Origins of the Sphinx: Celestial Guardian of Pre-Pharaonic Civilization

by Robert M. Schoch, Robert Bauval

New research and evidence that the Sphinx is thousands of years older than previously thought

• Contrasts what Egyptologists claim about the Sphinx with historical accounts and new research including reanalysis of seismic studies and updates to Schoch’s water weathering research and Bauval’s Orion Correlation Theory

• Examines how the Sphinx is contemporaneous with Göbekli Tepe, aligned with the constellation Leo, and was recarved during the Old Kingdom era of Egypt

• Reveals that the Sphinx was built during the actual historical Golden Age of ancient Egypt, the period known in legend as Zep Tepi

No other monument in the world evokes mystery like the Great Sphinx of Giza. It has survived the harsh climate of Egypt for thousands of years and will remain long after our own civilization is gone. According to orthodox Egyptology, the Sphinx was built around 2500 BCE as a memorial to the pharaoh Khafre. Yet this “fact” has scant to no supportive evidence. When was the Sphinx really built and, most importantly, why?

In this provocative collaboration from two Egyptology outsiders, Robert M. Schoch, Ph.D., and Robert Bauval combine their decades of research to show how the Sphinx is thousands of years older than the conventional Egyptological timeline and was built by a long forgotten pre-Pharaonic civilization. They examine the known history of the Sphinx, contrasting what Egyptologists claim with prominent historical accounts and new research, including updates to Schoch’s geological water weathering research and reanalysis of seismic studies. Building on Bauval’s Orion Correlation Theory, they investigate the archaeoastronomical alignments of the monuments of the Giza Plateau and reveal how the pyramids and Sphinx were built to align with the constellations of Orion and Leo. Analyzing the evidence for a significantly older construction phase at Giza and the restoration and recarving of the Sphinx during the Old Kingdom era, they assert that the Sphinx was first built by an advanced pre-Pharaonic civilization that existed circa 12,000 years ago on the Giza Plateau, contemporaneous with the sophisticated Göbekli Tepe complex.

The authors examine how the monuments at Giza memorialize Zep Tepi, the Golden Age of legend shown here to be an actual historical time period from roughly 10,500 BCE through 9700 BCE. Moving us closer to an understanding of the true age and purpose of the Great Sphinx, Schoch and Bauval provide evidence of an early high civilization witnessed by the Great Sphinx before the end of the last ice age.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Science, Historical, Ancient History, Geology, Egypt

528 pages, Paperback

First published March 16, 2017

Reviews

[Stephanie (Bookfever) · Rating 3 out of 5]

First of all I want to say that I definitely enjoyed reading Origins of the Sphinx. Any book with this kind of topic is a must-read for me, but I can't help be a little disappointed with it.

It was still a great read, very interesting to anyone who's intrigued by the Sphinx and would like to learn more about it and its possible origins. The reason why I am a bit disappointed with this book was mostly that it was much shorter than I had imagined and it also missed something I can't quite put my finger on.

And other than that I already knew most of the things being discussed in the book, which of course is not really critique towards the authors or this book. But still... I felt disappointed when I finished the book.

But to end on a high note, everything discussed in the book (although I was already familiar with most of it) was really intriguing. Especially Zep Tepi and the true age of the Great Sphinx is something that can give the reader a lot of thought and get away from the mainstream ideas, which is always a good thing.

[January Gray · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not something I would typically read, but I loved this book! I enjoyed the characters and plot. I did not want it to end, but I couldn't wait to see what happened.

[Suresh Ramaswamy · Rating 4 out of 5]

WHEW! At last, I have finished the book.

In Hindu Mythology, the Monkey God Hanuman, a great scholar and brave warrior, reaches Lanka (Sri Lanka Ceylon) jumping over a hundred yojana (approximately 900 miles / 1440 kilometres) sea in search of the abducted wife of his lord Sri Rama. He finds her in a garden called Ashoka Vana. Challenging the guarding demons to battle, he kills many brave warriors including the Akshay Kumar son of the demon king Ravana. Ultimately he is subdued and presented in the court. It is decided that as the monkeys are very proud of their tails, his tail should be set on fire. As the soldiers wrap cloth around Hanuman’s tail, it grows longer and longer till all the cloth in the kingdom is exhausted...... I stop the story here.

