Anubis-Lord of the Giza Necropolis

[Thanos5150 639]

2 hours ago, Kenemet said:

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.

 

Forgot to add: see post #24. There is a significant issue in the disparity of erosion between the Member II and Member I layers of the Sphinx enclosure which as I argue the Member I section, comprising a large segment of the Sphinx's rump and lower quarter of the back half the body, was carved at a later date, meaning at the very least there was a substantial period of time that a large portion of the statue did not exist. 

 

[Kenemet 11,093]

2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Forgot to add: see post #24. There is a significant issue in the disparity of erosion between the Member II and Member I layers of the Sphinx enclosure which as I argue the Member I section, comprising a large segment of the Sphinx's rump and lower quarter of the back half the body, was carved at a later date, meaning at the very least there was a substantial period of time that a large portion of the statue did not exist. 

 

That's because of the consistency of the limestone (which is rather poor and unsuitable even for building)... according to what I have read from geologists.

[Wepwawet 1,856]

On 1/26/2020 at 4:42 PM, Thanos5150 said:

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.

I agree with that, and other points in your post, though not on the Great Sphinx being Anubis, and my reasons are as follows.

I've always seen the Great Sphinx as a lion, and will continue to do so unless compelling evidence to the contrary is presented, however....

There are indicators that make me stop and think about this. One of them is what is a lion doing in the necropolis, it has no place there really. A lion may well be a symbol of power, but is the necropoils a place to proclaim power in this seemingly blunt way, I don't think so. Lions are not the protectors of the necropolis, or have anything to do with the dead outside the brief appearance of the double lion Ruty in parts of the PT and various "Books of the Dead", long after the Fourth Dynasty. The only animal that we associate so closely with the dead and their protection is Anubis, but I doubt that the Great Sphinx is Anubis, no matter how tempting it is to think so.

If the Great Sphinx is not a lion or Anubis, then who is it? To me there is only one answer, and that is Wepwawet, comically refered to in some places as "Not Anubis".

I'll explain. Though Anubis exists in the Fourth Dynasty, he is younger than Wepwawet, who first appears on the Narmer palette in a prominent position ahead of the king, leading the way, parting the way. Wepwawet is associated with Horus and with Ra as he rises in the new dawn, and in fact it is Wepwawet who has led the way all through the night hours. But here I'll recognize that I'm applying what we see in later texts to the Fourth Dynasty with all the pitfalls that implies, though the importance and antiquity of Wepwawet cannot be denied.

So if we set aside references to Wepwawet in the Amduat and other similar texts as being too far ahead in time to have any concrete bearing on the Great Sphinx, we do have very interesting references in the PT.

These examples are from The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts by James P. Allen

210 - Awake, Parter! Go on high, Thoth! Awake! Rouse, you in Kenzet! - before the Great heron that comes from the garden, Paths-Parter who comes from the tamarisk.

This utterance explicitly equates the king with Wepwawet.

301 - This refers to Bringing the Sun. It is a long passage so I'll only write the most relevant part.

Stand up, great one of the reedfloat, as Paths-Parter, filled with your effectiveness and emergence from the Akhet.
Again this refers to the king also being Wepwawet, and that part about emerging from the horizon is interesting.

302 - Refering to Ascending Toward The Sky. I'll quote the final paragraph, and I'm sure some will look these up to make sure I'm not taking things out of context, which I'm not.

Paths-Parter has flown me to the sky among my brothers the gods. I have aquired arms as a Nile goose, I have beaten wing as a kite.
A flier flies, people: I fly away from you.

IMO, here we see the king as Wepwawet who is also Horus, for the purpose of flying if nothing else.

424 - Ho, Pepi! This is your going, these your goings, they are the goings of Horus in this his goings. His hurriers run, his heralds hasten, and announce him to him who sweeps in the east. (The sun)
Aha, Pepi! Your shoulders are those of Parter, your face that of Paths-Parter.

So again we have the king equated with Horus and Wepwawet, and in particular the king's face being that of Wepwawet. This is potentially a crucial piece of evidence that the Great Sphinx could potentially be the king as Wepwawet.

Now, it's not to say that Anubis does not get a look in, but I only found one reference in the PT that equates Anubis with the king, and as it's long I'll only write the relevant part.

535 - Horus is untied from his breast-band for you, that he might catch those in Seth's following. Seize them, remove their heads, sever their forelegs, and gut them, take their hearts, and slurp their blood. Allot their minds in this your identity of Anubis who allots minds.
You have been given your eyes as your two uraei, for you are Paths-Parter on his standard, Anubis at the fore of the gods' booth.

And here we have a typical Egyptian thing where we have one explicit reference to the king as Anubis follwed straight away by joining the king, Wepwawet and Anubis into one. It's highly likely that I have missed other references that equate the king with Anubis, and probably more with Wepwawet, but what stands out is that between Wepwawet and Anubis, the king is far more bound to Wepwawet, and I suspect due to the ancient connection between the king and Wepwawet and the connection of Wepwawet to Horus, a connection that Anubis does not have. Okay, so Anubis may be the brother of Horus, but he is a distinct individual, not a syncretism with Horus. It should also be noted that Wepwawet can be called Wepwawet-Ra, something I think very telling in the context of this post.

So we have an ancient and strong link between the king and Wepwawet that is absent in the case of Anubis. Anubis may well be the god of mummification and guardian of the necropolis, but he has no great function beyond this, unlike Wepwawet who has a very important role, even removing him from being the king. But we cannot separate Wepwawet from the king, for they have become one on a journey to the heavens. This, I believe, fits with what we know, or can extrapolate from the PT, about the function, beyond being a receptacle for the sah, of the Great Pyramid.

It seems to me that the relationship between the king and Wepwawet as described in the PT is similar to that of the king/Ra and Osiris in the much later "Books of the Dead", where the king/Ra joins with Osiris in the sixth hour to be ressurected and then reborn at the end of the twelth hour, with the help of Wepwawet among others. Osiris has clearly supplanted Wepwawet in the most crucial part of the afterlife of the king, and surely any function of Anubis is secondry to this. Is the Great Sphinx representing a sort of early rendition of the events of the Amduat sixth and twelth hours combined into one image? Is that a leap too far, and Thutmosis IV says nothing to imply this. What did he know? Was the Great Sphinx at the eastern edge of the necropolis to guard it, or is it there, facing the rising sun, symbolically leading the way for, or with, the dead king, and even all of the dead in the necropolis?

After thoughts

What is meant by the king having the face of "Paths-Finder", Wepwawet. Does it mean that the king has the face of a canine, or that the king provides the face for the body. I think that if there is even one ounce of truth in what I am suggesting, then it would be the king providing his face for the body of Wepwawet, and if this is what the Great Sphinx is, then it solves the answer of what head it should have. So forget a lion head, and most certainly the head of a jackal, for as has been pointed out in other posts, that is a non starter for practical reasons. If this is Wepwawet with the head of the king, and so is a syncretism of both, it fits with what the PT seems to be telling us. What also fits is Wepwawet also being Wepwawet-Ra, connected with Horus and being the king as he "ascends", and so being declared in the New Kingdom to be Hor-em-Akhet. Whether I am right or terribly wrong, and I don't have a thing about that, the Great Sphinx being a syncretism of Wepwawet and the king is a better fit, and explanation, of what we have at present. There has to be a very good reason for the head of the king to be on the Sphinx, and there needs to be a good reason to explain what is to me the anomaly, certainly in theological terms, of the Sphinx being a lion, it just does not fit at all.

I know that the rear end of the Sphinx is far more like a lion than a canine, principaly because of the hips and closeness of the rear legs, but, according to Richard H. Wilkinson in his The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt, Wepwawet was depicted with his rear legs together, and not apart as is the case with Anubis. However, Wilkinson talks only of the standing Wepwawet and does not mention him reclining in typical sphinx pose. I have been unable to find a single verifiable image of Wepwawet in sphinx pose to see if his rear legs are apart or together. I would presume that as they are together when standing then they would be together when reclining, and so not rule him out as the Great Sphinx on the basis of the closeness of it's rear legs.

Part of the reason why some argue for the Great Sphinx to be Anubis is that he is termed "Lord of the Pure/Sacred Land" or similar, but so is Wepwawet, thus negating that argument. Anubis also receives prominence because he is so omnipresent, but what I have done is look at the relationship, as we see it in the PT, between Anubis, Wepwawet and the king, rather than the relationship between Anubis and mortuary rites and the necropolis in general, specifically in his relationship not to the king, but to non royals. The Great Sphinx is a one off and must surely be fully linked with either Khufu or Khafre, not the non royal burials who must just benifit from it's presence, not be part of it. So while Anubis is so prominent, it is more so with the non royals than the king.

I have read The Sphinx Mystery by Robert and Olivia Temple, and I have noted that Wepwawet, or Upuaut, does not get a single mention. In light of what we read about Wepwawet in the PT this has to be a very serious omission. Wepwawet is "Not Anubis".

 

 

 

 

 

[Kenemet 11,093]

10 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

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.

  

(using this to respond to your post about sculptors and erosion.

The three members of the Mokkatam group have very different properties.

Member 1 is a very brittle stone.  Member 3 varies in texture from very soft (around the neck area) to a harder stone suitable for building material (much of which, if I remember rightly, went to the pyramid.)  Member 2 is layers of alternating hard and soft stone.  http://www.aeraweb.org/sphinx-project/geology-of-the-sphinx/

So, as an artist, imagine you're commissioned to make a sculpture of Anubis with his collar and perhaps an ankh between his ears and so forth.  You are given a big hunk of wood...most of it is very thin sheets of balsa glued together but the top is thin sheets of oak and the bottom is thin sheets of red oak (note on types of wood for carving -- and worse still, the block has been planed so that the grain isn't straight but angles downward slightly: https://www.workshopshed.com/2018/04/best-wood-types-for-woodcarving/)

It's going to be difficult to get the same level of detail in each type of wood.  Areas where the thin sheets join (even the same type of wood) are problematic and won't wear equally well.

If you were here in Texas, I could point you at the Edwards plateau limestone... show you the difference in the caprock and in the stone beneath it.  I can even show you formations with similarly layered rock and let you see how problematic they are.  But I don't know where you live... so I am resorting to woods and hope it makes sense.

[Thanos5150 639]

1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

(using this to respond to your post about sculptors and erosion.

The three members of the Mokkatam group have very different properties.

Member 1 is a very brittle stone.  Member 3 varies in texture from very soft (around the neck area) to a harder stone suitable for building material (much of which, if I remember rightly, went to the pyramid.)  Member 2 is layers of alternating hard and soft stone.  http://www.aeraweb.org/sphinx-project/geology-of-the-sphinx/

 

Of course, but this is not an explanation for there being extreme weathering on one layer and virtually none on the other, particularly directly behind the Sphinx which is required to be removed to make the Sphinx as it is. Also, the exposed MI and MII layers of this area of enclosure wall do not display the same kind of erosion regardless of their composition.  

