Dating the Sphinx: a reconsideration of the evidence
- Catherine Campbell
- Jul 30, 2021
- 8 min read
Updated: Jun 17
The controversial proposal put forward by Schoch[i], that the Sphinx and its associated temples have been weathered severely by water erosion and therefore must be several thousand years older than the Fourth Dynasty, has been rejected by Egyptologists. Schoch’s main argument for the dating of the Sphinx to the period 10,000 BC is founded on the results of seismic sounding conducted around the Sphinx showing sub surface weathering[ii]. The main argument against an earlier dating for the Sphinx circa 10,000 BC is the absence of any evidence for a civilisation in Egypt at that time capable of the monumental stone-working needed to carve the sphinx and temple stones from the bedrock and assemble them. Gobekli Tepe is often used as an example of the existence of such a civilisation, it being dated to between 9600 BC and 7400 BC[iii], but there is no evidence to date of any such equivalent civilisation existing in the Nile Valley in a similar time period.
An alternative proposal by Colin Reader (1999, 2001) is that the erosion is caused by water run-off and he suggests an Early Dynastic date for the Sphinx, its temple and Khafre’s causeway[iv]. Reader also proposes that the weather is sufficiently wet up until the Sixth Dynasty to cause the erosion through runoff[v]. But even Readers less radical proposal is rejected by the establishment and argued against by Vandercruys (2007) [vi] on both geological and archaeological grounds.
Since then, additional evidence has been produced. This post re-examines the evidence available and proposes a variation on Reeder’s proposal that has not previously been considered.
In my post How Old is the Great Pyramid? I propose that it is at least plausible that the Great Pyramid was built in stages beginning in the early Maadi/Naqada I period circa 4000 BC – 3500 BC, making it contemporary with other megalithic structures that began to emerge at that time all over Southern France, Spain and Malta and spreading to Great Britain. This dating would also make this early building phase contemporary with the Nabta Playa megalithic structure in Nubia. I noted in that post, that this activity should be considered in the context of other activity on the Giza Plateau, but I did not elaborate on what that might be. In this post I will do so.
If we accept that it is possible that activity on the Giza plateau began much earlier than is currently accepted, based on the available radiocarbon dates (in other words rejecting the theory that Old Wood is responsible for all the anomalous C14 dates produced so far, although it may be responsible for some of them), then some explanation is required to make sense of the evidence. In the case of the Sphinx enclosure, the evidence is in the form of weathering marks that have been identified by Schoch[vii] as being caused by water erosion and Reeder[viii] as resulting specifically from water runoff, not from wind erosion. Schoch argues that because the Sphinx has been buried up to its neck in sand for a considerable period of its existence (assuming it was carved by Khafre), and accepting the argument that the weather has been quite dry since then, there is no proof of a period of sustained torrential rain that could have caused the damage[ix] Conversely Reader rejects this supposition suggesting that while conditions were getting drier they were not as arid prior to the Sixth Dynasty as they are today and that such periodic heavy rains as would have occurred back then were sufficient to cause the damage via runoff. I question Readers assertion here and wonder if there is sufficient evidence of heavy rainfall between the Early Dynastic and the Sixth Dynasty to cause the damage identified, and produce the subsurface weathering that Schoch insists is proof of the much earlier dating of the Sphinx. Is there a better solution that fits the evidence available?
Surface luminescence dating (SLD) of the Sphinx and its temples[x] provide the following dates 3100 BC +/- 540 years and 3060 BC +/- 470 years respectively. This places the Sphinx and its Temples in the Naqada III or Dynasty 0 timeframe of the Predynastic, this is the time of King’s Iry Hor, Sekhen Hor and Sereq (Scorpion II). If there is any validity to this dating (and admittedly it is pretty broad), then it is at least plausible that the Sphinx could have been partially carved (as Schoch & Bauval propose[xi]) and the limestone blocks of the temples earlier building phase assembled, prior to an event that could have caused a period of sustained torrential rain. Is there such an event in the right timeframe? Yes there is.