I mentioned this tale, because like Hanuman’s tail, “Origins of the Sphinx – Celestial Guardian of Pre-Pharonic Egypt” by Robert M. Schoch and Robert Bauval goes on and on. The presentation of the theory is covered in just 424 pages, but the nine appendices are never ending and most of them technical papers to justify the authors’ claims, cover another 273 pages or almost two thirds of the main narrative, definitely a little heavy on the lay reader. The lay reader may be least interested in the various internecine disputes between various schools of Egyptological theory.

As a bibliophile of more than fifty years, it has been my practice, to finish any book from cover to cover. Hence even though the authors have stated in the Preface to the book: "We have also provided various appendices, which strengthen the text and delve into certain details that are too technical or too obscure to be included in the main body of the book. Each of these appendices can be read on its own as a stand- alone article (and indeed several were originally written as such); however, they also complement one another and the chapters of the main text. With the appendices the thoughtful reader has the material to delve deeply into, and evaluate, the evidence on which theories of the Sphinx are based. In essence, with this book we have provided you, the reader, not only our analyses and conclusions, but also much of the essential data and the conceptual tools to come to your own conclusions. As is the case with many things in life, the more energy you put into something, the more you are likely to get out of it. With this in mind, you can approach this book as a “good read,” focusing on the chapters, or as an intellectual challenge, digging deep into both the main text and the appendices. Either way, our desire is that you will come away from this book with new insights and revelations regarding the Sphinx" the very fact that these appendices were attached to the book is a clear sign, that if you are really interested in our viewpoint, the appendices are a part of the book and a must read. Without perusing the appendices, your view point will still be biased in favour of the classical interpretation and you will not be able to understand the nuances of our viewpoint.

The academicians remain in their ivory towers and anything that disturbs their equilibrium and viewpoint is heresy. And here is an amateur, not scholarly Egyptologist propounding disinformation – the pyramids of Giza and the Sphinx are really much much older than the Fourth Dynasty (approximately 4500 years ago), there was an earlier black civilization who were the ancestors and founders of the Egyptian civilization (Black Genesis), so on and so forth. And in support of such disinformation propound theories and explanations that are mere pipe dreams.

Ancient Egypt could definitely not be older than about 5,000 years old and any claims to the contrary are pure b*** s***. So argue the classical Egyptologists. Earlier than that, human civilization had not developed to the extent of building such megalithic structures. The same should also hold true for
Ancient Egypt. Should any such structure be found, it is most likely an anomaly.

The classic Egyptology narrative is what the pre – Victorian Europeans – British and non – British propounded. Prior to the heresy of Charles Darwin – The Origin of Species – in spite of advances in scientific knowledge, the Church – both Vatican and the Protestant Churches – was very influential. The Creation story as enumerated in the Old Testament was treated as a historical fact as was the story of the Deluge and Noah’s Ark.

The year 4004 BCE, the date that was accepted in Victorian times (by the calculations of the sixteenth-century Archbishop James Ussher) to have been when the Creation occurred. However, certain biblical scholars claim that it was the date of the Great Deluge and hence the period prior to it has to be added. Different versions of Bible – Genesis – dates the Great Deluge to 1307 to 2262 years from Creation of the first man Adam. Accordingly, the date of Creation would have been between 6266 BCE and 5311 BCE. Therefore there could definitely not have been any constructions prior to Creation and most likely the construction of Sphinx and the Pyramids would have been after the Great Deluge circa 4000 BCE. It could not have been earlier.

The story of Creation as narrated in the Koran also more or less follows the Old Testament and hence the date of Creation and the Great Deluge would tally.