With sections of the MI layer showing virtually no erosion at all. Compare the erosion of this MI enclosure area north of the Sphinx:

Not only do we see what we would expect the erosion of MI to be if carved at the same time as MII, but also the difference in erosion of an area cut after it was exposed for a significant period of time. You don't need to go to Texas, you can just look right there at the Sphinx. 

Regardless, as noted there are two distinct levels at the Sphinx enclosure, MI and MII, which all things considered seems to me were carved and different times which the MI area mostly, particularly the area behind the Sphinx to make room for the rump, being carved at significantly later date. 

Edited January 29, 2020 by Thanos5150

[Kenemet 11,093]

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

Of course, but this is not an explanation for there being extreme weathering on one layer and virtually none on the other, particularly directly behind the Sphinx which is required to be removed to make the Sphinx as it is. Also, the exposed MI and MII layers of this area of enclosure wall do not display the same kind of erosion regardless of their composition.  

With sections of the MI layer showing virtually no erosion at all. Compare the erosion of this MI enclosure area north of the Sphinx:

Not only do we see what we would expect the erosion of MI to be if carved at the same time as MII, but also the difference in erosion of an area cut after it was exposed for a significant period of time. You don't need to go to Texas, you can just look right there at the Sphinx. 

Regardless, as noted there are two distinct levels at the Sphinx enclosure, MI and MII, which all things considered seems to me were carved and different times which the MI area mostly, particularly the area behind the Sphinx to make room for the rump, being carved at significantly later date. 

Difference in the weathering is very common in geology.  Different types of rock erode in different patterns an at different rates.

[Kenemet 11,093]

BTW, I have not extensively looked at the geology here and am relying on reports from geologists who have studied weathering patterns in the area.  Things like the direction of the prevailing winds really DO make quite a difference (particularly if the area is prone to sandstorms.  Many examples out here in West Texas.)

Edited January 29, 2020 by Kenemet

[Thanos5150 639]

6 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Difference in the weathering is very common in geology.  Different types of rock erode in different patterns an at different rates.

And...? As stated, again, this is not different kinds of rock. It is the same exact rock from the same exact quarry.

Again:

Not only do we see what we would expect the erosion of MI to be if carved at the same time as MII, but also the difference in erosion of an area cut after it was exposed for a significant period of time. You don't need to go to Texas, you can just look right there at the Sphinx. 

Compare:

No weathering. Like the 4th Dynasty cutting in the 1st picture. 

 

[Kenemet 11,093]

4 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

And...? As stated, again, this is not different kinds of rock. It is the same exact rock from the same exact quarry.

Again:

 

That's not true.  You do see the same formation -- BUT the layers (ancient sea bed) weren't all deposited at the same moment in time.  This formation was created over millions of years of sea bed deposition and each "layer" is made up of millions of days of sediment... laid down a day at a time.  Included in those layers are markers that reflect changes in the temperature and so forth of each time period. 

You see "a rock layer" but there's actually THREE major layers (or levels or eras) shown in this photo.  Each of those layers is thousands upon thousands of years of drifting sediment and dead and dying organisms and each has slightly different properties.

If you look very closely at the paler square cut of the rock on the far bottom lef, you can see some of the smaller layers within the bigger "slab" that's part of that top area of the first level of the first layer (golly, that's convoluted), including darker "stripes" that mark changes in the oceans.

I've seen layers that indicate regular flood events in the Woodbine formation here in North Texas.  

Geology is fascinating.

 

Edited January 29, 2020 by Kenemet

[Thanos5150 639]

8 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

There are indicators that make me stop and think about this. One of them is what is a lion doing in the necropolis, it has no place there really. A lion may well be a symbol of power, but is the necropoils a place to proclaim power in this seemingly blunt way, I don't think so. Lions are not the protectors of the necropolis, or have anything to do with the dead outside the brief appearance of the double lion Ruty in parts of the PT and various "Books of the Dead", long after the Fourth Dynasty. The only animal that we associate so closely with the dead and their protection is Anubis, but I doubt that the Great Sphinx is Anubis, no matter how tempting it is to think so.

If the Great Sphinx is not a lion or Anubis, then who is it? To me there is only one answer, and that is Wepwawet, comically refered to in some places as "Not Anubis".

The problem with this right away is that regardless of what we think, the DE of the time (and before), namely at Giza itself where the Sphinx is located, made it abundantly clear the Lord of the Necropolis was Anubis. I am not making this up nor it is my interpretation-it is what they said. From the OP:

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: 

8 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I'll explain. Though Anubis exists in the Fourth Dynasty, he is younger than Wepwawet, who first appears on the Narmer palette in a prominent position ahead of the king, leading the way, parting the way.

This is a bit misleading as Anubis (and Khenti-Amentiu for that matter) is well attested as a prominent figure in first Dynasty royal inscriptions with the earliest example found, perhaps, a seal attributed to Hor-Aha, next pharaoh after Narmer. Wepwawet, though found on the Narmer palette and the Narmer mace, are not overtly funerary in nature but rather often military (war) so it is no wonder why Anubis, guardian of the cemetery,  would not be portrayed on these artifacts. Wepwawet on the Narmer palette is featured on a standard for battle just as he was most commonly depicted in the 1st Dynasty. For example, the pharaoh Den:

More relevant is that this is exactly how he was often portrayed in the 4th and early 5th Dynasty with this same standard associated with smiting enemies. From Wadi Maghareh, Sneferu:

Khufu:

Sahure:

War, not guarding a cemetery. 

Wepwawet is associated with Horus and with Ra as he rises in the new dawn, and in fact it is Wepwawet who has led the way all through the night hours. But here I'll recognize that I'm applying what we see in later texts to the Fourth Dynasty with all the pitfalls that implies, though the importance and antiquity of Wepwawet cannot be denied.

