were, where they attach to the body would have been seen. Nevertheless, I've never heard anyone raise this issue. It may have been raised and I just haven't seen it.
@@justajo2 They are, there have been many repairs and reconstructions on the sphinx.
Exactly!! I've always wondered what it originally looked like, especially the head.
The issue is the evidence of weathering by rain, not just water, and it didn’t rain heavily 3,500 years ago, it did around 10,000 years ago.
Actually, it's in the ancient records that the Pharaohs had to contend with all sorts of storms and floods. You're thinking of Egypt today, not Egypt, not 4500 years ago. It didn't just stop raining 5000 years ago. Even today, Cairo got heavy rains on Oct. 22, 2019 that caused flash flooding in many Egyptian cities. Five people were killed in flash floods in a thunderstorm that hit Mar. 12, 2020. Heavy rains caused floods on April 24 and 27, 2018. Oct 23, 2019 there were floods after heavy rains. On November 21, 2021 heavy rains closed schools and government offices. Don't think the erosion was just caused by the Nile.
@@danpetitpas sure, But it also had to sit there undisturbed for a large period of time as well, not sure that happened during or after bronze age.
You show the highly destructive force of flood waters , but you say it didn't do what we see, but the erosion was made?
Water that is coming down as rain, and what is left by flooding, is a different type of erosion.
And the Sphinx has the rain type.
I believe the Sphinx is very old, because it, compared to the pyramids, the pyramids don't show any water erosion, the Sphinx does.
IMO the water that erodes the sphinx were spilled water from the Great Pyramid as the Great Pyramid was also functioning as Solar Water Pump.
Actually, there is heavy erosion on the pyramids (don't know which) _under_ the casing stones, in some places. Which means the core could be a lot older and they also were "reworked" one or several times.
I read most of the geological papers on the Sphinx. All of them have different hypotheses. However, none of them are conclusive. Most of the hardliner Egyptologists based their hypotheses on a false civilization timeline which has been invalid by new archaeological evidences such Gobekli Tepe.
This appears technically correct. The thing that struck me is when they showed the simulation of the Sphinx being headless and worn to a stub. Could the animal headed Sphinx of 10,000 years ago have been rebuilt and given a pharaohs head at 3,500 year mark?
@Miranda Campisano - it could have been, and there is a theory like that. That about 11000-12000 years ago, he was looking at the constelation of Leo (which at that time was over the horizon in front of Sphinx, and it would make sense that his head was that of a Lion).
Also water erosion on his side would suggest that he was under heavy rains at some point, which again, moves the date a bit (as at some point in time that part of Arfica was green and with a lot of rain). We know now what happened about 12K +years ago, and what could have wiped out any previous civilizations. The astronomical data is pretty clear about it. I recommend checking something like: "Palaeolithic extinctions and the Taurid Complex", by W.M. Napier, from Cardiff Center for Astrobiology, Cardiff University.
I can also recommend reading a classic from Robert Schoch (geologist): "Pyramid Quest: Secrets of the Great Pyramid and the Dawn of Civilization". As geologist he is looking at the Sphinx from that point of view: geology.
@@tannhauser5399 you can clearly see the existing head is not in pro portion to the rest of the monument..I believe 100% ut was added at a later date
@@steveramundo4946 I like the theory that the original head was re-carved from some other head... lion?... into the present Pharaoh version. This would also explain why it is small, and out of proportion.
@@steveramundo4946 - it wasn't added, as such. Whatever it was before, was simply cut out, chiseled, and made smaller as a human head, for whatever reason.
Whoever made Sphinx wasn't stupid, and the original head had to be in a proper proportions to the whole body. The same with three major pyramids, a pure masterpiece, and this also goes for pyramids that exist in other countries (from South America to China).
@@steveramundo4946 Absolutely
I'm not sure what this proves one way or the other. If the Sphinx is older than 3,500BC, its base would obviously been flooded. But if that had been the case, it would also have been abandoned and probably surrounded and maybe even covered by dirt.
In this video I’m presenting the case made by Robert Schneiker, combined with data in a new study on the Nile floods specifically at Giza. As I say at the end of the video, I would genuinely love to hear someone counter the points as I’m genuinely interested. I’m yet to see a solid way to refute the claims after a couple of years of trying. I am collating key comments and will put them to Schneiker in due course! 👍
I had already come to a similar conclusion to this paper after reading up on data on this, some of which you covered in previous videos.
There is a chance that the Sphinx existed in some form prior to when Narmer conquered all of Eqypt, but if so it would only have been a few hundred years at most.(or It could be as late as the 4th dynasty).
The idea it is many thousands of years older just doesn't work with the available dating that's been done, and with what we know about the climate history of the area.
Bold video . I applaud the scholarship though I disagree not having done the research. However I find Rogan , lsd weed of the gods guy very suspect too so wouldn’t be surprised if it’s just nonsense
Schoch is also seemingly shilling for the climate change bandwagon as well with his solar flare books and talks. Netflix did a series on that propaganda entitled "Into the Night" where the sun literally kills everyone who goes outside during the day.
what are water damns? that show you shutter off the sphynx to build it.
sphynx had a wolfs head. look at the centre of dendera zodiac, its a wolf. and the wolf weighs the heart before the person passes to teh afterlife, hence, the wolf guarding the 3 pyramids
This is amazing thank you for so much effort...Both arguments are quite compelling...I think the sphynx has been buried in sand several times... But the argument that the stone is so soft that any flood could have erarse it is quite a strong one...This is how science shold be done!! love your work man thank you!
What exactly do you mean by "this is how science should be done"?
I'm not arguing on behalf of the 12,500 year theory, but if they were rerouting the river for the construction of the pyramids, why couldn't they have also had some type of damning to keep it from the Sphinx? Why is it such a guarantee that it would have been submerged just because of the rising water level? New Orleans is below the water level and is totally dry as long as the natural catastrophe doesn't happen, and we already know that they were somehow able to cut and move humongous blocks to build the pyramids. Interesting video, though!
