It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Age of the Sphinx, A glaring issue about it's age!

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 05:01 PM

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by lifeform11
i am not sure but i assumed the sphinx was more weathered because it was exposed to the elements for a greater period of time, where as the rest had to be exgavated and have the sand moved to expose what was underneath.

so i just assumed the rest was buried (not exposed to the elements).

So let me ask you a question. If that's the case then why is the fact and head in such great condition compared to it's body?

i have no idea, please tell us.

i was talking about the condition of the sphinx compared to the structure lower down, which i assumed was buried and had to excavated.

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 05:04 PM
reply to post by lifeform11

Well I'm guessing you're saying the body was excavated and exposed while the temple wasn't exposed but still buried?

It's possible but it still doesnt explain why the face/head is such good condition though

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 05:09 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

but i was not even attempting to answer that question, i was only attempting to answer why the sphinx is more weathered than the structure lower down, which the o.p. was pointing out.

the o.p. even includes a drawing i assume was a artists sketch or a representation of what the sphinx once look like and it clearly shows that everything else was buried untill the excavations started.

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 05:16 PM
if you want my opinion on the head, i think the theory it was recarved has merit, and it does look smaller than you would expect. it seems very possible to me a king/queen would reorder them to replace the face on the sphinx with his/her own. or change the structure in such a way as to make it 'egyptian' looking, if it had a earlier origin. a bit like claiming something as your work, when infact it was not.

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 05:24 PM
There's absolutely no evidence that the Sphinx was a "sphinx" in 10,000 BC. A sizable protrusion of limestone, yes, and maybe even a landmark of sorts to ancient peoples that came and went through that region, but not a sphinx.

The inventory stele does imply that Khufu restored the Sphinx (as opposed to the idea he created it) but what exactly was he restoring? The sphinx as we know it, or some earlier simpler and cruder carving?

Long live The King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Khufu, given life
He found the house of Isis, Mistress of the Pyramid, by the side of the hollow of Hwran (The Sphinx) and he built his pyramid beside the temple of this goddess and he built a pyramid for the King's daughter Henutsen beside this temple.
The place of Hwran Horemakhet is on the South side of the House of Isis, Mistress of the pyramid
He restored the statue, all covered in painting, of the guardian of the atmosphere, who guides the winds with his gaze.
He replaced the back part of the Nemes head-dress, which was missing with gilded stone
The figure of this god, cut in stone, is solid and will last to eternity, keeping its face looking always to the East.

A portion of the "neme" (the headdress) is indeed stylistically from Khufu's time. The rest of the headdress is a style from Khafre's time, who is also credited with creating the Sphinx's body, and that has been scientifically proven by a match between the limestone used in the temple he built using stone excavated from the U-shaped channel that surrounds the Sphinx.

Khafre also used blocks of tura limestone to extend the body past a natural fissure found when carving it, which some contribute to giving rise to the notion the head is "too small" for the body, by having extended it too far. I suppose the alternative Khafre had to consider was to shorten the body up (and eliminating the fissure all together), which would probably look even stranger.

You can debate all day long whether the Sphinx existed as a true sphinx prior to Khufu, the fact is, a large, natural limestone feature jutting above the surrounding terrain is bound to attract native peoples who will carve something from it or into it. It may have started out as simple primitive carvings and progressed to various representations of deities until finally it was turned into the Sphinx we all know today by Khufu/Khafre.
edit on 11-7-2011 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 05:30 PM
Ok, so.. after my second post in this thread I got a serious itch to find a reasonable answer to why the head would be smaller and stumbled upon this:

The Sphinx was likely carved out of the bedrock with stone hammers and copper chisels, and as it was being sculpted, a large defect was found in the rock near its hindquarters. Its builders extended the body with large blocks of high-quality Tura limestone—the same stone that encases the pyramids—to cover up the fault, and as a result, the Sphinx's head is far too small for its 236-foot-long body. Legend recorded that there were secret passages under this elongated body, and archaeologists have in fact found three tunnels beneath it. They seem to date from pharaonic times, but their purpose remains a mystery.


On page 1 LadyTrick spoke of a documentary she had seen, I think I saw the same one..

Was it this?

Riddle of the Sphinx
edit on 11-7-2011 by Backslider because: Fixin' Links!

edit on 11-7-2011 by Backslider because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 05:32 PM
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Excellent point. I was going to post a reference to the Stella. I forgot about it.

