Amphipolis: Stunning Photos of the Ancient Tomb Captivate the Internet

Images of the ancient tomb in Amphipolis are taking the internet by storm, drawing global attention to one of Greece’s most intriguing archaeological discoveries. With its monumental architecture, striking sculptures, and mysterious past, the site continues to fascinate both historians and the general public alike.

Plato Chose Him as His Successor—But He Rejected His Master’s Theory

When Plato died in 347 BCE, he didn’t leave his Academy to just any student. He entrusted it to his nephew, Speusippus—the son of his sister Potone—a man who had accompanied him on his journey to Sicily and witnessed firsthand both his dreams and disillusionments. Yet, upon taking the reins of the Academy, Speusippus did something few could have imagined: he rejected Plato’s famous Theory of Forms.

Speusippus found the Theory of Forms vague and metaphysically unstable. Instead of abstract, ideal entities as the foundation of reality, he placed numbers at the center of the universe. For him, numbers—particularly the One and the Dyad—were neutral principles, mother and father of all existence, but devoid of moral or spiritual connotations. There was no “good” or “bad” inherent in them; they were simply the structural backbone of reality.

In Speusippus’ worldview, the universe was organized into a hierarchy of spheres—from the intangible realm of numbers to the material world and nature itself. Between these realms stood something sacred: the sphere of the soul, which he saw as immortal, autonomous, and superior even to the body. For Speusippus, classification was the first step toward understanding. Nothing could be defined in isolation; meaning only emerged through context.

Despite his intellectual rigor, Speusippus was known for his difficult personality and reclusive nature. He did not live within the Academy, possibly due to health issues or a personal decision to keep his distance. Nonetheless, he restructured the institution, introduced elements of scientific inquiry drawn from physiology, and promoted comparative studies of animals and plants—steps that seemed to pave the way for Aristotle’s later work.

Some scholars credit Speusippus with the authorship of Definitions, a philosophical lexicon. In a letter to King Philip of Macedon, he passionately defended Plato, going so far as to call him the son of Apollo—suggesting that while he may have rejected Plato’s theories, he still held deep reverence for the man himself.

Speusippus died around 339 BCE and was succeeded by Xenocrates. His work survives only in fragments, but his legacy endures as a reminder that even the most trusted successors may take their own philosophical path—and that faithful discipleship doesn’t require unquestioning agreement.

Was Pharaoh Khafre is the builder of the Sphinx?

---

By Dimosthenis Vasiloudis

---

Long shrouded in mystery, the Great Sphinx of Giza is a colossal limestone statue, resembling the body of a lion with a human head. A mainstream consensus in Egyptology holds that the Sphinx was carved during the 4th Dynasty (Old Kingdom) reign of Pharaoh Khafre (c. 2558–2532 BC), who built the second-largest of the Giza pyramids. Most modern scholars identify the Sphinx’s face as Khafre’s and view the monument as an integral part of his pyramid complex​. This report looks at the proof that connects the Sphinx to Khafre and shares the views of top Egyptologists based on different types of evidence: historical texts, archaeological context, style analysis, inscriptions, and geological data. It also notes any significant academic debate (such as minority views attributing the Sphinx to Khafre’s relatives) and briefly contrasts alternative or fringe theories for context. Throughout, the focus is on the consensus of mainstream Egyptology rather than speculative claims.

Historical Records and Ancient Texts

No textual record from Khafre’s own time explicitly mentions the Sphinx or its construction – a point often noted by scholars. The original name or purpose of the statue was not recorded in surviving Old Kingdom inscriptions; in fact, the Sphinx complex appears to have been left unfinished at the end of Khafre’s reign, so a formal cult or dedication may never have been established​. As a result, later historical sources become key.

New Kingdom texts: By the New Kingdom (c. 1400 BC), the Great Sphinx had come to be revered as a manifestation of a solar deity. The most famous text is the Dream Stele of Thutmose IV, erected between the Sphinx’s paws around 1401 BC​. The Dream Stele describes how Prince Thutmose (not yet king) fell asleep in the shadow of the sand-obscured Sphinx and had a dream in which the god – identified with Horemakhet (Horus-in-the-Horizon) and Khepri (the morning sun) – promised him kingship if the sand were cleared​. Crucially, the inscription on this stele links the Sphinx to Khafre. The text is damaged, but when first translated it was noted that a royal cartouche appears in line 13, likely that of Khafre​. This “mention of…Pharaoh Khafre…has long been taken as confirmation that the same pharaoh built the Sphinx”​. In other words, Egyptians of Thutmose IV’s time seemingly believed the Sphinx was associated with Khafre, perhaps preserving a memory of its builder​. (Some have debated this reading – fringe writers suggest the hieroglyphs might not name Khafre – but the mainstream view accepts the original interpretation that Khafre is named on the Stele​.) Aside from the Dream Stele, other New Kingdom inscriptions refer to the Sphinx by epithets (Horemakhet, etc.) and record restorations. For example, Thutmose IV’s Stele itself was actually carved on a reused door lintel from Khafre’s nearby temple, suggesting a conscious effort to connect the monument to Khafre’s legacy​.

Later Egyptian records: Another Egyptian text often cited is the Inventory Stela (sometimes called the “Stela of Khufu’s Daughter”), likely from the much later 26th Dynasty (Saite period, c. 670–525 BC). It purports to record that Khufu (Khafre’s father) found the Sphinx already buried in sand and carried out repairs to honour it​. The stela even claims Khufu built a temple next to the Sphinx. If the claim is accepted at face value, it implies that the Sphinx predates Khufu, which contradicts the Khafre attribution. However, Egyptologists overwhelmingly consider the Inventory Stela to be pseudo-historical – a later fabrication or allegory, not a factual Old Kingdom record​. Its style of hieroglyphic writing and the deities mentioned point to a first-millennium BC creation—likely an attempt by Saite priests to legitimise local cults by backdating them to the Old Kingdom​. Even Gaston Maspero (a 19th-century Egyptologist) speculated the Inventory Stela might copy an authentic 4th Dynasty document, but this theory is viewed with strong scepticism today​. In summary, apart from New Kingdom references (which already associate the statue with Khafre), no ancient inscription firmly credits any other pharaoh with building the Sphinx. The lack of Old Kingdom text is generally attributed to the monument’s unfinished state and long periods of abandonment when it was covered by desert sands​.

Classical sources: Greek and Roman writers had limited knowledge of the Sphinx’s origins. Herodotus (5th century BC) notably does not mention the Sphinx in his description of Giza’s monuments, possibly because it was once again buried by his time. Later writers, like Pliny the Elder (1st century AD), did mention the Sphinx but only as a marvel; Pliny repeats a folk belief that it was a tomb of a king named “Harmachis” (a Hellenised form of Hor-em-akhet) – indicating that even in antiquity its true history was obscure. These classical anecdotes neither confirm nor refute Khafre’s involvement; they mainly underscore that the Sphinx’s origin was a mystery even to later Egyptians and Greeks, reinforcing the importance of archaeological evidence to identify its builder.

Archaeological Evidence from the Giza Plateau

The physical and archaeological context of the Sphinx strongly supports its construction during Khafre’s reign. The Sphinx is not an isolated monument—it is tightly connected to Khafre’s pyramid complex; the arrangement of causeways, temples, quarries, and the Sphinx itself all suggest a single master plan in the mid-3rd millennium BC​.

• Location and Alignment: The Great Sphinx sits directly adjacent to Khafre’s Pyramid. It faces due east, situated just off the causeway that leads from Khafre’s pyramid down to what is known as the Valley Temple (a ceremonial temple near the Nile edge)​. In the 1850s, archaeologist Auguste Mariette excavated this Valley Temple and discovered a life-size diorite statue of Khafre within it​. The presence of Khafre’s statue in situ firmly links the temple—and, by extension, the area around the Sphinx— to Khafre’s reign. Mariette also uncovered a paved causeway connecting this Valley Temple to Khafre’s upper Mortuary Temple by the pyramid​, showing that the whole complex (pyramid, mortuary temple, causeway, valley temple) was designed together. The Sphinx is carved out of the bedrock immediately north of this causeway, and its enclosure forms part of the causeway’s southern wall. The arrangement suggests the Sphinx’s creation was incorporated into Khafre’s construction project – it is spatially and architecturally tied to Khafre’s pyramid layout, positioned as if to guard the causeway approach. Indeed, archaeologists have noted that the Sphinx’s location was likely chosen because a natural limestone hill there remained after quarrying blocks for the pyramids; carving it into a Sphinx made it a creative component of the site plan rather than leaving a random outcrop​.

• Sphinx and Temple Complex: In front of the Sphinx (to the east) lie the ruins of the so-called Sphinx Temple, discovered in 1925 by Émile Baraize​. The ground plan of this Old Kingdom temple is strikingly similar to Khafre’s Valley Temple nearby​. Both structures consist of large limestone core blocks with granite facing (in antiquity) and have an open central court flanked by pillars​. The similarity in architectural style and the alignment of the Sphinx Temple with the Sphinx itself indicate they were part of one project. Notably, Khafre’s Mortuary Temple (by his pyramid) contains a courtyard of the same dimensions and layout as the Sphinx Temple’s court, further hinting that the same architects or pharaoh were at work​. Egyptologist Zahi Hawass writes that these clues “tied the Sphinx to Khafre’s pyramid and his temples” in a single design​. It appears that Khafre planned a grand ceremonial complex: a pyramid, mortuary temple, causeway, valley temple, and the Sphinx with its own temple, all interconnected​.

• Quarrying Evidence – Integrated Construction: Perhaps the most compelling archaeological evidence comes from stone quarry analysis. The Sphinx was carved in place from the natural bedrock, which meant a U-shaped quarry ditch was excavated around the body. In the early 1980s, Mark Lehner (an Egyptologist) and Thomas Aigner (a geologist) conducted a “stone by stone” mapping of the Sphinx and Sphinx Temple. They discovered that the huge limestone blocks removed from around the Sphinx were reused to build the Sphinx Temple itself. Many of the core blocks in the temple walls contain the same geological strata in the same sequence as the layers in the Sphinx’s body, and those layers line up perfectly from the Sphinx into the temple masonry​. In other words, as ancient quarrymen carved the Sphinx out of the bedrock, they hauled the excess limestone away and immediately assembled it into the adjacent temple’s walls. Lehner and Aigner even “fingerprinted” the limestone fossils in the blocks to confirm they match the Sphinx pit layers​. This is strong evidence that the Sphinx and its temple were built at the same time. Since the Valley Temple next door is attributed to Khafre (by its contents), it follows that the Sphinx and Sphinx Temple were part of Khafre’s construction efforts as well​. Summarising this, the Smithsonian magazine noted: “The fossil fingerprints showed that the blocks used to build the [Sphinx] temple must have come from the ditch surrounding the Sphinx… hauled away… as the Sphinx was being carved.”​ This data directly ties the monument to Khafre’s reign when the quarrying for his pyramid complex was underway.

• Khafre’s Statues and Sphinx Iconography: Further linking the Sphinx to Khafre is the presence of multiple Khafre statues and sphinxes in his complex. Besides the diorite Khafre statue found in the Valley Temple​, archaeologists have noted there were likely sphinx statues associated with Khafre’s monuments. Inside Khafre’s Valley Temple are emplacement slots for a series of statues. According to a PBS/NOVA investigation, there were positions for four colossal sphinxes (26 ft long) – two flanking each of the temple’s two entrances​. While those statues are not preserved, their existence shows that Khafre employed the sphinx motif (human-headed lion) in his building program. This aligns with the idea that the Great Sphinx – the largest sphinx of all – was carved under Khafre’s auspices as the grand centerpiece of this theme. Indeed, an encyclopedic source states: “In his time, two sphinxes 26 ft (8 m) long were constructed at each of the two entrances to [Khafre’s] temple”. Such use of sphinx imagery in Khafre’s context makes it very plausible that the giant Sphinx is Khafre’s own portrait as a guardian “lion king”.

