top of page

The Human Story Part Four: Secrets in Stone

The perplexing mysteries still left unanswered in the most studied archeological site in the world prove we still have much to learn about our ancient past

So far in this series we've gone over the failings of modern science, extinction and near-extinction events, and the tumultuous and historically cleansing period of the Younger Dryas.


If you've missed any of the previous parts, or would like to refresh your memory, the links are available below.



The last chapter focused heavily on what has been lost to us, whether that knowledge is simply still waiting to be found or has been erased forever - but what about our ancient history that we think we know?


As it turns out, much of what we think we know may not be as concrete as people would like to believe.


When it comes to archeology, so much is based on assumptions rather than bonafide fact, which is virtually impossible to avoid - we are dealing with things from thousands of years ago after all, and thus we have only small fragments of the past to extrapolate a full picture from.


The problem lies when these assumptions are repeated ad nauseum and presented as if they are "facts" or "settled science" (as if there is such a thing), particularly in our education systems.


Think back to your time in school - how many times were you asked specifics about ancient Egypt for example, such as when X was built, or why Y was made? Simple things like this reinforce in people's minds that we're being taught facts, when in reality we are often simply being told theories.


Those theories, and the assumptions they were based on, then become engrained in people as if they were immutable fact, and changing that perception becomes a herculean task.


As new information comes to light, old theories need to be revisited and updated, if not thrown out altogether, which is the way science is supposed to work, and for the most part, it does - even if it often takes far longer than it should. The reality is people like to cling to existing narratives, even if those narratives have extremely flimsy justification.


A great example of these scientific advances to our understanding would be the old theory that the Egyptian pyramids were built by slave labour.


This was never based on much in the way of actual evidence, but instead the assumption that such monumental tasks would have required such astronomical manpower and dedication that it must have been the result of slavery. This belief dates back to the time of ancient Roman philosophers and was taken as truth for many centuries.


More recent discoveries however have shown that the builders of the pyramids appeared to have been the equivalent of "middle class" citizens that were paid well for their labour and enjoyed a respected status in Egyptian society.


Despite the Great Pyramid of Giza and the Giza plateau being quite clearly the most studied archeological site in recorded history, there is still so much that is unknown about ancient Egypt and its wondrous pyramids - and many, many questions that you may think have been answered remain in serious doubt.


Arguably the biggest problem when dealing with very ancient sites comes courtesy of the fact that stone can't be dated, unlike living things.


Organic material can be pretty accurately dated thanks to the existence of radiometric dating methods, which measure the decay of radioactive isotopes to determine the age of a sample.


The most common type is of course carbon dating, which can estimate a sample's age and is effective with samples less than 60,000 years old; other types, such as potassium-argon dating, can be used on samples older than 100,000 years old, and can also be used to date the formation of stone.


The formation of stone of course simply gives us how old that rock is, so in a way stone can be dated, but when it comes to archeological sites, we don't want to know when the rock formed on earth (most often millions of years before humans even existed), but when it was quarried, sculpted, moved, and/or broken, as that would tell us when humans created these sites.


For organic material, radiometric dating tells us when that material "died" - in the case of wood for example, if we know when the tree it came from was cut down, then we can safely assume that was when (or shortly thereafter) it was used in the construction of a structure, to build a boat, or carved into a spear for a few examples.


With many ancient sites, the primary building material however was stone, which is only logical given that other materials are highly unlikely to be preserved for such lengthy periods and thus no longer exist for us to find.


This forces archeologists to use the stone's surroundings and/or written records (if we're lucky enough to find any) to determine its age, which is not always reliable and prone to misunderstanding.


Herein lies much of the problem with our modern "understanding" of many ancient sites made of stone - we can accurately state when a site was inhabited/in use by ancient peoples, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's when it was actually built.


Many structures, particularly ones with significance to our societies, are used for centuries, even millennia - from Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome to the Luxor Temple in Egypt.


With usage over time, evidence of earlier usage is (often inadvertantly) eroded.


Similarly, even the hardiest structures will often need repairs as centuries pass, whether as a result of weathering, accidents, natural disasters like earthquakes, or intentional human activities (wear & tear, war, arson, etc.).


Even if the repairs perfectly copy the methods of its creators and make the structure appear exactly as it did before, it can make dating the site all the more difficult by leaving behind indicators of when it was done or by eliminating evidence of erosion.


When dealing with most structures made of stone, without detailed records of their creation (if they have survived for us to find them), the dating of such structures is best to be regarded as "it's at least this old".