Great point. I too think it is older than many would like to recognize but I'm still not sure about the possibility of the extreme age some would like to give it though.

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 05:44 PM
sorry but isn't this old news ? soz about one liner mods

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 05:46 PM
what I'd like to know has anyone taken ground penetrating radar on top where they repaired the weak rock ?

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 06:08 PM

Originally posted by bauldrick
sorry but isn't this old news ? soz about one liner mods

With newer evidence.

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 06:10 PM
Awesome! I love reading about the Sphinx!

I think I have read more on the sphinx than anything else in Egypt. I did a paper years ago on its age and was in contact with Robert Scoch (he gave me info for my paper.)

IMO the Sphinx is much older and was already there. I do not believe it had the head it has now.

I think it's amazing that's it's older but of course it doesn't fit into mainstream archaeology. I don't need a degree to tell me it's older. 10+ yrs of personal research has lead me to this.

It has water erosion! I remember watching a documentary with Robert and he discusses the water erosion. Also Hawass basically kicked him out for his beliefs and finds. Idiot!

I think it's a pretty damn cool! I have said this many times but we don't give our ancient ancestors any credit! They were smarter than we are told!

I think Egypt's history is older and much cooler than we are told!
I dont know why they want to deny so much ESP if it doesn't fit their beliefs. I would rather have the proper history of my ancestors...

Are they hiding something? Who knows...personally I think it's pride. Nobody wants to admit they were possibly wrong...

Sorry for any spelling/grammar errors I'm on my phone.
Great thread!!

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 06:36 PM
reply to post by Backslider

no it wasn't that one, the only version i can find isn't in english unfortunatly.

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 07:05 PM
my opinion is;
1. Head is re-carved.
2. Sphinx is much older than the Temple.

I like what LadyTrick put forth about Annubis. IDK

Heck that little turn Napoleon could have commissioned the head in his likeness because he was so bitter about abandoning the Egyptian campaign..

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 07:17 PM
reply to post by mblahnikluver

I love reading about all of ancient Egypt, Sumeria etc etc etc

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 07:39 PM
Slayer - I'm going with A - recarved head, and I like it having originally been an Annubis, as that fits with the body much better than the present head.

I could swear I saw a documentary years ago where they had pumped a bunch of water out from shafts/tunnels underneath the sphinx and were entering it for the first time as the cameras rolled. Maybe it wasn't actually under the sphinx but somewhere else nearby. There were two (?) tomb-like carved stone structures, which they didn't have the equipment to open right then and there, but what really struck me was that around the bases of the stone tombs were four pillars and stone "moat" type carved things - it looked like the tombs were intentionally surrounded by these water routing "moats". Do you remember ever seeing anything like that? I think it must have been in the early nineties that I watched this show, and I remember it was live and highly advertised as a live event. I'll see if I can find any more on that. Anyway, if that was actually the original intent of the "moat" structures, that would indicate that the water-table level at that time was much lower, such that a tomb buried in a chamber deep beneath the sphinx would have a moat around it.
edit on 11-0720117-1111 by gwynnhwyfar because: Not sure of exact location.

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 07:42 PM
reply to post by larnhr

Crazy 1, 10 000 bc was an iceage...might have to go 1 more processional cycle add 25 920 more years....closer to 36 000. and I bet that was the aim to have it completed to align with probably building it was even earlier..

I am sure alot of people are starting to wake up to the misconceptions...

Like the pyramid tombs....tell me a mummy that was found in a pyramid....stop thinking...there was none....LMAO...IS HISTORY A LIE?? I think it was the best we could come up with...but now we can come up with better...time to rewrite history

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 07:49 PM
reply to post by howmuch4another

The Anubis angle seems to be catching on

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 07:51 PM

Originally posted by larnhr
The Sphinx IS older than the buildings around it. It was actually built around 10,000BC. Also, its head was that of a female, NOT a male, when it was constructed.

I've always believed this - but it would mean they'd have to rewrite all the text books - I also wondered - Was the original head, that of a Cat/Lion ??? - It is currently out of proportion but if it had originally been a cat - look at it again. Many cat's have much smaller heads than their bodies.

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 07:57 PM
reply to post by Drala

I wouldnt say it's a lie.
I just question our belief in a straight forward linear progression of advancement sometimes

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 07:58 PM
I think the Egyptians didn't build anything. They just repaired what they found. And the Sphinx is far older than we think and it wouldn't surprise me if it was built at the time Egypt was a grassland.

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in