‘What is the Sphinx Water Erosion Theory?’

Posted on by

AI – ‘The Sphinx water erosion hypothesis is a controversial, fringe theory arguing that the Great Sphinx of Giza was carved thousands of years earlier than the accepted date (c. 2500 BC) due to vertical, undulating erosion patterns on its enclosure walls. Proponents, like geologist Robert Schoch, claim this weathering resulted from heavy, prolonged rainfall rather than wind/sand, suggesting an origin during a much wetter, pre-dynastic period (roughly 7,000–10,000 BC or earlier). 

Key Aspects of the Theory

  • Geological Evidence: Proponents argue that the vertical, rounded fissures and “fretting” in the limestone of the Sphinx enclosure are characteristic of rainfall runoff, not the horizontal, sharp-edged erosion typical of wind-blown sand.
  • Dating Revisions: If caused by consistent, heavy rains, the erosion suggests the Sphinx was exposed to the elements during a rainy epoch, forcing a reevaluation of its construction date to thousands of years before the Old Kingdom, potentially pre-dating Egyptian civilization.
  • Key Proponents: Geologist Robert Schoch and alternative author John Anthony West popularized this idea in the 1990s, challenging the orthodox Egyptological timeline.
  • Alternative Theory – Submersion: Some proponents, such as scientists Manichev and Parkhomenko, suggest the erosion patterns resemble damage from wave action, hinting that the Giza Plateau was once submerged under a large body of water. 

Mainstream Scientific/Egyptological View

  • Rejection of Evidence: Most Egyptologists and geologists maintain that the erosion is consistent with salt weathering (haloclasty) and wind erosion, noting that similar vertical patterns exist on other, younger monuments.
  • Lack of Context: No evidence of a sophisticated, advanced civilization capable of building the Sphinx has been found in Egypt dating back to 10,000 BC.
  • Archaeological Context: The Sphinx is geologically and archaeologically tied to the Khafre pyramid complex, placing it firmly in the 4th Dynasty (c. 2500 BC). 

While the hypothesis has spurred debate, mainstream archaeology continues to support the established timeline, attributing the erosion to geological factors rather than a significantly older, forgotten civilization.’ 

See also: