How old is the Sphinx ?

[Swede]

4 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

I was thinking about that and did some searching online, but couldn't find a decent, clear image of the stela's hieroglyphs.

If you come across one, feel free to post it. Still, the translations a couple of us have posted do not mention Khafre,

Kmt: The following line drawing may be of assistance.

Caveats:

• Kindly ignore the site per se (!).
• You will likely need to reduce the frame size for readability.
• Scroll down ~ 40-45% of the "page".
• Look for line drawing. Yes, Lepsius, but possibly of use.
• Depending upon how you manipulate the image, reasonable clarity can be obtained. Re-enlarge prior to "view image" and view or transfer through other software. Irfanview software (free ware) often works well for me.

http://willofjehovah.com/Family History/_Rowe/from Adam/__israel/israel-1.htm

Edit: Detail, addition.

 

Edited July 11, 2018 by Swede

[Swede]

1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

Fine everyone is wrong and you’re right. 

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/dream-stela-of-thutmose-iv.html

Source: A. H. Sayce (ed.), Records of the Past, new series (vol. II) (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1888), 53-56. (emphasis added).

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/dream-stela-of-thutmose-iv.html

.

[jaylemurph]

1 hour ago, kmt_sesh said:

It's not that they don't conform to the "official story" (that's fringe talk), it's that they don't conform to modern, well-established, professional research. Your take on the Inventory Stela is proof enough of that.

No, that's a fringe /lie/, spread through sheer ignorance and malice.

There's no need to sugarcoat that.

--Jaylemurph

[Gaden]

1 hour ago, Swede said:

Kmt: The following line drawing may be of assistance.

Caveats:

• Kindly ignore the site per se (!).
• You will likely need to reduce the frame size for readability.
• Scroll down ~ 40-45% of the "page".
• Look for line drawing. Yes, Lepsius, but possibly of use.
• Depending upon how you manipulate the image, reasonable clarity can be obtained. Re-enlarge prior to "view image" and view or transfer through other software. Irfanview software (free ware) often works well for me.

http://willofjehovah.com/Family History/_Rowe/from Adam/__israel/israel-1.htm

Edit: Detail, addition.

 

[Kenemet]

On 7/10/2018 at 6:11 PM, Captain Risky said:

Haurun-Harmakhis = the Sphinx do we agree on this?

Note that this is not the original name, but one given fairly late in antiquity.  The Dream Stele (the one between the Sphinx's paws, written by Thutmoses IV https://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/dream-stele.html) refers to the sphinx as Re-Horemakhet https://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/dream-stele.html

Edited July 12, 2018 by Kenemet

[Swede]

24 minutes ago, Gaden said:

Well done! My thanks.

.

[Kenemet]

3 hours ago, Gaden said:

However, that's just the top third of it.

[Unusual Tournament]

3 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

This is essentially what Tuthmosis did to help legitimize his ascension to the throne.

I suspect Tuthmosis wasn’t the only one to use the Sphinx in the same way. back to the inventory stele and Maspero’s translation, Khufu did to. Of course there is the other translation too that differs from Maspero but only in detail. 

Without risking falling into the same trap as what you would term “fringe” it would seem that Maspero would not have been influenced in his translation by fringe labels since Egyptology had no other definition other than a orthodox one. He had no agenda nor any prior pre-conceived opinions of what the stele should or shouldnt say.

 

[Unusual Tournament]

3 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

You put up Schoch. He was disproved long, long before you first posted his old paper.

Not sure about the artists, but artists are not historians. You've put up some historians, yes, but nearly all are from a very long time ago and subsequent, more polished research (Zivie-Coche, for instance) has corrtected their mistakes.

It's not that they don't conform to the "official story" (that's fringe talk), it's that they don't conform to modern, well-established, professional research. Your take on the Inventory Stela is proof enough of that.

No wrong! He was not disproved. You provided an alternative opinion, that’s all. In fact since your source was more interested in attacking Schoch and less about providing an explanation for the weathering I can only surmise that it was academic thuggery that was his motivation more than science. And I would also like to add that since very few others have wadded into those treacherous waters it was a job well done by the neo-orthodox mob.

academic jihadism is a more fitting description for the Schoch rebuttal. With such brutal tactic s at play excuse me for questioning anything that seems “the establishment” view as unbiased research and science.

Edited July 12, 2018 by Captain Risky

[Harte]

3 hours ago, Swede said:

Kmt: The following line drawing may be of assistance.

Caveats:

• Kindly ignore the site per se (!).
• You will likely need to reduce the frame size for readability.
• Scroll down ~ 40-45% of the "page".
• Look for line drawing. Yes, Lepsius, but possibly of use.
• Depending upon how you manipulate the image, reasonable clarity can be obtained. Re-enlarge prior to "view image" and view or transfer through other software. Irfanview software (free ware) often works well for me.

http://willofjehovah.com/Family History/_Rowe/from Adam/__israel/israel-1.htm

Hmmm....