Given this barrier of faith, the nineteenth century Europeans and Egyptians tried to fit the entire story of Ancient Egypt within this time frame. The succeeding generations of Egyptologists did not question this hypothesis.

However Egyptian papyrus (Turin Papyrus) records the ancient Turin King lists a mythical pre-dynastic "reign of the gods" which first occurred 36,620 years before Menes (3050 BCE), therefore, dating the creation to around 39,670 BCE. One fragment from Manetho also dates the reign of the first Egyptian God (Ptah) 36,525 years before Menes (FGrH#610 F2) and so dates the creation to about 39,575 BC. Other Egyptologists calculate the dates variously to 28,000 BCE and 17,680 BCE. An ancient Greek scholar recorded that the ancient Egyptians dated their creation to their first god Ptah. Ptah lived 48,863 years before Alexander the Great (b. 356 BCE), dating the creation to 49,219 BCE. Herodotus wrote that the ancient Egyptians had gods who ruled over them before the first dynasty of Egypt, but did not attempt to precisely date their creation by using their chronology, but indicated a creation date of around 30,000 BCE. In view of the differences in dates between scholars, one may safely assume that the Egyptians themselves recorded their civilization to between 35,000 to 45,000 years before Menes (3050 BCE) and that was the date of creation as per ancient Egyptians.

All this is unpalatable to classical Egyptologists and hence all details before Menes(3050 BCE) is dismissed as mythical and imaginary. Whether this conclusion is justified or not is another question.

In this scenario, about three decades ago an amateur (read non-Ph.D) Egyptologist Robert Bauval
teaming up with American Geologist Robert .M. Schoch and rogue Egyptologist John Anthony West
propounded two very unacceptable ideas – one the Sphinx is very much older than its claimed date 2500 BCE (4500 years old) more likely its date of original carving could be anywhere between 8000 BCE to 5000 BCE (i.e. 7,000 to 10,000 years old) – two developed a theory that correlates the three pyramids of Giza with the three stars of Orion’s Belt (known internationally as the Orion correlation theory, or OCT for short).

Both the ideas were heresy. As per the classical Egyptologists, everyone knows that before the third millennium BCE, there was no advanced civilization in Egypt who could conceive and build such megalithic structures like the Pyramids, the temples or carve images like the Sphinx. Everyone is also aware that Egyptians had no knowledge of the Zodiac, which was developed by the Babylonians and brought to Egypt by the Greeks in the fourth century BCE.

Robert M. Schoch and Robert Bauval lead evidence step by step to support their claims, be it the weathering of limestone blocks or the records in stone or papyrus. They also provide evidence to counteract the claim of their critics. Take for instance the criticism of OCT by Edwin Krupp, Director, Griffith Observatory Los Angles. In 1994, the BBC documentary, The Great Pyramid: Gateway to the Stars was aired. In the discussions thereon eminent scholars like Sir I. E. S. Edwards, the foremost authority on the Egyptian pyramids and previous keeper of Egyptian Antiquities at the British Museum, Vivian Davies, Ph.D., then the keeper of Egyptian Antiquities at the British Museum; Virginia Trimble, Ph.D., then vice president of the International Astronomical Union; Mary Brück, Ph.D., professor of astronomy at the University of Edinburgh; Jean Kerisel, Ph.D., president of the Franco-Egyptian Society and one of France’s most highly decorated civil engineers; and Ali Hassan Ph.D., head of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities, were unable to falsify the theory outright.

