All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Sept. 17, 2019 - Skeptoid
18:50
Skeptoid #693: The Age of the Sphinx

Popular TV shows try to persuade us that Egypt's Great Sphinx is far older than archaeology tells us. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
The Great Sphinx's True Age 00:08:03
Wherever we have actual history and historians, we tend to also find that special breed, the alternative historians, authors, and crackpots who believe in whole alternate versions of world history have always been with us, and seemingly always will.
Today we're going to hear them out on one particular claim, that the Great Sphinx at the foot of the pyramids is much older, perhaps even thousands of years older, than science shows it to be.
The Age of the Sphinx is coming right up on Skeptoid.
Hi, I'm Alex Goldman.
You may know me as the host of Reply All, but I'm done with that.
I'm doing something else now.
I've started a new podcast called Hyperfixed.
On every episode of Hyperfixed, listeners write in with their problems and I try to solve them.
Some massive and life-altering, and some so minuscule it'll boggle your mind.
No matter the problem, no matter the size, I'm here for you.
That's Hyperfixed, the new podcast from Radiotopia.
Find it wherever you listen to podcasts or at hyperfixedpod.com.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
The Age of the Sphinx.
It stands guard over the Great Pyramids of Khufu, this massive stone titan, one of the single most recognizable creations of the ancient world.
As such a popular icon, Egypt's Great Sphinx is sure to draw all manner of attention, both scholarly and otherwise.
Astrologists assert that it's positioned with some sort of cosmic significance.
Others have claimed it hides a vast hall of records in catacombs beneath it, or that a system of tunnels connects it with the pyramids.
But the most popular of all the myths about the Sphinx is that it is far older, perhaps by thousands of years, than archaeological and historical evidence shows.
And it's this particular dubious claim, tirelessly promoted as fact by television's pseudo-history channels, that is where we shall direct our skeptical eye today.
The basic facts of the Great Sphinx are as follows.
It represents a chimera, the head of a man on the body of a reclining lion.
It's 73 meters long and 20 meters high, and it was carved in place from a hill of existing limestone bedrock.
It's located as if it's guarding the three great pyramids of Khufu on the Giza Plateau, like you have to get past it if you want to go to the pyramids.
It's facing due east, with the three pyramids behind it to its west.
As the slope rises behind it up to the pyramids, the ground had to be excavated around its rear end to create a level platform where it sits, and the slope falls away in front of it with its forepaws more or less at ground level.
Strata of different limestone types are visible in it, generally lighter-colored, softer limestone and darker-colored, harder limestone.
The head is mostly made of the harder limestone, which is why it's better preserved than much of the body, which is pretty eroded.
The rock quarried away from the Sphinx was used in the adjacent pyramids and other structures.
The face of the Sphinx is generally agreed to depict Khafra, the pharaoh who built the second largest of the three pyramids, and son of Khufu, who built the largest.
It's also useful to take a quick overview of the ancient Egyptians through the time frame in question.
About 2500 BCE, when the pyramids were being built, a tremendous amount of archaeological evidence was left behind by the builders.
We find housing for a large number of workers.
We find inequality in that housing and in burials, suggesting social hierarchies, and all the infrastructure needed to support tens of thousands of workers.
Multiple lines of evidence firmly date the time these facilities were in use, including radiocarbon testing of charcoal from the bake ovens and forges.
We also have excellent archaeological evidence for the older cultures that preceded Egypt's dynastic period.
These included the Nakata culture of circa 4400 to 3000 BCE, which did a lot of trading, then the Badarian culture, which overlapped and preceded them a bit, which focused on agriculture and fishing, and the Meremde Neolithic culture.
Prior to that, Nile sediment buried most older sites, but we can infer much about those people from the other cultures nearby, whose archaeological evidence survived.
Most notable of these would be the Fayum-A culture, with substantial evidence going back as far as 6000 BCE, and less evidence going back to around 9000 BCE.
The Fayum-A people farmed and foraged.
Their technologies included arrowheads and weaving.
They were still thousands of years away from the great monuments built by the pharaohs, and of course they existed in far smaller numbers.
The history of people in what is today Egypt, from way back in Neolithic ages through today, and especially including the periods when the pyramids and other great works were constructed, is one of those areas of study where we have data that's rock solid, no pun intended.
There is no meaningful uncertainty on any substantial part of it.
The major events, such as the construction of the Sphinx, are nailed down pretty thoroughly.
