• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
It's always seemed a reasonable assumption to me, from looking at the Sphinx and the clear discrepancy in size and carving style between the face and the rest of the body, that originally it was an outcrop of rock carved simply into a massive statue of a lion (lion gods or lions as emblem of G/god, IIRC, pre-date (and would possibly also predate :p ) Egypt, and can certainly be found in many other cultures from Judea to Ethiopia... throughout the range of the lion, really), and then, much later, some pharoah with a massive ego/self-personification-as-lion-deity complex/desire to show his triumph over previous lion-adulating regime had it recarved into his own face...

The nose could easily then have been lost through vandalism, natural erosion or any sort of accidental damage...

Of course, if you believe Lovecraft (who was ghost-writing for Harry Houdini in that story, IIRC), the original Sphinx was carved from life, and less than life size... :shock:
 
nataraja said:
"The nose could easily then have been lost through vandalism, natural erosion or any sort of accidental damage..."

The loss of the Sphinx's nose has often been blamed on Napoleon's troops, but it's also fairly obvious that Napoleon with his great respect for history wouldn't have tolerated such wanton desecration. In actuality, the nose seems to have been shot off by Marmaluk cannoneers a couple of centuries before Napoleon's day. (If memory serves, fragments of the Sphinx's BEARD are in the British Museum.)

And:

"Of course, if you believe Lovecraft (who was ghost-writing for Harry Houdini in that story, IIRC), the original] Sphinx was carved from life, and less than life size... :shock:"

I nver said that I "believed" Lovecraft, who was of course writing fiction, but merely pointing out that the relationship between the story and modern variant Egyptology is uncanny.

How much (if any) of "Imprisoned with the Pharaohs" was actually contributed by Harry Houdini (besides his physical presence in Cairo, that is) remains a mystery I've never yet been able to solve.
 
the sphinx

could be that the nose was removed at its conception. The nose was often removed from statues or images of heretical pharoes or rulers to stop them recieving the breath of life in heaven.
I agree that the carving or dressing of the rocky outcrop could have changed many times.
Incidentally the original Schoch article was in issue 79 (feb-mar 1995).
I think it is the head of the last heretic Tutankhamun (tutankhaten). The headress matches, as does the portion of beard in the british museum. and Horemheb had the motive to install it!
just a thought.
 
Re: the sphinx

smokinggun1 said:
"could be that the nose was removed at its conception." .

Again, the common report is that the Sphinx' nose was shot off by Marmaluk cannoneers back in the 16th Century AD. It seems to have been intact until that time.

The destruction has also been unfairly blamed on Napoleon's troops, but the nose went missing before Napoleon's day, and with Napoleon's undeniably great respect for history it is highly unlikely that he would have tolerated such vandalism.
 
ok heres my two cents

iirc the wethering of the sphinx is undulating
if it was caused by sand erosion it would be sharp edged

alot of egyptian satutes if not all were defaced by damaged to the nose/face in asumed ancient times

almost all egyptian pharoahs are know to have re worked old monuments to favor themselves

whoever did originally carve the sphinx imho wouldnt have got the proportions wrong with just the head

iirc the spinxs head isnt one complete piece

Dr. Hawass decides period, with all things
 
TinFinger said:
"alot of egyptian satutes if not all were defaced by damaged to the nose/face in asumed ancient times"

But, repeating myself, the Sphinx' nose seems to have remained intact until early modern times.
 
Re: the sphinx

smokinggun1 said:
I think it is the head of the last heretic Tutankhamun (tutankhaten). The headress matches, as does the portion of beard in the british museum. and Horemheb had the motive to install it!
just a thought.

The nemes headdress and the beard were pretty standard in depictions of the king in much of the dynastic era, it could be practically any of them.
 
sphinx

As its been suggested that the carving or dressing of the sphinx has been changed a few times in its history, I would like to put forward the hypothesis that it may have been originally constructed as a bull to commemorate the age of taurus.
History and myth are peppered with bull cults and religions.
And if the sphinx dressed as taurus faced the opposite direction then the small head would be on the bulls butt!
Horemheb was a bull believer as he dedicated two Apis bulls during his reign (www.touregypt.net).Adding insult to injury?
 
Re: sphinx

smokinggun1 said:
As its been suggested that the carving or dressing of the sphinx has been changed a few times in its history, I would like to put forward the hypothesis that it may have been originally constructed as a bull to commemorate the age of taurus.
History and myth are peppered with bull cults and religions.
And if the sphinx dressed as taurus faced the opposite direction then the small head would be on the bulls butt!
Horemheb was a bull believer as he dedicated two Apis bulls during his reign (www.touregypt.net).Adding insult to injury?
But it has paws and not hooves. The paws don't appear to have been added later. Or, at least if they were, they are on the same vast scale which dwarfs the head. And, it lies sprawled, with its forlegs in front of it, in a classic lion pose. Bulls don't do this.

sphinx_front_1.jpg
 
If anyone did any recutting of the head it's likely to have happened before Tutankhamon.

The dream stele, between the sphinx's paws tellis how Tutmose IV, fell asleep in front of the partially buried sphinx and dreamt the the god Ra-Harakhte came to him an told him he would become king of Eygpt if he dug out the sphinx from the sand. He did and he became king.

It there was any recutting, he'd be a more likely candidate.
 
And, if that story is to be believed, the fact the Sphinx was buried in sand would also suggest it's far older than believed...
 
:lol:

Great sites.

Could the sphinx have been buried in a vast sandstorm or deliberately? Personally am not convinced that it is significantly older than pyramids...
 
GadaffiDuck said:
"Personally am not convinced that it [the Sphinx] is significantly older than pyramids..."

Contemporary belief is that that the Sphinx is MORE RECENT than the Great Pyramid, having been carved on the orders of Knephren (Ka-F-Ra), the builder of the Second Pyramid.

However, the belief that the Gizeh Pyramids date from circa 2500 - 2200 BC is fairly recent. My parents were taught in grade school in the 1920s that they date from SEVEN THOUSAND years ago!

And the early modern Egyptologists, in the 1850s and 1860s, suggested dates as long sgo as 10,000 BC. So current variant Egyptology seems to be just coming home again.
 
ProfessorF said:
"And, if that story is to be believed, the fact the Sphinx was buried in sand would also suggest it's far older than believed..."

Not neccessarily. The Sphinx has been dug out of the sand at least two or three times since Napoleon's day. A dike or wall was at length constructed to prevent the drifting sands from burying it again.
 
Re: sphinx

smokinggun1 said:
"t's been suggested that the carving or dressing of the sphinx has been changed a few times in its history...."


Is there a solid source or citation for this belief?

The only source I personally know is Howard Phillips Lovecraft's longish short story/short novelette "Imprisoned with the Pharaohs," wherein Lovecraft suggested that the Sphinx had existed from the remotest antiquity, but that the Sphinx' original face was so absolutely hideous that Ka-F-Ra (he of the Second Pyramid) had mercifully arranged for that monstrously abhorrent and utterly frightening visage to be recarved with his own human features.

It's a GREAT story, for my money one of the finest ever written, but that doesn't change the fact that it's FICTION.
 
OldTimeRadio said:
Not neccessarily. The Sphinx has been dug out of the sand at least two or three times since Napoleon's day. A dike or wall was at length constructed to prevent the drifting sands from burying it again.

Funnily enough I was thinking about this last night, and given how fast the sands move I can well believe that! Does make me wonder what else could be out there under the sands.
 
The key to fully understanding these (structures - monuments - early civilizations) is for all the sciences to meet with open minds: Geology, Climatology, Archeology, Anthropology, etc. The trouble is some of these so called experts refuse to accurately look at the total viewpoint (picture). Hawass really makes a real arse of himself in the video. By publicly stating he doesn't even believe in radar (hence electronics). He is really showing short sightedness.
I admit when pushing back the date of a structure like the sphinx from (4500 to >11600) years old one should use a healthy bit of skepticism, but one also has to take an honest look at all the evidences. I for now believe it could be much older than originally thought. Dr. Robert Schoch (and others) present some very compelling arguments for this.
 
I for now believe it could be much older than originally thought. Dr. Robert Schoch (and others) present some very compelling arguments for this.

Yup.
 
I admit when pushing back the date of a structure like the sphinx from (4500 to >11600) years old one should use a healthy bit of skepticism, but one also has to take an honest look at all the evidences.
If they were shown to be 11600 years old instead of 4500, it would increase Dr. Hawass' standing/importance as their keeper.
 
If they were shown to be 11600 years old instead of 4500, it would increase Dr. Hawass' standing/importance as their keeper.
Zahi Hawass the former Egyptian Minister of Antiquities and Director of Excavations at Giza, Saqqara, Bahariya Oasis, and the Valley of the Kings is now on the international lecture circuit, hopefully permanently. He's been out of Egypt for a while, so perhaps the old guard is starting to move on!
It's an established preconditioned thinking in which the present theory for the age of the Egyptian Sphinx and other structures cannot change by much or they could stand to lose face. So in the minds of the established archeologist - Egyptologist they have nothing to gain.
 
Fellow Fortean’s, some input from the famous scientist: Robert Schoch You may already know that Dr. Schoch was – is a pioneer in proving scientific proof concerning the of the age of the sphinx.

For those who would like some fascinating reading, the following is a Washington Post article forwarded to us by a friend (not sure if he wants his name mentioned so we will keep him anonymous) which relates, in our view, to the influence of our Sun on the beginning of the Younger Dryas. This new study suggests that climatic warming, which I believe was caused by a solar event over a thousand years prior to the end of the last ice age, melted glaciers and caused a vast flood which flowed into the Atlantic and disrupted ocean circulation patterns, resulting in the cooling event known as the Younger Dryas. In my assessment, another solar event – a major solar outburst, as I discuss in my book Forgotten Civilization – at the end of the Younger Dryas ultimately caused the final climatic warming which ended the last ice age and initiated modern global climates, circa 9700 BCE. Simply put, my opinion is that the Sun’s activities explain both the beginning (the initial cooling) and the ending (the final dramatic warming) of the Younger Dryas. Here is the link to the Washington Post article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/07/11/scientists-may-have-solved-huge-riddle-earths-climate-past-it-doesnt-bode-well-future/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e0c535f472f0&wpisrc=nl_green&wpmm=1
Conferences and Appearances: Please do check our website for some upcoming conferences (from California to Spain) at which I will be presenting my research, as well as some additional trips planned for next year (click on “Appearances” and “Tours” respectively). And if you know others who might be interested in attending, please do spread the word, with our thanks in advance for helping to promote these events, which the organizers work so hard to produce.

Warm regards to all,

Robert – and Katie

Robert Schoch and Catherine Ulissey
 
Re: sphinx



Is there a solid source or citation for this belief?

The only source I personally know is Howard Phillips Lovecraft's longish short story/short novelette "Imprisoned with the Pharaohs," wherein Lovecraft suggested that the Sphinx had existed from the remotest antiquity, but that the Sphinx' original face was so absolutely hideous that Ka-F-Ra (he of the Second Pyramid) had mercifully arranged for that monstrously abhorrent and utterly frightening visage to be recarved with his own human features.

It's a GREAT story, for my money one of the finest ever written, but that doesn't change the fact that it's FICTION.

Full text of the Lovecraft short story available here:

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/l/lovecraft/hp/pharaohs/

And yes, it is a great story, which I read on my commute into work this morning. His use of unusual vocabulary is exceptional (but I did have to look up the meaning of a few words).
 
7 Rare Images of the Great Sphinx That Show How Incredibly Ancient It Really Is

Source: curiosmos.com

Of all the ancient monuments that have been carved and built throughout the history of mankind, none are as striking, mysterious and symbolic as the Great Sphinx of Giza.

Thought to have been the product of Fourth Dynasty workers, mainstream Egyptologists maintain that the Great Sphinx of Giza was commissioned by Pharaoh Khafre, the builder of the second-largest pyramid at Giza, and successor to Khufu.

However, most of what we know about the Great Sphinx is shrouded in profound mystery.

Although scholars agree the Sphinx is the world’s largest and oldest statues, some of the most basic characteristics of the statue have remained a subject for debate for centuries. We have absolutely no idea when it was built, who built it, and what its original purpose was.

https://curiosmos.com/7-rare-images...hat-show-how-incredibly-ancient-it-really-is/
 
The Sphinx was likely built ~ 12,000 years ago. Dr Robert Schock provides valid scientific data based on geology as proof of this. He has been instrumental in researching the Sphinx and Gobekli Tepe. Unlike the boat loads of charltons i.e.: von Daniken, Hancock, etc. Dr. Schock is a leading scientist in his field.
https://www.robertschoch.com/sphinx.html
 
Another article concerning the age of the Sphinx. 2 school of thought ~ traditional Egyptology states without viewing all evidences says the Sphinx is ~ 4500 years old. Yet other hard scientific data pushes the Sphinx back to > 10k BC, believing it to be the work of an earlier egyptian people. Interesting stuff since it's in the middle east where several other pre flood archeological digs are ongoing, i.e.: Gobekli Tepe
https://www.gaia.com/article/decoding-the-actual-age-of-the-great-sphinx.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top