Reprinted in Arrow Books, 1997

7 9 10 8 6

Copyright © Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock, 1996

The right of Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock to be identifiied as the authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988

This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser

First published in the United Kingdom in 1996 by William Heinemann

This edition first published in 1997 by Mandarin Paperbacks, reprinted twice

Arrow Books
The Random House Group Limited
20 Vauxhall Bridge Road, London SW1V 2SA

www.rbooks.co.uk

Addresses for companies within The Random House Group Limited can be found at: www.randomhouse.co.uk/offices.htm

The Random House Group Limited Reg. No. 954009

A CIP catalogue record for this book
is available from the British Library

ISBN 9780099416364

To the memory of my father Gaston Bauval, who rests in the land of Egypt.

Robert G. Bauval

To my friend, John Anthony West,
for his twenty years of courageous work
to prove the geological antiquity of the Sphinx,
and for the vast implications of the evidence
that he has put before the public.
‘The truth is great and mighty,’ as the
ancient texts say. ‘It hath never been broken
since the time of Osiris.’

Graham Hancock

Contents

List of Illustrations

Acknowledgements

Part I Enigmas

1. Horizon Dweller

2. The Riddle of the Sphinx

3. Mystery Piled upon Mystery

4. Stars and Time

Part II Seekers

5. The Case of the Psychic, the Scholar and the Sphinx

6. The Case of the Iron Plate, the Freemasons, the Relics and the Shafts

7. The Case of the Robot, the Germans and the Door

Part III Duality

8. The Clues of Duality

9. The Sphinx and its Horizons

10. The Quest of the Horus-King

Part IV Map

11. The Unseen Academy

12. Sages and ‘Followers’

13. Following the Stars

14. Space–Time Co-ordinates

15. When the Sky Joined the Earth

16. Message in a Bottle?

17. The Place of the ‘First Time’

Conclusion

Appendix 1: The Scales of the World

Appendix 2: Precession, Proper Motion and Obliquity

Appendix 3: Correspondence with Mark Lehner

Appendix 4: Harnessing Time with the Stars

Appendix 5: Carbon-dating the Great Pyramid

Appendix 6: The Door inside the Great Pyramid; Tunnels and Chambers under the Great Sphinx

References

Selected Bibliography

Line Illustrations

1. Profile of the Great Sphinx from the south.

2. Overhead view of the principal monuments of the Giza necropolis.

3. The Great Sphinx and the architectural complex that surrounds it.

4. The artificial ‘Horizon of Giza’.

5. Geodetic location of the Great Pyramid of Giza.

6. Cross-section of the Great Pyramid of Egypt.

7. Internal corridors and passageways of the three Pyramids of Giza.

8. Principal internal features of the Great Pyramid.

9. Detail of the corridors, chambers and shafts of the Great Pyramid.

10. The complex internal design of the Great Pyramid.

11. The King’s and Queen’s Chambers and their four shafts.

12. Details of the Queen’s Chamber and its shafts.

13. Queen’s Chamber wall and shaft mouth.

14. Construction details of the Great Pyramid shafts.

15. The summer solstice as seen from Giza.

16. The trajectory of the sun on the summer solstice.

17. The trajectory of the sun on the equinox.

18. The trajectory of the sun on the winter solstice.

19. The horizon of Giza and the meridian of the Great Pyramid.

20. Culmination (meridian-transit) of Orion’s belt circa 2500 BC.

21. Orion and Osiris.

22. The stellar alignments of the Great Pyramid’s four shafts.

23. Orion’s belt crossing the meridian of the Great Pyramid in 2500 BC.

24. The sky–ground image of Giza-Orion’s belt in 10,500 BC.

25. The 10,500 BC ‘lock’ with Giza.

26. Artist’s impression of Orion’s precessional cycle at meridian.

27. The trajectory of Orion’s belt throughout the ages.

28. Pre-dawn at the spring (vernal) equinox in 10,500 BC.

29. Superimposed images of the rising of Leo in 2500 BC.

30. Sunrise at the spring (vernal) equinox in 10,500 BC.

31. Artist’s impression of the ‘First Time’ of Osiris-Orion.

32. ‘Sah’ (Osiris-Orion), the ‘Far Strider’.

