Water, Stone, and Forgotten Histories: The Sphinx of Giza and the African Evidence Against Linear Progress

May 16th, 2025 - In the Los Angeles Times of October 26, 1991, it was written:’New Twist in Sphinx Mystery: Erosion Theories Challenged’:’... Geologists presenting their research findings yesterday at the Geological Society of America Convention found that the weathering erosion marks observed on the monument were characteristic of a much older period than previously thought.’

I have already discussed Egypt on October 2, 2010, in the article: REBIRTH OF EGYPT. In it, I mentioned the conference held in Cairo, ’Archaeology of Landscape.’ Among other speakers, Mr. BRAVARD Jean-Paul, Mr. GARCIER Romain, and Mr. MOSTAFA Ashraf presented their study: ’Water in a Desert: The El Deir Site in the Holocene (Kharga Oasis, Egypt).

It is now generally established that before the desert that greets tourists visiting the archaeological beauties of Egypt, well, before this desert, there was water. And if the Sphinx of Giza was indeed eroded by the action of water and not sand, it naturally must be older than its supposed dating to the time of Pharaoh Khafre, the son (or brother) of Khufu, who is assumed to be the builder of the Great Pyramid. Already in 1900, Gaston Maspero, director of the Department of Antiquities at the Cairo Museum, was of the opinion that Pharaoh Khafre had simply unearthed or restored the Sphinx, and that this monument was much older.

But the controversy still exists, with the same conclusion that appeared in the Los Angeles Times article in 1991: ’But archaeologists and Egyptologists are adamant: the Sphinx could not be older because the populations who lived there beforehand would not have been capable of building it...’

Is the basis for studying history to confirm the constant evolution of humanity, that-is-to say its constant progress?

What if, on the contrary, there were periods of history that demonstrated the opposite? What if, during certain phases of its evolution, humanity had regressed to such an extent that subsequent generations forgot the previous sciences and techniques?

Such is the case with the Sphinx of Giza as with Great Zimbabwe.

From the 11th century to the 16th century, it was believed that Africans had never built stone monuments.The exceptional archaeological site of Great Zimbabwe, located near the city of Masvingo in southeastern Zimbabwe, demonstrates the contrary! The word ’Zimbabwe’ in the Shona language actually means ’stone houses’. This 80-hectare (approximately 200 acres) stone complex is currently the largest ancient stone structure in sub-Saharan Africa. The site is located on a high plateau and was the center of a powerful kingdom that flourished between the 11th and 15th centuries. It consists of impressive walls and stone structures built from locally cut granite stones, assembled without mortar. It is believed that Great Zimbabwe was the capital of a Bantu kingdom that controlled the gold and ivory trade in the region. The population at its peak is estimated to have been between 10,000 and 20,000 people. Due to its historical and architectural significance, Great Zimbabwe has been a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 1986.

In the 15th century, the Kingdom of Mutapa (also known as the Monomotapa Empire) succeeded the kingdom centered on Great Zimbabwe. This kingdom extended over a vast region encompassing part of present-day Zimbabwe and Mozambique. João de Barros (1496-1570), a renowned Portuguese historian of the time, left a record in a book published in 1552, describing the palace of the sovereign Mwana-Mutapa (or Monomotapa) and highlighting the sophistication of the constructions of that era.

The construction of Great Zimbabwe, like that of the Sphinx, are two examples among many others of the ’gaps’ in history, all too often deliberate, when those who write it lack written evidence either on stone or parchment.

The history of humankind is too often based on constant progress. History is unvariably linear and progressist, it does not acknowledge regression. This is where it is often limited and tinged with prejudice.

The tendency of history to favor a narrative of constant progress has often come at the expense of recognizing periods of regression or underestimating the capabilities of certain civilizations.

It is important that we reflect deeply on the nature of history and the prejudices that can shape it. There lies an essential reflection because if history is not always a linear march towards progress, then there exist other narratives and other understandings of the past that we owe it to ourselves to discover!