Dating isn't the only thing that has proven to be difficult to understand when it comes to ancient sites made of stone - but it is perhaps the most important to our understanding of ancient history, and the thing we'll be focusing on today.

Great Pyramid, Great Mysteries


The Great Pyramid of Giza has stood as one of the most remarkable projects in known human history for thousands of years, a marvel of engineering, planning, organizational skills, and human capabilities.


Even today it continues to astound and fascinate millions of people around the world who marvel at its scale and complexity.


The Great Pyramid, and the surrounding Giza plateau, is arguably the most studied archeological area in recorded history - and yet there are still many questions we still do not have sufficient answers for.


First off, the dating.


We don't have an exact date of when the only original member of the Seven Wonders of the World was built, or even a precise decade - archeologists believe it was built sometime around 2600-2550 BC.


What makes it particularly of note when it comes to dating, is that there are two distinct, separate "technologies" used to "stack" the stones that form the mighty pyramid.


Much of the free-standing inner "core" of the pyramid is made of massive granite blocks that did not make use of mortar, instead relying on a precision finish and the sheer weight of the blocks to keep them in place without requiring mortar.


What surrounds it, and makes up the majority of the pyramid, is over two million far more malleable limestone blocks which, like most modern masonry, utilized mortar.


This blending of two different methods of stonework can be seen throughout the ancient world, such as throughout various stone walls in Machu Picchu, and can often indicate different builders (though that isn't necessarily the case).


This can even be seen in modern times, like in Italy, where stone structures have stood for hundreds of years and modern houses are built on top of/added onto the existing structure - when those additions have come over the course of hundreds or thousands of years and no record of it exists however, it becomes much harder to figure out what was built when, and the original structure is far more likely to be tied in with the later one as any surrounding materials that could be used to date the original are more likely to have been lost or removed by then.


More on that later. For now, back to the pyramid.


The mortar used in the pyramid's outer structure used ash during the mixing process; this ash can then be extracted and radiocarbon dated, giving a rough date of when the trees (from which the ash was produced) died.


Various samples from the Great Pyramid's mortar gave a rather wide range of between 2871-2604 BC - this range is believed to be caused by the "old wood" problem.


Since Egypt is a desert, organic material like wood can be preserved quite well and thus could be stored for use long after it was first cut, causing a problem when trying to date a site that seems to be specific to "fourth dynasty" pyramids (a period of Egyptian history that is believed to include the building of the Great Pyramid, Khafre's Pyramid, the Red and Bent Pyramids, and more).


A cedar plank which was found in an "air shaft" that was opened in 1872 was recently carbon dated to between 3341-3094 BC, significantly older than the dates found in the pyramid's mortar, which has again been explained away by the "old wood" problem.


The Great Pyramid has been long attributed to Khufu, who died around 2566 BC and is believed to have reigned for about 30 years (though ancient accounts indicate it could have been longer), putting his establishment as Pharaoh sometime around 2596 BC.


This attribution is based on graffiti discovered in "relieving chambers" inside the pyramid which mentioned Khufu at least a dozen times, as well as the burial of Khufu and his relatives in the areas surrounding the Great Pyramid, which all points to the overall pyramid being built during Khufu's reign.


Assuming the archaeologists are correct and the carbon dating anomalies are simply because the Egyptians used very old wood, we can pretty safely say that the early 26th century BC was when the overall structure has built.


But here's where things get interesting - what about the inner structure?


What's unusual about the Great Pyramid is that it has a rather unique inner structure that is very different from other pyramids, including ones estimated to have been built both before and after.


While similar, mortar-less chambers formed by granite blocks were used in several other Egyptian sites, the so-called King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid, which consists of many blocks weighing up to 80 tons (175,000+ pounds), was built hundreds of feet above the ground.


The cutting and finishing of the stones themselves are also a point of contention - while the limestone blocks are easily explained by the copper and bronze tools ancient Egyptians possessed, the granite is less easily explained, with archelogists claiming small dolerite stones were used to slowly hammer away tiny amounts of granite to eventually form the desired shape and smoothness (though how they managed to create precise right angles inside granite boxes such as this with such a method remains to be explained).

Other pyramids almost always placed their tombs underneath the pyramid itself, and certainly didn't put such incredibly heavy stone above ground level, let alone hundreds of feet off the ground.


Oddly enough, there is an "unfinished" subterranean chamber built below the Great Pyramid, with some believing it was originally intended as Khufu's burial site and was instead changed possibly due to his death before it was complete.