Thus, at its heart, the question of the age of the Sphinx is the debate between science and pseudoscience.
Among the entire body of archaeologists, geologists, and especially Egyptologists, there is no significant doubt over the date of the Sphinx's construction, about 2500 BCE.
The idea that it is much older, dating from some 5,000 to 10,000 years ago, is held by a few non-experts whose numbers you can count on the fingers of one hand.
It is not a competing theory.
I have argued in the past that science should not debate pseudoscience, because doing so lends a false sense of credibility to the pseudoscience.
The very existence of a debate suggests to lay people that there are two competing perspectives worthy of open comparison.
This is untrue, and it misinforms the laypeople.
Better, I have argued, to allow the pseudoscientists to languish in obscurity without the benefit of a platform legitimized by those representing what actual research shows.
However, in this case, the pseudoscientists have been given the world's largest and most influential platform to promote their falsehoods, network television.
In 1993, a TV movie narrated by Charlton Heston, titled The Mystery of the Sphinx, New Scientific Evidence, promoted the claim of geology professor Robert Schock as the newest archaeological discovery, even throwing in an Apollo astronaut to lend credibility, Edgar Mitchell, the New Age spiritualist who believed in every sort of paranormal woo.
Schock's IMDb page shows over a dozen appearances since then on every major science and history network, continuing through the present day.
Since the popular media has tried so aggressively to promote this fringe claim that has no legitimate support as an up-and-coming mainstream view, or at least as a competing perspective, it's probably warranted to break my usual rule and drop a fact bomb on the pseudo-historians.
Debunking the Water Erosion Myth 00:08:41
Schock was not the first to propose an earlier age for the Sphinx, but he was quite representative of them.
The first was French alchemist and mystic Gené Adolphe Schwaler-de-Loubeach.
His work was followed by science fiction author John Anthony West, who first brought in Schock and was featured in the original Charlton Heston documentary alongside him.
Schock was best known for various alternative historical claims, including ancient aliens and paranormal interpretations of ancient civilizations.
So he was the ideal person for West to find scholarly-looking support for a Sphinx theory that contradicted the consensus view.
Their basic claim is that the amount of erosion on the walls surrounding the Sphinx, where the ground level had been excavated down to create a flat platform for the Sphinx to lay on, is much greater than other places in Giza, which can only be explained by it having been exposed to the elements for thousands of years more.
Hey everyone, I want to remind you about a truly unique and once-in-a-lifetime adventure.
Join me and Mediterranean archaeologist Dr. Flint Dibble for a skeptoid sailing adventure through the Mediterranean Sea aboard the SV Royal Clipper, the world's largest full-rigged sailing ship.
This is also the only opportunity you'll have to hear Flint and I talk about our experiences when we both went on Joe Rogan to represent the causes of science and reality against whatever it is that you get when you're thrown into that lion pit.
We set sail from Málaga, Spain on April 18th, 2026 and finished the adventure in Nice, France on April 25th.
You'll enjoy a fascinating skeptical mini-conference at sea.
You'll visit amazing ports along the Spanish and French coasts and Flint will be our exclusive onboard expert sharing the real archaeology and history about every stop.
We've got special side quests and extra skeptical content planned at each port.
This is a true sailing ship.
You can climb the rat lines to the crow's nest, handle the sails.
You can even take the helm and steer.
This is a real bucket list adventure you don't want to miss.
But cabins are selling fast and this ship does always sell out.
Act now or you'll miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
Get the full details and book your cabin at skeptoid.com slash adventures.
Hope to see you on board.
That's skeptoid.com slash adventures.
Now this erosion is real.
Behind the Sphinx on the wall behind it to its west leading uphill toward the pyramid are weathered channels as much as three feet deep.
Conventionally, we understand such weathering to be the result of sandblasting, the desert winds combined with the native sand, and varying softness of the limestone.
Schock and West, however, believe these are best explained by flowing water during a climatic period prior to the construction of the pyramids in which there was much greater rainfall.
And we have very good paleoclimatology data for that region, so Schock, who does accept some sciences, even while he makes up his own versions of others, placed the Sphinx's construction in the Neolithic subpluvial, or African humid period, when northern Africa was much wetter than today.
This period began some 14,500 years ago and ended about 5,500 years ago.
Based on his own analysis of the erosion, Schock put the Sphinx's construction between 7,000 BCE and 5000 BCE, while West stuck with Schwaler de Lubich's earlier date of 10,500 BCE, as put forth in Schwaler de Lubich's book, Sacred Science.
