Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Was The Sphinx only built c.1350BC?


The Puzzler

Recommended Posts

Were they really creating sphinxes over 1000 years earlier? (Time the pyramids are said to be built).

Or was the original Sphinx created in full, maybe around 1350BC? As per the article and photos here might suggest.

Is the real Sphinx Amenhotep?

The topic is two-fold….earthquakes at 1200BC….might solve a lot of riddles…

 

IMG_0911.jpeg

IMG_0912.jpeg

IMG_0913.jpeg

Edited by The Puzzler
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to Was The Sphinx only built c.1350BC?

The sides of the head dress on the Sphinx look like it…(to me) or were Pharoahs wearing the exact same headdresses 1000 years prior…? (Amenhotep III)

IMG_0914.jpeg

Edited by The Puzzler
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Puzzler said:

The sides of the head dress on the Sphinx look like it…(to me) or were Pharoahs wearing the exact same headdresses 1000 years prior…? (Amenhotep III)

IMG_0914.jpeg

Khafre, in the image below, wears the nemes, and the Great Sphinx may well have his face, subject to vitriolic debate and screaming and shouting.

On the Great Sphinx being built by Amunhotep III, this is impossible, not least because his father, Thutmose IV, erected the "Dream Stela" between it's paws stating that he cleared the enclosure, and his father before him, Amunhotep II, had built a temple by the Sphinx aligning it to Heliopolis, as had his great grandfather, Thutmose I, before him. Both the Sphinx and the nemes come from the Old Kingdom.

24153f4a60290db6b69358bbe58a1c3c.jpg

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No screaming or shouting necessary. 

Whoever the Old Kingdom ruler is portrayed on the face of the Sphinx, it isn’t Khafre.

In the illustration below,  the figure on the right is a side view drawing of the Khafre statue pictured above.

The left figure is a side view of the face of the Sphinx. It’s not even close. They don’t even appear to be of the same race.

8BE36825-1F10-4081-B118-24A891DCB31B.jpeg

Edited by Antigonos
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very convincing answer there Wepwawet. 
OK, I’ll accept what you said but what about it being earlier than Amenhotep…..but later than Khafre?

It could appear to be an inception the early Thutmose line created and built.
 

It’s also interesting that at the time of Thutmose IV there is mention of the Nine Bows…the apparent coalition of the Sea People in Libya…makes me wonder just how right all these dates are. (Thutmose IV 14th century BC, Sea People 1200BC)

“The text is fragmented, with a large asymmetrical crack beginning at the twelfth line and resulting in only partial preservation of the following two lines. The stele is preserved to a height of approximately 4 feet (1.2 m) on the left edge and 5.4 feet (1.6 m) on the right. Given its restored height was some 12 feet (3.7 m), approximately half of the text is now missing.[4] The preserved text runs as follows:

Year I, third month of the first season, day 19, under the Majesty of Horus, the Mighty Bull, begetting radiance, (the Favourite) of the Two Goddesses, enduring in Kingship like Atum, the Golden Horus, Mighty of Sword, repelling the Nine Bows; the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Men-kheperu-Ra, the Son of Ra, Thothmes IV, Shining in Diadems; beloved of (Amon), given life, stability and dominion, like Ra, for ever.”

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Stele

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No screaming, no shouting, it upsets my equilibrium…

But I don’t see any lines on the top of Khafres nemes…did they forget them that day, couldn’t be bothered, why no lines on the nemes…..? in Post #3, in that particular photo anyway,  like the Sphinx has…and I see a distinct uraeus.

 

IMG_0918.jpeg

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Puzzler said:


OK, I’ll accept what you said but what about it being earlier than Amenhotep…..but later than Khafre?

 

Thanos5150 has suggested that stylistically the headdress appears to be Sixth Dynasty. So later than Khafre, but still Old Kingdom.

A key fact to keep in mind is that it has been proven archaeologically that the earliest repairs to the Sphinx date from the Old Kingdom. That alone rules out a post OK date for its construction.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the Sphinx looks more like this…..

Than this….

IMG_0914.jpeg

IMG_0919.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

.

A key fact to keep in mind is that it has been proven archaeologically that the earliest repairs to the Sphinx date from the Old Kingdom. 

I’ll check it out, thanks

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Puzzler said:

I’ll check it out, thanks

Earliest repairs from the Old Kingdom? Or does “major restoration” differ from “earliest repairs”..?
So, we can see the Thutmose line again, carrying out “repairs”…they seem pretty dedicated to it…for a people 1000 years after it was apparently built. Were the repairs the actual build of it…what were they repairing? Replacing, adding? Was the Sphinx even a Sphinx before them? 
I thought the Old Kingdom ended 2200BC, so how this article can call Thutmose from the Old Kingdom is a bit of a mystery itself…
 
What links can show the first restorations from the true Old Kingdom?
 
”The first major restoration of the Sphinx was done by the Ancient Egyptian Pharaoh Tuthmosis IV of the Old Kingdom around 1400 B.C”
Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Antigonos said:

Thanos5150 has suggested that stylistically the headdress appears to be Sixth Dynasty. So later than Khafre, but still Old Kingdom.

There are stylistic elements that first appear in the 6th Dynasty not that it dates to this time, namely the lines extending from the lappets to the top of the nemes:

IMG_0919.jpeg  

IMG_0914.jpeg

Wus=&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0

 

Quote

A key fact to keep in mind is that it has been proven archaeologically that the earliest repairs to the Sphinx date from the Old Kingdom. That alone rules out a post OK date for its construction.