So if the Sphinx avoided the floods by having been built more recently, what DID cause all the erosion we see on it?
What cause the erosion of most of the pyramids ? Rain. It rains in Egypt.
If the water erosion was due to the flooding of the Nile, wouldn't the erosion be more prominent on one side due to the flow of the river? Maybe it is, I do not know.
The erosion of the body of the Sphinx isn't attributed to the flow of the Nile but to sand carried by wind along with the corrosive effect of its salt content corroding the bonds between the limestone molecules. If the area was under salt water as it was originally, that wouldn't be a problem, but rain and river water leach that salt out by dissolving it, leaving the limestone to crumble where the salt was once a part of the matrix.
I sphinx this video is going to ruffle some feathers.
Lol
Out of curiosity, if the sphinx were buried during the humid period, how would that impact flood erosion?
Regarding the Nile: In flood it becomes a large, muddy river, ... SOURCE: Britannica
So yes, floods may have buried the sphinx.
i don't think it would flood anyway. you can have a 10km wide river and still not reach the sphinx.
@@Michael-dl2cf The Nile was a totally different animal back during the humid period. Nothing like it was during dynastic Egypt.
You can't possibly say the sphinx would have looked as eroded as you show in this video after all that time. Because it has been looked after and "retouched" by not only us in modern times but in the past we know there has been changes/work done to it. I can see the feasibility in what you are saying but I see holes also 🤔
There is evidence of regular maintenance all the way back into dynastic times.
You can certainly say they wouldn't have built it in a place that regularly flooded either so you are still much younger than Schoch's claims.
@@swirvinbirds1971 you are completely missing my point. I made my point and it's a good one 👀
The head has been changed twice. It being removed means absolutely nothing.
this does not even get close to the age of the pyramids themselves it just shows how hard the egyptans tried to repurpose it
The pyramids have been dated three different ways, and all three point to the early dynastic where you’d expect. How old are you thinking they are?
at least take into consideration magnetic traversal
@@collect0r taking that into consideration, the pyramids have still been dated 3 different ways to the old dynasty and nothing so far shows them to be older. Even graham hancock has at this point backtracked and said he believes they are 4500 years old.
@@Eye_of_Horus i say from approx 16000 to 35000 years ago the egyptians just repurposed everything in the area, only time will tell what technology and truths remain hidden from us.
@@collect0r you don’t need time since it’s probably never going to happen. There isn’t anything to suggest those kinds of dates. Look at archaeology from the time of 70,000 years all the way until the first dynasty’s. We are talking very primitive stone tools and pottery and nothing else. And despite what bullshit artists who sell books and UA-cam videos say about “you can’t date stone”, if you can date everything around it including under, or the mortar joining blocks, etc, you don’t need to date the stone itself. It’s dated.
You just explained why sphinx's head looks like it is attached to body and toatlly different than the body. I think first sphinx and bedrock carving was completed before flood. Flood ruined old sphinx and it's been rebuilt at dynastic period in 3500 bc with that little human head. So sphinx ( or whatever there was before ) was built long before dynastic period.
Have you considered that the Sphinx, much like the pyramids, was sheathed with a much harder stone, constructed with similar "can't fit a piece of paper between" precision as the various other structures and artifacts like symmetrically perfect granite boxes, statues, and bowls?
I believe the architects of both the Sphinx and the pyramids knew very well what water does to limestone, and shielded them accordingly. It's not like they haven't baffled us all with the precision of their constructions around the world, and they knew how to ensure it could survive for hundreds of millennia.
This does not take into account the Wall of Crow and any other earlier flood control wall system that could have been in pace to protect the sphynx structure. Also, it's quite possible the Osirus shaft was originally constructed as flood control, and not as as tomb. I'm not saying you are wrong in your assessment, but there are many variables and an incomplete story of the area to dismiss any theory at this point.
Wall of the Crow is flood defence for sure, but also 100% Old kingdom, as it cuts an earlier old Kingdom structure.
@@AncientArchitects Yes, I know. But that's not to say there wasn't something much earlier in it's place or for the same kind of function. My point was, they knew about flood control, and since the area has been raided over time for resources/stone, we really don't know what was there. Everything right now is an educated guess at best and we can't dismiss one theory as a fact over other theories until we get a complete picture ... which we are nowhere near.
What we nee is evidence not saying.
Interesting, but maybe the enclosure was filled with sand or sediment for a long time which would have diverted the water. It wasn't really placed in the center of the riverbed after all, but just on the edge, so it wouldn't receive as much force from the water, particularly if the body is still buried and only the head was sticking out above the water
Thats fine if its just couple of years, but if wer talking about the sphinx being submerged for thousands of years that something else.
Erosion or protection the sans is one of the answer!👌
No more like the river cut out the enclosure leaving the center rock . Then humans thinking it looked like something decided to further shape it.
But happened after desertification set in in order to erode the area , since hearty plant life would keep it from eroding.
I understand that the Sphinx was covered with sand for centuries. Wouldn’t all that sand have protected the Sphinx from erosion and masked the effects expected?
@@johnharrington4116 Well there would not be any desert sand drifting going on during the wet period. And any of that happening prior 12,000ish years ago. Would get washed away by the wet period.
So it would only be around 5,000ish years ago that it would then be getting covered by desert sands again.
Which all we really know is it was there prior to Thutmose III in 1450 BCE who uncovered it from desert sands , and gave it a face lift.
This doesn't explain why in the time of Khafre it was supposed to have been built there was so much erosion, well accepted the head had to be re-carved, When Thutmose IV uncovered it was buried up to the head, so therefore where did the extensive erosion come from on the body? Sand blasting winds doesn't work on buried object of any type. Men in the past 3 centuries have un-buried it more than once so burial occurs very quickly. Also, Thutmose IV had to do repairs once the it was uncovered, where is the erosion coming from? If the yellow Nile was still flowing at during the construction of the Sphinx they wouldn't have ever built it where it is, that would be fool hardy. Let build in the flood plain? No sir, not buying it! They ancients were not ignorant. Also they made chamber within, so they would have been fine bailing water out of the chambers year after year? maybe for decades if not centuries? You wouldn't build chambers if you know they will be flooded, no logic in that reasoning.