It's also important to note that the Giza Plateau is high ground.
While the Sphinx is indeed slightly downslope from the pyramids, the whole area is a summit.
It's not a place where water flows to.
Thus, any suggestion that rivers of rainwater were ever there rushing past the Sphinx is geographically nonsensical.
Furthermore, essentially all other geologists, besides Schock, contend that there is no reason to introduce water erosion.
The pattern of erosion on rock depends not upon what's doing the eroding, but upon the characteristics and the hardness of the rock itself.
Looking at eroded limestone strata on the Sphinx, it's not possible to tell what did the weathering, water or wind.
One geologist responding to Schock's claim, August Matheson, wrote, Precipitation-induced weathering versus wind-induced weathering producing different weathering morphologies is not an accepted idea.
Rather, variations in the rock usually account for the different weathering morphologies.
There are a number of perfectly plausible ways that such dramatic weathering might be found on the Sphinx's deep west wall and not other places on the plateau.
Salt crystal exfoliation is the one you're most likely to read about.
Another method proposed in 1995 by Gowri et al. lays the blame on the excavation itself.
Weathering in an arid environment can produce the rounded profile given the gradual change in lithology of the alternating hard and soft limestone strata.
We show further that the channels are actually the pre-Pliocene karst features formed by underground water and exposed due to the excavation of the Sphinx ditch.
We propose, therefore, that for now, the Sphinx may still be regarded as of pharaoh origin.
To make their theory workable, West and Schock and the other proponents of the old Sphinx, including ancient alien theorist Graham Hancock, propose the existence of an earlier advanced civilization that preceded Egypt.
The problem with this is that we know the history of the people in the region, as we discussed earlier, and they did not include large advanced societies that appeared, built a Sphinx, then vanished.
In his book Encyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology, Dr. Ken Fader addressed this contradiction with the evidence.
There is no sign at all of an infrastructure necessary to support a large population of workers.
No sign of the ability to produce a large agricultural surplus to feed the construction workers.
No evidence of dormitories for housing them.
No huge storage facilities for food.
No great bakeries.
No cemeteries in which to bury the workers who would have died during the construction project.
These kind of infrastructure elements are found dating to 2500 BCE to support the vast workforce called upon to build the pyramids.
So not only is the old Sphinx theory completely unnecessary to explain the weathering, the changes to history needed to make it work are radically incompatible with all the archaeological and historical evidence.
And yet, we have a huge problem.
That problem is not with the evidence we have.
It's with the version of it that is presented.
Try doing a Google search for the age of the Sphinx, and you'll find the search results are grossly disproportionately in favor of articles touting a non-existent controversy, or new evidence suggests the Sphinx is much older than scientists thought.
Nobody ever publishes an article or makes a TV show to state a simple fact we already know.
Instead, they trumpet the sensationalism of the wild new claim.
Even basic informational articles, like one I found on history.com and another on encyclopedia.com, now give essentially equal time to the science and the pseudoscience, presenting them as two equally valid perspectives on which scientists are divided, as if they're still trying to work it out.
Now a layperson interested in learning about the Sphinx is at least as likely to get misinformation as the truth.
Why Sensationalism Wins Out 00:02:01
This is what happens when a handful of fringe theorists get amplified by irresponsible major media outlets.
It's why we must always remain vigilant and always be skeptical.
And always is also how long we'll be grateful to Skeptoid Premium members Jonathan Small, Elizabeth Teresa, Dennis Harrington, and Tim Stammers in his shed in Port Washington, New York.
Thank you so much for your support and for making the show possible for so many years.
You're listening to Skeptoid, a listener-supported program.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Hello, everyone.
This is Adrian Hill from Skookum Studios in Calgary, Canada, the land of maple syrup and moose.
And I'm here to ask you to consider becoming a premium member of Skeptoid for as little as $5 per month.
And that's only the cost of a couple of Tim Horton's double doubles.
And that's Canadian for coffee with double cream and sugar.
Why support Skeptoid?
If you are like me and don't like ads, but like extended versions of each episode, Premium is for you.
If you want to support a worthwhile nonprofit that combats pseudoscience, promotes critical thinking, and provides free access to teachers to use the podcast in the classroom via the Teacher's Toolkit, then sign up today.
Remember that skepticism is the best medicine.
Next to giggling, of course.
Until next time, this is Adrienne Hill.
From PRX
Export Selection