 

[snip for brevity]

Basically you are swapping one jackal for another which in its most common form one guards a cemetery and the other is a standard for battle. And again, when we refer to the DE themselves buried there they give overwhelming deference to Anubis being the Lord of the Necropolis, not Wepwawet, which he is commonly portrayed as being usually large, like the Sphinx.  An interesting thought but the contemporary evidence, and precedent, clearly point directly to Anubis.   

 

[Thanos5150 639]

5 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

That's not true.  You do see the same formation -- BUT the layers (ancient sea bed) weren't all deposited at the same moment in time.  This formation was created over millions of years of sea bed deposition and each "layer" is made up of millions of days of sediment... laid down a day at a time.  Included in those layers are markers that reflect changes in the temperature and so forth of each time period. 

You see "a rock layer" but there's actually THREE major layers (or levels or eras) shown in this photo.  Each of those layers is thousands upon thousands of years of drifting sediment and dead and dying organisms and each has slightly different properties.

If you look very closely at the paler square cut of the rock on the far bottom lef, you can see some of the smaller layers within the bigger "slab" that's part of that top area of the first level of the first layer (golly, that's convoluted), including darker "stripes" that mark changes in the oceans.

I've seen layers that indicate regular flood events in the Woodbine formation here in North Texas.  

Geology is fascinating.

 

I am confident that Member I is homogeneous enough from a spot a few dozen feet away to the other at the same height that any difference to the point being made is nominal if non existent. Regardless of the geology, again, it is a simple fact that there are two layers that were carved at different points in time with the only question being how much. You can only get to the MI terrace by carving away the MII layer first: 

 

And again, we note that according to Lehner and others the Sphinx temple was built using blocks from MII which it is apparent the Sphinx Temple was never finished and the project abandoned. This does not speak well for the idea they continued to drill down on the MI layer to make room for the Sphinx which, even so, it is hard to imagine if they did not even finish the temple that they made it very far carving a massive Sphinx/Anubis.  

[Kenemet 11,093]

4 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

I am confident that Member I is homogeneous enough from a spot a few dozen feet away to the other at the same height that any difference to the point being made is nominal if non existent. Regardless of the geology, again, it is a simple fact that there are two layers that were carved at different points in time with the only question being how much. You can only get to the MI terrace by carving away the MII layer first: 

 

And again, we note that according to Lehner and others the Sphinx temple was built using blocks from MII which it is apparent the Sphinx Temple was never finished and the project abandoned. This does not speak well for the idea they continued to drill down on the MI layer to make room for the Sphinx which, even so, it is hard to imagine if they did not even finish the temple that they made it very far carving a massive Sphinx/Anubis.  

(sorry for abbreviated answer... working on Powerpoint tonight.)

Member I really isn't homogeneous.  It's ... similar but there's layers in it.

And where is a source that says the Sphinx temple is/was unfinished?  I don't recall that, but ancient Egypt for me didn't start and end on Giza.  I was far more interested in other things.

[Wepwawet 1,856]

7 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

The problem with this right away is that regardless of what we think, the DE of the time (and before), namely at Giza itself where the Sphinx is located, made it abundantly clear the Lord of the Necropolis was Anubis. I am not making this up nor it is my interpretation-it is what they said. From the OP:

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: 

 

Your idea of the Great Sphinx does not give a theological explanation as to why it has the head of a human king, irrespective of if the body is that of a lion or a canine. My post is an attempt to give a theological explanation for the Great Sphinx's human head.

As I could find no reason for the body of a lion to have a human head, I looked at Anubis, and again found no reason. However, as my post shows, I did find reason in the PT, and the texts are very explicit that Wepwawet and the dead king join, and that this joining is connected to the rising of the sun on the eastern horizon. This presages the joining of the king/Ra and Osiris that we find later in the Amduat and other texts, a time when functions of Wepwawet and Anubis have been taken over by Osiris. Anubis, no matter how omnipresent he is in the necropolis and no matter what epithets he is given, is only a bit part player in the PT as regards what happens to the king in the afterlife. This is not a matter of semantics and just swapping one canine for another, as both are seperate gods, not manifestations of the same god, and Wepwaet is associated with the king in life and in death in a way that Anubis is not. My proposal is nothing to do with the Great Sphinx being a guardian of the necropolis, and I believe that very common idea to be a red herring, but all to do with the journey of the king in the afterlife and his rebirth every dawn.

[Thanos5150 639]

13 hours ago, Kenemet said:

(sorry for abbreviated answer... working on Powerpoint tonight.)

Good for you Timmy. 

Quote

Member I really isn't homogeneous.  It's ... similar but there's layers in it.

Great Scott, man. You are anything if not consistent. What did I say- "...homogeneous enough..." I think we are done on that point. 

Quote

And where is a source that says the Sphinx temple is/was unfinished? I don't recall that, but ancient Egypt for me didn't start and end on Giza.  I was far more interested in other things.

But wait-I thought you were an authority on the subject? Not to mention your being an artist gives you powers of observation and a level of understanding "non-artists" could not possibly have. ITs only by chance I too am an artist. Remember you said as your argument: "I've studied it [the Sphinx complex] and I've visited it."

What happened? 

Hint: even you have used this source in this very thread. Let me get you started:

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.

And it is your past "other interests" that prevented you from reading the very source you cited but a few days ago? Or that I cited in post #24 which I also not the Sphinx Temple was not finished and directed you specifically to that post in a later response? 

My main interest in Egyptian history is the predynastic period though the OK with a focus on the protodynastic/Archaic Dynastic period and the origins of the Dynastic state. 

