The Sphinx head - Is it the original?

[Sheep Smart]

Why is the head of the Sphinx head disproportionate with its body?

The paws are 50 feet long (15m) while the entire length is 150 feet (45m).The head is 30 (10m) feet long and 14 feet (4m) wide. It is 200 feet long and 65 feet high. The head is noticably out of proportion in context with the body.

what it may have once looked like:

I believe this particular debate gets intertwined in other threads within everything Egypt so it stands to reason that I separate it.

I TEND TO AGREE WITH SCHOCH ON THIS ONE. http://www.robertschoch.com/sphinxcontent.html

I found this excerpt for starts;

The strongest artistic evidence dating the Sphinx is the headcloth on the statue, which clearly belongs to the Dynastic period, although there is some uncertainty as to which reign. The disproportion between the size of the head and the size of the body has been explained by the major fissure on the back, which could have caused the builders to extend the length of the statue so as to provide a larger and more stable mass to form its rear portion. However, in a 2008 documentary broadcast on British Channel , The Secrets of Egypt, Colin Reader argues with the support of a historical architect, Dr. Jonathan Foyle, that the disporportion betweexn thw head and body is better explained by an originally larger head, that of a lioness. Dr. Foyle observes that the builders could have filled in the major fissure on the back of the Sphinx without having to extend the body as far back.

Critics of a recarved head have argued that recarving should have left a less weathered halo on the body to show the younger exposure. The elevation of the neck (above the sand level) would have exposed it to continuous erosion by wind-blown sand over the last 4500 years, and it is possible that a younger neck could have weathered to the same condition as an older main body. But a larger head would have covered part of the back of the Sphinx as well, and shifting sands would have eroded older and younger exposed surfaces on the back equally, presumably leaving a halo of difference intact. Whether the current headcloth on the Sphinx could have been contained in the head of a lion or lioness is also not clear. However, the reason for the head/body disproportion has not been settled.

John Anthony West and Detective Frank Domingo made a case that the jaw of the Sphinx differs from the jaw of the Khafra statue in the Cairo Museum. Whether this difference is merely one of perspective has been debated, but for Domingo's findings to be definitively challenged would require a contrary forensic analysis by another expert that has not occurred. An important question is whether there are other representations of Khafra with which the Sphinx head should also be compared. Available heads of Djedefra should also be examined to see if the Sphinx could represent him.

One final question is whether the present top surfaces of the Sphinx enclosure walls were as high as the original plateau. The Sphinx head may have been an outcrop above the plateau. But if the elevation of the plateau originally rose as high as the head, the case for dating the monument to a time prior to the more extensive excavations at Giza during the Fourth Dynasty would be much less plausible. It appears that the original elevation of the plateau around the Sphinx was no higher than the elevation of the present causeway.Civilizational context. West and Schoch have been asked for evidence of a civilization in Egypt in late prehistoric times. West has suggested that a number of monuments in other parts of Egypt may be prehistoric, such as a lower level of stonework inside the Red Pyramid that appears to show water weathering indicative of an earlier core structure. These cases deserve closer study, but they would seem to imply a level of civilized life for which evidence in prehistoric times is otherwise lacking.

Two notes of caution are in order.

First, it is not necessary to assume that only an advanced society with a high degree of centralization could have built the Sphinx. The society of Neolithic Britain did not have a complex social order but was nevertheless capable of hauling megalithic stones over long distances to build Stonehenge. A highly centralized civilization may not have been necessary to produce large monuments.

