Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:03, 9 March 2006 editStbalbach (talk \| contribs)24,748 edits →Afrocentric section ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 23:14, 17 November 2024 edit undoHypnôs (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users3,687 edits →Pseudohistory/Archeology: ReplyTag: Reply
(943 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	This recent addition was made:
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Architecture \|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Ancient Egypt \|importance=top \|religion=yes \|religion-importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Visual arts\|public-art=yes }}
			{{WikiProject Archaeology \|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Sculpture }}
			}}
			{{Spoken Misplaced Pages request\|Catfurball\|Important}}
			{{Archive box \|search=yes \|bot=MiszaBot I \|age=3 \|units=months \|index=/Archive index \|
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}

			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	:Some claim by hermetic calculation that a concomitant chamber exists under a Paw of the Sphinx which will reveal beyond doubt the validity of the Leo origen . This theory is associated with stellar declination measurements following a c 22,500 cycle and the inference has therefore been made that this function as giant clock could be the guide to the true message of the Sphinx . Associated claims that equally spaced temples above and under-sea around the globe of the Earth compose a clear single message from the Ancients :that Man must understand above all the extreme variation in climatic conditions caused by the earth's orbit from the sun .The supposed chamber in the rock under the Paw of the Sphinx is hollow and , they claim, out-of-bounds .
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|counter = 6
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|algo = old(90d)
			\|archive = Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes
			}}

			== Khafra, Khafre? ==
	I've moved it out of the body to disscusion for these reasons:
			the first para. of the lede says it is generally believed to be the face of the pharaoh Khafra, the second para. says it was constructed during reign of Pharaoh Khafre. Are these different people? --] (]) 12:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

			:No, they're just different spellings. "Khafre" is the more common spelling in general, but the title of the Misplaced Pages article on him is "Khafra". For now I've made the article consistently use "Khafra", for the sake of consistency with the article title, but I think that article is long overdue to be moved to the more common spelling. ] (]) 15:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
	#"Some claim.." is suspect. It needs a source so we can see if the people making the claim are academic and notable enough to be included in Misplaced Pages. Who makes this claim?
	#It doesnt make sense: "''This theory is associated with stellar declination measurements following a c 22,500 cycle and the inference has therefore been made that this function as giant clock could be the guide to the true message of the Sphinx''". I can't tell what this means or is saying.
	#"hermetic calculation" .. this needs more explanation on the use of the hermetic which has multiple meanings, or a link.
	#"They claim".. who is they?
	#"Out of bounds" Out of bounds from, or for, what/who?

			== Rain and water table ==
	--] 02:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

			] ] 12:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
	It is the largest single stone statue? Isn't it a sculpture? What's the difference? When the Crazy Horse Monument is completed, is that going to be the largest single stone statue? How about Rushmore? Also, isn't there many stones on the Sphinx now, owing to poorly done refurbishments?

			== Mark Lehner and "sometime between the 3rd and 10th centuries" ==
	== 6000BC -- earlier or later? ==

			Hi all. I was clicking through the references on this article and I noticed something which I thought was worth noting. This article claims that a study by Mark Lehner concluded that the Sphinx's nose was broken off "sometime between the 3rd and 10th centuries". However, I do not think that this actually accurately represents Lehner's view or studies. Instead, I think that this represents Christiane Zivie-Coche's view.
	In regards to this sentence:
	:''it could have only been built no earlier than 6,000BC ''
	Grammatically speaking, this sentence means the sphinx could not have been built before 6,000 BC (ie. it could not have been built in 10,500).. in the context of the rest of the paragraph, this makes no sense. Please explain the revert of the word "later" to "earlier". ] 05:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

			The reference used for this is a ], which says: "the recent study by archaeologist Mark Lehner shows clear traces of destruction by tools of an indeterminate era that must therefore be situated between the third and the tenth centuries." However, what I think that Zivie-Coche is actually doing here is giving her own opinion of when the tools are from. I first get this impression from how the sentence is written; I think that the "therefore" marks Zivie-Coche switching from Lehner's view to her own. The fact that Zivie-Coche speaks about the 10th century in the previous sentence reinforces this. Also, it is worth noting that this book is a translation and so, perhaps, extra care is warranted when citing something that is arguably unclear from it.
	That was reverted by an anonymous contributor, and I see no reason why we should allow it to remain phrased that way. ] 06:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

			And, second, I cannot find any occasion when Lehner has actually said that the tools are from between the 3rd and 10th centuries. Of course, I have not read everything that Lehner has written, however, using , I did go through some and found nothing. Notably, Zivie-Coche explicitly refers to Lehner's in her bibliography (this is the only work of his that she appears to reference, although it is unclear to me if she is doing so in relation to the sentence in question on page 16), but that only says: "It is clear that the nose was intentionally broken off, most likely by long chisels or wedges". Also, this ] by Lehner explicitly says: "it is not known when or by whom the Sphinx's nose was broken" before going on to discuss how it was done. Lehner also says in this book: "The 12th-century scholar, Abd al-Latif... specifically mentions the nose, which leads us to think that it was still intact, contrary to indications that it may have been missing as early as the 10th century. It is certain that someone removed it before the early 15th century..." Here, Lehner is showing absolutely no indication that it is his view (although he could, I supposed, have come to this view at some point over the next eight years) that the Sphinx's nose was broken off at some point between the 3rd and 10th centuries.
	== Winter Solstice claim ==

			Apologies for the long comment, but I thought that this was worth flagging up as I am not sure that the article should be claiming in the lede and again below that Lehner's archaeological study concluded that the Sphinx's nose was broken sometime between the 3rd and 10th centuries. This is, I think, something claimed by Zivie-Coche instead. Of course, I may have missed something (or I may be on to something) and so I would be very grateful for any responses before I even try editing the article. Thanks! ] (]) 16:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
	"In 10,500 BC on the day of winter solstice the sun would have risen exactly between the paws of the sphinx". I've cleared up the grammar of the sentence, but I still don't understand its meaning. What point of view would cause the sun to appear to rise between the paws -- the point of view of the sphinx itself? ] 22:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

			:Well spotted. Feel free to change it. ] (]) 11:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
	:I removed the entire passage, which is completely unsourced, as well as being confusing- it adds nothing informative to the article, and "some people say" is not really good enough. It read:
			::{{Done}} — thank you! ] (]) 12:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
	:''The lion shape may be in reference to the constellation of ]. In 10,500 BC on the day of ] the sun would have risen exactly between the paws of the sphinx. It was also the time when the ] point was in the constellation of Leo. Some have speculated that the Great Sphinx was built to commemorate this event, though this would date the Sphinx at about 12,500 years old rather than the more commonly accepted figure of about 4,500 years old. Some people who believe this theory say that the Sphinx was originally a ] statue whose head became damaged somehow, and that the head was replaced thousands of years later by the Egyptians, which could explain why the head is disproportionate with respect to the body, and markedly less eroded.''
	:Anyone wishing to reinstate could you please at least come up with some sources here first so that what is actually being claimed can be understood.--]<font color="#DAA520"> \| </font>] 22:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

			== Facing directly from west to east ==
	==Khafre/Khufu==

			In the lede, this should probably read 'the head of the Sphinx faces directly to the east'. It can't face two directions at once. ] (]) 19:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
	I've removed the following passage pending explanation:

			== Pseudohistory/Archeology ==
	" shares more physical similarities with it and was built by his son. When compared with statues of Khafre at the ], it is evident that the face on the Sphinx is different from the face on the statues."
			-Regarding the theory of the sphinx being originally anubis headed, and later re-carved into a pharoahs likeness, I remember another psuedoarcheological theory, relying heavily on the 'water-erosion' theories as evidence that posited the original sphinx as much older, and originally carved as a perfectly normal lion, and the head worked down during old kingdom egypt. Will see if I can find more details and add a line if I do. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			:See ] #2. ] (]) 23:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
	What was built by his son and how do we know what "physical similarities" were shared by Khufu? AFAIK, we do not have his mummy or any known statue of him. ] 13:00, 28 June, (UTC)

	Correction - there is a single tiny ivory statue. Hardly sufficient evidence on which to base a theory of facial resemblance. ] 14:30, 29 June, (UTC)

	== comments ==

	deeceevoice.. adding edit rationales here since the comments will run out of room

	1) resized image to fit with the others, i used a laptop screen so big images tend to mess up formating, its in line with the size of the other images on the page.
	2) ''the largest and thought to be the most widely recognized monumental sculpture in the world.'' Who exactly thinks this? What about the statue of Sitting Bull, or Mount Rushmoore? Changed to less definitive.
	3) ''After ordering the monument defaced, legend has it, the religious zealot was promptly hacked to death by outraged locals.'' .. ahh the famous "legend says".. its possible to say anything on Misplaced Pages with a "legend says". In fact there is a "Legend Says" prize awarded to article that use the phrase (as a joke of course). Can we remove this until it is sourced and given more context? What legend? Who said it? When, where? Has it been debunked? ] 17:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

	== Alien origins ==

	Anon user mentioned "some have speculated on alien origins". That may be true, but we need to expand that a bit with citations and qualifications if its to be included. ] 03:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

	== Differentiating between water erosion and panleonine theories ==

	The paragraph on water erosion seems to lump the geological theory in with the Panleonist theory, & I'd like to correct that. I'm listing the nature of the changes I'm making here so as hopefully not to spark any contorversy.

	As it stands, the paragraph says that geologists have claimed the water erosion patterns demand a construction date no later than 6000BC, and then uses this to corroborate the panleonine date of 10500BC (implying, at least to me, that these geologists would agree with that). In reality, Egypt's last wet period ended sometime during the first thousand years of the dynastic period (Schoch, the leading water erosion theorist, says between 3000 and 2350BC; ] says by the "end of the third millennium BC"). Based upon this date, I ''have'' seen geologists date the construction of the Sphinx to fifth or sixth millennia BC, and I have also seen panleonines such as ] co-opt the geologists' water erosion evidence to buttress their own date of 10,500BC; I have ''not'' seen any geologists claim there is any geological evidence for a panleonine construction date (or even a date prior to 6000BC). In my view no mention of the panleonine dates belongs in the section on water erosion dating; any attempt to use water erosion dating as evidence for the panleonine theory should be confined to the panleonine section.

	In addition to rewriting the water erosion paragraph, I'll also be adding Schoch's book as a reference and adding a link to about the relationship between the two theories. Also, the caption on the photograph in the Missing Nose section says the Sphinx is commonly thought to have been constructed in 4500BC; I'm guessing this is meant to say "4500 years ago" and will be changing it to such. ] 00:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

	== Sphynx's nose ==

	An older version of this article had this to say about how the Sphinx's nose was removed:

	:The Egyptain historian al-Maqrizi, writing in the 15th century, attributes the vandalism to Muhammad Sa'im al-Dahr, a Sufi fanatic from the khanqah of Sa'id al-Su'ada. In 1378, outraged at the life-like representation of the human form, which is forbidden in Islam, Sa'im al-Dahr had the nose destroyed.. One account has it that Sa'im al-Dahr was set upon by enraged locals, hacked to death, and then buried near the Sphinx.

	A more recent edit changed it to this account:

	:The Egyptain historian al-Maqrizi, writing in the 15th century, attributes the vandalism to Muhammad Sa'im al-Dahr, a Sufi fanatic from the khanqah of Sa'id al-Su'ada. In 1378, upon finding the Egyptian peasants making offerings to the Sphinx hoping to increase their harvest, Sa'im al-Dahr was so outraged that he destroyed the nose. According to the same account, the enraged locals, who regarded the Sphinx as their god, lynched Sa'im al-Dahr.

	Which is supported However I think we need an actual copy of Egyptain historian al-Maqrizi's text to verify what exactly he said as there are some discrepancies and its not possible to know for sure which is "correct". Hacked to death or lynched -- burning offerings or human images.. -- ] 22:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

	== Afrocentric section ==

	It is well known that certain Afrocentric proponents use the Great Sphinx to support their theories of a Black Egypt. It is relevant to this article, along with the other theories contained in the article. This article is much more than just a description of the Sphinx, it also includes alternative theories about the Sphinx both current and historical, we even have a section already created listing other alternative theories, it fits in nicely. -- ] 19:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

	I disagree. The additional sections all relate directly to the Sphinx. If you'd like to try your hand at editing the quote to remove de Volney's extrapolations about a black Egypt, then feel free. I have no objection. But including the business about the debate over the racial makeup of ancient Egypt in an article on the Sphinx is ridiculous and completely off-point. There's no more reason to include it here, than to include a discussion about the racial/ethnic makeup of the U.S. in an article about Mt. Rushmore. ] 20:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

	What policy exactly are you referring to? If you read our very own article ] there is clearly a tradition of discussing the G Sphinx in these terms. Further a google search will verify a plentitude of websites that confirm it. It is notable, not original research, and verifiable. I'm not sure what other Misplaced Pages policy you want me to quote, that covers most of them. The example you gave of Mt. Rushmore is original research. But if something like that did exist outside of Misplaced Pages, than it would certainly be allowed in that article, per the rules of Misplaced Pages. -- ] 21:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:14, 17 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Great Sphinx of Giza article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This

level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Egypt: Egyptian religion Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by Egyptian religion work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list:

Needed articles.

We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.

Cleanup.

To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?

Standardize the Chronology.

A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)

Stub sorting

Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Misplaced Pages, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .

Data sorting.

This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Misplaced Pages than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.

Visual arts: Public art

	Visual arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts
	This article is supported by the public art task force.

Archaeology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sculpture

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages.

The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Khafra, Khafre?

the first para. of the lede says it is generally believed to be the face of the pharaoh Khafra, the second para. says it was constructed during reign of Pharaoh Khafre. Are these different people? --142.163.195.212 (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

No, they're just different spellings. "Khafre" is the more common spelling in general, but the title of the Misplaced Pages article on him is "Khafra". For now I've made the article consistently use "Khafra", for the sake of consistency with the article title, but I think that article is long overdue to be moved to the more common spelling. A. Parrot (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Rain and water table

- The Great Sphinx, From the Eocene to the Anthropocene. Robert Schneiker. 2017.11.01 Doug Weller talk 12:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Mark Lehner and "sometime between the 3rd and 10th centuries"

Hi all. I was clicking through the references on this article and I noticed something which I thought was worth noting. This article claims that a study by Mark Lehner concluded that the Sphinx's nose was broken off "sometime between the 3rd and 10th centuries". However, I do not think that this actually accurately represents Lehner's view or studies. Instead, I think that this represents Christiane Zivie-Coche's view.

The reference used for this is a 2004 book by Zivie-Coche, which says: "the recent study by archaeologist Mark Lehner shows clear traces of destruction by tools of an indeterminate era that must therefore be situated between the third and the tenth centuries." However, what I think that Zivie-Coche is actually doing here is giving her own opinion of when the tools are from. I first get this impression from how the sentence is written; I think that the "therefore" marks Zivie-Coche switching from Lehner's view to her own. The fact that Zivie-Coche speaks about the 10th century in the previous sentence reinforces this. Also, it is worth noting that this book is a translation and so, perhaps, extra care is warranted when citing something that is arguably unclear from it.

And, second, I cannot find any occasion when Lehner has actually said that the tools are from between the 3rd and 10th centuries. Of course, I have not read everything that Lehner has written, however, using this list of publications, I did go through some and found nothing. Notably, Zivie-Coche explicitly refers to Lehner's 1991 PhD dissertation in her bibliography (this is the only work of his that she appears to reference, although it is unclear to me if she is doing so in relation to the sentence in question on page 16), but that only says: "It is clear that the nose was intentionally broken off, most likely by long chisels or wedges". Also, this 1997 book by Lehner explicitly says: "it is not known when or by whom the Sphinx's nose was broken" before going on to discuss how it was done. Lehner also says in this book: "The 12th-century scholar, Abd al-Latif... specifically mentions the nose, which leads us to think that it was still intact, contrary to indications that it may have been missing as early as the 10th century. It is certain that someone removed it before the early 15th century..." Here, Lehner is showing absolutely no indication that it is his view (although he could, I supposed, have come to this view at some point over the next eight years) that the Sphinx's nose was broken off at some point between the 3rd and 10th centuries.

Apologies for the long comment, but I thought that this was worth flagging up as I am not sure that the article should be claiming in the lede and again below that Lehner's archaeological study concluded that the Sphinx's nose was broken sometime between the 3rd and 10th centuries. This is, I think, something claimed by Zivie-Coche instead. Of course, I may have missed something (or I may be on to something) and so I would be very grateful for any responses before I even try editing the article. Thanks! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Well spotted. Feel free to change it. Hypnôs (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Done — thank you! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Facing directly from west to east

In the lede, this should probably read 'the head of the Sphinx faces directly to the east'. It can't face two directions at once. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Pseudohistory/Archeology

-Regarding the theory of the sphinx being originally anubis headed, and later re-carved into a pharoahs likeness, I remember another psuedoarcheological theory, relying heavily on the 'water-erosion' theories as evidence that posited the original sphinx as much older, and originally carved as a perfectly normal lion, and the head worked down during old kingdom egypt. Will see if I can find more details and add a line if I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.39.112 (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

See Great_Sphinx_of_Giza#Ancient_Astronauts/Atlantis #2. Hypnôs (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: