Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:34, 10 March 2006

This recent addition was made:

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 .

I've moved it out of the body to disscusion for these reasons:

1. "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?
2. 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.
3. "hermetic calculation" .. this needs more explanation on the use of the hermetic which has multiple meanings, or a link.
4. "They claim".. who is they?
5. "Out of bounds" Out of bounds from, or for, what/who?

--Stbalbach 02:19, 23 Apr 2005 (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?

6000BC -- earlier or later?

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". Stbalbach 05:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That was reverted by an anonymous contributor, and I see no reason why we should allow it to remain phrased that way. Alexander 007 06:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Winter Solstice claim

"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? Jpers36 22:58, 20 Jun 2005 (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:

The lion shape may be in reference to the constellation of Leo. In 10,500 BC on the day of winter solstice the sun would have risen exactly between the paws of the sphinx. It was also the time when the equinox 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 lion 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.--cjllw | TALK 22:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Khafre/Khufu

I've removed the following passage pending explanation:

" shares more physical similarities with it and was built by his son. When compared with statues of Khafre at the Cairo Museum, it is evident that the face on the Sphinx is different from the face on the statues."

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. Paul B 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. Paul B 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? Stbalbach 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. Stbalbach 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; Encyclopedia Britannica 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 Graham Hancock 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 this site 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. Binabik80 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 at this page. 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.. -- Stbalbach 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. -- Stbalbach 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. deeceevoice 20:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What policy exactly are you referring to? If you read our very own article Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians#Artistic arguments 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. -- Stbalbach 21:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I said nothing about a "policy." I am speaking of what reasonably should be included in an article about a statute, a monument such as the Sphinx. The scholarly descriptions of the Sphinx as "Negroid" are accurate and valid and belong in an article about the Sphinx, just as descriptions about its height, length, composition, etc., are appropriate. If one were to read an article about, say, Mount Rushmore that described the countenances of the presidents --even in racial/anthropological terms, one would not expect a section in that article devoted to the racial/ethnic makeup of the United States. It simply has no bearing. Again, if you'd like to take a shot at editing out Volney's extrapolations regarding the racial identity of the Egyptian people of the time (which from my readings are, indeed, accurate) because you think they misrepresent the nature of dynastic Egypt, then have at it.

Now, about the last edit note: "If we're going to cover suppositions re 'racial identity', I don't see why it is 'irrelevant' to state that consensus allows a multi-racial profile, or that the alt view is minority op." The heart of the Volney and Schoch quotes is a description of the Sphinx itself, which is perfectly valid. I'll return to the text and see if I can make a decent edit, excising Volney's comments about "all Egyptians." I kind of half-heartedly did it when I made the initial insertion, but it read pretty badly. And if you don't like what I come up with -- again -- you're more than welcome to give it a shot. deeceevoice 15:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I think the current version works, because it sticks solely to the description of the Sphinx and completely excludes Volney's observations about the rest of the Egyptian populace. I have no interest in getting into an edit war. If you still have a problem with the passage as it reads, kindly state your objections here and the rationale. Thanks. deeceevoice 15:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)