Did the Great Sphinx of Egypt Originally Have a Different Head?

The Great Sphinx and the Giza Pyramids

It's too small. That's the problem that many see with the head of the Great Sphinx at Giza in Egypt: proportionately, it's much too small for the massive leonine body that it sits upon. Does this suggest that once, way back in antiquity, it originally had a different head...like that of a lion?

English geologist Colin Reader is one who thinks so, and in the video he cites another strange fact about the Sphinx's head as evidence for the theory:

We know for most of its life the Sphinx has been buried up to the shoulders and neck in sand. I've seen other places at Giza, the sand tends to protect the rocks that are buried beneath it.

The head's been exposed for almost the entire life of the Sphinx. It's been exposed to wind-blown sand, the effect of the Sun...if anything, the head should be more degraded than the body, but we see the reverse. And for me, there's only one real explanation for that. And that's that the head has been recut.

At a later stage, whatever was there originally, was retrimmed and reprofiled, to give us this pharaoh's head. The inescapable conclusion from that, is that originally this wasn't a Sphinx at all. It started life as something different.

The video goes on to cite more possible evidence for the theory, including an ancient Sphinx sculpture in the Cairo museum that also shows signs of having been recut from its original shape to give it the head of a pharaoh.

Incidentally, Colin Reader also - like fellow geologist Robert Schoch - believes that the Sphinx is older than orthodox Egyptology thinks it is - although his theory is far less radical than Schoch's, redating the famous monument only a few hundred years, rather than thousands. See Reader's journal article "Giza Before the Fourth Dynasty", or this more casual explanation of his ideas, for more detail.

(via @SmithsonianMag)

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tom's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
21 weeks 11 hours

Isn't it obvious that it is Anubis? Never looked right to me being a lion or a sphinx. It's got to be a dog - Anubis, guarding the gates to the underworld and all that? I thought Robert Temple or Graham Hancock were going on about that back in the 90s.

Fey's picture
Member since:
23 August 2013
Last activity:
13 weeks 3 days

The first link (as per subject line) doesn't appear to be working FYI

And PS - yes I think Anubis is a good candidate for Sphinx - makes a lot of sense in respects to Egyptian mythology / culture...

red pill junkie's picture
Member since:
12 April 2007
Last activity:
3 hours 3 min

To my knowledge, it was Schoch the 1st to suggest the Sphinx may have had a different head than the smallish human one it currently has.

And that was back in the early 90's.

Also, ever since Emmerich's '10,000 B.C.' came out, I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to Google a screen-grab from the film in which, for some fleeting seconds, the Sphinx was shown with a lion's head --a very fitting homage to Robert IMO ;)

It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie

Blaknyte's picture
Member since:
6 September 2009
Last activity:
21 weeks 2 days

I've said this for years - it's the obvious proof of an older civilization, that for some reason, they refuse to acknowledge. But of course, it's been said, that man often stumbles over the truth, but then he picks himself up and continues on in ignorance. It's obvious the Sphinx is older than the excepted. I'm sure if the casing stones, from the pyramids, hadn't been scavenged for building materials, it would have looked older too.

Luke Skywalker's picture
Member since:
12 May 2014
Last activity:
20 weeks 5 days

In his book, The Sphinx Mystery, Robert Temple recovers an old analysis from an old Egyptological study. This study examines the pattern of the stripes on the headdress.

Different dynasties had different patterns, and only one of these patterns matches this style that was used on the current head of the sphinx. This pattern occurred much later than 2500 BC. Since it was known that the sphinx was carved at least as early 2500 BC, this study had been ignored until Robert Temple revisited it.

I won't spoil the book for anyone, so go read it for yourself. But, this is proof that the headdress was carved far later than the rest of sphinx, which was carved far earlier than 4000 BC.

However, John West and Robert Schoch have evidence that easily proves that the Sphinx is much older than Robert Temple's date of around 3000 to 4000 BC. The erosion is mostly from rainwater, not from moat water.

This current study by C. Reader offers nothing new--the studies of Schoch and West, and provide conclusive of evidence of rainwater erosion, making the sphinx far more than 5000 years old.

So, any new studies need to launch from this point, and then move on to something that is actually new information.

rolandr's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
23 hours 43 min

this rather convincing observation was made in "The Sphinx Mystery: The Forgotten Origins of the Sanctuary of Anubis" by Robert Temple

red pill junkie's picture
Member since:
12 April 2007
Last activity:
3 hours 3 min

But herein lies the problem: If the Sphinx was originally Anubis, that means it was built by the Egyptians; whereas Schoch has tried to demonstrate the Sphinx is actually much older, and probably built by a previous civilization. In which case, it could have had the face of a lion.

And there's also the astronomical alignment, right? Isn't the Sphinx oriented to where the constellation of Leo was located 10,500 years ago?

It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie

jackinthegreen's picture
Member since:
22 October 2009
Last activity:
23 weeks 6 days

I think it was Marduk - Babylonian god - who was symbolised sometimes as a dragon.

Given the close association between civilizations around that time, it is surely conceivable that Marduk and Anubis had common ancestry, possibly with the Sumerians or even an as yet unknown prior civilization.

So if the Sphinx does pre-date the Egyptians, maybe it is a dragon we're looking at, not a lion or a jackal.

Greg H.'s picture
Member since:
12 June 2009
Last activity:
1 hour 7 min

I was just watching a decade old Sphinx documentary in which the Egyptologist try to debunk as new age nonsense the idea of an old sphinx, the water weathering and argue that Khufu or Khafre (i.e. Egyptians - a very important prideful point to Zahi Hawass) carved the Sphinx. One of their arguments is there was no known civilization in Egypt at the alleged time predating the Egyptions that COULD have carved the Sphinx. This seems in light of Gobekli Tepe discoveries a completely inadequate argument against an ancient Sphinx. Gobekli Tepe is an example of massive organized labor undertaking over hundreds of years 8,000 - 12,000 years ago, by a completely unknown people. I think the evidence for an ancient Sphinx Lion or Dog is perfectly reasonable.

Greg H.