• Site Engineering Considerations: Egyptologists have also pointed out a telling piece of site engineering evidence: Khafre’s causeway has a drainage channel that runs off to the side – and it empties into the Sphinx enclosure. This would have been a bizarre design if the Sphinx (a sacred image) already occupied the hollow. Archaeologist Mark Lehner argued that the ancient builders would not direct runoff water to erode or flood an existing sacred statue’s enclosure​. Instead, the causeway and its drain were likely built before the Sphinx was carved. The fact that the channel terminates where the Sphinx would later be suggests the ground was intact when the causeway was built; only afterward did Khafre’s workers cut the Sphinx out, intersecting the drain’s path​. This sequencing supports Khafre’s timeline (causeway first, then Sphinx). If the Sphinx had been an older monument already present, Khafre’s engineers would have had to plan the drain differently to avoid “desecrating” the site​. The integration (and slight misalignment) of these elements makes sense if all were done in Khafre’s project rather than a later pharaoh intruding on someone else’s monument.

• Worker’s Cemetery and Town: In the 1990s, archaeologists (including Z. Hawass and M. Lehner) discovered a large labourer’s cemetery and a settlement southwest of the Sphinx. The cemetery held tombs of overseers and hundreds of simple graves of workers, with inscriptions and pottery dating it to the mid-4th Dynasty (Khafre’s era)​. Nearby, Lehner excavated the “Lost City of the Pyramid Builders,” a settlement of barracks and houses for thousands of workers, again dated to Khafre’s reign​. These finds show that a massive workforce was active at Giza during Khafre’s time – presumably the crews that built his pyramid and very likely carved the Sphinx. The scale of the project (the Sphinx is 240 ft long) would have required organised labour and provisioning, which is attested by this workers’ village in Khafre’s reign​. There is no evidence of a similar workforce in earlier periods at Giza, which argues against the idea of a much older Sphinx built by an earlier civilisation. The presence of bakeries, barracks, and tombs tied to Khafre’s project reinforces that all major constructions on the plateau – including the Sphinx – were achieved by the Old Kingdom state.

In sum, the archaeological evidence paints a consistent picture: the Great Sphinx forms part of Khafre’s pyramid complex, both physically and chronologically. As Dr. Hawass summarizes, “the Sphinx represents Khafre and forms an integral part of his pyramid complex”​. No finds at Giza definitively contradict this – on the contrary, every major discovery (statues, temple layouts, quarry linkages, worker settlements) bolsters the Khafre attribution.

Statue of King Khafre, Mustang Joe

Stylistic and Iconographic Analysis

Stylistic and iconographic evidence also plays a role in the Sphinx debate. The statue’s appearance – its facial features, headcloth, and proportions – can be compared to other known royal sculptures to see if it matches Khafre’s known iconography.

Royal iconography of the Sphinx: The Great Sphinx is depicted wearing the royal nemes headdress (the striped cloth seen on pharaohs like Tutankhamun’s mask) and originally had the uraeus (cobra emblem) on its forehead and a ceremonial false beard (fragments of the Sphinx’s broken beard have been found in excavations)​. These elements mark it clearly as a representation of a pharaoh, not just a random man or deity. The nemes and beard are symbols of kingship – for instance, the famous statue “Khafre Enthroned” from Khafre’s Valley Temple shows him with the same nemes and a similar beard shape, along with a falcon god protecting his head​. The fact that the Sphinx has these attributes is one reason most scholars believe it depicts a specific king – almost certainly Khafre – as opposed to being an earlier religious statue or a generic lion. The combination of a lion’s body with a king’s head itself is a powerful piece of iconography: it represents the pharaoh as a divine protector and embodiment of solar power. In the Old Kingdom, the pharaoh was often likened to a lion or to the sun god on the horizon; Khafre in particular emphasised solar connections (his pyramid aligns with the sun and he built a temple to the sun-god Re at Abu Gorab). Thus, carving his likeness onto a colossal lion facing the rising sun would fit Khafre’s ideology of kingship. The later name “Hor-em-akhet” (Horus of the Horizon) given to the Sphinx in New Kingdom times likely reflects the original intent – the pharaoh portrayed as a form of Horus guarding the horizon​.

Facial features and portraits: Although the Sphinx’s face is heavily eroded, Egyptologists generally observe that its broad contours and certain details resemble Khafre’s other portraits. The face is described as having a square jaw, high cheekbones, and a distinct expression. A small ivory statue of Khufu (Khafre’s father) exists, and a number of statues of Khafre have survived – these allow comparisons. Notably, Rainer Stadelmann, a prominent Egyptologist, conducted a detailed comparison of the Sphinx’s face to known royal images. Stadelmann concluded that the Sphinx’s visage did not match Khafre as well as it matched Khufu. He pointed out that the shape of the nemes headdress on the Sphinx and the style of the attached beard were more indicative of early 4th Dynasty art (Khufu’s time) than Khafre’s​. In a documentary interview, Stadelmann observed the “square face, a little bit [of a] bitter mouth, [and] protruding eyes” of the Sphinx and said “for me, [it’s] the same face” as Khufu’s statue​. This led him to propose that perhaps the Sphinx was originally conceived by Khufu (and might even portray Khufu), later appropriated by Khafre. However, Stadelmann’s view is a minority position (discussed more in the next section). Most experts see the Sphinx as fitting Khafre’s visage. The consensus view is that the face is indeed Khafre’s, albeit worn. For example, the curator of the Cairo Museum describes the Sphinx as bearing Khafre’s likeness in educational materials​. And the NOVA/PBS special on the Sphinx concluded unambiguously: “It is Khafre’s face that adorns the Sphinx”, acting as the protector of the king’s pyramid tomb​.

It’s important to note that assessing a 4,500-year-old weathered face can be subjective. Some forensic-style studies have been attempted (in the 1990s, a police artist claimed the Sphinx’s facial proportions didn’t match Khafre, stirring publicity), but Egyptologists caution that erosion and ancient repairs make direct comparison difficult. The headdress and general stylistic program (half man, half lion, wearing royal regalia) are clearly of the Old Kingdom royal style. There were no pharaohs before the 4th Dynasty that we know of who had such iconography, which again points to Khafre’s epoch as the logical time of creation. Additionally, a fragment of the Sphinx’s beard in the British Museum shows a pleated style thought to be consistent with 4th Dynasty artistic fashion (though some argue it might be from a later restoration)​.

Other Sphinxes in Egyptian art: The Great Sphinx is the earliest colossal sphinx, but smaller sphinx statues do appear around that era. For example, a sphinx head of Djedefre (Khafre’s brother) was found at Abu Roash, indicating that Khafre’s contemporaries also adopted the sphinx form. By the New Kingdom, sphinx statues (often with different heads, like rams or criosphinxes) were common. The Great Sphinx likely set a prototype. Its distinctly Old Kingdom style head – the nemes and facial shape – is quite different from New Kingdom sphinxes (which often have different crowns or more exaggerated features for later kings). This stylistic context supports the view that the Great Sphinx belongs to the Old Kingdom and most likely represents Khafre.

In summary, iconography and style strongly suggest the Sphinx is a royal monument of the 4th Dynasty. The mainstream view (espoused by experts like Zahi Hawass, Mark Lehner, etc.) is that the statue’s face is meant to be Pharaoh Khafre. Hawass notes that “the Sphinx represents Khafre,” and the statue’s features – as far as we can tell – align with Khafre’s known imagery​. While a few scholars have argued it might depict Khufu instead (based on subtle artistic cues)​., this is not widely accepted. Most find that the balance of stylistic evidence, combined with the overwhelming archaeological context, still points to Khafre as the Sphinx’s intended identity.

Inscriptions and Epigraphic Evidence (or the Lack Thereof)

One notable aspect of the Great Sphinx is the absence of contemporary inscriptions naming it or its builder. Unlike pyramids, which often have internal worker marks or later inscriptions identifying the pharaoh, the Sphinx bears no clear ancient labels. Egyptologists have several interpretations for this silence:

• Incomplete monument and cult: As mentioned, Mark Lehner’s research indicates the Sphinx’s associated temple was never finished in antiquity​. Blocks were left rough, and there is scant evidence of a functioning cult (no offering tables or extensive decoration from the Old Kingdom). Lehner concludes it is “doubtful whether a cult service specific to the Sphinx was ever organised” in Khafre’s time​. This could explain why Khafre left no dedicatory stela or inscription – he may have died before fully institutionalising the Sphinx’s ritual significance. The monument might have been simply one component of Khafre’s funerary complex, and once the king died, attention shifted to completing his tomb and mortuary cult. The Sphinx (lacking internal chambers) had no obvious place for an inscription to be carved, unlike a temple or tomb. Thus, no inscription explicitly says “Khafre built the Sphinx.” This gap, however, is an argument from silence and does not outweigh the other evidence tying it to Khafre.

• Dream Stele (New Kingdom): By Thutmose IV’s time, the association with Khafre was apparently recorded on the Dream Stele. As noted earlier, the stele’s text includes a royal name (likely Khafre’s) in the context of the Sphinx story​. Egyptologists like James Henry Breasted, when translating the stele in the 19th century, took this as confirmation that the Sphinx was believed to be “Khafre’s statue”. The Dream Stele doesn’t explicitly say “Khafre built it,” but the implication is that Thutmose IV is addressing the Sphinx as a divine image tied to Khafre’s identity or era. This is often cited as post-facto textual evidence in support of Khafre’s authorship, even though it was written 1,100 years after Khafre. The stele itself, importantly, was made of granite from Khafre’s own pyramid complex (reused lintel stone) and was positioned as if to restore or renew the Sphinx’s cult​. This suggests Thutmose IV (and his priests) saw the Sphinx as an old monument worthy of restoration – consistent with it being an Old Kingdom relic of Khafre’s time. In summary, the Dream Stele associates the Sphinx with Khafre in the ancient Egyptian record​.

• Inventory Stela (Saite, later period): The Inventory Stela is often brought up by those questioning Khafre’s role, because it tells a differing tale – that Khufu found the Sphinx (and an associated Isis temple) already existing and decayed, and he repaired them​. If true, that would mean the Sphinx predates Khufu (and thus Khafre). However, as discussed, this stela is considered historically unreliable. Its likely purpose was to boost the importance of a local shrine by connecting it to Khufu. Scholars like Selim Hassan (who excavated the Sphinx in the 1930s) and others note the stela’s content doesn’t align with Old Kingdom language or theology, and it lists deities in a way that fits the first millennium BC. Therefore, mainstream Egyptology does not accept the Inventory Stela as evidence that the Sphinx is older than Khafre – rather, they see it as later legend​gizamedia.rc.fas.harvard.edu.

• No Old Kingdom name: We do not know what Khafre (or his contemporaries) called the Sphinx. In contrast, Khafre’s pyramid was named (ancient name: “Wer(en)-Khafre” meaning “Khafre is Great”). The Sphinx might have simply been considered a manifestation of a god, not needing a separate name. By New Kingdom, it was called Hor-em-akhet and Bw-Ḥw (“Place of Horus”) and later still the Greeks used Harmachis. In Arab tradition, it gained the nickname Abu al-Hawl (“Father of Terror”). The lack of a known Old Kingdom name is expected if the Sphinx’s worship wasn’t fully developed then​.

