This was so interesting. I can’t imagine how much work it took for you to put this explanation together. Thank you so much. I now have a much better understanding of the causeway’s and the Sphinx’s beginning.
Another thought: The part of the Khafre causeway that runs through the quarries is at ground level, right? Is there any evidence that the quarrymen carved out side walls to it, as was done near the Sphinx enclosure?
Wind and rain runoff would have likely carried silt and sand, and I would argue that this likely would have filled in the quarries relatively quickly... Maybe the better question here is whether the people working in these quarries were having to periodically remove sand and silt? Skara Brae, for example, appears to have been inundated with sand in a single night (or at least was, I haven't checked if this hypothesis has been overturned) and if this is true, then it is possible that wind-blown sand, etc, may have been the bane of the lives of these workers. P.S. It's nice to see you here, I appreciate your work too!
Outstanding analysis! Very logical and well thought-through, culminating in a reasonable, plausible conclusion. Well done and thank you for sharing your knowledge and insights.
How to Support the Ancient Architects Channel: Subscribe to Back-Up Channel: www.youtube.com/@MattSibson BTC Address: 3MSsm5gFfWjHeeSKZdqgKZAPL8YDY4r8ot Donate via Paypal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/ancientarchitects Become a channel member: th-cam.com/channels/scI4NOggNSN-Si5QgErNCw.htmljoin Join my Patreon: www.patreon.com/ancientarchitects Follow me on X: www.x.com/mattsibson
Matt, thankyou! so much thought and work has gone into this, I found my questions arising from your commentary were then answered, so you covered all bases for me well done indeed Sir! Keep doing what you love and bringing it to us, I am sure it is fully appreciated by the many sides of the never ending 'Ancient Egypt' debate.
As always, well done and very informative. I suppose we will never know precisely which structures at Giza came first and when. Thanks for a great presentation!
That's interesting, I wonder if it could be a neolithic causeway of sorts? Your arguments about the Sphinx neatly dug in nicely to the corner of the causeway make sense, this would indeed make the causeway older.
Klemm and Klemm, The Stones of the Pyramids 2010. Page 73 Discussed a quarry directly beside the Sphinx to the north..also the upper part of Khafre causeway being built over two Khufu drag ramps. Most of these animations don't show the original plateau hieght before any quarrying correctly
Well if the whole site has as massive Labrinth under it as I've seen major evidence for, stone would have to have be removed right from under them to make the whole for the structure under the plateau and then on top is the massive blocks for the foundation, I'd say the missing quarry is the plateau it'self where everything was removed as a quarry, set to the side, finish the stones on site and then fill it all back in and built the pyramids ontop. Idk just a thought.
Wouldn't the quarries show the same weathering as the Sphinx and the enclosure? This doesn't appear to be the case. This would make the Sphinx and its enclosure much older than the quarries. In addition, the quarries don't seem to have been exploited to the quantity of stone required to build the pyramids and the rest of the associated stone structures on the plateau. When one observes the floor of the quarries and the apparent amount of "waste" stone removed to free the blocks, the waste seems to be about 15%-20% and that is for rough blocks. The final finishing and fitting would have removed even more stone. There must be another quarry or more to provide the stone required. In addition, the walls around the pyramids that were created to level the surrounding areas show similar weathering to the Sphinx, enclosure, and Sphinx temple. These two different weathering patterns indicate different times, several thousands of years, between the construction of the pyramids, Sphinx structures, and the quarries. There doesn't seem to be any efforts made to resolve this discrepancy.
That’s because these TH-camrs just want to be gatekeeping know it alls, none will admit that the entire plateau is simply an ENIGMA, not even comprehensible by modern humans. The truth is, we have no fucking clue. Everyone’s just got a best-guess. I have a feeling our own society will fall & collapse before we ever figure out the truth about Giza
Very good! He's now citing Mark Lehner and Dr Miano, he's losing credibility fast. Look around at how many red-haired Scholars on TH-cam are trying to convince you there was nothing before Egypt because it proves the Hebrew are not God's chosen people. Miano banned and hid me and refuses to allow my comments. Because I know the truth look around and have fun. They all collaborate together. Some dye their hair and change their last names
There actually is more than one quarry. Part of the material was coming from nearby, but part came from further away. The Tura Quarry is one and is several miles away. Material from there was used in both the pyramid core and the casing. There's different quality of stones depending on where quarried, rougher and finer limestones. The fine limestone was quarried at both Tura and at Masara Quarries.
What's glaringly missing in all this supposition is the shear amount of shafts / possible tunnels under it all. I've never seen the surface structures mapped together with the underground. The two are seldom talked about together. All those mastaba's had burial shafts, all the graveyards used shafts. That area is a warren of holes that never seem to fill (operative word) with water? A pond here and there occasionally, well that screams pre-planned water works to me.
Thank you Matt for another great video! I never got to see the pyramids (yet) but I was in Luxor, Karnak, and the valley of the Kings and Queens back during Desert Storm.
If both the Sphinx and various quarries were active much earlier then believed then they could've been quarried over a much longer period of time. So the very weathered surfaces could've been removed two or three times since the body of the Sphinx and maybe it's entire enclosure was excavated.
I had an idea the other night... Is it possible that the blocks used to build the pyramids were round and then squared once they were in place? Seems a good idea as they would probably be easier to get on site.
I kinda lean to what you said at the end for the enclosures too, they too would have been built, looted, covered by desert, rebuilt, relooted, recovered by desert, etc until excavated. And the original quarries were probably covered since their first abandonment whenever that was and thousands of years later then they were a patch of desert where water could again run on.
On the causeway, is there any astrological alignments? Is there any deeper explanations of why the causeway was selected as such a ceremonial pathway? Seems unlikely that it would be convenience.
really enjoyed the insights in this video, it definitely got me thinking. but honestly, i'm not fully convinced that we need to completely rewrite history just because new theories emerge. sometimes, it feels like we might overlook the solid research that's already been done. it could lead to more confusion than clarity. what do you all think?
Finding this sculpture is amazing.. I believe it's a carving done by some regular laborer. It's showing us to remember that there were regular people just like you or I back then.
