December 19, 2015 By Joseph P. Farrell

Ms. Kelly M. shared this article with me, and given my fascination for all things Egyptological, I simply am compelled to blog about it, because as the title of this blog indicates, I was simply stunned at the dating now being proposed, and oddly, somewhat satisfied. I'll explain the satisfaction in a moment, but first  the article itself:

Now as the article itself indicates, the redating of the Sphinx became a subject of considerable controversy when Dr. Robert Shoch, a geologist, examined the weathering on and around the monument, and concluded that the structure showed signs of water erosion, a fact first suggested by the renowned esotericist and "alternative Egyptologist" Rene Schwaller DeLubicz:

The starting point of these two experts is the paradigm shift initiated by West and Schoch, a ‘debate’ intended to overcome the orthodox view of Egyptology referring to the possible remote origins of the Egyptian civilization and, on the other, physical evidence of water erosion present at the monuments of the Giza Plateau.

Because of these water weathering and erosion features, Dr. Schoch concluded that the Sphinx had to be a far older structure than standard Egyptology was willing to grant, for significant rainfall could only be dated to its most recent period in that region of the world, the so-called sub-pluvial period, and thus the Sphinx had to be approximately 8000-10,000 years old. In other words, it was older than ancient Egypt itself(at least, by standard Egyptological chronologies). Needless to say, Dr. Shoch's conclusions were met with a storm of denunciation from the "science" of Egyptology.

But the re-dating being proposed exceeds Shoch's by an order of magnitude:

Manichev and Parkhomenko propose a new natural mechanism that may explain the undulations and mysterious features of the Sphinx. This mechanism is the impact of waves on the rocks of the coast. Basically, this could produce, in a period of thousands of years the formation of one or more layers of ripples, a fact that is clearly visible, for example, on the shores of the Black Sea. This process, which acts horizontally (that is, when the waves hit the rock up to the surface), will produce a wear or dissolution of the rock.


Manichev and Parkhomenko firmly believe that the Sphinx had to be submerged for a long time under water and, to support this hypothesis, they point towards existing literature of geological studies of the Giza Plateau. According to these studies at the end of the Pliocene geologic period (between 5.2 and 1.6 million years ago), sea water entered the Nile valley and gradually creating flooding in the area. This led to formation of lacustrine deposits which are at the mark of 180 m above the present level of the Mediterranean Sea.

According to Manichev and Parkhomenko, it is the sea level during the Calabrian phase which is the closest to the present mark with the highest GES hollow at its level. High level of sea water also caused the Nile overflowing and created long-living water-bodies. As to time it corresponds to 800000 years.

What we have here is evidence which contradicts the conventional theory of deterioration caused by Sand and Water, a theory already criticized by West and Schoch, who recalled that during many centuries, the body of the Sphinx was buried by the sands of the desert, so Wind and Sand erosion would not have done any damage to the enigmatic Sphinx.

However, where Schoch clearly saw the action of streams of water caused by continuous rains, Ukrainian geologists see the effect of erosion caused by the direct contact of the waters of the lakes formed in the Pleistocene on the body Sphinx. This means that the Great Sphinx of Egypt is one of the oldest monuments on the surface of the Earth, pushing back drastically the origin of mankind and civilization.

Some might say that the theory proposed by Manichev and Parkhomenko is very extreme because it places the Great Sphinx in an era where there were no humans, according to currently accepted evolutionary patterns. Furthermore, as it has been demonstrated, the two megalithic temples, located adjacent to the Great Sphinx were built by the same stone which means that the new dating of the Sphinx drags these monuments with the Sphinx back 800,000 years. In other words, this means that ancient civilizations inhabited our planet much longer than mainstream scientists are willing to accept.  (Emphasis added)

Now why do I find this both stunning and somewhat satisfying? Well, I've long been on record as having suspected that the other famous monument of the Giza plateau, the Great Pyramid itself, is a far older structure than even most "alternative" research is willing to entertain. Years ago, the late George Ann Hughes of the Byte Show asked this question of my, and I responded that the structure might be quite old, and proposed various dates in this range. If one recalls the arguments Alan Alford which I reviewed in The Giza Death Star Deployed, he discerns three different chronological layers of construction at Giza: (1) the oldest layer, with the most precise construction, represented by the Great Pyramid, (2) a more recent, but still very ancient and pre-ancient-Egyptian layer, represented by the Sphinx, the various Giza temples, and the Second Pyramid, and finally (3) the most recent and purely ancient Egyptian layer, showing a distinct decline in construction. Thus, if one combines the paper of Manichev and Parkhomenko redating the Sphinx to ca. 800,000 years ago, with Alford's "three chronological layers of construction" hypothesis of the plateau, then one ends with an age for the Great Pyramid considerably older than that.

Of course, I don't expect for a moment that Manichev's and Parkhomenko's paper will be met with anything but extreme derision in the Egyptological community, any more than Shoch's was, and there's every possibility that it will be too much and too extreme even for the alternative research community. But if it eventually should be corroborated by some other finding or research, then it does perhaps constitute a kind of loose corroboration of Mr. Christopher Dunn's machine hypothesis  - and let it be noted that Mr. Dunn, to my knowledge, has never advanced such an extreme antiquity for the Great Pyramid - and more importantly, such extreme antiquity would seem to corroborate the types of hypotheses I was advancing my Giza trilogy and in The Cosmic War.

See you on the flip side...