The Temple would have been inundated as well. Again at @13:35 they wouldn't have ever built it there if the conditions weren't stable for generations, which shows in my opinion it was built when the climate was much more stable and the Nile had zero chance of flooding the Sphinx. The paper doesn't hold up, or the ancients perform the construction knowing it was going to drown the sculpture? Why? Not to mention it had to be built in stages, here come the floods we can't work again for months, and when we can we have to clear all the mud and debris before carving again. This doesn't hold up. Lastly the sea levels around the world were much lower during the Wet era and the river wouldn't never have reached that far. With sea levels as much as 400' lower it would have been a stable area 11,000 years ago from the core samples we have collected, 6000 years ago it was a desert until present day.
So Randal really laid out, yes there are huge floods that happened, this defeats your argument because if built when you say the desert looked just like it does today right? So why build there? Sand everywhere, If major flooding happens they knew this is a bad spot. Either way it's a bad spot to build.
If the Egyptians knew the area was going to flood often, two things don't make sense. 1) Why didn't they build diverting channels and or barriers to protect the Sphinx? 2) Why did they build it there in the first place? For the first one, it's possible that they did build channels to try and redirect the water. That may be the various channels we see in the Giza plateau, which are often theorized to also have been used for building the Pyramids. Though they seem far too small and thin for either purpose in my opinion. Not to mention they're pointing in the wrong direction. And as you said, for the second, the Sphinx is in one of the worst possible places.
I still think the more likely explanation is that both the Pyramids and Sphinx were build before the Egyptians were there. By who or for what purpose? Can't answer that. But based on the lack of actual written evidence from the Egyptians themselves that either was build by them, things don't add up. It's just as likely that the Egyptians as we know them today were the custodians of a monument that was there earlier than they were. Either as the ancestors of the builders or people who migrated there. If you were wondering nomads in 5,000 BC and came across giant Pyramids and a giant Lion statue right next to a fertile river...you might just consider it a sign to stop and make your first town there. And this fits a lot closer to the Egyptians own accounting of history, which we do have records of. Unlike any record for the building of the Pyramids or Sphinx. It's very suspicious that a civilization would build something so monumental and just not record it. It would be like us building the Statue of Liberty and just never making a video of it or even writing about it in a book.
You make a strong case. My only two questions are as follows: 1. We know that the sphinx gets covered in sand up to the neck if it’s not kept cleaned, as this has happened several times in history. Ramses II writes of removing the sand, some writers in the Muslim period do the same, and Napoleon’s men found it covered as well. So, I’m wondering what the effects would be on protecting it, or the reverse as the sand in hard-flowing water might act as a scouring pad to increase erosion. 2. What were the actual flow dynamics of the water at that location? At a glance, it looks like the Nile is funneling water directly into that location, which would indicate high turbidity, but flow dynamics is a tricky beast, so I wonder.
This hypothesis is a new iteration of Robert Temple theory of Nile water erosion, Robert Schoch refuted it, it seems you struggle to make up your mind on the Sphinx age, here is the link to one of your previous video :
ua-cam.com/video/e_jrngCX6E0/v-deo.html
This is why I like this channel. You often examine the more "fringe" theories - some of which are interesting but you're not afraid to discount them when the evidence just doesn't add up, even though it means some of the believers of such theories will attack you for it and call you childish names like sheeple etc.
Looking at all possible theories makes sense as it just makes us look more
To be honest, I think we know only a small amount. We need to dig more where we can and are willing.
Even in Iceland we are seeing a story changing and confirming our old books.
Very fascinating indeed 😊
Haha, this guy used to think it was a power plant, this guy just moves with the times for views
I guarantee he didn't debunk anything.
Let me ask you, personally.
Why are people assuming the sphinx and the enclosure are made at the same time?
Isn't it just as possible that they were made at different times, for some reason that hasn't been considered?
Maybe the pit was originally a quarry, or a cistern.
@@ragga_muffin_84 I don't agree with him on this but I think you are wrong also. I think he's under alot of pressure from the mainstream peoples. It's easy to call him out but can you prove him wrong yourself? Doubtful!
Thanks for breathing some fresh air into this subject. Now that you mention it, I haven't seen 1 geologist concur with Robert Schoch's findings.
That said, I've never heard of one that didn't concur with Schoch's findings (until this video 🚩)
There was a Pharo thar had a dream next to Sphinx. Sphinx told him ' If you uncover me and I'll make you King. " If Sphinx was buried in sand, it follows that desertification had taken place, and the Egyptians no longer maintained this monument.
I’ve visited the Sphinx with robert Schoch. Even on site, robert couldn’t convince me about the erosion. Robert is a geologist but his experience is really in a number of general studies.
The erosion patterns do appear to be water driven because of how they appear, but if you look around at the back of the Sphinx enclosure you don’t see this pattern. You also see differential patterns at certain layers that are very hard to explain.
I think reeder raises some very real problems, Schoch is used to talking about this and being accepted. For example I debated with him that a pyrite intrusion up beside the basalt pavement is not from a solar flare “sparking” and changing the limestone, it’s actually a naturally occurring pyrite vein in the limestone and samples I took are magnetic. So, robert is a very nice fellow, however I think he is keen to apply all items he sees against his theories.
I believe I may have been on this very tour [June 2019]. I also wasn't convinced of his lightning strike beside the Khafre pyramid.
Interesting and very cool. You argued with him at Giza? I don't agree with his 12,000 year old Sphinx hypothesis but I give him full marks for bringing the erosion into the public eye.
I never understood that nonsense of a solar flare that destroyed the monuments and civilization. That's not how physics work. Even a huge solar flare gets diluted through the endless space. All it can do is ruin some satellites and create a lot of exciting polar lights that can extend to the south.
I'd like to know if water erosion can form relatively strait diagonal channels or channels that continue under an overhang.
@@kpeters5122 the type/quality of rock is a large factor.
My problem has always been the facing Leo hypothesis- is it really possible that 10K yrs ago they interpreted that constellation as a Lion as well?
Yes! They’re inscribed on the ceiling in a temple nearby.
I would argue our own interpretations are very very old and would connect all the way back that far.
yes they go back further than the flood at the end of the last ice age 11,600 years ago, gobekli tepe is 13,000 years old and it used the same constelations that we have today, those contellations are a constant the world over.
@@King_Flippy_Nips You present it as a fact, but the interpretation of Gobekli Tepe carvings is just that - interpretation. As far as I know, only one guy, Martin Sweatman, claims that pillar 43 carvings are supposed to represent constellations (based on his "statistical test" which he created). And his work (not peer-reviewed) is heavilly criticised by experts. By the way, Gobekli Tepe is closer to 11,500 years old, not 13,000.
But Ancient Egyptians did have a constellation of Leo.
I thought the chinese actually saw it as a horse.
This is what I love about your Chanel, You follow the evidence and are willing to change your mind.
I love alternative theories and see some interesting points made but with no evidence they can only be theory and speculation, it's good to have an open mind to new ideas but they must be grounded in known fact of science, geology and history etc, etc.
I love both the the World of Antiquity and History for granite chanel that I know you also follow.
Yours make it the three best channels for History 👌
It’s nice to see a corrected version by someone who championed the water erosion hypothesis initially. Good job for not continuing to push false conclusions and correcting yourself. Ancient people were very capable of working with hard and large stones. No need to invent an unknown lost high technology civilization, the Egyptians and others are that ancient high technology civilization.
As others have said, wouldn’t the whole area of the sphinx have been eroded away to nothing and formed a uniform bank where the water would flow against? How did the outcrop remain after all that strong flow over thousands of years? Either it wasn’t that powerful or the water level never made it that high.
No one knows how big the outcrop was before it was cut though.
16:00 well there is a strong theory that states that the sphinx was rediscovered by the ancient Egyptians. The body was buried, but the head was exposed. Yet so badly damaged that they reworked it to represent the head now. Possibly was buried during these floods. While the head was beaten and battered by boulders and debris.
A strong theory ? Backed by what ?
@@alde1611 the fact the head is smaller in proportion to the rest of its body.
@Getorix that is not considered a strong theory.
You can call a theory "stronger" than another theory if it is capable of proving more theorems. For example, you could develop the theory of the natural numbers only allowing yourself axioms for what addition is.
@@alde1611 cry about it.
@@Getorix 0.05 IQ
Thanks Matt for keeping up with current research on this fascinating subject.
12000 years ago, the insect and predator population may have been too high for people to want to live there.
A good theory and certainly worth considering. From how I understand it though, it seems to be based on the assumption that before the Old Kingdom period, there was absolutely no human occupation of that area around and on the Giza Plateau. What about the centuries and millennia before 3500 BC? During the African Humid Period, the Giza Plateau was likely a lush and verdant valley. Did the ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians of the "First" Dynasty already settle and build there, marking certain spots and rock formations as significant and working on them? The issue is that we seemingly have a rather abrupt transition from "anything before 3500 BC" and then the Ancient Egyptian civilization popping out in a rather advanced state already.
I don't think it would be much of a stretch to consider that before the monumental work on the Giza plateau as we know it today began, there might already have been sites of worship or cultural significance in place from the preceding civilization (maybe abandoned and not maintained anymore when the desertification began). How long had the plateau and unique features like the Sphinx rock been important to the ancestors of the people of the First Dynasty? And those ancestors might have possessed the means already to modify and work the landscape and the river, preparing for the annual flooding and protecting sacred sites like the Sphinx enclosure from greater erosion and damage. We might underestimate just how much different the whole region might have looked like over the course of time, and especially during the humid period when it was still green.
So, in conclusion: the presented theory is certainly logical and viable, IF... if we assume that during those times before the Old Kingdom, there was nothing there to prevent water damage to the Sphinx.
Any civilization that was competent in stonework would have left plenty of evidence of its existence in Egypt, but there is zero evidence of such a civilization before the dynastic Egyptians. The question remains as to how it was that the earliest Egyptians were the MOST competent in stonework, and where such knowledge and capability came from.
The unfinished obelisk is testimony to the use of non-terrestrial advanced technology, with additional advanced tech being required to manipulate it after it's extraction from bedrock. Also, the dynastic Egyptians had a mysterious genetic background, having red hair and elongated skulls. We can hardly grasp how little we really know about their past.
@@redwoodcoast You raise good points about the lack of evidence for stonework done by preceding inhabitants of the Nile region. The way I see it, there are a number of questions needing to be explored further. When the first Dynasties of the Old Kingdom came into prominence, after the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt, did they reclaim an abandoned area like the Giza plateau and reworked it? I believe there were some ancient records mentioning repair work on the Sphinx. The Giza plateau and the whole region in general has seen repeated cases of inhabitation and abandonment when climate changes forced people to move. We know about the ups and downs and rediscoveries on the Giza plateau of the Old Kingdom to the New Kingdom, since there were reports about that. But anything before the First Dynasty leaves a big question mark. How long was the Giza Plateau abandoned and not maintained in all those millenia before it became a place of cultural significance again?
