The Egyptological reaction?
‘That’s ridiculous’, scoffed Peter Lecovara, assistant curator of the Egyptian Department in Boston’s Museum of Fine Arts. ‘Thousands of scholars working for hundreds of years have studied this problem and the chronology is pretty much worked out. There are no big surprises in store for us ...’[53]
Other ‘experts’ were equally dismissive. According to Carol Redmont, for example, an archaeologist at the University of California’s Berkeley campus: ‘There is no way this could be true. The people of that region would not have had the technology, the governing institutions or even the will to build such a structure thousands of years before Khafre’s reign.’[54]
And the redoubtable Zahi Hawass, who had tried to nip the geological research in the bud in the first place, had this to say about the Schoch-West team and their unorthodox conclusions concerning the antiquity of the Sphinx:
American hallucinations! West is an amateur. There is absolutely no scientific base for any of this. We have older monuments in the same area. They definitely weren’t built by men from space or Atlantis. It’s nonsense and we won’t allow our monuments to be exploited for personal enrichment. The Sphinx is the soul of Egypt’.[55]
John West was not in the least bit surprised by the rhetoric. In his long and lonely quest to mount a proper investigation into the age of the anonymous Sphinx many such brickbats had been thrown at him before. This time, with Schoch’s heavyweight support—and the massive exposure of the whole matter on NBC television—he felt vindicated at last. Furthermore it was clear that the Egyptologists were rattled by the intrusion of an empirical science like geology into their normally cosy and exclusive academic territory.
West, however, wanted to take the matter a good deal further than Schoch was prepared to go and felt that the geologist had been too conservative and lenient in his ‘minimum’ estimate of 7000 to 5000 bc for the age of the Sphinx: ‘Here Schoch and I disagree, or rather interpret the same data somewhat differently. Schoch very deliberately takes the most conservative view allowed by the data ... However I remain convinced that the Sphinx must predate the break-up of the last Ice Age ...’[56]
In practice this means any time before 15,000 bc—a hunch that West says is based on the complete lack of evidence of a high culture in Egypt in 7000 to 5000 bc. ‘If the Sphinx was as recent as 7000-5000 bc,’ he argues, ‘I think we probably would have other Egyptian evidence of the civilization that carved it.’[57] Since there is no such evidence, West reasons that the civilization responsible for the Sphinx and its neighbouring temples must have disappeared long before 7000-5000 bc: ‘The missing other evidence is, perhaps, buried deeper than anyone has looked and/or in places no one has yet explored—along the banks of the ancient Nile perhaps, which is miles from the present Nile, or even at the bottom of the Mediterranean, which was dry during the last Ice Age ...’[58]
Despite their ‘friendly disagreement’ as to whether the erosion of the Sphinx indicated a date of 7000 to 5000 bc, or a much more remote period, Schoch and West decided to present an abstract of their research at Giza to the Geological Society of America. They were encouraged by the response. Several hundred geologists agreed with the logic of their contentions and dozens offered practical help and advice to further the investigation.[59]
Even more refreshing was the reaction from the international media. After the GSA meeting articles appeared in dozens of newspapers, and the issue of the Sphinx’s age was widely covered by television and radio. ‘We were over the fifty-yard line and heading downfield,’ recalls West.[60]
As for the matter of his difference of opinion with Schoch about the dating of the monument, he honestly concedes that ‘only further research will resolve the question’.[61]
Jury still out
Since 1993 the Egyptian government, on the advice of Western Egyptologists, has not permitted any further geological research or seismic investigations to be undertaken around the Sphinx. This is surprising in view of the momentous implications of Schoch’s findings and all the more surprising because his original evidence has not yet been convincingly challenged in any forum. On the contrary, as the years have gone by, the Boston geologist has withstood the rigours of scientific peer review, several times successfully defending his contention that the distinctive weathering visible on the Sphinx, and on the walls of its enclosure—a combination of deep vertical fissures and rolling, undulating, horizontal coves—is ‘a classic, textbook example of what happens to a limestone structure when you have rain beating down on it for thousands of years ...[62] When set in the context of our knowledge of ancient climates at Giza, he adds, this represents abundant evidence ‘that the Great Sphinx predates its traditional attribution of circa 2500 bc ... I’m just following the science where it leads me, and it leads me to conclude that the Sphinx was built much earlier than previously thought.’[63]
Of course it cannot be said that Robert Schoch has proved that the monument dates back to the epoch of 7000 to 5000 bc. Nor has John West proved the even earlier date that he favours. But then again neither has orthodox Egyptology proved that the Sphinx belongs to Khafre and to the epoch of 2500 bc.