 

Edited January 30, 2020 by Thanos5150

[Kenemet 11,093]

9 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

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.

Thank you for the citation.  

[cladking 424]

On 1/29/2020 at 8:20 AM, Wepwawet said:

I agree with that, and other points in your post, though not on the Great Sphinx being Anubis, and my reasons are as follows.

I've always seen the Great Sphinx as a lion, and will continue to do so unless compelling evidence to the contrary is presented, however....

There are indicators that make me stop and think about this. One of them is what is a lion doing in the necropolis, it has no place there really. A lion may well be a symbol of power, but is the necropoils a place to proclaim power in this seemingly blunt way, I don't think so. Lions are not the protectors of the necropolis, or have anything to do with the dead outside the brief appearance of the double lion Ruty in parts of the PT and various "Books of the Dead", long after the Fourth Dynasty. The only animal that we associate so closely with the dead and their protection is Anubis, but I doubt that the Great Sphinx is Anubis, no matter how tempting it is to think so.

If the Great Sphinx is not a lion or Anubis, then who is it? To me there is only one answer, and that is Wepwawet, comically refered to in some places as "Not Anubis".

I'll explain. Though Anubis exists in the Fourth Dynasty, he is younger than Wepwawet, who first appears on the Narmer palette in a prominent position ahead of the king, leading the way, parting the way. Wepwawet is associated with Horus and with Ra as he rises in the new dawn, and in fact it is Wepwawet who has led the way all through the night hours. But here I'll recognize that I'm applying what we see in later texts to the Fourth Dynasty with all the pitfalls that implies, though the importance and antiquity of Wepwawet cannot be denied.

So if we set aside references to Wepwawet in the Amduat and other similar texts as being too far ahead in time to have any concrete bearing on the Great Sphinx, we do have very interesting references in the PT.

These examples are from The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts by James P. Allen

210 - Awake, Parter! Go on high, Thoth! Awake! Rouse, you in Kenzet! - before the Great heron that comes from the garden, Paths-Parter who comes from the tamarisk.

This utterance explicitly equates the king with Wepwawet.

301 - This refers to Bringing the Sun. It is a long passage so I'll only write the most relevant part.

Stand up, great one of the reedfloat, as Paths-Parter, filled with your effectiveness and emergence from the Akhet.
Again this refers to the king also being Wepwawet, and that part about emerging from the horizon is interesting.

302 - Refering to Ascending Toward The Sky. I'll quote the final paragraph, and I'm sure some will look these up to make sure I'm not taking things out of context, which I'm not.

Paths-Parter has flown me to the sky among my brothers the gods. I have aquired arms as a Nile goose, I have beaten wing as a kite.
A flier flies, people: I fly away from you.

IMO, here we see the king as Wepwawet who is also Horus, for the purpose of flying if nothing else.

424 - Ho, Pepi! This is your going, these your goings, they are the goings of Horus in this his goings. His hurriers run, his heralds hasten, and announce him to him who sweeps in the east. (The sun)
Aha, Pepi! Your shoulders are those of Parter, your face that of Paths-Parter.

So again we have the king equated with Horus and Wepwawet, and in particular the king's face being that of Wepwawet. This is potentially a crucial piece of evidence that the Great Sphinx could potentially be the king as Wepwawet.

Now, it's not to say that Anubis does not get a look in, but I only found one reference in the PT that equates Anubis with the king, and as it's long I'll only write the relevant part.

535 - Horus is untied from his breast-band for you, that he might catch those in Seth's following. Seize them, remove their heads, sever their forelegs, and gut them, take their hearts, and slurp their blood. Allot their minds in this your identity of Anubis who allots minds.
You have been given your eyes as your two uraei, for you are Paths-Parter on his standard, Anubis at the fore of the gods' booth.

And here we have a typical Egyptian thing where we have one explicit reference to the king as Anubis follwed straight away by joining the king, Wepwawet and Anubis into one. It's highly likely that I have missed other references that equate the king with Anubis, and probably more with Wepwawet, but what stands out is that between Wepwawet and Anubis, the king is far more bound to Wepwawet, and I suspect due to the ancient connection between the king and Wepwawet and the connection of Wepwawet to Horus, a connection that Anubis does not have. Okay, so Anubis may be the brother of Horus, but he is a distinct individual, not a syncretism with Horus. It should also be noted that Wepwawet can be called Wepwawet-Ra, something I think very telling in the context of this post.

So we have an ancient and strong link between the king and Wepwawet that is absent in the case of Anubis. Anubis may well be the god of mummification and guardian of the necropolis, but he has no great function beyond this, unlike Wepwawet who has a very important role, even removing him from being the king. But we cannot separate Wepwawet from the king, for they have become one on a journey to the heavens. This, I believe, fits with what we know, or can extrapolate from the PT, about the function, beyond being a receptacle for the sah, of the Great Pyramid.

It seems to me that the relationship between the king and Wepwawet as described in the PT is similar to that of the king/Ra and Osiris in the much later "Books of the Dead", where the king/Ra joins with Osiris in the sixth hour to be ressurected and then reborn at the end of the twelth hour, with the help of Wepwawet among others. Osiris has clearly supplanted Wepwawet in the most crucial part of the afterlife of the king, and surely any function of Anubis is secondry to this. Is the Great Sphinx representing a sort of early rendition of the events of the Amduat sixth and twelth hours combined into one image? Is that a leap too far, and Thutmosis IV says nothing to imply this. What did he know? Was the Great Sphinx at the eastern edge of the necropolis to guard it, or is it there, facing the rising sun, symbolically leading the way for, or with, the dead king, and even all of the dead in the necropolis?