In discussing the Sphinx enclosure, I don't know whether you have referred to it elsewhere, but it seems fairly obvious to me that the enclosure has been excavated on two separate occasions. Step #1 : leaving approximately the same distance from the Sphinx to the cut walls, apart from the angled side following the causeway, resulting with approximately parallel walls either side. Step#2 : continuing on beside the causeway, from the approximate position of the floor channel, to the current Eastern end of the excavation, resulting in less weathering on that section of wall. Perhaps it was the runoff into the floor channel that prompted this second phase ? I would be interested in finding out relative levels along the boundaries of the Sphinx enclosure excavation.
it would all depend on how many teams they had working during the first half of the construction (the bottom half) they could have conceivably had dozens of teams at any one time working on different sides of the pyramid
@@realitytheorist4205 the composition of the giza pyramids is not fully known. there's estimates on the amount of blocks used if the entire thing was comprised of blocks all the same size, but we know they are not. there seems to be a layering of rubble/fill in some areas as exposed by the robbers tunnel and others. we also don't really have great timeframes on how long they took to construct. theres definitely evidence for pyramids NOT being completed by the time of death in other areas, and construction wouldn't begin until the pharaoh took power. current estimates on length of time to construct the great pyramid ranges from 20 to 50+ years. you could look at estimates of the amount of blocks and choose a timeframe for a rough estimate, but there is no solid answer 100% backed by facts.
The only way that can really be estimated is by having a claimed or documented building duration. If you think about the three pyramids at darshur, it is said they were built in 27 years (iirc). You can’t solve a problem you don’t have at least one variable for, when you factor in that we really have no idea who or how they quarried, transported, and constructed with such large blocks, let alone how long it took. We don’t even really know how long it would take modern man to replicate it… or if they could. 😬
@@carladamcarter we don't know how they moved or quarried the blocks? They used saws, both stone and bronze chisels.. .they used special double barges to transport the largest granite obelisks so the pyramid blocks would have been child play. What would be stopping modern man from stacking limestone blocks into the shape of a pyramid?
Been playing Assassins Creed Origins all week to get away from the snow 🥰 I will go the the Sphinx enclosure tonight and see if you are correct, I'll get back to you 🤣
A most excellent video! Thank you! 🥰 It's disappointing that we will probably never know how old the Sphinx, and that roadway, really are. Or what else used to be on the plateau before the Pyramids. But we are certainly learning that the Sphinx is WAY older than previously thought!
I think they were quarring limestone blocks for future pyramids after the bent pyramid and that's why putting a specific time-frame in the great pyramid may be incorrect because thousands of the blocks may have been quarried years before construction began.
Great stuff as always Matt. Love seeing you back on Egyptian stuff as that’s my personal favorite and my obsession. I’ve watched every video you’ve ever done on Egyptian history for many years and always love them. I can follow your arguments on most of this, but some things I see some possible room to disagree on. I would love to see the counter argument to your theory done by someone who is as educated and eloquent as you, just to see the other side of it. The geology and erosion patterns are where it gets fuzzy for me. I can talk Egyptian history and archaeology all day long with anyone, but discussing geology and trying to predict thousands of years of erosion are not in my wheelhouse lol. Thanks for the interesting video, take care.
I believe the Sphinx is a modified natural feature, and the enclosure started as shallow runoff channels to protect it from inundation. It was probably venerated in its natural state for centuries before being modified
i remember i saw pictures of the sphinx covered in sand up to the neck , i wonder how many times was it digged out and if there is any documents left for this in all it's history
I’ve heard other places use it from the beginning g of the song and it sounds wrong everywhere but here. Matt truly has the superior intro music, even if it’s the same song
The sphinx started as a simple quarry, which used the causeway to carry blocks east toward the nile. I believe they saw something or had a revelation and decided to quarry around the sphinx, leaving the "core" of the sphinx un-quarried in order to shape the eventual sphinx. They used the same blocks of the quarry to build the sphinx temple. The sphinx was the cultural "anchor" in giza, causing more to be built west of the sphinx as there was no room east. This eventually led to the pyramids, which extended and repaved the pre-existing causeway next to the sphinx. Similar to how modern development extends a road to build new homes further from the original center of town. The erosion and weathering of not just the sphinx and its enclosure, but also the erosion of the blocks of the sphinx temple, should easily dismiss any idea that the sphinx was built last. The sphinx temple is so badly eroded, they even encased the limestone in granite to help restore it.
Finally: a theory befitting Occam’s Razor. I agree that the original stone “head” was a natural feature notable 5000 odd years ago, and it was just opportunistically “freed from the stone” during quarrying. There’s another very similar stone feature not far away.
I remember reading an article or seeing a video some years ago in which it was proposed that the Sphinx was excavated before the Khufu quarry some years ago, and basing this on the runoff from the surface to the West. I don't recall who it was from, could have been Reader, but this hypothesis seems to be well supported.
Alternatively, the less eroded part is because that section received some human attention ... perhaps changing the original wall from parallel to the sphinx, to instead follow the ramp.
When you say they respected the causeway as it came before - surely they had to do this? Surely they needed it to move the stone from the quarries for both pyramids. If it's there then why not use it? Anyone know what fall/angle the causeway is please?
(12:31) So if you are saying that the limestone on Giza was already fractured, and eroded, and in "bad condition" long before anything was done. Then why were the Egyptians making this area into a quarry for the materials of the temples and pyramids that they built?
It just spins me out how little we know about our past .. there's such huge gaps that we'll probably never know about.. it's amazing how long these civilizations were around for and their fall must have been and incredible time
Interesting as always! There is some new studies out there that make a comparison of those buildings to a chemical plant (more precisely, a fertilizer one)... The authors of the study are convinced that those buildings complexes was indeed places to make ammonia by flooding the compartments.
The walls of the Sphinx enclosure were likely cut straight at an angle, yet were eroded for millions of years by rain water? I understand there are several processes at work here, but that one maybe needs needs a little more clarification.
The one thing I find strange about this is; There's little to no finish on the enclosure walls themselves. There's no indication they smooth the walls and painted them. Did they just carve the sphinx and left the walls cracked and broken?
Absolutely correct. Do you believe pale white red haired gingers belong on the equator when they can't walk out in the sun. Don't believe a word any of them have to say
10:45. Nope. It is obvious that the weathering involved on the side occurred after the rock was quarried, not before the rock was quarried. The small fissures may have been there for millions of years, but the weathering most certainly did not occur at that time. You can tell from both the aerial view and the side view. The stone on the top is not nearly as weathered as the stone on the sides. The stone on the sides is heavily weathered, with deep trenches cut into the sides. These trenches are completely absent on the top layer in the body of the stone (away from the quarried edges). Additionally, you can see where the softer strata have eroded quicker than the harder and/or more stable strata at the quarried edges. This is caused by wind and/or water erosion and only occurs after a trench, ravine, or other void occurs in the strata. In this case, it was human quarrying that caused that material to be removed which then allowed for wind and/or water erosion to erode certain strata at higher rates than other strata. Had the erosion occurred millions of years ago and/or before the quarrying, the erosion would be uniform on both the quarry edges and in the body of the stone. It clearly is not. Perhaps you should take some geology courses.