In other words, by any rational and reasonable criteria, the jury is still out on the true attribution and antiquity of this extraordinary monument.
The riddle of the Sphinx is still unsolved. And as we see in the next chapter, it is a riddle that encompasses the entire Giza necropolis.
Chapter 3
Mystery Piled upon Mystery
‘It is said that the stone [used in the construction of the Pyramids of Giza] was conveyed over a great distance ... and that the construction was effected by means of mounds ... The most remarkable thing is that, though the constructions were on such a great scale and the country round about them consists of nothing but sand, not a trace remains either of any mound or of the dressing of the stones, so that they do not have the appearance of being the slow handiwork of men but look like a sudden creation, as though they had been made by some god and set down bodily in the surrounding sand.’
Diodorus Siculus, Book I, first century bc
The Giza necropolis, site of the Great Sphinx and the three great Pyramids of Egypt, is, by any standards, an extraordinary architectural and archaeological puzzle. This is not only because of the many remarkable physical and engineering characteristics of the principal Pyramids and temples, but also because all of these monuments are essentially uninscribed and anonymous. Like the Sphinx, therefore, they are difficult to date by objective means. Like the Sphinx, too, their attribution to specific Pharaohs by Egyptologists is necessarily based upon a somewhat arbitrary interpretation of contextual clues.
The three great Pyramids, for example, are conventionally assigned as the tombs of Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure—three Pharaohs of the Fourth Dynasty. Yet no Pharaoh’s body has ever been found in any of these monuments and while there are some so-called ‘quarry marks’—crudely daubed graffiti—in cavities above the roof of the ‘King’s Chamber’ in the Great Pyramid, these writings, as we shall see in Part II, are not particularly helpful in confirming the orthodox identification with Khufu. There are no other texts of any kind in the Great Pyramid, or in the Pyramids attributed to Khafre and Menkaure. The three small ‘satellite’ Pyramids lined up along the eastern face of the Great Pyramid, and the three other satellite Pyramids lying near the south-western edge of the site, are similarly bereft of inscriptions. Some Fourth Dynasty artefacts were found inside these six ‘satellite’ structures but there is no guarantee that these artefacts are contemporary with the monuments.
2. Overhead view of the principal monuments of the Giza necropolis.
The same problem applies to the statues of Khafre and Menkaure that were found in the latter’s ‘Mortuary’ Temple and the former’s ‘Valley’ Temple. These statues are the only evidence supporting the attribution of these otherwise anonymous and uninscribed edifices to the two Pharaohs in question. In all logic, how
ever, they only suggest that attribution. They certainly do not confirm it. Khafre and Menkaure, in other words, might have built the temples. But it is also possible that they took over preexisting structures which they had inherited from an earlier time, and that they adapted, renovated and furnished these structures with their own statues in order to suit their own purposes. After all, we do not attribute the building of London’s Trafalgar Square to Nelson just because his statue stands there. By the same token Egyptologists could be going too far when they attribute the building of the Valley Temple to Khafre on the basis of his statue found there.