This theory makes little sense given the subterranean chamber would have been far easier to build, yet the much more imposing "King's Chamber", which was built using very well-finished granite blocks that would have taken a whole team of people months (or years) to finish a single block using the methods supposedly used, was already completed - and if the largest and most complex chamber wasn't meant to be the tomb, what was it intended for?

As you can see from the above image, the Great Pyramid has much of its inner structure not underground or at ground-level, but high above it, yet still has a shaft underneath it with no clear purpose.


The Great Pyramid was supposedly the fourth massive pyramid built in ancient Egypt (assuming there weren't others that have been destroyed/lost) - first came Djoser's Step Pyramid built sometime between 2670-2650 BC, next came Sneferu's "Bent" Pyramid which appears to have been adjusted mid-construction given the initial steepness was too sharp for its design, and finally Sneferu's Red Pyramid, which was the first to master the iconic pyramid design that Egypt is known for.

The structures of the Step Pyramid (L), Bent Pyramid (Middle), and Red Pyramid (R)
The structures of the Step Pyramid (L), Bent Pyramid (Middle), and Red Pyramid (R)

Note that the Step Pyramid housed all of its internal rooms underground, the Red Pyramid's internal structures were built on the ground level, and the Bent Pyramid was a mixture of both.


Next came the Great Pyramid in Giza, with Khafre and Menkaure's Pyramids following to form the three massive Pyramids that dominate the Giza Plateau.

Cross-sections of the three main pyramids at Giza - Khafre's (Upper Left), Menkaure's (Right) and the Great Pyramid (Bottom)
Cross-sections of the three main pyramids at Giza - Khafre's (Upper Left), Menkaure's (Right) and the Great Pyramid (Bottom)

Note both Khafre and Menkaure's Pyramids, exactly like the first three Pyramids which preceeded "Khufu's" structure, have their internals on ground level or below it.


The Great Pyramid sticks out not only for being larger than any other, but for having a far more complex, far more difficult to build design - not to mention the several odd "voids" that were left in the structure, with nothing similar found in any other pyramids that came before or after.


So why was the Great Pyramid built so differently? Why did they opt to build its grand chambers far above ground level, making it an order of magnitude more difficult to build and design, in a way that future builders never copied? Why was one of the oldest pyramids more "advanced" than what came after it?


These are all oddities that add to the mystery surrounding the Great Pyramid and its construction.


Returning to the King's Chamber, perhaps the most bizarre facet of its design is what is above it - built over top this granite room is a complex, multi-layered ceiling structure composed of five "levels" of 8-9 massive granite beams each, and capped by an over-wide gable.


These massive granite "beams" were all formed to quite exacting specifications, transported over 800 kilometers, raised up to over 200 feet about the ground, and placed precisely on the top of this chamber, an astounding feat in and of itself even if you ignore the rest of the pyramid entirely.

Illustrations from renowned Egyptologists Flinders Petrie (L) and Howard Vyse (R)
Illustrations from renowned Egyptologists Flinders Petrie (L) and Howard Vyse (R)

The beams are well-dressed on the lower surfaces and edges to form close-fitting vertical joints, but vary in sizes, leading to the layers not vertically aligning in between the "layers" of the ceiling, presumably for strength, with the upper surfaces being left roughly finished and irregular, the reason likely being they wouldn't be seen.


When explored by Egyptologist Howard Vyse in the 1820's, Vyse reported the crawl spaces between the ceiling layers contained a thick layer of black dust, which was analysed to be black scarab beetle shells; given the large volume of this type of dust, it's implied the spaces were once filled with thousands of these shells for some unknown reason.


Vyse originally called the crawl-spaces between the beams "relieving chambers", which has stuck to this day, on the assumption that the layers of beams were for the purpose of relieving the massive weight of the masonry above. When confronted by the fact this was completely unneccessary and not useful, modern archeologists have maintained that the chamber was simply "over-engineered".


Yet this assumption makes no sense from an engineering standpoint, and runs contrary to every other site found in Egypt.


The adjacent Grand Gallery, which is under the same weight of masonry above it, is corbelled to a simple flat peak, while the so-called Queen's Chamber, which has the same roughly 17 foot span as the King's Chamber, is located much lower in the pyramid with greater weight above it, yet is sufficiently protected by a single gable in the same style as the one above the elaborate ceiling in the King's Chamber.

In the adjacent pyramid of Khafre, the "burial chamber" with a similar 16 foot span, can be found at ground level, with over 450 feet of masonry above it - yet it has only a simple vault roof.