In essence, while no inscription from Khafre’s time explicitly says he built the Sphinx, the circumstantial epigraphic evidence (Dream Stele) supports Khafre, and no credible ancient text assigns it to anyone else. Egyptologists often point out that many Old Kingdom royal works went uninscribed (for instance, Khafre’s Valley Temple itself had no inscribed labels; its attribution is known only from context and the statue finds)​. The Sphinx is another such case where context must substitute for inscription. Given the strength of that context, scholars remain confident in the Khafre attribution, and they interpret the silence as a result of historical happenstance (incompletion and burial by sand) rather than evidence of a different builder.

The Great Sphinx of Giza measures 240 feet long (73 m) and stands 66 feet high (20 m), oriented on a straight west-to-east axis, Giza, Egypt. This image was first published on Flickr. Original image by eviljohnius. Uploaded by Ibolya Horváth, published on 26 October 2016.

Geological Evidence: Weathering and Age of the Sphinx

In the 1990s, the Great Sphinx became the focus of a high-profile geological debate: does the weathering and erosion on the Sphinx indicate it is far older than Khafre’s era? This question was sparked by research from outsiders to Egyptology and has since been addressed by geologists and archaeologists on both sides. The mainstream geological view aligns with the Egyptological timeline (4th Dynasty), explaining the Sphinx’s erosion within known historical and environmental conditions​.

The Erosion Controversy: In 1992, Robert M. Schoch (a geologist) and John Anthony West (an independent researcher) proposed that the Sphinx’s enclosure shows heavy rainfall erosion, which could only be the result of prolonged wet climate thousands of years earlier than 2500 BC. They noted the Sphinx’s body and the walls of its pit have a “rolling,” undulating profile, with deeply weathered recesses, unlike the sharper wind-eroded tombs nearby. Schoch initially estimated the Sphinx might date to 7000–5000 BC or even earlier (circa 9000 BC in some statements) – essentially positing a lost civilisation predating dynastic Egypt​. This extreme redating was and is a fringe viewpoint. It elicited strong reactions: geologist James A. Harrell noted that Schoch’s arguments were purely geological and did not account for the rich archaeological context tying the Sphinx to Khafre​hallofmaat.com. To resolve this, mainstream geologists have re-examined the Sphinx’s erosion.

Mainstream geological interpretation: Studies by K. Lal Gauri (1993, 1995), James Harrell (1994), and others concluded that the observed erosion can be explained without abandoning the Old Kingdom date. Several key points from these studies:

• The Giza plateau’s Mokattam limestone has layers of differing hardness. The Sphinx’s body is composed of softer marl-like layers interbedded with harder limestone. When exposed to weather, the softer layers weather more rapidly, creating recesses, while harder layers stand out in relief​. This naturally yields a rounded, undulating profile over time – even under wind-driven sand erosion or limited rain. Harrell pointed out that nearby 4th Dynasty tombs (e.g., the Tomb of Debehen) at a similar elevation show flat walls but with the weaker layers beginning to recess due to wind/sand, consistent with early stages of what we see more exaggerated on the Sphinx​. In short, the Sphinx’s pattern could be a result of thousands of years of slow weathering of alternating layers, not necessarily intense rainfall ages earlier.

• Rainfall in Old Kingdom and later: While Egypt’s climate was largely arid by Khafre’s time, sporadic heavy rain events have occurred throughout history. W.F. Hume, a director of the Geological Survey of Egypt, documented sudden torrential rains in the desert that caused flash floods and cut deep channels in soft rock​. Such events, even if rare (once a century, say), over a few millennia can contribute to significant erosion. The Sphinx enclosure may have collected rainwater runoff in rare storms, periodically washing against the walls. Moreover, right after the Old Kingdom (c. 2200 BC), Egypt’s climate did become slightly wetter for a time; and again in the early first millennium BC there were episodes of greater rainfall. These could have hastened the rounding of the Sphinx’s features. Importantly, the Sphinx has spent most of its history buried up to its neck in sand, which actually protects the lower body from wind erosion but can trap moisture against the rock. Geologists note that damp sand against limestone causes salt crystallisation that breaks down the surface​.

• Active weathering today: Zahi Hawass has observed that even in modern times the Sphinx’s stone is deteriorating – flakes pop off due to salt and humidity changes​. Researchers agree that “the same erosion patterns cited by Schoch still continue on a daily basis” in the present climate​. This undermines the notion that only a prehistoric climate could produce the observed erosion. In fact, much of the damage may have accelerated in the last millennium or two, due to the rising water table and human activity. Thus, one need not invoke 10,000 BC rainstorms – normal weathering processes in an arid environment (wind, rare rain, dew and salt) are sufficient to explain the Sphinx’s condition​.

Mainstream geologists who studied the Sphinx (like Gauri et al. in Geoarchaeology 1995) concluded that the weathering is compatible with an age of ~4,500 years. For example, Gauri showed how combinations of wind erosion, wet sand, and chemical weathering could create the rounded profile in a relatively short geologic time​. Lehner notes that the hardest layers (e.g., the Sphinx’s head, which is a harder limestone member) have survived almost intact except for the nose, whereas the softer body is deeply weathered – a normal differential erosion scenario​. If the statue were many thousands of years older, arguably the head would also show much more extreme erosion or would have needed ancient restoration (for which there is no evidence prior to New Kingdom repairs).

To summarise the geological stance: There is no compelling geologic necessity to date the Sphinx earlier than Khafre. Egyptologist Kate Spence quipped that while the Sphinx’s erosion is “dramatic,” the leap to redate it to 7000 BC is “like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut” – unnecessary given simpler explanations (existing weathering processes and Khafre’s context suffice). Mainstream science recognizes Schoch’s observations but finds they are “amenable to an alternative interpretation… more consistent with archaeological orthodoxy.”​hallofmaat.com In other words, by aligning the geological evidence with archaeological evidence, the 4th Dynasty date holds firm.

Finally, it’s worth noting that even if the erosion suggested an older date, one would then have to explain why absolutely no artefacts, tools, inscriptions, or burials from a pre-2500 BC civilisation have been found at Giza – a huge problem for fringe theories. The geological consensus therefore reinforces the archaeological timeline: the Sphinx was carved in the mid-3rd millennium BC and has been shaped by natural forces since, requiring vigilant conservation today just as in ancient times.

Mainstream Scholarly Consensus and Debates

Within the Egyptological community, the overwhelming consensus is that Khafre was the builder of the Great Sphinx. This view is supported by virtually all the leading Egyptologists and institutions: the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities (led by figures like Dr. Zahi Hawass), the American Research Center in Egypt, the Giza Plateau Mapping Project (Dr. Mark Lehner), and others have consistently attributed the Sphinx to Khafre’s reign. Hawass states plainly, “Most scholars believe, as I do, that the Sphinx represents Khafre”​and was an “integral” part of his pyramid complex. Likewise, textbooks and museum exhibits identify the Sphinx as likely carved under Khafre around 2500 BC​. This is sometimes called the “Khafre-Sphinx theory” (essentially the orthodox position).

However, academic discourse allows for some debate. A handful of Egyptologists have proposed variants on the attribution – notably suggesting either Khafre’s father (Khufu) or his half-brother (Djedefre) as the initiators of the Sphinx. It’s important to stress these are minority views, but since they come from credentialed scholars, they merit mention:

• Rainer Stadelmann’s Khufu hypothesis: Dr. Rainer Stadelmann (former director of the German Archaeological Institute in Cairo) argued that the Sphinx might have been started by Pharaoh Khufu (builder of the Great Pyramid) and only completed by Khafre or later. Stadelmann noted certain anomalies: the Sphinx’s axis is slightly off-center from Khafre’s pyramid and causeway, which he thought could imply it wasn’t originally part of Khafre’s symmetric plan​. He also pointed to stylistic elements (the nemes headdress shape, and the form of the “diadem” or uraeus and beard) that he believed were more characteristic of Khufu’s time​. In his view, Khufu – who had no large Sphinx of his own found – might have commissioned the statue as a guardian or as a form of the sun god for his necropolis, and Khafre later reused the idea. Stadelmann published this theory in 1999/2000, suggesting that the “Sphinx and Sphinx Temple was also built by Khufu rather than by Khafre”, essentially a Khufu origin for the Sphinx Temple that Khafre then built his causeway around​. To support this, he noted that the Sphinx Temple’s architectural style has some differences from Khafre’s Valley Temple, perhaps indicating an earlier phase​. He also tied in religious reasoning: Khufu’s Horus name and solar associations, and the Sphinx’s later name Hor-em-akhet (“Horus of the Horizon”), speculating that the Sphinx could have been a sun shrine created by Khufu as an embodiment of Ra-Horakhty on the horizon​. Despite these arguments, most experts remained unconvinced. Zahi Hawass responded that Stadelmann’s case, while intriguing, was not compelling against the body of evidence for Khafre​gizamedia.rc.fas.harvard.edu. No direct evidence of Khufu at the Sphinx has surfaced – e.g., no Khufu-era tool marks or inscriptions in the Sphinx enclosure. Furthermore, Khafre’s ownership of the Valley Temple and causeway is clear, and the Sphinx fits seamlessly into that context. So Stadelmann’s hypothesis is often acknowledged in scholarly literature but usually refuted as less convincing than the orthodox view. Mark Lehner’s analysis actually allows a nugget of Stadelmann’s idea: Lehner concluded Khafre was responsible for “most of the Sphinx,” but conceded that “Khufu might have started it.”​– meaning perhaps Khufu left a proto-sphinx or a shaped outcrop that Khafre later recarved. This is speculative, and Lehner emphasises Khafre’s role as primary. Essentially, even those open to Khufu’s involvement agree Khafre finished and shaped the Sphinx as we know it​.

• Vassil Dobrev’s Djedefre hypothesis: In the early 2000s, Dr. Vassil Dobrev of the French Archaeological Institute in Cairo announced a theory attributing the Sphinx to Djedefre, the son of Khufu and older brother of Khafre​. Djedefre ruled briefly after Khufu but built his pyramid at Abu Roash, north of Giza, which later fell into ruin. Dobrev suggests that during his short reign (c. 2528–2520 BC), Djedefre created the Sphinx at Giza as a tribute to his father Khufu. His reasoning: by the time Khufu died, the people were perhaps weary from pyramid-building, so rather than another giant pyramid at Giza, Djedefre sought a different way to honour Khufu and legitimise his own rule​. Propaganda motive: Dobrev argues the Sphinx would represent Khufu as a god (Ra-Horakhty), thereby reinforcing Djedefre’s connection to his illustrious father and the solar cult​. Supporting clues include Djedefre’s adoption of the epithet “Son of Re” (he was the first pharaoh to put “Ra” in his royal name), indicating a strong solar focus​. Also, in the boat pits around Khufu’s pyramid, some blocks bearing Djedefre’s name were found, showing Djedefre was involved in his father’s funerary arrangements​. Dobrev also notes a topographical point: in ancient times, visitors coming from Memphis would approach Giza from the south. From that southern approach, the Sphinx is seen in profile in front of Khufu’s pyramid​. It would present a spectacular image of a guardian watching over Khufu’s tomb, potentially fulfilling Djedefre’s goal of memorialising Khufu. This theory was publicised in media around 2004 (a UK Channel 5 documentary “Secrets of the Sphinx”) as a “solution” to the riddle​. However, like Stadelmann’s idea, it has not gained wide acceptance. Egyptologist Robert Partridge responded that Dobrev’s argument, while logical, lacked hard evidence: “insufficient evidence to prove his theory”​. The Giza excavations have not uncovered any inscription of Djedefre at the Sphinx, nor any direct sign of his work there. It remains possible Djedefre had some role (since the time gap between Khufu and Khafre is small – Djedefre reigned perhaps 8 years, then Khafre took over), but the mainstream still credits Khafre for actually carving the Sphinx. In effect, Dobrev’s scenario requires believing Khafre simply inherited the Sphinx from his brother – yet Khafre clearly built the temples and causeway around it. It’s more parsimonious that Khafre did the whole project. Thus, Dobrev’s theory is seen as an interesting but unproven alternative within academic circles​.