Krupp made his first public “attack” on the OCT in February 1997. This was in the form of an article published in the popular magazine Sky & Telescope under the title “Pyramid Marketing Schemes.” Krupp bluntly accused me of having placed “the map of Egypt upside down,” allegedly to make the OCT work. Not satisfied with just a quantitative “criticism” of the OCT, Krupp resorted to the use of patronizing statements disguised as humour, such as, “It is unlikely the three pyramids of Giza are stand-ins for the stars. For all I know, they may symbolize the Three Blind Mice, the Three Graces, the Three Musketeers, the Three Wise Men, or the Three Stooges. But I don’t think they are the three stars of Orion’s Belt.” In November 1999, Krupp’s views were taken to a much higher level when the BBC’s Horizon program invited him to participate in a documentary titled Atlantis Reborn, in what was clearly a bid to debunk the OCT. He claimed “To make the map of the pyramids on the ground match the stars of Orion in the sky you have to turn Egypt upside down and if you don’t want to do that then you’ve got to turn the sky upside down”. The response to Krupp’s “upside-down” commentary given to the BBC was deliberately omitted from the documentary

Bauval reacted by leading evidence from various authorities on Egyptology and astronomy to debunk each and every point raised by Krupp. Having gone through the relevant extracts, i feel Bauval came out trumps and Krupp was a sore loser. He continued his attacks even as late as 2014, and maybe still continues doing so.

Bauval stated “Well, first one must realize that the Egyptians directed themselves south. We know that from the texts and it is logical for two reasons: one is that the Nile, which was the dominant feature of this land, flowed from south to north, so the origin or source of the Nile [which is in the south] was regarded as a sacred place. [Second] the movement of the astral bodies, the stars [or Orion], the moon, the sun, are all around the southern side of the sky. So it was natural for them to face south. And in fact there is no reason to fix north as a main direction. This is a convention that we have today. So the Egyptians had a “convention” of south, if you like. But the other thing is that in order to make the correlation visual because we are dealing with people who had a visual correlation, of course. You are observing the stars at their southern passage, so in about 2500 BC they had risen to about 45º along the southern meridian. And indeed at their low point — in 10,500 BC they were in the lower south, that is the lower part of the sky in the south. So you’re looking south at the correlation. Therefore the natural tendency is to draw what you see in that direction, and you would come up with three stars in that pattern or three dots or three pyramids or any three marks in the same direction. It is strange that certain astronomers have argued this in terms of [a modern] convention. We can’t graft this convention of today on an [ancient] people who had a different way of looking at things. So it’s very simple . . . if you were to design by observation you would look south. You will have to look south because you will have to look at the stars and, therefore, on the ground you’ll be marking the stars, and the Menkaure pyramid will be on top of your diagram, which is the way it is, the southernmost. In order to apply the convention of north, you will have to look in the other direction, and to see the stars you will have to use a mirror! So I don’t see why we have to go through these complications when, pretty clearly, we have a correlation based on visual observations. Actually we did a test, as a matter of fact, during a conference when Ed Krupp was there. We asked the audience to look at a slide of the stars in the south, and we gave them a piece of paper and we asked them to draw three dots [representing Orion’s belt], and they did so by having the smaller dot [the “smaller star”] [representing] the Menkaure pyramid, if you like, at the top of the sheet. And then we told them “you are facing south!” That’s the way you do it. It’s a natural way of creating a perfect correlation. They were going for image correlation; they weren’t going for “convention.” This simple litmus test proves that everybody will do the same thing if they are not biased by that “convention.” (I have here added some words in square brackets for clarity.)”

To this rejoinder which was sent to Krupp, as far as I can gather there has been no response.

Robert M. Schoch and Robert Bauval justify their claim for OCT as well as a more ancient Sphinx by Astronomical positioning of Sirius and the Orion Belt as well as the sunrise at vernal / spring equinox. A more ancient Great Sphinx facing East is ascertained – one by linking it to the position of the second Sphinx facing West (the Celestial Sphinx) and – two by geological weathering, radio carbon dating and calibirating the subsurface seismic data.

Quoting from the book – in order to have sun in Leo (the Celestial Sphinx) in alignment with the Great Sphinx, the constellation of Orion seen due south such such that the pattern and angle made by the three stars of Orion’s Belt uncannily match that of the three pyramids of Giza and the Milky Way (the celestial Nile) appearing to flow down into the River Nile, the epoch is circa 10,500 BCE at the spring equinox is a very unlikely coincidence and most probably the date of its creation.