Similarly, in Menkaure’s pyramid (the third and smallest of the three main pyramids of Giza) the burial chamber is also at ground level with roughly 200 feet of masonry above it, and has a single layer barrel-vault ceiling.


Even in supposedly earlier examples in Sneferu’s Bent and Red pyramids at Dahshur, which are also still standing and in good condition, the "burial chambers" are at ground level under hundreds of feet of masonry yet the lateral spans are formed only by simple corbelling.


The multiple layers of beams in the ceiling of the King's chamber are not physically required to 'relieve' the weight from above, nor is this design found anywhere else in any pyramids - not only that, but simple observation reveals that the beams do not in fact actually take the weight, making the entire assumption that they are "relieving chambers" factually incorrect.


On the contrary, the weight above the King's Chamber and its "relieving chambers" rests on the gable above it, which in turn rests on the main body of interior core masonry of the pyramid.

The ceiling beams and inner walls of the King's Chamber do not actually bear the weight of the masonry above it and are instead an independent 'floating' structure underneath the gable which protects it.


We don't know what this complex ceiling structure was designed for - but we can certainly rule out that they were "relieving chambers" for the weight of the masonry above it, and must have served some other purpose we have yet to figure out.


One of the most compelling theories to explain these discrepancies found in the Great Pyramid, is that the outer structure was built on top of an existing structure - effectively repurposing whatever that original structure was for and turning it into a tomb.


Surprisingly, bringing up such theories - such as questioning the dating of the Great Pyramid or believing it was built on top of an older structure - has been met not with simple disagreement or criticism, but accusations of racism by "mainstream" academics.


Despite the fact that nobody proposing these theories has suggested anything about who built the original structure (logically, it would simply be older Egyptians), any questioning of the "official" story of Egypt's sites is often met with odd levels of vitriol.


Yet questioning if the pyramids originally served a different purpose is nothing new - perhaps most famously, Nikola Tesla, the charismatic inventor of alternating current power systems, tesla coils, fluorescent and neon lighting, and remote control devices, believed that the pyramids were in fact massive energy generators.


While an intriguing concept, if such a thing were true it would simply present far more questions that seem less and less likely (like, what did this energy power, and if they had electricity like Tesla implied, how did they lose the knowledge of it?).


A far more compelling, yet disappointingly "fringe" theory that hasn't really been investigated is that the Great Pyramid was actually designed as a "ram pump", with its series of chambers and halls making it a viable hydraulic pump - with the Nile's very close proximity to the pyramids at the time, this seems like a very plausible explanation, and one that a random Youtube channel demonstrated is possible by recreating the layout of the inner pyramid structure in his backyard.


Unfortunately, even the water pump theory doesn't explain the unique ceiling structure of the King's Chamber.


Regardless, the exact dating of the Great Pyramid, if it served as more than just a tomb, whether it was entirely built at once or incorporated an earlier structure into its design, and what purpose the odd ceiling in the King's Chamber served are all questions without proven answers.


Yet these are just a few mysteries out of many in the Giza plateau, and an even greater one is found right beside the almighty pyramid.

When Was the Great Sphinx of Giza Built?


The Great Sphinx has watched over the Giza necropolis for thousands of years, a massive sculpture carved from the limestone bedrock that stands 66 feet tall and some 240 feet long.


Unlike the pyramids and most other Egyptian monuments, what many people don't know is that the Great Sphinx was formed by creating a quarry in a horse-shoe shape, removing blocks of limestone and then sculpting the central limestone "block" that remained into the desired form - this process effectively formed an "enclosure" around the monument itself.


While the Sphinx was carved from a single block, it has undergone various repairs over the years, most notably to its paws by Thutmose IV in the 14th century BC and more recently to its headress in the 1900s.


The conventional model of the Sphinx's history is that it was constructed around 2500 BC and made to resemble the face of Khafre, son of Khufu and the fourth pharoah of the Fourth Dynasty of ancient Egypt.


What is this primarily based on?


In front of the Great Sphinx lies a vertical stone slab (or stela) that is dated from the reign of Thutmose IV (who was pharoah from 1425 - 1417 BC) - only a partial inscription remained when it was recorded as it was in the process of flaking off, but the inscription "included at least the first syllable of Khafre's name".


Besides possibly including Khafre's name, the part of the inscription that was legible details repairs made to the Sphinx during Thutmose IV's reign, making the stela roughly 1000 years (at least) newer than the Sphinx.


That's literally the primary "evidence" archeologists cite for the Sphinx's creation date.