He touches on this in the video and is directly quoting studies done by geologists. He is simply saying that the wear patterns which are the result of those existing non-uniform patterns in the rock layers themselves. Would show different wear rates based on when the rock face was exposed due to being quarried. Rock exposed to atmosphere wears faster than buried rock does it not? Wear patterns due to surface weathering has specific properties which can generally be identified and compared against wear patterns due to ground conditions. At least within the same geographic features, right? What exactly do you feel is wrong about the theory and what evidence is there for other mechanisms of action that explain it?
@@meowfaceification I agree that there was some weathering that happened over millions of years before the quarrying occurred. Mainly the weathering at the small tectonic fissures and cracks that are in the limestone. What I disagree with is the extent of the chemical weathering at the Sphinx and its enclosure caused by the in ground processes that occurred over the millions of years prior to the quarrying of the Sphinx. Perhaps the illustration was overly exaggerated to show how the process works so people could understand it better, but it appeared to me that he was claiming the huge trenches that were cut into the Sphinx enclosure occurred before the stone was quarried through chemical processes over millions of years, which is not the case. When the Spinx was quarried, the exposed surface area increased as well as its exposure to the sun and elements and this rapidly accelerated the rate of weathering and erosion. As such, the vast majority of the weathering on the Sphinx and its enclosure occurred in the relatively brief time span after it was quarried, rather than over the millions of years the stone existed prior to the quarrying. We are talking about weathering and erosion that is at a rate that is orders of magnitude greater than the in ground weathering and erosion rate. Of course this increased weathering would be most prevalent at the pre-existing fissures that were already in the rock.
17:22 on the left side. Clearly you can see the naturally occurring fault lines were already present before cutting was done. Use your BRAIN before commenting
@@rustinpeace770 "17:22 on the left side. Clearly you can see the naturally occurring fault lines were already present before cutting was done. Use your BRAIN before commenting" I did use my brain before commenting. You obviously did not. I already stated the fissures could have been there for millions of years. The fissures are not caused by weathering and no geologist will consider the fissures as "weathering." My comment was referring to the claim that acidic groundwater caused the majority of the weathering. It most certainly did not. You can tell that over 90% of the weathering occurred AFTER the stone was quarried, not before the stone was quarried. I have had college level geology classes. Have you?
In my opinion the western wall suffers the most rapid temperature fluctuations. Having the sun hitting first while it's at its coolest. The eastern wall is aloud to slowly warm up.
I love the details you bring up. As you say, "details matter". Yet a few details alway seem left out/ignored and I wonder why? The Sphinx's Temple, why doesn't it show the same weathering and erosion levels as the Sphinx and its enclosure? And...why doesn't the Member types don't corrolate to the rock "wicking" damage. First, since wicking happens more on Member II stones (weaker) than Member I, why do M II stones have worse damage over M I? The M I stones should have slowed the wicking to M II stones above them, but it is worse. The temple stone shows wind damage, like other structures, but shows almost no wicking damage. It is even closer to the water table than even the Sphinx enclosure. Other temples (in Egypt), near ground water, have massive damage to bottom of collumns and walls, but not the Sphinx Temple.
this strengthens me theory that the sphinx was created during early dynastic times and that it may have been a lion bust of the god Aker (god of death and darkness), protecting the 1st dynasty cemetary of Giza.
The comparison of the 2500 years wethered lime stone to the Sphinx enclose lime stone is striking. It is hard to imagine the time difference, tens, hundreds of thousands of years ? What implications it may have !?
Is it possible that we could see increased weathering effects over a 30 year period, if there was large scale water run off during pyramid construction? I’ve always wondered if some of the unique aspects we see in how certain features were cut into and around the pyramids was to support using water to help move large stones. The Egyptians were well versed in how to use floating sleds to transparent massive stones down the Nile. It stands to reason that they would re-use these technological advantages in construction when possible. It’s far easier to move a massive stone block if you keep it on a sled directly from the harbor. Using a mix of water and sand and the buoyancy of the sled to walk it up the causeway. Such an effort would create significant amounts of water and sand runoff during the period of construction. Which some accounts do claim to have occurred over about a 30 year period. The increased erosion we see around the complex doesn’t necessarily have to come from only rainfall. It could be the result of ancient construction. With some of the curiosities about the uneven erosion around the sphinx, specifically the areas where there were existing tombs not showing the same erosion levels. Being the result of the Egyptians intentionally placing temporary channel blockers there so that the industrial runoff wouldn’t damage those tombs. This could also explain some of the unique structures within the pyramids themselves. Such as a the well shaft being a drain to clear excess water. Which would mean the grand gallery was meant to be a Locke system which could be used to move stones up the ramp. As the water runs off and down the well shaft. Workers would take the descending passage down to retrieve it in buckets and it would be returned back to the top to continue the process.
That's interesting but I am still waiting for one of these "experts" to explain why , if the pyramids are tombs , why is there absolutely not a single hieroglyph ANYWHERE inside the pyramids, any of them . I can see a grave robber taking the goods , and jewelry, maybe the body or pieces , but the whole coffin? AND the writing and art on the walls? come on .
@@snarky4lyfe144 While the Great Pyramid was rather looted and ransacked, plenty of other pyramids of essentially the same layout (if not scale) contained many hieroglyphic inscriptions, sarcophagi, and grave goods. Menkare's sarcophagus was found in his pyramid, also at Giza; at least a dozen other major pyramids have sarcophagi and canopic jars. Early pyramids were traditionally not decorated; Unas, of the Fifth Dynasty, was the first to have texts or decoration in his burial chamber since Djoser, for whom was built the first step pyramid. That of Teti has some impressive inscriptions, and is essentially a smaller version of Khufu's. Pyramids were also not alone in time. They were preceded by mastabas- rectangular adobe mounds that share similar internal structures. Step pyramids aren't so much "simple pyramids" as they are "fancy mastabas." (fancy here meaning "lots of them stacked on top of each other"). Since most of the mastabas were less visible to looters, or more underground, we have found plenty more remains and grave goods in them. They are also followed by more hidden tombs, such as the famous one of King Tutankhamen, that share the same imagery, texts, and traditions (such as canopic jars)- and where we have found numerous remains. Also note that pyramids were never free-standing structures. They were integrated into large funerary complexes, which featured all the spaces, art, and texts for regular rituals honoring or serving the deceased. These facilities provide enormous amounts of context and information for what the pyramids were used for.
@@snarky4lyfe144 Kufu is written many times throughout the great pyramid. Also there are hieroglyphs in other pyramids showing pyramids as tombs. Maybe there was art on the walls of the great pyramid at one time and it got looted. Why would anyone leave a GOLD coffin.