How much did the look of the Giza Plateau and surrounding area change going from verdant green to barren desert? And maybe a few times at that. We lack evidence still, but personally I think what could provide more answers is still buried under soil and sand. I think there already were some findings when they dug several meters deep, hinting at previous ground level layers that were substantially lower than what we have today. The Osireion structure near Seti's temple is a good example of vastly different heights and layers that very likely indicate construction at different ages and times. There is indeed still so much left to find out about our past. But we probably have to, literally, dig deeper.
as a long time subscriber (but 1st time commenter?!) I've followed your presentations for what feels like a decade and I just wanted to say: I deeply appreciate your openness of though while retaining vigilance to understand the full truth from all angles.
too many channels on these subjects of ancient mysteries devolve into clickbaiting sensation chasers.
THANKS!
Gay.
@@sittingdingo1 ding dong sitting on his ding dong... looks like you're enjoying yourself a bit too much right there.
If the Sphinx is older than the apparent age I am more inclined to the theory that it is based on a Reworked semi natural much older statue.
Interesting information…but the tone/pace of the voiceover is difficult to not be distracted by.
Regardless of its age, the sphinx clearly was not originally designed to bear the head it currently has - unless, of course, one believes that the sculptors all suddenly and in unison lost all ability to stay in the same scale after reaching the neckline.
The only reason it is out of proportion is the natural fissure in the rock near the rear of the Sphinx. The body had to be extended to complete it due to the fissure.
The answer is out there for people who actually want to look.
egymonuments.gov.eg/monuments/the-great-sphinx/
That head is not out of proportion with the body. Only it's length is out of proportion.
@@swirvinbirds1971
Apparently you've never seen a lion.
@@christineshotton824 I've seen one. But what evidence is there that it was ever a lion's head?
Look at the image I linked above. Compare the width of the head to the width of the body and shoulders. Tell me that is out of proportion and that a much larger lion head would be in better proportion. I don't see it.
HERE'S A POINT!
King Khufu at the time had discovered the pyramids in his time, not actually built them, he refurbished them into tombs because of its superior formality! And for one, the sphynx has been researched to be older than the pyramids, right? They pre-dates pre-dynastic period because of the smooth megaliths at the bottom! The sphynx apparently was re-carved into a human head figurine ordered by King Khufu, and we all know it was a lion's head for sure so... How old was that lion really? It can pre-date older than 3500BC or even as old to pre-dynastic period too and maybe even before the great flood? Think about that theory! :/ But a great video even still seeing on both sides etc!
@crafty, we don't know for sure that the Sphinx had originally a lion's head! How could we know that for sure? Nobody took a picture of the original Sphinx 😉 That said, the likelihood that the Sphinx originally had a bigger head, is high. The proportions of the Khufu-headed Sphinx are all wrong! The Egyptian artists at Khufu's time were better than that. Khufu could have sued them 😅 But it would make sense if the Sphinx was already there and Khufu who had obviously a grand ego, decided to immortalize himself by becoming the new head of the Sphinx. Emperors all over the world and at all times have usurped earlier monuments in order to appear grand, and in order to replace an older religion with their creed.
Amaizing theory. I was at Giza last April and could’t wrap my head around the age of the Sphinx. I think we are on the right track to finally getting the facts right!
These shills are just muddying the waters
The details regarding the centuries long flood of 10,500 BC mean there could be no natural outcrop remaining to form the head of the later Sphinx unless there was originally a MUCH larger outcrop possibly much bigger than the entire Sphinx of today. This doesn't mean it must've been carved to look like anything as well but it seems likely the current Sphinx and valley temples were constructed at the very earliest time that they could be and still remain, itself suggesting that a culture of builders was already there maybe even trying repeatedly to build at that site. If they were then it's not implausible that the current Sphinx merely extended a tradition set long before.
The Egyptians own creation myth had the world emerging after a primordial flood after all. They might have been going for that by trying to intentionally build in as troublesome spot as that would be. It's not like we lack for people building and rebuilding in flood plains today. I'll also repeat that the luminescent results don't rule out the valley temple being toppled by any number of such events and only reassembled for the last time in the third millennium BC.
In fact the detail of weathering on limestone core blocks of the valley temple matching that of the walls in the Sphinx enclosure (whatever it's source) despite being protected by granite which was actually carved to fit that weathering is practically a smoking gun indicating that the valley temple must've been built before the end of those floods. Otherwise the weathering on the core masonry couldn't possibly be old enough to be worth preserving as was meticulously done.
Wicking isn't going to explain the matching surfaces of the granite and weathered limestone. That's huge sticking point until or unless someone can show the granite wasn't added until the late middle ages or something when even the mainstream holds it's been there since the Old Kingdom.
A very good presentation - but a small (?) correction: while John Anthony West indeed felt the Sphinx was at least 12,000 years old, or older, Schoch was more conservative, and suggested an age closer to 7 or 8000 years old. (I don''t have the documents directly in front of me, but I do remember it was in that general ballpark.)
John Anthony West believed the sphinx could have been 30,000 years old.
@@illeodavinci Mate I can believe I am better looking than George Clooney. You can believe anything you like if you aren't worried about little things like evidence 😀
@@robertclarke71 what is this a crime scene? There is no "Evidence" at all that dates the Great Sphinx ONLY Assumptions
Even with a river flowing directly to the pyramids, the largest Ancient Egyptian boat ever found could not possibly support even one of the pyramid stones. There is still not any logical explanation as to how they were cut or moved. There’s a reason the Egyptians did not depict anything related to the construction of these structures, and it’s because they too did not understand.
I seem to remember Greek historians asking locals who built all this stuff and they had no idea.
Incorrect. Read Goyon, Georges: Die Cheops-Pyramide (Gustav Lübbe Verlag 1979, ISBN 3-7857-0242-6); they could move up to 80 to 90 tonnes using a double ferry raft system.
@@jimmcluhan2455 they should make rafts and reproduce this to scale. It would be neat to see demonstrated. That must have been done the year after or something to prove his theory I’m sure.
Right. They used rafts to move the great limestone blocks. The ships were for people.
From casual observation, I have always thought that the most likely answer was that the eroded limestone bedrock preceded the Sphynx carving. Someone back then recognized the interesting shape and took the opportunity to carve the Sphinx on the existing, eroded stone.