Second, there is a great deal that we still do not know about the origins of Egyptian civilization. Much of what remains of Predynastic and Neolithic Egypt may still be under Nile alluvium, particularly in the north.[5] About 100 km west of Abu Simbel is a stone calendar circle at Nabta Playa that dates to about 5000 BCE.[6] The stones at Nabta are only six feet tall and cannot be compared with the Sphinx and its temples in scale or worksmanship. But they are part of an emerging picture of a prehistoric culture that existed in what is now the Sahara desert to the west and south.[7] There is also recent evidence of larger Neolithic settlement (although not stonebuilding) in the Faiyum region just south of Giza.[8] A pattern of settled and semi-settled life appears to have existed in late prehistoric times closer to Giza than previously believed. However, it does not appear that the people of these times worked stone on a large scale. The problem of context does not arise for Reader's dating, which places the Sphinx in the Early Dynastic period.Notes1. For his outline of the enclosure wall, see Herbert Ricke, "Der Harmachistempel des Chephren in Giseh," Beitraege zur Aegyptischen Bauforschung und Altertumskunde, Vol. 10 (Wiesbaden, 1970), p. 5 and also pp. 4-6. Enclosure walls around other tombs and temples often did not enclose the space in back, only the sides and front. The enclosed space in front often varied in size but the space on each side was normally symmetrical. Ricke gave an outline of the Khafra temple enclosure wall with its north side at an oblique angle parallel to the finished Khafra Valley Temple. But other representations of the northeast corner of the wall show it as a right angle, symmetric to the southeast corner. See Mark Lehner, "The Sphinx," in Zahi Hawass, ed., The Treasures of the Pyramids (Vercelli, Italy: Barnes and Noble/White Star, 2003), pp. 176-177.2. For diagrams of the first and second stages, see Herbert Ricke, "Der Harmachistempel des Chephren in Giseh," pp. 11, 17.3. However, it should be noted that the second 1995 radiocarbon survey did not present its results in the terms of the 1984 study, so the results are not easily compared. West has proposed that the base of the Khafra Pyramid might be older than the superstructure but a case for redating the base needs to be developed.4. See again Rainer Stadselmann, "The Great Sphinx of Giza," in Zahi Hawass, ed., Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century: Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists, Cairo, 2000 (American University in Cairo Press, Cairo and New York, 2003), pp. 464-469.5. Kathryn A. Bard, "The Egyptian Predynastic: A Review of the Evidence," Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Fall 1994), pp. 265-288.6. F. Wendorf and R. Schild, "Nabta Playa and its role in northeastern African prehistory," Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, Vol. 17 (1998), pp. 97-123. For a summary, see also F. Wendorf et al., "Megaliths and neolithic astronomy in southern Egypt," Nature, No. 392 (1998), pp. 488-490.7. Emma Young, "Pharaohs from the Stone Age," The New Scientist, Vol. No. 2586 (13 January 2007), pp. 5-9.8. News reports on January 29, 2008, erroneously implied that the Neolithic settlement had evidence of limestone working focusing on the head and body proportion of the Egyptian Sphinx.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Sheep Smart

[Harsh86_Patel]

+1

Thought the picture shows a lion head with a mane, collin reader argues for it to be a Lioness i.e does not have a mane.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Graham and Buvall had a valid point regarding the astrological connection the sphinx could have had with the constellation Leo , when the Sun was rising in Leo i.e around 10500 BC.

The constellation in which the SUN rose governed religious worship across ancient civilizations.

For eg- The Summerian sacrificed a Bull as the Sun was rising in Taurus.

Jesus was represented as a Fish as the Sun was rising in Peisces.

The Jews sacrificed Goats as the sun was rising in Aries. etc.

The early Christian explorers of many of these ancient monuments and sites did not give astronomical correlations much importance as the bible seems almost oblivious to astronomy. But majority of ancient civilization gave a lot of importance to astronomy and Sun and Star positions and it would have definitely had a impact on their architecture as well.

For eg- the pyramids in South America.

the temples of Angorwat etc.

[Sheep Smart]

They are good points even though buvaul had admitted to making some prior mistakes within his studies. As if everyone else is perfect.

Schoch was under heavy scrutiny for years impart to his out of line suggested predating of the original Sphinx.(suggesting that the body was far older than the Egyptians old kingdom who which accordingly carved the original head Into the pharoahs as seen today). It was only when gobekli tepe in Turkey was unearthed in 1994 I think that was the date, that preceded his theory of a possible older intelligent civilization. He is now taken more seriously but still revoked in mainstream.

[Harsh86_Patel]

They are good points even though buvaul had admitted to making some prior mistakes within his studies. As if everyone else is perfect.

Schoch was under heavy scrutiny for years impart to his out of line suggested predating of the original Sphinx.(suggesting that the body was far older than the Egyptians old kingdom who which accordingly carved the original head Into the pharoahs as seen today). It was only when gobekli tepe in Turkey was unearthed in 1994 I think that was the date, that preceded his theory of a possible older intelligent civilization. He is now taken more seriously but still revoked in mainstream.

What do you expect they are usually running solo with very little resources, they are bound to make mistakes like anyone else would, but their mistakes are scrutinized and not spared.

Schoch was crucified for no reason, he was being honest about what he observed and on top of it he is also a mainstream academic. He was made an example out of, so other academics would fall in line. I am sure he would have been much more respected if he gave in to what the egyptologists agree upon and retracted his observations.

A similar crucification is observed in the case of mainstream scientists who deny evolution as we currently know it.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Sheep we argued about that over and over. Im sure that Sphinx was lion before.

Just look old kingdom statues. This is in granite.

I dont even know how one can think differently.

Im sure there is big side of Egypt that we dont know. Or should I say dont understand.

One thing that we dont know is origin of hieroglyphs.

Here is one quote:

Dictionary of Egyptian Civilisation

ed. G . Posener Methuen, 1962 , p . 125

Hieroglyphic writing first appears in the beginning of the First Dynasty.

Almost from its inception it gives the appearance of being fully developed. ...

All the elements appeared together at the same time

Edited May 7, 2013 by the L

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Then J.A.West words come to my mind:

Many of achivement of early dynasties were never surpressed or even equalled later on.....

Egyptian civilization was not development. It was legacy.

Was he right?

Edited May 7, 2013 by the L

[Harsh86_Patel]

Then J.A.West words come to my mind:

Many of achivement of early dynasties were never surpressed or even equalled later on.....

Egyptian civilization was not development. It was legacy.

Was he right?

Whose legacy?

[+DieChecker]

Personnally, I think it was originally intended to be something else. Maybe a jackel or a lion, or a larger pharonic head. But, when the work got started, they realized that due to the weak stone in the neck area, it would likely fall off, so they shrunk down the head so it would stay on.

Looking at modern pics of the head, it can be seen that the face and head in general are in quite good shape, but the neck and chest have heavy erosion damage. I think the AE would have noticed this and sculpted accordingly, and thus a small head.

Edited May 11, 2013 by DieChecker

[lightly]

Personnally, I think it was originally intended to be something else. Maybe a jackel or a lion, or a larger pharonic head.But, when the work got started, they realized that due to the weak stone in the neck area, it would likely fall off, so they shrunk down the head so it would stay on.

Looking at modern pics of the head, it can be seen that the face and head in general are in quite good shape, but the neck and chest have heavy erosion damage. I think the AE would have noticed this and sculpted accordingly, and thus a small head.

Here are before and after (CEMENT) pictures of the neck area..

It is obvious that the head is almost ridiculously small in relation to the body . (viewed from above best reveals the proportions)

*

Edited May 11, 2013 by lightly

[+DieChecker]

Here are before and after (CEMENT) pictures of the neck area..

It is obvious that the head is almost ridiculously small in relation to the body . (viewed from above best reveals the proportions)

*

Huh? That speaks nothing to what I said...

I agree it is small, and I gave, AFAIK, the most likely reason. It is a geological fact.

Edited May 11, 2013 by DieChecker

[freetoroam]

There was a programme on t.v last week about this, saying the head was originally a loins head, but then carved later by King Khufu.

it seemed to make sense.

[lightly]

Huh? That speaks nothing to what I said...

I agree it is small, and I gave, AFAIK, the most likely reason. It is a geological fact.

I was just agreeing with you DieChecker .. and showing the added cement at the neck area in support of your idea of that area being weak.

Your reasoning seems ... reasonable.

[aquatus1]

Personally, I've always been of the belief that the head was carved after the body itself was buried, possibly by carvers who were not even aware there was a body to begin with.

[Sheep Smart]

The L,

I doubt it was I that you were arguing with as ihappen to agree with what you say, in this last post that is. Nothing else comes to mind right now.

I didnt mean to abandon this thread but I was sent on a 3 day hiatus to " reevaluate my place on a forum". It seems as though I was ambushed by someone who recently attacked Justin Bieber on stage by having my patience siphoned ever so cunningly.

The only thing ive evaluated is the bias method in which certain asskissing is assessed in the overall determination on behalf of authority.

But such is life.

[Nefer-Ankhe]

This documentary has a large portion about the Sphinx's head and it's true identity. Maybe of interest to some.

*snip*

I believe that the theory, that the Sphinx's head, had been something different entirely (whether it have been Lion or Jackal), is rather well adjusted too.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Saru
Removed copyrighted video

[jaylemurph]

Personally, I've always been of the belief that the head was carved after the body itself was buried, possibly by carvers who were not even aware there was a body to begin with.

You know, I remember watching some special or other (so long ago I don't even remember what channel) that suggested almost the opposite. They thought the head was much older than the rest of it. As I recall, much of the rest of it is actually rebuilt/restored several times in the historical era. It went on to speculate the head was an outcropping of rock above ground, carved several millennia BCE, and possibly re-shaped, and the rest of the area was dug out later, allowing the sphinx-y bits to be carved in a different style and proportion than the head.

But since I don't remember who produced the video (seems like /maybe/ it was PBS or something actually respectable), I wouldn't put much faith in any info it conveyed.

And I think it's obvious the original head was carved in the shape of an Immense Basset Hound, magnificent in its drool and stinkinesses.

--Jaylemurph

[+DieChecker]

I was just agreeing with you DieChecker .. and showing the added cement at the neck area in support of your idea of that area being weak.

Your reasoning seems ... reasonable.

Ohh.... I see now. Thanks!!

[Sheep Smart]

Personnally, I think it was originally intended to be something else. Maybe a jackel or a lion, or a larger pharonic head.

Looking at modern pics of the head, it can be seen that the face and head in general are in quite good shape, but the neck and chest have heavy erosion damage. I think the AE would have noticed this and sculpted accordingly, and thus a small head.

Well if it were something else prior to the Egyptian s coming along and resculpting it, that may reason the case for alot of eroding, or carving away at the upper regions.

[aquatus1]

You know, I remember watching some special or other (so long ago I don't even remember what channel) that suggested almost the opposite. They thought the head was much older than the rest of it. As I recall, much of the rest of it is actually rebuilt/restored several times in the historical era. It went on to speculate the head was an outcropping of rock above ground, carved several millennia BCE, and possibly re-shaped, and the rest of the area was dug out later, allowing the sphinx-y bits to be carved in a different style and proportion than the head.

Hee hee! I remember a special which claimed the Sphynx enclosure was one of the original quarry sites for pyramid stone, but when they found the layer of soft limestone rendering it useless, they abandoned it and later on someone decided to take advantage of the outcropping and dug out area to make the Sphynx.

One of the fun things about theories is that one can be valid, while still not being correct, all could be valid, or none could be! The only thing we know for sure is that the Sphynx enclosure came after the building of the pyramids.

And I think it's obvious the original head was carved in the shape of an Immense Basset Hound, magnificent in its drool and stinkinesses.

I honestly feel that this theory hasn't received the attention it merits.

It certainly rates more validity than the lion statue theory; when your argument is that a reclining lion fits perfectly superimposed on the Sphynx's body (as long as we scale up the lion body to swallow up the entire Sphynx), you need to reconsider the foundation of your theory a little bit more.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Whose legacy?

I wish I know the answer, but I dont. Neither West. But its obvious that so far we dont know origin of it.

Also it might have something with appearence of newcommers in Egypt.

It might happened that cca 50 to 1000 humans ,advanced then settlers, came in Egypt.

Egyptologists (atleast half of them) think that new people that came in Egypt introduce mace as new weapon. Mace is crucial to this story.

I think that those new people who introduce mace to Egypt might bring hieroglyphs as well.

Apperance of mace and hieroglyphs were cca around same time.

Edited May 12, 2013 by the L

[s33ker]

Seen a doco that claimed it was left over quarry rock as well, and that it's only function was decorative. The quarry was flooded and the sphynx stood in the middle of the water , to tidy up the build site after completion. They found channels leading to it , and there's water mark around it and the quarry. That's why it's positioned like it is ,slightly off line .

[docyabut2]

Well heres what I think:) Djedefre Khufu `s son built the Sphinx for his wife or mother, but when Krufu died Khafra his brother had it made in his image. To me the Sphinx looks more feminine.

The frist known Sphinx made in Egypt was of Diedefe`s wife.

[The_Spartan]

And I think it's obvious the original head was carved in the shape of an Immense Basset Hound, magnificent in its drool and stinkinesses.

--Jaylemurph

Now that Aquatus 1 pointed out in a quote, i should state that this is highly improbable since them bassets always lie down with their long sloppy ears and drooling. never do they sit erect. So, the sphinx could have never been a Basset hound. But, a Doberman Pinscher or a Great Dane or any other Hounds, it could have been a probability.

Edited May 12, 2013 by The_Spartan

[Nefer-Ankhe]

This documentary has a large portion about the Sphinx's head and it's true identity. Maybe of interest to some.

*snip*

I believe that the theory, that the Sphinx's head, had been something different entirely (whether it have been Lion or Jackal), is rather well adjusted too.

why!?