Post by hi224 on Feb 12, 2023 17:15:27 GMT
Unarguably the Great Sphinx of Giza is the most recognizable statue associated with ancient Egypt. The sculpture, of a recumbent lion with the head of an Egyptian king, was carved from limestone on the Giza plateau likely during the reign of Khafre (2558-2532 BCE) during the Old Kingdom of Egypt (c. 2613-2181 BCE), though some scholars (for one Dobrev in 2004 CE) claim it was in fact created by Djedefre (2566-2558 BCE), Khafre's brother who attempted to ursurp the the throne after the death of Khufu (2589-2566 BCE) AKA Cheops in ancient Greek, who was the builder of the Great Pyramid.
There are other Egyptologists, scholars, professors, and historians from outside the field who have claimed the Sphinx is much older than the 4th Dynasty date mainstream Egyptologists insist on. Some of these claims, such as those of Zechariah Stichin and Erich von Daniken, have long been discredited, and those of more recent writers are usually ignored or claimed to be irrelevant or wrong.
Scholars are in disagreement over who had the Sphinx carved and when it was created, but there is no doubt it is an impressive piece of work, which was for centuries, the largest sculpture in the world. It measures 240' long (73 m) and stands 66' high (20 m), placed on a straight west to east axis. Egyptologist Miroslav Verner remarked on the significance of the sculpture writing: "The Great Sphinx of Giza is more than simply a symbol of ancient and modern Egypt. It is the very embodiment of antiquity and mystery itself. Over the centuries it has fired the imaginations of poets and scientists, adventurers and travelers. Although it has often been measured, described, investigated using the most up-to-date scientific technical means, and discussed at special scientific conferences, fundamental questions remain unanswered: Who built it, when, and why?" While there are many theories put forth, few satisfy the three questions nor are they universally agreed upon. Coomonly accepted today however is that it was build under the reign of Khafre when mason who were building his pyramid complex came upon a large piece of limestone and were directed to carve the Sphinx. Why this was done is still debated.
The sculpture was never known as "the sphinx" by the ancient Egyptians which is a Greek work and came to be aplied to it through a translation of the Egyptian name sesep-ankh ("living image") by which they referred to the piece as well as to other representations of royal figures. That may be so but it is also likely that the statue reminded the Greeks of their own mythical sphinx, with the body of a beast and head of a woman. Greek visitors to the site may have mistook the nemes (the striped headcloth of the king) for a woman's shoulder-length hair.
During the New Kingdom of Egypt (1570-1069 BCE), the Sphinx was know by the Egyptians as Horemakhet (Horus of the Horizon) and a cult grew around the statue associating it with the god Horus. This was a solar cult which venerated Horus in his role as a sky god. Amenhotep II (1425-1400 BCE) may have been a patron of this cult. He honored it with a temple praising Khufu and Khafre as representatives of Horus on earth, but his choice in naming these two strongly suggests he knew of a connection between these rulers of the 4th Dynasty and the statue. Amenhotep II's inscriptions suggest a probable date and name of kings associated with it's creation.
Amenhotep II's son, prince Thutmose, fell asleep one night near the Spinx and had a dream in which the statue spoke to him complaining of its state and how the sand pressed upon it. Thutmose was offered a deal: if he would clear the sand away and restore it, he would become the next Pharoah. The prince took the deal and had the now famous Dream Stele erected in front of it, carved of pink granite. He became Thutmose IV (1400-1390 BCE) and the cult of the Sphinx grew after his reign which encouraged people to look upon the statue as a living deity able to influence the future.
4th century CE Coptic Christians called the Sphinx Bel-Hit (The Guardian) and this is the name used today by Egyptians. It is known in Egyptian Arabic as Abu al-Hawl, 'The Father of Terror,' and has been claimed to be an idolatrous abomination by some extreme factions of Islam. In 2012 CE, clerics associated with the Taliban call for the destruction of the Sphinx and the pyramids of Giza.
In ancient times, the Giza plateau was very different as to how it is in the present day. Evidence has been found through patterns of erosion, fossilized plant and animal material, and artifacts that the area some 8,000 years ago was quite fertile and lush with vegetation. Water was abundant and rainfall was plentiful in the region c. 15,000 BCE and though less so, the area was still very fertile during the 4th Dynasty.
The Old Kingdom capital was the nearby city of Memphis; Giza was chosen as the necropolis for the kings of the 4th Dynasty, because it had been used by rulers during the Early Dynastic Period (c 3150-2613 BCE) and possibly even the Predynastic Period (c3150-2613 BCE). By the time Khufu came to the throne Egyptians understood very well how to work in stone and create monuments on a grand scale. It's likely that Khufu chose Giza as the site for his Great Pyramid to showcase the work in the best setting and away from predecessor's creations such as the ones at Saara due to the fact that at Gize there were only mastaba tombs.
Khafre came to the throne and began his own pyramid complex next to his father's. The Sphinx is credited to him because the face resembles his as it appears in statuary and the way in which the Sphinx seems to have been carved. There is a theory that in the process of building Khafre's pyramid, a large mass of rock was found that was considered unusable for the pyramid complex and they carved the statue from it. Historians Bob Brier and Hoyt Hobbs said: "Khafre's pyramid [was faced with a] gleaming casing of white limestone, transported by boats from quarries across the Nile [and] laid over interior limestone blocks which were cut from the surrounding Giza site. Probably in the course of freeing these interior blocks, quarrymen struck a seam of harder rock they avoided, leaving a small hill. Khafre had the outcrop carved in the shape of a recumbent lion bearing his own face - the famous Sphinx."
The Sphinx is directly in line with Khafre's pyramid comples and this also supports the claim that he was its creator. The location of the statue and how it lines up with the complex has led some scholars to believe that the Sphinx already existed when Khafre came to the throne and his complex was designed to line up with it. (Stadelmann of the German Archaeological Institute of Cairo, E. Wallis Budge (1857-1934 CE) just to name a couple. Dobrev, claimed in 2004 that the statue was completed by Djedfre (brother of Khafre) in honor of his father Khufu and the face resembles Khufu far more than Khafre. He also agrees that Khafre's complex was oriented to the Sphinx rather than the other way around.
There is evidence that argues for construction during Khafre's reign. The face aside, it is know that the limestone is the same as what was used in Khafre's pyramid. That kind of skill can be seen in statues of Khafre and statuary of gods from this time. The orientation strongly suggests that it was built with Khufu's pyramid and complex in mind, not the statue. Further evidence comes from an inscription on the left paw dating to 166 CE. It commemorates a restoration project by the Romans of the wall which surrounded the Sphinx at the time. Although it doesn't verify any given date of construction it does suggest that during the period of Roman Egypt, the statue was understood to be younger than the pyramids due to the statment that the creators "near the pyramids have bid thee stand" and how the purpose of the Sphinx was to watch over the "beloved prince buried nearby. It could mean however that the Sphinx watches over the Roman Emperor. It can be read either way and is missing some lines near the end. Those who accept the orthodox dating of the statue to the 4th Dynasty point to the inscription as a later proof of their claim.
Humans, all protests to the contrary, cannot tolerate a mystery. Mysteries are only intriguing if they conclude with clarity of resolution; there is none with the Sphinx. The inscriptions known as the Inventory Stele found near the pyramid of Khufu lists 22 statues of the Temple of Isis at Giza and clearly states that Khufu erected a monument near the Sphinx; therefore the statue must have existed prior to Khufu and so earlier than Khafre. If the Inventory Stele date from the 4th Dynasty, it would be evidence that the statue existed before Khufu and Khafre; but it doesn't. The Stele has been positively dated to the 26th Dynasty of the Third Intermediate Period (c. 1069-525 BCE). Actually, the ruins of the Temple of Isis at Giza date to the Middle Kingdom (2040-1782 BCE) long after Khufu's reign.
A more significant argument for earlier construction is that, although inscriptions and evidence relating to the 4th Dynasty such as how the workers were housed, fed, paid - there is no mention of the Sphinx. Egyptians carefully documented building projects. It seems strange that such a large structure would not be mentioned at the time it was being built. Another argument against the Sphinx being built by Khafre is that the face is not his. Dobrev said in 2004 that the face wasn't Khafre's and geologist Dr. Robert M. Schoch had already claimed that the face wasn't Khafre's and was much older than his reign. Schoch and Egyptologist John A. West hired forensic specialist Frank Doming to examine the it and see if they had the same face. Domingo's conclusion was that they represented two different people. Schoch claims the present face is a woman. They both claim it is centuries older than mainstream theories claim. Schoch, a geologist, has famously noted the erosion marks suggest extensive rainfall over a long period. This pattern of weather was not evident during the 4th Dynasty.
They are countered by Egyptologists such as Mark Lehner who point to similarities between the face of the Sphinx and Khafre's statuary and how the erosion patters have nothing to do with the age. It if took place on the Giza plateau it wouldn't be restricted to a single monument. This debate is still ongoing.
Writers Robert and Olivia Temple claim that not only is the face not Khafre's, it isn't even the original face of the statue. The head is notably out of proportion - it is much smaller. They say this is because it wasn't carved in the 4th Dynasty but centuries earlier and was originally the jackal god Anubis. According to this theory, the statue of Anubis traditonally guarded the necropolist and would fit the location. They claim the statue was re-carved to depict a lion with a king's head in the 4th Dynasty. Egyptologist Rosalie David notes how "there are no extant literary sources which throw light on either the predynastic practice of zoolatry or anthropomorphism which occurred c. 3000-c. 2800 BCE. We can only speculate about the reasons for these developments" (53). David comments further on depictions of the gods in general and the Sphinx in particular, writing: "The forms and dress of the gods were always shown in a fairly uniform manner, providing no indication of the historical date of the figure; the god's individuality or particular function was represented by his distinctive headwear or animal head. A reversed example of the mixture of animal and human features occurs in later periods, in the form of the sphinx, where a human head is placed on an animal body. Whenever animal and human features were united in one body, any details which might appear ludicrous or grotesque, such as the place where the head and the body joined, were masked: in this instance, the neck area was concealed with the lappets of the headdress."
The Temples would disagree with this assessment as they claim the head of the Sphinx was re-carved and thereby diminished from the larger head of Anubis. The lappets of the headdress would then not have been utilized to conceal the neck area but simply to make use of the stone of the original head and also, of course, to remain in keeping with the depiction of an Egyptian king of the period. Robert Temple also claims that the face is not Khafre's but that of Amenemhat II (c. 1929-1895 BCE) based on the style of the stripes on the headcloth of the Sphinx which he says are distinctive of the 12th Dynasty of the Middle Kingdom. Among the reasons mainstream scholars reject these claims is that they are largely speculative. There is no evidence in any form that the Sphinx once had a different head and the difference in proportion between the head and the body of the Sphinx can be explained easily by the amount of stone the quarrymen had to work with and their process: the body of the Sphinx was carved first and the head last. The head was made smaller either because there was not enough stone or for greater stability.
Geologist Colin Reader claims that, along the lines of the Temples, that the Sphinx originally had a different head but claims it was a lioness, not Anubis. He supports his claim, in part, through a sphinx statue in the Cairo Museum which he interprets as having previously been that of a lioness which had its ears hacked off and face re-carved. Reader's primary contention, like that of others, is that there is no satisfactory explanation for the weathering of the Sphinx or the proportion of the head than that it predates the 4th Dynasty and was once a different monument.
Historian and Egyptologist Antoine Gigal argues in defense of these 'fringe' claims and further asserts that not only is the Sphinx centuries older than the accepted date but there were once two of them. Gigal cites the Dream Stele of Thutmose IV - which clearly shows two sphinxes - and the Inventory Stele which seems to indicate a second sphinx destroyed by a storm.
This second sphinx would have been located across the River Nile from the one at Giza. Two sphinxes would have certainly been in keeping with Egyptian art and architecture in that the ancient Egyptians greatly valued balance and observed the concept in all aspects of their civilization, often doubling municipal buildings and monuments (such as the practice of always raising two obelisks). Gigal also asserts that there were tunnels beneath these sphinxes which may have connected them. Tunnels have, in fact, been located beneath the Great Sphinx although it has been determined that they do not go anywhere.
There is little mention of the statue in Egyptian inscriptions. None of the materials unearthed at Giza or anywhere else in Egypt make any mention of the statue's construction; it is referenced as though it always existed when it is mentioned at all. Herodotus is silent on the Sphinx as are other early Greek writers. Pliny the Elder (23-79 CE) mentions the statue in his work on Natural History and claims it was revered as a god and also served as a tomb; no other ancient writer either confirms or contradicts his claim.
Writers regularly repeat the absolute falsity that Napoleon's troops shot off the nose on their campaign to Egypt in 1798-1801 CE. The French artist Frederic Luis Norden's drawing of the Sphinx from 1737 CE shows the Sphinx's nose already destroyed and the draftsman Dominique Vivant Denon (1747-1825 CE) who accompanied Napoleon on his campaign shows the same. The nose could have been damaged in the Arab Invasion of the 7th century CE, as some have claimed, or by a Muslim cleric of the 14th century CE who was enraged at finding Egyptian peasants still venerating the statue as a deity.
Whatever its origins and original purpose, Verner is correct when he says how the Great Sphinx of Giza is "the very embodiment of antiquity and of mystery itself" (234). A giant recumbent lion with the head of a man sitting in the midst of an ancient plateau begs to have a reason given for it and a history commensurate with the fascination it has inspired over the centuries. The Sphinx lives up to its name in that it is a riddle whose very presence frustrates attempts to give a satisfying answer. Even if all the alternative histories of the monument were accepted, there would still be others proposing alternatives to those alternatives. As with any great work of art, the Sphinx leaves itself open to interpretation, but unlike most, this struggle with interpretation goes beyond the work itself and, unless one accepts the conventional view, leads to more questions than answers.
So the write-up is done and I would love to hear your opinions and thoughts on this! Thanks for taking the time to read!
web.archive.org/web/20180612163646/https://www.ancient.eu/The_Great_Sphinx_of_Giza/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza
www.aeraweb.org/sphinx-project/geology-of-the-sphinx/
www.documentarystorm.com/riddle-of-the-sphinx/
There are other Egyptologists, scholars, professors, and historians from outside the field who have claimed the Sphinx is much older than the 4th Dynasty date mainstream Egyptologists insist on. Some of these claims, such as those of Zechariah Stichin and Erich von Daniken, have long been discredited, and those of more recent writers are usually ignored or claimed to be irrelevant or wrong.
Scholars are in disagreement over who had the Sphinx carved and when it was created, but there is no doubt it is an impressive piece of work, which was for centuries, the largest sculpture in the world. It measures 240' long (73 m) and stands 66' high (20 m), placed on a straight west to east axis. Egyptologist Miroslav Verner remarked on the significance of the sculpture writing: "The Great Sphinx of Giza is more than simply a symbol of ancient and modern Egypt. It is the very embodiment of antiquity and mystery itself. Over the centuries it has fired the imaginations of poets and scientists, adventurers and travelers. Although it has often been measured, described, investigated using the most up-to-date scientific technical means, and discussed at special scientific conferences, fundamental questions remain unanswered: Who built it, when, and why?" While there are many theories put forth, few satisfy the three questions nor are they universally agreed upon. Coomonly accepted today however is that it was build under the reign of Khafre when mason who were building his pyramid complex came upon a large piece of limestone and were directed to carve the Sphinx. Why this was done is still debated.
The sculpture was never known as "the sphinx" by the ancient Egyptians which is a Greek work and came to be aplied to it through a translation of the Egyptian name sesep-ankh ("living image") by which they referred to the piece as well as to other representations of royal figures. That may be so but it is also likely that the statue reminded the Greeks of their own mythical sphinx, with the body of a beast and head of a woman. Greek visitors to the site may have mistook the nemes (the striped headcloth of the king) for a woman's shoulder-length hair.
During the New Kingdom of Egypt (1570-1069 BCE), the Sphinx was know by the Egyptians as Horemakhet (Horus of the Horizon) and a cult grew around the statue associating it with the god Horus. This was a solar cult which venerated Horus in his role as a sky god. Amenhotep II (1425-1400 BCE) may have been a patron of this cult. He honored it with a temple praising Khufu and Khafre as representatives of Horus on earth, but his choice in naming these two strongly suggests he knew of a connection between these rulers of the 4th Dynasty and the statue. Amenhotep II's inscriptions suggest a probable date and name of kings associated with it's creation.
Amenhotep II's son, prince Thutmose, fell asleep one night near the Spinx and had a dream in which the statue spoke to him complaining of its state and how the sand pressed upon it. Thutmose was offered a deal: if he would clear the sand away and restore it, he would become the next Pharoah. The prince took the deal and had the now famous Dream Stele erected in front of it, carved of pink granite. He became Thutmose IV (1400-1390 BCE) and the cult of the Sphinx grew after his reign which encouraged people to look upon the statue as a living deity able to influence the future.
4th century CE Coptic Christians called the Sphinx Bel-Hit (The Guardian) and this is the name used today by Egyptians. It is known in Egyptian Arabic as Abu al-Hawl, 'The Father of Terror,' and has been claimed to be an idolatrous abomination by some extreme factions of Islam. In 2012 CE, clerics associated with the Taliban call for the destruction of the Sphinx and the pyramids of Giza.
In ancient times, the Giza plateau was very different as to how it is in the present day. Evidence has been found through patterns of erosion, fossilized plant and animal material, and artifacts that the area some 8,000 years ago was quite fertile and lush with vegetation. Water was abundant and rainfall was plentiful in the region c. 15,000 BCE and though less so, the area was still very fertile during the 4th Dynasty.
The Old Kingdom capital was the nearby city of Memphis; Giza was chosen as the necropolis for the kings of the 4th Dynasty, because it had been used by rulers during the Early Dynastic Period (c 3150-2613 BCE) and possibly even the Predynastic Period (c3150-2613 BCE). By the time Khufu came to the throne Egyptians understood very well how to work in stone and create monuments on a grand scale. It's likely that Khufu chose Giza as the site for his Great Pyramid to showcase the work in the best setting and away from predecessor's creations such as the ones at Saara due to the fact that at Gize there were only mastaba tombs.
Khafre came to the throne and began his own pyramid complex next to his father's. The Sphinx is credited to him because the face resembles his as it appears in statuary and the way in which the Sphinx seems to have been carved. There is a theory that in the process of building Khafre's pyramid, a large mass of rock was found that was considered unusable for the pyramid complex and they carved the statue from it. Historians Bob Brier and Hoyt Hobbs said: "Khafre's pyramid [was faced with a] gleaming casing of white limestone, transported by boats from quarries across the Nile [and] laid over interior limestone blocks which were cut from the surrounding Giza site. Probably in the course of freeing these interior blocks, quarrymen struck a seam of harder rock they avoided, leaving a small hill. Khafre had the outcrop carved in the shape of a recumbent lion bearing his own face - the famous Sphinx."
The Sphinx is directly in line with Khafre's pyramid comples and this also supports the claim that he was its creator. The location of the statue and how it lines up with the complex has led some scholars to believe that the Sphinx already existed when Khafre came to the throne and his complex was designed to line up with it. (Stadelmann of the German Archaeological Institute of Cairo, E. Wallis Budge (1857-1934 CE) just to name a couple. Dobrev, claimed in 2004 that the statue was completed by Djedfre (brother of Khafre) in honor of his father Khufu and the face resembles Khufu far more than Khafre. He also agrees that Khafre's complex was oriented to the Sphinx rather than the other way around.
There is evidence that argues for construction during Khafre's reign. The face aside, it is know that the limestone is the same as what was used in Khafre's pyramid. That kind of skill can be seen in statues of Khafre and statuary of gods from this time. The orientation strongly suggests that it was built with Khufu's pyramid and complex in mind, not the statue. Further evidence comes from an inscription on the left paw dating to 166 CE. It commemorates a restoration project by the Romans of the wall which surrounded the Sphinx at the time. Although it doesn't verify any given date of construction it does suggest that during the period of Roman Egypt, the statue was understood to be younger than the pyramids due to the statment that the creators "near the pyramids have bid thee stand" and how the purpose of the Sphinx was to watch over the "beloved prince buried nearby. It could mean however that the Sphinx watches over the Roman Emperor. It can be read either way and is missing some lines near the end. Those who accept the orthodox dating of the statue to the 4th Dynasty point to the inscription as a later proof of their claim.
Humans, all protests to the contrary, cannot tolerate a mystery. Mysteries are only intriguing if they conclude with clarity of resolution; there is none with the Sphinx. The inscriptions known as the Inventory Stele found near the pyramid of Khufu lists 22 statues of the Temple of Isis at Giza and clearly states that Khufu erected a monument near the Sphinx; therefore the statue must have existed prior to Khufu and so earlier than Khafre. If the Inventory Stele date from the 4th Dynasty, it would be evidence that the statue existed before Khufu and Khafre; but it doesn't. The Stele has been positively dated to the 26th Dynasty of the Third Intermediate Period (c. 1069-525 BCE). Actually, the ruins of the Temple of Isis at Giza date to the Middle Kingdom (2040-1782 BCE) long after Khufu's reign.
A more significant argument for earlier construction is that, although inscriptions and evidence relating to the 4th Dynasty such as how the workers were housed, fed, paid - there is no mention of the Sphinx. Egyptians carefully documented building projects. It seems strange that such a large structure would not be mentioned at the time it was being built. Another argument against the Sphinx being built by Khafre is that the face is not his. Dobrev said in 2004 that the face wasn't Khafre's and geologist Dr. Robert M. Schoch had already claimed that the face wasn't Khafre's and was much older than his reign. Schoch and Egyptologist John A. West hired forensic specialist Frank Doming to examine the it and see if they had the same face. Domingo's conclusion was that they represented two different people. Schoch claims the present face is a woman. They both claim it is centuries older than mainstream theories claim. Schoch, a geologist, has famously noted the erosion marks suggest extensive rainfall over a long period. This pattern of weather was not evident during the 4th Dynasty.
They are countered by Egyptologists such as Mark Lehner who point to similarities between the face of the Sphinx and Khafre's statuary and how the erosion patters have nothing to do with the age. It if took place on the Giza plateau it wouldn't be restricted to a single monument. This debate is still ongoing.
Writers Robert and Olivia Temple claim that not only is the face not Khafre's, it isn't even the original face of the statue. The head is notably out of proportion - it is much smaller. They say this is because it wasn't carved in the 4th Dynasty but centuries earlier and was originally the jackal god Anubis. According to this theory, the statue of Anubis traditonally guarded the necropolist and would fit the location. They claim the statue was re-carved to depict a lion with a king's head in the 4th Dynasty. Egyptologist Rosalie David notes how "there are no extant literary sources which throw light on either the predynastic practice of zoolatry or anthropomorphism which occurred c. 3000-c. 2800 BCE. We can only speculate about the reasons for these developments" (53). David comments further on depictions of the gods in general and the Sphinx in particular, writing: "The forms and dress of the gods were always shown in a fairly uniform manner, providing no indication of the historical date of the figure; the god's individuality or particular function was represented by his distinctive headwear or animal head. A reversed example of the mixture of animal and human features occurs in later periods, in the form of the sphinx, where a human head is placed on an animal body. Whenever animal and human features were united in one body, any details which might appear ludicrous or grotesque, such as the place where the head and the body joined, were masked: in this instance, the neck area was concealed with the lappets of the headdress."
The Temples would disagree with this assessment as they claim the head of the Sphinx was re-carved and thereby diminished from the larger head of Anubis. The lappets of the headdress would then not have been utilized to conceal the neck area but simply to make use of the stone of the original head and also, of course, to remain in keeping with the depiction of an Egyptian king of the period. Robert Temple also claims that the face is not Khafre's but that of Amenemhat II (c. 1929-1895 BCE) based on the style of the stripes on the headcloth of the Sphinx which he says are distinctive of the 12th Dynasty of the Middle Kingdom. Among the reasons mainstream scholars reject these claims is that they are largely speculative. There is no evidence in any form that the Sphinx once had a different head and the difference in proportion between the head and the body of the Sphinx can be explained easily by the amount of stone the quarrymen had to work with and their process: the body of the Sphinx was carved first and the head last. The head was made smaller either because there was not enough stone or for greater stability.
Geologist Colin Reader claims that, along the lines of the Temples, that the Sphinx originally had a different head but claims it was a lioness, not Anubis. He supports his claim, in part, through a sphinx statue in the Cairo Museum which he interprets as having previously been that of a lioness which had its ears hacked off and face re-carved. Reader's primary contention, like that of others, is that there is no satisfactory explanation for the weathering of the Sphinx or the proportion of the head than that it predates the 4th Dynasty and was once a different monument.
Historian and Egyptologist Antoine Gigal argues in defense of these 'fringe' claims and further asserts that not only is the Sphinx centuries older than the accepted date but there were once two of them. Gigal cites the Dream Stele of Thutmose IV - which clearly shows two sphinxes - and the Inventory Stele which seems to indicate a second sphinx destroyed by a storm.
This second sphinx would have been located across the River Nile from the one at Giza. Two sphinxes would have certainly been in keeping with Egyptian art and architecture in that the ancient Egyptians greatly valued balance and observed the concept in all aspects of their civilization, often doubling municipal buildings and monuments (such as the practice of always raising two obelisks). Gigal also asserts that there were tunnels beneath these sphinxes which may have connected them. Tunnels have, in fact, been located beneath the Great Sphinx although it has been determined that they do not go anywhere.
There is little mention of the statue in Egyptian inscriptions. None of the materials unearthed at Giza or anywhere else in Egypt make any mention of the statue's construction; it is referenced as though it always existed when it is mentioned at all. Herodotus is silent on the Sphinx as are other early Greek writers. Pliny the Elder (23-79 CE) mentions the statue in his work on Natural History and claims it was revered as a god and also served as a tomb; no other ancient writer either confirms or contradicts his claim.
Writers regularly repeat the absolute falsity that Napoleon's troops shot off the nose on their campaign to Egypt in 1798-1801 CE. The French artist Frederic Luis Norden's drawing of the Sphinx from 1737 CE shows the Sphinx's nose already destroyed and the draftsman Dominique Vivant Denon (1747-1825 CE) who accompanied Napoleon on his campaign shows the same. The nose could have been damaged in the Arab Invasion of the 7th century CE, as some have claimed, or by a Muslim cleric of the 14th century CE who was enraged at finding Egyptian peasants still venerating the statue as a deity.
Whatever its origins and original purpose, Verner is correct when he says how the Great Sphinx of Giza is "the very embodiment of antiquity and of mystery itself" (234). A giant recumbent lion with the head of a man sitting in the midst of an ancient plateau begs to have a reason given for it and a history commensurate with the fascination it has inspired over the centuries. The Sphinx lives up to its name in that it is a riddle whose very presence frustrates attempts to give a satisfying answer. Even if all the alternative histories of the monument were accepted, there would still be others proposing alternatives to those alternatives. As with any great work of art, the Sphinx leaves itself open to interpretation, but unlike most, this struggle with interpretation goes beyond the work itself and, unless one accepts the conventional view, leads to more questions than answers.
So the write-up is done and I would love to hear your opinions and thoughts on this! Thanks for taking the time to read!
web.archive.org/web/20180612163646/https://www.ancient.eu/The_Great_Sphinx_of_Giza/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza
www.aeraweb.org/sphinx-project/geology-of-the-sphinx/
www.documentarystorm.com/riddle-of-the-sphinx/