This obviates the entire debate. It separates the date of carving from possibly millennia-older eroded stone.
Flood levels assume the sphinx was not covered in sand, which we know that it was.
Randal Carlson does a really good video on the limestone erosion in different environments you should check out to go with your research into this. And I thought they found a bunch of stuff to say the pyramids were under water up to a certain percentage
People have always tried to push their theories as ‘definitive.’ But in the end new theories will emerge to replace this and other ‘definitive’ theory. I do believe that the monument is 10,000 years old, it was a lion, built by an ancient civilization that existed before ancient Egypt. It is connected to other ancient monuments. It’s astronomical position is also important. That dates it to 10,000 years ago. It could have been much larger and shrank by water erosion. I will say good theory, but that’s all it is, a theory.
A lion head would have been too heavy, the neck would have not lasted a few centuries, let alone millennia.
On top of that, the rock forming its neck is structually much weaker than the ones forming its head and its body.
The Valley Temple and other structures built around the Sphinx were built of stone dug from the Sphinx enclosure. Thus these structures must be older or contemporaneous with the Sphinx. Why would the builders place such significant structures in a flood plain?
Remember the Sphinx was not BUILT at any particular time. It was always there as an exposed piece of limestone bedrock. Then at some point or points in time human carvers shaped the already existing limestone. My point is, whatever extent of water erosion that happened to the Sphinx also happened to the pre existing rock that was already there for thousands or even millions of years.
Oooh! Why can't....be...!!
Love this topic AA💙
Have a great weekend Matt
Enjoy!
Hi Matt, Goodmorning to you.
I just watched a Short on Megalithic Marvels. They had vintage photos of Egypt Area 51.
Thought you would enjoy that.
Happy Monday to you 👋🏻
I love the way this channel has developed. As you said, you’ve gone from some more fantastic views to more more likely, more reasonable kinds of views. The theories about truly ancient civilizations are exciting in a way, but not necessary to explain things we observe now. Well done.
By reasonable you mean progressively dates things as less and less old with theories that have as many holes as a shower drain.
Galileo and Copernicus were once deemed to be unreasonable and fantastical.
"As you said, you’ve gone from some more fantastic views to more more likely, more reasonable kinds of views."- I've noticed this, and appreciate the change. It is easy to be swayed by the fantastic, but the more these things are examined, the more in focus they become... and more reasonable, and common sense. Ancient Architects has followed this path, exactly because he is open minded, and remains a skeptic.
The more wild theories out there only survive because their proposers are not open minded or introspective. They stagnate. Only by being willing to question one's own theories do they evolve to the rational, which is usually the truth.
@@rexmagi4606 llolllll typical bigots response. Anything that goes against what you believe is trash. Come back when you've matured.
@@colinfahidi9983
They had acual evidence. LAHT proponents build speculation upon speculation.
Sorry but logical fallacies are not evidence.
If I were an ancient Egyptian and saw the Nile rising, I might have built a flood wall around the Sphinx?
Love the channel dude! Great work.
I believe the Sphinx is a remnant of a pre flood civilization and was built around 30,000 years ago
How do you know?
I don’t know I believe but that’s the chronology given in the emerald tablets
@@ronaldraygun3591 so u also believe in alchemy?
I suspect this won’t be one of your more popular videos but I applaud the fact you’re considering all sides. Personally, the more I look into the art and archaeology of other ancient Mediterranean cultures and how they line up with eachother, the more I think Egypt is actually centuries younger than we currently believe, not older.
But, playing devil’s advocate, the rock that the head of the Sphinx is carved out of IS presumably much older than the African humid period, along with the softer rock that the Sphinx body is carved from, yet it was still standing after all the flooding and churning this theory proposes, so whether the Sphinx had been carved from it yet or not, it definitely wasn’t as violently flooded as this theory speculates.
a ton of other rock was likely ther and eroded over thousands of years, the chunk the sphinx was carved out of was just the chunk that happened to be on the surface at the time the humid period started to end.
@Harvard Anthropolgist You have Harvard in your name - well you must be right. Why not give us a link to your research? Nubia/Kush controlled Egypt for a while and the North and South interacted, this isn't denied, but your racism isn't going to change history and make Ancient Egypt a story of "everything done by black Africans and all other peoples where picking up their scraps and were inferior." Is there any ancient civilization you don't think was founded by black Africans? Ancient Greece, Ancient South Central America ... the list goes on. You are just as pseudo-historic as Graham Hancock and the Alien people, but you can't handle the idea of people interacting and there not being a "pure race." You don't have to be a nazi to have fascist, "Aryan" beliefs.
Erosion from flooding looks absolutely nothing like erosion from rainfall. I don't understand, the out of place erosion was always the rainfall erosion on the sphinx and it's enclosure. It appeared after the carving of the enclosure, it wasn't conveniently sitting there waiting for them to carve the sphinx out of the slab of stone in theiddle.
@@thetruthchannel349 Define "this".
@@stevenkunkle3857 It's this cyclical argument bullshlitz of the establishment narrative. Keep the logical constantly reminding them that this has already been resolved and you picked the wrong team in the human civilization game. They cannot concede respectfully in the face of blatant fact and logic, they've resorted to toddler-technique.
"...natural limestone bedrock." Therefore older than 3500 BC...the rest is "decoration" that changed over the millennia and is largely still a mystery.
Amazing video, thx for it. Subscribed.
You need to have a conversation with Randal Carlson
You must remember that the level of the Mediterranean was much lower when greater amounts of water were rushing down the Nile. So perhaps the flooding would not have reached the Sphnix.
Don't forget that the Nile had a huuuuge river delta once. The whole of Cairo up to Alexandria is built in this delta. Even in a huge flood the Nile would still be a huge slow flowing river like the Amazon. No raging waters and crushing boulders. More like New Orleans sitting in a muddy lake for weeks after the flood.
