Anubis-Lord of the Giza Necropolis

[Thanos5150]

Giza, sarcophagus of Meresankh II:

Drawing and translation of writing on the lid:

This is a ubiquitous dedication found in Giza tombs in one form or another, commonly “A boon which the king gives and Anubis, he who is upon his hill, lord of the cemetery, that he may be buried”, that credits Anubis as "Lord of the Necropolis" in which Anubis is drawn as unusually large by comparison to other figures. For example, the tomb chapel of Khufukhaf I, thought to be the son of Khufu and brother of Khafre alleged creator of the Sphinx: 
 

Meresankh II is thought to be the daughter of Khufu, who became a queen, either the wife of Djedefre or Khafre.

What we have are two figures intimately contemporary with Khafre when not only he was supposedly carving out the Sphinx, but at a time, if this was in fact true, when this ideology would have been a burgeoning part of AE religious beliefs, the implied very impetus for carving it in the first place. And yet despite this both credit Anubis as being the "Lord of the Necropolis", not the Sphinx. In fact, neither of their tombs even mention the Sphinx as does no one else until the NK when it is named as Hor-em-akhet by Thutmose IV on the Dream Stele.

It goes without saying the Sphinx is undoubtedly the "Lord of the Necropolis" yet no one of the time seems to have noticed it was a lion and instead refer to it as Anubis, the dog. Maybe this is a nuance of this particular translation, but it is interesting to note Meresankh II's sarcophagus says that Anubis is the "lord of the necropolis, foremost of the divine booth". What "booth"-this booth:

The Sphinx enclosure? 

At any rate, statues and depictions of recumbent lions are found since the very beginnings of Dynastic Egypt. Both from the 1st Dynasty:

And yet the lion is not associated with the dead or necropoli at any point until after the OK, but rather explicitly the jackal god Anubis. Statues of sphinxes in the OK are scant to say the least, and of the few that have been found, all at Abu Roash of all places, as I have argued their provenance dating to the 4th Dynasty is less than secure likely dating to the MK or NK. Most interesting is that despite several partial or full statues of Khafre being found unceremoniously dumped and buried nearby the Sphinx- not a one depicts a sphinx. Yet sometime in the beginnings of the MK, as far as I can tell specifically the 12th Dynasty some 500+yrs after it was supposedly carved, statues depicting pharaohs as a sphinx becomes commonplace, yet there is still no connection to the supposed Sphinx at Giza. None. It is not until the NK, from the 18th Dynasty onward, that the Giza Sphinx gets a name and becomes a symbol of kingship and reverence which by that time is so old it requires restoration. It is also in the NK that the AE take a particular interest in older monuments, including Giza, and begin to restore and attribute many sites, the least of which clearing the Sphinx itself of sand.

Yet despite this "renaissance", nigh introduction, of pharaohs as sphinx statuary beginning in the MK 12th Dynasty, it appears that Giza was largely abandoned by the First Intermediate period, mostly long before. By the MK they began to systematically rape and pillage the tombs and stonework: robbing and tearing down temples, ripping up walkways for building materials, all of which showing a wanton disregard for this supposedly "sacred" site and the dead in general of whom they supposedly held in such high regard, not to mention these olden pharaohs who were otherwise supposedly revered as "gods". 

What makes this more curious is the fact pyramid building in Egypt effectively ended in the 6th Dynasty only to abruptly begin again in earnest in the 12th Dynasty in which 9 primary pyramids were built. The point being is that on the one hand they had no respect for the funerary context at Giza, yet were obviously impressed by the grandeur of the building achievements and built several of their own in what would certainly be a "2nd Pyramid age". So they robbed from these pyramid "tombs" only to build inferior ones for themselves again and again thinking they would not suffer the same fate? Can't say that makes much sense.... 

It is worth noting the few pyramids supposedly built between the gap of the 6th and 12th Dynasties. The first would be the 8th Dynasty "pyramid" of Qakare Ibi at Saqqara:

It seems likely this was built in the 6th Dynasty by Pepi II for one of his queens and later appropriated by Ibi. This is the last known writing of the Pyramid Texts. An interesting note is one of the blocks was inscribed " chief of the Libyans" yet its exact meaning is not known.

Another 1st Intermediate period "pyramid" found in middle Egypt is attributed to a Khui, yet there is no basis for this as it was so badly damaged it is unrecognizable and could just as easily have been a mastaba. Not only do they not know what it was, or if it was even finished, it is attributed to "Khui" only because a cartouche was found with this name on a block at a tomb to the south of it. 

The last of the pyramids of this span is attributed to the 10th Dynasty pharaoh Merikare yet it has never actually been found though it is mentioned in several inscriptions. Curiously though, it is mentioned often along with the 6th Dynasty pyramid of Teti and the inscriptions all date to the 12th Dynasty belonging to funerary cults of both rulers. Merikrare's name has not been identified on later King Lists and it has been argued that he actually belongs to the 6th Dynasty regardless. 

Moral of noting this is that all things considered, pyramid building ended in the 6th Dynasty and yet 300yrs later began again in the 12th with Amenemhat I:

What is particularly interesting about Amenemhat I is that his cartouche depicts the very recumbent lion as seen in early Dynastic times (shown above):

Which again is not related to the dead or necropoli. I can't find examples of himself or the pharaoh directly after him, but at least by the 3rd pharaoh of the 12th Dynasty, Amenemhat II, depicting themselves as sphinxes became the norm for several pharaohs after: 

Amenemhat III:

Senwosret III:
 

This lion is not a symbol of the dead or a guardian of a cemetery, it never was, but one of power just as it had always been since the beginnings of Dynastic Egypt. I suggest the possibility that representations of MK sphinxes are not of the Sphinx at Giza, but an homage to the ancient lion as a symbol of power, not just in Egypt since the beginnings of Dynastic Egypt, but other lands of the time as well, as represented by the very cartouche of Amenemhat I himself. It was only later that this iconography of power was imposed on the Anubis Sphinx, found heavily damaged by the MK more than 500yrs later, and was converted from a dog to a lion with the head of the pharaoh. It no longer was a "guardian of the necropolis" but a symbol of the greatness of the achievements of the pyrmaid builders regardless of the earlier funerary context of the site. It is worth noting as well that in the MK and onward Osiris became the favored god of the dead, not Anubis, meaning if the Sphinx were originally Anubis it would not have the same relevance to the pharaohs of the MK.

Lee Anderson

[Festina]

Why do you think the Egyptians were obsessed with burning corpses?  Why not cremation?  

I think it has something to do with keeping the astral shell of the discarnate close to Earth as long as possible for the purpose of communication with the living.  A “romance” of two worlds.  

[Kenemet]

3 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

This lion is not a symbol of the dead or a guardian of a cemetery, it never was, but one of power just as it had always been since the beginnings of Dynastic Egypt. I suggest the possibility that representations of MK sphinxes are not of the Sphinx at Giza, but an homage to the ancient lion as a symbol of power, not just in Egypt since the beginnings of Dynastic Egypt, but other lands of the time as well, as represented by the very cartouche of Amenemhat I himself. It was only later that this iconography of power was imposed on the Anubis Sphinx, found heavily damaged by the MK more than 500yrs later, and was converted from a dog to a lion with the head of the pharaoh. It no longer was a "guardian of the necropolis" but a symbol of the greatness of the achievements of the pyrmaid builders regardless of the earlier funerary context of the site. It is worth noting as well that in the MK and onward Osiris became the favored god of the dead, not Anubis, meaning if the Sphinx were originally Anubis it would not have the same relevance to the pharaohs of the MK.

Lee Anderson

The problem with borrowing arguments (this one's been around for awhile) is that you also borrow the fallacies and the poor research that goes along with them.

The Giza sphinx was never Anubis. It was always a sphinx.  It delineates the area of the royal burials (and therefore has the pharonic sphinx shape.)

We know the sphinx wasn't Anubis because of the shape.  Anubis has thin forelegs that are widely spaced and his haunches angle steeply.  The lion has very thick forelegs and rounded haunches with a tail curled around them. 

You can't work thick forelegs from thin ones or fat rounded haunches from thin and angled ones

 

 

[Grim Reaper 6]

Thanks for the History Lesson, I really enjoyed it and I certainly learned something new.

Welcome to the forum.

Peace

[Unusual Tournament]

36 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

The problem with borrowing arguments (this one's been around for awhile) is that you also borrow the fallacies and the poor research that goes along with them.

The Giza sphinx was never Anubis. It was always a sphinx.  It delineates the area of the royal burials (and therefore has the pharonic sphinx shape.)

We know the sphinx wasn't Anubis because of the shape.  Anubis has thin forelegs that are widely spaced and his haunches angle steeply.  The lion has very thick forelegs and rounded haunches with a tail curled around them. 

You can't work thick forelegs from thin ones or fat rounded haunches from thin and angled ones

 

 

Yes i agree with you. The sphinx is definitely lion based. But assuming that the pyramids were tombs then it would make more sense that Anubis would be its guardian and not the lion sphinx.  