@@rustinpeace770 there ae not even any cartouches, hieroglyphs of the pharaohs name or the person buried there. The Pyramids are not and never have been tombs. they are power generators. is my point. the fact that there are no Hieroglyphs makes it that much more obvious.
We have sandstone buildings here in the UK the guildhall in my city and the city hall are both sandstone. On the guildhall there has had to be some repairs and the ground base layer of stones are protected by a granite skirt going down to the pavement as it was eroding away and this was after a 100 year period. Im guessing its eroded faster from the splashing of rain back onto the stones from the pavement as the higher up stones are still in good shape, for now...
I find it surprising that there is no mention of the Sphinx being buried in sand up to its neck . Any estimates as to how long this condition existed? Anyone have a guess?
I'm sceptical. All of your conclusions are based on the asumption, that all Member II limestone is identical in strength and uniform, especially in its corrosion behavior. Which it isn't. The difference (and especially the range of that difference) in its natural quality is enormous. It's material traits/features are far more complicated and they're *never* uniform. It is also possible, that the Member II limestone on the western side was just simply more fragile for this type of corrosion. And water corrosion by run-off rainwater is heavily impacted by water flow speed. The highest flow speeds would propably occur in its western area, due to being the first spot for run-off water to run down. It's almost impossible to actually tell how long it must have been exposed to run-off rainwater. And yes, under specific circumstances, 30 years might actually be enough for this difference in errosion pattern.
If Nile flooding caused an annual spring to erupt from natural openings under great pyramid(before it was built) couldnt that contribute? Might have been reason for original causeway/channel for runoff
Why would the ancient Egyptians leave the enclosure looking like that. Everything around them that they build is all clean and precise, yet they leave the Sphinx enclosure looking like shit? Any ideas why?
Yes its quite obvious that the cause way and the Sphinx was there before the quarries. And that suggests that it was built before the Kufu pyramid. But the question is why build a cause way to nothing. I think that there was something before the pyramid. Maybe a smaller pyramid that was enlarged by Kufu. At least som kind of building.
What if, during construction, over 50 years, water was running over that area as it was a giant water screw/water wheel? This needs water falling onto the system to allow it turn the wheel with momentum. This is why the sphinx wall is eroded. It was part of the machinery that made the whole system work.
Wow that was impressive, well done👍👍 Forgive me for making this point, but being pedantic it's a point that I need to make regarding the title of the video. History is what it is, so history cannot be re-written, all that changes is our understanding of that history. My apologies, but I feel better now.
Giza must surely have been the ultimate well celebrated 'Oasis' of it's day. Hate never seeing what the Pyraminds and Sphinks looked like without 'Eden all arround it, 'during the ages of glory' I believe they would have naturally celebrated as 'death' endlessly conquored what we now call the Saharra Desert.
why is the water erosion damage on the sphinx is not taken account too? the pooling level on the sphinx is higher than the enclosure wall. and the syphinx is carved out from the bedrock which means there is possibly that before there was anything, the level of the enclosure wall and the sphinx is the same... and they carved eveything from top to bottom.
You are talking of heavy rainfalls which caused erosion of the bedrock. When such rainfalls could have occured? It is not likely that this could have happened in the Kufu era and long before. Even if at the Kufu Dynasty the Gisa Plateau and more parts of Egypt would have been covered by green plants this would not explain the heavy erosion of the bedrock we see today. And would Kufu have accepted such erosion near his new pyramid?
This was so interesting. I can’t imagine how much work it took for you to put this explanation together. Thank you so much. I now have a much better understanding of the causeway’s and the Sphinx’s beginning.
Lol not as long as it took to build the pyramids lol
Yes but... Aliens are so much more exciting than water tables and rainfall run off...
Those are not his ideas
That's a great argument, Matt. Thanks, and have a very merry Christmas
Would Khufu and Khafre have filled in their quarries after the work was done?
Another thought: The part of the Khafre causeway that runs through the quarries is at ground level, right? Is there any evidence that the quarrymen carved out side walls to it, as was done near the Sphinx enclosure?
I was wondering the same. Maybe with sand or something, because it would look horrible otherwise.
Wind and rain runoff would have likely carried silt and sand, and I would argue that this likely would have filled in the quarries relatively quickly... Maybe the better question here is whether the people working in these quarries were having to periodically remove sand and silt? Skara Brae, for example, appears to have been inundated with sand in a single night (or at least was, I haven't checked if this hypothesis has been overturned) and if this is true, then it is possible that wind-blown sand, etc, may have been the bane of the lives of these workers.
P.S. It's nice to see you here, I appreciate your work too!
Maybe all that sand being dumped into the nile gradually meandered it
@WorldofAntiquity read about it in my book. 😏 how to build the great pyramid
Exceptional video. Easily one of the best you've made. You covered so much information but still managed to make it easy to digest and entertaining.
Outstanding analysis! Very logical and well thought-through, culminating in a reasonable, plausible conclusion. Well done and thank you for sharing your knowledge and insights.
How to Support the Ancient Architects Channel:
Subscribe to Back-Up Channel: www.youtube.com/@MattSibson
BTC Address: 3MSsm5gFfWjHeeSKZdqgKZAPL8YDY4r8ot
Donate via Paypal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/ancientarchitects
Become a channel member: th-cam.com/channels/scI4NOggNSN-Si5QgErNCw.htmljoin
Join my Patreon: www.patreon.com/ancientarchitects
Follow me on X: www.x.com/mattsibson
Seriously controversial subject, looking at the replies! 😅
Remember me? I knew it! Just looking at it... "They stumbled over old ruins and rebuilt the Nile temples, maybe I'm wrong." Thank you Matt!
Simply amazing as always. Exited for the next one.
Matt, thankyou! so much thought and work has gone into this, I found my questions arising from your commentary were then answered, so you covered all bases for me well done indeed Sir! Keep doing what you love and bringing it to us, I am sure it is fully appreciated by the many sides of the never ending 'Ancient Egypt' debate.
As always, well done and very informative. I suppose we will never know precisely which structures at Giza came first and when. Thanks for a great presentation!
How do the cut walls in the quarries look, and on the other side of the causeway?
That's interesting, I wonder if it could be a neolithic causeway of sorts? Your arguments about the Sphinx neatly dug in nicely to the corner of the causeway make sense, this would indeed make the causeway older.
Very good video. Thorough, informative, thought provoking, and well researched. Thank you.