The “Wash” effect is downwards mimicking a heavy “rain” for a long time. One doesn’t necessarily take the word of an “expert” without questioning their speculations.
I believe even the Smithsonian has staked the idea that it was originally a lion recarved into what we know as the Sphinx.
The smashing boulders is dubious unless you can point to remnants of them today. The flow along the edge of a river is much less than in the middle. Further the head outcrop must have been eroded. The Sphinx could have been larger and recarved and/or re-excavated several times. Fact is it looks recarved and the block and masonary around the base does point to this restructuring. Sediment filling the Sphinx basin would have ameliorated some weathering.
And the river would have three times as rainfall to dispose of. It’s just not that old.
Definitely significant info it seems. Two things I’ll say tho in defense of really old sphinx. One is the fact that the sphinx has been renovated and reworked many times. The other point is unless the sphinx was submerged without a receding shoreline for hundreds of years, then people may have been able to protect it from damage in the case of massive floods considering the prominence of the monument.
However, I will say this theory presented in the video that basically eliminates really old sphinx is more convincing at the moment.
But, it’s the bedrock on the enclosure and the Sphinx that is the evidence for a 10,500 BC date… so the whole theory focuses on the bedrock erosion is 12,000 years old… yet it would have been flooded. 🤷
@@AncientArchitects Yeah, it's kind of hard to excavate huge blocks and carved a huge statue and build an impressive temple when the whole area would have been under water. That condition seems to now have been solidly established. Thanks for the report on that new research.
It looks very accurate, however apparently there are unsolved questions... why the nearby mastabas (pretty low structures), that are supposed to be almost contemporary with the Sphinx, did not suffer the same erosion at all? is it just because they are not carved inside an enclosure? This does not stand up quite well. The scholar includes the presence of another branch of the Nile (they have to state this, because the main Nile river is more than 6 km far from the higher Giza plateau currently and so it can't be the 'culprit') with this kind of violent floods, but since we do only know the bedrock and not the former shapes of the land nor the strength of the phenomena, even if this reconstruction is accurate, it would stay somewhat speculative, it may or may not apply to the monuments. We do not even know the original shape and size of the Sphinx, but it appears very likely that it was repaired and sculpted more than once. Even water raising 120 feet above the current level might not be enough, because the Giza plateau stands some 60 meters above nowadays. Yes there was water around the pyramids (they even found 'boat holes') but... when? This data may be different from other sources. According to a scientific study of African humidity in the last 150k years, not 3.500 but 4.500 b.C. is the end of the 'semi-humid' (and not some 'jungle-rain') period, and in that period rainfall was already scarce, apparently incapable to cause apocalyptic scenarios even if concentrated in short periods. Those 'huge' floods could have been long disappeared some 6.000 years ago. The humidity issue is a new trend in Egyptian geological studies, but in order to find significant humidity, as far as I know, we must go way back: 5.000 years ago, Egypt seemed to be quite arid, pretty much like today (for instance, Nabta Playa stone circle in current Libia was abandoned in 4.300 b.C.). If we include the temples near the Sphinx, the picture becomes more complex. In the pits under the Sphinx, pre-dynastic tubs were found that some called 'the false tombs of Osiris' (no proof that they are tombs, anyway...) and closely resemble those in Saqqara (granite-made and astonishing), so time and technique do not quite match with the IV dynasty. And if we read the traditions... Aset (Isis) was the Mistress of the Pyramid, Asar (Osiris) the Lord of Rstw (Rostau, more or less the area of Giza), and according to the ancient Egyptians, this divine family lived on this earth among people many thousands of years ago. Things that are not easily ruled out :-)
So when the Sphinx head was first carved, it was at the edge of the highwater mark >10k years ago. The body was carved out later when the level was lower. The body was initially carved to match the head, then the head was recarved later.
Sorry but i can not completly agree with devastating flood theories. All examples of devastating floods come from mountaneious areas with steep gradients, but area arround great pyramids is almost at sea level, 20m as you said and still 150km+ away from sea with huge delta plains. That is almost flat area which means that waters here will be slow, more like a lake and not a torrent that might carry some boulders and damage Sphinx. And as some others pointed out, what if Sphinx was burried through that period. We all know that if you have hole (Sphinx quarry) lots of water and sandy materials, water will quickly fill that void with sand. Just dig a hole in a sandy beach below waterline, it will take only minutes to level even.
All fair points, I’ll collate the main ones and present them to Schneiker. Also, wouldn’t these points also disprove the rain erosion theory, because if floods would fill in the enclosure with water and sediment, we wouldn’t see rain erosion on the enclosure wall too? 🤔
@@AncientArchitects My statement is purely speculative, but here it is. If the Sphinx was such an important monument to the ancient architects of Egypt, then wouldn't the people "clean out" the enclosure as soon as possible. Just a thought, if the Sphinx is truely older than 3500 bc.
@@AncientArchitects what if the slow flooding is what caused the water erosion of the walls? Does it have to be rain erosion?
@@AncientArchitects Perhaps it's a rain water erosions, maybe it's because of spilled water from the Great Pyramid as pyramids were also functioning as Solar Water Pumps. m.ua-cam.com/video/oTLKkeCbr_c/v-deo.html
Perhaps these water erosions were due to spilled water from the pyramids as pyramids were also functioning as Solar Water Pumps. m.ua-cam.com/video/oTLKkeCbr_c/v-deo.html
This seems very unlikely compared to the rain erosion theory on many levels. You are assuming that the floods would be violent? that the sphinx would have been destroyed? but the monument is not on any great gradient, the water would most likely have just pooled around it..
Whomever made it were undeniably great builders, doesn't quite add up that they wouldn't protect it or actually not build it it that spot in the first place seeing as they knew of the history of great floods at Giza.
It's "whoever", not "whomever", but I do totally agree with your comment.