Beyond Stadelmann and Dobrev, no other mainstream Egyptologist has a serious published theory assigning the Sphinx to another pharaoh. George Reisner, who excavated at Giza in the early 20th century, briefly wondered if Djedefre could have started it (he doubted Djedefre’s character and thought him an usurper), but Reisner ultimately leaned to Khafre like others​. Selim Hassan’s definitive 1940s study of the Sphinx concludes with Khafre. Scholars like I.E.S. Edwards, Ahmed Fakhry, and more recently Miroslav Verner and Mark Lehner have all written that Khafre is the builder​. Jane A. Hill and Catharine Roehrig, in museum catalogs, describe the Sphinx as Khafre’s image. In sum, the majority view within Egyptology has remained stable for over a century – Khafre, circa 2500 BC, is seen as responsible.

It’s telling that even the proponents of alternative attributions (Khufu or Djedefre) still place the Sphinx firmly in the 4th Dynasty, only a generation or so away from Khafre. There is no credible academic suggestion that it comes from a radically earlier time or a different civilization. This brings us to the fringe theories, which venture far outside the mainstream and propose extreme chronologies or exotic builders.

Alternative and Fringe Theories – Comparison to Consensus

For completeness, we briefly outline the alternative or fringe ideas about the Sphinx’s origins, and how they contrast with the mainstream consensus:

• Pre-Dynastic / “Atlantean” Theories: Inspired by the erosion debate and legends, some have claimed the Sphinx is thousands of years older than Egypt’s Old Kingdom. Dates of c. 10,000 BC (the end of the last Ice Age) are often thrown about, linking the Sphinx to hypothetical lost civilisations. This idea gained traction through the work of John Anthony West and Robert Schoch, who, as noted, argued for a construction possibly between 7000–9000 BC based on presumed water erosion​. Others have extended this to even earlier, tying it to the legend of Atlantis (notably, Edgar Cayce prophesied that the Sphinx was built in 10,500 BC by Atlanteans and that a “Hall of Records” lies beneath it​). These theories are not supported by physical evidence. Mainstream archaeologists point out that no trace of high civilisation in Egypt (or elsewhere) exists from that period – the Neolithic peoples of 7000 BC left primitive dwellings and small settlements, nothing on the scale of the Sphinx. The fringe proponents often circumvent this by invoking aliens or lost continents, which places their claims well outside scientific plausibility​. As a result, Egyptologists do not take these ideas seriously. Hawass has openly derided the more extreme proponents as “pyramidiots” for advancing wild claims (such as secret chambers and alien technology) that distract from real research​. The consensus is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and so far the fringe ideas have produced no verifiable evidence – only reinterpretations of the weathering (addressed above) and imaginative speculation. In fact, extensive surveys (seismic, drilling) around the Sphinx have not revealed any mysterious pre-dynastic chambers or hidden archives – only natural fissures and some small Old Kingdom tunnels used by treasure hunters.

• Cultural context vs. lost civilisation: Mainstream scholars emphasise how well the Sphinx fits into the context of Khafre’s 4th Dynasty court – artistically, religiously, and logistically. By contrast, placing it in 10,000 BC creates an inexplicable gap: one would have to believe that an advanced society sculpted the Sphinx (and perhaps began carving on the Giza site), and then all knowledge and progress vanished, only for Egyptians 6,000 years later to coincidentally build their pyramids right next to it. This scenario is seen as vastly less probable than the straightforward one: the Old Kingdom Egyptians themselves, whose ability to build pyramids and statues is well documented, carved the Sphinx. As geologist Harrell put it, the aim is to find an interpretation “more consistent with the archaeological orthodoxy”​hallofmaat.com – in other words, one that doesn’t require rewriting the entire history of civilisation. The orthodox view passes this test elegantly, whereas the fringe view forces a radical rewrite with no corroborating data.

• Reception of fringe theories: While fringe ideas get media attention, they have not penetrated academic discourse except as a foil to be refuted. For instance, in a 2017 review, the A.R.E. (Edgar Cayce’s foundation) still promotes the notion of a pre-10,000 BC Sphinx, but Egyptologists remain unmoved. Mark Lehner is a particularly interesting case: he originally went to Egypt as a young man funded by Cayce’s organisation, curious about the Hall of Records prophecy​. However, after years of empirical study mapping the Sphinx and excavating around it, Lehner became a staunch defender of the orthodox view​. He found nothing to suggest a lost civilisation and everything to suggest an Old Kingdom context. This transformation – from someone open to alternative ideas to a scientist persuaded by evidence – underscores how powerful the evidence for Khafre is. Lehner now works closely with Hawass and others to conserve the Sphinx and explore the Giza plateau within the framework of known history.

In comparison to these fringe notions, the mainstream consensus appears exceedingly well-grounded. It does not require any unknown peoples or drastic revision of timelines. It attributes the Sphinx to the same culture that undeniably built the surrounding pyramids and temples. As one encyclopedia entry succinctly put it: “Most archaeologists believe that the Sphinx was constructed about 4,500 years ago during the reign of Khafre… [Fringe] ideas are regarded with disbelief and derision by most mainstream scholars.”​. The contrast could not be more stark – virtually all qualified Egyptologists support the Khafre attribution (with only slight internal debate as to maybe Khufu or Djedefre’s roles), whereas the ideas of extreme antiquity come from outside the field and remain unsubstantiated.

Conclusion

After examining the full range of evidence, the mainstream Egyptological consensus remains that the Great Sphinx was built in the mid-3rd millennium BC for Pharaoh Khafre. This conclusion is supported by a convergence of archaeological data (the Sphinx’s alignment and construction interlocks with Khafre’s pyramid complex, and material from its quarry was used in Khafre’s temples)​, iconographic analysis (the Sphinx’s royal visage and regalia are consistent with Khafre’s other statues and with Old Kingdom royal art)​, and geological assessments (the weathering is explicable over 4,500 years and does not necessitate a dramatically earlier date)​. Crucially, no evidence from antiquity crediting another builder has stood up to scrutiny – later Egyptian records like the Dream Stele in fact reinforce Khafre’s connection​, and the lack of an Old Kingdom inscription is reasonably explained by the monument’s context and later history​.

Within academia, the Sphinx’s attribution is not a source of major controversy. A majority of Egyptologists echo the view of Hawass and Lehner that Khafre commissioned the Sphinx as part of his mortuary complex. A few scholarly proposals (Stadelmann’s and Dobrev’s) have suggested Khafre’s immediate relatives as alternatives, but those remain speculative and have not overturned the Khafre model. In each case, those hypotheses still keep the Sphinx within the 4th Dynasty royal family, essentially affirming that it was a product of the same high civilisation that built the Pyramids​.

In contrast, alternative theories that place the Sphinx in a long-lost epoch or attribute it to non-Egyptian sources are not supported by credible evidence and are rejected by experts​. The academic consensus is that such ideas, while popular in pseudo-archaeology circles, do not change the fundamental fact that the Sphinx is an Old Kingdom creation – in all likelihood, the work of King Khafre’s artisans. As the Nova documentary concluded: “It is Khafre’s face that adorns the Sphinx, which [stood as protector of] the mummified king as he traveled toward the pyramid, following the path of the sun”​. In the eyes of modern Egyptology, the Great Sphinx of Giza is thus understood as Khafre’s enduring legacy – a colossal guardian statue symbolizing royal power and the divine sun on the Giza plateau, built circa 2500 BC and contemplated ever since by those who seek to unravel its ancient riddle.

Sources: The conclusions above draw on the research and writings of numerous Egyptologists and geologists, including M. Lehner​, Z. Hawass​, R. Stadelmann​gizamedia.rc.fas.harvard.edu, V. Dobrev​, J. A. Harrell​hallofmaat.com, K. L. Gauri, and others, as well as translations of ancient texts like the Dream Stele​. These experts and sources collectively affirm the attribution of the Sphinx to Khafre and provide a multifaceted body of evidence in its favor, as detailed in the discussion above. The mainstream view remains robust, with leading Egyptological institutions continuing to uphold Khafre as the builder of the Great Sphinx of Giza​.

---

References

• Lehner, Mark. The Complete Pyramids: Solving the Ancient Mysteries. Thames & Hudson, 1997.

• Hawass, Zahi. The Secrets of the Sphinx: Restoration Past and Present. The American University in Cairo Press, 1998.

• Lehner, Mark. The Archaeology of an Image: The Great Sphinx of Giza. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 1991.

• Stadelmann, Rainer. “Die große Sphinx von Giza.” Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1991.

• Schoch, Robert M. “Redating the Great Sphinx of Giza.” Geoarchaeology, vol. 8, no. 6, 1993, pp. 427–439.

• Gauri, K. Lal, et al. “Geologic Weathering and the Age of the Sphinx.” Geoarchaeology, vol. 10, no. 2, 1995, pp. 119–133.

• Harrell, James A. “The Great Sphinx Controversy.” University of Alabama Geology Papers, 1994.

• Dream Stele of Thutmose IV (Translation and Commentary). UCL Digital Egypt Project.

• Verner, Miroslav. The Pyramids: The Mystery, Culture, and Science of Egypt's Great Monuments. Grove Press, 2001.

• National Geographic Special: "Riddles of the Sphinx". National Geographic Society, 1998.

• Lehner, Mark. The Giza Plateau Mapping Project: Project History and Overview. Ancient Egypt Research Associates.

• Hassan, Selim. The Sphinx: Its History in the Light of Recent Excavations. Cairo: Government Press, 1949.

• Reisner, George A. A History of the Giza Necropolis, Volume 1. University of Chicago Press, 1942.

• PBS NOVA Documentary: "Secrets of the Sphinx". PBS, 1997.

• Supreme Council of Antiquities (Egypt) – Official Website.
  
  

Ochre: The First Sunscreen That May Have Saved Humanity from Extinction, Study Suggests

A groundbreaking study published in Science Advances suggests that ochre, a naturally occurring red pigment, may have helped early humans survive a massive spike in ultraviolet radiation roughly 41,000 years ago—a period that may also mark the extinction of the Neanderthals.

Earth's Magnetic Field in Turmoil

Researchers from the University of Michigan analyzed samples from the last Ice Age and found that during this period, Earth’s magnetic field weakened by up to 90%. This drastic change, coupled with a shift in the magnetic poles by about 75 degrees from their usual alignment, allowed charged solar particles to bombard the atmosphere.

The magnetic south pole drifted from Antarctica to somewhere between Australia and New Zealand, while the north pole shifted toward western Eurasia and North Africa. These changes devastated the ozone layer—the atmospheric shield that protects life on Earth from harmful UV rays—leaving both early modern humans and Neanderthals dangerously exposed.

In some parts of the world, scientists believe solar particles may have reached all the way to the ground, creating lethal levels of radiation that could have had dire consequences for survival.

Ochre: A Life-Saving Adaptation?

Intriguingly, the regions most affected by increased UV radiation coincide with archaeological sites where ochre was widely used. According to ScienceAlert, this widespread use of ochre—applied to cave walls, tools, and even human skin—may not have been purely symbolic. In this harsh environment, ochre could have functioned as an early form of sunscreen.

This theory gains further credibility from modern practices. The Himba people of northern Namibia and some Indigenous Australian communities still use ochre for sun protection today. In addition, recent research confirms that ochre does have UV-blocking properties.

The researchers note a compelling timeline overlap between the magnetic field disruption and the disappearance of the Neanderthals. If this connection holds, it raises a fascinating possibility: the use of ochre may have given Homo sapiens a survival edge that Neanderthals lacked—or failed to use as effectively.

Rethinking the Neanderthal Story

However, not all scientists are convinced. Some caution that this explanation may oversimplify the complex reality of human evolution. There's growing evidence that Neanderthals also used ochre, decorated their caves, and had tools for making clothing. These clues suggest that their behavior was more sophisticated than previously thought.

Ultimately, while the study opens a fascinating window into prehistoric survival strategies, experts agree that the disappearance of the Neanderthals was likely the result of multiple interwoven factors—with ochre being just one piece of the puzzle.

3,500-Year-Old Egyptian Settlement Discovered Beneath Greek City from the Time of Alexander the Great

Recent excavations at Kom el-Nugus, west of Alexandria, Egypt, are reshaping what we know about the origins of ancient Alexandria. Beneath the remains of a Hellenistic city dating to the time of Alexander the Great, archaeologists have uncovered a much older Egyptian settlement—one that predates the arrival of the Macedonian conqueror by over a millennium.

A City Hidden Beneath the Figs

Kom el-Nugus, nestled between the Mediterranean Sea and Lake Mariout, has long been known for its fig trees rather than its archaeological treasures. That has now changed.

In a surprising turn of events, excavators unearthed a 3,500-year-old Egyptian settlement, dating back to the New Kingdom—the golden age of ancient Egypt, which saw the reigns of legendary pharaohs such as Tutankhamun, Seti I, and Ramses II. It appears the later Greek city was built directly atop the ruins of this earlier settlement, likely after the Egyptians regained independence from Persian rule.

A Royal Name in a Wine Jar

Among the most significant finds was an amphora bearing the name Meritaten, daughter of the infamous Pharaoh Akhenaten and Queen Nefertiti. Dated to the 18th Dynasty (1550–1292 BC), this amphora not only ties the site to Egypt's royal lineage but also sheds light on the settlement's main industry: winemaking. Nearby, archaeologists uncovered grape presses—further proof that the wine produced here may have been intended for royal consumption.

The discovery also revives interest in Akhenaten, the radical pharaoh who introduced monotheism and disrupted Egypt’s traditional polytheistic beliefs. After his death, his reign was so controversial that his statues and inscriptions were destroyed in an effort to erase his memory. Even his mummy remains unaccounted for. His son, Tutankhamun, later restored the traditional pantheon.

A Street Through Time

Other artifacts point to continued activity at the site well beyond the 18th Dynasty. Fragments of small shrines from the 19th and 20th Dynasties—the era of the Ramesside pharaohs—were found, including a stela inscribed with the cartouches of Seti II. In one pit, archaeologists uncovered five tiny ceramic bowls, while the ruins of buildings—made from sun-dried mudbrick—lined both sides of a street equipped with a water drainage system, designed to prevent structural collapse from moisture.

That street had even been rebuilt, indicating the settlement was in use for an extended period. According to researchers, the phased reconstruction of the site suggests it may have been a seasonal or temporary settlement, possibly functioning as a military outpost.

This groundbreaking discovery adds a rich new layer to the story of Alexandria, revealing how ancient Egyptian life persisted and evolved even as foreign empires rose and fell above its ruins.

Mystery at Vergina: New Identity Emerges Behind the Male Skeleton in the Great Tumulus

The skeleton discovered in the Great Tumulus of Vergina does not belong to Philip II, the father of Alexander the Great, according to new research that is turning long-held assumptions on their head.

A study published in the Journal of Archaeological Science reveals that the male skeleton found in the royal tomb is actually that of an unknown Macedonian official who died at least 20 years before Philip II’s assassination. Archaeologists believe this individual was likely a relative of the famed king, which could explain his burial in such a prestigious location.

The Occupants of Tomb I

Discovered in 1977, the Great Tumulus at Vergina is home to the royal tombs of the Argead dynasty—the family that established the Kingdom of Macedon and ultimately dominated ancient Greece. Until recently, most scholars agreed that Tomb I contained the remains of Philip II, his wife Cleopatra, and their infant child. All three were reportedly murdered in 336 BC on the orders of Olympias, Alexander the Great’s mother, to secure her son’s succession to the throne.

However, the latest dating and analysis of the remains now suggest that the man in the tomb died between 388 and 356 BC, decades before that infamous triple assassination. Scientists used cutting-edge methods involving genetic, osteological, and biological data to determine that the man was between 25 and 35 years old, and the woman buried alongside him was 18 to 25 years old. Researchers are now certain: these are not the remains of Philip II and Cleopatra.

The Mystery of the Roman-Era Infants

Adding another layer to the puzzle, archaeologists uncovered the skeletal remains of at least six infants buried in the same tomb—centuries later, between 150 and 130 AD during the Roman era. These babies are believed to have been the children of high-ranking Roman officials.

It’s likely that the tomb was looted in the 3rd century BC, which may have allowed Roman-era families to reuse the site for their own burials.

Given all these findings, archaeologists now suggest the original male occupant was a prominent Macedonian official or court member—possibly even a young king who died decades before Philip II ever rose to power.

This latest research not only reshapes our understanding of Vergina’s royal tombs but also highlights the enduring mysteries still buried beneath Macedonia’s ancient soil.

UK on Parthenon Marbles: A “Temporary” Deal Is the Best We Can Offer

The debate over the return of the Parthenon Marbles to Greece continues to make headlines, with a recent discussion in the British Parliament shedding new light on the UK’s official stance.

During a parliamentary committee session, Conservative MP Alberto Costa proposed the return of the Parthenon Marbles to Greece through an open-ended loan agreement. “This proposal is not about emptying the British Museum,” he said. “It’s about restoring a uniquely significant collection to its original context.”

As part of such an arrangement, Greece could offer major archaeological treasures for display in British museums, creating a mutually beneficial cultural exchange.

Costa even suggested to The Telegraph that an agreement could come closer to fruition if Greece were willing to lift the entrance fee to the Acropolis Museum for British visitors—a symbolic gesture of goodwill.

However, in his first public intervention on the matter, UK Culture Minister Sir Chris Bryant made it clear that a permanent return of the Marbles is not on the table. He stated that British law provides legal protection for the artifacts, making any notion of a permanent repatriation legally impossible.

“The best the UK could offer,” Bryant noted, “is a temporary agreement.”

This latest development highlights the ongoing diplomatic tightrope between cultural heritage, national legislation, and international goodwill. For now, the fate of the Parthenon Marbles remains uncertain—but the conversation is far from over.

The Terrifying Reason Archaeologists Refuse to Open the Tomb of China's First Emperor

The tomb of Qin Shi Huang, China's first Emperor, remains untouched to this day—and the reason why is as fascinating as it is unsettling.

While archaeologists have made countless remarkable discoveries over the years, few are as iconic as the burial site of the first ruler to unify China. Constructed over a span of 38 years—from 246 to 208 BC—the massive mausoleum was designed to mirror the ancient capital of the Qin Dynasty, Xianyang, and lies near the modern city of Xi’an.

The site first came to light in 1974, when a group of farmers digging a well stumbled upon what would become one of the most significant archaeological finds of the 20th century. Their discovery led to the unearthing of hundreds of life-sized statues—now known worldwide as the Terracotta Army.

The Terracotta Army was first discovered in 1974 (Luis Martinez/Design Pics Editorial/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

These clay figures, believed to represent soldiers, court officials, strongmen, and even musicians, were buried with the emperor to serve as guardians and companions in the afterlife. Despite decades of excavation revealing thousands of these figures in separate chambers, the emperor's actual tomb—at the heart of the complex—remains sealed.

But why, with all our modern tools and technology, has the tomb never been opened?

Surprisingly, it’s not because of legends or curses—although tales of traps and deadly mechanisms inside the tomb still linger. The real reason is scientific.

When the Terracotta Warriors were first uncovered, many were found painted in vivid colors. However, once exposed to air, the pigments began to deteriorate almost immediately. Today, the once-colorful statues appear entirely bare, their original hues lost due to a sudden change in environmental conditions.

This loss has made archaeologists extremely cautious. They fear that opening the emperor’s tomb without the proper technology could irreversibly damage any delicate artifacts within—artifacts that have remained sealed off from air, light, and moisture for over two millennia.

There's a few reasons why archeologists don't want to open the Emperor's tomb (Pictures From History/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

Because of this, experts are holding off, hoping that future advancements in preservation and excavation will allow them to explore the tomb without compromising its contents.

Kristin Romey, a curatorial consultant for the Terracotta Warrior exhibition at New York’s Discovery Times Square, explained the dilemma in an interview with Live Science:

“The big hill, where the emperor is buried—nobody’s been in there. Partly it’s out of respect for the elders, but they also realise that nobody in the world right now has the technology to properly go in and excavate it.”

Until that technology exists, the tomb of Qin Shi Huang will remain undisturbed—a silent guardian of secrets that may forever reshape our understanding of ancient China.

Date Set for the Return of the Parthenon Marbles

The long-awaited return of the Parthenon Marbles is now expected to take place within 2025.

According to powergame.gr, the news has been confirmed by international media outlets, including Italy’s La Repubblica, which mentioned the agreement in an article highlighting Greece’s positive economic trajectory. The Italian newspaper referred to a “symbolic gesture that would finally recognize modern Greece as the rightful heir of ancient Greece—the very cradle of Western civilization.”

The Economist had also reported last November that a final agreement was imminent, indicating that the only thing remaining was the official announcement detailing the terms.

The proposed framework is based on a long-term loan arrangement, as British law currently prohibits any permanent change in ownership of items held by national museums. However, Greece is reportedly open to contributing important archaeological artifacts on a rotating basis for temporary exhibitions in the UK. This cultural exchange would strengthen both diplomatic ties and mutual understanding between the two countries.

Public opinion in the UK has also shifted significantly in recent years, with a growing majority now supporting the return of the Marbles to Greece. Adding fuel to the speculation, the British Museum has closed the gallery where the Marbles are displayed—an indication that preparations for their transfer may already be underway.

Should the return take place in 2025, it will mark a historic milestone not just for Greece, but for global cultural heritage—a powerful act of recognition, restitution, and respect for the legacy of ancient civilizations.

How Much Would It Cost to Build a New Parthenon Today? Spoiler: A Mind-Boggling Amount

Imagine this: rebuilding the Parthenon from scratch, using the same materials and techniques as the ancient Athenians. What would it take—financially and logistically—to recreate one of the greatest architectural feats of classical antiquity? The answer might surprise you.

The original Parthenon was constructed between 447 and 438 BC, at a time when Athens was a flourishing center of art, philosophy, and democracy. The project was a massive undertaking, financed largely through the treasury of the Delian League. Historians estimate the cost at around 470 silver talents—a fortune at the time, consuming a significant portion of the city's annual income.

When translated into today’s economic terms, the numbers are staggering. Just sourcing high-quality, pure white Pentelic marble in such quantities would cost tens of millions of euros. Add to that the expense of extraction, transportation, and precision stoneworking using techniques and tools no longer in widespread use, and the figure skyrockets.

According to modern engineers and architectural historians, faithfully reconstructing the Parthenon—not a concrete replica, but a true-to-form rebuild using authentic ancient methods—would likely cost between €500 million and €1 billion. And if we aimed to recreate the entire Acropolis complex—complete with temples, stairways, the Propylaea, the Erechtheion, and the Temple of Athena Nike—the total bill could run into the multiple billions.

The cost factors go far beyond materials and labor. They include the immense technical demands of replicating precise architectural proportions, the need for highly specialized craftsmen, a construction timeline that could span decades, and strict adherence to archaeological and structural standards.

For context, the ongoing restoration work on the actual Parthenon—which involves stabilizing and partially rebuilding damaged sections—has already exceeded €120 million, and it's still underway after several decades.

And here's the deeper truth: even if the money and expertise were available, such a project would raise serious ethical and cultural questions. The Parthenon is irreplaceable—not just for its architecture, but for its historical, symbolic, and spiritual significance. No replica, no matter how precise, could ever capture the essence of the original.

Denmark: Viking-Era Coins and Jewelry Unearthed Near Ancient Fortress

A rare trove of Viking treasures—consisting of more than 300 silver coins and various pieces of jewelry—has been discovered in northwestern Denmark, near the site of a historic Viking fortress. The announcement was made by the museum set to exhibit the artifacts.

The remarkable find was made in the autumn of 2022 by a young woman who had been exploring a cornfield with a metal detector. Her casual search led to a discovery that is now being hailed as a significant contribution to Viking-era archaeology.

Knossos: How Arthur Evans “Stole” the Glory from Schliemann — The Untold Story

In the year 1900, British archaeologist Arthur Evans began excavations at Knossos. Today, 125 years later, the site stands as one of the most important archaeological landmarks in Europe. But behind the celebrated story lies a lesser-known rivalry and a twist of fate that allowed Evans to claim a legacy that might have belonged to someone else.

Schliemann’s Missed Opportunity

Heinrich Schliemann—renowned for uncovering the secrets of ancient Troy—was well aware of Crete’s archaeological potential. Fascinated by the island, he suspected that the legendary palace of King Minos might lie somewhere near Heraklion. However, Schliemann ultimately chose to continue his work in the Hellespont region (modern-day northwestern Turkey), rather than commit to a major excavation in Crete.

That decision left the door open for another explorer. Local antiquarian Minos Kalokairinos had already conducted small-scale excavations at Knossos, unearthing two palace storerooms. He held the excavation rights and asked for 100,000 gold francs to relinquish them—a price that Schliemann found too steep, even after tough negotiations brought the asking price down to 40,000 francs. And so, it was not Schliemann but Arthur Evans who seized the opportunity.

Evans Takes the Lead

A museum director from Oxford and an admirer of Schliemann’s work, Evans saw potential in the scattered finds from Kalokairinos’s digs. Beginning in 1895, he gradually acquired portions of the land and, on March 23, 1900, launched full-scale excavations with a team of 30 workers—soon expanded to 100.

What Evans uncovered was astonishing: the sprawling ruins of a palace complex over 3,500 years old. He believed he had found the ancient city-state of Knossos and the home of the mythical King Minos described by Homer. The excavation revealed interconnected buildings, residential quarters, storerooms, staircases, corridors, royal apartments, and a vast central courtyard.

Imagination Meets Archaeology

But Evans’s interpretations were often driven more by imagination than hard evidence. In many cases, he made bold assumptions based on fragmentary findings. Discovering an alabaster chair in one room, for example, led him to designate it the “Throne Room”—a claim still debated today.

He went even further, reconstructing large portions of the palace with considerable artistic license. Early reconstructions were built in wood, later replaced by reinforced concrete. These interventions transformed the ruins into a kind of Minoan “Disneyland” — a visually stunning but heavily interpreted site. While impressive for visitors, these reconstructions have posed serious challenges for modern archaeologists, making it difficult—if not impossible—to draw unbiased conclusions about the original function and design of the buildings.

What We Do Know

Despite the controversy, some facts are clear. Two distinct palaces were built at Knossos. The first was likely constructed after 2100 BCE and destroyed around 1700 BCE by an earthquake. A second, rebuilt palace arose around 1450 BCE, only to be destroyed by fire roughly a century later. That destruction coincides with the end of the Minoan civilization on Crete and the broader collapse of the Bronze Age in the region.

Another drawback for visitors today is the disconnect between the site and its artifacts. Apart from a few replicas, the palace itself is largely empty. The vast majority of original finds—including many stunning artifacts—are housed in the Archaeological Museum of Heraklion. While impressive, this arrangement prevents visitors from experiencing these objects in their original architectural context.

Legacy and Recognition

In 1911, Arthur Evans was knighted for his contributions to archaeology. He passed away on July 11, 1941, at the age of 90. His legacy endures, though not without controversy. While he brought Knossos to global attention, the path he took—and the liberties he exercised—continue to spark debate among historians and archaeologists.

Hikers Stumble Upon Hidden Treasure Trove of Gold Coins in Czech Forest — Some Minted for Former Yugoslavia

What began as a casual hike through a forest in Eastern Bohemia turned into a once-in-a-lifetime discovery: a hidden stash of gold coins and precious objects worth hundreds of thousands of euros.

The remarkable find was made in early February near the southeastern Czech town of Trutnov, on the wooded slopes of Zvičina hill, at the foot of the Krkonoše Mountains. Two hikers spotted an aluminum container poking out of the earth at the edge of a field, now overgrown with trees. Inside, they found nearly 600 gold coins arranged in 11 rolls, each wrapped in black cloth.

Just a meter away, they uncovered an iron box containing 16 snuffboxes, 10 bracelets, a wire-mesh purse, a comb, a gold chain, and a powder compact—all made of gold. In total, the treasure weighs seven kilograms, with nearly four kilograms made up of solid gold coins. Experts estimate the hoard’s value at over 7.5 million Czech korunas (more than €300,000).

A Treasure Hidden with Care—and Intention

Archaeologists believe this was no random hiding spot. Miroslav Novák, head of the archaeological department at the East Bohemia Museum, suggests the person who buried the hoard intended to return for it.

Miroslav Novák (Photo: Milan Baják, Czech Radio)

“The list of possible reasons is fairly clear,” Novák explains. “It could have been buried at the start of a conflict, during the expulsion of Czech or Jewish citizens, or later, after the war, during the expulsion of Germans. Currency reform is another possibility.”

Though the identity of the person who buried the treasure—and why it was never reclaimed—remains a mystery, the meticulous packaging and secure location suggest they meant to retrieve it eventually.

Gold Over Face Value

According to museum numismatist Vojtěch Brádle, the coins’ real value lies not in their face denominations—whether they were worth 5, 10, or 100 korunas—but in their material.

“The motivation wasn’t what the coins could buy—it was the precious metal they were made of,” says Brádle. The total weight of the gold coins was measured at 3.75 kilograms.

Clues Point to Former Yugoslavia

An international mix, the coins include French, Turkish, Belgian, and Austro-Hungarian pieces, with others from Romania, Italy, and Russia. Upon closer inspection, numismatists found that some Austro-Hungarian coins were not intended for Bohemia at all, but rather for parts of the former Yugoslavia—likely Serbia or Bosnia and Herzegovina.

“After 1921, minting resumed in local mints, and some of these coins, under unclear circumstances, made their way from the Balkans to what is now the Czech Republic,” Brádle explains. “What’s certain is that, at that time, some of these coins could not have been in our territory—they were still circulating in the Balkans.”

The Mystery Remains

A portion of the gold coins from the treasure (Photo: Museum of Eastern Bohemia in Hradec Králové).

The rest of the golden artifacts found with the coins have yet to be thoroughly analyzed. Archaeologists hope that with further study—and perhaps the help of historical archives—they’ll be able to piece together the story behind this incredible discovery beneath the forests of Zvičina hill.

The Great Pyramid of Giza: Tourists Disappointed by the Reality of an Ancient Wonder

Tourists riding camels and snapping photos at the famed Giza Pyramids are a common sight—but for many visitors, the reality of seeing one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World up close is proving underwhelming.

Despite the majesty of the Great Pyramid, Egypt's most iconic monument, growing tourist traffic is taking its toll. In 2024, the country welcomed nearly 17.5 million tourists. With a target of 30 million annual visitors by 2030, the government has launched a comprehensive effort to manage the crowds and restore the visitor experience.

A National Treasure Under Pressure

The Giza Necropolis is Egypt’s crown jewel and a global symbol of ancient civilization. However, the modern-day experience can be chaotic. The area around the pyramids is frequently overwhelmed by a mix of tour buses, private cars, persistent vendors, and unofficial guides. This congestion has led many tourists to describe their visit as more stressful than awe-inspiring.

In response, the Egyptian government is implementing a major reorganization plan. It includes a new access point from the Cairo–Faiyum road, restoration of surrounding tombs, improved digital ticketing systems, and the introduction of eco-friendly transport options within the site. The goal is to reduce environmental impact while improving visitor comfort.

Tourist Complaints Going Viral

Fireworks light up the sky above the historic site of the Giza Pyramids, marking the New Year just outside Cairo, Egypt, on Wednesday, January 1, 2025.

Social media has amplified discontent. Visitors frequently report aggressive street vendors, tourist scams, and an overall sense of disorder in places like Cairo. These posts are beginning to damage Egypt’s reputation as a travel destination—something the country cannot afford during a global tourism recovery.

Animal Welfare Takes the Spotlight

Another longstanding concern is the treatment of animals used for tourist rides. Horses, donkeys, and camels have long been offered for rides around the pyramids, but advocacy groups like PETA have documented severe neglect, injuries, and mistreatment.

Change, however, is on the horizon. Last autumn, Egypt introduced a national animal welfare program targeting major tourist sites, including Giza. As part of this shift, the government is phasing in electric shuttle buses within the necropolis, offering a sustainable and humane alternative to animal rides.

A Makeover with High Stakes

The facelift of the Giza Plateau is more than cosmetic. In today’s world of online reviews and viral posts, a single negative experience can resonate with millions. Egypt has recognized that preserving its ancient treasures goes hand in hand with maintaining its tourism economy.

Modernizing infrastructure, cracking down on unethical practices, and protecting animal welfare are no longer optional—they’re essential for the country to survive and thrive as a leading global destination.

Strange Iron Keys Discovered in the Judean Desert – Their Symbolism and Unique Shapes

Deep in the heart of the Judean Desert, archaeologists have unearthed a set of curious iron keys unlike anything found elsewhere in the Roman Empire. These keys, discovered in the Cave of Letters—an archaeological site near the Dead Sea—carry not only a distinctive design but also a deep cultural and symbolic significance.

The Cave of Letters was first explored in 1960 by the renowned Israeli archaeologist Yigael Yadin. It was named after the cache of ancient scrolls and documents found within, which date back to the time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132–136 CE), a major Jewish uprising against Roman rule. Alongside these historical texts, Yadin’s team uncovered a wealth of personal belongings thought to have been left behind by Jewish refugees fleeing the revolt.

Among these items were ten iron keys, carried by people who hoped one day to return home. Since then, similar keys have been found throughout the region—but until recently, no comprehensive study had been conducted on their forms and meanings.

What Makes These Keys So Unusual?

The most striking feature of the keys is their distinct shape. Many of them include a sharp right-angled bend—resembling an elbow—which sets them apart from typical Roman keys of the same era. Archaeologists refer to them as “elbow keys”, and believe this angular design was unique to the Jewish population in the Roman province of Judea.

These elbow keys first appeared in the 1st century BCE and disappeared after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, when the Romans reorganized the region and renamed it Palestina. Their disappearance coincides with the introduction of a more standardized key design used across the Roman Empire, suggesting a shift in both technology and culture following Roman suppression.

A Closer Look at the Design

A typical Jewish key from this period consisted of three main parts:

• A pointed handle at the top,

• A shaft that connects to an angled axle,

• And a toothed end extending from the axle at another right angle.

This double right-angle construction created a staggered, three-dimensional form. The teeth were positioned perpendicular to the axle and parallel to the shaft, allowing the key to interact with its matching lock mechanism.

More Than a Lock and Key

The parts of a Jewish key. At the top is the handle, which in this case is pointed. Extending from the handle is the shank, which connects at a right angle to the stem. Another right angle links the stem to the bit, placing the long axis of these three components on different planes. The teeth stand upright on the bit, parallel to the stem and perpendicular to the shank.
Photo: Y. Pagelson et al.

These keys weren’t just functional—they were symbolic. In ancient cultures, keys often represented authority and protection. In the Bible, for instance, the Keys to the House of David symbolize power and divine responsibility.

Keys were sometimes placed in tombs, perhaps to help the deceased “unlock” the gates of the afterlife—a burial practice believed to have been influenced by Persian traditions. This spiritual symbolism deepens our understanding of why these objects were carried by fleeing refugees: they weren’t just tools—they were tokens of hope and identity.

The elbow key’s cultural importance is further supported by its depiction on Darom oil lamps, a type of Jewish lamp from the same era. These depictions suggest the elbow key was a recognizable and meaningful item in Judean society.

Craftsmanship and Function

Researchers used microscopy and radiographic imaging to study the internal structure of the keys. Most were forged from soft iron, which made them easier to shape and more durable—important qualities in a time when neither locksmiths nor spare parts were readily available. A few had components made from steel, but these were the exception.

The forging process was relatively simple but effective. Keys were shaped by hammering the heated metal into the desired form, then custom-fitted to specific locks by carving the teeth. Their size and style varied significantly, suggesting they served different purposes:

• Large keys were likely used for gates or public buildings,

• Smaller ones for homes and personal storage.

Some keys had loops or handles designed to hang from belts, while others were fitted with wooden handles for carrying over the shoulder, as described in ancient texts.

Unlocking the Past

The study of these unique keys goes far beyond metallurgy. It offers a rare window into the daily life, hopes, and cultural identity of a community under siege. These artifacts, once carried by exiles dreaming of return, now help us understand a vanished world—one where even a key could speak volumes.

AI Imagines What Hell Looks Like — And the Results Are Absolutely Chilling

It might sound a bit morbid, but let’s face it — at some point, most of us have wondered: What would hell actually look like? A fiery abyss? Demonic figures with horns and pitchforks? Whatever your imagination conjures, it probably doesn’t come close to what artificial intelligence has envisioned.

A viral video posted by Historic Vids (@historyinmemes) on X (formerly Twitter) has sparked a wave of reactions online. Captioned simply “Asked AI to show ‘Hell’”, the AI-generated video offers a disturbingly surreal glimpse into a digital version of the underworld — and viewers are calling it terrifying.

The eerie black-and-white clip begins with countless hands reaching upward, grabbing at a human figure being dragged down. As the 18-second video unfolds, it cuts to a haunting, screaming face, which then morphs into a distorted, hand-covered visage. At one point, it even looks like a hand is emerging from the figure’s mouth — enough to send chills down your spine.

Naturally, users on X had plenty to say about the unsettling video.
One viewer quipped, “Many already experience this ‘hell’ every morning on public transit.”

This isn’t the first time AI-generated content has given us a disturbing taste of the apocalypse. Renowned AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky recently warned of the dangers of unchecked AI development. In an interview with The Guardian, he said:

Asked Al to show "Hell' pic.twitter.com/XxoHVE9HKu

— Historic Vids (@historyinmemes) April 3, 2024

“If you put me against a wall and forced me to guess, I’d say our timeline is closer to five years than fifty. Maybe two years, maybe ten.”

Known for his controversial views, Yudkowsky has long sounded the alarm about the potential risks of advanced AI.

Meanwhile, in Denmark, researchers have developed an AI system with a different — but equally chilling — application. Named life2vec, the model was trained on the life data of over one million Danes and claims to predict an individual’s time of death with surprising accuracy.

And the dark AI content doesn’t stop there.

Over on TikTok, user @robotoverloards went viral for asking AI to generate images of the “last selfies ever taken” — snapshots imagined to be captured just seconds before a global catastrophe. The results were nothing short of terrifying.

One image shows a bleak, grey sky swirling above a vast body of water. A figure stands in the foreground, holding up a phone to their blood-covered face. Other frames depict blazing infernos amid flooded landscapes, with skeletal figures staring eerily into the lens.

One particularly astute viewer noticed something strange:
“Y’all saw how Earth was in the sky like the moon?” they wrote, adding to the unnerving atmosphere.

@robotoverloards/TikTok

As AI continues to push the limits of creativity — and human fear — one thing is clear: the lines between imagination and digital reality are becoming increasingly blurred.

How the Sumerians Revolutionized Timekeeping

Around 5,000 years ago, the Sumerians of ancient Mesopotamia—what is now modern-day Iraq—transformed the way humans perceive and measure time. These early innovators developed an advanced numerical system based on the number 60, known as the sexagesimal system. This ingenious method gave rise to the division of an hour into 60 minutes and a minute into 60 seconds—units of time that still govern our daily lives today.

The Sumerians’ need for precise timekeeping was driven by the demands of their agricultural society. Accurate calendars were essential for planting and harvesting crops at the right time. In addition, the coordination of complex religious ceremonies and administrative functions also required a reliable system for tracking time. To meet these needs, the Sumerians made remarkable strides in astronomy.

By carefully observing the movements of celestial bodies, they created a lunar calendar consisting of 12 months—closely aligned with the cycles of the natural world and agricultural seasons. Their division of the day into 24 hours, each hour into 60 minutes, and each minute into 60 seconds was nothing short of revolutionary.

These divisions were far from arbitrary. They were designed for practical use and ease of calculation, reflecting the Sumerians’ sophisticated understanding of mathematics. The number 60, for example, is highly divisible, which made it ideal for constructing a system that could be used efficiently in everyday life.

This innovative approach to time had a profound impact on later civilizations. The Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans all adopted and further developed the Sumerian timekeeping system, building on its solid mathematical foundation.

Today, the legacy of Sumerian ingenuity lives on in our clocks and calendars, a testament to their enduring influence. Their pioneering work in time measurement continues to shape how we organize and experience the world, thousands of years later.

The Most Comprehensive Digital Map of the Ancient World

From Ireland to India—With Just One Click

Who wouldn’t want to embark on a virtual voyage to the lands once explored by ancient geographers? To not only discover the cities and their stories, but also to visualize the landscape of each region just as it was in antiquity?

This is exactly what PERIPLUS, a freely accessible digital historical geography platform, offers. Launched in May 2024 by the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (NKUA), PERIPLUS aims to be the most complete digital map of the known ancient world—stretching from Ireland to India and spanning from the historical period to Late Antiquity.

But it’s more than just a map. Users can explore ancient settlements, mountains, rivers, lakes, islands, and regions as they were known in antiquity (for example, Lake Copais is shown as a lake, as it was in ancient times). By clicking on each place, users can access historical data and additional resources through embedded links. A specialized software tool also allows users to extract and identify geographical and other terms from texts—regardless of their date or language.

One of PERIPLUS’s most ambitious goals is to gradually index and translate all works of ancient Greek literature, both in their original language and in translation. In doing so, it aims to become an invaluable, user-friendly resource for researchers, students, educators, and anyone with an interest in antiquity. The platform is bilingual (Greek-English), making it widely accessible to an international audience.

“This project is a collective effort. Around 140 undergraduate and postgraduate students have contributed so far,” explains Professor Konstantinos Kopanias of NKUA, the program’s creator and coordinator. “We deliberately developed it on a volunteer basis and with a zero budget. As a public university, we wanted to offer a free service with open data accessible to all—which we consider vital. This also ensures the project’s continuity, since it doesn’t rely on short-term funding programs.”

PERIPLUS is part of ArchaeoCosmos, a collaborative platform hosted by NKUA’s Department of History and Archaeology. ArchaeoCosmos focuses on the historical geography of the Mediterranean and the Near East from Prehistory through Late Antiquity and is supported by the university’s Digital Humanities Research Center, directed by Professor Dimitrios Plantzos.

“It all started during the pandemic,” recalls Professor Kopanias. “Since fieldwork and excavations were suspended, I began collecting data on the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East for use in my publications and lectures. Once I had mapped those areas, I realized much of the world was still blank. It felt like leaving a puzzle half-finished—so I kept going.”

The result is a fully developed map covering everything from Ireland to India and from Scandinavia to Africa, reflecting how the ancient world was perceived. “The geographic knowledge of the ancients is truly remarkable,” he adds.

PERIPLUS stands out as a unique resource in its field. While another major project, Pleiades (https://pleiades.stoa.org/), is also highly valuable, PERIPLUS addresses key limitations:

1. Pleiades only shows individual ancient sites without surrounding context—no neighboring towns, rivers, or mountains.

2. It lists names in Latinized form only, which can obscure their original spelling and pronunciation.

PERIPLUS, by contrast, includes many names in ancient polytonic Greek, while also offering Latinized and modern versions. Importantly, it records all known name variants for each place—helping users identify locations mentioned under different names in ancient texts.

A central ambition of PERIPLUS is to gradually annotate and translate around 1,200 ancient Greek texts into English and Modern Greek—openly and freely accessible. The first such work is the “Periplus of the Erythraean Sea”, a 1st-century CE geographical treatise translated into Modern Greek by Professor Plantzos.

“It’s a relatively obscure and difficult text, rich in geographic references that are hard to follow without a map. Yet it offers a wealth of information,” says Professor Kopanias.

This text is included in the first full version of PERIPLUS, covering the known world from the beginning of the 1st millennium BCE to the 5th century CE. The next steps involve expanding into prehistoric periods by including relevant sites—highlighting patterns of habitation—and incorporating archaeological monuments.

Next in line for integration are the “Periplus of Pseudo-Scylax” and Strabo’s “Geographica”—a brilliant but notoriously complex work. “Our aim is to make these texts more accessible to the public, especially when paired with an interactive map. As we annotate each text, we also enrich the map,” explains Kopanias. Later additions will include works by well-known authors like Herodotus, Homer, Thucydides, and Xenophon—bridging literature, history, and geography for students, educators, and antiquity enthusiasts.

“Ultimately, we want to create a digital tool that connects ancient texts with archaeological sites—some of which are little-known. That’s our real goal: not just to present texts, but to help users discover the physical remains of the past,” he concludes.

PERIPLUS is divided into three main components:

1. Periplus Atlas
   The most comprehensive digital map (https://periplus.arch.uoa.gr/map_gr.html) of the ancient world to date, covering the period from historical times to Late Antiquity and the geographical expanse from Ireland to India. Users can explore ancient cities, mountains, rivers, islands, lakes, and regions. Each site includes detailed information, alternative ancient names in Greek and Latin, chronological data, and links to related resources like Wikipedia. The map also features a powerful search tool for exploring specific regions.