This type of event is known as a cosmic impact event and there are several significant ones in the Holocene Period. One called the Burckle Impact, that has been identified as the cause of the Biblical Flood,[xii] is dated to 2807 BC. This event occurred in the middle of the Second Dynasty and is a plausible reason for the obscurity of this dynasty that clearly suffered some kind of major political and climate upheaval in its second half. The Burckle Impact site is in the southwestern Indian Ocean[xiii] and the 29-meter-wide crater was caused by the impact of a comet[xiv]. Siefert and Lemke describe the effect of the event:
The date 2807 BC is given in Chinese celestial observation records. This impact was enormous in size and effect, the impact crater is 20 (sic) km in diameter. This impact sent global temperatures instantly deep down, the enormous fall-out of atmospheric moisture produced widespread global inundations, known as the Great Deluge of Noah…Temperatures continuously declined in a sine curve from 3000-2700 BC, and this period of temperature decline signifies a simultaneous drought mode.
If the SLD dates are in anyway correct, then they lend weight to the idea that the earliest Sphinx carving and building of the temples could date to the Predynastic period and such dating would allow for the damage due to torrential rain and water runoff occurring on the plateau before the other tombs of the Fourth Dynasty were built on the site. This would make sense of Readers assertion that the damage to the Sphinx and its enclosure is due to run off[xv] rather than wind erosion and that the same type of damage is not observable on the other old Kingdom tombs on the site.
If the initial carving of the Sphinx can be dated to this period, along with the progressive development of the Great Pyramid, what other activity might be occurring on the site at this time? SLD dates for the so-called “Osiris shaft” that is under the Khafre causeway of 2930 BC +/- 600 years and 2870 BC +/- 570 years[xvi] indicate that this underground feature may also date to the Predynastic, perhaps to Dynasty 00 the time of Kings Abu (Elephant), Idw Tep (Bulls Head), Sereq (Scorpion I) and Djehuty Mer. It was certainly enlarged and used in the Old Kingdom and the late period as evidenced by finds found in the chambers[xvii], but it is plausible that it was first constructed in the Predynastic, where it may have played a part in votive religious activity tied to the journey to the underworld and resurrection with the dawn. Its location in the Causeway suggests that it predates that feature. I will explore the Osiris shaft in another post.
Onvlee[xviii] has suggested that based on the radio-carbon dates, Khafre’s pyramid may have been begun earlier than the Fourth Dynasty also and a reappraisal of the enigmatic Mastaba Tomb of Khentkawes by Keith Hamilton[xix] and Ancient Architects researcher Matt Sibson[xx], suggests that it may also be of an earlier date. I will address these in other posts.
These potentially earlier features point to votive activity at the site going back a thousand years or more. The biggest hole in this hypothesis is the relatively few finds dating to the period to be found on the site itself. But it is possible that with extensive work carried out by later periods, plus the torrential rain and damage resulting from the Burkle impact event this evidence has been lost. Reader sites the work of Kromer in 1978[xxi] who found and examined a dump site about a kilometre from the Great Pyramid that contained items of Predynastic, First, Second and Forth Dynasty date as evidence that the site was probably cleared of earlier debris during the building phases of Khufu and Khafre. This seems plausible, even highly likely to me. In addition, the potential myopia of Egyptologists whose focus is on the Fourth Dynasty and later for the site, may have led to such evidence, if found, being overlooked, discarded or misinterpreted.
In conclusion, it seems plausible that the Predynastic and Early Dynastic activity at Giza may have included the establishment of a votive centre focused on the first mound of creation and transformation which developed into the great pyramid and alongside of it the development of a cult centre to the rising and setting sun that encompassed the Sphinx, earlier versions of its temples, the causeway and the earlier portion of what would later become Khafre’s Mortuary Temple as Reader has suggested. Certainly, entertaining the idea that the Sphinx and its temples could have been (in their earliest phases) carved and assembled in the Predynastic period, offers a plausible explanation for the water damage theory based on the evidence and timing of the Burkle or Great Flood event.
Possible other additions to this early activity are the carving of the rock on which Khentkawes tomb sits (possibly Late Predynastic, First or Second Dynasty) and the Osiris shaft (which given its odd placement in the middle of the causeway may predate that structure as is indicated by the SLD dating). Did Khafre’s and Menkaure’s pyramids form part of these early structures? There is little evidence either way to suggest where they fit into the scheme of things. Only the enigmatic SLD date for Menkaure’s pyramid of 3450 BC which would suggest that it is even older than all the rest. How to make sense of that? A topic for another post.
References
[i] Schoch, Robert M & Bauval, Robert Origins of the Sphinx: celestial guardian of Pre-Pharaonic Civilisation 2017
[ii] Op cit Chapter 2
[iv] Reader, Colin Khufu knew the Sphinx 1999 https://www.academia.edu/7046492/Khufu_Knew_the_Sphinx
[v] I like Reader’s proposal, but this argument feels a little thin to me. A full discussion of Reader and Vandercruys opposing arguments can be found here
[vi] Vandercruys, G The Sphinx: dramatising data … and dating 2007 https://archives.palarch.nl/index.php/jae/article/view/931/926
[vii] Schoch, Robert M & Bauval, Robert 2017 Op Cit For detailed discussion see chapter 7 and Appendix 6 and 7
[viii] Reeder, Colin A geomorphological study of the Giza plateau with implications for the development of the site In Archeometry Vol 43 Part 1 Feb 2001 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230364219_A_Geomorphological_Study_of_the_Giza_Necropolis_with_Implications_for_the_Development_of_the_Site/link/5a4cd354aca2729b7c8a978d/download
[ix] Reader, Colin 2001 Op Cit
[x] I. Liritzis, A. Vafiadou, Surface luminescence dating of some Egyptian monuments, Journal of Cultural Heritage (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2014.05.007
[xi] Schoch, Robert M and Bauval Robert 2017 p 349ff “seismic geophysical surveys indicate that the subsurface weathering of the sphinx enclosure is not uniform. This strongly suggests that the entire Sphinx ditch was not excavated at one time.”
[xii] Seifert and Lemke Climate pattern recognition in the Mid to Late Holocene Part 4 https://www.knowledgeminer.eu/climate/pdf/hc4.pdf
[xiii] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-of-the-approximate-location-of-Burckle-Crater-candidate-abyssal-impact-structure_fig9_234527834
[xv] Reeder, Colin 2001 Op Cit
[xvi] I. Liritzis, A. Vafiadou, Op Cit Note: these dates are surprisingly from the sarcophaguses found on the second level which have been dated by Hawass on stylistic grounds to the 26th Dynasty see Hawass reference below. Based on the amulets and remains found in them, they seem to have been used for burials in the 26th Dynasty.
[xvii] Hawass, Zawi A The discovery of the Osiris shaft at Giza The archaeology and art of ancient Egypt: essays in honour of David B O’Connor 2007 http://gizamedia.rc.fas.harvard.edu/images/MFA-images/Giza/GizaImage/full/library/hawass_fs_oconnor.pdf
[xviii] Onvlee, Ian https://www.academia.edu/7715809/The_Great_Dating_Problem_Part_2_Radiocarbon_Dates_and_Early_Egypt
[xix] Hamilton, Keith Khentkawes Tomb, Giza, a layman’s guide 2018 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327043367_Khentkawes_Tomb_Giza_A_layman’s_guide
[xx] Ancient Architects http://gizamedia.rc.fas.harvard.edu/images/MFA-images/Giza/GizaImage/full/library/hawass_fs_oconnor.pdf
[xxi] Reader, Colin 2001 Op Cit
Comments