After thoughts

What is meant by the king having the face of "Paths-Finder", Wepwawet. Does it mean that the king has the face of a canine, or that the king provides the face for the body. I think that if there is even one ounce of truth in what I am suggesting, then it would be the king providing his face for the body of Wepwawet, and if this is what the Great Sphinx is, then it solves the answer of what head it should have. So forget a lion head, and most certainly the head of a jackal, for as has been pointed out in other posts, that is a non starter for practical reasons. If this is Wepwawet with the head of the king, and so is a syncretism of both, it fits with what the PT seems to be telling us. What also fits is Wepwawet also being Wepwawet-Ra, connected with Horus and being the king as he "ascends", and so being declared in the New Kingdom to be Hor-em-Akhet. Whether I am right or terribly wrong, and I don't have a thing about that, the Great Sphinx being a syncretism of Wepwawet and the king is a better fit, and explanation, of what we have at present. There has to be a very good reason for the head of the king to be on the Sphinx, and there needs to be a good reason to explain what is to me the anomaly, certainly in theological terms, of the Sphinx being a lion, it just does not fit at all.

I know that the rear end of the Sphinx is far more like a lion than a canine, principaly because of the hips and closeness of the rear legs, but, according to Richard H. Wilkinson in his The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt, Wepwawet was depicted with his rear legs together, and not apart as is the case with Anubis. However, Wilkinson talks only of the standing Wepwawet and does not mention him reclining in typical sphinx pose. I have been unable to find a single verifiable image of Wepwawet in sphinx pose to see if his rear legs are apart or together. I would presume that as they are together when standing then they would be together when reclining, and so not rule him out as the Great Sphinx on the basis of the closeness of it's rear legs.

Part of the reason why some argue for the Great Sphinx to be Anubis is that he is termed "Lord of the Pure/Sacred Land" or similar, but so is Wepwawet, thus negating that argument. Anubis also receives prominence because he is so omnipresent, but what I have done is look at the relationship, as we see it in the PT, between Anubis, Wepwawet and the king, rather than the relationship between Anubis and mortuary rites and the necropolis in general, specifically in his relationship not to the king, but to non royals. The Great Sphinx is a one off and must surely be fully linked with either Khufu or Khafre, not the non royal burials who must just benifit from it's presence, not be part of it. So while Anubis is so prominent, it is more so with the non royals than the king.

I have read The Sphinx Mystery by Robert and Olivia Temple, and I have noted that Wepwawet, or Upuaut, does not get a single mention. In light of what we read about Wepwawet in the PT this has to be a very serious omission. Wepwawet is "Not Anubis".

 

 

 

 

 

Welcome aboard.  I'd love to comment extensively but everything I say about pyramids, Egyptians, or any artefacts is off-topic by definition.

I hope we can have an opportunity to exchange ideas, especially about the PT and "wepwawet'.  The Sphinx is another subject near and dear to me.  

[Kenemet 11,093]

I am curious about what arguments Egyptologists have against this.  I haven't seen any (not that I've surveyed every single one) come out in favor.  Lehner doesn't seem to be interested in the idea as far as I can tell.

Edited January 30, 2020 by Kenemet

[Thanos5150 639]

On 1/26/2020 at 8:42 AM, Thanos5150 said:

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.

 

A better example is that of Meresankh III, definitively  the wife of Khafre who bore him four sons and a daughter and lived to be 50-55yrs old:

Supposedly she died during the 1st year of the reign of an unnamed king, some say Menkaure, but I do not think this is the case. The fellow in the lower left corner is wearing a "pyramid kilt" which this style did not appear until the very end/beginning of the 5th Dynasty leaving Shepseskaf the more likely pharaoh. 

[Wepwawet 1,856]

Anubis is of course "Lord of the pure land", ie the necropolis, but Wepwawet has the same epithet, and he is also "Lord of Rosetau", which connects him directly to the Giza necropolis, Anubis does not have this epithet, and indeed has far fewer epithets than Wepwawet, one of which is "Son of Ra", along with also being the syncretic god Wepwawet-Ra. Anubis is "He who is upon his sacred mountain" ie the guardian of the necropolis, an epithet and function that Wepwawet does not have.

This guardian function is important, and looking at the Great Sphinx is it difficult to view it as anything other than the guardian of the Giza necropolis, but that I think is taking things at face value and interpreting what we see through modern eyes. Anubis is guardian of the necropolis because he is poacher turned gamekeeper, he who once defiled the graves of the dead now guards them from his fellow, and mortal, jackals. Is the Great Sphinx "Upon his mountain", does it overlook the necropolis, is it in a position to guard against jackals, or any other "enemy", coming in from the desert. No it is not, it is below the level of the pyramids and other tombs and does not have any view over them, it sits there, furthest to the east and looking out to the rising sun. Does any necropolis have a guardian jackal, or lion, statue, of any size, let alone to the scale of the Great Sphinx, no, and no sphinx after the Great Sphinx has a place in the necropolis. I think that if the Great Sphinx was a necropolis guardian, then we would have other examples, but there are none.

Anubis is important in his functions of mummification, but does not have much to do after the sah has been laid to rest, at least in OK times pre Osiris and the role of Anubis in the weighing of the heart. As I have pointed out, Anubis does have a presence, at times very important in direct connection with the afterlife of the king in the PT, but this presence is minor compared to that of Wepwawet. The Great Sphinx is, I contend, nothing to do with any events leading up to the interment of the sah, it is all about what happens after the tomb has been sealed, and is an image of the king showing part of his existance in the afterlife, and on such a scale, purpatuating what is happening for eternity, something the ancient Egyptians liked to do. This holds true, IMO, for the Great Sphinx no matter if the body is leonine or canine.