Indeed, this is an observation that is true for the Giza necropolis as a whole. The undoubted connection that it has with the Fourth Dynasty is not in dispute, but the precise nature of this connection remains unproven. To be sure, there are huge quantities of unmistakable and heavily inscribed Fourth Dynasty mastaba tombs lying east and west of the Great Pyramid and west of the Sphinx, but the contention that the Pyramids themselves are ‘tombs and tombs only’ is guesswork. It could be the case, as has happened elsewhere in the world, that an ancient and sacred site designed and built for one purpose was subsequently taken over and reused for another rather different purpose. We might imagine, for example, that the Pyramids and the other principal monuments surrounding them were originally intended to fulfil purely ritual, ceremonial and religious functions and that the practice of burying the dead there—principally Fourth Dynasty queens and nobles judging by the identifiable remains that have survived—was a later adaptation effected by people who were unconnected to the genesis of the site but who sought to be interred in a place that was imbued with ancient prestige and sanctity. A Western analogy is the practice of burying the remains of particularly favoured individuals under the flagstones of medieval cathedrals—a practice that continues to this day, but that does not lead us to conclude that these cathedrals are tombs or even that they were built primarily for the purposes of burial.
Impossible engineering
Approaching Giza from the east, through the modern Arab village of Nazlet-el-Sammam, one comes first to the Great Sphinx—which rears its grizzled head above an ugly bus-park and a crowd of tourist shops and cafés. Fortunately the ground has been cleared for a distance of about two hundred metres in front of the monument, giving an open view of the enormous and unusual architectural complex that has surrounded it since time immemorial.
This complex consists of the so-called ‘Sphinx Temple’ and the ‘Valley Temple of Khafre’, the former lying immediately to the east of the Sphinx, and directly overlooked by it, the latter lying a little to the south of the Sphinx Temple, separated from it by a narrow corridor but in direct alignment—a bit like two chunky, detached houses standing side by side.
The layout of these monuments, and the relationship that both of them have to the Sphinx and its enclosure, are best appreciated from the plans and photographs reproduced herewith. The Valley Temple is the larger of the two, being almost square and measuring approximately 130 feet along each side; the Sphinx Temple is more pronouncedly rhomboidal with side lengths of about 100 feet.
Originally around 40 feet high, both monuments are built out of massive limestone core-blocks and both were at one time fitted with inner and outer casings of granite. These casings and much of the core masonry have been removed from the Sphinx Temple, leaving it in a very dilapidated state. By contrast the Valley Temple is still largely intact. Both monuments are roofless, lacking their original ceiling beams. In the case of the Valley Temple, however, sixteen original interior columns and architraves remain in place in the T-shaped central hall, creating graceful patterns of light and shadow.
The unifying features of these ancient and anonymous structures are the stark, undecorated austerity of the building style, and the use throughout of ponderous megaliths—many of which are estimated to weigh in the range of 200 tons apiece.[64] There are no small blocks here at all: every single piece of stone is enormous—the least of them weighing more than 50 tons—and it is difficult to understand how such monsters could have been lifted and manoeuvred into place by the ancient Egyptians. Indeed, even today, contractors using the latest construction technology would face formidable challenges if they were commissioned to produce exact replicas of the Sphinx Temple and the Valley Temple.
3. The Great Sphinx and the architectural complex that surrounds it: Sphinx Temple, Valley Temple, Causeway (foreshortened and not to scale) and Mortuary Temple.
The problems are manifold but stem mainly from the extremely large size of the blocks—which can be envisaged in terms of their dimensions and weight as a series of diesel locomotive engines stacked one on top of the other. Such loads simply cannot be hoisted by the typical tower and hydraulic cranes that we are familiar with from building sites in our cities. These cranes, which are pieces of advanced technology, can generally ‘pick’ a maximum load of 20 tons at what is called ‘minimum span’—i.e. at the closest distance to the tower along the ‘boom’ or ‘arm’ of the crane. The longer the span the smaller the load and at ‘maximum span’ the limit is around 5 tons.