33. Detail of Queen’s Chamber shaft.

34. The Memphite necropolis.

35. Sunrise at solstices and equinoxes as seen from Giza.

36. The sky region of the Duat.

37. Map of the apex region of the Nile Delta.

38. The ‘Land of Sokar’ in the Fifth Division of the Duat.

39. The Fifth Division of the Duart.

40. The summer solstice as seen from Giza circa 2500 BC.

41. The Denderah Zodiac.

42. Horakhti, ‘Horus-of-the-Horizon’.

43. Artist’s impression of ‘reconstructed’ Sphinx.

44. The Duat sky-region at dawn throughout the year, circa 2500 BC.

45. The ‘solar’ Horus crossing the Milky Way.

46. The ‘solar’ Horus in the paws of Leo.

47. The ‘astral’ Kingdom of Osiris in Rostau.

48. The Horus-King being led into the Great Pyramid.

49. The ‘astral’ Great Pyramid and its stargates.

50. The rising of Leo at the summer solstice circa 2500 BC.

51. The summer solstice circa 2500 BC.

52. The Horus-King statue between the paws of the Sphinx.

53. Osiris-Orion showing the way to his ‘Followers’, the Horus-Kings.

54. Arists’s impression of the ‘Mansion of the Phoenix’.

55. Osiris-Orion, Isis-Sirius and the Horus-Kings.

56. Great conjunction of the ancient skies at the spring (vernal) equinox circa 10,500 BC.

57. The sky-Duat and the ground-Duart of Osiris.

58. The ‘drift’ of Orion from 10,500 BC to 2500 BC.

59. The setting of Orion’s and the ‘satellite’ pyramids of the ‘horizon’ of Giza in 10,500 BC.

60. Artist’s impression of the ‘First Time’ of Sirius, in the epoch of 10,500 BC.

61. The course of the sun throughout the year as viewed from the latitude of Giza.

62. The 14 degree north of east alignment of the Khufu causeway at the north cross-quarter sunrise.

63. The due east (equinox) alignment of the Menkaure causeway.

64. The 14 degree south of east alignment of the Khafre causeway at the ‘south’ cross-quarter sunrise.

65. The rising of Leo and the ‘south’ cross-quarter sunrise in 10,500 BC.

66. Hor-em-akhet (Sphinx) gazing at Horakhti (Leo) at the ‘south’ cross-quarter sunrise in 10,500 BC.

67. Profile of the Great Sphinx in the ‘ground-horizion’ of Giza.

68. The place-time datum of 10,500 BC under ‘Leo’.

69. Possible locations of an underground system of passageways and chambers beneath the Great Sphinx.

70. The Djed pillar of Osiris, flanked by Isis and Nepthys.

71. Sun-boat on the back of the double-lion hieroglyph for Aker; Great Pyramid looking west; Osirian Djed pillar looking west.

72. The Scales of Maat.

73. Cross-sections of the Great Pyramid showing the ‘balancing’ of the monument with the star-shafts.

74. The ‘scales’ of Orion at the ‘nadir’ and ‘apex’ of the current Precessional Cycle and the ages of Leo (10,500 BC) and Aquarius (2450 ad).

Acknowledgements

Robert G. Bauval:

Foremost, a special thanks to the readers. In the last two years I have received hundreds of letters of encouragement and good-will and it’s sure nice to know you’re all out there sharing in this common quest for truth.

I am immensely grateful for the patience and understanding of my wife Michele, and my two children, Candice and Jonathan.

Particular gratitude goes to the following relatives, friends and colleagues for their support: John Anthony West, Chris Dunn, Bill Cote, Roel Oostra, Joseph and Sherry Jahoda, Joseph and Laura Schor, Niven Sinclair, Marion Krause-Jach, Princess Madeleine of Bentheim, James Macaulay, Robert Makenty, Linda and Max Bauval, Jean Paul and Pauline Bauval, my mother Yvonne Bauval, Geoffrey and Thérèse Gauci, Patrick and Judy Gauci, Denis and Verena Seisun, Colin Wilson, Mohamed and Amin El Walili, Julia Simpson, Sahar Talaat, Professor Karl-Klaus Dittel and his wife Renate, Hani Monsef, Mark Ford, Peter Zuuring, Richard Thompson, Adrian Ashford, Dave Goode, Okasha El Daly, Mohamad Razek, Heike Nahsen, Ilga Korte, Gundula Schulz El Dowy, Antoine Boutros, Professor Jean Kerisel, Roy Baker, Murry Hope, William Horsman and Charlotte Ames.

I would like to convey my warm thanks to Bill Hamilton and Sara Fisher of A.M. Heath & Co., Ltd, for putting up with my pleonastic ways, Tom Weldon and all the staff at William Heinemann Ltd, Peter St Ginna and Brian Belfiglio at Crown Publishing Inc., Melanie Walz and Doris Janhsen at Paul List Verlag, and Udo Rennert of Wiesbaden.

Finally, I want to pay tribute to the engineer and my friend Rudolf Gantenbrink for opening the way for all of us with his bold and daring exploration in the Great Pyramid.

Robert G. Bauval,
Beaconsfield, February 1996

Graham Hancock:

Special thanks and love to Santha, my wife and partner, my best and dearest friend. Love and appreciation to our children: Gabrielle, Leila, Luke, Ravi, Sean and Shanti. Special thanks also to my parents, Donald and Muriel Hancock, who have given me so much, and for the help, advice and adventurous spirit of my uncle, James Macaulay. Many of the individuals named in Robert’s acknowledgements likewise deserve my thanks: they know who they are. In addition I take this opportunity to send my personal good wishes to Richard Hoagland, Lew Jenkins, Peter Marshall, and Ed Ponist.

Graham Hancock,
Lifton, February 1996

Part I

Enigmas

Chapter 1

Horizon Dweller

‘There is scarcely a person in the civilized
world who is unfamiliar with the form and
features of the great man-headed lion that
guards the eastern approach to the Giza
pyramids.’

