Why The Great Sphinx CAN'T be Older than 3,500 BC | Ancient Architects 

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.

The sphinx had been repaired so many times it's hard to know what you are looking at

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?

Based on this theory, wouldn’t the valley temple have the same or very similar erosion as the sphinx and the sphinx enclosure?

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.

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)?

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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!

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.

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.

You really want a Zahi Hawass autograph badly, don't you?

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 🤔

Robert Schoch has gone on record saying archeology, not geology, are the ones who can truly date the Sphinx.

Love the channel dude! Great work.

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!

Out of curiosity, if the sphinx were buried during the humid period, how would that impact flood erosion?

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?

Thanks Matt for keeping up with current research on this fascinating subject.

I'm not believing a guy who sounds like a british robot

I sphinx this video is going to ruffle some feathers.

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?

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.

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.

I think the most fascinating question to ask is what the original sphinx looked like before it was repaired ! I've always wondered

Oooh! Why can't....be...!! Love this topic AA💙 Have a great weekend Matt

Fine analysis Matt! Bravo!

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!

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.

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.

Amazing video, thx for it. Subscribed.

Fascinating, thank you.

this does not even get close to the age of the pyramids themselves it just shows how hard the egyptans tried to repurpose it

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

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!

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 👌

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.

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!

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.

Is there any record anywhere on when the head was modified?

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

So if the Sphinx avoided the floods by having been built more recently, what DID cause all the erosion we see on it?

Fantastic research, thank you for all your hard work!

It was a great watch, thanks as always. 👍

Did AA mention the Sphinx enclosure was 12 meters above the ancient flood plain? Then there should be corresponding natural formations furtger south along the lower Nile against which you could compare the same erosion rate against similar limestone bedrock.

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.

Thank you for the lesson. The main reason I subscribed to this channel is to learn. I support you by buying merchandise.

I believe the Sphinx is a remnant of a pre flood civilization and was built around 30,000 years ago

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.

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 : ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-e_jrngCX6E0.html

Fascinating and compelling.Well Done.

Great presentation Matt.

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.

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.

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.

How is the heght of water calculated? In these floods is there calculated that the bottom sediment would be carried away leaving more soace for water? What about the main current when sphynx lays in bay acording to presented pictures? As a fisherman these places are best for fishing because there is lot of sediment and food that does not get carried away. Would it be so destructive for sphynx?

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.)

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.

When they found the Sphinx it was buried up to it's head. Do we have a time table of the different layer's of ash and sand? Could the natural rain fall over time shift the sand underneath to rub on the bed rock making it look like rain erosion?

I have question, the water errosion is quite noticable but how can we say what came first? Errosion or sphinx? I get it, what would be point of making sphinx on degrated stone? But at the same time, if there were useful rock even if partially eroded, why not utilise it for something...like sphinx.

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.

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.

I never thought of that theory. Thanks for sharing.

Excellent analysis and it is healthy for all of us to keep challenging our presuppositions

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.

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.

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?

there is an existing text on the "Dream Stele" that shows that the king who unearthed the Sphinx (due to a dream he had) was already speaking (3,500 years back) of a Sphinx that was totally buried in sand. So how come he had to unearth something that still had to be constructed?

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.

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!

Excellent work.

We already know the complex was built between 4500 and 3500 BC, that's not news. That does not change the likelihood of an older complex, especially when the legend of Osiris literally states that he was recompiled. That means they rebuilt the old complex on the old site.

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?

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.

22:09 another question: is the head oryginal part of the postument? it looks like inconsistent with the body

Question... Can you create branches from the nile (south of the Giza plateau) to reduce flow rate and inundation levels? Thank you for the informative and always genuine content

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.

I believe you are incorrect in your statement 😢

Thank you friend. This is interesting and valuable information. I have already bought tickets to Cairo. I will study all the objects personally :)

So why is the head so much taller than the ground level? Is there pictures of water marks in spot going beneath Spinx How would they get it out,

Interesting information…but the tone/pace of the voiceover is difficult to not be distracted by.

You need to have a conversation with Randal Carlson

How long does their research state it would take to see the rain erosion patterns appear on the sphinx enclosure?

Ok dumbo here, but a thought I had based on a stat from Matt during this video: Matt said the Nile was 1 1/4 miles deep thru Cairo 10:51? But that it was mostly filled with silt/sediment. Could it be that the river flowed at a lower level regularly in the past and flooded the plain at the current level (or even lower?) because even though there was many times more water going through, it had more room to go up from that initital lower flow stage? And over time the base level of the river kept going up because of sediment deposits raising the water level? Just a thought, I don't really understand how rivers work.

what if the Sphinx has been regularly repaired by the ancient civilizations significantly lowering the natural wear off?

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.

Are there any plans to strengthen the neck of the Sphinx? Its only a matter of time until that noggin comes tumbling down. I haven't heard anyone talk about the heads supporting rock. Cheers