Would the Great Sphinx, particularly if the body is that of a lion, be nothing more than a "megalomaniac" device to show the everlasting power of the king. I think not, because this is an image of a dead king who has no worldly power to exert, they never thought that they would have power after death, only an eternal existance with Ra. If this were "power projection" by one king, would it not be seen by future kings as an afront to their real power when still alive, maybe, but while it has been created by one king and presumably has his face, might it not be a metaphor for all kings so that they are all included in this snapshot of part of their existance in the afterlife

Just to remind that while I myself cannot put forward any complelling evidence to show that the body of the Great Sphinx is not that of a lion, I do see evidence, even if not compelling, that if the body were that of a canine, then it is more likely to be that of Wepwawet due to his closeness to the king in life and in death, to the extent of also being "Sa Ra" and joined with the king and "ascends" him, probably also a part of the function of the pyramid. Anubis, bar one or two mentions of joining with the king in the PT, has no connection with him to the extent that Wepwawet does after the sah has been intered. Being the guardian of the necropolis is I think a total non starter to explain the Great Sphinx as Anubis, or a lion, but that is another issue.

One example, though from long after the Fourth Dynasty, of the conection between the king and Wepwawet, can be found at Abydos. On one of the walls to the shrine of Sety we have an image of Wepwawet handing over the crook and flail to the king, and speaking these words, translated by Rosalie David.

I come to thee, bearing life and dominion; mayest thou be young like Horus as king; I hand over to thee the sceptre and flail, and the beneficent office of Onnophris; may thy name endure by reason of what thou hast done. As long as the sky shall exist, thou shalt exist.

Anubis has no role such as this, and neither does any lion.

 

Edit: That image at Abydos is very often said to be of Anubis and the king, but it is unequivocally Wepwawet, and it is ignorance and laziness that ascribes it to Anubis, hence the joke created by Darren Pepper of Wepwawet being "Not Anubis"

In the Amduat, Anubis is mentioned four times, and he does not appear after the fifth hour at all, so has no function in the crucial sixth and twelth hours. Wepwawet is present, as foremost of the crew of the solar barque, in all the hours except the seventh, where the crew has some changes specific for that hour. I note that when Anubis appears, that's three times with the fourth being a mention, he is in anthropomorphic form. Every time Wepwawet is shown it is in fully human form wearing kilt, tripartite wig and divine beard. This shows that Wepwawet can assume the head of a human, and does so in the context of the journey of the king in the afterlife, something that I believe the Great Sphinx shows. In the Book of Gates, due to it's radically different nature to the Amduat, Anubis, in anthropomorphic form, is mentioned once, and Wepwawet not at all. There are twelve jackal headed divinities who appear in a group, but  are only refered to as "Jackal divinities" and none is individually named.

Edited February 1, 2020 by Wepwawet

[Kenemet 11,093]

11 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

In the Amduat, Anubis is mentioned four times, and he does not appear after the fifth hour at all, so has no function in the crucial sixth and twelth hours. Wepwawet is present, as foremost of the crew of the solar barque, in all the hours except the seventh, where the crew has some changes specific for that hour. I note that when Anubis appears, that's three times with the fourth being a mention, he is in anthropomorphic form.

I don't think you can use that reference in this discussion, since the Book of the Amduat was from the New Kingdom (after 1550 BC or thereabouts.)  That would be a thousand years later than Giza.

[Wepwawet 1,856]

9 hours ago, Kenemet said:

I don't think you can use that reference in this discussion, since the Book of the Amduat was from the New Kingdom (after 1550 BC or thereabouts.)  That would be a thousand years later than Giza.

It is not to provide any specific proof that the Great Sphinx could be Wepwawet IF it were a canine, but to show the very long history of the close connection between Wepwawet and the king in life and in death, from Narmer and well into the New Kingdom, and to point out that, even if a thousand years later, Wepwawet can be shown with a human head.  We have references to a "head swap" in the PT, much closer in time of course, but no visual record, the Amduat at least gives us a reference for purposes of illustrating, rightly or wrongly, and to one degree or other, what the PT says and the function of Wepwawet leading the king, by joining with him, to "ascention". This is explicit in the PT, not so in the Amduat of course were the king is not mentioned and Ra himself is just named as "flesh".

No comment at all on any of my other, and more salient points about the epithets of Wepwawet and why the Great Sphinx, no matter who or what it is, does not fit to be simply a guardian of the Giza, or any necropolis, one of the main points to support the opinion that it is Anubis.

[Tom1200 1,205]

On 1/30/2020 at 12:18 AM, Thanos5150 said:

I am confident that Member I is homogeneous enough from a spot a few dozen feet away to the other at the same height that any difference to the point being made is nominal if non existent. Regardless of the geology, again, it is a simple fact that there are two layers that were carved at different points in time with the only question being how much. You can only get to the MI terrace by carving away the MII layer first: 

 

On 1/30/2020 at 6:10 PM, Thanos5150 said:

Great Scott, man. You are anything if not consistent. What did I say- "...homogeneous enough..." I think we are done on that point. 

Hi Thanos!  Interesting article, generating good discussions.  I've come across some of these issues before, but as a relative novice in all things Egyptology I'll restrict my observations to matters of scientific concerns.

And I'm afraid to contradict you but you cannot simply rule out the different properties of the various layers of rock around the Sphinx.  It is entirely possible that the two steps were constructed at the same time yet have weathered significantly differently.  A simple search of 'weird erosion' reveals far more unusual patterns than those seen at Giza.  (For just one awesome example look up The Devil's Slide, Utah.  Quite similar to the effect seen in the Member II surface.  Nature truly rocks!)