Ahmed Fakhry, The Pyramids, 1961

A gigantic statue, with lion body and the head of a man, gazes east from Egypt along the thirtieth parallel. It is a monolith, carved out of the limestone bedrock of the Giza plateau, two hundred and forty feet long, thirty-eight feet wide across the shoulders, and sixty-six feet high. It is worn down and eroded, battered, fissured and collapsing. Yet nothing else that has reached us from antiquity even remotely matches its power and grandeur, its majesty and its mystery, or its sombre and hypnotic watchfulness.

It is the Great Sphinx.

Once it was believed to be an eternal God.

Then amnesia ensnared it and it fell into an enchanted sleep.

Ages passed: thousands of years. Climates changed. Cultures changed. Religions changed. Languages changed. Even the positions of the stars in the skies changed. But still the statue endured, brooding and numinous, wrapped in silence.

Often sand engulfed it. At widely separated intervals a benevolent ruler would arrange to have it cleared. There were those who attempted to restore it, covering parts of its rock-hewn body with blocks of masonry. For a long period it was painted red.

By Islamic times the desert had buried it up to its neck and it had been given a new, or perhaps a very old, name: ‘Near to one of the Pyramids,’ reported Abdel-Latif in the twelfth century, ‘is a colossal head emerging from the ground. It is called Abul-Hol.’ And in the fourteenth century El-Makrizi wrote of a man named Saim-ed-Dahr who ‘wanted to remedy some of the religious errors and he went to the Pyramids and disfigured the face of Abul-Hol, which has remained in that state from that time until now. From the time of this disfigurement, also, the sand has invaded the cultivated land of Giza, and the people attribute this to the disfigurement of Abul-Hol.’

1. Profile of the Great Sphinx from the south showing restoration blocks along the paws and flanks and extensive weathering on the core limestone body.

Enduring memories

Abul-Hol, the Arabic name for the Great Sphinx of Egypt, is supposed by most translators to mean ‘Father of Terror’.

An alternative etymology, however, has been proposed by the Egyptologist Selim Hassan. During the extensive excavations that he undertook on the Giza plateau in the 1930s and ’40s he uncovered evidence that a colony of foreigners – ‘Cananites’ – had resided in this part of Lower Egypt in the early second millennium BC. They were from the sacred city of Harran (located in the south of modern Turkey near its border with Syria) and they may perhaps have been pilgrims. At any rate artefacts and commemorative stelae prove that they lived in the immediate vicinity of the Sphinx – worshipping it as a god under the name Hwl.¹

In the Ancient Egyptian language, bw means ‘place’. Hassan therefore reasonably proposes that Abul-Hol, ‘is simply a corruption of bw Hwl, “the Place of Hwl”, and does not at all mean “Father of Terror”, as is generally supposed’.²

When speaking of the Sphinx, the Ancient Egyptians frequently made use of the Harranian derivation Hwl, but they also knew it by many other names: Hu,³ for example, and Hor-em-Akhet – which means ‘Horus in the Horizon’.⁴ In addition, for reasons that have never been fully understood, the Sphinx was often referred to as Seshep-ankh Atum, ‘the living image of Atum,⁵ after Atum-Re the self-created sun-god, the first and original deity of the ancient Egyptian pantheon. Indeed, the very name ‘Sphinx’ that has haunted the collective subconscious of the Western world since Classical times, turns out to be no more than a corruption – through Greek – of Sheshep-ankh.

In this way, with subtlety, a number of very archaic ideas, once held by the ancient Egyptians, have survived for thousands of years.⁶ Would we not be foolish, therefore, to ignore entirely the lingering tradition that associates the Sphinx with a great and terrible riddle?

Stillness and silence

Crouching in the massive horseshoe-shaped trench of bedrock out of which it was carved, the statue looks old: a fierce and raddled towering monster, higher than a six-storey building and as long as a city block. Its flanks are lean, deeply scalloped by erosion. Its paws, now covered with modern repair bricks, are substantially worn away. Its neck has been clumsily shorn up with a cement collar intended to keep its grizzled head in place. Its face, too, is bruised and battered, and yet it somehow seems serene and ageless, unpredictably portraying different moods and expressions at different times and seasons, coming alive with patterns of light and shadow cast by scudding clouds at dawn.

Wearing the elegant nemes head-dress of an Egyptian Pharaoh, it gazes patiently into the east, as though waiting for something – waiting and watching, lost in its ‘stillness and silence’ (in the words of the Roman naturalist Pliny), and targeting for ever the equinoctial rising point of the sun.

How long has it stood here inspecting the horizon?

Whose image does it portray?

What is its function?

In our search for answers to these questions we have found ourselves drawn into strange and unexpected areas of research. Like souls on the way of the dead, we have had to pass through the dark kingdom of the ancient Egyptian afterworld, to navigate its narrow corridors, flooded passageways and hidden chambers, and to confront the fiends and demons lurking there. Using computer simulations we have journeyed back in time to stand beneath skies more than 12,000 years old, and watched Orion cross the meridian at dawn as Leo rose resplendent in the east. We have immersed ourselves in archaic rebirth texts and myths and scriptures and found amongst them the veiled remnants of a remarkable ‘astronomical language’ that can, without too much difficulty, be read and understood today.

Through clues expressed in this language we believe that we are able to identify with certainty who and what the Sphinx really is. Moreover, as we shall see in Parts III and IV, this identification appears to open a window on a forgotten episode in human history when the waters of a great deluge were ebbing and men sought to transform themselves into gods. In our opinion the stakes are high. Indeed we think it possible that the Sphinx and the three great Pyramids may offer knowledge of the genesis of civilization itself. Our immediate aim in Parts I and II, therefore, is to undertake a complete re-evaluation of all these titanic monuments, of the scholarship that has surrounded them during the past century or so, and of their numerous neglected, geodetic and geological and astronomical qualities.

Once these factors are taken into account a new Rosetta Stone begins to emerge, expressed in architecture and time, in allegories and symbols, and in specific astronomical directions and co-ordinates that tell the seeker where to look and what he might hope to find.

Meanwhile the Great Sphinx waits patiently.

Keeper of secrets.

Guardian of mysteries.

Chapter 2

The Riddle of the Sphinx

‘Sphinx, mythological creature with a lion’s
body and human head … The earliest and
most famous example in art is the colossal
recumbent Sphinx at Giza, Egypt, dating
from the reign of King Khafre (4th dynasty,
c. 2575–2465 BC). This is known to be a
portrait statue of the King …’

Encyclopaedia Britannica

There is a belief that the Great Sphinx of Giza was fashioned during that period of Egyptian history classified as the ‘Old Kingdom’ on the orders of the Fourth Dynasty Pharaoh named Khafre whom the Greeks later knew as Chephren and who reigned from 2520–2494 BC. This is the orthodox historical view and readers will find it reported in all standard Egyptological texts, in all encyclopaedias, in archaeological journals and in popular scientific literature. In these same sources it is also repeatedly stated as fact that the features of the Sphinx were carved to represent Khafre himself – in other words, its face is his face.

Thus, for example, Dr I. E. S. Edwards, a world-renowned expert on the monuments of the Giza necropolis, tells us that although the face of the Sphinx has been ‘severely mutilated’: ‘it still gives the impression of being a portrait of Khafre and not merely a formalised representation of the king.’¹

In a similar vein Ahmed Fakhry, professor of ancient history at Cairo University, informs us that: ‘as it was first conceived, the Sphinx symbolised the king, and its face was carved in Khafre’s likeness.’²

The only problem – at any rate without access to a time machine – is that none of us, not even distinguished Egyptologists, is really in a position to say whether or not the Sphinx is a portrait or likeness of Khafre. Since the Pharaoh’s body has never been found we have nothing to go on except surviving statues (which might or might not have closely resembled the king himself). The best known of these statues, an almost unsurpassable masterpiece of the sculptor’s art carved out of a single piece of black diorite, now reposes in one of the ground-floor rooms of the Cairo Museum. It is to this beautiful and majestic representation that the scholars make reference when they tell us – with such confidence – that the Sphinx was fashioned in Khafre’s likeness.

This confidence was particularly apparent in an article in the prestigious National Geographic magazine which appeared in the US in April 1991, and a similar one that appeared in Britain in the Cambridge Archaeological Journal in April 1992.³ The articles were written by Professor Mark Lehner, of Chicago University’s Oriental Institute, who used ‘photogrammetric data and computer graphics’ to ‘prove’ that the face of the great Sphinx was that of Khafre:

Zahi Hawass, Director General of the Giza Pyramids, invited me to join his excavation [around the Sphinx] in 1978. During the next four years I led a project to map the Sphinx in detail for the first time. We produced front and side views with photogrammetry, a technique using stereoscopic photography … Computers have taken the records further. Maps were digitized to make a 3-D wireframe model; some 2.6 million surface points were plotted to put ‘skin’ on the skeleton view. We have constructed images of the Sphinx as it may have looked thousands of years ago. To create the face, I tried matching views of other sphinxes and pharaohs to our model. With the face of Khafre, the Sphinx came alive …⁴

It all sounds technically very impressive and persuasive. After all, who in their right mind is going to argue with ‘2.6 million surface points’ based on ‘stereoscopic photography’ and ‘photogrammetry’?

Behind the technical jargon, however, the truth is rather less awe-inspiring. A close reading shows that all that Lehner did in order to ‘reconstruct’ the face of the Sphinx was to prepare a computerized three-dimensional wireframe skeleton on which he then superimposed the face of Khafre. This is admitted in the National Geographic article, which reproduces a photograph of the diorite statue of Khafre above the following caption: ‘The author [Lehner] used this face for the computer reconstruction of the Sphinx.’⁵

So what Mark Lehner really did was to remodel the face of the Sphinx on a computer according to his own preferences – in much the same way that some ancient Egyptians had probably done several times before him on the face of the statue itself. The present features of the Sphinx, in other words, are no more likely to be those of Khafre than they are to be those of a number of other Pharaohs – Thutmosis IV, for example, or Amenhotep, or Ramesses II (who is last known, as Lehner admits, to have ‘extensively reworked’ the monument at around 1279 BC).⁶ The simple, honest truth is that during the thousands of years of the Sphinx’s existence, often with only its head protruding above the sand, almost anyone could have worked on its face at almost any time. Moreover, Lehner’s own photogrammetric study has thrown up at least one piece of evidence which is highly suggestive of major recarving: the Sphinx’s head, he writes, is ‘too small’ in proportion to the body. He tells us that this is because it is an early prototype of the later very popular (and always proportionate) sphinx form, and speculates that ‘the Fourth Dynasty Egyptians may not [yet] have worked out the canon of proportions between the royal head with the nemes headdress on the lion body’.⁷ He does not consider the equally valid and more intriguing possibility that the head was once much larger – and perhaps even leonine, and that it was reduced in size by recarving.

Probably relevant in this regard is an additional observation that Lehner has made: ‘a subtle discrepancy’ exists ‘between the axis of the head [of the Sphinx] and that of the facial features’⁸ – the head being orientated perfectly to due east, and the features swivelled somewhat to the north of east.

Once again this is an error that is consistent with the recarving of a much older and heavily eroded statue. And it is consistent, too, as we shall see later in this chapter, with new geological evidence concerning the Sphinx’s antiquity. Setting these matters aside for the moment, however, it seems clear that the mere fact that Mark Lehner is able to graft an image of Khafre onto the battered visage of the Sphinx by means of the ‘ARL (Advanced Research Logic) Computer and the AutoCad (release 10) graphics application’,⁹ proves nothing more than that with good computer graphics you can make anyone’s face look like anyone else’s face. ‘The same computer technique,’ in the words of one outspoken critic, ‘could be used to “prove” the Sphinx was really Elvis Presley …¹⁰

It was partly in an attempt to resolve this impasse that a group of independent researchers took the unusual step of bringing a detective to Egypt in 1993. The detective in question was Lieutenant Frank Domingo, a senior forensic artist with the New York Police Department, who has been preparing ‘identikit’ portraits of suspects for more than twenty years. As a man who knows and works with faces every day of his professional life, he was commissioned to make a detailed study of the points of similarity and difference between the Sphinx and the Khafre statue. Months later, after returning to his lab in New York where he undertook careful comparisons of hundreds of photographs of the two works, Domingo reported:

After reviewing my various drawings, schematics and measurements, my final conclusion concurs with my initial reaction, i.e. that the two works represent two separate individuals. The proportions in the frontal view, and especially the angles and facial protrusion in the lateral views convinced me that the Sphinx is not Khafre …’¹¹

So on the one hand we have a top forsenic expert, Frank Domingo, telling us that the Sphinx’s face does not represent Khafre’s face. And on the other we have Mark Lehner, the Egyptologist computer buff, saying that only with Khafre’s face does the Sphinx ‘come alive’.

Undatable, anonymous

Why is there room for such widely varying opinions concerning the world’s best known and most intensively studied ancient monument?

In 1992, in two different forums, Mark Lehner made somewhat contradictory statements which hint at the answer to this question:

1	At the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science he said: ‘There is no direct way to date the Sphinx itself because the Sphinx is carved right out of natural rock.’12
2	In the Cambridge Archaeological Journal he wrote: ‘Although we are certain that the Sphinx dates to the Fourth Dynasty, we are confronted by a complete absence of Old Kingdom texts which mention it.’13

To deal with the first point first, it is a simple matter of fact that no objective test presently exists for the accurate dating of rock-hewn monuments.¹⁴ Many people are under the erroneous impression that the radio-carbon technique could be used, but this is not so: it is only applicable to organic materials (in which it measures the quantity of the isotope Carbon-14 that has decayed since the death of the organism in question). Since the Sphinx is made of carved rock it cannot be dated by this method.

This brings us to the second point. Stone monuments can be dated with reasonable accuracy if there are contemporary texts which refer to their construction. Ideally, in the case of the Sphinx, what one would require would be an inscription carved during the Fourth Dynasty and directly attributing the monument to Khafre. As Mark Lehner admits, however, no contemporary text referring to the Sphinx has ever been found.

In all honesty, therefore, what confronts us at Giza is an entirely anonymous monument, carved out of undatable rock, about which, as the forthright Egyptologist Selim Hassan wrote in 1949, ‘no definite facts are known’.¹⁵

One syllable

Why, therefore, do Mark Lehner and other influential modern scholars continue to link the Sphinx to Khafre and to insist that ‘The Old Kingdom Fourth Dynasty date for [its] origin … is no longer an issue’¹⁶?

One reason is a single syllable carved on the granite stela which stands between the monument’s front paws and which has been taken as proof that Khafre built the Sphinx. The stela, which is not contemporary with the Sphinx itself, commemorates heroic efforts by the Pharaoh Thutmosis IV (1401–1391 BC) to clear the Sphinx completely of encroaching sand and describes the lion-bodied statue as the embodiment of ‘a great magical power that existed in this place from the beginning of all time’.¹⁷ The inscription also contains, in line 13, the first syllable – Khaf – of the name Khafre. The presence of that syllable, in the words of Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, is: ‘very important for it proves that … the priests of Heliopolis who advised Thutmosis to undertake the work of clearing away the sand from the Sphinx believed that it was fashioned by Khafre …’¹⁸

But does the syllable Khaf really prove so much?

When the stela was excavated by the Genoese adventurer Gian Battista Caviglia in 1817, line 13 – which has now entirely flaked away – was already badly damaged. We know of its existence because, not long after the excavation, the British philologist Thomas Young, a leading expert in the decipherment of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, was able to make a facsimile of the inscription. For line 13 his translation reads as follows: ‘… which we bring for him: oxen … and all young vegetables; and we shall give praise to Wenofer … Khaf … the statue made for Atum-Hor-em-Akhet. …’¹⁹

On the assumption that Khaf was Khafre’s name, Young added the syllable Re between square brackets to show that a lacuna had been filled in.²⁰ In 1905, however, when the American Egyptologist James Henry Breasted studied Young’s facsimile he concluded that a mistake had been made: ‘This mention of King Khafre has been understood to indicate that the Sphinx was the work of this king – a conclusion which does not follow; [the facsimile of] Young has no trace of a cartouche …’²¹

In all the inscriptions of ancient Egypt, from the beginning to the end of Pharaonic civilization, the names of kings were always inscribed inside oval-shaped signs or enclosures known as ‘cartouches’. It is therefore extremely difficult to understand how on the granite stela between the paws of the Sphinx the name of as powerful a king as Khafre – or indeed of any other king – could have been written without its pre-required cartouche.

Besides, even if the syllable Khaf was intended to refer to Khafre, its presence does not necessarily imply that he built the Sphinx. It is equally possible that he was being commemorated for some other service. For example, like many Pharaohs after him (Ramesses II, Thutmosis IV, Ahmoses I, etc., etc.²²) – and perhaps like many before him too – is it not possible that Khafre was a restorer of the Sphinx?

As it happens, this perfectly logical deduction and others like it were favoured by a number of the leading scholars who pioneered the discipline of Egyptology at around the end of the nineteenth century. Gaston Maspero, for example, Director of the Department of Antiquities at the Cairo Museum, an acclaimed philologist of his time, wrote in 1900:

The stela of the Sphinx bears, on line 13, the [name] of Khafre in the middle of a gap … There, I believe, is an indication of [a renovation and clearance] of the Sphinx carried out under this prince, and consequently the more or less certain proof that the Sphinx was already covered with sand during the time of his predecessors …²³

This view is supported by the text of another roughly contemporary stela, the so-called ‘Inventory Stela’ – also found at Giza but arbitrarily assumed by the majority of modern Egyptologists to be a work of fiction – which states that Khufu saw the Sphinx. Since Khufu, the supposed builder of the Great Pyramid, was Khafre’s predecessor, the obvious implication is that Khafre could not have built the Sphinx.²⁴ Encouraged by this testimony, Maspero at one point went so far as to propose that the Sphinx could have existed since the times of the ‘Followers of Horus’, a lineage of pre-dynastic, semi-divine beings whose members were believed by the ancient Egyptians to have ruled for thousands of years before the ‘historical’ Pharaohs.²⁵ Later in his career, however, the French Egyptologist modified his opinion to conform with the general consensus and stated that the Sphinx ‘probably represents Khafre himself’.²⁶

That Maspero should have felt compelled to recant his heretical views on the Sphinx tells us more about the power of peer pressure within Egyptology than it does about the quality of evidence concerning the antiquity and attribution of the monument itself. Indeed, the evidence underpinning the prevailing consensus is extremely slim, resting not so much on ‘facts’ as on the interpretation that certain authorities have chosen at one time or another to give to particular and usually highly ambiguous data – in this case the solitary syllable of Khafre’s name on the Thutmosis stela.

Very few senior members of the profession have been as honest about such matters as Selim Hassan. In his classic 1949 study of the Sphinx, from which we have already quoted, he issued this pertinent warning:

Excepting for the mutilated line on the granite stela of Thothmosis IV, which proves nothing, there is not a single ancient inscription which connects the Sphinx with Khafre. So sound as it may appear, we must treat this evidence as circumstantial until such a time as a lucky turn of the spade will reveal to the world definite reference to the erection of this statue …²⁷

Context

Since Hassan wrote there has been no such ‘lucky turn of the spade’. Nevertheless the conventional wisdom that the Sphinx was built by Khafre, circa 2500 BC, remains so strong and so all-pervasive that one assumes there must be something else behind it other than the disputed resemblance to the statue of Khafre in the Cairo Museum and the contradictory opinions of scholars concerning a half-ruined stela.

According to Mark Lehner, there is indeed something else – a kind of magic bullet which he clearly regards as powerful enough to kill any niggling doubts and questions. Today the Director of the Koch-Ludwig Giza Plateau Project, and former Director of the now completed Giza Mapping Project, Lehner is recognized as a world expert on the Sphinx. Whenever he fires his magic bullet at the occasional ‘heretics’ who have suggested that the monument might be a lot older than 2500 BC, therefore, he does so from a position of great influence and authority.