Swede's the kind of guy that doesn't mind digging through the sewer to find a diamond ring.

Harte

[stereologist]

Captain Risky, translations improve over time because more material is obtained. That allows the translations to be check and corrected. There are also issue with words changing over time. Putting material into its proper context helps people to understand the translations. You are pretending that an earlier translation is as good as a later translation. That is wrong. The later translations have the benefit of the increased knowledge of the civilization and meaning of words in each time period.

I realize it is your obvious desire that any mainstream group be overturned by someone like Schoch. No matter how much you wish for that to happen in this case it isn't. You have Schoch and he is basically alone. There are plenty of examples of these sorts of things. In geology there is still a tiny group pushing for a pole shift event 84Mya. You should champion them as well.In astronomy there are still a few astronomers believing in the steady state universe. You should go champion the as well. It is well established these others and Schoch are in the minority because the evidence is not with them. Schoch made a guess and it seems poorly justified. The data is against Schoch. it is also against the group claiming there are wave action marks on the Sphinx.

An appropriate name for the pro-Schoch groupies is the Haters of Being Educated. It fits quite well.

[kmt_sesh]

36 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

I suspect Tuthmosis wasn’t the only one to use the Sphinx in the same way. back to the inventory stele and Maspero’s translation, Khufu did to. Of course there is the other translation too that differs from Maspero but only in detail. 

Without risking falling into the same trap as what you would term “fringe” it would seem that Maspero would not have been influenced in his translation by fringe labels since Egyptology had no other definition other than a orthodox one. He had no agenda nor any prior pre-conceived opinions of what the stele should or shouldnt say.

 

Do you honestly think Maspero's translation in 1858 is going to be more reliable than something like Zivie-Coche's published translation in 2002? For that matter, in Maspero's time hieroglyphs had been deciphered only thirty-six years earlier. Neither Maspero nor anyone else of his time had a good knowledge of hieroglyphs, especially compared to the average professionally trained Egyptologist today. It is a common mistake of alternative writers to assume something really old and from long ago is going to be more accurate than today's work. The opposite is true, of course.

Have you taken a look at the Dream Stela graphic that's been posted above? There is a partial rendering of Khafre;s cartouche at the very bottom-keft, among the lacuna. All other cartouches belong to Tuthmosis IV (nomen and prenomen). So that, too, is formally settled. Khafre had nothing to do with the Dream Stela.

[kmt_sesh]

40 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

No wrong! He was not disproved. You provided an alternative opinion, that’s all. In fact since your source was more interested in attacking Schoch and less about providing an explanation for the weathering I can only surmise that it was academic thuggery that was his motivation more than science. And I would also like to add that since very few others have wadded into those treacherous waters it was a job well done by the neo-orthodox mob.

academic jihadism is a more fitting description for the Schoch rebuttal. With such brutal tactic s at play excuse me for questioning anything that seems “the establishment” view as unbiased research and science.

See stereo's post above. I really don't have any interest in revisiting something that's already been settled so long ago. If you want to challenge academia, you have to do so reasonably and head-on. Neither you nor Schoch have come close.

[Unusual Tournament]

9 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Do you honestly think Maspero's translation in 1858 is going to be more reliable than something like Zivie-Coche's published translation in 2002? For that matter, in Maspero's time hieroglyphs had been deciphered only thirty-six years earlier. Neither Maspero nor anyone else of his time had a good knowledge of hieroglyphs, especially compared to the average professionally trained Egyptologist today. It is a common mistake of alternative writers to assume something really old and from long ago is going to be more accurate than today's work. The opposite is true, of course.

Have you taken a look at the Dream Stela graphic that's been posted above? There is a partial rendering of Khafre;s cartouche at the very bottom-keft, among the lacuna. All other cartouches belong to Tuthmosis IV (nomen and prenomen). So that, too, is formally settled. Khafre had nothing to do with the Dream Stela.

Even though I see your point and the logic behind I just don’t think that it applies to Maspero’s translation to the extent that you portray. Yes I do think that Maspero’s translation is more accurate not just for my reason above but also in the detail he provides. Coche’s seems far too sanitised and acedemi ally correct to be taken as a serious translation. 

So from being accused of NO mention of Khafre in the dream stele to a conditional YES it seems like a sudden backflip by you and your posse? 

Since my thoughts on the Sphinx age have been exposed to so much conjecture allow me my return the favour. I say that the dream stele is obviously a copy of a much latter work that the ruler of the day, Tuthmosis has appropriated. 

Royal Fraud!

[Unusual Tournament]

13 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

See stereo's post above. I really don't have any interest in revisiting something that's already been settled so long ago. If you want to challenge academia, you have to do so reasonably and head-on. Neither you nor Schoch have come close.

 Either do I see any reason to rehash. But your opinion isn’t fact and nor is the Schock rebuttal.

[kmt_sesh]

53 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

...

So from being accused of NO mention of Khafre in the dream stele to a conditional YES it seems like a sudden backflip by you and your posse? 