As Kenemet explained, sedimentary rocks are laid down painfully slowly - sometimes millimetres per year - and later compressed by their own weight into even thinner material.  Localised changes in temperature, precipitation, pH, wind speed or direction can make a big difference to the materials washed into a body of water, but an even bigger factor is the rocks that are being eroded to form the sediments, and the minerals these contain.  Also - chalks and limestones contain varying amounts of ancient shells; and the size of these objects and their compositions affect the strength of the rock millions of years later. 

This doesn't prove the two layers were cut at the same time, but it shows that relying on the different weathering patterns to reach the opposite conclusion is false logic.

I've a couple of questions that may (or may not) have easy answers:

1) Why is the enclosure so asymmetrical?  Is this a result of the excavation of materials suitable for building, a constraint created by previous buildings, or something else?

2) What is the nature of the dark wall in the upper-right of the picture you included?  When does it date from, and what purpose did it serve?  (There seems to be very little of it left, but I can't find suitable photographs to help further my understanding.  I've tried to answer this for myself online but made no progress so far.)

 

[Thanos5150 639]

11 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:

Hi Thanos!  Interesting article, generating good discussions.  I've come across some of these issues before, but as a relative novice in all things Egyptology I'll restrict my observations to matters of scientific concerns.

And I'm afraid to contradict you but you cannot simply rule out the different properties of the various layers of rock around the Sphinx.  It is entirely possible that the two steps were constructed at the same time yet have weathered significantly differently.  A simple search of 'weird erosion' reveals far more unusual patterns than those seen at Giza.  (For just one awesome example look up The Devil's Slide, Utah.  Quite similar to the effect seen in the Member II surface.  Nature truly rocks!)

Hello Tom. Again, below is the same layer (Member I), which despite the different composition of the rock between MI and MII, is has the same kind of weathering as seen on the upper layer (Member II):

Which is absent from this layer directly behind the Sphinx:

Its not just about the rocks being of different composition, it is that we do not even see the same patterns of erosion. It seems quite clear the area behind the Sphinx was cut at a later time. Regardless, if you read my original response to Kenemet I also said:

I am confident that Member I is homogeneous enough from a spot a few dozen feet away to the other at the same height that any difference to the point being made is nominal if non existent. Regardless of the geology, again, it is a simple fact that there are two layers that were carved at different points in time with the only question being how much. You can only get to the MI terrace by carving away the MII layer first: 

[photo used directly above] 

And again, we note that according to Lehner and others the Sphinx temple was built using blocks from MII which it is apparent the Sphinx Temple was never finished and the project abandoned. This does not speak well for the idea they continued to drill down on the MI layer to make room for the Sphinx which, even so, it is hard to imagine if they did not even finish the temple that they made it very far carving a massive Sphinx/Anubis.  

Arguing what the geology may or may not be based on generalities is counter productive, false logic I would say, as you might recall the OP does not even mention it in which the geology is but a part of the greater context.of possible evidence laid out in this thread. 

11 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:

[snip]

This doesn't prove the two layers were cut at the same time, but it shows that relying on the different weathering patterns to reach the opposite conclusion is false logic.

Do me a favor and read all of the posts first before your start accusing me of "false logic". No where have I "relied on it" which, again, the geology is not even mentioned in the OP. 

11 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:

 

 

[Kenemet 11,093]

9 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

It is not to provide any specific proof that the Great Sphinx could be Wepwawet IF it were a canine, but to show the very long history of the close connection between Wepwawet and the king in life and in death, from Narmer and well into the New Kingdom, and to point out that, even if a thousand years later, Wepwawet can be shown with a human head.  We have references to a "head swap" in the PT, much closer in time of course, but no visual record, the Amduat at least gives us a reference for purposes of illustrating, rightly or wrongly, and to one degree or other, what the PT says and the function of Wepwawet leading the king, by joining with him, to "ascention". This is explicit in the PT, not so in the Amduat of course were the king is not mentioned and Ra himself is just named as "flesh".

No comment at all on any of my other, and more salient points about the epithets of Wepwawet and why the Great Sphinx, no matter who or what it is, does not fit to be simply a guardian of the Giza, or any necropolis, one of the main points to support the opinion that it is Anubis.

Not really (I should admit that Wepawet is one of my early favorite Egyptian deities)... as mentioned before, I've been occupied with work.  I do intend to look up the geology of the area, because I have a vague memory that the Mokkatam formation isn't that deep and that there are no layers above that formation for many hundreds of miles.  There simply wouldn't have been rock to carve the ears and head from (you'd need at least 12 feet of additional height if you used the current head... more if you had a more proper jackal head and neck.

I agree with current thinking that they carved it from a type of formation known as a hoodoo... and that it's a sphinx because the lump of rock looked like a sphinx.  There's at least one well-known association of a hoodoo with a deity (which I can't find now to save my life... memory says it's a sandstone pillar near Luxor and that the deity was Amun)  

One other point against Anubis and Wepauwet is that although I know of avenues of sphinxes as symbols of protection (later) and as protective guardians (Hetepheres I), I don't know of any case where there was a row of statues (or even a single one) to Anubis or Wepauwet that stood guard over any other cemetery.  Guardians of a tomb and inside a tomb, yes.  And inside temples.  But not as statues in cemeteries.  

I'd love to hear about counterexamples if there are any.

 

[Kenemet 11,093]

For all the other geology nerds out there (am I the only one?)  For non-nerds, the "texture" says something about how rapidly the section erodes.  Mudstone is ... well, it's kind of like dried mud.  Flakes off easily.  You can see how the layers go from rather hard to easily eroded in the space of a foot or less.