The name of his magic bullet is context and, at the 1992 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, where he was selected as the official spokesman of Egyptology to put the orthodox point of view in a debate on the true age of the Sphinx, he made extensive use of this ‘bullet’:

The Sphinx does not sit out alone in the desert totally up for grabs as to ‘how old is the Sphinx?’. The Sphinx is surrounded by a vast architectural context which includes the Pyramid of Khufu [better known as the Great Pyramid], the Pyramid of Khafre [‘the second Pyramid’] and the Pyramid of Menkaure,²⁸ pharaohs of the Fourth Dynasty. Each pyramid has a long causeway running from a Mortuary Temple on its eastern side, down to the level of the Nile flood-plain, where a Valley Temple served as an entrance to the pyramid complex …

Officials and relatives of the pharaohs built their tombs in cemeteries east and west of the Khufu Pyramid, and southeast of the pyramids of Khafre and Menkaure respectively. Digging at Giza for nearly two centuries, archaeologists have retrieved an abundance of material [dating to the Fourth Dynasty]. Hundreds of tombs have yielded the mortal remains and artifacts of people who composed the state administration of the Pyramid Age … We are discovering evidence of the working class and everyday life of the society that built the Sphinx and pyramids … We have evidence of the ruins of an ancient city spread out along the valley for the entire length of the Giza Plateau. All this is part of the archaeological context of the Sphinx …²⁹

Lehner goes on to say that there are several specific reasons why this context persuades him that ‘the Sphinx belongs to Khafre’s Pyramid complex’:

The south side of the Sphinx ditch forms the northern edge of the Khafre causeway as it runs past the Sphinx and enters Khafre’s Valley Temple. A drainage channel runs along the northern side of the causeway and opens into the upper south-west corner of the Sphinx ditch, suggesting the ancient quarrymen formed the ditch after the Khafre causeway was built. Otherwise they would not have had the drain empty into the ditch. Khafre’s Valley Temple sits on the same terrace as the Sphinx Temple. The fronts and backs of the Temples are nearly aligned, and the walls of both are built in the same style …³⁰

The evidence for the two Temples, the causeway and the second Pyramid all being part of one architectural unit with the Sphinx is indeed compelling. But using this evidence to support the conclusion that Khafre built the Sphinx is rather less so. What it ignores is the possibility that the entire ‘unit’ could have been built long before Khafre’s time by as yet unidentified predecessors and then reused – perhaps even extensively restored – during the Fourth Dynasty.

It is this possibility – not precluded by any inscriptions and not ruled out by any objective dating techniques – that has made the Sphinx the subject of an increasingly virulent controversy during the 1990s …

Water erosion

The origins of this controversy go back to the late 1970s when John Anthony West, an independent American researcher, was studying the obscure and difficult writings of the brilliant French mathematician and symbolist R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz. Schwaller is best known for his works on the Luxor Temple, but in his more general text, Sacred Science (first published in 1961), he commented on the archaeological implications of certain climatic conditions and floods that last afflicted Egypt more than 12,000 years ago:

A great civilization must have preceded the vast movements of water that passed over Egypt, which leads us to assume that the Sphinx already existed, sculptured in the rock of the west cliff at Giza that Sphinx whose leonine body, except for the head shows indisputable signs of aquatic erosion.³¹

Schwaller’s simple observation, which nobody appeared to have taken any notice of before, obviously challenged the Egyptological consensus attributing the Sphinx to Khafre and to the epoch of 2500 BC. What West immediately realized on reading this passage, however, was that, through geology, Schwaller had also offered a way ‘virtually to prove the existence of another, and perhaps greater civilization antedating dynastic Egypt – and all other known civilizations – by millennia’:³²

If the single fact of the water erosion of the Sphinx could be confirmed, it would in itself overthrow all accepted chronologies of the history of civilization; it would force a drastic re-evaluation of the assumptions of ‘progress’ – the assumption upon which the whole of modern education is based. It would be difficult to find a single, simple question with graver implications …³³

Not floodwaters

West is right about the implications. If the weathering patterns on the Sphinx can be proved to have been caused by water – and not by wind or sand as Egyptologists maintain – then there is indeed a very serious problem with established chronologies. In order to understand why, we need only remind ourselves that Egypt’s climate has not always been as bone dry as it is today and that the erosion patterns to which West and Schwaller are drawing our attention are unique to the ‘architectural unit’ that Lehner and others define as the ‘context’ of the Sphinx. From their common weathering features – which are not shared by the other monuments of the Giza necropolis – it is obvious that the structures making up this unit were all built in the same epoch.

But when was that epoch?

West’s initial opinion was that:

There can be no objection in principle to the water-erosion of the Sphinx, since it is agreed that in the past, Egypt suffered radical climatic changes and periodic inundations – by the sea and (in the not so remote past) by tremendous Nile floods. The latter are thought to correspond to the melting of the ice from the last Ice Age. Current thinking puts this date at around 15,000 BC, but periodic great Nile floods are believed to have taken place subsequent to this date. The last of these floods is dated around 10,000 BC. It follows, therefore, that if the great Sphinx has been eroded by water, it must have been constructed prior to the flood or floods responsible for the erosion …³⁴

The logic is indeed sound ‘in principle’. In practice, however, as West was later to admit, ‘flood or floods’ could not have been responsible for the peculiar kind of erosion seen on the Sphinx:

The problem is that the Sphinx is deeply weathered up to its neck. This necessitates 60-foot floods (at a minimum) over the whole of the Nile Valley. It was difficult to imagine floods of this magnitude. Worse, if the theory was correct, the inner limestone core-blocks of the so-called Mortuary Temple at the end of the causeway leading from the Sphinx had also been weathered by water, and this meant floods reaching to the base of the Pyramids – another hundred feet or so of floodwaters …³⁵

Floodwaters, then, could not have eroded the Sphinx. So what had?