Loads exceeding 50 tons require special cranes. Furthermore, there are few cranes in the world today that would be capable of picking 200-ton blocks of quarried limestone. Such cranes would normally have to be of the ‘bridge’ or ‘gantry’ type, often seen in factories and at major industrial ports where they are used to move large pieces of equipment and machinery such as bulldozers, military tanks, or steel shipping containers. Built with structural steel members and powered with massive electric motors, the majority of these cranes have a load limit of under 100 tons. In short, a commission to put together a temple out of 200-ton blocks would be a most unusual and very taxing job, even for modern heavy-load and crane specialists.
In the United States there are presently only two land-based cranes of the ‘counterweight and boom’ type able to handle loads in the 200-ton range. Recently one was brought in to a Long Island construction site to lift a 200-ton boiler into a factory. The crane has a boom 220 feet long (at one end of which is 160-ton concrete counterweight which keeps it from tipping over). A crew of 20 men had to work for six weeks to prepare the ground before the boiler could be lifted.[65]
The biggest technical challenge of building a replica of the Valley Temple would be the need to lift hundreds of such weights and to do so within the physical limitations of the Giza site. In order to overcome that challenge the ideal crane would have to be of the gantry or bridge type, made mobile by being mounted on steel tracks—which would have to be set up within, or around, the confined area of the temple structure itself.
Not surprisingly, when the crane engineer responsible for lifting the 200-ton boiler on Long Island was shown photographs and given technical details concerning the blocks of the Valley Temple—and asked whether he thought that he could hoist similar blocks into place with his crane—he replied:
I’m looking at what you’re showing me here, and looking at the distances involved. I don’t know if we would be able to pick the 200-ton blocks from the positions that I see available to us ... In my business we pick heavy loads, and we look to see how heavy loads were picked by other people before us. And seeing how they moved these heavy blocks, 200-ton blocks, thousands and thousands of years ago, I have no idea how they did this job. It’s a mystery and it’ll probably always be a mystery to me, and maybe to everybody.[66]
How, why, when?
Mystery or not, the Valley Temple and the Sphinx Temple stand at Giza as mute testimony to the fact that certain builders in antiquity did know how to pick 200-ton loads, and did have the technical wherewithal to do the job. Furthermore, although it is reasonably certain that they did not do it with gantry or any other such cranes, we are in darkness as to how they did do it. Confronted by such questions Egyptologists tend to speak in vague and general terms of ‘earth ramps’ and ‘unlimited manpower’.[67] Engineers, however are required to be more specific and to address themselves to t
he issues of the precise kinds of ramps that would have been required—up which such big blocks could have been dragged—and the precise numbers of men that would have been needed to drag them.
No detailed technical studies have ever been undertaken at Giza concerning the logistics of building the Sphinx and Valley Temples. The Pyramids, however—which Egyptologists also believe were built with ramps—have been studied quite closely by a number of highly qualified architects and engineers.[68] What these studies have indicated is that the maximum feasible gradient for a construction ramp up which heavy loads could be hauled by men on foot is 1 in 10.[69] In the case of the Great Pyramid, which originally reached a height of 481 feet, this would have called for a ramp 4800 feet long and almost three times as massive as the Pyramid itself.[70]
Of course, such a problem does not apply where the Sphinx Temple and the Valley Temple are concerned because their original constructed height was much lower than that of the Pyramids and they therefore could have been approached by relatively short 1-in-10 ramps. The fearsome mass and weight of the many 200-ton blocks found in these temples, however, rules out the use of any ramp made of materials less stable than the limestone ashlars of the temples themselves.[71]
Let us assume, then, that solid stone ramps were used and then later dismantled and cleared away. The question now becomes: how many men would be required to haul hundreds of 200-ton blocks up such ramps? To get this problem into perspective it is helpful to realize that a block of 200 tons represents a load roughly equivalent to 300 family-sized automobiles (each with an average weight of three-quarters of a ton).
The Message of the Sphinx AKA Keeper of Genesis Page 4