“Bottom line: after studying the Great Sphinx and its associated structures for myself, I was convinced it dates back to an era well prior to dynastic times. We will delve into the detailed geological evidence on which I base my re-dating of the Great Sphinx shortly. Suffice it to say that key to my re-dating is the interpretation that the weathering and erosion observed on the body of the Sphinx and the walls of the Sphinx Enclosure are, just as Schwaller de Lubicz noted, not due to the arid desert conditions found in the region during the last five thousand years. Rather, the observed weathering resulted from rain, precipitation, and water runoff; sufficient precipitation was available only during pre-Sahara conditions, prior to circa 3000 BCE. The writing, the evidence, is there on the walls of the Sphinx Enclosure and on the body of the monument itself — written in Mother Nature’s own hand. Analyzing and calibrating the subsurface seismic data leads to the same conclusion.” (Age of the Great Sphinx being 7,000 to 10,000 years rather than 4,500 years).

“Finally when the sun reaches the “breast” of the Lion (i.e., Leo), the apotheosis takes place with the first appearance of the star Sirius. This, again, is expressed in the following passage of the Pyramid Texts where Horus, son of Osiris (also the dead king) is addressed in this manner: “You [the king] are this Great Star, the companion of Orion, who traverses the sky with Orion, who navigates the Duat with Osiris; you ascend from the East of the sky . . . the sky has borne you with Orion.”

The closure of the dualistic cosmic event comes when the light of the rising sun causes the stars to fade and be “absorbed” by the dawn, as poetically described in the following passage in the Pyramid Texts: “Orion is encircled [faded] by the dawn, while the Living One [Horus] washes himself in the Horizon; Canis Major is encircled [faded] by the dawn, while the Living One washes himself in the Horizon; this [departed] King is encircled [faded] by the dawn, while the Living One washes himself in the Horizon” (Pyramid Texts 151).

If our identification of Leo with the “celestial sphinx” is correct, then something is — on first appearance — not quite right. This is the problem: the position of the sun in Leo in the eastern horizon is at (near) summer solstice some 28º north of east (azimuth 62º) at the epoch of 2300 BCE . . . whereas the Great Sphinx’s gaze is directed due east (azimuth 90º), at equinox!

In order to have the sun in Leo be in alignment with the Great Sphinx, we have to go back in time to 10,500 BCE, and when this is done at the vernal/spring equinox, the sun in Leo is now due east, and, what is more, the constellation of Orion is seen due south such that the pattern and angle made by the three stars of Orion’s Belt uncannily match that of the three pyramids of Giza and, furthermore, the Milky Way (the celestial Nile) now appears to flow down into the River Nile. The probability of these correlations happening at the same epoch (10,500 BCE) and time (spring equinox) make it a very unlikely coincidence!” (Astronomical positioning to determne the likely age of Great Sphinx and matching with the Celestial Sphinx).

Even though it took such a long time to finish this book, the authors have convincingly made their case – whether the classical Egyptologists and Astronomers accept it or not.

A must read for people interested in ancient history, well written, presented and placed.

[Krystal Leonardo von Seyfried · Rating 5 out of 5]

an avid fan of schoch's research, i am pleased to say i really enjoyed this book.

superbly well researched and well written. schoch's water erosion hypothesis (honestly i hate even calling it that, as he has proved his point in the 1992 paper and has done it again with this book) totally changes history as we know it. i think this book is a must read for anyone who is into ancient mysteries and has any inkling that what we are taught in school is not the entire, or even partly real, image.

schoch approaches things in a very academic, scholarly and grounded way which is refreshing, as so many ancient mysteries writers and researchers make great leaps and bounds connecting things that sometimes aren't connected at all. schoch does good research, probably the most important historical research on the planet. as we rewrite history and cleanse it of its lies, schoch leads the way with research grounded in geology and physical earth science but connected to the stars, with his coauthor robert bauval kinda leading the way on that front.

i don't agree with exactly all of bauval's theories like i do schoch's (i do think the orion correlation theory holds weight, but i do not believe, as bauval does, that humans of any sort built the pyramids - i know that they were built by djehuti/thoth) but his archaeoastronomical work and deep understanding of ancient egyptian culture is real and groundbreaking. it's satisfying to see bauval's archaeoastronomical work presented in tandem with schoch's geological research and seeing them back one another up. this work is well researched, well put together and well edited. a great book i recommend to all !