A slab of stone that was made at least a millenium after the Sphinx was made, possibly mentioned Khafre - there's not even any evidence the mention is attributing the creation of the Sphinx to Khafre, and given the only legible content on the stela details repairs made during Thutmose IV's time, it's just as possible if Khafre was mentioned on the slab it was to repairs made during his time.


They also point that the Valley Temple (made of the same kind of limestone) adjacent to the Sphinx is associated with Khafre and included statues of the pharoah, yet that temple has nowhere even remotely close to the level of erosion seen on the Sphinx and its enclosure, making it extremely unlikely the temple was made at the same time as the Sphinx or anywhere close to it.


For a long time, many Egyptologists also claimed that the Sphinx's head resembled statues of Khafre, which was a bit of a stretch.


Despite the facial damage on the Sphinx, senior forensic artist for the NYPD Frank Domingo, who was enlisted in the 1990's to do a comparison of the Sphinx's face to various statues of Khafre, stated that there was enough undamaged reference points to compare the facial structures.


His report concluded, "After reviewing my various drawings, schematics and measurements, my final conclusion concurs with my initial reaction: the two works represent two separate individuals. The proportions in the frontal view and especially the angles and facial protrusion of the lateral views convinced me that the Sphinx is not [Khafre]."


Yet perhaps the most damning bit of evidence against Khafre's Sphinx's creation is the "Inventory Stela" found near the Great Pyramid in the nineteenth century.


This stela describes repairs to the Temple of Isis made by the pharaoh Khufu (Khafre's father, who of course predates Khafre's reign as pharoah), and most interestingly, describes Isis as "mistress of the pyramid, beside the house of the Sphinx", which implies that (unless it's referring to another, unknown Sphinx) the Sphinx was already there before Khafre's time.


The Inventory Stela dates to around 670 BC, which, like the stela by the Sphinx, makes it far removed from the (possible) time the Sphinx was built - yet Egyptologists dismiss the stela entirely as fiction thanks to its later dating, and that several aspects of it don't match other accounts they choose to trust more, such as calling Isis the "mistress of the pyramids" which isn't found anywhere else.


It points to a larger issue with Egyptology - so much is taken as historical accounts and thus immutable fact, yet other accounts are dismissed entirely if they don't fit assumptions made based on...other historical accounts found in the same manner.


One stela that may contain Khafre's name, yet zero evidence his name was being used as attribution to being the creator of the Great Sphinx, which is also a thousand years after the time of Khafre, is used as the primary evidence for the dating of the Sphinx, while another stela which contradicts it is dismissed entirely.


Egyptologists have a long-running habit of picking and choosing what parts of written history are fact and which are fiction based on flimsy assumptions - the famous King's List for instance, which details the pharoahs throughout ancient Egyptian history, is taken as fact and has been verified by plenty of other archeological evidence, yet only in part - for older listings they claim they are all entirely "mythical" figures.


This is based on the times given for the reign (some of which last centuries) of each king, ignoring the possibility that they had a different system for the pre-historic kings (such as passing the name down within a family, meaning the "kings" listed weren't referring to a single person), because the list accounts for many thousands of years into the past which would upset the current understanding of ancient Egypt.


From the time of the New Kingdom to the Roman times, Egyptian accounts considered the Sphinx to have been built before the pyramids, yet if we are to follow "mainstream" archeology, these accounts were all incorrect based on the account they chose to believe.


Oral traditions of villagers in the Giza area also contradict the attribution to Khafre, commonly dating the Sphinx to around 5000 BC, long before Khafre was ever born.


To say that the dating of the Sphinx that is taught in schools and presented with the "strong archeological evidence" tagline is laughable at best.


It has also long been held that the entire Sphinx was carved at roughly the same time, something which many Egyptologists still cling to despite a mound of evidence to the contrary.


The theory that the head and neck of the Sphinx was recarved from an earlier version has gotten much more mainstream approval in recent years thankfully, with the original sculpture likely being of a lioness, and the head (possibly damaged) later recarved to resemble a pharoah at the time of the remodel - a 2020 paper showed that not only was this transition possible, but that various lines of evidence point to the Sphinx having modified or altered an existing structure.


One of the most glaring reasons is the clearly odd proportions - it doesn't take an artist to spot that the Sphinx's head is far too small in proportion to the rest of it.


Ancient Egyptians were extremely particular about proportions, with the wonky symmetry of the Sphinx sticking out like a sore thumb.

More technically, the erosion on the Sphinx's head compared to the rest of its body is disparate.