Klemm and Klemm, The Stones of the Pyramids 2010. Page 73 Discussed a quarry directly beside the Sphinx to the north..also the upper part of Khafre causeway being built over two Khufu drag ramps. Most of these animations don't show the original plateau hieght before any quarrying correctly
Well if the whole site has as massive Labrinth under it as I've seen major evidence for, stone would have to have be removed right from under them to make the whole for the structure under the plateau and then on top is the massive blocks for the foundation, I'd say the missing quarry is the plateau it'self where everything was removed as a quarry, set to the side, finish the stones on site and then fill it all back in and built the pyramids ontop. Idk just a thought.
Wouldn't the quarries show the same weathering as the Sphinx and the enclosure? This doesn't appear to be the case. This would make the Sphinx and its enclosure much older than the quarries. In addition, the quarries don't seem to have been exploited to the quantity of stone required to build the pyramids and the rest of the associated stone structures on the plateau. When one observes the floor of the quarries and the apparent amount of "waste" stone removed to free the blocks, the waste seems to be about 15%-20% and that is for rough blocks. The final finishing and fitting would have removed even more stone. There must be another quarry or more to provide the stone required. In addition, the walls around the pyramids that were created to level the surrounding areas show similar weathering to the Sphinx, enclosure, and Sphinx temple. These two different weathering patterns indicate different times, several thousands of years, between the construction of the pyramids, Sphinx structures, and the quarries. There doesn't seem to be any efforts made to resolve this discrepancy.
That’s because these TH-camrs just want to be gatekeeping know it alls, none will admit that the entire plateau is simply an ENIGMA, not even comprehensible by modern humans. The truth is, we have no fucking clue. Everyone’s just got a best-guess. I have a feeling our own society will fall & collapse before we ever figure out the truth about Giza
Very good! He's now citing Mark Lehner and Dr Miano, he's losing credibility fast. Look around at how many red-haired Scholars on TH-cam are trying to convince you there was nothing before Egypt because it proves the Hebrew are not God's chosen people. Miano banned and hid me and refuses to allow my comments. Because I know the truth look around and have fun. They all collaborate together. Some dye their hair and change their last names
There actually is more than one quarry. Part of the material was coming from nearby, but part came from further away. The Tura Quarry is one and is several miles away. Material from there was used in both the pyramid core and the casing. There's different quality of stones depending on where quarried, rougher and finer limestones. The fine limestone was quarried at both Tura and at Masara Quarries.
Remember that the pyramids are not made of blocks all the way through. Much of the internal structure is rubble core.
@@insertphrasehere15A rubble core? Is there a rendering of what this would look like somewhere?
As usual, an excellent analysis based on the evidence on (and in) the ground. Thanks for your well thought out analysis.
What's glaringly missing in all this supposition is the shear amount of shafts / possible tunnels under it all. I've never seen the surface structures mapped together with the underground. The two are seldom talked about together. All those mastaba's had burial shafts, all the graveyards used shafts. That area is a warren of holes that never seem to fill (operative word) with water? A pond here and there occasionally, well that screams pre-planned water works to me.
Alien subway system that mainstream archeology is hiding from us! 😱
Thank you Matt for another great video! I never got to see the pyramids (yet) but I was in Luxor, Karnak, and the valley of the Kings and Queens back during Desert Storm.
You should make video about megalithic base of Khafre Pyramid. It is so different from Chufu and Menkaure...
If the sphinx was made later, then why is there so much evidence of water erosion on the sphinx but not on the quarry?
Watch the video he blo**d well shows you !!😢😤🤭😟😫
Because the quarry was constantly being evacuated, removing the visible signs of erosion on the exposed layers?
Is it not wind sand erosion not water
@@MrFatboy192 mixture, apparently
If both the Sphinx and various quarries were active much earlier then believed then they could've been quarried over a much longer period of time. So the very weathered surfaces could've been removed two or three times since the body of the Sphinx and maybe it's entire enclosure was excavated.
I had an idea the other night...
Is it possible that the blocks used to build the pyramids were round and then squared once they were in place?
Seems a good idea as they would probably be easier to get on site.
I kinda lean to what you said at the end for the enclosures too, they too would have been built, looted, covered by desert, rebuilt, relooted, recovered by desert, etc until excavated. And the original quarries were probably covered since their first abandonment whenever that was and thousands of years later then they were a patch of desert where water could again run on.
"LogicL, step by step manner"
No pun intended for that walkway brother ;)
😂
On the causeway, is there any astrological alignments? Is there any deeper explanations of why the causeway was selected as such a ceremonial pathway? Seems unlikely that it would be convenience.
There's nothing ceremonial, political, or religious about any of the world's megalithic ruins I suspect.
This was the best explanation for a very fascinating possibility of the age of the Guiza Plateau.
really enjoyed the insights in this video, it definitely got me thinking. but honestly, i'm not fully convinced that we need to completely rewrite history just because new theories emerge. sometimes, it feels like we might overlook the solid research that's already been done. it could lead to more confusion than clarity. what do you all think?
Well done 🎉 good mention of Dr David M your both my top ancient history channel's 😊
VERY GOOD 👍 THANKS MATT
I just finished watching Ancient Sites Girl vid. She now lives in Egypt 😊
I like her too.
Where was the Nile at the beginning of this build?
Nile branches is what you are looking for
Finding this sculpture is amazing.. I believe it's a carving done by some regular laborer. It's showing us to remember that there were regular people just like you or I back then.
In discussing the Sphinx enclosure, I don't know whether you have referred to it elsewhere, but it seems fairly obvious to me that the enclosure has been excavated on two separate occasions. Step #1 : leaving approximately the same distance from the Sphinx to the cut walls, apart from the angled side following the causeway, resulting with approximately parallel walls either side. Step#2 : continuing on beside the causeway, from the approximate position of the floor channel, to the current Eastern end of the excavation, resulting in less weathering on that section of wall. Perhaps it was the runoff into the floor channel that prompted this second phase ? I would be interested in finding out relative levels along the boundaries of the Sphinx enclosure excavation.
Are there any studies / estimates how many blocks builders placed into position (per day or per hour, on average)?
it would all depend on how many teams they had working during the first half of the construction (the bottom half) they could have conceivably had dozens of teams at any one time working on different sides of the pyramid
@jellyrollthunder3625 Indeed. I seem to be unable to find any universally accepted estimates, not sure why...
@@realitytheorist4205 the composition of the giza pyramids is not fully known. there's estimates on the amount of blocks used if the entire thing was comprised of blocks all the same size, but we know they are not. there seems to be a layering of rubble/fill in some areas as exposed by the robbers tunnel and others. we also don't really have great timeframes on how long they took to construct. theres definitely evidence for pyramids NOT being completed by the time of death in other areas, and construction wouldn't begin until the pharaoh took power. current estimates on length of time to construct the great pyramid ranges from 20 to 50+ years. you could look at estimates of the amount of blocks and choose a timeframe for a rough estimate, but there is no solid answer 100% backed by facts.