While our ancestors were great hydraulic engineers, they were also very superstitious . Their ancestors likely built the Sphinx of old which was special to them beyond reason. So, although it was not part of the dynastic plan, they honored it by rebuilding or restoring something of deep meaning to them.
@@roylavecchia1436 Fanks
The conundrum is the head, little erosion, the body which was buried much of the time is heavily eroded. If the Nile could have washed it away after it was carved, why not before it was carved? The whole area would have washed away. It is possible too, whoever carved it may have placed a megalithic wall around it to protect it from floods, then later the wall blocks were repurposed elsewhere. You raise a good point, but it looks like the head was re-carved much later than the body, which should make it pre-pharaonic.
If we can agree the sphinx head is not the original head, then we can agree the thr sphinx has been reworked throughout history. Even now with the casing blocks around lower sections...its protecting the bedrock...if the same was done in egyptian times. It puts a hold or slows down on the erosion. Seem to be looking at the erosion as a constant.
The consensus among scientists who date the Black Sea Flood was 5,600 BC, the only date that makes sense for a huge regional flood in the Fertile Crescent because there are no gaps for sediment in the mounds or tells.
That’s the “Biblical flood” in my opinion 👍
@@AncientArchitects Yes, I agree. But that means that the Great Sphinx could be as old as 5,000 BC.
@@RAJohns It is a bit hard to make the argument for older then 3500 BC when you look on the architecture of pre dynastic Egypts buildings and tools though.
Let's take Pharaoh Scorpions grave for instance, I picked it because it was the first one we seen primitive writing in. It is still rather small and very basic, particularly when you compare it to a first dynasty grave.
The oldest known Egyptian statue is pre dynastic and from 3400 BC, it seems a bit unlikely they would start out with the worlds largest statue and then wait for 1600 years before making a way smaller one.
By the time of Narmer was about the time they started to become good enough to work stone to pull something like this off. before that we basically have rather humble buildings.
I mean, it isn't totally impossible and new finds could possibly change our knowledge of pre dynastic Egypt to make it worth considering.
We are 100% sure the third dynasty were competent enough to build it, I mean, the red Pyramid was harder work that required more engineering but it is certainly possible that 1st and second dynasty could have pulled it off, I would even make some sense that Narmer would have put a huge statue in lower Egypt after he defeated them and joined the 2 thrones, as a reminder who was in charge. We see autocratic regimes do stuff like that even today.
But you kinda need both the geological and archaeological factors to join and we don't really see that in pre dynastic Egypt. It would kinda be odd to make a single mega project and then nothing for almost 2000 years too.
But you are right, be it unlikely it is possible and maybe there is another Sphinx in Egypt hidden by sand waiting for discovery, perhaps in upper Egypt.
It is still likeliest the boring explanation Khafre built it is true though, not by any means a given but still likeliest.
@@loke6664 It may indeed not be that old. This video by Ancient Architects, if I may, puts forth the hypothesis that it cannot be that old by 1,500 years (5,000 years old the date I gave) because it would have been in the Nile’s flood zone and the “dry period,” if you will, did not start until 3,500 BC. I never did really understand how scientists can date that climate change with certainty, though. Seems to me it’s circular reasoning. But my main problem with the “Nile Flooding Theory,” per se, is that some Step Pyramids were were built before the Great Pyramid, in the Nile Flood plain and they are still there.
Of all the wild theory channels, you are #1 at accepting and updating conclusions based on sound evidence and expert analyses. Great work! I saw the Schneiker analysis and its compelling. Poor old Spinx got kilt, long live young spinks!
The obvious answer to all the questions is that the Sphinx used to sit on an anit-gravity platform made by the ancient aliens. When that technology was lost the Sphinx descended to its current location, subjecting it to the floods of the Nile.
I think the head is a later addition, which is why it is much smaller in scale than the body and is not nearly as eroded
Excellent analysis Matt. Did you take into consideration the ebb and flow of the sand in the Sahara?
Weren't the Pyramid & Sphinx covered in sand almost completely in the 1800's and possibly earlier?
If so, the Nile could possibly take different courses during flood events if the sand was hundreds of feet higher throughout time.
The pyramids were definitely not covered in sand. The sphinx is definitely below the elevation of the pyramids.
Please get your basics correct.
@@surfk9836
Thanks for responding to my question. I didn't ask anything about the elevation and I know the Pyramids are on the plateau above the Sphinx. The Sphinx was covered up to it's shoulders in sand until the early 1800's. The possibility of the sand being higher throughout the course of thousands of years seems reasonable
I did not see these facts considered in the presentation.
@@buckruttin2246 He did mention that the temples are only 16 meters above sea level and constructed with sphinx enclosure blocks, while the sphinx is 20 meters above, and the pyramids are 60-80 meters above. So flooding was more than merely possible on occasion. Heck, I have antique photos of the entire area around the pyramids being flooded but none of them show the sphinx. But I bet it was flooded somewhat.
I kind of feel like I'm in de-Nile about this. I'm curious to know how over 3,500 years, how much rain fall is required to cause the enclosure walls to become as eroded as they are. How much rain fall has the Giza plateau seen in the past 3,500 years?
Not enough to do that lol that’s why this hypothesis is completely wrong
It wasn't rainfall
@@Paul-hl8yg yes it was lol
@@Spawn303 When the Nile flooded onto the Giza plateau frequently at the time of Khufu? When we know a sycamore tree was planted near the sphinx? Therefore showing a moist environment? The inventory stela tells us khufu repaired that tree. The "weathering" around the sphinx enclosure was, if by water made by the Nile & not rain.
@@Paul-hl8yg that doesn't explain the vertical erosion from the enclosure walls
Most rock erosion formations caused by moving bodies of water generally have horizontal lines as per the movement of sediment , unlike the vertical scores in the sphinx enclosure
WTF? There are verticle erosion lines on the walls and the Sphinx.
Dening reality is a poor habit.
@@surfk9836 yeh , I’m saying there is too so there couldn’t possibly have been flooded water there