The Sphinx dates to the OK or earlier, but this does not mean the head was not recarved at a later date, sometime after the 6th Dynasty, which I suggest occurred during the MK: Anubis-Lord of the Giza Necropolis

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Antigonos said:

No screaming or shouting necessary. 

Good grief. And lets keep in mind the "vitriol, screaming and shouting" comes when someone suggests the Sphinx is not Khafre. 

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Antigonos said:

No screaming or shouting necessary. 

Whoever the Old Kingdom ruler is portrayed on the face of the Sphinx, it isn’t Khafre.

In the illustration below,  the figure on the right is a side view drawing of the Khafre statue pictured above.

The left figure is a side view of the face of the Sphinx. It’s not even close. They don’t even appear to be of the same race.

8BE36825-1F10-4081-B118-24A891DCB31B.jpeg

Nobody can prove it is Khafre or not. The circumstantial evidence though would point to Khafre more than anybody else. Even if the face we see dates from the Middle Kingdom, I doupt it could ever be proven, and Khafre would by default remain the prime contender, no matter what the physiognomy currently seems to show, and there most certainly has been much screaming and shouting about this aspect, hasn't there.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Puzzler said:

Were they really creating sphinxes over 1000 years earlier? (Time the pyramids are said to be built).

Gadzooks. You can answer most of these questions yourself in less time it took to start this thread. Its not like there is the Sphinx and then 1000+ yrs later all of a sudden this from Amenhotep III magically appears. Start here: Anubis-Lord of the Giza Necropolis

Quote

Or was the original Sphinx created in full, maybe around 1350BC? As per the article and photos here might suggest.

....Nowhere does this suggest this in any way shape or form. Zero, zilch, nada. You just made this up out of thin air. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

There are stylistic elements that first appear in the 6th Dynasty not that it dates to this time, namely the lines extending from the lappets to the top of the nemes:

IMG_0919.jpeg  

IMG_0914.jpeg

Wus=&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0

The Sphinx dates to the OK or earlier, but this does not mean the head was not recarved at a later date, sometime after the 6th Dynasty, which I suggest occurred during the MK: Anubis-Lord of the Giza Necropolis

And just for point of reference, the Sphinx also had a beard:

642121e8fecfc27f4ce4d38ee7c48ebe.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Good grief. And lets keep in mind the "vitriol, screaming and shouting" comes when someone suggests the Sphinx is not Khafre. 

I’m suggesting the Sphinx is not Khafre…but I expect no “vitriol, screaming and shouting”…

You’re all lucky I’m even back here after the last disrespectful session I had. lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Nobody can prove it is Khafre or not. The circumstantial evidence though would point to Khafre more than anybody else. Even if the face we see dates from the Middle Kingdom, I doupt it could ever be proven, and Khafre would by default remain the prime contender, no matter what the physiognomy currently seems to show, and there most certainly has been much screaming and shouting about this aspect, hasn't there.

Yes there has. Why is that? Because it’s a controversial conclusion…?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

There are stylistic elements that first appear in the 6th Dynasty not that it dates to this time, namely the lines extending from the lappets to the top of the nemes:

IMG_0919.jpeg  

IMG_0914.jpeg

Wus=&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0

 

The Sphinx dates to the OK or earlier, but this does not mean the head was not recarved at a later date, sometime after the 6th Dynasty, which I suggest occurred during the MK: Anubis-Lord of the Giza Necropolis

 

So, can you show an example of Old Kingdom where the lines are on the nemes? 

IMG_0933.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Puzzler said:

So, can you show an example of Old Kingdom where the lines are on the nemes? 

IMG_0933.jpeg

The UM editor has lost it…anyway, Thanos…you send me to a pic with Anubis….? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Gadzooks. You can answer most of these questions yourself in less time it took to start this thread. Its not like there is the Sphinx and then 1000+ yrs later all of a sudden this from Amenhotep III magically appears. Start here: Anubis-Lord of the Giza Necropolis

....Nowhere does this suggest this in any way shape or form. Zero, zilch, nada. You just made this up out of thin air. 

I made it up after I saw the images and story of my original,post….new finds are being discovered every day in archaeology…I haven’t seen anything yet to convince me that the Sphinx as we know it was created prior to the Thutmose line…maybe not my opening thought but to generalise it, no where near Khafre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Puzzler said:

The UM editor has lost it…anyway, Thanos…you send me to a pic with Anubis….? 

You have to actually read the thread and digest the information provided.

I’m out.

93990722-F9CD-4372-B0D1-A2E9D350BEA2.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let’s do it again…uraeus, lines on nemes, powerful ruler…

IMG_0934.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

You have to actually read the thread and digest the information provided.

I’m out.

93990722-F9CD-4372-B0D1-A2E9D350BEA2.jpeg

Like I have all day for that…cut to the chase…post the stuff that answers the questions….how hard can it be…I know  dude, I know….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Puzzler said:

Yes there has. Why is that? Because it’s a controversial conclusion…?

Undoubtedly. My opinion on this is that without the nose, judgement cannot be sound. However, if the contentious opinion were correct, then it would point to the face as we see it today originating perhaps from the 25th Dynasty. This though is going entirely on surviving images of kings prior to the end of the 17th Dynasty, when we get the first mummies of kings, from then on we have enough evidence to show that such features can really only be found with the Nubian kings, another avenue of contention of course. I don't see the face of the Sphinx being that new though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.