Skip to content

The Sphinx; its Age and Original Form

May 23, 2019

This is comprised of two separate similar pieces that I wrote so there is some overlap.


A debate rages over whether or not the previous figure of the Sphinx was a lion…


or a jackal, namely the ‘god’ Anubis.


Or perhaps the falcon god.


Good reasons support those views but none are fully convincing due to a lack of any corroborating evidence. Those reasons are explained in various YouTube videos. Here are my latest thoughts about the Sphinx, and a new basis for a conclusion regarding its possible age.

It makes no sense to correlate dynastic-era Anubis evidence in artwork and sculpture with a carved Sphinx possibly 5,000 years older. A creation-date far back in time negates any connection to Egypt and its dynastic religious story of Anubis, and, like the silent pyramids, invokes suspicion of a very, very, different mindset, one that was unknown to historical Egyptian civilization.

That leaves us with the possibility that there was no Sphinx in the time frame of the post-Younger Dryas ‘mini-ice age’ cosmic impact event, -that it was sculpted much later (perhaps 5,000 years) at the dawn of Egyptian civilization before records of anything were being kept, -before the concept of recorded history even existed yet.

If one wants to believe that the later Egyptian evidence indicates that the Sphinx was once the jackal Anubis then it’s logical to wonder if that original head was man-made of geopolymer cement with metal reinforcement. It could not have been reliably sculpted of original limestone since it lacks adequate cohesive tensile strength. It’s more like sandstone than like granite, so only a fool would have expected the snout and tall ears to never break off. But manufactured stone would have been stronger, especially if reinforced with metal rods or thick leather straps inside.

Prof. Joseph Davidovits, and Dr. Barsoum’s research, have shown that the Egyptians worked with geopolymer cement at some point in their history so if they had that knowledge and technology far back when Anubis was their preeminent deity, then it is conceivable that they might have constructed the head of the Sphinx in his likeness but with geopolymer and not original limestone bedrock.

But there’s no way to believe that the age of Anubis was not far more recent than the age of the original Sphinx head.  If the current pharonic head is as old as the logic I’ll explain implies, then it could never have been any other head within known Egyptian history barring some extraordinary circumstance.

There’s a problem with the original head being a jackal because a jackal’s neck would have been long and slim, unlike a lion’s which would have been much thicker, leaving plenty of stone left for recarving after extensive damage due to quakes or erosion.


The headdress of the pharaoh is quite wide so an original jackal neck would have had to have been larger in diameter than those Anubis jackals in paintings and sculptures.


(This drawing is essentially a jackal without a jackal’s long neck.)

While the neck of a jackal is longer and thinner than would be wise to carve on such a scale, the stone of the head is harder than that of the body so conceivably it could have withstood the leveraged pressure of a snout, and even more so if made of reinforced geopolymer cement instead of natural limestone.


If we had a determination of how much of the above-ground body of the Sphinx is eroded away annually by wind we could make some rough calculations as to what size it might have been at various stages of history.  But that is impossible because for much, if not most, of its existence it has been buried in sand up to or above its back.


During periods when half or so of its back was not buried it would have undergone the strongest erosion force since it is most damaging closest to the ground where it picks up sand and slams it against any object that the wind impacts.  A historical record of the state of the Sphinx is essentially non-existent so it’s impossible to determine anything definitive about erosion.

Also, we are in the dark as to the age of the paws of the Sphinx and what the rock beneath the brick work originally looked like. We need some penetrating scans to differentiate between the two.
The question is: is there evidence of badly eroded paws underneath the brick work or is there none?  Logic argues that there must be eroded original paws under the brickwork because the original head must have had an original body to complete it. The foremost question to answer is as to the age of the current pharonic head.  Is it older than the arrival of the Anubis theology?  If so, then the original head would not have been that which did not yet exist.  I look into that issue, and somewhat solve it, down below.

Whether an earlier Anubis head was an added geopolymer creation or not, it could have broken off or been destroyed at some unknown point in time.
Have you seen the video of ISIS militants destroying Mesopotamian giant hybrid bulls in Iraq? It shows that beneath the surface of the ‘stone’ is metal reinforcement. We don’t know if those ‘sculptures’ were original or reproductions for the museum, but if they were what they were claimed to be (original) then the Egyptians also knew about reinforcement of large stone creations and also using geopolymer cement to create them.

It seems that the enigmatic Sphinx is a greater mystery than I’ve heard anyone acknowledge so far. Why? Because of the quality of its surface and the story of Thutmose IV. According to the ‘Dream Stele’ he had carved and placed in front of the Sphinx in the 18th Dynasty,


he was out on a rigorous hunt which eventually exhausted him, prompting him to rest in the shade beneath the head of the Sphinx, -whose body was buried by desert sand. As he slept a voice told him that if he removed the sand from around the body then he would be rewarded by being made Pharaoh.