Yes, I worded myself poorly and explained this in an earlier post. You were insisting that Khafre found the Sphinx and dug away the sand I insisted it was Tuthmosis IV. Now it's settled that it was Tuthmosis IV (History 101 again). That's what I was trying to impart. I didn't do it well, but the evidence stands.

Quote

Since my thoughts on the Sphinx age have been exposed to so much conjecture allow me my return the favour. I say that the dream stele is obviously a copy of a much latter work that the ruler of the day, Tuthmosis has appropriated. 

Royal Fraud!

Do you mean much earlier work? There is no evidence for this and there is no evidence in the inscriptional material itself that there have been alterations or recarvings. Thus, your idea cannot stand. Imagining that such a stela existed earlier in history is speculation without corroboration, so it cannot be accepted. The Dream Stela is classically New Kingdom, start to finish, in style and language.

[kmt_sesh]

Sometimes I feel as old as the Sphinx, so that's really old.

[Unusual Tournament]

3 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Sometimes I feel as old as the Sphinx, so that's really old.

You won’t know for certain how old you are until you find a stele, mate

[kmt_sesh]

3 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

You won’t know for certain how old you are until you find a stele, mate

In my case, you mean a tombstone?

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, kmt_sesh said:

Yes, I worded myself poorly and explained this in an earlier post. You were insisting that Khafre found the Sphinx and dug away the sand I insisted it was Tuthmosis IV. Now it's settled that it was Tuthmosis IV (History 101 again). That's what I was trying to impart. I didn't do it well, but the evidence stands.

Do you mean much earlier work? There is no evidence for this and there is no evidence in the inscriptional material itself that there have been alterations or recarvings. Thus, your idea cannot stand. Imagining that such a stela existed earlier in history is speculation without corroboration, so it cannot be accepted. The Dream Stela is classically New Kingdom, start to finish, in style and language.

if the original was 1000 years older then it stands to reason that the scribes would use new kingdom script. But I promise you it wouldn’t have read like Johnny Cochran’s legal PowerPoint, which is exactly what coche’s translation is. another reason why Maspero’s discriptive and religiously flowery translation is more believable.

[Unusual Tournament]

2 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

In my case, you mean a tombstone?

Chin up mate.

[Kenemet]

4 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

I suspect Tuthmosis wasn’t the only one to use the Sphinx in the same way. back to the inventory stele and Maspero’s translation, Khufu did to. Of course there is the other translation too that differs from Maspero but only in detail. 

Actually, he was. Giza was not that important and most of the kings legitimized their claims simply by being part of a dynasty.  Khufu's claim was never in question since his father was Sneferu, original builder of the pyramids and his grandfather was Djoser, founder of the dynasty.

Thutmoses, on the other hand, was not a crown prince of a royal family.

Quote

Without risking falling into the same trap as what you would term “fringe” it would seem that Maspero would not have been influenced in his translation by fringe labels since Egyptology had no other definition other than a orthodox one. He had no agenda nor any prior pre-conceived opinions of what the stele should or shouldnt say.

They did have an agenda... they believed that Egyptian artifacts would prove the truth of the Bible.  In addition, they didn't have as large a dictionary of hieroglyphs as we have.

[Swede]

20 hours ago, Harte said:

Hmmm....

Swede's the kind of guy that doesn't mind digging through the sewer to find a diamond ring.

Harte

Grin! Do keep in mind both the physical and literary "excavation" realities of my field. The squeamish need not apply (!).

.

 

[kmt_sesh]

So, Risky, what's next on your agenda for a thread? We may not see eye to eye, but I suppose that's what makes your threads lively. We bicker like British football fans.

[Unusual Tournament]

22 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Actually, he was. Giza was not that important and most of the kings legitimized their claims simply by being part of a dynasty.  Khufu's claim was never in question since his father was Sneferu, original builder of the pyramids and his grandfather was Djoser, founder of the dynasty.

Thutmoses, on the other hand, was not a crown prince of a royal family.

They did have an agenda... they believed that Egyptian artifacts would prove the truth of the Bible.  In addition, they didn't have as large a dictionary of hieroglyphs as we have.

thats a big call saying that Giza wasn't that important to the kings of Egypt when the very structures that were synonymous with Egypt were erected. like all dynasties i bet they looked for some divine sign to affirm their right to rule. what better way than under the symbols and monument that defined Egypt itself. 

Thutmoses was a royal and thou i get what your saying the fact that Thutmoses had his "dream" at the feet of the sphinx should prove at least that the Giza Plateau was important.

as for the early egyptologists having a Christian agenda the deciphering of the inventory stele by Maspero shows none. and considering how close he came to the one by Coche over 100 years latter i'd say that his knowledge base was not that much different than today. i wanna just point out that if he could get more outta the inventory hieroglyphics (not just it detail but emotion) than Coche and co then maybe its time that modern egyptologists reconsider what went wrong along the way?