• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

MrRING

Android Futureman
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
6,053
Riddle of the...

I thought there was some report about a hollow room under the paws of the Sphinx (maybe an Edgar Cayce vision) and that the existance of it had been confirmed by science. Does anybody else remeber this and if any excavation has been attempted?
 
... check out:

http://www.dailygrail.com/

Many of their links will take you to info on the
chambers in and below the Sphinx, as well as
the political reasons this info has NOT been
widely distributed.

Take what you will, disregard the rest...
TVgeek
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Riddle of the...

Mr. R.I.N.G. said:
I thought there was some report about a hollow room under the paws of the Sphinx (maybe an Edgar Cayce vision) and that the existance of it had been confirmed by science. Does anybody else remeber this and if any excavation has been attempted?

I have a recollection of some C4 prog. (possibly one of Mr. Hancock's 'spot an anomaly and then jump to all sorts of wild conclusions-things': I've a feeling it was the one where he went on about the similar layouts of the pyramids and pattern made by the stars of Orion.) where the Egyptian official who crops up on all the Egyptology docs on TV seemed to agree that there was indeed a chamber located beneath and betwixt the paws of the Sphinx, just as Cayce had said. However he also indicated that there were no plans to excavate it, nor would the Egyptian authorities entertain any offers from interested parties outwith Egypt to excavate it for them.
 
re:mr. r.i.n.g

that is "THE HALL OF RECORDS'', what you were trying to remember. located under the Paw.
Hold them ! HoooLLD Themmm!!! Michael Cain in , ZULU
 
I thought a chamber exists under the Sphinx which contains"The secrets of the Universe"and an attempt was to be made to enter this in 2000?Anyone hear anything about this?
 
Themainman said:
I thought a chamber exists under the Sphinx which contains"The secrets of the Universe"and an attempt was to be made to enter this in 2000?Anyone hear anything about this?
The chamber search as well as the replacement gold cap on the Great Pyramid were both blocked by the head of the Egyptian Antiquities department, Dr. Zahi Hawass. ...

Even though he admits that the Sphinx research (that it is actually 10,000 to 12,000 years old and the weathering on it is
from ancient rain storms) has brought more tourism dollars to Egypt than ANY previous discovery, he firmly stands in the way
of any MAJOR research or excavation done by a non-Egyptian.

TVgeek
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, what do Forteans think of this idea, that the Sphinx is the oldest?

The Sphinx: Older Than We Think?

Conventional science has held that the Sphinx was carved out of an outcropping during the reign of King Khafre around 2500 B.C.. In 1979, though, an amateur archaeologist named John Anthony West wrote a book entitled Serpent in the Sky. In the book West suggested that the Sphinx was far older than the pyramids and its severe erosion was the result of rain, not blowing sand. Therefore, concluded West, the Sphinx must have been built thousand of years earlier when the land was much wetter.

Nobody gave West's theory much attention until West brought in a trained geologist from Boston University named Robert Schoch. Schoch examined the Sphinx and thinks some of the fissures in the rock were indeed created by running water or rain. His conclusion is that the front and side of the Sphinx dated from 5000 to 7000 BC and was remodeled during Khafre's era to give the likeness of the pharaoh. Other Egyptologists argue that the original estimate is still right and that the fissures found by Schoch were the result of wet sand being blown up from the Nile river, not rain.

http://www.unmuseum.org/sphinx.htm

And another site on the Sphinx in general:

http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/pasiphae.htm

I think one interesting thing to note is how the current head of the Sphinx looks proportionatly too small, like it was originally a larger head carved down....
 
Mr. R.I.N.G. said:
"I think one interesting thing to note is how the current head of the Sphinx looks proportionatly too small, like it was originally a larger head carved down...."

I either watched a program on Discovery channel or read something on 'about.com' about that, the theory was that back before Egypt was a desert (!) the 'head' was a rock that stuck out of the ground, and was carved into something like the head of a lion or possibly a cobra, something of that shape.
 
Mr. R.I.N.G. said:
...

I think one interesting thing to note is how the current head of the Sphinx looks proportionatly too small, like it was originally a larger head carved down....
The head's obviously been recut from something earlier. The original sphinx could easily be nine thousand years old.
 
This whole subject was covered in FT about 7 or 8 (?) years ago...
 
JerryB said:
This whole subject was covered in FT about 7 or 8 (?) years ago...

What was the conclusion reached (if any) in FT? (I wasn't even aware of FT's existance until about 3 years ago or so...)
 
Well, you know FT - no real conclusions were made (rightly so perhaps). IIRC, it was more an overview of the various ideas. I think Schoch was interviewed about his claims. I'm sure I have the particular issue here in my flat somewhere, in amongst all of the others...
 
This is an old and well researched subject. The quoted article seems like a bit of University of Boston promo material to my jaundiced eye. :hmm:
 
So. What can we agree on? :)

Does the head match the body, for instance? I say no.
 
I always assumed that it was originally something else (either a different pharoes face or perhaps just a lion head that was carved to the likeness of Cheops (Khufu) the builder of the great pyramid hence it is smaller than the body.
 
AndroMan said:
So. What can we agree on? :)

Does the head match the body, for instance? I say no.

I agree. The head doesn't match the body, but it was remodelled after Napoleon's troops used it for target practice. If you examine earlier engravings, it looked a lot bigger, only still a trifle too small for the body. Still, if we run with the theory that the Sphinx is a "tarted-up" natural outcropping of rock, it explains a lot.
 
just to jump in with my ill-informed opinions.
The whole "evidence of water damage provees teh sphinx was made by 10,000 year old civilisation" thing strikes me as illogical. If i remeber correctly the sphinx is carved from one solid piece of sandstone, and clearly has lain in its present situation for a very long time (nothing except natural processes could have put it there). This would explain how it received water erosion over the long and varied history of that region of Africa. If i was living in an arid and flat region like Egypt and came across a very large outcrop of sandstone that had been naturally carved to a fantastical shape im sure it would act on my imagination the same way as lone clouds in a blue sky- like a Rorschach test. If it looked even vaguely "sphinx-like" that might be enough for any one of a number of Pharaohs to assert their dominance (in an Ozymandias kinda way) and carve their own likeness, or that of a relative into the stone.
any thoughts?
 
Arthur ASCII said:
I agree. The head doesn't match the body, but it was remodelled after Napoleon's troops used it for target practice. If you examine earlier engravings, it looked a lot bigger, only still a trifle too small for the body. Still, if we run with the theory that the Sphinx is a "tarted-up" natural outcropping of rock, it explains a lot.

Just an aside, but I'm almost certain that the part I've boldfaced has been exploded :D as an urban legend/20th century popular myth. Visitors in 1500 said it didn't look nearly as nice as it was have supposed to in 1200. Reports from the 1700s indicate the nose and ears were already severely damaged. I think Napoleon gets off the hook for that one, anyway.
 
Arthur ASCII said:
Still, if we run with the theory that the Sphinx is a "tarted-up" natural outcropping of rock, it explains a lot.
IIRC, the whole sphinx sits in a quarry, but whether the rock was quarried out around it to create it, or whether it was built in a quarry from which pyramid stone was taken, I'm not sure.
 
barndad said:
If i remember correctly the sphinx is carved from one solid piece of sandstone, and clearly has lain in its present situation for a very long time (nothing except natural processes could have put it there).

I believe it's limestone, not sandstone. Limestone is of course very prone to erosion by water; that's Prof Schoch's area of expertise, as I understand it, which is why he was called in. I don't think there's much argument about whether or not such erosion has taken place - Schach presented his evidence to a conference of fellow-geologists, and they all agreed with him. The issue is, has the erosion affected the parts of the outcrop that were worked by whoever made the Sphinx? Given that pretty much the whole darn thing has been worked, so far as I know - at least the above-ground part - then I guess it must have affected the worked parts. So there's a plausible argument for an effect on the dating of the work.

Unless it's just a simulacrum, of course. ;)
 
Who Nose

Further to Lopaka's point:

http://www.catchpenny.org/nose.html

or

This error has persisted in spite of the fact that the truth can be readily found in such common reference sources as the Encyclopedia Americana (Danbury, CT: Grolier, 1995). vol.25, p.492-3 under "Sphinx", which states: "Over the centuries the Great Sphinx has suffered severely from weathering...Man has been responsible for additional mutilation. In 1380 A.D. the Sphinx fell victim to the iconoclastic ardor of a fanatical Muslim ruler, who caused deplorable injuries to the head. Then the figure was used as a target for the guns of the Mamluks." In the book The Egyptian Pyramids: A Comprehensive Illustrated Reference (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1990), p.301, the author, J.P. Lepre, adds the fact that, in addition to the 14th century damage, "The face was further disfigured by the eighteenth century A.D. ruler of Egypt, the Marmalukes [Mamluks]."

In National Geographic, April 1991, page 36, Mark Lehner, an archaeologist from Chicago's Oriental Institute who created a computer reconstruction of the Sphinx, writes: "I sought clues from history and archaeology for the computer reconstruction of the Sphinx. An early 15th-century Arab historian reported that the face had been disfigured in his time. Yet to this day the damage is wrongly attributed to Napoleon's troops." Again, the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Oxford Univ., 2001. Vol. 1, p. 30) also states of the perpetrator of the missing nose, "This accusation is most often leveled at Napoleon Bonaparte, who is said to have shot the nose off the Sphinx -a claim that is manifestly incorrect, not only because earlier western representations of the Sphinx depict it with its nose missing (for example, the drawing published in 1755 by Frederick Norden) but also because medieval Arabic texts attribute the damage to a Muslim fanatic in the fourteenth century CE."

European visitors to Egypt prior to Napoleon's expedition had already discovered the vandalism to the Sphinx. In 1546, for example, when Dr. Pierre Belon explored Egypt, he visited "the great colossus." "The Sphinx," writes Leslie Greener in The Discovery Of Egypt (London : Cassell, 1966), p.38, by this time "no longer [had] the stamp of grace and beauty so admired by Abdel Latif in 1200." Greener goes on to say: "this exonerates the artillerymen of Napoleon Bonaparte, who have the popular reputation of having used the nose of the Sphinx as a target." Frederick Norden, an artist and marine architect who visited Egypt in 1737, accurately depicted the Sphinx without its nose in his 1755 Travels. (Richard Pococke, who visited Egypt in the same year as Norden, depicts the Sphinx with its nose, but the engraving is generally considered a copy of that of Cornelius de Bruyn's earlier drawing.) The charge against Napoleon is particularly unjust because the French general brought with him a large group of "savants" to conduct the first scientific study of Egypt and its antiquities.

Finally, an article by Ulrich Haarmann, "Regional Sentiment in Medieval Islamic Egypt," published in the University of London's Bulletin Of The School Of Oriental And African Studies (BSOAS), vol.43 (1980) p.55-66, states that according to Makrizi, Rashidi and other medieval Arab scholars, the face of the Sphinx was vandalized in 1378 A.D. by Mohammed Sa'im al-Dahr, a "fanatical sufi of the oldest and most highly respected sufi convent of Cairo." The nose and ears are mentioned specifically as having been damaged at this time. According to one account, Haarmann states, the residents in the neighborhood of the Sphinx were so upset by the destruction that they lynched him and buried him near the great monument he ruined. (Thanks to Ann Macy Roth's article in the online Ancient Near East Digest (University of Chicago, Oriental Institute) for the information on Haarmann's article). This confirms information published in Selim Hassan's book The Sphinx: Its History in Light of Recent Excavations (Cairo: Government Press, 1949. P. 81-83) which states that Sa'im al-Dahr pried off the Sphinx's nose with crowbars.

http://www.napoleonseries.org/faq/sphinx.cfm
 
iirc most old monuments were ,lets say ,renavated by following kings.
so the head would obviously get some work wouldnt it,just like lots of other monuments had older writing overwritten with the said latest best thing since sliced bread ....
 
Lovecraft

I don't know if this has occurred to others besides myself but it seems to me that nearly the entirety of modern Variant Egyptologyy could have been lifted directly from the pages of H. P. Lovecraft's 1924 WEIRD TALES story "Imprisoned with the Pharaohs."

In that tale Lovecraft suggested that the Sphinx was both hideously ancient and equally hideous to behold. According to Lovecraft, Pharaoh Knephren (Ka-F-Ra), the builder of the Second Pyramid, ordered the Sphinx's face RE-CARVED into his own likeness so that it would less disturbing to gaze upon.

The story also suggestes that the landmass beheath the Pyramids and Sphinx on the Gizeh Plateau is honeycombed with secret tunnels and catacombs dating from hoary antiquity - one of the cardinal doctrines of Revisionist Egyptology.

Maybe HPL was just incredibly prescient?
 
I don't mean to come across as sounding anti-Science of Archaeology here, really I don't, but there's something about standard archaeology commentary on the Sphinx which has always deeply disturbed me.

Almost any standard work on the Sphinx published between 1900 and 1970 will INSIST that there are no caves, tunnels or tomb pits/shafts within the Sphinx's body.

Yet if you go to the stacks of any large public library and examine published travel memoirs written by late 19th century tourists, the authors go into great detail describing how they climbed merrily around on the Sphinx, popping into and out of all sorts of caves, tunnels and pits. (And tourists of this type are usually considered "innocent" reporters with no special axes to grind and no particular agendas to promote.)

Miracle of miracles, these holes and hollows have been RE-DISCOVERED within the past 20-30 years

But "re-discovered" isn't quite the right word either, since archaeologists will tell you that they've always known about their existence.

Incredible.
 
OldTimeRadio said:
I don't mean to come across as sounding anti-Science of Archaeology here, really I don't, but there's something about standard archaeology commentary on the Sphinx which has always deeply disturbed me.
I agree with you entirely. I'm certainly not anti-archaeology, but I'm somewhat anti-Official Egyptian archaeology, and have a particular problem with Zahi Hawass, who seems about as obstructive as is humanly possible to Egyptian research by anyone but himself (read almost any book by modern Western archaeologists attempting to work in the Valley of the Kings, and there will be a catalogue of Hawass granting permission, withdrawing permission, interfering, cancelling...)

It's not too much of a leap of imagination to conjecture that Hawass seems to know there's something there, and at the first sniff of a discovery he's waiting to get in there himself.
 
Hawass has always struck me as someone whose managed to get into a position of influence in the archeological establishment mainly by getting his name onto other people's research. If you've worked in acadaemia or one of the science-based industries you could point out dozens of examples of the type...
 
Timble2 said:
Hawass has always struck me as someone whose managed to get into a position of influence in the archeological establishment mainly by getting his name onto other people's research.
Absolutely - standing on the shoulders of giants par excellence.

Witness the recent robot investigations of the little shafts in the Giza pyramid - they get so far, then Hawass (present throughout) abruptly orders them out. I think you're right, Timble - he wants the glory without the bother of doing any actual groundwork himself.
 
stuneville said:
"Witness the recent robot investigations of the little shafts in the Giza pyramid"

Give any intelligent high school or college physics student a stone shaft of the exact dimensions of the Queen's Chamber shaft and tell him or her (truthfully) that there's a million dollars waiting in a little side-chamber near the top. How long do you think it would take our undergraduate to have the cash in hand? Months? Weeks? Days? Hours? He or she would certainly not be sitting their stumped after a full decade!
 
Built by Egyptians

With all respect to Dr. Hawass, his most-often expressed "explanation" as to why the Sphinx cannot possibly date from 10,500 BC strikes me as Political Correctness squared.

"The Sphinx," says Hawass, "HAS to have been built by Egyptians!"

Okay, why not built by Egyptians 10,500 years ago?
 
Back
Top