Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Captain Risky

How old is the Sphinx ?

202 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Captain Risky

How old is the Sphinx 

For years, Egyptologists and archaeologists have thought the Great Sphinx of Giza to be about 4,500 years old, dating to around 2500 B.C. However, some recent studies have suggested that the Sphinx was built as long ago as 7000 B.C.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3077390/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/how-old-sphinx/#.WtGfF0yB29Y

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky

9306-004-26F268B8.jpg

 

1024px-Great_Sphinx_of_Giza_-_20080716a.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
Posted (edited)

giza-sphinx.jpg

 

representation of Anubis found in the tomb of king Tut. 

Representation-of-Anubis.jpg?itok=BtmK2F

Edited by Captain Risky
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
keithisco

I'm fairly sure that this topic has been discussed here earlier (you cite an article from 1999)... however it would certainly be very interesting to see if there is any new thinking on this because it does seem to be out of place on the plateau. 

The head does not seem to be in proportion to other renderings of Sphinx. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced

The article linked states the problem with the research.  Virtually nothing supports the older date whilst much supports the younger one.  In order for this guys theory to be true he needs to explain why the other evidence doesn't match.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Yeah, I'm not buying it. Isn't the Sphinx kind of down in a bit of a quarry? And aren't the temples built next to it on the same level, indicating it was part of the same complex?

I've never like the "rain wearing" theory. It seems to me there are other more likely ways to explain the wear. Like maybe since the Sphinx was buried most of prehistory, that perhaps condensation in the sand caused water (salt?) spalling in the stone of the Sphinx.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo

I saw a docu on this, very interesting and very believable, the present head doesn't fit the size. I would speculate though that a reworking might have been needed because the nose of the Dog fell off.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acute
Quote

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acute

Sorry about that! ^

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acute
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, seanjo said:

I saw a docu on this, very interesting and very believable, the present head doesn't fit the size. I would speculate though that a reworking might have been needed because the nose of the Dog fell off.

I think the original head was damaged, or fell out of favour, or was remodeled in the image of a narcissistic pharaoh who demanded it.

Edited by acute
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
Quote

Many researchers contend that the Sphinx can be dated back much further, because extensive water damage is visible on the Sphinx, meaning that it would have had to exist during a time when there was a lot of rainfall in that area, which could date back to about 10000 BC.

Secondly, there is evidence that the head is not the original head of the Sphinx, and that the original head was that of a lion, built during the astrological age of Leo to face the constellation of Leo each morning. Interestingly, this period also falls between the years of 10800 BC and 8100 BC, corroborating the rainfall theory.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
khol
46 minutes ago, acute said:

I think the original head was damaged, or fell out of favour, or was remodeled in the image of a narcissistic pharaoh who demanded it.

There may be enough material for another re work...surprised he hasnt built his own tho 

 

Great-Sphinx-of-Trump-jpg-600x338.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

Though not specifically cited, the article is actually talking about "research" conducted by Robert Schoch and John Anthony West.

It would seem that these two proposed this after Schoch's claim of sphinx antiquity (based on subsurface weathering of the bedrock, which is unrelated to rainfall or flood) was debunked.

Schoch, at least, is a geologist. West, on the other hand, is a tour guide.

Harte

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
1 hour ago, Phaeton80 said:

 

Weathering patterns on the sphinx have been explained in terms of what is known, and result from the conditions that still exist there to this day.

There is no evidence that the head was once a lion.

There was no Leo constellation in any culture at the time of the sphinx's creation, so certainly there was no Leo during the era you imagine the statue was carved.

Harte

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane

In fact, John Anthony West  has recently passed away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
7 hours ago, Harte said:

Weathering patterns on the sphinx have been explained in terms of what is known, and result from the conditions that still exist there to this day.

There is no evidence that the head was once a lion.

There was no Leo constellation in any culture at the time of the sphinx's creation, so certainly there was no Leo during the era you imagine the statue was carved.

Harte

archeological evidence is conflicting with geology as i see it. besides, if the sphinx had a different head then it would have more likely been a representation of Anubis and not a lion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
7 hours ago, Harte said:

Weathering patterns on the sphinx have been explained in terms of what is known, and result from the conditions that still exist there to this day.

There is no evidence that the head was once a lion.

There was no Leo constellation in any culture at the time of the sphinx's creation, so certainly there was no Leo during the era you imagine the statue was carved.

Harte

Sigh. I guess I'll just have to repeat myself. I'm sure here many know the truth.

The Sphinx was originally in the form of a giant hound. After the AEs ruined their attempt at hammoidal pyramid, in the resultant damnatio  memoriae, the hound's face was removed ane replaced with a lesser being's.

--Jaylemurph 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
12 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

The article linked states the problem with the research.  Virtually nothing supports the older date whilst much supports the younger one.  In order for this guys theory to be true he needs to explain why the other evidence doesn't match.

THE SPHINX,that familiar symbol of undeciphered mystery, is at it again. A Boston University geologist has taken seismic soundings at the base of the brooding monument of Giza and has discovered, he says, that the statue may be 6,000 or 10,000 years old rather than the 4,600 years most Egyptologists assume. The assertion is something of a shock to the field, partly because most of the people lavishing attention on the Sphinx in recent years have been preoccupied with the opposite question of how quickly it is falling apart. Several leading Egyptologists dismissed the notion of an older Sphinx out of hand, citing long-established studies. But geologist Robert Schoch says the locals reacted to his idea with a good deal less surprise. After all, the legend that the Sphinx is older than the Pyramids -- which is to say, older than just about anything visible thereabouts -- has been around a lot longer than modern archaeological studies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1991/11/11/how-old-is-the-sphinx/a125e924-5885-4c31-832a-1fdc6eb76b41/?utm_term=.a6155a13f1f4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

Ignoring the evidence, in favor of Schoch’s idea, doesn’t invalidate the evidence which shows he’s wrong. 

cormac

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
50 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

THE SPHINX,that familiar symbol of undeciphered mystery, is at it again. A Boston University geologist has taken seismic soundings at the base of the brooding monument of Giza and has discovered, he says, that the statue may be 6,000 or 10,000 years old rather than the 4,600 years most Egyptologists assume. The assertion is something of a shock to the field, partly because most of the people lavishing attention on the Sphinx in recent years have been preoccupied with the opposite question of how quickly it is falling apart. Several leading Egyptologists dismissed the notion of an older Sphinx out of hand, citing long-established studies. But geologist Robert Schoch says the locals reacted to his idea with a good deal less surprise. After all, the legend that the Sphinx is older than the Pyramids -- which is to say, older than just about anything visible thereabouts -- has been around a lot longer than modern archaeological studies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1991/11/11/how-old-is-the-sphinx/a125e924-5885-4c31-832a-1fdc6eb76b41/?utm_term=.a6155a13f1f4

Do you get all your news from 1991, or just the news that's been debunked?

--Jaylemurph 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

THE SPHINX,that familiar symbol of undeciphered mystery, is at it again. A Boston University geologist has taken seismic soundings at the base of the brooding monument of Giza and has discovered, he says, that the statue may be 6,000 or 10,000 years old rather than the 4,600 years most Egyptologists assume. The assertion is something of a shock to the field, partly because most of the people lavishing attention on the Sphinx in recent years have been preoccupied with the opposite question of how quickly it is falling apart. Several leading Egyptologists dismissed the notion of an older Sphinx out of hand, citing long-established studies. But geologist Robert Schoch says the locals reacted to his idea with a good deal less surprise. After all, the legend that the Sphinx is older than the Pyramids -- which is to say, older than just about anything visible thereabouts -- has been around a lot longer than modern archaeological studies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1991/11/11/how-old-is-the-sphinx/a125e924-5885-4c31-832a-1fdc6eb76b41/?utm_term=.a6155a13f1f4

As was pointed out the last few times this was brought up, the same readings apply to temples and other features at the site that Schoch accepts are of Egyptian origin. It's only by cherry picking that he concludes the Sphinx is older. And in the last decades no other geologists accept his work. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
2 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

As was pointed out the last few times this was brought up, the same readings apply to temples and other features at the site that Schoch accepts are of Egyptian origin. It's only by cherry picking that he concludes the Sphinx is older. And in the last decades no other geologists accept his work. 

there's also the matter of the sever weathering on the Sphinx. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
4 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Ignoring the evidence, in favor of Schoch’s idea, doesn’t invalidate the evidence which shows he’s wrong. 

cormac

is there any historical evidence that mentions the sphinx being built around the same time as the pyramids? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
Quote

there's also the matter of the sever weathering on the Sphinx. 

and

Quote

is there any historical evidence that mentions the sphinx being built around the same time as the pyramids?

There's actually the matter of people ignoring the fact that sub-surface weathering DOES happen in Egypt, especially through time and with the continuously moving water table and in such close proximity to the Nile as the Sphinx had been in the 3rd millenium BC. The Nile River itself came up to the plateau as late as the mid to late 3rd millenium BC and added to that Egypt experienced much more rain during the mid-third millenium BC, significantly more than it does now. There is also the fact that the enclosure that directly surrounds the Sphinx and from which it was cut was created during the time of Khafre by removing the requisite amount of limestone to make the Valley Temple/s. Before then there would have only existed a knob of limestone at best where the Sphinx' head now exists.

There is no written mention AFAIK of the Sphinx during or before the 3rd milleniium BC.

cormac

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.