Rainfall

In 1989 John West approached Professor Robert Schoch of Boston University. A highly respected geologist, stratigrapher and paleontologist, Schoch’s speciality is the weathering of soft rocks very much like the limestone of the Giza plateau. Clearly, says West, he was a man who ‘had exactly the kind of expertise needed to confirm or rebut the theory once and for all’.³⁶

Schoch was at first sceptical of the idea of a much older Sphinx but changed his mind after making an initial visit to the site in 1990. Although he was unable to gain access to the Sphinx enclosure he could see enough from the tourist viewing platform to confirm that the monument did indeed appear to have been weathered by water. It was also obvious to him that the agency of this weathering had not been floods but ‘precipitation’.

‘In other words’, West explains, ‘rainwater was responsible for weathering the Sphinx, not floods … Precipitation-induced weathering took care of the problem in a single stroke. The sources I was using for reference talked about these floods in conjunction with long periods of rains, but it hadn’t occurred to me, as a non-geologist, that the rains, rather than the periodic floods, were the actual weathering agent . . .’³⁷

As we have noted, Schoch got no closer to the Sphinx on his 1990 visit than the tourist viewing platform. At this stage, therefore, his endorsement of West’s theory could only be provisional.

Why had the geologist from Boston not been allowed inside the Sphinx enclosure?

The reason was that since 1978 only a handful of Egyptologists had been granted that privilege, with all public access closed off by the Egyptian authorities and a high fence built around the site.

With the support of the Dean of Boston University, Schoch now submitted a formal proposal to the Egyptian Antiquities Organization, requesting permission to carry out a proper geological study of the erosion of the Sphinx.

A rude interruption

It took a long time, but because of his eminent institutional backing, Schoch’s proposal was eventually approved by the EAO, creating a brilliant opportunity to get to the bottom of the Sphinx controversy once and for all. John West immediately set about putting together a broadly based scientific team, including a professional geophysicist, Dr Thomas L. Dobecki, from the highly respected Houston consulting firm of McBride-Ratcliff & Associates.³⁸ There were also to be others who joined ‘unofficially’: an architect and photographer; two further geologists; an oceanographer and a personal friend of John West’s, film-producer Boris Said.³⁹ Through Said, West had arranged to ‘record the ongoing work in a video documentary which would have wide public appeal’:⁴⁰

Since we could expect nothing but opposition from academic Egyptologists and archaeologists a way had to be found to get the theory to the public, if and when Schoch decided the evidence warranted full geological support. Otherwise it would simply be buried, possibly for good …⁴¹

As a way of getting the theory of an ancient rainfall-eroded Sphinx to the public, West’s film could hardly have been more successful. When it was first screened on NBC television in the United States in the autumn of 1993 it was watched by 33 million people.

But that is another story. Back in the Sphinx enclosure the first interesting result came from Dobecki, who had conducted seismographic tests around the Sphinx. The sophisticated equipment that he had brought with him picked up numerous indications of ‘anomalies and cavities in the bedrock between the paws and along the sides of the Sphinx’.⁴² One of these cavities he described as:

a fairly large feature; it’s about nine metres by twelve metres in dimension, and buried less than five metres in depth. Now the regular shape of this – rectangular – is inconsistent with naturally occurring cavities … So there’s some suggestion that this could be man-made.⁴³

With legal access to the enclosure, West recalls, Schoch, too:

was swiftly dropping conditionals … The deeply weathered Sphinx and its ditch wall, and the relatively unweathered or clearly wind-weathered Old Kingdom tombs to the south (dating from around Khafre’s period) were cut from the same member of rock. In Schoch’s view it was therefore geologically impossible to ascribe these structures to the same time period. Our scientists were agreed. Only water, specifically precipitation, could produce the weathering we were observing …⁴⁴

It was at this crucial moment, while the members of the team were putting together the first independent geological profile of the Sphinx, that Dr Zahi Hawass, the Egyptian Antiquities Organization’s Director-General of the Giza Pyramids, fell upon them, suddenly and unexpectedly, like the proverbial ton of bricks.

The team had obtained their permission from Dr Ibrahim Bakr, then the President of the Egyptian Antiquities Organization. What they had not known, however, was that relations between Bakr and Hawass were frosty. Neither had they reckoned with Hawass’s energy and ego. Fuming that he had been bypassed by his superior, he accused the Americans of tampering with the monuments:

I have found out that their work is carried out by installing endoscopes in the Sphinx’s body and shooting films for all phases of the work in a propaganda … but not in a scientific manner. I therefore suspended the work of this unscientific mission and made a report which was presented to the permanent commission who rejected the mission’s work in future …⁴⁵

This was putting it mildly. Far from ‘suspending’ their work, Hawass had virtually thrown the American team off the site. His intervention had come too late, however, to prevent them from gathering the essential geological data that they needed.

When did it rain?