The Sphinx (Great Sphinx Of Giza)

[blessmycottonsocks]

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

Charlatan he may be, but man of the moment Graham Hancock, thanks to his Netflix series, seems to be singing from exactly the same hymn sheet as Schoch regarding the age of the Sphinx. His 1996 book "Message of the Sphinx", co-written with Robert Bauval, is devoted to evidence for the extreme age of the Sphinx, along with the Younger Dryas catastrophic flood theory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message_of_the_Sphinx

 

[MrRING]

In 1993, Charlton Heston narrated a special called The Mystery of the Sphinx that positioned at it's ancient origins.

Ridiculed by traditional Egyptologists but supported by geologist Robert Schoch, John Anthony West cites water erosion as evidence that the Great Sphinx is more than 9,000 years old. Charlton Heston hosts.

 

[Jim]

Charlatan he may be, but man of the moment Graham Hancock, thanks to his Netflix series, seems to be singing from exactly the same hymn sheet as Schoch regarding the age of the Sphinx. His 1996 book "Message of the Sphinx", co-written with Robert Bauval, is devoted to evidence for the extreme age of the Sphinx, along with the Younger Dryas catastrophic flood theory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message_of_the_Sphinx

luckily Schoch is a an actual scientist, Hancock kinda makes it up as he goes spinning fact and fantasy tohether for (IMAO) for attention and money.

 

[Sid]

After watching the Blaze channel last night covering one possible explanation into the reason for the Sphinx sitting in front of the three Pyramids (of Orion) is that it there because it represents Leo being in the same position as Orion at some point a long time ago.

I've drawn - as accurately as possible a sketch (below) to illustrate that Leo does have a small head in positional star-form.
So I'm now thinking that if at some point 'they' decided that the head was originally carved and looked too large, so decided to reduce it as a more accurate depiction to fit the Leo constellation? It could well be that Leo (i.e. 'The Sphinx') was placed there for whatever reason long-long before the Pyramids, or maybe along with the great mud-brick built Pyramid as was thought to be far older as mentioned in the programme.
Whatever - it certainly was interesting.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

Illustration from the British newspaper The Sphere, dated March 22, 1913, clearly showing the newly opened tunnels and chambers inside the Sphinx's head, body and beneath.
Was this just a fanciful artist's impression, or are the chambers real and, if so, what happened to them?

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

The entrance in the head of the Sphinx was originally far larger. The photo on the left was taken from a hot air balloon at the end of the 19th century and the other photo shows a local guy standing in the head with his arms outstretched, which gives us a good idea of scale.

At some stage in the 20th century, the entrance was concreted over and a small metal man-hole cover installed:

Furthermore historian Bettany Hughes has reported about the deep hole leading down at the Sphinx's rear into an apparent chamber:

Although Bettany is a bit on the plump side to fit down there, surely someone has explored these mysterious openings, either in person or using remote cameras. Why haven't any results been published?

 

[Mythopoeika]

Although Bettany is a bit on the plump side to fit down there, surely someone has explored these mysterious openings, either in person or using remote cameras. Why haven't any results been published?

When he was in charge, Zahi Hawass had a tight control over what information was released and over who could explore the site.
Since he was moved on, it seems that whoever is now in charge of antiquities and archaeology has been doing something along the same lines. A huge chamber underneath was proposed, but I can't remember hearing of one being found and fully explored.

 

[Ascalon]

Illustration from the British newspaper The Sphere, dated March 22, 1913, clearly showing the newly opened tunnels and chambers inside the Sphinx's head, body and beneath.
Was this just a fanciful artist's impression, or are the chambers real and, if so, what happened to them?

View attachment 73146

Very much wishful thinking, I'm sure.
Recent ground penetrating radar has revealed there may be cavities directly beneath, but not within the body itself.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

Very much wishful thinking, I'm sure.
Recent ground penetrating radar has revealed there may be cavities directly beneath, but not within the body itself.

Although that dark hole at the rear is very suggestive of a sizeable cavity within the body.

 

[SimonBurchell]

Although that dark hole at the rear is very suggestive of a sizeable cavity within the body.

It is surely where people who answer the Sphinx's riddle incorrectly come out after they have been... processed.

 

[maximus otter]

Almost 24 hours after a post featuring “Bettany Hughes” and “exploring a large opening in the rear”, and not a single comment?

Am l still on FTMB?

maximus otter

 

[Floyd]

Almost 24 hours after a post featuring “Bettany Hughes” and “exploring a large opening in the rear”, and not a single comment?

Am l still on FTMB?

maximus otter

As soon as Bettany is mentioned in any form I always think about it, but try to restrain myself.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

If you look at the photo I posted of Bettany above, the area where she is placing her hand looks like some recent brickwork, as it isn't weathered like other portions of the Sphinx's body. There must have been some restoration work carried out in the area around the Sphinx's back and tail. I cannot find any articles showing any before and after shots of that particular area, but would love to know what, if anything is inside that obvious cavity.

 

[Floyd]

When you consider that in 1837 John Perring got some metal boring rods stuck inside the Sphinx and decided to use dynamite to blast them out (not the first time he'd used this method), it makes you wonder what irretrievable damage has been done over the years that has now been lost for ever.

 

[maximus otter]

When you consider that in 1837 John Perring got some metal boring rods stuck inside the Sphinx and decided to use dynamite to blast them out (not the first time he'd used this method), it makes you wonder what irretrievable damage has been done over the years that has now been lost for ever.

Luckily, he'd already made his fortune from inventing time travel. (Dynamite wasn't invented until 1866.)



maximus otter

 

[Floyd]

Luckily, he'd already made his fortune from inventing time travel. (Dynamite wasn't invented until 1866.)



maximus otter

I knew someone would come up with that.
Gun-powder then?

 

[maximus otter]

I knew someone would come up with that.
Gun-powder then?

Yep: Probably black powder.

maximus otter

 

[Robbrent]

I do always wonder why they don't allow a professional survey of this monument and all the surrounding areas and put an end to all the conjecture or could it be a bit of a pot boiler by the authorities it certainly maintains interest and gets it talked about they probably know there is nothing there

 

[Tunn11]

I do always wonder why they don't allow a professional survey of this monument and all the surrounding areas and put an end to all the conjecture or could it be a bit of a pot boiler by the authorities it certainly maintains interest and gets it talked about they probably know there is nothing there

Yeah. I'm struggling with why the Egyptian authorities wouldn't want to push the origins of Egyptian culture further back in time. Is it the "we're right and won't consider any other potential evidence" attitude that seems to apply to human settlement of the Americas? Or could there be an even more unpleasant motivation such as proof that the original cultures had their origins with different racial or cultural groups such as Nubian, European or Sumerian/Akkadian or links to Çatalhüyük or Göbekli Tepe?

 

[Sid]

When you consider that in 1837 John Perring got some metal boring rods stuck inside the Sphinx and decided to use dynamite to blast them out (not the first time he'd used this method), it makes you wonder what irretrievable damage has been done over the years that has now been lost for ever.

Here is a good website which covers the possibilities that lie within, and beneath the Sphinx.
https://madainproject.com/great_sphinx_of_giza

 

[Frideswide]

I do always wonder why they don't allow a professional survey of this monument

it's one of the most surveyed and examined areas in the world. Modern, effective, professional surveys happen after every major sand shift or technological development.

Or could there be an even more unpleasant motivation such as proof that the original cultures had their origins with different racial or cultural groups such as Nubian, European or Sumerian/Akkadian or links to Çatalhüyük or Göbekli Tepe?

I'm struggling to square this with work that showed that some pharonic lines were Nubian and Black.

and put an end to all the conjecture

because everyone knows that presenting idiots with actual evidence produces a change in their idiocy?

or could it be a bit of a pot boiler by the authorities it certainly maintains interest and gets it talked

Shock horror! Egyptian Authorities have guile and cunning equal to european equiuvalents! Or it can be seen as the way the world works all over the world. Mind you, they aren't sufficiently venal to accept all the money that western, especially USA, bodies would like to throw at them. From the egyptians' point of view having a westerner parachuted in to head and front something works only for some projects. The days of jodhpurs, topees and a riding crop are long gone - but as a trope it looms large in many/most former colonial contexts.

I /think/ that perhaps because the work is done (largely) by Egyptian professionals then it goes under the radar?

It's just as good as a more visible (to us) campaign would be.

It's worth bearing in mind that the only reason the egyptians have this part of their culture is that some of it was too big for us to carry off. Even after it had been hacked to bits and blown to even smaller bits.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

It's worth bearing in mind that the only reason the egyptians have this part of their culture is that some of it was too big for us to carry off. Even after it had been hacked to bits and blown to even smaller bits.

Remember that Tutankhamun's tomb was a very rare thing - an unplundered tomb!
The vast majority of ancient Egyptian treasures had been plundered and sold on or melted down by pretty well anyone who found them - Egyptians included, over the last few thousand years.

 

[Tunn11]

I have to admit ignorance of Egyptian history. I know (Or think I do!) that there was a lot of interaction between Nubia and Egypt some peaceful and some not. Most of the interaction with the Near East that I know of seemed fairly confrontatinal, Hyksos, Hittites, Sea Peoples, Mycenaean Greek, Phoenicians, Medes, etc. although doubtless there was trade and cultural interaction as well.

I was therefore wondering about any political aspect to the research. Not denigrating the work of Egyptian or non western archaeologists, just wondering whether there was any pressure on them to dismiss anything that may point to the roots of Egyptian culture originating outside of the traditional areas of the Upper and Lower Kingdoms.

I was reading something about Kennewick man (The supposedly early non Native American remains found in the US) The remains were claimed as ancestral to the indigenous people who claimed ownership of them, which seems fair enough; but there was some debate as if they were found to represent an earlier ethnic group it undermined the Native American legal argument that the land was theirs.

A potential discovery hinting that civilisation in Egypt may have originally been an outpost of a culture originating in modern Turkey may be politically unpalatable, particularly given the destruction wrought on Egyptian antiquities in the past. That could be a reason for not following them up, not funding them, etc.

I also understand that relating Egyptian chronologies to other sources has been controversial and wonder whether some archaeologists have become entrenched (sorry!) in their own views and don't wish to hear other ideas or acknowledge discoveries that call their views into question; rather like those involved in the debate on settlement of the Americas.

 

[Aydee_Aitchdee]

that there was a lot of interaction between Nubia and Egypt some peaceful and some not

There was. I just learned about this thanks to Expedition Unknown and a kind Redditor. The Nubians ruled Egypt at times. They also built pyramids

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kush

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubian_pyramids

 

[Xanatic*]

Some of the control might be about fitting iit into an islamic narrative.
There seem to be forces trying to do that with Gobekli Tepe.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Am l still on FTMB?

Technically speaking, no.

 

[Shadowsot]

rather like those involved in the debate on settlement of the Americas

Really wish this trope would die already. Even Hancock admits (admittedly in the works cited section of one of his books) that the evidence for Pre-Clovis wasn't good until Monte Verde was dated.
The site in Canada was the fault of the local archaeologosts but wasn't known outside of it until recently.
It was a heated debate with hardliners, but it pretty much fell dead when the monte verde results were published.
It's been greatly exaggerated by people who have a certain point of view to sell.

potential discovery hinting that civilisation in Egypt may have originally been an outpost of a culture originating in modern Turkey may be politically unpalatable, particularly given the destruction wrought on Egyptian antiquities in the past. That could be a reason for not following them up, not funding them, etc.

That doesn't really make much sense. The prehistory of Egypt is pretty heavily studied and well understood. They don't just appear on tge historical record. Clustering around the Nile into nomes and eventually developing into what becomes upper and lower Egypt.
A lot of the fringe stuff, like Schock, requires throwing out all the other data we have, including the data that contradicts their claims, in order to be accepted.
Either every other geologist and archaeoligst working in Egypt is covering up the truth... Or some people just like having neat ideas.

As far as the sphinx is concerned there have been a number of maps made detailing the various tunnels and tombs built at the site.
Giza has been around for a very long time. Later nobels and others saw fit to bury themselves in the shadow of the Pharoahs of old as a way to borrow their legacy. If I wasn't trying to deal with a flu right now I could dig them up. Probably mark Lehner has them published somewhere.

 

[Tunn11]

Really wish this trope would die already. Even Hancock admits (admittedly in the works cited section of one of his books) that the evidence for Pre-Clovis wasn't good until Monte Verde was dated.
The site in Canada was the fault of the local archaeologosts but wasn't known outside of it until recently.
It was a heated debate with hardliners, but it pretty much fell dead when the monte verde results were published.
It's been greatly exaggerated by people who have a certain point of view to sell.

That doesn't really make much sense. The prehistory of Egypt is pretty heavily studied and well understood. They don't just appear on tge historical record. Clustering around the Nile into nomes and eventually developing into what becomes upper and lower Egypt.
A lot of the fringe stuff, like Schock, requires throwing out all the other data we have, including the data that contradicts their claims, in order to be accepted.
Either every other geologist and archaeoligst working in Egypt is covering up the truth... Or some people just like having neat ideas.

As far as the sphinx is concerned there have been a number of maps made detailing the various tunnels and tombs built at the site.
Giza has been around for a very long time. Later nobels and others saw fit to bury themselves in the shadow of the Pharoahs of old as a way to borrow their legacy. If I wasn't trying to deal with a flu right now I could dig them up. Probably mark Lehner has them published somewhere.

As I said I don't claim much knowledge of Egyptian or American archaeology it just seems that like so many other disciplines there is an unwillingness to consider potential discoveries that don't fit current theory. Maybe a potentially controversial discovery makes popular headlines and books but the refutation gets less coverage?

I can, for instance remember the Viking settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows being dismissed by some at first. I don't support any of the woo theories about alien intervention or technically advanced civilisations flying their helicopters around the pyramids but I do think that we don't fully understand the various contacts between ancient cultures via trade routes, etc. Otzi I believe threw up a number of surprises and I think Nan Madol is going to require a re think of the history of peoples in the Pacific.

Hope you're over the flu soon.

 

[Shadowsot]

I said I don't claim much knowledge of Egyptian or American archaeology

You say this.
But then follow with this

just seems that like so many other disciplines there is an unwillingness to consider potential discoveries that don't fit current theory.

It might seem like that when you don't know much of it, but like with the Pre-Clovis example: the bulk of it is just simply there's no good evidence for a claim versus the amount of evidence that goes into "mainstream" idea.
This also tends to paint the mainstream as a monolith of single opinions when there's a large diversity of opinions. They just fit themselves in with the accumulated facts.
For example, just sticking to the archaeological evidence. The pyramids definitely date to the Old Kingdom. There's some debate about the exact century, and what the state of it was when Khufu started building his pyramid. But carbon dating of coal from the mortar and thermoluminesce dating put the pyramids in the Old Kingdom.
The quarry the stones used to make the pyramids is where the sphinx sits. Without a pyramid's worth of stone being pulled out, you don't have a quarry, and you don't have a sphinx.
Multiple lines of evidence point to the pyramids and the sphinx dating to the Old Kingdom, so why take claims about them being 12000 years old and built by Atlantis s seriously?

can, for instance remember the Viking settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows being dismissed by some at first.

Sure. And then genuine artifacts were excavated by practicing archaeoligsts. This doesn't always happen of course, Schmidt didn't get any dismissal when he announced the age for Göbekli

I do think that we don't fully understand the various contacts between ancient cultures via trade routes

By the bronze age trade reached from Egypt to the balkans. There's various bits of evidence of trade among the old world. But none between the old and new world.
Most of the well known ancient religions derived from the Paelo Indo European pantheon, or were influenced by them. Egypt and Sumer mostly excluded. Chinese traders were buried in ancient Greece.

Nan Madol is going to require a re think of the history

Not really, Hancock popularizing it again doesn't change the number of pieces of research that's already been done on the site, again people making fantastic claims in liue of good evidence doesn't get traction anywhere except people trying to sell "The truth the won't accept."

 

[Frideswide]

Magnificent @Shadowsot

Totally bloody magnificent!