The existing head, before its restoration work in the 1900's, was still the least eroded and deteriorated component of the monument, as detailed in various papers and books, including the afforementioned 2020 report.


Yet, the Sphinx's head should be far more eroded than anywhere else on the monument.


Thanks to the "enclosure" and its depth, the body of the Sphinx has been buried in sand for significant periods of its life, including from roughly 2150 to near 1400 BC, according to archeologists.


The head of the Sphinx, which sits proudly above the enclosure and has (and detailed in various historical accounts accepted by Egyptologists) been exposed to the elements for its entire lifespan, while the body (or at least the majority of it) has been buried in the sand.


This burial saved the body of the Sphinx from enduring the same kind of weathering its head had to suffer through for significant periods of time, interrupted by comparatively short periods of restorative excavations in both ancient and modern times.


This poses a major problem - how does the body show more erosion than its head given that fact?


In the 1400's, as detailed by historical accounts during Thutmose IV's reign, the buried Sphinx was excavated and repairs had to be made, most extensively to its paws.


After spending three-quarters of the previous millenium buried under sand, how had so much erosion occurred in the few hundred years of exposure to the elements since its supposed creation, that extensive reparations had to be made to its paws when that level of erosion hasn't occurred in the last several thousand years combined?


Similarly, tombs dated to around the same time period the Sphinx was said to have been created, using the same limestone (as confirmed by geologists) or extremely similar limestone in other areas of Egypt, don't show anywhere near the erosion of the Sphinx or its enclosure.


In fact, you can't find any ancient Egyptian monuments with erosion that resembles that of the Great Sphinx or its enclosure - instead, ancient Egyptian monuments from that supposed time period (or earlier) sport mild wind-swept erosion patterns one expects from the sandy desert environment.


Robert Schoch, who touts a PhD in geology and geophysics from Yale and has been a professor at Boston University since 1984, originally travelled to Egypt in the early 90's to disprove a theory put forth by author John Anthony West that, based on the erosion patterns of the Sphinx, the statue was far older than the time of Khafre which had been attributed to it.


After seeing the monument and its surroundings for himself, Schoch changed his traditionalist view and became the staunchest supporter of this theory, re-dating the monument to at least 5000 BC based on the level of erosion (particularly on the enclosure) and the historical rainfall record of Egypt.

A wall of the Sphinx enclosure which touts seemingly textbook examples of water erosion - in fact, both Robert Schoch and John Anthony West claim to have shown various other geologists images like this to ask their opinion and they unanimously have stated its water erosion - until they are told where the photos were taken.
A wall of the Sphinx enclosure which touts seemingly textbook examples of water erosion - in fact, both Robert Schoch and John Anthony West claim to have shown various other geologists images like this to ask their opinion and they unanimously have stated its water erosion - until they are told where the photos were taken.

Typically, there are obvious differences between the effects of water erosion and sand erosion: rock eroded by wind-blown sand has a ragged, sharp appearance; rock eroded by water has smoother, undulating erosion patterns, often resulting in wide fissures like the type seen on the Sphinx's enclosure.


According to Schoch, the erosion on the Sphinx and its enclosure fits the latter pattern. Egyptologists argue that the water erosion on the Sphinx could have been caused from the Nile floods that occur in the area, but Schoch contends that if that were the case, the floods would have undercut the monument from its base - instead, the heaviest erosion appears at the top of the Sphinx's body and the walls enclosing it, which is consistent with rainfall from above rather than flooding.


Schoch also points out that part of the enclosure was refaced with blocks thought to be from the Old Kingdom (which spans from around 2700-2200 BC) - if this is true, why would so much work have been necessary in just a few hundred years (at most) from its creation?


Some academics have suggested that the original limestome used to build the Sphinx deteriorated quite rapidly (considering geologically identical limestone exists in temples right by the Sphinx that don't show this level of deterioration would seemingly debunk such claims) - but if that was the case, why would it not be deteriorating at a similar pace for the last few thousand years?


The evidence simply does not line up with the "mainstream" timeline currently accepted and indicates that the Sphinx is far older than what is being preached today.


If the Sphinx truly is much older than claimed, it could rewrite everything that is accepted about ancient Egypt's history and its early or pre-dynastic periods, similar to how the discovery of Gobekli Tepe changed everything about our understanding of the advent of megalithic civilizations.



Comments


Have a suggestion for a rant? 

Thanks for submitting!

The Rant 2025. All rights reserved. A B.R. Davis Production.

bottom of page