[Boris · Rating 5 out of 5]

We all like a good mystery and my reading list of the past 20 years has included books on a number of mysteries, but not fictional ones; intelligent design and the origin of life, the true authorship of the plays of Shakespeare, the apparent artificial structures in the Cydonia region of Mars, matters relating to the supernatural assuming it exists and the age of the pyramids and the Sphinx in Egypt.

Since I'm not an Egyptologist nor do I own a souvenir shop in Stratford-on-Avon, I have no stake in the outcome of any of the controversies. I'm merely curious about the conclusions that one would draw with our modern knowledge. Since they challenge the conventional wisdom they're all controversial.

This book is a well-illustrated excellent summary of prior writings of Bauval and Schoch re: ancient Egypt and in this specific case, the age of the Sphinx. The Sphinx was assumed to have been built by the Pharaoh Chephren in the early 4th dynasty. As the book re-iterates, this conclusion is based on no facts whatever.

The scientific/geologic evidence strongly suggests that the Sphinx is immensely old, probably dating to the end of the last great ice age. Egyptologists should be grateful to Bauval and Shoch (and Hancock) for getting lay people like myself interested in such recondite subjects as Egyptology.

[Mike Luoma · Rating 3 out of 5]

Picked up the latest from Robert Bauval and Robert M. Schoch thinking it would be interesting to read a collaboration between these two "Outsider" Egyptologists. Unfortunately, that is not what this book is, as each author contributes independent chapters and appendices. In effect, this book updates - separately - Bauval's Orion-on-the-Ground hypothesis and Schoch's contention the Sphinx is much older based on geological observations. Both men take on their critics in the Egyptology establishment and answer many critiques in these pages. It's a good read in that sense. But it read like two different books forced together, leaving this reader wondering why the two men decided to publish under the same cover in the first place.

[Dave · Rating 4 out of 5]

The ideas put forth by the authors are not new. Robert Schoch, Robert Bauval, John Anthony West etc have been proposing this idea since the 1980's. Their arguments seem plausible to me but then I don't have a scientific background in geology, astronomy or archaeology. If you have an open mind and are willing to consider new and "unconventional" ideas, I think you will find this an interesting read.

These authors have written many books on this and other ideas about the ancient Egypt and it's origins. Do the reading and draw your own conclusions.

[Zy Marquiez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Written in a cogent, easy to follow, and yet daring manner, the renowned scholars, Shoch and Bauval, are at it again. In Origins of the Sphinx the authors challenge Egyptology at its core: at the Great Sphinx.

Methodically, the authors sift through a wide assortment of data, which seeks to ascertain a more precise dating of the ancient monument.

Split up into two parts, the first half of the book covers seven different topics, which includes an epilogue, while the latter half covers nine different appendixes that finalize the last half of the book.

Each of the initial seven parts is written solely by one of the two authors. At first this choice seemed odd, but it probably was best in order to differentiate who’s bringing about what particular commentary and argument.

Sampling a wide data set, the authors take a cursory glance at the architecture, which includes the Valley and Mortuary Temples, with multi-ton megalithic blocks, as well as more. A gander is also taken at a few of the visitors and researchers that excavated and sampled the sight, such as Colonel William Howard Vyse and Giovanni Battista Caviglia, who had a penchant for the mysticism, the occult, and more. But the authors don’t stop there. Also covered are issues with the fragments of the beard of the Sphinx, geophysical techniques to view below the surface of the Sphinx enclosure, considerations on water erosion on the Sphinx, as well as an in-depth analysis of the Sphinx’s possible construction date.