The only way that can really be estimated is by having a claimed or documented building duration. If you think about the three pyramids at darshur, it is said they were built in 27 years (iirc). You can’t solve a problem you don’t have at least one variable for, when you factor in that we really have no idea who or how they quarried, transported, and constructed with such large blocks, let alone how long it took.
We don’t even really know how long it would take modern man to replicate it… or if they could. 😬
@@carladamcarter we don't know how they moved or quarried the blocks? They used saws, both stone and bronze chisels.. .they used special double barges to transport the largest granite obelisks so the pyramid blocks would have been child play. What would be stopping modern man from stacking limestone blocks into the shape of a pyramid?
Your the only one on you tube that actually talks sense,and logic about this stuff.all the others talk s - - t
Conspiracy and fact aside ancient Egypt is truly amazing!
Indian temples are far superior
Thank you Matt. Excellent video.
Thanks for the knowledge. Always interesting in my view)
Very interesting. Thank you Matthew.
Thanks for watching
Been playing Assassins Creed Origins all week to get away from the snow 🥰
I will go the the Sphinx enclosure tonight and see if you are correct, I'll get back to you 🤣
I have that on the PS4 - love it!
Lolol. Best AC game. I just got my 2nd anubis skin.
Hey while you are there see what is written under the gaint boxes in the pyramids
That game is an absolute treasure for all of us who love this history and archaeology and play games too.
The secret to your research is revealed🤣
Well researched and presented as always Thanks Matt.
lol no
You must have heard I'm 1 chapter away from finishing my how to build the great pyramid book. 😅
Can’t wait to read it!
You and your Mom work on it together, Kungdu?
@@jackharle1251 no. Obviously not. I'm not you.
Kungfu = Kufu. Dude you must be related 😂😂😂😂😂
@ChristianPareATLAS shhhh don't expose my time travel identity. My nickname is ED. Ed-Fu temple is just a coincidence 😏 😎
Oh wow, this was interesting. Thanks Matt.
A most excellent video! Thank you! 🥰
It's disappointing that we will probably never know how old the Sphinx, and that roadway, really are. Or what else used to be on the plateau before the Pyramids. But we are certainly learning that the Sphinx is WAY older than previously thought!
hmmm. youtube didnt notify me
Boo - glad you’re here!
TH-cam is ripping off content providers on multiple tiers of fraud.
Great video. Thanks Matt always good to go back to Giza.
Thanks for another great video
I think they were quarring limestone blocks for future pyramids after the bent pyramid and that's why putting a specific time-frame in the great pyramid may be incorrect because thousands of the blocks may have been quarried years before construction began.
Great stuff as always Matt. Love seeing you back on Egyptian stuff as that’s my personal favorite and my obsession. I’ve watched every video you’ve ever done on Egyptian history for many years and always love them. I can follow your arguments on most of this, but some things I see some possible room to disagree on. I would love to see the counter argument to your theory done by someone who is as educated and eloquent as you, just to see the other side of it. The geology and erosion patterns are where it gets fuzzy for me. I can talk Egyptian history and archaeology all day long with anyone, but discussing geology and trying to predict thousands of years of erosion are not in my wheelhouse lol. Thanks for the interesting video, take care.
I believe the Sphinx is a modified natural feature, and the enclosure started as shallow runoff channels to protect it from inundation. It was probably venerated in its natural state for centuries before being modified
exactly
i remember i saw pictures of the sphinx covered in sand up to the neck , i wonder how many times was it digged out and if there is any documents left for this in all it's history
You should look into The Dream Stelae, it's an interesting look into the egos of Egyptologists and their approach to evidence too.
That is the perfect intro music
Had this from day 1. Stumbled on it. It’s Ross Bugden: th-cam.com/video/BnmglWHoVrk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Zm5q30-uh3jMKPRf
I’ve heard other places use it from the beginning g of the song and it sounds wrong everywhere but here. Matt truly has the superior intro music, even if it’s the same song
They are gonna play this at my funeral and the coffin starts to levitate.
😳 Do we know if the Sphinx arms are original bedrock , or added later. Underneath the restoration work.?? 😳
The sphinx started as a simple quarry, which used the causeway to carry blocks east toward the nile. I believe they saw something or had a revelation and decided to quarry around the sphinx, leaving the "core" of the sphinx un-quarried in order to shape the eventual sphinx. They used the same blocks of the quarry to build the sphinx temple. The sphinx was the cultural "anchor" in giza, causing more to be built west of the sphinx as there was no room east. This eventually led to the pyramids, which extended and repaved the pre-existing causeway next to the sphinx. Similar to how modern development extends a road to build new homes further from the original center of town.
The erosion and weathering of not just the sphinx and its enclosure, but also the erosion of the blocks of the sphinx temple, should easily dismiss any idea that the sphinx was built last. The sphinx temple is so badly eroded, they even encased the limestone in granite to help restore it.
Finally: a theory befitting Occam’s Razor. I agree that the original stone “head” was a natural feature notable 5000 odd years ago, and it was just opportunistically “freed from the stone” during quarrying. There’s another very similar stone feature not far away.
I remember reading an article or seeing a video some years ago in which it was proposed that the Sphinx was excavated before the Khufu quarry some years ago, and basing this on the runoff from the surface to the West.
I don't recall who it was from, could have been Reader, but this hypothesis seems to be well supported.
Great video! 😊
Thank you
❤thank you Matt
Thanks for being here!
I wonder why Khufu/Khafre didn't neaten up the walls of the enclosure if they were quite eroded at the time.
Alternatively, the less eroded part is because that section received some human attention ... perhaps changing the original wall from parallel to the sphinx, to instead follow the ramp.
When you say they respected the causeway as it came before - surely they had to do this? Surely they needed it to move the stone from the quarries for both pyramids. If it's there then why not use it? Anyone know what fall/angle the causeway is please?
(12:31) So if you are saying that the limestone on Giza was already fractured, and eroded, and in "bad condition" long before anything was done. Then why were the Egyptians making this area into a quarry for the materials of the temples and pyramids that they built?
It just spins me out how little we know about our past .. there's such huge gaps that we'll probably never know about.. it's amazing how long these civilizations were around for and their fall must have been and incredible time
We must erase history in order to easily repeat it. RE: Chemistry with the primary objective of metals extraction and refinement.
Interesting as always!
There is some new studies out there that make a comparison of those buildings to a chemical plant (more precisely, a fertilizer one)... The authors of the study are convinced that those buildings complexes was indeed places to make ammonia by flooding the compartments.
Weird as it couldn't hold liquid. It's porous and not hydraulically sealed.
The walls of the Sphinx enclosure were likely cut straight at an angle, yet were eroded for millions of years by rain water? I understand there are several processes at work here, but that one maybe needs needs a little more clarification.
Just skip over the nonsense - about 95%
The one thing I find strange about this is; There's little to no finish on the enclosure walls themselves. There's no indication they smooth the walls and painted them. Did they just carve the sphinx and left the walls cracked and broken?
I think they covered them w/thin limestone slabs, taken away and repurposed...?
@nomadscavenger
You could be right. Might they straighten the vertical walls making it easier to place and align the blocks? Who knows?
Absolutely correct. Do you believe pale white red haired gingers belong on the equator when they can't walk out in the sun. Don't believe a word any of them have to say
Was the Sphinx ever covered in churra?
If these are the Tops
What is underneath
Kind regards
Should get Mars experts to analyse this
Its quite likely they did originally make it with flat sides, seems they probably did'nt dig it out like that, why would you.
10:45. Nope. It is obvious that the weathering involved on the side occurred after the rock was quarried, not before the rock was quarried. The small fissures may have been there for millions of years, but the weathering most certainly did not occur at that time. You can tell from both the aerial view and the side view. The stone on the top is not nearly as weathered as the stone on the sides. The stone on the sides is heavily weathered, with deep trenches cut into the sides. These trenches are completely absent on the top layer in the body of the stone (away from the quarried edges). Additionally, you can see where the softer strata have eroded quicker than the harder and/or more stable strata at the quarried edges. This is caused by wind and/or water erosion and only occurs after a trench, ravine, or other void occurs in the strata. In this case, it was human quarrying that caused that material to be removed which then allowed for wind and/or water erosion to erode certain strata at higher rates than other strata. Had the erosion occurred millions of years ago and/or before the quarrying, the erosion would be uniform on both the quarry edges and in the body of the stone. It clearly is not. Perhaps you should take some geology courses.
Excellent!❤! A lot of people make the data fit mainstream science and they really have to come up with crazy theories to do this
He touches on this in the video and is directly quoting studies done by geologists. He is simply saying that the wear patterns which are the result of those existing non-uniform patterns in the rock layers themselves. Would show different wear rates based on when the rock face was exposed due to being quarried. Rock exposed to atmosphere wears faster than buried rock does it not? Wear patterns due to surface weathering has specific properties which can generally be identified and compared against wear patterns due to ground conditions. At least within the same geographic features, right? What exactly do you feel is wrong about the theory and what evidence is there for other mechanisms of action that explain it?
@@meowfaceification I agree that there was some weathering that happened over millions of years before the quarrying occurred. Mainly the weathering at the small tectonic fissures and cracks that are in the limestone. What I disagree with is the extent of the chemical weathering at the Sphinx and its enclosure caused by the in ground processes that occurred over the millions of years prior to the quarrying of the Sphinx. Perhaps the illustration was overly exaggerated to show how the process works so people could understand it better, but it appeared to me that he was claiming the huge trenches that were cut into the Sphinx enclosure occurred before the stone was quarried through chemical processes over millions of years, which is not the case. When the Spinx was quarried, the exposed surface area increased as well as its exposure to the sun and elements and this rapidly accelerated the rate of weathering and erosion. As such, the vast majority of the weathering on the Sphinx and its enclosure occurred in the relatively brief time span after it was quarried, rather than over the millions of years the stone existed prior to the quarrying. We are talking about weathering and erosion that is at a rate that is orders of magnitude greater than the in ground weathering and erosion rate. Of course this increased weathering would be most prevalent at the pre-existing fissures that were already in the rock.
17:22 on the left side. Clearly you can see the naturally occurring fault lines were already present before cutting was done. Use your BRAIN before commenting
@@rustinpeace770 "17:22 on the left side. Clearly you can see the naturally occurring fault lines were already present before cutting was done. Use your BRAIN before commenting" I did use my brain before commenting. You obviously did not. I already stated the fissures could have been there for millions of years. The fissures are not caused by weathering and no geologist will consider the fissures as "weathering." My comment was referring to the claim that acidic groundwater caused the majority of the weathering. It most certainly did not. You can tell that over 90% of the weathering occurred AFTER the stone was quarried, not before the stone was quarried. I have had college level geology classes. Have you?
The Sphyx was buried in sand until relatively recently as well. I'm not sure when it was first buried.
During the great Sand Age
In my opinion the western wall suffers the most rapid temperature fluctuations. Having the sun hitting first while it's at its coolest. The eastern wall is aloud to slowly warm up.
I love the details you bring up. As you say, "details matter". Yet a few details alway seem left out/ignored and I wonder why? The Sphinx's Temple, why doesn't it show the same weathering and erosion levels as the Sphinx and its enclosure? And...why doesn't the Member types don't corrolate to the rock "wicking" damage. First, since wicking happens more on Member II stones (weaker) than Member I, why do M II stones have worse damage over M I? The M I stones should have slowed the wicking to M II stones above them, but it is worse. The temple stone shows wind damage, like other structures, but shows almost no wicking damage. It is even closer to the water table than even the Sphinx enclosure. Other temples (in Egypt), near ground water, have massive damage to bottom of collumns and walls, but not the Sphinx Temple.
this strengthens me theory that the sphinx was created during early dynastic times and that it may have been a lion bust of the god Aker (god of death and darkness), protecting the 1st dynasty cemetary of Giza.
The comparison of the 2500 years wethered lime stone to the Sphinx enclose lime stone is striking. It is hard to imagine the time difference, tens, hundreds of thousands of years ? What implications it may have !?
Is it possible that we could see increased weathering effects over a 30 year period, if there was large scale water run off during pyramid construction? I’ve always wondered if some of the unique aspects we see in how certain features were cut into and around the pyramids was to support using water to help move large stones. The Egyptians were well versed in how to use floating sleds to transparent massive stones down the Nile. It stands to reason that they would re-use these technological advantages in construction when possible. It’s far easier to move a massive stone block if you keep it on a sled directly from the harbor. Using a mix of water and sand and the buoyancy of the sled to walk it up the causeway. Such an effort would create significant amounts of water and sand runoff during the period of construction. Which some accounts do claim to have occurred over about a 30 year period. The increased erosion we see around the complex doesn’t necessarily have to come from only rainfall. It could be the result of ancient construction. With some of the curiosities about the uneven erosion around the sphinx, specifically the areas where there were existing tombs not showing the same erosion levels. Being the result of the Egyptians intentionally placing temporary channel blockers there so that the industrial runoff wouldn’t damage those tombs.
This could also explain some of the unique structures within the pyramids themselves. Such as a the well shaft being a drain to clear excess water. Which would mean the grand gallery was meant to be a Locke system which could be used to move stones up the ramp. As the water runs off and down the well shaft. Workers would take the descending passage down to retrieve it in buckets and it would be returned back to the top to continue the process.
I'm more interested in the built up base it all sits upon
"Whats under that, is suppose to be the maze"
That's interesting but I am still waiting for one of these "experts" to explain why , if the pyramids are tombs , why is there absolutely not a single hieroglyph ANYWHERE inside the pyramids, any of them . I can see a grave robber taking the goods , and jewelry, maybe the body or pieces , but the whole coffin? AND the writing and art on the walls? come on .
@@snarky4lyfe144 While the Great Pyramid was rather looted and ransacked, plenty of other pyramids of essentially the same layout (if not scale) contained many hieroglyphic inscriptions, sarcophagi, and grave goods. Menkare's sarcophagus was found in his pyramid, also at Giza; at least a dozen other major pyramids have sarcophagi and canopic jars. Early pyramids were traditionally not decorated; Unas, of the Fifth Dynasty, was the first to have texts or decoration in his burial chamber since Djoser, for whom was built the first step pyramid. That of Teti has some impressive inscriptions, and is essentially a smaller version of Khufu's.
Pyramids were also not alone in time. They were preceded by mastabas- rectangular adobe mounds that share similar internal structures. Step pyramids aren't so much "simple pyramids" as they are "fancy mastabas." (fancy here meaning "lots of them stacked on top of each other"). Since most of the mastabas were less visible to looters, or more underground, we have found plenty more remains and grave goods in them. They are also followed by more hidden tombs, such as the famous one of King Tutankhamen, that share the same imagery, texts, and traditions (such as canopic jars)- and where we have found numerous remains.
Also note that pyramids were never free-standing structures. They were integrated into large funerary complexes, which featured all the spaces, art, and texts for regular rituals honoring or serving the deceased. These facilities provide enormous amounts of context and information for what the pyramids were used for.
@@snarky4lyfe144 Kufu is written many times throughout the great pyramid. Also there are hieroglyphs in other pyramids showing pyramids as tombs. Maybe there was art on the walls of the great pyramid at one time and it got looted. Why would anyone leave a GOLD coffin.
@@snarky4lyfe144Old kingdom Egypt was not very filled with hieroglyphics
@@rustinpeace770 there ae not even any cartouches, hieroglyphs of the pharaohs name or the person buried there. The Pyramids are not and never have been tombs. they are power generators. is my point. the fact that there are no Hieroglyphs makes it that much more obvious.
If those chisel marks are over 2 thousand years old... How old is the Sphinx complex??? 6-7 thousand years, older?
Great job again!
We have sandstone buildings here in the UK the guildhall in my city and the city hall are both sandstone. On the guildhall there has had to be some repairs and the ground base layer of stones are protected by a granite skirt going down to the pavement as it was eroding away and this was after a 100 year period. Im guessing its eroded faster from the splashing of rain back onto the stones from the pavement as the higher up stones are still in good shape, for now...
One thing we can all agree on is the pyramid building business was up and down.
I find it surprising that there is no mention of the Sphinx being buried in sand up to its neck . Any estimates as to how long this condition existed? Anyone have a guess?
Excellent
Ta
😎
I'm sceptical. All of your conclusions are based on the asumption, that all Member II limestone is identical in strength and uniform, especially in its corrosion behavior. Which it isn't. The difference (and especially the range of that difference) in its natural quality is enormous.
It's material traits/features are far more complicated and they're *never* uniform. It is also possible, that the Member II limestone on the western side was just simply more fragile for this type of corrosion. And water corrosion by run-off rainwater is heavily impacted by water flow speed. The highest flow speeds would propably occur in its western area, due to being the first spot for run-off water to run down. It's almost impossible to actually tell how long it must have been exposed to run-off rainwater. And yes, under specific circumstances, 30 years might actually be enough for this difference in errosion pattern.
Dissolution at the vadose- phreatic interfcace (water table !)
Very in depth!
Sand run off continuously sanding?
Fascinating.
👍
Oh, forgot to mention, after visiting the Giza Plateau.....I have this book...major revelations....coming soon. 😊😊
If Nile flooding caused an annual spring to erupt from natural openings under great pyramid(before it was built) couldnt that contribute? Might have been reason for original causeway/channel for runoff
Great stuff!
Why would the ancient Egyptians leave the enclosure looking like that. Everything around them that they build is all clean and precise, yet they leave the Sphinx enclosure looking like shit? Any ideas why?
Yes its quite obvious that the cause way and the Sphinx was there before the quarries. And that suggests that it was built before the Kufu pyramid. But the question is why build a cause way to nothing. I think that there was something before the pyramid. Maybe a smaller pyramid that was enlarged by Kufu. At least som kind of building.
Matt!, u r great. cheers from Sween
What if, during construction, over 50 years, water was running over that area as it was a giant water screw/water wheel? This needs water falling onto the system to allow it turn the wheel with momentum. This is why the sphinx wall is eroded. It was part of the machinery that made the whole system work.
Interesting…
There is no evidence of megaflooding in the Nile Valley that I am aware of.
@@candui-7 Wasn’t the old course of the Nile right there?
@ I never mentioned a flood. I mentioned water works to build such structures. Water was the tool
@ water ran over the site while construction happened
Wow that was impressive, well done👍👍
Forgive me for making this point, but being pedantic it's a point that I need to make regarding the title of the video.
History is what it is, so history cannot be re-written, all that changes is our understanding of that history.
My apologies, but I feel better now.
Let's GOOOOO!!!!!
Cheers Eminem!
YES! Back to the classics
Interesting 👍🏽
Giza must surely have been the ultimate well celebrated 'Oasis' of it's day.
Hate never seeing what the Pyraminds and Sphinks looked like without 'Eden all arround it, 'during the ages of glory' I believe they would have naturally celebrated as 'death' endlessly conquored what we now call the Saharra Desert.
Thanks for the content
why is the water erosion damage on the sphinx is not taken account too? the pooling level on the sphinx is higher than the enclosure wall.
and the syphinx is carved out from the bedrock which means there is possibly that before there was anything, the level of the enclosure wall and the sphinx is the same... and they carved eveything from top to bottom.
The Giza Plateau looks more like an industrial estate to me…🤷🏻♂️.
You are talking of heavy rainfalls which caused erosion of the bedrock. When such rainfalls could have occured? It is not likely that this could have happened in the Kufu era and long before. Even if at the Kufu Dynasty the Gisa Plateau and more parts of Egypt would have been covered by green plants this would not explain the heavy erosion of the bedrock we see today. And would Kufu have accepted such erosion near his new pyramid?