Edited January 26, 2020 by Captain Risky

[Wistman]

How much of the original carved bedrock is visible on the paws and rear haunches?  Can we discern the original proportions of the limbs, haunches from what can be seen today and/or guessing what's beneath the many phases of restoration blocks applied, which began in the Old Kingdom?  I don't know the answer to this...just wondering how much we know and can see and what is assumed.

Zahi Hawass's opinions as to the previous restorations of the Sphinx:  https://guardians.net/hawass/sphinx2.htm

(rear) paw after most recent restoration

rear haunches as seen today

Edited January 26, 2020 by The Wistman

[Wistman]

Too late to add this image to the above post, but here's a vintage photo that seems to show some bedrock on the right paw (as we see it) near the chest:

[Thanos5150]

4 hours ago, Kenemet said:

The problem with borrowing arguments (this one's been around for awhile) is that you also borrow the fallacies and the poor research that goes along with them.

I did not say it was original to me, for example see Robert Temple, but hopefully I have added some additional perspective. But by all means please point out what "fallacies" and "poor research" I have "borrowed"  

Quote

The Giza sphinx was never Anubis. It was always a sphinx.  It delineates the area of the royal burials (and therefore has the pharonic sphinx shape.)

And this is your argument against such "fallacies" and "poor research"? Just saying it never was does not make is so nor does it change the fact the Sphinx is not attested in the OK let alone the time it was supposedly carved. For anyone to argue against it not only does this have to be acknowledged but also that the people actually buried there make it quite clear Anubis is the guardian of the necropolis, not the Sphinx, the latter of whom they apparently never even heard of. I took the time to make this presentation, the least you could do is afford me the courtesy of actually reading and responding directly to it. 

Regardless, no, we do not know what it was originally the least of which that it was "always a sphinx". And whether Anubis or a Sphinx it matters not which as to delineating the area of royal burials which has nothing to do with it being a "pharaonic sphinx shape".

Quote

We know the sphinx wasn't Anubis because of the shape.  Anubis has thin forelegs that are widely spaced and his haunches angle steeply.  The lion has very thick forelegs and rounded haunches with a tail curled around them. 

You can't work thick forelegs from thin ones or fat rounded haunches from thin and angled ones

The Sphinx we see today has been heavily restored included repairs made in the OK with its core severely eroded.

What its shape was before the 4th Dynasty, or MK as suggested, is not known.

It seems pretty clear to me the tail was a later addition made of bricks:

HERE
HERE

A picture of the other side which shows how extensively the body was built out in later times:
HERE. 

Looking at the Lehner restoration map we can see the highest concentration of NK "repairs" at this time is in the rear, directly above the tail as well, which I would suggest are not "repairs" but rather the addition of the tail itself. This map also gives a clear indication of how small the head is in relation to the body, noted by some as evidence it was recarved at a later date. As an aside, another curious feature to me is the dead flat top of the back which suggest to me function and not aesthetic which makes me wonder what the Sphinx originally was before if became a statue:

Which from this view we can also get a sense of how narrow the original rock formation was and also the incongruity of the size and weathering of the head in relation to the body. Also, the length and aesthetic of the front paws seem incongruous, like the head, being unusually long in proportion to the small size of the head:


 

 

Quote

 

 

 

Edited January 27, 2020 by Thanos5150

[Thanos5150]

3 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Thanks for the History Lesson, I really enjoyed it and I certainly learned something new.

Welcome to the forum.

Peace

Thank you.

[Grim Reaper 6]

2 hours ago, The Wistman said:

How much of the original carved bedrock is visible on the paws and rear haunches?  Can we discern the original proportions of the limbs, haunches from what can be seen today and/or guessing what's beneath the many phases of restoration blocks applied, which began in the Old Kingdom?  I don't know the answer to this...just wondering how much we know and can see and what is assumed.

Zahi Hawass's opinions as to the previous restorations of the Sphinx:  https://guardians.net/hawass/sphinx2.htm

(rear) paw after most recent restoration

rear haunches as seen today

Great article thanks for sharing.

Peace

[Thanos5150]

Interesting old photo which shows even after the Sphinx enclosure was excavated the Sphinx Temple was still completely obscured by sand little different than in Roman times which may have been the case as early as the late 1st Intermediate period:

Apparently no one knew it was there so much so the Romans built a massive staircase flanked by high walls right over the top of it. 

Anyhoo, for perspective:

According to Lehner the Sphinx temple was never finished to the point the workers didn't even bother to clear out the construction debris from inside the temple.

Lehner:

The builders abandoned en route several huge limestone blocks intended for the third course of masonry on the Sphinx Temple. The builders stopped work on the temple after raising the core blocks at three corners, placing colossal statues inside the temple, and fitting the colonnade with its granite pillars.

The quarrymen stopped cutting the north edge of the Sphinx quarry, leaving a rock shelf of decreasing width from east to west. The abandoned blocks and the interruption of work on the north edge suggest that the Sphinx and Sphinx Temple were the final elements in Khafre’s building project and were never completed.

There is archaeological evidence indicating the builders never cleared their construction debris from the insides of the Sphinx Temple. Along with the fact that no titles of priests or priestesses of the Sphinx exist in any of the hundreds of Old Kingdom tombs at Giza, the unfinished state of the Temple suggests that the Sphinx cult may never have been active in the Old Kingdom.

Emphasis mine. But again, it is Anubis instead who is commonly noted in these same tombs the Sphinx is absent as being the Lord of the Necropolis which is exactly what this statue would have been. Regardless, there are some interesting things to be considered here. Lehner argues that the Valley Temple was built first though not all agree, including myself, with one of the reasons being as we can see by the photo above that the causeway clearly bends for no reason right around the Sphinx enclosure. If something was not already there there would be no reason for it not to be straight. At any rate, the Sphinx Temple was built from blocks taken from the Sphinx enclosure while the Valley Temple blocks were taken from the plateau meaning at the very least the Sphinx and Sphinx Temple were built at the same time. Or at least blocks were removed from this area to purposefully leave behind a large roughly square mass in its center which at the time may not have been intended to be a statue, but rather serve a more practical purpose. One thing is for certain is that the quality of work and size of the blocks used for the Sphinx Temple were noticeably inferior to that of the Valley Temple.

Sphinx Temple:

Valley Temple:


With granite temple built inside:

Something else to consider is G2's curious mortuary temple:

The foreground section closest to the pyramid, which you think would be built first, uses relatively small blocks like the Sphinx Temple whereas the back section uses massive blocks as does the Valley Temple. Looking at it and taking into consideration the disparity of construction, it actually appears to be two temples which the smaller pyramid side temple added later.  

The mortuary temple of G3 supposedly wasn't even finished and used inferior smaller blocks on the pyramid side:

Yet much larger blocks on the far side and walls:

Of note is that the inferior pyramid side section is thought to have been build by his successor, Shepseskaf, yet the stoneworking of his own mastaba as shown in the link is otherwise quite superior with its interior on par with contemporary pyramids. 

So what happened here, supposedly, is Khafre built the Valley Temple first, according to Lehner, using massive 100 ton blocks then encased in massive perfectly cut granite blocks and built a granite temple inside of the massive outer limestone temple. Then he started work on the Sphinx Temple by removing blocks which left behind the body of the Sphinx. Workers started on the Sphinx Temple, built with much smaller inferior blocks and no granite, but never finished not even bothering to remove the construction trash. But then, when all the blocks were removed, began working on carving the Sphinx into an amazing lion which no one of the time and apparently for a thousand years after never heard of or saw. 

At some point in this process of supposedly building his pyramid, the Valley Temple, causeway, Sphinx, and Sphinx Temple, the latter of which he never finished- he built his mortuary temple using the same massive blocks he used at the Valley Temple on the back section then built another section on the pyramid side using inferior blocks like the Sphinx Temple. And when we look at the mortuary temple of G3 we again see massive blocks in the back with a smaller inferior addition on the pyramid side front. 

What are we to make of all this? 

And the Sphinx was so important that they didn't even bother to finish the temple which stands to reason they would have had to do before working on the Sphinx which suggests the Sphinx was never finished either. And even if Khafre ran out of gas or died, how on earth does it makes sense his own son Menkaure would not have finished the Temple and Sphinx which would have been part and parcel of AE culture from that point forward, not to mention at least something leading up to it before, yet there is nothing of the kind. I have yet to make sense of it all to put forward a theory, but all told something does not smell right here on many levels.

[jaylemurph]

This is all heretical non-sense. The Sphinx is neither lion nor Anubis. 

Those Who Shall Sniff Eternity know. 

—Jaylemurph 

[Kenemet]

On 1/26/2020 at 6:02 PM, Thanos5150 said:

I did not say it was original to me, for example see Robert Temple, but hopefully I have added some additional perspective. But by all means please point out what "fallacies" and "poor research" I have "borrowed"  

I've studied it and I've visited it.

Take a good look at how jackals (Anubis) are represented:  Here's a photo of one from a museum.  Note the huge years, the skinny neck, the long nose, the slender and tiny paws.  The limestone of that plateau has poor tensile strength and while it's okay for blocs, it's not suitable for carving overhanging noses or big, unsupported ears.

Take a look at the jackal.  Notice that there's no way they could reshape those pointy thin hips or redone the tiny legs to be fat legs.  Restoration shows that some parts of the legs are reworked... but they didn't completely re-clad the legs.

Here's another view of Tutankamun's Anubis:

See how wide spread the forelegs are and how widespread the hind legs are from the haunches?  See how they rise above the back?

Here's a typical sphinx (Hatshepsut) to show you how thick the body and legs are:

Can you see the difference in the shapes?  They stand out to me very clearly, but I'm also an artist.

Now do you understand why I say that the Sphinx isn't Anubis?

[Swede]

56 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

I've studied it and I've visited it.

Take a good look at how jackals (Anubis) are represented:  Here's a photo of one from a museum.  Note the huge years, the skinny neck, the long nose, the slender and tiny paws.  The limestone of that plateau has poor tensile strength and while it's okay for blocs, it's not suitable for carving overhanging noses or big, unsupported ears.

Take a look at the jackal.  Notice that there's no way they could reshape those pointy thin hips or redone the tiny legs to be fat legs.  Restoration shows that some parts of the legs are reworked... but they didn't completely re-clad the legs.

Here's another view of Tutankamun's Anubis:

See how wide spread the forelegs are and how widespread the hind legs are from the haunches?  See how they rise above the back?

Here's a typical sphinx (Hatshepsut) to show you how thick the body and legs are:

Can you see the difference in the shapes?  They stand out to me very clearly, but I'm also an artist.

Now do you understand why I say that the Sphinx isn't Anubis?

Not to mention the rather consistent sculpting/presence of the tail.

.

[kmt_sesh]

On 1/26/2020 at 1:42 PM, Festina Lente said:

Why do you think the Egyptians were obsessed with burning corpses?  Why not cremation?  

I think it has something to do with keeping the astral shell of the discarnate close to Earth as long as possible for the purpose of communication with the living.  A “romance” of two worlds.  

The very idea of cremation was horrifying to the ancient Egyptians. They feared the destruction of the physical body because the aspect of the soul known as the ba needed to return to the body every evening at dusk to be protected. That was of the most critical parts of mummification–protection of the ba.

[kmt_sesh]

I'd have to agree with Kenemet–the Sphinx was never a jackal. For one thing, the tall, slender, pointed ears of Anubis could never have survived very long.  What makes sense is that Egyptian kings were occasionally referred to as mAi, "the lion." It did not represent death as much as denoting the area as a royal site. We don't even know what the Sphinx's creators called the Sphinx, but it's no stretch to understand the Sphinx as a royal icon.

[Thanos5150]

3 hours ago, Kenemet said:

I've studied it and I've visited it.

So have I....

 

Quote

[snip]

 

And I am also an artist.....

I have already posted 4th Dynasty examples of Anubis-why are examples 1000+ yrs after the fact relevant or required? If anything we would look for even earlier representations that directly led to this time would we not? You also strangely show an NK depiction of a Sphinx as "proof" of what the Sphinx looked like 1000+ yrs before (despite again multiple depictions of MK examples given in the OP regardless) when the very argument being made is that the Sphinx was recarved at a later date to conform to this very iconography or vice versa.  

The facts in the OP are clear-the OK did not know of the Sphinx and in their tombs, before, during, and after Khafre they made it repeatedly clear it was Anubis, not the Sphinx, that was the guardian of the necropolis-something also noted the lion was never considered as such. According to Lehner: "There are no known Old Kingdom texts that refer either to the Sphinx or its temple". Why do you refuse to acknowledge this?   

Regarding the aesthetics of the Sphinx as a lion vs a Anubis, a jackal, again we refer to the OP as to what the DE before the 4th Dynasty thought a lion looked like:

Though I believe this is actually a later cult object, to accept the date, compare to the 4th Dynasty Sphinx attributed to Hetepheres II (wife perhaps of Djedefre):

 Though a lioness, the 3rd Dynasty representation of Mehit:

 

And again, what the 4th Dynasty people themselves thought Anubis looked like:

Ironically, the very Hatshepsut sphinx you show, the legs also rise above the back: 

 

Do you see the hind legs rising above the back in the 4th Dynasty examples? No. Compare to the 1000+ year later example you show:

1000yrs is not a day. Egyptian Dynastic history spans 3,000yrs which the examples above only reinforce how important it is to rely on contemporary sources of iconography and ideology. 

While the external aesthetics of what we see today obviously are of a lion, argued to be added later, it should be obvious that the unusually narrow body and long legs are far more indicative of a jackal and very unlike a lion either real or depicted by the Egyptian of the time:   

Regardless of one's feelings or opinion of the minutia of whether the morphology of what we see today of the Sphinx could or could not have originally been a lion vs a jackal, it does not change the facts, however, that "There are no known Old Kingdom texts that refer either to the Sphinx or its temple" and that the DE themselves ubiquitously refer to Anubis as the guardian of the Giza necropolis, not the Sphinx, the latter by all accounts they did not even know.  

Edited January 29, 2020 by Thanos5150

[kmt_sesh]

P.S. Forgot to clarify the point but Robert Temple's theory is not supported anywhere in academia of which I'm aware. Just the same, although I disagree,  I think you've done well in presenting your side of the argument.

[Thanos5150]

1 hour ago, Swede said:

Not to mention the rather consistent sculpting/presence of the tail.

.

Please read post #8. If the tail was a later addition at a time a time and representation of this time and after show it this way-what does this have to do with how it was originally...?  

[Thanos5150]

1 hour ago, kmt_sesh said:

I'd have to agree with Kenemet–the Sphinx was never a jackal. For one thing, the tall, slender, pointed ears of Anubis could never have survived very long.  What makes sense is that Egyptian kings were occasionally referred to as mAi, "the lion." It did not represent death as much as denoting the area as a royal site. We don't even know what the Sphinx's creators called the Sphinx, but it's no stretch to understand the Sphinx as a royal icon.

So you would ignore this: "There are no known Old Kingdom texts that refer either to the Sphinx or its temple" and that the DE themselves ubiquitously refer to Anubis as the guardian of the Giza necropolis, not the Sphinx, the latter by all accounts they did not even know.  

Because you cannot imagine how the "the tall, slender, pointed ears of Anubis could never have survived very long"? Do you think its possible the ears were made more modestly instead of being so " tall, slender, and pointed" as to last a little longer? Say perhaps like this 4th Dynasty example:

 

Surely it makes sense we would look at contemporary examples of Anubis, at Giza no less, than depictions 1000yrs later....

The Giza necropolis, for example, obviously was not just the cemetery of the king but his subjects (not to mention many of the 5th and 6th Dynasties) who all had a vested interest not only in the site itself but the program to the afterlife provided by this very necropolis of whom they clearly considered Anubis, not the Sphinx, to be its guardian. The notion of the pharaoh as a "living god" and all things for the pharaoh is a later invention unfairly imposed and romanticized to the degree it is on the 4th Dynasty (OK) by Egyptology which if we look at the totality of the inscriptions in the Giza tombs it is overwhelmingly clear that this necropolis was as much or more so theirs than it was any king. What makes more sense, in this age anyways, is that Anubis guarded the necropolis for all, just as he had since protodynastiic times, as it is acknowledged by all at Giza, and not that the Sphinx was some megalomaniacal show of pharaonic pride of which no one bothered to even mention existed.   

 

    

Edited January 29, 2020 by Thanos5150

[Thanos5150]

39 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

P.S. Forgot to clarify the point but Robert Temple's theory is not supported anywhere in academia of which I'm aware. Just the same, although I disagree,  I think you've done well in presenting your side of the argument.

Thanks, man. We do not have to agree but at least you have taken the time to understand the argument being made. That's all one can ask for. 

[Hanslune]

53 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Thanks, man. We do not have to agree but at least you have taken the time to understand the argument being made. That's all one can ask for. 

I actually believe that is possible and in my destructive thoughts believe the 'snout' broke off and Khafre (or somebody) re-purposed it.

[Kenemet]

2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

(SNIPPING SOME STUFF TO SAVE SPACE)..

 

The facts in the OP are clear-the OK did not know of the Sphinx and in their tombs, before, during, and after Khafre they made it repeatedly clear it was Anubis, not the Sphinx, that was the guardian of the necropolis-something also noted the lion was never considered as such. According to Lehner: "There are no known Old Kingdom texts that refer either to the Sphinx or its temple". Why do you refuse to acknowledge this?   

Regarding the aesthetics of the Sphinx as a lion vs a Anubis, a jackal, again we refer to the OP as to what the DE before the 4th Dynasty thought a lion looked like:

 

Do you see the hind legs rising above the back in the 4th Dynasty examples? No. Compare to the 1000+ year later example you show:

 

While the external aesthetics of what we see today obviously are of a lion, argued to be added later, it should be obvious that the unusually narrow body and long legs are far more indicative of a jackal and very unlike a lion either real or depicted by the Egyptian of the time:   

Regardless of one's feelings or opinion of the minutia of whether the morphology of what we see today of the Sphinx could or could not have originally been a lion vs a jackal, it does not change the facts, however, that "There are no known Old Kingdom texts that refer either to the Sphinx or its temple" and that the DE themselves ubiquitously refer to Anubis as the guardian of the Giza necropolis, not the Sphinx, the latter by all accounts they did not even know.  

I agree that your arguments are well presented... however... there are also no OK texts that refer to the boat pits, Khufu's mortuary temple, Menkaure's mortuary temple Menkaure's valley temple or even Keentikaus' mortuary temple and boat pit (among many other structures.)  The lack of mention of the temple in OK texts doesn't seem significant.  If I recall rightly, the only temples mentioned in texts are those that were for the living, where festivals were held.  

And working backwards... I simply grabbed the first available images. I didn't wish to lumber the discussion with dozens of images, so I picked rather typical examples and chose them based on whether they were in museums and how well the photo portrayed the object.  There's not a huge difference in the sphinx of Hetepheres and in the sphinx of Amenhotep (even the Nubian sphinx depictions follow the same body plan though the facial ruff and so forth are different).  However the general proportions they used for jackals and lions didn't change -- lions are always heavy bodied and massive paws, and jackals are always slender (at least while the Egyptians were doing them.  Once the Greeks and Romans got ahold of them, things... sometimes went sideways.

Since you are an artist, perhaps you can draw something indicating how you think that the massif was reworked?  In the images I see (such as the one below) the proportions aren't correct for Anubis (neck is far too short, body is too thick as are the forelegs.)

Oh... yes, I'm familiar with the standard offering formula, having worked my way through Manley & Collier and a few others.

Now... while I would consider it plausible that they might have STARTED to carve Anubis, I don't find it plausible that there was ever a finished Anubis.  Limestone doesn't have the properties that allow a free-standing snout like that.

 

Edited January 29, 2020 by Kenemet

[Thanos5150]

6 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

I actually believe that is possible and in my destructive thoughts believe the 'snout' broke off and Khafre (or somebody) re-purposed it.

As noted by others as well the head is unusually small for such a large body implying it has been re-carved after the fact. All told, given what master sculptors the DE were of the time, the Sphinx is a curiously poor misproportioned Frankenstein of a statue. Big ass, unusually narrow body (completely unlike any lion ever depicted), bizarrely long front legs, small pin head of a man, and something particularly curious to me is a totally flat platform of a back.  

Another feature I believe lends credence to the idea the Sphinx was re-carved at a later date is the area behind the rump: 

 

This area is just a few feet from the tail and is just rudely hacked out and clearly does not share the same erosion as the area above the ledge right behind it.  You can see how it wraps around to the side:

And terminates a ways up towards the middle of the body:

This ledge continues around the other side which also does not have the same weathering. 

We can see how the upper ledge, the one severely eroded by comparison, continues around for quite a ways:

It seems to me the Sphinx enclosure above the lower ledge was exposed for a considerable amount of time to be weathered that way in which at some point later the lower ledge area was carved out. The rub is that this lower ledge area would comprise a large part of the lower section of the statue meaning it could not have been carved without it being removed, not to mention this ledge would also have to have been carved out to make room for the Sphinx Temple. 

Regardless of whether it was originally Anubis or not, to me this is very strong evidence the Sphinx enclosure had two lives separated by a considerable amount of time in which it was only when the lower ledge area was carved out that it became a statue.

More supporting evidence of this is that the Valley Temple is agreed to have been built before the Sphinx Temple and was not built with blocks from the Sphinx enclosure which Lehner says:

"When Khafre’s architects built the Sphinx and the Sphinx Temple, they removed the northern Valley Temple enclosure wall leaving a portion of it in place, incorporating that leftover part into the new Sphinx Temple southern wall". 

Source.

So think about this-Khafre supposedly builds the Valley Temple (not made from Sphinx enclosure blocks) and finishes it to completion including enclosure wall. Then, at some point, supposedly, decides to build the Sphinx Temple (which he never finishes) made from blocks taken from the Sphinx enclosure, which ultimately means the mass of stone that comprises the majority of the Sphinx body was carved (left behind) at this time too. The lower ledge I note above is Member I and the Sphinx Temple blocks were taken from Member II (the upper ledge):

But how do we explain the completely different level of erosion found between the walls of Member II (upper ledge) and Member I (the lower ledge) with Member II being clearly severely more eroded implying it was exposed for a much longer period of time as well as at a time that was affected by greater water erosion. So the sequence of construction here would be:

1) completed Valley Temple

2)  Sphinx Temple built from blocks taken from Member II leaving "something" behind which if a statue a large chunk of its rump and back legs would be "missing". Part of the Valley Temple enclosure wall is removed to make room for the Sphinx Temple enclosure wall. 

3) The lower ledge Member I level is carved out barely making room to carve out the Sphinx's rump comprises a large section of the lower body which given the two completely different levels of erosion suggest this happened quite a bit later implying it was at this point the whatever was there was carved into the Sphinx.

 

[Thanos5150]

2 hours ago, Kenemet said:

I agree that your arguments are well presented... however... there are also no OK texts that refer to the boat pits, Khufu's mortuary temple, Menkaure's mortuary temple Menkaure's valley temple or even Keentikaus' mortuary temple and boat pit (among many other structures.)  The lack of mention of the temple in OK texts doesn't seem significant.  If I recall rightly, the only temples mentioned in texts are those that were for the living, where festivals were held.

I am having a hard time separating segments into separate quotes sometimes. Maybe someone can give me a tip.

I think it goes without saying, unlike a mortuary temple, boat pit or the like, while serving an ideological funerary function, the Sphinx is an ideological cult object of worship in and of itself, quasi "divine", as clearly evidenced from the MK onward and not only that the largest statue ever made and certainly a wonder of the ancient world then as it is today and to every culture that has encountered it since it was created. I don't know about you but I have never seen an Egyptian statue of a mortuary temple with a head of a pharaoh and/or offering formula giving thanks to a mortuary temple or boat pit. This distinction is not lost on others, like Lehner, who makes note of the fact the OK did not have a Sphinx cult, which it stands to reason there should be if it were there, suggesting the unfinished state of the Sphinx Temple may have been a contributor (though obviously I think it is a lot more than that).  

We also have to acknowledge its central and integral location to the whole of the Giza necropolis, undoubtedly a "Lord of the necropolis" if there ever was one. And not only that but the harbor located in front of the Valley Temple that wrapped around to to form the Khentkawes harbor as well was the main point of entry to the Giza necropolis as a whole in which the Sphinx, Anubis, would have greeted most visitors. 

 

And working backwards... I simply grabbed the first available images. I didn't wish to lumber the discussion with dozens of images, so I picked rather typical examples and chose them based on whether they were in museums and how well the photo portrayed the object. 

I provided images, but again, we can see how important it is to use examples actually contemporary with the time. Again, for example:

This is the Anubis of the 4th Dynasty. It means something. 

There's not a huge difference in the sphinx of Hetepheres and in the sphinx of Amenhotep (even the Nubian sphinx depictions follow the same body plan though the facial ruff and so forth are different).  However the general proportions they used for jackals and lions didn't change -- lions are always heavy bodied and massive paws, and jackals are always slender (at least while the Egyptians were doing them.  Once the Greeks and Romans got ahold of them, things... sometimes went sideways.

I agree, jackals are always slender:

Since you are an artist, perhaps you can draw something indicating how you think that the massif was reworked?  In the images I see (such as the one below) the proportions aren't correct for Anubis (neck is far too short, body is too thick as are the forelegs.)

This is Temple's drawing, and not a good one. The head of course would be significantly smaller, though larger than the pinhead of the pharaoh seen today, but more akin to the 4th Dynasty example given above (with possibly smaller snout). I imagine the ears coming up from roughly the height of the head we see today with the snout extending from the front of the face.   

Oh... yes, I'm familiar with the standard offering formula, having worked my way through Manley & Collier and a few others.

So then you know exactly what I am talking about....."A boon which the king gives and Anubis, he who is upon his hill, lord of the cemetery, that he may be buried”. 

Now... while I would consider it plausible that they might have STARTED to carve Anubis, I don't find it plausible that there was ever a finished Anubis.  Limestone doesn't have the properties that allow a free-standing snout like that.

So then it wasn't like that. Is it not plausible the sculptors were of such a skill that they made the features proportional as best they could given the material they had to work with?  Personally, I would withhold nothing from a culture who could make statues such as these:

 

 

Edited January 29, 2020 by Thanos5150