Regarding the date, Shoch, after some extended analysis in the chapter Sands Of Time, infers:

“…using a linear “conservative” calibration and assuming a date of 4,500 years ago for the western end (which in my assessment is a minimum date; it could be older), then the original core body of the Sphinx is minimally 2.7 times older than 4,500 years ago, giving a date after rounding of circa 10,000 BCE. All in all, I suspect that the proto-Sphinx was in existence prior to the end of the last ice age (that is, prior to 9700 BCE) and was contemporaneous with other structures, such as the oldest portions of Gobekli Tepe in southeastern Turkey. Put simply, the seismic data are compatible with an initial date of circa 10,000 BCE (or even a bit earlier) for the core body of the Sphinx. There is no doubt in my mind that the seismic data alone, independent of any other evidence – such as the surface weather and erosion, which I discuss in chapter 7 – strongly support the hypothesis that the origins of the Great Sphinx predate dynastic times by many millennia.”[pp.78-79]

Such an assertion will undoubtedly send shockwaves through the orthodox Egyptology communities. Then again, such a hypothesis will not surprise many of those exploring other avenues of research in the alternative research community.

Be that as it may, another salient component of this mystery discussed by Bauval is whether Khafre couples with the Sphinx as conventional Egyptology dictates, or whether some other theory might make more sense. Also discussed is what took place with the Dream Stela, the inscription of the Great Limestone Stela of Amenhotep II, the Edfu Temple Texts, and much more.

This book really features a lot more intriguing information than that mentioned. The authors are not only erudite in their research, but make the information accessible for the lay person. That also doesn’t even begin to delve into the nine appendices, which also give a deeper glance that’s a bit technical, but helps shed light onto the situation. Each of the appendices is essentially its own article, and yet couple to the rest of the book rather seamlessly.

If you’re looking for an open-minded foray into the mystery of the Sphinx, that’s meticulously researched while also offering the tools for incisive individuals to come to their own conclusions, hesitate no longer. The approach taken by the authors, although unorthodox, should be considered at length, for if what they say is true, then the history that we’ve been brought up with is drastically different than what we’re being told. Time will ultimately tell, but my bet’s that the authors are pulling on a thread that goes a lot deeper than merely the Sphinx.

___________________________________________________________

Footnotes:
[1] Robert M. Schoch Ph.D. and Robert Bauval, Origins of the Sphinx – Celestial Guardian Of Pre-Pharaonic Civilization, pp.78-79.

[Vaishali · Rating 5 out of 5]

An amazing width and breadth of information in the pdf which the audiobook really doesn’t quite capture. A culmination of 30 years of hard data and thoughtful, cultural research from Boston University geologist Dr. Schoch, dating the age of the Sphinx to a minimum of 10,500 years. Methodically assembled and technically dense, with special appendices refuting academic critics, competing theories, and so much more. Particularly fascinating are Robert Bauval’s additions, especially the historic sketches of the Sphinx from as early as 1757. Wow ! Tremendously eye-opening… just too many factoids to list here.

[M · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting and different audiobook, recommended by an acquaintance—a history buff interested in all theories, even if said theories conflict w those of his professors. I read every eyeopening entry about the controversy surrounding the sphinx’s age. I did read all of Dr. Robert Schock’s entries but skimmed a few of Robert Bauval’s more esoteric discourses.

[Mayra Luria · Rating 5 out of 5]

interesting view and lots of supportive research. anyone interested in the spiritual version of Egyptian history should read this book

[Anna Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic!

[Matthew Evans · Rating 2 out of 5]

I gave it an extra star for managing to make a fascinating subject almost unreadable and for that alone they authors must be commended.

[Alfie Holmes · Rating 5 out of 5]

mmmm, yes, very wise

[Doug J. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Really interesting topic, but one of the driest books I've ever read. However, the evidence presented by the authors seems to prove very solidly that the Sphinx is much older (by 4000-5000 years) than the pyramids.