I can’t remember anyone pointing out the logical conclusions that can be drawn from his account. First, no one goes hunting for worthwhile game in a desert because there isn’t any. Therefore, the Giza plateau was not arid but green and inhabited by multiple major species within a living ecosystem. That also means that since it is and was a plateau it was not watered by water from the downhill Nile but by rainfall.

Adequate annual rainfall would have produced Giza plateau run-off that would have, over time, run downhill toward the Sphinx, eroding the walls of the Sphinx enclosure


(assuming that it existed at that time). If it did not exist yet then we might assume that Thutmose had the limestone removed from around the Sphinx vicinity, thereby creating the ‘enclosure’ in which it is located.


Only then would the erosion of the walls have begun.  Either way, the limestone blocks were used to build the two temples in front of the Sphinx.  The complication is that many of those blocks are gargantuan and lead one to speculate that they were cut very far in the distant past like many others like them.

But if the enclosure already existed and its walls were eroded then we would have to suspect that distant sandy desert winds had impacted the head and upper back of the Sphinx over a long period of time, dropping sand all around the body, although not filling the enclosure because the rain run-off would have annually washed away any sand near the walls.


It should be noted that the limestone of the head is much harder than that of the upper body so it suffered far less erosion.



But there is still a great mystery remaining and it is due to the fact that the body of the Sphinx is badly eroded by horizontal winds (with no sign of vertical rainfall erosion). But at least the upper-body would have been protected by the sand that buried it up until Thutmose removed the sand and exposed it to the weather.

So that leads to the conclusion that after originally being carved, the body was exposed to either very long-term moderate winds or to shorter-term winds of much greater strength….and then later succumbed to being buried by desert sand as was the case when Thutmose rescued it. It is unknown how much (if any) of the erosion of the body occurred within historical ages.

The interesting point is that the head shows virtually no sign of weathering at all. Its sharp lines are essentially as sharp as they were almost 3 1/2 millennia ago when the Sphinx received the attention of the future pharaoh. So, if in about 3,400 years the head was eroded only to an imperceptible degree, then how long did it take to erode the upper body in the long time frame before Thutmose?


One has to assume that it must have originally been carved before Anubis was around even as a concept, including before Egyptian civilization itself (as we know it) even existed.

So we have an enigma: The head and headdress, whose features still appear finely cut, has always been exposed to the weather and wind for all of recorded history while the body, which is badly eroded, has been buried to a significant degree throughout most of history.

Also, ancient photos of the Sphinx show a hind quarters that almost do not exist since it is as much a mess of erosion as it is of solid mass. That shows that the entire back end is a product of recent ‘renovation’ (meaning the last century or so).
Figure that one out if you can!



The truth is that the Sphinx has (at least) two ages. There’s the age of the Thutmose IV rehab of the Spinx, the age of the previous dynastic Sphinx with the still-existing pharonic head, and the age of the original Sphinx with a still-unknown head.
As dictated by logic, there are two facts that we need to recognize: in the age of Thutmose IV, Giza and Egypt were green and not desert because Thutmose could not  mount a respectable hunt (as related in the Dream Stele) in a desert since it lacks game. So Egypt had to have been green and populated with enough game to inspire a hunt.

Also, no pharaoh would re-carve the head in his own likeness without making a masterpiece of the rest of the structure as well, meaning recarving the eroded body into a like-new shape. So we have to assume that the harder limestone of the head withstood all of the eroding wind that badly eroded the softer body of the same age since that body would have once match the head when they were both newly re-carved. Since we know nothing about who that pharaoh was nor when he lived, we don’t have an age for the ‘second’ Sphinx.

Similarly, we have no way to know the age nor size of the original Sphinx but we do know this: the head is too small to have been the original carved head,


and the limestone of the head is quite hard so for its original head to have eroded to a significant degree would have taken far longer that the 3,500 years of history since Thutmose IV dug the current Sphinx out of the sand. The head has hardly eroded at all in all of that time so the original head must have been at least three times that age or more, otherwise there would not have been enough time to erode away the original head.
But…erosion may not have been a deciding factor.  There’s the fact that great age would make it older than the oldest pharonic age so there would have been no pharaoh to order it carved in his likeness.

Since that would make no sense we have to turn instead to the possibility that the original head was badly damaged sometime within the age of pharonic reign, leading to its ‘replacement’ not due to excess aging by erosion but due to damage caused by gravity, attack, or earthquake.

It could conceivably date back to before the cosmic impacts that kicked off a return to ice age temperatures around 12,875 B.C.

Capture89 Smithsonian

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: