Archaeologica.org

khafra could have easily assumed credit for the structure and built minor ones around it to ad to the complex.

Or, a restorer. Thutmoses IV restored the Sphinx and put up a stela to commemorate his work around 1400 BC. Were the sphinx there, 1,000 years earlier, it may well have needed 'restoration' as well and that would have been the time of Khafre (Cephren).

In any case, let me correct my earlier assertion. West speaks of First Dynasty mud brick tombs, not Fourth Dynasty. The error is mine but it actually serves to make the point even more valid.

In Serpent in the Sky by John Anthony West, in Appendix II he discusses his trip to Giza with Dr. Schoch. The tale about getting permission from the Egyptians was interesting as was Schoch's early findings but this passage turned out to be the clincher for Schoch.

We extended our inquiry into some of the pieces of corroboratory evidence I'd pieced together earlier but which needed geological expertise to back them up. In Saqqara, seven miles south of the Sphinx, there are mudbrick royal tombs dating from First Dynasty Egypt (ca. 3000 BC or five hundred years before Chephren's time.) The soft mudbricks are still in stable and recognizable condition. Was it possible that the limestone Sphinx could sustain three feet of weathering to its body, while a few miles away, the mud bricks in tombs supposedly older could still be used in construction today? Schoch thought not, and he was now willing to go on record that the Sphinx was older than dynastic Egypt.

it is possible and to me it really doesn't matter if the sphynx is older than previously thought. in fact i would probably prefer it.

the thing that got me concerning schoch's book, is that he tried to link everything to a pyramid building society. of course i would disagree with his assessment there as again, the dispersal would account for many similarities found throughout the world.

it doesn't discount his theory about the sphynx and it is highly possible for it to be as old as he says.

Are you still babbling about the Tower of Babel?

Given that the temple and the Sphinx are both of the same construction event, then the temple would seem to be chock full of potential information.

I don't know of any real study of it though.

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/7808/page1.html


I'm not providing a quote as the author is very clear about his copyright protection.

The jist of his theory is that there is a second Sphinx buried in the desert sands, contemporaneous with the one that we are all familiar with. Just posted for thought.

Beagle wrote:http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/7808/page1.html


I'm not providing a quote as the author is very clear about his copyright protection.

The jist of his theory is that there is a second Sphinx buried in the desert sands, contemporaneous with the one that we are all familiar with. Just posted for thought.

That's pretty crazy. He needn't worry about someone stealing his theory. It's pretty far out there.

West believes there are other monuments buried in the desert as well.

One disagreement between Schoch and West is that West thinks Schoch is too conservative with his dating. Noting that there are other 'neolithic' ruins (Catal Huyuk and Jericho) dating from 8,000 BC, Schoch has suggested that perhaps scholars need to lower the bar for the ability to create monumental architecture to neolithic.

West thinks that if a neolithic culture built the thing there would be more ruins visible of such a culture, whereas if it were built before the end of the last ice age, such other ruins would be exceedingly rare.

If anyone interested in this would like to read more you can go to this page at my site:

http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Topics

Scroll down to The Great Sphinx

You'll find nine articles on this topic written by Mark Lehner, Colin Reader, James Harrell and others.

Hi Kat - I'm certain that you have a trove of very well written articles and I will make the time to read them.

I, and others here, have been reading academic pissing contests for years. It's tiresome. On the subject of the age of the Sphinx I wouldn't offer anything as to when the Sphinx enclosure were excavated. But I cannot deny what my own eyes see - evidence of serious erosion by water.

I've looked at it all my life (I'm retired now) and this doesn't look any different.

Lehner was on a tv special pulling flakes off the base of the sphinx and crumbling them in his hand.....(which should have had Zahi calling out "security") and saying "look, FLAKES". Meanwhile, the camera was showing those damned verticle fissures that Schoch keeps talking about.

That's pretty crazy. He needn't worry about someone stealing his theory. It's pretty far out there.

my question , since the land is basically cleared away fromthe area surrounding the sphynx, where is the mate? plus, why would they build the two on different levels?

Hi Kat. Thanks for the link. Looking forward to doing a lot of reading as you have quite good variety there, no matter what your area of interest is.

Much as I hate it, I have to agree with arch.

Weren't sphinxes (? sphinxi??) usually depicted in pairs in classical Egyptian art/architecture?

Minimalist wrote:Lehner was on a tv special pulling flakes off the base of the sphinx and crumbling them in his hand.....(which should have had Zahi calling out "security")

Flakes fall off the Sphinx every day ... Lehner might have increased erosion on that particular square foot by one or two days.

Beagle wrote:Hi Kat - I'm certain that you have a trove of very well written articles and I will make the time to read them.

I, and others here, have been reading academic pissing contests for years. It's tiresome. On the subject of the age of the Sphinx I wouldn't offer anything as to when the Sphinx enclosure were excavated. But I cannot deny what my own eyes see - evidence of serious erosion by water.

I've looked at it all my life (I'm retired now) and this doesn't look any different.

Colin Readers is the most recent ... here's a direct link:
http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?n ... cle&sid=93