Professor Schoch explained that the erosion he observed on the Sphinx and enclosure walls was
a classic textbook example of what happens to a limestone structure when you have rain beating down on it for thousands of years… It’s clearly rain precipitation that produced these erosional features… It picked out the weak spots in the rock and opened them up into these fissures – clear evidence to me as a geologist that this erosional feature was caused by rainfall.19
Professor Schoch also pointed to the mud-brick royal tombs at Saqqara. Despite their being marked as older than the Sphinx by several hundred years, they reveal no such weathering pattern even though mud-brick is a much more fragile building material than limestone.20
It is known that in the past there was an extended period during which much rain fell in North Africa. Long ago, around 40,000 BC, the climate was temperate and sufficient rain fell to maintain vast savanna grasslands teeming with wildlife. Here, on the edges of rivers and lakes, early man created settlements for hunting and fishing.
Then came a very extended arid period which for tens of thousands of years turned the area into desert, just as it is today. But around 8000 BC another rainy period began and much of this desert gradually returned to a vast fertile plain. This epoch lasted – with some intermediate dry periods – until around 4500 BC.21 A community thrived on the extensive rich pastures, a community which today remains rather mysterious.22 These people lasted, adapting to steadily reducing water supplies, until perhaps as late as 3000 BC: about the time of the first dynasties of Egyptian pharaohs.
It is this rainy period which most likely caused the deep erosion of the Sphinx.
Professor Schoch is a professional scientist who knows what he is talking about. There is no reason, apart from prejudice, to dismiss his final, dramatic, conclusion: that the Sphinx would seem to date, at the very minimum, from around 7000 to 5000 BC, the major portion of this Neolithic rainy period. Schoch writes
As a geologist, the current evidence taken as a whole suggests to me that the Great Sphinx of Giza is considerably older than its traditional attribution of ca 2500 BC. Indeed, I am currently estimating – based on evidence at hand – that the origin of the colossal sculpture can be traced to at least 7000 to 5000 BC, and perhaps even earlier.23
When these conclusions were made public, official opposition erupted. The scientific team was expelled from the site by the Egyptian authorities, fortunately not before they had gathered all the data they needed. And, since 1993, no further geological research has been permitted.
Egyptologists have been vocal in their opposition to Professor Schoch’s findings. Geologists have been vocal in their support.
When the findings were publicly presented at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in San Diego, in October 1992, the dozens of geologists who saw the evidence were astonished when told that no one had noticed these obvious erosion patterns before. The conclusions of Professor Schoch, that the Sphinx was eroded by rainfall, were readily accepted.24
Dr Hawass, an implacable opponent, when asked about all the evidence which would necessitate a revision of the dating of the Sphinx, spluttered, ‘There is absolutely no scientific base for any of this.’ 25
But Professor Schoch remains calm in the face of such implacable criticism: ‘I’ve been told over and over again that the peoples of Egypt… did not have either the technology or the social organization to cut out the core body of the Sphinx in pre-dynastic times…’26
This is fair criticism. Certainly, all that is known of pre-dynastic Egypt fails to reveal any such ruler or rulers who could have commanded the requisite manpower and organization. But the studies of this era are still in their infancy. And, in any case, as Professor Schoch rightly points out, this is not his concern. ‘I don’t see it as being my problem as a geologist… it’s really up to the Egyptologists… to figure out who carved it.’27 And he adds bluntly, in a direct scientific challenge to the Egyptologists, ‘If my findings are in conflict with their theory about the rise of civilization then maybe it’s time for them to re-evaluate that theory.’28
Conclusions and Implications
The implications of Professor Schoch’s conclusion are wide-ranging. If the Sphinx is removed in time from the rest of the Giza complex, it would indicate that the site had a religious significance long before the rise of the pharaohs. It would also suggest that the temple near the Sphinx also dates from the same epoch. This, in turn, would suggest that the people who lived at that time were not only capable of creating the Sphinx but also sufficiently advanced technically as to be capable of manipulating stone blocks weighing upwards of 200 tons – four times the weight of the blocks used, for example, at Stonehenge.29 For it is of such huge blocks that the Sphinx temple is built.
If we take these conclusions as a working hypothesis and look again at the excavation records of archaeologists working on pre-dynastic sites, we find that, despite the blunt denials of Egyptologists, it is not quite true that the social organization and technology to create the Sphinx did not exist prior to the 1st Dynasty kingdoms. Furthermore we do not have to invoke Atlanteans as do Hancock and others.
The pre-dynastic period is not well known but certain elements have broken through the surface. We can see hints of what might represent elements of a much greater and much earlier culture. And, significantly, these hints take us to the area of Giza, the site of the Sphinx.
One of the earliest and largest population centres in pre-dynastic Egypt was just across the Nile from Giza, at Maadi.30 There, very ancient remains have been discovered over an area of forty-five acres. It was excavated between 1930 and 1935 but, as is so often the case, the definitive report has never been published. The remains at Maadi seem to date from around 3600 BC but may well have developed earlier. Only further excavation will tell. It is the only site of its type known but others may have existed, now buried deep beneath the desert sands or under ruins of the later dynastic period.
Maadi was primarily a trading centre, placed as it was on the main route to the Sinai copper mines and at the apex of the Nile delta, a focal point for shipping. Excavations revealed three traits of the town: there is no known earlier site in Egypt so dominated by trade; there is evidence of strong international links with foreigners in residence; and it is one of the earliest known sites of metal working in Egypt.
Trade and metallurgy necessitate a well-organized population. Both involve collection and storage of products, the control of transport, the recording of transactions, of promises and debts. Metallurgy further requires a competence in mining, smelting and manufacturing in order to produce the copper ingots, tools and weapons which have been found. Many of these were undoubtedly produced for export.31
We find too at Maadi evidence of some system of civic organization: the town had two areas dedicated to the communal storage of goods. One was a specialized site with sizeable underground cellars filled with goods; the other held a great number of large storage jars buried to their necks in the soil.32 This is clear evidence of some form of leadership – be it of an individual or a council.
The beginnings of a command over technology are also in evidence. One of the storage cellars had a stone wall, one of the earliest examples of stone being used for building in Egypt. Stone was also used at Maadi for the construction of finely executed jars of basalt, alabaster and limestone, and even of stone as hard as granite and diorite, which take considerably more effort and technical skill to work.
The population residing at Maadi would appear to have possessed the skill and organization sufficient to excavate and carve a monument such as the Sphinx. Did they or their predecessors living in some still unexcavated desert site carve it? Was the population at Maadi the residue of an earlier desert group which, after the rains failed, moved closer to the Nile? Perhaps one day we will be able to answer these questions.
Egyptologists, though, are quick to point out their belief that not a shard of pottery or any other artef
acts from the Maadi culture have been found at Giza, thus denying any suggestion of a connection between the two. But in this, they are wrong, as we shall see.
Forgotten by the Egyptologists, evidence once existed. Earlier this century something important had been found. And filed into archaeological oblivion.
All museums suffer from an overload of information and objects. A walk into the basement areas of museums or archaeological schools reveals a scene which is always the same: ill-lit corridor walls bearing miles of industrial shelving, all stacked to overload with pots, cardboard boxes, wrapped bundles and all the dusty paraphernalia which excavations throw up, year after year. These may be marked with small numbers or a letter code but, to all practical concerns, they are filed and forgotten.
In the mid 1980s an archaeologist discovered some long-forgotten pots in the basement of the Cairo Archaeological Museum. They revolutionize our view of the Giza plateau, yet, even now, few Egyptologists are aware of their existence or their implications.
In 1907 archaeologists excavated four complete ceramic jars ‘at the foot of the Great Pyramid’. Because of this they were attributed to the 4th Dynasty and filed away. However, the archaeologist rummaging through these in the 1980s, Bodil Mortensen, realized with astonishment that these pots were not from the 4th Dynasty at all, but from the settlers living at Maadi – which, we have already noted, flourished 1,000 years or more before the Great Pyramid was built.33 There was no reason for these pots to have been identified correctly in 1907 because the remains at Maadi were not discovered until 1930.
Mortensen realized further that pots in daily domestic or commercial use are only discarded because they have broken. In any case, any complete bowls left on the surface would have been broken by the later construction work. He concluded then that these must have come from an ancient tomb, a burial at Giza dating from the pre-dynastic Maadi culture. This, then, provides crucial and important proof that, long before the pharaohs, Giza had been marked out and used as a sacred burial site. Evidently, virtually all of these early remains had been swept away by the later building work by the pharaohs of the 4th Dynasty.
What was there, we probably will never now know. But clearly Giza was not a sacred burial area unique to the 4th Dynasty pharaohs: clearly it had long been used as a special site.
There is another intriguing alternative interpretation: perhaps the builders of the Sphinx were brought in from elsewhere? At Maadi there is evidence of close links with Palestine. A number of dwellings in the distinctive underground style of southern Palestine have been found amongst the usual oval Egyptian huts. Perhaps traders or other professionals from Palestine actually lived there.34
Probably the largest city in southern Palestine was Jericho. Stone had been used here for construction since around 7000 BC – not long after the end of the last Ice Age and the appearance of Çatal Hüyük – at which time the entire town was protected by an encircling stone wall with a stone tower thirty feet high. At Jericho too, around 5500 BC, shallow underground dwellings were common; dwellings identical to those found at Maadi which might ultimately also prove to be of a similar date.35 It seems evident that there was a close connection between Maadi and Jericho. Therefore, it would be a simple matter to import the established Palestinian expertise in stone-work to Maadi and thus, of course, to Giza. In fact, it would be rather more surprising if this expertise had not made the journey south.
Other pre-dynastic sites too have Middle Eastern links. A German team have been excavating at Buto, in the delta region, for many years. They have revealed a substantial pre-dynastic centre with strong links to Mesopotamia, a region which also has a very ancient tradition of monumental building dating back, as we have seen, to the end of the last Ice Age. Analysis of their finds is continuing, as is the excavation.
We tend to forget that the earliest form of hieroglyph cannot yet be translated. Neither do we know when, where or how this form of writing developed. Nor, of course, what information it conceals. Perhaps some archaic Rosetta Stone will be found which will provide the key to this script; perhaps some royal or civil library will be discovered in a refuge far beneath the sands. For despite the thousands of dramatic discoveries made in Egypt over the last century of intensive archaeological study, no one has ever suggested that anything but a small part of the history has yet been uncovered.
The Astronomical Connections of the Giza Complex
From the early days of archaeology, Egyptologists have been aware of the astounding precision with which the Great Pyramid was constructed. Its walls are precisely oriented towards the cardinal points of the compass. The accuracy with which this was accomplished is so high that the variation from the exact reading is under 0.06 per cent. This was achieved without the use of compasses, for a building 481 feet high and comprising well over 2 million limestone blocks, each weighing around two and a half tons. Furthermore this pyramid was covered by a precisely fitted casing of even larger, harder blocks of white limestone from a nearby quarry. The other two pyramids are similarly aligned with an equal level of accuracy.
Such accuracy must have been achieved by reference to the stars. To this extent, at least, the major structures of the Giza complex can be seen as having a celestial alignment. But there is a further curiosity. The orderly design shows strange anomalies.
The three pyramids, each oriented to the four cardinal points, are entered by a door in the north. Within, the tunnels and galleries move southwards. Thus we can see that they are planned upon a north–south meridian. Yet the pyramids, so well-planned individually, are aligned with each other in a very curious manner.
They are not aligned together in a line running north–south, as one might expect. Neither are they aligned east–west, as one might think would be a logical alternative. They are instead aligned in a curious dog-leg of a line running south–west. The centre points of the first two pyramids align together exactly; but the third, the smallest, is out of alignment. It falls a little to the east.
This worried author Robert Bauval who, as an experienced construction engineer, knew that buildings are made to plans, not just raised in a haphazard manner. What plan, he wondered, would necessitate on the one hand a very precise alignment to the cardinal compass points and an equally precise north–south meridian but then accept a conspicuously skewed alignment of the structures in relation to each other?
He studied the rocky plateau of Giza from an engineer’s point of view. But he could not see any mechanical or geological reason for the misalignment. The smaller, northern pyramid could easily have been placed in the line created by the other two.
Perhaps the builders simply didn’t care or perhaps they were sloppy? But this did not fit the evidence of their obsessive precision. Bauval considered that sloppiness and arbitrary siting could not have been part of an attitude otherwise so precise and technically accomplished. Therefore, he concluded, the pyramids were built to a plan and that plan necessitated the misalignment. This posed the question why. What were the origin and meaning of such an apparently eccentric plan?
Bauval began a search of ancient Egyptian ritual and mythology to see whether there could be a clue.
The mythology and the rituals surrounding death and the afterlife had been carved on the interior walls of a number of pyramids, admittedly some time later than those of Giza – being within later 5th and early 6th Dynasty tombs – but undoubtedly recording very early material. These writings are known as The Pyramid Texts. They make it clear that after death the king was considered to go to the stars and become the god Osiris. The texts also make it clear that the celestial form of Osiris was a constellation called Sahu.
Two experts on ancient Egyptian astronomy, Otto Neugebauer and R. A. Parker, discovered that this Sahu was the constellation we now know as Orion. Hence there was an identification of Osiris with Orion.36 In addition, the terrestrial gate to heaven was called Rostau or Rosetjau. This has been identified with Giza.37
This was all very curious. Ba
uval had noted that the so-called ‘airshafts’ leading from the Queen’s and King’s Chambers in the Great Pyramid were aligned with certain stars. One from the King’s Chamber aligned with the lower star of Orion’s Belt.
He then noted that, relative to the Milky Way, the stars of Orion’s Belt formed a line running south–west, identical to that of the three Giza pyramids in relation to the Nile. Furthermore, in the ancient writings, the Milky Way was known as the ‘great river’. Could the Nile, Bauval wondered, be seen as the terrestrial equivalent of the Milky Way? And could the three pyramids be seen as the equivalent of the three stars of Orion’s Belt?
If Bauval is correct, then the celestial Osiris – Orion – is symbolized by three stars in a south–west pattern to the Milky Way. The terrestrial equivalent, the terrestrial Osiris – the Giza complex – is symbolized by the three major pyramids lying in a south–west pattern relative to the Nile.
Orion’s Belt comprises three stars in a line south–west to the Milky Way. The upper star is smaller and offset to the east. The third, smallest Giza pyramid, that of Menkaure, is offset in exactly the same manner. The correspondence seems conclusive. Astonished, Bauval and Gilbert wrote, ‘in Giza we had, quite literally, Orion’s Belt on the ground’.38
Bauval gained some support within the archaeological establishment. A former director of the Egyptian Department of the British Museum for twenty years, and the author of a much-reprinted book on the pyramids, Dr I. E. S. Edwards said that he thought Bauval had ‘made a very convincing case’. Dr Edwards had already come around to believing that, ‘The stars in Orion’s Belt were an important element in the orientation of the Great Pyramid.’39
Ancient Traces Page 18