2. Periplus Logos
   This module includes texts from ancient Greek literature, with geographic terms gradually annotated. Every geographic term is a clickable hyperlink that directs the user to the corresponding location on the digital map.

3. Periplus App
   A Python and JavaScript-based tool (coming soon) that allows users to extract geographic (and other) terms from any text, in any language and from any period. It automatically creates web pages for these terms, enabling users to publish annotated texts online.

PERIPLUS is an open-access repository.
Users are free to use the Periplus App to annotate their own texts and generate custom digital maps (Web Maps) that can be embedded in educational, research, or even recreational websites—completely free of charge.

Eight Ancient Greek Inventions Still in Use Today

Many of the things we use in our daily lives have origins far older than we might expect. You may be surprised to learn that several modern conveniences actually trace back to ancient Greek ingenuity. While these early inventions were far from perfect, they laid the groundwork for the technologies and comforts we enjoy today.

Who would have thought that the alarm clock was first conceived in antiquity, or that the first robot served wine to ancient Greeks? Below are eight remarkable ancient Greek inventions that are still used in some form today—and that helped shape the modern world.

1. The Alarm Clock

An invention essential to modern society, the alarm clock first appeared in ancient Greece during the 3rd century BCE. While today we rely on phones and digital devices, the basic concept dates back over two millennia. The engineer and inventor Ctesibius (285–222 BCE) designed a water clock with a dial and pointer to display time and added a sophisticated alarm system that used pebbles dropping onto a gong.

Even the philosopher Plato (428–348 BCE) reportedly owned a large water clock that emitted a sound similar to a water organ as a wake-up signal.

2. Automatic Doors

What we consider a modern convenience—automatic doors—was first developed in ancient Greece by Heron of Alexandria, a brilliant engineer. In his design, a fire lit on an altar would heat water in a hidden vessel. The expanding steam would push water into a connected tank, causing it to tip a system of weights that opened temple doors.

Heron didn’t stop there—he also invented a coin-operated vending machine and an early syringe!

3. The Odometer

Used widely today to measure travel distances, the odometer was first employed in ancient Greece around 27 BCE. Though the Roman engineer Vitruvius attributed the invention to Heron, evidence suggests that Archimedes of Syracuse (287–212 BCE) was the true pioneer. A mathematician, physicist, engineer, astronomer, and inventor, Archimedes created a device that revolutionized road-building by allowing for accurate distance measurements.

4. The Lighthouse

While no longer as vital as a century ago, lighthouses were crucial navigational aids for millennia. The first known lighthouse was built in Piraeus, Athens’ port, during the 5th century BCE, likely commissioned by Themistocles. It was a simple stone tower with a fire lit at the top.

Later, the Lighthouse of Alexandria, constructed under Ptolemy II (280–247 BCE), became one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. It stood over 100 meters tall and used a furnace at its summit to project light. Though primarily built from limestone, the towering height raises questions about its structural stability.

5. Philon’s Automatic Servant (The First Robot)

The first known robot in human history was created by the Greeks in the 3rd century BCE: a mechanical servant designed by Philon of Byzantium. This robot held a wine jug and could pour drinks with remarkable precision.

Here’s how it worked: the user placed a cup in the servant's hand, triggering a mechanism that allowed air to enter a hidden compartment, letting wine flow into the cup. As the cup filled and became heavier, the airflow was redirected to a water container, mixing wine with water—just as drinkers preferred it.

6. Plumbing and Showers

The Minoans of ancient Crete were pioneers in plumbing, using underground clay pipes for drainage and water supply. Excavations in Olympia and Athens have revealed complex systems for baths, fountains, and even personal hygiene.

Lead piping fed water to showers, which were used in gymnasiums and public baths. A particularly striking depiction appears on a vase showing an athlete using a shower, and remains of a multi-nozzle shower complex were found in a 2nd-century BCE gymnasium in Pergamon.

7. The First Analog Computer – The Antikythera Mechanism

In 1901, sponge divers off the coast of Antikythera discovered an ancient shipwreck containing statues, coins, glassware—and a mysterious device later known as the Antikythera Mechanism.

Originally dismissed as a curiosity, it wasn't until 1951 that British historian Derek de Solla Price recognized its significance. Using X-ray and gamma imaging, he and later researchers uncovered its complexity: the mechanism had 82 components and could model celestial movements.

About the size of a mantel clock, the device had a circular face with rotating dials. A side knob wound the mechanism, activating interlocking gears that moved at least seven hands—each representing celestial bodies like the Sun, Moon, and the five visible planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn). A black-and-silver rotating sphere showed lunar phases, and internal inscriptions explained which stars would rise or set on given dates.

Roman writer Cicero claimed similar devices were built by Archimedes, though some believe Hipparchus, an astronomer from Rhodes, may have been behind it—merging Babylonian and Greek astronomical knowledge.

On the back, spiral-shaped dials with pins (much like a record player needle) displayed a calendar and predicted lunar and solar eclipses.

Conclusion
These ancient Greek inventions were not just technological marvels of their time—they were foundational. From automation to astronomy, the Greeks laid the intellectual and mechanical groundwork for many modern systems. Their legacy continues to shape our world in subtle and profound ways.

Fish on the Ancient Greek Table: A Timeless Love for the Sea

The sea has always been a generous provider for the people of mainland and island Greece, offering a rich and diverse bounty. With the country’s extensive coastline, shallow and crystal-clear waters, and the abundance of fish, mollusks, and shellfish—especially in ancient times—it’s no wonder that seafood held a special place in the hearts (and diets) of the ancient Greeks.

A Sea of Sources

Ancient texts offer a wealth of information on the varieties of seafood consumed, as well as fishing techniques and cooking methods. Specialized treatises on the topic existed, such as On Fish by Aristotle, Fish by Archippus, On Fish by Dorian, Fishing by Numenius, On Salted Foods by Euthydemus, and Fishing Expedition by Antiphanes.

Both literary sources and visual representations—especially on pottery—along with archaeological finds, show that many ancient fishing methods and tools have remained virtually unchanged through the centuries. Bronze hooks were tied with lines made of animal hair or plant fibers, and lead sinkers were used to submerge the hooks. Net fishing was common, with nets tailored to the type of fish and fitted with floats and weights. Spears (kamax or trident) and fish traps made of woven twigs were also employed. The best times for fishing were believed to be dawn and dusk, though nighttime fishing using torchlight was also practiced.

Fishing: An Economic Pillar

Fishing played a vital economic role in coastal cities. Some, like Cyzicus on the Propontis (Sea of Marmara), owed much of their wealth to the plentiful local catch. This is reflected in the city's coinage, which often depicted tuna—one of its most famous fish—as well as octopus, which appeared on coins from Eretria.

Salted and Savored

The trade in salted fish, known as tarichē, flourished particularly during the Classical period. Salted sardines (aphyae) were imported to Athens from the Black Sea and elsewhere, though the fresh sardines from Phaleron and Rhodes were especially prized. Other popular preserved fish included temachē—salted cuts of large fish like mackerel (skombros) and tuna (thynnos). Salted fish, being cheap and widely available, was a staple for the average Athenian. The wealthy, however, often dismissed it as food for the poor—a view not shared by inland populations, who valued it highly due to limited access to fresh fish.

Athens also imported the famous avgotaracho (roe) from the Danube Delta, known as tarichos antakaion, made from the eggs of the large local fish called antakaios. The ancient Greeks had detailed knowledge of marine life, including habitats, breeding seasons, and hundreds of fish and seafood names, demonstrating their deep connection with the sea.

A Language of the Sea

Fish names preserved in ancient texts reveal the extent of Greek familiarity with sea life: atherina (sand smelt), galeos (dogfish), thynnos (tuna), kephalos (mullet), kolios (mackerel), karcharías (shark), labrax (sea bass), melanouros (black seabream), mormyros (striped seabream), xiphias (swordfish), orkynos (young tuna), orfos (grouper), pilamys (bonito), perke, rine (stingray), skaros (parrotfish), sparos, skorpios (scorpionfish), sargos, salpa, synagrís, trigle (red mullet), phagros (red porgy), and channē (a wide-mouthed fish), to name just a few. Fishing tools were also described in detail, and the terminology remains remarkably consistent to this day—so much so that an ancient and a modern Greek fisherman could likely still understand each other.

Insatiable Appetites

Notable figures in antiquity, including Aristotle, were known fish lovers. Aristippus, a student of Socrates, was once scolded by Plato for buying too many fish. He retorted that they had cost him just two obols. “Well,” said Plato, “for that price, I would’ve bought them too.” Aristippus replied, “Then it’s not I who am a glutton, Plato, but you who are stingy.”

Sometimes, this passion bordered on obsession. The 1st-century BCE writer Dorian once beat his servant for failing to bring fish home and, in his anger, forced him to list fish names aloud—only to scold him when he mentioned ones like grouper or sea bream, exclaiming, “I asked for fish, not gods!” At a symposium, a man named Demylos spat on a large fish to keep others from eating it. Another man, Diocles, reportedly sold his land just to indulge in seafood. Some parents even named their children after marine life: Ichthyas, Ichthyōn, Karavos (crayfish), and Kōbios.

In Athens, the word opsón, which once referred broadly to anything eaten with bread, came to mean specifically fish. Its diminutive, opsárion, evolved into psári, the modern Greek word for “fish.”

Freshwater Fare and Sacred Cephalopods

Although freshwater fishing also took place, its catch was generally less appreciated—except for the eels of Lake Copais, a delicacy in Athens, and the famously plump eels from the Strymon River. In Arcadia, fish from the Aroanius River were said to chirp like thrushes!

Cephalopods and shellfish were also treasured. Octopus (polypous), cuttlefish (sepia), squid (teuthis), crayfish, shrimp, crabs, lobsters, sea urchins, scallops, mussels, limpets, oysters, and various clams were commonly consumed. Their reputed aphrodisiac properties were already noted in antiquity.

Thasos and Corfu were famed for their large octopuses. In Troezen, octopuses were considered sacred and fishing them was forbidden. Legends claimed they sometimes came ashore to wrap themselves around olive and fig trees, even feeding on figs. Fishermen used olive branches underwater to attract and trap them.

Philoxenus of Cythera was so obsessed with seafood that he once consumed nearly an entire two-cubit-long octopus (almost a meter), leading to a serious case of indigestion. When a doctor warned him he was dying and should settle his affairs, Philoxenus reportedly replied, “Then bring me what’s left of the octopus!” The Cynic philosopher Diogenes, however, wasn’t so lucky—he is said to have died from eating raw octopus.

Female cuttlefish were said to be defended by males when attacked, while the reverse was not true. Smyrna was known for its large shrimp and Alexandria for its massive lobsters—delicacies fit for the elite. One Spartan, unfamiliar with sea urchins, once bit into one whole—spines and all—so as not to seem cowardly by spitting it out.

Simplicity, Skill, and Sea Flavors

Seafood was usually grilled over coals on special fish grills (eschárai ichthyoptídes), boiled, or fried. While the cooking methods were simple, true culinary skill was shown in the sauces—often flavored with herbs, spices, and cheese.

Even Homer described the availability of fish as a sign of a land’s prosperity. For the ancient Greeks, seafood was not only abundant, delicious, and healthy—it was also an essential part of their culinary identity. Their refined palate and deep knowledge of nutrition made them discerning seafood lovers. That bond with the sea has remained strong over the centuries.

Today, in the face of food safety concerns, this ancient tradition of ichthyophagy (fish-eating) gives us even more reason to cherish and protect our marine life from overfishing and pollution—and to continue enjoying the timeless pleasures of the sea.